Is My Calculation of Molar Concentration Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Raheelp
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Molarity
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the molar concentration of I- in a reaction mixture involving KI, KCl, Thiosulfate, and Persulfate. The calculation presented shows the initial concentration of I- as 0.04 M, derived from the total volume of the solution. Participants debate whether the question asks for the initial concentration or the concentration after the reaction, with a consensus leaning towards the initial concentration due to the lack of post-reaction data. There is also a suggestion that the final concentration might be the same as the initial concentration. Overall, the calculation appears to be correct based on the provided data.
Raheelp
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
The questions asks us to: Determine the molar concentration of I- in a reaction mixture. The reaction was as follows (data):

20 mL of .1 M KI
0 mL of .1 M KCl
10 mL of .003 M Thiosulfate
20 mL of .10 M Persulfate

I did the following:

20 ml I- x (1 L / 1000 mL) = .02 L I-

.02 L I- x (.1 mol / 1 L) = .002 mol I-

.002 mol / .05 L solution (20 mL + 0 mL + 10 mL + 20 mL) = .04 M I-

Little rusty, wanted to make sure I did this right.

Any help will be greatly appreciated!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Question is ambiguous. Does it ask for initial concentration, or for concentration after reaction took place?

Initial looks OK to me.

--
 
k, going with it heh. I do believe it is initial because we have no post-reaction data.
 
Well, you may calculate post reaction from stoichiometry.

I have not checked, but could be final concentration of I- is identical to initial.

--
 
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