Reducing Agents and Standard Reduction Potentials

AI Thread Summary
The strongest reducing agent among the options is aluminum (Al), as it has the lowest standard reduction potential. To transform Fe+3 to Fe+2, the correct reducing reagent is H2, since it has a lower reduction potential than Fe+3. The discussion highlights the importance of consulting reduction potential charts for accurate answers. There is some confusion regarding the role of H+ as an oxidizing agent rather than a reducing agent. Overall, understanding standard reduction potentials is crucial for identifying reducing agents in redox reactions.
Soaring Crane
Messages
461
Reaction score
0
1) The strongest reducing agent from those listed is: Use your book.

a. Fe+3
b. Fe+2
c. Al+3
d. Al

After looking at the chart of reduction potentials in my book, is it
Al?

2) Select the reagent that will transform Fe+3 to Fe+2.
a. H2
b. O2
c. Br-
d. H+

Well, this is asking for the reducing reagent of Fe (3+), so is the answer H+ since reducing agents reduce oxzidizing agents above it?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't have a chart with me, but I think the answer for the first one would be the one with the lowest standard reduction potential. The answer to the second one would be the one that has a lower reduction potential than Fe3+.
 
Looking at the second one again, would H2 actually reduce Fe (3+) rather than H+, which is actually an oxidizing agent?
 
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...
Back
Top