Title: Solubility dynamics of Iron (II) Carbonate—Ionic Strength Modulation

through Sodium Acetate Addition

How does altering the ionic strength in iron (II) carbonate solution and forming a
complex with 1-10 phenanthroline by adding 5 concentrations (1.5M, 2M, 2.5M,
3M, 3.5M) of sodium acetate affect its solubility limit through UV-Vis
spectrophotometric analysis?

Internal Assessment

Subject: Chemistry HL

Word Count: 3032

Candidate Session: May 2025

Personal Code: lhm826

1
Introduction
I participated in an internship program at the Pig Improvement Company over the summer as I’m
interested in food safety and nutritional science. My visit to its pig farms brought me to see the
genetically modified pigs fed and grown together. I learned that many of these husbandry
animals have iron (II) carbonate as an additive, which helps to improve the nutritional value of
animal feeds as additives, leading to healthy and productive livestock.1
With a foundation in chemistry, I can’t help but wonder if iron (II) carbonate can be used in
different mediums. These substances are used in paint and coatings to improve durability. 2
However, I also learned that iron (II) carbonate is an insoluble salt, meaning that other ions could
affect its dissolution significantly by reducing electrostatic interactions and improve ionic
strength. While interning, I learned sodium acetate could avoid side reactions with iron carbonate
and is used with iron additives to make it more digestible for animals. 3 Thus, using sodium
acetate explores fulfills my interest and shows that it can increase the solubility of iron carbonate
by tens of thousands folds, improving effectiveness of iron (II) carbonate) in its usage.
Prior to experimentation, I confirmed its feasibility by referring to investigations on graphical
relationship between ionic strength and solubility product of iron carbonate. 4 In this research, I
will use UV-Vis spectroscopic analysis to measure the absorbance of the iron-1,10
phenanthroline complex to ensure limits of detection reach beyond 5 ∙10−9 mol/ L for trace
amount of dissolve iron ions.5 It corresponds to the dissolved iron (II) carbonate ions in the
solution, and thus calculated the solubility of iron (II) carbonate.

Background Information
Iron Carbonate
Iron carbonate is an inorganic compound that has low solubility. FeCO 3 consists of ferrous ions
(Fe2+) with a positive charge of 2 and carbonate ions (CO 32-). Iron is a d-block element with a
high affinity for oxygen, which can form a stable lattice with the planar carbonate ions.
Solubility product of iron (II) carbonate is approximately 3.13 ∙10−11 mol /L under standard
conditions.6 Its low solubility and brown color improves its industrial usage. 7 However, low
solubility in wastewater removal may demand higher concentrations of the substance, and for
animal feed.8 Thus, FeCO3’s dissolution is evaluated under manipulated ionic strength:

2−¿( aq)¿

A ¿ FeCO3 (s)⇌ Fe2 +¿(aq)+CO 3 ¿

As solubility product has both ions react at equimolar amounts, solubility product equation and
limit would be:
B ¿ K sp=¿
¿

Ionic Strength and Dynamics of Solubility

Ionic Strength is the measure of the concentration of ions in a solution. Solubility is manipulated
by adding acetate NaC2H3O2:

2−¿( aq)¿

C ¿ Na C2 H 3 O2 → Na+¿(aq)+ C H
2 3 O2 ¿

2
Using sodium acetate isolates the effect of potential common ions. These substances are often
presumed to have no effect and excluded from net ionic equations. 9 I realized that increased ionic
strength may affect dissolution through ionic interactions, as shown from a research on oil
recovery methods in Appendix A. When ionic strength increases, the solution has better charge
shielding, which reduces electrostatic repulsion between like charges and allows more ions to
dissolve before reaching equilibrium. It also keeps solubility product at equilibrium.
Furthermore, sodium acetate has many real-world applications. From my internship experience, I
learned that iron additives are usually fed orally or injected into pigs. 10 To ensure there is more
readily formation of iron (II) ions and acetate ions, this research’s insights can show potential of
improving solubility and yield for the additive. Therefore, I chose ionic strength as the
independent variable and used varying concentrations of sodium acetate. 1.5 to 3.5 mol/L at
0.5mol/L intervals of ionic strength are chosen to compare with literature trends and point of
saturation at which ionic strength increase leads to decreased solubility.11

1 2 1
E ¿ I= ∑
2 i
ci ∙ zi ≈ ¿ ¿
2

wherec i is concentration of ioni and z i is charge of the ion. The equation considers four types of
+¿ ,∧C H O ¿
2 3 2
2−¿,Na ¿
ions–– Fe2 +¿,CO
3
¿
––would be as formula E. As later discussed in Table 1, iron and
carbonate ions can be ignored in calculation from its low concentrations.

Role of 1-10-phenanthroline in UV-Vis Spectroscopy

Low concentration of Fe2+ ions dissolved, thus lowering absorbance strength indications, making
it difficult to quantify. Sodium acetate does not react with Fe 2+ directly.12 It has a planar structure,
two nitrogen atoms, a heterocyclic ring, and its bidentate ligand structures allows it to form a
stable, intensely colored complex [Fe ( Phen)₃]² ⁺ showing strong absorbance around
520±7nm.13

2 +¿¿

F ¿ Fe2 +¿+3(C 12 H 8 N 2)→[ Fe(C 12 H8 N 2)3 ] ¿

Figure 1. Chemical Structure for iron(II)-phenanthroline complex

Chelating effect, where highly colored complex forms intense luminescence and the
“chromosphere” amplifies UV-vis spectrophotometric signal. With 1-10 phen, limits of detection
can reach 5 ∙10−9 mol/ L as mentioned. Result of spectrophotometry yields iron ion concentration
that can be used in Formula A to derive solubility product.

