Tests to Analyse and Classify the Plasticity, Particle Size and Engineering Properties of Soils
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
The University of Sydney *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2410
Subject
Chemistry
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
Pages
19
Uploaded by EarlMoon5843
Tests to Analyse and Classify the Plasticity, Particle Size and
Engineering Properties of Soils
CIVL2410 Soil Mechanics: Classification Lab Report
SID: 510460929
1.1 Abstract
This report describes the experiments regarding plasticity and particle size analysis,
specifically through the experiments of Cone Penetrometer, Atterberg Tests, and Sieving
and Hydrometer Tests. The aim of these experiments was to use experimental methods to
classify and identify the engineering properties of given soils. Through the examination
of the moisture contents present within the soil, and the examination of the particle sizes
for another sample, the soils were classified through the Unified Soils Classification
Systems (USCS). The liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index were identified for a
set of sample soils, whereas the grading curve was determined for another sample of soil.
By examining the grading curve, the soil sample which exhibited behaviours of sand,
displayed the composition of the typical grading curve of C: Well graded with some clay.
Examining the plasticity of another soil sample, which exhibited behaviour of clay, found
that through the discovery of its plastic and liquid limits, it was determined that the soil
was an inorganic clay with high plasticity. The liquid limit was on average 56.9 with an
accompanying plastic limit of 19.8 with an average plasticity index of 37.1. This was
used within the USCS to classify that the soil was an inorganic clay (CH).
2.1 Introduction
Soil is a particulate material with engineering properties that are difficult to control.
Classification is undertaken to understand the likely behaviours of specific soils. It is
important that engineers understand these behaviours to determine the limitations of the
soil which they must work with. Fine and coarse grained soils observe differences in the
ability to resist plastic deformation, as well as differing in strength and stiffness. These
differences in properties lead to different usability depending on a soils classification.
By undertaking experiments following the Australian Standard AS1289 Section 3, in
conjunction with Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), the plasticity and particle
size of a given soil core sample can be determined. A sieve and hydrometer experiments
were undertaken to determine the grading curve of the provided cohesionless soil.
Atterberg tests alongside a cone penetrometer test were performed on cohesive soils to
determine the plastic and liquid limits of the given soil. The aim of these experiments was
to classify the provided soil to gain an understanding of the engineering properties and
the practical usability of the soil.
3.1 Methodology
3.1.1 Plasticity: Liquid Limit - The “25 Blows” Method
To begin the experiment, measure eight little trays which will hold the soil samples.
These trays should be labelled and their weights should be recorded. For the plasticity
experiment, use three samples of soils which have been premixed with nominal water
which are close to the liquid limit. Choose one of the soil samples and place a little
sample inside of the liquid limit apparatus and level it out so that the height of soil is
level with the apparatus base. Using a standard grooving tool, create a groove within the
soil by scraping to the bottom of the bowl. Once the groove has been created within the
soil, rotate the handle of the apparatus twice per second, until the groove has closed up.
During this process, count the blows of the apparatus until the groove has closed. Record
the amount of blows and clean out the bowl. Repeat the same experiment with the same
sample until the amount of blows between two consecutive tests is not greater than one.
Use a small sample from the bowl and place it into a tray and weigh the tray with the soil.
Repeat this for each different soil sample and record the amount of blows (Appendix 1.1).
3.1.2 Plasticity: Liquid Limit - The Cone Penetrometer Method
Choose one of the soil samples and fill up a small container and level the top surface of
the soil. Place the container within the penetrometer and lower the cone so that it just
touches the surface of the soil. Set the dial gauge to zero, and release the cone for five
seconds, and then lock it. Record the final penetration value (Appendix 1.2) and use one
of the eight little trays and put in a small sample from the container. Reset the cone, and
repeat the experiment with the different soil samples.
3.1.3 Plasticity: Plastic Limit - The “Make-a-Snake” Method
Weigh a saucer which will be used for later calculations. Using a soil sample which has
been dried to near the plastic limit, roll 10
of the soil into a “slug” with a diameter
??
3
of approximately 5 mm. Continue rolling the “slug” until the diameter is 3 mm. If the soil
doesn’t crumble, create a ball with the rolled “slug” and repeat the process again. Once
the “slug” crumbles at 3 mm in diameter, flatten 1
of the soil and place it in the
??
