dDetermination of the partition coefficient of ethanoic acid between water and butan-2-ol.

Authors Avatar

Experiment18

Aim

To determination the partition coefficient of ethanoic acid between water and butan-2-ol.

Procedure

  1. The room temperature was recorded.
  2. 15cm3 of the given aqueous ethanoic acid and 15cm3 of butan-2-ol were poured into a 100cm3 separating funnel, using suitable apparatus. The funnel was stoppered and was shook vigorously for 1 to 2 minutes. (The pressure in the funnel was released by occasionally opening the tap.)
  3. 10cm3 of each layer was separated approximately. (The fraction near the junction of the two layers was discarded.)
  4. 10.0cm3 of the aqueous layer was pipetted into a conical flask and was titrated with 0.1 M sodium hydroxide solution using phenolphthalein.
  5. Using another pipette, 10.0 cm3 of the alcohol layer was delivered into a conical flask and was titrated with 0.1 M sodium hydroxide solution.
  6. Steps (2) to (5) was repeated with another separating funnel using the following volume:
Join now!

25cm3 of aqueous ethanoic acid and 15cm3 of butan-2-ol

  1. For each experiment, the ratio of the concentration of ethanoic acid in the aqueous layer to that in the butan-2-ol layer was calculated.

Result

Room temperature: 29

Volume of butan-2-ol: 15 cm3 

Conclusion

The partition coefficient of ethanoic acid between water and butan-2-ol is :

=

=0.786

Discussion

  1. Shaking is necessary in step (2) because it made it faster to attain equilibrium state.
  2. When temperature increases, the solubility of the two solvents increase. But the rate of the increase in solubility are not the same, it is expected that ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

Avatar

Overall, the use of spelling, punctuation and grammar is very good. There are a few mistakes, such as in the title which are just typos, but could be easily removed with a thorough proof-read. The student uses technical language when necessary and demonstrates a strong understanding of the subject.

The level of depth is good, and there is plenty of discussion into the science behind the results. Wider knowledge is demonstrated as the student mentions what assumptions have to be made and why certain experimental features, such as shaking, are carried out. One improvement that could be made is more content on potential errors. For example, with the second set of the results, the candidate mentions that the first experiment encountered error, but doesn't provide any additional information about what the error was or any methods by which the error could have been prevented.

The candidate has written up a logical and well-presented piece of coursework. The work is methodical and there is a clear order throughout, with the aims being immediately presented. The method section is easy to follow, and the results/calculations seem to be correct. A good level of depth is used to show the working-out behind the calculations, with full formulas being written out when necessary.