Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Reduction and Oxidation terms confusion ..?! Please help :) Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    So I have learnt this "phrase" that I've came up with inorder not to get mixed up with reduced and reduces for instance.
    So here it is:
    • Reducing agent is oxidised, it reduces something else - Oxidation.
    • Oxidising agent is reduced, it oxidises something else - Reduction.


    But at times this "phrase" doesn't seem to agree in some situations
    for instance:

    In my book it says: Cr2+ oxidises back to Cr3+
    and the reaction is called oxidation.
    *Shouldn't it be Cr2+ reduces back to Cr3+


    But in this case, the "phrase" is right:

    Halogens are reduced when the gain an electron. As they're reduced, they oxidise another substance, so they're oxidising agents.


    So my question is "phrase'' correct?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorable98)
    So I have learnt this "phrase" that I've came up with inorder not to get mixed up with reduced and reduces for instance.
    So here it is:
    • Reducing agentis oxidised, it reduces something else - Oxidation.
    • Oxidising agent is reduced, it oxidises something else - Reduction.
    But at times this "phrase" doesn't seem to agree in some situations
    for instance:

    In my book it says: Cr2+ oxidises back to Cr3+
    and the reaction is called oxidation.
    *Shouldn't it be Cr2+ reduces back to Cr3+


    But in this case, the "phrase" is right:

    Halogens are reduced when the gain an electron. As they're reduced, they oxidise another substance, so they're oxidising agents.


    So my question is "phrase'' correct?
    Ah your first example.
    Cr2+oxidises back to Cr3+
    It's oxidation because it lost an electron. It's become more positively charged so it had to lose electron.

    If it "oxidises back to something", that's just a lengthy way of saying "It's oxidised"
    So using your phrase, it should still be Cr2+ oxidises back to Cr3+, it reduces something else, hence, Oxidation.


    Your phrase is very much correct. But are you sure you understand it well enough?
    How come you don't like OILRIG?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I also learn "Agents deceive", cos like an oxidising agent actually get's reduced, not oxidised, so it's deceiving you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorable98)
    So I have learnt this "phrase" that I've came up with inorder not to get mixed up with reduced and reduces for instance.
    So here it is:
    • Reducing agentis oxidised, it reduces something else - Oxidation.
    • Oxidising agent is reduced, it oxidises something else - Reduction.
    But at times this "phrase" doesn't seem to agree in some situations
    for instance:

    In my book it says: Cr2+ oxidises back to Cr3+
    and the reaction is called oxidation.
    *Shouldn't it be Cr2+ reduces back to Cr3+


    But in this case, the "phrase" is right:

    Halogens are reduced when the gain an electron. As they're reduced, they oxidise another substance, so they're oxidising agents.


    So my question is "phrase'' correct?
    Its confusing but just try to remember them as opposites, if it is being oxidised, its the reducing agent, if its being reduced, its the oxidisng agent.

    Oxidising agents are electron acceptors, so logically, if something is being reduced it is gaining electrons so it accepts electrons, therefore its an oxiding agent.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    OILRIG
    Oxidation Is Loss Reduction Is Gain

    I try to remember it in terms of charges, because if you gain electrons, the overall charged is lower --> reduced
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I remember it as oxidation is loss of electrons and reduction is gain of electrons. That's always worked for me when doing oxidising/reducing agent stuff.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorable98)
    So I have learnt this "phrase" that I've came up with inorder not to get mixed up with reduced and reduces for instance.
    So here it is:
    • Reducing agentis oxidised, it reduces something else - Oxidation.
    • Oxidising agent is reduced, it oxidises something else - Reduction.
    But at times this "phrase" doesn't seem to agree in some situations
    for instance:

    In my book it says: Cr2+ oxidises back to Cr3+
    and the reaction is called oxidation.
    *Shouldn't it be Cr2+ reduces back to Cr3+


    But in this case, the "phrase" is right:

    Halogens are reduced when the gain an electron. As they're reduced, they oxidise another substance, so they're oxidising agents.


    So my question is "phrase'' correct?
    In a redox reaction if one species is oxidised (loses electrons), another must be reduced (gains electrons). Redox reactions are also called, electron transfer reactions, they involve the movement of electrons. In a balanced redox equation the number of electrons gained must be equal to the number of electrons loss. A shorter way to remember this is OILRIG (oxidation is loss, reduction is gain). Lets make it even easier; Cr2+ --> Cr3+ +e-, this has lost an electron, so therefore it's been oxidised and therefore the "oxidation state has increased", see how there's more plusses. Cr3+ +e---> Cr2, this has gained an electron and therefore the oxidation state has gone down. When the oxidation number decreases i.e. +3 to +2, reduction has occurred. So in reduction, oxidation state decreases and in oxidation, oxidation state increases (sorry if that was confusing haha XD). Now oxidising agents are electron acceptors (they are what cause another species to lose their electrons, hence oxidising agents), reducing agents are electron donors (they are what cause another species to get reduced). But as we said earlier if something is reduced another must be oxidised. So if a reducing agent is giving away electron, it's losing them it self, so therefore it's being oxidised itself. Finally, let do an example . CuO + Mg --> MgO + Cu, as this has ionic compounds, lets show their charges (oxidation states), to make it easier to see. [ (Cu2+) + (O2-) ]+ Mg --> [(Mg2+) + (O2-)] + Cu. As you can see copper has been reduced it has gained 2 electrons (cu2+ to cu) and Mg has been oxidised (lost two electrons). Can you see how this is balanced, the number of electrons gained is the number of electrons lost. Now as Magnesium is getting oxidised (it's a reducing agent, it has given away its electrons to copper), and as you can see copper has been reduced so copper has accepted the electrons (it has caused the magnesium to be oxidised as it has accepted its electrons, so it's an oxidising agent). Also the oxygen's oxidation state has remained the same, so it takes no part in the reaction, it's a spectator ion. Let me know if you're still confused Getting your head around it, can be hard
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.