IB Higher Level Chemistry IA

Word count: 2307 words

Date: 26/04/15

Contents
Section A: Introduction.......................................................................................... 2
Section B: Analysis................................................................................................ 3
Qualitative data.................................................................................................. 3
Raw data............................................................................................................ 3
Data processing.................................................................................................. 3
Limiting reagent................................................................................................. 4
Enthalpy change................................................................................................. 5
Section C: Evaluation............................................................................................. 8
Systematic error................................................................................................. 8
Random error...................................................................................................... 9
Overall evaluation.............................................................................................. 9
Section D: Conclusion.......................................................................................... 10
Section E: Bibliography........................................................................................ 11

Section A: Introduction
This experiment was designed to investigate Hess Law, which states:
[The enthalpy change] for a specific reaction is equal to the sum of
[enthalpies] of reaction for any set of reactions which in sum are
equivalent to the overall reaction [1]
That is, enthalpy change is a state function in which the pathway of the reaction
doesnt matter; only the difference between the initial and final values is
significant. This is useful for determining the enthalpy change of reactions that
are either impractical or impossible to determine experimentally under certain
conditions.
In this investigation, I determine the enthalpy changes of reacting potassium
hydrogen carbonate and potassium carbonate with hydrochloric acid and
calculate their sum to find, according to Hess Law, the enthalpy of reaction of
the thermal decomposition of anhydrous potassium hydrogen carbonate into
potassium carbonate.
Hess Law applies here because the thermal decomposition of anhydrous
potassium hydrogen carbonate forms the same reactants from the same
products as the sum of the reactions of potassium hydrogen carbonate and
potassium carbonate with hydrochloric acid, so the overall energy change should
be the same regardless of the number of steps.

Section B: Analysis
Qualitative data
Reaction
1. K2CO3 + 2HCl -> 2KCl +
H2CO3

Observation
Cup exterior feels hot
(exothermic)
Cup exterior feels hot
(exothermic)
2. KHCO3 + HCl -> KCl +
Cup exterior feels cold
H2CO3
(endothermic)
Cup exterior feels cold
(endothermic)
Table B.1: Qualitative observations of chemical reactions

Raw data
Substance

Mass
( 0.0005g)
Anhydrous potassium carbonate
3.000
2.556
(K2CO3)
Potassium hydrogen carbonate
3.543
3.620
(KHCO3)
Table B.2a: Quantitative measurements of solid reactants
Volume
Concentration1
3
( 0.5 cm )
(mol dm-3)
Hydrochloric acid (HCl)
30
2
Table B.2b: Quantitative measurements of non-solid reactants
Substance

Initial temperature
of acid
( 0.05C)
21.8
21.6
21.7
22.4

Final temperature of
solution
( 0.05C)
28.0
27.1
13.4
13.4
Table B.3: Temperature of acid at start and solution at end

Data processing
First, we must determine the number of moles of potassium carbonate and
potassium hydrogen carbonate. This is done using the formula:

Number of moles =

mass
molar mass

I will demonstrate my method in performing this calculation using the first trial of
reacting potassium carbonate with hydrochloric acid. I will not show the other
calculations, but their results will be stated in Table B.4.

1 This value was taken from the manufacturers packaging, so it is assumed that this quantity will
have zero uncertainty.

Calculation

Uncertainty

Substance

K2CO3
Average K2CO3
KHCO3
Average KHCO3
Substance

HCl
Substanc
e
Anhydrous
potassium
carbonate
Potassium
hydrogen

Mass
(
0.0005g)
3.000

Molar
mass2
kg mol-1)
138.21

Moles
(moles)
0.0217

Uncertainty

0.0167

= 0.0005

2.556
0.0185
0.0196% = 0.0005
2.778
0.0201
0.0360% = 0.001
3.543
100.12
0.0354
0.0141% = 0.0005
3.620
0.0362
0.0138% = 0.0005
3.582
0.0358
0.0279% = 0.001
Volume
Concentra
Moles3
(
tion
( 0.0001
0.05cm3)
(mol cm-3)
mol)
30
2
0.06
Table B.4: Calculated amount of reactants in moles

Initial temperature
of acid
( 0.05C)
21.8
21.6
21.7
22.4

Final temperature of
solution
( 0.05C)
28.0
27.1
Average:
13.4
13.4

Change in
temperature4
( 0.10C)
6.2
5.5
5.85
-7.3
-9.0

2 Molar mass is a value calculated by combining values from the periodic table, so it is assumed
that molar masses will have zero uncertainty.

number of moles = volume concentration

change in temperature ( ) = final temperatureinitial temperature

5
carbonate
Average:
-8.15
Table B.5: Temperature change

Limiting reagent
In order to determine the limiting reagent in my reactions, I will use the average
masses and average number of moles. The masses were 2.778g and 3.582g for
K2CO3 and KHCO3 respectively.

