Chem 155 Lab 3
Chem 155 Lab 3
Chem 155 Lab 3
Due: 2/23/2021
Kinetics Lab
Introduction: This lab focuses on the effect of temperature on the rate of a chemical reaction. In
this lab, the rate of the reaction will be determined by observing the change in voltage over time
of glowsticks at different temperatures. The independent variable for this experiment is the
temperature of the glowstick and the values that are measured and recorded are voltage and time.
This experiment is done by using a photodiode, which is connected to the multimeter, to measure
the intensity of the light of the glowstick through emitted photons. The measurements for time
and voltage are important because, theoretically, by plotting the voltage and time values on
Python as a linear function, the rate constant can be determined as the value of the slope. Then
by plotting the natural log values of the rate constants, and the inverse of the temperature of the
−𝐸𝑎/𝑅𝑇
glowsticks, and by using the Arrhenius equation, which is 𝑘 = 𝐴𝑒 , to fit the data we can
determine the activation energy of the reaction. This is because the slope of the plot will be
-Ea/R, in which R is the gas constant. The A value in the Arrhenius equation, for this
(66.9℃, 12.8℃, 1.5℃). Then I began constructing my spectrometer by inserting the photodiode
into one end of the 3D-printed spectrometer so that the wires on the end of the photodiode stick
out and the rest of it cannot be seen. I attached the resistor to one end of the photodiode by
wrapping the wires together. I then attached an alligator clip to the resistor and the other
photo-diode wire. I attached the alligator clip that was connected to the resistor to the red wire of
the multimeter and the other alligator clip to the black wire. I placed one of my glowsticks into
the center opening of the spectrometer, keeping it insulted using aluminum foil, and recorded the
measurements for voltage over 300 seconds. I repeated the steps for the other two glowsticks.
Results:
12.8℃, and 1.5℃ over 300 seconds. *My lab partner and I have shared data since I had
Figure 1. Plots of voltage vs time for glowsticks previously in water baths at temperatures of
Figure 2. Plot of the natural log of the experimental gas constants vs temperature for glowsticks
previously in water baths at temperatures of 66.9℃, 12.8℃, and 1.5℃ from 100-200 seconds.
Rate Constant (66.9℃) 0.0037117 mV/s
Table 2. Experimentally calculated values for gas constant and activation energy derived from
Python plots, and experimentally calculated value for the total number of photons emitted using
66.9℃.
Discussion: While conducting the experiment I noticed that the voltage values I recorded for the
first 60 seconds were variable and did not follow a proper trend like the later values. This is why
for my plots I entered the voltage values from 100 to 300 seconds so the graph displays the
proper trend. I also noticed that while the voltage values decreased over time for the hot water
(66.9℃) and the room temperature water (12.8℃), the voltage values for the cold water (1.5℃)
increased. Also, the cold water had a larger rate constant than the hot water and room temp
−𝐸𝑎/𝑅𝑇
water. The Arrhenius equation, 𝑘 = 𝐴𝑒 , trend is that as temperature increases or
activation energy decreases the rate constant increases. This is because the number of collisions
will increases with a higher temperature since the particles are moving faster. The data from the
experiment does not follow this trend. For the Arrhenius equation plot, the rate constants for hot
water was 0.0037117 mV/s which is very close to the rate constant for cold water which was
0.00376274 mV/s. While the rate constant for the room temperature water was lower at
0.00292688 mV/s. Due to these varying points, the regression line for the plot was not very
accurate and derived an activation energy of 18216 J. There are multiple causes for this
inaccuracy, one being the construction of the spectrometer. The resistor was not securely
attached to the wire of the photodiode and would sometimes slip off, causing inaccurate readings
on the multimeter. Another source of error could be with the glowstick not being insulated
enough with the aluminum foil, meaning that the actual temperature of the glowstick may not be
the same as what was recorded. I also noticed that a glowstick may not have been cracked as
much as compared to the other glowsticks, which would lead to a lower voltage reading since
less of a reaction would be taking place. When calculating the total photons emitted I got
1.31*1012 photons. I used my data from my room temperature glowstick trial and I made the
assumption that 1 electron per second is equal to two photons per second. I also used the formula
to find the surface area of a cylinder to calculate the surface area of the photodiode since it is
similar in shape. Since the dimensions of the photodiode are small, along with the distance
between the glowstick and photodiode, my value for the number of photons may be inaccurate.
Conclusion:
−𝐸𝑎/𝑅𝑇
The Arrhenius equation, 𝑘 = 𝐴𝑒 , displays the trend that rate constant increases while
temperature increases. This trend was not reflected in the experiment as the rate constant for the
cold water was larger than the rate constants for the hot water and room temperature water. The
voltage values for the hot water and room temperature water decreased over time while the
voltage values increased over time for the cold water. This suggests that the reaction in the
glowstick may have reached the appropriate activation energy in beginning for the hot water and
room temperature water causing the reaction to then slow down over time. While for the cold
water the glowstick reached the appropriate activation energy over time causing the reaction to
speed up. The plot for the natural log of the rate constants vs the inverse of the temperature did
not follow a proper trend and this may be due to errors in the experiment.
Calculations:
Untitled8
1
[15]: from scipy.optimize import curve_fit
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
t = np.array([100, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 210, 240, 270, 300])
v = np.array([13.1, 12.6, 11.9, 11.4, 10.8, 10.3, 10.1, 9.7, 9.6, 8.8, 8.1, 7.
,→6, 7.3])
2
[14]: from scipy.optimize import curve_fit
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
t = np.array([100, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 210, 240, 270, 300])
v = np.array([2.6, 2.7, 3.0, 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.6, 3.7, 4.7, 4.8, 5.1, 5.5])
3
[34]: from scipy.optimize import curve_fit
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import math
k = np.array([0.00371117, 0.00292688, 0.00376274])
T = np.array([66.9, 12.8, 1.5])
A = np.array([19.2, 13.1, 5.5])
plt.scatter(1/T, np.log(k), s=5, color='black')
4
[ ]:
[ ]:
[ ]: