Understanding Electrode Potentials: Why is 1/Molarity Used in the Calculation?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the electrode potential for a silver electrode in a 0.00550 M AgNO3 solution. The correct formula involves using the Nernst equation, where the concentration of Ag+ ions is crucial. The confusion arises from the use of 1/Molarity in the logarithmic term, which reflects the relationship between the oxidized and reduced forms of silver. The activity of metallic silver is considered as 1, simplifying the equation to either E = E0 + 0.059 log([Ag+]) or E = E0 - 0.059 log(1/[Ag+]). Understanding these conventions clarifies the calculation process for electrode potentials.
Puchinita5
Messages
178
Reaction score
0
I don't know why, but I just can't figure this out.

"Calculate the electrode potential for a silver filled electrode in a solution of 0.00550 M AgNO3 solution."

I got that

Ag+ + e- --> Ag(s) had an E* = .80V

I got that the answer is E=.80 - .0592 log (1/.00550M)= .6655 V

But why do you put 1/.00550M in the parenthesis?

My first thought was that AgNO3 + e- --> Ag(s) + NO3-
and that the concentreation of AgNO3 is the same as NO3.

so that it would be log(1) , which is wrong.

I just don't get the concept I guess.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It all depends on how you write the Nernst equation. There are two conventions:

E = E_0 + \frac {RT}{nF} ln \frac{[Ox]}{[Red]}

and

E = E_0 - \frac {RT}{nF} ln \frac{[Red]}{[Ox]}

(personally I prefer the first one, but that's just because I was taught this way).

Note that both equations are equivalent thanks to the sign change.

Oxidized form of silver is Ag+, reduced form is a metallic Ag - with activity equal to 1. So you can write the equation either as

E = 0.88 + 0.059\ log([Ag^+])

or

E = 0.88 - 0.059\ log\big(\frac 1 {[Ag^+]}\big)

Concentration of Ag+ is 0.00550 M, concentration of NO3- doesn't matter.
 
oh! okay that makes sense. I don't know why but I always confuse myself with these electrode problems.

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