Inverteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee…d Cylinder Method:

Calculation of Latent Heat of Vaporization Using Clausius-Clapeyron Equation

Baralla, Adrian Laurence A.
Infante, Aaron Paul D.
Jalandoni, Kaylen Yvon K.
Martus, Rievelyn B.

I. Introduction
Latent heat refers to the thermal energy required for a substance to undergo
phase change under a constant temperature (Onu & Mbohwa, 2021). The energy can
be absorbed as latent heat when chemical bonds break to move molecules away from
each other or released when molecules come closer together to form bonds. Examples
of this include the latent heat of fusion, which occurs during melting, and the latent
heat of vaporization, which happens during evaporation.
Particularly, the latent heat of vaporization, which is numerically equivalent to
the enthalpy of condensation, has multiple significances. In daily life, its concept is
typically observed in the kitchen when boiling water or steaming food. The cooling
effect of sweating is also possible because of the latent heat of vaporization, which
allows heat to be released from the body as a result of liquid sweat turning into vapor.
Likewise, in the industrial setting, the latent heat of vaporization provides a basis for
the mechanism of various unit operations and processes, namely drying, distillation,
combustion, and more. The development of latent heat storage systems is another
example of its application, wherein select materials are used as storage units for large
amounts of heat at a constant temperature when transitioning from a rigid phase to a
more fluid one (Giroux, 2018).
Given these wide industrial significances, many experts have provided their
methods of determining an equation to approximate, if not measure, a substance’s
latent heat of vaporization. Among whom were Rudolf Clausius and Benoît Paul
Émile Clapeyron whose collective efforts led to the Clausius-Clapeyron Equation.
This equation offers an approach to calculating the latent heat of vaporization using
the relationship between vapor pressure and temperature. According to
thermodynamics, vapor pressure is highly influenced by temperature such that at
higher temperatures, the vapor pressure increases (Speight, 2020). This relationship
when plotted shows a nonlinear trend as illustrated in Figure 1.

Source: FlexBook of CK-12 Foundation

Figure 1. Vapor Pressure Curves

 Having regard to that, the Clausius-Clapeyron Equation can be expressed as follows
to solve for the latent heat of vaporization ∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 between two vapor
pressure-temperature points (Chung & Censullo, 2023).

𝑙𝑛
𝑃2
𝑃1
=
∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝
𝑅 ( 1
𝑇1
−
1
𝑇2 ) Eq. 1

However, when given a set of more than two data points, Eq. 1 cannot be used. As
such, the Clausius-Clapeyron Equation can be written to let the vapor pressure be a
function of temperature.
∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝
𝑙𝑛 𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝 =− 𝑅 ( )+ 𝐶
1
𝑇
Eq. 2

Eq. 2 can be further represented as an equation of a line in the form 𝑦 = 𝑚𝑥 + 𝑏,

∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 1
where 𝑦 = 𝑙𝑛 𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝, 𝑚 =− 𝑅
,𝑥 = 𝑇
, and 𝑏 = 𝐶.

One of the popular experiments used to determine the latent heat of

vaporization through the Clausius-Clapeyron Equation is the inverted cylinder
method. The experiment involves inverting a graduated cylinder partially filled with a
liquid and submerging it on a larger vessel also containing the same liquid. By heating
the setup and then cooling it down, the volume of the gas trapped inside the cylinder
is measured at different temperatures.
Since the Clausius-Clapeyron Equation assumes the gas phase to be an ideal
gas (Dalal, 2018) and that the vapor pressure of liquids is negligible at very low
temperatures (Stull, 2017), the moles of air inside the cylinder can be calculated using
the ideal gas law.
𝑃𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑉𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑
𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 𝑅𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑
Eq. 3

Considering that the moles of air contained in the cylinder remain constant regardless
of temperature, Eq. 3 can also be used to solve for the pressure of air at different
temperatures. Meanwhile, given the air pressure, Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures
can be applied to calculate the vapor pressure inside the graduated cylinder, which
completes the necessary data to compute the latent heat of vaporization based on the
Clausius-Clapeyron Equation.

𝑃𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑃𝑎𝑖𝑟 + 𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝 Eq. 4

II. Objectives

General Objectives
○ Determine the average latent heat of vaporization of water using the
Clausius-Clapeyron Equation
○ Perform three trials of the inverted cylinder method to gather data for the
Clausius-Clapeyron Equation
 Specific Objectives
○ Calculate the vapor pressure of water at different temperatures using ideal gas
law and Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressure
○ Graph the relationship between the inverse of temperature and the natural
logarithmic of vapor pressure
○ Explain the effect of temperature change on the volume of gas trapped inside
the graduated cylinder
○ Observe the rate of natural cooling as temperatures between the water and the
environment approach equilibrium
○ Measure the accuracy of the inverted cylinder method by comparing the
calculated latent heat of vaporization to theoretical data
III. Materials and Methodology

The apparatus for the experiment was set up to determine the latent heat of
vaporization of water. Three trials were done to ensure that the procedure was
conducted properly and that the results were consistent. The first two trials used a hot
plate as the heat source, while a Bunsen burner was utilized for the third trial. The
heat source was placed on a table away from unnecessary objects to avoid accidents,
and a wire gauze was placed on top of the heat source to prevent any glassware
breakage from heat shock. The thermometer was clamped to the iron stand, which
was set next to the hot plate and Bunsen burner.

A 1000mL beaker and a 10mL graduated cylinder were then filled with
900mL and 7-8mL tap water, respectively. The graduated cylinder was submerged in
the beaker after being inverted by covering its top with a finger. The amount of air
trapped inside the graduated cylinder was approximately 4-5mL.

Afterward, the beaker was placed on the heat source and heated in a
medium-high setting using a hot plate, whereas the Bunsen burner setup is shown in
Figure 2. The thermometer was positioned such that its tip was close to the graduated
cylinder. The setup was heated until the temperature reached 80℃. While heating, it
was made sure that heat was distributed evenly by stirring the water with a stirring
rod. The heat source was then turned off, allowing the beaker to experience natural
cooling.

Figure 2. Setup for the Inverted Cylinder Method Experiment

The volume was measured and recorded to the nearest 0.1mL and the
temperature to the nearest 0.1℃. Data were recorded at 5℃ intervals from the start of
cooling. At temperatures of 50-40℃, a hand fan was introduced to the setup to aid the
cooling process by increasing the condensation rate to some degree since the cooling
 process at these temperatures already requires a considerable amount of time to
equilibrate the temperature of the water and the surroundings. After the temperature
of the beaker reached 40℃, small amounts of ice were added inside the beaker to
further speed up the cooling process until the temperature reached 20℃. This step was
adapted from the same experiment by Gerald Levinson at City College of San
Francisco in 1982. During this temperature range, 12 data points were collected.

A portion of the water was then removed, leaving roughly half of the initial
amount of water in the beaker. Larger amounts of ice were added to begin rapid
cooling. Data collection was stopped when the temperature fell below 5°C or near
0°C. Since the graduated cylinder was inverted, the meniscus was also inverted, so a
volume correction was applied by subtracting 0.2 mL from the measured volume. The
same procedures were repeated thrice to conduct three trials of the experiment.

For the calculations, the number of moles of air trapped inside the graduated
cylinder was determined using the ideal gas law. The parameters used in this process
were the data recorded when the temperature reached 5°C or lower. This is because at
this temperature range, the vapor pressure of water was assumed to be negligible, and
the measurement of the gas present corresponded only to the volume of air. Since the
setup did not allow for the air to escape or increase, the number of moles of air
remained constant for every trial.

Then, the ideal gas law was still used to solve for the pressure of air at various
temperatures and a constant number of moles. Subsequently, based on Dalton’s Law
of Partial Pressure, the water vapor pressure was determined by subtracting the air
pressure from the total pressure inside the cylinder, which is equal to the atmospheric
pressure outside. The slope was then determined using a linear regression algorithm
on the data for the natural logarithm of the water vapor pressure 𝑙𝑛 𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝 and the
1
inverse of temperature 𝑇
. Finally, the latent heat of water vaporization was computed
by multiplying the slope by the negative ideal gas constant.

These calculations were done for each of the three trials, and the calculated
values of the latent heat of vaporization were averaged using the arithmetic mean to
find a central point that could represent all collected and computed data.

