RichRobX
- 11
- 0
When writing oxidation states, is there a difference between 2+ and +2?
The discussion revolves around the notation of oxidation states, specifically the difference between writing 2+ and +2. Participants explore conventions in chemical notation, including the use of Roman numerals and the implications of different formats in representing oxidation states in various compounds.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the preferred notation for oxidation states, with multiple competing views on the use of different formats and their implications.
There are unresolved questions regarding the clarity and consistency of notation, particularly in distinguishing between oxidation states and formal charges. The discussion highlights varying practices and preferences among participants.
dextercioby said:Even with Roman numerals,u still need the sign.Dor example Sulphur:[tex]S^{II}[/tex] is it for a metalic compound or for a nonmetalic compound...?
Daniel.
I must say that I have never come across Roman Numerials in formulae either. Is there an reason to use one instead of the other or are they interchangeable?Gokul43201 said:I have never come across the notation, [itex]Fe^{+II}[/itex] , for example. I've usually seen Roman Numerals designate oxidation states in complexes, but then the oxidation state appears in brackets, not as a superscript.
Ex : dichlorotetramminecobalt(III) chloride