Help Solving Percent Molarity Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter depeche
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Molarity Percent
AI Thread Summary
To prepare 200 mL of a 2.5% Glutaraldehyde solution from a 25% stock solution, first calculate the volume of the stock solution needed using the formula M1V1 = M2V2. Given the stock solution is 25%, this equates to 250 g of Glutaraldehyde per liter, translating to 2.5 M. To achieve a final concentration of 2.5% in 200 mL, you need to determine the volume of the stock solution required and then dilute it with the Sodium Cacodylate buffer. The final step involves ensuring the total volume reaches 200 mL after adding the buffer. This approach allows for the accurate preparation of the desired solution concentration.
depeche
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I have to prepare the following solution:

200 mL of 2.5% Glutaraldehyde from 25% stock Glutaraldehyde in 0.2M Sodium Cacodylate Buffer

So far I know:

Molecular weight of Glutaraldehyde: 100g/mol and Sodium Cacodylate:160g/mol

Assuming the density is 1 of Glutaldehyde, then 25%(1000g)=250g
250g/molecular weight(100g/mol)= 2.5mol/L-->2.5M

After this I have no clue which way to go. Any help would be great.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Use M1V1=M2V2. Don't need to go back to moles, percentages are fine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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