group report
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Michigan State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
171L
Subject
Chemistry
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
11
Uploaded by SargentFieldMagpie28
Section 003 Group 5 Talyah Beard, Nathan Allen, Kavya Tumbalam 1
Project Description:
The Briggs Environmental Lab tasked our team to determine which scientific method
would be most appropriate for the quantification of divalent manganese ions. They want to do
this so they can add testing for divalent manganese as an offering to clients. In this Lab we
studied three different ways of determining the concentration of
manganese (Mn²
). The first
⁺
experiment was Gravimetric Analysis. This includes heating the water to a temperature where the
water boils or evaporates more quickly to separate the solute from the water. By this process we
were able to calculate how much material was present using weight. We found that MnSO4 has
an average concentration of 1.86M ± 0.12. The second experiment was Spectroscopy. This
consists of shining light through the solution and determining its brightness and the wavelengths
of light that are either emitted or transmitted. UV/Vis technology measures the solute's property
to identify how much is present in a solution. With this, we found the concentration to be around
1.87 mol/L. The third and last experiment was Titration. In this experiment we
determined when
the chemical reaction had received an equal amount of each reactant, then precisely added one
reactant to another to see the concentration of a compound dissolved in solution through a color
change. Using this method we found the concentration of magnesium sulfate to be approximately
0.1710 M.
Claim:
The Briggs Environmental Lab's manganese II
(Mn²
) concentration is most effectively
⁺
measured using the titration method.This should be utilized by the company to measure
manganese II ions since, in comparison to the alternatives, it is the least expensive, has a wider
concentration range, and still generates accurate and precise results.
Summary:
Titration is the most appropriate method for testing Manganese II and calculating the
concentration. Titration experiments use multiple trials in order to confirm results and findings.
In doing these multiple trials, the cost remains the lowest compared to the other two methods for
calculating the concentration. The main factor for the price is the Analytical Balance, which is
used in a number of experiments. The solutions themselves are low priced for the amount that is
needed to carry out the experiment. For example, the pH buffer - 10 solution is $1.50. The
titration experiment is also more time effective. The trials are all the same just adding different
amounts. Instead of having to heat the solutions and wait for results, we are able to add the
solutions at the same time. In regards to the safety for the procedure, gloves and goggles must be
worn at all times when working with the solutions. The Sulfuric acid is corrosive and could
possibly damage materials. If the Triethanolamine enters the eyes, you just rinse them out
thoroughly for 10 minutes. Titration experiments allow for a smaller range of concentrations to
be shown all including four decimal points. These concentrations allow for more accurate and
precise readings. For example, the concentrations of our group included 0.1710 M, 0.1664 M,
and 0.1602 M. Some errors that could occur in this experiment include getting the mass and
concentration incorrect in the beginning, incorrect sig figs, misreading values on flasks, and
adding too much of the
Eriochrome Black T indicator. All of these factors are caused by human
error and may play a role on the final concentration received and overall output of the trial. If
this occurs for a single trial the data may be skewed and more trials can become necessary.
Calculations for this method include finding the net volume, converting, and stoichiometry.
Section 003 Group 5 Talyah Beard, Nathan Allen, Kavya Tumbalam 2
Gravimetric Analysis is an analytical method that uses evaporation of moisture to
determine the mass of a particular solute in a solution. It is likely the second option we would
use for determining the concentration of MnSO4. This process is fairly decent at determining the
mass of a substance. It involves drying a substance repeatedly to remove excess moisture and
determine the mass of a dried solution. You then take the mass of the dried solution and use
stoichiometry with the balanced chemical equation for the reaction, and use the formula weight
for the compound to determine Moles of solution. In the example given to us in the first week of
module four we were given a table with the results of a gravimetric analysis experiment. The
concentration range was also quite large, it was 1.86 M, plus or minus .12. Overall, the method
was accurate but not precise. In addition some of the data in the table is unreasonable, for
example in the table dish 9 has a negative value. This caused some of our data to be skewed,
majorly the standard deviation which is .005801 with dish 9 included and .000311 without. There
were a few discrepancies as well, one of which being that if you do not dry your clay dish
enough prior to beginning the experiment it can be problematic for your final results. Also when
we were “deciding” which numbers to use we had to pick 3 within +-.005 of each other and that
caused some confusion and might have also had a negative impact on our results.
