CHRIS25
National Hazard
Posts: 951
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Iron oxidation states
Don't know why but I am always having problems with Iron when it comes to working out oxidation states
These first two I hope I have understood correctly:
(CN has a charge of -1)
Potassium Ferricyanide:
K3[Fe(CN)6] has an oxidation state of +3, this makes sense because the K has +3 (3x +1) and the Fe-CN complex has an overall 3-
Ferrous Sulphate:
FeSO4 Fe has an oxidation state of +2 due to the Sulphate cation
But the following:
Prussian Blue:
Fe3[Fe(CN6)]2 has an oxidation state of +3 since the Fe is also Fe3 but the Fe-CN complex has an overall 2- lost
here?
Turnballs Blue:
Fe4[Fe(CN6)]3 according to what I read has an oxidation state of +2 yet the Fe is in a 4x plus the Fe-CN complex is in 3- (3x
1-) lost here also?
So how do I work out the oxidation state of the Fe in the CN complex and then its overall charge?
[Edited on 3-12-2014 by CHRIS25]
‘Calcination… is such a Separation of Bodies by Fire, as makes ‘em easily reducible into Powder; and for that reason ‘tis call’d by some
Chymical Pulverization.’ (John Friend, Chymical Lectures London, 1712)
Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. (William Penn 1644-1718)
The very nature of Random, Chance development precludes the existence of Order - strange that our organic and inorganic world is so well defined by
precision and law. (me)
|
|
|
gdflp
Super Moderator
Posts: 1320
Registered: 14-2-2014
Location: NY, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Staring at code
|
|
This is just a very general rule, but if you have a species with one anion and one cation, in this case Fe(CN)6 and Fe, then the number present of
each ion is the charge of the opposing ion. This rule doesn't apply if the compound is multivalent, or if the structure dictates that the
coefficients be multiplied by a factor (e.g. P4O10 is P5+ and O2- not P10+ and O4-). In Prussian Blue, this dictates that the Fe cation has a charge
of 2+ and the anion has a charge of 3-. This gives the Fe in the cyanide complex an overall charge of 3+. In Turnballs Blue a similar case occurs,
the iron cation has a charge of 3+ and the ferricyanide ion has a charge of 4-, giving that iron an overall charge of 2+.
|
|
|
Ozone
International Hazard
Posts: 1269
Registered: 28-7-2005
Location: Good Olde USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Integrated
|
|
Unless there is an excess of either 3+ or 2+...In this case, the so-called insoluble form results, and Fe is present both at 3+ and 2+ in the complex.
This is what Wiki says, anyway.
There is further substantiation in the literature, however, as Hansen, et al. describe it as KFe(III)[Fe(II)(CN)6].
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed046p46
O3
-Anyone who never made a mistake never tried anything new.
--Albert Einstein
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4334
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by gdflp  | | This rule doesn't apply if the compound is multivalent, or if the structure dictates that the coefficients be multiplied by a factor (e.g. P4O10 is
P5+ and O2- not P10+ and O4-). |
Phosphorus oxides are molecular, and do not contain ions.
Just remember that the charges have to add up to zero, and that the anion charges are seldom variable. If you have something like
Fe3O4, the oxygens are each -2, so you have a total of -8. The irons must add up to +8 to balance them, so you have to have
two Fe(III) and one Fe(II).
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
CHRIS25
National Hazard
Posts: 951
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
So as I understand everyone's very helpful posts here (thanking you all) You can actually have, in the same solution when combined, a mixture of Fe
ions co-existing harmoniously in both the 2+ and 3+ oxidation states, if so then this solves my confusion.
@Ozone, I see I have to purchase the article, It's almost christmas, scrooge is on the prowl, pity.
