yego.me
💡 Stop wasting time. Read Youtube instead of watch. Download Chrome Extension

AP Chemistry multiple choice sample: Boiling points


3m read
·Nov 11, 2024

Consider the molecules represented above and the data in the table below. We have the structure up here for non, the structure for 2, 3, 4-triopentane, which is really hard to say, so I'm going to abbreviate that TFP. Um, and we have this data in the table.

So, nonan and 2, 3, 4-triopentane have almost identical molar masses, 128 versus 126 g per mole, but nonan has a significantly higher boiling point. So we can see that nonan has a boiling point of 151 versus 89 degrees Celsius for our TFP.

Which of the following statements best helps explain this observation? Before we look at our answer choices, let's think really fast about what it means to have a higher or lower boiling point. The boiling point tells us how much energy we have to add to break the intermolecular bonds between all of our molecules. So, a higher boiling point means that you have more intermolecular forces to overcome.

So, what we're really asking here is, which of these answer choices explains why non has more intermolecular forces amongst the molecules compared to TFP?

Answer Choice A says the carbon-fluorine bond is easier to break than the carbon-hydrogen bond. We know this is a wrong answer because this has nothing to do with intermolecular forces. When something boils, you're not actually breaking any of the covalent bonds, so that doesn't explain anything about the boiling point.

Answer Choice B says that the carbon-fluorine bond is more polar than the carbon-hydrogen bond. So we can see that TFP does have these carbon-fluorine bonds, and we know that a carbon-hydrogen bond isn't all that polar, and fluorine is pretty electronegative. So, this is true. This statement by itself is true.

However, does it explain the boiling point trend? The answer there is it actually doesn't. So we're saying that if the carbon-fluorine bond is more polar than these bonds here, we're saying that if TFP has more polar bonds, that would normally suggest it has stronger intermolecular forces, which would mean you would predict it to have a higher boiling point.

And so that's the opposite of what we're actually seeing here. Even though our TFP has more polar CF bonds, it actually has a lower boiling point. So this observation, which is true, still doesn't explain what we're trying to explain.

So, Choice C says the carbon chains are longer in nonan than they are in 2, 3, 4-triopentane. If we just look at the pictures here of the structures, this is also true. In nonan, we have these 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 carbons. We have nine carbons versus 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 carbons.

So how could we link this to the boiling point? We know that even though the molar mass here is the same, the length of the chain is actually related to the London dispersion forces. As the length of the chain goes up, that actually means that the London dispersion forces—the forces, the intermolecular forces that happen when you get these tiny instantaneous dipoles—also go up.

So, we're saying, okay, this has a longer chain; therefore, it will have more London dispersion forces because these molecules are better able to interact with each other with their instantaneous dipoles, and that means these forces go up, and the boiling point should go up. And that's what we're trying to explain.

So, C is the correct answer, but let's look at D anyway just to make sure we didn't make any bad decisions.

So just checking, D says the carbon chains are further apart in a sample of nonan than they are in 2, 3, 4-triopentane. Well, we don't actually know if this is true or not, but let's see. If this statement were true, would it lead to the boiling point trend we're seeing?

If the carbon chains are further apart in nonan, further apart would mean the weaker the intermolecular forces. So this would mean nonan has weaker intermolecular forces, and that would suggest it would have a lower boiling point.

So a lower boiling point, and again, this is not what we're trying to explain; we know it has a higher boiling point. So this also doesn't explain the boiling points.

So, the answer is C.

More Articles

View All
15 Reasons You Don't Like Your Job (& What To Do About It)
Can you believe there are people who wake up every morning excited about the work they get to do? They don’t mind putting in the extra hours. Their work feels like their hobby. They’re proud about what they do, and they have great colleagues. When you do …
Government Shutdown Imminent, Rates Spike, Stocks Collapse
Back here at home, time is running out to avoid a government shutdown. Billions of Americans could go without paychecks, including members of the military. The country is headed for a shutdown, and everyone should prepare as such. Big guys, it’s Graham h…
Leopard Seals Play and Hunt in Antarctica | National Geographic
[Music] [Applause] [Music] On every story I do, you need that superstar, charismatic, you know, sexy megafauna species to draw people in. In this case, obviously, an Antarctic—it’s the leopard seal. [Music] [Applause] To get in the water with this l…
Leonard Susskind on Richard Feynman, the Holographic Principle, and Unanswered Questions in Physics
What I wanted to start with is you’ve often been characterized as someone with like non-traditional, you know, kind of out there ideas. Some of which have become, you know, part of the physics canon; some of which, who knows what happened. Who they all be…
3d vector field example | Multivariable calculus | Khan Academy
So in the last video, I talked about three-dimensional vector fields, and I finished things off with this sort of identity function example where at an input point (X, Y, Z), the output vector is also (X, Y, Z). Here, I want to go through a slightly more …
Introduction to remainders
We’re already somewhat familiar with the idea of division. If I were to say 8 divided by 2, you could think of that as 8 objects: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Divided into equal groups of two. So how many equal groups of two could you have? Well, you could hav…