3
UV-Vis Spectroscopy
There are many methods to quantify Fe2+ concentration, but UV-Vis spectrophotometric analysis
is the most suitable option in the lab. Standard curve equation extracted from experiment under
same conditions in Appendix E. It can be used from 0 to 9 ppm. Since the molar mass of iron is
55.845g, this range corresponds to iron ion concentrations from 0 mol / L to 1.62 ∙10−4 mol /L as
follows.

1 mg 1g 1 mol −4
G ¿ c=c ppm ∙ ∙ ∙ =1.62∙ 10 M
1 L 1000 mg 55.845 g

which is suitable as experimental values calculated in Table 3 are all within the range at levels of
−5
10 M . Standard curve equation is not derived from experimentation and no blank sample is
measured as lids covering sodium acetate were removed after a peer’s experiment at the time of
testing, leading to hydration and mass change. Thus, weighing became in accurate.

Experimental Set-up
Beaker, burette, magnetic stirrer, heating plate, along with other materials are prepared. Sodium
acetate solids with corresponding molar equivalence are weighed and added to form solution
after stirring. Excess iron carbonate solids are then added into the beaker, mixing in and forming
interactions with sodium and acetate ions. After filtering of leftover solids is completed and
equilibrium between the two is reached, 1-10 phen powders are mixed in ethanol solution and
carefully added with burette to meet the 50mL total solution mark. Solution fill cuvette to
undergo UV-Vis spectrophotometric analysis for absorbance.

Hypothesis
Increased ionic strength of iron (II) carbonate solution increases its theoretical solubility limit
until reaching a saturated state around an ionic strength of 3 mol/L according to Sun’s work. 14
This means that more iron complex will be present in the solution after the substances’ addition
due to the increased ionic strength as previously discussed. Graph of Appendix B shows this
estimated result, with findings also revealed in Sun and his team’s research.

Variables
Variables Range Unit Measurement Uncertainty Justification
Independent 1.5-3.5 Mol/L Digital ±0.001g Chosen range is based on practical
Variable: Ionic Balance consideration of dissolution rates from
Strength of Sodium past literatures, and maximal solubility
Acetate Solution of sodium acetate in a 100mL solution.
Concentrations above 3.5M may lead
to a saturated solution and formation of
crystals, while concentrations under
1.5M can have low absorbance. This
range thus allows for reasonable
examination of low and high
interaction scenarios between iron (II)

4
 carbonate and the sodium and acetate
ions.
Dependent
Absorbance Strength reflects the
Variable:
UV-Vis ±13%15 amount of iron ions at the complex’s
Absorbance of Fe2+- 0-1 a.u.
Spectrometer peak wavelength, reflecting the state of
phen complex at
dissolution.
520±7nm

Control Variables
Table 1. Control Variables

Control
Method of Controlling Reason to Control
Variable
Use heating plate to monitor and
Temperature of Temperature can affect reaction rate and dissolution capabilities of
measure the temperature to be
the Solution both substances.
stable at 25°C.
Because filtering is an intermediate step, the trace amount of iron (II)
Add a Teaspoon (approximately
carbonate added is significantly excessive to the solubility limit, so
Added Amount 5.8g / 0.0025 mol in 50mL mixed
adding around a teaspoon is enough. If concentrations are too high,
of FeCO3 solution) of FeCO3 powder into
iron carbonate solid may precipitate and stick to the bottom of the
solution.
beaker.
Add two teas spoons Corresponding to the FeCO3 amount added, excessive amounts of 1-
Added Amount
(approximately 11.6g / 0.003 mol 10 phen are placed in the solution to ensure all dissolved iron ions
of 1-10
in 50mL ethanol solvent) of can form the detectable complex. Since iron carbonate is weakly
phenanthroline
powdered 1-10 phen into solution. soluble, low concentrations need to be added.
Make sure the reaction time is constant thus the relative rate of
dissolution, allowing consistent results. 10-minute mixing period
ensure sodium acetate has no precipitate.16 Iron (II) carbonate solids
Use digital timer to measure 15
are placed in dissolution in water for a day prior to experiment, so
Time for mixing minutes of duration in total; first
that allows reaching of full equilibrium, which takes at least 2 to 3
the two mixing the sodium acetate solvent
hours. 1-10 phen solution is prepared prior to mixing. 1-10 phen
solutions after with iron carbonate solute and
takes at most five minutes to fully form complex with Fe2+ ions,
measurement then add the 1-10 phen-ethanol
making it detection ready. Excess 1-10 phen solution are added in
solution.
ethanol at above 1 mol/L concentration, significantly above filtered
sodium acetate and iron carbonate mixture to ensure all possible
complex formation reaction takes place.
Volume of
Measure the volume using a Amount of solvent can influence dissolution rate. Keeping volume
sodium acetate
graduated cylinder of 100mL constant ensures that concentration of sodium acetate is the only
Solution
Use a magnetic stirrer at a Stirring increases contact between the solute and solvent, which can
Stirring Rate constant speed of 500 rotations influence dissolution rate. Consistent stirring makes sure there are
per minute. uniform conditions.

5
Risk Assessment
Sodium acetate and iron (ii) carbonate can cause skin, eye, and respiratory irritation if in contact and inhaled respectively.
PPE gloves, safety goggles, and lab coat are used.
I washed my hands for 5 minutes after experiments. I prevented ingesting 1-10 phenanthroline as its toxicity can lead to
gastrointestinal symptoms of nausea or vomiting.
If poisoning occurs, I would call control center and lab technician and move to fresh air. I carefully handled glass
Safety apparatus to prevent touching overheated beaker and used tongs.

I limited chemical waste by preparing amounts necessary and stored leftover chemicals properly, following laboratory
disposal guidelines.
I held myself accountable in data presentation and ensured all equipment are handled properly. If unfamiliar, I would ask
for support from mentors.
Ethical

Chemicals are properly disposed into waste containers and not into water sewage system.
I made sure not to used excessive amounts of distilled water for each preparation, and reused contaminated water when
Enviro possible
nment
al

Figure 2. Comprehensive Consideration of Major Risks Involved

Experiment Setup

Chemical Reagents & Materials Apparatus

Digital Balance (±0.001g), 100mL Graduated Cylinder (±1.0mL), 100mL
57.42g sodium acetate solid
Beakers, 50mL Beakers, 25mL Volumetric Flask (±0.3mL), Filter Paper,
powder (99%), 10g 1-10
Funnel, Heating Plate, Ring Stand, Plastic Transfer Pipettes, sodium acetate
phenanthroline solid crystals
(1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, and 3.5 M), iron (II) carbonate solid, 1-10 phenanthroline
(99%), 80g of iron (II) carbonate
powder, Digital Timer (±0.005s), Mortar and Pestle, Magnetic Stirrer, UV-
(99%), Distilled Water
Vis Go-Direct Spectrophotometer, Distilled Water, Pipette
Table 2. Chemical Reagents, Materials, and Apparatus Used

Procedure
Prepare sodium acetate Standard Solutions
Calculation for Mass Measurement of Sample Propagation of Uncertainty
To determine mass corresponding to each standard Total Relative Uncertainty for the final product with 3.5M,
solution molar amount, take: m=n∙ M which involves creating sodium acetate Standard Solution
Here, n is the number of moles designated for the at 7M in 25mL to mix with the 25mL of iron (II)-
phenanthroline Solution:
solution, and M is the molar mass, in this case for
sodium acetate. For instance, the mass weighed for 0.001
Uncertainty ∈ Mass= ∙ 100 %=0.0070 %
a 7M solution would be: 14.351
0.3
m=7 ∙ 82.0343 = 574.24g/L Uncertainty ∈Volume= ∙ 100 %=0.6 %
50

Since the standard solutions are created at volumes Since the uncertainty in volume is greater than that of
of 25mL, the theoretical mass weighed is: mass and dominates, concentration with absolute
574.24 g 25.0 uncertainty would thus be:
6 ∙ =14.355 g
1L 1000 |Uncertainty|≈ 0.006 ∙7=¿0.042 ¿ 4.20 ∙ 10−2 M
 Calculation of Ionic Strength:
Given the formula in F), to test out on a sample calculation, we can input the corresponding values, including
solubility limit of iron (II) carbonate under standard conditions and the concentration of sodium acetate in the
solution. Take the 3M sodium acetate sample as an example; inputting corresponding values, we would get:

1 1
I = ( 3 ∙1 +3 ∙ 1 ) + ( 5.78 ∙10 ∙ 2 +5.78∙ 10 ∙ 2 ) = 3 + 0.000046 = 3.000046
2 2 −6 2 −6 2
2 2

which is equal to the molar concentration. Given that iron (ii) carbonate only contributes to hundred thousandth
placement of ionic strength, its effects can be ignored for the ease of calculation. A sample calculation of the 3.5M
Concentration Sample would thus be:
1
I = ( 3.50 ± 0.04 ∙ 1 +3.50 ± 0.04 ∙ 1 )=3.50 ± 0.04
2 2
2
Theoretical Mass
measured
14.355 12.305 10.254 8.203 6.152

Value of Mass
Measured (g)
14.351 12.307 10.250 8.197 6.158

Set Concentration
(M) of Standard 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00
Solution
IV: Set
Concentration in 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50
Final Solution
Abs Uncertainty
−2 −2 −2 −2 −2
of Concentration 4.20 ∙ 10 3.60 ∙10 3.00 ∙10 2.40 ∙10 1.80 ∙10
(M)
Ionic Strength,
with Abs −2 −2 −2 −2 −2
Uncertainty 3.50 ± 4.20 ∙103.00 ± 3.60∙ 10 2.50 ± 3.00∙ 10 2.00 ± 2.40∙ 10 1.50 ± 1.80∙ 10
(mol/L)
Table 1. Set Concentrations (7M, 6M, 5M, 4M, 3M) retrieved through mass weighing method and its corresponding absolute
uncertainties

7
Standard Solution and Reagent Preparation

Use a mortar and pestle

Complete Weighing Mass. Store to grind the 1-10
Standard Solutions for Later phenanthroline crystals
Use. Use a Balance to Measure into smaller, dissolvable
11.6 g of 1-10 phenanthroline powdered pieces.
crystals.

Use 25mL each time, with

concentrations of NaC2H3O2
that’s used (Herein referred to Measure ethanoic acid using a
as 3M, 4M, 5M, 6M, 7M). Using volumetric flask until it
a beaker, start by weighing 7 Close all doors and windows reaches the 50mL calibration
mol/L worth of specific mass of the laboratory to carry out mark. using a volumetric flask
14.356 (±0.001) g of sodium experiment at RT and filled with 50mL of ethanol,
acetate, add it to the beaker Standard Pressure. Check slightly mix it, and store for
using weighing paper. Barometers in Lab. later use. Concentration as
mentioned is 0.003M.

