Raw Data: Suscrose concentration (0.00M) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Change in mass (g) (+/-0.1g) 0.04 0.19 0.10 -0.27 Change in length (mm) (+/- 0.1mm) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 Suscrose concentration (0.10M) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Change in mass (g) (+/-0.1g) 0.29 0.44 0.22 0.08 Change in length (mm) (+/- 0.1mm) 1.10 0.30 0.30 0.70 Sucrose concentration (0.20M) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Change in mass (g) (+/-0.1g) 0.16 0.28 0.26 0.00 Change in length (mm) (+/- 0.1mm) 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.50 Sucrose concentration (0.30M) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Change in mass (g) (+/-0.1g) 0.09 0.10 0.06 0.05 Change in length (mm) (+/- 0.1mm) 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.60 Suscrose concentration (0.40M) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Change in mass (g) (+/-0.1g) -0.24 0.00 0.04 -0.25 Change in length (mm) (+/- 0.1mm) -0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Suscrose concentration (0.50M) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Change in mass (g) (+/-0.1g) -0.31 -0.33 -0.21 -0.34 Change in length (mm) (+/- 0.1mm) -0.20 -0.10 0.00 -0.50
Processed Data: Suscrose concentration (0.00M) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Average Standard Deviation Change in mass (g) (+/- 0.1mm) 0.04 0.19 0.10 -0.27 0.02 0.16 Change in length (mm) (+/- 0.1mm) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.08 0.12 Suscrose concentration (0.10M) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Average Standard Deviation Change in mass (g) (+/- 0.1mm) 0.29 0.44 0.22 0.08 0.26 0.12 Change in length (mm) (+/- 0.1mm) 1.10 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.60 0.31 Sucrose concentration (0.20M) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Average Standard Deviation Change in mass (g) (+/- 0.1mm) 0.16 0.28 0.26 0.00 0.30 0.10 Change in length (mm) (+/- 0.1mm) 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.50 0.18 0.12 Sucrose concentration (0.30M) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Average Standard Deviation Change in mass (g) (+/- 0.1mm) 0.09 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.02 Change in length (mm) (+/- 0.1mm) 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.60 0.25 0.21 Suscrose concentration (0.40M) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Average Standard Deviation Change in mass (g) (+/- 0.1mm) -0.24 0.00 0.04 -0.25 -0.11 0.13 Change in length (mm) (+/- 0.1mm) -0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.03 0.04 Suscrose concentration (0.50M) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Average Standard Deviation Change in mass (g) (+/- 0.1mm) -0.31 -0.33 -0.21 -0.34 -0.30 0.05 Change in length (mm) (+/- 0.1mm) -0.20 -0.10 0.00 -0.50 -0.20 0.19
The Essay on Potato Chip Concentration Mass Chips
Osmosis Investigation We are trying to find out what the concentration of the solutions is inside the vacuole of a potato cell. We will investigate how the mass of the potato chips change in different sucrose solution concentrations. We will use osmosis to do this. I will be measuring and controlling many different variables, these include; -The dependent Variable - Weight of potato chip ...
Calculations: Average: This was calculated by adding all of the group’s results together and then dividing them by four. Standard Deviation: (On a Texas Instruments 84 silver edition calculator) On->STAT->Edit->Enter results->STAT->CALC->
Conclusion: As we can see in the graph there is clearly no specific pattern in the sucrose concentrations and the effects that they have on the average change in mass and length. Except that in average change in mass we see a dip before the rise again and in the average change in length shows a peak at 0.10M and then continues downwards with the other sucrose concentrations. We can also refer to the error bars and see that there was a wide range of data for many of the results and only some have a small range which indicates that there was human error,
Evaluation:
Problem How it affected results Solution The test tubes used for the experiment were not dry and had water inside of them. This could have affected the results because it could have other substances in it that affect the water potential of potatoes. This can be fixed by simply drying the test tubes at the beginning of the experiment with a clean paper towel. Sterilized water was not used to make concentrations
The Essay on How North Carolina Is Affected By Water Pollution
HOW NORTH CAROLINA IS EFFECTED ECONOMICALLY BY WATER POLLUTION About 80% of the State's surveyed freshwater rivers and streams have good water quality that fully supports aquatic life uses, 17% have fair water quality that partially supports aquatic life uses, and 3% have poor water quality that does not support aquatic life uses. Ten percent of the surveyed rivers do not fully support swimming. ...
This could have affected the results because it could have other substances in it that affect the water potential of potatoes. This can be fixed by using sterilized water next time instead Equipment measuring was inaccurate
This can affect the results because the readings on the equipment may be wrong. This cant be fixed in terms of equipment but more trials could be made to find an average which would in turn be more correct.
