Maximizing Precipitation Efficiency: Balancing Common Ions in Ksp Equations

  • Thread starter Thread starter ReidMerrill
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ion Ksp
AI Thread Summary
To precipitate 99.0% of 0.010 M Ce3+ using oxalate (C2O42-) without precipitating 0.010 M Ca2+, the Ksp values for both calcium oxalate (CaC2O4) and cerium oxalate (Ce2(C2O4)3) are crucial. The Ksp for CaC2O4 is 1.3 x 10-8, and for Ce2(C2O4)3, it is 5.9 x 10-30. After removing 99% of Ce3+, the concentration of Ce3+ would be approximately 1 x 10-4 M. This concentration is essential for determining the necessary oxalate concentration to achieve the desired precipitation without affecting calcium. Understanding these Ksp relationships is key to balancing the precipitation efficiency in this scenario.
ReidMerrill
Messages
65
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


Is it possible to precipitate 99.0% of 0.010 M Ce3+ by adding oxalate (C2O42-) without precipitating 0.010 M Ca2+
CaC2O4 Ksp = 1.3 x 10-8 Ce2(C2O4)3 Ksp = 5.9 x 10-30

Homework Equations


1.3x10-8 = [0.01M][C2O4-]
5.9x10-30=[0.01M]2[C2O4]3

The Attempt at a Solution


All I've been able to do is set up those Ksp equations but I'm not sure what to do from here
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is the concentration of Ce3+ after 99% has been removed?
 
Borek said:
What is the concentration of Ce3+ after 99% has been removed?
1x10-4M presumably considering no volume is given to convert molarity to moles and mass
 
Does this number help in solving the problem further?
 
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