How to Calculate the Percentage of As2O3 in a Bug Spray Sample?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ssb
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the percentage of As2O3 in a bug spray sample, a titration method was employed after decomposing the sample in acid. The moles of As3+ reacted were determined using the current and time from the titration, yielding a value of approximately 3.607 x 10^-5 moles. However, it was clarified that the moles of As3+ are not directly equivalent to the moles of As2O3 due to dilution and the stoichiometry of the reaction. After correcting for these factors, the final calculation showed that the percentage of As2O3 in the original sample is approximately 4.85%. This demonstrates the importance of considering dilution and reaction ratios in such calculations.
ssb
Messages
119
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A 3.67 gram sample of bug spray was decomposed in acid. Any As^5^+ was reduced to As^3^+ and diluted to 250.0 mL in a volumetric flask. A 5.00 mL sample of this was added to 125.0 mL of 0.0500 M KI buffered to pH 7. A coulmetric titration was carried out with electrically generated I_3^-, which oxidized As^3^+ to As^5^+ according to the reaction:

As^3^+ + I_3^- ----> 3I^- + As^5^+

The titration required 287 seconds at a constant current of 24.28 mA to reach the endpoint. Calculate the percentage of As_2O_3 (197.84 g/mol) in the bug spray.

Homework Equations



Moles Reacted = (I*t)/(nF)

The Attempt at a Solution



moles reacted = (.02425 amps * 287 seconds)/(2 (# electrons) * 9.6482x10^4 (Faraday constant)

moles reacted = 3.607x10^-^5

Question 1) Am I right to assume it is a one to one ratio of moles? or is it a one to 3 ratio? Assuming its one to one then (3.607x10^-^5) * (197.84 g/mol) = 7.136x10^-^3 grams of As_2O_3
If you divide this by the original mass (7.136x10^-^3)/(3.67g) oh and multiply by 100 to calculate percent, I come up with 0.1944%. NOW: I was able to do this with about half of the information given in the original equation. I looked at sample problems in my book and found similar calculations can be done if you are given standard potentials for half reactions. We were given none and I cannot find a standard potential for As^3^+ ----> As^5^+ + 2e^-

Question 2) where am I going wrong here? Thank you so much whoever is able to help me tackle this homework problem
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Iodine works only as an intermediate in transfering charge, so you may simply assume reaction going is As3+ -> As5+ + 2e- - you know how to calculate the charge, you should be eable to calculate amount of As.

As moles number seems correct, but it is not identical to the number of moles of As2O3.

You forgot that sample was diluted and only part was titrated.
 
Borek said:
Iodine works only as an intermediate in transfering charge, so you may simply assume reaction going is As3+ -> As5+ + 2e- - you know how to calculate the charge, you should be eable to calculate amount of As.

As moles number seems correct, but it is not identical to the number of moles of As2O3.

You forgot that sample was diluted and only part was titrated.

moles reacted = (.02425 amps * 287 seconds)/(2 (# electrons) * 9.6482x10^4 (Faraday constant)

Moles reacted = 3.607 x 10^{-22}

Since its a 1 to 1 ratio of mol As^{3+} to mol I_3 then there are also 3.607 x 10^{-22} mol of I_3

So I will now solve for grams of As_2O_3

Grams As_2O_3 = (3.607 x 10^{-22}/5.00 mL) * (250 mL) * (1 mol As_2O_3/2 mol As^{3+}) (197.84 grams / mol As_2O_3) = 0.178 grams

0.178 grams / 3.67 grams (original sample size) = .0485

.0485 (100) **percentage calculation** = 4.85%

Does this look good?
 
Much better now.
 
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