You are on page 1of 3


Purpose: The purpose of the lab was to determine the number of moles of iron that reacted with
the number of



- Flask
- Stirring rod
- Filter Paper
- Funnel
- Balance
- Wash bottle filled with
distilled water

- Bluestone
- Steel Wool

1. The first step was to obtain approximately 10 grams of bluestone in a beaker. 100mL of water
(distilled) was then added to the bluestone, and was mixed thoroughly using a stirring rod.
2. Next, a small piece of steel wool was obtained, with a mass of approximately 1.0 g. The steel
wool was then added to the bluestone solution and was stirred again using the stirring rod, to the
point where all the steel wool reacted with the bluestone solution.
3. A filter paper was then prepared and placed into a funnel. The solution that formed from the
steel wool reacting with the bluestone was then poured into the funnel. To ensure that all copper
particles reached the filter paper, a small amount of water was sprayed into the test tube while
4. The particles of copper that remained on the filter paper were left to dry. After drying,
observations were made, and the mass of the filter paper as well as the residue that remained
were weighed.





Teal-Blue colored liquid,

Opaque, non-viscous

Crystal Aqua-Blue color,

transparent liquid, nonviscous


Dull gray solid, stringy solid

Grainy powder, dark brown

Mass of steel wool:


Mass of filter paper:


Mass of filter paper + solid residue:


Number of moles of iron that reacted:
n= 0.99g

1 mole
5.8 g/mol

n = 0.01771 moles (Assuming 4 significant digits)

Mass of copper produced:
Since the mass of both the filter paper alone and the filter paper and solid residue are known, all
that needs to be done is to subtract the copper from the filter paper:
Copper filter paper
2.00g 0.78g = 1.22 g

Since the mass of copper was determined, the number of moles can also be found:
n= 1.22g

1 mole
63.5 g/mol

n=0.01921g (Assuming four significant digits)

4. The ratio obtained in the balanced equation seems to. match the answer from question two.
This is correct. This is primarily due to the coefficients of both copper and iron being 1 as
represented in the balanced equation. Since the mole ratios are derived from the coefficients of
the elements and compounds from a balanced equation, it makes sense for the mole ratio in
number 2, 1:1, to match the mole ratio derived from the balanced equation in question 3, which
also has a ratio of 1:1.
5. The results of the experiment illustrate the principles of the activity series because gathering
from the data given, the reactivity of both the iron and copper can be determined. Since the
equation shows that iron displaces copper from the sulphate, it can be said that iron is higher on
the activity series in comparison to copper. From this, it can therefore be said that iron has a
higher reactivity than copper does.

6. The lab didnt consist of many experimental errors, however there were a few. The first
experimental error was the copper at the end of the experiment. The copper visually seemed
darker than usual and did appear to be a bit damp. This might have been because of the copper
not drying enough, and the water may have added some additional weight. Because of this, the
theoretical yield may be affected, causing the percentage yield to become higher than 100%.
Another experimental error that could also relate to the theoretical yield was the blending of the
steel wool in the bluestone solution. Whilst stirring, it was possible that not all the steel wool
reacted with the bluestone solution. So because of that, some of the iron particles may have not
been dissolved and thus blended in with the copper, making the virtual mass of copper larger
than its supposed to be.
A third and final experimental error that couldve resulted while conducting the experiment

8. To find the percentage yield, the following formula was used:

Percentage yield =



= 108%
The actual yield was 1.22g, while the theoretical yield for copper was 1.13g. However, a
question may arise as to why the percentage was above 100. This is because the actual yield was
higher than the theoretical yield. Like mentioned previously, the actual yield that was measured
had been altered and was likely due to an experimental error during the experiment.