After successfully isolating the eugenol and acetyleugenol, all that was left was to weigh each product. Once the lab was completed and the masses of the products were weighed, a 1.8% recovery of acetyleugenol as well as a 4.59% recovery of eugenol were obtained. These values may seem low, but in reality they may not be. This is because the amount of eugenol and acetyleugenol initially contained in the 25 grams of cloves is unknown. However, it is possible there were sources of error that occurred during the lab. A mechanical source of error would be spilling small amounts of solution while transferring it to different containers (beakers/flasks). Other sources of error could include incomplete reaction. This may be due to a lack of mixing …show more content…
This difference is that eugenol has a alcohol group (OH) coming off its benzene ring while acetyleugenol has an ester group coming off its ring instead. This important stuctural difference is what allowed the separation between eugenol and acetyleugenol. This can be seen during extraction when the sodium hydroxide was added to the methylene chloride layer containg the eugenol and acetyleugenol. The OH group on the eugenol is able to react with the sodium hydroxide as seen in the mechanism diagram above. This reaction leads to eugenol going into the sodium hydroxide layer while the acetyleugenol is left in the methylene chloride layer. The eugenol’s OH group reacts with the negativle charged OH from the NaOH. The reaction leads to the eugenol’s OH group becoming a negativly charged oxygen. This negativley charged oxygen then reacts with the positivly charged Na from the NaOH and forms an eugenol salt. Eugenol salts dissolve in water, thus allowing the eugenol to be take from the sodium hydroxide layer to the water. The acetyleugenol has an ester group instead of an OH group, so it cannot under go this same extraction …show more content…
Both molecules in this lab have their own unique mass spec. This means that each molecule can be cut in a certain way which allows them to be differentiated from one another. The molecules focused on in this lab are eugenol and acetyleugenol. A clear distinction between their two mass spectra is that the acetyleugenol has an ion peak representng its mass at 206. The eugenol has an ion peak at 178 representing its mass. This is logical because the difference in mass between the two molecules is by the ester group acetyleugenol has. Eugenol has an OH group instead of an ester group. This causes the mass of the eugenol to be lower than the mass of acetyleugenol. There is a unique fragmentation at 17 that is only seen in mass spec for the eugenol. This fragmentation is caused by the eugenol being cut at the point where the OH group is coming of the aromatic ring. This fragmentation is impossible for acetyleugenol achieve because it has an ester group instead of an OH
The experiment was not a success, there was percent yield of 1,423%. With a percent yield that is relatively high at 1,423% did not conclude a successful experiment, because impurities added to the mass of the actual product. There were many errors in this lab due to the product being transferred on numerous occasions as well, as spillage and splattering of the solution. Overall, learning how to take one product and chemically create something else as well as how working with others effectively turned out to be a
Triphenylmethyl Bromide. A 400 mL beaker was filled with hot water from the tap. Acetic acid (4 mL) and solid triphenylmethanol (0.199 g, 0.764 mmol) were added to a reaction tube, with 33% hydrobromic acid solution (0.6 mL) being added dropwise via syringe. The compound in the tube then took on a light yellow color. The tube was then placed in the beaker and heated for 5 minutes. After the allotted time, the tube was removed from the hot water bath and allowed to cool to room temperature. In the meantime, an ice bath was made utilizing the 600 mL plastic beaker, which the tube was then placed in for 10 minutes. The compound was then vacuum filtered with the crystals rinsed with water and a small amount of hexane. The crude product was then weighed and recrystallized with hexane to form fine white crystals, which was triphenylmethyl bromide (0.105 g, 0.325 mmol, 42.5%). A Beilstein test was conducted, and the crystals produced a green to greenish-blue flame.
The C-H (sp3) hydrogens from our product displayed at wavelength 2959 cm-1 correlates to the methyl groups located on the ends of isopentyl acetate4. A really prominent, strong peak located at 1742 cm-1 shows that a C=O ester stretch is located in the product, along with at 1244 cm-1 the spectrum shows a strong peak representing the C(=O)-O stretch that is crucial to the structure of isopentyl acetate. Shown in my IR spectrum is a weak O-H (H-bonded) peak at 3464 cm-1 which shows that I have an impurity of isopentyl alcohol in my product. Isopentyl alcohol has similar boiling points and density as my product so the impurity could have easily boiled out with the isopentyl acetate during distillation. The isopentyl alcohol was also present in my 1H-NMR spectrum backing up the impurity peak at 3464
The objective of this experiment was to perform extraction. This is a separation and purification technique, based on different solubility of compounds in immiscible solvent mixtures. Extraction is conducted by shaking the solution with the solvent, until two layers are formed. One layer can then be separated from the other. If the separation does not happen in one try, multiple attempts may be needed.
