To increase water solubility, we would want polar functional groups, since polar molecules are soluble in polar water. Some polar functional groups are alcohols, carboxylic acids, and aldehydes.

When we talk about hydrogen bonds, that is an intermolecular interaction between a very electronegative atom (O,N,F) and hydrogen. The partial positive charge would be on the hydrogen and the partial negative charge would be on the very electronegative atom. Electronegativity refers to an atom's ability to attract electrons, so a more electronegative atom (partial negative charge) is more likely to accept electrons than give them up, making it the hydrogen bond acceptor, while the less electronegative atoms (hydrogen) with the partial positive charge is more likely to give up electrons, making it the hydrogen bond donor.

I learned about electronegativity and types of bonds in previous chemistry courses, but it is so interesting to see that these concepts can be applied to biology. I am so curious to see how we can apply the concepts of electronegativity and the strength of bonds to biology. It seems that based on varying degrees of electronegativity there are different bonds and interactions are present. The greater difference in electronegative would be ionic bonding and the smallest difference in electronegative would be nonpolar covalent bonding.

From Carbon 1, we would see the greatest "pull' of electrons from the oxygen (more electronegative) and smallest "pull" of electrons from the hydrogens (less electronegative). In other words, there is a partial negative charge on the oxygen and partial positive charge on the hydrogens, causing an overall dipole moment toward the oxygen. From Carbon 2, we would see the greatest "pull' of electrons from the nitrogen (more electronegative) and smallest "pull" of electrons from the hydrogen (less electronegative). In other words, there is a partial negative charge on the nitrogen and partial positive charge on the hydrogens, causing an overall dipole moment toward the nitrogen.

Since the plants under the shade are around the same height as the plants in the sunny area, we can conclude that the amount of sunlight the plant receives does not affect the plant height. This result would lead us to accept our null hypothesis that the amount of sunlight the plant receives does not have a significant correlation to plant height.

This is an interesting point here because I was not familiar with the design challenge before reading this. After reading the purposes of each, I understand the benefits of both and importance of each. Based on my understanding it seems that the scientific model is essential to make testable predictions and come up with explanations for certain phenomena, while the design challenge is more focused around using the concepts learned through the scientific model to come up with new solutions.

I completely agree with the other ideas mentioned that there are multiple factors that could affect the plant height, other than the just the amount of sunlight. I had a similar idea that the soil could be a factor because it is possible that in the initial experiment (without the shade structure) the soil could have been less nutrient rich in the shaded area than the sunlight rich area and that could have been the affecting factor, rather than the sunlight. To ensure that the soil type and, as a result, nutrient level, is a control variable we would create a shade structure to adjust sunlight level while keeping the soil the same. Then in this setting, if we determine that the shaded plants are shorter than the unshaded, we can be slightly more confident that it is the amount of sunlight that is affecting the plant height, not the soil nutrient level.

The null hypothesis would suggest that there is no correlation between the amount of sunlight the plant receives and the height of the plant. The alternate hypothesis would, on the other hand, suggest that there is a correlation between the amount of sunlight the plant receives and the height of the plant. In order to determine if there is a significant correlation between amount of sunlight and plant height and to either accept or reject our null, we would have to use statistical analysis techniques such as a t-test. - Null Hypothesis: An increase in the amount of sunlight the plant receives, does not correlate to a significant increase in plant height. - Alternate Hypothesis: An increase in the amount of sunlight the plant receives, does correlate to a significant increase in plant height.

This really highlights how biology and chemistry are such interconnected fields and how either one can not be fully understood without understanding the other. After taking BIS2B last quarter and focusing on biology on a larger scale, I'm excited to explore biology on much smaller scale in this class by focusing on the atomic level.

Some of my previous chemistry professors have used anthropomorphism to describe the strength of bonds between atoms. For example, they described how certain atoms were "more greedy for electrons" to describe electronegativity. While this simplified complex vocabulary and made the concept easier to understand, it was not scientifically accurate, since atoms are not actually "greedy". Using these anthropomorphistic terms to scientifically prove ideas would technically be incorrect and in more advanced chemistry courses I am expected to use more complex terms. The tradeoff in this case would be that I understood the concepts much more easily, but I was not exposed to the complex vocabulary.

To me, the term mental mode refers to a method of visualizing and organizing the concepts I've learned. It is important for learning because it provides an additional level to understanding the information, instead of just through words or blocks of text. It accompanies those words with diagrams, pictures, and processes, allowing me to more deeply engage with the information I have learned.

I completely agree with this statement here. I feel that sometimes there is this impression that biology is about memorization, but in reality, that is not completely accurate. While there is definitely some memorization, it is mainly about problem-solving. This is especially because pure memorization would never pave the way for new discoveries and innovations; it does not allow us to make connections and use those connections to solve greater problems. I've realized that problem-solving is definitely challenging, but through enough practice and deliberate effort I can improve my problem solving skills, and this class is an opportunity for me to do so.