Catenacci-Mardlin-Orlando Research Paper Final

The Effects of Acid Rain on the Visible Light Absorption of Stained Glass
Senna Catenacci, Logan Mardlin, Claire Orlando

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center
Chemistry 10A
Mrs. Dewey, Mrs. Hilliard, Mr. Supal
Table of Contents
Introduction
Review of Literature..
Problem Statement.
Experimental Design..
Data and Observations...
Data Analysis and Interpretation...
Conclusion.
Acknowledgments..
Appendix A: Ti-Nspire CX Randomization..
Appendix B: Stained Glass Deterioration..
Works Cited...
Catenacci-Mardlin-Orlando 1
Introduction
The issue over the preservation of stained glass windows has been in question since the
nineteenth century, and the concerns have only been growing. A picture of deteriorated stained
glass is shown in Appendix B. This stained glass is one of many that have deteriorated because
of acid rain. The stained glass shown in the picture was painted stained glass. In order for this
glass to not deteriorate, it has to be baked at the perfect temperature. This is very hard to achieve
and it is most likely that the glass will not be baked properly, making it more susceptible to acid
rain deterioration. In the stained glass shown in Appendix B the face of one of the people has had
the paint flake off making it almost impossible to see its face. This is due to the fact that it was
baked at too low of a temperature for the paint to fuse into the glass.
One of the main acids that effect the deterioration of stained glass is sulfuric acid, which
is formed when pollutants (such as nitrogen) are released from the ground and factories and into
the atmosphere. They then form condensation in which water molecules attach themselves onto
nitrogen gas particles to form clouds. The condensation from these clouds produces precipitation
that will eventually fall as acid rain. Over time, this process breaks down the integrity of the
windows. This happens when the acid rain reacts with the chemicals from the coloring of the
windows, causing
The purpose of this experiment was to test to see how three different factors - molarity,
temperature, and time - would affect how stained glass samples deteriorated. The results were
then analyzed to find which of the three factors, and their interactions, were significant in the
experiment. This experiment was accomplished by placing 33 pieces of stained glass into
solutions of sulfuric acid with three different molarities (2, 3, and 4), temperatures (14.5C, 21C,
and 37C), and time durations (24, 48, and 72 hours). The samples were measured daily and the
change in light transmittance was recorded.
One application of this experiment is that the results can be used to figure out a method
that can limit how quickly stained glass windows break down. It is clear that the weather cant be
controlled or changed, but by knowing which environmental conditions cause the most damage
to the glass, it is possible that some sort of sealant or protective coating could be designed to coat
the windows so that they will be more resistant to the damage that is being placed on them.
While further research would have to be done, the results of this experiment could provide a
rough guideline or idea for experiments that are conducted in the future.
Another use for the results of this experiment is that researchers can look at different
ways to create the stained glass itself. Perhaps a different chemical composition of the glass
would make it more resistant to outside factors, thus making it able to last longer without repair.
One last way that the results of the experiment can be used is to define how difficult the
glass would be to repair. This could be done by looking at the total gain in light transmittance,
and determining what level of damage would be too difficult to repair, and set an estimate for the
total cost. This would be helpful for many people, such as the contractors or restorers who may
be fixing the glass, or the owner of the glass who is having it repaired, so that they know what
the total approximate cost of the project will be ahead of time.
In order to do this experiment, a light sensor was used in order to measure the light
transmittance of the glass. To measure the total light transmittance, the light transmittance of the
room and the light transmittance of the stained glass were subtracted. As exposure to the acid
solution increased, the light transmittance of the stained glass decreased. This happens because
the light transmittance of the room stays the same while the light transmittance of the stained
glass increased, causing the difference to be smaller. After all of the trials have been concluded
and the data is collected, the data can then be evaluated. After the data is evaluated, the factors
that affect the stained glass the most can be found. This gives a pinpoint in which research can be
conducted to find a more resistant stained glass. Thus helping to preserve the beautiful stained
glass of churches and buildings around the world.
Review of Literature
The purpose of this research experiment was to test how different environmental
conditions affected stained glass. The three factors that were tested on the glass were pH,
duration of time, and temperature. The three molarities of sulfuric acid that were used were 2, 3,
and 4.The temperatures that were used came from placing each sample at either 14.5C, 21C, or
37C. The stained glass used was the color yellow. After a sample was selected, the glass was
soaked in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) - which is the main component of acid rain - at different
concentrations (either 2, 3, or 4 molarity), which is where the different pH levels come from. The
sulfuric acid can be made less acidic by diluting it, or adding water to it.
The pH of the solution is obtained by taking the logarithm of the hydronium ion
concentration and then changing the sign.
H+
pH =log
In order to get the pH, the molarity of the solution needs to be found. In this case the molarity of
the sulfuric acid needs to be found in order to generate the solution at the exact pH wanted.
(Olmsted) Once this is done the stained glass was left to soak in the sulfuric acid for either 24,
48, or 72 hours, depending on the trial being run.
Finally, the glass sample was placed into the necessary location - freezer, area at room
temperature, or incubator - that corresponded to the low (14.5C), standard (21C), or high
(37C) temperature. Afterwards the light sensor will be used to measure the light absorption of
the stained glass. In Figure 2 below there is a picture of the light sensor that will be used. The
light sensors works by shining a light through the glass sample, and then measuring the light
absorption. The more light absorption there is, the more the glass has deteriorated.
Figure 1. Light Sensor

Figure 1 displays the light sensor that was used in the experiment, which determines the
effect that the acid had on the stained glass (Light Sensor).
The term "Acid Rain" refers to a mixture of deposited material from the atmosphere
containing higher the normal amounts of nitric acid and sulfuric acid, as shown in Figure 3.
These acids are emitted into the air by coal fired power stations, smelters, and motor vehicle
exhausts (Singh). The industrial amounts of nitrogen, sulfur oxides, and general pollutants from
the air cause a drastic increase of the acidity of the precipitation and harms living things. This
acid rain happens when these gases reacts in the atmosphere with water, oxygen, and other
chemicals to form various acids. When sulfur is released into the air a reaction takes place in
order to turn in into sulfuric acid. First the sulfur combines with atmospheric oxygen to form
sulfur dioxide (SO2). After the sulfur dioxide reacts with atmospheric water to form sulfurous
acid (SO2(g) + H2O(l) = H2SO4(aq)). Then the sulfur dioxide gradually oxidizes to form sulfur
trioxide (2SO2(g) + O2(g) = 2SO3(g)). Finally the sulfur trioxide reacts with water to form
Sulfuric acid (SO3(g) + H2O(l) = H2SO4(aq)) (Bhargava).
Figure 2. Sulfuric Acid Process

Figure 2 shows how emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere by means of factories,
exhausts, etc. are absorbed into clouds and eventually precipitates as acid rain.
Sulfuric acids chemical formula is H2SO4. The chemical compound has been known to
have corrosive and deadly effects. This acid is used in many modern uses such as phosphate
fertilizer, explosives, glue, wood preservative, and lead-acid batteries. It is also used in the
etching process of glass in which the glass is made more smooth by being submerged in the acid.
This happens because the rough edges on the glass are corroded by the harsh effects on sulfuric
acid (Aulinas).
The structure of stained glass is important to understand when looking at how it decays.
As glass cools from a molten state to a solid state, it undergoes a process called vitrification, in
which the crystallization process is bypassed and the glass solidifies without crystallizing. It then
gets the name vitreous silica. Vitreous silica then has a constant network of interconnected
silicon and oxygen atoms, however it does not have the parallel planes of similar atoms which
would be characterized as crystal. When monovalent ions (such as sodium oxide) are added to
the vitreous silica in small amounts, the balance between the oxygen and the silicon ions is upset,
which makes it so that not every oxygen can bond with two silicon atoms. However, each silicon
will still create a way to be tetrahedrally bonded to four oxygen atoms. This results in a scenario
in which some oxygen ions are bonded to only one silicon. At an atomic level, large holes are
then created in the network and the sodium ions can move into them (see Figure 3). This lack of
order, rather than its common transparency and brittleness, is the defining feature and structure
of glass. This means that glass is thus able to be transparent, rather than just translucent or
opaque.
Figure 3. Structure of Glass

Figure 3 displays the molecular structure of glass. As explained above, it consists of the
bonding of silicon and oxygen, as well as the sodium ions moving into the holes created.
Stained glass has been around for centuries, and scientists have long been researching its
properties, but the main focus in this experiment, was how stained glass deteriorates. The
explanation for this is that the main decaying agent is water, whether it be precipitation,
condensation, or humidity, which goes along with the factor or temperature (Anderson). The
overall process of deterioration involves the diffusion of hydrogen ions from the water inside of
the network of glass. As stated by Drew Anderson, a faculty member of the Albert Museum,
One hydrogen ion (H+) from the water molecule displaces the sodium (Na+) or potassium (K+)
ions from the network, leaving a hydroxide ion (OH-). The by-product of this displacement is
sodium or potassium hydroxide, both highly reactive alkalis which leach from the surface of the
glass, depleting the body of the glass as a result. After this process is repeated many times, the
glass with weather more and more (as shown in Figure 4), until it eventually cracks and breaks.
Figure 4. Weathering of Stained Glass

Figure 4 shows a cross section of stained glass from a cathedral and how it has weathered
over time and now has cracks running through it. Figure a shows the before and figure b shows
the after pictures of the glass being cleaned with a micro blast jet, as seen through an electron
micrograph. ("Weathering Patinas on the Medieval (S. XIV) Stained Glass Windows of the
Pedralbes Monastery (Barcelona, Spain).").
Researchers first began investigating the deterioration and preservation of stained glass
because they were concerned with the medieval churches around the world. The windows told a
story and were one of the last things left from that time period (Piar). The stained glass on the
churches was slowly disintegrating over time, so researchers at the Institute of Applied
Microbiology in Vienna, Austria began taking samples from the churches and analyzing them to
better understand the environmental corrosion processes that occur over time on glass. After
conducting trials and examining samples taken from two churches, the results were that with the
use of a scanning electron microscope (among various other lab equipment), which is a device
used to produce images of a sample by scanning it with an electron beam, glass decay was
advanced due to pitting on the glass, which is essentially small dents on the glass surface, as seen
in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Pitting on Stained Glass

Figure 5 shows how pitting has created small holes on the surface of the glass, which
causes it to depreciate.
Stained glass is a feature of many ancient buildings, and it is vital to preserve in order to
preserve much of history. In order to do this, however, scientists must first understand what
causes it to break down in the first place. This is why researchers have been conducting
experiments - such as this one - so that they can develop a way to safeguard the glass and make it
able to withstand breakage for a long time.
Problem Statement
Problem:
The purpose of this experiment was to test how environmental factors affect the
deterioration of stained glass. The outcome of this experiment showed which type of glass
deteriorated the most when three factors were altered: the pH level of the sulfuric solution, the
temperature the sample was kept at after being soaked, and the duration of time the sample was
left to sit. The data obtained from this experiment will help to determine which environmental
conditions will break down the glass the most.
Hypothesis:
When a glass sample is placed at a 37C temperature for 72 hours with a 4 molarity pH
level, it will have the largest light transmittance.
Data Measured:
The independent variables are pH, which is measured in molarity (2M, 3M, and 4M),
duration of time, measured in hours (24, 48, and 72 hours), and temperature, measured in degrees
Celsius (14.5C, 21C, and 37C). The molarity of the sulfuric acid solution will be measured in
mol
L
and the temperature will be measure using degrees Celsius. The dependent variable is
the difference of the light transmittance before and after the samples have been soaked in the
sulfuric acid solution, and this will be measured in lux.
Experimental Design
Materials:
Vernier Light Sensor (001 lux precision)
33 Yellow Glass Samples (1in. x 1.5 in x
3.30 mm)
4 M sulfuric acid, H2SO4
3 M sulfuric acid, H2SO4
2 molarity sulfuric acid, H2SO4
Tweezers
(2) Clamps
Funnel
50 mL Graduated Cylinder
Ring Stand
Caliper (3.30 mm precision)
37C Incubator
20C Room
14.5C Fridge
(33) 80 mL Beaker
Lab Quest
Procedure:
1. Prior to starting the trials, have an apron, safety googles and gloves on.
2. Randomize the trials using the seed function on the calculator (see Appendix A).
3. Before soaking the samples, measure the light absorption of each sample of glass and record
results (see steps 9-11).
4. Using a graduated cylinder and funnel, measure out 25 mL of the necessary sulfuric acid
solution and pour into the 80 mL beaker.
5. Place a yellow glass sample into its designated solution.
6. Leave the three standard beakers in the room to stimulate the standard temperature. Take
four of the other beakers and place them in the fridge to stimulate the low temperature. Take
the remaining four and place them in an incubator to simulate the high temperature.
7. Let the four low stained glass samples soak in the sulfuric acid solution for 24 hours, let the
three standard stained glass samples soak in the sulfuric acid solution for 48 hours, and let
the four high stained glass samples soak in the sulfuric acid solution for 72 hours.
8. Once the samples of stained glass have soaked for their designated time, take them out and
pat dry with paper towel.
9. Put the stained glass and light sensor in the clamps (see Appendix B).
10. Make sure there is sufficient lighting in the room.
11. Attach the Vernier Light Sensor to the lab quest and put it underneath the stained glass to
measure the light absorption in lux.
12. Record the results of each trial.
13. Repeat steps 3-12 two more times for a total of three DOEs.
Diagram:
Figure 6. Experimental Setup
Figure 6 shows a diagram of the light sensor. It works by attaching two clamps to the ring
stand, and putting the glass sample in the top clamp and the light sensor in the bottom clamp,
making sure that there is 1 cm between the light sensor and the stained glass. The sensor is then
attached to a Lab Quest and the light transmittance is measured.
Data and Observations

Data:
Table 1
Factors in Experiment
FACTORS
Molarity
Temperature (C)
Time (hours)
VALUES
+
VALUES
STANDARDS
14.5
21
37
24
48
72
Table 1 shows the three factors that were used during this experiment, with their
corresponding low, standard, and high values.
Table 2
DOE 1- Transmittance of Light Through Stained Glass
DOE 1
Transmittance Transmittance
Transmittance
Before
After
Trial
Level
Averages
Treatment
Treatment
(lux)
(lux)
(lux)
Standar
1
d
371
224
314
261
2 (+,+,+)
344
284
3 (+,+,-)
383
306
313
293
4 (+,-,+)
380
309
5 (+,-,-)
401
342
327
6
7
8
9
10
11
Standar
d
(-,+,+)
(-,+,-)
(-,-,+)
(-,-,-)
Standar
d
332
312
364
360
357
394
250
282
294
277
281
245
313
275
303
299
308
334
The table above shows the data for the first DOE. On each day the transmittance was
measured before the glass was put over the light sensor and after the glass was put over the
sensor. The two were then subtracted to get a delta amount. All of the delta amounts were then
averaged to show it over time.
Table 3
Observations for DOE 1
Trial
Observations of Data Collection
Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

researcher C recorded data.

researcher C recorded data; had the lowest light transmittance for DOE 1.


researcher C recorded data; had the highest light transmittance for DOE 1.




9

10

11

Table 3 above shows the observations made while collecting data for DOE 1. All the
researchers stayed consistent with their jobs and the high and low values of DOE 1 are indicated.
Table 4
DOE 2
Transmittance
Before
After
Trial
Level
Averages
Treatment
Treatment
(lux)
(lux)
(lux)
Standar
12
d
391
218
305
13 (+,+,+)
292
266
268
14 (+,+,-)
335
278
281
15 (+,-,+)
345
294
290
16 (+,-,-)
292
287
272
Standar
17
d
389
262
326
18 (-,+,+)
339
287
296
19 (-,+,-)
340
306
296
20 (-,-,+)
274
332
283
21
(-,-,-)
294
304
279
Standar
22
d
340
250
295
The table above shows the data for the second DOE. On each day the transmittance was
Table 5
Observations for DOE 2
Trial
12

researcher C recorded data. The delta from day 1 to day 2 has decreased; this means
that there was an increase in light transmittance which is what was supposed to
happen.
13

researcher C recorded data; The delta from day 1 to day 2 has decreased, this means
happen.
14

researcher C recorded data. The delta from day 1 to day 2 has decreased, this means
Trial
14
happen.
15

happen.
16

happen.
17

happen.This has the lowest light transmittance for DOE 2.
18

happen.
19

happen. This has the highest light transmittance for DOE 2.
20
happen.
21

happen.
22

happen.
Table 5 above shows the observations made during the data collection of the second DOE.
Table 6
DOE 3
Transmittance
Before
After
Trial
Level
Averages
Treatment
Treatment
(lux)
(lux)
(lux)
Standar
23
d
373
214
294
24 (+,+,+)
382
263
294
25 (+,+,-)
380
305
314
26 (+,-,+)
377
309
289
27 (+,-,-)
388
317
297
Standar
28
d
390
252
322
29 (-,+,+)
398
331
317
30 (-,+,-)
386
323
318
31 (-,-,+)
379
292
293
32
(-,-,-)
380
305
319
Standar
33
d
381
215
297
The table above shows the data for the second DOE. On each day the transmittance was
Table 7
Observations From DOE 3
Trial
Observations and Data Collection

23
Researcher A died glass of sulfuric acid, Researcher B measured light

transmittance, researcher C recorded data
24

transmittance, researcher C recorded data.
Trial
Observations and Data Collection

25

26

transmittance, researcher C recorded data;
27

28

29

30

31

transmittance, researcher C recorded data; had the lowest light transmittance
for DOE 3.
32

33

transmittance, researcher C recorded data; had the highest light transmittance
for DOE 3.
Table 7 above shows the observations made while collecting the data for the third DOE.
In the table, it indicates the high and low values for the DOE.
Data Analysis and Interpretation

The data from this experiment was collected by measuring the before and after of the
light transmittance of stained glasses samples after being placed into sulfuric acid and left to sit.
The researchers decided to use a DOE for the statistical analysis of the data. This analysis is
appropriate for the experiment because a DOE shows the significance of all three factors as well
as interaction effects and how they reacted with one another.
Table 8
Factors in Experiment
FACTORS
Molarity
Temperature (C)
Time (hours)
VALUES
+
VALUES
STANDARDS
14.5
21
37
24
48
72
Table 8 shows the three factors that were used during this experiment, with their
corresponding low, standard, and high values.
Table 9
DOE Values and Averages
Level
DOE 1
DOE 2
DOE 3
Average
Standard
298
305
294
299
(+,+,+)
303
279
323
301
(+,+,-)
345
307
343
331
(+,-,+)
337
320
353
333
(+,-,-)
372
290
343
338
Standard
291
326
321
313
(-,+,+)
297
313
365
325
Level
DOE 1
DOE 2
DOE 3
Average
(-,+,-)
329
323
355
336
(-,-,+)
319
303
336
319
(-,-,-)
319
299
343
320
Standard
320
295
298
304
Table 9 shows the averages of the high, low, and standard values for each factor that were
collected over the course of the experiment.
Table 10
Molarity
(-) VALUES :
Average: 325
(+) VALUES :
325
301
336
331
319
333
320
338
Average: 325.75
Effect of Molarity
340
325.75
330
325
320
LIght Transmittance (luxes)
310
300
-1
Molarity
Figure 7. Effect of Molarity

Table 10 shows the values when molarity was held low (2M) and their averages. It also
shows the values when molarity was held high (4M) and their averages. Figure 7 shows that as
molarity increases from low to high, the effect is a positive 0.75, which means that the light
transmittance increases 0.75 lux as molarity increases.
Table 11
Temperature Values
(-) VALUES :
(+) VALUES :
333
301
338
331
319
325
320
336
Average: 327.50
Effect of Temperature
340
327.5
330
323.25
320
Light Transmittance (luxes)
310
300
-1
Average: 323.25
Temperature
Figure 8. Temperature
Table 11 shows the values when temperature was held low (14.5C) and their averages. It
also shows the values when temperature was held high (37C) and their averages. Figure 8 shows
that as temperature increases from low to high, the effect is a negative 4.25, which means that the
light transmittance decreases by -4.25 lux as temperature increases.
Table 12
Time Values
(-) VALUES :
(+) VALUES :
331
301
338
333
336
325
320
319
Average: 331.25
Effect of Time
340
331.25
330
319.5
320
310
300
-1
Time
Average: 319.50
Figure 9. Time
Table 12 shows the values when time was held low (24 hrs.) and their averages. It also
shows the values when time was held high (72 hrs.) and their averages. Figure 9 shows that as
time increases from low to high, the effect is a negative 11.75, which means that the light
transmittance decreases 11.75 lux as time increases.
Molarity
Table 13
Interaction of Molarity and Temperature Values
Temperature
(-)
(+)
Line
segm ( Avera
ent
+ ge:
Avera
(solid ) 335.5 ge:
)
0
316
Line
segm
Avera Avera
(ent
ge:
ge:
)
(dott
319.5 330.5
ed)
0
0
Effect of Molarity and Temperature

335.5
319.5
340
330.5
330
320316
310
300
-1
Temperature
Figure 10. Interaction of Molarity and Temperature
Table 13 shows the interaction between molarity and temperature using the averages
when each was held high or low. Figure 10 shows when molarity was held high and low in
interaction with when temperature was held high and low. In order to find the effect, the slopes
of each line must first be found. To do this, take the high average of the solid segment and
subtract the low average of the solid segment from it, then divide by 2. In this case, the answer
is 5.5 lux. Then do the same thing with the dotted segment, which results in -9.75. To find the
effect, take the slope of the high (solid) minus the slope of the low (dotted), giving an effect of
+15.25 lux. The two lines are not parallel which means there is a possible interaction between
molarity and temperature.
It can be seen in Figure 10 that the solid line is low when temperature is held low and
high when temperature is held high. The dotted line is high when temperature is held low and
low when temperature is held high. This indicates that there is a large reaction because when
when molarity is held low and high along with temperature different reactions start to take place
causing a difference in lux. This is also shown in the effect since it is very large.
Table 14
Molarity
Interaction of Molarity and Time Values

Time
(-)
(+)
Line
segm ( Avera
ent
+ ge:
Avera
(solid ) 334.5 ge:
)
0
317
Line
segm
(ent
Avera Avera
)
(dott
ge:
ge:
ed)
328
322
Effect of Molarity and Time

340
334.5
328
330
322
320317
310
300
-1
Time
Figure 11. Interaction of Molarity and Time

Table 14 shows the interaction between molarity and time using the averages when each
was held high or low. Figure 11 shows the interaction between molarity and time. As done
before, the slopes of each line segment are to be found. The slope of the solid segment is -3, and
the slope of the dotted segment is -8.75. The overall effect is +5.75. The two lines are not parallel
which means there is a possible interaction between molarity and time.
It can be seen in Figure 11 that in both the solid line and the dotted line when time is held
low light transmittance is high and when time is held high light transmittance is low. The two
lines have different slopes, but they are pretty close to being parallel. This indicates that there is a
smaller interaction between molarity and time than there is between molarity and temperature.
This is also shown in the effect since it is not very big.
Table 15
Interaction of Temperature and Time Values
Time
Temperature
(-)
Line
segme
nt
(solid)
Line
segme
nt
(dotte
d)
(
+
)
Averag
e:
333.50
(+)
Averag
e: 313
Effect of Temperature and Time

340
333.5
329
330326
320
313
()
310
Averag
e: 329
Averag
e: 326
300
-1
Time
Figure 12. Interaction of Temperature and Time

Table 15 shows the interaction between time and temperature using the averages
when each was held high or low. Figure 12 shows the interaction between temperature and time.
Once again, the slopes of each line segment must first be found. The slope of the solid segment is
-1.5, and the slope of the dotted segment is -10.25. Repeat as before by subtracting the dotted
line slope from the solid line slope to get an overall effect of +8.75. The two lines are not parallel
which means there is a possible interaction between time and temperature.
It can be seen in Figure 12 that in both the solid line and the dotted line when time is held
low light transmittance is high and when time is held high light transmittance is low. The solid
line has a smaller slope than the dotted line which causes them to intersect, but the interaction is
not as large as it was between This indicates that there is a smaller interaction between
temperature and time than there was between molarity and temperature. This is also shown in the
interaction effect since it is not too big.
Figure 13. Graph of Standards

