1 of 15 Investigation of the Effect of the Amount of Acetic Acid Present in a Buffer Solution on the Amount of Potassium Hydroxide Necessary

to Create an Alkaline Solution Summary of Procedure We began by preparing 0.5 M potassium hydroxide (KOH) solution and 0.1 M sodium acetate solution, along with diluting 14 M acetic acid solution to form 1.0 M acetic acid solution. We then added 5 mL of sodium acetate solution, about three drops of bromothymol blue indicator, and a varied amount of acetic acid solution (our independent variable) to a beaker. Using a burette, we added potassium hydroxide solution while stirring periodically until the indicator changed color from yellow to blue, which indicated that we had created an alkaline solution.

Note: Throughout this investigation, unless otherwise indicated, all uncertainties carried through calculations will be calculated by adding absolute uncertainties when adding or subtracting values and adding relative uncertainties when multiplying or dividing values. All uncertainties will be reported in their absolute form. When calculating with relative uncertainties with intent to return them to absolute form, significant figures in the relative uncertainties will not be taken into account, as doing so would artificially inflate the rounding error.

2 of 15 Raw Data Va (dm3 VNa (dm3 Vi burette 0.0001 0.0001 (dm3 dm3) dm3) 0.0001 dm3) 1 0.0021 0.0052 0.0000 1 2 0.0020 0.0050 0.0000 3 0.0021 0.0050 0.0000 1 0.0040 0.0050 0.0019 2 2 0.0042 0.0051 0.0049 3 0.0040 0.0050 0.0051 1 0.0062 0.0051 0.0093 3 2 0.0061 0.0050 0.0145 3 0.0061 0.0052 0.0145 1 0.0083 0.0049 0.0211 4 2 0.0080 0.0050 0.0296 3 0.0080 0.0050 0.0302 1 0.0100 0.0051 0.0000 5 2 0.0101 0.0050 0.0001 3 0.0100 0.0051 0.0000 1 0.0031 0.0051 0.0232 6 2 0.0030 0.0051 0.0249 3 0.0030 0.0050 0.0250 1 0.0050 0.0052 0.0299 7 2 0.0050 0.0050 0.0001 3 0.0050 0.0051 0.0319 1 0.0070 0.0051 0.0000 8 2 0.0070 0.0052 0.0132 3 0.0071 0.0050 0.0162 1 0.0090 0.0050 0.0171 9 2 0.0090 0.0051 0.0249 3 0.0089 0.0051 0.0001 1 0.0201 0.0051 0.0001 10 2 0.0200 0.0050 0.0000 3 0.0201 0.0051 0.0001 Mass of KOH in solution 1: (13.99 0.05) g Data Point Trial Volume of solution 1: (0.500 0.005) dm3 Mass of KOH in solution 2: (2.80 0.02) g Volume of solution 2: (0.100 0.003) dm3 Vf burette (dm3) soln #

0.0019 0.0002 0.0049 0.0002 0.0051 0.0002 0.0093 0.0002 0.0145 0.0003 0.0145 0.0002 0.0211 0.0003 0.0296 0.0005 0.0302 0.0003 0.0369 0.0002 0.0486 0.0005 0.0500 0.0002 0.0232 0.0002 0.0249 0.0003 0.0250 0.0002 0.0299 0.0004 0.0321 0.0004 0.0319 0.0003 0.0421 0.0005 0.0132 0.0002 0.0442 0.0002 0.0171 0.0005 0.0306 0.0005 0.0334 0.0003 0.0388 0.0008 0.0478 0.0004 0.0224 0.0003 0.0452 0.0010 0.0446 0.0008 0.0446 0.0008

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2

3 of 15 Va refers to the volume of 1.0 mol dm-3 acetic acid solution in the test solution. VNa refers to the volume of 0.1 mol dm-3 sodium acetate solution in the test solution. Vi burette refers to the volume indicated by the markings on the burette before adding KOH solution for the trial. Vf burette refers to the volume indicated by the markings on the burette at the end of the trial (after adding KOH solution resulted in the indicator changing blue). Soln # refers to whether KOH solution 1 or KOH solution 2 was used for the trial. KOH solution 2 was made because I ran out of KOH solution and had to make a second batch (again from solid KOH). This data table has been edited from the lab copy to report the data in appropriate units. The volume measurements were initially in mL. To convert them to dm3, I divided them by 1000. Apart from converting units and adding appropriate uncertainties, the values within the table have not been changed. I also added a column to indicate the number of the KOH solution used, as a second batch of solution had to be made. This was initially written in the qualitative section, but I have moved it to make the data easier to read.

