Molarity of a solution of ethanol in water

AI Thread Summary
To calculate the molarity of a solution of ethanol in water with a mole fraction of 0.040, it is established that the mole fraction of water is 0.96, indicating the solution is 96% water and 4% ethanol. Molarity is defined as moles of solute divided by liters of solution. Assuming a basis of 100 moles, with 4 moles of ethanol and 96 moles of water, and an assumed volume of 150 liters, the molarity is calculated to be 0.0266. It is clarified that the mole fraction does not equate to weight/weight percentage, as the solution actually contains 9.6% w/w ethanol. The discussion emphasizes the importance of accurately representing the relationship between mole fraction and concentration.
powergirl
Calculate the molarity of a solution of ethanol in water,in which the mole fraction of ethanol is 0.040.
Can anyone help me to solve this problem?:bugeye:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i think

Then the mole fraction of water is 0.96...so the solution is 96% water and 4%Ethanol...this shoule help you going if you were unsure what the fraction was.

Molarity= Moles of Solute / litres of solution

Mole fraction (Ethanol) = Moles of Ethanol/ Moles of Ethanol + Water

So do you know how many Litres or are you just going to assume?

So if we use a basis of 100 moles...96 moles are water and 4 moles are ethanol and assume 150 litres

therefore

molarity = 4 moles /150 litres = 0.0266
 
Thanks for helping me...:)
 
mark-ashleigh said:
Then the mole fraction of water is 0.96...so the solution is 96% water and 4%Ethanol...

Only in terms of moles, stating it this way may sound like you are suggesting this solution is just 4% w/w ethanol - which is not true (it is 9.6% w/w).

It will be better said that such solution contains 4 moles of ethanol per every 96 moles of water.



 
No..i said mole fraction not w/w
 
I know what you mean though...
 
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