pubs.acs.

org/jchemeduc Article

Sample Plan for Easy, Inexpensive, Safe, and Relevant Hands-On, At-
Home Wet Organic Chemistry Laboratory Activities
Elizabeth W. Kelley*
Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1622−1635 Read Online

ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations *

sı Supporting Information
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

ABSTRACT: An emergent theme from the past spring during COVID-19 remote
Downloaded via UNIV AUTONOMA METROPOLITANA on May 15, 2021 at 17:51:40 (UTC).

learning was the difficulty of providing meaningful, relevant, hands-on, wet

chemistry experiences at home and the potential impact of their absence upon
student learning and engagement. This article shares the process and results of
developing an appropriate, easy, inexpensive, safe, and relevant hands-on, at-home
DIY kit of wet laboratory activities for a first-semester high school organic chemistry
course. Troubleshooting, tips, handouts, and evidence of learning and engagement
are provided to supplement the already-published procedures for many of the
activities. Whether instructors have already started teaching or are preparing for an
upcoming course, this article should enable the rapid incorporation of an at-home
laboratory curriculum to supplement student learning and promote engagement
with appropriate alternatives to traditional experiments.

KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, First-Year Undergraduate/General, Laboratory Instruction,

Laboratory Equipment/Apparatus, Distance Learning/Self Instruction, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Organic Chemistry,
Chromatography, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning

he recent special issue “Insights Gained While Teaching

T Chemistry in the Time of COVID-19” from this Journal
solicited entries from chemistry instructors worldwide on how
they reacted to the challenges of suddenly transitioning to
remote learning during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic at
the beginning of 2020.1 Specifically, many authors discussed the
disruption to courses with laboratory or CURE (Course-based
tencies and (2) that simulated experiences (such as watching a
video of an experiment or using a digital simulation) did not
supply comparable learning experiences. Therefore, it seemed
important to develop at-home experiments to incorporate into
the upcoming course’s curriculum. Consequently, this article
reports the process, considerations, and results from developing
a hands-on, at-home organic chemistry laboratory curriculum.

■
Undergraduate Research Experience) components. The Journal
editor identified that, of over 180 papers total in the special issue, FROM SPRING 2020 TO FALL 2020
44 focused primarily on teaching laboratories and 3 on
undergraduate research, although additional papers also For the 2020−2021 academic year, most K-12 schools and
higher education institutions in the United States opened in
mentioned these two aspects as smaller components of their
either a hybrid or fully remote format due to the COVID-19
overall reports on the reaction to the pandemic.2 Laboratory
pandemic. Additionally, there is a real possibility that many
learning was, therefore, clearly one of the greatest concerns
schools may continue remote learning throughout the school
among chemistry instructors during this time, and professional
year, thus negating any possibility of delaying experiments for in-
communities were also reported in the special issue as rising to
person schooling later in the year. As such, the prolonged lack of
meet the challenge of providing remote laboratory education.3,4
personal, hands-on laboratory experiences, both at the
Given chemistry’s reputation as a lab-based science and the
beginning of a new course and from a prior course hobbled by
centrality of bench work to many chemists’ self-identities, this
the pandemic, may potentially have long-term negative
focus is completely understandable.
implications for students as well as lower preparedness of
Due to the need for this article’s author to develop a high
school organic chemistry course during the COVID-19
pandemic for the Fall 2020 semester, a review of the special Received: September 7, 2020
issue laboratory-based papers was undertaken during the Revised: February 16, 2021
summer of 2020. The review, which is under revision and Published: March 10, 2021
hopefully will be published separately in the coming months,
suggested (1) that lack of hands-on experiments impaired
engagement and development of practical, technical compe-
© 2021 American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc. https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01172
1622 J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1622−1635
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 1. The DIY lab supply bin (left) contains eight packets (right). The images are edited to block out copyrighted trade names.
graduates for undergraduate/graduate school and entering the
workforce. However, many of the same barriers to hands-on, at-
home experiments which existed in Spring 2020 still persist now:
safety and liability concerns, daunting organization and
distribution logistics, expense of supplies, differences between
family resources and supervision, lack of appropriate home
laboratory space, large class sizes to make/order kits for, etc. Yet
despite the proliferation of Web sites excitedly proclaiming fun
chemistry experiments to do at home, most of these either are
tailored for younger children, are too simplistic or (on the other
end of the spectrum) too risky for at-home work, require
commercial kits, or appear conceptually irrelevant to a typical
organic chemistry curriculum. Particularly in organic chemistry,
many chemicals and procedures traditionally require specialized
glassware, careful supervision, segregated waste disposal, and use
of in-house infrastructure such as fume hoods and vacuum lines.
It is understandable, then, for an organic chemistry educator to
conclude that meaningful at-home laboratory activities are a
foregone “no” without the purchase of commercial kits. Such kits
can be prohibitively expensive for large student populations and
tight school budgets.
However, after literature searching and personal vetting,
several easy, inexpensive, safe, and relevant hands-on, at-home
laboratory-based activities were found and adapted for a first-
semester organic chemistry course for upper-level high school
students. These activities did not pose undue challenges,
financial stress, or safety concerns for first-semester organic
chemistry students working from home. Each kit (Figure 1) cost
the instructor only $11.60 out-of-pocket to assemble, with
supplementation from the science department stockroom. The
activities primarily focused on introducing common purification
techniques such as thin-layer chromatography (TLC), extrac-
tion, distillation, and column chromatography. Hopefully, this
article will help other instructors by serving as a DIY template for
a curated list of activities, supply recommendations, and
troubleshooting, thereby saving time, energy, and money
when all three are currently scarce.
1623
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
■ DEVELOPMENT OF AT-HOME LABORATORY PLAN
School, Course, and Student Background Information
The University of Chicago Laboratory Schools (UCLS) is an
admissions-selective N (nursery school) to 12 independent day
school, a branch of the University of Chicago (UChicago). Of
the total 2,107 UCLS students, 630 are enrolled in the high
school, for which 2020−2021 tuition is $36,933.5 Students are
considered motivated, interested in learning, grade-oriented,
and generally trustworthy and responsible according to their
relative developmental stage. The mean SAT scores for the
graduating class of 2020 were 725 for Math and 705 for EBRW
(Evidence-Based Reading and Writing).On average, 95−100%
of high school graduates matriculate to a four-year college.
The course “Organic Chemistry”, a recent addition to the
course catalog, was an advanced science elective semester
offering for high school students who satisfied the prerequisite of
a B− or higher in introductory chemistry (usually taken
sophomore year).6 Seven students were enrolled. The course
curriculum used the Klein first-semester textbook7 and focused
primarily on understanding organic structure, only dealing with
reactions as illustrative examples. Topics centered around
nomenclature, drawing, modeling, stereochemistry, hybrid-
ization, steric hindrance, resonance, induction, history, and
applications. Although some students had taken Advanced
Topics Chemistry, an independent version of Advanced
Placement (AP) Chemistry, the course was designed with only
one year of general high school chemistry experience expected.
The prerequisite introductory chemistry course featured
standard laboratory experiments which provided routine
practice with making observations, recording and analyzing
data, and conducting simple experiments with electronic
balances, graduated cylinders, beakers, Erlenmeyer flasks, well
plates, test tubes, hot plates, and Bunsen burners. Students
therefore had limited experimental expertise but enough to draw
on some past experiences. For the organic chemistry laboratory
activities during remote learning, each student conducted their
own experiment at home at their convenience over a specified
range of days using the provided laboratory kit and supplemental
household supplies (listed as required course materials at the
start of the year). Laboratory activities were spread out across
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01172
J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1622−1635
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

