What Is the New Partial Pressure of NH3 After Adding CO2?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the new partial pressure of ammonia (NH3) after adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to a system in equilibrium. Initially, the total pressure of gases at equilibrium is 0.116 atm, derived from the dissociation of ammonium carbamate. Participants suggest using mole fractions and the equilibrium constant (Kp) to solve the problem, emphasizing the importance of maintaining dimensional accuracy in calculations. One user notes that cubic equations can be challenging but can be simplified by finding one root to solve a resulting quadratic equation. The conversation highlights the complexities of equilibrium calculations in gas mixtures.
apchemstudent
Messages
220
Reaction score
0
Pure solid ammonium carbamate, NH4CO2NH2, is allowed to dissociate into a vacuum according to the equation:

NH4CO2NH2(s) ---> 2 NH3(g) + CO2(g)
At 25oC, the total pressure of the gases in equilibrium with the solid is 0.116 atm. If carbon dioxide, CO2, was then added, sufficient to have increased the carbon dioxide pressure by 0.100 atm under these conditions, when equilibrium is re-established, the new partial pressure of gaseous ammonia, NH3, will be

a. 1.16 atm
b. 1.08 atm
c. 4.36 x 10¨C2 atm
d. 2.31 x 10¨C3 atm
e. 6.93 x 10¨C4 atm

Ok, I can't seem to solve this problem. I know that total pressure = pressure of individual components in the mixture.

As well, since NH3 and CO2 is a 2:1 ratio:

2x + x = 0.116 atm
x = 0.03866 atm

I tried using the Kp to solve this problem, but the equation becomes way to difficult to find the root. The equation ends up being to the third power.

Is there a way to solve this? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
2x + x = 0.116 atm

That's dimensionally incorrect. It should be (mole fraction)*(partial pressure)

In the first part, if you find the mole fractions of each component, you can find the partial pressure and from that the Kp.

Once you find the Kp, for the second part of the question, you that even if the the partial pressure of CO2 has to decrease by some amount, finally at equilibrium, Kp is the same. Use that to find out the final partial pressure

I tried using the Kp to solve this problem, but the equation becomes way to difficult to find the root. The equation ends up being to the third power.

Can you show your calculations?
 
siddharth said:
That's dimensionally incorrect. It should be (mole fraction)*(partial pressure)

In the first part, if you find the mole fractions of each component, you can find the partial pressure and from that the Kp.

Once you find the Kp, for the second part of the question, you that even if the the partial pressure of CO2 has to decrease by some amount, finally at equilibrium, Kp is the same. Use that to find out the final partial pressure



Can you show your calculations?

The problem is, if you try using your way, it will be very difficult to figure the answer out. I used a different method, and I got the answer. Thanks anyways.
 
Cubic equations are not all together difficult, the trick is to find one solution root and then use it to solve a resultant quadratic equation.
 
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