Which species of Fe are considered dissolved Fe?

AI Thread Summary
Dissolved iron species are typically defined by their activity in solution, with a common assumption of 0.1M for the main species present. Fe(OH)42- raises questions about its classification as a dissolved species, as it is an ion but may not fit the criteria for this specific activity. The discussion emphasizes that while the assumption of 0.1M can simplify calculations, it does not accurately reflect the activities of all iron forms in solution. The presence of various equilibria involving Fe(II) and Fe(III) complicates this assumption. Overall, the context of the question is crucial for understanding the validity of the 0.1M activity claim.
1question
Messages
66
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The question tells me that all dissolved iron species will have an activity of 0.1M. So is Fe(OH)42- considered a dissolved species of Fe, and if so, it will have an activity of 0.1M?

Homework Equations



N/A

The Attempt at a Solution



I want to say that it is not considered as such, but the fact that it is an ion troubles me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1question said:
The question tells me that all dissolved iron species will have an activity of 0.1M.

Doesn't sound correct to me, can you post entire question?
 
It's an assumption so that I can draw a simplified Eh-Ph diagram. It is not meant to be generally correct I believe.
 
Every water solution containing iron ions will also have many equilibria present, with numerous products of Fe(II) and Fe(III) reactions with water. You can assume activity of the main (dominating) form present in the solution to be 0.1 M, or you can assume sum of all forms present to be 0.1 M (it will be just a mass balance then), but in neither case activities of other forms will be 0.1 M.

Chances are this is just a lousy wording and there is a viable idea behind the statement, but without the context I can't see it.
 
I asked my Prof. It does not have an activity of 0.1M. Thanks for your help Borek.
 
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