The Effectiveness of Tums and Gaviscon on the Neutralization

of Hydrochloric Acid

Ella Baranski, Corinne Hinson, and Lindsey Shereda

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Honors Chemistry

Section 10C

Mrs. Hilliard / Mr. Supal / Mrs. Kincaid Dewey

23 May 2018
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Table of Contents

Introduction.......................................................................................................................1

Review of Literature..........................................................................................................3

Problem Statement ..........................................................................................................8

Experimental Design.........................................................................................................9

Data and Observations...................................................................................................12

Data Analysis and Interpretation.....................................................................................18

Conclusion......................................................................................................................24

Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................27

Appendix A: Safety Precautions……………………………………………………………..28

Appendix B: Sample Calculations……………………………………………………………29

Appendix C: First Derivative Procedure……………………………………………………..31

Works Cited....................................................................................................................33

1
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Introduction

Heartburn and stomach pain are effects of indigestion that plague people on a

daily basis. When 731 adult patients were surveyed in a study, 51.3% had taken

antacids at least once in the previous six months. Additionally, 10.9% reported taking

antacids daily (Birtwhistle). Because antacids are so commonly used, it is important for

consumers to choose an efficient type. There is a major difference in the neutralization

power of antacids that contain different active ingredients.

The purpose of this experiment was to test the effectiveness of two commercial

antacids: Tums and Gaviscon. The objective was to figure out which antacid was the

most effective at neutralizing 0.1 M HCl, the acid found in the stomach. A back titration

setup was used to determine which antacid had a better neutralizing ability. To find the

number of moles of HCl neutralized by the antacid solutions, NaOH was back titrated

into solutions containing a crushed antacid and HCl. The back titration curves were

recorded using a LabQuest, and from there the volume at the equivalence point of the

back titrations was determined using a derivative on the Logger Pro software. Once the

data was collected and equivalence achieved, the derivative of each trial’s graph was

found and used to find the volume of NaOH once the reaction reached its equivalence

point. The volume at the equivalence point of NaOH matched the volume of HCl

neutralized, so the number of moles of HCl neutralized could then be determined. The

antacid that neutralized a higher amount of moles of HCl was the more efficient antacid

to choose. As such, this research further developed which active ingredients showed

the most success in antacids.

2
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

The property of value of this experiment is the expected amount of moles of HCl

that can be neutralized by each antacid, which is found by converting the amount of the

active ingredient in the antacid to the number of moles of HCl neutralized. For Tums,

this number was found to be 0.0150 moles HCl. For Gaviscon, the number of moles of

HCl was found to be 0.00865. Theoretically speaking, the amount of moles of HCl

neutralized for each antacid should relatively reflect its property of value. Later in the

paper, it can be seen that Gaviscon’s results were closer to its property of value than

Tums was to its property of value.

The results of this experiment have many applications to the real world. Antacids

offer quick relief to the thousands of people that take them each day. A consumer can

benefit from knowing which antacid would be the best for them. Not only do the

consumers benefit from the results, but companies can use the results from this

experiment to determine which active ingredients to use when making antacids. The

results found in this experiment have the potential to greatly benefit the medical

community.

3
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Review of Literature

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of different antacids

on the neutralization of hydrochloric acid, HCl, which is the acid present in stomachs.

Antacids are commonly used in everyday lives to reduce indigestion. Two different

commercial antacids were used in this experiment to test the effectiveness of

neutralizing stomach acid: Tums and Gaviscon.

Indigestion is a discomfort in the stomach or chest area. The stomach naturally

produces acid to break down the food consumed. This acid that is produced can harm

the stomach lining, so to counteract it, the stomach produces a mucus barrier that

protects the lining. However, in some people, the barrier may be worn down which then

harms the stomach and could lead to an ulcer. Others may experience acid reflux,

which occurs when the muscle that blocks the stomach opening, the sphincter, does not

close completely. This then leads to acid leaking out of the stomach into the

oesophagus causing pain (Tidy)​. Antacids are taken to ease the discomfort of

indigestion. As such, they work to calm the stomach through the partial neutralization of

HCl and inhibition of the enzyme pepsin (Burton). The most common active ingredient in

antacids are alkaline substances such as calcium and magnesium. When alkaline

substances react with acid, it produces salt and water, which is what is produced when

neutralization is achieved (Martin).

4
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

MgCO​3​(s) + Al(OH)​3​(s) + 5HCl(aq) → MgCl​2​(aq) + AlCl​3​(aq) + 4H​2​O(l) +CO​2​(g)

CaCO​3​(s) + 2HCl(aq) → CaCl​2​(aq) + CO​2​(g) + H​2​O(l)

The equations for the reaction between Gaviscon and hydrochloric acid (top) and

the reaction between Tums and hydrochloric acid (bottom) are displayed above. The

ingredients in Gaviscon, magnesium carbonate MgCO​3​, and aluminum hydroxide,

Al(OH)​3​, react with hydrochloric acid, HCl, to produce magnesium chloride, aluminum

chloride, AlCl​3​, water, and carbon dioxide, CO​2​. The ingredient in Tums, calcium

carbonate, CaCO​3​, reacts with hydrochloric acid to produce calcium chloride, carbon

dioxide, and water (Hem).