Add small amounts of distilled water Transfer the solvent to the beaker; add
in the beaker, and use a stirring rod magnetic stirrer into the beaker and place the
to partially dissolve the sodium beaker onto the heating plate for 10 minutes;
acetate. Transfer the solvent to the set the temperature at 25(±0.05) °C. Repeat
volumetric flask and dilute it until steps (1-3) for rest of the concentrations
the meniscus reaches 25 (±0.3) mL (3.00M, 4.00M, 5.00M, 6.00M; weighing
calibration mark; mix well by 6.152, 8.203, 10.254, 12.305 grams
inverting the flask. respectively)

Figure 3. Steps to Prepare the Reagents and Calibrate Detection Device

Forming the Iron (II)-phenanthroline Solution

8
 Finally, add the 25mL of sodium
Measure ~5.800g of iron (ii) Pour the solution into the beaker
acetate standard solution first at
carbonate using balance and containing powdered iron carbonate,
the experimental concentration
add it into the 50.00mL beaker. and place the beaker onto heating
into the beaker. Fold the filter
Add and measure measure 24 plate with a magnetic stirrer, turning
paper and set up the funnel on a
(±0.05) mL of distilled water to it on at 500 RPM and set it as 25
ring stand. Place a volumetric
the beaker using burette. Rest (±0.05) °C. Start the digital timer for
flask to retrieve the filtered
of the 1mL solution comes from 300 (±0.005) seconds to ensure the
solution, and carefully pour the
dissolved 1-10 Phen. iron-1-10 phen complexes are fully
final mixture into the funnel to
formed.
collect the solution.

When equilibrium reached between sodium

acetate and iron carbonate, add 1.00 Start the digital timer for 600 (±0.005) seconds and
(±0.05) mL of the mixed 1-10 wait for the iron (II)–1,10 phenanthroline complex to
phenanthroline-alcohol solution into the form. Use a volumetric flask to ensure the total final
beaker with a burette. Observe a sharp volume is 50mL exact. Redo steps the previous steps
change from brownish to crimson colored if not.
solution.

Figure 4. Iron (II)-phenanthroline Solution Formation

Conduct UV-Vis Spectrometric Analysis, and Repeat Trials

Repeat steps 7-15 for 2 additional

trials under forming the iron (II)-
pheno complex on each sample,
and exclude potential outliers
Repeat steps 1-5 under which are values that are
preparation of sodium acetate significantly less than or more
standard solution samples; than the other trials.
concentrations (7.00M, 6.00M,
Calibrate sensor. Use a plastic 5.00M, 4.00M, 3.00M) to reach
transfer pipette to add droplets targeted ionic strength in final
into a cuvette cleaned with mixture that’s halved by total
distilled water. Seal the cuvette volume (3.50 mol/L, 3.0 mol/L, 2.5
with the lid, and place it into the mol/L, 2.0 mol/L, 1.5 mol/L).
slot of the calibrated
spectrometer to start detection.
Retrieve the graph and save it for
results analysis.

Figure 5. UV-Vis Spectrophotometric Analysis

Results
Qualitative Observations
In dissolution process, the sodium acetate solution would gradually turn from white to colorless.
During iron carbonate dissolution, light brown color appears as a result of reaction. When 1-10

9
phen ethanol solution is added, solution turns into a crimson color, signifying the complex’s
successful formation. These observations provide valuable context to experimentation.
Quantitative Data
To begin with, UV spectrometric data was derived from the experiment. An example of the
spectroscopic Full Scan at 3 mol/L ionic strength, with clear peak around 520nm, is shown. This
trend of absorbance at different wavelength coincides with past literatures.

Figure 6. Spectroscopic full scan at 3 mol/L ionic strength, with clear peak around 520nm. Three trials of the single independent
variable.

The spectroscopic scan, from a focused range of 480nm to 560 nm to show the peak around 520
nm, contains stable trends of the first trial (T1) for each independent variable and is shown as of
below. Data for all three trials (T1, T2, and T3) are included in the calculation within the next
table.

10
 0.18
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
Absorbance (a.u.) 0.11
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
49 4

52 5
48 .2
48 .8
4

50 .6
50 .1
51 .7
51 .3
52 .5
8

53 .3
53 .6
54 .8
54 .1
55 .3
55 .6
55 .9
1
49

52
9.

0.

9.
0
4

8
3
7
2
6

9
3
7
2
6
0
4
48

Wavelength (nm)

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Graph 1. Absorbance strength (a.u.) of Fe-phen complex solution under different ionic strengths

Calculations for absorbance value with uncertainty can thus be made with spectrometric data:
Average Absorbance Value: Sample Calculation
The average absorbance value The average absorbance value of iron (II)-phenanthroline complex with 3.5M
across three trials can be written as: of sodium acetate Solution is:
A 1+ A 2+ A 3 A 1+ A 2+ A 3 0.146 +0.148+0.151
Ā= Ā= = =0.148
3 3 3
Error Propagation: Sample Calculation:
Device Uncertainty for For the absolute uncertainty of absorbance of iron (II)-phenanthroline complex with 3.5M
Spectrometric of sodium acetate.
Analysis: 13 % |Uncertainty|=13 % ∙0.148=0.019

Absorbance Level of filtrated Iron(II)-phenanthroline complex mixture (in a.u.)

