| Date | November 2014 | Marks available | 1 | Reference code | 14N.2.sl.TZ0.6 |
| Level | SL | Paper | 2 | Time zone | TZ0 |
| Command term | State | Question number | 6 | Adapted from | N/A |
Question
A sample of magnesium contains three isotopes: magnesium-24, magnesium-25 and magnesium-26, with abundances of 77.44%, 10.00% and 12.56% respectively.
Phosphorus(V) oxide, \({{\text{P}}_{\text{4}}}{{\text{O}}_{{\text{10}}}}{\text{ }}({M_{\text{r}}} = 283.88)\), reacts vigorously with water \(({M_{\text{r}}} = 18.02)\), according to the equation below.
\[{{\text{P}}_{\text{4}}}{{\text{O}}_{{\text{10}}}}{\text{(s)}} + {\text{6}}{{\text{H}}_{\text{2}}}{\text{O(l)}} \to {\text{4}}{{\text{H}}_{\text{3}}}{\text{P}}{{\text{O}}_{\text{4}}}{\text{(aq)}}\]
Calculate the relative atomic mass of this sample of magnesium correct to two decimal places.
Predict the relative atomic radii of the three magnesium isotopes, giving your reasons.
Describe the bonding in magnesium.
State an equation for the reaction of magnesium oxide with water.
A student added 5.00 g of \({{\text{P}}_{\text{4}}}{{\text{O}}_{{\text{10}}}}\) to 1.50 g of water. Determine the limiting reactant, showing your working.
Calculate the mass of phosphoric(V) acid, \({{\text{H}}_{\text{3}}}{\text{P}}{{\text{O}}_{\text{4}}}\), formed in the reaction.
State a balanced equation for the reaction of aqueous \({{\text{H}}_{\text{3}}}{\text{P}}{{\text{O}}_{\text{4}}}\) with excess aqueous sodium hydroxide, including state symbols.
State the formula of the conjugate base of \({{\text{H}}_{\text{3}}}{\text{P}}{{\text{O}}_{\text{4}}}\).
(i) Deduce the Lewis structure of \({\text{PH}}_4^ + \).
(ii) Predict, giving a reason, the bond angle around the phosphorus atom in \({\text{PH}}_4^ + \).
(iii) Predict whether or not the P–H bond is polar, giving a reason for your choice.
Markscheme
\(\left( {\frac{{(77.44 \times 24) + (10.00 \times 25) + (12.56{\text{ }}26)}}{{100}}} \right)\);
24.35;
Award [2] for correct final answer.
Two decimal places are required for M2.
Do not award any marks for 24.31 without showing method (as the value can be copied from the Data Booklet).
same atomic radii / 160 pm;
isotopes only differ by number of neutrons/size of nucleus / radius
determined by electron shells and number of protons / OWTTE;
Accept neutrons do not affect distance of electrons / OWTTE.
(lattice of) positive ions/cations and mobile/free/delocalized electrons;
Accept “sea of electrons” instead of “delocalized electrons”.
Award M1 for a suitable diagram.
electrostatic attraction (between ions and delocalized electrons);
\({\text{MgO}} + {{\text{H}}_{\text{2}}}{\text{O}} \to {\text{Mg(OH}}{{\text{)}}_{\text{2}}}/{\text{M}}{{\text{g}}^{2 + }} + {\text{2O}}{{\text{H}}^ - }\);
Accept reversible arrow.
\({{\text{P}}_4}{{\text{O}}_{10}}{\text{: }}\left( {\frac{{{\text{5.00}}}}{{{\text{283.88}}}} = } \right){\text{ 0.0176 (mol)}}\) and \({{\text{H}}_2}{\text{O: }}\left( {\frac{{{\text{1.50}}}}{{{\text{18.02}}}} = } \right){\text{ 0.0832 (mol)}}\);
\({{\text{H}}_2}{\text{O}}\) is the limiting reactant and reason related to stoichiometry;
\(\frac{{0.0832 \times 4}}{6}/0.0555{\text{ (mol)}}\);
\((0.0555 \times 98.00 = ){\text{ }}5.44{\text{ g}}\);
The unit is needed for M2.
