Chemistry

2012 Chief Assessors Report

Chemistry 2012 Chief Assessors Report Page 2 of 17
CHEMISTRY

2012 CHIEF ASSESSORS REPORT

OVERVIEW
Chief Assessors reports give an overview of how students performed in their school
and external assessments in relation to the learning requirements, assessment
design criteria, and performance standards set out in the relevant subject outline.
They provide information and advice regarding the assessment types, the application
of the performance standards in school and external assessments, the quality of
student performance, and any relevant statistical information.

SCHOOL ASSESSMENT
General Comments
This year, moderators noted an improved use of performance standards in the
assessment of student work, generally leading to closer alignment between student
evidence and the assigned grade level. It was occasionally difficult to confirm a
teachers decision as there was no indication of how grades had been assigned; no
assessment rubric was included, and student work was not annotated. A diversity of
standards was sometimes noted in the folios assessed at a particular grade level
within the one assessment group. This was particularly noticed at the A+ grade level.
Moderators emphasised the need for sharing of assessment tasks and the grading of
student work, for an internal moderation within an assessment group, when classes
taught by different teachers are combined into a single group. In this situation,
differences in marking and overall assessment of grade levels may disadvantage
some students. Teachers are advised that in the moderation process all students in a
grade level are dealt with in the same way; either all students grade levels are
retained or all are adjusted. Teachers are reminded that an A+ should only be
assigned when the evidence in a students folio demonstrates sustained achievement
at the upper level of the A grade band as described in the performance standards.
Where folios are incomplete, the details are to be noted on the Variations
Moderation Materials form.
Teachers who participate in the moderation panel gain insights into the design and
assessment of tasks that they can then implement in their own practice, which is of
great ultimate benefit to their students. Teachers are strongly encouraged to
participate in this important process.

Assessment Type 1: Investigations Folio
Practical Investigations
Although some improvement was noted, a number of teachers continue to use
rubrics and marks schemes that do not align with the assessment design criteria, the
specific features, or the performance standards. This frequently included generous
weighting of manipulative skills compared with investigation, analysis, and evaluation
skills, and resulted in poor correlation between the grade level based on marks, and
Chemistry 2012 Chief Assessors Report Page 3 of 17
the grade level based on the performance standards. Generally, teachers who made
explicit use of performance standards tended to be more successful in the
assessment of student evidence.
Adjustments downwards during moderation generally resulted from lack of evidence
at the appropriate standard in analysis and evaluation skills. Frequently this was due
to the setting of tasks in which heavy scaffolding, closed questions, and limited space
restricted opportunities for students to achieve at the higher levels. Student evidence
aligned most closely with the assigned grade level when the task instructed students
to discuss, explain and evaluate procedures and results, rather than to state or
identify a defined number of points. Allocation of a fixed number of marks was also
found to limit student responses.
Error analysis in practical investigations continues to be problematic. Confusion of
random and systematic errors, and their relationship to precision and accuracy, was
evident amongst many students. Of equal concern was the general nature of the
discussion of errors. The same terms were often defined in great detail in more than
one task, and examples described were vague and generic, rather than explicitly
referring to the practical undertaken. General statements relating to contamination of
solutions, poor calibration of instruments, and errors of parallax in readings figured
repeatedly in many practical reports. Some excellent student work discussed errors
in the context of the particular practical, and related specific errors to specific aspects
of the procedure. Few students were able to critically and perceptively discuss the
relative impact of these errors on results and on the final conclusion.
Teachers are reminded that assessment of particular specific features is not required
in every task. For example, discussion of errors, accuracy, and precision is not
appropriate in an organic preparation, but is more appropriate as a key aspect of the
design investigation.
Moderators noted a limited range of design tasks this year and encourage teachers
to have confidence in trying new tasks. It is important in these tasks for students to
show evidence of how they designed the task, rather than merely varying a practical
provided by the teacher. Such evidence could include specification of quantities
required for the preparation and dilution of an original solution to prepare the series
of solutions used, and an explanation of how this set of concentrations was
determined as being suitable for the investigation. An explanation of why and how
certain factors are held constant would also indicate competence in design skills.
A strong focus on hazard assessment and increased awareness of safe laboratory
practices compared with previous years was noticed, and welcomed.
Teachers are reminded that evidence should be provided for grade decisions made
relating to specific features I3 and A3. An example of such evidence can be found in
the support materials on the SACE Board website.
Issues Investigation
Traditional research reports, incorporating an information search and evaluation,
proved to be the most common format for the issues investigation, although
investigations comprising a number of different tasks were not uncommon. Of
considerable concern was the number of students who did not, as specified in the
subject outline, formulate their own question to research, but chose from a list
provided by their teacher. Of those investigations based on a question, a large
proportion of questions related simply to a topic rather than to an issue, and
sometimes to a topic with little chemical basis. Conclusions often did not relate at all
to the original question. Teachers are encouraged to provide students with the
guidance needed to formulate a question in which they inquire into an issue of social
Chemistry 2012 Chief Assessors Report Page 4 of 17
or environmental relevance to chemistry. An inappropriate question reflects poor
investigation design, and limits the opportunities for a student to discuss logically and
perceptively the chemical background of the issue, to identify alternative views, to
explain the different perspectives of the issue, or to arrive at relevant conclusions.
While some improvement was evident this year in the use of in-text and footnote
referencing, a number of investigations contained minimal or no referencing. Some
investigations with very few sources cited in the body of the report, had extensive
bibliographies and reference lists, often some pages in length. The subject outline
specifies that a completed issues investigation should include citations and a list of
references; that is a list of all publications referred to in the work. Such a list should
not include publications that are not specifically referred to in the text.
Evaluation of sources generally used a familiar provided format, assisting students to
address key criteria in an organised manner. Moderators noted that statements
relating to bias and credibility were often not substantiated by evidence consistent
with achievement at a high level in this aspect of the investigation. There were also
many instances of three, even four, information evaluations. In such cases, the
evaluations were often very similar in content, adding little to the evidence of student
performance, but adding to the word-count. A few investigations exceeded the word-
limit, with no indication that this had been noted and acted upon by the teacher. In a
few of these cases, the word-limit was not explicitly stated in advice to students.