3
saucer and weigh the soil and saucer. Place the saucer inside an oven which has been set
on medium heat and leave it in for thirty seconds and weigh the soil again. Change the
temperature to medium-low and place the saucer in the oven for twenty seconds and
weigh it and repeat the experiments until the weights on successive are at least (<1%
difference). Record the values (Appendix 1.3).
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
3.2.1 Particle Size Analysis: Sieving
Using a tub of sandy soil, weigh the soil within the tub and record the mass. Using a set
of clean sieves, measure the mass of each individual sieve within the set and record the
values. (Sieve sizing in Appendix 1.5). Assemble the sieves in order, and pour the soil
into the sieves and place the sieves into a shaking machine for three to four minutes.
Disassemble the sieves and weigh each tray with its captured soil. Set aside the bottom
sieve for the hydrometer test.
3.2.2 Particle Size Analysis: Hydrometer
Before the experiment, measure the mass of a hydrometer. Pour the soil from the bottom
of the sieve into a shaker and add approximately 150 ml of distilled water into the shaker.
Turn on the shaker for 5 minutes, and after it is finished, place soil into a graduated
cylinder. Make sure to clean out the shaker completely and pour as much of the soil into
the cylinder. Add water into the cylinder until it is filled to the 1000 ml mark. Cover the
top of the graduated cylinder and rotate it vertically to properly mix the soil with the
water. As the cylinder is undergoing the mixing, get ready to use the timer. Place the
cylinder down and immediately place the hydrometer and thermometer inside and start
the timer. At time intervals of 15 seconds, 30 seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 4 minutes and
8 minutes, observer and record the values (Appendix 1.6) for temperature and hydrometer
readings on the meniscus.
𝑅'
ℎ
4.1 Results
The following results from the experiments are shown below.
Number of Blows
Moisture Content
(%)
Sample
Preliminary
Final
1
21
22
54.5
2
40
41
53.6
3
41
42
62
Fig. 1: “25 Blows” Experiment Results and Calculated Moisture Content
Fig 1 demonstrates the results from the 25 blows experiment in which the highest
moisture content came from sample 3, which saw a significantly higher moisture content
as compared to sample 2 which had a similar number of blows.
Cone Penetration (mm)
Moisture
Content (%)
Sample
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Average
1
24
23.3
22
23.1
64.4
2
18.6
17.5
18.7
18.3
56.3
3
17.5
16.6
17.4
17.2
53.7
Fig. 2: Cone Penetration Experiment Results and Calculated Moisture Content
Fig 2 shows that the cone was able to penetrate deeper with samples with a higher
moisture content, demonstrating the plasticity of the soil.
Moisture Content (%)
Test
Microwave Method
Standard Method
1
21.5
27.5
2
18.1
17.3
Average:
22.4
Fig. 3: Moisture Content of PL Snake Method
Fig 3 shows the results obtained to find moisture content using the “Snake Method”. This
would then be used to determine the Plastic Limit of the soil. In comparison to the other
testing method, the moisture content is significantly lower. The average of the microwave
method values would be taken as the plastic limit (
AS 1289.3.2.1)
Sample
Water (g)
Dry Soil (g)
Moisture Content
(%)
LL 25 Blows 1
3.78
6.93
54.5
LL 25 Blows 2
2.74
5.11
53.6
LL 25 Blows 3
4.65
7.5
62
LL Cone 1
4.98
7.73
64.4
LL Cone 2
5.11
9.08
56.3
LL Cone 3
5.89
10.96
53.7
PL Snake 1
0.11
0.4
27.5
PL Snake 2
0.13
0.75
17.3
Fig 4: Calculated Moisture Content of all Experiments
Fig 4 highlights the moisture contents calculated for each experimental method. Cone
Penetration test 1 exhibited the largest moisture content, whereas the “Snake” sample 2
exhibited the lowest, displaying the significance of the reduction in moisture content
through friction.
The moisture content of each experiment were calculated as shown in Appendix 1.4
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
Fig 5: Liquid Limit Graphs of Cone Penetrometer and 25 Blows Method
Using “25 Blows”
Using Cone Penetrometer
LL
PL
𝐼
?
LL
PL
𝐼
?
59
19.8
39.2
54.8
19.8
35
Fig 6: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Experimental Methods
Fig 5 represents the graph of moisture content vs. the according values for each
experiment. For Cone Penetration, moisture content is plotted against cone penetration in
mm, whereas the 25 Blows Method is plotted against the number of blows.
The liquid limit values were calculated through the equation determined in Fig 5
(Appendix 1.7)
Using Appendix 1.11, this soil can be seen as an inorganic clay with high plasticity. This
clay, through Appendix 1.12, is seen to exhibit high toughness near its plastic limit, as
well as high to very high dry strength crushing characteristics. It also shows no dilatancy.
The liquid limit is tabulated in Fig 6 along with the plastic limit and plasticity index. The
plasticity index is calculated through
.
𝐼
?
= ?? − 𝑃?
Sieve Number
Mesh Size ‘D’
K = % Passing Through
1
2.36 mm
100
2
1.18 mm
93.24
3
600 μm
81.99
4
425 μm
67.60
5
300 μm
49.37
6
150 μm
27.46
7
75 μm
13.38
Bottom pan
<75 μm
—
Fig 7: Percentage of Total Soil Mass Passing Each Sieve
Elapsed Time t (min)
Diameter ‘D’ (μm)
K = (
) * 100
?
?
/?
???𝑎?
0.25 (15 secs)
86.88
11.60
0.5
64.85
10.64
1
47.90
8.71
2
36.34
6.78
4
28.19
2.44
8
20.82
0.02
16
15.24
0.02
Fig 8: Percentage Finer in Hydrometer
Assumptions regarding the calculation of K in Fig 8, are listed in appendix 1.5
Fig 9: Percentage Finer for Each Particle Size
Fig 7 and Fig 8 highlight the % finer for each diameter of particles, which are plotted in
Fig 9 to demonstrate the grading curve of the soil
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
5.1 Discussion
Initial observations regarding the plasticity experiment samples were that the soil
exhibited characteristics of clay. The moisture content provided within the soil ranged
between 53% to 65% which remained constant between the experimental methods of “25
Blows” and Cone Penetrometer. This is characteristic of clays which contain and retain
water well due to its fine particles. This isn’t the case for the “Snake” Method, in which
the soils experienced a reduction in moisture content through friction by the action of
rolling. The plastic limit of this soil was determined through the microwave method.
Since the soil samples used for the “Snake” Method were nearing its plastic limit, the
moisture content derived from these experiments is used as the plastic limit. By plotting
the moisture content vs. number of blows for the “25 Blows” test results, as well as
plotting moisture content vs. cone penetration for the penetrometer test, the liquid limits
can be derived. By adding a trendline to the graphs, the following equations in fig 5 are
used to interpolate the liquid limits which are then used to calculate the plasticity index
of the provided soils.
Examining Fig 6, the liquid limits for clay with high plasticity range between 60-85, with
plasticity index ranging within 35-55 (Wagner, J., 2013). Analysing the results found, the
values corresponding to the “25 Blows” method fit closer within these ranges as opposed
to the cone penetrometer results. By using the USCS, and examining the plasticity chart
(Appendix 1.11), it can be deduced that the provided soil falls within the CH section of
the graph. These soils are classified as inorganic clays of high plasticity, with
characteristics of high toughness near the plastic limit, high to very high dry strength
crushing characteristics and no existing dilatancy.
Through particle size analysis, a grade curve for the soil was constructed within fig 9.
This curve illustrates the composition of the different particle sizes present within the soil
mass. It divides the soil into its different particle sizes and the total percentage of the total
mass is of each particle size. This curve found is comparable to a curve graded as C: well
graded with some clay. This shows that this soil is suitable for construction due to the
large range of particle sizes present within the soil. Well graded soils undergo compaction
easily while minimising the voids present within the mass. The classification of this soil
is important due to the understanding of how these soils can be used in relation to
foundations. This well graded soil can be regarded as sandy-silt as its predominant
particle sizes are mostly less than 0.1 mm in particle size but greater than 0.01, which
highlights the range of medium to coarse silt.
6.1 Conclusion
The soils in this experiment have been classified and concluded to be inorganic clays
with high plasticity, denoted with a group symbol of CH. This soil has a liquid limit of
59%, a plastic limit of 19.8% and a plasticity index of 39.2%. This clay experiences a
high moisture content due to the characteristic of clay which has the ability to hold water
well. The other soil examined had been classified as a sandy-silt through the construction
of its grade curves. It has been deduced as a well-graded soil with clay which is suitable
for construction purposes. With the knowledge of classification, engineers have to ability
to deduce whether a soil present within a site is suitable for construction, thus avoiding
any future occurrences through the examination and classification of the soils.
7.1 References
Dhir, R.k. (2017).
Sustainable Construction Materials: Copper Slag
. United
Kingdom:Elsevier.
Wagner, J.-F. (2013).
Developments in Clay Science (Vol. 9).
Netherlands:Elsevier.
Akbulut, S. (2011).
Effect of particle size and shape on the grain-size distribution using
image analysis.
Turkey:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING.
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
8.1 Appendix
Appendix 8.1.1 - Original Recorded Table Values
Appendix 1.1 - 25 Blows Method Recorded Values
Appendix 1.2 - Cone Penetration Test Recorded Values
Appendix 1.3 - Snake Method Recorded Values
The average of the microwave methods was taken to be the plastic limit of the soil, later
used in appendix 1.7.
Appendix 1.4 - Calculation of Moisture Content
Calculations were done through the steps highlighted within the column headings.
Appendix 1.5 - Recorded Sieve Values
was assumed as
and
was determined using appendix 1.8, based on
𝐶
?
2. 5 × 10
−4
𝐶
𝑇
the temperature of 18.7. F1, F2, and F3 values were all determined through appendix 1.8
to 1.10.
Mass in suspension was calculated through the formula below:
Factor a is taken as 0.98, due to soil particle density being taken as 2.75
Appendix 1.6 - Recorded Hydrometer Values
Appendix 1.7 - Calculated Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index for
Experimental Methods
The following equations were derived through fig 5 in which cone penetrometer test was
1.7757x + 23.449 and 25 blows had an equation of y = 0.1854x + 50.21. To calculate
𝑦 =
the liquid limit for the 25 blows method, the value of 25 was to be substituted into its
unique equation to determine the moisture content. The corresponding moisture content
to 25 blows was taken as the liquid limit. For the cone penetrometer test, the liquid limit
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
was found by using the equation with x taken as 20 mm, in which the corresponding y
value would be taken as the liquid limit.
Plasticity index was calculated through appendix 1.3, and thus plasticity index is
calculated using Ip = LL - PL.
Appendix 1.8 -
values based on Temperature Readings
𝐶
𝑇
Appendix 1.9 -
values depending on Rh1 values
𝐹
1
Appendix 1.10 -
values based on density and temperature and time
𝐹
2
𝑎?? 𝐹
3
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
Appendix 1.11 - Plasticity Chart
Appendix 1.12 - Unified Soil Classification Chart
Related Questions
One method for quantitative determination of the concentration of constituents in a sample analyzed by gas chromatography is the area normalization method. In this method, complete elution of all of the sample constituents is necessary. The area of each peak is then measured and corrected for differences in detector response to the different eluates. This correction is accomplished by dividing the area by an empirically determined correction factor. The concentration of the analyte is found from the ratio of its corrected area to the total corrected area of all peaks. For a chromatogram containing three peaks, the relative areas were found to be 16.4, 45.2, and 30.2 in the order of increasing retention time. Calculate the percentage of each compound if the relative detector responses were 0.60, 0.78, and 0.88, respectively
arrow_forward
O
Relative intensity
100
50
15
mva 20
41
40
57
60
68
81
80
85
100
OH
1943.
120
arrow_forward
What is the actual or real-life application of precipitation gravimetric analysis? Include the specific methodology.
arrow_forward
Explain the difference between
a. nucleation and particle growth
b. occlusion and mixed-crystal formation
c. precipitation and coprecipitation
arrow_forward
One method for the quantitative determination of the concentration of constituents in a sample analyzed by gas chromatography is area normalization. Here, complete elution of all the sample constituents is necessary. The area of each peak is then measured and corrected for differences in detector response to the different eluates. This correction involves dividing the area by an empirically determined correction factor. The concentration of the analyte is found from the ratio of its corrected area to the total corrected area of all peaks. For a chromatogram containing three peaks, the relative areas were found to be 16.4, 45.2 and 30.2, in order of increasing retention time. Calculate the percentage of each compound if the relative detector responses were 0.60, 0.78 and 0.88, respectively.
arrow_forward
You are given three unknown samples stored in screw-cappedcontainers and was told to analyse them. You noted that Container A iscloudy and have some particles that are staying near the bottom of thecontainer. Container B is translucent while Container C is transparent. If thecontents of Container A can be separated by simple decantation,what isthe particle size that BEST describes its composition?i. <1 nmii. 1 nmiii. 1 nm-100 nmiv. >1000 nm
arrow_forward
Could you give me some explanation, the correct answer is at the bottom of the question.
arrow_forward
Readion Cone, Nay S0, Cine HCI|Ab. 1 | Rabe
I1.3085840
65.56796607
Cone, Nagd, 03
ATme (5)
0.10 M
·30M 04563164 |0.028 F09 13
,15 M 12267196|0.01870913
30M |1.5360817 0.300349
O.10 M
3
0.050 M
5. 11431671
4
0.025 M
0:30M
1.3686611
1,358380874
1.007568
3. What is the overall order of the reaction? Write the complete rate law for this reaction.
arrow_forward
Which one of the following statements is not correct about MSDS?
A It provides single reference for all information about hazardous Chemicals.
It is based on the recommendation of the United Nation's Committee of Experts on Globally Harmonized
B
System of Classification and Labelling of Chemical;
It does not contain information on physical and chemical properties of the material, potential hazards of the
material and how to work safely with these materials.
Material Safety Data sheet forms the important elements of effective Chemical Hazards Communication
D
System.
arrow_forward
Example: A GC-FID analysis was conducted on a soil sample containing pollutant X. The following separations were conducted: t (minutes) peak area Injection 1 21.1 ppm Toluene internal Standard 10.11 36,242 33.4 ppm 14.82 45,997 Injection 2 21.1 ppm Toluene Internal Standard 10.05 38,774 unknown concentration X 14.77 39,115 What is the concentration of X in the sample?
arrow_forward
What is the actual or real-life application of electrogravimetric analysis? Include the specific methodology.
arrow_forward
Chemistry
An aquifer contaminated with petroleum is found to have the following component concentrations at a particular site:
benzene158 ppm
toluene124 ppm
ethylbenzene91 ppm
xylene45 ppm
n-heptadecane161 ppm
pristane 84 ppm
Provide an estimate for the age of the spill at this site using (a) BTEX ratio and (b) nC17:Pr ratio. Show your calculations and use units throughout. Give proper s.f. for the answer.
arrow_forward
Given the following data for a screen analysis, calculate the mass fraction, average particle
size, cumulative mass fraction and relative frequency. Total sample size is 1721 gm.
Mesh Size Mass (kg)
(mm)
Average
Particle
Cumulative Relative
Frequency
Sieve No.
Mass
Fraction
mass
Size
Fraction
5.66
0.548
2
4.00
0.269
3
2.83
0.561
2.00
0.343
arrow_forward
2
(1) When performing chemical measurements, replicate experiments are often needed. This is to
mitigate
(Systematic or Random) error.
(2) A CHEM 215 student performed 5 measurements of the wt% of SO4²- of a solid power sample. The
results are 8.75%, 8.85%, 8.89%, 8.71%, 8.64%. The standard deviation is 0.10%. What is the confidence
interval for this student's experiment at 95% confidence level. The t values for 95% confidence for
degree of freedom from 1 to 5 are 12.71, 4.303, 3.182, 2.776, 2.571, respectively. Show your work!
arrow_forward
An article in Solid State Technology, "Orthogonal Design of Process Optimization and Its Application to Plasma Etching" by G.Z. Yin and D.W. Jillie (May, 1987) describes an experiment to determine the effect of C2F6 flow rate on the uniformity of the etch on a silicon wafer used in integrated circuit manufacturing. Data for two flow rates are as follows:
C2F6
Uniformity Observation
(SCCM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
125
2.7
4.6
2.6
3.0
3.2
3.8
200
4.6
3.4
2.9
3.5
4.1
5.1
C2F6
Uniformity Observation
(SCCM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
125
2.7
4.6
2.6
3.0
3.2
3.8
200
4.6
3.4
2.9
3.5
4.1
5.1
(a) Does the C2F6 flow rate affect average etch uniformity? Use = 0.05.
