Talk:Oxidation state/Archive 1

Archive 1

Random comments at the top

Just seen new post of oxidation state. Going to attempt to combine them... user:sodium

Attempt completed. The two articles are displayed below, in case I have made any errors or left out text. I did not include some of the bottom of oxidation state as it was not directly relevant, having been taken out of the electrochemistry article (actually some of the text was written by me!) user:sodium

---

(former oxidation state):

Oxidation state (also referred to as oxidation number) is a convenient conceptual aproximation when working with complex electrochemical reactions. It eases tracking the electrons and verifying that they have been conserved when expressing complex half reaction equations involved in oxidation-reduction reactions.

The oxidation state of an ion is the number of electrons it appears to have compared to its neutral state (which is defined as having an oxidation state of 0). If an atom or ion donates an electron in a reaction its oxidation state is increased, if an element accepts an electron its oxidation state is decreased.

The following rules define oxidation number:

1.) The atom with the greater Electronegativity of disimiliar atoms sharing an electron is counted as receiving the electron.

2.) Identical atoms sharing an electron are each credited with one/half of the electron.

For example when sodium (electronegativity of 0.9) reacts with chlorine (electronegativity of 3.0), sodium donates one electron and gains an oxidation state of +1. Chlorine accepts the electron and gains an oxidation state of -1. The sign of the oxidation state (positive/negative) actually corresponds to the value of each ion's electronic charge. The attraction of the differently charged sodium and chlorine ions is the reason they form an ionic bond with each other.

The loss of electrons of a substance is called oxidation, and the gain of electrons is reduction. This can be easily remembered through the use of the mnemonic, OIL RIG: Oxidation Is Loss Reduction Is Gain. The substance which loses electrons is also known as the reducing agent (reductant,) and the substance which accepts the electrons is called the oxidising agent (oxidant.)

A reaction in which both oxidation and reduction is occuring is called a redox reaction. These are very common; as one substance loses electrons the other substance accepts them. Redox reactions are the basis for ionic bonding.

Despite the name, an oxidation reaction does not necessarily need to involve oxygen. In fact, even fire can be fed by an oxidant other than oxygen: Fluorine fires are often unquenchable, as fluorine is an even stronger oxidant (it has a higher electronegativity) than oxygen.

---

(former oxidation number):

The oxidation state or oxidation number is defined as the sum of the negative and positive charges in an atom i.e., the number of electrons it has accepted or donated.

Atoms are considered to have oxidation numbers of zero, meaning that they are electrically neutral. The positive protons in the nucleus balance the negative electron cloud surrounding it, there being equal numbers of both. If an atom donates an electron it has more protons than neutrons and becomes positive. This ion is said to have an oxidation number of +1. Conversely if an atom accepts an electron it becomes negatively charged, gaining an oxidation number of -1.

Oxidation numbers are denoted in chemical names by bracketed roman numerals placed immediately after the relevant element. For example, an iron ion, with an oxidation of +3 is expressed as iron (III). Manganese with an oxidation state of +7 present in manganese oxide is given the name manganese (VII) oxide. The motive for placing oxidation numbers in names is only to distinguish between different compounds of the same elements. The actual charge (positive/negative) of the ion is not expressed because it is not necessary for this purpose.

In chemical formulas, the oxidation number of ions is placed in superscript after the element's symbol. For example, oxygen (II) is written as O^2-. Oxidation numbers of neutral numbers are not expressed. The following formula describes the element I₂ accepting two electrons to gain an oxidation number of -2.

I2 + 2e- -> 2I- 

Sometimes it is not immediately evident what the oxidation number of ions in a molecule are from its molecular formula. For example, given Cr(OH)₃, no oxidation numbers are present yet it is clear that ionic bonding is occuring.

There are a number of rules that can be used in determining an ions atomic number:

• The oxidation number of (neutral) atoms equal zero.
• In neutral molecules, the sum of the oxidation numbers adds up to zero.
• Fluorine always has a -1 oxidation number within compounds.
• Oxygen has an oxidation number of -2 in compounds, except (i) in the presence of fluorine, in which fluorine's oxidation number takes precedence; (ii) in oxygen-oxygen bonds, where one oxygen must neutralize the other's charge; (iii) in peroxide compounds, in which it takes an oxidation number of -1.
• Group I ions have an oxidation number equal to +1 within compounds.
• Group II have an oxidation number of +2 within compounds.
• Halogens, besides fluorine, generally have -1 oxidation numbers in compounds. This rule can be broken in the presence of oxygen or other halogens, where the oxidation numbers can be positive.
• Hydrogen always has an oxidation number of +1 oxidation number in compounds, except in metal hydrides.

