Talk:Reactivity series

Periodic Table w/ colors

I think that this page would benefit from having one of the periodic tables on it. I've started one; the WIP is at Talk:Reactivity series/wip. riking8 (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC) [Edited at 17:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)]

Potassium should be above Sodium

in the simplified reactivity series, sodium should be below potassium as potassium have one more shell than sodium which is far from the nucleus and is readily able to be lost.

Hellclanner (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a metals chemist, but I am an engineer and chemistry teacher. Looking to the CRC standard reduction potentials, the ordering is Li -3.405V, K -2.924V, Na - 2.7109V. Why isn't this consistent with the listed reaction series? I am well aware of general periodic trends which is what you are quoting. But isn't reactivity in a replacement reaction, which is an oxidation-reduction reaction, governed by reduction potential? This is what I was generally taught to go by, not a list of reactivity series...although the list that I have in a couple of handy texts agrees with the reduction potential ordering.

Previous respondents: I am a professional metals chemist. This series is indeed correct. If you read the article carefully, you will find the explanation. This series, and perhaps your confusion relating to the UK-US difference, is a RE-activity series, where most likely an American text book will show you an Activity series.

If sodium is to be placed above potassium then what about ceasium and francium?182.55.242.11 (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC) K is indeed more reactive than Na, which is indeed more reactive than Li. This can be proven with a simple experiment in which you drop a small piece of each metal into separate beakers of water. The reason, as described below, is that reactivity increases as you go down a group on the Periodic Table. Li finds its valence (outer shell, reacting) electrons in the second shell, relatively close to the nucleus, from which the protons exhert a hold on the electrons. Na finds its valence electrons is the third shell, slightly farther away from the nucleus and therefore the protons exhibit less attractive force on the valence electrons. Consequently, Na loses that valence electron just a little bit easier that Li does. And so on, all the way down to Francium. Before you post to a public forum, please educate yourself to the facts. As one respondent notes below, s/he is no chemistry expert. Why, then, are you trying to provide an explanation for something you obviously don't understand? 216.41.78.78Mercury42

KOH + Li

^^ I think what he was implying is "isn't Li more reactive than K?" I'm no chemistry expert though.

No. Reactivity increases as one goes down group one due to increasing size of atom and a weakening hold on the outermost election. The most reactive is therefore Francium. But that is a very uncommon element indeed. This table reflects common elements and this is what is commonly taught (in UK schools at least). --LukeSurl 18:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that LukeSurl is right, however, I searched other websites. [1]Give me confusing results, even the equasion they used at the start for examples. I thought Zinc could only react in acid, and not water. Clarification anyone?

This series definitely is wrong. Li should be at the top (http://www.unr.edu/sb204/geology/mas.html). I think there are other errors too.--gregory.brockman

Don't belive everything you read. This rather page from the BBC [2] would suggest otherwise, as well as a host of other pages. It appears there is a US-UK thing going on here. US pages suggest a Lithium headed table whilst UK pages a Potassium headed one (though there are exceptions in either case). It would appear that it depends upon how one defines the series.

Some searching reveals that the UK tables are defined by displacement reactions and the US ones upon Standard electrode potential as the list corresponds exactly with that of Table_of_standard_electrode_potentials.

Thus for the considerations and qualifiers given in the article, which I will now reinforce, the Potassium table is applicable--LukeSurl 13:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I have to say silver reacts with acids, so why is it not higher on the table?

Silver is below hydrogen in the Reactivity Series and so does not react with acids. 86.157.96.38 (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Silver only reacts with oxidizing acids.

Lithium "pushes away" its electron with a greater force than any other metal, but it does not give it away fast. So lithium would have the most voltage in a standard electrode potential chart, but other alkali metals would be more reactive on the activity series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheminterest (talk • contribs) 21:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reactivity

I think this statement needs more clarification.

Metals with a greater total number of electrons tend to be more reactive as their outermost electrons (the ones which will be lost) exist further from the positive nucleus and therefore they are held less strongly.

For instance, Lead has more electrons than Lithium, yet Lithium is more reactive. I suggest this phrasing.

Heavy metals tend to have their valence electrons in a shell further from the nucleus, so tend to give them up more easily because the nucleus imparts weaker attractive force on them.

Heavy metals like lead have four valence electrons to give away, while alkali metals such as lithium have only one. --Cheminterest (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reactivity level

There should be a reactivity number. The reactivity number range from 0-5 or 0-10. Cosmium 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Pauling scale rates elements according to electronegativity, while the standard electrode potential chart rates elements according to the force that they give away or accept electrons. --Cheminterest (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

UK v. US Tables

Could we display both the UK and the US versions of the table? And which one is currently displayed? --SuperCow 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

--Cheminterest (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)== Explain the difference between REactivity and activity ==

I am a high school chemistry student (in America) and this table of reactivity is very different from the activity series in our text book, which is what we use to determine if a single-displacement reaction will occur or not. For example, in our textbook lithium is above potassium as others have stated above.

Could you add a line of clarification on this topic please?

