Recent orders
Obesity A Public or Private Issue
Obesity: A Public or Private Issue?
Imagine a world where a school aged child can step out of their school and walk into a McDonalds. A world where soda companies make millions of dollars a year by placing soda machines in schools. A world where 30.5 percent of adults are considered obese. A world where obesity is killing more people than smoking. What if I told you this world is not in your imagination but is the world we live in today?
Where would you turn to seek help for this epidemic? Some say the government should take charge of the situation like in the cases of seatbelt and smoking laws. Others say that it is the responsibility of the private sector. People are responsible for their health, so the government should not be involved. I agree with both sides of the issue. The government should have some control over what people are consuming, but the majority of the responsibility for obesity is in the private sector of America.
Since the 1960’s obesity in America has more than tripled regardless of sex or race. Today 30.5 percent, or 69 million, American Adults are considered obese (“AOA Fact Sheets” np). In addition, 13 percent of children aged 6-11 years old are considered overweight, and well on their way to becoming obese. Obesity causes over 300,000 deaths a year and costs the country $117 billion dollars, prompting health care providers and the government to label it an epidemic (“Overweight and Obesity…” np).
The healthcare community defines obesity as being 20 percent or more over a person’s ideal body weight, which is based on their height (“U.S. Health Professionals…” np). Usually this is 100 pounds or more over their ideal body weight. Researchers found that the two main causes of obesity are the overabundance of food and people’s sedentary lifestyles (“U.S. Health Professionals…” np). Other causes include genetics, lifestyle choices and environmental factors. These alarming statistics have prompted many to seek a solution for a problem that is clearly not going to go away by itself.
Obesity moved across the nation without regard to sex, race, and age, or so it seemed. However, it strikes some groups more than others. Furthermore, 69 percent of non-Hispanic black women are overweight or obese and 58 percent of non-Hispanic black men are overweight or obese (“Overweight and Obesity…” np). Studies show that minorities in a lower socioeconomic bracket are more likely than whites in a higher socioeconomic bracket to become obese (“AOA Fact Sheets” np). It is cheaper to feed five children on $1 fast food hamburgers than it is to feed those same five children a nutritious meal for $25 (Resler np). Since the 1960s the only food not to decrease in price is fruits and vegetables (Marano np).
Obesity also is most likely to occur in the suburbs and the inner cities. African-Americans and Hispanics have higher population rates in the inner city than Whites. People who live in neighborhoods without sidewalks and bike paths, usually those in the city, are less likely to walk or bike anywhere. This leads to an increase in the sedentary lifestyle that is a major cause of obesity (“U.S. Health Professionals…”np). Instead they are forced to use cars and buses to get around and usually do not have access to gyms or places to exercise.
One place in the United States that has the highest rate of obesity is the East South Central U.S. This region includes Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi. They have an obesity rate of 22.3 percent among adults (“AOA Fact Sheets” np). While no clear cause for the higher obesity levels in this part of the country has been found two possible causes are there is a higher percentage of African-Americans in the south and the Southern States also tend to eat a higher concentration of fatty foods. West South Central United States, (Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, and Louisiana), has the second highest rate of obesity among adults with 22.2 percent.
Obesity brings with it many problems. Obese people have a 50-100 percent chance of dying prematurely and 75 percent of people with hypertension are obese (“Overweight and Obesity…”np). Over 80 percent of people with Type 2 diabetes are obese (“Overweight and Obesity…” np), which leads the public to see that if you are obese you have a greater chance of developing Type 2 diabetes. For every two pound weight increase your risk of developing arthritis is increased by 9-13 percent. Obesity also leads to a greater chance of developing heart disease and certain types of cancer (“Overweight and Obesity…”np).
Along with the health complications is the financial aspect of obesity. Many obese people claim disability and receive Medicaid (“Obesity Costs…”np). Over nine percent of all healthcare costs last year were to pay for obesity (“Obesity Costs…”np). As taxpayers, even those who are not overweight, we all are all paying for obese people in America. Over $117 billion went towards funding obesity victims (“Overweight and Obesity…”np). That is $117 billion that could be used in other places to prevent and control this epidemic.
Social situations are also a problem for obese people. Many are the butt of jokes and find that stepping into public is hard so the choose to stay home. For those that choose to leave the house many can not find modes of transportation to fit their size, and walking is too difficult. They often get tired easy and find the best way to avoid these situations is to keep their sedentary lifestyles rather than face the world. This also applies in their working world, where many obese people do not show up to work, thereby starting a cycle of living off the government.
Causes of obesity are identified as genetic, lifestyle, and environmental factors. Some cases of obesity stem from Bardt-Biedel syndrome and Prader-Willi syndrome. Genetics can also predispose some people to gain weight faster and retain it longer (“Factors Contributing…”np). Some individuals can diet and exercise but they retain the weight. Studies have also shown that some people are susceptible to a high fat intake, especially when exposed to overfeeding (World Health Organization…134-135). Many Americans today have the genetics that predisposes them to retain weight, and in turn, susceptible to high fat intake. They eat the fats but can not rid themselves of it.
According to “The Causes of Obesity” studies with adoptive children show that obesity runs in families. The adoptive children tend to take on the same weight patterns as their biological parents, not their adoptive family. Many researchers are searching for a fat gene, but as of now none of have been found. Although genetics plays a role in obesity, many families share eating habits and lifestyle choices, making genetics a factor that is not solely responsible for obesity (“The Causes of Obesity” np).
