OBJECTIVE

a) To determine the standard enthalpy of formation of magnesium oxide, ΔHf

INTRODUCTION

The amount of heat absorbed or released in a chemical reaction is called the heat of reaction.
The amount of heat reaction produces or absorbs depends on the number of moles of reactants
we combine.

Heats of reaction are determined by measuring the change in temperature they cause in
their surroundings, using calorimeter. Calorimeter has varies design which is not standard.
Calorimeters are usually designed to measure heats of reaction under conditions of either
constant volume or constant pressure. We have constant volume conditions if we run in the
reaction in closed container. Running the reaction in an open container imposes
constant-pressure conditions.

In this experiment, we will need to compare the heat capacities of a coffee cup calorimeter
and a copper calorimeter in part A. firstly, we need to deliver tap water into both calorimeter.
Then, record the temperature of hot water and pour it into both calorimeter. Record the
temperature change.

For second and third reaction, we will determine the standard enthalpy of formation of
magnesium oxide by using Hess’s Law. According to this law, it is permissible to write the
stoichiometry equations together with the enthalpy changes. The stoichiometry equation will
be treat as mathematical equations where by the algebraic sums of the reactions are obtained.
The equation for the formation of magnesium oxide is :

Mg(s) + ⅟2O2(g) MgO(s) (1)

By considering the algebraic sum of the following reactions.

Mg(s) + 2HCl(aq) MgCl2(aq) + H2(g) (2)

MgO(s) + 2HCl(aq) MgCl2(aq) + H2O(l) (3)
H2(g) + ⅟2O2(g) H2O(l) (4)

The heat of ractions for Reactions (2) and (3) will be obtained experimentally and for the
reaction (4), the heat of formation can be obtained from the literature.

The heat capacity of a calorimeter can be obtained by measuring the temperature change when
a known weight of hot water id added to a known amount of cold water in the calorimeter.

qhot = qcold + qcal

qhot = mhc(Th - Tf) = heat lost by hot water

qcold = mcc(Tf - Tc) = heat gained by cold water
qcal = Ccal(Tf - Tc) = heat gained by calorimeter
Where c = specific heat capacity for water = 4.18 J g-1 ℃-1
Ccal = heat capacity of the calorimeter
Th = temperature of hot water
Tc = temperature of cold water
Tf = final temperature after mixing
m = mass of water (hot or cold)

APPARATUS

1. Thermometer (2)
2. Styrofoam cup with cardboard cover lid (2)
3. 100cm3 beaker
4. 100cm3 graduated cylinder

CHEMICALS

1. 2.0 M hydrochloric acid

2. Magnesium oxide powder
3. Magnesium powder

PROCEDURE

The experiment is performed at standard conditions (atmostpheric pressure and 25℃). All
experiment are done in a ‘double’ styrofoam cup (coffee cup) calorimeter and

Thermometer
Cardboard cover lid

Styrofoam cup

Water

Figure 1.1 Double Styrofoam cup calorimeter

A. Heat capacity of calorimeter

Make sure the double nested styrofoam cups are clean and dry.

1. Exactly 50cm3 of tap water was delivered into the calorimeter by using a burette. The
cover and the thermometer is replaced. The water temperature was recorded for four
minutes at one minute intervals.

2. 50cm3 of hot water (40 - 50℃ above the room temperature) was measured using a
graduated cylinder and poured into a beaker. The temperature of the hot water was
recorded quickly by using another thermometer,and it was completely poured into the
calorimeter (containing the cold water) at the fifth minute. The lid was replaced and
the water was stirred carefully by using the thermometer. The temperature was
recorded every 15 seconds for the next 3 minutes.

B. Reaction 2 : Magnesium with Hydrochloric Acid

1. Between 1.0 - 1.1g of magnesium powder is weighed. The exact weight used was
recorded.

2. 50cm3 of 2 M HCl was drained from a burette into the calorimeter. The cover and
thermometer was replaced. The temperature of the HCl was recorded every minute for
four minutes. The magnesium powder was quickly poured into the HCl at the fifth
minute. The lid was replaced and the contents in the calorimeter was stirred carefully
with the thermometer. The temperature was recorded for the next 3 minutes at 15
seconds interval.

C. Reaction 3 : Magnesium oxide with Hydrochloric Acid

1. Between 1.6 - 1.8g of magnesium oxide was weighed. The exact weight used was
recorded.

2. Step (2) in (B) was repeated.

D. Reaction 4 : Hydrogen gas with Oxygen gas

For safety reasons, this value is not experimentally determined in the laboratory. It has
been profesionally determined and verified and the value is listed in standard reference
sources. The assignment is finding the value, in kilojoules per mole (kJ/mol).
RESULTS

Data sheet for experiment 1

Temp. of hot water (℃ ) 58

Mass of Mg (g) 1.0030
Mass of MgO (g) 1.7030

Coffee cup Mg and HCl MgO and HCl

Calorimeter
Time T (℃ ) Time T (℃ ) Time T (℃ )
1.00 35 1.00 35 1.00 35
2.00 35 2.00 35 2.00 35
3.00 35 3.00 35 3.00 35
4.00 35 4.00 35 4.00 35
5.00 35 5.00 71 5.00 35
5.15 46 5.15 71 5.15 47
5.30 46 5.30 71 5.30 49
5.45 45 5.45 71 5.45 49
6.00 45 6.00 70 6.00 49
6.15 45 6.15 69 6.15 50
6.30 45 6.30 68 6.30 51
6.45 45 6.45 67 6.45 51
7.00 45 7.00 67 7.00 51
7.15 45 7.15 66 7.15 51
7.30 45 7.30 65 7.30 50
7.45 45 7.45 65 7.45 50
8.00 44 8.00 64 8.00 50

