Weak Acid/Strong Base Titration: Explaining pH at Equivalence

  • Thread starter Thread starter nothing123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Equivalence Ph
AI Thread Summary
In a weak acid/strong base titration, the pH at equivalence can be estimated using the formula pH = pKa + pHtitrant/2, although this is an approximation. The equation is derived from assumptions about the dissociation of the weak acid and the concentration of the titrant. However, it may not yield accurate results in all cases, as demonstrated by a user who tested it against analytical chemistry examples. A more precise calculation involves using [H^+] = √(Ka * Ca), which requires taking the logarithm to find pH. Overall, the discussion highlights the limitations and assumptions inherent in estimating pH at equivalence in these titrations.
nothing123
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
For an weak acid/strong base titration, the pH at equivalence can be estimated by pH = pKa + pHtitrant/2. Can someone explain where that equation comes from?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nothing123 said:
For an weak acid/strong base titration, the pH at equivalence can be estimated by pH = pKa + pHtitrant/2.

Can you provide a source or link for that?

Because I don't think that's quite true; I tried your formula on an example weak acid/strong base problem in my analytical chemistry text and didn't get the right answer.
 
I suppose what nothing refers to is

[H^+] = \sqrt {K_a C_a}

Just take the log. But it is only approximation and there are several assumptions done on the way to this equation. As shown it will work only for the titration of a weak base (Ka is for conjugated acid).
 
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

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
7K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top