Eugene Hui 12.

IB Diploma Biology
IA TASK 2C Practical to Investigate How the Surface Area to Volume Ratio Affects Water Loss by Evaporation
Data Table: Dimensions of Oases (L*W*H): Large: 7.80 cm X 8.10 cm X 3.50 cm Medium: 3.70 cm X 3.40 cm X 3.80 cm Small: 2.10 cm X 2.10 cm X 2.20 cm Surface Area, Volume, and Mass Across Five Days of Different Sized Oases
Size of Oasis Number Surface Area of Each Oasis (cm2)* 27.30 79.12 237.66 Volume of Each Oasis (cm3)* 9.70 47.80 221.13 Total Volume of Each Size (cm3)* 310.40 191.20 221.13 SA: Volume Ratio Mass of All Oases (grams)* Day 1 (unsaturated) 5.47 4.46 4.89 Day 1 (saturated) 227.62 201.91 146.67 Total Mass Change (grams)* 219.53 136.86 87.21

Day 2 180.72 176.96 140.17

Day 3 93.74 131.78 110.78

Day 4 50.02 102.43 87.46

Day 5 8.09 65.05 59.46

Small Medium Large

32 4 1

2.81 1.66 1.07

Additional Notes: Sections marked by an asterisk (*) all have errors of 0.005 for their respective units. Columns with yellow headings indicate processed data; blue indicates raw data. Observations/Qualitative Data: Although theoretically 32 small blocks should have been equivalent to four medium blocks, which should have totaled to one large block, the total volume of each size clearly suggests otherwise. As the size of oases increased, the SA: Volume ratio would decrease rather significantly. The general trend is that the larger the size of an oasis, the longer it would take for water to evaporate.

Page 1 of 11

Eugene Hui 12.5 Sample Calculations: 1. Calculating the surface area (SA): In order to calculate the surface area of an oasis, the follow formula must be used: = 2( ) + 2( ) + 2( ) For example, the dimensions of the large oasis were 7.80 cm X 8.10 cm X 3.50 cm (L*W*H). Thus, in order to calculate its surface area simply substitute the values in the equation: = 2(7.80 8.10 ) + 2(7.80 3.50 ) + 2(3.50 8.10 ) = 237.66 2 2. Calculating the volume: Unlike calculating the surface area, the volume can be found easily through multiplying all three side lengths together, given in this equation: = In the case of the medium sized oasis with dimensions of 3.7 cm X 3.4 cm X 3.8 cm (L*W*H), the volume would be: = = 3.70 3.40 3.80 = 47.804 3 Since all values are rounded off to two decimal places, the final volume would be 47.80 cm3. It is important to note that this is the volume of one medium sized oasis, not the combined volume of all four medium oases. 3. Calculating the SA: Volume Ratio: The surface area to volume ratio can only be calculated after obtaining the volume and the surface area of a particular sized oasis. That being said, the SA: volume ratio simply is dividing the surface area by the volume (hence the use of the word ratio) . = : =

Applied to the small oases, each oasis would have a SA: volume ratio of: 27.30 2 = = 2.81 9.70 3 It is important to note that this represent the SA: volume ratio of every one of the 32 small sized oases, under the assumption that all are identical.

Page 2 of 11

Eugene Hui 12.5

4. Calculating the Total Volume of Each Size: As a final step after calculating the volume of each oasis, the volume can be taken one step further by obtaining the volume of all the oases for a certain size. To find that, multiply the volume of each oasis by the number of oases. In the case of the small sized oases, the volume of each oasis is 9.70 cm3. Since there are a total of 32 oases, the total volume would be: 9.70 3 32 = 310.40 3 5. Calculating the Total Mass Change: After obtaining mass measurements across five different days, the total change in mass can then be calculated. Total change, also known as difference, is derived through: = 1 5 Using the large oasis as an example, the total change would be: = 146.67 59.46 = 87.21 This shows that the mass changed a total of 87.21 grams across five days, which is useful later on when comparing all three oases and their changes in mass.