Lifestyle choices include choosing where you want to eat for dinner and what you want to eat. Some people are raised in families where all they eat is high caloric foods. They learn this behavior and continue living it because it is all they know. A little known weight gain factor is when one gives up smoking, which causes a weight gain of three to five kilograms (World Health Organization…139). Heavy smokers, 15 or more cigarettes a day, often gain more than 13 kilograms (World Health Organization…140). The success of the recent anti-smoking campaign has helped to increase obesity rates.
Other lifestyle factors include excessive alcohol intake, reduction in physical activity, marriage, and the birth of a child (World Health Organization…141-142).
Within lifestyle factors is a subcategory of weight gain factors called psychological factors. Although obese people do not have a higher percentage of psychological disorders, people who are obese and have tried to loose weight have a 10 percent higher chance of binge eating (“Obesity:Causes” np). Binge eating causes a high caloric intake. Usually the calories stay with the person because self-esteem issues cause the person not to exercise (“Obesity:Causes” np).
Environmental factors include those factors that occur in your surroundings. One such environmental factor is the abundance of food. Researchers find that as the amount of food increases the percentage of obese people increases (World Health Organization…120-121). Car ownership has increased which says more people are driving rather than walking (World Health Organization…121). Technological advances in the home make cleaning and cooking easier thus decreasing an individuals energy expenditure and increasing the risk of obesity. America has become a country of convenience were people can do their day to day chores and errands with expending the minimal amount of energy and calories (“The Causes of Obesity” np).
Another big environmental factor is the decline of jobs that require labor. Today most jobs require an individual to sit in an air conditioned office or stand behind a cash register (Bartlett np). In past decades food has been readily available but manual labor was needed to produce food. Today, food is produced in excess, but the labor is no longer needed. Individuals sit behind their desks, eating, thus gaining excess weight, and not burning it off (Bartlett np).
As the percentage of obese Americans increases many sectors are starting to feel the pressure to do something about a problem that is an epidemic. Many Americans feel it is the government’s responsibility to control what they call “a government subsidized public health problem” (Marano np). These people believe that it is within the government’s power to regulate what people eat by taxing foods, cutting down on the promotion of high caloric foods within the food stamp and school lunch programs, and by prohibiting candy and soda sales in schools (Faircloth np).
On the other side of the issue are the people who believe obesity is the problem of the private sector and say “calls for government nannying of individual dietary choices are idiotic, and guaranteed to do far more harm, both practical and moral, than good” (Edmonds np). They believe it infringes on their civil rights and the government should not put money toward stopping a problem that stems from individual choice (Edmonds np). This group believes that “America will end its so-called obesity epidemic if and only if obese people make a personal decision to eat smaller portions, eat healthy foods and exercise” (Heather Peoples np).
Although it seems like one can only be on one side or another, there is a third party in this argument, and the choice I believe to be the best. This third party believes that government should take some responsibility in helping to reduce the obesity rate, but the majority of the responsibility lies within the private sector. Their belief is “ultimately, there are some changes we can make in public policy. But in the main, this is not a public policy issue” (Marano np). Pro-Government action groups and Anti-Government action groups can find middle ground in this proposition, which takes the best possible solutions from each group. This caters to almost everyone to accomplish a common goal and is therefore the better choice to stop the rise of obesity of America.
Across the nation several state offices have challenged their employees to loose weight. In Iowa state employees lost 22 tons of fat in five months (Perlman np). In Montana 342 teams walked enough miles to walk across the state in eight weeks (Perlman np). Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue invited state employees to a six-week fitness challenge, which included healthier menu items added to cafeterias (Perlman np). In all the states not only was fitness emphasized, but lifestyle changes as well. The hope was to get people into a groove of sorts that got them moving around, exercising, and eating right (Perlman np). In these cases, the government sponsored prevention of obesity, bringing exercise and lifestyle habits into its offices (Perlman np). If these types of programs could be picked up, or promoted by the government, in other offices, public and private, the sedentary lifestyle choices would start to decrease, and healthy lifestyles promoted.
A second governmental solution is regulation of the food industry, especially the restaurant industry. “Our American view of value right now is stuck in the ‘more for less’ domain” (Hellmich np). America has very large portion sizes in restaurants, a problem that leads to overeating, and increased caloric intake (“Medical Letter…” np). Although people know they should eat less the value of getting more for less appeals to them. They eat the larger portions while spending less money but gain more calories than they burn. The constant cycle of eating more for less leads to rapid weight gain and obesity (Hellmich np). If the government regulated portion sizes in restaurants obesity rates would decrease. Another advantage of this is it would be teaching healthy eating habits and not promoting overeating (Hellmich np).
The government spends 35 billion dollars a year on feeding the poor (O’Beirne np). Through the food stamp program over 20 million people receive food assistance from the government (O’Beirne np). The food stamp program was designed so people could not spend their food money on other things. However, people who receive food stamps have 10 percent higher chance of becoming obese (O’Beirne np). This is because the recipients can not spend the coupons on other things so they buy more food than is needed and their caloric intake increases (O’Beirne np). A solution that would lower caloric consumption and obesity rates is to allot families who receive aid a cash grant in place of the food stamps so the families can decide how much they should spend on food (O’Beirne np). This would keep the amount of foods in houses down and would discourage overeating and stem the obesity tide.
