Investigation to find the practical relative molar mass of CO2

1. Research question
 By using the ideal gas law, find the molar mass of Carbon dioxide added with water
 The experimental molar mass of CO2 can be the independent variable, and also calculated
out, by finding all the needed values in the ideal gas law.

2. Background information
 From the formula of PV=nRT, so we got the formula of M= (mRT)/PV, therefore, the
molar mass of CO2 can be acquired by measuring the mass of CO2, by measuring the
change of mass of the boiling tube.
 Because CuCO3 is not soluble in water, and smoke should not occur in the experiment,
and if CuCO3 in solid state, there will be smoke. Therefore, the salt was mixed with
vinegar.
 Equation: CuCO3 (s) + 2CH3COOH(aq)  Cu(CH3COO)2(aq) + H2O(l) + CO2(g)
 Thus, what left in the boiling tube is copper ethanoate, so the loss mass of the original mixture
will be the mass of water and CO2 and H2O
 From then the mass of CO2 could be found by multiply the mass of product to the
percentage of CO2 in the mixture (m * 0.71)
 Source

https://www.stem.org.uk/system/files/elibrary-resources/legacy_files_migrated/33799-
PreparationofcopperIIethanoatestudent.pdf [access date 25/9/19]
IB Chemistry Pearson Textbook HL [access date 25/9/19]
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplem
ental_Modules_%28Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry
%29/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/States_of_Matter/Properties_of_Gases/Gas_Laws/The_Ideal_Gas_L
aw [access date 26/9/19]
Guidance for IBDP chemistry internal assessment [access date 26/9/19]

3. Hypothesis
 There will be a difference between theoretical value and experimental value, due to
systematic error, which can’t be modified, such as there are already gas in the tube, etc.,
 Relative molar mass of CO2 is: 44.01, but the practical value wouldn’t be exactly 44.01

4. Variables
 There are no variables that is being manipulated, therefore, there are no independent
variables. But all of the measurements which are taken in account, in the ideal gas law
formula will affect the experimental molar mass. Therefore, the molar mass is the
dependent variables.
  At the same time, all of the measurements taken in account are being controlled, to make
sure the value of molar mass is similar after 5 times, for reliability. These variables are
the mass of reactant used up, temperature, volume of gas produced, and pressure.

5. Materials
 500 cm3 beaker
 100 cylinder +- 1 cm3
 Gas tube
 Pipette +- 0.05 cm3
 Pipette holder
 Balance +- 0.01g
 Gas tube
 Cork
 Bunsen burner
 Magnetic stirrer
 Goggles
 20cm Boiling tube
 Tongs
 Stand
 Clamp
 Stopwatch
 20 cm3 of acetic acid +-0.05cm3
 0.6g of copper carbonate +- 0.01 g

6. Safety
Hazard Risks How can it be Emergency Level of risk
minimized action
Flame from the Hot, high Deal with the Use the fire High
Bunsen burner temperature apparatus with extinguisher
great care, use
heat mat
Copper Contamination Wear gloves, use Alert the Medium
carbonate heat mat to teacher, and
avoid spilling on wash the solid
the table off
Hot apparatus Heat, high Use tongs to Place the Medium
temperature carry hot boiling affected are
tubes under cold
 running water
and alert the
teacher
Smoke Toxic Open the Stop the Medium
laboratory door experiment
Table 1: Table showing different type of risk and how it is handled

7. Preliminary experiments
 A preliminary experiment was carried out to find any flaws in the methodology. From
that, we changed the measuring cylinder in the big beaker from 25 cm3 to 100 cm3, due to
the fact that more than 25 cm3of products was made.
 Also, after the first time, suck back happened, and therefore, alternative heating was used
to avoid that. If suck back happen, the mass difference can’t be measured.

8. Methods
1. Measure the 0.6g of CuCO3 in the boiling tube.
2. Then, measure related measurements such as temperature in K and pressure in KPa.
3. Then mix that copper carbonate with 20 cm3of acetic acid in a beaker. Use the magnetic stirrer if
needed, and make sure the solution is diluted.
4. Then, divide the solution equally into 5 boiling tube, and seal each with a cork.
5. Place the tube on a stand at 45 degrees, and place the Bunsen burner underneath it.
6. Connect a tube from the boiling tube (penetrate through the cork), and connect it to a ¾ full 500
cm3 beaker.
7. Fill a full calibrated glass tube, and place it upside down on the trough.
8. Then, lit up the Bunsen burner that is underneath the solution, with blue flame.
9. There will be bubble fizzing up, which is the product of the reaction, and also, water will also
leave the boiling tube.
10. Then, read the number of volume of CO2 after there is no reaction left, and convert it into dm3
9. Next, take the boiling tube and measure the mass after it is heated to find out the mass of CO 2 and
H2O.
10. The mass of CO2 could be as mention above, by multiply the mass to the percentage CO 2 in the
mixture of water and carbon dioxide.
11. Repeat the step 5 to 9 5 times, to get many recording for reliability.
12. Then use the ideal gas formula to find out the experimental molar mass of CO 2
 Diagram 1: How is a magnetic stirrer
used to make to solution diluted.
Taken by an IPhone 8 Plus 20/9/2019

13. Data collection

 Control variables
o Pressure: 101.3 KPa
o Temperature: 25oC=> 298K (From the reading of the thermostat)
o Mass of copper carbonate: 0.6/5 = 0.15 +- 0.01g
o Volume of acetic acid: 20/5 = 4.00 +- 0.05 cm3
 Data collected:

