Final Research Paper

Table of Contents
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………….1
Review of Literature……………………………………………………………………………....3
Experimental Design………………………………………………………………………………7
Data and Observations…………………………………………………………………………….9
Data Analysis and Interpretation………………………………………………………..……….20
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….32
Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………………...35
J. Andrzejewski - Messina - Schang, 1
Introduction
Imagine having metal parts that operate in unideal conditions and corrode and or oxidize
making the buyer replace the parts frequently. Many structures such as bridges also have a
problem with corrosion and oxidation which can cripple the structural integrity. Methods such as
creating alloys will work in some cases. Nonetheless, this poses two major issues. Alloys are
expensive to produce and to repair, and alloys have physical and chemical properties that are in
some cases weaker than the metals initially used to create them. This can be a problem when
used in industries such as aerospace, automotive, military, medical, RF microwave, space,
electronics and battery manufacturing.
Creating alloys is very expensive because manufacturing with alloys is more complex
than with steel or other metals. A lot of energy is required to fuse the two metals together, most
of which is from fossil fuels. Large quantities of both metals are needed, which in turn can be
quite expensive. During the fusing of the two metals there is a lot of dross, solid impurities that
form, that is created. It isn’t safe to remove dross from many alloys directly and some require the
use of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) to remove. Alloys are also typically weaker than most steels
used in the industrial process.
By using electroplating, companies can avoid the heavy expenses of purchasing stock
metals to use in alloy creation, and the possibility of failing to get the proper ratios of the metals
used in the alloy, completely destroying its structural integrity. Thus, the purpose of this research
was to find the most efficient way to electroplate iron with copper for the lowest overall cost.
The hypothesis was that the 0.75 molarity solution of copper II sulfate, an electricity current of
18 volts and a plating time of 3 minutes for time will yield the largest amount of copper plating
gained. Often times, there needs to be a substantial width of another metal plated during the
electroplating process, so the goal was to find a way to cheapen the cost and the time it takes to
achieve that amount.
In this experiment, iron was used as the metal being plated (the cathode), and copper was
used as the metal the cathode was plated with (the anode) because both are relatively easy to
obtain and used often in many electronics and structures. The iron cathode was first weighed,
and then both the cathode and anode were suspended in a copper II sulfate (CuSO4 * 5H2O)
solution, and a current was run between the them for the given time. The cathode was then
removed from the solution and weighed, and the difference in weight was recorded as a
percentage of mass increases. This helped show which trials were the most effective at pulling
copper from the solution and onto the cathode, and using the data it was possible to determine
which value of each effect was the most efficient.

