Calculating EMF of a Cell: Ni(s) | Ni2+ (0.1M) || Au3+ (1.0M) | Au (s)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Krushnaraj Pandya
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cell Emf
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the electromotive force (EMF) of a galvanic cell composed of nickel and gold ions, specifically the cell configuration Ni(s) | Ni2+ (0.1M) || Au3+ (1.0M) | Au(s). Participants explore the application of the Nernst equation and the standard reduction potentials provided.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states the EMF calculation using standard reduction potentials and the Nernst equation, arriving at an initial value of -1.75V.
  • Another participant questions the logarithmic term used in the Nernst equation, prompting a request for the full equation to be written out.
  • A participant clarifies the reaction quotient Q and attempts to substitute it into the Nernst equation, reaffirming their earlier calculations.
  • One participant acknowledges a misunderstanding regarding the concentration of Au3+, suggesting that the signs in the EMF calculation may have been applied incorrectly.
  • Another participant reiterates the importance of sign conventions in calculating cell potential, emphasizing the correct order of terms in the equation.
  • Some participants suggest breaking down the Nernst equation for each electrode to clarify the calculations and ensure the correct magnitude of the cell potential.
  • Le Chatelier's principle is mentioned as a potential tool for understanding how changes in concentration might affect cell potential.
  • Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

    Participants exhibit uncertainty regarding the correct application of sign conventions in the EMF calculation, with some suggesting alternative approaches. There is no consensus on the final value of the EMF or the correct method to arrive at it.

    Contextual Notes

    Participants express confusion over the concentrations of the reactants and the implications for the Nernst equation. There are unresolved issues regarding the application of logarithmic terms and sign conventions in the calculations.

Krushnaraj Pandya
Gold Member
Messages
697
Reaction score
73

Homework Statement


The EMF of the cell : Ni(s) | Ni2+ (0.1M) || Au 3+ (1.0M) | Au (s) is

[ given E°(Ni2+/Ni)= -0.25V; E° (Au3+ / Au )= +1.50V ]

Homework Equations


E°cell=E°(cathode)-E°(anode) For SRP.
Nernst equation

The Attempt at a Solution


SOP is given, therefore converting to SRP we take minus sign of both. Now Ni to Ni2+ is at anode and Au3+ to Au is at cathode. Therefore E(cell)= -1.5-0.25= -1.75V
Writing balanced reaction 3Ni+2Au3+ gives 3Ni2+ + 2Au, no. of electrons transferred=6.
Putting into nernst equation, EMF should be -1.75-(0.059/6)log(0.1)^3 which gives the wrong answer. Where am I wrong, I'd appreciate some help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why have you got log(0.1)^3 ? Write out the Nernst equation in full for this cell.
 
Ok, so we have E°=-1.75, RT/F=0.059, Q=[Ni2+]^3/[Au3+]^2=(0.1)^3/(1)^2=(0.1)^3
replacing in E=E°-2.303(RT/nF)logQ we get the equation I wrote in"Attempt at a solution"
 
Sorry, I misread the question, I thought [Au3+] was also 0.1M.
I think you've got the signs wrong. E for the cell is ER - EL by convention
Ecell = E(Au3+/Au) - E(Ni2+/Ni)
= E0(Au3+/Au) - E0(Ni2+/Ni) + RT/nF*log([Au3+]2/[Ni2+]3)
 
mjc123 said:
Sorry, I misread the question, I thought [Au3+] was also 0.1M.
I think you've got the signs wrong. E for the cell is ER - EL by convention
Ecell = E(Au3+/Au) - E(Ni2+/Ni)
= E0(Au3+/Au) - E0(Ni2+/Ni) + RT/nF*log([Au3+]2/[Ni2+]3)
The magnitude should remain the same (note that reversing the terms inside log reverses its sign)
 
Alright, I realized my mistake. I got confused in sign conventions. Thank you for your help :D
 
You might find it helpful
(i) to do the Nernst equation on each electrode separately; that way you ought to get the magnitude of the cell potential right, even if you get the sign convention wrong.
(ii) to think Le Chatelier - if I increase the concentration of X, will that pull the equilibrium to the right or left - increase or decrease cell potential?
 
mjc123 said:
You might find it helpful
(i) to do the Nernst equation on each electrode separately; that way you ought to get the magnitude of the cell potential right, even if you get the sign convention wrong.
(ii) to think Le Chatelier - if I increase the concentration of X, will that pull the equilibrium to the right or left - increase or decrease cell potential?
Very helpful tips, thank you
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
12K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
22K
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
5K