Talk:Solubility equilibrium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Chemistry
Chemistry Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Chemicals WikiProject
Chemistry Portal
Solubility equilibrium is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Chemistry WikiProject This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

Contents

[edit] If you edit the table

Note to anybody editing the table: If you add a line to the table, or change a line, please be sure to cite your data source. Various sources disagree when it comes to solubility product data. Hence without citing a source, any data placed in the table is meaningless. The table has a data source column for that reason. Karlhahn 22:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikify

Not bad. I'm going to do some editing myself though, to Wikify a little and also perhaps get things that don't always dissociate completely and so readily as sucrose (maybe an organic acid). Its certainly better than before. EagleFalconn 20:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like it, but it does seem to leave out solid state chemistry. I don't see an obvious way to fix that now, but perhaps I'll come back to it. Articles such as precipitation strengthening could use a link here; I'll work on that for now.--Joel 03:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

== merger ==

I put the merger notice; is there really a good reason to have a separate solubility equilibrium article than solubility. There seems to be a lot of overlap in both. Olin

Seems a reasonable suggestion, although I think eventually we will need a separate article on solubility product constant. Until that gets written, all of this could be a section of solubility. Walkerma 19:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I was just thinking about writing a solubility-product constant article when I found this. I think I might, don't know if I'll get around to it tonight, but hopefully soon. seanm028
I suggest keeping it separate, simply because it also has some overlap with equilibrium. Keeping them separate is useful for people interested in equilibrium, and not solubility in general. Pwnz0red
try to think BIG, keep the articles separate, the content will evolve (for example solubility constant table ). Also scope solubility is larger should include solubility of gases in liquids and solids in polymers etc. V8rik 00:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I realize the merger was rejected (although more by non-votes than actual votes), but I will express my opinion more completely, and let the crowd decide. I still don't understand the allure of having two articles. Solubility equilibrium is always associated with solubility, and is a proper subtopic. There are a lot of chemistry articles that are quite fragmented, and it would be nice to have some larger, coherent articles.

Furthermore, why should solubility have a solubility equilibrium article? Should we have an electron transfer equilibrium article and a redox reaction article? If you were looking in an encyclopedia, would you really look up solubility equilibrium? (The solubility of gases in liquids and other above solubilities are equilibrium processes.) I will admit, there is no Wikipedia policy to go by here (just my opinion!), and hence I will let it lie, but I just wanted to express my opinion more completely. Olin 20:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with chemical equilibrium instead

I think that solubility equilibrium should merge with equilibrium constant, and that page should have a solubility product constant inside the solubility equilibrium section. In fact, I was going to link to it in my post on the discussion of the redox page. Kr5t 02:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • not merge: in the interest of quality of information flow and ease of navigation this type of merged should not take place, after all these are not identical topics but related topics. The article chemical equilibrium should be a qualitative article about equilibria. From this article you get to equilibrium constant and to solubility constant and acidity constant and it also makes sense to keep general introductionary text separated from text treating the mathematics and piling many topics on top of each other does not help anybody V8rik 19:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 'do not merge see below Anlace 15:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 'opposed Each chemical constant needs its own article because the system of dealing with each one is fundamentally different but based on the same rules, mixing them together will confuse people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.216.20 (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge unless...

I believe the pages should be merged. Solubility equilibrium is directly linked to chemical equilibrium and should be placed on the same page in its own sub-section. If, however, someone is to create a comprehensive solubility equilibrium constant table, the page should remain as it is. marcpatt14, May 2006

strongly oppose merger. these are both big topics and very different topics. if anything we need more articles such as total dissoved solids, a major topic in water quality analysis within environmental science Anlace 15:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table

The following is a rough draft of a sol-prod table (from Lange's and CRC) that I will be adding to the article once I've finished proofreading it Karlhahn 01:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

Table has now been moved to main page Karlhahn 01:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't give correct formulæ for hydrated compounds. —DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Clarity

A casual observer may struggle to understand whether a compound with a high or low solubility constant was the most soluble. Does a high solubity constant indicate the most soluble? Maybe this should be clarified.King of Leon 16:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

      ---- indeed it does, if the solubility is greater than 1 its very very soluble, if it has less than 1 its less soluble most substances have a very low solubility < 10^-5 . but yes a higher Ksp means more solubility less Ksp means more insolubility

[edit] wikipedia contradicts itself

umm, i was looking up the accepted Ksp value for Ca(OH)2 for a lab, and i noticed wikipedia gives 2 values for it, 4.68 × 10−6 on the Calcium Hydroxide page, and 8.0 × 10−6 on the chart on this page. which one would be correct? these things should be looked into in order to remove discrepencies.74.104.255.195 23:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The different numbers came from different sources, and different investigators have come up with different numbers. The solubility equilibrium table cites a source. The calcium hydroxide page does not. [1] and [2] both give still other values. I have added a line for one of the above sources. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 00:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

alright thankyou74.104.255.195 21:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Units

it seems that the units are missed out throughout the context shouldn't solubility products have the units like mol dm-3, mol2 dm-6, mol3 dm-9, etc (depending on the number of ions in the compound)218.215.27.145 13:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Complex Ksp

I added a section on if the mole ratios are not even. it needs a little tidying up but the facts are solid hope someone finds it useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.216.20 (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that. I went through it and (hopefully) beautified it a bit. I also tried to clarify the units as much as I could. Hope I did not thoughtlessly affect your favourite bit in this nice and useful equation of yours. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

nope not atall you did a great job, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.15.38 (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)