Examiners' Report June 2019: GCSE Chemistry 1CH0 1H
Examiners' Report June 2019: GCSE Chemistry 1CH0 1H
Examiners' Report June 2019: GCSE Chemistry 1CH0 1H
June 2019
Edexcel and BTEC qualifications come from Pearson, the UK’s largest awarding body. We provide a
wide range of qualifications including academic, vocational, occupational and specific programmes
for employers. For further information visit our qualifications websites at www.edexcel.com or
www.btec.co.uk.
Alternatively, you can get in touch with us using the details on our contact us page at
www.edexcel.com/contactus.
ResultsPlus is Pearson’s free online service giving instant and detailed analysis of your students’
exam results.
Understand how your students’ performance compares with class and national averages.
Identify potential topics, skills and types of question where students may need to develop their
learning further.
Pearson aspires to be the world’s leading learning company. Our aim is to help everyone progress
in their lives through education. We believe in every kind of learning, for all kinds of people,
wherever they are in the world. We’ve been involved in education for over 150 years, and by
working across 70 countries, in 100 languages, we have built an international reputation for our
commitment to high standards and raising achievement through innovation in education. Find out
more about how we can help you and your students at: www.pearson.com/uk.
June 2019
Publications Code 1CH0_1H_1906_ER
There were some excellent responses in this paper and the best candidates applied their
knowledge very well to unfamilair contexts. There was good evidence of skill in writing equations
and performing calculations. Better answers - for example in calculations and the 6-mark answers -
were clearly laid out and well structured. In some questions candidates did not properly distinguish
between describe and explain. Questions in a practical context were challenging to some, and
describing what you 'see' in a reaction did not always yield the expected observations.
Question 1 (c)
Most candidates thought through this question well, and scored at least one mark, with many
getting both marks. The main issue here was being insufficiently exact in the language of the
answer. Protection from corrosion was often stated, but others just stated ‘protects’ but not stating
from what, or thought that the electroplating was ‘a sacrificial metal’. Others were mixing
electroplating with alloying and saying ‘to make it stronger’. Many marks were scored with the ideas
if improving appearance or by saving cost with a cheaper metal being electroplated, but these
answers had to be adequately stated, with vague responses such as ‘cheaper’ not credited.
Question 2 (c)
Q2(c) was very well done.
In Q4(b)(ii), however strange it might have seemed dividing by 100 and multiplying by 100 in the
same calculation, few candidates were fazed by this and many gave the correct answer. It was
noted that most correctly followed instruction that they must show working. A surprising number
seemed to think both products were useful and so had an atom economy of 100%.
This answer:
Candidates who failed to score high marks tended to describe dynamic equilibria and focus on
“closed system” in their responses and experiments relying on the efforts of Monsieur Le Chatelier
(raising and lowering temperature, altering pressure), without considering a simple, practical lab
experiment. Others did not seem to read the question at all and described making copper sulfate
crystals.
Candidates are advised to read a question such as this very carefully but also to think about the
observations which would prove the anhydrous and hydrated copper sulfate are present.
Question 6 (c)
The use of the Avogadro constant was weak. Common incorrect answers here just gave the
Avogadro constant or multiplied it by the relative formula mass of copper iodide.
Zn being reduced
Question 8 (c)
Whilst many candidates did achieve full marks, the concept of the mole and molar solutions not
fully grasped by many. Most candidates showed full working, therefore increasing the possibility of
part marks where an error had occurred. Where candidates scored less than full marks, most
managed to calculate the mass of copper sulfate and/or Mr of copper sulfate, therefore scoring 1
or 2 marks for partial completion of the response. Common errors included 159.5/15.95, not
dividing the volume by 1000, or dividing 15.95 by 50.
Question 9 (c)
The vast majority of candidates identified with a reason magnesium, usually from its colour, and
sodium hydroxide, using from the pH of the solution. However, a very significant number mixed up
copper oxide and copper carbonate. Those that answered fully could identify copper oxide because
it reacts with sulfuric acid to form blue copper sulfate solution and water, but unlike the carbonate
no carbon dioxide is produced, and similarly giving the correct identification of the carbonate using
its production of carbon dioxide, when explaining the effervescence in acid.
Other high scoring answers, where candidates were able to identify all four solids, recognised the
colour of each substance. Magnesium was often recognised by the formation of bubbles in water
and less often through the formation of hydrogen gas in acid when effervescence takes place.
Some candidates failed to read the question properly and did not realise that they had been given
the names of the solids.
Question 10 (b)
There was a wide variation in responses on this question, but relatively few scored the full 4 marks.
Most candidates were able to show that 2 moles of NO has a mass of 60g and many converted this
to 16.67 moles of oxygen and scored at least two marks. Only a minority then went on to multiply
this by 24 and then 100/20 to arrive at the correct answer of 2000 dm3. Others scored the latter two
marks after making an initial error that was only penalised once. However a significant number of
candidates found this question difficult to understand and often divided by 24 or 5 when they
should have used multiplication. Answers that were poorly laid out with little in the way of order or
annotation made it difficult to follow candidates’ logic and to award part marks where the final
answer was incorrect.
It was surpisingly common to see 10 atm as a decrease in pressure, many candidates seemingly
unaware that normal atmospheric pressure is 1 atm. Many candidates just wrote what they had
memorised regarding the Haber process. Some candidates compared the conditions in the Haber
process to 10 atm pressure and a temperature of 900oC, disregarding the wording of the question.
The least successfully answered section of the question was explaining how excess air affects both
rate and equilibrium. Candidates usually understood that extra air would increase yield but were
unaware that excess air increased the concentration of oxygen
The poorest answers failed to appreciate that excess air in fact meant excess oxygen, suggested
that nitrogen (in the air) was present to be converted into NH3, NO or HNO3, or that temperature,
excess air and high pressure were ‘catalysts’.
Candidates that were most clear structured their work very well, breaking down their answer into
paragraphs under 3 headings of air, pressure and temperature, with each explaining rate and
separately yield. Those that were not produced answers that were muddled and erratic.
Review their understanding of dynamic equilibria and the species present at equilibrium
Practise, using past paper questions, describing the observations seen in an experiment
http://www.edexcel.com/iwantto/Pages/grade-boundaries.aspx