Factors Affecting the Rate of Catalytic Decomposition of Hydrogen Peroxide

October 21, 2017 September 1st, 2019 Free Essays Online for College Students

A reaction occurs when two fast moving particles collide to produce a product. This product is only produced if the two particles have enough energy to either join or decompose, this amount of energy is called the activation energy.

Possibilities when particles collide

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Reaction

A B

No reaction

A B

Particles bounce

apart

Hydrogen Peroxide decomposes in a slow, exothermic reaction to form oxygen and water. As the reaction is slow, a catalyst is used to speed it up. A suitable catalyst for this investigation is Manganese Dioxide (Mn02 – a black powder). The definition of a catalyst is :

– A substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction but undergoes no permanent chemical change itself

The equation for the reaction is :

Mn02 Catalyst

Hydrogen Peroxide Oxygen + Water (+ Heat)

Mn02 Catalyst

H202 O2 + H20 (+Heat)

The reaction occurs when the H202 particles collide with each other. Some rebound off eachother, whilst some have the activation energy to react. The catalyst holds the Hydrogen Peroxide molecules on its surface in such a manner that their activation energies are hence lowered, and more can react. Although there is still some uncertainty as to what exactly the Manganese Dioxide catalyst does, it is believed that believed that the hydrogen peroxide becomes adsorbed (chemically absorbed and held on) onto the surface of the manganese dioxide, and then some temporary bonds are formed. The structural formula of Hydrogen Peroxide is :

H-O-O-H

It is thought that the temporary bonds formed with the catalyst (which is an active catalyst- i.e. it will only work if it collides with the Hydrogen Peroxide) help to break/weaken the H-H and O-H and O-O bonds contained in the Hydrogen Peroxid – hence lowering the amount of energy needed to break the bonds and so the amount of energy needed for the Hydrogen Peroxide to decompose.

Several factors will affect the rate of this decomposition. Some can be controlled whilst others may not be within our control. In order to make this a fair test, the effect of all variables should be considered, and only the input variable should be deliberately varied, all other variables excluding the output variable should be controlled as far as possible.

Possible Variables and Their Effect

Temperature of Hydrogen Peroxide

As the temperature of the hydrogen peroxide increases, so would the average energy possessed by each hydrogen peroxide particle, and a greater range between the highest energy and lowest energy of a hydrogen peroxide particle would also increase – some would be moving extremely quickly whilst others extremely slowly. Therefore, as temperature increased, more hydrogen peroxide particles would have the activation energy required for a reaction to occur, and so temperature increases, so does rate of reaction, and the relationship is indirectly proportional (i.e. as one doubles, the other doesn’t necessarily double – the process of collisions is a random process).

Surface Area of Catalyst

If the surface area of the catalyst were to be increased by cutting it down into small chips/granules, then the rate of the reaction would be increased.

The particles of a substance can only collide with the particles of the above substance that are on the outside. When surface area is increased, there are more particles of the substance on the surface, which means more can collide. This would mean that more collisions between the Mn02 particles and the H202 particles would take place, and the catalyst would therefore become more effective, increasing the rate of reaction.

Temperature of Catalyst (Manganese Dioxide)

If the temperature of the catalyst was increased, then the heat energy would spread to the reactant (the H202 particles which are colliding). These particles would therefore gain energy and more would be able to reach their activation energy, as explained on the previous page. This would result in an increase in rate of reaction.

Concentration of Hydrogen Peroxide (H202)

As concentration increases, there are more H202 particles contained in the solution per unit volume. As there are more H202 particles, the probability of a collision between H202 particles would increase, and so in theory, there should be more collisions. Therefore, as concentration increases, so does rate of reaction, and the relationship should be positively linear.

Mass of Catalyst

As the mass of the catalyst increases, more ions of the catalyst are available to collide with the H202 particles, and so the catalyst should have more effect on the reaction. As the catalyst works by colliding with the Hydrogen Peroxide particles, if there are more catalyst particles then there will be more collisions between the manganese dioxide particles and hydrogen peroxide particles, hence rate of reaction increases. Therefore, as the mass of the catalyst increases, so should rate of reaction linearly.

Volume of H202

As volume of the H2O2 increases, the total number of H2O2 particles also increases. The frequency of collisions between the H2O2 particles and the catalyst (Mn02 particles) therefore increases, as there are more H2O2 particles for the catalyst to collide with, and there will initially be more reactants for the catalyst to adsorb onto. This means that the initial rate of reaction will increase with volume.

