Laboratory Experiment

Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Exploring the Phases of Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect

in an Introductory Chemistry Laboratory
Jessica C. D’eon,* Jennifer A. Faust,† C. Scott Browning, and Kristine B. Quinlan
Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto, 80 St George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3H6, Canada
*
S Supporting Information

ABSTRACT: A safe and inexpensive laboratory for a first-year general

chemistry course has been developed which allows students to explore
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

important properties of carbon dioxide, particularly its behavior as a greenhouse

gas. Students witness and measure air displacement to compare calculated gas
Downloaded via WESTERN SYDNEY UNIV on January 11, 2019 at 22:57:46 (UTC).

densities and pressures inside a CO2-filled balloon with those of the surrounding
air; because the balloon is permeable to CO2, students can determine the
average rate of CO2 loss from the balloon. A loosely sealed centrifuge tube
containing dry ice allows students to briefly observe liquid CO2 and to map that
experience onto the phase diagram of CO2 discussed in lecture. Students
simulate the ability of CO2 to act as a greenhouse gas by measuring differences
in heat retention in the presence and absence of a CO2-enriched atmosphere
within an open beaker containing gravel that serves as a model Earth system.
Student reflections indicate substantial gains in a more scientifically rigorous
understanding of the role of greenhouse gases in the heating of the atmosphere.
KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Environmental Chemistry, Laboratory Instruction,
Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Misconceptions/Discrepant Events, Atmospheric Chemistry, Gases, Kinetic-Molecular Theory,
Phases/Phase Transitions/Diagrams, Public Understanding/Outreach

■ INTRODUCTION
The chemistry laboratory is considered a fundamental aspect
of chemistry education.1−3 Laboratory curriculum is set by
instructors to provide students with practical scientific
experience that will build the students’ knowledge base and
hone their hands-on skills.4,5 However, despite these best
intentions, learning in the chemistry laboratory, particularly in
an introductory general chemistry course, can be hindered by
anxiety related to time constraints and grades.6−9 In an attempt
to alleviate some of these anxieties, a concerted effort has been
This simple low-cost laboratory is an easy way to introduce
this content into an often crowded first-year curriculum.
Having students measure an increase in temperature with an
increase in greenhouse gas concentration has a tangible “wow
factor” that clearly communicates the importance of green-
house gases on the climate system. In the first part of the
laboratory, students explore important qualitative and
quantitative aspects of gas behavior and phase changes using
dry ice as a convenient gas source. These topics fit well with
the early part of the general chemistry curriculum, and the use
of dry ice excites and engages students.

