CHM171L Physical Chemistry Laboratory 2

1st Quarter SY 2017-2018

Experiment 1: Electrochemistry: Determination of Faraday’s Constant

Palmares, XZ Louise Pauleen1, Saylon, Kyle Zandrex A.1, Sayurin, Juan Carlos H.1, Villaflor, Shekinah1
1
Student, CHM171L/B41, School of Chemical Engineering and Chemistry, Mapúa University

Abstract

The Faraday’s constant, which represents the amount of electric current per mole or Avogadro’s number
of electrons, is experimentally quantified via electrolysis, which utilizes electrodes which has opposite
polarities or charges. A non-spontaneous disassociation of Copper and Sulfate ions in a solution is
catalyzed by an external source of electric current for two minutes via an electrolytic analyzer. The
electrodes in the set-up are comprised of a negatively-charged anode, wherein oxidation occurs, and a
positively-charged cathode, where reduction carries out. The equation of Faraday’s law of electrolysis,
which is the equation making the experimental determination of Faraday’s constant possible, requires
the mass of deposited cation, which in the case of this experiment is Copper. The electrodes’ weights are
determined, before and after the Copper deposited on its surface and the difference between the weights
of electrode with and without Copper is the weight of the Copper that deposited to the surface of the
electrode. Results reveal that the electric charge is directly proportional with the mass of the copper
deposited. It was observed that the slight difference of the experimental value of the Faraday’s constant
to the literature value are may be caused by the equipment used particularly the electrodes, copper sulfate
solution and the electrolytic analyzer.

Keywords: Faraday’s Constant, Electrolysis, Electrodes, Oxidation, Reduction

Introduction gain them (be reduced). This process is called

For this experiment, electrolysis of Copper
will be performed to determine the
experimental value of Faraday’s constant.
Copper sulfate solution will be undergoing
electrolysis and this will be made possible
using the electrolytic analyzer equipment.
An electro chemical cell is composed of two
electrodes in contact with an ionic conductor
which may be a solution, a liquid or a solid.
One type of an electrochemical cell is an
electrolytic cell in which a non –spontaneous
reaction is being driven through an external
source of current (Atkins & de Paula, 2014).
Using the current, electrons can be drawn
away from a chemical that is reluctant to lose
them (be oxidized), and forced electrons to
asdas
electrolysis. Electrolysis is being used to force
a non – spontaneous oxidation – reduction
reaction to occur (Schullery, Rittenhouse, &
Nord, 2015).
Faraday’s first law of electrolysis can be stated
as follows: The amount of a substance
produced or consumed at one of the electrodes
in an electrolytic cell is directly proportional
to the electricity that passes through the cell
(Bodner, 2004).
The unit for electric current is ampere, which
is the charge carried in coulombs per second:
1 amp = 1 C s-1. The charge of a single
electron is –e; where e is the fundamental unit
of electric charge: 1 e- = 1.60218x10-19 C.
The charge carried by a mole of electrons is –
1 F, with the Faraday defined as the charge of
a mole of fundamental charges:

1 F = e NA = 1.60218x10-19 C
XZ.L.P. Palmares, K.Z.A. Saylon, J. C. H. Sayurin, S. Villaflor 2

Faraday’s constant establishes the equivalence

of electric charge and chemical change in
oxidation/reduction reactions. The charge
carried through the cell is: Q = It (constant
current) where I is the current in amperes and t
is the time the current is applied in seconds. A
current of one amp flowing for one second
transfers one coulomb of charge: 1 amp s = 1 C
s-1 s = 1 C. If the current varies with time, the
total charge carried is the integral of the current
from time equals zero to time:
𝑡
t: Q = ∫0 𝑑𝑡 (varying current).

This experiment aims to determine the effect of

current on electrolytic reactions at a given time,
to determine the experimental value of
Faraday’s constant and to familiarize the
students with the electrolytic analyzer
equipment.