The one other thing the government could do is change the menu for school lunch recipients. Children who eat a breakfast and lunch at school have 42 percent of their total daily calories left for snack and dinner (O’Beirne np). In a recent study in Iowa, school aged children were given fresh fruits for lunch at a cost of $94 per student, per year (Shulruff np). If the government allotted some money that they already give to the school lunch programs for fruits and vegetable children could be exposed to good eating habits at an early age. They could be taught that fruits and vegetables are good snack choices and may start to choose fruits and vegetables over sugary, high caloric snacks. The government should also start to regulate what foods are served in schools, so caloric intake is at a minimum (O’Beirne np).
Although the government should take some responsibility for obesity, the private sector should take some as well. The first thing they need to do is vote for a slight tax increase. Nobody likes to have to pay more in taxes, but the extra tax money could be used to fund schools (“Surgeon General…” np). With the extra money, the schools could stop relying so heavily on soda and candy companies for funds, and possibly get rid of the candy and soda machines in schools (Shulruff np). With the machines gone students will be forced to seek other modes of nutrition. If the machines can not be eliminated from schools, at least parents should demand that they be stocked with more nutritious snacks so some low caloric food choices are available.
Children learn their eating habits from their parents. Proper nutrition and obesity prevention should be taught in the home (“Surgeon General…” np). Parents should limit snacks with a lot of calories and stock the house with fruits and vegetables (“Surgeon General…” np). Along with eating healthy, parents should also monitor portion sizes, and the activities their children do (“Surgeon General…” np). It is a well known fact that children often mimic their parents. While parents are monitoring what their kids eat and how much, they could take this time to practice good eating habits themselves. Yet another way parents can watch their children’s weight is to organize block sports within the neighborhood that kids can participate in to burn off excess calories (“Surgeon General…” np).
Within the private sector there is also a private business sector. These guys can do a lot to help stop obesity. Insurance companies can raise rates for obese people (Hellmich np). If they decide to loose weight their rates can go back down, but if their weight increases again so does their insurance rates. Small restaurants can also help with the problem by volunteering to put nutrition information on their menus (Shulruff np). This way they are paving the way for larger restaurants to do the same, while informing the public exactly what they are eating, and how it affects total daily caloric intake (Shulruff np).
Over one third of American adults are obese prompting healthcare officials and the government to label it an epidemic. Obesity costs this country $117 billion dollars a year and causes more than 300,000 deaths a year (“Overweight and Obesity” np). It leads to hypertension, some cancers, and premature death. Even with all negative problems associated with it, obesity is still on the rise. Some people are looking at the government for help while others would prefer to keep them out of it. The best choice to put a stop to obesity is to have the government hold some responsibility, but have the private sector shoulder most of it. Obesity may be a personal choice but it has many causes, some of which the government can regulate.
Bibliography:
“AOA Fact Sheets.” 2 Dec. 2003. American Obesity Association. 2 Dec. 2003 .“Causes of Obesity.” Weight Loss Information. 13 Dec. 2003. .
Edmonds, Brad. “Government in Your Arteries.” LewRockwell.com. 29 Jan. 2002. 10 Dec. 2003. < http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds94.html>.
“Factors Contributing to Obesity.” 15 Sept. 2003. Center For Disease Control. 8 Dec. 2003. .
Faircloth, Sean, Kelly D. Brownell, and David S. Ludwig. “Government, Freedom, and Obesity.” Maine.Gov. 13 Dec. 2003 .Heather Peoples. Letter. Time Magazine 11 Aug. 2003. 13 Dec. 2003. .
Hellmich, Nancy. “Obesity is the Target.” USA Today 8 May 2003. 13 Dec. 2003. .
Marano, Lou. “Is Obesity a U.S. Public Policy Issue?” United Press International. 14 May 2003. 3 Dec. 2003. .
McKee, Bradford. “As Suburbs Grow So Do Waistlines.” The New York Times. (2003): F1. 8 Dec. 2003 .“Medical Letter on the CDC and FDA.” NewsRx.com (2002): 6. Lexis Nexis. 3 Dec. 2003 .O’Beirne, Kate. “Poor and Fat.” National Review Online. 27 Feb. 2003. 13 Dec. 2003
< http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/kob022703.asp>.
“Obesity Costs Rival Those of Smoking.” The Boston Channel. 14 May 2003. 8 Dec. 2003. .
“Overweight and Obesity at a Glance.” 1 Dec. 2003. Surgeon General. 3 Dec. 2003.
.
Perlman, Ellen. “Downsizing Government.” Governing Magazine (2003): 16. Lexis Nexis. 3 Dec. 2003 .Resler. “Time to Get the Fat Out.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 19 Aug. 2003: 10A. JSOnline.com 20 Aug. 2003. 3 Dec. 2003. < .
Shulruff, Lawrence. “Label the Dangers of Fat.” New Jersey Law Journal (2003). Lexis Nexis. 3 Dec. 2003 .“Surgeon General Asks Communities to Address Obesity.” 30 Jan. 2002. Medical College of Wisconsin. 13 Dec. 2003. .
“The Causes of Obesity.” 10 Oct. 2003. About Obesity. 13 Dec. 2003. .
“U.S. Health Professional Worry About a Growing Problem-Obesity.” Impact Online. 3 Dec 2003. 3 Dec 2003. .
World Health Organization Consultation on Obesity. Obesity: Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic. Geneva: World Health Organization 2000.