See also: Electrochemistry

---

The problem with rules this hard coded is that there will be exceptions. For example, what's the oxidation number of the oxygen in superoxide? David M

BTW, there's a page for valency too. -- Tarquin

• Think they should be combined? The material covered is quite different. Perhaps cross referenced? Dwmyers 18:21 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Looking at this page as a whole, I think it needs a comprehensive rewrite to clarify things. The way it is currently, rules for ionic compounds are mixed in with rules for covalent compounds in a confusing way. We need some more graphics and some covalent examples, including one or two organics. I will attempt to do this when I get a chance- unless anyone else is offering... Walkerma 16:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

oxidation number

hi friends i want to know which of the following has more than one oxidation numbe 1)H2S2O4 2)H2S2O7 3)H2S2O7

I am not sure if you realize that choices 2) and 3) are the same. --132.1.207.22 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Should we add a separate section that list the rules for determining oxidation number in organic chemistry? For instance, to determine whether an oxidation or reduction has occurred: (the following is an excerpt from page 459 of Organic Chemistry 3rd Ed, Mark Loudon)

In organic chemistry, whether a transformation is an oxidation or a reduction is deter­mined by the oxidation numbers of the reactants and products. The calculation and use of oxidation numbers is a "bookkeeping" process that involves three steps. ... 1. Assign an oxidation level to each carbon that undergoes a change between reactant and product by the following method: a. For every bond from the carbon to a less electronegative element (including hydrogen), and for every negative charge on the carbon, assign a —1. b. For every bond from the carbon to another carbon atom, and for every unpaired electron on the carbon, assign a zero. c. For every bond from the carbon to a more electronegative element, and for every positive charge on the carbon, assign a +1. d. Add the numbers assigned under (a), (b), and (c) to obtain the oxida­tion level of the carbon under consideration. 2. Determine the oxidation number Nox of both the reactant and product by adding, within each compound, the oxidation levels of all the carbons computed in Step 1. Remember: consider only the carbons that undergo a change in the reaction. 3. Compute the difference Nox(product) — Nox(reactant) to determine whether the transformation is an oxidation, reduction, or neither, a. If the difference is a positive number, the transformation is an oxidation. b. If the difference is a negative number, the transformation is a reduction. c. If the difference is zero, the transformation is neither an oxidation nor a reduction.

---

???

does any one think this is college stuff?

137.146.167.117 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

can someone explain the term "collateral measurements?"

Ferrous vs Ferric

I see mention of the lower oxidation state of an element, namely Iron, being referred to as Ferric(2+), while the higher oxidation state referred to as Ferrous (3+). Is it not the other way around?

203.28.115.121 03:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Vsmith 12:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Format for Elementbox entries, "standard" oxidation state

The Oxidation state entries for chemical elements (using Template:Elementbox_oxistates) seem to follow a specific format. For instance for Lead: 4, 2. Both the fact that 4 is listed first and that 2 is in bold seem to be meaningful (something about "standard" states?), but I did not see it explained anywhere. I think this article might be the good place for that.

About the phrase "For an exhaustive list of the possible oxidation states of each element, see the Standard Periodic Table" does not make sense, because for instance C is listed with 4 and 2, while the article just mentioned all states from -4 to 4 are valid. This should be explained. I saw originally this was an outside link, (not responding now, but with data from http://www.chemicool.com/), which indeed mentions for C: minimum oxidation number: -4, maximum oxidation number: 4 (with a confusion betwwen ox number and ox states?).

I'm sorry I cannot help more, I'm not a chemist and this is just confusing, I hope somebody with the knowledge will help clarify.

Daniel Bonniot de Ruisselet (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You can determine the highest common oxidation state of C or any other element on the Periodic Table by looking at the Group number. Basically the highest common oxidation state is the number of valence electrons an element has. To get the maximum, you determine the amount it needs to give up(cations), or receive(anions), to become isoelectronic with the big 8's.

