2023 Chemistry Task 2 Term 1

Depth Study
Neutralising Animal Stings - Kayla Sadgrove
Carry out an investigation to evaluate the application of ONE specific neutralisation reaction in
everyday life OR industry.

Background Information

The chemical that is released by a sting from animals such as ants, scorpions and bees is
formic acid (HCOOH). It is this acid which is primarily responsible for the common symptoms of
irritation and pain, as it is a corrosive acid [Corrosionpedia]. These animal stings are often common
and faced in everyday life, so it is important to know how they are able to be managed appropriately
and effectively. The best way to relieve the irritation caused by the sting is to neutralise the formic
acid released. Formic acid may be neutralised by a variety of bases, although it is beneficial to come
to a conclusion on the most effective base that is likely to be somewhere around the house, allowing
for the most effective, immediate treatment to take place.

The base, Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH), is a compound commonly used as a lye in soap base,
making up 33% of the composition. Sodium Hydroxide reacts with Formic acid to produce water and
Sodium formate, represented by the equation: HCOOH (aq) + NaOH (aq) → H2O (l) + HCOONa
(aq). [HSCG, 2008]. This means that an effective way of relieving pain and irritation from an ant or
bee sting etc. is to wash the area with soap, as the sodium hydroxide in the base works to neutralise
the formic acid. The base, Sodium hydrogen carbonate (NaHCO3) is also known as bicarbonate soda
and is a common baking ingredient. Sodium hydrogen carbonate reacts with formic acid to form
water, carbon dioxide and sodium formate, represented by the equation: HCOOH (aq) + NaHCO3
(aq) → H2O (l) + HCOONa (aq) + CO2 . Because bicarbonate soda is such a common household
product, it proves to be effective at neutralising animal stings due to its accessibility. The irritation and
pain of an animal sting may be relieved by applying a solution of bicarbonate soda, as the Sodium
hydrogen carbonate will react to neutralise the formic acid.

The pH of a 0.33M solution of NaOH is approximately 13.5. The pH of a 0.5M solution of

NaHCO3 is approximately 13.7. (By pH = 14 - pOH, where pOH = -log10([OH-]) ).

Different animal stings have different concentrations/strengths of formic acid associated with
them, this is determined by what is produced in the animal's venom glands. Ants typically have a

1
higher concentration of formic acid in their stings, (58.5%), resulting in an average pH of around 2 - 3
[Laffitte, 2005]. Bee stings have an average pH of around 4.5 - 5.5 [Bee Culture, 2016], with
scorpions having the highest, at an average pH of roughly 6.5 [CAOS, 2017]. These different pH’s
indicate a difference in the concentration of hydrogen ions, ( pH = -log10[H+] ), meaning that the less
acid in the sting, the easier it is to neutralise.

The pH of a standard solution of 0.4M formic acid is around 0.4, this pH is quite far off from
the pH’s of ant, bee and scorpion stings, and since the pH scale is logarithmic, meaning the amount of
hydrogen ions in a solution of pH 2 is approximately 100 times that of a solution with a pH of 0.4. A
way to alter the pH of an acid without inducing a chemical reaction is to dilute it, as the concentration
of the acid lessens with the addition of water, the pH increases towards 7, as proven by the formula
(pH = -log10[H+]).

Aim
To determine the most effective way to neutralise various animal stings of different pH’s with
different bases found in common household products.

Hypotheses
1. If the pH of the initial solution of HCOOH is greater, then it will require a lesser amount base
to be neutralised. This is because there is a smaller [H+] since pH has an inversely
proportional relationship with the concentration of hydrogen ions (due to: pH = -log10([H+] ).
If the [H+] is smaller, then the [OH-] ions needed to bond with and neutralise the solution will
also be smaller, therefore resulting in a smaller volume of base required for neutralisation.

2. If the concentration of NaOH is smaller than the concentration of NaHCO3, then NaOH will
be less effective at neutralising the various dilutions of acid, because, the concentration of the
solution is inversely proportional to the volume (n = cv), meaning that, the higher the
concentration of the base, the less volume is needed to provide a required amount of moles for
neutralisation. Since 0.5M > 0.33M, and both NaOH and NaHCO3 are in a 1 : 1 ratio with
HCOOH, less NaHCO3 will be required to neutralise the formic acid.