Review of Literature
The purpose of this experiment was to determine which is the most efficient way to
electroplate a metal. Iron was chosen to be plated because the metal is cheap, fairly durable, and
is widely used in factories around the world. Copper was chosen to plate the iron because it is
fairly inexpensive though more expensive than iron, it is a great conductor of heat, and it is also
used in factories around the world. Copper II Sulfate was chosen as the solution because it is
rather inexpensive, a copper solution was needed, and it wouldn’t produce any harmful materials.
Electroplating is a process which involves passing an electric current through an
electrolyte, a compound that is ionized in a solution. This is done by placing two metals, called
electrodes (materials that are used to conduct electricity), into a solution and connecting both of
the electrodes to a circuit. The cathode, or negative electrode, is made out of the metal that is
going to be plated, and is connected to the negative terminal of the battery or power source
(“Woodford”). The anode, or positive electrode, must be the same material that is going to plate
the other metal, and is connected to the positive terminal of the power source (“Woodford”). The
salt suspended in the solution should be of the same metal as the anode. For example, if iron is
going to be plated by copper, an iron cathode and a copper anode must be suspended in a
solution with copper ionized within it (this could be in the form of CuSO₄, copper II sulfate, or
Cu(OH)₂, copper II hydroxide).
Figure 1. Molecular Diagram of Electroplating
Figure 1 shows a molecular diagram of the process of electroplating. The orange represents
the anode which was a copper strip and the pink represents the cathode which was an iron strip.
The copper from the strip is being pulled into the solution due to the copper in the solution being
attracted to the iron strip.
When the salt dissolves in the solution, it ionizes into a negatively charged ion called an
anion, and a positively charged ion called a cation (the cation is always the metal).
CuSO4(s) → Cu²⁺(aq) + SO₄²⁻(aq)
Figure 2. Ionization of Copper II Sulfate
Figure 2 shows the ionization reaction of copper II sulfate. In the case of CuSO4, the
cation is Cu²⁺, and the anion is SO₄²⁻. The anion is attracted to the positively charged anode, and
the cation is attracted to the negatively charged cathode. This causes the anion to bond with the
surface of the anode, and the cation to bond with the surface of the cathode by stealing extra
electrons from the metal (“Mooney”). Using the same example as before with the iron and
copper electrodes, when the CuSO4 ionizes in the solution, the copper cation is attracted to the
iron cathode and metallically bonds to the iron by removing extra electrons.
Ionization is the process of when a compound splits into two or more ions when
suspended in an aqueous solution. One of the ions is positively charged. This ion is known as a
cation, and it is typically the metal within the compound being ionized. The other ion is
negatively charged, and known as the anion. The negative anions attract the positive hydrogen
ends of the water molecules (due to water’s exceptional polarity) and are surrounded by the
molecules, while the positive cations attract the negative oxygen ends of the water molecules and
are surrounded by the molecules (“The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica”). This, in turn,
suspends the ions in the water and does not allow them to re-bond with one another.
Figure 3. Ionization of Elements
Figure 3, above, shows the loss or gain of electrons which make an element negative due to
having a different number of electrons compared to the number of protons present.
Once the molecules in the compound are separated and suspended in the solution, they
are known as electrolytes. These allow electricity to flow through the solution. The electrons
jump from the negative cathode to the positive cations until they reach the positive anode and
return to the origin of the power source.
Similar experiments have been conducted that change the factors when electroplating, but
they all seem to measure efficiency. In this experiment, the amount of metal plated will be
measured with factors such as concentration of copper in solution and different electric currents,
while the amount of time will be held constant. Another experiment used nearly the same factors
besides holding the time constant. In the other experiment, time was used as a factor along with
changing the distance between electrodes. Instead, the effect of molarity of the solution will be
used as a factor in this experiment.

Experimental Design
Materials:
● 12” x 12” iron sheet - (3) 250 mL beakers
● copper strips - metal cutters
● (2) alligator clips - 400-grit sandpaper
● 0.25M copper II sulfate (CuSO4 5H2O) - ring stand
● 0.50M copper II sulfate (CuSO4 5H2O) - stopwatch
● 0.75M copper II sulfate (CuSO4 5H2O) - analytical balance (0.0000 accuracy)
● Vernier power supply - Ti-nSpire calculator
● 100 mL graduated cylinder - (3) 2L containers
● weigh boat(s)
Procedure:
1. Randomize the order of trials using the Ti-nSpire calculator.
2. Use metal cutter to cut out 11, 0.5” x 2” iron strips from the iron plate.
3. Pour 150 mL of the desired solution into the 250 mL beaker using a graduated cylinder.
4. Sand the oxide layer off the iron using the 400-grit sandpaper.
5. Set the iron strip into a weigh boat and mass out the strip using the analytical balance and
record the “before” mass.
6. Attach the negative terminal of the power supply to the iron strip using the final alligator
clip, creating the cathode.
7. Attach the positive terminal on the power supply to the copper strip using an alligator
clip, creating the anode.
8. Plug the Vernier power supply into the wall outlet
9. Set the power supply to the correct voltage setting according to the trial being conducted.
10. Suspend the anode and cathode in the solution both half submerged using a ring stand
making sure the alligator clips don’t touch the solution (See diagram).
11. Turn on the power supply and let the trial run for either the high time of 3 minutes,
standard time of 2 minutes or the low time of 1 minute.
12. Turn off the power supply after the stopwatch hits the desired length of time.
13. Remove the iron cathode from the solution immediately into a weigh boat and record the
“after” mass of the iron strip using the analytical balance and record the data.
14. Divide the “after” mass by the “before” mass to see the percentage of mass increase due
to the plated copper.
15. Carefully rinse and dry the 250 mL beaker for use again.
16. Repeat steps 3 through 15 until all the trials have been conducted.
Diagram:
Figure 4. Diagram of Experimental Setup
Figure 4 shows the setup of electroplating a stainless-steel nail with copper. The iron
plate is attached to the negative terminal of the Vernier power supply, creating the cathode, and
the copper plate is attached to the positive terminal of the power supply, creating the anode. Both
are suspended within the copper II sulfate solution by their wires via the ring stand, and a
stopwatch is used to measure the time they remain in the solution.

