Example lab report

Determining the percent water and the Formula of a Hydrate

Research Design
i) Background
Hydrates are crystalline substances that contain water chemically bound in a definite
ratio. The formulas of hydrates are written to show the number of water molecules contained in
the crystal for every formula unit of salt. Hydrates’ formulae are represented using the formula of
the anhydrous (non-water) component of the complex followed by a dot then the water H2O
preceded by a number corresponding to the ratio of H2O moles per mole of the anhydrous
component present. For example, the formula CaCl2  2H2O indicates that for every one mole of
calcium chloride, there are two moles of water. Hydrates are typically named by stating the name
of the anhydrous component followed by the Greek prefix specifying the number of moles of
water present then the word hydrate. For example, MgSO4  7H2O is magnesium sulfate
heptahydrate.
When hydrates are heated, the water in the crystal is driven off in the form of steam. The
solid that remains is said to be anhydrous. For some crystals, the hydrate and anhydrous forms of
the substance are different colors.
Any hydrous compound from a hydrate generally has the properties of being highly
soluble in water. Also, when dissolved in water, the anhydrous compound will have a color
similar to that of the original hydrate even if it had changed colour going from the hydrate to the
anhydrous compound.
(The background was copied off of the worksheet cited in the citations)

ii) Aim (Research Question)

The purpose of the lab is to determine the percentage of water in hydrated copper sulfate and to
determine water of crystallization and thus the formula of the hydrate in the following equation.
CuSO4(s)  xH2O(s)  CuSO4(s) + xH2O(g)

iii) Materials
 1 Crucible
 1 Balance (+- 0.01g)
 1 Porcelain Triangle
  1 Ring
 1 Scoopula
 1 Striker (lighter)
 1 Pipet (+- 0.04 mL)
 1 Pair of Crucible Tongs
 1 Ring Stand
 1 Bunsen Burner
 Deionized Water
 2.50-3.50 grams of hydrated copper (II) sulfate
 1 Pair of Goggles
 1 Lab Coat

iv) Variables (Not applicable for this investigation as there was no one particular
independent variable that was investigated)

Independent: ………………….

Dependent: …………………

Controlled: …………………….

V) Diagram

Figure 1

vi) Safety
Be careful when heating the crucible. Do not lean over an open flame. If you have long hair tie it
up so that it does not come in contact with the flame. Do not touch the crucible once it has
started to heat up. Make sure to not touch the crucible, clay triangles and ring stand unless you
know for sure that they are cooled. Use the crucible tongs if the crucible needs to be moved.
Wear safety goggles at all times to make sure nothing gets into your eyes. In addition, do not
touch the hydrated copper (II) sulfate and if you do then wash your hands immediately.

vii) Procedure

1. Put on your lab coat and safety goggles before starting the lab.
2. Weigh a clean, dry crucible on the balance. Record the mass in the data table, accounting
for uncertainties within the measurement.
3. Weigh out between 2.50 and 3.50 grams of hydrated copper (II) sulfate into the crucible
using the scoopula. Record the mass in the data table, accounting for uncertainties within
the measurement.
4. Set up the ring stand and put the ring on it then. Place a clay triangle on the ring then
place the crucible and its contents on the clay triangle. Try to make sure that the crucible
is in the middle and not tilted.
5. Turn on the Bunsen burner. Make sure that the air hole is closed when lighting it with the
striker, after it is lit then the air hole can be opened to turn the flame blue.
6. Place the Bunsen burner underneath the crucible.
7. Wait 5 to 8 minutes for the crucible to heat up. Avoid losses of the solids by popping or
spattering. Continue to heat the crucible until the contents are all grey-white. Note any
observations. If there is any white “smoke” before the time is up, stop heating
immediately.
8. Once the contents are all grey-white turn off the Bunsen burner.
9. Wait for the crucible and its contents to cool to room temperature.
10. Once it has cooled, using the crucible tongs place the crucible and its contents on the
balance. Record the mass, accounting for uncertainties within the measurement.
11. After the weighting, add a few drops of water with a pipet, one by one into the crucible
and observe the changes.
12. Add water to the crucible to dissolve most of the solid and then properly dispose of the
solution in a waste container.
13. Wash the crucible and put away the lab equipment.
14. Wash your hands with soap and water.
Data Analysis
i) Qualitative Data

