April 26, 2024, 12:01:24 AM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: CIE A level chemistry textbook error?  (Read 1933 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Determinator

  • Very New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-0
CIE A level chemistry textbook error?
« on: April 26, 2015, 08:53:14 AM »
Hi,

I'm a CIE A level Chemistry student. There's a formula in the textbook in the chapter about mass spectrometry for calculating the number of carbon atoms in a molecule (n):

n=(100/1.1)*[(abundance of [M+1]+ ion)/(abundance of M+ ion)].

Using the binomial distribution to model this, I've derived an equation with (98.9/1.1) instead of the (100/1.1). My working is attached.

Can anybody please confirm whether I'm right and the textbook is indeed slightly wrong? Thanks!

Offline Borek

  • Mr. pH
  • Administrator
  • Deity Member
  • *
  • Posts: 27663
  • Mole Snacks: +1801/-410
  • Gender: Male
  • I am known to be occasionally wrong.
    • Chembuddy
Re: CIE A level chemistry textbook error?
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2015, 09:28:39 AM »
My guess is that the formula is intended as an approximation, in which case making it simpler (100/1.1) doesn't make it "wrong", instead it makes it easier to remember.

ChemBuddy chemical calculators - stoichiometry, pH, concentration, buffer preparation, titrations.info

Offline sjb

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3652
  • Mole Snacks: +222/-42
  • Gender: Male
Re: CIE A level chemistry textbook error?
« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2015, 09:46:44 AM »
Possibly a number of thing at play here. 100 may be simpler, there are other nuclei that will also contribute to M+1, ...

Offline Determinator

  • Very New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-0
Re: CIE A level chemistry textbook error?
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2015, 08:20:55 PM »
Thanks for the responses guys. Checking the mark scheme, question 7(c)(i) of paper 9701/43/O/N/11, the exam indeed expects use of the textbook formula, using (100/1.1) instead of (98.9/1.1). I guess, as Borek says, the formula may be derived from experimental results.

Sponsored Links