Also it might be helpful to say more that just "reacts with water" and "reacts with acids." Mg, Al, Mn, Zn, Cr, Fe, and Cd all will react with steam. Additionally Sb, Bi, Cu, and Hg react with oxygen while Ag, Pt, and Au do not. This may be obvious to you, but for the rest of us it would be helpful if someone could add it to the table.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.10.187 (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Your textbooks are all wrong then. Potassium is way more reactive than lithium is. Just put some in water. This is because of increased electron shielding. The Reactivity Series and the Electrochemical Series are two similar, but slightly different series. The Reactivity Series is based on displacement reactions, and the Electrochemical Series is based on the electrode potential needed to produce a metal from electrolysis. The Reactivity Series is more commonly used in the UK, and the Electrochemical Series, from what I gather, is more commonly used in the US, and potassium is above lithium in both of them, so your textbooks are wrong. The differences include Sodium being above Calcium in the Reactivity Series, and Calcium being above Sodium in the Electrochemical Series, the reason for this being that metals with higher valencies tend to be higher in the Electrochemical Series, because more electrons are needed to produce each atom. Each Na⁺ sodium ion needs one electron to be converted to a neutral Na atom, while each calcium atom needs to be given two electrons to be produced from a Ca²⁺ ion, whereas metals with lower valencies tend to be higher in the Reactivity Series because they only need to lose one electron to form a stable noble gas structure with a full outer electron shell. Also, Hg does not react with oxygen in the air, and Sb (Antimony) is not a metal. It has the physical appearance of a metal, (silvery) but does not react as one. 86.157.96.38 (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Potassium gives away electrons faster, but lithium gives them away "stronger", explaining why lithium has a higher place on the standard electrode potential table and potassium has a higher place on the reactivity series. --Cheminterest (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mercury does react with oxygen in the air at a slightly elevated temperature, and Sb can be placed on a table because it has a certain attraction for electrons, whether it is a metal or a nonmetal. But normally, reactivity series have only metals.

Technicalities

There were some revisions made to the table by an anonymous user which were then reverted by User:Vsmith. I believe that those revisions made by the anonymous user were more correct than what was previously listed. The version I am speaking of can be found here. [3]. I'll have to look it up, I'm not positive about it. --SuperCow 16:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I believe that version was more accurate- this has been said by another user, and I agree:

Also it might be helpful to say more that just "reacts with water" and "reacts with acids." Mg, Al, Mn, Zn, Cr, Fe, and Cd all will react with steam. Additionally Sb, Bi, Cu, and Hg react with oxygen while Ag, Pt, and Au do not. This may be obvious to you, but for the rest of us it would be helpful if someone could add it to the table." 80.240.197.170 10:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Carbon

If we have put Hydrogen in this, why havent we put carbon in the reactivity series?

Calcium

i believe the periodic table shown is the UK version, and i am using a UK book, but it says that Lithium (Li)is before (more reactive) than Calcium(Ca)- so which is right?80.240.197.170 10:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My table shows, that Lithium (Li) is more reactive than calcium (Ca). I looked up several in the internet too, they say the same. Emmy Lina (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Lithium is more reactive on a standard electrode potential chart, but calcium is probably more reactive on the reactivity series. --Cheminterest (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

New opinion on Lithium issue

http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/redox/faq/activity-series.shtml

I found useful information here,

""

It might be expected that metals with lower ionization energies and lower electronegativities would be more active, since they would be expected to more easily lose electrons in a displacement reaction. But while ionization energy and electronegativity do affect a metal's ranking in the series, other factors have a strong and complex influence on relative activity

""

Hope it may help to solve our problems

The potassium-lithium issue explained.

I am not a professional metals chemist either (actually a high school student), but I thought that it might be helpful to give an explanation of why there is an argument concerning whether K or Li should be at the top of the chart. Potassium metal is indeed more reactive than lithium metal, because potassium has a more loosely bound valence electron. In direct reactions, potassium reacts more violently than lithium. In aqueous solution, lithium is indeed the species with the most negative reduction potential, but this is due to the fact that the lithium ion has a very high charge density and this results in a more negative free energy of hydration. The reason, however, that potassium will burst into flame when it contacts water whereas lithium only fizzes is that potassium has a lower melting point (due to its loosely bound electron) and the heat of reaction will melt the potassium, which increases the rate of the reaction. This shows that things are often more complicated than we can anticipate in science. (As if to complicate things further, potassium is produced from KCl using sodium; sodium should be less reactive, but the greater volatility of K compared to Na drives the equilibrium Na + KCl -> NaCl + K to the right, in accordance with Le Châtelier's Principle.) As for whether K or Li should be at the top of the chart, the aqueous potentials are more or less useless for making a decision since adding Li to a solution of KCl will not displace K anyways since the Li will react with water instead, due to its higher reduction potential. For this reason I believe that K should remain on the top of the chart.

