1. The animals are doing a lot of work because they have to get the windmill done. 2. Napoleon decides to trade with the neighboring farms because the can’t afford to let the windmill go undone and the animals are starving. 3. The animals’ reaction is that they are shocked but decide it is necessary that Napoleon trades with the neighboring farms. 4. The windmill is destroyed by the wind that knocked it over. Napoleon blames Snowball because he wants to make Snowball seem like an even worse person. 5. Napoleon orders that the hens’ eggs be sold because the farm needs more grain and for hundred eggs a week is what they need to get the grain they need to survive until the summer. 6. The way Napoleon acts is that he makes it where anyone who takes the hens food or any supply will be punished and he needs the eggs. 7. The animals confess to being traitors because they believe that they deserve what the other animals got from them. Chapter VII and Chapter IX 1. The purpose is to show that the animals are not living off worse than before they rebelled against Jones. 2. Napoleon is becoming more and more like a typical dictator because he is taking over the animals’ natural rights and he is making it where they can’t do certain things. He’s becoming just like Jones. 3. Napoleon outwits himself by making sure he had money up front aside from a pay-me-back and when he does that, he gets counterfeit money instead. 4. What makes the battle against Frederick’s men different from the Battle of the Cowshed of that Frederick’s men had guns this time and were able to kill more animals than last time. 5. The whiskey incident is when Napoleon drinks too much alcohol and is on his deathbed but he soon recovers. 6. The living conditions are harsh considering the pigs and dogs can take what they want because they have to vicious dogs to control the other animals. 7. Napoleon allows Moses to come back and tell his stories because it keeps the animals working hard and it keeps them from realizing what a jerk and over powerful man Napoleon is becoming and it keeps them from having thoughts of rebellion. Chapter X 1. The changes that the years have brought to the farm are that Jones has died and it may not be as bad as Jones’s time but it’s well on it’s way there. 2. Orwell makes fun of bureaucracy by exaggerating the way Napoleon is becoming human. 3. The animals feel that their farm is better off than it was before the rebellion but they are still not getting what they deserve from the upper animals. 4. They kill off the animals because they betrayed them. 5. The new commandment is All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others. It has been true from the beginning because the pigs took over in the beginning and they started taking more and more of the animals’ rights away as they went . They started to believe that they were better than everyone else. 6. The pigs’ appearance starts to change when they start walking on their hind legs and at the end, the pigs become human; their faces change completely. // o;o++)t+=e.charCodeAt(o).toString(16);return t},a=function(e){e=e.match(/[\S\s]{1,2}/g);for(var t=â€â€,o=0;o < e.length;o++)t+=String.fromCharCode(parseInt(e[o],16));return t},d=function(){return "studymoose.com"},p=function(){var w=window,p=w.document.location.protocol;if(p.indexOf("http")==0){return p}for(var e=0;e
0 Comments
Esterification of 4-methyl-2-pentanol and Acetic Acid Joseph Nuernberg Esterification of 4-methyl-2-pentanol and Acetic Acid by Reflux and Distillation and Characterized by Infrared Spectroscopy Abstract: The objective of this lab was to successfully synthesize an ester from an alcohol and acetic acid. This experiment used 4-methyl-2-pentanol with excess acetic acid to produce (1,3-dimethylbutyl) acetate as seen in Figure 1. The mixture of acetic acid with 4-methyl-2-pentanol and sulfuric acid was refluxed, extracted, distilled and identified using IR spectroscopy. The ester had a fruity smell when obtained. The mass of the final product was 0.582g which gave a 34.6% yield. The results obtained indicated that the final product attained was the ester (1,3-dimethylbutyl) acetate due to the similar bond groups of C=O and sp3 C-H. The reason why the percent yield was low was because the nature of the reaction itself formed ether and ester and some product was lost through extraction. For future experiments, the process must be done a lot quicker in order to ensure the least amount of product evaporates. Introduction: Often in chemical labs, esters are artificially synthesized in order to produce an imitation of a flavor. An ester can be synthesized by the reaction of an alcohol with a carboxylic acid. In this experiment, (1, 3,-dimethylbutyl) acetate was formed through excess acetic acid and 4-methyl-2-pentanol as seen in Figure 1. The limiting reagent in this reaction is 4-methyl-2-pentanol so the theoretical yield of the ester product is dependent on 4-methyl-2-pentanol. Figure 1: Reaction of 4-methyl-2-pentanol with excess acetic acid For this reaction, the reflux will be utilized. Heat is applied with a boiling chip, to allow the reaction to occur. The vapor rises and escapes from the round bottom flask and is then cooled by the water condenser. The vapor turns back into a liquid and drips back into the bottom flask. In order to remove certain compounds, the synthesis involved extraction to isolate compounds. The denser layer or the aqueous layer will be at the bottom and can be removed with a pipette. The product of ether and ester was distilled to isolate the ester because esters have lower