Due to the properties of the ingredients active in Tums and Gaviscon, it was

hypothesized that Tums would neutralize the largest amount of moles of HCl. The

MgCO​3​ and Al(OH)​3​ that are present in Gaviscon have cancelling effects on the strength

of the antacid. Magnesium works as a natural laxative, so producers add in aluminum,

with constipating results, to counteract the effect. Therefore, the overall neutralization

efficiency of the antacid was weakened by the aluminum (“Antacids”). Tums is able to

neutralize acids because the carbonate attracts the loose hydrogen molecules in the

excess acid, therefore neutralizing the acid. In the stomach, the loose hydrogen causes

the irritation, so by taking Tums, the carbonate relieves the stomachache (Joyce).

In the experiment, the pH of the analyte was recorded throughout the back

titration process. During indigestion, additional acid can be found in the stomach which

causes the irritation. The antacid’s goal is to neutralize the excess acid, therefore

making the acid benign to the stomach (Zumdahl).

5
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Figure 1. pH Scale

Figure 1, above, shows the pH scale. Zero to six is considered acidic while eight

to fourteen is considered alkaline, or basic. Additionally, seven is the neutral level of pH.

Understanding the process of back titration was necessary for this experiment.

Back titration is a reversed titration process where a solution with a defined

concentration, the titrant, is dripped into a solution with an undefined concentration, an

analyte, until an equivalence point is reached. The known concentration solution is the

titrant, whereas the solution with an unknown concentration is the analyte. This method

was used to determine the number of moles of hydrochloric acid that was neutralized by

a single tablet of the commercial antacid.

A back titration was chosen for this experiment because of the solubility of

antacids. An ideal method of determining the neutralization efficiency of antacids would

be to titrate HCl into a solution of antacids and water. However, the ingredients in the

antacids used were not soluble in water. Therefore, adjustments had to be made to

instead mix the crushed antacids with HCl and have a strong base, NaOH, titrate into

the antacid solution (“Lab 4”).

6
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Figure 2. Back Titration Setup

Figure 2 shows the back titration setup used in the experiment. As seen above,

the ring stand held the burette filled with 50 mL 0.1 M NaOH solution. The NaOH was

then dripped into the beaker that contained 50 mL of the antacid solution and the pH

sensor. In addition, the diagram above does not include the second LabQuest used for

the other solution’s data.

Figure 3. General Titration Curve

7
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

As shown in Figure 3 above, titration produces a trend known as a titration curve.

Because sodium hydroxide was back titrated into the antacid solution, the pH will rise as

the solution becomes more basic. The dotted lines meet at a point known as the

equivalence point, which is where the pH is seven. Data collection was halted once the

sodium hydroxide in the burette ran out. The data was derived from the volume at the

equivalence point, or point where the moles of back titrant were equal to the moles of

analyte. At that point the moles of HCl neutralized are equal to the moles of the volume

of NaOH added. Refer to Appendix C for information of how to find the equivalence

point and corresponding volume.

To determine which antacid was more effective, the moles of HCl neutralized

was found.

Moles of HCl = (L of HCl) * ( MLoles of solute

of solution
)

The moles of HCl neutralized was found by multiplying the volume of NaOH at

the equivalence point by the molarity of HCl. Liters was used in this formula, so the mL

collected in this experiment was converted to liters. The concentration of HCl in

stomach acid is generally 0.01 to 0.1 M. Since the molarity of stomach acid is so similar

to 0.1 M HCl used in this experiment, the results found using this equation can be

directly applied to real life situations (Brennan).

This experiment focused on the back titration of NaOH into an antacid solution

including HCl. The antacid that neutralized the greatest number of moles of HCl can be

determined by finding the volume at the equivalence point from a derivative graph of the

experimental data.

8
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Problem Statement

Problem Statement​:

To determine the neutralization capacity of antacids on stomach acid, by

quantifying the 0.1 M hydrochloric acid, HCl, needed to neutralize one tablet of two

commercial antacids: Tums and Gaviscon.

Hypothesis​:

When one tablet of Tums and Gaviscon are used to neutralize hydrochloric acid

through back titration, Tums will neutralize the greatest volume of 0.1 M HCl.

Data Measured​:

The independent variable in this experiment was the type of the antacid used;

Tums and Gaviscon. One tablet of each antacid was crushed and mixed with HCl.

One-tenth molar ​NaOH, ​HCl, and the amount of indicator were held constant. All three

of these constants were measured in mL with the molarity of HCl and NaOH, in moles of

solute per liter of the solution, determined prior to back titration. The dependent

variables was the amount of NaOH necessary to neutralize the antacid solution in mL.

