Test Lead at Home: How to Identify Unknown Metals

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Home Lead Test
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around methods for identifying an unknown metal lump suspected to be lead. Participants explore various home testing techniques, chemical reactions, and practical approaches to ascertain the metal's composition, focusing on theoretical and experimental aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the physical characteristics of the metal lump, noting its dark grey oxidized appearance, heavy weight, and ductility, and expresses uncertainty about its identity.
  • Another participant suggests using precipitation reactions involving acids and compounds from the activity series to identify the metal.
  • Some participants mention the effectiveness of lead test kits, particularly for detecting lead in glazes, and propose surface-wipe tests for the unknown metal.
  • There are discussions about the reactivity of lead with various acids, particularly acetic acid, and the potential to precipitate lead(II) iodide using iodide ions.
  • One participant warns about the proper disposal of lead solutions and the hazards associated with lead shavings.
  • Measuring the density of the metal lump through water displacement is proposed as a potential identification method.
  • Suggestions are made to dissolve the metal in hydrochloric acid and test the resulting solution for lead content.
  • Some participants share personal experiences related to melting lead and discuss safety precautions regarding ventilation and hazardous fumes.
  • There is a discussion about the solubility of iodine and its potential role in identifying lead through precipitate formation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a variety of methods and ideas for identifying the metal, but there is no consensus on a definitive approach or conclusion regarding the identity of the metal lump. Multiple competing views and techniques remain under consideration.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note limitations in the availability of specific chemicals and the feasibility of certain proposed methods, which may affect the reliability of the tests discussed.

  • #31
Let me rephrase. Since it's not radioactive, it is most likely one of the first 82 elements. I understand that some higher elements could fall into this category (for example, bismuth-209, as was said), but how often do these elements present themselves in such large quantities in everyday life?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
  • #32
pzona said:
Let me rephrase. Since it's not radioactive, it is most likely one of the first 82 elements.

Unless it is technetium :-p
 
  • #33
Geez Borek, you and your exceptions :p
 
  • #34
They are not mine, they are around :smile:

--
 
  • #35
OK, I took my sample into my brother's lab to test its density.


We measured its volume by dropping it in a full beaker of water and measuring the weight (and thus volume) of the water that was displaced on a microgram scale. By far the biggest problems we had were:
- eliminating the meniscus so we cold get an accurate water level, and
- ensuring that we drained all drops from the exteroir of the beaker onto the weight scale.

We used combinations of alcohol and/or hand soap to minimize the meniscus and used a microlitre pipette to recover any drops that lingered on the beaker. My brother, having spent decades in the lab, was able to estimate the few microlitre drops remaining and added them to the test sample. We figure we got our volume measurements to within +/-20 microlitres. We did the experiment 3 times.

Results:
The sample weighs 116.06g.
The volume is 10.13, 10.56 and 10.64 cm^3 for an average of 10.44 cm^3.

This results in a density of 11.12g/cm^3 +/- 0.02.

The published density of common lead is 11.34g/cm^3.

My measurement of the sample is within 2% of the density of lead.

I'm callin' it lead.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
DaveC426913 said:
OK, I took my sample into my brother's lab to test its density.We measured its volume by dropping it in a full beaker of water and measuring the weight (and thus volume) of the water that was displaced on a microgram scale. By far the biggest problems we had were:
- eliminating the meniscus so we cold get an accurate water level, and
- ensuring that we drained all drops from the exteroir of the beaker onto the weight scale.

We used combinations of alcohol and/or hand soap to minimize the meniscus and used a microlitre pipette to recover any drops that lingered on the beaker. My brother, having spent decades in the lab, was able to estimate the few microlitre drops remaining and added them to the test sample. We figure we got our volume measurements to within +/-20 microlitres. We did the experiment 3 times.

Results:
The sample weighs 116.06g.
The volume is 10.13, 10.56 and 10.64 cm^3 for an average of 10.44 cm^3.

This results in a density of 11.12g/cm^3 +/- 0.02.

The published density of common lead is 11.34g/cm^3.

My measurement of the sample is within 2% of the density of lead.

I'm callin' it lead.
You could have a slug of "printer's lead". It was used for linotype printing and is cut with antimony (and perhaps a little tin) so that it is hard enough to resist deformation when making multiple impressions on a printing press, yet still re-melt easily for re-use.

Edit: hand-loaders love this stuff, since it can be easily cast into bullets, and it is "just" hard enough to shoot a (warning! Scientific term coming!) gazillion times without causing lead deposition in the grooves of a rifled barrel. Commercially, this tendency is overcome by jacketing bullets in copper or some other metal or alloy, but hand-loaders don't have the capability of producing jacketed bullets. Linotype lead is a precious (and shrinking) commodity.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
turbo-1 said:
Linotype lead is a precious (and shrinking) commodity.
That is interesting. My brother also speculated that it might be precious, but for a different reason. He said something about low radioactive decay rate of a particular isotope that makes it useful for ... uh ... something to do with shielding.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
13K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K