Sei sulla pagina 1di 14

Fehmer - Schell - Thompson

10B
12 January 2016

The Effects of Particle Size, Temperature, and Agitation Method on the


Ionization of Copper II Sulfate

Problem Statement:

How do temperature, particle size, and agitation method affect the ionization rate of

copper II sulfate, CuSO4?

Hypothesis:

Copper II sulfate will ionize the most efficiently with a temperature of 55-60 C, a small

particle size (powder), and more frequent agitation (one hit per second).

Materials:

Copper II sulfate, CuSO4 powder (2) Test tube, large


Copper II sulfate, CuSO4 fine crystals Test tube rack
Copper II sulfate, CuSO4 medium crystals Thermometer, 0.01 precision
0-3 water, H2O Scale, 0.01 g precision
22-28 water, H2O Scoopula
55-60 water, H2O (3) Weight boat
Hot plate Stop watch
Cooler & ice TI-Nspire calculator randomize function
(2) 50 mL beaker

Procedures:

1. Randomize trials using the TI-Nspire calculator randomize function, insuring that the first,
middle, and last trials are standards.

2. Using a weigh boat, mass out (3) 0.18-0.22 g samples of copper (II) sulfate medium crystal.
Record on data table.

3. Repeat step 1 for copper (II) sulfate fine crystal and powder.

4. Fill a test tube with 10 mL of desired temperature water.

5. Transfer desired form of copper (II) sulfate to the test tube and apply the predetermined
mixing
method.

6. Record the time it takes for the solution to completely ionize and and note any observations in
the data table.

7. Empty the contents of the tube. Rinse and dry.

8. Repeat steps 4-7 until the D.O.E. is complete.


Fehmer - Schell - Thompson
10B
12 January 2016

Diagram:

Figure 1. Materials

Figure 1 shows the materials used in the D.O.E. The only material not shown is the Ti-

Nspire calculator with the randomization software.


Fehmer - Schell - Thompson
10B
12 January 2016

Figure 2. Copper (II) Sulfate

Figure 2 shows the powder, fine crystal, and medium crystal forms of the copper (II)

sulfate used in the lab. The medium crystals were used as the high. The fine crystals were used

as the standard. The powder was used as the low. The different size particles have different

surface area, but the same amount of CuSO4 when used in the experiment.

Data and Observations:

Table 1
Factors Tested in Experiment
Factors - Values Standards + Values

Particle Size Powder Fine Crystal Medium Crystal

Temperature (C) 0-3 22-28 55-60

Extent of Mixing 1 per 10 sec 1 per 2 sec 1 per sec

Table 1 shows the three factors tested in the experiment along with each of the factors

high, low, and standard values.


Fehmer - Schell - Thompson
10B
12 January 2016

Table 2
D.O.E. Data for Effect of Ionization of CuSO4

Time of
Randomize Particle Temp Agitation
Ionization Observations
the runs Size (C) Method
(s)
1 standard 88 Researcher A, 0.21 g, 22.1 C
10 + + + 87 Researcher B, 0.19 g, 58.3 C
2 + + - 380 Researcher A, 0.22 g, 62.6 C
6 + - + 325 Researcher B, 0.24 g, 5.1 C
9 + - - 752 Researcher A, 0.22 g, 3.4 C
5 standard 79 Researcher B, 0.20 g, 22.3 C
4 - + + 11 Researcher A, 0.22 g, 53.8 C
3 - + - 55 Researcher A, 0.20 g, 56.1 C
7 - - + 18 Researcher A, 0.20 g, 5.2 C
8 - - - 122 Researcher B, 0.22 g, 3.5 C

11 standard 91 Researcher B, 0.21 g, 23.8 C

Table 2 shows the order in which the trials were run along with the results from each

trial, measured in seconds it took to ionize. All the solutions were observed to have the same icy

blue color. Some of the water temperatures and copper (II) sulfate masses were slightly outside

the desired range due to time issues.

Data Analysis and Interpretation:

A 3-factor D.O.E. was conducted to interpret the data in this experiment. The data

collected was the time in seconds that it took to completely ionize CuSO4 in water. This data is

continuous qualitative data. The trials were randomized in order to reduce lurking variables. The

randomization was done using the TI nSpire randomize function. The standards were assigned

to trials #1, #5, and #11 to spread them out, therefore reducing variability.
Fehmer - Schell - Thompson
10B
12 January 2016

Table 3
Effect of Particle Size (PS)
(-) values (+) values

11 87

55 380

18 325

122 752

Average: 51 Average: 386

Effect = 386 - 51
Figure 3. Effect of Particle Size
Effect of particle size = 335

Table 3 shows the effect of particle size. The low value was subtracted from the high

value to calculate the effect, which was 335 seconds. Figure 3 shows the effect graphed. It has

a steep slope, suggesting the effect of particle size may be significant.

