Rate Law for A+B Reaction: k[A][B]^2

AI Thread Summary
The rate law for the reaction 2A + 3B → products is determined to be rate = k[A][B]^2, indicating it is first order in A and second order in B. The confusion arises from misinterpreting the orders; first order means the rate is proportional to the concentration of A, while second order means it is proportional to the square of the concentration of B. Therefore, the correct formulation combines these orders appropriately. Understanding these definitions clarifies the correct rate law expression. This highlights the importance of accurately interpreting reaction orders in rate laws.
tica86
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
) If the rate law for the reaction
2A + 3B → products
is first order in A and second order in B, then the rate law is rate

I initially thought the answer would be k[A]^2 but it's wrong, the correct answer is
k[A]^2
Could anyone explain?? Please, thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"first order in A" means "Proportional to [A]"

"Second order in B" means "Proportional to 2."

Put those together and what do you get?
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem
Replies
12
Views
3K
Chemistry Why is My Second-Order Reaction Rate Calculation Incorrect?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Chemistry Decomposition of Sucrose: Understanding the Rate and Order of Reaction
Replies
3
Views
2K
Chemistry Relationship between chemical equilibrium and rate equilibrium
Replies
2
Views
2K
Biology How Do Stoichiometric Coefficients Affect Reaction Rates?
Replies
3
Views
2K
How Do You Propose a Reaction Mechanism for a Multi-Step Reaction?
Replies
10
Views
5K
Reaction rate, rate equation and half life
Replies
4
Views
4K
Question regarding the rate law of a reaction
Replies
2
Views
2K
Rate of Reaction: Solving to Find Time for [A] to Reach X Conc.
Replies
17
Views
2K
Chemistry Does Combusting Different Amounts of Propane Change Final Temperature?
Replies
5
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top