Deriving the rate laws for first and second order reactions

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
3 replies · 19K views
erik-the-red
Messages
88
Reaction score
1
So, the average rate for a reaction of type A --> product is given by [tex]\text{rate} = -\frac{\Delta A}{\Delta t}[/tex]. Also, [tex]\text{rate} = k \cdot \text{A}[/tex].

The instantaneous rate for a reaction of that type is [tex]\lim_{\Delta t\rightarrow\0} -\frac{\Delta A}{\Delta t} = -\frac{dA}{dt}[/tex].

Setting the instantaneous rate for a reaction equal to the second equation, there is [tex]-\frac{dA}{dt} = k \cdot \text{A}[/tex].

Well, this is a very friendly separable differential equation. I get [tex]\ln A = -kt + C[/tex].

How do I get [tex]\ln{\frac{A}{A_o}} = -kt[/tex] from my derivation? Definite integration?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
erik-the-red said:
So, the average rate for a reaction of type A --> product is given by [tex]\text{rate} = -\frac{\Delta A}{\Delta t}[/tex]. Also, [tex]\text{rate} = k \cdot \text{A}[/tex].
The instantaneous rate for a reaction of that type is [tex]\lim_{\Delta t\rightarrow\0} -\frac{\Delta A}{\Delta t} = -\frac{dA}{dt}[/tex].
Setting the instantaneous rate for a reaction equal to the second equation, there is [tex]-\frac{dA}{dt} = k \cdot \text{A}[/tex].
Well, this is a very friendly separable differential equation. I get [tex]\ln A = -kt + C[/tex].
How do I get [tex]\ln{\frac{A}{A_o}} = -kt[/tex] from my derivation? Definite integration?



At time =0 C=Ao
 
yes, definite integration, you'll merely have one term on the right since initial time is considered zero. Also remember to always derive the equation for a particular reaction...if you're going to write the rate equation in terms of a reactant/product with a unique coefficient, they'll be multiples to account for.
 
Thanks! It's like every intro chem book always uses the exact phrase, "Using calculus, we can derive..."

I mean at the intro chem level most students haven't taken calculus, so to show the derivation is unnecessary. I was just curious :)