The absorbance measured from the spectrophotometer can be related to the concentration of the analyte by the Beer-Lambert’s Law (Beer-Lambert-Bouguer’s Law):
[3] A = εbC,
Where:
A = measured absorbance
ε = wavelength – dependent molar absorptivity coefficient
b = path length (cm)
C = molar concentration
The linearity of the Beer-Lambert law’s is limited by chemical and instrumental factors alike. Hence, there are deviations from the law on certain conditions, here are some:
- If the concentration of the analyte is too high, there can be deviations in absorptivity due to electrostatic interactions between molecules in close proximity. Also, there can be changes in the refraction index of the analyte due to its high concentration.
- The beam used was not monochromatic.
- The absorbing species was not distributed properly leading to a non-consistent absorptivity of the analyte.
- Scattering of light due to very small particles (contaminants) like dust.
- The place where the spectrophotometer was used. In some places, stray light can cause some abnormalities on the absorbance/transmittance readings
The wavelength was set to 447nm because this was the wavelength were the absorbing species will have the maximum absorbance. If the wavelength was set higher (lower frequency and lower frequency light can travel longer distances without being absorbed), the absorbance of the analyte would be lower and the calculated [Fe(SCN)2+] eq would be smaller.
Table I. The Data of the Standard Solutions
Molar Concentration of KSCN: 2 x 10-3 M
Solution Absorbance [SCN-] [Fe(SCN)2+]
Standard 1 0.464 4.00 x 10-5 4.00 x 10-5 Standard 2 0.542 8.00 x 10-5 8.00 x 10-5 Standard 3 0.631 1.20 x 10-4 1.20 x 10-4 Standard 5 0.803 2.00 x 10-4 2.00 x 10-4
The absorbance recorded from standard 4 was discarded because it clearly deviated from the other points when absorbance was plotted versus concentration of the analyte. This was done so that the best fit line is more accurate.
A spectrophotometer was used to obtain the absorbance of the standard solutions. A plot of the values of [Fe(SCN)2+]eq versus Absorbance is shown below:
Figure I. The Graph of the Calibration Curve
Equation of the best fit line: y = 2131.428571x + 0.375542857
R2 value: 0.999557262
The value of the R2 obtained from the plot of the points is near to 1, which means that the plot of the points is near to a perfect line. The equation of the best fit line is important because it is related to the Beer-Lambert’s Law. The slope, m, being εb (because b, the path length was kept at 1cm), the y being the absorbance and the x being the equilibrium concentration of [Fe(SCN)]2+. However there is a non- zero y-intercept in the equation of the best fit line which suggested that the Beer-Lambert’s law had some limitations.
From figure I, it was observed that as the equilibrium concentration of [Fe(SCN)]2+ increased, the absorbance value also increased. The intensity of the color is related to the concentration of [Fe(SCN)]2+. In the standard solutions, there was excess [Fe3+]initial and limited [SCN-]initial. Therefore, by stoichiometric analysis, one can assume that the limiting reagent of the reaction was SCN-, hence the product produced which was the absorbing species, [Fe(SCN)]2+, was equal to the concentration of SCN-.
The calibration curve was very essential because it related the absorbance of the analyte and concentration of [Fe(SCN)]2+. The concentrations of [Fe(SCN)]2+ in the unknown solutions were found using the graph and its equation. The next part of the experiment was the measurement of the absorbance of unknown solutions.
The absorbances of the unknown solutions are shown below:
Table II. Absorbance of Unknown Solutions
Initial molar Concentration of Fe(NO3)3: 2 x 10-3
Initial molar Concentration of KSCN: 2 x 10-3
Solution Absorbance [Fe3+]initial [SCN-]initial
Unknown 1 0.110 1.00 x 10-3 2.00 x 10-4 Unknown 2 0.232 1.00 x 10-3 4.00 x 10-4 Unknown 3 0.389 9.09 x 10-4 7.27 x 10-4 Unknown 4 0.473 8.33 x 10-4 1.00 x 10-3 Unknown 5 0.528 7.69 x 10-4 1.23 x 10-3
Here, a different blank solution was used to re-zero the spectrophotometer before reading the absorbances of the unknown solutions because the molar concentration of Fe3+ in the unknown solutions is different from the standard solutions and according to Beer-Lambert’s law the concentration of Fe3+, an absorbing species is proportional to its absorbance leading to different values of absorbances. The spectrophotometer must subtract a different value from the absorbance of the whole solution to negate the absorbance of Fe3+ in the unknown solutions.
