ATOMIC WEIGHT Looking at the periodic table, we see that elements have weights expressed like: 16.00 8 79.90 35 O Br We know that the 8 in oxygen stands for the number of protons and the 16.00 is it’s mass, but we also know that oxygen doesn’t weight 16. So why aren’t the masses reported to reflect the mass of the protons, neutrons and electrons…why are these numbers so large and whole? Isn’t the following how they should be expressed? 8 protons = 8 (1.673 10-24g) = 1.338 10-23g 35 protons = 35 (1.673 10-24g) = 8 neutrons = 8 (1.67510-24g) = 1.340 10-23g 45 neutrons = 45 (1.67510-24g) = 8 electrons = 8 (9.10910-28g) = 9.101 10-28g 35 electrons = 35 (9.10910-28g)= 2.679 10-23g Total 2.679 1023 8 O Total 7.7081023 35 7.70810-23g Br The reason chemists have chosen a standard to simplify how atoms are written, this makes working in the lab easier. All Atomic Masses are most easily measured relative to carbon-12. Carbon-12 is automatically given a mass of 12 Atomic Mass Unit (AMU). 1amu 1 mass 12 12 C amu = dimensionless, no units (as a side note: amu is being phased out and will be replaced with the Dalton in honor of John Dalton…whom as you remember expressed the first Atomic Theory) Atomic Weights are calculated using an instrument called a Mass Spectrometer, which can ONLY measure masses relative to 12C. For instance a sample of 16O and 12C are put in the Mass Spectrometer…the weight of the 16O is different the 12 C and the 16O comes out of the machine more slowly and is measured to be 1.3329 times slower then carbon. 17O comes out 1.1466 times more slow then 12C and 18O, the slowest comes out 1.4999 times less slow then 12C. So for Oxygen: 16 1.3329 Relative Ratio 12 = Mass 15.995 17 1.1466 16.999 18 1.4999 17.999 Relative Ratio: A X/12C O O O Then the mass is calculated using the Relative Ratio and is multiplied by 12 to give the mass of that Isotope. The same method is used for EVERY Isotope on the Periodic Table (don’t forget to throw in the % Abundance in your calculation…..then you have it).