Chemistry "The oxidized species of the couple is very oxidizing". Does this make sense?

AI Thread Summary
A large positive standard electrode potential (E°) indicates that a compound is easily reduced, functioning as a cathode in electrochemical cells. In the case of fluorine (F2), its positive E° value of 2.87 V confirms it as a strong oxidizing agent, as it readily gains electrons to form fluoride ions (F-). The discussion clarifies that the term "oxidized species" refers to the species that results from oxidation, which can lead to confusion in terminology. It emphasizes that while F2 is the oxidized species, it is very oxidizing due to its ability to accept electrons. The conversation highlights the importance of precise language in chemistry to avoid misunderstandings.
zenterix
Messages
774
Reaction score
84
Homework Statement
To summarize my question, consider the reaction that occurs in an electrode

$$\mathrm{F_2(g)+2e^-\rightarrow 2F^-}\ \ \ E^\circ=2.87\text{V}$$
Relevant Equations
The notes I am reading say that "A large positive ##E^\circ## for ##\mathrm{F_2/F^-}## means the oxidized species of the couple is very oxidizing."

I don't understand this quote because as far as I can tell, the oxidized species is ##\mathrm{F^-}## and it is a reducing agent.
The notes from MIT OCW I am reading contain the following

A large positive ##E^\circ## means the element or compound is easy to reduce.

##E^\circ## denotes a standard electrode (aka redox) potential.

Therefore, the quote above says that a positive ##E^\circ## means that relative to a standard hydrogen electrode, the electrode in question operates as a cathode, and the more positive the value is the more reduction happens for the redox pair at the cathode.

##\Delta E^\circ_{cell}=E^\circ(\text{cathode})-E^\circ(\text{anode})## is simply the cell potential, aka, the electromotive force generated by an electrochemical cell, when products and reactants are in their standard states.

Here is an example

For the electrochemical cell ##\mathrm{Zn(s)\ |\ Zn^{2+}(aq)\ ||\ Cu^{2+}(aq)\ |\ Cu(s)}## we have the reactions

##\mathrm{Zn(s)\rightarrow Zn^{2+}(aq)+2e^-}## with ##E^\circ=-0.76\text{V}## at the anode. Atoms in a bar of solid zinc are oxidized.

##\mathrm{Cu^{2+}(aq)+2e^-\rightarrow Cu(s)}## with ##E^\circ=0.34\text{V}## at the cathode. Copper ions in solution are reduced.

The cell potential is ##\Delta E^\circ_{cell}=E^\circ(\text{cathode})-E^\circ(\text{anode})=1.10\text{V}##.

Okay, so then there is the following in the notes

$$\mathrm{F_2(g)+2e^-\rightarrow 2F^-}\ \ \ E^\circ=2.87\text{V}$$

##\mathrm{F_2(g)}## is being reduced, as far as I can tell.

Is ##\mathrm{F_2}## a good oxidizing agent?
Yes, because it is easy to reduce.

Okay, but I do not understand the following quote
A large positive ##E^\circ## for ##\mathrm{F_2/F^-}## means the oxidized species of the couple is very oxidizing.

The oxidized species is ##\mathrm{F^-}##. Is it not the reducing agent? Is it not then "very reducing" rather than "very oxidizing"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Note that there is even a table

1736006400579.png
 
zenterix said:
The oxidized species is ##\mathrm{F^-}##.

Is it?
 
Borek said:
Is it?
In the 2nd post you can see it says "it is easy to add electrons to ##\mathrm{F_2}##", which as far as I can tell becomes ##\mathrm{2F^-}##, which would need to lose the electrons to become ##\mathrm{F_2}##.

Doesn't oxidation mean that a species loses electrons?
 
I think what is happening here is possibly not a chemistry issue but a semantics issue.

Apparently, according to my new interpretation of what the notes are saying

##\mathrm{F^-}## is the reduced species (since ##\mathrm{F_2}## is reduced to ##\mathrm{F^-}##) and

##\mathrm{F_2}## is the oxidized species (since ##\mathrm{F^-}## is oxidized to ##\mathrm{F_2}##.

Since the ##E^\circ## for ##\mathrm{F_2(g)+2e^-\rightarrow 2F^-}## is positive then it means this reaction is spontaneous, and ##\mathrm{F_2}## is a good oxidizing agent.

##\mathrm{F_2}## is the oxidized species and is very oxidizing.

Semantically, "oxidized species" seems to mean "the species that is the result of an oxidation" and not "the species that is oxidized".

That is my understanding right now, and if it is correct, then I find the term "oxidized species" to be ambiguous and they should have written

"A large positive ##E^\circ## for ##\mathrm{F_2/F^-}## means the species that undergoes a reduction is very oxidizing."

"A large positive ##E^\circ## for ##\mathrm{F_2/F^-}## means the species that is the result of oxidation is very oxidizing."
 
A species that undergoes reduction is an oxidizing agent (because it oxidizes another species).

One could say

A reduced species is an oxidizing agent.

But "reduced species" might mean "a species that is reduced" or "a species that has been reduced".
 
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

Back
Top