Table II shows that the absorbance increases as the concentration of SCN- increases. The data from Unknowns 1 and 2 had been disregarded because from Beer-Lambert’s law, one would get negative [Fe(SCN)2+]eq.
The [Fe3+]eq‘s, [SCN-]eq‘s, [Fe(SCN)2+]eq‘s, and Keq‘s of Unknowns 3 to 5 are summarized in the table below:
Table III. Determination of the Equilibrium Constant, Keq
Solution [Fe3+]eq [SCN-]eq [Fe(SCN) 2+]eq Keq
U 3 9.02x10-4 7.18x10-4 6.33x10-6 9.77 V U 4 7.87x10-4 9.54x10-4 4.57 x 10-5 64.0 CV U 5 6.98x10-4 1.16 x 10-3 7.15 x 10-5 88.3
Average Equilibrium Constant, Keq: 54.0
The average equilibrium constant, 54.0, deviated greatly from the literature value 890 with a percent difference of 177.11%. One can say that the preparation of solutions was done correctly because the experimentally obtained Keq values were close to each other (9.77 – 88.3) although they are very far from the literature value. This may be due to some other chemical reactions that compete with the production of [Fe(SCN)]2+. For example the following reaction,
Fe3+ + 4Cl- ↔ FeCl4-, the reaction above occurs when there are excess Cl- ions present, which is quite possible because both standard and unknown solutions were diluted with HCl. When the reaction took place, it will now hinder the production of [Fe(SCN)]2+ also FeCl4- does not contribute to the absorbance of the solution because it is colorless. The actual equilibrium concentration of [Fe(SCN)]2+ was maybe smaller than the one calculated and that could cause the large difference from the literature value.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There were many important observations made. First, the significance of the absorbing species, [Fe(SCN)]2+ is discussed. The relationship suggested by the Beer-Lambert’s law between the absorbance and the absorbing species was confirmed. The absorbance of [Fe(SCN)]2+ made it possible for the absorbance to be obtained by using the spectrophotometer and for the equilibrium concentrations and constants of the unknown solutions to be calculated. Second, it was confirmed that spectrophotometry is an effective way of measuring absorbances due to the absorptivity of the analyte which was proved to be directly proportional to the concentration by the Beer-Lambert’s law. Without the spectrophotometer, the solutions’ absorbances would not be measured hence there would be no proper way to obtain the equilibrium concentration of the analyte. And last, a calibration curve was obtained. It is useful in determining the equilibrium concentrations of the ions in the unknown solutions. With all of this, the calculation of the equilibrium constant was achieved.
The experiment yielded results that were consistent with what must be obtained although the percent error and the percent difference were high. The large discrepancies in the values of the experimental Keq can be explained by the improper handling of the equipment and the place where the UV-Vis Spectrophotometer was used.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
1. HCl is significant in the solution preparation because it helps to attain the desired concentration of the reactants by keeping the total volume of the solutions constant. Also the HCl used in the solution acidifies the solution. It minimizes the yellow – brown color of Fe3+ minimizing its absorbance and making [Fe(SCN)]2+ the only absorbing species.
2. This is done to subtract the absorbance of Fe3+ to the absorbance of the whole solution so that the absorbance readings displayed are only due to [Fe(SCN)]2+.
3. This may be due to some limitations of the Beer-Lambert’s law leading to deviations in the calculated Keq. Also there were measurement discrepancies and improper solution preparation. Measurements were made in graduated cylinders instead of a more accurate burette. Some apparatus were not completely dried and may have diluted the solutions. Also this maybe due to some other chemical reactions that compete with the production of [Fe(SCN)]2+.
APPLICATIONS
Some applications of Spectrophotometry are:
- Analysis of some biochemicals in microbiology, also spectrophotometry is a way to determine the relative numbers of bacteria in a sample.
- Determination of the authenticity of some fruit juices, especially orange juice.
- Measurements of various properties of painted surfaces. Some properties of these surfaces include color, specular gloss, contrast gloss, bloom and sheen.
- Estimations of the cholesterol concentrations in blood plasma.
- Determination of the quality of honey based on its color.
REFERENCES
Textbooks:
[1] Petrucci, P.H., Herring, F.G., Madura J.D. and Bissonnette C.: General Chemistry, Principles and Modern Application, 10th Ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2010
[2] Rosenberg, J.L., Epstein, L.M.: College Chemistry, 7th Ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc, New York, 1990
[3] Brown, T.L., Le May Jr., H.E., Bursten, B.E.: Chemistry the Central Science, 11th Ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2010.
