Ir Spectrum Lab Report
These RF values were valuable information, however they did not determine which solution an IR spectrum would be obtained for. This was determined by the strongest, or more visible spot on the plate. An error for this lab could have occurred at this point because the wrong spot was chosen. If the RF values were used to determined which spot to choose, results may yield a smaller presence of pure naphthyl ether and a larger presence of dichloromethane in the IR spectrum. The spot that is most visible on the TLC plate is the solution that needs to be chosen. For this lab, the forth sample was chosen because the spot showed up the most under the UV light. An IR spectrum was obtained for this sample, and peaks for dichloromethane and 2-naphthol were signaled.
…show more content…
Peaks at 3054 cm-1, 1424 cm-1, 1264 cm-1, 896 cm-1, 732 cm-1, and 703 cm-1 were also represented in the known IR spectrum for dichloromethane.
These peaks show that the solution in vial 4 contained dichloromethane. This is viable because the column did contain dichloromethane, which is what the original 0.70 mL of the bottom layer solution was filtered through. Also the .7 mL of the solution that was ran through the column was a dried dichloromethane solution. The peaks that represented 2-naphthol, 1630 cm-1, 1364 cm-1, and 1216 cm-1, also showed that the solution in vial 4 contained 2-naphthol. This was determined by comparing the IR obtained with the IR posted for 2-naphthol. These peaks mean that 2- naphthol was present in the final solution. Indeed, 2-naphthol was present in the final solution because it was present in the dried dichloromethane solution. Also the pure product obtained in this lab, allyl 2-naphthyl ether, could have caused similar if not some of the same exact peaks as
2-naphthol. Allyl Bromide peaks were not found in the final solution, therefore it is determined that is was either reacted off or removed through the lab. The polar silica on both the TLC plate and the silica in the column would have trapped this polar compound. Finally, in this lab, a percent yield was calculated. This was determined using the .70 mL of solution, the bottom layer after stirring for 50 minutes, and the third forth and fifth vial at the very end. Also, the information that 0.8 mL dichloromethane used during purification contained 0.023g of 2-naphthol, allowed a theoretical yield to be calculated. The theoretical yield for this lab was found to be 0.020g of allyl 2-naphthol ether. This helped find the percent yield of allyl 2-naphthyl ether to be 14000%, 15000%, and 15500%. This was found by dividing the masses of the sample by the theoretical yield of 0.020 g. These numbers are not reasonable, but can be explained. In these vials, dichloromethane was also present. Since the dichloromethane was not all removed during the heat bath, that weight of the final solutions were larger then calculated. An Error could have arose at this point if water was present in the solutions as well. The water would have also increased the amount of the final solution present, resulting in an unreasonable percent yield. To prevent this discrepancy, one should heat the vials longer to ensure all of the dichloromethane is removed. The finding of this percent yield and the analysis IR spectrum allowed us to identify the final product as a mixture of allyl 2-naphthyl ether and dichloromethane. Water was not present in the final solution because it did not show up in the IR spectrum. This identification of the final solution, and valid TLC test means this lab was a success.
Peaks at 3054 cm-1, 1424 cm-1, 1264 cm-1, 896 cm-1, 732 cm-1, and 703 cm-1 were also represented in the known IR spectrum for dichloromethane.
These peaks show that the solution in vial 4 contained dichloromethane. This is viable because the column did contain dichloromethane, which is what the original 0.70 mL of the bottom layer solution was filtered through. Also the .7 mL of the solution that was ran through the column was a dried dichloromethane solution. The peaks that represented 2-naphthol, 1630 cm-1, 1364 cm-1, and 1216 cm-1, also showed that the solution in vial 4 contained 2-naphthol. This was determined by comparing the IR obtained with the IR posted for 2-naphthol. These peaks mean that 2- naphthol was present in the final solution. Indeed, 2-naphthol was present in the final solution because it was present in the dried dichloromethane solution. Also the pure product obtained in this lab, allyl 2-naphthyl ether, could have caused similar if not some of the same exact peaks as
2-naphthol. Allyl Bromide peaks were not found in the final solution, therefore it is determined that is was either reacted off or removed through the lab. The polar silica on both the TLC plate and the silica in the column would have trapped this polar compound. Finally, in this lab, a percent yield was calculated. This was determined using the .70 mL of solution, the bottom layer after stirring for 50 minutes, and the third forth and fifth vial at the very end. Also, the information that 0.8 mL dichloromethane used during purification contained 0.023g of 2-naphthol, allowed a theoretical yield to be calculated. The theoretical yield for this lab was found to be 0.020g of allyl 2-naphthol ether. This helped find the percent yield of allyl 2-naphthyl ether to be 14000%, 15000%, and 15500%. This was found by dividing the masses of the sample by the theoretical yield of 0.020 g. These numbers are not reasonable, but can be explained. In these vials, dichloromethane was also present. Since the dichloromethane was not all removed during the heat bath, that weight of the final solutions were larger then calculated. An Error could have arose at this point if water was present in the solutions as well. The water would have also increased the amount of the final solution present, resulting in an unreasonable percent yield. To prevent this discrepancy, one should heat the vials longer to ensure all of the dichloromethane is removed. The finding of this percent yield and the analysis IR spectrum allowed us to identify the final product as a mixture of allyl 2-naphthyl ether and dichloromethane. Water was not present in the final solution because it did not show up in the IR spectrum. This identification of the final solution, and valid TLC test means this lab was a success.