.

[andrewloppol]

.

[darkphoenix]

Is it really necessary to prove it?

[happyhappyland]

you can react ethanol with ethanoic acid and see how long it takes to become ethy ethanoate. then react the same thing with h2so4 present and see how long it takes to become ethyl ethanoate

[superflya]

reacting it with KMnO4, if an explosion is observed this indicates the presence of sulfuric acid as a redox reaction has occured

[Mao]

reacting it with KMnO4, if an explosion is observed this indicates the presence of sulfuric acid as a redox reaction has occured

... NO.

To prove it is a catalyst, add an accurate amount (known number of moles), then titrate with a standardized solution (such as sodium hydroxide) after the reaction has completed. The number of moles from the titration should be the same as the initial.

[superflya]

^^ wats the fun in that

[Mao]

In the end I wrote:
To prove that sulfuric acid acted as a catalyst and therefore remained after the reaction, you could add Barium Sulfate to the filtrate, which if sulfuric acid is present, this reaction would produce a white precipitate, BaSO4, indicating that H2SO4 was present in the filtrate.

Feasible ?

No. To prove it is a catalyst, it must not be consumed (at all). Thus number of moles initially must be the same as final. You needed to have mentioned you measured the weight of the precipitate and found the number of moles did not change. (However, it wouldn't be easy precipitating BaSO4 out of H2SO4, since H2SO4 is usually present as HSO4-, you'll learn more about this next semester).

[darkphoenix]

Cant you just do the experiment twice?

Once with catalyst and the other without? Then compare it.

[m@tty]

Cant you just do the experiment twice?

Once with catalyst and the other without? Then compare it.

That could only prove that the addition increased the rate of reaction. It cannot determine if it was a truly a catalyst or just a reactant.