COLOMBO GALES SCHOOL

CHEMISTRY DIPLOMA PROGRAM

TENTH GRADE

TITLE: Determination of empirical formula

Topic: Stoichiometry and balancing equations

Present to: Carol Muñoz

Written by: Melany Ruiz

Date: 19/11/18

Summary

The general topic of the lab practice is the Stoichiometry and balancing equations, the
determination of the empirical formula of MgO is a process in which we use stoichiometry to
make accurate relationships, it means, for the quantity of Mg we use, there is an exact value
of O2, so that the products are proportional to the reactants. We oxidize the magnesium by
burning it; we used 3 different samples, in order to notice the variation of quantities, then, we
made a series of processes to determine the empirical equation. Results weren’t as we
expected as they meet an upper range, results were high and disproportional, but we learnt
that the limiting reagent is the one that changes the products and the only element that we
could control. Also, we practiced stoichiometry processes.

Background information

In Stoichiometry, which “is a section of chemistry that involves using relationships between
reactants and/or products in a chemical reaction to determine desired quantitative data.” “In
order to use stoichiometry to run calculations about chemical reactions, it is important to first
understand the relationships that exist between products and reactants and why they exist,
which require understanding how to balance reactions.” (Joseph Nijmeh (UCD), 2018). To
express the relation between products and reactants, we can make a molecular formula, as
well as an empirical formula.

A molecular formula expresses the real number of atoms in the chemical formula, and the
empirical formula, is the reduction of the molecular formula, it means, “a chemical formula
showing the simplest ratio of elements in a compound rather than the total number of atoms
in the molecule.” (Merriam-Webster, s.f.) ("Empirical Formula." Merriam-Webster.com.
Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2018.). In that case, the “Law of multiple proportions,
statement that when two elements combine with each other to form more than one
compound, the weights of one element that combine with a fixed weight of the other are in a
ratio of small whole numbers” (Britannica, 2018). So, this law also makes valid an empirical
formula.

Also, as the name expresses, the molecular formula designates a unique number of moles
depending on the compound. “A mole corresponds to the mass of a substance that contains
6.023 x 1023 particles of the substance. The mole is the SI unit for the amount of a substance
and its symbol is mol.” (Chemicool, s.f.). So, the formulas are expressed in moles. And 6.023
x 1023 is called the Avogadro’s number.

The lab practice consists of a way to determine the empirical formula of a compound in a
practical way. “The chemical formula for a compound obtained by composition analysis is
always the empirical formula. We can obtain the chemical formula from the empirical formula
if we know the molecular weight of the compound. The chemical formula will always be
some integer multiple of the empirical formula.” “One of the most common ways to determine
the elemental composition of an unknown hydrocarbon is an analytical procedure called
combustion analysis. A small, carefully weighed sample of an unknown compound that may
contain carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and/or sulfur is burned in an oxygen atmosphere.”
(Blaber, 2018).
“In summary, empirical formulas are derived from experimentally measured element masses
by:
1. Deriving the number of moles of each element from its mass
2. Dividing each element’s molar amount by the smallest molar amount to yield
subscripts for a tentative empirical formula
3. Multiplying all coefficients by an integer, if necessary, to ensure that the smallest
whole-number ratio of subscripts is obtained.” (Flowers, Theopold, & Langley, 2018)

By the other hand, according to the law of conservation of mass; the mass of the element
must be the same in reactants and products; it is very important that we state magnesium
oxide equation:

Skeleton equation: Mg + O2 MgO

Balanced equation: 2 Mg + O2 2 MgO

In conclusion, the purpose of this lab is to find this formula from simple data as it is the mass
of the element and it is curious because we can find it in an experimental way.

Objective:
-Determine the expected formula for the ionic oxide when Mg reacts with O2 and evaluate
the results using the stoichiometry and the percentage yield on each process.

Hypothesis:
-If we use a different weight of Magnesium then we would have equal empirical relationships
in the formulas because each magnesium oxide has the same reduced formula.

Research question:
- How the empirical formula can be determined by heating a metal with oxygen?