Assessment Type 2: Skills and Applications Tasks
Adjustments in this assessment type during moderation were less common than for
Assessment Type 1. Although not a requirement of the subject outline, tasks in this
folio were almost exclusively in the form of tests assessed by marks. It was pleasing
to note the creativity shown by some teachers who had developed alternative tasks,
such as multimedia or oral presentations.
Within the folios a wide variety in range and allocated time was noted. It was noted
that some folios did not address the full content of the subject outline. Some tasks
limited the opportunity for students to demonstrate achievement over the range of
grades in the performance standards. In order to provide such opportunities, tasks
should incorporate some recall and simple, scaffolded applications, but must also
include open-ended, unfamiliar, and unscaffolded complex problems that allow
students to demonstrate deep and broad knowledge and understanding, high-level
problem-solving skills, and critical and perceptive analysis and evaluation of
information and procedures. If questions from past examination papers are used, it is
essential to select questions that demonstrate a range of content and complexity.
A number of teachers continue to convert an overall mark percentage directly into a
grade. While this is valid with well-designed tasks, such practice with poorly designed
tasks results in poor correlation of the grade level assigned with the performance
standards.





Chemistry 2012 Chief Assessors Report Page 5 of 17
EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
Assessment Type 3: Examination
General Observations
The mean percentage and range of question means for the examination were similar
to those of last year. Questions 3, 6, and 9 were the most difficult for students, while
Questions 1, 2, and 7 were the easiest.
Answers written on the blank page at the end of a booklet must be clearly identified,
and in the appropriate booklet.
Students are reminded to write legibly, and clearly make any required corrections.
Poor reading of the questions continues to be a problem for a number of students.
For example, in response to Question 10(c)(iii), many students discussed the effect
of high pressure when the question mentioned temperature. Similarly, in
Question 11(d)(i), many circled polar bonds rather than showing their polarity. Some
students might benefit from highlighting key words in the questions. Other students
miscopied formulae given, such as Fe
3
O
4
.
The number of marks and the space allocated for each question are provided to
assist students in preparing an appropriate answer. Some answers were too brief for
the marks allocated, while others were far too wordy for the marks allocated. The
marks allocated indicate the number of points sought in the answer. Answers that
exceed the space provided should be the exception.
The subject outline specifies that students are expected to develop and demonstrate
an ability to communicate in a variety of forms, using appropriate chemical terms and
conventions. However, students written expression was often poor. Not only was
sentence construction poor, but mastery of the language of chemistry terms,
expressions, and conventions was disappointing, with words and terms used
interchangeably or incorrectly. Some, for example, referred to yeast as a catalyst,
while others wrote as though ammonium and ammonia are the same. Students
confused ions with compounds and atoms, and used the terms atoms and
molecules as though they are interchangeable. Others confused frequency and
wavelength in Question 3(a)(iv) on atomic absorption spectroscopy, or gave an ion
when a compound was asked for. Many common chemical terms were misspelt,
such as keytone instead of ketone, and flourine instead of fluorine. Conventions
were unknown or unacknowledged by a significant number of students. For instance,
pH was often written as PH or Ph, and the delta sign was often written poorly,
often looking like other symbols (commonly S, d, , or , rather than ).
Students who use acronyms or other abbreviations are advised to define them in
each question booklet of the examination.
Many student responses could be improved with a little thought before an answer is
written. Restatement of information in a question (e.g. Question 5(b)(v)(2)) is not
given any credit, nor is restatement of the same point as both the introduction and
conclusion to a response. Students need to be aware that they are not awarded
marks if they make two attempts at a question and one is incorrect. Students are
encouraged to read through their answers, particularly those in response to explain
questions; such action may help eliminate false statements, as well as statements
which may be confusing, ambiguous, or contradictory. Checking through chemical
equations should be expected in all cases.
In calculations the use of significant figures continues to be problematic. Some
students appear to not understand that the number of significant figures is not the
same thing as the number of decimal places. Many students did not recognise that
Chemistry 2012 Chief Assessors Report Page 6 of 17
the appropriate number of significant figures is determined by the number of
significant figures in the least precise data supplied. In their calculations, a number of
students appeared to transfer data incorrectly from calculator to page or page to
calculator. On the other hand, the inclusion of units in measurements was pleasing to
see. In many cases students could benefit from improved setting-out of calculations.
A wrong answer may be able to gain marks if markers are able to discern where
errors have been made.
Poorly drawn structural formulae were prevalent in some questions (e.g.
Question 7(c)(i)) with some diagrams showing the H of the hydroxyl group bonded to
the hydrocarbon chain. Students are advised to remember that C is tetravalent and O
is divalent, and to count the number of bonds on each atom every time they are
asked to draw a structural formula.
Some students do not recognise the difference between a half-equation and a full
chemical equation, with electrons being omitted from a half-equation. Many students
showed an inability to use conventions in graphs, being unable to correctly draw a
line of best fit (Question 4(a)), with many joining the dots.
Use of the word bonds to represent secondary interactions continues to be a
problem. Students either have no distinction in their minds between primary and
secondary forces, or cannot articulate the difference. Students lost marks for
statements such as diesel has a higher boiling point as it has larger molecules so its
bonds are difficult to break, failing to identify which bonds were difficult to break.
Such an expression can be read as covalent or intramolecular bonds are difficult to
break, bonds which have no influence on the boiling point of a molecular substance.
Likewise, students frequently did not demonstrate an appreciation that bond polarity
and molecular polarity are different concepts with different rationales. The term ion
dipole bonding was used interchangeably with hydrogen bonding or dipoledipole
interaction by many students.
Environmental chemistry appears to be confusing for some students: ozone is given
as the cause the greenhouse effect, and acid-rain formation is confused with nitrogen
fixation.
Question 1
(a) (i) Well done, with almost all students gaining full marks. A small number
gave NO
2
as the answer.
(ii) Many students divided by 1000. Some students left the answer as
0.029 x 10
3
. The most common incorrect answers were 0.029 and
0.0000029. A few students appear to have misread the table and wrote
28 ppb (i.e. Location B).
(iii) Generally well done. Some students failed to differentiate between NO
2

