Ideas of Acids and Bases (1 Viewer)

[AnimeX]

So even though for the HSC syllabus, the Bronsted-Lowry is the most accepted, why are others still considered "more useful" in explaining acids and bases

I recall a question along the lines of that, please help : )

 

[Queenroot]

I guess because Bronsted Lowry only takes into account Hydrogen. Whereas the other scientists have explanations as to why there are acidic and basic oxides etc.

 

[Menomaths]

This is not a professional answer, but I'm guessing the Arrhenius theory could possibly be better than the Bronsted-Lowry theory in terms of how it tells us bases usually have OH- whereas the Bronsted-Lowry theory says bases are proton acceptors, not specifying they have OH- (All bases don't have OH- but it's still a god guide)

 

[AnimeX]

This is not a professional answer, but I'm guessing the Arrhenius theory could possibly be better than the Bronsted-Lowry theory in terms of how it tells us bases usually have OH- whereas the Bronsted-Lowry theory says bases are proton acceptors, not specifying they have OH- (All bases don't have OH- but it's still a god guide)

Ahh fair enough.

How about any of the earlier ones, could any better B-L's theory?

 

[HeroicPandas]

Ahh fair enough.

How about any of the earlier ones, could any better B-L's theory?

No, Antoine Lavoisier stated that acids contained oxygen which was very wrong (could not explain why hydrogen halide compounds acted as acids even thought they did not contain an oxygen atom in its structure, could not eplain why metallic oxides when dissolved in water formed base instead of acid)

Humphrey Davy said that acids contained hydrogen - this was later extended by Justus von Liebig who found out that when acids reacted with metals, the metal 'replaced' the hydrogen, and so he concluded that acids contained replaceable hydrogen. His theory is not acceptable and inferior to the B-L theory was it could not explain the electrical conductivities of acids/bases and their differing strengths (Svante Arrhenius' theory could explain this)

also most reactions involved with acids and abses are usually in solution, thus arrhenius' theory is "more useful" (also simpler and easily understood) than B-L. HOWEVER, for a more deeper understanding of acids and bases, B-L theory would be better because it can explain acid/base reactions outside the aqueous reaction media, whereas arrhenius' theory can only be applied when reactions are in SOLUTION

 

[someth1ng]

So even though for the HSC syllabus, the Bronsted-Lowry is the most accepted, why are others still considered "more useful" in explaining acids and bases

I recall a question along the lines of that, please help : )

Let me clarify - the others are not more useful but rather, still useful - particularly the Arrhenius model.

The reason why the Arrhenius model is useful is because it explains that acids produce H+ in solution and OH- in solution which is partially correct. It gives an explanation of the mechanics of acids and bases and demonstrates how they work. In particular, his explanation is most valid when the solution is water and for new learners, water is the most familiar solvent and so, it allows a good introductory understanding of acids and bases. Even though it doesn't explain everything completely such as why HCl is not acidic in benzene solution, it does a good job explaining why HCl is a strong acid in water.