Carbon Dioxide and Water: Lewis Base or Bronsted-Lowry Base?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on whether water acts as a Lewis base or if carbon dioxide functions as a Bronsted-Lowry base in the formation of carbonic acid. Participants debate the nature of the reaction, noting that a balanced equation typically indicates a Bronsted-Lowry interaction, producing substances like OH or H3O+. There is confusion about whether carbon dioxide accepts a proton, with some asserting it does not. The conversation highlights the complexity of acid-base reactions and the need for clarity in defining roles based on reaction outcomes. Overall, the classification of the reaction remains ambiguous, reflecting the nuanced nature of acid-base chemistry.
nothing123
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
In the reaction of carbon dioxide and water to form carbonic acid, does water act as a lewis base because it donates a pair of electrons to carbon dioxide or does carbon dioxide act as a Bronsted-Lowry base because it accepts a proton from water?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
if the generic equation looks like this after its balanced, then its a bronsted lowry

(its balanced 1:1) and it makes a substance and something else, usually with OH or H3O+

if its not then it would look like this:

HX + XOH = H2O + Salt
 
link2110 said:
if the generic equation looks like this after its balanced, then its a bronsted lowry

(its balanced 1:1) and it makes a substance and something else, usually with OH or H3O+

if its not then it would look like this:

HX + XOH = H2O + Salt

Huh?
 
nothing123 said:
does carbon dioxide act as a Bronsted-Lowry base because it accepts a proton from water?

I don't think CO2 accepts a proton.
 
Borek said:
Huh?

what I am trying to say is that a bronsted lowry equations is balanced 1:1 and usually produces either OH or H3O
 
What about ethylene diamine reaction with sulfuric acid? Still 1:1? Produces OH- or H3+?

While what you wrote is right in many cases, it can't serve as a basis for understanding, as it is also wrong in many cases.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Back
Top