Level 2 90694 (3.1) - Carry out an extended practical investigation involving quantitative analysis (Version 2) Exemplars of Student Work Exemplar 3: Merit A report on the investigation has been presented along with a comprehensive log book (49 pages) which includes the work carried out over a period of time. The log book has not been included with the exemplar material but included the following: вЂўlist of possible investigations вЂўplan and time frame вЂўpossible methods for determining amount of iron вЂўtrials carried out to test for iron(III) in spinach leaves вЂўresearch on iron in foods and reasons for changing to amount of iron(II) вЂўmethod of analysis using permanganate trialled вЂўtrials involving reduction of iron(III) to iron(II) and then determining amount of iron(II) in spinach вЂўrelated calculations вЂўfinal purpose and procedure decided with further trials and related calculations вЂўmaking and standardising permanganate solution вЂўpreparation of sample вЂўresults and calculations for all boiling times вЂўrepeat of procedure with new samples and new standard вЂўall calculations вЂўcomments reflecting on the investigation. The cover page of the report has not been included since while this contained the purpose of the investigation, it did not have any further information relevant to the standard. The key issues that limit the judgement to Merit are: вЂўthe error in processing of data as the percentage calculations are not correct. This has prevented a discussion of what was actually happening during the analysis that was carried out. вЂўusing the procedure given, as the amount of iron(II) is much higher than would be likely, the discussion needs to question the validity of this procedure. Something else must have been oxidised by the permanganate solution. As the research provided indicates that this may be due to the presence of oxalates in the spinach, the procedure used needs to have been considered and discussed further.. Report Page 1 Purpose stated. Background material described. This considers iron content in spinach and earlier related research. Also, information related to absorption by the body. Description of the method that will be used and chemistry related to this. Page 2 The procedure used is outlined. Preparation of sample is clearly outlined although measurement of water added is not carried out accurately. Procedure does not state concentration of sulphuric acid used although this can be found in the log book. Page 3 Detail of the preparation and standardising of permanganate solution. This does not have to be in the report and could be referenced to the log book. Page 4 Sample calculation using collected data. The calculation is correctly carried out to determine amount, and mass, of iron(II) in the 25 mL sample analysed. The equation involved in the analysis is shown and reacting mole ratio correctly used. However, the percentage calculation is incorrect. 100 g of spinach was cooked in 500 mL of water and a 25 mL sample of this water contained 58.7 mg. Therefore the 500 mL of solution (made from 100 g of spinach) would have contained 1.17 g iron(II). This is the iron(II) lost from the spinach rather than what is contained in the spinach. Therefore, mass lost is much larger than would be expected as it exceeds the mass of iron(II) found in spinach, according to the research data. Page 5 Calculation to determine concentration of the standard permanganate solution. This could remain in the log book and be referenced. Page 6 Summary of collected and processed data has been provided. Titration data in log book shows concordancy of titres used to determine average titre. While the trend is unchanged, the mass of iron(II) only relates to the 25 mL sample and percentage calculation is incorrect. Page 7 The conclusion could be based on the amount of iron(II) in the water analysed and this is increased as the boiling time is increased. That does mean the % of iron(II) in the water has increased but that is not what has been calculated. The discussion considers things that may have altered accuracy of result and compares data gained to background information. If the previous calculation had been carried out to correctly determine mass of iron lost from the whole 100 g sample, this would have led to questions about the procedure carried out. Page 8 Evaluation of the procedure used shows a repeat of the process that was carried out. Data relating to this is in the log book and shows a new sample of spinach being prepared and a new permanganate solution being prepared and standardised. A similar trend is found with the data collected. Pages 9 пЂ 11 Discussion on the reliability and accuracy of data related to the procedure carried out and discussion of why modifications were made to the original procedure. The presence of oxalates in spinach has been discussed and it is noted that oxalic acid will be oxidised by permanganate and that this may have altered the results. While this is the likely explanation for the impossibly high amount of iron(II) assumed to be present, the incorrect calculation has meant this has not been fully considered. Discussion related to both iron(II) and iron(III) and trials carried out to determine whether there might be iron(II) in the spinach. Page 12 A bibliography has been included.