Sample lab report for Experiment 2:

This experiment had three has three objectives: to standardize a NaOH solution, to determine
the ionization constant of acetic acid by measuring the pH of the acetic acid solution and by titration,
and to compare the capacity of a buffer solution to resist change in pH to that of water. It was expected
that the NaOH solution would have a 0.1 molarity, the experimental ionization constant of acetic acid
would be close to Ka=1.76 X 10(-5), and the capacity of the buffer to resist change in pH would be
greater than that of water.
To standardize the supposed 0.1 M NaOH solution prepared in Part 1, NaOH was titrated with
potassium acid phthalate of known amount. Complete neutralization, e.g. the reaction of one mole of
NaOH with one mole of KHP, had occurred when the indicator phenolphthalein turned fuchsia,
indicating that the solution has turned from acidic to basic as all of the acidic KHP had completely
reacted with the OH- and the OH- is present in slight excess. In Part 2, the mean molarity of the NaOH
solution for the three titrations was 0.104 M with a standard deviation of 0.001 M. Because the NaOH
solution that was being standardized was supposed to have a molarity of 0.1 M and the
phenolphthalein indicator changed color at a volume of NaOH that corresponded to a molarity so close
to the expected value, the chemical principle is upheld that when a basic solution neutralizes an acidic
solution and is present in slight excess, the solution becomes basic. No significant sources of error in
the experiment exist; however in trial 2, after the fuchsia solution was left to sit for about an hour, the
solution became colorless again, indicating that all of the acidic KHP had not been neutralized by the
OH- and the solution was still acidic. We obtained the data before the solution had completely reacted.
This would have had only a minimal affect on final results and may have even yielded a more exact
result because perhaps the solution had exactly neutralized when the data was collected.
In the second part of the experiment, a weak acid (acetic acid) was titrated with a strong base,
NaOH. The results of the titration were graphed and the equivalence point was thus obtained, the point
at which the moles of H+ (dissociated from the acid) consumed equaled the moles of OH- (dissociated
from the base). At half of the equivalence point, half of the acetic acid has been consumed and the
concentration of acetic acid equals the concentration of CH3COO- ions. Since pH= pKa + log ([A-]/
[HA]), and [A-] = [HA] at half of the equivalence point, then log 1= 0 and pH = pKa at half of the
equivalence point. The ionization constants obtained experimentally in this way were 2.09 X 10^(-5) in
the first trial and 2.82 X 10^(-5) in the second trial. The actual value is 1.76 X 10^(-5). While on the
same order of magnitude, the experiment clearly includes error with a percent error of 39%. The error
could be due to acidic deoinized water, which was thought to be neutral when used and calculated as
such. When standardizing the NaOH, because the water may have been acidic, then it would have
been necessary to titrate enough to neutralize the KHP AND the water, which would throw off further
calculations. Another source of error may have been the calibration of the pH meter used to create the
titration graph with solutions that were not truly pH 4 and pH 7. This could have been caused by the
failure to rinse off all of the chemicals used in previous experiments before placing in the standard
solutions, throwing off the pH of the calibrating solutions.
The Ka value for acetic acid was calculated a second way as well: by measuring the pH of the
acetic acid solution and calculating the Ka by using the ionization constant expression. The
experimental value obtained of 3.04 X 10^(-5) (from the pH measured of 2.26 and the expressions
[H+]=10^-pH and Ka=([H+][CH3COO-])/[CH3COOH]) is on the same order of magnitude as the actual
value of 1.76 X 10-5, but error is still present. Since the calculated value is a direct function of the pH,
an error in obtaining the pH occurred. A possible source of error is that the pH meter may not have
been cleansed properly and residue solution from a previous experiment threw off the pH obtained for
acetic acid. Also, the calibration of the pH meter may have been done with calibrating solutions that
were not actually pH 4 and pH 7.
The capacity of a prepared buffer solution of sodium acetate and acetic acid to resist change in

pH was compared to that of water. The Ka values of the prepared buffer solution of different
compositions varied experimentally (pH 4.96 for the solution with more sodium acetate and pH 4.25 for
the solution the converse composition) and theoretically from one another; however, the K a values
obtained should be the same because Ka is a constant and does not vary with composition. The buffer
solution effectively neutralized added H+ and OH-. It does this by reaction of the conjugate base of the
buffer mixture with added acid. Conversely, the reaction of the weak acid component of the buffer
system with added base will effect a neutralization reaction. In the presence of no buffer solution, 2 mL
of 3.0 M HCl made the unbuffered solution quite acidic with a pH of 1.00 and 2 mL of 3.0 M NaOH
made the solution in the absence of a buffer 12.80. These are harmonious with the expected values of
pH 0.73 and pH 13.27. In buffered solution, these amounts of acid and base did not change the pH of
the solution significantly: pH 3.86 and 4.65, respectively. The buffer solution had an initial experimental
pH value of 4.35, so the pH did not vary by greater than 0.5. The buffer successfully neutralized H+ and
OH- ions in solution and is shown to be significantly resistant to change in pH when a small amount of
HCl or NaOH is added when compared to the pH change in the solution with no acetic acid/sodium
acetate buffer. These experimental values were relatively close to the calculated values of pH 4.98 and
4.53, respectively. One source of the present error may be attributed to the improperly calibrated pH
meter with solution that may have been inadvertently tampered with by the chemicals added to the
calibrating solutions by earlier experimenters.
The experimental results of the three parts of this experiment, while present with error,
followed the chemical principles as predicted by the hypothesis made prior to obtaining data, as the
results relatively fit the hypotheses.