Determining What Factors Affect The Rate of Electroplating 1

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 8

Determining What Factors Affect the Rate of Electroplating

Design

Research Question

How does adjusting the current flowing through an electrolytic cell influence the rate at which a
metal is electroplated?

Variables

Independent- Current (A)

Dependent- Difference in Mass (g)

Controlled- Anode (copper penny), Cathode (quarter), Power Supply, Solution (copper (II)
sulfate), Scale, Time of Reaction, Surface area of penny and quarter submerged in solution

Hypothesis

As the current flowing through the electrolytic cell is increased, the mass transferred from the
anode to cathode will increase. These variables will share a linear relationship. This is due to the
fact that as current is increased from the power supply, more electrons are flowing through the
electrolytic cell, and as more electrons flow through the system, more cations are also flowing
through the system, which are attracted to and deposit on the cathode.

Materials

250mL beaker, Approximately 100mL or more of copper (II) sulfate, DC power supply, 3 copper
cables for power supply (2 banana-alligator [1 black 1 red], 1 banana-banana [red]),
Approximately 5 copper pennies (dated pre-1972) and 5 quarters, Timer, Scale, Ammeter

Ammeter
Anode (+) Cathode (-) e-
(copper (quarter)
penny)

e-

Timer
Cu (2+) (s) SO4 (2-) (g)

.1 M copper (II) sulfate Power Supply (DC)


Setup

The diagram above provides an overview of how the lab was prepared in order to collect data.
Since current was the factor being tested, an adequate DC power supply was needed, and since
current rather than voltage was being tested, an ammeter was also placed in the circuit in order
to measure current in smaller increments. For this setup, the copper penny acted as the anode,
which meant that oxidation would be taking place at this electrode. The quarter acted as the
cathode in the cell, which meant reduction was taking place at this electrode, and the quarter
would be plated by copper. Electrons would be flowing into the cathode, or quarter; and would
flow out of the anode, or penny. Approximately 100mL of copper (II) sulfate solution was used
within each trial, and each trial lasted for approximately 75 seconds, ample time for the
electroplating to take place. In order to control the volume of solution used in each trial, a new
100mL of solution taken from the same container was used in each trial, in order to avoid
impurities within the solution. For each trial, the same equipment was used, including cables,
power supply, ammeter, and scale. Time was controlled through constant attention to the
timer, starting it as soon as current began flowing through the cell and stopping as soon as the
power supply was turned off. The surface area of the penny and quarter submerged in solution
was controlled by marking the diameter on both the quarter and penny, and using this line as
the stopping point at which both coins were submerged. This line was at an equal position on
every penny and every quarter. The line was marked prior to weighing the coins so as to not
influence the final measurement of the mass. The coins were kept from submerging further into
the solution by taping the cables against the sides of the beaker.

Procedure

1. Mixed approximately 600mL of 0.1M copper (II) sulfate solution.


2. Prepared circuit using power supply, copper cables, and ammeter. Black cable
connected directly from negative output to cathode. Red banana-banana cable
connected from positive output to lowest current input in ammeter. Red banana-
alligator cable connected from negative output on ammeter to anode. (Leave power
supply off!)
3. Poured approximately 100mL of copper (II) sulfate into 250mL beaker.
4. Marked diameter line on each quarter and penny with a marker.
5. Weighed and recorded initial mass of penny and quarter to be used in trial (in grams).
6. Clipped black alligator cable onto quarter (cathode ), and red alligator cable onto penny
(anode).
7. Submerged the penny and quarter into the solution, stopping at the diameter mark. (Do
not submerge alligator clips as well!)
8. Secured penny and quarter, as well as connected wires, against the side of the beaker
using tape.
9. Turned on power supply and increased power to desired current (amps). Began
recording time as soon as power supply was turned on.
10. Allowed current to flow through the cell for approximately 75 seconds. Ceased timing as
soon as power supply was turned off.
11. Removed quarter and penny from solution.
12. Reweighed quarter and penny (in grams) after they were both dried off, as solution left
on the coins would affect the measurement.
13. Repeated steps(4-12) for two more trials using same current but different coins.
14. After three trials were completed, solution was disposed of properly, and 100mL of
solution was remeasured and poured into the beaker for three new trials at an
increased current.
15. Repeated steps (4-14) at four new values of current (amps). Current was increased by
0.1 amps from trial to trial.
16. After trials were completed, disposed of all used solution properly, and disconnected
cell. (be sure power supply is off!)

Data Collection and Processing

0.1 amps

Initial Mass of Penny Final Mass of Penny Final Mass of Quarter


Initial Mass of Quarter Time (s)
(g) Uncertainty=+/- (g) Uncertainty=+/- (g) Uncertainty=+/-
(g) Uncertainty=+/-0.0005 +/-0.005
0.0005 0.0005 0.0005
Trial 1 3.076 5.634 75.01 3.073 5.637
Trial 2 3.093 5.630 75.10 3.091 5.633
Trial 3 3.154 5.594 74.96 3.151 5.597
Observations- Significant plating did not become visible until final 15-20 seconds; Copper plating on
quarter was very faint

0.2 amps

Initial Mass of Penny Final Mass of Penny Final Mass of Quarter


Initial Mass of Quarter Time (s)
(g) Uncertainty=+/- (g) Uncertainty=+/- (g) Uncertainty=+/-
(g) Uncertainty=+/-0.0005 +/-0.005
0.0005 0.0005 0.0005
Trial 1 3.115 5.717 75.01 3.111 5.722
Trial 2 3.126 5.698 75.06 3.122 5.702
Trial 3 3.098 5.701 74.89 3.093 5.705
Observations- Significant plating did not become visible until final 15-20 seconds; Copper plating on
quarter visibly similar to that of trial 1, yet significant change visible on penny
0.3 amps

Initial Mass of Penny Final Mass of Penny Final Mass of Quarter


Initial Mass of Quarter Time (s)
(g) Uncertainty=+/- (g) Uncertainty=+/- (g) Uncertainty=+/-
(g) Uncertainty=+/-0.0005 +/-0.005
0.0005 0.0005 0.0005
Trial 1 3.088 5.684 75.06 3.081 5.690
Trial 2 3.119 5.655 74.99 3.112 5.662
Trial 3 3.090 5.623 75.02 3.084 5.630
Observations- Significant plating visible after 30 seconds; Significant visible change present on both
plated quarter and oxidized penny

0.4 amps

Initial Mass of Penny Final Mass of Penny Final Mass of Quarter


Initial Mass of Quarter Time (s)
(g) Uncertainty=+/- (g) Uncertainty=+/- (g) Uncertainty=+/-
(g) Uncertainty=+/-0.0005 +/-0.005
0.0005 0.0005 0.0005
Trial 1 3.128 5.602 75.10 3.117 5.614
Trial 2 3.088 5.730 74.85 3.078 5.742
Trial 3 3.101 5.696 75.08 3.090 5.706
Observations- Significant plating visible within 20 seconds of start of reaction; Copper plated onto
quarter was slightly black (burnt); Significant visible change on penny from oxidation

0.5 amps

Initial Mass of Penny Final Mass of Penny Final Mass of Quarter


Initial Mass of Quarter Time (s)
(g) Uncertainty=+/- (g) Uncertainty=+/- (g) Uncertainty=+/-
(g) Uncertainty=+/-0.0005 +/-0.005
0.0005 0.0005 0.0005
Trial 1 3.154 5.668 75.09 3.140 5.683
Trial 2 3.116 5.697 75.03 3.102 5.713
Trial 3 3.137 5.718 75.01 3.122 5.733
Observations- Significant plating visible within seconds of start of reaction; Plated copper quickly burnt
and became very flaky; Significant visible oxidation on penny

Processed Data

*Note- Rate of Reaction= Average Change in Mass/Time


Avg. Change in Mass= ([Change in Mass of Penny]+[Change in Mass of Quarter])/2
0.1 amps

Change In
Change In Mass Average Change In Rate of
Mass of Penny Rate of Eletroplating
of Quarter (g) Mass (g) Electroplating
(g) (g/s) Absolute
Uncertainty=+/- Uncertainty=+/- (g/s) Percentage
Uncertainty=+/- Uncertainty
0.001 0.0005 Uncertainty
0.001
Trial 1 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.000040+/-17% 0.000040+/-0.000007
Trial 2 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.000040+/-17% 0.000040+/-0.000007
Trial 3 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.000040+/-17% 0.000040+/-0.000007

0.2 amps

Change In
Change In Mass Average Change In Rate of
Mass of Penny Rate of Eletroplating
of Quarter (g) Mass (g) Electroplating
(g) (g/s) Absolute
Uncertainty=+/- Uncertainty=+/- (g/s) Percentage
Uncertainty=+/- Uncertainty
0.001 0.0005 Uncertainty
0.001
Trial 1 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.000070+/-10.% 0.000070+/-0.000007
Trial 2 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.000050+/-13% 0.000050+/-0.000006
Trial 3 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.000070+/-10.% 0.000070+/-0.000007

0.3 amps

Change In
Change In Mass Average Change In Rate of
Mass of Penny Rate of Eletroplating
of Quarter (g) Mass (g) Electroplating
(g) (g/s) Absolute
Uncertainty=+/- Uncertainty=+/- (g/s) Percentage
Uncertainty=+/- Uncertainty
0.001 0.0005 Uncertainty
0.001
Trial 1 0.007 0.006 0.007 0.000090+/-7.0% 0.000090+/-0.000006
Trial 2 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.000090+/-7.0% 0.000090+/-0.000006
Trial 3 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.000090+/-7.0% 0.000090+/-0.000006