Sodium Raw Data: Average
Acetate (M) Device Absolute Absorbance with
Trial Absorbance Level Absorbance Value
Uncertainty (D) absolute uncertainty
in (A) (Ā)
T1 0.146
3.5M T2 0.148 0.148 0.019 0.148±0.019
T3 0.151
T1 0.171
3M T2 0.173 0.173 0.022 0.173±0.022
T3 0.175
2.5M T1 0.146 0.150 0.019 0.150±0.019
11
 T2 0.151
T3 0.153
T1 0.096
2M T2 0.097 0.097 0.012 0.097±0.012
T3 0.099
T1 0.047
1.5M T2 0.048 0.050 0.007 0.050±0.007
T3 0.056
Table 2. Peak Absorbance Levels (at 520±7nm) of iron(II)-phenanthroline complex in solutions with different added
concentrations of sodium acetate

The peak absorbance values of iron (II)-phenanthroline is shown in the full scan attached in
Appendix D, showing high stability and readability for further analysis. Higher and lower ends
of full scan from the 520nm peak can detect potential interference and background signals.
Derived Concentration of Fe2+ ions ¿) Sample Calculation
Since no blank sample was measured, the The derived concentration at 3.5 Ionic Strength can be written as:
investigation uses a standard curve
corresponding to absorbance for Iron (II)-
0.148=0.20423 C+ 0.00716
phenanthroline complex. This is
mentioned in the paper of Appendix E:
C = 0.6896 μg/mL
A=0.20423 C+0.00716 ,
Converted to mol/L, this would be:
Solubility Limit Sample Calculation
where C is the concentration of the
The solubility
and itslimit,
Fe2+or For the solubility limit at 3.5 Ionic Strength, it can
0.6896 ± 0.0930 μg 10 gbe 1000 calculated as:
−6 2+ ¿
complex ions in μg/mL , mL e
the solubility product ∙ ∙ ∙ 1 mol of F ¿
while A is the corresponding absorbance.
K , can be retrieved
1 mL K sp =¿ 1¿ ¿μg 1L 55.85 g
As mentioned previously, the function’s
sp
= 1.5 ∙10¿−10 −10
by squaring the value ±(1.51 ∙
−5 10 ) ∙ 26
1.23 ∙10 ±( 1.23∙ 10 )∙ 13 %%
−5
range is suitable to apply to my
−10 −5 ∙10−10
of derived 1.51 ∙10
= ¿ 1.23±∙10
0.39
investigation. −5
2+ ± 0.16 ∙ 10 M
concentration of Fe
as previously
discussed. Therefore, log K sp = log (1.51
by equation B and the −10 ( 1.51∙ 10 +0.39 ∙ 10−10 )−log (¿ 1.51 ∙10−10−0.39 ∙10−10)
−10

background ∙ 10 ¿ ± log ¿
discussion, 2
K =¿ = −9.82 ±−9.88
sp
= ¿¿ log K sp is derived to compare directly with the paper mentioned in Appendix B,
which is discussed later. Since the uncertainty derived for log K sp is greater than

Calculated Ionic Strength Derived Concentration of Fe2+ Logarithmic

Solubility Limit ( K sp )
(mol/L) ions ¿) Value
−2 −5 −5 −10 −10
3.50 ± 4.20 ∙10 1.23 ∙10 ± 0.16 ∙ 10 1.51 ∙10 ± 0.39 ∙10 −9.82
−2 −5 −5 −10 −10
3.00 ± 3.60∙ 10 1.45 ∙10 ± 0.19 ∙ 10 2.10 ∙10 ± 0.55 ∙ 10 −9.68
−2 −5 −5 −10 −10
2.50 ± 3.00∙ 10 1.25 ∙10 ± 0.16 ∙ 10 1.56 ∙ 10 ± 0.41 ∙10 −9.81
−2 −5 −5 −10 −10
2.00 ± 2.40∙ 10 0.79 ∙ 10 ±0.10 ∙ 10 0.62 ∙10 ± 0.16 ∙ 10 −10.21
−2 −5 −5 −10 −10
1.50 ± 1.80∙ 10 0.38 ∙ 10 ±0.05 ∙ 10 0.14 ∙ 10 ± 0.04 ∙10 −10.85
Table 3. Ionic Strength, Derived Concentration of Fe2+ ions, and Solubility Limit of FeCO3

12
With sodium acetate added, solubility limit of iron (ii) carbonate is higher than maximal
theoretical solubility limit of 3.13 ∙10−11M, increasing by a factor of 2 for the 2.00 mol/L group
to a factor of more than 6 for the 3.00mol/L group. Slight discrepancy for 1.5 mol/L ionic
strength as it’s only 0.45 times of standard solubility limit can be accounted by short reaction
duration.

2.5E-10

2E-10
Solubility Limit of Iron (II) Carbonate

1.5E-10

1E-10

5E-11

0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Ionic Strength of Added Solution

Graph 2. Solubility Limits of iron (II) carbonate in solutions with different ionic strengths (1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 mol/L)

Solubility limit increases with higher ionic strength from 1.5 to 3, then decreases from 3 to 3.5.
For example, when ionic strength of 1 is increased to 2 in a separate sample, the solubility limit
increases from 0.14 ∙ 10−10 ± 0.06 ∙10−10 to 0.62 ∙10−10 ± 0.10 ∙10−10, and eventually reaching a
value of 2.10 ∙10−10 ± 0.39 ∙10−10 at ionic strength of 3. No linear or quadratic relationship is
established from the limited data. Error bars are overall relatively small, meaning that there is
low margin of random error. However, there are clear overlaps in the solubility limits’ error bars
corresponding to ionic strengths of 2.5, 3, and 3.5 mol/L, suggesting that the results may deviate
in this range. Overall, this validates the hypothesis, showing that experimental solubility limit
increases with ionic strength till 3 mol/L.

