June 27, 2012

Justin Drawbert

CH227 - Lab 2 Who has the same solid that I have?

Justin Drawbert draw@pdx.edu June 27, 2012

Abstract
The purpose of this lab is to determine what two pairs of lab partners have the same unknown solid and in the process of doing so, become familiar with some of the basic technique used for the analysis of compounds. Through observations made by conducting a ame test and by testing chemical reactivity to Lead Nitrate, it was concluded that Sample 1 and Sample 11 were the same compound.

Introduction

The purpose of this lab is to determine what two pairs of lab partners have the same unknown solid and in the process of doing so, become familiar with some of the basic technique used for the analysis of compounds. Initially, each lab group was given an unknown solid compound with the promise from the TA that the compounds were distributed in such a manner that there was at least one duplicate of every compound distributed. The lab groups then examined their compounds, solubility, conductivity (both as a solid and when dissolved in deionized water), chemical reactivity, performed a ame test, and performed a primitive melting point analysis.

Data

The author and his partner were given Sample 1. Though only one of the other samples was deemed to be a match with Sample 1, the other data collected is included in the table that follows for sake of completeness.

June 27, 2012

Conductive (Solid)

Conductive (aq)

Physical Char.a

Solubilityb

Melt (sec)

Pb(NO3 )2

Sample #

Acidityc

NaOH

Flame

1 3 4 5 7 10 11 12
a All bS

crystalline crystalline powder crystal crystal powder crystalline crystal

no no no no no no no no

S S S S S S S IS

yes yes weak weak yes no yes no

N A B N A A N N

no change white pptd bubbled, turned clear red white ppt no change no change no change

yellow opaque no change no change no change no change no change yellow opaque no change

no change orange ppt no change blue rust color, ppt amonia no change no change

orange, green outer cone lavender no change no change white white orange, green outer cone orange

20 10 4.6 didnt melt 1417 6.4 20 didnt melt didnt melt

compounds were white in color = Soluble; IS = Insoluble c A = Acidic; B = Basic (Alkali); N = Neutral d ppt = precipitate

Notes purple smoke no ammonia ended melt test after 20s

HCl

Justin Drawbert

June 27, 2012

Justin Drawbert

Results

The author and his partner were given Sample 1. As reected in the table, said solid was white and crystalline in appearance and appeared somewhat reective, shimmering slightly underneath the uorescent lighting in the laboratory. Examination with a magnifying glass conrmed the naked goggled eye observations. It was not conductive in its solid form. When mixed with deionized water, the solid was dissolved completely, leaving a clear solution, which was conductive. The aqueous solution did not change the color of the pH test strip and thus was deemed to be neither acidic or alkali, in other words it was deemed neutral1 . The aqueous solution had no apparent reaction with HCl or NaOH. When Pb(NO3 )2 was added, the solution became bright yellow in color and opaque. In all three reactivity tests, the author and his partner neglected to test for any gaseous ammonia given o. Subjecting the solid to a ame test, in which a chunk of the solid was held over the ame of a Bunsen burner, resulted in an orange ame with a thin green outer cone. The solid also gave o a brilliant purple smoke, which the author found quite amusing. A primitive melting point evaluation was attempted by placing a small portion of the solid in a metal scoopula and then holding above a ame. This proved to be dicult. As before, the solid began emitting a purple smoke and turned black in color, then after a relatively considerable amount of time (roughly 25 - 30 seconds), the solid appeared to liquefy suddenly, then coated the scoopula with a black mess that later was found to be quite dicult to scrub o. Upon comparing the results with the groups in the lab, the match for Sample 1 was determined to be Sample 11.

Discussion

Given that all lab groups were guaranteed that at least one other lab group had the same compound, it can be concluded with reasonable certainty that the compound in question, Sample 1, was a match with Sample 11. The author and his partner did neglect to test for ammonia gas when performing the reactivity test. However, the rest of the data was sucient that this didnt matter. That is, no other aqueous solution turned yellow when reacted with Lead Nitrate and no other compound burned orange with a thin green outer cone. Melting characteristics were also similar in that Sample 11 would have likely melted had it been subjected to the ame long enough. There was a minor discrepancy on the pH test. When the strip was wiped with the aqueous solution, it did not change color, but instead remained medium orange in color. Based on they key on the side of the vial, it was unclear weather this meant that the solution was neutral, or that it was moderately acidic. Whatever the case, the experimenters in charge of sample 11, experienced the same results; when wiped with the solution, their pH strip did not change color. It should also be noted that the melting point test was a little wonky. It would seem that if one were to wish to compare the melting point of two compounds in terms of seconds, that it would at least be necessary to measure the mass of the compound to be melted, and possibly too, the temperature of the ame. Perhaps a bit o-topic, but also of interest is whether or not the experiments conduced would have been sucient to conclude that a given two compounds were indeed the same had the TA not assured that there would be at least one duplicate of each compound. That is, had the compounds in question truly been unknown, would the tests performed have been sucient to say that Sample 1 was indeed the same compound as Sample 11? Not to mention, if the compounds were truly unknown, some precautions would surely have to be taken in order to determine that it was safe to expose the compound to a ame or to mix it with water. If the compound was not a compound, but instead a pure alkali metal, for instance, the solubility test would have been a bit more eventful, to say the least.

1 This

may or may not be an incorrect conclusion. This is discussed in greater detail in the following section.