Umar Mohammed

7767461
Laboratory Section: B04
Rotation: 2
Room Number: 216
Locker Number: 1377
Experiment 3: Calorimetry
Date of Experiment: Thursday February, 12 2015
Time of Experiment: 8:30 AM
Date Submitted: Monday February 16, 2015

Purpose
The purpose of this lab report is to calibrate a simple constant pressure calorimeter to use
within thermochemistry experiments such as predicting the enthalpy of a reaction and
comparing it using Hesss law. Also to determine the heats of dissolution for an unknown ionic
salt and then analysis what kind of ionic salt is used within the reaction.
Analysis
1. Calculations of Ccup (Trial 1)
Measured Values
Trial 1
Mass of Final Solution
100.2
(g)
Mass of NaOH (g)
51.03
Mass of HCl (g)
49.17
Final Temp (oC)
26.4
(o
Initial Temp C)
20.4
-57.3
(kJ)
1 o -1`
Csolution (J g- C )
4.02

Trial 2
99.07

Trial 3
98.79

50.69
48.38
26.5
20.4
-57.3
4.02

50.43
48.36
26.5
20.3
-57.3
4.02

Calculations of nreactant
Assume the density of the solution at 25 oC is the same as water, which is 1.00 g/mL
Volume of NaOH = (Mass of NaOH / Density)/1000
= (51.03/1.00)/1000
= 0.05103 L NaOH
Moles of NaOH = Concentration of NaOH / Volume of NaOH
= (1.0)(0.05103)
= 0.04953 mol NaOH
Volume of HCl = (Mass of HCl / Density ) /1000
= (49.17/1.00)/1000
= 0.04917 L HCl
Moles of HCl = (Concentration of HCl/ Volume of HCl)
= (1.0)(0.04917)
= 0.04917 mol HCl
Because HCl has fewer # of moles it is the limiting reagent within this reaction therefore,
Limiting reaction = nreactant
nreactant = 0.04917 mol HCl

Calculations of Ccup Trial 1

0 kJ = (Csolution)(Msolution)(Tcup) + (Hneutralization)(nreactant / 1 mol reactant) + (Ccup)(Tcup)
0 = (4.02)(100.2)(26.4-20.4) + ((-57.3)(1000))(0.04917/1 mol reactant) + (Ccup)(26.4-20.4)
- (Ccup)(6.0) = 2416.824 2817.441
- (Ccup)(6.0) = -400.617
(Ccup) = 66.0 J oC-1
Ccup Trial 2
56.0 J oC-1
Ccup Trial 3
50.0 J oC-1
Ccup Average = (Ccup 1 + Ccup 2 + Ccup 3)/3
= (66.0 + 56.0 + 50.0) /3
= 57.0 J oC-1
2. Calculations of reaction after the addition of calcium metal

Mass of Calcium (g)

Mass of Final
Solution (g)
Initial Temperature
(oC)
Final Temperature
(oC)
Csolution (g-1 oC-1)
Ccup (J oC-1)

Addition of calcium to 1.0 M HCL

followed by the addition of water
0.40
98.14

Addition of calcium to water followed by

the addition of 1.0 M HCl
0.40
97.81

20.3

21.8

32.5

33.8

4.02 g-1 oC-1

57.0 J oC-1

4.02 g-1 oC-1

150.1 J oC-1

a) For addition of calcium metal to 1.0 M HCl followed by the addition of water
Calculations of Nreactant
Moles of Ca = (Mass of Ca / Molar Mass of Ca)
= (0.40) / (40.08)
= 0.010 moles Ca

a) Addition of calcium to 1.0 M HCL followed by the addition of water

0 kJ = (Csolution)(Msolution)(Tcup) + (Hneutralization)(nreactant / 1 mol reactant) + (Ccup)(Tcup)
-(Hneutralization)(nreactant / 1 mol reactant) = (Csolution)(Msolution)(Tcup) + (Ccup)(Tcup)
-(Hneutralization)(0.010) = (32.5-20.3) [(4.02)(98.14) + 57]
-(Hneutralization)(0.010) = 12.2(451.5228)
(Hneutralization) = -550857.816 J
(Hneutralization) = -5.5x102 kJ
b) Addition of calcium to water followed by the addition of 1.0 M HCl
0 kJ = (Csolution)(Msolution)(Tcup) + (Hneutralization)(nreactant / 1 mol reactant) + (Ccup)(Tcup)
-(Hneutralization)(nreactant / 1 mol reactant) = (Csolution)(Msolution)(Tcup) + (Ccup)(Tcup)
-(Hneutralization)(0.010) = (33.8 -21.8) [(4.02)(97.81) + 57]
-(Hneutralization)(0.010) = (12)450.1962
(Hneutralization) = -540235.44 J
(Hneutralization) = -5.4x102 kJ
3) Calculations of Edissolution (Trial 1) Code Nobel
Trial 1
Mass of Water (g)
96.09
Mass of Salt (g)
3.97
o
Initial Temperature C
22.2
o
Final Temperature C
20.0
Csolution (J g-1 oC-1)
4.02 J g-1 oC-1
Ccup (J oC-1)
57 J oC-1

Trial 2
95.84
3.98
21.3
19.1
4.02 J g-1 oC-1
57 J oC-1

Calculations of msolution:
Mass of water = (Mass of Calorimeter + Water) Mass of Calorimeter
= 215.32 119.23
= 96.09
msolution = (Mass of Water) + (Mass of Salt)
msolution = (96.09) + (3.97)
msolution = 100.06
Determining Edissolution
Edissolution = q + w
Edissolution = q pV

Trial 3
95.43
3.98
21.8
18.7
4.02 J g-1 oC-1
57 J oC-1

However, work = 0 because this is a closed system and gas is not involved in the overall
reaction so the change in volume is negligible resulting in V = 0 Therefore work = 0, and the
overall reaction is now
Edissolution = q
q also equals (Hneutralization)(nreactant / 1 mol reactant) therefore,
Edissolution = (Hneutralization)(nreactant / 1 mol reactant)
Which can be subbed into the equation
0 kJ = (Csolution)(Msolution)(Tcup) + (Hneutralization)(nreactant / 1 mol reactant) + (Ccup)(Tcup)
Resulting in
0 kJ = (Csolution)(Msolution)(Tcup) + (Edissolution) + (Ccup)(Tcup)
Now Edissolution be solved for using the final equation
-Edissolution = (Csolution)(Msolution)(Tcup) + (Ccup)(Tcup)
-Edissolution = (20.0-22.2)[(4.02)(100.06) + 57]
-Edissolution =-2.2(459.2412)
-Edissolution = -1010.3306
Edissolution = 1010.3306 J
However must be in J/g so we must divide by the amount of salt used within the reaction,
therefore
Edissolution = 1010.3306 / 3.97
Edissolution = 254 J/g
Edissolution for Trial 2:
253 J/g
Edissolution for Trial 3:
356 J/g
Average Edissolution for all trials is
= (Trial 1 + Trial 2 + Trial 3)/3
= (254 + 253 + 356)/3
= 288 J/g

4) Calculating Edissolution for the six salts in Table 1

Edissolution Calculations (LiCl):
Elattice = 846 kJ/mol
Ecation hydration = -506 kJ/mol
Eanion hydration = -377 kJ/mol
Edissolution = Elattice + Ecation hydration + Eanion hydration
Edissolution = 846 + (-506) + (-377)
Edissolution = -37.0 kJ/mol
Edissolution in J/g of LiCl salt = ((Edissolution)(1000)) / (Molar Mass of LiCl)
Edissolution in J/g of LiCl salt = ((-37.0)(1000)) / (42.39)
Edissolution in J/g of LiCl salt = -870 J/g of LiCl salt
Edissolution of LiBr:
-470 J/g of LiBr salt
Edissolution of NaCl:
50 J/g of NaCl salt
Edissolution of NaBr:
0 J/g of NaBr salt
Edissolution of KCl;
228 J/g of KCl salt
Edissolution of KBr:
168 J/g of KBr salt
From the average Edissolution of the unknown salt calculated being 288 J/g, the closest
possible Edissolution of the salts found is to be Edissolution of KCl which is 228 J/g of KCl salt
which is an endothermic reaction as the change in temperature is negative and the following
Edissolution is positive.

Discussion
There are three main sources of error that could have occurred throughout this experiment.
First of all, the basis of the coffee cup calorimeter is poorly designed in the sense that there is
holes within two instances, the first instance is the hole in which the pH meters temperature
probe is being used to measure the temperature of the solution. This tiny hole may be a source
of heat loss during the reaction which may affects. The second instance of a hole created is the
one created during the introduction of the reactants to the solution. It seems very inefficient to
open the lid and close it quickly to add the required reactants to the solution as some of the
reactions undergo very quickly which can affect the overall heat of the reaction due to heat
being loss to the surroundings.
The second source of error would likely occur with transferring of the unknown salt to the
solution in part three of the experiment, when compared to part two the calcium metal pellets
are very easy to transfer over to the solution, however with the unknown salt it is very hard to
consistently transfer over all 4.0 grams of the salt required for the reaction. If not enough of the
salt is fully transferred over this may result in a loss of heat as the reaction cannot occur ideally.
The third source of error is the improper calibration of the measurement instruments, there
could be a source of error that could occur in not tarring the balance and this is a very
measurement extensive experiment so an error within the measurements can result in skewed
final answers that are far apart. The second instrument that required calibrating and careful use
is that of the pH meters temperature probe, due to the fact that during the part two of the
experiment if not enough swirling occurred, than the temperature reading stops at certain times
but afterwards if more mixing occurred the temperature would increase as the mixing increases
the rate of the reaction. This can cause a misreading in the final temperature of the solution.
Also probe required to sit in the initial solutions to have a better calibration as it would fluctuate
by 0.1 degrees Celsius at times during initial readings.
The accuracy of part 1 and 2 of this experiment is relatively precise in the regard that all the
values are close together, however within part 3 the first two values are very closes together
with the third one being very far off which skews the overall average of all three trials in part
three. This is why the accuracy of all the measured values are very important within this
experiment is because they are directly linked to the quantitative values. The difference between
final answers within teach trial is very dependent on the measured values taken using the
instruments. The measured values can only be as accurate as the least accurate instruments used
to measure them, and if there is no consistency with the measuring it can result in values that are
off from expected.
Calibration is very necessary of the calorimeter as depending on the heat capacity of the
calorimeter can result in loss in heat within each part of the experiment as each part required the
heat capacity to be used in the equations. If the calibration was ignored, there would be no
accurate way to calculate each different kinds of heat and energy exchanges within the system
and the surrounding. If the differences in heat exchanges could not be accurately calculated this
would in turn then affect the final enthalpies calculated with each part.

Although there is the assumption that no heat exchange occurs to the surrounds it is not
entirely true in this case. The reason this is not true is due to the poor design of the coffee cup as
it requires a hole to allow the pH meters temperature probe to go through and measure the
temperature of the solution. Also because the lid needs to be removed to introduce the reactants
to the solution, also results in a loss of heat to the surroundings. The loss of heat to the
surrounding can therefore affect the final results of the enthalpy of each reaction. The reason
why the assumption is made that there is no exchange of heat with the surrounds is due to the
reason that the instruments given within the experiment cannot accurately measure the amount
of heat loss there truly is.
To improve the accuracy of this experiment is to consistently, use the same measuring
devices throughout the experiment and use more accurate devices as well such as a volumetric
pipette to transfer liquid solutions and the analytic balance to measure anything in grams as it
gives much more accurate data to use. To also improve the heat loss to the surroundings is to
cover any holes such as the one used for the pH meter probe such as using tape to cover the hold
directly, or have a different way to introduce the reactants to the solution without having to open
the lid. These numerous improvements are realistic as well due to the fact at how fast this
experiment was completely so clearly more time could have been used to increase accuracy.
Conclusion
In conclusion the heat capacity of the coffee cup was calculated to be 57.0 J oC-1. The value
of the Hneutralization turned out to be -5.5x102 kJ with HCl and the addition of water and -5.4x102
kJ with water and the addition of HCl thus resulting in proving Hesss law that regardless of
how reactants are added the overall change in heat will be the same. Finally, From the average
Edissolution of the unknown salt is calculated to be 288 J/g which is an endothermic reaction and
matches closely to KCl which is 228 J/g. The major difference would likely occur with
improper calibration of the pH probe and the fact that the change in volume and change in heat
to the surroundings is ignored and not to be accounted for. However all values were able to be
determined and calculated resulting in a close answer, therefore this experiment is a success.
References:
Koczanski, Krystyna; Xidos, James D. CHEM 1310 Laboratory Manual; UMSU Copy Centre:
Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2013, pp 61- 66