[4] Mortimer, C.E.: Chemistry, 6th Ed. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1986
[5] Kimsley, V.S.: Introductory Chemistry, 2nd Ed. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, California. 1995
[6] Boyer, R.F.: Modern Experimental Biochemistry, 2nd ed. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing, California, 1993
Journals:
[1] Umali, A., Anslyn, E., 2010. “Analysis of Citric Acid in Beverages: Use of an Indicator Displacement Assay”. Journal of Chemical Education, Volume 87, Number 8, pp. 832-835
[2] Mascotti, D., Waner, M., 2010. “Complementary Spectroscopic Assays for Investigating Protein-Ligand Binding Activity”. Journal of Chemical Education, Volume 87, Number 7, pp. 735-738
A. WORKING EQUATIONS
Beer-Lambert’s Law:
A = εbc,
Where:
A = measured absorbance
ε = wavelength – dependent molar absorptivity coefficient
b = path length (cm)
c = molar concentration
Equation of the Best Fit Line:
y = 2131.428571x + 0.375542857,
Where:
x = concentration
y = absorbance
Dilution Equation:
M1V1 = M2V2,
Where:
M1 = concentration
M2 = new concentration
V1 = volume
V2 = new volume
Equilibrium Expression:
Keq = [C]c[D]d / [A]a[B]b
Where:
C, D = products
A, B = reactants
a, b, c, d = coefficients in the stoichiometric equation
Average Equilibrium Constant:
Keq ave = (Keq U3 + Keq U4 + Keq U5) / 3
Where:
Keq U3 = Keq obtained in Unknown 3
Keq U4 = Keq obtained in Unknown 4
Keq U5 = Keq obtained in Unknown 5
Percent Error:
|actual – theoretical / theoretical| X 100 = %
Where:
% = percent error
Percent Difference:
|actual – theoretical / ((actual + theoretical) / 2) | X 100 % = %
Where:
% = percent difference
B. SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Equation of the Best Fit Line: y = 2131.428571x + 0.375542857
Equilibrium Concentration of [Fe(SCN)2+] in Unknown 3:
Given: y = 0.389
Find: x
[1] 0.389 = 2131.428571x + 0.375542857
0.389 - 0.375542857 = 2131.428571x
0.013457143 = 2131.428571x
x = 6.33 x 10-6
x = 6.33 x 10-6 M [Fe(SCN)2+]
Dilution Equation of Standard 1:
Given: 0.20 ml of 0.002 M KSCN, 2.50 ml of 0.20 M Fe(NO3)3 and 7.30 ml of 0.1 M HCl
Find: M2
M1 = 0.002 M KSCN
V1 = 0.20 ml KSCN
V2 = total volume = 0.20 + 2.50 + 7.30 ml = 10 ml
(0.002 M)(0.20 ml) = (M2)(10 ml)
0.0004 moles = 10(M2)
M2 = 4.00 x 10-5 M [SCN-]
Equilibrium Expression of Unknown 3:
Given:
[Fe(SCN)2+]eq = 6.33x10-6 M,
[Fe3+]init = 9.09 x 10-4 M
[SCN-]init = 7.27 x 10-4 M
Find: Keq
An ICE table of Unknown 3
Net-ionic Equation:
Fe3+ + SCN- ↔ [Fe(SCN)2+]
[Fe3+] [SCN-] [Fe(SCN)2+]
I 8.33 x 10-4 1.00 x 10-3 0
C -6.33x10-6 -6.33x10-6 +6.33x10-6
E 9.02x10-4 7.18x10-4 6.33x10-6
Keq = [Fe(SCN)2+]eq / [Fe3+]eq x [SCN-]eq
Keq = 6.33x10-6 / (9.02x10-4) * (7.18x10-4)
Keq = 9.77
Average Equilibrium Constant:
Keq ave = (Keq U3 + Keq U4 + Keq U5) / 3
= (9.77 + 88.3 + 64.0) / 3
Keq ave = 54.0
Percent Error:
Given:
Actual = 54.0
Theoretical = 890
% Error = (890 – 54.0) * 100 % / 890
% Error = 93.932 %
Percent Difference:
Given:
Actual = 54.0
Theoretical = 890
% Difference = (890 – 54.0) * 100 % / ((890 + 54.0) / 2)
% Difference = 177.11 %