Stoichiometry Lab: Data Collection and Processing
Stoichiometry Lab Data Collection and Processing Item | Mass | Small beaker (100 mL)| 47. 0 grams| Large beaker (150 mL)| 82. 4 grams| Mass of filter paper| 0. 50 grams| Mass of coffee filter| 1. 00 gram| 150mL beaker + 20mL water + lead nitrate solution| 96. 1 grams| 100mL beaker + 20mL water + sodium carbonate solution| 64. 2 grams| Watch glass| 32. 2 grams| Precipitate + filter paper + coffee filter| 2. 20 grams| Precipitate + 150mL + coffee filter| 84. 1 grams| Uncertainty of electronic balance: ±0. 001 grams Uncertainty of 100 mL beaker: ±0. 05 mL
After looking at the data and the calculations made, it can be said that the experiment was a success, and also a failure. The percent yield determines how efficient this experiment was, by comparing the actual yield of the products to the theoretical yield of the products. The percent yield of lead II carbonate is 86. 8%, which is reasonably a good percentage. This means that the efficiency of the experiment and reaction was good. However, the percent yield for sodium nitrate is 7. 7% which means that the efficiency for this experiment and reaction was horrible.
Stoichiometry Lab: Data Collection and Processing Essay Example
It’s probable that somewhere in the calculations, experiments, or measurements that a mistake was made that lead to this outcome. There could have been many spots for error in this lab. However, several were noted during the experimental process. When the lead nitrate, sodium carbonate and water mixture was being poured into the filter, some of it spilled out onto the table. Also, before the sodium nitrate and water solution was heated over the Bunsen burner, some of the solution was also spilled onto the table, which may be the reason why sodium nitrate has such a low percent yield.
Also, when pouring substances from one beaker to another, not all of the substance may be transferred. There could have been human error when measuring amounts of water with graduated cylinders and beakers. The water level may have been more or less than what was called for. Lastly, there might be systematic error with the electronic balance. If the balance was not zeroed at each time it was used, the measurements may have been off. The design of the lab was great. The procedure was straight forward and easy to follow.
It gave clear step by step directions on what to do. The quality of the data was good also. A weakness of this lab is that there were many opportunities for there to be error. This is significant because it can be reflected in the results. For example, the percent yield for sodium nitrate is very low and probably is due to several errors that were made throughout the experiment. The precision and accuracy of the measurements are pleasant because the same electronic balance was used each time for all the weighing. Also, the balance was zeroed out before each measurement.
The use of equipment was good because the materials that were going to be used were known and weren’t hard to handle. The management of time was okay but could be improved because the experiment extended over a period of 4 days. A modification for this lab could be that the 1. 0 g of sodium carbonate, 1. 0 g of lead II nitrate, 20mL of distilled water, and 5mL of water could be premeasured before the lab was started. There could have been a lot of error when measuring these values and a way to get rid of the some of the error is to have these values premeasured and ready to go before the lab is started.