To determine which statement explains the treatments correctly, we need to analyze each option based on the relationships between the substances and the activation or deactivation conditions provided.
-
Substance 1 was activated by a decrease in temperature, Substance 2 was activated by the change in concentration, and Substance 3 decreased the surface area.
- This statement implies that Substance 1 is activated through cold environments, which does not typically activate reactions, as heat generally promotes activity. Furthermore, decreasing surface area typically diminishes the reaction rates.
-
Substance 1 was activated by a decrease in temperature, Substance 2 was activated by the change in pressure, and Substance 3 increased the surface area.
- Again, activation of Substance 1 by a temperature decrease is unusual as most substances tend to be activated by heat. Substance 3’s activation through increased surface area is a valid point, but Substance 1 remains a problem.
-
Substance 1 was activated by the heat and inactivated by ice, Substance 2 was activated by the change in pressure, and Substance 3 decreased the surface area.
- This statement holds some plausibility, as many substances indeed become more active when heated. However, reducing the surface area typically would not support activation of a substance.
-
Substance 1 was activated by the heat and inactivated by ice, Substance 2 was activated by the change in concentration, and Substance 3 increased the surface area.
- This statement makes the most sense. Substance 1 is activated by heat and inactivated by cold conditions (ice). Substance 2 is activated by a change in concentration, which is also reasonable, and Substance 3 explains that increasing surface area can indeed increase the rate of reactions.
Thus, the most accurate statement that explains the treatments is:
Substance 1 was activated by the heat and inactivated by ice, Substance 2 was activated by the change in concentration, and Substance 3 increased the surface area.
1 answer