Hello, Jahnine,
A lot of work for some misplaced labels, but I think we can sort them out.
I couldn't enter the tables I prepared, due to lack of space in the=is reply box. I did upload them to https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C-1WpjtIShbMXOdxUPneI0t9S7HwmRSfMP7XXdb9uI4/edit?usp=sharing
===
Use the ideal gas law, PV=nRT, to determine the numer of moles contained in the 1.0 gram samples of gas. We want to solve for n, the number of moles. I don't have time to type in the actual calculations, but I'll do one. The rest follow the same format.
Cylinder A: PV=nRT
n = PV/RT
n = (4.946atm)*(0.05 L)/(0.08206 L*atm*K-1mol-1)(298K)
n = 0.01011 moles of gas in 1 gram of gas from cylinder A
We can now calculate a molar mass: 1 gram/(0.01011 mole) = 98.9g/mole
---
This is repeated for the other gases. I got the following molar masses [table won't fit]:
Next we need to find the molar masses of the identified gases, along with their molecular formulas. [My table is too large to fit here - it is on the Google Sheet referenced above]
By matching the molar masses with those we calculated, we arrive at the following cylinder assignments: [This table will also not fit. On Google Sheets]
The published boiling points matched the ones provided, allowing additional verification. I went through this quickly, so double check the work. As far as what we might do next to confirm the culprit gas, we know it is under 100 g/mole. That eliminates TeF6.
It forms a liquid by - 40C. It isn't clear whether a liquid forms at a higher temperature. Either phosgene or cyanogen would meet this boiling point observation. Futher verification of the gas ID would be possible with a more accurate boiling point measurement. Also, gas color or spectrographic analysis would lead to a firm ID. Sniffing the gas is also a possibile ID method, but not covered by health insurance.