Hess Law Lab

Aim: To determine the enthalpy change for the decomposition of sodium

hydrogen carbonate into sodium carbonate.
Introduction
In this experiment, Hess Law will be used to determine the enthalpy change for the
decomposition of sodium hydrogen carbonate into sodium carbonate. This will be
done by conducting two experiments (shown below).
Experiment 1: Na
2
CO
3
+ 2HCl ! 2NaCl + CO
2
+ H
2
O
Experiment 2: NaHCO
3
+ HCl ! NaCl + CO
2
+ H
2
O
From the information gathered from these experiments, the enthalpy change of each
of the experiments above can be determined. By manipulating these two equations
(shown above) to form the target equation (shown below) of the decomposition of
sodium hydrogen carbonate, this thus allows for the determination of the enthalpy
change as specied in the aim.
Target Equation: 2NaHCO
3
(s) ! CO
2
(g) + H
2
O(g) + Na
2
CO
3
(s)
Before determining the experimental value, the literature value of the decomposition
of sodium hydrogen carbonate has to be calculated.
Calculation:
Equation required: !H (products) - !H (reactants) = !H (reaction)
a) [!H(CO
2
) + !H(H
2
O) + !H(Na
2
CO
3
)] - [!H(Na
2
HCO
3
)]
b) (-393.5 + -285.8 + -1131.0) kJ/mol - 2(-950.8 kJ/mol)
c) -1810.3 kJ/mol - (-1901.6 kJ/mol)
d) +91.3 kJ/mol (Lit.Value)
Literature Value of the Enthalpy Change (!H) = +91.3 kJ/mol
Chemistry Avinash Bharwaney
1
!H (reactants)
!H(Na
2
HCO
3
) = -950.8 kJ/mol
= 2(-950.8 kJ/mol)
= -1901.6 kJ/mol
"H(products)
!H(CO
2
) = -393.5 kJ/mol
!H(H
2
O) = -285.8 kJ/mol
!H(Na
2
CO
3
) = -1131.0 kJ/mol
Uncertainties of the Apparatus
Table 1: Uncertainties of the Apparatus
Apparatus Uncertainty
Electronic Balance 0.005g
Measuring Cylinder (50ml) 1ml
Thermometer 0.1C
Note that not all apparatus used in the experiment is stated in the table above. The
purpose of providing the information above is solely to indicate where the
uncertainties for the measurements and calculations (shown in the Data Collection
and Data Processing stages) is derived from.
Data Collection
Note that trials 1-3 refer to the trials conducted for Experiment 1 and trials A-C refer
to the trials conducted for Experiment 2.
i. Experiment 1: Na
2
CO
3
+ 2HCl ! 2NaCl + CO
2
+ H
2
O
Background: Trials 1-3 consist of 2.00 grams 0.005 grams of sodium carbonate
(Na
2
CO
3
), as well as 50 ml 1 ml of of 2M HCl. Note that the 50 ml of acid is
assumed to be equal 50 grams of acid (this is assumed because the density and
specic heat capacity of HCl is similar to water and 1ml of water is equal to 1g). The
duration of each trial has been kept constant and so limited to 1 minute.
Table 2: Table of Temperature Values (Initial and Final) of Trials 1-3
Trial Temperature (C) Temperature (C) Temperature (C) Trial
Uncertainty: 0.1 Uncertainty: 0.1 Uncertainty: 0.2
Trial
Initial Temperature Final Temperature Change in Temperature !T
1 23.0 24.9 (+)1.9
2 23.0 25.1 (+)2.1
3 23.1 25.2 (+)2.2
Chemistry Avinash Bharwaney
2
Table 3: Qualitative Observations of Trials 1-3
Qualitative Observations
Immediate hissing sound when the reactants came in contact with each other. Bubbles also started
to form, indicating a chemical reaction was taking place and that a gas was being formed as a by-
product. Furthermore, the temperature of the styrofoam cup (in which the reaction was taking
place in) increased as we felt the cup getting hotter. Indication of an exothermic reaction taking
place.
ii. Experiment 2: NaHCO
3
+ HCl ! NaCl + CO
2
+ H
2
O
Background: Trials A-C consist of 2.00 grams 0.005 grams of sodium hydrogen
carbonate (NaHCO
3
), as well as 50 ml 1ml of of 2M HCl. Note that the 50 ml of
acid is assumed to be equal 50 grams of acid (this is assumed because the density and
specic heat capacity of HCl is similar to water). The duration of each trial has been
kept constant and so limited to 1 minute.
