Solve 2nd Order Reaction Kinetics: Mn(CO)sub5 → Mnsub2 (CO)sub10

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving the kinetics of the second-order reaction 2Mn(CO)5 → Mn2(CO)10, with a given rate constant of 3.0 * 10^9 M^-1s^-1 at 25°C and an initial concentration of 1.0 * 10^-5 M. Participants express confusion about how to calculate the time required for 90% of the reactant to disappear, particularly regarding the application of the rate law and the concept of half-life, which is not applicable for second-order reactions. Clarifications are provided that the reaction is irreversible and that the correct approach involves integration of the rate law rather than relying on half-life equations. The discussion emphasizes the need for a solid understanding of chemical kinetics principles to tackle the problem effectively. Ultimately, participants seek guidance on the integration process to find the solution.
Fetch
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The second order reaction 2Mn(CO)sub5 → Mnsub2 (CO)sub10 has a rate constant equal to
3.0 *10^9 M^-1s^-1 at 25oC. If the initial concentration for Mn(CO)sub5 is 1.0 * 10^-5 M, how long will it take for 90% of the reactant to disappear?


Homework Equations



Rate Law = k*[Mn(CO)sub5]

The Attempt at a Solution


Not sure what they want me to do here? If its a half life thing I understand, but it is not stated anywhere in the problem and I assume we're not expected to know such things. I can find the rate most certainly, and the units would be what they are, but how exactly do I relate such things in an equation to find how long it would take for 90% of the reaction to disappear? Can someone point me in the right direction? I have work for the day so I won't have as much time as I'd like to work it out, but if someone could just give me a nudge I'd be fine! Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fetch said:

Homework Statement


The second order reaction 2Mn(CO)sub5 → Mnsub2 (CO)sub10 has a rate constant equal to
3.0 *10^9 M^-1s^-1 at 25oC. If the initial concentration for Mn(CO)sub5 is 1.0 * 10^-5 M, how long will it take for 90% of the reactant to disappear?

Homework Equations



Rate Law = k*[Mn(CO)sub5]

The Attempt at a Solution


Not sure what they want me to do here? If its a half life thing I understand, but it is not stated anywhere in the problem and I assume we're not expected to know such things. I can find the rate most certainly, and the units would be what they are, but how exactly do I relate such things in an equation to find how long it would take for 90% of the reaction to disappear? Can someone point me in the right direction? I have work for the day so I won't have as much time as I'd like to work it out, but if someone could just give me a nudge I'd be fine! Thanks.

Looks like you've stated the wrong rate law.
For that reaction what is the most plausible rate law?
More conclusively have you noticed the units quoted for the rate constant?

Because of the → symbol and no other indications if you have quoted the question completely I think you can assume the reaction irreversible, i.e. goes to completion.

The concentration-independent half-life concept is valid only for first-order kinetics.

Although the question is maybe not extremely easy you can do it with a bit of knowledge of integration; otherwise it is standard chemical kinetics theory found in any physical chemistry textbook of medium level.
 
Last edited:
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