Chemists and Atomic Theory Development
Chemists and Atomic Theory Development
Introduction
Chemistry has a human face. The aim of this book is to present chemists as real people
and not stereotypical ‘mad scientists’ whose lives are completely dominated by
science. It may only take a couple of minutes of a lesson to present the class with a bit
of personal background information which could, for some students, add interest to
the lesson. The history of chemistry is full of serendipitous tales. The influence of
World War II played a major role in the development of plastics, which otherwise may
not have been produced on a commercial scale. In other parts of the world science
was held back, simply because the scientists were coloured and this was socially
unacceptable. In the early days of chemistry, there were few woman chemists as this
too was deemed to be unacceptable. The womans’ place was in the home and
certainly not in the laboratory carrying out experiments. The social context of the time
must be understood to explain why the majority of the early chemists appear to be
white middle-class or upper-class gentlemen. Many of the scientific projects had to be
funded by the chemists themselves, so they already had to be wealthy or have a very
good income. At times science was just the hobby, before it took over. This is not to
say that there were no scholarships available. In fact, there are a number of very
distinguished scientists such as Ernest Rutherford and John Jacob Berzelius who came
from very humble backgrounds.
Today we live in a very different world, where people should be accepted regardless
of race or gender. Science is taught in all schools and young people of today are
encouraged to develop an interest in the subject. There is more money available to
carry out research, although some would say not enough, as we go on living in the
scientific and technological age.
Running throughout this series of books written by Dorothy Warren, there are many
references to different scientists. The scientists are always introduced within the
context of their work at the most appropriate place; for example John Lind is found in
The nature of science book, Alice Hamilton in the Health, safety and risk book, Mario
Molina in the Climate change book and the aluminium pioneers in the Green
Chemistry book. In this resource, the focus is twofold, namely providing strategies for
teaching about people in chemistry and an introduction to some of the chemists who
played a role in the development of major ideas in chemistry, eg theories about the
atom and burning. Roy Plunkett and the discovery of Teflon has been included as an
example of serendipity, Harry Kroto and buckminsterfullerene as an example of a
living chemist and Norbert Rillieux as an example of a successful chemical engineer,
despite being an African-American living in the 19th century.
One of the problems for busy teachers is having a readily available source of
background information about different scientists. There are many Internet sites that
will provide a wealth of biographical information, photographs and scientific
information. The three web sites listed here are worth a visit.
1. The British Society for the History of Science (BSHS) website
[Link] (accessed September 2005). This site links into
several other useful sites. It also provides a discussion forum for teachers as well as
useful contacts such as actors willing to do scientific performances in schools.
2 Chemists in a social and historical context
Outline
This section looks at how the model of the atom has developed over the last 200 years.
It explores how scientists work together to develop new ideas and how new theories
may, at first, give rise to controversy. It shows how technological advances can lead to
the development of new theories and ideas.
Teaching topics
This material is intended to be used with more able students between the ages of 14
and 16 or post-16 students, when teaching about atomic structure and the Periodic
Table. Understanding the arrangements of subatomic particles in the atom is a high
level concept. In this activity, you can see how the ideas developed as scientific
method and instrumentation developed and other areas of science unfolded. Look at
the student worksheets before reading the detailed notes below.
Background information
Since 5 BC, people have been curious to find out more about different materials and
substances. The theory of Democritus said ‘Substances are different because
homogenous particles have different sizes and shapes and cannot be cut’. This was just
the start of many more theories that would be put forward and then rejected over the
next 2000 years. Many of the early theories of matter were not based upon
experiments. As scientists began to study the relationship between physical
phenomena such as electricity and magnetism they began to develop different models
about atomic structure.
Sources of information
The atomic structure timeline at
[Link]
(accessed September 2005).
The timeline has twenty-two entries, starting in the Greek era and finishing in 1932
with James Chadwick. By clicking on the scientist’s name, personal background
information and portraits can be accessed. A short summary of their contribution to
atomic structure is included with some hot links leading to further information.
Teaching tips
This section is ideal for group work leading to a wall display featuring the history of the
atom. There are five student worksheets each featuring a scientist who made a
significant contribution to the development atomic theory.
■ Dalton
■ Berzelius
■ Thomson
4 Chemists in a social and historical context
■ Rutherford
■ Bohr.
