Rabanillo, Cedie L.

Determination of Titratable Acidity

*Po, Michaela P.

Angela A. Delos Angeles

Chrisye Allyson Unson Dilla

Coleen Casuga

Dona Macarans

Luigi Estorninos

Date Performed: January 24, 2020

Date Submitted: February 21, 2020

ABSTRACT

The group is expected to determine the total amount of acidity of each of the sample used in this
experiment. In order to achieved this goal, the group prepared and standardized a basic titrant NaOH with
KHP solution aided with a phenolphthalein indicator. The experiment proper labeled the standardized NaOH
solution as its titrant to its analytes, the acid-containing samples. Necessary data were gathered during the
standardization up to the experiment proper to get the computed values that will be of great help to the
titratable acidity’s determination. It is to conform whether all of the sample will reach the same endpoint
during the procedure of this activity by calculating the total amount needed in each of the sample to obtained.

INTRODUCTION

Titration, process of chemical analysis in which the quantity of some constituent of a sample is
determined by adding to the measured sample an exactly known quantity of another substance with which
the desired constituent reacts in a definite, known proportion. The process is usually carried out by gradually
adding a standard solution (i.e., a solution of known concentration) of titrating reagent, or titrant, from
a burette, essentially a long, graduated measuring tube with a stopcock and a delivery tube at its lower end.
The addition is stopped when the equivalence point is reached.

At the equivalence point of a titration, an exactly equivalent amount of titrant has been added to the
sample. The experimental point at which the completion of the reaction is marked by some signal is called
the end point. This signal can be the colour change of an indicator or a change in some electrical property that
is measured during the titration. The difference between the end point and the equivalence point is the
titration error, which is kept as small as possible by the proper choice of an end-point signal and a method for
detecting it.

MATERIALS/REAGENTS

 Erlenmeyer Flask (250 mL)  Burette clamp

 Beaker (1000mL)  Iron stand
 Beaker (250 mL)  Pipette (10 mL)
 Graduated cylinder (100 mL)  Aspirator
 Spatula  Analytical Balance
 Burette (50 mL)

SAMPLES
Sample Juices (Powdered)
 Calamansi
 Honey dew
 Dalandan
Vinegar (Variants)
 Datu Puti
 Silver Swan
Extract
 Lemon
REAGENTS’ PREPARATION/PROCEDURE
 Standard solution of 0.10 M NaOH
Needed reagent/s:
NaOH pellets
Others: Distilled water
Procedure:
1. The students weighted 4.0 grams of NaOH pellets in analytical balance
2. They dissolved it in 100 mL distilled water.
3. After dissolving it properly, transfered it into a clean and dry volumetric flask.
4. Dilute solution in a 1L beaker containing 900 mL of distilled water (total volume would be 1 L)

 Phenolphthalein Indicator

Needed reagent/s:

Phenolphthalein

Ethanol

Procedure:

1. Students weighted 2 grams of phenolphthalein in an analytical balance.

2. Then dissolved in 18 mL of Ethanol.
3. They keep on stirring until it dissolved

 Standardization of the standard solution of 0.10 NaOH

Needed reagent/s:

KHP

Phenolphthalein indicator (prepared)

0.10 M NaOH solution (prepared)

Others: Distilled water

Procedure:
 1. The students weighted 3 Erlenmeyer flasks containing of 0.10 grams of KHP each in the analytical
balance.
2. Then they dissolved it in 100 mL distilled water each.
3. Putted 3 drops of phenolphthalein indicator in every Erlenmeyer flask.
4. Titrate until end point is achieved (faint pink color).

