International Baccalaureate

Chemistry - Extended Essay

Title: Acids and Bases: A Study about their conductivity in aqueous solutions

RQ: How the varying strength and concentration of acids and bases in an aqueous solution affect
the electric conductivity of the solution through the process of ionization.

Word Count: 7041*

1
 Table of contents

Title Page ………………………………………………………………….. 1

Abbreviations……………………………………………………………… 3

Research Question………………………………………………………… 3

Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 3

Background Information…………………………………………………. 4

​ Acids and Bases ………………………………………………………….. 4

​ Ionization and Dissociation ………………………………………………. 5

​ Variables ………………………………………………………………….. 6

Materials and Methods ………………………………………………….. 11

​ Apparatus List ………………………………………………………….... 11

​ Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………….... 12

​ Methods…………………………………………………………………... 12

Results and Data Analysis……………………………………………….. 16

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………….. 28

Evaluation………………………………………………………………… 29

Bibliography……………………………………………………………… 31

2
Abbreviations

List of abbreviations used to represent the full names of chemicals in this essay:

Table 1. Abbreviation list

Full name (in alphabetical order) Abbreviation

Ammonium hydroxide NH₄OH

Calcium Hydroxide Ca(OH)2

Ethanoic Acid (acetic) CH3COOH

Nitric Acid HNO3

Potassium Hydroxide KOH

Sodium Hydroxide NaOH

Sulfuric Acid H2S04

Research Question:

How the varying strength and concentration of acids and bases in aqueous solution affects the
electric conductivity of solution through the process of ionization.

Hypothesis:

The electric current will become greater as the molarity increases. Additionally, this positive
strong correlation will be true independently of the compound and its strong or weak
conductivity ability.

3
Introduction:

​ All compounds that dissolve in water fit into two categories, electrolytes, and
nonelectrolytes. Acids and Bases are compounds, together with salt, that compose the
electrolytes. Those substances, when in an aqueous solution, can conduct electricity as a result of
dissociation, meaning, the breaking up of compounds into cations, positively charged ions, and
anions, negatively charged ions.
​ The aim of this investigation is to analyze how the strength and concentration of acids
and bases can affect the electric conductivity of an aqueous solution. This will be achieved
through an experiment testing 7 different types of acids and bases in aqueous solutions with
varying concentrations of 1 mol/L, 0.5 mol/L, and 0.1 mol/L. In total, there will be 21 solutions
tested through the use of an electric circuit and a multimeter to register the values for electric
current and electric potential. There will be 5 trials made for each concentration in order to
compensate for the differences in current in the process of stabilizing the measurement wires of
the multimeter. Through analyzing the results, it will be possible to determine what are the
effects of various strengths and concentrations on the electric conductivity of each solution.

Background Information:

Acids and Bases:

​ There are two main theories that classify acids and bases. The Arrhenius theory of acids
and bases classifies these two types of compounds by considering the ions that were in the
solution when water was added. An Arrhenius acid is a compound that increases the
concentration of H+ ions in the solution with water. The H+ ions, when combined with water
molecules, form hydronium ions (H3O+) in the solution.

+ −
𝐻𝐶𝑙(𝑎𝑞) → 𝐻 (𝑎𝑞) + 𝐶𝑙 (𝑎𝑞) ​
​

4
​ An Arrhenius base is a compound that produces hydroxide ions when put in an aqueous
solution. All bases are solid at room temperature and, when dissolved in water, generate a metal
cation and a hydroxide ion, for example, LiOH.

+ −
​ 𝐿𝑖𝑂𝐻(𝑎𝑞) → 𝐿𝑖 (𝑎𝑞) + 𝑂𝐻 (𝑎𝑞)
​
​ Aside from referring to the concentration of solvent ions, the Arrhenius definition of
acidity and alkalinity is only applicable to aqueous solutions. Due to these restrictions, it is
advised to expand the definition of acids and bases to include a general definition put forth by
Brønsted-Lowry. Their theory is centered around the proton, which is a hydrogen molecule that
1 − +
has lost an electron, ( 1𝐻 − 𝑒 → 𝐻 ). A Brønsted acid is a proton donor and a Brønsted base is

a proton acceptor.

+ − + −
𝐻𝐶𝑙 + 𝐻2𝑂 → 𝐻3𝑂 + 𝐶𝑙 𝑁𝐻3 + 𝐻2𝑂 ⇄ 𝑁𝐻4 + 𝑂𝐻

Additionally, for Brønste-Lowery the acids and bases were conjugated into pairs. The
conjugate base of a Brønsted acid is the species that remains when one proton has been removed
from the compound. Conversely, a conjugate acid results from a Brønsted base when it gains a
proton.

− +
𝐶𝐻3𝐶𝑂𝑂𝐻 (𝑎𝑞) + 𝐻2𝑂 (𝑎𝑞) ⇄ 𝐶𝐻3𝐶𝑂𝑂 (𝑎𝑞) + 𝐻3𝑂

acid 1 base 2 base 1 acid 2

Lastly, another way to classify the acidity and basicity of a compound is the ph which is
the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration in mol/L, varying from 1 to 14.

