• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Formula of a hydrated salt

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Determination of the formula of hydrated iron (II) sulphate Analysis Method 1: 1. A crucible was weighed to two decimal places using an accurate balance. 2. Approximately 1 g of hydrated iron (II) sulphate was added to the crucible, which was then re-weighed. 3. The crucible was heated gently for about two minutes in a fume cupboard. 4. The crucible was allowed to cool before weighing it again. 5. Steps 3 & 4 were repeated. Results and Calculations: Mass of crucible 13.94 g Mass of crucible + hydrated iron (II) sulphate 15.44 g Mass of crucible + anhydrous iron (II) sulphate (1st weighing) 14.72 g Mass of crucible + anhydrous iron (II) sulphate (2nd weighing) 14.65 g I will now use these results to do some calculations: Mass of hydrated iron (II) sulphate is 15.44 - 13.94 = 1.50 g Mass of anhydrous iron (II) sulphate is 14.65 - 13.94 = 0.71 g Mass of water present in the original sample of hydrated iron (II) sulphate is 15.44 - 14.65 = 0.79 g To find the moles of FeSO4 in the original sample you use: Moles = Mass / RFM Mass = 0.71 g RFM = 55.85 + 32.07 + (4 x 16) = 151.92 Therefore 0.71 / 151.92 = Moles = 0.004673512375 mol To find the moles of H2O in the original sample you use the same formula as above. Mass = 0.79 g RFM = (1 x 2) ...read more.

Middle

in the formula FeSO4.xH2O you need to find the formula ratio. To do this you divide the moles of H2O by the moles of FeSO4. So 0.075465277778 / 0.0109375 mol = 6.90 (3sf) = 6.9 (2sf). Therefore the ratio I have found is 1:7 for FeSO4:H2O. The 6.9 has to be rounded up because it is not possible to have 0.9 of a molecule, you have to make it an integer so you have a whole number of molecules. Evaluation Overall both my experiments went really well, obtaining accurate and reliable results enabled me to work out the formula of hydrated iron sulphate crystals. I also carried both experiments safely by following the risk assessments and I tried to be as fair as possible. Method 1: This experiment went really well as it was quite accurate and I obtained good reliable results which enabled me to work out the formula of the hydrated iron sulphate crystals. I obtained no anomalous results as I took great care weighting out the mass accurately to two decimal places on a digital top pan balance. When I was heating the hydrated iron sulphate crystals I used a stopwatch to make sure I didn't overheat it. I also reheated the iron sulphate crystals this ensured that all water was vaporised. However, there were still errors in the experiment. One was that there was no specific time for cooling was given, and it stated in the method to heat for "about" two minutes. This could have affected the overall mass reading. ...read more.

Conclusion

The solution inside the volumetric flask seemed to settle down really quick and required regular shakes. When pipetting the solution from the volumetric flask and pipetting it out into the conical flask there was still drops that were inside the pipette. This could lead to inaccurate results. To improve my method and increase the reliability I would use a glass pipette to accurately measure out 20cm3 instead of a plastic measuring cylinder. I could also use a different burette whilst titrating the KMnO4 where the measurement markers stand out more clearly this could minimise errors. I would also use a more pure hydrated iron sulphate crystals as there were many impurities in the crystals I used. I also used a digital top pan balance which measures to more than just two decimal places to increase accuracy and to also make sure the top pan is cleaned and all other substances are removed to prevent inaccurate results and minimise errors. I could also carry out more preliminary and repeat titrations, and gain a more accurate average. This way I could estimate the end point much more precisely To conclude and compare both methods I think that method two was more accurate and reliable than method one. This was because in method one there were no preliminary and maybe not all of the water was vaporised. Where as with method two there was a preliminary titre and repeats where I obtained concordant results straight away. However, there were still errors in method two, which could have affected the accuracy and reliability of the results. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Aqueous Chemistry section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

4 star(s)

Response to the question

The author has carried out two different experiments in order to work out the formula for Hydrated Iron (II) sulphate. They have then compared the two methods and come to a conclusion as to which was the best, as well ...

