Calandrino - Wurst 1

10A

Effect of Agitation, Temperature, and Particle Size on the Ionization of Copper (II)
Sulfate

Problem Statement:
Determine the effect of Copper (II) sulfate particle size, temperature of water, and

agitation method on the rate of ionization.

Hypothesis:
The ionization rate of Copper (II) sulfate will be most efficient when agitation

method is high(1 per second), temperature is high(55°C), and the particle size is low

(Powder).

Materials:

0-3ºC water , H2O 22-28ºC water , H2O

55-60 ºC water , H2O Copper (II) Sulfate, CuSO4*5H2O,fine crystal
scale, 0.01g precision test tube rack
Copper (II) Sulfate, CuSO4*5H2O,powder stopwatch
thermometer probe, 0.01ºC precision 10 mL graduated cylinder
(4) test tubes, large (2) weigh boat
hot plate TI-Nspire calculator randomize function
hot gloves pencil
Copper (II) Sulfate, CuSO4*5H2O,medium crystal

Procedure:
Safety Note :
Copper (II) sulfate is moderately toxic; avoid contact with skin and eyes.

Set Up:
1. Start hot plate on a setting of 2-3 and gently warm 200 mL of water to 55-60° C.

2. 0-3° C and 22-28° C solutions should be prepared in a cooler with ice for the 0-3°
water and on a table for the 22-28° water because it is room temperature.

3. Clean and dry test tubes should be used for each trial.
 Calandrino - Wurst 2
10A

Experiment:
1. Using a weigh boat mass out (3) 0.2 gram samples of Copper (II) sulfate fine
crystal. Record the exact masses in a data table. Note: the masses should be as
close to 0.2 as possible but keep the mass within the range of 0.18-.22 grams.

2. Using a weigh boat mass out (4) 0.2 gram samples of Copper (II) sulfate medium
crystal. Record the exact masses in a data table.Note: the masses should be as
close to 0.2 as possible but keep the mass within the range of 0.18-.22 grams.

3. Repeat step 2 for Copper (II) sulfate powder.

4. Randomize trials using the Ti-Nspire random function ensuring that the first,
middle, and last trials are standards.

5. Fill a graduated cylinder with 10 mL of the desired water temperature.

6. Transfer the desired form of Copper (II) sulfate into the test tube and then add
the 10 mL of water from the graduated cylinder and apply the desired agitation
method.

7. Record the time it takes for the solution to completely ionize and note any
observations in the data table. If it takes more than 5 minutes for the solution to
ionize record this fact along with any observations about color particulate
remaining in the observations data table and move onto the next trial.

8. Empty the Contents of the test tube and rise and dry the tube.

9. Repeat steps 5-8 to complete the D.O.E.

Diagram:
 Calandrino - Wurst 3
10A

Figure 1. Lab setup

Figure 1 shows the weigh boats, 10 mL graduated cylinder, thermometer probe,

test tube rack, and four test tubes that were used in the experiment.

Figure 2. High Temperature Water

Figure 2 shows the high temperature water used in the experiment. This water

was kept around 55-60°C by the hot plate set to setting 3.

 Calandrino - Wurst 4
10A

Figure 3. Standard Temperature Water

Figure 3 shows the standard temperature water used in the experiment. This

water was kept around 22-28°C because that is room temperature and this water was

left out away from heating and cooling instruments.

Figure 4. Low Temperature Water

Figure 4 shows the low temperature water used in the experiment. This was was

lept around 0-3°C by being in a cooler with lots of ice cubes to keep the water cool.
 Calandrino - Wurst 5
10A

Figure 5. Powder Size

Figure 5 shows the powder size of Copper (II) sulfate that was used for the low

factor in the experiment.

Figure 6. Fine Crystal Size

Figure 6 shows the fine crystal size of Copper (II) sulfate that was used for the

standard in the experiment.

Figure 7. Medium Crystal Size

 Calandrino - Wurst 6
10A

Figure 7 shows the medium crystal size of Copper (II) sulfate that was used for

the high factor in the experiment.

Data and Observations:

Table 1
Factors and values

(+) (-)
Factors Standards
Values Values

55-60 22-28 0-3

Temperature (°C)

(+) (-)
Factors Standards
Values Values

Medium Fine Crystal Powder

Particle Size Crystal

1 per 5 every 10 1 every 10

Agitation Method
second seconds seconds

Table 1 shows the factors and numbers assigned to each. For the high factors a

temperature of 55-60°C was used, along with medium crystal size and 1 agitation per

second. Then for the standards a 22-28°C temperature was used with fine crystal size

and five agitations every 10 seconds. Also for the low factors a 0-3°C temperature was

used with powder particle size and one agitation every 10 seconds.

Table 2
Ionization Trials
Results In
Particle Size Temperature Agitation Time of
Trial
(grams) (°C) Method Dissolution
(seconds)

1 Standard Standard Standard 118

10 + + + 122
 Calandrino - Wurst 7
10A

2 + + - 419

7 + - + 310

5 + - - 524

6 Standard Standard Standard 90

9 - + + 17

4 - + - 45

3 - - + 46

8 - - - 284

11 Standard Standard Standard 80

Grand 186.818
Average

Table 2 above shows the trials and results of the experiment. The trials were all

randomized using a Ti-Nspire calculator on the randomize function. The first, middle, and last

trials were set as standards and the rest were randomized. To collect the data the Copper (II)

sulfate was weighed and then the water was collected and the temperature was recorded. Then

the water and Copper (II) sulfate was mixed together using the mixing method and the time it

took to fully ionize was recorded.

Table 3.
Observations
 Calandrino - Wurst 8
10A

Trial Observations

Standard The weight of the Copper (II) sulfate was 0.1871 grams and the
1 temperature of the water was 23°C. The resulting solution was a
light blue.

10 The weight of the Copper (II) sulfate was 0.2259 grams and the
temperature of the water was 59°C. AFter ionization water was
less cloudy with medium crystals of COpper (II) sulfate.

2 The weight of the Copper (II) sulfate was 0.2189 grams and the
temperature of the water was 57°C. This trial took over five
minutes.

7 The weight of the Copper (II) sulfate was 0.2004 grams and the
temperature of the water was 0.3°C. This trial took over five
minutes.

5 The weight of the Copper (II) sulfate was 0.2113 grams and the
temperature of the water was 0.4°C. This trial took over five
minutes.

Standard The weight of the Copper (II) sulfate was 0.2082 grams and the
6 temperature of the water was 22.6°C.

9 The weight of the Copper (II) sulfate was 0.2004 grams and the
temperature of the water was 57.6°C. This trial was very quick.

4 The weight of the Copper (II) sulfate was 0.2060

grams and the temperature of the water was 51°C. The Copper
(II) sulfate instantly started dissolving.

3 The weight of the Copper (II) sulfate was 0.2040 grams and the
temperature of the water was 0.1°C. The resulting solution was
a cloudy light blue.

8 The weight of the Copper (II) sulfate was 0.2133 grams and the
temperature of the water was 0.5°C. This trial took a longer time
despite having powder particle size.

Standard The weight of the Copper (II) sulfate was .2027 grams and the
11 temperature of the water was 23.3°C. Was the shortest standard
time.
 Calandrino - Wurst 9
10A

Table 3 shows the observations taken during the trials. The weights of Copper (II) sulfate and
temperature of the water collected is also included for each trial. Trials 2, 5, and 7 took longer
than 5 minutes. The standards also appear to slightly decrease as the experiment goes on.

Data Analysis and Interpretation:

The data collected in this experiment is quantitative and continuous. In order to assure

the data’s validity, the exact temperatures of the water, and the weight (to 4 decimal places) of

the Copper (II) sulfate was collected. A stopwatch app was also used in order to insure that the

ionization time was measured accurately.

Figure 8.

Figure 8. above shows the three standard runs that were taken during this experiment.

There appears to be a downward trend as the experiment progresses. This suggests that the

researchers were able to agitate the mixture more vigorously the more they did it. The range of

these data points is 38.

 Calandrino - Wurst 10
10A

(-) Values (+) Values

(Powder): (Medium Crystals):

17 122

45 419

46 310

284 524

Average: 98 Average: 343.75

Effect: 343.75 - 98 = 245.75

Figure 9. Effect of Particle Size

Figure 9 shows the effect particle size had on the ionization of Copper (II) sulfate. It also

shows the effect graph with a positive slope which shows as the factor increases so does time.

On average as the particle size increases the time of complete ionization takes increases by

245.75.

(-) Values (+) Values

(0-3°C): (55-60°C):

310 122

524 419

46 17

284 45

Average: 291 Average: 150.75

Effect: 150.75 - 291 = -140.265

Figure 10. Effect of Temperature

Figure 9 shows the the effect temperature had on the ionization of Copper (II) sulfate. It

also shows the effect graph with a negative slope which shows that as the factor increases time

decreases.. On average as the temperature increases the time of complete ionization

decreases by -140.265.
 Calandrino - Wurst 11
10A

The Effect of Agitation Method

(-) Values (+) Values
(1 every 10 (1 Per second):
seconds):

419 122

524 310

45 17

284 46

Average: 318 Average: 123.75

Effect: 123.75 - 318 = -194.25

Figure 11. Effect of Agitation Method

Figure 10 shows the effect of agitation method on the ionization of Copper (II) sulfate. It

also shows the effect graph with a negative slope which shows that as the factor increases time

decreases. On average as the agitation rate increases the time it takes for complete ionization

decreases by -194.25.

