Consider these atoms. which atom (ba or i) would accept electrons from the other atom to satisfy the octet rule?

In the reaction fecl2 + 2naoh fe(oh)2(s) + 2nacl, if 6 moles of fecl2 are added to 6 moles of naoh, how many moles of fecl2 woul

pychu [463]

The balanced chemical reaction would be

<span>fecl2 + 2naoh = fe(oh)2(s) + 2nacl

Initial amounts of the reactants are given, so, we need to determine which of the reactants is the limiting reactant and use this amount to determine what is asked. However, what is being asked is how many of the FeCl2 is used in the reaction, showing that it is NaOH that is the limiting reactants. Thus, we just use the initial amount of NaOH and relate the substances by the chemical reaction as follows:

6 mol NaOH ( 1 mol FeCl2 / 2 mol NaOH ) = 3 mol FeCl2

Therefore, 3 moles of FeCl2 is used up and 3 moles of FeCl2 is also left after the reaction.</span>

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What is the definition of bond?

JulijaS [17]

Join or be joined securely to something else, typically by means of an adhesive substance, heat, or pressure.

3 0

3 years ago

Fermeroben heres the messages COUGH

lord [1]

I completely understand your gripe. I also believe that you are the better option. It will only take time until she is yours, despite your parent's views. Keep it up

6 0

3 years ago

How many atoms of hydrogen are in 170 g of hydrogen peroxide (h2o2)?

Ede4ka [16]

I am pretty sure the answer is 1.5*10^25

5 0

3 years ago

Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration p

pochemuha

Answer:

Option A is correct.

At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.

Explanation:

The main aim of the argument presented is to talk down the use of burning by incinerators method to dispose chemical waste. The argument presents great points in that there were 40 incidents at two existing commissioned incinerators in the last year where unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents happened.

So, basically, the argument is all about how the high frequency of the unsuspected release of dangerous chemical agents should discourage this method of chemical waste disposal.

The argument then concluded that if more chemical waste are disposed using the burning by incinerator method, there will be more unsuspected release of dangerous chemicals.

We are then required to find the statement that most weakens the conclusion that there will be more toxic releases if more chemical waste are burned.

Analysing the Statements one by one

Statement A

This statement provides a possible reason for this high frequency of dangerous chemical releases. It states that the staff haven't been properly trained. So, this means that properly training the staff should most likely lead to lesser cases of toxic releases into the environment.

This is the statement that most weakens the conclusion.

Statement B

The conclusion wasn't about the incinerator method being the safest method. It was about whether increased incineration would lead to more toxic relaeses. So, this doesn't affect the conclusion.

Statement C

This statement says that incineration can be increased without building new incinerators by tapping into unused capacity at the old incinerators. Also doesn't affect rhe conclusion whether increased use of incineration will lead to more toxic leaks.

Statement D

This statement strengthens the argument; which is the opposite of what we're aiming to achieve.

Statement E

This statement hints that the toxic leaks do not have that much of a harmful effect because the toxic releases do not go beyond the property of the incinerator. This also doesnt tackle the conclusion about the frequency of leaks, it only addresses how not harmful the toxic leaks can be.

Hope this Helps!!!

5 0

3 years ago