Molly Dickinson

Bonding Lab
Introduction
The purpose of this lab is to understand the properties of covalent and ionic bonding in order to identify
the bonding pattern of unknown substances. To achieve this, the different chemical and physical
properties of ionic and covalent bonding had to be examined. After identifying the differences, tests such
as solubility, conductivity and melting points were used identify the unknowns.
Ionic bonding usually happens between non-metals and metals. Since the non-metals generally gain
electrons (negative) to become more stable and metals lose (positive) them, the oppositely charged
elements become attracted to each other and bond. When this happens, a repeating lattice forms, creating
a crystalline structure. An example of ionic bonding can be seen with salt (NaCl). Some properties of
ionic bonding include fast solubility, high melting points and can be conductive when dissolved in water.
Covalent bonding usually happens between two or more nonmetals. As discussed before, non-metals will
usually gain electrons, but if there is no metal to take an electron from, non-metals can end up sharing
electrons with similar elements. Due to this type of bonding, substances, such as sugar or glass, can be
created. Without opposite charges, covalent bonding usually creates a more amorphous pattern and other
properties including low melting points, non-existent or slow solubility, and is not conductive when
dissolved in water.
With this knowledge, the bonding of the unknown substances can be identified through isolating the
properties of ionic and covalent bonding.

Results
Unknown
Substance
A

Conductive

Solubility

No

None

Melting Point Type of

(Seconds/.56g) Bonding
9
Covalent

B
C
D

Yes
Yes
Yes

Slow
Slow
Slow

20
No melt
11

Ionic
Polar
Ionic

Yes

Quick

No melt

Ionic

Yes

Fast

Covalent

Observations
Yellow
Powder/Amorphous
Crystalline Structure
Powdery/Amorphous
Opaque/ Lustrous/
Crystalline
Crystalline/ Opaque/
None Lustrous
Amorphous

Discussion
The final verdict was heavily based on melting point and observations, as the conductivity and solubility
tests proved unreliable. A was amorphous and powdery, and melted quickly-Covalent. Although B melted
fairly quickly, crystalline- Ionic. C did not melt-Ionic. D quick to melt, opaque-Covalent. E did not melt,
crystalline structure-Ionic. F did not test melting point, amorphous structure- Covalent.

Reflection
As the conductivity and solubility tests proved unreliable due to incorrect measurement and broken
equipment, most of the classifications were made on melting point and observations. Although the
evidence for each was adequate, the discussion with my peers helped me determine that some substances
showed different characteristics than I had previously thought. Due to the evidence gathered from my
peers, substance C and D were the only two I changed of my classifications. I felt that their classifications
were reliable because the evidence was gathered from a multitude of other tests, and their reasoning was
sound. Ionic bonds are strong between molecules, requiring higher temperatures to melt, while covalent
bonds are weaker and melt easily. Due to this distinction, the melting point test proved to be most
valuable. The least valuable test, in my lab, proved to be the conductivity test. Although its seems like
this test would be beneficial, the variability of the test made it difficult to identify bonds.
The OSPRF was an interesting way to compare and contrast evidence, challenge classifications and come
to solid conclusions about the unknown materials. The online discussion helped me by providing stronger
arguments for or against conclusions, much like how I imagine other scientists interact while trying to
make conclusions. The OSPRF also taught me that limiting variability in tests is the best way to come to
solid conclusions. This process also helped me learn how I could limit variables.
The online discussion proved to be enhancing for both my learning about the content presented in this lab,
as well as the nature of science. However, I found typing to be distracting from the actual discussion. If
there was an easier way of communicating, like speaking, while being able to keep track of arguments,
then I feel that I would be less distracted.