November 2020: AS Paper 2, Depth in chemistry

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

For example, Question 1(a) justified using oxidation numbers rather than numbers of electrons and Question 3(b)(ii) giving the general trend in group 2 rather than comparing Ba and Ca.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• oxidised AND nickel has lost two electrons
• IGNORE reference to oxidation numbers

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

1(a) A considerable number of candidates did not score the mark here despite knowing that it was an oxidation reaction. They either omitted to give the number of electrons lost or gave their justification using oxidation numbers. This question highlights the importance of reading the question carefully and answering the question asked, not one that may have been seen previously. 1(b)(i) Most candidates were able to make some progress with this calculation. Common errors included omitting to multiply by two to find the number of moles of HCl or not multiplying their volume in dm3 by 1000 to give an answer in cm3. 1(b)(ii) More candidates struggled with this part of calculation. A significant number of candidates used the number of moles rounded to 3 SF but then gave a final answer to 4 SF, giving an answer of 78.48 cm3. This was given credit as correct calculation had been carried out for one mark. A couple of candidates correctly used the ideal gas equation and were given credit for this, but made it more complicated than necessary for one mark. 1(b)(iii) Very few candidates managed to gain marks here. Most did not recognise that HCl was the limiting reagent in the reaction and suggested that a greater volume of H2 would be produced, as same mass of Mg would give a greater number of moles. 1(c)* Very few candidates managed to score full marks for this question. Even the highest-attaining candidates struggled with writing balanced chemical equations. The most successful candidates used ionic equations with state symbols in their responses. A large proportion of candidates gave unnecessary details such as testing for CO2 using limewater or the colours of other silver halide precipitates. The best responses broken down their response to cover each test in turn, giving clear and concise details for each.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 1:2 ratio Ni:HCl
• 3 SF required (43.6)

Skills: M0.0 Recognise and make use of appropriate units in calculations; M0.2 Use ratios, fractions and percentages; M1.1 Use an appropriate number of significant figures; M2.3 Substitute numerical values into algebraic equations using appropriate units for physical quantities

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

1(a) A considerable number of candidates did not score the mark here despite knowing that it was an oxidation reaction. They either omitted to give the number of electrons lost or gave their justification using oxidation numbers. This question highlights the importance of reading the question carefully and answering the question asked, not one that may have been seen previously. 1(b)(i) Most candidates were able to make some progress with this calculation. Common errors included omitting to multiply by two to find the number of moles of HCl or not multiplying their volume in dm3 by 1000 to give an answer in cm3. 1(b)(ii) More candidates struggled with this part of calculation. A significant number of candidates used the number of moles rounded to 3 SF but then gave a final answer to 4 SF, giving an answer of 78.48 cm3. This was given credit as correct calculation had been carried out for one mark. A couple of candidates correctly used the ideal gas equation and were given credit for this, but made it more complicated than necessary for one mark. 1(b)(iii) Very few candidates managed to gain marks here. Most did not recognise that HCl was the limiting reagent in the reaction and suggested that a greater volume of H2 would be produced, as same mass of Mg would give a greater number of moles. 1(c)* Very few candidates managed to score full marks for this question. Even the highest-attaining candidates struggled with writing balanced chemical equations. The most successful candidates used ionic equations with state symbols in their responses. A large proportion of candidates gave unnecessary details such as testing for CO2 using limewater or the colours of other silver halide precipitates. The best responses broken down their response to cover each test in turn, giving clear and concise details for each.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• n(Ni) × 24000
• ALLOW ECF from incorrect n(Ni) in (b)(i)

Skills: M0.0 Recognise and make use of appropriate units in calculations; M2.3 Substitute numerical values into algebraic equations using appropriate units for physical quantities

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

1(a) A considerable number of candidates did not score the mark here despite knowing that it was an oxidation reaction. They either omitted to give the number of electrons lost or gave their justification using oxidation numbers. This question highlights the importance of reading the question carefully and answering the question asked, not one that may have been seen previously. 1(b)(i) Most candidates were able to make some progress with this calculation. Common errors included omitting to multiply by two to find the number of moles of HCl or not multiplying their volume in dm3 by 1000 to give an answer in cm3. 1(b)(ii) More candidates struggled with this part of calculation. A significant number of candidates used the number of moles rounded to 3 SF but then gave a final answer to 4 SF, giving an answer of 78.48 cm3. This was given credit as correct calculation had been carried out for one mark. A couple of candidates correctly used the ideal gas equation and were given credit for this, but made it more complicated than necessary for one mark. 1(b)(iii) Very few candidates managed to gain marks here. Most did not recognise that HCl was the limiting reagent in the reaction and suggested that a greater volume of H2 would be produced, as same mass of Mg would give a greater number of moles. 1(c)* Very few candidates managed to score full marks for this question. Even the highest-attaining candidates struggled with writing balanced chemical equations. The most successful candidates used ionic equations with state symbols in their responses. A large proportion of candidates gave unnecessary details such as testing for CO2 using limewater or the colours of other silver halide precipitates. The best responses broken down their response to cover each test in turn, giving clear and concise details for each.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• volume the same because Mg is in excess / HCl is the limiting reagent

Skills: M0.2 Use ratios, fractions and percentages

Mark scheme, with the levels and indicative points

Examiner's comment

1(a) A considerable number of candidates did not score the mark here despite knowing that it was an oxidation reaction. They either omitted to give the number of electrons lost or gave their justification using oxidation numbers. This question highlights the importance of reading the question carefully and answering the question asked, not one that may have been seen previously. 1(b)(i) Most candidates were able to make some progress with this calculation. Common errors included omitting to multiply by two to find the number of moles of HCl or not multiplying their volume in dm3 by 1000 to give an answer in cm3. 1(b)(ii) More candidates struggled with this part of calculation. A significant number of candidates used the number of moles rounded to 3 SF but then gave a final answer to 4 SF, giving an answer of 78.48 cm3. This was given credit as correct calculation had been carried out for one mark. A couple of candidates correctly used the ideal gas equation and were given credit for this, but made it more complicated than necessary for one mark. 1(b)(iii) Very few candidates managed to gain marks here. Most did not recognise that HCl was the limiting reagent in the reaction and suggested that a greater volume of H2 would be produced, as same mass of Mg would give a greater number of moles. 1(c)* Very few candidates managed to score full marks for this question. Even the highest-attaining candidates struggled with writing balanced chemical equations. The most successful candidates used ionic equations with state symbols in their responses. A large proportion of candidates gave unnecessary details such as testing for CO2 using limewater or the colours of other silver halide precipitates. The best responses broken down their response to cover each test in turn, giving clear and concise details for each.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• acid then fizzing for carbonate
• Ba2+(aq) white precipitate for sulfate
• AgNO3(aq) cream precipitate for bromide
• sequence carbonate then sulfate then halide
• equations ionic or full, IGNORE state symbols

