The testable question asked what is the actual percent yield of copper produced in grams/milliliters from the reaction of 2 g of solid copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate and approximately .25 g of aluminum foil in 10 mL of water versus the theoretical yield of copper metal. The hypothesis stated that if a reaction occurs between 2 g of solid copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate and 2 mL of 6 molar hydrochloric acid with approximately .25 g of aluminum foil, then the actual percentage yield of copper produced will be at least 25% less than the theoretical yield found by calculation because conducting the experiment shatters the idea of a perfect experiment and is open to errors such as inaccurate measurements, unsanitary conditions, and unreacted
…show more content…
In accordance with the procedures carried out in the experiment, the stated hypothesis was not entirely valid due to the changes in measurements. Aside from these changes, as their effect on the hypothesis and experiment is unknown, the hypothesis was rejected. The hypothesis stated that the yield of copper would be at least 25% less than the theoretical yield, though the data shows otherwise; the theoretical yield, as seen in the graph and calculations, was equal to .508 grams of copper product. This was calculated by taking the moles of copper found from the limiting reactant, the copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate solution, and placing it inside the n=m/M equation. This equation is used to calculate the number of moles but can be used reversibly to find the amount of grams by including the molar mass in …show more content…
These procedures had slightly different measurements in order to ensure the best results: .3 g of aluminum compared to .25. They were also written in more specific detail with additional steps and different methods of reaching the same product of producing copper. The procedures, unlike the original set, performed the reaction without the hot plate before going through intense rounds of decanting the copper and drying it with the hot plate. After completing the lab and coming to an understanding of the process and reaction, it can be concluded that the given procedures for the experiment were efficient and safe while the original procedures were not. The original procedures carried out the reaction, or the adding of the aluminum to the copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate solution, on the hot plate which could've led to a disastrous result as the reaction itself was enough to bubble the solution and darken the aluminum. Placing the beaker on a hot plate would have intensified this reaction and may have been dangerous. The original set of procedures also lacked in properly cleansing the copper in order to find a proper weight of the product, and instead measured the end result in the remaining copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate solution. These sections in the secondary procedures, as well as overall detail in the
In accordance with the procedures carried out in the experiment, the stated hypothesis was not entirely valid due to the changes in measurements. Aside from these changes, as their effect on the hypothesis and experiment is unknown, the hypothesis was rejected. The hypothesis stated that the yield of copper would be at least 25% less than the theoretical yield, though the data shows otherwise; the theoretical yield, as seen in the graph and calculations, was equal to .508 grams of copper product. This was calculated by taking the moles of copper found from the limiting reactant, the copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate solution, and placing it inside the n=m/M equation. This equation is used to calculate the number of moles but can be used reversibly to find the amount of grams by including the molar mass in …show more content…
These procedures had slightly different measurements in order to ensure the best results: .3 g of aluminum compared to .25. They were also written in more specific detail with additional steps and different methods of reaching the same product of producing copper. The procedures, unlike the original set, performed the reaction without the hot plate before going through intense rounds of decanting the copper and drying it with the hot plate. After completing the lab and coming to an understanding of the process and reaction, it can be concluded that the given procedures for the experiment were efficient and safe while the original procedures were not. The original procedures carried out the reaction, or the adding of the aluminum to the copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate solution, on the hot plate which could've led to a disastrous result as the reaction itself was enough to bubble the solution and darken the aluminum. Placing the beaker on a hot plate would have intensified this reaction and may have been dangerous. The original set of procedures also lacked in properly cleansing the copper in order to find a proper weight of the product, and instead measured the end result in the remaining copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate solution. These sections in the secondary procedures, as well as overall detail in the