GCE Advanced Level and GCE Advanced Subsidiary Level

Paper 9701/01
Multiple Choice

Question Question
Key Key
Number Number
1 A 21 C
2 D 22 B
3 C 23 B
4 B 24 A
5 A 25 A
6 A 26 B
7 D 27 D
8 A 28 C
9 B 29 D
10 B 30 D
11 C 31 C
12 A 32 D
13 B 33 C
14 A 34 C
15 D 35 B
16 B 36 C
17 D 37 C
18 B 38 C
19 C 39 A
20 D 40 B

General comments

For this paper, the mean score was 25.7 (64.3%), just above the targeted value, and the standard deviation
of the scores was 7.11 (17.8%). This indicates that the paper discriminated satisfactorily among candidates,
and the mean score has shown a marked increase on that from last year, probably reflecting that for the first
time there were candidates who were taking this paper both at the end of their first year (Advanced
Subsidiary) and the end of their second year (Advanced Level) studies.

The first 30 questions were simple completion items: Questions 31 to 40 were three-statement multiple
completion items.

Comments on specific questions

Seven questions had a facility above the design limit: Questions 1, 3, 9, 15, 20, 24 and 31. A high facility is
often coupled with a relatively low discrimination, but it is an encouragement to know that candidates are
familiar with the use of bond dissociation energies to calculate an enthalpy change of formation
(Question 9), and that environmental concern about the emission of carbon monoxide from car exhausts
due to incomplete combustion is well known (Question 24).

http://www.xtremepapers.net
Three questions did not discriminate well within the ability range of candidates, and these usually reflect
misconceptions among the more able candidates.

In Question 11 the variation of the rate of an autocatalysed reaction with time was given graphically.
Whereas 34% of candidates chose the key C, 38% chose the distractor B in which the rate of the reaction
was stated to increase to a maximum and not decrease thereafter: candidates should surely appreciate that
when reactants are used up in a reaction there must inevitably be a diminution in rate.

Question 18 tested the understanding of the use of sulphur dioxide as a food preservative. The correct
answer B, was given by 63%, that it is a reducing agent, but 19%, including some of the more able
candidates, gave D, believing that its significant reaction was to form an acidic solution with water.

Question 38 the reaction of ethane with aqueous bromine in the presence of sodium bromide tests the
understanding of the mechanism of electrophilic addition. An analysis of the answers yields the rather
surprising fact that 52% of candidates thought that it is possible to obtain CH2ClCH2Cl, presumably by the
generation of Cl2 and its subsequent addition to CH2=CH2, and 24% believed it was not possible to get
CH2BrCH2Br.

One question had a low facility: in Question 21 candidates were asked the total number of different
chloroethanes that are possible with the formula C2H6-nCln. Only 19% gave the correct answer C, 9: by far
the greater proportion, 59%, opted for A, 6, not allowing for the structural isomers when n is 2, 3 and 4.

Two other questions require comment. In Question 8 a significant proportion of candidates, 33%, opted for
the distractor C not appreciating that a ‘standard enthalpy change of combustion’ is estimated or measured
at a standard temperature – in this case, not the high temperature of combustion of carbon. In Question 36
24% of candidates thought that strontium does not burn on being heated in oxygen.

Paper 9701/02
Theory 1

General comments

The general feeling was that the performance of candidates was better than last year, especially in some
areas.

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

(a) The image of a carbon atom as being like six bees buzzing around a space the size of a football
stadium is a nice one. It reminds us that most of matter is space. This section was answered well;
the chief omission was the electrostatic attraction of the protons in the nucleus for the electrons
(the bees).

(c) Some candidates gave NO2- or NO3- as the ions in binary compounds. Binary compounds contain
two elements only.

Question 2

This question was well answered. Some poor diagrams in (c) failed to score marks.

Question 3

This question on aluminium is largely bookwork, on material which needs to be tested and understood.
Question 4

(a)(ii) Only a small percentage of candidates observed that more oxygen was required for the second
stage of converting the SO2 to SO3.

(c)(i)(ii) These are equilibrium explanations answered in terms of Le Chatelier’s principle. Catalysts are too
(iii) easily poisoned, which is why the air in (iii) needs to be clean or dust-free.

Question 5

Well answered. Some candidates lost marks by erroneously reducing the formula of cyclohexane to C6H14
and cyclohexene to C6H12.

Question 6

This question was answered very well.

Paper 9701/03
Practical Test

General comments

The Examiners again thank Supervisors who provided experimental results for Question 1 as requested in
the Instructions to Supervisors. There were however, a number of Centres where no experimental
information was provided by the Supervisor. This gives the possibility of candidates being disadvantaged as
some of the accuracy marks for the question were awarded for the candidate’s results compared to those of
the Supervisor.

The Examiners expect to find in any packet of scripts opened:

· Session and Laboratory information for each candidate together with a seating plan for each
laboratory in all sessions.

· The full results of the experiment performed at the same time as the examination, under the same
conditions and using the same materials for each Laboratory and Session. The results should be
fully recorded in the same way they will be recorded by the candidates.

When this information is provided, the Examiners are able to make allowances where problems occur within
a Session or Laboratory. It is not unknown for solutions in a particular area of a Laboratory to have
deteriorated owing to adverse conditions. Where the seating plan and experimental results were provided
the Examiners were able to make any necessary adjustments to accuracy marks.

The paper performed well and gave the majority of candidates the opportunity to display their practical skills.
Marks were distributed over the upper part of the 25 mark range with comparatively few candidates scoring
below 10 marks.

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

It was expected that candidates would record all weighings to two decimal places (or better). There were still
a number of candidates who, using balances capable of weighing to 2 decimal places, omitted the second
decimal place where this was a zero. One mark was given if all four recorded weighings were recorded with
this required precision but was lost where the second decimal place was omitted.

Candidates were asked to perform and then repeat the same experiment – weighing between 3.30 g and
3.50 g of FA 1. The Examiners were surprised to see the number of candidates who spent time in ensuring
they had weighed exactly the same amount of FA 1 for each experiment. One mark was given if each
amount weighed, shown by correct subtraction in Table 1.1, was between 3.20 g and 3.50 g. The lower limit
of 3.20 g allowed for some residual solid in the weighing bottle.
Thermometers with graduations every 0.2oC were specified. The Examiners were looking for all
thermometer readings to be recorded to the nearest 0.1oC. (Where thermometers graduated in whole
degrees were supplied by Centres the Examiners were still looking for one decimal place as these should be
read and recorded to the nearest 0.5oC.) As with the weighings, some candidates recorded a temperature
such as 25.0oC as 25oC and lost the mark for precision in using their thermometers.

Accuracy marks

temperatur e rise
For each experiment the ratio of was calculated.
amount weighed

Four marks were available by comparing the ratios from the candidate’s experiments.

Average
Temperature 5oC o o o
1 oC
Rise is
4C 3C 2C
(or higher) (or lower)
Closest to

Mark Difference in Ratio

4 Up to 0.05 Up to 0.04 Up to 0.03 Up to 0.02 Up to 0.01

3 0.05+ to 0.10 0.04+ to 0.08 0.03+ to 0.06 0.02+ to 0.04 0.01+ to 0.02

2 0.10+ to 0.15 0.08+ to 0.12 0.06+ to 0.09 0.04+ to 0.06 0.02+ to 0.03

1 0.15+ to 0.20 0.12+ to 0.16 0.09+ to 0.12 0.06+ to 0.08 0.03+ to 0.04

0 > 0.20 > 0.16 > 0.12 > 0.08 > 0.04

A further four marks were available by comparing one of the candidate’s ratios with the ratio calculated
from the Supervisor’s Results. The candidate ratio closer to that obtained by the Supervisor was used in
this case. Marks were again awarded as in the Table above.

A large number of candidates showed very good consistency in their practical work and scored the first four
marks for accuracy but some obtained results that showed large differences between the two ratios.

It was generally found that candidates who scored zero for accuracy when their own results were compared
obtained a reasonable mark (from 4) when one of their ratios was compared to the Supervisor’s result.

Calculations
3
(f) The majority of candidates were able to multiply the volume of solution ( 50 cm ) by 4.3 and by the
temperature rise. There were still a significant number of candidates who added the mass of FA 1
to the 50 cm3/50 g of solution or who simply included the mass of FA 1 in their expression. It was
expected that units would be correct: Joules or Joules converted to kiloJoules, (mol-1 was ignored).

(g) The majority of candidates were able to divide their answer to (f) by the value of DH to obtain the
number of moles reacting. Some candidates mixed their units (J and kJ) and because of this even
inverted the expression.

(h) The majority of candidates were again able to divide their average mass by the answer to (g) to
obtain the molar mass of XCO3. Some left the calculation at this stage thinking they had obtained
the atomic mass of X. The Examiners were looking for an attempt to subtract 60 from the molar
mass already calculated (arithmetical errors ignored) and an evaluated answer that had no units.
Candidates who had made an error in an early part of the calculation often calculated a molar mass
that was less than 60. This should have alerted them to a mistake.

Many candidates who obtained a molar mass of less than 60 proceeded to subtract the molar mass
from 60 in the second part of the section.
Question 2

The solution FA 2 contained the ions Al.3+, Br- and SO42-.

The Examiners would draw the attention of candidates to the Rubric for an Observation/Deduction question:

“You should indicate clearly at what stage in a test a change occurs, writing any deductions you make
alongside the observations on which they are based”.

This is particularly important where a second reagent is added. Examiners awarded marks where possible
but on occasions it was impossible to know which reagent had produced the recorded observation so no
mark was awarded. Deduction marks are only awarded following a valid observation.

A good range of marks was produced in this question with a significant number of candidates having excess
marks cancelled to the maximum 10.

(a) Candidates were asked to add sodium carbonate to the solution and it was anticipated they would
see effervescence and identify carbon dioxide as the gas given off with a deduction that the
solution was acidic.

The observation mark was given for the gas evolved turning lime water milky, cloudy etc. This
mark was not given very often. The deduction mark (for acid/acidic solution) was also given from
an observation of effervescence or naming carbon dioxide as the gas given off.

A surprising number of candidates deduced carbonate as the ion present!

Salts of highly charged ions such as Al.3+, Fe3+ or Cr3+ did not obtain the deduction mark.

Fe3+ or Cr3+ were considered to be incorrect ions as their solutions are coloured. As incorrect ions
they cancel a correct deduction such as acid or acidic solution.

(b) Most candidates scored two marks here – white precipitate with the barium salt and sulphate as
deduction. This was one test where the white precipitate was often written against the added acid.
Some candidates did not realise the significance of adding the acid as they left sulphite in the
deduction.

(c) The observation for a bromide on adding silver nitrate is difficult unless chloride, bromide and
iodide are tested side by side. In deciding the observations that would be allowed, the Examiners
took into consideration the analysis notes printed on page 7. The precipitate should have been
cream but not yellow.

For the observation mark; cream, cream/off-white, cream/white, white/cream, off-white/cream were
allowed as colours with the precipitate insoluble or partially soluble in dilute aqueous ammonia.
Bromide was the deduction from a correct observation.

(d) A white precipitate, soluble in excess sodium hydroxide was required for the observation mark. All
three ions, Al.3+, Pb2+ and Zn2+ were required for the deduction mark.

(e) A white precipitate, insoluble in excess ammonia solution was required for the observation mark.
The two ions, Al.3+ and Pb2+ were required for the deduction mark. If the deduction mark had been
given in (d) a candidate could score the deduction mark here for the absence of Zn2+. The
deduction mark could also be scored for concluding the presence of Al.3+ providing it had already
been mentioned when effervescence was seen in (a).

(f) One mark only was available for this test and was given for no reaction/no precipitate as the
observation together with the presence of Al.3+ or absence of Pb2+ as deduction.

One mark was given for listing the correct ions in the Summary. A small number of candidates continue to
confuse cations and anions.

A small number of candidates did not understand that fresh samples of FA 3 should be used in the tests (b)
to (f) and from their recorded observations it was clear that they had added further reagents to some of the
mixture from (a).
Where acid was added in (b), (c) and (f) candidates observed that “the precipitate dissolved to form a
clear/colourless solution”.

As this did not interfere with subsequent reagents full marks could be gained in these tests. No marks were
possible however on addition of sodium hydroxide or ammonia, as the precipitate left in (a) remained
insoluble in these reagents.

Paper 9701/04
Paper 4

General comments

This was the first year of the new format of A level papers. Inevitably, because this paper concentrated
solely on the A2 part of the syllabus, it was likely to seem quite demanding for candidates. Those who took
Papers 1 and 2 alongside Paper 4 would have found the first two much more straightforward than this Paper.
This is as it is designed to be. In the event, candidates seemed well prepared for this Paper, although it was
noted that several candidates had not spent enough time on the Organic Chemistry sections of the syllabus.

There was no real evidence of candidates running out of time, and in the main their answers were full
enough. There were one or two places on the paper where candidates felt the need to expand their
answers, (e.g. Questions 2(a), 4(b), and (c)) but where necessary candidates used other available space.
In general candidate’s answers were succinct and to the point. Calculations were usually set out clearly, and
several error-carried-forward marks could be awarded for correct working after an erroneous beginning to a
calculation. For this to occur, the candidate’s working must be clearly laid out at every stage.

