Calculating Molality: Solution Density and Molarity Relationship

  • Thread starter Thread starter santoki
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Molality
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the molality of a 1.392 M sodium carbonate solution with a density of 1.1353 g/mL, start by determining the mass of 1 liter of the solution, which is 1135.3 grams. Next, calculate the mass of sodium carbonate in the solution using its molarity; 1.392 moles of Na2CO3 corresponds to approximately 139.2 grams. Subtract the mass of sodium carbonate from the total mass of the solution to find the mass of the solvent, which is about 996.1 grams. Finally, use the formula for molality, which is moles of solute per kilogram of solvent, to find the molality of the solution. The calculated molality will provide insight into the concentration of the sodium carbonate in the solvent.
santoki
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Question
A 1.392 M sodium carbonate solution has a density of 1.1353 g/mL. Calculate the molality of the solution.

Attempt
1.392 M Na2CO3 = 1.392 mol Na2CO3 per 1 L solution

I can't really make sense out of this. What would be the next step?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is the definition of molality?

Assume you have 1L of the solution. What is its mass? What is the mass of dissolved sodium carbonate? What is the mass of the solvent?
 
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