and SO
2
in their contribution to photochemical smog, while several
students mentioned both. Some students used the total amount of
pollutants to reach their conclusion and were penalised. Some students
gave the answer as Location A due to its higher ozone level, failing to
note the effect of NO
2
on ozone formation. A small number mentioned
CO as being a determining factor in selecting Location A.
(iv) (1) This was done very well, with most students gaining full marks. Most
students were able to include the correct equations in their answer.
Some students began by unnecessarily describing the formation of NO
2
,
while others combined both processes into one. A small number of
students failed to mention sunlight or the photochemical nature of the
Chemistry 2012 Chief Assessors Report Page 7 of 17
process. High temperature was occasionally mentioned instead of
sunlight.
(2) This was poorly done, with global warming and the greenhouse effect
being the most common answers and acid rain being mentioned
occasionally. Photochemical smog was mentioned by a small number of
students. Some linked ozone to an environmental issue such as
photochemical smog, rather than describing an effect of its presence.
(b) Most students were able to gain at least 2 marks for this question.
Incorrect responses included the use of incorrect formulae (e.g. H
2
NO
3
)
or describing the conversion of NO
2
going to NO
3
. Some students
began with N
2
as the starting point, referring to nitrogen fixation and
nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Some students were unable to differentiate
between ionisation and dissociation. A small number failed to gain full
marks by not reading the question carefully and failed to mention the
ionisation of HNO
3
to form nitrate ions or the nitrate ions entering the
soil.
(c) (i) Well done, although some students showed the charge on one
functional group, but failed to add a proton to the amino group. A few
students omitted the CH
3
group. Students who drew the protonated
amine as an extended-structure amine and wrote the positive charge on
one of the H atoms rather than the N were penalised.
(ii) Well done, with amine and polypeptide the most common incorrect
answers.
(iii) Well done, with NO
3

