Experiment One

KINETICS: INITIAL RATES METHOD

Introduction: State the purpose of the experiment (one paragraph).

This experiment explored kinetics and the initial rate method and had two main objectives.
The first aim of the experiment was to investigate the kinetics of the reaction between the
persulphate and iodide ions given by the stoichiometric equation:
S2O82- + 3I- ⇌ 2 SO42- + I3- (1)
The second aim of this experiment was to then apply the initial rates method to equation 1
as a means to determine the order of reaction for the reactants S 2O82- and I- and hence the
overall reaction order, to determine the rate constant, and finally, to determine the overall
rate law for the reaction.

Experimental: Include a short general description of the experiment as well as the details for
preparation of the K2S2O8 solution (one paragraph).
13.51 g of solid K2S2O8 was weighed. This was the required amount to make 500 mL of a
0.1 M K2S2O8 solution. A magnetic stirrer was used to dissolve the solid in approximately
400 mL of distilled water in a beaker. Once the solid had dissolved, the solution was
transferred to a 500 mL volumetric flask. The beaker was rinsed with water and poured
into the flask to ensure all the solution was removed from the beaker, and the flask was
then made up to the mark. The solution was mixed gently by tuning the flask.
9 reaction vessels and 9 conical flasks were collected and labelled 1 to 9 for the
corresponding 9 runs.
5 mL of Na2S2O3 solution using a pipette, 1 mL of starch solution, V A mL of KI solution,
VB mL of KNO3 solution using a burette, and 1 drop of 0.1 M EDTA using a glass dropper
was added to each of the 9 reaction vessels (the volumes of solutions VA and VB varied
according to Table 1). The EDTA was added to remove any metal ions which may have
had a catalytic effect.
VC mL of K2S2O8 solution using a volumetric pipette and V D mL of K2SO4 solution using a
burette was added to each of the 9 conical flask (the volumes of solutions V C and VD varied
according to Table 1).
The reaction vessels and their accompanying conical flasks were placed in a water bath of
approximately 30°C and allowed to thermally equilibrate for approximately 10 minutes.
The stirrer was placed in the reaction vessel and started. The conical flask solution
containing the K2S2O8 was quickly added to the accompanying reaction vessel through the
side-arm and the timer was started. The timer was stopped when the solution turned blue,
and the time t and temperature were recorded. This was repeated for all subsequent runs.

Table 1: Volumes of reagents for each experimental run.

Run Reaction vessel Conical flask
0.1 M KI VA 0.1 M KNO3 VB 0.1 M K2S2O8 VC 0.1 M K2SO4 VD
(mL) (mL) (mL) (mL)
1 25 - 25 -
2 25 - 20 5
3 25 - 15 10
4 25 - 10 15
5 25 - 5 20
6 20 5 25 -
 7 15 10 25 -
8 10 15 25 -
9 5 20 25 -

Results (determination of initial rates and initial reagent concentrations):

Calculate the initial rate, R0, for each run using equation 4. Include an example calculation.
Calculate the initial concentrations of S2O82 and I. Include example calculations. Prepare a
table listing each run, the times recorded, the temperature recorded, the initial rate calculated,
the initial concentrations calculated as well as the values for logR0, log[S2O82]0 and log[I]0.
All sample calculations have been undertaken on the results for Run 1.

Initial rate, R0:

[ Na2 S2 O3 ]stock solution=0.005 M
V Na S O =0.005 L
2 2 3

V A +V B +V C +V D +V Na S O +V EDTA 25+0+ 0+25+5+1

V total= = 2 2 3
=0.056 L
1000 1000
t run1=17.93 s
Using Equation 4:
1
⇒ R0 = dn ¿ ¿⇒ R0 , run1=1.2 ×10−5 mol L−1 s−1
2

log(R0):
⇒ log ( R 0 )=log10 ( 1.2× 10−5 ) =−4.9

Initial concentration of S2O82-:

V C , K S O =0.025 L
2 2 8

[ K 2 S 2 O8 ]stock solution=0.1 M
V total=0.056 L
⇒¿¿
⇒¿¿

log[S2O82-]0:
⇒ log ¿ ¿ ¿

Initial concentration of I-:

V A ,KI =0.025 L
[ KI ] stock solution=0.1 M
V total=0.056 L
⇒¿¿
⇒¿¿

log[I-]0:
⇒ log ¿ ¿ ¿

Summarised table of information:

Table 2: Initial rate and reagent concentrations and their subsequent logarithms.
Ru Time, Temperature, T Initial Rate, log(R0) [S2O82-] log[S2O82-] [I-] log[I-]
-1 -1
n t (s) (°C) R0 (mol L s ) (M) (M)
 1 30.1 0.04
17.93 1.2×10-5 -4.9 0.045 -1.4 5 -1.4
2 30.1 0.04
24.31 9. 2×10-6 -5.0 0.036 -1.4 5 -1.4
3 30.1 0.04
32.91 6.8×10-6 -5.2 0.027 -1.6 5 -1.4
4 30.1 0.04
51.85 4.3×10-6 -5.4 0.018 -1.7 5 -1.4
5 30.1 0.04
100.35 2.2×10-6 -5.7 0.009 -2.0 5 -1.4
6 30.1 0.03
23.25 9.6×10-6 -5.0 0.045 -1.4 6 -1.4
7 30.1 0.02
32.84 6.8×10-6 -5.2 0.045 -1.4 7 -1.6
8 30.1 0.01
44.84 5.0×10-6 -5.3 0.045 -1.4 8 -1.7
9 30.1 0.00
99.21 2.3×10-6 -5.6 0.045 -1.4 9 -2.0

Results (determination of the orders of reaction):

Consider the runs where the [S2O82]0 is varied but the [I]0 is held constant, and make a plot
of log R0 versus log[S2O82]0. Consider the runs where the [I]0 is varied but the [S2O82]0 is
held constant, and make a plot of log R0 versus log[I]0. Evaluate the error in the slope of each
plot. From the information gained and using equation 6, estimate the order of the reaction
with respect to S2O82 and I. The order should be expressed as an integer value and the error
in the value should be given.
Determining the order of reaction:
Graphs of log(R0) vs. log[S2O82-]0 (Figure 1) and log(R0) vs. log[I-]0 (Figure 2) were plotted
as a means to determine the order of reaction for each reactant. In Figure 1, the [S 2O82]0 is
varied but the [I]0 is held constant, and alternatively in Figure 2, the [I ]0 is varied but the
[S2O82]0 is held constant.

Order of Reactant (S2O82-): log(R0) vs. log[S2O82-]0

-4.4
-2.1 -2.0 -1.9 -1.8 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3
-4.6

-4.8
log(R0)

f(x) = 1.06 x − 3.49 -5.0

R² = 1
-5.2

-5.4

-5.6

-5.8

log[S2O82-]0

Figure 1: Order of Reactant (S2O82-): log(R0) vs. log[S2O82-]0.

 Order of Reactant (I-): log(R0) vs. log[I-]0
-4.7
-2.1 -2.0 -1.9 -1.8 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4
-4.8
-4.9
-5.0
f(x) = 1.03 x − 3.53 -5.1
log(R0)

R² = 0.99
-5.2
-5.3
-5.4
-5.5
-5.6
-5.7

log[I-]0

Figure 2: Order of Reactant (I-): log(R0) vs. log[I-]0.

Error in the slope:

The Linest model function on Excel was used to calculate the error within the slopes of
each graph.
⇒ Error Figure 1 : log ( R ) vs . log¿ ¿¿
0

⇒ Error Figure 2 : log ( R ) vs . log¿ ¿¿

0

Order of the reaction with respect to S2O82 and I:

Using Equation 6:
log ( R0 ) =log ( k ) +nlog ¿ ¿
Hence, a linear relationship is developed when log(R 0) is plotted against log[S2O82-]0 and
the gradient of the plot determines the value n, otherwise known as the order of the reactant
S2O82-. As such, a linear relationship is also developed when log(R 0) is plotted against
log[I-]0 and the gradient of the plot determines the value m, otherwise known as the order
of the reactant I-.
The experimental order and integer order of the reaction with respect to S 2O82 and I, as
well as their accompanying error have been outlined in Table 3.

Table 3: The experimental order and integer order of the reaction with respect to S2O82 and I, as well as
their accompanying error.
Reactant Experimental Order Integer Order Error
S2O82- 1.0607 (¿ n) 1 ±0.0347
I- 1.0278 (¿ m) 1 ±0.0532
Overall Reaction 2.0885 2 ±0.0879
Results (determination of the rate constant and the rate law):
From the order of reaction for S2O82 and I as well as the initial rate, R0, calculate the rate
constant for each run. Include an example calculation. Find the average value as well as the
standard deviation. Calculate the ionic strength of your solutions and calculate the average
temperature as well as the standard deviation. Based on your findings; write the overall rate
law for the reaction.
All sample calculations have been undertaken on the results for Run 1.

