What Are the Solubility Rules for Predicting Precipitate Formation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ThatDude
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Solubility
AI Thread Summary
Solubility rules help predict precipitate formation by indicating which compounds are soluble and which are not. When mixing solutions, soluble products are often ignored in precipitate calculations because they are significantly more soluble than others. Infinite solubility does not exist; instead, solubility is measured in specific units like grams per liter. Common soluble compounds include sodium salts and nitrates, while others, like silver chloride, are less soluble and can precipitate. Understanding these rules allows for better identification of potential precipitates in chemical reactions.
ThatDude
Messages
33
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Ok, so basically, our teacher gave us some solubility rules... then we did a problem where we mixed two solutions and checked to see if a precipitate would form.

So he calculated Qsp for one of the products and compared it to Ksp for that product, he did not calculate Qsp and Ksp and forth 'other'... this 'other' product obeyed the solubility rules.

So from what I understand, when you mix two solutions to see if a precipitate forms, you ignore the soluble products because they have infinite solubility?

I mean, do the solubility rules tell us that those substances have infinite solubility?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ThatDude said:

Homework Statement


Ok, so basically, our teacher gave us some solubility rules... then we did a problem where we mixed two solutions and checked to see if a precipitate would form.

So he calculated Qsp for one of the products and compared it to Ksp for that product, he did not calculate Qsp and Ksp and forth 'other'... this 'other' product obeyed the solubility rules.

So from what I understand, when you mix two solutions to see if a precipitate forms, you ignore the soluble products because they have infinite solubility?

I mean, do the solubility rules tell us that those substances have infinite solubility?
Nothing has infinite solubility.

If you look in tables (like in the CRC Handbook) you will see solubility data given, units will be something like grams per kg water, or grams per liter.
 
In a way infinite solubility is miscibility. But its not about solids dissolved in liquids, but about liquids dissolved in liquids.
 
Ok. So infinite solubility doesn't exist, but in the original case mentioned, we ignore the soluble substance because its just way more soluble, correct?
 
ThatDude said:
Ok. So infinite solubility doesn't exist, but in the original case mentioned, we ignore the soluble substance because its just way more soluble, correct?

Na+ salts are very soluble, nitrates are soluble, ... Some things are very soluble, many things are insoluble. Generally when you are trying to mix two liquids together, you will have an anion paired with something like sodium cation and a cation paired with something like nitrate. Mixing the two will give you e.g. "sodium nitrate" as one candidate for froming a precipitate (it won't because it si really soluble) and another candidate -- e.g. AgCl (like if you mixed silver nitrate with sodium chloride). As you do more of these things you will learn to recognize the likely culprit from the innocent bystander -- like any good detective!
 
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