|WikiProject Chemistry||(Rated List-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 names not visible
- 2 References?
- 3 NH4NO3
- 4 Missing compounds
- 5 RE: Missing Compounds
- 6 dumb
- 7 Solubility
- 8 OMG water mass (and conseq weight) also changes with temp. The most correct is mol of subject /mol of the solvent
- 9 My comments on above comments
- 10 Ksp of inorganic carbonates at various temps.
- 11 25° C
- 12 Sodium chloride solubility wrong!
- 13 Xenon solubility = wrong
- 14 Cesium bromate solubility wrong!
- 15 Units (and other things)
- 16 Gadolinium compounds removed around 23rd of April ??
- 17 CRC handbook data available - but what to do?
names not visible
The compounds are arranged in alphabetical order, but the names aren't visible. Also, there is no information on organic compounds in water.
At what temperature was the volume(100ml) of the water taken? It varies with temperature.
Is the solubility in grams per 100 mL of water, or grams per 100 mL of solution? This matters.... RobertAustin 11:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Should there be references/sources for these values? -- 18.104.22.168 14:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Yep, but alot of wikipedians are as I put it "Article Demons" they will just change anything they don't like for no reason and don't give a shit about refrences. They only care that thier view is heard and everone elses is covered up. Then there are the good wikipedians, who do what they should, but the Article Demons will come back and ruin it all.
Fuzzform 19:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I am researching everything I can about sugar, which is sucrose. It's not in the solubility table, but salt (NaCI) is. What is going on here?17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
RE: Missing Compounds
If you might notice it says inorganic compounds (ie. compounds without carbon). Sucrose contains carbon therefore it is not in the list.
Thanks for clarifying. I feel pretty dumb now! --Gabycs 00:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, these data are foolish. If they list it by mass, then of course the heavier salts will bear a greatter "solubility". But that's not what solubility should be; it should be a ratio of volums or at least moles. -lysdexia 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Heavier salts do not have a higher solubility, in fact many of the heavy metal salts are insoluble. And solubility is defined (g/100ml H2O). It is not yours to decide which is right.
The solubility should be (grams/100grams H2O) as the volume of water changes with temperature.
OMG water mass (and conseq weight) also changes with temp. The most correct is mol of subject /mol of the solvent
OMG water mass (and conseq weight) also changes with temp. The most correct is mol of subject /mol of the solvent —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Mass does not change with fluctuations in temperature
- The mass of a fixed volume of liquid does change with temperature! That's why many solubility tables give the solubility per mass of solvent, rather than volume. --Itub 18:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mass is a measure of matter and is nonvariable. Therefore, it does not change with variations in temperature. If it did, then the number of moles of a substance would also change, which is obviously not true
- I'm afraid you are not getting the point, so let me be more explicit. Let's assume you have 1000 mL of water at 4 deg C, which is 1000 g of water. Now you heat your water to 30 deg C. The density decreases, so the volume expands. Now you have about 1004 mL of water. It still weighs 1 kg, of course. But if you measure the solubility now in g/L, you'll be measuring the solubility for about 996 g of water, which is a different amount of solvent. To avoid this effect, it is better to measure the solubility as mass of solute / mass of solvent, or moles / moles. --06:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
My comments on above comments
There's absolutely no use arguing about units (M or g/100cm3). The unit is given in the description. This is because g/100cm3 is the most common unit found for "solubility" on the web. If you want it in molarity, do the calculation yourself. Or if you would like to benefit others like me, go do all the calculation and post it here, give the values beside with a slash in between, or make a separate table on your own.
For accuracy, most of you should have heard it by now, that solubility, as well as solubility product constants, cannot be very accurate as very minor factors such as water purity or dissolved carbon dioxide may interfere. Common factors include:
water purity / dissolved CO2 (as for CaCO(sub>3 due to common ion effect; NaOH by neutralization)
efflorescence (as CuSO4.5H2/ deliquescence (as for FeCl3)
decomposition in water (as for some sulfides and oxides)
formation of complexes (as CuCl2, most iron(III) salts)
temperature change when the substance dissolves in water (e.g. CaCl2, NaOH)
It is true that water changes its volume with temperature, but the effect is insignificant when compared to the above factors. Therefore many (including here - the solubility table) choose to use the unit g/100cm3. Moreover, here I have chosen this unit, as well as the values, together from the source. It is not to me to decide how to change the unit. Maybe those who gave these values measured water in cm3 rather than in g! Who knows! Keep the units. Don't change it. (And water mass does not change with temperature, unless it evaporates and slips away, an error of which can be experimentally eliminated fairly easily)
For heavier salts being more "soluble", this is indeed foolish. Solubility is determined by many factors, including lattice energy, stability of the ions in solution, amongst many others. Simply relating the solubility of a particular salt directly to how dense it is (not how heavy, as larger chunks are heavier than small crystals) reveals conceptual problems in the basic principles of not only chemistry, but general science. The idea of ratio of volumes is even absurd.
