Argh, this again. Sorry. To understand what is going on here and the actual nature of the question, it really helps to first figure out the pKa of dilute 18OH2 in regular water. Spoiler: it is unambiguously and without choice 15.7. Follow along.
For every acid in the universe except water, we can the define the Ka in terms of a ratio of activities that in dilute solution is arbitrarily well approximated by
Ka = [A-][H3O+]/[HA]
If we were figuring out the pKa of any other acid, we would just figure out the
ratio of [A-] to [HA] at a given pH, then fill in the values into our equation to find the Ka and pKa. Let's do this with dilute 18OH2 in regular (16OH2) water.
I will make some unnecessary specific assumptions to simplify the math.
Assume pH = 7 and [H3O+] = 1e-7
Assume [18OH2] = 0.01 M
Now, all we need to figure out the Ka is the concentration of 18OH-.
We know the concentration of 16OH- at neutral pH - it is 1e-7. From this and the simple ratio of 18O and 16O isotopes (concentration or activities are irrelevant for this) the
concentration of 18OH- = 1e-7 x 0.01 M / 55.5 M = 1.802 E-11.
My only assumption has been that the isotope effect is negligible - it will be. There are no other hidden assumptions or choices. Take your time, figure out this number for yourself.
OK, so then the Ka for dilute 18OH2 in regular water is
1e-7 x 1.802 e-11 / 0.01 = 1.802 e-16
and the pKa = -log Ka = 15.7.
Voila.
Assume different pHs or different (but low) [18OH2]. It won't matter, but go ahead, try it.

Ok, so now you are perhaps weirded out that the pKa of regular water in regular water is 14 but the pKa of 18OH2 in regular water, with no isotope effect, is 15.7.
Want to be weirded further? Calculate the pKa of dilute regular 16OH2 water in a solution that is otherwise entirely 18OH2. You will find that the pKa of the dilute 16OH2 is, without any choices or sleight of hand, 15.7. So the same water is pKa 14 in 16OH2 but 15.7 in 18OH2!
Ok, so now perhaps you can begin to guess at what is really going on here. It is not a matter of right value versus wrong value, and pretty silly to describe it that way. Rather, it is a matter of changed definitions. For every other acid in water,
we define the denominator in the Ka definition as an activity that is approximated by the concentration in M. For pure water, we choose the activity as simply unity.
Choosing 1 as the activity of a pure solvent is a really good choice, because it simplifies chemistry greatly.
Think of any equilibrium of ions in water and you quickly realize that you don't know how many waters you should put on each side of the equation. How then do you calculate your Keqs or free energy changes? Not simple. But choosing a solvent activity of 1, the problem goes away.
I have done this for computational studies in other solvents, and it is a really handy trick.
But it is a human choice. One could define the activity of water as 55, for example, and it would make for a much more complicated chemistry in other ways, but it could be done.
By the way, Bronsted, by my interpretation, understood all of this.
So, 14 or 15.7? Understand that if you call either a "right value" you are going to run into some paradoxes.
Here is a good one: if we have dilute methanol in water and dilute 18OH2 in water at exactly the same concentration for each, for which one is there more anion present?
You can do the math, work it out, there is no ambiguity, at any pH there would be more CH3O– than 18OH-.
At this point, if you are wanting to say that water is more acidic than methanol, don't you feel a bit queazy? 14 feels pretty bad then.
But calculating thermo, 14's better
So just maybe, teach students that we are dealing with definitions, that the definition has changed between other acids and water, and that it is ok to change the definition for the purpose at hand. This is done implicitly in computational chemistry all the time, and it's ok.
Since it has been asked about, I thought I should expand slightly on an "assumption" here. I don't see this as an assumption at all - I am just counting - but you might say that I am assuming this:
Notice that I am not invoking concentration units or activities or equilibrium constants, just the count of the molecules. Another way to say this is that the distribution of 18OH- versus 16OH- is random, reflecting only the relative amounts of 18O versus 16O present.
I don't see any way to get around this or even to fuzzy it up to make it confusing. And once you apply the pictured equation, my calculation for the concentration of 18OH- is set.
Ok, just for fun, let's depart into la-la land and choose a different equation that would make the pKa of dilute 18OH2 be 14 instead of 15.7. This equation would work:
If this last made-up equation were true, then indeed the pKa of dilute 18OH2 in 16OH2 would be 14, not 15.7.
But perhaps you are asking "So how did the number of molecules know about the 55, a number that depends on a human definition of units. Yep, that equation won't hunt.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dan Singleton 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️

Dan Singleton 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @dasingleton

Dec 24, 2023
I have told my story before, I think, but it is perhaps interesting to tell here for its differences with this story.