or NO
2
and ammonium as the most common
incorrect responses. A significant number of students wrote ammonia
then added an incorrect formula, usually NH
4
or NH
4
+
. Students should
be aware that penalties are applied when contradictory answers are
given. The writing of ions in response to a question that asked for a
compound suggests a lack of understanding of terminology.
Question 2
(a) (i) The majority of students had the correct answer, with both primary and
tertiary given on occasion.
(ii) (1) This was generally well done, although some responses suggested
students were unfamiliar with structural formulae that do not show all of
the carbon and hydrogen atoms. Some students stated that fructose
was a polyhydroxy ketone or aldehyde without specifying which.
Students should be aware that answers should relate to the information
provided in a question. Some students wrote fructose was a
carbohydrate because it contained C, H, and O, or because it had a
large number of polar hydroxyl groups, neither of which gained marks.
Reference to the general formula C
x
H
2y
O
y
was given by many students
who did not relate this to the structural formula given. Some students
who said that fructose contained a ketone (often spelt keytone)
functional group failed to mention the multiple hydroxyl groups.
Solubility of the compound was occasionally discussed.
(2) Students who had correctly described fructose as a polyhydroxy ketone
almost invariably had the correct answer, although the answer was not
always consistent with the previous answer. However, many failed to
focus on an observation and stated nothing happened. A surprising
number of students referred to a secondary alcohol being oxidised by
Chemistry 2012 Chief Assessors Report Page 8 of 17
Tollens reagent. Some students related reaction with Tollens reagent
to aldehydes, but could not relate that to the fact the fructose contains a
ketone functional group and is not an aldehyde. It appeared that some
students had not read the question carefully; they wrote about the
positive result for a test with Tollens reagent, without thinking about
whether this would happen.
(b) (i) Most students correctly identified A as a hydrogen bond. However, B
was poorly identified, with many suggesting dispersion forces, dipole
dipole bonds, sulfide bonds, or crosslink. A small number of students
interchanged the answers. Some students who correctly identified B as
a disulfide link described it as a dipoledipole interaction.
(ii) Well done. Most could correctly identify the stronger bond.
(iii) Although most students recognised the relationship between shape and
structure, most students were unable to explain why the shape
changed. Too many used poor descriptive language to suggest why pH
has an effect on enzymes. Some wrote of breaking the bonds (rather
than the secondary interactions) of the enzyme or wrote long
dissertations on the collective effects on a range of functional groups.
Use of the term denatured was prevalent, often without mentioning why
the shape was changing. Ionic bonds were frequently mentioned. A
significant number of students appeared to have attempted to rote-learn
a description without understanding how a change in pH affects an
enzyme.
(c) (i) Mainly well done. Some incorrectly wrote the equation for
photosynthesis, while others wrote the fermentation equation. A small
number of students did not balance the equation. Students who had
energy written on the arrow as a condition were penalised.
(ii) This was poorly done; many students failed to include the negative sign,
even though they had correctly calculated the value. In other cases, the
wrong value was given, often with the correct negative sign.
Question 3
(a) (i) Very few students were able to gain the mark for this question, with
many citing contamination as a possible random error. Systematic and
random errors refer to unavoidable problems that are associated with
making measurements. Mistakes made by an experimenter, whether in
reading instruments, recording measurements or in the calculations, are
not considered in analysis of errors. It is assumed that the
experimenters are careful and competent. Thus no credit was given for
answers such as: incorrect mass put into the solution, failure to
correctly rinse the equipment, incorrect measurement made, incorrect
concentration of the solution, not filling to the graduation line, and
meniscus not on calibration line.
A number of students referred to a measuring cylinder being used in the
preparation of an analytic solution. Many answers were generic and did
not refer to the situation described in the question. While a small
number of students gained the mark for identifying parallax error, the
best answers referred to the fluctuations in eye level when reading the
meniscus.
(ii) Well done. Most students identified absorbance but some identified the
concentration of Na
+
.
Chemistry 2012 Chief Assessors Report Page 9 of 17
(iii) While the obvious answer was systematic error, the allocation of
2 marks for the question guided most students to recognise that some
elaboration was required. When students offered an explanation or
example, it was usually well done. Several students referred to
contaminants with extra sodium in reference to the 0% solution only,
failing to appreciate that it would be present in all prepared solutions.
Contamination by sodium in the air was mentioned quite often. Some
answers referred to procedural mistakes, again demonstrating a lack of
understanding of errors. Random error was referred to occasionally. Full
marks were not given when students described the fact that the graph
did not pass through the origin without suggesting a source of error.
(iv) Very few students gained full marks because very few mentioned
electrons or electron configuration in their answer. Some merely stated
that the atomic absorption spectroscope was set up for sodium,
providing no elaboration of what this meant. While others mentioned
that the sodium absorbed a specific wavelength, no reference was
made to calcium nor why it did not absorb that wavelength. Some
answers described the spectroscope as absorbing sodium ions rather
than the sodium ions absorbing wavelengths of light; similarly, some
students had the spectroscope absorbing sodium ions but not calcium
ions. Some students referred to the sodium lamp without reference to
the specific wavelengths of light. Several students confused wavelength
and frequency and others appeared to be unaware of the relationship
between frequency and wavelength, making comments that the detector
could only absorb wavelengths of specific frequency.
(v) Responses showed very poor reading of the graph provided, with many
incorrect absorbance values given. It is recommended that students use
a ruler to assist in this process. Many students with a correct reading of
the graph, failed to attempt the second part, and many who did divided
by 20 (the dilution factor) instead of multiplying.
(b) (i) While most students answered this correctly, there was inconsistency in
answering this question. It appeared that some students did not
understand the terms spontaneous and non-spontaneous.
(ii) Approximately half of the students correctly identified B.
(iii) (1) Well done. The most common errors involved placing the electrons on
the wrong side of the equation or failing to balance the equation. A few
students started with OH