Skills: PAG4 Qualitative analysis of ions

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

2 (a) Most candidates managed to gain at least one mark for this question having learnt the definition. Some lost a mark for stating one mole of substance gives one mole of product, clearly confusing their definitions. 2(b) Nearly all candidates managed to gain at least one mark for correctly calculating the moles of cyclohexane burnt and the majority also used q = mc∆T. However, very few candidates managed to gain all 4 marks, most frequently losing the final mark for SF and sign. Other common errors included using the mass of cyclohexane in calculation of q, using Gas Constant R rather than specific heat capacity of water, or not using ∆T but using 293 K instead. 2(c)(i) A significant number of candidates struggled to correctly calculate the % uncertainties for the apparatus given or did not back up their claims with any calculations. Even the highest-attaining candidates often did not account for two measurements for temperature, or tried to calculate the % uncertainty for each temperature measurement taken. 2(c)(ii) Most candidates gained at least one mark here from one of the three acceptable responses. There was some evidence of candidates being confused here by the use of average bond enthalpies to find values of enthalpy of combustion. Others discussed human errors, need for repeat measurements or precision of equipment, demonstrating a lack of understanding with regard to the language used in scientific measurement. 2(c)(iii) This was a challenging question. Some candidates gained one mark for reduced accuracy due to increased heat loss or water evaporation. The responses given demonstrated that candidates often do not understand the factors that influence the accuracy in scientific experiments. Some indicated that repeating results would improve accuracy. Another common response was that a longer time would allow for complete combustion, failing to understand that degree of combustion is due to the availability of oxygen, not the time taken.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• complete combustion (or in excess oxygen) of 1 mol of substance
• IGNORE 'energy required'
• DO NOT ALLOW 1 mol of atoms

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

2 (a) Most candidates managed to gain at least one mark for this question having learnt the definition. Some lost a mark for stating one mole of substance gives one mole of product, clearly confusing their definitions. 2(b) Nearly all candidates managed to gain at least one mark for correctly calculating the moles of cyclohexane burnt and the majority also used q = mc∆T. However, very few candidates managed to gain all 4 marks, most frequently losing the final mark for SF and sign. Other common errors included using the mass of cyclohexane in calculation of q, using Gas Constant R rather than specific heat capacity of water, or not using ∆T but using 293 K instead. 2(c)(i) A significant number of candidates struggled to correctly calculate the % uncertainties for the apparatus given or did not back up their claims with any calculations. Even the highest-attaining candidates often did not account for two measurements for temperature, or tried to calculate the % uncertainty for each temperature measurement taken. 2(c)(ii) Most candidates gained at least one mark here from one of the three acceptable responses. There was some evidence of candidates being confused here by the use of average bond enthalpies to find values of enthalpy of combustion. Others discussed human errors, need for repeat measurements or precision of equipment, demonstrating a lack of understanding with regard to the language used in scientific measurement. 2(c)(iii) This was a challenging question. Some candidates gained one mark for reduced accuracy due to increased heat loss or water evaporation. The responses given demonstrated that candidates often do not understand the factors that influence the accuracy in scientific experiments. Some indicated that repeating results would improve accuracy. Another common response was that a longer time would allow for complete combustion, failing to understand that degree of combustion is due to the availability of oxygen, not the time taken.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• –2680: 3 SF AND negative sign (+2680 scores 3)
• mass of water 200 g not mass of fuel in q = mc∆T
• common error –7.02 scores 3
• ALLOW ECF

Skills: M0.0 Recognise and make use of appropriate units in calculations; M1.1 Use an appropriate number of significant figures; M2.3 Substitute numerical values into algebraic equations using appropriate units for physical quantities; PAG3 Enthalpy determination

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

Question 2(c) demonstrated that some candidates are unsure on what is meant by accuracy and the impact that uncertainties have.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• two thermometer readings so 1/20 × 100 = 5% vs 2/200 × 100 = 1%
• 1 mark if 0.05 and 0.01 given with correct statement

Skills: M0.2 Use ratios, fractions and percentages; M1.3 Identify uncertainties in measurements and use simple techniques to determine uncertainty when data are combined; PAG3 Enthalpy determination

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

Question 2(c) demonstrated that some candidates are unsure on what is meant by accuracy and the impact that uncertainties have.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• heat loss to surroundings / incomplete combustion / non-standard conditions
• IGNORE reference to evaporation

Skills: PAG3 Enthalpy determination

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

Question 2(c) demonstrated that some candidates are unsure on what is meant by accuracy and the impact that uncertainties have.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• less accurate from greater heat losses vs more accurate from smaller % uncertainty in temperature change or mass of fuel
• ALLOW error for uncertainty

Skills: M1.3 Identify uncertainties in measurements and use simple techniques to determine uncertainty when data are combined; PAG3 Enthalpy determination

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

3(a) More able candidates scored well in this question, setting out their answers in a logical order. They often first discussed Ca and its bonding and structure, linking this to the physical properties and then doing the same for Br. A number of candidates discussed the chemical properties of Ca and Br, such as their ability to bond with other elements, ionisation energy and their reactivity based on their position in the periodic table. Some candidates gave a good description of metallic bonding but then went on to discuss melting point in terms of intermolecular forces. 3(b)(i) Most candidates were able to give the correct diagrams for ionic bonding, although care needs to be taken that diagrams are well drawn with both charges given. Some gave diagrams for covalent bonding. 3(b)(ii) It was important to answer the question asked. A number of responses lost marks for describing the general trend down group 2 without making reference at all to calcium and barium. Most candidates managed to score at least one mark here but a considerable proportion missed the second marking point explaining that nuclear attraction was less in Ba. 3(c)(i) This was dependent on candidates’ ability to give correct formula of aluminium hydroxide, Al(OH)3. Writing correct formulae is an important skill in chemistry, which should be practised regularly in different topics to help candidates master the skill. 3(c)(ii) Most candidates were able to recognise that water had the higher boiling point due to hydrogen bonding. However, it was evident in a number of responses that they were unclear that this is an example of an intermolecular force and doesn’t just refer to the covalent bond formed between O and H. Most avoided discussing the intermolecular forces present in H2Se even although both London forces and permanent dipole-dipole interactions were accepted as they may not have come across this specific example and had not been given electronegativity data. 3(d)(i) Very few candidates scored this mark. Although a number of candidates did give sodium bromate as the answer (with the omission of the oxidation state), many other answers were seen suggesting candidates are not aware of naming conventions for inorganic compounds. 3(d)(ii) This is the first time in a reformed chemistry AS paper that the question space has been left unstructured for oxidation number changes. The highest-attaining candidates set out their responses clearly, dealing with changes for oxidation and reduction separately, and giving the correct oxidation numbers. Some struggled to obtain an oxidation state of Br in NaBrO3 as +5, suggesting +1 instead.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• DO NOT ALLOW molecules or intermolecular forces for calcium
• DO NOT ALLOW 'free electrons' for mobile/delocalised electrons
• melting point linked to strong metallic bonds vs weak London forces