Ex: highest common oxidation state for Carbon: +4; Lowest: -4. highest common oxidation state for Sulfur: +6; Lowest: -3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.21.156 (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Peroxide

can you please explain why O2F2 is not considered a peroxide? RolfSander (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason that OF2 is not considered an oxide, but a fluoride. The definition given by IUPAC's glossary, as far as inorganic peroxides are concerned, is "salts of the anion O₂²⁻".[1] --Itub (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, according to the definition in the Gold Book, that makes sense. Maybe it should be mentioned on the Perfluoroperoxide page that the name is misleading. RolfSander (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The official name is Dioxygen difluoride which does indicate a fluoride. Yes, the alternate name perfluoroperoxide is misleading, but so are the alternate names of many other compounds.

As the best way to clear up this confusion, I am adding a note to this article to explain that OF2 and O2F2 are considered fluorides. Dirac66 (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Most" oxides?

The above discussion leads me to ask: why does the article say -2 in "most oxides"? If we exclude OF2 as an oxide, why not "all oxides" or just "oxides"? Are there exceptions which are clearly oxides? Dirac66 (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say there are no exceptions unless one used "oxide" in a loose sense in which peroxides, superoxides, etc. might be considered "kinds of oxides". --Itub (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that peroxides, superoxides (and ozonides) definitely are oxides. Pyrite (FeS₂) is definitely a sulfide of iron, after all. Why worry about it? There's an old joke: every general statement in inorganic chemistry has an exception, including this one! Otherwise, you end up saying that all oxides contain oxygen in the −2 oxidation state, and any binary compound of oxygen which doesn't have oxygen in the −2 oxidation state cannot be an oxide… rather circular as a description! Physchim62 (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

For CO it's -2 if the electrons are counted properly. There is a triple bond, but one is a dipolar bond which means that both electrons come from oxygen, so it does not change the oxidation state. See also Carbon monoxide#Resonance structure and oxidation state. Dirac66 (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

small contradiction between text and figure

In the image showing the acetaldehyde reaction (redox reacctions), the oxidation states of the two C atoms are shown with roman numerals. However, the clarification of the differences between "oxidation states" and "oxidation numbers" suggests that roman numerals are used for showing oxidation numbers, while arabic numerals are used for oxidation states. if anyone has the wherewithal to edit the svg file these perhaps ought to be swapped out with -3, +1, -3, and +3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.86.7 (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this image should be left unchanged. In structural diagrams for organic chemistry, oxidation states are often represented by Roman numerals to distinguish them from formal charges (calculated with all bonds covalent). The distinction between oxidation states and oxidation numbers is not important in organic chemistry. Dirac66 (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oxidisation of Polyethylene

Does anyone know whether this happens or not? 82.36.181.113 (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly if heated in the presence of oxygen. Polyethylene bags will burn in air if ignited with a match. Dirac66 (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Answer 82.36.181.113 (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge with oxidation number - as per other languages

May I suggest that the articles on Oxidation state and Oxidation number are so similar that they should be merged. One section of the merged article would be sufficient to explain the small difference between the terms in coordination chemistry.

My attention was drawn to the similarity on examining yesterday's edit of this article by Bgwhite, summarized as "Remove interwiki links as they point someplace else in Wikidata". In fact this editor removed 36 of the 41 interlanguage links, apparently because they pointed to articles in other languages which pointed back to Oxidation number and not here to Oxidation state. (At least this seems to be true for French, Spanish, German, Dutch and Russian, though not for Italian which was retained here.) In any case the Wikipedias in these languages all seem to have only one article, whether the title translates as Oxidation state or Oxidation number. So why do we need two articles in English for what is basically one concept? Dirac66 (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge and redirect Both articles talk about both state and number. Both article have sections on what the difference is between number vs state. Both articles say, "The terms oxidation state and oxidation number are often used interchangeably." It would help the reader if information on both were in the same spot. Plus, it would make it easier to tell the difference between the two.