Atmospheric Pressure

As atmospheric pressure increases, the closer together the molecules would be packed, with an effect similar to increasing the concentration of the reactants – the frequency of collisions would increase, which means there would be more decomposition per second occurring. This means there is a linear increase of rate of reaction with atmospheric pressure.

Temperature is quite unsuitable as an input variable because the reaction is an exothermic reaction, and the amount of energy given out each time would vary. This makes controlling the temperature extremly difficult, and a high degree of accuracy is unobtainable.

Surface area of the catalyst is not a good variable to use because it is extremly hard to get a numerical value for the surface area of the catalyst – which makes plotting a graph impossible. This would make analysis of the results very difficult.

Atmospheric pressure is unsuitable for a school laboratory experiment. It requires expensive, specialist equipment which is unavailable.

Mass of catalyst is unsuitable as it requires extensive knowledge about catalysts and their effects, and it has still not been openly decided what the effect of mass of catalyst is.

Volume of H2O2 did not affect the preliminary experiment results hugely (apart from final amount of O2 gas given off) and so it is most probably not suitable as a variable.

As all of the above variables are not suitable to be used as input variables (this was decided using the preliminary investigation and through own knowledge), concentration of H2O2 was chosen as the input variable for the main investigation. It has clear theory to explain the relationship, and the results will be numerical so will be able to be plotted on a graph, but also the experiment is practical for a school laboratory investigation as it is not too expensive.

Preliminary Investigation

This was done in order to sort out an appropriate range of values (and if check readings were needed), which method and apparatus was more suitable for the experiment, what quantities of each substance were needed and to determine which variable would be most practical to use as the input variable.

Method

The experiment was originally set up measuring rate of reaction by collecting the amount of oxygen gas produced, in order for volume collected to be plotted against time taken. The variables investigated were concentration of H202, and also the volume of the H202 and mass of Mn02 were varied in order to establish which values would be best for the main experiment.

The experiment was performed inside a side-arm boiling tube with a bung on top. The side arm led to a glass pipette, which was inverted in 50cm3 of water. The catalyst was added to the H202 and then the bung was place on top of the boiling tube, and the stop-clock started. There are several defects with the method. Firstly, it is quite difficult to obtain an initial rate as that would require multiple readings taken for various volumes given off which is reasonably accurate as it is based on human judgement – human error is very possible. Also, there was a limited range due to the size of the collecting pipette, which meant that up to only a certain concentration, volume and mass of catalyst could be used before it was too vigorous for the apparatus.

For this reason, a second method was devised, which worked by measuring the mass of oxygen given off on a top-pan balance. This is far more accurate equipment with far less scope for error, which makes the overall experiment more reliable. Other alterations were made in order to increase the accuracy of the experiment (mentioned later).

Controlled Variables

In order for the experiment to be a fair test, the variables that were not being varied should be controlled so that they cannot affect the experiment – otherwise it is impossible to tell what it is that is causing the change in results. Suitable values for these variables were needed that the results obtained could be plotted on a graph.

Temperature: This will be kept at room temperature (approximately 20 �) where possible, though it is difficult to keep this always constant as the reaction is exothermic, so heat will be given off during the experiment, especially as higher concentrations are used when the reaction becomes more vigorous.

Mass of catalyst: This was started at 1g (using middle of the concentration range of H202 – 10 Vol.), but the reaction occurred far too quickly and so did not give enough spread for a graph to be plotted. Therefore, the same experiment was attempted with 0.5g, and the results were similar. When only 0.25g of catalyst was used, this gave a decent, slow spread of results and a noticeable variation between concentrations and so 0.25g was decided to be the mass of catalyst to be used in the final investigation.

Surface area of catalyst: The manganese dioxide came as a powder and it did not seem to be unsuitable so this remained the same.

Atmospheric pressure: The difference between atmospheric pressure at different times providing you are in the same place is negligible and so does not really affect the experiment, and it is economically impractical to try and vary the atmospheric pressure. This therefore was discounted and not really worried about.

Volume of H202: This was started at 5cm3, but the reaction occurred far too quickly (with the medium concentration of hydrogen peroxide – 10 Vol.) – i.e. the mass reached a constant value too quickly. The same was true when 10cm3 was used, and so 25cm3 was settled on as an appropriate value for volume of H202 to be used in the main investigation, as it gave a good spread of results and the constant mass was not reached too soon even with the higher concentrations used.

