Chemical Papers

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11696-020-01322-y

ORIGINAL PAPER

A simple electrogravimetric experimental setup to determine Cu

in alloy samples for teaching purposes
João Pedro Silva1   · Kallyni Irikura1 · Maria Valnice Boldrin Zanoni1 · Paulo Clairmont F. Lima Gomes1

Received: 3 April 2020 / Accepted: 13 August 2020

© Institute of Chemistry, Slovak Academy of Sciences 2020

Abstract 
Electrogravimetry is a traditional analytical method for the determination of cations in aqueous solution, but the use of plati-
num as cathode and anode electrodes hinders its implementation in undergraduate chemistry courses with limited resources.
This study proposes the replacement of expensive platinum electrodes by cheaper materials such as the dimensionally stable
anode and Ni–Cr alloy as the cathode, which showed good performance in the determination of Cu by electrolysis at constant
current (in galvanostatic mode). The proposed method achieved an electrogravimetric yield of 97.3 ± 0.9%, from a solution of
­CuSO4 during electrolysis carried out at 0.26 A for 60 min. The experimental setup was used to determine Cu in commercial
scrap alloy waste samples containing Cu, Sn, Pb, and Zn, following a simple pretreatment employing ammonia solution.
The Cu weight percentage obtained was 58.6 ± 0.5%, which was in agreement with a value of 59.4 ± 1.7% obtained using a
comparative spectrophotometric method.
Graphic abstract

Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this

article (https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1169​6-020-01322​-y) contains
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Keywords  Electrogravimetry · Electroanalytical chemistry · Instrumental method · Quantitative analysis · Laboratory
instruction
Introduction
The first analytical determination using electrogravimetry
was performed in 1864 by Wolcott Gibbs, (Szabadvary
1964; Stock 1989) using an electrolytic cell for the deter-
mination of Cu and Ni. Subsequently, electrogravimetry
has become established as an excellent technique for the
fast and precise determination of divalent metals such as
Cu, Ni, and Co in aqueous solutions (Owen et al. 1983). In
addition to quantitative determinations, electrogravimetry is
also an important tool for the separation of elements and the
removal of metals from solution (DeFord and Bowers 1958).
Electrogravimetric determination can be performed at
controlled potential (potentiostatic method) or controlled
current (galvanostatic method) (Skoog et al. 2004). How-
ever, electrolysis at controlled potential is known to pro-
vide the best selectivity in the determination of metals. The
main disadvantage is the experimental setup, which requires
a three-electrode system (working, counter, and reference
electrodes) and a potentiostat. This is more expensive than
the laboratory equipment required for electrogravimetric
determinations according to the galvanostatic method, based
on only two electrodes, employing a simple experimental
setup that requires a power source able to maintain constant
the current (I) through the anode and cathode. The use of
a controlled current enables the separation and determina-
tion of metals with large differences between their reduction
potentials. The theoretical basis is similar for both methods.
For any electrochemical cell under electrodynamic condi-
tions (I ≠ 0), I flow through the system and the potential