FYI... There are "only" 300,000 articles, categories and templates left with interwiki links. If you would like to help out, check out this page. Bgwhite (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I would support a merge HOWEVER great care would be required. Oxidation number as based on the IUPAC definition is a taught concept at high school level that follows rules- this contrasts with the view of most practising chemists who typically use the old Pauling recommendations based simply on electronegativity difference. Lots of the pictures in this article are based on the Pauling model- which allows all atoms in a molecule to have their oxidation state determined whereas the IUPAC definition does not. I recently rewrote the oxidation number article because the difference between the o.s and o.n had been confused by the definitions in the IUPAC red book (which is out of date) which lead to the oxidation number article being contradictory. Axiosaurus (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that care will be required to properly relate the two (or several) related concepts and also to properly integrate the material in the two articles. I see that you have written about half of the current o.n. article, and that your rewrite involved thinking in detail about the concepts and also the sources, so that you are clearly very familiar with at least one of the two articles at the moment. So perhaps you would be the best person to go about actually performing the merger and producing a draft for the combined article. Since the proposal is only 8 days, however, we probably should wait another 2-3 weeks to determine consensus before making a decision to proceed. Dirac66 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been more than a month, and I support a merge, too. I'll also point out, in case the merge needs further justification, that the more subtly distinguished the topics, the more pedagogical benefit in describing them directly against each other. ENeville (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and the reminder. I have now started modifying this article and importing material from Oxidation number. When I have transferred all the non-redundant material here, I will replace Oxidation number by a redirect.

I have tried to point out the minor difference between oxidation number and oxidation state (as per Pauling), with one example where they are different because the metal is more electronegative than the ligand. As for IUPAC vs. Pauling, I think we need to show both ways since IUPAC is simpler and taught in high school, but the Pauling method can deal with nonequivalent atoms of the same element and so will always be used in practice for some molecules. Dirac66 (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, the consensus was for merge with care. The merge is now complete, and I have tried to be careful. In some places I have changed "number" to "state" as per the context. Dirac66 (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Halogen compound rule

This is a minor issue, but I stumbled over it. At Oxidation state/Archive 1 § General rules for determining oxidation states without use of Lewis structures:

• Halogens other than fluorine have an oxidation state of −1 except when they are bonded to oxygen, nitrogen, or another (more electronegative) halogen. For example, the oxidation state of chlorine in chlorine monofluoride (ClF) is +1. However, in bromine monochloride (BrCl), the oxidation state of Cl is −1.

It seems the parenthetical is actually a required part of the statement (i.e. not parenthetical) in order for it to be correct, right? That is, in all compounds of two halogens other than Fl, the more electronegative element has an OS of −1. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced the parenthetical by a clause starting with which is, which expresses more clearly the intended meaning. Dirac66 (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge

I feel a sense of deja vu, this is how it was before I rewrote the confusing and contradictory oxidation number article! Unnfortunately I was out of the country when this merge was agreed and made, and it had dropped off my watchlist.

This merged article has problems. Oxidation number is not given any prominence and yet that is what a lot of kids are taught not oxidation state. Some references are wrong, and it doesn't flow. Oxidation state as understood by older chemists and oxidation number as taught are different in detail and that has been obscured. I shall go back to the pre-merge version of oxidation number and try to put this merged version right. Axiosaurus (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The pre-merge version of the oxidation state article was almost completely unreferenced, it also had some inaccuracies. I will make a start by flagging issues in the hope that some references may appear. Axiosaurus (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The general rules section is contradictory. IUPAC states H is -1 with active metals and the article quotes boron (metalloid acording to some but never a metal!) as being an example where H has an oxidation state of -1. Applying the IUPAC definition would be a problem for most chemists as the concensus of most textbooks is that boron in BH₃ has an oxidation state of +3. Applying the IUPAC rule B would obviosly have an oxidation state of -3 in borane. But BH₃ reacts with Cl₂ to form BCl₃ and HCl and that is an oxidation. There is a paradox that in applying the IUPAC rules to BH₄^- the oxidation state of boron would be -5, which I agree appears odd. However the contradiction needs to be resolved.

The Lewis structures section is large and unreferenced. I find this section at best quaint. Is it actually taught or is this original work?

Axiosaurus (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Using google I have found a possible reference to the lewis structures method in the text book - "Chemistry: Structure and Dynamics, James N. Spencer, George M. Bodner, Lyman H. Rickard, John Wiley & Sons, 28 Dec 2010", however the crucial parts of the book are not available- has anyone out there got access or another reference?Axiosaurus (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

References are hard to find for this topic. Many general chemistry books seem to give just the basic rules, while many inorganic and organic texts seem to assume that the reader already knows how to calculate oxidation states! Your reference to Spencer et al. may be useful though - Google gave me a relevant page with this URL:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=FRfcVwFr17IC&pg=PA543&lpg=PA543&dq=Spencer+Chemistry:+Structure+and+Dynamics+oxidation+state+Lewis+structure&source=bl&ots=PnvAGDKbVV&sig=CLcSZCFloSDI13wkvQggj6l5e64&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=R540UvrMG8XG4AO-2oGoAQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Spencer%20Chemistry%3A%20Structure%20and%20Dynamics%20oxidation%20state%20Lewis%20structure&f=false Dirac66 (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

On rereading, this page of Spencer et al., it is much more detailed and explicit than the textbooks I had found, so I decided to include it as a source in the article. Thanks for suggesting the book. Dirac66 (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Boron

The previous section notes a contradiction in the article concerning B-H bonds. Yes, of course the chemical consensus is that H is -1 when bonded to B. The only way I can understand the IUPAC list of exceptions is that it is not meant to be exhaustive. Exceptions ... are does not mean The only exceptions ... are. So yes, H is -1 when bonded to active metals (whatever that means exactly), but also when bonded to other metals as well as boron. Perhaps this point should be made in the article. Dirac66 (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Active metals is a fluffy term- by that I mean sometimes sometimes it just means reactive (as in reactivity series meaning), and I seem to remember a IUPAC paper which used the term with a list of relevant metals, and I will try to dig it out. You are right we need to draw attention to this apparent anomaly. The other issues I have with the IUPAC rules is that they need extension to cover oxygen fluorides and interhalogens, and the irony of that is a return to the classic electronegativity method. This point is well referenced - most basic text books add extra rules to cover these. So I think a list of problems with the IUPAC definition would be a good addition.Axiosaurus (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ideally we would like a magic recipe for oxidation state which can be concisely stated, has a logical basis and is completely general; but that does not really exist. The electronegativity (EN) method is concise and general, at least for molecules with localized 2c-2e bonds. However its logic is undermined by the arbitrariness of EN scales, which do not directly correspond to a measurable quantity and are not really meaningful for small EN differences. The current IUPAC definition reads as though a committee expressly set out to suppress the word electronegativity and replaced EN by a set of arbitrary rules with no justification given. These rules are far from general as we have agreed above, and IUPAC would need a much longer set of rules to be completely general. All Wikipedia can do here is maintain a neutral point-of-view (WP:NPOV) and outline the various approaches.

As for oxidation number vs. oxidation state, the only context in which I am familiar with a difference is in coordination chemistry if the metal is more electronegative than the ligand, as for the example given of Rh-P. Or did you mean that some authors use ON for Pauling and OS for IUPAC (or vice versa)?? Can you better express the difference between OS and ON, with examples if possible. Dirac66 (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

my understanding is that historically the terms have been used interchangeably. This seems to have changed when at some point in coordination chemistry, pre 2000, a different definition of ON (as per gold book) was introduced, further confused by the IUPAC 2005 inorganic naming conventions which used the term ON (this is not refelected in the gold book). I have made a start on a draft page of restructuring this article, I need to do a bit more before its worth reading. I will do my best to take your points on board re examples. At the mo. its 4:50 ish a.m. and this post is my cure for insomnia.Axiosaurus (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"Formal" oxidation number

I removed the word "formal" whenever it appeared in "formal oxidation number". I hope this is okay. 178.38.121.208 (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Anachronistic usage

Oxidation itself was first studied by Antoine Lavoisier, who believed that oxidation was always the result of reactions with oxygen,[16] thus the name. Although Lavoisier's idea has been shown to be incorrect, the name he proposed is still used, albeit more generally.

This seems to be using the term oxidation both circularly and anachronistically. If Lavoisier believed that oxidation always involved a reaction with oxygen, and this was a contentful statement rather than a tautology, then what did he mean by oxidation such that his belief could later be falsified? Whatever he meant by it should be described in this sentence by a word other than "oxidation", and the historical development will make more sense.

The following is closer to correct (and I have implemented it in the article). It's still anachronistic though, since Lavoisier could not have truly grasped what we now mean by oxidation. So what did he mean?

Oxidation itself was first studied by Antoine Lavoisier, who believed that what we now call oxidation was always the result of reactions with oxygen,[16] thus the name. Although Lavoisier's idea has been shown to be incorrect, the name he proposed is still used, albeit more generally.

178.38.121.208 (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Another anachronism

A new second paragraph added today reads The term "oxidation" is derived from the element oxygen, which was the first atom known to pull electrons in a molecule toward itself, away from other atoms. Since Lavoisier is mentioned below, a historically naive reader might conclude that Lavoisier described oxidation in terms of electrons, which were in fact proposed over 100 years after his death.

