Introduction: When chemists are tasked with creating solutions with certain concentrations for experiments, they often

make one large solution with a high and precise concentration, known as a standard solution. A standard solution is prepared with very precise equipment and is then diluted with distilled water. Mainly two formulas are used to make a standard solution. The first formula is C=n/v, where C represents the concentration of the solution in mol/L, n represents the number of moles of solute and v represents the volume of the solution. The second formula is (C1)(V1)=(C2)(V2), where C1 represents the concentration of the pre-diluted solution, V1 represents the volume of the pre-diluted solution, C2 represents the concentration of the diluted solution and V2 represents the volume of the diluted solution. Once several solutions are created, their absorbance can be measured using a widely used piece of technology known as a spectrometer. The absorbance of each solution with known concentrations can then by used to predict the concentration of an unknown solution. In this lab, solutions with various concentrations were created using copper (II) sulfate, CuSO4, and distilled water with intent to eventually determine the concentration of two unknown solutions. Hypothesis: Using the spectrometer, the concentration of the unknown solutions will be calculated with a moderate degree of accuracy.

Materials:

- Two 100mL volumetric flasks - 100mL Graduated Cylinder - Electronic balance - Copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate - Glass beakers - 5 test tubes - Distilled water - Funnel - Safety goggles - Specrometer - Rubber stoppers

Procedure: Before any materials were obtained, calculations were performed to determine how to create the necessary five solutions by diluting the standard solution. Once the calculations were completed, they were confirmed correct by the teacher and the lab could then be started. Firstly, all necessary materials needed to be obtained. Each student was required to put on safety goggles to protect their eyes and face from the hazardous copper (II) sulfate. Once all of the materials were obtained, the calculated amount of copper (II) sulfate needed (12.49g) was obtained and measured using the electronic balance. It was then poured into a volumetric flask using a funnel to ensure nothing was spilled. Next, a small amount of distilled water was added to the flask to begin the dissolving of the copper (II) sulfate. A rubber stopper was placed into the top of the flask and the flask was then shaken to increase the speed of dissolving. Once this was done, the groups each labeled their volumetric flask and placed it in a cupboard for overnight storage and the materials were put away.

The lab was resumed the following day; materials were obtained and safety goggles were put on. The volumetric flask was removed from the cupboard and shaken to ensure the copper (II) sulfate had dissolved. Once the solution settled, distilled water was added to raise the solution to the 100mL line of the volumetric flask, with the bottom of the meniscus curve resting on the line- creating the standard solution, with a concentration of 0.500 mol/L. From the standard solution, 40mL were poured into the graduated cylinder to ensure an accurate measurement. This 40mL was then poured into another volumetric flask and distilled water was then added until the solution reached the 100mL mark. This created a solution with a concentration of 0.200 mol/L. A rubber stopper was placed onto the flask and it was shaken to mix the solution. From the volumetric flask containing the 60mL of standard solution, one test tube was filled with solution. The remaining contents of the volumetric flask were then poured into a glass beaker and it was then closed with a rubber stopper before being labeled. The empty volumetric flask was then rinsed clean with distilled water and left to dry. From the 0.200 mol/L solution, 50mL were poured into the graduated cylinder to measure the amount accurately. The 50mL was then poured into the now clean volumetric flask and distilled water was added until the solution reached the 100mL mark. This created a solution with a concentration of 0.100 mol/L. The volumetric flask was then closed with a rubber stopper and it was shaken to properly mix the solution. From the volumetric flask containing the rest of the 0.200 mol/L solution, another test tube was filled with solution. The remaining amount of solution was then poured into another glass beaker and it was sealed with a rubber stopper and labeled. The empty volumetric flask was then rinsed clean with distilled water and left to dry. From the 0.100 mol/L solution, 50mL was poured into the graduated cylinder to accurately measure the amount. The 50mL was then poured into the clean volumetric flask and 50mL of distilled water was added so the solution reached the 100mL mark of the flask. This created a solution with a concentration of 0.050 mol/L. The volumetric flask was then sealed with a rubber stopper and it was shaken to mix the solution completely. From the volumetric flask containing the remaining 50mL of 0.100 mol/L solution, a third test tube was filled with solution. The remaining amount of solution was then poured into another glass beaker and it was sealed with a rubber stopper before being labeled. The empty volumetric flask was then rinsed clean with distilled water and left to dry. From the 0.050 mol/L solution, 50mL was poured into the graduated cylinder to measure the amount accurately. The 50mL was then poured into the clean volumetric flask and distilled water was then added until the solution reached the 100mL mark of the flask. This created a solution with a concentration of 0.025 mol/L. The volumetric flask was then sealed with a rubber stopper and it was shaken to completely dissolve the solution. From the volumetric solution containing the remaining 50mL of 0.050 mol/L solution, a fourth test tube was filled with solution. The remaining amount of solution was then poured into a glass beaker and it was sealed with a rubber stopper and labeled. The empty volumetric flask was then rinsed clean with distilled water and left to dry. From the 0.025 mol/L solution, a fifth test tube was filled. The remaining solution in the volumetric flask was then poured into a glass beaker and the beaker was then sealed shut with a rubber stopper and labeled. The volumetric flask was then rinsed clean with distilled water and left to dry. The five test tubes with varying solutions were taken to the

spectrometer station. First, the spectrometer was set by closing the lid with nothing in it and setting the absorbance to infinite using the a-wheel. Next, a blank (a test tube filled with distilled water) was inserted into the spectrometer and the absorbance was set to 0 using the b-wheel. The absorbance of each of the solutions in the five test tubes was then tested and recorded. Next, two test tubes of solutions with unknown concentrations were provided and the absorbance of each was tested and recorded. Once all of the solutions were tested and recorded, a chart was made to compare the absorbance and concentrations of each known solution. A line of best fit was created on the chart, and it was used to determine the concentration of each unknown solution as compared to their absorbance. Next, the clean, dry volumetric flasks were put away and the test tubes containing solutions were cleaned and dried before being put away. The graduated cylinder was cleaned and dried before being put away. The labeled beakers containing various solutions were kept in case a step was needed to be done again. They were eventually emptied into the hazardous waste beaker and cleaned with water before being dried and put away.

