In the electrolysis of zinc electrodes in a solution of 1M Zinc Sulphate Heptahydrate solution over

a time period of 20 minutes, how does the mass of zinc electrodes vary over time as determined
both by measuring the mass of electrodes every 2 minutes and by theoretical predictions based on
Faraday’s laws of electrolysis?

Introduction
My Dad’s side of the family resides in a small village on the coast of Bali and makes a life for themselves
by fishing the ocean and farming the rice fields. One persistent issue they face is the deterioration of their
iron/steal tools which rust over time. Rust is the oxidation of iron when exposed to oxygen and moisture in
the air[5]. Rust is a major manufacturing issue around the globe. One
study in the US found that it cost $279 billion in 2012 to manage
rust-related problems. [4]

One solution to combat rust is to coat iron and steel materials with a
layer of metal that is rust-resistant. ​This process is known as
electroplating. Electroplating is defined as the “electrodeposition of an
adherent metallic coating upon an electrode for the purpose of
securing a surface with properties of dimensions different from those
of the basis metal.”[7]

Fig 1 illustrates the process of electroplating. In an aqueous solution

of the metal that will be the coating are two metal electrodes which
are attached by wires to a power source. Metal attached to the
positive side of the battery, loses electrons and dissolves into the
aqueous solution. Metal attached to the negative side of the battery
gains electrons and aqueous metal cations combine with the
electrons to form solid metal on the cathode. This process allows the
concentrations remains constant, as the aqueous ions that become
solid on the cathode are replaced by the metal that comes off the
anode. The effect is that after some time, a metal layer coats the
cathode.

If a metal iron was to be placed at the cathode and a rust resistant

metal present in the aqueous solution and at the anode, then the iron
will be electroplated with the metal which in theory will be protected
from rusting. ​One metal commonly used is zinc because of its “​innate
ability to fight corrosion”[6]. Zinc works because of its ​E°​ ​value.
Table 1: ​E°​​ Values [9]
Cathode (Reduction) Half-Reaction Standard Electrode Potential (E​°​ )(volts)

2H​2​O(l) + 2e​-​ -> H​2​(g) + 2OH​-​(aq) -0.83

Zn​2+​(aq) + 2e​-​ -> Zn(s) -0.76

Zinc is lower than water in the table, which means it is a stronger oxidising agent and so it will be reduced
at the cathode, and a layer of zinc will be made. Metals with ​E°​ ​value above water will not work, as water
will be reduced instead of the metal. At the anode, Zinc is used so as to keep the solution at a constant
concentration.
In this IA, I will attempt to investigate the zinc electroplating process. As a preliminary study, I first
attempted to electroplate iron nails, but found that the zinc coating flaked off and was thus it was difficult to
actually measure a mass difference. To simplify the experiment, I decided to cut rectangles out of zinc
metal sheets. As there will be zinc at the anode and cathode, the concentration of the solution will
constantly be replenished to normal and thus will remain constant.

For this IA, my aim is to determine the relationship of the mass of zinc plated on the electrode over time.
This will be done by conducting an electrolysis of zinc electrodes, and measuring the mass of the
electrodes every two minutes for 20 minutes each trial. In his work on electrolysis, Faraday showed how
the amount of metal electroplated is related to the amount of current passing through the circuit. Thus in
this IA, I will compare my experimental results to the theoretical results predicted using Faraday’s laws of
electrolysis.

Equations and Background Information

Using stoichiometry and Faraday's laws of electrolysis, I will derive a
function which can predict the mass the zinc electrodes during electrolysis
for a given time (t).