CALCULATIONS

Coffee cup Calorimeter (Heat Capacity)

qhot = qcold + qcal

mhc(Th - Tf) = mcc(Tf - Tc) + Ccal(Tf - Tc)

50 x 4.18 x (58-46) = 50 x 4.18 x (46-35) + Ccal (46-35)

2508.0 = 2299 + Ccal (11.0)

Ccal = 19.0 J ℃-1

Coffee cup calorimeter (Reaction 2)

Mg(s) + 2HCl(aq) MgCl2(aq) + H2(g)

Mol of Mg = 1.0030g / 24.3g mol-1

= 0.0413 mol (available)

Mol of HCl = MHCl x VHCl

= (2M) (0.05L)

= 0.1 mol HCl (available)

1 mol Mg ≡ 2 mol HCl

0.0413 mol Mg ≡ 0.0412 mol x 2

= 0.0826 mol HCl (needed)

 Mg is a limiting reactant

qreaction = qreactant + qcalorimeter

= mc∆T + Ccal∆T

= 50 x 4.18 x (71 - 35) + (19.0) (71 - 35)

= 7524 + 684

= 8208 J

= 8.208 kJ

 ∆Hrxn = qrxn
-
n

 8.208kJ

0.0413mol

= -198.741 kJ mol -1
Coffee cup calorimeter (Reaction 3)

MgO(s) + 2HCl(aq) MgCl2(aq) + H2O(g)

Mol of MgO = 1.7030g / 40.3g mol-1

= 0.0423 mol (available)

Mol of HCl = MHCl x VHCl

= (2M) (0.05L)

= 0.1 mol HCl (available)

1 mol Mg ≡ 2 mol HCl

0.0423 mol Mg ≡ 0.0423 mol x 2

= 0.0846 mol HCl (needed)

 MgO is a limiting reactant

qreaction = qreactant + qcalorimeter

= mc∆T + Ccal∆T

= 50 x 4.18 x (51 - 35) + (19.0) (51 - 35)

= 3344 + 304

= 3648 J

= 3.648 kJ

 ∆Hrxn = qrxn
-
n

 3.648kJ

0.0423mol

= -86.241 kJ mol -1
 (I) Mg(s) + 2HCl(aq) MgCl2(aq) + H2(g) ∆H = -461.96 kJ/mol
(II) MgO(s) + 2HCl(aq) MgCl2(aq) + H2O(l) (∆H = -146.96 kJ/mol
(III) H2(g) + ⅟2O2(g) H2O(l) (∆H = -285.90 kJ/mol
(
Mg(s) + ⅟2O2(g) MgO(s) ∆H = ?
(

Reverse equation (II)

(I) Mg(s) + 2HCl(aq) MgCl2(aq) + H2(g) ∆H = -461.96 kJ/mol

(∆H = +146.96 kJ/mol
(II) MgCl2(aq) + H2O(l) MgO(s) + 2HCl(aq)
(III) H2(g) + ⅟2O2(g) H2O(l) (∆H = -285.90 kJ/mol
(
Mg(s) + ⅟2O2(g) MgO(s) ∆H = -600.90 kJ/mol
(

(I) Mg(s) + 2HCl(aq) MgCl2(aq) + H2(g) ∆H = -198.741 kJ/mol

(II) MgO(s) + 2HCl(aq) MgCl2(aq) + H2O(l) (∆H = -86.241 kJ/mol
(III) H2(g) + ⅟2O2(g) H2O(l) (∆H = -285.90 kJ/mol
(
Mg(s) + ⅟2O2(g) MgO(s) ∆H = ?
(

Reverse equation (II)

(I) Mg(s) + 2HCl(aq) MgCl2(aq) + H2(g) ∆H = -198.741 kJ/mol

(∆H = +86.241 kJ/mol
(II) MgCl2(aq) + H2O(l) MgO(s) + 2HCl(aq)
(III) H2(g) + ⅟2O2(g) H2O(l) (∆H = -285.90 kJ/mol
(
Mg(s) + ⅟2O2(g) MgO(s) ∆H = -398.40 kJ/mol
(

theoritica l  exp eriment

Percentage error  x100%
theoritica l

- (600.90) - (-398.40)
 x 100%
- 600.90

= 34%
DISCUSSION

In this experiment, the main objective is to determine the standard enthalpy of formation of
magnesium oxide, ΔHf which is −600.90 kJ / mol by literature. The experiment consists of
three parts which is reaction 1,2 and 3.

In reaction 1, double styrofoam cups were used as the calorimeter. We delivered 50 cm3 of
tap water into calorimeter using burette. Then, we recorded the water temperature for four
minutes at one minute intervals. The temperature of measured 50 cm3 of hot water in
different beaker was recorded. After that, we pour the hot water into the calorimeter containing
cold water. The content was stirred and the temperature was being recorded every 15 seconds
for 3 minutes. This part of the experiment aids us to determine the calorimetry constant. From
the calculation, the constant calorimeter for coffee cup calorimeter is 19.0 J ֯ C-1.

As for reaction 2, we weighed about 1.0 – 1.1g of magnesium powder. Then, we analysed
the temperature of 50 cm3 of HCl in calorimeter every minute for four minutes and quickly we
added the weighed magnesium powder into HCl at fifth minute. After that, we recorded the
temperature of the mixture for the next 3 minutes at 15 seconds intervals. This allowed us to
find the heat of formation for the reaction of magnesium with hydrochloric acid. The result
obtained for coffee cup calorimeter is -198.741 kJ mol-1.

The last part which is reaction 3, we weighed about 1.6 – 1.8g of magnesium oxide. Then,
we analysed the temperature of 50 cm3 of HCl in calorimeter every minute for four minutes
and quickly we added the weighed magnesium powder into HCl at fifth minute. After that, we
recorded the temperature of the mixture for the next 3 minutes at 15 seconds intervals. This
allowed us to find the heat of formation for the reaction of magnesium oxide with hydrochloric
acid. The result calculated was -86.241 kJ mol-1.

By considering the algebraic sum of the reaction 2,3 and 4 we were able to calculate
the standard enthalpy of formation of magnesium oxide, ∆H֯ f using Hess’s Law. Using
Hess’s Law and adding the forward reaction of magnesium metal with the backward reaction of
magnesium oxide and the forward reaction of the formation of water, we can cancel out terms
on both sides of the equation. As a result, the standard enthalpy of formation of magnesium
oxide, ∆H֯ f that we obtained from the experiment is ∆H֯ f = -398.40 kJ / mol for coffee
cup calorimeter which is different from the theoritical value.

The percentage error calculated is 34%. The result for coffee cup calorimeter is much differ
from the theoretical value and this happen due to some errors. The error could be happen
during reading the temperature value which would affect a majority of the values in the
calculations. The position of our eyes are not parallel with the scale. Also, the error may occur
due to incorrect adjustment of the instrument. In this case, the lid of coffee cup calorimeter was
not closely sealed causing the heat loss to the surrounding easily. As recommendation, this
error can be minimized by taking proper care in reading and recording the measurement
parameter.
CONCLUSION

In the conclusion, the objective of this experiment which is to determine the standard
enthalpy of formation of magnesium oxide, ΔHf was achieved by using the Hess’s Law. From
the constant calorimeter for coffee cup calorimeter is 19.0 J /֯ C. In reaction 2, for the heat
of formation for the reaction of magnesium with hydrochloric acid is -198.741 kJ / mol.
Lastly for reaction 3, the heat of formation for the reaction of magnesium oxide with
hydrochloric acid is -86.241 kJ / mol. As a result, the standard enthalpy of formation of
magnesium oxide, ∆H֯f that we get from the experiment turns out to be -398.40 and the
percentage error calculated for coffee cup calorimeter is 34% .

REFERENCES

Chemistry LibreTexts. (Aug,2020). Hess’s Law. Retrieved from

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_M
aps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Thermodynamics/Ther
modynamic_Cycles/Hesss_Law

ThoughtCo. (Nov,2020). How to Calculate Percent Error. Retrieved from

https://www.thoughtco.com/how-to-calculate-percent-error-609584

Philip Penketh. (Feb,2020). An Experimental Demonstration of Hess’s Law. Retrieved from

https://www.chemedx.org/blog/experimental-demonstration-hesss-law#:~:text=Introduction
%3A%20Hess's%20Law%20states%20that,the%20all%20the%20individual%20steps.

Center For Innovation In Research And Teaching. Grand Canyon University. Sources of Error
and Bias in Experimental Research. Retrieved from
https://cirt.gcu.edu/research/develop/research_ready/experimental/5

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. a) Which of the two calorimeters : coffee cup calorimeter or copper calorimeter has a
higher specific heat capacity?

Coffee cup calorimeter

b) What conclusion can you make regarding the relationship of heat capacity of
calorimeter with temperature change of the reactions.

Heat capacity has unit of kJ/ ֯ C. This refer ro the amount of heat required to raise the
temperature of a givem quantity(m) of the substance by one degree celcius or 1K. A
large heat capacity substance will have only a small changes in temperature compared to
the low heat capacity substance with the equal mass.
2. For the following problem, assume that the volume of the final solution is 200 cm3,
the density of the solution is 1.00 gml-1 and the heat capacity of the solution is the same
as water (4.184 Jg-1 ֯ C).

a) When 0.800g of Ca metal is added to 200 cm3 of 0.500 M HCl (aq) according to
the method described in procedure B, a temperature increase of 13.0֯ C is observed. What
is ∆Hrxn at room temperature for the reaction of Ca(s) + 2H+ (aq) ?

Ca (s) + 2 HCl (aq) CaCl2 + H2 (g)

Mol of Ca = 0.800g / 40.1 g mol-1

= 0.01995 mol Ca (available)

Mol of HCl = (0.500 M) (0.2 L)

= 0.10 mol HCl (available)

1 mol Ca ≡ 2 mol HCl

0.01995 mol Ca ≡ 0.01995 mol x 2

= 0.0399 mol HCl (needed)

 Ca is limiting reactant

Q= mc ∆T

= (200x 4.18 x 13)

= −10868 J

∴ ∆Hrxn = qrxn / n

= (-10868 J) / (0.01995 mol)

= -544761 J /mol

= -544.761 kJ / mol.
 b) When 1.12g of CaO is added to 200 cm3 of 0.500 M HCl (aq) according to the
method describe in procedure B, a temperature increase of 4.62 ֯C is observed.
What is ∆Hrxn at room temperature for the reaction CaO(s) + 2H+ ?

