Determination of the Relation Between Specific Heat Capacity and Molarity of Copper

(II) Sulfate Through a Hot Water Bath Calorimeter

Introduction

Specific heat capacity is a central concept in thermodynamics that I have studied and been
interested in since earlier years. Even though its applications got more complex as enthalpies
were introduced, from middle school to IB, one thing that did not change was the assumption
that a given solution’s specific heat capacity is the same as that of water. In a class
experiment to determine the enthalpy change for the reaction between CuSO4 (aq) and Zn (s),
my teacher made the same assumption for the specific heat capacity of CuSO4. Puzzled about
this, I asked her the basis of the assumption, and she responded that it is because the solution
is dilute enough. It led me to think: How would the value be different if the concentration of
CuSO4 is higher? If it is different, can a relation be determined between the specific heat
capacity and molarity of the solution, which would possibly help in future calculations of
enthalpies?

Specific heat capacity, 𝑐, is defined as the amount of heat in Joules required to raise the
temperature of 1 gram of a substance by 1℃. To determine the relation between 𝑐 and
concentration, the unit for concentration was chosen to be molarity because it is the most
common and accepted, and the salt used was the penthydrate CuSO4·5H2O. To determine
the value of 𝑐, I found the two conventional methods to be: 1. Method of Mixtures and 2.
Electrical Method. The former is used for solids and, in this case, requires the CuSO4 crystals
to dissolve while being heated, which would entail high amounts of uncertainty due to the
possibility that crystals do not dissolve properly. The latter requires heating using an electrical
heater which, firstly, was not available in our school laboratory and, secondly, would have
significant power loss through resistance. Hence, a different method was designed that used a
Hot Water Bath to heat the Copper (II) Sulfate solution. The water bath was prepared by filling
a borosilicate beaker with a certain volume of water and heating it. Then, a copper calorimeter
cup with the solution is placed inside the beaker, which would gain heat from the hot water
bath. As there is a heat transfer from a hotter body to a cooler one, there will be a fall in
temperature in the water bath and a rise in temperature in the solution until the system
reaches thermal equilibrium, when final temperature of water bath = final temperature of
solution.
The specific heat capacity for the solution can be calculated using the formula
𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 (𝑄) = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 (𝑚) × 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 (∆𝑇) × 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦(𝑐) and
the assumption that ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑎𝑡ℎ (𝑄?@A ) = ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(𝑄CD ),
hence assuming there is negligible heat loss (𝑄E?FF ≈ 0).
Hence, the heat transfer can be written as:
𝑚I 𝑐I ∆𝑇J = 𝑚KI 𝑐D ∆𝑇L
Where
 𝑚I = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑎𝑡ℎ 𝑚KI = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 CuS𝑂Q (aq)
𝑐I = 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐D = 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 CuS𝑂Q (aq)
∆𝑇J = 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 ∆𝑇L = 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 CuS𝑂Q (aq)

However, in connection to the assumption that 𝑄E?FF ≈ 0, calorimetry experiments disregard

the heat transfer to the container of the walls, i.e. the heat released by the borosilicated
beaker and the heat gained by the copper calorimeter cup. To consider this heat transfer,
𝑄?@A = ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 + 𝐵𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 and 𝑄CD = ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 CuS𝑂Q (aq)

𝑄?@A = 𝑚I 𝑐I ∆𝑇J + 𝑚X 𝑐X ∆𝑇J

𝑄CD = 𝑚KI 𝑐D ∆𝑇L + 𝑚Y 𝑐Y ∆𝑇L

𝑚X = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦 𝐵𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 𝑚Y = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟

𝑐I = 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐵𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐Y = 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 Copper
∆𝑇J = 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 ∆𝑇L = 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 CuS𝑂Q (aq)

Hence, to determine 𝑐D ,
𝑚I 𝑐I ∆𝑇J + 𝑚X 𝑐X ∆𝑇J = 𝑚KI 𝑐D ∆𝑇L + 𝑚Y 𝑐Y ∆𝑇L

𝑚I 𝑐I ∆𝑇J − 𝑚Y 𝑐Y ∆𝑇L + 𝑚X 𝑐X ∆𝑇J

∴ 𝑐D =
𝑚KI ∆𝑇L
When CuS𝑂Q ions are dissolved in water, its ions attach themselves to the water molecules,
which disrupts the strong hydrogen bonding in water molecules. This reduces the specific heat
capacity. As the molarity increases, hence, the concentration of CuS𝑂Q ions that can disrupt
the bonding increase, suggesting a negative relationship between specific heat capacity and
molarity of CuS𝑂Q •𝐻J 𝑂.