The sixth student worksheet is an information sheet, bringing the theory up-to-date.
Following an introduction to the lesson, the class could be divided into groups of 4
or 5 students. Each group could work through one of the worksheets. To make the
sheets more durable, they could be photocopied onto card and laminated. The
activities at the bottom of the sheet could be carried out and presented as a poster, on
a large piece of paper. The group should also include some background information
about the scientists and what they did.
You will need to tell the class whether you expect models or diagrams of the atoms, or
if they have a free choice. In order to answer all the questions some groups will have to
communicate with others.
At the start of the next lesson, each group could present their posters, in chronological
order, to the rest of the class, highlighting the major aspects of the theory, which could
be summarised.
Eg 1 Berzelius’ relative atomic masses are used today. Berzelius introduced chemical
symbols.
Eg 2 Thomson discovered that the negatively charged electron was part of the atom. It
was 1/1840 the mass of the positively charged particles.
The rest of the lesson could be spent with everyone working on the sheet Modelling
the atom today. You should go through the lithium example with the class and maybe
do one of the other examples with the class. The information for completing question 1
will have been covered in the poster presentations and may already be available. The
rest of the sheet could be completed as homework.
Note: Throughout this material, the term mass has been used unless the accepted
terminology of weigh or weight is more appropriate. Teachers may wish to draw
attention to the difference between mass and weight.
Resources
■ Student worksheets
– John Dalton
– John Jacob Berzelius
– Joseph John Thomson
– Ernest Rutherford
– Niels Bohr
– Present day models of the atom
– Modelling the atom today
Timing
2 hours plus homework
Answers
John Dalton
1.
2. A molecule of ice had less heat surrounding the particle than a molecule of water.
3. He guessed!
4.
Water or CO2
Dalton thought that the water molecule only consisted of one O and one H atom,
so either molecule may be accepted.
2. Berzelius because his 1826 values are very close to the ones that are used today.
3. He was able to work out the number of atoms in each molecule.
4. Berzelius believed that atoms were held together by electrostatic attraction. He
thought that some atoms were positively charged and others were negatively
charged.
Ernest Rutherford
1.
Orbiting electrons
“space”
2. The main difference between the two models is that the Thomson model has a
solid sphere with negative charges whereas the Rutherford model has a small solid
nucleus, some ‘space’ and then orbiting electrons, which are separate particles.
3. Rutherford carried out his experiments in the dark so that he could observe the
glow left behind by the radiation and see where the particles went.
4. Rutherford noticed that some of the positively charged radiation bounced back
from the atom in the same direction. Rutherford concluded that this must be due to
another positive force repelling the positive radiation. This large positive force must
come from the centre of the atom.
Niels Bohr
1.
Electron shells
Electrons
2. In the Bohr atom the electrons are arranged in definite shells whereas in the
Rutherford model, the electrons just orbit the nucleus. They are free to go wherever
they like.
3. Bohr’s model of the atom was based on theoretical calculations and a good
imagination. Although his model could explain atomic spectra, it was based on
incomplete data. It was thought that the model could not be used to explain the
reactivity of the elements. Many chemists preferred Lewis’ model because it was
based on real experimental chemical data. The Lewis model could be used to
explain the reactivity of the elements. However, it could not be used to explain the
hydrogen spectrum.
Chemists in a social and historical context 7
2.
Element Mass No. Atomic No. No. of protons No. of neutrons No. of electrons
Hydrogen 1 1 1 0 1
Carbon 12 6 6 6 6
Neon 20 10 10 10 10
Aluminium 27 13 13 14 13
Potassium 39 19 19 20 19
3. Nucleus containing correct number of protons and neutrons (see table), electrons
arranged in shells 2,8,8,18 etc.
John Dalton
John Dalton (1766–1844)
He was the son of an English weaver from Eaglesfield in
Cumbria. When he wasn’t carrying out investigations, he was
probably teaching at the Presbyterian college in Manchester.
In 1807, John Dalton was the first person to use the word
atom to describe the smallest particle of any element.
What did Dalton do?
Dalton studied gases and discovered that elements combine
with other elements to make compounds. He had to guess how
many atoms joined together to make the compound. He was
able to calculate the relative weights of particles using data
from his own observations and measurements. Individual
particles were too small to weigh. He had to make some
John Dalton assumptions to explain his observations eg the atmosphere of
(Reproduced courtesy of the Library & heat surrounding the solid particle was used to explain why
Information Centre, Royal Society of some elements were solids and some gases. Solid compounds
Chemistry.) had less heat than gaseous ones.
Things to do
1. Make a model or draw a diagram of Dalton‘s atom.
2. How did Dalton explain the different between a molecule of ice and a molecule of
water?
3. How did Dalton known how many atoms were in a molecule?
4. Using Dalton’s symbols, write down the formulae of water and carbon dioxide.
TO C
P
OP
PHO
Chemical symbols
Berzelius thought that chemical symbols should be letters. He took the first letter of the
Latin name of each element. When the letters were the same, he used both the first
letter and the next different letter. Berzelius’ symbols are used in today’s Periodic
Table.
Things to do
1. Look up, in a modern data book, the relative atomic masses and the symbols of the
elements listed in the above table. Put your answers in a table.
2. Who do you think had the best method for calculating the relative weights of
atoms, Dalton or Berzelius?
3. What do you think was the key to the successful calculations?
4. How did Berzelius think that atoms joined together to make compounds?
TO C
P
OP
PHO
Things to do
1. Make a model or draw a diagram of JJ Thomson’s model of the atom.
2. What is the main difference between this new model and Dalton’s model?
3. What advances in technology made it possible for Thomson to successfully
complete his investigations?
TO C
P
OP
PHO
Things to do
1. Make a model or draw a diagram of Rutherford‘s atom.
2. What was the main difference between Rutherford’s model of the atom and
Thomson’s model?
3. Why did Rutherford carry out his experiments in the dark?
4. What evidence do you think lead Rutherford to conclude that the atom had a
positively charged nucleus?
TO C
P
OP
PHO
Things to do
1. Make a model or draw a diagram of Bohr’s atom.
2. What is the main difference between Bohr’s model of the atom and Rutherford’s
model?
3. Suggest why some chemists preferred Lewis’ model of the atom to Bohr’s.
TO C
P
OP
PHO
TO C
P
OP
PHO
Mass number
Number of protons + neutrons
7 Lithium has:
3
Li Nucleus
Atomic number 3 protons (protons + neutrons)
Number of protons 3 electrons
4 neutrons Electrons
No. of electrons = No. of protons
No. of neutrons = Mass No. – Atomic No.
The lithium atom
Things to do
1. Complete the following table
Element Mass No. Atomic No. No. of protons No. of neutrons No. of electrons
Hydrogen 1 1
Carbon 6 6
Neon 20 10 10
Aluminium 13 14
Potassium 39 19
3. For each of the elements in the table above, draw a diagram to show how the
protons, neutrons and electrons are arranged in each atom.
TO C
P
OP
PHO
Scientific method
War Individual
scientists
Technology Serendipity
Scientific enquiry
Using existing
knowledge and
Communication theory
Health and
safety Accidents
Figure 1 The factors influencing the nature of scientific ideas– scientific enquiry and
the advancement of science
It is not envisaged that teachers will use every activity from each piece of work with an
individual class, but rather pick and choose what is appropriate. For example some
activities use high level concepts and are designed to stretch the most able student and
should not be used unchanged with less able students eg The atom detectives and
What happens when things burn?
Activities that involve researching for secondary information on the Internet contain
hyperlinks to appropriate websites. To minimise the mechanical typing of the URLs
and possible subsequent errors, the students can be given the worksheet in electronic
form and asked to type in their answers. The websites are then only a click away.
Appropriate secondary information has been included in the teachers’ notes for use in
class when the Internet or ICT room is unavailable.
Unfortunately, from time to time website addresses do change. At the time of
publication all the addresses were correct and the date that the site was last accessed is
given in brackets. To minimise the frustration experienced when this happens, it is
advisable to check the links before the lesson. If you find that a site has moved, please
email education@[Link] giving full details so that the link can be updated on the
worksheets on the web in the future.
References
1. A. Lewis, British Journal of Special Education, 1992, 19, 24–7.
2. S. Naylor, B. Keogh, School Science Review, 1995, 77(279), 106–110.
Book reviews
Other scientists in the same field often review new books. The reviews are then
published in scientific magazines and journals. The review offers a critical summary of
the book. The idea of the review is to give possible readers an idea of the contents and
whether it is suitable for the intended purpose.
