The effects of alterations of molarity and temperature of hydrochloric acid on the rate

of reaction, color, and transparency of the products of various reactions.

Ryan Accad, Nathan Dobranski, and Max McLennan

Macomb Mathematics Science and Technology Center

Chemistry 10C

Mrs. Dewey, Mrs. Hilliard, Mr. Supal

May 25 2017
 Table of Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….……..1

Review of Literature ……………………………………………………………………………3

Problem Statement……………………………………………………………………….…….8

Experimental Design………………………………………………………………………..….9

Data and Observations………………………………………………………………………..14

Data Analysis and Interpretation……………,,,…………………………………………......24

Conclusion……………………………………………………………….……………………..31

Appendix A: (“Reaction Labels”) …………………………………….….………………..….35

Work Cited……………………………………………………………….………………..……37
 Introduction

A large portion of common commercial products have some form of chemical reaction

occurring to create the components necessary for the finished product to effective. Several

thousand Americans are employed to perform this exact job (“Chemical Mixer”), and there is a

large market that depends on the efficiency of this process. However, the methods for

performing these reactions are not concrete and finalized, they are flexible and can generally be

improved.

There is a large industrial market focused on creating products that incorporate the

products of several chemical reactions. These include many common household products such

as air fresheners, laundry detergent, and appliance cleaners. Mass producing these products

requires an abundance of time and money spent, however, this process could be sped up. For

example, nearly all air fresheners use some form of hydrochloric acid (“Household Products

Database”), and heating up the reaction would result in faster production and ultimately more of

the product being created in a shorter amount of time, thus increasing profits. The only limit to

this is that the profit gained from the time requirement decrease must be greater than that of

which the costs are to heat the hydrochloric acid. While this idea is applicable to several other

products, not all reactants will allow for this ideal scenario. Research such as this would need to

be conducted for each new set of reactants to find the ideal temperatures and molarities to work

with.

The focus of this experiment was to observe reactions with varying concentrations of

hydrochloric acid, and to examine how changes made to the solutions affected the overalls

color, transparency, and rate of reaction. To accomplish this, three different reactions will be

altered and observed composing of 0.2 M copper (II) sulfate, 14.8 M ammonium hydroxide and

1-3 M hydrochloric acid; 1% cobalt chloride, 0.1 M silver nitrate, and 1 M hydrochloric acid;

1
calcium chloride, distilled water, and 1 M hydrochloric acid. The first two reactions (Reaction Set

A, and Reaction Set B respectively) were chosen for their vastly different reactants with

hydrochloric acid to compare similarities between the two. Reaction Set C was added to

represent a control of how greatly the variables of color, transparency, and rate of reaction

should fluctuate with no change being present for the other two sets of reactions.

Reaction Set A was divided up into five subsets, a control, increased and decreased

molarity of hydrochloric acid, and two variations of increased temperature. From there, these

were compared amongst themselves with the expectation of seeing trends in relation to the

standard, following the principle of a higher temperatures and concentrations resulting in quicker

reaction times. The same was done for Reaction Set B, three subsets were created including a

control, and two variations of increased temperature. Similar results are to be expected,

however the results should not completely match that of Reaction Set A, as they have a

different series of reactants. Reaction Set C only consisted of one reaction per trial, which was

its own standard. It served as a control for the rest of the experiment, as it assisted in confirming

the accuracy of the other two standards. For all three sets of reactions, the color and

transparency was not expected to drastically change regardless of which variables were altered.

2
 Review of Literature

This experiment's purpose was to examine and compare the effects of

temperature and molarity change of hydrochloric acid on three various reactions. These

include hydrochloric acid (HCl), 0.2M copper (II) sulfate (CuSO ), and 14.8M ammonium
4

hydroxide (NH4OH); hydrochloric acid (HCl), 1% cobalt chloride solution (CoCl ), and 2

0.1M silver nitrate (AgNO ); and hydrochloric acid (HCL), distilled water (H O), and 0.1M
3 2

Calcium Chloride (CaCl ). The effects were observed in rate of reactions (measured in
2

seconds), as well as both color and transparency of the product solution.

Rate of reaction is effected by both changes in temperature and concentration

(molarity, or moles divided by liters of solution), regardless of which reaction is

occurring. As temperature increases, the rate at which the reaction occurs accelerates

at a constant rate. This is due to the speed in which molecules within reactants are

moving around their container. Heating up the solution results in the molecules moving

at a more rapid pace, and thus a greater amount of collisions occur. Naturally, more

collisions at a faster rate creates products at the same increased rate (“Reaction

Rates”). The same rule applies to molarity changes, as the number of moles per liter

increases, the rate of reaction takes place in a lesser amount of time. Instead of

individual molecules moving faster as with temperature increase, a higher molarity

means there is more molecules over all in a more condensed space. This means that

there’s more potential for collisions to occur, and for products to be made ("The

Formation of Complex Ions").

3
Figure 1. Concentration Change

Figure 1 shows the difference of a solution when its concentration is increased.

The same reactants, in this case green and orange dots, are present, however they are

more abundant. This allows for more collisions to occur, thus showing how an increased

molarity increases the rate of reaction.

Figure 2. Temperature Change

Figure 2 shows how an increase of temperature effects the motion of atoms and

molecules within a solution. They release more energy causing rapid movement, and a

higher probability of collisions creating products. This result is nearly identical to an

increased concentration, though the means in which they occur are separate.

The color of a reaction is determined by its molecular structures. It can only be

changed when electrons transfer energy levels either by the addition or retraction of

electrons from new compounds (Equilibrium: Concentration and Color). For the

purposes of this experiment, variations of temperature and molarity will not affect the

molecular structures of these products. However, molarity does have an impact on the

4
transparency of solutions. A greater number of atoms/molecules allows for less light to

pass through the container it resides in. A solution with a low molarity will be more

translucent than a solution with a greater molarity, as it would generally begin to look

opaque. The molarities of hydrochloric acid is adjusted enough to see this effect

throughout the experiment.

Table 1
Color Labels
Label Color Description

1 White

2 Sky blue

3 Blue

4 Royal Blue

5 Magenta

11 Light Pink

12 Pink

13 Dark Pink

14 Violet

Table 1 shows the labels used during this experiment for the color spectrum

needed to identify each reaction. This does not incorporate every potential color that a

solution can appear, it only contains the ones visible through this experiment.

5
Table 2
Transparency Labels
Label Transparency Example

1 Transparent 1M Hydrochloric Acid

2 Semi-translucent 0.2M Copper (II) Sulfate

3 Translucent 1% Cobalt Chloride solution

4 Nearly-Opaque Syrup

5 Opaque Milk

Table 2 defines the labeling used in this experiment for different levels of

transparency of solutions. Listed with each label is an example which commonly has a

similar transparency.

Previous research (“Applications of LeChâtelier’s Principal”) conducted a series

of five reactions all using 1M hydrochloric acid (HCl) without variation in temperature.

This resulted in one set of results per reaction, and did not cover how changes in

molarity and temperature affected rate of reaction, color, and transparency. This

research focuses on three of those reactions (labeled correspondingly as Reaction Set

A, B, and C) with changes in the above variables to observe their effects.

Table 3
Reaction List
Reaction Set Reaction

A Cu (aq) + 4NH (aq) → [Cu(NH ) ] (aq)

2+
3 3 4
2+

B (Co(H O) ) (aq) + 4Cl (aq) → (CoCl ) (aq) + 6H O(l)

2 6
2+ –
4
2–
2

C Ag (aq) + Cl (aq) → AgCl(s)

+ –

6
 Table 3 lists the three reactions mirrored from the prior lab. These three were

chosen for their relative diversity in reactants, while also maintaining the constant

hydrochloric acid amongst all of them. For the remainder of this paper, the reactions will

be referred to as Reaction Set A-C. Among these sets, the alterations of molarity and

temperature are included.

The same basic setup for all three of these reactions was followed from the given

lab, the only difference being in preparation of hydrochloric acid. Where the previous lab

had a consistent 1M hydrochloric acid (HCl), this one first determines the necessary

molarity, then heats it up to its required amount before the reaction begins. Other labs

suggested 6M hydrochloric acid, though this experiment was limited to the 3M. This was

since the acid would be heated, therefore the safety precaution was to use the lower

molarity. It should still have an effect though, as three times the number of moles per

liter still influences reaction rate ("Changes in Concentration”). Apart from that, no other

changes were made in the setup procedure. As for data collection, the previous lab only

observed the products color and any unusual traits that occurred. For this, the rate of

reaction and transparency were also included to gain a broader picture of what effect

that variations in molarity or temperature had.

7
 Problem Statement

Problem:

To predict and then observe, given multiple variations of either concentration or

temperature, the variation in products of a reaction between 14.8M ammonium

hydroxide, 0.2M copper (II) sulfate, 1M hydrochloric acid, and distilled water; as well as

another reaction between calcium chloride, cobalt chloride, 3M hydrochloric acid, 0.1M

silver nitrate, and distilled water.

Hypothesis:

The rate at which the reactions occur will be decreased by half as the molarity of

hydrochloric acid is increased. A higher temperature will result in slightly faster reactions

taking place, though will not show as major of change as concentration adjustments.

The final color and transparency of the products will remain at a constant, however the

rate of change in these two variables will not remain the same, and will scale

correspondingly with the new total time that the reactions need to take place.

Data Measured:

Time for each reaction to take place (measured in seconds), transparency and

color (both scales can be found in Table 1 and Table 2) of the final solution were the

dependent measurements for this experiment. The initial temperature (measured in

degrees Celsius) of hydrochloric acid and weight (in grams) of calcium chloride when

applicable were also measured prior to all reactions taken place, and were then

recorded later in the observations section. This was done in order to attribute the cause

of an outlier to these initial measurements, if one were to occur.

