This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
RATE OF REACTION
Complexity and Level of Demand Aim – to investigate the effect of different catalyst on the rate of reaction between zinc and hydrochloric acid in terms of the amount of hydrogen produced Word and symbol equations Zinc + Hydrochloric Acid Zinc Chloride + Hydrogen Zn (s) + 2HCl (aq) ZnCl2 (aq) + H2 (g) From these equations we can surmise that the two products of the reaction are Zinc chloride and Hydrogen. To investigate the rate of the reaction the most efficient and easiest way would be to measure the amount of hydrogen produced. One method would be the mass loss method which involves weighing the flask on a balance after certain intervals and seeing how much of the hydrogen is produced through mass loss in the flask. If I was using this method I would measure the change in mass every 10 seconds for about 2 minutes. Another alternative method would be to add the hydrochloric acid to the zinc and simply observe how long it would take to bring the reaction to completion i.e. how long it takes for the reaction to stop producing bubbles in the flask. But this method would be highly unreliable. There are three types of methods that I could use in order to measure the rate of reaction in my experiments. I could use a gas syringe method, a burette water displacement method and a mass loss balance method. What am I Investigating? The factor that I will be investigating is different types of catalysts and their effect on the reaction. The best catalyst will be the catalyst that speeds up the reaction the most between the Zinc and the acid. In a chemical reaction bonds are broken and breaking bonds requires energy, and the energy needed to start a reaction is referred to as the activation energy. A Catalyst works by lowering the amount of activation energy required for the reaction to take place. Copper is a well known catalyst for this reaction and therefore will probably lower the activation energy the most. The other catalysts I have chosen all contain transition metals in the ion form and transition metals all have catalytic properties. Apart from calcium chloride.
Gas Syringe Method The second method is the gas syringe method which consists of attaching a gases syringe with a rubber tube on the end attaché to a flask with all the reactants i.e. 10g of zinc 50ml of HCl and
5ml of catalyst with a bung attached to the tube fixed on the end. When gas is produced the gas enters gas syringe and there is nearly no friction between the plunger and the main body of the tube this would allow you very accurate results. Once the reaction has started I would not down the mass stated on the balance ant the begging and continue every 10 seconds. I would work out the results by subtracting the changed mass from the original mass and the graph would be plotted by using cumulative frequency so I would add each of the results to the previous result. I would then plot a line of best fit to gauge the gradient with the graphs including error bars and getting rid of any outliers from the calculation .the disadvantages of this method is that the gas syringe is an extremely expensive object and with an extremely fast reaction the gas syringe could be filled up easily and might shatter due to pressure or cause a spillage as the flask might disconnect due to the force of the bung popping out due to the same pressure, also the results will keep flickering so it will be hard to record results as it is too sensitive. e. The advantages us that the syringe is accurate to 3 decimal places which extremely accurate.
The first method I will discuss that can be used for this experiment is the Mass Loss Method. This method consists of a balance being use to measure the loss of mass due to the escaping of gas in the ongoing reaction taking place on the scales. The Balance would permit me to measure the results to an accuracy of 2 decimal places. For the reaction I would have to place I would have to add all the reactants i.e. 10g of zinc 50ml of HCl and 5ml of catalyst in a beaker I would also block up the opening with cotton wool to make sure no liquid escapes the reaction which would make my results unreliable. Once the reaction has started I would not down the mass stated on the balance ant the begging and continue every 10 seconds. I would work out the results by subtracting the changed mass from the original mass and the graph would be plotted by using cumulative frequency so I would add each of
the results to the previous result. I would then plot a line of best fit to gauge the gradient with the graphs including error bars and getting rid of any outliers from the calculation. The disadvantages of this method is that a balance is extremely expensive and if we were to break it will cost a lot of money also the results will keep flickering so it will be hard to record results as it is too sensitive. The advantages are its amazing accuracy and it will continue until whenever you want to stop or until the reaction has been brought to its completion.