+ −7
​ ​ ​ 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑: [𝐻 ] > 1. 0 * 10 𝑀, 𝑝𝐻 < 7. 0
+ −7
​ ​ ​ 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑐: [𝐻 ] < 1. 0 * 10 𝑀, 𝑝𝐻 > 7. 0

5
 For bases there is another scale called pOH which is the negative logarithm of the
hydroxide concentration. The sum of the pH of a solution and its pOH is 14.0, so to calculate the
pOH of a base we can also subtract the pH from 14.

Ionization and Dissociation:

​ Dissociation is a chemical reaction in which a compound or molecule breaks into simpler

constituents. Usually, dissociation is a reversible process. * Ionization is the process in which a
charged atom or molecule is produced through the gain, negative charge, or loss, positive charge,
of an electron. If the loss or gain of the electron stabilizes the ion, respecting the octet rule, the
process is irreversible. Only covalent compounds can undergo ionization since the sharing of the
electron happens throughout the covalent bond which, when broken, will generate ions. Also,
they can only be polar covalent compounds with a significant difference in electronegativity.
Acids can also be classified based on the hydronium ions that are released during
ionization. In monoprotic acids, each unit of acid releases one hydrogen ion during the reaction.

+ − − +
𝐻𝐶𝑙(𝑎𝑞) → 𝐻 (𝑎𝑞) + 𝐶𝑙 (𝑎𝑞) 𝐶𝐻3𝐶𝑂𝑂𝐻 (𝑎𝑞) ⇄ 𝐶𝐻3𝐶𝑂𝑂 + 𝐻

​
​ In diprotic acids each unit of acid yields 2 hydronium ions during ionization.

+ − − +
​ 𝐻2𝑆𝑂4(𝑎𝑞) → 𝐻 (𝑎𝑞) + 𝐶𝑙 (𝑎𝑞) 𝐶𝐻3𝐶𝑂𝑂𝐻 (𝑎𝑞) ⇄ 𝐶𝐻3𝐶𝑂𝑂 + 𝐻

​ There are also triprotic acids, which release 3 hydronium ions on ionization, but they are
not as common. The most known triprotic acid is phosphoric acid even though it is a weak acid.

​ Water [H2O] is a very weak electrolyte and, therefore a poor electricity conductor, still, is
a very special compound since it can act as a base or acid. The reaction between water molecules
is denominated autoionization of water and is represented as:

6
 Figure 1. Molecular representation of water ionization

Source: https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/genchemforgeegees/chapter/5-2-autoionization-of-water-ph-poh/

​ Additionally, acids and bases can be classified as strong or weak based on their
effectiveness to ionize in contact with water. Strong acids are also strong electrolytes that, for
practical reasons, are assumed to ionize completely in water, meaning, the solution at
equilibrium of a storing acid will not contain any nonionized acid molecule. Some examples
used in this study are Hydrochloric acid [HCl], Sulfuric acid [H2SO4], and Nitric acid [HNO3].
Accordingly, strong bases are also strong electrolytes that completely ionize in aqueous
solutions. All hydroxides of alkali metals and certain hydroxides of alkaline earth metals are
strong bases, that in this work, are Sodium hydroxide [NaOH], potassium hydroxide [KOH], and
calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2]. Moreover, most acids are weak since they ionize only to a limited
extent in an aqueous solution. At equilibrium, aqueous solutions present a mixture of nonionized
acid molecules, hydronium ions, and the conjugate base; for example acetic acid [CH3COOH]
and citric acid [C6H8O7]. Consistently, weak bases are weak electrolytes, ionizing to a limited
extent in water.
​ In order to measure the strength of acids and bases compounds there is the percent
ionization which shows that the higher percent ionization the strength of the compound. This
percentage is given by the fórmul:

7
 𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑡 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑢𝑚
​ 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑠
* 100

In the case of weak acids, there are also the acid ionization constants that demonstrate the
equilibrium expression for the ionization of that weak acid. The acid ionization constant is given
by Ka, the higher the Ka the stronger the acid, inside the weak acids category. Using the weak
acid [CH3COOH] as an example, the Ka would be given by:

+ −
[𝐻 ]*[𝐶𝐻3𝐶𝑂𝑂 ]
𝐾𝑎 = [𝐶𝐻3𝐶𝑂𝑂𝐻]*[𝐻2𝑂]

Compared with the total concentration of water, only a small limited amount of water
molecules are ionized by this reaction, so the [H2O] can be treated as a constant.

+ −
[𝐻 ]*[𝐶𝐻3𝐶𝑂𝑂 ]
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 𝐾𝑎 = [𝐶𝐻3𝐶𝑂𝑂𝐻]

Strong acids do not have an ionization constant because it is assumed that they ionize
completely in aqueous solutions meaning that the denominator will tend to nearly zero while the
acid ionization constant would approach zero. Accordingly, weak bases are measured with a base
ionization constant which follows the same formula as the acids. Using the weak base [NH3] as
an example:
+ −
[𝐻 ]*[𝑁𝐻2 ]
𝐾𝑏 = [𝑁𝐻3]

​ Generally, it's possible to calculate the hydronium/hydroxide ion concentration or pH of

an acid/base of a solution at its equilibrium based on the initial concentration of the compound
and its ionization constant. This information is very useful, taking into account that the ion
concentration due to ionization is what will determine the electric conductivity power of the
compound which is the object of research for this work.

