Source: Chapter 4 of Brunlow's 1979 Geochemistry text.

Calculate the solubility of fluorite in river water with the average composition given in table 4-1. Assume that no fluoride complexes form.

Table 4-1 lists ppm, mEq/L and moles/L values for constituents, anions and cations found in the water sample. There is no value for $\ce{F}^-$ but there is for $\ce{Ca}^{2+}$. The molarity of $\ce{Ca^{2+}}$ is given to be $\pu{0.375E-3M}$

My attempt::

$$\ce{CaF2 -> Ca^{2+} + 2Fl^{-}}$$

$K_\mathrm {sp}$ of $\ce{CaF2}$= $10^{-10.5}$ (from a table in the book)

$K_\mathrm{sp} = [\ce{Ca_{\text{original}}} + \ce{Ca_{\text{added}}}][\ce{F_{\text{added}}}]^2$

$[\ce{F_{\text{added}}}] = [2\ce{Ca_{\text{added}}}]$

$K_\mathrm{sp} = [\ce{Ca_{\text{original}}} + \ce{Ca_{\text{added}}}][2\ce{Ca_{\text{added}}}]^2 = 4[\ce{Ca_{\text{original}}} + \ce{Ca_{\text{added}}}][\ce{Ca_{\text{added}}}]^2$

Am I on the right track? I end up with a polynomial to solve for. The answer in the back of the book is $10^{-4.64}$ which I can't arrive at.

The other method I've tried is to calculate the ppm of fluorite dissolved in pure water ($\pu{15.6ppm}$) and then subtract the ppm value for the river water $\ce{Ca^{2+}}$ given in the table ($\pu{15.0ppm}$) and then convert the result ($\pu{0.6ppm}$) to $\pu{7.69e-6 moles/L}$ which doesn't equal the answer in the back of the book ($10^{-4.64}$), so I believe that I'm missing something conceptually.


the ppm of fluorite in pure water (15.6ppm)

the ppm of fluorite in pure water is zero!

$K_\mathrm{sp}=[\ce{Ca_{original}} + \ce{Ca_{added}}][2\ce{Ca_{added}}]^2 = 4[\ce{Ca_{original}} + \ce{Ca_{added}}][\ce{Ca_{added}}]^2$

Yes, this is correct and can be solved, you say you know $[\ce{Ca_{original}}]$ is $\pu{0.375E-3M}$ and $K_\mathrm{sp}$ is $10^{-10.5}$ so there is one equation and one unknown, just a matter of solving a cubic equation, which can be solved exactly or by approximate methods.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The third-order polynomial has one real root, which has the correct order of magnitude to be a credible solution, and the OP's approach is correct. But just like him, I find it impossible to arrive at the same number as his book. $\endgroup$ Oct 21 '14 at 16:13
  • $\begingroup$ @AbelFriedman I agree, either the book has the wrong answer or OP is misconveying the data in table 4-1 $\endgroup$
    – DavePhD
    Oct 22 '14 at 16:26
  • $\begingroup$ @DavePhD - Thank you for your answer. Regarding the first quote, what I was trying to indicate was the ppm of fluorite dissolved in pure water (with no common ions). Would it be valid to use the approach I suggest where I subtract ppm values? $\endgroup$
    – equant
    Oct 22 '14 at 16:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @equant oh, I understand what you mean now, but no that would not be valid. If you take your proposed answer from that method, [Ca2+] and [F-] concentrations, they will not yield the solubility product. Your first method which gives the cubic equation is correct. $\endgroup$
    – DavePhD
    Oct 22 '14 at 16:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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