Nucleophilic Substitution Reactions
Nucleophilic Substitution Reactions
The purpose of this lab is to compare the nucleophilic abilities of the addition of chloride and bromide ions to the compounds of n-butyl alcohol and tertiary butyl alcohol, in SN1 and SN2 environments. This will determine which of the anions the better nucleophile, in each mechanism is.
To better understand the reactivity of competing nucleophiles, the mechanisms of their reactions must be observed. In the lab, both of the basic nucleophilic mechanisms of unimolecular and bimolecular substitution reactions take place. In both of these reactions, the reactivity is based on the substrates structure, the nucleophile’s basicity, and the reaction conditions, such as the solvent used and the temperature (Smith 389). In the substitution bimolecular reaction (SN2), the reaction is bimolecular and takes place in a one-step process. The rate is dependent on both the concentration of the substrate and the nucleophile. This makes the mechanism a second-order reaction. The rate law is described as Rate = k [substrate][nucleophile] (Carey 331). If a large excess of the nucleophile is present then the law would be a pseudo-first order reaction (false-first order) (Smith 390). But in this experiment, this will not be observed. SN2 reactions occur mostly with the substrates being a methyl structure or a primary and sometimes a secondary structure. These structures allow for a backside attack of the nucleophile to take place. The mechanism rarely proceeds with a tertiary structure. This is due to the steric hindrance that does not allow the back attack of the nucleophile, because of the decreased availability to attack the carbon atom (390). Usually a good leaving group on the substrate, such as a halogen, is present for substitution, but in this experiment the halogens will be acting as the nucleophiles. The nucleophiles of SN2 reactions must act as a Lewis base. The stronger the Lewis base, the faster the nucleophile will attack the substrate. For the SN2 reaction to occur, the use of a polar aprotic solvent should be used. Ideally, the substrate should remain depronated or else a front side attack of the nucleophile may take place. This is why the non-polar solvent is used. The temperature of the mechanism is low (Carey 322). Once the environment is established, the reaction proceeds as follows:
H H H H Nu + H C X Nu—–C——X Nu C H + X
H H HThe rate-determining step is when the nucleophile is partially bonded to the carbon atom, while the leaving group is partially being pushed off. This intermediate is called a pent coordinate (309). The substitution from the opposite side causes inversion of the product to invert from its starting configuration of dextrorotary (+) or levorotary (-) to its opposite enantiomer. Walden inversion is the name of this process. The product produced is one hundred percent of the inversion of the reactant (308).
In the substitution unimolecular reaction (SN1), the rate is also based on the substrate’s structure, the nucleophile’s basicity, and the reaction conditions. The mechanism is unimolecular and it is a two-step process. The first-order rate law is described as Rate = k [substrate] (Smith 394). The concentration of the substrate is the sole component in the rate law. This is from the slow step of the substrate’s ionization to form the carbocation. This must occur first. Because the formation of the carbocation, caused by the removal of the leaving group, requires less energy in tertiary and secondary structures, SN1 reactions never occur with methyl or primary substrates (393). A good leaving group is also needed, such as a halide. But again, the experiment uses the halides as the nucleophile. Opposite of the SN2 reaction, the nucleophile must be a weaker Lewis base. The use of a polar protic solvent is needed for the mechanism to take place. The polar solvent allows for the required pronation of the carbon atom to occur, so the weaker nucleophile can begin to attack. The temperature of the SN1 mechanism also remains fairly low (Carey 331). The reaction will proceed as follows:
CH CH CH
H C C X + Nu H C C + + Nu + X H C C Nu + X
CH CH CHSince the nucleophile can add to either the front side or the backside of the carbocation intermediate, a racemic mixture of the product is produced. However, slightly more of the inverted enantiomer is produced (319).
The main reagents used in this experiment are n-butyl alcohol, tertiary butyl alcohol, ammonium chloride, and ammonium bromide. The substrates are the two alcohols and the nucleophiles are equal amounts of the chloride and bromide ions from the ammonium salts. Consequently, alcohols do not readily react by simple nucleophilic substitution as halides do. For this reason, of the need to remove the strong hydroxide ion base of the alcohol, the use of an acidic medium must be used. Such an acid is concentrated sulfuric acid. The acid causes a rapid pronation of the alcohol, creating water, then the stable water molecule dissociates from the nucleophile. This allows the chloride and bromide ions to attack the carbocation. Depending on the structures of normal or tertiary, the ions will react with an SN1 or SN2 mechanism (Handout). Because equal molar concentrations of the ammonium salts are added, the conclusion of which is the better nucleophile, the one that can readily attack the substrate at a faster rate, can be attained. The analysis of the percent of alkyl halide products can be achieved with the use of a refractometer.
The Abbe refractometer is an important tool in analyzing liquid samples. It helps to acquire their identity and purity. It is used to measure the refractive idecies of the compounds being analyzed (Ault 161). An index of refraction is the ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum to the speed of light in the sample. The critical angle helps to distinguish this ratio. The angle is found by the use of Snell’s Law. It is described as the sin of a lights angle change through an air or vacuum media divided by the sin of the angle change through water, glass, or a prism. The refractive indices depend on the temperature as well as the frequency of the light (Palleros 238). For this reason, the refractive indices are usually standardized with a sodium lamp. This is the D line of sodium that has the wavelength of 5,890 nanometers. With the conditions, organic compound’s refractive indices range from 1.35 to 1.50 with added .00035 to .00055 for every degree above twenty degrees centigrade. The refractometer finds the critical angle of the sample between two glass prisms with a white light. The waves of light are refracted, or the speed and direction the light goes, below angles of critical value. The light is then adjusted by an adjustable reflector, until the critical boundary between the light and dark region shows in the eyepiece. The reading of the refractive index with a plus or minus 0.0002 error is taken (Ault 162).