The mass electroplated can be predicted using Faraday's laws of

electrolysis. According to Pearson's ​Chemistry; for use with the IB Diploma
Programme (​ 2009) [1], “the amount of charge carried by one mole of
electrons is defined as one farraday (symbol F)” and is approximately equal
to 96,500C. Mathematically:
Q
n(e) = F
Q = Quantity of charge in coulombs (C) , F = F araday ′s Constant = 96, 000C
n(e) = moles of electrons
For the electroplating process, the amount of charge can be found from the
current;
Q
I= t
Q = I × t , Q = charge (C) t = time (s) , I = current (Amps) (Cs−1 )
Thus the amount of moles of electrons going around in a circuit is
n(e) = I×t
F (1)
Faraday's first law states that “The mass of metal deposited at the cathode
is directly proportional to the quantity of electricity passed through the cell.”[1] Faraday's second law of
electrolysis states that: “In order to produce one mole of product in an electrolysis cell, a whole number
mole of electrons must be supplied.” [1] Together there laws gives the relationship
n(element) = 1x × I×t
F (2)
x = amount (in moles) of electrons required to produce one mole of the element
n(element) = moles of element produced f rom electrolysis

➔ Electroplating of Zinc
The electrolysis of Zinc is illustrated in Fig 2. In this electrolysis, two zinc electrons are lost at the anode
and pumped around the circuit to the cathode where they combine with the zinc cations in the solution to
form solid zinc. Theoretically, the effect should be that as the anode loses mass, the cathode gains an
equal amount of the mass that the anode lost. As zinc’s oxidation state is 2+, the amount in moles of
 electrons that moves around the circuit should be double the amount in moles of atoms that are formed on
the anode.

Using equation (2) I will rearrange the equation to get a function that predicts the mass of zinc electrodes
as a function of time .
n = Mmr (3)
Where M r = Molar mass ( g mol−1 ) , m = mass in ( g ), n = mols
Subbing (3) in (2)
m
Mr = 1x × I×t
F (2)
I×t×M r
m= x×F
This equation essentially represents the change in mass of the electrode (Δm ), i.e the difference between
the final mass mf and the initial mass mi .
Δm = mf inal − minitial
mf inal = Δm + minitial
Thus for the cathode
IM r
m(t) = mi + xF
×t
For the anode, it loses the added mass of the cathode, thus
IM r
m(t) = mi − xF
×t
This can be graphed in the form y = mx + c to give the theoretical function for the mass of the zinc
electrodes. This suggests that the mass of the electrodes for the cathode and anode should be linear,
starting from the same point, and progressing with equal and opposite in gradients. By measuring the
current, initial mass and time a prediction for the mass on the cathode can be made. If the results align
with experimental results, then this would be evidence that my equation and Faraday’s theory of
electrolysis is correct.

Table 2: Independent Variable

Variable Values used (s) ( ± 0.5s) How it was measured

Time electrodes Measurements were made every 2 minutes Zinc electrodes were placed in beaker with zinc solution
were electrolysed for 20 minutes. In seconds these increments before power system was turned on. Using a stopwatch, I
were: began the timer whilst simultaneously turning on the
120, 240, 360, 480, 600, 720, 840, 960, power. At two minutes, the timer was stopped and power
1080, 1200. simultaneously switched off and the electrodes were
removed from solution.

Table 3: Dependent Variable

Variable How it was measured

Mass of electrodes Between each time increment, electrodes were taken out of solution, measured using an Ohaus Digital
(g) Balance, and then placed back in the solution for the next time increment until it had been electrolysed
for 20 mins in solution. A total of 10 mass readings were taken for each electrode per trial.
Table 4: Controlled Variables

Variable How it was controlled Significance

Electrodes

Initial Mass Electrodes were cut so that they were all of similar mass: 1.100g ( Having the same initial mass will make it easier
± 0.03g) to compare trials. A larger mass of electrode
affects the shape and surface area of the
electrode.

Shape and An evenly thin sheet of zinc mental was cut into rectangles. Electroplating is reliant on metal being exposed
Surface Dimensions were measured with a ruler and kept the same for all to zinc solution. Thus, how much surface area is
area electrodes: exposed, could affect electrolysis. When I
exposed to Length: 50 mm attempted this experiment with nails under the
solution Height: 15 mm same conditions, the small surface area of the
Width: 0.15 mm nail made it so that the zinc metal would build up
Surface Area ( l × w × h ): 750 mm2 on the nail and fall off. Thus it was ensured that
Zinc electrodes were submerged fully in zinc solution without electrodes were around the same shape and
touching the bottom of the beaker or the walls. submerged in water equally.
One part which was covered was the area which the crocodile
clips were attached to. To ensure surface area of zinc was the
same each time, placement of crocodile clips was marked with a
marker.

