Simple pH Problem (If I could remember)

  • Thread starter Thread starter negatifzeo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ph
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the pH after adding NaOH to a buffer solution of sodium acetate and acetic acid. The initial pH of the mixture is given as 4.7, based on the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation. The main confusion arises regarding which pKa to use, but it's clarified that acetic acid is monoprotic and has a single pKa value. The participant seeks guidance on how to proceed with the calculation after the addition of NaOH. Understanding the role of pKa in this context is essential for solving the problem accurately.
negatifzeo
Messages
66
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


If one mixed 100mL of .1M Sodium acetate with 100 mL of .1M acetic acid, the pH of the solution would be 4.7 If 60 mL of .1M NaOH were added to this solution, what would be it's pH?


Homework Equations


Henderson Hasselback
pH=pKa+ log(base/acid)


The Attempt at a Solution


I haven't really made one because I'm not sure how to proceed. The thing that really confuses me is the pKa part of henderson-hasselbach. When we are dealing with solutions having more more than one pkA, which pkA do we use? I know I did a ton of these problems in Gen Chem but can't remember how!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There's only one thing (ignoring water) that has a pKa: the acetic acid. Since acetic acid is monoprotic, it has only one pKa.
 
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