Rate constant, k:
Using Equation 5:
R0 =k ¿ ¿ ¿
Given that n=1 and m=1:
R0 =k ¿ ¿
R0
k = ¿ ¿¿
1.2× 10−5
⇒ k=
−1 −1
=0.0062 M s
0.045 ×0.045

Percentage error in the rate constant, k:

k theoretical=0.0042 M −1 s−1
k experimental[ 4 ] =0.0062 M −1 s−1
k −k 0.0062−0.0042
⇒ Error= experimental theoretical ×100 %= ×100 %=47 %
k theoretical 0.0042

Average and standard deviation of the rate constant, k:

The average k value and standard deviation of k were calculated in Excel using the
AVERAGE and STDEV functions, respectively:
⇒ k average=0.0058 M −1 s−1
⇒ k standard deviation=0.0003 M −1 s−1

Ionic strength, I:
Using Equation 7:
1
I = ∑ c i z i2
2 i
Table 4 outlines the concentrations, c i and charges, z i of the species considered.
Given that Run 1 contained Na2S2O3, KI, and K2S2O8:
1
⇒ I = ( ( 0.00089 ×1 ) + ( 0.00045 × 4 )+ ( 0.045× 1 )+ ( 0.045× 1 )+ ( 0.089× 1 ) +(0.045 × 4) )
2
⇒ I =0.18 M

Table 4: The species considered for the ionic strength as well as their accompanying concentrations and
charges.
Substance Species Concentration, c i (M) Charge, z i Charge2, z i2
Na2S2O3 Na+ 0.00089 +1 1
S2O32- 0.00045 -2 4
KI K+ 0.045 +1 1
I- 0.045 -1 1
KNO3 K+ 0 +1 1
 NO3- 0 -1 1
K2S2O8 K+ 0.089 +1 1
S2O82- 0.045 -2 4
K2SO4 K+ 0 +1 1
SO42- 0 -2 4

Average and standard deviation of the ionic strength, I:

The average I value and standard deviation of I were calculated in Excel using the
AVERAGE and STDEV functions, respectively:
⇒ I average=0.18 M
⇒ I standard deviation =0 M

Average and standard deviation of the temperature, T:

All runs were undertaken at a temperature of 30.1 °C. As such, the average T value and
standard deviation of T were calculated in Excel using the AVERAGE and STDEV
functions, respectively:
⇒ T average=30.1 ° C
⇒ T standard deviation =0 ° C

Summarised table of information:

Table 5: Rate constant, percentage error, ionic strength and their subsequent averages and standard
deviations for each run.
Run Rate constant, k (M-1 s-1) Error (%) Ionic Strength, I (M)
1 0.0062 47 0.18
2 0.0058 36 0.18
3 0.0057 34 0.18
4 0.0054 27 0.18
5 0.0056 32 0.18
6 0.0060 42 0.18
7 0.0057 34 0.18
8 0.0062 47 0.18
9 0.0056 33 0.18
Average 0.0058 37 0.18
Standard Deviation 0.0003 - 0

OVERALL RATE LAW FOR THE REACTION:

Based on the above findings of reactant orders and rate constants, the overall rate law for
the reaction can be written as:
R0 =0.0058 M −1 s−1 ¿ ¿
It can be noted that the order of each reactant is 1, subsequently pertaining to the overall
reaction order of 2.
Discussion Section: You must state the overall (main) outcome of the experiment (e.g. the
order with respect to each species in the rate law and the value for the rate constant).
Compare your measured rate constant, k, with a literature value and comment on accuracy
and precision (take into account any differences in ionic strength and/or temperature and
errors calculated). Discuss sources of error and take into account how these might affect your
observed rate constant.
Overall outcome of the experiment:
This experiment explored kinetics and the initial rate method for the reaction between the
persulphate and iodide ions given in Equation 1:
S2O82- + 3I- ⇌ 2 SO42- + I3- (1)
As such, the experiment aimed to determine the order of reaction for each reactant (S 2O82-
and I-), the overall order of reaction, the rate constant, and the overall rate law for the
reaction.

