Comparing the Absorbance of Ni(SCN)2(PPh3)2 and Ni(NO3)2(PPh3)2: Impact of Solvent and Concentration on Yield and Experimental Results

Based on your provided information, we can make the following conclusions: 1. Considering the percentage yields obtained, the synthesis of Ni(NO3)2(PPh3)2 was more successful than that of Ni(SCN)2(PPh3)2. The percentage yield of Ni(NO3)2(PPh3)2 was significantly higher than Ni(SCN)2(PPh3)2. This could be due to a more efficient reaction process or fewer losses during the purification stage. 2. After conducting IR spectroscopy using the recommended solvents and concentrations, it appears that Ni(NO3)2(PPh3)2 has a higher absorbance than Ni(SCN)2(PPh3)2. Higher absorbance typically signifies a stronger interaction with the incident infra-red light, potentially indicating stronger or more numerous bonds/functional groups resonating with the frequency of the light. 3. The different solvents and concentrations used for IR analysis could have affected the results to some extent. For instance, nitromethane might facilitate better solubility or interaction for Ni(NO3)2(PPh3)2 compared to acetonitrile for Ni(SCN)2(PPh3)2, leading to distinct absorbance results. 4. Please note that these conclusions rely on the assumption that everything else (temperature, pressure, apparatus calibration, and other experimental factors) was constant in both experiments. Please note that I am drawing these conclusions based on the provided information and using a general understanding of the principles of synthesis and spectroscopy. For a more accurate interpretation, a deeper analysis of the reactants, the reaction conditions, and the spectroscopy results would be necessary.