True. In general, smaller cells can be more efficient because they have a larger surface area-to-volume ratio, allowing for better nutrient absorption and waste removal. This efficiency can enhance metabolic processes and overall cellular function. However, the optimal size can vary depending on the specific type of cell and its functions.
Smaller cells are more efficient.
False. A smaller cell has a higher ratio of surface area to volume, making moving the amount of required nutrients simpler.
false?
True. Several small cells have greater surface area compared to a single large cell, which allows for more efficient exchange of nutrients and waste products with the environment. This increased surface area facilitates quicker uptake of essential materials and removal of waste, which is essential for the cell's survival and function.
false because it tend to produce less than the efficient level of output
True or false?
i bet its smaller, and more efficient
fairwind science lab ;]
The more volume a cell has, the harder it is for the cell to retrieve the nutrients is needs. The nucleus is farther from the membrane so the cell uses more energy to bring in the nutrients. A cell must not waste its energy, because it would become much less efficient. Smaller cells, on the other hand, use very little energy in gethering its nutrients, because the surface area to volume ratio is larger. It is much more efficient. Cells also replicate to allow the organism to grow or repair itself.
Small cells are much more efficient. If there were large cells that we did not need a microscope to see, materials would take too long to travel to the center of the cell through the cytoplasm. But that is coming from the stand-point that the materials stayed the same size. If the materials got bigger as well, then there would be no problem but in real life, the particles would stay the same size and the over sized cell would die.
False
Drive less, use a bike, buy a smaller or more efficient car.