Optimized Developing Mn+2 - Best Reagent Explained

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on identifying the best reagent for developing Mn+2 in paper chromatography. The participants analyze various reactions involving Mn+2, noting that while some produce pale pink solids, the reaction with BiO3^-1 yields a deep purple aqueous solution, which enhances visibility. There is a consensus that the last reagent, BiO3^-1, is preferred due to its ability to create a darker color, making the spot more discernible. The discussion emphasizes the importance of color intensity in chromatography for effective visualization. Ultimately, BiO3^-1 is concluded to be the best reagent choice for this application.
physstudent1
Messages
267
Reaction score
1
[SOLVED] paper chromatography

Homework Statement


Which reagent is the best to develop Mn+2? Briefly explain.


Homework Equations



Mn^+2 + 2OH- -> Mn(OH)_2 (s)(pale pink)

Mn^+2 + C_2O_4^-2 -> MnC2O4 (s)(pale pink)

2Mn^+2 + [Fe(CN)_6]^-4 -> Mn_2Fe(CN)_6 (s pale green)

2Mn^+2 + 5(BiO_3)^-1 + 14H+ -> 2(MnO_4)^-1 (aq deep purple) + 5Bi^+3 +7H_2O


The Attempt at a Solution


( _ represents subscripts H_2O represents water. )

At first I thought the second choice would be correct because it uses ions that are not found in the experiment at all, however now I am starting to think it is the last choice because it's product is an aqueous and not a solid, I would appreciate some feedback, the thing stopping me from thinking the last choice is correct is that it creates 2 other products.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
anyone have any idea
 
A dark color makes the spot easier to see. Which one will give the darkest color?
Hint: in this example the word 'pale' can be replaced with 'barely visible'.
 
ah ok so then BiO_3 ^-1 would be the best reagent choice :)
 

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
View full post »

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top