Sophia Endert

Science Chemistry 10

Measuring the Production of Gas

Background Information In this metal and acid chemical reaction, magnesium is the metal and acid hydrochloric acid is the acid. Acid reacts with some metals and some of these metals react more than others. The product of these reactions is a salt and hydrogen gas. The type of salt changes depending on the reactants (metal and acid). (Metals and Acids) Aim/purpose: to study the total volume of hydrogen gas produced in a reaction between magnesium (Mg) and hydrochloric acid (HCl) Hypothesis: as the grams of magnesium in a reaction between magnesium and hydrochloric acid increases, the volume of gas will increase if the millilitres of hydrochloric acid is held constant. This is because the more grams there are of magnesium, the more moles there are and the ratio between Mg and H2 in this experiment is 1:1. This is true for this experiment because the limiting factor is the Mg (see calculation #1), it is the reactant which runs out, and therefor controls the amount of Hydrogen produced. The more Mg there is, the more hydrogen it will produce. Balanced equation for the reaction: Mg (s) + 2HCl (aq) MgCl2 (aq) + H2 (g) Calculation # 1 to find limiting factor:

The magnesium produces less hydrogen than the hydrochloric acid. This means that it runs out, making it the limiting factor. This shows that it is the magnesium controlling the volume of H2 gas produced. Predictions (Hypothesis) To get our predicted volume of gas, we had to go through a few calculations. One example for flask 1: 0.6cm of Mg= 0.015g of Mg We need to convert the cm into grams to then find the moles of magnesium in each test. We only need calculations for magnesium since it is the limiting factor. 0.015g (Mg)/24.3 (Mg atomic mass)= 0.00062 moles Mg 1:1 ratio (Mg:H2) In the equation, there is one Mg and one H2, making the ratio 1:1.

Sophia Endert 0.00061 (moles Mg) x 25.2 (converting moles to litres) = 0.015L of H2 0.015L x 1000 (converting from litres to mL)= 15mL of H2 Flask number 1 2 3 4 5 Calculations 0.015g/24.3 0.03g/24.3 0.045g/24.3 0.06g/24.3 0.075/24.3

Science Chemistry 10

Predicted volume of H2 gas produced (mL) 15mL 30mL 45mL 60mL 75mL

Variables:
Independent variable(s): cm of Mg ribbon Dependent variable(s): volume of H2 gas produced Controlled variables: Volume of HCl (20Ml per reaction) Concentration of HCl (1 mole per liter) Temperature of substances (keep at 25C)

Method
Materials: 200mL of hydrochloric acid x1 Thermometer x1 Ruler x1 Pipette x1 Scissors x1 20cm of magnesium ribbon x1 5 flasks with gas outlet Clamp stand x1 Rubber tube x1 Gas syringe x1 Rubber stopper x1 Tongs x1

Sophia Endert Set up:

Science Chemistry 10

Procedure: Read steps carefully before beginning: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Label 5 flasks from 1-5 with a marker Put 20 mL of HCl in each flask (measure the HCl in a measuring cylinder) Attach the rubber tube on the flask gas outlet In flask 1 put 0.6 cm of Mg ribbon in the gas outlet Attach the gas syringe on the other side of the rubber tube and clamp it to a stand Put a rubber stopper on the top of the flask Tip the Mg ribbon into the HCl by tilting the flask When the reaction is finished, record how much H2 gas was produced by looking at the gas syringe in data table. The reaction is finished when there is no more Mg ribbon left. 9. Repeat steps 2-8 for the remaining flasks except: In flask 2 put 1.2 cm of Mg ribbon in the gas outlet In flask 3 put 1.8 cm of Mg ribbon in the gas outlet In flask 4 put 2.4 cm of Mg ribbon in the gas outlet In flask 5 put 3.0 cm of Mg ribbon in the gas outlet 10. Repeat steps 1-14 for second trials and more data

Sophia Endert

Science Chemistry 10

Raw data table: trials and volume of H2 gas produced Flask number Volume of H2 gas produced Observations (mL) 1st trial 2nd Trial 1 12mL 14mL -23C -At first we dropped the Mg ribbon in the flask and put the rubber stopper on after, so we managed to redo these trials to get better data -Fizzing and bubbling around Mg ribbon 2 3 30.5mL 40mL 30mL 45mL -Fizzing and bubbling around Mg ribbon -Fizzing and bubbling around Mg ribbon -ribbon got stuck a bit in the flask at the top, had to shake HCl to bring it down -23C -Jumpy gas syringe -Fizzing and bubbling around Mg ribbon -23C -Fizzing and bubbling around Mg ribbon -rubber stopper may have been too small

