Rachel Speaker Mrs.

Shafer Lab Report 3-23-11

Electrochemical Cells
Objective:
The objective of part one of this lab is to construct a table listing the reduction potentials of a series of metal ions in order or ease of reduction. In part the objective is to use the Nernst equation to determine the voltage of a cell in which the zinc half-cell is connected to a solution containing a trace of Ag+ ions in a 1.0M solution of sodium chloride.

Part 1 Data: Voltage of each half-cell versus zinc electrode Voltage Anode
Zn versus Ag Zn versus Cu Zn versus Fe Zn versus Mg Zn versus Pb 1.31 0.90 0.43 0.52 0.40 Zn Zn Zn Zn Zn

Cathode
Ag Cu Fe Mg Pb

Predicted and Measured Cell Potentials

Anode Cathode Equation for the Cell Reaction Predicted Potential from Experimental Data Measured Potential

Mg Cu Fe Fe Pb Mg

Pb Ag Cu Ag Cu Cu

Mg2+ + PbMg+Pb2+ 2Ag+ +Cu 2Ag + Cu2+ 2Fe3+ + Cu 2Fe2+ + Cu2+ Ag+ + Fe2+ Ag + Fe3+ Cu +Pb2+ Cu2+ +Pb Cu + Mg2+ Cu2+ + Mg

-.012 .41 .47 .88 .50 .38

-.88 .39 .47 .88 .51 1.34

Part 2: Data Table

Voltage Zn(s) l Zn2+(1.0M) ll Cu2+(.0010M) l Cu(s) Anode Cathode

0.86V
Predicted Potential

Zn

Cu
Measured Potential

Equation for Cell Reaction Zn + 2Ag Zn + 2Ag

+ 2+

0.8112V

Zn 0.86V

Reduction Equations for Each Ion Arranged in Decreasing Order of Potential

Reduction Equation Electrode Potential using Zinc as the standard, EZn Accepted Electrode Potential using Hydrogen as Standard, E EZn - E

Ag+ + e- Ag Fe + e- Fe
3+ 2+

1.31V 0.43V 0.90V 0.40V 0 0.52V

0.80V 0.77V 0.34V -0.126V -0.763V -2.37V

0.51V -0.34V 0.56V 0.526V 0.763V 2.89V

Cu2+ + 2e- Cu Pb2+ + 2e- Pb Zn2+ + 2e- Zn Mg2+ + 2e- Mg

Calculations:
Volume of one drop = mass of 1 drop X 1L 1.00g/ml 1000mL Volume of one drop of Na2S2O3 = 0.019g Na2S2O3 (one drop) X 1L = .000019 L Na2S2O3 1.00g/mL 1000mL 2.000019 L Na2S2O3 X .0010 mol Na2S2O3 X 1mol S2O3 = .0010 moles S2O321 .000019L 1mol Na2S2O3 .0010 moles S2O32- X 1 mol I2 X 1 mol BrO3- = 1 2mol S2O323mol I2 -[ BrO3 ] = mol BrO3 Reacted Volume of 12 drops -[ BrO3- ] = 1.8X10-4 mol BrO3- Reacted = .000228L Rate = -[ BrO3 ] time (time it took to react) Rate = .0789 = .00172 46 seconds [I-] = 2 drops X 0.010 M KI = 0.0017M 12 drops solution Rate 1 = k [.0017M]x [.0067M]y [.0167M]z = 1 Rate 2 = k[.0017M]x [.0067M]y [.0167M]z X=1 Y=1 Z=1 .0789 1.8X10-4 mol BrO3- Reacted .000019 L X 12 drops = .000228 L

(Experiment 2 trial 1) Experiment 1 = 4.29X10-4

(First order reactions)

Average value of k = 46sec = k[.0017M][.0067M][.0167]

K= 2.24X108

Questions:
1.) The reaction rate changes as the concentration changes because a higher concentration has a greater surface area for the reaction to take place. 2.) The reaction rate changes as the temperature changes because the temperature supplies the energy needed to reach the activation energy level. For example, if you increase the temperature there will be more energy, therefore, causing the activation energy to be lower and the rate higher. Cooler the temperature will do the opposite because there is less energy and will take longer to reach the activation energy. 3.) The reaction rate is the rate the moles of the solution change depending on the temperature and concentration. The rate constant is the relative rate for constant concentrations and will only vary when the temperature does. 4.) The catalyst increases the rate of the reaction. In our lab the numbers did not come out as they should have. With the catalyst the reaction rate should have been a much lower number. In changes the activation energy because speeds up the reaction and causes the reaction to occur at a lower energy.

Conclusion:
The objective of this lab was to utilize a microscale technique to determine the total rate law for the oxidation of iodide ions by the presence of acid. If the lab would have gone the way it should have the results would have clearly demonstrated the rate of the reaction, the rate constant, and the activation energy. Our rates seemed to be very and low and varied immensely. This error came from our incapability to accurately record the exact time and solution reacted; turned blue. Another error we had was when making the solutions we didnt always put the correct amount of drops. Frequently, we had too much. This changes the concentration, which in turn, changed the reaction rate to appear higher than it should have been, as explained in question three. A difficulty we had in part three was regulating the temperature of the water bath. It was starting to get too warm so we removed it before it started to boil while the solutions were in it. The temperature dropped and the reaction occurred at a lower temperature then we recorded. This caused the rate of the reaction at the specific temperature, 40C, to be slower because the temperature was lower than forty. The orders in the experiment proved the data to be constant because the order fall all of the

reactants was one, which meant the concentrations were the same. The reactions were first order reactions. PART THREE DATA!! If we had to do this lab again we would be aware of the importance in accuracy of the time measurements. Also, having more time to repeat the reactions if the times were inaccurate would have made our data more correct.