13
 -7

-7.5

-8
Logarithmic Solubility Limit

-8.5

-9

-9.5

-10

-10.5

-11

-11.5
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Ionic Strength of Solution (mol/L)

Experimental Value Polynomial (Experimental Value)
Literature Value Polynomial (Literature Value)
Graph 3. The Logarithmic Solubility Limit Corresponding to the Different Ionic Strengths of the Solution, with Experimental and
Literature Values

The above graph compares processed data from the experiment with literature values from
Appendix B, displaying the effect of increasing ionic strength on the increase in solubility limit.
Since the solubility limit values are at 10 -10 levels, logarithmic values assist with visualizing the
relative changes across a small data range, amplifying minute differences. The use of logarithms
is also used to align with Sun and his team’s research as referenced for comparative analysis.
Trends within the literature and experimental values are closely aligned, but all experimental
values are below literature values. No error bars of the experimental value with 10 -10 exponential
form overlap with theoretical values of solubility limit, which all have 10 -9 exponent form, so
reasons for this phenomenon are further discussed. The experimental value and literature value
graphs shared a clear trend with increases from 1.5M to 3M, increasing from -8.79 to -8.50 for
the literature values and -10.85 to -9.68 for the experimental values. The graph of this
investigation for the experiment values is labeled with specific absolute error values, derived
from Table 4. The largest deviation occurs at lower ionic strengths (1.5M and 2M), where the
solubility is underestimated in the experiment, comparing solubility product logarithmic values
of -10.85 versus -8.79 from literature and -10.21 versus 8.64 from literature respectively. Here,
the literature values show a steady increase with modest changes, suggesting that there is enough
time and conditions set to equilibrate, unlike the experimental values. At moderate ionic
strengths (2.5M and 3M), the literature shows a gradual increase in solubility product from -8.55
to -8.50, but the trend starts to slow down, suggesting an effect of shielding that is later
discussed. This increase ionic strength enhances the solubility, and further dissolution becomes
thermodynamically unfavorable. The experimental values follow a similar trend, where the
degree of increase from -10.21 at 2M to -9.81 at 2.5M and -9.68 at 3M decreases as well. These
values approach the literature values closer. At higher ionic strength of 3.5M, both the
experimental and literature solubility limits logarithmic values decrease, which happens at 3.5M
for the experimental graph from -9.68 at 3M to -9.82 at 3.5M. The literature value graph’s
14
logarithmic values slow down to an increase of 0.03 on the graph from 3M to 3.5M and soon
decreases after 3.5M. Here, the trends of having a saturated solution can be explained by
electrostatic screening. These ions can experience significant electrostatic shielding, which
weakens the electrostatic repulsion between charged molecules in the solution making them
closer together and potentially aggregate. 17 This causes the decline at higher concentrations, as
iron (ii) carbonate ions can be crowded out and start to precipitate, and more ion pairing between
sodium and carbonate ion can take place. Overall, these trends align well with the hypothesis.
My values in this investigation, compared to the literature values, allows for less dissolution and
thus is lower due to several potential reasons from a chemistry perspective. Firstly, this can be
caused by the short duration of reaction time, which can disallow the dissolved iron ions and 1-
10 phenanthroline crystals to fully form into complexes. Secondly, this can be caused by
systematic errors such as minor losses of the dissolved iron-phen complex solution during
manual filtration. Thirdly, random errors in experimentation and low instrument precision from
the spectrophotometer’s high uncertainty can cause under or over-estimations of iron-phen
concentration.
As previous mentioned, hydrolysis of dissolved sodium acetate can be a factor of error as well.
This reaction is governed by base dissociation constant, which equals to 5.68 ∙10−10M. Clearly,
the equilibrium lies far to the left. It does affect dissolution and can be a reason for
underestimation of experimental values. To validate my assumption, my calculations are
performed as follows.

Concentration of Hydroxide Ions Produced Sample Calculation

To begin with, we can write the equation by defining x as the For 1.5M of sodium acetate
concentration produced. added, there is 1.5M of acetic
K b =[ C H 3 COOH ] ¿ ¿ ion dissolved in the solution.
Since K b is a set value, the
concentration of hydroxide
Since K b is a small value, the equilibrium expression can be ions can be calculated as.
approximated as:
2
Kb=
x x=√ K b ∙¿ ¿ ¿
¿¿¿

Therefore, x can be represented as:

x=√ 5.68 ∙10 ∙ 1.5
−10

−6
x=√ K b ∙¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ 9.25 ∙ 10

Sodium Acetate (M) 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

Hydroxide Ion ( M H ) 9.25 ∙ 10

−6
1.07 ∙ 10
−5
1.19 ∙10
−5
1.31 ∙10
−5
1.41 ∙10
−5

Table 4. Concentrations of Hydroxide Ions produced under each sodium acetate concentration

15
 All concentration within 3 times of iron (II) carbonate's solubility
Need further
limit, or less than 0.00046 x 3 per Table 2's ranges.
analysis to
interpret results May account for partial differences between experiment and
literature given the low solubility of iron (II) Carbonate.