Award [2] for correct final answer.
Do not penalize slight numerical variations due to premature rounding.
\({{\text{H}}_3}{\text{P}}{{\text{O}}_4}{\text{(aq)}} + {\text{3NaOH(aq)}} \to {\text{N}}{{\text{a}}_3}{\text{P}}{{\text{O}}_4}{\text{(aq)}} + {\text{3}}{{\text{H}}_2}{\text{O(l)}}\)
correct products and balancing;
correct state symbols;
Accept valid ionic equations.
\({{\text{H}}_2}{\text{PO}}_4^ - \);
(i) 
;
Accept dots, crosses or lines for pairs of electrons.
No need to distinguish the dative covalent bond from the other bonds.
Charge is required for the mark.
Do not penalize missing square brackets.
(ii) \(109^\circ 27'/109.5^\circ /109^\circ \);
4 electron domains/pairs/(negative) charge centres (around central atom/P);
Accept ion is tetrahedral / electron pairs/domains repel each other.
(iii) non-polar and P and H have the same electronegativity / OWTTE;
Accept slightly polar as precise electronegativities of P and H are not identical / OWTTE.
Examiners report
In Part (a) most candidates gained full marks, with the most common error being a failure to quote the answer to the precision specified, but the explanations of deflection, and more particularly detection, in the mass spectrometer were weak. The prediction of relative atomic radii of the isotopes, something that required the application of reason rather than recall, also proved much more challenging. Part (b) revealed that many candidates have a very weak understanding of the metallic bond with many thinking the bonding was ionic.
Even when they knew about a cation lattice and delocalized electrons, a mark was frequently dropped by failing to specify that the attraction between them was electrostatic. Most candidates wrote the correct equation in Part (c), but it is still disturbing that some students at this level cannot write even the most straightforward chemical equation. In Part (d) many students proved capable of carrying out routine stoichiometric calculations to identify the limiting reactant and use the result to find the mass of the product.
Even if the final result was incorrect quite frequently students gained some credit through the application of ECF. Only the better candidates could write an equation for the neutralisation of phosphoric(V) acid and even the routine derivation of a conjugate base from the formula of the acid proved difficult for many. In Part (e) most students could manage the correct Lewis structure, though some lost the mark through omitting the charge. Many candidates also scored well on the shape of the ion and the polarity of the P-H bond.
In Part (a) most candidates gained full marks, with the most common error being a failure to quote the answer to the precision specified, but the explanations of deflection, and more particularly detection, in the mass spectrometer were weak. The prediction of relative atomic radii of the isotopes, something that required the application of reason rather than recall, also proved much more challenging. Part (b) revealed that many candidates have a very weak understanding of the metallic bond with many thinking the bonding was ionic.
Even when they knew about a cation lattice and delocalized electrons, a mark was frequently dropped by failing to specify that the attraction between them was electrostatic. Most candidates wrote the correct equation in Part (c), but it is still disturbing that some students at this level cannot write even the most straightforward chemical equation. In Part (d) many students proved capable of carrying out routine stoichiometric calculations to identify the limiting reactant and use the result to find the mass of the product.
Even if the final result was incorrect quite frequently students gained some credit through the application of ECF. Only the better candidates could write an equation for the neutralisation of phosphoric(V) acid and even the routine derivation of a conjugate base from the formula of the acid proved difficult for many. In Part (e) most students could manage the correct Lewis structure, though some lost the mark through omitting the charge. Many candidates also scored well on the shape of the ion and the polarity of the P-H bond.
In Part (a) most candidates gained full marks, with the most common error being a failure to quote the answer to the precision specified, but the explanations of deflection, and more particularly detection, in the mass spectrometer were weak. The prediction of relative atomic radii of the isotopes, something that required the application of reason rather than recall, also proved much more challenging. Part (b) revealed that many candidates have a very weak understanding of the metallic bond with many thinking the bonding was ionic.
