|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Readings for this sectionPetrucci: Chapter 18 Introduction 09/02/2007We've seen many ionic compounds. Many are soluble in water and many are not. There is no simple set of rules which we can use to predict which ones will be soluble or not. Some useful trends have been observed.
For example,
Reactions where soluble compounds react to form insoluble ones are called precipitation reactions. The reverse is a dissolution reaction where solid compounds dissolve upon addition into water. For a table of solubilities click here Back to Top
|
| H2CO3/HCO3– | pKa=6.4 |
| HCO3–/CO32– | pKa=10.3 |
CaCO3. If the pH is sufficiently low (so that the HCO3–/CO32– reaction has completely used up the carbonate. In the distribution diagram for the carbonic acid system below, we see that at pH=8 there is (nearly) no carbonate (blue) left

| (1) | CaCO3(s) | Ca2+(aq) + CO32–(aq) | Ksp(CaCO3)=3.36x10–9 | |
| (2) | CO32–(aq) + H3O+(aq) | HCO3–(aq) + H2O(l) | 1/Ka2(H2CO3)=1/4.7x10–11 = 2.2x1010 |
|
| Sum | CaCO3(s) + H3O+(aq) | Ca2+(aq) + HCO3–(aq) + H2O(l) | Ksum |
Ksum = Ksp(CaCO2)/Ka(HCO3–) = 3.36×10–9 / 4.7×10–11 = 71.5.
The first thing to notice about this is that the second equilibrium is merely the Ka2(H2CO3) equation, written backwards. At around pH=8 or lower, we can approximate that it proceeds to completion, using up almost all of the carbonate ion (See the distribution diagram above). Thus, we can assume that the concentration [CO32–] is negligibly small. Hence, adding the two equations together and cancelling out the CO32– from the equation is a good approximation. If the pH were lower than, say, 5 then we could say the same for the Ka1(H2CO3) equilibrium.
From the Summed equation, we see that, according to LeChatelier, if we add acid to the solution in equilibrium, the overall equilibrium will shift right to use up some of the extra acid. This will cause the solubility of the CaCO3 to increase.
Example: Calculate the solubility of CaCO3 in a buffered solution of pH=8.
Since the second equilibrium (above) goes to completion, we can use the summed equilibrium.
SUM: CaCO3(s) + H3O+(aq)Ca2+(aq) + HCO3–(aq) + H2O(l)
I 1×10–8 0 0 C x dissolves: +x +x E 1×10–8 x x
Remember that the solution is buffered so the H3O+ concentration doesn't change (we assume).

x = 8.5×10–4 .
Another example: In this one, we can not assume that the intermediate concentrations are negligibly small. We have to deal with both equilibria in full. This complicates the mathematics as we will see below.
What is the solubility of CaF2 in a solution buffered at:
A: pH = 5.0?
B: pH = 3.0?
C: pH = 1.0?
| (1) CaF2
|
Ksp = 3.45×10–11 |
| (2) HF |
Ka = 6.3×10–4 |

A. At pH=5, we can see from the diagram (or by comparing pKa to pH) that all the F- from the dissolution of the CaF2 remains in solution unchanged. Therefore, this particular case is just a simple Ksp question. No further calculations necessary.
CaF2Ca2+ + 2F– I 0 0 C +x +x E x x
Ksp= 3.45×10-11 = x2 So x = 5.9×10-6
The solubility of CaF2 at pH = 5 (or higher) is 5.9×10-6 M.
B. At pH=3, we can see from the distribution diagram that some of the F– (BLUE) that came from the CaF2 will be protonated into HF (RED). The ratio (read off the diagram or calculate using the Clausius Clapeyron equation) HF to F– is approximately .61:.39 ~ 1.56 : 1, i.e.,
[HF] = 1.56[F–].
Thus, we must deal with the two equilibria together with no assumptions possible.
Now, according to the first equilibrium, the amount of HF produced is two times the amount of CaF2 dissolved or twice the amount of Ca2+ produced.
