W. H.
Slabaugh
Oregon State University
Corvallis 97331
Avogadro's Number by Four Methods
I n the spring term of our honors general
chemistry, students are given the choice of designing
and performing a few experiments in depth from a list
of some twenty suggestions. The students, after a term
of conventional qualitative analysis and a term of quan-
titative analysis (using the Waser manual), are usually
up to the point where they can push ahead on their own
in designing experiments to answer the questions they
themselves raise. Experiments are essentially limited
to the equipment available in the freshman laboratory,
and frequently, significant results are achieved. This
past spring was no exception.
Two students, Greg Flanders and Jay Robertson,
chose to compare four methods of finding Avogadro's
number. The Perrin method,' the spreading of a mono-
molecular layer2, the electrolysis of water, and electro-
plating were the four bases on which Avogadro's number
was determined. I n the students' reports on each of
these experiments, an average of eight references to the
literature were cited, and each report was about 10
typed pages in length. This represents the level of
thoroughness with which the work was performed.
The first two methods have been amply described
in THIS JOURNAL. However, a brief description of the
electrochemical methods may be of interest.
I n the electroplating method, four electrolysis cells
were operated in series and triplicate runs were made.
Solutions of approximately 1 M Cu(II), Zn(II), Ag(I),
and Pb(I1) served as the electrolytes along with elec-
trodes of the corresponding metals. No acid was added
to the electrolytes as has been s ~ g g e s t e d . ~
A current
of 50 ma a t 9.4 v was passed through the series of cells
for 30 min. The electrodes were weighed before and
after the electrolysis, and these wcight changes along
with the electrical current data gave the information
from which values of Avogadro's number were calcu-
lated. An average value of 5.960 X loZawith a mcan
deviation of 0.030 X loz3was obtained for the Cu and
Ag electrodes. Pb's deviation in precision was about
0.1 X loza,and the Zn electrode was quite unsatisfac-
tory. I n one of the runs, Cu/Cu(II) cells were placed
a t the two ends of the series. Identical results proved
that the position in the series is unimportant.
I n the electrolysis of water, a conventional Hoffman
40 / Journal of Chemkul Educafion
apparatus was used.4 Results of four rnns gave a value
of 5.63 X loz310.03 for Avogadro's number. A greatly
simplified electrolysis device was explored by another
group of students who became interested in the experi-
ment. A wide-mouth bottle fitted with a 3-hole rub-
ber stopper accommodated two platinum electrodes
and a vent that was essentially a water vapor trap con-
taining anhydrous CaC12. An electrolyte of 1 M Na&O*
was placed in the bottle, and an electrical current was
passed through the cell for a measured time. The loss
of weight by the bottle and its contents represents the
amount of evolved H, and Oz which escapes through
the vent. Results of this procedure gave values of
Avogadro's number that were about 2% high, and the
students hypothesized that the inefficient water vapor
trap was the prime cause of the error.
The values for Avogadro's number reported by the
students are:
~lectro&atingof Cu and Ag 5.96 X 10%'
I n their summary, the students expressed a high level
of enthusiasm in finding an answer to their question of
how accurately Avogadro's number can be found with
relatively simple equipment. They also enumerated
the variety of concepts and new techniques encountered.
Perrin's method introduced them to colloidal disper-
sions, Brownian movement, gas laws applied to settling
in dispersions, and particle size determination. The
monomolecular layer method involves spreading and
other surface phenomena, and solution concentrations.
Electrolysis and electroplating pointed up the unit
charge, vapor pressure, density, electrical circuitry,
atomic weights, and several more.
To the instiuctor, it was refreshing to follow the stu-
dents during the experiments when they became aware
that Avogadro's number is a fundamental quantity
and not merely a few digits to be memorized.
SLABAUGH,
W. H., J. CHEM.EDUC.,42,471 (1965).
a KING,CARROLLL., AND NEILSEN,E. K., J. CHEM.EDUC.,
35, 198 (1958).
a SULCOSKI, J. W., AND RABH,F. J., "Experiments in Physics,"
Bwgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis, 1966, p. 113.
'JOHNSTON, J. E., J. CHEM.EDUC.,16, 334 (1939).