Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 24


Edexcel GCE Chemistry (8080/9080)

This Examiners Report relates to Mark Scheme Publication code: UA016159

January 2005

Examiners Report

Chemistry (8080/9080)

Edexcel GCE

Edexcel is one of the leading examining and awarding bodies in the UK and throughout the world. We provide a wide range of qualifications including academic, vocational, occupational and specific programmes for employers. Through a network of UK and overseas offices, Edexcels centres receive the support they need to help them deliver their education and training programmes to learners. For further information please call our Customer Services on 0870 240 9800, or visit our website at www.edexcel.org.uk.

January 2005 Publications Code UA016159 All the material in this publication is copyright Edexcel Ltd 2005

Unit 6241/01 Unit 6242/01 Unit 6243/01 (Coursework) Unit 6243/01A (Practical Test) Unit 6243/02 Unit 6244/01 Appendix A (Statistics) Page 1 Page 4 Page 7 Page 9 Page 11 Page 14 Page 17


Unit 6241/01
General Generally the paper was seen to have worked well; the standard of knowledge required was similar to that in previous papers, and there were no dead marks. The questions requiring some extended writing often proved to be discriminating, generally because of poor quality of written communication. Many candidates cannot make clear the difference between interand intramolecular bonds, and many use terms such as atom, ion, molecule interchangeably. Question 1 The definition of relative atomic mass proved remarkably discriminating; weaker candidates seldom scored both marks since they would fail to mention atoms at all or referred to the weighted mean of all the isotopes in a sample. A few thought that a definition of an isotope was required. Virtually all candidates gave correct answers to the number of neutrons and protons in the two isotopes of bromine. The understanding of the nature of the molecular ions present in the mass spectrum of bromine was poor except for the best candidates. The absence of a positive charge was common; large numbers of candidates did not make reference to Br2 molecules at all. It seemed as though they were treating the question as an arithmetical exercise rather than seeing the ions as real entities in a real machine. Question 2 Virtually all candidates gave the electronic structures of aluminium and its ion correctly. Many candidates understood the structure of aluminium metal well. A common omission among the weaker answer was any reference to the lattice structure of the metal, and the very weakest did not refer to the ability of the electrons to move. The definitions of ionisation energy were generally good; only the weakest candidates failed to score well on this part. The answers to the second part of this question were much less assured; few candidates started by explicitly stating the electronic structures of the two elements, many then became entangled in various ideas (often wrong) concerning the sizes of the atoms or even the relative magnitudes of the ionisation energies. Question 3 The understanding of hydrogen bonding in water was often sound, and many scored well in this part. The linearity of the hydrogen bond was recognised by the better candidates who scored four marks. A significant minority of candidates, however, think that water is HO2.

All knew that the hydrogen-oxygen bond is covalent in water; fewer could give a correct answer to the nature of the magnesium-oxygen bond, many believing it to be ionic. The responses to the reactions of various substances with water declined in quality as one moved through the answer. Many knew its reaction with sodium, fewer knew the reaction with calcium oxide where hydrogen often appeared as a product. Very few knew the reaction with chlorine where many cases of apparent guess work was seen. The weaker the candidate the clearer it seems to be that they regard equations as some sort of algebraic construct rather than a quantitative description of what happens in the real world. In particular atoms or molecules are often added randomly to make the equations balance. Question 4 The dot-and-cross diagram for HI was nearly always correct. A few candidates missed out the three pairs of non-bonding electrons on the iodine atom. Only the better candidates were able to explain clearly the difference in the boiling temperatures of HCl and HI; weaker answers often referred to iodine or chlorine, or to iodide or chloride ions, and could not make clear which bonds were being discussed. The equation for the reaction of HI with water required the water to be shown as the reagent and H3O+ ions as one of the products; many candidates did this well. Virtually all could get the second part of this question correct. The equation for the reaction of calcium oxide with water was answered correctly by better candidates; the less fortunate usually failed to give a correct formula for calcium chloride. A few could not give the correct state symbols for HCl, believing it to be (l). Understanding of the second part, where the identity and insolubility of calcium sulphate had to be given, was often poor. Only those most fluent with the chemistry of calcium were able to score here. Question 5 Diagrams of the - and - bonds were often very poor; the candidates concerned made no attempt to show the formation of the bond by orbital overlap. On the other hand the good answers were very good. Virtually all candidates could give the shapes of methane and of carbon dioxide, and the majority knew that methane has four bonding pairs of electrons. The explanations were less assured, with many thinking that repulsions between atoms are responsible for molecular shape. Very few candidates understood that a double bond is stereochemically equivalent to a single bond, so very few gave cogent reasons for the linearity of carbon dioxide. The explanation of the difference in state for silicon dioxide and carbon dioxide was, perhaps unsurprisingly, hampered by poor expression and a cavalier misuse of technical terms. This said many candidates scored half marks by knowing that carbon dioxide is molecular covalent and that silicon dioxide is giant covalent. A significant minority believed that the question was about silicon.

Question 6 All candidates could define reduction correctly. Most were able to give the half-reaction for the reduction of iron(III) ions; fewer could cope with the oxidation of iodide ions, with I I+ + e being seen frequently as was the use of I to represent iodine. It follows that there were even fewer correct equations offered for the reaction of iron(III) with iodide ions. Even those who had coped perfectly well with the first two answers sometimes failed to combine them correctly. Most candidates were able to give the required oxidation states correctly; of these the majority also succeeded with the second part, though some simply defined disproportionation in general terms and did not refer to the equation given in the question. Many candidates coped well with the calculation in the last part of this question; they laid matters out clearly and it was easy to follow what they had done. Hints for revision Learn definitions carefully; in many cases single words matter considerably. Use technical terms with care; atoms, ions and molecules are distinct entities, as are intra- and intermolecular bonds. Try to get a mental picture of them on a molecular scale imagine that you are the molecule or ion etc. Chemical equations represent real processes and are not just algebraic constructs; recognise that they really happen, and try to visualise what each reaction looks like as you write the equation. For answers that need more extended writing, practise thinking of your answer as a list of points to be made, and then join these up with the fewest possible words. Even for papers that have no element of choice it is worth reading the whole paper through before you begin to write the brain is capable of a good deal of subconscious processing, and this will help the fluency of your answers.

Unit 6242/01
General This was a high-scoring examination, with many marks into the fifties. On the whole, the organic questions were very well answered, and good understanding was shown. The problems arose with recalling details of subjects as diverse as industrial electrolysis, the balance of kinetics with yield in sulphuric acid manufacture and aspects of activation energy. Here it was evident that candidates had a basic understanding of the topics, but the detail sought in longer responses was often missing. Question 1 Designed to be a straightforward introductory question, many candidates made heavy going of this question and a lack of precision in answers meant that scores were often rather low. In (a)(i), there were many candidates who failed to appreciate that electrolytes are in the liquid phase: the need for the cryolite to be molten and the sodium chloride to be aqueous was not always shown. Similarly, many candidates seemed to think that purification of aluminium ore is unnecessary and that the electrolyte in aluminium manufacture is just bauxite. In (a)(ii) very few candidates specified the source of the oxygen; it could simply have been atmospheric. Those who tried to give equations often spoiled the effect by reacting the carbon anode with oxide ions. It should also be appreciated that the process happening at the anode is not erosion. There were several properties given in (b)(i) which seemed irrelevant to aeroplanes, such as good conductivity or high melting point. The vast majority of candidates still think that light and low density are synonymous, and strong proved to be a popular incorrect choice. Many candidates scored the mark in (b)(ii), partly because they were manufacturing something from chlorine, but also because bleach was allowed this time (despite the fact that chlorine is not used to make household bleach). The erroneous opinion that chlorine is used in swimming pools still prevails. There were few errors in (c), the most frequent being the omission of nucleophilic to qualify the substitution reaction in (ii). Question 2 The structure of 2-iodobutane proved to be universally known in (a)(i). Despite the reagent being well known in (ii) and (iii), there was more confusion in distinguishing the conditions used, with many candidates plumping for variations in temperature. Drawing of the structures in (iv) was good, with many scoring all three marks. Losing marks was usually related to drawings with poor geometry (and therefore repeat structures of the same isomer or difficulty in distinguishing the cis and trans pair) or leaving in iodine atoms. Methylpropene also appeared very frequently candidates were simply drawing all structures of C4H8 rather than answering the question. There were many good arguments in (b), although very few candidates scored the final mark for mentioning the high activation energy of the bond being broken. There was some ambiguity over which bond was actually being broken, with many candidates using a vague reference to bonds in the molecule rather than specifying the carbonhalogen bond. A significant number of candidates thought that the C-Br was broken more easily because it was more polar.

