The method used was reliable and increased accuracy in the experiment, making it a fair test. This is proven throughout out the experiment because of many reasons such as the controlling the temperature. We did this by making sure the temperature of all enzymes tested, were consistent and had the same temperature, by putting the potato enzymes (Peroxidase) in a boiling tube then in a water bath to at a temperature of 20*c. This ensured a greater accuracy in the results, because if the temperature of some enzymes were higher than the rest, then the rate of reaction for those enzymes would have been faster as particles would move faster as they heat up speeding up the process. Our method was done at 20*c because this is close to room temperature …show more content…
We did this by repeating our results for each concentration 3 times then averaged them to get a final result. These results were used in the graph with a line of best fit. The results were taken to the nearest 0.1 centimetre because when measuring the height of foam with a ruler the most accurate possible was to 0.1cm. If the result was rounded to the nearest centimetre then the measurement would not be accurate. This way it reduced the amount of error in the experiment, and increased the persision in the experiment, making the findings more accurate. We also looked at outliers (results that are odd and to not math with other trial of same concentration), that may have occurred due to errors such as reaction error or random error etc. We fixed these trials but repeating those trials again and neglecting the outlier. To make sure the investigation was as accurate as possible; we kept results that were between 0.1cm difference. Another way we made sure the experiment was fairly tested and valid was by prevented parallax error. We prevented this by making sure to read scales accurately, such as when measuring the volume in the measuring cylinder and measuring the height of foam/ gas produced by the breaking down of h2o2 using …show more content…
Zero error occurs when; the measuring equipment does not start at zero. Therefore, when weighing 1g of grated potato, we made sure the electric balance was set to zero before placing the potato pieces on top. Also when measuring the height of foam produced, we measured starting from the zero mark. This avoids offset/ incorrect results. This method was valid because it allowed get results that helped me to answer my hypothesis and give me a conclusion that my hypothesis was correct but at high concentration after the saturation point the rate of reaction reaches a maximum rate. As stated in my conclusion, this method also connects to how enzyme action occurs during a substrate concentration reaction. According to the graph, the only part of the experiment that could was improved was at 60% concentration. This must have been a random error in the experiment, such as a delay in pouring the h2o2 in to the reaction at the same time as our trials or starting the stopwatch exactly as the solution is in the boiling tube. I noticed this error as; the result for 60% concentration is sitting furthest away from the best fit
Question3: Experiment 3 The unknown acid sample was 1 • Monoprotic Acid Trails Initial NaOH solution (mL) final NaOH solution (mL) The volume of NaOH to titrate the acid (mL) Amount of Unknown Acid sample 1 (g) The moles of the Unknown Acid (mol) Molar mass of the Unknown Acid (g/mol) A 3.38 28.31 24.93 0.150 0.0026 57.69 B 0.18 29.32 29.14 0.175 0.0029
In the first part of the experiment, Part A, the standard solutions were prepared. As a whole, the experiment was conducted by four people, however, for Part A, the group was split in two to prepare the two different solutions. Calibrations curves were created for the standard solutions of both Red 40 and Blue 1. Each solution was treated with a serial 2-fold dilution to gain different concentrations of each solution.
After record your data and determine the absolute rate of the enzyme-catalyzed reaction. Based on the data and observations the hypothesis was accepted. It was accepted because when pH were changed to a variety of levels the transmittance began to get higher reaction rates. The increased absorbance means greater amount of product and a higher reaction rate will be produced.
It was hypothesized that the optimal pH for the enzyme was pH 7 while the 1.0 ml peroxidase would have the best reaction rate. At the end of the experiment the results prove the hypothesis to be incorrect. INTRODUCTION Enzymes are proteins that allow a reaction to speed up. These proteins are made up of monomers known as amino acids.
Introduction The goal of this experiment was to acquire an understanding of the fundamentals of measurement in addition to analyzing the gathered data. During the experiment, an understanding of basic experimental error was gained as well as how to utilize the error equations to account for margins of error in each experiment. For Investigation 1, the mass, length and diameter of four separate cylinders was measured and utilized to calculate the volume and density of the cylinders. After recording these results in the table, the data of the cylinders was graphed. Then, in Investigation 2, a Geiger counter was utilized to measure background radiation in the lab at intervals of one minute for sixty minutes.
The 0.1% is the concentration amount. Just like temperature and pH, substrate concentration can speed the reaction only up to a certain limit. When we mixed pH 3 enzyme tube with substrate tube, we used 0.3 mL of hydrogen peroxide, but if we were to increase the amount, then the experiment would have been faster. Our
Firstly, the width of the potatoes might not be all the same as they were cut imprecisely, so there might be a random error because not following standard width, which should be constituted at 1-2 mm thick. Secondly, not enough experiments with different independent variables. Experiment under the same independent variable was only conducted one times. Thirdly, the electronic mass kept on changing from 2.0-2.6 g. Human errors in observing the osmosis, pH of the potato slices such as touching potatoes and a small number of trials, which may have led to unreliable results. One of the important weaknesses of the experiment was unstable time periods with watch glass such as not removing the potato slices or Visking tube at the same time.
This could have impact different sized cubes to varying extents. Human error also occurred when the 3cm3 cube had to be repeated as it was initially incorrectly measured. This could have contributed to the results being less reliable as the concentration of phenolphthalein in the agar cube could have been different from that of the other cubes (Unknown, 2008). The method was quite successful and produced relatively accurate results. Next time, a substance such as hydrochloric acid could be used instead of sulphuric
The actual data is the result on our experiment vs theoretical, which is based on the calculations above. I have also learned to pay more attention to draining out all of the product completely before continuing to test the experiment, as any small drop of contaminant can veer our results into a different
5 water bath were set up each to10 °C. (5 were used do the experiment faster) 5 cm3 of starch solution were added into the 5 test tubes that were labeled test tubes. Then 5 cm3 of amylase enzyme was added into the other 5 test tubes that were labeled. Put one of the starch solution test tube (preferably the one labeled 1) and one of the test tube containing amylase into the water bath (10 °C).
I am not sure how the lab could be modified to improve the results. For most of the lab, I was not present, so I am not aware of any inherent weaknesses. Overall, the results were pretty similar to the intended conclusions, with the exception of purple and green / .6 M and .8
ABSTRACT: The purpose of the experiments for week 5 and week 6 support each other in the further understanding of enzyme reactions. During week 5, the effects of a substrate and enzyme concentration on enzyme reaction rate was observed. Week 6, the effects of temperature and inhibitor on a reaction rate were monitored. For testing the effects of concentrations, we needed to use the table that was used in week 3, Cells.
However, I think they could have been more reliable if the intervals between each weight were constant. I started off by going every 50 grams, which then went to every 100 grams. I think it would have given the data results more precision and the pattern and outcome of the graph might have had a better trendline. Fortunately with the materials I had in the experiment, there was some precision, as I was the only one to control the board. Perhaps the one downfall was my method as I had to perform my experiment 2 times before getting the data I wanted, because I was confused on the data I was receiving the first time as they were all the similar.
In the time it took for the enzyme to break up 0.23 grams of egg white at the temperature of 40 degrees, it broke down nearly three times as much in a temperature of 65 degrees. We can see from the graph that the hotter the water bath was the more egg white protein were broken down (because some of the test pieces gained mass, the graph shows the largest LOSS in mass in negatives to distinguish the difference between gaining and losing mass, so if the graph shows negative this indicates the largest loss of mass). Looking back at my hypothesis we can see that it was not correct although some of the predictions were more accurate than others. I predicted that the enzyme would work best in the two middle temperatures as they were the closest to core body temperature. looking at my results from the experiment we can clearly see that this was not true, but instead the two lower temperatures of 4 and 21 degrees Celsius showed a gain in mass while both higher temperatures of 40 and 65 degrees Celsius clearly indicate the breaking down of the particles as their is a clear decline of mass.
The purpose of the experiment was to figure out which means of measurement was more accurate in reaching the proposed weight, the graduated cylinder or the pipette. Two new terms that were mentioned and crucial to the project were standard deviation and reproducibility. Standard deviation was a new term for me in the case that I had never used it in science before only in math classes, I did not understand why the difference between the data collected and the mean was important but now I see it is to see how different the tests were from one another and if the measurement is accurate in the sense that it is constant. The reason that reproducibility was different was because I was stuck on the fact that the experiment had to be repeated by us, and not asking the question , if others did the same thing as us would they be able to get similar data, it was an important reminder, ( Kinnes and Eddington).