CaO (s) + 2 HCl (aq) CaCl2 + H2O(g)

Mol of CaO = 1.12g / 56.1 g mol-1

= 0.01996 mol CaO (available)

Mol of HCl = (0.500 M) (0.2 L)

= 0.10 mol HCl (available)

1 mol Ca ≡ 2 mol HCl

0.01996 mol Ca ≡ 0.01996 mol x 2

= 0.03992 mol HCl (needed)

 CaO is limiting reactant

Q= mc ∆T

= (200x 4.18 x 4.62)

= −3862.32 J

∴ ∆Hrxn = qrxn / n

= (-3862.32 J) / (0.01996 mol)

= -193503.006 J /mol

= -193.503 kJ / mol.

3. A student carelessly inserts the thermometer while assembling the coffee cup
calorimeter and a large hole is torn in the plastic lid. How will this affect his
experimental results?

The results will be inaccurate because the heat released to the surrounding. When there is a
large hole torn in the plastic lid,some of the heat will escape through the hole of the lid
and it will not be measured accurately by the thermometer. Therefore, it will give a
negative impact for the experimental results.
OBJECTIVE
a) To construct electrochemical cells.
b) To determine the net cell potential for three electrochemical cells.
c) To calculate the net cell potential based on the potentials of the half-reactions that
occur and to compare your experimental and calculated values.

d) To use cell potential to measure Gibbs energy.

INRODUCTION

Electrochemistry is the study of the relationship between electrical energy and chemical
energy. Electrolytic cell will produce chemical energy from electrical energy and vice versa in
voltaic cell. These energy transfer is between electrode and electrolyte in the form of electron
transfer in redox reaction which is oxidation and reduction. This reaction will cause one side
gains electron and the other side loses electron. Oxidation will make the atom, molecule or ion
loss the electron and increase in oxidation state. Reduction will make the atom, molecule or ion
gain electron and decrease in oxidation state. The process of oxidation and reduction will occur
simultaneously and cannot happen on its own. The oxidation alone and the reduction alone are
each called a half-reaction, because two half-reactions always occur together to form a whole
reaction. Each half reaction has standard electrode potential. Oxidation potential will occur on
anode (lose electron) and reduction potential will occur on cathode (gain electron). This
reaction can be used to determine cell potential value and Gibbs energy.

The cell potential is the measure of the potential difference between two half cells in an
electrochemical cell. The potential difference is caused by the ability of electrons to flow from
one half cell to another. The standard potential of an electrochemical cell requires standard
conditions (ΔG°) for all of the reactants. When reactant concentrations differ from standard
conditions, the cell potential will deviate from the standard potential. To solve this problem the
Gibbs energy formula is invented by Josiah Willard Gibbs to predict whether a chemical
reaction is spontaneous based on the free energy. Gibbs energy is a thermodynamic potential
that can be used to measure the maximum of reversible work that may be performed by
a thermodynamic system at a constant temperature and pressure. Gibbs energy also is the
thermodynamic potential that will minimized when the system reaches chemical equilibrium at
constant pressure and temperature.
APPARATUS
1. Test tubes
2. Pipettes
3. Standard flasks
4. High resistance voltmeter
5. Alligator clips

CHEMICALS
1. 0.5 M potassium nitrate solution
2. 0.10 M zinc(II) sulphate solution
3. 0.20 M copper(II) sulphate solution
4. 0.50 M iron(II) ammonium sulfate solution
5. Zinc metal strip
6. Copper metal strip
7. Iron strip

PROCEDURE
Salt bridge is prepared for each electrochemical cell by completely dipping a filter paper in 0.5
M KNO3 solution.

A) Part 1: Constructing the zinc-copper Electrochemical Cell

1. Two clean test tubes is filled about ¾ full with 0.10 M Zinc (II) sulfate and 0.20 M
Copper (II) sulphate solutions.

2. Zinc and copper strips is cleaned with steel wool.

3. The copper strip is clipped to one voltmeter terminal using an alligator clip and the
zinc strip is clipped to other voltmeter terminal using another alligator clip. The
copper strip is dip in the test tube containing copper solution and the zinc strip is dip in
the test tube containing zinc solution at the same time. The wire must not come in
contact with the solution. The salt bridge made earlier is inserted in the both test tubes.
The salt bridge is removed immediately after the voltage is noted.

4. Three readings of the voltage is recorded and the anode and cathode of the cell is
identified.

5. Temperature when the measurement taken is recorded.

B) Part 2: Constructing the iron-copper Electrochemical Cell

1. Clean test tube is filled with ¾ full of 0.50 M iron (II) ammonium sulphate solution.

2. The iron strip is cleaned with steel wool. The iron strip is connected to one terminal of
the voltmeter and the copper strip from part 1 is keep attached to the other terminal.

3. The metal strip is dip into its proper solution and the salt bridge is used to connect
them. Three positive reading is recorded and the anode and cathode is identified.

