Determining Volume of Base for ASA Experiment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mary1910
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Volume
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the volume of NaOH needed to titrate a 500 g ASA tablet, using its molar mass of 180.17 g/mol and a Ka value of 3.2 x 10^-4. The user calculates the number of moles of ASA to be 2.78 x 10^-3 mol and attempts to find the volume of NaOH required using the equation v = n/c, resulting in an initial volume of 0.0278 mL. However, there is a confusion regarding the units, as the user mistakenly presents the volume in both mL and L. Clarification is suggested to ensure the calculations accurately reflect the required volume for titration.
Mary1910
Messages
31
Reaction score
1
1. Homework Statement .
This question is based on an experiment to determine the mass of ASA.
Information from the experiment :
• ASA is a weak acid with a Ka value of 3.2 x 10^-4.
• An ASA tablet has an approximate mass of 500 g.
• The experiment used a titration with a standardized 0.100 mol/L NaOH.

The balanced equation is HC9H7O4(aq) + NaOH(aq) -> NaC9H7O4(aq) + H2O(l)

a) What volume of base will you substitute into the formula when you calculate the number of moles of base used?

2. Relevant equations.

n=m/M

v=n/c

3. The attempt at the solution

First determine molar mass of HC9H7O4
=180.17 g/mol

n=m/M
=(0.500g ) / (180.17g/mol)
=2.78 x 10^-3 mol

v=n/c
=(2.78 x 10^-3) / (0.1mol/L)
=0.0278 mL
=27.8 L

Could someone let me know if I determined the volume of the base correctly? Thanks.

 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mary1910 said:
=(2.78 x 10^-3) / (0.1mol/L)
=0.0278 mL
=27.8 L

You mixed up units in the last two lines, but - assuming you meant L first, mL second - your calculations look OK.

But it wouldn't hurt to write more precisely what you are calculating. I am guessing you are checking what should be approximate volume of the base required to titrate ASA from a single tablet, but it doesn't necessarily follow from your post.
 
Thanks, and sorry for my lack of clarity.
 
  • Like
Likes Borek
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