Placement It was ensured that the placement of electrodes in solution was
in solution the same each time. Clamps which held crocodile clips with
connecting wires were used to hold electrodes in the solution
firmly so that distance between electrodes was controlled.
The face of the electrodes was changing as the
reaction progressed as one electrode lost mass
and the other gained mass. Changing the
position of the electrode may interrupt the flow of
the reaction.

Drying and Electrodes were removed from solution via clamps and dropped in
transportati a petri dish, then dropped on a paper towel. Half of paper towel
on method was folded to sandwich electrodes, lightly dabbing them to remove
water. Then they were put in a drying oven to remove excess
water.
It is possible that drying the electrodes removes
some of the zinc, thus changing the mass of the
zinc.

Experiment

Temperatu At all times during the experiment, a thermometer was kept inside Temperature may help speed up the rate of
re of the beaker to measure the temperature of the reaction. electrolysis.
Solution Temperature ranged from 23​°C to 25°C, not a significant change.

Volume Having Zinc electrodes on both ends means that the concentration A higher or lower concentration of Zinc Sulphate
and of solution is kept the same as each mole of zinc lost to the Heptahydrate may have an effect on the rate of
concentrati cathode is replenished by a mole of zinc that comes off the anode. electrolysis. To be scientific, it is important that
on of Measurements controlled by using a scale with low uncertainty concentration is kept the same for each trial.
solution of ± 0.001g to measure mass and 0.5dm3 volumetric flask to measure
zinc liquid. Only one solution was made and was used for all three
trials.

Current By using a voltmeter and ammeter to monitor electricity flow. A higher current will result is a higher electrolysis
and According to Ohm’s law, I = VR . Resistance is kept the same as rate.
Voltage circuit is not changed. Thus to ensure current is controlled, power
supply was always kept as the same voltage.

Apparatus

Ohaus digital balance ( ± 0.001g), 500 cm3 volumetric flask ( ± 0.25 cm3 ), 500 cm3 beaker ( ± 1cm3 ), 100
cm3 beaker ( ± 1cm3 ), spatula, 2 clamp stands, 3 clamps, 5 wires, 2 alligator clips, timer ( ± 0.01s), DC
power supply, voltmeter ( ± 0.05 V), ammeter ( ± 0.05A ), sheet of zinc metal, scissors, rules, markers,
petri dish, thermometer, distilled water, zinc sulphate heptahydrate, Ohaus digital balance ( ± 0.001g),
board marker.

Method

➔ Calculations for Preparing Standard Solution 0.5 dm3 of 1

moldm3 Zinc Sulphate Heptahydrate
◆ Mr of Zinc Sulphate Heptahydrate (ZnSO4(H2O)7 )=
1(65.38) + 1(32.07) + 4(16.00) + 14(1.01) + 7(16.00) =
287.59 g mol−1
◆ For 0.500 dm3 of 1 moldm3 I need 287.59 ÷ 2 = 143.795g of
Zinc Sulphate Heptahydrate and 0.5 dm3 of distilled water.
➔ Preparing Standard Solution 0.500 dm3 of 1.00 moldm3 Zinc
Sulphate Heptahydrate
1. Using scientific measuring scale, measure out 143.795g of Zinc
Sulphate Heptahydrate powder.
2. Add the powder into a 0.500 dm3 volumetric flask using the spatula.
3. Wash the weighing boat with distilled water and pour this into the
flask too.
4. Add some distilled water to the flask.
5. Close with cap and swirl flask vigorously to dissolve powder. Invert
flask a few times to further mix the solution.
6. Open cap and fill volumetric flask with distilled water until it reaches the 0.500 dm3 mark so that
the meniscus sits just above this line.
➔ Making Zinc Electrodes
1. On sheet of zinc metal, draw outline of out 5.00 cm by 1.50 cm rectangle.
2. Cut out rectangle and measure on scientific weighing scale.
3. Trim edges of zinc rectangle until it weighs 1.100g
4. Take this rectangle and use it to replicate 6 other rectangles to create the same framework and
weight, by tracing out its shape on metal Zinc sheet.
5. Measure to ensure they are all the same mass of (1.100g) (​±0.003g)
➔ Setting up Apparatus and Circuit for Electrolysis
To have a complete circuit, the set up must be connected according to the diagram Fig 3, where ammeter
is in series with electrodes and voltmeter in parallel to electrodes.
1. Plug in power supply but keep the switch off.
2. Set up two clamp stands as in Fig 4.
3. Place beaker on bottom of one clamp stand
4. Attach 3 clamps to clamp stand.
5. Attach the thermometer to clamp so that temperature can be controlled.
 6. Attached crocodile clips to zinc electrodes and to two wires.
7. Connect wires according to circuit diagram in Fig 3.
➔ Conducting Electroplating Experiment
1. Measure and note initial mass of zinc electrodes with
scientific weighing scale.
2. Attach zinc electrodes to crocodile clips
3. Lower clamp stand into beaker with solution.
4. Turn on the power supply to a set voltage (do not
change it) whilst simultaneously beginning to count
time on stopwatch.
5. Write down the current, voltage and temperature of
system.
6. Let power be on for two minutes, when time is up turn
power supply off and bring clamps with zinc
electrodes out of solution.
7. Remove zinc electrodes from clamp into petri dish
8. Drop zinc electrodes on paper towel, fold in half thereby sandwiching electrodes to dab water
lightly on electrodes
9. Weigh and write down the mass of zinc electrodes (in grams) and associated time.
10. Repeat steps (2 - 9), effectively electroplating the same electrode for 20 minutes.
11. Repeat steps (1 - 11) with three different sets of electrodes as 3 separate trials of the same
experiment.

Precautions

➔ Safety Precaution
◆ Zinc Electrodes: Sheets of zinc metal are sharp and can potentially cut skin. Gloves were
used when cutting and managing metal.
◆ Electricity: Power source, ammeter and voltmeter were used in this experience in the
presence of liquid. Extra care was taken to ensure no liquid was spilled so to prevent an
electric shock.
◆ Zinc Sulphate Heptahydrate: If exposed to skin, eyes, is inhaled or ingested substance
may cause irritation or damage to body if in large quantities. Care was taken so as to not
come into direct contact with zinc and body. [8]
◆ Managing apparatus: expensive and fragile glassware was used. Setup was relatively
complex with three different clamps, and many wires connecting circuit together. Caution
was taken so that the apparatus was not damaged or accidentally broken in some way.
➔ Ethical and Environmental Precautions
◆ Zinc Electrodes: Zinc metal shards left over from experiment were not thrown in the trash
as they are sharp and dangerous but disposed in a proper way.
◆ Electricity used is from fossil fuels, is a finite resource, so power source was only turned
on when needed, and turned off when not needed.

Raw Data for Experimental Results

➔ Qualitative Observations:
● Despite how much shook the volumetric flask was shaken, some of the Zinc Sulfate Heptahydrate
powder remained, and did not completely dissolve.
 ● Solution remained colorless throughout entire experiment as expected.
● Each electrode did not have exactly the same shape as they were cut by hand with scissors
● As zinc electrodes were under electrolysis, the cathode did appear to have zinc deposits on it
whilst the anode looked like it had lost zinc. The effect enhanced as time progressed. (see Fig 5)
● Because the crocodile clips were in the solution and are made of metal, the clip on the cathode
became electroplated with zinc. After three trials, the clip was plated with a thick layer of zinc.
(see Fig. 4)

Table 5: Average and actual mass of zinc electrodes measured in grams

Mass of Cathode and Anode (g) (​±0.009g) (g) (​±0.005)

Time Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

(s)

Temp Temp Cathod Anode Current Temp Cathode Anode

Cathode Anode Current (​°C) Cathode Anode Current (​°C) e (g) (I) (°C) (g) (g)
( ± 0.5s ) (g) (g) (I) ± 0.5°C (g) (g) (I) ± 0.5°C (g) ± 0.5°C

