Acid/Base theory clarification (1 Viewer)

[SadCeliac]

Hello,

Just confirming that we only need to properly know Arrhenius and Bronsted-Lowry theories for trials/hsc?? And that their theories are:

Arr: acids dissociate to produce H+, bases dissociate to produce OH-
BL: acids are proton donors, bases are protons acceptors

Could someone confirm if this is correct? Also what limitation examples should we know?
e.g.,
Arr: can't explain non-aqueous acid-base reactions // can't explain ammonia <--> ammonium reaction???
BL: what's the limitation??

THANKS!

 

[nsw..wollongong]

Hello,

Just confirming that we only need to properly know Arrhenius and Bronsted-Lowry theories for trials/hsc?? And that their theories are:

Arr: acids dissociate to produce H+, bases dissociate to produce OH-
BL: acids are proton donors, bases are protons acceptors

Could someone confirm if this is correct? Also what limitation examples should we know?
e.g.,
Arr: can't explain non-aqueous acid-base reactions // can't explain ammonia <--> ammonium reaction???
BL: what's the limitation??

THANKS!

yeah u should check with ur teacher specifically tho bc some schools only got to go thru half of mod 7 before their trials but def memorise it just in case
arr limitations: yeah so that ammonia ammonium rxn is bc his theory couldn't explain the amphoteric nature of substances. he also couldn't define the acidity of salts, and how some oxides and carbonates had acidic properties and were insoluble in water
BL limitations: couldn't explain the acidity or basicity of substances that didn't accept or donate protons (eg BF3 - boron trifluoride).

 

[synthesisFR]

Hello,

Just confirming that we only need to properly know Arrhenius and Bronsted-Lowry theories for trials/hsc?? ?


THANKS!

no
If ur school has only taught u those two then it’s fine for trials
Our school taught us all 5: so Laviosa (yes that’s the name) Humphrey Arrhenius Brønsted-Lowry lewis
The hsc won’t explicitly retest these other ones but what I’ve found is that learning all makes it so much easier to understanding the timeline and progression of ideas, limitations and all. It’s better to know all.

 

[SadCeliac]

yeah u should check with ur teacher specifically tho bc some schools only got to go thru half of mod 7 before their trials but def memorise it just in case

(it's in our exam but im just clarifying)

arr limitations: yeah so that ammonia ammonium rxn is bc his theory couldn't explain the amphoteric nature of substances. he also couldn't define the acidity of salts, and how some oxides and carbonates had acidic properties and were insoluble in water
BL limitations: couldn't explain the acidity or basicity of substances that didn't accept or donate protons (eg BF3 - boron trifluoride).

okay yep - tysm

 

[SadCeliac]

no
If ur school has only taught u those two then it’s fine for trials
Our school taught us all 5: so Laviosa (yes that’s the name) Humphrey Arrhenius Brønsted-Lowry lewis
The hsc won’t explicitly retest these other ones but what I’ve found is that learning all makes it so much easier to understanding the timeline and progression of ideas, limitations and all. It’s better to know all.

like ngl we learnt all of them but every paper I've seen only asks Arr vs BL

 

[nsw..wollongong]

(it's in our exam but im just clarifying)


okay yep - tysm

oh shit i totally misread ur post i swear I'm dyslexic

 

[SadCeliac]

oh shit i totally misread ur post i swear I'm dyslexic

all good it happens to the best of us
when life gives you melons eat them - or something like that