Which Is the Correct Way to Write the Reaction of Mg with Ethanoic Acid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zoheb Imran
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Acid Reaction
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the correct representation of the reaction between magnesium and ethanoic acid. One proposed equation is Mg + 2CH3CO2H → Mg(CH3CO2)2 + H2, while the alternative suggests (CH3CO2)2Mg instead. The teacher asserts that the first format is preferred because it follows the convention of placing the metal before the anion in chemical formulas. However, both representations are technically correct, as they convey the same chemical compound. The consensus emphasizes using the metal-first format for clarity and adherence to standard naming conventions.
Zoheb Imran
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Mg reaction with Ethanoic acid...

My Teacher told me that if we react any group 1 metals with Ethanoic acid, then it's "OH" will be replaced by metal. E.g

Na + 2CH3CO2H------> CH3CO2Na + H2

But he said that if we react any metals from group 2 then reaction will happen like this...


1, Mg(s) + 2CH3CO2H(aq) ----> Mg(CH3CO2)2(aq) + H2(g)

however, i asked him whether this was right:

2,Mg(s) + 2CH3CO2H(aq) ----> (CH3CO2)2Mg(aq) + H2(g)
He said that this is absolutely wrong! But in my 2 Chemistry course books also from Chemistry websites i saw this, the above reaction is shown. So my question is: which one is correct way to write this reaction, 1 or 2?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The only difference between both is Mg(CH3CO2)2(aq) vs (CH3CO2)2Mg(aq), so in fact your question is not about the reaction, but about correct way of writing formula for magnesium acetate. This is salt and in general when dealing with salts we write metal first.

Sometimes it makes sense to write formulas in slightly different manner, as they are more readable then (this is especially true when dealing with organic acids), but for now stick to metal first, anion later.
 
So that means both are correct? and you prefer equation reaction no. 1? right?
 
You can put it that way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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