The intent of this lab is to find the individuality of an unknown liquid by mensurating its denseness and its boiling point and seek to fit it with those solutions given in Table 2 of experiment 2.
In Part A. The chief intent was to happen the finding of the denseness of the unknown ( j41 ) and by making that we had to find volumes of the unknown liquid ( j41 ) utilizing three different volumetric devices which are graduated cylinder. pipette and burette. Then we had to execute three measuring tests on each device.
Graduated cylinder: I dried a clean 50. 0 milliliter graduated cylinder and besides measured with a balance and I got 66. 39g after mensurating the empty cylinder I added 15. 0ml of the unknown liquid ( j41 ) and measured it and I got 77. 65g and I continued adding 15 milliliter until I had the entire liquid in the cylinder to be at 45. 0ml and I got 89. 30g and 100. 72g for my tests at 30. 0 milliliter and 45. 0 milliliter.
Pipette and burette: I weighed a clean dry 150 milliliter beaker and I saw it was 64. 21g and I used a pipette to mensurate out 10ml of the unknown liquid ( j41 ) and poured it into the beaker and reweighed the beaker which was now 83. 22g and i added more 10ml to my 2nd test and 20ml for my 3rd test and I got 102. 41g and 121. 35g severally. ( I accidently used a 25ml pipette which I noticed at the terminal of the lab so alternatively of adding 10 ml each into each test I was adding 25ml ) .
I filled a burette with the unknown liquid ( j41 ) . holding an initial burette reading of 0. 00ml and by utilizing the burette I was pouring in 13ml of the liquid into the beaker and mensurating the mass of the beaker for the 1st test with 13ml I found its mass to be 74. 02g and the 2nd test with 26ml I found its mass to be 83. 95g and on the 3rd test I found its mass to be 93. 68g.
Part B In the portion I clean and dried a 75 ml trial tubing and added 15 beads of the unknown solution ( j41 ) into the trial tubing. Give a capillary tubing I kept it into the trial tubing with its unfastened terminal in the solution I kept the trial tubing after I attached it with a thermometer in a H2O bath and started boiling it. I did this experiment three times altering the capillary tubing each clip and got 99. 0OC. 98. 0OC and 100. 0OC for the three tests severally.
Entire Average density= ( 0. 759 + 0. 762 + 0. 757 ) / 3 = 0. 759g/ml Using the tabular array to happen out my unknown solution ( j41 ) I noticed that my denseness was closer to 2-propanol ( isopropyl intoxicant ) than any other liquid on the tabular array but my boiling point was closer to 1propanol than any other liquid on the tabular array. But to travel with one liquid I will state my unknown was 2-propanol ( isopropyl intoxicant ) because it was closer to the denseness I calculated for my unknown and I know my denseness experiment went really swimmingly I trust my denseness more than my boiling point.
1 ) The informations that were cardinal in placing my terra incognita was the denseness and boiling point because the informations tabular array given to assist place the unknown component contained merely the denseness and boiling point of the liquids given. They we others cardinal values to happen like the mass of the liquid and some other informations but they were merely cardinal in happening the denseness and boiling point but non the unknown liquid ( j41 ) . I don’t think there was any informations that was useless in this experiment because each made a engagement in happening the denseness or boiling point of the unknown solution.
2 ) When mensurating the denseness of the unknown liquid I used the calibrated cylinder. volumetric pipette and burette. The calibrated cylinder was accurate to +-0. 5 while the volumetric pipette was accurate to +-0. 01 and when mensurating with the pipette I noticed that I measured 10ml with the pipette but when I poured the liquid into a beaker it was mensurating up to 40ml that was when I concluded that the pipette was really accurate and really much more accurate than the beaker.
The burette was accurate to +- 0. 04. the burette is so accurate but non every bit accurate as the pipette. The pipette is like a reckoner with the full value of the measuring given while the burette is besides like a reckoner but with gauging values and the graduating cylinder is like a human seeking to acquire the measuring of liquid with merely his/her encephalon. If I was to reiterate this experiment I would utilize the volumetric pipette since it is the most accurate out of the three.
3 ) The nature of the devices evidently limited the preciseness of my measurings and there was a important mistake when mensurating the denseness of the unknown liquid utilizing the pipette I accidently used a 25ml pipette alternatively of 10ml which would hold made my mean value for my denseness acquire higher because when I was
ciphering the denseness of each test I was spliting by 10ml non cognizant of my error and I was acquiring values like 1. 901. 1. 910 and 1. 913 which were outside the scope of 0. 75 – 0. 76 I was got when I calculated the denseness for the other devices but when my T. A. notified me about it which was after I was done with lab I merely divided by 10ml and got within the scope.
4 ) There isn’t any much of an advantage between the graphical method and numerical method to me I think both the graphical
and numerical method are easy to make and can be done without any emphasis and wouldn’t waste any clip since we have the
reckoner. ciphering with multitudes like 11. 26g. 22. 9g or 33. 33g utilizing the calibrated cylinder wasn’t hard at all. It is besides the same happening the denseness diagrammatically it was made really easy with the excel available all my informations in their 3rd denary topographic point and even the graduated table to utilize didn’t airs as a job at all.
5 ) I didn’t exclude any informations point in my analysis. 6 ) My boiling point would non be so accurate particularly my 1st test becausein my 1st test I didn’t add boiling bit in my H2O bath so it really hard to detect the bubbles at the terminal of the capillary tubing until 99. 0oC that I saw bubbles faintly at the terminal of the capillary tubing but no liquid seemed to be come ining the tubing until I noticed that my capillary tubing wasn’t in the unknown liquid. My 2nd and 3rd tests went swimmingly. And I besides noticed that it is really hard being so accurate while look intoing for the bubbles and so looking at the thermometer at the same clip because we can see the liquid rise and before we look at the thermometer to see the
temperature it happened the thermometer would hold risen some grades and one might non even notice the bubbles at the terminal of the capillary tubing on clip because of the bubbles in the H2O bath so it is really difficult to be so accurate in the boiling point. 7 ) The denseness of the unknown liquid was more accurate than the boiling point because the in happening the denseness I had to happen the mass and the volume of the unknown liquid utilizing three devices holding three tests each and each of their mean denseness were within the scope of 0. 75 – 0. 76 g/ml but for the boiling it is difficult to be accurate because it was merely a method used and merely three
tests available and seeking to happen the boiling I had to be really observant so that I could see when the unknown liquid was lifting in the tubing instantly which was made more hard by the bubbles in the H2O bath.
8 ) As I said earlier in happening the unknown liquid there are two chief informations needed to happen them which are denseness and boiling point and if these cardinal informations are found accurately so the unknown liquid will be found accurately besides. The procedural alteration I will do is in the measuring facet and specifically the
measuring of the multitudes of the devices used like beaker and cylinder I would hold measured their multitudes three times and happen out the mean mass which I will now utilize in the computation.