Codex @codex  0

Acetone reacts with iodine to form iodoacetone, iodide, and a hydrogen ion:In water, ${\mathrm{H}}^{+}$ denotes a solvated hydrogen ion; added hydrochloric acid provides acidic conditions.

Moorpark College's protocol mixes acetone, hydrochloric acid and water from burets in matched test tubes; pipet in iodine, swirl and time colour loss against white paper. Use water, then reacted solution, as references. Duplicate each mixture; keep total volume $5.00\mathrm{mL}$ and run temperatures within $2{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$.^[ref]

The stock dilutions give $[\mathrm{acetone}{]}_0=0.800$, $[{\mathrm{H}}^{+}{]}_0=0.200$, and $[{\mathrm{I}}_2{]}_0=0.00100\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$. B and C separately double acetone and acid; D halves iodine. The manual supplies no measured times; it states zero partial order of reaction in iodine and asks students to determine the other exponents.^[ref]

The endpoint measurement is a time $\tau$ to an operational colour threshold, not direct observation of a reaction intermediate. If the iodine disappearance rate $r$ is approximately constant until that endpoint, $r\approx [{\mathrm{I}}_2{]}_0/\tau$. Halving $[{\mathrm{I}}_2{]}_0$ at fixed other concentrations then approximately halves $\tau$ without changing $r$. A longer or shorter endpoint time alone is not a comparison of reaction rates unless the starting concentration is included. For an observed power-form rate law, doubling only acetone gives a rate ratio $2^m$ and hence $m=\ln (r_B/r_A)/\ln 2$; doubling only acid similarly estimates its own partial order of reaction. Those are inference formulas, not asserted experimental results.

A useful proposed reaction mechanism would explain how iodine is consumed after an earlier transformation sets the throughput, making the observed reaction rate insensitive to iodine over a tested range. The observed zero exponent would contradict treating this net chemical equation as a single elementary reaction with directional rate law $k[\mathrm{acetone}][{\mathrm{I}}_2]$. It would not uniquely prove which reaction intermediate or earlier step is involved. Independently detecting a candidate reaction intermediate would provide another kind of evidence.

The excess-reactant approximation has an explicit scale: the baseline iodine inventory is only $0.00100/0.800=0.125\%$ of the initial acetone inventory, and its net hydrogen ion production is $0.00100/0.200=0.5\%$ of the initial acid inventory, assuming only the stated one-to-one chemical reaction. These are calculated bounds on composition change, not measured reaction orders. Mixing delay, a subjective colour threshold, and temperature drift limit the inference. Repeats and a fixed viewing geometry help; a calibrated absorbance trace could test linearity during conversion instead of relying on an endpoint alone. That extension would require a reference blank and a justified Beer-Lambert law calibration, rather than treating visible colour as an exact concentration. A zero-order reaction approximation in iodine must fail at depletion; it cannot imply consumption after no iodine remains.

The Mixture measurements and the Gibbs-Duhem constraint article describes the inspected acetone–chloroform preparation, apparatus, paired readouts, controls and sampling limits.^[ref]

That existing apparatus account supplies the experimental controls and limitations. Its refractive index calibration yields mass fractions, which must be converted to mole fractions. For a measured component-A mass fraction $w_A$ and component molar masses $M_A,M_B$,Apply this conversion separately to the flask sample and to completely condensed vapor to obtain $x_A$ and $y_A$. Comparing $y_{i}P$ with $x_i{p}_i^{\ast }(T)$ tests Raoult's law at the measured temperature; using the changing temperature at each composition is essential. The chosen A/B values above are unrelated to the protocol's substances.

The more general diagnostic, retaining an ideal gas vapor and negligible pure-liquid pressure correction, isThis follows by replacing $\ln x_i$ with $\ln (x_i{\gamma }_i)$ in the chemical potential subtraction used for Raoult's law. A reproducible discrepancy from ${\gamma }_i=1$ can expose failure of the ideal solution approximation, but interpreting it requires checking measurement uncertainty, representative paired sampling and the ideal gas approximation. Apparent agreement within uncertainty supports an approximation over the tested conditions; it cannot establish exact ideality at every composition.