Table 1. Organic Chemistry Laboratory Curriculum Plan

# Activity Type Description Curricular Connectionsa
9,10
1 Unsafe Lab Practical dry Analyze a video of the classroom laboratory for safety issues and Safety, observations, speaking up, hierarchy of
and explore the popping of a balloon via physical vs chemical means. controls, chemical vs physical, solvents and gloves,
wet handling the unexpected
2 Hydrogels11 wet Shrink and expand contact lenses in solutions of varying pH. Functional groups, acidity, basicity, polymers,
intermolecular forces, attraction vs repulsion
3 Modeling dry Use both a physical model kit12 and Web site13 to name, draw, and Modeling, drawing, nomenclature, stereochemistry,
model organic molecules. isomers, chemical software, simulations
4 Essential Oil wet Distill essential oil from a fragrant plant. Volatility, sterics and electronics, distillation, natural
Distillation14 products
5 Candle Magic10 wet Extinguish a flame by conducting away heat or excluding oxygen. Writing reactions, arrows, reaction conditions,
invisible reactants/products/conditions, difference
between science and magic
6 Extraction15 wet Investigate immiscibility of organic solvents and water and then Miscibility, organic vs aqueous phases, density,
extract a mixture from a spice. extraction, natural products
7 Glowmatography16 wet Separate the dye and fluorophore in glowsticks via a simple form of Polarity, chromatography, mobile vs stationary
chromatography. phase, eluent, loading, retention, color, excitation
8 M&M TLC17 wet Detect the presence of tartrazine in M&M candy dyes via TLC. Analytical chemistry, government regulation, quality
control, cospots, Rf, TLC
9 Column wet Separate the components of food coloring and plant leaves via flash Gravity vs flash chromatography, bands, fractions,
Chromatography18−20 column chromatography. purity, collection
a
Not listed but also of curricular relevance for each activity is practicing physically conducting experiments, making observations, patience,
recording and communicating results, applying or deducing knowledge, troubleshooting, dealing with failure, critical thinking, drawing connections,
and making predictions.

the semester. Labs 1−6 were designed as “cookbook” experi-
ments; 7−9 were designed as a series of scaffolded experimental
design experiences in the final month of the semester.
Laboratory assignment questions tended to focus on
interpreting the data, making predictions, and discussing
limitations and experimental nuances; students did not write
formal lab reports. Thanks to the online homework portal
features (goformative.com) and distribution of inexpensive
capacitive computer styluses with the lab bins, assignments
featured a range of question formats, including the ability to
draw and annotate images. Students uploaded their data
(sometimes including pictures) and responses to assignment
questions into the homework portal, and a subsequent (virtual)
class meeting might feature small-group discussions about a
central theme or an extension of the question topics. Students
were encouraged but not required to work together digitally on
the assignments; most students chose to work alone but
contacted peers or the instructor when they were confused.
Assignments were graded partially (but leniently) on the quality
of data or experimental setup as far as seemed appropriate given
the situation. Assignments were graded with a formative policy:
students could receive instructor feedback and fix incorrect
answers for full credit until the deadline. Students did not
struggle significantly with the laboratory assignment questions
but benefitted from nudges and corrections on the occasional
question.
Curriculum Adaptation Process for COVID-19 Remote
Learning
The primary concerns with developing an at-home organic
chemistry laboratory curriculum during remote learning were as
follows:
1. curricular relevance and authenticity of techniques (i.e., Is
this a useful investment of class time and resources? What
are students getting/learning from this, besides doing
something fun or different?)
2. procedural ease, ability to conduct experiment and detect
results with limited equipment, and robustness of results
(i.e., Can they really do this? Does it require direct
1624
supervision or guidance? Can they smell/see the final
product, or does it require special equipment to detect
and confirm its identity, such as UV light, a MelTemp, or
NMR? Will they get clear, unambiguous results on a scale
that is safe and realistic for the situation?)
3. safety (of students, families, pets, and others), instructor
liability, waste disposal, and breakability (i.e., Is it
reasonable to send this home? What could go wrong?
Could this break if dropped? What happens if it does?)
4. cost, kit distribution and retrieval, and instructor/student
effort required to collect supplies (i.e., Is this realistic?
What will it cost? How much time will it take to prepare
kits? Can students easily find supplies, or will it take up too
much of their time?)
After searching through the literature, the Internet, and
laboratory manuals, a series of procedures manifested which
appeared to satisfy most of these concerns. After vetting the
various procedures by personally conducting them (either
according to the original procedures or with alterations that
seemed prudent to satisfy the above considerations), several
were ultimately chosen for inclusion in the course. These
laboratory-based activities stemmed from publications in this
Journal, Internet blogs and resources (such as ChemEdX), and
common experimental techniques from the author’s research
and pedagogical experiences in synthetic organic chemistry. To
supplement the information already provided in the pre-existing
procedures, the remainder of this article and the Supporting
Information are dedicated to briefly outlining the activities and
their anticipated curricular connections, providing guiding notes
with pictures and suggested alterations for instructors, high-
lighting various logistical and safety considerations, and
presenting limited evidence of student learning and engagement.
The course’s laboratory safety contract, list of supplies, and the
adapted assignments (written by the instructor/author) are
provided as Supporting Information for instructor use.
Laboratory Curriculum Plan Outline
Note: Instructors are cordially reminded that they remain
responsible for evaluating, approving, and executing all safety
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01172
J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1622−1635
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