made to design laboratories at the beginning of the curriculum
that are fun and topical, with an emphasis on exploring the
phenomenon in question with less pressure to make accurate
measurements and calculate graded quantities.
Climate change is a key environmental issue facing the world
today. The next generation of decision-makers and innovators
can be enabled to combat climate change by providing them
with a scientifically accurate understanding of the climate
system. It is well-established that students enter university with
a fragmented understanding of climate science.10,11 As a result,
students often create mental models surrounding the climate
system that bring several pieces of evidence together but, as a
whole, are not scientifically sound.12−16 Embedding climate
science into a first-year chemistry curriculum is an effective
way to engage a large number of students and battle these
misconceptions at the beginning of the students’ university
science career.
© XXXX American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
■
EXPERIMENTAL OVERVIEW AND PEDAGOGICAL
GOALS
This 3 h, cost-effective experiment,17 using typical laboratory
glassware, a retort stand, and a thermometer together with a
100 W incandescent light bulb, has been running successfully
in the one-semester general chemistry course entitled
“Chemistry: Physical Principles” at the University of Toronto
since the Fall of 2016, with over 3500 students moving through
the first-year curriculum in this time. High school chemistry is
the only expected preparation for students entering this class.
Results described here were collected from the Winter 2018
iteration of the class, with an initial course enrollment of
Received: May 18, 2018
Revised: November 9, 2018
A DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00373
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
approximately 820 students. Students perform the experiment
in pairs with one teaching assistant overseeing a group of 24
students or less. This experiment is the second of five
experiments in the laboratory curriculum and is separated into
two parts.
In Part A, simple manipulations and exercises involving dry
ice are introduced to achieve the following learning goals with
both qualitative and quantitative objectives:
1. Students should recognize phase changes, including the
effect of both temperature and pressure on phase state,
and interpret phase diagrams.
2. Students should be able to use experimental mass
measurements together with the ideal gas law to
calculate gas pressure and density, and they should be
able to evaluate their calculations with respect to their
physical significance and laboratory observations.
3. Students should develop their sense of scale by
describing changes in mass in terms of numbers of
molecules.
The full, detailed procedure is available in the Supporting
Information. Briefly, students first place small pieces of dry ice
in warm water to observe its sublimation at ambient pressure
and then place dry ice pieces in a sealed centrifuge tube to
observe melting at elevated pressure (Part A learning objective
1). Previously reported experiments have used CO2 to explore
phase diagrams18,19 and used liquid CO2 for extractions,20,21
and their procedures were modified for use in this experiment.
Mass measurements of the centrifuge tube alone and after all
CO2 was transformed into gas allowed students to use the ideal
gas law to calculate an approximate pressure inside the tube
and see for themselves whether it was consistent with the
minimum pressure required to achieve the liquid state
according to the phase diagram of CO2 (Part A learning
objectives 1 and 2). These practices also effectively prepare
students for working with dry ice to deliver CO2 gas by
sublimation when exploring the greenhouse gas effect in Part
B.
Next, students add small pieces of dry ice to an empty
balloon and take a mass measurement as soon as the balloon is
tied. As the balloon inflates from the sublimation of CO2, air is
displaced from the balance pan, and to the surprise of some
students, the mass reported by the balance decreases! The
students take a second mass measurement of the balloon once
all of the CO2 has sublimed. These measurements establish the
mass of displaced air, and together with the circumference of
the (assumedly spherical) balloon, the density of air can be
calculated. Students also calculate the density of gas-phase CO2
using the initial mass of dry ice added and the volume of the
balloon (Part A learning objectives 1 and 2). Students measure
the change in mass approximately 10 min after complete
inflation of the balloon to quantitatively investigate an event
that every student has experienced outside of the lab (the
escape of gas from an inflated balloon) explicitly expressed
here in units of molecules per second (Part A learning
objective 3).
Part B of the experiment was designed to help students
develop a chemically accurate understanding of how green-
house gases warm the Earth. To this end, we developed three
learning objectives for this part of the laboratory and associated
activities, including use of online simulations, that we believe
