which of the following are more reactive than tin

Writer:	Subject: How reactive are gallium and indium in the reactivity series?
ChemistryGhost Hazard to Others Posts: 111 Enrolled: 5-7-2012 Member Is Offline Mood: Supercooled
	How oxidizable are gallium and indium in the reactivity serial publication? Hello. I was wondering just how reactive are atomic number 31 and atomic number 49 in the reactivity series. Is information technology more labile than tin? The argentiferous reactivity serial publication. "Imaging is more key than knowledge" ~Einstein
CharlieA International Hazard Posts: 592 Documented: 11-8-2015 Location: Missouri, USA Appendage Is Offline Modality: No Mood
	In general, elements in the same family (vertical column) of the periodic table, which you power enjoy learning about, have similar chemical properties because they have the same number of valence electrons.
j_sum1 Decision maker Posts: 5603 Registered: 4-10-2014 Location: Oz Member Is Offline Mood: d joyous / dt > 0
	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_electrode_potential_(data_page) This has everything!
chornedsnorkack National Hazard Posts: 423 Registered: 16-2-2012 Extremity Is Offline Mood: Nary Mood
	You DO hold variations of electrode potential in radical arsenic well: B(OH)3(aq) + 3  H+ + 3 e− ⇌ B(s) + 3 H2O −0.89 Al3+ + 3 e− ⇌ Al(s) −1.662 Ga3+ + 3 e− ⇌ Ga(s) −0.53 In3+ + 3 e− ⇌ In(s) −0.34 Tl+ +  e− ⇌ Tl(s) −0.34 for the comparing: Fe2+ + 2 e− ⇌ Fe(s) −0.44 Ni2+ + 2 e− ⇌ Nickel(s) −0.25 Sn2+ + 2 e− ⇌ Sn(s) −0.13 On that page, though. several elements are missing for strictly comparable conditions.
j_sum1 Administrator Posts: 5603 Registered: 4-10-2014 Localization: Oz Member Is Offline Mood: d jolly / dt > 0
	Hah! I did the standard newbie error. You raised the question about the "responsiveness series" and I like a sho dived for the Activity serial. Not the assonant matter. Let me explain. The graphic you showed compares chemical reactions of metals and ranks them according to how energetic the reactions are – approximately ranking them by reaction rate which is a energizing thing. A few inferior but arbitrary reactions are used to determine the rank. But IT is not demanding to see that you could come up with a different senior for reactivity aside selecting different reactions. Reaction with chlorine flatulency for instance. Or maybe fermentation alcohol. The point is that it is not a particularly tight test and therefore not a particularly facilitative system for ranking metals. The Activity serial on the opposite hand is very reusable. The list seems almost identical at first sight. But then you note the positions of calcium and lithium and realise that something quite different is going on. Its better discover is the table of canonical reduction potentials. It is non a ranking of metals, merely kinda a senior of a very particular reduction reaction of the metallic ions. Put differently, not even considering other reactants, but sporting the movement of electrons. It is an ordered list of reactions and non an ordered list of reactants. (Harmful and I double myself but this is noteworthy.) The table is quantitative and not merely qualitative. The table is a measure of reaction potential. Therefore information technology relates to the energy of reactions and non the grade (which can be highly variable conditional conditions.) The table considers ther ionic species and not just the most common one that occurs in reactions with water and air. The table extends naturally to not-metallic elements and other species American Samoa well. So, although this little poster might look good on the wall of the high school lab, it really does non contain information that is that useful.
Syn the Sizer International Hazard Posts: 537 Registered: 12-11-2019 Location: Canada Member Is Offline
	The reactivity of an element is related to it's electronegativity is it not? You can tell how reactive an element is by chheckingb the negativity prorogue butt't you? https://www.ptable.com/#Property/Electronegativity Fluorine is most reactive with an negativity of 3.98 and Francium least with an electronegativity of 0.70. All others fall in between.
j_sum1 Administrator Posts: 5603 Registered: 4-10-2014 Location: Oz Phallus Is Offline Mood: d jolly / dt > 0
	To enunciat Fr actually exists in any kinda practical sentiency is a trifle of a stretch. Merely it can be expected to be akin to caesium. And no. I don't think back you could say that caesium is neutral. For certain, in that location are trends for all of these things in the periodic table. And therefore some correlation between them. Only "responsiveness", as in the aptness to submit material reactions, is in all probability the near vague and to the highest degree difficult thing to smash down. Is gold more operating theatre less thermolabile than carbon? Is lead more or to a lesser extent reactive than selenium? Is sodium more or less reactive than chlorine? What about rhenuim (which does not react with nitrohydrochloric acid) and platinum (which does not react with hypochlorite)? And what about ruddy phosphorus and lily-white phosphorus? Clearly in that respect is a lot more to consider than retributory what factor IT is. My thoughts are that Andy Brunning's chart (above) is somewhat useful for getting familiar the properties of whatsoever elements. But for any meaningful compare between elements we involve a more strictly defined metrical.
ChemistryGhost Hazard to Others Posts: 111 Enrolled: 5-7-2012 Phallus Is Offline Mood: Supercooled
	By reactivity I mean the property of a more activated metal precipitating a less reactive metal in pure form from its salts. Atomic number 30 chloride reacts with aluminum in anhydrous conditions under heat to make aluminium chloride and zinc antimonial, so aluminum is more reactive than Zn. Silver nitrate and copper react to form a precipitate of facile metal and pig nitrate resolution, sol copper is to a greater extent sensitive than silver. Thus the less electronegative component will precipitate the Thomas More electronegative element? So atomic number 30 and indium chloride or indium nitrate or indium sulfate testament make Zn salts and indium metal-looking? So zinc and gallium sulphate reacts to form gallium metal and zinc sulfate? How about gallium sulfate reacting with Fe. Operating theatre iron sulphate and Ga reaction. Soh loss from more reactive to little excited, is it zinc, indium, gallium, and iron, nickel, tin? Is it atomic number 30, iron, indium, gallium, nickel, Sn? [Edited on 21-7-2020 by ChemistryGhost] "Imagination is Sir Thomas More important than cognition" ~Einstein
j_sum1 Administrator Posts: 5603 Registered: 4-10-2014 Location: Oz Member Is Offline Mood: d jolly / dt > 0
	Quotation mark: Originally posted by ChemistryGhost Aside reactivity I normal the property of a more reactive metal precipitating a to a lesser extent reactive metallic-looking in unmingled form from its salts. [Altered connected 21-7-2020 aside ChemistryGhost] Which means you are comparing the elements according to their reduction expected (or oxidization potential which amounts to the same thing.) The wikipedia Page I cited is the thing you require. The graphic in the OP is actually display something quite different and the order of the elements is not the same. Li is in the wrong set for illustration. Few other things to note about the table of decrease potentials... It ranks reactions rather than metals. Therefore information technology tin give information on transition between Fe, Fe2+ and Fe3+ for example. The Wikipedia page usefully has the two reactions associated water in bold. This means that all the reactions between these two positions are reactions that behind be done in binary compound solution under authoritative conditions. Anything outside that zone on the list are reactions that require non-standard conditions such as molten salty electrolysis.
ChemistryGhost Hazard to Others Posts: 111 Registered: 5-7-2012 Member Is Offline Mood: Supercooled
	Table of reduction potentials. So gallium wish react with iron sulfate and make gallium sulfate and hasty robust bronze? Iron will react with indium sulphate to bring forth iron sulphate and indium metal? Ga will react with indium sulfate or indium chloride to produce atomic number 31 sulfate operating theater gallium chloride and In metal? And both gallium and indium are more reactive than nickel or canister? In the gallium beating heart reaction, gallium sulfate reacts with iron to imprint press sulfate and gallium. Only does that mean that gallium is the only unmatched they got awry negotiable of reduction potentials? Or are in that respect still some response where Ga precipitates Fe golden? I posted the table of reduction potentials. "Imagination is more main than noesis" ~Brainiac
j_sum1 Administrator Posts: 5603 Registered: 4-10-2014 Location: Oz Member Is Offline Mood: d jolly / dt > 0
	That table of yours is unfamiliar. I undergo ne'er seen Au utilized as the reference point for comparison potentials. H+ to H2 is the standard reference betoken used. I would not vouich for all the information it contains. That said, you appear to have pretty a good deal the correct interpretation of things. With ane consequential caution. Iron is weird. It does have some reduction reactions with potentials that fall inside the cooking stove of aqueous chemistry. But it is ne'er reduced this way in practice. Leastwise I have never heard of industry producing iron past electrolysis of aqueous solution. The summons usually requires good time furnaces and altitudinous temperature carbothermal reduction and dross chemistry and so forth. Cast-iron produces a range of oxides and hydroxides and complexes that are favoured over the formation of Fe(s) in the comportment of water. So while the table may suggest Ga replaces Fe2+ with the formation of Fe all-metal, I don't consider this happens in practice.
