This was an adiabatic container.
The heat capacity of the bomb, the water around it, and the contents of the bomb after the combustion was ##10^4\mathrm{JK^{-1}}##.
Calculate ##\Delta_f H^\circ## for ##C_6H_6(l)## at ##298.15\text{K}## from these data.
I tried to understand the above by drawing the following picture.
Since the process was adiabatic and constant-volume then the change in internal energy is zero.
We want the enthalpy of formation of benzene at ##25^\circ C##. We can calculate this from reaction 5 if we are able to determine the reaction enthalpy of 5.
Since we are given the heat capacity of the products of reaction 1 (same products as of reaction 5), then we can compute
$$\Delta U_2=q_{V,2}=\int_{298}^{293.826} 10^4 dT=-41.74\text{kJ}$$
Note that this is the heat required to change the temperature of the products of the combustion of only 1g of benzene (that is, the stoichiometric coefficients involved are not the ones shown above, but something much smaller).
We can, however, determine the change ##\Delta U_2## for 1 mol of benzene.
$$-41.74\mathrm{\frac{kJ}{g}\cdot 78.11\frac{g}{mol}}$$
$$=-3255.7\mathrm{\frac{kJ}{mol}}$$
At this point I got stuck and could not understand what the next steps were.
The solution manual calculations seem to me to be describing the following.
If the given heat capacity given in the problem statement were for the reactants instead of the products, then the calculation above would have given us ##q_{V,6}##.
We could write
$$\Delta U_{V,6}+\Delta U_{V,1}=\Delta U_{V,5}$$
$$\Delta U_{V,5}=\Delta U_{V,6}=-3255.7\mathrm{\frac{kJ}{mol}}$$
Then
$$\Delta H_{V,5}=\Delta U_{V,5}+RT\Delta n_{V,5}$$
$$=-3255.7\mathrm{\frac{kJ}{mol}}+RT(-1.5\ \text{mol})$$
$$=-3259.4\mathrm{kJ\ mol^{-1}}$$
This is the enthalpy of combustion at ##298\text{K}##, ie ##\Delta H_{V,5}=\Delta_cH(298\text{K})##.
At this point we can compute the enthalpy of formation of benzene at ##298\text{K}##.
This latter result relied on my assuming that the problem statement is incorrect, ie the given heat capacity is for the reactants before combustion rather than of the products after combustion.
So, is the problem statement correct, or else what am I getting wrong?
How did you do this estimate?
The approach in the second picture I posted?
Indeed. I was trying to understand the underlying reasons for the calculations, and skipped the calculations.
Here are the calculations as I posed them in second part of the OP (ie the calculations for the 2nd picture)
Using their figure we have
The issue here is, I think, that you would normally equilibrate your calorimeter at the temperature of interest (e.g. 298K), then do the experiment. Then the book method works.
Let us assume
Initial temperature T0, final temperature Tf; difference ΔT.
Total heat capacity of bomb, contents and water after the experiment Ct
Total heat capacity of bomb, contents and water before the experiment Ct - δ, where δ is the difference in heat capacity between products and reactants.
Referring to your initial picture, following the (3,2) route:
-ΔU(T0) = Ct*ΔT
ΔU(T1) = ΔU(T0) + δ*ΔT
ΔH(T1) = ΔU(T1) + ΔnRT1
The book has omitted the δ*ΔT.
Following the (4,5) route:
-ΔU(T1) = (Ct - δ)*ΔT (you can see that this is equivalent to the previous result)
ΔH(T1) = ΔU(T1) + ΔnRT1
Either way, you need to know δ, which you are not given. I calculated it from heat capacities from Wikipedia (subtracting R from the Cp values for the gases). Here are my results. Note that the difference due to assuming MW (benzene) = 78 is much bigger than the correction due to δ - about 10% of the heat of formation (a small difference between large quantities). Hence the importance of accurate measurements and accurate data input.
| MW | Cv,m | m | n | mol | C | total | ||
| g/mol | J/mol/K | g | J/K | J/K | ||||
| C6H6 | 78.114 | 134.8 | 1 | 1 | 0.012802 | 1.725683 | ||
| O2 | 31.998 | 21.064 | 7.5 | 0.096014 | 2.022429 | 3.748112 | reactants | |
| CO2 | 44.009 | 28.821 | 6 | 0.076811 | 2.213764 | |||
| H2O | 18.015 | 75.385 | 3 | 0.038405 | 2.895192 | 5.108956 | products | |
1.360844 | difference | |||||||
| dT | 4.174 | K | -3259.4 | book | ||||
| CT | 10000 | J/K | -2361.06 | 6CO2 | ||||
| dU0 | -41740 | J | -857.49 | 3H2O | ||||
| dU0,m | -3260.48 | kJ/mol | 40.85 | book result | ||||
| dUf | -41734.3 | J | ||||||
| dUf,m | -3260.03 | kJ/mol | ||||||
| dHf,m | -3263.75 | kJ/mol | ||||||
| dfH | 45.20289 | kJ/mol |
| # | Наименование новости | Тональность | Информативность | Дата публикации |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | pH calculation for MIT OCW galvanic cell problem | 0 | 10 | 03-06-2025 |
| 2 | Why does stretching a rubber band at constant entropy increase its temperature? | 0 | 10 | 12-06-2024 |
| 3 | Calculating moles from mass and molarity | 0 | 10 | 11-04-2024 |
| 4 | Finding error in ideal gas law calculation for argon volume | 0 | 10 | 14-03-2024 |
| 5 | Applying Nernst equation to Au/Cl₂ redox cell | 0 | 10 | 21-01-2025 |
| 6 | Ideal gas law calculation with oil column pressure | 0 | 10 | 28-04-2024 |
| 7 | Titration or galvanic cell for QLD year 12 chemistry IA2 | 0 | 30 | 01-02-2024 |
| 8 | Why does the Kb method require extra steps for titration equivalence point? | 0 | 10 | 04-01-2025 |
| 9 | Infographics | 0 | 10 | 01-01-1970 |
| 10 | Images | 0 | 10 | 01-01-1970 |