Finding molarity when % by mass is known

  • Thread starter Thread starter erjkism
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass Molarity
AI Thread Summary
To find the molarity of acetic acid (CH3COOH) with a mass percentage of 99.7% and a density of 1.05 g/ml, first calculate the mass of the solution using the density formula (d = m/v). After determining the mass, convert it to moles by dividing by the molar mass (60.05 g/mol). Finally, apply the molarity formula (M = n/v) to find the concentration in moles per liter. This process ensures accurate calculation of molarity based on the given data. Understanding these steps is crucial for precise chemical analysis.
erjkism
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
i need to find the molarity of acetic acid from this data:

CH3COOH (molar mass 60.05) (% by mass: 99.7) (density: 1.05 g/ml)

how do i do it??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Find out the mass in grams of 99.7 % of the compound and d = m/v and M = n/v. Hope that helps.
 
One more thing that I want to add to the previous post is that after you find the mass you should convert it to moles and apply it to the molarity formula.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top