8
Variables:

Table 2. Independent Variables

Independent Variables

Variable How it will be altered

Type of Acid or Base The experiment will be performed 9 times

changing the compound used each time in
order to observe the impact of the change in
the strength of the compound will have on the
dependent variables.

The concentration of acid/base The first solution will have a molarity of 10

mol/L and will be diluted into 5 mol/L, 1
mol/L, 0.1 mol/L, and 0.01/mol/L by adding
water into the previous solution.

Table 3. Dependent Variables

Dependent Variables

Variable How the change will be measured

Electric Current (ampere) First of all, an electricity font will be

connected to two copper wires. The other end
of those wires will be put inside the solution.
In order to change the electric current, a
multimeter will be placed in the wires before
they enter the solution (as a form of control of
the electricity font) and inside the solution.

9
 The change will be aborted after analyzing the
change of electric current in each different
independent variable.

Electric Potential (Volts) The same procedure to measure the electric

current will be used to measure the electric
potential as explained above.

Table 4. Control Variables

Control Variables

Variable Effect on the experiment How it will be controlled

Temperature The extent of ionization The experiment will occur in

varies according to the a temperature-controlled
temperature, it increases with space due to complete air
an increase in temperature. conditioning, which will be
Therefore, the concentration kept at 25 degrees Celsius.
of hydronium and hydroxide
ions increases which would Additionally, the temperature
also increase the electrical of the solution will be
conductivity of the checked using a chemical
electrolytes and compounds thermometer.
used in the experiment.

Table 4 - Control Variables

​

10
Materials & Methods

Chemicals Materials:

-​ 100 ml 1M solution of NH₄OH

-​ 100 ml 1M solution of H₂SO₄
-​ 100 ml 1M solution of CH₃COOH
-​ 100 ml 1M solution of HNO₃
-​ 4g of NaOH
-​ 5.6g of KOH
-​ 74.1ml 1.35M solution of Ca(OH)₂
-​ 800 ml of distilled water

Equipment:
-​ 7 100 ml Becker
-​ 50 ml Becker
-​ Laboratory wash bottle
-​ Lab glasses
-​ Lab coat
-​ Lab gloves
-​ Lab Mask
-​ Multimeter
-​ 6V font
-​ Copper wires
-​ Mini LED lamp
-​ Scientific Scale

11
Risk Assessment:
​
​ The experiment had some safety concerns, therefore, a list of precautions had to be
carefully observed. Most of the chemical materials were a safety hazard that could not come into
contact with the skin since it could cause irritations and burns. If the chemical substance comes
in contact with the experimenter's skin, wash the region with running water and call for help
since medical assistance may be needed. For substances like ammonium hydroxide, inhalation is
also a health concern since it could irritate the nose, throat, and lungs. In the case of the
substance intoxicating the air, move away from the chemical and reach for medical help since
long exposure can result in pulmonary edema. Additionally, the becker needs to be handled with
caution since it’s made out of glass and could break. In case of breakage, ask the lab assistant for
help, and don’t touch the glass with bare hands since the sharp edges could cause cuts or stick to
the skin. To prevent all these safety concerns it is recommended to use lab glasses, coats, masks,
and gloves besides making sure to have the support of a lab assistant at all times if a medical
emergency occurs.

Method for building the circuit:

​ To measure the electric current that was passing through the solutions it was necessary to
set a circuit utilizing a protoboard, wires, a 6V font, an LED lamp, and the multimeter. The
circuit was built in the protoboard, serving as the main material. Then the font was added to
create a potential difference of 6V so it could form an electric current, meaning the electrons are
attracted to the negative pole producing the flow of electric charge. Additionally, the lamp was
used as resistance to stabilize the circuit and to allow the experimenter to see if the electric
current was being affected by the solution to the change in the light intensity of the LED lamp.
Also, the multimeter was connected to the circuit in a series to register de flow of electrons in the
systems. Lastly, the wires were used to connect all components as shown in the following figure:

12
​ Figure 2. The electric circuit is made to measure the conductivity of each solution.

After constructing the circuit, the font needs to be connected to an electrical outlet and
then ready to use in the next stages of the experiment. Additionally, the multimeter used in this
circuit has an uncertainty of ± 0.01 µA which will be important when reflecting on the data in the
results section of this study.

Method for preparing the solutions with solid components at room temperature (25°C)
​
​ Since the investigation started with a concentration of 1M it was necessary to make a
solution using the solid compound and its molar mass (MM). This process was necessary for
only two compounds, sodium hydroxide, and potassium hydroxide since they are solid at room
temperature. Additionally, the mass used for each compound is their molar mass divided by ten
since only 100 ml is needed.

1.​ Use the balance to weigh one 10th of the compound molar mass.
2.​ Put the weighted amount in a becker of 100ml.

13
 3.​ Add distillate water to the becker until it reaches the 100ml mark.
4.​ Repeat steps 1-3 using the other compound and their respective molar mass.

