Solving Solubility Problem: I_2\text{(s)} in KI(aq)

  • Thread starter Thread starter broegger
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Solubility
AI Thread Summary
The solubility of I2(s) in water at 25ºC is 0.0013 M, but this increases in a 0.1 M KI solution due to the formation of I3^-. The equilibrium shifts to the right as I^- ions react with I2(aq), increasing the solubility of I2. The calculated solubility in the KI solution is 0.0489 M, which aligns with the expected outcome based on Le Châtelier's Principle. A systematic approach to solving the problem involves computing the concentration of I3^- and adding it to the I2(aq) concentration for the final solubility.
broegger
Messages
257
Reaction score
0
Hi. I'm preparing for a chemistry exam and I have trouble with this former exam problem:

The solubility of I_2\text{(s)} in water at 25ºC is 0.0013 M.

Calculate the solubility of I_2\text{(s)} in a 0.1 M solution of KI(aq) by considering this equilibrium:

I_2\text{(aq)}+I^-\text{(aq)} \leftrightharpoons I_3^-\text{(aq)}, \quad K = 700 M^{-1}​

---

I assume that I2(s) just dissolves like I2(s) <-> I2(aq). I have found the solubility to be 0.0489 M, but I lack a systematic way of solving this. Any hints?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I_2 (s) \leftrightharpoons I_2 (aq)

That's the solubility reaction of I_2.

Now, consider that you add a a 0.1 M solution of KI. One of the ions of this salt, I^-, reacts with I_2 (aq). Acoording to Le Châtelier's Principle what will happen to the equilibrium above since the concentration of I_2 (aq) got lower.
 
It will shift to the right, so the solubility will go up (consistent with my result.) I should compute the I3- concentration and add it to the I2(aq) concentration to find the new solubility, right?
 
broegger said:
I assume that I2(s) just dissolves like I2(s) <-> I2(aq). I have found the solubility to be 0.0489 M, but I lack a systematic way of solving this. Any hints?
How did you found that solubility?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmm, not sure. But I think I know how to do it now. Thanks.
 
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