steps, confirming overall appropriateness of the plan for their In the Instructor’s Hands
course and student population, and optimizing integration of Figures 2−8 show pictures from the instructor’s test-driving
activities with their curriculum. What is appropriate and process. During the instructor’s test-driving, the balloon
sufficient for one set of students may not be for another.
Instructors should evaluate and discuss with colleagues and
supervisors about using this laboratory plan with their specific
student cohort.
The laboratory curriculum plan is presented in chronological
order in Table 1. Instructors are encouraged to think about how
these activities could be used to advance their course’s learning
objectives, assessment plan, laboratory prerequisites, and
student engagement. Several of the activities centered around
Figure 2. Hydrogels (Lab 2). Left to right: contact lens from acidic →
common forms of separation/purification in the organic neutral → basic solution after 10 min. Dyed slightly with yellow food
chemistry research laboratory (extraction, distillation, chroma- coloring for increased visibility. Straight, dashed yellow lines help show
tography) as well as modeling. These activities could overlap difference in diameters.
well with first-semester or maybe even second-semester
undergraduate organic chemistry curriculums. Although these
activities may be simplified compared to some college
experiments, undergraduate instructors could use this plan as
a launching point.
Table 1 briefly categorizes the activity as wet vs dry, describes
in one sentence what students do, and notes the anticipated
major curriculum connections. Of note to other instructors is
that a wet laboratory experiment concerning polymerization of
potato starch, which was successfully adapted and used by the
author in Spring 2020 as a take-home experiment during remote
learning,8 was not incorporated into this curriculum since some Figure 3. Essential Oil Distillation (Lab 4). A modified jar before
of the students may have already conducted the experiment at distillation has a bored hole (yellow arrow) in the middle of the lid.
school in the introductory course. Only experiments new to this Fresh rosemary sprigs hang suspended above water. Thin netting and
cohort (for example, chemical balloon popping which was also green wire are wrapped around the rosemary, and the lid closes on the
conducted in Spring 2020 by a different cohort as part of an wire to keep the plant above the water. A straw sits above the rosemary,
overarching solubility activity) were adopted. Handouts for the entering through the hole, to enable collection of distillate in a nearby
at-home potato starch and solubility experiments (tweaked since vial. Collected distillate is clear.
the spring) are included in the Supporting Information for
instructor use.
Alterations to Original Procedures and Instructor
Resources
For the convenience of instructors, the Supporting Information
highlights key alterations relative to the originally published
procedures, troubleshooting tips, other notes such as specific
safety considerations and alternative supply suggestions, the
laboratory safety contract, the bin contents list, and the
experiment handouts. Tips already provided to students in the
experiment handouts are not necessarily repeated in the
supplemental instructor notes.
Each alteration to the original procedures was fueled by one or
more of the following motivations:
1. safety considerations of assigning at-home laboratory
Figure 4. Candle Magic (Lab 5). Dyed water rises dramatically up into
activities the test tube upon extinguishing the flame by quickly placing the tube
2. logistics and supply constraints (i.e., finances, high school over the lit candle (test tube holder not provided to students; used here
stockroom availability, disposal, fragility, etc.) for picture clarity).
3. difficulties reproducing the exact procedure or concerns
about a novice student reproducing the procedure
popping in the unsafe lab practical (Lab 1), essential oil
4. curricular plans for course content, knowledge acquis- distillation (Lab 4), candle “magic” (Lab 5), and M&M TLC
ition, and skill development

■
CONDUCTING THE EXPERIMENTS
The following is a brief discussion and accompanying images of
the instructor’s experiences conducting the activities versus the
students’ experiences. This section is dedicated purely to
experiences physically conducting the activities, not learning and
engagement.
1625
(Lab 8) worked especially well. The dry modeling lab (Lab 3)
was also straightforward, and MolView was chosen for its free
access and easy 2D-to-3D simulation. The hydrogels (Lab 2)
produced only slight but noticeable differences between contact
lens diameters. Glowmatography (Lab 7) produced imperfect
results (elution was streaky) but was still useful as a
demonstration of separation, as was the extraction of a crude
sample of cinnamaldehyde from cinnamon (Lab 6). The column
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01172
J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1622−1635
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 5. Extraction (Lab 6). A folded coffee filter holds cinnamon after
heating in a water/isopropanol mixture. The filter paper sits inside an
upended red plastic cup with the bottom cut out. Underneath the cup is
a collection cup (not visible) catching the dripping water enriched with
cinnamon extracts.
Figure 6. Glowmatography (Lab 7). Left: A purple glowstick is
activated with thorough bending and shaking. Then, it is cut in the
middle and on both ends to let the glowing mixture drip out into a
plastic cup. A pipet is used to transfer the mixture onto a 3-in. piece of
chalk in an encircling band 1 cm from the bottom. Right: Chalk sticks
with purple, green, and blue glowstick mixtures are run in an ethanol
eluent. The green nonfluorescing dye can clearly be seen above the
fluorescing band when light is shown on the chalk as can the purple dye
vs fluorescing band (yellow arrows). The blue, however, fades quickly
on chalk and is more difficult to see than any other color tested.
Figure 7. M&M TLC (Lab 8). TLC before, during (shown in open
beaker for picture clarity), and after elution. Tape placed between the
upper two corners of the filter paper keeps the paper in a freestanding
shape without noticeably affecting elution.
chromatography purification (Lab 9) may potentially pose a
little more challenging, especially for the careless student or
students who find either following instructions or executing fine
motor skills challenging. However, using green food coloring as
1626
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
Figure 8. Column chromatography (Lab 9). Left: A small hole is drilled
into the column slightly under 7 mL to enable pressure release after
depressing the plunger and before pulling the plunger out. Right: Clear
separation of blue and yellow components from green food coloring.
the sample produced very obvious separation of yellow and blue
dyes.
In the Students’ Hands
As a group, students found the provided instructions easy to
execute and only struggled with Lab 4 not working well and Labs
8 and 9 being challenging (they had to write the procedures
themselves).
Lab 1 (Unsafe Lab Practical). Students overwhelmingly
obtained the expected results (Figure 9) from balloon popping
and were able to see enough detail in videos of the instructor
working in the classroom laboratory to identify many safe/
unsafe aspects in the videos, although small details such as an
unattended Bunsen burner flame, a dripping faucet, and broken
test tubes were missed by multiple students, likely due to poor
pixel quality (see Supporting Information for list). Students
were more astute than expected in noticing good and bad safety
situations. Students also universally reported jumping involun-
tarily, feeling surprise, and momentarily experiencing an
elevated heart rate when the balloons popped (as planned),
even when they expected it. Several students even reported
feeling brief, instinctive fear and seemed surprised by that
emotional response. Several students used alternative supplies
due to their hexanes having fully evaporated (student acquisition
of the kits was staggered over several days), and everyone was
able to find a household chemical that popped the balloon.
However, one student accidentally popped the balloon despite
placing the toothpick in the bottom, so emphasize the need to
use water for mess-free lubrication (or vegetable oil) and to
place the toothpick in the thickest part of the balloon bottom.
Lab 2 (Hydrogels). The lens contraction and expansion
worked better than expected with most students reporting
measurable differences in the contact lenses’ diameters (Figure
10). Each student reported slightly different values than their
peers, suggesting that either environmental factors such as
temperature affected the hydrogel dimensions, contact lenses
might have been flipped inside-out, or students may have
pressed down to different extents on the lenses with their rulers
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01172
J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1622−1635
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 9. Sample student data and observations for Lab 1 (Unsafe Lab Practical). Top: Sample student data for balloon popping. Bottom: Safe (green)
and unsafe (red) details noticed from videos.
Figure 10. Sample student data for Lab 2 (Hydrogels).
during measurement. This variation in diameter measurements
did not appear to produce any issues with students’
interpretations of the data. Instructors can also consider telling
students to draw a ruler on white paper and then place the lenses
face-down (convex side up) on the “ruler”. However, it is
possible that the paper’s absorption of water may distort the
drawn graduations.
Lab 3 (Modeling). Modeling appeared straightforward, and
students made standard 3D physical models, 2D computer
drawings, and 3D computer models (Figure 11). A few students
Figure 11. Sample student models for Lab 3 (Molecular Modeling).
needed reminders about the difference between the gray sp2 and
black sp3 bond pieces: since the bond angles look similar and
students knew that both gray and black represented carbon, they
used the gray and black interchangeably at first. Students
struggled a little with showing stereochemistry in the computer
program, although they already knew what wedges and dashes
were, so it is advisable to spend some time explicitly showing
students how to operate the program.
Lab 4. The essential oil distillation lab produced disappoint-
ing results: students could easily smell the fragrance but were not
actually collecting distillate. Turning up the heat and waiting for
over an hour resulted in distillate collection for two students, but
1627
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
most students did not wait this long. A couple of students even
voluntarily tried the experiment multiple times, switching the
types of fresh herbs they used. Using insufficient plant material
as well as old herbs from a spice cabinet also potentially
contributed to a couple of other students’ failure to produce
distillate. However, as seen in Figure 12, students appeared to
Figure 12. Sample student pictures of their Lab 4 setups (Essential Oil
Distillation).
have set up the distillation correctly according to the then-
procedure. Tellingly, one student noticed droplets in the straw
which were not dripping down into the vial; this issue was
reproduced in the instructor’s hands after retesting the
procedure upon student reports of their unproductive
distillations. After the instructor repeated the activity herself,
the following determinations were made: the lack of distillate
collection may have potentially resulted overall from a
combination of (1) the instructor’s overemphasis on not
overheating the pan (from a concern about boiling water
destabilizing the jar and leading to hot broken glass in the
home), (2) not putting enough water in the saucepan to
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01172
J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1622−1635
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

