LAB £5

pdf

School

Triton College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

150

Subject

Chemistry

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

4

Report

Uploaded by PrivatePantherPerson394

31 Laboratory 5 Report Name(s): _____________________________________________________________________ Data Table 5.1 Copper Sulfate Known Dilutions Dilution Concentration of CuSO 4 (M) Absorbency Value of CuSO 4 Color of CuSO 4 (Scale 1-5: 1 = lightest, 5 = darkest) N/A (Distilled H 2 O) 1 in 5 1 in 10 1 in 50 1 in 100 Procedure B: Determination of Copper Sulfate Unknowns Determine the absorbency values for each one of the unknown copper sulfate solutions labeled A-F using the spectrophotometer. Record this data in Data Table 5.2 and generate a standard curve on the next page to determine the concentration by graph method. A second method for calculating an unknown’s concentration is based on using an equation called the least squares fit analysis . This can be done on a computer with a mathematical algorithm. Your professor will direct you to a computer with this spreadsheet. Data Table 5.2 Copper Sulfate Unknowns Unknown Absorbency Value Concentration by Graph Method (M) Concentration by Least Squares (M) Color of CuSO 4 (Scale 1-6: 1 = lightest, 6 = darkest) A B C D E F
32 Spectrophotometry Graph Analysis: Generate a graph using the known concentration data from Data Table 5.1. Plot the absorbency value (Y-axis) against concentration (X-axis) on Figure 5.2. Make note of the largest absorbance value of your unknowns in order to scale your axis accordingly since this graph will be used to determine the unknown concentrations from Data Table 5.2. Draw the best fit line through your known data points. While the data points should fall on a single straight line, it does not have to go through every data point plotted (Figure 5.1). Figure 5.1: Sample Standardization Graph (Generate your own graph below) Figure 5.2: Standardization Graph for Copper Sulfate
33 Observations and Analysis Write a discussion analyzing the data collected. In your discussion indicate what your concentrations were and how the two different methods of concentration calculation (graph method and least squares) compared to each other. Analyze the relationship between color, concentrations, and absorbance.
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
34 The distilled water concentration and absorbency value for procedure A were both 0. This suggests that of the five solutions, distilled water was the lightest. The dilution ratio for the initial copper sulfate solution was 1 in 5. In other words, its concentration was 0.2 M. The absorbance value of this 0.2 M copper sulfate solution was 1.701, making it the darkest of the five solutions. The following copper sulfate solution had an absorbency value of 0.724 and a concentration of 0.1 M, or a dilution factor of 1 in 10. The third copper sulfate solution was 0.02 M in concentration, or a dilution factor of 1 in 50, and had an absorbency value of 0.135. The dilution factor of the final copper sulfate solution was 1 in 100. This final solution was 0.01 M in concentration and 0.065 in absorbency. Color, concentration, and absorbance values are closely related to one another because when one increases, so do the others. We recorded the absorbency values of all six unknowns for process B and then assessed their color on a scale of 1-6. Where 1 represents the lightest and 6 represents the darkest. Unknown A had a color rating of 2 and an absorbency value of 0.349. Second, unknown B had a color rating of 3 and an absorbency value of 0.182. Third, unknown C had a color rating of 5 and an absorbency value of 0.715.After that, unknown D had an absorbency value of 0.107 and a color grade of 1, indicating that it was the darkest copper sulfate solution. Then there was unknown E, with an absorbency of 1.156. Because of its high absorbency value, unknown E has the darkest copper sulfate solution, giving it a color grade of 6. Lastly, unknown F got a color rating of 4 and an absorbency value of 0.528. After determining the absorbency values, we used two approaches to calculate the concentrations. The initial approach was the least squares concentration.The instructor's Computer was running a special excel software that vomited out the concentration data. The data from method A was then graphed. The x-axis represents molar concentration, while the y-axis represents absorbency at 690 nm. After graphing the points, we constructed the best-representing trend line. We looked at the absorbance value and then where that value intersected the trend line to determine the amounts of the unknowns. The x-axis value is determined by where the absorbance value intersects the trend line. Because the x-axis depicts molar concentration, we recorded the concentration values using our best guess.The graph technique yielded a concentration value of 0.045 M for unknown A, whereas the least squares approach yielded a concentration value of 0.046 M. Second, for unknown B, the graph technique yielded a concentration of 0.025 M, but the least squares method yielded 0.026 M. Finally, for unknown C, the graph technique yielded a concentration of 0.09 M, but the least squares method yielded 0.089 M. The graph technique produced a concentration value of 0.015 M for unknown D, whereas the least squares approach produced a concentration value of 0.017 M. The graph approach then gave us a concentration value of 0.145 M for unknown E, whereas the least squares method gave us 0.0141 M. Eventually, for unknown F, the graph approach yielded a concentration value of 0.067 M, whereas the least squares technique yielded a concentration value of 0.067 M. Generally, the concentration differences between the graph and least squares approaches were minor. The greatest concentration disparity was for unknown E. The graph technique yielded a value of 0.145 M, whereas the least squares yielded a value of 0.141 M. The overall difference was 0.004 M. While 0.004 M is a modest variation and the greatest difference between the two procedures, I would suggest that these methods provide similar outcomes. Otherwise, the approaches produced fairly comparable results, and one even produced an exact number for the unknown F.Procedure B, like Procedure A, leads to the conclusion that color, concentration, and absorbance values are directly proportionate to one another. We may draw this conclusion because when one of these variables grew, so did the others. The solution with the darkest hue, unknown E, had the highest concentration and absorbency value. Although unknown D was the lightest in color, concentration, and absorbency rating. When the concentration grows, so does the absorbency value, and the color becomes