Solubility of simple molecules in different solvents

The purpose of this practical was to determine the solubility of different substances in a
certain solvent. Once we had our results collected, we could conclude which forces held
the compounds together, according to their polarity.
We chose to dissolve sucrose and calcium chloride (which are polar substances held by
permanent dipole-permanent dipole intermolecular forces), into water, ethanol and
cyclohexane. We assumed that since water is a polar compound, both solutes would
dissolve easily in it. On the other hand, suspecting that ethanol and cyclohexane are
both alkanes and therefore non-polar, we predicted that sucrose and calcium chloride
would not dissolve easily in them.
Risks
SInce we were using organic substances, we had to take several precautions. For
example, we were aware that ethane and cyclohexane are highly flammable and
hazardous, so we therefore made sure that there was no heat around, as well as tying
our hair up just in case of fire. Similarly, we worked at a small scale to reduce the
chances of risk. Moreover, we used calcium chloride which is irritant, so we avoided
contact with it by wearing a lab coat, gloves and safety goggles. Finally, and most
important, we precued that after the practical the organic compounds were separated
into waste disposal containers, as they are very hazardous.

Equipment used
Rack with 6 test tubes (for the 6 tests in total)
Bungs (in order to shakes the test tubes)
Spatulas
Weighing Scale (to allow us to measure how much solute dissolved)
Measuring cylinder (to measure the hydrocarbons)
Beaker (to add in the hydrocarbons)
Distilled water
Ethanol
Cyclohexane
Sucrose
Calcium Chloride
Method
Firstly, we took 6 test tubes and we added separately the calcium chloride and sucrose
into the water, ethane, and cyclohexane. As previously mentioned, we only used 5cm3
of each substance in order to reduce any risks. We measured this using a measuring
cylinder, and made sure we had the exact same quantities for all three solvents, in order
to make it a fair test.

We then added the substances in small quantities of 0.5g until no more dissolved. In
this way we could determine how much of that substance is able to dissolve in that
solvent. We also shook the test tubes so that the substances dissolved faster. We
recorded our results on a table and then used this to calculate the solubility of each
substance in that solvent in g/ml.
Since the calcium chloride contained 2 moles of H20 for every 1 mole of CaCl2 we
had to do some extra calculations in order to determine the actual mass of calcium
chloride that dissolved in water.

Solubility Results
Sucrose in water: 50g/ml
Sucrose in ethanol: <2g/ml
Sucrose in cyclohexane: <2g/ml
Calcium chloride in water: >76g/ml
Calcium chloride in ethanol: <8g/ml
Calcium chloride in cyclohexane: <2g/ml
Evaluation
From our results, we can identify that sucrose in water is by far the most soluble, and
after that comes calcium chloride dissolved in water. However, neither sucrose nor
calcium chloride dissolved very well in ethanol and cyclohexane- both being non-polar
solvents. Indeed, we can observe a pattern linking the solubility with the polarity of
each. Sucrose, being the most polar, dissolves the best; then comes calcium chloride
and water (which approximately have the same solubility); then ethanol; and finally,
cyclohexane as this is the least polar substance due to the longer chain of carbons,
meaning that the electron density will be more evenly distributed.
We can therefore conclude that substances will dissolve in solvents with identical
polarity, thus similar intermolecular forces. Sucrose, calcium chloride, and water all
contain permanent-dipole to permanent-dipole bonds. This means that one end of the
charged dipole may induce another end of another dipole from the other molecule, thus
allowing for the solubility. However, since ethanol and cyclohexane are held by weak
London Forces, these forces are not strong enough to overcome the permanent dipole
forces in the solutes, thus explaining why the substances did not dissolve in these
hydrocarbons.
Conclusion
Overall, we collected fairly accurate results and the practical as a whole went quite well
and safe. However, there are some areas that we could improve in, in order to improve
reliability, precision, accuracy, and safety.
Firstly, we forgot to label the test tubes, which could have caused some confusion in
identifying which hydrocarbon was which. Hence this could have affected when

separating them into waste disposal containers, thus causing a health and safety issue.
When measuring the liquid with the measuring cylinder, there was an absolute
uncertainty of +/- 0.5mm. Similarly, the absolute uncertainty of the mass of the
substances was +/- 0.001g. This may have affected our results slightly. In order to
improve our precision, we could have used a pipette instead.