Would arrow pushing explain the mechanism of these oxide reactions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adf89812
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reactions
AI Thread Summary
Arrow pushing is often ineffective in explaining inorganic reactions, as demonstrated in the discussion about the reaction between KMnO4 and H2O2. The complexity of the reactions, including the formation of MnO2 and oxygen, suggests that traditional arrow-pushing methods may not adequately capture the underlying mechanisms. Participants noted that while arrow pushing is beneficial for organic reactions, it falls short in inorganic contexts. The reactions presented illustrate the limitations of this approach in conveying the nuances of oxidation and reduction processes. Overall, the consensus indicates that alternative methods may be necessary for a clearer understanding of these inorganic reactions.
adf89812
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
Thread moved from the technical forums to the schoolwork forums
TL;DR Summary: When is arrow-pushing useless?

I tried a lot of time to explain

2 KMnO4 + 3 H2O2 → 2 MnO2 + 2 KOH + 2 H2O + 3 O2.​

My work: $$\mathrm{MnO}_4+\mathrm{H}_2 \mathrm{O}_2->\mathrm{MnO}_3+\mathrm{H}_2 \mathrm{O}+\mathrm{O}_{2}^{2-}-$$

$$\mathrm{MnO}_4->\mathrm{MnO}_2+\mathrm{O}_2$$.

The rest of these, I think the logic is the same, but I don't know if I can't figure this out because I'm bad or the arrow pushing is useless in explaining these reactions.

$$
\begin{gathered}
1 . \mathrm{HO}_2^{-}+\mathrm{H}_2 \mathrm{O}_2 \rightleftharpoons \mathrm{HO}_2+\mathrm{HO}+\mathrm{OH}^{-} \\
\mathrm{HO}_2+\mathrm{OH} \rightleftharpoons \mathrm{H}_2 \mathrm{O}+\mathrm{O}_2 \\
2 \mathrm{KMnO4}+3 \mathrm{H}_2 \mathrm{O}_2 \rightarrow 2 \mathrm{MnO}_2+2 \mathrm{KOH}+\mathrm{H}_2 \mathrm{O}+3 \mathrm{O}_2 \\
2 \mathrm{HO} \mathrm{O}_2 \rightarrow \mathrm{O}_2+\mathrm{H}_2 \mathrm{O}_2
\end{gathered}
$$
$$
\begin{gathered}
\mathrm{O}_2^{-}+\mathrm{H}_2 \mathrm{O} \rightleftharpoons \mathrm{HO}_2+\mathrm{OH}^{-} \\
4 \mathrm{O}_2^{-}+2 \mathrm{H}_2 \mathrm{O} \rightarrow 3 \mathrm{O}_2+4 \mathrm{OH}^{-} \\
2 \mathrm{NaO}_2 \rightarrow \mathrm{Na}_2 \mathrm{O}_2+\mathrm{O}_2
\end{gathered}
$$

1. $$(\mathrm{RO})_3 \mathrm{P}+\mathrm{O}_3 \longrightarrow(\mathrm{RO})_3 \mathrm{PO}_3$$
2. $$(\mathrm{RO})_3 \mathrm{PO}_3 \longrightarrow(\mathrm{RO})_3 \mathrm{PO}+{ }^1 \mathrm{O}_2$$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Arrow pushing is basically useful for organic reactions, for inorganics not so.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
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