+
Mas
s
Mol
ar
mas
s
Mol
es

K2CO3
H2CO3

+ 2HCl

2KCl

2.778
100.1
2

0.020
0.06
1
Table B.6: Limiting reagent of potassium carbonate and hydrochloric acid

K2CO3 and HCl react in a 1-to-2 ratio, so only 0.0402 moles of HCl are needed.
Thus, in this reaction, the potassium carbonate is the limiting reagent and the
HCl is in excess.
Applying a similar process to the potassium hydrogen carbonate reaction:

KHCO3
H2CO3

HCl

2KCl

Mas 3.582
s
Mol
138.2
ar
1
mas
s
Mol
0.035
0.06
es
8
Table B.7: Limiting reagent of potassium hydrogen carbonate and hydrochloric
acid
KHCO3 and HCl react in a 1-to-1 ratio, so only 0.0358 moles of HCl are needed.
Thus, in this reaction, the potassium hydrogen carbonate is the limiting reagent
and the HCl is in excess.

Enthalpy change
In order to investigate Hess law, I must now calculate the molar enthalpy
change of the two reactions and compare how the enthalpy from the Hess cycle
compares to the reference value of enthalpy for the decomposition of potassium
hydrogen carbonate.
Reaction

Mass of
heated

Moles of
limiting

Specific
heat

Temperat
ure

6
solution5
(g)
30

reagent
(mol)
0.0201

capacity5
(J K-1 mol-1)
4.179

change
(K)
5.85

1. K2CO3 +
HCl
2. KHCO3 +
30
0.0358
4.179
-8.15
HCl
Table B.7: Summary table on reactants for calculating molar enthalpy
The equation for molar enthalpy is as follows:

Q=

mCT
mol

molar enthalpy=

mass specific heat capacity change in temperature

number of moles

I will now calculate the molar enthalpy of reaction 1:

Calculation

Uncertainty

J mol-1

=
=
= 0.06851192754
(3s.f.) = 2.50

I will also do the same for the molar enthalpy of reaction 2:

Calculation

Uncertainty

=
=
(3s.f.) = 1.19

5 Here, in order to simplify calculations, I assume that the density and specific heat capacity of
hydrochloric acid is the same as that of water.

Thus, the molar enthalpy of reaction 1 is -36.5 kJ mol -1 2.50 and the molar
enthalpy of reaction 2 is +28.5 kJ mol-1 1.19.

Diagram B.1: Hess cycle showing two pathways between

products and reactants
According to the Hess cycle in diagram B.1, the enthalpy change for the
decomposition of potassium hydrogen carbonate into potassium carbonate
should be equal to twice the enthalpy change of reaction two plus negative one
times the enthalpy change of reaction one. That is:

Calculation

Uncertainty
=
kJ mol-1

-1

Thus, according to Hess Law, the overall enthalpy change of this reaction is as
follows:
H = + 93.5 3.69 kJ mol-1
The reference value [3] [4] for the enthalpy change of the decomposition of
potassium hydrogen carbonate into potassium carbonate is:
H = + 92 kJ mol-1
My value for H is between 89.81 and 97.19 kJ mol-1, so the reference value is
well within my uncertainty range.

% error =

| experimental value - reference value |

reference value
=

| 93.5-92 |
92

| 1.5 |
92

=0.01630434783
1.63%

Section C: Evaluation
My percentage error for the final value of the enthalpy change of thermal
decomposition of potassium hydrogen carbonate into potassium carbonate was
quite low, at 1.63%. Though it could be argued that this was due to the lack of
systematic errors in my procedure and the lack of random errors, I believe that it
was because the opposite directionalities of my errors cancelled each other out,
leading to a low percentage error.
The equation I used to calculate molar enthalpy was:

Q=

mCT
mol

My errors manifest themselves most obviously in values such as T and specific

heat capacity. Below, I will outline the reasons I believe this is so.

Systematic error
Temperature change (T)
Perhaps the biggest weakness in my methodology was the way I decided to
measure temperature change. I did so by conducting the reaction in a
polystyrene cup and measuring the initial and final temperature of the substance
using a thermometer. The largest source of error is the heat lost to the
environment through the sides of the polystyrene cup.
In my qualitative observations (table B.1), I note that the cup was either cold or
warm to the touch during the reaction. This shows that the polystyrene cup is a
poor insulator, because I very quickly felt the temperature change of the
reaction, meaning that large amounts of heat energy were escaping and entering
the system. As heat energy was transferred from the system into the
surroundings (outside the polystyrene cup) rather than the thermometer, my
value for final temperature was too low, making my value for molar enthalpy too
low.
To deal with this, I could have insulated the polystyrene cup using a piece of
fabric, used a better insulated calorimeter (such as a vacuum flask or thermos),
or used a cooling curve of temperature against time to extrapolate an estimate
for the amount of heat lost.
Specific heat capacity (C)
In footnote 2, I stated that I assumed the specific heat capacity of 2M
hydrochloric acid to be the same as that of water. As a result, the specific heat
capacity I used in my calculations resulted in systematic error.
I could have used research to find a reference value for the specific heat capacity
of 2M HCl to use in my calculations instead of the specific heat capacity of water.
Using the Internet, I found it to be 3.89 J K -1 mol-1 at 20C [5]. The value I used
instead was 4.179 J K-1 mol-1, so my value for C would have made my calculated
molar enthalpy slightly too high. Note that the direction of this error is opposite
to the direction of the error in temperature change.
Mass (m)
In footnote 2, I stated that I assumed the density of 2M hydrochloric acid to be

10
the same as that of water. I then used this density to calculate a value for the
mass of substance being heated, which resulted in a systematic error. I could
have fixed this in one of two ways:
1. Use a reference value for the density of 2M HCl. The value I found was
1.030 g ml-1 at 25C [6], only slightly higher than the 1.000 g ml -1 I actually
used. This would have made my actual value slightly lower than the
reference value.
2. Instead of measuring the volume and finding a value for the density to
calculate mass, I could simply measure the mass of the acid. First, Id
measure the mass of the containing beaker or calorimeter, then tare the
scale before pouring in my roughly measured 30cm 3 of acid.
The second method is preferable for several reasons. Firstly, it avoids making
assumptions that lead to inaccuracies and deviations from the actual value.
Secondly, it uses fewer variables and calculations, leaving less possibility of
error. Thirdly, it involves a minimal number of steps where the acid is transferred
from one container into another, making the value for mass or volume more
accurate. Finally, the electronic balances used in my method are much more
precise (smaller increments, measures up to 3 decimal places) than measuring
cylinders (larger increments, leaves room for human measuring errors such as
parallax).

Random error
It is difficult to tell the extent of the random error from my experiment and my
calculations, because I only conducted two trials of each reaction (two data
points each), so it is difficult to determine how grouped the data is.
Furthermore, as I did not calculate separate molar enthalpy values for each of
my trials, it is even more difficult to determine exactly how large my random
error was. Thus, my methodology could have included the following changes to
reduce random error and increase precision:
1. More readings: conducting more trials of each reaction would reduce the
effect of random errors, anomalies, and outliers, making the data more
precise. Better still, I perform several trials and then eliminate the highest
and the lowest values before calculating an average, reducing the effect of
outliers. Theoretically, the more trials conducted the better, but
realistically, perhaps 4 trials is enough to eliminate anomalies.
2. Larger volumes of all reactants involved (scaled in proportion to account
for the limited amount of limiting reagent) would not reduce the absolute
error of each measurement. However, a larger measurement with the
same amount of absolute error makes for a much smaller percentage
error, making the propagated uncertainties in multiplication and division
smaller and thus making the data more closely grouped, reducing random
error and increasing precision.

11

Overall evaluation
My temperature change caused my final value for the molar enthalpy of the
reaction to be lowered significantly, while my specific heat capacity and mass
values caused the molar enthalpy value to increase and decrease slightly. Thus,
combining the magnitudes and directionalities of my systematic errors, my value
should have been lower than the reference value. However, it was actually
higher by 1.63%. I can assume that this discrepancy between expected and
experimental value was due to the random errors inherent in the apparatus and
myself.

12

Section D: Conclusion
I have conducted a given procedure to investigate Hess Law. Applying Hess Law
in my calculation of the enthalpy change on the thermal decomposition of
potassium hydrogen carbonate into potassium carbonate gave me +93.5 kJ mol 1
, a value that was only 1.63% off the reference value of +92 kJ mol -1. From the
data, I would conclude that Hess Law indeed holds true and allows us to predict
theoretical values from empirical values and vice versa.
However, in my evaluation, I examined my methodology and found evidence
both to show that the systematic errors led to a lower value, but also that the
random errors counteracted the directionality of the systematic errors and with
greater magnitude, making my final value higher than the reference value. As
such, while the data support a strong conclusion, I would argue that the evidence
I collected, analyzed, and presented is tenable at best somewhat reliable but
insufficient to support such a conclusion.

13

Section E: Bibliography
[1]
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Thermodynam
ic_Cycles/Hess%27s_Law
[2]
http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/matter-and-energy/specificheat.html
[3] https://www.google.com/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDEQFjAD&url=https%3A
%2F%2Fchemistryatdulwich.wikispaces.com%2Ffile%2Fview%2FTopic
%2B6%2BUsing%2BHess%2BLaw%2Bsodium%2Bhydrogen
%2Bcarbonate.doc&ei=4K07VemmGuS4mAWtlYHwBA&usg=AFQjCNH5YBgA81B1
RdhsnfE-pgXaIGZLOw&sig2=xbslV9BJBiygFvZvfIBJQ&bvm=bv.91665533,d.dGY&cad=rja
[4]
http://www.markedbyteachers.com/internationalbaccalaureate/chemistry/determination-of-potassium-hydrogen-carbonate-intopotassium-carbonate.html
[5]
http://www.laney.edu/wp/cheli-fossum/files/2011/08/14-Heats-of-Rxns.pdf
[6]
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/fluka/653799?lang=en&region=HK