. The water displacement method will work by the gas produced from the reaction will be transferred into an upturned burette filled with water with its open end in a trough full of water via a bung and delivery tube. The gas will then be transferred into the burette while the water is being displaced as hydrogen is not soluble in water allowing us to measure the quantity of hydrogen produced accurately and efficiently. Timing will begin when the first bubble of hydrogen gas goes into the burette this so we know when the reaction takes place. We will mark the burette water level at 10 seconds interval and this will be done with a permanent marker. The advantages of this method are the burette is cheaper than both the balance and the gas syringe and the school has lots of burette stocked the measurements on the burette are precise to 0.01 ml and the measurements will be easy to take down and there will be enough time to take them down at our own leisure as we will have the markings. The disadvantages are that this is not as precise as the other methods. I would work out the results by subtracting the changed mass from the original mass and the graph would be plotted by using cumulative frequency so I would add each of the results to the previous result. I would then plot a line of best fit to gauge the gradient with the graphs including error bars and getting rid of any outliers from the calculation I have decided to use this one as this is the most reliable and the method with the least risk and the easiest to use. What am I Investigating? The factor that I will be investigating is different types of catalysts and their effect on the reaction. The best catalyst will be the catalyst that speeds up the reaction the most between the Zinc and the acid. In a chemical reaction bonds are broken and breaking bonds requires energy, and the energy needed to start a reaction is referred to as the activation energy. A Catalyst works by lowering the amount of activation energy required for the reaction and the energy needed for the collisions to take place. Copper is
Zinc in HCl Bung and tube Clamp Trough Burette
The other catalysts I have chosen all contain transition metals in the ion form and transition metals all have catalytic properties. Apart from calcium chloride. My pilot test will hopefully reveal several deficiencies in the design of my procedure and these deficiencies can be addressed before I waste any time on the larger experiment. Iron sulphate FeSO4 Nickel sulphate NiSO4 Calcium Chloride CaCl2 Volume of catalyst . Catalysts Acid Acid name Hydrochloric acid Volume of acid 50ml Copper sulphate CuSO4. Pilot Test The aim of the pilot test is to test the ability of my selected method to gather accurate information prior to my larger main study in order to improve the larger studies efficiency.By getoom a well known catalyst for this reaction and therefore will probably lower the activation energy the most. Measure out 5ml of catalyst in a small measuring cylinder Measure 50 ml oh hydrochloric acid in a conical flask Fill a trough and a burette with water Clamp the burette upside down with the open end in the trough Add the zinc to the acid and allow it to sit for 2 minutes After 2 minutes add all the reactants Attach a bung to the conical flask Place the tube attached to the bung inside the burette Wait for the first bubble of gas Start the timer Record the volume of gas with a marker pen on the burette every 5 seconds.Calcium Chloride . Method Weigh out 10 grams of Zinc with an oxide coating on a Balance accurate to 2 decimal places.10mls (changed to 5mls in the actual test) Concentration of catalyst solution – 1M Most effective Catalyst to trial – Nickel Sulphate Least effective catalyst to Trial .
1ml.01ml Conical flask Clamp Stopwatch – accurate to 2 decimal places The burette is easy to read as the accuracy is to 0. In a and the concentration of catalyst the only thing I will be changing the type of catalyst to make sure chemical reaction particles can only react with each other when they collide. For every time we do the experiment it will be done at room temperature as an increase of temperature can alter the results we get as there will be more energy for bond breakage to occur. so we can get a clear set of data. In the case of the granulated zinc the productive collisions. Any change that increases the number of collision per second. The conical flask is used to hold the acid and the zinc for the gas and is both wide and deep enough to suit the needs. The clamp is needed to hold the burette in place. If the concentration of one of the reactants is increase i.e. Powdered zinc has more surface area and this increases the number of collision i. The particles must collide with sufficient activation the particles that colliding will increase the rate of reaction. The water trough is used to collect the temperature the surface area the volume of acid the concentration of acid and the equipment used that the set of results that I collect are consistent and reliable. In the experiment I will keep the reaction to take place the bug fits nicely in the conical flask. Powdered zinc reacts faster as. Equipment Water trough Delivery tube and rubber bung Burette –accurate to 0. How many times will we repeat the pilot test? 3 times for each catalyst as I need to collect a reliable set of results or until consistent results are achieved. or increases the energy of change is surface area. a collision that produces a product. there are more . To make a productive energy.By getoom Zinc Concentration of acid 2M Amount of zinc 10g Form of zinc Granulated (We have decided not to use the powdered form of zinc as it can be extremely dangerous when inhaled and sheet zinc is too much hassle to use with the equipment collected) Temperature Room temperature.e.
