DCP/C&E Gases IA
By: Martin Lai
Quantitative Data:
Trial Number:
Volume of Full Soda
Container:
Volume of Gas expelled from Soda
Container:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Volume / mL
355
355
355
355
710
710
222
222
222
222
Volume / mL / ± 3 mL
747
800
788
870
1030
1164
729
757
690
667
Volume of Soda
Container:
Mass of Full Soda
Container:
Combined mass of
Plastic bag and NaCl:
Combined mass of
NaCl, empty soda
container and
solution after CO2
was expelled:
Volume / mL
355 mL
Mass / g / ± 0.05 g
390.9
Mass / g / ±0.005 g
26.77
Mass / g / ± 0.05 g
416.4
710 mL
Mass too large to be measured on the scale.
222 mL
242.6
12.48
253.5
Qualitative Data:
Trials 1-4 (355 mL, Lemonade)
Colour and condition of soda before exposed
to nucleation source:
Colour and condition of soda after exposed to
nucleation source and agitated:
Trials 5-6 (710 mL, Bottle of Sprite)
Colour and condition of soda before exposed
to nucleation source:
Colour and condition of soda after exposed to
nucleation source and agitated:
Trial 7-10 (222 mL, Can of Sprite)
Colour and condition of soda before exposed
to nucleation source:
Colour and condition of soda after exposed to
nucleation source and agitated:
Faint translucent yellow colour, soda was still
and no bubbles were formed.
Nucleation source was dissolved, bubbles
started forming, white foam was produced,
plastic bag started to expand
Faint translucent yellow colour, soda was still
and no bubbles were formed.
Nucleation source was dissolved, bubbles
started forming, white foam was produced,
plastic bag started to expand
Faint translucent yellow colour, soda was still
and no bubbles were formed.
Nucleation source was dissolved, bubbles
started forming, white foam was produced,
plastic bag started to expand
Processed Data:
Calculating Mass of CO2 in the 355 mL Soda Container:
355 mL Soda Container
Calculating combined mass of
plastic bag, NaCl and 355 mL
soda container:
Calculations
Processed Data
mass of plastic bag and NaCl
+ mass of full soda container
= combined mass
Combined mass of plastic
bag, NaCl and full soda
container:
26.77 (±0.005) g + 390.9
(±0.05) g = combined mass
416.7 (±0.06) g
Combined mass =
416.7 (±0.06) g
Subtracting mass of materials Combined mass - mass of
NaCl, empty soda container
after experiment was
conducted from the combined and solution after CO2 was
mass to calculate the mass of expelled = mass of CO2
CO2:
416.7 (±0.06) g – 416.4 (±
0.05 ) g = 1.270 (±0.1) g
Mass of CO2 from 355 mL
soda container:
1.270 (±0.1) g
1.270 g (±7.9%)
Calculating Mass of CO2 in the 222 mL Soda Container:
222 mL Soda Container
Calculating combined mass of
plastic bag, NaCl and 222 mL
soda container:
Calculations
Processed Data
mass of plastic bag and NaCl
+ mass of full soda container
= combined mass
Combined mass of plastic
bag, NaCl and full soda
container:
12.48 (±0.005) g + 242.6
(±0.05) g = combined mass
255.1 (±0.06) g
Combined mass = 255.1
(±0.06) g
Subtracting mass of materials Combined mass - mass of
NaCl, empty soda container
after experiment was
conducted from the combined and solution after CO2 was
mass to calculate the mass of expelled = mass of CO2
CO2:
255.1 (±0.06) g – 253.5 (±
0.05 ) g = 1.600 (±0.1) g
Mass of CO2 from 222 mL
soda container:
1.600 (±0.1) g
1.600 g (±6.3%)
Calculating Mass of CO2 in the 710 mL Soda Container:
A ratio of mass and volume of the 710 mL soda container to the 222 mL container can be
used to calculate the mass of CO2, as they both contain sprite and should have same the
same proportions of CO2.
𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝑶𝟐 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝟐𝟐𝟐 𝒎𝑳 𝑺𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆 𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝑶𝟐 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝟕𝟏𝟎 𝒎𝑳 𝑺𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆
=
𝑽𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒎𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝟐𝟐𝟐 𝒎𝑳 𝑺𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆
𝑽𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒎𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝟕𝟏𝟎 𝒎𝑳 𝑺𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆
𝟏. 𝟔𝟎𝟎 g 𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝑶𝟐 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝟕𝟏𝟎 𝒎𝑳 𝑺𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆
=
𝟐𝟐𝟐 𝒎𝑳
𝟕𝟏𝟎 𝒎𝑳
𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝑶𝟐 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝟕𝟏𝟎 𝒎𝑳 𝑺𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆 =
(𝟏. 𝟔𝟎𝟎 𝒈)(𝟕𝟏𝟎 𝒎𝑳)
𝟐𝟐𝟐 𝒎𝑳
𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝑶𝟐 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝟕𝟏𝟎 𝒎𝑳 𝑺𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆 = 𝟓. 𝟏𝟐 (±𝟎. 𝟏) 𝒈 = 𝟓. 𝟏𝟐 𝒈 (𝟐. 𝟎%)
Mass vs. Volume Relationship of Carbon Dioxide Gas Produced: Density (mass/volume)
355 mL Soda Container
Determining Density of CO2 in
355 mL Soda Container:
Calculations
Processed Data
Density = Mass of CO2 from
soda container ÷ Average
volume of CO2 from soda
container
Density of CO2 in 355 mL
container:
1.585 g/mL (±9.1%)
Density = 1.270 g (±7.9%) ÷
801.3 mL (± 1.2%)
Density = 1.585 x 10-3 g/mL
(±9.1%)
710 mL Soda Container
Determining Density of CO2 in
710 mL Soda Container:
D= m/v
D = 5.12 g (±2.0%) ÷ 1097.0 mL
(±0.55%)
Density of CO2 in 710 mL
container:
4.67 x 10-3 g/mL (±2.6%)
Density = 4.67 x 10-3 g/mL
(±2.6%)
222 mL Soda Container
Determining Density of CO2 in
222 mL Soda Container:
D = m/v
Density of CO2 in 222 mL
container:
Density = 1.600 g (±6.3%) ÷
710.8 mL (±1.4%)
2.251 x 10-3 g/mL (±7.7%)
Density =
2.251 x 10-3 g/mL (±7.7%)
Calculating the mean volume of CO2 expelled from each size of soda container:
Calculations
Processed Data
(Total volume of CO2 expelled
from 355 mL container over
multiple trials) ÷ Number of Trials
= Average volume of CO2 expelled
from 355 mL container
VAverageA =
355 mL Container (Trials 1-4)
Average Volume of CO2 gas
expelled from 355 mL
container / mL
801.3 (± 10) mL
801.3 mL (±1.2%)
(V1A + V2A + V3A + V4A) ÷ 4 =
VAverageA
(747 (± 3) mL + 800 (± 3) mL + 788
(± 3) mL + 870 (± 3) mL) ÷ 4 =
VAverageA
VAverageA = 801.3 (± 10) mL
710 mL Container (Trials 5-6)
Average Volume of CO2 gas
expelled from 355 mL
container / mL
222 mL Container (Trials 7-10)
Average Volume of CO2 gas
expelled from 355 mL
container / mL
(V1B + V2B) ÷ 2 = VAverageB
VAverageB =
(1030 (± 3) mL + 1164 (± 3) mL) ÷ 2 1097.0 (± 6) mL
= VAverageB
1097.0 mL (±0.55%)
VAverageB = 1097.0 (± 6) mL
(V1C + V2C + V3C + V4C) ÷ 4 =
VAverageC
VAverageC =
710.8 (±10) mL
(729 (± 3) mL + 757 (± 3) mL + 690
(± 3) mL + 667 (± 3) mL) ÷ 4 =
VAverageC
VAverageC = 710.8 mL (±10)
710.8 mL (±1.4%)
Note: Calculations done according to SATP conditions (P = 100 kPa, T = 298 K, R = 8.314)
Calculating the mean Molarity of Carbon dioxide in 710 mL (0.710 L) container:
Calculating the number of
Moles of CO2:
Calculations
PV = nRT
V= 1097.0 mL = 1.0970 L
(100)(1.0970) = n(8.314)(298)
Processed Data
Moles =
0.0443 mol CO2 (0.55%)
109.70= 2477.57n
109.70 ÷ 2477.57 = n
0.0443 mol CO2 = n
Calculating Molarity:
Molarity = moles of solute /
liters of solvent
Molarity =
0.0623 mol/dm-3 (0.55%)
c = n/v
c = (0.0443)/(0.710)
c = 0.0623 mol/dm-3
Calculating the mean Molarity of Carbon dioxide in 355 mL (0.355 L) container:
Calculating the number of
Moles of CO2:
Calculations
PV = nRT
Processed Data
Moles =
0.0323 mol CO2 (1.2%)
V= 801.3 mL = 0.8013 L
(100)(0.8013) = n(8.314)(298)
80.13 = 2477.57n
80.13 ÷ 2477.57 = n
0.0323 mol CO2 = n
Calculating Molarity:
Molarity = moles of solute / liters of
solvent
c = n/v
c = (0.0323)/(0.355)
c = 0.0910 mol/dm-3
Molarity =
0.0910 mol/dm-3
(±1.2%)
Calculating the mean Molarity of Carbon dioxide in 222 mL (0.222 L) container:
Calculating the number of
Moles of CO2:
Calculations
PV = nRT
V = 710.8 mL = 0.7108 L
(100)(0.7108) = n(8.314)(298)
Processed Data
Moles =
0.0287 mol CO2 (±1.4%)
71.08= 2477.57n
71.08 ÷ 2477.57 = n
0.0287 mol CO2 = n
Calculating Molarity:
Molarity = moles of solute /
liters of solvent
Molarity =
0.129 mol/dm-3 (±1.4%)
c = n/v
c = (0.0287)/(0.222)
c = 0.129 mol/dm-3
Conclusion and Evaluation:
There were patterns in the processed data, in that the relationships of mass vs volume
and molarities were mostly linear for the 710 mL and 222 mL soda containers, as can be seen
from the two graphs comparing volume of soda container with density and molarity. This is
reasonable, as it is noted that the 710 mL and 222 mL containers are both from the brand of
Sprite, while the 355 mL container is sparkling lemonade. The molarity of CO2 in solution and
mass of CO2 from the 355 mL container are also lower than the same measurements found
from the 222 mL container, although it has a higher volume; the CO2 had a molarity of 0.0910
mol/dm-3(±1.2%) in the 355 mL container compared to 0.129 mol/dm-3 (±1.4%) in the 222 mL
container, and a mass of 1.270 g (±7.9%) in the 355 mL container compared to 1.600 g (±6.3%)
in the 222 mL container. A conclusion can be made that the same concentration of carbon
dioxide gas is used for soft drinks of the same type of soft drink, which causes inconsistencies
when comparing the measurements of the sparkling lemonade to the other two Sprite drinks.
However, a larger sample size with more variation in brand and type of soft drink must be used
to gain greater certainty on the validity of that conclusion. As for molarity, it can be shown
from the graphs and the data that the molarity of carbon dioxide in solution decreases with an
increase of volume. This can be observed from the molarity of the 222 mL of sprite being the
highest at 0.129 mol/dm-3 (±1.4%), which it decreases with the larger volumes such as 0.0910
mol/dm-3 (±1.2%) for the 355 mL container and again to 0.0623 mol/dm-3 (0.55%) for the 710
mL soda container. Therefore, a conclusion can be made for molarity in soft drinks that it
decreases with larger volumes. As for the mass vs. volume relationship, mass/volume or
density of carbon dioxide was chosen to investigate the relationship. There is no clear trend in
the graph of Carbon Dioxide Density vs. Volume of Soda Container, as the density of carbon
dioxide in the 355 mL container is 1.585 g/mL (±9.1%), which is lower than the densities of the
other two soda containers despite being medium sized. Again, it can be argued that this is due
to the brand of the soft drink causing inconsistencies in the relationships.
