EXPERIMENT 3

VOLUMETRIC ANALYSIS OF ACETIC ACID IN VINEGAR

Pagkanlungan, Aldrey Q., Reyes, Ruthlaine Joyce A., Romin, Maelyn Nicole T.

College of Science

University of the Philippines Baguio

Abstract
This experiment aims to cognize various titration methods and gain a deep understanding of the
concepts involving volumetric analysis, as well as integrate the proper techniques necessary in
laboratory equipment utilization. In the preparation and standardization of 0.1 N NaOH solution,
the computed mean molarity of NaOH is 0.108M, with regards to the measured mass of KHP
and the volume of NaOH obtained. In the analysis of vinegar, 10 mL vinegar aliquot was titrated
with standardized NaOH, yielding a 16.2mL computed mean in the three trials, implying that
there is 16.2 ml standardized NaOH for every 10 mL of Vinegar aliquot. The acetic acid content
was also computed to have a mean of 0.175 g/100mL with a standard deviation and RDS of
0.003 and 1.71% respectively. The small value of relative standard deviation implies highly
precise data, it indicates that the data are more clustered around the mean and lesser spread
out. Furthermore, the first trial of titration resulted in a dark pink solution which gesticulate over
titration, in which the endpoint and equivalence point were overshot. Trials 2 & 3, on the other
hand, showed no evidence of over titration because a pale pink color was observed, indicating
that the end point has been reached.

Introduction change in color, it entails the end of titration

(Skoog et al, 2013).
Volumetric analysis is a type of
quantitative analytical method commonly Furthermore, the occurrence of
used in titration. It involves volume physical changes signifies the end point.
measurement of a solution with a known The end point is just a rough estimate of the
concentration, which is referred to as equivalence point, wherein the amount of
standard solution, that is necessary to titrant is chemically equal to the amount of
exhibit complete reaction with the analyte. analyte. However, the exact state of the
This type of titration is carried out by equivalence point cannot be determined
leisurely adding the standard solution to the experimentally so indicators are utilized.
analyte until a visible reaction is observed. When indicators are added to the analyte
When a physical change is observable, like solution, it will instigate observable result
gestulating the end point of titration.
 In this experiment, neutralization
titration was employed, where the vinegar
sample is neutralized by a base, sodium
hydroxide. Essentially, neutralization is the
formation of water and salt from the acid
and base reaction, in which water is also
generated by the combination of H+ and
OH- ions (Adele, 2015).

This experiment aims to cognize the KHP was then weighed to obtain 0.3
various titration methods used in volumetric to 0.4 grams of sample and was dissolved
analysis such as proper usage and with 50 mL distilled water in a 250 mL
utilization of laboratory equipment as well as Erlenmeyer flask and two to three drops of
incorporation of the proper techniques phenolphthalein indicator was added. With
necessary to conduct the volumetric a clean and dry burette that was previously
analysis. The objectives of this experiment final washed with the NaOH solution, the
also include comprehension of the concepts KHP solution was then titrated until a faint
involving volumetric analysis. And lastly, this pink color was noted. This was repeated for
experiment also intended to obtain the two more trials.
ability of ascertaining the difference
B. Analysis of Vinegar
between volumetric and gravimetric type of
titrimetric analysis.

​Methods

A. Preparation and standardization of

0.1 N NaOH solution

In this experiment there was a need

to prepare a standardized 0.1 N NaOH
solution.
Results and Discussion Table 2. ​Shows tabulated value of acetic
acid content and volume of vinegar aliquot
Table 1. ​Calculated table values in the
with the corresponding volume of NaOH
standardization of NaOH using the KHP
used in three trials.
standard. Shows mass of KHP standard
with the corresponding volume of NaOH Trial Volume Volume of Acetic
used. Vinegar NaOH used acid
Aliquot (± 0.05 mL) conten
(±0.02 mL) t
(g/100
Trial Mass of Volume Molarity mL)
KHP of NaOH of NaOH
standard used (mol/L or
(± (±0.05 M)
Trial 1 10 16.2 0.175
0.0001 mL)
grams)
Trial 2 10 16.5 0.178
Trial 1 0.431 25.5 0.0829
Trial 3 10 15.9 0.172
Trial 2 0.412 16.7 0.121

Trial 3 0.416 17.2 0.119 Table 3. ​Shows various statistical analysis

of the mean acetic acid content in g/100 mL.

Mean 0.175
In the titration of KHP with the
Standard deviation ± 0.003
standardized NaOH solution, it was
computed that the molarity of NaOH with Relative standard 1.71%
deviation (RSD)
regards to the measured mass of KHP and
the volume of NaOH obtained is 0.0829M.
In trial 2, it was computed to be 0.121M and In order to determine the acetic acid

at trial 3, 0.119M. The average molarity of content of vinegar, 10 mL vinegar aliquot

NaOH computed is 0.108M. The reaction of was titrated with standardized NaOH. Trials

NaOH and KHP is given by the equation 1 to 3 accumulated a mean of 16.2 mL

below. standardized NaOH for every 10 mL of

Vinegar aliquot. The acetic acid content was
KHC 8 H 4 O4 + N aOH → KN aC 8 H 4 + H 2 O computed to have a mean of 0.175 g/100mL
Equation 1 with standard deviation 0.003 and RDS of
1.71%, which shows high precision of The first trial of titration resulted in
measured data from trials 1 to 3. the solution being a darker shade of pink.
This is considered evidence that
Figure 1. Percent Acetic acid content.
oversaturation of the titrant has occurred
and the endpoint and equivalence point
were overshot (​Kahlert et. al, 2016)​.

