Is Charge Sum in Solutions a Complete Approximation?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the charge sum in solutions, specifically for a 0.10 M Na2SO4 solution, is a complete approximation. It highlights that the charge sum calculated from stoichiometry appears to be 0.20 but may overlook the auto-ionization of water, which produces hydronium and hydroxide ions. The participant questions if this oversight significantly impacts solution considerations, suggesting that ions in very small concentrations are often disregarded. The full charge balance equation is presented, emphasizing the relationship between sodium, sulfate, and the ions from water. Overall, the conversation explores the nuances of charge balance in ionic solutions.
Qube
Gold Member
Messages
461
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Question: is the charge sum an approximation?

Homework Equations



E.g. consider 0.10 M Na_{2}SO_{4} solution.

Charge sum appears to be 0.20 from elementary stoichiometric considerations.

The Attempt at a Solution



The charge sum, however, seems to be ignoring the auto-ionization of water, which forms two ions - hydronium and hydroxide. Am I correct? This doesn't make a significant difference for most solution considerations, right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We often ignore ions present in very small concentrations, but full charge balance equation for sodium sulfate solution is

[Na^+] + [H^+] = 2[SO_4^{2-}] + [OH^-]
 
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