Comprehending Transport and Tonicity through Osmosis and Diffusion.

Burhan Riaz BSC2010C Section 13 Seat 34 02/24/2010

INTRODUCTION: Membrane transport occurs in all kingdoms of life from the very small amoeba to the complex mammals (Campbell et al. 2008). There are two varieties of membrane transport(Campbell et al. 2008). Passive transport occurs without the need for energy and allows molecules to travel from high to low concentrations (Thomas et al. 2010). Diffusion, a type of passive transport, allows lipid-soluble molecules to travel with their concentration gradient (Campbell et al. 2008). Diffusion will occur at different rates from many variables including the weight of the molecule that is being diffused, the distance between the membrane and the solution outside of the cell, surface area of the cell, etc (Thomas et al. 2010). Osmosis is a specific kind of diffusion that applies to water moving through a cell membrane from a high to low concentration gradient (Campbell et al. 2008). Facilitated diffusion uses a transporter protein that requires no energy to move water-soluble objects through the membrane (Thomas et al. 2010). Active transport will require energy in order to move a molecule against its concentration gradient from a low to high concentration gradient (Thomas et al. 2010). Unlike facilitated diffusion, a transmembrane protein that requires ATP is needed (Thomas et al. 2010). These transporters are selective and will move an ion or molecule through the membrane if the energy requirement is met (Campbell et al. 2008). Osmosis is important to the water treatment industry (Eslamifard 2009). Through manipulating osmosis, water treatment facilities can collect clean water by creating semi-permeable filter and then create a hypertonic pond which will move water from the other side of the membrane filter to its side (Eslamifard 2009). . A similar concept applies to perovskite (a type of mineral) membranes which can move oxygen ions when there is a lower concentration and a higher concentration of oxygen ions (Wang and Yang 2005).

Before we begin exploring the effect of osmosis on plant cells, we will need to know how tonicity works. Tonicity is the osmotic pressure or ratio of two solutions divided by a semipermeable membrane (Campbell et al. 2008). There are three ways to define tonicity (Thomas et al. 2010). Hypertonic solution is where the solute concentration is higher outside the cell (Thomas et al. 2010). This implies there is more water within the cell. So naturally, water will diffuse out of the cell to help equalize the lower concentration of water outside the cell (Campbell et al. 2008). This can cause a cell to shrivel (Campbell et al. 2008). A hypotonic solution implies that there is more solute within the cell than outside (Campbell et al. 2008). Water will diffuse into the cell and cause it to swell up (Campbell et al. 2008). An isotonic solution is where the concentration of solute is the same outside the cell and inside (Campbell et al. 2008). Water will actually diffuse into and out of the cell at an equal rate (Campbell et al. 2008). The purpose of this experiment is to see the effect on tonicity of a potato at 4 different concentrations of solute (Thomas et al. 2010). This can be accomplished by measuring the weight of a potato cylinder before and after it has been submerged into the solution (Thomas et al. 2010). The null hypothesis for this experiment would be if all the potato cylinders did not change weight after being submerged in the solutions. The alternate hypothesis would be that at least one of the potato cylinders changed weight after completing the procedures. My lab partner and I hypothesized that there would be a change in weight after submerging the potato cylinders in the sucrose solution due to the fact that water moves from a high concentration to a low concentration (Thomas et al. 2010). By putting the cylinders in different molarities of sucrose, the weight of the cylinders should change according to the workings of osmosis. METHODS:

My lab partner and I conducted this experiment on February 17, 2010, and followed the instructions from Laboratory Manual for Biology I, 16th Edition (Thomas et al., 2010). We began with obtaining a potato from the lab table. Using a cork borer, we cut out four potato cylinders. To accurately compare the potato cylinders for weight change, we needed them to be the same size. So, using a ruler, we cut the cylinders with a knife to 3 centimeters and made sure there was no skin attached to them. We then put the cylinders into separate cups labeled dH2O(distilled water), 0.25M sucrose, 0.50M sucrose, and 1.0M sucrose. We then took the 4 cups to a balance station to weigh the cores. We pressed the reset button to take account the weight boats own weight. We then put the cylinders on the weight boat one -by-one and recorded the results to the nearest 100th gram on the laboratory manual. The cylinders were placed back into their cups and enough solution of dH2O or sucrose (according to the labels on the cups) was poured into the cups. We did not measure the amount of solution that was poured into the cups. Instead we made sure that the cylinders were submerged fully in their solutions. We waited 1 hour and 15 minutes for the potatoes to soak in the solution. After waiting, we carefully laid the cylinders onto a paper towel and dried the cylinders by rolling them. We then brought the cylinders to the same balance station and weighed them each. Using the before and after weight we found the difference and % change. We found the difference by subtracting the before weight from the after weight. Then we divided the difference by the before and multiplied the number by 100 to find the percent difference. We used Microsoft Excel to calculate the averages and standard deviations of the entire class percent changes. Finally we noted any physical changes in the potato cylinders.

