14.
Clean up your table, and put all the materials back where
they were.
Data:
Weight Boat-2.111g
Compound Before Heating-1.689g
Compound After Heating-1.239g
Mass of Evaporated H2O-0.45g
Calculations:
MassOfEvaporatedWater
# ofMoles
MolarMassOfWater
H O=
2
0.45g
0.025mol
18.015g/ mol
#OfMolesInCompound
# OfMolesInRatio 0.025mol 3.2216mol
Smallest#OfMolesOfThe2Compounds
0.00776mol
MassOfEvaporatedWater
1.239g
# ofMoles
0.00776mol
MolarMassOfWater
159.602g/
m
ol
CuSO4=
#OfMolesInCompound
# OfMolesInRatio 0.00776mol 1mol
Smallest#OfMolesOfThe2Compounds
0.00776mol
Results:
Using these calculations we can conclude that 3.2216 moles can
be rounded down to 3 moles for the ratio. The ratio is 1 mole of CuSO4
to 3 moles of H2O. The empirical formula is CuSO4*3(H2O). The actual
ratio should be 1 mole of CuSO4: 5 moles of H2O.
Conclusion:
Since I did not get the correct ratio of CuSO4 to H2O my ratio was
1:3. The correct ratio is 1 mole of CuSO4: 5 moles of H2O. Some sources
of error could be how long the compound was heated for. Another
source of error could have been the strength of the Bunsen burner, or
how close the crucible was to the flame. A source of error could be the
amount of time the compound was heated for. If the compound were to
be heated longer, the mass of the compound after heating would have
been smaller due to evaporation. That would mean that the mass of
the evaporated H2O would be different affecting the calculations. If the
calculations were a little different than the number of moles would be
close to the correct ratio of 1:5 moles. The empirical formula of my
experimental mass is CuSO4*3(H2O). The empirical formula of the
actual mass is CuSO4*5(H2O).