The cost for
the experiment was also in the middle of the pack with an estimated total of $5,728.23. Resulting
in the use of gravimetric analysis as a second alternative method. This is because, in addition to
cost, Gravimetric methods are usually more accurate when measuring higher masses, making
them more appropriate for analytes with higher concentrations. They also are fairly sensitive and
one minor mishap in preparation or in the experiment can lead to incorrect results, majorly not
drying, or precipitation occurring into the dish.
In comparison to the other two methods, the spectrophotometric method should only be
used as a last resort for the Briggs Experimental Lab because it is more expensive, more suitable
for other aspects, and is less accurate and precise for measuring the concentration of MnSO4.
Following the experiment, we found the average concentration to be 1.87. Unlike the other
concentration for the other two studies, the values of 1.68, 1.99, and 1.93 when taken
individually do not truly fall within a close range to one another. This value, however, is not as
precise and accurate as the concentration for the other two methods. Due to the fact that the data
from the table showed a broad range of numbers and the consistency of the measurements didn't
match the data when it was repeated, the Spectroscopy experiment didn't seem to meet the
"expected" accuracy or precision. Not to mention the cost of this experiment is approximately
$7,312.91.Not only are the other experiments relatively cheaper but they also can give a better
expected accuracy and precision. This experiment was also very time consuming compared to
the other methods.
The limitations of this method are yet another reason it should only be utilized as a last
option. One limitation is the sensitivity. A spectrophotometer's capacity to detect and measure
tiny shifts in the absorbance or intensity of light at a particular wavelength depends on its
sensitivity. Without it, factors like accuracy, precision, and concentration range may all be
compromised. Calibration is a second limitation. For some analytes, it may be difficult to find
valid reference materials, which is necessary for accurate calibration in spectroscopy. The
foundation provided by calibration allows the observed spectroscopic data to be translated into
meaningful concentration values. We may have poured too much or too little of some of the
components we were given during the sample preparation process, which could account for some
discrepant data and somewhat alter the results.
All in all, the EDTA titration is a preferred option for the Briggs Experimental Lab's
Section 003 Group 5 Talyah Beard, Nathan Allen, Kavya Tumbalam 3
manganese ion quantification because it is the least expensive, sensitive, and quicker. As a result,
it is generally more trustworthy especially when it comes to accuracy and precision. Even though
spectroscopy is an effective analytical method with numerous uses, it may not always be the
ideal option for quantifying divalent manganese ions (Mn2+), particularly in cases where the
concentrations are low. Even at relatively large concentrations and with careful attention to
reducing sources of error, gravimetric analysis can still be a successful method for quantifying
manganese ions but not more effective than titration.
Appendix A- Price for the materials of each lab experiment
Titration Experiment Cost