Read full review

Response to the question

The author has carried out two different experiments in order to work out the formula for Hydrated Iron (II) sulphate. They have then compared the two methods and come to a conclusion as to which was the best, as well as calculating a correct formula (FeSO4:7H20) in one of the experiments – the one they decided was the best. They have shown a clear method and have carried out their experiment well (their data has no obvious anomalies, and they have worked out a correct formula). They also repeated the experiment to increase the reliability of their results, and considered the spread of the data when comparing the two methods.

Level of analysis

The author has used their results to work out the correct formula for Hydrated Iron (II) Sulphate, and have shown their workings clearly. They have mentioned potential causes of uncertainty, such as the precision of measuring instruments, and used this to suggest improvements to their experiment, although they occasionally conflate the terms ‘error’ and ‘uncertainty’. Sources of uncertainty are not in themselves errors, but are opportunities for errors to occur. I would have mentioned the greater number of sources of uncertainty in the second experiment due to the larger number of measurements when comparing the experiments, and then compared the percentage uncertainties in each experiment. It may not have been necessary at GCSE to calculate the values of all the uncertainties, but I would have calculated the easier ones such as the precision of measuring equipment (half the smallest measurement possible) in order to gain more marks and be able to compare the experiments more.

Quality of writing

The author’s spelling and grammar is very good throughout. The report is very well laid out, with clear headings and sections. However, I would have included sections on ‘reducing uncertainties’ and ‘safety precautions’, rather than briefly discussing them in the conclusion. A report should usually allow the reader to easily carry out the experiment themselves, so this information should be easy to find in the report as it is very important. It may also have been useful to include a labelled diagram of the setup of the equipment for the same reason. Overall, the report is very well written and shows a good understanding of the chemistry involved and an ability to perform complicated calculations based upon real data.


Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn

Reviewed by dragonkeeper13 29/02/2012

Read less
Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Aqueous Chemistry essays

  1. Determine Solubility of KClO3 Salt.

    This means the grinded KClO3 salt present is in excess. We stir the solution while adding the grinded KClO3 salt is because we need to accelerate the speed of grinded KClO3 salt dissolve and can dissolve in balance. If there is no more KClO3 salt can be dissolve in that

  2. The aim of this experiment is to answer the following question: What is the ...

    This change can be adding more of one of the reactants, or changing the temperature or pressure of the system. Initially as there is no ester or water the system will move to produce more ester and water. In the case of temperature, if the temperature increases the system will move to remove the heat.

  1. 'The Molecular Formula of Succinic Acid'.

    and adding more distilled water if necessary until all the solute has dissolved. On completing that I will wash a 250cm3 volumetric flask out with distilled water. Then I need to transfer all the solution into the volumetric flask. I will do this using the aid of a funnel (which will have also been washed in distilled water).

  2. A Colorimetric Determination of Manganese In Steel

    0.2g of the paper clip was weighed out and then transferred to a 250cm3 glass beaker. About 40cm3 of 2mol/l nitric acid was added to the beaker before the beaker was covered with a clock glass and gently heated in a fume cupboard.

  1. How much Iron (II) in 100 grams of Spinach Oleracea?

    Ammonium Sulphate(s) Iron (II) Ammonium Sulphate = 392.14 The molar mass of Oxalic Acid(aq) Oxalic Acid = 126.07 With the Molar mass of the substances I will be using now known I am able to work out how much solid needs to be weighed out and diluted into certain amounts of acid or distilled

  2. Determine the relative formula mass and the molecular formula of succinic acid

    Conclusion: In the above example of burette readings, we got the titre volume as 22.42cm3. This will correspond to the molecular mass of the acid to be 118 as per discussion above. Hence we can derive that the value of n is 2.And hence the molecular formula of the acid

  1. Investigating the effects of changing the concentration of different solutions on the refractive index ...

    After that, I was going to put it onto the stage of the microscope. However it didn't fix due to the short distance between the objective lens and the stage. Besides the magnification available wasn't enough. After that, I had to get started on the travelling microscope.

  2. Antacid Experiment.

    needed to neutralise antacid tablet: = 2 x number of moles of the antacid chemical. Predicted volume of acid needed to neutralise the antacid: = Moles of acid ----------------------- = predicted volume in dm3 Concentration of acid To change dm3 into cm3 you times it by 100.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work