, and a small number had H

2
rather than H
+

ions being produced.
(2) This was reasonably well done, although many students reduced
sodium instead of sodium ions. Many answers confused oxidation with
reduction, mentioning, for example, sodium metal being reduced, or
sodium ions or water being oxidised. Students wrote of water being
reduced to form oxygen, and sodium being more reactive than water.
Cl

was occasionally oxidised in preference to sodium. The

electronegativity of sodium and chlorine were also mentioned in this
question. Some made reference to the need for NaCl to be in molten
state, but could not explain why this was necessary.
Question 4
(a) Most students gained at least 2 marks. Marks were deducted for
selection of scales that made plotting points too difficult, poor plotting,
Chemistry 2012 Chief Assessors Report Page 10 of 17
continuing the x-axis beyond 100%, extending the line of best fit beyond
100%, drawing a straight line of best fit, or drawing a line of best fit that
included all of the plotted points. A large number of students appear to
not understand the concept of line of best fit; joining of the plotted points
was the most common line drawn. There was also a significant number
who believed that a straight line was required for the line of best fit.
Some students who realised that a broken scale was appropriate did not
indicate the break in the vertical axis.
(b) Well done. If marks were lost, it was usually for failure to divide by 2,
failure to multiply by 1000, or failure to calculate moles of ethanol. Some
students had difficulty in calculating the number of moles correctly
because they had the molar mass incorrect. Many students could not
correctly rearrange the formula. In a small number of cases, the mass of
ethanol was used instead of the mass of water. Some answers were
poorly set out.
(c) While this question asked students to recall information, very few were
able to gain full marks. However, those students who recalled some of
the information were able gain reasonable marks. Most students could
correctly write the equation for fermentation and most knew of the need
for yeast and warmth. Confusion came when students attempted to
write about winemaking or how we did it in the lab rather than
answering the question. Some students believed yeast to be an enzyme
rather than a living organism. Many appeared to lack the understanding
that cellular respiration (both aerobic and anaerobic) are biological
processes requiring living organisms. Some students knew that the
reaction needed acidic conditions but failed to specify a pH range or use
the term slightly acidic. Similarly, they were imprecise with heat, failing
to give a temperature range.
Common errors included statements that reflux was necessary,
apparently confusing fermentation with an organic preparation carried
out during the year.
The allocation of marks for the effective communication of knowledge
and understanding of chemistry considers such factors as spelling,
grammar, logical sequence of the answer, and the presence of
irrelevant information. Examples of irrelevant information included the
effect of temperature on reaction rate, a description of the denaturation
of the enzyme, describing how fermentation was done in class, lactic
acid production, and the hydrolysis process whereby glucose is formed
from the polysaccharide.
Question 5
(a) Well done. Some of the more common incorrect answers stated that Ta
has a low electronegativity, that it can exist as anions, or that it is not
stable. Some students suggested that tantalums reactivity was related
to its being a transition metal.
(b) (i) Most students were able to make the connection between surface area
and an increased rate of reaction, although some did not explain the
importance of an increase in surface area. A few students tried to
discuss the froth flotation process. A significant number proposed that
crushing would increase the concentration of mineral (or of metallic Ta)
in the material.
Chemistry 2012 Chief Assessors Report Page 11 of 17
(ii) Not well answered. A surprising number wrote Fe or Mn salts, without
attempting to write a formula.
(iii) (1) Balancing was generally excellent; a few doubled the coefficients. Very
few made no attempt at all.
(2) Many students included excellent diagrams with the partial charges and
hydrogen bonds correctly labelled. A small minority reversed the partial
charges. A significant number of students drew the structural formula of
water with double bonds between the oxygen and hydrogen atoms, or
with two O atoms bonded to a central H atom. Unfortunately, the
descriptions were frequently more appropriate for dipoledipole
interaction rather than the specific instance of hydrogen bonding. The
best answers mentioned that hydrogen bonding is only possible when a
small highly electronegative atom is covalently bonded to the hydrogen
atom and that the resulting intermolecular attraction is a particularly
strong form of secondary interaction.
(iv) This was very poorly done, suggesting that interpretation of the flow
chart proved difficult for most students. A number of students wrote ions
such as hydroxide, rather than a reagent, which was specifically asked
for in the question. Sulfuric acid and HF were popular incorrect choices.
(v) (1) This was very well done, although some used upper-case letters or
failed to use superscripts. A few wrote the electronic configuration for
the ion (often incorrectly).
(2) Most students knew that Al was more reactive than Ta, but few went on
to explain logically its relationship to the tantalum ions. Most simply
repeated information already given in the question; that is, that Al
reduced the Ta ion. A number of students appear to have not read the
given information carefully and mistook it as describing an electrolytic
cell, bringing the presence or absence of water into their answers.
Alternatively, they may have been more familiar with applications of
relative reactivities within the context of an electrolytic cell and were
unable to formulate an appropriate response in another context.
Question 6
(a) Very poorly done, with most students failing to gain any marks. Often
students included -ane (or -an-) in the name, apparently unaware that
this suffix is only used in the absence of double or triple carboncarbon
bonds. The use of commas and hyphens in organic nomenclature is not
well understood. The numbering of the carbon chain was often
incorrect. Many referred to the compound as a pentene or propene,
while quite a few did not recognise it as a diene.
(b) (i) Well done, although some had the formula inverted. It was reasonably
common for M to be calculated incorrectly.
