Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Chemistry
10B
24 May 2017
Filion - Gi - Mojica 1
Table of Contents
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………... 2
Review of Literature …………………………………………………………………………… 3
Problem Statement …………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Experimental Design …………………………………………………………………………... 9
Data and Observations ………………………………………………………………………. 11
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
Appendix A: Rate of Reaction ………………………………………………………………. 33
Appendix B: Gas Collection Apparatus …………………………………………………….. 34
Appendix C: Research Logo ………………………………………………………………... 35
Appendix D: Randomization ……………………………………………………………….... 36
Works Cited ………………………………………………………………………………….... 36
Filion - Gi - Mojica 2
Introduction
Since the middle of the 19th century, acid rain has been an issue, and continues
to be a problem today. Created by pollution, it infects the world water supply, kills entire
ecosystems, and erodes exteriors of buildings. pollution is a global problem, acid rain
can fall anywhere, from the most famous cities to rural areas.More specifically, global
historic landmarks such as the Taj Mahal, the Colosseum, and Westminster Abbey all
have been affected by acid rain (“Impact of Acid Rain on Buildings”). This research
focuses on the effect of acid rain on buildings and other structures made of calcium
carbonate (CaCO3). The experiment was designed to determine how much gas was
released by the reaction, and therefore the rate of decomposition was found. By finding
the rate of decomposition, the scientific community would be able to determine the
speed at which a substance breaks apart, which could be applied to many different
The experiment recorded the effect of three factors, molarity of HCl, volume of
HCl, and mass of CaCO3, through the use of a three-factor design of experiment. It was
hypothesized that the largest concentration of HCl (6 M), the greatest volume of HCl (15
mL), and the smallest mass (0.3 g) of CaCO3 powder (or the (+,+,-) trial) will prove to
have the highest rate of decomposition. Instead, the highest concentration of HCl (6 M),
the largest amount of HCl (15 mL), and the largest mass (0.7 g) of CaCO 3 powder (or
the (+,+,+) trial) produced the fastest rate of decomposition instead. The hypothesis
was proved to be false because a larger mass equates to more surface area for the HCl
ions to collide with the CaCO3 ions, leading to more reactability between the two
substances.
Filion - Gi - Mojica 3
Review of Literature
The buildings of the world are constantly affected by phenomena such as acid
rain. From glass windows in the United States to concrete structures in China, the
effect of acid rain on building materials can be seen everywhere ("Impacts of Acid Rain
on Buildings"). In order to test the acidic effects of acid on building materials, this
experiment will utilize calcium carbonate (CaCO3), which is abundant in limestone and
natural materials, and test it against different concentrations of hydrochloric acid (HCl)
understand kinetics, collision theory, and the rate of reaction in order to test this
experiment. Additionally, rate law and the reaction order are also useful concepts to
Kinetics is the study of how the collision of atoms or molecules affects the rates
of chemical reactions (“Kinetics 1”). Those chemical reactions can be affected by the
rate of reaction, other various variables, the re-arrangement of atoms, the formation of
intermediates, and some other factors (Green). Not only that, they can also range from
about the composition of reaction mixtures (“Kinetics 2”). In this experiment, CaCO 3
reacts with HCl and results in a transformation of reactants into products that increase
hydrochloric acid, HCl produces aqueous calcium chloride, CaCl2, carbon dioxide, CO2,
and water, H2O. When hydrochloric acid reacts with any carbonates, the products that
Filion - Gi - Mojica 4
are formed include a metal chloride, water, and carbon dioxide ("GCSE Bitesize
Science - Strong and Weak Acids : Revision."). The chloride ion present in HCl is an
anion and reacts with calcium ion in calcium carbonate, which is a cation, forming
calcium chloride. Two hydrogen ions can combine with an oxygen from the calcium
carbonate, creating H2O. Left in the carbonate are two oxygen atoms and one carbon
Once the CO2 is recorded, the rate of reaction would be found. It is the speed at
which a chemical reaction occurs, or the speed at which the concentrations of the
reactants or products as a function of time (Moretti). During the experiment, the rate of
reaction can be seen as being the speed at which concentrations of CaCO 3 and HCl
Kinetic energy is closely related to collision theory. The collision theory states
that, “chemical reactions occur when molecules collide with sufficient kinetic energy”
will be more combinations of molecules bouncing into each other. If there are more
possible combinations, there is a higher chance that the molecules will complete the
reaction. The reaction will happen faster, which means the rate of that reaction will
increase as well (Goldberger). In this experiment, the rate at which HCl broke down
CaCO3 is based on collision theory, since the HCl collided with the CaCO3.