Table 4
Effect of Temperature (T)
(-) values (+) values

325 87

752 380

18 11

122 55

Average: 304 Average: 133


Fehmer - Schell - Thompson
10B
12 January 2016

Effect = 133 - 304

Effect of Temperature = -171

Figure 4. Effect of Temperature

Table 4 shows the effect of temperature. The low value was subtracted from the high

value to calculate the effect, which was -171 seconds. Figure 4 shows the effect graphed. It has

a steep slope, suggesting the effect of temperature may be significant.

Table 5
Effect of Agitation Method (AM)
(-) values (+) values

380 87

752 325

55 11

122 18

Average: 327 Average: 110

Effect = 110 - 327


Figure 5. Effect of Agitation Method
Effect of Agitation Method = -217
Fehmer - Schell - Thompson
10B
12 January 2016

Table 5 shows the effect of agitation method. The low value was subtracted from the

high value to calculate the effect, which was -217 seconds. Figure 5 shows the effect graphed. It

has a steep slope, suggesting the effect of agitation may be significant.

Table 6
Interaction of Particle Size and
Temperature
(-) T (+) T

Line segment Average: Average:


(+) PS 539 234
Solid

Line segment Average: Average:


(-) PS 70 33
Dotted

Figure 6. Interaction of Particle Size and


Interaction Effect = slope PS+ - slope PS- Temperature
234539
PS+ = = -152.5
2

3370
PS- = = -18.5
2

Interaction Effect = -152.5 - (-18.5) = -134


Fehmer - Schell - Thompson
10B
12 January 2016

Table 6 shows the interaction effect of particle size and temperature. It was calculated by

subtracting the slope of the effect when PS was held low from the effect when PS was held

high. The interaction effect is -134 seconds. Figure 6 shows the interaction graphed. The lines

do not appear parallel, suggesting the interaction may be significant.

Table 7
Interaction of Particle Size and Agitation
Method
(-) AM (+) AM

Line segment Average: Average:


(+) PS 566 206
Solid

Line segment Average: Average:


(-) PS 89 15
Dotted

Figure 7. Interaction of Particle Size and Agitation


Interaction Effect = slope PS+ - slope PS- Method
206566
PS+ = = -180
2

1589
PS- = = -37
2

Interaction Effect = -180 - (-37) = -143

Table 7 shows the interaction between particle size and mixing method. It was

calculated by subtracting the slope of the effect when PS was held low from the effect when PS

was held high. The interaction effect is -143. Figure 7 shows the interaction graphed. The lines

do not appear parallel, suggesting the interaction may be significant.


Fehmer - Schell - Thompson
10B
12 January 2016

Table 8
Interaction of Temperature and Agitation
Method
(-) MM (+) MM

Line segment Average: Average:


(+) T 218 49
Solid

Line segment Average: Average:


(-) T 437 172
Dotted

Interaction Effect = slope T+ - slope T- Figure 8. Interaction of Temperature and Agitation


Method
49218
T+ = = -84.5
2

172437
T- = = -132.5
2

Interaction Effect = -84.5 - (-132.5) = 48

Table 8 shows the interaction between temperature and mixing method. It was

calculated by subtracting the slope of the effect when T was held low from the effect when T

was held high. The interaction effect is 48 seconds. Figure 8 shows the interaction graphed. The

lines appear parallel, suggesting the interaction may not be significant.


Fehmer - Schell - Thompson
10B
12 January 2016

Figure 9. Plot of Standards

Figure 9 shows the standard values. There is not much variability, meaning our results

are accurate. The range of the standards was 12, which will help determine what effects are

significant.

335 171 217 134 143 48


Y=218.74+ PS+ T+ AM+ PS T+ PS AM+ T
2 2 2 2 2 2

AM+noise

Figure 10. Prediction equation


Fehmer - Schell - Thompson
10B
12 January 2016

Figure 10 shows the prediction equation for the data. The prediction equation can be

used to predict the outcome of the experiment if it were to be done again using different

numbers.