METHODOLOGY/PROCEDURE

In order to achieve the goal, the students pipetted 10 mL per powdered sample solutions and 3 mL per
vinegar and lemon extract and gently dispensed it into their respective Erlenmeyer Flasks, they diluted it with
100 mL distilled water and mixed, they added 3 drops of the phenolphthalein indicator in each Erlenmeyer
flasks containing the sample. They titrated using the standardized NaOH solution as the titrant and the acid-
containing samples as the analyte. The endpoint of the solution that had been titrated with the 0.10M NaOH
should be faint pink.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

FOR THE STANDARDIZATION OF 0.10 M OF NaOH

Table 1: Standardization of 0.10 M NaOH with the use of KHP

Trials Weight of KHP Volume of Molarity of Average % RSD

(in grams) NaOH (in mL.) NaOH (M)

1 0.100 g. 6 mL 0.0816 M 0.0790 5.30%

2 0.100 g. 6.6 mL 0.0742 M 0.0790
3 0.103 g. 6.2 mL 0.0813 M 0.0790

This table shows the different data needed to standardize the titrant of the experiment, NaOH, with the help
of KHP. The standardization was compared in 3 trials where each flask contained an ideal amount of 0.100
grams of KHP each. NaOH was then titrated to these trials and data were noted after each trials showed the
end point. The Molarity of NaOH was computed after getting various data values (such as KHP’s weight and
NaOH’s volume) with the formula given. The Molarity will show the results if the preparation of the titrant was
correctly calibrated to its goal molarity (in this case, it was 0.10 M) by comparing it to the goal value. The
closer its value is to the goal value, the better.
The Average column shows the computed mean of the Molarity of NaOH (column 4). This would aid the
computation of the %RSD, the one that measures the scattering of numbers in a particular data set around the
mean. By having a value of 5.30 % as the standardization’s %RSD, this indicated that there is a low percent of
scattering thus, the distance of the values of Molarity of NaOH to the mean were near each other.

Table 2: Average Result of Titrated NaOH

SAMPLE ID GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP 3 GROUP 4 GROUP 5 GROUP 6 AVERAGE

1.Datu puti 25.8 mL 23.4 mL 34 mL 24.1 mL 25.3 mL 22.8 mL 25.9 mL

Vinegar
2.Silver Swan 25.4 mL 21.7 mL 14.2 mL 16.5 mL 16.5 mL 16.5 mL 20.68 mL
Vinegar

3.Lemon 32.8 mL 30.6 mL 32 mL 31.5 mL 31.5 mL 32.7 mL 31.85 mL

Extract
4. Powdered 7 mL 6.3 mL 7.1 mL 7.6 mL 7 mL 7.5 mL 7.08 mL
Calamansi
Juice

5. Powdered 7.3 mL 6.6 mL 8.3 mL 7.4 mL 6.9 mL 7.7 mL 7.37 mL

Honey Lemon
Juice
6. Powdered 10.4 mL 4.5 mL 2 mL 6.33 mL 6.1 mL 6.5 mL 5.97 mL
Dalandan
Juice

In table 2, the group collected various data from other groups to calculate the average amount of NaOH
titrated in every sample given. This table also helped the group to compare the different set of data values
across other groups to see if the titrated amount of NaOH across different types of samples were near each
other for precision issues. The computed average would greatly affect and aid the computation for the most
important findings of this experiment, the sample’s individual acidity.

Table 3: Group Four’s Summary of Results for Titratable Acidity

Sample ID Volume of SX Dispensed

1.Datu Puti Vinegar 24.1 mL
2.Silver Swan Vinegar 16.5 mL
3.Lemon Extract 31.5 mL
4. Powdered Calamansi Juice 7.6 mL
5. Powdered Honey Lemon Juice 7.4 mL
6. Powdered Dalandan Juice 6.3 mL
 This table diligently shows the volume of NaOH dispensed or titrated into the experiment’s analytes, the
acid-containing samples. This table also gave the emphasis for the group’s gathered set of values in which
it was also used and indicated in Table 2 for the computation concerning the average result of titrated
NaOH across various groups.