0 1.100 1.100 0.50 23 1.100 1.100 0.50 25 1.100 1.100 0.45 24 1.100 1.100
120 1.079 1.121 0.60 23 1.071 1.130 0.60 25 1.083 1.115 0.46 24 1.078 1.122
240 1.058 1.148 0.50 23 1.055 1.156 0.45 25 1.070 1.135 0.55 24 1.061 1.146
360 1.043 1.164 0.50 23 1.027 1.176 0.46 25 1.048 1.155 0.40 24 1.039 1.165
480 1.012 1.181 0.60 23 1.005 1.199 0.55 25 1.036 1.171 0.40 24 1.018 1.184
600 0.990 1.207 0.45 23 0.991 1.214 0.40 25 1.010 1.197 0.50 24 0.997 1.206
720 0.967 1.233 0.50 23 0.968 1.229 0.40 25 0.983 1.215 0.40 24 0.973 1.226
840 0.935 1.260 0.60 23 0.950 1.253 0.50 26 0.961 1.246 0.4 24 0.949 1.253
960 0.917 1.283 0.50 24 0.939 1.272 0.40 25 0.942 1.256 0.46 24 0.933 1.270
1080 0.897 1.299 0.60 23 0.919 1.283 0.60 25 0.933 1.280 0.55 24 0.916 1.287
1200 0.898 1.298 0.50 23 0.897 1.308 0.50 25 0.918 1.295 0.40 24 0.904 1.300

➔ Sample Equations to find Average:

● Sum up the concordant results
 ● Divide the sum by the number of concordant results
● Example for 120s
○ mass cathodeaverage = 1.079 + 1.071
3
+ 1.083
= 1.078g
➔ Comment on Temperature
◆ Temperature of solution only fluctuated between 23 and 26 degrees. This small
difference is unlikely to have had an effect on the results of the experiment.

Table 6: Uncertainty and Justification for experiment

Variable Uncertainty Justification

Average mass of 0.005 Whilst the uncertainty in the measuring device was 0.001g, this seemed too small of a value
3 electrodes for the actual uncertainty. The varying measurements of mass found between the different
trials is an indicator that uncertainty is larger than this. However, as the mass is averaged
over three trials, and this should decrease the uncertainty in the mean mass. The uncertainty
in the average mass was found using the equation:

max−min
U ncertainty in the M ean M ass = 2√n

To get a standard uncertainty for the values an average range was calculated. To do this a
range for each value was calculated. For example, for t=120s. Range = max − min = 1.130 -
1.115 = 0.015. Then an average was taken for the range. n is the number of trials, which for
this case is 3.

Range : (max − min)average = 0.009 n=3

0.009
U ncertainty in the M ean M ass = 2√3
= 0.005

On graph 1, this error can just be seen. (See Table 10 in References for further calculations )

Time 0.5s Whilst the uncertainty in the stopwatch device is ± 0.01s , the uncertainty is really my reaction
time, i,e how long it takes for my senses to register that time is up and flick the switch. I am
unable to quantify my reaction time, but I estimate it to be 0.5s

● Error bars:

The total length of the time error bar is twice the magnitude of the time error (± 0.5s) . Hence
the length is 0.5s × 2 = 1s . The range of the x axis graph is 1400 seconds. The size of the data
points have a x axis length of about 20s, hence why the error bar in the time cannot be seen.
5s

Current 0.1 Keeping the Power Supply at constant voltage was an attempt to control the current.
However, I observed that during the experiment, the current was not constant and would
oscillate around a range of 0.2As. The absolute uncertainty is half the oscillation range
0.2A ÷ 2 = 0.1A
Graph1:

➔ Interpreting Graph 1

From this graph, it is shown that the mass of the electrodes behaves as predicted. The rate of mass
loss/gain is linear and the gradients of the graph are extremely similar and opposite (cathode: 0.00017045
g s−1 , anode: -0.0001699 g s−1 ). Rounded to 3 significant figures both values are the same (0.000170).
Thus, as the anode loses, the cathode gains mass equal to the amount of mass lost by the cathode.
Additionally the high R2 value for both graphs suggest a high correlation between the independent
variable (time) and the dependent variable (mass).