Descriptive statistics were used to compare the performances of the two different

antacid types on achieving neutralization with HCl.

9
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Experimental Design

Materials​:

(2) Vernier LabQuests (2) ​pH Sensors

(2) Bottles Tums® Extra Strength Antacid (2) 250 mL Beakers
(2) Bottles Gaviscon® Extra Strength Antacid 50 mL Graduated Cylinder
(2) Stirring Rods (2) 50 mL Burettes
1 L 0.1 M Hydrochloric Acid Solution Funnel
1 L 0.1 M Sodium Hydroxide Solution ​(2) Mortars
500 mL Phenolphthalein Indicator (2) Pestles
2 L Distilled Water Hot Glove
(1) Ring Stand Hot Plate
(2) Ring Stand Clamps TI-Nspire CX Calculator
(2) Stopcocks Flash Drive
Eye Dropper

Procedures​:

Preparations

1. Review and implement the safety measures described in Appendix A.

2. Assemble the ring stand and attach two 50 mL burettes to either side of the
clamp.

3. Attach the stopcocks to the burettes if not already attached.

4. Turn on the hot plate to the 350º F setting.

Setting up the LabQuest

1. Plug in and turn on the LabQuest.

2. Plug in the pH sensors into the CH 1 slot of both LabQuests.

3. For each LabQuest, slick on the box to the right of the screen labelled “Mode”.
Select “Events with Entry,” title the variable collected as “Volume NaOH,” and
specify the units as mL.

10
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

4. Select “File,” then “New.”

5. Click on the graph icon in the upper right corner of the LabQuests.

Running the Experiment

1. Crush one tablet of Gaviscon and one tablet of Tums in separate mortars using
two separate pestles.

2. Pour one of the crushed antacids into one 250 mL beaker and the other
crushed antacid in the other 250 mL beaker.

3. Measure out 50 mL of 0.1 M HCl using a 50 mL graduated cylinder and add it to

one of the beakers. Pour a small amount of the HCl into the mortar, mix it, and
add it to the beaker to collect any of the same remaining antacid powder. Repeat
this process for the second beaker.

4. Mix the HCl and crushed antacids with a stirring rod.

5. Place one of the beakers onto the hot plate.

6. Once the solution on the hot plate has begun to boil, remove the beaker from the
hot plate and place it directly underneath one of the burettes using a hot glove.

7. Rinse out the 50 mL graduated cylinder. Measure out 50 mL of NaOH solution

and add it to the 50 mL burette.

8. Place the solution under the burette and press the green arrow on the
corresponding LabQuest. Press “Keep” on the screen and enter a volume of 0.0
mL.

9. Begin back titrating the solution by twisting the stopcock to allow one drop per
second to drip through. Write down the initial pH of the solution.

10. Consistently mix the solution while back titrating using a hot glove if necessary.

11. Press “Keep” and record the volume of the NaOH in the burette up to the tenths
place every 0.5 change in pH until all the NaOH solution has been back titrated

11
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

into the beaker. The volumes will later be averaged and used to find the number
of moles of HCL neutralized, which can be found in Appendix B.

12. Repeat steps 4-10 for the second antacid solution and burette.

13. Once both back titrations have occured, save the two graph files onto a flash
drive. Press the file cabinet icon on the LabQuests to open a new run.

14. Rinse out and dry the two beakers.

15. Repeat steps 1-13 until 15 trials of each antacid have been completed.

16. Record data in a data table similar to the table shown in Appendix B after finding
the volume at the equivalence point as explained in Appendix C.

Figure 4. Titration Apparatus

Figure 4 above depicts the experimental setup used to carry out back titration.

Two back titrations were conducted simultaneously with the Tums solution in one

beaker (left) and the Gaviscon solution in the other (right). The two 50 mL burettes were

filled with 50 mL of NaOH solution. Additionally, the hot plate used to heat the antacid

mixtures to a boil is not pictured in Figure 4.

12
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Data and Observations

Data​:

In this section, the data collected from each trial as well as the observations

recorded are included. Images of the results can also be seen.

Table 1
Volume of NaOH at the Equivalence Point for Each Tums Trial
Tums
Volume of NaOH at Volume of NaOH at
Trial # Equivalence Point (mL) Trial # Equivalence Point (mL)
1 7.00 6 6.50
2 7.80 7 8.00
3 2.60 9 9.70
4 6.30 10 5.80
5 11.4 11 6.10
Average 7.12

Table 1 shows the volume at the equivalence point for all the Tums trials. At the

end of each table, there is a row that calculated the average volume at the equivalence

point for each antacid. This number was used to calculate the final moles of HCl. Trial 8

was removed from the experimental data due to missing data on the Logger Pro file.

