A.K.
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 6-11-2023
Member Is Offline
|
|
Relative number of moles
Hello Everyone!
I am new here.
I am a Mech. Eng, and I do self studies in Chemistry during my spare time.
I am reading a Chemistry book By Sir. McMurry and Fay. During chapter 3 page97, topic 3.11 percent composition, I have encountered a term that I
didn't quite get it yet even after several researches on google and in the library so here is a quote from the author:
"the strategy is to find the relative number of moles of each element in the compound and then use the numbers to establish the mole
ratios of the elements"
My first question is:
1. What does is the definition of Relative number in chemistry?
2. Why did the author didn't say the actual number of moles instead of relative number of moles?
3. If we are relating the number of moles, to whom are we relating to? are we relating it to the other element in the compound that we have just
discovered itself? or we are relating it to another element from a different chemical compound?
Thanks
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1716
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Example: Al2O3 has a relative ratio of 1:1.5 but an absolute molar ratio of 2:3.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
Maurice VD 37
Hazard to Self
Posts: 66
Registered: 31-12-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
Let's take an example.
1 liter sea water contains 29 g NaCl 0r 29/(23 + 35.5) = 0.49 mol NaCl.
1 liter sea water contains also 55.5 mol water
So 1 liter sea water contains a total of 56 mol.
The relative amount of NaCl in water is 0.49/56 = 0.875 percent
This is a relative amount. it is valid for one drop or 1 ton sea water.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1716
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
To elaborate a bit:
Lets say you have an unknown gas. You do a chemical analysis which tell you it contains 3 moles of hydrogen for every mole of carbon. Does this mean
it's composition is CH3?
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
Texium
|
Thread Moved
1-12-2023 at 09:33 |
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4332
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by A.K.  |
I am reading a Chemistry book By Sir. McMurry and Fay. During chapter 3 page97, topic 3.11 percent composition, I have encountered a term that I
didn't quite get it yet even after several researches on google and in the library so here is a quote from the author:
"the strategy is to find the relative number of moles of each element in the compound and then use the numbers to establish the mole
ratios of the elements"
My first question is:
1. What does is the definition of Relative number in chemistry?
2. Why did the author didn't say the actual number of moles instead of relative number of moles?
3. If we are relating the number of moles, to whom are we relating to? are we relating it to the other element in the compound that we have just
discovered itself? or we are relating it to another element from a different chemical compound?
Thanks |
It's number of moles of an element relative to the other elements in the compound.
If you have a compound that is, say, 79.9% copper and 20.1% oxygen, you're not going to worry about an actual number of moles, since you don't have an
actual sample to worry about. But you do know you have 79.9 g Cu for every 20.1 g O. Converting these to moles gives you 1.26 mole Cu for every 1.26
moles O. That's a 1:1 ratio, so it's CuO.
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
B(a)P
International Hazard
Posts: 1139
Registered: 29-9-2019
Member Is Offline
Mood: Festive
|
|
Is it not simpler than what had been suggested above? I am guessing they don't give you a mass of the compound? If you don't have a mass of a compound
you can't work out how many moles of each element in the compound. What you can work out is the relative number of moles. For H20 the relative number
of moles of hydrogen is 2. It is a simple, but important concept to master, the next step is to work out the actual mass of hydrogen in a known mass
of water, now that you know how to work out the relative number of moles.
Edit - I like DraconicAcid's answer better I had not seen it when I posted. However, the answer to your question depends on what information you have
been given in the question, please provide am an example question from the text if one is available.
Oh, and importantly, welcome to the forum!
[Edited on 2-12-2023 by B(a)P]
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1716
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Why not cuprous peroxide? :-)
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4332
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
Well, the calculation gives the empirical formula, which is just the simplest ratio. We wouldn't know for sure if it was CuO or Cu2O2 or Cu7O7 without
knowing the molar mass of the compound.
Other than knowing that peroxide ion would immediately oxidize cuprous ions to cupric ones. :-)
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6320
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
I will add that there are ways of teaching moles that are really confusing. Poorly phrased questions such as this one do not help.
As a teacher, I know that I have to give careful thought to how I introduce mole calculations to my students. It is like the foundation of a building:
get it wrong and everything that follows is unstable and crooked.
If this question was in one of my textbooks, I would have two approaches. One is to skip it completely. The second would be to consider the
information orivided and discuss with students what sensible calculations could be done - and then do them; pretty much ignoring whether we were
interpreting the question the way the author intended. The chemisrty is important. Ticking the box to say you got the right answer to a poorly
constructed question is not.
|
|
|
MadHatter
International Hazard
Posts: 1339
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Maine
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enjoying retirement
|
|
Moles
j_sum1, I'll go with most on "moles". A mole is a mole is a mole. I don't about relative
but absolute. Thus Al2O3 is 2:3. Don't know anything relative about that. The OP's
question seems irrelevant.
