Talk:Redox

message: Oxidation should be merged into this article!!! Reduction (chemistry) redirects to Oxidation. See Talk:Oxidation#Merge?.
210.50.105.135 12:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I think this subject article would be better if the topic titration is added to it.
Why? What does titration have to do with redox? 208.193.132.253
Haha, not only are these totally different topics, acid/base reactions (transfer of H+ protons) are almost the exact OPPOSITE of redox reactions (transfer of e- electrons), so it's a humorous question, chemistry-wise. Jhum101 10:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add titration to this article! 

message: Chemical reactions should be denoted by "=", not by "→".  The latter implies a net forward reaction, while the former implies a stoichiometric equation or an equilibrium (IUPAC,Italic text Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical ChemistryItalic text, 2005).
This nomenclature emphasizes the thermodynamic reversibility of the reaction, the associated equilibrium constant, and (in the case of redox reactions) the associated redox potential.
Thus A + B = C + D implies K = exp(-ΔG/RT).
Btarski 18:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Usually you are interested in a chemical reaction because you want to make something that you don't have out of something else that you do have. It's true that some equations are equilibrium in the plain sense (equilibrium constant is not on the order of 10^40), in which case you denote them by a double arrow, but many reactions, such as corrosion, fire, combustion, or most chemical laboratory executable reactions do get driven in one particular direction, because your equilibrium K is huge, in which case using the arrow should be fine, you're denoting your intent, what you're attempting to make, there should be nothing wrong with conveying that extra information in your equation. Anyone with a proper chemistry education will know that every reaction is always an equilibrium reaction. For instance, magnesium will react with silicon dioxide to form magnesium oxide and silicon, but in the Pidgeon Process it's the other way around. The arrow you use denotes your intent, which way you're driving the reaction, whether towards making magnesium metal from silicon and magnesium oxide, or making silicon out of magnesium and silicon dioxide. Sillybilly 03:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardized Nomenclature  

message: I agree with the points about chemical reactions, they should definitely use arrows. However, I also think that when giving examples of redox reactions, we should use the standardized notation of putting the charge after the number for ions only. For example, when talking about oxidation states, using -2 for O makes more sense than 2-, since 2- denotes that oxygen is an ion. However, sometimes (especially in double replacement reactions) an ionic compound can be broken up and and reformed into covalent compounds. Since charge different must always be equal, one must still look at the charges of the elements, so you should use -2 in all cases just in case there are no ions (e.g. 2H02 + O02 -> 2H+12O-2) -Mirag3 21:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxidation State Notation 

message: The half-reaction method for balancing redox reactions should be added here. Morphine 23:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half-Reaction Method 

message: Electronegativity is only for individual atoms, not allotropes of elements. Kr5t 19:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electronegativity is for atoms 

message: This article could use a description of what a poised reaction is, and why poise is a significant concept when working with redox.
Vague references to optimal redox poise is all I have so far.   -- Paleorthid 03:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, so good.  It seems to be all about finding the optimal ambient redox potential in the reaction center for fitting a certain model of a cyclic electron transfer metabolic pathway.  I'm a bit hazy about the progressive pre-reduction business, but it also refers to the redox potential.  The "poise" is probably a potential found by the titration experiments at which the reaction rates imply no tendency to go one way or the other.  The dynamics of cytochrome reactions in heme ought to be a fascinating and profitable area of research, especially for marathon runners, but I never got past 450. :) Unfree (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poise 

message: A typical dictionary definition of oxidize would be:
1. To combine with oxygen; make into an oxide.
2. To increase the positive charge or valence of (an element) by removing electrons.
3. To coat with oxide.
By linking oxidize to Redox we are ignoring the broader definition.  
Gregogil 19:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.  DMacks 19:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxidize links to this page. 

message: Adding the reactions of H2O2 and Fe together is misleading since it leads to fenton's reagent. Why not use an example that is real?
wikipedia says on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenton%27s_reagent that 
(1) Fe2+ + H2O2 → Fe3+ + OH· + OH−
(2) Fe3+ + H2O2 → Fe2+ + OOH· + H+
In the net reaction the presence of iron is truly catalytic and two molecules of hydrogen peroxide are converted into two hydroxyl radicals and water. The generated radicals then engage in secondary reactions. Iron(II) sulfate is a typical iron compound in Fenton's reagent.
Here is something else interesting according to wikipedia on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2O2 
Oxidant Oxidation potential, V 
Fluorine 3.0 
Hydroxyl radical 2.8 
Ozone 2.1 
Hydrogen peroxide 1.8 
Potassium permanganate 1.7 
Chlorine dioxide 1.5 
Chlorine 1.4 
I read somewhere that fenton's reagent occurs under acidic condition with about a pH of 3 to 6. Then a much more powerfull oxidizing solution occurs. Why not pick an example that is true in reality and not oversimplified freshman BS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.79.200.162 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fenton's Reagent 

