All categories

3 years ago

Why is toast a chemical change?

1 answer:

4 0

Toast is a chemical change because of the chemical changes happening in the bread as it is toasted. This means its molecules are changing and breaking apart.

You might be interested in

When the procedure calls for making a more dilute solution of an acid, or mixing an acid with other solutions, what is the corre

stiks02 [169]

Explanation:

Whenever we need to make a dilute solution of an acid then it is necessary to add water or non-acidic component into the acid first. This is because addition of water or non-acidic component directly into the acid could be highly exothermic in nature.

As a result, the acid can splutter and can cause burning of skin and other serious damage.

So, in order to avoid such type of damage the addition of water or non-acidic component into the acid actually helps to minimize the heat generated.

Thus, we can conclude that correct order of steps for making a more dilute solution of an acid is that either add all of the water or non-acid component first, or add a significant portion, before adding the acid to the mixture.

8 0

3 years ago

The expected value for a chemical equation is 47g of water, after an experiment you find that you have 2.58 moles of water. What

strojnjashka [21]

<h3><u>Answer</u>;</h3>

Actual yield = 46.44 g

<h3><u>Explanation;</u></h3>

1 mole of water = 18 g/mol

Therefore;

The experimental yield = 2.58 moles

equivalent to ; 2.58 × 18 = 46.44 g

The theoretical value is 47 g

Percentage yield = 46.44/47 × 100%

= 98.8%

The questions asks for actual yield = 46.44 g

6 0

4 years ago

When the temperature of a reacting mixture increases, the rate of reaction increases. Which statement explains why the rate of r

wlad13 [49]

Answer:

This is one of the factors that affects chemical reactions

Temperature:This is because when the temperature is raised energy in form of heat is supplied to the reacting particles and so the rate of reaction is increased.

3 0

4 years ago

The half-life of a certain tranquilizer in the bloodstream is 5050 hours. how long will it take for the drug to decay to 8686%

Novosadov [1.4K]

Using the exponential decay model; we calculate "k"
We know that "A" is half of A0
A = A0 e^(k× 5050)
A/A0 = e^(5050k)
0.5 = e^(5055k)
In (0.5) = 5055k
-0.69315 = 5055k
k = -0.0001371
To calculate how long it will take to decay to 86% of the original mass
0.86 = e^(-0.0001371t)
In (0.86) = -0.0001371t
-0.150823 = -0.0001371 t
t = 1100 hours

4 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

4 years ago