Figure 13. Revised at-home Lab 4 setup from the instructor’s kitchen resulted in distillate collection from rosemary (Essential Oil Distillation). Wire
was tied onto a patch of spare cloth to make a hanging pouch for the chopped rosemary, which was suspended as high as possible against the jar lid. The
clear vinyl tubing replaces the straw from earlier.

Figure 14. Sample student data for Lab 5 (Candle Magic). Left: Water rises in the inverted test tube when it is quickly placed over a lit candle. Right:
Data and the corresponding wire coils. Students attempted to extinguish a lit candle by placing a copper wire on a flame (exploiting copper’s thermal
conductivity to remove the heat necessary for a flame) and then reignite the flame by quickly removing the copper. In green are the expected results
(the flame reignited). In red are the unexpected results (the flame did not reignite).

thoroughly bathe the jar in hot water (the instructor not
realizing beforehand that low water levels might be an issue), (3)
using a thin plastic straw for the students (a different tube was
used during test-driving and then the plastic straws were
purchased for financial reasons), and (4) a lack of instruction on
the precise positioning of the herb (hanging rosemary to the
side, for instance, did not produce distillateit must be exactly
underneath the straw opening). After trying multiple iterations
of the experiment with different household materials, the
distillation was made successful again in the instructor’s hands
within half of hour of heating by (1) using lots of chopped
rosemary bundled directly under the lid hole, (2) vigorous
boiling on high heat throughout, and (3) using clear, flexible
vinyl tubing to transport distillate (Figure 13). This revised
procedure is detailed in the Supporting Information handouts.
Despite the disappointing lack of results for most students, they
still appeared to think the experiment itself was cool and wanted
it to work.
Lab 5 (Candle Magic). The candle demonstrations worked
well overall. One student reported that the water did not rise in
their test tube on the first try but, after attempting it again and
1628
moving more quickly to cover the candle completely with the
tube, it was made successful in their hands. On the other hand,
although everyone was successful in extinguishing the flame with
the copper wire, not everyone was able to reignite the flame as
instructed by immediately retracting the wire upon extinguish-
ment. This is presumably due to discrepancies in how long it
took the students to initially extinguish the flame (Figure 14).
The students who reported the shortest time for the flame to
initially go out were the ones who also saw the flame reignite a
moment later (the intended observation). Upon further
investigation, it also appears that these students coiled their
copper wire vertically rather than in a tight stack. Although not
every student who coiled their wire vertically saw reignition, no
student who coiled their wire flat did. Future students will
therefore be instructed to coil their wire vertically.
Lab 6 (Extraction). The demonstration of liquid−liquid
separation with ethyl acetate, food coloring, and water produced
unambiguous results across the board (Figure 15). Although
much of the ethyl acetate had evaporated since kit distribution a
few months prior, enough remained to carry out the procedure.
Likewise, the solid−liquid extraction of cinnamon was
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01172
J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1622−1635
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 15. Sample student pictures for Lab 6 (Extraction). Left: Yellow
food coloring partitioned into the aqueous phase; clear separation can
be seen between ethyl acetate and water. Right: The dried crude
mixture extracted from cinnamon is a redder brown than the original
cinnamon and smells like cinnamaldehyde, whereas the discarded
cinnamon residue did not.
straightforward. Filtration was a slow process, as expected, due
to clogging of the coffee filters, but all students obtained
significant quantities of a crude, red-brown, heterogeneous,
mostly crystalline filtrate within one day of ambient evaporation.
This product smelled strongly of cinnamaldehyde. In contrast,
the discarded cinnamon residue after filtration did not smell like
cinnamon to any of the students.
Labs 7−9 (Glowmatography, M&M TLC, and Column
Chromatography). Labs 7−9 were written to build on each
other to foster experimental design competencies, and the
results of this iterative process will be reported in a separate
publication. Overall, student exploration of chromatography was
successful, and although students reported it was challenging to
proceed without cookbook procedures (instead writing their
own procedures for Labs 8 and 9), they overwhelmingly
concurred that it was a worthwhile, educational, and interesting
experience. Instructors who prefer to provide complete
procedures to students may want to trim the degree of
independent design in Laboratories 8−9 and refer to the
original publications to produce straightforward experiments for
their students.
■
LOGISTICS
After vetting the procedures, individual laboratory supply kits
were assembled and distributed to each student in the first week
of school to (1) decrease the financial and time strain on
students by reducing the need for them to collect all of their own
supplies, (2) increase equity and address resource barriers, (3)
promote reliability of results with uniformity in supplies, (4)
distribute certain supplies which students might not easily find
suitable substitutes for on their own, and (5) promote the “cool”
factor of experiments with “real” chemistry supplies.
Distribution and Retrieval
Students picked up their kit curbside at school according to a
coordinated school-wide schedule during the first week of
classes, and the students received a list at that time of the
supplies they needed to obtain for all the semester’s activities
(see Supporting Information). At the end of the course, students
are required to return the supply kit.
Cost and Contents
At an out-of-pocket cost to the instructor of $11.60 per kit (see
Supporting Information for cost breakdown and the bin
1629
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
contents list), each kit is inexpensive, but some of the supplies
should be reused where possible for future classes to improve
cost effectiveness and environmental friendliness. Contact
lenses could even be left in the Eppendorf vials and reused for
future cohorts. Each kit’s expense could also likely be lowered
even further with advance planning (i.e., rather than running
around town to quickly obtain supplies from brick-and-mortar
stores as the author did to meet the school distribution
deadline), bulk purchasing and kit preparation (a lot of surplus
was left over for materials such as food coloring, wire,
toothpicks), and full use of prepurchased materials bought
with school funds (for example, coffee filters). Some materials
purchased out-of-pocket likely could be found in other
classrooms and offices and therefore decrease the expense
more but, due to COVID-19, access to the school building was
limited.
In addition to the laboratory supplies, kits also included
external safety labels, splash goggles, a contents list, and an
inexpensive capacitive computer stylus to enable students to
draw (by touching the stylus to a laptop’s trackpad) structures
and other images on digital homework assignments and during
Zoom class sessions. Students were still responsible for
procuring some necessary household supplies (for example, an
oven, a saucepan, fresh rosemary) for each activity.
Assembly
Assembly is most quickly done by assembling all bags of one lab
at a time rather than each kit. In assembling the kits, take care not
to bend or crease items such as the glowsticks or the TLC paper,
and double check that the lids/caps for all liquid containers are
tightly secured (especially the cap for the ethanol dropper bottle
in the Glowmatography bag as it can get jostled open). Segregate
each activity’s supplies into separate, labeled, sealed bags.
Additionally, please note that a couple of necessary apparatus
modifications must be made to two items by the instructor before
assembling the kit or by the students if they need to assemble the
kit themselves: (1) the syringe (for Column Chromatography)
requires a small, predrilled hole (Figure 8) and (2) the canning