And as an aside, why is everyone so concerned with the K-Li argument and ignoring the Au-Pt one at the bottom of the table? After all, although gold has the higher reduction potential, platinum is much more difficult to oxidize than gold, and it dissolves more slowly in aqua regia. However, platinum(IV) oxide is more stable than gold(III) oxide (which decomposes at 150° C), suggesting that platinum metal's inertness is probably only due to kinetic factors... Bbi5291 01:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Need to add US version

Just to let everyone know, the British Empire no longer exists. There are other countries besides the UK. A US version is needed on the page to add other points of view. Otherwise, this page is restrictive and only applies to countries that use the UK version of the activity series. Keep the UK version, though. 71.111.76.124 (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And how about a referece for this supposed U.S. version? A link to one single State where it is taught that lithium is more reactive than potassium, or that calcium is more reactive than sodium? Physchim62 (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitions, Carbon, ect

There are definitions of "reaction", and should be included. The reason hydrogen is included is that hydrogen can be a cation or an anion. This is not true for carbon. From my knowledge, there is only 1 version of the activity series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillz42 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Transformers?

Who put that thing about transformers in there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Albatross7 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Mercury vs. silver

The version I remember from school (in the U.K., if that's relevant, given some of the comments above) had mercury above silver. Any thoughts from an expert? -- NixonB (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Well I think Mercury is above silver as my chemistry teacher says so(India) (Dhirubhai Ambani International school) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.145.210 (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC) The potential for mercury is the same as silver. One ion is a little higher, and one ion is a little lower. --Cheminterest (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to keep mercury below silver. You need nitric acid to dissolve either of them, but for mercury it really has to be hot and concentrated nitric acid. Physchim62 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

More metals

I have noticed that there are a lot of metals (Beryllium, Barium, Radium, Gallium, Bismuth and a whole lot of transition metals to name just a few) that are not part of the Reactivity Series. I say we try to expand the Reactivity Series to include more elements. 86.157.96.38 (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Potasium, sodium, calcium, lithium.....magnesium, aluminium, zinc, iron, tin ...... silver, gold, platinum. Remember mazit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.138.32 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be top to bottom

According to the article the reactivity series is to be read form the bottom to the top making metals like Au and even C more reactive than Group 1 metals shouldn't be the other way round? And I thought that Francium ( Though one of the rarer substances) is the most reactive as the Atomic radius is much bigger thus being able to lose the valence electorn? this article really confused me and my limited knowledge on chemistry.182.55.242.11 (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Cs should be more reactive than Fr, due to relativistic effects. Double sharp (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Periodic Table w/ colors

I thought this would be a good idea to add, as I couldn't find any. WIP is at Talk:Reactivity series/wip. riking8 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Why the order is different from the textbook？

I'm a student in China. This is the order on textbook : http://www.pep.com.cn/czhx/jshzhx/tbxzy/dzkb/9xiakb/201008/t20100825_736383.htm --4hao (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Magnesium

Shouldn't Mg be coloured red? It does react with water, as stated in its article (and actually "common knowledge" IMO).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Metal with highest reactivity

Francium

Ajaryanxyz73 (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Are Francium and Radium are more reactive than Caesium and Barium (respectively)? The ionization energies of former pair are higher than those of latter pair. The solubility of RaCl₂ is in between that of BaCl₂ and SrCl₂. But the wiki article of Radium says Ra(OH)₂ is more basic than Ba(OH)₂. We need to get more accurate information on electronegativity, reactivity, standard electrode potential, ionization energy etc. of elements from Polonium(A=84) to Lawrencium(A=103). Anoop Manakkalath (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Relativistic effects would suggest a stabilization of the 7s subshell, so Fr should probably be below Cs (and Ra below Ba). Double sharp (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It may be correct for the elements of 7th period, including Francium and Radium. But we need to compare Cs⁺ with Fr⁺ and Ba⁺² with Ra⁺². I want to see the result of below reactions

BaCl₂ + RaSO₄ and (the opposite) RaCl₂ + BaSO₄ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop Manakkalath (talk • contribs) 05:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to retract that I think: probably we have Fr<Cs but Ba<Ra, judging by electronegativity. Still, pretty academic. Double sharp (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Platinum group

Can someone please add the platinum group metals to the series? - AwesoMan3000 (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I find the Os and Pd positions questionable without reliable sources. For one, Os is notably unhappy to form simple cations in aqueous solution, and assuredly, +1 is not among its major oxidation states. Double sharp (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want an electrochemical series, Droog Andrey's PT poster has you covered for most metals (basically all of first six periods that form aqua cations, except a bunch of lanthanoids):

Li > Cs > Rb > K > Ba > Sr > Ca > Na > La > Y > Mg > Ce > Sc > Be > Al > Ti > Mn > V > Cr > Zn > Ga > Fe > Cd > In > Tl > Co > Ni > Sn > Pb > (H) > Sb > Bi > Cu > Po > Ru > Rh > Ag > Hg > Pd > Ir > Pt > Au

Osmium is not included (because no one ever saw it as an aqua cation), but the rest are there. Double sharp (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S. "W³⁺" ion in article is basically a fantasy. Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Negative reactivity series

F⁻>SO²⁻>NO⁻>Cl⁻>O²⁻=Br⁻>I⁻>S⁻>N⁻>P⁻>OH⁻

Shubhrajit Sadhukhan (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)