Table 4: Determination of Titratable Acidity (in % w/v)

Sample ID NaOH used Molarity of Volume of Correction Titratable

(mL) NaOH (M) Sample (mL) Factor Acidity (in %)
1.Datu Puti 25.9 mL 0.0790 M 3 mL 0.060 4.09 %
Vinegar
2.Silver Swan 20.68 mL 0.0790 M 3 mL 0.060 3.27 %
Vinegar
3.Lemon 31.85 mL 0.0790 M 3 mL 0.064 5.37 %
Extract
4. Powdered 7.08 mL 0.0790 M 10 mL 0.064 0.358 %
Calamansi Juice
5. Powdered 7.37 mL 0.0790 M 10 mL 0.0664 0.373 %
Honey Lemon
Juice
6. Powdered 5.97 mL 0.0790 M 10 mL 0.064 0.302 %
Dalandan Juice

Table 4 showed the computed values that are necessary for the completion of the most important set of
values to be computed in this experiment, the values of samples concerning their Titratable Acidity. In each
acid-containing sample, the values that were used for titrated NaOH (named as NaOH used in the table) were
the average titrated NaOH from table 2 where the different data values were collected from different groups
to garner their respective average titrated titrant. The Molarity of the NaOH value used in the table was the
average Molarity indicated in table 1 (data were gathered through the titrant’s standardization). The volume
sample (in mL) and the correction factor used were given and indicated as instructed in the experiment
proper. All the said values were vital and greatly needed to compute for the titratable acidity of each sample.

The Titrated Acidity values of the samples can be viewed in the last column wherein in can be used for
comparison and other necessary uses it may be of aid. The final values of titratable acidity showed that
vinegar variants (Datu Puti and Silver Swan) have different percentage of acidity thus, breaking the
connotation that every vinegar’s just the same even in their compositions.
CONCLUSION

In this experiment, it was greatly revealed that there is a difference between the samples containing acetic
acid and those who contained citric acid (excluding their correction factor). Among the six samples given
(three of them are powdered and three are extracted/in their “pure” form before the instructed dilution),
those who received high titratable acidities were the samples containing their “pure”/extracted forms. This
means that there is a high concentration of acid components in the said samples. Those samples who were
processed to be in the powder form garnered a titratable acidity of less than 1%, a remarkably low value
compared to the samples that were unprocessed. This may mean that as their form is being reduced and is
processed, their acidity will also decline and it makes them less acidic compared to their original fruit
counterparts. Thus, with these results, the assumption concerning the difference of samples containing
different types of acids were proven.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A: COMPUTATIONS

For “Table 1: Standardization of 0.10 M NaOH with the use of KHP’s” used formulas and computations:

Formula for the Molarity of NaOH (Standardization of 0.10 M of NaOH (standard solution)):

𝑤𝑡. 𝑜𝑓 𝐾𝐻𝑃
𝑀 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 = 𝑀𝑀 𝐾𝐻𝑃 𝑥 1000
𝑚𝐿 𝑜𝑓 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑
TRIAL 1:

0.100 g.
𝑀 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 = 204.22 𝑥 1000
6 mL
𝑴 𝑵𝒂𝑶𝑯 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟖𝟏𝟔 𝐌

TRIAL 2:

0.100 g.
𝑀 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 = 204.22 𝑥 1000
6.6 mL
𝑴 𝑵𝒂𝑶𝑯 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟒𝟐 𝐌

TRIAL 3:
 0.100 g.
𝑀 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 = 204.22 𝑥 1000
6.2 mL
𝑴 𝑵𝒂𝑶𝑯 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟖𝟏𝟑 𝐌

Formula for the Average Molarity

Σ𝑥
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 =
𝑛

Whereas:

n= total number of data

Σ𝑥 = summation of all data

0.0816 M + 0.0742 M + 0.0813 M

𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 =
3

𝑨𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟗𝟎

Formula for %RSD

𝑆𝐷
% 𝑅𝑆𝐷 = 𝑥 100
𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒

Whereas:

SD = standard deviation of the Molarity of NaOH

0.004188476254
% 𝑅𝑆𝐷 = 𝑥 100
0.0790

% 𝑹𝑺𝑫 = 𝟓. 𝟑𝟎%

For “Table 2: Average Result of Titrated NaOH’s” used formula and computation:
Formula for the Titrated NaOH