Answer to Numerical Problems

Question 1

(b) pH = 13.3

Question 2

(b)(i) rate(A) = 4.6 (±0.8) x 10-5 mol dm-3 min-1

rate(B) = 11 (±3) x 10-5 mol dm-3 min-1

(vi) k = 0.2 (±0.05) mol-1 dm3 min-1

Question 3

(c)(ii) Ar = 85.3

Question 4

(c)(ii) Eocell = +0.75 V

(iii) Eocell = +0.95 V

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

(a) Most candidates knew this definition Kw = [H+][OH-]. The most common incorrect answers were Kw
= pH + pOH; Kw = KaxKb; Kw = [H+] + [OH-].

(b) This calculation was well done by those candidates who had written the correct expression in (a).
(c) The idea that ammonia was a weaker base or less ionised than NaOH was expressed by many
candidates. Some stated incorrectly that ammonia was a stronger acid, and some put the
difference down to “experimental error”.

(d) Both this part and part (e) were taken straight from the syllabus (sections 7l and 7m) but Examiners
were disappointed to see so many incorrect answers. Many candidates did not read the question
carefully enough, and drew curves showing the titration of a fixed amount of HCl with NH3 in the
burette, rather than vice versa. The curve should have started at pH 11.3 (not 13.3 as some
indicated), fallen gently to about pH 7, and then fallen sharply to about pH 2 at the end point, which
occurs at a volume added of 40 cm3. Thereafter a gentle slope downwards to about pH 1.

(e) Only a minority of candidates chose the correct indicator, methyl orange. Several forfeited their
mark by placing a tick in more than one box.

(f) Equations were necessary to gain full marks here. The most appropriate were the following:

NH3 + H+ ——→ NH4+ and

NH4+ + OH- ——→ NH3 + H2O

The most common errors were to suggest that ammonium chloride and “ammonium hydroxide”,
NH4Cl and NH4OH, occurred as un-ionised species, that ionised, when needed, to NH4+ + Cl- or
OH-.

Question 2

(a) This part was designed to test the ability of candidates to devise a suitable experimental technique,
from given information (syllabus section 8j). Several candidates mentioned the use of a
colorimeter, but fewer described how to use it effectively. Many applied the “thiosulphate cross
obscuring” method. This could score [3] out of [4] if well described. A few candidates described
the extraction of samples and the titration of remaining OH- with HCl - a good reliable method. The
main weaknesses in most candidates’ answers were the lack of detail in the use of a stopclock; the
mixing of solutions of the two reagents of known concentration ; and the measurement of the “end”
of the reaction (“take the time when the mixture turns yellow” was a common example of this). The
“ideal” answers would have included the following steps:

(i) mix a known volume of each solution, of known concentration, and start the stopclock.

(ii) place in a colorimeter (fitted with a suitable filter) and measure the increase in absorbance over
time or take out samples at known time intervals and titrate against standard acid.

(b)(i) Many candidates have clearly never drawn tangents at T = zero to find initial rates. The majority
chose random times at which to draw their tangents, and even then did not calculate the slopes
accurately. Some did not read the graph carefully enough, and quoted their rates in mol dm-3 sec-1,
rather than mol dm-3 min-1 (some converted the rate in min-1 into a rate in sec-1 - this unnecessary
extra step was perfectly acceptable, of course).

(ii) Those whose tangents in (a) were drawn incorrectly often came up with a curious answer here.
Many assumed the order was first order, even without attempting a calculation. From this stage
onwards the error-carried-forward principle was applied, so full credit could be obtained in parts (iii)
- (vi) even if parts (i) and (ii) were incorrect.

(iii)(iv) Since the first two half-lives were the same (construction lines on the graph were needed to ensure
the mark), the order was one.

(v) The rate equation had to fit with the candidate’s answers to (ii) and (iii).

(vi) Examiners checked that the candidate’s answer, including the units, was consistent with their
answers to parts (i)and (v).
Question 3

Examiners were in general pleased with candidates’ answers to (a) and (b). In (c) candidates used a variety
of methods - some strictly algebraic, and some via moles - to obtain their answers. A significant minority
(mostly grade A/B candidates) scored full marks.

(a) Several candidates tried to incorporate O2 on the left hand side of the equation. Very few confused
this decomposition with that of a Group I nitrate, so most ended up with the oxide. What happened
to the N and O was the subject of much speculation on the part of some, however!