jar (for Essential Oil Distillation) requires a close-fitting hole in
the jar lid (Figure 3). The modifications required are quick to
enact but do require specific tools (a power drill and a micro wire
cutter) and are detailed in the Supporting Information.
Equity and Barriers
For institutions or instructors who are unable to distribute such
kits to students, students can theoretically assemble their own
kits, eliminate superfluous materials, and substitute common-
place materials for the stockroom supplies (see Supporting
Information for suggestions); these alterations can also be
undertaken to increase safety. However, giving kits to students is
likely an important step for improving equity, helping students
focus their energies on learning, and lowering participation
barriers for many students (the disadvantaged and the
disengaged alike), in addition to being more cost- and time-
effective.
Additionally, some supplies could be eliminated entirely
because they are not strictly necessary but were included to
improve the “cool” factor associated with chemistry, in addition
to equity, financial, time, access, and uniformity concerns. For
example, students did not necessarily need hexanes nor a pipet
for squirting it onto the balloon to make it pop but, rather, could
pour the hexanes or squirt the balloon with WD-40 or stain
remover from their home. However, feedback from students in
Spring 20208,21 suggest that students appreciate feeling like
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01172
J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1622−1635
Journal of Chemical Education
“real” chemists rather than children playing with household
supplies. Because engagement is a major goal of these at-home
activities, inexpensive and low-risk supplies from the science
department stockroom were added to the kit rather than
exclusively focusing on household materials; see the Supporting
Information for recommended substitutions or eliminations.
Simulations, videos, and second-hand data analysis can also
supplement hands-on experiments and fill in where resources are
lacking. Unfortunately, few free simulations exist relevant to
organic chemistry, and those that do omit many of the realistic
learning experiences of hands-on laboratories (such as seeing
your reaction fail, dealing with spills, and managing your time
during a slow process). A student could watch a video of the
experiment, though, if the student does not have materials for
that week’s experiment. If the instructor live-streamed the
experiment, then students could even direct the instructor’s
actions in real time. Although many videos exist on YouTube,
the Journal of Visualized Experiments (jove.com), textbook
publisher Web sites, and shared Google Drive folders from
generous instructors, it may be valuable for students to have an
emotional connection to the experimentalist. There is also better
curricular overlap and appropriate vocabulary use if the students’
own instructor is in charge, although professional productions
certainly do look nicer than amateur videos and can incorporate
beneficial, interactive “click” components. One article from the
special issue gave helpful pointers regarding good filming
practices for realistic lab videos.22
Instructors could also consider digitally partnering students in
situations where barriers hinder acquisition of supplies: one
student could conduct an experiment while another student is
watching via an online video conferencing platform, asking an
instructor-provided set of prompting questions, and helping
guide the experimenter through the procedure. The two would
also ideally be paired for any prelab and postlab assignments. If
possible, the two students could then switch roles for the next
lab. Whatever route an instructor chooses, they should probably
attempt to make the digital partnering and/or video watching as
interactive and reflective as possible since active engagement is
likely necessary for any meaningful learning from the laboratory.
■
SAFETY
Safety is the greatest concern with remote learning laboratory
activities, especially considering an instructor’s liability and duty
of care, the limited ability of novice students and their families to
self-evaluate safety accurately, the difference in family resources
and home environment, and the inability of the instructor to
directly supervise at-home activities.23−26 These concerns are
exacerbated by the fact that all of the students were unfamiliar to
the instructor at the start of the course and therefore not
necessarily indoctrinated into safety culture. The kit was
therefore designed with these considerations in mind. While
the kit contains multiple potentially hazardous substances, the
risks associated with the kit and with conducting the activities
can be mitigated according to the hierarchy of controls (i.e.,
elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative
controls, and PPE).27 However, risk cannot be eliminated
completely. Identification of the hazards and elaboration on
specific risk mitigation steps are provided below. Ultimately, no
safety incidents were reported, and the students and parents
appeared to recognize the importance of safety and following
rules.
1630
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
Identification of Hazards
Kit Hazards. The kit contains multiple hazardous sub-
stances:
1. flammable and volatile solvents (hexanes, EtOAc, EtOH)
2. acid (HCl) and base (NaOH)
3. glass (test tube, inner tube of glowsticks, glass canning jar)
4. potential irritants/allergens (latex, M&M, food coloring
[rare])
The biggest concern is a partially filled dropper bottle of 95%
denatured ethanol. Other chemicals in the kit (HCl/NaOH,
hexanes, EtOAc) can also present more serious safety concerns if
provided in larger quantities but, at small quantities, their
hazards can be managed easily with low risk and mostly common
sense, even in the hands of novices.
Household Hazards. Household items also present
hazards. Of the household supplies required to complete the
activities, the following present noticeable hazards:
1. heat source/open flame (operating a stovetop, lighting
candles, dripping wax)
2. flammable and volatile solvents (i-PrOH aka rubbing
alcohol)
3. glass (cups, baking pan)
4. sharp object (knife)
5. potential irritants/allergens (plants)
Controls: Elimination and Substitution
Supplies were deliberately chosen for their low cost, safety,
replaceability, and disposability. Plastic pipettes, for instance,
were used instead of the glass pipettes which are common in
organic chemistry laboratories. Corn starch replaced chromato-
graphic silica gel. Toothpicks replaced glass TLC spotters.
Chemicals were provided in the smallest amounts deemed
feasible while still providing some excess in case of spills,
evaporation, an uncontrollable urge to eat M&M’s, or other
mishaps. While several of the materials can present significant
safety concerns in large quantities, with improper handling, and/
or with chronic use, risk is greatly reduced thanks to these steps.
However, following student feedback about at-home laboratory
experiments in the introductory chemistry course in the spring,8
a few items such as test tubes, plastic pipettes, plastic Petri
dishes, and small Eppendorf vials containing stockroom
chemicals were also deliberately included instead of kitchen-
based substitutes to promote the feeling that the experiments
were “real chemistry”. The hazards and risks were deemed
acceptable for the situation by the instructor and the science
department chair. In the Supporting Information, the special
hazards of each wet activity are highlighted with suggestions for
possible alternatives to the laboratory-specific supplies.
Controls: Engineering
Isolation/Enclosure. The materials for each activity were
enclosed in separate Ziploc bags within the kit bin. Glass test
tubes were wrapped in paper towel padding (taped closed) to
prevent spreading glass shards in case of breakage. Chalk sticks
were also wrapped in paper towel padding to help keep them
clean and intact. All lids (i.e., for Eppendorf vials, dropper
bottle) were double-checked for secure closure. The Ziploc bags
were laid carefully in the bin such that the heaviest items (i.e.,
glass jar) were at the bottom and fragile items (i.e., test tube,
chalk) were at the top. The dropper bottle was placed upright
and nestled to promote stability. The plastic bin itself had ample
free space when packed (so that nothing inside would break if
