CHEM

181 DL1
Caloric Cont ent of Food

Final Report
St ude nt Abdulrazzaq Alnassar
Name
St ude nt ID 45487
Le s s o n C aloric C ontent of Food
Ins t it ut io n O cean C ounty C ollege
Se s s io n 2019L1 C HEM 181 DL1
Co ur s e C HEM 181 DL1
Ins t r uc t o r C ynthia Spencer

Exercise 1

1. Co mpar e t he c alo r ime t e r t hat yo u built t o a bo mb c alo r ime t e r. Ho w ar e t he y s imilar

and dif f e r e nt ?

The calorim eter I built and a bom b calorim eter are sim ilar since both are used to m easure the
tem perature of water and allow you to calculate the
am ount of heat (Q ) released by a chem ical reaction. However, they are different since a bom b
calorim eter is used by using an electrical wire to produce the chem ical reaction, rather than just
lighting a flam e.

2. Bas e d o n yo ur r e s ult s , was t his s e t up a go o d way t o me as ur e Calo r ie s as o ppo s e d t o a

bo mb c alo r ime t e r ? What t ype s o f e xpe r ime nt al e r r o r may have o c c ur r e d wit h t his
e xpe r ime nt ? Ho w might yo u de s ign t his s e t up dif f e r e nt ly if yo u had unlimit e d e xpe ns e s
f o r mat e r ials ?

I don't feel like the calorim eter I built was a good way to m easure C alories as opposed to a bom b
calorim eter since the percent difference I got from the calculations was really high. Som e
experim ental errors m ay have occurred such as bringing the burning flam e under the beaker too
slow or too fast, causing the flam e to burn for less tim e. If I am given unlim ited expenses for the
m aterials I will use, I would design m y calorim eter in such a way that I could have the burning food
inside of the water, so I could get the m ost accurate reading possible.

Copyrigh t 2019 - H an ds-On Labs | h t t p://h olscien ce.com 1 / 6

3. Bas e d o n ho w e ac h f o o d bur ne d, whic h f o o d wo uld be t he be s t t o us e f o r a f ue l t hat
has a s t e ady f lame and might bur n f o r a lo ng t ime ? What was t he c o mpo s it io n o f t his
f o o d (whic h mac r o mo le c ule was it mo s t ly c o mpo s e d o f )? Ho w do e s t his r e lat e t o t he way
t hat t he human bo dy ut iliz e s t his t ype o f mac r o mo le c ule as f ue l?

Based on m y results, I believe the walnut would be the best choice as fuel for a steady, long lasting
flam e. The walnut was m ainly com posed of carbohydrates and fats. This relates to the hum an
body because our bodies use the types of healthy fats and carbohydrates found in walnuts to fuel
our bodies with energy.

4. Alt ho ugh pr o t e in was par t o f t he c o mpo s it io n o f t he f o o ds in t his e xpe r ime nt , it was

no t t he main mac r o mo le c ule c o mpo ne nt o f any o f t he f o o ds . Why do yo u t hink a f o o d
c o ns is t ing pr imar ily o f pr o t e in was o mit t e d f r o m t he s e t e s t s , bas e d o n what yo u
le ar ne d abo ut t he way t he f ue l is "bur ne d" in t he bo dy?

I think this type of food m ight have been left out because our bodies do not use proteins for
energy the way that we use carbohydrates and fats.

5. Us ing yo ur dat a, whic h f o o d had t he mo s t amo unt o f kilo c alo r ie s pe r gr am? Bas e d o n
what yo u le ar ne d abo ut t he s t r uc t ur e o f e ac h mac r o mo le c ule , why is t his t r ue ?

Based on m y data, the Walnut has the m ost am ount of kcal/gram , while the m arshm allow had the
least am ount of kcal/gram . This m akes sense because m arshm allows have zero kilocalories of fat
per gram , while walnut have the m ost. The fats provide the m ost energy for our bodies and
without the fats you will have less C alories.

