Calculating Equilibrium Constants for Gas-Phase Reactions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating equilibrium constants (K_c) for the gas-phase reaction 2AB3 (g) <-> A2 (g) + 3B2 (g). For the first scenario, with equilibrium concentrations of AB3 at 1.5600 mol/L and B2 at 0.3300 mol/L, the calculated K_c is approximately 1.624E-3. In the second scenario, starting with an initial concentration of AB3 at 0.6300 mol/L and an equilibrium concentration of A2 at 0.14600 mol/L, the K_c is found to be about 1.074E-1. Both calculations are confirmed to be correct. The thread emphasizes the importance of accurate concentration values in determining equilibrium constants.
Soaring Crane
Messages
461
Reaction score
0
a. If the equilibrium concentration of AB3 is 1.5600 mol/L, and the equilibrium concentration of B2 is 0.3300 mol/L, determine the equilibrium constant for this reaction.

2AB3 (g) <-> A2 (g) + 3B2 (g)


Well, K_c = [B2]^3[A2]/[AB3]^2

[B2] = 0.3300 M
[AB3] = 1.5600 M
[A2] = ?

[A2] = 0.3300 M B2 (1 mol A2/3 mol B2) = 0.11 M ?

K_c = [0.330 M]^3[0.11 M]/[1.5600 M]^2 = 1.624E-3 ??


b. If the initial concentration of AB3 is 0.6300 mol/L, and the equilibrium concentration of A2 is 0.14600 mol/L, determine the equilibrium constant for this reaction.

2AB3 (g) <-> A2 (g) + 3B2 (g)

Once again, K_c = [B2]^3[A2]/[AB3]^2

But
[B2] = 0.14600 M A2 * (3 mol B2/ 1 mol A2) = 0.4380 M
[AB3] = 0.14600 M A2 *(2 mol AB3/ 1 mol A2) = 0.292 M
so 0.6300 M - 0.292 M = 0.338 M
[A2] = 0.14600 M

K_c = [0.14600 M][0.4380 M]^3/[0.3380 M]^2 = 1.074E-1 ?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They are both correct I believe.
 
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