Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effect of temperature on the rate of reaction
Effect of temperature on the rate of reaction
Effect of temperature on the rate of reaction
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effect of temperature on the rate of reaction
Error Analysis The percent error or percent yield between the theoretical yield of Cu produced and experimental value of Cu produced was approximately 107 %. One source of error, which was a scientific error, was that leaving the Cu precipitate in the cupboard for week allows dust to accumulate on the sample. When dust accumulates on the Cu precipitate for a period of one week, it adds additional mass when weighed. This is because dust has mass, and as more and more dust accumulate, the accumulation of dust will have a greater mass. As a result, the experimental mass of Cu produced would be greater than the theoretical value of Cu produced in the reaction since the precipitate weighed on the electronic balance is also considering the mass of …show more content…
Moreover, another purpose was to learn how to use different lab techniques, such as filtration and proper heating of test tubes, in order to determine the mass of products produced by the reaction. Not only that, the experiment demonstrates how transition elements can often form more than one type of reaction due to their differently charged ions, like Fe. One of the key results of the experiment was that the percent yield was greater than 107%. Often times, the actual yield is less than the theoretical yield because there may be competing reactions, external conditions may not be ideally maintained, or the reactants are not pure. However, in this experiment, the actual yield was higher than the theoretical yield possibly due to the source of errors that dust accumulated on the precipitate or some of the precipitate reacted with other elements in the atmosphere. Another key result of the experiment was that the data indicated that the reaction involved 〖Fe〗^(2+)ions because the calculated Cu/Fe molar ratio was approximately 1.07, or rounded to 1:1. This mole ratio is closer and similar to the first equation Fe(s)+〖CuSO〗_4 (aq)→〖FeSO〗_4 (aq)+Cu(s), because the Cu/Fe molar ratio is also 1:1. Therefore, the reaction with 〖Fe〗^(3+)ions did not take place since its equation – equation 2 – has a Cu/Fe molar ratio of
The experiment was not a success, there was percent yield of 1,423%. With a percent yield that is relatively high at 1,423% did not conclude a successful experiment, because impurities added to the mass of the actual product. There were many errors in this lab due to the product being transferred on numerous occasions as well, as spillage and splattering of the solution. Overall, learning how to take one product and chemically create something else as well as how working with others effectively turned out to be a
...form 〖PbCrO〗_4 and then process it through a filter. After filtering the 〖PbCrO〗_4 I had to dry the 〖PbCrO〗_4 residue in the drying oven for 30 minutes at 80℃. Then let it cool for 5 minutes and weigh it and finally make a few calculations to obtain the theoretical, actual, and percent yields of 〖PbCrO〗_4. I was able to fulfill the experiment because I obtained all the answers to the equations in an accurate amount. I believe this experiment was a success due to my hypothesis of, If physical methods are used to separate 〖 PbCrO〗_4 precipitate from the reaction mixture then I can successfully calculate the theoretical, actual, and percent yields, being correct.
We were assigned a group and instructed to measure the amount of different ions in that particular fertilizer sample by counting to preform tests. We used the formula SO4 + Agent —> Percipitat + others. Our job was to add 0.25 g of a fertilizer sample to 100 mL of water to dissolve, then add the agent Pb(NO2)3 to the water also, then filter and dry the water, and distinguish the mass. The was accomplished by using the % formula Mass SO4 = Mass Pb(NO3)2 x MW Pb(NO3)2/ MWPb(NO3)2 to gain the percentage, the the formula Mass SO4/MW SO4 =
Our procedure though was not without its mistakes. These mistakes are vital because they affect the data we conclude. Theoretically, according to the balanced chemical equation, for every mole of hydrated cobaltous chloride that is being heated, the decomposition ensures that the compound decomposes into one mole of cobalt(II) chloride and six moles of gaseous water vapor. Thus, in theory we should lose the mass equal to six moles of water vapor in each trial. Unfortunately, this is not the case because we don’t have perfect lab conditions and factors such as the time heated, utilization of the same crucible, and the inconsistency of magnitude of the flame from the Bunsen burner all contribute to differences in mass percent change for each
The procedure of the lab on day one was to get a ring stand and clamp, then put the substance in the test tube. Then put the test tube in the clamp and then get a Bunsen burner. After that put the Bunsen burner underneath the test tube to heat it. The procedure of the lab for day two was almost exactly the same, except the substances that were used were different. The
