Rate of Reaction: How Does H+ Concentration Affect It?

Thread starter Neophyte
Start date Oct 5, 2009
Tags

Concentration Rate Reaction

AI Thread Summary

The discussion focuses on how the concentration of H+ affects the rate of a chemical reaction defined by the rate law Rate = k[BrO3-][Br-][H+]2. When the concentration of H+ is decreased by a factor of 3, the rate of reaction changes according to the square of the concentration change. A participant initially suggests that the rate would decrease by a factor of 1/8, but this is corrected to reflect that the rate actually decreases by a factor of 9, as it is proportional to the square of the concentration change (3^2 = 9). The correct answer emphasizes the importance of understanding the mathematical relationship in rate laws. Accurate calculations are crucial for determining the effects of concentration changes on reaction rates.

Oct 5, 2009

Neophyte

Homework Statement

Consider the reaction with the rate law, Rate = k[BrO3-][Br-][H+]²
By what factor does the rate change if the concentration of H+ is decreased by a factor of 3? Just put in the number as a whole number or fraction.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution

Isnt the answer 1/8 ?
2^3 = 8

Physics news on Phys.org

Oct 6, 2009

Borek

Mentor

No, it is not 2^{concentration} but concentration².

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 »