4. Temperature when the measurement taken is recorded.

C) Part 3: Constructing the iron-zinc Electrochemical Cell

1. The iron strip is keep attached to the voltmeter and the copper strip in part 2 is replaced
with the zinc strip in part 1.

2. The metal strip is dip into its proper solution and new salt bridge is used to connect
them.Three positive reading is recorded and the anode and cathode is identified.

3. Temperature when measurement taken is recorded.

RESULTS

Electrolytes Concentration, (M)

Zn2+ 0.10
Cu2+ 0.20
Fe2+ 0.50

Cell No. Zinc-Copper cell Iron-Copper cell Iron-Zinc cell

Cell Notation Zn(s) I Zn2+(aq) II Fe(s) I Fe2+(aq) II Fe(s) I Fe2+(aq) II
Cu2+(aq) I Cu(s) Cu2+(aq) I Cu(s) Zn2+(aq) I Zn(s)

Ecell 0.98 V 0.62 V 0.36 V

1.03 V 0.63 V 0.35 V
1.04 V 0.67 V 0.35 V
Average Ecell 1.02 V 0.64 V 0.35 V
T(K) 301.15 301.15 301.15
ΔG ΔG = -nFE ΔG = -nFE ΔG = -nFE
=-2(29500)(1.02) = -2(29500)(0.64) = -2(29500)(0.35)
= -196860 J = -123520 J = -67550 J
CALCULATION

1) Zinc-Copper Cell

ELECTRON FLOW

SALT BRIDGE

KNO3
ZINC STRIP COPPER STRIP

0.10 M ZnSO4 (aq) 0.20 M CuSO4 (aq)

Zn (s)│Zn2+ 0.10 M (aq)││Cu2+ 0.20 M (aq)│Cu (s)

Anode : Zn (s) → Zn2+ (aq) + 2e- Eoxi : -0.76V

Cathode : Cu2+ (aq) + 2e- → Cu (s) Ered : +0.34V

Overall : Zn (s) + Cu2+ (aq) → Zn2+ (aq) + Cu (s)

Standard Cell Potential

Ecell = Ered - Eoxi

= Cu - Zn
= +0.34 V – (-0.76 V)
= +1.10 V

Experiment Cell Potential

Ecell = 1.02 V

Q = [ Zn2+]1
[ Cu2+ ]1
= 0.10 M
0.20 M
= 0.50 M

∆G° = -nFEcell
= (-2 mol) (96500 J/ V mol) (1.02 V)
= -196860 J
= -196.86 kJ

∆G = ∆G° + RT ln Q
= (-196.86 kJ) + (8.314 J/ mol K) (301.15 K) (ln 0.5)
 = -1932.335 kJ

E = E° - RT ln Q
nF
1.02 V = E° - (8.314 J/mol K) (301.15 K) (ln 0.50)
(2 mol) (96500 J/V mol)
E° = 1.01 V

2) Iron-Copper Cell

ELECTRON FLOW

SALT BRIDGE

KNO3
IRON STRIP COPPER STRIP

0.50 M FeH8N2O8S2 (aq) 0.20 M CuSO4 (aq)

Fe (s)│Fe2+ 0.50 M (aq)││Cu2+ 0.20 M (aq)│Cu (s)

Anode : Fe (s) → Fe2+ (aq) + 2e- Eoxi : -0.44V

Cathode : Cu2+ (aq) + 2e- → Cu (s) Ered : +0.34V

Overall : Fe (s) + Cu2+ (aq) → Fe2+ (aq) + Cu (s)

Standard Cell Potential

Ecell = Ered - Eoxi
= Cu – Fe
= +0.34 V – (-0.44 V)
= +0.78 V

Experiment Cell Potential

Ecell = 0.64 V

Q = [ Fe2+]1
[ Cu2+ ]1
= 0.50 M
0.20 M
= 2.50 M

∆G° = -nFEcell
= (-2 mol ) (96500 J/V mol) (0.64 V)
= -123520 J
= -123.52 kJ
∆G = ∆G° + RT ln Q
= (-123.52 kJ) + (8.314 J/mol K) (301.15 K) (ln 2.50)
= -2417.693 kJ

E = E° - RT ln Q
nF
0.64 V = E° - (8.314 J/mol K) (301.15 K) (ln 2.50)
(2 mol) (96500 J/V mol)
E° = 0.65 V

3) Iron-Zinc Cell
ELECTRON FLOW

SALT BRIDGE

KNO3
ZINC STRIP IRON STRIP

0.10 M ZnSO4 (aq) 0.50 M FeH8N2O8S2 (aq)

Zn (s)│Zn2+ 0.10 M (aq)││Fe2+ 0.50 M (aq)│Fe (s)

Anode : Zn (s) → Zn2+ (aq) + 2e- Eoxi : -0.76V

Cathode : Fe2+ (aq) + 2e- → Fe (s) Ered : -0.44V

Overall : Zn (s) + Fe2+ (aq) → Zn2+ (aq) + Fe (s)

Standard Cell Potential

Ecell = Ered - Eoxi
= Fe - Zn
= -0.44 V – (-0.76 V)
= +0.32 V

Experiment Cell Potential

Ecell = 0.35 V

Q = [ Zn2+]1
[ Fe2+ ]1
= 0.10 M
0.50 M
= 0.20 M

∆G° = -nFEcell
= (-2 mol) (96500 J/ V mol) (0.35 V)
= -67550 J
 = -67.55 kJ

∆G = ∆G° + RT ln Q
= (-67.55 kJ) + (8.314 J/ mol K) (301.15 K) (ln 0.20)
= -4097.198 kJ