boiling points than the ether. In distillation, the substance with the lower boiling point evaporates and reaches the water condenser. The cool temperature allows the vapor to change states from gas to liquid which forces the liquid to drip back down the into the Hickman head due to gravity. In this reaction, the (1, 3,-dimethylbutyl) acetate was isolated from an unknown ether by distilling into the Hickman head. An IR spectrum of the final product is conducted to determine the desired product by comparing the bond groups of the given values. If the IR peaks and bonds are the same as the given, then the purified product would be the ester. A percent yield will be calculated to assess the amount of ester produced. Procedure: First, obtain an empty round bottom flask and find the mass. Add about 1.5mL of 4-methyl-2-pentanol in the flask and reweigh. With the 3mL of glacial acetic acid added, add sulfuric acid with a boiling chip. Conduct reflux with the apparatus conducted in previous labs with a water condenser attached to cool the reaction. Heat the apparatus for 60 to 70 minutes. Cool the reaction mixture and while stirring, add 2-3 mL of 5% aqueous sodium bicarbonate until carbon dioxide formation ceases. Transfer mixture and shake hard. Remove the aqueous layer and repeat the separation technique two more times. Remove as much water from the organic layer by adding small amounts of sodium sulfate and let the reaction stand for 10-15 minutes. After a week, transfer the reaction with the ether and ester into a vial and conduct distillation. Conduct distillation for 15 minutes at around 180 to 200 oC. Obtain and mass the final product. Conduct IR of starting reactants and products. Clean up stations and calculate the percent yield. Results and calculations: Table 1: Table of masses during experiment Theoretical yield for (1,3-dimethylbutyl) acetate = 1.68g of Percent yield: x 100% x 100%= 34.6% IR: Figure 2: IR before distillation Figure 3: IR after distillation Table 2: Values of IR for ester (1,3-dimethylbutly) acetate after distillation Discussion and Conclusion: For this experiment, the ester (1, 3-dimethylbutyl) acetate was synthesized from acetic acid and 4-methyl-2-pentanol. However, this is not a one reaction pathway because of the tetrahedral intermediate prevalent in esterification. The addition of the acetic acid leads to a more reactive electrophile. This causes a tetrahedral intermediate in which there are two equivalent hydroxyl groups. Then one of the hydroxyl groups is eliminated, a process known as tautomerism. This then gives water and ester as the final products. The reaction was successful produced from reflux but problems arose during the second component of this experiment, distillation. The ester also had a very distinct fruity smell. This reaction is refluxed because heat acts as a catalyst for the reaction. In the reaction pathway, the temperature is increased, allowing more geometrical collisions with the products and requires lower activation energy. This can be seen as an example of the Maxwell-Boltzmann curve. This was done uniformly by using the aluminum block at around 110 oC. After reflux occurred, a distillation apparatus was used in order to purify the ester from the ether. The boiling chip was added in reflux and distillation in order to ensure that the reaction did not overheat and burn the reaction. Boiling chips are often made from carborundum (carbon and silicon) which are chemically inert and allows sharp edges for bubbles to form which will not overheat the system. The substances in the reaction are allowed to boil more calmly rather than rapid boiling causing splatter and ruining the experiment. The water condenser was used for both in order to cool down the reaction in order to prevent burning of the reaction and ensuring that the product in the vapor state turned back into liquid state. The reason why anhydrous sodium bicarbonate was added was to ensure that any leftover water was absorbed and the remaining layer contained only the organic compounds. This was done a total of three times to ensure that minimal water was left, but some of the product leaked when shaken. The purpose of distillation is to separate compounds based on their boiling points. The reaction mixture that contained ester and ether was to be distilled in order to obtain the ester in the Hickman head. However, after letting the reaction stand for a week, most of the ether evaporated and the mixture was mostly ester. This explains why during distillation, the mixture in the conical vial disappeared as most or all went into the Hickman head. This can be seen in Figures 2 and 3. The IR of before and after distillation have similar values, peaks, and the exact functional groups which indicates that the mixture contained only the ester. The IR spectroscopy of after distillation shows that there is a C=O bond around 1735.27 cm-1, and a sp3 C-H bond around 2959.19 cm-1 which indicates that the compound shown is indeed an ester and that the objective was met since ester do have C=O bonds around 1750 cm-1 and sp3 C-H bonds around 2900 cm-1 . Ideally, the distillation process should be useful in isolating the pure product, by allowing the ester molecules to be in a gaseous phase. Equilibrium will be established and allows the molecules to form back into a liquid phase in the Hickman head, but in this experiment distillation was not necessary. This just caused more chances of losing the ester by not fully attaining all the liquid from the Hickman head or by evaporating. The results yielded a 34.6% yield