Abstract
IN investigations of the electrolytic deposition potentials of manganese solutions by the use of the dropping mercury cathode and the automatically registering “polarograph”, comparatively large impurities (1:20,000) were detected even in the purest samples, e.g. Kahibaum's or Merck's “pro analysi”. (Cf. Rec. Trav. Chim. Pays-Bas, 44, 1925, 488-600.) From the position of the hump on the current-voltage curve (Fig. 1), the impurity was at first thought to be zinc (l.c. p. 520). However, on closer examination, the “saw-like” character of the undulations showed that this increase of current must be due to the deposition of a metal or metals not alloying with mercury (l.c.). At the potential at which the manganese impurity is distinctly shown, i.e. at 1.0 volt (from the calomel zero), zinc, nickel, cobalt, and iron may be deposited from their 105 molar solutions (cathodic potentials 1.00, 1.06, 1.20, and 1.27 volts respectively). From the different heights of the humps on the polarographic curves, the impurity in the manganous solutions can be estimated as 0.54.0 × 105 equiv. per litre. varying in different specimens within these limits. As analytical tests for zinc, nickel, cobalt, and iron in these solutions give negative results, these metals cannot be present in concentrations greater than 105 equiv. per litre. Hence the persistent impurity was suspected to be analogues of manganese—eka-manganese (43) and dwi-manganese (75).
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
DOLEJEK, V., HEYROVSKÝ, J. The Occurrence of Dwi-Manganese (At. No. 75) in Manganese Salts. Nature 116, 782–783 (1925). https://doi.org/10.1038/116782a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/116782a0
This article is cited by
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.