Seperations Notbook (5)
.docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Saint Joseph's University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
120
Subject
Chemistry
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by CountBoulder12888
Calculations:
1.
Mass percentage of each component
Percent Error= Measured Value-Actual Value/Actual value x100
a.
Salt= 35.48%
b.
Sand=31.61
c.
Calcium Carbonate=29.03
2. Percent recovery of the mixture =96.13%
Percent Recovery=salt%+sand%+calcium carbonate%
Conclusion:
3. The percent mass for each of the components was supposed to be 33.33%.
Looking at the percent calculation for our components we were extremely close
to the actual percent for each component. I believe the salt calculation must be
higher than the 33.33% because it may have still had some weight from the
water that it was being boiled in. The sand was the closest to the actual value
most likely because it is the easiest to separate physically. The calcium
carbonate is the farthest away most likely because we could have lost some of
the calcium carbonate in the water that did not completely react with the K2CO3
and stayed dissolved in the water.
4. Percent errors for each component
a.
Salt=6.45% error. The salt percent error I believe is a result of extra water
that did not boil off still being on the salt. It is possible that the filter paper
let some CaCO3 through.
b.
Sand=5.16% error. The sand percent error is most likely due to a loss
through filtering, it is possible some of the sand stayed on the filter paper
and was missed.
c.
Calcium Carbonate=12.9% error. The CaCO3 percent error is most likely a
result of not all of it getting off of the filter paper and not all of it reacting
with the K2CO3 and still being soluble in water as CaCl2.
5. The overall percent recovery for the experiment is quite high resulting in a very
successful experiment with a 96.13% recovery. However it should be noted that
the percentage for Salt is over 33.33% which is technically not possible because
the maximum recovery for salt would be 33.33% recovery so accounting for that
it would bring the overall percent recovery down to 93.97% which would still be a
very successful experiment.
Data Table I: Separation of the Components of the
Mixture
Unknown code:5
Mass of empty ‘beaker 1’, g
113.6g
Mass of ‘beaker 1’ + unknown, g
116.7g
Mass of unknown, g
3.1g
Mass of ‘beaker 2’, g
113.52g
Mass of ‘beaker 2’ + salt, g
114.62g
Mass of salt, g
1.1g
Mass of small watchglass + small filter paper, g
18.9g
Small watchglass + small filter paper + calcium carbonate, g
19.8g
Mass of calcium carbonate, g
.90g
Mass of evaporating dish, g
51.24g
Mass of evaporating dish + sand, g
52.22g
Mass of sand, g
.98g
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Related Questions
How do I calculate mass %?
arrow_forward
3a. Another student performed the same percent composition of a hydrate experiment, but kent
the crucible completely covered throughout the entire experiment. What effect would this
have on the experiment?
Cor
3b. Would the student's calculated percent water in the hydrate be high, low, or unaffected?
Explain why or why not.
arrow_forward
The computed percent recovery was more than 100%. What does this signify, and what should be done about it?
arrow_forward
A 4.64 g sample of a laboratory solution contains 1.47 g of acid. What is the concentration of the solution as a
mass percentage?
% acid
concentration:
about us
careers privacy policy terms of use contact us heip
440
4/13/2
DII
FS
%3*
F7
PrtScn
PgUp,
F11
pgDn 12
Home
End
F10
F6
2$
&
4.
5
6.
8.
9.
R
Y
K
+ I|
10
LL
arrow_forward
4) During Run 1 (heated to 200°C), do you think that the sodium bicarbonate turned into NaOH, Na20, or Na2CO3?
What about during Run 2 (heated to 400°C)? Did they form the same product, or different products? Was this
expected or unexpected? Explain briefly.
arrow_forward
What is the % by mass of water in your hydrated copper (Il) sulphate?
Mass of just anhydrous compound
= mass of anhydrous compound - mass of beaker and
rod
108.34g - 106.87g
= 1.47g
%D
%3D
= original compound mass - anhydrous compound mass
= 3.00g - 1.47g
= 1.53g
Mass of just water
%D
arrow_forward
Mass Aluminum Foil (g)
2.5415
Mass Filter Paper (g)
0.2777
Mass Filter Paper + Product (g)
35.6484
Mass Product (g)
O 35.3708 g
O 35.3705 g
O 35.3707 g
35.3709 g
O 35.3706 g
Next
arrow_forward
B. Percentage of Water in an Unknown Hydrate
CUC2·X H20
UNKNOWN #
mass of beaker and watchglass + unknown hydrate
(before heating)
123.02
123.02
mass of beaker and watchglass
121.98
122.01
mass of unknown hydrate
122.81
122.78
mass of beaker and watchglass + anhydrous compound
(after heating)
nass of water
(before heating - after heating)
Show the calculation for the percentage of water for trial 1 (see Example Exercise 2).
Percentage of water in the unknown hydrate
Average percentage of water
C. Water of Crystallization in an Unknown Hydrate
170.48
g/mol
molar mass of anhydrous compound (AC)
(see Instructor)
percentage of water (see Procedure B)
percentage of anhydrous compound (AC)
Show the calculation for the water of crystallization (see Example Exercise 3).
Water of crystallization
НО
AC•
(Based on how rounding goes at various
parts of this, there are two possible
answers that I'll consider correct. Just put
Formula of hydrate
Analysis of Alum
138
down one of them.)
60
arrow_forward
SHOW ALL CALCULATIONS.
Mass of calcium phosphate sample
plus weigling paper
2. 332 4
0.1849
Mass of weighing paper
2.332g-0.184g= 2.148 g
Mass of calcium phosphate sample
Ca3(Po4)2
40.08(3)+[30.97+16.00(4)]2=
310.18 g/mol
Molar mass of calcium phosphate
Number of moles of calcium phosphate 2.148 g x 1mole/310.18 g/mol= 0.006925 = 7.025 x 10°
in your sample
Moles of phosphorus in your sample
Mass of phosphorus in your sample
Percent phosphorus in your sample
Percent of phosphorous in one mole
of calcium phosphate
arrow_forward
5
arrow_forward
Please can you help me fill in the blanks, with proper calculations thank you.
arrow_forward
4. A new procedure for the determination of sulfur in coal was tested on a standard coal sample with a certified value of 2.14% sulfur by mass. The new procedure gave results of 2.11%, 2.07%, 2.04%, 2.06%, and 2.16% for five separate determinations.
a) Does the new procedure give the correct result at the 95% confidence level?
b) Does the new procedure give the correct result at the 90% confidence level?
arrow_forward
Video Conferencing, Web Co X
Illinois State University - CH X
G What is the chemical formula x ð OneClass: Write the balance x
ON What Is The Chemical Fo X G chemical formula table - Goc x +
saplinglearning.com/ibiscms/mod/flcn/view.php?id=12024863
A
Apps M Gmail
YouTube
Maps
Translate
GE News
Reef – Class activi...
sapling plue che
My Print Center
D Reef 2 Activity - Get l-PA...
bartholomae.pdf
Math help
>>
A Sapling Learning
Ch 7 HW
Aalyiah Washburn
macmillan learning
Sapling Learning > Illinois State University - CHE 110 - Fall20 - BOESDORFER > Activities and Due Dates > Ch 7 HW
Assignment Score:
Ex Give Up?
O Hint
88.1%
Resources
Check Answer
Attempt 3
N
но
What is the chemical formula for the limiting reactant in the reaction shown?
chemical formula: H, + 2NO → N, + H,O
Write the balanced chemical equation for the reaction, using lowest whole-number coefficients.
© 2011-2020 Sapling Learning, Inc.
|help
about us
careers
privacy policy terms of use
contact us
!!!
arrow_forward
4. A student conducted an experiment by heating BaCl₂ 2H₂O and reported the percent of
water as 15.25%. Calculate the percent error (Hint: Use the calculated theoretical value).
arrow_forward
Please don't provide handwriting solution
arrow_forward
determine the mass percent of napthalene, NaCl, and sand from the following data. Also determine the total percent recovery.
