Lab Report Discussion

KIO3 + 6 HCl + 6 Na2S2O3 → 3 Na2S4O6 + KI +3 H2o + 6 NaCl

= = == Calcium Carbonate + Hydrochloric Acid Calcium Chloride + Water + Carbon Dioxide Equipment ---------

In reference to the analysis of anions, Table 1 shows that a precipitate was formed when our unknown was combined with HNO3 and AgNO3, thus indicating the presence of a chloride ion. Because our unknown did not form a precipitate due to HCl and BaCl2, separate, effervesce, or smell, we concluded that neither sulfate, nitrate, carbonate nor

+ 3 H+(aq) IO3-(aq) + 8 I-(aq) + 6 H+(aq) → 3 I3-(aq) + 3 H2O(l) I3-(aq) + HSO3-(aq) + H2O(l) → 3 I-(aq) + SO42-(aq) + 3 H+(aq) 2 I3-(aq)

Based the data collected, the identity of the unknown #42 is lithium chloride. Because the unknown compound produced a bright red pinkish flame, shown in Table 1, the possible cations based on the CRC Handbook were lithium or strontium 1.The known 1M lithium chloride also produced the same colored flame as the unknown, suggesting that the unknown compound has lithium. Since lithium produces no precipitate with the compounds in Table 2 and strontium produces a precipitate with the same compounds, the observations in Table 2 indicate that the unknown’s cation is lithium 4. Using the solubility table, process of elimination, and the results in Table 3 the possible anions for the unknown compound were chloride and bromide4. The production of precipitate

The flame test had a variety of results. Most of the known compounds did not match our unknown except for Ca(NO3)2. Both Ca(NO3)2 and the unknown compound had a deep red/orange color flame. While Ca(NO3)2 had the closest results two other compounds had slightly different results but not different enough to rule them out. Those other two compounds were CaCl2 with a yellow/ orange color and CaCO3 with a reddish color.

We were given known aqueous solutions of following reagents:  BaCl2  Na2SO4  MgSO4  Na2CO3  CH3COONa 2. Following known solid hydrates were also given to us:  CuSO4  BaCl2  MgSO4  Na2CO3  Na2SO4  CH3COONa 3.

Using this, the concentration of carbonate can be determined from the total alkalinity (see Results).

Introduction The overall purpose of this lab was to identify an unknown mineral that contained copper. Two different methods were used to identify the mineral, the methods were; a carbonate test and a roasting experiment. The average percent of copper for the class, based on the roasting data, was 55.5% copper. Based on the observations from the lab and the carbonate, it was determined that malachite was the best math for the unknown mineral.

Used a scoopula to take out baking soda and filled three 30 mL test tube with 0.2 g, 0.4 g, 0.6 g, 0.8 g and 1 g using an electronic balance. Put the test tubes in the rack. 4. Filled a tub with water 30 cm and filled water to the 100 mL mark on the graduated cylinder. 5.

The fundamental purpose of this 3 part experiment is to determine cations via various tests, such as identifying cations with forming precipitates (qualitative analysis tests) or identifying cations with performing cation flame tests. Part A was mixing various chemicals to form specific types of precipitates that indicated the presence of a Lead cation or a Silver cation. Part B was similar to Part A, but Part B contained a false positive of whether the cation was Barium or Calcium (both had white precipitates). In Part C, various flame tests were performed, and the cation was determined by the color of the flame. In addition to determining cations, this experiment’s purpose taught how to use various equipment, specifically the centrifuge, the heat plate, and the bunsen burner.

The cations in both the known and unknown samples were identified by using qualitative analysis, of which were determined to be acidic, basic, or neutral by using litmus paper. Acid-base reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, and the formation of complex ions are often used in a systematic way for either separating ions or for determining the presence of specific ions. When white precipitate formed after adding hydroxide, aluminum ion was determined to be present in the solution. However, nickel was determined to test positive when the solution changed to a hot pink color after adding a few drops of dimethylglyoxime reagent and iron was present when the solution was a reddish brown color when sodium hydroxide was added to the mixture at the very beginning of the experiment. Qualitative analysis determines that ions will undergo specific chemical reactions with certain reagents to yield observable products to detect the presence of specific ions in an aqueous solution where precipitation reactions play a major role. The qualitative analysis of ions in a mixture must add reagents that exploit the more general properties of ions to separate major groups of ions, separate major groups into subgroups with reactions that will distinguish less general properties, and add reagents that will specifically confirm the presence of individual

The top phase was removed and the solution was centrifuged again for 5 min at 3500 rpm. Fifty μLs of extract were diluted in 1 mL of LC-MS grade MeOH and 10 μLs of the solution were injected into the LC-MS/MS. The three procedures with

= == CaCO3(s) + 2HCC(l) CaCl2 (aq) + H2O(l) + CO2

Na+ (aq) + Cl- (aq) + Ag+ (aq) + NO3- (aq)  AgCl (s) + Na+ (aq) + NO3- (aq)