Chemistry Experiment 18 Report

Analysis
Qualitative Analysis

There was a gap between the flame of the spirit burner and the wire gauze on top of the tripod stand,
which was holding the beaker of water. As a result, it was obvious that heat was being lost to the
surroundings.

It was also noticed that some of the water in the beaker was evaporating. This means that the system
is an open system and that it is losing matter as well. Hence, these systematic errors will result in the
experimental value being less than the literature value in general.

Quantitative Analysis

Tables of Raw Data for measurements of masses and temperature

Alcohol Lengt Mr Mass of Mass of Mass of spirit Mass of spirit

h of beaker / g beaker and burner before burner after
carbon (±0.001) water / g burning / g (±0.001) burning / g (±0.001)
chain (±0.001)
Methano 1 32.04 129.555 219.419 257.132 253.562
l
Ethanol 2 46.07 127.018 219.729 261.262 255.610
Propanol 3 60.09 127.350 215.879 275.423 273.180
Butanol 4 74.12 126.973 220.896 274.470 272.546
Pentanol 5 88.15 127.992 217.425 247.914 246.627
Table 1.2.1 Raw data for measurements of masses

Alcohol Initial temperature of water / ℃ (±0.5) Final temperature of water / ℃

(±0.5)
Methanol 31.0 54.0
Ethanol 30.0 68.0
Propanol 32.0 60.0
Butanol 32.0 60.0
Pentanol 32.0 53.0
Table 1.2.2 Raw data for measurements of temperature
Table of processed data for determination of enthalpy of overall reaction

Alcohol Mass of % ∆T / ℃ % Enthalpy of %

water / g uncertainty (±1.0) uncertainty reaction / J uncertainty
(±0.002) of mass of of ∆T of enthalpy
water of reaction
Methanol 89.864 0.0022 23.0 4 -8640 4
Ethanol 92.711 0.0022 38.0 3 -14726 3
Propanol 88.529 0.0023 28.0 4 -10361 4
Butanol 93.923 0.0021 28.0 4 -10993 4
Pentanol 89.433 0.0022 21.0 5 -7850 5
Table 1.2.3 Processed data for determination of enthalpy of overall reaction
Sample calculation for Table 1.2.3 using data for Methanol:
 Mass of water =( 219.419± 0.001 ) g−( 129.555 ±0.001 ) g= ( 89.864 ±0.002 ) g
0.002
% uncertainty of mass of water= ×100=0.0022256 % ≈ 0.0022 %
89.864
∆ T =Final temperature of water−Initial temperature of water =(54.0 ± 0.5) ℃−(31.0 ±0.5) ℃=(23.0± 1.0)℃
1.0
% uncertainty of ∆ T = ×100=4.347826 % ≈ 4 %
23.0
Enthalpy of reaction=−( m water ×c water × ∆ T ) =−( 89.864 × 4.18 ×23 )=−8639.525 J ≈−8640 J

% uncertainty of enthalpy of reaction=4 % +0.0022 %=4.0022 % ≈ 4 %

Table of processed data for determination of enthalpy of combustion

Alcohol Mass of Moles of % uncertainty ∆Hc / % Absolute

alcohol alcohol of moles of kJ mol-1 uncertainty uncertainty
burnt / g burnt / g alcohol burnt of ∆Hc of ∆Hc
(±0.002)
Methanol 3.570 0.1114 0.056 -78 4 3
Ethanol 5.652 0.1227 0.035 -120 3 3
Propanol 2.243 0.0373 0.089 -280 4 10
Butanol 1.925 0.0260 0.104 -420 4 20
Pentanol 1.287 0.0146 0.155 -540 5 30
Table 1.2.4 Processed data for determination of enthalpy of overall reaction

Sample calculations for Table 1.2.4 using data for Methanol:

Mass of alcohol burnt=( 257.132 ±0.001 ) g−( 253.562 ± 0.001 ) g=( 3.570± 0.002 ) g
mass of alcohol burnt 3.570
No .of moles of alcohol burnt= = =0.1114232 mol ≈ 0.1114 mol
Mr of alcohol 32.04
0.002
% uncertainty of moles of alcohol burnt=% uncertainty of mass of alcohol burnt= × 100=0.0560224 %
3.570
Enthaply of reaction −8640
∆ H c= = =−77558.35 J mol−1=−77.55835 kJ mol−1 ≈−78 kJ mol−1
No . of moles of alcohol burnt 0.1114
% uncertainty of ∆ H c =4 %+ 0.056 %=4.056 % ≈ 4 %

Absolute uncertainty of ∆ H c =4 % ×|−78|=3.12≈ 3

∆ H c = (−78± 3 ) kJ mol−1

Table of propagation of percentage error

Alcohol ∆Hc / kJ mol-1 % uncertainty of ∆Hc % error of ∆Hc

Methanol -78 4 89
Ethanol -120 3 91
Propanol -280 4 86
Butanol -420 4 84
Pentanol -540 5 84
Table 1.2.5 Table of propagation of percentage error
Sample calculations for Table 1.2.5 using data for Methanol:
The literature values for the standard enthalpy of combustion of the alcohols is taken from the Upper
Canada District School Board (UCDSB, n.d.).

−726−(−78)
% error= ×100=89.256 % ≈ 89 %
−726
The results from Table 1.2.5 has shown that the experimental value is consistently much less than the
literature value. However, the percentage error is consistently around 85%, suggesting that there is a
major systematic error in this experiment.
Graphical Analysis of enthalpies of combustion of the respective alcohols
By plotting the line graph of the enthalpy of combustion of the alcohol against the length of the
carbon-chain (i.e. number of carbon atoms in molecule), we would be able to visualise and better
comprehend the effect that the length of carbon-chain in an alcohol has on the enthalpy of
combustion.

Graph of enthalpy of combustion against length of carbon

chain of alcohol
Enthalpy of combustion / kJ mol-1

0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
-100

-200

-300

-400

-500

-600
Length of carbon chain in alcohol

Fig 1.2 Graph of enthalpy of combustion against length of carbon chain of alcohol
As seen from Fig 1.2, a longer carbon-chain in the alcohol that is being burnt in the combustion
reaction will release more energy per mole. As a result, pentanol releases the most energy per mole,
followed by butanol, propanol, ethanol and finally methanol.

Evaluation
As mentioned previously, since energy was lost to the surroundings, the experimental value of the
enthalpy of combustion was lowered significantly, since this had resulted in the temperature increase
being reflected to be lower, a significant systematic error. One way to alleviate this error would be to
conduct the experiment in a less humid environment in order to prevent the loss of energy to the
surroundings.

A relatively small volume of water had also evaporated from the beaker, resulting in a systematic
error whereby the enthalpy of combustion was raised very slightly. This could have been prevented by
using a conical flask instead of a beaker as it would have resulted in the evaporated water vapour
condensing on the inner surfaces and falling back to the base in a more effective manner.
Lastly, the main reason for the massive but consistent systematic error throughout this experiment
was probably due to the dilution of the alcohols. The combustion of alcohols is a highly exothermic
reaction. Hence, a lot of energy would be released in the event that a pure alcohol is used. Since this
would be extremely hazardous in a school laboratory, the alcohols were probably diluted in order to
make this experiment safer for students to execute without burning or injuring themselves.

Conclusion
The results of this experiment validate the claim that longer carbon-chain alcohols release more
energy when combusted. However, there were many sources of errors, mainly systematic that made
this experiment inaccurate. Nonetheless, after accounting for the reasons behind these sources of
errors and how they contributed to the high percentage error in this experiment, it is safe to say that
this experiment successfully showed us the trend between the length of carbon-chain in alcohols and
their combustibility.