A more historically accurate statement would be The term "oxidation" was first used by Lavoisier to mean reaction of an "oxidized" substance with oxygen. Much later, it was realized that the oxidized substance loses electrons, and the use of the term "oxidation" was extended to include other reactions in which electrons are lost. Dirac66 (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

jingle baal jingle baal jingleall the way santa baba in the town osmium like hat ja way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.123.123 (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Carbon tetrachloride

It is listed as Carbon has on oxidation state of +4 in Carbon tetrachloride. However ab initio calculations suggest, in CCl₄, the negative charges residing on carbon (-0.28) and a very small positive charge on chlorine atoms (+0.07). Also, the bond dipole moment of H-C (1.13) is greater than that of H-Cl (1.03). Its is time to revise electronegativity scales.--Anoop Manakkalath (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

IrF9

Czech wikipedia and literature mentions compound IrF9 (Iridium nonafluoride perhaps) as compound with iridium at oxidation state 9. Is it true? I cannot find anything about it in english literature. Thank you. --Jade D Face (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you give us the specific sources in Czech Wikipedia and the Czech literature? Do they mention any sources in English (or in French or German?)

The (English) Wikipedia article Iridium#Compounds says (with a source) that the Ir(+9) state is known in the gas-phase cation IrO₄⁺. Dirac66 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

http://chemicke-listy.cz/Bulletin/bulletin412/bulletin412.pdf Page 21. Jade D Face (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Foreign-language sources are acceptable in Wikipedia, especially if we have no English-language sources. On page 21 of this PDF (or better, on page 287 of the publication), I see two possibly relevant sentences: Autoři zkoumali také fluoridy těchto prvků v oxidačním stavu IX. Zde se bohužel ukázalo, že IrF9 není stabilní vůči rozkladu na IrF7 a F2. Can you provide a translation?Dirac66 (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It says that authors of the work were examining fluorides of iridium and fluorine with oxidation state 9. Unfortunately, IrF9 wasn't stable and would decomposite decompose into IrF7 and F2. Jade D Face (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I think we could mention this source in the article. We can mention IrO₄⁺ first, since the source for that ion says it was successfully prepared, and then mention that IrF9 was also examined but etc. Dirac66 (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you too. I thought it was some kind of joke, because there are no English works about this compound. Also, Czech compound naming sounds funny in this instance, main reason why this could be a joke... --Jade D Face (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. The journal looks serious and is dated 2010. Perhaps there are no English articles about IrF9 because the Czech synthesis did not succeed. As for the name, I know no Czech so I cannot guess what you mean by sounds funny in this case. If you think this source is suspicious, then perhaps we should wait until we have another source, preferably with a successful synthesis. Dirac66 (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait for better source. I'll do my best to explain why it sounds funny and it's probably a joke. You see, Czech is much more complex than English. Chemistry is made easier, because we can easily determine the names of compounds from their formula (and vice-versa) without needing to remember those names. Unlike in English, names of Czech chemical formulas have suffixes dependent on their oxidation state. http://images.slideplayer.cz/7/1897750/slides/slide_5.jpg Example: Thallium in Thallium(I) Oxide has oxidation state of 1. Suffix for 1 is -ný, creating the name "oxid thall-ný. Name for Thallium(III) Oxide is then "oxid thall-itý". (I chose this compound because many elements names are different in Czech and so).The article I sent you was suggesting a new suffix for 9th oxidation state -utý. And when they chose IrF9 (which I think would be Iridium Nonafluoride, right?), they knew that name for this compound would be "fluorid iridutý". And that part "dutý" means hollow, or also half-wit in Czech. So, yeah, that's complicated humor of Czech scientists... This may be also supported by their other suggestions, such as -ušatý (meaning eared), -učený (meaning learned) and -uzený (meaning smoked).Jade D Face (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting. These suffixes remind me of the old English nomenclature system: when it was first discovered (19th century?) that some metals had two oxides (now known to be in two oxidation states), the higher one (ex. Fe₂O₃) was called -ic and the lower (ex. FeO) -ous. Students would spend time memorizing for example that ferric and ferrous were +3 and +2, while cupric and cuprous were +2 and +1, and stannic and stannous were +4 and +2. All very arbitrary, and no allowance for more than two oxidation states of the same metal. Eventually Alfred Stock proposed the use of numbers instead which is of course much simpler. Perhaps Wikipedia should at least mention the historical system also. Dirac66 (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I added a mention of the ic/ous system to the History section on 3 May 2016. Dirac66 (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

