Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Sample of fractional distillation abstract report
Gas chromatography conclusion
Gas chromatography conclusion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Sample of fractional distillation abstract report
Fractional Distillation and Gas Chromatography
6. Data and Results Reference Attached Pages
7. Discussion The purpose of this experiment was to identify the chemical constituents of an unknown solution and its ratio. The separation and purification of liquids can be done through 4 main methods: simple, fractional, steam, and vacuum distillation. For the purposes of this experiment, only fractional distillation was used. Fractional distillation, and other types of distillation, involves using the boiling points of chemicals to separate them into pure liquids. However, fractional distillation is only used when there is a liquid/liquid mixture where the boiling points of the two solvents are more than 40°-50°C apart. A liquid/solid mixture
…show more content…
First, the calculations were made with a lab member’s data. This is because the GC machine was broken during the very first week when the samples were produced from fractional distillation. Because of this, the GC portion of the experiment was pushed to the following week. During the week where the samples were sitting in the lockers, portions of the sample evaporated which made the calculations less accurate. The following week, gas chromatography was conducted but lots of lab members had questions and issues with the extraction experiment so the TA was unable to get through everyone’s GC. Because of this, the TA instructed the lab to use the data of one lab member’s data that was relatively …show more content…
Although the correct results were obtained, there were still many problems with the experiment. As previously stated, the GC was not working the first week so GC portion of the experiment had to be pushed back a week. This caused portions of the sample to evaporate causing less accurate results. In addition, all the members of lab were told to expect that the first boiling point would be 81°C but the boiling point of one of the substances, acetone, was actually 56.5°C. Thus, the solution was boiled for too long and the B and C samples did not have the correct ratio of acetone to toluene. In addition, not everyone was able to get through the GC portion of the experiment due to complications in the extraction and recrystallization experiment. Thus, lab members were instructed to use one lab member’s data. Overall, the flawed data did have the correct boiling points so the unknowns were correctly identified. Also, the lab member’s data did have a relatively accurate ratio of acetone to toluene so the experiment was
The question that was proposed for investigation was: Can the theoretical, actual, and percent yields be determined accurately (Lab Guide pg. 83)?
The data we gathered was tested to be as accurate as possible. Our prediction on the solvents did not support our data that we collected. The cause of this could be due to human error when washing the beets or the cutting of the beets. The beets were not perfectly cut the same size, so some beet pieces were bigger than others which can affect the final the final result. We followed each step and followed the time limits cautiously. I can say if we were to redo the experiment our results would be similar because we would attempt to do the experiment as close as we did the first
Because of the limited amount of time the student is provided during this lab experiment, the complete amount of distillate was not collected fully due to the procedure being very slow and time consuming. The final eugenol that was isolated was not completely pure, and this is proven by the percent recovery being 110%, which is clearly higher than a 100%. This means that other substances were isolated along with the eugenol oil, such as leftover dichloromethane, which was used in the first place because the water and eugenol did not successfully separate into two layers, thus dichloromethane was added to help separate them. This is was caused percent recovery to be higher than what it should be. Heating and boiling the final solution for a longer time until all the dichloromethane is evaporated completely can easily avoid the presence of
Once the mixture had been completely dissolved, the solution was transferred to a separatory funnel. The solution was then extracted twice using 5.0 mL of 1 M
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
In this experiment, there were several objectives. First, this lab was designed to determine the difference, if any, between the densities of Coke and Diet Coke. It was designed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of several lab equipment measurements. This lab was also designed to be an introduction to the LabQuest Data and the Logger Pro data analysis database. Random, systematic, and gross errors are errors made during experiments that can have significant effects to the results. Random errors do not really have a specific cause, but still causes a few of the measurements to either be a little high or a little low. Systematic errors occur when there are limitations or mistakes on lab equipment or lab procedures. These kinds of errors cause measurements to be either be always high or always low. The last kind of error is gross errors. Gross errors occur when machines or equipment fail completely. However, gross errors usually occur due to a personal mistake. For this experiment, the number of significant figures is very important and depends on the equipment being used. When using the volumetric pipette and burette, the measurements are rounded to the hundredth place while in a graduated cylinder, it is rounded to the tenth place.