chornedsnorkack General Hazard Posts: 423 Certified: 16-2-2012 Penis Is Offline Humor: No Humor
	Quotation: Originally posted by j_sum1 Quote: Originally posted by ChemistryGhost By responsiveness I base the prop of a to a greater extent reactive metal precipitating a less reactive metal in fine form from its salts. [Altered on 21-7-2020 by ChemistryGhost] Which means you are comparing the elements accordant to their reduction potential (or oxidation electric potential which amounts to the same matter.) The wikipedia page I cited is the thing you need. The graphic in the OP is actually showing something quite different and the order of magnitude of the elements is not the indistinguishable. Lithium is in the wrong lay out for deterrent example. A couple of other things to bank bill active the table of reduction potentials... Information technology ranks reactions rather than metals. Therefore it can give information on transition between Fe, Fe2+ and Fe3+ for instance. The Wikipedia page usefully has the 2 reactions related to water in bold. This means that all the reactions 'tween these two positions are reactions that commode equal done in aqueous solution under standard conditions. Anything outside that zone happening the list are reactions that require non-standard conditions much Eastern Samoa molten sharp electrolysis. No. What it gives is the equilibrium allowed reactions with sedimentary ions. For deterrent example, consider equilibrium between lithium and sodium. You could get a small amount of energy by reacting metal lithium with aqueous solution of Na salt and causative antimonial sodium out of binary compound solution. But that reaction won´t happen, because the some faster response is response of golden lithium with water. The order of reactivity is likewise not generally incisively the same in unproductive table salt as in sedimentary solution. If you react dry Li chloride with sodium metal, the equilibrium mightiness get on the broadside of sodium chloride and lithium bimetal only lithium chloride might have the bigger heat of hydration. Happening the another end, hydrogen peroxide and permanganic acid both secrete a lot of energy by evolving oxygen. Yet they exist, and function as strong oxidants. It is likely that iron out is indocile to come down out of root - because any reducer strong enough to quash iron would reduce hydrogen rather than press.
ChemistryGhost Hazard to Others Posts: 111 Registered: 5-7-2012 Penis Is Offline Mode: Supercooled
	Sol the table of reducing potentials happens without electrolysis? And the metal that's a stronger reductant precipitates the weaker reductant metal from IT's salts? With the exception of iron with iron beingness higher than gallium. If then than ok. So the metals would live like in the set back of reduction potentials except that gallium is lower while iron is higher. So gallium would be more reactive than Cd. And indium would be more reactive than can. And nickel is more reactive than molybdenum. [Edited on 25-7-2020 by ChemistryGhost] [Edited happening 25-7-2020 by ChemistryGhost] "Imagination is more important than cognition" ~Einstein
chornedsnorkack Home Fortune Posts: 423 Registered: 16-2-2012 Member Is Offline Mood: No Climate
	Information technology´s pretty much the same conditions as electrolysis. Basically, battery and electrolysis at the Saami time. Cite: Originally posted aside ChemistryGhost And the metal that's a stronger reductant precipitates the weaker reductant metal from it's salts? With the exception of iron with iron being high than gallium. If so than ok. So the metals would be like in the table of reduction potentials except that Ga is lower while iron is higher. No exceptions here. Iron is hard to precipitate from aqueous result, whether by electrolysis or past vindicatory putting a stronger reductant metal in, for the same reason that sodium and all other fresh reductant metals are al dente to precipitate. The cathode - whether it is charged away external emf or being the more thermolabile metal that itself provides the voltage - if it is disconfirming enough to abridge iron, it testament reduce atomic number 1 as an alternative. For the Sami reason, it should exist hard to precipitate gallium with a more reactive gold-bearing such as atomic number 30 or chromium.
fusso International Fortune Posts: 1906 Registered: 23-6-2017 Location: 4 ∥ universes ahead of you Member Is Offline
	i dun think so, Ga is liquid at slimly higher temp so IT can form as a liquid blob.
chornedsnorkack National Hazard Posts: 423 Registered: 16-2-2012 Extremity Is Offline Modality: No Mood
	The liquifiable state of Ga should non in itself favour its reduction complete that of hydrogen, any more than the liquid state of Cs does. But what Crataegus oxycantha beryllium relevant is the hydrogen overvoltages at various surfaces. For exercise, a Pt cathode has a strong tendency to evolve H2, while Hg cathode is notably immune to doing so, and still reduces base metals rather than hydrogen. How prone is a liquid atomic number 31 cathode to evolve hydrogen from urine?
ChemistryGhost Stake to Others Posts: 111 Recorded: 5-7-2012 Member Is Offline Mood: Supercooled
	So the table of reduction potentials is correct? So how come cast-iron reacts with gallium sulfate to produce gallium metal? Here is silver precipitating from silver nitrate and copper. https://youtu.be/1NKI0gxbQZA Here is gallium sulphate reacting with iron to produce gallium metal and atomic number 26 sulphate. Gallium hurried. https://youtu.be/g8Tc-5pUbH8 [Edited on 26-7-2020 aside ChemistryGhost] "Imagination is more important than knowledge" ~Einstein

which of the following are more reactive than tin

Source: https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=155840