e. Acid.I plan to use the same volume of acid the same type of acid and the same concentration of acid for each of these experiments to make sure that there are the same type number and concentration of the HCl molecules per cm3 so my experiment is not flask to contain the acid in that I will rinse afterwards. checking to see if the temperature is kept the same I would also make sure that the flask Catalyst – I plan to use the same volume of catalyst and the same concentration of catalyst. the factor that I shall change in my experiment but I shall only change the type of catalyst not the volume or concentration as this would change the rate of reaction and produce more hydrogen than should be produced in the reaction we are supposed to be measuring. We plan to change the catalyst after each experiment as the small amount of catalyst should react fairly quickly and the catalyst could be contaminated by other chemical products produced in the equation. I will use the same Zinc – I will keep the quantity and the type of zinc the same to ensure that there is no after each test as the reaction of the zinc will take a long time even with a catalyst but if we see that changes to my reaction as more zinc will me more productive collisions according to the quantity will also increases the surface area which will change the amount of collision theory as there will be more zinc for the acid particles to react with as changing successful collisions per second. I plan to do this by keeping the reaction at room temperature and does not get too hot after the reaction as this reaction is an exothermic reaction which means that heat is released so I would leave the beaker to cool for a few minutes. In the 1m HCl There are less particles of acid per cm3than in the 2m acid so according to collision theory the ate of reaction will have increased in the 2m acid. To prevent this I would use the same quantity of zinc each of zinc the same I would make sure they all have an oxide coating as the zinc without the Temperature – we must keep the temperature the same to make sure that the rate of coating reacts a lot faster. I will control the variables by not letting anything contaminate the chemicals and I will rinse the equipment every time it is used and will make sure there are no remnants of any chemicals. We will not be replacing the zinc the reaction is beginning to slow down when it should be speeding up or staying the same we will replace it with fresh zinc without its oxide coating. In This test I will make it fair by keeping the different components constants. To keep the type reaction between zinc and HCl would have increased as the particles will have more energy to move around and so according to collision theory they will produce more productive collisions. time and I would make sure the zinc granules I choose are f a similar size. The same principle applies to catalyst volume and concentration. When doing the experiment I will add the zinc first as it’s safer as there is a chance of any HCl splashing out of the flask. contaminated to keep the number and the type of collisions the same. This factor is my independent variable i. When we do the experiment we plan to let the zinc sits in the HCl for a few minutes before hand so that the oxide coat shall be dissolved. When adding the zinc into the HCl and also its harder to add the zinc evenly in the narrow hole of the .By getoom particles per cm3 there will be more collisions per second resulting in an increase in the rate of reaction.
We have decided not to heat up the acid or the catalyst as this is very dangerous and shall cause too much hassle. The catalyst shall be added last as then the reaction can take place without delay. The use to a gas syringe was considered and then dismissed as it can only hold a certain amount of gas and is very delicate and can be inaccurate. As a result of our pilot test we found that the reaction was too fast to measure sometimes and so we changed the concentration of the catalyst from 10 ml to 5 ml and this made the reaction slower and more measurable. The use of the burette may cause a slight discrepancy in the result through the delay in the gas delivery system as it takes a few seconds for the gas in the flask to reach the burette but we have compensated for this by staring the timing from as soon as the first gas bubble reaches the burette. A measuring cylinder would not be as accurate as a burette and was dismissed for this reason.By getoom conical flask. . We shall maintain the temperature by keeping the windows in the lab open and maintain constant heating in the lab. We are using 5 different types of catalyst 4 of them being transition metals in the ion form and it should be interesting to investigate the catalytic properties of calcium chloride (if any).