Starting the lab begins with an assembly of a reflux apparatus. This is needed to carry out a reaction at high temperatures, constantly for long periods of time. The apparatus does not allow any solvent to escape into the atmosphere while boiling (Garner 123). The use of an acid trap is also needed due to the gas created by the heated sulfuric acid. Next, the solvent-nucleophile medium is made. It is composed of concentrated sulfuric acid, ice water, and equal molar amounts of ammonium chloride and ammonium bromide. Since ammonium chloride is only 28.3% soluble at twenty-five degrees Celsius, the solid salts are heated to dissolve, then half of the medium is transferred to a separatory funnel.
The n-butyl alcohol is then added down the condenser of the reflux apparatus, and a slight boiling is achieved. It is then boiled for seventy-five minutes. During the refluxing, the reactions with the tertiary butyl alcohol are then ran.
To begin the reactions, the t-butyl alcohol is added to the separatory funnel containing the solvent-nucleophile medium. The solvent and the alcohol are then mixed for two minutes, and the pressure is equalized in the funnel. After mixing, the alkyl halide layers should be formed by allowing the separatory funnel to sit for about two minutes. The lower layer, which is the acid and water, is drained and the less dense alkyl halide top layer is poured into a beaker containing solid anhydrous sodium bicarbonate. This is used as a drying agent to remove any contamination of water in the alkyl halide layer. Once the drying process is complete, the clear product is transferred into a vial with Saran wrap under the cap and saved for analysis on the refractometer.
Once the t-butyl alcohol procedure has been completed, the reflux period should be finished. The refluxed solution containing sulfuric acid and the alkyl halides is cooled and swirled to complete the reactions. The cooled solution is then transferred to the separatory funnel, and extracted with sodium bicarbonate. The sodium bicarbonate is used as an extracting liquid because it is insoluble with alcohols, and it is a very low polar molecule (Garner 131). After it extracts the organic layer, the lower dense layer is drained into a beaker containing solid anhydrous sodium sulfate. The sodium sulfate is also used as a drying agent to help to take out the contaminating water from the alkyl halide layer. The solution should be clear, and be placed in a vial with Saran wrap and saved for analysis on the refractometer (Handout).
The refractive indices for the SN2 mechanism products of pure 1-chlorobutane and pure 1-bromobutane are 1.4280 and 1.4398 respectively at twenty degrees Celsius. The SN1 mechanism’s pure products of 2-chloro-2-methyl propane and 2-bromo-2-methylpropane have the refractive indices of 1.3877 and 1.4280 at twenty degrees Celsius. Since each of the mechanisms products retain a percentage of each product and no amount of pure product, the refractive index of the SN 2 reactions should read between the pure readings of the 1-chlorobutane and the 1-bromobutane. Also the index of the SN 1 reactions should read between the pure readings of 2-chloro-2-methylpropane and 2-bromo-2-methylpropane (handout). Since this is true, the use of the following graphs could be used to estimate the percentages of each product:
To have a more accurate composition of the percentages, the following math equation can be used:
X= % Br (1.4398)(X) + (1.4015)(1- X)= refractometer reading
Once the percentages are found, the average molecular weight, theoretical yield, and percent yield can all be attained and calculated (Handout).
The following tables are from the experimentation done in the laboratory:
SN2 SN1
Weight of n-alcohol 4.22 g Weight of t-alcohol 5.25g
Weight of product 1.46g Weight of product 1.40g
Refractometer reading 1.4353 Refractometer reading 1.3984
Percent n-bromobutane 88.2% Percent of t-bromobutane 23.6%
Percent n-chlorobutane 11.8% Percent of t-chlorobutane 76.4%
Theoretical Yield 7.50g Theoretical yield 7.29g
Percent yield 19.4% Percent yield 19.2%
The purpose of this lab was to compare the nucleophicility of the competing chloride and bromide ions in SN1 and SN2 mechanism environments, when reacting with t-butyl alcohol and n-butyl alcohol. For the comparison of the nucleophilic abilities of the two halide ions in SN1 and SN2 mechanisms to be observed, equal molar concentrations of the soluble ammonium salts of ammonium chloride and ammonium bromide were added to both the t and n-butyl alcohols. Usually, alkyl halides are used as the substrate, because of the halide leaving group, and water as the nucleophile to produce an alcohol. Since the leaving group and nucleophile are reversed, the use of concentrated sulfuric acid is needed. This allows the hydroxyl group, which is a strong base, to pronate off of the carbon atom that in turn creates the reactive carbocation. The procedures for the SN1 and SN2 reactions proceeded and the chlorobutane and bromobutane products were produced. The percentages of each of the products were discovered by analysis with the refractometer and simple calculations. The average molecular weights for the normal and tertiary halides were calculated, along with the theoretical yield and percent yield.
The data of the lab showed that the bromide ions in SN2 reactions have greater nucleophilicity than that of the chloride ions. Adversely, the chloride ions have greater nucleophilicity than bromide ions in SN1 reactions. In the SN2 reactions, bromide is a better nucleophile because it is a stronger Lewis base than chloride. This is due to the increased distance of the bromine’s electrons from its nucleus (Carey 313). Since the bromide is a larger molecule and there are no side chains on the n-butyl alcohol to cause steric hindrance, the bromide attacks the carbocation at a faster rate than the chloride. These occurrences are evident from the data found from the refractometer reading.
