Stoichiometry
04/09/12
Chemistry I B
Ms. Norton
Introduction/Pre-laboratory Assignment: 1. Write out and balance each of the following equations. A. CuSO4 + Fe Cu + FeSO4 B. 3CuSO4 + 2Fe 3Cu + Fe(SO4)3 2. If Iron (III) Sulfate were formed, what mass of Copper would be expected and what is the limiting reagent? C. 2.26 g Cu D. Fe 3. If Iron (II) Sulfate were formed, what mass of Copper would be expected and what is the limiting reagent? E. 2.8 g Cu F. CuSO4
Driving Question: What compound is formed when you add 7 g of CuSO4 to 2 g of Fe?
Goal: To correctly identify what compound is formed and how close it is to the theoretical yield.
Materials:
* Safety Goggles
…show more content…
Let the copper settle to the bottom of the beaker and decant again. X. Dry the copper as your teacher directs and determine its mass. Record this mass. XI. Calculate the percent yield by using the theoretical yield that you determined in the pre-lab. Observations: Adding Iron to Copper (II) Sulfate * Got very hot * It started sizzling * Made greenish/turquoise bubbles * A brownish sludge formed
These were all chemical reactions that took place. The reason that this is known is because of table 7.1 on page 219 in the textbook.
Data: | Yield | Percent Yield | Theoretical: | 2.28 g Cu | 100 % | Actual: | 2.13 g Cu | 93.4 % |
Data Analysis: When weighing the mass of our product you get 2.13 grams. Also when you figure out the percent yield you get 93.4%.
Conclusion:
I. The limiting reactant was 2.28 g Cu. Because iron is the limiting reactant. I know this because when the equation is done iron ends up being the limiting reactant. II. So iron would be the limiting reactant. You have unreacted iron that will mess up the weight. III. So the impurities were washed away and the experiment is contaminated. IV. It didn’t have anything to do with the reaction because it was a spectator ion. V. CuSO4 + Fe Cu + FeSO4
There are two main errors that could happen in this lab. The first being human error when weighing the elements. This would result in more reactants which would cause more products and a misreading
Your mass precision should be reported to a thousandth of a gram, i.e. 0.302. (Use 3 significant figures.)
In chemical reactions, the significance of knowing the limiting reactant is high. In order to increase the percent yield of product, increasing the limiting reactant, possibly, is the most effective. In this experiment we were able to calculate limiting reactants from the reaction of CaCl2. 2H2O + K2C2O4.H2O(aq).
The purpose of this experiment is to distinguish the relationships between reactants and products, in addition to expanding on concepts such as single displacement reactions, mole ratio values, moles to mass, theoretical yields, limiting reactants, excess, stoichiometric relationships and percentage errors.
The purpose of this lab was to determine the limiting reactant in a mixture of to soluble salts and the percent composition of each substance in a salt mixture.
Purpose: The purpose of this experiment is to observe a variety of chemical reactions and to identify patterns in the conversion of reactants into products.
Section Assignment 3.4 Part F – The Reaction of Iron Nails with a Copper Solution
The lab performed required the use of quantitative and analytical analysis along with limiting reagent analysis. The reaction of Copper (II) Sulfate, CuSO4, mass of 7.0015g with 2.0095g Fe or iron powder produced a solid precipitate of copper while the solution remained the blue color. Through this the appropriate reaction had to be determined out of the two possibilities. Through the use of a vacuum filtration system the mass of Cu was found to be 2.1726g which meant that through limiting reagent analysis Fe was determined to be the limiting reagent and the chemical reaction was determined to be as following:-
1. Suppose that you have an unlimited supply of copper (II) sulfate to react with iron. How many moles of copper would be
XIV. Record your observations of the dried, cooled copper metal and weigh the recovered copper.
b. Using the newsvendor model, Cu = 1 - 0.2 = 0.8 and Co = .2. Cu /(Cu + Co) = .8.
In this experiment an elemental copper was cycled a series of five reactions where it ended with pure elemental copper as well, but at different stages of the cycle the copper was in different forms. In the first reaction, elemental copper was reacted with concentrated nitric acid where copper changed the form from solid to aqueous. Second reaction then converted the aqueous Cu2+ into the solid copper II hydroxide (Cu(OH)2) through reaction with sodium hydroxide. The third reaction takes advantage of the fact that Cu(OH)2 is thermally unstable. When heated, Cu(OH)2 decomposes (breaks down into smaller substances) into copper II oxide and water. When the solid CuO is reacted with sulfuric acid, the copper is returned to solution as an ion (Cu2+). The cycle of reactions is completed with the
The ore is then heated with silicon dioxide, calcium carbonate and air in a furnace. The copper (II) ions in the ore are converted to copper (I) sulphide, while the iron in the ore is transferred into iron (II) silicate slag (Due to the calcium carbonate), furthermore, a majority of the sulphur turns into sulphur dioxide gas. The equation used in the above steps is as follows:
3 because this is the maximum absorbance for the iron (III) ion. The Beer's Law Plot that was graphed came out to be linear with an equation of:
Weigh out the necessary grams of Copper Sulfate Pentahydrate. The 40-degree group weighed out 40 grams. (See Figure 1)
Iron is a stronger than Cu because Iron is more reactive than Cu and has a greater chance