12
$\begingroup$

I'm working right now in the solvent importance in ionic character, and I noticed how a binary salt ($\ce{CuCl2}$) dissolved better in methanol than in dimethylsulfoxide, and in contrast, a coordination compound (Cu[salen]) dissolved better in DMSO that in the aforementioned solvent.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me considering these properties I found:

DMSO:

  • Dipole moment: 3.96
  • Dielectric constant: 47

Methanol:

  • Dipole moment: 1.71
  • Dielectric constant: 33

I would have expected the binary salt to dissolve better in DMSO rather than Methanol, and the inverse in the coordination compound yet it didn't happen like that. Is there a intermolecular detail I'm not considering? An hydrophobic-hydrophilic portion in the structure? Thanks everyone.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Steric hinderance? $\endgroup$ – Kartik Sep 24 '16 at 15:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I was thinking more of the aprotic nature of the DMSO, and its inability to form hydrogen bonds. What were your thoughts? $\endgroup$ – Farad Sep 25 '16 at 11:22
4
$\begingroup$

Having large dipole moments and dielectric constants, as DMSO does, does not imply that it has the ability to solvate ionic compounds like $\ce{CuCl2}$.

Although both methanol and DMSO have oxygen atoms with their lone pair of electrons to help solvate cations, there is no corresponding functionality in DMSO to solvate a small, inorganic anion like chloride. Methanol on the other hand can solvate chloride via hydrogen bonding in the same way that water does.

These properties are not necessarily applicable to a coordination compound, so there is no reason to expect methanol to act as a better solvent than DMSO in this case.

$\endgroup$

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.