One mole of hydroxide ion is produced, one mole of dissolved acetate ions
participates in the reaction.
Hydrolysis has Hydroxide ions can react with dissolved iron ions, leading to
significant effects underestimation of Ksp.
M of solubility product means most hydroxide ions concentration dissolvable
= cubic root or 1.99 each each mole of iron (II) hydroxide dissolves into three
moles of ions.

Corrected Every two moles of hydroxide ion binds to one iron (II)
calculations can be ion. Given this, hydroxide ions can lead to significant
derived percent differences, such as for the 1.50 mol/L group.

Figure 7. Steps to Derived Corrected Ionic Strengths

Thus, all calculations can be derived as:

K sp =¿

Table 4. Recalculated concentrations of Iron (II) Carbonate Solubility Limit Considering Hydrolysis

Sodium Acetate (M) 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

Initial Solubility Limit −10 −10 −10 −10 −10
(mol/L) 0.14 ∙ 10 0.62 ∙10 1.56 ∙ 10 2.10 ∙10 1.51 ∙10
Solubility limit
−10 −10 −10 −10 −10
considering hydrolysis 0.71 ∙10 1.76 ∙ 10 3.41 ∙10 4.43 ∙ 10 3.74 ∙ 10
(mol/L)

Thus, the corrected values are significantly closer to the theoretical values, which have solubility
limits equivalent to 10−9 exponent levels. Values for all are at least double of the initial,
uncorrected solubility limit, with 1.50 mol/L group showing significantly higher by a factor of 5,
making it higher than Iron Carbonate’s theoretical maximum solubility and validate hypothesis
—additional ionic strength does increase solubility. This validates the premise, and further shows
that to use sodium acetate—a common compound used in agriculture—to show its promising
usage in food, deviations from hydrolysis partly sacrifice the accuracy of the results.
Nonetheless, a clear relationship can be established after another reaffirmation of the correlations
between ionic strength and solubility limit and validates the hypothesis.

Conclusion
This investigation aims to explores the effects of ionic strength on the solubility of iron (II)
carbonate using changing concentrations of sodium acetate. Results were quantified by
16
measuring the concentration of iron (II)-phenanthroline complex through spectrophotometric
analysis, and observations of color changes that indicate reactions were made.
The experimental data indicated a clear trend, as the concentration of sodium acetate and ionic
strength increased, the solubility of iron (II) carbonate at lower ends of ionic strength (1.5 – 3
mol/L) did as well, only to decrease from 3 to 3.5 mol/L. At nearly every concentration of
sodium acetate added from 2 to 3.5mol/L ensure increase in solubility from theoretical limit by 2
to 4.8 times respectively. When compared to literature values, the limited dissolution can be
caused by factors like short duration, inefficient filtration, and significant effects of hydrolysis
further discussed. Thus, the investigation concludes that solubility limit is significantly increased
due to an increase in ionic strength by adding sodium acetate ions and aligns with trends stated in
the hypothesis.

Evaluation
Strengths
Use of UV-Vis spectrophotometer provides accurate results and small experimental deviations
between three trials conducted, which reduces systematic errors. Both experimental uncertainties
and standard deviations analyzed give comprehensive results. Weighing method of sodium
acetate solution limits fluctuations in independent variable values to only measurement and
digital balance uncertainties, while methods like dilution to form standard solution can reach
above 10%. Choice of sodium acetate and control variables isolates independent variable’s
effects.
1-10 phenanthroline crystals are powdered into smaller solids to facilitate diffusion and complex
formation through greater contact in solution. Filtering iron carbonate – sodium acetate solution
prevents systematic errors and influence from external substance, like excessive, undissolved
iron (II) carbonate solids and detached particles from heating plate stirring.
Solubility limits derived as significantly greater asides from one value, and all are higher after
correction from hydrolysis. High R2 value shows high correlation between independent and
dependent variables, further conforming initial hypothesis. Link to previous literature reinforces
results with comparison between experimental and literature values and exposes potential errors.
Weaknesses
13% Uncertainty with UV-Vis spectrophotometer is significant. Alternatives like
complexometric titration or more tests to average results can reduce uncertainties. Fluctuations in
temperatures from the external environment and filtering process affects solubility. Control
measures like water bath can maintain more stable conditions. No standard curve was drawn due
to mistakenly stored chemicals. Setting up a personal container of required amounts of sodium
acetate can prevent interference from others’ lab procedures. With standard curve, results can be
validated constantly.
Filtration method is relatively inefficient. Method of using filter paper, funnel, and ring stand
takes long duration, potentially introducing slight variances from particles in surroundings.
Dissolved iron (ii) carbonate can be lost by absorbed into filter paper or amongst gaps between
iron carbonite solids from my observation, leading to underestimation of absorbance. Vacuum
filtration or other methods can improve accuracy of later solubility measurements.