Research question
How does the specific heat capacity of Copper (II) Sulfate vary with its molarity?

Variables
Independent Variable
Molarity of 9 solutions with an increment value of 0.1M were prepared, with start
CuSO4•H2O value 0.1 and end value 0.9. These values were chosen because taking
higher molarities would increase the difficulty of dissolving the salt in
water because the solubility of CuSO4•H2O is approximately 1.2M.
The instrument used in preparation was a volumetric flask of capacity
100 cm3. Volume instead of mass of water was measured in the
preparation of the solution in order to make standard solutions for greater
accuracy.
To ensure consistent trials, molarity was calculated using the formula:
 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒
𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 =
𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠
Where the volume of solvent was kept constant at 0.1L in order to make
calculations simple, and the number of moles of CuSO4•H2O required
were calculated using:
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠
𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 =
𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑢𝑆𝑂4•𝐻2𝑂
Where the formula mass is 249.69 g/mol (from Chemspider).

Dependent Variable
Specific Heat This was calculated using the formula:
Capacity of 𝑄
𝑐=
CuSO4•H2O 𝑚∆𝑇
in J g-1 C° Where 𝑐 = 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛,
𝑄 = 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑, 𝑚 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛,
∆𝑇 = 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒

Controlled Variables
Room As too high a temperature could increase the possibility of the solution
Temperature gaining heat from the environment, the room temperature was maintained as
a constant by performing all trials in the same room with the fans and AC
switched off. It was measured using an alcohol thermometer and monitored
to be ranging from 25.0-26.5 C°.
Volume and Volume of water used in preparation of the solutions was maintained at 0.1L.
Mass of Mass of the same is not assumed to be the same, and can be calculated
CuSO4•H2O (aq) using the formula:
Solution 𝑉
𝑚I =
𝜌
Where
𝑚I = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,
𝑉 = 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 (100𝑐𝑚k ),
𝜌 = 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 (0.996512𝑔𝑐𝑚ok )
∴ 𝑚I = 100.35𝑔
Purity of Water To prevent anomalies due to impurities in water, distilled water was used in
preparation of the solutions.
Mass of To ensure a consistent rise in temperature, the same calorimeter was used
Calorimeter for all trials. The initial mass was measured using a weighing balance as
69.37𝑔.
 Procedure
Material Quantity Absolute Percentage
measured uncertainty uncertainty
/required
Volumetric Flask 100.0cm3 100 cm3 ±0.01cm3 0.01%
Borosilicate Beaker 1000 cm3 200 cm 3
±0.01cm 3
0.00005%
Beaker 100.0cm3 - - -
Electronic Weighing Balance 1 ±0.01g -
Copper Calorimeter 1 - -
Bunsen Burner 1 - -
Alcohol Thermometer - ±0.5 C° -
Copper sulphate crystals (99.9% Approx. - -
CuSO4.5H2O) 350g
Distilled Water 5L - -
Cotton 1 large roll - -
Rubber Bands 3-4 - -
Gloves 1 pair - -
Spatula 1 - -
Petri Dish 1 - -
Dropping Pipette 1 - -
Glass Rod 1 - -
Permanent Marker 1 - -
Funnel 1 - -

Safety
Handling CuSO4•H2O It is considered a hazardous substance according to its MSDS
(Material Data Safety Sheet). Do not touch with bare hands and
always wash hands with soap after handling.