(b) The main slip in candidates’ descriptions was to refer to sizes of Group II atoms, rather than
cations. The cations polarised the bonds in the nitrate anion. Several candidates thought that
stability decreased down the Group, as the lattice energies decreased.

(c) The most chemically logical way of approaching this calculation was to calculate the number of
moles of oxygen evolved (10.85g of oxygen is 0.678 moles), and to equate this with the number of
moles of MNO3 in 100g. Hence the Mr of MNO3 = 100/0.678 = 147.5. Hence Ar(M) = 85.5
approximately, and thus M = Rb. Many other correct alternative methods were given full credit.

Question 4

(a) A surprisingly large number of candidates got this part wrong. The most common error was to
write 3d3 4s2.

(b)(i) Suitable Eo values needed to be quoted (+1.36 V, 1.07 V and 0.54 V in this case). Most, but not
all, candidates knew that chlorine is the strongest oxidiser, and iodine the weakest. There was
some confusion shown between oxidising agents and reducing agents.

(ii) Some candidates quoted the M3+/M Eo rather than the M3+/M2+ Eo for Cr and Fe. This was allowed,
although not intended! Quoting the Eo for Cr2O72-/Cr3+ showed a lack of understanding as to
whether oxidising or reducing agents were being compared.

(c) Correct calculations using the correct Eo values would have shown that there would be no reaction
in (i), but there would be reactions in (ii) and (iii). Candidates still find Eo calculations challenging.
Some multiply the Eo value by the number of electrons, some change the sign of an Eo for no
apparent reason, and some add together Eo values rather than take them away.

Question 5

(a) The descriptions of functional groups were often not specific enough. Phenol (or phenolic hydroxy)
was accepted, alcohol or hydroxyl was not. Amide was acceptable, but peptide was not. Other
common errors included amine; hydroxide and ketone (!).

(b)(i) At least 2 bromines were needed in the ring to score the mark. Orientation was not critical.
Common errors included brominating the CH3 group and the NH group.

(ii) The sodium phenate needed to be shown in an ionic form (either as Ar-O-Na+ or just as Ar-O-).

(iii) Only the more able hydrolysed the amide to CH3CO2- and Ar-O-. Many candidates substituted H
atoms in the ring with OH groups, or added OH to the C=O in the amide group.

(c)(i) This proved a surprisingly difficult part. Many candidates did not look back at the formula of
paracetamol and recognise that it was an amide of ethanoic acid. Most who scored a mark here
chose to use ethanoyl chloride rather than the anhydride, which was an acceptable alternative.
Those who just stated “acyl chloride” did not score - perhaps they were confused between acyl and
acetyl?

(ii) Acceptable reagents included PCl3, PCl5 and SOCl2.

Question 6

This was in general a high scoring question.

(a)(i)(ii) Some candidates confused these two reaction with each other. Reaction I needs a halogen carrier
(e.g. AlCl3, Fe, I2) and non-aqueous chlorine. Reaction II requires light as a catalyst, again with
non-aqueous chlorine.

(b)(i) Most correctly identified A as the unreactive compound, but did not explain their reasons clearly.
The effect of chlorine on the reactivity of the aromatic ring is irrelevant. The point looked for was
the extra strengthening of the C-Cl bond due to the delocalisation of chlorine’s electrons into the
ring (or the inability of the C-Cl bond to undergo nucleophilic attack due to the ring electrons getting
in the way).

(ii) The most common error was to omit the inorganic product (OH- or NaOH) from the balanced
equation

Question 7

(a) The identification of Y as nitrobenzene was successfully accomplished by only a minority of

candidates. Many suggested chlorobenzene (even though they had written that
chloromethylbenzene was unreactive in Question 6). The correct reagent and conditions for
reaction I are conc HNO3 + conc H2SO4 at 50-60oC. For reaction II candidates could have used
either LiAlH4 (not NaBH4) or H2 + Ni (not Pt, which would hydrogenate the ring). The most
common reagent, Sn (or Fe) with conc HCl, was chosen by many.

(b)(i) The reaction of phenylamine with either H+, H2O or HCl was acceptable. The product had to show
the ionic C6H5NH3+.

(ii)(iii) Phenylamine is less basic than ammonia because the lone pair on nitrogen is delocalised over the
aromatic ring.

(c)(i) Either HNO2 or NaNO2 + HCl was accepted as the reagent. The temperature conditions need to
be less than 10oC.

