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
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the notation of oxidation states, emphasizing that 2+ is preferred over +2 to avoid confusion with exponential expressions. Participants agree that oxidation states can be represented in Roman numerals, such as SVI for sulfur, but the sign is crucial for clarity. The notation Fe^{+II} is less common, with Roman numerals typically used in complex compounds, often appearing in brackets. The consensus is that while both notations exist, the choice depends on context and clarity for the reader.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of oxidation states in chemistry
  • Familiarity with chemical notation and symbols
  • Knowledge of Roman numeral representation in chemistry
  • Experience with complex compounds and their nomenclature
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the conventions of oxidation state notation in inorganic chemistry
  • Explore the use of Roman numerals in chemical nomenclature
  • Learn about the differences between formal charge and oxidation state
  • Investigate the role of oxidation states in coordination chemistry
USEFUL FOR

Chemistry students, educators, and professionals involved in inorganic chemistry, particularly those focusing on oxidation states and chemical nomenclature.

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+).
 

Similar threads

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