Title NaK Alloy Experiment Report by Cheyenne Martins Performed 1/24/12 & 1/31/12 Abstract The experiment was

as performed in a glove box. Sodium and Potassium were measured out and then combined in a vial to produce the alloy. One week later, the alloy was collected and then reacted with water. The gas was collected in a graduated cylinder and measured. The end result was an 82% recovery of Hydrogen gas. Introduction The purpose of this experiment was to understand and learn how the composition and formation of alloys worked through the reaction of sodium and potassium to form the sodiumpotassium alloy. Through learning the formation of an alloy came also the understanding of the glove box. After understanding this, the goal of the first experiment day, on the second day, it was to understand the reaction of the alloy with water and learn how to measure the gas released. The theory behind undertaking this experiment is two fold. One, learning how to use the glove box is important for carrying out other, perhaps more dangerous and larger, reactions. The other theory behind this experiment, is that by learning how to create a basic alloy, the student can then use this experiment as a basis for going on to undertake more complicated alloy formation experiments. Experimental Section On the first day, the equipment gathered were two pipets, two pipet bulbs, and two glass vials. These pieces were placed into the antechamberthe port attached to the glove box. Then the chamber was refilled and evacuated three times for sterilization purposes, waiting one minute between each refill and evacuation. The student then, after inserting arms into the gloves attached to the glove box, opened the antechamber from the inside while the dial on the outside was set to refill. Inside the glove box, potassium and sodium were measured out. Potassium weighed out to 0.119 grams, sodium weighed out to 0.130 grams. Then a vial was measured to be 9.648 grams. Potassium and sodium were then mixed in a vial until an alloy was formed. After the formation, a pipet with an attached pipet bulb was used to pipet the alloy into a separate vial. Then the vial was weighed out again to be 9.800 grams, the alloy weighing 0.152 grams. On the second lab day, tubing, a test tube-like apparatus with nozzle and an opening, a graduated cylinder, a relatively deep tray, a pipet and a pipet bulb were used. The test tube, pipet and pipet bulb were placed in the antechamber and sterilized. Then, on the inside of the glove box, the pipet was used to transfer the alloy into the (already weighed) test tube and then weighed again and sealed with the stopper. Then the test tube, pipet and pipet bulb were removed from the chamber. The student then moved to the fume hood were a graduated cylinder was filled to the brim with water. Then, the tray was filled with water and the cylinder was inverted over it, held by a clamp. Tubing was inserted from the nozzle to the inside of the graduated cylinder. Once the apparatus was completely

assembled, the stopper was briefly removed so that a generous amount of water could be placed inside to react with the alloy. The gas then filled up the graduated cylinder and was recorded. Results Data: 0.130 grams Na 0.119 grams K 9.648 grams of small vial 0.152 grams of alloy 83.704 grams of Test Tube 45 mL of H2 gas recorded Observations: During the addition of water to the alloy, there was an instant reaction. Large amounts of clear vapor immediately started streaming out into the test tube before streaming through the vial and into the graduated cylinder. Some vapor escaped from the apparatus during the addition of water. When the alloy was first created, it was relatively surprising. Two solids, without addition of any other liquid element, formed a silvery metallic liquid. Sample Calculations: PV = nRT where P = 1 atm, R = .08206 (atm*L)/(mol*K), T = 273 K and V = .045 L n = .00201 moles of H2 gas. Due to a one to one molar ratio between the elements Na, K and H2 as evident by the equation: Na + K + 2H2O H2 + KOH + NaOH Na, K and H2 have the same amount of moles. So: Na (.00201 mol)(22.99 g/mol) = .04621 grams of Na K (.00201 mol)(39.10 g/mol) = .07859 grams of K NaK (.00201 mol)(62.09 g/mol) = .12480 grams of NaK Percent Composition of Experimental: .04621/.12481 * 100 = 37.0% Na; .07859/.12481 * 100 = 63.0% K Percent Composition of Theoretical: .13/.249 * 100 = 52.2% Na; .119/.249 * 100 = 47.79% K Percent recovery of H2 gas: .1248/.152 * 1/1 mole ratio = 82.1 % recovery Discussion: Because of the one to one ratio between the elements Na, K and H2, the percent composition is equivalent to the ratios of their molar masses. In other words, 37% Na and 63% K. Based on the results, 17.8% of H2 gas was lost. This could be because either not enough water was used to react with the alloy, or some of the gas escaped into the atmosphere while trying to stopper the tube. The reason the theoretical amounts of Na and K differ from the experimental amounts makes sense. Potassium would

be the limiting reactant, so less sodium would react with potassium to form the alloy, resulting in a lesser percentage of sodium and a greater percentage of potassium. Conclusion and Summary: In conclusion, the observations made during the experiment collaborate with the results. The vapor that escaped into the atmosphere corresponds to the fact that 17.9% of Hydrogen was unaccounted for. Because potassium was the limiting reactant, less sodium reacted with potassium to form the alloy, resulting in a smaller percentage of sodium and a higher percentage of potassium. The experiment itself was simple once the details were made clear by the teaching assistant. The handout itself for the experiment was entirely baffling, hard to make sense of even after doing the experiment. It was unclear and in choppy English; what the student was supposed to be doing was not stated at all. It would be helpful to have the procedures written down in a clear and concise manner, rather than having the instructions spoken by word. It would also be helpful if the post-laboratory questions were stated in a clearer manner, as it was hard to distinguish exactly what was wanted and what data was to be used, given the excess in data that was collected.