Variables
Independent variables:
- The dilution of each formic acid solution and the corresponding pH level:
(0.4M ~ 0.4 | 0.1M ~ 1 | 0.06M ~ 1.2 )
- The bases used for neutralisation: (Sodium Hydrogen Carbonate (0.5M),

2
 Sodium Hydroxide (0.33M))
Dependent variable:
- The amount (volume, moles) of NaOH and NaHCO3 required to neutralise
each solution to the same extent.
Controlled variables
- 50mL volume of each acid dilution per trial, per base.
- Indicator used (universal indicator)
- Extent of neutralisation (same colour green from indicator)
- Glassware/equipment used. (Same 250mL Beaker, 50mL burette, 100mL
measuring cylinder.)
- Same method of measurement and same person measuring.

Equipment
Equipment Justification

1 x Beaker 50mL This beaker was used to store a small sample of the first solution that was
neutralised, to ensure all trials were neutralised to the same extent by
qualitative comparison, which maintains consistency in results. Only a
small sample was needed for comparison, therefore only a small beaker is
required.

1 x Beaker 250mL This beaker was used to hold the 50mL of each formic acid solution
needed to be neutralised. While it only held 50mL of formic acid, an extra
200mL was given in case a large amount of base was required to
neutralise the acid, ensuring the solution did not overflow or have to be
transferred to a larger beaker, which would provide less accurate results.

1 x Beaker 400mL This beaker was used to store the 250mL solution of 0.5M Sodium
Hydrogen carbonate (NaHCO3). The extra 150mL of volume minimises
the risk of spillage while handling, but is not too excessive as to waste
space.

4 x Beaker 500mL These beakers were used to store:

- 400mL 0.4M Formic acid
- 400mL 0.1M Formic acid
- 400mL 0.06M Formic acid
- 400mL 0.33 Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH)
The extra 100mL of volume in each beaker minimises the risk of spillage

3
 while handling, but is not too excessive as to waste space.

1 x 50mL Burette This burette was used to most accurately measure the volume of each base
required to neutralise the solutions of acid. The 50mL volume is effective
as it ensures the instrument is an appropriate size, and is not too small that
it is inefficient.

1 x Formic Acid 0.4M This was used as the first independent variable for the experiment. The
600mL formic acid was diluted to three different concentrations, each one
corresponding to a different animal sting. This then allows for effective
judgements to be made on the neutralisation (pain and inflammation
relief) methods for varied animal stings.

1 x Funnel The funnel was used to cleanly and effectively transfer solutions from the
beakers into the measuring cylinder and burette. This funnel helped
prevent spillage, creating a safer environment.

1 x Measuring This measuring cylinder was used to measure the specific amount of
Cylinder plastic, HCOOH required for each dilution that needed to be made. The cylinder
100mL was also used to measure the specific amount of different acid dilutions
needing to be neutralised (50mL). This ensured that the same volume of
HCOOH was being neutralised each trial, making for accurate and
consistent results. The 100mL volume was not too small that it was
inefficient but not too large such that it was difficult to handle.

1 x Retort Stand This retort stand was used to hold the burette in position above the beaker.
It keeps the burette stable and perfectly vertical so that measurements are
accurate.

1 x Sodium Hydrogen This solution was used to neutralise the different dilutions of HCOOH.
Carbonate Calculations were done prior to predict the theoretical amount of
(NaHCO3) 0.5M NaHCO3 required for the entire experiment, (170mL) and an extra 80mL
250mL was given in case of mistakes and re-attempts.

1 x Sodium Hydroxide This solution was used to neutralise the different dilutions of HCOOH.
(NaOH) 0.33M Calculations were done prior to predict the theoretical amount of NaOH
400mL required for the entire experiment, (260mL) and an extra 140mL was
given in case of mistakes and re-attempts.

4
 1 x Universal This indicator was used as a tool to assist with the qualitative data
Indicator bottle collection of the experiment. The indicator was added to each dilution of
acid each trial, making it easy to tell when the solution had been
neutralised (green colour).

1 x Water distilled This water was used to produce the different dilutions of formic acid.
700mL Calculations were done in order to identify how much distilled water was
required for each dilution, these values were then summed, (640mL) and
an extra 60mL was given in case of mistakes and spillages.

Method
Step 1: A 50mL glass burette was fastened to the retort stand using a burette clamp. It was ensured
that the burette was perfectly vertical from all perspectives in order to maintain the most
accurate results.
Step 2: Then 400mL of 0.4M Formic acid (HCOOH) with a pH of 0.4 was measured with a 100mL
measuring cylinder and funnel and poured into a 500mL beaker. This beaker was labelled
appropriately ‘0.4M HCOOH’.
Step 3: Then 100mL of 0.4M HCOOH was measured using a 100mL measuring cylinder and funnel
and was poured into a second 500mL. 300mL of distilled water was measured using a clean
100mL measuring cylinder and added to this beaker. This produced 400mL of 0.1M HCOOH
with a pH of 1 and the beaker was appropriately labelled ‘0.1M HCOOH’.
Step 4: Then 60mL of 0.4M HCOOH was measured using a clean measuring cylinder and funnel and
was poured into a third 500mL beaker. Then 340mL of distilled water was measured using a
clean 100mL measuring cylinder and added to this beaker. This produced 400mL of 0.06M
HCOOH with a pH of 1.2 and the beaker was appropriately labelled ‘0.06M HCOOH’.
Step 5: Then 400mL of 0.33M Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) was measured using a clean 100mL
measuring cylinder and funnel and was poured into a 500mL beaker. This beaker was
appropriately labelled ‘0.33M NaOH’.
Step 6: Then 250mL of 0.5M Sodium Hydrogen Carbonate (NaHCO3) was measured using a clean
100mL measuring cylinder and funnel and was poured into a 400mL beaker. This beaker was
appropriately labelled ‘0.5M NaHCO3’.
Step 7: Then 50mL of 0.4M HCOOH was measured using a clean 100mL measuring cylinder and
funnel and was poured into a clean 250mL beaker. Universal indicator was added to the
solution until the colour was clearly identifiable and the solution was translucent (approx. 10
drops). This beaker was then placed onto a plain white surface underneath the 50mL burette.
Step 8: A funnel was then placed in the top of the 50mL burette and the 0.33M solution of NaOH was

5
 poured into the burette until it was full (the bottom of the meniscus rested on the 0mL line at
eye level).
Step 9: Then the NaOH was then slowly released into the HCOOH solution until the solution in the
beaker appeared a bright green, indicating a neutral solution (a small sample of this first
solution was transferred to a 50mL beaker). The amount of NaOH required to reach the pH of
the green solution was recorded by identifying the final position of the meniscus at eye level
and subtracting the initial value from the final. This was then repeated three times, adding
more NaOH to the burette as needed, comparing each solution with the sample to ensure the
tone of green was the same each time. Each final neutralised solution was poured into a waste
bucket and the beaker was rinsed and dried before the next trial. All results were recorded
into a results table.
Step 10: Step 9 was repeated for the other two HCOOH dilutions. The excess NaOH in the burette
was returned to the beaker and disposed of by a professional.
Step 11: Steps 8 - 10 were then repeated using the second base, NaHCO3 in place of NaOH.

Results
Volume of Base Required to Neutralise Concentration of Formic Acid (mL, 3sf)
pH of Formic acid
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average
Dilutions.

NaOH NaHCO3 NaOH NaHCO3 NaOH NaHCO3 NaOH NaHCO3

0.4 - ‘Ant’ Sting 66.6 81.4 64.8 85.3 62.3 86.0 64.6 84.2

1 - ‘Bee’ Sting 16.6 24.0 16.2 22.2 15.8 21.6 16.2 22.6

1.2 - ‘Scorpion’ Sting 9.40 14.7 8.90 16.1 9.70 15.4 9.30 15.4

6
Theoretical Results / Calculations

Formic acid dilution Calculations (manipulating pH of solutions)

Ant pH = 2 | Bee pH = 5 | Scorpion pH = 6

2:5:6
0.4 : x : y
x = (5)(0.4) ÷ 2 y = (6)(0.4) ÷ 2
=1 = 1.2

∴ Altered pH ratios - 0.4 : 1 : 1.2

+
From: ( pH = -log10([H ]) ) :
Ant ∴0.4 = - log10 (0.4) Bee 1 = log10 (10) Scorpion 1.2 = - log10 ([H+])
Since [H+] = 0.4M = - log10 (0.1) 1.2 = log10 ([H+]-1)
∴[H+] = 0.1M 101.2 = [H+]-1
∴[H+] = 10-1.2
[H+] = 0.06M
Dilutions:
Ant: 400mL of 0.4M HCOOH. Bee: c1v1 = c2v2\
No dilution needed. (0.4)v1 = (0.1)(0.4)
v1 = (0.1)(0.4) ÷ (0.4)
∴v1 = 0.1 L
∴ 100mL of 0.4M HCOOH is to be diluted with
300mL of distilled water to produce 400mL of
0.1M HCOOH with a pH of 1.
Scorpion: c1v1 = c2v2

7
 (0.4)v1 = (0.06)(0.4)
v1 = (0.06)(0.4) ÷ (0.4)
∴v1 = 0.06 L
∴ 60mL of 0.4M HCOOH is to be diluted with 340mL of distilled water to produce 400mL
of 0.1M HCOOH with a pH of 1.2.

Theoretical value Calculations (Amount of base required for neutralisation)

BASE #1 - NaOH BASE #2 - NaHCO3

NaOH + HCOOH → H+ + OH- + NaHCOO NaHCO3 + HCOOH → H+ + OH- + CO2 + NaHCOO

‘Ant’ : 0.4M HCOOH: ‘Ant’ : 0.4M HCOOH:

HCOOH : H+ HCOOH : H+
1:1 1:1
+ +
∴[H ] = 0.4M ∴ [H ] = 0.4M
∴ n (H+) = cv ∴ n (H+) = cv
= (0.4)(0.05) = (0.4)(0.05)
= 0.02 mol = 0.02 mol
∴ 0.02mol of OH- required to neutralise ∴ 0.02mol of OH- required to neutralise
[OH-] = 0.33M [OH-] = 0.5M
∴v (OH- ) = n ÷ c ∴v (OH- ) = n ÷ c
= (0.02) ÷ (0.33) = (0.02) ÷ (0.5)
= 0.0606…. = 0.04….
~ 0.061 L ~ 0.04 L

∴ 61mL of NaOH required to neutralise 50mL ∴ 40mL of NaHCO3 required to neutralise 50mL
of 0.4M HCOOH of 0.4M HCOOH

‘Bee’ : 0.1M HCOOH: ‘Bee’ : 0.1M HCOOH:

HCOOH : H+ HCOOH : H+
1:1 1:1
+ +
∴ [H ] = 0.1M ∴ [H ] = 0.1M
∴ n (H+) = cv ∴ n (H+) = cv
= (0.1)(0.05) = (0.1)(0.05)
= 0.005 mol = 0.005 mol
∴ 0.005mol of OH- required to neutralise
[OH-] = 0.33M ∴ 0.005mol of OH- required to neutralise
∴v (OH- ) = n ÷ c [OH-] = 0.5M
= (0.005) ÷ (0.33) ∴v (OH- ) = n ÷ c
= 0.01515…. = (0.005) ÷ (0.5)
~ 0.015 L = 0.01 L

∴ 15mL of NaOH required to neutralise 50mL ∴ 10mL of NaHCO3 required to neutralise 50mL
of 0.1M HCOOH of 0.1M HCOOH

‘Scorpion’ : 0.1M HCOOH: ‘Scorpion’ : 0.1M HCOOH:

8
 HCOOH : H+ HCOOH : H+
1:1 1:1
∴ [H+] = 0.06M ∴ [H+] = 0.06M
∴ n (H+) = cv ∴ n (H+) = cv
= (0.06)(0.05) = (0.06)(0.05)
= 0.003 mol = 0.003 mol
∴ 0.003mol of OH- required to neutralise ∴ 0.003mol of OH- required to neutralise
[OH-] = 0.33M [OH-] = 0.5M
∴v (OH- ) = n ÷ c ∴v (OH- ) = n ÷ c
= (0.003) ÷ (0.33) = (0.003) ÷ (0.5)
= 0.009090…. = 0.006 L
~ 0.0091 L
∴ 6mL of NaHCO3 required to neutralise 50mL
∴ 9.1mL of NaHCO3 required to neutralise 50mL of 0.06M HCOOH
of 0.06M HCOOH

