Sure you can, but it would be an inefficient use of resources
First, let's look at the spell itself:
You create up to 10 gallons of clean water within range [30 feet] in an open container.
Since the spell is range and allows you to cast it within a container, that fits your planned use. It does specify an open container. You might need to work with your GM on this. What does an "open" container mean? Is "a bottle (using a mesh screen to keep the material from falling out)" open, or if the mesh prevents the material from leaving, is it actually still closed? If the bottle is open, why doesn't environmental water get in and cause an explosion? Does it have both a removable stopper and non-removable mesh?
Let's say the GM agrees that something of your design fits your concept of an "open" container. Now let's look at what other mechanisms are already in play that are similar to what you want to do:
Oil usually comes in a clay flask that holds 1 pint. As an action, you can...throw it up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged Attack against a target creature or object, treating the oil as an Improvised Weapon. On a hit, the target is covered in oil. If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil.
From this we know that it is reasonable for you to throw a bottle and have it hit the creature or floor nearby as an Improvised Ranged Weapon Attack. We know that this takes an attack action, and a subsequent ignition trigger would be a separate action.
This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged Attack against a creature or object, treating the alchemist's fire as an Improvised Weapon. On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns. A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames.
This reinforces the conclusions from oil. It also tells us that in-game, alchemical procedures exist to create reactive substances in an anaerobic environment and that these can be weaponized routinely enough that there is a standardized price for them in the PHB. Thus, I don't agree with the answers that say that chemicals that react with water would be unlikely to exist in-game, or that they would not be widely known about, or that they could not be safely packaged in containers. If Alchemist's fire exists as canon, what you are trying to make seems very likely at the same level of alchemical technology. (In fact, to me it seems more likely to exist than the technology for drawing metal into wire fine enough for mesh, for which there is AFAIK no PHB support of anything finer than chain mail).
In terms of support within existing mechanics, then, what you are trying to do is perfectly reasonable.
To extend the comparison with Alchemist's fire, though, look at the cost: 50gp for a flask that does 1d4 damage per round to a single target and can be easily put out as an action. Are you expecting your bomb to do more damage? Are you expecting it to damage more than one target (as an area of effect)? Are you expecting it to be more difficult to counter (Higher DC save for reducing damage)? If you are expecting it to be in any way better than alchemist's fire, you should expect it to cost more than 50gp, which is already quite costly.
So now think about what you are spending: at least two actions (throwing and spell-casting), a first level spell slot, and more than 50gp in resources. As a GM, if a player was willing to spend all of that I would absolutely allow their bomb to work. As a player, though, I would wonder if your goal of doing damage to an opponent at 30 feet away couldn't be more efficiently achieved by an existing first level spell - others have mentioned guiding bolt, which gets you 4d6 damage, far better range, a solid secondary effect, and the ability to roll your attack with your spell attack bonus rather than as an improvised weapon.