between the cathode and anode (cell potential, E cell) are
related, as shown in Eq. 1:
Ecell = EC + EA + 𝜂C + 𝜂A − IR (1)
EC and EA are the cathode and anode equilibrium poten-
tials, calculated using the Nernst equation, I is the electri-
cal current, R is the cell electrical resistance, the product
IR is the ohmic drop, and ηC and ηA are the sums of the
cathode and anode overpotentials (activation and concentra-
tion), which are related to the kinetics of the electrochemical
reactions and the concentrations of the electrochemical spe-
cies on the electrode surface. At a controlled potential, the
equilibrium potential and the sum of all the overpotentials of
the cathode or anode (depending on which electrode is set as
the working electrode) are constant, while the other param-
eters will vary during operation of the cell. In galvanostatic
conditions, I is maintained constant and Ecell can vary since
R, equilibrium potentials, and overpotentials are sources
of variation. For both methods, Faraday’s law governs the
13
Chemical Papers
amount of metal deposited during the electrolysis (Vogel
and Jeffery 1989):
1. The amounts of substances liberated (or dissolved) at the
electrolytic cell are directly proportional to the quantity
of electrical charge which passes through the solution;
2. The amounts of different substances liberated (or dis-
solved) using the same quantity of electrical charge are
proportional to their relative atomic (or molar) masses
divided by the number of electrons involved into the
respective electrode process.
By the combination of these statements the mathematical
form of the Faraday’s law arises:
( )
Fz ∫
M
m= I(t)dt. (2)
M is the molar mass of the metal, F is the Faraday con-
stant (96,485 C m ­ ol−1), z is the ionic charge, and I(t) is the
current as a function of time (t). For cell operation at con-
stant current, the integral term, which represents the electri-
cal charge involved in the process, is reduced to It. There-
fore, for teaching purposes, it’s easier to use the controlled
current method, since all the electrochemical theory asso-
ciated with electrogravimetric experiments can be covered
using a simpler experimental setup. The system selected for
the study also needs to be simple, with the electrodeposition
of Cu being a good choice, since it presents excellent deposi-
tion yields. Furthermore, although the electrodeposition of
copper is typically performed using H ­ 2SO4 and H­ NO3 as an
electrolyte, the use of ­HNO3 alone is sufficient to provide
the acidity required in the process, with nitrate acting as
a cathodic depolarizer for ­H2 evolution (Vogel and Jeffery
1989):
NO−3 (aq) + 10H+ (aq) + 8e− ⇌ NH+4 (aq) + 3H2 O(aq). (3)
Under this experimental condition, there is the sup-
pression of ­H2 release at the cathode, while the Cu deposit
presents good adherence. Moreover, the application can be
tested using many inexpensive commercial alloys, such as
brass and bronze, as samples for the determination of Cu by
electrogravimetry. Given that the use of expensive platinum
electrodes represents an obstacle to implementing the elec-
trogravimetry technique, alternatives have been proposed
using copper and brass materials as cathodes, while graph-
ite rods and pencil leads have been tested as anodes (Dudek
1977; Parker 2011; Finazzi et al. 2015). Graphite is a good
candidate for use as an anode, but it presents low mechanical
Chemical Papers

