Coordination metals?

  • Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date
  • #1
2,259
1
I thought that as a general rule when writing out compound names (in full) involving a coordination metal, the charge of the coord metal must be stated in Roman Numerals. If nothing is specified than a charge of +1 is assumed.

But I came across a compound involving zinc written zinc..... without any roman numeral so I assumed it had +1 charge when bound within the compound. But it turned out to have +2 charge. Why don't they specify it by writing zinc(II)..... ?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,083
18
I thought that as a general rule when writing out compound names (in full) involving a coordination metal, the charge of the coord metal must be stated in Roman Numerals. If nothing is specified than a charge of +1 is assumed.
Where did you get that last bit from? From what I recall, the oxidation state may be left unspecified if the metal is in its most common oxidation state. For Zinc, the +2 oxidation state is most common.
 
  • #3
2,259
1
Good point, I think I made it up. Zinc likes to lose 2 electrons in its outer 4S shell doesn't it.
 
  • #4
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,083
18
Yes, that's right.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Coordination metals?

  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
766
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
28K
Top