Methodology
XZ.L.P. Palmares, K.Z.A. Saylon, J. C. H. Sayurin, S.Villaflor 4

Results and Discussion

The experiment dealt with the determination of
the Faraday’s Constant using the process of
Electroplating. This process applies the
Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis. The first law of
Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis states that the
deposition of chemicals caused by current
flowing through and electrolyte is directly
proportional to the amount of electricity passed
through it. This was observed when a CuSO4
solution was used as an electrolyte and Pt as an
electrode.
Tables 1 and 2 show the amount of Cu(s)
deposited on the Pt electrode, the moles of
electrons equivalent to the amount of Cu(s)
deposited, and the computed Faraday’s
Constant. Each trial consists of 4 runs wherein
one-fourth, one-half, three-fourth, and the
whole Pt electrode is submerged into the CuSO4
solution. When an electric current is allowed to
pass through the electrode, a redox reaction
occurs which is given by:
𝐶𝑢2+ + 2𝑒 − → 𝐶𝑢(𝑠)
The dissolved cation, in this case, Cu2+, is
reduced which results to the formation of Cu
coatz
Table 1. Computed Faraday’s Constant (Trial 1)
Mass of Cu2+ Moles of Cu2+
Run
Deposited, g Deposited, mol
A (1/4) 0.204 3.2103 x 10-3
B (1/2) 0.211 3.3204 x 10-3
C (3/4) 0.220 3.4621 x 10-3
D (1) 0.164 2.5808 x 10-3
coating on the cathode. Cu(s) is deposited on the
cathode because Cu2+ is attracted to it and
exchanges the electrons to the anode.
It can be observed that the area of electrode
submerged into the solution doesn’t affect the
amount of Cu(s) deposited. This is because, as
stated in the first law of Faraday’s Laws of
Electrolysis, the amount of metal deposited is
directly proportional to the current passing
through the electrode. Since the current for each
run is kept constant, the amount of Cu(s)
deposited must be constant as well. The mass of
Cu(s) deposited was computed by getting the
difference between the weight of the electrodes
before and after the electroplating process.
From tables 1 and 2, it can be observed that the
computed Faraday’s Constant is near one
another confirming that it is indeed a constant.
Furthermore, if the time was increased to allow
the process to occur, it can be expected that
more metal will be deposited on the electrode.
The same phenomenon will be observed when
the amount of electricity allowed to pass
through the electrodes were increased. Given
these relationships, the amount of Cu(s)
deposited on
Moles of Electron, Computed Faraday’s
mol Constant, C
6.4206 x 10-3 93449.2104
6.6408 x 10-3 90349.763
6.9242 x 10-3 86653.6364
5.1616 x 10-3 116242.6829

Table 2. Computed Faraday’s Constant (Trial 2)

Mass of Cu2+ Moles of Cu2+ Moles of Electron, Computed Faraday’s
Run
Deposited, g Deposited, mol mol Constant, C
A (1/4) 0.208 3.2732 x 10-3 6.5464 x 10-3 91653.4278
B (1/2) 0.197 3.1001 x 10-3 6.2002 x 10-3 96771.0719
C (3/4) 0.225 3.5407 x 10-3 7.0814 x 10-3 84729.0084
D (1) 0.206 3.2417 x 10-3 6.4835 x 10-3 92542.6082
XZ.L.P. Palmares, K.Z.A. Saylon, J. C. H. Sayurin, S.Villaflor 4

deposited on the electrode is dependent on the
amount of electricity passing through the
electrode and the amount of time the process
was
130000
was allowed to occur. Using the data gathered
from the experiment, the Faraday’s Constant
can be computed.

120000

110000

100000

90000

80000

70000
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25
Computed Faraday's Constant Trial 1 Actual Faraday's Constant

Computed Faraday's Constant Trial 2

Figure 1: Plot of Computed Faraday’s Constant vs. the actual Faraday’s Constant

Table 3 shows the percentage error between the
computed Faraday’s constant and the actual
Faraday’s constant which is equal to
96485.3329 C. It can be observed that a few of
the computed constants were of the acceptable
range.
One major source of error is the purity of the
CuSO4 solution used. It is possible that the
solution
solution is contaminated with other chemicals
thus the group will procure erroneous data.
Another source of error is the incorrect handling
of the electrodes used. The electrodes might not
be very dry when it was weighed therefore
discrepancies with the weight of the electrode
after electroplating may be observed. To
improve the results, these errors must be
lessened.