4 of 15 Qualitative Observations Some solid KOH and sodium acetate stuck to the funnel. I had to crush the solid KOH with a pestle + mortar to prepare the solution. At the beginning of each trial, adding KOH had little to no effect on the color of the solution. As the trial continued, adding KOH created streams of greenish-blue where the KOH hit the solution, which quickly returned to solid yellow. Towards the end of each trial, the solution changed to a greenish-blue, but still became temporarily more blue when more KOH was added. Each trial was stopped when the solution changed to a constant, solid blue color. As the volume of the test solution increased, I added more drops of Bromothymol blue, so that the color remained visible throughout the entire trial. The last two trials (trial 3 for data points 9 and 10) were performed with a new batch of KOH solution, as the initial KOH solution ran out.

The uncertainties in Va and VNa are 0.0001 dm3 because that is the minimum uncertainty to maintain precision matching. These volumes have minimal uncertainty because they were measured in a 10 mL graduated cylinder, which is very precise due to its small radius. The only exceptions are the three measurements for data point three, which were measured in a 100 mL graduated cylinder. However, these were still measured very precisely and thus have minimal uncertainty. There were no spills when preparing the test solution, so the volumes were not altered after being measured in any way.

5 of 15 The uncertainty for Vi burette was 0.0001 dm3 because the burette was marked every 0.0001 dm3 and had a small radius. The initial volume was merely a reading, so no experimental uncertainty was introduced. The uncertainties for Vf burette are based on the observed level of uncertainty while conducting each individual trial, with a greater uncertainty indicating a greater perceived imprecision in determining the end point. Together, these add up to the uncertainty in the volume of KOH solution added. Calculations First, I needed to convert my initial and final volumes for each trial into the volume of KOH solution added, which is equal to the change in volume. I selected the variable VK for the volume of 0.5 mol dm-3 KOH solution added. The following is a sample calculation for the first trial of data point 1:

6 of 15 The following table contains the calculated values for VK, which were calculated using similar calculations to the one above: Data Point Va (dm3 VNa (dm3 VK (dm3) soln # 0.0001 0.0001 dm3) dm3) 1 1 0.0021 0.0052 0.0019 0.0003 1 2 0.0020 0.0050 0.0049 0.0003 1 3 0.0021 0.0050 0.0051 0.0003 1 1 0.0040 0.0050 0.0074 0.0003 1 2 0.0042 0.0051 0.0096 0.0004 1 3 0.0040 0.0050 0.0094 0.0003 1 1 0.0062 0.0051 0.0118 0.0004 1 2 0.0061 0.0050 0.0151 0.0006 1 3 0.0061 0.0052 0.0157 0.0004 1 1 0.0083 0.0049 0.0158 0.0003 1 2 0.0080 0.0050 0.0190 0.0006 1 3 0.0080 0.0050 0.0198 0.0003 1 1 0.0100 0.0051 0.0232 0.0003 1 2 0.0101 0.0050 0.0248 0.0004 1 3 0.0100 0.0051 0.0250 0.0003 1 1 0.0031 0.0051 0.0067 0.0005 1 2 0.0030 0.0051 0.0072 0.0005 1 3 0.0030 0.0050 0.0069 0.0004 1 1 0.0050 0.0052 0.0122 0.0006 1 2 0.0050 0.0050 0.0131 0.0003 1 3 0.0050 0.0051 0.0123 0.0003 1 1 0.0070 0.0051 0.0171 0.0006 1 2 0.0070 0.0052 0.0174 0.0006 1 3 0.0071 0.0050 0.0172 0.0004 1 1 0.0090 0.0050 0.0217 0.0009 1 2 0.0090 0.0051 0.0229 0.0005 2 3 0.0089 0.0051 0.0223 0.0004 1 1 0.0201 0.0051 0.0451 0.0011 1 2 0.0200 0.0050 0.0446 0.0009 2 3 0.0201 0.0051 0.0445 0.0009 Next, I needed to average the Va and VK values in order to prepare them for graphing. Trial

10

The VNa values are sufficiently consistent to be ignored, as their standard deviation (which I calculated using the STAT menu on my GDC) is about 7.5 x 10-5. They are thus effectively constant. I calculated all of the uncertainties for the average values by finding of the range.