Table 4: Table of Temperature Values (Initial and Final) of Trials A-C
Trial Temperature (C) Temperature (C) Temperature (C) Trial
Uncertainty: 0.1 Uncertainty: 0.1 Uncertainty: 0.2
Trial
Initial Temperature Final Temperature Change in Temperature !T
A 23.1 20.5 (-)2.6
B 23.0 20.5 (-)2.5
C 22.3 20.9 (-)1.4
Table 5: Qualitative Observations of Trials A-C
Qualitative Observations
Immediate hissing sound when the reactants came in contact with each other. Bubbles also started
to form, indicating a chemical reaction was taking place and that a gas was being formed as a by-
product. Furthermore, the temperature of the styrofoam cup (in which the reaction was taking
place in) increased as we felt the cup getting cooler. Indication of an endothermic reaction taking
place.
Chemistry Avinash Bharwaney
3
Data Processing
i. Experiment 1: Na
2
CO
3
+ 2HCl ! 2NaCl + CO
2
+ H
2
O
a) Calculate moles of 2.00g of Sodium Carbonate (Na
2
CO
3
)
Molar Mass of Sodium Carbonate:
2(22.99 g/mol) + 12.011 g/mol + 3(15.999 g/mol) = 105.988 g/mol
Moles of Sodium Carbonate:
2.00g 105.988 g/mol = 0.0189 mol of Na2CO3
Uncertainty:
i. Absolute Uncertainty = 2.00g 0.005g
ii. Percentage Uncertainty = 0.005/2 = 0.0025 x 100 = 0.25%
iii. Total Uncertainty = 0.0189 mol 0.25% = 0.0189 mol 0.0000472 mol
b) Calculate the percentage uncertainty of the 2M HCl
Uncertainty:
i. Absolute Uncertainty = 50ml HCl 1ml
ii. Percentage Uncertainty = 1/50 = 0.02 x 100 = 2%
iii. Conversion from milliliters to grams = 50ml 2% ! 50g 2%
c) Calculate the average temperature change (!T) [Table 4]
Average Temperature Change (!T):
(1.9C) + (2.1C) + (2.2C) = 6.2C
6.2C 3 = 2.066666667C = +2.1C 0.2C
Percentage Uncertainty:
i. Absolute Uncertainty = +2.1C 0.2C
ii. Percentage Uncertainty = 0.2/2.1 = 0.095238 x 100 = 9%
iii. Final Percentage Uncertainty = +2.1 9%
d) Calculate the energy (q) of Experiment 1 using q = mc!T
Key:
q = Energy (J)
m = 50 grams of HCl 2%
c = 4.19 J/g*C (assumption that HCl has the same density as water and therefore the same Specic
Heat Capacity). There is no uncertainty for this value.
!T = +2.1C 9%
Chemistry Avinash Bharwaney
4
q = mc!T Calculation
q = (50)(4.19)(2.1)
= 439.95 J
Percentage Uncertainty:
2% + 9% = 11%
Percentage Uncertainty = 439.95 J 11%
Total Uncertainty:
i. Percentage Uncertainty = 439.95 J 11%
ii. 11% of 439.95 J = 48.3945 J
iii. Total Uncertainty = 439.95 J 48.3945 J
iv. Total Uncertainty (in kJ) = 0.43995 kJ 0.0483945 kJ = 0.44 kJ 0.048 kJ
e) Calculate the enthalpy change (!H) of Experiment 1 using !H = -q/mol
Finding -q:
q = +0.43995 kJ 11% x -1 = -0.43995 kJ 11%
Enthalpy (kJ/mol):
-0.43995 kJ/0.0189 mol = -23.2778 kJ/mol
Uncertainty:
i. Percentage Uncertainty = ( 11%) + ( 0.25%) = 11.25%
ii. 11.25% of -23.2778 kJ/mol = 2.61875 kJ/mol
iii. Total Uncertainty = -23.3 kJ/mol 2.62 kJ/mol
Na
2
CO
3
+ 2HCl ! 2NaCl + CO
2
+ H
2
O !H = -23.3 kJ/mol 2.62 kJ/mol
Chemistry Avinash Bharwaney