message: I just changed a page (Sarett_oxidation) where it was spelled oxidised to oxidized, and sombody changed it back... Both words get this page when searching. Is that the american vs english way to spell the world?
ChristianB 11:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, the Rambunctious Colonies use the "z", the Tea-Drinkers the "s". See WP:ENGVAR for the main Wikipedia guideline about this issue. DMacks 00:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling oxidized vs oxidised

message: Isn't there the mnemonic OIL RIG to help with whether the reaction has a loss or gain in electrons? --JustWong (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several (at least!) mnemonics to help remember what's happening in a redox reaction. Read the above "#Mnemonic Devices" section to see why they are not in the article. DMacks (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: OIL RIG: Oxidation Is Loss (of electrons); Reduction is Gain (of electrons). Ah, high school chem memories! Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 01:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OIL RIG 

message: I can't understand this. What does this mean? What does the slash (/) signify? Is it a logical "and", "or", or "equivalent to"? Is the loss of an electron the same as a loss of hydrogen? Is the loss of an electron always accompanied by a loss of hydrogen? Can oxidation be either the loss of an electron or a loss of hydrogen? 
It can be explained in simple terms:
* Oxidation describes the loss of electrons / hydrogen or gain of oxygen / increase in oxidation state by a molecule, atom or ion.
* Reduction describes the gain of electrons / hydrogen or a loss of oxygen / decrease in oxidation state by a molecule, atom or ion.
:Agree and took out the hydrogen and oxygen from the "simple terms" explanation. Vsmith (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can somebody explain these "simple terms"?  

message: If oxidation state isn't quite accurate, and oxidation number is, why even mention "state"?  (If it's an important subject, it deserves an article.)  Also (since I've already changed "describes" to "is"), why not put "increase in oxidation number" in parentheses immediately following "oxidation", and state simply that it "is a loss of electrons by ..."? Unfree (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: State versus number

message: Can We add a line about Oxidation reaction is mostly an exothermic reactoin.
i.e whenever an oxidation reaction takes place. heat(Energy) is released. This energy is actually used by many living organism for sustainence.
Ap aravind (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Heat might not escape if you oxidize gold for example, which is very difficult to oxidize. --Cheminterest (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Exothermic Reactions

message: If "redox" really is a shorthand for "reduction-oxidation reaction" as the introduction says - why does the article all way long have the sentences "redox reaction [...]"? --Christian75 (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds inconsistent yes. I fixed it (took out "reaction" in the parenthetical). I think the shorthand-for comment was for the bolded parts ("reduction-oxidation" only), not the whole phrase. Maybe it was originally "redox reactions, shorthand for reduction-oxidation reactions" or some other more obviously parallel wording? And maybe it should be that way? Is the thing really "redox", or is it more correctly a unified phrase "redox reaction" for the article topic? DMacks (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

text: This is actually the reason I came to this page today. It seems that oxred is harder to say than redox, but also that reduction-oxidation is (slightly) harder to say than oxidation-reduction. It does seem strange, though. Gah4 (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  If "redox" is shorthand for "reduction-oxidation reaction" - why ... 

message: Hello. I am the Wikipedian-in-Residence at the Children's Museum of Indianapolis, which is opening a new permanent exhibit this weekend that includes Captain Kidd's Cannon as one of its central artifacts. They are placing QR codes to Wikipedia articles in the exhibit and were interested in a few articles being updated with more specific information about electrolytic reduction in regards to iron and salt water. The museum has a lot of research & videos regarding the conservation of the cannon and we'd like to share these with Wikipedians to update appropriately (perhaps in the redox article, the William Kidd and Captain Kidd's Cannon articles.) Is there someone available with enough basic knowledge to be able to write intelligently about this? Thanks so much.LoriLee (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly give it a try. I don't know anything about the cannon itself, but redox is pretty straightforward (despite how confusingly it's often taught!) given known chemicals as reactants and products. Probably goes best in the article about the cannon itself, since it sounds like just one specific application of this very general chemistry idea (nothing special or new in regards to redox or the person). DMacks (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with Captain Kidd's cannon 

message: Does anyone know whether this happens or not? 82.36.181.113 (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer Thankyou User:Vespine 82.36.181.113 (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Oxidisation]] of [[Polyethylene]]

message: Should the title of this article be changed to Oxidation-reduction reaction, which is the correct term? Redox is just an abbreviation which can be explained in the first paragraph, and maintained as a redirect of course. Dirac66 (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That previous discussion seems to be about not having two separate articles, one for Oxidation and one for Reduction. I agree that the articles should be combined since you can't have Oxidation without Reduction and vice versa. But I think the title of the combined article should be the complete term Oxidation-Reduction reaction, rather than an abbreviation. Dirac66 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I hope you mean redirect rather than stub. We do have a redirect now, so if a reader searches for oxidation-reduction s/he is pointed to this article. A stub in wikispeak would be another short article called oxidation-reduction in addition to this article on redox, and I think there is no need for that. Dirac66 (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested move to Oxidation-reduction reaction 