Data and Observations

Data:
Table 1
Experimental Factors
Factor High (+) Standard Low (-)
Molarity (Mol/L) 0.75 0.50 0.25
Voltage 18 15 12
Time (sec) 180 120 60
Table 1 shows the differing factors used in the experiment. The factors of molarity,
voltage, and time were changed throughout this experiment based on the trial ran. In each trial,
the factors were ordered (Molarity, Voltage, Time).
Table 2
Percentage of Mass Increase of Copper
Trial DOE 1 DOE 2 DOE 3
Standard 6.52% 3.64% 4.81%
(+,+,+) 7.89% 6.20% 6.61%
(+,+,-) 5.37% 5.45% 6.26%
(+,-,+) 7.25% 6.17% 5.09%
(+,-,-) 3.43% 4.33% 4.36%
Standard 4.78% 6.20% 5.85%

(-,+,+) 10.44% 9.01% 6.81%
(-,+,-) 6.73% 6.94% 7.69%
(-,-,+) 6.63% 7.11% 7.00%
(-,-,-) 7.91% 4.77% 4.11%
Standard 4.65% 8.67% 4.11%
Table 2, above, shows the percentage of mass of copper added to each strip of iron in
every trial run excluding the standards compared to the initial weight of the iron cathode. In total,
three Design of Experiments were run to gather all the data.
Observations:
Table 3
Observations from DOE 1
DOE #1
Trial Trial
Observations
Number Type
1 (S,S,S) Fell farther than halfway into solution.
10 (+,+,+) Fell in solution before trial was run.

7 (+,+,-) Started plating before trial, wiped off copper and restarted.
2 (+,-,+) Volts started at 15, then were dropped.
4 (+,-,-) Amps decreased consistently until 45 seconds, then climbed.
Began plating before trial was run, to counter, removed 5 seconds

6 (S,S,S)
from time, sulfate fell off anode when removed from solution.
A substantial amount of copper off the cathode when it was pulled

9 (-,+,+)
from solution.
5 (-,+,-) fell more than half way in, ran for 1:01.
8 (-,-,+) Fell more than half way in, ran for 1:01.
Slightly began to plate before the trial started, submerged ¾ of the

3 (-,-,-)
way then fixed.
11 (S,S,S) No observations taken.
Table 4
DOE #2
Trial Number Trial Type Observations
12 (S,S,S) Part of the copper fell off iron when removing from the solution.
Large amount of copper build up on cathode, all fell off into

18 (+,+,+)
solution.
16 (+,+,-) Some copper fell off when removed from the solution.
19 (+,-,+) Buildup of copper on right side of cathode.
14 (+,-,-) Sanded the iron a lot more than usual.
Piece was wider than others, bulge of copper formed on side or

15 (-,+,+)
iron strip.
20 (-,+,-) Copper on iron oxidized quickly, copper fell off the iron cathode.
Solution became more transparent as trial ran, copper fell off

13 (-,-,+)
cathode.
21 (-,-,-) Re-run trial.

Large amount of copper fell off the cathode when removed from
22 (S,S,S)
the solution.
Table 5
DOE #3
Trial Number Trial Type Observations
23 (S,S,S) Did not go half in, was less than.
31 (+,+,+) No observations taken.

29 (+,+,-) No observations taken.
24 (+,-,+) No observations taken.
27 (+,-,-) Started before timer started, ended early.
Submerged below surface before trial, moved up before power

28 (S,S,S)
was turned on.
32 (-,+,+) Bumped ring stand, solution jumped in beaker.
30 (-,+,-) Copper fell off cathode, copper completely oxidized on cathode.
Anode and cathode touched each other and started bonding,

26 (-,-,+)
copper fell off.
25 (-,-,-) No observations taken.

