50 Icho 2018: Preparatory Problems: Theoretical

19th – 29th July 2018
Bratislava, SLOVAKIA
Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC
www.50icho.eu
PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL

SOLUTIONS
50th IChO 2018

International Chemistry Olympiad
SLOVAKIA & CZECH REPUBLIC
BACK TO WHERE IT ALL BEGAN
UPDATED 12TH JUNE 2018

INTERNATIONAL CHEMISTRY OLYMPIAD / SLOVAKIA & CZECH REPUBLIC, 2018
Table of Contents
Problem 1. Synthesis of hydrogen cyanide ................................................................................. 2
Problem 2. Thermochemistry of rocket fuels............................................................................... 3
Problem 3. HIV protease ............................................................................................................ 6
Problem 4. Enantioselective hydrogenation ................................................................................ 8
Problem 5. Ultrafast reactions .................................................................................................... 9
Problem 6. Kinetic isotope effects ............................................................................................ 13
Problem 7. Designing a photoelectrochemical cell.................................................................... 14
Problem 8. Fuel cells ................................................................................................................ 16
Problem 9. Acid-base equilibria in blood ................................................................................... 18
Problem 10. Ion exchange capacity of a cation exchange resin................................................ 20
Problem 11. Weak and strong cation exchange resin ............................................................... 21
Problem 12. Uranyl extraction .................................................................................................. 22
Problem 13. Determination of active chlorine in commercial products ...................................... 24
Problem 14. Chemical elements in fireworks ............................................................................ 25
Problem 15. Colours of complexes ........................................................................................... 27
Problem 16. Iron chemistry ....................................................................................................... 29
Problem 17. Cyanido- and fluorido-complexes of manganese .................................................. 34
Problem 18. The fox and the stork ............................................................................................ 37
Problem 19. Structures in the solid state .................................................................................. 39
Problem 20. Cyclobutanes ....................................................................................................... 41
Problem 21. Fluorinated radiotracers........................................................................................ 42
Problem 22. Where is lithium? .................................................................................................. 44
Problem 23. Synthesis of eremophilone ................................................................................... 45
Problem 24. Cinnamon all around ............................................................................................ 46
Problem 25. All roads lead to caprolactam ............................................................................... 48
Problem 26. Ring opening polymerizations (ROP).................................................................... 50
Problem 27. Zoniporide ............................................................................................................ 52
Problem 28. Nucleic acids ........................................................................................................ 54
PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 1

Problem 1. Synthesis of hydrogen cyanide

1.1 Degussa process (BMA process):
ΔrHm = − ΔfHm(CH4) − ΔfHm(NH3) + ΔfHm(HCN) + 3 ΔfHm(H2)
ΔrHm = [− (−90.3) − (−56.3) + 129.0 + 3 × 0] kJ mol−1 = 275.6 kJ mol−1
Andrussow process:
ΔrHm = − ΔfHm(CH4) − ΔfHm(NH3) − 3/2 ΔfHm(O2) + ΔfHm(HCN) + 3 ΔfHm(H2O)
ΔrHm = [− (−90.3) − (−56.3) − 3/2 × 0 + 129.0 + 3 × (−250.1)] kJ mol−1 = −474.7 kJ mol−1
1.2 An external heater has to be used in the Degussa process (BMA process) because
the reaction is endothermic.
Δr 𝐺m (1 500 K) −112.3 × 103 J mol−1
1.3 𝐾(1500 K) = exp (− 𝑅𝑇
) = exp (− 8.314 J mol−1 K−1 × 1 500 K) = 8 143
𝐾(𝑇 2 ) Δr 𝐻m 1 1 Δr 𝐻m 1 1
ln ( )=− ( − ) ⇒ 𝐾(𝑇2 ) = 𝐾(𝑇1 )exp [− ( − )]
𝐾(𝑇1 ) 𝑅 𝑇2 𝑇1 𝑅 𝑇2 𝑇1
275.6 × 103 J mol−1 1 1
𝐾(1 600K) = 8 143 × exp [− ( − )] = 32 407
8.314 J mol−1 K −1 1 600 K 1 500 K
The result is in accordance with the Le Chatelier’s principle because the reaction is
endothermic and therefore an increase in temperature shifts the equilibrium toward products
(in other words, the equilibrium constant increases).
1.4 The equilibrium constant of the reaction in the Andrussow process decreases with
an increase in temperature because the reaction is exothermic.

Problem 2. Thermochemistry of rocket fuels

Notation of indexes: 0M – hydrazine, 1M – methylhydrazine, 2M – 1,1-dimethylhydrazine
Standard conditions: T° = 298.15 K; p° = 101 325 Pa.
All values given below are evaluated from non-rounded intermediate results.
2.1 Calculation of the number of moles corresponding to 1 g of the samples: ni = mi / Mi

M0M = 32.05 g mol−1; M1M = 46.07 g mol−1; M2M = 60.10 g mol−1.
n0M = 31.20 mmol; n1M = 21.71 mmol; n2M = 16.64 mmol.
Calculation of combustion heat: qi = Ccal × ΔTi
q0M = 16.83 kJ; q1M = 25.60 kJ; q2M = 30.11 kJ.
Calculation of the molar internal energies of combustion: ΔcUi = −qi / ni
ΔcombU0M = −539.40 kJ mol−1; ΔcombU1M = −1 179.48 kJ mol−1;
ΔcombU2M = −1 809.64 kJ mol−1.
Bomb calorimeter combustion reactions with the stoichiometric coefficients added:
Hydrazine N2H4 (l) + O2 (g) → N2 (g) + 2 H2O (g)
Methylhydrazine N2H3CH3 (l) + 2.5 O2 (g) → N2 (g) + CO2 (g) + 3 H2O (g)
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine N2H2(CH3)2 (l) + 4 O2 (g) → N2 (g) + 2 CO2 (g) + 4 H2O (g)
Calculation of the molar enthalpies of combustion: ΔcHi = ΔcUi + Δcn(gas)RTstd
ΔcombH0M = −534.44 kJ mol−1; ΔcombH1M = −1 173.29 kJ mol−1;
ΔcombH2M = −1 802.20 kJ mol−1.
2.2 Calculation of the molar enthalpies of formation:
ΔformH0M = 2 ΔformHH2O,g − ΔcombH0M = +50.78 kJ mol−1
ΔformH1M = 3 ΔformHH2O,g + ΔformHCO2 − ΔcombH1M = +54.28 kJ mol−1
ΔformH2M = 4 ΔformHH2O,g + 2 ΔformHCO2 − ΔcombH2M = +47.84 kJ mol−1
Rocket engines combustion reactions:
Hydrazine N2H4 (l) + 1/2 N2O4 (l) → 2 H2O (g) + 3/2 N2 (g)
Methylhydrazine N2H3CH3 (l) + 5/4 N2O4 (l) → CO2 (g) + 3 H2O (g) + 9/4 N2 (g)
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine N2H2(CH3)2 (l) + 2 N2O4 (l) → 3 N2 (g) + 4 H2O (g) + 2 CO2 (g)
Calculation of molar reaction enthalpies, related to one mole of hydrazine derivatives:
ΔreH0M = (2 ΔformHH2O,g − 1/2 ΔformHN2O4 − ΔformH0M) = −538.98 kJ mol−1
ΔreH1M = (ΔformHCO2 + 3 ΔformHH2O,g − 5/4 ΔformHN2O4 − ΔformH1M) = −1 184.64 kJ mol−1
ΔreH2M = (2 ΔformHCO2 + 4 ΔformHH2O,g − 2 ΔformHN2O4 − 1 ΔformH2M) = −1 820.36 kJ mol−1

2.3 Calculation of the standard molar reaction enthalpies, related to one mole of hydrazine
derivatives:
ΔreH°0M = ΔreH0M − 2 ΔvapHH2O = −620.28 kJ mol−1
ΔreH°1M = ΔreH1M − 3 ΔvapHH2O = −1 306.59 kJ mol−1
ΔreH°2M = ΔreH2M − 4 ΔvapHH2O = −1 982.96 kJ mol−1
Calculation of the standard molar reaction entropies, related to one mole of hydrazine
derivatives:
ΔreS°0M = (2 SH2O,l + 3/2 SN2 − 1/2 SN2O4 − S0M) = 200.67 J K−1 mol−1
ΔreS°1M = (SCO2 + 3 SH2O,l + 9/4 SN2 − 5/4 SN2O4 − S1M) = 426.59 J K−1 mol−1
ΔreS°2M = (2 SCO2 + 4 SH2O,l + 3 SN2 − 2 SN2O4 − S2M) = 663.69 J K−1 mol−1
Calculation of standard molar reaction Gibbs energies:
ΔreG°0M = ΔreH°0M − T° × ΔreS°0M = −680.11 kJ mol−1
ΔreG°1M = ΔreH°1M − T° × ΔreS°1M = −1 433.77 kJ mol−1
ΔreG°2M = ΔreH°2M − T° × ΔreS°2M = −2 180.84 kJ mol−1
Estimation of the equilibrium constants for combustion reactions:
Ki = exp(−ΔreG°i / (RT°))
K0M = e274.37 ≈ 1 × 10119
K1M = e578.41 ≈ 1 × 10251
K2M = e879.79 ≈ 1 × 10382
Equilibrium constants are practically equal to infinity; the equilibrium mixture of the outlet
gases contains reaction products only.
2.4 All reactions increase the number of the moles of gaseous species, so increasing the
pressure will suppress the extent of the reaction (though negligibly for such values of K). All
reactions are strongly exothermic, so increasing the temperature will affect the equilibrium
in the same direction as pressure.
2.5 Summarizing the chemical equation representing the fuel mixture combustion:
N2H4 (l) + N2H3CH3 (l) + N2H2(CH3)2 (l) + 3.75 N2O4 (l) → 6.75 N2 (g) + 9 H2O (g) + 3 CO2 (g)
– (Δre 𝐻0M + Δre 𝐻1M + Δre 𝐻2M ) = (6.75 𝐶𝑝(N2 ) + 9 𝐶𝑝(H2 O) + 3 𝐶𝑝(CO2 ) )(𝑇f − 𝑇0 ), solve for Tf
Tf = 4 288.65 K
2.6 Burning of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine with oxygen can be expressed as:
N2H2(CH3)2 (l) + 4 O2 (g) → N2 (g) + 2 CO2 (g) + 4 H2O (g)
– Δcomb 𝐻2M = (𝐶𝑝(N2 ) + 4 𝐶𝑝(H2 O) + 2 𝐶𝑝(CO2 ) )(𝑇x − 𝑇0 ) , solve for Tx
Tx = 5 248.16 K

2.7 There is no temperature range of coexistence of both liquid oxygen and

1,1-dimethylhydrazine, either 1,1-dimethylhydrazine is liquid and O2 is a supercritical fluid,
or O2 is liquid and 1,1-dimethylhydrazine is solid.
2.8 Very high working temperatures maximize the temperature difference term in relation to the
hypothetical efficiency of the Carnot engine. Assuming the low temperature equals T°, we
get: η = (Tf − T°) / Tf = 93.0%.

