What is the % of Na2CO3 in the unknown sample?

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 392791
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
To determine the percentage of Na2CO3 in the unknown sample, the student needs to analyze the titration data provided. The titration of HCl with NaOH and the titration of KHP with NaOH are used to establish the concentrations of the solutions involved. The reaction between Na2CO3 and HCl must be balanced to understand the stoichiometry. The student is unsure whether to use normalities for calculations and is seeking guidance on how to initiate the problem-solving process. A clear understanding of the reactions and the use of titration data will lead to the calculation of the percentage of Na2CO3 in the sample.
member 392791

Homework Statement


A student titrated 25 ml HCL with 24.79 ml NaOH. When 0.4872 g KHP was titrated with NaOH, 25.31 ml NaOH was used. A Na2CO3 solution was made using 1.8746g of unknown Na2CO3 sample in a total volume of 100 ml of solution. Then 10 mL Na2CO3 was titrated with 10.93 ml of HCL solution. What is the % Na2CO3 in the student's unknown?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Do I need to use normalities here? I don't even know how to start off this problem
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You always start by writing out the reaction of interest... HCl + Na2CO3 -----> ?
 
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