-6
$\begingroup$

I was wondering, if we put $\ce{HF}$ into a glass of water the acid will be dissolved according to this reaction:

$$\ce{HF->F- + H+}$$

Now there is a proton travelling across the water.

All $\ce{H2O}$ molecules have equal chance of getting the proton so it travels through the liquid.

Now for the reaction

$$\ce{F- + H2O ->HF + OH-}$$

the bond strength between O and H is lower than the bond strength of F and H (fluorine is has more electronegative and has a smaller atomic radius than O).

According to Bronsted-Lowry theory for acids and bases the second reaction happens more often than the first one. But how is this happening? Why does the second reaction happen at all? Oxygen is more negatively charged than fluorine so the proton would have a very small chance to reach fluorine and then the electrons would be rearranged to form the HF bond.

$\endgroup$
11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Off the record: HF usually tries to dissolve the "glass" in the "glass of water". Just nitpicking :D $\endgroup$ Commented May 6, 2019 at 14:07
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'm sorry but after reading several times I find it difficult to process what exactly your query is. Could you please try to elaborate a tad bit clearly? I find several statements in your question slightly off. $\endgroup$ Commented May 6, 2019 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ I tried editing for clarity, but I'm not sure I succeeded. $\endgroup$
    – Buck Thorn
    Commented May 6, 2019 at 14:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why is the question tagged with "quantum chemistry"? $\endgroup$ Commented May 6, 2019 at 14:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DonaldDuck NightWriter succeeded in clarifying formatting, but it's up to you to clarify the content. $\endgroup$ Commented May 6, 2019 at 14:32

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

The reason why $\ce{HF}$ doesn’t tend to disassociate in aqueous solution can be rationalized as follows:

In aqueous solution, all ions (cation or anion) are immediately solvated by a solvent “shell” that stabilizes the ion by drawing some charge density away from it. This stabilizes larger ions such as $\ce{Cl-}$ or $\ce{K+}$ more than smaller ions like $\ce{Li+}$ and $\ce{F-}$; as a matter of fact the solvation energy for $\ce{HF}$ is less than the energy needed for the $\ce{H-F}$ bond to break (bond enthalpy, if you will).

As such, $\ce{HF}$ doesn’t tend to disassociate in aqueous solution. It should be highlighted that pure, liquid $\ce{HF}$ is a much stronger acid than its aqueous form as the acid disassociates into $\ce{FHF-}$ and $\ce{H2F+}$ instead of $\ce{F-}$ and $\ce{H3O+}$.

EDIT 7 MAY

It appears that what you are asking is “why the H-F bond is weaker than the H-O bond”. If that’s what you’re asking, here’s what I have to say:

We will consider the resonance integral, $\cs{Hij}$, between atomic orbitals i and j. This resonance integral can be interpreted to be the energy of an electron associated with these 2 orbitals.

The one-electron relation (Wolfsberg-Helmholz Equation) tells us that $\cs{Hij = 0.5K(Hii +Hjj) Sij}$, and it so happens that the F orbitals are more contracted and can overlap less well. In addition, since the degree of stabilisation of the bonding MO is inversely proportional to the energy difference between the AOs, we see that there is less stabilisation from the original F 2p Orbital in a MO involving HF compared to a MO involving HO, and the HF bond is weaker.

$\endgroup$
9
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Quick tip: avoid using all-caps, it gives a general appearance that you are yelling. For emphasis, it is better to use italics or bold..! $\endgroup$ Commented May 6, 2019 at 15:28
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, got it. What’s the format for italics/bold? $\endgroup$ Commented May 6, 2019 at 15:29
  • $\begingroup$ _italics_ or *italics* and **bold** $\endgroup$ Commented May 6, 2019 at 15:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @DonaldDuck What are you taking about? Is our focus on why the ions are stronger acid/ base or is our focus on the proton "swims" through the solution? $\endgroup$ Commented May 6, 2019 at 16:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I’m sorry, but how does QM have got anything to do with this? $\endgroup$ Commented May 6, 2019 at 23:56

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