LI PO CHUN UNITED WORLD COLLEGE SESSION MAY 2016

DETERMINATION OF
IRON CONTENT IN IRON
TABLET
Chemistry Internal Assessment (Standard Level)
Wong Long Sang (Isaac)
10/27/2015
Introduction
My 87 years old grandmother (Figure 1) has anemia which was caused by an iron deficiency in her
body system. As part of her treatment from the public hospital, the doctor has prescribed her
with a certain type of iron tablet (ferrous sulphate (FeSO4)) as part of her diet. However, my
grandmother has not received much improvement in health after such consumption. This
situation stimulated two questions in my mind. Since my grandmother takes two iron pills per
day, how much iron content is she actually consuming into her body? Is the iron content as stated
in the capsule bottle really consistent with the actual iron content?

This chemistry internal assessment gave me just the opportunity for me to answer this question in
practical terms. I decided to determine the iron content of iron tablets with my knowledge on
redox and acid base chemistry. For research purposes, I bought the exact same brand and type of
iron tablets (Figure 2), produced by Apt Pharmaceuticals, my grandmother was prescribed. I tried
to see if there were any difference in the iron content the doctor thinks there is and what my
grandmother is actually taking in.

Figure 1 - I (right) am very close to my Figure 2 - The iron tablets my grandmother consumes
grandmother (left). This investigation is
dedicated to my beloved grandmother.
Methodology
For a more effective and accurate investigation of the iron content in ferrous sulphate, I used two
methods based on chemical knowledge learnt in class. Below, I will describe the theory and the
relevant procedures of each method.

From the information stated on the capsule bottle, there is 60mg/0.6 g of iron per tablet.

Method 1 – Redox Titration

In an acidic solution, potassium permanganate oxidizes iron(II) to iron(III), while itself would be
reduced to manganese(II) in the following equation.

- 2+ + 2+ 3+
MnO4 + 5Fe + 8H  Mn + 5Fe + 4H2O

Potassium permanganate is deep purple in colour while Mn2+ ions are of light pink. To determine
the iron content, I titrated an iron solution with KMnO4 until the endpoint is reached as from the
above chemical equation. Knowing the concentration and the volume of MnO4- used to reach the
endpoint, I would also know the number of moles MnO4- in the chemical equation. I can then
calculate the number of moles of Fe2+ ions with a stoichiometric mole ratio of 1:5. The iron
content can then be determined after multiplying the number of moles of Fe2+ with the molar
mass of Fe (55.85).

For the iron solution to be titrated, I dissolved the iron tablets into deionized water and added 2M
sulphuric acid to form an acidic medium.

Figure 3 – The dissolving of 5 iron

tablets into deionized water with a
magnetic stirrer (Step 1)
Experimental procedure:

1. Using a magnetic stirrer, 5 iron tablets were dissolved in 200 cm3 of deionized water.

2. Wearing gloves, safety googles and a lab coat , the solution was transferred into a 250 cm3
volumetric flask and filled up to the graduation mark with 50 cm3 2M sulphuric acid. Prior
to reaching the mark, a water sprayer was used around the glass surface near the opening
to wash any residue of Fe into the flask.

3. After filling up a burette with 0. 1M of KMnO4, an initial reading was taken while holding a
white tile behind the marks for a clearer view. This is due to the very dark purple nature of
KMnO4 which would affect the reading of the marks engraved in brown.

4. 25 cm3 of iron solution was pipetted into a conical flask.

5. Using a burette, the solution was titrated until it reached an endpoint of turning from
colorless to light pink.

6. The reading in the burette after titration was recorded, again while holding a white tile for
clearer and more accurate reading.

Figure 4- Conical flask at endpoint (Pink in colour)

Method 2 – Precipitation method

In method one, the iron content was determined through multiplying the stoichiometric mole
ratios of Fe2+ ions and multiplying it with the relative atomic mass of Fe. However, there is was
underlying assumption that the ferrous sulphate in the tablets consisted of only of Fe2+ ions which
would all be oxidized to Fe3+ with KMnO4. During the manufacturing or storage process, some
Fe2+ may have been oxidized (or rusted) into Fe3+ ions. This would affect the accuracy of the iron
content calculated in method 1 as it was based solely on the number of moles of Fe2+ on the
reactant side, neglecting the possible presence of Fe3+ ions.

This leads on to the method of precipitation which addresses this problem.

I first dissolved 5 iron tablets into deionized water then added concentrated nitric acid to oxidize
all Fe2+ to Fe3+. This would result in an acidic iron solution with only Fe3+ ions.

3Fe2+ + NO3- + 4H+  3Fe3+ + NO + 2H2O

I then added excess sodium hydroxide solution to the above resulting solution in order to
precipitate iron(III) hydroxide. This is due to the precipitation reaction which occurs
between the sodium hydroxide solution with iron(III) nitrate solution. The excess sodium
hydroxide was added to neutralize the acidic solution caused by the addition of nitric acid
before the reaction could occur.

Fe3+ (aq) +3OH-(aq)  Fe(OH)3(s)

The precipitated Fe(OH)3 was then be filtered using

filter paper with a vacuum flask. The iron content
could then be determined after drying the filter
paper in an oven.

Figure 5 - Iron solution with reddish brown iron

precipitation after step 3. The bottle on the far
left is concentrated nitric acid.
 Experimental procedure:

1. Using a magnetic stirrer and a beaker, dissolve 5 iron tablets into 200 mL of 2M sulphuric
acid (H2SO4) to fully dissolve the iron tablets.

2. Wearing gloves, safety googles and a lab coat, add 100 mL of concentrated nitric acid
(16M) into the iron solution in a fume cupboard.

3. Add 300 mL of 5M sodium hydroxide solution (NaOH) to neutralize the excess acid used
and precipitate the iron in the solution.

4. Weigh a filter paper and put it on top of a vacuum flask.

5. Filter the precipitate (Fe(OH)3) with the vacuum flask

6. Repeat step 5 until all visible Fe(OH)3 have been filtered.

7. Take out the filter paper and put in oven to dry and set to 60 degrees.

8. Weight the filter paper every 30 minutes until the weight is constant.

Figure 1 - The solution with iron precipitate.

Note the dark blue pH paper which shows the Figure 7 - A vacuum flask was used for
solution to be alkaline (~10-12 pH). An alkaline quicker filtering. The process was repeated
solution was needed in order for the reactino to several times with the “filtered” solution.
occur.
Analysis
For each method, I have performed five trials and 3 trials respectively. I will then mean out the
values for my calculations. Uncertainties will also be taken into account.

Results of Method 1 (Redox Titration)

Trial Number Volume of MnO4- to reach endpoint (cm3)
1 7.9 ± 0.1
2 8.2 ± 0.1
3 8.6 ± 0.1
4 7.7 ± 0.1
5 8.4 ± 0.1

Mean of all trials + standard deviation 8.2 ± 0.4

uncertainty
Table 1 - Results of Method 1

The uncertainty of each volume calculated is ±0.1 since the uncertainties of two readings, each of
±0.05, had to be added after their subtraction.

I will then calculate the iron content there is per iron tablet.
8.2
No. of moles of MnO4- in the 0.1 M solution: 1000
× 0.1 = 0.00082

No. of moles in 25 cm3 of Fe2+ from 1:5 mole ratio from MnO4- : 0.00082 x 5 = 0.0041

No. of moles in 250 cm3 solution: 0.0041 x 10 = 0.041

Mass of Fe2+: 0.041 x 55.85 (molar mass of FeSO4) = 2.28985 g

Mass of Fe2+ per tablet: 2.28985 ÷ 5 = 0.45797 g

Uncertainty calculation:

Percentage uncertainty for the volume of MnO4- needed to reach endpoint:

0.4
8.2
× 100% = 4.89% = ± 5%

Percentage uncertainty for volumetric flask for 25 mL of iron solution transferred (± 0.24):
0.24
25
× 100% = ± 0.96% = ± 1%

Absolute uncertainty for iron content:

0.45797 x (5%+1%) = ± 0.03

Therefore the mass of Fe2+ iron in one tablet is 0.46 ± 0.03 g.

 Results of Method 2 (Precipitation method)
Trial Number Mass of Fe(OH)3 per pill (g)
1 0.973± 0.002
2 0.865 ± 0.002
3 1.038 ± 0.002

Mean of all trials + standard deviation 0.959 ± 0.09

uncertainty
Table 2 - Results of Method 2

All the values in Table 2 were divided by five since five pills were dissolved in sulphuric acid. The
uncertainty of the Mass of Fe(OH)3 is ± 0.002 since it combines the uncertainties of ± 0.001 the
digital balance has when measuring the weight of the filter paper and the measurement of the
mass of filter paper plus Fe(OH)3 .

After drying the filter paper in the oven, the filter paper was weighted every thirty minutes until
the weight was constant. Below are two pictures of the filter paper after 30 minutes and when the
filter paper was completely dried. The value from Table 2 is a subtraction of the mass of the initial
filter paper from the mass of the filter paper plus Fe(OH)3 .

Figure 8 - Filter paper, 30

minutes in drying in Trial 3 Figure 9 - Filter paper,
completely dried in Trial 3

Averaging the values from Trial 1 to 3, the amount of Fe(OH)3 per pill is 0.959 ± 0.002 g. To
determine the iron content, this valued is multiplied with the percentage by mass of iron in
Fe(OH)3 .

55.845
Percentage by mass of Fe in Fe(OH)3 :
55.845+(15.9994+1.00794)×3
= 52.2565 %

Mass of Fe in Fe(OH)3 : 0.959 x 52.2565% = 0.501 g

Uncertainty calculation:

0.009
× 100% = ± 9%
0.959

Absolute uncertainty: 0.501 x 0.2% = 0.004509

Therefore the mass of Fe in one iron tablet using the precipitation method is 0.501 ± 0.005 g
Conclusion and evaluation
The initial aims of the investigation have been achieved. I have attempted to determine the iron
content in one iron tablet of ferrous sulphate, produced by Apt pharmaceuticals, as prescribed to
my grandmother.

Due to the consideration of the presence of Fe3+ ions, as stated in the methodology section, a
complementary experiment using precipitation was performed in addition to the redox titration.
My calculated results show that the iron content by Method 1 and Method 2 are 0.46 ± 0.03 and
0.501 ± 0.005 g respectively.

The calculated iron content determined by method 2 is larger than method 1, thus justifying my
assumption that Fe3+ ions were present as Method 2 measures the presence of all Fe2+ and Fe3+
ions while Method 1 only takes into the account of Fe2+ ions only. However, conservatively, I
would still conclude the range of my calculated iron content as between 0.43 to 0.506 mg.

My calculated value is between 9~17 mg off from the theoretical value of 60mg as stated on the
label of the capsule bottle. Yet, I would not be confident to conclude that the pharmaceutical
company is providing false information to my grandmother’s doctor as I am aware of the many
potential errors and limitations my investigation has.

Evaluation and limitations

I will list the potential errors specific to each experiment (Method 1 & 2) followed by overall
limitations related to both experiments.

Method 1

1. Potassium permanganate solution has a colour of deep purple which would affect the
reading taken. The burette has marks that are in dark brown and not being able to clearly
take readings may affect the accuracy of my stoichiometric calculations. To reduce this
systematic error, I put a white tile behind the burette glass when I take my readings. This
was to create a plain and clear background to facilitate a more accurate reading. Despite
this measure, there may still be an effect of the accuracy of my resulting calculations.
Ultimately, this random error can be reduced by repeating more trials and taking an
average.

2. The tablets I bought have a thin foil of pink on the outside. When dissolved into water
and sulphuric acid, there is a light pink suspension on the iron solution. On the other
hand, the end point of the redox titration with potassium permanganate is pink also.
Despite the very distinct difference between these two types of pink and the fact that the
pink would fade a little as time went on, this might be a contribution towards potential
inaccuracies in interpreting the endpoint reached. To improve, again, more trials could
 have been done. Had it not been my personal initiative to investigate in my grandmother’s
pill, I could have also changed the type of iron tablet investigated.

Method 2:

1. The small size of the Fe(OH)3 being filtered and the wet medium resulted in some of it
sticking on the sides of the filtering funnel as seen in Photo 10. I had to wash the funnel in
order to retrieve the residue, a process I repeated many times. In addition, the small size
of Fe(OH)3 also meant I had to repeatedly filter the precipitate solution in order to get as
much residue possible. However, there may still be traces of Fe(OH)3 unfiltered or stuck in
the filtering funnel which would affect my calculations. To improve, I could have used
finer filter paper in order to get more iron residue as more Fe(OH)3 would be filtered.

Figure 10 - Filtering funnel with traces of

Fe(OH)3

2. There also may have been other impurities and substances that could have adhered to the
filtered Fe(OH)3, possibly making my result larger than what it should be. To improve, I
could have used ice cold water to wash the filtered residue so that other substances would
dissolve in the water and thus be washed away. The insoluble Fe(OH)3 would stay due to
its insolubility. This would increase my accuracy in terms of the Fe(OH)3 measured.

3. Despite taking a reading of the weight of filter paper only when the weight has been
constant after continuously drying it in an oven, there may still be inaccuracies in my
measurement. Since I could not put the filter paper on the digital balance while it is still
hot straight from the oven, the process of leaving it to cold down may have increased the
weight it has. Water vapor from air may have added on to the weight of the filter paper
during the wait. This would make my measurement larger due to an increased weight. To
improve, the paper could have been put in a desiccator to stay dry while it cools down.
Methods 1 and 2

Overall the presence of other chemicals may also have affected my experimental results. From
photo 7, the precipitated solution with Fe(OH)3 is in yellow despite being in an alkaline medium
of around 10 to 12 pH, meaning excess NaOH has been added to precipitate the solution. As a
matter of interest, I kept on adding NaOH yet could see no change. Therefore, I assume the
presence of other chemicals may have affected the precipitation of Fe3+, a potential explanation of
the yellowish colour. This may, again, affect my calculation results as Fe3+ in all pills are not fully
precipitated and may have adhered with other impurities. To improve, a thorough investigation
regarding the chemical composition of the iron tablets could have been done followed by a
manipulation experimental design in accordance to the other substances present.

********** END**********
Bibliography
"Experiment 16 Help!!!" Web. 25 Dec. 2015. <http://faculty.uml.edu/james_hall/84124/16.htm>.

"Iron (III) Hydroxide Precipitate." Web. 25 Dec. 2015.

<http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/4347/view>.

Illustrations
All photos and illustrations were taken and produced by myself.