Variables:
-Variable Independent: Temperature, Magnesium oxide and oxygen.
-Variable Dependent: the mass of the metals heating with oxygen.
-Controlled Variables: the mass of the metals (Magnesium (Mg).
Table 1: Materials
2 Crucibles with lid Magnesium (one foil) Distilled water

Triangular support Gloves Bunsen Burner

Balance Lab coat 20 drops of water

Experimental procedure
A. 1. Tare the crucible: clean it with water, crucible and lid, remove the water excess
with a paper towel, heat it for 2 minutes and allow it to cool. Measure their masses in
the balance, which must be in zeros.
2. Take the magnesium foil, clean it with acidulated solution to remove other
materials, divide it in two pieces (one must be a little bit bigger than the other but with
a maximum difference of 0.010, in order to fulfill the hypothesis), weight them at least
three times and write the average amount you got.
3. Take the crucible and lid, and weight, first with biggest magnesium, and then with
lighter magnesium. Record data.
4. Over the burner, take the biggest magnesium and place it to burn with the lid
uncovered and 10 drops of distilled water (the burner must have the openings not
shut), when you see the reaction starts, cover it; one minute after, remove it from the
flame and let it cool with the lid.
5. Repeat step 4 with lighter magnesium.
6. After letting them cool, which can last for 1 hour approximately, weight them with
its lid 3 times and record the average one.
B. 1. Clean the crucible with water and dry it with a paper towel.
2. Measure its mass in the balance with the lid. Record the data.
3. Take the magnesium foil and divide it, one piece must be a little bit bigger but with
a littler difference (as in A.2. step). Weight them several times and write the average
one.
4. Take the crucible and lid with one magnesium, place them in the triangular
support, above the burner for 15 minutes.
5. Having 2 minutes left, open the lid a little bit.
6. Let it cool an hour approximately.
8. Take cooled crucible with its lid, weight it for several times and write the average
one.

Safety, ethical or environmental issues

 We were working with a Bunsen burner, which means that involves burns, we used the
holder to prevent burns.
 Magnesium is a flammable element, so it ignites rapidly with oxygen, we were cautiously
a little bit far from the crucible.
 The wastes were managed by the laboratory helper.
ANALISIS:

Raw Data
The following tables show data obtained by procedure A and procedure B, respectively,
which used different masses and, consequently, have different results.
Table 2. Data obtained by procedure A
Sample 1 (weights) Sample 2 (weights)
Crucible + lid + Mg (in grams) 40.213 40.206
Magnesium ribbon (in grams) 0.037 0.030
Crucible after burning (in grams) 41.980 42.017
Lid (in grams) 17. 525

Table 3. Data obtained by procedure B

Sample 1 (weights)
Crucible + lid (in grams) 41.950
Crucible + lid + Mg (in grams) 42.007
Magnesium ribbon (in grams) 0.062
Crucible after burning (in grams) 42.0245

Qualitative observations

The reaction between magnesium and oxygen:

 Made a white powder which maintained the form of magnesium strip.
 Made a light reaction (as an explosion), because of its
atomic spectra.
 The clay triangular support emitted an orange color
because it was burning up.
 The flame also turned form blue to orange after a few
minutes.
Uncertainty of results

Possible variations where natural because of the hypothesis, we didn’t have the same
weight of Magnesium, but the margin of error may affect the raw data.

Firstly, the time in which the reaction must be consumed was too long, so the hours of class
were not enough to complete the experiment, we didn’t let the crucible, for enough time, in
the Bunsen burner and the last weight was after too much time.

By the other hand, materials weren’t ready as expected; in the second hour, we were out of
crucibles, consequently, the procedure B couldn’t be completed (it was composed by two
samples, one of 0.065 and another one of 0.062) and our teacher made the experiment with
other masses.

Considering the last paragraph, as our teacher made another procedure, the analysis of this
experiment could have greater margin of error because we didn’t make the procedure. In
addition, we used an analytical balance, because it gave us precise results, but there was
only one, so we spend too much time waiting the space instead of been doing the
experiment.
In conclusion, there were a lot of conditions which made our results very far from perfect
conditions and increase our margin of error.

Data processing

With this experiment I hope to get the empirical formula of Magnesium Oxide.

1. SAMPLE 1 OF PROCEDURE A
Mass of magnesium: 0.037 g
Moles of magnesium: 0.00154 mol (3sf)
1mol Mg
0.037 g Mg × =0.00154167 mol Mg
24 g Mg
Mass of magnesium oxide
 Crucible, lid and Mg mass- Lid mass- Mg mass = crucible mass
40.213 g−17.525 g−0.037 g Mg=22.651 g
 Crucible after burning mass – Lid mass – Crucible mass= MgO mass
41.980 g MgO−17.525 g−22.651 g=1.804 g MgO
Mass of Oxygen
 MgO mass – Mg mass = Oxygen mass
1.804 g MgO−0.037 g Mg=1.767 O2
Moles of Oxygen: = 0.110 mol (3sf)
1 mol O
1.767 g O× =0.1104375 mol O
16 g O
Ratio between moles of Mg and O.
0.110 mol O
=71.7
0.00154 mol Mg
Empirical formula of MgO is Mg O72

yield=¿ 0.037 x
Mg MgO
24 40
0.037 x 0.037 1.804
yield
24
= 40
40 24 ( )
=x x=0.06166667
0.0617
× 100 =2 924

