Yaworski 1
Michael Yaworski
Partner: Jordan Wickens
Mr. Masters
SCH 3UI
16 Apr 2013
Developing an Activity Series Lab
Safety Data for copper(II) sulfate solution:
Hazards:

Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant).
Precautions:


Wear gloves.

Avoid skin contact.

Wash hands thoroughly before and after working with chemicals.
Hazardous in case of eye contact (irritant).
Precautions:


Wear goggles.
Slightly hazardous in case of ingestion. Non-corrosive for skin.
Precautions:

Do not ingest.
Disposal Information:

Waste must be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local environmental control regulations.
Precautions:

Do not dispose of waste down the sink.
Ecological Information:

Ecotoxicity: Not available.
Yaworski 2
Hypothesis:
An activity series is a list of ordered elements based on their reactivity, which is used to determine what
elements will displace which ions in compounds and therefore which elements will cause a chemical reaction
when mixed with a given compound.
The prediction is that the magnesium will prove to be the most reactive metal of the five; the magnesium
will displace all of the other metal ions in each solution, which is to say that a reaction will take place with each
solution, excluding magnesium nitrate solution. Because magnesium is the element being mixed, as well as the
metal ion in the solution, the magnesium element will not displace the magnesium ion, and therefore no reaction
will occur.
The prediction is that aluminum will be the second most reactive metal of the five, and The prediction is
that it will displace the metal ions zinc, iron(II) and copper(II) from their solutions, which is to say that
aluminum will react with zinc sulfate solution, iron(II) sulfate solution and copper(II) sulfate solution. However,
aluminum is predicted to be less reactive than magnesium, and so The prediction is that the aluminum element
will not displace the magnesium ion in the magnesium nitrate solution, and therefore no chemical reaction will
occur. I also predict that aluminum element will not react when mixed with aluminum nitrate solution because
the aluminum element being mixed is the same as the aluminum metal ion in solution, and so the aluminum
element will not displace the aluminum ion.
The prediction is that zinc will be the third most reactive metal of the five; The prediction is that it will
displace the iron(II) ion in the iron(II) sulfate solution, as well as the copper(II) ion in the copper(II) sulfate
solution, which is to say that the zinc will have a chemical reaction when mixed with each of those solutions.
However, zinc is predicted to be less reactive than magnesium and aluminum, and so The prediction is that the
zinc element will not displace the magnesium ion in the magnesium nitrate solution, and will not displace the
aluminum ion in the aluminum nitrate solution and therefore no chemical reaction will occur in either of them. I
also predict that zinc element will not react when mixed with zinc sulfate solution because the zinc element
being mixed is the same as the zinc metal ion in solution, and so the zinc element will not displace the zinc ion.
The prediction is that iron element will be the second least reactive metal of the five; The prediction is
that it will displace the copper(II) ion in the copper(II) sulfate solution, which will result in a chemical reaction
Yaworski 3
when iron is mixed with copper(II) sulfate solution. However, iron is predicted to be less reactive than
magnesium, aluminum and zinc, and so The prediction is that the iron element will not displace the magnesium
ion in the magnesium nitrate solution, the aluminum ion in the aluminum nitrate solution, or the zinc ion in the
zinc sulfate solution and therefore no chemical reaction will occur with any of them. I also predict that the iron
element will not react when mixed with iron(II) sulfate solution because the iron element being mixed is the
same as the iron metal ion in the solution, and so the iron element will not displace the iron(II) ion.
The prediction is that the copper element will be the least reactive metal of the five and that it will not
react with any of the solutions; the copper element will not be able to displace any of the metal ions in any of the
solutions. The prediction is that the copper element will not react with copper(II) sulfate solution because the
copper element is the same as the copper(II) ion in the solution, and so the copper element will not displace the
copper(II) ion.
The prediction is that the activity series, in order from greater to least, will be as follows: magnesium,
aluminum, zinc, iron and then copper.
All of my predictions are based off of the activity series on page 126 in the textbook, Figure 3; the more
reactive element will displace the less reactive ion in the compound. Predictions are supported further
considering the periodic table trends of metal reactivity: as the atomic number increases going down a group, the
metal reactivity increases; as the atomic number increases going across a period, from left to right, the metal
reactivity decreases. While copper and zinc are exceptions, the metal reactivity trend is generally supportive of
the predictions.
Yaworski 4
Purpose:
The purpose of this lab was to develop an activity series of the five metals (copper, iron, zinc, aluminum
and magnesium) based on the observations of chemical change when each of the five metal elements were mixed
with each of the five ionic compound solutions (copper(II) sulfate, iron(II) sulfate, zinc sulfate, aluminum nitrate
and magnesium nitrate).
Materials:

