A chemical state can exist on or inside the surface of a solid state material and can often, but not always, be isolated or separated from the other chemical species found on the surface of that material. Surface scientists, spectroscopists, chemical analysts, and material scientists frequently describe the chemical nature of the chemical species, functional group, anion, or cation detected on the surface and near the surface of a solid state material as its chemical state.
To understand how a chemical state differs from an oxidation state, anion, or cation, we compare sodium fluoride (NaF) to poly-tetrafluoro-ethylene (PTFE, Teflon TM). Both contain fluorine, the most electronegative element, but only NaF dissolves in water to form separate ions, Na+ and F-. The electronegativity of the fluorine strongly polarizes the electron density that exists between the carbon, C, and the fluorine, F, but not enough to produce ions which would allow it to dissolve in the water. The carbon and fluorine in Teflon (PTFE) both have a zero (0) electronic charge since they form a covalent bond, but few scientists describe those elements as has having a zero (0) oxidation state. On the other hand, many elements, in their pure form, are often described as existing with a zero oxidation state. This is one of those quirks of nomenclature that have survived over the years.
Read more about Chemical State: Closely Related Nomenclature, Examples of Chemical Names That Describe The Chemical State of A Group of Elements
Famous quotes containing the words chemical and/or state:
“We are close to dead. There are faces and bodies like gorged maggots on the dance floor, on the highway, in the city, in the stadium; they are a host of chemical machines who swallow the product of chemical factories, aspirin, preservatives, stimulant, relaxant, and breathe out their chemical wastes into a polluted air. The sense of a long last night over civilization is back again.”
—Norman Mailer (b. 1923)
“The truth is, the whole administration under Roosevelt was demoralized by the system of dealing directly with subordinates. It was obviated in the State Department and the War Department under [Secretary of State Elihu] Root and me [Taft was the Secretary of War], because we simply ignored the interference and went on as we chose.... The subordinates gained nothing by his assumption of authority, but it was not so in the other departments.”
—William Howard Taft (1857–1930)