#a)# Dissociates in water to develop #"OH"^(-)# in solution.#b)# Donates a proton#c)# Releases prolots into aqueous solution#d)# A proton acceptor


I obtained only (c), because it follow the Arrhenius meaning 100% via no ambiguity or vagueness.

You are watching: Classify these definitions as that of an arrhenius acid, an arrhenius base, or other.


The Arrhenius definition of acids and also bases claims that:

An acid releases prolots (#"H"^(+)#, or hydrogen ions) right into aqueous solution, or boosts hydrogen ion concentration in aqueous solution.A base releases hydroxide ions (#"OH"^(-)#) right into aqueous solution, or boosts hydroxide concentration in aqueous solution.

Unfortunately, the Arrhenius meaning does not encompass acid/base behavior in acids/bases that carry out not obey the above classifications.

Other acid/base classifications that should be familiar are the Bronsted-Lowry and Lewis meanings.


A Bronsted acid donates protons to a Bronsted base.A Bronsted base accepts protons from a Bronsted acid.


A Lewis acid accepts electron pairs from a Lewis base.A Lewis base donates electron pairs to a Lewis acid.

How I store this straight is that I use ammonia (#:"NH"_3#) as the prime example of a Lewis base, capable of donating electrons. So, I understand that accepting prolots renders something a Lewis acid.

From right here, I recall that once you donate electrons, you do so via a purpose: to make a bond. You have the right to bond via either #"H"^(+)#, or something else.

When a Lewis base donates an electron pair to acquire #"H"^(+)#, it accepts a proton and thus is a Bronsted base. So, if a Lewis base acquires a proton, it is also a Bronsted base.

Then I associate Lewis acids via Bronsted acids by process of elimination! :)

So, I think we have actually enough context now.

a) By meaning, this defines an Arrhenius base, not an acid. Example:

#color(red)(stackrel("Arrhenius Base")overbrace("KOH"(s)) stackrel("H"_2"O"(l)" ")(->) "K"^(+)(aq) + stackrel("Released hydroxide")overbrace("OH"^(-)(aq)))#

b) Donating a proton explains a Bronsted acid, not an Arrhenius acid, unless a proton is donated to water (in which case it actually boosts the hydrogen ion concentration in aqueous solution as a result).

#color(red)(stackrel("Arrhenius Acid")stackrel("Lewis Acid")(stackrel("Bronsted Acid")overbrace("HA"(aq))) + stackrel("Lewis Base")(stackrel("Bronsted Base")overbrace("H"_2"O"(l))) -> stackrel("Conjugate acid")overbrace("H"_3"O"^(+)(aq)) + stackrel("Conjugate base")overbrace("A"^(-)(aq)))#

wbelow #"H"_3"O"^(+)# is one more means to recurrent #"H"^(+)#.

See more: Why Are Patients With A Pheochromocytoma Often Hyperglycemic

But given that this is not certain enough of a wording, we cannot say that (b) is constantly true, so we cannot accept (b).

c) !This is an Arrhenius acid! It releases proloads right into aqueous solution, increasing the #"H"^(+)# concentration. An instance, like the previous one, shows:

#color(blue)(stackrel("Bronsted Acid")stackrel("Lewis Acid")stackrel("Arrhenius Acid")overbrace("HCl"(aq)))# #color(blue)(+ stackrel("Lewis Base")stackrel("Bronsted Base")(overbrace("H"_2"O"(l)) -> )# #color(blue)(stackrel("Released protons")stackrel("composed here as H"_3"O"^(+))overbrace("H"_3"O"^(+)(aq)) + "Cl"^(-)(aq))#

d) A proton acceptor is comparable to (b): it is not certain sufficient, and it instead specifies a Bronsted base. Example:

#color(red)(stackrel("Lewis Base")(stackrel("Bronsted Base")overbrace("A"^(-))) + stackrel("Arrhenius Base")stackrel("Lewis Acid")(stackrel("Bronsted Acid")overbrace("H"_2"O")) -> stackrel("Conjugate base")overbrace("OH"^(-)) + stackrel("Conjugate acid")overbrace("HA"))#

In this situation, the Bronsted base turned out to not additionally be an Arrhenius base. Instead, the Arrhenius base was water, because it was the source for the boost in #"OH"^(-)# concentration, brought about by #"A"^(-)#. Nopoint right here is an Arrhenius acid.