Chemistry Equivalence point concentration/number of moles

AI Thread Summary
At the equivalence point of the titration between Fe[3+] and V[2+], the concentrations of V[2+] and Fe[3+] will be equal, as they are the titrant and analyte, respectively. The concentrations of the products, V[3+] and Fe[2+], will be half of the initial concentration (0.1000 M) due to the dilution effect from the total volume increase during the reaction. This dilution occurs because the total volume of the solution doubles when equal volumes of the titrant and analyte are mixed. Therefore, the final concentrations of V[3+] and Fe[2+] will be 0.0500 M. Understanding stoichiometry and dilution principles is crucial for calculating these concentrations accurately.
drcasey
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Fe[3+]+V[2+]-->Fe[2+]+V[3+]

If you start with 0.1000 M solutions and the first-named species is the titrant, what will be
the concentration of each reactant and product at the equivalence point of the titrations above? Assume that there is no change in [H+] during the titration.

Homework Equations



Keq=[V3+][Fe2+]/[V2+][Fe3+]=2.23X10^17


The Attempt at a Solution



I believe V2+ and Fe3+ will be the same at the equivalence points since that is the definition of the analyte and titrant. However, I was told that the V3+ and Fe2+ concentration is 0.1000/2. Could someone please explain why it is divided by 2 and not just 0.1000? Thank you

 
Physics news on Phys.org
Stoichiometry should be enough. Write the balanced reaction. You are using 1 to 1 mole ratio for the reaction. How does this relate to volume of titrant and volume of analyte solution? The resulting volume, if both concentrations are 0.1000, should be...? Think... you will see.
 
Ok just to make sure. The total volume will be 2L? Because of that, we take 0.1000mol/2?
 
drcasey said:
Ok just to make sure. The total volume will be 2L? Because of that, we take 0.1000mol/2?

Yes, just a simple dilution.
 
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