2 5.5 0.5 5.1 2.4 0.6 0.6 0.By getoom ACTUAL TEST RESULTS Fyutfryurtyrty – Outlier i.1 0.4 0 0.26 0.05 14.1 1.4 Averages 0.5 2.25 0.1 0.1 0.4 6.1 0.1 0.2 5 14.2 0.5 0.7 6.4 0 0.5 .8 5 5 6 6.8 20.5 5.4 0.13 5 4.1 0.6 0.95 15.1 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 4 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.9 3.4 0.2 0 0.2 5.6 0 0.6 0.2 0.8 4.3 1.1 0.36 0.15 4.6 0.2 0.7 0.5 14 13.3 0 0.5 5 5 8.6 1.3 14.1 0.26 0.e.8 5. not counted in calculations Time (sec) 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 No Catalyst (g) Avera ges Iron Sulphate (g) Avera ges Copper Sulphate (g) 5 4 5.44 4.2 5.3 0.3 0.23 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 0.6 0.75 4.2 0.1 0.72 6.4 0 0.92 7.5 6.5 1.4 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.4 0.5 5.3 6.3 0.03 4.8 2.5 13.5 0.23 0.1 0.55 4.2 8.5 9.8 0.23 0.7 15.4 0.23 1.63 0.1 2.92 6.4 0.6 5.4 0.3 0.53 0.4 0 0.9 1.3 0.85 4.8 6.4 16.2 0.1 0.8 2.2 4.1 0.3 0.3 5 4.1 4.2 0.23 0.7 4.5 0.6 17.3 0.9 17.1 5.8 4 4.5 15.1 0.4 0.7 14.3 0.1 0.6 0.4 Ave rage s Nickel Sulphate (g) Avera ges Calcium Chloride (g) 0.2 0.2 0.5 4.8 5.5 11.4 4.1 0.65 5.2 6.2 0.2 1 1.3 0.
9 3.5 9.5 0.4 0.6 0.25 11.1 3 4.1 1.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 8.6 0.4 0.75 7.By getoom Pilot Test Results Time (sec) 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 No Catalyst (g) 0.3 12.8 0.0 0.5 1.6 3.6 0.86 8.1 9.25 4.6 4.8 0.6 4.0 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.1 3.95 5 9.93 0.2 1.6 0.56 0.25 12.15 4.9 1 4 12.9 1.4 3.5 7.8 0.3 3.7 0.6 0.75 Iron Sulphate(g) Averag es(g) 2.55 0.8 0.25 1.67 0.0 1.7 4.8 4.05 4.8 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.5 8.4 7.83 2.7 9.8 0.2 3.8 0.1 12.5 5 2 2.7 0.8 0.76 5.3 6.5 0.7 0.46 5.6 4.15 4.7 0.95 7.6 1.9 3.1 3 3.2 2.6 0.9 1.7 2.76 0.67 0.3 3 4.5 0.0 0.2 Averages (g) 0. 14.9 3.4 5.7 0.5 0.6 5.8 1.3 4.7 0.7 5.5 3.3 7.3 9.9 9.4 .85 0.6 Sulphate(g) 3.6 8.75 0.9 0.3 Averag es(g) 6.5 4.3 14.9 0.6 16.1 2.8 4.7 0.4 4.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 Nickel ges(g) 3.6 0.3 0.6 1.9 5.3 4.6 0.4 4.9 Calcium Averages (g) 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.2 9.5 0.6 0.1 8.6 0.43 14.6 6.5 0.7 5.6 0.7 0.4 0.9 6.2 3.5 4.7 8.9 0.6 Sulphate(g) 5.2 7.4 0.5 2.76 0.95 8.4 3.2 6.2 2 2.6 0.7 0.4 5.8 5.8 0.0 13.8 8.8 0.8 Copper 2.1 4.46 4.6 0.4 0.63 0.7 0.53 0.7 Avera Chloride(g) 0.05 0.6 6.6 15 8 3 4.3 5.6 0.2 9.8 0.8 1.63 1.76 0.7 0.6 3. 8.5 0.
4. 15.455 cm3/s 0.69 1.79 3.18 44.08) Nickel sulphate.96 2.5 0.13 1.73 28.(10.28 47.00 Nickel Sulphate ( cm3) 1.2) 0.6 0.00 Calcium Chloride ( cm3g) 0.3) (20.63 Iron Sulphate (cm3g) 4. 1.00 Copper Sulphate ( cm3) 6.09 1.(40.3 13.5) (20.68083 cm3/s cm3/s .(10.19 2.3 0. 0.5) No catalyst .94 2.83 28. 1.98 39. 47.25 43.98 23.28 50.63 34.33 41.55 50.73 1.1) (110.4) Copper sulphate.83 1.3 2.39 1.5 15.7 3.95 18. 6.42 3.02 cm3/s 0. 3.75) (20.03428571 cm3/s 0.23) (70.By getoom CUMULATIVE GAS VOLUME No Catalyst (cm3) 0. 9.2 INTERPRETATION Numerical processing of data To calculate the gradient I will use the formula Calcium chloride–(10.03 33.63 1.2 29.23 10.1 1.7 2.13 45.9 1.8) Iron sulphate-(10. 0.75 9.69 1.08 50.5 3.
5 times the rate of the no catalyst reaction and the nickel sulphate was about 3. We know this because the line of best fit for nickel sulphate in the steepest (if the gradient of the line increases that means that more hydrogen is produced per second for example the Nickel sulphate had the quickest production of 50cm3 of hydrogen and accordingly its line of best fit is the steepest i. Summary of evidence and relevant science involved From the graph we find that the best catalyst is the Nickel sulphate. when added to the reaction.By getoom Variable againt gradient 1. The calcium chloride seemed to lower the rate of reaction by a factor of 1 third.8 0.6 0. The second most effective catalyst judging from what is apparent is the copper sulphate then the iron sulphate then the calcium chloride which seemed to have no positive effect on the reaction and seemed to actually have a negative effect on the reaction as less hydrogen per second was produced than in the reaction with no catalyst that we used as a control to compare our other results with.e.2 result in the second set of the nickel sulphate results at 30 seconds and too low like the 6.2 0 0 2 4 6 Variable againt gradient This graph shows the gradient plotted against the type of catalyst which would help us get a better understanding of which catalysts were better and by how much.1 result in the first set of the nickel sulphate at 20 seconds and one in the middle which was the case with all the large error bars and why I couldn’t mark any of those results as an outlier. the gradient is higher) and the gradient calculation show that the catalyst that.6 1.4 1.4 0. The copper sulphate was about 2.5 times the rate of the no catalyst reaction. We found that the Iron sulphate rate of production of the hydrogen was about 1.2 1 0. The only error bars that were large enough to cause some suspicions of unreliability were in the high hydrogen producing reaction like Nickel sulphate Copper sulphate and Iron sulphate which might be expected as we found that higher volumes of hydrogen were harder to measure due to the fact that the faster the hydrogen was produced the harder it was to be measured as the large hydrogen bubbles found it hard to mark the burette at the allotted time which is why I got some results too high alike the 17. The amount of scatter visible on the graph is not great but some points are slightly away from the line of best fit I can say from the amount of scatter data the number of outliers and the size of the error bars that my results were reliable to a moderate degree of reliability. In addition to this some small .5 times the rate of the no catalyst reaction. caused the most hydrogen gas to be produced per second.
before the pilot test. . The ionic equation for the turning of a hydrogen ion into an atom is 2H+ (aq) + 2eH2 (g) But when the catalyst copper sulphate is added there is a secondary reaction taking place as well as the effect of the adding of the lowering This is a graph which shows he difference between a catalyzed and un-catalyzed reaction in terms of activation energy.e.there will be more space for the particles to react and by this statement a powder will react better than big lumps of solid as there is more surface area in the powder an added catalyst-A catalyst is a chemical that speeds up the rate of a reaction without being used up in the chemical changes that take place The addition of a catalyst often allows a reaction to take place quickly at a lower activation energy examples when catalysts are used is catalytic converters in cars which contain bits of silver that speeds up the reaction in the engine. heat is released) and as shall be discussed later on.2 Cm3 compared with the 50 cm3 of the together three catalysts) and from our pilot test we predicted that nickel sulphate was the best catalyst and rom what our results show us is that we were right.By getoom discrepancies may have been caused by the fact that the flask might have been slightly hotter than normal due to this being a exothermic reaction (i. that copper sulphate was going to be the best catalyst for this reaction as copper is a known catalyst for this reaction and copper lowers the activation energy. Activation energy is also the amount of energy for bond breakage to occur to make a chemical reaction occur the previous bonds must be broken and new ones must be created as previously mentioned catalyst lower the activation energy and so allow the reaction to take place faster. Copper was also extremely effective and was very close to the nickel sulphate results which we thought. Any change that increases the number of collisions per second or increases the energy of the particles that collide will increase the rate of reaction. There are four factors that affect the rate of reaction these are increased temperature – as more molecules will collide with sufficient activation energy increased concentration – there are more particles per cm3 there will be more collisions per second thus increasing the rate of reaction increased surface area . The reaction between Zinc and hydrochloric acied can be written in a balanced ionic form which gives us: Zn (aq) + 2H+ (aq) Zn+2 (s) + H2 (g) The zinc gives the hydrogen ion electrons which reduce it into a hydrogen atom this is the hydrogen gas that we find is produced in the reaction and the factor we have measured. As we expected Calcium chloride was the worst catalyst (as the total hydrogen production from the reaction was only 3. Catalysts are usually specific to certain reactions meaning that some catalysts will only increase the rate of reaction for that specific reaction In a chemical reaction particles only react with each other if the collide with sufficient activation energy (the energy needed to have a successful collision).