[F]total = 2[Ca2+]
The F– that comes from the CaF2 does not all stay in that form. Some of it becomes HF. The total amount of fluorine however remains the same and can be represented by the relationship
[F]total = [HF] + [F–].
[HF] + [F–] = 2[Ca2+]
(1.56 + 1)[F–] = 2[Ca2+]
[F–] = 0.781[Ca2+].
If s is the solubility, then [Ca2+] = s.
Ksp = [Ca2+][F–]2 = s(0.781s)2 = 3.45×10–11
s = 3.8×10–4. Obviously, at this lower pH, the solubility of the CaF2 is higher
C. At pH=1, we can assume that all the F– is now converted into HF and add equation 1 and 2 together.
| (a) | CaF2
|
Ksp = 3.45×10–11 |
| (b) | HF |
Ka = 6.3×10–4 |
| c = a–2b | CaF2
+ 2H+
|
K = 3.45×10–11 x
1/(6.3×10–4)2 = 8.7×10–5 |
So now, our Ice table is made using this new final equation.
CaF2 + 2H+Ca2+ + 2HF I 0.1 0 0 C +x +2x E 0.1 x 2x
and we now have: K = x(2x)2 = 8.7×10–5 (Buffered at pH = 1 means H+ conc doens't change)
0.12
x = 6.0×10–3
We use these ideas of equilibrium and the application of LP to selectively alter the solubilities of ionic compounds in the qualitative analysis labs.
There are many Industrial applications were it is important to control the solubility of metal sulfides. We can easily adjust the solubility of these ions using pH such that we can selectively precipitate Metal Sulfide solids from a mixture and effectively separate the metal ions as we filter off the precipitates in turn.
Metal II Sulfides: (Metal has oxidation state of +2; for example, M = Zn2+, Fe2+, ...)
1) MS(s)M2+ (aq) + S2–(aq)
and
2) S2–(s) + H2O(l)HS-(aq) + OH–(aq)
However, the S2– ion is a strong base (Kb~105) and will react immediately to form HS– and a hydroxide ion. So, the two the concentration of S2– in solution is negligible and therefore, the actual dissolution process can be approximated as the sum of the reactions 1 and 2 above.
summ: MS(s) + H2O(l)M2+ (aq) + HS–(aq) + OH-.
Thus, the true Ksp for the dissolution of a metal II sulphide is.
Ksp = [M2+][HS–][OH–]
Here we see that the addition of acid will use up OH– and hence, shift the summed equilibrium to the right thus dissolving more of the salt (MS). Since the Solubility is higher in acid solution and quite low in base solution, it is often more convenient (and conventional) to rewrite the equation for the dissolution in an acidic solution. We can use Kw = [H3O+][OH-] to do this.
MS(s) + 2H3O+(aq)M2+ (aq) + H2S(aq) + 2H2O(l)
We call such an equilibrium constant Kspa for solubility-product constant in acid.
we can determine the solubility s = [M2+] = [H2S]
We can see that as the pH is lowered (higher H3O+ concentration) the solubility of the metal sulfide increases.
For example:
| pH = 3 | pH = 1 | ||
| Kspa(FeS) = 6×102 | ==> | s = 0.024 | s = 2.4 |
| Kspa(ZnS;Wurtzite) = 3×10–2 | ==> | s = 1.7×10–4 | s = 1.7×10–2 |
If we add acid slowly, the FeS will dissolve first (pH =
ca.3-4) since it's solubility is larger for a given [H+]. As
we continue to add acid, the ZnS will eventually dissolve as well
(pH => –1).
If we had a solution containing Zn2+ and Fe2+
(both at 0.10M)
we could selectively precipitate the Zn by buffering the pH to
2.38. At that pH, the solubility of FeS is exactly 0.1 while that of the ZnS
is 7.0×10-4. So, , assuming [H2S] = 0.1M, at
that pH, the ZnS would be mostly in the solid form but the FeS would be Just
soluble. If the pH were to raise above 2.38 or if the amount of H2S
were to be increased by even the tiniest amount, then some FeS would start
to form ppt as well.
