The purpose of The Law of Conservation of Mass Lab in class was to conduct an experiment (by combining acetic acid and baking soda) to prove that in any chemical reaction, the total mass of the reactants and the total mass of the products are equal. In our experiment there was nothing that would indicate a chemical reaction other than the formation of gas. When the baking soda fell into the acid (in both trials), bubbles were created and the balloon that was on the flask filled with gas. This formation of gas after the bubbles were created was the indicator that a chemical change had occurred. Also, we could tell that this was the only chemical change that happened during the trials because, things such as the color of the products, their …show more content…
Next, we followed all other procedure directions that were given to us (see hand -out). This procedure was nearly identical in both trials until we got to the last direction; measure and record the total mass of the remaining products after the chemical reaction …show more content…
So, with the acid in the flask, we proceeded to dump the baking soda in, and then put the balloon on the flask. Once we measured the mass of both the products and the containers on a scale, we immediately saw a difference between the mass of reactants and the mass of products. It looked like we violated the Law of Conservation of Mass! The 1.25 (g) difference in the mass of the system happened because we had let gas escape before putting on the balloon. This meant that we had to find a way to perform the experiment in a way that would only let very little, if any, gas out of the flask. Trial two gave us this chance. We came up with the idea to put the baking soda inside the balloon first, wrap it around the opening of the flask, secure the balloon even tighter by tying a rubber band around the base of the balloon and the top of the flask, and then tipping the balloon up so the baking soda fell into the acid. Low and behold, our idea worked well enough to prove that the Law of Conservation of Mass was correct, and had not been violated. In trial two, our mass of reactants and the mass of products only had a difference of 0.11 (g). Our procedure for part two of the lab affected the mass much less than part one because we had found an adequate way to collect most of the gas in the flask. Unlike part one where some of it went