What volume of Hg(NO3)2 is required for precipitation?

AI Thread Summary
To determine the volume of Hg(NO3)2 needed for complete precipitation, the reaction between sodium iodide (NaI) and mercury (II) nitrate (Hg(NO3)2) must be analyzed. The balanced equation indicates a 2:1 molar ratio of NaI to Hg(NO3)2. First, calculate the moles of NaI in the 24.0 mL of 0.170 M solution, which equals 0.00408 moles. Using the molar ratio, 0.00204 moles of Hg(NO3)2 are required, and with its concentration of 0.209 M, the volume needed can be calculated as approximately 9.76 mL. Understanding the stoichiometry of the reaction is essential for solving the problem.
Mackydoodle
Messages
9
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Given that 24.0 mL of .170M sodium iodide reacts with .209M mercury (II) nitrate solution according to the below equation (it is balanced).
What volume of Hg(NO3)2 is required for complete precipitation?

Homework Equations


Hg(NO3)2+2NaI ----> HgI2+ 2NaNO3


The Attempt at a Solution


I have not idea where to start at all, I'm lost. Help is greatly appreciated thanks :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes there are 2 Moles of NaI in the equation
I believe the mol ratio is 2/1
 
Mackydoodle said:
Yes there are 2 Moles of NaI in the equation

I am not asking about moles in the equation, I am asking about moles in the SOLUTION.

I believe the mol ratio is 2/1

2:1 or 1:2, depends on ratio of what to what. But that's not a bad start.
 
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