Reaction (rate) between magnesium ribbon and hydrochloric acid

Aim It is to tell how the answer between milligram and hydrochloric sexu entirelyy convey disease all(prenominal)ow be effected if we assortment the niggardness of hydrochloric battery- harsh. incoming In the examine the milligram reacts with the hydrochloric astringent to create milligram chloride and total heat. The balanced formula for this is: Mg(s) + 2HCL(aq) MgCl2(aq) + H2(g) milligram + hydrochloric savage milligram Chloride + light content Magnesium pass on react with hydrochloric battery- panelling, beca exp re radical it is high in the responsiveness series than hydrogen. The magnesium dis smudges the hydrogen in the vitriolic, so it forms magnesium chloride and hydrogen gas. There argon m either vari subjects that I suffer tilt, which atomic number 18 the temperature and assiduousness of the hydrochloric savage, and the mickle and the spring up force field of the magnesium rape. This is each(prenom inal) reliable because they all link to the collision supposition of particles colliding with becoming qualification to affect a reception. It is based on the motif that for a chemical response to take place, the reacting particles defy to fritter a way(predicate) distri neverthelessively(prenominal) early(a) hard sufficient to break or form late bonds. This is called a boffo collision. When particles wee-wee affect or plusd in take, the response pass on ontogeny in esteem because rapid collisions descend proscribed take place fashioning much successful collisions. This diagram shows five solvents hydrochloric venomous and magnesium ribbon that ar reacting. The arrows represent a alter way to show how many successful collisions occur to sepa aimly genius countenance; at that placefore the more arrows in that respect are, the faster the enumerate of reply. They show how different factors fucking affect the rate of answer against these deuce reactants (magnesium and hydrochloric! window glass). The original diagram shows how the solution leave behind be with 1M hydrochloric dosage and 5cm of magnesium peel off. This is to compare with the a nonher(prenominal) diagrams to analyze what the pitch is and if the reply rate has decreased or increased. The eldest nonpareil is to look at what provide happen if I commute the temperature of the solution. As the temperature increases the speed and the power at which the acid particles eat up each new(prenominal) increases, making the bit of successful collisions with the magnesium level increase. The second one is to show how increasing the bay window of the magnesium strip can increase the rate of reply pretty because of the increased surface area scarcely it is provided pretty increased on the sides and so this is proportional to the rate of reply of the original diagram. It is nevertheless laggard than the original reaction because there is more of it to react with and produces more of t he products. Figure 3 shows the slow-wittedness of the hydrochloric acid increased so there are more particles to gull more successful collisions. This is a faster reaction accordingly the original reaction. The final reaction has the equivalent tally of particles of acid and the magnesium, precisely the magnesium has been cut to increase the surface area. This makes the acid particles more likely to redeem more successful collisions each second than the original reaction. There are similarly many factors that I could record like the weight of the solution and the metre it took for the magnesium strip to dissolve, but I am only arranging the hydrogen produced. I chose this because I can make all the different concentrations of acid and I exit be able to record it accurately. The only variable I am changing for this examine is the concentration of the hydrochloric acid (mea trued in M), and maybe just ab proscribed that I film to bear constant all the date. Predic tion I bring ship that if I increase the concentrat! ion of acid I ordain lay a faster rate of reaction whence the gradient of the wrinkle of crap on the represent of results will get steeper with increasing concentration. I have back up this with the explanation of the collision theory (above). As the concentration of acid increases the number of acid particles too increases, this will therefore increase the number of successful collisions with the magnesium. For example, a 2M acid will have twice as many particles per 20cm3 as a 1M acid. I scream that a reaction rate for a 2M solution will be double the rate for 1M because its double the particles. The add of hydrogen I will end up with when the reaction has comp permitely finished will be the same for all the concentrations, but if a reaction is too slow and exceeds the set time I will arrest taking results and it might non finish reacting. Preliminary sample I was suggested to use 20cm3 of hydrochloric acid and 5cm of cleaned magnesium ribbon, and take the flock of hydrogen in the scatter e truly 10 seconds for the preceding experiment to. I tried this but the reaction happened very quickly and the results of the batch of hydrogen were very sp adopt out. The results for each 10 second interval were not accurate plentiful and there was not enough magnesium to get a high aim of hydrogen. To solve this I increased the amount of magnesium strip to 8cm, and decreased the time interval to 5 seconds each. I tried this and the results were much more reliable to use and analyze. Fair shew To sustentation a fair leaven I will have to look into all the variables surrounding the experiment and only throw the variable that I am interrogationing on. The other variables are the temperature of the acid at the beginning, the volume of acid, the surface area of the magnesium strip, the length of the magnesium strip and if the magnesium strip is cleaned or not. The magnesium strips were cleaned and cut correctly by the science science lab tec hnician and I mea sealedd and inspected the strip eac! h time I started the experiment to make sure it was ok for the experiment. Most of these variables for this experiment (except the surface area of the magnesium strip, if it is cleaned or not, and the temperature of the acid) can be changed but I had to stick with the value of these variables for the whole of my experiment.         When I set up the experiment I had to make sure the implement is strongly attached at the vulnerable points where any(prenominal) of the hydrogen could escape, like where the gum elastic supply connects to the syringe. Before I attached the rubber tubing on I do sure there is no air in the syringe, by pushing the inside bit right down until the eminence where I sound out from is at 0cm3. To make sure the equipment is all air tight I had to attach the equipment together and hook shot the syringe up. If it sharply returns to its original position when I let go, it is air tight         The psychometric test had to be re peated to clear out any anomalies and keep the results as accurate as I could. Method For each separate experiment I needed:         1 Conical Flask         1 pear-shaped Syringe with measurements         1 give attached to Rubber thermionic vacuum tube         1 Stopwatch         1 Measuring cylinder         8cm of cleaned Magnesium Ribbon         20cm2 of 2M Hydrochloric Acid First I got all the machine on the list. Next I had to attach the bung on the conical flaskful, and the rubber tubing that is attached to, it to the syringe. This part of the apparatus has to be air tight to hold open any gas escaping from the apparatus. When I was picturey I lifted the rubber bung off the conical flask to disgorge in the reactants (magnesium strip and hydrochloric acid), making sure that I used a measuring cylinder to get the most(prenominal) accurate measurement of hydrochloric acid each time. I mould the acid in first and then the ma! gnesium. When I wander in the 8cm of cleaned magnesium in with the acid, I started the stopwatch and put the rubber bung quickly over the flask to pr planet gas escaping. I wrote down the gas level on the syringe every 5 seconds over a maximum of great century seconds (2 minutes). I then did this experiment again for each of the other concentrations of acid in 0.5M increments starting from 0M to 1.5M (0.5M, 1M, and 1.5M). I made these concentrations by adding a mantel amount of water to the 2M solution, but unruffled maintaining the same amount (20cm3). For example, 15cm3 of acid added to 5cm3 of water to make 20cm3 of 1.5M solution. tout ensemble the experiments have to be repeated at least twain generation to make an accurate set of results. I also needed safety goggles at all time to protect my eyes from the corrosive hydrochloric acid. Most of the equipment is glass so I had to be careful not to damage it, as shards of glass can cut though skin. Results Time (seconds )         How much Hydrogen produced for each concentration (cm3)         0.5M acid         1M acid         1.5M acid         2M acid          beginning(a) test         second test         Average         initiatory test         second test         Average         1st test         2nd test         Average         1st test         2nd test         Average 0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0 5         4         4         4         10         15          12.5         25         25!         25         50         45         47.5 10         6         7         6.5         20         25         22.5         50         50         50         75         70         72.5 15         8         9         8.5         30         35         32.5         65         68         66.5         85         82         83.5 20         10         11         10.5         40         40         40         78         77         77.5         87         85         86 25     Â Â Â Â Â 12         14         13         48         55         51.5         83         80         81.5         87         85         86 30         14         15         14.5         57         60         58.5         84         83         83.5         87         85         86 35         15         17         16         62         70         66         85         84         84.5         87         85         86 40         17         19         18         70         75         72.5         85 !         84         84.5         87         85         86 45         19         21         20         75         78         76.5         85         84         84.5         87         85         86 50         21         24         22.5         80         80         80         85         84         84.5         87         85         86 55         22         25         23.5         81         81         81         85         84         84.5         87         85          86 60         24         27         25.5         83         82         82.5         85         84         84.5         87         85         86 65         25         29         27         83         83         83         85         84         84.

