Aqueous Equilibrium: Ka of an Unknown Acid via Titration

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around determining the Ka of an unknown acid using titration data, where an initial pH of 5 was recorded after adding 10.0 mL of NaOH. After 34.68 mL of NaOH, the addition of phenolphthalein indicated a significant pH change, turning the solution deep pink. Further addition of 2.62 mL of the unknown acid made the solution colorless again, suggesting the endpoint was reached. Participants express confusion over how to calculate Ka without knowing the initial volume of the acid solution. The consensus highlights the necessity of additional information to solve the problem effectively.
Svennerson
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


We're given an unknown acid, and dissolve an unknown mass of the acid in an unknown amount of water. We then titrated the solution with an unknown molarity solution of NaOH. After titrating in 10.0 mL of NaOH, we measure a pH of 5. After 34.68 mL of NaOH, we realize we forgot to add phenolphthaelin. Adding it in turns the solution deep pink. Adding in another 2.62 mL of the unknown acid solution turns the solution colorless again. Find the Ka of the acid.

We are absolutely stumped on this one, please help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can be missing something, but I don't see how to solve without knowing the initial volume of the acid solution.
 
I'm an AP Chem tutor, and this stumps me for the same reason.
 
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...
Back
Top