Filion - Gi - Mojica 5
The figure shows how the volume of CO2 was measured. HCl was poured into
the Erlenmeyer flask containing a sample of calcium carbonate, and the stopper
(see Figure 2), varying concentrations of hydrochloric acid were added into an
Erlenmeyer flask containing a 0.5 g sample of calcium carbonate, and the volume of the
carbon dioxide, CO2, that was released as a result of the reaction was measured in one-
minute intervals for ten minutes and graphed. It was found that as the concentration of
hydrochloric acid decreases, the rate of the reaction also decreases (“Rate of
Decomposition of Calcium Carbonate”). The rate was found by using the rate of
reaction in accordance with the volume of the gas released and the time in which the
reaction was completed (refer to Appendix A). Additionally, these results were also
Filion - Gi - Mojica 6
carbonate.
Although previous experiments prove to be similar to this one, there are still
differences that set them apart. In example, this experiment utilizes a three-factor
design of experiment to interpret the results. Not only that, instead of making the
molarity of HCl the only factor in the decomposition of CaCO3, this experiment also tests
volume of HCl and the mass of the CaCO3 powder (see Table 1). Additionally, both the
research and this experiment will be measuring the volume of the carbon dioxide gas in
Problem Statement
Problem:
volumes of HCl, 4 mL, 9 mL, and 14 mL, and different masses of CaCO 3 powder, 0.3 g,
0.5 g, 0.7 g.
Hypothesis:
The largest concentration of HCl, which is 6 M, the largest amount of HCl the
CaCO3 will soak in, 14 mL, and the CaCO3 chip at the smallest mass of around 0.3
Data:
three factors included different concentrations of HCl, differing volumes of HCl, and the
HCl were 2 M, 4 M, and 6 M, while the varying volumes were 4 mL, 9 mL, and 14 mL.
For the CaCO3 masses, the values were 0.7 grams for high trials, 0.5 grams for
standard trials, and 0.3 grams for low trials. The maximum time in which the CaCO 3
powder was allowed to be submerged was at most 5 minutes, or 300 seconds. The
variable that was measured and interpreted in the end is the rate of decomposition of
the CaCO3 powder, which is the moles of CO2 emitted over the amount of time the
CaCO3 was soaked calculated in seconds. However, in order to measure the amount of
CO2 emitted, the volume must be found in milliliters. In all, the independent variables
include the concentration of HCl, the time in which CaCO3 reacts, and the mass of the
CaCO3 powder. The dependent variables are the amount of CO2 gas released and the
Filion - Gi - Mojica 8
rate at which the CaCO3 decomposes. Also, the concentration of HCl is measured in
molarity, or the number of moles divided by the volume in liters, and the size or mass of
Experimental Design
Materials:
10 g Calcium carbonate Buret clamp
(powder), CaCO3 (2) Erlenmeyer flasks, 125 mL
90 mL Hydrochloric acid solution, Gas collection apparatus
6M 140 mL Syringe
70 mL Hydrochloric acid solution, Syringe adapter
4M Stopcock
90 mL Hydrochloric acid solution, Stopper, one-hole
2M (3) Graduated cylinder, 25 mL
3785.41 mL Water, distilled (2) Support stand
Analytical scale (0.0001 g Timer or stopwatch
precision) (3) Weigh boats, small
TI-nspire CX (3) Funnel
Procedure:
Safety Precaution:
Hydrochloric acid is corrosive to skin and eyes and is toxic by inhalation or skin
absorption. Avoid contact with eyes and skin, and wear appropriate chemical goggles,
gloves, and aprons.
12. Rinse out the Erlenmeyer flask and release the gas in the syringe.
13. Repeat steps 1 - 8 for the other trials of the design of experiment with
differing concentrations, amounts of HCl, and masses of CaCO3.
Note: Steps 2 - 6 describe the variables used in the standard trials in the design
of experiment.
Diagram:
140 mL Syringe
Syringe Adapter
Stopper, one-hole
Figure 3 displays the setup of the gas collection apparatus, which includes a
flask. The sample of calcium carbonate will be placed into the flask followed by the the
hydrochloric acid. As the the reaction occurs, the resulting CO2 gas produced will
(HCl), differing amounts of HCl, and different sized calcium carbonate chips (CaCO 3)
chips were used to analyze the overall rate of decomposition. Three complete sets of
three - factor DOEs were completed, and the data and observations gathered
Data:
Table 1
DOE Factors for the Rate of Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
Concentration
Amount of HCl CaCO₃
Factors of HCl
(mL) Mass (g)
(M)
Low (-) 2 4 0.3
Standard 4 9 0.5
High (+) 6 14 0.7
Shown above are the values used pertaining to each factor in the DOE
experiment. Prior to conducting trials, the values of each factor were changed in order
Table 2
DOE 1 Rate of Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
Rate of
Mass Reaction Time Gas Released
DOE 1 Run Reaction
(g) (s) (mL)
(mL/s)
Standard *** 0.5006 17.98 59.0 3.3
(+,+,+) 8 0.6969 11.03 90.0 8.2
Table 3
DOE 2 Rate of Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
Rate of
Reaction Time Gas Released
DOE 2 Run Mass (g) Reaction
(s) (mL)
(mL/s)
Standard *** 0.5002 15.44 65.0 4.2
(+,+,+) 3 0.6996 13.76 91.0 6.6
(+,+,-) 1 0.3018 6.98 17.0 2.4
(+,-,+) 8 0.7027 52.25 130.0 2.5
(+,-,-) 5 0.3060 18.89 46.0 2.4
Standard *** 0.5001 15.21 62.0 4.1
(-,+,+) 7 0.7024 35.96 119.0 3.3
(-,+,-) 6 0.3002 17.27 19.0 1.1
(-,-,+) 4 0.7075 69.14 71.0 1.0
(-,-,-) 2 0.3011 53.40 23.0 0.4
Standard *** 0.5077 16.05 58.0 3.6
Table 4
DOE 3 Rate of Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
Rate of
Mass Reaction Time Gas Released
DOE 3 Run Reaction
(g) (s) (mL)
(mL/s)
Standard *** 0.5004 15.53 59.0 3.8
(+,+,+) 2 0.7022 10.43 89.0 8.5
(+,+,-) 3 0.3095 6.72 19.0 2.8
(+,-,-) 7 0.3032 19.08 44.0 2.3
Standard *** 0.5014 16.78 59.0 3.5
(-,+,+) 8 0.7041 36.03 115.0 3.2
DOE 3 Run Mass Reaction Time Gas Released Rate of
Filion - Gi - Mojica 13
Tables 2 - 4 show the results of DOE 1, 2, and 3 respectively. The mass of the
CaCO3 sample was recorded in grams, then the amount of time it took for the reaction
to occur, in seconds, followed the the amount of CO2 gas released during the reaction,
in milliliters, and finally the rate of the reaction, which is the amount of gas released
Table 5
Mean Rate of Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
Mean
Mean Gas Mean Rate of
Mean Mass Reaction
Mean DOE Released Reaction
(g) Time
(mL) (mL/s)
(s)
Standard 0.5004 16.32 61.0 3.8
(+,+,+) 0.6996 11.74 90.0 7.8
(+,+,-) 0.3042 6.78 17.7 2.6
(+,-,+) 0.7033 52.79 123.7 2.4
(+,-,-) 0.3032 19.31 46.0 2.4
Standard 0.5010 16.50 60.3 3.7
(-,+,+) 0.7026 36.49 116.0 3.2
(-,+,-) 0.3018 15.61 20.3 1.3
(-,-,+) 0.7068 70.78 74.7 1.1
(-,-,-) 0.3020 55.23 27.0 0.5
Standard 0.5024 16.34 60.7 3.7
The means of the measured mass, reaction times, gas released, and rate of all
three DOEs were calculated. It can be seen that the trial with the highest rate is the
(+,+,+) trial, whereas the trial with the lowest rate is the (-,-,-) trial. This outcome was
slightly unexpected to what was hypothesized before the experiment was conducted.