Tables 3-5 above, show the observations made while running the trials along with various
mistakes made. One of the biggest issues that was faced while running the trials was the fact that
when the iron cathode was removed from the solution to be weighed, much of the copper on the
cathode fell off into the solution, losing a substantial percentage of mass. Some of the trials that
had very high percentages of increase did not lose a lot of copper, which when compared to the
trials that did lose the copper, there was a sizeable difference.
Figure 5. Results from DOE 1
Figure 5 shows the results of the electroplating. Along with the iron cathode being plated,
the copper anode began dissolving to replace the copper in the solution.
Figure 6. Collected Copper Flakes
Figure 6 shows the copper that fell off the iron strip when pulling it from the copper II
sulfate solution before weighing it for the after column. This was one major issue faced while
running each trial and may be a large factor of error throughout this experiment because only in
some trials did the excess copper fall off.

Figure 7. Formation of Copper on Iron Strip
Figure 7 shows the copper that formed on the iron and then fell off while the plating
process was still taking place during Trial 20. This is significant because there was an
unexpected growth of copper present on the cathode compared to any of the other trials that had
been conducted.
Figure 8. Formation of Sulfate
Figure 8 shows some of the sulfate which sunk to the bottom of the beaker which was
caused due to the copper being pulled from the solution in Trial 6.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Introduction:
A three-factor design of experiment was used to analyze the data collected from running
this experiment. This tests how each factor individually affects the experiment, and how the
interaction of each effect and another also affects the experiment. This experiment particularly
tested for the percentage of mass of copper compared to the mass of the iron that was plated onto
the cathode by adjusting the molarity of the copper II sulfate solution, the amount of voltage
running through the solution, and the time that the trial was left to run.
Before anything else was done, the order of the trials was randomized using the random
integer function on the TI-nSpire calculator to eliminate outliers caused by human error and
insure that the data is reliable. The data was collected by first massing the “before” mass of the
iron cathode on an analytical balance to 0.0001-gram accuracy. The cathode was then suspended
in the solution and the trial was conducted, then the cathode was removed from solution and
placed back on the analytical balance and an “after” mass was recorded. The “after” mass was
then divided by the “before” mass, and then one was subtracted by that value. This gave the
percentage of mass of copper compared to the mass of the iron that was plated onto the cathode.
Observations were also taken to document each trial.
In total, three sets of trials were conducted, and a total of 33 trials were recorded. This
insured that there was a larger pool of values to pull from, which made the data even more
reliable. Both the data from the standards and each individual trial was recorded to allow for
easier interpretation of the data (shown in figures 1 and 2).
Table 6
Data and Averages
Trial DOE 1 DOE 2 DOE 3 Average
(+,+,+) 7.89% 6.20% 6.61% 6.90%
(+,+,-) 5.37% 5.45% 6.26% 5.69%
(+,-,+) 7.25% 6.17% 5.09% 6.17%
(+,-,-) 3.43% 4.33% 4.36% 4.04%
(-,+,+) 10.44% 9.01% 6.81% 8.75%
(-,+,-) 6.73% 6.94% 7.69% 7.12%
(-,-,+) 6.63% 7.11% 7.00% 6.91%
(-,-,-) 7.91% 4.77% 4.11% 5.60%
As seen in table 6 above, a total of 24 trials were run, excluding the standards. In each
trial, the factors were ordered (Molarity, Voltage, Time). There was a wide variety of values,
which may be due to the issue of copper falling off the cathode inconsistently when it was
removed from the solution. Also shown above are the averages for each type of trial run. Also,
not shown above, the grand average amount of copper ‘growth’ on the cathode was 6.40% the
mass of the iron.

Table 7
Table of Standards
Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R.O.S
Additional 6.52 4.78 4.65 3.64 6.20 8.67 4.81 5.85 4.11 5.03
Mass (%)
Table 7 shows the data collected from running the standards. The range of standards
(R.O.S.) was calculated by subtracting the smallest standard from the largest standard. It was
found to be quite large at 5.03%.
Table 8
Effect of Molarity
(-) Values (+) Values
0.0875 0.0690
0.0712 0.0569
0.0691 0.0617
0.0560 0.0404
Average: 0.0710 Average: 0.0570
Table 8 shows all the averages for the high and low trial values for molarity. The effect
value of molarity in the experiment was found by subtracting the low average from the high
average, which was approximately -0.0140.

