1
$\begingroup$

What is the need for the Brønsted-Lowry theory and the Lewis theory of acids and bases?Is there any problem with the Arrhenius theory?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
13
$\begingroup$

First came the Arrhenius theory. It defines an acid as a species that dissociates to produce $\ce{H+}$ in solution, and a base as a species that dissociates to produce $\ce{OH-}$ in solution. (Examples: $\ce{HCl}$, $\ce{NaOH}$)

Next came the Brønsted-Lowry theory, which expands the notion of acid and base. It defines an acid as a species that loses $\ce{H+}$ in a reaction, and a base as a species that gains $\ce{H+}$ in a reaction. All Arrhenius acids and bases are Brønsted-Lowry acids and bases; hence the Brønsted-Lowry theory generalizes the concepts of Arrhenius acids and bases and allows the application of these concepts to a larger range of species. (Examples of "new" acids and bases under this theory: $\ce{NH4+}$, $\ce{CH3COO-}$)

Finally came the Lewis theory, which further expands the notion of acid and base. It defines an acid as a species that accepts an electron pair, and a base as a species that donates an electron pair. All Brønsted-Lowry acids and bases are Lewis acids and bases; hence the Lewis theory generalizes the concepts of Brønsted-Lowry acids and bases and allows the application of these concepts to a larger range of species. (Examples of "new" acids and bases under this theory: $\ce{Li+}$, $\ce{CO}$)

Remark: Hopefully the repetition and structure within my answer has been suggestive. The benefits of generalization are obvious: the theory can explain more, and more things can be explained; this is the natural progression of science.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Nice post, but I'd point out that by working up from the Arrhenius theory through the Brønsted-Lowry theory to the Lewis theory one develops a good knowledge of the subtleties of chemistry. Like in math you don't need a 10 pound theorem to prove a two pound problem. $\endgroup$
    – MaxW
    Sep 3, 2016 at 22:50
  • $\begingroup$ Shouldn't "solution" in Arrhenius theory be qualified by "aqueous" or is it that the dissociation can take place in any solution? $\endgroup$
    – MrAP
    Aug 10, 2017 at 16:16
  • $\begingroup$ @MrAP, yes, an aqueous solution is implied. $\endgroup$
    – a-cyclohexane-molecule
    Aug 10, 2017 at 17:37

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.