Filion - Gi - Mojica 14
Observations:
Table 6
Observations During Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
Trial Observations
1 (-,+,-); HCl turned murky, there was some fizzing; Chemist 1 & 2
(+,+,-); HCl turned slightly murky, lots of fizzing and movement, very fast
2
reaction, Chemist 1 & 3
(-,-,+); HCl turned near opaque white, too much CaCO3, did not all react
3
with HCl, Chemist 1 & 2
4 (+,-,-) HCl mostly clear, lots of fizzing, later reaction, Chemist 1 & 3
DOE 1
5/01/17 (+,-,+); Lots of bubbling in early reaction, went up a lot, HCl turned near
5
opaque and not all CaCO3 disappeared; Chemist 1 & 2
(+,+,+); Slightly murky, practically clear HCl, quick reaction; Chemist 1 &
8
2
(+,+,-); HCl turned slightly murky, lots of fizzing and movement, very fast
1
reaction, Chemist 3 and 2
DOE 2 (+,+,+); Still mostly transparent, lots of fizzing and movement, large
5/03/17 3
CaCO3 piece lagged reaction; Chemist 3 & 1
5 (+,-,-); HCl hit the CaCO3 all at once, short reaction; Chemist 1 & 2
Filion - Gi - Mojica 15
6 (-,+,-); HCl became murky, there was some fizzing; Chemist 3 & 1
Trial Observations
The observations for each DOE continued to stay consistent. Whichever trials
had a ratio of less HCl to more CaCO3 proved to show the HCl having a more opaque
color to it in the end, while if the opposite happened, the liquid would be merely a little
bit colored. In addition, all trials appeared to have some amount of fizzing proving that
Table 7
Standard Observations During Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
Trial Observations
DOE 1 Standard, HCl murky, fizzing, immediate reaction, CaCO3
Standard
5/01/17 movement, Chemist 3 & 2
DOE 1 Early fizzing and bubbling, fast reaction, practically clear HCl;
Standard
5/01/17 Chemist 1, 2, & 3
Filion - Gi - Mojica 16
Trial Observations
DOE 2
Standard A little murky, slow reaction; Chemist 1, 2 & 3
5/03/17
Fast reaction, slightly murky, lots of CaCO3 movement, Chemist
Standard
3&1
DOE 3 Liquid ended up being partially murky, quick reaction; Chemist 3
5/04/17 Standard
&2
The standard trials remained fairly consistent throughout the experiment, with the
HCl solution becoming murky, the occurrence of fizzing from the CaCO3 reaction, and a
An example of a trial that did not fully react is shown. In the trial (-, -, +), 0.7 g of
CaCO3 was used, but only 0.4 mL of 2 molarity HCl was used. Since there was an
Filion - Gi - Mojica 17
overwhelming difference between the ratio of CaCO3 and HCl, the solution became a
A design of experiment, or a DOE, was used to analyze the data retrieved from
three factors. Since there were three separate factors possibly affecting the data, a
three-factor DOE was appropriate to analyze each factor individually and its combined
effects. From differing hydrochloric acid (HCl) molarities and volumes to differing
masses of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), the amount of gas released and the time it
required to reach that amount of gas was recorded throughout the reaction using a flask
and a syringe. From there, the rate of reaction was found by dividing the time in
seconds by the amount of gas in mL (see Appendix A). Thus, the rates are the values
that will be analyzed. Additionally, in order to assure that the data is valid, the
arrangement in which the trials were completed was randomized using the
randomization function on the TI-nspire calculator (see Appendix D). That way, it would
reduce bias in the results. There had also been three DOEs completed to reduce
Table 8
DOE Factors for the Rate of Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
Concentratio Amount of CaCO₃
Factors
n of HCl (M) HCl (mL) Mass (g)
Low (-) 2.0 4.0 0.30
Standard 4.0 9.0 0.50
High (+) 6.0 14 0.70
Table 8 depicts the three factors used in the experiment as well as the high,
Table 9
Mean Rate of Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
CaCO₃ Mean Rate of
Concentration Amount of
Mass Reaction
of HCl (M) HCl (mL)
(g) (mL/s)
Standard 3.8
+ + + 7.8
Mean Rate of
Concentration Amount of CaCO₃
Reaction
of HCl (M) HCl (mL) Mass (g)
(mL/s)
+ + - 2.6
+ - + 2.4
+ - - 2.4
Standard 3.7
- + + 3.2
- + - 1.3
- - + 1.1
- - - 0.50
Standard 3.7
Grand Average: 2.7
The mean rate of reaction for each trial is shown above. Since three DOEs worth
of data was collected, the means were found by adding the rates of each individual trial
and dividing by three. It can be seen that the trials with higher values seem to have
increased rates, as opposed to the trials with the lower values that have
decreased/slower rates. Not only that, when added together and divided by 8, the
grand average, which excludes the standards, was found to be, 2.7 mL/s.
Filion - Gi - Mojica 20
Table 10
Rates of Reaction of Standard Trials
Rate of Reaction (mL/s)
Standard
1 2 3
DOE 1 3.3 4.2 3.8
DOE 2 3.4 4.1 3.5
DOE 3 3.7 3.6 3.9
Average: 3.7
The mean rate of reaction for the standard trials was found by adding the rates of
the nine standard trials and dividing by nine, for nine standards, to get about 3.7 mL/s.
Looking at the standards, the values do not seem to stray far from a certain range. All
of them look to be fairly close to one another, showing the possibility that there may not
When looking at the scatter plot of standards, it can be seen that the values lie in
a consistent range in between 3 and 4.5 mL/s. No extreme variance and patterns can
be seen among the numbers. Even so, it can be noted that the second standard and
fifth standard, being 4.2 mL/s and 4.1 mL/s respectively, are the highest values and are
above 4, whereas the lowest value is the first standard, being at 3.3 mL/s. As 4.2 is the
Filion - Gi - Mojica 21
highest and 3.3 is the lowest values, subtracting the former with the latter will get the
range of standards, or ROS. The range of standards will help determine the
significance of the factors and its interactions, or whether or not the values were
obtained by chance alone. By subtracting the two, the ROS became 0.9 mL/s.
Multiplying it by 2 will create the boundaries that decide whether or not an effect value is
significant. That value ends up being 1.8 mL/s. To decide if it is significant, |effect
value| ≥ 2 * ROS.
Table 11
Effect of HCl Molarity
(-) Values (+) Values
3.2 7.8
1.3 2.6
1.1 2.4
0.50 2.4
Average: 1.5 Average: 3.8
Effect Value: 2.3
The values for when the HCl molarity was high and low are shown in Table 11
and are graphed above. Compared to the low values of molarity, the high values have
an average rate that is 2.3 mL/s larger, which also creates the effect value. It was
calculated by subtracting the high values’ average by the low values’ average.
Additionally, when looked at with the range of standards multiplied by 2, where the
value is 1.8, the effect value proves to be statistically significant, meaning that the data
was not retrieved by chance alone. This is because the effect value itself is larger than
Filion - Gi - Mojica 22
the ROS * 2, making it fall out of the boundaries set. Not only that, the positive slope of
the graph indicates that as the molarity of HCl increases, so will the rate of reaction.
Table 12
Effect of HCl Volume
(-) Values (+) Values
2.4 7.8
2.4 2.6
1.1 3.2
0.50 1.3
Average: 1.6 Average: 3.7
Effect Value: 2.1
In regards to the volume of HCl, its low and high values are depicted in the table
and their averages are graphed in Figure 7. The effect value was found to be 2.1 mL/s,
in which can be interpreted as the higher values having an average rate that is 2.1 mL/s
faster than the lower values. When compared to the ROS * 2, the effect of HCl volume
also proves to be significant, even if just a small bit less than the molarity of HCl.