facilitate the development of a clear mental model of the
greenhouse effect:
B DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00373
Laboratory Experiment
1. Students should be able to describe the principle of
blackbody radiation and contrast the electromagnetic
radiation emitted by the Sun versus that emitted by the
Earth in terms of their relevance for the greenhouse
effect.
2. Students should be able to describe the relationship
between photon energy (or frequency) and the
excitation energy (or frequency) of the molecule.
3. Students should be able to explain that collisional
relaxation of vibrating greenhouse gas molecules results
in an increase in the kinetic energy of the surrounding
gas molecules, resulting in a warmer atmosphere.
Students explore the greenhouse effect by measuring
temperature changes of a “beaker Earth” with and without
additional carbon dioxide added by dry ice sublimation (see
experimental setup shown in Figure 1 and full procedure in
Supporting Information). Students perform four trials
measuring the temperature change over 10 min as follows:
1. Heating from room temperature, lamp on, air-only
2. Heating from room temperature, lamp on, CO2-enriched
3. Cooling from elevated temperature, lamp off, air-only
4. Cooling from same elevated temperature as air-only,
lamp off, CO2-enriched
Our experimental setup differs in some keys ways from
previous demonstrations22−25 in order to address the stated
objectives. Keeping the beaker open to the air reinforces that
changes in greenhouse gas concentrations (carbon dioxide)
alone are responsible for observed differences in temperature
(Part B learning objectives 2 and 3), as opposed to the
trapping of convectively heated air as is the case in a physical
greenhouse, a common misconception.12−16 Exploring temper-
ature changes with (trials 1 and 2) and without (trials 3 and 4)
the lamp on allows us to extend our discussion beyond the
vibration of greenhouse gases to include different sources of
photons in the system (Part B learning objective 1). This focus
on photon source is a novel approach to guide students toward
a thorough and chemically accurate understanding of the
greenhouse effect. The use of dry ice as a source of carbon
dioxide is fun, easy, and safe compared to gas cylinders, and it
is more reliable than reactions of carbonate salts in aqueous
solution, where the phase changes of water complicate
temperature measurements. Finally, the use of plastic beakers
to simulate the Earth and its atmosphere, as opposed to
aquaria, makes implementation feasible in a large under-
graduate laboratory or as an outreach activity. The greenhouse
gas activity has been successfully used to teach a class of grade
six students about climate science.
Figure 1. Apparatus to study the greenhouse effect demonstrating
how CO2 is added to the “beaker Earth” using dry ice in an
Erlenmeyer flask immersed in a beaker of warm water. The beaker is
filled with carbon dioxide gas in approximately 30 s, and students
confirm the presence of CO2 by extinguishing a lit barbeque lighter.
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
■
HAZARDS
All parts of the experiment must be carried out wearing safety
goggles. Dry ice is extremely cold and, if inappropriately
handled, can cause cold burns or frostbite. Insulated gloves or
tongs should be used to handle the dry ice. The centrifuge
tubes are not airtight,26 so as the dry ice sublimes and pressure
in the tube builds, CO2 is slowly leaking out of the tube.
Nevertheless, the sealed centrifuge tubes filled with dry ice
remain a potential explosion hazard, and therefore, a plastic
container for the warm water bath is recommended. No such
explosions have occurred over the 1500 tubes used by students
since the experiment has been running. Students are also
explicitly directed to ensure that the tube is never pointed
toward themselves or other students. The heated water bath
should be handled with insulated gloves.
■ RESULTS AND PEDAGOGICAL OUTCOMES
The laboratory preparation, in-lab experiment, and report
writing work synergistically to guide students toward meeting
the learning outcomes. In Part A of the experiment, students
use dry ice to explore phase changes and the ideal gas law. In
the Winter of 2018, 63% of students reported successfully
observing liquid CO2 in their sealed centrifuge tubes. As
previously reported,20,21 the centrifuge tubes leak at higher
pressures, and thus, some tubes do not achieve pressures
necessary for liquid CO2; such troubleshooting issues are
addressed in the Supporting Information. Nevertheless, with
students working four pairs to a bench, all students had the
opportunity to observe this phase change during the course of
the experiment, if not in their own setup then in a neighbor’s.
Students were asked to correlate the observed formation of
liquid CO2 at elevated pressure and constant temperature of
the water bath to the liquid region of the phase diagram of
CO2. Students used mass measurements of the centrifuge tubes
to calculate the pressure inside and were asked the following
question: “Is the pressure inside the pressurized Falcon tube
