% glycolic acid needed to replace 40% phosphoric acid

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pastaking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Acid
AI Thread Summary
To determine the percentage of glycolic acid needed to replace 40% phosphoric acid by weight, the conversion from weight% to molarity is essential. The phosphoric acid's molarity is calculated to be 5.11 mol/L, considering its triprotic nature, which requires multiplying the molarity by 3 for the equivalent glycolic acid molarity. The discussion seeks clarification on the correct approach to find the necessary glycolic acid percentage, emphasizing the need for precise numerical values. Accurate calculations and conversions are crucial for achieving the desired replacement ratio. The thread highlights the importance of understanding acid properties in such conversions.
Pastaking
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


What is the % glycolic acid needed to replace 40% phosphoric acid (assuming it is weight%)?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I tried to solve this by first converting the Phosphoric acid weight% to mol/L for the phosphoric acid (5.11 mol/L)..
Since phosphoric acid is triprotic, I just multiply by 3 the calculated Molarity of phosphoric acid for the molarity of glycolic acid ... I am not sure if i did it right...how do we find the answer?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Need some numbers. Your numbers. Not mine.
 
That is all the numbers for the question...
 
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