Iron in nonoxidizing hydrochloric acid principally gives an iron(II) solution; tin in oxidizing aqua regia principally gives a tin(IV) solution. These are the two preparations paired most directly by “respectively”. Their contrast is clearer when the other acid treatment of each metal is considered as well. “Nitrohydrochloric acid” is the historical name for aqua regia, containing nitric and hydrochloric acids.
For iron in dilute hydrochloric acid,The fresh solution is typically pale green when sufficiently concentrated. Hydroxide gives a pale green precipitate of iron(II) hydroxide, which darkens and turns brown on exposure to air as oxidation proceeds. Ammonia can similarly precipitate a ferrous hydroxide rather than forming a stable soluble excess-ammonia complex under the usual test conditions. Ferricyanide gives a deep blue product; the modern structural account of this blue material should not be replaced by an overly literal formula inferred solely from the reagent names. Ferrous solution also reduces a suitable oxidant such as acidic permanganate:
If instead oxidizing acid treatment produces iron(III), the solution exhibits ferric reactions: hydroxide or Ammonia gives red-brown iron(III) hydroxide; thiocyanate gives a strong red colour; and ferrocyanide gives Prussian blue. Chloride complex formation affects colour and some equilibria, so “yellow” is not a universal iron(III) identity test. Oxidizing aqua regia supplies this ferric comparison rather than merely generating more of the same ferrous salt.
Tin in ordinary hydrochloric acid gives a tin(II) solution with hydrogen evolution:Its characteristic property is reducing power. With mercury(II) chloride, controlled addition can first form white mercury(I) chloride and then, with further reductant, grey metallic Mercury:The chloride formulae are useful net bookkeeping, not a complete statement of all aqueous chloro-complexes.
In aqua regia, tin is oxidized predominantly to tin(IV). A representative balance, choosing nitrogen monoxide as the nitrate-reduction product, isActual gas products depend on the acid conditions. Sufficient chloride and acidity retain tin in solution; dilution can cause hydrolysis and precipitation of hydrated tin(IV) oxide. This differs from the simple expectation that every dilution leaves unchanged molecular in water. Hydrogen sulfide in suitable acidic conditions gives yellow tin(IV) sulfide, compared with brown tin(II) sulfide from a stannous solution. Tin(IV) does not reproduce the characteristic reducing reaction of fresh tin(II) with mercuric chloride; reduction to tin(II) is needed first. Oxidation during storage can therefore change the reactions of a nominally stannous preparation.
TODO: Solutions e and f and their test observations are absent. Hydrocyanic acid, iron and magnesia are testing targets, not supplied positive findings; general test methods can still be described.
The presence or absence of hydrogen cyanide in e, and of iron or magnesium in f, remains unestablished. The named substances are targets of the examination. They are not positive findings.
The period name “hydrocyanic acid” refers to aqueous hydrogen cyanide. “Magnesia” is the historical name for magnesium oxide; examination of a chemical solution for magnesia normally concerns dissolved magnesium compounds, rather than a claim that intact magnesium oxide particles are dissolved unchanged. The modern ionic equations below express test principles and are not observations made on f.
For e, the analytical task is to obtain a response attributable to cyanide, distinguish it from responses of other constituents, and check the entire procedure against a reagent blank and a known reference. The distinction between free cyanide and cyanide held in a coordination complex matters: a test for one fraction need not measure the other. As a modern comparison, the Cyanide in Waters and Extracts, Method 9014 by United States Environmental Protection Agency provides titrimetric analysis and spectrophotometric analysis, with specified sample preparation, interferences and quality controls. This 2014 procedure illustrates how a result is validated; it is not being attributed to the 1865 candidate.[ref]
Cyanide in Waters and Extracts, Method 9014 by United States Environmental Protection Agency. §§1–2: analytical scope and measurement principles; §§4 and 9: interferences and controls
No numerical concentration, positive colour or negative result can be extracted from the label e.An odour is neither an acceptable identifying experiment nor a reliable negative test. Hydrogen cyanide is volatile and highly toxic, and many people cannot detect its supposed characteristic smell. Any actual analysis belongs in a suitably contained laboratory method; uncontrolled acidification of a possible cyanide solution can release hydrogen cyanide.[ref]
Hydrogen cyanide emergency response information by NIOSH. Agent Characteristics: volatility, toxicity and unreliable odour warning
[ref]Cyanide in Waters and Extracts, Method 9014 by United States Environmental Protection Agency. §5.2: hydrogen cyanide release on acidification
For f, distinguish iron(II) from iron(III) when describing a test. On suitable separate portions, hydroxide can produce a green iron(II) hydroxide precipitate or a brown hydrated iron(III) hydroxide precipitate. Iron(II) products can oxidise during handling, so the time at which a colour is observed matters. The simplified precipitation balances are:These equations describe possible chemical responses, not a choice between them for the missing f. Tests intended for a particular oxidation state cannot be treated as universal tests of every form of iron.
Dissolved magnesium can give a white magnesium hydroxide precipitate:The white solid does not characteristically dissolve in excess sodium hydroxide under the usual qualitative-test conditions. This differentiates it from some amphoteric hydroxides, but is not uniquely specific for magnesium.[ref]
Testing Salts for Anions and Cations by the Royal Society of Chemistry. Metal hydroxides: iron(II), iron(III), magnesium and the distinction from aluminium in excess sodium hydroxide
If iron and magnesium were together, a single mixed precipitate could obscure their separate behaviour. An analytical separation with controlled pH, followed by confirmation on the separated fractions, would be needed; indiscriminately adding excess alkali is not proof of separation.[ref]Qualitative Analysis of Metal Ions in Solution by Williams College. printed II & III-15–17: hydroxide concentration, magnesium interference and iron confirmation
The actual oxidation state of any iron, the presence of magnesium, and the outcome of such a separation all remain unknown.