enough to allow liquid CO2 to exist?” Sample student
responses provided in Table 1 demonstrate that students are
able to explain their experimental observations in light of the
phase diagram (Part A learning objectives 1 and 2).
Table 1. Calculated Pressure in Falcon Tube with
Corresponding Student Response
Calculated Sample Written Student Response to the Question: Is the
Pressure, Pressure inside the Pressurized Falcon Tube Enough To Allow
Atm Liquid CO2 To Exist?
4.50 “No, CO2 cannot exist as a liquid below 5.1 atm (triple point
P).”
7.28 “Yes, this pressure inside the Falcon tube is enough to allow
liquid CO2 because the triple point is 5.1 atm according to the
phase diagram of CO2 in the lab manual. 7.28 atm > 5.1 atm
so there’s enough pressure and since the tubes is in hot water
bath, the temperature paired with the pressure allow liquid
CO2 to exist which is exactly what we observed.”
Students were able to accurately measure and calculate that
air is less dense (mean Winter 2018: 1.31 ± 0.49 g/L; cf. 1.23
g/L at 15 °C27) than CO2(g) (mean Winter 2018: 2.30 ± 0.65
g/L; cf. 1.86 g/L at 15 °C28), using mass and volume
measurements of a CO 2-filled balloon. Students were
challenged to place the calculated density values in context
with their observations of the fog that results from the addition
of dry ice to a beaker of warm water. Sample responses are
provided in Table 2 and demonstrate the students’ ability to
C DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00373
Laboratory Experiment
Table 2. Calculated Air and CO2 Densities with
Corresponding Student Response
Calculated Sample Written Student Response to the Question: Does
Density, g/L the Calculated Difference in the Density of Air and
CO2(g) Agree with Your Observations When Dry Ice Was
CO2(g) Air Placed in Water?
2.26 1.23 “The calculated density of CO2 is greater than that of air
which makes sense because the CO2(g) spilled out of the
beaker and fell onto the counter, sinking below the less
dense air.”
2.25 1.39 “Yes, as when the dry ice sublimed and the gas left the
beaker of water, it flowed over the lab bench rather than
rising, since it is much denser than air as shown in the
experimental calculations.”
connect their in-lab measurements and gas law calculations to
the qualitative phase change behavior observed in the lab (Part
A learning objectives 1 and 2).
The rubber from which the balloon is made is not
impervious to the loss of CO2. By recording the mass of the
balloon 10 min after inflation is complete, the mass of CO2 lost
to leakage can be used to determine the rate of CO2 loss in
molecules per second. Values in Winter 2018 ranged from 3 ×
1016 to 2 × 1020 molecules per second. The idea that small
changes in mass are a result of a large number of CO2
molecules escaping the balloon is still not intuitive for many
of these introductory chemistry students (Part A learning
objective 3).
Part A of the experiment illustrates some important aspects
of gas behavior (pressure, displacement, effusion) and further
serves our objective of creating a fun and relevant learning
experience for students. The students enjoy working with the
dry ice and the measurements are robust. The calculations are
appropriately rigorous, and the results are meaningful.
In Part B of the experiment, students graph heating and
cooling curves for both air-only and CO2-enriched trials, an
example of which is shown in Figure 2. Because the output of
the different 100 W incandescent lightbulbs is not identical and
the concentration of carbon dioxide in the CO2 trials is not
fixed, we do not expect students to measure the same
temperature differences; rather, we are looking for students to
be convinced that carbon dioxide significantly increases the
heating and reduces the cooling of the system, and for them to
be able to explain the mechanism responsible for these
differences. In the heating curves, 98% of the Winter 2018
students saw more heating in the CO2-enriched trial than in
the air-only trial, with 94% of students measuring a difference
of 2 °C or greater and 89% a difference of 3 °C or greater.
When observing this temperature difference, students often
express their surprise and new appreciation for the effect of
greenhouse gases on climate. Temperature differences in the
cooling trials were, as expected, smaller, but still convincing.
85% of students saw greater cooling in the air-only trials with
67% of students measuring a difference of 0.5 °C or greater
(see Figures S1 and S2 in the Supporting Information).
Students are challenged to think about sources of photons in
the system and the effect of temperature on photon flux
through a comparison of the heating and cooling curves. When
the light bulb is on, it is responsible for the majority of the
photons present in the experimental system. This increase in
infrared photons is reflected by the larger temperature
difference between air-only and CO2-enriched trials in the
heating curves as compared to the cooling curves (Figure 2).
Students are asked to explain this difference in their reports.
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Laboratory Experiment