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

3(a) More able candidates scored well in this question, setting out their answers in a logical order. They often first discussed Ca and its bonding and structure, linking this to the physical properties and then doing the same for Br. A number of candidates discussed the chemical properties of Ca and Br, such as their ability to bond with other elements, ionisation energy and their reactivity based on their position in the periodic table. Some candidates gave a good description of metallic bonding but then went on to discuss melting point in terms of intermolecular forces. 3(b)(i) Most candidates were able to give the correct diagrams for ionic bonding, although care needs to be taken that diagrams are well drawn with both charges given. Some gave diagrams for covalent bonding. 3(b)(ii) It was important to answer the question asked. A number of responses lost marks for describing the general trend down group 2 without making reference at all to calcium and barium. Most candidates managed to score at least one mark here but a considerable proportion missed the second marking point explaining that nuclear attraction was less in Ba. 3(c)(i) This was dependent on candidates’ ability to give correct formula of aluminium hydroxide, Al(OH)3. Writing correct formulae is an important skill in chemistry, which should be practised regularly in different topics to help candidates master the skill. 3(c)(ii) Most candidates were able to recognise that water had the higher boiling point due to hydrogen bonding. However, it was evident in a number of responses that they were unclear that this is an example of an intermolecular force and doesn’t just refer to the covalent bond formed between O and H. Most avoided discussing the intermolecular forces present in H2Se even although both London forces and permanent dipole-dipole interactions were accepted as they may not have come across this specific example and had not been given electronegativity data. 3(d)(i) Very few candidates scored this mark. Although a number of candidates did give sodium bromate as the answer (with the omission of the oxidation state), many other answers were seen suggesting candidates are not aware of naming conventions for inorganic compounds. 3(d)(ii) This is the first time in a reformed chemistry AS paper that the question space has been left unstructured for oxidation number changes. The highest-attaining candidates set out their responses clearly, dealing with changes for oxidation and reduction separately, and giving the correct oxidation numbers. Some struggled to obtain an oxidation state of Br in NaBrO3 as +5, suggesting +1 instead.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• Ca with 8 or 0 outer electrons, Br with 7 + 1
• correct charges on both ions
• ALLOW separate Br– ions

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

For example, Question 1(a) justified using oxidation numbers rather than numbers of electrons and Question 3(b)(ii) giving the general trend in group 2 rather than comparing Ba and Ca.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• comparison required throughout
• larger radius/more shells/more shielding, less nuclear attraction, lower ionisation energy
• IGNORE 'nuclear charge' for nuclear attraction and 'more orbitals/sub-shells'

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

3(a) More able candidates scored well in this question, setting out their answers in a logical order. They often first discussed Ca and its bonding and structure, linking this to the physical properties and then doing the same for Br. A number of candidates discussed the chemical properties of Ca and Br, such as their ability to bond with other elements, ionisation energy and their reactivity based on their position in the periodic table. Some candidates gave a good description of metallic bonding but then went on to discuss melting point in terms of intermolecular forces. 3(b)(i) Most candidates were able to give the correct diagrams for ionic bonding, although care needs to be taken that diagrams are well drawn with both charges given. Some gave diagrams for covalent bonding. 3(b)(ii) It was important to answer the question asked. A number of responses lost marks for describing the general trend down group 2 without making reference at all to calcium and barium. Most candidates managed to score at least one mark here but a considerable proportion missed the second marking point explaining that nuclear attraction was less in Ba. 3(c)(i) This was dependent on candidates’ ability to give correct formula of aluminium hydroxide, Al(OH)3. Writing correct formulae is an important skill in chemistry, which should be practised regularly in different topics to help candidates master the skill. 3(c)(ii) Most candidates were able to recognise that water had the higher boiling point due to hydrogen bonding. However, it was evident in a number of responses that they were unclear that this is an example of an intermolecular force and doesn’t just refer to the covalent bond formed between O and H. Most avoided discussing the intermolecular forces present in H2Se even although both London forces and permanent dipole-dipole interactions were accepted as they may not have come across this specific example and had not been given electronegativity data. 3(d)(i) Very few candidates scored this mark. Although a number of candidates did give sodium bromate as the answer (with the omission of the oxidation state), many other answers were seen suggesting candidates are not aware of naming conventions for inorganic compounds. 3(d)(ii) This is the first time in a reformed chemistry AS paper that the question space has been left unstructured for oxidation number changes. The highest-attaining candidates set out their responses clearly, dealing with changes for oxidation and reduction separately, and giving the correct oxidation numbers. Some struggled to obtain an oxidation state of Br in NaBrO3 as +5, suggesting +1 instead.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• Al2Se3 + 6H2O → 2Al(OH)3 + 3H2Se

Skills: M0.2 Use ratios, fractions and percentages

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

3(a) More able candidates scored well in this question, setting out their answers in a logical order. They often first discussed Ca and its bonding and structure, linking this to the physical properties and then doing the same for Br. A number of candidates discussed the chemical properties of Ca and Br, such as their ability to bond with other elements, ionisation energy and their reactivity based on their position in the periodic table. Some candidates gave a good description of metallic bonding but then went on to discuss melting point in terms of intermolecular forces. 3(b)(i) Most candidates were able to give the correct diagrams for ionic bonding, although care needs to be taken that diagrams are well drawn with both charges given. Some gave diagrams for covalent bonding. 3(b)(ii) It was important to answer the question asked. A number of responses lost marks for describing the general trend down group 2 without making reference at all to calcium and barium. Most candidates managed to score at least one mark here but a considerable proportion missed the second marking point explaining that nuclear attraction was less in Ba. 3(c)(i) This was dependent on candidates’ ability to give correct formula of aluminium hydroxide, Al(OH)3. Writing correct formulae is an important skill in chemistry, which should be practised regularly in different topics to help candidates master the skill. 3(c)(ii) Most candidates were able to recognise that water had the higher boiling point due to hydrogen bonding. However, it was evident in a number of responses that they were unclear that this is an example of an intermolecular force and doesn’t just refer to the covalent bond formed between O and H. Most avoided discussing the intermolecular forces present in H2Se even although both London forces and permanent dipole-dipole interactions were accepted as they may not have come across this specific example and had not been given electronegativity data. 3(d)(i) Very few candidates scored this mark. Although a number of candidates did give sodium bromate as the answer (with the omission of the oxidation state), many other answers were seen suggesting candidates are not aware of naming conventions for inorganic compounds. 3(d)(ii) This is the first time in a reformed chemistry AS paper that the question space has been left unstructured for oxidation number changes. The highest-attaining candidates set out their responses clearly, dealing with changes for oxidation and reduction separately, and giving the correct oxidation numbers. Some struggled to obtain an oxidation state of Br in NaBrO3 as +5, suggesting +1 instead.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• H2O hydrogen bonds
• H2Se London forces (ALLOW permanent dipole–dipole)
• H-bonds stronger / need more energy to overcome

