Derive a rate law from a mechanism (rates of reactions)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around deriving a rate law from a proposed reaction mechanism involving CO, Cl, and Cl2. The given rate law is rate = k[CO][Cl2]^(3/2), which needs to be validated against the mechanism provided. Participants note that the slow step of the mechanism should be the starting point for deriving the rate law, but confusion arises regarding the equilibrium of fast reactions and their contribution to the overall rate. There is a challenge in reconciling the elementary steps with the overall reaction equation. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationship between fast and slow steps in determining the correct rate law.
qwedsa
Messages
16
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The reaction: CO + Cl <-> COCl2
has the rate law: rate = k[CO][Cl2]^(3/2)

Show that this rate law is consistent with the mechanism:

Cl2 <-> 2Cl (fast)
Cl + CO <-> COCl (fast)
Cl2 + COCl -> COCl2 + Cl (slow)

(i don't know how to do superscript and subscript on here. in Cl2, the 2 should be subscsript, and ^(3/2) means that the reaction is 3/2 order with respect to Cl2)

The Attempt at a Solution



when you derive a rate law from a proposed mechanism, you usually start with the slow reaction...

rate = k[Cl2][COCl]

if i didn't know beforehand that the reaction is 3/2 order with respect to Cl2, i'd say k[COCl]=k-1[CO] => rate = k[Cl2][CO] but apparently this is incorrent. i am not sure how to proceed with the problem
 
Physics news on Phys.org
While the last reaction is proceeding slowly, the species reacting fast are in equilibrium with each other.
 
Your mechanism looks a bit confusing to me, because the elementary steps don't seem to add up to the overall equation.
 
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