Talk:Solvation

Initial untitled posts[edit]

IF we have the solubility value of a covalent compound that is non-polar, in various solvents like water, acetonitrile, dioxane etc., how to obatin the corresponding solvation energies?

Please respond to me at skumarami@yahoo.co.in

Can anyone provide a reference that says "dipole-dipole attraction is approximately 1/100 hydrogen bonding, and London Force is approximately 1/100 dipole-dipole interactions"? I do not think this is right, especially for liquids. To the contrary, it is often claimed in textbooks that almost all enegy of H-bonds is acually dipole-dipole interaction, especially when the molecules are highly mobile as in liquids. Obviously, the dipole-dipole attractions in nonpolar solvents will be close to zero, so that London force can be predominant.Biophys 05:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

solvation & hydration[edit]

what is the difference between solvation enthalpy and hydration enthalpy?What actually happens on adding a solute to a solvent in terms of the above said enthalpies? ANY ANSWERS,KINDLY MAIL ME AT aratinair@hathway.comAarti nair 15:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the difference is just specificity. Hydration refers to water, but solvation doesn't have to. The enthalphy has to do with whether the solvent and solute are attracted to each other or not. Things that are getting more stable are also getting to a point of lower energy. Lower energy = more stable. Next time try Yahoo! Answers if you want a more immediate response. Good question, though. If anyone else can add more information, please jump in. --TLG 07:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

picture to help this artical[edit]

Add this picture http://www.chem.umass.edu/~botch/Chem112S05/Chapters/Ch14/SolvationIons.jpg please it would really help

Penubag 03:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)penubag[reply]

enthalpy of solvation[edit]

The statement that the enthalpy of solvation of gases is postive, making them less soluble at high temp, seems odd. If a reaction is endothermic, an increase in temp would favor the products, or dissolved phase, but that is opposite of the Wikipedia statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.109.231.83 (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Correction[edit]

this is all right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.172.229 (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thermodyanmic Considerations[edit]

This section misleads the reader into thinking that solvation is enthalpicly driven. It is inherently entropically driven, as is evidenced by the fact that some solvation reactions are endothermic (such as barium chloride hydrate, a common lecture demonstration). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprill (talk • contribs) 17:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solvation vs dissolution: conflicting info[edit]

These two statements appear to contradict each other:

Intro: "Solvation, also sometimes called dissolution,"
Distinction section: "Solvation is, in concept, distinct from dissolution and solubility."

Also, the "Distinction" section is very unclear as to the distinction claimed. Gwideman (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically solvation is the process (a chemical reaction, essentially) where the interaction between the solute and the solvent molecule is formed, while dissolution is a technical unit operation where we start with a solute and end up with a solution. Obviously these have a lot of overlap and are sometimes synonyms. --vuo (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to my esteemed colleague Vuo, formally, by the definitions used here at WP (and in general in the associated chemistry fields)—though addressed using the same concepts and tools, the changes in intermolecular interactions that take place during processes of solvation/desolvation are not "a chemical reaction", because the substances involved are not transformed through the breaking of old and formation of new covalent chemical bonds. Cheers. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding tags to indicate entirety of article unsourced or poorly sourced[edit]

The article cites three inline citations, one to IUPAC (super), and two to primary sources (in support of one recently added research result).

There are on the order of 15 paragraphs, and about 50 sentences, and with this level of sourcing—two sentences covered, one unacceptable with primary sources only—we can say that the article is currently, largely original work, and essentially unverifiable, and therefore in violation of WP:VERIFY AND WP:OR.

Hence the tagging, which should remain, over the article, and over the sections, until such time as things have thoroughly changed.

Note, I was brought here because I wanted to wikilink from another article, which is impossible given the state of this—finding instead, an entire section on the thermodynamics of solvation, all stream of consciousness, and early collegiate level, and without a single source, and an entire article without mention of the role of solvation in chemical reactivity.

Please discuss the matter here, and leave the tags until the article takes steps toward honoring WP policies and so becoming encyclopedic. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]