Figure 3: Second and third trial of

titration respectively

The percentage acetic acid content

computed in trial 1 is 5.0% which strays
away from the percentage assumed by
Silver Swan, which is 4.5%. This gains an
11% error. Trial 2 had 13% percentage error
with 5.1% acetic acid. For trial 3, 4.9% In comparison to the first trial, the
acetic acid was computed, thus having 9% following trials resulted in a fainter color of
percentage error. Precision of accumulated the solution revealing that no over titration
data is high. The reaction of vinegar and the of HAC has occurred and that the
standardized NaOH solution is given below. equivalence point of the reaction was

CH 3 COOH + N aOH → N aCH 3 COO + H 2 O attained. In addition, it was observed that

the solution became lighter over time and
Equation 2
became colorless again. This error may be
Figure 2: First trial of HAC titration
due to the influence of atmospheric
compounds reacting to the solution (​Kahlert
et. al, 2016)​.
 Post-lab questions

● Trial 1

A. Acetic acid content in g/100 ml

(0.4789 ±0.009 M )(0.2495 ±0.10 L)

0.010 ±0.05 L
= 1.195 M ±0.03
1.195

Propagation of Uncertainty:
0.009 0.10
Relative uncertainty = ( 0.4789 x 100) + ( 24.95 x 100) + ( 0.05
10
x 100)
(0.4789 ±1.9% M )(0.02595 ±0.4%)
0.010 L ±0.5%
= 1.243 M ±2.8%
relative uncertainty
Absolute uncertainty = 100
x measurement
2.8%
Absolute uncertainty = 100
x 1.243 = ±0.03

L ) ( 1000ml ) ( 1 mol )
60 g AA g
(1.243 mol 1L
(100) = 7.458 ±0.03 100 ml

● Trial 2

A. Acetic acid content in g/100 ml

(0.4789 ±0.009 M )(0.02510±0.10 l)

0.010 L ±0.05
= 1.202 M ±0.03
Propagation of Uncertainty:
0.009 0.10
Relative uncertainty = ( 0.4789 x 100) + ( 25.91 x 100) + ( 0.05
10
x 100)
(0.4789 ±1.9% M )(0.2595 ±0.4%)
0.010 L ±0.5%
= 1.202 M ±2.8%
relative uncertainty
Absolute uncertainty = 100
x measurement
2.8%
Asolute uncertainty = 100
x 1.195 = ±0.03

L ) ( 1000ml ) ( 1 mol )
60 g AA g
(1.202 mol 1L
(100) = 7.212 ±0.03 100 ml
 ● Trial 3

A. Acetic acid content in g/100 ml

(0.4789 ±0.009 M )(0.02490±0.10 l)

0.010 L ±0.05
= 1.192 M ±0.03
Propagation of Uncertainty:
0.009 0.10
Relative uncertainty = ( 0.4789 x 100) + ( 24.90 x 100) + ( 0.05
10
x 100)
(0.4789 ±1.9% M )(0.02490 ±0.4%)
0.010 L ±0.5%
= 1.192 M ±2.8%
relative uncertainty
Absolute uncertainty = 100
x measurement
2.8%
Absolute uncertainty = 100
x 1.195 = ±0.03

L ) ( 1000ml ) ( 1 mol )
60 g AA g
(1.192 mol 1L
(100) = 7.155 ±0.03 100 ml

(7.458+7.212+7.155)
mean = 3
= 7.275 ± 0.03
2 2 2
SD = √ (7.458−7.275) + (7.212−7.275) + (7.155−7.275)
3−1
= 0.1610

SD
RSD = mean
x 100
0. 1610
RSD = 7.275
x 100 = 2.213 %

The calculated relative standard deviation is 2.2% of the calculated mean, which is
7.275. The standard deviation value is small thus implying that the data is closely distributed
around the mean and not widely spread out. In the analysis, the calculated relative standard
deviation is 1.7%. This suggests that both experiments were highly precise and accurate since
the data exhibits small deviation of number distribution around the mean.

References:
Skoog, D.A., West, D.M., Holler, F.J., and Crouch, S.R. (2013). Fundamentals of Analytical
Chemistry – 9th ed. United States: Cengage Learning. Pages. 302-304

Adele, A. (2015). A Study of Acid-Base Titrations: Vitals and Conclusions. International Journal
of Applied Sciences. 1(1). Retrieved from
https://research-advances.org/index.php/IRAJAS/article/view/22/22

Kahlert, H., Meyer, G. & Albrecht, A. ChemTexts (2016) 2: 7. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-016-0026-4