Where did I go wrong? Back Titrations: Calculating % Antimony in Stibnite Ore

  • Thread starter Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the percentage of antimony in a stibnite ore sample using back titration. Participants clarify that the initial assumption of the sample being pure is incorrect, indicating it is likely impure or a mixture. They analyze the titration data, correcting the stoichiometric equations and calculations to find that the percentage of antimony aligns with the expected 31.7% when considering the compound Sb2S3 rather than just elemental antimony. The confusion stems from interpreting the problem's wording, which leads to different calculations based on the assumptions made. Ultimately, the correct approach involves recognizing the need to calculate the percentage based on the compound rather than the elemental form.
pivoxa15
Messages
2,250
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Stibnite Sb2S3, is the major ore of the element antimony. A 6.143g sample of the ore was chemically treated to dissolve all the Sb3+ ion in solution. These were then oxidised to antimony(v) by adding 25ml of 0.2017M acidified KMnO4. The excess KMnO4 was titrated against 0.0981M, freshly prepared, acidified FeSO4 solution. This required 23.44ml.

Calculate the percentage by mass of antimony in the ore sample.



Homework Equations


Basic chem equations


The Attempt at a Solution


I may have trouble understanding the problem. Are they assuming the 6.143g sample of the ore is impure? I.e. it may contain other ores or metals? If not than the percentage by mass of antimony is easily calculated as 121.76g*2/(121.76g*2+3*32.07g) = 0.7168 or 72% by mass of antimony in the pure ore sample. However, that is not the solution of 31.7%

So from this does it means the ore sample is impure and is actually a mixture.

If we use the information about the titration. Sb was isolated into its ion in the sample and underwent the half reaction for each ore compound in the sample (2Sb3+ in each compound),
2Sb3+ -> 2Sb5+ + 4e-

The KMnO4 underwent the half equation
MnO4- + 8H+ + 5e- -> Mn2+ + 4H2O

To balance the two half reactions we obtain
5(2Sb3+ -> 2Sb5+ + 4e-)
4(MnO4- + 8H+ + 5e- -> Mn2+ + 4H2O)

So net ionic equation is 10Sb3+ + 4MnO4- ………………… only these two reactants are important.

To workout how much MnO4- has reduced, we use the titration information

Some KMnO4 hasn’t reacted. These that hasn’t were reacted with FeSO4. The equation is
2KMnO4 + FeSO4 -> Fe2+ + 2MnO4- + K2SO4 Is this correct?

0.02344L*0.0981moles/L = 0.0023 moles of FeSO4 was required so 0.0046 moles of KMnO4 still remained.

Originally 0.025L*0.2017moles/L = 0.005 moles of KMnO4 were added so only 0.00044moles reacted with antinomy.

Back to 10Sb3+ + 4MnO4- …………………
For each mole of MnO4- consumed, 5/2 moles of Sb3+ reacted. So 5/2 * 0.00044moles = 0.0011 moles of Sb3+ was in the sample.

0.0011moles*121.75g/mole = 0.135g of antimony in the ore sample. This is only 0.135g/6.143g *100 = 2.19%. Far from the claimed answer of 31.7%
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Research to find the appropriate and balanced equations,

5 Fe 2+ + MnO4- + 8H+ -------> 5Fe 3+ + Mn 2+ + 4H2O

show some analysis from here...
 
Last edited:
So it shouldn't be 2KMnO4 + FeSO4 -> Fe2+ + 2MnO4- + K2SO4
but should be 5 Fe 2+ + MnO4- + 8H+ -------> 5Fe 3+ + Mn 2+ + 4H2O

What was wrong with the reaction I suggested? Is it energetically unfavourable? Sulfate ion is a weak base so wouldn't 'want' to combine with K. Altghough I assume K2SO4 is in aqeous form so should dissociate anyway.

The reaction you suggested was energetically favourable. And when carried out imply 4.6*10^-4 moles of MnO4- is left for titration. Hence .005-.00046=.00458 moles of MnO4- originally reacted with Sb3+. The reaction is 2MnO4- + 5Sb3+ -> ...
so 5/2 * .00458 = .01146 moles of Sb3+ was in the original sample which turns out to give a weight of 1.3953g hence a percentage of 1.3953/6.143=22.6% which is still less than the answer of 31.7%
 
pivoxa15 said:
.01146 moles of Sb3+ was in the original sample which turns out to give a weight of 1.3953g hence a percentage of 1.3953/6.143=22.6% which is still less than the answer of 31.7%

Perhaps question is badly worded because if you calculate Sb2S3 percentage you get 31.5%...



 
Show all of your analysis if you want us to correct your steps.
 
Borek said:
Perhaps question is badly worded because if you calculate Sb2S3 percentage you get 31.5%...

Borek
--
General Chemistry Software
www.pH-meter.info/pH-electrode

You're saying calculate the percentage of Sb2S3 in the sample. So .01146 moles of Sb => .001146/2 moles of Sb2S3 hence .00575(2*121.75 + 32.06*3)=1.946g
1.946g/6.143=.317 or 31.7% as suggested in the book. It is likely that this is what they meant.
 
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