Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH

Posted on 10 July 2011 by Doug Mackie

This is 4th post in our series about ocean acidification. Other posts: Introduction , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, Summary 1 of 2, Summary 2 of 2.

Welcome to the 4th post in our series about ocean acidification. Confusion about pH is widespread, so we will use this post to remind readers about pH. Many people remember from school that pH is a measure of 'acidity', but not much more than that.

The original definition was that pH is the negative base 10 logarithm of the concentration of H+ ions (or, in a more accurate modern sense, H3O+ ions) in a solution.

Equation 5: pH

But what does that mean?

Coverage of the 2011 earthquakes in New Zealand and Japan has reminded us that many people have a weak understanding of logarithms. Both the Richter scale (and its variants) and the pH scale are logarithmic. A base 10 logarithm (log) is the number, x, so that 10x gives the number you want. For example, the log of 100 is 2. This means that log(100) = log(10 x 10) = log(102) = 2. Similarly, the log of a million is 6, meaning that log(1,000,000) = log(10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10) = log(106) = 6 . The log of a number less than 1 is negative. For example, log(0.01) = log(1/100) =  log(1/102) =  log(10-2) = -2, compared to 2 for the log of 100.

Before ready access to calculators and computers, logarithms offered a convenient way to multiply large numbers.  Now they are mostly used to compare numbers that differ by a very large relative amount.

For example, if we take the population of New Zealand (4 million), China (1340 million), and India (1270 million) then it can be hard to make comparisons, since the difference between China and India (70 million) is almost 20 x the population of New Zealand. But if we take the logs of the populations, New Zealand = 6.6, China = 9.13, and India = 9.10. It is now obvious that, relatively speaking, the populations of India and China are the same while that of New Zealand is very much less.

Earthquakes can range from feeling like a truck driving past to having the ground shaken like a dog with a toy. So to group earthquakes we use the Richter scale. A force 5 earthquake is 1000 times weaker than a force 8 because a log difference of 3 means 103 = 10 x 10 x 10 = 1000 difference. (There are lots of complications with earthquakes like energy vs. ground movement but let's ignore that for now).

H+ is never found by itself in a water based solution – it will always react with a H2O to form H3O+. So these days when chemists talk about pH they refer to H3O+ instead of H+ (which was in the original definition of pH and persists in some school text books). The definition of an acid (in aqueous chemistry) is thus a substance that gives (or donates) an H+ (proton) to water to form H3O+, while a base takes (or accepts) the proton. An acid is thus a source of H3O+.

The negative in the "–log" part of the pH expression is an artefact of convention: concentrations in pH calculations are much less than 1; so log values are negative. But, to avoid confusion by expressing a concentration as a negative number, the pH scale instead is multiplied by -1 to make all the numbers positive.

Equation 5: pH

We are going to carry on pretending that it is this simple but, just for the record, the situation is, yet again, somewhat more complicated. (Chemists may wince, but we will avoid using 'activity' in these posts). However, we do need to introduce a chemical term: moles. A mole is the SI ('metric') unit for amount of substance. One mole of a substance is simply the molar mass in grams. For example, oxygen mass = 16 grams per mole, hydrogen mass = 1 gram per mole so the molar mass of water, H2O = 16 + 1+ 1 = 18 grams per mole. Therefore, 1 mole water = 18 g.  Chemists use moles because the number of atoms or molecules in a mole is constant (1 mole = 6.022 x1023 atoms or molecules). Similarly, 1 mole of CO2 = 44 g and thus contains the same number of molecules (6.022 x 1023) as 18 g water. This is useful for chemists because they can use moles to look at reactions as if they were recipes - to bake a cake you need to know how many eggs you have, not the weight of the eggs.

You may recall from school that a pH of 7 is neutral. If we do the calculation we find that neutral water has an H3O+ concentration of 1 x 10–7 moles per litre (mol L-1). It isn't much, but it is definitely greater than zero. Where does the H3O+ come from? We mentioned the idea of equilibrium in post 1. The H3O+ comes from the reaction (called a dissociation) between two molecules of water:

Equation 6: dissociation of water

Water does this naturally to a small extent, which means a water-based solution always contains a little H3O+. So, we define a neutral pH has the same concentration of H3O+ as pure water.

A difference of 1 pH unit means a 10x difference in the concentration of H3O+. Measurements (which we will talk about in post 11) show average ocean pH has decreased by 0.11 pH units (from 8.25 to 8.14) since the industrial revolution and is on track to decrease by a further 0.3 units (0.4 units in total, to 7.8) by 2100. Is that so bad? Yes. A difference of 0.11 pH units corresponds to a 29% increase in the concentration of H3O+. A difference of 0.4 pH units corresponds to a 150% increase in H3O+.

edited textbox2

Try these calculations yourself. On a spreadsheet enter =10^-8.25 to calculate the pre-industrial concentration of H3O+ (on a calculator use the 10x button). In the next two cells enter =10^-8.14 and =10^-7.8. You have now calculated the pre-industrial, current, and predicted end-of-century concentrations of H3O+. The 29% increase in H3O+ can be verified by entering =100*(10^-8.14 - 10^-8.25)/(10^-8.25).  Replace 8.14 with 7.8 (=100*(10^-7.8 - 10^-8.25)/(10^-8.25)) to check that the 0.4 pH unit difference (8.25 to 7.8) will lead to a 150% change.