Table 4.
Effect Chart of Particle Size and Temperature

Temperature

Low (-) High (+)

Solid
High (+) 417 270.5
Particle Line
Size
Dotted
Low (-) 165 31
Line
Table 4 shows interaction effect between particle size and temperature.The slope of the

solid line is -73.25. The slope of the dotted line was -67. The interaction effect of -6.25 was

found by subtracting the dotted line’s slope from the solid line’s slope. This means that there is a

slight possibility of a significant negative interaction effect.

 Calandrino - Wurst 12
10A

Figure 12. Effect Graph of Particle Size and Temperature

Figure 12 shows the graph of the interaction effect of particle size and temperature. The

two lines are not parallel, and the two slopes are not equivalent, so there is a possibility of a

significant negative interaction effect.

Table 5.
Effect Chart of Particle Size and Agitation Method

Agitation Method

High
Low (-)
(+)

Solid High
471.5 216
Particle Line (+)
Size Dotted
Low (-) 164.5 31.5
Line
Table 5 shows the interaction effect between particle size and agitation method.The

slope of the solid line is -127.75. The slope of the dotted line is -66.5. The interaction effect of -

61.25 is then found by again subtracting the dotted line’s slope from the solid line’s slope. This

means there is a high chance of a significant negative interaction effect.

 Calandrino - Wurst 13
10A

Figure 13. Effect Graph of Particle Size and Agitation Method

Figure 13 shows the interaction effect between particle size and agitation method. The

slopes are different and the lines are not parallel so there is a possibility of a significant negative

interaction effect.

Table 6.
Effect Chart of Temperature and Agitation Method
Agitation Method

Low (-) High (+)

High
Solid Line 232 69.5
Temperature (+)

Dotted Line Low (-) 404 178

Table 6 above shows the interaction effect of temperature and agitation method. The

slope of the solid line is -81.25. The slope of the dotted line is -113. The interaction effect for

temperature and agitation method is 31.75, this was found by subtracting the dotted line’s slope

from the solid line’s slope, This means there is a high chance of a positive reaction.
 Calandrino - Wurst 14
10A

Figure 14. Effect Graph of Temperature and Agitation Method

Figure 14 shows the graph of the interaction effect of Temperature and agitation method.

The slopes look slightly different so there may be a chance of a small interaction effect.

245.75 −140.265 −194.25 −6.25

186.818 + 𝑃𝑆 + 𝑇+ 𝐴𝑀 + 𝑃𝑆𝑇
2 2 2 2
−61.25 31.75
+ 𝑃𝑆𝐴 + 𝑇𝐴 + "𝑛𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑒"
2 2
Figure 15. Prediction Equation

Figure 15 shows the prediction equation used to predict the outcome of a similar

experiment. To change any affects just change the variables to the amount the effects were

changed to. Noise can also be called lurking variables or unaccounted affects that changed the

data.
 Calandrino - Wurst 15
10A

-76 76

Figure 16. Dot Plot of Effects

Figure 16 shows the dot plot of effects for this experiment. The range of standards was

38 so this was doubled to get the range of what is statistically significant or not, which is 76. It

was found that only 3 of the effects were significant and none of the interaction effects were

significant. The three significant effects were temperature, agitation method, and particle size.

The vital few would be these three effects.

245.75 −140.265 −194.25

186.818 + 𝑃𝑆 + 𝑇+ 𝐴𝑀 + "𝑛𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑒"
2 2 2
Figure 17. Parsimonious prediction equation

Figure 17 shows a prediction equation that only uses the vital few, or statistically

significant effects. The parsimonious prediction equation works the same as the regular

prediction equation in that if the experiment is replicated with different variable amounts the

variables can be changed to match the amount used. Noise can also be called lurking variables

or unaccounted affects that changed the data.

 Calandrino - Wurst 16
10A

Conclusion:

The problem statement for this experiment was to determine the effect of Copper (II)

sulfate particle size, temperature of water, and agitation method on the rate of ionization. This

was done by testing all three of these variables in a 3 factor design of experiment, or DOE. The

independent variables tested in this experiment were temperature, particle size, and agitation

method. For particle size, the low value was powder , the standard value was fine crystal , and

the high was medium crystal . For the temperature the low value was 0-3°C, the standard value

was 22-28°C, and the high value was 55-60°C. For the agitation method, the low value was 1

agitation per 10 seconds, the standard value was 5 agitation per 10 seconds, and the high value

was 1 agitation per second. The different sizes of Copper (II) Sulfate were ionized in the

different temperatures of water, using the different agitation methods. The solute, the smaller

component dissolved in the solvent, was Copper (II) Sulfate while the solvent, the liquid that a

solute is dissolved in, was water or H2O. The hypothesis for this experiment was that “the

ionization rate of Copper (II) sulfate will be most efficient when agitation method is high(1 per

second), temperature is high(55°C), and the particle size is low (Powder),” was accepted. As

shown in trial 9, this trial of (-,+,+) had the fastest ionization time at 17 seconds.

