The percentage of nickel in nickel ( calculation:

) sulphate (NiSO .6H O), is given by the following

1 mol: NiSO . 6H O = 154.8 = 262.8g

= 58.7 + 32.1 + (16x4) + 6 ( (2x1) + 16) + 108

Therefore: % of Nickel in NISO . 6H O = 58.7 / 262.8 x 100 =22.3%

Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2

Procedure:
The next stage of the experiment was the practical procedure stage (as shown in figure 1.3), which was carried out in the following manner:

1. I carefully weighed out 2.6g of hydrated nickel sulphate using a weighing bottle 2. Next I added the nickel salt to a 100cm beaker and added 25cm of deionised water, and then reweighed the bottle to determine if any weight should be deducted for calculation purposes (a negligible weight was left in the bottle). 3. Next I stirred the solution until the solid was fully dissolved, then transferred the solution to a 100cm standard flask. 4. For the next step in the procedure I rinsed the beaker with deionised water, and repeated several times until the solution was nearly at the graduation mark, then using a dropper I made it up to the graduation mark, inverting the solution several times to ensure a proper mix. 5. After rinsing the burette with some EDTA (10 mol l), and filling it with EDTA till it was full, I then proceeded to also rinse the pipette with a little nickel salt. 6. I then pipette 20cm of the nickel salt solution into a conical flask, and diluted the solution to 100cm with deionised water 7. Next I added 0.05g of murexide indicator to the diluted salt along with 10cm of ammonia chloride solution 8. I then proceeded to titrate in 15cm of the EDTA, and then add 10cm of 0.88 agueous ammonia. 9. I continued the titration till I observed a colour change (to a blue-violet colour). This is the equivalence point. 10. I repeated my titration to achieve a concordant result, and fortunately my second titration proved to produce the same result as the first.

Figure 1.3

The next part of my procedure was calculation of the following:

The percentage by mass of nickel in the hydrated nickel ( ) sulphate:

2.6g NiSO . 6H O in 100cm H O and titrated 20cm portions with 0.1 mol EDTA.

19.7cm of EDTA was used in the titration

Number of moles = CxV = 0.1 x 197/100 = 0.00197mol EDTA

So there is Therefore there are

0.00197mol Ni in 20cm 5 x 0.00197mol Ni in 100cm = 0.00985 mol Ni in 2.6g

R.A.M of Ni = 58.7g

mass of Ni in 2.6g of nickel sulphate = 58.7 x 0.00985 = 0.578g

Therefore the percentage of Ni in nickel sulphate = 0.578/2.6 x 100 = 22.4%

Errors in experiment:

Balance =

0.01g

= 0.01g + 0.01g = 0.02g

= 0.02/2.60 x 100 = 0.77% error

Flask =

0.2cm

= 0.2/ 100 x 100 = 0.2% error

Pipette = 0.06cm = 0.06/20 x 100 = 0.3% error

Burette = 0.1cm = 0.1/19.7 x 100 = 0.51% error

EDTA = 0.1%

Total Error in experiment: 1.88%

Absolute uncertainty = 1.97/ 100 x 22.4 = 0.438%

Safety:

Wear gloves and goggles at all times during the experiment Nickel sulphate is harmful to swallow and inhale, irritates eyes and skin (can cause dermatitis) EDTA is toxic but only in large doses Ammonia is toxic if inhaled and if swallowed. Ammonia burns skins and does internal damage if ingested

Results

Titration 1 (cm )

Titration 2 (cm )

Average Titration (cm )

19.7

19.7

19.7

From our experimental data we have discovered that our value for the percentage of nickel in hydrated nickel sulphate was very nearly the theoretical value given, thus indicating a successful experiment, and consequently we did not have to redo the entire experiment. Also using the absolute uncertainty that we previously calculated we were within the experimental error range proving the experiment to be a success. From our experiment we managed to titrate in 19.7cm of EDTA before we reached the equivalence point, and we achieved this result concordantly after two attempts.

Experimental percentage value of Ni in nickel sulphate = 22.4%

Theoretical percentage value of Ni in nickel sulphate = 22.3%

FINAL ANSWER/RESULT = 22.4%

0.438%

Discussion

The overall pattern of the results obtained by the experiment indicate that the experiment was a successful one, with my experimental value for the percentage of nickel being within the given, allowed experimental error. However the experiment was not exactly the quoted value and this was due to a number of errors contributing to the experiment that may have caused slight variations in the value calculated from our results. These errors ranged in both their significance, and in their form, with simple immeasurable errors with marginal significance such as a few granules of nickel sulphate, to the much more decisive 0.51% error in the balance reading. One factor contributing to the errors made in the experiment was the equipment used. The class B provides a various amount of experimental error as shown

Piece of equipment Capacity Tolerance % Error Total % error

Balance N/A 0.01g 0.77%

Flask 100cm 0.2cm 0.2%

Pipette 20cm 0.06cm 0.3%

Burette 50cm 0.1cm 0.51% 1.88%

The errors in this table are known as random errors and arise as a result of the manufactured equipment, and thus cannot be eliminated from the experiment and have to be taken into account. One other such error is found in the substance used, EDTA has a percentage error of 0.1%, and this also contributes to the error in the experiment and can be eliminated, and must be taken into account.

The experiment was also a success, because the absolute uncertainty of the calculation is of a sufficient value (0.438%) to cover the 0.1% that our experiment was out. There are various other reasons, excluding the equipment tolerance, which can account for the differences in the two figures. During the titration we could carry out the procedure wrong by stopping the titration either too early or too late. This could be titrating slightly past the colour change or slightly too early, and this is and example of a systematic error. This could cause the titration results to be consistently wrong, thus being a way of decreasing the accuracy of the results. Another example of a systematic error could be in the lack of purity in the reagents. If an old bottle of EDTA was used or if and old sample of Nickel ( ) sulphate was used then this would also alter the values given, and consequently or calculations. These errors are extremely hard to rectify, but can be lessened by the experiment being repeated several more times, then taking an average, this would be one way of improving the experiment. Using class A equipment and using very fresh samples of the chemicals could also improve the experiment. The method used to calculate the percentage of nickel was an accurate way of calculating because titration is done precisely and little by little, but once again could have been improved by the usage of scales that were smaller in range and bigger in spacing. Also the balance used in this experiment was accurate but again a much more accurate balance that was more sensitive could have improved the result. Also the use of murexide indicator in the experiment was a good idea, because in order for the EDTA titration to work (i.e. for the EDTA to bind with the Ni ions) the indicator has to bond with less force to the EDTA than the metal ions in order for the combining of the metal ions onto the EDTA complex to successfully take place. Since murexide indicator binds weakly with EDTA complex then it is a very good indicator to use. Also so the fact that it allows us to observe a very noticeable colour change also shows its relevance as a good indicator for this experiment.