3. Why are the crucible and lid heated at the beginning of the experiment before being weighed?
Overall, the experiment produced a successful percent yield of 78.65% of alum from the pieces of aluminum. However, there was a relatively large percent error of 21.34%. This error could have resulted from multiple steps in the experiment. One notable source of error could have stemmed from not obtaining all of the alum crystals from the beaker before aspirating; some crystals could have remained in the beaker, resulting in a lower yield than expected. Another potential source of error may have been only running the alum crystals through the aspirator once; the aspirator removes liquids from the sample, drying them out, however some of the crystals could have ended up in the filtered liquid. By running this solution through the aspirator a second time, a greater yield could have occurred. Finally, when adding H2SO4, white crystals could have formed, resulting in it being necessary to reheat the solution. By not reheating the solution if the crystals did form, a loss of overall alum crystals would be significant, given that they could have formed in these white crystals, rather than the desired alum. To prevent these errors, it would be necessary to ensure that all of the crystals were removed from the beaker by aspirating, as well as filtering the solution more than once. As for the white crystal formation, a
== Refer to Chemistry Lab # 2 – Investigating Changes. No changes have been made in this experiment. Results = ==
One possible source of experimental error could be not having a solid measurement of magnesium hydroxide nor citric acid. This is because we were told to measure out between 5.6g-5.8g for magnesium hydroxide and 14g-21g for citric acid. If accuracy measures how closely a measured value is to the accepted value and or true value, then accuracy may not have been an aspect that was achieved in this lab. Therefore, not having a solid precise measurement and accurate measurement was another source of experimental error.
A precipitation reaction can occur when two ionic compounds react and produce an insoluble solid. A precipitate is the result of this reaction. This experiment demonstrates how different compounds, react with each other; specifically relating to the solubility of the compounds involved. The independent variable, will be the changing of the various chemical solutions that were mixed in order to produce different results. Conversely the dependent variable will be the result of the independent variable, these include the precipitates formed, and the changes that can be observed after the experiment has been conducted. The controlled variable will be the measurement of ten droplets per test tube.
Aim. I am going to compare the results from the experiment with the theoretical result to see if they have any similarities or differences. I have already been told how to find out the theoretical result by using balanced equations and reacting masses. Prediction. I predict that the experimental yield won’t be the same as the theoretical yield.
Because there are more molecules, the frequency of successful collisions is greater, and the reactions happen faster. Safety There are a lot of safety issues we must abide by in this experiment. We must remember that the substances we use in this experiment can be very harmful if used the wrong way. When doing this experiment, it may be necessary to wear safety goggles, as things are very unpredictable, and even though it is very unlikely that the solution will come out of the beaker during the experiment, one must still be cautious of spills. We must make sure that coats and bags are all out of the way while doing the experiment.
This experiment consists of titrating the ferrous ion with permanganate ion to study the oxidation-reduction reaction. The ions react in acidic solution to give ferric ion and a reduced ionic form of manganese. All the reactants and products except permanganate ion are weakly colored, whereas permanganate is a very intensely colored ion. Then a solution of permanganate is removed as long as there is a ferrous ion present to react with it. But as soon as the entire ferrous ion has been oxidized, the next small portion of added permanganate colors the solution. The first appearance of a permanent pink color indicates the endpoint of the experiment. From the titration it will be able to calculate the percentage of iron in the sample from the data.
The experiment was luckily conclused fairly similar to the accepted value. However, because only appoximation of datas and other source of errors, the accuracy of the data could be questionable.
This error in the data may be from the coprecipitation of other salts that were in the unknown sample in addition to human error. The standard deviation of the experiment’s data is also very high. The fact that each of the three trials produced different results could be from additional weight from any filter paper that did not fully combust. However, with that thought in mind, the data shows that it is possible to use gravimetric analysis to figure out how much sulfate was in the original composition. This method, when done correctly, is useful to industries who use sulfates in order to keep the concentration of the sulfate low. While the data is not completely accurate because of error, it is possible to duplicate this experiment. With more time and finer equipment, the experiment will be able to run more smoothly and precise. Along with an adjustment to the experiment to prevent the coprecipitation of any other salts that were included in the unknown sample, this experiment will be able to produce more accurate results about the percentage of sulfate. The results produced from experiments involving gravimetric analysis are useful in not only determining how much sulfate is in a sample, but also in determining the amount of any other chemical in a certain