What is the role of ions in the solubility of partially soluble compounds?

  • Thread starter Thread starter renob
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the solubility of partially soluble compounds and their representation in net ionic equations. It highlights that while solubility indicates the extent to which a compound dissolves, it does not necessarily imply complete ionization. Participants clarify that a partially soluble compound can still dissociate into ions, but the equilibrium favors the undissolved state. The net ionic equation can reflect this by showing a longer arrow pointing towards the reactants, indicating that not all of the compound has dissolved. Understanding these concepts is crucial for accurately representing chemical reactions involving partially soluble substances.
renob
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
Do you break up a partially soluble compound into ions in a net ionic equation? or do you just leave it as a molecule?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not sure if I know what you mean by partial solubility.

--
methods
 
in the solubility rules it says that Pb(C2H3O2)2 is partially soluble in water.
 
OK, for me that means weakly soluble - don't worry about that, English is my second language (or third, to be precise :wink: ).

Net ionic equation is identical, just the equilirbium lies on the left - that is, not everything dissolves.

--
 
Solubility doesn't say anything about ionization. Something weakly (sparingly, slightly, partially) soluble can also be weakly (sparingly, slightly, partially) ionized.
 
solubility of ionic compounds is in fact breaking the compounds up into their individual ions, but like borek said, the equilibrium lies on the left, which you can represent with an arrow that looks like this http://www.coolschool.ca/lor/CH12/common_files/equilibrium_arrow.gif and just have the part pointing left be longer than the part pointing right
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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