There are many methods of adding reagents to a mixture of ions to selectively separate out the individual components. Various types of reactions are covered in the Qualitative Analysis lab.
EXAMPLE: You have a sample containing both Iron and Zinc ions, both at a concentration of 0.10 M. The initial pH of the solution is 0, i.e., the [H+] = 1.0 M. To what pH must you change the solution to get maximum separation of the iron and zinc ions if the H2S nominal concentration is also 0.10 M?
First, the words "maximum separation" means we want to precipitate one of the ions as a salt while leaving the other ion in solution. Since it is impossible to completely separate the ions, we look for the conditions that give us the best outcome possible. This will occur when one of the ions is just barely in solution (at Ksp but with no solid yet formed), while the other is already mostly precipated.
We will be likely working in the low pH range since at high pH, the solubilities of both ions with sulfide is increased.
Hence, we'll use the Kspa. setup.
MS(s) + 2H3O+(aq)M2+ (aq) + H2S(aq) + 2H2O(l) E x 0.10 0.10
x is the H3O+ concentration I need to make the equality true in the relationship
Kspa = [M2+][H2S]
x2
for FeS, we get
6×102 = [0.10][0.10]
x2
x = 4.1×10-3
for ZnS, we get
3×10-2 = [0.10][0.10]
x2
x = 0.57
To precipitate either or both of these ions, we need to lower the [H+] by slowly adding a base like NaOH. Clearly, the Fe2+ will precipitate at a lower concentration of H+ than will the Zn2+. So as we lower the concentration of the acid through 0.57, The Zn2+ will begin to precipitate. when we reach a value of [H+] = 4.1×10-3 most of the Zn2+ will have already precipitated and none of the Fe2+. At this point, one more drop of base would make the FeS start to precipitate so we don't go there. We have reached the point of maximum separation.
Definition:
Some common ligands include H2O, NH3, Cl–, CN–.
Metal ions in Solution form complexes by covalently bonding to some number of ligands. The bond is a special kind of bond where the ligand donates one or more of it's lone-pairs of electrons to one of the empty orbitals in the d-shell of the metal ion. These interactions can almost always be written as an equilibrium with all the requisite properties of equilibrium being valid. The reactions are always written so that one mole of the complex is the only product. Thus, these particular equilibrium constants are called formation constants or stability constants. for example, if we mix silver ions with ammonia we can observe the following two complexation reactions.
| 1) Ag+(aq) +
NH3(aq)
|
Kcx1 = 2.1×103. |
| 2) Ag(NH3)+(aq) + NH3(aq)
|
Kcx2 = 8.2×103. |
Where Kcx1 and Kcx2 are the formation constants for the two complexes Ag(NH3)+(aq) and Ag(NH3)2+(aq), respectively.
If a large enough excess of NH3 is present we can consider that the two reactions essentially go to completion and hence, the intermediate concentrations of Ag(NH3)+(aq) are very small (We check this later in the calculation). The overall reaction would then be
| Ag+(aq) + 2 NH3(aq) |
Kf = Kcx12 = Kcx1×Kcx2 = 1.7×107 |
NOTE: If we add two reactions together as above, their equilibrium constants can be multiplied to determine the overall equilibrium constant.
These formation constants are commonly given a special symbol Kn or bn (n = coordination #) to represent the fact that the equilibrium is the formation of n-coordinate complexes. Thus, Kcx12 could also be called b2 since it represents the complexation of two ligand ammonia molecules on a silver cation.
Personally, I prefer not to use the bn notation since it can be too easily confused with other symbols. The subscript cx is my own notation just to remind myself that these are complexation reactions.
What would happen in a solution prepared by mixing 100.0 mL of 2.0 M NH3 with 100.0 mL of 1.0×10–3 M AgNO3. Let's for a minute consider the species which will be present in the solution.
Ag+, NO3–, NH3, and of course H2O.
