Oxidation States: A Closer Look at 2+ and +2

  • Thread starter Thread starter RichRobX
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Oxidation States
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

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.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants believe that convention dictates using +n or -n for oxidation states and m+ or m- for net charges on species.
  • Others mention that oxidation states are often represented in Roman numerals, suggesting that the sign is still necessary.
  • One participant notes that they have not encountered the notation Fe^{+II}, preferring Roman numerals in brackets for oxidation states in complexes.
  • Another participant recalls that the notation 2+ is preferred over +2 to avoid confusion with exponential expressions, advocating for clarity in notation.
  • Some express uncertainty about the interchangeability of Roman numerals and other formats, questioning their usage in different contexts.
  • There is a suggestion that the use of Roman numerals may be more common in metal complexes compared to organic molecules.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

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.

Contextual Notes

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.

RichRobX
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
When writing oxidation states, is there a difference between 2+ and +2?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
I believe convention requires that you use +n or -n to represent oxidation states, and m+ or m- to denote the net chrge on some species.

Example : In the radical [itex]SO_4^{~2-}[/itex], the oxidation state of S is [itex]+6[/itex].
 
You often see the oxidation state written in Roman numerals, so SVI in Gokul's example.
 
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.
 
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.

True! I should have written S+VI.

Often times I think that the '+' is assumed unless you use a '-'
 
The distinction needs to be done each time an nonmetalic compound experinces more than one ON,and of opposite signs.
So u may use the Roman Numerals at free will,just along you assure yourself that your notation will not raise confusions among the readers...

Daniel.
 
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
 
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
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?

The Bob (2004 ©)
 
I remember that the notation 2+ is preferred over +2, since it can be mixed up with exponential expressions, I mean, when we write [SO4-2]-2, it may confuse somebody, which one is the electronic charge and which one is a mathematical expression? So to distinguish them, charges are written in the form n+ or n-. In my TA years, I explained the issue to the pupils like that and tried to get them used to writing like this. I hope I was not wrong.
 
  • #10
I like chem_tr's explanation. It seems to make the most sense to me.

Maybe the Roman numerals thing I mentioned before is outdated, or at least isn't as common as I thought it was. I'm not even sure where I learned it, but it seems like I see it fairly regularly. It's definitely something that is more associated with metals than organic molecules, probably because metals have more interesting oxidation states. I guess I always assumed that it was to denote the oxidation state of the metal without confusing it for a formal charge (as in a net neutral organometallic complex like ferrocene, which contains Fe2+).
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K