IV. Results and Discussion

This section summarizes the calculated results of the experiment and its
implication to the known concepts and theories of thermodynamics.
Table 1. Summary Table for Trial 1 Experimental Data

Temperature Volume Corrected 𝑃𝑎𝑖𝑟 (atm) 𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝 (atm) (

𝑙𝑛 𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝) 𝑇
−1
(K-1)
(K) (L) Volume (L)

348.15 0.0069 0.0067 0.8128 0.1845 -1.6903 0.0029

343.15 0.0065 0.0063 0.8520 0.1453 -1.9291 0.0029

338.15 0.0060 0.0058 0.9120 0.0853 -2.4614 0.0030

 333.15 0.0057 0.0055 0.9475 0.0498 -2.9999 0.0030

328.15 0.0055 0.0053 0.9685 0.0288 -3.5476 0.0030

323.15 0.0052 0.0050 1.0110 -0.0137 - 0.0031

318.15 0.0051 0.0049 1.0156 -0.0183 - 0.0031

313.15 0.0050 0.0048 1.0205 -0.0232 - 0.0032

308.15 0.0050 0.0048 1.0042 -0.0069 - 0.0032

303.15 0.0049 0.0047 1.0089 -0.0116 - 0.0033

298.15 0.0048 0.0046 1.0139 -0.0166 - 0.0034

293.15 0.0047 0.0045 1.0190 -0.0217 - 0.0034

274.15 0.0045 0.0043 - - - -

𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑟 @ 274.15 𝐾 0.000191mol

Figure 3. Linear Regression Graph for Possible Trial 1 Data

Table 2. Summary Table for Trial 2 Experimental Data

Temperature Volume Corrected 𝑃𝑎𝑖𝑟 (atm) 𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝 (atm) (

𝑙𝑛 𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝 ) 𝑇
−1
(K-1)
(K) (L) Volume (L)

348.15 0.0070 0.0068 0.8195 0.1778 -1.7271 0.0029

343.15 0.0064 0.0062 0.8859 0.1114 -2.1946 0.0029

338.15 0.0061 0.0059 0.9174 0.0799 -2.5267 0.0030

 333.15 0.0059 0.0057 0.9355 0.0618 -2.7843 0.0030

328.15 0.0056 0.0054 0.9727 0.0246 -3.7041 0.0030

323.15 0.0054 0.0052 0.9947 0.0026 -5.9513 0.0031

318.15 0.0053 0.0051 0.9985 -0.0012 - 0.0031

313.15 0.0052 0.0050 1.0025 -0.0052 - 0.0032

308.15 0.0052 0.0050 0.9865 0.0108 -4.5251 0.0032

303.15 0.0051 0.0049 0.9903 0.0070 -4.9570 0.0033

298.15 0.0050 0.0048 0.9942 0.0031 -5.7838 0.0034

293.15 0.0049 0.0047 0.9983 -0.0010 - 0.0034

274.15 0.0046 0.0044 - - - -

𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑟 @ 274.15 𝐾 0.000195mol

Figure 4. Linear Regression Graph for Possible Trial 2 Data

Table 3. Summary Table for Trial 3 Experimental Data

Temperature Volume Corrected 𝑃𝑎𝑖𝑟 (atm) 𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝 (atm) (

𝑙𝑛 𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝 ) 𝑇
−1
(K-1)
(K) (L) Volume (L)