pressure was placed on the lid), had rigid walls, and was not in
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01172
J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1622−1635
Journal of Chemical Education
danger of spontaneously bursting open (because it was not
stuffed full). An instructor could consider packing extra padding
in the bin and taping shut the lid, but this is likely not necessary
unless the bin is expected to undergo rough transportation.
Transportation. Kits were physically picked up by the
students/families curbside at school. It should be noted that
these kits should not be mailed to students or back to the school
unless all of the flammable and volatile organic solvents
(ethanol, hexanes, ethyl acetate) are removed prior to mailing.
Mailing flammable and volatile organic solvents constitutes a
safety hazard and may violate postal laws; substitutes should
instead be found in the student’s nearby grocery, pharmacy, and
hardware stores.
Ventilation. Students were instructed to conduct activities
in well-ventilated areas (i.e., no closets).
Controls: Administrative
Kit and Contents List. A warning label on the outside of
each kit bin warns people to handle the kit carefully and keep
away from heat, a message reiterated in the contents list within
the bin. Instructors are encouraged to also place their contact
information, school contact information, and the emergency
phone numbers on the outside of the kit as well. The contents
list identifies hazards, appropriate handling, and how to handle
spills/breakages for the hazardous chemicals and glass materials
of both the kit contents and the required student supplies.
Another example of an at-home lab kit by from Spring 2020
showcases another set of safety documents to include with a
take-home kit.28
Safety Contract and Parents. To promote clear
communication of the expectations, hazards, and risks involved
with using the kits as well as to inculcate safety culture, students
and parents/guardians were required to sign the laboratory
safety contract29 at the beginning of the semester. The contract
includes a requirement for (1) students to report where they are
storing the kit, (2) parents to affirm that the kit is safely stored
away from the access of younger siblings and pets, and (3) self-
reporting of medical concerns which may impact student safety
(for example, allergies). The instructor also referenced the
school’s PowerSchool database about medical conditions and
learning differences for each student to detect any potential
issues that could affect a student’s safety in conducting at-home
experiments. During the back-to-school night discussion with
parents, the instructor discussed the contents of the kit and
appropriate handling and storage. The safety contract and back-
to-school night discussion also affirmed the parents’ right and
responsibility to confiscate the kit from their student if the
parent deemed it prudent or if the instructor requested
confiscation.
Class Sessions. The first day of class featured the instructor
guiding the students through the kit and pointing out the
hazards and risks of certain items, reiterating the need for
appropriate storage and handling of the kit. Safety notes are
often discussed in class before a laboratory activity, and students
are occasionally asked to brainstorm potential hazards, risks, and
risk mitigation. Students are reminded to read the safety notes
before beginning activities and to exercise common sense and
calm behavior throughout. Students are reminded that the most
common accidents in chemistry laboratories are slips, trips, and
falls and that reacting with panic to a spill or other unexpected
event is often more dangerous than the original incident; Lab 1
emphasizes this point.
1631
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
Assignments. An orientation-style homework assignment in
the first week of school and the first lab assignment featured
discussions of safety, hazards vs risks, risk mitigation, and
appropriate behavior and workspace management. All labo-
ratory handouts feature warning language, PPE expectations,
handling, and cleanup instructions as well as what to do in the
case of an accident. These “Safety, Waste Disposal, & Clean-Up”
sections are deliberately placed at the beginning of the handouts,
before even the procedure or materials list. Notably, safety
reminders deliberately include the commonplace household
items (i.e., stovetops, candles), not just the “laboratory” items. A
portion of the lab grade also includes a requirement for a
“supervisor” (typically a parent/guardian but also potentially an
older sibling trusted by parents) to sign off that the student
cleaned up appropriately and behaved responsibly (“Clean-Up
Approval”). Questions about safety (both regarding actual
experiments and hypothetical situations) appear occasionally on
other nonlaboratory assignments as well to emphasize the
central importance of safety in chemistry.
Controls: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Chemical splash goggles were packed in the kits (unless the
student identified that they already owned chemical splash
goggles) as well as nitrile gloves for the Glowmatography
activity, where a larger chemical spill with ethanol was
reasonable to expect could occur. Each laboratory handout
identified PPE expectations, as did in-class discussions and the
laboratory safety contract.
A Note on Compliance
It is important to note that it is always possible that a parent or
student might not read the safety contract before signing, not
store or handle the materials properly, not pay attention during
back-to-school night or class sessions, not engage in proper
supervision or laboratory behavior, and not read the “Safety,
Waste Disposal, & Clean-Up” information. It is also easily
imaginable that a student might forge a parent’s signature for the
safety contract or cleanup approval. Engaging in safety quizzes
(for students via Zoom polls during synchronous class sessions
or even for parents by emailing them a link to a Google Forms
quiz) before giving a student the procedure to conduct could be
a way to enforce the reading of safety information. However, at a
certain point, every instructor knows that an oblivious, negligent,
or misbehaving student can always theoretically circumvent the
checks meant to promote their education and well-being.
Alternatively, another member of the household could find and
misuse the kit; younger siblings and pets are a special concern. If
an instructor is concerned about any of this being the case with
their students, the instructor should seriously consider whether
at-home laboratory activities are appropriate for their class at all
and whether to implement more kit substitutions and
eliminations to further reduce risks.
For this cohort, however, no safety concerns were brought to
the instructor’s attention. Instead, multiple parents spoke to the
instructor about how they were pleased and amused at the level
of seriousness which their student displayed when preparing for,
conducting, and cleaning up after a laboratory activity,
specifically mentioning aspects such as the donning of splash
goggles, cleaning up the kitchen before and after (parental
amazement was noted here), neatly laying out all materials
(“perfectly in a row on the cleaned countertop”), and telling the
parent that “all precautions must be taken”. Students were also
surveyed after Lab 4 about compliance (Figure 16) and
perceptions of safety (Figure 17). One student was detected
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01172
J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1622−1635
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 16. Survey responses to compliance question.
Figure 17. Survey responses to safety-related questions. Prompt: “Rate
your level of agreement regarding the at-home labs so far.”
forging a Clean-Up Approval signature for one experiment, but
all other signatures appeared genuine on the surface. As a whole,
these indications of compliance and perceptions of safety are
reassuring, though neither perfect nor definitive.
■
EFFECT ON LEARNING AND ENGAGEMENT
Student Attitudes
Data were gathered via a Google Forms survey two weeks after
Lab 4 to ascertain students’ attitudes toward laboratories. Six of
seven students responded. The survey was not anonymous (to
distribute the minor extra credit incentive), but students were
told to answer honestly with their gut instinct. Figure 18
indicates that the students held positive feelings about chemistry
