Open AccessHO- and OH-, Reason and Tradition
Author(s) -
Luís F. Gonçalves
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
brjac brazilian journal of analytical chemistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.131
H-Index - 6
eISSN - 2179-3433
pISSN - 2179-3425
DOI - 10.30744/brjac.2179-3425.point-of-view-lmgoncalves
Subject(s) - notice , scale (ratio) , philosophy , chemistry , epistemology , literature , mathematics education , psychology , law , physics , art , political science , quantum mechanics
Writing OH- is so widespread that one hardly notices that there no logical reason, apart from being accustomed to so, not to write HO- instead. Scientists should be educated to spot irregularities, since often they mean something. Chemistry professors, in particularly at graduate level, when teaching pH, should make their students notice such discrepancy. Albeit pH is not a complex topic it is intriguing the number of misconceptions, and even plain errors, associated. For example, the limits of the pH scale, it is not uncommon to find students (and not just undergrads) believing pH values cannot be lower than 1 or higher than 14, or that negative pH values do not exist. Herein, it is addressed the odd exception of writing OH- instead of the most logical form of HO-. It is fascinating that chemists are so accustomed to see OH- that they do not longer find it to be an oddity. First, it is important to highlight why it is a nomenclature exception, i.e., the lack of reason to write OH-.