Processed Data for Theoretical Prediction

IM r
The equation m(t) = mi ± xF
× t can be graphed in the form y=mx+c, where + is for the cathode which is
increasing in mass and - is for anode which is decreasing in mass by an equal amount, to predict the
mass on the electrodes by only reading the current running through the system and the time.
Table 7: Variables of theoretical predictions in corresponding linear graph format
y=mx+c form y m x c
IM r
Corresponding m(t) ± xF
t mi
variable

Value for my Mass Changes I = 0.5A (± 0.1A) Independent 1.100g (± 0.03g)

experiment M r (Zinc) = 65.38 Variable (time)
x = oxidation no. zinc = 2 120, 240, 360,
480, 600, 720,
F = 96500 C mol −1
840, 960, 1080,
 0.5×65.4
m= 2×96500 1200. (s) ± 0.5 s)
=0.000169

➔ Theoretical equation for mass of cathode: m(t) = 1.100 + 0.000169378(t)

➔ Theoretical equation for mass of anode: m(t) = 1.100 − 0.000169378(t)

Table 8: Propagation of Errors for Theoretical Prediction

Variables Absolute Fractional Percentage Justification
with Error Uncertainty Uncertainty Uncertainty
0.1
Current ± 0.1A 0.5 = 0.2 0.2 × 100% Discussed in table 6
= 20%

0.5s
Time ± 0.5s 120s 0.000083 × The uncertainty in the timer is 0.01
= 0.000083 × 100% = seconds (taken as the smallest increment
0.0083% value as it is a digital device). As shown
from the percentage uncertainty, the
uncertainty in the time is essentially
negligible.

0.03
Initial ± 0.03g 1.100 0.027 × 100% Discussed in table 6
mass = 0.027 = 2.7%

Table 9: Determining and explaining error bars

Variable Error bar

X axis Time The time error bar, like in Graph 1 is too small to be seen.

Y axis Mass of The equation that denotes the y coordinate of the data point is
IM
Electrode m(t) = mi ± xFr × t and has two parts to it.
given by To find the uncertainty I will first make
IM r
xF
×t=b
Thus:
Δm(t) = Δmi + Δb (where Δ denotes absolute uncertainty)
Δb ΔI Δt
b = I + t
The other variables are constants and thus provide no error. The error in
the time is negligible compared to the error in the current, thus:
Δb = ΔII × b = 0.1
0.5 b = 0.2b
Δmi =0.05
Thus
 IM
Δm(t) = 0.05 + 0.2 × ( xFr × t )
This is why the error bars get larger as time goes on. The is proportional to
time, so as time increases, so does the error. .

➔ Comparing Theoretical Predictions to Experimental Results

To compare theoretical predictions to experimental results, I constructed a new graph. The dashed line
represents the line of best fit from the experimental predictions. The circles represent the values predicted
from the theoretical equation.

Graph 2

Evaluation

➔ Conclusion

The main conclusions that arose from this study are that:

◆ Experimental results
● The relationship (for the time period of 20minutes) is linear for both electrodes.
For this experiment the rate of mass gained for the cathode was 0.0001704 gs−1 ,
whilst the rate of mass loss for the anode was 0.0001699 g s−1 . Theoretical
predictions suggest these values should be equal as the cathode gains what the
anode lost. This difference reflects a 0.3% difference, mostly likely due to random
errors.
● There also appears to be a systematic error, indicated by the y intercept. The
cathode shows a y intercept of 1.103, whilst the anode shows a y intercept of
1.097. This is only 0.5% and is perhaps because at one point during the
electrolysis, a chunk of mass of the electrode was whipped off.
◆ Comparison of Experimental results to Theoretical results
● As shown by Graph 2, the theoretical predictions line up within their uncertainty
to experimental results. The theoretical graph has a gradient of ± 0.000168gs−1 for
 the same experimental predictions. This can be compared to the experimental
results to obtain percentage error.
result dif f erence
● % error cathode theoretical value = 0.0001704−0.000168
0.000168
× 100% = 1.43%
result dif f erence 0.0001699−0.000168
● % error anode theoretical value = 0.000168
× 100% = 1.13%
◆ My Equation
● The results also reveal how the equation I derived accurately predicts the results
of this experiment. Using m(t) = 1.100 ± 0.00017(t) , I can potentially predict the
amount of final masses of the electrodes. Or, if there was a certain final mass I
needed to find, I could rearrange the equation to find out how long it would take
for the electrodes to reach said mass. The uncertainty in this prediction changes
based on the time, but can be found with the equation
IM r (zinc)
Δm(t) = 0.05 + 0.2 × ( xF × t ) .
➔ Strengths and Limitations of Experiment
◆ Strength
● Error bars are small for experimental data and still follow a linear trend with a
high r2 value for each graph (0.996 and 0.997). This shows high precision.
● Repeated experiment 3 times. In averaging process this works to minimise
random errors.
● Thermometer was kept in beaker to monitor the temperature of the solution,
which stayed between 24​°C and ​26​°C.
● Electrodes were carefully cut so that they were of similar mass and surface area
each time
● Apparatus using clamps and alligator clips ensured that electrodes were always
placed in the same position after they are weighed.
● Used precise and accurate scale which measured to the third decimal place in
grams.
● Current was monitored using ammeter.
◆ Limitations
● Electrolysis was only done for 20 minutes. Trend cannot be assumed to be linear
forever, thus further investigations would be needed to see how electrolysis
continues beyond 20 minutes.
● Current is supplied from old power supply plugged into walls which rarely give a
voltage close to the voltage they are set it. Voltage was set at 2V but voltmeter
gave reading of 1.6V. The imperfect power supply used created a current which
varied from 0.4A to 0.6A which gives an uncertainty of 20%.
● Regression line for anode and cathode show a difference in their y intercept
which indicates a systematic error. However, this is only 0.3% error and so is
relatively small.
● This electrolysis failed to produce any engineering insights into electroplating
metals as the zinc did not stick on the electrodes but flaked away, and could be
easily wiped off.
➔ Further Investigation
◆ My experiment has demonstrated the accuracy in the application of Faraday's electrolysis
theory. From here, it would be interesting to further to further test my equation in the
following ways:
● The equation suggests that Molar Mass and Current will affect the rate. Thus it would
be interesting to see how the rate changes for different currents and different types of
metal, and whether the equation will still be applicable for these changes.
● It would also be interesting to see if other variables which are not in the equations,
such as surface area, mass of electrode, concentration, separation in solution or
temperature of solution have an effect on the reaction.
● Eventually there will come a point where all the zinc is used up. Approaching this
point, the graph will no longer be linear. My electrolysis was only conducted under a
 short time period of 20 minutes. It would be interesting to see how far this linear trend
can be extrapolated, and determine at what time does the graph become non-linear.

References
[1] Pearson's ​Chemistry; for use with the IB Diploma Programme ​(2009) p.266 electroplating
[2] ​Encyclopedia Britannica. (2019). ​electric current | Formula & Definition.​ [online] Available at:
https://www.britannica.com/science/electric-current​.
[3] ​Helmenstine, Anne Marie, Ph.D. "How Rust and Corrosion Work." ThoughtCo, May. 4, 2019,
thoughtco.com/how-rust-works-608461.
[4] ​Boshart, K. (2019). ​The Financial Cost of Rust and Corrosion - Domson Engineering & Inspection LTD​.
[online] Domson Engineering & Inspection LTD. Available at: https://domson.ca/cost-rust-corrosion/
[Accessed 20 Aug. 2019].
[5] ​Boshart, K. (2019). ​The Financial Cost of Rust and Corrosion - Domson Engineering & Inspection LTD​.
[online] Domson Engineering & Inspection LTD. Available at: https://domson.ca/cost-rust-corrosion/
[Accessed 20 Aug. 2019].
[6] ​Sharretts Plating Company. (2019). ​The Zinc Plating Process - Sharretts Plating Company​. [online]
Available at: https://www.sharrettsplating.com/blog/the-zinc-plating-process/ [Accessed 20 Aug. 2019].
[7] ​Lowenheim, F.A. Electroplating; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1978
[8] ​Material Safety Data Sheet Zinc sulfate, heptahydrate, ACS. (2019). [ebook] Pittsburgh: ACS, p.1.
Available at: http://www.labchem.com/tools/msds/msds/75469.pdf [Accessed 20 Aug. 2019].
[9] “Standard Electrode Potentials in Aqueous Solution at 25°C.” ​Table of Standard Electrode Potentials​,
Hyper Physics , hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Tables/electpot.html#c1.

Appendix 1

Table 10: ​Calculations for Uncertainty