copper element strip

iron element strip

zinc element strip

aluminum element strip

magnesium element strip

copper(II) sulfate solution

iron(II) sulfate solution

zinc sulfate solution

aluminum nitrate solution

magnesium nitrate solution

steel wool
Yaworski 5
Procedure:
1. All metal elements were put laid out on a of paper towel.
2. Observations of physical properties were recorded into an observation chart.
3. A metal element was cleaned the best it could be of any oxidation or residue, using the steel wool.
4. One or two drops of one of the solutions were put on the metal element and observations of chemical
change were recorded.
5. Step 4 was repeated for the rest of the solutions.
6. Steps 3-5 were repeated for the rest of the metal elements.
Observations:
Metal Elements:
Properties:
copper (Cu)





solid
shiny
smooth
copper coloured
not corroded
iron (Fe)





solid
shiny
smooth
grey coloured
very corroded
zinc (Zn)





solid
shiny
smooth
dark silver coloured
slightly corroded
aluminum (Al)





solid
shiny
smooth
silver coloured
not corroded
magnesium (Mg)





solid
shiny
smooth
silver coloured
moderately corroded
Solutions:
Properties:


transparent
vibrant blue/turquoise colour


transparent
light brown/orange colour


transparent
colourless


transparent
light yellow tint colour


transparent
colourless
copper(II) sulfate
(CuSO4)
iron(II) sulfate
(FeSO4)
zinc sulfate
(ZnSO4)
aluminum nitrate
(Al(NO3)3)
magnesium nitrate
(Mg(NO3)2)
Yaworski 6
Mixture of
Metals and
Solutions
copper(II)
sulfate
(CuSO4)
• no change
iron(II) sulfate
(FeSO4)
zinc sulfate
(Zn2SO4)
• no change
• no change
aluminum
nitrate
(Al(NO3)3)
• no change
magnesium
nitrate
(Mg(NO3)2)
• no change
• no change
• no change
• no change
• no change
• colour changed • no change
to be lighter
orange
• no change
• no change
• no change
• no change
• no change
• no change
• fizzed
• rapidly
bubbled
• left residue
• colour changed
to be a much
darker
orange/brown
• slowly
• no change
bubbled
• colour changed
to very dark
blue/black
• no change
copper (Cu)
iron (Fe)
zinc (Zn)
aluminum (Al)
magnesium
(Mg)
• colour changed
to light
brown/orange
• colour changed
to black very
quickly
• left black
residue
• colour changed
to be lighter
blue/green
• bubbled
quickly
• colour changed
to black
• left black
residue
Analysis:
The purpose of this lab was to develop an activity series of the five metals (copper, iron, zinc, aluminum
and magnesium) based on the observations of chemical change when each of the five metal elements were mixed
with each of the five ionic compound solutions (copper(II) sulfate, iron(II) sulfate, zinc sulfate, aluminum nitrate
and magnesium nitrate).
An activity series is a list of ordered elements based on their reactivity, which is used to determine what
elements displace which ions in compounds and therefore which elements cause a chemical reaction when mixed
with a given compound.
To determine the activity series of the five metals, the metal elements that reacted with the ionic
compound solutions and the metal ions in the solutions were compared to each other. When the metal element
being added to the solution and the metal ion in the solution were compared, the metal element only displaced
the metal ion if the metal element is more reactive. With that, the metal ion that was displaced the most, meaning
Yaworski 7
that it reacted with the most elements, (being less reactive than the element being combined with it) was the least
reactive metal; the metal ion that was displaced the least (being more reactive than the element being combined
with it) was the most reactive metal. That pattern was used to find the second most reactive metal, where the
second most reactive metal was displaced the second most, and so on for the rest of the metals.
Similarly, but inversely, the metal element that displaced the most metal ions (reacted with the most
solutions) was the most reactive metal. The metal element that displaced the least amount of metal ions (reacted
with the least amount of solutions) was the least reactive metal. This pattern was also used to develop an activity
series for the metals.
The patterns discussed were used to develop a more simple inverse relationship between the metal
elements and the ionic compound solutions: the most reactive metal was the metal element that reacted with the
largest number of solutions, and was also the metal ion in the solution that reacted with the smallest number of
metal elements. This was due to the fact that the most reactive metal as the metal ion in the solution was not
displaced by lesser reactive metals, which means that the solution was the least reactive. Similarly, the least
reactive metal was the metal element that reacted with the smallest number of solutions, and was also the metal
ion in the solution that reacted with the largest number of metal elements. The least reactive metal as the metal
ion in the solution was displaced by the more reactive metals which meant that the solution was more reactive.
The copper element did not react with any solutions when mixed, and since it was the only metal
element that did not react with any solutions, it was the least reactive metal of the five. This was because it did
not displace any of the metal ions in any of the solutions and therefore was less reactive than all of the metal ions