Even when they knew about a cation lattice and delocalized electrons, a mark was frequently dropped by failing to specify that the attraction between them was electrostatic. Most candidates wrote the correct equation in Part (c), but it is still disturbing that some students at this level cannot write even the most straightforward chemical equation. In Part (d) many students proved capable of carrying out routine stoichiometric calculations to identify the limiting reactant and use the result to find the mass of the product.
Even if the final result was incorrect quite frequently students gained some credit through the application of ECF. Only the better candidates could write an equation for the neutralisation of phosphoric(V) acid and even the routine derivation of a conjugate base from the formula of the acid proved difficult for many. In Part (e) most students could manage the correct Lewis structure, though some lost the mark through omitting the charge. Many candidates also scored well on the shape of the ion and the polarity of the P-H bond.
In Part (a) most candidates gained full marks, with the most common error being a failure to quote the answer to the precision specified, but the explanations of deflection, and more particularly detection, in the mass spectrometer were weak. The prediction of relative atomic radii of the isotopes, something that required the application of reason rather than recall, also proved much more challenging. Part (b) revealed that many candidates have a very weak understanding of the metallic bond with many thinking the bonding was ionic.
Even when they knew about a cation lattice and delocalized electrons, a mark was frequently dropped by failing to specify that the attraction between them was electrostatic. Most candidates wrote the correct equation in Part (c), but it is still disturbing that some students at this level cannot write even the most straightforward chemical equation. In Part (d) many students proved capable of carrying out routine stoichiometric calculations to identify the limiting reactant and use the result to find the mass of the product.
Even if the final result was incorrect quite frequently students gained some credit through the application of ECF. Only the better candidates could write an equation for the neutralisation of phosphoric(V) acid and even the routine derivation of a conjugate base from the formula of the acid proved difficult for many. In Part (e) most students could manage the correct Lewis structure, though some lost the mark through omitting the charge. Many candidates also scored well on the shape of the ion and the polarity of the P-H bond.
In Part (a) most candidates gained full marks, with the most common error being a failure to quote the answer to the precision specified, but the explanations of deflection, and more particularly detection, in the mass spectrometer were weak. The prediction of relative atomic radii of the isotopes, something that required the application of reason rather than recall, also proved much more challenging. Part (b) revealed that many candidates have a very weak understanding of the metallic bond with many thinking the bonding was ionic.
Even when they knew about a cation lattice and delocalized electrons, a mark was frequently dropped by failing to specify that the attraction between them was electrostatic. Most candidates wrote the correct equation in Part (c), but it is still disturbing that some students at this level cannot write even the most straightforward chemical equation. In Part (d) many students proved capable of carrying out routine stoichiometric calculations to identify the limiting reactant and use the result to find the mass of the product.
Even if the final result was incorrect quite frequently students gained some credit through the application of ECF. Only the better candidates could write an equation for the neutralisation of phosphoric(V) acid and even the routine derivation of a conjugate base from the formula of the acid proved difficult for many. In Part (e) most students could manage the correct Lewis structure, though some lost the mark through omitting the charge. Many candidates also scored well on the shape of the ion and the polarity of the P-H bond.
In Part (a) most candidates gained full marks, with the most common error being a failure to quote the answer to the precision specified, but the explanations of deflection, and more particularly detection, in the mass spectrometer were weak. The prediction of relative atomic radii of the isotopes, something that required the application of reason rather than recall, also proved much more challenging. Part (b) revealed that many candidates have a very weak understanding of the metallic bond with many thinking the bonding was ionic.
Even when they knew about a cation lattice and delocalized electrons, a mark was frequently dropped by failing to specify that the attraction between them was electrostatic. Most candidates wrote the correct equation in Part (c), but it is still disturbing that some students at this level cannot write even the most straightforward chemical equation. In Part (d) many students proved capable of carrying out routine stoichiometric calculations to identify the limiting reactant and use the result to find the mass of the product.