8
 Experimental Design

Materials:

Temperature Probe (0.1 C)o

Heating Plate
(9) Test Tube (5) 1 mL Pipette
(2) 250-mL Beaker Pipette Bulb
Stopwatch (9) 40 mL Graduated Cylinder
Heat grip Glass Stirring Rod
3 mL 0.1M Hydrochloric Acid, (HCl) Test Tube Rack
15 mL 1M Hydrochloric Acid, (HCl) 12 g Calcium Chloride (CaCl2)
3 mL 3M Hydrochloric Acid, (HCl) 180 mL (1%) Cobalt Chloride Solution
60 mL 14.8M Ammonium Hydroxide 30 mL 0.1M Silver Nitrate Solution, (AgNO ) 3

(NH OH)
4 150 mL 0.2M Copper (II) Sulfate, (CuSO ) 4

2 L Distilled water

Procedure:

1. Randomly order the nine reactions listed in Appendix A 1-9.

2. Setup a workstation divided into three parts, A, B, and C. Section A should have

five test tubes alongside all the necessary materials listed below, B should have

three test tubes alongside the proper materials, and C should have a singular

test tube with its corresponding materials.

3. Carry out the reactions in order of lowest to highest, based off the initial

measurements assigned in step 1.

For Test Tubes A:

1. Add 2 mL of 0.2M Copper (II) sulfate into the 40-mL graduated cylinder and then

pour it from the graduated cylinder into the correct test tube.

2. Place the test tube under a fume hood.

3. Add 1 mL of 14.8M Ammonium hydroxide into the graduated cylinder and then

pour the solution from the graduated cylinder into the solution already in the test

tube cautiously and gradually, not all at once.

9
 4. Adjust 1 mL of 1M Hydrochloric acid (molarity determined by Appendix A) to the

temperature (As close to the designated temperature in appendix A as possible)

by using a heating plate as necessary.

5. Add the 1 mL of 1M Hydrochloric acid adjusted in the previous step to the

solution in the test tube. Begin the stopwatch as this time.

6. Add the remaining 1 mL of 1M Ammonium hydroxide into the test tube, as in step

4 perform this gradually, not all at once.

7. While videotaping the reaction, record the color of the product solution once the

reaction has finished occurring and stop the stopwatch at this time as well.

8. Dispose of the resulting products in an environmentally safe way, and thoroughly

clean out all containers with soap and water.

9. Repeat the following steps two more times with the designated temperatures and

molarities given in Appendix A.

For Test Tubes B:

1. Add 2 mL of (1%) Cobalt Chloride Into the test tube by pouring it dropwise, not all

at once.

2. Heat 1 mL of Hydrochloric acid to the temperature (designated in Appendix A) by

using a heating plate as necessary. Start the stopwatch as this time.

3. Add the 1 mL of Hydrochloric acid (molarity dependent on reaction taking place)

to the solution in the test tube.

4. Add 1 mL of 0.1M silver nitrate to the solution in the test tube.

5. Record the color of the product solution once the reaction has finished occurring.

Stop the stopwatch at this time as well.

10
 6. Record the color of the product solution once the reaction has finished occurring.

Stop the stopwatch now as well.

7. Dispose of the resulting products in an environmentally safe way, and thoroughly

clean out all containers with soap and water.

For Test Tubes C:

1. Heat a beaker filled with 125mL of water to 40°C

2. Add 5 grains (0.1 grams) of Calcium Chloride into a test tube.

3. Place the test tube under a fume hood.

4. Add 2 mL of distilled water into the test tube.

5. Add 1 mL of hydrochloric acid into the test tube (molarity determined by

Appendix Graph C)

6. Start the stopwatch now.

7. Once the reaction is completed (indicated by no change in color/appearance)

end the stopwatch timer and record the color, transparency, and any other

notable features of the solution.

Main procedure:

l4. Repeat the previous steps twice more, for a total of three complete trials.

11
 Diagrams:

Figure 3. Reaction Set A Chemical Materials

Figure 3 shows the chemicals used in Reaction set A. They are accompanied

alongside the tools used to measure them prior to their addition to the test tubes. These

remained the same during the experiment except for 0.2M copper (II) sulfate. Its supply

was depleted before the end of the third trial, and a dilution of 1M copper (II) sulfate with

water took place to produce more 0.2M.

Figure 4. Reaction Set B and C Chemical Materials

Figure 4 shows all the reactants in the setups for both Reaction Set A and B.

Hydrochloric acid is not listed, and can be found in Figure 3 above. Calcium chloride was

12
the only solid reactant used in the entirety of this experiment, and a weight boat was used

to weigh and move individual grains of it.

Figure 5. General Materials

Figure 5 shows the general set of materials needed for all reactions in this experiment.

Items not pictured include the nine necessary test tubes to complete a singular trial, as well

as the graduated cylinders used to measure out the appropriate number of chemicals.

13
 Data and Observations
Data:
Table 4
Temperature, Color, Transparency, and Rate of Reaction for Reaction A1
Trial Reaction Temperature Color Transparency Time
(°C) (s)

1 A1 23.7 4 4 7.22

2 A1 23.5 4 4 7.36

3 A1 22.3 4 3 7.85

Average: 7.48

Table 4 above shows the temperature, color, transparency, and the average rate for

reaction A1 in test tube A, or the standard. A table describing the color and transparency labels

can be found in the appendix. The colors and transparencies observed were mostly similar, the

time taken to complete the reaction did not vary significantly either.

