Chemistry How many moles of NH3 in the supplied solution0.2 M NH3 in 2 M Nh4NO3

  • Thread starter Thread starter everscern
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Moles
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the moles of NH3 in a 2 ml solution containing 0.2 M NH3 and 2 M NH4NO3, with the answer required in mmol. The ratio of NH3 to NH4NO3 is established as 1:10, leading to a calculation of 0.182 ml for NH3. The final calculation yields 0.0364 mmol of NH3. There is confusion regarding the relevance of the ratio and the purpose of the 2/11 calculation. Clarity on these points is sought to ensure accurate understanding and application of the concepts.
everscern
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



How many moles of NH3 are in 2ml of supplied solution: 0.2 M NH3 in 2 M Nh4NO3

Ans to be given in mmol

Homework Equations



Concentration = mol/ L

The Attempt at a Solution



Ratio of NH3 : NH4NO3 = 1: 10

2 / 11 = 0.182 ml

0.2 mol/L * 1L/ 1000ml * 0.182 ml * 1000 = 0.0364 mmol
 
Physics news on Phys.org
everscern said:

Homework Statement



How many moles of NH3 are in 2ml of supplied solution: 0.2 M NH3 in 2 M Nh4NO3

Ans to be given in mmol

Homework Equations



Concentration = mol/ L

The Attempt at a Solution



Ratio of NH3 : NH4NO3 = 1: 10

2 / 11 = 0.182 ml

0.2 mol/L * 1L/ 1000ml * 0.182 ml * 1000 = 0.0364 mmol

I'm not sure why you're calculating the ratio of ammonia to ammonium salt, and then not using it? What's the 2/11 calculation for?
 
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