Where Is the Mistake in This Stoichiometry Calculation?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the molarity of a H2C2O4 solution based on its neutralization with NaOH. The initial calculation yielded 0.129 M, which was incorrect, while the correct answer is 0.134 M. The mistake was identified in the conversion of moles, specifically in the calculation of H2C2O4 moles from NaOH, leading to an incorrect final molarity. The correct approach involves determining the moles of H+ needed for neutralization and adjusting for the dissociation of H2C2O4. Ultimately, proper unit analysis and careful tracking of conversions are essential for accurate stoichiometry calculations.
land_of_ice
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
Question:

A 25 mL sample of H2C204 solution required 19.62 mL of 0.341 M NaOH for neutralization. Calculate the molarity of the acid?

The reaction was :
H2C204 + 2NaOH ---------------------> Na2C2O4 + 2H2O

Attempt:
[Which line has the mistake in it and what is it?]

converted 25mL to L
converted 19.62 to L
multiplied 0.01962 by 0.341 m/L of NaOH
and multiplying all of that by 1 mol of H2C204 / for every 2 moles of NaOH
multplied all of that by .025 L to get 0.00323 moles of the H2C204 , they said they wanted the molarity so molarity is moles/liter of solution, you get .00323/0.025L = .129 Molarity of H2C204
THE ANSWER CAME OUT WRONG?? WHAT the heck? Why? Which line has the mistake in it and what is it?

The answer is supposed to be 0.134 right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What I do is convert everything to moles (mmoles) in order to figure it out.

19.62 mL * 0.341 M NaOH = 6.69 mmoles OH-

To completely neutralize that, you need an equivalent in H+, so you need 6.69 mmoles H+. However, H2C2O4 produces 2 H+ per dissociation, so you would need half that amount, or 3.35 mmoles H2C2O4. Then divide by its volume.

3.35 mmoles H2C2O4 / 25 mL = 0.134 M H2C2O4 solutionI got 0.134 M. Are you saying you put that and got it wrong? Your answer says that you got 0.129 M. I think the error was in your calculation rather than concept.
 
land_of_ice said:
multplied all of that by .025 L to get 0.00323 moles of the H2C204

If I understand you correctly you have calculated number of moles of oxalic acid and multiplied it by volume to get number of moles of oxalic acid?

And then you divided it back by the same volume?

Strangely, numbers you have listed don't confirm your description. Check why you got 0.00323 and not 0.00334.

--
 
A 25 mL sample of H2C204 solution required 19.62 mL of 0.341 M NaOH for neutralization. Calculate the molarity of the acid?

H2C204 + 2NaOH ---------------------> Na2C2O4 + 2H2O

easy way of doing stoich is with unit analysis, so in order to that we need everything in Liters and since I don't like dealing with mL/mmol that's just what I'm going to do
0.025 L H2C204
0.01962 L and 0.341 mol/L NaOH

we want to find the molarity of our acid so we want mol/L of H2C204

(0.01962 L/1) * (0.341 mol/1L) * (1 mol H2C2O4/2 mol NaOH) * (1/0.025L) = 0.133 mol/L

basicly you found the mols of your given and multiplied that by your mol ratio (required on top, given on bottom) and then divide that by your volume of the substance you want to find in order to get mol/L

and they way I just showed you, you can do it in one step.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top