message: In the quest for sustainable energy source, fuel cell is an alternative which replace the carbonaceous fossil fuel. Among many kinds of fuel cell, the oxidation of hydrogen is a representative reaction where oxygen is reduced. In anode hydrogen is oxidized and changed into proton and electron then the electron flow to cathode through circuit. The reduction of oxygen into water together with proton which comes through electrolyte, and electron is crucial step for hydrogen burning cell where oxygen reduction reaction is so important. Therefore many catalysts for oxygen reduction reaction are developing.
This might be applied to reverse reaction of water splitting solar fuel cell where water is decomposed into hydrogen and oxygen. This is first step for artificial photosynthesis where the reduction of CO2 with hydrogen follows. For this refer to artificial leaf.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.248.249.89 (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We have another article on the fuel cell. Dirac66 (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  oxygen reduction reaction needs independent page 

message: Here in this article HF is said to have ionic bond. But we were taught that HF is a co-valent compund with molecular structure and having hydrogen bond too. But here the equations and diagrams seems to say that it is an ionic bond. Which is true? Or are the words "ionic compound" and "co-valent compound" are loosely defined words? Can we define it properly?--G.Kiruthikan (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, HF is not an ionic compound. It is molecular in the gas phase, and is only a weak acid in water. The molecule HF does have a polar covalent bond, and yes, there are also hydrogen bonds between the molecules. This article (in the section Examples of redox reactions) analyzes the reaction of H2 and F2 as a series of steps. It is true that the ions H+ and F- are formed in one step, but the final step is that the ions combine to form HF which has a covalent bond. In reality the steps may not even occur separately - this is just one way of understanding the overall reaction. They would be separate however if the reaction is arranged to occur in an electrochemical cell, with H+ formed at the anode and F- at the cathode, and then meeting to form the final covalent molecule. Dirac66 (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you--G.Kiruthikan (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is HF an ionic compound? 

message: Could someone discuss photo-oxidation such as in the aging of asphalt roofing products. Thank you. Jim Derby (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We have articles on Photo-oxidation of polymers and Photooxygenation. Dirac66 (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo-oxidation 

message: Hi everybody! I am asking myself if a statement like "acidity causes oxidation" can be correct in a general sense. Iron oxidizes under acidic conditions and also the oxidation states in the reaction given here under "Acidic media" increase strongly (while consuming acid). Can you therefore say that chemicals tend to oxidize in acidic media?--Polis Tyrol (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Some reactions may be acid-catalysed, but one cannot make a general statement that "acidity causes oxidation". The "Acidic media" section describes how redox equations are balanced in acidic conditions. Please also note that talk pages should be used to discuss improvements to the relevant article; questions unrelated to Wikipedia should be directed to the reference desk. Adabow (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your answer and the comment. However, if a statement like that would be generally correct, this would be of great interest also for the Wikipedia article.--Polis Tyrol (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxidation and acidity 

message: I know on some articles they have a box on the right which shows where the current article fits into the greater scope of science. Such as the page on Machine learning or Plants. Redox has a place in the scope of chemical reactions, and being able to quickly navigate through related concepts on the right without scrolling to "See Also" would be tremendously helpful. Jobonki (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemistry Series?  

message: Why wouldn't the oxidation state depend on the electronegativity of the elements involved?  In the case H2 + F2 -> 2HF, it says that H is oxidized by 1.  But doesn't this depend on how "much" the electrons are shared between H and F?  If H and F shared them equally (i.e. if H and F had the same electronegativity), wouldn't there be no oxidation of H at all?  After all, before the reaction, H is sharing electrons equally with H in the H2, so if it were still sharing them equally with F in the HF, why would there be any change in oxidation?  But since they are not shared equally, and F has higher electronegativity than H, it makes sense to say that F "holds more of the electron" than H, and hence there is oxidation of H.  But unless the bond is ionic, F is not holding 100% of the electron, so the oxidation change to H should be less than 1.  If this is wrong, I'd like to see the article explain why.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedtoal (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: First note that new topics on the talk page should be placed at the end so I have moved your question. The answer is that the oxidation state is defined as the fictitious charge that an atom would have if all bonds to atoms of different elements were 100% ionic, with no covalent electron sharing. So the oxidation states in HF are +1 for H and -1 for F, even though we know that these are not the real charges and the molecule is not really ionic. These fictitious charges are explained more fully in the oxidation state article and are useful for balancing redox equations. I will add the brief definition above to this article. Dirac66 (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Electronegativity and electron sharing clarification please

