Using Ksp to find the concentration

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the concentrations of Ag+, Cl-, and Br- in a solution after equilibrium, given the solubility products for AgCl and AgBr. Participants emphasize the need to apply the solubility product equations and mass balance principles to determine which salt will precipitate first and the amount that can precipitate based on the limiting reagent. The original poster expresses confusion about the assignment and seeks guidance on the necessary equations. Ultimately, the topic was resolved, and the poster requested to delete the thread.
Faka
Messages
25
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


0.1100 mol AgNO3 translated into 500 mL of a solution containing 0.1000 moles of NaCl and NaBr 0.1000 moles. What are the concentrations of Ag+, Cl-, Br-, after equilibrium has occurred?

Solubility product for AgCl: Ksp(AgCl) = 1,82*10^-10
Solubility product for AgBr: Ksp(AgBr) = 5,0*10^-13

Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution



-----------------------------------------------

Is there anybody, who can help me with this. Which equations do I have to use?
I am lost with this assignment.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You will need formulas for both solubility products and mass balances.

What will precipitate first? How much of that salt can precipitate? (hint: limiting reagent).
 
I have made the task. Delete the topic, thanks ! :-)
 
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