laboratories in general and expressed preference for hands-on
experiments over homework or simulations. Students were
noticeably split as to whether they would prefer to conduct an
experiment themselves versus watching a video of the experi-
ment and receive sample data; this may be influenced by the
recent struggles with Lab 4, which did not work well. Despite
this, almost no students indicated that they wanted replacement
simulations or a complete omission of laboratory activities.
For the survey questions which probed further regarding the
specific laboratories (Figure 19), students all agree that the
laboratories felt relevant to the curriculum. Interestingly,
students felt that the laboratories benefited their learning but
not necessarily that the laboratories helped them do better on
nonlab assignments. Perhaps this is a reflection of inadequate
connections between the laboratories and the curriculum on the
instructor’s end; during discussions at the end of the course,
Figure 18. Survey responses to interest-related questions. Prompt: “Rate your level of agreement regarding chemistry labs in general, regardless of
whether at-school or at-home labs.”
1632
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
some students indicated that a few laboratories felt separate but
parallel to what was directly happening in class.
Students were also asked to categorize the laboratories
according to eight labels: Fun, Difficult, Interesting, Worked
well, Boring, Educational, Frustrating, and Worthwhile (Figure
20). Students merely binarily checked boxes to indicate whether
the label applied to a lab; they were not asked about the strength
of their opinion on the categorization. Students were surveyed
about Labs 1−4 after Lab 4 and later about Labs 5−9 after Lab 9.
6 students responded to each survey, and 5 of these students
responded to both. Because students were also being surveyed
about other parts of the curriculum at that time, only limited
questions were asked about Labs 5−9 to minimize survey
fatigue. Happily, no one labeled any lab “Boring”. Students
tended to hold some form of positive feeling overall about the
laboratories (“Fun”, “Worked well”, “Interesting”, “Educa-
tional”, “Worthwhile”), although they fluctuated in the exact
light in which they viewed individual laboratories. For example,
every student labeled Lab 9 as both “Difficult” and “Educa-
tional”.
Students also offered qualitative feedback to the midsemester
survey question “How are the labs going overall?” (below).
Students also spoke well about the laboratories at the end of the
course and expressed that the laboratories were both enjoyable
and beneficial for supporting their holistic learning and
experimental know-how.
• “I think the labs are going pretty well, as I figured out how
to schedule when to do them.”
• “The labs have all been going very smoothly and so far
there have been no accidents.”
• “I’d say pretty well. I’m enjoying them for the most part.”
• “pretty good I like them”
Student Performance
Students performed very well on the lab assignments, both in
terms of collecting data and answering the follow-up questions.
Submission rates and average grades were excellent. Because this
is the first time these laboratories have been used in this young
course, a comparison to historical data is not possible. However,
a narrative about student performance is provided in the
Supporting Information.
Parent Feedback
As one parent said, “the entire family gets excited when it’s a lab
day”. During the midsemester Parent-Teacher conferences, a
recurring theme from the parent feedback was their and their
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01172
J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1622−1635
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 19. Survey responses to learning-related questions. Prompt: “Rate your level of agreement regarding the at-home labs so far.”
Figure 20. Survey responses to categorization questions. Prompt:
“Classify the labs done so far. You can check multiple boxes for each
row/column or leave a row/column blank.” Each rung on the radar
graph represents one vote (up to six votes total are possible for each
category for each lab).
students’ happiness that the students were receiving some form
of laboratory experience. Several parents remarked on how the
laboratories pique their own interest as well as their students,
“even if the labs don’t always work just right” (as one parent put
it). That parent pointed out that they still feel the lab in question
(Lab 4) was a good learning experience about the reality of
failure in the lab. The aggregated parent feedback would indicate
that the laboratories are having the desired effect on student
engagement as well as pleasing parents that their students are
getting some form of hands-on laboratory education despite the
pandemic.
Instructor Reflections
Despite the limitation on scope and rigor for data collection on
engagement and performance, students (and parents) seem to
overall value the laboratories for both affective and educational
reasons, even if the experiments and their incorporation into the
overall curriculum are not perfect. At the beginning of the year,
students displayed excitement about laboratories. At the end of
the year, they expressed appreciation and value. They appear to
take the lab assignments and safety seriously. Students usually
successfully executed the procedures, used data/observations to
reach conclusions, and reasoned effectively about hypothetical
situations; the latter two competencies were noted by the special
issue authors as especial struggles for the Spring 2020 COVID-
19 cohort.
Limitations
It is important to note that the students discussed comprise a
very small group (n = 7 enrolled students) of an unusual sample
1633
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
(How many high school students take organic chemistry?)
completing nonanonymous surveys and who are taking a course
designed specifically for high school students. Therefore, it is not
possible to make generalizations about how well this curriculum
will work for other students in other settings. However,
hopefully the feedback and metrics reported here can indicate
the potential appropriateness of this laboratory curriculum for
supporting student learning and engagement while providing a
template for other instructors to utilize while this remote
situation continues. Although this was designed for a high school
course, it is not unreasonable to assume that what works for high
school organic chemistry students might also work for college.
For instance, a recently published study on the differences
between ACS exam scores in a dual enrollment course of college
and high school organic chemistry students from another
privileged independent school indicate no significant perform-
ance difference between the two cohorts.30
■
CONCLUSION
Reports in the COVID-19 special issue in this Journal from
Spring 2020 indicate that a lack of hands-on laboratory work
may have impaired student engagement and certain types of
learning. As instructors navigate the 2020−2021 academic year,
the proposed curriculum plan in this article will hopefully enable
remote learning alternatives to the traditional laboratory work
associated with introductory organic chemistry while the
significant constraints of COVID-19 on chemical education
last. When traditional organic chemistry glassware for the
teaching laboratory costs hundreds of dollars (a standard,
familiar set is currently $750 per set from Flinn)31 and when
common chemicals and techniques require the use of fume
hoods, vacuum lines, waste collection, etc., doing business like
usual is simply not an option during the time of COVID-19
remote learning. Other than preparing the holes for the syringe
and the jar, assembling the supply bags for each kit is very
straightforward and results in multiple inexpensive ($11.60/kit
out-of-pocket), low risk packets for meaningful wet chemistry
activities relevant to many organic chemistry curricula. Addi-
tionally, this kit can be further simplified according to
institutional and student needs and barriers. Whether instructors
have already started their organic chemistry course or whether
they begin in the spring of 2021, the inexpensive and
commonplace nature of this kit’s supplies mean that instructors
should be able to rapidly incorporate these ideas into their
curriculum to promote student learning and engagement.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
