Ionic equilibrium problem...?proof needed....

Concentration of [H^+][H+] ion in a mixture of two weak acids... if alpha_1α1 and alpha_2α2 are their degree of dissociation which are negligible w.r.t unity...K_(a_1)Ka1 and K_(a_2)Ka2 are ionization constant of the acids respectively and C_1C1 and C_2C2 is their concentration...

1 Answer
Nov 10, 2017

["H"^(+)] = 1/2 (sqrt(K_(a1)C_1) pm sqrt(K_(a1)C_1 + 4K_(a2)C_2))[H+]=12(Ka1C1±Ka1C1+4Ka2C2)

Note that this works best if K_(a1)Ka1 and K_(a2)Ka2 are both on the order of 10^(-5)105 or less, i.e. the acids are sufficiently weak.


DISCLAIMER: DERIVATION!

Well, concentration is a state function, so we can simply choose acid 1 to go first, and acid 2 can go second, suppressed by the equilibrium of the first.

By writing out an ICE table, you would construct the mass action expression for acid 1 (say, "HA"HA):

"HA"(aq) rightleftharpoons "H"^(+)(aq) + "A"^(-)(aq)HA(aq)H+(aq)+A(aq)

K_(a1) = (["H"^(+)]_1["A"^(-)])/(["HA"]) = (["H"^(+)]_1alpha_1C_1)/((1 - alpha_1)C_1)Ka1=[H+]1[A][HA]=[H+]1α1C1(1α1)C1

Although we know that ["H"^(+)]_1 = ["A"^(-)][H+]1=[A] in this first process, we choose to write them distinct from each other.

Since we assume alpha_1α1 "<<"<< 11, i.e. K_(a1) < 10^(-5)Ka1<105 or so, then rewrite this as...

K_(a1) ~~ (["H"^(+)]_1alpha_1C_1)/(C_1) = alpha_1["H"^(+)]_1Ka1[H+]1α1C1C1=α1[H+]1

So,

["H"^(+)]_1 ~~ K_(a1)/alpha_1[H+]1Ka1α1

The second acid, say "BH"^(+)BH+, now acts.

"BH"^(+)(aq) rightleftharpoons "B"(aq) + "H"^(+)(aq)BH+(aq)B(aq)+H+(aq)

And the ["H"^(+)]_1[H+]1 from acid 1 now is the initial concentration for the "BH"^(+)BH+ dissociation.

K_(a2) = (["B"]["H"^(+)])/(["BH"^(+)]) = (["H"^(+)]alpha_2C_2)/((1 - alpha_2)C_2)Ka2=[B][H+][BH+]=[H+]α2C2(1α2)C2

And since we also have alpha_2α2 "<<"<< 11,

K_(a2) ~~ alpha_2["H"^(+)]Ka2α2[H+]

["H"^(+)] ~~ K_(a2)/alpha_2[H+]Ka2α2

with ["H"^(+)][H+] being the net ["H"^(+)][H+] concentration. By subtracting out the contribution from acid 1,

alpha_2C_2 = ["H"^(+)]_2 = K_(a2)/alpha_2 - alpha_1C_1α2C2=[H+]2=Ka2α2α1C1.

So, one form of this is

["H"^(+)] = ["H"^(+)]_1 + ["H"^(+)]_2[H+]=[H+]1+[H+]2

= alpha_1C_1 + alpha_2C_2=α1C1+α2C2

But we have built into alpha_2α2 the suppressed equilibrium, and so,

color(red)(["H"^(+)] < (K_(a1))/alpha_1 + K_(a2)/alpha_2)[H+]<Ka1α1+Ka2α2

It would be convenient to determine alpha_2α2 in terms of alpha_1α1, but it won't look nice at first.

K_(a2)/alpha_2 = alpha_1C_1 + alpha_2C_2Ka2α2=α1C1+α2C2

0 = C_2alpha_2^2 + alpha_1C_1alpha_2 - K_(a2)0=C2α22+α1C1α2Ka2

This becomes a quadratic equation. If you wish to see it,

color(green)(alpha_2) = (-(alpha_1C_1) pm sqrt(alpha_1^2C_1^2 - 4C_2(-K_(a2))))/(2C_2)α2=(α1C1)±α21C214C2(Ka2)2C2

= color(green)((-(alpha_1C_1) pm sqrt(alpha_1^2C_1^2 + 4C_2K_(a2)))/(2C_2))=(α1C1)±α21C21+4C2Ka22C2

And so,

["H"^(+)] = alpha_1C_1 + (- (alpha_1C_1)/(2C_2) pm sqrt(alpha_1^2C_1^2 + 4C_2K_(a2))/(2C_2))C_2[H+]=α1C1+⎜ ⎜α1C12C2±α21C21+4C2Ka22C2⎟ ⎟C2

= 1/2 alpha_1C_1 pm sqrt(((alpha_1C_1)/(2))^2 + K_(a2)C_2)=12α1C1±(α1C12)2+Ka2C2

And lastly, it would be convenient to know this in terms of K_(a1)Ka1 instead of alpha_1α1, since that requires information we may not already have.