The data we gathered was tested to be as accurate as possible. Our prediction on the solvents did not support our data that we collected. The cause of this could be due to human error when washing the beets or the cutting of the beets. The beets were not perfectly cut the same size, so some beet pieces were bigger than others which can affect the final the final result. We followed each step and followed the time limits cautiously. I can say if we were to redo the experiment our results would be similar because we would attempt to do the experiment as close as we did the first
In this lab, we are finding the number of molecules in one mole. To do so we use Avogadro's number as a reference. Avogadro's number is 6.02 x 10^23 and the final calculation at the end of the experiment should be close to this number. Avogadro's number represents that if there is an equivalent number of gases that are present at the same temperature they will all contain the same number of molecules as each-other. Using the calculations given a number of molecules in a mole of oleic acid can be found.
Extraction is a separation method that is often used in the laboratory to separate one or more components from a mixture. Sucrose was separated at the beginning because it is the most immiscible and it’s strongly insoluble. Next Acetylsalicylic Acid was separated which left Acetanilide alone. Variety steps could have led to errors occurring. For example the step of separation, when dichloromethane layer was supposed to be drained out, it could be possible some aqueous layer was drained with it. Which could make the end result not as accurate. Also errors could have occurred if possibly some dichloromethane was not drained out. Both way could interfere with end result of figuring the amount of each component in the mixture. The solids percentage were 22.1% more than the original. That suggests that solids weren’t separated completely which clarifies the reason the melting points that were recorded were a slightly lower than the actual component’s melting point. The melting point for Acetylsalicylic Acid is 136 C but that range that was recorded during the experiment was around 105 C to 118 C. The melting points were slightly lower than the literature value. Sucrose was the purest among all component due to its higher melting point which follows the chemical rule that the higher the melting point the more pure the component
This experiment synthesized luminol (5-Amino-2,3-dihydro-1,4-phthalazinedione) and used the product to observe how chemiluminescence would work. The starting material was 5-nitro-2,3-dihydrophthalazine-1,4-dione, which was, after addition of reaction agents, refluxed and vacuum filtered to retrieve luminol. Using two stock solutions, we missed our precipitated luminol with sodium hydroxide, potassium ferricyanide, and hydrogen peroxide, in their respective solutions, in a dark room, to observe the blue light
Saturated sodium chloride solution, also known as brine solution, is used to wash the distillate mixture. The distillate mixture is the phosphoric acid the co-distilled with the product. The brine solution also removes most of the water from the 4-methylcyclohexane layer. When six drops of 4-methylcyclohexene were added with two
One possible source of experimental error could be not having a solid measurement of magnesium hydroxide nor citric acid. This is because we were told to measure out between 5.6g-5.8g for magnesium hydroxide and 14g-21g for citric acid. If accuracy measures how closely a measured value is to the accepted value and or true value, then accuracy may not have been an aspect that was achieved in this lab. Therefore, not having a solid precise measurement and accurate measurement was another source of experimental error.
One of the best methods for determining mass in chemistry is gravimetric analysis (Lab Handout). It is essentially using the the mass of the product to figure out the original mass that we are looking for. Thus the purpose of our experiment was to compare the final mass in our reaction to the initial mass and determine the change in mass.
Benzyl bromide, an unknown nucleophile and sodium hydroxide was synthesized to form a benzyl ether product. This product was purified and analyzed to find the unknown in the compound.
After performing the first Gas Chromatography, we took the organic layer, and mixed it with saturated Sodium Hydroxide. We performed this step to remove the (-OH) group from the Eugenol. The purpose was to make the water as a product, which can also be used as a solvent for the Eugenol that was ionized, for the two substances Acetyl Eugenol and Beta Caryophyllene. Again, we see the density differences in the solvents; we were able to take the organic layer. Finally, we transferred the layer into the beaker and dried, to perform the Gas Chromatography
There is also the potential of human error within this experiment for example finding the meniscus is important to get an accurate amount using the graduated pipettes and burettes. There is a possibility that at one point in the experiment a chemical was measured inaccurately affecting the results. To resolve this, the experiment should have been repeated three times.
Eugenol was extracted from cloves through the process called steam distillation. A total of 50ml of distillate were collected with temperature monitoring for every 5.0ml of collected liquid. The distillation curve showed that the temperature of volatilization of eugenol is from 98°C to 99°C which is way below its boiling point at 2540C. Chemically active extraction was conducted in order to remove impurities particularly eugenol acetate and caryophyllene. This involves the addition of several solvents particularly hexane, NaOH, HCl, then hexane again in succession.