Talk:Potassium osmate
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Structure
I'm slightly confused by the structure for this. If K2[OsO2(OH)4] is composed of Os=O and Os-OH then what are the K+ coordinating to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Project Osprey (talk • contribs) 08:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good point, it has to bind to something. Based on the xray report, K+ is bound to the rather basic Os=O and although I didnt read it, OH ligands. It's always like that in anhydrous salts. Probably 6 coordinate.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. Although you'd expect that would lead to different Os-OH bond lengths - unless the K+ are binding 2 OH each? At any rate it seems like something in there is a non-innocent ligand. Project Osprey (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- The interaction of K+ with ligands is not that great of a perturbation. K+ is not the electrophile that H+ is, owing to its charge to radius. And it is probably six coordinated so its mild electrophilic influence is distributed. Oxides could be viewed as non-innocent to the extent that one can turn on/off the triple bond character (as in OsVIIIO4), although I have never thought of oxide that way. Interesting angle but typically redox changes on oxides are more localized on M, not ligands. For example, reduction of OsO4 gives a well characterized anion OsO4- (like Tetrapropylammonium perruthenate and in that case the oxidation state change is localized on Os, so card-carrying inorganickers would not classify that oxide ligand as non-innocent.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hello! I`m not a chemist but I would say the formular is wrong. In the depicted case Osmium has a oxidation state of +8 and not +6 and the charge of the osmate ion is 0 and not -2. See also: http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/209104?lang=de®ion=DE Kind regards Hannes 13:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.210.109 (talk)
Category
Why is this article included in the category oxides instead of categ salts?--82.137.13.86 (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)