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

3(a) More able candidates scored well in this question, setting out their answers in a logical order. They often first discussed Ca and its bonding and structure, linking this to the physical properties and then doing the same for Br. A number of candidates discussed the chemical properties of Ca and Br, such as their ability to bond with other elements, ionisation energy and their reactivity based on their position in the periodic table. Some candidates gave a good description of metallic bonding but then went on to discuss melting point in terms of intermolecular forces. 3(b)(i) Most candidates were able to give the correct diagrams for ionic bonding, although care needs to be taken that diagrams are well drawn with both charges given. Some gave diagrams for covalent bonding. 3(b)(ii) It was important to answer the question asked. A number of responses lost marks for describing the general trend down group 2 without making reference at all to calcium and barium. Most candidates managed to score at least one mark here but a considerable proportion missed the second marking point explaining that nuclear attraction was less in Ba. 3(c)(i) This was dependent on candidates’ ability to give correct formula of aluminium hydroxide, Al(OH)3. Writing correct formulae is an important skill in chemistry, which should be practised regularly in different topics to help candidates master the skill. 3(c)(ii) Most candidates were able to recognise that water had the higher boiling point due to hydrogen bonding. However, it was evident in a number of responses that they were unclear that this is an example of an intermolecular force and doesn’t just refer to the covalent bond formed between O and H. Most avoided discussing the intermolecular forces present in H2Se even although both London forces and permanent dipole-dipole interactions were accepted as they may not have come across this specific example and had not been given electronegativity data. 3(d)(i) Very few candidates scored this mark. Although a number of candidates did give sodium bromate as the answer (with the omission of the oxidation state), many other answers were seen suggesting candidates are not aware of naming conventions for inorganic compounds. 3(d)(ii) This is the first time in a reformed chemistry AS paper that the question space has been left unstructured for oxidation number changes. The highest-attaining candidates set out their responses clearly, dealing with changes for oxidation and reduction separately, and giving the correct oxidation numbers. Some struggled to obtain an oxidation state of Br in NaBrO3 as +5, suggesting +1 instead.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• sodium bromate(V)

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

3(a) More able candidates scored well in this question, setting out their answers in a logical order. They often first discussed Ca and its bonding and structure, linking this to the physical properties and then doing the same for Br. A number of candidates discussed the chemical properties of Ca and Br, such as their ability to bond with other elements, ionisation energy and their reactivity based on their position in the periodic table. Some candidates gave a good description of metallic bonding but then went on to discuss melting point in terms of intermolecular forces. 3(b)(i) Most candidates were able to give the correct diagrams for ionic bonding, although care needs to be taken that diagrams are well drawn with both charges given. Some gave diagrams for covalent bonding. 3(b)(ii) It was important to answer the question asked. A number of responses lost marks for describing the general trend down group 2 without making reference at all to calcium and barium. Most candidates managed to score at least one mark here but a considerable proportion missed the second marking point explaining that nuclear attraction was less in Ba. 3(c)(i) This was dependent on candidates’ ability to give correct formula of aluminium hydroxide, Al(OH)3. Writing correct formulae is an important skill in chemistry, which should be practised regularly in different topics to help candidates master the skill. 3(c)(ii) Most candidates were able to recognise that water had the higher boiling point due to hydrogen bonding. However, it was evident in a number of responses that they were unclear that this is an example of an intermolecular force and doesn’t just refer to the covalent bond formed between O and H. Most avoided discussing the intermolecular forces present in H2Se even although both London forces and permanent dipole-dipole interactions were accepted as they may not have come across this specific example and had not been given electronegativity data. 3(d)(i) Very few candidates scored this mark. Although a number of candidates did give sodium bromate as the answer (with the omission of the oxidation state), many other answers were seen suggesting candidates are not aware of naming conventions for inorganic compounds. 3(d)(ii) This is the first time in a reformed chemistry AS paper that the question space has been left unstructured for oxidation number changes. The highest-attaining candidates set out their responses clearly, dealing with changes for oxidation and reduction separately, and giving the correct oxidation numbers. Some struggled to obtain an oxidation state of Br in NaBrO3 as +5, suggesting +1 instead.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• same element both oxidised (0 to +5) and reduced (0 to –1)
• 1 mark if all three oxidation numbers correct but oxidation/reduction mis-assigned

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

4(a) This was a challenging example of predicting bond angles. Candidates often counted four pairs of electrons around the central atom, so based their bond angles on a tetrahedral arrangement (deducting 2.5 from 109.5o), losing this mark. Explanations were not always clear, but most candidates gained credit for describing electron pairs repelling. Many candidates state that they subtracted 2.5o rather than explaining why this is done in terms of electron pairs repelling. 4(b)(i) A wide range of responses, including addition signs, 2x, curved brackets, inverse. Candidates must take care to write the formulae correctly: Cl rather than Cl2 was seen a number of times. 4(b)(ii) Most recognised that the value for NO was 2 x Cl2 but some struggled to explain why. Answers needed to show clear evidence that they had taken into account the stoichiometry of the equation. Some gave responses such as using moles and volume to calculate or to put values into the Kc expression. 4(b)(iii) Those candidates that were able to give the correct expression in 4(b)(i) were often able to obtain the correct value here, demonstrating a good understanding of this topic. Some forgot to take the square root so only obtained one mark. 4(b)(iv) Candidates need to be well versed in how to tackle this type of question. Some, despite explaining what would happen, forgot to then state what would happen to the concentration of NO. Some said that the reaction would shift to the right but did not state that the reaction was endothermic. A small number of candidates thought that the reaction was exothermic, despite the + sign by the reaction, and some discussed other factors such as rate or changing pressure.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 112–120
• around N a double bond, a single bond and a lone pair
• electron pairs repel

Skills: M4.1 Use angles and shapes in regular 2-D and 3-D structures

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

4(a) This was a challenging example of predicting bond angles. Candidates often counted four pairs of electrons around the central atom, so based their bond angles on a tetrahedral arrangement (deducting 2.5 from 109.5o), losing this mark. Explanations were not always clear, but most candidates gained credit for describing electron pairs repelling. Many candidates state that they subtracted 2.5o rather than explaining why this is done in terms of electron pairs repelling. 4(b)(i) A wide range of responses, including addition signs, 2x, curved brackets, inverse. Candidates must take care to write the formulae correctly: Cl rather than Cl2 was seen a number of times. 4(b)(ii) Most recognised that the value for NO was 2 x Cl2 but some struggled to explain why. Answers needed to show clear evidence that they had taken into account the stoichiometry of the equation. Some gave responses such as using moles and volume to calculate or to put values into the Kc expression. 4(b)(iii) Those candidates that were able to give the correct expression in 4(b)(i) were often able to obtain the correct value here, demonstrating a good understanding of this topic. Some forgot to take the square root so only obtained one mark. 4(b)(iv) Candidates need to be well versed in how to tackle this type of question. Some, despite explaining what would happen, forgot to then state what would happen to the concentration of NO. Some said that the reaction would shift to the right but did not state that the reaction was endothermic. A small number of candidates thought that the reaction was exothermic, despite the + sign by the reaction, and some discussed other factors such as rate or changing pressure.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• square brackets essential: DO NOT ALLOW curved brackets

