Standard Enthalpy Change in Reaction Between Zinc and

Copper Sulphate
Raw data
Time/
s
(0.5
s)
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
(zinc
adde
d)
240
270
300
330
360
390
420
Time/
s
(0.5
s)
450
480
510
540
570
600
630
660
690
720
750

Temperature/
C
(0.5C)
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
29.0

28.0
32.0
37.0
38.0
41.0
42.0
44.0
Temperature/
C
(0.5C)
46.0
48.0
48.0
49.0
48.0
48.0
47.0
46.0
45.0
45.0
44.0

780
810
840
870
900

43.0
42.5
42.0
41.0
40.0

Observations
At zero seconds, the copper sulphate was a bright blue aqueous solution, while the
zinc was a fine black powder. When the reactants were added (at 210 seconds), the
solution violently effervesced for a few seconds before becoming still again, and the
polystyrene cup calorimeter became warm to the touch. At 900 seconds the cups
contents began to cool at a steady rate. The products were a colorless solution
(which I infer to be zinc sulphate) and a black precipitate (which I infer to be excess
zinc powder, since solid copper is brown).
The reaction can be described by the following chemical equation:

CuSO4 (aq) + Zn (s) ZnSO4 (aq) + Cu (s)

Analysis
The data can be presented in the form of a graph (see attached sheet), with time
along the x-axis (independent variable) and temperature along the y-axis
(dependent variable).
The formula for standard enthalpy change of a reaction is as follows:
Q=mCT
Here, Q is enthalpy change (J), m is mass (g), C is specific heat capacity (J C-1 g-1),
and T is the change in temperature (C).
In this investigation, Q is the variable being found. m is the mass of the substance
being heated (25.0cm3 0.05cm3 of 1M copper sulphate solution). Though the
atoms of copper sulphate were also heated, the primary substance being heated
was the water, so it is assumed that the mass of water is equal to its volume (as the
density of water is 1g/cm3). Thus, m is 25.0g 0.05g = 25.0g 0.200%.
C is the literature value for the specific heat capacity of water, 4.18 J C -1 g-1. It is
assumed to be exact and without error because it is a literature value.
The minimum temperature recorded was 19C (0.5C) and the maximum
temperature was 49C (0.5C). Thus,

T = 49.0 19.0 = 30.0C

The percentage uncertainty is given by:

( A

A) =

0.5
0.5
+
= 0.0365198 3.65%
49.0 19.0

Thus,

T = 30.0C 3.65%
The change in enthalpy for the reaction between zinc and copper sulphate is
therefore

-1

-1

Q = mCT = 25.0 g 4.18 J C g 30.0 C = 3135 J

3.85%

= 3135 J 121
The reaction is exothermic (energy is released from the reactants), so the enthalpy
change should be negative. Thus,
Q = -3135 J 121
The reference value for this reaction is in J mol -1, so to compare my value I must
calculate the molar enthalpy change of the reaction.

Molar enthalpy change = joules number of moles

= -3135 J 3.85% (concentration
= -3135 J 3.85% (1 mol dm-3

volume)

25cm3

0.2%)
= -3135 J 3.85% 0.001 mol cm3 (25cm3
0.2%)
= -125400 J mol-1 4.05%
= -125.4 kJ mol-1 4.05%
= -125.4 kJ mol-1 5.08 kJ mol-1
The reference value of the molar enthalpy change for this reaction is -217 kJ mol -1,
which is a substantial amount higher than my experimental value. My percentage
error is given by

( -217 ) - ( -125.4 )
= 0.4221198157 = 42.2%
-217
This is far from being within my supposed uncertainty range of 5.08 kJ mol -1. This
could suggest that the source of error lies in my methodology.
Evaluation
Perhaps the largest source of systematic error was the heat energy lost to the
surroundings by conduction or convection. In my observations, I stated that the
polystyrene cup calorimeter was warm to the touch, and because it was a poor
insulator, it lost large amounts of heat to the surroundings through convection,
conduction, and radiation. Losing heat to the environment instead of the
thermometer would lower the value of the maximum temperature, decreasing the
change in temperature, lowering the enthalpy and the molar enthalpy. Though this
error could have been slightly mitigated by the plastic lid I placed over the cup, I do
not believe it sufficiently reduced the error as intended. The heat lost to the
surroundings could have been reduced by insulating the cup through various means
(such as wrapping it with a thick insulating material such as furry fabric) or placing
another plastic cup around it.
This systematic error can be seen on the graph; extrapolating to the point where
the line of best has the same x-value as the zinc was added (210 seconds) gives a

large area above the plotted points. This can be seen as the heat energy lost to the
environment that was thus excluded from my measurements. Furthermore, the yvalue of the line of best fit at the corresponding x-value of when the zinc was added
(210 seconds) is the theoretical maximum temperature. I should have used this
value to calculate an experimental and a theoretical value for the reaction, giving
me a clearer idea of where my value was in relation to the literature value.
Another source of error was the fact that I only carried out the experiment with
small quantities of copper sulphate and zinc. I could have varied the amount of
copper sulphate and zinc (in fixed ratios), calculated the molar enthalpies of each
one, and averaged to give a more suitable value. Using larger quantities would also
reduce the impact of random errors on my result by reducing the percentage
uncertainty of measurements. Finally, I only conducted the experiment once,
without any repeats. Thus, the effect of random errors on my calculation of molar
enthalpy would not be reduced, making it less accurate.