Does C6H4Cl2 Produced in Reaction 2 Get Consumed in Reaction 3?

  • Thread starter Thread starter man0005
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reaction
AI Thread Summary
C6H4Cl2 produced in reaction 2 is indeed consumed in reaction 3, as the reactions form a sequence where the product of one step serves as the reactant for the next. The first reaction produces chlorobenzene, which is then chlorinated in the second reaction to form C6H4Cl2. This intermediate compound is subsequently used in the third reaction to produce C6H3Cl3. Understanding this sequence is crucial for grasping the overall reaction mechanism. Therefore, the answer to the question is yes, C6H4Cl2 is consumed in reaction 3.
man0005
Messages
57
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


For the production of chlorobenzene reaction:
1) C6H6 (l) + Cl2(g) → C6H5Cl (l) + HCl (g)
2) C6H5Cl (l) + Cl2(g) → C6H4Cl2(l)+ HCl (g)
3) C6H4Cl2 (l)+ Cl2 (g) → C6H3Cl3(l) + HCl (g)

Is any of the C6H4Cl2 produced in reaction 2 used up in reaction 3?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is a SEQUENCE of reactions, so product of one step is a reactant in the next one.
 
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