Chemical kinetics - reaction rate

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the reaction order for the given chemical reaction involving HCl and Na2S2O3. The user struggles with calculus and graphing techniques to analyze the reaction rate and suggests that their graph indicates a second-order reaction. However, they receive feedback indicating that their experimental setup is flawed, particularly regarding the measurement of the reaction endpoint and the interpretation of their data. The importance of knowing the critical concentration (Ccrit) for the reaction to become cloudy is emphasized, along with the need for clearer presentation of data. Overall, the conversation highlights challenges in understanding reaction kinetics and the necessity for precise experimental design.
chizuru
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


2HCl + Na2S2O3 -> 2NaCl +S + SO2 + H2O
Find the order of reaction with respect to S2O32- and H+
che17.png

volume of 3.0M HCl was held constant at 2ml

Homework Equations


S2O32- + 2H+ -> S + SO2 + H2O
rate = k[Na2S2O3]m[HCl]n (see number 3.)

The Attempt at a Solution


i just started taking calculus so I'm having a hard time understanding most of the equations I find in the net and most of them skip the part of solving so I can't find enough examples.
I tried to graph the S2O32- part first
che.png

Concentration of reaction against time(left)
Rate of Reaction against Concentration of a Reactant(right)

it "looks" like the graph of a second order. could someone please tell me if it is correct and another way of solving it aside from graphing and some calculus? thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
and additional question, may i know the effect of having different volumes of water?
 
Please explain what you plotted, to be honest it doesn't look like anything to me.

Edit: adding water just dilutes solutions.
 
And "time for reaction to finish" doesn't really mean anything. It never finishes. Though I can make a guess, operationally what was it?
 
Sorry for being unclear. The "time for reaction to finish" should be the "time elapsed for the solution to be completely cloudy".
For the graph at the left: the x-axis is the time elapsed for the solution to be completely cloudy and the y-axis is the number of moles/L.
For the graph at the right: the x-axis is the number of moles/L and the y-axis is the number of moles/(L * time)
 
It is almost embarrassing. I am inclined to advise don’t waste clean thought on such a dirty experiment. Any calculus would certainly be overkill.

But if you really do have to write up something:
Do you have any idea of the concentration of product S at which the “solution becomes completely cloudy”? If that is just a small fraction of the Na2S2O3 and you know what it is, call it Ccrit, you could just about say that Ccrit/(time to reach Ccrit) is a velocity in moles.L-1s-1. And if you don’t know what Ccrit is then 1/(time to reach Ccrit) is proportional to velocity. This is something like your RHS fig turned sideways and reflected. Which looks roughly linear.
With the proviso that that is the vaguest roughest experimental endpoint imaginable.
And that if Ccrit is not comparatively small as said, forget trying to do anything at all.And that you would have to clean up your presentation.
I don’t know why your table has 3 points and your graph 5.
Your vertical axis on left table can’t possibly be moles/L
You couldn’t find the order in HCl as you haven’t varied it.

I don't know if I got across I have rarely seen such a bad experiment, sorry.
 
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