In the next post we explain the concept of species in a chemical sense and introduce weathering.

Written by Doug Mackie, Christina McGraw , and Keith Hunter . This post is number 4 in a series about ocean acidification. Other posts: Introduction , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, Summary 1 of 2, Summary 2 of 2.

 

posts

booklet

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Comments 1 to 19:

  1. Typo: your first given value for the Avogadro constant swaps the last two digits of the mantissa (22) and the exponent (23) so is nearly ten times too small.
    0 0
  2. fixed
    0 0
  3. Can you clarify something for me. Is the Atomic Mass Unit the same as a Mole? Therefore, the amount of Moles in a certain element is the same as the average amount of Moles/AMUs found given the abundance of isotopes measured?
    0 0
  4. Oh, wait, I get it. It's a counting unit - not for weight. So 1 molar of hydrogren is just 6.022 x 10^23 of hydrogen atoms. The weight of that would obviously be n(6.022 x 10^23), where n = the average weight of hydrogen atoms. I hope I just answered my own question.
    0 0
  5. Mathew, you answered your own question while I composing a longer reply but a link to Wikipedia might help anyway: Atomic_mass_unit#Relationship_to_SI.
    0 0
  6. Can I check a calculation?

    First you say that the pH has declined from 8.25 to 8.14 (i.e. a difference of 0.11), but then when you say that acidity has increased by 26%, you use the comparison of 8.2 to 8.1 (i.e. a difference of 0.1). Wouldn't a difference of 0.11 on a log scale be closer to the widely quoted 30% than 26%? Or am I missing something obvious here?
    0 0
  7. (Just to be clear, I get 28.8% for this second calculation.)
    0 0
  8. The demo calc uses rounding.
    0 0
  9. Yes, I realise this, but giving the 26% figure in the grab-box just provides more ammunition for deniers who want to say "ha, it's not 30%". With only a few minor changes to the post, it can be made clear that we're really talking about something closer to 29%.

    1. A difference of 0.11 pH units corresponds to a 29% increase in the concentration of H3O+.

    2. Switch 26 to 29 in the grab box.

    3. Replace 8.2 with 8.25 and 8.1 with 8.14 a few times in the final box. Given that you're asking people to cut and paste an equation into a spreadsheet, increasing the accuracy by one decimal place isn't a difficult ask.

    I realise this is pretty minor nit-picking. Perhaps I should have started by saying, "thank you for this series!" (which I really do mean, by the way. I am very much looking forward to the rest of it. Sorry if I've come across as narky.)
    0 0
  10. Thanks anyway, Ed. I actually read that wiki but for some reason I couldn't get my head around it. Personally, I found this to be better explanation:
    http://erkki.kennesaw.edu/genchem3/ge00001.htm
    0 0
  11. Yes Byron, it did come across as petty pedantry. Nevertheless changes made. Looking forward to future comments addressing the conceptual science.
    0 0
  12. Oh, all right (prodded by co-author)....... umm ok thanks
    (OK stop prodding. There I said it. It's your fault for leaving responding to the grouchy one. Pollyanna I ain't. What? Oh for goodness sake. All right. All right.)
    Thank you for helping
    (Better?)
    0 0
  13. Thanks Doug. :-)

    Seriously, I really do appreciate this series. I have little to offer on the conceptual science, as my own formal chemistry education ceased when I was 18, but had actually been looking for a more in-depth explanation of ocean acidification to offer on the countless threads with chemistry-illiterate (and yet predictably vociferous) deniers.
    0 0
  14. If water dissociated more, would the pH decrease? Intuitively I would have thought it would still be classified as neutral.
    0 0
  15. @DLB From someone who reads recent scientific papers that is a surprising question. What makes you think the dissociation of water would change?
    0 0
  16. That was a hypothetical question, I would imagine the level of dissociation of water is fairly constant. I was thinking along the lines of if H30+ went up and OH- went up would pH go down.

    Thinking some more, you can't have a strong proton donor in solution with a strong proton acceptor, the "peanut" equation will go back to molecular water. OK, Sorted.

    (I'm surprised you think those that read scientific journals are free from misapprehensions)
    0 0
  17. Yes. The concept of alkalinity is more useful that simply considering H3O+ and OH-.
    0 0

  18. second summary post

    0 0
  19. Doug

    do you have a reference for this?

    average ocean pH has decreased by 0.11 pH units (from 8.25 to 8.14) since the industrial revolution and is on track to decrease by a further 0.3 units

    Thank you

    Tony
    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2018 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us