(ii) This was poorly done, with all values between 0 and 6 being
encountered, a minority giving the correct answer of 2. Consequently, it
would appear that the majority of students are unaware that zeros are
only significant on the end after a decimal point or between other
significant figures.
(c) The responses to parts (i) and (ii) were generally poor with many being
confused and/or speculative. References to cheaper/easier/more
convenient/less polluting/lasts longer were made with respect to both
Chemistry 2012 Chief Assessors Report Page 12 of 17
natural and synthetic rubbers, but claims were rarely substantiated by
any logical reasoning.
(i) Many responses focused on such advantages as its manufacture emits
less pollutants, doesnt run out, or lasts longer. The description often
reworded the advantage without adding further information.
(ii) A number of students wrote some well-considered responses here and
gave perfectly reasonable answers. On the other hand, a very large
number used information in part (e) to formulate their responses. They
referred to improved properties compared with natural rubber, rather
than on the possibility of making a range of synthetic rubbers from a
range of monomers. Although synthetic rubber can be modified, making
possible a wider variety of applications, natural rubber can also be
modified. A few well-reasoned responses discussed the use of land for
agricultural purposes, rather than for rubber production.
(d) Well done.
(e) (i) Most responses gained 1 or 2 of the possible 3 marks. The best
responses discussed how the strong covalent bonding between the
chains prevented the polymer chains from slipping over each other,
leading to greater strength, greater hardness, and charring (rather than
softening) when heated. Many responses referred to the increased
strength in secondary interactions between the chains and were clearly
unaware that cross-linking is primary bonding. Most students failed to
mention that extensive cross-linking prevented the chains from sliding
past each other. Some responses gave a catalogue of changed
properties without explaining how vulcanisation leads to these
properties.
(ii) Few responses mentioned that vulcanised rubber could not be
reshaped or remoulded. Often, answers implied that, with enough
energy, reshaping was possible, overlooking the charring that would
take place.
Question 7
(a) Mostly well done. Some students wrote on the skeleton to assist their
addition.
(b) Mostly well done. A small number thought there would be a colour
change from brown to colourless, possible in the belief that Br
2
would
react with any double bond. A number of students used the word clear
instead of colourless.
(c) (i) Mostly well done, although a surprising number of students
unnecessarily expanded the skeletal structure. This provided no
advantage and sometimes led to an error. As in previous years, there
were a significant number of poorly drawn bonds. The number of OH
C bonds was also of concern.
(ii) Mostly done well. A small, but significant, number of students
mistakenly wrote that Tollens reagent reacts with alcohols. Some
students who correctly identified the need for dichromate ions omitted to
mention that the solution needs to be acidified.
(d) (i) Most students obtained at least 1 mark here. While many students
recognised the hydrocarbon chain as being non-polar, their answers
implied it, rather than stated it. Similarly, many did not specifically state
Chemistry 2012 Chief Assessors Report Page 13 of 17
that the ketone groups were polar. Some referred to the ketones as
carboxyl groups, and others did not recognise the presence of an ester
functional group, referring to it as a second ketone group with the other
oxygen being a third functional group. As in Question 2(a)(ii)(1), a
significant number of students referred to presence of keytone
functional groups. Many responses referred, incorrectly, to the presence
of a benzene ring.
(ii) Students have shown in the past that they are able to do well in this
type of question; this was demonstrated again with almost all gaining at
least 1 mark and often 3. There was commonly a lack of reference to
the slower movement of Compound C through the column/coil. A
number of responses referred to movement of the mixture through the
chromatogram, as though the components moved together. A significant
number of students confused the question with thin-layer
chromatography, referring to the smaller distance moved, rather than
the longer time taken, due to the stronger attraction to the stationary
phase. Some contradictions occurred when students had answered
part (d)(i) by correctly explaining why Compound C was more polar than
chiloglottone-1 but then stated it to be non-polar in this answer. A
number of students who had incorrectly answered part (d)(i) were able
to logically work their way through this part and were given credit. It was
pleasing to note that almost all students referred to adsorption;
absorption was very rarely used.
(e) (i) (1) Well done, with isotopes the most common incorrect response.
(2) Very well done.
(ii) Mostly well done. In spite of the given example, many students failed to
use hyphens and commas correctly. A small number of students
reversed the numbers of the carbon atoms to which the alkyl groups
were attached.
Question 8
(a) (i) While some students demonstrated some creativity, most correctly
stated water or H
2
O.
(ii) Well done, with the most common mistake being to identify the reaction
as addition polymerisation.
(iii) Good work; most students knew that magic sand and oil were both non-
polar. A few argued one to be polar and the other non-polar, and hence
they attracted each other.
(iv) Many believed the question involved oil as in part (a)(iii). Of the small
number who referred to micelles, few were able to do so successfully.
Common errors included answers which were written in terms of
triglycerides, suggesting that these students were comfortable with
detergents acting in the familiar context of removing oils/greases, but
could not make the connection to the unfamiliar context. Another
reasonably common error was to describe the reaction of the detergent
with the sand.
(b) Very few students were able to achieve full marks here, but most
students attempted the question and many were able to achieve more
than half-marks. The best responses included discussion of the
reversibility of cation exchange, Le Chteliers principle, and the need
Chemistry 2012 Chief Assessors Report Page 14 of 17
for concentrated NaCl solution for the recharging process. Generally,
the majority gained more marks in discussing the softening action than
the recharge. Some wrote of chloride ions being exchanged (and,
rarely, OH

