Ochem energy calculation - correct answer?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the calculation of the free energy difference for the equilibrium ratio of glucose isomers, alpha and beta, which is approximately 64:36. The user applied the equation ΔG° = -RT ln(K_eq) using R = 0.001986 and T = 298K, resulting in a ΔG° of -0.34 kcal/mol. This value contrasts with the solution manual's -0.81 kcal/mol, suggesting a potential error in the manual's calculation method, possibly due to an incorrect logarithmic conversion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of thermodynamics, specifically free energy calculations.
  • Familiarity with the concepts of equilibrium constants (K_eq).
  • Knowledge of the ideal gas constant (R) and its value in kcal/mol.
  • Basic proficiency in logarithmic functions and their applications in chemistry.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation and application of the free energy equation ΔG° = -RT ln(K_eq).
  • Study the properties and significance of isomeric forms in organic chemistry.
  • Learn about the historical context and conversion between natural logs and common logs in scientific calculations.
  • Explore common errors in thermodynamic calculations and how to avoid them.
USEFUL FOR

Chemistry students, educators, and professionals involved in thermodynamics and organic chemistry, particularly those focusing on energy calculations and isomerism.

tandoorichicken
Messages
245
Reaction score
0
I think the solution manual is wrong for this problem.

The problem:
The naturally occurring sugar glucose exists in two isomeric cyclic forms. These are called [alpha] and [beta], and at equilibrium they are present in a ratio of approximately 64:36. Calculate the free energy difference that corresponds to this equilibrium ratio.

I basically used the free energy equation
[tex]\Delta G° = -RT \ln{K_{eq}}[/tex].

I used a value of 0.001986 for R and 298K for T (I assumed STP) and got a value of -0.34 kcal/mol for DG. The solution manual lists a value of -0.81 in kcal/mol.
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Looks about right --- the idiot doing the solution may have taken a natural log and multiplied it by 2.303 rather than realizing that's a hangover from the old days of decimal logs from slide rules.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
166K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
27K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
16K