Reaction between iron(II) sulphate, sulphuric acid

In summary: Sorry, I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Metallic crystals do not have molecular orbitals, they have metallic bonding. Metallic bonding is different than covalent bonding.
  • #1
Aly
6
0
If i have a reaction between iron(II) sulphate, sulphuric acid and potassium permanganate (KMnO4), what are the ions present in the salt??!

similarly, if i have a reaction between nitric acid and copper solid, what are the ions present in salt?

can nebody help me? thanks :)
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
  • #2
Write out the balanced equation and find your active and spectating ions.
 
  • #3
The second one is really easy,textbook i might say.

[tex]Cu+HNO_{3}\rightarrow \mbox{salt}+\mbox{oxyde}+\mbox{water} [/tex]

Daniel.
 
  • #4
dextercioby said:
The second one is really easy,textbook i might say.

[tex]Cu+HNO_{3}\rightarrow \mbox{salt}+\mbox{oxyde}+\mbox{water} [/tex]

Daniel.

Unfortunately the question is asking for ions not just the movement of substances. And also it is an ACID + METAL reaction and those reactions always give hydrogen + salt.

So you must consider whether the elements will lose electrons (as metals do) to become stable (a full outer shell of electrons) or whether they need to gain electrons (as non-metals do).

In the case of the former, the ions formed are of course +ve as the -ve charge of the atom (the electron) has been made smaller by its removal.

Conversly, for a non-metal the ve charge becomes bigger as more electrons (and therefore more -ve charge) is present.

It may be helpful, to write out the ionic equation and then figure out which ones don't change.

i.e.
[tex]Cu^+^2+2(H^+NO_{3}^-)\rightarrow\mbox{Cu^+^2 (NO_{3})_{2}^-}+H_{2}[/tex]

sorry - but for some reason the LaTeX image won't form or i fit does it is not the image i requested! - hopefully somebody can tell me where i have gone wrong, as the image shows up when i preview the post!

The equation I was trying to show however is this
(Cu^+2) + 2({HNO_{3}^-) goes to (Cu^+^2) (NO_{3})_{2}^-}+ H_{2}

(A [tex]+[/tex] or [tex]-[/tex] with no number after it indicates a +1 or -1 charge respectively.

As you know all compounds must be neutral in their charge. Therefore there has to be 2 nitrates to every 1 copper as copper has a +2 charge and nitrate has a -1 charge. Please also note the Nitrate is treated as an element - this is because it is what is known as a free radical.

The two is added before the nitric acid on the LHS (left hand side of the equation) to balance the number of hydrogen and nitrate molecules on each side - as in every chemical reaction nothing is lost (conservation of mass).

N.B. The hydrogen forms [tex]H_2[/tex] as it is a diatomic gas (it needs to atoms to be a stable compound with a H-H covalent bond)

As regards the first question, I am not sure where to start, if you post the whole equation here it would be helpful, or you may now see how to balance the equation and represent the ions.

Finally, in the equation shown it is an ionic equation as it shows the movement of ions.

Regards,

Ben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Yo,man,start reading before you try to correct someone,who,in this case,is right.

[tex] 3Cu+8HNO_{3}\rightarrow 3Cu(NO_{3})_{2}+2NO\uparrow +4H_{2}O [/tex]

The reaction works only with concentrated acid.

Daniel.
 
  • #6
Sorry man,

i was wrong even if it was dilute acid as it produces :

Cu(s) + 4HNO3(aq) ——> Cu(NO3)2(aq) + 2NO2(g) + 2H2O(l)

damn !why isn't it just a metal + acid ----> hydrogen + salt reaction?

Ben.
 
  • #7
There's only one explanation.The Beketov-Volta series:where is Copper situated wrt the Hydrogen...?

Daniel.
 
  • #9
Actually 3,if u consider the Kalium one.

Daniel.
 
  • #10
isn't it just a metal + acid ----> hydrogen + salt reaction?
it probably has to do with each metal's characteristic LUMO, lowest unoccupied molecular orbital. The following website has a brief explanation (regarding our case...you'll have to scroll to the very bottom, takes a while)

http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/12_lab/lab.html
 
  • #11
as well as the highest occupied molecular orbital.
 
  • #14
Edit: brain fart
 
  • #15
Borek said:
Since when metals have molecular orbitals?

Borek

Not too sure but where do you get a bottle of copper atoms ?
 
  • #16
Since when metals have molecular orbitals?

Browse through the link.
 
  • #18
again, follow up on the link...
 
  • #21
I don't follow either. Nor do I see anywhere in the link that metals have lowest occupied molecular orbitals. Could you cut and paste ?

Besides, I think dexter answered the question about not producing H2 (gas) right in the beginning - copper (for both 1+ and 2+) has positive reduction potentials with respect to the std. hydrogen electrode.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Borek said:
There are no covalent bonds described by the molecular orbitals theory in metallic crystals. It doesn't mean that metal crystal is just a bunch of atoms - they are connected by metallic bonding. But these are different things.


Borek

Ever hear of band theory ?
 
