Garner 1

Spectrophotometric, Potentiometric and Theoretic Methods to Determine the pH of Bromocresol

Green
By: Matthew Garner

This experiment aim eds to measure the pH

of a buffer solution in various ways. The spectrophotometric method
of
colorimetric indicator bromocresol green with indirect, and direct methodology . The determined
pH from the UV- Vvis spectrophotometric method was 4.47±0.02, the p Potentiometric was
4.25±0.02 ,and the theoretical was 4.58.
[What was accomplished? Findings as a result of the calculated pH.]

Introduction: Both pH and pKa are essential in understanding the physical aspects in our everyday
life. Accurate and precise determination of pH aids in the understanding of allows us to understand
our the physical world, such as maintaining the safety of common activities.
but allows us to enjoy common activities and make use of everyday materials that would otherwise be impossible t
For example, swimming pools, cooking food, hygiene supplies, cleaning supplies, color on a
shirt, or sine on a car bumper. There are so many examples where were pH plays a vital role
, far more to list.
The pH scale is one that is used to rank the relative basicity or acidity of substances
, this
. Which is directly related to based on the concentration of hydrogen ion s (H+) activity in a
solution substance . A digital pH meters only job, only purpose is to measure the
concentration activity of hydrogen. Which will outperform any other instrumentation in this report.
Any disturbance in the concentration of [H +] activity could potentially have
detrimental effects
detrimental deleterious effects on the whole system. For example, exposing fish to to
conditions that are slightly more acidic then equilibrium causes a whole host of problems.
Within within just a few days of exposure they develop disturbances in hematology, fluid volume
distribution and circulatory function5. Understanding the important role pH plays in our
environment needs to be continually investigated and analyzed. The analysis of pH begins with the
logarithmic scale values of acidity, basicity, neutral. Then understand how pH and pKa relates to the
concentrations of dissociated acid [A−] and non-dissociated acid [HA]. This relationship is
expressed by the Henderson-Hasselbalch (H.H) equation
which is used when determining the pH of a buffer
(1)

( 1 ) pH = pKa+ log log ¿

Where pH is the acidity or basicity, pK a is the negative log of the acid dissociation constant, [A -] and
[HA] are the concentrations of the acid and conjugate base in question. pKa is generally considered
the dissociation constant yet there are some things to consider that affecteffect the magnitude of
the dissociation. Henderson-Hasselbalch only results in accuracy when there is dilute concentration
in aqueous solutions, or if the instrumentation used for analysis detects for a certain parameter
constraint, resulting in a coefficient needed for an accurate pKa value. The pKa dissociation can
depend on temperature (T), ionic strength ( µ), and dielectric constant(ε). Each one of these
individually or in a combination affecteffect the activity of dissociation. This experiment we will
need to take the ionic strength into account by equation (2). And will also require a modification to
 Garner 2

the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation to account for the activity coefficient(γ), which is a function of
ionic strength (µ)
❑
1
( 2 ) µ= ∑
2 i
cz
2

where (z) is charge, (μ) is ionic strength of the solution, (α) is the hydrated ionic radius in
nanometers (nm), and (c) is the concentration of an ion. The ionic strength is needed to solve d for
with the Debye-Hȕckel Limiting Law Equation (3), and combined with equation (1) resulting in a
new extended Henderson-Hasselbalch in Equation (4) which now accounts for ionic strength
activity. This requires a modification to the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation account for the
activity coefficient(γ), which is a function of ionic strength ( µ)

( 3 ) logγ=−0.51 ¿ ¿

( 4 ) pH = pKa+ ¿ < include gamma

The purpose of this experiment is to determine the unknown pH of the

colorimetric colormetric indicator Bromocresol Green (BCG). Then compare and analyze the
accuracy, precision, and uncertainty with each method. The determination of the pH was carried
out in 3 different ways, theoretical, potentiometric, and spectrophotometric. The theoretical value
can be easily calculated by using literature Ka and pKa vales instead of experimental values. BCG is
a colorimetric indicator that in its acidic form it will appear yellow in color. Whereas, when it is in
its basic form it will appear blue in color. BCG is also a weak acid (Hln-) that easily dissociates into
its weak base (ln2-), with a literature values of pKa=476 and Ka = 1.6x 10 -5. The equilibrium
expression is shown in equation (5).
2−¿ ¿

( 5 ) H l n ↔ H +¿+ ln ¿

The potentiometric analysis method is a direct method approach uses three principal
sources for the electro-analytical signal: potential, current, and charge. The approach used in this
lab exercise is a measurement of a difference or change in potential. A potential difference is
developed across the two surfaces of the glass bulb, and very sensitive to [H+]. When dipped in
aqueous solution, the hydrogen ions in the solution will move toward the glass electrode. This will
cause a tiny voltage difference across the glass blub, voltage is picked up by the silver wire and
passed to the voltmeter. The voltmeter will amplify and change the voltage value into a pH value.
(Figure I)2.
Low Voltage
Power Supply

pH Buffer Summin Microcontrolle Display

Electrod Circuit g

Reference
Voltage
FIGURE SEQ FIGURE \* ARABIC 1: DIGITAL POTENTIOMETRIC DIAGRAM
 Garner 3

The pH electrode was calibrated, rinsed with di-H 2O, and dried without touching the glass bulb,
before, between ab after all measurements were taken.

