0
$\begingroup$

At low concentrations of aqueous $\ce{NH4HF2}$ $(w = 1–2\,\%)$ $\mathrm{pH}\approx 3.$

But aqueous $\ce{NH4F}$ $(w = 20–40\,\%)$ has $\mathrm{pH}\approx 7.$

Yet the equilibria of

$$ \begin{align} \ce{HF &-> H+ + F-} &\quad K &= \pu{6.85E-6 M} \tag{1} \\ \ce{HF + F- &-> HF2-} &\quad K &= \pu{3.963 M^-1} \tag{2} \end{align} $$

I understand that $\ce{NH4F}$ comes from a weak acid and a weak base. So, the $\mathrm{pH}$ is around neutral. I don't understand how this equilibria makes $\ce{NH4HF2}$ more acidic. Does the second equilibria make the $\ce{HF2-}$ a stronger acid? I'm having a hard time understanding this.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Does this answer your question? Dissociation equilibria of ammonium bifluoride in water $\endgroup$
    – Mithoron
    Commented Feb 23, 2021 at 17:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You're asking about pretty much the same thing as earlier. $\endgroup$
    – Mithoron
    Commented Feb 23, 2021 at 17:09
  • $\begingroup$ HF is stronger acid than NH4+, is not it ? $\endgroup$
    – Poutnik
    Commented Feb 24, 2021 at 6:43

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

This question and the one referenced by Mithoron address $\ce{NH4HF2}$ as an entity in itself which must be examined as a whole.

It is easier conceptually to rewrite the formula for the compound as $\ce{NH4F·HF}$. Consider adding $\ce{NH4F}$ to water: you get a $\mathrm{pH}$ near $7.$ In a separate container, add $\ce{HF}$ to water (approx. $\pu{0.1 M});$ you get a $\mathrm{pH}\approx 1$.

Combine the solutions and the $\mathrm{pH}$ will settle out somewhere between $1$ and $7,$ because of the common ion effect: $\ce{F-}$ from the $\ce{NH4F}$ inhibits the ionization of $\ce{HF},$ but the solution is still acidic. The approximate $\mathrm{pH}$ can be calculated from the ionization constant of $\ce{HF}$ and the concentrations of $\ce{NH4F}$ and $\ce{HF}.$

The concept of the $\ce{HF2-}$ moiety dominating the discussion for a solution is probably making the analysis murkier than it needs to be. It's just a hydrogen-bonded complex that happens to retain some semblance of existence in the solid. It is fairly stable: mp $\pu{126 °C},$ bp $\pu{240 °C}$ (with decomposition).

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "126$^0$ C" reads as "one hundred twenty-six to the power of zero coulombs". "NH$_4$F.HF" has a dot that doesn't make sense and the formula breaks across lines incorrectly. Please consider using proper formatting tools (mhchem, Unicode, plain MathJax) so that your notations make sense. $\endgroup$
    – andselisk ♦
    Commented Sep 27, 2021 at 21:29
  • $\begingroup$ @andselisk: Well, thanks, I guess. It's not clear to me what straightforward notation, according to my screen, gets retranslated to a different format. I have already been notified about certain subscripts, but not the temperature. Is there a way that I can see the wrong view before I post it? $\endgroup$
    – James Gaidis
    Commented Sep 28, 2021 at 14:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Let's try this: I corrected the answer a bit, and once you have some spare time, feel free to review the edits, maybe also by (re)visiting this page, this page and this one on how to format your future posts better with MathJax and Markdown. There are no other tools other than the preview windows, standardized notations (which everyone is supposed to look up) and common sense, I'm afraid. $\endgroup$
    – andselisk ♦
    Commented Sep 28, 2021 at 15:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.