Crowdly
Add to Chrome
CHM1051 - Chemistry I advanced - MUM Oct 2025
Looking for CHM1051 - Chemistry I advanced - MUM Oct 2025 test answers and solutions? Browse our comprehensive collection of verified answers for CHM1051 - Chemistry I advanced - MUM Oct 2025 at learning.monash.edu.
Get instant access to accurate answers and detailed explanations for your course questions. Our community-driven platform helps students succeed!
Discussion
This is where you discuss and give meaning to your results. You should also detail any experimental errors and make any other relevant comments about the experiment. Include possible improvements. Ensure you are not re-stating the method.
Discussion points to consider: (Note: The points below are not intended as questions! They are here to give guidance on what to include in your discussion. Do not simply list answers - incorporate them into a full discussion.)
- Can you explain your observations based on the chemical reaction?
- Explain the choice of your mixture compositions.
- After completing the calibration curve, were any further tests performed in order to determine the composition? If so, what tests did you perform, and why were they required?
- What composition of the baking powder would you suggest that Monash University produces to give rise to the best cake (if we were to assume that the more gas produced, the more the cake will rise)? Can you explain your answer using experimental results and the chemical equation?
- What factors may have affected your final result? What are some sources of error you may have encountered, and how would they have impacted on your results?
Discussion marking rubric:
| 0 | 1 | 2 |
Relates results to aims. | Interpretation of results not related back to original experimental aims. | Results partially related back to original experimental aims. | Key results interpreted in relation to experimental aims. |
Discussion and interpretation of results. | No interpretation or comparison of results is made. No discussion points are addressed. | Some interpretation or comparison of results is made. Some discussion points are addressed. | Key findings are summarised. Results are interpreted. Results are compared to expected/predicted values. All discussion points are addressed. |
Actual data used to validate statements. | No experimental data used to justify scientific statements/claims. Multiple scientific errors are present. | Some experimental data used to justify scientific statements/claims. Some scientific errors are present. | Experimental data used to justify all scientific statements/claims. The science is correct. |
Factors affecting results discussed. | No errors were raised or were only non-scientific/experimental errors raised. | Only some errors raised or several non-scientific/experimental errors were raised. The impact of the errors was not discussed. | Multiple errors/factors are raised and are scientific/experimental in nature (i.e. NOT human error). The impact of the errors was discussed. |
Writing Style | Many grammatical/spelling/scientific writing errors were noted, and/or discussion was over 300 words in length. | Some grammatical/spelling/scientific writing errors were noted. | The discussion was free of grammatical and spelling errors, was written in the past tense, used full sentences and a passive voice, and was within 300 words. |
Maximum of 300 +/- 30 words
For guidance on writing a meaningful discussion, please refer to the following resources:
- SoC: Undergraduate Student Handbook
- RLO: Writing a Science Lab Report
- RLO: Writing for Assignments
Calculations
When 5.000 g of NaHCO3 is added to 600.0 g of water in a ‘coffee cup calorimeter’, the temperature decreases from 21.70°C to 19.36°C.
a) Calculate qcalorimeter, in joules, assuming the specific heat capacity of the solution is the same as pure water: 4.186 Jg-1K-1.
Report your value to 4 significant figures, and do not include units in your answer.
Results
Graph/s:
Upload a PDF copy of your graph/s below:
- Significant parameter (y-axis) versus the the different composition mixtures (x-axis)
Marking Rubric per graph (0.5 marks each, 3 marks total/graph):
- Title
- Labelled axis (including units)
- Scale of graph (appropriate and even)
- Minimum of 7 data points recorded per graph
- Negative ΔT values
- Line of best fit
Laboratory Notes
Upload a single PDF file of your scanned laboratory notes here. Your TA will also have made notes on the day of your exercise. You will receive a mark for your laboratory notes and how you operated in the laboratory based on the following rubric:
Name and student ID (& partner/group members if applicable). | 0.5 | All results, data, and observations recorded. | 2 |
Experiment title and date recorded. | 0.5 | Punctuality to class. | 1 |
Notes written in pen. | 0.5 | Good attitude and participation. | 1 |
Neat and legible entry. | 0.5 | Good housekeeping (all lab glassware, reagents and apparatus cleaned up). | 1 |
Method recorded in brief, including changes to experimental variables (if applicable). | 2 | Laboratory notes signed by TA (validated with date stamp). | 1 |