Discussion
Trends and Relationships
The most evident trend that can be identified from the experimental results of this experiment
is that as the pH of an acidic solution increases, the volume of base required to neutralise said solution
decreases. This is seen as for a 50mL solution of 0.4M formic acid (HCOOH) - with a pH of 0.4 -
64.6mL of 0.33M NaOH is required for neutralisation, which is significantly more than the 9.3mL
required to neutralise a 50mL solution of 0.06M HCOOH, where the pH is 1. This allows the
conclusion to be made that the relationship between pH and the volume of base required for
neutralisation is inversely proportional. This is also represented by the trend line in the graph, which
has a negative gradient. This is simply explained by the concept of pH. pH is a measure of hydrogen
ion concentration, a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution. The pH scale ranges from 0 to
14 [Thought Co., 2019]. As a base is added to an acidic solution the basic hydrogen ions bond with
the acidic hydrogen ions to form water, this gives the general equation: Acid + Base → Salt + Water.
This formation of water reduces the [H+], which increases the pH value towards 7, since pH =
-log10([H+]). This inversely proportional relationship between pH and volume required for
neutralisation is supported by the results of the experiment and mathematical formulae.

A second relationship can also be recognised, one that is between the two bases. It is evident
through the experimental results that the molarity of the bases also affects the volume of base required
for neutralisation. Unfortunately the theoretical and experimental values differ for NaHCO3 for this
experiment (see ‘Accuracy’). The results from the experiment suggest that the relationship between
base molarity and volume required to neutralise are inversely proportional, as it takes less of the
0.33M NaOH to neutralise the formic acid than the 0.5M NaHCO3. However, this can be simply

9
disproved by the mathematical relationship between the two variables. If the concentration of base is
higher, then the concentration of hydroxide ions is also higher ( NaOH → Na+ + OH- , NaOH : OH- =
1 : 1 ). This means that when reacted with an acid, there are more OH- ions available to bond with the
H+ ions in a smaller volume of base, this will then increase the pH more quickly. By this fact the
theoretical conclusion made is that the 0.5M NaHCO3 is more effective at neutralising formic acid
solutions than 0.33M NaOH, however, the experiment supports the conclusion that the NaOH is more
effective than the NaHCO3. While this relationship may be incorrectly represented throughout the
experiment due to external factors, an helpful scientific conclusion may still be drawn based on real
life circumstances and application.

Validity
This experiment followed a specific method that was widely researched and catered
effectively to a specific aim ‘To determine the most effective way to neutralise various animal stings
of different pH’s with bases found in common household products.’. While some of the experimental
values were quite different from the theoretical values, the experiment still managed to achieve a valid
outcome. This allowed a scientific conclusion to be made about the effectiveness of different common
bases in neutralising the formic acid found in animal stings. Acknowledging the theoretical outcome
of the experiment, it was not entirely valid since the experimental conclusion drawn opposes the
predicted results, (see ‘Results’ and ‘Theoretical Results’). Unfortunately this error is difficult to
avoid, therefore the method can be classed as generally valid, as it was significantly researched,
trialled and adapted to discover a way that worked the most efficiently and accurately. The experiment
also had a large number of controlled variables to ensure no external/irrelevant variables were
contributing to the results and trends of the experiment (see ‘variables’). These controlled variables
allowed the method to be carried out in an organised and valid manner. The addition of a burette and
controlled sample of an indicated, neutralised solution made it easier to achieve the goal of the
experiment, increasing the validity. The test trials of the method were able to allow the most optimal
method to be produced, leaving for a direct, and effective experiment that successfully attained
scientific results to formulate trends demonstrating mathematical relationships used to construct a
valid conclusion and fulfil the objective of the aim.

Before constructing the method, the fundamental knowledge on animal stings, common
household bases, neutralisation reactions and pH was heavily researched to ensure the method was
able to achieve a certain goal (i.e the aim). This experiment was valid as, firstly, the ratio of the
researched values of the pH of each different animal sting remained the same even when the pH was
manipulated, (see ‘Calculations’). Secondly, a clear objective was kept in mind for the entirety of the
construction of the method and the research and calculations were used to achieve this in the most
effective way. Thirdly, every step in the method has some relation to the variables, aim and/or

10
hypotheses. An experiment is valid when The method accurately measures what it is intended to
measure. If research has high validity, that means it produces results that correspond to real properties
and characteristics’ [Scribbr, 2023]. Based on this, the experiment is valid. The experiment measured
what was required to be measured (Dependent variable - Amount of base required for neutralisation.).

Reliability
This experiment had a satisfactory degree of reliability as it was tested, trialled and repeated
until consistent results were achieved (3+ times each). This makes for an experiment which produces
the most accurate results. While some of the results may not have been entirely accurate and in line
with the theoretical predictions, they were repeated until consistent which decreases the possibility of
an extreme outlier, which would alter the trends and relationships of the results. Each neutralisation
reaction, for each base, for each dilution was trialled at least 3 times and then averaged, and obvious
outliers were re-done until consistent with the other trials. 3 trials indicates appropriate reliability,
where the experiment was repeated enough so that it may be deemed reliable, but not enough so that
the possibility of every trial being an outlier is approximately zero. This not only gives accurate
results, where the quantities obtained are consistent and therefore reliable.

Reliability is ‘The extent to which the results can be reproduced when the research is repeated
under the same conditions.’ [Scribbr, 2023]. This proves true for the results of the experiment as it
was carried out over multiple different days in multiple weeks, where not every trial for each base for
each dilution was carried out on the same day, so the fact that consistent results were achieved and the
experiment was able to be correctly reproduced at different times/days under the same conditions
indicates that this was a reliable experiment. The repetition and consistency of results for each base
reacting with each dilution allows the experiment to be deemed as a reliable one.

Accuracy
This experiment was only partially accurate due to the fact that half of the experimental data
was very much out of line with the theoretical results. The results for NaOH were very much accurate
and as it was predicted that it would take 60mL of the 0.33M NaOH to neutralise the 50mL 0.4M
HCOOH solution, 15mL of 0.1M HCOOH, and 9.1mL of 0.06M HCOOH solution. Experimentally, it
took an average of 64.6mL, 16.2mL and 9.3mL. These are percentage errors of 7.7%, 8.0% and 2.2%,
indicating accurate results. This allows the conclusion to be drawn that the method and experiment
produce data with a high degree of accuracy for the base of NaOH. However, there is a great problem
in accuracy with the base of NaHCO3, It was predicted that it would take 40mL of 0.5M NaHCO3 to
neutralise 50mL of 0.4 HCOOH, 10mL of 0.1M HCOOH and 6mL of 0.06M HCOOH. However,
experimentally, it took an average of 84.2mL, 22.6mL and 15.4mL. These are percentage errors of
110.5%, 126.0% and 156.7%, which indicates very poor accuracy, allowing the conclusion to be made

11
that the experiment is severely inaccurate for the base of NaHCO3.

This inaccuracy can be explained by the behaviour of the products in the chemical reaction.
The chemical reaction for NaHCO3 reacting with HCOOH: HCOOH (aq) + NaHCO3 (aq) →
NaHCOO (aq) + H2O (l) + CO2 (aq). When this reaction takes place there is a reaction where
bubbles are observed ‘fizzing’ in the solution. The problem with the production of Carbon dioxide in
this experiment is that the CO2 dissolves into the solution and combines with water to form carbonic
acid (H2CO3). [NOAA, 2020]. This acid then releases hydrogen ions, which decrease the concentration
of hydroxide ions being produced by the NaHCO3 being added. This increase in [H+] decreases the pH
of the solution (since pH is inversely proportional to [H+]) countering part of the neutralisation that is
taking place. This formation of carbonic acid was not accounted for in the theoretical calculations of
the experiment and is therefore the reason why the experimental volume of NaHCO3 required for
neutralisation was so much higher than the predicted value. The amount of NaHCO3 required for
neutralisation needs to be enough to produce a concentration of hydroxide ions large enough to
neutralise the formic acid and also overcome the acidity produced by the carbon dioxide dissolution.
This process had a great impact on the results of this experiment, and therefore the experiment can be
deemed inaccurate.

In an effort to optimise the accuracy of the method of this experiment, test trials were carried
out for each base with each dilution. During these test trials it was observed that the CO2 was released
into the solution for the NaHCO3 and the experimental value was inaccurate. It was also concluded
that the original method of the experiment was not entirely valid or accurate, as there was too much
base being added at any one time, making it difficult to determine the exact amount of base taken to
neutralise, this was improved by introducing the burette, an apparatus which allows for a slow
introduction of base to the acid, letting the solution to be neutralised to an exact degree, with an
accurate and reliable reading. These test trials allowed the method to improve in reliability and
validity, overall increasing the accuracy of the experiment.

Improvements
To Increase the validity of this experiment there could have been more variables tested. There
could have been more bases trialled with the different dilutions of formic acid, as well as more
dilutions of HCOOH to represent a wider variety of animals. This would broaden the range of results,
and allow for a more significant conclusion to be drawn. With more bases found in common
household products being tested the variety of data gathered is considerably larger,and therefore a
more impactful judgement may be made, as multiple accessible options are provided, as well as the
fact that the data from the experiment would be able to organise those options from most to least
effective. The addition of more dilutions to mimic more animal stings allows a conclusion to be drawn

12
on which neutralisation methods and bases are best for which types of stings. The experiment could
be broadened further with the introduction of more alkaline animal stings and bites (e.g. wasps
jellyfish [University of York]) then it would be concluded which methods of neutralisation would
work the most effectively for these. These additions would provide a broader understanding of the
chemical explanation behind irritation and pain relief of animal stings, which would effectively
achieve the aim to its full extent.

To increase the reliability of this experiment it could be repeated several more times, as the
more times an experiment is repeated the more accurate the data obtained is, and therefore the more
reliable the results. The introduction of more trials could also be conducted at even more different
times (still under the same conditions), in order to ensure that the experiment is able to be reproduced
multiple times with consistent results. This would guarantee a high degree of reliability for the
experiment, as the production of a large number of consistent results over different times indicates
that the results obtained are demonstrating the correct relationship between the independent and
dependent variables.

To increase the accuracy of the experiment the method of obtaining measurements could be
improved. This can be done by replacing the 100mL measuring cylinder with a 25mL volumetric
pipette. The pipette allows for the most accurate measurements, meaning that the quantities for
dilution and neutralisation would be as accurate as possible. The accuracy can also be improved with
the introduction of technology, while there was a controlled neutral solution with indicator in the
experiment, the measurement of pH was largely dependent on the qualitative observation of the
conductor of the experiment, while the conductor being the same for each trial makes this reliable, the
accuracy could be increased with an electronic pH-meter. This could be placed into the control
solution to identify the pH to an exact degree, then the pH metre could be used to identify the pH of
each solution in each trial, ensuring they are all completely neutralised to the exact same extent. This
would then allow the comparison and trends of the results to be entirely accurate. Overall the
introduction of technology and advanced glassware would significantly improve the accuracy of this
experiment.

For an experiment to be entirely accurate errors need to be eliminated, and the experimental
and theoretical circumstances need to be the same. To improve the accuracy, this experiment could
have been carried out under a fume hood, this would mean that as carbon dioxide was formed a large
amount would be extracted from the environment before it dissolved back into the solution, this would
then give a result closer to the theoretical prediction, as the formation of carbonic acid would be
significantly limited, so that only the hydrogen ions from the formic acid are accounted for
theoretically and experimentally.

13
Conclusion
In conclusion the most effective way to reduce irritation and relieve pain from an ant, bee or
scorpion sting is to apply soap rather than baking soda, with the scorpion sting being the easiest to
relieve. This conclusion is backed up by experimental results, as NaOH took an average of 30mL to
neutralise a formic acid solution, whereas NaHCO3 took an average of 41mL. From these results
Hypothesis 1 was proved correct as the dilution with the highest pH (1.2) - ‘Scorpion’ - took the least
amount of base for neutralisation, (Average : 12.35mL). The dilution with the second highest pH (1) -
‘Bee’ - took the second most amount of base for neutralisation, (Average : 19.4 mL), and the dilution
with the lowest pH (0.4) - ‘Ant’ - took the most amount of base for neutralisation, (Average :
74.4mL). However, Hypothesis 2 was proved incorrect due to the presence of an unseen factor in the
chemical reaction. Instead of the base with the smaller concentration taking more volume to neutralise
the acid, and the base with the larger concentration taking less, the base with the smaller concentration
(NaOH, 0.33M) took the least volume to neutralise the formic acid dilutions, (Average : 30mL), and
the base with the higher concentration (NaHCO3, 0.5M) took the most volume, (Average : 41mL).
Overall the experiment was successful in determining a real-life solution to the problem of the
irritation that comes with the formic acid released in animal stings, even if it was theoretically
inaccurate.

Bibliography

Atlas Scientific (2022) How does CO2 affect ph in water?, Atlas Scientific. Available at:
https://atlas-scientific.com/blog/how-does-co2-affect-ph-in-water/#:~:text=As%20mentioned%2C%2
0when%20carbon%20dioxide,acid%2C%20therefore%20decreasing%20the%20pH. (Accessed:
March 3, 2023).

Brütsch, T. et al. (2017) Wood ants produce a potent antimicrobial agent by applying formic acid on
tree-collected resin, Ecology and evolution. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5383563/#:~:text=Worker%20ants%20produced%20l
arge%20quantities,succinic%20acid%20(five%20samples) (Accessed: March 3, 2023).

Byju (no date) Name the base used in the manufacture of soap., byju. Available at:
https://byjus.com/question-answer/name-the-base-used-in-the-manufacture-of-soap/ (Accessed:
February 13, 2023).

Chinese Academy of Sciences (No date) Why Scorpion Stings Deliver an Insufferable Pain (2017)
Chinese Academy of Sciences. Available at:

14
https://english.cas.cn/newsroom/archive/research_archive/rp2017/201708/t20170803_181736.shtml#:
~:text=Similar%20to%20most%20venoms%2C%20scorpion,makes%20TRPV1%20ready%20to%20
open. (Accessed: February 25, 2023).

Dunn, K. (2008) The water discount, Handcrafted Soap and Cosmetic Guild. Available at:
https://www.soapguild.org/tools-and-resources/resource-center/164/the-water-discount/ (Accessed:
February 13, 2023).

Laffitte, M. (2005) Formic acid, Formic Acid - Molecule of the Month. Available at:
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/formic/formich.htm#:~:text=When%20the%20ant%20contracts%20
its,usually%20flee%2C%20or%20are%20killed. (Accessed: March 2, 2023).

Lenntech (no date) Water treatment solutions, Lenntech Water treatment & purification.
Available at: https://www.lenntech.com/ph-and-alkalinity.htm (Accessed: February 10, 2023).
McDermott, A. (2022) Bee Sting Home Remedies: What works?, Healthline. Healthline Media.
Available at: https://www.healthline.com/health/outdoor-health/home-remedies-for-bee-stings
(Accessed: February 9, 2023).

The Ocean Portal Team (2019) Ocean acidification, Smithsonian Ocean. Available at:
https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification#:~:text=When%20carbon%20dioxide
%20dissolves%20in,basic%20the%20ocean%20is) (Accessed: March 3, 2023).

Pryor, O. (2021) Home remedies to help treat a bee sting reaction, Home Remedies to Help Treat a
Bee Sting Reaction. Available at:
https://www.oakbrookallergists.com/2021/02/26/home-remedies-to-help-treat-a-bee-sting-reaction/
(Accessed: February 13, 2023).

Riddle, S. (2016) Bee Venom and the chemistry of ouch!, Bee Culture. Available at:
https://www.beeculture.com/bee-venom-chemistry-ouch/#:~:text=Unlike%20alarm%20pheromones%
2C%20bee%20venom,stings%20to%20neutralize%20the%20stings. (Accessed: March 25, 2023).

Vedantu (2022) Weak bases, VEDANTU. Vedantu. Available at:

https://www.vedantu.com/chemistry/weak-bases (Accessed: February 8, 2023).

15