Reaction, find the k for the overall reaction

  • Thread starter Thread starter flyingpig
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reaction
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the overall rate constant (k) for a proposed three-step reaction mechanism involving chlorine and chloroform. Participants emphasize the importance of correctly accounting for intermediates and using proper rate laws, noting that intermediates cannot simply be ignored in calculations. The conversation highlights the necessity of expressing rates in terms of measurable concentrations and the significance of including units for rate constants to avoid errors. Additionally, it suggests that understanding the varying rates of the individual steps can simplify the derivation process. Overall, the discussion underscores the need for careful analysis and adherence to chemical principles in reaction kinetics.
flyingpig
Messages
2,574
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



The following three step mechanism has been proposed for the reaction of chlorine and chloroform

(1) Cl_2 (g) \rightleftharpoons 2Cl(g)

(2) Cl (g) + CHCl_3 (g) \rightarrow HCl (g) + CCl_3 (g)

(3) CCl_3 (g) + Cl(g) \rightarrow CCl_4

The numerical values of the rate constants are for these steps are k_1 = 4.8 x 10^3, k_{-1} = 3.6 x 10^3, k_2 = 1.3 x 10^-^2, k_3 = 2.7 x 10^2 respectively.

Derive the magnitude of k for the overall reaction

2. Irrelevant Information

I spent two days on this problem (with another problem which I am about to post) and I am about to give up, it is due tonight and I just want to get over this and start studying my other midterm tomorrow

The Attempt at a Solution



So I wrote down the rate laws for each reaction

(1) Rate = k1[Cl2] = k-1[Cl]

(2) Rate = k2[Cl][CHCl3]

(3) Rate = k3[CCl3][Cl]

CL, CCl3 are intermediates so I got rid of them(1) Rate = k1[Cl2]

(2) Rate = k2[CHCl3]

(3) Rate = k3[CCl3]
 
Physics news on Phys.org

The Attempt at a Solution



So I wrote down the rate laws for each reaction

(1)[STRIKE] Rate =[/STRIKE]

k1[Cl2] = k-1[Cl] and that's still wrong. Look at the back reaction again.


(2) Rate = k2[Cl][CHCl3]

(3) Rate = k3[CCl3][Cl]

wrong again. You just can't write rate = . If you wrote rate of what you would not make these mistakes. Write d[something]/dt = and you might realize what you are talking about and get somewhere.

CL, CCl3 are intermediates so I got rid of them. You can't 'get rid of' intermediates by just forgetting them! They are what the reaction depends upon! You have to get them out of your equations by (elementary) algebra, so that the rates are expressed in terms of the knowable bulk concentrations.

Then, this problem depends on (and is simplified by) the fact that different reactions here have very different rates. There are surely examples in your texts or notes of using this fact in equation derivations. You surely have models for how it is done in your course material.

Finally, but as essential as anything else, you quote the rate constants without any units, as pure numbers which they are not - wouldn't mean anything. If you gave them their units probably some of your errors would be avoided.
 
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...
Back
Top