AL CHEM

2011-04-16 7:17 am
why the solubility in water of cis-butenedioic acid is higher than that of trans-butenedioic acid ? the theory tells us the converse is true but not in actual experiment. can sb help me ?? thx !

回答 (4)

2011-04-23 7:12 pm
trans-butenedioic acid tends to form a diester. Since esters are not very soluble in water, this will lower the solubility of trans-butenedioic acid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumaric_acid
2011-04-17 2:54 pm
- C-COOH bonds are polar.
- In actual experiments, COOH in trans-butenedioic acid will form intermolecular H- bond with H2O molecules, while COOH in cis-butenedioic acid will form intramolecular H-bond within COOH in cis-butenedioic acid.
- Thus, the solubility in water of trans-butenedioic acid is greater than that of cis-butenedioic acid in actual experiment.
參考: myself
2011-04-17 12:33 am
i feel doubtful on miraco's explanation.
in fact, i'm thinking about completely opposite situations.

for the dicarboxylic acid to be dissolved - i.e. dispersed - in water, what would be the major force involved?
polarity of molecule is surely present, but the major issue should be hydrogen-bonding.

when the acid molecules are dispersed, attraction between molecules in solid is interrupted, which is endothermic in nature; after that, there's attraction between acid molecules and water molecules, i.e. disolvation. disolvation is exothermic.

enthalpy of dissolution = lattice enthalpy (+ve) + enthalpy of disolvation (-ve)

which acid, maleic (cis-) or fumaric (trans-), has higher lattice enthalpy?
surely it's fumaric, as it has much more extensive inter-molecular H-bondings. therefore, much more energy is needed to overcome the attraction between the acid molecules.

on the other hand, intermolecular H-bond is not so extensive in maleic acid ('coz they go intra-molecular). lattice is weaker, breaking of lattice is relatively more feasible.


yet, it's still difficult to tell..


收錄日期: 2021-04-20 00:31:49
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110415000051KK01369

檢視 Wayback Machine 備份