Figure 9. Effect of Molarity
Figure 9 shows the effect graph of molarity. This graph shows that the amount of copper
on the iron cathode decreased by 1.40% as the molarity of solution increased from 0.25 M to
0.75 M.
Table 9
Effect of Voltage
0.0617 0.0690
0.0404 0.0569
0.0691 0.0875
0.0560 0.0712
Average:0.0568 Average:0.0712
Table 9 shows all the averages for the high and low trial values for voltage. The effect
value of voltage in the experiment was 0.0144.

Figure 10. Effect of Voltage
Figure 10 shows the effect graph of voltage. This graph shows that the amount of copper
on the iron cathode increased by 1.44% as the molarity of solution increased from 12 volts to 18
volts.
Table 10
Effect of Time
0.0569 0.0690
0.0404 0.0617
0.0712 0.0875
0.0560 0.0691
Average: 0.0561 Average: 0.0718
Table 10 shows all the averages for the high and low trial values for time. The effect
value of time in the experiment was 0.0157.

Figure 11. Effect of Time
Figure 11 shows the effect graph of time. This graph shows that the amount of copper on
the iron cathode increased by 1.57% as the time that the trial was run for increased from 60
seconds to 180 seconds.
Table 11
Interaction Effect of Molarity and Voltage
Voltage
Molarity (-) (+)
0.062
(-) 0.0794
6
0.051
(+) 0.0630
1
Table 11 shows the interaction effect of molarity and voltage, which was calculated by
first finding the slopes of each line segment by subtracting the (-,-) trial from the (-,+) and
dividing by two for the low line segment, and by subtracting the (+,-) trial from the (+,+) and
dividing by two for the high line segment. The slope of the low line segment was then subtracted
from the slope of the high line segment, which led to an interaction effect of -0.0025.
Figure 12. Interaction Effect of Molarity and Voltage
Figure 12 shows the interaction effect graph for molarity and voltage. Since both line
segments have roughly the same slope, there is very little significance of an effect for the
interaction of these two variables on the experiment.

Table 12
Interaction Effect of Voltage and Time
Time
Voltage (-) (+)
(-) 0.0482 0.0654
(+) 0.0641 0.0783
Table 12 shows the interaction effect of voltage and time. It can be inferred that the
interaction effect between the two variables is -0.0015.
Figure 13. Interaction Effect of Voltage and Time
Figure 13 shows the interaction effect graph for voltage and time. Since both line
segments have similar slopes, there is also very little significance of an effect for the interaction
of these two variables on the experiment.

Table 13
Interaction Effect of Molarity and Time
Time
Molarity (-) (+)
(-) 0.0636 0.0783
(+) 0.0486 0.0654
Table 13 shows the interaction effect of molarity and time. It can be inferred that the
interaction effect between the two variables is -0.0010.
Figure 14. Effect of Molarity and Time
Figure 14 shows the interaction effect graph for molarity and time. Since both line
segments have similar slopes, there is again very little significance of an effect for the interaction
of these two variables on the experiment.

Figure 15. Scatterplot of Standards
Figure 15 shows all the standards run throughout the experiment. There is quite a lot of
variation within the values, which may have been due to the issue discussed in table 1, above.
However, there was an average increase of mass of around 5.47% for all the standards run.
Figure 16. Dot Plot of Effects

Figure 16 shows the dot plot of effects that shows the significance of each effect and
interaction effect on the experiment. The range of standards needed to be multiplied by two to
find the fences for the dot plot effects, which was equivalent to ∓0.1006. Since all the effects
and interaction effects were within the fences, it is safe to infer that there were no significant
factors that played a role on influencing the data in this experiment.
Parsimonious Prediction:
y=0.063975+"noise"
Figure 17. Parsimonious Prediction Equation
Figure 17 shows the Parsimonious prediction equation. The range of standards for this set
of data was very large at 0.0503, and when multiplied by two, the fences for the dot plot of
effects were ∓0.1006. Since none of the effects or interaction effects were deemed significant,
the parsimonious prediction equation is just the grand average plus “noise”, or errors made
throughout the experiment on part of each researcher.
Interpretation:
None of the factors tested throughout this experiment were deemed significant, which
may have been due to the major issue of removing the cathode from the solution (which has
already been discussed earlier in the paper). This would definitely cause a major skew within the
trials run with those that lost varying amounts of copper and those that did not. However, each
factor definitely seemed to play a role on the data in that there were consistent observations made
for each type of trial, but because the data shows none of the factors are significant, then
interpolating or extrapolating the data would always result in the parsimonious prediction
equation of the grand average plus “noise”. This means that an average growth of 6.40% the
mass of the iron in copper on the surface of the cathode is expected, regardless of whatever
change is present within the factors.