(b) What is the P-value for the test in part (a)?
arrow_forward
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
Recommended textbooks for you
Principles of Instrumental Analysis
Chemistry
ISBN:9781305577213
Author:Douglas A. Skoog, F. James Holler, Stanley R. Crouch
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Related Questions
- One method for quantitative determination of the concentration of constituents in a sample analyzed by gas chromatography is the area normalization method. In this method, complete elution of all of the sample constituents is necessary. The area of each peak is then measured and corrected for differences in detector response to the different eluates. This correction is accomplished by dividing the area by an empirically determined correction factor. The concentration of the analyte is found from the ratio of its corrected area to the total corrected area of all peaks. For a chromatogram containing three peaks, the relative areas were found to be 16.4, 45.2, and 30.2 in the order of increasing retention time. Calculate the percentage of each compound if the relative detector responses were 0.60, 0.78, and 0.88, respectivelyarrow_forwardO Relative intensity 100 50 15 mva 20 41 40 57 60 68 81 80 85 100 OH 1943. 120arrow_forwardWhat is the actual or real-life application of precipitation gravimetric analysis? Include the specific methodology.arrow_forward
- Explain the difference between a. nucleation and particle growth b. occlusion and mixed-crystal formation c. precipitation and coprecipitationarrow_forwardOne method for the quantitative determination of the concentration of constituents in a sample analyzed by gas chromatography is area normalization. Here, complete elution of all the sample constituents is necessary. The area of each peak is then measured and corrected for differences in detector response to the different eluates. This correction involves dividing the area by an empirically determined correction factor. The concentration of the analyte is found from the ratio of its corrected area to the total corrected area of all peaks. For a chromatogram containing three peaks, the relative areas were found to be 16.4, 45.2 and 30.2, in order of increasing retention time. Calculate the percentage of each compound if the relative detector responses were 0.60, 0.78 and 0.88, respectively.arrow_forwardYou are given three unknown samples stored in screw-cappedcontainers and was told to analyse them. You noted that Container A iscloudy and have some particles that are staying near the bottom of thecontainer. Container B is translucent while Container C is transparent. If thecontents of Container A can be separated by simple decantation,what isthe particle size that BEST describes its composition?i. <1 nmii. 1 nmiii. 1 nm-100 nmiv. >1000 nmarrow_forward
- Could you give me some explanation, the correct answer is at the bottom of the question.arrow_forwardReadion Cone, Nay S0, Cine HCI|Ab. 1 | Rabe I1.3085840 65.56796607 Cone, Nagd, 03 ATme (5) 0.10 M ·30M 04563164 |0.028 F09 13 ,15 M 12267196|0.01870913 30M |1.5360817 0.300349 O.10 M 3 0.050 M 5. 11431671 4 0.025 M 0:30M 1.3686611 1,358380874 1.007568 3. What is the overall order of the reaction? Write the complete rate law for this reaction.arrow_forwardWhich one of the following statements is not correct about MSDS? A It provides single reference for all information about hazardous Chemicals. It is based on the recommendation of the United Nation's Committee of Experts on Globally Harmonized B System of Classification and Labelling of Chemical; It does not contain information on physical and chemical properties of the material, potential hazards of the material and how to work safely with these materials. Material Safety Data sheet forms the important elements of effective Chemical Hazards Communication D System.arrow_forward
- Example: A GC-FID analysis was conducted on a soil sample containing pollutant X. The following separations were conducted: t (minutes) peak area Injection 1 21.1 ppm Toluene internal Standard 10.11 36,242 33.4 ppm 14.82 45,997 Injection 2 21.1 ppm Toluene Internal Standard 10.05 38,774 unknown concentration X 14.77 39,115 What is the concentration of X in the sample?arrow_forwardWhat is the actual or real-life application of electrogravimetric analysis? Include the specific methodology.arrow_forwardChemistry An aquifer contaminated with petroleum is found to have the following component concentrations at a particular site: benzene158 ppm toluene124 ppm ethylbenzene91 ppm xylene45 ppm n-heptadecane161 ppm pristane 84 ppm Provide an estimate for the age of the spill at this site using (a) BTEX ratio and (b) nC17:Pr ratio. Show your calculations and use units throughout. Give proper s.f. for the answer.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
- Principles of Instrumental AnalysisChemistryISBN:9781305577213Author:Douglas A. Skoog, F. James Holler, Stanley R. CrouchPublisher:Cengage Learning
Principles of Instrumental Analysis
Chemistry
ISBN:9781305577213
Author:Douglas A. Skoog, F. James Holler, Stanley R. Crouch
Publisher:Cengage Learning