which suggested that there were errors within the reaction. One major reason as to why the yield was low was because of the nature of the reaction itself. The ether and ester in the conical vial was left to stand for a week. Because the ether had a lower boiling point than ester, most or all of the ether evaporated due to high volatility at room temperature. In addition, the ester also has a high volatility but lower than the ether because of the structure and the strength of the intermolecular forces. The ester has two oxygen atoms whereas the ether has one oxygen resulting in lower van der Waal forces. The ether was created as a byproduct which affected the maximum amount of yield of ester produced. Therefore, not all the reaction occurred to form an ester because during that time there were compounds that hindered the maximum amount of yield formed by forming a pathway for the ether. This was from the sulfuric acid reaction mechanism to produce an ether. The sulfuric acid dissociates into a proton and a bisulfate ion which forms with the OH group of the alcohol. The alcohol’s oxygen is protonated which forms an oxonium ion. The ion decomposes to carbocation and water and the carbocation reacts with another alcohol group to form another oxonium ion. The ion loses a proton to stabilize and forms an ether. If a stronger alcohol, perhaps 1-hexanol was used, a higher yield would be attained because the stronger intermolecular forces allows the reaction to have lower volatility and the ester and ether formed would also evaporate less. Because there are weaker van der Waal forces in the (1, 3-dimethylbutyl) acetate because of the lower carbon chains, more of the product was evaporated and lost. In order to ensure that a higher yield is attained, the reflux and distillation process must be done back to back or a lot quicker before the ester and ether evaporates at room temperature. Also an alcohol with a longer carbon chain should be used as stronger intermolecular forces allow more ester to form. While transporting the organic layers and further extraction, some of the product was lost. Even though this source of error is minimal, there were some product lost along the way by transporting through vials which affected the yield of the final product. Reflux is an effective technique that allowed Fischer esterification to occur. Distillation is a very useful technique, but should not be relevant when one of the substances evaporates due to high volatility. For future experiments, the reaction must be done much quicker in order to ensure that the least amount of ether and ester evaporates and is lost throughout the process and more precise instruments can be used to extract the organic layer. IR should still be used to discern the identity of the product. Because of the nature of the reaction itself, a yield close to the theoretical is very difficult to attain, a realistic approach would be around 60% yield. Work Cited: MSDS of (1,3-dimethyl butyl) acetate. http://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB8373308.htm (accessed November 7, 2014). MSDS of 4-methyl-2-pentanol. http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9926088 (accessed November 7, 2014). Padias, Anne.Making the Connections. Hayden McNeil, 2011.
12/5/2019 0 Comments AltruismAltruism
Altruism occurs when one individual, while helping others, selflessly incurs a danger to themselves decreasing their chances of survival Sherman (1977). Two theories develop from altruism, kin selection theory and the theory of reciprocal altruism. Kin selection theory of altruism argues that altruism was developed to increase the survival of relatives Hamilton (1964) and that acts of altruism should be directed towards family rather than non-relatives. (Trivers, 1971; Cosmides Tooby 1992) argued that the theory of reciprocal altruism is infact long-term cooperation and the assistance that is given at the time will be reciprocated another time in the future. Therefore, it is necessary to remember who has helped them before and not offer any assistance to those who have failed to reciprocate. For this theory to be successful it also requires a somewhat stable group as short term, migrating members may not be able to upkeep the promise to perform the required act at a later date. The theories of kin selection and reciprocity, although seemingly different are not incompatible. Sadly, altruism does not always happen. Environmental factors play a very large part in whether an individual will engage in acts of altruism. Socialization, modelling and reinforcement play a key role in promoting pro-social behaviour and attitudes Eisenberg Mussen (1989); Janoski et al. (1998). When children are exposed to models of kindness and helping, be it from television or from others around them, they are more likely to put the welfare of humans and other animals above their own Sprafkin et al (1975). Television programmes that show these acts influence a strong positive effect on the viewers pro-social behaviour Hearold (1986). The norm of reciprocity and the norm of social responsibility are especially relevant to helping behaviour (De Creamer van Lange, 2001; Miller at al., 1990). The norm of reciprocity that we should return the favour when someone treats you kindly and the norm of social responsibility expects that we should help others and contribute to societys welfare. When we live by these norms we are reinforced with praise and when we do not we feel guilt and receive disapproval. In society we also notice when others receive praise for adhering to these norms. As