Conclusion
The purpose of this experiment was to determine if there was a significant effect between
the molarity copper II sulfate (CuSO4) of the solution, voltage, and time while electroplating iron
strips to see which method would be the most efficient. A three-factor design of experiment was
conducted in order to determine the effects and what conditions were statistically significant. The
mass of the iron strip was measured before and after the trial to find the percentage of mass
gained which would say how much copper was plated to the iron. The hypothesis stating that the
0.75 M CuSO4 18 volts of current applied over 3 minutes would yield the highest percentage of
iron gained on the iron strip. The hypothesis was rejected. The 18-volt current and 3-minute time
had the highest percentage of mass gained when used with the 0.25 molarity Copper II Sulfate
solution.
The results found while conducting the trials went against the original hypothesis. The
high, high and high trials resulted in an average of 6.90% mass gained while the low, high and
high trials resulted in an average of 8.75% which was about 1.85% higher than what was
predicted to be the largest. The molarity had lowest single effect value of -0.0140, the voltage
had the second smallest single effect value of 0.0144 and the time had the largest single effect
value of 0.0157. None of the effects by themselves were significant because the range of
standards was 0.0503 and when doubled and the fences are set up, none of the effects are less
than -0.1006 or greater than 0.1006. Time looked to have an effect on the percentage of mass
gained but is not deemed statistically significant. The Interaction effect of molarity and time had
the smallest significance value of 0.0010, The effect of voltage and time had the second smallest
interaction effect value of -0.0015, and the interaction of molarity and voltage had the largest
effect value of -0.0025. Again, none of the interaction effects were statistically significant
because the interaction effect values were not below -0.1006 or above 0.1006. These trials also
had a grand average of 0.0600 which means that if this experiment conducted again, there would
be an average of 6.00% percentage of mass gained. This correlated with the information
gathered on the review of literature for the trials other that the molarity being lower having a
better effect. The data gathered in this experiment was valid due to the 3 design of experiments
ran, the trials had about the same percentage off mass gained when the variables were the same.
The average of the data was also very consistent with the data being gathered. Errors that
affected the results include have affected the collected data such as the amount of the iron
submerged in the solution due to the fact that the distance was not always the same. The distance
of the cathode from the anode was also not consistent and the anode and cathode would
sometimes move towards each other. The copper would also fall off of the iron strips after pulled
from the solution due to the high voltage creating a hydrogen layer between the copper and iron
strip. The power supply also didn’t control the amperes flowing through the solution so this
could make more copper plate the iron strip.
This experiment could be conducted later with better results if a more sophisticated setup
was used. Most of the errors encountered when the trials were conducted had something to do
with the ring stand. To hold the wires which held the anode and cathode, a ring stand with test
tube clips was used and holding a wire was not the intended use. This could have led to the iron
falling too far into the solution or having a difficulty removing the iron which resulted in the iron
being left in the solution for too long. A funnel could've also been used with filter paper to mass
out the copper on the iron strip along with the copper that fell into the solution to get the total
amount of copper that was pulled from the Copper II sulfate solution. There was also a problem
with massing out the iron strips before the trials were ran and it is recommended that only one
iron strip is taken out of the bag at a time to reduce confusion and mixing up the strips. It is also
recommended that precut iron strips are used so there is almost exactly the same surface area on
each strip.
Works Cited
Clark, Jim. "Metallic Bonding." Metallic Bonding. Jim Clark, Sept. 2012. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.
<http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/metallic.html>.
"Electrode." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Mar. 2017. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrode>.
"Electroplating." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Mar. 2017. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroplating>
"Electroplating Experiment." 123HelpMe.com. 19 Mar 2017
<http://www.123HelpMe.com/view.asp?id=149342>.
Kulkarni, D. "Development of electroplating process for plating polyamides." Academia.edu. N.p., n.d.
Web. 19 Mar. 2017.
<http://www.academia.edu/8602151/Development_of_electroplating_process_for_plating_polya
mides>.
Mooney, Ted. "Electroplating -- How It Works." How Electroplating Works -- Student Science Project.
Finishing.com, n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2017. <http://www.finishing.com/faqs/howworks.html>.
"Redox." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Mar. 2017. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox>.
"What Is Electroplating? | How Is It Done | Electroplating Process." What Is Electroplating? | How Is It
Done | Electroplating Process. SPC, n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.
<http://www.sharrettsplating.com/what-is-electroplating.html>.
Woodford, Chris. "How Electroplating Works." Explain That Stuff. Explain That Stuff, 18 Apr. 2016.
Web. 19 Mar. 2017. <http://www.explainthatstuff.com/electroplating.html>.

