yego.me
💡 Stop wasting time. Read Youtube instead of watch. Download Chrome Extension

Worked example: Using the reaction quotient to predict a pressure change | Khan Academy


3m read
·Nov 11, 2024

A one liter reaction vessel contains 1.2 moles of carbon monoxide, 1.5 moles of hydrogen gas, and 2.0 moles of methanol gas. How will the total pressure change as the system approaches equilibrium at constant temperature?

So, our carbon monoxide is reacting with our hydrogen in a one to two ratio to give us methanol, and this reaction is reversible. We also know the equilibrium constant for this reaction is 14.5 at some temperature, and we know that the temperature is staying constant.

So, we are going to break this problem up into two parts. In part one, we're going to try to figure out, using the reaction quotient, whether our system is at equilibrium or not.

For this reaction, our reaction quotient ( Q ) is the product concentration ( [CH_3OH] ) or methanol, divided by the concentration of our hydrogen gas squared, because of that stoichiometric coefficient. In the denominator, we have our carbon monoxide concentration.

We can calculate ( Q ) by plugging in the concentrations of these at this particular moment in time, and we can calculate the concentrations using the volume of the vessel, which is 1 liter, and the mole quantities. We know that concentration is just moles divided by volume. Since we're dividing everything by one, the initial concentrations will be the same as the number of moles.

So, if you write that out for carbon monoxide, the initial concentration is 1.2 M; for hydrogen, it's 1.5 M; and for methanol, it is 2.0 M.

Now we can plug these concentrations into our expression for ( Q ), and then we get in our numerator 2.0, and our denominator is ( (1.5^2) \times 1.2 ). If we plug this all into our calculators, what I got is that our ( Q ) for this particular moment in time, with these concentrations, is 0.74.

So, this tells us, first of all, we know that ( Q ) is not equal to ( K_c ). So that means we are not at equilibrium, not at equilibrium, which means that our pressures are indeed going to change because the system is going to try to reach equilibrium.

The second thing we can do using the reaction quotient is figure out how the concentrations will change. Now that we know our reaction quotient ( Q_c ) is less than ( K ), we can visualize this on a number line.

If we look at all possible values of ( Q ), we know that when ( Q ) is zero, we have all reactants; when ( Q ) is infinitely large, we have all products, and then we have all of the possible values in between. What we're really worried about here is just looking at the relative value of ( Q ) and ( K ) and seeing how the reaction concentrations are going to shift.

So, ( Q ) we can put on a number line is somewhere around here, and ( K ) is 14.5, so we'll say it's somewhere around here. This is our ( Q ), and this is our ( K ). We can see that ( Q ) is less than ( K ) on our number line, and so what's going to happen is, in order to reach equilibrium, our concentrations are going to shift to the right to get ( Q ) closer to ( K ).

This means what's going to happen is the reaction is going to shift to favor making more products. So, if we look back at the balanced reaction, what's going to happen here is it's going to shift to favor the products.

So, I'm making that top arrow a little bit more bold, and to tie this into what the problem wants to know, we can figure out how the shift to make more products will affect the total pressure.

Total pressure for a system that has a bunch of gas molecules in it—we know that total pressure is related to the moles, the moles of gas in the system. So since we're shifting to favor the reactants, and on the reactant side we are making one mole of gas and we're starting with three moles of reactant gas, we're favoring the side that has fewer gas molecules.

So that means as we shift to favor the products, we're going to reduce the number of gas molecules in the system, and that's going to reduce our ( P_{total} ).

So, the answer is that ( P_{total} ) is going to decrease as our reaction approaches equilibrium, and that is because our reaction quotient ( Q ) is less than ( K ).

More Articles

View All
Growing Up in the African Wild : Beyond ‘Savage Kingdom’ (Part 1) | Nat Geo Live
(Dramatic orchestral music) - Imagine you’re out in Africa. It’s night-time, you’re sleeping in the back of an open vehicle, and it’s so hot that you have no clothes on and you’re still sweating. All you can hear is the distant call of a hyena and an impa…
SEO Advice from SurveyMonkey Director of SEO and Growth, Eli Schwartz
All righty, let’s jump right into it. So, first question: Does SEO still matter in 2018 or can companies ignore it and focus on other channels? This is a question I get asked a lot, and I’ve been asked this question in many years past. Sometimes, the quo…
Hunting Porcupine | Life Below Zero
Look, the porcupine tracker went right up here. It’s not too far ahead. This is a fresh track. Hey, look! There he is, right there, right in that tree. Porcupines, when they’re getting chased, they like to take to the trees. I can’t shoot him with this r…
Introduction to price elasticity of supply | APⓇ Microeconomics | Khan Academy
We’ve done many videos on the price elasticity of demand. Now we’re going to focus on the price elasticity of supply, and it’s a very similar idea; it’s just being applied to supply. Now, it’s a measure of how sensitive our quantity supplied is to percen…
Juvenoia
Hey, Vsauce. Michael here. Skeletons are scary and spooky, but you know what else is? Teenagers. Their attitude, the way they dress, and the music they listen to. Can you even call it music? Pff, kids these days. But what are kids these days? What’s with …
Psychology of a Serial Killer (the Jeffrey Dahmer Story)
Foreign those words were spoken by Jeffrey Dahmer, a serial killer, a sex offender, necrophiliac, and cannibal who brutally murdered 17 Milwaukee young men throughout the late 70s, 80s, and 90s. Dahmer’s story makes for a chilling example of a psychopath …