Positive or negative deviations of component partial pressures require activity coefficients different from one under these assumptions. An azeotrope is also absent from the chosen unequal-vapor pressure model: the explicit inequality in ideal binary vapor composition gives $y_A>x_A$ throughout $0<x_A<1$. An interior equality would require $p_A^{\ast }=p_B^{\ast }$; in that degenerate case every composition has $y_A=x_A$, rather than an isolated enrichment reversal. Neither an azeotrope nor liquid phase separation should be inferred from the ideal curves.

A concrete motivating experiment is the acetone–chloroform mixture in Truman State University's Liquid-Vapor Equilibrium of a Binary System, Procedure and Figure 1. A two-neck flask feeds a distillation head with a water-cooled laboratory condenser, condensate sampling arm and temperature probe. Starting with one pure liquid, the procedure adds the other component successively and waits for stable temperature with returning condensate. Small paired samples from the flask and condensate are read on an Abbé refractometer; a tabulated refractive index–composition relation gives the two compositions. Controls include three-point thermometer calibration, corrected atmospheric pressure readings, and agreement of the initial pure-liquid and condensate refractive indices with the reference value. Small withdrawals and little retained condensate reduce disturbance of composition. Sample evaporation can bias the readout. The inferred paired mole fractions, temperature and pressure describe vapor-liquid equilibrium, subject to the conversion from mass fraction to mole fraction and to representative sampling. This teaching protocol reports no measured results of a particular student run.^[ref]

How does such a measurement expose activity coefficients? Let $x_i$ and $y_i$ be the mole fractions in the liquid and gas thermodynamic phases, respectively, and let $p_i^{\ast }(T)$ be the pure-component vapor pressure. Assume the gas thermodynamic phase is an ideal gas mixture and neglect the change of the pure-liquid reference chemical potential between its saturation pressure and the experimental pressure. Equality of each component's chemical potential between the two thermodynamic phases then givesThis turns the paired composition readings into estimates of the activity coefficients. The approximation needs refinement when the gas departs appreciably from ideal gas behavior or the neglected liquid pressure effect matters.

The apparatus measures a boiling-composition series in which temperature changes as the mixture changes. Its readings therefore cannot be inserted directly into the fixed-temperature, fixed-pressure activity coefficient constraint. They motivate the more general task: test whether the measured mixture properties can arise from a common Gibbs free energy while accounting for changing state variables. A failure can reveal incompatible property fits or experimental bias; a pass supplies a consistency check, not proof that every reading is correct.

Thin-layer chromatography spreads a thin chromatographic stationary phase on a supporting plate. A small sample spot starts on a pencil origin line. The lower edge contacts the eluent, whose level must stay below that origin; capillary action draws the chromatographic mobile phase upward. Components exchange with the chromatographic stationary phase as the wet region advances. The leading wet edge is the solvent front. Mark it after removing the plate, before solvent evaporation erases it.^[ref]

Juniata College's Science in Motion protocol grinds vegetable tissue with about $5\mathrm{mL}$ of acetone, transfers the extract, adds about $2\mathrm{mL}$ of hexane, and specifies sampling the upper layer after separation. It spots a silica gel plate with a capillary tube, drying between repeated applications; a reference pigment occupies another lane. A closed jar contains about $0.5\mathrm{cm}$ depth of 70:30 hexane–acetone eluent, below the pencil origin. The plate is removed before the front reaches the top; the front is marked immediately. Spot centres and front are measured from the origin.^[ref]

The protocol's standard provides a comparison control. It specifies no added water in this extraction and reports no measured plate positions or temperature. Its tabulated pigment values are guidance, not observations from this run.^[ref]

A useful additional control is an eluent blank, checking contamination. Compare sample and standard on the same plate, and optionally apply both together at a third origin position. Agreement under identical conditions supports a proposed identity but cannot prove it: different substances can migrate together. A second eluent giving different selectivity strengthens the comparison. One spot cannot establish purity, and a missing visible spot can reflect poor detection rather than absence. Overloading, broad spots, or an uneven solvent front also weaken the readout. These are interpretation checks, not extra observations claimed for the protocol.