resistance to gas evolution, resulting in rapid erosion by O

­ 2
(Trasatti 2000), which is commonly generated during the
electrolysis of water. Thus, the dimensionally stable anode
­(DSA®) can be a good choice for use in electrogravimetry,
due to its higher chemical stability in the presence of ­O2
evolution, compared to graphite. Ni–Cr alloys, which are
inexpensive materials used in furnace heaters, present high
resistance to corrosion (Oberg and Jones 2004) and could
be an option for replacing platinum cathodes in electrogravi-
metric cells. To the best of our knowledge, there have been
no previously published studies concerning the application
of these materials for the electrogravimetric determination
of Cu. The aim of the present study was to develop a simple
and inexpensive electrogravimetric system for the determi-
nation of copper in alloy samples, substituting platinum by
Ni–Cr as the cathode and DSA as the anode, for application
in undergraduate chemistry classes.
two-electrode system was used in all the experiments, with
a commercial plate of Ti/TiO2/RuO2 ­(DSA®) as the anode
(dimensions of 78 mm × 4 mm × 0.5 mm) and a spiral wire
of Ni and Cr alloy (77.2% Ni, 21.3% Cr, see the Elec-
tronic Supplementary Material) with length of 140 mm
and diameter of 0.50 mm as the cathode. The anode and
cathode were positioned concentrically and presented
electroactive areas of approximately 4 c­ m2 and 40 c­ m2,
respectively. The solution was stirred using a magnetic bar.
All the electrical connections were made using wires with
banana connectors and alligator clips. Universal support
and clamps were used to fix the electrodes in position.
Figure 1a shows a schematic representation of the entire
system. Figure 1b shows a photograph of the cathode and
anode employed in the experiments. The approximate
costs of the materials used to construct the experimental
system are provided in Table 1.