We were in the last stages of putting together the SI data for a fully written paper that would later become, after new data was obtained, a terrific JACS comm.
On a Tuesday I was checking through the data and I saw a problem - one experimental result subtly did not make sense. To digress, it was isotope effect data and at one minor position where I was expecting an isotope effect, there wasn't one in the data.
We employ a system that uses saved scripts that will exactly reproduce all of the NMR data analysis if you have the script and NMR fids. I found the script, ran it, and compared the data to what the postdoc had given me. At the position in question, numbers had been changed.
Read 12 tweets
Oct 3, 2022
I would like to weigh in on this a bit. Upfront, Mait is long-time friend, and I have used his textbook for teaching chemistry majors three times, twice in the early 2000s then again in 2012-2013. I did switch away from it after that, not because I did not like the book but
because I wanted a better complete system including online work, and I judged that a competitor gave me that.
I think of Mait's book as the most physically truthful and purely readable of the texts that that I have used. Mait is a physical organic chemist like me, and it shows.
Mait's book is excellent for chemistry majors. I would not have chosen it for a broader undergraduate course. I don't actually know what text NYU was using, but I am making the assumption that the course was leveled somewhat similarly even if another text was used.
Read 14 tweets
Jun 13, 2022
“Scientific progress is slowing.” - an apparently inebriated Rudy Giuliani

news.uchicago.edu/scientific-pro…
God I hate this nonsense with such passion.

Mankind just pulled off the development of not just one but multiple Covid vaccines in unexpected and recently unimaginably fast time, saving millions of lives, but we hear scientific progress is slowing.
Miracles like developing effective Covid treatments in a year instead of a decade can’t even make front page news, but we hear science is slowing.
Read 12 tweets
May 31, 2022
Compare:
A. Atoms overlap orbitals to form bonds.
B. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem sed libera nos a malo.
One is word salad taught mainly by people who don't understand either the words or idea to others who won't either but recite it back anyway.
The other is Pater Noster.
Ok, I am going to try to explain all of chemistry in a short thread on twitter. It will be oversimplified, ahistorical, and wrong in interesting ways, but I like it. Don't hate - you can still confuse students will the details later.
Start here:
Hψ = Eψ
This is someone's slightly important equation. This is GOD, almost seriously. (If you want to bring up time-dependence and i, this thread is not for you.)
Read 21 tweets
May 21, 2022
True story: As an undergrad I spent a summer in a lab where on day 1 I was told about one of the graduate students’ fantasy plans to violently murder our PI. This was discussed openly during the afternoon homemade gin martinis, the get-stoned and eat burnt chicken parties, and
the fancy steak-tartare gatherings for the future Nobel prize winner who worked upstairs. All of the male grad students contributed to the plans, along with the PIs secretary. A particularly favorite plan was to firebomb the PI’s office, which was in a corner with only one exit.
Good times.
Why? I am glad you asked. It seems the PI was in between wives, and in the students’ words he kept ‘stealing’ their girlfriends, which included the secretary and one of the women grad students. I don’t know what stealing means but I remember the secretary as being
Read 6 tweets
May 20, 2022
An idea we need to get across to the public is that there is no such thing as an irreplaceable genius. The jobs and trainees and grant money will go to other spectacular scientists, who will do great work, without the sexual harassment. Genius is a dime-a-dozen.
I have published collaborative papers with two Nobel prize winners, would call a couple of others friends, and have known quite a few. They are mostly great people, bright _and_ kind, but you would not be able to pick them out from a thousand others I know.
Call them geniuses or not, I don't care (if they haven't qualified, who has?), but the fact is that there are a tremendous number of people with the multiple talents it takes to do great science. All of those talents are continua and can be improved, with no unbridgeable gap.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(