Hot Beaker and Water As the temperature of heated beaker will be approximately 70 C°, it
is Important to use gloves while picking the beaker off the Bunsen
burner, and while placing the calorimeter in the beaker as direct
contact could cause scalding of hands.
 Preparing CuSO4•H2O (aq)
Mass of Moles of Fractional Volume Fractional Molarity Fractional Absolute
CuSO4•H2O CuSO4/mol Uncertainty of Uncertainty of Uncertainty Uncertainty
/g ±0.01 in Moles of Water/L in Volume CuSO4/M in Molarity in
CuSO4/mol ±0.01 of Water/L Molarity of
CuSO4/M
2.5 0.010 0.00400 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10400 0.01
5.0 0.020 0.00200 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.10200 0.02
7.5 0.030 0.00133 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.10133 0.03
10.0 0.040 0.00100 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.10100 0.04
12.5 0.050 0.00080 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.10080 0.05
15.0 0.060 0.00067 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.10067 0.06
17.5 0.070 0.00057 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.10057 0.07
20.0 0.080 0.00050 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.10050 0.08
22.5 0.090 0.00044 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.10044 0.09

1) Weigh the required calculated mass of CuSO4•H2O(s) in a clean, dry petri dish on a
weighing balance.
2) Transfer the solid into a beaker in order to crush it. Add approximately half the amount
of distilled water required (0.05L) into the beaker and, using a glass rod, crush the
crystals and stir the contents.
3) After the crystals are completely dissolved, pour the liquid into a clean volumetric flask
using a funnel. Use water to rinse all of the solution from the beaker into the flask. Use
a dropping pipette in the last few cm3 to fill the flask to the mark on the neck.
4) Repeat steps 1-3 for all values of molarity in the table above.

Measuring Specific Heat Capacity

1) Weigh an empty Borosilicate Beaker using a weighing balance. In this case, the mass
was 280.4g.
2) With the empty Borosilicate Beaker still on the balance, press the button for TARE to
calibrate it to 0.00g. Now, fill it with exactly 200.00g of distilled water. This is the water
bath that will be used. A 1000cm3 Beaker was chosen in order to fit the calorimeter
inside.
3) Weigh an empty Copper Calorimeter using the weighing balance. In this case, the mass
was 69.37g.
4) Pour 100cm3 of water in the calorimeter. This is a trial step to figure out the amount of
water needed to ensure uniform distribution of heat from the Beaker to the calorimeter.
5) Carefully place the calorimeter inside the water bath, ensuring that the water displaced
in the Beaker reaches the same level as the water in the calorimeter. Through this, take
 an estimate of the mass of water required for the water levels to match, ensuring no
spillage. In this case, 200g of water was required for approx. 100cm3 of solution.
6) Empty the calorimeter, rinse with water, and pour solution 1 with molarity 0.1 into it.
Keep it aside.
7) Prepare the water bath by placing 200g of water in the Borosilicate Beaker.
8) Light a Bunsen burner and place the water bath on the tripod stand.
9) Heat the water bath and measure the temperature using a thermometer. Turn the
Bunsen burner off when it reaches a temperature of approximately 70°.
10) Place the water bath on the table and quickly insulate the Beaker with cotton. Fasten
the thick layers of cotton to the beaker with rubber bands.
11) Place a thermometer within the CuSO4•H2O solution in the calorimeter and record the
initial temperature, 𝑇LC .
12) Similarly, place a thermometer within the hot water bath and record the initial
temperature, 𝑇JC . This will be slightly lower than 70C° because the water has lost some
heat to the surrounding while it has been cooling; however, the initial temperature (𝑇JC )
need not be controlled because the formula requires the change in temperature.
13) Immediately after, carefully place the calorimeter inside the hot water bath.
14) Cover the top of the beaker with cotton, creating 2 holes to place the thermometers in
the solution and the water.
15) After approximately 10 minutes, measure the temperature readings in both
thermometers.
16) If the temperature of CuSO4•H2O solution is equal to that of the water, the system has
reached thermal equilibrium. If it has not been reached, record the final temperatures of
the water bath as 𝑇Ls and that of the solution as 𝑇Js .
17) Remove the cotton insulation and measure the mass of the water remaining in the
beaker using the TARE function, as done in the first step.
18) Repeat steps 6-17 for molarities 0.2-0.9
19) Repeat steps 6-18 two more times to obtain results of 3 trials.