And the chance of a battery effect of taking place through the formation of a cathode depends heavily on the difference between the metals in terms of reactivity i.e. As Iron and Nickel are also lower in the reactivity series than zinc albeit not much I would expect that these two catalysts would also participate in the battery effect but at a slower rate. if the metals are close together on the reactivity series then there will not be an overall increase in the rate of reaction. This can be expressed as the ionic equation: Zn(s) + Cu+2(aq) Zn+2(aq) + Cu(s) The zinc displaces the copper metal and we find that once the zinc supplies two electrons to the copper ion solid copper metal is produced. A chemical can only be displaced I the displacing chemical is higher up the reactivity series and we find that iron nickel and copper are all lower than zinc on the periodic table respectively (with iron being the highest). this is important for the following reason. Some of the techniques we used to gather our results may have caused some slight discrepancies in the Final results one . anode Cathode EVALUATION Evaluation of procedure The procedure we used in order for us to measure the rate of reaction was accurate enough for me to formulate a conclusion on the effect of catalysts on the reaction and to deduce that according to what is apparent we find that nickel sulphate was the best catalyst for the reaction out of the 4 we used and which catalysts were better than other in the production of hydrogen.By getoom the energy needed for bond breakage. There is however a downside to this ‘battery effect’. When copper forms it means that a solid metal is conducting electricity in the HCl solution which causes the solution to act as an electrolyte with the copper becoming the cathode and the zinc becoming that anode. In the reactions the sulphate in the copper sulphate does not all get used up and this means that if we use copper on its own as a sole catalyst then this will increase the rate of reaction in this reaction it is possible that the copper could smother the zinc metal and stop it from reacting by creating a ‘blanket effect’ and stopping the hydrogen from gaining electrons from the zinc which might cause the net reaction level to stay the same. In this specific reaction the effect of the catalyst depends very much on how reactive the metals in the catalyst are. The effect that we find that this has is that the hydrogen can turn into an atom from either the copper cathode (by gaining electrons) or by the displaced zinc particles (also by gaining electrons).
