Chemistry How do you convert Density into moles?

AI Thread Summary
To convert density into moles, it's important to recognize that density is an intensive property and cannot be directly converted to moles. Instead, the volume of the solution can be used to calculate mass using the given density. The mass can then be converted to moles using the molar mass of the solute. In this specific problem, it may be more straightforward to focus on calculating the energy change (q) using the total mass and specific heat of the solvent, rather than converting to moles. This approach simplifies the process and avoids unnecessary complications.
07triumphd675
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


When 10.00 mL of a solution of strong acid is mixed with 100.00 mL of a solution of weak base in a coffee-cup calorimeter, the temperature falls from 25.7oC to 20.7oC. Determine q for the acid-base reaction, assuming that the liquida have densities of 1.00 g/mL and the same heat capacities as pure water.


Homework Equations


So I see that you're supposed to use the Q = (Change in T)(N)Molar Heat Capacity of H2O) but they've given the density of water so we're supposed to convert that into moles. I'm obviously doing something wrong, but does anyone know how to convert the density into moles?

Density = Mass (g) / Volume (L)

moles = Mass(g) / Molar Mass (g/m)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't convert just density into moles. Density is an intensive property, number of moles is an extensive property, they are not related.

However, you are given extensive property - that is volume. You will need that.
 
I think the easiest way to solve this problem is to avoid moles alltogether. Specific heats are _usually_ expressed as J/Kg/C, so moles aren't required unless you want them to be.

You know what your total mass of solvent is and it's specific heat, so finding the energy released with the change in temperature should be trivial.
 
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