Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

First each of the solutions were but into separate container and were labeled correctly. Then the pipettes were put in each of the beakers, one for each solution. After, on the table each row and column was labeled with one solution in each. By doing this the solutions that were mixed in each box were easily identified. Then each solution, starting with BP(NON)2, was put in their designated boxes on the table or chart. Some solutions overlapped and created mixtures. Those mixtures were then watched to see if a precipitate had been formed.

The observations and results were then recorded. Results Mixtures that created precipitates: During this experiment seven different solutions were mixed with seven different solutions, therefore mixtures that were repeated or involved the same to solutions being mixed together were marked as no mixture in this section in the table. If was a mixture the observations for all the mixtures were marked in the appropriate boxes. R in the table meant reaction and NOR meant no reaction.

The mixtures that did not show reactions to form a precipitate were BP(NON)2 and Near, and and Abaca, Nappy and Nab, Nappy and Nassau, Azans and Nab, Azans and Nassau, Azans and Azans and Abaca, Nab and Nassau, Nab and Nab and Abaca, Nassau and and and Abaca. In the first mixture, BP(NON)2 and Nappy, there was a reaction that formed a precipitate of Pub(POP)2, and what was noticed was that the mixture became cloudy. The next mixture, BP(NON)2 and Azans, had a reaction that formed a precipitate of PBS, and it looked cloudy.

BP(NON)2 and Nassau, did have a reaction that formed a precipitate of PBS that looked cloudy. and Abaca formed a precipitate of Pubic that looked cloudy. Nappy and Azans, formed a precipitate of Zen(POP)2 that looked cloudy. Nappy and Zen(CHICHI)2 also formed a recuperate of Zen(POP)2 that looked cloudy. Nappy and Abaca also formed a precipitate of ABA(POP)2 that had a yellow blue tint in it. The last mixture that formed a precipitate of Basal, and that looked cloudy was Nassau and Abaca.

Conclusion According to the experiment the hypothesis that only 75 percent of the combinations of solutions will create a precipitate, was wrong. It was proven wrong after all the mixtures were mixed and taken into account for which ones formed a precipitate and which one of the mixtures did not. “[C]actions and anions of aqueous solutions combine to form an insoluble ionic solid, called a recuperate. ” (2). In order for the mixtures to form a precipitate one of the solutions involved in the mixture had to be a action and the other had to be an anion.

At the end of the experiment the results showed that only 33%, 7/21, of the mixtures formed a precipitate and 64% , 14/21, did not form a precipitate. A limitation in this experiment was the possibility of the different solutions getting contaminated. This could have occurred by the pipettes from different solutions being placed in the solution they did not come from. The switching of pipettes may have caused the solution to become contaminated and have an affect n the overall outcome of the experiment. Another limitation was the amount of trials and the amount of time given to complete the lab.

Since the lab was only completed once the results shown may not have been as accurate as possible. With the limited amount of time everything had to be rushed to be finished in a limited amount of time which may have caused more room for error. Modifications that could have be made to help improve the information’s credibility, were to label the pipettes. If the pipettes were labeled then there may have less of a chance for the solutions to be contaminated because the pipettes old be labeled the solution they had to have been returned to.

Post Author: admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *