The Student Room Group

chemistry rate of reaction expressions

I apologise in advance, but this is all new to me, so my terminology might be incorrect. See the attached.

Screenshot 2024-10-21 162113.png


In the second-rate expression, the second reactant differs from the other two; is this a typo? Should it be [no]^2, or is this generally okay? I am sure that the reactants should remain the same, and only one variable may be manipulated at a time, like the concentration of said reactant, not the actual reactant.

Or is the second expression a different experiment altogether? and I am confusing this with the rate of reaction data tables.
(edited 1 month ago)
Original post by KingRich
I apologise in advance, but this is all new to me, so my terminology might be incorrect. See the attached.Screenshot 2024-10-21 162113.png
In the second-rate expression, the second reactant differs from the other two; is this a typo? Should it be [no]^2, or is this generally okay? I am sure that the reactants should remain the same, and only one variable may be manipulated at a time, like the concentration of said reactant, not the actual reactant.

Or is the second expression a different experiment altogether? and I am confusing this with the rate of reaction data tables.

In mechanisms involving NO, it’s quite common to see [NO]^2 in the rate law, since it tends to rapidly dimerise and the reaction of this dimer with something else is usually a slow step in the mechanism.

I usually wouldn’t expect a rate law to involve other concentrations squared as it’s quite uncommon for reactions to be possible if they depend on elementary steps that are not either unimolecular (involve a single molecule) or bimolecular (involve two molecules colliding). Of course, there are cases where an intermediate is formed previously from 2+ equivalents of something and you need to make a pre-equilibrium approximation or similar, but I doubt you’ll have stumbled across these yet.

The third expression in the list is actually the most puzzling. Is it meant to be read as

^2 or simply as

? It is also at odds with the first expression as presumably the same reaction has been carried out, given the choices of reagents.

Edit: I think I misread your question a little. I think all 3 experiments were supposed to use different reactions, but they picked the same reagents in experiments 1 and 3, which leads me to believe they are the same reaction performed either under different conditions or that experiment 3 was just performed incorrectly.
(edited 1 month ago)
Reply 2
Original post by UtterlyUseless69
In mechanisms involving NO, it’s quite common to see [NO]^2 in the rate law, since it tends to rapidly dimerise and the reaction of this dimer with something else is usually a slow step in the mechanism.
I usually wouldn’t expect a rate law to involve other concentrations squared as it’s quite uncommon for reactions to be possible if they depend on elementary steps that are not either unimolecular (involve a single molecule) or bimolecular (involve two molecules colliding). Of course, there are cases where an intermediate is formed previously from 2+ equivalents of something and you need to make a pre-equilibrium approximation or similar, but I doubt you’ll have stumbled across these yet.
The third expression in the list is actually the most puzzling. Is it meant to be read as

^2 or simply as

? It is also at odds with the first expression as presumably the same reaction has been carried out, given the choices of reagents.
Edit: I think I misread your question a little. I think all 3 experiments were supposed to use different reactions, but they picked the same reagents in experiments 1 and 3, which leads me to believe they are the same reaction performed either under different conditions or that experiment 3 was just performed incorrectly.

That’s what confused me. I don’t know much about this and had to relate the videos to figure the majority of this out but seeing as rate law for both 1 and 3 are using the same reactants, I assume they made a typo in the second rate law but meh, I won’t know for certain until the tutor contacts me back. Just in limbo right now.
Reply 3
Original post by KingRich
That’s what confused me. I don’t know much about this and had to relate the videos to figure the majority of this out but seeing as rate law for both 1 and 3 are using the same reactants, I assume they made a typo in the second rate law but meh, I won’t know for certain until the tutor contacts me back. Just in limbo right now.

very off topic but i love the shin chan pfp, that anime was my childhood :woo:
Reply 4
Original post by dhqnyq
very off topic but i love the shin chan pfp, that anime was my childhood :woo:

😅 I’m obsessed with shin. I have a small collection of plush dolls haha
Reply 5
Original post by KingRich
😅 I’m obsessed with shin. I have a small collection of plush dolls haha

I'm going to save up for one, that's very cool :yep:
Reply 6
Original post by dhqnyq
I'm going to save up for one, that's very cool :yep:

Every time I go to Asia, I bring home a new plush. If ever you visit Bangkok, you should go to Mixt Chatuchak mall and Megasiam. They have a huge collection of Shinchan merchandise ☺️







Reply 7
Original post by KingRich
Every time I go to Asia, I bring home a new plush. If ever you visit Bangkok, you should go to Mixt Chatuchak mall and Megasiam. They have a huge collection of Shinchan merchandise ☺️




When I begin travelling I'll definitely go there! Its been a dream to get a shinchan plush, thanks :smile:
Reply 8
Original post by dhqnyq
When I begin travelling I'll definitely go there! Its been a dream to get a shinchan plush, thanks :smile:

I know it may not be the same feeling as getting one in person yourself but there are some on the Vinted app from resellers 😀
Reply 9
Original post by KingRich
I know it may not be the same feeling as getting one in person yourself but there are some on the Vinted app from resellers 😀

I'll check it out :ta: Yeah it's quite more memorable getting it in person!

Quick Reply