How Does Pre-existing CH3COONa Affect Buffer pH Calculation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Krushnaraj Pandya
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Buffer Ph
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the pH of a solution containing acetic acid (CH3COOH), sodium acetate (CH3COONa), and sodium hydroxide (NaOH). After the reaction between NaOH and CH3COOH, the remaining concentrations are 0.05 mol of CH3COOH and 0.25 mol of CH3COONa, leading to a pH calculation using the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation, resulting in a pH of 5.44. Concerns are raised about whether the pre-existing CH3COONa affects the calculated pH, with the consensus that while there may be slight shifts in equilibrium, the assumption of complete neutralization typically yields an accurate pH. A rule of thumb is suggested for when to assume full dissociation, particularly for acids with a pKa above 3 and concentrations above 10^-3 M. The discussion emphasizes the reliability of the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation in buffer calculations despite initial concentrations.
Krushnaraj Pandya
Gold Member
Messages
697
Reaction score
73

Homework Statement


Calculate pH of a solution containing 0.1 mole of Ch3cooh, 0.2 mol of CH3COONa and 0.05 mol of naoh in 1 L. (Pka for Ch3cooh=4.74).
2. The attempt at a solution
The 0.05 mol of NaOH will react with the 0.10 mol CH3COOH to produce 0.05 mol CH3COONa , and there will bve 0.05 mol CH3COOH remaining unreacted . The solution then contains:
0.05 mol CH3COOH
0.25 mol CH3COONa.
dissolved in 1.0L solution - these figures are the molarity of the compounds.
Use Henderson - Hasselbalch equation:
pH = pKa + log ([salt]/[acid])
pH = 4.74 + log (0.25 / 0.05)
pH = 4.74 + log 58.0
pH = 4.74+ 0.70
pH = 5.44

I'm getting the correct answer this way but my question is that since some moles of ch3cooNa are already present in the beginning, won't that hinder more formation of the same salt and therefore the concentration of the salt calculated is actually more than the actual value?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you do the exact equilibrium calculation you will find that yes, there is a slight difference and the equilibrium is a bit shifted. But typically it doesn't matter and the pH calculated based on the assumption neutralization goes to completion is reasonably accurate.

See the examples here: http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=buffers&right=composition-calculation
 
Borek said:
If you do the exact equilibrium calculation you will find that yes, there is a slight difference and the equilibrium is a bit shifted. But typically it doesn't matter and the pH calculated based on the assumption neutralization goes to completion is reasonably accurate.

See the examples here: http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=buffers&right=composition-calculation
how do I decide where I can assume full dissociation in spite of other factors and where I cannot?
 
As a rule of thumb if the acid has pKa above 3 and is not too diluted (say, above 10-3 M) there is no need to worry.

If in doubt you can always use calculated values as initial concentrations for ICE table and see what that produces (http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=buffers&right=with-ICE-table).
 
Thank you
 
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