5
ii. Experiment 2: NaHCO
3
+ HCl ! NaCl + CO
2
+ H
2
O
a) Calculate moles of 2.00g of Sodium Carbonate (NaHCO
3
)
Molar Mass of Sodium Hydrogen Carbonate:
22.990 g/mol + 1.007g/mol + 12.011 g/mol + 3(15.999 g/mol) = 84.005 g/mol
Moles of Sodium Hydrogen Carbonate:
2.00g 84.005 g/mol = 0.0238 mol of NaHCO3
Uncertainty:
i. Absolute Uncertainty = 2.00g 0.005g
ii. Percentage Uncertainty = 0.005/2 = 0.0025 x 100 = 0.25%
iii. Total Uncertainty = 0.0238 mol 0.25% = 0.0238 mol 0.0000595 mol
b) Calculate the percentage uncertainty of the 2M HCl
Uncertainty:
i. Absolute Uncertainty = 50ml HCl 1ml
ii. Percentage Uncertainty = 1.0/50 = 0.02 x 100 = 2%
iii. Conversion from milliliters to grams = 50ml 2% ! 50g 2%
c) Calculate the average temperature change (!T) [Table 2]
Average Temperature Change (!T):
(-1.4C) + (-2.5C) + (-2.6C) = -6.5C
-6.5C 3 = -2.1666C = -2.2C
Percentage Uncertainty:
i. Absolute Uncertainty = -2.2C 0.2C
ii. Percentage Uncertainty = 0.2/0.2/2.2 = 0.090909 x 100 = 9%
iii. Percentage Uncertainty = -2.2 9%
d) Calculate the energy (q) of Experiment 1 using q = mc!T
Key:
q = Energy (J)
m = 50 grams of HCl 2%
c = 4.19 J/g*C (assumption that HCl has the same density as water and therefore the same Specic
Heat Capacity). There is no uncertainty for this value.
!T = -2.2 9%
q = mc!T Calculation
q = (50)(4.19)(-2.2)
= -460.9 J
Chemistry Avinash Bharwaney
6
Percentage Uncertainty:
2% + 9% = 11%
Percentage Uncertainty = -460.9 J 11%
Total Uncertainty:
i. Percentage Uncertainty = -460.9 J 11%
ii. 11% of -460.9 J = 50.699 J
iii. Total Uncertainty = -460.9 J J 50.699 J
iv. Total Uncertainty (in kJ) = -0.4609 kJ 0.050699 kJ = -0.46 kJ 0.051 kJ
e) Calculate the enthalpy change (!H) of Experiment 1 using !H = -q/mol
Finding -q:
q = -0.4609 kJ 11% x -1 = +0.4609 kJ 11%
Enthalpy (kJ/mol):
+0.4609 kJ/0.0238 mol = +19.3655 kJ/mol
Uncertainty:
i. Percentage Uncertainty = ( 11%) + ( 0.25%) = 11.25%
ii. 11.25% of +19.3655 kJ/mol = 2.17862 kJ/mol
iii. Total Uncertainty = +19.4 kJ/mol 2.18 kJ/mol
NaHCO
3
+ HCl ! NaCl + CO
2
+ H
2
O !H = +19.4 kJ/mol 2.18 kJ/mol
Chemistry Avinash Bharwaney
7
iii. Hess Law Calculation
Equations:
1. Na
2
CO
3
+ 2HCl ! 2NaCl + CO
2
+ H
2
O !H = -23.3 kJ/mol 2.62 kJ/mol
2. NaHCO
3
+ HCl ! NaCl + CO
2
+ H
2
O !H = 19.4 kJ/mol 2.18 kJ/mol
Methodology:
i. Multiply the second equation by 2 = +19.4 kJ/mol x 2 = +38.8 kJ/mol. This is because the target
equation has 2NaHCO
3
.
Calculation:
= 2(NaHCO
3
+ HCl ! NaCl + CO
2
+ H
2
O)
= 2NaHCO
3
+ 2HCl ! 2NaCl + 2CO
2
+ 2H
2
O
Uncertainty:
= ( 2.18) x 2
= 4.36 kJ/mol
ii. Reverse the rst equation. When you reverse the equation, note that the "H is multiplied by -1.
Calculation:
= Na
2
CO
3
+ 2HCl ! 2NaCl + CO
2
+ H
2
O "H = -23.3 kJ/mol x -1
= 2NaCl + CO
2
+ H
2
O ! Na
2
CO
3
+ 2HCl "H = +23.3 kJ/mol
iii. Cancel out these two equations to form the target equation. Calculate the enthalpy values in the
process.