7 of 15 The original measurement uncertainty was not factored into these calculations, as the calculated uncertainty is in this case sufficient, if not more accurate. I rounded all values for uncertainty up (as necessary to match precision) and increased zero uncertainty values (which are unrealistic and impossible) to the minimum value to match precision. The following calculation is a sample calculation for the averages of the Va and VK values, using the VK values from data point 1: ( )

Using similar calculations to the above sample, I compiled the following table of the average values: Average Va (dm3) Average VK (dm3) 0.0021 0.0001 0.0040 0.0016 0.0030 0.0001 0.0069 0.0009 0.0041 0.0001 0.0088 0.0011 0.0050 0.0001 0.0125 0.0003 0.0061 0.0001 0.0142 0.0020 0.0070 0.0001 0.0172 0.0005 0.0081 0.0002 0.0182 0.0020 0.0090 0.0001 0.0223 0.0002 0.0100 0.0001 0.0243 0.0001 0.0201 0.0001 0.0447 0.0006 Note that I rearranged the table in order of increasing values of Average Va to better visualize the relationship between the two variables. However, in order to establish any sort of meaningful relationship, I needed to account for the differences in the molarities of the solutions, since analyzing the relationships between volumes of solutions of different concentrations is meaningless. Instead of comparing volumes, I could compare the number of moles of acetic acid and the number of moles of potassium hydroxide. Multiplying each volume by the corresponding molarity of the solution would result in the number of moles of acetic acid and the number of moles of potassium hydroxide.

8 of 15 The molarity of the acetic acid solution was 1.0 mol dm-3. Since this solution was diluted from a solution of known molarity using a volumetric flask and a graduated cylinder with a very small radius, and the dilution was performed without incident, I assumed that the uncertainty in this molarity was minimal. Thus, I determined that the worst-case uncertainty was no more than 0.1 mol dm-3, which I used in my uncertainty calculations for the number of moles of acetic acid (which I chose to represent with the variable ma). The following is a sample calculation for the first volume of 0.0021 0.0001 dm3: ( ( ) [ ) Two solutions were made for potassium hydroxide. The first was used for 28 trials, while the second was used for 2 trials. I used this information (along with the mass of potassium hydroxide and the volume of the total solution created) to calculate the average molarity of potassium hydroxide solution across all 30 trials: First, I found the molarity of solution 1 (the molar mass of KOH is 56.11 g mol-1): ] ( )

( Next, I found the molarity of solution 2:

Since the calculated molarities for solutions one and two are equal, but the uncertainties differed, I simply added the absolute uncertainties to represent the extra uncertainty in using two separately prepared solutions. Thus the molarity of the KOH solution was: (0.499 0.026) mol dm3.

9 of 15 Finally, I multiplied this molarity by each value for average VK as indicated by the following sample calculation for the first VK value in the above table to find mK, which represents the number of moles of KOH added: ( ( ) ) [ ] ( )

I used similar calculations to the above sample calculation to compile the following table of ma values and their corresponding mK values: Average ma (mol) Average mK (mol) 0.0021 0.0003 0.0020 0.0009 0.0030 0.0004 0.0034 0.0006 0.0041 0.0005 0.0044 0.0008 0.0050 0.0006 0.0062 0.0005 0.0061 0.0007 0.0071 0.0014 0.0070 0.0008 0.0086 0.0007 0.0081 0.0010 0.0091 0.0015 0.0090 0.0010 0.0111 0.0007 0.0100 0.0011 0.0121 0.0007 0.0201 0.0021 0.0223 0.0015 The data was now finally in suitable form to graph in order to determine the relationship between the moles of acetic acid present in the buffer solution and the moles of potassium hydroxide needed to change the color of bromothymol blue from yellow to blue and thus produce an alkaline solution.

10 of 15 The following graph is a graph of the data in the above table, including uncertainty bars, which I created using Graphical Analysis 3.4:

The data appeared extremely linear even the 0.0201 dm3 value, which suggests that the trend continues so I used Graphical Analysis to generate a best fit line for the data. It generated the following equation for the relationship between mK and ma, with a near-perfect correlation of 0.9963: .

To verify that the data was indeed linear and that the above relationship was correct although there was little doubt I performed a logarithmic transformation by taking the logarithm of the values for ma and the values for mK. I chose not to propagate uncertainty through this transformation, as its sole purpose was to confirm the validity of the relationship

11 of 15 above. For similar reasons, I kept the results of the transformation to two decimal places. The following calculation is a sample calculation using the first ma value:

The following table contains the transformed data alongside the original data: Average ma (mol) log ma Average mK (mol) log mK 0.0021 0.0003 -2.68 0.0020 0.0009 -2.70 0.0030 0.0004 -2.51 0.0034 0.0006 -2.47 0.0041 0.0005 -2.39 0.0044 0.0008 -2.36 0.0050 0.0006 -2.30 0.0062 0.0005 -2.21 0.0061 0.0007 -2.22 0.0071 0.0014 -2.15 0.0070 0.0008 -2.16 0.0086 0.0007 -2.07 0.0081 0.0010 -2.09 0.0091 0.0015 -2.04 0.0090 0.0010 -2.05 0.0111 0.0007 -1.96 0.0100 0.0011 -2.00 0.0121 0.0007 -1.92 0.0201 0.0021 -1.70 0.0223 0.0015 -1.65 Next, I graphed this data and applied a linear fit. When a logarithmic transformation is applied to a power function in the form (a linear function fits this condition, as it has a . Thus, the

power of 1), the graph becomes or remains linear in the form

slope of the best-fit line for the transformed graph is the equal to the power of the relationship between mK and ma. To verify that the relationship is linear, the slope must be approximately 1.