Even if the final result was incorrect quite frequently students gained some credit through the application of ECF. Only the better candidates could write an equation for the neutralisation of phosphoric(V) acid and even the routine derivation of a conjugate base from the formula of the acid proved difficult for many. In Part (e) most students could manage the correct Lewis structure, though some lost the mark through omitting the charge. Many candidates also scored well on the shape of the ion and the polarity of the P-H bond.
In Part (a) most candidates gained full marks, with the most common error being a failure to quote the answer to the precision specified, but the explanations of deflection, and more particularly detection, in the mass spectrometer were weak. The prediction of relative atomic radii of the isotopes, something that required the application of reason rather than recall, also proved much more challenging. Part (b) revealed that many candidates have a very weak understanding of the metallic bond with many thinking the bonding was ionic.
Even when they knew about a cation lattice and delocalized electrons, a mark was frequently dropped by failing to specify that the attraction between them was electrostatic. Most candidates wrote the correct equation in Part (c), but it is still disturbing that some students at this level cannot write even the most straightforward chemical equation. In Part (d) many students proved capable of carrying out routine stoichiometric calculations to identify the limiting reactant and use the result to find the mass of the product.
Even if the final result was incorrect quite frequently students gained some credit through the application of ECF. Only the better candidates could write an equation for the neutralisation of phosphoric(V) acid and even the routine derivation of a conjugate base from the formula of the acid proved difficult for many. In Part (e) most students could manage the correct Lewis structure, though some lost the mark through omitting the charge. Many candidates also scored well on the shape of the ion and the polarity of the P-H bond.
In Part (a) most candidates gained full marks, with the most common error being a failure to quote the answer to the precision specified, but the explanations of deflection, and more particularly detection, in the mass spectrometer were weak. The prediction of relative atomic radii of the isotopes, something that required the application of reason rather than recall, also proved much more challenging. Part (b) revealed that many candidates have a very weak understanding of the metallic bond with many thinking the bonding was ionic.
Even when they knew about a cation lattice and delocalized electrons, a mark was frequently dropped by failing to specify that the attraction between them was electrostatic. Most candidates wrote the correct equation in Part (c), but it is still disturbing that some students at this level cannot write even the most straightforward chemical equation. In Part (d) many students proved capable of carrying out routine stoichiometric calculations to identify the limiting reactant and use the result to find the mass of the product.
Even if the final result was incorrect quite frequently students gained some credit through the application of ECF. Only the better candidates could write an equation for the neutralisation of phosphoric(V) acid and even the routine derivation of a conjugate base from the formula of the acid proved difficult for many. In Part (e) most students could manage the correct Lewis structure, though some lost the mark through omitting the charge. Many candidates also scored well on the shape of the ion and the polarity of the P-H bond.
In Part (a) most candidates gained full marks, with the most common error being a failure to quote the answer to the precision specified, but the explanations of deflection, and more particularly detection, in the mass spectrometer were weak. The prediction of relative atomic radii of the isotopes, something that required the application of reason rather than recall, also proved much more challenging. Part (b) revealed that many candidates have a very weak understanding of the metallic bond with many thinking the bonding was ionic.
Even when they knew about a cation lattice and delocalized electrons, a mark was frequently dropped by failing to specify that the attraction between them was electrostatic. Most candidates wrote the correct equation in Part (c), but it is still disturbing that some students at this level cannot write even the most straightforward chemical equation. In Part (d) many students proved capable of carrying out routine stoichiometric calculations to identify the limiting reactant and use the result to find the mass of the product.
Even if the final result was incorrect quite frequently students gained some credit through the application of ECF. Only the better candidates could write an equation for the neutralisation of phosphoric(V) acid and even the routine derivation of a conjugate base from the formula of the acid proved difficult for many. In Part (e) most students could manage the correct Lewis structure, though some lost the mark through omitting the charge. Many candidates also scored well on the shape of the ion and the polarity of the P-H bond.
