This topic contains a solution. Click here to go to the answer

Author Question: You have atropine 0.4 mg/mL in a vial of liquid. How many milliliters would be needed for a 1.0-mg ... (Read 77 times)

jenna1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
You have atropine 0.4 mg/mL in a vial of liquid. How many milliliters would be needed for a 1.0-mg dose?
 
  a. 0.25
  b. 2.5
  c. 5
  d. 10

Question 2

One standard teaspoon is the equivalent to how many milliliters?
 
  a. 1
  b. 5
  c. 10
  d. 15



Related Topics

Need homework help now?

Ask unlimited questions for free

Ask a Question
Marked as best answer by a Subject Expert

olivia_paige29

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
Answer to Question 1

ANS: B

Answer to Question 2

ANS: B




jenna1

  • Member
  • Posts: 568
Reply 2 on: Jul 16, 2018
:D TYSM


samiel-sayed

  • Member
  • Posts: 337
Reply 3 on: Yesterday
YES! Correct, THANKS for helping me on my review

 

Did you know?

Anti-aging claims should not ever be believed. There is no supplement, medication, or any other substance that has been proven to slow or stop the aging process.

Did you know?

Vaccines cause herd immunity. If the majority of people in a community have been vaccinated against a disease, an unvaccinated person is less likely to get the disease since others are less likely to become sick from it and spread the disease.

Did you know?

Fatal fungal infections may be able to resist newer antifungal drugs. Globally, fungal infections are often fatal due to the lack of access to multiple antifungals, which may be required to be utilized in combination. Single antifungals may not be enough to stop a fungal infection from causing the death of a patient.

Did you know?

More than 4.4billion prescriptions were dispensed within the United States in 2016.

Did you know?

Although the Roman numeral for the number 4 has always been taught to have been "IV," according to historians, the ancient Romans probably used "IIII" most of the time. This is partially backed up by the fact that early grandfather clocks displayed IIII for the number 4 instead of IV. Early clockmakers apparently thought that the IIII balanced out the VIII (used for the number 8) on the clock face and that it just looked better.

For a complete list of videos, visit our video library