In the SN1 reactions, the chloride reacts with the t-butyl alcohol at a faster rate than that of the bromide. The chloride ion is a weaker Lewis base than bromide, making it more suitable for the SN1 reaction. This is from the electrons being closer to the nucleus in the ion (313). The tertiary structure of the butyl alcohol causes steric hindrance on the attacking nucleophiles. Since the bromide ion is larger than the chloride ion, the hindrance does not allow the larger ion to attack as easily as the chloride. This allows the chloride to add at a faster rate. Again, the evidence is found in the refractometer readings.
The data also shows a small percent yield of product. This implies that there were many places for error to occur. Possible errors include the following: Not dissolving the ammonium salts by not heating the solution enough, pouring the n-butyl alcohol into the condenser and allowing some to run down the outside (actual occurrence), having the heat too high when refluxing; this may cause the solution to be lossed from rapid boiling, not allowing the layers to separate completely in the separatory funnel, not venting the separatory funnel while mixing; too much pressure could build up causing the stopper to pop off (actual occurrence), confusing the organic layer with the water layers, not using enough of the drying agents, or not sealing the storage vial tight enough to allow the alkyl halides to evaporate (actual occurrence).
Errors on the refractometer reading may also occur. This could be from the ignorance of cleaning the prisms on the refractometer, or by incomplete covering of the prism with the alkyl halide solutions.
Refractometry has many uses. Not only can it be used to evaluate reactivity of certain compounds, it can also be used to find the identity of a compound, the density of a compound, or the concentration of a compound. In practical situations, such as winemaking, the refractometer can be used to find the amount of the ingredients in the wine. One could possibly find the alcohol content or even the sugar content. Other uses could be in identifying the oils, fats, or proteins in food and other places. It can also be used to find the chemical makeup of an unknown substance, such as drug analysis. Refractometry is one of the experimental methods that has many uses. It is used for many different situations and it is a valuable technique for any organization that requires the analysis of any chemical compounds.
Bibliography:
Ault, Addison. Techniques and Experiments for Organic Chemistry. Sausalito,
California: University Science Books, 1998.
Carey, Francis. Organic Chemistry: Fourth Edition. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2000.
Garner, Charles. Techniques and Experiments for Advanced Organic Laboratory.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1997.
Handout. Experiment 24: Nucleophilic Substitution Reactions: Competing Nucleophiles
Palleros, Daniel. Experimental Organic Chemistry. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.,
2000.
Smith, Michael and Jerry March. March’s Advanced Organic Chemistry: Reactions,
Mechanisms, and Structure. Fifth Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.,
2001.
Nuclear Proliferation
Nuclear Proliferation
The United States of America has always been a nation that others could look to when a precedent was needed. We have always maintained a high international standing, if not being the World leader. Yet, in recent times, our concerns have begun to shift. Legislation that is needed to ensure that America stays involved in the world happenings has been ignored. One of these major international mishaps came very recently with the defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Although it is true that the Treaty was not properly introduced and may have needed some revision, it was still an important and monumental piece of work, which should have been given greater consideration on the Senate Floor.
As you know, the Treaty called for an international ban on nuclear weapons testing, both above and below ground. We, the United States, have not tested a nuclear weapon in seven years, but many other nations such as North Korea and Iran have just recently become nuclear powers, and are testing their weapons often. If passed, this Treaty would have allowed the U.S. to maintain international leadership, while strengthening the international coalition against further nuclear proliferation.
Many of the Treaty’s basic principles are based on years of legislation. It is not as if the world has suddenly decided that weapons are destructive and should be limited. The first anti-weapons legislation came in the Kennedy administration, and the trend was followed in administrations thereafter. Many Americans fear that by the sudden disregard for past policies and the lack of concern for international politics will create a rift between the United States and some foreign nations. International relations between the U.S. and countries like Russia had just began to make vast improvements, and now the defeat of a favorable Treaty will “destabilize the foundations of international relations” (Johnson).
There are also some other internationally based concerns, ones that focus on the impact on American international standings, and the standing of the Treaty. “The Clinton administration and Senate Democrats, backed by European allies, argue that the pact would not threaten American nuclear might” (Tyson 1). Yet, despite all of the assurances, the predominantly Republican Senate voted against the Treaty. Only a few short hours after the defeat Hillary Clinton stated that “this vote sent a dangerous message to people around the world, to our allies, and to Americans at home” (Nagourney B5). This message that Mrs. Clinton refers to is one that discourages nations to sign the treaty, and as she predicted, an official from Pakistan said “it is virtually certain now that neither Pakistan nor India will sign [the Treaty]” (Johnson). Without signing the Treaty ourselves, we hold no authority on which to persuade other nations to sign (Kimball).
When other nations see the U.S. has not signed the Treaty and they begin to doubt its validity, the Treaty will be left very unstable and practically useless. A major fear that will end up to be the demise of the Treaty is that “every country will use [the defeat] as an excuse not to sign (Johnson). Because of Article 14 in the Treaty, an “Entry into Force” clause, without the signatures of everyone of the 44 international nuclear powers the Treaty cannot go into affect, and the world will remain a nuclear testing ground for those smaller less secure countries (“Hindu”).
Although there was some legitimate arguments that under the Treaty’s present form the U.S. will lose some of its international power, this should not have been enough to invalidate such an important Treaty. Even more so, with such detrimental backlash expected, the Treaty should have been treated with more care. The United States is defensively strong and secure. We can afford to let loose some slack to avoid more damaging aftermath.
If in the event that after we had signed the Treaty we found it to be threatening in any way to our stability as a nation, we had a back-out option. The Treaty allows for withdraw from the contract if a nations “supreme interest” is in anyway seen to be jeopardized (Marquis, Ridder A05). The only requirement of this action is six months notice before withdraw. In other words, no nation could use this clause to instantly refute the Treaty and resume testing when relations got heated, but with advanced notice we could get out of the Treaty if it were our best interests.
At the current time there is no need for powerful nuclear weapons because international relations are positive. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would have created a stronger international summit, allowing for the downsizing of weaponry. Even in the event of a need for nuclear weapons our computer monitoring systems will have us up-to-date with testing. Also, on the future U.S. agenda for defense systems is the National Missile Defense system, which attempts to develop anti-missile missiles (“Consensus”). This system will be constructed despite the regulations in the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty specifically to ensure that Americans are safe without the actual testing of nuclear weapons.
Even though we are taking all of these safety precautions so that we feel secure, “the Government employs a $4.5 billion annual program of computer models and non-nuclear explosive tests,” and with this technology available we have not had to test a weapon since 1992 (Schmitt A1, Tyson 1). In fact, the number of international nuclear tests has drastically decreased from 178 in 1963, to only 57 in the 1990’s combined (“Dangers”). If we haven’t tested a nuclear bomb in 7 years without added protections, why should we even need a security blanket? Nuclear weapons are not as readily tested and therefore the loss of underground testing would be no great impairment. There is an annual inspection each year of a prototype of each bomb to ensure that decay has not begun. This test is very thorough; it includes both electronics and nuclear components to make sure that our bombs will not backfire on us.
Critics, and even some proponents of the Treaty have trouble deciphering where it allows for monitoring and regulation of testing. It is true that in every document I have seen concerning the Treaty there has not been much mentioned of consequences for violators, yet there has always been a great deal of provisions for global nuclear monitoring. The treaty establishes an International Monitoring System called the Stockpile Stewardship Program, and an International Data Center with 337 worldwide facilities (Snowe G4). Many Republicans doubt that the U.S. Intelligence is powerful enough to detect all explosions, yet the United States uses many different devices to detect explosions. The most successful of our monitoring systems involve radionuclides, hydroacoustics, seismology or infrared (Marquis, Ridder A05).
If in the monitoring system an explosion is detected that violates the Treaty there is a process by which the explosion will be verified. This process involves an inspection of the premises on which the explosion took place after 29 of the 51 nuclear capable countries in the world have approved the inspection (Boschwitz 19A). If or when a country is found to have broken the Treaty’s guidelines, it will be in the hands of the United Nations to exercise its authority and to give a just repercussion.
Even with all of the precautions that are built into the Treaty, the Senate still elected to defeat the Treaty. When lines are drawn evenly between the two parties there is reason to believe that other motives were behind the defeat. You are aware that a 2/3rd majority is needed to ratify treaties in the Senate, and this Treaty was defeated by a vote of 51 to 48, not even close to the lines of ratification.
Most of the Treaty’s opponents in the Senate were Republican. Not straying far from previous votes, the parties were strictly separated, only 4 Republicans crossing over to vote with the Democrats to ratify the Treaty (Schmitt). This Treaty was, however, more important than a simple veto on a proposed budget, and it should have been treated so. It was the first treaty that held international importance since 1920 and the Treaty of Versailles, to not be ratified by the U.S. Senate (Schmitt). With this being said, consider the devastating aftermath of that decision by our Senate. World War II started shortly after the United States made the decision that consequentially turned its back on the international community. Our country is important to the success of international relations. To turn back to the same isolationist values that were implemented in 1920 will almost certainly cause problems in the future.
“The world will not be a safer place because the Republicans in the Senate voted against the Treaty” (Nagourney B5). Instead of working together with the Democrats to resolve their conflicts within the Treaty, it seemed as if they worked harder within their unit to defeat it. The Republicans could not put aside their differences with President Clinton that arose from recent turmoil, so “the Test-Ban Treaty was, in effect, a stand-in victim of impeachment” (Garthoff M2). Hillary Clinton has a strong feeling that the Republicans “played partisan politics at the expense of our national security” by defeating a treaty in order to maintain favorable party status (Nagourney). It is tragic that our Senate cannot pull together when things need to get done.
The politics that were involved in the defeat of this Treaty were “the worst kind of partisan politics…because it was so blatant, and because of the risks it poses to the safety of the American people and the world” (Macintyre). When eighty percent of the American public agrees that we should ratify the Treaty, it is evident that the Senators that were against this were not justly representing their public (Snowe G4). The twenty percent of our country that opposed this Treaty could not have been enough to defeat it, consider the mathematics. There are one hundred Senators, so in the way that the Treaty was defeated, fifty-one percent of the country should have been against it, that is if we are being accurately represented.
The U.S. Senate decided to use their power to crush the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty against President Clinton to strike at him in the only way they could. We, the American public were also cheated out of justice. The Republicans were just “determined to deny Mr. Clinton a victory in the final chapter of his presidency” (Macintyre). I will admit that our president has not made the smartest choices while in office, but these choices were for his personal life. The Senate’s Republicans took it upon themselves to make it a national ordeal. Even after President Clinton was found innocent of any political wrong, they felt it was their duty to make him feel guilty and to punish him the only way they could. This Treaty is not a game; fair and rational politics were put aside when the Senate voted against it.
