Electrochemical Cells, Cell Potentials: Using Nernst Equation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the equilibrium constant for the reaction between Sn2+ and Ni using the Nernst Equation. The standard reduction potentials for Ni2+ and Sn2+ are provided, leading to a calculated total reducing potential of -0.09 V. Initially, there was confusion regarding the absence of an E value, but it was later clarified that the relationship between Gibbs Free Energy and the equilibrium constant could be utilized. The final equilibrium constant was determined to be 1.1 x 10^3. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationship between half-reactions and equilibrium conditions.
Gaunt101
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The standard reduction potentials for Ni2+ and Sn2+ are as follows:
Ni2+ + 2e− → Ni E° = −0.23 V
Sn2+ + 2e− → Sn E° = −0.14 V

Calculate the equilibrium constant at 25°C for the reaction Sn2+(aq) + Ni(s)→ Sn(s) + Ni2+(aq)


Homework Equations



Nernst Equation
E = E0- (0.0592/n)*log10Q



The Attempt at a Solution



I thought this would be a simple problem by just plugging the relevant values into the Nernst Equation, however there is no value for E. There are two reduction potential values for the half reactions which we can calculate the total reducing potential as E0 = Eanode+ Ecathode = 0.14V + (-)0.23 = -0.09

This is due to the fact that you have to reverse one of the equations to change the sign so you can account for the oxidation / reduction pair. In this case, it can be seen that Sn2+ (tin) was being reduced, so I decided to reverse the equation and make it positive.

At this point I'm unsure of how to calculate the equilibrium constant because without an E value, there is no possible way of re-arranging the equation to find a suitable value. I don't think I"m missing a condition, we're not told whether the concentrations of reactants and proudcts are standard so we can't assume that E = E0.

Any help would be much appreciated, thank you very much!

Gaunt.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Terribly sorry, I have worked this out. Just found the relationship between Gibbs Free and the equilibrium constant, rather than the reaction quotient.

Sorry!

THe answer is 1.1*10^3
 
No need to be sorry - we prefer those that try by themselves over those waiting for a spoon feeding :smile:

Note that you could easily solve this problem just assuming potentials of both half reactions are equal at equilibrium:

-0.23 + \frac {RT}{2F} ln([Ni^{2+}]) = -0.14 + \frac {RT}{2F} ln([Sn^{2+}])

It can be easily rearranged to the form

ln(\frac{[Ni^{2+}]}{[Sn^{2+}]}) = \frac {nF(0.23-0.14)}{RT}

or (using simplified version of the equation):

log_{10}(\frac{[Ni^{2+}]}{[Sn^{2+}]}) = \frac {2\times(0.23-0.14)}{0.059}
 
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