I blended on high to make the potatoes more liquid-like. I grabbed the cheesecloth and placed on the top of the blender. I poured the potato extract on the container and labeled it. I found out that I have to make 1% sugar solution so I grabbed the sugar and measured into 5 grams on the scale. I added 5 grams of sugar on 250 ml graduated cylinder and poured the water into the cylinder. I mixed the sugar with water and poured it into the saucepan. I refilled the water into the graduated cylinder and poured into the saucepan. I turned on the heat of the stove and saw the sugar dissolved. I poured into a container and labeled 1% sugar solution. I repeated the same thing with 1% salt solution by using 1 gram of salt and filled the water into graduated cylinder by 100 ml. I answered question three. In the first experiment, I grabbed four transfer pipets and used it to put solutions into the test tubes by 3ml. I labeled it and placed into the plastic cups so it can stand upright. I grabbed each test tube and poured 2 ml of catalase solution into it. I also tapped and swirled to measure the bubbles by using the ruler. I wrote the numbers into the lab report. In the second experiment, I labeled the room
Secondly all dilutions were made by hand, not included into the raw data was a multitude of errors which occurred when the dilution was prepared wrong. Potentially the dilutions were prepared correctly, and rather the solutions were not uniform in nature. For example the way the dilution occurred was if the required molarity was 0.05 of A and the supplied was 0.2 molar of A. 10 ml of A could be taken and 10 ml of water could be added, to make a 20 ml 0.1 molar solution of A. Next take 10 ml of the new solution and add 10 ml of water, and the 0.05 molar solution of A is formed. The flaw is thought to be in the third part of the procedure, as 0.1 molar of A is thought to have been taken out of the second solution but rather the 0.2 molar has not been correctly mixed through, and as such the final molarity is not what was calculated. This effects all the data found as the majority of points found used dilution which potentially were not correctly performed.
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.
If I compared my result to the literature values, are by no means accurate. But I could not have made the experiment completely efficient in the heat transfer. However, the results were all similar for each alcohol, without the small number of anomalous results. This means that the experiment was reliable, but the values were
Table 3 is the data from both labs determining the plate count per mL for both bacteria and for fungi. While doing lab 1 for bacteria we only tested each of the five dilutions on one plate; where as, for the second lab for fungi we tested four dilutions on two plates
The last part of experiment 5, was learning about specific gravity and temperature. Specific gravity does not have any units, it is unitless. When measuring for the temperature, we used a thermometer to calculate the Celsius of the water, 10% sodium chloride, and isopropyl alcohol. The specific gravity uses a hydrometer to measure the gravity of the liquids. Using the hydrometer, to figure out the measurements we have to look at it from top to bottom. The water for specific gravity was .998 while the temperature of it was 24
The sample was subjected to steam distillation as illustrated in Figure 1. A total of 50ml of distillate was collected while recording the temperature for every 5.0 ml of distillate. The distillate was transferred into a 250ml Erlenmeyer flask and 3.0 g of NaCl was added. The flask was cooled and the content was transferred into a 250-ml separatory funnel. Then 25.0ml of hexane was added and the mixture was shaken for 5 minutes with occasional venting. The aqueous layer was discarded and the organic layer was left inside. About 25.0ml of 10% NaOH was then added and the mixture was shaken as before. The aqueous layer was collected and then cooled in an ice bath. It was then acidified with enough 6.00 M HCl while the pH is being monitored with red litmus paper. Another 25.0 ml of hexane was added and the mixture was shaken as before. The hexane extract was saved and a small amount of anhydrous sodium sulfate was added. The mixture was then swirled for a couple of minutes then filtered. A small amount of the final extracted was tested separately with 1% FeCl3 and Bayer’s reagent.
The process of distillation has been used by humans for years to create alcoholic beverages. Distillation is the process of boiling a pair of liquids with different boiling points and then condensing the vapors above the boiling liquid in an attempt to separate them. One might suspect that the mixed two liquids of different boiling points could be separated simply by raising the temperature to the lower boiling point of the two liquids. However, this is not the case. The two liquids “boil” together at some temperature between their two boiling points.
There is also the potential of human error within this experiment for example finding the meniscus is important to get an accurate amount using the graduated pipettes and burettes. There is a possibility that at one point in the experiment a chemical was measured inaccurately affecting the results. To resolve this, the experiment should have been repeated three times.