Why does the dissolution of NH4NO3 happen if the ∆H is 28.1?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ScienceMonkey
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The dissolution of NH4NO3 occurs despite a positive ∆H of 28.1 because the process is driven by an increase in entropy, making it spontaneous. The Gibbs free energy equation (∆G = ∆H - T∆S) illustrates that a favorable entropy change can offset the enthalpy increase. Strong bases can deprotonate H3PO4 after the third dissociation due to the unfavorable electronic environment, which requires a stronger base to facilitate the reaction. The strength of PO4^2- as a base is greater than that of H2PO4^-1, indicating its higher tendency to accept protons. Understanding these concepts is essential for analyzing acid-base reactions and their spontaneity.
ScienceMonkey
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
1. Why does the dissolution of NH4NO3 happen if the ∆H is 28.1? I'm supposed to be detailed with an equation, and explaining spontaneity.

Does it happen because of the energy created from protonation?

2. And why is only a strong base able to make H3PO4 act as an acid after the 3rd acid dissociation?

Is it because it is electronically unfavorable?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
1) at constant temperature and pressure what concept relates to sponaneity (depends on both entropy and enthalpy of process).

2)In terms of a base, how strong is PO4^2- compared to H2PO4^-1? What is the Arrehnius concept of an acid base neutralization in perspective of the conjugate acid/bases?
 
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