Analyzing the graph, it can be seen that the slope is positive. Also, the effect value,
which can also be considered as the slope, is also positive. This shows that as the
Table 13
Effect of CaCO3 Mass
(-) Values (+) Values
2.6 7.8
2.4 2.4
1.3 3.2
0.50 1.1
Average: 1.7 Average: 3.6
Effect Value: 1.9
For the third factor, the low and high values of the mass of CaCO3 are shown in
Table 13, while the averages are graphed in Figure 8. Regarding the mass, the effect
value of the averages was found to be 1.9 mL/s. Being the lowest effect value of the
three factors, it can be said that the CaCO3 mass is the least significant amongst the
three. However, because its value is still larger than the ROS * 2, it is still considered a
significant factor. Thus, all three factors individually are significant in this experiment.
Additionally, Figure 8 displays that, because of the positives effect value or slope, as the
Table 14
Effect of Concentration and Amount of HCl
Amount of
HCl
(mL)
- +
Solid
Concentration Segment + 2.4 5.2
of HCl
(M) Dashed
-
Segment 0.80 2.3
The average values of HCl molarity, or concentration, and the volume, or amount
of HCl were recorded in Table 14. To find the interaction effect, the difference between
the high and low values of each segment must be found and then divided by the values
on the x-axis subtracted, which becomes 2. After the values for each segment is found,
the solid segment must be subtracted by the dashed segment in order to get the
interaction effect value. In the case of this interaction, that value was 0.7 mL/s.
Compared to the ROS * 2 value, it shows to be statistically insignificant, since the effect
value is 0.7, and is less than the boundary of significance set by the standards, which is
set at 1.8 mL/s. Also, the graphs of the segments both have positive slopes that do not
directly intersect, which show a little bit more to the fact that it did not end up being
significant.
Filion - Gi - Mojica 25
Table 15
Effect of HCl Molarity and CaCO3 Mass
CaCO3
Mass
(g)
- +
Solid
Concentration Segment +
2.5 5.1
of HCl
(M) Dashed
-
Segment 0.90 2.2
From the molarity of HCl and its effect with the mass of CaCO3, the averages of
the two factors were inserted in the table above. Additionally, the four values were
graphed on Figure 10. Since the slopes do not intersect, there appears to be little to no
interaction between the molarity of HCl and the mass of CaCO3. The effect of the
interaction of the two factors is also insignificant because the interaction effect of 0.7
mL/s is less than the range of standards multiplied by two (1.8 mL/s).
Table 16
Effect of HCl Volume and CaCO3 Mass
CaCO3
Mass
(g)
- +
Solid
Amount of Segment +
2.0 5.5
HCl
(mL) Dashed
-
Segment 1.5 1.8
Regarding the last interaction between the volume of HCl and the mass of
CaCO3, the averages were put into the table and graphed above. Compared to the last
two graphs, this graph has a segment that has a much larger slope than the second
one. It seems that the line segments may intersect if they keep going on, however, with
just that, it is unknown whether or not the interaction is significant. Even so, the
interaction effect value for the volume of HCl and the mass of CaCO3 was calculated as
1.6 mL/s. It is the largest value of all three interaction effect values, and may be the
most significant of the three, but it is still a number that is less than the ROS * 2 value of
1.8 mL/s. Thus, it can be deemed as insignificant, as it does not fall out of the
The dot plot above displays the effect values of the three individual factors and
then the interaction effect values between the relationships of each factor with another.
As shown in the dot plot, the interaction effects between the factors fell in between the
range of standards multiplied by two, meaning that they were deemed insignificant to
the rate of reaction between HCl and CaCO3. Additionally, the individual effects of the
standards fell outside of the range of standards multiplied by two, deeming them to be
replicated, the person replicating it would most likely find the effects and interaction
effects that were found significant, significant as well. It is found by adding the grand
average to half of each effect value, while also taking any outside influence, (called
“noise”) into account. The grand average with each effect value, M being molarity, V
The parsimonious prediction equation only includes the effects that are
statistically significant, or least likely to occur by chance alone. In this case, those
effects that were statistically significant were only the factors individually. This equation
would reveal the results of the experiment if only the significant factors were taken into
account.
Interpretation:
It can be concluded that all individual factors, of HCl molarity, HCl volume, and
CaCO3 are statistically significant, while their interactions are not statistically significant,
in regards to its effect on the rate of reaction. After conducting the test of significance,
where |effect value| ≥ 2 * ROS in order for it to be significant, each individual effect
value was found to be greater than the doubled range of standards, whereas the
Filion - Gi - Mojica 28
interaction effects were not. Therefore, while the factors themselves were statistically
significant, the combined effects of each did not prove to be so. In context, this means
that only the individual factors had a significant effect on increasing the rate of the
Conclusion
The purpose of this experiment was to determine which factor, concentration of
hydrochloric acid, HCl, volume of HCl, or mass of calcium carbonate, CaCO3, affected
the rate of decomposition of CaCO3 the most through the use of a three-factor design of
experiment. The setup was designed to simulate the effect of acid rain on buildings.
Ultimately, the hypothesis that the largest concentration of HCl (6 M), the
greatest volume of HCl (15 mL), and the smallest mass (0.3 g) of CaCO3 powder (or the
(+,+,-) trial) will prove to have the highest rate of decomposition was not accepted.
Instead, it was concluded that the highest concentration of HCl (6 M), the largest
amount of HCl (15 mL), and the largest mass (0.7 g) of CaCO3 powder (or the (+,+,+)
trial) produced the fastest rate of decomposition instead. While the (+,+,-) trial was
found to have a rate of 2.6 mL/s, the (+,+,+) trial had a rate of 7.8 mL/s. The original
hypothesis was proved to be false because a larger mass equates to more surface area
for the HCl ions to collide with the CaCO3 ions, leading to more reactability between the
two substances.
From a scientific standpoint, it is logical that the effect of HCl molarity was
significant in regards to the rate of decomposition, meaning that the outcome from the
molarity did not occur by chance alone. This is because the increase of the
concentration of hydrogen ions would easily make the liquid more acidic, thus allowing it
Carbonate). A higher concentration correlates with a higher number of ions, and a large
number of HCl ions allows for more reactability between the HCl and CaCO 3. Due to
more particles available to collide amongst each other, a faster rate of reaction is the
Filion - Gi - Mojica 30
result. This can be seen in the mean (+,+,+) reaction, where the molarity of HCl was 6,
which led to a faster rate of reaction of 7.8 mL/s as compared to the mean (-,-,-)
reaction, where the molarity of HCl was 2, resulting in a slower rate of reaction of 0.50
mL/s.
The volume of HCl is another factor that proved to be significant because having
a larger volume of HCl allows for more moles of acid to react with CaCO3. For example,
if the volume of HCl is lower, then there would be less acid to react with the powder,
and in some cases could lead to having an amount of CaCO3 that did not react. This is
because the surface area of the CaCO3 was far too large compared to the surface area
of the HCl. Thus, the rate of reaction is affected since a lower amount of gas released
compared to a higher volume of acid makes for a lower value. This can be seen in the
interaction between CaCO3 mass and HCl volume (see Figure 7 in Data Analysis and
Interpretation), which indicates that an increase in HCl volume and CaCO3 mass results
in a higher rate of reaction in comparison to a lower HCl volume and CaCO3 mass.
factor because as the mass increases, the increased amount of CaCO3 powder makes
for a larger surface area. Increasing the surface area of the CaCO3 leads to an increase
in the collision between the CaCO3 ions and the hydrogen ions, which results in an
increased rate of reaction, as per the collision theory. There would also be an increase
in gas release, which correlates directly with the rate of decomposition of the CaCO3
Some design flaws in the process included the timing in which the volume of gas
released was recorded, the syringe and stopper setup, and the CaCO3 amount.
Measuring the amount of gas released relied on someone placing a stopper inside of
Filion - Gi - Mojica 31
the Erlenmeyer flask immediately after the HCl was added to initiate the reaction.
