Acid base titration problem. Need Help

AI Thread Summary
To adjust the pH of a solution from 7.17 to 5.85, one must calculate the molar concentration of H3O+ ions at both pH levels. A pH of 7.17 corresponds to a concentration of approximately 6.76 x 10^-8 M, while a pH of 5.85 yields a concentration of about 1.41 x 10^-6 M. The difference in these concentrations indicates the amount of H3O+ needed, which is approximately 1.34 x 10^-6 moles for one liter of solution. Understanding the relationship between pH and molar concentration is crucial for solving such titration problems. This process highlights the importance of precise calculations in acid-base chemistry.
ddluu
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
How many moles of H3O+ must be added to one liter of a solution to adjust the pH from 7.17 to 5.85?

Correct answer 1.34E-6 (1.34 * 10-6)

The correct answer is given, however I would like to know how to do this problem.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
See definition of pH - http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=pH-calculation&right=pH-definition

The pH is related to the molar concentration.

pH = 7.17 yields a molar concentration of 10-7.17 = 6.76 x 10-8 M, or moles/liter

Now try to find the number of moles in one liter for pH = 5.85.

Take the difference which gives the number of moles of H+ or H3O+ one needs to add to one liter.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
7K
Replies
16
Views
4K
Back
Top