What Is the Correct Molarity of Glucose for Isotonic IV Solutions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Torshi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Chem Pressure
AI Thread Summary
The osmotic pressure of human blood is approximately 7.7 atm at body temperature, and the correct molarity of an intravenous glucose solution must match this pressure. The equation P = MRT is used to calculate molarity, where R is the ideal gas constant and T is the temperature in Kelvin. A user calculated a molarity of 0.303 M but received feedback that it might be incorrect, possibly due to significant figures or unit discrepancies. The importance of using proper units in calculations is emphasized, as well as the need for precision in scientific measurements. Accurate molarity is crucial for creating isotonic IV solutions.
Torshi
Messages
118
Reaction score
0
Human blood gives rise to an osmotic pressure of approximately 7.7 atm at body temperature, 35.9 Celsius.

What must the molarity of an intravenous glucose solution be to give rise to the same osmotic pressure as blood?

------------------------------

I use the equation ; P=MRT if that's right
R is constant= .0821
T= 308.9 Kelvin
P=7.7 atm
M= ?

So would i rearrange the equation to P/RT=M
I get the wrong answer tho, and the answer doesn't sound right. I know I'm doing something wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What answer did you get, and how do you know it is wrong?

One thing: R is not 0.0821. It is 0.0821 L atm K^−1 mol^−1. Never let your numbers go out naked. Units are really, really important.
 
Torshi said:
bump
What answer did you get, and how do you know it's wrong?
 
pmsrw3 said:
What answer did you get, and how do you know it's wrong?

.303 M

and masteringchemistry says it's wrong...
 
Well, what you're doing looks right to me, and that answer is at least close to the correct concentration for isotonic glucose. All I can guess is that you need to have more or fewer sig figs, or maybe different units (e.g. 303 mM), or something like that.
 
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