From opening of NCIS New Orleans - It goes a BOOM ! BOOM ! BOOM ! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4332
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by MadHatter | j_sum1, I'll go with most on "moles". A mole is a mole is a mole. I don't about relative
but absolute. Thus Al2O3 is 2:3. Don't know anything relative about that. The OP's
question seems irrelevant. |
Of course that's relative. It's the moles of Al relative to the number of moles of O. If you have any given sample of alumina, you do not
necessarily have 2 mol Al and 3 mol O. It depends on how much you have.
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
A.K.
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 6-11-2023
Member Is Offline
|
|
Thanks everyone for their great effort to answer my question.
|
|
|
Maurice VD 37
Hazard to Self
Posts: 66
Registered: 31-12-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
I repeat my reasoning with another example : blood instead of sea water. What is the relative amount of salt in the plasma, which is blood without red
cells ?
In solutions, the relative amount is another word for describing the concentration.
Well, one liter blood or 1 liter plasma contains 9 g NaCl. One can say that the concentration or the relative amount (in mass) of NaCl in plasma is 9
g/liter. And the problem is solved, because this result is the same for one drop or for many liters plasma.
I repeat. Expressed ion g/L, the relative amount of NaCl is 9 g/L, whatever the volume of blood and plasma.
But the relative amount can also be expressed in molar units. It depends on the problem.
As the molar mass of NaCl is 23 + 35.5 = 58.5 g/mole. The relative amount can be calculated with the moles. Expressed in moles, 9 g NaCl is also
9/58.5 = 0.154 mole, and the relative amount of salt in blood is 0.154 mol/Liter.
Conclusion : The relative amount of salt in blood is 0.9 g/L, or 0.154 mol/L, as you want it.
[Edited on 5-1-2024 by Maurice VD 37]
[Edited on 5-1-2024 by Maurice VD 37]
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8012
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
The usage of the terms "relative"and "absolute" is meaningless here. Al2O3 has aluminium and oxygen in a molar ration equal to 1 : 1.5, which is the
same as 2 : 3, which is the same as 20 : 30, which is the same as 7 : 10.5, etc. All of them are the same, the only thing which differs is their
presentation.
In practice, if there is a simple integer ratio for a given compound, then this is presented (i.e. 2 : 3), but sometimes other presentations are used.
Molar ratios do not always have to be integer values. For instance, I have tungsten oxide, WO3, which is a yellow powder (looks very much like
powdered sulfur). But I also have a compound, which is somewhat deficient in oxygen, which is dark blue. It has molar ratio, close to 1 : 2.9. But the
exact formula of this material cannot be given. One could write W10O29, but this formula is meaningless from a structural point of view. The real
nature of this compound is that it is WO3, with a small fraction of oxygen atoms missing (appr. 1 out of every 30 oxygen atoms is missing). This small
amount of missing oxygen atoms leads to a very different compound (it has an intense color, and its electrical properties are quite different from
those of WO3).
If you have mixtures, then molar ratios certainly are useful for describing these mixtures, but again, no particular formula should be given and it
makes no sense to try to write the mix with integer-only formulas. A nice example is azeotropic nitric acid, which is appr. 68% by weight HNO3, the
rest being water. This is a molar ratio of appr. 1 : 1.65 nitric acid and water. The azeotropic mix, however, has no nice integer ratio of nitric
acid and water.
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8012
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
This of course occurs much more. The simplest example is H2O2. It contains H : O = 1 : 1, but the molecule definitely contains two hydrogens and two
oxygens (H-O-O-H). Another example is ethane, H3C-CH3. C; H = 1 :3, but it is C2H6.
Based on ratio alone, one cannot determine the real number of atoms in a molecule. Sometimes, one cannot even speak of a simple molecule. See my
previous example of W : O approximately equal to 1 : 2.9 (but not exactly so, different samples of this dark blue compound may have slightly different
ratios, the ratio can e.g. be between 1 : 2.89 and 1 : 2.91). There are many compounds, which have a somewhat variable stoichiometry (e.g. transition
metal oxides with mixed oxidation states for the metal ion, transition metal sulfides with mixed oxidation states for the metal ion, polymeric
species, with variations in which atoms are bonded to each other, sub-oxides of cesium and rubidium).
|
|
|
A.K.
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 6-11-2023
Member Is Offline
|
|
Again, Thanks everyone for their efforts to explain this term "Relative number"
After a longer period of time, I find out what does "Relative number of moles" means. It is not related to the other element within a compound, That
is wrong!
Majority of the answers got it wrong with all due respect.
only "Maurice VD 37" know what he is talking about,
Thanks
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4332
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by A.K. | Again, Thanks everyone for their efforts to explain this term "Relative number"
After a longer period of time, I find out what does "Relative number of moles" means. It is not related to the other element within a compound, That
is wrong! |
So when the author of the question you were struggling with said "the strategy is to find the relative number of moles of each element in the compound
and then use the numbers to establish the mole ratios of the elements", he didn't know what he was talking about?