Range of Results

I have decided that the suitable range of results for the main investigation will be to take an increment of 2 Vol. from 4 Vol. to 20 Vol., leaving us with 9 points to be plotted on the graph. This is a suitable amount of points to determine whether there is a trend and enough to draw a good line of best fit.

I have decided that to obtain the best possible accuracy, a repeat result will be taken, and if the two agree, then they will be averaged to give the point to be plotted. If they do not agree, then a further result will be taken and the two that most correspond will be averaged.

The time that the experiment is performed for will b determined by the results – it will be continued until 3 exactly the same masses are given off, so that we know that rate of reaction will have stopped increasing then.

Preliminary Results

Method 1 (collecting volume of gas using upturned pipette)

(note all volumes and concentrations refer to H202)

Concentration: 8 VOL

Volume: 20cm3

Catalyst: 1g

Volume of gas collected (cm3)

Time taken (s)

50+

12.9

Inference: either there is too much catalyst, too large volume or too high concentration as it took too little time to collect over 50cm3 of gas.

Concentration: 10 VOL

Volume: 10cm3

Catalyst: 1g

Volume of gas collected (cm3)

Time taken (s)

18

10.9

Inference: there is not enough volume as it reaches the maximum amount of gas too quickly, but there is too much catalyst

Concentration: 16 VOL

Volume: 10cm3

Catalyst: 1g

Volume of gas collected (cm3)

Time taken (s)

22

9.1

Inference: concentration increases the volume of gas collected, there is still too much catalyst being used and not enough volume of H202 (you can tell this because the rate of reaction is too low – it reaches terminal mass too early)

The method was then revised to be more accurate – the rate was now to be measured by using mass lost and not volume of gas as we wanted to determine which was the easiest to use as an output variable and which was more accurate (gave better results)

Concentration: 10 VOL

Volume: 5cm3

Catalyst: 1g

Time (s)

Mass of O2 gas given off (g)

5

0.07

10

0.07

15

0.08

20

0.08

25

0.08

30

0.08

35

0.08

40

0.08

45

0.08

50

0.09

55

0.09

Inference: not enough volume, too much catalyst (you can tell this because the rate of reaction is too low – it reaches terminal mass too early)

Concentration: 10 VOL

Volume: 10cm3

Catalyst: 1g

Time (s)

Mass of O2 gas given off (g)

5

0.17

10

0.18

15

0.18

20

0.18

25

0.18

30

0.18

35

0.18

40

0.18

45

0.18

50

0.18

55

0.19

60

0.19

Inference: not enough volume, too much catalyst (you can tell this because the rate of reaction is too low – it reaches terminal mass too early)

Concentration: 4 VOL

Volume: 10cm3

Catalyst: 1g

Time (s)

Mass of O2 gas given off (g)

5

0.06

10

0.07

15

0.07

20

0.07

25

0.07

30

0.07

35

0.07

40

0.07

45

0.07

50

0.07

Inference: not enough volume, too much catalyst (you can tell this because the rate of reaction is too low – it reaches terminal mass too early)

Concentration: 10 VOL

Volume: 10cm3

Catalyst: 0.5g

Time (s)

Mass of O2 gas given off (g)

5

0.12

10

0.16

15

0.15

20

0.16

25

0.16

30

0.16

35

0.16

40

0.16

45

0.16

50

0.16

55

0.16

60

0.16

Inference: catalyst amount more suitable but still needs to be lowered, not enough volume (you can tell this because the rate of reaction is too low – it reaches terminal mass too early)

Concentration: 10 VOL

Volume: 10cm3

Catalyst: 0.25g

Time (s)

Mass of O2 gas given off (g)

5

0.08

10

0.12

15

0.15

20

0.16

25

0.16

30

0.16

35

0.16

40

0.16

45

0.17

50

0.17

55

0.17

60

0.17

Inference: catalyst amount is suitable as it now takes suitable time for variation, but more volume needed to further extend this and make more variation

Concentration: 10 VOL

Volume: 15cm3

Catalyst: 0.25g

Time (s)

Mass of O2 gas given off (g)

5

0.07

10

0.12

15

0.19

20

0.21

25

0.23

30

0.24

35

0.24

40

0.24

45

0.24

50

0.24

55

0.24

Inference: results are better, still slightly more volume needed in order to give a greater range of result

