<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<big><font size="2"><big>The textbook states NH3 is an Arrhenius
base.<br>
<br>
The book is technically incorrect. The original definition
stated<br>
that OH- was part of the compound and that compound when put<br>
in water released the OH-, making the solution basic (inc. the
conc.<br>
of OH-). This theory wasn't able to correctly explain why NH3
was<br>
a base. Instead he came up with the nonexistent substance
ammonium<br>
hydroxide, NH4OH, which has an OH- in the formula to explain
it.<br>
This really doesn't exist. If you put NH3 in H2O you get NH4+
ions<br>
and OH- ions, which we can see using Bronsted-Lowry Theory.<br>
However, if you allow the water to evaporate you don't get a
compound<br>
of ammonium hydroxide. Instead, what happens as the water<br>
vaporizes is the NH3 slowly comes out of soln as a gas (which
it is<br>
to begin with) and you will eventually be left with nothing
but air.<br>
<br>
A looser definition, what the book uses, is an Arrhenius base
is<br>
any substance that increases the conc. of OH- in an aqueous
soln.<br>
NH3 does inc. the conc. of OH-. But again, this does not
strictly<br>
fit the definition of an Arrhenius base. Using this criteria
any<br>
anion that acts as a base would be considered an Arrhenius
base<br>
(such as F- and no books state this is so).<br>
<br>
By the way, you will often see on a bottle of aqueous NH3 the
name<br>
ammonium hydroxide. This is a misnomer (as I explained above)
but<br>
has kind of stuck for the name of an aqueous solution of NH3.<br>
<br>
Here's a link which also describe this,<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.chemteam.info/AcidBase/Arrhenius-AcidBase.html">http://www.chemteam.info/AcidBase/Arrhenius-AcidBase.html</a><br>
<br>
Below are some more interesting links dealing with this and<br>
Arrhenius (quite prolific scientist). I don't necessarily
like using<br>
Wikipedia as a direct reference but you can find other links
there<br>
to check on things.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A708257">https://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A708257</a><br>
<br>
<a href="https://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A692796">https://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A692796</a><br>
<br>
</big></font></big><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius</a><br>
<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_%28chemistry%29">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_(chemistry)</a><br>
<big><font size="2"><big><br>
This technically applies to other substances as well.
According to his<br>
original theory the base had to have an OH (technically, OH-)
in<br>
the formula. This means the answer in the solutions manual on<br>
Carmen to 16.14(b) (13th and 12th ed.) is technically not
correct.<br>
<br>
Dr. Zellmer</big></font></big>
</body>
</html>