Calculating Radionuclide (243 Am3+) in a solution

  • Thread starter Thread starter basicwolves
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the concentration of 243Am3+ in a solution using UV-Visible absorbance data. The absorbance at 500 nm is recorded as 0.35, with a path length of 1 cm and a total volume of 2.5 mL in a 1 M HClO4 solution. Initial attempts to determine molar absorptivity led to incorrect conclusions, as the calculated value equaled the absorbance. The user seeks guidance, indicating that the problem lacks sufficient information to arrive at a definitive solution. Clarification on the necessary data or methodology is requested for accurate concentration calculation.
basicwolves
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


There is an UV-Visible experiment on 243Am3+ in 1 M HClO4 with a 1 cm path length
cuvette and a total volume of 2.5 mL. The absorbance near 500 nm is 0.35. What is the solution concentration of Am

Homework Equations


A = ebC

A = absorbance
b = path length
C = concentration
e = molar absorptivity

The attempt at a solution
I first calculated the molar absorptivity using the absorbance, concentration of 1M HCLO4 and the path length and right off the bat, I knew that this method is wrong (e=0.35, same as the abs reading). I then use the A=ebC equation, but then again this method is wrong because it gave me the same concentration of Am to the concentration of HCLO4. Please help guiding me through this problem.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is not enough information to solve the problem as stated.
 
  • Like
Likes epenguin
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