Method for preparing a 1M solution from a solution with different molarity

Again, it’s necessary to use 100ml of a solution with a molarity of 1M to start this
investigation. In this specific case, the wanted component, calcium hydroxide was mixed in a
solution with water of 1.35M, thus needing to be diluted to 1M. To discover the initial volume
needed from the 1.35M solution it is recommended to use the formula for diluting and substitute
the known values:
𝑀1 * 𝑉1 = 𝑀2 * 𝑉2

1. 35𝑚𝑜𝑙/𝐿 * 𝑉1 = 1𝑚𝑜𝑙/𝐿 * 0. 1𝐿
1𝑚𝑜𝑙/𝐿 *0.1𝐿
𝑉1 = 1.35𝑚𝑜𝑙/𝐿

𝑉1 = 0. 0741𝐿

Therefore the following steps are:

1.​ Add 74.1ml of Ca(OH)₂ to a 100ml becker
2.​ Add distilled water to the becker until it reaches the 100ml mark.

Method for diluting the solutions into 0.5mol/L and 0.1mol/L

​
​ Besides the compound cited above, the other chemicals were in a solution of 1M thus
only requiring pouring it on a 100ml beaker. With all the solutions ready, use the circuit to
measure the electric current of each 1M solution by dipping the wires from the circuit into the
solution and holding it until it stabilizes, thus recording the value. Repeat this process for all the
solutions with 1 M concentration.

14
‘​ To discover how much water is needed to dilute the solution to 0.5M the formula for
diluting is used. The same process goes for diluting it to a 0.1M solution. Let’s consider solutions
of 1M, solution 1, 0.5M, solution 2, and 0.1M, solution 3, thus the dilution process would happen
like this:

𝑀1 * 𝑉1 = 𝑀2 * 𝑉2

1 * 0. 1 = 0. 5 * 𝑉2
1*0.1
𝑉2 = 0.5

𝑉2 = 0. 2𝐿

𝑀2 * 𝑉2 = 𝑀3 * 𝑉3

0. 5 * 0. 2 = 0. 1 * 𝑉3
0.5*0.2
𝑉3 = 0.1

𝑉3 = 1𝐿

For the first dilution it formed a ration of ½ between solution 1 and the distilled water
added and for solution 3 it formed a ration of ⅕ of solution 2 and ⅘ of solution one. In order to be
able to repeat the experiment 5 trials and not waste a lot of chemical components, the ratios were
used as a reference for the dilutions instead of the direct recommended value. This means that
instead of adding 100 ml of distilled water to the first solution, it only needed 20 ml from the
first solution and then added more 20 ml of distilled water since the ratio would continue the
amae, it would be able to achieve the same molarity with a less chemical compound. The steps
for this part of the experiment are the following:

1.​ Put 20 ml of the 1M solution into a 50 ml becker.

2.​ Add 20 ml of distilled water to the 50 ml becker
3.​ Measure and record the electric current of solution 2 using the circuit with the
multimeter

15
 4.​ Take 30 ml of solution 2 off the becker, only leaving 10 ml of solution 2 on the 50
ml becker
5.​ Add 40 ml of distillate water to the 50 ml becker, thus creating solution 3
6.​ Measure and record the electric current of solution 3 using the circuit with the
multimeter
7.​ Repeat steps from 1-6 until solution 1 of the compound ends, thus constituting 5
trials.
8.​ Repeat the steps 1-7 with all solutions.

Results:

​ The following tables present the molarity and the respective electric current measure in
each trial for all 5 trials of each chemical compound studied.

Table 5. Measure of NH₄OH molarity (mol/L) and its corresponding electric current (µA)
NH₄OH Electric Current (±0,01µA)
Concentration
(mol/L) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5
1 mol/L 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.40
0.5 mol/L 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.30
0.1 mol/L 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20

Table 6. Measure of Ca(OH)₂ molarity (mol/L) and its corresponding electric current (µA)
Ca(OH)₂ Electric Current (±0,01µA)
Concentration
(mol/L) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5
1 mol/L 3.10 3.30 3.50 3.40 3.50
0.5 mol/L 2.80 2.60 3.00 2.90 3.00
0.1 mol/L 2.40 2.60 2.70 2.60 2.50

16
Table 7. Measure of H₂SO₄ molarity (mol/L) and its corresponding electric current (µA)
H₂SO₄ Electric Current (±0,01µA)
Concentration
(mol/L) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5
1.0 mol/L 69.20 70.00 70.40 70.40 70.40
0.5 mol/L 56.80 60.40 57.20 57.20 57.20
0.1 mol/L 24.80 25.60 23.20 23.20 23.20

Table 8. Measure of NHO3 molarity (mol/L) and its corresponding electric current (µA)
NHO3 Electric Current (±0,01µA)
Concentration
(mol/L) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5
1.0 mol/L 20.40 20.00 20.50 20.20 20.30
0.5 mol/L 17.40 18.50 18.40 17.70 18.00
0.1 mol/L 9.00 8.50 9.10 8.70 9.00

Table 9. Measure of NaOH molarity (mol/L) and its corresponding electric current (µA)
NaOH Electric Current (±0,01µA)
Concentration
(mol/L) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5
1 mol/L 14.30 14.00 14.80 14.80 14.70
0.5 mol/L 10.30 10.50 10.50 10.60 10.50
0.1 mol/L 4.70 4.30 4.50 4.60 4.40

17
Table 10. Measure of KOH molarity (mol/L) and its corresponding electric current (µA)
KOH Electric Current (±0,01µA)
Concentration
(mol/L) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5
1 mol/L 13.80 14.30 14.70 14.20 13.60
0.5 mol/L 11.50 12.40 12.60 12.40 12.50
0.1 mol/L 4.50 4.80 5.60 4.70 4.80

Table 11. Measure of CH3COOH molarity (mol/L) and its corresponding electric current (µA)
CH3COOH Electric Current (±0,01µA)
Concentration
(mol/L) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5
1 mol/L 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.07
0.5 mol/L 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05
0.1 mol/L 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02

With the collected data, the average electric current can be calculated for each molarity. This is
done by adding all the 5 electric current measurements for a molarity and dividing the result by 5. The
uncertainty of this average is taken by subtracting the minimum electric current (𝐴𝑚𝑖𝑛) from the

maximum electric current (𝐴𝑚𝑎𝑥) of a corresponding molarity. Lastly, to calculate the molarity

uncertainty (M) it's necessary to realize all the operations to discover the molarity using the uncertainty
of each individual measurement. After performing these calculations, one can reach the following results:

Calculations for Table 12-18:

(𝐴𝑎𝑣𝑒) is calculated by:

18
 5
∑ 𝐴𝑖
​ ​ 𝐴𝑎𝑣𝑒 = 𝑖=1
5
= ( (𝑇1+ 𝑇2+𝑇3+𝑇4+𝑇5)
5 )
​ Uncertainty of (𝐴𝑎𝑣𝑒) is calculated as follows:

𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝐴𝑚𝑎𝑥− 𝐴𝑚𝑖𝑛

​ ​ Uncertainty of (𝐴𝑎𝑣𝑒) = 2
= 2

Sample calculation of (𝐴𝑎𝑣𝑒) and the uncertainty of (𝐴𝑎𝑣𝑒) for CH3COOH M = 1 mol/L :

​ 𝐴𝑎𝑣𝑒 = ( (0.8+0.7+0.7+0.5+0.7)
5 )
𝐴𝑎𝑣𝑒 = 0.7 (mol/L)

0.8−0.5
Uncertainty of (𝐴𝑎𝑣𝑒) = 2
A= 0.15 µA

​ Uncertainty of (M) is calculated by finding the uncertainty of 𝑀1 and realizing the calculations

using its and the volume uncertainty.

Sample calculation of molarity uncertainty for NaOH:

𝑚
𝑀1 = 𝑀𝑀*𝑉1

3.9997(±0.1)
𝑀1 = 39.997*0.1(±0.005)

Relative uncertainty of m:

0.1
𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 = 3.9997
* 100

𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 = 0. 025 * 100

𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 = 2. 5%

Relative uncertainty of V:

19
 0.005
𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 = 0.1
* 100

𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 = 0. 005 * 100

𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 = 5%

Thus, to find the uncertainty of the molarity it is needed to sum the relative uncertainties:

𝑀1 = 1 (± 0. 075)𝑚𝑜𝑙/𝐿 (RU = 7.5%)

​ Using this uncertainty and the formula for dilution, the relative uncertainty is propagated through
the process as the following:

1(± 0. 075) * 0. 1(± 0. 005) = 𝑀2 * 0. 2(± 0. 010)

1(±0.075)*0.1(±0.005)
𝑀2 = 0.2(±0.010)

𝑀2 = 0. 5 (± 0. 0875) (RU = 17.5%)

0. 5(± 0. 0875) * 0. 2(± 0. 010) = 𝑀3 * 1(± 0. 015)

0.5(±0.0875)*0.2(±0.010)
𝑀3 = 1(±0.015)

𝑀2 = 1 (± 0. 0240) (RU = 24%)

Table 12. Average electric current and its corresponding NH₄OH molarity and uncertainty.

Average
NH₄OH Average Molarity
electric current
Concentration electric current Uncertainty
Uncertainty
(mol/L) (µA) (mol/L)
(µA)
1.0 mol/L 0.46 0.0000 0.05
0.5 mol/L 0.28 0.0050 0.05
0.1 mol/L 0.26 0.0075 0.05

20
Table 13. Average electric current and its corresponding Ca(OH)₂ molarity and uncertainty.

Average
Ca(OH)₂ Average Molarity
electric current
Concentration electric current Uncertainty
Uncertainty
(mol/L) (µA) (mol/L)
(µA)
1.0 mol/L 3.36 0.16750 0.20
0.5 mol/L 2.86 0.17125 0.20
0.1 mol/L 0.26 0.0075 0.05

Table 14. Average electric current and its corresponding H₂SO₄ molarity and uncertainty.

Average
H₂SO₄ Average Molarity
electric current
Concentration electric current Uncertainty
Uncertainty
(mol/L) (µA) (mol/L)
(µA)
1.0 mol/L 70.08 0.0000 0.6
0.5 mol/L 57.76 0.0050 1.8
0.1 mol/L 24.00 0.0075 1.2

Table 15. Average electric current and its corresponding NHO3 molarity and uncertainty.

Average
NHO3 Average Molarity
electric current
Concentration electric current Uncertainty
Uncertainty
(mol/L) (µA) (mol/L)
(µA)
1.0 mol/L 20.28 0.0000 0.25
0.5 mol/L 18 0.0050 0.55
0.1 mol/L 8.86 0.0165 0.30

21
Table 16. Average electric current and its corresponding NaOH molarity and uncertainty.

Average
NaOH Average Molarity
electric current
Concentration electric current Uncertainty
Uncertainty
(mol/L) (µA) (mol/L)
(µA)
1.0 mol/L 14.52 0.0750 0.40
0.5 mol/L 10.58 0.0875 0.15
0.1 mol/L 4.5 0.0240 0.20

Table 17. Average electric current and its corresponding KOH molarity and uncertainty.

Average
KOH Average Molarity
electric current
Concentration electric current Uncertainty
Uncertainty
(mol/L) (µA) (mol/L)
(µA)
1.0 mol/L 14.12 0.0678 0.55
0.5 mol/L 12.28 0.0839 0.55
0.1 mol/L 4.88 0.0233 0.55

Table 18. Average electric current and its corresponding KOH molarity and uncertainty.

Average
CH3COOH Average Molarity
electric current
Concentration electric current Uncertainty
Uncertainty
(mol/L) (µA) (mol/L)
(µA)
1.0 mol/L 0.07 0.0000 0.015
0.5 mol/L 0.04 0.0050 0.005
0.1 mol/L 0.02 0.0075 0.005

22
 Using these values it's possible to plot the graphs for each chemical compound relating the
molarity and the average electric current to visualize and understand the correlation between them:

Graphic 1. NH₄OH Concentration (mol/L) x Average electric current (µA)

​ From Graph 1, I conclude that there is a correlation between the independent and dependent
variables of the study, thus NH₄OH Concentration and the average electrical conductivity. Additionally,
this correlation is positive as shown by the positive gradient of the trend line offered by Google Sheets.
The lowest value measured for the electric current is 0.26 (± 0.01) µA and the highest measurement is
0.46 (± 0.01) µA, meaning that the electrical conductivity is approximately 0.1 µA higher every time the
molarity is increased by 0.5 mol/L of NH₄OH. The coefficient of determination (r2) is high thus showing a
strong positive correlation between the variables. However, it is important to notice that the trend line
only passes through the error bars of the values. One reason for this is that the values measured are very
small which relates to a big relative uncertainty of the measurements, like 0.26 (± 0.01) µA which has a
relative uncertainty of 38.5%, thus it is important to keep this in mind to notice if this uncertainty is
propagating to the other compounds as well.

23
 Graphic 2. Ca(OH)₂ Concentration (mol/L) x Average electric current (µA)

Graph 2 also demonstrates the correlation between Ca(OH)₂ Concentration (mol/L) and Average
electric current (µA). The determination coefficient is even higher, reaching 0.9937 which shows a strong
and positive correlation between the dependent and independent variables. The lowest value measured for
the electric current is 2.56 (± 0.01) µA and the highest measurement is 3.36 (± 0.01) µA, meaning that the
electrical conductivity is approximately 0.4 µA higher every time the molarity is increased by 0.5 mol/L
of Ca(OH)₂. Differently from graph 1, the trend line passes through all points, which is a contrast to be
noticed in all graphs.

Graphic 3. H₂SO₄ Concentration (mol/L) x Average electric current (µA)

24
​ Again, Graph 3 demonstrates a strong positive correlation between the variables H₂SO₄
Concentration (mol/L) x Average electric current (µA), thus presenting a coefficient of determination
equals to 0.897. The lowest measurement for the electric current is 24.00 (± 0.01) µA and the highest is
70.08(± 0.01) µA, thus the electrical conductivity increases by approximately 23.04 µA per 0.5 mol/L of
H₂SO₄. In Graph 3 de correlation is higher than in Graph 1 but the trend line doesn't pass to any of the
points or its error bars, which are so small compared to the values that it doesn't appear in the figure.
Since the uncertainty is relatively smaller, it goes against the idea that the uncertainty had a major
influence on the trendline not being 100% accurate. Due to this, my new hypothesis is that there is a
bigger uncertainty in the solutions that came already ready with a molarity of 1, since it wasn't made
following the methodologies chosen for this study they could present a higher uncertainty, thus resulting
in the trend line not passing through the points or error bars. Both the compounds from Graphics 1 and 3
came diluted in a solution of 1M and the compound of Graphy 2 was made using the second methodology
from chemically defined in the study.

Graphic 4. NHO3 Concentration (mol/L) x Average electric current (µA)

​ Graphic 4 also portrays the correlation between the dependent and independent NHO3
concentration (mol/L) x Average electric current (µA). The determination coefficient and the trendline

25
follow the same pattern from Graph 1 and 3, it presents a strong positive correlation but it doesn't cross all
the points or error bars. This fact supports my hypothesis that the initial solution which was bought with
the intended concentration is not as relaxed as the orders. Additionally, the highest average electric
current is 20.28 (± 0.01) µA, while the lowest is 8.86(± 0.01) µA, therefore the electric current
measurement increases by approximately 5.17 µA per 0.5mol/L of NHO3.

Graphic 5. NaOH Concentration (mol/L) x Average electric current (µA)

​ Accordingly, Graph 5's coefficient of determination, r2 = 0.9696, and trend line demonstrate a
strong positive correlation between the variables: NaOH Concentration (mol/L) and Average electric
current (µA). Also, the lowest measurement for the electric current is 4.50 (± 0.01) µA and the highest is
14.52 (± 0.01) µA, thus the electrical conductivity increases approximately 5.01 µA per 0.5 mol/Lof
NaOH. Additionally, the trendline passes through all points or error bars, the same pattern observed in
Graph 2, which had the 1M solution also made by following the methodologies of this study, thus
supporting the theory that the solution purchased ready has more uncertainty in their molarity.

26
 Graphic 6. KOH Concentration (mol/L) x Average electrical current (µA)

Furthermore, Graph 6 allows me to conclude that there is some correlation between the KOH
Concentration (mol/L) x Average electrical current (µA). Since the coefficient of determination is equal to
0.9475 it demonstrates it is a strong and positive ​correlation between the variables. Also, the highest and
lowest measurement for the electrical current is 14.12 (± 0.01) µA and 5.08 (± 0.01) µA, therefore the
average electric current increases by approximately 4.52 µA per 0.5 mol/L of KOH. In addition, the
trendline crosses all points and error bars which is in line with Graphs 2 and 5 which were the 1M
solutions made for the study.

Graphic 7. CH₃COOH Concentration (mol/L)x Average electrical current (µA)

27
​ Lastly, Graph 7 also demonstrates a strong positive correlation between the CH₃COOH
Concentration (mol/L) and Average electrical current (µA) due to the coefficient of correlation which is
equal to 0.992. Differently from the other purchase-ready 1M solutions, the trendline crosses all points in
the graph, serving as an outline for my hypothesis. In order to explain this difference, I would suggest that
the values measured are so little that the uncertainty present on the CH₃COOH 1M solution becomes
irrelevant, but there isn't enough data to prove that. Additionally, the highest average electric current is
0.07 (± 0.01) µA, while the lowest is 0.02 (± 0.01) µA, therefore the electric current measurement
increases approximately 0.025 µA per 0.5mol/L of CH₃COOH.

Conclusion

​ After the data was collected from the experiment and processed, it can be concluded that the
results support the initial hypothesis completely. One can observe from Tables 12-18 that the average
electric current increases as the concentration or molarity of each compound also increases, suggesting a
positive correlation. In order to check for these observations graphs 1-7 were plotted using Google
Sheets, which also presented the coefficient of determination and trendline of each graph. After analyzing
all the values for the coefficient of determination it establishes enough evidence to conclude that all
graphs present a strong and positive correlation since the scientific convention for these characteristics is
r2 > 0.7, which all coefficient of determination presents fall in.

Additionally, one can notice that there was a relatively high precision in the data obtained. There
were a total of 5 trials conducted for each compound and molarity and Tables 4-11 demonstrate that most
of the electric current measurements stay within the uncertainty range of the average electrical current
calculated in Tables 12-18. However, the same precision was not demonstrated in graphs due to the line of
best fit not crossing some of the points or error bars present in the data set. As observed, this issue was
mostly present in the measurements made from solutions that were purchased with a concentration of 1
mol/L. There is no information in the bottle about its uncertainty, thus when constructing the graph I
considered that the uncertainty was 0, which also affected the error bars. Even though the Ethanoic Acid
is an outline, it is probably due to the fact that the electric current measurements were really small. For
example, the uncertainty of the multimeter used was ± 0.01µA and the lowest measurement for
CH₃COOH was 0.02 meaning that the relative uncertainty of this measurement is 50%. Due to this high
uncertainty, it is hard to define if this compound is an outline or if the imprecision is getting in the way.
Additionally, there is another issue which is uncertainty propagation. Since the chosen methodology was

28
 to dilute the initial solutions to not waste the chemical compounds, the uncertainty of each measurement
was added with the new volume which was used to dilute the solution into a less concentrated one. This
addiction made the relative uncertainty greater if a different solution would be made from scratch every
time, especially for the solutions with a molarity of 0.1 mol/L. Even though this is a problem, it didn't
highly impact the study, but it's something to reflect upon for further exploration.

All in all, this report was able to answer its research question: the electrical current increases as
the molarity of each solution increases since a more concentrated solution will present more molecules to
be ionized, thus becoming more conductive. Also, the strength of the acid or base doesn't interfere with
this relationship, since it has been shown that independently of the strength the variables will have a
strong positive correlation that can be demonstrated through their coefficient of determination. Lastly, the
comparison between strong and weak compounds appears because the stronger the compound, the higher
the electric current measured, like H2SO4 which is the strongest acid in the study and has therefore the
highest average electric current measured

Evaluation

Table 19. Possible weaknesses and limitations affecting the results.

