Chemistry Which of these molecules will form a micelle?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zipzap
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form Molecules
AI Thread Summary
Molecules A, B, and C are confirmed to form micelles due to their amphipathic nature, possessing distinct hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions. The discussion raises uncertainty about molecule D, suggesting that the presence of a benzene ring may affect its suitability for micelle formation. The importance of long hydrophobic tails in micelle structure is emphasized. Participants are encouraged to double-check their answers before submission. The inquiry reflects a need for clarity on micelle-forming properties in the context of molecular structure.
Zipzap
Messages
32
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Which of the following will form a micelle?
http://imgur.com/VFksg

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I know for sure that A, B and C are going to be micelles, since both are amphipathic molecules. They have a clear hydrophilic and hydrophobic part.

As for D, I'm really unsure. I have a feeling that having the benzene ring somehow changes the properties of the molecule in a way that does not make it suitable to be a micelle?

Is this the correct answer? I have to hand this in 6 hours and this is the VERY LAST QUESTION on my report! Thanks to anybody who helps! =D
 
Physics news on Phys.org
LONG tails are a virtue when making micelles. Recheck your answers.
 
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