All categories

3 years ago

Locate Lithium and oxygen on the periodic table. Briefly explain how these elements might combine to form a compound.

2 answers:

7 0

<span>Lithium atoms have one valence electron, where as oxygen atoms have six. Lithium atoms tend to give up their single valence electrons, and oxygen tends to gain two valence electrons from other atoms, like lithium. They do this so they will have filled valence shells. hope this answers your question :)</span>

zhuklara [117]3 years ago

5 0

Lithium is located in group 1 period 2 and oxygen is located in group 16 period 2. These two elements might combine to form a compound because of their oxidation state. Oxygen needs 2 electrons to be stable while lithium is willing to give away 2 electrons to become stable as well.

You might be interested in

How many oxygen atoms are present in 30g of glucose?

Alex17521 [72]

Jdjejsbdjwwoanwjediekemwmkssk

5 0

2 years ago

Both renewable and nonrenewable resources are used within our society. How do the uses of nonrenewable resources compare to the

Mila [183]

Renewable energy has the potential to have all the same applications as non-renewable. But we currently don't have the resources and potential.

So I would say the answer would be B, but this question is somewhat confusing.

4 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Why do you think scientists claim to offer only supporting evidence for a theory and not proof?

larisa [96]

Because they're not confident enough to confirm it's indeed true but they will support it for they believe it's correct.

8 0

2 years ago

Calculate the percent by mass of a solution of Ca(NO3)2 that has 22.63 g dissolved in 896.92 g of water.

never [62]

Hey there!

To calculate the percent by mass of the Ca(NO₃)₂ we need to find the total mass first by adding.

896.92 + 22.63 = 919.55

In total, the solution is 919.55 grams.

To find the percent of Ca(NO₃)₂ in the solution, divide the mass of Ca(NO₃)₂ by the total mass and multiply by 100.

22.63 ÷ 919.55 = 0.0246

0.0246 x 100 = 2.46

Ca(NO₃)₂ makes up 2.46% of the solution.

Hope this helps!

6 0

2 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

2 years ago