Σ𝑥
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 =
𝑛

Whereas:

n= total number of data

Σ𝑥 = summation of all data

DATU PUTI VINEGAR

25.8 mL + 23.4 mL + 34 mL + 24.1 mL + 25.3 mL + 22.8 mL

𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 =
6

𝑨𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚 = 𝟐𝟓. 𝟗 𝐦𝐋

SILVER SWAN VINEGAR

25.4 mL + 21.7 mL + 14.2 mL + 16.5 mL + 16.5 mL + 16.5 mL

𝑎𝑣𝑒. 𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 =
6

𝑨𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚 = 𝟐𝟎. 𝟔𝟖 𝐦𝐋

LEMON EXTRACT

32.8 mL + 30.6 mL + 32 mL + 31.5 mL + 31.5 mL + 32.7 mL

𝑎𝑣𝑒. 𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 =
6

𝑨𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚 = 𝟑𝟏. 𝟖𝟓 𝐦𝐋

POWDERED CALAMANSI JUICE

7 mL + 6.3 mL + 7.1 mL + 7.6 mL + 7 mL + 7.5 mL

𝑎𝑣𝑒. 𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 =
6

𝑨𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚 = 𝟕. 𝟎𝟖 𝐦𝐋
POWDERED HONEY LEMON JUICE

7.3 mL + 6.6 mL + 8.3 mL + 7.4 mL + 6.9 mL + 7.7 mL

𝑎𝑣𝑒. 𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 =
6

𝑨𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚 = 𝟕. 𝟑𝟕 𝐦𝐋

POWDERED DALANDAN JUICE

10.4 mL + 4.5 mL + 2 mL + 6.33 mL + 6.1 mL + 6.5 mL

𝑎𝑣𝑒. 𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 =
6

𝑨𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚 = 𝟓. 𝟗𝟕 𝐦𝐋

For “Table 4: Determination of Titratable Acidity (in % w/v)” used formulas and computations:

Formula for Titratable Acidity

𝑤 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑, 𝑚𝐿 𝑥 𝑁 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 𝑥 𝐹

𝑇𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦, (% ) = 𝑥 100
𝑣 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑, 𝑚𝐿

Where:

N NaOH = Molarity of NaOH F = Correction Factor

DATU PUTI VINEGAR

𝑤 25.9 mL 𝑥 0.0790 M 𝑥 0.060

𝑇𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦, (% ) = 𝑥 100
𝑣 3 mL
𝒘
𝑻𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒚, (% ) = 𝟒. 𝟎𝟗 %
𝒗

SILVER SWAN VINEGAR

 𝑤 20.68 mL 𝑥 0.0790 M 𝑥 0.060
𝑇𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦, (% ) = 𝑥 100
𝑣 3 mL
𝒘
𝑻𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒚, (% ) = 𝟑. 𝟐𝟕 %
𝒗

LEMON EXTRACT

𝑤 31.85 mL 𝑥 0.0790 M 𝑥 0.064

𝑇𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦, (% ) = 𝑥 100
𝑣 3 mL
𝒘
𝑻𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒚, (% ) = 𝟓. 𝟑𝟕 %
𝒗

POWDERED CALAMANSI JUICE

𝑤 7.08 mL 𝑥 0.0790 M 𝑥 0.064

𝑇𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦, (% ) = 𝑥 100
𝑣 10 mL
𝒘
𝑻𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒚, (% ) = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟓𝟖 %
𝒗

POWDERED HONEY LEMON JUICE

𝑤 7.37 mL 𝑥 0.0790 M 𝑥 0.064

𝑇𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦, (% ) = 𝑥 100
𝑣 10 mL
𝒘
𝑻𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒚, (% ) = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟕𝟑 %
𝒗

POWDERED DALANDAN JUICE

𝑤 5.97 mL 𝑥 0.0790 M 𝑥 0.064

𝑇𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦, (% ) = 𝑥 100
𝑣 10 mL
𝒘
𝑻𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒚, (% ) = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟎𝟐 %
𝒗

APPENDIX B: Predetermined Values Used

KHP Molar Mass: 204.22 g/mol

Correction Factor:
Citric acid anhydrous: 0.064
Acetic Acid: 0.060