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

Iron Oxalate Lab

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Marina Horta Iron Oxalate Lab 10/22/09 Abstract; The purpose of this lab was to synthesize, isolate, and determine Fe content of a complex; and calculate the formula of the Potassium Oxalate Iron(III) Complex using chemical analyses. This lab used filtration, titration, acid base reactions, redox , synthesis, dilutions , beers law and red tide computer system to establish that the final formula for the complex was K3[Fe(C2O4)3] �2 H2O. Introduction; Part 1; The purpose of part 1 to synthesize, purify and, mass crystals of potassium oxalate ferrate (III) complex. Potassium oxalate ferrate (III) is a complex, an ion consisting of a ligand and a metal covalently bonded together. A ligand is an ion with the tendency to bond with metals because it typically donates electron pairs. This relationship between metals and ligands is only one of the key components for the synthesis of the crystals. For the precipitation of the complex ion alcohol was used to reduce solubility, Part: 2 Part two determines the percent oxalate in the complex produced in the previous lab. Using volumetric analysis a method (similar to gravimetric analyses) in which the volume of a known substance is used to quantitatively measure the volume of an unknown substance required to react with it, or standardization a process in which the value of a potential standard is fixed by a measurement made with respect to a standard whose value is known and can be used to determine the value of unknown. ...read more.

Middle

Hydrogen peroxide is an oxidizer and corrosive( lab one) Oxalic Acid and oxalate ions are toxic (lab one ) Ethanol is flammable (lab one) Permanganate solution is also poisonous and corrosive Take caution when handling hot glass wear (lab part two) Calculations; Table 1 Weight of Crystals (part 1) Initial trey 1.49 (g) Weight of crystal 1.3934 (g) Weight of both 2.88 (g) Table 2 Data (part 2) Data mass of 1 2 3 4 ii iron oxalate 1.4974 g 1.4994 g 1.4977 g 1.4994 g Crystals+ Trey 1.6286 g 1. 6175 g 1.6256 g 1.6247 g Mass of Crystal .1294 g .1181 g .1288 g .1253 g Titration ; (part 2) 1 2 3 4 Final 36.5ml 36.5ml 48.6 ml 48.4 ml Initial 6 ml 8.5ml 18 ml 18 ml Volume used 30.5ml 28 ml 30.6 ml 30.4 ml Moles Trial #1 (.01057 M)(.0305 ml) =.003224 m (5/2) = .0008059 Trial #2 (.01057M)(.028 ml) = .002959 m (5/2) =.0007398 Trail #3 (.01057M)(.0306 ml) = .0003234 m (5/2)=.0008085 Trail #4 (.01057 M)(.03 04 ml) = .0003213 m (5/2) = .00080325 Percent by Mass Oxalate Trial# 1 (.0008059 m)(87.99) =(.07091)(1/.1294)= 54% Trial #2 (.0007398m) (87.99) = (.06509)(1/.1181) = 55% Trail #3 (.0008085m)(87.99) = (.0711#)(1/.1288) = 55% Trial #4 (.00080325m )(87.99) = (.07067)(1/.1253) =56% Table 1: Standard Curve of Fe solution Dilution Conc[] Abs 0.1 0.00001209 0.054 0.2 0.00002418 0.116 0.3 0.00003627 0.214 0.7 0.00008463 0.645 [] std= 0.0001209 Table II [fe+2] for unknowns ...read more.

Conclusion

the Fe+, this error could be again because of the dilutions or it could be a result of misusing the red tide equipment however because time did not allow the negative values were kept and simply not included in the final calculations of the unknown. The actual percent iron calculated for this lab was 4.5% a value much too low to be correct or useful this lower percent Fe+ shows that the concentration of Fe+ was too low to begin or not enough of the solution was pipetted to the initial 100ml flask. The average of all the experiments 8.52 was also too low, in order to get a correct value using the empirical formula from the percent iron the percent had to be at least 11 % which shows a systematic error in the experiment. Using the empirical formula and the adjusted 11% iron the ratios of the iron and oxalate was calculated to be 3:1 instead of the original incorrect 4:1 ratio using the lower value for iron. The value for z was calculated within the reasonable 2 or 3 value, at 2.4. The final determination in the experiment was theoretical and percent yield from the moles of the third and grams of the second day. The theoretical yield was 1.848 grams while the results of the second day yielded only 1.3 resulting in a 69% yield overall. The final adjusted formula was finally determined to be K3[Fe(C2O4)3] �2 H2O. ...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 Classifying Materials section.

Found what you're looking for?

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

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 Classifying Materials essays

  1. Determine BaCl2.2 H2O -Gravimetric Analysis Lab

    The second type of errors is the systematic errors. These errors are identifiable and can theoretically be eliminated. These occur due to the limitations of the equipment or method. They will occur no matter how many times the investigation is carried out and they allegedly distort the data in a particular direction.

  2. Free essay

    Periodic table

    of a membrane Eukaryotic cells - these each have a membrane bound nucleus and other organelles - animals, plants, fungi, protista. Prokaryotic cells - bacterial cells that do not have a nucleus or other organelles held in membranes Differentiated cells - some cells (mainly multi-cellular organisms)

  1. should salt be banned?

    Restaurants usually order salt in bulk, and often it's not iodized salt. However, anything from the sea - such as seaweed (kelp) or fish -- can be a good source of iodine, says Maberly. A cup of cow's milk contains nearly 100 micrograms of iodine.

  2. Our experiment consisted of two samples of water containing unknown substances, and our objective ...

    Validity in stage 1 I think our experiment was quite valid, as we tried to keep it as fair as possible. We used the same amount (according to the large measuring cylinder) of sample of liquid for both times we did the test, and we heated the samples for roughly the same amount of time.

  1. THE RE-HYDRATION OF SPAGHETTI Lab Report

    Each matter however is bonded at different intensity; if the bonding level isn't that strong the matter is considered as a gas, if it's reasonably strong its considered as a liquid and if its strong its considered as a solid.

  2. Rate of reaction of different concentrations of sodium thiosulphate.

    Therefore the line flattens out because there is no difference in kinetic energy as the three strongest concentrations had similar time scale for precipitating the right amount of sulphur needed to cover the cross. In my second graph, how the concentration of sodium thiosulphate influences the rate of the reaction,

  1. Affect of concentration on reaction

    Reduce the quantity of calcium carbonate to 2.00g. Results 4 50cm3 0.4M HCl Starting Mass 2.00g CaCO3 (Powdered) Time (seconds) Mass (grams) Mass Loss (grams) 0 2.00 0.00 5 1.99 0.01 10 1.98 0.02 15 1.97 0.03 20 1.96 0.04 25 1.96 0.04 30 1.95 0.05 35 1.94 0.06 40

  2. Research into Iron, its extraction and uses.

    Fe2O3 + 3C = 2Fe + 3CO The temperature of the furnace is hot enough to melt the iron which trickles down to the bottom as ?pig iron?, where it can be tapped off. The limestone is added to convert siliceous impurities into ?slag? ( as calcium silicate, CaSiO3), which melts and runs to the bottom.

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