Table 5
Temperature, Color, Transparency, and Rate of Reaction for Reaction A2
Trial Reaction Temperature Color Transparency Time
(°C) (s)

1 A2 40.0 5 4 7.19

2 A2 30.6 4 4 7.23

3 A2 30.3 4 5 7.32

Average: 7.25

Table 5 shows the temperature, color, transparency, and the average rate for reaction

A2 in test tube A. The rate of reaction between these were nearly identical, thought there was

more variation amongst the color and transparency then in the standard, though they all shared

a common set of measurements.

14
Table 6
Temperature, Color, Transparency, and Rate of Reaction for Reaction A3
Trial Reaction Temperature Color Transparency Time
(°C) (s)

1 A3 39.8 4 5 6.59

2 A3 40.8 5 4 4.32

3 A3 40.6 5 3 5.27

Average: 5.39

Table 6 shows the temperature, color, transparency, and the average rate for reaction

A3 in test tube A. Even though the initial temperature amongst these reactions were nearly

identical, the color and transparency difference was quite major. The longest time is over twice

the length of the shortest.

Table 7
Temperature, Color, Transparency, and Rate of Reaction for Reaction A4
Trial Reaction Temperature Color Transparency Time
(°C) (s)

1 A4 23.5 4 4 7.43

2 A4 23.4 5 4 7.46

3 A4 23.4 4 3 5.01

Average: 6.63

Table 7 above shows the temperature, color, transparency, and the average rate for

reaction A3 in test tube A. The common trend amongst these runs were dark and nearly opaque

solutions that took quite a while to form.

15
Table 8
Temperature, Color, Transparency, and Rate of Reaction for Reaction A5
Trial Reaction Temperature Color Transparency Time
(°C) (s)

1 A5 23. 6 4 4 6.93

2 A5 23.6 4 5 5.85

3 A5 22.0 3 4 9.52

Average: 7.43

Table 8 above shows the temperature, color, transparency, and the average rate for

reaction A5 in test tube A. These reactions have the biggest amount of variability for reaction set

A when it comes to the amount of time taken to react, the quickest time is nearly half of that as

the longest time. However, the color and transparency remain close.

Table 9
Temperature, Color, Transparency, and Rate of Reaction for Reaction B1
Trial Reaction Temperature Color Transparency Time
(°C) (s)

1 B1 23.7 11 5 9.52

2 B1 40.3 12 5 7.34

3 B1 12 5
22.1 9.30

Average:
8.72

Table 9 above shows the temperature, color, transparency, and the average rate for

reaction B1 in test tube B. Consistent results are given, slight variations are there within the time

taken, however not horribly large.

16
Table 10
Temperature, Color, Transparency, and Rate of Reaction for Reaction B2
Trial Reaction Temperature Color Transparency Time
(°C) (s)

1 B2 30.1 11 4 10.23

2 B2 31.0 11 4 10.31

3 B2 29.9 11 4 8.28

Average: 9.61

Table 10 above shows the temperature, color, transparency, and the average rate for

reaction B2 in test tube B. These turned out to be perfectly the same for color and transparency,

and very close for time taken as well with the final trial occurring only two seconds quicker.

Table 11
Temperature, Color, Transparency, and Rate of Reaction for Reaction B3
Trial Reaction Temperature Color Transparency Time
(°C) (s)

1 B3 41.0 12 5 10.56

2 B3 40.2 11 3 12.83

3 B3 40.2 11 5 6.22

Average: 9.87

Table 11 above shows the temperature, color, transparency, and the average rate for

reaction B3 in test tube B. Results varied significantly when it came to time taken, as the first

trial took twice as long as the final one.

17
Table 12
Temperature, Color, Transparency, and Rate of Reaction for Reaction C1
Trial Reaction Temperature Mass Color Transparency Time
(°C) (g) (s)

1 C1 40.2 0.1039 11 5 6.56

2 C1 40.8 0.1030 2 2 6.98

3 C1 41.5 0.0960 2 1 6.84

Average 6.79

Table 12 above shows the temperature, color, transparency, and the average rate for

reaction C1 in test tube C. This was the only set of data where the temperature exceeded the

recommended amount by over one degree, yet that did not seem to have any sort of major

effect on the data. However, there is an outlier with the first trial where the color and

transparency is completely different from the other trials. This is the only outlier found in all the

data. It was most likely due to an inadequately cleaned test tube.

Observations:
Table 13
Observations for Solution A1
Trial Solution Date Observation

1 A1 5/1/17 It was standard, and had a quick change with very little precipitate on
bottom (<5%)that was semi-light blue

2 5/1/17 Was royal blue with (lots of condensation ~50% of test tube surface area) a
A1 crystalline structure

3 A1 5/1/17 Little to no precipitate (<1%), completely royal blue

Table 13 above shows the observations for the three trials with the reaction of A1 on

5/1/17. There tended to be littler precipitate or residue left on test tube, though there was an

occasional change which was most likely due to mixing the solutions in the wrong order.

18
Table 14
Observations for Solution A2
Trial Solution Date Observation

1 A2 5/1/17 Its color was royal blue and it had very minimal condensation at the bottom
(light blue)

2 5/3/17 Turned Purple, 15% no barrier between condensation and solution on top
A2
(Darker secondary solution)

3 A2 5/3/17 Very little precipitate, no barrier as there was only one color of solution

Table 14 shows the observations for the three trials with the reaction of A2 from 5/1/17

to 5/3/17. Very minimal precipitation or condensation was recorded at the bottom of these test

tubes.

Table 15
Observations for Solution A3
Trial Solution Date Observation

Its color was royal blue on the top layer (opaque), then a no crystal layer,
1 A3 4/28/17 mixed among the light blue base

Was purple and there was a small layer separating the light blue
2 A3 5/3/17
precipitate (35%)

3 A3 5/3/17 Turned to a dark shade of purple (<25%) precipitate.

Table 15 shows the observations for the three trials with the reaction of A3 from 4/28/17

to 5/3/17. The common trend for this solution was a small amount of precipitate in a light blue

liquid formed under a crystalline structure that had a royal blue

Table 16
Observations for Solution A4
Trial Solution Date Observation

Its color was royal blue on the top layer (65%) and the bottom was a mix
1 A4 4/28/17 of sky-blue and a crystalline structure

2 A4 5/1/17 purple, small layer separating the light blue precipitate (35%)

Little precipitate left on bottom, very minimal 5% (A dark blue however,

3 A4 5/1/17
probably due to low density)

19
 Table 16 shows the observations for the three trials with the reaction of A4 from 4/28/17

to 5/1/17. There was a common three-layer trend happening, where two colors of solution would

form with a crystalline structure always separating them of about 1 cm in length.

Table 17
Observations for Solution A5
Trial Solution Date Observation

Appeared to have a royal blue top layer and a light blue crystalline
1 A5 4/28/17 structure blocking the sky-blue bottom layer and it formed rather slow

Had a royal blue top with chunks of solid floating around the bottom of the
2 A5 5/3/17
test tube (silver shaded)

Divided layers, small layer of blue (1cm) followed by a crystalline structure

3 A5 5/3/17
of blue, and the remaining copper ii sulfate bottom

Table 17 shows the observations for the three trials with the reaction of A5 from 4/28/17

to 5/3/17. All trials had the same division of layers of royal blue on top, light blue crystalline

structure on bottom, and sky blue bottom layer. Trial 2 however formed silver chunks at the

bottom of the test tube.

Table 18
Observations for Solution B1
Trial Solution Date Observation

1 B1 4/28/17 It turned into an opaque light pink

There was a minimal amount of green precipitate (fused together) that

2 B1 5/3/17
was mostly light pink though (Slightly visible swirl)

Turned dark pink, with a slight amount of white precipitate at the bottom of
3 B1 5/4/17 tube.

Table 18 shows the observations for the reaction of B1 from 4/28/17 to 5/4/17. Most

commonly nothing out of the ordinary happened while creating reactions, they simply turned to a

single shade of pink with potential residue left behind most likely from insufficient cleaning of

glassware.

20
Table 19
Observations for Solution B2
Trial Solution Date Observation

Almost instantly it turned pink and it had precipitate at the bottom where it
1 B2 5/1/17 was slightly green color with a salt formation against the bottom

There was a slight green precipitate (<1%) mainly pink, slightly darker than
2 B2 5/1/17 in the trail below this box

There was a light swirl of white, then turned to a light pink gradually
3 B2 5/4/17 seemingly slower.

Table 19 shows the observations for the reaction of B2 from 5/1/17 to 5/4/17. All trials

turned a pink color. Trial 3 was the only one to have a white tint to it. All trials also had a green

precipitate formed at the bottom.

Table 20
Observations for Solution B3
Trial Solution Date Observation

Had a slight swirling when the second acid was added, but didn't convert
1 B3 4/28/17 all at once to light pink. Close to nothing formed on bottom

Found light pink again, with a white swirl in the middle while the reaction
2 B3 5/1/17 was taking place.

No swirl and instantly turned to a light pink, with no change when

3 B3 5/4/17 hydrochloric acid was added.

Table 20 lists the observations recorded from April 28th to May 5th for all reaction with

solutions pertaining to the B label. Color, transparency, and any other unusual occurrences that

were observed and recorded. All solutions were a shade pink, some with white residue floating

in the test tube, nothing condensed at the bottom however. A slight white swirl was noted in

some reactions.

21
Table 21
Observations for Solution Set C
Trial Solution Date Observations

Was a very light pink, slight bubbling on surface of solution. Most solid left
1 C1 5/1/17 over (fused together)

The color did not change after the copper(II) sulfate, chunks of white, dark
2 C1 5/3/17 green remains of the calcium chloride. Light blue

Same as last standard where very small amounts of green were found at
3 C1 5/4/17 the bottom & nothing else besides sky-blue liquid.

Table 21 above is the observations for test tube C from 5/1/17 to 5/4/17. The first trial

was the only one that did not have a green solid at the bottom of the tube. Also, the first trial

was the only one that was a pink color unlike the rest being a light blue.

Figure 6. Trial 1 Solution A5

Figure 6 shows the finishing result of Solution AE for the first preformed trial. For solution

starting with A, the darker blue top layer was always present at different shades. However, the

light blue base and crystalline structure separating the two was only visible in a small amount of

reactions, one of which is pictured above.

22
Figure 7. Trial 1 Solution B1

Figure 7 shows the finishing result of Solution B1 for the first preformed Trial. Solutions

with a label starting with B generally produced a pink product. Often there would be green or

blue residue at the very bottom of the test tube, as see in the image above.

Figure 8. Trial 3 Solution C1

Figure 8 shows the finishing result of Solution C1 for the third preformed trial. All solution

in the C set were standards as only one was run per trial. Each time there was a small amount

of green residue left over from the calcium chloride at the bottom of the test tube as seen above.

The overall color of the solution varied during the trials though.

23
 Data Analysis and Interpretation

A descriptive analysis was formed due to most the collected data being

qualitative, meaning color and transparency cannot be measured in terms of numbers,

but are better measured using graphs and visual aids to see the results. This is except

for the amount of time needed for each reaction to complete. Each reaction per trial was

randomized to ensure that no lurking variable effected a string of data. This was

accomplished by using the randomization feature on a Ti-Nspire calculator to assign

each reaction with a value of 1-9, then the reactions were performed in order of least to

greatest. A control was used in each trial for each set of reactions; however, limitations

allowed for only one standard to be used per reaction set per trial. This means that the

standards collected may not be as accurate as it could be. This could have been

avoided if more trials were run for the overall experiment. Limitations restricted a

maximum of three trials to be ran, which means variability may have been present due

to lack of a large enough amount of data.

Figure 9. Graph of the Rates of Set A Reactions

24
 The figure above shows a scatter plot of the reactions that took place with their

respective color, what trial was done, and the time it took for the reaction to settle

measured in seconds. In Trial 1 the data of all the reactions were quite close to each

other, however, with trials 2 & 3 the results started to deviate more from each other. The

points of A1 and A2 seem to have a relatively constant rate with the three trials. A3 and

A5 have a similar pattern with starting in similar spots and then decreasing in rate in the

second trial then increasing with the final trial. Lastly A4 had a pretty constant rate until

the last trial when it had dropped. Looking at the reactions characteristics and matching

them up with their data, it can be said that reactions 1-3 that dealt with temperature had

minor changes except for reaction 3 which had hydrochloric acid (HCl 1M) heated to

40°C which implies the higher the temperature the faster reaction. Reactions 4 & 5 dealt

with concentration of hydrochloric acid (HCl 1M) and looking at the two, 0.1M stayed

constant with the outlier of the third trial while 3M went from a low rate to high rate. This

may be due to the lack of normality.

Figure 10. Standards Graph of Set A Reaction

25
 Figure 10 represents the average of standards for set A reactions. The individual

data points were relatively similar, however even though only the trials were performed,

using the average reaction rate and most common color and transparency provides an

accurate visual of what the reaction should look like. It should take just over seven

seconds, and become a slightly translucent shade of royal blue by the end.

Figure 11. Graph of Comparisons for Set A Reactions

Figure 10\1 represents the five reactions in set A, showing the time in seconds of

the reaction as well as the transparency over the course of the reaction taking place.

The reactions all lasted between four and eight seconds and over that time showed

similar points of transparency. The standard shown in Figure 10 took the longest of all

five reactions to complete. This indicates that all four variations in the reaction caused it

to be more efficient as expected. The third reaction was the only one to see a color

change.

26
Figure 12. Graph of the Rates of Set B Reactions

Figure 12 above shows a scatter plot of the reactions that took place along with

the trial number and the time it took for the reaction to settle measured in seconds. In

trial one all the reactions were extremely similar in their rate of reactions, though in trial

two they spread out and had high rates of their reaction times. In the last trial, B1,B2,

and B3 were the quickest to react and were spread apart. B1 and B2 remained

remarkably similar during the trials, so much so that during trial two they overlapped

each other. This shows that B3 will probably be the only reaction, if any, to have some

form of observable variance. It noticeably had a high point in trial two, and a low one in

trial three, which does not indicate what kind of effect that change in solution had on the

reaction by this data alone.

27
Figure 13. Standards Graph of Set B Reaction

Figure 13 above, shows the average of the standards for the set B reactions. The

figure shows the time in seconds for the standard reactions as well as the color and

transparency throughout the time of the reaction. The reaction ended just before the ten

second mark and appeared to be nearly opaque and light bluish-purple. Little change in

color was observed, though from this it is expected that the other trials would also turn

lighter and less transparent when the reaction begins.

Figure 14. Graph of Comparisons for Set B Reactions

Figure 14 represents the three reactions in set B, showing the time in seconds of

the reaction as well as the transparency over the course of the reaction taking place.

28
The reactions all lasted between nine and ten seconds and over that time showed

similar points of transparency except for B2 which appeared to be more translucent.

The first standard was the only one to have a different final color than the others,

however its transparency and rate was similar to that of the final standard. Since the

standard was the only one to produce a color of its sort, this implies that the gain in

temperature was contributing to the color shift for these reactions.

Figure 15. Graph of the Rates of Set C Reactions

Figure 15 above shows a scatter plot of the reaction for set C with the three trials

and the rate of the reaction in seconds where all the trials ended between six and seven

seconds. This shows that there was not much variability amongst the standards.

However, this does not align with the fact that the first standard for reaction set C had a

different final color then the other two standards. Even though the time it took to react is

similar to that of the other two standards, the C standard for trial 1 should still be

considered an outlier due to its extreme difference in color and transparency.

29
Figure 16. Standards Graph of Set C Reaction

Figure 16 above shows the standard set C reaction where the time in seconds is

measured along with the color and transparency. There was on average no change

over the course of this reaction, except for slight changes in transparency. This

conclusion may be drawn from the fact that where was only two data points used to

create this graph, as the first standard for set C was considered an outlier.

Reaction set A followed the expected trends closely, higher temperatures and

concentrations of hydrochloric acid (HCl) resulted in faster rates of reaction. This was

true for all variations of the reaction except for the one containing 0.1M hydrochloric

acid (HCl). As for color and transparency, they remained at a relative constant and did

not vary greatly amongst trials. Reaction set B, however, had the opposite effects on the

rate of reaction. As temperature increased, it took longer for the reactions to occur. The

transparency seemingly remained at a constant, however the color varied significantly

more than that of the Reaction Set A. Finally, the only change to occur in the Reaction

Set C was slight change in transparency, becoming more apparent than its reactants.

Due to this set only contains a standard, the observed minimal variation was expected.

30
 Conclusion

The problem for this experiment was to observe, given multiple alterations of

either concentration or temperature of hydrochloric acid, the variation in products of a

reaction between ammonium hydroxide (14.8 M), copper (II) sulfate (0.2 M), and

hydrochloric acid (1-3 M); as well as another reaction between calcium chloride, cobalt

chloride, hydrochloric acid (1 M), silver nitrate (0.1 M), and distilled water. These three

reactions are referred to as the first reaction set, the second reaction set, and the third

reaction set respectively. The data collected included the total amount of time, in

seconds, it took the reaction to take place, as well as the color and transparency of the

product solution. After running three trials of this experiment, the hypothesis was

rejected. It stated that an increased concentration or temperature will result in a twenty-

five percent increase in rate of reaction while the products color and transparency will

remain at a constant. This trend was only observed in a select few reactions, meanwhile

most data did not support this conclusion. The data collected in reaction set A tended to

support the hypothesis, however reaction set B varied greatly. As temperature and

concentration was increased for reaction set A, the amount of time needed for the

reaction to take place reduced by anywhere from five to forty percent, and the mode

color and transparency stayed consistent with the control. This means that the proposed

effects in the hypothesis did tend to take place in set A, as the variables increased, the

total time needed to complete the reaction decreased. The only reaction to not support

this was the reaction containing 0.1 M hydrochloric acid, as it did also see in an

increase in rate of reaction when it should have decreased. The opposite effect

happened for reaction set B. As temperature increased, the rate of reaction decreased

31
slightly, by just over ten percent for each reaction. This means that as temperature

increased, the total amount of time taken for the reaction did so as well. However, this

trend was at least consistent in the fact that the higher temperature had the most severe

effect. There was also little consistency amongst transparency and color, this varied

from reaction to reaction and only remained relatively close to the constant. As there is

no special circumstance that would exempt the second set of reactions from the

hypothesis; it must be denied even with the compelling evidence from the first set.

As a general rule, an increase in temperature or concentration of a reactant will

produce the same number of products though will create the products at a faster rate

(“"Le Chatelier's Principle"”). This is seen in all of solution set A except for A4 which had

a quicker reaction time regardless of its decreased molarity. However, this may have

been due to an error in time tracking, and a lack of repeated trials. For the most part,

the findings of solution set A support the general rule. Solution set B on the other hand,

had completely different results that went against what they were predicted to be.

Higher temperatures meant the reactants particles should be moving faster, with an

overall higher amount of energy creating the perfect scenario for creating the products.

This however, was not seen. Each increase of temperature resulted in a longer time for

the reaction to take place. The temperature was not increased enough for this

experiments purposes, and a total difference of just under twenty degrees was

insufficient to see any major variations (“Le Chatelier's Principle and Applications”).

Chance alone could have allowed for these results to go against this common scientific

principle.

32
 The major issue within this experiment was the lack of repetitively. Only three

trials were performed which significantly reduces the accuracy, and limits the precision

of the data collected. There should have been a wider variety of data collected over the

course of several mode days, preferably more than ten trials would have resulted in

more reliable results. Another flaw with the experiment is temperature variation. A one-

and-a-half-degree buffer was allowed when measuring out the hydrochloric acid, this

meant that there was a potential three-degree difference between trials. This major

variation was the result of using small amounts of chemicals to create solutions,

meaning that the singular milliliter of acid could adjust rapidly if not monitored closely.

Future iterations of this experiment may want to use increased measurements of all

materials so the issues of working with extremely small amounts of temperature varying

liquids is not present.

Since three different sets of reactions took place, the ability to use majority of the

same materials and setups proved to be a very beneficial part of the experimental

design. The process that involved using the same temperatures, and hydrochloric acid

molarities throughout the whole experiment saved both time and resources from having

to create and adjust these variables nine times a trial. Another benefit to using this

experimental design is the incorporation for third set of reactions. There was no change

or variation amongst these, they were just a standard that offered one set of data per

trial. This does not necessarily add anything to accept or reject the hypothesis, however

it shows the variability amongst reactions that should be at a constant, and provides

insight on whether the other sets of reactions produced reliable data.

33
 This research could be further expanded by completing a greater number of trials

with more severe variation in temperature and concentration of hydrochloric acid.

Alternatively, the same variables could be used with different reactions involving

hydrochloric acid. A chart could then be created listing several attributes of the product

solution even more so than just color and transparency, there is potential to include

density, volume difference, and an abundance of other traits. This could be used in a

lab setting when working with hydrochloric acid, and a mixture not having the

hypothesized results. Looking up the attributes of the found product could indicate that

there was residue of other chemicals, which changed the reactions tying to take place.

A similar event happened when performing this research, where a beaker was most

likely not completely cleaned and therefore an unknown substance was created. This

can be seen in the final reaction of trial one. It remains completely independent of the

other two trials, having a completely different color and transparency.

34
 Appendix A: Reaction Labels

Table 1
Differing Reactant Labels for Set A
Label Reaction Traits

A1 Reaction Procedure A: Hydrochloric acid - 1M - Room Temperature

A2 Reaction Procedure A: Hydrochloric acid - 1M - 30°C

A3 Reaction Procedure A: Hydrochloric acid - 1M - 40°C

A4 Reaction Procedure A: Hydrochloric acid - 0.1M - Room Temperature

A5 Reaction Procedure A: Hydrochloric acid - 3M - Room Temperature

Table 1 above gives the layout for the reactions taking place in Set A. It

showcases the differing reactant that is in the reaction varying from molarity and

temperature of hydrochloric acid.

Table 2
Differing Reactant Labels for Set B
Label Reaction Traits

B1 Reaction Procedure B: Hydrochloric acid - Room Temperature

B2 Reaction Procedure B: Hydrochloric acid - 30°C

B3 Reaction Procedure B: Hydrochloric acid - 40°C

Table 2 above shows the layout for the reactions taking place in Set B. It shows

the reactants differing temperature while being enclosed in water.

35
Table 3
Reactant Label for Set C
Label Reaction Traits

C1 Reaction Procedure C: Hydrochloric acid - 40°C

Table 3 shows the reaction of Set C, since this set only has one reaction which is

the standard, only one trait is shown. Forty degrees was chosen to get an accurate

representation of how a reaction should vary from trial to trial with no change at such a

high temperature.

36
 Citations

Unknown. "Reaction Rates." The effect of temperature on rates of reaction. N.p.,

n.d. Web. 23 May 2017

<http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/basicrates/temperature>.

"Collision Theory and Rates of Reactions." BBC. BBC, n.d. Web. 23 May 2017.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/ocr_gateway_pre_2011/rock

s_metals/7_faster_slower3.shtml>.

C, Mailto. "Equilibrium: Concentration and Color." Chemical Equilibrium. N.p., n.d.

Web. 23 May 2017.

<http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c123/concolor.html>.

Clark, Jim. "Le Chatelier's Principle." Le Chatelier's Principle. N.p., 2002. Web. 19

Mar. 2017. <http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/equilibria/lechatelier.html>.

Libretexts. "17.3: The Formation of Complex Ions." Chemistry LibreTexts. Libretexts,

14 Dec. 2016. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.

<https://chem.libretexts.org/Textbook_Maps/General_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps

/Map%3A_Chemistry_(Averill_and_Eldredge)/17%3A_Solubility_and_Complexati

on_Equilibria/17.3%3A_The_Formation_of_Complex_Ions>.

Choudhary, Ankur. "Preparation of Indicator Solutions." Pharmaceutical Guidelines.

N.p., 2008. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.

<http://www.pharmaguideline.com/2010/09/preparation-of-indicator-

solutions.html>.

37
–, and Ra. Equilibrium Reactions – In Any Reaction the Reactants React to Give

Products (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.

<http://employees.oneonta.edu/knauerbr/226lects/226_acid_base_lec.pdf>.

Boundless. "Changes in Concentration - Boundless Open Textbook." Boundless.

Boundless, 26 May 2016. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.

<https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/concepts/changes-in-concentration-0-

6815/>.

Extraction (equilibrium) Constant." IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology

(n.d.): n. pag. Web. 19 Mar. 2017. <http://www.laney.edu/wp/cheli-

fossum/files/2012/01/034.pdf>.

"Le Chatelier's Principle and Applications" 302. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.
<http://ch302.cm.utexas.edu/chemEQ/equilibrium/selector.php?name=lechateliers>.
"

38