Experimental

Construction of the experimental apparatus Table 1  Approximate costs of the hardware used in the experimental
arrangement
All the experiments were performed using a setup con- Material Cost
structed using low-cost materials and simple laboratory
2 A/5 V power supply US$ 5.00/unit
equipment. A 5 V power supply was used, with a maxi-
10 Ω/5 W resistor US$ 0.25/unit
mum output of 2 A. A resistor (10 Ω, 5 W) connected
Digital multimeters US$ 5.00/unit
in series with an electrochemical cell was used to per-
Banana connectors US$ 0.50/unit
form a potential drop in the system, maintaining Ecell and
Alligator clips US$ 0.50/unit
I at around 2.0 V and 0.26 A, respectively. The meas-
Flexible electrical wire US$ 0.15/m
urements of Ecell and I employed two digital multimeters
DSA® (Ti/TiO2/RuO2) US$ 0.12/cm2
operating as potentiometer and amperometer, respectively.
Ni–Cr alloy wire US$ 0.15/m
The electrolyses were carried out in a 50 mL beaker. A

Fig. 1  a Schematic illustration of the experimental system and b photograph of the ­DSA® anode and the Ni–Cr alloy cathode used for Cu elec-
trodeposition

13

Chemicals
The analytical grade chemicals used were C
­ uSO4·5H2O
(Synth), ­H NO 3 (Neon, 65%), urea (Synth), ­N H 3 (aq)
(Macron, 28–30%), and acetone (Synth).
Hazards
The ­HNO3 and N ­ H3, extensively used in this experiment, are
very toxic, corrosive, and irritant to eyes, skin, and mucous
membrane. Besides, these compounds are volatile and must
be handled inside a fume hood and wear appropriate per-
sonal protective equipment such as lab coat, safety glasses,
and gloves. Also, both compounds must be slowly added to
water, because its solubilization releases considerable heat,
which can produce violent ebullition and spatters. Urea and
­CuSO4⋅5H2O also need to be handled using appropriate
safety equipment and extra caution must be taken because
of the high flammability of acetone. The solution generated
by the dissolution of samples (commercial scrap Cu alloy)
may contain heavy metals, such as Pb, very dangerous to
human health. Finally, all chemical residues produced during
the experiment should be disposed of properly.
Experimental procedure
Firstly, 10.00 mL of 6.184 g ­L−1 Cu solution (previously
standardized with EDTA, as described by Vogel and Jeffery
1989 and 25 mL of water were added to the electrolysis
container. Next, 5 mL of concentrated ­HNO3 was slowly
added to the same container. The H ­ NO3 added could have
contained ­NO2− species capable of completely hindering the
Cu deposition, so 0.1 g of urea was added to the solution, to
avoid this interference (Vogel and Jeffery 1989):
2NO−2 (aq) + 2H+ (aq) + CO NH2 2 (aq)
( )
⇌ 2N2 (g) + CO2 (g) + 3H2 O(aq). (4)
Before starting the electrolysis process, the cathode
was washed with deionized water and acetone, dried at
100 °C for 5 min, and allowed to cool to room tempera-
ture. Finally, the cathode was precisely weighed (in trip-
licate). The experimental arrangement (shown in Fig. 1a)
was assembled, with the attachment of the cathode to a
negative terminal and the anode to a positive terminal,
avoiding contact between cathode and anode. To achieve
hydrodynamics conditions requested by the electrolysis
process, the flow of electroactive species to the electrodes
was kept constant by the magnetic stirring of the solu-
tion. So, after placing the solution under stirring the power
13
Chemical Papers
supply was switched on. During the electrolysis, the Ecell
and I values were recorded at 5 min intervals, between
0 and 20 min, followed by six further measurements at
10 min intervals, up to 60 min. After 60 min, the total
depletion of Cu was tested by adding 2−3 drops of the
electrolyzed solution to a test tube, together with 1−2 mL
of concentrated ­NH3(aq). The formation of a blue color
indicated that the process should be continued, while the
absence of color indicated completion of the electrolysis.
Finally, the cathode and anode were removed from the
solution and washed with deionized water, before switch-
ing off the power source. The cathode was rinsed with
acetone, dried at 100 °C for 5 min, and allowed to cool
at room temperature, prior to weighing. The difference
between the initial and final masses corresponded to the
quantity of Cu deposited. The method was applied for the
quantification of Cu in commercial alloy samples. Samples
of 0.10−0.15 g were precisely weighed and transferred
to beakers of 50 mL, followed by the addition of 1 mL
of deionized water and careful addition of 2 mL of con-
centrated ­H NO 3. After 10−15 min, the dissolution was
stopped and the resulting solution was diluted using 10 mL
of deionized water. The sample solution was then treated
with concentrated ­NH3(aq) (4−5 mL), added slowly and
carefully, in small aliquots, until no more precipitate was
observed, ensuring quantitative precipitation. The precipi-
tate was separated from the solution by simple filtration
using a quantitative filter paper and was washed several
times with small volumes of 5% (V/V) aqueous ­NH3 solu-
tion until no more blue color was observed in the paper
filter and the retained material. Finally, 5−8 mL of con-
centrated ­H NO 3 was added slowly and carefully to the
filtrate collected in the beaker of 50 mL, until the solution
acquired a pale blue color again. Before starting the elec-
trolysis, 0.1 g of urea was added to the beaker contain-
ing the sample solution. The same procedure described
above was performed and the mass of deposited Cu was
determined as the difference between the cathode masses,
before and after the electrolysis.
At the end of each electrolysis, the Cu deposit was
removed from the cathode surface by immersion in 50%
(V/V) ­HNO3 for 5 min. The cathode was then washed with
deionized water and acetone, placed to dry at 100 °C, and
cooled to room temperature. This procedure enabled the
cathode to be reused several times (all 18 experiments
presented in this paper were performed using a single elec-
trogravimetric system).
As supplementary material, a video of an experiment
was produced to help the implementation of this experi-
ment in an undergraduate chemistry class.
Chemical Papers
Results and discussion
Experimental arrangement testing and optimization
To test the system, the electrogravimetric method was applied
using a standard solution of C ­ uSO4·5H2O (previously stand-
ardized using EDTA, as mentioned above).
A Ni–Cr coil was used as the cathode, offering the advan-
tages of being cheap and highly resistant to corrosion, even
when exposed to acids at high concentrations. The results of
semi-quantitative EDS analysis of the Ni–Cr wire used as the
cathode are provided in the Electronic Supplementary Mate-
rial. The elements Ni, Cr, and Si were detected at weight per-
centages of 77.2, 21.3, and 1.5%, respectively.
The performance of the proposed system with a D ­ SA®
anode was compared with the use of graphite and pencil lead.
Both carbonaceous electrodes showed substantial erosion
caused by the release of ­O2, while the D­ SA® showed better
mechanical resistance to the anodic reaction. For this rea-
son, the ­DSA® was adopted as the anode in the experimental
arrangement.
The anodic reaction that occurs on ­DSA® electrode is the
oxidation of water:
2H2 O(l) ⇌ 4 H+ (aq) + O2 (g) + 4 e− (5)
while on Ni–Cr electrode two cathodic reaction occurs, the
reduction of nitrate ions mentioned in Eq. 4, and the deposi-
tion of copper according to:
Cu2+ (aq) + 2e− ⇌ Cu(s). (6)
Fig. 2  a Potential and current
profiles for Cu electrodeposi-
tion, and b photograph of the
Ni–Cr alloy cathode covered by
a metallic Cu deposit, obtained
at the end of 60 min of elec-
trolysis
The global reaction for the electrolysis process, considering
the two cathodic reaction, is:
2Cu2+ (aq) + 2NO−3 (aq) + 4H2 O(aq) ⇌ 2NH+4 (aq) + 5O2 (g) + 2Cu(s).
(7)
For experiments conducted using 6.184  g L ­ −1
­CuSO4·5H2O aqueous solution, the expected mass of the
Cu deposition was maintained between 50 and 100 mg. In
this range, the mass could be easily determined to at least
3 decimal places, using the analytical balances widely
available in chemistry laboratories.
The simple electrical components (power supply and
electrical resistance) that composed the experimental setup
maintained Ecell at around 2.0 V, while I was fixed at 0.26
A. The potential and current profiles obtained during the
electrodeposition are presented in Fig. 2a, by convention
in an electrolytic cell Ecell is negative. While I present a
variation of 0.01 A during the experiment, Ecell presents a
sharp shift to more negative values in the beginning and
remaining constant after passed half of the electrolysis
time. The I variation probably is the result of a simple
electronic circuit, as presented in the experimental sec-
tion, used to control the applied I. On the other hand,
E cell varies as a consequence of the ­C u 2+ consumed by
the cathode reaction. The depletion of copper in the solu-
tion affects the cathode equilibrium potential and the sum
of cathode overpotential, respectively represented by EC
and ηC in Eq. 1. According to the Nernst equation, if the
concentration of ­C u 2+ is reduced to 0.1% of the initial
value, EC shifts 0.088 V to more negative values. But, the
major contribution to E cell variation is a consequence of
13
 Chemical Papers

concentration overpotential (ηconc) on the cathode, that is Applying experimental setup analyzing commercial
proportional to a logarithmic term as following: scrap Cu alloy waste
[ ( )]
I After the optimization of all the parameters, the proposed
𝜂conc ∝ log 1 − (8)
Id method was applied for the determination of Cu in com-
mercial waste copper alloy samples obtained from scrap
materials. This type of alloy contains copper as the main
Id is defined as diffusional limiting current and this term
component, at percentages ranging from 55 to 95% (Oberg
is proportional to the bulk concentration of electroactive
and Jones 2004). Other elements present include Zn, Fe,
species involved in electrode reaction, in this case, ­Cu2+.
Pb, Al, Ni, Mn, Sn, Pb, Si, Be, and P (Oberg and Jones
As ­Cu2+ is consumed Id decreases, the logarithmic term
2004).
and η conc become more negative, consequently shifting
If there are two cations in the solution with deposition
Ecell also to more negative values.
potential differing about 0.25 V the cation with higher depo-
For all experiments, the electrolysis time was fixed at
sition potential can be deposited without causing contami-
60 min, sufficient time to obtain a deposit of 100 mg of
nation. (Vogel and Jeffery 1989). So, the presence of ­Zn2+
Cu, with faradaic efficiency of 33%, considering I = 0.26
did not interfere in the ­Cu2+ reduction process on the cath-
A. According to Faraday’s law (Eq. 2), to deposit 100 mg
ode, since there is a large difference between the reduction
of Cu are necessary 306 C and the total charge used in
potentials of ­Cu2+(Eo ­(Cu2+/Cu) = 0.3419 V) (Lide 2007)
the experiment was 936 C (0.26 A × 60 min × 60 s min−1),
and ­Zn2+ ­(Eo ­(Zn2+/Zn) =  − 0.7618 V) (Lide 2007). How-
the ratio between this charges multiply by 100% is
ever, ­Sn4+(Eo ­(Sn4+/Sn2+) = 0.151 V) and ­Fe3+ ­(Eo ­(Fe3+/
equal to faradaic efficiency cited above ((306 C/936
Fe2+) = 0.771 V) (Lide 2007) could interfere in the Cu elec-
C) × 100% = 33%).
trodeposition (Vogel and Jeffery 1989), since the reduction
The efficiency of the method was evaluated by deter-
potentials are closer, such as the S­ n4+, or higher, such as
mination of the electrogravimetric yield (Y), obtained 3+
­Fe . Therefore, the sample should be previously treated
by comparing the expected theoretical mass (mt) and the
to remove these elements, before proceeding with the elec-
weighted mass of the deposit (me) obtained at the end of
trolysis. Si and P are also potential interferents, although
60 min of electrolysis, expressed as a percentage. The
these elements are present in low amounts (around 1−4% for
results are presented in Table 2.
Si and trace concentrations for P) (Oberg and Jones 2004).
The Y values obtained were between 96.7 and 99.1%,
To decrease these interferences, the alloy was treated with
suggesting that the Cu metal could be satisfactorily quanti-
­NH3(aq), maintaining the pH at around 10−12, so that the
fied by electrogravimetry. The proposed method presented
interferents were precipitated as hydroxides, in accordance
a relative standard deviation of ± 0.9%, indicating that the
with their solubility products (Kps) (Skoog et al. 2004; Lide
Ni–Cr cathode could be used as an excellent alternative
2007), with the exception of Zn, which was solubilized in
for the determination of Cu by electrogravimetric analysis.
the form of [Zn(OH)4]2− (Vogel 1979). At high pH in an
It should also be highlighted that the Cu deposit obtained
ammoniacal medium, Zn and Cu are solubilized as the com-
on the Ni–Cr cathode presented satisfactory adherence
plexes [Zn(NH3)4]2+ and [Cu(NH3)4]2+ (Vogel 1979). Under
and homogeneity, as shown in Fig. 2b. These character-
the conditions employed, only Cu and Zn were maintained
istics are crucial for achieving good performance in elec-
in solution, so they could be separated from the other ele-
trogravimetric analysis (Vogel and Jeffery 1989; Skoog
ments by simple filtration. Cu could then be recovered by
et al. 2004).
electrogravimetry, without the interference of Zn, due to the
different reduction potentials.
Qualitative analysis of the Cu alloy used as a sample in
Table 2  Results for the electrodeposition of Cu from aqueous solu- this experiment showed the presence of Cu, Sn, Pb, and Zn
­ −1)
tions (6.184 g L
(see Electronic Supplementary Material). Therefore, a sim-
Exp mta/ mg meb/ mg Y/% Ym ± sd/% ple precipitation procedure using concentrated ammonia
solution was performed, enabling removal of the interfer-
1 61.84 60.4 97.7 97.3 ± 0.9
ents Sn (precipitated as Sn(OH)2) and Pb (precipitated as
2 61.84 59.8 96.7
Pb(OH)2/PbO) (Vogel 1979), while Zn did not interfere in
3 61.84 59.9 96.9
the electrogravimetric determination of Cu. Alloy masses
4 61.84 61.9 98.8
from 90 to 150 mg yielded Cu deposits with masses from
5 61.84 61.3 99.1
50 to 90 mg (Table 3). The mass percentage of Cu (x(Cu))
6 61.84 60.2 97.3
in the sample was calculated using the Eq. 9.
7 61.84 60.2 97.3

