41 Analysis of Mohrs method Calculations of the experiments Step 1- Determining the average titres of silver nitrate solution titrated

Calculating the average titre of silver nitrate used in the titration for the individual cheeses will be the first step. Three concordant titres should be taken within 0.1cm of each other during the titration! these three titres will be used to calculate the average titre. "e calculate the average titre b# following the formula given below$

% & % & % ' (verage titre n

)"here *%+ is the concordant titre and *n+ is the number of values used., The values are rounded to 1 decimal place in the average titre and are measured in -cm .. Example- /ed 0eicester 1.23&1.43&1.23 ' 1.2cm2 2 Average titre of silver nitrate solution used on different cheeses experimented: /ed 0eicester ' 1.2cm2 /ed 0eicester repeat ' 5.5cm2 6dam ' 1.3cm2 6dam repeat ' 5.7cm2 Step 4- Calculating the moles of silver nitrate reacting The concentration of silver nitrate solution we used to titrate the cheese solution with was 0.1mol. To find out the mole of silver nitrating reacting we use the following formula$

(verage titre 8 0.1 ' mole of silver nitrate used 1000

Example- /ed 0eicester

1.2 8 0.1 ' 1.2810-4 mol 1000

Moles of silver nitrate reacted in the different cheeses experimented with: 9ingsle# "ong

44 /ed 0eicester ' 1.28 10-4 mol /ed 0eicester repeat ' 5.58 10-4 mol 6dam ' 1.38 10-4 mol 6dam repeat ' 5.78 10-4 mol Step 2- "orking out the concentration of chloride ions reacting in the cheese e:tract solution ;rom the background research < have conducted! we know the e=uation between the reaction of silver ions and chloride ions is as follows$ (g& )a=, & Cl- )a=, (gCl)s, ;rom the e=uation! we can work out the ratio of reaction between the two reactants is 1$1. Therefore! the mole of silver nitrated reacted is the same as the mole of chloride ions reacted. Moles of chloride ions reacted in the different cheeses experimented with: /ed 0eicester ' 1.28 10-4 mol /ed 0eicester repeat ' 5.58 10-4 mol 6dam ' 1.38 10-4 mol 6dam repeat ' 5.78 10-4 mol Step 4- Calculating the concentration of chloride ion in 300cm2 of cheese e:tract solution <n the titrations! we used 100 cm2 of the cheese e:tract solution. So in order to find the chloride ion content in the 300 cm2 cheese e:tract solution made during sample preparation! we must multipl# the figures b# 3. Example- /ed 0eicester 1.28 10-4 8 3 ' 2.53810-2 mol Mole of chloride ions reacted in 500cm of cheese extract solution in different cheeses: /ed 0eicester ' 2.53810-2 mol /ed 0eicester repeat ' 2.2810-2 mol 6dam ' 2.13810-2 mol 6dam repeat ' 2.4810-2 mol Step 3- Converting moles of chloride ions to grams "e have found out the moles of chloride ions e:tracted in all the different cheeses we e:perimented with! now we will need to convert the moles to grams in order to make an easier comparison. To convert moles to grams! we must first find out the (tomic >ass of 9ingsle# "ong

42 chlorine. ;rom the periodic table! we can find out the (tomic >ass of chlorine is 23.3. "e multipl# the (tomic mass of chlorine with the moles of chloride ions found to make the conversion. Example- /ed 0eicester 2.53810-2 mol 8 23.3 ' 0.120g )rounded to 2 decimal places, !rams of chloride ion found in the different cheeses experimented with: /ed 0eicester ' 0.120g /ed 0eicester repeat ' 0.111g 6dam ' 0.122g 6dam repeat ' 0.141g Step 5- Calculating chloride ions per 100 grams of cheese ?ow that the mass of chloride ions have been worked out the 300cm2 of cheese e:tract solution which contains around 5g of cheese in each sample var#ing due to accurac# difference during weighing. So to work out the gram of chloride ion per t#pe of cheese! we divide it b# the mass of cheese added during sample preparation. Then multiple it b# 100 to find out the value of chloride ions per 100g of cheese. Example- /ed 0eicester 0.120 8 100 ' 4.135g )/ounded to 2 decimal places, 5.02 Mass of chloride ion per "00 grams for the different cheeses experimented with: /ed 0eicester ' 4.135g /ed 0eicester repeat ' 1.@32g 6dam ' 4.412g 6dam repeat ' 4.011g

Comparisons of results gathered from Mohrs Method T#pe of cheese /ed 0eicester 9ingsle# "ong Chloride ion e:pected per 100g of cheese )g, 1.111 Chloride ion found per 100g of cheese )g, #$"5% Chloride ion differences )g, 1.043 more

44 /ed 0eicester repeat 6dam 6dam repeat 1.111 1.342 1.342 1.@32 4.412 4.011 0.744 more 0.510more 0.414 more

)Aold figures represent possible anomalies, Analysis of the results >ohr.s >ethod was the alternative method! < didn.t not e:pect the concentration of chloride ions found in the cheese to be high. <nitiall#! < e:pected the values to be e:tremel# low. Bowever the data shows a completel# different pattern. &ed 'eicester- The chloride ions found was 4.135g per 100 grams of cheese and the e:pected value was around 1.111g. So 1.043g more of chloride ion content is found! this was an unusual value because the chloride ions found is almost double the amount of e:pected. &ed 'eicester repeat- the chloride ions found was 1.@32g per 100 grams of cheese and the e:pected value was around 1.111g! around 0.744g more of chloride ions was found! again! an une:pected result as more chloride ion is found in comparison to around the e:pected value. Edam- 4.412g of chloride ions was found per 100 grams of cheese and the e:pected value was around 1.342g. There is a difference of 0.510g. 0.510g of chloride ions more than e:pected was unusual. 6ven though < e:pected 6dam to contain a higher amount of chloride ions! there should not have been more than the e:pected value. Edam repeat- 4.011g of chloride ions were found per 100 grams of cheese and the e:pected value is around 1.342g. There is a difference of 0.540g. The repeat of the e:periment gave a more accurate result! but still above the e:pected chloride ion value. (ll four pieces of data collected using >ohr.s >ethod were more than the e:pected values. This suggests there are errors in the method of the e:periment or mistake in the calculations. ;rom the anal#sis of Colhard.s >ethod! the main error would be the Dudgment of the end point. The end point Dudgment carries with it human source of error. Small change in the titre measurement would greatl# affect the end value of the chloride ion concentration as the figures are amplified through the calculations. The trend of the data does vaguel# suggest that 6dam contains a higher amount of chloride ion per 100 grams of the cheese. The results associated with the 6dam cheese seems to be more accurate in comparison with the data associated with /ed 0eicester cheese. The unusual trend of the data suggests the data is unreliable. (s all the calculated values is above the estimated e:pected value of chloride ions in the cheeses tested. <n the method! the onl# method of salt e:traction was b# crushing the cheese and boiling it in distilled water. ?o organic acids were used to help digest the cheese! so the salt e:traction efficienc# should have been low. ;rom the results of >ohr.s >ethod! < would conclude that the method is unreliable as it doesn.t reflect the true values of chloride ion concentration in the cheese e:perimented with. ( possible reason to wh# the values are so high is that contamination occurred during the sample preparation in >ohr.s >ethod. This would e:plain wh# all the data are consistentl# too high. Er there is additional salting on the cheeses that were not stated in the packaging of the cheeses! this would e:plain wh# there are anomalies in the results data. (ll of the results seemed like anomalies! but < onl# highlighted the value which had the greatest difference to the e:pected value of chloride ions as a possible anomal#! which was the /ed 0eicester cheese e:periment. Comparison (etween )olhards and Mohrs data 9ingsle# "ong

43

"hen comparing the two tables of results! there is a trend that is in common between both sets of results. The both showed a decreasing pattern in chloride ion difference between the actuall# value found and the e:pected value as < conducted the e:periments. ?ot in relation to the actual salt content of the cheese. There was no definite trend in both tables of results to suggest that as there is a higher salt content in cheese! there is a higher chloride ion concentration found. "hich was m# e:pectation before conducting the e:periment! however results suggest otherwise. 6dam cheese was used in both methods! so we can use it for comparisons. <n the results from Colhard.s >ethod! there was a lower value of chloride ion found than e:pected. Aut in the results from >ohr.s method! the chloride ions found were much higher than the e:pected values. So there are no similarities in the data. This disproves the possible reason that because 6dam is a hard cheese and the rubber# nature of the cheese made salt e:traction difficult. The fact that the data collected were complete opposites suggests the error in both e:perimental methods were high. So we cannot conclude directl# from the results which method was more effective in determining the concentration of chloride ions in cheese. The data does suggest different batches of cheeses will have different concentration of salt! as the data shows inconsistent results. So for reliable results! the same batch of cheese should be used when conducting the two different e:perimental methods. (s well as that! the time constraint of the procedures should be kept the same. <n >ohr.s >ethod! the heating of the cheese were not recorded! this could lead to the variation of results. "hereas in Colhard.s >ethod the heating time was measured! this would have provided more consistent results. Everall! there are little valid comparisons that can be made when comparing the results between the two different methods in determining concentration of chloride ions in cheese.

9ingsle# "ong