Problem 3. HIV protease

3.1 Lopinavir binds most strongly, as illustrated by its smallest dissociation constant KD.
3.2 Apply ΔG° = −RT lnKD, and consider that the dissociation and the binding are opposite
reactions. Thus, ΔG°(bind.) = −ΔG°(dissoc.) = RT lnKD, or in a slightly different way,
ΔG°(bind.) = −RT lnKA = −RT ln[1 / KD] = RT lnKD. See below for the numerical results.
3.3 Consider ΔG° = ΔH° − TΔS°. Thus, perform a linear regression of the temperature
dependence of ΔG°. This can be done in at least two simplified ways: (i) Plot the
dependence and draw a straight line connecting the four data points in the best way visually.
Then, read off the slope and intercept of the straight line, which correspond to −ΔS° and
ΔH°, respectively. (ii) Alternatively, choose two data points and set up and solve a set of
two equations for two unknowns, which are ΔS° and ΔH°. The most accurate result should
be obtained if the points for the lowest and highest temperatures are used. See below for
the numerical results.
Temperature Amprenavir Indinavir Lopinavir

°C K KD ΔG° KD ΔG° KD ΔG°
nM kJ mol−1 nM kJ mol−1 nM kJ mol−1
5 278.15 1.39 −47.2 3.99 −44.7 0.145 −52.4
15 288.15 1.18 −49.3 2.28 −47.7 0.113 −54.9
25 298.15 0.725 −52.2 1.68 −50.1 0.101 −57.1
35 308.15 0.759 −53.8 1.60 −51.9 0.0842 −59.4
ΔS° kJ K−1 mol−1 0.228 0.239 0.233
ΔH° kJ mol −1
16.3 21.5 12.4
coeff. of determin. 0.990 0.989 0.999
Temperature Nelfinavir Ritonavir Saquinavir

°C K KD ΔG° KD ΔG° KD ΔG°
nM kJ mol−1 nM kJ mol−1 nM kJ mol−1
5 278.15 6.83 −43.5 2.57 −45.7 0.391 −50.1
15 288.15 5.99 −45.4 1.24 −49.1 0.320 −52.4
25 298.15 3.67 −48.1 0.831 −51.8 0.297 −54.4
35 308.15 2.83 −50.4 0.720 −53.9 0.245 −56.7
ΔS° kJ K−1 mol−1 0.236 0.273 0.218
ΔH° kJ mol−1 22.4 29.8 10.5
coeff. of determin. 0.995 0.989 0.999

Note 1: ΔS° and ΔH° may also be obtained from a fit of KD or KA, without considering ΔG°.
Here, a straight line would be fitted to the dependence:
ln KA = −lnKD = ΔS° / R − ΔH° / R × 1/T.
Note 2: It is evident that the binding is entropy-driven for all the inhibitors. The entropic gain
stems from the changes in the flexibility of both the protease and the inhibitors, and also
involves solvent effects. However, a molecular picture of those changes is rather complex.
3.4 The slowest dissociation is observed for the compound with the smallest dissociation rate
constant, i.e. Saquinavir.
3.5 Using the relation for the dissociation constant KD = kD / kA and the data at 25 °C, we obtain
for Amprenavir: kA = kD / KD = 4.76 × 10−3 s−1 / (0.725 × 10−9 mol L−1) = 6.57 × 106 L mol−1 s−1.
Analogous calculations performed for the other inhibitors yield the following numerical
results. The fastest association is exhibited by the compound with the largest association
rate constant, i.e. Amprenavir.
Amprenavir Indinavir Lopinavir Nelfinavir Ritonavir Saquinavir

kA
6.57 × 106 2.05 × 106 6.48 × 106 0.59 × 106 3.12 × 106 1.43 × 106
dm3 mol–1 s–1
3.6 The Arrhenius equation for the rate constant reads k = A × exp[−ΔG‡ / RT]. For two known
rate constants of dissociation k1 and k2 determined at temperatures T1 and T2, respectively,
we obtain a system of two equations,
k1 = A × exp[−ΔG‡ / RT1]
k2 = A × exp[−ΔG‡ / RT2],
from which the activation energy of dissociation results as ΔG‡ = (ln k1 / k2) / (1 / RT2 − 1 / RT1).
Numerically, the activation energy is 8.9 kJ mol−1 for Lopinavir, 32.6 kJ mol−1 for Amprenavir
(which has the fastest association rate constant) and 36.8 kJ mol−1 for Saquinavir (which
has the lowest dissociation rate constant).
3.7 No, these are two different compounds. The strongest protease binder is not the same
inhibitor as the one with the slowest dissociation. This observation may seem
counter-intuitive if the distinction between thermodynamics (here, the strength of binding
expressed by the equilibrium constant) and kinetics (the rate of binding represented by the
rate constant or activation energy for dissociation) is not understood properly. While the
equilibrium constant of dissociation captures the thermodynamic stability of the respective
protein–inhibitor complex, the rate constant describes the kinetics of the process. These
are two different sets of properties and they only become related if the rates of both
dissociation and association are considered, KD = kD / kA.

Problem 4. Enantioselective hydrogenation

4.1 Structure:
𝑅−𝑆 𝑘𝑅 𝑅 95 𝑘𝑅
4.2 90% 𝑒𝑒 = => = = = 19 => 𝑘𝑆 = = 1.3 × 10–6 s–1
𝑅+𝑆 𝑘𝑆 𝑆 5 19
4.3 From the previous question; at −40 °C 𝑘𝑅 = 19 × 𝑘𝑆 . Substitute from the Arrhenius equation:
−𝐸a (𝑅) −𝐸a (𝑆)
𝐴×𝑒 𝑅×𝑇 = 19 × 𝐴 × 𝑒 𝑅×𝑇 Therefore:
𝐸a (𝑅) = 𝐸a (𝑆) − 𝑅 × 𝑇 × ln(19) = 74 kJ mol–1
𝑅−𝑆 𝑘𝑅 𝑅 99.5
4.4 99% 𝑒𝑒 = => = = = 199
𝑅+𝑆 𝑘𝑆 𝑆 0.5
At any given temperature T:

−𝐸a (𝑅)
𝑘 𝐴×𝑒 𝑅×𝑇
( 𝑘𝑅) = −𝐸a (𝑆) (‡) Therefore:
𝑆 𝑇
𝐴×𝑒 𝑅×𝑇
𝐸a (𝑆) − 𝐸a (𝑅)
𝑇= = 130 K
𝑘
𝑅 × ln ( 𝑅 )
𝑘𝑆 𝑇
At this temperature, the reaction is likely to be really slow which would prevent its actual use.
4.5 The main difference is that (S)-CAT will provide the (S)-product. We will do all the calculations
for (R)-CAT and just invert the sign at the end. It should be noted that the amount of catalyst
does not influence the enantiomeric excess; it only accelerates the reaction.
From equation (‡):
𝐸a(𝑆)−𝐸a(𝑅)
𝑘
( 𝑅) = 𝑒 𝑅×𝑇 = 12.35 => ee = 85%
𝑘𝑆 𝑇
For 90% ee: [α]D20 (c 1.00, EtOH) = +45°,

which means [α]D20 (c 1.00, EtOH) = +42.5° for 85% ee
The same conditions are used for the measurement of the specific rotation, namely, the
temperature, solvent, concentration and wavelength of the light used. Therefore, we can
just invert the sign to obtain the result for the (S)-product:
[α]D20 (c 1.00, EtOH) = −42.5° = −43°
Note: The specific rotation should be formally stated in ° dm−1 cm3 g−1, but in most of the
current scientific literature this is simplified to ° only.
4.6 Since the product is crystalline, the easiest method would be recrystallization. Different
chiral resolution methods can also be used, for example crystallization with a chiral agent
or separation by HPLC with a chiral stationary phase.

Problem 5. Ultrafast reactions

Note: In all equilibrium constants considered below, the concentrations should be in principle
𝑐
replaced by activities 𝑎𝑖 = 𝛾𝑖 𝑐 𝑖 , where we use the standard state for the solution 𝑐0 = 1 mol dm−3 .
0
In all calculations we assume that 𝛾𝑖 = 1 and for clarity, we also ignore the unity 𝑐0 factor. We
also skip the units of quantities in the intermediate steps of the calculations to make the solution
easier to follow.
5.1 The equilibrium constant of neutralization is given as
[H2 O] 55.6 55.6
𝐾= + −
= −7 −7
= = 5.56 × 1015
[H ][OH ] 10 × 10 𝐾w
The constant K is related to the free energy change of the reaction:
Δ𝐺° = −𝑅𝑇ln𝐾 = −89.8 kJ mol−1
Note that the Gibbs free energy change calculated in this way corresponds to the standard
state 𝑐0 = 1 mol dm−3 for all species, including the water solvent. The Gibbs free energy
change can be expressed via the enthalpy and entropy change for the reaction
Δ𝐺° = Δ𝐻° − 𝑇Δ𝑆°
from which
Δ𝐺° − Δ𝐻° −89.8 + 49.65
Δ𝑆° = − =− = 134.8 J K −1 mol−1
𝑇 298
5.2 To estimate the pH of boiling water we need to evaluate Kw at 373 K using the van ’t Hoff’s
formula (alternatively, we could recalculate the constant K). Note that Δ𝐻° was defined for
a reverse reaction, here we have to use Δ𝐻 = 49.65 × 103 J mol−1 . The temperature change
is given as
Δ𝐻° 1 1
ln𝐾w,T2 = ln𝐾w,T1 − ( − )
𝑅 𝑇2 𝑇1
After substitution
49.65 × 103 1 1
ln𝐾w,T2 = ln10−14 − ( − )
𝑅 373 298
we get
𝐾w,T2 = 56.23 × 10−14
which translates into proton concentration at the boiling point of water
[H + ] 𝑇2 = √𝐾𝑤2 = √56.23 × 10−14 = 7.499 × 10−7 mol dm−3
or pH
pH = −log[H + ] 𝑇2 = 6.125
5.3 pD is analogical to pH, i.e. pD = −log[D+ ]. The concentration of [D+ ] cations at 298 K is
given as
[D+ ] = √𝐾𝑤 (D2 O) = √1.35 × 10−15 = 3.67 × 10−8 mol dm−3
and pD is given by
pD = −log[D+ ] = 7.435

