Physical Chemistry- Using the integrated Vant Hoff Equation with K values.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the enthalpy of dissolution using the integrated Van't Hoff equation, with specific equilibrium concentrations of oxygen in water at two temperatures. The equilibrium constant, K, is defined as K = [O2]/PO2/atm, where PO2 is the partial pressure of oxygen. A participant clarifies that the partial pressure of oxygen remains constant and does not need to be included in the calculation of K, simplifying it to K = [O2]. However, there is confusion regarding the necessity of the partial pressure in equilibrium constant expressions, particularly for Kp. The conversation emphasizes the distinction between K and Kp and the conditions under which partial pressures may be disregarded.
Twickel
Messages
9
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The equilibrium concentration of oxygen in fresh water exposed to the atmosphere is given for two temperatures. At 15 degrees celcius equilib [O2]= 630μmol/L at 25 degrees celcius equiln [O2]= 517μmol/L

The expression for the equilibrium constant, K, between the oxygen in the gas phase and in solution is given by K=[O2]/PO2/atm. Where pO2 is the partial pressure of atmospheric oxygen.

I need to calculate the enthalpy of dissolution, I figured I need to use the integrated Vant hoof equation.
But how do I figure out the partial pressues of oxygen so I can calculate the equilibrium constants?

[Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Partial pressure of oxygen is the fraction of pressure exerted by atmospheric oxygen. And since the Partial pressure is not going to change whether the oxygen dissolves or not, you don't require the use of oxygen's partial pressure.

You may write simply, K = [O2]. Now just use Van't Hoff's Equation.
 
Thanks.

I do not understand why I don't have to use the partial pressure, when it is in the expression for Kp. Is this the case for any equilibrium constant involving kp=[x]/Po2/atm?
 
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