12 of 15 The following graph is the logarithmically transformed graph with a linear fit included:

As expected, the transformation exhibits a linear relationship with a slope of about 1.063. Since this is extremely close to 1 (and thus the power of the relationship is 1), it verifies the previous conclusion that the relationship between the moles of acetic acid present in the buffer solution and the moles of potassium hydroxide that must be added to change the color of bromothymol blue from yellow to blue and thus produce an alkaline solution is: , where mK is the number of moles of KOH that must be added and ma is the number of moles of acetic acid present in the buffer solution.

13 of 15 Conclusion The purpose of this investigation was to investigate the effect of the amount of acetic acid present in the buffer solution on the amount of potassium hydroxide that must be added to create an alkaline solution. Because of the nature of bromothymol blue, when the indicator changed color from yellow to blue, it indicated that the solution had become alkaline. The investigation reached the conclusion that the relationship between the number of moles of acetic acid present in the buffer solution and the number of moles of potassium hydroxide that must be added to create an alkaline solution is , where mK is the number

of moles of potassium hydroxide that must be added and ma is the number of moles of acetic acid present in the buffer solution. It makes chemical sense that as the amount of acetic acid increases, so does the amount of potassium hydroxide needed to create an alkaline solution, because an increase in the amount of acid, which is part of the buffer solution, improves the ability of the buffer to resist changes in pH by increasing the amount of H+ ions available. When potassium hydroxide is added, the amount of H+ ions is temporarily reduced because they bond with the OH- ions in the KOH. This causes more of the acetic acid to dissociate (as the equilibrium shifts), which produces more H+ ions and thus resists a change in pH, as a similar amount of H+ ions are present but the OH- ions have been neutralized. If more acetic acid is available, the buffer will be able to neutralize a greater number OH- ions while maintaining a steady concentration of H+ ions and thus resisting a change in pH for a greater amount of KOH. This, therefore, explains why a greater amount of acetic acid in the buffer solution (which increases its ability to resist pH) necessitates the addition of a greater amount of potassium hydroxide (a strong base) to produce the same change in pH.

14 of 15 It also makes chemical sense that this relationship is linear, because one mole of acetic acid contains one mole of H+ and one mole of potassium hydroxide contains one mole of OH-. Since H+ and OH- are the important species when dealing with pH, and since adding one mole of acetic acid affects the concentration of H+ just as much as adding one mole of KOH affects the concentration of OH-, it makes sense that the relationship is linear (since the relationship is effectively between moles of H+ and moles of OH-). It also makes sense that the slope is close to 1, because each addition H+ ion can neutralize an additional OH- ion. Thus, the investigation has reached a chemically reasonable conclusion. Errors and Limitations One of the most significant sources of uncertainty in this investigation resulted from the tendency to add slightly more potassium hydroxide than necessary to completely change the color of the indicator. This resulted from the occasional difficulty in determining whether the color had changed, especially as the color was extremely close to changing. This error creates random uncertainty in the data for KOH. This uncertainty could be greatly reduced with the use of a pH probe and LoggerPro or similar software. Another source of uncertainty in this investigation was the creation of potassium hydroxide solution from a solid. Since the solid was crushed into a powder, it stuck easily to various surfaces namely, the plastic weighing dish and the funnel. Thus, there was random uncertainty beyond that of the electronic balance in the mass of KOH and, as a result, in the calculations for the molarity of the solution and the number of moles of KOH. Therefore, this source of uncertainty directly influenced the results. This could be improved upon by using the tablets of KOH to make the solution long enough in advance for the tablets to dissolve (while, of

15 of 15 course, covered with Parafilm to prevent evaporation). Using tablets would reduce the impact of or even effectively eliminate this source of error. A third source of uncertainty in this investigation was the lack of regulation of stirring intervals. Since stirring definitely affected the color of the indicator, it also affected the pH. Thus, by stirring irregularly (often based on qualitative data), some minor random uncertainty may have been introduced into the results for KOH. This could be improved upon by setting a specific interval at which to stir, such as every 0.5 mL or every 1 mL. Overall, the investigation was not subject to overwhelming error or uncertainty, as the variables were mostly well controlled. All of the sources of the error introduced only manageable uncertainty that still allowed clear results to be gleaned from the investigation. Of the three errors discussed above, the first error (regarding the difficulty in determining the color change) was by far the most significant. Its effects were relatively small, but the other two errors discussed still pale in comparison. Thus, the uncertainty in this investigation (which is, thankfully, minimal) is almost entirely a result of accidentally adding extra potassium hydroxide.