Mass Spectrometry Homework: Relative Abundance of S-32 & S-34

  • Thread starter Thread starter lkh1986
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the relative abundance of sulfur isotopes S-32 and S-34 in mass spectrometry, specifically regarding the M+2 peak compared to the M+ peak. The textbook states that the M+2 peak should be 4% of the M+ peak, based on the isotopic ratio of 100:4. However, the lecturer claims that the M+2 peak should actually be 104% of the M+ peak. Participants express confusion over the lecturer's assertion and support the textbook's explanation. The debate centers on the correct interpretation of isotopic abundance in mass spectrometry.
lkh1986
Messages
96
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



An organic compound contains some C and H atoms and 1 S atom. Element sulfur, S has 2 isotopes, S-32 ans S-34. Their relative isotopic abundance is 100:4 (or 25:1). On the mass spectrometry graph, how would the peak of M+2 compared to that of M+'s peak?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


This is a question in Wade Organic Chemistry book. The answer given in the book is that the peak at M+2 is 4% of that of M+'s peak. However, my lecturer points out that the book is wrong. He says that the peak of M+2 should be 104% of that of M+'s peak. Who is correct?

I think the book is correct. Since the ratio of compound with S-32 and S-34 is 25:1. So I don't see any reason why we need to add 100 to that 4.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are right. Are you sure you heard the lecturer correctly?
 
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