Can PVC Be Weakened by Bronsted-Lowry Acids Due to Chlorine Protonation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lapo3399
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pvc
AI Thread Summary
PVC may exhibit vulnerability to Bronsted-Lowry acids due to the potential protonation of chlorine, which could destabilize its bonding and increase susceptibility to water attacks. This raises questions about the comparative resistance of PVC against other plastics in acidic environments. Additionally, there is curiosity about whether a benzene side chain in polystyrene would react with sulfuric acid, potentially forming poly(styrenesulfonic acid). The discussion highlights the need for further investigation into the chemical interactions of these materials under acidic conditions. Understanding these reactions is crucial for applications involving PVC and polystyrene in acidic environments.
lapo3399
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Is it possible that PVC may have a weakness to Bronsted-Lowry acids as compared to other plastics, because of the ability of these acids to protonate the chlorine (because of chlorine's non-bonding electrons), therefore leading to bonding instability and vulnerability to attacks by water? Or is this totally wrong...

Thanks for your help!

Matt
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As well: does anyone know whether a benzene side chain (such as the one in polystyrene) would be affected by Sulfuric acid? e.g. react to form poly(styrenesulfonic acid), or something else.

Thanks for your help!
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
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...
Back
Top