In order to do this, nine runs were conducted whereby five of the runs varied the [S 2O82]0
whilst keeping the [I]0 constant, and the subsequent four runs varied the [I ]0 whilst
holding the [S2O82]0 constant. This experimental design allowed the data to be manipulated
so that the order of each reactant, the rate constant, and the overall rate law for the reaction
could be calculated. The objectives of the experiment were successfully achieved and both
orders of reactants were found to be approximately 1 (closest integer value) – leading to a
subsequent second order reaction – and the average rate constant was found to be
0.0058 M-1 s-1. This produced an experimental rate law of:
R0 =0.0058 M −1 s−1 ¿ ¿.

Obtaining the overall rate law:

The overall rate law was obtained via a series of calculations, graphs, and manipulations.
Firstly, after completing the experimental procedure and obtaining the raw data, initial rate
for each run was calculated using Equation 4. Then, using the relationship between
concentration, the number of moles, and the volume, the initial concentrations of both
S2O82and Iwere found. These values and their subsequent logarithms have been outlined
in Table 2. This data then allowed for a graph of log(R0) vs. log[S2O82-]0 (Figure 1) and a
graph of log(R0) vs. log[I-]0 (Figure 2) to be plotted as a means to determine the order of
reaction for each reactant.

The initial rate method utilises the fact that if the reactant concentrations remain effectively
constant, the initial rate can be expressed as[5]:
R0 =k ¿ ¿ ¿ (5)

As such, given that all the values of R0, S2O8 and I have been calculated, the log of
2

Equation 5 can be taken to arrive at the equation[5]:

log ( R0 ) =log ( k ) +nlog ¿ ¿ (6)

Hence using Equation 6, because the [S2O82]0 is varied but the [I]0 is held constant in
Figure 1, a linear relationship is developed whereby the gradient of the graph of log(R 0) vs.
log[S2O82-]0 determined the value n, otherwise known as the order of the reactant S 2O82- [5].
As such, applying Equation 6 to Figure 2 where the [I ]0 is varied but the [S2O82]0 is held
constant, a linear relationship is also developed when log(R 0) is plotted against log[I-]0 and
the gradient of the plot determined the value m, otherwise known as the order of the
reactant I- [5].
In this experiment, the orders of S2O82and Iwere found to be 1.0607±0.0347 and 1.0278±
0.0532, respectively (these errors were determined using the Linest function on Excel).
However, because reactant orders are presented as integer values the above orders were
rounded to the nearest integer of 1, giving an overall 2 nd order reaction between the
persulphate and iodide ions.

In order to obtain the overall rate law, Equation 5 was manipulated to find the rate
constant, k, of each run, as well as the average rate constant of the nine runs [5]. Finally,
from the reactant orders and average rate constant found, the overall rate law was
established to be:
R0 =0.0058 M −1 s−1 ¿ ¿.

Accuracy and precision:

The R2 values in Figures 1 and 2 were 0.9968 and 0.9947, respectively. The fact that these
values are extremely close to 1 indicates precision in the obtained data and highlight
confidence that the determined reactant orders are an accurate representation of the data.
These reactant orders of reactions also support the hypothesised orders of 1 as seen in
literature [4]. Due to obtaining non-integer orders it was clear that there were minor errors
riddled throughout the experiment. However, these associated errors can be deemed
insignificant as orders of 1 were determined for each reactant on rounding.

The average rate constant over the nine runs was calculated to be 0.0058 M -1 s-1 with an
accompanying standard deviation of 0.0003 M-1 s-1. The proximity of the standard
deviation to zero thus indicates precise data and that an accurate representation of the rate
constant can be given by its average.

The effect of changes in temperature and ionic strength on the rate constant:
The precision throughout this experiment can most likely be accounted for by the
controlled conditions each run was placed under. For example, the water bath allowed each
reaction vessel, conical flask, and thus run, to maintain a constant temperature of 30.1 °C.
Consequently, as each run was placed under the exact same conditions for the entirety of
the experiment, the standard deviation of the temperature was zero.

Undertaking runs with a constant temperature was important as literature outlines that
temperature can have a substantial effect on the rate of reaction [3]. This is because as the
temperature increases, there is an increase in the average kinetic energy of the molecules [2].
This in turn results in a combination of more collisions and an increased ability to
overcome the activation energy, ultimately giving a faster rate of reaction [3]. Hence, the
precision of the experimental rate constant may be partly attributed to the constant
temperature which was controlled by the water bath.

