Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

CH 204 Introduction to Chemical Practice

Experiment 2 Enthalpy of Chemical Reactions


Mirna Carmona*
Efran Loquias
TA: Jennette Saunders
September 26, 2016

EXPERIMENTAL
The experiment started with preparations of solutions and getting LabQuest
set up. There were two solutions to be made, one was 2M HCL and the other was
2M NaOH. The 2M HCl solution was created by adding 200mL of deionized water
into a to a beaker that had be named 2M HCl. To this deionized water, 100mL of
6M HCl were placed in a beaker to then to then be measured out by a graduated
cylinder and placed in the beaker that contained the deionized water. When mixing
the solution, the acid to water concept was followed. For the creation of 2M NaOH,
the same approach of adding 50 mL of deionized water in the beaker that was
named 2M NaOH was used. In addition, once again repeating the process of
placing the stock solution, this time being 3M NaOH, was placed in a beaker and
then measured by a graduated cylinder to get 100mL. Since there was a reaction
between the chemicals, the solutions were left to cool while LabQuest was set up.
The settings were changed on the LabQuest to appear as 15 s/sample for the
interval box, and the duration was placed at 180s.
The first sub-reaction that was preformed was hydrochloric acid and sodium
hydroxide. 50 mL of 2M HCl were added to a graduated cylinder and placed inside
the Styrofoam cups. The Styrofoam cups, stacked on top of each other, were placed
in a beaker to be used as the coffee cup calorimeter. Once the solution had been
put in, the lid and temperature probe were placed. Next, 50mL of NaOH were
obtained in a graduated cylinder and placed aside. Using the LabQuest, three initial
temperatures were taken of just the 2M HCl solution. After the initial temperatures
had been recorded, the solution of NaOH was placed in the cup. As the solutions
mixed, the LabQuest recorded the temperature changes until it reached a maximum
and then came down. The mixture was then disposed of properly and the
equipment used was cleaned to continue the next run. The mixture was placed in
the waste container in the vent hood, as for the equipment was cleaned with
deionized water.
Sodium hydroxide and ammonium chloride were the next sub-reaction to be
tested. LabQuest was placed to take data for run two. The clean Styrofoam cups
were once again stacked on top of each other to be used again. 50mL of 2M NaOH
were placed in the Styrofoam cup. The temperature probe was placed inside with
the lid on. The three initial temperatures were obtained and then 50mL of 2M
NH 4 Cl were placed into the solution. As they mixed, LabQuest continued to take
the temperature changes until it reached a peak and then began to go down. The
mixture was then disposed of properly and once again the equipment was cleaned.

Reaction three, hydrochloric acid and ammonium hydroxide, repeated the


same sets as sub-reactions one and two. Run three was set on LabQuest and the
Styrofoam cups were placed on top of each other once again. The difference was
50mL of 2M HCl was placed in the Styrofoam cups. The initial temperatures were
taken and then 50mL of NH 4 OH were placed. The changes in temperature were
taken as the solution interacted and reached a peak. Once the solutions
temperature went down the solution was discarded and the equipment was cleaned.
The temperature changes in all three sub-reactions were plotted in Table 1 and all
information was saved to a USB.
Table 1: Temperature Changes in Reactions 1-3

Condition
T Max (oC)

Reaction 1

Reaction 2

Reaction 3

36.9

23.1

34.3

T Inital (oC)

23.5

21.9

22.5

T (oC)

13.4

1.2

11.8

Part C of the experiment consisted of two sub-reactions. The Labquest setting


were changed to say 15 s/sample and the duration was changed to 480s. The
Styrofoam cups were stacked one on top of the other and placed in a beaker. Inside
the Styrofoam cup, 100mL of 6M HCl solution were placed. The temperature probe
was also placed inside with the lid on in this solution. To accurately get 1.0 grams of
reactant MgO, the scale was scaled to zero. The watch glass that contained no
particles yet was weighed as well. Slowly on the watch glass, MgO was placed and
weighed until one gram was gotten. Three initial temperatures of HCl were then
taken and then one gram of MgO was placed. As the reaction was mixed, the weight
of the watch glass was once again taken to calculate the amount of reside left. Once
the reaction reached a maximum and the temperature stabilized the run was
stopped. The equipment used was cleaned and the mixture was disposed of
properly as done in Part B.
Table 2: Masses for Step 31
Watch Glass (WG)
WG + MgO
Mass (g)

28.455

29.455

Table 3: Masses for Step 38


Watch Glass (WG)
Mass (g)

28.455

WG + Residue
28.460

WG + Mg
28.954

The second sub-reaction consisted of hydrochloric acid and magnesium


metal. Run one of the first sub reaction was saved and prepared for run two. The
Styrofoam cups were once again stacked and 120mL of 2M HCl solution were placed
2

inside. The temperature probe and lid were placed in as well. To make the solution
react, 0.5 grams of Mg were needed. The same process for weighing the Mg was
done as was seen in sub reaction one in Part C. The three initial temperatures of the
solution 2M HCl were taken and Mg was then placed inside. As the solution mixed,
the temperature was taken until it reached a peak and then stabilized. After it had
stabilized, the solution was properly discarded and the changes in temperature for
both sub reactions were recorded. At the end of the experiment the information
received was once again saved onto a USB.

Condition

T Max (oC)

Table 4: Temperature Changes in Reactions 4-5


Reaction 4
Reaction 5
34.9
41.5

T Inital (oC)

T (oC)

21.5

21.7

13.4

19.8

RESULTS & DISCUSSION,


A coffee cup calorimeter, an object that held heat, and a LabQuest with a
temperature probe were to be used to calculate the enthalpy changes in reactions.
There were two main reactions that were tested. This first main reaction, Part B, was
a neutralization reaction that included three sub-reactions. For the second main
reaction, Part C consisted of the formation of magnesium oxide. In order to get the
formation of magnesium oxide two sub-reactions were to be tested. For all five subreactions, the differences in temperatures were recorded to then get the enthalpy
changes of each. Those enthalpy changes of each would then lead to get the total
enthalpy changes of both main reactions.

The theoretical molar enthalpy for each sub-reaction in Part B was


calculated by using Hesss Law. The equation stated that delta H of reaction
is equal to the sum of Hf0 of products minus the sum of Hf0 of reactants.
Using the enthalpies of formation values in table 5 for each sub reaction
Hesss Law was used. The results gotten for each reaction were placed in
Table 6. As was seen in Table 6, the Hrxn for all three sub-reactions showed
to be negative. If the Hrxn was negative this meant that the reactions were
exothermic. Another way to tell if the reaction was exothermic was if it was
warm to the touch because of the heat given off.
Table 6: Calculate theoretical molar enthalpies of Reactions 1-3

Reacti
on

Net Ionic Equation

H+ (aq) + OH (aq) H2O(l) + heat

OH (aq) + NH4+ (aq) NH3 (aq) + H2O


5

Hrxn
(KJ/mol)
-55.84
(l)

-3.62

heat
3

H+ (aq) + NH3 (aq) NH4+ (aq) + heat

-52.22

The amount of heat energy (q) absorbed by the surroundings was then
calculated for all three sub-reactions in Part B. This was done by using the
equation q = (mwater x Cp x T) + (Ccal x T). This meant that the mass of
water times the specific heat capacity of water times change in temperature
plus the heat capacity of the calorimeter times the change in temperature
would give the amount of heat that was absorbed. Since the mass of water
was unknown, to get the mass for each sub reaction it was known the
density for all solutions was 1.03g/mL. This was multiplied by the amount of
solution that was used. For Part B, all three sub-reactions used one hundred
milliliters of solution meaning that the mass of the water for all three was
103 grams. The change in temperature was gotten from the LabQuest data
placed in Table 1. The specific heat of water was given known as 4.184 J/gOC
and the heat capacity of the calorimeter was also given known as 25.5 J/gOC.
All that was left to do was plug in all the number and get the amount of heat
energy that was absorbed by the surroundings. The results were gotten in
Joules but should be changed to kilojoules. For reaction one the amount of
heat absorbed by the surroundings was 6.116KJ, for reaction two 0.548KJ,
and for reaction three 5.386KJ. Now that the amount of heat energy
absorbed by the surroundings had been calculated, Hrxn was calculated for
reactions 1-3 by dividing negative heat energy absorbed by surroundings
q
over the amount of moles used in each reaction (H=
). The amount of
n
moles used for each reaction was gotten by looking at the molarity of each
solution placed in the reaction. Molarity was moles per liter, for reactions 1-3
the molarity was 2M so the amount of moles used was 0.1. The results of
Hrxn for reaction one were -61.16KJ/mol, reaction two -5.48KJ/mol, and
reaction three was -53.86 KJ/mol. To obtain the measured molar enthalpy
change for reaction three, reactions one and two had to be integrated. This
meant that reactions one and two had to be arranged in a way that the
reactants and products could cancel out to get the goal reaction, that being
reaction three. Hesss Law of Heat Summation was the process used to
obtain the value. Hesss Law of Heat Summation states no matter how many
steps there was in the reaction, the total enthalpy change for the reaction
studied would be the addition of all those changes.1
Reaction three, H+ (aq) + NH3 (aq) NH4+ (aq) + heat, was seen to have
the ammonium ion on the right side. This meant reaction two had to flip
around so the ammonium ion could be on the right side and thus canceling
out the remaining reactants and products to obtain the final equation being
6

reaction three. When reaction two was flipped, this also meant the sign for
the H0 value of this reaction changed to positive. Once the sign had been
changed in reaction two, all that was left to do was add the H0 values up
giving us the measured molar enthalpy change for Reaction three. The H0
values for each sub-reaction were gotten from the previous sets where the
H0 for each sub reaction was calculated individually.
Reaction 1: H+ (aq) + OH (aq) H2O(l) + heat

H0=

-61.16
Reaction 2: OH (aq) + NH4+ (aq) NH3 (aq) + H2O (l) + heat

H0= -5.48
Reaction three to be obtained:

Reaction 1: H+ (aq) + OH (aq) H2O(l) + heat

H0=

-61.16

Reaction 2: NH3 (aq) + H2O (l) + heat OH (aq) + NH4+ (aq)

H0= 5.48
Reaction 3: H+ (aq) + NH3 (aq) NH4+ (aq) + heat

H0= -55.68KJ/mol
TheHrxnvaluesforreactionthreecouldbeobtainedusingthreedifferentways.Thefirst
waythatitwasgottenbywasusingthetheoreticalvaluesthisgave52.22KJ/mol.Forthe
secondoption,usingHessLawofSummationthemeasuredvaluewasgottenandthevalue
was55.68KK/mol.Thethirdoptionconsistedofdeterminingthetemperaturedifferencefor
reactionthreeandthevaluegottenwas53.86KJ/mol.Thevaluesgottenfromtheexperiment
werelowerthanthetheoreticalvalue.Whencomparingthevalues,thepercenterrorwas6.63%.
ThismeantthattheHrxnvaluewascorrectsinceitwasbelow15%error.

Sign
flips

ForPartCoftheexperimentthereweretwosubreactionsthatwereexperimentedon.
WhenlookingattheH0valuestheyareallnegative.Thismeansthatallthereactionswere
exothermic.Anotherwaytotellifthereactionwasexothermicwaswhenthereactionwasfelt
thecalorimeterwaswarmbecauseoftheheatgivenoff.Itwasnecessarytousetwodifferent
concentrationsofHClinthereactionsbecausethe2MHClthatwasplacedinMg(metalfilings)
wouldproduceanexothermicreaction.Ifthe6MofHClwereplacedintotheMg(metalfilings)
itwouldhavecausedaviolentreaction.Thismeantthatthisspecificreactionwasmore
exothermic.AsfortheMgO(powder),6MofHClhadtobeusedbecausemoremolarityforthis
reactionwouldcausethereactiontobeexothermic.If2MofHClwereusedintheMgOpowder
solutiontherewouldnotbeabigenoughchangetotellthatanexothermicreactionoccurred.To
obtaintheenthalpyofformationofmagnesiumoxidemanysubstepsweredonebeforethiswas
obtained.Twastheonlynumberknownwhentheexperimentwasconducted,butwithTthe
amountofheatthatwastakeninbythesurroundingforbothsubreactionscouldbecalculated.
qwasobtainedbymultiplyingthemassofwatertimesthespecificheatofwatertimesthe
changeintemperatureplustheheatcapacityofthecalorimetertimesthechangeoftemperature.
Themassofwaterwasunknown;togetthisnumberthedensitywasknowntobe1.01g/mL,by
multiplyingtheamountofmillilitersusedforeachsubreactionbythedensitythisgavethe
mass.InthecaseofsubreactionsoneandtwoforPartC,theamountofmillilitersusedwas
100mL.Oncethecalculationsweredonethemassofwaterwas101gforbothreactions.Allthat
waslefttodowaspluginthenumbersintotheequation.Inreactiononeqwasequalto
6.004KJ,inreactiontwoqwasequalto10.545KJ.Nowthattheamountofheatthatwastaken
inbythesurroundingswasknown,H0couldbeobtainedbysimplyplacinganegativesignin
frontofthisnumber.Theamountofmolesusedforeachsubreactionhadtobeobtainedaswell
soHrxncouldbefound.Thenumberofmoleswasobtainedbydividingtheamountofgrams
usedforeachsubreaction,reactionone.995grams,reactiontwo.499grams,overthemolar
massofeachreaction.ReactiononewouldgivemolesofMgOandreactiontwomolesofMg.
Thisinreturngave0.025molesusedforMgOand0.021molesusedofMg.Sinceboththe
amountofheatabsorbedbythesurroundingandthenumberofmolesusedinthereactionwas
known,Hrxnwasobtainedbydividingnegativeqovertheamountofmolesused.The
numbersgottenforHrxnwere240.16KJ/molforsubreactiononeinPartCand502.14forsub
reactiontwoinPartC.TheHrxnforequationthree,being285.83,wasgivenbecausethe
experimentwasnotpreformed.Thegoalintheendwastoobtaintheenthalpyofformationof
magnesiumoxideandtodothis,equations13seeninTable7weremovedaroundtoendup
withjustmagnesiumoxide.HessLawofSummationstatednomatterhowmanystepsittookto
gettothereaction,theadditionallthosechangeswouldgivethecompleteenthalpychangefor
thereaction.1Inordertoformmagnesiumoxide,equationoneinTable7hadtoflip,whichin
returnalsochangedthenegativesignontheHrxntopositive.Byflippingequationone,when
summingupallthreeequationsthecompoundsMgCl2,H2O,2HCl,andH2canceledoutleaving
ustheformationsofmagnesiumoxide.AllthatwasthenlefttodowasadduptheHrxnvalues,
keepinginmindthatforequationonethesignchangedgivingus547.81KJ/mol.

Table 7: Reaction schemes for the formation of MgO

Equati
on

Reaction

H rxn
(KJ/mol)

MgO(s) + 2 HCl(aq) MgCl2 (aq) + H2O(l)

-240.16

Mg(s) + 2 HCl(aq) MgCl2 (aq) + H2 (g)

-502.14

H2 (g) + O2 (g) H2O

-285.83

Mg(s) + O2 (g) MgO(s)

(l)

Reaction 1: MgO(s) + 2 HCl( aq) MgCl2 (aq) + H2O(l)


-240.16

-547.81

H0=

Reaction 2: Mg(s) + 2 HCl(aq) MgCl2(aq) + H2 (g)


-502.14
Reaction 3: H2 (g) + O2 (g) H2O (l)
-285.83

H0=
H0=

Equation 4 to be obtained:
Reaction 1: MgCl2 (aq) + H2O(l) MgO(s) + 2 HCl(aq)
H0= 240.16

Sign
flips

Reaction 2: Mg(s) + 2 HCl(aq) MgCl2 (aq) + H2 (g)


-502.14
Reaction 3: H2(g) + O2 (g) H2O (l)
Reaction 4: Mg(s) + O2 (g) MgO(s)
-547.81

H0=
H0= -285.83
H0=

The measured value of the change in enthalpy of formation of magnesium


oxide, -547.81, was higher than the theoretical value being -602 KJ/mol.
There was a 9% error rate meaning the experiment results do support Hesss
Law. This was because it was less than 15% of error.
The change in enthalpy per mole of reaction, H 0rxn , was the amount
of heat taken in or taken out during a reaction as the reactants were
10

converted to products.2 Whether a reaction was endothermic or exothermic,


it was be determined by this value. The standard molar enthalpy of
formation, H0f, stated it was the difference in enthalpy for one mole of
substance in their standard state.2 The standard states would be 1atm and
298.15K.2 The biggest difference between the two was, for standard molar
enthalpy of formation one mole should be produced and the elements all
have to be in their standard states. As for the change in enthalpy per mole of
reaction, it only showed if the change in enthalpy that was either released or
absorbed. Part B of the experiment demonstrated the change in enthalpy per
mole of reaction. As for Part C, it demonstrated the standard molar enthalpy
of formation for a reaction.
If the experiment were to be repeated again there are a few changes
that could have occured. Since this was the first time using the temperature
probes and LabQuest, there could have been a test run with using the
equipment. This would have allowed the prevention of errors on the
LabQuest when starting to calculate the actual lab results. Another change
would have been, when getting the powder, MgO, the instruction could
stated instead of getting approximately one gram to get slightly more than a
gram. The residue left on the watch glass would have accounted for getting
slightly more than a gram. Thus, when the powder was placed in the solution
it would have been closer to one gram. For the magnesium metal fillings, the
watch glass could have also been weighed just in case any residue had been
left, as was done with the MgO. By weighing the watch glass it would have
given a more accurate read of how much magnesium metal was placed in
the solution. Something interesting to be added to the experiment would
have been to test how much of an exothermic reaction is produced when
placing 2M HCl to the magnesium oxide. It would have allowed the
comparison between a reaction with 2M HCl in magnesium oxide versus a
reaction with 6M HCl in magnesium oxide.
REFERENCES
1. Schelar, Virginia M. Thermochemistry and the Third Law of Thermodynamics.
Chymia 11
(1966): 99-124. Web.
2. Atkins, Peter W., and Julio Paula De. The First Law. Atkins Physical Chemistry.
Oxford: Oxford
UP, 2006. 50-56. Print.

11