Concentration: 4 VOL

Volume: 15cm3

Catalyst: 0.25g

Time (s)

Mass of O2 gas given off (g)

5

0.89

10

0.89

15

0.90

20

0.92

25

0.93

30

0.93

35

0.94

40

0.94

45

0.94

50

0.94

Inference: same as above

Concentration: 18 VOL

Volume: 20cm3

Catalyst: 0.25g

Time (s)

Mass of O2 gas given off (g)

5

1.03

10

1.15

15

1.21

20

1.27

25

1.29

30

1.30

35

1.30

40

1.30

45

1.30

Inference: for main investigation, 0.25g of catalyst and 25cm3 of H202 shall be used.

Main experiment apparatus list and reason for choosing these apparatus

* Top pan balance – this is used to measure the mass lost and the mass of the catalyst at the beginning, and was chosen because it is not too expensive but still is reasonably accurate (to 3 decimal places)

* H202 in increments of 2 Vol. from 4 Vol. to 20 Vol. – chosen because gives a suitable range of results whilst keeping the experiment safe – not too much heat is given out

* Spatula – this is used to measure out the catalyst, prevents having to use the hands (a safety issue) and also allows smaller masses to be taken out at a time

* Manganese Dioxide – this was chosen as a suitable catalyst, and although the reaction can happen without this, it is too slow to be measurable

* Stop clock – this measures time elapsed, it is reasonably accurate though there is the threat always of human error, but is also quick and easy to use, and economical

* Paper “bucket” – this was used to contain the mass and to pour it into the hydrogen peroxide, it is easy to use and has negligible effect on the scales (though these should be tared anyway)

* 10 ml measuring cylinder – used to measure volumes, chosen because it is easy to use whilst maintaining a high level of accuracy

* 100 ml beaker – the reaction occurred in this beaker, it did not contain the reaction too much as to make it dangerous but was not so large that the catalyst would miss the liquid

Detailed Method

1. Tare the top-pan balance with the paper “bucket” on top of it at the time

2. Weigh out the 0.25g of catalyst, and leave it on the balance

3. Measure out 25cm3 of whichever concentration is needed of hydrogen peroxide using a measuring cylinder

4. Place the beaker onto the top-pan balance next to the bucket full of catalyst

5. Tare the top-pan balance, and add the catalyst to the hydrogen peroxide

6. Start the stop-clock at the instant of contact (N.B. remember to replace the paper bucket onto the top-pan balance)

7. Record the mass loss every 5 seconds by looking at the balance

8. Take a check reading for each concentration

9. The mass loss will be plotted upon a graph against time, and the rate of reaction calculated by taking a tangent of the curve, and then taking the gradient of that tangent.

Gradient = Change in y

Change in x

Safety/Precautions

Hydrogen peroxide is quite highly corrosive and can blind if it contacts the eye, so wear goggles at all times. Also, try to avoid contact with the skin and do not pour it from heights as it could splash out. Work on clear desks with chairs tucked in so that people do not trip over.

Precautions to maintain precise results

In order to try and obtain precise results, make sure all equipment is thoroughly washed after each use, try to measure the volumes and masses using the same measuring cylinder and top-pan balance, and try to do the whole experiment in one day so that you are only using the same solutions, as they can vary when they are made up on different days. Repeat results are taken and averaged in order to maintain reliability, as it can be seen as reasonably reliable if the same result is obtained more than once.

Prediction for main experiment

I predict that there will be a directly proportional relationship between concentration of hydrogen peroxide and rate of reaction (mass lost)- i.e. as the concentration doubles, so should mass lost providing all other variables remain constant. This should happen because if concentration doubles, so does the amount of hydrogen peroxide particles. If there are double as many particles, there is double the chance of a collision between the hydrogen peroxide particles and the manganese dioxide (catalyst) particles – hence twice as many should occur. This should result in roughly double the rate of reaction. The relationship should be linear, and the line of best fit should go through the origin (0,0) as the hydrogen peroxide does not decompose when it is just sitting in a beaker with no catalyst.

