Is the traditional method for calculating molar heat of dissolution accurate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PVnRT81
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Heat
AI Thread Summary
The traditional method for calculating the molar heat of dissolution involves measuring the heat absorbed by water using the formula q=mwatercΔt and dividing by the moles of solute. However, some argue that the mass of the solute should also be included in the calculation, as it absorbs heat during dissolution. This debate highlights that while the instructor's approach is closer to accuracy, it assumes the specific heat capacity remains constant, which may not be true. The discussion reveals confusion about whether the solute gains or loses heat, with the consensus that both the solute and solvent are affected by the heat produced during dissolution. Ultimately, the choice to exclude the solute's mass in some references may stem from its negligible size compared to the solvent.
PVnRT81
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Suppose I have a solute of mass "x" grams. I dissolve this in "y" mL of water. The temperature of the water increases by "z" degrees Celsius.

I calculate the molar heat of dissolution of the solute by measuring, using q=mwatercΔt, the heat absorbed by water (in kJ), and then dividing by the moles of solute.

The above mentioned method is found in many reference textbooks as well as various sources across the web.

However, my science instructor insists that this method is wrong, and to calculate the heat transferred, you should include the mass of the solute as well.

Thus, when measuring the heat absorbed it should look like this:

q=msolute + solventcΔt

I find this quite unintuitive; I don't agree with my instructor on this matter. Am I right or wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wrong.

Imagine that after dissolution finished you are adding another, identical amount of heat, this time without dissolving anything. What mass would you use now to calculate Δt?

(To be exact your instructor is in a way also wrong, but (s)he is much closer to the correct answer. Their solution assumes cp didn't change, which is not exactly true.)
 
Borek said:
Wrong.

Imagine that after dissolution finished you are adding another, identical amount of heat, this time without dissolving anything. What mass would you use now to calculate Δt?

(To be exact your instructor is in a way also wrong, but (s)he is much closer to the correct answer. Their solution assumes cp didn't change, which is not exactly true.)

I would use the mass that is gaining heat - which is the total mass in this case. But in the original scenario, the solute is losing heat, and the solvent is gaining heat... so, wouldn't it make more sense to use the mass of water only because the solute itself is not gaining heat?
 
Last edited:
Solute is not losing heat! Heat is produced by the dissolution, and it has to heat up both water and the solute. Otherwise after the dissolution you will have a hot solvent and cold solute - which is apparently not the case.
 
Borek said:
Solute is not losing heat! Heat is produced by the dissolution, and it has to heat up both water and the solute. Otherwise after the dissolution you will have a hot solvent and cold solute - which is apparently not the case.

Ah! That clears it up... however, I am still curious as to why some websites/textbooks choose not to include the mass of the solute.
 
Sometimes it is negligible (much smaller than the mass of the solvent).
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Chemistry Thermodynamics: The molar enthelpy of a solution
Replies
2
Views
2K
What Is the Molarity of Potassium Ions in a Potassium Sulfite Solution?
Replies
2
Views
4K
Calculate the final temperature of the solution
Replies
5
Views
3K
Chemistry Calculating Molar Solubility of CaCO3: A Puzzling Problem
Replies
7
Views
4K
Calculate the molar heat of combustion of anthracene
Replies
3
Views
6K
Calculating Molar Heat of Neutralization
Replies
10
Views
6K
Molar Enthalpy of Salt: Calculation and Heat Sources
Replies
1
Views
3K
Specific Heat Problem (did something wrong?)
Replies
2
Views
2K
How to calculate heat from enthelpy of reaction
Replies
5
Views
2K
Chemistry Thermochemistry and the heat of complete combustion
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top