Integrated Rate Law for 2nd Order Reactions

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the definition and formulation of the rate law for second-order reactions in kinetics. It questions why the rate is not expressed as rate = -1/2(d[1]/dt) and why stoichiometric coefficients are often ignored in this context. The rate of reaction is typically defined as (1/a)*d[A]/dt, where 'a' represents the stoichiometric coefficient, which can vary depending on the reaction equation. The conversation emphasizes the importance of discussing the rate of change of concentration for specific reactants, highlighting that the formulation can differ based on the reaction's stoichiometry, such as in the examples of A → ½B or 4A → 2B.
samy4408
Messages
62
Reaction score
9
hello i have a question about kinetics : to have the integrated rate law for second order reaction the professor write the following
1652185701517.png


why we don't write the rate like this : rate = -1/2(d[1]/dt) ?
why we ignore the stoichiometric coefficient ?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Rate is defined as a speed of change of the concentration, period.
 
"Rate of reaction" is often defined as (1/a)*d[A]/dt, where a is the stoichiometric coefficient of A (negative for reactants, positive for products). Then it's the same whichever reagent you look at, but it depends how you write the equation, e.g. it would be different for A → ½B or 4A → 2B. My preference is always to talk in terms of the rate of change of concentration of a specified reagent.
 
What I know and please correct me: a macroscopic probe of raw sugar you can buy from the store can be modeled to be an almost perfect cube of a size of 0.7 up to 1 mm. Let's assume it was really pure, nothing else but a conglomerate of H12C22O11 molecules stacked one over another in layers with van de Waals (?) "forces" keeping them together in a macroscopic state at a temperature of let's say 20 degrees Celsius. Then I use 100 such tiny pieces to throw them in 20 deg water. I stir the...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 131 ·
5
Replies
131
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K