Expected empirical formula: Mg3 O2

0.03 7 1.5 × 2 3
0.0 617−0.037=0.02 47 =1. 49∨1.5 =
0.02 47 1× 2 2
MgO – Mg = O Mg/O

2. SAMPLE 2 OF PROCEDURE A
Mass of magnesium: 0.030 g
Moles of magnesium: 0.00125 mol (3sf)
1mol Mg
0.030 g Mg × =0.00125 mol Mg
24 g Mg
Mass of magnesium oxide
  Crucible, lid and Mg mass- Lid mass- Mg mass = crucible mass
40.206 g−17.525 g−0.030 g Mg=22.651 g
 Crucible after burning mass – Lid mass – Crucible mass= MgO mass
42.017 g MgO−17.525 g−22.651 g=1.841 g MgO
Mass of Oxygen
 MgO mass – Mg mass = Oxygen mass
1.84 1 g MgO−0.03 0 g Mg=1. 811 O
Moles of Oxygen: = 0.113 mol (3sf)
1 mol O
1.811 g O × =0.11 31875 mol O
16 g O
Ratio between moles of Mg and O.
0.113 mol O
=90.4
0.00125mol Mg
Empirical formula of MgO is MgO90

yield=¿ 0.030 x
Mg MgO
24 40
0.030 x 0.030 1.841
yield
24
= 40
40 24 (
=x x=0.05) 0.05
× 100 =3 682

0.03 1.5 ×2 3
Expected empirical formula: Mg3 O2 0.05−0.030=0.02 =1.5 =
0.02 1 ×2 2
MgO – Mg = O Mg/O

3. SAMPLE 1 OF PROCEDURE B
Mass of magnesium: 0.062 g
Moles of magnesium: 0.00258 mol (3sf)
1 mol Mg
0.0 62 g Mg × =0.00 258333 mol Mg
24 g Mg
Mass of magnesium oxide
42.0245 g MgO−41.950 g=0.0745 g MgO
Mass of Oxygen
 MgO mass – Mg mass = Oxygen mass
0.0745 g MgO−0.0 62 g Mg=0.013 g O
Moles of Oxygen: = 0.000813 mol (3sf)
1 mol O
0.013 g O × =0. 0008125mol O
16 g O
Ratio between moles of Mg and O: 3.17
0. 00258 mol O
=3.173431
0.000813 mol Mg
Empirical formula of MgO is
MgO3

yield=¿ 0.062 x
 Mg MgO
24 40
0.062 x 0.062 0.0745
yield
24
= 40
40 24( )
=x x=0.103333
0. 103
× 100 =72. 3

Expected empirical formula: Mg3 O2

0. 062 1.5× 2 3
0. 103−0.0 62=0.0 41 =1. 51∨1.5 =
0.0 41 1× 2 2
MgO – Mg = O Mg/O

Discussion of results (1)

According to the results, the empirical formulas are far from the expected empirical formulas.

 The results were too high, a reason could be that we added drops of water, it means, all
unknown substances or elements that could be there, made the calculations variate in a
huge level. The reason is that the analytical balance gets all that is in its range and it was
added to the mass of the crucible after burning.

 The results show that masses of reactants were not proportionated, there was way too
much oxygen; moreover, the expected empirical formulas, that there must be more
magnesium than oxygen, this gives us another reason to prove our results were not too
reliable.

 “The conventional form for writing a molecular formula is to write the symbol for each
element followed by a subscript indicating the actual number of those atoms present in a
molecule. When only one atom of an element is present, the subscript is omitted. For
example, the molecular formula for water, H2O, specifies that there are
two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom present in each molecule of water. It is
important to remember that the molecular formula—in contrast to the simpler empirical
formula that specifies only the relative number of atoms or moles present in a compound
—identifies the actual number of atoms present in a molecule.”[ CITATION JRa08 \l 9226
], This cite means that a compound has the same empirical formula but has a different
molecular formula, that expresses the different moles each element has.

 “Percent yield is the percent ratio of actual yield to the theoretical yield. It is calculated to
be the experimental yield divided by theoretical yield multiplied by 100%. If the actual
and theoretical yield are the same, the percent yield is 100%. Usually, percent yield is
lower than 100% because the actual yield is often less than the theoretical value.
Reasons for this can include incomplete or competing reactions and loss of sample
during recovery. It's possible for percent yield to be over 100%, which means more
sample was recovered from a reaction than predicted. This can happen when other
reactions were occurring that also formed the product. It can also be a source of error if
the excess is due to incomplete removal of water or other impurities from the sample.
Percent yield is always a positive value.” [ CITATION Ann181 \l 9226 ]. It means the first
 two samples had a lot of bad conditions but the last one was relatively good, we had a
27.7 percentage of error. In case of the two first samples, were more than the percent
yield, so we got a lot more than expected.