Observations

0.53 mol

Reading 1

Reading 2

Average

Time (s)

Mass Lost (g)

Mass Lost (g)

Mass Lost (g)

5

0.03

0.04

0.04

10

0.07

0.07

0.07

15

0.09

0.10

0.10

20

0.12

0.12

0.12

25

0.14

0.15

0.15

30

0.16

0.17

0.17

35

0.18

0.18

0.18

40

0.19

0.19

0.19

45

0.20

0.20

0.20

50

0.20

0.22

0.21

55

0.21

0.22

0.22

60

0.22

0.22

0.22

65

0.22

0.22

0.22

70

0.22

0.22

0.22

0.70 mol

Reading 1

Reading 2

Average

Time (s)

Mass Lost (g)

Mass Lost (g)

Mass Lost (g)

5

0.04

0.05

0.05

10

0.08

0.09

0.09

15

0.10

0.10

0.10

20

0.13

0.13

0.13

25

0.15

0.15

0.15

30

0.17

0.18

0.18

35

0.20

0.21

0.21

40

0.22

0.23

0.23

45

0.24

0.23

0.24

50

0.24

0.25

0.25

55

0.25

0.26

0.26

60

0.25

0.26

0.26

65

0.27

0.27

0.27

70

0.27

0.27

0.27

75

0.27

0.27

0.27

0.88 mol

Reading 1

Reading 2

Average

Time (s)

Mass Lost (g)

Mass Lost (g)

Mass Lost (g)

5

0.10

0.10

0.10

10

0.15

0.16

0.16

15

0.21

0.21

0.21

20

0.26

0.28

0.27

25

0.32

0.32

0.32

30

0.35

0.36

0.36

35

0.39

0.38

0.39

40

0.40

0.40

0.40

45

0.40

0.40

0.40

50

0.41

0.40

0.41

55

0.40

0.40

0.40

60

0.41

0.40

0.41

65

0.41

0.40

0.41

70

0.41

0.40

0.41

1.06 mol

Reading 1

Reading 2

Average

Time (s)

Mass Lost (g)

Mass Lost (g)

Mass Lost (g)

5

0.15

0.15

0.15

10

0.19

0.20

0.20

15

0.25

0.24

0.25

20

0.33

0.34

0.34

25

0.40

0.40

0.40

30

0.46

0.45

0.46

35

0.49

0.49

0.49

40

0.50

0.49

0.50

45

0.51

0.50

0.51

50

0.51

0.51

0.51

55

0.51

0.51

0.51

60

0.51

0.51

0.51

1.23 mol

Reading 1

Reading 2

Average

Time (s)

Mass Lost (g)

Mass Lost (g)

Mass Lost (g)

5

0.15

0.16

0.16

10

0.20

0.21

0.21

15

0.28

0.27

0.28

20

0.35

0.32

0.34

25

0.45

0.41

0.43

30

0.52

0.50

0.51

35

0.56

0.55

0.56

40

0.58

0.57

0.58

45

0.59

0.58

0.59

50

0.59

0.59

0.59

55

0.59

0.59

0.59

60

0.59

0.59

0.59

1.41 mol

Reading 1

Reading 2

Reading 3

Average of 1 and 3

Time (s)

Mass Lost (g)

Mass Lost (g)

Mass Lost (g)

Mass Lost (g)

5

0.14

0.16

0.13

0.14

10

0.19

0.21

0.22

0.21

15

0.26

0.27

0.29

0.28

20

0.34

0.34

0.36

0.35

25

0.39

0.46

0.42

0.41

30

0.49

0.58

0.49

0.49

35

0.53

0.66

0.56

0.55

40

0.61

0.68

0.60

0.61

45

0.63

0.69

0.63

0.63

50

0.64

0.69

0.63

0.64

55

0.64

0.69

0.63

0.64

60

0.65

0.65

65

0.65

0.65

70

0.65

0.65

1.58 mol

Reading 1

Reading 2

Average

Time (s)

Mass Lost (g)

Mass Lost (g)

Mass Lost (g)

5

0.17

0.18

0.18

10

0.27

0.28

0.28

15

0.37

0.39

0.38

20

0.45

0.45

0.45

25

0.52

0.53

0.53

30

0.63

0.63

0.63

35

0.69

0.68

0.69

40

0.77

0.76

0.77

45

0.78

0.76

0.77

50

0.78

0.76

0.77

55

0.78

0.76

0.77

1.76 mol

Reading 1

Reading 2

Average

Time (s)

Mass Lost (g)

Mass Lost (g)

Mass Lost (g)

