Raw Recorded Quantitative Data Temperature Recorded (°C) Time (minutes) Trial One Trial Two 0.00 25.0 ±0.2 24.5 ±0.2 0.50 24.0 ±0.2 24.0 ±0.2 1.00 23.0 ±0.2 24.0 ±0.2 1.50 23.0 ±0.2 24.0 ±0.2 2.00 24.0 ±0.2 24.0 ±0.2 2.50 24.0 ±0.2 24.0 ±0.2 3.00 25.0 ±0.

2 25.0 ±0.2 3.25 27.0 ±0.2 37.0 ±0.2 3.50 34.0 ±0.2 40.0 ±0.2 3.75 41.0 ±0.2 46.0 ±0.2 4.00 46.0 ±0.2 51.0 ±0.2 4.25 51.0 ±0.2 55.0 ±0.2 4.50 54.0 ±0.2 57.0 ±0.2 4.75 56.0 ±0.2 59.0 ±0.2 5.00 59.0 ±0.2 62.0 ±0.2 5.50 61.0 ±0.2 64.5 ±0.2 6.00 63.0 ±0.2 67.0 ±0.2 6.50 66.0 ±0.2 69.0 ±0.2 7.00 66.0 ±0.2 71.0 ±0.2 7.50 69.0 ±0.2 72.5 ±0.2 8.00 67.0 ±0.2 73.0 ±0.2 8.50 70.0 ±0.2 74.0 ±0.2 9.00 71.0 ±0.2 73.5 ±0.2 9.50 70.0 ±0.2 74.0 ±0.2 10.0 69.0 ±0.2 74.0 ±0.2 10.5 70.0 ±0.2 75.0 ±0.2 11.0 71.0 ±0.2 75.0 ±0.2 11.5 71.0 ±0.2 75.0 ±0.2 12.0 69.0 ±0.2 74.0 ±0.2 12.5 69.0 ±0.2 73.5 ±0.2 13.0 69.0 ±0.2 73.0 ±0.2 13.5 69.0 ±0.2 73.0 ±0.2 14.0 68.0 ±0.2 72.0 ±0.2 14.5 68.0 ±0.2 72.0 ±0.2 15.0 67.0 ±0.2 71.0 ±0.2 Fig 1. This table displays all raw data with uncertainties recorded during the experiment. Time was recorded in minutes, and temperature was recorded in degrees Celsius with a thermometer. Recorded Qualitative Data Before Reaction During Reaction Solid dark grey grains  When calcium was added, smoke was Some pieces emit a metallic sheen emitted No detectable odour  Some foul odour 2 g of substance was used, the substance (not yet was kept in a small aluminum tin until use discernible) was emitted as well. Transparent blue liquid  Reaction changed Same viscosity as water colour to a light No detectable odour green colour, as 50 ml of the substance was pipetted into a was seen on top. Styrofoam cup

Calcium

   

Copper Sulfate

   

After Reaction Substance changed to dark green.  A foul odour, not unlike old pennies was emitted  No more viscous than original substance in cup. 

Fig 2. This table displays all qualitative data recorded before, during, and after the reaction.

Calculating Limiting Reagent

Givens: a.m:

2g 1 mm: 40.1g

50ml=50g 1 [ ]= 1.00mol dm-3 1 1

Calculating moles of each Reactant: Calcium: 2.00 g of Ca = 0.0499 mol of Ca CuSO4: 1.00mol dm-3= = 0.05 mol of CuSO4

Average Calculations Calculating average ΔT Calculation: ∑ Absolute Error: *Absolute error does not change when calculating averages* Percent Error: Final Answer: 48.25 ±0.2

= =48.25 ±0.2

= =0.42%

x 100%

To calculate average change in temperature, the averages of the (peak temperatures) minus the (temperature when calcium was added) was found. Error does not change when calculating averages.

Calculating Q Calculation: Q= (50g±0.05g)(4.18)( 48.25 ±0.2 Q= (50g±0.1%)(4.18)( 48.25 ±0.4%) Q=10.08kJ±0.5% 0.5%= =0.0504 kJ x 100% Percent Error: Final Answer: Q= 10.08kJ±0.0504 kJ

To calculate Q, the equation “q=mc𝛥t” was used. Error was calculated.

