Equilibrium Constant of a Heterogeneous Reaction

AI Thread Summary
The equilibrium constant expression Kc for the reaction CaCO3(s) + CO2(g) + H2O(l) ⇔ Ca2+(aq) + 2HCO3-(aq) should exclude pure solids and liquids, which are set to 1. The correct setup involves only the aqueous and gaseous components, specifically the concentrations of the products and the partial pressure of the gas. The user is advised to include the partial pressure of CO2 in the equilibrium expression. This approach is essential for accurately determining the equilibrium constant in reactions involving both aqueous and gaseous substances. Understanding these principles is crucial for solving similar problems in chemical equilibrium.
Saracen Rue
Messages
150
Reaction score
10

Homework Statement


Write an expression for Kc for the following at equilibrium;
CaCO3(s) + CO2(g) + H2O(l) ⇔ Ca2+(aq) + 2HCO3-(aq)

Homework Equations


K = [products]^(coefficients)/[products]^(coefficients)

The Attempt at a Solution


I know that pure solid and liquid substances should be set to 1 when calculating the equilibrium constant. However, I haven't encounter an equation before where both aqueous and gaseous substances are present. Does this effect how I should set up the equation for the equilibrium constant at all? Thank you for your time
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You should use a partial pressure of the gas.
 
  • Like
Likes CrazyNinja
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