6. Whe n yo u de t e r mine d t he amo unt o f e s t imat e d Calo r ie s in t he f o o ds bas e d o n

At wat e r f ac t o r s us ing t he amo unt s o f e ac h mac r o mo le c ule in t he f o o d, did yo u ge t t he
s ame numbe r as what was lis t e d as t he amo unt o f Calo r ie s pe r s e r ving o n t he nut r it io n
labe l? If no t , why do yo u t hink t he r e might be s o me dis c r e panc y?

After determ ining the am ount of estim ated C alories in the foods tested and com paring them to
nutrition labels, I roughly got the sam e values. This is probably due to the different am ounts of
C alories versus the m arshm allow. The walnut and tortilla chip had m ore fats com pared to the
m arshm allow, which m ay cause the difference in the calculations.

Copyrigh t 2019 - H an ds-On Labs | h t t p://h olscien ce.com 2 / 6

 Data Table 1: Mass of the Wate r

Walnut

Mass of the Wate r (g) 50.2

Marshmallow

Mass of the Wate r (g) 50.2

Tortilla chip

Mass of the Wate r (g) 50.2

Data Table 2: Caloric Calculations

Food Ite m De scription: Walnut

Mass of food, cup, and clip - initial 37.4

(g)

Mass of food, cup, and clip - final 32.5

(g)

Mass of burne d food (g) 4.9

Obse rvations of Flame (inte nsity, Burne d light orange

le ngth of time burning, e tc.) flame for 80 se conds

Wate r te mp - initial °C 24

Wate r te mp - final °C 27

Change in te mp (ΔT) °C 3

Ene rgy re le ase d (Q) (kcal) 0.1506

Ene rgy re le ase d pe r gram (Q/m) 0.0307

(kcal/g)

Ene rgy Estimate d on Package 7.0

(kcal/g)

Copyrigh t 2019 - H an ds-On Labs | h t t p://h olscien ce.com 3 / 6

Pe rce nt Diffe re nce 198%

De te rmination of Calorie s according 7.3

to Atwate r Factors (kcal/g)

Food Ite m De scription: Marshmallow (Jumbo)

Mass of food, cup, and clip - initial 34.5

(g)

Mass of food, cup, and clip - final 32.9

(g)

Mass of burne d food (g) 1.6

Obse rvations of Flame (inte nsity, Burne d light orange

le ngth of time burning, e tc.) flame with blue around
bottom of flame for 50
se cs

Wate r te mp - initial °C 24

Wate r te mp - final °C 32

Change in te mp (ΔT) °C 8

Ene rgy re le ase d (Q) (kcal) 0.4016

Ene rgy re le ase d pe r gram (Q/m) 0.251

(kcal/g)

Ene rgy Estimate d on Package 3.6

(kcal/g)

Pe rce nt Diffe re nce 174%

De te rmination of Calorie s according 3.3

to Atwate r Factors (kcal/g)

Food Ite m De scription: Tortilla Chip

Mass of food, cup, and clip - initial 29.5

(g)

Mass of food, cup, and clip - final 28.9

(g)

Mass of burne d food (g) 0.6

Copyrigh t 2019 - H an ds-On Labs | h t t p://h olscien ce.com 4 / 6

Obse rvations of Flame (inte nsity, Flame burne d bright
le ngth of time burning, e tc.) ye llow orange for 20
se cs

Wate r te mp - initial °C 24

Wate r te mp - final °C 32

Change in te mp (ΔT) °C 8

Ene rgy re le ase d (Q) (kcal) 0.4016

Ene rgy re le ase d pe r gram (Q/m) 0.6693

(kcal/g)

Ene rgy Estimate d on Package 5.8

(kcal/g)

Pe rce nt Diffe re nce 159%

De te rmination of Calorie s according 5.6

to Atwate r Factors (kcal/g)

Photo 1: Nutritional Labe ls

Copyrigh t 2019 - H an ds-On Labs | h t t p://h olscien ce.com 5 / 6

 1
3
2

1 2 3

Copyrigh t 2019 - H an ds-On Labs | h t t p://h olscien ce.com 6 / 6