5

0.20

0.19

0.20

10

0.28

0.29

0.29

15

0.37

0.37

0.37

20

0.45

0.46

0.46

25

0.50

0.51

0.51

30

0.63

0.64

0.64

35

0.67

0.68

0.68

40

0.71

0.76

0.74

45

0.75

0.76

0.76

50

0.79

0.80

0.80

55

0.84

0.84

0.84

60

0.84

0.84

0.84

65

0.84

0.84

0.84

These results were then plotted on graphs, and tangents were drawn to calculate initial rate of reaction using the gradient of each tangent – equation:

Gradient = Change in y

Change in x

Analysis

The graphs showing mass loss (g) against time (s) clearly show that as time goes on, there is more mass loss. This occurs because in more time, more collisions between H202 particles and Mn02 (catalyst) particles can occur, meaning more decomposition and more mass loss occurring. However, the relationship is a curve (which means it is not directly proportional), and the curve levels off at the end – this is because all of the H202 particles become used up.

Concentration (mol)

Rate (g/s)

0.53

0.006

0.7

0.008

0.88

0.018

1.06

0.019

1.23

0.02

1.41

0.024

1.58

0.028

1.76

0.03

These results were collected using the graphs drawn comparing time (s) against mass loss (g), by drawing a tangent and working out the gradient of the tangent. These results were then drawn on a graph and any trends were identified.

The graph clearly shows that as the concentration of the H202 increases, so does the rate of reaction. This can be identified by a trend on the graph – the line of best fit is a diagonal one going from left to right, which goes through the origin. This suggests that the relationship is directly proportional – i.e. as the concentration of H202 doubles, so would the rate of reaction (providing no other factors are varied).

If lines are drawn upwards from the results at two different points, where the 2nd concentration is double the 1st, then it can be seen that at these points, rate of reaction of the 2nd is roughly double that of the 1st. This proves that the results are fairly reliable and that the line of best fit does describe the relationship between the two well.

Results taken directly from the graph:

Concentration (mol)

Rate of reaction (s)

0.4

0.0070

0.8

0.0145

These results confirm that the relationship is directly proportional according to my graph and line of best fit, as 0.8 is double 0.4 and 0.0145 is roughly double 0.0070 – i.e. as concentration doubles, so does rate of reaction.

Conclusion

Up to this range, as concentration of H202 increases, so does the rate of reaction. This occurs because, when there is twice the concentration of H202, there are twice as many H202 particles. These H202 particles collide with the Mn02 particles in order to make the Hydrogen Peroxide decompose. When there are twice as many H202 particles, there is twice the probability of a collision between H202 particles and Mn02 (catalyst) particles, and therefore twice as many collisions should occur. This means that when the concentration doubles, twice as many collisions between the H202 and Mn02 particles occur and the rate of the reaction also doubles.

My Prediction: If there are double as many particles, there is double the chance of a collision between the hydrogen peroxide particles and the manganese dioxide (catalyst) particles – hence twice as many should occur. This should result in roughly double the rate of reaction. The relationship should be linear, and the line of best fit should go through the origin (0,0) as the hydrogen peroxide does not decompose when it is just sitting in a beaker with no catalyst.

My results support the prediction to some extent. The relationship is a linear relationship that goes through the origin, and direct proportionality between concentration and rate of reaction can be observed using the graph. However, the prediction can only be supported up to this range (the only way to know if the relationship would continue afterwards would be to actually do the experiment with an expanded range), and there are some anomalous points – these however will be accounted for in the evaluation.

Evaluation

My results clearly support my prediction, and seem reasonably reliable as most points lie near the line of best fit, and there was enough of a correlation to draw a straight line of best fit. However, there are clearly anomalous points, which disagree with the total trend. These can be accounted for. Firstly, a possible reason for the fact that the two lowest concentrations give lower rate of reactions could be because as the concentration increases, so does the extent to which the reaction is exothermic. When this heat is produced, it acts as a variable, and more is produced the more vigorous the reaction – i.e. the bigger the concentration. Temperature has a direct effect on rate of reaction. As the temperature of the hydrogen peroxide increases, so would the average energy possessed by each hydrogen peroxide particle, and a greater range between the highest energy and lowest energy of a hydrogen peroxide particle would also increase – some would be moving extremely quickly whilst others extremely slowly. Therefore, as temperature increased, more hydrogen peroxide particles would have the activation energy required for a reaction to occur, and so temperature increases, so does rate of reaction. This means that the extra heat for the higher concentrations could have effected the results and increased rate of reaction – hence the two lower concentrations have figures slightly lower than the line of best fit. Apart from these two anomalies, there is one further anomalous point that lies only a bit away from the line of best fit. This could have occurred due to human error or due to people walking around the laboratory – i.e. measuring the volume of the H202 or the mass of the catalyst incorrectly (see % error), or the results could have been affected by the fluctuations on the top-pan balance caused by the change in forces by people moving around the classroom. Also, some results may have been taken on different days, perhaps when the temperature was slightly different which has been proven to affect rate of reaction. Also the atmospheric pressure could have been different due to different weather conditions – this could explain why the figure for the 0.88 mol concentration is slightly higher than others. Other possible sources of error are:

