Answer:
2.90 x 10⁻¹¹moldm⁻³
Explanation:
Given parameters:
[H⁺] = 3.5 x 10⁻⁴mol/dm³
Unknown
[OH⁻] = ?
Solution;
The ionic product of water can be used to solve this problem. It has been experimentally determined to be 1 x 10⁻¹⁴mol² dm⁻⁶
[H⁺] [OH⁻] = 1 x 10⁻¹⁴
Therefore;
[OH⁻] = 
= 
= 0.29 x 10⁻¹⁰moldm⁻³
= 2.90 x 10⁻¹¹moldm⁻³
So,
Formate has a resonating double bond.
In molecular orbital theory, the resonating electrons are actually delocalized and are shared between the two oxygens. So the carbon-oxygen bonds can be described as 1.5-bonds (option B). I'm not sure if option C is correct, however, because the likelihood of both delocalized electrons being in the area of one oxygen atom is less than 50%.<span />
Answer:
C₅H₁₀O₅
Explanation:
Let's consider a compound with the empirical formula CH₂O. In order to determine the molecular formula, we have to calculate "n", so that
n = molar mass of the molecular formula / molar mass of the empirical formula
The molar mass of the molecular formula is 150 g/mol.
The molar mass of the empirical formula is 12 + 2 × 1 + 16 = 30 g/mol
n = (150 g/mol) / (30 g/mol) = 5
Then, we multiply the empirical formula by 5.
CH₂O × 5 = C₅H₁₀O₅
La primera instrucción es verdadera, la segunda es falsa porque dos elementos no pueden tener el mismo número de masa (excepto azufre y argón) Estrictamente hablando, No. Puede tener 2 (o más) elementos con el mismo 'número de masa atómica', lo que significa que el número total de nucleones (neutrones de protones) es el mismo. En el ejemplo dado en una respuesta anterior, el azufre tiene un isótopo con el número de masa atómica 36 (16p 20n) y Argón también tiene un 36 (18p 18n). La tercera declaración es verdadera, si tiene un número diferente de neutrones, entonces es un isótopo. La cuarta declaración es falso. Espero que esto te ayude.
<span>Two scientists wrote a paper detailing their research and conclusions and submitted it to a scientific journal. Several months later, they received the paper back from the publisher with many comments attached from several fellow scientists. It is either that they revise their study or replicate the study. Most scientists would revisit their work and the findings they had from their research. Most probable if they were successful and the comments of the publisher and the co-scientists were positive they could replicate the study to validate its accountability.<span>
</span></span>
