Talk:Potassium peroxymonosulfate

sign of redox potential

Looking at th estructure and the use of this compound I expect a good oxidator. As far as I am familiar with redox potentials, the concequence of that will be a high positieve E^o-value. I am surprised to encounter the valua of -1.44 V here. T.vanschaik (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The half cell equation in the article (and in the DuPont data sheet) seems to be written in the reverse: the potential of the electron donor rather than the electron acceptor. However, you would not believe how bad I was in my last electrochemistry exam (many years ago). I agree that it doesn't look right, but it matches the DuPont data sheet, and I don't trust myself to fix it.

Perhaps you can??

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fernandez et al. list E^o=1.82 for Oxone but do not specify which half reaction (Fernandez, J.; Maruthamuthu, P.; Kiwi, J. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A. 2004, 161, 185–192). It could be for the reduction of Oxone to sulfate or it could be hydrogen sulfate. It seems unlikely that E^o=1.44 is the correct potential since this is lower than that of hypochlorous acid (E^o=1.63 vs. NHE) and Oxone is considered a stronger oxidant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallybiii (talk • contribs) 23:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised that the abbreviation is shown as "MPS", which is not the case, at least not widely recognised. The whole world uses the abbreviation "KMPS", with K standing for "Kalium", the element used by that the whole world, with the exception of English speaking countries where it is called "potassium". There is also a chemical mistake (though widely ignored by the chemical trade), as KMPS is technically only one component of the triple salt, but not the whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.22.116 (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The article on peroxomonosulfuric acid gives the oxidation potential of that as +2.51 V. I understand that the HSO5- has lower pKa than H2SO5, but why is the oxidation potential so much lower?150.227.15.253 (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

NFPA 704

The NFPA 704 reactivity value is usually given as 0, 1, or 2. DuPont is a pretty reliable source and it gave it as 1; this seems to be the best value since its in the middle.

The MSDS from JT Baker/Mallinckrodt shows 1-0-3. (i.e. H-F-R) http://www.ce.siue.edu/safety/MSDS/82.pdf Marhault (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

That link requires a login, i.e. is only available to SIUE members (or how would one get an account?). 80.133.60.172 (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

References

None of the references (by DuPont??) would display - page not available, etc. Susan J Campbell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.182.67.59 (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Production

The article would benefit from a section on the production of this compound (and oxone)150.227.15.253 (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Misleading Reference to massage therapy in an article about redox potentials

Reference number [3] is about watsu meditation or massage therapy in water:

Dull, Harold (2004). Watsu: Freeing the Body in Water. p. 197. ISBN 9781412034395. Retrieved November 30, 2018.

It has no place in scientific literature and should be removed. Guyslikeus (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)