GCE 2001

January Series

Report on the Examination

Chemistry

Unit CHM1 Atomic Structure, Bonding and Periodicity

Unit CHM2 Foundation Physical and Inorganic Chemistry

Advanced Subsidiary - Subject Code (5421)

Further copies of this Report on the Examination are available from:

Publications Department, Stag Hill House, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XJ

Tel: 01483 302302

or

Aldon House, 39, Heald Grove, Rusholme, Manchester, M14 4NA

Tel: 0161 953 1170

or

download from the AQA Website: http://www.aqa.org.uk

© Assessment and Qualifications Alliance

COPYRIGHT
AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered centres for AQA are permitted to copy
material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give
permission to centres to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use
within the centre.

Set and published by the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance.

The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales
364473 and a registered Charity 1073334.
Registered address Addleshaw Booth & Co., Sovereign House, PO Box 8, Sovereign Street, Leeds LS1 1HQ.
The AQA was formed by the merger of the Associated Examining Board (AEB)/Southern Examining Group (SEG) and the
Northern Examinations and Assessment Board (NEAB).
Kathleen Tattersall, Director General
CONTENTS

Page No.
Unit CHM1 Atomic Structure, Bonding and Periodicity...........................5
Unit CHM2 Foundation Physical and Inorganic Chemistry.....................6

Mark Ranges and Award of Grades.......................................................................9

Report on the Examination Advanced Subsidiary – Chemistry

Chemistry

Unit 1 Atomic Structure, Bonding and Periodicity

General Comments

This examination discriminated effectively between able and less able candidates. Many good scripts
were seen though very high marks were rare.

Question One

This was one of the easier questions on the paper. Many candidates scored high marks although full
marks were rare. Parts (a) and (b) were answered well, but in part (c) potassium was not always
identified correctly and some candidates gave an answer of 39.1 for the mass number. Presumably
relative atomic mass, obtained from the Periodic Table, was confused with mass number. Part (d)(i)
was often incorrect. The most common incorrect answers were ‘mass’ for measurement 1 and
‘charge’ for measurement 2. Answers to part (d)(ii) were variable in standard. Many candidates
recognised that ions are detected by some electrical means but few candidates went on to give some
idea how the electrical signal could be used. Only the best candidates could give a correct answer to
part (d)(iii). Parts (e) and (f) were answered well by most candidates.

Question Two

This question was answered less well than expected. It illustrated that many candidates were not well
prepared for the examination because they failed to give correct definitions in parts (b) and (c).
Answers to part (a) were usually correct but some candidates attempted to divide the mass of a carbon
atom by twelve and some, having written the fraction correctly, gave the answer as 6.03 × 10−23.
Part (d) was answered well and was usually correct but in part (e) common errors were to omit
oxygen from the equation or to write ‘O’ for its formula.

Question Three

This question differentiated markedly between able and less able candidates. In part (a) there were
many good answers but weaker candidates used 63 instead of 17 for the relative molecular mass of
ammonia. In addition there was confusion about the correct units for volume. In part (b)(i) the
correct answer was often seen but a common error amongst weaker candidates was to give pV=nRT
correctly but then to make a mistake with the rearrangement, giving n=RT/pV. In part (b)(ii), in order
to calculate the moles of ammonium nitrate, only the very best candidates divided the answer to
part (b)(i) by 1.5. Other candidates just gave a value the same as their answer to part (b)(i). For the
mass of ammonium nitrate, credit was given for multiplying the previous answer by 80 and most
candidates gained the two marks for this answer.

Question Four

This proved to be a difficult question, particularly for weak candidates. In part (a), very few
candidates managed to place correctly all three ionisation energies on the graph. Often the value for
silicon was shown far too high and the value for sulphur was shown above that for phosphorus. The
answer to part (b) was usually correct. An equation with one electron on each side of the arrow was
the most common mistake. The standard of explanations in the answers to parts (c) and (d) was

hij 5
Advanced Subsidiary – Chemistry Report on the Examination

disappointing. Too many candidates assumed incorrectly that the answers involved the stability of a
full shell or a full sub-shell. In part (e) the element neon was usually identified correctly but only the
best candidates stated that neon exists as atoms. Weak candidates referred to neon molecules and
consequently lost the two marks for explanation of melting point. Part (f) was answered well.

Question Five

The overall standard of answers to this question was very disappointing. It appeared that candidates
had a poor knowledge of Group II chemistry. Parts (a) and (b) were answered well but few correct
answers to part (c) were seen. The equation was often unbalanced; SrO was a common incorrect
product and hydrogen was often omitted. The resulting solution was commonly thought to be acidic.
In part (d) many candidates described evolution of gas; the correct answer ‘white precipitate’ was
rarely given. The equation was usually incorrect. Common errors were writing BaCl for the formula
of barium chloride and, instead of HCl, the products were often written as H2 and Cl2.

Part (e) appeared to be misunderstood by many candidates. Instead of giving examples to illustrate
atypical properties, candidates attempted to explain why beryllium compounds are atypical. Answers
to part (f) were of a better standard and were usually correct.