New IUPAC recommendations 2016

A link to a IUPAC technical report entitled "Toward a comprehensive definition of oxidation state" has been added near the top and again near the end where the IUPAC project and the reasons for its initiation were mentioned. Mcardlep (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I intend to edit this page to reflect the publication of "Comprehensive definition of oxidation state (IUPAC Recommendations 2016)" http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/pac-2015-1204 This article is available free of charge. This definition is designed to address the problems created by the current limited and somewhat contradictory IUPAC definitions which have relied on algorithms for oxidation state and oxidation number. --Mcardlep (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the history section of the pageMcardlep (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Major Edit of the Oxidation State page

This major edit is timely since a much-needed clarification of Oxidation State (OS) has been provided by the definition of the term in IUPAC Recommendation 2016 (published after a five month scrutiny at the IUPAC web site and a peer review by 15 referees) and now also extracted into the IUPAC Gold Book. The Recommendation puts the term on a firm footing that provides two complementary algorithms to obtain OS in both molecular and extended-solid compounds. The definition, algorithms, and an example of a postulatory approach for early teaching levels, all form together the basis for the two revised Gold Book entries Oxidation State and Oxidation Number: and The previous situation was that IUPAC unintentionally contributed to some difficulties by providing quite different algorithms to define “Oxidation Number” and “Oxidation State” in its Gold Book, despite these terms being used almost synonymously. The latter fact is now clearly stated in the new Gold Book entry for Oxidation Number. The major revision of this Wikipedia page is urgent now because the previous Gold Book entries, on which this Wikipedia text was based prior this major edit, have been completely revised on June 28, 2017. This revision will reinforce Wikipedia’s standing as an authoritative source and provide useful and up-to-date information on important concepts in chemistry.Mcardlep (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be updated to agree with IUPAC. However I hope Wikipedia can explain these terms more clearly than new IUPAC definitions which are quite opaque. As I understand the new definitions, the terms Oxidation Number and Oxidation State are now largely synonymous in all cases, so we don't really need the term Oxidation Number and can always use Oxidation State. Note carefully however IUPAC's phrase in Oxidation State specifying that heteronuclear bonds have been assigned to the more electronegative partner except when that partner is a reversibly bonded Lewis-acid ligand. This exception applies to the Rh-P bonds of Wilkinson's catalyst now in the article: Rh is more electronegative than P but it is a Lewis acid so the bond electrons are assigned to P. So in the rare cases where the former definitions of value formerly called oxidation number. We have to explain these exceptions and I think we can just use the same example. Dirac66 (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

And also: IUPAC now recommends Allen electronegativity scale instead of Pauling one, which means that Rh is now less electronegative than P. This seems more logical because Rh is a metal and P is a nonmetal. There are rhodium phosphides (Rh₂P, RhP, RhP₃), but nobody calls them "phosphorus rhodides".Burzuchius (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I started the major edit. It is not yet finished as there are still diagrams to be added and some references need to be fixed. I have all the text and pictures ready but just not enough time to get them all up today. I will finish this asap.Mcardlep (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Why has the statement about the lowest known oxidation state been deleted? Are B, Ga, In, Tl still -5 in Zintl phases by the new definitions? If not, then presumably the lowest state would be -4 for C (and Si?) in metallic carbides. In any case, if we specify the highest known oxidation state, then I think we should also specify the lowest. Dirac66 (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC

You raise a reasonable point. I looked up the origin of the -5 claims and they were to a Ph.D. thesis in German. I had a look at the thesis and the deduction of -5 just used the formula. There was a structure previously determined by the thesis supervisor but it was difficult to say what was "bonded" to what. This will be fixed and a low value will be restored.Mcardlep (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The statement "The lowest oxidation state is -4 in methane." has been addedMcardlep (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

A clear answer, based I presume on the new IUPAC definition with Allen electronegativities. We will also have to revise the article List of oxidation states of the elements. The (-5) values could perhaps be eliminated from that article too without comment in view of your reply above. The list also includes (-4) values not only for carbon but also for silicon and for 10(!) metals. I think these claims should also be reassessed. Dirac66 (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

References

"confusing" tag

I added the "confusing" tag to this for one reason: when looking up "oxidation number", I actually had to go to the Simple English wiki to find a definition I could parse in less than 10 minutes.

