Magdalena 1 Irene Magdalena Mr Owen Chemistry HL 20 September 2012 Limiting Reagent Lab Report Data Collection and Processing

Aspect 1 Recording Raw Aspect 2 Processing Raw Data Data Suitable processed Raw Data Data collected All raw data processed independently Example calculations Data primarily numberical Data processed correctly Qualitative data collected Sig figs correct Table organization Descriptive titles Column/Row same as graph IV on left Specific terms Table not split over page Cells contain one value Table arranged vertically Table has grid lines Table Numbers Units/Uncertainties in heading All values in column have same dec places Uses sig figs Mean appropriate sig figs % or relative uncertainty 2 sig figs Criterion Mark /2 Criterion Mark /2 Total DCP Mark __/6 Aspect 3 Presenting Processed Data General All processed data suitably presented Logical clear progression Final result correct n of sig figs Uncertainty are errors correct and appropriate Graphs Appropriate style of graph Titles on graph and axis Correct Units on axis Uncertainty shown on axis Scales shown on axis Scales appropriate Graphs large enough SI units used Line of best fit (if appropiate)

Criterion Mark

/2

Raw Data: Reactant Compounds Pb (NO3)2 KI Amount Measured (g) 1.01 0.801 Possible error (g) 0.01 0.01

Magdalena 2 Product Compounds PbI2 KNO3 Amount measured (g) 1.10 3.71 Possible error (g) 0.01 0.01

Processing Data: Balanced Chemical Equation: Pb (NO3)2 (aq) + 2 KI(s) PbI2 (s) + 2 KNO3 (aq)

Reactants Pb (NO3)2: KI: Mass used: 0.801 0.01 g Mr : 39.1 + 126.9 = 166.01 g 1 mol of KI n = (0.801/166.01) = 4.825 x 10-3 mols Mass used: 1.01 0.01 g Mr : 207.2 + 124.02 = 331.22 g 1 mol of Pb (NO3)2 n = (1.01/331.22) = 3.049 x 10-3 mols

Since there are 2KI: (4.825 x 10-3)/2 = 2.413 x 10-3 mols

To determine which one is the limiting reagent: 2.413 x 10-3 > 3.049 x 10-3 KI > Pb (NO3)2 The limiting reagent is KI since the value calculated for KI is smaller than Pb (NO3)2

Magdalena 3 Products: PbI2 KNO3 Table: Balanced Chemical Equation: Pb (NO3)2 (aq) + 2 KI(s) PbI2 (s) + 2 KNO3 (aq) Mr : 1.0111 x 102 g 1 mol Actual yield: 3.71 0.01 g Theoretical yield: (1.0111 x 102) x (4.825 x 10-3) = 4.879 x 10-1 g Percentage yield: ((3.710) / (4.879 x 10-1)) x 100 = 760.47% Mr : 4.61 x 102 g 1 mol of PbI2 Actual yield: 1.10 0.01 g Theoretical yield: (4.16 x 102) x (2.413 x 10-3) = 1.112 g Percentage yield: ((1.10) / (1.112)) x 100 = 98.92%

Reactant Compound Name Mass (g) Theoretical yield (g) Actual yield (g) Percentage yield (g) Pb (NO3)2 1.01 0.01 KI 0.801 0.01 1.112 PbI2

Product 2 KNO3

4.879 x 10-1 3.71 0.01 760.47%

1.10 0.01 98.92%

Magdalena 4 Conclusion: We know currently that PbI2 only has a percentage of 98.92% and that is less from 100%. There are reasons to why this happened. After we poured the PbI2 into the filter paper, there might be some of the compound left inside and however much water we use to try and rinse it out and into the filter paper, some might be too small for us to see. Another possibility, although highly unlikely, is that since the substance is too small, it flows out from the filter paper along with the water. Not only that, there might be instrumental error involving the scale since the scale wont give us a proper reading and keeps on changing its numbers. The wind around us might have blown out some of the powder when we werent aware of it. All these possibilities that I have stated might be the reason to why we didnt achieve 100%, although we were close enough in terms of numbers since if we were to round up, we would get at least 99%. We may have gotten a more or less accurate reading for PbI2 but that doesnt seem to be the case for KNO3 since we found out that our calculations exceed 100% greatly with a total of 760.47%. Im not entirely sure how we came into terms with this number but it could have been the water that was evaporating. My group had the most water amongst the other group in the flask. While the water is evaporating, we ran out of time and had to leave the flask in the hands of the lab helper. We came back later to find that our flask is wide open and not closed with a stopper. There might be a possibility that the water molecules inside the air and other unknown substances entered the flask. We reheated the flask, as it wasnt heated when we re-entered the lab. After all the aqueous solution has been evaporated, we find that our flask had certain green and yellow elements stuck to the bottom of the flask. It could be due to our ignorance that we didnt provide a stopper or it could have been a miscalculation someplace but we highly doubt the latter is the case.

Magdalena 5 We did what we were told by the instructions to the best of our ability. There are however, errors in our ways. We didnt get an accurate reading while evaporating the aqueous solution in the flask since the numbers kept changing. There might also be an error while we were trying to dry the lead (II) iodide in the filter paper using tissue; we might have dabbed a little too much, causing some of the compound to fasten on the tissue and thus there isnt an accurate reading when we calculated it. The scale, as mentioned several times before, might have issues inside it. We tried hard to get an accurate reading but try as we might, the numbers displayed on the screen didnt seem to stop and kept on changing in values no matter what. We concluded that although the numbers kept on changing, it didnt really go over 0.01 g so we made that our uncertainty. The experiment was not the biggest success but like all experiments, we learn through trial and error. If given the right tools and more time, we could have gotten a much better result than the ones we have now.