Writer, Leaf Group. "Techniques for Copper Plating with Copper Sulfate Solution." Sciencing. Leaf
Group, n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2017. <http://sciencing.com/techniques-plating-copper-sulfate-
solution-7662531.html>.
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "Ionization." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia
Britannica, inc., 20 July 1998. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.
<https://www.britannica.com/science/ionization>.
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "Metallic Bond." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia
Britannica, Inc., 06 Oct. 2006. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.
<https://www.britannica.com/science/metallic-bond>.

Final Research Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Research Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Table of Contents

Data and Observations…………………………………………………………………………….9

Data Analysis and Interpretation………………………………………………………..……….20

used in industries such as aerospace, automotive, military, medical, RF microwave, space,

electronics and battery manufacturing.

used in the industrial process.

achieve that amount.

which value of each effect was the most efficient.

Electroplating is a process which involves passing an electric current through an

Cu(OH)₂, copper II hydroxide).

Figure 1. Molecular Diagram of Electroplating

attracted to the iron strip.

CuSO4(s) → Cu²⁺(aq) + SO₄²⁻(aq)

Figure 2. Ionization of Copper II Sulfate

Figure 3. Ionization of Elements

having a different number of electrons compared to the number of protons present.

return to the origin of the power source.

used as a factor in this experiment.

Figure 4. Diagram of Experimental Setup

stopwatch is used to measure the time they remain in the solution.

Data and Observations

Factor High (+) Standard Low (-)

Molarity (Mol/L) 0.75 0.50 0.25

Time (sec) 180 120 60

the factors were ordered (Molarity, Voltage, Time).

Trial DOE 1 DOE 2 DOE 3

Standard 6.52% 3.64% 4.81%

(+,+,+) 7.89% 6.20% 6.61%

(+,+,-) 5.37% 5.45% 6.26%

(+,-,+) 7.25% 6.17% 5.09%

(+,-,-) 3.43% 4.33% 4.36%

Standard 4.78% 6.20% 5.85%

(-,+,+) 10.44% 9.01% 6.81%

(-,+,-) 6.73% 6.94% 7.69%

(-,-,+) 6.63% 7.11% 7.00%

(-,-,-) 7.91% 4.77% 4.11%

Standard 4.65% 8.67% 4.11%

three Design of Experiments were run to gather all the data.

1 (S,S,S) Fell farther than halfway into solution.

10 (+,+,+) Fell in solution before trial was run.

2 (+,-,+) Volts started at 15, then were dropped.

4 (+,-,-) Amps decreased consistently until 45 seconds, then climbed.

Began plating before trial was run, to counter, removed 5 seconds

A substantial amount of copper off the cathode when it was pulled

Slightly began to plate before the trial started, submerged ¾ of the

11 (S,S,S) No observations taken.

Trial Number Trial Type Observations

Large amount of copper build up on cathode, all fell off into

19 (+,-,+) Buildup of copper on right side of cathode.

14 (+,-,-) Sanded the iron a lot more than usual.

17 (S,S,S) No observations taken.

Piece was wider than others, bulge of copper formed on side or

Solution became more transparent as trial ran, copper fell off

21 (-,-,-) Re-run trial.

Trial Number Trial Type Observations

23 (S,S,S) Did not go half in, was less than.

31 (+,+,+) No observations taken.

29 (+,+,-) No observations taken.

24 (+,-,+) No observations taken.

27 (+,-,-) Started before timer started, ended early.

Submerged below surface before trial, moved up before power

32 (-,+,+) Bumped ring stand, solution jumped in beaker.

30 (-,+,-) Copper fell off cathode, copper completely oxidized on cathode.