Observations: As each solution was diluted, the colour of the solution became lighter. The standard solution, with a concentration of 0.500 mol/L was a dark blue colour, while the 0.025 mol/L solution was a very light blue. It is important to note that the absorbance of each solution followed the same trend as the concentration: as the concentration was halved, so to was the absorbance. This represents a linear trend in the comparison of the absorbance and concentration, equal to Absorban ce vs. C on cen tration the equation: y=1.9736x. y = 1.9736x
1.05 1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 0.05

Concentration and Absorbance of Known Solutions Concentration (mol/L) 0 0.500 0.200 0.100 0.050 0.025 Unknown Solution #1 Unknown Solution #2 Absorbance 0 0.93 0.48 0.27 0.16 0.09 0.71 0.39

Absorbance

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

C on centration (M)

Calculations: 12.486g of copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate solution was needed to create the 0.500 mol/L standard solution: CuSO45H20 = 249.72 g/mol C= n/v 0.500= n/0.1 n= (0.500) (0.1) n= 0.05 mol (0.05mol)(249.72g/mol)= 12.486g 40mL of 0.500 mol/L solution must be diluted with distilled water to make 100mL of 0.200 mol/L solution: (C1)(V1)= (C2) (V2) (0.500)(V1)= (0.200) (0.100) (0.500)(V1)= (0.02) (V1)= (0.200)/ (0.500)

(V1)= 0.040L (V1)= 40mL 50mL of 0.200 mol/L solution must be diluted with distilled water to make 100mL of 0.100 mol/L solution: (C1)(V1)= (C2) (V2) (0.200)(V1)= (0.100) (0.100) (0.200)(V1)= (0.01) (V1)= (0.100)/ (0.200) (V1)= 0.050L (V1)= 50mL 50mL of 0.100 mol/L solution must be diluted with distilled water to make 100mL of 0.050 mol/L solution: (C1)(V1)= (C2) (V2) (0.100)(V1)= (0.050) (0.100) (0.100)(V1)= (0.005) (V1)= (0.005)/ (0.100) (V1)= 0.050L (V1)= 50mL 50mL of 0.050 mol/L solution must be diluted with distilled water to make 100mL of 0.025 mol/L solution: (C1)(V1)= (C2) (V2) (0.050)(V1)= (0.025) (0.100) (0.050)(V1)= (0.0025) (V1)= (0.0025)/ (0.050) (V1)= 0.050L (V1)= 50mL The percent error for the estimate of the concentration of unknown solution #1 was about 11.46%: %Error= (((estimated concentration) (actual concentration)) / (actual concentration)) (100) %Error= (((0.35) (0.314)) / (0.314)) (100) %Error= 11.46%

The percent error for the estimate of the concentration of unknown solution #2 was about 24.18%:

%Error= (((estimated concentration) (actual concentration)) / (actual concentration)) (100) %Error= (((0.18) (0.145)) / (0.145)) (100) %Error= 24.18% To make 500mL of solution with the estimated concentration #1 (0.35 mol/L), 43.701g of copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate would be needed: CuSO45H20 = 249.72 g/mol C= n/v 0.350= n/0.500 n= (0.350) (0.500) n= 0.175 mol (0.175mol)(249.72g/mol)= 43.701g To make 500mL of solution with the estimated concentration #2 (0.18 mol/L), 22.47g of copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate would be needed: CuSO45H20 = 249.72 g/mol C= n/v 0.180= n/0.500 n= (0.180) (0.500) n= 0.09 mol (0.09mol)(249.72g/mol)= 22.47g

Discussion: In the first part of the investigation- creating the various solutions- there were several possible sources of error. Firstly, when measuring the solutions using the volumetric flask, measuring errors could have occurred due to improper understanding of the meniscus curve, or an unsteady hand while pouring. Due to all of the pouring and switching of flasks needed to complete each step in the first part of the investigation, it is possible that some solutions were spilled, or some of each solution could have been left in the volumetric flask (as drops on the side). If the amount of solution in a volumetric flask was not perfectly measured, the concentration of the solution in the flask would have changed. Had the solution risen above the 100mL line of the volumetric flask, the concentration would have been lower than wanted due to a higher concentration of water. Had the solution been under the 100mL line of the volumetric flask, the concentration of the solution would have been higher than it should, due to a lower concentration of water than expected.

It was estimated, from the results of the absorbance of each solution measured in the spectrometer, using the graph (refer to Absorbance vs. Concentration) that the concentration of unknown solution #1 was about 0.35 mol/L and the concentration of unknown solution #2 was about 0.18 mol/L. It is important to note that, due to lack of experience using the spectrometer; the recorded absorbance of each known solution could have been inaccurate, therefore making the trend-line for the graph Absorbance vs. Concentration inaccurate, and making the estimates for the concentration of both unknown solutions inaccurate. If this lab were to be performed again, it would be interesting to determine to what extent adding too much water, or not enough water, to each solution would have on the absorbance of the solution. Also, it would be interesting to see how high of a concentration in a solution it would take to be near the preset infinite absorbance on the spectrometer. Conclusion: Using the spectrometer to compare the absorbance of the solutions with known concentrations, the concentration of the two unknown substances was determined with an accuracy of 75.82% to 88.54%. By doing so, a further understanding of the concentrations of solutions was obtained.