Table 3. Percentage Error between Computed and Actual Value of Faraday’s Constant
Trial 1
Run Computed Faraday’s Constant, C Percentage Error, %
A 93449.2104 3.1467
B 90349.763 6.3591
C 86653.6364 10.1898
D 116242.6829 20.4771
Trial 2
Run Computed Faraday’s Constant, C Percentage Error, %
A 91653.4278 5.0079
B 96771.0719 0.2961
C 84729.0084 12.1846
D 92542.6082 4.0863
5 Electrochemistry: Determination of Faraday’s Constant

Conclusion References

Atkins, P., & Paula, J. (2010). Physical

Chemistry. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Chang, & Goldsby. (2014). General Chemistry:
The Essential Concepts. Singapore:
McGraw-Hill Education.
Electrolysis. (2014). Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebite
size/science/add_aqa/electrolysis/electr
olysisrev2.shtml
Mittal, V. (2015, September 16).
Electroplating. Retrieved from
https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Analyt
ical_Chemistry/Electrochemistry/Electr
olytic_Cells/Electroplating
Shorb, J. (2017, June 15). Electrochemistry
Basics. Retrieved from
https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Analyt
ical_Chemistry/Electrochemistry/Basic
s_of_Electrochemistry
XZ.L.P. Palmares, K.Z.A. Saylon, J. C. H. Sayurin, S. Villaflor 6

APPENDIX A

Raw Data

Trial 1

Initial weight Final weight Weight of

Run Current, A Time, s
of Pt, g of Pt, g Cu2+, g
A 5 120 62.802 63.006 0.204
B 5 120 62.905 63.116 0.211
C 5 120 62.905 63.125 0.220
D 5 120 62.905 63.069 0.164

Trial 2

Initial weight Final weight Weight of

Run Current, A Time, s
of Pt, g of Pt, g Cu2+, g
A 5 120 62.919 63.127 0.208
B 5 120 62.797 63.989 0.197
C 5 120 62.797 63.022 0.225
D 5 120 62.797 63.003 0.206

APPENDIX B

Determination of Moles of Cu2+ Determination of Faraday’s Constant

2+
The mass of Cu was determined by getting the The Faraday’s Constant can be computed using
difference between the initial weight and final the formula:
weight of the electrode. The mole of Cu2+ can be 𝐼𝑇
determined by dividing the amount of Cu2+ on 𝐹=𝑛 (B.3)
𝑒−
the electrode by the molar weight of Cu2+ which
where 𝐼 is the current in Amperes, 𝑇 is the time
is given by:
in seconds, and 𝑛𝑒 − is the moles of electrons
𝑊𝑃𝑡 (𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙) −𝑊𝑃𝑡 (𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙)
𝑛𝐶𝑢2+ = 𝑀𝑊𝐶𝑢2+
(B.1) Percentage Error of Data

Determination of Moles of Electrons The percentage error of the data can be

computed using the formula as given by:
As shown in the reaction:
| 𝐹𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 −𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 |
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙
𝑥 100 (B.4)
2+ −
𝐶𝑢 + 2𝑒 → 𝐶𝑢(𝑠)

the stoichiometric ratio of Cu2+ to e- is 2. Given

this ratio, the moles of electrons are given by
2 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑒 −
𝑛𝑒 − = (𝑛𝐶𝑢2+ )(1 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶𝑢2+ ) (B.2)
XZ.L.P. Palmares, K.Z.A. Saylon, J. C. H. Sayurin, S. Villaflor 6

APPENDIX C

Sample Computations

𝑊𝑃𝑡 (𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙) −𝑊𝑃𝑡 (𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙)

𝑛𝐶𝑢2+ = 𝑀𝑊𝐶𝑢2+

63.006𝑔 − 62.802𝑔
𝑛𝐶𝑢2+ = 𝑔
63.546
𝑚𝑜𝑙

𝑛𝐶𝑢2+ = 3.2103 𝑥 10−3 𝑚𝑜𝑙

2 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑒 −
𝑛𝑒 − = (𝑛𝐶𝑢2+ ) (1 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶𝑢2+)

2 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑒 −
𝑛𝑒 − = 3.2103 𝑥 10−3 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶𝑢2+ ((1 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐶𝑢2+)

𝑛𝑒 − = 6.4206 𝑥10−3 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑒 −

𝐼𝑇
𝐹=
𝑛𝑒−

(5 𝐴)(120 𝑠)
𝐹 = 6.4206 𝑥 10−3 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑒 −

𝐶
𝐹 = 93449.2104 𝑚𝑜𝑙

| 𝐹𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 −𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 |
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙
𝑥 100%
|93449.2104−96485.3329|
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑥 100%
96485.3329
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 3.1467 %