Titration materials
cost
EDTA (300g)
$46.25
Manganese Sulfate (MnSO4) (125g)
$123.25
Ascorbic Acid
$19.09
Distilled Water
$13.00
Triethanolamine (3 mL)
$4.55
H2SO4 solution
$61.50
pH-10 buffer solution
$1.50
Eriochrome Black T indicator
$0.50
Weigh boat
$2.70
Analytical Balance
$4,997.00
Volumetric Flask (100 mL)
$47.25
Erlenmeyer Flask (250 mL)
$30.25
Buret
$20.15
Ring stand for buret
$120.75
TOTAL
$5487.74
Gravimetric Analysis Experiment Cost
Gravimetric Analysis Materials
Cost
2 Clay Triangles
3.7
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Section 003 Group 5 Talyah Beard, Nathan Allen, Kavya Tumbalam 4
Metal Tongs
2.87
Clay Evaporating Dish
68
Hot Plate
266.39
Bulb
16.97
Volumetric Flask (100mL)
8.32
Volumetric Pipette
78.8
2 Beakers (500mL)
10.8
Striker
2.79
Ring stand
22.99
Bunsen Burner
119.5
Analytical Balance
4,997.00
Distilled water (1 Gal)
13
Manganese Sulfate (MnSO4) (125g)
117.1
TOTAL:
$5,728.23
Spectroscopy Experiment Cost
Spectroscopy materials
cost
Hot Plate
$567.34
Analytical balance
$5,175.00
Volumetric flask 100mL
$347.30
Volumetric flask 50mL
$204.60
Volumetric pipette
$78.80
potassium permanganate
$72.30
Distilled water (1 Gal)
$13.00
Ice
$2.98
Beaker (50 mL)
$2.48
Section 003 Group 5 Talyah Beard, Nathan Allen, Kavya Tumbalam 5
Silver nitrate
$78.71
Manganese sulfate
$47.44
Plastic bin
$8.99
Heat resistant gloves
$22.99
Spectrophotometer
$604.29
Weigh boats
$53.25
TOTAL
$7,312.91
Appendix B- Data calculation and the
titration
method
Preparation of Standard EDTA Solution
Mass of empty weigh
boat (g)
0.6739
0.6739
0.6739
Mass of weigh boat
and EDTA (g)
0.3832
0.3724
0.3601
Mass of EDTA
0.37224
0.37224
0.37224
Volume of solution
(mL)
10
10
10
molar mass of EDTA
(g/mol)
372.24
Concentration of
EDTA (M)
0.01
AMOUNTS ADDED TO EACH ERLENMEYER
FLASK
q1
10.00
mL
0.01 M
EDTA
Solution
5 mL pH
10 buffer
1 mL
triethanol
amine
5 mL 5%
ascorbic
acid
20 mL
deionized
water
2 drops eriochrome
black T indicator
Erlenmeyer flask 1
10
5 mL pH
1
5
20
2 drops eriochrome
Section 003 Group 5 Talyah Beard, Nathan Allen, Kavya Tumbalam 6
10 buffer
black T indicator
Erlenmeyer flask 2
10
5 mL pH
10 buffer
1
5
20
2 drops eriochrome
black T indicator
Erlenmeyer flask 3
10
5 mL pH
10 buffer
1
5
20
2 drops eriochrome
black T indicator
Titration of Mn2+ with EDTA
Volume of MnSO4
solution (mL)
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Initial Volume of
MnSO4 (mL)
20
26.02
32.03
Final Volume
MnSO4 (mL)
26.02
32.03
38.07
Net Volume (mL)
6.02
6.01
6.04
Concentration of
MnSO4 solution
0.1710
M
0.1664 M
0.1602 M
calculate cells in
green
measure cells in
yellow
Appendix C- Data calculation and the
gravimetric analysis
method
Dish 1
Dish 2
Dish 3
Dish 4
Dish 5
Dish 6
Dish 7
Dish 8
Dish 9
Dish 10
Mass of empty dried evaporation dish (g)
Trial 1
27.2185
30.586
25.6126
31.5034
30.167
26.4605 113.592 27.2779 31.756
112.3335
Trial 2
27.2137
30.5806 25.6073
31.501
30.1664 26.4579 113.589 27.2778 35.7608
112.3405
Trial 3
27.2164
30.5747 25.6091
31.5057
30.1677 26.4614 113.609 27.2783 35.7609
112.345
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Section 003 Group 5 Talyah Beard, Nathan Allen, Kavya Tumbalam 7
Volume of
MnSO4 solution added (mL)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Mass of dried evaporation dish with MnSO
4
(g)
Trial 1
28.898
32.3376 27.3465
33.1345
31.9201 28.2663
115.445
9
29.0475 33.342
114.117
Trial 2
28.8825
32.3036 27.3265
33.1388
31.903
28.1414 115.393 29.0113 33.349
114.02
Trial 3
28.884
32.2991 27.2967
33.1275
31.8941 28.1437 115.279 29.0239 33.3469
114.008
Trial 4
33.1296
28.1387 115.271
113.976
Trial 5
28.1281 115.227
113.973
Trial 6
28.1089 115.226
Trial 7
28.1011
Average of
mass of
empty dried
evaporation
dish
27.2162
30.5804
3
25.60967
31.50337
30.1670
3
26.4599
3
113.596
7
27.278
34.4259
112.3397
Average
Mass of
dried
evaporation
dish with
MnSO4 (g)
28.88817
32.3134
3
27.32323
33.13197
31.9057
3
28.1127
115.241
3
29.0275
7
33.34597 113.9857
Mass of
MnSO4
1.671967
1.733
1.713567
1.6286
1.7387
1.65276
7
1.64466
7
1.74956
7
-1.07993 1.646
Moles of
MnSO4
0.011073
0.01147
7
0.011348
0.010785
0.01151
4
0.01094
5
0.01089
2
0.01158
6
-0.00715 0.010901
Section 003 Group 5 Talyah Beard, Nathan Allen, Kavya Tumbalam 8
Average
Moles of
MnSO4
0.009337
Molarity of
MnSo4
1.867392
Standard
Deviation
0.005801
Appendix C- Data calculation and the Spectroscopy method
Diluting the KMnO4 Solution
Concentration of stock
KMnO4 =
6.10E-03
Dilution
Size of Volumetric
Flask (mL)
Volume of
stock KMnO4
added (mL)
Dilution factor
Concentrati
on of
Prepared
KMnO4
(mol/L)
(M2)
Absorbance
of solution
(unitless)
1
100
1
0.01
Column1
Column2
2
50
1
0.02
0.0000625
0.11
3
100
4
0.04
0.000125
0.32
4
100
10
0.1
0.00025
0.52
5
100
3
0.03
0.000625
1.19
0.0001875
0.41
Absorbance and Concentration of
Samples
Absorbance of solution
(unitless)
Calculated
concentration
of solution
Calculated
concentration
of stock
Calculated
concentrati
on of the
Section 003 Group 5 Talyah Beard, Nathan Allen, Kavya Tumbalam 9
(mol/L)
solution
(mol/L)
original
solution
(mol/L)
X
0.33
1.68E-04
1.68E-02
1.68
Y
0.39
1.99E-04
1.99E-02
1.99
Z
0.38
1.93E-04
1.93E-02
1.93
average of
concentration
1.87
wavelength for X,Y,Z
522.864
Appendix D- Calculations
Spectroscopy
Diluting the KMnO4 Solution:
Concentration of Prepared KMnO4 (mol/L) (M2)
-
0.00625*(1/100)= 0.0000625
-
0.00625*(1/50)= 0.000125
-
0.00625*(4/100)= 0.00025
-
0.00625*(10/100)= 0.0000625
-
0.00625*(3/100)= 0.0001875
Absorbance and Concentration of
Samples:
Calculated concentration of solution (mol/L)
-
0.33/1964.3= 1.68*10^(-4)
-
0.39/1964.3=1.99*10^(-4)
-
0.38/1964.3= 1.93*10^(-4)
Absorbance and Concentration of
Samples:
Calculated concentration of solution (mol/L)
-
1.68*10^(-4)*100= 1.68*10^(-2)
-
1.99*10^(-4)*100= 1.99*10^(-2)
-
1.93*10^(-4)*100= 1.93*10^(-2)
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Section 003 Group 5 Talyah Beard, Nathan Allen, Kavya Tumbalam 10
Absorbance and Concentration of
Samples:
Calculated concentration of the original solution
(mol/L)
-
1.68*10^(-2)*100= 1.68
-
1.99*10^(-2)*100= 1.99
-
1.93*10^(-2)*100= 1.93
Gravimetric Analysis
To calculate Mass of MnSO4 (average mass of dried evporated dish with MnSO4(g))-(mass of
dried evaporated dish(g))
Dish 1
Dish 2
Dish 3
Dish 4
Dish 5
Dish 6
Dish 7
Dish 8
Dish 9
Dish10
28.88816
667
32.31343333 27.32323333 33.13196667 31.90573333 28.1127
115.2413333 29.02756667 33.34596667 113.9856667
-
27.2162
30.58043333 25.60966667 31.50336667 30.16703333 26.45993333 113.5966667 27.278
34.4259
112.3396667
=
1.671966
667
1.733
1.713566667 1.6286
1.7387
1.652766667 1.644666667 1.749566667
-
1.079933333 1.646
To Find Moles MnSO4 (Mass MnSO4(g)/(Formula Weight MnSO4(g))
Dish 1
Dish 2
Dish 3
Dish 4
Dish 5
Dish 6
Dish 7
Dish 8
Dish 9
Dish10
1.671966
667
1.733
1.713566667 1.6286
1.7387