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

4(a) This was a challenging example of predicting bond angles. Candidates often counted four pairs of electrons around the central atom, so based their bond angles on a tetrahedral arrangement (deducting 2.5 from 109.5o), losing this mark. Explanations were not always clear, but most candidates gained credit for describing electron pairs repelling. Many candidates state that they subtracted 2.5o rather than explaining why this is done in terms of electron pairs repelling. 4(b)(i) A wide range of responses, including addition signs, 2x, curved brackets, inverse. Candidates must take care to write the formulae correctly: Cl rather than Cl2 was seen a number of times. 4(b)(ii) Most recognised that the value for NO was 2 x Cl2 but some struggled to explain why. Answers needed to show clear evidence that they had taken into account the stoichiometry of the equation. Some gave responses such as using moles and volume to calculate or to put values into the Kc expression. 4(b)(iii) Those candidates that were able to give the correct expression in 4(b)(i) were often able to obtain the correct value here, demonstrating a good understanding of this topic. Some forgot to take the square root so only obtained one mark. 4(b)(iv) Candidates need to be well versed in how to tackle this type of question. Some, despite explaining what would happen, forgot to then state what would happen to the concentration of NO. Some said that the reaction would shift to the right but did not state that the reaction was endothermic. A small number of candidates thought that the reaction was exothermic, despite the + sign by the reaction, and some discussed other factors such as rate or changing pressure.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• must refer to the stoichiometry of the equation and the 2:1 NO:Cl2 molar ratio

Skills: M0.2 Use ratios, fractions and percentages

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

4(a) This was a challenging example of predicting bond angles. Candidates often counted four pairs of electrons around the central atom, so based their bond angles on a tetrahedral arrangement (deducting 2.5 from 109.5o), losing this mark. Explanations were not always clear, but most candidates gained credit for describing electron pairs repelling. Many candidates state that they subtracted 2.5o rather than explaining why this is done in terms of electron pairs repelling. 4(b)(i) A wide range of responses, including addition signs, 2x, curved brackets, inverse. Candidates must take care to write the formulae correctly: Cl rather than Cl2 was seen a number of times. 4(b)(ii) Most recognised that the value for NO was 2 x Cl2 but some struggled to explain why. Answers needed to show clear evidence that they had taken into account the stoichiometry of the equation. Some gave responses such as using moles and volume to calculate or to put values into the Kc expression. 4(b)(iii) Those candidates that were able to give the correct expression in 4(b)(i) were often able to obtain the correct value here, demonstrating a good understanding of this topic. Some forgot to take the square root so only obtained one mark. 4(b)(iv) Candidates need to be well versed in how to tackle this type of question. Some, despite explaining what would happen, forgot to then state what would happen to the concentration of NO. Some said that the reaction would shift to the right but did not state that the reaction was endothermic. A small number of candidates thought that the reaction was exothermic, despite the + sign by the reaction, and some discussed other factors such as rate or changing pressure.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• rearrange for [NOCl]2 then take the square root (1.3 scores 1)
• ALLOW ECF from inverted Kc expression

Skills: M2.2 Change the subject of an equation; M2.3 Substitute numerical values into algebraic equations using appropriate units for physical quantities; M2.4 Solve algebraic equations

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

4(a) This was a challenging example of predicting bond angles. Candidates often counted four pairs of electrons around the central atom, so based their bond angles on a tetrahedral arrangement (deducting 2.5 from 109.5o), losing this mark. Explanations were not always clear, but most candidates gained credit for describing electron pairs repelling. Many candidates state that they subtracted 2.5o rather than explaining why this is done in terms of electron pairs repelling. 4(b)(i) A wide range of responses, including addition signs, 2x, curved brackets, inverse. Candidates must take care to write the formulae correctly: Cl rather than Cl2 was seen a number of times. 4(b)(ii) Most recognised that the value for NO was 2 x Cl2 but some struggled to explain why. Answers needed to show clear evidence that they had taken into account the stoichiometry of the equation. Some gave responses such as using moles and volume to calculate or to put values into the Kc expression. 4(b)(iii) Those candidates that were able to give the correct expression in 4(b)(i) were often able to obtain the correct value here, demonstrating a good understanding of this topic. Some forgot to take the square root so only obtained one mark. 4(b)(iv) Candidates need to be well versed in how to tackle this type of question. Some, despite explaining what would happen, forgot to then state what would happen to the concentration of NO. Some said that the reaction would shift to the right but did not state that the reaction was endothermic. A small number of candidates thought that the reaction was exothermic, despite the + sign by the reaction, and some discussed other factors such as rate or changing pressure.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• shifts right AND forward reaction endothermic

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

5(a) Generally this was well answered. However, some candidates only gave two responses where three were required, presumably because it was worth two marks. 5(b) A significant number of candidates did not gain the mark here as they incorrectly balanced the number of oxygens, forgetting that the alcohol contains an O atom i.e. 6.5 O2 given rather than 6. 5(c) Nomenclature in organic chemistry takes lots of practice. Approximately half of the candidates did not score this mark. It was more challenging as they needed to work with skeletal structures but evidence of drawing out displayed formula was often seen. 5(d)(i) Most candidates were able to recall the formula to calculate atom economy, however a number made errors in working out Mr values. However, some left this blank or just gave an answer without any working. 5(d)(ii) Mechanisms were often seen showing curly arrows going in the wrong direction and between the wrong bonds and atoms, charges and dipoles were often incorrect, and partial changes used where full charges were required. Writing mechanisms is an important skill in organic chemistry so it is vital that time is spent practising writing them out and fully understanding the significance of the curly arrow. 5(d)(iii) Many candidates gave the correct mechanism here, with common incorrect responses being other types of mechanism, substitution only, or isomerism. 5(e) Very few candidates gained both marks here. It was not enough here to just state faster/slower without specifying which haloalkane they were referring to. It was also important to specify the C-X bond not just vague reference to the chlorine or bromine bond. Many described the difference in bond polarity so had the wrong order. Some were more general and discussed the reactivity of bromine and chlorine themselves. 5(f)* This was a challenging problem-solving question, relying on candidates to make use of all of the information provided to determine the structure. Very few candidates made no attempt at all at this question. The most common error was incorrectly identifying the peak at 3000 cm-1 as O-H from a carboxylic acid, despite it being indicated on the data sheet that this would be a broad peak. It suggested that candidates were not familiar with looking at spectra and understanding what data it gave. Candidates should also be reminded when answering these types of question that they should give the structures, not just molecular formulae, where possible. If any of your students’ results are not as expected, you may wish to consider one of our review of results services. For full information about the options available visit the OCR website. If university places are at stake you may wish to consider priority service 2 reviews of marking which have an earlier deadline to ensure your reviews are processed in time for university applications. Our priority is supporting you and your students this autumn and to support you as you prepare for summer 2021 exams. We’ll update our website information regularly with resources, guidance and key information. • Teachers • Students • Exams officers • Assessment specialists We are sending a weekly roundup to tell you about important updates. You can also sign up for your subject specific updates. If you haven’t already, sign up here. Attend one of our popular CPD courses to hear directly from a senior assessor or drop in to a Q&A session. All our courses for the academic year 2020-2021 are being delivered live via an online platform, so you can attend from any location. Please find details for all our courses on the relevant subject page on our website or visit OCR professional development. ExamBuilder is the question builder platform for a range of our GCSE, A Level, Cambridge Nationals, Cambridge Technicals and Functional Skills qualifications. See the full list of available qualifications in the sign up form. ExamBuilder is free for all OCR centres with an Interchange account and gives you unlimited users per centre. We need an Interchange username to validate the identity of your centre's first user account for ExamBuilder. If you do not have an Interchange account please contact your centre administrator (usually the Exams Officer) to request a username, or nominate an existing Interchange user in your department. Review of results

