This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemistry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Every textbook I've ever read has referred to the Contact Process as just the reversible reaction producing sulphur trioxide from sulphur dioxide and oxygen, not the entire process of the production of sulphur. I know article kind of gets this across, but the first line, "The contact process is the current method of producing sulphuric acid in the high concentrations needed for industrial processes" is misleading. Perhaps a re-write is in order here. Liverpool Scouse 11:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

The standard for spelling of sulfur in science article is sulfur.

In the interest of consistency and clarity the IUPAC standard should be used for chemical names in all science articles. Alternative spellings should be referenced in addition, especially when dealing with regional issues and historical development.

• The IUPAC currently recommends:
• Aluminium instead of aluminum
• Caesium instead of cesium
• Sulfur instead of sulphur

Source: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Science#IUPAC_Standard

Vsmith 19:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I was never good at chem, but every textbook I have read says that a catalyst does not change the position of equilibrium. But the article says "A catalyst is necessary for this reaction or the equilibrium of the reaction would move to the left, producing more SO2." I think this is wrong, but just to make sure, I am posting this in discussions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.199.207.3 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

I've added a {{contradict}} tag because the article can't seem to decide if Vanadium or Platinum is used as the catalyst, and which is poisoned by impurities. MrBell ^(talk) 17:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The following publication shows that vanadium does not undergo a change in oxidation state in this process. The German Wikipedia shows the graphic to the catalytic cycle as found by Lapina et al. Could anyone please correct it?

O.B. Lapina, B.S. Bal'zhinimaev, S. Boghosian, K.M. Eriksen, R. Fehrmann: Progress on the mechanistic understanding of SO2 oxidation catalysts, in: Catalysis Today, 1999, 51, pp 469–479 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.222.75 (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Contact process. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100523153700/http://www.ravensdown.co.nz/Resources/Education/History.htm to http://www.ravensdown.co.nz/Resources/Education/History.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply