The Name’s Bonds, Breaking Bonds

By Sage Davis

Introduction

This experiment was created to use the different properties of ionic compounds, metallic
substances, and molecular substances to classify unknown substances as ionic compounds,
metallic substances, and molecular substances. This experiment was also conducted to explain
the differences in the chemical and physical properties using the differences in the way they are
bonded with one another. For this experiment, many materials were provided, giving the ability
to test multiple chemical and physical properties, for instance, finding the melting point of a
substance.
Ionic compounds, metallic substances, and molecular substances are all made up of
different types of elements. Ionic compounds are made up of metals and metalloids when you
combine a metal/metalloid and a nonmetal. Metallic substances are made up of metals, the
elements on the left side of the periodic table. They form a “sea” of electrons that surround the
positively charged atomic nuclei of the bonded metal atoms. Molecular substances consist of
nonmetals, the elements clustered on the top right corner of the periodic table, and hydrogen.
When ionic compounds bond, they combine a metal and a nonmetal element. An ionic bond is a
complete transfer of valence electrons between atoms. The metal atom gives the electrons to
the nonmetal atom, which takes the electrons from the metal.
You can classify an ionic bond between two elements if it has a very high melting point,
the substance is solluble in water, then after dissolved in water, it is conductive when tested. A
metallic bond is classified when the substance can bend easily, it is a great thermal conductor,
and is very conducive for electricity as well. Molecular substances can be classified when it has
properties such as; a low melting point, being not always solluble and not conductive in water.
Each type of bonding results in the characteristic properties for ionic bonds, metallic
bonds, and molecular substances. The characteristics of a metallic substance are; the ability to
bend the substances with ease, it is a great thermal conductor and conducts electricity well.
This is because metallic bonds are fairly weak when compared to the other types of bond.
Because they are weak, that makes it easier to melt the metal which causes it to have a
relatively low melting point. They are good electrical conductors because, since they are a sea
of freely moving atoms, the electrons flow freely through them. Metallic substances are
malleable because of the drifting electrons. Ionic bonds are very good conductors of energy
when dissolved in water, are solluble in water, and have a very high melting point. Ionic bonds
are very strong which makes it harder to break apart the bonds, giving it a high melting point.
Ionic bonds are good conductors of electricity because when dissolved in water, the ionic bonds
break apart causing positive and negative charges. This gives way for a really good conductor
in water. Finally, molecular substances have a low melting point, are fairly easy to break, are not
conducive and are not always solluble. Molecular substances are not conductive when
dissolved in water because though the molecules would dissolve, they were not charges,
therefore, it was not conducive in water. Molecular substances have a weak bond and this
makes it easy for them to break as well as dissolve. The weak bond also causes the molecular
substance to have a lot melting point.
The answer to question 6 (see table one)
Table one
This is an example of ion formation. Ions are
formed when atoms lose or gain electrons in
order to have a full outer valence electron
shell.

This is an illustration of ionic bonding. Ionic

bonding is the complete transfer of valence
electrons between atoms. Ionic bonding
happens between a metal and a nonmetal
element. The metals give and the nonmetals
take the electrons.

This is an example of a metallic bond.

Metallic bonds are freely moving, “seas” of
electrons with a semi-weak bond. They are
usually givers of electrons. All of the metallic
ions share their electrons.

A covalent bond, also called a molecular

bond, is a chemical bond that involves the
sharing of electron pairs between atoms.
Covalent bonds are formed between two
nonmetal atoms.
 Intermolecular forces are the forces which
cause the interaction between molecules,
including forces of attraction or repulsion
which act between molecules and other types
of neighboring particles

Methods and Materials (Table two)

Table One:
Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Final
Steps: Try bending Look at it Dissolve in Test the Test the Results:
(Left to right) or grinding through a water conductivity melting
microscope in water point
110 ML
Substance: (Crystals or (Does it (Is the
(Top to Amorphis) (Soluble or conduct melting
bottom) not) electricity point high or
well?) low)

Unknown A: Fine Powder Crystalline Soluble Not Melted Molecular

conductive 124.9 C Substance
36

Unknown B: Fine Powder Crystalline Very Conductive Did not Burn Ionic
Soluble 2729

Unknown C: Bends very Crystalline Not Soluble Not Burned very Metallic
easily conductive bright

Unknown D: Fine Powder Crystalline Not Soluble Not Melted Molecular

conductive 36.4 C Substance

Unknown E: Fine Powder Crystalline Soluble Conductive Melted Ionic

1710 88.9 C

Unknown F: Fine Powder Crystalline Very Very Melted Ionic

 Soluble conductive 47.6C
3831

Unknown G: Fine Powder Crystalline Soluble Very Did not melt Ionic
conductive
3112

Unknown A:

I think that Unknown A was an example of a molecular substance/ a covalent bond

because though it had the highest melting point, it was not at all conductive when it had
dissolved in water. Unknown A dissolved very quickly when placed in the water and when
measured, the conductivity was 36, practically nothing compared to the other substances. Not
only did it dissolve quickly, but it was also very easy to grind up, making the bonds very weak.
When we melted the Unknown, there was a very high melting point compared to the other
recorded melting points the melting point is very low compared to other elements.

Unknown B:

I think that Unknown B was an example of an ionic bond. I think this because the
substance did not burn/had a very high melting point, it was very conductive (2729) and it was
very soluble in water. Ionic bonds have a very high melting point and are soluble in water. Ionic
bonds also conduct electricity therefore, Unknown B was an ionic bond. Unknown B also looked
like a bunch of small crystals bundled up together when looked at from under the microscope.
Ionic bonds are all crystalline.

Unknown C:

I think that Unknown C was a metallic bond. I think that it was a metallic bond because it
burned very fast and very bright. It was not soluble in water and bent very easily. With these
results, we classified Unknown C as a metallic substance. Not only that but we were also told
that it was magnesium and magnesium is a metallic substance.

Unknown D:

We classified Unknown D as a Molecular Substance. It was a molecular substance

because when we looked at it under the microscope it was a crystalline, meaning it looked like a
lot of small crystals, and when we tried to dissolve it in water it was not soluble. After trying to
dissolve it, we tested the conductivity and it was not conducive at all. Finally, we tested the
melting point and it melted at 36.4 C. Therefore, we classified Unknown D as a molecular
substance because it has a very low melting point, was not conducive and did not dissolve in
water.

Unknown E:

Unknown E was classified as being an ionic bond and we found this out because it was
soluble in water, a crystalline structure when observed through a microscope, and very
conductive, at 1710. All of these traits correlate with what would classify an Ionic bond. Not only
that but it also had a high melting point at 88.9 C. Ionic bonds have a very high melting point
and are soluble in water. They are also conductive when dissolved in water and they are
crystalline structures.

Unknown F:

I think that Unknown F was an ionic bond due to the conductivity and the melting point.
The conductivity wat at 3831, very high, and the melting point was 47.6 C, relatively high
compared to some of the other substances. Unknown F was also very soluble in water and was
a crystalline structure. All of these characteristics cause it to be an ionic bond with a high
melting point, high conductivity, being soluble in water, and a crystalline structure.

Unknown G:

We classified Unknown G as an ionic bond, for it did not melt (the melting point was too
high) and it was very conducive. Also, it was very soluble in water and was a crystalline
structure when observed under a microscope. Ionic bonds hold all of these characteristics to be
true, having a high light point, having high conductivity, and being soluble in water. Also being a
crystalline structure and a fine powder.

Reflection:

Throughout our seminar, we only had one major disagreement and that was whether or
not Unknown A was a molecular substance or an ionic bond. After everyone had defended their
side as to why they chose what they did, we talked about where we could have gone wrong as
well as the characteristics of each type of bond. We came to the conclusion that is was a
molecular substance because the substance was not conductive when dissolved in water.
Molecular substances are not conductive because when a molecular substance it is the
molecule that breaks apart, not the ions. Therefore it would not be an ionic bond because there
were not any ions to break apart to create a charge. The most valuable tests for making the
distinction between an ionic compound, metallic substance, and a molecular substance was the
conductivity test, solubility test, and when testing the melting point. The conductivity test was the
most valuable because it would tell us if it was conductive or not when put in water and that
would give a clear distinction between an ionic bond, a molecular substance, and a metallic
bond. Ionic substances conduct electricity very well. Molecular substances and metallic bonds,
however, do not because though they have free moving electrons, they do not have ionic bonds,
which is how you get a charge, two atoms that have the opposite charge. The solubility test was
also very valuable because it determined whether it was an ionic bond or possibly a molecular
substance. Metallic bonds are not solluble in water so it ruled out that option. Testing the
melting point was also very reliable because ionic bonds have very high melting points whereas
metallic bonds have a relatively low melting point and molecular bonds have a very low melting
point. The relation between the melting points could determine whether it was metallic, ionic, or
a molecular substance. The least valuable tests for making the distinction between ionic
compound, metallic substance, or molecular substance was looking at it through a microscope
to see whether it was crystalline or amorphic, and trying to bend/grind the substance to rule out
whether it was metallic or molecular (easy to break). The microscope did not help much
because the majority of the look exactly the same and we could not really tell the difference
between amorphic and crystalline. Trying to bend or grind was only helpful for C which was
metallic because it bent very easily but other than that, all of the others were already ground up
or fine powders so it didn’t give us much data.
The Online Scientific Seminar was similar in many ways however very different. The
Seminar was very similar because in the seminar we practiced, we got in an argument,
however, could argue our side with the presence of evidence and being able to support our
claims with direct data. The conversations we were having were also very similar in terms of
what was conversed. The Online Scientific Seminar was different because though we were all
communicating with one another, we did not have the physical interaction with one another. By
having this discussion I learned that in order to make a statement about something you found
you must have the evidence to back it up. I also found that everyone makes mistakes but it is up
to the people conducting the tests to realize where they are at fault and how they could have
made up for the data. I also learned that a lot of the time scientists think similarly, such as in
what tests they should run, which ones would be most and least beneficial, and in what order
they should go about conducting the tests.
This process could be improved by increasing the time we had for this discussion, given
the fact that our group ran out of time. However, other than that I think that this discussion went
really well. I think that the content was really well covered and that all of us had an
understanding of what we had done, how, and why. I honestly truly enjoyed the Online Scientific
Seminar very much compared to an in-person seminar so I do not have many critiques. I think
that though it began slowly, once we began answering the questions the Seminar really flowed
smothly and it all worked out well. It was a great way to see how scientists converse about their
work in a very professional fashion.