Past exam of the chemistry B course of the University of Cambridge / 2023 / Paper 1 / B5 / a / iii

Transfer is favourable when new water–solute interactions compensate the cavity and reorganization costs of accommodating the solute. The Gibbs energy also includes the loss of solute–alkane interactions; it is not simply a count of hydrogen bonds. isobutane cannot compensate those costs with strong directional interactions, explaining its positive transfer Gibbs energy. acetone and both amines can accept hydrogen bonds from water and have favourable electrostatic solvation, making their transfer moderately favourable. isopropylamine can additionally donate to water, consistent with a somewhat greater preference for water than trimethylamine.

acetamide combines a strong carbonyl acceptor with N–H donors and has the most favourable hydration in the group, accounting for its much more negative transfer Gibbs energy. Its pure solid lattice is not an extra sublimation penalty to insert here: the stated process starts from a dilute alkane solution and ends in dilute water, rather than dissolving the pure crystal. The nonmonotonic relationship between hydrogen-bond acceptor parameter and transfer Gibbs energy is expected because donor strength, nonpolar surface, solvent cavity formation, and all other solvation contributions also enter.

For matched standard states, $\Delta G_{\mathrm{tr}}^{\circ }=-RT\ln K_{\mathrm{tr}}$, with $K_{\mathrm{tr}}$ the water-to-alkane activity ratio. As an illustrative 298 K calculation, the hydrocarbon value implies $K_{\mathrm{tr}}\simeq 7.0\times 10^{-4}$, whereas the amide value implies approximately $3.6\times 10^4$. These are standard-state partition preferences, not absolute aqueous solubilities. amine protonation could introduce an additional pH-dependent contribution to an experimentally measured distribution coefficient, but no such speciation information is supplied and it is not needed for the molecular comparison.