Formal Lab Report

Course Name
Student Name-Class Period

Trends in the Mass of a Penny

Abstract:

Before the year 1982, pennies were made up of a majority of Cu. However, after
that year, the composition of pennies changed to a majority of Zn. Our graph of the
masses of ten pennies and the year they were minted in showed a trend in the masses
of pennies before the year 1982 and after 1982. In order to find out what caused this
change, we used the density of the pennies. Density is an intensive property of a
system which means it is “a physical property of the system that does not depend on
the system size or the amount of material in the system.” So we took the laboratory
further and found the masses and volumes of groups of pennies separated by whether
they were minted before or after 1982. By graphing the mass vs. volume of these
samples, and finding the densities of each sample, we found that it was a change in
penny composition which supports the fact that after 1982, pennies were made with a
zinc core and copper coat instead of mostly copper. Also, we proved the changed in
composition by putting a nicked old penny and a nicked new penny both into a solution
of HCl (hydrochloric acid) and the new penny was the only one to react.

Introduction:

Pennies minted before 1982 were made up of a mixture of 95% copper and
around 5% zinc. However, after awhile, making pennies with such a high content of
copper became too expensive. Instead, pennies after the year 1982 were minted with a
zinc core and a copper coating, around 97.5% zinc and 2.5% copper. The differences
in the pennies compositions changed many of their characteristics. Changing the
composition of an object and keeping the volumes constant means some properties of
the object such as the mass, density and some chemical properties of the object must
have changed. So the penny densities were changed and their reaction to HCl changed
as well.
In this lab, we analyzed penny masses to determine trends between the masses,
the years there were minted in, and the causes of these trends. We calculated the
densities of the older and newer pennies by graphing our obtained values on a mass (g)
vs. volume (mL) graph, giving us the density. The results we obtained explained why
the masses before 1982 followed a certain trend in their masses and why after 1982
they followed a different trend. These results supported the historical fact that the
composition of pennies was changed that year.

Experimental:

For the first part of the laboratory, we used a 50-mL graduated cylinder, a 50-mL
buret and some tap water to find the averaged calibrated volume (V) of the graduated
cylinder. First, we filled the buret with water and recorded the initial volume reading to
the nearest hundredth of a mL. Then, we filled the graduated cylinder to the 45.0 mL
mark without letting the buret volume fall lower than the 50 mL mark and took the final
buret volume reading (again, to the nearest hundredth). We repeated the procedure
two more times, calculated the calibrated volume for each of the three trials by
subtracting the initial V from the final V, and then calculated the averaged calibrated
volume of the 3 trials, recording it all in a table.
Then, for the second part of the procedure, we used 10 pennies (a mixture of old
and new), weighed each one and recorded each mass, along with the year they were
minted, in a table. We entered the values into a computer along with the rest of the
class’s and used Graphical Analysis to graph a Mass vs. Year dot graph.
For the third part of the experiment, we had three samples of pennies, each with
a different number of pennies. There was a group of 8 “new” pennies (pennies minted
after 1982) and two groups of “old” pennies (pennies made before 1982), one with 4
pennies and one with 10 pennies. We first found the mass of each of the samples and
recorded the masses to the nearest thousandth of a gram. Then we filled the buret with
water, recorded the initial buret reading, added a bit of water (around 5 – 10 mL) to a
dry graduated cylinder and slid the group of the 4 old pennies into the cylinder, tapping
at the cylinder to make sure there were no air bubbles in between the pennies. Then
we finished filling the graduated cylinder to the 45 mL mark and took the final buret
reading, recording it to the nearest hundredth of a mL.
We redid this final and initial reading for both of the other groups of pennies,
making sure the cylinder was dry, and recorded it all in a table, and then calculated the
densities (D = m/V)) and the average volume of each sample, as well as the volume of
a single penny for each group. Along with the rest of the class, we entered the volumes
and masses of our pennies into the master calculator under their corresponding
“old/new” list and we used Graphical Analysis to graph a linear regression of the new
and old penny graphs, making sure the starting point was at (0, 0).
For the last part of the experiment, we used copper and zinc samples and
recorded their masses to the nearest thousandth of a gram. We filled the buret with
water, recorded the initial buret reading, added a bit of water (around 5 – 10 mL) to a
dry graduated cylinder and added the metal sample, tapping at the cylinder to get rid of
the air bubbles. Then we finished filling the graduated cylinder to the 45 mL mark and
took the final buret reading to the nearest hundredth of a mL. We did the same for both
the zinc and the copper samples, and calculated the volumes and densities for each
metal. Using Graphical Analysis, we inserted the mass and the volumes for zinc in one
graph, and preformed a linear regression of the data. We did the same for copper,
making sure to start the graph at (0, 0). This gave us the density of zinc and the density
of copper values, allowing us to find the percent error of our new and old penny
densities (since we had the percentages of Zn and Cu each contained).
As a class, we placed a nicked old and new penny in a 25 mL sample of
hydrochloric acid (HCl) in a 100-mL beaker to see the effect the acid would have on
them.

Analysis:
 Our first data recorded was the mass of ten pennies and the years there were
minted. With our ten values alone, my lab partner and I did not see a trend in the
masses. However, in the graph of all the class’s combined data, we saw a drop in the
masses at round 1982. On the graph Mass vs. Year-Old and New Pennies, we saw
that pennies minted before 1982 had a mass around 3.0 – 3.1 grams and those minted
after 1982 had masses around 2.4 to 2.5 grams. However, there were slight differences
in the masses within the two major “mint year” groups we saw.
When we found the calibrated volumes of the 50 mL cylinder, we used the final
and initial buret volumes.