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• C, E and F
• lose 1 mark for each incorrect response

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

5(a) Generally this was well answered. However, some candidates only gave two responses where three were required, presumably because it was worth two marks. 5(b) A significant number of candidates did not gain the mark here as they incorrectly balanced the number of oxygens, forgetting that the alcohol contains an O atom i.e. 6.5 O2 given rather than 6. 5(c) Nomenclature in organic chemistry takes lots of practice. Approximately half of the candidates did not score this mark. It was more challenging as they needed to work with skeletal structures but evidence of drawing out displayed formula was often seen. 5(d)(i) Most candidates were able to recall the formula to calculate atom economy, however a number made errors in working out Mr values. However, some left this blank or just gave an answer without any working. 5(d)(ii) Mechanisms were often seen showing curly arrows going in the wrong direction and between the wrong bonds and atoms, charges and dipoles were often incorrect, and partial changes used where full charges were required. Writing mechanisms is an important skill in organic chemistry so it is vital that time is spent practising writing them out and fully understanding the significance of the curly arrow. 5(d)(iii) Many candidates gave the correct mechanism here, with common incorrect responses being other types of mechanism, substitution only, or isomerism. 5(e) Very few candidates gained both marks here. It was not enough here to just state faster/slower without specifying which haloalkane they were referring to. It was also important to specify the C-X bond not just vague reference to the chlorine or bromine bond. Many described the difference in bond polarity so had the wrong order. Some were more general and discussed the reactivity of bromine and chlorine themselves. 5(f)* This was a challenging problem-solving question, relying on candidates to make use of all of the information provided to determine the structure. Very few candidates made no attempt at all at this question. The most common error was incorrectly identifying the peak at 3000 cm-1 as O-H from a carboxylic acid, despite it being indicated on the data sheet that this would be a broad peak. It suggested that candidates were not familiar with looking at spectra and understanding what data it gave. Candidates should also be reminded when answering these types of question that they should give the structures, not just molecular formulae, where possible. If any of your students’ results are not as expected, you may wish to consider one of our review of results services. For full information about the options available visit the OCR website. If university places are at stake you may wish to consider priority service 2 reviews of marking which have an earlier deadline to ensure your reviews are processed in time for university applications. Our priority is supporting you and your students this autumn and to support you as you prepare for summer 2021 exams. We’ll update our website information regularly with resources, guidance and key information. • Teachers • Students • Exams officers • Assessment specialists We are sending a weekly roundup to tell you about important updates. You can also sign up for your subject specific updates. If you haven’t already, sign up here. Attend one of our popular CPD courses to hear directly from a senior assessor or drop in to a Q&A session. All our courses for the academic year 2020-2021 are being delivered live via an online platform, so you can attend from any location. Please find details for all our courses on the relevant subject page on our website or visit OCR professional development. ExamBuilder is the question builder platform for a range of our GCSE, A Level, Cambridge Nationals, Cambridge Technicals and Functional Skills qualifications. See the full list of available qualifications in the sign up form. ExamBuilder is free for all OCR centres with an Interchange account and gives you unlimited users per centre. We need an Interchange username to validate the identity of your centre's first user account for ExamBuilder. If you do not have an Interchange account please contact your centre administrator (usually the Exams Officer) to request a username, or nominate an existing Interchange user in your department. Review of results

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 6O2 → 4CO2 + 5H2O
• DO NOT ALLOW [O]

Skills: M0.2 Use ratios, fractions and percentages

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

5(a) Generally this was well answered. However, some candidates only gave two responses where three were required, presumably because it was worth two marks. 5(b) A significant number of candidates did not gain the mark here as they incorrectly balanced the number of oxygens, forgetting that the alcohol contains an O atom i.e. 6.5 O2 given rather than 6. 5(c) Nomenclature in organic chemistry takes lots of practice. Approximately half of the candidates did not score this mark. It was more challenging as they needed to work with skeletal structures but evidence of drawing out displayed formula was often seen. 5(d)(i) Most candidates were able to recall the formula to calculate atom economy, however a number made errors in working out Mr values. However, some left this blank or just gave an answer without any working. 5(d)(ii) Mechanisms were often seen showing curly arrows going in the wrong direction and between the wrong bonds and atoms, charges and dipoles were often incorrect, and partial changes used where full charges were required. Writing mechanisms is an important skill in organic chemistry so it is vital that time is spent practising writing them out and fully understanding the significance of the curly arrow. 5(d)(iii) Many candidates gave the correct mechanism here, with common incorrect responses being other types of mechanism, substitution only, or isomerism. 5(e) Very few candidates gained both marks here. It was not enough here to just state faster/slower without specifying which haloalkane they were referring to. It was also important to specify the C-X bond not just vague reference to the chlorine or bromine bond. Many described the difference in bond polarity so had the wrong order. Some were more general and discussed the reactivity of bromine and chlorine themselves. 5(f)* This was a challenging problem-solving question, relying on candidates to make use of all of the information provided to determine the structure. Very few candidates made no attempt at all at this question. The most common error was incorrectly identifying the peak at 3000 cm-1 as O-H from a carboxylic acid, despite it being indicated on the data sheet that this would be a broad peak. It suggested that candidates were not familiar with looking at spectra and understanding what data it gave. Candidates should also be reminded when answering these types of question that they should give the structures, not just molecular formulae, where possible. If any of your students’ results are not as expected, you may wish to consider one of our review of results services. For full information about the options available visit the OCR website. If university places are at stake you may wish to consider priority service 2 reviews of marking which have an earlier deadline to ensure your reviews are processed in time for university applications. Our priority is supporting you and your students this autumn and to support you as you prepare for summer 2021 exams. We’ll update our website information regularly with resources, guidance and key information. • Teachers • Students • Exams officers • Assessment specialists We are sending a weekly roundup to tell you about important updates. You can also sign up for your subject specific updates. If you haven’t already, sign up here. Attend one of our popular CPD courses to hear directly from a senior assessor or drop in to a Q&A session. All our courses for the academic year 2020-2021 are being delivered live via an online platform, so you can attend from any location. Please find details for all our courses on the relevant subject page on our website or visit OCR professional development. ExamBuilder is the question builder platform for a range of our GCSE, A Level, Cambridge Nationals, Cambridge Technicals and Functional Skills qualifications. See the full list of available qualifications in the sign up form. ExamBuilder is free for all OCR centres with an Interchange account and gives you unlimited users per centre. We need an Interchange username to validate the identity of your centre's first user account for ExamBuilder. If you do not have an Interchange account please contact your centre administrator (usually the Exams Officer) to request a username, or nominate an existing Interchange user in your department. Review of results

