Maximum Percent Recovery in Ethanol/Water Recrystallization

  • Thread starter Thread starter JM92
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Maximum Percent
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the maximum percent recovery of a crude product during recrystallization using an ethanol/water solvent mixture. A participant attempted to derive the recovery percentage by converting the solvent volume to mass and calculating the ratio of product to solvent, arriving at a 95.8% recovery. However, there is uncertainty about the validity of this calculation due to a lack of information on product solubilities. Participants agree that the problem cannot be solved quantitatively without additional data and suggest that a qualitative understanding of the recrystallization process may be sufficient. The conversation highlights the complexities of recrystallization and the importance of solubility data in determining recovery outcomes.
JM92
Messages
9
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



One often stated advantage of ethanol/water as a recrystallization solvent is that the mixture behaves like ethanol at reflux and like water at room temperature or below. Assuming that 24 mL of the solvent is used per 1 g of crude product and recrystallization and recovery of the product is done at room temperature, what is the maximum percent recovery that can be achieved?

Homework Equations



N/A

The Attempt at a Solution



I thought perhaps we could convert 24 mL of solvent into 24 g of solvent using water's density as a conversion factor (1.00 g/mL) since the solvent acts like water during recrystallization and recovery in this question. Then I took the ratio of crude product to solvent:

1g product / 24g solvent * 100% = 4.2% lost

Therefore 100% - 4.2% = 95.8% recovery.

Not only do I not have confidence that this is correct, but I also don't know why this calculation makes sense, if at all.

Thanks a lot for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't see how to solve the problem at all, without information about what the product solubilities are.
 
Borek said:
I don't see how to solve the problem at all, without information about what the product solubilities are.

There must be a way.. This question didn't even provide so much as the identity of the product. Also, this question seems to have been used for at least 7 years because a Google search of it shows results from 2006 :P (couldn't find any answers, however), so it must be answerable for it to not have been removed.
 
JM92 said:
this question seems to have been used for at least 7 years because a Google search of it shows results from 2006 :P (couldn't find any answers, however), so it must be answerable for it to not have been removed.

This is a faulty logic - conclusion doesn't follow from the premises :-p

But if there is an answer, I would love to see it. If you will find anything, please share.
 
Yes, you can't solve this quantitatively with information given. Maybe they are only asking for a qualitative answer. When you mix with the ethanol/water mixture, some of the stuff will dissolve and some won't. Then when you heat it should all dissolve (because you've fixed quantitities so that that happens). When you then cool the maximum that will crystallise will be what didn't dissolve when cold in the first place.

Or else sometimes it doesn't all dissolve and you filter it hot. The purer product is in the filtrate and you hopefully recrystallise it. Sometimes the filter funnel is heated by a jacket to stop it cooling too much and recrystallising too soon before separation in the funnel. Sometimes some of the ethanol is distilled off. Sometimes it is driven off by heating over a flame in a beaker and then a furious chemistry teacher comes shouting You're more of a fool than I thought you were! :biggrin:

It's a long time since I did any of this, especially the last bit, but I think this is right and is all you can say with the info given.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top