13
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Table 2
Volume of NaOH at the Equivalence Point for Each Gaviscon Trial
Gaviscon
Volume of NaOH at Volume of NaOH at
Trial # Equivalence Point (mL) Trial # Equivalence Point (mL)
1 12.8 5 17.0
2 13.3 6 17.6
3 13.5 7 19.4
4 17.6 9 19.0
Average 17.0

Table 2 shows the volume at equivalence point for all the Gaviscon trials. The

average was used to calculate the final moles of HCl. The Gaviscon experimental data,

shown in Table 2, had consistently higher volumes at the equivalence point in

comparison to Tums, shown in Table 1.

Observations​:

Throughout each trial, observations were recorded in Tables 3 and 4 below. The

date that each trial was performed on is listed to the left alongside the trial number.

Table 3
Observations for Tums Trials
Trial # Date Observations for Tums Trials

1 4/30/18 Day 1: A brand new NaOH solution was used. The solution turned purple and
skipped several of the 0.5 marks due to drastic pH changes. Researcher 1
stirred and recorded data while Researcher 3 controlled the stopcock.

2 Day 1: This trial was fairly normal. The color changed quick, and the pH
skipped a few times, especially at the beginning. Researcher 1 stirred and
recorded data while Researcher 3 controlled the stopcock.

3 5/1/18 Day 2: This trial was quicker than Gaviscon (regarding pH changes) and it
skipped a few pH changes. Researcher 1 stirred and recorded data while
Researcher 3 controlled the stopcock.

14
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Trial # Date Observations for Tums Trials

4 5/1/18 Day 2: A new HCl solution was used. There was notable antacid residue in
the mortar. The solution skipped a pH level of 10 (so two changes).
Researcher 1 stirred and recorded data while Researcher 3 controlled the
stopcock.

5 Day 2: The mortar was cleaner than Trial 4, and the pH is much lower in
beginning. Additionally, the researcher skipped recording the volume for a pH
change when the pH began to increase exponentially. Researcher 1 stirred
and recorded data while Researcher 3 controlled the stopcock.

6 5/2/18 Day 3: The solution became more red than purple midway through back
titrating, and the pH skipped a few times. Researcher 1 stirred and recorded
data while Researcher 3 controlled the stopcock.

7 Day 3: The solution skipped a few pH changes. Researcher 1 stirred and

recorded data while Researcher 3 controlled the stopcock.

8 Day 3: Since Trial 8 for Gaviscon was exempt due to technical difficulties,
Trial 8 of Tums was exempt to keep trial numbers balanced. Researcher 1
stirred and recorded data while Researcher 3 controlled the stopcock.

9 5/3/18 Day 4: A new solution of HCl was made today. 2 pH changes were missed
during spike in pH. The dripping through the stopcock was abnormal more
than once. One data point near the spike looked like it was out of place and
pH seemed to have dropped. Researcher 2 stirred and recorded data while
Researcher 3 controlled the stopcock.

10 Day 4: There was a small drip from the NaOH into the solution before initial
pH was recorded. The solution turned deep purple midway through the back
titration with indicator. This researcher recorded two points of the same
volume if the pH increased exponentially in contrast to the previous Tums
trials where recordings of the same volume were skipped. Researcher 2
stirred and recorded data while Researcher 3 controlled the stopcock.

11 Day 4: Part of the solution turned brighter pink because of the indicator and
the rest eventually followed that pattern after mixing. There was an ordinary
pH spike which made it difficult to record each 0.5 pH change during the jump.
Researcher 1 stirred and recorded data while Researcher 3 controlled the
stopcock.

15
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Table 4
Observations for Gaviscon Trials
Trial # Date Observations for Gaviscon Trials

1 4/30/18 Day 1: A new NaOH solution was made. The solution turned purple and
skipped a couple of 0.5 pH marks due to an exponential increase in pH at
5.10 pH leading to difficult volume recordings. At 6.15 pH the solution turned
pink momentarily, and by 10.1 pH the solution was deep pink. The pink color
faded between adding NaOH and recording volume, it was very pink with the
addition of NaOH then subsided between adding and mixing the NaOH in.
Researcher 2 stirred and recorded data while Researcher 3 controlled the
stopcock.

2 Day 1: The solution turned deep pink after an exponential increase in pH

occurred. The events with entry were more on track with 0.5 changes in pH
than in previous trials. Researcher 2 stirred and recorded data while
Researcher 3 controlled the stopcock.

3 5/1/18 Day 2: The spike in pH at the beginning was not instant as it was in previous
trials. It took longer than Tums to spike. It also took longer for the indicator to
change color than the previous day. Researcher 2 stirred and recorded data
while Researcher 3 controlled the stopcock.

4 Day 2: Some clumps of antacid did not mix well in the solution.When boiling,
the Gaviscon sat on top and formed one giant bubble (Researcher 1 mixed it
to get the whole mixture to boil). The NaOH solution in the burette was 0.5
less than 50 mL due to dripping before back titration occurred. The initial pH
was a little lower than usual and it skipped past the 0.5 increments a few
times before it could be recorded. Researcher 2 stirred and recorded data
while Researcher 3 controlled the stopcock.