348.15 0.0066 0.0064 0.8707 0.1266 -2.0669 0.0029

343.15 0.0061 0.0059 0.9309 0.0664 -2.7127 0.0029

338.15 0.0058 0.0056 0.9665 0.0308 -3.4810 0.0030

333.15 0.0056 0.0054 0.9875 0.0098 -4.6252 0.0030

328.15 0.0054 0.0052 1.0101 -0.0128 - 0.0030

323.15 0.0052 0.0050 0.9578 0.0394 -3.2329 0.0031

318.15 0.0051 0.0049 1.0392 -0.0420 - 0.0031

313.15 0.0050 0.0048 1.0442 -0.0469 - 0.0032

308.15 0.0050 0.0048 1.0276 -0.0303 - 0.0032

303.15 0.0049 0.0047 1.0324 -0.0351 - 0.0033

298.15 0.0048 0.0046 1.0374 -0.0401 - 0.0034

293.15 0.0047 0.0045 1.0427 -0.0454 - 0.0034

274.15 0.0046 0.0044 - - - -

𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑎𝑡 274. 15 𝐾 0.000195

Figure 5. Linear Regression Graph for Possible Trial 3 Data

At a constant pressure of 0.9973atm (Weather Underground, n.d.), Tables 1, 2,
and 3 show the summary of the values for the parameters needed to utilize the
Clausius-Clapeyron Equation from the three trials performed.
As presented in these tables, it can be inferred that there is a direct
proportional relationship between the temperature and the volume of gas trapped
inside the graduated cylinder. This is supported by Charles Law, derived from the
ideal gas law, which states that the volume of an ideal gas is directly proportional to
the temperature at constant pressure (LeTran, 2023). This is also supported by the fact
that the volume of the gas in the inverted cylinder increased as the water heated up.
 Furthermore, the trend for the vapor pressure was also established wherein for
all three trials, the vapor pressure decreased with the temperature which confirms that
there is a direct relationship between the vapor pressure and the temperature. This can
be further explained by the fact that during condensation, the system underwent an
exothermic reaction. As the water released the heat it absorbed, it condensed. This
condensation process then affected the vapor pressure inside the cylinder.
In addition, the decrease in the volume of the liquid water happened due to
evaporation. As the liquid was heated, more particles moved rapidly, resulting in an
increase in their average kinetic energy. This in return increased the rate of
evaporation since more molecules escaped the surface of the liquid and turned into
vapor, which also increased the vapor pressure and the volume of gas trapped inside
the graduated cylinder (Agnew & Agnew, 2022).
In the tables presented in this section, it can be seen that there are blank spaces
for some data for the natural logarithm of the water vapor pressure. This can be
attributed to the circumstance when the calculated value for air pressure was greater
than the assumed atmospheric pressure, resulting in a negative vapor pressure that is
not in the domain of the natural logarithm. With this, the readings used in solving for
the latent heat of vaporization for each trial become prone to errors.
Table 4. Temperature vs. Average Time for Cooling the Water

Temperature (K) Average Time (min) Temperature (K) Average Time (min)

348.15 7.5333 328.15 9.8167

343.15 8.5167 323.15 10.125

338.15 8.4425 318.15 11.20

333.15 9.9917 313.15 12.10

Figure 6. Temperature vs Time Graph for Cooling

From the data presented in Table 4, it can be observed that for every 5K
decrease in temperature, the cooling time increases. This observation aligns with
 Newton's Law of Cooling which states that “the rate of change in temperature of an
object is proportional to the difference in temperature between the object and the
surroundings” (Feldman, Rechnitzer, & Yeager, n.d.). This explains why the
temperature decreased rapidly at the beginning of the cooling process and slowed
down as it approached room temperature (25༠C). Meanwhile, the outliers could have
been caused by the inconsistent output of the hand fan, which cooled the water way
faster than anticipated.
Table 5. Summary Table for the Latent Heat Calculated

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 (kJ/mol) 91.0723 64.4984 52.1247

Average 68.7602 kJ/mol

With the latent heat of vaporization calculated from the trials conducted during
the experiment, it was found out that the average latent heat of water vaporization
∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 is 68.7602 kJ/mol. This value implies that there was sufficient energy added to
the system for it to undergo an endothermic process due to phase change.
Additionally, this can be backed up by visual observations, which revealed that the
volume of the gas inside the cylinder increased along with the formation of bubbles
when the temperature rose. On the other hand, the outlier may have been an outcome
when the setup was transferred from the heating area to a cooler surface.
Table 6. Percent error of Latent Heat Calculated

Theoretical Value Experimental Value Percent Error

∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 (kJ/mol) 40.6570 (Moore et al., 68.7602 69.12%

2022)

This percentage error can be explained by a combination of different

assumptions, environmental conditions, and systematic errors. As stated above, the
assumption for the vapor pressure of water at 5°C or lower was 0 atm, with residual
water vapors being neglected. The value for the vapor pressure was then derived
based on this assumption rather than being directly acquired. Although the difference
between the actual measurement at a very low temperature and the assumed value
may be relatively insignificant, it might not be the same case at higher temperatures
and could lead to compounding discrepancies in the calculations later on.
Furthermore, no device was available during the experiment that can measure the
exact total pressure inside the graduated cylinder, so it was only assumed to be equal
to the atmospheric pressure on the day of experimentation.
Another probable source of error was the use of tap water in the experiment
instead of distilled water. The vapor pressure of water inside the graduated cylinder
could have been altered by the dissolved ions and organic contaminants in tap water.
Other errors could be systematic as a result of imprecise readings, lack of calibration
of the instruments, and execution of unnecessary procedures during the experiment,
among others.
V. Conclusion and Recommendations

This experiment determined the latent heat of vaporization of water by

measuring the vapor pressure as a function of temperature. It has been found that
there is a direct relationship between temperature and volume. It has also been
observed that as the temperature decreases, the vapor pressure of water also decreases.
The latent heat of vaporization of water was calculated to be 68.7602 kJ/mol with a
69.12 % error.

