Uncovering the Flaw in a Chemistry Lab Experiment

AI Thread Summary
The chemistry lab experiment combining copper(II) sulfate pentahydrate with barium nitrate yielded results exceeding stoichiometric predictions, with students recording over 0.8 g of barium sulfate instead of the expected 0.7 g. Potential flaws include variations in the composition of copper sulfate pentahydrate, which may not always be a true pentahydrate due to environmental factors. Additionally, the method of drying barium sulfate could lead to retained water, increasing its mass. Suggestions for improving percent yield labs were discussed, along with resources for further calculations. The conversation highlights the importance of precise measurements and methods in achieving accurate experimental results.
Virogen
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Any ideas what the inherent flaw in this experiment is?

Homework Statement


In the lab (actual lab), we combined copper(II) sulfate pentahydrate with barium nitrate to form barium sulfate (precipitate). Every group got a 115% or higher yield than stoichiometry would predict.

Ba(NO3)2 + CuSO4 5H2O --> Cu(NO3)2 + BaSO4 + 5H2O

Mass of barium nitrate: 1 g
Mass of copper(II sulfate pentahydrate) 0.75 g

Moles of copper(II) sulfate pentahydrate: 0.75g/249.71g/mol = 0.00300 mol
Moles of barium nitrate: 1g/261.35 g/mol = 0.00383 mol

The limiting reagent is thus copper(II) sulfate pentahydrate, and because of the 1:1 mole ratio, 0.00300 mol of barium sulfate should be produced.

0.00300 mol x 233.39 g/mol = 0.700g

However, all my students recorded at least 0.8 g... I'm very confused. It must have something to do with the water/pentahydrate?? But I can't see that mathematically if I try to remove the water completely. Any ideas what the flaw in this experiment is?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your calculations are correct (I got 0.7011g, using exact values of molar masses):

Ba(NO3)2+CuSO45H2O.png


Two things I can think of.

First, copper sulfate pentahydrate doesn't have an exact composition - exact number of water molecules depends on the temperature, humidity and the sample history. If memory serves me well it is quite possible that the sulfate you were using was not pentahydrate, but something like four-and-half-hydrate.

Second, how were you drying the barium sulfate? In analytical chemistry we roast it to the constant mass in the 600-800°C, lower temperatures don't guarantee it will be completely dry. If it contains water its mass will be higher than expected.
 
Well it's only high school so we let them air dry overnight (and it's a low humidity climate). It seemed very dry and flaked easily. Combined with the idea that it may not all be pentahydrate could possibly account for it.

Do you have a better suggestion for a percent yield lab?

Also, what program did you use to check these calculations? It looks massively helpful!
 
Some lab sites I know about:

http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/wiki/Lab:Practical_Chemistry
http://science-house.org/index.php/ctc
http://www.mrteverett.com/chemistry/labs/labs.asp

Unfortunately, none seems to have just a "yield" lab. I would also look for ideas in the Journal of Chemical Education. Also, just googling for "percent yield lab" gives plenty of hits.

Virogen said:
Also, what program did you use to check these calculations? It looks massively helpful!

[blatant ad mode]

. It is massively helpful by design :wink:

You may also want to check this quiz preparation story - there is more to the program than is apparent from the screenshot, and there are more helpful programs (all with 30-days free trial versions).

[/blatant ad mode]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
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