You are on page 1of 2

# Conclusion

From my results table and my graph I can see there is a trend. In my first graph
you can see that as the concentration gets higher the time for the magnesium to
fully disappear is much shorter. My conclusion states that as the concentration
increases the rate of the reaction increases. I made that prediction because wh
en there is a higher concentration of acid there are more particles in it. The m
ore hydrogen ions there are the more collisions will happen. From my graph you c
an see that the best fit curve slopes downwards as the concentration increases.
I think from the evidence shown from the graph that my first prediction has been
proven correct.
In my second prediction I predicted that when the concentration doubles the rate
of reaction will double. When I look at my second graph I can see that there is
a strong positive correlation. This means that as the concentration increases t
he rate increases. To find out if my second prediction was true I went to concen
tration 0.8mol dm-3 and drew a faded dashed line up until it hit the line of bes
t fit. Then I drew another dashed line over until it the y axis. Then I went to
concentration 1.6mol dm-3 and did the same thing. I went to 1.6 mol dm-3 because
that is twice that of 0.8mol dm-3. I did this because I wanted to see accuratel
y if the rate doubled as the concentration doubled.
Concentration 0.8mol dm-3 has a rate of 23(x10-3s-1) and concentration 1.6 mol d
m-3 has a rate of 45(x10-3s-1). This isnâ t exactly double but is very close so I thi
nk it would be safe enough to say that the rate did double. I decided to use the
same method to look at the rates of both concentration 0.4mol dm-3 and 0.8mol d
m-3. Concentration 0.4 mol dm-3 had a rate of 13(x10-3s-1) and concentration 0.8
mol dm-3 had a rate of 23(x10-3s-1). As before, this wasnâ t exactly double the rate
when you doubled the concentration. I think that they were close enough to be d
ouble that I am confident enough to say that my prediction was correct. The reas
oning for thinking this is not only because the it turned out to be close to do
uble but using my scientific knowledge it makes sense. As you double the concent
ration you are doubling the amount of particles in the acid. When you double the
amount of particles you are doubling the amount of collisions which doubles the
rate of reaction.
The reasons it may not have been exactly double is because of some of my key var
iables may not have remained the same. The temperature could have changed in the
room and the size of each magnesium strip I cut may not have been exactly 3cm.

Evaluation
Overall I believe that my results are accurate enough to say that both my predic
tions were correct. When looking at the accuracy of my graphs I can see how many
points lie on the best fit line. For graph one, four out of five of the points
lie on the line. The one that isnâ t exactly on the line is very close to the line. I
n graph two; about four out of five of the points are on the line. The same poin
t as in the first one is slightly off the line. Again it is very close to it.
My most anomalous result was concentration 1.2mol dm-3. I should have looked at
both graphs and realized that I should have repeated that one. I did each concen
tration 3 times to be more accurate and any reason why there was anomalous resul
ts was to do with some variables not being left the same.
Due to time constraints, I had to fit the experiment over two days and the tempe
rature would have all most definitely changed. To combat this variable and try t
o minimize the amount of anomalous results due to temperature I would do the exp
eriment in a water bath. This way the temperature is kept constant and my result
s would be more accurate.
Another way I could improve the accuracy of my results is that I would mix the s
olutions more accurately. When I made up the solutions I was leaving a couple of
mm margin of error on the measuring cylinder. Next time I would do this much mo
re accurately and keep the measuring cylinder on a level surface and look direct
ly at the bottom of the concave meniscus.
The next time, instead of measuring the length of magnesium it would be much mor
e accurate to weigh the magnesium and work out the rate of reaction per gram. Th
is would be more accurate mainly because each of strips would be measured indivi
dually so they wouldnâ t all have to be the same weight.
If I factored in the ways I could improve the experiment into my next experiment
involving rates I feel my results would be much more accurate and I would be mu
ch more confident in my predictions accuracy.