Calculating the Optical Rotation Value

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the optical rotation of a mixture containing 42% of a (+) enantiomer with an optical rotation of +50° and 58% of a (-) enantiomer. The contributor correctly identifies that the overall optical rotation will be negative due to the predominance of the (-) enantiomer. They attempt to calculate the contribution of each enantiomer, concluding that the optical rotation is -8°. This value is derived from the proportion of the enantiomers and their respective rotations, indicating a reasonable understanding of the concept. The final calculation aligns with the expected outcome based on the mixture's composition.
Interception
Messages
15
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement

So the problem states that we have a (+) enantiomer of a coumpund with an optical rotation of 50*. If a pure sample containes 42% of the (+) enantiomer and 58% of the (-) enantioimer, what is the optical rotation value. (By * i mean degrees)



Homework Equations

I'm not sure which equation would apply to this situation. It's a small school, and our proffesor hardly went over this subject. We'd done a few problems, but none where like this.



The Attempt at a Solution

I know that it will be a negative value since the the (-) enantiomer outnumbers the (+). I didn't know how to approach the problem, so I took 58%-the 42% to see how much of the (-) will contribute to the rotations since the 42% of the (+) enantiomer will counteract 42% of the (-) enantiomer. I got -16. I took this mean that 16% of the (-) enantiomer would be optically active, and 16% of 50 is 8, or in this case -8* of optical rotation. The negative value makes sense, and the fact that it's not a large number. Does this look right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks OK to me.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top