Uncovering the Flaw in a Chemistry Lab Experiment

[Virogen]

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?

 

[Borek]

Your calculations are correct (I got 0.7011g, using exact values of molar masses):

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.

 

[Virogen]

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!

 

[Borek]

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.

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

[blatant ad mode]

. It is massively helpful by design

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]

 

[DeeNos]

Based on the information provided, it seems that the flaw in this experiment may be related to the use of the copper(II) sulfate pentahydrate. This compound has a molecular formula of CuSO4·5H2O, which indicates that it contains five molecules of water for every molecule of copper(II) sulfate. When calculating the moles of copper(II) sulfate, only the anhydrous form of the compound (without water molecules) should be used. This means that the actual amount of copper(II) sulfate present in the experiment may be less than the calculated amount, leading to a higher yield than expected.

Additionally, the use of the term "yield" in this context may also be misleading. Yield typically refers to the amount of product obtained in a reaction, relative to the theoretical maximum amount that could be produced. In this case, the "yield" is actually the mass of the product formed, which may have been influenced by the presence of water molecules in the reactants.

It is also possible that there were other sources of error in the experiment, such as incomplete reactions or inaccurate measurements, that could have contributed to the higher yields observed. Further investigation and careful analysis of the experimental procedure and results may be necessary to determine the exact flaw in this experiment.