How to Determine if a Reaction is a Redox Reaction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Numbnut247
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reactions Redox
AI Thread Summary
To determine if a reaction is a redox reaction, one must analyze the changes in oxidation states of the elements involved. In the example provided, the oxidation states of hydrogen and oxygen in water are compared to their states in the products. If there is a change in oxidation numbers, it indicates that electron transfer has occurred, confirming it as a redox reaction. The key is to identify whether any element has undergone oxidation or reduction. Understanding these concepts is essential for classifying reactions accurately.
Numbnut247
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Hey guys, how can I tell whether a reaction is a redox reaction?

For example:

2H2O --> 2H2 + O2
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You've got to look at the respective elements and whether there are changes in the oxidation states; oxidation and reduction, electron transfer.
 
Numbnut247 said:
Hey guys, how can I tell whether a reaction is a redox reaction?

For example:

2H2O --> 2H2 + O2


On the left hand side, what are the respective oxidation numbers for hydrogen and oxygen (in water)?

On the right hand side, what are the respective oxidation numbers for H and O? (hint : constituent atoms of elemental molecules have zero oxidation number).

Is there any change in the oxidation number from left to right hand side? So is it a redox reaction?
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top