CHRIS25
National Hazard
Posts: 951
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Copper Acetate Fiasco
I added:
19 grams copper
56 mL 40% conc. Acetic acid
19.5 mL H2O2
Left for a few hours and the solution turned an expected deep Blue
Observations: unexpected Mottled turquoise/black colour on 20% of the copper surface. Reaction stopped. no bubbles detected.
Added a further 25 Ml H2O2.
Reaction kick started and the black on surface of copper turned turquoise then slowly back to black again after a few hours. Reaction stopped after
10 hours.
Added a further 30 mL acetic acid, the black disappeared after four hours. Began heating solution for three hours, a brown heavier than water
precipitate formed.
Gave up on whole solution and poured into a jar to use as is anyway. After a couple of hours there was a turquoise/blue residue on the inside of the
glass, the solution is still deep blue as expected but the residue that has formed is difficult to scrape off although it can be removed.
Conclusion: Have not got a clue what is happening here, could find absolutely NO references at all about the making of acetic acid on the web (only
the home - making blue solutions and a few kitchen videos - nothing professional)
The whole reaction consumed 4.2 grams of copper - the problem I have here is what is the point of 19 grams of copper.
Help needed please.
[Edited on 16-7-2012 by CHRIS25]
‘Calcination… is such a Separation of Bodies by Fire, as makes ‘em easily reducible into Powder; and for that reason ‘tis call’d by some
Chymical Pulverization.’ (John Friend, Chymical Lectures London, 1712)
Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. (William Penn 1644-1718)
The very nature of Random, Chance development precludes the existence of Order - strange that our organic and inorganic world is so well defined by
precision and law. (me)
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What concentration is the H2O2? It's acting as an oxidizer for the copper, so it matters how much of it there is.
|
|
|
m1tanker78
National Hazard
Posts: 685
Registered: 5-1-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What's your source of copper? Part of the bubbling you see could be catalytic decomposition of hydrogen peroxide which obviously spells premature
death to your oxidizer.
Tank
Chemical CURIOSITY KILLED THE CATalyst.
|
|
|
CHRIS25
National Hazard
Posts: 951
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hallo, H2O2 is 6% but I calculated this in in my stoichemetry from an original:
Cu + 2CHCOOH + H2O2 = Cu(CH3COO)2 + 2H2O
63.5 + 120 + 34 = 182 + 36
The above values for peroxide and acetic are for concentrated so my maths adjusted for my own percentages.
[Edited on 16-7-2012 by CHRIS25]
‘Calcination… is such a Separation of Bodies by Fire, as makes ‘em easily reducible into Powder; and for that reason ‘tis call’d by some
Chymical Pulverization.’ (John Friend, Chymical Lectures London, 1712)
Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. (William Penn 1644-1718)
The very nature of Random, Chance development precludes the existence of Order - strange that our organic and inorganic world is so well defined by
precision and law. (me)
|
|
|
CHRIS25
National Hazard
Posts: 951
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by m1tanker78  | What's your source of copper? Part of the bubbling you see could be catalytic decomposition of hydrogen peroxide which obviously spells premature
death to your oxidizer.
Tank |
Source is scrap dealer. But my cleaning procedures are thorough, they receice three separate cleans: Scrub scrub with Sodium Carbonate, then in
Sulphuric (for the de- oxidising) then citric for the final rinse, and washed in de-ionized water and then another final treatment in sulphuric just
for fun!.
[Edited on 16-7-2012 by CHRIS25]
‘Calcination… is such a Separation of Bodies by Fire, as makes ‘em easily reducible into Powder; and for that reason ‘tis call’d by some
Chymical Pulverization.’ (John Friend, Chymical Lectures London, 1712)
Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. (William Penn 1644-1718)
The very nature of Random, Chance development precludes the existence of Order - strange that our organic and inorganic world is so well defined by
precision and law. (me)
|
|
|
zoombafu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 255
Registered: 21-11-2011
Location: U.S.
Member Is Offline
Mood: sciencey
|
|
I'm pretty sure your stoichiometry is off. 6% hydrogen peroxide is 6gH202/100gH20. If you are using 19g copper, you will need .30 moles of H202,
that's 10g. 44.5mL of 6% H202 is not .30moles.
Also Is the copper in big chunks? If it is, breaking it up will increase the surface area for the reaction.
|
|
|
CHRIS25
National Hazard
Posts: 951
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by zoombafu | I'm pretty sure your stoichiometry is off. 6% hydrogen peroxide is 6gH202/100gH20. If you are using 19g copper, you will need .30 moles of H202,
that's 10g. 44.5mL of 6% H202 is not .30moles.
Also Is the copper in big chunks? If it is, breaking it up will increase the surface area for the reaction. |
Hi well 10g equates to approx 10mL because it's basically water and the density of H2O2 is 1.135 which is 11.35ml. Since I added more than 19mL to
the reaction where am I wrong here?
and sorry for my lack of mathematical know how (not being sarcastic) but how on earth did you arrive at 0.3moles by seeing the 19 grams of copper? I
see that concentrated H2O2 is 34moles, and that copper is 63.5moles. 6% equals 2.04moles. But I really don't know how to calculate what you just
calculated?
[Edited on 16-7-2012 by CHRIS25]
‘Calcination… is such a Separation of Bodies by Fire, as makes ‘em easily reducible into Powder; and for that reason ‘tis call’d by some
Chymical Pulverization.’ (John Friend, Chymical Lectures London, 1712)
Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. (William Penn 1644-1718)
The very nature of Random, Chance development precludes the existence of Order - strange that our organic and inorganic world is so well defined by
precision and law. (me)
|
|
|
zoombafu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 255
Registered: 21-11-2011
Location: U.S.
Member Is Offline
Mood: sciencey
|
|
copper is 63.5g/mol
H202 (pure) is 34.0g/mol
you used 19g of copper.
19g/1mol x 1mol/63.5g = .30moles
You need one mole of H202 to react with one mole of copper
so if you are using .30 moles of copper you need .30 moles of H202
.30mol x 34.0g H202/1mol = 10. g H202
You need 10 grams of pure H202.
Your solution is a 6% solution, not pure.
Ill let you find out how much solution you need to have a total of 10g H202.
I recommend getting a first level college chemistry book, because learning stoichiometry is a must. You can get one at a used book store, or off of
ebay pretty cheaply. You can also find lots of pdfs online in torrent form
|
|
|
CHRIS25
National Hazard
Posts: 951
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by zoombafu |
Ill let you find out how much solution you need to have a total of 10g H202.
>>>Hi, I am learning stoichemetry and have a couple of books already, my problem is working out maths, I try but am very very weak at
thinking in a mathematical problem, I can not work out how to solve things when it comes to thinking in a mathematical way and believe me I do my
best. This problem is not so much understanding stoichemetry as it is working out HOW you work something out, I spent an agonising 10 minutes on this
and simply can not do it.
The best I came up with was: I have 0.6g in a 1000mL solution of H2O2, I juggled with figures and well - I'm lost here, I really do not know how to
work it out, the books I have are good, but they don't help you with maths unfortunately.<<<<
|
Ok, just had a brain wave!! I need 56 litres of 6% H2O2 to equal 1 litre of 100%. Therefore if I need 10mL of 100% and only have 6% I need ....yep
there you go lost it!!!!!!!!!!!
[Edited on 16-7-2012 by CHRIS25]
‘Calcination… is such a Separation of Bodies by Fire, as makes ‘em easily reducible into Powder; and for that reason ‘tis call’d by some
Chymical Pulverization.’ (John Friend, Chymical Lectures London, 1712)
Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. (William Penn 1644-1718)
The very nature of Random, Chance development precludes the existence of Order - strange that our organic and inorganic world is so well defined by
precision and law. (me)
|
|
|
zoombafu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 255
Registered: 21-11-2011
Location: U.S.
Member Is Offline
Mood: sciencey
|
|
If there are 6g H202 in 100g water, then there are 12g in 200g water (only 10g are needed). When dealing with H202 in an inorganic synthesis I
usually put in a slight excess, as it has the tendency to decay in storage. So 200mL of the solution should be more than enough to carry out the
reaction.
|
|
|
CHRIS25
National Hazard
Posts: 951
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Trouble here is that I never saw 6% as 6 grams , that's confusing to be honest, I did not think that 6% was 6 grams in 100 mL of water - this
constant shifting between grams and percent is very confusing when each separate calculation is being measured with totally different parameters, ie,
moles grams and percent and then these have to be standardised within the equations in order to achieve the blasted answer. Your example above I know
is very good, but for me it would be more understandable and manageable if parameters were consistent. I was trying to work out what 6% would be in
grams a few posts ago, can't damn well believe it Aagh - - 6% HCl is not 6 grams in 100 mL of water, it's 2 moles or 170mL for example, in 1 litre of
water. or 17 mL in 100 mL water which then makes it 17% but as we know that does not make it 17% concentration or 17 grams, it's still 6% right? Can
you see where I am with all this? So when one thinks with a one tracked mind I am at a disadvantage as regards Maths. I appreciate your help to be
honest here and hope you forgive my utter simplicity, maths just leaves me screaming - brain is not configured for this.
So now we are at the end of this, Do I boil the solution until there is no more copper left?(chemistry books don't teach How you know when to freeze
boil or just let be, they are full of calculations and atomic numbers and very interesting things I need to learn, but never give example of how you
know WHAT exactly one needs to do withthe reactants in order to ensure a successful reaction...
[Edited on 17-7-2012 by CHRIS25]
[Edited on 17-7-2012 by CHRIS25]
[Edited on 17-7-2012 by CHRIS25]
‘Calcination… is such a Separation of Bodies by Fire, as makes ‘em easily reducible into Powder; and for that reason ‘tis call’d by some
Chymical Pulverization.’ (John Friend, Chymical Lectures London, 1712)
Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. (William Penn 1644-1718)
The very nature of Random, Chance development precludes the existence of Order - strange that our organic and inorganic world is so well defined by
precision and law. (me)
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
You can not boil a solution of Copper acetate as it will decompose as you do it.
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
zoombafu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 255
Registered: 21-11-2011
Location: U.S.
Member Is Offline
Mood: sciencey
|
|
Do some research on concentrations. Some are weight/weight, some are volume/volume. You have to look on the container, it usually says which (w/w,
v/v). All the situations I have come across it is w/w. It is stupid and confusing, which is why I don't use percents. I prefer molarities.
|
|
|
CHRIS25
National Hazard
Posts: 951
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by zoombafu | | Do some research on concentrations. Some are weight/weight, some are volume/volume. You have to look on the container, it usually says which (w/w,
v/v). All the situations I have come across it is w/w. It is stupid and confusing, which is why I don't use percents. I prefer molarities.
|
I did that months ago, no problem in isolation understanding moles and percent by volume oor weight - it's
just maths and thinking in that kind of unique problem solving context that seems to have no working horsepower in my head.
My acetic acid calculations were also wrong! If I need 35.03 mL of 100% and I only have 40% then I need twice that amount +1/10 more, ie 75.66mL of
acetic acid. Right?
[Edited on 17-7-2012 by CHRIS25]
‘Calcination… is such a Separation of Bodies by Fire, as makes ‘em easily reducible into Powder; and for that reason ‘tis call’d by some
Chymical Pulverization.’ (John Friend, Chymical Lectures London, 1712)
Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. (William Penn 1644-1718)
The very nature of Random, Chance development precludes the existence of Order - strange that our organic and inorganic world is so well defined by
precision and law. (me)
|
|
|
CHRIS25
National Hazard
Posts: 951
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
So how does the copper 2
acetate precipitate out of solution without having to wait for weeks and weeks for it to evaporate?
My assumption was that you heat it up to about boiling temperature of water (which is what meant - apologies for not being scientifically accurate, I
know that boil point of Cu acetate is somewhere around 200c) and then keep it at this temp range?
But since I have been wrong about so many things lately my confidence is waning here.
‘Calcination… is such a Separation of Bodies by Fire, as makes ‘em easily reducible into Powder; and for that reason ‘tis call’d by some
Chymical Pulverization.’ (John Friend, Chymical Lectures London, 1712)
Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. (William Penn 1644-1718)
The very nature of Random, Chance development precludes the existence of Order - strange that our organic and inorganic world is so well defined by
precision and law. (me)
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by CHRIS25 | | So how does the copper 2 acetate precipitate out of solution without having to wait for weeks and weeks for it to evaporate? |
Perhaps it cannot. This wouldn't be the first chemical whose manipulations were limited by heat sensitivity.
In this particular case, you can improve evaporation rate by using more surface area. To get large surface area, use wide flat trays. Metallic trays
are likely a bad idea, given the copper ions. In addition, blowing a fan over the trays will speed the evaporation by reducing vapor saturation at the
liquid surface.
You would also use vacuum evaporation, but that's a lot of gear for small batches of product, particularly when there are cheaper alternatives.
|
|
|
CHRIS25
National Hazard
Posts: 951
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Ireland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes | | Quote: Originally posted by CHRIS25 | | So how does the copper 2 acetate precipitate out of solution without having to wait for weeks and weeks for it to evaporate? |
Perhaps it cannot. This wouldn't be the first chemical whose manipulations were limited by heat sensitivity.
In this particular case, you can improve evaporation rate by using more surface area. To get large surface area, use wide flat trays. Metallic trays
are likely a bad idea, given the copper ions. In addition, blowing a fan over the trays will speed the evaporation by reducing vapor saturation at the
liquid surface.
You would also use vacuum evaporation, but that's a lot of gear for small batches of product, particularly when there are cheaper alternatives.
|
Thankyou, well I have only plastic trays, and I could squeeze one into my home-made container for dangerous
and smelly chemicals, I picked a broken down commercial Coffee urn from a skip a while back, modified it, and that comes in very handy for outdoor
work in the rain and wind. (which never stops here even now). But I thought if you heated the solution say keeping it around 60c after the reaction
was completed you could drive off a lot of the excess water? But it appears that this would still decompose some of the acetate?
[Edited on 17-7-2012 by CHRIS25]
‘Calcination… is such a Separation of Bodies by Fire, as makes ‘em easily reducible into Powder; and for that reason ‘tis call’d by some
Chymical Pulverization.’ (John Friend, Chymical Lectures London, 1712)
Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. (William Penn 1644-1718)
The very nature of Random, Chance development precludes the existence of Order - strange that our organic and inorganic world is so well defined by
precision and law. (me)
|
|
|
triplepoint
Hazard to Others
Posts: 127
Registered: 11-4-2012
Location: U.S.
Member Is Offline
Mood: in equilibrium
|
|
I have made and dried some copper acetate. It forms very satisfying crystals, but there is also some decomposition no matter how I do it. The bright
side is that the decomp is a relatively small % and it is excluded by the crystals, which can be rinsed with cold water to remove the impurities.
|
|
|
SM2
Hazard to Others
Posts: 359
Registered: 8-5-2012
Location: the Irish Springs
Member Is Offline
Mood: Affect
|
|
If my brain remembers, I just found the non-zinc pennies, couldn't dissolve in glacial. Dissolved in some other heavy duty acid easily. Than just
swapped, and relied on solubility or lack of get my copper acetate (or was it cupric). All the copper salts I have made are all different shades of
green. But those big sulphate x-tals at Ace are beautiful.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
