• 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. Making magnisium carbonate (MgCO3)

    This may be as a result of a number of factors which include: * Some of the solution may have escaped from the sides of the filter paper * Transferring the substances from one container to another. This will affect the weight in that it is practically not possible to transfer a 100% of a given substance.

  2. 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.

  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. Free essay

    Periodic table

    - A = Adenine - T = Thymine - C = Cytosine - G = Guanine NB: A is always attracted to T and C is always attracted to G - this forms the rungs of the double helix model.

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

    Unfortunately, we didn't compare our results for sample A with other people's results. Also, the large measuring cylinders don't provide an accurate reading for volumes that are small like 20cm3. How reliability could've been improved in stage 1 If we could do the experiment again, I think that we'd have

  1. An experiment to investigate the factors that determine the amount of energy released when ...

    alcohol, just by putting the number of carbon atoms in contains into the formula. I am then going to divide the molecular mass of each alcohol by the constant number that I choose. I will choose this number in my preliminary work.

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

    I carried out my preliminary investigation in 10ml of copper sulphate one molar solution. I have decided to record the temperature every minute for four minutes, as I believe this is enough time to see the full rise in temperature for the mass of iron.

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