[Edited on 3-12-2014 by CHRIS25]
‘Calcination… is such a Separation of Bodies by Fire, as makes ‘em easily reducible into Powder; and for that reason ‘tis call’d by some
Chymical Pulverization.’ (John Friend, Chymical Lectures London, 1712)
Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. (William Penn 1644-1718)
The very nature of Random, Chance development precludes the existence of Order - strange that our organic and inorganic world is so well defined by
precision and law. (me)
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by CHRIS25 |
Prussian Blue:
Fe3[Fe(CN6)]2 has an oxidation state of +3 since the Fe is also Fe3 but the Fe-CN complex has an overall 2- lost
here?
Turnballs Blue:
Fe4[Fe(CN6)]3 according to what I read has an oxidation state of +2 yet the Fe is in a 4x plus the Fe-CN complex is in 3- (3x
1-) lost here also?
|
Well, you managed to choose an interesting case there, with those mixed oxidation states.
But we don't consider the structures to be Fe3[Fe(CN6)]2 and Fe4[Fe(CN6)]3 anymore. Further research
showed both compounds are one and the same, written as Fe<sub>7</sub>(CN)<sub>18</sub>·xH<sub>2</sub>O. I.e. PB =
TB.
[Edited on 3-12-2014 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4334
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
Or, you could have something like Cu[Fe(bipy)(CN)4] (where bipy is the neutral bipyridine ligand). This could be Cu(I) and Fe(III) or
Cu(II) and Fe(II).
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
CHRIS25
National Hazard
Posts: 951
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quick reply because I have to dash - I just looked at the journal of Art chemistry, you are right. Plus a few other links say the same thing, though
countless chemistry papers (not blogs or such like) do not even mention this, why?
‘Calcination… is such a Separation of Bodies by Fire, as makes ‘em easily reducible into Powder; and for that reason ‘tis call’d by some
Chymical Pulverization.’ (John Friend, Chymical Lectures London, 1712)
Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. (William Penn 1644-1718)
The very nature of Random, Chance development precludes the existence of Order - strange that our organic and inorganic world is so well defined by
precision and law. (me)
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Mainly age of papers, I think.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Have a shuftie at Chevreul's Salt.
Copper in two oxidation states.
|
|
|
Ozone
International Hazard
Posts: 1269
Registered: 28-7-2005
Location: Good Olde USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Integrated
|
|
Well, you learn something new everyday. Damn, I must be getting old...They used to teach that the iron was present in multiple states.
O3
Edit-I suppose not, I misread Blogfast's post. Oops. This edit is just to avoid confusion for anyone reading the whole thread from the beginning.
[Edited on 3-12-2014 by Ozone]
-Anyone who never made a mistake never tried anything new.
--Albert Einstein
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4334
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Ozone | Well, you learn something new everyday. Damn, I must be getting old...They used to teach that the iron was present in multiple states.
|
It is. Fe7(CN)18·xH2O would have four Fe(II) and three Fe(III).
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
Ozone
International Hazard
Posts: 1269
Registered: 28-7-2005
Location: Good Olde USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Integrated
|
|
Ah, yes. I misread the following posts (busy at work), oops. And, here is some confirmation via Mossbauer spectroscopy (at least up to 1984):
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/24978...
Although, it looks as if there may be some room for speculative nit-picking on data interpretation:
"The asymmetry on the r.h.s. of the more intense peak indicates that the observed envelope is the sum of
two unresolved peaks. An investigation using an 56Fe labeled Prussian Blue39 substantiates this type of fitting, where both an Fe(III) (non-octahedral
symmetry) and Fe(II) (octahedral symmetry are present, as do our data for the analogues."
But, the plots looked pretty straight, to me.
O3
-Anyone who never made a mistake never tried anything new.
--Albert Einstein
|
|
|
CHRIS25
National Hazard
Posts: 951
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Ok, so this something new to me, copper and iron co-existing in two oxidation states, I had a look at Chevreul's Salt, will be doing that - on my list
now, looks interesting. Was this the same Michel Eugène Chevreul born in 1789? He seems to be famous for fatty acids and many other things, but no
mention about his 'salt'?