With the current results presented at hand, further improvements could be

made in the conduct of the experiment to reduce the error. For one, a barometer
should be used in order to accurately measure the atmospheric pressure in the
laboratory. Usage of equipment, thermometers in particular, with the same brand,
design, and calibrations is also recommended to guarantee consistency of the readings
for all the trials. Additionally, it is suggested to keep the setup untouched, particularly
during the cooling phase of the experiment, to reduce the possibility of systematic
errors. Lastly, future experimenters are highly advised to practice patience and avoid
any unnecessary actions that could diminish the reliability of data.
VI. References
Agnew, M. & Agnew, H. (2022) 12.4: Evaporation and Condensation. Chemistry LibreTexts.
L. (2022, July 9)
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/Introductory_Chemistry/
12%3A_Liquids_Solids_and_Intermolecular_Forces/12.04%3A_Evaporation_and_Cond
ensation#:~:text=A%20given%20liquid%20will%20evaporate,the%20surface%20of%20t
he%20liquid
Chung, C. & Censullo, A. (2023). 23.4: The Clausius-Clapeyron Equation. Chemistry
LibreTexts. L. (2023, February 24)
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_
Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Physical_Propertie
s_of_Matter/States_of_Matter/Phase_Transitions/Clausius-Clapeyron_Equation
Dalal, M. (2018). Thermodynamics - II. A Textbook of Physical Chemistry (pp 289-292).
https://www.dalalinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/Books/A-Textbook-of-Physical-Chem
istry-Volume-1/ATOPCV1-6-1-Clausius-Clapeyron-Equation.pdf
Feldman, J., Retchnitzer, A., & Yeager, E. (n.d) 3.3.2 Newton's Law of Cooling. CLP-1
Differential Calculus.
https://personal.math.ubc.ca/~CLP/CLP1/clp_1_dc/sec_newtonCooling.html
Giroux, D. (2018). Applications of Latent Heat Storage using Phase Change Materials.
Honors Theses. https://digitalworks.union.edu/theses/1647
LeTran, D. (2023) The Ideal Gas Law. Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Libretexts. L.
(2023, January 30)
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_
Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Physical_Propertie
s_of_Matter/States_of_Matter/Properties_of_Gases/Gas_Laws/The_Ideal_Gas_Law
Levinson, G. (1982) A Simple Experiment for Determining Vapor Pressure and Enthalpy of
Vaporization of Water. Journal of Chemical Education Volume 4.
https://studylib.net/doc/8441291/a-simple-experiment-for-determining-vapor-pressure-an
d-en
Moore, J.W., Vitz, E., Shorb, J., Prat-Resina, X., Wendorff, T. & Hahn, A. (2022). 10.10:
Enthalpy of Fusion and Enthalpy of Vaporization. Chemistry LibreTexts. L.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Book%3A_ChemPRIME_(
Moore_et_al.)/10%3A_Solids_Liquids_and_Solutions/10.10%3A_Enthalpy_of_Fusion_a
nd_Enthalpy_of_Vaporization
Onu, P., & Mbohwa, C. (2021). New approach and prospects of agrowaste resources
conversion for energy systems performance and development. Elsevier EBooks,
97–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-85402-3.00007-3

Speight, J. G. (2020). The properties of water. Natural Water Remediation, 53–89.

https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-803810-9.00002-4

Stull, R. (2017). Practical Meteorology: An Algebra-based Survey of Atmospheric Science.

