Reducing Copper: Choosing the Most Effective Oxidizing Agent

  • Thread starter Thread starter Procrastinate
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Copper
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the effectiveness of calcium (Ca) and zinc (Zn) as oxidizing agents to reduce copper. While both can oxidize more readily than copper, zinc is favored due to its stability and convenience, as calcium reacts violently with water. The conversation highlights that any oxidizing agent lower on the electrochemical potential list can reduce copper, but zinc is considered the better option for practical applications. Calcium may be a stronger reducing agent in specific conditions, such as smelting in an inert atmosphere, but is not suitable for reducing copper from solutions. Ultimately, zinc is regarded as the most effective and practical choice for reducing copper.
Procrastinate
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Today there was a question that asked what would reduce copper?

As a multiple choice question, it was narrowed down to Ca and Zn as they were the only ones that would oxidise more readily than copper.

However, as Ca was lower than Zn, I chose that one because it was the "weaker oxidizing agent." Would that be right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Technically, anything that is lower down on the Ep potential list should give its electrons to copper therefore both answers are correct.
 
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that any oxidizing agent that is weaker than another makes it a stronger reducer than the other. But the one that is farther down would be the best reducer. IE hydroiodic acid would be a really good reducer.
 
I guess that zinc is the only correct answer because calcium violently reacts with water and thus cannot be used for reducing copper from solutions. On the other hand calcium is definitely a better reducing agent if you smelt it with copper compound in inert atmosphere (otherwise it reacts with air).
 
Thanks for the answers so far. It was in my exam and I didn't know which one to pick but I was just really curious to know which one was the answer.

However, there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer besides that Zinc is probably better in terms of convenience.
 
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
6
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
8K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Back
Top