message: The intro currently says, "A reduction reaction always occurs with an oxidation reaction." But that could mean any of the following things. Which is right? --170.225.12.33 (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The third is correct. There is a whole paragraph amplifying/explaining that aspect a few lines down in in the intro section, with things like "redox reactions are a matched set, that is, there cannot be an oxidation reaction without a reduction reaction happening simultaneously." The sentence you noticed is just one of the topic sentences for the whole intro section. I agree it was possibly unclearly written (though those are the same/similar terms I often see in textbooks) and definitely a surprising or non-obvious idea that can be pretty important. I rewrote the sentence to more clearly state that they always occur together. DMacks (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They must occur together, but not necessarily in the same place. You can probably survive a small charge imbalance, so it might not be exactly the same time. Gah4 (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: I propose that we add a section on balancing redox reactions. Specifically, the steps needed (e.g. break into half reactions, balance equations (including hydrogen and oxygen), add electrons to both reactions, multiply by the number of electrons in each reaction, combine the reactions). This would be pretty helpful to new readers.
Here's the detailed list from a reputable source:.http://www.cabrillo.edu/~aromero/CHEM_1A/1A_Handouts/Balancing%20Redox%20Reactions.pdf
If anyone is interested in this, please comment below.
Neilc314 (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As a starting point, we now have section 9.Balancing redox reactions. However it is incomplete because it only considers reactions in aqueous solution. Dirac66 (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with user  Neilc314!.--AlfaRocket (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a section on balancing a redox reaction? 

message: Should disproportionation be mentioned, such as in the section on corrosion and rusting? It is pretty important. Gah4 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure...that article even states it's a type of redox. And Cannizzaro reaction is an organic example. Go for it! DMacks (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added a short paragraph with a definition and one example, both from the same source. Dirac66 (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Disproportionation]] 

message: Backwards take on redox
Just checking solubilities and Uranium Dioxide (+4) is insoluble but oxidized Uranyl (+6) salts are soluble. The opposite of your text. Wikipedia articles verify Uranium solubility. You ref Navahoe sandstone, so you should know that "Four Corners" coal (a reducing environment) is associated with Uranium deposits in that area. Uranium captured by coal is the cause of radioactivity released by coal burning powerplants. Shjacks45 (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops re Uranium 

message: I searched for "oxidation" looking for info on why a peeled apple turns brown and was redirected to this "redox" page. I have two comments: First, this article is highly technical, which "sciencey" people will likely appreciate, but it may be difficult for a general audience. Second, the article mentions oxidation in relation to metal (rust, corrosion) and geography, is it possible to mention food either as a subsection or under "see also"? After more searching I discovered that the article that was more germane to my query is "food browning," which states "enzymatic browning" is "also called oxidation of foods." Britannica for example states: "Oxidation-reduction reaction, also called redox reaction, any chemical reaction in which the oxidation number of a participating chemical species changes. The term covers a large and diverse body of processes. Many oxidation-reduction reactions are as common and familiar as fire, the rusting and dissolution of metals, the browning of fruit, and respiration and photosynthesis—basic life functions."
: I have similar discontents with this page. This page is about the redox reaction from the perspective of a chemist, but it would be better written for a general reader. I think a different introduction would go a long way - emphasizing rusting, food browning, and combustion, rather than describing in detail the movements of electrons. Then the details atomic physics can be in the body of the text.
:Also, "Oxidation" is a better name for this article than redox or a combination of oxidation and reduction. It seems to me that the WP:COMMONNAME for this reaction is "oxidation": I am a native English speaker and have never heard the term redox (I think not even in high school chemistry) but I have heard "oxidation" frequently. Google NGrams supports that, showing that oxidation is about four times more popular than redox or its variants.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsfigura (talk • contribs) 23:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Technical and what about food? 

message: If I am told that chemical X has been reduced, what does that tell me? Has it become less reactive? If I am told that chemical Y has been oxidised, what does that tell me? Has is become less reactive? You only have to read the comments to this article to see that reduction/oxidation confuses people. It is about keeping track of electrons. Wouldn't it be simpler just to talk about gain/loss of electrons? 'X gains electrons' is not much longer than 'X is reduced'. 'Loss-gain reaction' is not much longer than 'redox reaction'. Acorrector (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here is that chemistry books and papers generally do use the historical terms oxidized and reduced, so Wikipedia must report and explain the terms actually used by specialists in the subject. We can of course add mentions of electron loss and gain in order to better explain the terms oxidized and reduced. Dirac66 (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this way of talking actually tell help anyone? Pointless confusion? 

message: Balancing Redox Equation 102.89.23.91 (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that it would be a good idea to add a section on Balancing redox equations. And then to mention it in the article on Chemical equation. Dirac66 (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balancing Redox Equation