University of British Columbia, 87-118.
 https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/books/Practical_Meteorology/prmet102/Ch04-watervapor-v102b
.pdf
Weather Underground (n.d) Miagao, Iloilo, Philippines Weather Conditions.
https://www.wunderground.com/weather/ph/baybay-norte/10.64,122.24
VII. Appendices
Appendix A
Table 7. Raw Data Gathered During the Experiment

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

Temperature (K) Volume (L) Volume (L) Volume (L)

348.15 0.0069 0.0070 0.0066

343.15 0.0065 0.0064 0.0061

338.15 0.0060 0.0061 0.0058

333.15 0.0057 0.0059 0.0056

328.15 0.0055 0.0056 0.0054

323.15 0.0052 0.0054 0.0052

318.15 0.0051 0.0053 0.0051

313.15 0.0050 0.0052 0.0050

308.15 0.0050 0.0052 0.0050

303.15 0.0049 0.0051 0.0049

298.15 0.0048 0.0050 0.0048

293.15 0.0047 0.0049 0.0047

274.15 0.0045 0.0046 0.0046

Appendix B.
Sample Calculations of Data Collected
1. Calculations for moles of air
Using the values at the lowest temperature reading (274.15 K)
For Trial 1: T = 274.15 K, V= 0.0045 L, P= 0.997284357652458 atm
𝑃𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑉𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑
𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 𝑅𝑇

(0.9973 𝑎𝑡𝑚) (0.0045 𝐿)

𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 𝐿 𝑎𝑡𝑚
(0.082057 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐾
)(274.15 𝐾)

𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 0. 0001906 𝑚𝑜𝑙

For Trial 2 and 3: T = 274.15 K, V= 0.0046 L, P= 0.997284357652458 atm

𝑃𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑉𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑
𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 𝑅𝑇

(0.9973 𝑎𝑡𝑚) (0.0046 𝐿)

𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 𝐿 𝑎𝑡𝑚
(0.082057 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐾
)(274.15 𝐾)

𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 0. 0001905 𝑚𝑜𝑙

2. Calculations for air pressure at higher temperatures

Using the data from the temperature readings of 348.15 K and 343.15 K
From Trial 1: nair = 0.000106 mol, T= 348.15 K, V= 0.0069 L
𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑅𝑇
𝑃𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 𝑉

𝐿 𝑎𝑡𝑚
(0.000106 𝑚𝑜𝑙) (0.082057 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐾
)(348.15 𝐾)
𝑃𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 0.0064 𝐿

𝑃𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 0. 8128 𝑎𝑡𝑚

From Trial 1: nair = 0.000106 mol, T= 343.15 K, V= 0.0065 L

𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑅𝑇
𝑃𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 𝑉

𝐿 𝑎𝑡𝑚
(0.000106 𝑚𝑜𝑙) (0.082057 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐾
)(343.15 𝐾)
𝑃𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 0.0065 𝐿

𝑃𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 0. 8520 𝑎𝑡𝑚

Similar computation was utilized for other temperature readings and trials.
 3. Calculations for vapor pressure
Using the data from the first trial readings of 348.15 K and 343.15 K
From Trial 1: T= 348.15 K, Pair = 0.8128 atm, Ptotal = 0.9973 atm

𝑃𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑃𝑎𝑖𝑟 + 𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝

0. 9973 𝑎𝑡𝑚 = 0. 8128 𝑎𝑡𝑚 + 𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝

𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝 = 0. 1845 𝑎𝑡𝑚

From Trial 1: T= 343.15 K, Pair = 0.8520 atm, Ptotal = 0.9973 atm

𝑃𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑃𝑎𝑖𝑟 + 𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝

0. 9973 𝑎𝑡𝑚 = 0. 8520 𝑎𝑡𝑚 + 𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝

𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝 = 0. 1453 𝑎𝑡𝑚

Similar computation was utilized for other temperature readings and trials.
4. Plotting of Data Points and Solving for Latent Heat of Vaporization
Using the possible data calculated, ln(Pvap) and 1/T values, from all trials
Solving for Enthalpy using Trial 1 Data using linear regression,
Table 8. Summary Table for Trial 1 Plausible Data to Solve for Enthalpy

Temperature Volume Corrected Pair (atm) Pvap(atm) (

𝑙𝑛 𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝 ) 𝑇
−1
(K-1)
(K) (L) Volume (L)

348.15 0.0069 0.0067 0.8128 0.1845 -1.6903 0.0029

343.15 0.0065 0.0063 0.8520 0.1453 -1.9291 0.0029

338.15 0.006 0.0058 0.9120 0.0853 -2.4614 0.0030

333.15 0.0057 0.0055 0.9475 0.0498 -2.9999 0.0030

328.15 0.0055 0.0053 0.9685 0.0288 -3.5476 0.0030

By using linear regression, the slope of the trendline was known to be -10953.5258.

∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 =− (𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒)(𝑅)

𝐿 𝑎𝑡𝑚
∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 =− (𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒)(0. 082057 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐾
)

−1 𝐿 𝑎𝑡𝑚
∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 =− (− 10953. 5258 𝐾 )(0. 082057 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐾
)
 𝐿 𝑎𝑡𝑚 𝑘𝐽
∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 = (898. 3135 𝑚𝑜𝑙
)(0. 101325 𝐿 𝑎𝑡𝑚
)

𝑘𝐽
∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 = 91. 0723 𝑚𝑜𝑙

Solving for Enthalpy using Trial 2 Data using linear regression

Table 9. Summary Table for Trial 2 Plausible Data to Solve for Enthalpy

Temperature Volume Corrected Pair (atm) Pvap(atm) ( )

𝑙𝑛 𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝 𝑇
−1
(K-1)
(K) (L) Volume (L)

348.15 0.007 0.0068 0.8195 0.1778 -1.7271 0.0029

343.15 0.0064 0.0062 0.8859 0.1114 -2.1946 0.0029

338.15 0.0061 0.0059 0.9174 0.0799 -2.5267 0.0030

333.15 0.0059 0.0057 0.9355 0.0618 -2.7843 0.0030

328.15 0.0056 0.0054 0.9727 0.0246 -3.7041 0.0030

323.15 0.0054 0.0052 0.9947 0.0026 -5.9513 0.0031

308.15 0.0052 0.005 0.9865 0.0108 -4.5251 0.0032

303.15 0.0051 0.0049 0.9903 0.0070 -4.9570 0.0033

298.15 0.005 0.0048 0.9942 0.0031 -5.7838 0.0034

By using linear regression, the slope of the trendline was known to be -7757.4070.

∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 =− (𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒)(𝑅)

𝐿 𝑎𝑡𝑚
∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 =− (𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒)(0. 082057 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐾
)

−1 𝐿 𝑎𝑡𝑚
∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 =− (− 7757. 4070 𝐾 )(0. 082057 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐾
)

𝐿 𝑎𝑡𝑚 𝑘𝐽
∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 = (622. 5862 𝑚𝑜𝑙
)(0. 101325 𝐿 𝑎𝑡𝑚
)

𝑘𝐽
∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 = 64. 4984 𝑚𝑜𝑙
 Solving for Enthalpy using Trial 3 Data using linear regression
Table 10. Summary Table for Trial 3 Plausible Data to Solve for Enthalpy

Temperature Volume Corrected Pair (atm) Pvap(atm) ( )

𝑙𝑛 𝑃𝑣𝑎𝑝 𝑇
−1
(K-1)
(K) (L) Volume (L)

348.15 0.0066 0.0064 0.8707 0.1266 -2.0669 0.0029

343.15 0.0061 0.0059 0.9309 0.0664 -2.7127 0.0029

338.15 0.0058 0.0056 0.9665 0.0308 -3.4810 0.0030

333.15 0.0056 0.0054 0.9875 0.0098 -4.6252 0.0030

323.15 0.0056 0.0054 0.9578 0.0394 -3.2329 0.0031

By using linear regression, the slope of the trendline was known to be -6269.1876.

∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 =− (𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒)(𝑅)

𝐿 𝑎𝑡𝑚
∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 =− (𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒)(0. 082057 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐾
)

−1 𝐿 𝑎𝑡𝑚
∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 =− (− 6269. 1876 𝐾 )(0. 082057 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐾
)

𝐿 𝑎𝑡𝑚 𝑘𝐽
∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 = (514. 4307 𝑚𝑜𝑙
)(0. 101325 𝐿 𝑎𝑡𝑚
)

𝑘𝐽
∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 = 52. 1247 𝑚𝑜𝑙
Appendix C.
Documentation During the Experiment Proper

Preparation: Preparation of the necessary materials and equipment including the wire gauze
on top of the hot plate as well as a 1000 mL Beaker and a 10 mL graduated cylinder filled
with 900 mL and 7-8 mL of tap water, respectively

Inversion: Inversion of the graduated cylinder filled with water and submerging it to the side
of the 900 mL-filled beaker with 4-5 mL volume of trapped air
 Heating: Heating the setup using a bunsen burner or a hot plate and turning it off once the
water temperature reaches 80°C

Reading: Reading and recording the volume of air trapped in the graduated cylinder starting
from 75°C until at least 6 readings are achieved

Rapid Cooling: Removing half of the water and adding ice to the beaker