INSTRUCTIONS: Read the case study of Lavoisier’s Oxygen Theory of Burning carefully and answer the following

questions comprehensively. (50 points)

LAVOISIER’S OXYGEN THEORY OF BURNING: A CASE STUDY
Up to the 18th Century, people believe that the substances which readily burned contained a sort of spirit called
“Phlogiston”, which escaped into the air during burning. This belief then called the phlogiston theory of burning, lasted
for many years. Joseph Priestley, an English clergyman and amateur scientist believed in it.
In 1774 Priestley, using a lens, focused the sun’s rays on mercuric oxide, a strange gas was formed. He continued
experimenting with mercuric oxide, and collected the gas that was evolved from it when heated strongly. He observed
that the candle burned brightly in the presence of unknown gas. And felt wonderful light when he inhaled
some of the gas. Thus, he described it as perfect air or very active air.
Sometimes later, Priestley, visited a friend, Antoine Lavoisier, a brilliant French chemist told Lavoisier his discovery.
Lavoisier pondered over Priestley’s discovery for months. He wondered why the red gave off gas when heated… how
it got gas in the first place. He asked himself: what really happens when a substance burns-does it give off something
(phlogiston theory of burning), or does it combine with something from the air? If something is given off, then it would
mean a decrease with mass after burning. If something from the air combines with a substance during burning, then it
would mean an increase in the mass after burning. He suspected that the latter was probably the case. He tested his
hypothesis. He reproduced Priestley’s experiment under more carefully controlled conditions (quantitative
observations rather than qualitative observations only).
Lavoisier put mercury into a glass vessel, and sealed it. He weighed the vessel and its contents, then applied heat
to it. A red powder soon appeared inside the vessel. He weighed the vessel again, then compared it before heating.
There was no change in mass. This is expected since the vessel was sealed. Nothing has entered or escaped from it
during heating.
When Lavoisier broke the glass seal, air rushed into the vessel. This phenomenon indicated that some of the air rushed
into the vessel must have been used up during the heating process and left space for more air to enter. Lavoisier
assumed that part of the air in the vessel must have combined with mercury to form the red powder.
Lavoisier, however did not jumped into any hasty conclusion. He wanted more proofs. He continued the investigation
but, this time, he reversed the experiment. He put mercuric oxide in a vessel and heated it to a high temperature. He
found that a) the red powder was changed back into mercury, and b) a gas was released in the process. This was exactly
the same gas which priestly observed. Lavoisier finally concluded that this gas which he called oxygen, combines with
combustible materials when they burn. This is called oxygen theory of burning, which is now the accepted explanation
for burning.
1. In paragraph no.3 Priestly shared with Lavoisier his discovery of a “perfect air”. Which of the scientific traits did
Priestly exhibit in this paragraph? Choose one trait only. How is the trait used in science?
A. patience B. gratitude
C. open-mindedness D. acceptance of failure
- C. (Open- mindedness) – through an innovative thinking priestly gladly shared his discovery to Lavoisier. With open-
mindedness, the scientist breakthrough and uncover things and may follow the flow of their creative minds.

2. State the problem that Lavoisier decided to investigate.

- Lavoisier wants to know what will happen if he burns a substance, does it give of something, or does it combine
with something in the air?

13
3-4. State the Hypothesis (to answer the problem in no.2 above) by using the “if-then” statement.
"If [I do this] , then [this] will happen.
- If something from the air combines with a substance during burning,
- then it would mean an increase in the mass after burning.
5. Which paragraph described the experiment that Lavoisier performed to test his hypothesis? Give only the number
of the paragraph.
- In Paragraph 5

6. In paragraph number 6 why did air rush into the vessel when Lavoisier broke the glass seal?
- some of the air rushed into the vessel must have been used up during the heating process and left space for more
air to enter.
7. Which paragraph shows Lavoisier’s INTERPRETATION of his OBSERVATIONS. Give only the number of the
paragraph.
- In paragraph 7
8. What conclusion did Lavoisier draw from his investigation?
- Lavoisier finally concluded that this gas which he called oxygen, combines with combustible materials when
they burn. This is called oxygen theory of burning, which is now the accepted explanation for burning.

9. What trait did Lavoisier show in paragraph no.7? Choose one trait only. Why is the trait useful in scientific
investigations?
A. humility B. open-mindedness
C. acceptance of failure D. perseverance
- In paragraph 7, Lavoisier showed perseverance. He did his experiment slowly but with progress, he didn’t rush
the process and counter- checked the results of the experiment.
10. Draw an image of a fire triangle.

Heat

Chemical
Reaction

Oxygen Fuel

11. Explain the implication of the fire triangle.

- The Fire Triangle is a simple way of understanding the three elements a fire needs to ignite: each side of the
triangle represents one of the three ingredients “oxygen, heat, and fuel” demonstrating the interdependence of
these ingredients in creating and sustaining fire.
12. Present a chemical equation of combustion.

Fuel + O2 → CO2 + H2O

13. Identify the reactants based on the above chemical equation.
- It typically gives off heat and light as well.

14
14. Identify the products based on the above chemical equation.
- Fuel, dioxide, carbon dioxide, and Water
15. Aside from existence of God and value judgment, explain why beauty appreciation is also considered a limitation
of scientific method.

- Beauty appreciation is often considered a limitation of science because it is a subjective and culturally influenced
concept. Science, by its nature, strives to be objective and relies on empirical evidence and measurable data to draw
conclusions. Beauty, on the other hand, is highly personal and can vary widely from person to person and culture to
culture

15