Believe me, I understand how hard it can be to write for a non-expert audience. But remember, the kid taking a test or the Early Childhood Education major trying to pass a "general curriculum" teaching test needs to understand this article, too. And when that person Googles "oxidation state", this will probably be the first article they read.

The long-winded technical knowledge further down the article is fine, but I think the article would benefit enormously from an "explain like I'm 5" definition up top. Matereloah (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Matereloah, for the reminder that there is such a good explanation in the Simple Wikipedia, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidation_state. The best solution might be to place this link inside a short statement at an even more prominent early place in the main entry. A "more prominent" because, now, right below the heading "Determination of oxidation state", there is a statement that "introductory levels of chemistry teaching use postulated oxidation states", which is linked to a Section "Determination of oxidation state in teaching, prior to bonding considerations" with a more detailed descriptions. So it is there. The descriptions reveal that the task you wish to accomplish might not be easy because the "pre-bonding" postulatory definitions of oxidation state differ from textbook to textbook. Hence the Simple Wikipedia entry seems best. Karpmoi (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a better solution. The article now has 3 methods including the simple one, but it is hard to find because it has been placed last. Instead I propose to start with the simple method using "postulates" based on the most usual values of oxidation state, and perhaps add a sentence to specify that the method is not completely general. This will permit beginning readers to quickly find the method they understand. More knowledgable readers can quickly scan the simple method they know, and arrive at the more advanced general methods. Dirac66 (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal (2019)

I propose to merge article List of oxidation states of the elements into this page Oxidation state. The list is a complete detail of this articler's topic, and so naturally fits in here. (Probably, in the early days the page would be too big but today that is not an issue).

Practically, we can add a section "List of ..." somewhere below. The actual table that has the OSs will be kept as a template ({{List of oxidation states of the elements}}). -DePiep (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The part about Langmuir & octet rule, now obscured by the large table, can get its fitting place in this article? -DePiep (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done ping Burzuchius. -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Lanthanides and actinides

Ln and An are in fact in groups 6 and 7 respectively. Why does it say n/a? Porygon-Z (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No, they belong to periods 6 and 7, but they have no group number. Burzuchius (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh then they belong in groups 3-12 Porygon-Z (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Oxidation state/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Keresluna (talk · contribs) 19:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Very clear.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	One or two have redundancy but good enough.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Some are not sourced.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No apparent plagiarism or copyright violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues noted.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Wish it had more media. For example, show the different compounds of each oxidation state of an element.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.	Fail.

Comment

I dispute the judgement of criteria 6. I count 20 images, mostly related to the "oxidation state algorithm" - this may fulfil 6a (although I agree that more images may be needed). 19 use the CC-BY-SA 4.0 License, while 1 is in the Public Domain, and none need captions as they are explained inline - this fulfils 6b. I hope this helps! Bibeyjj (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bibeyjj:Thanks! Sorry, I should've looked harder. I changed my review for 6b, but I'm not sure about 6a.Keresluna (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Keresluna! Sorry for not responding to your reply sooner - not sure what happened with the ping. Thank you for following this up, and I agree with your judgements for the other criteria. Well done on conducting your first Good Article Review too!

I see that the original nominator JN Dela Cruz has not responded to any of your queries yet, even though the account has made recent edits. This may be because pings have not reached the user due to a change in the name of their account from Ice bear johny. I hope that the pings this message will create will alert the nominator. As you have already mentioned in your review, without improvements the article is likely a fail. Following WP:GAN/I#R3, it is completely your decision whether to fail the article or give it more time for improvement, as it has been nearly 3 week since you completed your review. Hope this helps! Bibeyjj (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bibeyjj: I think I will give this article one more week then if the article still isn't improved I will say its a fail. Thank you! Keresluna (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I will now close this nomination; it has been one week. Keresluna (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Keresluna: Although I don't dispute that there are quality problems or that the nominator has not followed up, I would note that "less that six days" is not a week. Due to the international nature of WP and volunteer-vs-RealWorld concerns of editors, it's important to not cut deadlines short without good cause. There are 158 references, so a simple "has original research--fail" and only one {{cn}} tag might need more nuanced explanation. DMacks (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)