E = E° - RT ln Q
nF
0.35 V = E° - (8.314 J/mol K) (301.15 K) (ln 0.20)
(2 mol) (96500 J/V mol)
E° = 0.33 V

DISCUSSION

In this experiment, cell potential (Ecell) in every part was calculated using Nerst Equation
�� ������� �
Ecell = Eocell - ��
ln ��������
since the given reactant are not in standard condition. In part l,

Zinc (Zn) undergo oxidation because it’s more electropositive while Cooper (Cu2+) undergo
reduction. By using Nerst equation the cell potential calculated is 1.01V while the theoretical
Ecell is 1.02V. Next, in part II, Ferum (Fe) undergo oxidation while Cooper (Cu2+) undergo
reduction. By using Nerst Equation the Ecell calculated is 0.65V. However the theoretical Ecell is
0.64V. Next, in part III, Zinc (Zn) undergo oxidation while Ferum (Fe) undergo reduction.
By using Nerst Equation the Ecell calculated is 0.33V while the theoretical Ecell value is 0.35V.

Furthermore, Gibbs Free Energy (G) is the energy associated with a chemical reaction that
can be use to do work. Gibbs Free Energy (G) can be calculated using ∆G = -nFE. In part I the
∆G is -196860 J, while in part II is -123520 J and for part III is -67550 J. From calculation
the ∆G are negative values which indicates that the reactions are occurred spontaneously in
forward direction.

By comparing average Ecell calculated with theoretical value of Ecell, there are slightly
different due to some errors present. The errors that might present are the metal strip doesn’t
have pure metal surface which can causes error in the volumetric reading. Next, not enough
solution in the test tube, the solution could not reach the salt bridge causing accumulation
negative charge in in one half cell and quickly preventing further reaction. Lastly, a random
error occur which is the measuring equipment that was used is lack of accuracy.
CONCLUSION

In the conclusion, the cell potential for the three electrochemical cells and its standard cell
potential was obtained. For zinc-copper cell, the standard cell potential is 1.10V and the
experiment cell potential obtained is 1.01V. For iron-copper cell, the standard cell potential is
0.78V and the experiment cell potential obtained is 0.65V. For iron-zinc cell, the standard cell
potential is 0.32V and the experiment cell potential obtained is 0.33V. Electrochemical cell that
has the biggest difference in potential value between standard and experimental is iron-copper
cell. This may cause from the possible error that stated in the discussion. Based on the
experiment cell potential value obtained, Gibbs energy is calculated. For zinc-copper cell is
-196860 J, for iron-copper cell is -123520 J, and for iron-zinc cell is -67550 J .

REFERENCES

Hope College. (March,2017) . “Thermodynamics of electrochemical cells”. Retrieved from

http://www.chem.hope.edu/~polik/Chem345-1998/electrochem/Electrochemistry.html

Stephen Lower . (2018) . Cell potentials and thermodynamics. Retrieved from

https://www.chem1.com/acad/webtext/elchem/ec-3.html

Saieed, A.E. and Davies, K.M., J. Chem. Educ. (1996). “A simple method of determining
the temperature coefficient of voltaic cell voltage”. 73, 959 .

Chemistry LibreTexts. (Aug, 2020) . Chapter 19.4: Electrochemical cells and

thermodynamics. Retrieved
from https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Howard_University/General_Chemistry%3A
_An_Atoms_First_Approach/Unit_7%3A_Thermodynamics_and_Electrochemistry/Cha
pter_19%3A_Electrochemistry/Chapter_19.4%3A_Electrochemical_Cells_and_Thermo
dynamics
QUESTION AND ANSWERS

1) What is the reason for using a salt bridge?

The main purpose of using salt bridge is to maintain the charge balance because the
electron are moving from one half cell to the other half cell.

2) Calculate the standard cell potential of a cell constructed from Mg2+/Mg and Ni2+/Ni.
Which is the anode and which is the cathode?

Anode : Mg2+(aq) + 2e- → Mg(s) Eoxi = -2.37 V

Cathode : Ni2+(aq) + 2e- → Ni(s) Ered = -0.26 V

Standard Cell Potential :

Ecell = Ered - Eoxi

= Ni - Mg
= -0.26 V – (-2.37 V)
= +2.11 V

3) Using the Nernst Equation, what would be the potential of a cell with [Ni2+] = [Mg2+] =
0.10 M?

E = E° - RT ln Q
nF
= 2.11 - (8.314 J/mol K) (298 K) (ln 0.10/0.10)
(2 mol) (96500 J/V mol)
= 2.11 V

4) What is the information deduced from the sign and magnitude of ∆E and ∆G from this
experiment?

