By Rachel Jeffreson

TOPIC 1 Experiment 2: Empirical formula of Magnesium oxide

AIM
In this experiment you will determine, by experiment, the empirical formula of the oxide formed by
burning magnesium.
PROCEDURE
1. Weigh a clean, dry crucible and its lid.
2. Clean the magnesium ribbon with sandpaper, then wind into a tight coil, place in the crucible
and reweigh the crucible complete with magnesium and lid.
3. Support the crucible in the clay triangle on the tripod, and heat the crucible strongly.
4. After a couple of minutes, check to see what is occurring in the crucible. Carefully lift the lid
with the tongs and if the magnesium does not appear to be burning, heat it more strongly. Try
not to allow too much of the white smoke to escape, because this is magnesium oxide, and
you will want all of it for your final weighing.
5. Replace the lid and leave the crucible heating for a few more minutes and then check again.
6. Allow the crucible and contents to cool before adding a few drops of distilled water to the
contents of the crucible and heat it strongly again.
7. When all magnesium appears to have been converted to the oxide, turn off the burner and
allow the crucible to cool.
DATA COLLECTION
Table 1: Qualitative data experimental observations
Observations
Thin, silver, shiny solid
Reactant Magnesium metal
White smoke and white light was produced
During the reaction
Grey, powdery solid
Product Magnesium oxide
Data collected by Rachel Jeffreson and Juliet Campbell-Taylor

Table 2: Quantitative data experimental data

Mass (g)
Absolute Uncertainty (g)
20.2029
0.0005
Mass of crucible and lid
0.0005
Mass of crucible, lid and magnesium 20.3993
0.0005
Mass of crucible, lid and magnesium 20.5090
oxide
0.1964
0.0010
Mass of magnesium
0.3061
0.0010
Mass of magnesium oxide
0.0010
Mass of oxygen in magnesium oxide 0.1097
Data collected by Rachel Jeffreson and Juliet Campbell-Taylor
Mass calculations:
Mass of Mg = (mass of crucible, lid and Mg) (mass of crucible and lid) = (20.3993) (20.2029) =
0.1964
Mass of Magnesium oxide = (mass of crucible, lid and magnesium oxide) (mass of crucible and lid)
= (20.5090 20.2029)
= 0.3061

By Rachel Jeffreson
Mass of O in Magnesium oxide = (mass of crucible, lid and magnesium oxide) (mass of crucible, lid
and Mg) = (20.5090) (20.3993) = 0.1097
Absolute uncertainty calculations:
Uncertainty in Mg = uncertainty in (mass of crucible, lid and Mg) + uncertainty in (mass of crucible
and lid) = 0.0005 + 0.0005 = 0.0010
Uncertainty in Magnesium oxide = uncertainty in (mass of crucible, lid and magnesium oxide) +
uncertainty in (mass of crucible and lid) = 0.0005 + 0.0005 = 0.0010
Uncertainty in O = uncertainty in (mass of crucible, lid and magnesium oxide) + uncertainty in (mass
of crucible, lid and Mg) = 0.0005 + 0.0005 = 0.0010

DATA PROCESSING
Empirical formula calculations:
Mg
Masses (g)
0.1964 0.0010
Moles (mol)

O
0.1097 0.0010
0.0010

Divide by
smallest
Simplest
whole number
ratio
Error analysis
Percentage error calculations:

However, there is no uncertainty in molar masses and therefore no percentage error.

Thus, the percentage error in the moles is the same as the percentage error in the masses.

0.0010

By Rachel Jeffreson

Therefore, the ratio Mg : O is 1.1780.01673 : 1

CONCLUSION:
On the completion of the experiment and based on the data processing above, the empirical formula of
Mg1.178 0.001673O was revealed. However, Magnesium oxide is an ionic compound with the
magnesium cation holding a 2+ charge and the oxygen anion holding a 2- charge. Therefore, the
respective charges indicate an expected ratio of 1 : 1 and thus an empirical formula MgO the
literature value. Thus, the experimentally determined empirical formula contains a greater proportion
of Mg compared to O than the literature value, which does not fall within the error limits (1.178 +
0.001673 to 1.178 0.001673) of the experimentally attained empirical formula. Consequently, it can
be deduced that systematic errors have occurred that have not been accounted for in error analysis.
EVALUATION:
1. Evaluating experimental method: systematic error associated in checking that the
reaction was proceeding
The method of this experiment required a coil of magnesium to be placed into a crucible and heated
strongly. Every couple of minutes, the lid of the crucible was to be lifted in order to ensure that the
magnesium was reacting. Since the experimentally determined ratio of Mg : O is greater than the
literature value, this suggests that there was either a gain of Mg or a loss of O. However, as the
experiment required a fixed amount of magnesium to be reacted and no more was added during the
process of the experiment, this discrepancy is more likely to be caused by a loss of the product MgO,
due to lifting the lid of the crucible and thus allowing the smoke to escape. In order to calculate the
mass of oxygen in magnesium oxide, the mass of crucible, lid and Mg (which was measured prior of
the commencement of the experiment) was subtracted from the mass of crucible, lid and magnesium
oxide. Therefore, this source of error would produce the discrepancy observed in the result.
While it is necessary to know when the reaction is completed and therefore some loss of product is
unavoidable, the systematic error could be limited by increasing the checking time from a couple of
minutes to five minutes. This will cause less product to escape, making the result more accurate.
2. Evaluating experimental method: magnesium reacting
A further error is that all the magnesium did not react during the experiment. The method of this
experiment required a few drops of distilled water to be added to the crucible to ensure all of the
magnesium was to react. However, in completing the experiment it was still evident that a portion of
the magnesium strip had not reacted. This could have been the result of having the magnesium strip
coiled too tightly in the bottom of the crucible, reducing the amount of surface area available to react.
This error would result in less product being formed than expected, therefore causing an increase in
the ratio of Mg to O.
For this limitation to be improved the experiment could use the same amount of magnesium but in
powdered form. This would increase the surface area of the metal which would mean more surface
available for reaction. It would also quicken the process of reaction, resulting in a ratio much closer to
the literature value.
3. Evaluating possible instrumental error
Another possible limitation is instrumental error including the overall accuracy of equipment. The use
of scales within the experiment was vital for the all the data collected. Although random uncertainties

By Rachel Jeffreson
due to the limitations of the instruments are likely to contribute to the difference between the literature
and experimentally deduced empirical formula. Another factor is the measuring of the crucible with
magnesium oxide while it was still hot, leading to an error in the reading, due to the products
expanding and therefore weighing more than they are.
In order to resolve these limitations any weight readings could be taken twice or repeated multiple
times to avoid uncertainties. While the cooling of the heated magnesium oxide could occur for a
specific time to eradicate any possible difference in readings.
There was inaccuracy in the results obtained during the experiment that was not explained in terms of
the uncertainties associated with the experimental procedure. Hence, there were definite weaknesses
and limitations in the experimental design which could be corrected if these improvements were
applied.