5 Day 2: The initial pH was very low so researchers mixed it around to make it
higher. Halfway through Researcher 2 mixed up the 0.5 pH increments,
however this was quickly fixed. Researcher 2 stirred and recorded data while
Researcher 3 controlled the stopcock.

6 5/2/18 Day 3: The indicator changed to pink but only half of the solution changed at
first; the pattern appeared irregular. There was a small spike at the beginning
but then there was a large spike that had not been seen before. Researcher 2
stirred and recorded data while Researcher 3 controlled the stopcock.

7 Day 3: 4 drops of indicator were added instead of 3. There was a small spike
in pH near the beginning, and a potential skip in recording a volume near
beginning. Researcher 2 stirred and recorded data while Researcher 3
controlled the stopcock.

8 Day 3: The data for pH on Logger Pro file was missing. Therefore this trial
was exempt. Researcher 2 stirred and recorded data while Researcher 3
controlled the stopcock.

16
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Trial # Date Observations for Gaviscon Trials

9 5/3/18 Day 4: A new solution of HCl was created today. The researcher in charge of
the stopcock dropped a small amount NaOH into the solution while recording
the initial pH value. Researcher 2 stirred and recorded data while Researcher
3 controlled the stopcock. Researcher 2 did not double record pH points of
the same volume.

10 Day 4: The researcher in charge of the stopcock dipped a small amount of

NaOH into the solution while recording the initial pH value. The same
researcher that operated trial 9 stirred and recorded data on this trial. A small
amount of Gaviscon was left in the mortar.

11 Day 4: A few pH recordings were skipped and not repeated. Some clumps of
Gaviscon stuck to the side of the beaker while the solution was mixed.

Tables 3 and 4 show the observations that were taken throughout each trial. As

previously mentioned, Trial 8 for both antacids had to be exempt because of technical

issues. This brings the total amount of trials completed to ten for each antacid. The

majority of the trials ran smoothly and the data for both antacids was consistent.

Trial Observations​:

Figure 5. Tums Solution Before and After NaOH was Back Titrated

17
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Figure 5 shows the color change in the Tums solution, which is a result of the

indicator that was added in the solution. The image on the left is before the NaOH was

back titrated and the image on the right is after the addition of the NaOH was added.

Figure 6. Gaviscon Solution Before and After NaOH was Back Titrated

The images shown in Figure 6 are examples of what the antacid solution looked

like before (on the left) and after (on the right) the NaOH was back titrated into it. Like

the Tums solution, the indicator caused the solution to change to a deep pink color.

18
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Data Analysis and Interpretation

The method of collection that was used was recording pH values on a LabQuest

while back titrating NaOH into the antacid solution. The volume of NaOH used to

increase the pH level 0.5 was recorded during the trials. From these points, the

equivalence point of the antacid solution was found using the highest peak of the

derivative graph for the trial. The volume was collected in mL up to 3 significant figures.

Alongside analyzing any trends in the experimental data, the validity of the data

was examined. Since both the Tums and Gaviscon brand antacids were back titrated

simultaneously throughout the trials, no randomization of the type to be tested was

conducted. However, in Figures 3 and 4, the normality of the data collected from trials

on similar days is discussed to make up for missing randomization. There were a total

of 10 trials conducted for each antacid, and because of the low amount of trials normal

probability plots are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

A descriptive analysis was deemed the most appropriate method for the

experiment. It allowed the researchers to compare the amount of HCl needed to

neutralize the antacid solutions between each antacid type. Statistical tests such as a 1

​ est were not chosen to analyze the data because the goal was to test
or 2 sample ​t-T

the effect of each antacid rather than the accuracy of the antacid to produce a certain

theoretical value. Different methods of comparison between the antacids such as box

plots were utilized to determine the overall efficiency of both antacids.

19
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Figure 7. Volume at Equivalence Point for Tums Normal Probability Plot

Figure 7 above shows the normal probability plot for the volume once the Tums

solution reached the equivalence point. The results have a low amount of variability, for

many of the data points are close to or touching the linear model whose equation is

listed next to the line.

Figure 8. Volume at Equivalence Point for Gaviscon Normal Probability Plot

20
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Figure 8 above shows the normal probability plot for the volume once the

Gaviscon solution reached the equivalence point. The results seem less normal than

the Tums data in Figure 7, but most of the data points still come close to the linear

model. Additionally, there are no major curves in the data around the line to indicate that

it is abnormal.

Figure 9. Box Plot of Tums Volumes at Equivalence Points Across Each Trial Day

In Figure 9, the experimental data for Tums solutions is divided into four box

plots for each day that data was collected. On Day 1 and 3, there were two trials

conducted, while on Day 2 and 4, there were three trials conducted. As shown, the box

plot from Day 2 had a much greater range than the data from any of the other days. Day

1 and 3’s box plots were close together and had a smaller range compared to Day 2

and 4. Each of the box plots overlap each other, and the medians line up fairly evenly

across each day. The mean and median values for Day 1 and 3 are close in value. Day

21
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

2 and 4 have a slightly larger difference but this may be due to having three trials

instead of two.