1.652766667 1.644666667 1.749566667
-
1.079933333 1.646
/
151.001
=
0.011072
554
0.011476745 0.011348048 0.010785359 0.011514493 0.010945402 0.01089176
0.011586457
-
0.007151829 0.01090059
To Find Average Moles (Add all 10 mole numbers)/(10)
Dish 1
Dish 2
Dish 3
Dish 4
Dish 5
Dish 6
Dish 7
Dish 8
Dish 9
Dish10
0.011072
554
0.011476745 0.011348048 0.010785359 0.011514493 0.010945402 0.01089176
0.011586457
-
0.007151829 0.01090059
/
Section 003 Group 5 Talyah Beard, Nathan Allen, Kavya Tumbalam 11
10.0
=
0.009336958
To Find Molarity (Average Moles MnSO4)/(Amount of MnSO4 added to solution(L))
(0.009336958)/(.005)=1.867391607
Titration
Converting from mL to L
Trial 1 : net volume: 6.02 —---> 0.00602
Trial 2: net volume 6.01 —-----> 0.00601
Trial 3: net volume 6.04—-------> 0.00604
1)
M = 0.3832 * 1 mol / 372.24 g * 1 mol / 1 mol = 0.1710 M
2)
M =0.3724 * 1 mol / 377.24 g * 1 mol / 1 mol = 0.1664 M
3)
M = 0.3601 * 1 mol / 377.24 g * 1 mol / 1 mol = 0.1602 M
Related Documents
Related Questions
Los elementos del grupo 7 (VIIb Mn, Tc, Re) con configuración d1 forman oxoaniones MnO42- que son isomorfos e isoelectrónicos al ion sulfato SO42-. Estos oxoaniones tienen geometría tetraédrica. ¿Es esto correcto?
arrow_forward
1.) Beer's Law can be used to find the concentration of a solution by measuring its absorbance. The law is given by
?=???A=ϵbC
Where A is the absorbance, ?ϵ is the molar absorptivity, b is the pathlength of the light (the width of the sample cell), and C is the concentration of the solution.
A student is analyzing a solution of a metal, and finds that the absorbance of the solution is 0.532. If ?=187 L⋅g−1⋅cm−1ϵ=187 L⋅g−1⋅cm−1 and ?=1 cmb=1 cm , what is the concentration of the metal in solution (in g/L)?
* 352
* 2.84×10−32.84×10−3
* 2.84×10−22.84×10−2
* 96.8
2.) How many significant figures does the number 0.00358 have?
Group of answer choices
a.1
b.2
c.3
d.5
3.) A 10.00 mL solution of a certain food dye has a concentration of 1.47 g /L. What is the total mass of food dye in the solution? Report your answer with the correct number of significant figures.
arrow_forward
4.
To analyze the Cu(NO3)2 unknown solution in Part 3, your group constructed a plot of absorbance
vs. concentration, commonly called a calibration curve or standard curve. The absorbance at the top of the
peak (i.e., at the wavelength of maximum absorbance) was chosen for these measurements. What is the
potential advantage of using the wavelength of maximum absorbance, rather than some other wavelength?
Can you think of a situation in which you might want to choose a different wavelength? (Hint: Scientists often
do not have the luxurý of analyzing pure substances dissolved in distilled water!)
arrow_forward
What are the advantages and disadvantages of using quantum dots for fluorescence imaging?
arrow_forward
Explain the meaning of the following terms and phrases:
1.1 Precision of a set of results.
1.2 Noise around an analytical signal.
1.3 A shelf-life of an aqueous trace metal standard
arrow_forward
Following is a table of data showing the absorbance of a solution of cobalt(II) ion at different concentrations at a wavelength of 510 nm.
.
Absorbance Concentration (M)
0.450 0.044
0.691 0.072
0.894 0.096
1.210 0.125
You are given a solution of unknown concentration containing cobalt(II) ions, which gives you an absorbance of 0.67.
Calculate the unknown conc., using data from the table given above.