  • #24
Borek said:
I thought metallic bonding is described by band theory?


Borek
Yes, it is...pretty accurately too. And band theory says that the valence electrons in a metal occupy a virtual continuum of energy levels (~ 10^{23} levels within a few eV) that are almost entirely filled till you get very close to the Fermi energy.

In short, you do not have LUMOs in metals.
 
  • #25
Well, I'll have to do some reviewing myself, nevertheless the following website clearly indicates LUMO for some characteristic metals in their cationic states, the standard electrode potential perspective certainly answer's the OPs question...just thought that one could examine this from another angle. I was interested in nature of whether the different electron configuration of transition metals versus metals would contribute to the differences in reactions.

You need to scroll to the bottom of the page, it explains the different LUMOs of metals and transition metals in relevance to Lewis bases
 
  • #26
I don't follow either. Nor do I see anywhere in the link that metals have lowest occupied molecular orbitals. Could you cut and paste ?[/quoter]

lowest unoccupied molecular orbitals. From what I remember LUMO and HOMO are relevant to describing chemical reactions with respect to their electron density, including reactions of organic compounds with inorganic compounds, the org. compound is the LUMO/HOMO, the other is the vice versa. Technically may not be a molecular orbital, but the importance of it is to see how the reaction is taking place with respect to the orbitals and electron density (d,s...1s, 2s?).
 
  • #28
it'll still involve the "HOMO" or "LUMO" regarding the metal, or perhaps a slightly modified explanation in this case, the reactions are still orbital specific...the LUMO/HOMO concept is very useful in explaining any type of reactions in detail; the energy dynamics, configuration and position of each molecular in reactions and more.
 
  • #29
But GCT : metals do not have molecular orbitals. So there is no question of HOMOs or LUMOs in a metal.
 
  • #30
Gokul43201 said:
But GCT : metals do not have molecular orbitals. So there is no question of HOMOs or LUMOs in a metal.

I think my point has been lost here. What are the valence and conduction bands constructed from ?
 
  • #31
I lknow what you are aiming at - bands are constructed from molecular orbitals, so there is an analogy. But it doesn't mean there are LUMO and HOMO in metal crystal - there are overlapping bands and they are responsible for observable metal properties.
 
  • #32
Actually, the bands are not even constructed from molecular orbitals. There is absolutely no remanence of a molecular orbital in the free electron band description of a metal. You will have molecular orbitals only if there is binding to the nucleus. Conduction electrons in a metal are the valence electrons of the atoms, and they fill a band of free electron states.
 
  • #33
IIRC you are wrong (but my English is an obstacle to precisely explain what I know - I will do my best). When you have two copper atoms their orbitals mix together (not that they create a particle) and you have LUMO and HOMO. Each added atom adds additional orbitals. When there is enough atoms the orbitals energy levels are so close that they are effectively not separated - that's when they create a band. Band behaves absolutely differently than molecular orbitals, and here you are right - but if you look at the process of creation of metal crystal there are intermediate states when there are only several atoms, that are not a standard molecule nor a metal crystal - and I believe that's the thing DrMark referred to in his questions.

SOme more thinking on my side and I realized that you wrote:
the bands are not even constructed from molecular orbitals

which contradicts what I wrote. Can you elaborate - how are the bonds constructed?

Chemical calculators for labs and education

BATE - pH calculations, titration curves
CASC - concentration conversions, solution preparation
 
  • #34
Here's one big difference : electrons in a molecular orbital are bound electrons while electrons in a Fermi sea are free electrons (they are not localized to certain orbitals or regions of space).

Yes, you are correct that if you put together 2 or 3 or 4 copper atoms, you will see some kind of molecular orbital structure. But there's a vital difference between having a cluster (some small number) of atoms and having a macroscopic crystal. In the first case, you do not have invariance over translation by a fixed length. In the latter case, you do. This results in the physics of the crystal being completely different from that of a cluster. The wavefunction (and hence all properties, such as the energy levels) of an electron in a conducting crystal is completely different from one in a cluster.

So, in short, the physics describing the behavior of valence electrons changes completely between cases where you have a small number of atoms to cases where you have a large number. You can not construct a crystal by simply making a cluster larger and larger. At some point there will be a transition to a periodic lattice, and at that point the physics of the cluster must be abandoned.
 
  • #35
Do you mean the transition will be not continuous?

I was taught (well, it was 20 years ago, I can be missing something) that as the cluster grows number of molecular orbitals grows and the energy gaps between them get smaller and smaller, once they are small enough they form a bond. Well, perhaps that's oversimplification.

And I have doubt if you are right stating that electrons on the molecular orbitals are bound - ie they are bound to the orbital, but the orbital can spread over whole molecule (or whole cluster) - in such situation there will be no difference between free electron in the valence bond and the localized electron on the molecular orbital. The again it can be oversimplification.

Chemical calculators for labs and education

BATE - pH calculations, titration curves
CASC - concentration conversions, solution preparation
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
991
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Chemistry
Replies
2
Views
911
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top