Source of error and its effects Significance & evidence Improvements

Systematic errors affecting accuracy

Bekcer interval of measurement: the High significance, because: Conduct the experiment with a
beaker of 100 ml was divided into 20 ml, - The volume measure through higher precision tool like a
meaning that the precision of the tool was the beaker was used throughout graduated cylinder of 100 ml
±10 ml. This is a big issue since for each the whole experiment as the which offers more precision than
dilution the initial value used from the 100 initial measure of volume for the becker, thus reducing the
ml beaker was 20 ml, thus having a solution 1, thus propagating uncertainty propagation, therefore
relative uncertainty of 50% from the start. uncertainty throughout the whole making all the measurements in
This uncertainty probably propagated to experiment. the experiment more precise. This
the dilations, causing a - as the experiment was would increase the accuracy of
higher-than-expected uncertainty in the conducted, it was noticeable that the electric current since the
molarity of the solutions. Since the there was a slight variation amount of molecules that could
concentration in mol/L is the independent between the measurements used suffer ionization in each
variable of this experiment, the from the becker. concentration would be more
propagation of this uncertainty could have precise.
been even more detrimental by, for
example, affecting the correlation
between the studied variables.

29
Limited range & amount of data: there High significance, because: Included molarity of 5 mol/l,
were 3 different molarities ranging from 1 - There were not enough data 4.5mol/L, 4mol/L, 3.5 mol/L, 3
to 0.1 mol/L which gave a certain points for each solution to help mol/L, 2.5 mol/L, 2 mol/L, 1.5
correlation observed in graphics 1-7. deduce the type of correlation mol/L, 0.05 mol/L and 0.001
Using only 3 concentrations in mol/L in between the variables. Also, the mol/L totaling 13 molarities used
this range might have resulted in an electric current will not keep in this experiment. Since the
inaccurate correlation between both increasing with the concentration focus of the study is more on the
variables. of the solution since it will reach correlation between molarity and
a moment where the chemical electrical current, I would exclude
reaction is saturated and there 3 compounds from the list and
will not be enough water to act as only focus on one weak acid, one
a base or acid to give continuity strong acid, one weak base, and
to the ionization process. one strong base, besides making
Therefore, the electric current more trials. This would probably
measurement should hit a point give a more accurate correlation
where it doesn't matter if the and perhaps indicate a clear line
molarity increases, it should stay of best fit.
the same. This theory also
suggests that the trend line that
would better fit the data would be
logarithmic since this function is
known to reach a horizontal
asymptote, which is what is
predicted to happen with the
correlation between molarity and
electric current. One can observe
that this error generates severe
limitations for the conclusions
that could arise from the study,
thus needing to be evaluated.

Random errors affecting precision

Uncertainty of the scientific scale: The Insignificance, because: Being insignificant, there is no
digital scale used in the experiment had an - an uncertainty of ±0.1g is improvement needed.
uncertainty of ±0.1g, which could give a considerably small, barely
slightly greater or smaller mass than the affecting the precision of the
actual measured or wanted, hence shifting values measured.
all the points to the right or left. - The scale was only used to
prepare two solutions in which
3.9997 grams of KOH and 5.6
grams of NaOH were used, thus
resulting in the relative
uncertainty of 2.5% and 1.79%
respectively. Even the relative
uncertainties are low, thus
demonstrating that it didn't
majorly affect the experiment.

30
Electric Current measure precision: when Low significance, because: Since the tool used was
messing with the electric current that is - an uncertainty of ±0.01µA is responsible for this error, the only
passing through each solution the considerably small, therefore solution is to substitute it with
equipment, the multimeter, had an barely affecting the precision of more precise equipment.
uncertainty of ±0.01µA, which could have the values measured. Additionally, if the first option
given a slightly greater or smaller electric - However, when measuring low weren't available, the compounds
current than the actual measured/wanted, values such as the electric current with really low conductivity
hence shifting all points to the right or left. of CH3COOOH the relative would be discarded to maintain
uncertainty reached 100% in the precision and reliability within the
measures of Table 18 since the study.
value was also 0.01µA.

Bibliography

Alviar-Agnew, Marisa, and Henry Agnew. “14.4: Molecular Definitions of Acids and Bases.” Chemistry

LibreTexts, 4 Apr. 2016,

chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/Introductory_Chemistry/14%3A_Acids

_and_Bases/14.04%3A_Molecular_Definitions_of_Acids_and_Bases.

BYJU's. “Acids and Bases - Definition, Examples, Properties, Uses with Videos & FAQs.” BYJUS, 2022,

byjus.com/chemistry/acids-and-bases/#:~:text=An%20acid%20is%20any%20hydrogen.

Bylikin, Sergey, et al. Oxford IB Diploma Programme: Chemistry Course Companion. 2014. Oxford,

Oxford University Press, 2014.

Clark, Jim. “Overview of Acids and Bases.” Chemistry LibreTexts, 23 Feb. 2019,

chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplem

ental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Acids_and_Bases/Acid/Overview_of_Aci

ds_and_Bases.

Fogaça, Jennifer . “Medindo a Força Dos Ácidos. Testando a Força Dos Ácidos.” Educador Brasil

Escola,

31
 educador.brasilescola.uol.com.br/estrategias-ensino/medindo-forca-dos-acidos.htm#:~:text=Resul

tados%20e%20Discuss%C3%A3o%3A. Accessed 3 Nov. 2023.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Ionization Energy.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2019,

www.britannica.com/science/ionization-energy.

32