Figure 13 shows the graph of standards. The nine standards from each of the three
DOEs have been plotted. This graph does not indicate any sort of pattern, which is a good sign
because if it did it might mean that a mistake was made at some point during the experiment.
Also, there is not much of a range between the data points, which points to there being little to no
errors as well.
Figure 14. Dot Plot of Effects

Figure 14 displays the dot plot for the three effects and the three interactions. The
abbreviation Ti stands for time, T stands for temperature and M stands for molarity. As
shown, most of the factors are closely grouped together.
15.25 MT 11.75 Ti
+
+noise
2
2
Figure 15. Parsimonious Prediction Equation
Y =325.38+
Figure 15 shows the parsimonious equation for the experiment. It includes the grand
average and any significant effects, which in this case was the effect of Time and the interaction
effect between Molarity and Temperature.
Conclusion
Stained glass is a commonly used building material, and has been for centuries. The
downside to using it, however, is that it will deteriorate over time, and then its main function will
be lost. The purpose of this experiment was to test how environmental factors affect the
deterioration of stained glass. The outcome of this experiment showed which factors caused the
yellow stained glass to deteriorate the most when three factors were altered: the pH level of the
sulfuric solution, the temperature the sample was kept at after being soaked, and the duration of
time the sample was left to sit. The results were then analyzed using a three factor Design of
Experiment, or DOE. In order to evaluate the data it is important to understand that the data was
supposed to decrease over time. This is because of the fact that the light transmittance in the
room stayed relatively the same, but the light transmittance of the stained glass increased causing
the difference to be smaller. The hypothesis - that a glass sample placed at a 14.5C temperature
for 72 hours with a 4 molarity will have the largest light transmittance - was rejected. It was
rejected because this level had one of the higher averages, 333 lux. The level that had the
smallest average was surprisingly the standard, with a light transmittance average of 299 lux.
This was unexpected because it was originally thought that the glass sample that would have the
most deterioration would be a 4 molarity because it is the most acidic.
The factors used to test the deterioration of the stained glass included molarity,
temperature and time that the samples were placed in the solution of sulfuric acid. The final
effect of molarity was 0.75 meaning that the number of lux increased by 0.75 as molarity
increased while temperature had an overall effect of -4.25 showing that the amount of lux
decreased by 4.25. Time had an effect of -11.75. Time was the second most significant factor
after the interaction between molarity and temperature. This shows that over time and exposure
to acid rain, stained glass windows will become more brittle and breakable. The effect of
molarity and temperature was the most significant at 15.25. This makes sense because according
to the kinetic molecular theory as temperature increases the interaction between the particles in
the sulfuric acid increase causing a greater chance of the sulfuric acid to interact with the
chemicals in the stained glass. Therefore, temperature has a big effect on the deterioration of the
stained glass. Also, the higher the molarity of the sulfuric acid, the more acid in the solution there
is, also causing more interaction between the stained glass and the sulfuric acid making the
deterioration of the stained glass increase. The combination of these two factors caused a strong
reaction between the stained glass and the sulfuric acid making the deterioration faster. In order
to solve the issue at hand, a layer of coating that protects the stained glass from these factors
needs to be made. The effect of molarity and time was 5.75 meaning that when these two factors
increased the amount of lux by 5.75 when they were both held. Temperature and time had an
effect of 8.75. This is shown because the graph of the two factors cross paths suggesting that
there is an interaction between them.
The data did not support the hypothesis - which was rejected - because it had been
predicted that the highest molarity, which would be the most acidic, would have the greatest
amount of deterioration. Also it was believed that the longer the glass was soaked in the sulfuric
acid, the more deterioration there would be since there is more time for the acid to break down
the glass. Lastly, it was thought that the coldest temperature would contribute to a higher
deterioration rate, because it was the most extreme temperature out of the three levels used. This
was not the case, however, for any of the predictions. The first standard had the highest overall
difference in light transmittance. This was unexpected because, as stated previously, all the
research and previous experiments that had been conducted showed that a higher molarity that is
more acidic should cause the most wearing away of the glass. In fact, one of the low molarity
levels, (-,+.-), had one of the lowest differences in light transmittance - which was 336 lux - out
of the 11 averages.
The results of the experiment disagreed with the results of the current research done by
Francis Ricci. This experiment was based off of previous research done by him. It was stated in
his research paper that increased exposure to the sulfuric acid solution increased the visible light
absorption of the glass. The paper also mentioned how a higher acidic solution increased the
light absorption of the stained glass samples. This research was also parallel with that of research
conducted by Drew Anderson. He also stated that a higher acidity would increase the
transparency of the glass. All of these conclusions were what were to believed to have happened
with this research, however that was not the case. In some cases, such as the (+,+,+), a higher
molarity did result in a greater difference in lux, however the greatest difference in light
transmittance was one of the standards, which had a difference of 299 lux.
The experimental design was very helpful when conducting the experiment because it
provided for an outline that could easily be followed each day of trials. Even though it was easy
to follow there was still error within the experiment causing issues in the data. Thus, error was
unavoidable and forced the rejection of the hypothesis. It was also highly useful in determining
which materials were needed each day, and to make sure that no materials were left out or
forgotten.
One mistake that was made during the second day of the experiment was that one of the
pieces of glass had been placed on a piece of paper that had the right level, but the wrong DOE
number. This issue was resolved within minutes of being noticed, however, after the remaining
glass samples were measured and the last piece that was left was switched with the incorrect
sample. The trial did not have to be redone being that the error was corrected, but if this was
done and it had gone without notice, the trial would have to had been either repeated or cut out of
the experiment if time did not allow for another trial. If this error had happened multiple times or
was not fixed in a timely manner - or at all, the results of that trial would have been inconclusive
and the data would have been invalid.
Another error happened on the third day and is the reason the hypothesis was rejected. On
the third day of data collection the light transmittance of the room increased by about one
hundred. It was expected that the light sensor had become more sensitive to the light which
caused an increase in the light transmittance that was supposed to continue on in the measuring
of the stained glass. This did not happen; when the light transmittance of the stained glass was
measured it increased exactly the same as the following days. The fact that it did not increase
along with the transmittance of the room caused a bigger difference. Recall that the
measurements were supposed to decrease as the stained glass deteriorated because the light
transmittance of the room stayed the same while the light transmittance of the stained glass
increased. Since the light transmittance of the room increased while the light transmittance of the
stained glass stayed on the same deterioration rate it caused the difference to be around the same
as it was the first day instead of decreasing. It is not known why the light transmittance of the
room increased, each day the setup was the same yet the light in the room increased. This caused
the data to have error.
In order to expand this research, several conditions could have been altered or added. An
alteration on one of the factors would be the time that the glass is left to sit at after being soaked.
Stained glass is exposed to environmental conditions for more than three days at a time, so a
long-term study could be conducted that showed the effect of time for, as an example, several
months, or even a year, rather than several days. Another effect that could have been changed
was the thickness of the glass. If the glass was thicker or thinner, more or less light transmittance
might have occurred. This would possibly result in a lower or higher overall average, depending
on which thickness was used. The glass thickness could even be made a factor of the experiment
in place of something else. One component that could be changed was the color of the glass. In
this experiment, the color yellow was used and chosen because it falls in the middle of the light
spectrum. But different colored glass that are on either end of the spectrum could be tested to see
if they had an effect, and this could also be made a factor. The last circumstance that could be
adapted would be the type of environmental conditions. For the purpose of this research, it was
easier and most convenient to use the temperature of the air, as well as the molarity of sulfuric
acid (which was representative of acid rain) as factors. However, there are many other
atmospheric weather conditions that could affect the deterioration of the stained glass, such as
excessive wind or storms, or more severe weather such as tornados or hurricanes.
Appendix A: Ti-Nspire CX Randomization