5.4
𝑑[D2 O]
= 𝑘1 [D+ ][OD− ] − 𝑘2 [D2 O]
𝑑𝑡
5.5 We start from the rate equation derived in 5.4
𝑑[D2 O]
= 𝑘1 [D+ ][OD− ] − 𝑘2 [D2 O]
𝑑𝑡
All concentrations can be expressed via the quantity x
𝑑𝑥
− = 𝑘1 (([D+ ]eq + 𝑥) × ([OD− ]eq + 𝑥)) − 𝑘2 ([D2 O]eq − 𝑥)
𝑑𝑡
Expanding the right hand side of the equation, we get
𝑑𝑥
− = 𝑘1 [D+ ]eq [OD− ]eq + 𝑥 𝑘1 [OD− ]eq + 𝑥 𝑘1 [D+ ]eq + 𝑘1 𝑥 2 − 𝑘2 [D2 O]eq + 𝑥 𝑘2
𝑑𝑡
Using the equality of the backward and forward reaction rates at equilibrium
𝑘1 [D+ ]eq [OD− ]eq = 𝑘2 [D2 O]eq
and neglecting the (small) quadratic term x2, we can rewrite the equation as
𝑑𝑥
− = 𝑥(𝑘1 [D+ ]eq + 𝑘1 [OD− ]eq + 𝑘2 )
𝑑𝑡
5.6 The relaxation time is given as
1
= 𝑘1 ([D+ ]eq + [OD− ]eq ) + 𝑘2
𝜏
At equilibrium, the backward and forward reaction rates are the same. The concentration of
heavy water [D2 O]eq is given as
𝜌 × 𝑉 × 1 000 1 107
[D2 O]eq = = = 55.3 mol dm−3
𝑉 × 𝑀𝑟 (D2 O) 20.03
𝑘2 [D+ ]eq [OD− ]eq 𝐾w (D2 O) 1.35 × 10−15
𝐾= = = = = 2.44 × 10−17
𝑘1 [D2 O]eq [D2 O]eq 55.3
The relaxation time is then given as
1
= 𝑘1 (𝐾 + [D+ ]eq + [OD− ]eq )
𝜏
Substituting the values of all quantities
1
= 𝑘1 (2.44 × 10−17 + 3.67 × 10−8 + 3.67 × 10−8 )
0.162 × 10−3
we get
1
= 2𝑘1 × 3.67 × 10−8
0.162 × 10−3
𝑘1 = 8.41 × 1010 dm3 mol−1 s−1
We get k2 from the equilibrium constant K
𝑘2 = 𝑘1 𝐾 = 2.05 × 10−6 s−1

5.7 The pH before irradiation is calculated from the dissociation constant of the ground state of
6-hydroxynaphthalene-2-sulfonate.
[H + ][A− ]
𝐾a = = 10−9.12 = 7.59 × 10−10
[HA]
where [A− ] is the concentration of 6-oxidonaphthalene-2-sulfonate and [HA] is the
concentration of 6-hydroxynaphthalene-2-sulfonate.
The concentration of [H + ] is equal to the concentration of [A− ] due to electroneutrality and
can be denoted as y. The equilibrium concentration of the undissociated acid [HA] is 𝑐 − 𝑦,
where 𝑐 is the analytical concentration of the acid. The equilibrium constant is then given
as
𝑦2
𝐾a =
𝑐−𝑦
Because the amount of dissociated acid is very small, we can neglect y in the denominator
𝑦2
𝐾a =
𝑐
From which
𝑦 = √𝐾a × 𝑐 = √7.59 × 10−10 × 5.0 × 10−3 = 1.9 × 10−6 mol dm−3

pH = −log(1.9 × 10−6 ) = 5.72
During irradiation, 1 cm3 of sample absorbs 2.228 × 10−3 J of energy. 1 dm3 would thus
absorb 2.228 J. The number of absorbed photons corresponds to the number of excited
molecules of 6-hydroxynaphthalene-2-sulfonate.
One photon has energy
ℎ𝑐 6.626 × 10−34 × 3.0 × 108
𝐸= = = 6.7 × 10−19 J
𝜆 297 × 10−9
The number of absorbed photons in 1 dm3 is
2.228
𝑁𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑠 = = 3.3 × 1018
6.7 × 10−19
The number of moles of excited molecules of 6-hydroxynaphthalene-2-sulfonate is
𝑁𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑠
𝑛= = 5.5 × 10−6 mol
𝑁A
The pH can again be calculated from the p𝐾a∗ in the excited state; the analytical
concentration c* of the excited acid is now 5.5 × 10−6 mol dm−3 .
Let us denote by x the proton concentration [H + ] and by y* the concentration of the
6-oxidonaphthalene-2-sulfonate in the excited state [A− ]∗. The electroneutrality condition
implies
𝑥 = 𝑦∗ + 𝑦
The two equilibrium constants are expressed as
𝑥 𝑦∗
𝐾a∗ = = 10−1.66 = 0.022
𝑐∗ − 𝑦∗

𝑥𝑦
𝐾a = = 10−9.12 = 7.59 × 10−10
𝑐
where we assumed 𝑐 − 𝑐 ∗ − 𝑦 ≈ 𝑐 in the denominator of the last equation. These three
equations constitute a system of equations from which we get
𝑥 3 + 𝐾a∗ 𝑥 2 − (𝐾a 𝑐 + 𝐾a∗ 𝑐 ∗ )𝑥 − 𝐾a 𝐾a∗ 𝑐 = 0
or
𝑥 3 + 0.022𝑥 2 − 1.21 × 10−7 𝑥 − 8.35 × 10−14 = 0
We can solve this equation e.g. with any on-line solver of cubic equations
𝑥 = 6.12 × 10−6 mol dm−3
Which corresponds to
pH = −log (6.12 × 10−6 ) = 5.21
It is possible to avoid solving cubic equations by an iterative solution. In the first step, we
assume that 𝑦 ≈ 0. The equation for 𝐾a∗ then transforms to
𝑥 𝑦∗ 𝑦∗2
𝐾a∗ = ≈
𝑐∗ − 𝑦∗ 𝑐∗ − 𝑦∗
y* can be calculated from the quadratic equation
𝑦 ∗ 2 + 𝐾a∗ 𝑦 ∗ − 𝐾a∗ 𝑐 ∗ = 0
−0.022 + √0.0222 + 4 × 5.5 × 10−6 × 0.022
𝑦∗ = = 5.5 × 10−6 mol dm−3
2
Next, we update the concentration of the anion in the ground state y from the corresponding
equilibrium constant
(𝑦 ∗ + 𝑦) 𝑦
𝐾a =
𝑐
From which y can be obtained by solving a quadratic equation
𝑦 2 + 𝑦 𝑦 ∗ − 𝐾a 𝑐 = 0
This again leads to the quadratic equation
𝑦 2 + 𝑦 × 5.5 × 10−6 − 7.59 × 10−10 × 5.0 × 10−3 = 0
−5.5 × 10−6 + √(5.5 × 10−6 )2 + 4 × 7.59 × 10−10 × 5 × 10−3
𝑦=
2
𝑦 = 6.2 × 10−7 mol dm−3
The concentration of [H + ] is
𝑥 = 𝑦 ∗ + 𝑦 = 5.5 × 10−6 + 6 × 10−7 = 6.1 × 10−6 mol dm−3
pH = − log(6.1 × 10−6 ) = 5.21
We could now repeat the whole cycle: with the first estimate of x, we would get a new value
of 𝑦 ∗ and continue with these new values of y and x until convergence is reached. At the
level of precision in our calculations, the concentration is already converged in the first
iteration. Generally, more iterative cycles would be needed.

Problem 6. Kinetic isotope effects

𝑚 ×𝑚 19
6.1 Reduced mass: 𝜇 = 𝑚F + 𝑚H = 20 amu = 1.578 × 10−27 kg
F H
𝜈 1 𝑘 1 968
Wavenumber: 𝜈̃ = = √ = √ = 4.159 × 105 m−1
𝑐 2𝜋𝑐 𝜇 2𝜋 × 2.9979 × 108 1.578 × 10−27
𝜈̃ = 4 159 cm−1
1 1
Energies: 𝐸0 = 2
ℎ × 𝑐 × 𝑣̃ = 2 × 6.6261 × 10−34 × 2.9979 × 108 × 4.159 × 105 =
= 4.13 × 10−20 J
3
𝐸1 = ℎ × 𝑐 × 𝑣̃ = 1.24 × 10−19 J
2
6.2 We are going to determine the atomic mass A of the lighter isotope of the element X.
2 × (𝐴 + 2)
𝑣̃1 2 𝜇2 2 × (𝐴 + 2) × (𝐴 + 1)
( ) = = 2+𝐴+2 =
𝑣̃2 𝜇1 1×𝐴 𝐴 × (𝐴 + 4)
𝐴+1
1 2 439.0 2 𝐴2 + 3 × 𝐴 + 2
( ) =
2 1 734.8 𝐴2 + 4 × 𝐴
A = 79.4 amu
A = 79; A + 2 = 81; X = Br
The second root of the quadratic equation 2.155, which would correspond to A = 2
and A + 2 = 4, is unphysical.
6.3 The difference of the activation energies Ea(H−C) − Ea(D−C) is equal to the negatively taken
difference of zero-point vibrational energies: − E0(H−C) + E0(D−C)
𝑘(C‒ H) 𝐸a (C‒ H) − 𝐸a (C‒ D) 𝐸0 (C‒ H) − 𝐸0 (C‒ D)
= exp (− ) = exp ( )
𝑘(C‒ D) 𝑘𝑇 𝑘𝑇
𝑘(C‒ H) ℎ𝑐
= exp ( (𝑣̃(C‒ H) − 𝑣̃(C‒ D)))
𝑘(C‒ D) 2𝑘𝑇
𝑘(C‒ H) 6.6261 × 10−34 × 2.9979 × 108

= exp ( (2.9 × 105 − 2.1 × 105 ))
𝑘(C‒ D) 2 × 1.3807 × 10−23 × 300
𝑘(C‒ H)
= 6.81
𝑘(C‒ D)
6.4 E2 elimination. The value of the kinetic isotope effect of 6.5 indicates that the C−H/D bond
is broken in the rate-determining step of the reaction.
6.5 For a tertiary substrate, we can expect E1 elimination, where the C−H/D bond is not broken
during the rate-determining step. Therefore, we observe only a small secondary kinetic
isotope effect with the kH / kD ratio slightly larger than 1.0.

Problem 7. Designing a photoelectrochemical cell

7.1 Reduction potentials for reactions b), c), d), f) and h) are dependent on pH.
7.2 The potential dependence on pH is a linear function with intercept equal to E° and slope
equal to:
𝑅𝑇 [𝐀red ] 𝑅𝑇 [𝐀red ]
𝐸 = 𝐸° − ln + 𝑛
= 𝐸° − (ln − 𝑛 × ln[H + ]) =
𝑧𝐹 [𝐀ox ][H ] 𝑧𝐹 [𝐀ox ]
𝑛𝑅𝑇 𝑛𝑅𝑇 𝑛𝑅𝑇

= 𝐸° + × log[H + ] = 𝐸 ° − × (−log[H + ]) = 𝐸 ° − × pH
𝑧𝐹 log(𝑒) 𝑧𝐹 log(𝑒) 𝑧𝐹 log(𝑒)
7.3 Standard potential E°(C) is more positive than E°(B), hence substance C is a stronger
oxidizer and will therefore oxidize substance B (a), and the standard reaction potential 𝐸𝑟°
will be 0.288V (b):
𝐂ox + 2e− → 𝐂red 𝐸C° = +0.824 V
𝐁red → 𝐁ox + 3e− 𝐸B∗ = −0.536 V
3𝐂ox + 6e− → 3𝐂red

2𝐁red → 2𝐁ox + 6e−
3𝐂ox + 2𝐁red → 3𝐂red + 2𝐁ox
𝐸r° = 𝐸C° + 𝐸B∗ = 0.824 − 0.536 V = +0.288 V
c) using formula:
Δ𝐺 ° = −𝑅𝑇ln(𝐾) = −𝑧𝐹𝐸𝑟°
𝑧𝐹𝐸𝑟° 6 × 96 485 × 0.288

𝐾 = exp ( ) ≅ exp ( ) ≅ 1.62 × 1029
𝑅𝑇 8.3145 × 298.15
7.4 Reaction E is pH-dependent and its potential drop is 52 mV per pH unit (as can be
calculated from formula derived in question 7.2: z = 1, n = 1, T = 262 K). The reaction
potential Er = EE – ED is calculated from the equilibrium constant:
𝑅𝑇ln(𝐾) 8.3145 × 262 × ln(2.56 × 105 )
𝑅𝑇ln(𝐾) = 𝑧𝐹𝐸𝑟° ⇒ = ≅ 0.28 𝑉
𝑧𝐹 1 × 96 485
The potential for the reduction of substance E is EE = ED + Er = 0.55 V + 0.28 V = 0.83 V.

