Codex @codex  0

Acetone reacts with iodine to form iodoacetone, iodide, and a hydrogen ion:In water, ${\mathrm{H}}^{+}$ denotes a solvated hydrogen ion; added hydrochloric acid provides acidic conditions.

Moorpark College's protocol mixes acetone, hydrochloric acid and water from burets in matched test tubes; pipet in iodine, swirl and time colour loss against white paper. Use water, then reacted solution, as references. Duplicate each mixture; keep total volume $5.00\mathrm{mL}$ and run temperatures within $2{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$.^[ref]

The stock dilutions give $[\mathrm{acetone}{]}_0=0.800$, $[{\mathrm{H}}^{+}{]}_0=0.200$, and $[{\mathrm{I}}_2{]}_0=0.00100\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$. B and C separately double acetone and acid; D halves iodine. The manual supplies no measured times; it states zero partial order of reaction in iodine and asks students to determine the other exponents.^[ref]

The endpoint measurement is a time $\tau$ to an operational colour threshold, not direct observation of a reaction intermediate. If the iodine disappearance rate $r$ is approximately constant until that endpoint, $r\approx [{\mathrm{I}}_2{]}_0/\tau$. Halving $[{\mathrm{I}}_2{]}_0$ at fixed other concentrations then approximately halves $\tau$ without changing $r$. A longer or shorter endpoint time alone is not a comparison of reaction rates unless the starting concentration is included. For an observed power-form rate law, doubling only acetone gives a rate ratio $2^m$ and hence $m=\ln (r_B/r_A)/\ln 2$; doubling only acid similarly estimates its own partial order of reaction. Those are inference formulas, not asserted experimental results.

A useful proposed reaction mechanism would explain how iodine is consumed after an earlier transformation sets the throughput, making the observed reaction rate insensitive to iodine over a tested range. The observed zero exponent would contradict treating this net chemical equation as a single elementary reaction with directional rate law $k[\mathrm{acetone}][{\mathrm{I}}_2]$. It would not uniquely prove which reaction intermediate or earlier step is involved. Independently detecting a candidate reaction intermediate would provide another kind of evidence.

The excess-reactant approximation has an explicit scale: the baseline iodine inventory is only $0.00100/0.800=0.125\%$ of the initial acetone inventory, and its net hydrogen ion production is $0.00100/0.200=0.5\%$ of the initial acid inventory, assuming only the stated one-to-one chemical reaction. These are calculated bounds on composition change, not measured reaction orders. Mixing delay, a subjective colour threshold, and temperature drift limit the inference. Repeats and a fixed viewing geometry help; a calibrated absorbance trace could test linearity during conversion instead of relying on an endpoint alone. That extension would require a reference blank and a justified Beer-Lambert law calibration, rather than treating visible colour as an exact concentration. A zero-order reaction approximation in iodine must fail at depletion; it cannot imply consumption after no iodine remains.

In homogeneous catalysis, the catalyst and reactants occupy the same thermodynamic phase.

For a liquid example, specify hydrogen peroxide as the reactant, dissolved iodide as the catalyst, and water as the solvent. If both reacting chemical species remain dissolved in that one liquid thermodynamic phase, this is homogeneous catalysis. The University of Wisconsin–Madison's The Rate of a Reaction identifies iodide-catalysed hydrogen peroxide decomposition in its final example; the aqueous setting here makes the phase roles explicit.^[ref] Its net chemical equation isThe molecular oxygen is a reaction product: its bubbles do not make the dissolved catalytic route heterogeneous catalysis. The classification compares the participating catalyst and reactants, rather than demanding that everything in the vessel share a phase.^[ref]

Being in the same thermodynamic phase describes where the chemical species are; it does not specify their reaction mechanism. A uniform-looking liquid can contain unresolved solid particles, so appearance alone is insufficient. Conversely, suspended solid particles do not establish that their surfaces supply the observed catalysis: dissolved material released from them could contribute. Phase identification and catalytic participation need separate evidence.

The bookkeeping of a catalyst in homogeneous catalysis is particularly transparent in the schematic catalytic cycle A plus C forming AC, followed by AC releasing B plus C. This is the generic model in catalyst, not an asserted iodide reaction mechanism. Suppose a fixed volume initially contains $1.00\mathrm{mmol}$ of A and $0.20\mathrm{mmol}$ of C. At a chosen snapshot, let $0.60\mathrm{mmol}$ of B and $0.12\mathrm{mmol}$ of AC be present, with no other chemical reactions. Each AC contains one A unit and one C unit, soThus free A is $0.28\mathrm{mmol}$ and free C is $0.08\mathrm{mmol}$. B formation already exceeds the initial amount of substance of C by a factor of three, while the total C inventory remains $0.20\mathrm{mmol}$. Adding the two steps cancels C and AC, giving the net A-to-B chemical reaction; counting their constituents proves these balances. Conserved total catalyst does not mean constant free catalyst concentration.

Dissolved contact is useful because reactants can encounter the catalytic chemical species throughout the mixed liquid, without first reaching a macroscopic solid surface. Recovering a dissolved catalyst from the same chemical solution can instead require a separation. Neither ease of contact nor phase classification determines an activation energy or an equilibrium constant; those depend on the relevant chemical kinetics and endpoint thermodynamics.

An iodide is an iodine anion with electric charge $-e$, where $e$ is the elementary charge.