Hypertonic / Hypotonic - A solution containing 0.2 M KCl

  • Thread starter Thread starter future_vet
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kcl
AI Thread Summary
A solution containing 0.2 M KCl is added to Side A, while Side B contains 0.2 M sucrose. KCl dissociates into K+ and Cl-, resulting in a total concentration of 0.4 M on Side A. Since sucrose does not dissociate, Side B remains at 0.2 M. Consequently, Side B is hypotonic with respect to Side A, as it has a lower effective concentration of solutes. Understanding the dissociation of solutes is crucial for determining tonicity in solutions.
future_vet
Messages
169
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A solution containing 0.2 M KCl is added to Side A and a solution containing 0.2 M sucrose is added to Side B.
Side B is __________ with respect to Side A. (a. hypotonic b. isotonic c. hypertonic.

Homework Equations


NA

The Attempt at a Solution


I have no idea. I know that the hypertonic side would be the side with the greater concentration, or the opposite for hypotonic.
Here we have different solutions, but the same concentration.

Thanks for any help you can give me!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
KCl dissociates, so you'll have 0.2M or K+ and 0.2M of Cl-... Therefore solution A is twice as concentrated as solution B (sucrose cannot dissociate)... Therefore, "Side B is hypotonic with respect to Side A"
 
Thank you so much!
 
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