*
sı Supporting Information
The Supporting Information is available at https://pubs.ac-
s.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01172.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01172
J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1622−1635
Journal of Chemical Education
Experiment handouts, safety contract, bin contents,
instructor notes, and student surveys (PDF)
(DOCX)
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
Elizabeth W. Kelley − Laboratory Schools and Chemistry
Department, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637,
United States; orcid.org/0000-0003-2990-3636;
Email: ekelley@ucls.uchicago.edu
Complete contact information is available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01172
Notes
The author declares no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author acknowledges partial financial support for overall
development of this laboratory curriculum plan through a
Summer Professional Development Award from the UCLS
Office of Educational Programs as well as partial support for
laboratory supplies from the UCLS Science Department.
Additionally, thanks go out to the students of the Organic
Chemistry 2020−2021 course for agreeing to let their work be
displayed and to the science department chair Zachary Hund for
expressing support for developing an at-home lab kit. This
material is also based upon work supported by the National
Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant
DGE-1746045.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Holme, T. A. Journal of Chemical Education Call for Papers: Special
Issue on Insights Gained while Teaching Chemistry in the Time of
COVID-19. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97 (5), 1226−1227.
(2) Holme, T. A. Introduction to the Journal of Chemical Education
Special Issue on Insights Gained While Teaching Chemistry in the
Time of COVID-19. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97 (9), 2375−2377.
(3) Campbell, C. D.; Challen, B.; Turner, K. L.; Stewart, M. I.
#DryLabs20: A New Global Collaborative Network to Consider and
Address the Challenges of Laboratory Teaching with the Challenges of
COVID-19. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97 (9), 3023−3027.
(4) Nataro, C.; Johnson, A. R. A Community Springs to Action to
Enable Virtual Laboratory Instruction. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97 (9),
3033−3037.
(5) University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. Admissions. https://
www.ucls.uchicago.edu/admissions (accessed February 2021).
(6) University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. Program of Studies
University High School 2020−2021. https://www.ucls.uchicago.edu/
uploaded/highschool/20JAN17_HS_Program_of_Studies_2020-21.
pdf (accessed February 2021).
(7) Klein, D. R. Organic Chemistry as a Second Language: First Semester
Topics, 5th ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, 2020.
(8) Kelley, E. W. Reflections on Three Different High School
Chemistry Lab Formats during COVID-19 Remote Learning. J. Chem.
Educ. 2020, 97 (9), 2606−2616.
(9) Mio, M. J.; Benvenuto, M. A. The Unsafe Lab Practical. J. Chem.
Educ. 2021, 98 (1), 243−245.
(10) Demo C (balloon) and Demos H and I (candle): Limpanuparb,
T.; Sathainthammanee, D.; Pakwilaikiat, P.; Kaewpichit, C.; Yimkosol,
W.; Suwannakhan, A. Reinterpreting Popular Demonstrations for Use
in a Laboratory Safety Session that Engages Students in Observation,
Prediction, Record Keeping, and Problem Solving. J. Chem. Educ. 2021,
98 (1), 191−197.
1634
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
(11) Chen, Y.-H.; He, Y.-C.; Yaung, J.-F. Exploring pH-Sensitive
Hydrogels Using an Ionic Soft Contact Lens: An Activity Using
Common Household Materials. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (10), 1671−
1674.
(12) Darling Models, Inc. Molecular Visions Organic Plastic Box.
ISBN 978-09648837-1-0. https://www.darlingmodels.com/
Individual-Orders-Molecular-Model-Kits/KIT-1-ISBN-978-
09648837-1-0-Plastic-Box-Organic-Inorg/prod_2.html (accessed Feb-
ruary 2021).
(13) Examples of online drawing websites include: (a) ChemSpace.
https://chem-space.com/search (accessed February 2021). (b) Chem-
Doodle. https://web.chemdoodle.com/ (accessed February 2021).
(c) PubChem. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/edit3/index.html
(accessed February 2021). (d) MolView. https://molview.org/
(accessed February 2021).
(14) Kiteman. Be a Romantic Scientist: Distill Your Own Perfume.;
Instructables. https://www.instructables.com/Be-a-Romantic-
Scientist%3A-Distill-your-own-perfume-/ (accessed February 2021).
(15) Used Lab 1 for Extraction lab from: Easdon, J. Stay at Home
Laboratories for Chemistry Courses. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97 (9),
3070−3073.
(16) Kuntzleman, T. S.; Bunker, K. R.; Bartlett, A. A. Simple
Glowmatography: Chromatographic Separation of Glowstick Dyes
Using Chalk. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96 (7), 1506−1509.
(17) Kandel, M. Chromatography of M & M Candies. J. Chem. Educ.
1992, 69 (12), 988−989.
(18) Ibarra-Rivera, T. R.; Delgado-Montemayor, C.; Oviedo-Garza,
F.; Perez-Meseguer, J.; Rivas-Galindo, V. M.; Waksman-Minsky, N.;
Perez-Lopez, L. A. Setting up an Educational Column Chromatography
Experiment from Home. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97 (9), 3055−3059.
(19) Original procedure, which is short and easy to read: Kimbrough,
D. R. Supermarket Column Chromatography of Leaf Pigments. J.
Chem. Educ. 1992, 69 (12), 987−988.
(20) Helpful pictures of example columns with plant leaves: Dias, A.
M.; Ferreira, M. L. S. Supermarket Column Chromatography of Leaf
Pigments” Revisited: Simple and Ecofriendly Separation of Plant
Carotenoids, Chlorophylls, and Flavonoids from Green and Red
Leaves. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (1), 189−192.
(21) Schultz, M.; Callahan, D. L.; Miltiadous, A. Development and
Use of Kitchen Chemistry Home Practical Activities during
Unanticipated Campus Closures. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97 (9), 2678−
2684.
(22) Woelk, K.; Whitefield, P. D. As Close as It Might Get to the Real
Lab ExperienceLive-Streamed Laboratory Activities. J. Chem. Educ.
2020, 97 (9), 2996−3001.
(23) National Science Teaching Association. Legal Implications of
Duty of Care for Science Instruction. https://static.nsta.org/pdfs/
LegalImplicationsOfDutyOfCareForScienceInstruction.pdf (accessed
February 2021).
(24) Roy, K. Safety for Hands-On Science Home Instruction. NSTA
Safety Blog 2020. https://www.nsta.org/blog/safety-hands-science-
home-instruction (accessed February 2021).
(25) American Chemical Society. High School Labs. https://www.
acs.org/content/acs/en/chemical-safety/teach-and-learn/high-school.
html (accessed February 2021).
(26) National Science Teaching Association. rSafety. https://www.
nsta.org/topics/safety (accessed February 2021).
(27) ACS. Control Measures. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/
chemical-safety/hazard-assessment/fundamentals/control-measures.
html (accessed February 2021).
(28) Miles, D. T.; Wells, W. G. Lab-in-a-Box: A Guide for Remote
Laboratory Instruction in an Instrumental Analysis Course. J. Chem.
Educ. 2020, 97 (9), 2971−2975.
(29) (a) Inspirations for the safety contract: National Science
Teaching Association. High School Safety Acknowledgment Form
2017. https://static.nsta.org/pdfs/SafetyAcknowledgmentForm-
HighSchool.pdf (accessed February 2021). (b) Carolina Supply
Biological Company. Student Laboratory Safety Agreement 2016.
https://www.carolina.com/pdf/safety/student-lab-safety-agreement.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01172
J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1622−1635
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

pdf accessed February 2021). (c) Flinn Scientific. Student Safety

Contract 2017. https://www.flinnsci.com/api/library/Download/
80efae9513b548d6999c31d38ac36abe (accessed February 2021).
(30) Zuidema, D. R.; Stimart, J. A.; Jian, Z. Teaching an Introductory
Organic Chemistry Class for High School Students. J. Chem. Educ.
2020, 97 (12), 4303−4310.
(31) Flinn Scientific. Organic Chemistry Glassware Set. https://www.
flinnsci.com/organic-chemistry-glassware-set/ap1546/ (accessed Feb-
ruary 2021).

1635 https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01172
J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1622−1635