Table 1: Observation of Hydrated Copper (II) Sulfate Throughout Heating

Before Heating During Heating After Heating Water added

back into the
compound
Qualitative The hydrated The crystals start The crystals had The crystals
data copper (II) to turn from blue mostly turned turned back to
sulfate is in the to grey-white. It grey-white blue as soon as
(Observations) form of blue does so except there are the water
crystals. gradually, from hints of blue, touched it. The
the outside to the likely due to not crystals also
inside of the being heated became like
crucible. long enough. powder. The
reaction also
released some
smoke.

ii) Quantitative Data

Table 2: Mass of the Crucible and its Contents

Mass/g  0.01 g
Empty Crucible 23.45
Crucible with hydrated copper (II) sulfate 26.36
Crucible with copper (II) sulfate (After 25.30
heating)

iii) Processed Data

 Table3: Mass of the Hydrated Copper (II) Sulfate Before and After Heating
with the Difference in Mass with the Percent Uncertainties for the Masses
Mass/g  0.02* g Percent Uncertainty/% with
1 significant figure****
Amount of hydrated copper (II) 2.91 0.7%
sulfate**
Amount of copper (II) sulfate 1.85 1%
(After heating) **
Difference in mass after heating 1.06 2%
(water burned off) ***

*
The uncertainty is  0.02 g because in all the calculations used two numbers with
each having an uncertainty of  0.01 g.
Since they have to be added  0.01 g +  0.01 g =  0.02 g
**
Mass of crucible with contents – mass of empty crucible = mass of contents
Ex. (26.36g  0.01 g) – (23.45g  0.01 g) = 2.91g  0.02 g

***
Mass of crucible with contents before heating - mass of crucible with contents
before heating = mass of hydrate burned off

Ex. (26.36g  0.01 g) – (25.30g  0.01 g) = 1.06g  0.02 g

**** uncertainty × 100 %= percentageuncertainty

mass

0.02
Ex. 2.91 ×100 %=0.7 %

Calculation of Experimental Percentage of Water in the Hydrate

mass of H 2 O
×100 %= percentage of water ∈the hydrate
mass of hydrated copper (II )sulfate
Percentage uncertainty = 0.7% + 2% = 3% (0 decimal places)
1.06
×100. %=36.4 % ± 3 %
2.91

Calculation of Theoretical Percentage of Water in the Hydrate Based on the

Molecular Formula CuSO4  5H2O
 molecular mass of total H 2 O
×100 %= percentage of water ∈the hydrate
molecular mass of CuS O4 5 H 2 O
90.1
×100 %=36.1 %
249.72

Calculation of Formula of the Hydrate Based on Experimental Data

CuSO4  xH2O
Moles of CuSO4 and H2O

1.06 g
H2O  −1 = 0.0588 mol (3 s.f)
18.02 gmol
1.85 g
CuSO4  −1 = 0.0116 mol (3 s.f)
159.62 gmol
Finding Molar Ratio
0.0116 mol
CuSO4  0.0116 mol = 1
0.0588 mol
H2O  0.0116 mol = 5.07

The 5.07 can be rounded to 5

The formula of the hydrate based on the experimental data is CuSO4  5 H2O

Conclusion
The purpose of the experiment was to find the formula of the hydrate CuSO4  xH2O. This was
done by heating the hydrate CuSO4  xH2O in order to evaporate the water in the compound, and
measuring the mass change that occurred. This lab allowed us to observe how hydrates,
crystalline structures containing water, can be turned into anhydrous compounds
once the water is removed. We also applied our knowledge of how to find chemical formulas
with mass percents in order to find the chemical makeup of our hydrate. We assumed that
water was the only component evaporating from the compound, and caused all of the mass
change. We also assumed that the anhydrous compound, CuSO4, was the only remaining
component, and had not changed from its original form.
 The value of x that was found through the experimental data was 5.07 H2O, which is
close to the actual formula which has 5 H2O. The difference could be because some water vapour
may have been absorbed by the anhydrous copper sulfate while we left it to cool down.