Results
Note: The values for change in temperature, ∆𝑇, had an uncertainty of ±1℃; hence, they
were rounded off to the next whole number.
Trial 1
Molarity/M Temperature of Temperature of Water + Final Mass
CuSO4•H2O (aq) + Copper Borosilicate Beaker, 𝑇J of Hot Water
Calorimeter, 𝑇L in Bath/g
𝑇LC /℃ 𝑇Ls /℃ ∆𝑇L /℃ 𝑇JC /℃ 𝑇Js /℃ ∆𝑇J /℃ ± 0.01
± 0.5 ± 0.5 ±1 ± 0.5 ± 0.5 ±1
0.1 26.5 50.5 24 65.5 50.5 15 164.21
0.2 26.0 51.0 25 66.2 51.0 15 162.04
0.3 26.5 53.0 27 67.0 53.0 14 178.50
0.4 26.5 53.5 27 68.0 53.5 15 165.53
0.5 26.0 51.7 26 64.5 51.7 13 172.24
0.6 26.5 49.4 23 63.5 49.4 14 167.17
0.7 26.0 52.5 27 65.3 52.5 13 175.60
0.8 25.5 54.3 29 67.5 54.3 13 177.44
0.9 25.5 51.6 26 63.5 51.6 12 173.08

Trial 2
Molarity/M Temperature of Temperature of Water + Final Mass
CuSO4•H2O (aq) + Copper Borosilicate Beaker, 𝑇J of Hot Water
Calorimeter, 𝑇L in Bath/g
𝑇LC /℃ 𝑇Ls /℃ ∆𝑇L /℃ 𝑇JC /℃ 𝑇Js /℃ ∆𝑇J /℃ ± 0.01
± 0.5 ± 0.5 ±1 ± 0.5 ± 0.5 ±1
0.1 25.0 49.6 25 64.7 49.6 15 164.25
0.2 25.0 52.0 27 67.0 52.0 15 178.92
0.3 26.5 53.0 27 67.0 53.0 14 174.62
0.4 26.0 53.0 27 67.5 53.0 15 165.91
0.5 26.5 51.5 25 63.0 51.5 12 177.56
0.6 25.5 50.0 25 62.5 50.0 12 173.93
0.7 26.5 52.7 26 65.5 52.7 13 162.00
0.8 26.5 52.1 26 65.6 52.1 13 177.30
0.9 26.0. 50.5 25 63.8 50.5 13 165.27

Trial 3
Molarity/M Temperature of Temperature of Water + Final Mass
CuSO4•H2O (aq) + Copper Borosilicate Beaker, 𝑇J of Hot
Calorimeter, 𝑇L Water in
Bath/g
± 0.01
𝑇LC /℃ 𝑇Ls /℃ ∆𝑇L /℃ 4.0 𝑇Js /℃ ∆𝑇J /℃
± 0.5 ± 0.5 ±1 ± 0.5 ± 0.5 ±1
0.1 25.0 51.8 26 66.5 51.8 15 170.20
0.2 25.5 50.6 25 64.8 50.6 14 162.50
0.3 25.5 52.5 27 69.0 54.9 14 178.50
0.4 26.5 53.2 27 67.5 53.2 14 174.61
0.5 25.5 53.0 28 67.0 53.0 14 178.49
0.6 25.5 51.5 26 64.5 51.5 13 171.60
0.7 26.0 52.4 27 65.0 52.4 13 169.94
0.8 26.0 54.5 29 68.7 54.5 14 165.90
0.9 26.0 52.0 26 64.0s 52.0 12 172.45
 Calculations and Data Processing:
Sample Calculation for 0.1M

Values Common Across all Molarities and Trials

Mass of Empty Calorimeter, 𝒎𝒄 69.37𝑔

Specific Heat Capacity of Copper, 𝒄𝒄 0.385𝑔𝐽oL ℃oL

Mass of Empty Borosilicate Beaker, 𝒎𝒈 291.40𝑔
Specific Heat Capacity of Borosilicate, 𝒄𝒈 0.750𝑔𝐽oL ℃oL
Mass of CuSO4•H2O (aq) Solution, 𝒎𝑪𝒘 100.35𝑔
Approximate temperature to which water bath is 70℃
heated
Specific Heat Capacity of Water, 𝒄𝒘 4.18𝑔𝐽oL ℃oL

Values Specific to 0.1M, Trial 1

Temperature Change of CuSO4•H2O (aq) + 26℃
Copper Calorimeter, ∆𝑻𝟏
Temperature Change of Water + Borosilicate 12℃
Beaker, ∆𝑻𝟐
Final mass of water in Water Bath, 𝒎𝒘 173.0𝑔

Formula used for determination of specific heat capacity of CuSO4• H2O (aq):
𝑚I 𝑐I ∆𝑇J − 𝑚Y 𝑐Y ∆𝑇L + 𝑚X 𝑐X ∆𝑇J
𝑐D =
𝑚KI ∆𝑇L
1. Calculating 𝒎𝒘 𝒄𝒘 ∆𝑻𝟐 :
173.0 × 4.18 × 12 = 8677.68

2. Calculating 𝒎𝒄 𝒄𝒄 ∆𝑻𝟏 :
69.37 × 0.385 × 26 = 694.3937𝐽

3. Calculating 𝒎𝒈 𝒄𝒈 ∆𝑻𝟐 :
280.40 × 0.750 × 12 = 2523.6𝐽

4. Calculating 𝒎𝑪𝒘 ∆𝑻𝟏 :

100.35 × 26 = 2,609.1𝐽

5. Determination of 𝒄𝒏 :
8677.68 − 694.7941 + 2523.6
= 4.0270
2,609.1
The least number of significant figures in the values used to calculate is 2, found in the values
of ∆𝑇L and ∆𝑇J . Hence, close to 2 s.f., 𝑐D = 4.0

6. Uncertainty in 𝒄𝒏 :

∆•‚ ∆∆ƒ„ ….…L L

Fractional uncertainty in 𝑚I 𝑐I ∆𝑇J = •‚
+ ∆ƒ„
= L†k.… + LJ

= 0.0833911368
Absolute Uncertainty in 𝑚I 𝑐I ∆𝑇J = 0.0833911368 × 8677.68
= 723.6416

∆•‡ ∆∆ƒˆ ….…L L

Fractional uncertainty in 𝑚Y 𝑐Y ∆𝑇L = •‡
+ ∆ƒˆ
= ‰Š.k† + J‰

= 0.038605693
Absolute Uncertainty in 𝑚Y 𝑐Y ∆𝑇L = 0.038605693 × 694.3937
= 26.80755

∆•‹ ∆∆ƒ„ ….…L L

Fractional uncertainty in 𝑚X 𝑐X ∆𝑇J = •‹
+ ∆ƒ„
= JŒ….Q… + LJ

= 0.08336899667
Absolute Uncertainty in 𝑚X 𝑐X ∆𝑇J = 0.08336899667 × 2523.6
= 210.39

Net Absolute Uncertainty in 𝑚I 𝑐I ∆𝑇J − 𝑚Y 𝑐Y ∆𝑇L + 𝑚X 𝑐X ∆𝑇J

= 723.6416 + 28.82300772 + 210.39
= 960.83915
Net Fractional Uncertainty in 𝑚I 𝑐I ∆𝑇J − 𝑚Y 𝑐Y ∆𝑇L + 𝑚X 𝑐X ∆𝑇J
960.83915
8677.68 − 694.3937 + 2523.6
= 0.09144851506
∆••‚ ∆∆ƒˆ ….…L L
Fractional Uncertainty in 𝑚KI ∆𝑇L = ••‚
+ ∆ƒˆ
= L…….kŽ + J‰ = 0.03856118968

