Selective precipitation, purity and yield of precipitate

AI Thread Summary
Using NaF for selective precipitation can achieve pure MgF2 without CdF2 impurities, as the solubility product (Ksp) of MgF2 is lower than that of CdF2, allowing MgF2 to precipitate first. However, the yield and purity trade-offs indicate that while NaF can yield high purity for both precipitates, the overall yield may not be as high as with NaOH due to the potential for coprecipitation and the complexities of the precipitation process. The discussion highlights that the original question is poorly formulated, as it suggests unrealistic concentrations and oversimplifies the factors affecting purity. Alternative methods for determining purity beyond Ksp calculations are limited, emphasizing the need for experimental validation. Overall, the feasibility of achieving zero Cd impurities while maintaining high yields remains a complex challenge in selective precipitation.
vickyvoo2
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


An aqueous effluent contains 12 M Cd2+ and 10 M Mg2+ as solution of nitrates. Current practice is use NaOH to selectively precipitate the metals.

(a) Is it feasible to get 0 Cd impurities in Mg ppt by using NaF instead of NaOH (back up your answer with adequate calculations)

(b) What trade-off with respect to yield and purity do you have to accept if you use NaF instead of NaOH?

(c) If consider switching the precipitating agent during the process which sequence should be used

Homework Equations


Ksp MgF2 = 3.7*10^-8
Ksp CdF2 = 6.44*10^-3

KspMgF2 = [Mg2+][F-]^2
KspCdF2 = [Cd2+][F-]^2

Ksp Mg(OH)2 = 1.8*10^-11
Ksp Cd(OH)2 = 2.5*10^-14

KspMg(OH)2 = [Mg2+][OH-]^2
KspCd(oh)2 = [Cd2+][OH-]^2

The Attempt at a Solution


Attempt at answer:
(a) Using NaF:
As the Ksp of MgF2 is smaller it is less soluble and will precipitate first. You need to add F- to the point where CdF2 will just not start precipitating. The limiting concentration is when the ion product=Ksp

Limiting concentration for MgF2:
[F-]=sqrt(KspMgF2/[Mg2+]) = sqrt(3.7*10^-8/10) = 6.08*10^-5 M

Limiting concentration for CdF2:
[F-]=sqrt(KspCdF2/[Cd2+]) = sqrt(6.44*10^-3/12) = 0.023 M

The limiting concentration of Mg2+ is lower so this will precipitate first. By adding F- up to the limiting concentration of Cd2+ no CdF2 will precipitate so MgF2 precipitate will be pure.

(b) I assume you need to find the yield and purity for both methods (using NaF or NaOH).
To find the purity of CdF2 need to know how much Md2+ is left in solution at the point when CdF2 starts precipitating.
[Mg2+]sol = KspMgF2/[F-]^2 = 3.7*10^-8/0.023^2 = 6.99*10^-8

Purity of CdF2: [Cd]/[Cd]+[Mg2+]sol *100 = 99.99%
I assume the yield of CdF2 would be 100 as you can keep adding F- until it's all precipitated out.

I'm not sure if to calculate the yield of Magnesium I need to do the original concentration - impurities in CdF2/original concentration. If I did this then:
10-6.99*10^-8/10 *100 = 99.99%

To compare with using NaOH as the precipitating agent:

As the Ksp of Cd(OH)2 is smaller it is less soluble and will precipitate first.

Limiting concentration for Mg(OH)2:
[F-]=sqrt(KspMg(OH)2/[Mg2+]) = sqrt(1.8*10^-11/10) = 1.43*10^-6 M

To find the purity of Mg(OH)2 need to know how much Cd2+ is left in solution at the point when Mg(OH)2 starts precipitating.
[Cd2+]sol = KspCd(OH)2/[F-]^2 = 2.5*10^-14/(1.43*10^-6 M )^2 = 0.0138 M

Purity of Mg: 10/10+0.0138 *100 = 99.86%
Yield of Cd: 12-0.0138/12 *100 = 99.86%

For part B the way the question is phrased I assume the purity or yield using NaF shouldn't be as great as using NaOH but I don't know if I have done my calculations right as from my results it would seem theyre both accurate methods.

For part C i assume I must've done something wrong in my previous calculations, as what I've calculated it would seem just using NaF is good enough.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
At a quick glance I see nothing wrong with your approach - logic looks OK.

Sadly, this is a very bad question. First, it is poorly worded and it is not clear what it asks. Second, it calls for an impossible solution, I am not aware of any salts of Mg and Cd that could be used to produce solution that is 10 M in Mg and 12 M in Cd. 1 M and 1.2 M would be much more likely. Third, it wants you to assume purity of the precipitate is driven only by the Ksp, which is simply not true. Some traces of other ions will be always built into a precipitate, this is called coprecipitation and is especially prominent in the case of amorphous precipitates (like hydroxides).
 
Borek said:
At a quick glance I see nothing wrong with your approach - logic looks OK.

Sadly, this is a very bad question. First, it is poorly worded and it is not clear what it asks. Second, it calls for an impossible solution, I am not aware of any salts of Mg and Cd that could be used to produce solution that is 10 M in Mg and 12 M in Cd. 1 M and 1.2 M would be much more likely. Third, it wants you to assume purity of the precipitate is driven only by the Ksp, which is simply not true. Some traces of other ions will be always built into a precipitate, this is called coprecipitation and is especially prominent in the case of amorphous precipitates (like hydroxides).

Is there another way to calculate the purity of the precipitate not only using Ksp? I just think the results I'm getting don't fit what part b wants.
 
vickyvoo2 said:
Is there another way to calculate the purity of the precipitate not only using Ksp?

None that I am aware of. This is rather something that has to be determined experimentally.
 
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
3
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top