(A = kC). Use the average ‘k’ value from the above set of data.
arrow_forward
Compute the ionization potential for five-times ionized (Mg11+) and also compute the wavelength of the transition from n=2 to n=1 for that species
arrow_forward
Absorbance measurements were taken on a series of Fe standards complexed with 1,10-phenanthroline. A plot of absorbance vs. concentration yielded a linear curve with the equation y=1.008e03x + 0.0395 (where y is the absorbance and x represents the Fe concentration in moles/L). Using this information calculate the Fe concentration (in ppm) in a 40.0-mL aliquot of ground water that produced an absorbance of 0.580.
arrow_forward
Question 4
arrow_forward
A student combines Fe(NO3)3 solution and KSCN solution to produce a solution in which the initial concentrations of Fe3+(aq) and SCN–(aq) are both 7.9 × 10–3 M. The absorbance of this solution is measured, and the equilibrium FeSCN2+(aq) concentration is found to be 1.8 × 10–3 M.
Fe3+ + SCN- <=> FeSCN2+
Determine the equilibrium constant for the above reaction
arrow_forward
From experimental data, a plot of absorbance (in arbitrary units, a.u.) at a wavelength of 630 nm (on the y-axis) was plotted against the concentration (in mg/L) of Cu2+ (on the x-axis) in known solutions and a linear relationship was found with an equation of y = 7.22x+0.05. If an unknown solution had an absorbance of 1.20 a.u. at a wavelength of 630 nm, what is its concentration of Cu2+?
arrow_forward
Why are sodium and lithium typically analyzed by atomic emission while transition metals such as lead and chromium are analyzed by atomic absorption?
arrow_forward
A medical lab technician creates a standard solutions of percent hemoglobin in whole blood. The technician measures the absorbance of each solution at 520 nm and creates a standard curve of the absorbance versus percent hemoglobin in whole blood and finds the linear equation below, with an R2 of 0.9985.
y = 0.0523 x + 0.072
A patient sample has an absorbance of 0.162. Using the standard curve data, calculate the percent hemoglobin in the patient sample
arrow_forward
Part C: Copper. A 0.275 M solution of Cu^2+ gives an absorbance reading of 0.788 at 620 nm. Another solution gives an absorbance reading of 0.340 under the same conditions. What is the concentration of the second solution in moles of Cu^2+/L and grams of Cu^2+/L
arrow_forward
1. What factors are included in the Beer's law expression for determining how much light passes
through a liquid solution?
2. How would your test results be affected if you left fingerprints on the sides of the cuvette in line with
the light path of the spectrometer (or colorimeter)?
3. The chemical sunset yellow, also known as yellow #6, looks yellow. What color(s) must be
absorbed by this chemical?
RED
YELLOW
GREEN
WHITE
CYAN
MAGENTA
RGB System
(Transmitted light)
Additive color system
colored light
Rendered with Corel Draw 9
RGB pollete
40 M
iscalled
BLUE-VIOLET
4. Sunset yellow has an extinction coefficient of 20,000 M-1 cm-1 at a lambda max of 470 nm. What is
the concentration of a solution that has an absorbance of 0.893?
arrow_forward
Solutions that contain the FeSCN2+ ion are blood red (you will see this at the end of the second quarter of lab). Consider the regions of the visible spectrum in which the compound should absorb light and prepare a rough sketch of absorbance vs. wavelength for each solution. Label λ max on the graph. (Is this question asking for the graph of my data at the end)
arrow_forward
Analyzing a mixture of salts with differing cations and/or anions can be far more complicated than analyzing a single simple salt. Interference between cations or between anions can greatly increase the complexity of the results. Using sound chemical knowledge, suppose your simple salt is a white granular solid. At what specific step in the cation procedure might you begin your analysis? Explain your reasoning.
