Calculating Absorbance of Iron (III) Solution at 580nm for 2.50-cm Cell

  • Thread starter Thread starter ahhppull
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Absorbance
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the absorbance of a 5.00 mL aliquot of a 5.94 ppm iron (III) solution diluted to 50.0 mL, the concentration must first be converted from ppm to molarity. The conversion yields a concentration of 0.000106 M for the iron (III) solution. After dilution, the concentration becomes 0.0000106 M. The molar absorptivity (ε) for FeSCN is needed to complete the absorbance calculation, which is not provided in the textbook and may require online research. Understanding that ppm translates to mg per L is crucial for accurate calculations.
ahhppull
Messages
59
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



2. A 5.00 mL aliquot of a solution that contains 5.94 ppm iron (III) is treated with an appropriate excess of KSCN and is diluted to 50.0 mL.What is the absorbance of the resulting solution at 580 nm in 2.50-cm cell?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I'm having trouble finding the concentration of the solution. I'm not really good at using ppm. How do I convert this to concentration? If I have the concentration, I can finish the problem by plugging in ε,b and c.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not sure if correct but here's what I did to find the concentration.

5.49 ppm = 5.49 micrograms/mL = 0.00549 grams/L

0.00549 grams/L /(55.845 grams/mole) = 0.000106 M

0.000106 M * 5 mL / 50 mL = 0.0000106 M

EDIT : Also I just realized that the molar absorptivity of FeSCN is not given in the book, so am I doing the problem wrong or do I need to find this online?
 
Last edited:
Shortcut - ppm usually means mg per L.

1.06e-4 M is OK.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top