Figure 10. Box Plot of Tums Volumes at Equivalence Points Across Each Trial Day

Figure 10 displays a box plot for each day of data collection for the Gaviscon

solution trials. Less than 25% of Day 3 overlaps with Day 2. Also, the maximum value

for Day 2 is equal to the minimum value of Day 3. The box plots do not consistently

overlap, yet the medians and means of each are still fairly close. There are similarities

between the daily Tums and Gaviscon box plots. For instance, both of the graph’s Day

1 had the smallest range and both of the graph’s Day 2 had the largest range. When

comparing mean and median values, Gaviscon followed the same trend as Tums. Day

1 and 3 were closer in value than Day 2 and 4.

22
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Figure 11. Box Plots of Volume at Equivalence Points for Gaviscon and Tums

Figure 11 above displays the overall data for the volume at the equivalence point

for both Tums (pink) and Gaviscon (gray) solutions. There is a clear distinction between

the equivalence point volumes as 100% of the Gaviscon volumes fall above 100% of

the Tums volumes (including outliers). Therefore, back titrations containing Gaviscon

solutions took a greater amount of NaOH to reach the equivalence point. On the other

hand, back titration containing Tums solutions did not require as much NaOH, a base,

to reach the equivalence point. Since the equivalence point is when the moles of the

titrant (in this case NaOH) are equal to the moles of the analyte (in this case the antacid

solution), the back titrations containing Tums solutions were able to neutralize a similar

amount of HCl as Gaviscon but with a smaller amount of base.

23
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Table 5
Calculations to Determine Average Moles of HCl Neutralized for Tums
and Gaviscon
Average Initial moles
Final moles of Amount of
Antacid Volume from of
HCl/NaOH Moles of HCl
Brand Derivative HCl/NaOH
(1:1) Neutralized
(mL) (1:1)
Tums 7.12 0.00500 0.000712 0.00429
Gaviscon 17.0 0.00500 0.00170 0.00330

Table 5 shows the average amount of moles of HCl neutralized for Tums and

Gaviscon. The steps to find these values can be found in Appendix B. The amount of

moles of HCl neutralized on average for Tums was 0.00429 moles. The average

amount of moles of HCl neutralized on average for Gaviscon was 0.00330 moles. When

compared, Tums neutralized a greater amount of moles of HCl than Gaviscon.

Overall, Tums was the most effective antacid based on this study. On average,

Tums neutralized more moles of HCl than Gaviscon. The median equivalence point for

Tums was 6.75, while Gaviscon had a median equivalence point of 17.6. Looking at the

means, Tums’ mean was 7.12 while Gaviscon had a mean of 17.0. As seen in Figure

11, 100% of the Gaviscon data exceeds 100% of the Tums data; there is a clear

distinction and no overlap of the data. In the same figure, the interquartile range for the

Tums plot was 1.9 while Gaviscon had a range of 5.5. This shows that the data for

Tums was closer together, which means that Tums was more consistent with its results

during the experiment. These findings all support the conclusion that Tums was the

most effective antacid when tested against Gaviscon.

24
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Conclusion

The purpose of this experiment was to analyze two commercial antacids on their

effectiveness of the neutralization of 0.1 M HCl. One-tenth molar NaOH was back

titrated into a solution of HCl and one tablet of a crushed antacid. To determine the

effectiveness of each antacid, the number of moles of HCl neutralized was calculated

for each antacid using the average volume of NaOH at the equivalence point. The

antacid with a greater number of moles of HCl neutralized was determined to be the

more effective antacid. The hypothesis that the solution containing the Tums brand

antacid would neutralize the greatest number of moles of HCl was accepted.

The data showed that Tums required less NaOH to neutralize the same amount

of acid as the Gaviscon solution since Tums had a lower volume of NaOH needed to

reach the equivalence point. These results agree with the reasoning discussed in the

Review of Literature, for Tums was also found to be the most effective antacid. Previous

research stated that the active ingredients in Gaviscon limit its neutralizing power.

Specifically, aluminum hydroxide is added to magnesium carbonate to counteract its

laxative properties which weakens the efficiency of the antacid’s ability to neutralize

stomach acid.

The procedure in this experiment supported results that reflected the properties

of both antacids. The experiment originally was designed to titrate HCl into the antacid

mixture with distilled water; however, the data collected did not produce titration curves.

As a result, the experimental design was changed from titration to back titration. Instead

of using HCl as the titrant, NaOH was back titrated into an analyte solution of HCl and

25
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

one tablet of crushed antacid. This setup worked much better because a strong base,

NaOH, was being back titrated into an acid solution containing the antacid which made

the neutralization process more efficient. The design that was used as a basis for the

experiment at hand was “Titration of a Commercial Antacid” from Kingsborough

Community College. Data collected from the improved experimental design reflected

titration curves and utilized the derivative graph to find the volume of NaOH at the

equivalence point.

There were several variables in the procedural process that had an effect on the

outcome of the data. As noted in many of the trials’ observations, when the pH began to

increase drastically, both researchers operating the LabQuest had a difficult time

recording the volume of NaOH for every 0.5 change in pH. For example, in Table 3 for

Trial 1 the difficulty recording pH as the pH spiked in value was noted. The volumes at

the equivalence point shown in Table 1 were slightly altered when the pH skipped

during a trial. In addition, there was occasional residue of the crushed antacid left in the

mortar. In an attempt to collect up all of the antacid, a small amount of HCl was added

to the mortar and then poured into the solution. However, this method did not always

ensure that all of the residual antacid was absorbed. Therefore, some of the antacid and

HCl solutions may have contained a smaller amount of the crushed antacid than others.

Due to the age of the burettes used, there were several cases in which NaOH was

dripped into the solution even though the stopcock was closed. Dripping occasionally

occurred before the initial pH was recorded which affected the titration curve overall.

26
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Since only two commercial antacids were tested in this experiment, there are a

plethora of ways to expand this research. The two antacids tested, Tums and Gaviscon,

contained different active ingredients. However, calcium carbonate, aluminum

hydroxide, and magnesium carbonate are not the only active ingredients in other

antacids. This research could also expand to focus on human subjects to reflect the

neutralization efficiency and side effects of the antacid. With side effects included,

customers could determine which antacid is right for them to purchase.

Additional tools that may be required to carry out further experimentation include

a stirring plate and a drop counter. This would reduce the variability by having a

consistent stirring speed and a consistent volume reading for each trial. If the

experiment were changed to focus on human subjects, a survey and possibly a placebo

antacid could be utilized to determine the effect of the antacid.

The information from this experiment can be used in the everyday lives of people

who suffer from indigestion. As stated in the Review of Literature, the molarity of

stomach acid and the molarity of HCl used in this experiment are very similar, which

means that the results of this experiment can be directly connected to the real-life use of

antacids. With advertisements and a wide selection of antacids influencing consumer

decisions, knowing which antacid is more effective at neutralizing stomach acid can

save money, pain, and time. An antacid containing calcium carbonate is more effective

at neutralizing HCl and therefore calming stomach acid than an antacid containing

aluminum hydroxide and magnesium carbonate.

27
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Acknowledgements

The researchers would like to thank Mrs. Hilliard for her support and assistance

in guiding the research. The researchers also thank Mr. Supal for revising each section

of the paper. Lastly, the researchers thank Mrs. Dewey for her revisions regarding the

analysis and interpretation of the experimental data.

28
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Appendix A: Safety & Disposal

General​:

● Wear goggles at all times when running this experiment.

● Make sure that the glassware does not have chips or cracks.

● Check the bottom of the beakers for cracks or chips before heating.

Sodium Hydroxide​:

● Avoid contact with skin, eyes, and mouth.

● Keep container tightly closed when not in use.

● Wash hands thoroughly after use.

● Dilute with water and rinse down the drain to dispose.

Hydrochloric Acid​:

● Avoid contact with skin, eyes, and mouth.

● Keep container tightly closed when not in use.

● Wash hands thoroughly after use.

● Dilute with water and rinse down the drain to dispose.

29
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Appendix B: Sample Calculations

To analyze the effectiveness of each antacid, the moles of HCl neutralized need

to be calculated. To do this, the initial moles of HCl was subtracted from the final

number of moles of HCl.

M oles of HCl neutralized = (Initial M oles of HCl) − (F inal M oles of HCl)

The equation above was used to calculate the average moles of HCl neutralized

for each antacid. The equations to find the initial and final moles of HCl are explained

below.

I nitial moles of HCl = (M olarity of HCl) * (Initial V olume of N aOH in Liters)

To find the starting amount of moles of HCl, the molarity of the acid will be

multiplied by the starting volume of NaOH. The initial volume of NaOH will be held

constant at 0.05 L. The molarity of HCl will be held constant for all equations at 0.1 M.

This same process will be used again for Tums.

I nitial moles of HCl = (M olarity of HCl) * (Initial V olume of N aOH in Liters)

I nitial moles of HCl = (0.1 M ) * (50.0 mL/1000)

I nitial moles of HCl = 0.00500 moles HCl

Figure 1. Sample Calculation for Initial Moles of HCl Using Tums Trial

Figure 1 above shows the calculation used to find the initial moles of HCl. The

initial volume for each trial was 50.0 mL, which was converted to liters in the equation.

The initial moles of HCl was found to be 0.00500 moles.

30
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

F inal moles of HCl = (M olarity of HCl) * (V olume of N aOH at Equivalence P oint in Liters)

To find the final amount of moles of HCl, the molarity of the acid will be multiplied

by the average volume of NaOH at the equivalence point. The 15 recorded derivative

volumes of NaOH based on the peak of the derivative graph for Gaviscon will be

averaged and entered as the volume of NaOH at the equivalence point. This same

process will be used again for Tums.

