PH at the equivalence point

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the Henderson-Hasselbalch (H-H) equation in calculating pH during the titration of a weak acid with a strong base, particularly at the equivalence point. Participants explore the theoretical underpinnings of the H-H equation, its assumptions, and the implications for pH calculations in different scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the H-H equation cannot be used at the equivalence point due to the significant presence of hydroxide ions ([OH-]) from the strong base, which violates the assumptions of the equation.
  • Others argue that the H-H equation is valid as long as equilibrium concentrations are used, suggesting that it can be applied under certain conditions.
  • One participant challenges the derivation of the H-H equation, questioning the assumptions made regarding the concentrations of the acid and its conjugate base.
  • Another participant provides a derivation of the H-H equation and discusses its application to calculate the initial pH of a weak acid solution, emphasizing the importance of the [OH-] concentration.
  • There are claims that the initial pH of a weak acid cannot be calculated using the H-H equation, similar to the situation at the equivalence point.
  • Participants discuss the need for clarity in the derivation of equations and the conditions under which they apply, particularly regarding the assumptions about dissociation percentages.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the applicability of the H-H equation for calculating pH at both the equivalence point and the initial state of a weak acid solution. Multiple competing views remain regarding the assumptions and derivations related to the equation.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include unresolved assumptions about the concentrations of species involved, the applicability of the H-H equation under varying conditions, and the mathematical steps required for accurate pH calculations.

gkangelexa
Messages
81
Reaction score
1
My book says that you cannot use the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation to find the pH at the equivalence point when titrating a weak acid with a strong base...

I was wondering why not?

it says that instead you must use the Kb of the conjugate base and that we find that from the Kw and the Ka.

Why?

and how do we find the Ka?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
The H-H equation is derived for weak acids/bases and buffers on the assumption that

[A-] >> [OH-]

Which is true for the initial solution of weak acid.

So you can use H-H to calculate the intitial pH.

However once you start adding strong alkali you are adding (lots of) [OH-]
so the assumption no longer holds.

There are, in fact, four different distinct calculations needed to derive the neutralisation curve for a strong base v a weak acid.
 
Studiot said:
The H-H equation is derived for weak acids/bases and buffers on the assumption that

[A-] >> [OH-]

Care to elaborate? As far as I can tell there is no such assumption. Henderson-Hasselbalch equation is not different from acid dissociation reaction quotient definition, it is just rearranged. And it holds always, as long as you put in equilibrium concentrations of [A-] and [HA].

Which is true for the initial solution of weak acid.

So you can use H-H to calculate the intitial pH.

Sorry, but you can't. Please show how you are going to use H-H equation:

pH = pK_a + \log \frac {[A^-]}{[HA]}

to calculate pH of a pure acetic acid. Say, 0.1M.

Edit: to clarify, by "pure, 0.1M acetic acid" I mean 0.1M solution of acetic acid that doesn't contain anything but water and acetic acid.
 
Last edited:
So why did the OP's book say the same as mine about the H-H equation?
 
Studiot said:
So why did the OP's book say the same as mine about the H-H equation?

It is true that you can't use HH equation to calculate pH at equivalence point, this statement is correct. But you can't use it to calculate initial pH either, for exactly the same reasons.

Please show how is the HH equation derived using assumption that you listed, and please explain how you are going to use HH equation to calculate pH of the pure weak acid solution.
 
Since this is a working day and it will take me some while to produce the derivation of the equations I will defer that exercise until this evening.

In the meantime, since you apparently disagree with my explanation of the original question and since I was the only respondent how about posting your explanation?
 
I don't see what more I can add. I already linked to a page where derivation is explained.
 
As promised here is a derivation of the H-H equation, establishing why the OH- concentration is crucial and using it to calculate the initial pH of ).1M acetic acid as requested.
The calculation is compared with another method of achieving the pH.

This method will only work because at the outset the only source of OH- is the water and this is 9 orders of magnitude less than the H+ from the acetic acid.

The formula can be adapted for the equilibrium point on titrating with 0.1M sodium hydroxide.
as follows

pH = 0.5pKw + 0.5pKa + 0.5logC

pH = 7 + 2.37 + (-0.65) = 8.72

where C is the acetic acid initial concentration.
 

Attachments

  • acetic1.jpg
    acetic1.jpg
    15.2 KB · Views: 815
  • acetic2.jpg
    acetic2.jpg
    13.2 KB · Views: 994
Studiot said:
As promised here is a derivation of the H-H equation, establishing why the OH- concentration is crucial and using it to calculate the initial pH of ).1M acetic acid as requested.
The calculation is compared with another method of achieving the pH.

This method will only work because at the outset the only source of OH- is the water and this is 9 orders of magnitude less than the H+ from the acetic acid.

The formula can be adapted for the equilibrium point on titrating with 0.1M sodium hydroxide.
as follows

pH = 0.5pKw + 0.5pKa + 0.5logC

pH = 7 + 2.37 + (-0.65) = 8.72

where C is the acetic acid initial concentration.

Sorry, but - first of all - equation you derived:

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

or

pH = \frac 1 2 pK_a + \frac 1 2 \log{[HA]}

is not a Henderson-Hasselbalch equation. Henderson-Hasselbalch equation is the one used for calculation of a buffer pH:

pH = pK_a + \log \frac {[A^-]}{[HA]}

See for example:

http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biochemistry/problem_sets/ph/HH.html
http://www.wiley.com/college/pratt/0471393878/student/review/acid_base/6_hh_equation.html
http://www.chemteam.info/AcidBase/HH-Equation.html
http://chemistry.about.com/od/acidsbase1/a/hendersonhasselbalch.htm
http://people.rit.edu/pac8612/webionex/website/html/ione89wu.html
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/biolchem/acids.html

and so on.

Now to the derivation:

Studiot_acetic1.jpg


Studiot_acetic2.jpg

As far as I know equation you listed has no name, and I am afraid there are several problems with your derivation and calculations.

Your final equation (bottom of the first page) uses [HA] which you used to denote equilibrium concentration of HA (undissociated acid). You can't use it to calculate pH, as you don't know it. What you usually know is the analytical concentration Ca and that's the information your final result should depend on. Ca should be introduced into the problem through the mass balance of the acid:

C_a = [HA] + [A^-]

You calculated correct pH value only because you entered analytical concentration of the acid where your equation shows equilibrium concentration of HA. This can be done after using another crucial approximation, that you have not mentioned - if the acid is not dissociated more than 5% we can assume:

[HA] \approx C_a

and your equation becomes

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

which is the final and correct form. Luckily for you 5% condition is met for 0.1M acetic acid solution, so pH=2.87 is a correct result, but for example for 10-4M solution you would be off by 0.1 pH unit.

Compare calculation of pH of weak acids (eq. 8.13), where this equation is not only derived, but also its applicability discussed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K