). A few neglected to state what hard water was. Some wrote

equations or explanations that showed a redox reaction at the zeolite
surface. It would appear that these students understood displacement
to mean redox displacement, and their responses commonly referred to
the relative reactivities of Na, Mg, or their ions. Confusion of the process
with flocculation was not uncommon, with a significant number of
students believing that the zeolite particle and the Ca
2+
ions formed
large clumps which precipitated from the water. A significant number of
students believe that Ca, Mg, and so on are heavy metals, and that Al,
Mn, Cu, Pb, and Hg ions contribute to water hardness. A few students
used diagrams to illustrate the process. While many of these were
excellent, teachers should remind students that any diagram should be
clear, relevant, and appropriately labelled.
Question 9
(a) (i) Poorly done. Although the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide is
mentioned in the subject outline, more than half of the students wrote
hydrogen and oxygen gases as the products, possibly because it
simplified the balancing of the equation.
(ii) It was uncommon for students to score full marks here. Although the
concept of increased temperature providing additional energy to
molecules was well known, students often failed to mention frequency
or per unit time with regards to increased number of successful
collisions, and/or failed to refer to activation energy. Students frequently
referred to the particles overcoming activation energy, rather than
particles having energy in excess of the activation energy.
(b) (i) Rarely did students convert 6.0% to 60 g L
1
correctly. Students were
awarded a mark for correctly calculating the molar mass of sodium
hypochlorite. However, many students subsequently multiplied, rather
than divided, by this molar mass.
(ii) This half-equation was quite well done. Some students wrote Cl
2
as the
product rather than chloride ions. Some wrote electrons on the incorrect
side or not at all. Some had incorrect formulae (e.g. HClO or HClO

) or
omitted charges from ions. Some students were able to write this half-
equation correctly in alkaline conditions even though this is not required
in the subject outline.
(c) (i) Well answered.
(ii) A majority of students received full marks for their explanations. Those
who did not often failed to recognise that the acidic products of the
equilibrium would react with the hydroxide ions in the solution. A
common mistake was to state that Cl
2
was acidic and would be
neutralised by OH

present at the high pH, with the consequence that

the smell would not be evident.
(iii) A surprisingly large number of students failed to recognise that pH
calculations involve hydrogen ions, whereas the question asks for the
concentration of hydroxide ions. Thus they failed to employ either of the
relationships pH + pOH = 14 or [H
+
] [OH

