Talk:Acid–base reaction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


Should we throw in the Drago-Wayland equation for the enthalpy change in Lewis acid-base reaction or should it only go to Lewis acid's own page? I don't know any more about it than what I just googled up. It seems to be fairly modern. Cubbi 04:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Lewis acid-base reaction deserves it's own page, really, because expanding into the whole frontier orbitals-land, and all that will make the section become disproportionately big, maybe? I'd prefer to make the article Acid-base reaction because the theories aren't all that are involved :-) Gaim.svg ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 08:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hermann Lux and Håkon Flood.. unsung ghosts of Chemistry?[edit]

I've searched google, my books, historical books, and even ones with in-depth information about Lux-Flood, and almost zero is known about them. Any chance someone would want to mount an original research project if they live in germany? Gaim.svg ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 23:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Flood is Norwegian. I made a link cause I wanted to make a stub about him from random tidbits that google shows to his full name and to "Professor Flood" and stuff. Cubbi 02:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. Check out Hermann Lux and much less impressive Håkon Flood (and yes, they both need work) Cubbi 05:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I think the page should have something detailing what happens when an acid and a base react, or the article is sorta pointless.(Freddy Lu (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

Requested move[edit]

I am not sure "Acid-base reaction" would be the right name for this. The content, as it is right now, describes empirical and theoretical answers to "what is an acid" and "what is a base" with examples of how some reactions may be described with those answers. FWIW, check out the names of this article in other languages - it is "Theories of Acidity and Basicity" in SR and SU, "Concepts of Acids and Bases" in DE, and "Acid-Base Reactions" in IT and EL. I am not sure what's better for English as I've never read a Chemistry textbook in English :) Cubbi 21:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, i was just attempting to try and pick the most "accessible" name for this, rather than something more accurate but less-accessible. Again, just because it may be more accurate to talk about a sub-field, acid-base chemistry is generally pretty large -- Acid-base reaction redirects here anyway, and the name "theories" means that we are technically limited to only discussing the theories of acid-base reactions and not the underlying principles. Generally, an article that ends with "s" is plural, which is generally not used on the wikipedia.. i imagine there is "Reactions" in IT/EL maybe because of grammatical structure of Italian.. i'm unsure. Still, maybe "Acid-base chemistry".. but i couldn't think of any others that were general enough. Gaim.svg ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 06:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
"Chemistry" sounds good to me, actually. Cubbi 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyone new to chemistry wanting to know how an acid and a base react with each other would probably end up here instead of the neutralization article. He or she would read the first sentence An acid–base reaction is a chemical reaction that occurs between an acid and a base. And after that, ... ?? Lost! DS Belgium (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


I moved this page from Acid-base reaction theories as requested, and corrected many resulting double redirects. Anthony Appleyard 09:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Where was the request/discussion? See my recent entry at WikiProject Science --Belg4mit 03:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


There's a horrendous mix of hydronium/oxonium, etc. in the article. I think at the beginning should be a brief primer on the ion species present in water with trace elements (H2O, OH-, H3O+ [since H+ is not stable]). Here one can briefly give the alternate names of hydronium, hydroxonium, and oxonium for H3O. Thereafter only one of the names should probably be used. Either the common hydronium name, or the most explicit hydroxonium. Comments? Volunteers? --Belg4mit 03:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I've been using hydronium in my edits because hydroxonium redirects to it. --Cubbi 04:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, this kind of thing is trivial; the sections which refer to these differently were ones that have already pre-existed mine and cubbi's edits and we just haven't got around to doing it. I'll do it later on maybe, slightly busy at the moment. Gaim.svg ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 06:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, some of the theories also actually defined the molecules involved in their own definitions of the reaction, hence why i used the term "oxonium" alongside "as defined at the time of the discovery", but i suppose there would be no harm in further explaining the differences between these and Hydronium ions. Gaim.svg ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 06:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no difference. Of course, first I had to look up "oxonium" which was rather frustrating. In three years of college chemistry this form (and hydroxonium) never came up. --Belg4mit 11:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You've added "IUPAC has deprecated the name" plus, removed the nomenclature which describes it's favor for hydronium. I'll just go say that's not entirely true. Firstly, the IUPAC Gold Book lists if there are any deprecated terms in their articles; no such thing exists as per their gold book online [1] (last updated in 2006) and have not seen anything of resemblance on any other reputable source that suggests deprecation but rather preference; also, i can't yet find the term hydronium in the gold book.. peculiar, although maybe my browser is not supported!
I've always favoured hydronium because it infers that in Bronsted-Lowry reaction or similar reaction character, there is transferral of a H+ or proton and is a more relavant but similarly, oxonium is an onium derivitive and sounds confusing to some. Still, IUPAC says:
Onium ion:
A positively charged hypervalent ion of the nonmetallic elements.
Examples are the methonium ion CH5+, the hydrogenonium ion H3+
and the hydronium ion H3O+.

