Which Reaction Mechanism Aligns with the Rate Law?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mooncrater
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law Rate
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the reaction mechanism for the equation $$2NO_2(g)+O_3 (g)\longrightarrow N_2O_5 (g)+O_2 (g)$$, which is first order in both reactants, nitrogen dioxide and ozone. Two proposed mechanisms were analyzed: Mechanism I, which is consistent with the rate law, and Mechanism II, which is not. The conclusion drawn is that only Mechanism I aligns with the observed rate law, leading to the correct answer being (A), despite conflicting with the provided answer (C).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of reaction mechanisms and rate laws.
  • Familiarity with equilibrium expressions and the Le Chatelier principle.
  • Knowledge of rate equations and their derivations.
  • Basic concepts of chemical kinetics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of rate laws from elementary reaction steps.
  • Learn about the application of the Le Chatelier principle in dynamic equilibria.
  • Investigate the implications of reaction mechanisms on observed reaction rates.
  • Explore the concept of rate-determining steps in complex reactions.
USEFUL FOR

Chemistry students, educators, and researchers focusing on chemical kinetics and reaction mechanisms will benefit from this discussion.

mooncrater
Messages
215
Reaction score
18

Homework Statement


This is the question:
Consider the reaction: $$2NO_2(g)+O_3 (g)\longrightarrow N_2O_5 (g)+O_2 (g) $$
The reaction of nitrogen dioxide and ozone is first order in ##NO_2(g)## and in ##O_3 (g)##. Which of these possible reaction mechanisms is consistent with the rate law?
MECHANISM I :$$ NO_2(g)+O_3 \longrightarrow NO_3 (g)+O_2 (g)$$------(slow)
$$NO_3 (g)+NO_2 (g) \longrightarrow N_2O_5$(g) $$------(fast)
MECHANISM II:$$O_3 (g)\longrightarrow O_2(g)+[O] $$(this one is in equilibrium)(fast)
$$NO_2 (g)+[O] \longrightarrow NO_3 (g) $$-------(slow)
$$NO_3 (g)+NO_2 (g) \longrightarrow N_2O_5 (g) $$-------(fast)
And the options are :
(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) Both I and II
(D) Neither I not II

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


The rate equation from the original equation:$$rate=k [NO_2][O_3] $$
And from mechanism 1:$$ r_1=k_1 [O_3][NO_2] $$
And from the mechanism 2 :
$$r_2=k_2 [NO_2][O] $$
$$k_{eq}=\frac {[O][O_2]}{[O_3]} $$
So keq[O3]/[O2]=[O]
putting this in ##r_2##
$$r_2=\frac {k _2k_{eq}[O_3][NO_2]}{[O_2]} $$
Which doesn't correspond with the gas law. So only 1 should be correct and the answer should be (A) but the given answer is (C)... but ##r_2## doesn't correspond to ##r##. So where am I wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mooncrater said:

Homework Statement


This is the question:
Consider the reaction: $$2NO_2(g)+O_3 (g)\longrightarrow N_2O_5 (g)+O_2 (g) $$
The reaction of nitrogen dioxide and ozone is first order in ##NO_2(g)## and in ##O_3 (g)##. Which of these possible reaction mechanisms is consistent with the rate law?
MECHANISM I :$$ NO_2(g)+O_3 \longrightarrow NO_3 (g)+O_2 (g)$$------(slow)
$$NO_3 (g)+NO_2 (g) \longrightarrow N_2O_5$(g) $$------(fast)
MECHANISM II:$$O_3 (g)\longrightarrow O_2(g)+[O] $$(this one is in equilibrium)(fast)
$$NO_2 (g)+[O] \longrightarrow NO_3 (g) $$-------(slow)
$$NO_3 (g)+NO_2 (g) \longrightarrow N_2O_5 (g) $$-------(fast)
And the options are :
(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) Both I and II
(D) Neither I not II

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


The rate equation from the original equation:$$rate=k [NO_2][O_3] $$
And from mechanism 1:$$ r_1=k_1 [O_3][NO_2] $$
And from the mechanism 2 :
$$r_2=k_2 [NO_2][O] $$
$$k_{eq}=\frac {[O][O_2]}{[O_3]} $$
So keq[O3]/[O2]=[O]
putting this in ##r_2##
$$r_2=\frac {k _2k_{eq}[O_3][NO_2]}{[O_2]} $$
Which doesn't correspond with the gas law. So only 1 should be correct and the answer should be (A) but the given answer is (C)... but ##r_2## doesn't correspond to ##r##. So where am I wrong?

