Possible title: Isotope Abundance Calculations: Where Did I Go Wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FeDeX_LaTeX
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Abundance Isotopes
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around isotope abundance calculations for antimony and rubidium, specifically focusing on the relative atomic masses and the methods used to determine the abundances of their isotopes. The original poster expresses confusion regarding discrepancies between their calculated results and those provided in their textbook.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to use a weighted average method to calculate the relative abundances of antimony-121 and antimony-123, as well as rubidium-85 and rubidium-87. They question the validity of their approach after finding differing results from the textbook.

Discussion Status

Participants are engaging in a detailed examination of the original poster's calculations and assumptions. Some suggest that the atomic masses of the isotopes may not be as straightforward as assumed, while others point out potential errors in the original poster's methodology. There is an ongoing exploration of the accuracy of the data used in the calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of using accurate atomic mass values for isotopes, as well as the potential impact of binding energy on mass calculations. The original poster's reliance on textbook methods is also highlighted, with some questioning the completeness of the information provided in the textbook.

FeDeX_LaTeX
Science Advisor
Messages
436
Reaction score
13

Homework Statement


1) "The relative atomic mass of antimony is 121.8. Antimony exists as two isotopes; antimony-121 and antimony-123. Calculate the relative abundances of the two isotopes."
2) "The relative atomic mass of rubidium is 85.5. Rubidium consists of two isotopes, rubidium-85 and rubidium-87. Calculate the percentage of rubidium-87 in naturally occurring rubidium."


Homework Equations


N/A


The Attempt at a Solution


I thought these questions should be relatively easy but the solutions at the back of the book don't seem to agree with my answers.

For question 1, I did [121*x + 123*(100-x)]/100 = 121.8 and solved for x. Likewise for question 2. For question 1, I get that antimony-121 is 60% and antimony-123 is 40%, but the textbook says the answers should be 37.5% and 62.5% respectively. For question 2, I get Rb-85 occurring 75% and Rb-87 occurring 25%, yet the textbook says Rb-87 occurs 23.5%. However I checked my answers and I do get the average relative atomic masses that they state. Where have I gone wrong?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
FeDeX_LaTeX said:

Homework Statement


1) "The relative atomic mass of antimony is 121.8. Antimony exists as two isotopes; antimony-121 and antimony-123. Calculate the relative abundances of the two isotopes."
2) "The relative atomic mass of rubidium is 85.5. Rubidium consists of two isotopes, rubidium-85 and rubidium-87. Calculate the percentage of rubidium-87 in naturally occurring rubidium."


Homework Equations


N/A


The Attempt at a Solution


I thought these questions should be relatively easy but the solutions at the back of the book don't seem to agree with my answers.

For question 1, I did [121*x + 123*(100-x)] = 121.8 and solved for x. Likewise for question 2. For question 1, I get that antimony-121 is 60% and antimony-123 is 40%, but the textbook says the answers should be 37.5% and 62.5% respectively. For question 2, I get Rb-85 occurring 75% and Rb-87 occurring 25%, yet the textbook says Rb-87 occurs 23.5%. However I checked my answers and I do get the average relative atomic masses that they state. Where have I gone wrong?

Thanks.

According to your type of calculation the average of the numbers 5 and 5 should be [5*x + 5*(100-x)] = 500. Do you see anything wrong with this calculation?

RGV
 
You need to know the atomic mass of each of the isotopes: antimony-121, antimony-123, rubidium-85, and rubidium-87. You can't assume that they're 121, 123, 85, and 87.

Wikipedia page on isotopes of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_antimony" .

Wikipedia page on isotopes of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_rubidium" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello,

Thank you for your responses.

I'm just a little confused and would appreciate if someone could explain to me why my method is incorrect though. For example, for chlorine, Cl-35 occurs 75% of the time and Cl-37 occurs 25% of the time. So the average, according to the textbook, is;

(35*0.75)+(37*0.25) = 35.5

Which is why 35.5 amu is the relative atomic mass of chlorine.

In the questions I did, I followed the same method, but since the percentages are unknown I let the percentage be x, and the other percentage be (100-x), since percentages must total to 100.

I don't understand why the atomic mass Ar of Rb-85 wouldn't just be 85?

All questions are supposed to be doable using only the textbook.

The question before this I got correct using this method, and the method working they've shown looks identical to mine...
 
Last edited:
In my first reply I asked you a question---for a good reason. So far you have not answered it, but had you done so you would see right away where your problem lies.

RGV
 
Hello,

I saw your post but I still don't see the error, solving for x I get x = 50% (or 0.5) which is how often each of your numbers (5 and 5) occur... I don't understand. I'm not sure how your example is relevant because it doesn't involve weighted averages...

For chlorine, the approximate relative atomic mass is 35.5, because the textbook explains that Cl-35 occurs 75% of the time and Cl-37 25% of the time, so by weighted averages, 35*0.75 + 37*0.25 = 35.5

This is exactly what I have done for my questions, so why are they incorrect?
 
Last edited:
Find and use more accurate data for the average atomic masses and isotope masses. The links SammyS gave you are excellent.

ehild
 
I believe that the 60% you calculated is the percent mass of Sb-121 in a sample of antimony. Since each atom of Sb-121 has less mass than each atom of Sb-123, the number of atoms of Sb-121 is more than 60% of the total number of antimony atoms in the sample.
 
I was responding to the unedited post and had not noticed that you had edited it. That said, you got good advice from Sammy S. The actual weight of Antimony 121 is not exactly 121 times the weight of one nucleon, because of binding energy, etc. Of course, there is the possibility that the book's answer is wrong; that happens frequently.

RGV

RGV
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Yes, the book mixed the abundances, that of Sb121 is greater. You can find accurate abundances here: http://presolar.wustl.edu/ref/IsotopeAbundanceTable.pdf

ehild
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
44K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K