This value of potential is achieved at pH = 2.31. The two lines cross at pH = 7.7 (roughly);
D will oxidize E in the pH range from 7.7 to 13.

1,0
ED
0,8
EE
0,6 pH = 7.7, breakpoint

E [V]
pH = 2.31, dE = 0.28 V
0,4
0,2
D will oxidize E at pH 7.7 - 13
0,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
pH
7.5 Using the formula for electrolysis:

𝑚 𝑄 𝐼𝑡 𝑚𝑧𝐹 0.005 × 3 × 96 485
𝑄 = 𝑛𝑧𝐹 ⟹ = = ⟹𝑡= = s ≅ 294 s
𝑀 𝑧𝐹 𝑧𝐹 𝑀𝐼 197 × 0.025
7.6 Only materials G and I can be used to catalyze the given reaction, because their HOMOs
lie below Eox and their LUMOs are higher than Ered. While material G can be irradiated only
by UV light with a wavelength lower than 388 nm, material I can be irradiated by either
visible or UV light, because the maximal wavelength that can be used to overcome the
energy difference of 2 eV is equal to 620 nm.
ℎ𝑐 6.626 × 10−34 × 3 × 108
𝜆 (𝐆) = = ≅ 388 × 10−9 m = 388 nm
𝑞𝑒 𝐸[eV] 1.602 × 10−19 × 3.2
ℎ𝑐 6.626 × 10−34 × 3 × 108

𝜆 (𝐈) = = ≅ 620 × 10−9 m = 620 nm
𝑞𝑒 𝐸[eV] 1.602 × 10−19 × 2

Problem 8. Fuel cells

8.1 First, find the driving force, i.e., the Gibbs energy of the reaction H2 + ½ O2 → H2O
under standard conditions (298 K and 1 bar). Then, convert it to the EMF (voltage).
The standard reaction enthalpy and entropy are
Δ𝑟 𝐻° = Δ𝑓 𝐻°(H2 O(l)) = −286 kJ mol−1
1 205
Δ𝑟 𝑆° = 𝑆°(H2 O(l)) − (𝑆°(H2 (g)) + 𝑆°(O2 (g))) = 70 − (131 + )=
2 2
= − 163.5 J K −1 mol−1
The standard change of Gibbs energy is
Δ𝑟 𝐺° = Δ𝑟 𝐻° − 𝑇Δ𝑟 𝑆° = −286 − 298 × (−163.5 × 10−3 ) = −237.3 kJ mol−1
The standard EMF is then
Δ𝑟 𝐺° −237.3 × 103
𝐸° = − = = 1.23 V
|𝑧|𝐹 2 × 96 485
8.2 The solution is similar to the previous one with the difference of water state.
Δ𝑟 𝐻° = Δ𝑓 𝐻°(H2 O(g)) = −242 kJ mol−1
1 205
Δ𝑟 𝑆° = 𝑆°(H2 O(g)) − (𝑆°(H2 (g)) + 𝑆°(O2 (g))) = 189 − (131 + )=
2 2
= − 44.5 J K −1 mol−1
The standard change of Gibbs energy is
Δ𝑟 𝐺° = Δ𝑟 𝐻° − 𝑇Δ𝑟 𝑆° = −242 − 298 × (−44.5 × 10−3 ) = −228.7 kJ mol−1
The standard EMF is then
Δ𝑟 𝐺° −228.7 × 103
𝐸° = − = = 1.19 V
|𝑧|𝐹 2 × 96 485
8.3 The ideal thermodynamic efficiency is:
Δ𝑟 𝐺° Δ𝑟 𝐻° − 𝑇Δ𝑟 𝑆° Δ𝑟 𝑆°
𝜂𝑡 = = =1−𝑇×
Δ𝑟 𝐻° Δ𝑟 𝐻° Δ𝑟 𝐻°
For both cells and for various temperatures, we get:
−163.5
𝜂𝑡 (H2 O(l), 298 K) = 1 − 298 × ( ) = 0.830
−286 × 103
−163.5
𝜂𝑡 (H2 O(l), 373 K) = 1 − 373 × ( ) = 0.787
−286 × 103
−44.5
𝜂𝑡 (H2 O(g), 298 K) = 1 − 298 × ( ) = 0.945
−242 × 103
−44.5
𝜂𝑡 (H2 O(g), 373 K) = 1 − 373 × ( ) = 0.931
−242 × 103

8.4 Cathode: O2 + 4 e− + 4 H+ → 2 H2O

Anode: C4H10 + 8 H2O → 4 CO2 + 26 H+ + 26 e−
8.5 The overall reaction is:
2 C4H10 + 13 O2 → 8 CO2 + 10 H2O
The reaction as accompanied by the transfer of 52 electrons. Hence, at standard
temperature:
Δ𝑓 𝐺°(H2 O(l)) = −237.3 kJ mol−1
Δ𝑓 𝐺°(CO2 (g)) = −393 − 298 × ((214 − (6 + 205)) × 10−3 ) = −393.9 kJ mol−1
Δ𝑓 𝐺°(C4 H10 (g)) = −17 kJ mol−1
Δ𝑓 𝐺°(O2 (g)) = 0
Δ𝑟 𝐺° = (8Δ𝑓 𝐺°(CO2 (g)) + 10Δ𝑓 𝐺°(H2 O(l))) − (2Δ𝑓 𝐺°(C4 H10 (g)) + 13Δ𝑓 𝐺°(O2 (g))) =
= (8 × (−393.9) + 10 × (−237.3)) − (2 × (−17) + 13 × 0) = −5 490 kJ mol−1
Δ𝑟 𝐺° −5 490 × 103
𝐸° = − =− = 1.09 V
|𝑧|𝐹 52 × 96 485
8.6 The ideal thermodynamic efficiency is determined as:
Δ𝑟 𝐺° −5 490.2
𝜂𝑡 = = = 0.954
Δ𝑟 𝐻° (8 × (−393) + 10 × (−286)) − (2 × (−126) + 13 × 0)
8.7 It is the same as in the previous answer. The overall reaction is the same.
8.8 Anode: CH3OH + H2O → 6 H+ + 6 e− + CO2
Cathode: O2 + 4 H+ + 4 e− → 2 H2O
Overall: 2 CH3OH + 3 O2 → 2 CO2 + 4 H2O
8.9 Nernst equation
𝑐H O 4 𝑝CO 2
𝑅𝑇 ( 𝑐°2 ) ( 𝑝° 2 )
𝐸 = 𝐸° − ln
12𝐹 𝑐CH OH 2 𝑝O 3
( 3 ) ( 2)
𝑐° 𝑝°
Any answer with correctly expressed activities (e.g. using molar fractions) is assumed to be
correct.
8.10 We use van ’t Hoff equation, in which we substitute EMFs for equilibrium constants. We
obtain reaction enthalpy and Gibbs free energy changes, which we use to calculate the
entropy change:
𝐾(𝑇 ) Δ𝑟 𝐻° 1 1 |𝑧|𝐹𝐸° |𝑧|𝐹𝐸°(𝑇2 ) |𝑧|𝐹𝐸°(𝑇1 ) Δ𝑟 𝐻° 1 1
ln 𝐾(𝑇2 ) = 𝑅
(𝑇 − 𝑇 ) ; ln 𝐾(𝑇) = 𝑅𝑇
→ 𝑅𝑇2
− 𝑅𝑇1
= 𝑅
(𝑇 −𝑇)
1 1 2 1 2
|𝑧|𝐹𝐸°(𝑇2 ) |𝑧|𝐹𝐸°(𝑇1 ) 𝐸°(𝑇2 ) 𝐸°(𝑇1 ) 1.20 1.21

𝑅×( − ) |𝑧|𝐹 ×( − ) 12 × 96 485 × ( − )
𝑅𝑇2 𝑅𝑇1 𝑇2 𝑇1
Δ𝑟 𝐻° = 1 1 = 1 1 = 1
373
1
298
= −1 447 kJ mol−1
− − −
𝑇1 𝑇2 𝑇1 𝑇2 298 373
Δ𝑟 𝐺° = −|𝑧|𝐹𝐸°(𝑇1 ) = −12 × 96 485 × 1.21 = −1 401 kJ mol−1

Δ𝑟 𝐻° − Δ𝑟 𝐺° −1 447 × 103 − (−1 401 × 103 )
Δ𝑟 𝑆° = = = −154.4 J K −1 mol−1
𝑇1 298

Problem 9. Acid-base equilibria in blood

9.1 CO2 concentration:
[CO2 ] = 𝐻 𝑐𝑝 × 𝑝(CO2 )
[CO2 ] = 2.3 × 10−7 × 5 300 mol dm−3
[CO2 ] = 1.219 × 10−3 mol dm−3
−
The initial concentration of bicarbonate in blood with no acid added, c(HCO3 , 37 °C):
[HCO−3]
pH = p𝐾a + log
[CO2 ]
log[HCO−
3 ] = pH − p𝐾a + log[CO2 ]
log[HCO− −3
3 ] = 7.4 − 6.1 + log(1.219 × 10 )
log[HCO−
3 ] = 7.4 − 6.1 − 2.9
log[HCO−
3 ] = −1.6
[HCO−
3 ] = 24 mmol dm
−3
pH after 10 mmol of acids were added to 1 dm3 of the buffer solution:

[HCO− +
3 ] − [H ]
pH = p𝐾a + log
[CO2 ] + [H + ]
0.024 − 0.010
pH = 6.1 + log
0.001219 + 0.010
pH = 6.21
9.2
[HCO− +
3 ] − [H ]
pH = p𝐾a + log
[CO2 ]
0.024 − 0.010
pH = 6.1 + log
0.001219
pH = 7.17
The buffering capacity of the bicarbonate buffer is higher when the system is open.
However, pH is still outside the physiologic range (pH = 7.36–7.44). Non-bicarbonate
buffers (e.g. albumin, phosphate, haemoglobin) that are present in blood additionally
increase the overall buffering capacity of blood and help to keep pH within the physiologic
range.
9.3 The van ’t Hoff’s equation will be used:
𝑑ln𝐾 Δ𝑟 𝐻
− =− 2
𝑑𝑇 𝑇
First, the integrated form is applied to calculate the reaction enthalpy from the pKa values
at 37 °C and 25 °C.

