Enviro Chem.- simple ideal gas law calculation.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the mole fraction of ozone (O3) at an altitude of 20 km using the ideal gas law. The concentration of ozone is given as 4.7 x 10^12 molecules/cm^3, which is converted to 7.81 x 10^-9 mol/L. The user successfully calculates the pressure of ozone at this altitude as 1.43 x 10^-7 atm and seeks confirmation on whether dividing this pressure by the total pressure of 0.132 atm provides the correct mole fraction. Additionally, the user inquires about converting the mole fraction to parts per billion (ppb). The conversation emphasizes the importance of using the ideal gas law for accurate calculations and suggests verifying results through multiple methods.
luna02525
Messages
12
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



1. Ozone has a maximum concentration of 4.7 x 1012 molecules/ cm3 at an altitude of 20 km. The total pressure at this altitude is 100 torr. Using the ideal gas law, what is the mole fraction of O3 at that altitude? Now express the mole fraction in ppb.

Homework Equations



PV=nRT (ideal gas law)

X/(X_a + X_b...) mole fraction

temperature @ 20 km = -50 Celsius = 223 K

100 torr = .132 atm


The Attempt at a Solution



So far I have taken concentration of ozone and put it into mol/L.

4.7 x 10^12 molecules/cm^3 = 7.81 x 10^-9 mol/L

I'm not sure how to find a mole fraction without additional information. All the info for ideal gas law is also all there so I'm confused. I forgot how to take mol/L into just moles I guess. I've looked online for more information and reading up on the general chemistry but am unable to find any information related to this problem. Also notable is the fact that I do not have a general chemistry textbook (my brother sold it for money) which would ideally give me a refresher in PV= nRT and finding the solution to this problem.

So, any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Now, take the concentration of ozone and convert it into a pressure using the gas law. Compare that pressure with the total pressure at that altitude. What would such a comparison represent?
 
chemisttree said:
Now, take the concentration of ozone and convert it into a pressure using the gas law. Compare that pressure with the total pressure at that altitude. What would such a comparison represent?

ok so I took the concentration of ozone and plugged it into

PV=nRT V= 1 L

P(1 L) = (7.81 x 10^-9 mol)(.082 Latm/kmol)(223 K)
P = 1.43 x 10^-7 atm

so, now I know the pressure of ozone at 20 km

in order to find the mole fraction I would place the pressure of ozone at 20 km over the total air pressure at 20 km?

so,

(1.43 x 10^-7 atm)/(.132 atm) = 1.08 x 10^-6 ozone per total air

1) Is this correct?
2) To find ppb now I just multiply the ozone mole fraction by 1/(10^-9)?
 
That's how I would do it.
 
Thanks a lot for your help! :smile:
 
Alternatively, you could leave the ozone concentration in terms of moles/L and then, using the gas law, calculate the concentration of gas using the gas law. That ratio would give you the ozone concentration as well.

You might want to calculate it both ways to convince yourself of your answer.
 
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