Page 3 of 11

Eugene Hui 12.5 Graphs: Graph 1:

Mass of Different Sized Oases Over Five Days

250 200 150 Small Oasis 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 Day Number 4 5 6 Medium Oasis Large Oasis

This graph simply plots the different masses of the oases across five days. The unsaturated mass has been excluded from this graph (day 1 refers to the saturated mass). Trend line colors correspond to the data points with the same colors. Graph 2:

Mass in Grams (0.005g)

Percent Change in Mass of Different Sized Oases Across Five Days

Percentage (%) of Day 1 Saturated Mass Lost (0.005%)
100 96.45%

67.78% 50 59.46%

0 Small (2.81) Medium (1.66) Large (1.07)

Size of Oasis and Surface Area to Volume Ratio

This graph shows the difference in mass between the first and the final masses of the oases, albeit expressed in terms of percent of mass lost. Bold text on top of each red bar indicates the specific percentage, while numbers in parentheses next to sizes represent SA: volume ratios. Once again, the unsaturated mass has been excluded from the data. Page 4 of 11

Eugene Hui 12.5 Conclusion: Based on the results of the lab, shown through the data table in addition to two graphs on the previous page, it can be deducted that the surface area to volume ratio had a profound effect on the rate of water loss through evaporation. Generally speaking, data from the experiment indicated that the smallest sized oasis had the largest surface area (SA) to volume ratio, while an increase in the oasis size brought forth a decrease in the ratio. At the same time, oases with lower SA: volume ratios had a lower level of water loss, compared to the small oases which lost water very quickly. Based on the results of the lab, this experiment supports the notion that as the SA: volume increases, so should the rate of water loss through evaporation. Looking at the data table, the small oasis had a SA: volume ratio of 2.81, and a saturated mass of 227.62 grams. Meanwhile, the large oasis had a SA: volume ratio of 1.07 and a saturated mass of 146.67 grams. During the final day of measurement, the mass of the 32 small oases had decreased to just 8.09 grams, a difference of 219.53 grams. Meanwhile, the large oasis ended with a final mass of 59.46 grams, and a difference of only 87.21. By translating these results and applying them to graph 2, it can be seen that the small oases lost 96.45% of their original saturated mass, while the large oasis saw a decreases of only 59.46%. The medium sized oases had a SA: volume ratio of 1.66, making it more similar to the large oasis (ratio of 1.07) compared to the small oases (ratio of 2.81). Because of this, the medium oases experienced a percent change in mass closer to that of the large oasis instead of the small oases, as shown again through the same graph. Therefore, this is evidence to support the fact that evaporation rate will increase as the SA: volume ratio increases. Aside from this lab alone, the effect of surface area on rate of evaporation has been studied extensively. A similar experiment studying the rate of evaporation of a fixed amount of water in different sized petri dishes indicated that evaporation occurred fastest when petri dishes had a larger diameter. When the diameter decreased, so would the rate of evaporation, which led to that particular experiments conclusion that greater surface areas lead to faster rates of evaporation . (Evaporation of Liquids, 2010). In another experiment conducted by NASA, the effects of both surface area and sunlight on rate of evaporation was studied. Brine was placed in different containers, which all had resulted in different surface areas for the brine. Some containers were placed under the sun, while others were placed in dark cupboards. The lab later concluded that both greater sunlight and surface areas led to an increase in the rate of evaporation. (Evaporation, Surface Area, and Temperature, 2009) It is therefore clear that the conclusion of this experiment is valid, while being corroborated by scientific data that elsewhere. Science Behind the Experiment: The science behind this lab is rather simple. The SA: volume ratio first of all informs us of the relationship between surface area and volume. For example, the ratio for small oases is 2.81, which basically states that the surface area is 2.81 times the Page 5 of 11

Eugene Hui 12.5 volume. Surface area itself refers to the space where water (H2O) molecules can reach the surface of the oasis and evaporate. Volume can be viewed as the capacity of an oasis in terms of how much water it can hold, and an increase would yield a greater capacity. Simply put, an oasis is similar to a sports stadium. Its volume resembles the capacity of the stadium, while the surface area represents the number of entrances and exits to the seats. When there is an increase in surface area (ie. Entrances and exits) then water molecules (ie. Spectators) can enter and leave much faster. Because of such, it would be better to have a larger SA: volume ratio, so that there are always more entrances and exits for the spectators/water molecules to leave the stadium. The notion that evaporation occurs faster as the SA: volume ratio increases is supported in the first graph, where the slope (rate of evaporation) is steeper as oases get smaller. As the small oases had the largest SA: volume ratio, water molecules left much faster than those in the large oasis. Over time, this reflected in a greater overall change in mass. As an increase in the ratio would allow for faster evaporation of water, this once again supports the conclusion that an increase in the SA: volume ratio would also increase the rate of water loss through evaporation. Reliability of Data: Generally speaking, the data obtained from this lab was quite reliable and clearly indicated a trend. For example, after all the masses were graphed in graph 1, it can be seen that the oases with greatest SA: volume ratios experienced a greater change in mass throughout the five days, whereas the largest oasis experienced the most gradual rate of change. As the medium oases also had a ratio more similar to that of the large oasis, its rate of change also resembled that of the large oasis. The only anomalous points on the graph was the mass of the oases on day three. Based on the data table and graph 1, the mass on that day experienced a more sudden decrease relative to the other days. Referring to the more condensed data table below, the mass of the small oases saw a decrease of 86.98 grams, which exceeded the average change across the other days. In a similar manner, the medium and large oases saw a decrease of 45.18 grams and 29.39 grams respectively, which is once again slightly higher than the norm. However, despite rather erratic changes, the data points were still very close to the trend line, which helped to support the conclusion.
Size of Oasis Day 1 (unsaturated) 5.47 4.46 4.89 Mass of All Oases (grams)* Day 1 (saturated) 227.62 201.91 146.67 Day 2 180.72 176.96 140.17 Day 3 93.74 131.78 110.78 Day 4 50.02 102.43 87.46 Day 5 8.09 65.05 59.46 Total Mass Change (grams) 219.53 136.86 87.21

Small Medium Large

The anomalous data column is highlighted in yellow.

Page 6 of 11

Eugene Hui 12.5 Although there is no official explanation as to why day three brought about a sudden drop in mass, a possible explanation could be the time of day when the mass was measured. On all other days (days two, four, and five), the mass was measured at roughly eight oclock in the morning. However, due to a change in schedules of students, the day three mass was not collected until later on in the afternoon. Because of a greater gap in time between measurements, this most likely meant that more water was able to evaporate between the day two and three measurements, thus translating into what we see now. Evaluation of Procedure and Improvements: Despite the fact that the conclusion derived from the data is supported by other experiments from different areas of the globe, there were many variables that could have potentially hampered efforts in obtaining more accurate results. Below is a table listing many of the limitations and their effects on the lab. Please note that the factors are ordered from most to least significant. Limitation Use of air conditioning in the classroom Effect of Limitation Comment on Order of Significance For this experiment, the oases Although the use of Having air conditioning were all placed by the window, air conditioning is blowing air over the directly below one of the large air inevitable given Hong oases for many hours is conditioning units in the Kongs climate, it basically forcing the classroom. Whenever the air would be better if the oases to dry out much conditioner was on, there was oases were placed in faster than usual. This cold air blowing on top of the areas not affecting by would significantly oases, thus resulting in all blocks air conditioning, such affect the data as a to lose water quickly. Essentially, as in a storage room, whole, as the oases lost the cold air dried out the blocks or in a cupboard in mass much faster than much faster than their regular the classroom. This their regular rate. rate of evaporation, thus would definitely affect Therefore, this is why rendering all of the masses as the change in mass, this variable is the most being inaccurate. Furthermore, but the rate of important of all there would be fluctuations in evaporation due to limitations. evaporation rate throughout a surface area can still period of 24 hours, as the be studied. conditioning would be on or off depending on the presence of people in the classroom. In order to maximize As for the medium This limitation has a evaporation, oases were to be and large oases, there very profound effect on placed on pushpins so that they is no room of the data because it could dry as well as possible. As improvement as those essentially restricted an oasis is left on dry on one blocks were the amount of water particular side, that particular successfully placed on that evaporated within side would not be allow water to pushpins, thus the small blocks. If it evaporate as efficiently. maximizing werent for the fact that Page 7 of 11 Improvement

Not all blocks could be put on pushpins

Eugene Hui 12.5 Evaporation is maximized when blocks are either balanced on an edge or propped up on pushpins, both of which decrease the amount of contact that the oasis has with the drying basket. But given the fact that the small oases were too small, they had to be dried by placing them on one side, which decreased that sides efficiency in evaporation. Thus, this affected all the small sized oases rate of evaporation. These pictures illustrate how the oases were left to dry: evaporation of water molecules within them. In order to increase evaporation efficiency for the small oases, they could be hung on a piece of string using a paperclip that protrudes the oasis. That way, the oasis will not be resting on any one side. the small oases were resting on one side, probably they would have shown an even greater rate of evaporation. Because of this factor alone, it can be argued that all the masses for small oases were different from what they should be, which highlights the significance of this variable.

In this picture, the larger oases could be supported using pushpins, but not the 32 small ones.

Here, it can be seen more closely as to how the oases were left to dry. By ensuring that there was minimal contact with the basket, evaporation was able to occur more efficiently.

Page 8 of 11

Eugene Hui 12.5 Oases did not add up to the same volume (please see data table for more information) According to the IA Task handout, 32 small oases should be equal to 4 medium oases, which should equal to one large oasis. Theoretically speaking, this should mean that all the different sizes should add up and be the same in terms of volume. However, since the blocks were already cut out prior to the experiment, it was not possible to have blocks that all added up to the same volume. A difference in volume suggested that when the blocks were cut out, they were not conformed to their designated dimensions. In other words, this limitation indicated that the dimensions of all oases were incorrect and inconsistent, which has a snowball effect in the calculations of volume, surface area, and the SA: volume ratio. In order to maximize the rate of evaporation, the oases were placed by the window under the air conditioners. As shown through the NASA experiment mentioned earlier, both sunlight and surface area would have an effect on the rate of evaporation. However, during one of the days (exactly which day is no longer known), there was little sunlight as it rained persistently in the daytime. Hence, the rate of evaporation would have been affected by the lack of sunlight, which in turn would affect the data. Instead of having blocks being cut out already in the beginning, students should be given a large oasis in which they would cut out different sized blocks that ultimately would add up to the same volume. Although more time consuming, this can improve the consistency of the data during data collection. This is a rather significant limitation because it involves the volume of all the oases, and as well as their SA: volume ratio. Because it can be said that the volume was inaccurate to start off with, this would render the SA: volume ratio as being inaccurate. As the lab examines the role of the SA: volume ratio, this limitation can have a profound effect on results. However, this merely affects the calculations of the ratio, but does not have an impact on the rate of evaporation. Nonetheless, the conclusion is still supported by the data. Again, there is nothing Despite the fact that that can be done with sunlight has a rather regards to Hong significant impact on Kongs climate. the rate of evaporation, However, a possible none of the data points solution could be in experiment were moving all oases in affected considerably by another location of the lack of sunlight. the classroom, as Aside from small mentioned earlier deviations, all data when discussing the points were relatively use of air close to the trend line, conditioners. That which is a good way the oases would indication that sunlight not be affected by (or lack thereof) did not both air conditioners have too large of an and sunlight. impact on the data, as the air conditioner overshadowed the effects of sunlight.

Varying degrees of sunlight across five days

Page 9 of 11

Eugene Hui 12.5 All blocks within a certain size were assumed to be identical during calculations In order to save time, it was assumed that all oases for a certain size were exactly the same. Starting in the very beginning, the dimensions of each size were in fact an average of the different lengths, widths, and heights of all oases of a specific size. Later on during the calculations of volume and surface area, the average dimensions were used. This data was later used to figure out the SA: volume ratio, which was once again assumed to be the same for all oases of a certain size. There is a possibility that certain small oases for example did not have a ratio of 2.81, but rather 2.74 or 2.85. This assumption therefore mainly affects the data table, more specifically speaking the values for surface area, volume, and the SA: volume ratio. When transferring oases onto the electronic balance, small bits and pieces would occasionally fall off the oases. This would affect the mass of the block, as pieces would no longer be present. In addition, the mass would not be accurate, as the missing pieces mass would not be accounted for, while giving the impression that the decrease in mass would be solely due to water evaporation and not the lack of a piece of the oasis. In order to achieve as much similarity as possible, all oases should not be cut out beforehand. If students are given the task of cutting out small pieces, they can at least attempt to make each and every oasis identical through the use of rulers and other measuring instruments. This factor does not affect the final outcome of the lab, as it has no involvement in the rate of evaporation. However, it does show that the data table is not completely accurate, and that there are certain differences in data for volume, surface area, and the SA: volume ratio.

Small pieces of oases fell off throughout the experiment

Because oases are fragile materials, extra care must be taken from the very start to the lab up until the end. If possible, nails should not be too long or too sharp to prevent scratching off bits and pieces.

This limitation is not too important, because ultimately the pieces are very small and do not have that big of an impact on the mass. However, it could potentially give a false representation of how much water truly evaporated, thus earning it its current rank in significance.

Page 10 of 11

Eugene Hui 12.5 Blocks could not be submerged completely Because oases are not as dense as water, they were constantly floating on the surface of the plastic container during saturation. Even though attempts were made to submerge all the oases completely, it was not possible. Hence, all blocks were not fully saturated, which does not truly reflect the actual volume of each oases size, in addition to giving an inaccurate representation of what the saturated mass should be. During the process of saturation, a plastic basket was used to keep the oases from completely floating on the surface. As this was not fully effective, the future improvement would be to increase in the density of the oases instead, such as by sticking paper clips and/or pushpins through them in order for them to be fully submerged. Although this factor affects the day one saturated mass, it does not have any part in the subsequent parts of the lab. As the goal is to see the rate of evaporation according to surface area, this factor would not have played any role besides from affecting the initial saturated mass.

Bibliography: Evaporation, Surface Area, and Temperature. (2009). National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Retrieved September 12, 2013, from http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/Ocean_Planet/activities/ts2ssac2.pdf Evaporation of Liquids. (2010). School Projects. Retrieved September 11, 2013, from http://projects.icbse.com/chemistry-258

Page 11 of 11