The indirect approach of this experiment uses UV-spectrometer to analyze the absorbance
spectra. A beam of light is directed incident to a sample solution. The light will pass through a
monochromator filter then through the sample where some of the light is absorbed. The absorbed
light passes through the CCD detector and then output reads out absorbance vs wavelength (Figure
2).

Light Source Sample

Monochromator CCD Output
(Xenon Lamp)
Detector
FIGURE SEQ FIGURE \* ARABIC 2 UV-VIS SPECTROMETER (

Beers law governs the relationship between absorbance and concentration in equation (6). The
results are plotted and display a linear regression fit as a function of the analytes concentration.
Whereas, if there are several species of interest Beers law becomes additive in equation (7)

( 6 ) A=εlc

( 7 ) Atot = A 1+ A 2 … ….. An

Where A is the absorption spectra, l is the path length, and ε is the extinction coefficient. The UV-
spectrum of [Hln] and [ln2-] will produce two distinct wavelengths maxima. One wavelength for the
acidic form and one for the basic form. Beers law equation (6) and record values of the two spectra,
each at the maximum. When the sample is ran in its fully acidic form of (Hln -) it has a distinct
wavelength λ1. When BCG is completely converted to its basic form (ln 2-) it also has a distinct
wavelength λ 2. By applying Beers law we have two expressions, one for the acidic (8), and one for
the basic (9)

( 8 ) A λ1=ε Hln b ¿

( 9 ) A λ2=ε ln b ¿

The total concentration (Cttot) of BCG can be expressed as the sum of both the acidic parts and the
basic parts in equation (10)

( 10 ) Ctot =¿

When BCG is observed and measured to be completely in its acidic state the total concentration will
be acidic in equation (11). In contrast when BCG is observed and measured to be completely in its
basic state the total concentration will be basic in equation (12)

( 11 ) C tot =¿

(12)C tot =[ l n−2 ]

 Garner 4

Substitute equation (11) into equation (8) making a new equation (13). And also, substitute
equation (12) into equation(9) making a new equation (14)

( 13 ) A λ1 acid =ε Hln b Ctot

( 14 )= A λ2 basic =ε ln b C tot

Where A λ1 acid is at the most acidic [Hln] form of BCG with a measured wavenumber λ 1 . The ratios
of equation (8) and equation (13) yields equation (15).

( 15 ) A λ1=ε Hln λ 1 b ¿ ¿

¿ A λ1=¿ ¿

Likewise, when A λ2 basic is at the most basic [ln2-] form of BCG with a measured wavenumber λ2 .
The ratios of equation (9) and equation (12) yields equation (16).

( 16 ) A λ2=ε ln b ¿ ¿

¿ A λ2=¿ ¿

The ratio of basic components to acid components can be determined by dividing, equation (16)
with equation (15). Or similarly by taking the reciprocal of one and multiplying it with the other.
[Hln]/[ln2-] is equation (18)

( 18 ) ¿ ¿

To use formula (18) for any point on the curve as long as the absorbances used in the equation are
background corrected. This correction accounts for contributions of the absorbance of other
species in solution to the absorbance at λ1 and λ2. Where the spectra overlap subtract the species
you are interested in from the one you want to measure. If you don’t want to go through that
subtraction step, the extinction coefficient will have to be calculated, or you can use equation (19)

( 19 ) ¿ ¿

he two actual instrumental measurements taken was the potentiometric, and spectrophotometric
for pH analysis. Determining pH is vital in determining the relative health of any living thing. If the
pH is off, there most certainly health consequences. The cheapest, fastest, most accurate, and
precise would be needed to measure the pH of surrounding water sheds and rivers.

Materials/Methods: The materials gathered from the PSU stock room are a standard premade
buffer, 1.0 x 10-4 M Bromocresol Green, 0.10 M HCl, and 0.10 M NaOH. Two instruments were
supplied by PSU; a WPA Biowave II, and Oakton5+ digital pH meter

10 mL portions of 1.0 x 10-4 M Bromocresol Green(G) was added to 3 separate 100 mL

flasks and labeled (A,B,G,). An addition of 25 mL of 0.10 M HCl (A), 25 mL of 0.10 M NaOH (B), and
25 mL of the pre-made buffer stock (G). was added to each of the corresponding labeled flask. All
 Garner 5

three of the solutions were diluted to total volume of 50 mL with di-H 2O and mixed thoroughly by
swirling, stirring with a clean glass stir rod, and inverting fallowed by drying the neck until they had
homogeneous consistency. A full spectrum blank scan was performed with di-H 20. Solutions (A)
and (B) were spectra analyzed and the maximum peak wavenumber is recorded. 3 mL portions of
solution (G) were pipette transferred to a rinsed and dry cuvette. The sample was spectroscopy
analyzed against the recorded value of (A), repeated 3x., then recorded against the value of (B),
repeated 3x. The 6 measurements were recorded, molar absorptivity, average, uncertainty
calculated, and concentrations, pH determined.