Two responses from the Winter 2018 semester are shown

below:
“The ΔT value of the heating curve is greater than the ΔT
of the cooling curve. This is because the lamp emits more
infrared photons than the gravel does. Also, during heating,
photons are being absorbed by the greenhouse gases (CO2)
as well as the gravel. While, during the cooling, fewer
photons are emitted and any photons not absorbed escape
the system resulting in low temperatures in both trials.”
“When heating, there are two sources of photons and
therefore heat energy. The lamp and the rocks are both
active but when the cooling trial runs, only the rocks can
emit radiation. Since there are more sources of photons in
the heating system, the temperature difference is greater.”
These student responses demonstrate a clear understanding of
photon sources and fluxes within the experimental setup.
Students are then asked to build upon this understanding to
the actual Earth−Sun system by commenting on the relevance
of incoming photons from the Sun versus outgoing photons
from the Earth to the greenhouse effect. Two responses from
the Winter 2018 semester are provided below:
“It depends more on absorption of outgoing photons because
it is these that, when trapped, lead to the greenhouse effect
or, if not absorbed, lead to cooling through their release. The
in-coming photons from the Sun that aren’t absorbed in the
atmosphere can be absorbed by the Earth, warming it in this
way separate from the greenhouse effect.”
“Greenhouse gases which are able to absorb outgoing
radiation from the Earth have a greater effect on climate.
This is because only a small fraction of the in-coming solar
radiation are at the IR wavelengths, but almost all the
energy the Earth radiates out is in the IR region. This
radiation when absorbed by the greenhouse gases, traps the Figure 2. Representative (a) heating and (b) cooling data from a pair
heat in the atmosphere and prevents it from being lost to of Winter 2018 students.
space. As a result, the Earth keeps receiving energy from the
Sun, but cannot lose it, leading to a temp increase.” Further analysis of these responses showed that, before the
The extensive prelab preparation, which includes exploration experiment, 21% of students conflate ozone depletion with the
of an online blackbody spectrum simulator29 (details in greenhouse effect and that 15% of students demonstrate a
Supporting Information), the design of the experiment itself, mental model that involves greenhouse gases causing solar
and the follow-up report questions leave students with a clear radiation to be reflected back into space or reflected back
and scientifically accurate mental model of relevant photon toward Earth. These particular misconceptions have been
fluxes within the Earth system (Part B learning objective 1). identified previously12−16 and could stem from a lack of
To further assess student learning gains and to provide understanding that photons are emitted from sources other
students with the opportunity to reflect on their learning, than the Sun. If the Sun is the only source of radiation, then
students were asked “How does the greenhouse effect warm increases in temperature could be explained by increased solar
the Earth?” before and after completing the experiment. The radiation entering the Earth system (ozone depletion) or a
responses were open-ended and not for credit. 581 students decrease in the ability of solar radiation to leave (“radiation
completed both the before and after reflections in Winter bouncing”). Our experiment specifically addresses this knowl-
2018. Representative student responses are given in Table 3. edge gap, which we identify in Part B learning objective 1, and
Prior to the experiment, many students respond to this its success in doing so is reflected in the postexperiment
question with relatively simple explanations that greenhouse responses where discussion of ozone and “radiation bouncing”
almost completely disappear.

gases trap heat without any detail of how this occurs. After
completion of the experiment, 87% of students had refined
their answer to give a more chemically accurate, often
particulate-level, mechanism of the greenhouse effect. 78% of
the postexperiment responses stated that greenhouse gases
absorb photons, and that this is the mechanism for warming of
the Earth. Almost half of the postexperiment responses
mentioned vibration of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse
gases. These responses are strong evidence that this laboratory
experience largely accomplishes Part B learning objectives 2
and 3.
D DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00373
■
CONCLUSIONS
This laboratory provides students with the opportunity to
explore the greenhouse effect and phases of carbon dioxide in a
series of fun and engaging exercises using dry ice. It was
developed for a one-semester general chemistry course with
high enrollment and few lab periods and could easily be
modified to serve other formats, such as a discovery-based
laboratory environment or as an outreach activity. Mass
measurements made before and after the sublimation of CO2
inside a balloon allow students to witness air displacement and
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Laboratory Experiment

to reflect upon their calculated values of relevant gas properties

photons and make them vibrate so creating kinetic energy. For this reason greenhouse gases warm the earth or don’t allow to cool properly.”
“The ozone layer, O3, is gradually thinning out. This layer serves as a protective “Greenhouse gas molecules increase Earth’s temperature because they vibrate at the same frequency as some of the infrared photons emitted by

frequency of the photon matches that of the greenhouse gas. When absorbed, the photon will cause the greenhouse gas molecule to vibrate,
“Radiation coming from the sun is reflected off the Earth’s surface. A percentage “Radiation from sun is absorbed by earth’s surface. Earth’s surface emits IR EMR [electromagnetic radiation] and this is absorbed by CO2