Materials:
Ti-Nspire calculator
Procedures:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Turn on the calculator and open a calculator page.

Press the menu button and select option 5: Probability.
Select option 4: Random.
Select option 6: Seed.
The calculator page will now say RandSeed. Enter any number to seed the calculator for
randomization purposes.
6. Repeat steps 2 and 3.
7. Select option 2: Integer.
8. The calculator page will now say randInt(). In the parenthesis, enter two comma ten meaning
the count will start at two and end at ten. Discount anytime the output is six because it is a
standard and always remains the same.
9. Press enter and a number will appear. This number determines which order the trials will be
conducted.
10. Keep pressing enter until each space on each DOE is filled with a trial number.
11. Repeat steps 1-10 for each DOE of trials
Appendix B: Stained Glass Deterioration
Figure 1. Deteriorated Stained Glass Window

Figure 1 shows the aforementioned window that has been undergoing
deterioration for some time. The red circle shows where the paint has begun to wear away
from the glass, which is an example that baking the glass may not the best process to use
when creating stained glass.
Works Cited
Anderson, Drew. "Stained Glass and Its Decay - Drew Anderson." Stained Glass and Its Decay
- Drew Anderson. N.p., 2010. Web. 18 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/glassdecay/glassdecay.htm>.
Bhargava, Sunita, and Sharad Bhargava. "Ecological Consequences of The Acid Rain." IOSR
Journal of Applied Chemistry 19-24 5.4 (2013): n. pag. Oct. 2013. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.
<www.iosrjournals.org>.
"Elements of Color in Stained and Colored Glass." What Causes Color in Stained and Colored
Glass? N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.
<http://geology.com/articles/color-in-glass.shtml>.
"Free Stock Photography: Glass Roof Structure in West Edmonton Mall." Free Stock
Photography: Glass Roof Structure In West Edmonton Mall 48 Glass Structure. N.p., n.d.
Web. 23 Mar. 2015. <http://www.decordraw.net/glass-structure/48/free-stockphotography-glass-roof-structure-in-west-edmonton-mall/>.
"Light Sensor." Vernier Software & Technology. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.vernier.com/products/sensors/ls-bta/>.
Olmsted, John, and Gregory M. Williams. "Chapter 17/ Aqueous Acid - Base Equlibrium."
Chemistry. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2006. 426-27. Print.
Piar, Guadalupe, Maite Garcia-Valles, Domingo Gimeno-Torrente, Jose Luis Fernandez-Turiel,
Jrg Ettenauer, and Katja Sterflinger. "Microscopic, Chemical, and Molecular-biological
Investigation of the Decayed Medieval Stained Window Glasses of Two Catalonian
Churches."International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 84 (2013): 388-400. 8 Feb.
2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2015.
<http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/34591/1/618339.pdf>.
Aulinas, Meritxell, Maite Garcia-Valles, Domingo Gimeno, Jose Luis Fernandez-Turiel,
Flavia Ruggieri, and Montserrat Pugs. "Sulfuric Acid Manufacture." Sulfuric Acid
Manufacture. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.
Singh, Anita, and Madhoolika Agrawal. "Acid Rain and Its Ecological Consequences." Journal
of Enviornmental Biology (2008): n. pag. 29 Jan. 2008. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.
<http://jeb.co.in/journal_issues/200801_jan08/paper_02.pdf>
<http://www.elsevier.com/books/sulfuric-acid-manufacture/king/978-0-08-098220-5>.
"The Chemistry of Stained Glass." The Chemistry of Things. N.p., 2011. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.
<http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aquimicadascoisas.org%2Fen%2F%3Fepisodio%3Dthechemistry-of-stained-glass>.
"Weathering Patinas on the Medieval (S. XIV) Stained Glass Windows of the Pedralbes
Monastery (Barcelona, Spain)." Weathering Patinas on the Medieval (S. XIV) Stained
Glass Windows of the Pedralbes Monastery (Barcelona, Spain). N.p., 23 Dec. 2008.
Web. 19 Mar. 2015.
<https://www.academia.edu/3426482/Weathering_patinas_on_the_Medieval_S._XIV_sta
ined_glass_windows_of_the_Pedralbes_Monastery_Barcelona_Spain_>
Wolff, Arnold. Restaurierung Und Konservierung Historischer Glasmalereien: Ein
Forderprojekt Des Bundesministeriums Fur Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung Und
Technologie. Mainz: P. Von Zabern, 2000. Web.
<http://www.struers.com/resources/elements/12/2436/38art6.pdf>

Catenacci-Mardlin-Orlando Research Paper Final

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Catenacci-Mardlin-Orlando Research Paper Final

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Effects of Acid Rain on the Visible Light Absorption of Stained Glass

Senna Catenacci, Logan Mardlin, Claire Orlando

Figure 1. Light Sensor

Figure 2. Sulfuric Acid Process

Figure 3. Structure of Glass

Figure 4. Weathering of Stained Glass

Figure 5. Pitting on Stained Glass

Data and Observations

Observations of Data Collection

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Observations of Data Collection

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Observations of Data Collection

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Researcher A dried glass of sulfuric acid, researcher B measured light transmittance,

Observations and Data Collection

Researcher A died glass of sulfuric acid, Researcher B measured light

Researcher A died glass of sulfuric acid, Researcher B measured light

Observations and Data Collection

Researcher A died glass of sulfuric acid, Researcher B measured light

Researcher A died glass of sulfuric acid, Researcher B measured light

Researcher A died glass of sulfuric acid, Researcher B measured light

Researcher A died glass of sulfuric acid, Researcher B measured light

Researcher A died glass of sulfuric acid, Researcher B measured light

Researcher A died glass of sulfuric acid, Researcher B measured light

Researcher A died glass of sulfuric acid, Researcher B measured light

Researcher A died glass of sulfuric acid, Researcher B measured light

Researcher A died glass of sulfuric acid, Researcher B measured light

Data Analysis and Interpretation

LIght Transmittance (luxes)

Figure 7. Effect of Molarity

Light Transmittance (luxes)

Light Transmittance (luxes)

Effect of Molarity and Temperature

Light Transmittance (luxes)

Figure 10. Interaction of Molarity and Temperature

Interaction of Molarity and Time Values

Effect of Molarity and Time

Light Transmittance (luxes)

Figure 11. Interaction of Molarity and Time

Effect of Temperature and Time

Light Transmittance (luxes)

Figure 12. Interaction of Temperature and Time

Figure 13. Graph of Standards