IBDPChemistryHLInternalAssessment

Chemistry Internal Assessment Report Evaluation

Student Name:

Walter Leung

Teacher Name: Mr. M. Harrison

Investigation Task Determine the percentage by mass of calcium carbonate in a sample of limestone. Criteria Assessed Data Collection and Processing Conclusion and Evaluation

Scores

Criteria Data collection and processing

Aspects 1. Recording raw data 2. Processing raw data 3. Presented processed data

Criteria Conclusion and Evaluation

Aspects 1. Conclusion 2. Evaluation 3. Improving the investigation

WalterLeungY12Hope1

IBDPChemistryHLInternalAssessment

Chemistry Internal Assessment Report Evaluation

DATA COLLECTION & PROCESSING
Aspect 1: Recording Raw Data Qualitative data is included. ALL measured quantitative data is presented in a well-designed table. Uncertainties are included and are expressed to one significant figure. There is agreement between the precision of the uncertainty and measured values for each set of measurements. The precision of the measurements within each quantity is consistent. If raw data is obtained from a data logger graph, an annotated screenshot of the graph is included.

Aspect 2: Processing Raw Data Calculations are appropriate to the investigation and address the research question. Calculations are correct and free of major errors. (Major errors in calculation are awarded n.) Assumptions are noted where appropriate. Calculations to find the dependent variable are shown for one identified trial. The uncertainty in the final answer is given as an absolute uncertainty. Data is correctly graphed to show a trend or to determine a quantitative value. Graphs are analysed and provide an answer to the research question.

Aspect 3: Presenting Processed Data Uncertainties in data are correctly propagated. All stages of a calculation are clearly presented. Processed data is presented in a summary table. Tables are clearly organized, including appropriate units and uncertainties. Clear, descriptive and unambiguous headings are given in calculations, tables and graphs. Graphs have appropriate scales, labelled axes, accurately plotted points and a suitable best fit line or curve. The final answer is reported to the correct number of significant figures, and includes the correct SI units and uncertainty.

WalterLeungY12Hope2

IBDPChemistryHLInternalAssessment

Chemistry Internal Assessment Report Evaluation

CONCLUSION & EVALUATION
Aspect 1: Conclusion PART 1: CONCLUSION STATEMENT A conclusion that reflects the research question is clearly and precisely stated, ideally at the start of this section. The conclusion is supported by the data. The data is specifically referred to in the conclusion. PART 2: JUSTIFICATION The conclusion is justified with reference to theory and/or literature values. A percentage error is included when appropriate. The source of the literature value is fully referenced using an approThe degree of confidence in the result is described, with reference to experimental results and uncertainties. The contribution of systematic and random errors is taken into account (preferably in the conclusion). The direction of any systematic error is recognized.

Aspect 2: Evaluation

The most relevant weaknesses or limitations in the design of the experiment are discussed, including the ability to control variables, the use of equipment, the procedure techniques, and The reliability of the data and the role of measurement uncertainty is addressed and explained. Evidence from the results is included to support the evaluation. The significance of each weakness is discussed in terms of its effect on the final result.

Aspect 3: Improving the Investigation Each improvement reflects an identified weakness or limitation. Changes to the method to remove systematic error are identified. Ways of reducing random error are identified. Ways of gaining greater control of variables are identified. Improvements are realistic and achievable in a high school laboratory. Sufficient detail is provided for each improvement. Improvements are not trivial or superficial.

WalterLeungY12Hope3

IBDPChemistryHLInternalAssessment

Introduc on
Theaimofthisprac calistodeterminethepercentageofironinasampleof ironwirewhichisdonebyconver ngtheirontoFe(II)and tra ngagainst standardizedKMnO4.ItisnotpossibletouseKMnO4asaprimarystandard becauseitisdiculttoobtainpure.Itdecomposesslowlyinsolu on,especiallyinsunlightandreadilyoxidizesorganicma er.Ithastobestandardised and must be used as soon as possible a er standardisa on and stored in a darkbo le. Oxalic acid is a good primary standard and can be used to standardize the permanganatesolu on.Thereac onis:

2MnO4+10e+16H+2 Mn2++8H2O 5C2O4210CO2+10e _______________________________________________________ 2MnO4+5C2O42+16H+2 Mn2++10CO2+8H2O

Thisreac ononlyoccursinacidicsolu on,soacidmustbeadded.NoindicatorisneededsincewhentheMnO4-isrunintotheoxalicacidsolu on,itis oxidized to the colourless (really pale pink) Mn2+ ion. The endpoint is reachedwhenonedropofpermanganategivesapermanentcolora on. Ironcanbeanalysedquan ta velybyconversionintoFe(II)byreac onwith sulphuricacidandthenoxida ontoFe(III)usingstandardizedKMnO4soluon.NotethattheFe(II)ionseasilyoxidizetoFe(III)inthepresenceofoxygen,soallwaterusedmustbeboiledandcooleddis lledwater,toremove oxygen.

WalterLeungY12Hope4

IBDPChemistryHLInternalAssessment

Aim:
To determine the percentage of Fe2+ content of a iron wire sample.

Chemicals and Apparatus:

KMnO4 Burre e IronWire S rrerbar Beaker1000ml glasswool Retortstand VolumetricPippe e10ml,20ml SulphricAcid2M Scale VolumetricFlask250ml Hotplates rrer Themometre Tintedstoragebo le500ml Funnel Burre eholder Pipe eFiller OxalicAcid0.05M

Methodology

PartI:Makingasolu onofpotassiummanganate(VII) 1. CalculatethemassofKMnO4neededtomakeup500mlof0.02Msolu on. 2. WeighoutapproximatelythismassofKMnO4anddissolvein500mlofwaterina1Lbeaker. 3. Coverthebeakerwithawatchglassandboilitfor10minutes. 4. Coolthesolu onandlteritthroughglasswoolintoacleanstoragebo le.Labelthebo le.

PartII:Standardisingthepotassiummanganate(VII)

1. Fillabure ewiththeKMnO4solu ontobestandardized. 2. Pipe e20mlofstandardoxalicacidsolu onintoaaskandadd20mlof2Msulphuricacid. 3. Warm the ask to about 80C and trate the permanganate solu on against the oxalic acid. Addthepermanganatesolu onslowlyorMnO2willbeformed.Theendpointisreachedwhen theaddi onofonedropofpermanganateproducesapermanentpinkcolour. 4. Repeatthe tra onintheusualway.

PartIII:Determiningtheironcontentofwire

1. Weigh accurately about 1g of iron wire and add enough dilute sulphuric acid to cover it in a conicalask.Heattheaskgentlyun lthereac onstarts. 2. Filterthesolu ona eralltheironhaddissolvedandthewashingsfromtheaskintoabeaker. 3. Makethesolu onupto250mlinavolume caskwithboiled,cooleddis lledwater,washing thebeakeroutwithboileddis lledwatertwice. 4. Pipe e 20ml of the iron (II) sulphate solu on into a conical ask and about 10ml of dil. Sulphuricacidand tratewithstandardizedKMnO4solu on. 5. Repeatthe tra onintheusualway.

WalterLeungY12Hope5

IBDPChemistryHLInternalAssessment

Result:
Table1:Standardiza onofPotassiumPermangenatesolu on Ini alburre ereading Endpointburre ereading Trial1 50.0ml Trial2 29.8ml Trial3 50.0ml Trial4 29.9ml Trial5 45.1ml Avg. 29.8ml 9.3ml 29.9ml 9.6ml 24.9ml

VolumenofKMnO4used 20.2ml 20.5ml 20.1ml 20.3ml 20.2ml 20.3ml

Table2:RedoxTitra onfordeterminingIroncontentwithinsolu on Ini alburre ereading Endpointburre ereading VolumenofKMnO4used Trial1 50.0ml Trial2 38.1ml Trial3 25.2ml Trial4 47.5ml Trial5 35.2ml Avg. 38.1ml 25.2ml 12.6ml 35.2ml 23.1ml 11.9ml 12.9ml 12.6ml 12.3ml 12.1ml 12.4ml

Uncertainties: For uncertainties of the equipment, I took the given uncertainty that was printed on the eqiqument itself. If no visible uncertainty is printed on the equipment, the uncertainty would be taken as half of the smallest digit of the data (for example: 3.008g, would have an uncertainty from the electronic balance of 0.0005g).