0.4 amps

Change In Mass Change In Mass Average Change In Rate of Rate of


of Penny (g) of Quarter (g) Mass (g) Electroplating Eletroplating (g/s)
Uncertainty=+/- Uncertainty=+/- Uncertainty=+/- (g/s) Percentage Absolute
0.001 0.001 0.0005 Uncertainty Uncertainty
Trial 1 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.00016+/-4.0% 0.00016+/-0.000006
Trial 2 0.010 0.012 0.011 0.00015+/-5.0% 0.00015+/-0.000008
Trial 3 0.011 0.010 0.011 0.00015+/-5.0% 0.00015+/-0.000008
0.5 amps

Change In Mass Change In Mass Average Change In Rate of Rate of


of Penny (g) of Quarter (g) Mass (g) Electroplating Eletroplating (g/s)
Uncertainty=+/- Uncertainty=+/- Uncertainty=+/- (g/s) Percentage Absolute
0.001 0.001 0.0005 Uncertainty Uncertainty
Trial 1 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.00020+/-3.0% 0.00020+/-0.000006
Trial 2 0.014 0.016 0.015 0.00020+/-3.0% 0.00020+/-0.000006
Trial 3 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.00020+/-3.0% 0.00020+/-0.000006

This graph shows the rate of reaction at for each trial at each of the five current measurements.
Due to the fact that for many values of current, the rate of reaction in each trial was
approximately the same, some points overlap one another.
Conclusion and Evaluation
The aim of this experiment was to determine how the rate of electroplating a metal could be
influenced by some variable. The variable chosen was the current flowing through the electrolytic cell. In
my hypothesis, I predicted that as the current was increased within the electrolytic cell, the mass
transferred from anode to cathode would increase as well. My hypothesis also stated that these two
variables would share a linear relationship. After conducting the trials and processing the data, it
appears that my hypothesis was not proven to be true. While the rate of electroplating may have
increased as current was increased, as was stated in my hypothesis, the data does not support a
conclusion that these variables shared a linear relationship. When viewing the graph of the processed
data, it appears that the data more closely follows a quadratic relationship. This means that as current is
increased by a set interval, the rate of electroplating increases exponentially. However, this does not
make sense given the fact that within an electrolytic cell, the current flowing through the cell should be
directly proportional to the amount of substance lost or gained at either the anode or cathode. This
means that as current is increased, the rate of electroplating increases, and both variables share a linear
relationship. If my data had followed this pattern, my hypothesis would be proven true. The fact that my
data did not follow a linear relationship proves that there are errors within the set up and execution of
this experiment which can be attributed to many factors.
The first source of error within this lab is human error. Human error was present in multiple
measurements. For example, each trial did not last the exact same amount of time due to human
inability to start and stop the stopwatch at the exact same time during each reaction. While the
differences in recorded time are so slight that they may be insignificant in regards to processing the
data, there still is an error present that may have influenced the equipment. Another possible source of
error would be the masses of the quarters and pennies used within each trial. While every quarter and
penny may have a different mass from one another straight out of production, the coins can also
buildup other substances on the surface over time, and the variation in mass from penny to penny and
quarter to quarter within each trial would lend to inaccurate results. The coins also were not cleaned
prior to the experiment, so any build up of substance may have contributed to the interference of the
transferring of mass. Also, the power supply used in the experiment was a large source of error within
the experiment. As the current is increased from the power supply, the supply loses accuracy due to an
inability to maintain a steady current at higher intervals. This may have been attributed to faulty fuses or
wiring within the supply, and forced me to manually maintain a current from the supply. Finally, the final
mass of the pennies and quarters measured after undergoing electrolysis may have been inaccurate due
to solution left on the coins after removal from the cell. The coins were dried with paper towels, but this
did not mean that they were totally dry, and any moisture left on the coins would add mass to the final
measurement. Also, since the coins were wiped with the paper towel, any copper not strongly bonded
to the quarter may have also rubbed off, interfering with the final mass measurement.
If this experiment was to be repeated in the future, there are many possible adjustments that
could be made to improve the accuracy of results. A larger range of values of current could be tested.
Within my experiment, the range of currents used was relatively limited and small, thus making it
difficult to see any true pattern. In testing a larger range of currents, a more accurate conclusion based
on the data could be made. Another possible improvement is ensuring that the coins have dried after
removing them from the solution. This could be done through waiting 24 hours after the coins have
been removed from the solution to ensure they are dry, or also perhaps heating them at a reasonable
temperature. A more stable power supply would lead to more accurate results. Prior to the experiment,
testing all supplies and equipment used in the lab to ensure that it all works properly and will not lead to
error would also lead to better results. Finally, cleaning all coins prior to the experiment would lead to
less inaccuracy in the measurements of the coins. This cleaning of the coins could be done by placing
them in a heated vinegar solution for 5-10 minutes. Cleaning the coins would remove any unknown and
undesirable substances from the surface of the coins.

You might also like