Home >
Community >
Determining the formula of zirconium oxide
Upvote
23
Downvote
+ Chemistry
+ Stoichiometry
Posted by
Luzze Arthur
Determining the formula of zirconium oxide
First, let's solve the problem.
Both relative atomic weight $A_\mathrm{r}$ and relative molecular weight $M_\mathrm{r}$ are a historical dimensionless terms denoting relative atomic mass and molecular mass, respectively:
where $m$ corresponds to atomic mass, $M$ – to molecular mass, and index $\mathrm{u}$ refers to unified atomic mass unit ($= m_\mathrm{a}(\ce{^{12}C})/12$).
Since $\ce{Cl}$ in chlorides is monovalent, then formula of unknown zirconium chloride is $\ce{ZrCl_x}$, where $x$ coincides with the valency of $\ce{Zr}$.
From this the relative weight of $\ce{ZrCl_x}$ is
relative atomic masses of both elements were known ($A_\mathrm{r}(\ce{Zr})\approx 91$, $A_\mathrm{r}(\ce{Cl})\approx 36$), so that the valency of zirconium can be found via $x$:
$$91 + 36x = 233 \implies x \approx 4$$
Since oxygen in oxides has valency of $2$, then the formula of unknown zirconium oxide is $\ce{ZrO2}$.
By 'volatile chloride', are they referring to zirconium oxide or something else?
No, they refer to zirconium chloride$\ce{ZrCl4}$.
They mention volatility probably to underline how zirconium and hafnium are separated — by differences in sublimation of their volatile compounds.
Also, by the statement 'assuming that zirconium in the oxide has the same valency' are they saying that zirconium has the same valency as chlorine (i.e. -1)?
No, this means that zirconium in both oxide $\ce{ZrO2}$ and chloride $\ce{ZrCl4}$ has the same valency.
First, let's solve the problem.Both relative atomic weight $A_\mathrm{r}$ and relative molecular weight $M_\mathrm{r}$ are a historical dimensionless terms denoting relative atomic mass and molecular mass, respectively:
where $m$ corresponds to atomic mass, $M$ – to molecular mass, and index $\mathrm{u}$ refers to unified atomic mass unit ($= m_\mathrm{a}(\ce{^{12}C})/12$).Since $\ce{Cl}$ in chlorides is monovalent, then formula of unknown zirconium chloride is $\ce{ZrCl_x}$, where $x$ coincides with the valency of $\ce{Zr}$.From this the relative weight of $\ce{ZrCl_x}$ is
relative atomic masses of both elements were known ($A_\mathrm{r}(\ce{Zr})\approx 91$, $A_\mathrm{r}(\ce{Cl})\approx 36$), so that the valency of zirconium can be found via $x$:
$$91 + 36x = 233 \implies x \approx 4$$
Since oxygen in oxides has valency of $2$, then the formula of unknown zirconium oxide is $\ce{ZrO2}$.
By 'volatile chloride', are they referring to zirconium oxide or something else?
No, they refer to zirconium chloride$\ce{ZrCl4}$.They mention volatility probably to underline how zirconium and hafnium are separated — by differences in sublimation of their volatile compounds.
Also, by the statement 'assuming that zirconium in the oxide has the same valency' are they saying that zirconium has the same valency as chlorine (i.e. -1)?
No, this means that zirconium in both oxide $\ce{ZrO2}$ and chloride $\ce{ZrCl4}$ has the same valency.
@MaxW You are correct, I didnt want to overload the answer with obsolete standards and took the modern one. Even if you take former $\ce{^{16}O}$ standard, it wouldnt change the answer, but would cause unnecessary confusion IMO.More
Upvote
VOTE
Downvote
It is always helpful if you also cite the reference from which you are quoting the question. The "relative weight" is old terminology which you will find in 19th-century chemistry textbooks which is the same as molecular weight. Since nobody could determine absolute weights (and the practice still continues), the term relative is added. All atomic weights quoted today are also relative but the word relative is often omitted today and perhaps taken for granted. I am adding a screenshot of an early 20th-century book, Introduction to inorganic chemistry
By Alexander Smith
The second part "Assuming that zirconium in the oxide has the same valency" simply implies that the oxidation state of Zr in the chloride is the same as the oxide. This helped the chemists in the laws of definite proportions.
It is always helpful if you also cite the reference from which you are quoting the question. The "relative weight" is old terminology which you will find in 19th-century chemistry textbooks which is the same as molecular weight. Since nobody could determine absolute weights (and the practice still continues), the term relative is added. All atomic weights quoted today are also relative but the word relative is often omitted today and perhaps taken for granted. I am adding a screenshot of an early 20th-century book, Introduction to inorganic chemistryBy Alexander Smith
The second part "Assuming that zirconium in the oxide has the same valency" simply implies that the oxidation state of Zr in the chloride is the same as the oxide. This helped the chemists in the laws of definite proportions.