Assumption: Since the experiment is design to only titrate Fe2+ ions but not also Fe3+ ions, the following iron percentage content would be under the assumption that all iron ions are of Fe2+.

WalterLeungY12Hope6

IBDPChemistryHLInternalAssessment

Calculations
Balancedequa on: Standardiza onofPotassiumPermangenatesolu on

2MnO4-+5C2O42-+16H+2 2++10CO2+8H2O Mn Ra onofMnO4-toOxalicacid:2:5 RedoxTitra onfordeterminingIroncontentwithinsolu on MnO4+5Fe2++8H+Mn2++5Fe3++4H2O Ra onofMnO4-toFe2+:1:5 Steps concentra on ofOxalicacid Calcula on Concentra on=MolesVolume Moles=Concentraionra oVolume Uncertainty 20mlVolumetricpipe e 0.15%

Mol/dm3of KMnO4

50mlBurre e

0.04%

concentra on ofKMnO4 usedin traonofiron solu on Mol/dm3of Moles=Concentraionra oVolume Fe2+insolu on MassofFe2+in Mass=MolesMolarmass solu on

Concentra on=MolesVolume

50mlBurre e 20mlVolumetricpipe e

0.04%

0.15%

Percentageof Feinoriginal sample Finalanswer

Percentage=m(Fe)originalmass 83.8%0.38%

Total uncertainty

0.38%

WalterLeungY12Hope7

IBDPChemistryHLInternalAssessment

Conclusion
Base on the data obtain from the redox titration process, the calculation clearly show that the iron wire sample that was being test had a iron content of up to 83.8% by mass. Since the iron wire sample that was tested had been given an iron content of 87%, it clearly shows that the back titration method does really lack the ability to include the Fe3+ ions into the count of the iron content.

As to most school laboratory standard, the equipment that was used may not always be the most accurate, thus unavoidably have error and uncertainties in it. The experiment had been a complicated redox titration where the sample is dissolved in excess acid, then back titrate using an reducing agent, which needs to be standardized using even more taxing procedure such as the condition of heat and adding of different chemical. As number of procedures in experiment increases, this often increase the risk of lower the over all accuracy of the results. Since there isnt an effective method to also include the Fe3+ ions into the mass, the experiment had to be done under the assumption that all iron content of the sample is Fe2+.

Despite the fact that the experiment ignore the error by making an assumption, the result percentage of iron content by mass from the redox titration method is consider to be quite close to the result to the given value, with only a 0.38% of error which could conclude that the sample contents about 84.2% to 83.4% of iron by mass.

WalterLeungY12Hope8

IBDPChemistryHLInternalAssessment

Evaluation
Although care had been taken, but there were some problem with the experiment that produce quite an amount of error and decrease the overall accuracy of the experiment.

Possibleerror Dueto melimit,notallthesolu onhad

Wayofimprovement Improving memanagement,forexamplea

been tratedwhichmayaectaccuracyof earlyandmorethroughoutprepara on theresultsincethecalcula onhadtobe donebytakinganaverageofthetrialsresult. Theobserva onforthecolorchangeofthe Thepossiblemeanstominimizetheerror solu onduring tra onwouldbethebiggesterrorintheexperimentsincetheobwouldbemoretrialsandmoreobserversto producemoredata,whichshouldhelpminimayspeeduptheexperiment,thususing memoreeciently.

serva onwasonlydonebythejudgmentof mizingtheerror. onepersonandnakedeye,whichmay aectthenalresultthroughthemeansof randomerrors.

Thesolu ondidntmixedwellwiththe trant(NaOH)evenbytwirlingtheconical askbyhand.

Thisposesalsoaeasyproblemtosolvewith thehelpofas rringrodoveramagne c s rrer,whichhelpstomixthesolu ons constantlyduringthe tra on,ensuring thatthesolu onaredispersesandgivingit amoredis nctchangeincolor.

WalterLeungY12Hope9