I think it is OK as far as you got, but you have not got to the end. You need to get rid of the [O2]] in your last equation and express in terms of initial reactants only.

That said it seems to me still incompatible with mechanism 2.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mooncrater
epenguin said:
I think it is OK as far as you got, but you have not got to the end. You need to get rid of the [O2]] in your last equation and express in terms of initial reactants only.

That said it seems to me still incompatible with mechanism 2.
But we don't have any other equation in which ##O_2## is present. (In ##2^{nd}## mechanism. ) So I think that this ##O_2## won't go.
 
mooncrater said:
But we don't have any other equation in which ##O_2## is present. (In ##2^{nd}## mechanism. ) So I think that this ##O_2## won't go.

True you are not given it, ha ha.
I will let you osider just that first equilibrium by itself and see if you can come with it after all. :oldwink: :oldsmile:
 
epenguin said:
True you are not given it, ha ha.
I will let you osider just that first equilibrium by itself and see if you can come with it after all. :oldwink: :oldsmile:
Sorry but I didn't understand what you mean to say.
 
In general say younstart with substance A and it dissociates A ⇔ B + C

Can you say anything about [ B] at equilibrium?

OK, assume the equilibrium is to the left, I.e. [ B] is small compared to [A].
 
Last edited:
epenguin said:
In general say younstart with substance A and it dissociates A ⇔ B + C

Can you say anything about [ B] at equilibrium?

OK, assume the equilibrium is to the left, I.e. [ B] is small compared to [A].
Concentration of B will increase.
 
I believe epenguin tries to ask you whether there is any dependency between amount of O2 and O present (at least initially).
 
##k_{eq}=\frac {[O][O_2]}{[O_3]}##
Is one such relation quantitatively.
If ##[O]## is increased then ##[O_2]## will decrease (Le chatelier principle) and vice versa. Are you giving me a hint about something else?
 
  • #10
Yes, about something else.

Try to build an ICE table for the process, as if you were attempting to solve a simple equilibrium problem - what is the equilibrium concentration of O given K and initial [O3].
 
  • #11
Yes, you see you are trying to do something relatively clever and specialized while missing something very elementary and universal. Let me split my question and ask only for the first step.
epenguin said:
In general say younstart with substance A and it dissociates A ⇔ B + C
.
what is the ratio of [ B] and [C] at equilibrium? Or better, if they are not consumed in further reactions (which is an approximation you were assuming) what is their ratio at any time?
 
Last edited:
  • #12
epenguin said:
Yes, you see you are trying to do something relatively clever and specialized while missing something very elementary and universal. Let me split my question and ask only for the first step.
what is the ratio of [ B] and [C] at equilibrium? Or better, if they are not consumed in further reactions (which is an approximation you were assuming) what is their ratio at any time?
1:1.
 
  • #13
So ##[O_2]=[O]##.
How Is it useful on removing that ##extra## ##[O_2] ##from the denominator? (##extra## as the numerator corresponds the the correct rate law... because of which we can't change that)
 
  • #14
mooncrater said:
So ##[O_2]=[O]##.

Can you use this information - together with the initial concentration of O3 and Keq - to calculate the concentration of O?

Don't bother about other things for now, we will see how they fit the problem later.
 
  • #15
Borek said:
Can you use this information - together with the initial concentration of O3 and Keq - to calculate the concentration of O?

Don't bother about other things for now, we will see how they fit the problem later.
Yup...
##[O]=\sqrt {K_{eq}[O_3]}##
 
  • #16
Can't you plug that into the rate equation?

And yes, that would mean mechanism 2 is not consistent with the observed rate (or I am missing something as well).

This is a little bit tricky, as - if I am reading these equation correctly - the observed rate equation will be different at the beginning (when there is no substantial amount of oxygen present) and later (when you can't ignore O2 presence).
 
  • #17
Borek said:
Can't you plug that into the rate equation?

And yes, that would mean mechanism 2 is not consistent with the observed rate (or I am missing something as well).

This is a little bit tricky, as - if I am reading these equation correctly - the observed rate equation will be different at the beginning (when there is no substantial amount of oxygen present) and later (when you can't ignore O2 presence).
Yes I can do that... But the real problem (as you are saying) that the mechanism 2 doesn't correspond to the rate law. But the answer is different from that. So can we reach the result that the given answer is wrong?
 
  • #18
We could do if that is what the equations tell us. But we haven't seen you tell use what the equation in terms of concentrations of starting reactants is yet. (Assume the overall reaction is irreversible.)
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K