the highest result was the same distance away from the middle pint than the lower bound i. Also we found that the possible outliers were only a few points away from the other results as were the final average with them included which I found to be acceptable and not overly worrying to the final results these could be accounted for by attributing the same two problems mentioned in the previous section(as nearly all these possible outliers occurred in the faster hydrogen producing catalysts. Another method we could have used is the mass loss method that was stated at the very beginning of the investigation and the advantages that come with the mass loss method are that The advantages are its amazing accuracy and it will continue until whenever you want to stop or until the reaction has been brought to its completion which would help us reinforce the line of best fit if we waited till the reaction went to completion rather than to 50 cm 3. Another section of the method of the experiment that would have caused some problems was the fact that when we were working with a catalyst that sped up the reaction considerably we found that we were not always able to mark the correct area on the burette. The amount of scatter could be reduced by more readings in each section so that my results will be even more precise and more reliable which would make my . At first I thought of categorising all the possible outliers as full outliers and dismissing them from any calculations but after closer examinations I found that these possible outliers were only found when the upper bound i. My second improvement that I shall suggest is that we should have taken the results at shorter intervals of time which would have increased the reliability of my data and by extension the reliability of my conclusion and this would also overcome the fact that the bubbles of hydrogen which might have been produced to fast to measure accurately would be accounted for with greater reliability. especially in the lower rate hydrogen producing reaction where 0.1 of a centimetre cubed of hydrogen could make a difference. A third problem was that when we were selecting zinc chips although we would have tried to keep the surface area the same as stated in my strategy it would be hard to make sure that there was the same surface areas each of the times which would have caused the relate of reaction to change as I stated the factors that make rate of reaction change in my interpretation and we find amongst them surface area. When I looked at the error bars I found that they are of a small size and this means that the results are very precise not very accurate and very reliable in other words there was a small amount of scatter. Reliability of evidence In my results I found several different results that could have been described as outliers and a couple results that were significant outliers.the diagram to the right is the mass loss picture which shows the reaction taking place with the catalyst copper sulphate and also depicts the balance in the end I decided to use the burette method as this is the most reliable and the method with the least risk and the easiest to use although I could have used this method which is fairly reliable. the lowest result which made the average of the three results reliable but the size of the error bars unreliable so I decided to include the calculations. Two improvements that I would suggest is that to the first problem I would use a fine tipped permanent pen that works on all surfaces whether wet or dry and we should make that the burette is dry before any collecting of results which in retrospect we should have done.e.) to these slightly different results so we show that the two aforementioned problems do have an effect on the overall result but only a very slight one.e. We also found that if the burette was even slightly wet then it would be extremely hard to mark the burette as the ink would not show up very strongly.By getoom such mistake could be found in the section of our experiment when I had to read the results of the burette and because of the thick nature of nib of the pen used and the difficulty we had in marking the tube with a single straight horizontal line which would be a problem.
By getoom results almost close to what the true values should be. I could have also extended the investigation by experimenting with the same catalysts but at a range of concentration which would also help support my findings of this investigation but reinforcing the trend in the data form the most effective catalyst to the least effective catalyst and also increase the time the experiment ran for by using a larger burette or a measuring cylinder with a larger capacity.01 centimetres cubed and made sure that the least amount of chemicals possible was lost in transit. . Another interesting point is that there was an entire section of our results for iron sulphate which we deemed an outlier this could have meant that the particular batch of iron sulphate was tainted or perhaps it was not the same molarity as the other batches. So we find that confidence in our analysis is directly linked to the apparent reliability of the data collected and the precision and limitations of the techniques used. Another way that more data could help was that if independent groups did their own experiment using the same procedure and then if they collated their result together and peer reviewed and cross referenced their findings it would create more confidence as it would deal with the apparent reliability of the data collected and if this procedure was again repeated by different groups but this time with slightly different techniques then if they collated their result together and peer reviewed and cross referenced their findings this would generate confidence by combating limitations of the techniques used. One way of improving the reliability of both my evidence and by extension my conclusion I drew from it is that we could have recorded the temperature for each experiment and then allowed each reaction flask to cool down before the next reaction because any increase in heat would mean an increase in the rate of reaction which would cause some problems in our results. A piece of equipment that was the least reliable out of all of the equipment that I was using was the rubber tube for the reason that when we were putting the rubber tube into the burette we found that some water entered the tube and this caused the start time to be slightly delayed but as the amount of water was only marginal we find that this did not do any great damage to our results. I would rectify this by repeating the test while I was recording the results and saw the data set showed a large amount of discrepancies. Reliability of conclusion I am fairly confident in my data as I found a few outliers that when discounted from my calculation allowed an expected data set to form. Any scatter or larger than relatively normal error bars I was also able to account for well and I think that if I took many more readings of every stage and repeated them at more frequent intervals I would find a much more reliable and small error bars as the heaps of data would be able to whittle away at the corruption of any possible outliers that I have seen justifiably fit to include even after my scrutiny. For the most part the equipment that I was using contained both precise and imprecise tools one of the most precise tools was the measuring cylinders we used to measure all the chemicals in which were all accurate to 0. The true outliers we found were far away from the other results and we naturally discounted them straightaway but as an interesting pint the majority of the outliers were found in the faster hydrogen producing catalysts but this can be again attributed to the two previous problems. And I become more reliable in my results once I found that the error bars were extremely small and that there was not a large amount of scatter at all.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.