2NaCl + CO
2
+ H
2
O ! Na
2
CO
3
+ 2HCl "H = +23.3 kJ/mol
2NaHCO
3
+ 2HCl ! 2NaCl + 2CO
2
+ 2H
2
O "H = +38.8 kJ/mol
2NaCl + CO
2
+ H
2
O ! Na
2
CO
3
+ 2HCl "H = +23.3 kJ/mol
2NaHCO
3
+ 2HCl ! 2NaCl + 2CO
2
+ 2H
2
O "H = +38.8 kJ/mol
= 2NaHCO
3
! Na
2
CO
3
+ CO
2
+ H
2
O
= (+23.3 kJ/mol) + (+38.8 kJ/mol) = +62.1 kJ/mol
Since were dealing with addiction, we simply add the absolute uncertainties.
( 4.36) + ( 2.62) kJ/mol = 6.98 kJ/mol
Target Equation: 2NaHCO
3
! Na
2
CO
3
+ CO
2
+ H
2
O !H = +62.1 kJ/mol 6.98 kJ/mol
Chemistry Avinash Bharwaney
8
Final Answer (!H): !H = +62.1 kJ/mol 7 kJ/mol
iv. Percentage Discrepancy (% difference)
The literature value calculated was +91.3 kJ/mol however after processing the data from our
experiment, we received an experimental enthalpy value of +62.1 kJ/mol, a number considerably
smaller in relation to the original literature value. This could be because of the heat lost due to the
poor insulation of the styrofoam cup.
Lit. Value = +91.3 kJ/mol
Experimental Value = +62.1 kJ/mol
Calculation:
(Experimental Value - Lit. Value)/Lit. Value x 100 = % discrepancy
= (+62.1 kJ/mol) - (+91.3 kJ/mol) = -29.2 kJ/mol
= -29.2 kJ/mol/91.3 kJ/mol = -0.3198
= -0.3198 x 100 = -31.98%
= -32.0%
Chemistry Avinash Bharwaney
9
Conclusion and Evaluation
Restating the Process:
In this investigation, two reactions (Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 respectively)
were carried out to determine the enthalpy change ($H) of the decomposition of
sodium hydrogen carbonate. This was done by rstly calculating the enthalpy change
($H) of each reaction and then using Hess Law to manipulate the data to form the
target equation: 2NaHCO
3
! Na
2
CO
3
+ CO
2
+ H
2
O. The enthalpy change ($H) of
each reaction, measured in kJ/mol, was calculated using the heat energy change (kJ)
divided by the moles of the 2.00g 0.005g of reactant (Na
2
CO
3
for Experiment 1 and
NaHCO
3
for Experiment 2).
Each reaction resulted in a change in temperature (!T), which was required to
determine q (q = mc!T), measured in kJ. This was the only primary data collected
and is shown on Table 2 for Experiment 1 and Table 4 for Experiment 2.
Conclusion
According to the data collected and processed, the nal experimental enthalpy change
value ($H) for the decomposition of sodium hydrogen carbonate into sodium
carbonate is 62.1 kJ/mol 7 kJ/mol. On the other hand, the literature value of the
reaction, as calculated using the literature $H values for each of the reactants and
products, is 91.3 kJ/mol. There is a clear difference between the two values,
suggesting that the method used in the experiment to collect the primary data, the
heat energy change data, may have proved to be futile.
Calorimetry was the method used to collect the data required for the calculation of
q (q = mc$T): the temperature change ($T) of the reactions. To calculate the
temperature change of the reaction (of either experiment), a styrofoam cup was used
as the calorimeter. The main purpose of a calorimeter is to maintain the the heat
energy within a system and keep the system closed, since heat energy can easily
disperse into the surrounding environment if not insulated properly.
Using a styrofoam cup as the calorimeter posed a threat to the reliability of the results
as it is not the perfect insulator and therefore cannot maintain all the heat energy. If
the heat energy cannot be maintained, the experimental values will not be reliable
because not all the energy will have been accounted for. Through our qualitative
observations, the change in temperature could be felt from the outside of the cup,
indicating heat escaping through the cup. Due to this insulation problem with the
styrofoam cup, a large amount of heat was lost in the reaction, which resulted in
unreliable data results and inevitably, a large percentage discrepancy of -32.0%
Chemistry Avinash Bharwaney
10
between the literature value and the experimental value.
An improvement to assure reliable results would be to make use of a bomb
calorimeter when calculating the heat energy change in a reaction. Unlike styrofoam
cup calorimeters, bomb calorimeters are equipped with better insulation, allowing for
more reliable and accurate results.