Ionic strength also has an effect on the rate constant due to the ‘primary salt effect’ [6]. The
rate constant will decrease with ionic strength as when reactants possess opposite charges,
the activated complex will be lower than the charges of the reactants [1]. Changes in the
volumes and hence concentrations of KI and K2S2O8, results in changes in ionic strength
due to the dissociation of these particles into charged ions. As a means to counteract this,
specific volumes of the non-reacting ionic substances KNO3 and K2S2O4 were included in
each reaction to account for possible changes in the ionic strength of solutions, and to
ensure that it be constant. This method was successful as the ionic strength was also
calculated for each trial and found to be 0.18 M for each trial, in turn resulting in a standard
deviation of zero. Therefore, the precision of the experimental rate constant may also be
partly attributed to the constant ionic strength which was controlled by the addition of ionic
substances to account for charge imbalance.

Comparison of the measured rate constant, k, with a literature value:

In order to successfully analyse the result found, they must be compared to a literature
value. Literature found that the theoretical rate law of was[4]:
R0 =0.0042 M −1 s−1 ¿ ¿.
However, as stated above the experimental rate law was found to be:
R0 =0.0058 M −1 s−1 ¿ ¿.
This demonstrated that although the reaction orders of the reactants and the overall reaction
order were both accurate and precise, the rate constant did not compare well with the
literature rate constant.

The theoretical rate constant was 0.0042 M-1 s-1 whilst the experimental rate constant was
0.0058 M-1 s-1 [4]. This demonstrates an experimental error of 37% highlighting that
although the experimental data is precise, it is not entirely accurate. Due to the nature of
this literature value, it can most likely be concluded that a substantial part of this error is
due to differences in the experimental conditions of the two experiments (the theoretical
and experimental experiments). The experiments could have differed in both the
temperature and the ionic strength the runs were conducted at, and as seen above his can
pertain to substantial variations in the initial rate, reactant order of reactions, and in turn
rate constants. Furthermore, sources of error and uncertainties associated with this
particular experiment could have led to further differences.

Sources of error and their effect on the observed rate constant:

There were a number of different potential errors associated with this experimented as
highlighted by the percentage error between the experimental and theoretical data. The
main source of errors in this experiment would have resulted from measurement and
timing.

This experiment required approximately 54 different volumes to be measured by different

people using different measuring apparatus’ which have different measurement
uncertainties. Due to the extensive number of volumes measured in this practical
inaccuracies and imprecisions in measurement were highly probable. The equipment
uncertainty was assumed insignificant and hence were ignored in the error calculations.
The human eye was relied upon to read the meniscus and although it was assumed that all
experimenters were highly practiced so that parallax errors could be assumed negligible,
some minor errors may have occurred due to the height of the some of the measuring
equipment comparatively to the measurer. Although incorrect volume measurements in
volumes may appear to have a negligible effect, the accumulation of volume
mismeasurements can have a cumulatively large effect on calculated values. For example,
if the volumes measured gave an increased total volume, this would result in a decreased
initial rate, initial concentration of S2O82- and I-, and in turn a smaller rate constant. Thus,
incorrect volume measurements would account for the difference in experimental and
theoretical values.

Another measurement error could have resulted from the concentration of the K 2S2O8
solution which was affected by the mass recording of 13.51 g. This mass was measured
using a mass balance with limited accuracy and similarly to the effect of incorrect volume
measurements, a small change in the mass of K 2S2O8 measured would have led to
substantial differences in experimental and theoretical values. For example, if slightly too
much K2S2O8 solid was measured then this would have resulted in an increased
concentration of the K2S2O8 solution, an increased initial concentration of S2O82-, and thus a
smaller rat constant. Furthermore, this experiment assumed that all of the K2S2O8 solid was
dissolved in the solution. This was done as best as possible under time constraints by
placing the solid K2S2O8 and 400 mL of distilled water in a beaker on a magnetic stirrer
where the solution was stirred for approximately 10 minutes.

Timing was another factor that presented numerous errors as it relied on both human
reaction time and consistency. Ideally, the time of the reaction should be recorded from
total addition to the sight of the colour change. That is, when adding the contents of the
conical flask to the reaction vessel a second reaction between tri-iodide and thiosulphate
occurs:
I3- + 2 S2O32- ⇌ S4O62- + 3 I- (2)
Coupling reaction (1) with reaction (2) means that when the tri-iodide is produced by
reaction (1), it reacts with the small known amount of thiosulphate. Then, once all of the
thiosulphate in reaction (2) has been used, the tri-iodide still being produced by reaction (1)
can be detected when it forms a complex with the starch in solution, resulting in the
characteristic blue colour change. Evidently, this is a spontaneous and instantaneous colour
change, leading to errors in the where this reaction is perceived to commence and end. As
such, the reaction time and definition of time commencement and ending has a large effect
on the time of the reaction and leads to inaccuracies in the all subsequent calculations and
results. For example, if the timer were to have a poor reaction time resulting in shorter
times, the initial rate would be inflated, resulting in a subsequently inflated rate constant.

It was also noted that other minor discrepancies could have occurred due to contaminants
in the various conical flasks, reaction vessels, and measuring apparatuses. However, these
were considered negligible due to the fact that all equipment was scrupulously cleaned and
tried prior to the experiment so as to not alter concentration values and reaction processes.

Mechanisms of improvement to decrease experimental error:

It was evident that this experiment was riddled with errors and thus a number of
mechanisms of improvements should be emplaced to improve the quality of the experiment
and its results. Firstly, in regards to incorrect volume measurements, it was suggested that
one person complete all volume measurements and that their eye be in line with the
meniscus of the solution to avoid parallax errors. This is an ideal situation, however is
unrealistic due to time constraints. It was also suggested that the timekeeper be kept
consistent by measuring all runs. This timekeeper should also be chosen as the person with
the fastest reaction time and must commence timing as soon as the contents of the conical
flask is added to the reaction vessel, and finish timing at the instantaneous moment that the
colour change occurs. It should be noted that the most important factor is that the timer is
consistent with their timing method.

It is important that all equipment be vigorously cleaned and dried prior to completing the
experiment as a means to minimise contaminants which may possibly alter the
concentrations of components and hence change the reaction process. Furthermore, it could
be suggested that more trials for each run be undertaken so that an average can be
calculated, resulting in more accurate results.

Considering that this procedure (a clock reaction) relied heavily on timing and that the
 most substantial error would have resulted timing, other methods of completing this
experiment should be considered. One such way to eliminate timing error is by employing
the techniques of UV-visibility spectrometry or colorimetry as these methods more
accurately monitor the completion of the reaction [2].

However, given that the results were reasonably precise and accurate, and given that they
did not differ significantly from the theoretical value it can be concluded that this particular
experimental method was appropriate and that all other mechanisms of improvement
would most likely result in only minor decreases in experimental errors.

Conclusion Section: In a short paragraph link your findings to the experimental objective
described in the introduction.
The objective of this experiment was to investigate the kinetics of the reaction between
persulphate and iodide (Equation 1) and to then apply the initial rates method to determine
the order of reaction for each reactant, the overall order of reaction, the rate constant, and
the overall rate law for the reaction. From calculations, graphing, and manipulations of the
raw data it was found that the order of reaction for each reactant was 1, resulting in a
second order of reaction overall. The overall rate law for the reaction was determined to be:
−1 −1
R0 =0.0058 M s ¿ ¿.
Comparatively to a researched literature rate law for this experiment under similar
conditions it was found that the experimental order of reaction for each reactant and thus
the overall order of reaction, matched the literature [4]. However, a 37% difference was
found rate constants of the experimental and theoretical values [4]. This difference
highlighted the possibility of errors in the experiment which most likely resulted from an
accumulation of incorrect volume measurements and time keeping discrepancies. Hence, as
a means to amend this experiment techniques of UV-visibility spectrometry or colorimetry
should be employed to eliminate timing issues and as such improve the accuracy of data [2].
However, despite these errors the overall accuracy and precision of the data and calculated
values was significantly high, emphasising confidence in the experimental results.

References: The relevant literature used throughout the report must be appropriately
referenced. In text in the sections above indicate the references by superscript numbers.
1. Atkins, P. & de Paul, J., 2006. Physical Chemistry for the Life Sciences. New York:
W.H. Freeman and Company.
2. Chang, 2001. Chapter 13. In: Chemistry. s.l.:McGraw Hill.
3. Clark, J., 2013. Rate Constants and the Arrhenius Equation. [Online]
Available at: http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/basicrates/arrhenius.html
[Accessed 25 September 2016].
4. Indelli, A. & Pruh, J., 1959. Kinetic Salt Effects in the Reaction between Persulphate
and Iodide Ions. Journal of Chemical Society, p. 109.
5. Laidler, 1980. Physical Chemistry with Biological Applications. pp. 398-403.
Norio Ise, F. M., 1968. The primary salt effect on rate of reaction between likely charged
ionic species by polyelectrolytes. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 16(90), pp.
4242-4247

6.

NB: there are no raw data files to be included with this submission.