As for the percentages of water in the hydrate the theoretical and experimental are quite
close. The theoretical percentage is 36.1% and the experimental percentage was 36.4% 3%.
With the percentage uncertainty, the theoretical percentage falls in the range of the experimental
percentage. As for the percent error it can be calculated with the following equation:
experimental value−theoretical value
%Error= ×100 %
theoretical value
36.4−36.1
×100 %=0.824 %
36.1
The percentage error then is 0.8% which is smaller than the percentage uncertainty. While it is
smaller the theoretical percentage could still equal the experimental percentages as the difference
between them is only 0.3%.

Evaluation
Sources of Error and suggestions for improvement
 The experimental design was good as it helped to achieve the answer of the experimental
question, which was determining the formula of the hydrate. Also, since there was not an
independent variable it made the lab less complicated and left little room for error as
nothing was being changed. The equipment that was used was overall good but with the
clay triangle it was hard to balance the crucible on it. This left the crucible unbalanced
and it likely affected which areas got more heat. Potentially this means that some areas
may have got more heat and it is possible that the hydrate may have decomposed and
other places may not have fully heated, meaning that not all the water could have
evaporated from some areas. However, since the experimentally obtained mols of water
water (5.07 mols of water per 1 mol of anhydrous CuSO4) is higher than the theoretical
percent water (5 mols water per mol of anhydrous CuSO4), I am assuming that I got rid
of all the water and the extra 0.07 mol of water may have been absorbed from the air
around and the anhydrous salt got rehydrated while it was cooling.

 Another reason for the error is that in measuring the mass a few times, there may have
been unwanted mass that got added. Some unwanted mass could have been oil from our
hands or something such as water from the table as we waited too long to cool the
crucible down and my partner grabbed the crucible with her hand to take it measure the
mass. This would have unintentionally increased the mass of the crucible but only by a
small value. This is a reasonable explanation, because the percent error was very low.

 One minor limitation is that the scale used to measure the mass of the crucible gives a
reading precise to 0.01 grams. Digits beyond this cannot be acquired for further
 calculations, causing the result to have a greater uncertainty. The precision of the
instruments and equipment used limits the precision of the results obtained and while the
measurements may be accurate, an instrument that measures less digits increases the
uncertainty of the measurements obtained. (ie. an instrument that gives 0.001g has greater
precision and less uncertainty than an instrument that measures to 0.01 g)

 To reduce random errors, instead of only one trial, conduct multiple trials and take
average from these trials. By doing so, the overall results will be more accurate and might
show a even closer correlation to the theoretical formula. If more than one trial is
attempted, make sure variables such as the amount of CuSO4*(x)H2O each trial are
controlled. Not only that but by doing multiple trials it is easier to notice if the results
have anomalies. With one trial, the data could be an anomaly but there would be no frame
of reference.

 Another improvement would be to increase the amount of hydrated copper (II) sulfate as
that way the uncertainties within the measurements would have a smaller effect. Since the
amounts of hydrated copper (II) sulfate was only a couple of grams the uncertainties
could have affected the results more, therefore if there were ten grams then the
uncertainties would have a much more minimal effect on the results. There were some
random and systematic errors that occurred in the experiment. For random error, the
flame could have been inconsistent, which would have affected the heating. Although it
likely did not greatly affect the results as the amount of time for heating the hydrated
copper (II) sulfate was undetermined and based off of whether the crystals looked fully
grey-white or not.

 For systematic errors a possible one would be that the hydrated copper (II) sulfate did not
get heated evenly. This could be due to the hydrated copper (II) sulfate not being flat
within the crucible. The effect it would have would be that some areas could look done
while some are not leading to the water not fully being evaporated. Next time it can be
reduced by making sure that the hydrated copper (II) sulfate lays flat within the crucible.
It is thus better to have a larger crucible inner surface where the salt can be lightly
scattered rather than being piled up as one heap.

Citation

 Dhakal, Navin. “Lab 1: Determining the Formula of a Hydrate.” St. John’s School, Sept
2018. Class handout.
 John Erickson. Determining the Formula of a Hydrate. 2006, John Erickson
http://www.csun.edu/~jte35633/worksheets/Chemistry/11-6Hydrates.pdf