(ii) Many candidates knew the NaOH was needed, but far fewer appreciated that it needs to be in
aqueous solution .

(iii) Common errors in the formula of the dye were to draw -N≡N- rather than -N=N-; to omit the CH3
group on the phenolic ring; or to join the N=N to the CH3 rather than to the ring. Although the CH3
and OH groups had to be adjacent in the product, any orientation of the =N=N- was acceptable.

Paper 9701/05
Practical Test

General comments

The Examiners again thank Supervisors who provided experimental results for Question 1 as requested in
the Instructions to Supervisors. There were however a number of Centres where no experimental
information was provided by the Supervisor. This gives the possibility of candidates being disadvantaged as
some of the accuracy marks for the question were awarded for the candidate’s results compared to those of
the Supervisor.
The Examiners expect to find in any packet of scripts opened:

· Session and Laboratory information for each candidate together with a seating plan for each laboratory
in all sessions.

· The full results of the experiment performed at the same time as the examination, under the same
conditions and using the same materials for each Laboratory and Session. The results should be fully
recorded in the same way they will be recorded by the candidates.

When this information is provided, the Examiners are able to make allowances where problems occur within
a Session or Laboratory. It is not unknown for solutions in a particular area of a Laboratory to have
deteriorated owing to adverse conditions. Where the seating plan and experimental results were provided
the Examiners were able to make any necessary adjustments to accuracy marks.

The paper performed well and gave the majority of candidates the opportunity to display their practical skills.
Marks were distributed over the upper part of the 30 mark range with comparatively few candidates scoring
below 13 marks.

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

This paper followed normal practice in awarding three marks for the recording of results in the titration table:

One mark for recording all final burette readings to two decimal places (to nearest 0.05 cm3).

A significant minority of candidates still record burette readings to only 1 decimal place.

One mark for two titres within 0.10 cm3.

Time is often wasted by candidates who perform three or four accurate titrations and average all of them
when the first two are within the 0.10 cm3 tolerance.

One mark for obtaining a suitable average value and showing how it is obtained either by ticking the titres
selected (as per rubric) or showing the calculation.

A number of candidates fail to indicate which values they used in obtaining the average or just tick one
value. In the latter case the closest titre to that selected is noted by the Examiner to assess if a “spread
penalty” is to be applied.

Accuracy marks

The “average” selected by the candidate (or by the Examiner where there was an error in subtraction in the
titration table) was compared with the titre obtained by the Supervisor and 5 accuracy marks were available
for differences:

Accuracy marks Spread Penalty

3 3
Mark Difference from Supervisor/cm Range used/cm Deduction
5 up to 0.20 0.20+ to 0.25 1
4 0.20+ to 0.25 0.25+ to 0.30 2
3 0.25+ to 0.30 0.30+ to 0.35 3
2 0.30+ to 0.50 0.35+ to 0.40 4
1 0.50+ to 1.00 greater than 0.40 5
0 Greater than 1.00

The spread penalty is applied where candidates have not shown good judgement in considering the titres to
be used in calculating the “average”. Candidates are expected to use results within a 0.20 cm3 spread when
calculating the average.

The Examiners observed good precision in the titres recorded in this examination resulting in consistent
values. High accuracy marks were awarded to many candidates.
Calculations

titre
(b) Nearly all candidates were able to calculate x 0.02 .
1000

(c) The majority of candidates were able to use the half equations to establish the ratio MnO4- º 5Fe2+.
Most went on to correctly multiply the answer to (b) by 5 and gain the first mark but some divided
by 5 after writing down the correct ratio. A few 1:1 and 1:2 ratios were seen.

Some candidates failed to convert their moles of Fe2+ into a concentration but the majority correctly
multiplied by 40 and obtained the second mark.

(d) Experiment 2

Table 1.2 confused a small number of candidates whose final and initial burette readings were for
the FB 3 added. The Examiners accepted the volume of FB 1 given by the candidate without the
benefit of the subtraction being checked.

Some candidates did not transfer their titre figure from Experiment 1 and consequently did not plot
this figure onto the graph.

The titrations were performed well – accuracy being assessed on the graph. FB 3 was a solution
of hydrogen peroxide which under acid conditions oxidised some of the Fe2+ leaving the remaining
Fe2+ to react with the manganate(VII). The majority of candidates obtained very good straight lines
with all four points lying close to the best-fit line.

(e) Graph

One mark was given for plotting FB 1 on the y axis and FB 3 on the x axis. The majority of
candidates scored this mark but a few plotted FB 3 against FB 1.

