If a 0.020M solution exhibits 55%T at some wavelength what will

>>8511081
Depends on the transmittance of the solvent, really.

>>8511081
Take a shit in your beaker then take new measures.

>>8511108
>using a beaker while testing transmittance

>>8511122
It could be a nearby, unrelated beaker.

>>8511081
Without any other information you can't get exactly %T, but I'd estimate around 80

>>8511081
Why are you even asking did you forget to put your 0.010M samples in the spectrophotometer in your lab and need 4chan to save you from your stupidity

>>8511168
>>8511171
it was a test question

>>8511274
i mean an exam question

>>8511081
It's simple Lambert-Beer.
[math]A = - \mathrm{lg}(T) = \epsilon \cdot c \cdot d[/math]

>>8511304
To expand for dummies:
[math]-\mathrm{lg}(0.55) = \epsilon \cdot d \cdot 0.020 \; \mathrm M \Leftrightarrow \epsilon \cdot d = \frac{-\mathrm{lg}(0.55)}{0.020 \; \mathrm M}[/math]
[math]-\mathrm{lg}(T) = \epsilon \cdot d \cdot 0.010 \; \mathrm M = \frac{-\mathrm{lg}(0.55)}{0.020 \; \mathrm M} \cdot 0.010 \; \mathrm M = -\mathrm{lg}(0.55) \cdot \frac 1 2 \Leftrightarrow T = \sqrt \frac {55}{100} \approx 0.74[/math]

>>8511104
No, not at all.
Because You do a background measurement with the pure solvent and subtract that from the sample measurement.
And the change in concentration for the solvent is minimal. Water for example has a molarity of 55.556. As you can see, adding a small amount of a substance so that you end up with 0.020 M of it in water will have no noticeable effect on the transmission of water.

>>8511168
Why do you even comment if you have no clue what you are talking about.