* It was very difficult to clean the manganese dioxide from the conical flask and often some remained inside. This can be corrected by adding a small amount of very concentrated hydrogen peroxide and seeing if it reacted or no. If it did, the flask would be rewashed, if it did not, it would be rinsed with water and then used

* Improperly mixed hydrogen peroxide, wrong concentration used: this would mean that the concentration would be a larger/smaller value than expected, and this (as the experiment proved) would affect rate of reaction

* The hydrogen peroxide could have already partially decomposed, which would mean that some of the contents would just be water – hence there would be less collisions between hydrogen peroxide particles and manganese dioxide particles, and rate of reaction might decrease but when it is not supposed to be doing so

* Unclean equipment – if the equipment was not fully clean it would make some of the chemicals react before the experiment, and therefore there would be less mass loss due to some of the particles having already collided with eachother

* The timer may well have been started at the wrong time – human reactions mean that there is some scope for error in this, and this could have meant results were being recorded at the wrong times

* Percentage error – each piece of equipment used for measuring has a percentage error, and this gives some scope for distorted results. The percentage error was calculated for each measuring equipment piece and then the total percentage error calculated, and error bars were drawn onto the graph in order to determine which points were/were not anomalous.

Top pan balance measured to the nearest 0.01g, and the measurements taken were 1×0.25g and the actual experiment. For the first graph, the average value taken was 0.11g. For the second graph, the average total mass lost measured was 0.44g. This was done once per reading, so the experimental error for the top pan balance is:

0.1 (g) ? 0.25 (g) = 4.0% for each measurement of the mass of catalyst.

0.01 (g) ? 0.44 (g) = 2.3% for the graph

The measuring cylinder can be measured to the nearest 0.1ml, the measurements taken were 2x 10ml and 1x5ml. It was taken once per reading, so the experimental error for the measuring cylinder is:

0.1 (ml) / 10 (ml) therefore there is 1% error per 10ml reading, 1% x 2 (there are 2 readings) = 2%

0.2 (ml) / 5 (ml) therefore there is 2% error per 5ml reading

2% + 2% = 4% total percentage error for measuring cylinder

Therefore, total % error for the graph is 10.3%. If the graph is redrawn with error bars, the following is shown:

As the anomalies can be accounted for, and most points lie pretty near the best fit line, and when readings were taken from the graph and tested for proportionality they confirmed the prediction, my results are sufficient to justify the prediction for this range. The results are reliable because repeats were taken to make sure they were not flukes, and because they all lie reasonably close to the best fit line – and anomalies have a clear reason for their presence. However, in order to 100% justify the prediction, the experiment would have to be repeated with certain improvements.

Improvements to the experiment if it were to be redone:

* Investigate a larger range of concentrations (this can be used to determine whether there really is a terminal rate of reaction/mass loss)

* Use more accurate top-pan balance, and use a burette to more accurately measure volume

* Conduct the experiment in a vacuum where there is no atmospheric pressure, and contain the temperature using a temperature probe, taking a reading to make sure the temperature never alters. There will also be no people moving around the top pan balances which causes fluctuation and uncertainty over reliability of readings

* Further investigate rate of reaction using a different variable

* Extend this experiment by using an alternate method – see below

* Do the experiment was using a gas syringe to collect the oxygen gas in, so that the volume given off could be plotted against the time taken for that volume to be collected. Do the experiment in a boiling tube with a rubber bung on top, through which there can be some tubing. This led to the gas syringe, which can measure how much gas has been collected. The rate of reaction could then be calculated by drawing curves for each concentration, and then dividing volume collected by the time it took to collect.

x

Hi!
I'm Amanda

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out