Since K_(a1) ~~ alpha_1["H"^(+)]_1 ~~ alpha_1^2C_1Ka1α1[H+]1α21C1, we can say that

alpha_1 = sqrt(K_(a1)/C_1)α1=Ka1C1

Therefore:

color(blue)(["H"^(+)]) = 1/2 sqrt(K_(a1)C_1) pm sqrt(((C_1)/(2))^2K_(a1)/C_1 + K_(a2)C_2)[H+]=12Ka1C1±(C12)2Ka1C1+Ka2C2

= 1/2 sqrt(K_(a1)C_1) pm sqrt(1/4K_(a1)C_1 + K_(a2)C_2)=12Ka1C1±14Ka1C1+Ka2C2

= color(blue)(1/2 (sqrt(K_(a1)C_1) pm sqrt(K_(a1)C_1 + 4K_(a2)C_2)))=12(Ka1C1±Ka1C1+4Ka2C2)


TESTING ON ACTUAL PROBLEM

And of course, we should try this on an actual problem.

Consider acetic acid (K_a = 1.8 xx 10^(-5)Ka=1.8×105) and formic acid (K_a = 1.8 xx 10^(-4)Ka=1.8×104), for C_1 = "0.50 M"C1=0.50 M and C_2 = "2.00 M"C2=2.00 M. Suppose we let formic acid dissociate first.

"HCHO"_2(aq) rightleftharpoons "H"^(+)(aq) + "CHO"_2^(-)(aq)HCHO2(aq)H+(aq)+CHO2(aq)

1.8 xx 10^(-4) = x^2/(0.50 - x) ~~ x^2/0.501.8×104=x20.50xx20.50

So,

["H"^(+)]_1 ~~ sqrt(1.8 xx 10^(-4) cdot 0.50) = "0.00949 M"[H+]11.8×1040.50=0.00949 M

and

alpha_1 ~~ x/(["HCHO"_2]) = 0.019α1x[HCHO2]=0.019

Let's see if we get the same K_aKa.

1.8 xx 10^(-4) stackrel(?)(=) (alpha_1C_1)^2/((1 - alpha_1)C_1)1.8×104?=(α1C1)2(1α1)C1

= (0.019 cdot 0.50)^2/((1 - 0.019)cdot0.50) ~~ 1.8 xx 10^(-4) color(blue)(sqrt"")=(0.0190.50)2(10.019)0.501.8×104

Next, add in acetic acid.

"HC"_2"H"_3"O"_2(aq) rightleftharpoons "H"^(+)(aq) + "C"_2"H"_3"O"_2^(-)(aq)HC2H3O2(aq)H+(aq)+C2H3O2(aq)

1.8 xx 10^(-5) = ((["H"^(+)]_1 + x)(x))/(2.00 - x) ~~ (["H"^(+)]_1 + x)x/21.8×105=([H+]1+x)(x)2.00x([H+]1+x)x2

~~ ["H"^(+)]_1x/2 + x^2/2[H+]1x2+x22

The quadratic equation solves to be

x = ["C"_2"H"_3"O"_2^(-)] = "0.00291 M"x=[C2H3O2]=0.00291 M,

which is also the "H"^(+)H+ contributed by the second acid.

And so, the total "H"^(+)H+ is:

color(green)(["H"^(+)]) = "0.00949 M" + "0.00291 M" = color(green)ul("0.0124 M")

This acid's percent dissociation at this concentration is

alpha_2 = x/(["HC"_2"H"_3"O"_2]) = "0.00291 M"/"2.00 M" = 0.00145.

So from the first form of the derived equation,

color(green)(["H"^(+)] = alpha_1C_1 + alpha_2C_2)

= 0.019 cdot 0.50 + 0.00145 cdot 2.00 = color(green)ul("0.0124 M") color(blue)(sqrt"")

Now to check the general formula we derived above.

color(green)(["H"^(+)]) stackrel(?)(=) 1/2 (sqrt(K_(a1)C_1) pm sqrt(K_(a1)C_1 + 4K_(a2)C_2))

= 1/2 (sqrt(1.8 xx 10^(-4) cdot 0.50) pm sqrt(1.8 xx 10^(-4) cdot 0.50 + 4 cdot 1.8 xx 10^(-5) cdot 2.00))

= 1/2(sqrt(9.00 xx 10^(-5)) pm sqrt(9.00 xx 10^(-5) + 1.44 xx 10^(-4)))

= color(green)ul("0.0124 M") color(blue)(sqrt"")