Mass of Beaker1: 45.845 g
Mass of Beaker1 + sample: 47.500 g
Mass of Beaker1 + sample after heating: 46.748 g
Mass of filter paper: 2.000 g
Mass of filter paper + sand: 2.574 g
Mass of Beaker2 + boiling stone: 65.600 g
Mass of Beaker2 + boiling stone + dried salt: 65.865 g
arrow_forward
Answers accurate to 3 or 4 significant figures & show your work.
6. A 18.00-g sample of a mixture containing only FESO4.7H2O and
SnCl4.5H2O was heated carefully to drive off the H2O (g) from the two hydrates. The
remaining residue containing FeSO4 and SnCl4 weighed 11.75 grams. Show how you
determine the percentage composition by mass of the two hydrates in the original
mixture. You must show your work!
arrow_forward
Using (i) a right triangular plot and (ii) an equilateral triangular plot, solve the following problem graphically.
The following mixtures are completely mixed to form mixture D:
Mixture
Mass (kg)
% NaCI
% KCI
% H2O
A
50
50
50
В
100
20
80
C
75
40
60
1. Adding first mixtures A and B to yield the resultant mixture F. Then, add mixture F to mixture C to locate mixture
D.
2. If 25 kg of H2O was removed from mixture D to produce mixture E, locate E and determine its composition.
arrow_forward
15. Laboratory analysis of a sample yielded the following data for the combustion of Nickel Ni(s) + O2(g) àNi O(s)
i) Mass of a crucible = 30.02g
ii) Mass of nickel (Ni) and crucible = 31.07 g
iii) Mass of nickel oxide and crucible = 31.36 g
Based on the above information, calculate the following
iv) Mass of nickel (Ni) in sample =
v) Mass of nickel oxide =
c) Based on the above calculate the Theoretical Yield of Nickel oxide obtained from the mass of nickel in part (iv) above
d) Calculate the percentage yield of nickel oxide
arrow_forward
7. In weighing by difference: Initial weight of the sample bottle containing the sample:10.0001g.Final weight of the sample bottle containing thesample:__g.Weight of the sample taken from the bottle is 6.0200 g
a
3.8901
b
3.9801
c
16.0201
d
16.020
arrow_forward
750 g
potassium
iodide
Oral
Potassium
1 g per
237 mL per
950 g elemental iodine + 1.5
kgs potassium hydroxide
Saturated
iodide
mL
bottle
Solution
IC. SYNTHESIS AND PACKAGING
% composition by mass of each compound
arrow_forward
4
arrow_forward
The formula to use for calculations of dilutions is
1. VịC = V½C2
%3D
2. VịC2 = V½C1
V2
3. a
%3D
4.
O 1
O 2
O 3
O 4
||
arrow_forward
The actual empirical formula of magnesium oxide is mgo. Explain any different between your result and the actual value.
arrow_forward
please answer this question in the same format that's in the picture below. (Example picture.) answer correctly.Question: Calculate the mass in grams for: 0.75 mol hydrogen sulfide (H2S).
