Redox titration end point calculation -- Help please

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the volume of 0.02 M KMnO4 needed to reach the equivalence point in a redox titration involving sodium oxalate. The student initially misunderstands the concept of the endpoint, thinking it refers to equal moles of reactants rather than stoichiometric ratios. After clarifying the stoichiometry of the reaction, the student correctly calculates the moles of sodium oxalate and applies the balanced equation to find the moles of KMnO4 required. However, a mistake is identified in the final volume calculation, leading to a tenfold error. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding stoichiometric relationships in titration calculations.
kirsten_2009
Messages
136
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



A student weighs by difference 0.1956 g of sodium oxalate into a 100 ml Volumetric flask and dilutes to the mark 10 ml of HCl and 90 ml of distilled water. Approximately how many ml's of 0.02 M KMnO4 would be required to reach the equivalence point of the titration?

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution



Please correct me if my reasoning is faulty. So, isn't the "end point" the point during the reaction in which the moles of sodium oxalate and potassium permanganate equal? And if this is so...then:

0.1956 g Na2C2O4 x 1 mol Na2C2O4 / 133.998 g/mol Na2C2O4 = 0.00146 mol Na2C2O4/0.1 L = 0.0146 M

and then there is 0.02 mol KMnO4/L

But I can't make the connection on how to find the information I'm asked...help? Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kirsten_2009 said:
isn't the "end point" the point during the reaction in which the moles of sodium oxalate and potassium permanganate equal?

No, it is not about equal number of moles, it is about stoichiometric number of moles.

See if that helps:

http://www.titrations.info/titration-calculation
 
Please refrain from SHOUTING in the Thread Title.
 
Borek said:
No, it is not about equal number of moles, it is about stoichiometric number of moles.

See if that helps:

http://www.titrations.info/titration-calculation

Hello,

Thank you for replying. I think I understand and the link you posted was very helpful :) so...would this be correct?

Taking into account the following redox reaction:

Reduction: MnO4-(aq) + 8H+(aq) +5e- >>> Mn2+(aq) + 4H20(l)
Oxidation: C2O42-(aq) >>> 2CO2(g) +2e-
Combining and Balancing: 2MnO42-(aq) + 5C2O42-(aq) + 16H+(aq) >>> 2Mn2+(aq) + 10CO2(g) + 8H2O(l)

Step #1: If I'm given the grams of sodium acetate as 0.1956 I can find moles:

0.1956 g Na2(C2O4) x 1 mol/134 g/mol = 0.001459 mol Na2(C2O4)

Step #2: Then I can find concentration:

0.001459 moles of solute / 100 mL of solution = 0.001459 / 0.1 L = 0.01459 M

Step #3: Then, using the balanced equation and stoichiometric ratios, I can find the moles of MnO42- :

0.01459 mol Na2(C2O4) x 2 mol MnO42- / 5 mol C2O4 = 0.0058388 mol MnO42-

Step #4: Then using the molarity of MnO42- , I can find the mL's needed:

0.0058388 mol MnO42- x 1 L of solution / 0.02 mol KMnO4- = 0.2919 L or 291.9 mL

Thanks for your time.
 
kirsten_2009 said:
Step #2: Then I can find concentration:

0.001459 moles of solute / 100 mL of solution = 0.001459 / 0.1 L = 0.01459 M

Which you don't need, and which in the end made you make a mistake - you assumed you titrated not the original amount of oxalate, but amount present in a liter.

Other than that you are right, you just confused yourself and your final result is ten times off.
 
Thank You!
 
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