RESULTS: The potato cylinders appeared to have changed in physical appearance after completing the procedures. They looked smaller in length and width. They also changed in weight. The cylinder in dH2O was the only one to gain weight. It started off with 1.15 grams and weighed 1.19 grams (3.48% changes) by the end of the experiment. The 0.25M cylinder weighed 1.04 grams and decreased to 0.97 grams (-6.73% change). The 0.50M cylinder weighed 1.11 grams and decreased to 0.92 grams (-17.12% change). The 1.0M cylinder weighed 1.15 grams and decreased to 0.85 grams (-26.1% change). We then combined our results with the rest of the class.
0.0M (dH2O) -9.9 14.4 -4.55 0.039 13.265 11.34 8.11 3.9 -3.5 0 15 5.05 2.66 19.8 3.92 6.4 12.33 13.265 10.7 8 6.25 3.48 0.25M (grams) 8.8 3.2 -13.04 -0.039 5.263 0 -0.93 -3.9 -5.8 -10.5 18 5.32 -1.1 5.4 -6.67 0 -1.22 5.263 2.1 1 -0.93 -6.73 0.5M (grams) -26.7 0 -9.35 -0.01 0 -22.22 -14.56 -10.3 -11.9 -17.2 0 -3.16 -9.1 -7.3 -15.69 -14.3 -6.49 0 -16.1 -12 -12.15 -17.12 1.0M (grams) -22.4 -16.7 -36.21 -0.19 -12.632 -16.3 -29.25 -19 -22.7 -30.7 -7 -21.7 -22 -23.7 -26.21 -27.5 -18.52 -12.632 -26.8 -27 -26.47 -26.1

Average Std. Dev.

12 0.97 6.372041667 7.095403935

3.09 -2.06 0.188208333 6.481563895

-9 -12 -10.27708333 7.290645274

-19 -24.24 -21.4564167 7.888965766

Table 1: Collection of percent changes from all classmates including averages and standard deviations.

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18 -20 -22 -24 -26 -28 -30 -32

6.372041667 0.188208333 0.0M 0.25M 0.5M 1.0M

Percent Change

-10.27708333

-21.45641667

Solution Molarity

Figure 1: Averages of percent changes including standard error bars.

DISCUSSION: Despite having a large standard deviation, it is safe to believe that the null hypothesis no longer applies. There is more evidence pointing towards the alternate hypothesis which states

that the percent changes will differ in at least 1 out of the 4 solutions. In fact, every solution shows that the average percent change has either increased or decreased according to figure 1. The dH2O solution shows a 6.37% increase in average weight. This implies that this solution was hypotonic and water moved inside the potato cylinder through osmosis. The 0.25M sucrose solution shows a minor .188% increase. This may imply that the solute concentration was almost the same within the potato and outside. Nevertheless the potato absorbed some water from the water. The cylinder in the 0.5M sucrose solution decreased by -10.28%, indicating that the solution was hypertonic. This means there was more water in the cylinder than the solution which had more solute. Therefore, water moved outside the potato through osmosis. Following this trend, the 1.0M sucrose solution decreased the weight of the potato cylinder by -21.46%. From our results, we can assume that for water to move outside the potato through osmosis, it requires the molarity of a sucrose solution to be between 0.25 and 0.5. There was most likely some kind of human error involved in our class attempt to record the percent changes of the potato cylinders. Looking at table 1, there are some instances where there is 0% change in weight. This would make sense in the .25M solution because the average percent change is very small. However the 0% changes are recorded in the 0.5M solution category. I believe that someone may have made a mistake while measuring the before and after weights or made a mistake calculating the percent difference. Osmosis has long been used by water treatment facilities (Eslamifard 2009). Using what we learned from our experiment we may be able to replicate a scenario where we can extradite hazardous materials while creating drinkable water.

Works Cited Campbell, N. Reese, M. Wasserman, L. Cain, , J. Urry, , S. Minorsky, P. Jackson, R. 2008. . Biology 8th edition. Pearson Publishing. San Francisco Haihui Wang, Weishen Yang. Oxygen Diffusion through Perovskite Membranes" Diffusion . Fundamentals 1 (2005) 1.1 - 1.17 Madaeni Eslamifard. Recycle unit wastewater treatment in petrochemical complex using . reverse osmosis process. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2009 Sep 2: Vol. 174 (1 -3), . pp. 404-9. Thomas, P. Walters, L. Boyers, B. Yeargain, M. 2010. Laboratory Manual for Biology 1, 16th . edition.