How Does The Change In Hcl Concentration Affect The Rate Of Reaction
Interpretation of Data
When looking at my results i can safely say that the change in HCl concentration does affect the rate of reaction with the Calcium carbonate pebbles. The relationship between the change in HCl and reaction rate can be seen in the graph and raw data table presented above. If you compare the lowest concentration with the highest concentration you'd be able to see that there is a very large contrast between their averages. The average gas production of 0.1M HCl was 0.00693 kPa/s whereas the average gas production for 1M HCl was 0.257. This clearly indicates that when the reactant consists of a higher molarity the reaction is much faster. As i mentioned before, collision theory is the explanation for why this happens. An increase in reactant causes the reactants particles to bundle up and cause a fruitful collision much faster than particles that would flow loosely around each other, which would be the case for an experiment using HCl with a low molarity. Another thing that can be noticed about the relationship is that it's linear. As the concentration goes up, the reaction rate goes up as well, therefore creating a linear relationship. The difference between …show more content…
0.1M and 0.2M is fairly, which tells us that a small change in the molarity will affect the reaction rate tremendously. The reaction rate speeds up and extremely fast pace between 0.2 and 0.5 which makes sense considering there is a 0.3 molar difference compared to the 0.1 molar difference there was between 0.1 and 0.2. The next concentration (1M) goes at a much faster pace compared to the previous concentration (0.5) which once again proves that the higher the concentration the faster the reaction. This can also simply be seen by the amount of kPa each concentration produces, regardless of the fact that they all end up producing the same amount of CO2. In terms of outliers or unusual trends there weren't any extreme ones, other than the fact that the co2 production rates for 0.1M and 0.2M are fairly similar, Although that doesn't necessarily astonish be considering that those two values are only 0.1M different from each other whereas 0.5M and 1M are 0.5M different from each other, therefore showing us a clear difference between the two. Perhaps i could have used more diverse concentrations in order see accurate and clear differences between the concentrations and the rate of gas they produce.
Conclusion
Comparison to Hypothesis:
In my hypothesis i claimed that the higher the concentration would be, the faster the reaction would be.
By the looks of the graph i believe that my hypothesis was quite correct in the sense that a higher concentration of HCl would cause a faster reaction. The fact that the graph shows us that 1M of HCl produces around 0.25 kPa/s and that 0.5M of HCl produces around 0.15kPa/s of CO2 justifies collision theory, as well as my hypothesis (which was based entirely off of collision theory. The same evidence to support my hypothesis can be seen with the concentrations 0.1 and 0.2 regardless of the small difference. My hypothesis in the B report also mentioned that each concentration would eventually produce the same amount of CO2 although just at different paces, the graph also demonstrates
this.
Evaluation:
Reliability of Data: All in all my data seems to be pretty precise as there weren't any unusual trends or outliers in the raw data table or the graph, everything seemed to be pretty close to each other, so in terms of the data i presented everything seems to be reliable, But there other factors other than the collected data that could have made my data unreliable. The first thing that i believe could have contributed to unreliability is the lack of trials. Due to the shortage of time i had in class to do my experiments i had to cut my trials short. I had originally planned to do 5 trials per concentration but ended up doing 3 instead so that i would be able to test all the concentrations by the end of the 3 classes. 3 trials is the bear minimum amount of trials you could do as the erd trial practically just acts as an equalizer for the first and second trial, or a one time check. For this reason, my data could be unreliable as each concentration hasn't been tested enough times for me to absolutely certain a change in concentration equals a change in reaction rate. Although when i look at my results, it all seems to make sense, but regardless of whether my data makes sense with three trials, it would definitely be more reliable if i had run more trials. The second factor that could have made my data unreliable is the odd choice in concentrations. Again, due to a shortage of time i had to take out one of the concentrations from my experiment. I took out the 0.05 concentration as i thought it would be fairly useless due to the extremely minimal reaction it would cause. But as a result of me taking out that concentration, i was left with two concentrations that were very similar (0.1M and 0.2M) and then two concentrations that were fairly far apart (0.5M and 1M). As i mentioned before, this resulted in an odd configuration of spots on my scatter graph as i had two dots very close to each other at the top and then two dots that were spread apart at the top. In order to have made it a bit more reliable i should have balanced it out by making the 4 concentrations 0.1M, 0.3M, 0.5M and then 1M. However when i look at the trend line, all the data points are close to the trend line, which tells us that nothing is out of place. All in all i feel like my data is quite reliable although its reliability could have been better.
