SUMMER AP WORKSHOPS NOW ENROLLING DETAILS HERE

#### ORGANIC COURSE 2

Read about Adrian as an Educator of over thirty years, as a Chemistry Tutor with a resume of helping hundreds of private clients over three decades, and as an Author and Writer with an extensive portfolio of work

Read about the the four Core Values that drive all of Adrian’s professional endeavors, and that act as the cornerstones of his work

Check out all of my books

#### CHEMISTRY BOOK GALLERIES

Pretty pictures of my books

#### CHEMISTRY WRITING PORTFOLIO

Chemistry writing beyond books

# Math, buffers and H-H, revisited in the new curriculum

February 12, 2015

I think that there are (unfortunately) some useful, simple math things to know when it comes to buffers and H-H in the new AP chemistry curriculum.

Obviously, it has always been crucial to know that when the ratio of weak acid to conjugate base (or weak base to conjugate acid) in a buffer solution is 1:1, then pH = pKa, i.e., that log(1) = 0, but in the context of the new curriculum I think that other useful data points include;

log(10) = 1, i.e., that pKa + 1 = pH when the ratio of salt to acid = 10:1

log(0.1) = -1, i.e., that pka – 1 = pH when ratio of salt to acid = 1:10.

There may be others (in your opinion), but the CED specifically references these in EK 6.C.2 b. (also see d).

I prefer to calculate things fully, but since LO 6.18 exists, AND the EK statements noted above also exist, I think those pointers are handy to know.

The use of the FULL H-H equation is also still on the table IMO, i.e., one having to compute the specific pH given a set of concentrations for the two buffer components, or perhaps at a specific point in a titration. I say that for two reasons;

a. because the H-H equation is still on the equations & constants sheet, and

b. because I can’t seem to let it go just yet.

However, I will concede it is difficult to tie it to a specific LO, which is what HAS to happen, if it is to appear as an AP exam question (maybe LO. 6.16???? – I’d like to hear other opinions on this, perhaps we can forget about this too). What has been taken off the table (via one of the exclusion statements), is a question like 1993, 1(c).