Appendices

17
Appendix A: Activity coefficient as a function of ionic strength of the solution.18

Appendix B: Iron carbonate Solubility Expressed in Relation to Temperature and Ionic

strength.19

2.1963
log K sp =−59.3498−0.041377 ∙ T − + 24.5724∙ logT + 2.518 ∙ I 0.5−0.657∙ I
T

Since T =298 K in this investigation, let I be x and the graph can be depicted as:

(Desmos)

Appendix C: Pre-experimental concept validation of UV-Vis Spectrometric Analysis of Iron(II)-

phenanthroline Complex using readily soluble FeSO4 ions

18
Appendix D: Remaining trials

Raw Data: Absorbance Level

Sodium Acetate (M) Trial
in (A)
T2 0.148
3.5M
T3 0.151
T2 0.173
3M
T3 0.175
T2 0.151
2.5M
T3 0.153
T2 0.097
2M
T3 0.099
T2 0.048
1.5M
T3 0.056

Appendix E: Standard Curve per Beer-Lambert’s Law

19
 As shown in image D. “Linear fitting: A=0.20423 C+0.00716, R2=0.99994.”20

20
References

21
1
“Scientific Opinion on the Safety and Efficacy of Iron Compounds (E1) as Feed Additives for All
Animal Species: Ferrous Carbonate Based on a Dossier Submitted by Ankerpoort N.V.” European
Food Safety Authority, vol. 13, no. 5, 1 May 2015, https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4109.
2
Bariya, Himanshu, et al. “Measurement of Fe(II) and Fe(III) in Groundnut by In-Column and Post-
Column Reactions in Ion Chromatography.” Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, vol.
46, no. 3, 12 Jan. 2015, pp. 358–366, https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2014.981272.
3
“SODIUM ACETATE.” AppleOak FibreWorks, 2024, nn
appleoakfibreworks.com/products/sodium-acetate.
4
Sun, Wei, et al. “The Effect of Temperature and Ionic Strength on Iron Carbonate (FeCO3) Solubility
Limit.”
5
Xu, Jie, et al. “More Sensitive Way to Determine Iron Using an Iron(II)−1, 10-phenanthroline
Complex and Capillary Electrophoresis.” Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 749, no. 1-2, Oct. 1996,
pp. 287–294, https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9673(96)00457-8.
6
“Solubility Products.” General Chemistry University of Texas,
gchem.cm.utexas.edu/data/section2.php?target=ksp-constants.php.
7
Neerup, Randi, et al. “Measurements and Modelling of FeCO3 Solubility in Water Relevant to
Corrosion and CO2 Mineralization.” Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 270, 9 Feb. 2023, p. 118549,
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009250923001057,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2023.118549.
8
Koronkiewicz, Stanislawa. “Photometric Determination of Iron in Pharmaceutical Formulations Using
Double-Beam Direct Injection Flow Detector.” Molecules, vol. 26, no. 15, 26 July 2021, p. 4498,
https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26154498.

9
“Solubility and Ionic Strength (Scott).” Chemistry LibreTexts, 24 Oct. 2020,
chem.libretexts.org/Ancillary_Materials/Worksheets/Worksheets%3A_Analytical_Chemistry_II/
Solubility_and_Ionic_Strength_(Scott).

10
“Treatment of Iron Deficiency in Pigs.” CEVA, 30 June 2021, swinehealth.ceva.com/blog/treatment-
of-iron-deficiency-in-pigs.
11
Sun, Wei, et al. “The Effect of Temperature and Ionic Strength on Iron Carbonate (FeCO3) Solubility
Limit.” Corrosion Science, vol. 51, no. 6, June 2009, pp. 1273–1276,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2009.03.009.

12
Addison, C C, et al. “Reactions of Liquid Sodium with Transition-Metal Oxides. Part IV.
Oxides of Iron, Cobalt, Nickel, and Copper.” Journal of the Chemical Society. Dalton
Transactions, no. 10, 1 Jan. 1972, pp. 1017–1017,
pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/1972/dt/dt9720001017,
https://doi.org/10.1039/dt9720001017. Accessed 7 Mar. 2025.
13
“1,10-phenanthroline - an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics.” Www.sciencedirect.com,
www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/1-10-phenanthroline.
14
Sun, Wei, et al. “The Effect of Temperature and Ionic Strength on Iron Carbonate (FeCO3) Solubility
Limit.” Corrosion Science, vol. 51, no. 6, June 2009, pp. 1273–1276,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2009.03.009.
15
“Vernier SpectroVis plus Spectrophotometer - Spectroscopy, Spectrophotometry.” Fisher Scientific,
www.fishersci.com/shop/products/vernier-spectrovis-plus-spectrophotometer/S16260ND.
16
“CN103833543A - Preparation Method of Sodium Acetate - Google Patents.” Google.com, 21
Nov. 2012, patents.google.com/patent/CN103833543A/en.
17
Yan, Zhaohui, et al. “Magnesium Ions Regulated Ovalbumin-Lysozyme Heteroprotein Complex:
Aggregation Kinetics, Thermodynamics and Morphologic Structure.” International Journal of
Biological Macromolecules, vol. 253, 1 Dec. 2023, pp. 126487–126487,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.126487.
18
Luo, Haishan, et al. “A Robust Geochemical Simulator to Model Improved Oil Recovery Methods.”
SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, vol. 1, 23 Feb. 2015,
www.researchgate.net/publication/270582014_A_Robust_Geochemical_Simulator_to_Model_Improve
d_Oil_Recovery_Methods, https://doi.org/10.2118/173211-MS.
19
Sun, Wei, et al. “The Effect of Temperature and Ionic Strength on Iron Carbonate (FeCO3) Solubility
Limit.”
20
Agustina, Elsye, et al. “Simple and Precise Quantification of Iron Catalyst Content in Carbon
Nanotubes Using UV/Visible Spectroscopy.” ChemistryOpen, vol. 4, no. 5, 29 June 2015, pp. 613–619,
https://doi.org/10.1002/open.201500096.