Other examples are the oxonium, sulfonium, nitronium, diazonium,
phosphonium, and halonium ions. Onium ions are not limited to monopositive ions;
multiply-charged onium ions exist such as the gitonic (proximal) oxonium dication H4O2+
and the distonic oxonium dication H2O+-CH2-CH2-OH2+.GB
IUPAC, Standard definitions of terms relating to Mass spectrometry (Draft and Published)
Finally, the "google test" philosophy -- if anyone editing chemistry articles is justifying moves/info/referencing/etc on the volume of google hits that there is for a term in Sciences or Mathematics, then there really is a problem with verifiability on here. Even though books are not unanimously correct, they are certainly more worthwhile than using a google search for justification of information as they usually are created through collaboration of authors which tends to weed out assumptions for more referenced "facts". Again, google the term "hydron"; a large amount of the pages on there are commercial companies, as well as those if you were to search for the term "vector". Gaim.svg ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 14:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
First, please indent all of your paragraphs so it is easier to follow. Second, as was indicated in the edit comment, I was not sure if the edit was correct, it was my best guess at making your oxonium addition comprehensible. I did search to see if I could find any IUPAC reference regarding deprecation, but finding nothing went with the apparent gist of your loquacious verbiage :-P And no need to get your panties in a bunch, the googlefight links were simply to point out that the alternatives to hydronium aren't necessarily that prevalent. --Belg4mit 18:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
My verbosity is generally as per policy of explaining why I reverted your edits; Im not twisting my panties as they are well and truly on my arse. If you do add information which you are asking for, then please take on board what i've said -- never seen anything about "compare and contrast" in Chemistry, other than when dealing with chemical-history topics and production methods in chemical engineering, and even those asked for complex synthesis and analysis. Gaim.svg ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 21:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You're really missing the point. Verbosity refers to the phrase "the term oxonium now replaced for hydronium as per IUPAC substitutive nomenclature." I suppose this could be a matter of misinterpreting CE-isms as an AE speaker. In any event your edits to "More recent IUPAC recommendations now suggest the newer term hydronium. be used in favor of the older accepted term oxonium" seem to again just be a verbose form of what I wrote: deprecated. Yet you balked at them here on the talk page, and in the references. You may be applying some different connotation to the word, but this is how it used in the software world, and matches quite well with Mr. Webster. Deprecated does not mean the same thing as obsolete.
As for compare and contrast, I'm not talking about chemical-history, or writing an essay. It's simply providing a few explicit lines to help clarify how the different theories are related, and in this way help people who may only understand one (i.e. good old Arrhenius) grasp the others. Bronsted (give/take H+) is a generalization of Arrhenius(give H+/give OH-), and Lewis (accept 2e-, give 2e-) is an even broader generalization yet they all are describing the "same" phenomenon in slightly different ways. I'll tackle the actual text later. --Belg4mit 01:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
So far as i've seen, you've procrastinated and done nothing but minutial edits. Contribute something other than pickiness and you'll have room to argue. SConfident.gif J O R D A N [talk ] 14:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

External links[edit]

In my opinion there is absolutely no way the external link "Acid-Base Tutorial" should be there. It is not an Acid Base Tutorial as one expects. Its "major feature" is an applet that has nothing to do with the basics of Acid-base reactions.
Someone who has more involvement with this webpage then me should remove it or relabel it. Dave3457 (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Someone must have added it because of the seemingly fitting domain name ( but it's really a simple web page about pCO2 and pH in humans, which this article does not talk about. Gone. --Cubbi (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Or they tried to create traffic to their page. Dave3457 (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


The naming of this article confuses me. See this redirect. Why does this use a long dash instead of just using the minus sign as a dash as is common? Tyciol (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Using the dash is wrong in terms of typography, I suggest it is renamed to contain a hyphen (that is probably what you mean by "minus sign"). --Nefronus (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Acidic and basic food[edit]

Is there an article about all that stuff people talk about certain foods being acidic or basic depending on their nutrients or effect on the body? Like usually they say meat is acidic and that lemon juice, despite having acids, is basic due to effect on the body. I don't really understand it but an article exploring this recurring idea would be valid to link to. Tyciol (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of proposals[edit]

Here's a quote from the article: "he was not aware of the true composition of the hydrohalic acids (HF, HCl, HBr (hydrogen fluroide), and HI) (hydrogen iodide)". As far as I can see, the 'fluroide' mentioned is the result of a simple spelling error (it should be fluoride) and the parenthesis is misplaced, because HF is hydrogen fluoride and HBr is hydrogen bromide. The second thing is, why write out hydrogen fluoride in a parenthesis but not also the other two compounds? They all have links and it seems inconsistent. I'd prefer writing out either all compounds, including hydrogen iodide, in the same paranthesis - placed after hydrogen iodide, or none of them. Thirdly, the parenthesis placed just after HI is misplaced and should be put after the current last parenthesis of that sentence. The reason I haven't done these changes myself already is that I haven't edited much and I'm afraid to make a mistake and mess up a link. Knowledgelover121 (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have deleted the names as unnecessary here. Anyone who doesn't know what HF etc are can click on the links. Dirac66 (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Complicated sentence[edit]

In highly-polar molecules, such as boron trifluoride (BF3), the most electronegative element pulls electrons towards its own orbitals, providing a more positive charge on the less-electronegative element and a difference in its electronic structure due to the axial or equatorial orbiting positions of its electrons, causing repulsive effects from lone pair – bonding pair (Lp–Bp) interactions between bonded atoms in excess of those already provided by bonding pair – bonding pair (Bp–Bp) interactions.

Hard to read for a chemistry newcomer. The previous sentence is also heavy. (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right, it's gibberish. What's more it is irrelevant! I've re-written the section. Petergans (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Much improved. Except that you used B for Base 4 times and B for Boron 3 times in the same paragraph, which could confuse a reader. I have changed B for Base to D for Donor. At least there is no Deuterium in this article. Dirac66 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Formula Error[edit]

I have found no defintions of Ka defined as

Ka= [HA]/([A-][H+])

but have seen multiple references including the first page of this article defining Ka as

Ka = ([A-][H+])/[HA]

This is the definition in common use.

It follows then that the expression in the article should be

[AH]Ka1 = [A-][H+] not [AH]=Ka1[A-][H+]

the subsequent 2 formula are affected.

So there is either an algebra error in this article or am I missing some greater context. DGElder (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Thank you for noticing this. I will fix the article. Dirac66 (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)