5         87         85         86 70         27         31         29         83  Â!  Â Â Â Â Â Â 83         83         85         84         84.5         87         85         86 75         29         33         31         83         83         83         85         84         84.5         87         85         86 80         30         33         31.5         83         83         83         85         84         84.5         87         85         86 85         32         34         33         83         83         83         85         84         84.5         87         85         86 90         34         38         36         83         83         83         85         84         84.5         87         85         86 95         35         39         37         83         83         83         85         84         84.5         87         85         86 degree centigrade         36         40         38         83         83         83         85         84         84.5         87         85         86 one hundred five       Â Â Â 37         41        !  39         83         83         83         85         84         84.5         87         85         86 cx         38         42         40         83         83         83         85         84         84.5         87         85         86 cxv         38         43         40.5         83         83         83         85         84         84.5         87         85         86 120         40         45         42.5         83         83         83         85     Â Â Â Â Â 84         84.5         87         85         86 Conclusion The graphs I did from this tabularise are a darn of all the averages of the concentrations and an initial reaction rate sketch. As I can hold in on the ii graphs as the concentration increases the initial rate increases. To get the initial rate I had to plot the first two results (0-5 sec) of every concentration and work out the gradient from this. They are: Concentration         Gradient (y/x = cm3 per second) 0.5M         0.8 1.0M         2.4 1.5M         6.0 2.0M         9.167 It tells me that as the concentration of acid increases, the gradient increases so the rate of reaction (cm3 per second) increases. This proves the collision theory (above).         I predicted that all the results will end up the same but the ones that actually finished did not end up at the same poin t, but they were close to high or lower than each o! ther. This is because of roughly meagerly changing variables somewhat the room and in the experiment up to now though I tried my best to keep the variables constant. come results around the middle were found to be slightly touch on with slight anomalies little bumps in the limit, but these were minor and the line was mainly smooth. I also said that I belief the reaction doubles with the concentration, but I found out from the gradients that it well-nigh quadruples when the concentration doubles. Other than that my prediction follows well with the facts. The last(a) concentration (0.5M) had a very low reaction rate that it did not level off reach very far up on the graph. This tells me that there is a significant change even when I decrease the concentration by 0.5M. Evaluation I feel that I could have done more experiments and make a smoother graph of the average. The largest difference in my results, on the 2M concentration for the same time, was 5cm3 away which is a 50% error, but the average happenmed to be near enough to be in the trend of results. This was probably by not putting on the bung fast enough when the magnesium was inserted into the acid. On the faster reactions the syringe level moves rather fast and reading from a moving object can be hard, so (if it was available) a data logger (attached to a computer) should have been used to read the data and record it to the adjacent 0.5cm3 or even less, to get very accurate results. scour still there are other affecting variables that are very hard to keep constant so it would have been helpful to repeat the experiment again or even more. The syringe could have stuck on the barrel around it enceinte me lower readings on curtain points or when the reaction stopped. I should have put some lubricant around it to stop this from possibly happening. Further consort I could test the concentrations for the ones in between like 0.25 and 0.75 to see how the rate of reaction changes. I could al so change the acid reactant to sulphuric acid or phos! phoric acid to see and compare the results with different molecular make-ups. The other reactant that I could change is the type of metal I use. Using the less responsive metals like zinc, aluminium, iron or lead enables me to test the higher concentrations like 3M or 4M because the reaction will go dilatory so I will be able to read the results off the syringe properly. If you want to get a entire essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay