Calculating Mass in a Gas Stoichiometry Problem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on a gas stoichiometry problem involving the reaction of zirconium metal with chlorine gas to produce zirconium (IV) chloride. The user successfully calculated that 400 mL of chlorine gas is needed to produce 200 mL of ZrCl4 at specified conditions. They encountered difficulty determining the mass of zirconium consumed, initially using the moles of chlorine gas but later realizing they had used an incorrect volume in their calculations. After corrections, the final mass of zirconium calculated is 0.176 g, which is confirmed as accurate. The thread emphasizes the importance of careful volume and mole calculations in stoichiometry problems.
Lili123
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi all,
While studying for my exam (and doing review questions) I came across a problem that I couldn't solve:

5. Zirconium metal and chlorine gas react to form zirconium (IV) chloride
Zr + 2Cl2 = ZrCl4
a) What volume of chlorine gas must be used at 350 degrees Celsius and 50 kPa to produce 200mL of ZrCl4 under the same conditions?

Figured out this part, and it comes to 400mL of chlorine gas.

b) What mass of zirconium will be used up?This part I had trouble on. I used the moles of chlorine gas to do this, though it feels like I'm doing something wrong, could someone let me know if what I am doing is right? We don't have an answer key... Thanks in advance!

0.003860124 mols Cl2 * 1 mol Zr / 2 mols Cl2 * 91.224g/mol Zr = 0.176 g Zr
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lili123 said:
0.003860124 mols Cl2

Why 0.00386 moles of Cl2?
 
Borek said:
Why 0.00386 moles of Cl2?
Because in part A of the question I determined the moles of ZrCl4 using this formula: n = PV / RT and then used the mole ratio to convert to Cl2.
n = (50) (0.200) / (8.3145) (623.15) * 2mols Cl2 / 1mol ZrCl4 = 0.003860124
 
Oops, you are right. I used a wrong volume in my calculations.

0.176 g of Zr is a correct answer.
 
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