Find molar absorptivity given the following

  • Thread starter Thread starter ssb
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the molar absorptivity of K2Cr2O7 at 455 nm, the concentration was first determined to be 2.482 x 10^-4 mol/L using the mass and volume provided. The relationship between transmittance and absorbance was clarified, with absorbance calculated as A = -log(0.12), resulting in A = 0.0921. This value was then used in Beer's Law, E = A/(bc), to find the molar absorptivity, yielding E = 185.54 L/(mol·cm). The discussion also highlighted the importance of significant figures in the calculations, noting that the concentration has the fewest significant figures, which affects the final answer. The final molar absorptivity calculation is confirmed to be correct with attention to significant figures.
ssb
Messages
119
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Calculate the molar absorptivity of K2Cr2O7 at 455 nm given that 36.5 mg disolved in 500.0 mL exhibits 12.0% transmittance at 455 nm in a 2.000 cm cell.

Homework Equations



Beers law E = A/bc

The Attempt at a Solution



I was able to do the following part ( i solved for concentration of K2Cr2O7 )
I found the atomic mass of K2Cr2O7
[(0.0365 g)/(294.07 g/mol)] / (0.5000 L) = 2.482 x 10^-4

Now I plug this into beers law but the question asks for something about a 12.0% transmittance. I am stuck here. How does transmittance relate to molar absorptivity?

I basically have 2 unknowns in one equation... what do I need to do next?

E = A / [(2.000 cm)(2.482 x 10^-4)] and I need to solve for A.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Does A = -log(.12)= .0921 ?

and if this is the case

E = 0.0921 / [(2.000 cm)(2.482 x 10^-4)] = 185.5359 ? are sig figs correct as well?
 
Last edited:
Which number in your calculation has the fewest sig figs? How many are there? How many are in your answer?
 
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