Question Six

This question was answered well by most candidates and many responses earned high marks. The
quality of language was good and most answers were well structured. The structure, bonding and
properties of sodium chloride were well known. The most common error was to attribute the
conductivity of molten sodium chloride to delocalised electrons. Descriptions of graphite, though
good, were not quite as accurate as for sodium chloride. Diagrams did not always show the full two-
dimensional arrangement of carbon atoms in one plane of graphite, and some candidates thought that
graphite has a low melting point due to the weak van der Waals’ forces between the planes. The
bonding and properties of metals were well known but the diagrams to illustrate the structure were
less successful with atoms or ions shown too far apart. In part (b) only the best candidates were
awarded the mark for explaining that bonding pairs repel as far apart as possible. Weaker candidates
found the shape of the PF5 molecule difficult to draw and a considerable number attempted to show it
as a square based pyramid.

Candidates should be advised that quality of language is assessed in those questions requiring
extended answers. Answers to questions requiring a description or explanation should contain
continuous prose. This guidance is given to candidates under bullet point six of the ‘Information’ on
the front of the question paper.

Unit 2 Foundation Physical and Inorganic Chemistry

General Comments

Just fourteen centres entered candidates for this examination with seven of them entering one
candidate. Of the original thirty five candidates entered, twenty nine sat the examination which
included ten from one centre. Candidates from this centre had clearly covered all the material in this
module but the answers given by candidates from many other centres suggested that they had not been
able to complete the coverage of all topics before the examination. Questions with clear links to
GCSE Chemistry were the best answered.

6 hij
Report on the Examination Advanced Subsidiary – Chemistry

Under these circumstances it is not possible to give an accurate evaluation of the challenges and
demands of this paper.

Question One

Almost all candidates knew the trend in the oxidising power of the halogens but very few were then
able to score marks in the remaining sections of this question. Correct equations were uncommon.

Question Two

In part (a) most candidates could define oxidation correctly in terms of electrons and some could also
deduce the oxidation state of chlorine in ClO–. It was clear, however, from the answers given to the
remainder of the question, that many candidates had not studied the relevant sections of the module.

Question Three

Almost all candidates attempted part (a) but many lost some of the marks when the definitions given
were imprecise. Several candidates gave good answers to the remainder of the question. Marks
were lost by candidates who deduced incorrectly that the enthalpy of combustion of the alcohol
C3H7OH was +2022 rather than –2022 kJ mol−1 in part (b), and that the experimental value obtained in
part (c) was +840 rather than –840 kJ mol–1. Consequential marks were awarded in part (c) following
arithmetic errors.

Question Four

Many candidates found this question difficult with only parts (a)(ii) and (d) being consistently well
answered. This important industrial process was not well known.

Question Five

The extraction of titanium was even less well known than the extraction of iron and most candidates
left this question blank. It was rare to find a script with a correct equation for the conversion of TiO2
into TiCl4 in part (a).

Question Six

The collision theory had clearly been studied by most candidates. In part (a) the effects of changing
concentration, temperature or the introduction of a catalyst on the reaction rate were generally well
understood. Some candidates gave fully correct answers and scored full marks.

In part (b) candidates were required to explain how the equilibrium yield of ammonia in the Haber
Process changes as the reaction conditions are changed. Candidates who scored well in part (a)
usually also scored well in part (b) with clear well reasoned answers. Sadly, a few candidates failed
to read the question carefully and gave answers linked to the rate of the reaction.

Question Seven

Many candidates made no attempt to answer this question. There was a small number of good
answers but other candidates gave vague answers omitting such vital information as the formation of
precipitates, precipitate colours and the concentration of ammonia used to distinguish between silver
halide precipitates.

hij 7
Advanced Subsidiary – Chemistry Report on the Examination

Candidates should be advised that quality of language is assessed in those questions requiring
extended answers. Answers to questions requiring a description or explanation should contain
continuous prose. This guidance is given to candidates under bullet point six of the ‘Information’ on
the front of the question paper.

8 hij
Report on the Examination Advanced Subsidiary – Chemistry

Mark Ranges and Award of Grades

Unit CHM1 Atomic Structure, Bonding and Periodicity

Grade A B C D E U

UMS 72 63 54 45 36 0
Boundary Mark 70 61 52 43 34 0

Maximum Maximum Mean Standard

Component Mark Mark Mark Deviation
(Raw) (Scaled) (Scaled) (Scaled)

Written Paper 90 90 51.9 18.1

Unit CHM2 Foundation Physical and Inorganic Chemistry

Grade A B C D E U
UMS 72 63 54 45 36 0

Boundary Mark 71 62 53 44 36 0

Maximum Maximum Mean Standard

Component Mark Mark Mark Deviation
(Raw) (Scaled) (Scaled) (Scaled)

Written Paper 90 90 34.7 18.3

Definitions
Boundary Mark: the minimum (scaled) mark required by a candidate to qualify for a given grade.

Mean Mark: the sum of all candidates’ marks divided by the number of candidates. The mean (or
average) mark measures a central tendency of a mark distribution (provided that the distribution is not
skewed).

Standard Deviation: a measure of how widely candidates’ marks are spread about the mean mark.
When expressed as a percentage of the Maximum mark (scaled), small standard deviations indicate
that the marks are “bunched” and large standard deviations indicate a wide spread of marks. In
general, the marks of approximately two-thirds of all candidates lie in a range of plus or minus one
standard deviation about the mean mark.

hij 9