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

  • Thread starter Thread starter RichRobX
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Oxidation States
AI Thread Summary
In discussions about writing oxidation states, there is a distinction between using 2+ and +2, with the former being preferred to avoid confusion with exponential expressions. Conventionally, oxidation states are represented as +n or -n, while net charges on species are denoted as m+ or m-. For example, in the sulfate ion SO4^2-, sulfur has an oxidation state of +6, often noted in Roman numerals as SVI, but the sign is still necessary. The notation Fe^+II is less common; oxidation states in complexes typically appear in brackets rather than as superscripts. The use of Roman numerals may be more associated with metals, as they often exhibit multiple oxidation states, and the notation aims to clarify the oxidation state without confusing it with formal charges. Overall, clarity in notation is emphasized to avoid misunderstandings among readers.
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 SO_4^{~2-}, the oxidation state of S is +6.
 
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:S^{II} 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:S^{II} 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, Fe^{+II} , 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, Fe^{+II} , 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+).
 
Back
Top