Mass before/ Mass after/ Mass change/ Mass of CO2 Volume of Time
g +- 0.01g +- 0.01g +- 0.02g (mass change gas produced/
* 0.71) +- +- 0.001 dm3
0.02g
Boiling tube 34.32 Suck back, NA NA 0.065 80.95
1 error carried
forward
Boiling tube 40.28 37.15 3.13 2.22 0.061 75.00
2
Boiling tube 39.20 35.80 3.40 2.41 0.059 73.41
3
Boiling tube 39.66 36.40 3.26 2.31 0.060 68.00
4
Boiling tube 34.81 32.66 2.15 1.53 leakage 46.24
5 (leakage of
 gas)
Average 39.71 36.45 3.26 2.31 0.060 72.14
(exclude
boiling tube 1
and 5)
Table 2: Data table shows the collected result of the practical, 20/9/2019

Observation: Gas fizzing up, and after the reaction, the solution turned from blue to black very
rapidly.

Diagram 2: The apparatus of the

experiment. The solution is rapidly
turning black and CO2 in the cylinder
in the 500 cm3 beaker. Taken by an
IPhone 8 Plus

Time was measured for as a backup measurement, for any alternate calculation of these value,
and also helps the examiner to understand the reliability of these measurement, due to the fact of
the similarity of the time.

14. Data processing

 Diagram 3: An example of how the
formula will look like to find out the
molar mass of a substance [source: IB
Chemistry Pearson textbook]

Assumption: The product made are only CO2 and H2O

Uncertainty: 0.2/2.31= 8.7%; 0.001/0.060 = 1.6%; => 10.3%
M(CO2) = (mRT)/(PV)=(2.31x8.31x 298)/(101.3x0.06) = 941 +- 97 g mol-1
Theoretical value: 44.01 g mol-1
Percentage error: ((941/44.01) *100) -100 = 2038%
There can no graph drawn, due to the fact that there were no manipulated variables (independent variable)

15. Data analysis

 There were no anomalies in the investigation, since all of the result are similar. From
the result above, it has high reliability, but very low accuracy.
 Random error: There could be some random errors in the reading of mass of volume.
And also, there was a random error on the mass of boiling tube, despite being the
same type, but there were 3-5 grams different. Overall, these errors shouldn’t affect
the result too much.
 Systematic error has dramatically affected the result of the investigation, since it has
created a huge percentage error.

16. Conclusion
 There were huge systematic errors that wasn’t considered which lead to the massive
different between theoretical value and practical value.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TapRk6E5yr0 [access date 26/9/2019] this source showed
how the ideal gas law could be use, and their number are more accurate compare to this
investigation.
 Despite this the big error, the fizzling proves that there was gas produced (carbon dioxide)
 The experimental molar mass of carbon dioxide is: 941 +- 97 g mol -1
  https://www.britannica.com/science/Bunsen-burner [access date 26/9/2019] With the liquid
rapidly turn black, that was a proof of the systematic error, the reaction temperature was too,
high, therefore, not just water and carbon dioxide were loss, some of the acetic copper could be
loss a gas too. The temperature of the Bunsen burner could peak over 1000 degrees Celsius, and
can boil the product, acetic salt too. From that, it explains the huge mass different.
 There could be some other errors that contributed to the difference in value, such as there was
still gas in the tube, or the temperature of the measuring cylinder (where the gas was collected) is
different compare to the room temperature.
 To an extent, it has somewhat related to my hypothesis, which the experimental molar mass will
be different compare to the theoretical value. But this big difference in value wasn’t expected. As
mention above, the percentage error is 2038%

17. Evaluation
 Despite the huge systematic errors, there were still some strengths of the investigation:
o Control variables were carefully controlled (except the difference in the mass of
the boiling tube –error carried forward)
o The volume of gas was collected, and the reading was read at 90 degrees.
o The result has high reliability, as the number are quite similar to one another
o Understand how the ideal gas law can be used in any context, with a given
amount of measurements.

Limitation or Weakness Effect on results Suggestion for Improvements

Temperature of the reaction was
not taken in account
Some aspects of the experiment
weren’t prepared to the fullest
Impurities weren’t vented from
the tube, due to the assumption
of the products of the reaction
would only be CO2 and H2O.
Didn’t measure the temperature
of the measuring cylinder that
collect the gas, due to the
assumption of temperature of
It was a big systematic error,
with that high temperature,
some of the unwanted acetic
copper can be turn into gas and
increase more in the mass loss.
And from that, affect
dramatically on the result. This
explains of how the solution has
turn rapidly black, and even
suck back happen
Suck back and leakage happen
in the 1st and 5th time. Because
these phenomena happened, 1st
and 5th result couldn’t be used in
the result table (to avoid false
calculation)
This wouldn’t affect the result
too much, as the impurities
don’t take up too much mass.
Nevertheless, it would affect the
accuracy of our result.
This again, wouldn’t also affect
our result too much, because
there couldn’t be massive
difference between the
Do the reaction in lower
temperature to make sure the
salt won’t be evaporated out of
the tube to the cylinder.
Prepare the methodology with
better focus on small detail, and
the apparatus can be set up
avoid random errors to happen.
Before the reaction, suck all the
air out of it, and use it as soon as
possible, to make sure as little
gas has entered the tube as
possible.
Use a thermometer next time,
and measure the water
temperature before starting the
reaction.
the cylinder would be the same
as room temperature
temperature of water in the
cylinder and room temperature.
But it can’t be exactly 25oC as
we assumed (or 298K), and
from that could also slightly
affect the accuracy of the result