Conclusions (1)

Experiment fulfill the objective because we evaluated the processes by stoichiometry and we
used the theoretical data to get the yield and the expected empirical formula.

Additionally, the hypothesis is true because if we use different weights of magnesium’s, the
results of their molecular formulas reduction are equal, but we had different quantities of
oxygen and Magnesium Oxide.

By the other hand, answering the research question ¿How the empirical formula can be
determined by heating a metal with oxygen?

We can calculate the coefficients of Magnesium oxide and Oxygen used in the reaction, as
they are the variables that we don’t know, with mass of oxygen and mass of MgO. We must
weight the magnesium before the reaction and after the reaction, we must weigh the
magnesium oxide. Hence, we subtract the original weight of Mg with the product weight to
get O2 weight, it is an indirect way to get O2. Therefore, we must pass O2 and Mg masses
to moles, then, subtract each value with the least value of them both to get the coefficients.

“The empirical formula of magnesium oxide, MgxOy, is written as the lowest whole-number
ratio between the moles of Mg used and moles of O consumed. This is found by determining
the moles of Mg and O in the product; divide each value by the smaller number; and,
multiply the resulting values by small whole numbers (up to five) until you get whole number
values (with 0.1 of a whole number).

For example, if 0.0109 moles of Mg are combined with 0.0103 moles of O:

Mg0.0109/0.0103O0.0103/0.0103 = Mg1.06O1.00 ⇒ no need to multiply ⇒ MgO
For example, if 0.0129 moles of Mg are combined with 0.0103 moles of O:
Mg0.0129/0.0103O0.0103/0.0103 = Mg1.25O1.00
⇒ multiply by 4 ⇒ (Mg1.25O1.00)4 ⇒ Mg5O4 “

[ CITATION Adv11 \l 9226 ]

In sum, our personal interest was completed, through an experiment pracice, where get got
our data, we founded the empirical formula, even though, there where simpl values.

Evaluation of procedure and improvements

Factor Effect on the experiment Improvements

Time Weak and accelerated performance, need Make sure the lab can be
of a repetition of the lab. performed in the stipulated time, if
not, increase it or be more
efficient.
Materials Waste of time waiting for the material to be Make sure there are enough
available. materials to all groups that
are performing the lab.
Repetition of the lab There were unknown facts about the procedure Make sure time and
of the experiment, consequently, we could not materials are controlled and
manage too well the analysis and explanation ready.
of the results.

Bibliography
● Blaber, M. (2018, June 17). Chemistry Libretexts. Retrieved from
https://chem.libretexts.org/Textbook_Maps/General_Chemistry/Map
%3A_Chemistry_-_The_Central_Science_(Brown_et_al.)/03._Stoichiometry
%3A_Calculations_with_Chemical_Formulas_and_Equations/3.5%3A_Empiri
cal_Formulas_from_Analysis
● Britannica, T. E. (2018, May 22). Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from
Law of multiple proportions: https://www.britannica.com/science/law-of-
multiple-proportions
● Chemicool. (n.d.). Chemicool. Retrieved from
https://www.chemicool.com/definition/mole.html
● Flowers, P., Theopold, K., & Langley, R. (2018, October 17). Chemistry
Libretexts. Retrieved from
https://chem.libretexts.org/Textbook_Maps/General_Chemistry/Book
%3A_Chemistry_(OpenSTAX)/03%3A_Composition_of_Substances_and_Sol
utions/3.2%3A_Determining_Empirical_and_Molecular_Formulas
● Joseph Nijmeh (UCD), M. T. (2018, Junio 30). Chemical Libre Texts.
Retrieved from
https://chem.libretexts.org/Textbook_Maps/Inorganic_Chemistry/Supplementa
l_Modules_(Inorganic_Chemistry)/Chemical_Reactions/Stoichiometry_and_B
alancing_Reactions
● Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical%20formula
● Helmenstine, A. M. (24 de September de 2018). ThoughtCo. Obtenido de
Percent yield definition : https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-percent-
yield-605899
● Rank, J. (2008). J. Rank articles. Obtenido de
http://science.jrank.org/pages/4403/Molecular-Formula.html
● Advanced Instructional Systems, I. a. (2011). Webassign. Obtenido de
http://www.webassign.net/question_assets/ucscgencheml1/lab_2/manual.html