Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Candidate Number:
Subject : Chemistry
Introduction :
Qualitative chemical analysis, a branch of chemistry that deals with the identification of
can be applied to various types of testing, the focus here is on salts. Salts, which consist of
ions (both cations and anions), are substances crucial for qualitative analysis. An ion is an
atom or molecule carrying a net electrical charge, with cations being positively charged and
anions negatively charged. For instance, potassium is a cation, while oxygen is an anion.
Cations have more protons than electrons, whereas anions have more electrons than
protons. Similarly, monoatomic ions, formed from a single atom (e.g., Na^+), and polyatomic
ions, composed of multiple atoms covalently bonded (e.g., NH4^+), are key to qualitative
analysis. The difference lies in their composition and charge source, with monoatomic ions
consisting of a single atom and polyatomic ions comprising multiple atoms bonded together.
While both types carry charges, monoatomic ions result from a single atom's loss or gain of
electrons, while polyatomic ions derive their charge from an overall electron imbalance.
Differentiating between salts involves various tests, including solubility tests in solutions like
NaOH and NH3, observing colour changes, ion precipitation, conducting flame tests on
metals, and noting gas evolution, all of which indicate specific ion presence. Salts are
typically formed through neutralisation reactions, wherein all H^+ ions from an acid are
replaced by a metal or ammonia. Examples of salts include NaCl, CaCO3, KNO3, and
MgSO4.
solution , NaOH solution and HNO3 Stirring rod, dropper, test tube rack, beakers pipette
Procedure:
2. Five grams of white solids from each container were measured and placed into test
3. A 10 cm³ of 0.1M HNO₃ solution was prepared in a test tube and poured into test
tube A.
4. 10 cm³ of 0.1M NH₃ solution was prepared in one test tube, and 10 cm³ of 0.1M
5. 10 cm³ of the solution from Test Tube A was taken, and 5 cm³ of it was added into
6. Using a pipette, 2 cm³ of 0.1M NH₃ solution was added to Test Tube 1, and 2 cm³ of
7. Each mixture was stirred, and changes such as the formation of precipitates and
8. For Test Tube 2 (NaOH variant), 0.1M NaOH was slowly added drop by drop until a
drop until excess, noting if the precipitate dissolved or remained unchanged even
10. For Test Tube 1 (NH₃ variant), 0.1M NH₃ was slowly added drop by drop until a
11. Observations were recorded, and 0.1M NH₃ was continued to be added drop by drop
until excess, noting if the precipitate dissolved or remained unchanged even after
12. Steps 2-11 were repeated with the other solids from Test Tubes B and C.
13. Two drops of 0.1M potassium iodide (KI) were added to each solution in the labelled
test tubes.
16. Observations were compared between Test Tubes A, B, and C, and the results were
tabulated.
Table showing the results of each sample in NaOH and NH3 dropwise, as well as in excess,
sample in metal ion excess in metal ion excess (NH3) colour when
(NaOH)
White Soluble in White Insoluble in Yellow orange
formed formed
insoluble in
excess
B White Insoluble in No No No
change
Discussion:
In the qualitative analysis conducted, each test was aimed at identifying the unknown solids based on
their distinct reactions. Upon the addition of aqueous sodium hydroxide, white precipitates were
anticipated to form in all test tubes. In tube A, assumed to contain calcium carbonate, the observed
precipitate of calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)₂). The precipitate remained insoluble in excess sodium
hydroxide, indicative of calcium's insolubility. The solution color remained unchanged. Conversely,
in tubes B and C, containing lead and zinc carbonates respectively, the reactions were: PbCO ₃(s) +
Na₂CO₃(aq). These reactions yielded white precipitates of lead(II) hydroxide (Pb(OH) ₂) and zinc
hydroxide (Zn(OH)₂), respectively. However, in tube B, the white precipitate dissolved in excess
sodium hydroxide. Further confirmation of lead in tube B was conducted by introducing potassium
iodide, resulting in the formation of a yellow precipitate of lead(II) iodide: Pb(OH) ₂(s) + 2KI(aq) →
PbI₂(s) ↓ + 2KOH(aq). Subsequently, ammonia was added to tube B, confirming the presence of lead
with a white precipitate remaining insoluble in excess, characteristic of lead: PbI ₂(s) + 2NH ₄OH(aq)
→ Pb(OH)₂(s) ↓ + 2NH₄I(aq). Conversely, the absence of a precipitate in tube A during the ammonia
test aligned with the expected calcium composition. In tube C, zinc carbonate was expected to form a
precipitate with ammonia, dissolving in excess due to the solubility of zinc: Zn(OH) ₂(s) +
identify the unknown solids based on their distinctive reactions calcium carbonate being sample A
Reflection :
This lab has given me great insight into qualitative analysis, which, in turn, will aid in my
venture into the field of forensic science. In forensics, qualitative analysis is applied to
pinpoint different substances at a crime scene. For example, the mere presence of a
offence. These unknown substances may be powders, liquids, or residues, which, when
tested with qualitative analysis, provide important evidence to either support or terminate
suspicions of criminal activity. On a personal level, this lab has given me a fresh appreciation
for both forensic science and qualitative analysis. From this new knowledge and
came with a revelation on how to improve the test through the use of flame testing, which will
Source of error
Possible impurities within the solid samples may affect precipitate colour or alter solubility
Precautions: 1/1
To prevent confusion, each container and test tube (labelled A, B, and C) were used with
care to ensure accurate identification of the solids and avoid any potential mix-ups.
Limitation;
Lack of control of external factors such as temperature , atmospheric pressure and humidity
Conclusion:
the unknown solids based on their distinctive reactions are calcium carbonate being sample
A lead(II) carbonate being sample B (B), and zinc carbonate being sample C (C)