Chemistry lab - limiting reagent - Can someone verify?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Ker
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Chemistry Lab
AI Thread Summary
Using 5.00 mL of 1.00 M H2SO4 instead of 7 M H2SO4 does not affect the final yield of copper, as CuO remains the limiting reagent in both scenarios. The calculations show that the moles of CuO (0.004) are less than those of H2SO4, confirming CuO's status as the limiting reagent. While the concentration of H2SO4 influences the reaction speed, it does not change the amount of CuSO4 produced. The discussion clarifies that the product cannot be a limiting reagent. Overall, the final yield of copper remains constant despite the change in H2SO4 concentration.
John Ker
Messages
16
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Suppose that, for reaction 4, you could not find the bottle of 7 M H2SO4 so you added 5.00 mL of the 1.00 M H2SO4 instead. How would this impact your final yield of Copper. (Show with calculations how this would impact the limiting reagent.)

Homework Equations


CuO(s) + H2SO4(aq) --> CuSO4(aq) + H2O(l)

The Attempt at a Solution


This was the series of transtions done to the copper.
Cu(NO3)2(aq) + 2NaOH(aq) --> Cu(OH)2(s) + 2 NaNO3(aq)

Cu(OH)2(s) + heat --> CuO(s) + H2O(l)

CuO(s) + H2SO4(aq) --> CuSO4(aq) + H2O(l)

CuSO4(aq) + Zn(s)--> ZnSO4(aq) + Cu(s)


I initially started with 10.00ml of .4M Cu(NO3)2. Hence .004 moles. The ratio for each copper reactant to the desired copper product is 1:1. Hence we will end up with .004 CuSO4. Now, in the case of using 7M H2SO4, the CuSO4 is the limiting reagent. However, we use 1M * .005ml = .005mol, doesn't this also keep CuSO4 as the limiting reagent, having no effect on the final yield of copper?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
John Ker said:
I initially started with 10.00ml of .4M Cu(NO3)2. Hence .004 moles. The ratio for each copper reactant to the desired copper product is 1:1. Hence we will end up with .004 CuSO4.

We end with Cu, not CuSO4, but yes, 1:1 and 0.004 moles is a constant throughout the process (assuming other reagents are in excess).

Now, in the case of using 7M H2SO4, the CuSO4 is the limiting reagent.

No, it is not, limiting reagent is either CuO or H2SO4. Product is never a limiting reagent.

Somehow your final conclusion (no effect of the final yield) is a correct one.
 
Borek said:
We end with Cu, not CuSO4, but yes, 1:1 and 0.004 moles is a constant throughout the process (assuming other reagents are in excess).
No, it is not, limiting reagent is either CuO or H2SO4. Product is never a limiting reagent.

Somehow your final conclusion (no effect of the final yield) is a correct one.

Hello, thanks for the response.

So after taking a relook youre right, I overlooked the product being the limiting reagent. In that case, wouldn't CuO be the limiting reagent, since it is only .004moles.
CuO is .004
7M H2SO4 is .035M
1M H2SO4 is .005M

In both cases, even with a reduction in the molarity of H2SO4, CuO is still the limiting reagent, hence the same amount of CuSO4 is produced?
 
John Ker said:
In both cases, even with a reduction in the molarity of H2SO4, CuO is still the limiting reagent, hence the same amount of CuSO4 is produced?

In general - yes.

Although high concentration of the acid will definitely speed up the reaction, so while theoretically everything is perfectly OK, process can be difficult to do in practice.
 
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...
Thread 'How to find the pH of a galvanic cell (MIT OCW problem set)'
This is the final problem in this problem set from MIT OCW. Here is what I did to try to solve it The table cited in the problem is below We can easily spot the two redox couples that are in the electrochemical cell we are given. The hydrogen-based electrode has standard potential zero, and the silver-based electrode has standard potential 0.22. Thus, the hydrogen electrode, with the lower potential, is the reducing agent (ie, it is where oxidation happens) and is the anode. Electrons...
Back
Top