. An Oakton5+ digital pH meter and probe was gathered and rinsed with di-H 2O and dried
without touching the glass bulb.. Then probe was calibrated with a 4-pH and a 10-pH calibration
standard. The remaining solution in flask (G) was gathered. This solution was measured 3x and
results recorded, averaged, uncertainty determined.. It is important to note that the electrode must
remain clean and free from cross contamination. Before and after each measurement applying the
cleaning procedure, which is explained at the beginning of this experiment. ,
 Garner 6

Results/Discussion: The indirect

approach using UV-Vis
spectrophotometry, and direct
approach using potentiometry were

successfully carried out. The indirect

method approach measured a multi-
FIGURE SEQ FIGURE \* ARABIC 3 SPECTRA OF IONIZED, UNIONIZED, component system that possesses two
AND BUFFER distinct absorption spectra. The full scan
2-
displayed a maxima wavelength of 444(nm) for [ln ], and 616(nm) [Hln]. The combined spectra is
shown below in figure(3). An average and uncertainty was determined in the three trial runs for
each [Hlm] and [ln2-] shown in the absorbance table. The [Hln] average was 0.003333 with STDEV
of 0.00057735 at 616 (nm) and average 0.199 with STDEV of .0.0015725 at 444(nm). The [ln 2-]
average was 0.45733333 with a STDEV of 0.002516 at 616(nm), and average of 0.024 with a
STDEV of 0.001 at 444(nm). The buffer indicator BCG average was 0.200667 with a STDEV of
0.002082 at 616(nm), and average of 0.120 with a STDEV of 0.001528 at 444(nm). (Figure 4). The
pH from the spectrophotometry analysis was calculated to be 4.47±0.02 at 95% confidence. The
pH of the sample using the pH probe was 4.25±0.02 at 95% confidence. The ionic strength was
calculated to be 0.05. Using equation (3) the activity coefficients were calculated 0.821 for buffer,
0.833 for acid and 0.499 for the base. The theoretical concentration was calculated at 4.58 and 4.56
at 95% confidence. The results and uncertainty are compiled in (Figure 5). The pH closest to the
theoretical value is the UV- spec _measurement. This is surprising and refutes my initial
hypothesis. I was considering there was more opportunity for error due to the multi-step process
using the instrument. The most common source of error and limitation to using UV-spectrum for
this type of analysis is limited to dilute solutions at concentrations < 0.01M. At higher
concentrations, the neighboring atoms electrostatically effect each other, thus skewing data results.
Other limitations include analyte and solvent reaction in cuvette, fluorescence or phosphorescence
of the sample, scattering of light due to particulates in the sample, and non-monochromatic
radiation, deviations can be minimized using a relatively flat part of the absorption spectrum such
as the maximum of an absorption band.3 The potentiometric had the most error associated with it.
The common sources associated with a large error in this experiment, are, probe cross-
contamination, miss labeled or adulterated calibration buffer, or probe short circuit. I would like to
see the experiment reran paying attention to the possible sources of error with the pH probe.

Method pH Error%

Theoret 4.56 n/a

 Garner 7

ic

Spec 4.47±0.02 1.9

Pot 4.25± 0.02 6.7

FIGURE 5: EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

FIGURE SEQ FIGURE \* ARABIC 4: ABSORBANCE DATA

Work Cited.

1.) Says:, D.,(2020, March 03). What Does pH Stand For And Mean? Retrieved January 18, 2021,
from https://sciencetrends.com/what-does-ph-stand-for-and-mean/

2.) Mettler-Toledo International Inc. all rights reserved. (2020, July 10). PH Measurement
Theory Guide. Retrieved January 18, 2021, from
https://www.mt.com/in/en/home/library/guides/lab-analytical-instruments/pH-Theory-
Guide.html

3.) Sivakumar, T. C. (1980). Instrumental methods of analysis: A laboratory manual. Madras:

Indian Istitute of Technology Chemical Engineering Education Development Centre.

4.) Mettler-Toledo International Inc. all rights reserved. (2020, July 10). PH Measurement
Theory Guide. Retrieved January 18, 2021, from
https://www.mt.com/in/en/home/library/guides/lab-analytical-instruments/pH-Theory-
Guide.html
5.) Skoog, D. A., Holler, F. J., & Crouch, S. R. (2007). Principles of instrumental analysis.
Belmont: Brooks/Cole.