Chemists in a social and historical context ix
Sales brochures
The information must be presented in an attractive and concise manner. After all you
are trying to sell something. There should be a balance between technical information
and operating instructions!
Advertising flyers
This must be written with the target audience in mind.
The information must be concise as there is limited space. The format must be
attractive and should include pictures as well as writing. The flyer should also be quite
cheap to produce.
When writing a report of the findings of a scientific investigation for others to check
and test, the emphasis should be on clarity. Another person is going to carry out the
same investigation. The only information available is what is written in the report.
The report could be written under the following headings:
■ Introduction
■ Scientific knowledge
■ Planning
■ Table of results
■ Graphs
■ Conclusions
■ Evaluation
■ Recommendations
Curriculum coverage
Curriculum links to activities in this resource are detailed at
[Link] (accessed September
2005).
Curriculum links to activities in other resources in this series are detailed at
[Link] (accessed September
2005).
If your employer has adopted more than one of these publications, you should follow
the guidance given there, subject only to a need to check and consider whether minor
modification is needed to deal with the special situation in your class/school. We
believe that all the activities in this book are compatible with the model risk
assessments listed above. However, teacher must still verify that what is proposed does
conform with any code of practice produced by their employer. You also need to
consider your local circumstances. Is your fume cupboard reliable? Are your students
reliable?
Risk assessment involves answering two questions:
■ How likely is it that something will go wrong?
■ How serious would it be if it did go wrong?
How likely it is that something will go wrong depends on who is doing it and what sort
of training and experience they have had. In most of the publications listed above
there are suggestions as to whether an activity should be a teacher demonstration only,
or could be done by students of various ages. Your employer will probably expect you
to follow this guidance.
Teachers tend to think of eye protection as the main control measure to prevent injury.
In fact, personal protective equipment, such as goggles or safety spectacles, is meant to
protect from the unexpected. If you expect a problem, more stringent controls are
needed. A range of control measures may be adopted, the following being the most
common. Use:
■ a less hazardous (substitute) chemical;
■ as small a quantity as possible;
■ as low a concentration as possible;
■ a fume cupboard; and
■ safety screens (more than one is usually needed, to protect both teacher and
students).
The importance of lower concentrations is not always appreciated, but the following
table, showing the hazard classification of a range of common solutions, should make
the point.
Ammonia (aqueous) irritant if ≥ 3 mol dm–3 corrosive if ≥ 6 mol dm–3
Sodium hydroxide irritant if ≥ 0.05 mol dm–3 corrosive if ≥ 0.5 mol dm–3
Ethanoic (acetic) acid irritant if ≥ 1.5 mol dm–3 corrosive if ≥ 4 mol dm–3
Throughout this resource, we make frequent reference to the need to wear eye
protection. Undoubtedly, chemical splash goggles, to the European Standard EN 166 3
give the best protection but students are often reluctant to wear goggles. Safety
spectacles give less protection, but may be adequate if nothing which is classed as
corrosive or toxic is in use. Reference to the above table will show, therefore, that if
sodium hydroxide is in use, it should be more dilute than 0.5 M (M = mol dm–3).
■ Teachers should note the following points about the CLEAPSS Student Safety
Sheets:
■ Only extracts from fuller student safety sheets have been reproduced.
■ Only a few examples from a much longer series of sheets have been reproduced.
■ The full series is only available to member or associate members of the CLEAPSS
School Science Service.
■ At the time of writing, every LEA in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (except
Middlesbrough) is a member, hence all their schools are members, as are the vast
majority of independent schools, incorporated colleges and teacher training
establishments and overseas establishments.
■ Members should already have copies of the sheets in their schools.
■ Members who cannot find their sheets and non-members interested in joining
should contact the CLEAPSS School Science Service at Brunel University,
Uxbridge, UB8 3PH; tel. 01895 251496; fax. 01895 814372; email
science@[Link] or visit the website [Link] (accessed
September 2005).
■ In Scotland all education authorities, many independent schools, colleges and
universities are members of the Scottish Schools Equipment Resource Centre
(SSERC). Contact SSERC at St Mary’s Building, 23 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8
8AE; tel. 0131 558 8180, fax 0131 558 8191, email sts@[Link] or visit the
website [Link] (accessed September 2005).
Chemists in a social and historical context xiii