Needs

Rubric Categories Outstanding, 2.5 Adequate, 2 Missing, 0

improvement, 1.5

Claim, 10% x

Evidence, 20% x

Reasoning, 50% x

Error Analysis,
x
20%

8.6 pts, 86% Jan 20-> Graded: 8.6 pts, 86%

Teacher Rubric Settings: t01060fffc rvarghese _

10 pts Points Possible:

Empirical formula for Zinc Chloride - Lab Analysis
Lab Report
Guiding question: What is the empirical formula for zinc chloride?

The empirical formula for zinc Chloride is ZnCl2. . Commented [Robin Var1]: Table 1 - Are you making a
ratio of masses for Cl:Zn? What is the Ratios of ratios
listed?

Law of definite proportions - every chemical compound contains fixed and constant proportions (by mass) of
its constituent elements.
Source: Britannica
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Law of definite proportions.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 02, April
2018, www.britannica.com/science/law-of-definite-proportions

Law of multiple proportions - when two elements combine with each other to form more than one compound,
the weights of one element that combine with a fixed weight of the other are in a ratio of small whole numbers.
Source: Britannica
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Law of multiple proportions.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 22 May
2018. www.britannica.com/science/law-of-multiple-proportions

Using the data from both Table 1. and Table 2., I calculated that the zinc to chlorine ratio was about 1:2
after the H2O was removed.
To determine this, I used my knowledge of the law of definite proportion and the law of multiple
proportions. Since the goal was to calculate the empirical formula of zinc to chloride, I calculated the molar
mass ratio of chloride to zinc (Cl:Zn). I knew that I would need this ratio to compare it with the testing data.
Then when I took a look at the data, I took the average change in mass and took the ratio of it compared to the
average amount of zinc. I compared the change in mass to zinc because it is assumed that the mass of zinc will Commented [Robin Var2]: Average change in mass is
not defined here.
not change because of the law of conservation of mass (in a system, mass cannot be created or destroyed). This
means that the change in mass was the chlorine given that the water fully evaporated. The ratio of the ratios was Commented [Robin Var3]: Why can you make this
assumption?
about 2.161 (Table 1.), which suggests there is about a 2:1 chlorine to zinc ratio. The law of multiple
Commented [Robin Var4]: What is this value? You
proportions supports this because it is a ratio of small whole numbers. The law of multiple proportions suggests have not given me a why to follow what you are
that individual groups’ data should result in the same ratios because every group was testing the same calculating.
compound and every compound is composed of a fixed, constant proportion of elements. However, there are Commented [Robin Var5]: Very good use of the laws.
always small errors, so I expect the ratios from each trial to be close, but not necessarily the same.
In the lab, we used diluted hydrochloric acid to help us try to determine the empirical formula of
ZnxCLy. The diluted hydrochloric acid added water to the mixture that needed to be evaporated. In addition, Commented [Robin Var6]: Lowercase L.
zinc happens to be hygroscopic — a substance that absorbs water from the air. These two factors make it
extremely important to remove all of the water to generate accurate results and in the process, there is room for
some error. One error would be failing to successfully remove all water molecules from the compound. This
situation would result in the data incorrectly suggesting there are more chloride molecules present in the
compound than there actually are. Group 5 and Group 6’s (Table 1.) data are a great example of this. If I were Commented [Robin Var7]: Why do both a higher ratio of
Cl:Zn and lower ratio of Cl:Zn both give you a higher
to determine the empirical formula from their data, I would have less chlorine and the chlorine to zinc ratio ratio of Cl:Zn in your empirical formulas? Something is
would be greater than 2:1 which defies the law of multiple proportions. A second possible error would be wrong in your calculation and therefore your
conclusions.
overheating the compound so that some of the chlorine particles transition into gaseous form and evaporate like
Commented [Robin Var8]: Is this supported by your
the water. In this case, the data would incorrectly suggest that there are less chlorine particles present than there table 1?
actually are. The data from Group 5 and Group 7 (Table 1.) display this. According to Group 5, the chlorine to Commented [Robin Var9]: Only the chlorine particles?
zinc ratio is about 1.37 which is significantly smaller 2 that it was supposed to be. Group 7’s data suggests that Commented [Robin Var10]: Check your math - I get
the chlorine to zinc ratio is 1.89 which is also less than 2. 1.74