When looking at my results i can safely say that the change in HCl concentration does affect the rate of reaction with the Calcium carbonate pebbles. The relationship between the change in HCl and reaction rate can be seen in the graph and raw data table presented above. If you compare the lowest concentration with the highest concentration you'd be able to see that there is a very large contrast between their averages. The average gas production of 0.1M HCl was 0.00693 kPa/s whereas the average gas production for 1M HCl was 0.257. This clearly indicates that when the reactant consists of a higher molarity the reaction is much faster. As i mentioned before, collision theory is the explanation for why this happens. An increase in reactant causes the reactants particles to bundle up and cause a fruitful collision much faster than particles that would flow loosely around each other, which would be the case for an experiment using HCl with a low molarity. Another thing that can be noticed about the relationship is that it's linear. As the concentration goes up, the reaction rate goes up as well, therefore creating a linear relationship. The difference between …show more content…
0.1M and 0.2M is fairly, which tells us that a small change in the molarity will affect the reaction rate tremendously. The reaction rate speeds up and extremely fast pace between 0.2 and 0.5 which makes sense considering there is a 0.3 molar difference compared to the 0.1 molar difference there was between 0.1 and 0.2. The next concentration (1M) goes at a much faster pace compared to the previous concentration (0.5) which once again proves that the higher the concentration the faster the reaction. This can also simply be seen by the amount of kPa each concentration produces, regardless of the fact that they all end up producing the same amount of CO2. In terms of outliers or unusual trends there weren't any extreme ones, other than the fact that the co2 production rates for 0.1M and 0.2M are fairly similar, Although that doesn't necessarily astonish be considering that those two values are only 0.1M different from each other whereas 0.5M and 1M are 0.5M different from each other, therefore showing us a clear difference between the two. Perhaps i could have used more diverse concentrations in order see accurate and clear differences between the concentrations and the rate of gas they produce.
Conclusion
Comparison to Hypothesis:
In my hypothesis i claimed that the higher the concentration would be, the faster the reaction would be.
By the looks of the graph i believe that my hypothesis was quite correct in the sense that a higher concentration of HCl would cause a faster reaction. The fact that the graph shows us that 1M of HCl produces around 0.25 kPa/s and that 0.5M of HCl produces around 0.15kPa/s of CO2 justifies collision theory, as well as my hypothesis (which was based entirely off of collision theory. The same evidence to support my hypothesis can be seen with the concentrations 0.1 and 0.2 regardless of the small difference. My hypothesis in the B report also mentioned that each concentration would eventually produce the same amount of CO2 although just at different paces, the graph also demonstrates
this.
Evaluation:
Reliability of Data: All in all my data seems to be pretty precise as there weren't any unusual trends or outliers in the raw data table or the graph, everything seemed to be pretty close to each other, so in terms of the data i presented everything seems to be reliable, But there other factors other than the collected data that could have made my data unreliable. The first thing that i believe could have contributed to unreliability is the lack of trials. Due to the shortage of time i had in class to do my experiments i had to cut my trials short. I had originally planned to do 5 trials per concentration but ended up doing 3 instead so that i would be able to test all the concentrations by the end of the 3 classes. 3 trials is the bear minimum amount of trials you could do as the erd trial practically just acts as an equalizer for the first and second trial, or a one time check. For this reason, my data could be unreliable as each concentration hasn't been tested enough times for me to absolutely certain a change in concentration equals a change in reaction rate. Although when i look at my results, it all seems to make sense, but regardless of whether my data makes sense with three trials, it would definitely be more reliable if i had run more trials. The second factor that could have made my data unreliable is the odd choice in concentrations. Again, due to a shortage of time i had to take out one of the concentrations from my experiment. I took out the 0.05 concentration as i thought it would be fairly useless due to the extremely minimal reaction it would cause. But as a result of me taking out that concentration, i was left with two concentrations that were very similar (0.1M and 0.2M) and then two concentrations that were fairly far apart (0.5M and 1M). As i mentioned before, this resulted in an odd configuration of spots on my scatter graph as i had two dots very close to each other at the top and then two dots that were spread apart at the top. In order to have made it a bit more reliable i should have balanced it out by making the 4 concentrations 0.1M, 0.3M, 0.5M and then 1M. However when i look at the trend line, all the data points are close to the trend line, which tells us that nothing is out of place. All in all i feel like my data is quite reliable although its reliability could have been better.