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 2-methylbutan-2-ol

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

A number of arithmetic errors were seen for calculations, particularly Question 5(d)(i) where Mr values were added up incorrectly or final % did not equal the values given.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 88/190.9 × 100 = 46.1
• ALLOW ECF from incorrect Mr values

Skills: M0.2 Use ratios, fractions and percentages; M2.3 Substitute numerical values into algebraic equations using appropriate units for physical quantities

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

5(a) Generally this was well answered. However, some candidates only gave two responses where three were required, presumably because it was worth two marks. 5(b) A significant number of candidates did not gain the mark here as they incorrectly balanced the number of oxygens, forgetting that the alcohol contains an O atom i.e. 6.5 O2 given rather than 6. 5(c) Nomenclature in organic chemistry takes lots of practice. Approximately half of the candidates did not score this mark. It was more challenging as they needed to work with skeletal structures but evidence of drawing out displayed formula was often seen. 5(d)(i) Most candidates were able to recall the formula to calculate atom economy, however a number made errors in working out Mr values. However, some left this blank or just gave an answer without any working. 5(d)(ii) Mechanisms were often seen showing curly arrows going in the wrong direction and between the wrong bonds and atoms, charges and dipoles were often incorrect, and partial changes used where full charges were required. Writing mechanisms is an important skill in organic chemistry so it is vital that time is spent practising writing them out and fully understanding the significance of the curly arrow. 5(d)(iii) Many candidates gave the correct mechanism here, with common incorrect responses being other types of mechanism, substitution only, or isomerism. 5(e) Very few candidates gained both marks here. It was not enough here to just state faster/slower without specifying which haloalkane they were referring to. It was also important to specify the C-X bond not just vague reference to the chlorine or bromine bond. Many described the difference in bond polarity so had the wrong order. Some were more general and discussed the reactivity of bromine and chlorine themselves. 5(f)* This was a challenging problem-solving question, relying on candidates to make use of all of the information provided to determine the structure. Very few candidates made no attempt at all at this question. The most common error was incorrectly identifying the peak at 3000 cm-1 as O-H from a carboxylic acid, despite it being indicated on the data sheet that this would be a broad peak. It suggested that candidates were not familiar with looking at spectra and understanding what data it gave. Candidates should also be reminded when answering these types of question that they should give the structures, not just molecular formulae, where possible. If any of your students’ results are not as expected, you may wish to consider one of our review of results services. For full information about the options available visit the OCR website. If university places are at stake you may wish to consider priority service 2 reviews of marking which have an earlier deadline to ensure your reviews are processed in time for university applications. Our priority is supporting you and your students this autumn and to support you as you prepare for summer 2021 exams. We’ll update our website information regularly with resources, guidance and key information. • Teachers • Students • Exams officers • Assessment specialists We are sending a weekly roundup to tell you about important updates. You can also sign up for your subject specific updates. If you haven’t already, sign up here. Attend one of our popular CPD courses to hear directly from a senior assessor or drop in to a Q&A session. All our courses for the academic year 2020-2021 are being delivered live via an online platform, so you can attend from any location. Please find details for all our courses on the relevant subject page on our website or visit OCR professional development. ExamBuilder is the question builder platform for a range of our GCSE, A Level, Cambridge Nationals, Cambridge Technicals and Functional Skills qualifications. See the full list of available qualifications in the sign up form. ExamBuilder is free for all OCR centres with an Interchange account and gives you unlimited users per centre. We need an Interchange username to validate the identity of your centre's first user account for ExamBuilder. If you do not have an Interchange account please contact your centre administrator (usually the Exams Officer) to request a username, or nominate an existing Interchange user in your department. Review of results

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• arrow from lone pair or negative charge on O of OH– to C of C–Br
• dipole on C–Br AND arrow from the bond to Br
• products must show Br– (NaBr does not show Br–)
• no double-headed or half arrows
• ALLOW SN1

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

5(a) Generally this was well answered. However, some candidates only gave two responses where three were required, presumably because it was worth two marks. 5(b) A significant number of candidates did not gain the mark here as they incorrectly balanced the number of oxygens, forgetting that the alcohol contains an O atom i.e. 6.5 O2 given rather than 6. 5(c) Nomenclature in organic chemistry takes lots of practice. Approximately half of the candidates did not score this mark. It was more challenging as they needed to work with skeletal structures but evidence of drawing out displayed formula was often seen. 5(d)(i) Most candidates were able to recall the formula to calculate atom economy, however a number made errors in working out Mr values. However, some left this blank or just gave an answer without any working. 5(d)(ii) Mechanisms were often seen showing curly arrows going in the wrong direction and between the wrong bonds and atoms, charges and dipoles were often incorrect, and partial changes used where full charges were required. Writing mechanisms is an important skill in organic chemistry so it is vital that time is spent practising writing them out and fully understanding the significance of the curly arrow. 5(d)(iii) Many candidates gave the correct mechanism here, with common incorrect responses being other types of mechanism, substitution only, or isomerism. 5(e) Very few candidates gained both marks here. It was not enough here to just state faster/slower without specifying which haloalkane they were referring to. It was also important to specify the C-X bond not just vague reference to the chlorine or bromine bond. Many described the difference in bond polarity so had the wrong order. Some were more general and discussed the reactivity of bromine and chlorine themselves. 5(f)* This was a challenging problem-solving question, relying on candidates to make use of all of the information provided to determine the structure. Very few candidates made no attempt at all at this question. The most common error was incorrectly identifying the peak at 3000 cm-1 as O-H from a carboxylic acid, despite it being indicated on the data sheet that this would be a broad peak. It suggested that candidates were not familiar with looking at spectra and understanding what data it gave. Candidates should also be reminded when answering these types of question that they should give the structures, not just molecular formulae, where possible. If any of your students’ results are not as expected, you may wish to consider one of our review of results services. For full information about the options available visit the OCR website. If university places are at stake you may wish to consider priority service 2 reviews of marking which have an earlier deadline to ensure your reviews are processed in time for university applications. Our priority is supporting you and your students this autumn and to support you as you prepare for summer 2021 exams. We’ll update our website information regularly with resources, guidance and key information. • Teachers • Students • Exams officers • Assessment specialists We are sending a weekly roundup to tell you about important updates. You can also sign up for your subject specific updates. If you haven’t already, sign up here. Attend one of our popular CPD courses to hear directly from a senior assessor or drop in to a Q&A session. All our courses for the academic year 2020-2021 are being delivered live via an online platform, so you can attend from any location. Please find details for all our courses on the relevant subject page on our website or visit OCR professional development. ExamBuilder is the question builder platform for a range of our GCSE, A Level, Cambridge Nationals, Cambridge Technicals and Functional Skills qualifications. See the full list of available qualifications in the sign up form. ExamBuilder is free for all OCR centres with an Interchange account and gives you unlimited users per centre. We need an Interchange username to validate the identity of your centre's first user account for ExamBuilder. If you do not have an Interchange account please contact your centre administrator (usually the Exams Officer) to request a username, or nominate an existing Interchange user in your department. Review of results