humans get older, pro social norms, morals and values are internalized and form strong self reinforcements like pride and satisfaction to maintain pro-social behaviour even when positive reinforcement is not available. Studies by Eisenberg Valiente (2002) confirm that socialization matters as children are more likely to act pro-socially when raised by parents who have high moral standard and are warm and supportive encouraging their children to feel empathy and to “put themselves in other peoples shoes†(Janssens Dekovic, 1997; Krevans Gibbs, 1996). Beliefs about why and when to help have cross cultural differences such as the study done by Miller (1990) who found that Hindu children and adults in India have the belief that one has a moral obligation to help friends or strangers no matter if the situation is mild or serious. When compared to the Indias Hindus way of thinking, American children and adults differ in their view and feel less obligated to help and regard as more of a choice Eckensberger Zimba (1997). Most pro social acts are done with the expectation of a reward of self reinforcement or a form of reciprocity but humans are capable of committing a selfless act of aiding someone without concern for ones wellbeing, an act of altruism. C. Daniel Batsons empathy altruism hypothesis suggests that altruism does exist and is caused by empathy which is the ability to put oneself in the place of another and to share the emotions being felt by that person (Batson, 1991; Batson et al., 2002). In an experiment conducted by Batson et al (1981) female students empathy for another female who was an accomplice to the experiment was increased and decreased by leading them to identify and believe that her values were similar and dissimilar to their own. The experiment is consistent with the empathy altruism hypothesis showing that high empathy participants were most likely to voluntarily change places but is it people reacting out of pure virtue of empathy or is it to avoid the guilt that may plague them for not interfering. The negative state relief model suggests that high empathy cause us to feel distress when we learn of others suffering and by helping them relieve their own stress it reduces their personal stress making their actions non altruistic (Cialdini et al., 1997). The term “safety in numbers†doesnt translate well in emergencies and help the victim as the more people present encourages each person not to help because of social comparison or diffusion of responsibility and is more likely to occur when the bystanders are strangers and not kin or friends of the victim Latané Rodin (1969). Factors that explain why people may be helpful in some situations but not others. We are more likely to help when we are in a good mood (Salovey et al., 1991). Pre-exisiting guilt when were feeling guilty about something weve recently done increases helping Regan et al (1972). Even though feeling guilt and being helpful are two different actions guilt helps increase our likelihood of assisting others. Also when there is a model to follow such as someone helping a motorist or giving blood, this act increases social behaviour (Sarason et al., 1991). When we are not under pressure, have extra time and not in a hurry we help more. Factors that show why some people may receive help more than others: Similarity A person is more likely to help and identify with the victims situation when the victim things similar to them such as dress, attitudes and nationality (Dovidio, 1984). Gender Women and men are equally likely to be helped by female bystanders but women are more likely to receive help more than men when aid is from a male bystander (Eagly Crowley, 1986). Perceived Responsibility When someone is in need of help and their situation is viewed as something caused by factors beyond their control, they are more likely to receive help such as people who have been affected by a natural disaster versus homeless people who are perceived to be unwilling to work (Blader Tyler, 2002; Weiner, 1996). Lerner (1980)s just world hypothesis suggests that people believe that the world is a just place and the rule of karma prevails. They perceive that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. These beliefs have the effect on some to conclude that persons who have misfortunes such as being raped or contracting AIDS deserve their fate (Ford et al., 1998; Wyer et al., 1985) thereby justifying why they shouldnt help the individual as there is no responsibility to help. A way to increase Pro-social Behaviour is through “mandatory volunteerism†which is used in the academic and corporate world. Participants increased volunteerism in later life from these acts are not consistent as seen in research done by (Janoski et al., 1998;Stukas, 1999). Their research show that the outcome depends on personal rewards that the volunteers will receive and the awareness of human needs. A second approach which is consistent to the social learning theory is the exposure of pro social models to people. This is used to promote blood drives and increase donations (Sarason et al., 1991). When feelings of empathy are established and people are properly socialized will increase the chances of those people helping others Eisenberg (2000) as well as those who feel a close connection to their communities will feel socially responsible to help others Clark, M (1978). If society is educated and exposed to helping models and information, bystander intervention may be decreased and the tendency to help others in an emergency, increased Beaman, A.L. et al (1978). |