Figure 11. Dot Plot of Effects

Figure 11 shows the effects of the 3 variables and the interaction effects. The vertical

lines at 24 and -24 are double the range of standards. Any points outside of these lines are

statistically significant. Therefore, all 6 effects were significant.

334.5 171 217 134 143 48.5


Y=218.74+ PS+ T+ AM+ PS T+ PS AM+ T
2 2 2 2 2 2

AM+noise

Figure 12. Parsimonious Prediction equation

Figure 12 shows the parsimonious prediction equation. It serves the same function as

the prediction equation, but only uses the significant effects. Since all effects are significant, it is

the same as the prediction equation.


Fehmer - Schell - Thompson
10B
12 January 2016

Conclusion:

The hypothesis was that the copper (II) sulfate would ionize most efficiently if it was

mixed once per second in 55-60C water while in powder form. This hypothesis was accepted,

as the copper (II) sulfate ionized the fastest, at 11 seconds, under these conditions.

The agitation method was the factor that contributed most to decreasing the rate of

ionization, with an effect value of -217 seconds. When the solution is stirred or shaken, it

physically adds kinetic energy. This is defined by kinetic molecular theory, KMT. Agitation

increases how quickly a solute ionizes. The kinetic energy causes more collisions between

molecules, and breaks the CuSO4 molecules apart faster. They then attach to the water

molecules, because of waters polar nature. Water has a positive end and a negative end. The

copper attaches to the negative end, the oxygen, and the sulfate attaches to the positive end,

the H2.

Temperature had the second greatest effect on the ionization rate, with an effect value of

-171 seconds. When the temperature is higher, there is more kinetic energy, so the particles

move faster. This is also defined by KMT. The increased energy from the temperature increases

the energy of the particles, therefore causing them to move and collide at a much quicker rate.

The particles of CuSO4 collide with the water particles more often, breaking it apart and

surrounding it. Water is able to break apart, or ionize, the CuSO4.


Fehmer - Schell - Thompson
10B
12 January 2016

The particle size had the largest effect on the speed of ionization, with an effect of 335

seconds. This means as the particle size increased, the time it took to ionize increased by 335

seconds. This can be explained by the surface model, which states that a particle with more

surface area is going to have more interaction with the solvent. Smaller particles have a greater

combined surface area than one large particle. This explains why the powder CuSO4 had a

quicker ionization time than the fine and medium crystals.

Throughout this experiment, many flaws occurred that could have affected the outcome.

The precision of the temperatures of the water were not all consistent due to the lack of time to

conduct the experiment. The masses of the CuSO4 were also not all consistent also due to lack

of time to conduct the experiment and particle size. The scales had to be shared with all groups,

limiting the time allowed to measure the masses of each particle. The medium crystals were

also far larger than the other crystals, making it slightly more complicated to measure out

correct masses. While the masses of the CuSO4 were in the desired range to conduct the

experiment, they were not all the same, influencing the time it took for the ionization to occur.

Another factor that could affect the results of the experiment was the different researchers

agitating the tubes to promote ionization. Each researcher could have agitated the test tube with

a different amount of force each time, and the inconsistency of the force of agitation could have

affected the ionization rate of CuSO4.

If this experiment were to be conducted again, rather than solely focusing on the

experiment itself, an attention to detail would be added. A consistency in the temperature of the

water would be added, attempting to get all temperature very similar to each other. The same

would be done for the masses of the CuSO4. Also, the different researchers carrying out the

agitation of the CuSO4 could have affected the results. In order to fix this, the agitation of the

CuSO4 should be carried out by the same researcher to reduce the variability of force agitating

the CuSO4.
Fehmer - Schell - Thompson
10B
12 January 2016

Works Cited

Chemistry 9.5a Dissolving Solids and Liquids. Perf. IsaacsTEACH. Youtube.com, n.d.

Web. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8cxPofGKCM&feature=youtu.be>.

Hilliard, Jamie. Copper II Sulfate. Digital image. Mrs. Hilliard's Homepage. Weebly.com,

n.d. Web. 9 Jan. 2016. <http://mmstcchemistry.weebly.com/doe.html>.

Hilliard, Jamie. Materials. Digital image. Mrs. Hilliard's Homepage. Weebly.com, n.d.

Web. 9 Jan. 2016. <http://mmstcchemistry.weebly.com/doe.html>.