One mark was given for labelling the axes – including units (the latter were missed by many
candidates)

One mark was given for linear scales and for the FB 1 values being plotted over more than half the
length of the available axis. Most candidates scored this mark – very few non-linear scales were
seen but some unsuitable scales were selected.

1
Two marks were given for correctly plotting (to within small square in either direction) the four
2
titres. One mark was given for three points correctly plotted, zero for less than three.

Examiners corrected the plotting of points where necessary. For candidates who selected “difficult”
scales no plotting marks were available but the Examiner plotted their points onto a graph with a
normal scale selection.

Accuracy marks were awarded for the fit of the correctly plotted points to the Examiner selected
best-fit line.

Mark

All four plotted points are within 1 horizontal or vertical square on

3
either side of the line.

Three of the plotted points are within 1 horizontal or vertical square

on either side of the line and the fourth point is within 2 horizontal 2
squares.

Three of the plotted points are within 2 horizontal or vertical squares

1
on either side of the line.

Three marks for accuracy were awarded to the majority of candidates.

(f) One mark was given if the candidate had plotted a best-fit line for their plotted points. A line that
passed through three points but missed the fourth point was considered to be a best-fit line.

(g) A large number of candidates did not realise that the volume of FB 3 required was the intercept on
the FB 3 axis when the volume of FB 1 was 0.00 cm3.

A number of candidates had ignored the instruction that the FB 3 axis should extend to 30.00 cm3
and chose a scale of 2,4,6,8,10,12 cm3 on the x axis. The mark in (g) was lost by these candidates
as there was no intercept on the x axis. A very small number of these candidates determined a
gradient and obtained the mark for calculating the volume of FB 3 where the intercept should be.

Question 2

(a) Many varying pieces of apparatus were seen – some straight forward, others very fanciful! In
assessing whether the first mark was to be given Examiners asked two questions.

· Was the apparatus used for heating the caesium nitrate suitable? Apparatus with “sharp”
corners such as conical or flat-bottomed flasks were not considered to be suitable.

· Would the apparatus successfully collect and measure the gas given off? The second mark
was for clearly labelling the apparatus used to collect the gas and giving a sensible capacity
– likely to be found in a laboratory. 25 dm3 gas syringes were considered to be unlikely.

(b) If the gas had “encountered” water in the apparatus (even if it had not actually been bubbled
through water) oxygen was accepted as the gas to be collected. If no water was included
oxygen/nitrogen dioxide was accepted. A few of the better candidates gave oxygen/nitrogen or
oxygen depending on the equation.

(c) This was the most demanding part of the plan and for the majority of candidates only 1 mark (Mr of
CsNO3 =195) was awarded. Most candidates failed to see that the maximum volume of gas to be
collected depended on which was the correct equation. The Examiners were looking for a
statement such as: (if oxygen alone to be collected) – More gas produced in second equation. (if
oxygen/nitrogen dioxide to be collected) – More gas produced in first equation. One mark was
given for such a statement or for a calculation showing this information. The third mark was for
calculating a mass of caesium nitrate to be used, using the correct equation, that would not
produce more gas than could be held in the capacity apparatus drawn.

(d) The Examiners were expecting that candidates would convert the mass of caesium nitrate and
volume of gas(es) collected to moles (one mark) and calculate the mole ratio.

4 mole CsNO3 º 5 mole gas Equation 1

2 mole CsNO3 º 1 mole gas Equation 2

For the second mark to be awarded numbers had to be involved in the explanation. The question
had asked how you would use your results – reference to brown gas was not given credit.

(e) Most candidates picked up the toxic description of NO2. Many stated that the experiment should
be carried out in sealed apparatus to prevent loss of the NO2. This was not awarded the mark as
the candidates did not realise that if gas is lost from the apparatus the point of the experiment is
lost. Dissolving the NO2 in water was not allowed as a safety point. This left the use of a fume-
cupboard or adequate ventilation in the laboratory. Use of a gas mask or respirator was allowed
but not use of a face mask.
 Paper 9701/06
Options

Comments on specific questions

Biochemistry

This remains a popular option and answers to the two questions were, on the whole, pleasing.

Question 1

In part (a) most candidates knew that tertiary structure referred to the overall 3-dimensional structure of the
protein involving folding or coiling of the chains. Part (b) produced some very good answers, although
sometimes the choices of examples were incorrect e.g. NaCl for electrostatic bonding. Most candidates
could identify the bond types, but examples of R group interactions were again often not well chosen.

