Calculating Weight of Unknown Sample for 0.02M Cl- Solution

  • Thread starter Thread starter higherme
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Weight
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the weight of the unknown sample needed for a 40mL solution of 0.02M Cl-, the correct molar mass of NaCl is 58.443 g/mol. The calculation should be (0.02 mol/L) x (0.04L) x (58.443g NaCl/mol), resulting in 0.0467544g of NaCl needed. Since the sample contains 50% NaCl, the total weight required is doubled to 0.0935g. The necessity for a 0.02M concentration is likely due to the planned use of 0.02M AgNO3 for precipitating Cl-. This ensures a 1:1 volume ratio in the experiment.
higherme
Messages
126
Reaction score
0
I'm not sure if I am doing this correctly... can someone check for me please.. thanks!

Calculate the weight of the unknown sample needed to produce a 40mL [Cl-] solution of about 0.02M. Assume that the weight percent of NaCl in the unknown sample is 50%.

My answer:


(0.02 mol/L) x (0.04L) x (22.990g NaCl/ mol)
= 0.018392 g x 2 <=== because the sample contains only 50% NaCl
= 0.036784 g

is that the right way? Thanks again.

and does anyone know why it has to be 0.02M? is it because we are going to use 0.02M of AgNO3 to precipitate out the Cl-
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there more than 22.990g NaCl/mole?
 
ooops

the molar mass of NaCl should be 58.443g/mol

so it would be:
(0.02 mol/L) x (0.04L) x (58.443g NaCl/ mol)
=0.0467544g x 2
0.0935 g
 
is it right now? :P
 
and does anyone know why it has to be 0.02M [Cl-]? is it because in the experiment, we are going to use 0.02M of AgNO3 to precipitate out the Cl-??
 
that would seem reasonable, then it would be a 1:1 volume ratio you would need of AgNO3
 
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