13
Chemical Papers

Table 3  Cu electrodeposition results obtained using the alloy samples Conclusions

Sample ms/mg mCu/mg x(Cu)/% x(Cu)m ± sd/%
The findings indicated that Cu could be easily and economi-
1 91.2 53.9 59.1 58.6 ± 0.8 cally determined by electrogravimetry, using a D­ SA® anode
2 91.1 53.5 58.7 and Ni–Cr alloy as the cathode, substituting the platinum
3 124.5 73.3 58.9 electrodes commonly used in electrogravimetry. Using this
4 107.7 62.9 58.4 arrangement, excellent results of electrogravimetric yield
5 141.2 81.5 57.7 were obtained for the Cu analysis from a standard solution
6 123.5 71.5 57.9 (96.7−99.1%). The method was successfully applied for the
7 152.5 89.4 58.6 determination of Cu in alloy samples, with the procedure
8 130.1 76.3 58.6 being shown to be simple, precise, and economical. The
results were in good agreement with the values obtained
by a comparative method (NIR spectrophotometry). The
simplicity and low cost of the proposed method enable it to
( )
mCu
x(Cu) = ⋅ 100 %. (9) be recommended for use as an experiment in undergradu-
ms
ate chemistry courses with limited resources, as well as in
mCu is the mass of the Cu deposit and ms is the mass of experimental classes focused on electrogravimetry.
the alloy sample. The values obtained for the Cu present
in the alloy varied from 57.7 to 59.1%, with an average of Acknowledgements  The authors are grateful for the support pro-
58.6 ± 0.5%. The results obtained using the Ni–Cr cathode vided by FAPESP (#2017/12790-7 and #2018/22393-8), the National
Institute of Alternative Technologies for Detection, Toxicological
showed sufficient precision for the analysis of Cu in alloy Evaluation and Removal of Micropollutants and Radioactivies (INCT-
samples. DATREM) (FAPESP: #2014/50945-4, CNPq #465571/2014-0 and
The method was checked by comparing the electro- Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—
gravimetric results for the mass percentages of Cu in the CAPES: #88887136426/2017/00) and IQ-UNESP (Araraquara).
alloy samples with the values obtained using near-infrared
(NIR) spectrophotometry as a reference method (measuring
the absorbance of the Cu solution at 800 nm). The mean References
x(Cu) value obtained by the spectrophotometric method was
DeFord DD, Bowers RC (1958) Electroanalysis and coulometric. Anal
59.4 ± 1.7%. The Cu spectra and the analytical curve used to Chem 30(4):613–619
determine Cu in the alloy samples are provided in the Elec- Dudek E (1977) Copper(II) aspirinate project for the general chem-
tronic Supplementary Material, together with experimental istry laboratory. J Chem Educ 54:329. https​://doi.org/10.1021/
information about the method. ed054​p329
Finazzi GA, Martins CN, Capelato MD, Ferreira LH (2015) Devel-
The x(Cu) values obtained by the electrogravimetric and opment of low-cost teaching electrogravimetry experiments
spectrophotometric methods were in good agreement. The using the principles of green chemistry. Quím Nova. https​://doi.
calculated value of t (tcalc = 1.25) was smaller than the tabu- org/10.5935/0100-4042.20150​149
lated value (ttab = 2.26), indicating that there was no signifi- Lide DR (2007) CRC handbook of chemistry and physics, 88th edn.
Taylor & Francis, Milton Park
cant difference (at the 95% confidence level) between the Oberg E, Jones FD (2004) Machinery’s Handbook. Guide to Machin-
values determined using the two methods. These results ery’s Handbook, vol 27. Industrial Press, New York
demonstrated that the proposed electrogravimetric method Owen JF, Patterson CS, Rice GS (1983) Electrogravimetric determina-
using inexpensive materials was efficient, simple, low cost, tion of cobalt, nickel, and copper in presence of chloride ion. Anal
Chem 55:990–992. https​://doi.org/10.1021/ac002​57a04​9
and provided satisfactory precision. Therefore, the technique Parker RH (2011) An inexpensive electrodeposition device and Its
could be considered a suitable option for the determination use in a quantitative analysis laboratory exercise. J Chem Educ
of Cu in alloy samples. Furthermore, the simplicity of the 88:1428–1430. https​://doi.org/10.1021/ed101​202t
experimental procedure would enable the application of this Skoog DA, West DM, Crouch SR, Holler FJ (2004) Fundamentals of
analytical chemistry. Thomson-Brooks/Cole, Three Lakes
method in any undergraduate chemistry course, providing Stock JT (1989) Electrochemistry in retrospect: an overview. In: Stock
practical experience to improve the students’ understanding JT, Orna MV (eds) Electrochemistry, past and present. American
of the concepts of electrogravimetric analysis. Chemical Society, Washington, pp 1–17
Szabadvary F (1964) Wolcott Gibbs and the centenary of electro-
gravimetry. J Chem Educ 41:666. https​://doi.org/10.1021/ed041​
p666
Trasatti S (2000) Electrocatalysis: understanding the success of D­ SA®.
Electrochim Acta 45:2377–2385. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0013​
-4686(00)00338​-8

13
 Chemical Papers

Vogel AI (1979) Vogel’s textbook of macro and semimicro qualitative Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
inorganic analysis. Longman, London jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Vogel AI, Jeffery GH (1989) Vogel’s textbook of quantitative chemical
analysis. Longman Scientific & Technical, London

Affiliations

João Pedro Silva1   · Kallyni Irikura1 · Maria Valnice Boldrin Zanoni1 · Paulo Clairmont F. Lima Gomes1

* João Pedro Silva Institute of Chemistry, UNESP, P.O. Box 355, Araraquara,

joao.p.silva@unesp.br SP 14800‑900, Brazil
1
Unesp, National Institute for Alternative Technologies
of Detection, Toxicological Evaluation and Removal
of Micropollutants and Radioactives (INCT‑DATREM),

13