Introduction This laboratory experiment focuses on figuring out the mole ratio of magnesium metal to hydrochloric acid by determining the amount of HCI reacting with MGM, then finding the mole ratio of magnesium in a reaction by determining the amount of Magic made during the reaction. Which then is researched to find which of the two methods produced a better result. The main objectives of this lab were to determine what charge is gained by a metal when reacting with hydrochloric acid.
In order to determine the amounts of excess reactant and the amount of ratio of magnesium teal to hydrochloric acid, accuracy and precision is compared, and the Titration Method, Crystallization Method, and the Gas Pressure Method is formed. Performing these objectives helped me to understand the titration, crystallization, and Ideal Gas Law more thoroughly. Before doing this lab, I didn’t fully understand the aspects of the scientific concept, nor did I have any clue what the Titration Method, Crystallization, or the Gas Pressure method all entailed.
I did not know how to properly test for moles in a solution, and I did not even know a person could determine the charge gained by a metal when it seats with an acid. I predicted that that the charged gained by a metal when reacting with hydrochloric acid would be a positive charge because Magnesium has a positive two charge, and when it is combined with hydrochloric acid it is transformed into a zero oxidation state metal. Get charged up By marinara’s For the first task, six 50 ml beakers were labeled with letters from A to F.
Then the magnesium ribbon was cut to CACM, and rubbed with steel wool. Next . Egg of MGM was cut and placed in beaker A, and recorded on table 3. 1 in the lab manual. This tepee was then repeated, only the grams of MGM changed from . 025 to . 050, 0. 075, 0. 100, 0. 130, and 0. 160. Two bursts were then set up, and filled with HOC. The bursts were used to measure out 10. 0 ml of HCI into the beakers labeled from A to F. After the beakers were filled with the HCI, two drops of Phenolphthalein were added to each beaker.
The beakers were swirled to speed up the reactions, and when all the MGM was dissolved, or when the solution turned pink the reaction was recorded on 3. 1 data table. The finished reaction was titrated with the remaining solution of Noah. The initial volume of Noah in the burette was first recorded on the 3. 1 data table, and as soon as the color changed to pink the Nana’s final volume was recorded again. After subtracting the final volume from the initial volume the end point volume was found.
To determine the Crystallization Method, six 50 ml beakers were obtained and once again labeled from A to F. These beakers were weighed and recorded on the data table 3. 3. Next 20 CM of magnesium ribbon was cut and rubbed with steel wool until the surface shined. Then . Egg of MGM was cut and weighed and recorded on the . 3 data table. Once again a mol burette was set up with two mall beakers and a funnel. MALL of 1. 0 M HCI was then obtained in a 150 ml beaker, and poured into the burette until the level of HCI was above the 0. Ml mark. Mol of HOC was added to each beaker and once again two drops of phenolphthalein was added to each beaker. Once the MGM was dissolved, the recorded observations were added to the 3. 3 data table. After the data was recorded the solutions were then added to a hot plate to boil. Once the water and excess HCI was evaporated, and cooled, the solution was sighed and the mass of the beaker and the salt was once again recorded on 3. 3 data table.
For the second part of Get Charged Up, the accuracy, and mole ratio of magnesium metal to hydrochloric acid was determined and compared for accuracy and precision, and the same procedure was used as the Crystallization Method, only this time a stopper with the thermocouple into the neck was placed in the 150 ml beaker to determine the temperature and pressure to see if the Ideal Gas Law did a reasonable job at predicting the behavior of a gas undergoing changes in temperature, pressure, ages 84 through 89.
Results The data from the experiments demonstrated that the gas pressure method was more precise in finding what charge was gained by a metal when reacting with hydrochloric acid. The gas pressure module was also more accurate when determining what charged was gained by the metal when it reacted with the hydrochloric acid. The Titration graph and chart shows that as the moles of MGM increased, the moles of Hydrogen reacting with the moles also increased (see Titration Method Graph #1 and Graph #2). The Titration method was more accurate, and allowed for more recession when it came to swirling the solution in between drops.
The Titration method was very precise based on the Titration Method graph. The Titration Method graph’s data points are closest to the trend line on the graph. The RE value for Titration is 0. 9838, which is very close to 1. 0 (see graph #2). According to the Titration Data’s chart the mass of the MGM for the . 133 grams of MGM was very close to the . 16 grams of MGM when it came to the moles of H+ reacting with moles of MGM. Only a . 000156 difference in moles of H+ (see Chart #1 Titration Method). Chart 1 Titration Method
The Crystallization Method graph and chart displays the moles of MGM increasing as the moles of CLC in salt increases. The RE value for the Crystallization Method is . 94012 compared to the Titration Methods RE trend line value which was 0. 9838. This proved that the Crystallization Method is less precise and not as good of an indicator when determining the mole ratio in a reaction. The Crystallization Methods graph does not show a linear relationship (see graph #4). The Crystallization Method- MGM Limiting Reactant graph shows the trend line in the middle of the graph with the values for the graph not lining up.