53mL

56mL

71mL

69.5mL

Final results table: Averages of Volume of H2 gas produced Flask number Average Volume of H2 Gas produced (mL) 1. 0.6cm Mg + 20mL HCL 13mL 2. 1.2 cm Mg + 20mL HCL 30.25mL 3. 1.8 cm Mg + 20mL HCL 42.5mL 4. 2.4 cm Mg + 20mL HCL 54.5mL 5. 3.0 cm Mg + 20mL HCL 70.25mL Table #3: Percent Error per Flask Flask number Percent error (prediction - actual) / actual * 100, absolute value 1 (13-15)/13 * 100= -15 -> 15% 2 0.8% 3 5% 4 9% 5 6%

Overall average percent error: 7.16%

Sophia Endert Graph 1: Volume of H2 produced

Science Chemistry 10

Volume of Hydrogen Gas Produced

80 70 Volume of Hydrogen Gas (mL) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 Magnesium Ribbon (cm) 3 4 Volume of Hydrogen Gas Produced (mL) Spalte1

Conclusion Our results show that as the grams of magnesium in the reactions between magnesium and hydrochloric acid were increased, the volume of gas increased as the millilitres of hydrochloric acid were held constant. The mathematical relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable is the moles of the independent variable are the same as the moles of the dependent variable, although to get the volume of each, different mathematical equations are needed. To find the grams of magnesium, we converted cm to grams by multiplying the cm of ribbon by 0.025 (grams of Mg per cm of ribbon). We were then able to find out how many moles of magnesium were in that test, which is also the same as moles of hydrogen gas produced. To get moles of hydrogen into litres, we multiplied the moles of magnesium (also moles of hydrogen) by 25.2. Our results supported our hypothesis, and the volumes of hydrogen gas produced were also reasonably close to our predictions. The average percent error was 6%, which is good considering the areas in which we could have lost accuracy. Evaluation Our procedure was reliable but could have been more reliable. Our technique of putting the magnesium ribbon in the gas outlet made it much less likely of losing any hydrogen, but we did not do that method straight away, meaning we may have got some off results at the beginning from dropping the magnesium into the acid and then putting the rubber stopper on. Our procedure was very reliable in the sense that we calculated centimetres of Mg ribbon and millilitres of HCl to do two trials each and get enough relevant data. Our calculations could have been more precise, by not only have the number to 1 or 2 decimal places, but 3 so that when rounded to 1 decimal place at the end, the number would not be too far off. Our data may not have been as accurate as possible seeing as we were using our own eyes to see how many millilitres of hydrogen was produced. This means that depending on what angle we were looking at the syringe, our results may have been off. To do this

Sophia Endert

Science Chemistry 10

better another time, we could use a probe connecting to the computer and get data and numbers of a more accurate source. We could have controlled more variables to make sure we could get as accurate data as possible. For example, our set up looked a bit different each time since wed move the gas syringe, the rubber tube, and the clamp almost each time. To improve this, we should have done all of our tests in the same positioning, with the gas syringe at a specific angle (e.g horizontal) to keep our results as similar as possible. Also perhaps doing the experiments in the same flask could make the percent error less drastic between each trial. If we had measured enough (preferably accessive) millilitres of HCl in the flask so that it would never become the limiting factor, this would have worked so that no water evaporation from washing out the flasks would get into the syringe. To get more precise results, we could have weighed the cm of Mg we were using instead of relying on the conversion from centimetres to grams which could have been off if we did not measure correctly. Over all our results were quite close to our predictions with only a 6% error.

Sophia Endert Works Cited

Science Chemistry 10

"Metals and Acids." Nelsonthornes. Web. 26 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nelsonthornes.com/secondary/science/scinet/scinet/reaction/acids/metacid.h tm>.

Reade, Jill, and Ed Love. "Acids + Metals." Launceston College. Web. 26 Feb. 2012. <http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/sciences/PhysSci/pschem/acidbase/acidRxns.htm>.