∆G is the difference of energy between reactant and product. ∆G value will not be
affected by external factor such as rise in temperature and presence of catalyst.
OBJECTIVES
a) To determine the order of reaction

INTRODUCTION
The study of rates of chemical process is related to chemical kinetics which is a branch of
chemistry and also known as reaction kinetics. The rate of homogenous reaction at any instant
is proportional to the product of the molar concentration of the reactants raised to power
determined from the experiment. The order of the reaction can be express on the following
form:
Rate= k[A]x [B]y[C]z
The letters A, B and C represent the concentration of the reactants. k is referring the rate
constant, while the exponents x, y and z are called the rate law of exponents or also known as
the orders of the reaction. The methods of initial rates were used, in which the reaction of
interest is carried out at different concentrations and the rate of trial is measured. They do not
change in temperature and must be determined experimentally and the temperature must hold
at constant during the kinetic experiment. The magnitude of the rate constant indicates the
speed of the reaction. Hence, a small rate constant indicates a slow reaction, while large rate
constant indicates a faster reaction.

The experiments that need to be observed are between potassium permanganate and oxalic
acid. A deep purple colour of potassium permanganate will change to light brown when react to
oxalic acid and it can be observed visually. The rate of reaction can be described by the general
equation called the rate law equation:
Rate= k[KMnO4]x [H2C2O4]y

APPARATUS
1. Burette
2. Conical flask
3. Test tubes
4. Stop watch

CHEMICALS
1. 0.020 M Potassium Permanganate (KMnO4)
 2. 0.50 M Oxalic acid, H2C2O4
PROCEDURE
1. Three burettes were set up; one contained 0.02 M KMnO4, one with 0.5M H2C2O4 and
one with distilled water. A label was placed on each because it was difficult to
differentiate between water and oxalic acid. The exact molarities of the KMnO4 and
H2C2O4.
2. The required amount of H2C2O4 and distilled water was place into a thoroughly washed
and dried conical flask. The amounts are dictated by the experiment that you are doing
as Table 4.1. When we was overshoot we need to start again. This lab is very
dependent on dispensing the exact quantities.

Reagents Exp 1 (cm3) Exp 2 (cm3) Exp 3 (cm3)

H2C2O4 20 20 10
KMnO4 10 5 10
H2O 0 5 10

Table 4.1 Volume of reagents required

3. The required amount of KMnO4 was placed into a 15 cm test tube.
4. Permanganate was added to the oxalic acid and the timing was started when the
permanganate tube was emptied. The conical flask was mixed thoroughly by swirling
until the solution turns a light yellow/ brown colour. The timing was stopped and the
time it actually took for the reaction to take place was recorded.
5. The experiment was repeated with a second and third trial. The average of these 3 was
took as the reaction time.
6. Steps 3 through 5 were repeated for experiments 2 and 3.
7. The rate for each of the three experiments was determined. That was just the
[KMnO4]/taverage
8. The full rate equations for each of the 3 experiments were determined. Note that
RESULTS
EXPERIMENTS SOLUTIONS H2C2O4 KMnO4
1 Initial Molarities 0.5 M 0.02 M
Volume 20 mL 10 mL
Final Molarities M1V1 = M2V2 M1V1 = M2V2
0.5 (20) = M2 (20) 0.02 (10) = M2 (10)
M2 = 0.5 M M2 = 0.02 M
2 Initial Molarities 0.50 M 0.02 M
Volume 20 mL 5 mL
Final Molarities M1V1 = M2V2 M1V1 = M2V2
0.5 (20) = M2 (20) 0.02 (5) = M2 (10)
M2 = 0.5 M M2 = 0.01 M
3 Initial Molarities 0.50 M 0.02 M
Volume 10 mL 10 mL
Final Molarities M1V1 = M2V2 M1V1 = M2V2
0.5 (10) = M2 (20) 0.02 (10) = M2 (10)
M2 = 0.25 M M2 = 0.02 M

EXPERIMENT TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3 AVERAGE

TIME (min)
1 2.34 2.29 2.27 (6.90/3) = 2.30
2 3.04 3.06 3.05 (9.15/3) = 3.05
3 4.59 5.03 4.55 (14.17/3) = 4.72

CALCULATIONS

THE INITIAL RATE :

Rate 1 = [KMnO4]
t1
= 0.02 M
2.30 min
= 8.696 x 10-3 M min-1
Rate 1 = [KMnO4]
t2
=
0.01 M
3.05 min
= 3.279 x 10-3 M min-1

Rate 1 = [KMnO4]
t3
= 0.02 M
4.72 min
= 4.237 x 10-3 M min-1

 Rate = k [KMnO4]x [H2C2O4]y

Determining the value of k,x and y :

To determine value of x, KMnO4 : Compare Experiment 1 and Experiment 2

Rate 2 = k [KMnO4]x [H2C2O4]y

Rate 1 k [KMnO4]x [H2C2O4]y

3.279 x 10-3 M min-1 = k [0.01]x [0.5]y

8.696 x 10-3 M min-1 k [0.02]x [0.5]y
0.377 = 0.5x
log 0.377 = log 0.5x
log 0.377 = x log 0.5
x = log 0.377
log 0.5
x = 1.407 , x ≈ 1

 The order of the reaction which respect to KMnO4 is first order.

To determine value of y, H2C2O4 : Compare Experiment 1 and Experiment 3

Rate 3 = k [KMnO4]x [H2C2O4]y

Rate 1 k [KMnO4]x [H2C2O4]y

4.237 x 10-3 M min-1 = k [0.02]x [0.25]y

8.696 x 10-3 M min-1 k [0.02]x [0.5]y
0.487 = 0.5x
log 0.487 = log 0.5x
log 0.487 = x log 0.5
 x = log 0.487
log 0.5
x = 1.038 , x ≈ 1

 The order of the reaction which respect to H2C2O4 is first order.