The first factor in this experiment was particle size and the low factor, powder, was

ionized the fastest in the experiment. The Copper (II) Sulfate is the solute, and the smaller the

particles are the easier it is to dissolve, which can be explained using the surface model. The

surface model states that the smaller the particle is the more surface area it has, which means

that the larger the particle is the less surface area it has. This surface model works only when

both particle sizes have the same mass, which is why 0.2g of Copper (II) sulfate was taken for

each trial. The smaller powder particle has more surface area, so the water molecules are able

to surround and break apart more molecules of the Copper (II) sulfate, causing it to ionize at a
 Calandrino - Wurst 17
10A

faster rate. The reason water was used as the solvent in this experiment and many others is

because of water’s polarity, the positive ions of the H2O are attracted to the negative ions of the

sulfate while the negative ions of the H2O are attracted to the positive Copper (II) ions, they then

surround the particles and allow the Copper (II) sulfate particles to be pulled apart. The oxygen-

molecules in water are attracted to the Copper (II) molecules because the oxygen molecules are

negative and the Copper (II) molecules are positive. The hydrogen molecules in the water are

attracted to the sulfate molecules in Copper (II) sulfate because the hydrogen molecules are

positive and the sulfate molecules are negative. The larger medium crystal particles have less

surface area, meaning more molecules of H2O are needed to completely surround and ionize

the Copper (II) sulfate therefore causing them to ionize at a slower rate. This is proven from the

data gathered in the experiment, on average as the particle size of Copper (II) sulfate increases

from low to high, the time of complete ionization increases by 245.75 seconds.

The second factor of the experiment, temperature, ionized the CuSO4 at the fastest rate

at the high value of temperature 55-60°C. This is easily explained through the Kinetic Molecular

theory. This theory states that as energy, heat energy in this experiment, is added to molecules

in the form of kinetic energy, they will speed up and cause more collisions and reactions. This

means that the Copper (II) sulfate molecules are able to move quicker and to more space to

collide with more water molecules in order to ionize. This allows the water molecules to ionize

more Copper (II) sulfate molecules in a shorter amount of time, therefore shortening the time of

complete ionization. In lower temperatures, however, the molecules have less kinetic energy, so

they slow down and ionize fewer molecules, and this takes a greater amount of time. This is

proven from the data gathered in this experiment. On average as the water temperature

increased from low to high, the time of complete ionization decreased by 140.265 seconds.

The third factor of the experiment was agitation method. Similar to the molecules

moving faster due to increase in kinetic energy because of heat, the water particles are able to
 Calandrino - Wurst 18
10A

move, and ionize, at a faster rate when agitated more often. Instead of the amount of kinetic

energy in the molecule changing, like with temperature, the environment of the particles causes

them to move quickly. The increase in movement allows for more collisions and particle

interactions. This allows for the water molecules to move more quickly and surround the Copper

(II) sulfate at a faster rate, which increased the ionization time. For a lower agitation rate the

molecules are not moving as quickly, due to the environment not driving their movement

forward, therefore fewer molecules are ionized and ionization takes longer. This is shown in the

experiment when the agitation method changed from low to high it decreased the average

amount of time for complete ionization by 194.25 seconds.

A few errors may have been made during the course of the experiment. For example

clean and dry test tubes had to be used in this experiment. While the test tubes were washed

out with water they were almost never dried after so the water left in the test tube may have

lowered or raised the temperature of the water. Another problem would be the water molecules

attempting to ionize the new added Copper (II) sulfate before the actual experiment had started.

Another problem found during this experiment was unreliable water temperature, specifically the

high and low temperature water. During trials 3-5 the water heater and cooler were not raising

and lowering the temperature of the water enough for the experimental values. Because of this

the water temperatures were almost out of the accepted range of temperatures.

For trials 2, 7, and 5, it can be seen that the particles took more than five minutes to

ionize. This was due to the high particle size for all three trials, which as explained baove takes

longer because of the surface model. Trials 2 and 5 also were assigned the low agitation

method, so the particles were moving slower than they could have been. Trial 7 was paired with

low water temperature so the water particles were moving a lot slower than they could have

been, even with the agitation method. If the experiment were to be rerun, the water would be
 Calandrino - Wurst 19
10A

kept at constant temperatures to keep the experiment consistent. Further research can be done

in order to find any lurking variables that could have affected the ionization time.

Works Cited

“Chemistry 9.5a Dissolving Solids and Liquids.” YouTube, 15 Feb. 2012,

youtu.be/Q8cxPofGKCM.