Brigid O’Brien

November 6th, 2017

Chemistry

Utilizing Spectroscopy and Spectrophotometers to Identify Multiple Unknown Elements

Introduction and Task Statement:

Parts 1, 2, and 3:
In this lab, students performed three different investigations. In the first, qualitative data was used to
compare certain solutions and the subsequent color they produced when inserted into a flame, which
ultimately investigated the elements of two given unknowns.
To understand the following sections of this experiment, it is crucial to comprehend how the energy of a
light wave is related to frequency and color. As the energy of a substance increases, wavelength
decreases, and vise versa. As the wavelength of an element increases, the visible spectrum becomes
orange and then red. Conversely, as the energy of an element increases the visible spectrum becomes
green, then blue and violet. However, these visible colors are only a small part of the spectrum.
In the second section of this experiment, students analyzed the spectral emissions of known and unknown
substances, using this information to predict the identity of those unknown substances. This section of the
lab was carried out using a spectrophotometer, an instrument that is used to measure the amount of light a
chemical substance absorbs or emits. Chem.libretexts.org defines a spectrophotometer as “an instrument
that measures the amount of photons absorbed [in a] solution.” A chemical substance must become
plasma in order to emit spectral lines. This seems to be consistent in the context of this lab since students
measured the spectral lines of flame with this instrument. In the second section of this lab, a
spectrophotometer was used by inserting certain sponge soaked solutions into a flame and reading their
spectral lines with a sensor.
Lastly, students used a spectroscope to analyze two different gas tubes, ultimately predicting their identity
by comparing and contrasting their spectral lines to the spectral lines of known elements. The
aforementioned spectroscope is used for spectroscopy, “the dispersion of an object's light into its
component colors (i.e. energies)” (as.arizona.edu). This instrument enables scientists to identify elements
using atomic emission spectrum lines. In this lab, students recorded the visible spectrum of a certain tube.
After this observation was made, comparisons between the visible spectrum of the unknown(s) and the
visible spectrum of the known elements were made, therefore enabling students to make conclusions
about the identity of the unknown element(s).
When executing a lab such as this, it is important to understand the how the atom functions within itself
as well its structure. The Bohr model of the atom, created by Neils Bohr, explains the structure of a
hydrogen atom in a concrete way by “describing the properties of atomic electrons in terms of a set of
allowed… values” (britannica.com). Additionally, the model clearly shows that when electrons within the
atom move from one state or “orbit” to another, they emit and absorb light. More specifically, electrons
emit light when they go from higher levels of energy to lower levels (or orbits) of energy. However, they
can only reach those energy levels that they come down from by absorbing light. Atomic emission
spectrum lines are related to the Bohr model of the atom in that, as previously mentioned, different colors
are emitted when electrons move up energy levels. These energy levels are represented as electron orbits
on the Bohr model of the atom. Chem.libretexts.org defines atomic emission spectrum lines as “the
pattern of lines formed when light passes through a prism [which is separated] into the different
frequencies of light it contains.”
While the Bohr model is valuable in that it helps one understand how atomic emission spectrum lines
work, it is not the most accurate representation of the atom because it only works for hydrogen, whereas
the Quantum Mechanic model of an atom describes electrons for all atoms as though they exist in an
orbital cloud rather than multiple orbits.
All of this information is imperative for the comprehension of this lab.

Results
Part 1:
Table 1 - Color Data vs. Chemical Compound
This table displays the comparison between foam soaked in a certain solution and the color it produces
when inserted into flame. Example: When the control (foam soaked in water) is placed in fire a blue
flame is produced.

Solution Flame Color

Control Blue

NaCl Yellow

CuCl!2 Green

LiCl Red Orange

KCl Light Pink/Purple

CaCl!2 Orange

SrCl!2 Deep pink

Unknown 1: Yellow Orange

Unknown 2: Pink Orange

Part 2:
Table 2 - Intensity vs. Wavelength These tables show the peaks of the known solutions KCl, SrCl2, NaCl,
and LiCl, as well as the peaks of the unknown solution. Figures 1 to 8 and tables 2 and 3 were all
graciously given to me by Cady and the data from Nyana’s group since my group and I were not able to
finish this part of the experiment. The axes of Figures 1 through 6 are intensity (y axis) and wavelength (x
axis).

See Table 1 - Intensity vs. Wavelength as reference.

Figure 1 - Control Screenshot, Peak Intensity: Peak 1 Figure 2 - KCl Screenshot, Peak Intensity:
Peak 1

Figure 3 - SrCl2 Screenshot, Peak Intensity: Peak 5 Figure 4 - NaCl Screenshot, Peak Intensity:
Peak 3
Figure 5 - LiCl Screenshot, Peak Intensity: Peak 1 Figure 6 - Unknown Screenshot, Peak Intensity:
Peak 5

Part 3:
Figure 7 - Emission Spectra B
This visible spectrum shows the emission spectra as seen through the spectroscope of Unknown B.

!
Figure 8 - Emission Spectra C
This visible spectrum shows the emission spectra as seen through the spectroscope of Unknown C.

Table 3 - Spectrum Results

This table displays the results of Unknown B and C.
!

Discussion
Part 1:
As previously mentioned in the introduction section of this lab, the purpose of this experiment was to
discover which elements were present in Unknown 1 and Unknown 2. Based off of the previously
observed reactions, Unknown 1 is!CaCl2 and Unknown 2 is KCl ! .
Because Unknown 1 created an orangish color, it can be deduced that the element that had the closest
color to the orange that Unknown 1 possessed was !CaCl2. This process was used in identifying Unknown
2 as well. It was recognized that Unknown 2 created a pink color when inserted into flame, and the only
other known element that produced a pink color was KCl ! . Therefore, one could hypothesize that
Unknown 1 possesses !CaCl2and Unknown 2 possesses KCl ! .
The control of this experiment was foam soaked in water. Identifying the flame color of a control was
important in this experiment so that there was a reference available for subsequent testing. If we had not
known what flame color foam soaked in water would produce, we could not refer to it as we went along
testing what flame color the other elements produced as well.
In each of these solutions, there is a metal and a nonmetal present. For example, K is potassium and Cl is
chloride, whereas Ca is calcium and Cl is chloride as well. Since all of the solutions have a the same
nonmetal present (Cl), and all of the metals are different (K, Ca, etc), and each solution produced a
different color despite containing the same nonmetal, the metal determines the color produced in the
flame.
I am moderately confident in these results. Since the colors that the unknowns produced are not an exact
match to any of the known element colors, I think that perhaps the unknowns are not any of the exact
known elements provided. In saying this I mean to say that perhaps the unknown solutions had more than
one element present. I am also not completely confident in my group and I’s ability to collect data in an
orderly fashion -- sometimes it was difficult to be sure of whether or not we mixed up certain elements
and colors, etc.

Part 2:
The purpose of this section of the lab was to identify an unknown in the presence of another using a
spectrophotometer and spectroscopy. Spectroscopy gives one the ability to detect a metal that is in the
company of another metal by comparing the atomic emission spectrum of multiple metals to the atomic
emission spectrums of individual metals, therefore being able to interpret the metals that are present in a
sample.
For example, if there was a mixed atomic emission spectrum of calcium and sodium, the spectrum would
need to be compared against the two individual metal spectrum patterns.
The two metals that were present in the unknown solution were KCl and NaCl. This conclusion can be
made based off of the Intensity vs. Wavelength graphs, Figures 1-6. When comparing the KCl graph to the
Unknown graph, it can be seen that both have a very similar peak at the very end of the graph -- 700
nanometers. When comparing NaCl to the Unknown graph, it can be seen that both of the solutions had
the exact same nanometer measurement of 590.3 nm, as well as a third wavelength peak between 0.610
and 0.251 nm. One can further support this claim by analyzing each of the additional element graphs
(those including the control, SrCl2, and LiCl) and recognizing that none of them resemble the Unknown’s
graph as the NaCl and KCl graphs do.
The spectrophotometer and Intensity vs. Wavelength graphs used in this section of the experiment are
similar to the emission lines and spectroscope used in section three. The peak intensity (height) seen on
Intensity vs. Wavelength graphs are equivalent to brighter-than-normal emission spectrum lines. The
location of peaks in graphs and lines in the visible spectrum both visibly start at around 390 nanometers
and end at 700 nanometers. Additionally, both are according to reverse ROYGBIV (red, orange, yellow,
green, blue, indigo, violet), whereas 390 nanometers is located near violet and 700 nanometers is located
at red.
I am, once again, somewhat confident in my results. Since I was not the one carrying out this experiment,
taking screenshots, etc., it is difficult to know how accurate the given results are. I recognize that human
error should be taken into account, as well as inexperience in collecting data with the spectrophotometer.
Therefore, I am unsure of how precise the data is and whether or not my predictions that are based off of
this data are exact. That being said, however, I am just as inexperienced and susceptible to error, and I
may not be confident in my own results had I executed this part of the lab instead.

Part 3:
The objective of this section of the lab was to identify the two unknown gas tube’s identity by using
emission spectrums. To predict the identity of the two unknown elements, one must compare the visible
spectrum of the unknowns to visible spectrums of known elements. When following this method of
identification, one is able to predict that the element present in Unknown C was Mercury and the element
present in Unknown B was Cadmium. This characterization for Unknown 1 and 2 is referenced from the
Atomic Emission Spectrum of various chemical elements key. Unknown C is predicted to be mercury
because both of their visible spectrums have blue and purple atomic emission lines close to 410 and 420
nanometers. They additionally have a green atomic emission lines around 540 nanometers, and a yellow
line close to 590 nanometers. Unknown B is predicted to be cadmium for the same reasons, although the
compared atomic emission lines are a little less precise than the previous unknown -- emission lines aren’t
“lined up” as well. Around 450 nanometers there is a blue atomic emission line, at around 500 there is a
green line, at about 600 there is a yellow line, and at around 650 there is a red line.
When observing spectral emission lines, one can see that all emission lines are not equally bright. Some
are brighter than others, and as described in discussion part 2, emission spectrum lines are similar to
Wavelength vs. Intensity graphs because the brightness indicates peaks in intensity.
The spectrum lines on the visible spectrum that were previously described are not the only spectrum lines
present in the two unknowns. The human eye can only compute wavelengths of about 390 to 700
nanometers (wikipedia.org). Therefore, there are colors that humans cannot see because wavelengths
outside of this range cannot be determined by the human eye.