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• nucleophilic substitution

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

5(a) Generally this was well answered. However, some candidates only gave two responses where three were required, presumably because it was worth two marks. 5(b) A significant number of candidates did not gain the mark here as they incorrectly balanced the number of oxygens, forgetting that the alcohol contains an O atom i.e. 6.5 O2 given rather than 6. 5(c) Nomenclature in organic chemistry takes lots of practice. Approximately half of the candidates did not score this mark. It was more challenging as they needed to work with skeletal structures but evidence of drawing out displayed formula was often seen. 5(d)(i) Most candidates were able to recall the formula to calculate atom economy, however a number made errors in working out Mr values. However, some left this blank or just gave an answer without any working. 5(d)(ii) Mechanisms were often seen showing curly arrows going in the wrong direction and between the wrong bonds and atoms, charges and dipoles were often incorrect, and partial changes used where full charges were required. Writing mechanisms is an important skill in organic chemistry so it is vital that time is spent practising writing them out and fully understanding the significance of the curly arrow. 5(d)(iii) Many candidates gave the correct mechanism here, with common incorrect responses being other types of mechanism, substitution only, or isomerism. 5(e) Very few candidates gained both marks here. It was not enough here to just state faster/slower without specifying which haloalkane they were referring to. It was also important to specify the C-X bond not just vague reference to the chlorine or bromine bond. Many described the difference in bond polarity so had the wrong order. Some were more general and discussed the reactivity of bromine and chlorine themselves. 5(f)* This was a challenging problem-solving question, relying on candidates to make use of all of the information provided to determine the structure. Very few candidates made no attempt at all at this question. The most common error was incorrectly identifying the peak at 3000 cm-1 as O-H from a carboxylic acid, despite it being indicated on the data sheet that this would be a broad peak. It suggested that candidates were not familiar with looking at spectra and understanding what data it gave. Candidates should also be reminded when answering these types of question that they should give the structures, not just molecular formulae, where possible. If any of your students’ results are not as expected, you may wish to consider one of our review of results services. For full information about the options available visit the OCR website. If university places are at stake you may wish to consider priority service 2 reviews of marking which have an earlier deadline to ensure your reviews are processed in time for university applications. Our priority is supporting you and your students this autumn and to support you as you prepare for summer 2021 exams. We’ll update our website information regularly with resources, guidance and key information. • Teachers • Students • Exams officers • Assessment specialists We are sending a weekly roundup to tell you about important updates. You can also sign up for your subject specific updates. If you haven’t already, sign up here. Attend one of our popular CPD courses to hear directly from a senior assessor or drop in to a Q&A session. All our courses for the academic year 2020-2021 are being delivered live via an online platform, so you can attend from any location. Please find details for all our courses on the relevant subject page on our website or visit OCR professional development. ExamBuilder is the question builder platform for a range of our GCSE, A Level, Cambridge Nationals, Cambridge Technicals and Functional Skills qualifications. See the full list of available qualifications in the sign up form. ExamBuilder is free for all OCR centres with an Interchange account and gives you unlimited users per centre. We need an Interchange username to validate the identity of your centre's first user account for ExamBuilder. If you do not have an Interchange account please contact your centre administrator (usually the Exams Officer) to request a username, or nominate an existing Interchange user in your department. Review of results

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• slower with chloroalkane
• C–Cl bond stronger / greater bond enthalpy
• IGNORE reference to bond polarity

Mark scheme, with the levels and indicative points

Examiner's comment

5(a) Generally this was well answered. However, some candidates only gave two responses where three were required, presumably because it was worth two marks. 5(b) A significant number of candidates did not gain the mark here as they incorrectly balanced the number of oxygens, forgetting that the alcohol contains an O atom i.e. 6.5 O2 given rather than 6. 5(c) Nomenclature in organic chemistry takes lots of practice. Approximately half of the candidates did not score this mark. It was more challenging as they needed to work with skeletal structures but evidence of drawing out displayed formula was often seen. 5(d)(i) Most candidates were able to recall the formula to calculate atom economy, however a number made errors in working out Mr values. However, some left this blank or just gave an answer without any working. 5(d)(ii) Mechanisms were often seen showing curly arrows going in the wrong direction and between the wrong bonds and atoms, charges and dipoles were often incorrect, and partial changes used where full charges were required. Writing mechanisms is an important skill in organic chemistry so it is vital that time is spent practising writing them out and fully understanding the significance of the curly arrow. 5(d)(iii) Many candidates gave the correct mechanism here, with common incorrect responses being other types of mechanism, substitution only, or isomerism. 5(e) Very few candidates gained both marks here. It was not enough here to just state faster/slower without specifying which haloalkane they were referring to. It was also important to specify the C-X bond not just vague reference to the chlorine or bromine bond. Many described the difference in bond polarity so had the wrong order. Some were more general and discussed the reactivity of bromine and chlorine themselves. 5(f)* This was a challenging problem-solving question, relying on candidates to make use of all of the information provided to determine the structure. Very few candidates made no attempt at all at this question. The most common error was incorrectly identifying the peak at 3000 cm-1 as O-H from a carboxylic acid, despite it being indicated on the data sheet that this would be a broad peak. It suggested that candidates were not familiar with looking at spectra and understanding what data it gave. Candidates should also be reminded when answering these types of question that they should give the structures, not just molecular formulae, where possible. If any of your students’ results are not as expected, you may wish to consider one of our review of results services. For full information about the options available visit the OCR website. If university places are at stake you may wish to consider priority service 2 reviews of marking which have an earlier deadline to ensure your reviews are processed in time for university applications. Our priority is supporting you and your students this autumn and to support you as you prepare for summer 2021 exams. We’ll update our website information regularly with resources, guidance and key information. • Teachers • Students • Exams officers • Assessment specialists We are sending a weekly roundup to tell you about important updates. You can also sign up for your subject specific updates. If you haven’t already, sign up here. Attend one of our popular CPD courses to hear directly from a senior assessor or drop in to a Q&A session. All our courses for the academic year 2020-2021 are being delivered live via an online platform, so you can attend from any location. Please find details for all our courses on the relevant subject page on our website or visit OCR professional development. ExamBuilder is the question builder platform for a range of our GCSE, A Level, Cambridge Nationals, Cambridge Technicals and Functional Skills qualifications. See the full list of available qualifications in the sign up form. ExamBuilder is free for all OCR centres with an Interchange account and gives you unlimited users per centre. We need an Interchange username to validate the identity of your centre's first user account for ExamBuilder. If you do not have an Interchange account please contact your centre administrator (usually the Exams Officer) to request a username, or nominate an existing Interchange user in your department. Review of results

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• M+ = 86, m/z 43 = CH3CO+ or C3H7+
• C=O at about 1700 and no broad O–H so ketone not carboxylic acid
• X is secondary alcohol E (3-methylbutan-2-ol), Y 3-methylbutan-2-one
• equation with [O] forming H2O

Skills: M3.1 Translate information between graphical, numerical and algebraic forms