Question 3 This proved to be a high-scoring question, with a large number of candidates scoring full marks. The calculation in (a) proved to be an easy start, although some were not quite sure what they were required to do in (ii) and thus just wrote out the empirical formula again. Part (b) highlighted the on-going trend of failing to read the question carefully enough. A very large proportion of candidates gave the aldehyde rather than the carboxylic acid. Almost all candidates chose sulphuric acid rather than one of the alternatives as the reagent in (c), but the qualifying concentrated was less frequently seen. In (d)(ii) the addition was often not further categorised, just as in Q1(c)(ii). The addition product was frequently correct, with few 1-bromopropane molecules appearing. In (e), it was pleasing to see the structure correct in many cases. There remain a large number of candidates who draw a three-carbon chain of poly(ethene). Question 4 This question started well and there were good answers in (a). The idea of the forward and reverse rates being equal was well known in (i), but the equilibrium idea proved more elusive, with several candidates thinking that concentrations of reactants and products were also equal, rather than being constant. In (ii) some candidates seemed confused stating the effect on the amount of sulphur dioxide present at equilibrium as the conditions changed. Although many candidates could describe the effect of higher and lower temperatures on the rate and yield, (b) required well constructed answers for full marks, which were sadly not forthcoming frequently enough. The explanation of this temperature being a compromise was somewhat confused and only a small number of candidates mentioned the effect on the catalyst of the temperature used. Again, a significant minority wasted their time by rehearsing arguments about the effect of pressure. As in Q1(b)(ii), there was a certain lack of manufacturing uses for sulphuric acid in (c) with no shortage of candidates using the acid itself as fertiliser or paint. Question 5 The enthalpy level diagram in (a)(i) was correctly reproduced from the majority of candidates. Care should be taken in future to make sure that the arrow used to represent H for the reaction points in the correct direction: double-headed arrows are often used and are ambiguous. Similarly, those candidates who did put on the activation energy hump (which is not required in these diagrams) sometimes drew the arrow for H extending into the hump. The fact that the reaction chosen was exothermic and therefore the reactants were thermodynamically unstable with respect to the products caused some problems in (a)(ii). Both here and in (a)(iii) candidates should ensure that they make a comparison. This was compounded in (a)(iii) by candidates who referred to the reaction which was happening at room temperature, without noticing that both reactions were happening under this condition! Sadly there is little evidence that candidates are becoming more proficient in answering questions on the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. The graph drawing in (b)(i) was particularly disappointing bearing in mind that there was already a curve there whose shape could be copied. Several curves rose at the end, crossed the x-axis, were totally symmetrical or misplaced the peak. The perennial problems arose in (b)(ii) with many candidates still assigning the increase in rate to a simple increase in collision frequency rather than a higher proportion of successful collisions due to more particles having energy greater than the activation energy. Perhaps the most common error was the failure to

make a reference to the correct area under the curve ie that to the right of the activation energy line. Very many candidates shade their graphs beautifully but fail to explain what this shading means. The most successful approach was from those candidates who shaded the area between the TH and TC curves (to the right of the activation energy line) and described this as the additional number of molecules at TH which possessed the required activation energy. It was noticed that some candidates used the unusual phrase perfect collisions instead of successful collisions, but this was felt not to have the same meaning. Question 6 This was another straightforward question which enabled candidates to finish the paper on a positive note. Definitions were very good in (a), with only a small number of candidates stating or implying that this enthalpy change is endothermic. Candidates are reminded that the definition should include a statement of standard conditions, not just the phrase under standard conditions. A large majority of candidates scored full marks on (b), helped by the question showing the individual bonds in the molecules used. The predictable error reversing the signs of the bonds broken and bonds made figures was in evidence; the other main error was a failure to count the number of O-H bonds correctly in the products and produce only two. The calculation in (c) again proved successful for most candidates, with the exception of those who either failed to multiply the enthalpy of formation of water by two or changed the signs around. Quite a few candidates got to their answer without the aid of a Hesss Law cycle, but simply from the idea of Hreaction = Hf (products) - Hf (reactants). Where Hesss Law cycles were attempted, they suffered from incorrect arrow directions and a failure to balance the cycle by the addition of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Commonly these were represented by either the word elements or by simple atoms C + 8H + 2O. Hints for revision Remember that the words substitution and addition should always be qualified by nucleophilic, electrophilic or free radical. Electrolysis only occurs in liquids. Poly(propene) is a branched chain structure; if the carbon atoms are all in a line the polymer is poly(ethene), even if it has three carbon atoms in the line. Explanations of thermodynamic stability should compare the enthalpy levels of the products and reactants. A great deal of information is contained in graphs make sure that you can not only reproduce what the Maxwell-Boltzmann graph looks like, but can label important areas. Practise drawing Hesss Law cycles involving formation enthalpies rather than relying on the equation Hreaction = Hf (products) - Hf (reactants).

Unit 6243/01 (Practical Coursework)

General Most centres entering candidates for this examination session had done so previously. It is obvious that many teacher assessors have noted the comments made in previous U9s and taken appropriate action. This includes making sure that centre-produced exercises are approved in advance by the Principal Moderator, including a mark for an organic exercise in every candidates mark profile and including only those exercises in the sample for which the marks are included in the total on 75. Many comments made in previous Examiners Reports are worth repeating and are done so below. The fact is that very few centres manage to implement the assessment scheme perfectly and to submit a sample that is exactly the one required by the moderator. When a candidate is re-sitting Unit 3 and transferring the mark previously gained for coursework, centre assessors should make sure that the correct entry code is used. The mark schemes accompanying the Edexcel produced exercises must be used unaltered. When re-marking sample work moderators will always use the original mark scheme. The arithmetic on record sheets should be checked carefully both for correct addition and scaling from 75 to 50. It is vital that record sheets are signed by both candidate and teacher assessor. The only exercises that the moderator will check are those for which the mark is included in the candidates mark profile (those marks which are circled). There is no point including with the sample of work an exercise for which the mark is not being counted in the mark profile. Samples must be accompanied by marking grids, mark schemes, supervisor's values and other notes that may aid the moderator in his or her task. Unless the moderator can follow the centre assessors allocation of marks there is likely to be disagreement between the two possibly leading to an adjustment of the centres marks.

A full explanation of the requirements of the assessment scheme is given on pages 1-5 of the 8080 Internal Assessment of Practical Coursework booklet (Issue 2, January 2003). In particular the procedures listed in section 5 Recording Marks on page 2 must be followed rigorously (for record cards read record sheets). Pages 1 to 6 of the equivalent 9080 booklet will also clarify some points concerning the scheme.

Summary As ever, a majority of candidates have been assessed fairly and rigorously. However, the moderators did have some criticisms. These are detailed on the U9 sent to centres with the publication of results. The moderators encourage teacher assessors to design and use their own exercises providing these follow the same mark scheme format as those in the Edexcel booklet. Essentially each mark must be individually accounted for rather than awarding, say, up to 3 marks for correct use of burette. Centre produced exercises must be approved by the Principal Moderator before they are used by candidates. Although there are no immediate plans to revise the assessment scheme there are always likely to be minor change and, indeed, corrections to the published exercises. Details of these will be included in Examiners Reports so teacher assessors should always read these for both the January and Summer examination series. Teacher assessors should address any queries concerning the scheme to the Assessment Leader for Chemistry at Edexcel. Hints to candidates carrying out coursework. Once you obtain two titres that are within 0.2 cm3 of each other there is no need to carry out any more titrations. The observation when a gas comes off a liquid is effervescence or gas evolved but you should not include the name (or formula) of the gas as an observation. When phosphorus pentachloride (a solid) is added to an alcohol the observation is that white or misty or steamy fumes are given off. The inference is that hydrogen chloride gas is being evolved and that an OH group is present. A mark from an organic exercise must be included in your mark profile. When you sign your record sheet you should check that this has been done.

Unit 6243/01A (Practical Test)

General Once again the AS practical test worked well with at least some candidates in all centres gaining the expected observations and values. One or two centres reported that the flame test colour from the sample of potassium carbonate supplied was not very convincingly lilac. Presumably the sample contained some sodium impurity. The issue of significant figures continues to be a feature of this examination. Even when the number of significant figures required in an answer is clearly specified as it was in Q3(d) many candidates failed to respond to this instruction. The examiners suspect that some candidates confuse significant figures with decimal places and that others simply do not understand the concept at all. The general rule that should be explained to candidates is that a numerical answer should be given to the same number of significant figures as the least accurate value used in the calculation. In a volumetric exercise this will normally be three significant figures. In thermochemistry exercises in which a measuring cylinder is used the overall accuracy of the final enthalpy change is to no more than two significant figures. This was the reason for asking candidates to give the final H value to two significant figures. Question 1 Many candidates recorded a lilac flame in (a). Although this was the only colour to receive credit an inference of sodium following a yellow flame was awarded a mark. The addition of magnesium sulphate in (b) was obviously a puzzle to many candidates with some reporting that the white precipitate was also magnesium sulphate. To understand the formation of the precipitate candidates needed to know that magnesium carbonate is insoluble. Magnesium hydroxide was also accepted at this point as the possible identity of solid A. Although effervescence or bubbles of gas were commonly recorded as the observation in (c) a correct inference of acid or H+ was less frequently seen. The fairly predictable sulphate test in (d) was well known. A surprisingly large number of candidates wrote names rather than the required formulae in (e) but these answers were not given credit. Question 2 The titration was straightforward and reliable with most candidates scoring high marks for the accuracy of their mean titre. By no means did all candidates record burette volumes to 0.05 cm3 even though this level of accuracy is demanded in the practical tests. Parts (a) to (d) of the calculations and questions were straightforward and completed correctly by a majority of candidates. Parts (e) and (f) proved to be more demanding. In (f)(ii) few candidates correctly stated that since the molecular formula is a whole number multiple of the empirical formula a 10% error in the molar mass would still lead to the correct molecular formula.

Question 3 The sample of sodium thiosulphate dissolved quickly providing it had been powdered as specified in the Instructions. To award accuracy marks the examiners had to assume that the weighing had been carried out precisely. They multiplied the candidates recorded mass of sodium thiosulphate by a factor (0.8) to give the candidates expected temperature change. Accuracy marks were then awarded based on the difference between the expected temperature change and the candidates recorded temperature change. Most candidates gained 2 or 3 marks for accuracy. Part (b) of the calculations and questions was well done with almost all candidates correctly calculating the moles of sodium thiosulphate. Some confusion arose in (c) with the conversion into kilojoules. In (d) it was common for candidates to either give the wrong sign or to give no sign at all before the enthalpy change figure. Candidates either misunderstood the significant figure requirement or, perhaps, failed to read the question properly. Question 4 Many candidates misunderstood that the hydrolysis had to be carried out by warming the halogenoalkane with aqueous silver nitrate and not with water alone. A further misunderstanding led some plans to be based on the collection of hydrogen gas. Presumably candidates suggesting this method were interpreting the H+ in the equation as hydrogen gas. Some methods were simply too complex demanding unlikely apparatus. The best plans followed the suggestions made in the question by adding aqueous silver nitrate and ethanol in equal volumes to each halogenoalkane. Timing started on adding the silver nitrate solution and stopped as the silver halide precipitates formed. The faster the precipitate formed the greater the rate of hydrolysis. The common and correct safety precaution was to avoid the use of a direct Bunsen flame because the ethanol solvent is flammable. The suggested use of a water bath was awarded a mark. Hints for revision If a question asks you to write the formula of a compound then giving its name will not gain you a mark. When giving a H value include a sign before the number and units of kJ mol-1 after it. If you are told to record temperatures to one decimal point then you must do so. If the temperature is exactly a whole number of degrees then record it as (eg) 23.0 oC. In a planning exercise make sure that your safety precaution is linked to a reason.


Unit 6243/02
General This seemed to be a fair but demanding paper. The questions which required a considerable amount of application of knowledge were inevitably found to be more challenging than those based on recall. Candidates with experience at the laboratory bench were able to reveal this in their answers when they described experimental procedures and techniques. This paper also examined the ability to communicate clearly and to perform calculations. With regard to the latter, only a small minority of candidates were able to work through the paper without incurring a penalty for using an inappropriate number of significant figures in their numerical answers. Some candidates found themselves under time pressure when answering Q5 by including extraneous material which was not needed in order to score full marks. Question 1 This question provided a good start for many candidates, with high marks often being scored. Unfortunately, marks were lost when some candidates chose to identify the unknown compounds by using formulae which were inaccurate. The use of names would have been far more appropriate in such cases. In (a), compounds A and B were frequently misidentified as the sodium and the sulphate ion respectively, rather than as the compounds sodium sulphate and barium sulphate. In (b)(i), most candidates could identify ammonia from the observation given, but far fewer could establish that compound C was ammonium bromide. In (b)(ii), the colour of silver bromide was often given correctly, even if compound C had not been identified. This showed that a significant majority of candidates could recall the effect of both dilute and concentrated aqueous ammonia solutions on silver halide precipitates, whereas the test for the ammonium ion was far less well known. The second half of the question shifted the focus to organic chemistry and all five marks were often awarded. In (c)(i), F was occasionally identified as ethanal, rather than ethanol, and the steamy fumes of hydrogen chloride (gas G) described as hydrochloric acid. In (c)(ii), the colour change observed when ethanol undergoes oxidation by the reagents described was frequently recalled, as was that for the positive bromine water test in (d)(ii). Question 2 Part (a)(i) required candidates to describe six essential stages in the preparation of a standard solution of sodium carbonate. Examiners reported that many excellent, well-structured responses were seen, revealing a high Quality of Written Communication. In cases where marks were lost, these typically arose due to omissions such as: not re-weighing the bottle after transferring the solid to a suitable vessel not using a volumetric flask at any stage (conical flasks and beakers were used instead) not rinsing beakers and not transferring washings to the volumetric flask not dissolving all the sodium carbonate solid before making up the solution to the mark.


In (a)(ii), many candidates calculated the concentration of the sodium carbonate correctly, but did not quote their final answers to three or four significant figures. This degree of accuracy is required in volumetric calculations, so many candidates incurred a penalty for using an inappropriate number of significant figures. In (b)(i), the colour change at the end point was very rarely given correctly. In some cases where both colours were known, they were then written down in the wrong order. In (b)(ii), the lack of concordance between the three titres in the table was noted by many. Part (c) was a particularly discriminating question, as often only the best candidates were able to calculate the concentration of the hydrochloric acid correctly. For those who were unable to do so, difficulty often arose when calculating the number of moles of sodium carbonate present in 25.0 cm3 of solution consequentially from (a)(ii). This number was often taken to be the same as the number of moles in 250 cm3 of solution. A rescue mark was available if a candidate calculated a consequentially correct concentration of hydrochloric acid from an incorrect number of moles of acid. In (d), the calculation of the percentage error was often incorrect as the volume of hydrochloric acid, rather than that of the sodium carbonate, was used. Question 3 In (a), for Step II, a significant number of candidates suggested using a more accurate thermometer rather than a change in procedure which would allow the temperature of the acid to equilibrate before being measured. Many candidates realised that, in Step III, the thermometer should not be removed and rinsed between additions of the aqueous sodium hydroxide. In (b), some candidates did not draw any best fit lines on the graph at all. However, examiners reported that they had seen many examples of well drawn lines, suitably extrapolated. Part (c) required the maximum temperature rise to be calculated from the graph, but many candidates simply noted the highest temperature reached instead. The volume of aqueous sodium hydroxide added at neutralisation was more often correctly read off. In (d)(i), the heat evolved was calculated correctly by many candidates using their answers to (c). In (d)(ii), it was unfortunate that candidates who had correctly calculated a numerical value for the enthalpy of neutralisation then omitted the negative sign required to show that this reaction is exothermic. Question 4 Part (a)(i) was generally answered very well. It was noticeable that if the calculation was broken down into two stages, however, the maximum number of moles of 1-bromobutane that could be formed in the reaction was often given to one significant figure, yet the final maximum mass of 1-bromobutane was quoted to two or three significant figures. Many were able to use their answer to (a)(i) to calculate a consequentially correct yield in (a)(ii). In (b)(i), a lack of precision when explaining the purpose of the vertical condenser cost candidates a mark if they did not explain that vapour condenses or turns into liquid. In (b)(ii), many candidates correctly identified the upper layer as water in the separating funnel. In (b)(iii), the use of anhydrous calcium chloride as a drying agent was often not known and some candidates thought that its purpose was to remove impurities. In (b)(iv), drawing the labelled diagram proved challenging for many candidates. Relatively few were able to score all four available marks. Although marks were frequently awarded for showing a heated flask containing 1-bromobutane and for the inclusion of a suitable condenser, the thermometer was often incorrectly placed or omitted altogether. Many diagrams showed the water flow in the condenser the wrong way round or the apparatus was drawn as a sealed system. Part (c) was well answered by the candidates who made use of the hazard data given in the information box about 1-bromobutane and wearing gloves was therefore offered as a suitable precaution.


Question 5 Examiners reported a wide variation in the standard of the answers to this question. Many candidates included flame tests and chemical tests for ions in their plan to identify the four compounds in turn. The instructions in the question, however, required the use of heating apparatus and materials for testing the gases released. Much time was lost, and no marks were gained, by candidates who failed to follow the instructions given. As is often the case, questions requiring the construction of a plan are very discriminating. Many candidates ignored the information that the solids were in unlabelled tubes and presupposed the identity of the solids which they were heating. Nevertheless, it was pleasing to see the correct procedures described and the relevant observations that would be made, when testing for gases, included in many candidates answers. If a plan suggested carrying out the tests in a logical order (eg so that the identity of the sodium carbonate could be deduced by a process of elimination), then full marks were readily accessible for succinct answers displaying a high Quality of Written Communication. A significant number of answers incorrectly stated that nitrogen dioxide turned damp red litmus paper blue, possibly suggesting some confusion with ammonia. Hints for revision Identify an unknown substance by its name, if the question allows you the option to do so, rather than by its formula if you are not 100% sure of its correct formula Try to ensure that you can describe the essential steps in any experiment that you have performed (eg making up a standard solution or carrying out an acid-base titration) Consider carefully the number of significant figures to which you quote your answers at any stage of a calculation question and make sure you know how to round up numbers correctly Practise drawing labelled diagrams of the apparatus used for key processes such as heating under reflux and simple distillation When required to answer a question involving a planning exercise, read over the information given in the question several times before putting pen to paper


Unit 6244/01
General It was encouraging to see a large number of scripts scoring high marks. Many candidates are giving clear explanations to the more demanding questions. Question 1 The majority of candidates could define lattice energy correctly, although there were still some who used gaseous atoms instead of ions and others referred to enthalpy of formation from elements. Some candidates wrote that it was the energy required and then stated that it is always exothermic. The straightforward calculation in (b)(i) was usually well done, with just a few giving positive answers and a few dividing the enthalpy of atomisation of chlorine by two. A lot of candidates realised that the enthalpy of atomisation of potassium would be less endothermic than lithium but only the best candidates explained that the bonding would be weaker due to the smaller atoms or ions. The answers of some candidates showed that they had confused atomisation with ionisation energy. A number of candidates decided that the question was incorrect and wrote about an exothermic change. Most candidates knew that the size and charge of ions would affect the lattice energy. A few referred to charge density but if this term is used it should always be followed by an explanation. A lot of candidates realised that silver chloride would have some covalent character but very few could explain polarisation correctly. Many candidates thought that silver chloride was polarised or that the chloride ion polarised silver. Quite a lot of candidates showed the charge on the silver ion to be 2+ or even 3+. Many candidates had a good attempt at drawing the Hesss law cycle in (d)(i), with the most common errors being the omission of state symbols, omission of charges on the ions, the lattice energy arrow in the wrong direction and omitting to show two enthalpies of hydration. Some candidates gave excellent answers to (d)(ii) but others got confused with the signs of the energy changes. Most candidates found (d)(iii) to be the most challenging part of this question. Some did realise that enthalpy of hydration changes much more rapidly than lattice energy but they did not go on to relate this to the change in enthalpy of solution. Question 2 The good candidates had no problems in writing the four equations in (a)(i). The weaker candidates found this part of the question difficult as they did not know the products formed and often included extra gases such as hydrogen from sodium oxide. Some candidates did not read the question carefully and tried to write the equation for aluminium oxide with sodium hydroxide. Most candidates knew the acid-base character of the oxides, although quite a large number referred to the elements as being acidic or basic. Many candidates just stated the change in metallic character across period 3 with no evidence taken from the equations in (i). Nearly all candidates knew how the metallic character changes in Group 4 and the majority of them explained it in terms of loss of electrons and ionisation energy rather than concentrating on the basicity of the oxides. Many candidates found it difficult to complete the equation in (c)(i) as they did not know the products. However, nearly all candidates knew the relative stabilities of the +2 and +4 oxidation states for lead.


Question 3 This question was usually answered very well and many candidates scored very high marks. The candidates who had learnt the reagents and conditions scored high marks for (a)(i) and (ii). Although KCN was well known as a reagent, not many candidates knew the conditions for converting A to B. The most common error in (ii) was to add water or dilute hydrochloric acid at the same time as carbon dioxide. Candidates should be made aware that the product is hydrolysed separately at the end of the synthesis. There were still a number of candidates who wrote that a weak acid is not fully dissociated, this indicates nearly complete dissociation and the Ka value given shows that this is clearly not true. The majority of candidates could write the expression for Ka but quite a number wrote [H+]2/[C4H9COOH]. A few candidates wrote a general expression in terms of HA, this should not be used when a specific acid is given in the question. The calculation of pH was done correctly by the majority of candidates, with the most common error being to not take the square root of the expression for the [H+]. Good candidates drew excellent titration curves in (iv). The most common errors were an incorrect shape at the start, too large a vertical jump in pH at the end point and finishing at too high a pH. Many candidates could suggest a suitable indicator for the titration but only a few were able to explain with sufficient precision the reason for their choice. There were too many vague suggestions about the pH at the end point. Question 4 It was disappointing to see a large number of candidates omitting the water from the Kc expression. Many candidates gave clear answers to (a)(ii) showing the bonds broken and made. There were quite a few who just played around with the average bond enthalpies and showed that two numbers were equal, without any reference to the bonds in the molecules. Some candidates tried to break three or more C-O or O-H bonds even though there are not that many bonds in these molecules. Some of the weaker candidates thought there would be a change in the value of the equilibrium constant but that the rate of reaction would not change when the temperature is increased. Many candidates drew clear structures for the zwitterion in (b)(i). A few candidates did not know that a zwitterion has positive and negative charges and gave vague reasons for the high melting point in terms of stronger bonds or hydrogen bonding. Even some good candidates did not make it clear that there are strong attractions between the opposite charges in adjacent molecules. The equations were done well by many candidates, with the most common error being the omission of water in the equation with alkali. Some candidates tried to write equations using the ester. A large number of candidates gave a correct description of chiral, although there were still a few who just write that it is a carbon atom with four different atoms or groups attached. The optical isomers were often well drawn and there were fewer candidates who did not attempt a 3dimensional shape. Many candidates knew how to distinguish optical isomers, but some were still using words like reflect or deflect instead of rotate and there were some candidates who thought the polarised light rotates the molecules.


Question 5 Candidates who had learnt the organic reactions scored well in this question. The most common error in (a)(ii) was an incorrect structure for sodium ethanoate. There were some with covalent bonds between the O-Na and others left three carbon atoms in it. There were some excellent answers to the difficult three step synthesis in (b)(ii). Nearly all candidates ignored the OH group and just concentrated on converting the nitrile to an amide and they received full credit. A large number of possible synthetic routes, including some that are not in the specification, are shown in the mark scheme to allow for any candidates who may have studied different reactions. Correct chemistry will always be rewarded. A lot of candidates knew the correct reagents in (b)(iii) but, disappointingly, some just wrote Br for bromine. A significant number tried to use LiAlH4 as they did not realise that the carbon skeleton was reduced by one carbon atom. There were some excellent answers to (c), but a significant number of candidates tried to make a polyamide from amide monomers. Points for revision Learn the reagents and conditions for all of the Organic Chemistry reactions accurately. Make sure that you clearly understand the difference between exothermic and endothermic. Do not write about the energy needed for a reaction and then state that it is exothermic. Learn how to write the structures of condensation polymers. Learn the shape of the titration curve between a weak acid and a strong alkali. Learn how to write the structure of a zwitterion and make sure you understand why amino acids have relatively high melting temperatures. Read the questions carefully.


Mark Ranges and Award of Grades Unit/Component 6241/01 6242/01 6243/01 6243/01A 6243/02 6244/01 Max. Mark (Raw) 60 60 50 50 50 75 Mean Mark 34.0 37.1 44.1 35.0 27.8 43.5 Standard Deviation 11.0 10.9 5.3 7.0 9.0 15.2 % Contribution Number Sat to award 100 5017 100 3355 50 246 50 557 50 1590 100 3520

6241/01 Grade Raw boundary mark Uniform boundary mark 6242/01 Grade Raw boundary mark Uniform boundary mark 6243/01 + 6243/02 Grade Raw boundary mark Uniform boundary mark 6243/01A + 6243/02 Grade Raw boundary mark Uniform boundary mark 6244/01 Grade Raw boundary mark Uniform boundary mark

Max Mark 60 90

A 44 72

B 39 63

C 34 54

D 30 45

E 26 36

Max Mark 60 90

A 47 72

B 42 63

C 37 54

D 32 45

E 27 36

Max Mark 100 120

A 77 96

B 70 84

C 63 72

D 56 60

E 50 48

Max Mark 100 120

A 72 96

B 65 84

C 58 72

D 51 60

E 45 48

Max Mark 75 90

A 57 72

B 50 63

C 43 54

D 36 45

E 30 36


Advanced Subsidiary award Provisional statistics for the award (Candidates) Cumulative % Advanced award Provisional statistics for the award (candidates) Cumulative % A 14.3 B 46.4 C 76.8 D 85.7 E 96.4 A 19.5 B 37.8 C 58.1 D 74.0 E 89.7

Advance Subsidiary/Advanced UMS grade boundaries

Advanced Subsidiary Advanced Max Mark 300 600 A 240 480 B 210 420 C 180 360 D 150 300 E 120 240

Notes Maximum Mark (Raw): the mark corresponding to the sum total of the marks shown on the mark scheme. Boundary Mark: the minimum mark required by a candidate to qualify for a given grade.



Further copies of this publication are available from Edexcel Publications, Adamsway, Mansfield, Notts, NG18 4LN Telephone 01623 467467 Fax 01623 450481 Order Code UA016159 January 2005 For more information on Edexcel qualifications, please visit www.edexcel.org.uk/qualifications Alternatively, you can contact Customer Services at www.edexcel.org.uk/ask or on 0870 240 9800. Edexcel Limited. Registered in England and Wales no.4496750 Registered Office: One90 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7BH