Furthermore, the nal experimental enthalpy change value had an uncertainty of 7
kJ/mol giving us a wide range of 14 possible values, from 55.1 kJ/mol to 69.1 kJ/mol.
The uncertainty is extremely signicant as it highlights how the nal answer is not
precise. The difference between the literature value and the highest possible
experimental enthalpy change value is 22.2 kJ/mol whereas the difference between
the literature value and the lowest possible experimental enthalpy change value is
36.2 kJ/mol, which is 14 kJ/mol more than the former.
Calculation:
1) 91.3 kJ/mol - 69.1 kJ/mol = 22.2 kJ/mol
2) 91.3 kJ/mol - 55.1 kJ/mol = 36.2 kJ/mol
3) 36.2 kJ/mol - 22.2 kJ/mol = 14 kJ/mol
Chemistry Avinash Bharwaney
11
Evaluation
Systematic Errors
Table 6: Evaluating the Systematic Errors
Systematic Errors Systematic Errors Systematic Errors
Error Comment Improvement
Insufcient
Heat Insulation
The problem with the styrofoam
cup calorimeter meant that there
were issues with insulating the heat
and preventing the heat from
escaping, resulting in the large
percentage discrepancy between
the literature values and the
experimental values.
As mentioned above in the conclusion,
to improve the reliability of the results
and prevent the heat from escaping, a
bomb calorimeter could be used.
Although it may not be perfect and still
have some limitations of its own, it has
better insulation in relation to the
styrofoam cup calorimeter and so can
provide more reliable results.
Faulty
Measuring
Instruments
Another systematic error present in
the experiment was that the
electronic balance was faulty in its
reading, providing constantly
changing values. Even after any
remaining residue/particles from
previous experiments were wiped
off the balance, the scale still
continued read
For instance, when the balance was
calibrated (reset), it changed
between 0.02g and 0.00g. When
recording the mass, we did not take
into account this uncertainty of
0.02g and assumed that the
Improvements for this error would be to
either:
1) Test and calibrate measuring
instruments before recording data to
check whether that they work properly
and can provide accurate results. If the
instrument is faulty, inform the teacher
and use another electronic balance.
2) Make use of the faulty electronic
balance, but remember to account for
the additional uncertainty.
Assumptions One of the assumptions made in
this experiment was that the
Specic Heat Capacity of the
Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) used was
the same as water.
Although dilute HCl does have a
very similar SHC to water, the HCl
used in the experiment was 2M and
so of a higher concentration. This
was however still a very minor
error.
To improve the accuracy of the results,
dilute HCl could have been used instead
of 2M HCl, in order for the SHC value
used to remain reliable.
Chemistry Avinash Bharwaney
12
Systematic Errors Systematic Errors Systematic Errors
Error Comment Improvement
Particles of
reactant left in
the weighing
boat
Another minor systematic error
included the fact that there were
particles of reactant left in the
weighing boat after pouring the
reactant into the calorimeter. This
meant that the mass in the
calorimeter was not what was
recorded and in fact, slightly less,
affecting the reliability of the
results.
In order to make sure that the majority
of the particles react in the experiment, a
brush or tissue can be used to scrape the
remaining particles from the weighing
boat into the calorimeter. This however
does create a number of problems, the
rst being that the reaction would have
already started and so adding additional
reactant into the calorimeter during the
reaction may affect the fairness of the
experiment. Another problem that may
arise would be that the particles may get
attached to the tissue.
Random Errors
Table 7: Evaluating the Random Errors
Random Errors Random Errors Random Errors
Error Comment Improvement
Reading
Measuring
Instruments
The measuring instruments used in this
experiment include the electronic balance,
the measuring cylinder and the
thermometer. With the exception of the
electronic balance, all the measuring
instruments required us to rely on our
own personal judgement and perception
to manually read the scale (thermometer)
and judge where the bottom of the
meniscus was (measuring cylinder). This
led to uncertainty and human error as it
was difcult to pinpoint the exact volume
of a solution. Also, Parallax error may
have occurred as there were different
people reading the scale/meniscus from
different angles.
This random error is one that will
occur in any experiment,
however the magnitude of the
error can be subdued if the
person taking the reading stays
constant ie. the same person does
a specic task. This is to
minimize potential misreadings
and reduce Parallax error.
Increasing the number of trials
done for each experiment also
would reduce the misreadings as
averaging over a large number of
values would counter any
misreadings made.
Chemistry Avinash Bharwaney
13