Rate = k [KMnO4]1 [H2C2O4]1

To determine the value of k , based on Experiment 2 :

3.279 x 10-3 M min-1 = k [0.01]1 [0.5]1

k = 0.6558 M-1 min-1

The Rate Law is : Rate = 0.6558 M-1 min-1 [KMnO4]1 [H2C2O4]1

 The overall order of the reaction is = 1 + 1

= 2 (second order)

DISCUSSION

The experiment was done to observe the order of the reaction of oxalic acid and potassium
permanganate by changing their initial molar concentration. The molarity for experiment 1,
experiment 2 and experiment 3 for H2C2O4 and KMnO4 are 0.50 M and 0.020 M respectively.
The volume used for H2C2O4 and KMnO4 are 20 ml and 10 ml respectively in Experiment 1. As
for Experiment 2, the volume of H2C2O4 used remain the same, 20 ml, but volume KMnO4 is
reduce to 5 ml. Volume for KMnO4 and H2C2O4 used in Experiment 3 both reduce at the same
volume which are 10 ml . Each experiment conducted three times. In Experiment 1 the average
time it took to completely react is 2.30 min, while in Experiment 2 it took 3.05 min on average.
Experiment 3 took the longer time on average for the solution to change is colour which is 4.72
min. The correct mechanism for this reaction at experiment 3 could be slow since the rate of
reaction dependent on the concentration of KMnO4.

The order of the reaction was determined by one of the common method which is method
of initial rates. The initial concentration for each solution is being consecutively changed to
observe how these factors can affect the rate of reaction. The order which respect to KMnO4
and H2C2O4 is first order. Hence, making the overall reaction order is two which is second
order. Thus the rate of law of reaction should be:
Rate: k [KMnO4]1 [H2C2O4]1
 The rate of constant, k can be calculated and the value obtained is 0.6558 M-1 min-1 .
There were several potential errors that happen in conducting the experiment that cause for us
to not getting the expected result of the order of the reaction. Some errors could include failing
to dispense the exact amount of reactant into the test tube, failing to mix the solution after each
reactant or failing to time properly for the each of the reaction. For instance, when the timer
was not stopped when the solution reached the desired colour change, it could alter the results,
because each reaction was carried out to different point, not necessarily the end point. All these
errors could affect the rate of reaction from getting the expected results.

CONCLUSION
In the conclusion, the order of the reaction in this experiment can be determined. The
order of the reaction can be determined by using the rate law which is Rate= k[KMnO4]
[H2C2O4]y. The order of the reaction which respect for both KMnO4 and H2C2O4 are first order.
From this order,we are able to determine the overall reaction order which is second order by
adding the order of KMnO4 and H2C2O4. Lastly,we can determined the rate of constant, k
which is 0.6558 M-1 min-1 .

REFERENCES

Sevini Shahbaz, Andrew Iskandar. (Sept, 2020). Reaction order. Retrieved from
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_M
aps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Kinetics/03%3A_Rate_
Laws/3.03%3A_The_Rate_Law/3.3.03%3A_Reaction_Order

ChemistryLibreTexts. (Aug, 2020). Methods of Determining Reaction Order. Retrieved from

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_M
aps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Kinetics/05%3A_Exper
imental_Methods/5.02%3A_Methods_of_Determining_Reaction_Order

ByJu’s The Learning App. Reaction Order. Retrieved from

https://byjus.com/chemistry/order-of-reaction/
QUESTIONS

1. In this experiment the orders of reaction x and y are obtained by taking ratios of
rates for two trials or experiments.

a) Explain how this experiment can be modified so that the orders of reaction can
be obtained by plotting appropriate graphs.

Graphical method can be also be applied to second order of the reactions. A plot of
1/[A]t versus t gives a straight line with a slope of k. The steeper the slope, the
faster the rate.

b) What plots must be done and explain how the orders of reaction can be
determined from the plots.

Use the data in the table to separately plot concentration, the natural logarithm of
the concentration, and the reciprocal of the concentration (the vertical axis) versus
time (the horizontal axis). Write the rate law for the reaction. Using the appropriate
data from the table and the linear graph corresponding to the rate law for the
reaction, calculate the slope of the plotted line to obtain the rate constant for the
reaction. For zero-order reactions, graph concentration vs. time to get a line with the
slope -k. For first-order reactions, graph the logarithm of concentration vs. time to
get a line with the slope -k. For second-order reactions, graph the reciprocal of
concentration vs. time to get a line of slope -k.

c) Would this method (graphically) be more accurate than what has been done
experimentally?

Yes. It is because plotting the concentration of a reactant as a function of time

produces a graph with a characteristic shape that can be used to identify the reaction
order in that reactant.
2. Orders of reaction are normally integers. Is it possible to have non-integers. E.g
fractions as order of the reaction? if yes give an example of such reaction.

Yes it is possible to have a non-integers where there are reaction in fractional order
reactions,which often indicates a chemical chain reaction or other complex reaction
mechanism.For example, the pyrolysis of ethanal (CH3CHO) into methane and carbon
monoxide proceeds with an order of 1.5 with respect to ethanal: r= k[CH3CHO]3/2