Chem 202 Section 07

Davy Artho-Phan

Lab Partner: Jack Wagner

5 March 2018

Chem 202, Experiment 05 Molar Mass of Citric Acid Using Titration

Procedure

Read Lab Manual pages 20-21

Data

Experimental Data
Initial and final Volume and Mass of citric acid
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Partner Trial 4 Partner Trial 5 Partner Trial 6
Mass of citric acid (g) .160 .162 .162 .160 .160 .160
Initial volume (mL) 3.50 1.70 1.10 1.80 1.70 1.10
Final volume (mL) 32.30 31.90 31.70 29.10 29.40 29.70
Calculated Results
Volume of citric acid (mL) 28.80 30.20 30.60 27.30 27.70 28.60
Moles of NaOH used 0.0025 0.0026 0.0027 0.0024 0.0024 0.0025
(mol NaOH)
Moles of Citric acid 0.00083 0.00087 0.00090 0.00080 0.00080 .00083
neutralized(mol H 3 C6 H 5 O 7
)
Molar mass of citric acid 193 186 180 201 200 193
(g/mol)
Average (g/mol) 192

Standard deviation (g/mol) 192 + 8

% error =
 g g

|experimental molar mass of citric acid – theoretical molar mass of citric acid
theoretical molar mas of citric acid |∗100= | 192
mol
−192.124

192.124
g
mol
|
mol
∗10

=.06% error

Discussion/Questions

The molar mass of citric acid was experimentally determined to be 1928 g/mol. The
known value of the molar mass of citric acid is 192.124 g/mol. The experimentally determined
results were accurate in comparison with the known value, with a percent error of .06%.
Equipment was properly calibrated and the presence of systematic error was low, as the
experimental results in each trial were  not systematically higher or lower than the actual results.
Each of the trials conducted for the determination of the molar mass gave results that were fairly
close to one another, indicating the measurements were fairly precise.  
While no major difficulties arose during the experiment, there are several sources of
random error that can explain for measurements that were higher or lower than the actual value
in each particular trial. One of the first sources of random error is misjudgment of the color of
the solution when attaining endpoint. Reaching the endpoint is demarked by the faint pink color
the solution turns. It is quite easy to add too much base to the solution and pass the endpoint. If
too much base is added , this would result in an artificially high value for the moles of the acid.
Since the molar mass is inversely proportional to the moles of the acid, an artificially high value
for the moles of acid would result in an artificially lower value for the molar mass. This may
explain for why some of the trials resulted in a lower calculated molar mass than the actual
value. By contrast, if too little base was added, and the endpoint was not completely reached,
then the calculated moles of acid would have been artificially low, and the resulting molar mass
would have been artificially high. This may explain for why some of the trials resulted in a
higher calculated molar mass than the average value. To avoid the impact of these random errors,
more trials may be conducted to obtain an average value that is even closer to the predicted
theoretical value for the molar mass. Other potential sources of random error may have resulted
from misreading of the volumes due to parallax.  For example, a higher than actual measured
volume of added base would result in a lower than actual calculated molar mass of the acid, and
vice versa.1

Another potential source of error to keep in mind for future experiments is the potential
exposure of sodium hydroxide to air. Sodium hydroxide can absorb water from the air, as well as
reacting with carbon dioxide to form sodium bicarbonate. If the standardized sodium hydroxide
solution were exposed to air for a long period of time after standardization, the contamination
would result in using too much of the solution to reach the endpoint. The moles of base, and
correspondingly the moles of acid would be found to be higher than the actual amount. The
resulting calculated molar mass would be lower than the actual value, because it would be
inversely dependent on the moles of acid used. If the sodium hydroxide solution were exposed to
air for a long time before standardization, this would not impact the calculation of the molar
mass. The concentration of the sodium hydroxide solution would be lower, and a larger volume
of the solution would be needed to make the standardized solution. However, the concentration
of the solution could still be accurately determined by standardizing the solution. Once the
solution is standardized, the concentration is known accurately, a correct endpoint can be found.
This would not adversely affect calculations of the molar mass of the citric acid.2

    If  50 mL of water had been used instead of 25 mL of water, the accuracy of the molar mass
would not be significantly affected. Water is only used to dissolve to citric acid , and the volume
of the acid would not affect the molar mass. Only  the number of moles of the citric acid is
needed, and the mass of the citric acid are needed to calculate the molar mass.3

If the buret was rinsed with DI water then filled with NaOH solution without having been
rinsed with NaOH solution first, the calculated molar mass would be lower than the actual value.
The NaOH solution is supposed to coat the burret so it can react with the acid solution correctly.
If the buret was rinsed with water, without being rinsed with the NaOH solution afterwards, the
volume of the NaOH solution in the buret would increase, which would lead to a decreased value
for the molarity of NaOH. This will lead to the requirement of a bigger volume of NaOH for
titration which would lead to a higher number of moles in the acid, which would result in a lower
molar mass for the acid. Given that the standardized solution of sodium hydroxide used in this
experiment was carefully prepared, and the bottle tightly sealed both before and after
standardization so as not to expose the solution to air, the concentration of the sodium hydroxide
was accurately determined.4