In evaluating the design and method for the experiment, there are a number of issues
that are of note. The procedure does not specify at any time to weigh the materials, nor does it
include a scale in the materials list. This is problematic since one aspect of the purpose is to
calculate the mass vs. volume relationship, and the procedure should reflect the purpose.
There should be larger sample sizes and replicates performed to provide a more accurate
interpretation of the results, which also allows for a more visible and conclusive trend between
the amount of CO2 produced in each size of soda container. Additionally, the procedure does
not specify what brand or type of soft drink and since it is very possible that different drinks
have different molarities and CO2 concentrations, a trend cannot be established and
comparisons would also have to account of the differences in brand and type. While performing
the experiment, there were also errors that influenced the final results. Systematic errors
possibly include the incorrect calibration of the triple beam balance and electronic balance used
in the experiment, which would have influenced the mass measurements of the soda container
and other materials. Another systematic error is the method in which the gas is measured, as
needing to open the plastic bag under water and directing it into the cylinder proved to be
unwieldy, associated with problems such as gas escaping into the water. The amount of carbon
dioxide gas expelled from the plastic bag was also hard to control, leading to inaccuracy and
excess gas being expelled even when the graduated cylinder was already completely displaced
by the gas. Random errors in the experiment include variations in temperature in the
environment that the experiment was performed, since higher or lower temperatures can have
an effect on the volume of the gas in the cylinder, according to Charles’ Law. Pressure in
addition to temperature also played a part in measurements done according to SATP
conditions, and it is likely that the conditions in the classroom were different from the ideal
SATP measurements. Additional random errors include the incorrect interpretation of
graduated cylinder measurements, since there was difficulty reading the measurements while it
was partially immersed in water, and having to control other elements of the experiment such
as the plastic bag and the release of carbon dioxide gas at the same time. Other errors include
the fact that different sample sizes were used for each size of soda container, since some
replicates were failed and could not be included in the calculations. For example, while
determining the mean volume of the 710 mL container, only two measurements were used
compared to 4 measurements with the 355 mL and 222 mL containers. This causes a difference
in accuracy in the measurements.
Improvements that can be made to the procedure include the addition of a electronic
balance in the materials and the weighing of materials in the procedure, which will give
sufficient data for the student to process and determine the mass vs. volume relationship of
carbon dioxide gas. Sample sizes can be expanded by specifying that 5 measurements should be
taken of each size of soda container, and it should specify if different or similar brands and
types of soft drinks should be used for the experiment. Systematic error can be eliminated by
verifying the measurements with different scales and making sure that the scales are correctly
calibrated. A different method of gas collection may also be employed to improve accuracy,
such as setting up a gas collection apparatus and using a beehive shelf to collect the gas over
water. This would provide more control over the amount of gas expelled and eliminate the
difficulty of employing the plastic bag under water. Random error in the interpretation of the
measurements can be eliminated with larger sample sizes as discussed above, and temperature
and pressure could be regulated and controlled so that their effects are accounted for. Sample
sizes should be specified to 3 successful replications of the experiment for each size of soda
container, which would make the results more consistent in accuracy. Another size of
lemonade could also be included in the experiment, which would give two results of lemonade
vs. two results of Sprite containers for more accuracy.
Works Cited
Bender, Hal. "Molarity." Molarity. Clackamas Community College, n.d. Web. 31 Jan. 2013.
<http://dl.clackamas.cc.or.us/ch105-04/molarity.htm>.
"Examples of Uncertainty Calculations." Examples of Uncertainty Calculations. N.p., n.d. Web.
31 Jan. 2013. <http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys273/uncert/uncert.html>.
"SIGNIFICANT DIGITS." SIGNIFICANT DIGITS. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Jan. 2013.
<http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/sig_fig/SIG_dig.htm>.