Solubility Product, finding molar concentration

AI Thread Summary
To find the molar concentration of NaIO3 when 2.0 x 10^-5 mol of Cu(IO3)2 dissolves in 2 L, the Ksp equation is used: Ksp = [Cu2+][IO3-]^2. The calculation shows that the concentration of IO3- is 0.118 M, derived from the dissolution of Cu(IO3)2. The confusion arises from the 2:1 stoichiometric ratio of IO3- to NaIO3, which only applies when calculating moles, not concentrations. Therefore, the final concentration of IO3- does not require dividing by 2, as it directly reflects the molarity in the solution.
Ace.
Messages
52
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


If the 2.0 x 10-5 mol of Cu(IO3)2 can dissolve in 2 L of NaIO3, find the molar concentration of the NaIO3 solution. Ksp = 1.4 x 10-7 for Cu(IO3)2.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


Let y = [IO3-(aq)] present in the solution from NaIO3 Cu(IO3)2(s) ↔ Cu2+(aq) + 2IO3-(aq)
I \:\:\:\: excess \:\:\:\: 0 \:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\: y
C \:\:\:\: -x\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\: +1x10-5 \:\:\:\: +2x10-5
E \:\:\:\:excess \:\:\:\: 1x10-5 \:\:\:\: y + 2x10-5

Ksp = [Cu2+][IO31-]2
1.4 * 10-7 = [1.0 * 10-5][y + 2.0 * 10-5]
y = 0.118M

That is the correct answer but I am wondering why you don't divide by 2, since isn't 2IO3- in 2:1 ratio with NaIO3? I'm just totally confused when to use the ratios and when not to (like in this case).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ace. said:
isn't 2IO3- in 2:1 ratio with NaIO3?

But you are calculating [IO3-], not twice that.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
So the only situation the 2:1 ratio applies is if I was trying to find moles?
 
Moles of what?
 
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