Possible reactions are the two complexations mentioned above and the acid-base interaction of the ammonia with water
NH3(aq) + H2O(l)
NH4(aq) + OH–(aq)
Kb
= 1.8×10–5.
The extent of reaction of this equilibrium is very insignificant when compared to the complexation reaction so we will ignore it. Hence, the only chemical system of interest is the complexation equilibria 1) and 2) above.
Since there is an excess of ammonia and the K is large, we can assume 100% reaction (click here for proof)., We will work backwards through the individual reactions to determine the actual intermediate concentrations [Ag+] and [Ag(NH3)+].
Starting with the second equilibrium, we can find the value for [Ag(NH3)+].
the assumption of 100% reaction allows us to set [Ag(NH3)2+] = 1.0×10–3 ÷ 2 = 5.0×10–4 M and to approximate [NH3] = 1.0 (unchanged because it's in such large excess).
we have Ag(NH3)+(aq) + NH3(aq)Ag(NH3)2+(aq)
I 0 1.0 5.0×10–4 C x reacts (backwards) +x -x E x 1.0 5.0×10–4 – x
assume x is small cf. 5.0×10–4

x = 6.1×10–8 so [Ag(NH3)+] = 6.1×10–8 M
check assumption: 6.1x10–8 << 5.0x10–4 (good)
Now we can use this value of [Ag(NH3)+] (x) to calculate [Ag+] using the first equilibrium.
Ag+(aq) + NH3(aq)Ag(NH3)+(aq)
I 0 1.0 6.1×10–8
C +x +x -x
E x 1.0+x 6.1×10–8 -x
(assume x is very small again)

x = 2.9×10–11 M = [Ag+]
check assumption: 2.9E–11 << 6.1E–8 (good).
Complex Ion equilibrium calculations can be relatively simple if the ligand is in large enough excess, even though the whole process looks a bit messy at first.
Because we can use complexation reaction reactions to 'tie up' metal ions in water, we can use these to increase the solubility of metal ion salts. For example, silver chloride is weakly soluble in water but quite readily dissolves in concentrated ammonia.
AgCl(s)Ag+(aq) + Cl–(aq) Ksp = 1.6×10–10
Ag+(aq) + NH3(aq)Ag(NH3)+(aq) Kcx1 = 2.1×103
Ag+(NH3)(aq) + NH3(aq)Ag(NH3)2+(aq) Kcx2 = 8.2×103
In this case, we cannot increase the solubility by adding acid as we did in previous examples because Cl– is a very weak base ('very weak base' means 'not a base' for our purposes). In fact, since the ammonia that is complexing with the Ag+ is a base, we will decrease the solubility by adding acid because the acid will use up some of the ammonia, thereby releasing the silver ions tied up in the complex.
If we consider there to be an excess of ammonia then we can assume these three reactions to be going essentially to completion. Thus, write an overall reaction which is the sum of the three equilibria,
AgCl(s) + 2 NH3(aq)Ag(NH3)2+(aq) + Cl–(aq)
K for this reaction is the product of the three equilibrium constants
K = Ksp×Kcx1×Kcx2 = 1.6×10–10 × 2.1×103 × 8.2×103 = 2.8×10–3.
Now we can calculate the solubility of AgCl in (say) a 10.0 M ammonia solution.
AgCl(s) + 2 NH3(aq)Ag(NH3)2+(aq) + Cl–(aq)
I 10.0 M 0 0 C x dissolves -2x +x +x E 10.0 – 2x x x

take square root of both sides:
![]()
x = 0.48 M. (x is the solubility) in 10 molar ammonia.
In pure water we can quickly calculate the solubility.
AgCl(s)Ag+(aq) + Cl–(aq) Ksp = 1.6×10–10
I 0 0 C +x +x Equilibrium x x
Ksp = x2 ===> x = (1.6×10–10)1/2 = 1.3×10–5 ...
This is a lot smaller solubility than in the NH3 because, of course, the silver chloride is 'pulled' into solution by the complexing action of the ammonia on the silver ions.