“The photons coming from the Earth’s surface can either escape into space or be absorbed by the green house gas, only if the vibrational
“When photons leave the earth and get lost so cool the earth, however when greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere, they capture these
such as pressure, density, and the rate of loss from the balloon

the Earth’s surface. Not all of Earth’s infrared photons are expelled to space since the CO2 molecules absorb them. Thus, the Earth’s
due to its permeability. Students safely observe the liquid state

increasing the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the atmosphere, thus increasing the temperature and warming the Earth.”
of CO2 in a pressurized centrifuge tube and relate its (fleeting)
existence to their calculated value of the pressure inside the
tube. In studying its greenhouse effect, a simple, yet realistic,
experimental setup (Figure 1) provides students with reliable
and reproducible results to examine the impact of increased
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. The prelab prepara-
tion, the designed exercises with “beaker Earth”, and the
associated report questions collectively guide students to
consider the relative importance of the two major infrared
Corresponding Response after Completion of the Experiment

sources that contribute to the warming of the atmosphere.

Comparison of pre- and postlab reflections show that 87% of
students obtain a more refined, chemically relevant under-
standing of the phenomenon upon completion of the
laboratory.

■
Sample Student Responses to the Question: How Does the Greenhouse Effect Warm the Earth?

ASSOCIATED CONTENT
*
S Supporting Information

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS

Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00373.
Additional details related to data collection and analysis,
laboratory instructions to students and teaching
Table 3. Comparison of Sample Paired-Student Responses before and after Completing the Experiment

assistants, student report sheet, and student self-

reflection exercise (PDF, DOCX)
molecules which vibrate and gain energy.”

Excel spreadsheet to simplify teaching assistant grading

(XLSX)

■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
temperature increases.”

*E-mail: jessica.deon@utoronto.ca.
ORCID
Jessica C. D’eon: 0000-0001-7448-8828
Jennifer A. Faust: 0000-0002-2574-7579
Present Address
†
Department of Chemistry, College of Wooster, 943 College
field against the sun’s rays and as this layer is thinning out, more of the sun’s

Mall, Wooster, Ohio 44691, USA.

of the reflected radiation is bounced back to Earth and another is lost. The

“Gases are trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere, warming up the Earth. These

Notes
heat and radiation reaches the earth’s surface and warms up the earth.”

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
“Gases keep the light from the sun inside the ozone layer.”

The authors thank undergraduate students Bessie Xue, Labib

Response before the Experiment

Chowdry, and Bianca Bird who helped optimize the

experimental procedure through the Research Opportunities
Program at the University of Toronto. They also thank
bounced back radiation warms the Earth.”

laboratory technician Rudolf Furrer and laboratory coordinator

Dr. Marvin Morales for help with laboratory implementation
and useful discussions. J.A.F. acknowledges the Chemistry
gases often arise from pollution.”

Teaching Fellows Program in the Department of Chemistry at

the University of Toronto for funding.

■ REFERENCES
(1) Hofstein, A.; Lunetta, V. N. The Laboratory in Science
Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century. Sci. Educ.
2004, 88 (1), 28−54.
(2) Hofstein, A.; Mamlok-Naaman, R. The Laboratory in Science
Education: The State of the Art. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8 (2),
105.

E DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00373
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Laboratory Experiment