ΔH

+/- q , Since the reaction is exothermic ΔH

,

ΔH

10.08kJ±0.0504 kJ

Calculating Moles of Calcium Calculation: 2 g ±0.01g of Ca = 0.0499 mol of Ca x 100% =0.5% (0.5/100)(0.0499)=0.0003
To calculate moles of Ca, stoichiometry was used. Error was calculated.

Percent Error:

Final Answer: 0.0499 mol±0.0003mol of Ca

Calculating kj/mol Calculation: Percent Error: 1.1%= x 100% =2.2kj/mol Final Answer: -202kJ/mol of Ca

= =-202kJ/mol 𝚫𝐇 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝐤𝐉

𝐦𝐨𝐥 𝟐

𝟐 𝐤𝐣 𝐦𝐨𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐚

Calculating Literature Value: ΔHrxn= ΣHproducts - ΣHreactants
==

[∆HCaSo4 + ∆HCu] – [∆HCa + ∆HCuSO4] = [(-1434.11) + 0] – [0 + (-844)] = -590.11kJ/mol

Calculating % Experimental Error

|

|

=65.7% Calculating % Equipment Error x 100=0.5% x 100=0.4% x 100=0.1% 0.5%+0.4%+0.1%=1.00% Equipment Error

% experimental error is larger than the % equipment error, therefore, other systematic errors must be significant.

Conclusion:
As concluded by the above calculations, the ΔH for the reaction per mole of Calcium is -202kJ/mol. To measure enthalpy change, heat must be transferred to another substance. In this experiment, CuSO 4 was used. One variable that had to be found in order to calculate a value for q, was change in temperature (Δt). Temperature was recorded on intervals as instructed by the lab. The value for ΔH found indicates the reaction was exothermicthat is it released heat as was seen (Refer to Fig.2 for Qualitative Data) A polystyrene cup was used as it is a great insulator, and does not absorb heat as easily as, say a metal cup, or a glass beaker. The curve should be extrapolated to the time of mixing , as that’s the temperature te substance was going into the reaction. The rest of the time was the substance trying to reach room temperature. In the above calculations, experimental error, calculated at 65.7% was significantly greater than Equipment error, calculated at 1%. Therefore, other systematic errors must be significant, that is, although better, more precise equipment would always help, there are many more ways the experiment can be significantly improved- procedurally. Some suggestions are listed below:  More Time: Fourth period chemistry lasts for one hour and fifteen minutes. During that time, set-up, prep, conduction (of experiment) and clean-up were all completed. However, more trials are always beneficial to the experiment. For example, Fig 1 (Raw Data) shows raw data for two different trials. The temperatures increase at significantly different times. A surplus of trials would eliminate any “outliers” and would produce more accurate results. Time Calcium was Added: The procedure indicates in step four to “immediately add the excess *calcium+ powder” For Trial one, the calcium was added slowly, being sifted in. For Trial Two, the calcium was hastily thrown in all at once. As a result, Trial two began to react more vigorously, and earlier than trial one. Recorded results show a greater increase at the 3-minute mark for trial 2 than trial one. As a solution, the powder could be poured into the solution through a funnel- all at once. That way, no powder falls out of the aluminum weighing tin, and it will get added essentially at the same pace and time. Time temperature was measured: The contents of the cup were measured with a thermometer. Intervals ranged from 15 seconds, to 30 seconds. With a thermometer, the temperature is always changing- however not instantly, it takes some time for the liquid to indicate the temperature change at that time, so the temperature recorded would always be delayed, affecting the results. A solution would be to alter the intervals temperature were measured to accommodate the time it takes for the thermometer to adjust- For example if the thermometer takes 3 seconds to adjust, the temperature at 30 seconds would have to be measured at 33 seconds. Stirring Times: In step 4 of the procedure, it is stated to “Gently stir using the thermometer” It does not indicate how long or when stirring should stop or end. Stirring mixes the products together, perhaps causing a further reaction to happen. If one trial was stirred less or more than the other, the outcome may be affected. To eliminate any error, specific stirring times should be specified. Also, the thermometers were kept upright by fellow group members. For 15 minutes, the arm may get tired, and group members may have slightly moved their arm around, inadvertently stirring/upsetting the substance. For next time, the thermometer should be attached to a retort stand or utility clamp of some sort. Although this experiment did produce the correct reaction (exothermic) there were many flaws (of which a few were addressed) that can be fixed for next time.

Determining the Enthalpy Change (ΔH) per mole of Calcium

Name: Monica Martel Teacher: Mr. Centritto Date: September 24, 2012 Course: SCH 4U