Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 194 views

    Chemistry Lab Report: Gravimetric Analysis of A Metal Carbonate

    Uploaded by

    Emelia Beckett
    A brief lab report detailing the results of a precipitation reaction using calcium chloride to determine the unknown metallic component of a metal carbonate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Chemistry Lab Report: Gravimetric Analysis of A Metal Carbonate

    Uploaded by

    Emelia Beckett
    194 views2 pages
    A brief lab report detailing the results of a precipitation reaction using calcium chloride to determine the unknown metallic component of a metal carbonate.

    Original Title

    Chemistry Lab Report: Gravimetric Analysis of a Metal Carbonate

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    A brief lab report detailing the results of a precipitation reaction using calcium chloride to determine the unknown metallic component of a metal carbonate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    194 views2 pages

    Chemistry Lab Report: Gravimetric Analysis of A Metal Carbonate

    Uploaded by

    Emelia Beckett
    A brief lab report detailing the results of a precipitation reaction using calcium chloride to determine the unknown metallic component of a metal carbonate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Gravimetric Analysis of a Metal Carbonate

    Lab Question: ​How do we use gravimetric analysis to determine the identity of a Group 1 metal
    CO​3​?
    Procedure: ​After preparing a crucible and adding a mystery metal carbonate (M​3​CO​3​) sample to
    it, heat all the water out of the sample. Then, precipitate the sample in a solution of CaCl₂ and
    distilled water, and decant it through a funnel lined with filter paper. Carefully remove the filter
    paper and completely dehydrate the precipitate left behind.
    Controls:​ We had to keep the amount of time we were heating our sample constant to ensure that
    we were not burning our sample. Burning our sample would have rendered it useless and made it
    difficult, if not impossible to proceed with the lab and obtain accurate results.
    We had to keep the rate of decantering our precipitate into the funnel constant; if we had filtered
    our solution too fast some precipitate would have slipped into our excess solution, and if we did
    not catch it our results would not be accurate because we would have lost some of our precipitate
    and thus, a portion of our sample.
    Conclusion: ​After drying and massing our precipitate we discovered that the molar mass of our
    metal carbonate was closest to and most likely sodium carbonate (Na​2​CO​3​).
    Discussion of Theory: ​CaCl​2​ and the M​2​CO​3 ​ are both ionic compounds and are soluble in water
    by themselves. However, when these ionic compounds interact in this environment of distilled
    water, a double replacement reaction occurs. A double replacement reaction is when the two ions
    of an ionic compound swap in a chemical reaction, modeled by AB+CD→AD+CB. Carbonates are
    only soluble when bonded to group 1 metals or ammonium, so when M​2​CO​3 reacts
    ​ with CaCl​2​, an
    insoluble precipitate, CaCO​3​,​ forms.
    ​ We can filter and dehydrate the calcium carbonate, then we
    can use the mass to calculate the number of moles of our dehydrated CaCO​3​. We can then use this
    information to calculate the molar mass of our M​2​CO​3​ and therefore determine its identity. We
    know this because we know how many moles of carbonate we have in our CaCO​3​. Then we can do
    some basic algebra to determine how many moles of M​2 ​are in our M​2​CO​3​.
    Sources of Error: ​The lab directions clearly stated to put the excess piece of filter paper that we
    ripped off into the bottom of the funnel. We did not do this and later we discovered why the lab
    directions were so specific- the weight of our filter paper was lighter than when we started so our
    results were inaccurate- we had 4.42 percent error. Our calculated molar mass for M​2​CO​3​ ended up
    being too big and made it difficult to properly identify our metal carbonate.
    If some poor misguided chemistry student decided to use rubber tongs on his hot crucible and the
    rubber melted into the sample, the rubber might affect the precipitation of the CaCO​3​. This would
    have either result in an extremely inaccurate molar mass or render the results entirely useless
    because his sample was contaminated.

    You might also like