First, let's solve the problem. Both relative atomic weight $A_\mathrm{r}$ and relative molecular weight $M_\mathrm{r}$ are a historical dimensionless terms denoting relative atomic mass and molecular mass, respectively:
$$A_\mathrm{r} = \frac{m_\mathrm{a}}{m_\mathrm{u}}$$
$$M_\mathrm{r} = \frac{M_\mathrm{B}}{M_\mathrm{u}}$$
where $m$ corresponds to atomic mass, $M$ – to molecular mass, and index $\mathrm{u}$ refers to unified atomic mass unit ($= m_\mathrm{a}(\ce{^{12}C})/12$). Since $\ce{Cl}$ in chlorides is monovalent, then formula of unknown zirconium chloride is $\ce{ZrCl_x}$, where $x$ coincides with the valency of $\ce{Zr}$. From this the relative weight of $\ce{ZrCl_x}$ is
$$M_\mathrm{r}(\ce{\ce{ZrCl_x}}) = A_\mathrm{r}(\ce{Zr}) + xA_\mathrm{r}(\ce{Cl})$$
relative atomic masses of both elements were known ($A_\mathrm{r}(\ce{Zr})\approx 91$, $A_\mathrm{r}(\ce{Cl})\approx 36$), so that the valency of zirconium can be found via $x$:
$$91 + 36x = 233 \implies x \approx 4$$
Since oxygen in oxides has valency of $2$, then the formula of unknown zirconium oxide is $\ce{ZrO2}$.
No, they refer to zirconium chloride $\ce{ZrCl4}$. They mention volatility probably to underline how zirconium and hafnium are separated — by differences in sublimation of their volatile compounds.
No, this means that zirconium in both oxide $\ce{ZrO2}$ and chloride $\ce{ZrCl4}$ has the same valency.
First, let's solve the problem.Both relative atomic weight $A_\mathrm{r}$ and relative molecular weight $M_\mathrm{r}$ are a historical dimensionless terms denoting relative atomic mass and molecular mass, respectively:
$$A_\mathrm{r} = \frac{m_\mathrm{a}}{m_\mathrm{u}}$$
$$M_\mathrm{r} = \frac{M_\mathrm{B}}{M_\mathrm{u}}$$
where $m$ corresponds to atomic mass, $M$ – to molecular mass, and index $\mathrm{u}$ refers to unified atomic mass unit ($= m_\mathrm{a}(\ce{^{12}C})/12$).Since $\ce{Cl}$ in chlorides is monovalent, then formula of unknown zirconium chloride is $\ce{ZrCl_x}$, where $x$ coincides with the valency of $\ce{Zr}$.From this the relative weight of $\ce{ZrCl_x}$ is
$$M_\mathrm{r}(\ce{\ce{ZrCl_x}}) = A_\mathrm{r}(\ce{Zr}) + xA_\mathrm{r}(\ce{Cl})$$
relative atomic masses of both elements were known ($A_\mathrm{r}(\ce{Zr})\approx 91$, $A_\mathrm{r}(\ce{Cl})\approx 36$), so that the valency of zirconium can be found via $x$:
$$91 + 36x = 233 \implies x \approx 4$$
Since oxygen in oxides has valency of $2$, then the formula of unknown zirconium oxide is $\ce{ZrO2}$.
No, they refer to zirconium chloride $\ce{ZrCl4}$.They mention volatility probably to underline how zirconium and hafnium are separated — by differences in sublimation of their volatile compounds.
No, this means that zirconium in both oxide $\ce{ZrO2}$ and chloride $\ce{ZrCl4}$ has the same valency.
More
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE
It is always helpful if you also cite the reference from which you are quoting the question. The "relative weight" is old terminology which you will find in 19th-century chemistry textbooks which is the same as molecular weight. Since nobody could determine absolute weights (and the practice still continues), the term relative is added. All atomic weights quoted today are also relative but the word relative is
often omitted today and perhaps taken for granted. I am adding a screenshot of an early 20th-century book, Introduction to inorganic chemistry
By Alexander Smith
The second part "Assuming that zirconium in the oxide has the same valency" simply implies that the oxidation state of Zr in the chloride is the same as the oxide. This helped the chemists in the laws of definite proportions.
It is always helpful if you also cite the reference from which you are quoting the question. The "relative weight" is old terminology which you will find in 19th-century chemistry textbooks which is the same as molecular weight. Since nobody could determine absolute weights (and the practice still continues), the term relative is added. All atomic weights quoted today are also relative but the word relative is
often omitted today and perhaps taken for granted. I am adding a screenshot of an early 20th-century book, Introduction to inorganic chemistryBy Alexander Smith
The second part "Assuming that zirconium in the oxide has the same valency" simply implies that the oxidation state of Zr in the chloride is the same as the oxide. This helped the chemists in the laws of definite proportions.
More
VOTE