in each of the solutions:
Cu(s) + CuSO4 (aq) → NR
Cu(s) + FeSO4 (aq) → NR
Cu(s) + ZnSO4 (aq) → NR
Cu(s) + Al(NO3)3 (aq) → NR
Cu(s) + Mg(NO3)2 (aq) → NR
Yaworski 8
The iron element reacted with only copper(II) sulfate, which meant that iron was a more reactive metal
that copper. And because the iron element reacted with the copper(II) sulfate solution, that meant that the iron
element displaced the copper(II) ion in the solution:
Fe(s) + CuSO4 (aq) → Cu(s) + FeSO4 (aq)
Fe(s) + FeSO4 (aq) → NR
Fe(s) + ZnSO4 (aq) → NR
Fe(s) + Al(NO3)3 (aq) → NR
Fe(s) + Mg(NO3)2 (aq) → NR
The zinc element reacted with copper(II) sulfate and iron(II) sulfate, which meant that zinc was more
reactive than both copper and iron. And because the zinc element reacted with the copper(II) sulfate solution,
that meant that it displaced the copper(II) ion in the solution; and because the zinc element reacted with the
iron(II) sulfate solution, that meant that it displaced the iron(II) ion in the solution:
Zn(s) + CuSO4 (aq) → Cu(s) + ZnSO4 (aq)
Zn(s) + FeSO4 (aq) → Fe(s) + ZnSO4 (aq)
Zn(s) + ZnSO4 (aq) → NR
Zn(s) + Al(NO3)3 (aq) → NR
Zn(s) + Mg(NO3)2 (aq) → NR
The aluminum element reacted with only copper(II) sulfate, which meant that aluminum was a more
reactive metal that copper. The aluminum element reacted with only one solution, whereas the zinc element
reacted with two solutions and therefore aluminum was a less reactive metal than zinc. However, aluminum and
iron both reacted with only one solution, and the same one at that, therefore the inverse relationship of the
solutions was then looked at. The iron(II) sulfate solution reacted with more metal elements than the aluminum
nitrate solution did, and therefore iron was less reactive than aluminum. This was because the iron(II) sulfate
solution was more reactive which meant that the iron(II) ion was displaced more than the aluminum ion was.
Yaworski 9
The reaction equations for the aluminum element were as follows:
2Al(s) + 3CuSO4 (aq) → 3Cu(s) + Al2(SO4)3 (aq)
Al(s) + FeSO4 (aq) → NR
Al(s) + ZnSO4 (aq) → NR
Al(s) + Al(NO3)3 (aq) → NR
Al(s) + Mg(NO3)2 (aq) → NR
The magnesium element reacted with the most amount of solutions which were copper(II) sulfate,
iron(II) sulfate and zinc sulfate, but did not react with aluminum nitrate or magnesium nitrate:
Mg(s) + CuSO4 (aq) → Cu(s) + MgSO4 (aq)
Mg(s) + FeSO4 (aq) → Fe(s) + MgSO4 (aq)
Mg(s) + ZnSO4 (aq) → Zn(s) + MgSO4 (aq)
Mg(s) + Al(NO3)3 (aq) → NR
Mg(s) + Mg(NO3)2 (aq) → NR
Because the magnesium element reacted with zinc sulfate, that meant that the magnesium element
displaced the zinc ion and therefore magnesium was more reactive than zinc. Furthermore, the magnesium
element reacted with the largest number of solutions and the magnesium nitrate solution tied for the least
reactive solution with aluminum nitrate, which means that magnesium is the most reactive metal.
Yaworski 10
The evidence used compared all of the five metals to each other based on their reactivity and helped to
develop the following activity series:
↑Most Reactive
magnesium (Mg)
zinc (Zn)
aluminum (Al)
iron (Fe)
copper (Cu)
↓Least Reactive
To further support this activity series, electronegativity values were considered. The general rule (but not
always) is that for metals, the lower the electronegativity, the more reactive that metal should have been; and for
nonmetals, the higher the electronegativity, the more reactive that nonmetal should have been.
Electronegativity is a number that describes the relative ability of an atom, when bonded, to attract
electrons. Metals lose electrons and nonmetals gain electrons. Therefore, when a nonmetal gains electrons, the
electronegativity determines the reactivity of that nonmetal; the more the nonmetal attracts electrons, the faster
the electrons are taken and therefore the more quick and vigorous the reaction is. However, when a metal loses
electrons, the electronegativity determines the reactivity of that metal; the less the metal attracts electrons, the
faster the electrons are given up and therefore the more quick and vigorous the reaction is. If the
electronegativity of the metal was high, as well as the nonmetal, then there is a longer fight for the electrons and
therefore the reaction would be much slower and less vigorous. If the electronegativity of the metal and
nonmetal are both low, then the fight for the electrons is longer and slower because neither the metal nor the
nonmetal wants the electrons as much as possible. This idea supported the general rule that the lower the
electronegativity of a metal, the more reactive that metal should be.
Yaworski 11
When the electronegativity idea was related back to the activity series developed, it generally made
sense:
↑Most Reactive
magnesium (Mg) – 1.2 Electronegativity
zinc (Zn) –
1.6 Electronegativity
aluminum (Al) –
1.5 Electronegativity
iron (Fe) –
1.8 Electronegativity
copper (Cu) –
1.9 Electronegativity
↓Least Reactive
The outlier in the activity series based on electronegativity values was aluminum, where it should have
been switched with zinc. As stated, however, the electronegativity trend related to the reactivity of the metals did
have some exceptions, and there were sources of error to manipulate the result.
Sources of Error:

Metal elements were not completely cleaned of any oxidation or residue using steel wool; the oxidation
or residue left over affected the results of the experiment. It was impossible to completely clean any of
the metal elements using only steel wool. The purpose of the experiment was to observe chemical
reactivity in the metals, but oxidation and residue manipulated the chemical change in the experiment so
that it was not purely based on the metal reactivity. A fix to that problem would have been to have
completely pure elements, whether that meant they were unused and unaffected by any oxidation or they
were cleaned completely.

Only a drop of the solution was mixed with the metal element and only one trial was done for each of
the different combinations of elements and solutions; the results of the experiment were not proven to be
consistent and not just an outlier. There was only a small amount of each solution mixed with each
element, even while diluted, and so the result of the experiment was to be too small of a chemical
Yaworski 12
change to observe. There was also only one trial for each combination of elements mixed with solutions,
which made the experiment unreliable in there was no proof of consistency. A fix to that problem would
be to have had more than three trials with each combination of element and solution, and to have
submerged each of the metal elements completely, or almost completely, in each of the solutions.

The solutions used were old and not fresh, and so the compound had settled to the bottom of the
solution; the solution had a concentrated amount of the compound on the bottom and a diluted amount
on the top. That meant that the drop of the solution being added to the metal element was very diluted,
because the drop was taken from the top, and so a reaction may not have occurred because of that. A fix
to that problem would have been to use freshly made solutions that had an equal amount of the
compound distribution throughout the entire solution where every drop of the solution had around the
same amount of concentration. Another fix to that problem would have been to properly stir the solution
to have the compound that settled on the bottom to rise and distribute itself appropriately.

It was hard to notice real colour change when the metal element was combined with the solution; only
one or two drops the solution was added to the metal element which made it hard to tell if there was
actually a colour change. The metal elements were shiny and so it was hard to distinguish a colour
change because the drop of solution added becoming a lighter colour may have just been a reflection of
the metal in the solution. The lighter colour could have also been the fact that two colours (metal
element and solution) were being seen at the same time, where there was not actually a change in colour,
but rather seeing a combination of two different colours. The metal may have just created an illusion
where the drop of solution added would appear to be a lighter colour. To fix this problem, the elements
could have been submerged in each of the different solutions to ensure that there was undoubtedly a
colour change; the entire solution would have changed colour as opposed to one drop, which would
mean that it would not have been an illusion of light.