INVESTIGATION 7.

B Michael Hung, John Lee, Bosco Nguyen, Rhyce

Prescod

Determining the Concentration of a Solution

Problem: What is the molar concentration of a Mg(NO 3)2 (aq) solution?

Hypothesis: If we are to find the molar concentration of a Mg(NO 3)2 (aq) solution, then we must first
calculate the number of mols of Mg 3(PO4)2. We can use that to find the mols of Mg(NO 3)2 by
multiplying it by the molar ratio (3:1). Through the molar concentration formula, we can find the
concentration of Mg(NO3)2, as seen in Analysis #1. The hypothetical concentration for Mg(NO 3)2 is
0.51 mol/L. The following calculation is the predicted mass of precipitate (Mg 3(PO4)2).

3 Mg ( N O 3 )2 (aq )+2 Na 3 PO 4 ( aq) → Mg 3( PO ¿¿ 4 )2( s )+6 Na NO 3 ( aq ) ¿

262.84 g Mg ( P O ) 1mol Mg ( P O ) 0.200 mol Na PO 0.025 L
g Mg (P O ) = 3
× 4 2
× 3 4 2 3
×4

3 42
1mol Mg ( P O )
3 42
2 mol Na PO 3 4
L 1
¿ 0.657175 gMg ( P O ) ¿ 0.66 g Mg (P O )
3 42 3 42

Procedure: Refer to pg. 282 in McGraw-Hill Ryerson’s Inquiry into Chemistry textbook.

Materials: Refer to pg. 282 in McGraw-Hill Ryerson’s Inquiry into Chemistry textbook.

Variables:
 Manipulated:
o None
 Responding:
o Concentration of Mg(NO3)2
 Controlled:
o Volume of Mg(NO3)2 solution (25 mL)
o Filter paper used to filter products
o

Observations:

Mass of the Filter Paper (±0.0005 g) 1.523 g

Mass of Filter Paper and Precipitation (±0.0005 g) 2.641 g

Mass of Precipitation (±0.0005 g) 1.118 g

Colour of Precipitate White

INVESTIGATION 7.B Michael Hung, John Lee, Bosco Nguyen, Rhyce
Prescod

Analysis

m
1. mol Mg ( P O ) =
3 4 2
M

1.118 g Mg ( P O )
¿ 3 4 2
=0.0042530528 mol Mg (P O )
g Mg (P O ) 3 42

262.87 3 42

mol

0.0042530528 mol Mg (P O ) 3 mol Mg ( N O )

mol Mg ( N O ) = 3 42
× 3 2

32
1 1 mol Mg ( P O )
3 4 2

¿ 0. 0127591585 mol Mg (N O ) 32

n 0.0127591585 mol Mg ( N O ) mol

C= = =0.51 3 2

V 0.025 L L Mg ( N O ) 32

2. No, the amount of Na3PO4 does not matter as long as it is more than Mg(NO 3)2. This is
because Mg(NO3)2 is a limiting reactant. The amount of Mg(NO 3)2 limits the amount of how
much precipitate can be produced. That being said since there was only 50 mL of Mg(NO 3)2,
only 50 mL of Mg(NO3)2 was consumed in the reaction. The amount of Na 3PO4 does not
affect the results in any way, unless the amount of Na 3PO4 were changed to a value lower
than that of Mg(NO3)2, in which case, Na3PO4 would become the new limiting reactant and
thus the amount of resulting precipitate would become dependent on it.

3. The mass of the precipitate (Mg3PO4) calculated before the experiment compared to the
mass calculated in the analysis has increased by 0.458g. The mass might differ due to
mechanical losses such as the transfer of chemicals. An example would be when the Na 3PO4
(aq) is slowly added to the solution while the beaker was being swirled. There might also be a

change due to environmental conditions. An example of this would be the precipitate being
exposed to dust or other particulates present in the air that would contaminate the
precipitate. In addition, the theoretical value is calculated under the assumption that the
environment is constantly at SATP condition. Even slight fluctuations in temperature and
pressure may have affected the outcome.

Conclusion
mol mol

1.
| 0.15
L Mg ( N O )
−0.51
32
L Mg ( N O ) |
3 2
×100 %=71 %
mol
0.51
L Mg ( N O ) 32
INVESTIGATION 7.B Michael Hung, John Lee, Bosco Nguyen, Rhyce
Prescod

mol
3 2 3 2
(
2. n Mg ( N O ) =CV n Mg ( N O ) = 0.15
L Mg ( N O ) (
32
)
0.025 LMg ( N O ) )n Mg ( N O ) =0.00375 mol Mg ( N O )
32 3 2 3 2

g
32 32
(
m Mg ( N O ) =Mnm Mg ( N O ) = 148.33
mol Mg ( N O ) (3 2
)
0.00375 mol Mg ( N O ) )32

mMg ( N O ) =0.5562375 g Mg ( N O ) =0.56 g Mg (N O )

32 3 2 32

experimental 1.118 g
3. % yield= ×100 %% yield= ×100 %
theoretical 0.657175 g
% yield=1.701221136 × 100 %% yield=170 %

Errors/Improvements:

Mechanical losses such as the transfer of chemicals may have been an error. There might have also
been a chance of contamination due to environmental conditions, such as exposure to various
leftover chemical residues on beakers and other utensils, or residue clinging to dust and other
particulates in the air. The extra mass of this contaminates may have masked the actual mass of the
precipitate itself. Finally, the theoretical value is calculated under the assumption that the
environment is constantly at SATP condition. Even slight fluctuations in temperature and pressure
may have affected the outcome. Some of these errors can be corrected through proper cleaning of
utensils before starting the lab, performing the lab in a sterile environment, and keeping the
environment at a constant SATP level.