Help in deducing a equation for Neutral red

  • Thread starter Thread starter demander
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Neutral
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around deriving the equation for the ratio of concentrations of Neutral Red and its protonated form using absorbance data. The user is attempting to prove the equality involving concentrations and absorbance equations but is struggling with the manipulation of these equations. Key equations provided include relationships between absorbance and concentrations, but confusion arises regarding the correct application of these equations. The user questions the validity of their approach and seeks clarification on specific terms that emerge during their calculations. Assistance is requested urgently, highlighting the complexity of the problem and the need for expert guidance.
demander
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Hi to all, hope you can help me with a problem that took me almost all the week

Homework Statement


To find The Pka of Neutral Red, i had to use this expression \frac{A-A_{HNR}}{A_{NR}-A}
So Now I Have to show that \frac{[NR]}{[HNR^{+}]}=\frac{A-A_{HNR}}{A_{NR}-A}
i tried backwards and i did it, but starting from the concnetrations is far more dificult

Homework Equations


i Have to prove that equallity using only this equations
C_{HNR^{+}} + C_{NR}=C_{Total}(1)

A_{HNR^{+}}=\epsilon_{HNR^{+}}.b.C_{total}(2)

A_{NR}=\epsilon_{NR}.b.C_{total}(3)

A=\epsilon_{HNR^{+}}.b.C_{HNR^{+}} + \epsilon_{NR}.b.C_{NR} (4)

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried to solve 4 in order to C_{HNR^{+}} first and then in order to C_{NR}.
I arrive to
C_{HNR^{+}}=\frac{A-\epsilon_{NR}.b.C_{NR}}{\epsilon_{HNR^{+}}.b}
C_{NR}=\frac{A-\epsilon_{HNR^{+}}.b.C_{HNR^{+}}}{\epsilon_{NR}.b}

then i did the following, added and subtracted the same value in the fraction numerator, like this:
C_{NR}=\frac{A+\epsilon_{HNR^{+}}.b.C_{NR}-\epsilon_{HNR^{+}}.b.C_{HNR^{+}}-\epsilon_{HNR^{+}}.b.C_{NR}}{\epsilon_{NR}.b}

so i could do:
C_{NR}=\frac{A+\epsilon_{HNR^{+}}.b.C_{NR}-\epsilon_{HNR^{+}}.b.(C_{HNR^{+}}+C_{NR}}{\epsilon_{NR}.b}
and using equation 1 it came
C_{NR}=\frac{A+\epsilon_{HNR^{+}}.b.C_{NR}-\epsilon_{HNR^{+}}.b.(C_{t})}{\epsilon_{NR}.b}
then using equation 2:
C_{NR}=\frac{A+\epsilon_{HNR^{+}}.b.C_{NR}-A_{HNR^{+}}}{\epsilon_{NR}.b}

doing the same thing to HNR it came:
C_{HNR}=\frac{A+\epsilon_{NR}.b.C_{HNR}-A_{NR}}{\epsilon_{HNR^{+}}.b}

So doing the reason
\frac{[NR]}{[HNR^{+}]}=\frac{\frac{A+\epsilon_{HNR^{+}}.b.C_{NR}-A_{HNR^{+}}}{\epsilon_{NR}.b}}{\frac{A+\epsilon_{NR}.b.C_{HNR}-A_{NR}}{\epsilon_{HNR^{+}}.b}}
and it's here where i can't see how can i arrive to the final equation
am i going for the worst way? i thought about this all week and can't find a way to prove what i should :cry:


hope someone can help me, it's kind of urgent
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The backwards trying was easy... but if i try to do the reverse... the multiplying term is not to clear how it showed off from the equations i give cause backwards the final term is:
\frac{C_{NR}(\epsilon_{NR}-\epsilon_{HNR})}{C_{HNR^{+}}(\epsilon_{NR}-\epsilon_{HNR})}}
so the thing i don't understand is that term:
(\epsilon_{NR}-\epsilon_{HNR}) where can it come from from the equation i have?
 
demander said:
A_{HNR^{+}}=\epsilon_{HNR^{+}}.b.C_{total}(2)
A_{NR}=\epsilon_{NR}.b.C_{total}(3)

Are you sure these are correct? Shouldn't it be:

A_{HNR^{+}}=\epsilon_{HNR^{+}}.b.C_{HNR^+}
A_{NR}=\epsilon_{NR}.b.C_{NR}
 
well i really had a doubt about that... cause i think In the two case, the absorvance is given in function of total conectration... these equations are giving in a protocol of the journal of chemistry, but they simnply say... we used this 4 equations and arrive to this :S
I couldn't seem to find that relation even trying very hard this week
 
Last edited:
Do you have the reference to the journal article? It's hard to figure out what the equations mean without knowledge of the details of the experiment and what is being measured.
 
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/2001/Mar/PlusSub/JCESupp/JCE2001p0349W.pdf
that's the link to the article... i put the pages needed in the attchments if you can't acess the journal
 

Attachments

  • reference1.JPG
    reference1.JPG
    43.5 KB · Views: 426
  • reference2.JPG
    reference2.JPG
    47.2 KB · Views: 408
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
Back
Top