Calculating 0.5M NaCl in 500mL Water

  • Thread starter Thread starter mmedin01
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Concentration
AI Thread Summary
To prepare a 0.5M NaCl solution in 500mL of water, 29.25 grams of NaCl is required, as 0.5M corresponds to 0.5 moles per liter. The conversion from volume to moles involves understanding that the concentration remains consistent regardless of the amount of water used. The discussion clarifies that the term "number of moles in NaCl" is incorrect; it should refer to "number of moles of NaCl" in the solution. This distinction is crucial for accurate calculations in solution preparation. Understanding these concepts is essential for proper chemistry problem-solving.
mmedin01
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


How many grams of NaCl (molecular weight=58.5g mole^-1) would you dissolve in water to make a 0.5M NaCl solution with 500mL final volume?



Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

Since, 1 L of 58.5g NaCl is equal 1M I used this to firstly convert 500ml into liters which is 0.5L and then I said that half 0f 58.5g is 27.25g NaCl and this will give me 0.5 M in 0.5L of water.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
No, 0.5 mole in 0.5L is not 0.5M.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, does the number of moles in NaCl change depending on the amount of water?
 
mmedin01 said:
So, does the number of moles in NaCl change depending on the amount of water?

[STRIKE]Yes.[/STRIKE] (Misread that "moles in NaCl"...)
Here's one way to look at it:

0.5 M NaCl = 0.5 mol NaCl/1 L solution = ? mol NaCl/0.5 L solution

For the two fractions to be equal, what number does the numerator have to be?
 
Last edited:
mmedin01 said:
So, does the number of moles in NaCl change depending on the amount of water?

There is no such thing as "number of moles in NaCl". There is either "number of moles of NaCl" or "number of moles of NaCl in the given volume of the solution".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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