For sugars and other organic compounds, if anyone finds them, add them to the list. I'm too busy with exams and projects right now. And if I do have time, I'll fix the references first. They don't seem to be precise enough, and I'm sorry coz I didn't realize the importance of citing sources when I was gathering the data. I'm planning to cite those I know where they come from, and probably deleting those without known sources or substituting with other values that have a source. Hopefully all this can be done in July, after my exams.
Anyway, hope this table's useful.
Thanks to everyone who helped.
Chiu frederick 10:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Ksp of inorganic carbonates at various temps.
In order to alleviate the crystallization problem, I'm trying to avoid/minimise the formation of sodium carbonate crystal due to reaction with the CO2 presence in the atmosphere in a chlorine scrubber system.
Can anyone provide a list of Ksp values for carbonates such as Na2CO3 and K2CO3 at various temperatures similar to the solubility table? Most appreciated.
A126.96.36.199 05:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Ksp of inorganic carbonates at various temps.
Ksp values are not accurate for such soluble salts as Na2CO3 and K2CO3, but you can do the calculation:
Ksp = [Na+]2[CO32-]=4[CO32-]3=4[Na2CO3]3
the same for K2CO3
Chiu frederick 05:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Virtually every reference I find lists the solubility of a compound at 25 degrees - which makes sense aince most room temperatures are close to 25 Celsius. Anyone else think we should had 25° to the list? Thricecube 07:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Like Robert Austin mentions whether the data is based on 100 ml of water or 100 mL of solution is is vital fro salts with high solubities. If the author could add a line stating the basis of the solubilities that would be much appreciated.
Just looking at the data itself ...the oxygen data stuck out as odd. It appears to be based on air and one litre rather than 100 mL??...Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Sodium chloride solubility wrong!
Adding to the above comment, since I can't figure out how to post my own comment:Sodium chloride is still wrong. The numbers are rediculous. Here is link to a graph showing solubility of various compounds at different temperatures and it shows NaCl http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/education/outreach/8thgradesol/TempSolubility.htm. One could get readings off the graph to post here...they wouldn't be too accurate, but at least they would be more realistic than the ones posted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Xenon solubility = wrong
100g water will never dissolve 24g Xenon!
Cesium bromate solubility wrong!
the solubility of cesium bromate at 0°C will most probably be 10 times higher! Where is the literature to these values??????????????? the hole solubility table is USELESS since you can't trust it (see sodium chloride as well)!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Units (and other things)
Measures are being made in weight per weight or per volume of water.
Thus any conversions to moles will add error to that data a bit.
Thus few tens of years ago negotiated g/100g unit must be the best.
The mentioned 190g vs 192 g of NH4NO3 - is not anyhow sensible difference (of 1%); when NH4NO3 dissolves in water, the temperature drops significantly, what requires some time to warm the solution back; many salts also do make a crystal hydrates after some time being in the solution, which also have a different solubility.
Thus sometimes there is a range of solubility, rather than just a single value.
Thus no any sensible difference between 100ml and 100g of water; really, no any; someone above also has mentioned some about purity and gases, so ...
And yes, I prefer to convert those numbers to moles, so it becomes moles/100g (while a normal well known unit would be mole/liter).
And I mostly look at moles to see what concentration I will get in a saturated solution.
Thus moles per something, is also a good unit to consider about (only if add it as an additional unit, but not to replace the g/100g).
The mostly interesting temperatures are : 0, 20, 100.
I would like to see those (or maybe more) columns of a different color in the background.
25° C column would spoil the organization of table :/ (I also have much data on 25°, but we must choose/keep/prefer the best structure of the table).
I put solubility of Xenon for 25°; you may remove it when will have for 20°; the source is Handbook of Nikolskiy vol 2, "Справочник химика. Том 2. Никольский ...".
Sucrose (sugar) must be moved to a separate table; or at least it was very unexpected to me to see it between inorganic compounds.
Do not hesitate to also add a qualitative words like "insoluble", "slightly soluble" there, where no defined data yet is.
Also a normal style would be to separate different results by comma, rather than just throw out any previous data.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantregistermynick (talk • contribs) 14:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Why would a 25 °C column spoil the organization of the table? Klaas1978 (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Gadolinium compounds removed around 23rd of April ??
sometime ago I found here the solubility of some Gadolinium compounds. However, today I wanted to have a look again but they had dissapeared! looking at the history of this article I found that it was removed between 6th of March and 23rd of April 2012. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
CRC handbook data available - but what to do?
I have data from the CRC handbook covering a lot of these substances. The values are sometimes approx. similar to the ones in the table, some other times, off quite a bit. I could do a major revamp of the whole table, and add the values with (as i think is best to remove obscurity) a reference tag at each value excerpt from CRC. This means that a lot of data will be redundant. What is the consensus on editing this table - should we keep the original numbers everywhere and add the referenced data in addition (lot of clutter!) or remove the old values and replace them with referenced data?? If this could be clarified, I could start doing this when time is available, as solubility charts like these are quite useful, also for me to have handy when needed. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely remove any old values that conflict with the sources you have and replace them with referenced data. As of right now, none of the values have inline citations, making them hard to verify, which seriously detracts from the usefulness of the page; having direct, inline references to a reliable source like the CRC handbook would be a major improvement. ʍw 22:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)