Explain, calculate,
verify.

1. VLE and flash

Open core lab · Session resources and companion labs

Required investigation · 45–60 minutes total

In Lab 01, save one ideal two-phase baseline and one changed pressure at the same T and z. Predict the change, report phase amounts and check one component balance by hand.

Independent calculation

Independent checkpoint: ideal binary at fixed T, Psat1=150 kPa, Psat2=60 kPa, z1=0.5 and P=90 kPa. Calculate bubble pressure at x1=z1, dew pressure at y1=z1, x1, y1 and vapor fraction. These are specified synthetic vapor pressures, not a property correlation.

Short explanation

How does pressure change the phase split at fixed temperature? State one assumption that limits your answer.

Optional extension

Choose one extension: compare liquid activity models, examine zero versus nonzero virial coefficients in Lab 09, or add the energy balance in Lab 07.

Optional session appendix

Evidence: prediction before calculation; saved inputs with model and property sources; baseline and changed case; numerical balance or limiting-case check; supported conclusion and limitation.

2. Data, consistency and model evidence

Open core lab · Session resources and companion labs

Required investigation · 45–60 minutes total

In Lab 08, validate the supplied synthetic example and compare one-parameter Margules with NRTL at alpha=0.3 on the same observations. Report one residual pattern and verify one activity coefficient by hand.

Independent calculation

Independent checkpoint: for an ideal vapor at T=350 K, P=100 kPa, x1=0.4, y1=0.6, Psat1=150 kPa and Psat2=60 kPa, compute both activity coefficients. Explain what changes if the Psat pressure unit was mislabeled.

Short explanation

Does a small fitting error mean the data and model are trustworthy? State one assumption that limits your answer.

Optional extension

Choose one extension: a controlled consistency defect in Lab 03, a fixed held-out comparison, bootstrap fit spread, or your own sourced VLE data. Exact synthetic bootstrap spread does not quantify real measurement uncertainty.

Optional session appendix

Evidence: prediction before calculation; saved inputs with model and property sources; baseline and changed case; numerical balance or limiting-case check; supported conclusion and limitation.

3. Stability, LLE and parameter spread

Open core lab · Session resources and companion labs

Required investigation · 45–60 minutes total

In Lab 04, retain one supported tie line and compare two overall compositions inside it. Verify the lever rule by hand and explain the global stability check.

Independent calculation

Independent checkpoint: a supported tie line has xAlpha=0.1 and xBeta=0.9. For z1=0.3 compute both liquid fractions and check the balance.

Short explanation

When does a calculated liquid split represent stable equilibrium? State one assumption that limits your answer.

Optional extension

Choose one extension: NRTL tie-line fitting in Lab 05, paired bootstrap from independent replicates, or feasible three-phase amounts in Lab 06.

Optional session appendix

Evidence: prediction before calculation; saved inputs with model and property sources; baseline and changed case; numerical balance or limiting-case check; supported conclusion and limitation.

4. Solids and adsorption

Open core lab · Session resources and companion labs

Required investigation · 45–60 minutes total

In Lab 10, compare inventories above and below the solid-depletion boundary at fixed T and V. Check the inventory balance and explain the resulting gas pressure.

Independent calculation

Independent checkpoint: at T=300 K and gas volume V=1.00 L, a bulk solid has saturation pressure 10.0 kPa. With 0.0100 mol total, find gas pressure and solid remaining (ideal gas).

Short explanation

What happens to gas pressure when the solid inventory runs out? State one assumption that limits your answer.

Optional extension

Choose one extension: compare Henry and Langmuir in Lab 11, check a closed adsorption vessel, or explore pure-solid solubility and the eutectic assumptions in Lab 10.

Optional session appendix

Evidence: prediction before calculation; saved inputs with model and property sources; baseline and changed case; numerical balance or limiting-case check; supported conclusion and limitation.

5. Chemical equilibrium and routes to K

Open core lab · Session resources and companion labs

Required investigation · 45–60 minutes total

In Lab 12, compare the supplied Gibbs-energy and H−TS routes at the reference temperature. Change pressure at fixed T and compare K with equilibrium extent. Check one balance.

Independent calculation

Independent checkpoint: A(g) ⇌ B(g), deltaG°=−5.000 kJ/mol at 298.15 K, ideal gases with the same 1 bar standard. Initially 1 mol A, no B. Find ln K, K and equilibrium extent.

Short explanation

Why can composition change while the equilibrium constant stays the same? State one assumption that limits your answer.

Optional extension

Choose one extension: vary temperature with and without a heat-capacity correction, reverse the reaction, or scale its coefficients consistently.

Optional session appendix

Evidence: prediction before calculation; saved inputs with model and property sources; baseline and changed case; numerical balance or limiting-case check; supported conclusion and limitation.

6. Electrochemical equilibrium

Open core lab · Session resources and companion labs

Required investigation · 45–60 minutes total

In Lab 13, compare a concentration cell with the activities exchanged. Predict and explain the sign of E, then independently check deltaG=−nFE.

Independent calculation

Independent checkpoint: the same M2+/M reduction couple appears on both sides, T=298.15 K, aLeft=0.0100 and aRight=1.000, with equal E°. Calculate Eright−Eleft and deltaG per mole of the balanced cell reaction (n=2). Neglect junction potential.

Short explanation

What determines the sign of a concentration-cell potential? State one assumption that limits your answer.

Optional extension

Choose one extension: scale the balanced reaction and electron count, examine activity corrections within the supported model, or explain why equilibrium voltage differs from voltage under load.

Optional session appendix

Evidence: prediction before calculation; saved inputs with model and property sources; baseline and changed case; numerical balance or limiting-case check; supported conclusion and limitation.

Feedback rubric

Apply each level to each criterion separately. These descriptors support feedback; they are not registered grading weights.

Revise one weak criterion after feedback and retain both versions. For a failed calculation, a reproducible diagnosis and a justified supported alternative are meaningful evidence.