How Does Electrolysis Affect pH in a HBr Solution?

AI Thread Summary
Electrolysis of a 1.30 L solution of 0.550M HBr with a current of 10.7 Amps converts some H+ ions to hydrogen gas (H2), affecting the solution's pH. After calculating the moles of H+ removed during 77 minutes, the resulting concentration of H+ is found to be 0.394M. The pH is then calculated as 0.405, which was initially deemed incorrect due to not accounting for the starting amount of H+. The correct approach requires subtracting the moles of H+ converted from the initial concentration. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the importance of considering both the initial and remaining concentrations of H+ in pH calculations.
harrietstowe
Messages
46
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A current of 10.7 Amps is applied to a 1.30 L solution of 0.550M HBr converting some of the H+ to H2(g), which bubbles out of solution. What is the PH of the solution after 77 minutes.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


(10.7 C/s)(1 mol e/96485 C)(2 mol H+/2 mol e)(60s/min)(77 min) = .512 mol H+

.512 mol H+/1.30L = .394M H+
-log(.394M) = .405 = PH

This was incorrect
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You started with a certain amount of H+ in the solution. The electrolysis removed some. Now you need to calculate what's left.
 
I see will try, thank you
 
It worked, thank you
 
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