] = 10
14
.
Chemistry 2012 Chief Assessors Report Page 15 of 17
Question 10
(a) (i) The most common answer was photochemical. Other answers which
were given credit included photolysis or photosynthesis.
(ii) Many students incorrectly wrote the oxygen molecule (O
2
) as a product,
rather than atomic oxygen as specified in the question.
(b) Generally well done, with failure to balance correctly or to copy a
formula correctly being common errors.
(c) (i) Many students failed to mention the gaseous state in their answers.
Pressure change only affects the position of an equilibrium if there are a
different total number of moles of gas on the two sides of the equation.
Some students did not refer to the stress placed on the equilibrium and
the response that would counteract this stress (i.e. Le Chteliers
principle). Many students referred to increased reaction rate rather than
yield. Students commonly referred to the increase in concentration of
reactants brought about by the increased pressure, apparently failing to
realise that an increase in pressure will increase the concentrations of
all species reactants and products. Many students needlessly
discussed a change in volume, apparently not appreciating that this is
not the only means by which pressure may be increased.
(ii) Well done. The most common answers referred to cost, and the danger
associated with the use of high pressure. A small number noted that,
with a high yield of 96%, the improvement in yield associated with a
higher pressure was not worth the associated cost.
(iii) Many students wrote answers of a high standard but had difficulty with
the concept of compromise. They had trouble with discussing the
effects on yield and rate of temperatures above and below 450C. Many
did not mention the exothermic nature of the forward reaction in
discussing the effect on yield. Students commonly incorrectly described
450C as a high temperature rather than a compromise temperature.
(iv) Students should be alerted to the fact that they are not awarded marks
for repeating information given in the question. Many students failed to
identify that lowering the overall activation energy would increase the
rate of reaction. Others incorrectly described the catalyst as not being
used or not taking part in the reaction, when clearly it is involved. A
pleasing number of students preferred the description the catalyst can
be recovered when the reaction is completed.
Question 11
(a) A disappointingly large number of students identified p-block, but wrote
an upper-case P or a letter which could not be distinguished as being
lower case. Students should be aware that an ambiguous answer is
treated as incorrect.
(b) Students who referred to molecules and molecular polarity here showed
their lack of understanding of the difference between bond polarity and
molecular polarity. Many students failed to mention the identical
electronegativity of the two carbon atoms and the consequent equal
sharing of electrons.
Chemistry 2012 Chief Assessors Report Page 16 of 17
(c) (i) (1) Poorly drawn. While many students correctly drew a PO
4
structure in a
tetrahedral arrangement, rarely did students allocate the three negative
charges or the bonds appropriately.
(2) Fairly well done. Some students omitted the positive sign.
(ii) Most students recognised that hydrolysis of the ester groups would
produce carboxylic acids, but not many recognised that the alkaline
conditions would generate a carboxylate anion rather than a carboxyl
group. A small number of students drew an incorrect number of carbon
atoms in the chain or omitted hydrogen atoms if they drew a full
structure.
(d) (i) Generally well done although, as mentioned earlier, the ability to write
an acceptable delta symbol () is an expected part of the ability to
communicate chemical knowledge.
(ii) Not always a well-expressed answer. Students should have been
referring to the many polar bonds introduced by the polymer unit, and
that these polar bonds would be possible sites for hydrogen bonding
with polar water. Students should realise that the statement polar
dissolves polar is a generalisation, not an explanation. Some students
used the term iondipole interaction which was not applicable in this
question. Some students referred only to the polarity introduced by the
carboxyl group at the end of the chain.
(iii) This was poorly done. Nomenclature rules are straightforward, yet there
were many permutations recorded here. Examples of errors included
use of -dioc, -doic or -dicarboxylic instead of -dioic. Some students
misplaced the di, and named the compound as dibutanoic acid
instead of butandioic acid; the di identifies the presence of two
carboxyl groups, not two butyl chains. Stems that identified the wrong
number of carbon atoms (e.g. prop and hex) were common. Some
students who did not recognise the carboxyl groups named the
compound with various combinations of diol and dione.
(iv) Many students were penalised for failing to include the bracket and n
present in the monomer. Clearly, students did not understand that this is
part of the monomer structure, rather than being involved in the
polymerisation.
Question 12
(a) The best answers here referred to the lack of polarity of hydrocarbons
and hence strength of secondary interaction occurring being influenced
by molecular size (molar mass) only. Good answers referred to the
greater strength of secondary forces between larger molecules, with the
consequence that such molecules require more energy to be separated
from each other. Better answers commonly referred to the secondary
interactions as dispersion forces. Weaker answers recognised the
difference in the molecular size, but then stated that the bonds in larger
molecules are stronger and need more heat to break apart, suggesting
that boiling is a chemical change.
(b) (i) The best answers here referred to the bent hydrocarbon chains in the
unsaturated molecules and linked this to their inability to align as neatly
as the saturated molecules. The better answers continued to link this
closer stacking with increased strength of secondary interaction,
ultimately requiring more heat to separate the molecules. Weaker
Chemistry 2012 Chief Assessors Report Page 17 of 17
answers implied that double bonds are weaker than single bonds, and
failed to recognise that it is the strength of secondary forces that
influences the melting point of molecular substances, not primary
bonds. Some students incorrectly argued that the unsaturated molecule
has two less hydrogen atoms, so its molar mass would be less and
hence dispersion forces would be weaker, when a difference of two
hydrogen atoms in such large molecules would have little effect.
(ii) (1) Quite well done. There were a few errors in manipulation of mL and g,
but many students completed this calculation correctly.
(2) (A) Quite well done, although a number of students suggested a
burette rather than a volumetric pipette.
(B) Many students failed to convert 4.2 mL correctly to litres, while
some did not use this titre value anywhere in their calculations,
using instead the entire number of moles calculated in part (b)(ii)(1).
Many students failed to note that 20.00 mL of the diluted biodiesel
was used in each titration. Consequently, the final answer was
50 times the correct value. Students accustomed to tackling
stoichiometric problems using the formula C
1
V
1
= C
2
V
2
struggled.
Most students failed to gain the mark for the correct use of
significant figures, not realising that the appropriate number of
significant figures differed in the two parts.

Chief Assessor
Chemistry