Comparison of Three Isomers of Butanol
An alcohol’s responsiveness is determined based on the fond regard of their hydroxyl functional group. The location of this hydroxyl functional group will impact the molecular construction of the intoxicant. doing it either primary ( 1° ) . secondary ( 2° ) . or third ( 3° ) . The intent of this experiment is to detect and foretell the reactions that take topographic point between all three intoxicants and an oxidizing agent. every bit good as to prove our theories of how the molecular construction affects the chemical belongingss of the three isomers of butyl alcohol. I predict that the primary. secondary and third intoxicants will undergo permutation reactions. but merely primary and secondary intoxicants will undergo oxidization reactions due to their chemical belongingss and the theories learned in category.
Three trial tubings were placed in a test-tube rack. A clean oculus dropper was used for each intoxicant and 4 beads of 1-butanol were placed in the first tubing ; 4 beads of 2-butanol were placed in the 2nd tubing ; and in the 3rd tubing. 4 beads of 2-methyl-2-propanol were placed. After the 4 beads of each intoxicant were placed in the trial tubing. the following measure was to add 10 beads of concentrated hydrochloric acid ( HCl ) to each of the three trial tubings. The mixtures were shaken really gently and the tubings were left to stand for 1 min while they were observed for grounds of cloud cover. Three more trial tubings were set up for each intoxicant to detect the reaction between the three intoxicants and the KMnO4 solution. For each tubing. 2ml of KMnO4 solution were carefully added so shaken gently. The trial tubing remained standing for 5 min. with occasional shaking. After leting equal clip for the reactions to happen. the trial tubings were observed to find if there was any color alteration. Consequences
Table 1: Chemical reactions of Alcohols with Lucas Reagent and KMnO4
Oxidising Agent1-butanol ( Primary Alcohol ) 2-butanol ( Secondary Alcohol ) 2-methyl-2-propanol ( Tertiary Alcohol )
Reagent-Not cloudy after 5 proceedingss
-Not cloudy after 15 proceedingss
-Not cloudy after 5 proceedingss
-cloudy after 16 minutes-Turns cloudy
KMnO4-Very slow reaction
-Turns into dark purple
-Very speedy reaction
-Turned from purple to brown instantly-No Chemical reaction
-Remains the same coloring material ( purple )
Table 2: Chemical reactions of the Alcohols With the oxidising agent 1 butyl alcohol ( substitution reaction )
2 butyl alcohol
( permutation reaction )
( Substitution Reaction )
1 butyl alcohol ( oxidation reaction )
2 butyl alcohol
( oxidization reaction )
( oxidization Reaction )
As observed in Table 1. when the primary intoxicant was placed in the Lucas Reagent the mixture did non turn cloudy after five. and 15 proceedingss. When the primary intoxicant was placed in the KMnO4 solution. there was a really slow reaction and the mixture turned dark purple. When the secondary intoxicant was placed in the Lucas Reagent. it turned cloudy after 16 proceedingss. When the secondary intoxicant was placed in the KMnO4 solution. there was a really speedy reaction that turned the mixture from purple to brown. When the third intoxicant was placed in the Lucas Reagent. it turned cloudy instantly. When the third intoxicant was placed in the KMnO4 solution. there was no reaction as expected and the mixture stayed purple as it was earlier. As the accelerator that provided the reaction changed. the rate at which the reactions occurred besides changed. Discussion
As seen in Table 1. each of the intoxicants reacted really otherwise when assorted with a Lucas Reagent. and when assorted with KMnO4. The account for this is that the hydroxyl group on intoxicants relates to their rate of responsiveness. When the intoxicants react with the Lucas Reagent. they produce an alkyl halide and H2O. The solubility of the ensuing alkyl halide from the reaction is what determines the rate of responsiveness. The accelerator that was used besides affected the rate of the reaction. which I think is a consequence of the solubility of the Lucas Reagent and the KMnO4 solution with the intoxicants. From theories studied in category. the consequences that took topographic point were really accurate since the reactions happened about precisely as they should hold due to their chemical equations ( see Table 2 for reactions ) .
The location of the hydroxyl functional group is what impacts the rate at which they react. and it besides determines what type of intoxicant it is. This difference in molecular construction of the intoxicants is what regulates its chemical belongingss and therefore the coloring material of the merchandises and velocity of the reaction. The oxidization of intoxicants provides a great manner of transporting out a qualitative trial for different types of intoxicants because there is a clear and distinguishable coloring material alteration that is discernible. If scientists are seeking to find whether any given intoxicant is a primary. secondary. or third intoxicant. they can oxidise the intoxicants with some signifier of a accelerator and be able to divide the intoxicants from one another. This type of trial is besides easy done with pupils because the processs are easy and fast so it is a good manner of finding chemical and physical alterations from the discernible reaction in a schoolroom environment.
The beginnings of mistake in this lab could hold been the clip that we waited for the reaction to happen. For illustration. when we were detecting the primary and secondary intoxicants. we were limited by the continuance of the lab and had to do decisions based on what we saw in a short sum of given clip. If we were given more clip to detect the reactions. the consequences could hold been different. Another beginning of mistake is that the original samples from each mixture could hold been contaminated as people tried to utilize the eyedropper. which in return can impact the consequences of the lab.
Another beginning of mistake was the measuring of the measure of each mixture. If the measures were off by even a little sum. this could hold affected the consequences. Besides if the temperature and humidness of the room are different than the intended values. this may impact the consequences. My anticipation based on the theories learned in category was right in that the primary. secondary and third intoxicants will undergo permutation reactions. but merely primary and secondary intoxicants will undergo oxidization reactions due to their chemical belongingss and their molecular constructions.