F inal moles of HCl = (M olarity of HCl) * (V olume of N aOH at Equivalence P oint in Liters)

F inal moles of HCl = (0.10 M ) * (7.10 mL/1000)

F inal moles of HCl = 0.000710 moles HCl

Figure 2. Sample Calculation for Final Moles of HCl Using Tums Trial

Figure 2 above shows the calculation used to find the final moles of HCl. The

average equivalence point for each Tums trial was found, and that equaled 7.10 mL.

This number was then converted to liters in the equation. The final amount of moles of

HCl was found to be 0.000710 moles.

M oles of HCl neutralized = (Initial M oles of HCl) − (F inal M oles of HCl)

M oles of HCl neutralized = (0.005 L) − (0.000710)

M oles of HCl neutralized = 0.00429 moles

Figure 3. Sample Calculation for Moles of HCl Neutralized Using Tums Trial

Figure 3 above shows the calculation used to find the moles of HCl neutralized.

The amount of moles of HCl neutralized was found to be 0.00429 moles.

31
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Appendix C: First Derivative Procedure

To find the volume at the equivalence point for each trial the first derivative of the

back titration graph must be found. The procedure for determining these values will

utilize the Logger Pro software.

Figure 1. New Calculated Column

The Figure above shows the process for created a new derivative variable. To

arrive at this screen, first open the back titration graph for a trial. Click on the “Data” tab

and select “New Calculated Column”. Call the new variable “d1” for first derivative and

set the units to mL. After that, select “derivative” from the “calculus” tab within the

“functions” tab. Inside of the parentheses insert the variables as “pH”,”volume NaOH”.

Then click “done” and the variable will be recorded.

32
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Figure 2. Gaviscon Trial 7 Derivative Graph

After creating the derivative variable, the volume of NaOH is graphed against the

first derivative as shown above. To find the volume at the equivalence points the

topmost point in the derivative graph needs to be identified. Highlight that point with a

cursor and the point will appear highlighted in the table as well. From there, record the

corresponding volume of NaOH for that trial. In the trial above, the volume at the

equivalence point was 19.4.

33
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

Works Cited

“Antacids.” ​IFFGD,​ International Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders,

Inc., 4 Sept. 2015,

<www.iffgd.org/diet-treatments/antacids.html.>

Birtwhistle, R.V. “Antacid Use in a Family-Practice Population.” ​NCBI​, U.S. National

Library of Medicine, Aug. 1988,

<www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2218936/>

Brennan, John. “What Is the Molarity of Stomach Acid?” ​LIVESTRONG.COM​, Leaf

Group, 3 Oct. 2017,

<www.livestrong.com/article/538024-what-is-the-molarity-of-stomach-acid/.>

Burton, M.E., and P.N. Maton. “Antacids Revisited: a Review of Their Clinical

Pharmacology and Recommended Therapeutic Use.” ​Clinician's Manual on Drug

Interactions in Gastroenterology.​ ​PubMed​,

<www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10400401.>

Hem, Stanley L. “Physicochemical Properties of Antacids.” ​Journal of Chemical

Education,​ vol. 52, no. 6, 1975, p. 383., doi:10.1021/ed052p383.

<https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed052p383>

Joyce, Kim. “Calcium Carbonate and Belching.” ​LIVESTRONG.COM​, Leaf Group, 3

Oct. 2017,

<www.livestrong.com/article/535708-calcium-carbonate-and-belching/.>

34
 Baranski - Hinson - Shereda

“Lab 4 - Determination of the Amount of Acid Neutralized by an Antacid Tablet Using

Back Titration.” ​General Chemistry,​ Advanced Instructional Systems, Inc., 2011,

<www.webassign.net/question_assets/ucscgencheml1/lab_4/manual.html>.

Martin, Lisa. “How Do Antacids Work?” ​HealthGuidance.org​,

<www.healthguidance.org/entry/17066/1/How-Do-Antacids-Work.html.>

“PH.” ​Encyclopædia Britannica,​ Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 25 Jan. 2018,

<www.britannica.com/science/pH.>

Tidy, Colin. “Antacids | How Do Antacids Work?” ​Patient.info,​ Patient.info, 16 Mar. 2018,

<patient.info/health/indigestion-medication/antacids.>

“Titration Curves.” ​Chemistry LibreTexts,​ Libretexts, 26 July 2016,

<chem.libretexts.org/Textbook_Maps/Introductory_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/M

ap%3A_Introductory_Chemistry_(CK-12)/21%3A_Acids_and_Bases/21.19%3A_

Titration_Curves.>

“What Is PH?” ​Parish Cleaning,​ 1999,

<www.parish-supply.com/ph-scale.aspx.>

Zumdahl, S.S., and S.A Zumdahl. “PH, POH, and the PH Scale.” ​Khan Academy,​

2003,

<www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/acids-and-bases-topic/acids-and-bas

es/a/ph-poh-and-the-ph-scale.>

35