‘Calcination… is such a Separation of Bodies by Fire, as makes ‘em easily reducible into Powder; and for that reason ‘tis call’d by some
Chymical Pulverization.’ (John Friend, Chymical Lectures London, 1712)
Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. (William Penn 1644-1718)
The very nature of Random, Chance development precludes the existence of Order - strange that our organic and inorganic world is so well defined by
precision and law. (me)
|
|
|
CHRIS25
National Hazard
Posts: 951
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Tests to produce precise amounts of Ferrous and Ferric
Object here is to precipitate known ratios of Fe2+ and Fe3+
0.026m FeSO4 + 0.006m K3[Fe(CN)6] gave 11.1 grams Fe7(CN)18.14-16H2O precipitate
The stoichiometric ratios of reactants are 4 Ferrous ions to 1 Ferric ion, producing within the Fe7 part of the precipitate a
2Fe2+ and 1 Fe3+ -- is this logic correct? so that now I have a good understanding from which to
experiment further.
‘Calcination… is such a Separation of Bodies by Fire, as makes ‘em easily reducible into Powder; and for that reason ‘tis call’d by some
Chymical Pulverization.’ (John Friend, Chymical Lectures London, 1712)
Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. (William Penn 1644-1718)
The very nature of Random, Chance development precludes the existence of Order - strange that our organic and inorganic world is so well defined by
precision and law. (me)
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Have a look at that paper Ozone linked too.
In the older notation PB is written as Fe<sub>4</sub>[Fe(CN)<sub>6</sub>]<sub>3</sub>, which implies 4
Fe<sup>3+</sup> + 3 Fe<sup>2+</sup> which is +18 charges (not "four Fe(II) and three Fe(III)" as Draconic wrote: that only
gives 17+ charges and cannot accommodate 18 CN<sup>-</sup>
4 x (3+) + 3 x (2+) = 18+
Chris, mixing exactly stoichiometric amounts isn't really all that necessary here. If there was a little FeSO4 excess it would not react and simply
stay in solution. Similarly if there was a bit of K3Fe(CN)6 in excess. You need to filter and wash there precipitates anyway, so any excess reagent
will be washed out.
[Edited on 6-12-2014 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Another common mixed oxidation state iron compound is Magnetite:
Fe<sub>3</sub>O<sub>4</sub> = Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>.FeO
2 Fe(III) for each Fe(II).
If you precipitate from a mixed Fe(III),Fe(II) solution with sodium hydroxide (or ammonia solution), you obtain a black precipitate, i.e. Magnetite,
which as the name implies responds to magnets (see also 'ferrofluid' magnetic liquids).
[Edited on 6-12-2014 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
CHRIS25
National Hazard
Posts: 951
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | Have a look at that paper Ozone linked too.
In the older notation PB is written as Fe<sub>4</sub>[Fe(CN)<sub>6</sub>]<sub>3</sub>, which implies 4
Fe<sup>3+</sup> + 3 Fe<sup>2+</sup>
[Edited on 6-12-2014 by blogfast25] |
Sorry as far as Ozone's paper is concerned, First I have to weed out the information that is a total foreign language to me and then I am left with
nothing to read that makes any sense anyway, I will never ever reach that point in chemistry.
Secondly this is getting annoying why the hell are there two different methods/formulas for explaining the same formula for Potassium
Hexocyanoferrate? They don't even appear to be conveying the same data. Sorry. The Fe4 "version" clearly tells me that there are 4 ions
bonded to each Fe(CN) complex with the charges as you explained, 4 x 3+ and 3 x 2+ balancing out the -18 charge on that Fe4. BUT, The
Fe7 "version" blows my mind away. this means 7 Fe ions attached to the Fe(CN) complex and so to equal -18 we now have what? I an=know I
am an awkward learner in chemistry, sorry, but I am trying so hard to get to grips with this.
[Edited on 6-12-2014 by CHRIS25]
‘Calcination… is such a Separation of Bodies by Fire, as makes ‘em easily reducible into Powder; and for that reason ‘tis call’d by some
Chymical Pulverization.’ (John Friend, Chymical Lectures London, 1712)
Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. (William Penn 1644-1718)
The very nature of Random, Chance development precludes the existence of Order - strange that our organic and inorganic world is so well defined by
precision and law. (me)
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by CHRIS25 | | Secondly this is getting annoying why the hell are there two different methods/formulas for explaining the same formula for Potassium
Hexocyanoferrate? |
I'm not sure whether you realise this but there are indeed 2 versions of 'Potassium Hexacyanoferrate'. namely Potassium Hexacyanoferrate(II) and
Potassium Hexacyanoferrate(III).
In the (II) version the iron is in oxidation state (II) and the anion is Fe(CN)<sub>6</sub><sup>4-</sup> and it requires 4 K
ions for neutrality, so its formula is: K4Fe(CN)6. It is yellow in colour.
In the (III) version the iron is in oxidation state (III) and the anion is Fe(CN)<sub>6</sub><sup>3-</sup> and it requires 3 K
ions for neutrality, so its formula is: K3Fe(CN)6. It is red in colour.
Prussian Blue or Turnbull's Blue can be prepared in two ways:
1. add a ferrous salt solution to a solution of Potassium Hexacyanoferrate(III)
2. add a ferric salt solution to a solution of Potassium Hexacyanoferrate(II)
Both create deeply blue precipitates which for a long time were considered similar yet separate compounds. Further research showed them to be
identical and of the formula Fe<sub>7</sub>(CN)<sub>18</sub>.xH<sub>2</sub>O, with an Fe(II)/Fe(III) ratio as
explained above.
I accept that it is confusing, additionally because as the paper explains:
"In the preparation of the compound which has
been called “Turnbull’s blue” but which is actually
Prussian Blue, it is clear that linkage isomerism or
oxidation-reduction has occurred."
So initially the two precipitates are not identical but one of them converts immediately to the same chemical structure as the other, because of this
internal oxidation-reduction. Both precipitates thus end up being the same compound, despite different preparation methods.
Not easy.
[Edited on 6-12-2014 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
bismuthate
National Hazard
Posts: 803
Registered: 28-9-2013
Location: the island of stability
Member Is Offline
Mood: self reacting
|
|
The iron in the ferrocyanide ion has an oxidation state different from the iron ion is what I always remember.
My question is why ferrate/perferrate are used interchangeably.
And ferrite at that. Geeze we need more studies done on ferrates (IV,V, and VI)
[Edited on 6-12-2014 by bismuthate]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Potassium ferrocyanide and ferricyanide are probably more correct names than hexacyanoferrate. Ferrate should probably be reserved for Fe(VI), like
FeO<sub>4</sub><sup>2-</sup>.
Squabbling over nomenclature isn't very interesting though.
Stoichiometrically the transition from Turnbull's Blue to Prussian Blue is probably like this:
2 Fe<sub>3</sub>[Fe(CN)<sub>6</sub>]<sub>2</sub> === > Fe<sub>7</sub>(CN)<sub>18</sub>
+ 3 Fe(CN)<sub>2</sub>
That 'ejection' of Fe(II) restores the Fe(III)/Fe(II) balance to Prussian Blue's.
No, not really. The complex is a fairly straightforward coordination complex of Fe(III). It shows all the characteristics of a strong complex.
[Edited on 6-12-2014 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4334
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
| Quote: | | Potassium ferrocyanide and ferricyanide are probably more correct names than hexacyanoferrate. Ferrate should probably be reserved for Fe(VI), like
FeO<sub>4</sub><sup>2-</sup>. |
I strongly disagree.
| Quote: | | Squabbling over nomenclature isn't very interesting though. |
Well, okay, that, I can't argue with...
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
On what grounds?
Wiki lists potassium ferrocyanide, then goes on to state the IUPAC name is "Potassium hexacyanidoferrate(II)". It's the 'do' that makes me laugh...
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
