Interesting Question

[Over9000]

Knowing that the rate of a reaction is proportional to the temperature around it, I was wondering if that implies, say that people who live in colder places such as russia, have their skin age more slowly than say people from the hotter climate of Australia. I would think that the skin should age slower in Russia because the temperature is far cooler (I know for sure that internally there wouldnt be much difference in temperature), but since skin is directly exposed to outside temperature I think theres a possibility that people in Russia could have their skin age slower than us?
Could anyone verify this or have any thoughts about it?

[TrueTears]

What is the reaction that affects skin growth?

[Over9000]

What is the reaction that affects skin growth?

Not sure, I just assume that the skin would undergo reactions with the elements in the air such as C02, maybe im wrong tho?

[TrueTears]

Increasing the temperature increases the proportion of particles that has average kinetic energy equal or larger than the activation energy for the reaction. Assuming the activation energy for the reaction that causes skin growth is very high, there would be a negligible difference between the proportion of particles which have this amount of energy between the 2 temperatures (1 higher, 1 lower). Hence skin growth should be approximately the same.

[Over9000]

Increasing the temperature increases the proportion of particles that has average kinetic energy equal or larger than the activation energy for the reaction. Assuming the activation energy for the reaction that causes skin growth is very high, there would be a negligible difference between the proportion of particles which have this amount of energy between the 2 temperatures (1 higher, 1 lower). Hence skin growth should be approximately the same.

That seems logical, kk thanks TT

[NE2000]

Problem is this is bio as well as chem, there's a lot more to it than just reactions with components of the air. Firstly what exactly do you mean by skin ageing? Do you mean physical changes in the skin that you can see because I'm pretty sure that is more to do with the endocrine system rather than chemical reactions. In either case I also agree with TT, if there is a reaction between components of the air and skin that causes this (skin isn't really a reactant obviously but yeah just some chemicals on the outer surface of the skin) then temperature differences like that would have a negligible effect. Also there is some influence from blood vessels which are at a higher temperature; although in colder temperatures blood vessels tend to constrict.

If there turns out to be substance to your theory it's the sort of thing you could write a thesis on

[Over9000]

Increasing the temperature increases the proportion of particles that has average kinetic energy equal or larger than the activation energy for the reaction. Assuming the activation energy for the reaction that causes skin growth is very high, there would be a negligible difference between the proportion of particles which have this amount of energy between the 2 temperatures (1 higher, 1 lower). Hence skin growth should be approximately the same.

That seems logical, kk thanks TT

Problem is this is bio as well as chem, there's a lot more to it than just reactions with components of the air. Firstly what exactly do you mean by skin ageing? Do you mean physical changes in the skin that you can see because I'm pretty sure that is more to do with the endocrine system rather than chemical reactions. In either case I also agree with TT, if there is a reaction between components of the air and skin that causes this (skin isn't really a reactant obviously but yeah just some chemicals on the outer surface of the skin) then temperature differences like that would have a negligible effect. Also there is some influence from blood vessels which are at a higher temperature; although in colder temperatures blood vessels tend to constrict.

If there turns out to be substance to your theory it's the sort of thing you could write a thesis on

Yeh, I was just thinking lightly that reactions should be slower (even if extremely small) in Russia because theyre skin does seem to be in better condition than us, but now that I think about it, its probably mostly to do with sun exposure.

[Over9000]

Another question:
Say with the equation ()
If the coefficents were halved, would the activation energy be halved along with the "heat of reaction" (delta H) or would only the "heat of reaction be halved"

[TrueTears]

would half.

[Over9000]

would half.

Thx alot TT

[Over9000]

is not the heat of reaction, it is the difference in chemical energy between the reactants and products. Called the "heat content" or "enthalpy"

Oh, page 248 of heineman text book said heat of reaction is given the symbol

EDIT: Wait, I think I got confused, it just said heat of reaction is equal to the difference in enthalpy, its a confusing paragraph.

[TrueTears]

No, wait, I thought the energy released (look at page 250) is the . Because in a question I did a long time ago it said something like "4000 kJ of energy was RELEASED what was the ?", I had to minus the to get the

Yet on page 248, it says the energy released IS , I'm confused.

[Over9000]

No, wait, I thought the energy released (look at page 250) is the . Because in a question I did a long time ago it said something like "4000 kJ of energy was RELEASED" what was the , I had to minus the to get the

Yet on page 248, it says the energy released IS , I'm confused.

Yeh same here, im thinking theyve got the wording mixed up on pge 248 coz its pretty confusing.

[TrueTears]

Okay I found it, on pg 259 of heinmann check out Q 11 b). It says calculate the heat of reaction , , for the reaction. And on pg 248 it says "is the energy released" hence the answer to Q 11 b) should simply be 4270 kJ (as stated in the question)? But answer has it as 4270 - 3380 (ie minus the ).

[Over9000]

Okay I found it, on pg 259 of heinmann check out Q 11 b). It says calculate the heat of reaction , , for the reaction. And on pg 248 it says "is the energy released" hence the answer to Q 11 b) should simply be 4270 kJ (as stated in the question)? But answer has it as 4270 - 3380 (ie minus the ).

Yeh, I did that question and found the answer fine, I think the wording on page 248 is what should be in question here, it just doesnt sound right, I sense some contradiction in it as well.