Lab rant. Precipitated by, thus far, 2 fruitless hours of lab report writing.
THE PROBLEM IS: What do you do in this event?
It was soluble in water. It was acidic. Only ethanol, the standard, was soluble in water and acidic. It yielded hard-core positive results for the 2,4-DNPH test. That must mean it was an aldehyde or a ketone. But it also yielded a very, very non-hard-core positive result for the Lucas test, so that must mean it has alcohols, but, you know, you're not sure. But if it *did* have alcohols, it would've yielded positive in the chromic acid test, and it didn't. And it also yielded non-sooty smoke which must mean it has a straight-chain compound bit, which we can reconcile with being soluble in water, and being an aldehyde or a ketone, but it was exhibiting properties of ethanol, so, you know. An alcohol. Maybe. Maybe.
If unknown 5 were an aldehyde or a ketone, it should have been confirmed, and the distinction between the two established, by the Tollens' reagent test. But by then I had run out of time. (You think three hours is enough for this thing, ha.) But, but I'm assuming that I had a ketone anyway, because Marion who did Tollens for me said no precipitate was forming and only ketones don't form precipitate.
(But then how was it acidic? It couldn't have been acidic. Ketones can't be oxidized easily, and water is hardly a strong oxidizing agent. Or. No. Wait. I have lost my working concept of redox, haven't I.)
I. I think. It's a ketone. I mean. Straight-chain. No precipitate in Tollens. Hard-core orange precipitate in 2,4-DNPH. Come to think of it, Dana said it looked like it was forming precipitate in the iodoform test, only we were so out of time by then and wouldn't you know, iodoform tests anyway prove the presence of both methyl ketones and ethanol, which weren't in the choices of possible unknowns, and tert-butanol, which was.
AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
If you have any idea at all what I'm trying to talk about, please help me. D:
(In conclusion, maybe if I clean these paragraphs up and take out the unintelligent-sounding spazz [which are the only things we can hold true in this entire entry] this can be my lab report discussion. Right.)
It was soluble in water. It was acidic. Only ethanol, the standard, was soluble in water and acidic. It yielded hard-core positive results for the 2,4-DNPH test. That must mean it was an aldehyde or a ketone. But it also yielded a very, very non-hard-core positive result for the Lucas test, so that must mean it has alcohols, but, you know, you're not sure. But if it *did* have alcohols, it would've yielded positive in the chromic acid test, and it didn't. And it also yielded non-sooty smoke which must mean it has a straight-chain compound bit, which we can reconcile with being soluble in water, and being an aldehyde or a ketone, but it was exhibiting properties of ethanol, so, you know. An alcohol. Maybe. Maybe.
If unknown 5 were an aldehyde or a ketone, it should have been confirmed, and the distinction between the two established, by the Tollens' reagent test. But by then I had run out of time. (You think three hours is enough for this thing, ha.) But, but I'm assuming that I had a ketone anyway, because Marion who did Tollens for me said no precipitate was forming and only ketones don't form precipitate.
(But then how was it acidic? It couldn't have been acidic. Ketones can't be oxidized easily, and water is hardly a strong oxidizing agent. Or. No. Wait. I have lost my working concept of redox, haven't I.)
I. I think. It's a ketone. I mean. Straight-chain. No precipitate in Tollens. Hard-core orange precipitate in 2,4-DNPH. Come to think of it, Dana said it looked like it was forming precipitate in the iodoform test, only we were so out of time by then and wouldn't you know, iodoform tests anyway prove the presence of both methyl ketones and ethanol, which weren't in the choices of possible unknowns, and tert-butanol, which was.
AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
If you have any idea at all what I'm trying to talk about, please help me. D:
(In conclusion, maybe if I clean these paragraphs up and take out the unintelligent-sounding spazz [which are the only things we can hold true in this entire entry] this can be my lab report discussion. Right.)