Net Fractional Uncertainty in 𝑐D = 0.09144851506 + 0.03856118968 = 0.13000971

Net Absolute Uncertainty in 𝑐D = 0.13000971 × 4.0 = 0.52
Rounding off the net absolute uncertainty to the same number of s.f. as the value for 𝑐D
gives:
𝒄𝒏 = 𝟒. 𝟎 ± 𝟎. 𝟓 𝑱𝒈o𝟏 ℃o𝟏
 Data Table Processed Using Steps. 1-6
Molarity/M Specific Heat Capacity of CuSO4•H2O (aq), 𝑐D / 𝐽𝑔oL ℃oL

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

0.1 5.3 ± 0.4 5.1 ± 0.6 5.0 ± 0.6 5.1 ± 0.6
0.2 5.0 ± 0.5 5.0 ± 0.5 4.9 ± 0.6 4.9 ± 0.6
0.3 4.8 ± 0.5 4.7 ± 0.5 4.7 ± 0.5 4.7 ± 0.5
0.4 4.6 ± 0.5 4.6 ± 0.5 4.6 ± 0.5 4.6 ± 0.5
0.5 4.5 ± 0.5 4.4 ± 0.5 4.5 ± 0.5 4.5 ± 0.5
0.6 4.3 ± 0.5 4.3 ± 0.5 4.4 ± 0.5 4.3 ± 0.5
0.7 4.2 ± 0.5 4.2 ± 0.5 4.2 ± 0.5 4.2 ± 0.5
0.8 4.1 ± 0.5 4.1 ± 0.5 4.1 ± 0.5 4.1 ± 0.5
0.9 4.0 ± 0.5 4.0 ± 0.4 4.0 ± 0.5 4.0 ± 0.5

Specific Heat Capacity of CuSO4•H2O (aq) Against its Molarity

Discussion and Conclusion

From the graph and processed data table, a clear, strong negative relationship between
specific heat capacity and molarity of Copper (II) Sulfate solution is observed. This
corroborates with the hypothesis that cited the disruption of hydrogen bonding in water
molecules by a greater concentration of ions as the basis for a negative relationship. The
trendline was determined as a quadratic equation with the formula:
𝒚 = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟔𝟖𝟖𝒙𝟐 − 𝟐. 𝟕𝟑𝟓𝟓𝒙 + 𝟓. 𝟓𝟑𝟏
The 𝑅J value of 0.9953 shows that the trendline fits and approximates the data accurately.
The trendline being a polynomial and not linear relationship suggests that the decrease in
 specific heat capacity per unit decrease in molarity is not equal. The steepness of the curve
reduces with molarity, suggesting that as only the number of water molecules hydrogen
bonded reduce, the energy required to break one more bond is lesser than that required when
there are a greater number of hydrogen bonds. In addition, as observed in the graph, the error
bars are large, and this is majorly due to the systematic errors (discussed below) and the
small amounts of different parameters taken such as molarity, time, volume of water due to
limitations—the reasons for why they could not be avoided have been provided.

