Who has the 1

RUNNING HEADER: Who has the same solid that I have?

Who has the same solid that I have?

Daniel Baldwin
Long Ngyuen
Chemistry 227-027
Portland State University

Who has the 2

RUNNING HEADER: Who has the same solid that I have?

Abstract

This lab is focusing on the testing of an unknown solid for certain data and taking that data to
perform side-by-side comparisons with another group to find a matching unknown. This lab
relies on teamwork and strong communication, these experiments being performed also involve
drawing conclusions from observations, and having a partner will increase the precision with the
possibility of seeing something the other did not. These tests being performed should reveal the
nature of the solid and allow for an accurate conclusion to be drawn for the matching solids.

Who has the 3

RUNNING HEADER: Who has the same solid that I have?

Introduction

This lab involved performing multiple tests on an unknown solid. The point of this lab
was to gather observations on reactions and characteristics from the testing process, and then
compare the data to other groups to find a matching unknown. This lab requires precision in
order to get the right results to match another groups unknown. Throughout the lab time there
was a total of 6 tests that took place.

Out of the tests the first was a simple observation of determining whether the solid given
was an amorphic or crystalline solid. After that the solid was split in half and one half was taken
and put into a test tube with distilled water to test for solubility and to create an aqueous solution.
From there the aqueous solution was tested with pH paper to find if it was acidic, neutral, or
basic. Both the solid and the aqueous solution were tested for conductivity using a small meter.
After doing those tests the aqueous solution was split into 3 different wells in the well plate and
then mixed with the compounds HCl, (Pb(NO3)2), and NaOH, this was done to observe any
reactions that may have taken place and to record any obvious changes in characteristics. After
that was completed the solid was taken into the fume hood to find its melting point using the
bunsen burner. The final test was a flame test by finding a change in the flames color while
burning the unknown solid. After all tests are completed, each solid should have very distinct
results, if this is true then narrowing down the list to find a match should be straightforward.

Who has the 4

RUNNING HEADER: Who has the same solid that I have?

Data

Group #

Crystalline/

Conductivity

Conductivit

Soluble/

Amporphic

Solid

y Liquid

Insoluble

No

8 Yes

~pH

Melting

HCl

Point (s)

Pb(NO3)

NaOH

Flame

White

White

2
White

No

cloud

Cloudy

No

Yes

Cloud

No

Cloudy

No

Yes

15

Pink

Light
Blue

Yellow

Blue

Orange

The most important points to look at when comparing the solids was the physical
characteristics of the solid, being amorphic or crystalline, and also if the solid is soluble or not.
These two characteristics are key points in narrowing down the list of a potential match.
Results

Being group 7, finding a match to the solid was a matter of finding the same
characteristics . The priority was to look at the key results, solubility and physical characteristics,
and then go from there. It was decided that Group 3 was the closest in comparison. The solid had
mostly all of the the same results, both unknowns were insoluble, and after collaboration with the
group the flame test was re-done and it was found that the colors were actually similarly white
and blue. It was known group 8 couldnt be the same match at all, it had the complete opposite of
nearly every test, being amorphic, soluble, and reacting to the lead nitrate. Knowing that the key
test results were not similar, it helped to narrow down the search and eliminate any other groups

Who has the 5

RUNNING HEADER: Who has the same solid that I have?
with similar traits to that of Group 8.

Discussion
Finding the same solid was a matter of comparing test results to other groups. It was
checking to see if the same reactions took place and yielded the same results. Each test was done
to find certain qualities about both the aqueous and solid forms of the initial solid. Each test was
designed to find very specific traits that the solid possessed being; solubility, conductivity, its
melting point, flame reaction, and any reactions that occurred with other compounds. The results,
being as specific as it was, was also a guide to better communication amongst the groups to find
a match, there is always the possibility of unknowns and through proper communication, these
unknowns can be resolved.

This labs only possible result of error fell under the category of biased error. Or different
interpretation of results. When looking at the data chart, it is seen that although it was determined
that group 3 was the same solid, the results were slightly different. This can be a result of
different interpretations of data, such as seeing the flame as white or blue. When doing the
comparisons, initially it was thought that group 3s solid was soluble. After retesting both solids
and multiple examinations it was concluded that both were insoluble, as some of the solid was
left undissolved. The melting point was also retested and was found that it was a matter of how
close to the flame the sample was held, and after retesting using the same heights the data was
found to be the same.

This experiment achieved its goals of running successful tests to find the qualities of a

Who has the 6

RUNNING HEADER: Who has the same solid that I have?
solid, and achieved its purpose of using successful communication to compare data and perform
verifying tests to confirm precision in results. This lab was a success in the sense that most
groups found it easy to identify a match. After finding the match it was verifying certain results
and resolving any differences in data. The hypothesis was that once all groups had the results on
the board, each had distinct traits that could be looked at and used to determine if it is a possible
match or not, this remained true as it was very easy to identify what results were similar to ones
own data.