Whats the difference between a reactant and a reagent?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dnt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Difference
AI Thread Summary
Reactants and reagents are often used interchangeably in chemistry, as both refer to substances involved in chemical reactions. A reactant is specifically a substance that participates directly in the reaction, while a reagent is typically used to detect or produce other substances. The distinction is largely a matter of convention, with "reagent" being the more common term in certain contexts, such as testing kits. For example, hydrochloric acid acts as a reagent to facilitate the reaction of calcium carbonate, which is the reactant. In terminological discussions, "reagent" is generally preferred for contexts like drug testing, though "reactant" can also be acceptable.
dnt
Messages
238
Reaction score
0
is there any?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think there is a slight difference.

From answers.com,

reactant: A substance participating in a chemical reaction, especially a directly reacting substance present at the initiation of the reaction.

reagent: A substance used in a chemical reaction to detect, measure, examine, or produce other substances.

For example, hydrochloric acid is the chemical reagent, that would cause the reactant calcium carbonate to release carbon dioxide. Naming as a reactant or reagent is a matter of convention or perspective.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, my mistake. But I am new to english terms.
 
reactant or reagent

I am a spanish/english translator and I need to know if the correct collocation to mean the test conducted to recognize cocaine during customs controls requires a "reactant of cocaine" or a "reagent of cocaine" or something different. My interest is only terminological, my mother tongue is Spanish and I am translating into English, so you, English native speakers and physicists, will certainly be able to help me. Thank you.
 
'Reagent' is more appropriate (or more common) but 'reactant' would not be incorrect in this case. Most test kits contain 'reagents' as you could discern from many chemical suppliers' descriptions of their test kits.
 
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
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top