All categories

3 years ago

acetone and ethanol Choose one or more: A. London dispersion B. dipole–dipole C. hydrogen bonding D. ion-induced dipole

Chemistry

1 answer:

andreyandreev [35.5K]3 years ago

3 0

Explanation:

The weak intermolecular forces which can arise either between nucleus and electrons or between electron-electron are known as dispersion forces. These forces are also known as London dispersion forces and these are temporary in nature.

Dipole-dipole interactions are defined as the interactions that occur when partial positive charge on an atom is attracted by partial negative charge on another atom.

When a polar molecules produces a dipole on a non-polar molecule through distribution of electrons then it is known as dipole-induced forces.

Hydrogen bonding is defined as a bonding which exists between a hydrogen atom and an electronegative atom like O, N and F.

Chemical formula of acetone is $CH_{3}COCH_{3}$ . Due to the presence of oxygen atom there will be partial positive charge on carbon and a partial negative charge on oxygen atom. Hence, dipole-dipole forces will exist in a molecule of acetone.

Whereas hydrogen bonding will exist in a molecule of ethanol ( $CH_{3}CH_{2}OH$ ). Since, hydrogen atom is attached with electronegative oxygen atom.

Whereas London dispersion forces will also exist in both acetone and ethanol molecule.

You might be interested in

Drag each tile to the correct location on the image

scZoUnD [109]

1s^2
2s^2
2p^6
3s^2
3p^6
4s^2
3d^10
4p^4

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Most matter is made up of _____, rather than single _____.

bixtya [17]

Answer:

molecules, elements

Explanation:

molecules are a mix of elements

7 0

2 years ago

Tough and malleable form of iron is

Alenkasestr [34]

The answer to your question is A. Wrought iron because amongst its other properties, wrought iron becomes soft at red heat, and can be easily be forged and forge welded.

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Hydrogen chloride and oxygen react to form chlorine and water, like this:

leva [86]

Answer:

Kp = (Partial pressure H₂O) . (Partial Pressure Cl₂)² / Partial pressure O₂ . (Partial Pressure HCl)⁴

Explanation:

This is the reaction:

4 HCl (g) + O₂ (g) ⇒ 2 Cl₂ (g) + 2 H₂O(g)

Kp = (Partial pressure H₂O) . (Partial Pressure Cl₂)² / Partial pressure O₂ . (Partial Pressure HCl)⁴

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

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