The rate of osmosis is affected by temperature. Contrary to the results obtained in this lab, warmer temperatures speed up the rate of osmosis. In our lab, our results showed that the room temperature water was the optimal temperature for osmosis, followed by cold water, then the hot water.
The prune in Beaker A, the control group and room temperature water, increased in weight approximately 110%, from an original weight of 6.8 grams. The water in Beaker A also remained the most consistent in temperature, ranging from about 19.5-22 degrees Celsius over the span of a day. The prune in Beaker B, the cold water, increased in weight by approximately 93%, and the original weight was 6.6 grams. The temperature in Beaker B was also the second most …show more content…
As mentioned in the observations section of Beaker C, there was visible flecks of brown in the water. The assumption that the “flecks” are prunes can be made, and would suggest that part of the weight change for the prune in Beaker C may in fact be a weight decrease. The weight increase for the prune in Beaker C at 30 minutes was about 30% increase from an original weight of 5 grams, which was well ahead the other weight increases of the prunes in Beaker A (26%) and B (14%). At the 30 minute mark for Beaker C, the water did not appear to have an abundance of brown flecks in the water. However on the 24 hour mark, the weight increase was lower than the other Beaker’s, and there was an abundance of brown flecks. We believe that part of the prune’s original weight was lost when the water was heated, suggesting that the heat from the water may have impacted the integrity of the prune and caused minor weight loss in the form of pieces breaking off due to …show more content…
In hindsight, given the inaccurate results, we should have given more time and thought into error reduction. One way in which we may have done this would be to have a more temperature controlled environment for each Beaker. Although Beaker A and B were fairly controlled, temperature wise, Beaker C was not. Further thought should have been invested into maintaining a constant heat source for the prune, such as further insulation, placing near a furnace, reboiling the water more often, or shortening the time in which our lab took place so the Beaker could have been on the heat source for the duration of the lab under our supervision. Further reduction of error could have been reducing the amount of weight loss for each prune. Although in the observation tables, it does not show any prunes decreasing in weight, however it is evident that Beaker C lost some parts of its original prune in the water, which is considered weight decrease. Ways in which we could have accommodated this short coming, would be to have the prune in a cheesecloth bag while in the water. That way the water could still fit through the gaps in the cheesecloth and perform osmosis regularly, and the parts of the prune that may detach during the lab would be contained in the bag and even included in the weigh ins. With this
The prune in Beaker A, the control group and room temperature water, increased in weight approximately 110%, from an original weight of 6.8 grams. The water in Beaker A also remained the most consistent in temperature, ranging from about 19.5-22 degrees Celsius over the span of a day. The prune in Beaker B, the cold water, increased in weight by approximately 93%, and the original weight was 6.6 grams. The temperature in Beaker B was also the second most …show more content…
As mentioned in the observations section of Beaker C, there was visible flecks of brown in the water. The assumption that the “flecks” are prunes can be made, and would suggest that part of the weight change for the prune in Beaker C may in fact be a weight decrease. The weight increase for the prune in Beaker C at 30 minutes was about 30% increase from an original weight of 5 grams, which was well ahead the other weight increases of the prunes in Beaker A (26%) and B (14%). At the 30 minute mark for Beaker C, the water did not appear to have an abundance of brown flecks in the water. However on the 24 hour mark, the weight increase was lower than the other Beaker’s, and there was an abundance of brown flecks. We believe that part of the prune’s original weight was lost when the water was heated, suggesting that the heat from the water may have impacted the integrity of the prune and caused minor weight loss in the form of pieces breaking off due to …show more content…
In hindsight, given the inaccurate results, we should have given more time and thought into error reduction. One way in which we may have done this would be to have a more temperature controlled environment for each Beaker. Although Beaker A and B were fairly controlled, temperature wise, Beaker C was not. Further thought should have been invested into maintaining a constant heat source for the prune, such as further insulation, placing near a furnace, reboiling the water more often, or shortening the time in which our lab took place so the Beaker could have been on the heat source for the duration of the lab under our supervision. Further reduction of error could have been reducing the amount of weight loss for each prune. Although in the observation tables, it does not show any prunes decreasing in weight, however it is evident that Beaker C lost some parts of its original prune in the water, which is considered weight decrease. Ways in which we could have accommodated this short coming, would be to have the prune in a cheesecloth bag while in the water. That way the water could still fit through the gaps in the cheesecloth and perform osmosis regularly, and the parts of the prune that may detach during the lab would be contained in the bag and even included in the weigh ins. With this