Evaluation
Error and explanation Type of Effect on the calculated final result Solution
error
There was heat loss to Systematic As not all the heat from the water bath An insulating
the surroundings as the was passed onto the calorimeter, the material better
cotton was observed to equation would be: than cotton could
have become warmer. 𝑚š 𝑐› ∆𝑇J − 𝑚X 𝑐X ∆𝑇J have been used,
This is because cotton = 𝑚KI 𝑐D ∆𝑇L + 𝑚Y 𝑐Y ∆𝑇L such as
allows air to pass through + 𝑄E?FF Styrofoam.
itself, hence allowing for Hence, the formula would be: However, in this
heat loss. 𝑚I 𝑐I ∆𝑇J − 𝑚Y 𝑐Y ∆𝑇L − 𝑄E?FF + 𝑚X 𝑐X ∆𝑇J case, the
𝑚KI ∆𝑇L calorimeter was
As the amount of 𝑄E?FF cannot be designed for the
determined, the calculated value is experiment, and
inaccurately larger. using Styrofoam
would require
precise cutting to
tightly fit the
beaker, which is
time-consuming.
There was a time gap Systematic This caused a smaller mass to be If a container like a
between when the final displayed and recorded, which when Styrofoam box is
temperature of the hot placed in the formula, would give an used, the time
water bath was recorded, inaccurately smaller value for 𝑐D . taken to take the
and the time taken to beaker out will be
remove the insulation significantly
and carry the beaker to reduced.
the weighing balance.
The use of a Random Due to the limitation placed on the To lower the
thermometer with a high significant figures of the final value uncertainty,
degree of uncertainty because of the temperature values, thermometers or
(±0.5℃) increased the the final values had to be close to one thermal probes
percentage error as decimal place, decreasing the extent with small
some of the temperature
differences recorded
were relatively small.
As they copper
calorimeter was not
polished, when lifted out
of the water bath, brown
flakes were observed.
Due to the period of time
allotted for the IA, the
experiment was planned
such that the thermal
equilibrium that was
reached in ≈ 10 minutes
was recorded. However,
in reality, a body is likely
to require a significant
amount of time to reach
thermal equilibrium.
of precision. Since the differences uncertainties could
between the values were on average be used.
0.1, the percentage error bars were
quite large.
Systematic A higher mass than accurate was Attempts were
recorded for the water and, hence, made to polish the
yielding a larger value. calorimeter;
however, the
brown flakes
continued to
emanate. The use
of a new copper
calorimeter would
reduce this
uncertainty.
Systematic As, using this theory, the system had A relatively small
not reached its thermal equilibrium mass of water was
yet, i.e. heat was still being passed chosen keeping
from the water bath to the calorimeter, the time
the temperature change in water is constraints in
inaccurately smaller, while that in the mind; however,
Copper (II) Sulfate solution is without the
inaccurately larger. Nevertheless, the constraints, a
difference is likely to be small, making longer experiment
the calculated value slightly smaller. and observation
can be planned
and performed.

Further investigations
The strength of this experiment was that it defied the various assumptions are normally made
in experiments to determine specific heat capacity such as considering the heat transfer by
containers and not considering mass of water = mass of volume. However, carrying out the
experiment on a larger and more precise scale would help to create more accurate trendlines
that can predict the specific heat capacity of Copper (II) Sulfate, which could not only yield
more accurate values for enthalpy change equations, but also prove to be useful in multiple
situations where CuSO4 is used. For example, for use as a catalyst in cracking of certain
gases and liquid petroleum, knowledge of if an increase in concentration would increase the
temperature upto the boiling point with a given input of energy, would help decide on an
appropriate concentration for the solution. Finally, as an extension, temperature (which was a
controlled variable in this experiment) could be taken as a second independent variable to test
its effect on specific heat capacity at different molarities.
References

• “Copper(II) Sulfate Pentahydrate.” Chemspider, www.chemspider.com/Chemical-

Structure.22871.html. Date accessed: 15th February 2018
• “COPPER(II) SULFATE, PENTAHYDRATE .” International Programme on Chemical
Safety, Oct. 2001, www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics1416.htm. Date accessed:
15th February 2018

• “Uses of Copper Sulphate for Agriculture, Industry and Medicine.” Uses of Copper
Sulphate, Copper Development Association, copperalliance.org.uk/about-
copper/copper-compounds/uses-copper-sulphate/. Date accessed: 20th February
2018

• Limited, Scientific Glass Laboratories. “Physical Properties of Borosilicate Glass

3.3.” Scientific Glass Laboratories Ltd. , www.scientificglass.co.uk/contents/en-
uk/d115_Physical_Properties_of_Borosilicate_Glass.html. Date accessed: 17th
February 2018

• Material Data Safety Sheet Copper (II) Sulfate. CHEMWATCH, 2009, Material Data
Safety Sheet Copper (II) Sulfate, datasheets.scbt.com/sc-211133.pdf. Date accessed:
15th February 2018
• Specific Heat and Heat Capacity. www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/matter-and-
energy/specificheat.html. Date accessed: 17th February 2018