Carta De Melgarejo

A. | Trail #1 | Trail #2 |
Mass of crucible and lid (g) | 37.81 | 41.00 |
Mass of crucible, lid, and hydrated salt (g) | 39.32 | 42.52 |
Mass of crucible, lid and anhydrous salt | 38.60| 41.81 |
1st mass measurement (g) | 38.57 | 41.78 |

Calculations | Trail #1 | Trail #2 |
Mass of hydrated salt | 1.51 | 1.52 |
Mass of anhydrous salt (g) | 0.76 | 0.98 |
Mass ofwater lost (g) | 0.75 | 0.78 |
Percent by mass of volatile water in hydrated salt (%) | 49.66 | 49 |
Average percent H2O in hydrated salt (%H2O) | 49.33 | |
Standard deviations of %H20 | 4867.11 | |
Relative standard deviation of % H2O in hydrated salt (% RSD) | 9866.43 | |

Laboratory questions:
1. It will be too low because if a drop of water or any substancegets into the sample substance gets into the sample , it would be as if the process was never made , meaning that the loss of water would be low or lower than it should.
2. The maswould be higher but the percent of water would be lower because it would be added to its original percent.
3. Too high because when its differentiated from the mass of the emptycrucible would he higher than it should and when the second time is heated it would not be constant, for it to be constant it would need to be do over a third time.
4. I think that byomitting the step did not affect the percent H2O in the hydrated salt because we made other steps as calculating the percentage of hydrated water followed a pattern which was very effective withoutany kind of problem.

Conclusion:
This laboratory was very different from the others. We saw changes of colors and even smell. We experimented has a substance can change when another’s oneis added to it. Although there were some minor accidents we enjoyed doing this entertaining laboratory. It was simple and distracting from everything else we have ever done in the laboratory.