arrow_forward
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
Recommended textbooks for you
Chemistry
Chemistry
ISBN:9781305957404
Author:Steven S. Zumdahl, Susan A. Zumdahl, Donald J. DeCoste
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Chemistry: An Atoms First Approach
Chemistry
ISBN:9781305079243
Author:Steven S. Zumdahl, Susan A. Zumdahl
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Related Questions
- How do I calculate mass %?arrow_forward3a. Another student performed the same percent composition of a hydrate experiment, but kent the crucible completely covered throughout the entire experiment. What effect would this have on the experiment? Cor 3b. Would the student's calculated percent water in the hydrate be high, low, or unaffected? Explain why or why not.arrow_forwardThe computed percent recovery was more than 100%. What does this signify, and what should be done about it?arrow_forward
- A 4.64 g sample of a laboratory solution contains 1.47 g of acid. What is the concentration of the solution as a mass percentage? % acid concentration: about us careers privacy policy terms of use contact us heip 440 4/13/2 DII FS %3* F7 PrtScn PgUp, F11 pgDn 12 Home End F10 F6 2$ & 4. 5 6. 8. 9. R Y K + I| 10 LLarrow_forward4) During Run 1 (heated to 200°C), do you think that the sodium bicarbonate turned into NaOH, Na20, or Na2CO3? What about during Run 2 (heated to 400°C)? Did they form the same product, or different products? Was this expected or unexpected? Explain briefly.arrow_forwardWhat is the % by mass of water in your hydrated copper (Il) sulphate? Mass of just anhydrous compound = mass of anhydrous compound - mass of beaker and rod 108.34g - 106.87g = 1.47g %D %3D = original compound mass - anhydrous compound mass = 3.00g - 1.47g = 1.53g Mass of just water %Darrow_forward
- Mass Aluminum Foil (g) 2.5415 Mass Filter Paper (g) 0.2777 Mass Filter Paper + Product (g) 35.6484 Mass Product (g) O 35.3708 g O 35.3705 g O 35.3707 g 35.3709 g O 35.3706 g Nextarrow_forwardB. Percentage of Water in an Unknown Hydrate CUC2·X H20 UNKNOWN # mass of beaker and watchglass + unknown hydrate (before heating) 123.02 123.02 mass of beaker and watchglass 121.98 122.01 mass of unknown hydrate 122.81 122.78 mass of beaker and watchglass + anhydrous compound (after heating) nass of water (before heating - after heating) Show the calculation for the percentage of water for trial 1 (see Example Exercise 2). Percentage of water in the unknown hydrate Average percentage of water C. Water of Crystallization in an Unknown Hydrate 170.48 g/mol molar mass of anhydrous compound (AC) (see Instructor) percentage of water (see Procedure B) percentage of anhydrous compound (AC) Show the calculation for the water of crystallization (see Example Exercise 3). Water of crystallization НО AC• (Based on how rounding goes at various parts of this, there are two possible answers that I'll consider correct. Just put Formula of hydrate Analysis of Alum 138 down one of them.) 60arrow_forwardSHOW ALL CALCULATIONS. Mass of calcium phosphate sample plus weigling paper 2. 332 4 0.1849 Mass of weighing paper 2.332g-0.184g= 2.148 g Mass of calcium phosphate sample Ca3(Po4)2 40.08(3)+[30.97+16.00(4)]2= 310.18 g/mol Molar mass of calcium phosphate Number of moles of calcium phosphate 2.148 g x 1mole/310.18 g/mol= 0.006925 = 7.025 x 10° in your sample Moles of phosphorus in your sample Mass of phosphorus in your sample Percent phosphorus in your sample Percent of phosphorous in one mole of calcium phosphatearrow_forward
- 5arrow_forwardPlease can you help me fill in the blanks, with proper calculations thank you.arrow_forward4. A new procedure for the determination of sulfur in coal was tested on a standard coal sample with a certified value of 2.14% sulfur by mass. The new procedure gave results of 2.11%, 2.07%, 2.04%, 2.06%, and 2.16% for five separate determinations. a) Does the new procedure give the correct result at the 95% confidence level? b) Does the new procedure give the correct result at the 90% confidence level?arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
- ChemistryChemistryISBN:9781305957404Author:Steven S. Zumdahl, Susan A. Zumdahl, Donald J. DeCostePublisher:Cengage LearningChemistry: An Atoms First ApproachChemistryISBN:9781305079243Author:Steven S. Zumdahl, Susan A. ZumdahlPublisher:Cengage Learning
Chemistry
Chemistry
ISBN:9781305957404
Author:Steven S. Zumdahl, Susan A. Zumdahl, Donald J. DeCoste
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Chemistry: An Atoms First Approach
Chemistry
ISBN:9781305079243
Author:Steven S. Zumdahl, Susan A. Zumdahl
Publisher:Cengage Learning