Calculating Mass of Precipitate in a Chemical Reaction

  • Thread starter Thread starter darkwatcher
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the mass of precipitate formed in the reaction between sodium carbonate and calcium chloride, start with the balanced equation: CaCl2(aq) + Na2CO3(aq) → CaCO3(s) + 2NaCl(aq). The moles of sodium carbonate from 10 ml of 0.20 mol/L is 0.002 moles, and the moles of calcium chloride from 20 ml of 0.225 mol/L is 0.0045 moles. The mass of the precipitate, calcium carbonate (CaCO3), is determined to be approximately 0.72g after accounting for the mass of the filter. Further clarification on the solubility product for CaCO3 may be needed to finalize the calculations.
darkwatcher
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I have this lab in class, and i have not done chemsitry for a while..Can anyone help me with this...much thankful

purpose: To determine the mass of percipitate produced when 10ml of 0.20 mol/L carbonate reacts with 20 ml of 0.225 mol/L calcium chloride..

For the procedure i think i am ok

but the calculation is where i have no idea how to start..
any help would be helpful

thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Start with the precipitation reaction and then use the solubility product.
 
chemisttree said:
Start with the precipitation reaction and then use the solubility product.


thank you for the reply..but I am still confused..i balanced out the equation which is
CaCl(2)(aq)+ Na(2)CO3(aq)-----> Ca(CO3)(l)+2NaCl(aq)

and then the moler mass are:
1) 10ml of 0.20 mol/l sodium carbonate is 0.01*0.20=0.002
2) 20ml of 0,225 mol/l calcium chloride is 0.020*0.225=0.0045


and the mass of the participate is 2.82g -2.60g(mass of the filter) = .72g

but now i have no idea where to go...i know i have to do stoichiometry but i am so confusedd

Plz anyone help
 
Now, what is the solubility product for CaCO3?

Correction: Your equation should be

CaCl(2)(aq)+ Na(2)CO3(aq)-----> Ca(CO3)(s)+2NaCl(aq)
 
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