The steps are:
Chemistry of Group 2 Cation, Cu2+
Chemistry of Group 3 Cations, Fe3+, Ni2+, Mn2+
Chemistry of Group 4 Cations, Ba2+, Ca2+
arrow_forward
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
Recommended textbooks for you

Chemistry & Chemical Reactivity
Chemistry
ISBN:9781133949640
Author:John C. Kotz, Paul M. Treichel, John Townsend, David Treichel
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Related Questions
- Los elementos del grupo 7 (VIIb Mn, Tc, Re) con configuración d1 forman oxoaniones MnO42- que son isomorfos e isoelectrónicos al ion sulfato SO42-. Estos oxoaniones tienen geometría tetraédrica. ¿Es esto correcto?arrow_forward1.) Beer's Law can be used to find the concentration of a solution by measuring its absorbance. The law is given by ?=???A=ϵbC Where A is the absorbance, ?ϵ is the molar absorptivity, b is the pathlength of the light (the width of the sample cell), and C is the concentration of the solution. A student is analyzing a solution of a metal, and finds that the absorbance of the solution is 0.532. If ?=187 L⋅g−1⋅cm−1ϵ=187 L⋅g−1⋅cm−1 and ?=1 cmb=1 cm , what is the concentration of the metal in solution (in g/L)? * 352 * 2.84×10−32.84×10−3 * 2.84×10−22.84×10−2 * 96.8 2.) How many significant figures does the number 0.00358 have? Group of answer choices a.1 b.2 c.3 d.5 3.) A 10.00 mL solution of a certain food dye has a concentration of 1.47 g /L. What is the total mass of food dye in the solution? Report your answer with the correct number of significant figures.arrow_forward4. To analyze the Cu(NO3)2 unknown solution in Part 3, your group constructed a plot of absorbance vs. concentration, commonly called a calibration curve or standard curve. The absorbance at the top of the peak (i.e., at the wavelength of maximum absorbance) was chosen for these measurements. What is the potential advantage of using the wavelength of maximum absorbance, rather than some other wavelength? Can you think of a situation in which you might want to choose a different wavelength? (Hint: Scientists often do not have the luxurý of analyzing pure substances dissolved in distilled water!)arrow_forward
- What are the advantages and disadvantages of using quantum dots for fluorescence imaging?arrow_forwardExplain the meaning of the following terms and phrases: 1.1 Precision of a set of results. 1.2 Noise around an analytical signal. 1.3 A shelf-life of an aqueous trace metal standardarrow_forwardFollowing is a table of data showing the absorbance of a solution of cobalt(II) ion at different concentrations at a wavelength of 510 nm. . Absorbance Concentration (M) 0.450 0.044 0.691 0.072 0.894 0.096 1.210 0.125 You are given a solution of unknown concentration containing cobalt(II) ions, which gives you an absorbance of 0.67. Calculate the unknown conc., using data from the table given above. (A = kC). Use the average ‘k’ value from the above set of data.arrow_forward
- Compute the ionization potential for five-times ionized (Mg11+) and also compute the wavelength of the transition from n=2 to n=1 for that speciesarrow_forwardAbsorbance measurements were taken on a series of Fe standards complexed with 1,10-phenanthroline. A plot of absorbance vs. concentration yielded a linear curve with the equation y=1.008e03x + 0.0395 (where y is the absorbance and x represents the Fe concentration in moles/L). Using this information calculate the Fe concentration (in ppm) in a 40.0-mL aliquot of ground water that produced an absorbance of 0.580.arrow_forwardQuestion 4arrow_forward
- A student combines Fe(NO3)3 solution and KSCN solution to produce a solution in which the initial concentrations of Fe3+(aq) and SCN–(aq) are both 7.9 × 10–3 M. The absorbance of this solution is measured, and the equilibrium FeSCN2+(aq) concentration is found to be 1.8 × 10–3 M. Fe3+ + SCN- <=> FeSCN2+ Determine the equilibrium constant for the above reactionarrow_forwardFrom experimental data, a plot of absorbance (in arbitrary units, a.u.) at a wavelength of 630 nm (on the y-axis) was plotted against the concentration (in mg/L) of Cu2+ (on the x-axis) in known solutions and a linear relationship was found with an equation of y = 7.22x+0.05. If an unknown solution had an absorbance of 1.20 a.u. at a wavelength of 630 nm, what is its concentration of Cu2+?arrow_forwardWhy are sodium and lithium typically analyzed by atomic emission while transition metals such as lead and chromium are analyzed by atomic absorption?arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
- Chemistry & Chemical ReactivityChemistryISBN:9781133949640Author:John C. Kotz, Paul M. Treichel, John Townsend, David TreichelPublisher:Cengage Learning

Chemistry & Chemical Reactivity
Chemistry
ISBN:9781133949640
Author:John C. Kotz, Paul M. Treichel, John Townsend, David Treichel
Publisher:Cengage Learning