Known:
*final buret volume = 45.10 mL
*initial buret volume = 0.00 mL

Calibrated volume = final buret volume − initial buret volume

Calibrated Volume = 45.10 mL − 0.00 mL
Calibrated Volume = 45.10 mL

For the average calibrated volume, we took the average of our three calibrated volume
trials:

Trial 1 Calibrated V  Trial 2 CalibratedV  Trial 3 CalibratedV

Avg. Calibrated Volume =
3

45.10  45.50 45.40

Avg. Calibrated Volume =
3
Avg. Calibrated Volume = 45.33 mL

For Data Table 3, we had to calculate the sample volume (V), the sample density (D)
and the average volume of a penny. We also had to do the same for the zinc and
copper samples in Data Table 4. In the Old 4 penny sample:

Known:
*Avg. Calibrated V = 45.33 mL
*Volume of H2O Added = 43.21 mL

Sample Volume = Avg. Calibrated V − V of H2O added

Sample Volume = 45.33 mL − 43.21 mL
Sample Volume = 2.12 mL

Known:
*Total mass of sample = 12.410 g
*# pennies in sample = 4
Total massof sample 12.410 g
mass (m) = = = 3.1025 g
# of penniesin sample 4
*Sample V = 2.12 mL

m
Sample Density =
V
12.410 g
D=
2.12 mL

g
D = 5.853 mL

Known:
*Sample Volume = 2.12 mL
*# of pennies in sample = 4

Sample Volume
Avg. Volume of a penny =
# of penniesin sample
2.12 mL
Avg. Volume of a penny =
4
Avg. Volume of a penny = 0.53 mL

We also calculated the exact density of the pennies using the density values of pure
copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) and the percentages of those elements in pennies. Since we
had the percent of each element in a penny we multiplied the density of each element
by its corresponding percentage in the penny and added the density of Cu and Zn to get
the total density of the penny. For an “old” penny:

Known:
*pennies made before 1982 = 95% copper and 5% Zn
*Density of pure Cu (DCu) = 8.92 g/mL
*Density of pure Zn (DZn) = 7.14 g/mL

DCu = (0.95 Cu)(8.92 g/mL) = 8.474 g/mL of Cu per “old” penny

DZn = (0.05 Zn)(7.14 g/mL) = 0.357 g/mL of Zn per “old” penny

Density of “old” pennies = DCu per “old” penny + DZn per “old” penny

Density of “old” pennies = 8.474 g/mL + 0.357 g/mL

Density of “old” pennies = 8.831 g/mL

Using our experimental density value obtained from the slope of the “fit” Mass vs.
Volume-Old Pennies graph (the averaged density of all the data we collected) and the
correct density value (the density we calculated from given percentages and densities of
pure Cu and Zn), we found our percent error for the density of each penny class (old
and new). We also did the same for the zing and copper samples. In the case of a
“new” penny:

Known:
*correct density value of new penny = 7.1845 g/mL
*experimental value of new penny = 6.56 g/mL

 (correct value - experimental value) 

% error =   100
 correct value 

 (7.1845 g  6.56 g ) 
% error =  mL mL 
100
 7. 1845
g 
 mL 
% error = 8.6%

Results/Conclusion:

After examining the Mass vs. Mint Year graph, my partner and I hypothesized
that the drop in the mass after the year 1982 signified either a change in the
composition of pennies after 1982 or a change in the amount of material used (change
in mass). The slight ranges of the masses each year could just be attributed to
discrepancies in the different locations in which the pennies were minted.
We used the property of density which is independent of the amount or size of
the material used to find out what actually caused the change in mass after 1982. The
masses and volumes we gathered for the old and new pennies were graphed on two
separate graphs; one for each the old and new pennies. The slope of the linear fits for
the Mass vs. Volume New Pennies and Old Pennies graphs gave us the average
densities for an old and new penny. The New Penny graph shows the average density
as 6.56 g/mL and the Old Penny density as 7.79 g/mL. This change in density shows
that in fact, it was the composition of pennies that changed after the year 1982,
explaining the change in masses in the first graph.
By graphing the mass vs. volume for zinc and copper, we found the densities of
pure Cu and Zn in the same way we did for old and new pennies. This way, we could
see that density is independent of the amount of material in a sample(here a penny) and
the size of the sample.
The percent error we found for the densities of the old and new pennies and the
copper and zinc samples are due to the buret volume measurements. Another possible
source of error was accidentally not drying the graduated cylinder enough trial after trial.
For the final class section of the lab, when we placed the two nicked pennies in
the HCl acid, we saw that the old penny did not react at all while bubbles began to form
around the new penny. When we removed the two pennies from the HCl, we saw that
the new penny was now a mere shell. This is because copper does not react in HCl
while zinc does and new pennies are made with a zinc core and a copper coating.
By using an intensive property (here, density), which does not depend on the
amount of material in an object or the size of the object, we found out that the change in
mass was caused by a change in composition of pennies. The history our results back
up is that in 1982 zinc replaced copper as the major component in pennies.
A possible way to better the experiment design is by doing more trials because
that would improve our average densities. An experiment in the future could be finding
out why exactly zinc reacts with HCl and copper does not. Since HCl is also known as
“stomach acid” because it is the acid in our stomach, another possible future experiment
could be finding out what happens when HCl reacts with zinc and if the reaction would
be harmful if it happened in a human stomach.