Δ𝑟 𝐻 1 1
ln𝐾2 − ln𝐾1 = − ( − )
R 𝑇2 𝑇1
Δ𝑟 𝐻 1 1
ln𝐾310.15 K − ln𝐾298.15 K = − ( − )
R 310.15 298.15
Δ𝑟 𝐻
−14.05 + 14.62 = 1.30 × 10−4 ×
8.314
Δ𝑟 𝐻 = 36.88 kJ mol−1
Then, that same equation is used to calculate the pKa at 20 °C:
Δ𝑟 𝐻 1 1
ln𝐾2 − ln𝐾1 = − ( − )
R 𝑇2 𝑇1
36 520 1 1
ln𝐾293.15 + 14.62 = − ( − )
8.314 293.15 298.15
ln𝐾293.15 = −14.87
𝐾293.15 = 3.48 × 10−7
p𝐾a (293.15 K) = 6.46
Henry’s solubility of CO2 is recalculated in an analogous way:
−Δ𝐻vap 1 1
cp cp ( − )
𝐻T2 = 𝐻T1 × 𝑒 R T2 T1
1 1
cp 2 400 × ( − )
𝐻293.15 K = 2.3 × 10−4 × 𝑒 293.15 310.15
cp
𝐻293.15 K = 3.6 × 10−4 mol m−3 Pa−1
Finally, the pH of blood at 20 °C is obtained using these recalculated values:
[HCO−
3]
pH = p𝐾a + log cp
H × 𝑝(CO2 )
0.024
pH = 6.46 + log
3.6 × 10−7 × 5 300
pH = 7.57
9.4 In a working muscle, high oxygen supply is ensured by lowering the affinity towards oxygen
in an acidic environment. In lungs, by contrast, CO2 is liberated from haemoglobin in red
blood cells, which, in turn, binds oxygen with a greater affinity.

Problem 10. Ion exchange capacity of a cation exchange resin

10.1 The molecular formula of one unit of the catex polymer is C17H16O5S1, which corresponds
to the molecular weight of 332.369 g mol−1. Mass percentage of an atom wx is
a𝑥 𝐴𝑥
𝑤𝑥 =
𝑀
where ax and Ax are the number of atoms and the atomic weight of an atom X, respectively.
M is the molecular weight of one unit of the catex polymer. For sulfur (aS = 1,
AS = 32.06 g mol−1) and carbon (aC = 17, AC = 12.011 g mol−1), the mass percentage is
wS = 9.65% and wC = 61.43%, respectively.
10.2 The theoretical ion exchange capacity is the amount of exchange groups in one unit of the
catex polymer per mass of the unit, i.e.
a𝑥
𝑄m,x =
𝑀
For -SO3H (one ion exchange group, aSO3H = 1) and -COOH (one ion exchange group
aCOOH = 1) we get Qm,SO3H = Qm,COOH = 3.01 mmol g−1.
10.3 The total ion exchange capacity is a sum of individual strong and weak exchange capacities.
For Qm,SO3H = Qm,COOH = 3.01 mmol g−1 we get Qm,total = 6.02 mmol g−1.
10.4 The total ion exchange capacity in mmol cm−3 of a swollen resin QV,total is
𝑄V,total = 𝑄m,total (1 − ε) ρ (1 − 𝑤)
where ε and ρ are porosity and density, respectively, of a swollen resin and w is the mass
ratio of water bound to the resin. For Qm,total = 6.02 mmol g−1, ε = 0.48, ρ = 1.28 g cm−3, and
w = 0.45 we get QV,total = 6.02 × (1 − 0.48) × 1.28 × (1 − 0.45) = 2.20 mmol cm−3.

Problem 11. Weak and strong cation exchange resin

11.1 At the beginning, all cation exchange sites are occupied with Na+ ions. Weak acetic acid
exchanges all the weakly bound Na+ ions (weak cation exchange sites) and some of the
strongly bound Na+ ions (strong cation exchange sites). The amount of Na+ in solution A is
n1. When the resin is rinsed with a neutral solution of Mg2+ ions, all ions at the strong cation
exchange sites are exchanged for Mg2+. Thus, solution B contains n2 moles of Na+ and n3
moles of H+.
The electrode potential is linearly proportional to the logarithm of concentration; i.e. for
sodium ion selective electrode E = k + S log10[Na+]. Based on a two-point calibration, we
get the following equations
−0.2283 = k + S log(0.0100) and −0.3466 = k + S log(0.00010)
Solving the system of equations, we get k = −0.1100 V and S = 0.05915 V.
The amounts of Na+ ions in solutions A (VA = 1 000 cm3) and B (VB = 500 cm3) are
𝐸1 −𝑘 −0.2313−(−0.1100)
𝑛1 = 𝑉A 𝑐Na,A = 𝑉A 10 𝑆 = 1 × 10 0.05915 = 8.90 mmol
𝐸4 −𝑘 −0.2534−(−0.1100)
𝑛2 = 𝑉B 𝑐Na,B = 𝑉B 10 𝑆 = 0.5 × 10 0.05915 = 1.88 mmol
The alkalimetric titration is based on 1:1 stoichiometry of the reaction of OH− (titration agent)
and H+ (titrant). Then amount of H+ ions in solution B (Va is an aliquot of 100 cm3) is
𝑉B 0.500
𝑛3 = 𝑉NaOH × 𝑐NaOH × 𝑉a
= 0.0125 × 0.1000 × 0.100
= 6.25 mmol
Ion exchange capacities of the strong and weak ion exchange resins (V0 = 4 cm3)
𝑛2 + 𝑛3 1.88 + 6.25
𝑄V,SO3H = 𝑄V,strong = 𝑉0
= 4
= 2.033 mmol cm−3
𝑛1 − 𝑛3 8.90 − 6.25
𝑄V,COOH = 𝑄V,weak = = = 0.662 mmol cm−3
𝑉0 4
11.2 The total ion exchange capacity is

𝑄V,total = 𝑄V,SO3H + 𝑄V,COOH = 2.033 + 0.662 = 2.695 mmol cm−3

Problem 12. Uranyl extraction

12.1 First, [HA]org is calculated:
𝑐HA,org,0 = 2[(HA)2 ]org + [HA]org + [HA]aq + [A− ]aq
The concentration of UO2A2 is omitted as recommended in the introductory text.

From the definition of Kp,HA, KD,HA and Ka,HA, [HA]org can be obtained by solving the quadratic
equation
1 𝐾a,HA
2𝐾p × [HA]2org + [HA]org × (1 + + ) − 𝑐HA,org,0 = 0
𝐾D,HA 𝐾D,HA × [H + ]aq
i.e.
2
1 𝐾a,HA 1 𝐾a,HA
− (1 + + ) + √(1 + + ) + 8𝐾p × 𝑐HA,org,0
𝐾D,HA 𝐾D,HA × [H+ ]aq 𝐾D,HA 𝐾D,HA × [H+ ]aq
[HA]org =
4𝐾p
Considering that the proton concentration corresponds to the analytic concentration of
HNO3, [H+]aq = 10−pH = 2.00 × 10−2 mol dm−3, we get [HA]org = 3.41 × 10−3 mol dm−3. Next,
the uranyl ion distribution ratio, 𝐷c,UO2+
2
is expressed as:
𝑐UO2+
2 ,org
[UO2 A2 ]org
𝐷c,UO2+ = =
2 𝑐UO2+
2 ,aq
[UO2+ 4 2−𝑖
2 ]aq + [UO2 A2 ]aq + ∑𝑖=1[UO2 (OH)𝑖 ]aq
Using 2,UO , 𝐾D,UO2 A2 , 𝐾a,HA and i for [UO2(OH)i]2–i complexes, 𝐷c,UO2+ can be expressed as
2 A2 2
𝐾D,UO2 A2
𝐷c,UO2+ = 2
2 𝐾D,HA [H + ]2aq
1+ × × (1 + ∑4𝑖=1 𝛽𝑖 × [OH − ]𝑖aq )
2,UO2A2 × 𝐾a,HA
2
[HA]2org
The concentration of hydroxyl ions is obtained from the concentration of protons,

𝐾w
[OH − ]aq =
[H + ]aq
For [H+]aq = 2.00 × 10−2 mol dm−3, we get
1014
[OH − ]aq = 2×10−2 = 5 × 10−13 mol dm−3
Casting this value, [HA]org = 3.41 × 10−3 mol dm−3 and all the necessary constants into the
expression for the distribution ratio, we obtain
𝐷c,UO2+
2
= 5.61
Then, the yield R defined as

𝑛,org 𝐷c,UO2+
2
𝑅= =
𝑛,org + 𝑛,aq 𝑉aq
𝐷c,UO2+ +
2 𝑉org
can be calculated, providing the final result of
5.61
𝑅= = 84.9%
5.61 + 1

12.2 For the conditions of [H+] = 10−pH = 5.01 × 10−11 mol dm−3, using the same calculation
procedure, we get
[HA]org = 1.50 × 10−5 mol dm−3
𝐷c,UO2+
2
= 1.22 × 10−4
and the yield R = 0.0122%.

Problem 13. Determination of active chlorine in commercial

products
13.1 (i) Cl2 + H2O → HClO (A) + HCl (B)
(ii) NaClO + H2O → HClO (A) + NaOH (C)
In alkaline aqueous solution, hypochlorite ion (ClO−) will dominate.
13.2
𝜌(Cl2 )
𝑐(NaClO) =
𝑀(Cl2 )
22.4
𝑐(NaClO) = = 0.3159 mol dm–3
70.906
13.3 ClO− + 2 I− + 2 H+ → I2 + H2O + Cl−
I2 + 2 S2O32− → 2 I− + S4O62−
1 𝑉flask
𝑤(NaClO) = 𝑐(S2 O3 2− ) × 𝑉(S2 O3 2− ) × × 𝑀(NaClO) ×
2 ρSAVO × 𝑉SAVO × 𝑉a
1 0.250
𝑤(NaClO) = 0.0503 × 0.01015 × × 74.44 × × 100% = 4.44%
2 1.070 × 0.010 × 0.010

Problem 14. Chemical elements in fireworks

14.1 An aqueous sample is introduced to a hot, non-luminous flame, where the tested compound
is partially evaporated, atomized and free atoms are excited. During de-excitation, the
energy difference between the atomic energy levels is emitted as a photon of an appropriate
wavelength, characteristic of the particular chemical element. In this case, all three
wavelengths are in the visible region of the spectrum and the corresponding colours for
sodium, barium and lithium are yellow, lime green and red, respectively.
14.2 The structure of a metal–EDTA complex is
δ(HY3−) = [HY3−] / c(EDTA) = β1 [H+] / (1 + β1 [H+] + β2 [H+]2 + β3 [H+]3+ β4 [H+]4)

δ(Y4−) = [Y4−] / c(EDTA) = 1 / (1 + β1 [H+] + β2 [H+]2 + β3 [H+]3+ β4 [H+]4),
where β1 = 1 / Ka4, β2 = 1 / (Ka4 Ka3), β3 = 1 / (Ka4 Ka3 Ka2), β4 = 1 / (Ka4 Ka3 Ka2 Ka1)
δ(HY3−) = 1.82 × 1010 × 10−10 / (1 + 1.82 × 1010 × 10−10 + 2.63 × 1016 × 10−20 + 1.23 × 1019 × 10−30 +
+ 1.23 × 1021 × 10−40) = 0.6453, i.e. 64.53%
δ(Y4−) = 1 / (1 + 1.82 × 1010 × 10−10 + 2.63 × 1016 × 10−20 + 1.23 × 1019 × 10−30 + 1.23 × 1021 × 10−40) =
= 0.3546, i.e. 35.46%
δ(HY3−) + δ(Y4−) = 99.99% , hence other forms are present at molar ratios lower than 0.5%.
14.3 Ammonium buffer is a mixture of ammonia and ammonium chloride. Ions of alkaline earth
metals form weak complexes with EDTA (log KMY between 7.7 and 10.7) and are present
only in alkaline media (pH  9).
14.4 Zn2+ + 4 CN− → [Zn(CN)4]2−
[Zn(CN)4]2− + 4 HCHO + 4 H2O → Zn2+ + 4 HOCH2CN + 4 OH−
14.5 2,3-Disulfanylpropan-1-ol is used for masking lead ions.
14.6 Step i: Zinc is masked in the cyanide complex, lead and magnesium react with EDTA
n(Pb) + n(Mg) = n1(EDTA)
Step ii: EDTA released from its complex with lead ions reacts with magnesium standard solution
n(Pb) = nstd(Mg)
Step iii: Zinc released from cyanide complex reacts with EDTA
n(Zn) = n2(EDTA)

Masses of the elements in the sample (m1 = 1 g)

𝐴(Pb)
𝑚(Pb) = 𝑐std (Mg) × 𝑉std (Mg) × × 𝑚1
𝑚(sample)
207.20
𝑚(Pb) = 0.01087 × 0.0128 × × 1 = 34.03 mg
0.8472
𝑛(Mg) = 𝑛1 (𝐸𝐷𝑇𝐴) − 𝑛std (Mg)
𝐴(Mg)
𝑚(Mg) = (𝑐(EDTA) × 𝑉1 (EDTA) − 𝑐std (Mg) × 𝑉std (Mg)) × × 𝑚1
𝑚(sample)
24.305
𝑚(Mg) = (0.01983 × 0.0359 − 0.01087 × 0.0128) × × 1 = 16.43 mg
0.8472
𝐴(Zn)
𝑚(Zn) = 𝑐(EDTA) × 𝑉2 (EDTA) × × 𝑚1
𝑚(sample)
65.38
𝑚(Zn) = 0.01983 × 0.0241 × × 1 = 36.88 mg
0.8472
14.7 Complexation equation: Ca2+ + Y4− → CaY2−
Final analytical concentrations after dilution are:
10 50
𝑐(Ca2+ ) = 100 × 0.05 = 5.0 × 10−3 mol dm–3 𝑐(Y 4– ) = 100 × 0.04 = 2.0 × 10−2 mol dm–3
The coefficient for EDTA side reactions

α(EDTA) = (1 + β1 [H+] + β2 [H+]2 + β3 [H+]3+ β4 [H+]4)
(definitions of βi are in 14.2); for pH = 6
α(EDTA) = (1 + 1.82 × 1010 × 10−6 + 2.63 × 1016 × 10−12 + 1.23 × 1019 × 10−18+ 1.23 × 1021 × 10−24) =
= 4.45 × 104
The final concentration of free Ca2+ ions in the solution is:
β(Ca−EDTA) 1010.61
β𝐼 = α(EDTA)
= 4.45 × 104 = 105.96
Based on the mass balances

𝑐(Ca2+ )
[Ca2+ ] =
1 + β𝐼 [Y4– ]
[Y 4– ] = 𝑐(Y 4– ) − [CaY 2– ] = 𝑐(Y 4– ) − (𝑐(Ca2+ ) − [Ca2+ ])

we get a quadratic equation with the following solution
β𝐼 [Ca2+ ]2 + (1 + β𝐼 𝑐(Y 4– ) − β𝐼 𝑐(Ca2+ ))[Ca2+ ] − 𝑐(Ca2+ ) = 0
[Ca2+ ] = 3.642 × 10–7 mol dm–3

Problem 15. Colours of complexes

15.1 Ground state: Excited state:
15.2 The wavenumber of 20 300 cm−1 corresponds to the wavelength of 493 nm which means
the absorption of the blue-green light. The colour of the complex is the complementary one,
i.e. orange-red.
15.3 The complex absorbs visible light in the range from 493 to 575 nm, i.e. blue-green to
yellow-green. The complex is purple.
15.4 Electron configurations:
15.5 Equations:
(1) 2 CoCl2 + 3 F2 → 2 CoF3 + 2 Cl2
(2) CoF3 + 3 KF → K3[CoF6]
(3) 4 CoF3 + 2 H2O → 4 HF + 4 CoF2 + O2
15.6 Equation:
(4) 4 CoCl2 + 4 NH4Cl + 20 NH3 + O2 → 4 [Co(NH3)6]Cl3 + 2 H2O
15.7 The wavenumbers correspond to the wavelengths of 475 nm (blue light) and 340 nm
(UV region). The second band has no effect on the observed colour and the complex is
orange. Luteus means yellow in Latin (it refers to the yellow-orange colour of the complex).
15.8 Due to their position in the spectrochemical series, fluoride ions (F−) cause only small
splitting, which leads to a high-spin configuration with four unpaired electrons. Ammonia
molecules (NH3) cause greater splitting, which means that all the electrons in the t2g orbitals
pair up and a low-spin configuration is formed

15.9 Electron configurations:
15.10 The wavenumbers correspond to the wavelengths of 877 nm (IR region) and 690 nm (red
light). The first band has no effect on the observed colour and the complex is
blue-green.

Problem 16. Iron chemistry

16.1 The requested potentials are calculated as follows, (1)–(3):
E°(FeO42−,H+/Fe2+) = (3 × 1.90 + 1 × 0.77) / 4 V = 1.62 V (1)
E°(FeO42−,H+/Fe) = (3 × 1.90 + 1 × 0.77 + 2 × (−0.44)) / 6 V = 0.93 V (2)
E°(Fe3+/Fe) = (1 × 0.77 + 2 × (−0.44)) / 3 V = −0.04 V (3)
The corresponding Latimer diagram is depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Latimer diagram for iron species in water (pH 0).

16.2 The voltage equivalent is defined as a product of the formal oxidation state N and the
standard redox potential E° (4) for the reduction of the particular species to the elemental
state. The Frost diagram (Figure 2) then plots voltage equivalents versus oxidation state.
Voltage equivalent = N × E°(species/element) (4)
The individual voltage equivalents are calculated from the data above (5)–(8).
Voltage equivalent (Fe) = 0 × 0 V (def.) = 0 V (5)
Voltage equivalent (Fe2+) = 2 × (−0.44) V = −0.88 V (6)
Voltage equivalent (Fe3+) = 3 × (−0.04) V = −0.12 V (7)
Voltage equivalent (FeO42−) = 6 × 0.93 V = 5.58 V (8)

Figure 2. Frost diagram for iron species (pH 0).

Since the imaginary line connecting both the requested oxidation states (FeO 42− and Fe2+,
dashed line in Figure 2) lies above the Fe3+ point in the diagram, a synproportionation will
be favoured, (9):
FeO42− + 3 Fe2+ + 8 H+ → 4 Fe3+ + 4 H2O (9)
16.3
(a) The individual zone labels follow the successive uptake of electrons (from up to down) and
hydroxide anions as ligands (from left to right). The identity of any zone can be checked by
comparing the appropriate borderline definitions. The answers are displayed in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Pourbaix diagram for dissolved iron species and metallic iron.
It should be noted that this type of Pourbaix diagram would be valid only in highly diluted
solutions of iron species. The increase in concentration will lead to the precipitation of
insoluble (first ferric, then ferrous) oxides/hydroxides as well as the formation of polynuclear
hydroxido complexes.
(b) Each borderline is drawn with the assumption that the activities of both participating species
are equal. The equations which refer to lines 11 and 17, respectively, can be derived from
the corresponding forms of the Nernst–Peterson equation (10) and (11) assuming the
equilibrium conditions [Fe3+] = [Fe2+] and [Fe2+] = a(Fe,s). Because there is no term which
depends on pH, the results are horizontal constant lines numerically equal to the standard
redox potentials, see Figure 3.
line 11 (Fe3+/Fe2+): E = E° − 0.059 × log([Fe2+] / [Fe3+]), thus E = 0.77 (10)
line 17 (Fe2+/Fe): E = E° − (0.059 / 2) × log(a(Fe,s) / [Fe2+]), thus E = −0.44 (11)
The conditions for lines 2 and 5 are [Fe3+] = [Fe(OH)2+] and [Fe(OH)3] = [Fe(OH)4−],
respectively, i.e. the expressions imply constant lines again, but in this case vertical ones,
since there is no connection with the redox potential. The analytical expressions are
represented by equations (12) and (13).
line 2 (Fe3+/[Fe(OH)]2+): pH = pKw − logβ1, thus pH = 2.2 (12)
line 5 ([Fe(OH)3]/[Fe(OH)4]−): pH = pKw + logβ3 − logβ4, thus pH = 9.6 (13)

(c) The analytic expression of line 6 (14) is also derived from the Nernst–Peterson equation
under the assumption [FeO42−] = [Fe3+].
line 6 (FeO42−/Fe3+): E = E° − (0.059 / 3) × log{[Fe3+] / ([FeO42−] × [H+]8)},
thus E = 1.90 − 0.157 × pH (14)
The first coordinate of the intersection of lines 2, 6 and 7 is obviously pH = 2.2. The second
coordinate can be calculated by substituting for pH = 2.2 in equation (14), i.e. E = 1.55.
Although it was not required to derive the expressions for all the lines, they are given in the
following list for completeness, (15)–(28), and shown in Figure 3.
line 1 (Fe2+/[Fe(OH)]+): pH = 9.5 (15)
line 3 ([Fe(OH)]2+/[Fe(OH)2]+): pH = 3.5 (16)
line 4 ([Fe(OH)2]+/[Fe(OH)3]): pH = 6.3 (17)
line 7 (FeO42−/[Fe(OH)]2+): E = 1.86 − 0.138 × pH (18)
line 8 (FeO42−/[Fe(OH)2]+): E = 1.79 − 0.118 × pH (19)
line 9 (FeO42−/[Fe(OH)3]): E = 1.66 − 0.098 × pH (20)
line 10 (FeO42−/[Fe(OH)4]−): E = 1.48 − 0.079 × pH (21)
line 12 ([Fe(OH)]2+/Fe2+): E = 0.90 − 0.059 × pH (22)
line 13 ([Fe(OH)2]+/Fe2+): E = 1.11 − 0.118 × pH (23)
line 14 ([Fe(OH)3]/Fe2+): E = 1.48 − 0.177 × pH (24)
line 15 ([Fe(OH)3]/[Fe(OH)]+): E = 0.92 − 0.118 × pH (25)
line 16 ([Fe(OH)4]−/[Fe(OH)]+): E = 1.48 − 0.177 × pH (26)
line 18 ([Fe(OH)]+/Fe): E = −0.16 − 0.030 × pH (27)
line 19 ([Fe(OH)4]−/Fe): E = 0.38 − 0.079 × pH (28)
(d) Ferrate ion can only be produced in a very basic solution by strong oxidizing agents
(stronger than elemental oxygen under these conditions), e.g. hypochlorite (32). This will
overcome line 10 and produce some ferrate ions.
2 [Fe(OH)4]− + 3 ClO− + 2 OH− → 2 FeO42− + 3 Cl− + 5 H2O (32)
Other possibilities are for example oxidation in a mixture of melted sodium nitrate with
sodium hydroxide or analogous reactions in melts.
16.4 From the viewpoint of "Hard and Soft Acid-Base" (HSAB) theory, Fe2+ is an intermediary
hard, Fe3+ hard and imaginary "Fe6+" would be an extremely hard acid (the hardness
correlates with the ionic radii and the surface charge density). Hard acids prefer hard bases
and soft acids prefer soft bases. In aqueous solutions, H2O, OH− and O2− are available
(although the oxide ion is not present in water at all, it can be at least formally "extracted"
by e.g. a precipitation process). Therefore, the tendency to attract harder OH− ions is higher
for Fe3+ than for Fe2+ which leads to a higher proton acidity of the hexaaquaferric ion and
easier hydrolysis to the corresponding hydroxido species. For the Fe6+ centre, only
a similarly extremely hard base is acceptable, i.e. O2− ion (although only formally, since
there are covalent bonds between Fe(VI) and O atoms). Therefore, iron in the oxidation
state +6 exists only in an anionic form.

16.5 The answers are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Electronic and magnetic properties of selected iron species.
Species Conf. Spin state Magn. LFSE

[Fe(H2O)6]2+ d6 high- t2g4eg2 para- −0.4Δo **
4−
[Fe(CN)6] d6
low- t2g6eg0 dia- −2.4Δo + 2P **
[Fe(H2O)6]3+ d5 high- t2g3eg2 para- 0
[Fe(H2O)5OH]2+ d5 high- (t2g3eg2)* para- 0
3−
[Fe(CN)6] d5
low- t2g5eg0 para- −2.0Δo + 2P
Remark: * not Oh symmetry

** with respect to free ion configuration
16.6 a) FeCl3, b) Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3.

Problem 17. Cyanido- and fluorido-complexes of manganese

17.1 (1) 2 Mn + 12 NaCN + 2 H2O → 2 Na5[Mn(CN)6] + H2 + 2 NaOH
17.2 Diagram – low-spin configuration d6:
17.3 Diagram – high-spin configuration d5:
The complex has five unpaired electrons.

17.5 Equations:
(2) 4 Mn2+ + O2 + 24 CN− + 2 H2O → 4 [Mn(CN)6]3− + 4 OH−
(3) 2 [Mn(CN)6]4− + H2O2 → 2 [Mn(CN)6]3− + 2 OH−
(4) 3 MnCl2 + HNO3 + 3 H3PO4 → 3 MnPO4↓ + NO + 6 HCl + 2 H2O
(5) MnPO4 + 6 KCN → K3[Mn(CN)6] + K3PO4
17.7 (6) 4 MnO2 + 12 KHF2 → 4 K3[MnF6] + O2 + 6 H2O

17.8 Diagram – high-spin configuration d4:
17.9 Sharing 1 bridging F atom between 2 neighbouring octahedral units corresponds to the
stoichiometry [MnF5]2−:

17.10 The stoichiometry [MnF4]− could be achieved in a chain structure having 2 bridging F
atoms between 2 neighbouring octahedral units:
However, the structure is a 2D-anionic layer, so it is necessary to extend the structure to

2 dimensions – to have 4 bridging F atoms for each octahedral unit:
17.11 Diagram – configuration d3:
17.12 Since the magnitude of splitting in tetrahedral crystal field is about a half of octahedral
4
(exactly Δtet = − 9 Δoct; the negative sign refers to the inverse order of split d-orbitals with
respect to the octahedral crystal field), it is always lower than electron pairing energy
(Δtet < P) which leads to high-spin configurations in tetrahedral complexes.
Diagram – high-spin configuration d5:

17.13 (7) 2 KMnO4 + 3 H2O2 + 2 KHF2 + 8 HF → 2 K2[MnF6] + 3 O2 + 8 H2O

17.14 Manganese(IV) complexes have a configuration of d3. Since these three electrons occupy
the t2g level only, low- and high-spin configurations cannot form regardless of the
magnitude of the crystal field splitting.
17.15 (8) K2[MnF6] + 2 SbF5 → 2 K[SbF6] + MnF2 + F2

Problem 18. The fox and the stork

Large stones
18.1 Each layer consists of one sphere only: n = 50 / (2 × 5) = 5
4 4
18.2 The volume of 5 spheres: 𝑉 = 5 × 3 𝜋𝑟 3 = 5 × 3 𝜋 × 53 = 2 618 cm3
The volume of cylinder: 𝑉 = 𝜋𝑟 2 × 𝑣 = 𝜋 × 52 × 50 = 3 927 cm3

The fraction of volume: f = 2 618 / 3 927 = 0.667, i.e. 66.7 %
18.3 The free volume: Vfree = 3 927 − 2 618 = 1 309 cm3
Pebbles
18.4 Radius: r = 10 / 6 = 1.667 cm
18.5 Number of layers: N = 50 / (2 × 1.667) = 15
18.6 Number of spheres: n = 15 × 7 = 105
4 4
18.7 The volume of 105 spheres: 𝑉 = 105 × 𝜋𝑟 3 = 105 × 𝜋 × (1.667)3 = 2 036 cm3
3 3

18.9 The interlayer distance can be calculated as a height of a regular

tetrahedron formed by 4 spheres with edge a = 2 × r (the formula can be
simply derived from the Pythagorean theorem):
2 2
ℎ = 𝑎 × √3 = 2 × 1.667 × √3 = 2.722 cm
The distance of the first and the last layer from the bases of the cylinder will be at minimum
equal to r. Thus the maximum number of layers:
N = (50 − 2 × r) / h + 1 = (50 − 2 × 1.667) / 2.722 + 1 = 18.14  18 layers
18.10 The total number of spheres: each of the 9 odd layers contains 7 spheres, each of the
9 even layers contains 3 spheres, the total number is:
n = 9 × 7 + 9 × 3 = 90
4 4
18.11 The volume of 90 spheres: 𝑉 = 90 × 3 𝜋𝑟 3 = 90 × 3
𝜋 × (1.667)3 = 1 745 cm3


Sand
18.13 The situation corresponds to the theoretical maximum possible space filling by spheres
𝜋
known as “close-packing of equal spheres”. The limiting fraction is = 0.7405,
3√2
i.e. 74.05 %. There are many ways to derive this ratio. The derivation from a face centered
cubic (fcc) elementary cell is shown.
The lattice constant 𝑎 is 2 × 𝑟 × √2 . Then the volume of the elementary cell is:
𝑉cell = 𝑎3 = 16√2 × 𝑟 3
The number of spheres belonging to the elementary cell is:
1 1
𝑛 =8× (spheres in vertices) + 6 × (speheres in the centers of faces) = 4
8 2
Thus the fraction volume occupied by the spheres is:
4 16
𝑉 =4× 𝜋𝑟 3 = 𝜋𝑟 3
3 3
4
𝜋𝑟 3 )
(4 × 𝜋
𝑓= 3 = = 0.7405, i. e. 74.05%
16√2 × 𝑟 3 3√2
18.14 The free volume: Vfree = 3 927 × (1 − 0.7405) = 1 019 cm3

Problem 19. Structures in the solid state

19.1 It is obvious from the picture that:
a(NaCl) = 2 × r(Na+) + 2 × r(Cl−), and therefore:
r(Cl–) = ½ × (5.64 − 2 × 1.16) Å = 1.66 Å.
19.2 The density of KCl is:
(KCl) = m / V = [4 × M(KCl)] / [NA × a(KCl)3], and therefore:
a(KCl) = {[4 × M(KCl)] / [NA × (KCl)]}⅓ = [(4 × 74.55) / (6.022 × 1023 × 1.98)]⅓ cm =
= 6.30 × 10−8 cm = 6.30 Å
r(K+) = ½ × [a(KCl) − 2 × r(Cl−)] Å = ½ × (6.30 − 2 × 1.66) Å = 1.49 Å.
19.3 The ratio of ionic radii of Li+ to Cl− is:
r(Li+) / r(Cl−) = 0.90 / 1.66 = 0.54. It is higher than the relative size of the octahedral cavity
(0.41), which is a critical value for an ion to occupy this cavity. Thus, occupying this cavity
by Li+ ion will result in a stable arrangement and LiCl should crystallize in the NaCl type of
structure.
(Taking into account the smaller size of Li+ compared to Na+, it is not necessary to consider
the upper limit of an ion size for a stable arrangement. However, for completeness, one can
assume that the relative size of a cation with respect to an anion higher than 0.73 should
lead to the change of the coordination sphere and enforce a cubic coordination environment
and the structure type of CsCl. In fact, the ratio for KCl is somewhat above this limiting
value, but KCl still adopts the structural type of NaCl as stated above.)
19.4  (PbS) = m / V = [4 × M(PbS)] / [NA × a(PbS)3] = (4 × 239.3) / (6.022 × 1023 × 5.943) g Å−3 =
= 7.58 g cm−3
19.5 Due to total electro-neutrality, one can derive:
2(1 − x) + 1x = 2y, and thus:
y = 1 − ½x
A general formula of silver-containing galena is thus Pb1–xAgxS1–½x.
19.6 (Pb1−xAgxS1−½x) = m / V = [4 × M(Pb1−xAgxS1−½x)] / [NA × a(Pb1−xAgxS1−½x)3], and therefore:
M(Pb1−xAgxS1−½x) = (Pb1−xAgxS1−½x) × NA × a(Pb1−xAgxS1−½x)3 / 4 =
= [7.21 × 6.022 × 1023 × (5.88 × 10−8)3] / 4 g mol−1 = 220.7 g mol−1, and thus:
207.2(1 − x) + 107.9x + 32.1(1 − ½x) = 220.7, and x = 0.16
19.7 Four.
19.8 According to the crystal structure type, the bond distance of Ge–Ge corresponds to one
fourth of the body diagonal of the unit cell and, thus, atomic radius is equal to one eighth of
the body diagonal. Thus, the lattice parameter a(Ge) is:
a(Ge) = 8 × r(Ge) / √3 = 8 × 1.23 / √3 Å = 5.68 Å,

giving the density:

(Ge) = m / V = [8 × M(Ge)] / [NA × a(Ge)3] = (8 × 72.6) / (6.022 × 1023 × 5.683) g Å−3 =
5.26 g cm−3
(Alternatively, substituting the a(Ge) by the term 8 × r(Ge) / √3 in the latter equation gives
the following formula:
(Ge) = m / V = [3√3 × M(Ge)] / [64 × NA × r(Ge)3] = 5.26 g cm−3
without the need to calculate the lattice parameter. However, the similarity of the lattice
constant of Ge with that of the isoelectronic GaAs [a(GaAs) = 5.65 Å] is emphasized by the
previous approach.)
19.9 According to the crystal structure type, the bond distance of Ga–As (and Ga–P)
corresponds to one fourth of the body diagonal of the unit cell. Thus:
d(Ga–As) = (5.65 × √3) / 4 Å = 2.45 Å
d(Ga–P) = (5.45 × √3) / 4 Å = 2.36 Å
The radius of phosphorus in these types of compounds is 0.09 Å smaller than the radius of
arsenic.

Problem 20. Cyclobutanes

20.1 and 20.2
Note that the two carbon atoms marked with a double asterisk (**) are pseudo-asymmetric.
They have two constitutionally identical ligands which differ in configuration.
20.3
20.4

Problem 21. Fluorinated radiotracers

21.1 O (18-fluorine is synthesized by the following reaction: 18O + p → 18F + n)
18
21.2 𝜏1/2 (18F) = 6 586 s

k = ln 2 / (6 586 s) = 1.052 × 10−4 s−1
n = N / NA = 300 MBq / (1.052 × 10−4 s−1 × 6.022 × 1023 mol−1) = 4.73 × 10−12 mol
21.3 Heat of combustion of glucose = 2 800 kJ mol−1
Chemical energy of one glucose molecule: Ec = 2 800 kJ / NA = 4.650 × 10−18 J
Energy of γ-photons per one glucose molecule: Ep = 2 × me × c2 = 1.637 × 10−13 J
Calculation of time:
Total chemical energy of 18O-glucose = Total energy of not yet released γ-photons
Ec × N(glucose) = Ep × N(18F)
Ec × [N0(18F) − N(18F)] = Ep × N(18F)
Ec × N0(18F) × (1 − e−kt) = Ep × N0(18F) × e−kt
Ec = Ep × e−kt + Ec × e−kt
Ec / (Ec + Ep) = e−kt
ln [Ec / (Ec + Ep)] = − k × t
t = ln [(Ec + Ep) / Ec] × (1 / k) = ln (35 213) / (1.052 × 10−4 s−1) = 9.95 × 104 s = 27 h 38 min
21.4 See structures below. X can be any K+ chelator (e.g. 18-crown-6 ether), not only
[2.2.2]cryptand shown below.
21.5

21.6
21.7

Problem 22. Where is lithium?

22.1 The formation of organolithium reagents involves a radical pathway.
22.2 The structures of intermediates A, B, C, and D:
22.3 Reaction scheme for the haloform reaction:
Other reagents, such as NaOH + I2 or NaClO can also be used.

Problem 23. Synthesis of eremophilone

23.1
23.2 This reaction is called the Claisen rearrangement.
23.3

Problem 24. Cinnamon all around

24.1
24.2 Direct UV irradiation (313 nm, acetonitrile). A conformationally mobile biradical is formed.
Under these conditions, B and A are obtained in a 79 : 21 ratio.
Alternatively, UV irradiation with sensitizers (e.g. riboflavin), or reagents such as

diphenyldiselenide, hydrogen peroxide etc. can be used.
24.3 Arbuzov reaction with 2-bromoacetic acid and tribenzyl phosphite:
24.4
24.5
24.6 The carboxylic acid functional group reacts with DCC to form an O-acylisourea, which
serves as the reactive intermediate in reactions with nucleophiles (e.g. alcohols or amines)
in acyl nucleophilic substitutions.

24.7 The starting compound is (E)-cinnamic acid methyl ester.

24.8
24.9 The two isomers Q and R are diastereoisomers (diastereomers).

24.10 The acidic hydrogens of the OH groups would decompose the organolithium compound.
24.11
24.12 The reaction is named after Prof. Mitsunobu.

Problem 25. All roads lead to caprolactam

25.1
25.2 d)
25.3
25.4
25.5 Gas E (NOCl) is orange. Therefore, the optimal wavelength would be below 530 nm (green
and blue light).
25.6 Beckmann rearrangement.


Problem 26. Ring opening polymerizations (ROP)

26.1
26.2
26.3

26.4 Ten grams of sodium ethoxide correspond to 10 / (2 × 12 + 5 × 1 + 1 × 16 + 1 × 23) =

0.1471 mol. Two kilograms consumed with 83% conversion means 2 000 × 0.83 = 1 660 g
embedded into polymer. Each molecule of the initiator initiates one chain, so the number-
average molecular weight is 1 660 / 0.1471 = 11 288 g mol−1. After rounding to two digits,
we get the number-average molecular weight of 11 000 g mol−1.
26.5
26.6
26.7
26.8
26.9 A single wrong enantiomer of an amino acid in the protein structure causes loss of activity.
Glycine is not chiral, so there are 129 − 12 = 117 chiral amino acids in lysozyme. The overall
yield is (1/2)117 × 100% = 6.02 × 10−34 %.
Theoretically, in the “world behind the mirror” the all-D-protein would be active against the
all-chiral reversed proteoglycan. However, this does not meet the condition that only the
enzyme digesting native peptidoglycan is considered functional.
26.10 The amount of enzyme (120 mg = 0.000 12 kg) obtained with 6.02 × 10−34 % yield (see the
the answer in 26.9) would require the production of 0.00012 / ((1/2)117) = 1.99 × 1031 kg of
material. As the Earth weighs 5.972 × 1024 kg, this corresponds to 1.99 × 1031 / 5.972 × 1024 =
= 3.34 × 106 times the mass of the Earth.

Problem 27. Zoniporide

27.1
27.2 Ammonia (NH3), carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2)

27.3 and 27.4
27.5

27.6 Mechanism 2
From a) the KIE is >> 1 which indicates that the C2–H bond is being cleaved during the rate
determining step (RDS). For Mechanism 1 the RDS would have to be E → 3, for
Mechanism 2 the RDS would be the concerted 2 → 3 transformation.
From b) we know that electron withdrawing groups (EWGs) on the heterocyclic core speed
up the reaction. This indicates that the RDS involves either buildup of negative charge on
the quinoline ring (e.g. by a nucleophilic attack) or loss of positive charge from the ring (e.g.
by deprotonation). In Mechanism 1, this is true for the 2 → E step (an electron rich
nucleophile adds to the quinoline core) but not for the E → 3 step (expulsion of a hydride
nucleophuge is disfavoured in the presence of EWGs). This contradiction disproves
Mechanism 1; therefore, the correct answer is Mechanism 2.
27.7 Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)
27.8
𝑘H 𝐸0,H − 𝐸0,D
= exp ( )
𝑘D 𝑘𝐵 𝑇
1
𝐸0,H − 𝐸0,D = ℏ(𝜔H − 𝜔D )
2
𝑘
𝜔H/D = √
𝜇H/D
𝑚H/D/T 𝑚12C
𝜇H/D/T =
𝑚H/D/T + 𝑚 12C
𝑘
2𝑘𝐵 𝑇 ln ( H ) 1
𝑘D
√𝑘 = = 21.105 kg 2 s −1 ⟹ 𝑘 = 445.4 kg s −2
1 1
ℏ( − )
√𝜇H √𝜇D
𝑘H ℏ√𝑘 1 1
= exp ( ( − )) = 12.2(59)
𝑘T 2𝑘𝐵 𝑇 √𝜇H √𝜇T
27.9

Problem 28. Nucleic acids

28.1
28.2
28.3
Unknown sample (1) transmittance: T1 = 0.11
Known sample (2) transmittance: T2 = 1 − 0.57 = 0.43
Using Lambert–Beer law: −log10 T = ε l c
(−log10 T2) / c2 = (−log10 T1) / c1
c1 = c2 × (−log10 T1) / (−log10 T2) = 27 [μmol dm−3] (−log10 0.11) / (−log10 0.43) = 70.6 μmol dm−3
28.4
a) True. According to the Lambert–Beer law, absorbance is directly proportional to
concentration (as long as the cuvette length and the molar absorption coefficients are
assumed equal). The higher absorbance of DNA1 actually means that the concentration
of dsDNA1, which absorbs less radiation than ssDNA1, is lower.
b) False. Thermodynamic stability is described in terms of Tm, which can be read as the
inflexion point of the sigmoidal curve; here Tm(DNA1) ~ 315 K and Tm(DNA2) ~ 340 K.
c) False. Since Tm(DNA1) ~ 315 K and Tm(DNA2) ~ 340 K, dsDNA2 is more stable than
dsDNA1 with respect to their single-stranded forms.

d) Cannot be answered. The thermodynamic stability of a DNA double helix depends on

both its length (i.e. the number of nucleobase pairs) and its sequence (roughly, the
content of G–C nucleobase pairs). Since no information about the G–C pairs content is
given, no conclusions about the DNA lengths can be drawn.
28.5 cDNA: 5′-ACCTGGGG-3′, mRNA: 5′-CCCCAGGU-3′
28.6 Each position of the 8-nucleobase sequence can be occupied by one of the four
nucleobases (A, C, G, U). Hence, there are 48 = 65 536 theoretically possible
single-stranded octanucleotides.

50 Icho 2018: Preparatory Problems: Theoretical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

50 Icho 2018: Preparatory Problems: Theoretical

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

50 Icho 2018: Preparatory Problems: Theoretical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

19th – 29th July 2018

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL

50th IChO 2018

BACK TO WHERE IT ALL BEGAN

UPDATED 12TH JUNE 2018

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 1

Problem 1. Synthesis of hydrogen cyanide

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 2

Problem 2. Thermochemistry of rocket fuels

2.1 Calculation of the number of moles corresponding to 1 g of the samples: ni = mi / Mi

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 3

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 4

2.7 There is no temperature range of coexistence of both liquid oxygen and

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 5

Problem 3. HIV protease

Temperature Amprenavir Indinavir Lopinavir

Temperature Nelfinavir Ritonavir Saquinavir

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 6

Amprenavir Indinavir Lopinavir Nelfinavir Ritonavir Saquinavir

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 7

Problem 4. Enantioselective hydrogenation

At any given temperature T:

For 90% ee: [α]D20 (c 1.00, EtOH) = +45°,

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 8

Problem 5. Ultrafast reactions

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 9

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 10

𝑦 = √𝐾a × 𝑐 = √7.59 × 10−10 × 5.0 × 10−3 = 1.9 × 10−6 mol dm−3

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 11

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 12

Problem 6. Kinetic isotope effects

𝑘(C‒ H) 6.6261 × 10−34 × 2.9979 × 108

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 13

Problem 7. Designing a photoelectrochemical cell

𝑛𝑅𝑇 𝑛𝑅𝑇 𝑛𝑅𝑇

3𝐂ox + 6e− → 3𝐂red

𝑧𝐹𝐸𝑟° 6 × 96 485 × 0.288

The potential for the reduction of substance E is EE = ED + Er = 0.55 V + 0.28 V = 0.83 V.

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 14

0,6 pH = 7.7, breakpoint

7.5 Using the formula for electrolysis:

ℎ𝑐 6.626 × 10−34 × 3 × 108

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 15

Problem 8. Fuel cells

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 16

8.4 Cathode: O2 + 4 e− + 4 H+ → 2 H2O

Δ𝑓 𝐺°(CO2 (g)) = −393 − 298 × ((214 − (6 + 205)) × 10−3 ) = −393.9 kJ mol−1

Δ𝑓 𝐺°(C4 H10 (g)) = −17 kJ mol−1

|𝑧|𝐹𝐸°(𝑇2 ) |𝑧|𝐹𝐸°(𝑇1 ) 𝐸°(𝑇2 ) 𝐸°(𝑇1 ) 1.20 1.21

Δ𝑟 𝐺° = −|𝑧|𝐹𝐸°(𝑇1 ) = −12 × 96 485 × 1.21 = −1 401 kJ mol−1

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 17

Problem 9. Acid-base equilibria in blood

pH after 10 mmol of acids were added to 1 dm3 of the buffer solution:

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 18

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 19

Problem 10. Ion exchange capacity of a cation exchange resin

PREPARATORY PROBLEMS: THEORETICAL www.50icho.eu 20

Problem 11. Weak and strong cation exchange resin