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
A.K.
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 6-11-2023
Member Is Offline
|
|
The author know what he is talking about, but you don't. You and many like you misunderstood the meaning of "Relative number of moles".
Since the compound that we have in term of empirical formula is in percentage, and we don't have an actual mass for it, The author used the term
"Relative number of moles" Instead of "Actual or absolute number of moles"
Check this website will clarify the doubt if you are truly seeking the Truth. Otherwise ignore it!
https://www.dr-aart.nl/Statistics-absolute-and-relative.html...
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4332
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
It's too bad you weren't able to comprehend what we explained to you. Welcome to the block bin.
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
bnull
Hazard to Others
Posts: 430
Registered: 15-1-2024
Location: South of the border, wherever the border is.
Member Is Online
Mood: Dazed and confused.
|
|
| Quote: | | if you are truly seeking the Truth. |
What is truth? said Pontius Pilate.
McMurry and Fay gave the explanation away for free within the same section. If you revisit the section carefully, you will see that. Nevertheless,
I'll add my five kopeks to this discussion.
| Quote: Originally posted by A.K. | | "the strategy is to find the relative number of moles of each element in the compound and then use the numbers to establish the mole
ratios of the elements" |
Let's quote the paragraph in full: | Quote: | | Knowing a compound's percent composition makes it possible to calculate the compound's chemical formula. As shown in Figure
3.8 [which I won't include because it is just a flow diagram], the strategy is to find the relative number of moles of each element
in the compound and then use the numbers to establish the mole ratios of the elements. The mole ratios, in turn, give the subscripts in the
chemical formula. |
We have some important points. The first is that purpose of section 3.11 is to show how to find the chemical formula for the compound starting from
the percent composition. It... sort of works... The main issue is that it doesn't take into account the bonds between elements. Acetylene and benzene
have the exact same percent composition, but acetylene is a gas and benzene is a liquid with different properties. That's why it is possible.
It gives the empirical formula, which is not always equal to the actual chemical (molecular or ionic) formula.
The second is what did McMurry and Fay mean with "relative number of moles of each element in the compound"? The answer is simple: that there are X
moles of A for each Y moles of B, whatever the mass of the sample may be. When you say | Quote: | | Since the compound that we have in term of empirical formula is in percentage, and we don't have an actual mass for it |
you forget that the paragraph that follows the one cited above goes | Quote: | | Let's use for our example a colorless liquid whose composition is 84.1% carbon and 15.9% hydrogen by mass. Arbitrarily taking 100 g of the substance
to make the calculation easier, we find by using molar masses as conversion factors that the 100 g contains 7.00 mol of C and 15.8 mol of H.
|
The percent composition means that in 100 grams of the substance there are 84.1 grams of carbon and 15.9
grams of hydrogen. The actual mass of the sample is immaterial.
Take astatine fluoride, my favorite fluorinating agent. There are 91.7 grams of astatine for each 8.3 grams of fluorine in 100 grams of AtF. But there
are no 91.7 grams of astatine on Earth because it is unstable. Does it matter? No, because we're interested in the empirical formula, which does not
require the existence of 100 grams of AtF, or of 91.7 grams of astatine itself, for that matter.
| Quote: | | Question 1. What does is the definition of Relative number in chemistry? |
Question 1 was answered more times than it really deserved so I shall skip it.
| Quote: | | Question 2. Why did the author didn't say the actual number of moles instead of relative number of moles? |
Because the actual number of moles has no importance whatsoever when you're trying to find the empirical formula. Water is always H2O
whether you have 100 grams, 25 micrograms, or the entire water supply of the known universe. The proportion remains the same, and so does the
empirical formula. The actual number of moles comes into play when you want to perform a reaction using a definite amount of the compound
(stoichiometry and such).
| Quote: | | Question 3. If we are relating the number of moles, to whom are we relating to? are we relating it to the other element in the compound that we have
just discovered itself? or we are relating it to another element from a different chemical compound? |
To one another within the compound. If you want to find the empirical formula of one compound (say, water), you relate the number of moles of the
elements that constitute the compound. You can't find the empirical formula for water by comparing with the amount of carbon in benzene: "There are
two moles of hydrogen in water for each six moles of carbon in benzene". It doesn't work that way. What @Maurice VD 37 explained was
concentration in terms of percentages and proportions. Section 3.11 deals with percent composition and empirical formulas of a single compound, not
concentrations. You see, apples and oranges.
And you are right. McMurry and Fay knew what they were talking about, but you don't. You misunderstood the meaning of "Relative number of moles".
Edit: corrected typos (again) and reworded some parts. Who cares?
[Edited on 22-6-2024 by bnull]
[Edited on 23-6-2024 by bnull]
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
B. N. Ull
P.S.: Did you know that we have a Library?
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
