Precipitation reaction and supersaturation?

AI Thread Summary
When a precipitating agent is added to a solution, it can become supersaturated due to the concentration of solute exceeding its solubility limit. This supersaturation occurs because the solution holds more dissolved material than it can typically accommodate, creating an unstable state. Nucleation, the process of forming crystals, requires activation energy, which can vary in magnitude. In some cases, thermal movements of molecules are sufficient to initiate precipitation, while other situations may require a stronger impulse, such as a shock wave. Understanding these concepts is crucial for managing precipitation reactions effectively.
ASidd
Messages
72
Reaction score
0
I read online that when you add a precipitating agent to a solution it initially becomes superstaurated and you have to take measures to decrease this supersaturation.

My question is why does it become supersaturated. Really having a hard time understanding this concept.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need an activation energy to start nucleation (creating crystals). Sometimes this activation energy is so small, just thermal movements of molecules/ions in solution are enough to start precipitation, sometimes it is much higher and you need some stronger impulse - like a shock wave in the supersaturated solution of sodium acetate in hand warmers.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top