Allowing even the slightest amount of gas to escape the flask led to an inconsistent
collection of CO2. Maintaining a quick pace in replacing the stopper and syringe setup
outside factors, the stopper may not have been placed into the flask quick enough, thus
possibly missing a part of the reaction. Additionally, the amounts of CaCO3 proved to
be significant in the experiment, yet there were some cases where the ratio between the
HCl and CaCO3 was too large that there was not enough HCl and too much remaining
CaCO3. That showed a potential of the HCl missing a complete reaction, for the surface
In order to improve this experiment, a few changes can be made. First, a closed
system can be used to ensure that no CO2 gas escapes from the reaction. This can
include using a single syringe containing the HCl and injecting the acid into the flask
with the CaCO3. To record the data, the CO2 gas product of the reaction would
accumulate in the same syringe. The volume of HCl and and mass of CaCO 3 can also
be altered to ensure complete reactions between the HCl and CaCO3. For further
research, experiments can involve actual acid rain, which include solutions of sulfuric
and nitric acids, instead. It would still be used to test their effects on building materials,
such as CaCO3, to determine the long term quality and durability of building structures,
In previous research, the correlation between rate of reaction and the molarity of
HCl coincided with the data collected in this experiment, where the molarity of HCl
Carbonate). It is logical that the rate of reaction value is higher for trials with a high
Filion - Gi - Mojica 32
molarity. This is because as the molarity of HCl increases, the number of hydrogen ions
increases as the HCL ionizes and liberates these ions. Thus, it increases the collisions
between hydrogen and CaCO3 ions, which lead to an increase of gas released. With
more gas released, the rate of reaction will prove to be higher. Therefore, results from
Overall, this experiment benefits the real world from an infrastructural standpoint.
By analyzing the factors that were found to be statistically significant (all individual
factors), building industries can create materials that are resistant to the damage
caused by acid rain. Additionally, architectural engineers and designers can learn to
avoid materials like limestone and marble, which contain high levels of CaCO 3, and
therefore are more likely to decompose when exposed to acid rain. Also, with the
results revealed, the damaging effects of acid rain can be made clear to the general
public.
Filion - Gi - Mojica 33
59 𝑚𝐿
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 = = 3.3 𝑚𝐿/𝑠
18 𝑠
Figure 1A. Rate of Reaction
The rate of reaction is the amount of gas released in milliliters over the time it
took to get to that amount in seconds. This process was repeated for each individual
trial, and then the mean rate of reaction for each different trial throughout the three
DOEs was found. For example, the rate of reaction of the first standard in the first DOE
was found by substituting the amount of gas released and the time into the rate of
reaction equation, as shown above. This calculation was necessary because the data
released to determine the rate of reaction. To measure the volume of gas released, a
Materials:
2. Screw the 140 mL syringe into the stopcock, setting stopcock to open position.
3. Insert syringe adapter firmly into the stopper and connect the adapter to the
stopcock.
4. Screw buret clamp to support stand and attach to 125 mL Erlenmeyer flask.
6. Quickly and firmly place stopper and syringe into the flask ensuring no leaks.
Filion - Gi - Mojica 35
The design of the logo above was created to illustrate the decomposition reaction
of calcium carbonate with hydrochloric acid. The jagged lines towards the bottom
represent the calcium carbonate powder, and the circular bubbles represent the CO 2
gas released as a product of the reaction of hydrochloric acid and calcium carbonate.
Filion - Gi - Mojica 36
Appendix D: Randomization
Materials:
TI-nspire CX Calculator
Procedure:
9. Continue pressing enter until all numbers appear and there is an order for one of
the trials.
10. Assign the numbers to the respective trials in the order presented on the
calculator (i.e. “8”: (+,+,+), “5”: (-,-,-)).
Works Cited
"Collision Theory - Chemistry | Socratic." Socratic.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar.
2017. <https://socratic.org/chemistry/chemical-kinetics/collision-theory>.
Filion - Gi - Mojica 37
"GCSE Bitesize Science - Strong and Weak Acids : Revision." BBC. BBC, n.d.
Goldberger, Marvin L., and Kenneth M. Watson. Collision Theory. Mineola, NY:
"Impacts of Acid Rain on Buildings." Effects of Acid Rain on Buildings. N.p., n.d. Web.
18 May 2017.
"Kinetics 2." Khan Academy. Khan Academy, n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2017.
<https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/chem-kinetics>.
Print.