(3) Reid, N.; Shah, I. The Role of Laboratory Work in University Radiation and Greenhouse Gases. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (11),
Chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8 (2), 172−185. 1908−1915.
(4) Bruck, A. D.; Towns, M. Development, Implementation, and (25) Beyond Benign. Global Warming and Greenhouse Gas
Analysis of a National Survey of Faculty Goals for Undergraduate Experiment. https://www.beyondbenign.org/lessons/global-
Chemistry Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 685−693. warming-greenhouse-gas-experiment/ (accessed Oct 2018).
(5) Bruck, L. B.; Towns, M.; Bretz, S. L. Faculty Perspectives of (26) As recommended in McKenzie et al. (ref 20), the centrifuge
Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratory: Goals and Obstacles to tubes used in this experiment were Corning part 430052.
Success. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (12), 1416−1424. (27) Calculated with the ideal gas law using the following assigned
(6) Galloway, K. R.; Bretz, S. L. Measuring Meaningful Learning in mean conditions of dry air at sea level: P = 101,325 Pa, T = 15 °C,
the Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratory: A National, Cross- Rdryair = 287.058 Pa L/(g K).
Sectional Study. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (12), 2006−2018. (28) Calculated with the ideal gas law assuming a molecular weight
(7) Galloway, K. R.; Malakpa, Z.; Bretz, S. L. Investigating Affective of 44.01 g/mol for carbon dioxide and the following conditions at sea
Experiences in the Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratory: Students’ level: P = 101,325 Pa, T = 15 °C.
Perceptions of Control and Responsibility. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (29) PhET. Blackbody Spectrum. https://phet.colorado.edu/en/
(2), 227−238. simulation/blackbody-spectrum (accessed Oct 2018).
(8) DeKorver, B. K.; Towns, M. H. Upper-Level Undergraduate
Chemistry Students’ Goals for Their Laboratory Coursework. J. Res.
Sci. Teach. 2016, 53 (8), 1198−1215.
(9) DeKorver, B. K.; Towns, M. H. General Chemistry Students’
Goals for Chemistry Laboratory Coursework. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92
(12), 2031−2037.
(10) Shepardson, D. P.; Choi, S.; Niyogi, D.; Charusombat, U.
Seventh Grade Students’ Mental Models of the Greenhouse Effect.
Environ. Educ. Res. 2011, 17 (1), 1−17.
(11) Shepardson, D. P.; Niyogi, D.; Choi, S.; Charusombat, U.
Students’ Conceptions about the Greenhouse Effect, Global
Warming, and Climate Change. Clim. Change 2011, 104 (3−4),
481−507.
(12) Gautier, C.; Deutsch, K.; Rebich, S. Misconceptions About the
Greenhouse Effect. J. Geosci. Educ. 2006, 54 (May), 386−395.
(13) Kerr, S. C.; Walz, K. A. “Holes” in Student Understanding:
Addressing Prevalent Misconceptions Regarding Atmospheric Envi-
ronmental Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (10), 1693−1696.
(14) McNeal, K. S.; Spry, J. M.; Mitra, R.; Tipton, J. L. Measuring
Student Engagement, Knowledge, and Perceptions of Climate Change
in an Introductory Environmental Geology Course. J. Geosci. Educ.
2014, 62 (4), 655−667.
(15) Versprille, A. N.; Towns, M. H. General Chemistry Students
Understanding of Climate Change and the Chemistry Related to
Climate Change. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (4), 603−609.
(16) Versprille, A.; Zabih, A.; Holme, T. A.; McKenzie, L.; Mahaffy,
P.; Martin, B.; Towns, M. Assessing Student Knowledge of Chemistry
and Climate Science Concepts Associated with Climate Change:
Resources To Inform Teaching and Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94
(4), 407−417.
(17) The cost of consumables, including balloons, dry ice, and
periodic replacement of centrifuge tubes is approximately $0.80 per
student.
(18) Lieu, V. T. A Simple Experiment for Demonstration of Phase
Diagram of Carbon Dioxide. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73 (9), 837.
(19) Andrews, L.; Smith, W. L. The Liquid Phase of Carbon
Dioxide: A Simple Demonstration. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66 (7), 597−
598.
(20) McKenzie, L. C.; Thompson, J. E.; Sullivan, R.; Hutchison, J. E.
Green Chemical Processing in the Teaching Laboratory: A
Convenient Liquid CO2 Extraction of Natural Products. Green
Chem. 2004, 6 (8), 355−358.
(21) Bodsgard, B. R.; Lien, N. R.; Waulters, Q. T. Liquid CO2
Extraction and NMR Characterization of Anethole from Fennel Seed:
A General Chemistry Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (2), 397−
400.
(22) Adelhelm, M.; Hohn, E.-G. A Simple Demonstration of the
Greenhouse Effect. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70 (1), 73−74.
(23) Lueddecke, S. B.; Pinter, N.; McManus, S. A. Greenhouse
Effect in the Classroom: A Project- and Laboratory-Based
Curriculum. J. Geosci. Educ. 2001, 49 (3), 274−279.
(24) Bruce, M. R. M.; Wilson, T. A.; Bruce, A. E.; Bessey, S. M.;
Flood, V. J. A Simple, Student-Built Spectrometer to Explore Infrared

F DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00373
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX