Obviously, to calculate the volume/space lived in by a mole that (an ideal) gas, you"ll have to specify temperature (\$T\$) and pressure (\$P\$), uncover the gas constant (\$R\$) value through the best units and also plug them all in the appropriate gas equation \$\$PV = nRT.\$\$

The problem? It appears to it is in some kind of usual "wisdom" anywhere the Internet, the one mole that gas rectal \$22.4\$ liters of space. But the standard conditions (STP, NTP, or SATP) mentioned absence consistency over multiple sites/books. Usual claims: A mole that gas occupies,

\$pu22.4 L\$ at STP\$pu22.4 L\$ in ~ NTP\$pu22.4 L\$ at SATP\$pu22.4 L\$ at both STP and NTP

Even Chem.SE is rife v the "fact" the a mole of best gas rectal \$pu22.4 L\$, or some extension thereof.

You are watching: At stp 1 mole of gas occupies what volume

Being so completely frustrated through this situation, I made decision to calculation the volumes populated by a mole of appropriate gas (based ~ above the ideal gas equation) because that each the the 3 standard conditions; namely: typical Temperature and Pressure (STP), typical Temperature and Pressure (NTP) and Standard ambient Temperature and Pressure (SATP).

Knowing that,

STP: \$pu0 ^circ C\$ and \$pu1 bar\$NTP: \$pu20 ^circ C\$ and also \$pu1 atm\$SATP: \$pu25 ^circ C\$ and also \$pu1 bar\$

And utilizing the equation, \$\$V = frac nRTP,\$\$where \$n = pu1 mol\$, by default (since we"re talking around one mole the gas).

See more: What Time Do You Have To Return Redbox By, Transaction Terms And Conditions

I"ll draw appropriate values that the gas consistent \$R\$ from this Wikipedia table: The volume populated by a mole of gas need to be:

At STPeginalignT &= pu273.0 K,&P &= pu1 bar,&R &= pu8.3144598 imes 10^-2 together bar K^-1 mol^-1.endalignPlugging in all the values, I got \$\$V = pu22.698475 L,\$\$ which come a reasonable approximation, gives\$\$V = pu22.7 L.\$\$

At NTPeginalignT &= pu293.0 K,&P &= pu1 atm,&R &= pu8.2057338 imes 10^-2 l atm K^-1 mol^-1.endalignPlugging in every the values, I gained \$\$V = pu24.04280003 L,\$\$ which come a reasonable approximation, offers \$\$V = pu24 L.\$\$

At SATPeginalignT &= pu298.0 K,&P &= pu1 bar,&R &= pu8.3144598 imes 10^-2 l bar K^-1 mol^-1.endalignPlugging in every the values, I got \$\$V = pu24.7770902 L,\$\$ which to a reasonable approximation, offers \$\$V = pu24.8 L.\$\$

Nowhere does the miracle "\$pu22.4 L\$" figure in the three cases I"ve analyzed appear. Because I"ve checked out the "one mole rectal \$pu22.4 L\$ in ~ STP/NTP" dictum so numerous times, I"m wonder if I"ve to let go something.

My question(s):

Did ns screw up with my calculations?(If ns didn"t screw up) Why is it that the "one mole rectal \$pu22.4 L\$" idea is for this reason widespread, despite not being close (enough) to the values that ns obtained?