The Senate may also have felt that they were not given the right amount of say in things. President Clinton signed the treaty in 1996, without first going to the Senate and introducing the Treaty to test if it would be ratified when the time came. The president does not have to consult with the Senate before signing treaties but in most cases it is safer to test out the reaction before it comes down to a deadline. As a direct result of a lack of communication, the Senate refused to postpone the Treaty or to give it its needed time on the floor. This postponement was feverishly asked of the Senate not only by the president, but also by Tony Blair of Great Britain, who actually sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott contesting the speedy action (Pine A1). Lott and the Minority Leader Tom Daschle worked towards and finally came to a compromise, but when handed to the rest of the Senate a small group of Republicans refused to compromise (Pine).
No matter how the Treaty was defeated, it was still defeated and things to occur now that will ensure that America is serious about nuclear disarmament. Now that the vote is over, Americans need to be concerned about what this will do to our country. We can examine the treaty, decide where it went wrong and try to amend it, or we could start over.
First, to make a better treaty, one has to decide how effective global limits can be made to nuclear weapons, being that those in the Treaty were rejected. This is already being formulated, although many politicians in favor of the Test Ban Treaty believe that because this Treaty was rejected by the United States the smaller countries of the world will not feel comfortable signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which will be reviewed next year (Pine). Although this treaty is a separate entity of the Test Ban Treaty, it is proposed along the same lines.
Another way to possibly pass this treaty through the Senate is for President Clinton to re-submit it after amendments are made (Associated Press). At least two Republican Senators, Jon Kyl and James Inhofe, have already counted this solution out of the possibilities, saying, “it will not come up again, because the United States cannot unilaterally amend the treaty” (Associated Press). However, it is possible that with time the Treaty will become trustworthy after it has been in affect in other countries. When these countries are able to adequately protect their citizens with a non-nuclear Treaty in affect, hopefully America’s doubtful will reconsider. President Clinton will not be in office long enough to re-submit the Treaty, but the next president would be able to, without doubting our technology nor our security, return the Treaty to the Senate for another vote.
Knowing the poor relationship that President Clinton had with the Senate, one can only hope that in the future this will not occur once again. Presidents of the past, such as George Bush who was able to pass many successful weapons treaties in his presidency, have all worked with the Senate to come to an agreement that pleased both parties. If you look back to the terms of Reagan and Bush, you can see that Republicans do not hold anything against nuclear testing. During the twelve years that these men were in office treaties such as START II (which limited our nuclear weapons to only 3,500), and the Chemical Weapons Convention (which outlawed poisonous gases) were passed (Boschwitz 19A). These treaties are just as binding as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would have been; yet they were passed.
Your Senator and presidential candidate George Bush stated, “It depends on whether or not the next President can earn the trust of the Congress. It’s just a matter of relationships that need to be strong” (Berke and Seelye). On these lines the Senate seems to be very optimistic, in that two Senators, Republican Chuck Hagel and Democrat Joseph Lieberman, came together in a bipartisan effort in order to make it possible for a test ban treaty to eventually be passed through the Senate (Raum). Liebermann commented on their almost heroic effort saying, “We believe it is important to leave the door open to return a treaty to the Senate that can be passed” (Raum).
In response to the many consequences for the defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the United States must work through their oppositions to compose a viable ban on nuclear weapons. “It is a sad and dangerous matter when U.S. security interests and a constructive role in the world become a political football” (Garthoff M2). It is important to national security, global security, and international relationships that The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty be ratified in the United States as well as across the globe. Americans, although maybe not directly affected by nuclear testing, are certainly indirectly affected by nuclear testing radiation, and the global processes that have begun to speed up as a consequence of increased radiation in the atmosphere. It is our duty to protect not only our country, but also the world in which it lies. America cannot exist without healthy international surroundings, and we certainly cannot exist if the world as a whole is overly contaminated by nuclear radiation.
Bibliography:
Works Cited
The Associated Press (1999, October 18). Albright: US Will Honor Nuke Treaty. Associated Press U.S. News 18 Oct. 1999. 19 Oct. 1999. .
The Associated Press (1999, October 14). Where Candidates Stand on Treaty. Associate Press U.S. News 14 Oct. 1999. 17 Oct. 1999.
Berke, Richard L. and Katherine Q. Seelye. “DEFEAT OF A TREATY: THE HOPEFULS; Treaty Ricochets Into Presidential Fray.” The New York Times 14 Oct. 1999, late ed., sec. A: 13+.
Boschwitz, Rudy. “CTBT Provisions Were Reasons Enough to Vote No.” Star Tribune 20 Oct. 1999, metro ed., sec. A: 19+.
Burt, Richard. “Fumble on the Test Ban Treaty.” The Washington Post 18 Oct. 1999, final ed., sec. A: 19+.
Garthoff, Raymond. “The World; Diplomacy; A Loss For the U.S. in World.” Los Angeles Times 31 Oct. 1999, home ed., sec. M: 2+.
“Is the CTBT Finished?” Editorial. The Hindu 13 Oct. 1999.
Johnson, Maureen (1999, October 15). Nations Upset by U.S. Treaty Vote. Associated Press U.S. News 15 Oct. 1999. 19 Oct. 1999.