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

To investigate the thermal decomposition of copper carbonate and try to prove that the formula is CuCO3, and that the percentage of CO2 lost during thermal decomposition is 35.5%

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Lauren Dakin 10S Science Group 10 2 Thermal Decomposition Aim: To investigate the thermal decomposition of copper carbonate and try to prove that the formula is CuCO3, and that the percentage of CO2 lost during thermal decomposition is 35.5% Introduction: Copper Carbonate has been given the formula CuCO3. I will prove this correct by studying its thermal decomposition. It has the potential to divide into three groups: 1. Copper Oxide and Carbon Dioxide (CuO) + (CO2) 2. Copper and Carbon and Oxygen (x3) (Cu) + (C) + (11/2O) 3. Copper and Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen (Cu) + (CO) + (O) I did a preliminary experiment to find out what copper carbonate thermally decomposed into. I heated some copper carbonate in a test tube and when it gave off gas I held a glowing splint in it. This is the test for Oxygen. If there is oxygen present, the splint will re-light. In this case, it did not so there was no oxygen present. I then did a test for Carbon Dioxide. This involved trapping a small amount of the gas given off by the thermally decomposing copper carbonate in a pipette and releasing it into a new test tube containing Lime Water. Carbon dioxide reacts with lime water to produce calcium carbonate, which is a liquid and cloudy white in appearance. The lime water did turn cloudy, which means there was carbon dioxide present in the gas given off by the copper carbonate. ...read more.

Middle

They will all be reliable because of the repetition and because the scales are accurate. They will all be recorded in grams, except the final set which will be in percent. Results: 1. 2. 3. Mass grams Crucible + lid grams Mass + crucible + lid grams Copper carbonate + mass + crucible +lid grams Copper oxide + mass + crucible +lid grams Mass of CuO grams Mass of CO2 lost grams % of CO2 lost grams 0.2 14.65 14.85 15.04 14.98 0.14 0.06 30% 0.4 14.14 14.54 15.24 15.13 0.29 0.11 27.5% 0.6 13.88 14.48 15.07 14.89 0.41 0.19 31.6% 0.8 12.85 13.65 14.45 14.18 0.53 0.27 33.7% 1.0 19.53 20.53 21.53 21.26 0.72 0.28 28% Mass grams Crucible + lid grams Mass + crucible + lid grams Copper carbonate + mass + crucible +lid grams Copper oxide + mass + crucible +lid grams Mass of CuO grams Mass of CO2 lost grams % of CO2 lost grams 0.2 14.65 14.85 15.05 15.01 0.13 0.07 35% 0.4 14.18 14.58 14.95 14.85 0.27 0.13 32.5% 0.6 13.00 13.60 14.20 14.00 0.40 0.20 33.3% 0.8 13.71 14.51 15.31 15.03 0.52 0.28 35% 1.0 12.69 13.69 14.69 14.33 0.64 0.36 36% Mass grams Crucible + lid grams Mass + crucible + lid grams Copper carbonate + mass + crucible +lid grams Copper oxide + mass + crucible +lid grams Mass of CuO grams Mass of CO2 lost grams % of CO2 lost grams 0.2 14.39 14.59 14.79 14.72 0.12 0.08 40% ...read more.

Conclusion

I did change the crucible and lid each time, but as they were weighed and the copper oxide was subtracted from their weight correctly each time, that doesn't interfere. The results I obtained support my experiment (apart from the two anomalous results) so, assuming my experiment can be classified as fair, I can claim that my results support my prediction and follow my theory: that the results should be around 35.5% and I predict a range of 30% to 41% (5.5% either side of 35.5%). I do have enough results to come to a clear conclusion but if I were to repeat the experiment I would like to take the 'mass/grams' up to 2.0. That would provide a clearer conclusion and also allow a higher chance for a pattern to be spotted. The main difficulty when carrying out the experiment itself was working out how long to heat the copper carbonate for. If I was to repeat the experiment, I would time how long each crucible was over the flame for. This would make the experiment fairer and more valid. I would also like to compare my results with more than one other person's results, and to compare the basic results, not just the average results. This would give a better idea of the results other people are getting, what conclusions they are reaching and how they got there. But I would only try the above ideas if I were to repeat the experiment. As it is, results are all adequate and have allowed me to come to a valid conclusion that supports my prediction. ...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. Thermal decomposition of Copper Carbonate (CuCo3).

    2) Using analytical-balance weigh the mass of sample (CuCo3) and sample-container to three decimal places and record the reading. 3) Transfer the sample to test-tube and reweigh the sample container and sample residues on the analytical balance and record the reading. 4) Deduce the mass of sample (CuCo3) by subtracting the mass of sample-container sample -residues from the mass of sample and sample-container.

  2. Making magnisium carbonate (MgCO3)

    My actual yield was 1g of MgCO3 and my theoretical yield 2.1g MgCO3 Therefore percentage yield is 1 x 100 47.62% 2.1 Why the weight is less The above equations show that out of 100% yield, I got 47.62 which will mean I lost 53.38% of the yield.

  1. Investigation to Identify the Formula of Hydrated Copper Sulphate and in doing so Find ...

    - m(Crucible) = 10.058 - 8.024 m(CuSO4 � xH2O) = 2.034g ? 0.004g Mass of CuSO4: Calculated by finding mass of water loss m(CuSO4) = m(Crucible and CuSO4 � xH2O after heating) - m(Crucible) = 9.291 - 8.024 m(CuSO4) = 1.267g ? 0.004g ? Mass of xH2O: Calculated by subtracting the mass of copper (II)

  2. Relationship Between the Masses of Copper Carbonate and Copper Oxide

    Equation for the reaction: Copper Carbonate � Copper Oxide + Carbon Dioxide CuCO3 (s) � CuO(s)

  1. Free essay

    Periodic table

    Therefore the diploid number of chromosomes in humans is: 2n = 2 � 23 = 46 Meiosis - makes new human beings e.g. foetus ==> baby ==> adult In sexually reproducing organisms such as humans gametes are produced in the sex organs - meiosis. During fertilisation the male gamete (sperm)

  2. The role of mass customization and postponement in global logistics

    The age of the consumer is in full swing. Shoppers have come to expect what they want, when they want it. And manufacturers and retailers are responding enthusiastically. This is the exciting, new, mega-trend methodology known as 'mass customisation' - the process of manufacturing and marketing a product based on individual preferences on a mass scale.

  1. Thermal Decomposition of copper carbonate

    It is also not sufficient to simply consider the stability of a compound with respect to its elements. It is necessary to consider the stability of copper (I) oxide with respect to copper (II) oxide, as well as with respect to copper and oxygen.

  2. Investigate a factor that effects the change in temperature between iron and copper sulphate.

    I will measure the change in temperature using an ordinary mercury thermometer. The apparatus I will need in this investigation are: � 5 boiling tubes � Boiling tube rack � Stop watch � One molar copper sulphate solution � Iron filings � Spatula � Thermometer � 10ml measuring cylinder �

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