Calculate Number of Solute Molecules in 30mM Solution in 100nm Sphere

  • Thread starter Thread starter towerette
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Concentration
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the number of solute molecules in a 30mM solution within a spherical volume of 100nm radius. Initial calculations suggested approximately 6400 solute molecules, but this was questioned for accuracy. After re-evaluating the formula c = N/(N_A*V), participants arrived at a revised estimate of around 75000 molecules. The conversation highlights the importance of correct unit conversions and formula application in such calculations. Ultimately, the consensus points towards a significantly higher number of solute molecules than initially proposed.
towerette
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Suppose i have a spherical volume of 100nm with a solution 30mM.
How many solute molecules it corresponds to?

My answer is about 6400...is that correct?
im just not sure i did some conversion correctly...

Thanks
Alfio
 
Physics news on Phys.org
100nm is what? Radius? Diameter?

6400 of what?

--
 
Sorry for not being clear, 100nm is the radius.
N = 6400 is the number of solute particles I get
from the formula c = N/(N_A*V), just wanted to know
if its right.
c = 30mM

Thanks.
Alfio
 
Formula is OK, but I got different number. Not necesarilly correctly.

--
methods
 
I did the calculation again, i got around 75000 molecules, right?
Well..it seems I'm playing dices...


Alfio
 
That's what I got as well.

--
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
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