-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
watte...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Can somebody give me an equation that explains the reaction between sodium
> bicarbonate and calcium chloride? Thanks.
The spectator ions (which is all of them) do a square dance.
Equilbirium is pushed by precipitation of solids or evolution of gases
given solubility and equilibrium constants.
--
Uncle Al Schwartz
http://uncleal.within.net/
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Looks like NaHCO3 (aq) + CaCl2 (aq) -----> NaCl (aq) + HCl (aq) + CaCO3 (s)
That's an expensive way to make chalk, although precipitated calcium
carbonate has certain coatings applications if you can control the particle
size.
It's more interesting than that. HCl and CaCO3 do not coexist.
You've got multiple equlibria here, and the mechanism for karst
topograpy and pipe scale.
> Can somebody give me an equation that explains the reaction between sodium
> bicarbonate and calcium chloride? Thanks.
>
temperature?
pressure?
solvent, e.g. water, methanol, orange juice?
In water at standard temperature and pressure both salts dissociate
almost completely, yielding Na(+), Cl(-), HCO3(-), Ca(2+). One equation
will not be sufficient to describe what's gonna happen. Depending on
the final pH you may find Ca(2+), CaOH(+), CaHCO3(+), CaCO3(aq), CO2(aq),
H2CO3(aq), HCO3(-), CO3(2-), Na(+), NaHCO3(aq), NaCO3(-), Cl(-). And if
you add plenty of both you might precipitate some form of CaCO3(s) or
Ca(OH)2(s). When you do it, make sure you don't violate Gibbs phase
rule ;-)
Peter
2HCO3(-) --> CO3(2-) + CO2 + H2O
The reaction as written is not favored, but with calcium ions the
carbonate ions can be precipitated as CaCO3.
So, excluding spectator ions, we have:
Ca(2+) + 2HCO3(-) -->
CaCO3(s) + CO2 + H2O
--OL
[snip]
> But you could have this reaction:
>
> 2HCO3(-) --> CO3(2-) + CO2 + H2O
>
> The reaction as written is not favored
Why? Delta G0 = -214 kJ/mol ! Or am I missing something?
> but with calcium ions the carbonate ions can be precipitated as CaCO3.
> So, excluding spectator ions, we have:
>
> Ca(2+) + 2HCO3(-) --> CaCO3(s) + CO2 + H2O
... which would not proceed, if the first reaction did not occur. Or
where does the calcium get the carbonate ions (CO3(2-)) from? The driving
force for the latter reaction is not the precipitation of CaCO3
(Ca(2+) + CO3(2-) <-> CaCO3, Delta G0 = -47 kJ/mol).
I hope this illustrates the problems associated with lumping multiple
equilibria into one reaction.
Peter
You talk about multiple equilibria. But the net effect of all the
reactions that this implies must be an overall reaction that
precipitates CaCO3. The one proposed is the only one that makes any
sense (to me, anyway) as the net result of all the interactions.
--OL
> I strongly disagree with your argument. If the bicarbonate
> decomposition is so strongly favored without the Ca(2+) or any
> co-reagent, why does baking soda not fizz when added to just water?
Because the resulting solution may not be supersaturated with CO2.
Remember carbon dioxide is soluble in water! A water well equilibrated
with the atmosphere contains ~ 10^-5 M CO2(aq) and does it fizz?? Use a
vacuum pump and a suction flask and you will see bubbles (There are other
dissolved gases, too).
> (I'm not referrng to what happens when you add an acidic substance).
> And when Ca(2+) is added, can it not essentially displace a proton from
> CO3(2-), the way fluorine displaces oxygen from water which would
> otherwise not decompose?
Does it? Well, Ca(2+) won't displace a proton from CO3(2-), because there
are none.
> You talk about multiple equilibria. But the net effect of all the
> reactions that this implies must be an overall reaction that
> precipitates CaCO3.
No. If you're not supersaturated with respect to CaCO3, precipitation
will not occur. The calcite saturation horizon and the lysocline in the
ocean are at a depth of 2500m and 4000m, respectively. There are 10mM
calcium in surface seawater... think about it.
> The one proposed is the only one that makes any
> sense (to me, anyway) as the net result of all the interactions.
Fine.
au revoir,
Peter
--OL