Question 2

The structure of DNA was generally well described in part (a), with many candidates producing accurate,
clearly-labelled diagrams. Part (b) was rather less well answered by some candidates whose answers
lacked detail. The questions posed were quite specific and candidates need to address these to score well.

Environmental Chemistry

This option varies in its popularity in different parts of the world. The questions this year proved a little more
testing and marks for this option were rather lower.

Question 3

Part (a) of this question hinged on candidates recognising that sulphur dioxide would absorb in the infra-red
region of the spectrum. As a result it could re-emit energy back to the Earth’s surface. In part (b), despite
the fact that the question asked about the formation of sulphate ions, candidates wrote equations for the
formation of sulphuric acid from sulphur dioxide! Part (c) was answered rather better, with many candidates
feeling on more familiar territory. A surprisingly few candidates knew very much about fluidised beds as a
means of removing sulphur from coal during combustion.

Question 4

Part (a) of this question was answered very poorly on the whole, with few candidates showing that they knew
anything about the weathering of limestone. Answers to part (b) were rather patchy with some good
answers, but others in which candidates seemed to write down anything they thought might be vaguely
relevant. Clearly a significant number of candidates do not know enough about the chemistry of soils.

Phase Equilibria

This remains a very popular option and one which produces some very good answers.

Question 5

The graph in part (a) caused few problems, except for those candidates who reversed the axes and were
penalised one mark. Answers to (a)(ii) and (b)(i) and (ii) which were based on the graph were usually
successful. The calculation of mole fraction in part (c) caused problems for weaker candidates, with many of
them forgetting to add the potassium chloride and water. Part (d) was straightforward for good candidates,
but a number of candidates simply drew the phase diagram of water and scored no marks.
Question 6

Lots of candidates scored both marks for the diagram in part (a), with those losing marks failing to show the
correct flow direction of the water in the condenser or omitting the thermometer or fractionating column.
Part (b) was well attempted, although some candidates included an azeotrope. The explanation of
theoretical plates was usually satisfactory. In part (c) many candidates showed good understanding of
hydrogen bonding and the effects of chain length.

Spectroscopy

Although one of the less popular options, there were clearly some very well prepared candidates who
answered these questions, and who scored good marks.

Question 7

Although a good number of candidates could describe two ways of preparing a solid for infra-red analysis, a
significant number did not provide sufficient detail to score more than 2 of the 4 marks. In part (b)(i)
candidates seemed to stop reading when they got to ‘functional group’ and did not look for those which
would absorb in the infra-red region. In part (b)(ii) most candidates correctly identified –N-H. Part (c)
produced some good answers, but too often they did not highlight specific absorptions.

Question 8

This question was answered rather better than Question 7 on the whole. Most candidates correctly
explained the origin of M+1 and M+2 peaks as 13C and 37Cl or 81Br respectively. Any valid means of
calculating n was accepted in part (b), although the use of the M and (M+1) data was expected. Some
candidates struggled to identify the two fragment ions in part (c), partly because they did not think of what
fragment could be lost to give m/e 57 (M-15). In part (d), however, many candidates scored both marks.

Transition Metals

As with Phase Equilibria, this remains a popular and well answered option, with this year being no exception.

Question 9

Part (a) caused some confusion, for although almost all candidates knew that the 3d orbitals were split, many
did not seem to know what caused two of these to be raised in energy. The Examiners were looking for an
explanation based on the repulsion of the electrons due to approaching lone-pairs or negative charges on
ligands. In part (b) a significant number of candidates showed incorrectly the loss of two 3d electrons rather
than the 4s electrons. Most candidates did however know the reason for paramagnetism in (b)(ii). Part (c)
was a very good discriminator, with good candidates scoring full marks, and weaker candidate only picking
up 1 or 2 marks. The key was to realise that only two of the three Cl- ions were co-ordinated. The diagrams
in part (c)(iii) were often two-dimensional which lost a further mark.

Question 10

Despite the fact that part (a) of this question dealt with a very familiar topic – the rusting of iron – answers
were not always good, with a significant number getting the half-equations the wrong way round. Others
referred to the protective oxide coat on magnesium instead of it acting as a sacrificial anode. In part (b),
most candidates knew of the reaction, but those who could use half-equations to explain why Fe2+ was a
homogeneous catalyst were far fewer in number. The use of Eo values is a common area of questioning in
this option and candidates need to be confident in their use.