2012 Chemistry Chief Assessors Report
2012 Chemistry Chief Assessors Report
2012 Chemistry Chief Assessors Report
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
) 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
] = 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