Jan 2017

WCH06 1601 Report by the Principal Examiner
General
This paper was a reasonable balance of standard and higher demand questions, the latter often
requiring candidates to apply their knowledge and understanding in unfamiliar situations. It
was similar in style and standard to previous Unit 6 papers on this specification and a range
of skills and knowledge was assessed. The levels of difficulty allowed good discrimination
between the different grades, while allowing well-prepared candidates at all levels to
demonstrate their abilities. This paper is primarily designed to assess practical knowledge as
far as this is possible with a written paper, but candidates were much more comfortable
dealing with theoretical concepts than laboratory situations. Thus candidates found particular
difficulty in dealing with questions involving straightforward ideas in slightly unfamiliar
contexts. Candidates seemed much more aware than in earlier series of the requirements for
gaining full marks for drawing a graph but the quality of diagrams produced was variable and
sometimes very poor.
Question 1
This question provided a good range of marks. Placing one of unknown ions in the transition
metals and suggesting its identity were the marks most likely to be scored. The qualitative
tests were accessible but quite simple errors in many responses. Testing for ammonia with
damp litmus paper was well known, but candidates who attempted to use the formation of
ammonium chloride frequently referred to the addition of hydrochloric acid and to the
formation of white fumes. Both groups were liable to get the formula of the ammonium ion
wrong. Most candidates knew the test for sulfate ions but lost marks by choosing to add
sulfuric acid with the barium salt or by using an incorrect formula for barium chloride or
barium nitrate. Only the better candidates suggested a plausible formula, some omitting one
of the ions that they had identified and others giving a charged species as the formula of the
compound.
Question 2
The mark for 2(a)(i) was most likely to be scored for realising that 5 g was too small an
amount to present a fire risk. Candidates were much more likely to refer to the melting point,
failing to appreciate that it is the vapour that ignites. In 2(a)(ii) the practical issues with using
a Bunsen burner were rarely understood and vague comments about controlling the
temperature and even heating were the most usual responses. The observation indicating a
reaction was well known. 2(a)(iv) proved discriminating with only the better candidates able
to gain the marks available. A surprising number of candidates just gave a structure of the
product rather than the equation which was clearly required. The identity of the gas formed in
2(b) was well known as was the test with limewater. However, there were many errors in the
diagrams the most common being incorrectly placed delivery tubes, open reaction test tubes
and sealed test-tubes holding the limewater. 2(c)(i) proved unexpectedly demanding. The
reaction of the acid with sodium hydrogencarbonate was well known but some candidates
thought that sodium reacted only with alcohols. Even where the chemistry seemed to be
understood, answers could lack clarity, particularly in identifying the hydroxy group under
discussion or by offering contradictory responses. Some candidates realised that sodium
reacted with both functional groups but failed to note that this prevented a definitive
identification. 2(c)(ii) brought many good answers; the common errors were references to the
aryl carboxylic acid group or to ketones. Some responses failed altogether to link the group
and the wavenumber range. Very few candidates seemed to be aware of the possibility of
WCH06_01_pef_71023010 Page 1
using the fingerprint region of an IR spectrum in the identification of a compound. A good

understanding was needed to recognise the cyclisation reaction as an esterification and many
thought that a reduction had occurred although this was not always a bar to gaining the mark
for 2(d)(ii). Lithium tetrahydridoaluminate(III) was often identified as a catalyst. In 2(d)(iii)
once the proton environments had been correctly identified, the two subsequent marks were
likely to be scored, although some candidates tried to give the relative peak heights within
each proton environment group. A wide range of non-standard terminology was used to
identify the splitting patterns; while this was not penalised, it should certainly be avoided.
Question 3
The use of sodium or potassium nitrite for making nitrous acid was not well known and less
than half the candidates were able to suggest an ice-bath for maintaining a suitable
temperature for the reaction. Despite many allowable options, the advantages of continuous
monitoring over sampling methods were not appreciated and all too often candidates fell back
on just greater accuracy. As with 2(b)(iii), while there were some excellent diagrams many
were poorly executed or omitted key features. 3(c)(i) was well understood with the better
candidates linking their answer to the experimental method. The unfamiliar calculation for
3(c)(ii) proved too demanding for most and, even when the basic mathematics was
understood, final answers often omitted the factor of a thousand. The graph in 3(c)(iii) was
usually completed accurately and to a higher standard to earlier series. The most common
error was the omission of the units on the y axis. A surprising number gave the second half
life as approximately double the first and this often led to the loss of the order of reaction
mark also. In 3(d), the use of gloves to reduce the risk of a caustic compound was well
appreciated but only half the candidates understood the importance of dissolving the crude
product in the minimum volume of solvent for recrystallisation. Very few candidates could
explain the practical benefit of using a funnel without a stem. While the use of vacuum
filtration to remove the soluble impurities was widely known, the advantages of this
technique over gravity filtration were less well understood.
Advice
Read the questions carefully and check that your answers match the requirements of the
questions.
Familiarise yourself with the sequences involved in standard laboratory procedures.
Learn the standard terminology used in nmr spectroscopy.
When drawing graphs remember that the axes must be labelled with the variable and its units.
WCH06_01_pef_71023010 Page 2

Jan 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jan 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jan 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WCH06 1601 Report by the Principal Examiner

using the fingerprint region of an IR spectrum in the identification of a compound. A good

You might also like