Why Doesn't CO2 Dissolve Ionic Compounds?

AI Thread Summary
CO2 is classified as a nonpolar molecule due to its symmetrical geometry, despite having partial charges on its atoms. This nonpolarity limits its ability to dissolve ionic compounds like NaCl, as the attraction between CO2 and the Na+ ion is not strong enough to overcome the ionic bonds in NaCl. The geometry of CO2 means that any potential attraction is insufficient to disrupt the ionic lattice. Additionally, while supercritical CO2 can act as a solvent, its effectiveness is context-dependent. Ultimately, the molecular structure and interactions dictate CO2's solubility limitations with ionic compounds.
alingy1
Messages
325
Reaction score
0
So, CO2 is said to be non polar because of its molecular geometry.
However the carbon atom has two positive charges and the oxygens, one partial charge each.
Therefore, why doesn't CO2 dissolve ionic molecules like NaCl? We've been taught that a polar molecule is one that can separate ionic compounds. Any close Na+ ion would be attracted to the carbon atoms, no?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Sure - get close enough to any particular atom and you'll see it's charge; but how close would you have to get?

You pretty much answer your question in your preamble - it's because of the geometry of the molecule.

In your description, the C is 2+ ... so wouldn't the Na+ get repelled?
The attraction/repulsion has to be strong enough to tear the NaCl apart.

But note: supercritical CO2 is used as a solvent.
 
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