All categories

3 years ago

How many valence electrons should be used to draw a Lewis structure of methane CH4

Chemistry

1 answer:

olganol [36]3 years ago

8 0

Answer:

8 valence electrons

Explanation:

There are 4 valence electrons in carbon because it is in group 4A of the periodic table. There is 1 valence electron per hydrogen based on its position on the periodic table, but CH4 has 4 hydrogens in it. So 1 times 4 is 4. Add the 4 valence electrons from carbon with the 4 electrons from H4 to get 8.

You might be interested in

For the reaction shown, identify the element oxidized, the element reduced, the oxidizing agent, and the reducing agent. KNO3 →

Vinvika [58]

Answer : The oxidizing element is N and reducing element is O.

$KNO_{3}$ is act as an oxidizing agent as well as reducing agent.

Explanation :

An Oxidizing agent is the agent which has ability to oxidize other or a higher in oxidation number.

Reducing agent is the agent which has ability to reduce other or lower in oxidation number.

The given reaction is :

$KNO_{3} \rightarrow KNO_{2} +O_{2}$

$KNO_{3}$ act as an oxidizing agent.

The oxidation number of N in $KNO_{3}$ is calculated as:

(+1)+(x)+3(-2) = 0

x = +5

And the oxidation number of N in $KNO_{2}$ is calculated as:

(+1)+(x)+2(-2) = 0

x = +3

From the oxidation number method, we conclude that the oxidation number reduced this means $KNO_{3}$ itself get reduced to $KNO_{2}$ and it can act as an oxidizing agent.

$KNO_{3}$ act as a reducing agent.

$KNO_{3} \rightarrow KNO_{2} +O_{2}$

The oxidation number of O in $KNO_{3}$ is calculated as:

(+1)+(+5)+3(x) = 0

x = -2

The oxidation number of O in $O_{2}$ is Zero (o).

Now, we conclude that the oxidation number increases this means $KNO_{3}$ itself get oxidized to $O_{2}$ and it can act as reducing agent.

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

How does the presence of a catalyst affect the enthalpy of a reaction? Group of answer choices 1. It depends on whether you are

Otrada [13]

Answer:

Option 3. The catalyst does not affect the enthalpy change ( $\Delta H_\text{rxn}$ ) of a reaction.

Explanation:

As its name suggests, the enthalpy change of a reaction ( $\Delta H_\text{rxn}$ ) is the difference between the enthalpy of the products and the reactants.

On the other hand, a catalyst speeds up a reaction because it provides an alternative reaction pathway from the reactants to the products.

In effect, a catalyst reduces the activation energy of the reaction in both directions. The reactants and products of the reaction won't change. As a result, the difference in their enthalpies won't change, either. That's the same as saying that the enthalpy change $\Delta H_\text{rxn}$ of the reaction would stay the same.

Refer to an energy profile diagram. Enthalpy change of the reaction $\Delta H_\text{rxn}$ measures the difference between the two horizontal sections. Indeed, the catalyst lowered the height of the peak. However, that did not change the height of each horizontal section or the difference between them. Hence, the enthalpy change of the reaction stayed the same.

6 0

3 years ago

A 4.27 g sample of a lab solution contains 1.81g of acid. What is the concentration of the solution as a mass percentage?

vaieri [72.5K]

Answer:

42.38875878%

Explanation:

i divided 4.27 g from 1.81g using a percentage calculator but im not sure if its correct

5 0

2 years ago

Hi lovessssssss <br> Hsnsgehsndgd

Sergio039 [100]

Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiikiiiii

3 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