McDermott 1

Nate McDermott
Dr. Hickman
AP/IB Biology Period 4
7 December 2015

Investigative Question:
How does the molarity of glucose in a solution affect the change in mass of a yam left in
the solution for 24 hours?
Raw Data:
Trial 1
Initial Final
1.0M 2.40g 2.17g
0.8M 2.30g 2.25g
0.6M 2.90g 2.98g
0.4M 2.50g 2.78g
0.2M 2.11g 2.41g
Processed Data:

Trial 2
Initial
2.26g
1.60g
2.02g
1.79g
2.15g

Final
2.08g
1.62g
2.09g
1.96g
2.48g

Trial 3
Initial
2.60g
2.57g
1.07g
1.67g
2.25g

Final
2.19g
2.59g
1.12g
1.87g
2.57g

Trial 4
Initial
2.79g
2.09g
1.53g
1.40g
1.90g

Final
2.55g
2.06g
1.57g
1.60g
2.19g

Trial 5
Initial
1.70g
1.68g
1.67g
1.57g
1.43g

Final
1.58g
1.66g
1.73g
1.78g
1.72g

First, I found the difference between the initial and final masses. This was done by
subtracting the initial mass from the final mass. For example, for Trial 1 of the 1.0M solution:
2.17 g2.40 g=0.23 g
Next, I found the percent change in mass from initial to final. This was done by dividing
the mass change, found earlier, by the initial mass, and multiplying by 100, like the following
example done for Trial 1 of the 1.0M solution:
100

0.23 g
=9.6
2.40 g

McDermott 2
Next, I averaged the percent change in mass for each solution molarity. This was done by
dividing the sum of the five trials by the number of trials (five). The following is an example
done for the 1.0M solution:
9.6 8.0 15.8 8.6 7.1
=9.8
5
The error of the data can be determined by the most deviant data point from the average.
This is found by finding the largest absolute difference between a data point and the average for
that molarity. The following is an example done for the 1.0M solution, and the result is 6.0%
error:

|9.8 + 9.6 |=0.2

|9.8 + 8.0 |=1.8

|9.8 +15.8 |=6.0

|9.8 + 8.6 |=1.2

|9.8 +7.1 |=2.7

After all of the above calculations are completed, the following is the final processed data
table:
Molarity Mass change
1.0M
-9.8% 6.0%
0.8M
-0.6% 1.8%
0.6M
3.4% 5.4%
0.4M
12.1% 2.6%
0.2M
15.9% 4.4%
The following is a graph of the above data, with a linear trendline added in Excel:

McDermott 3

Effect of Molarity on Percent Mass Change of Yams

20
f(x) = - 31.97x + 23.38
R = 0.98

15

10

Percent Change of Mass

0
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

-5

-10

-15

Molarity of solution (Mol/L)

Conclusion:
There is a very clear negative relationship between the two variables. This is proven by
the automatically calculated trendline, which has a significant negative slope. This means that for
higher molarities of the sucrose solution, the mass of the yam tended to decrease, whereas the
mass increased for low concentrations of sucrose. We can explain this phenomenon in terms of
osmosis. Each yam cell has a semi-permeable membrane around it, which means that water is
relatively free to pass in and out, while sucrose (and other large molecules) cant cross the
membrane. During osmosis, the water has a net movement towards the side of the membrane
with the higher concentration of solute. This means that if the solution is hypertonic (has a higher
solute concentration than the cell), then the water will have a net movement out of the cell until

McDermott 4
equal concentrations are established on both sides of the membrane. If the solution is hypotonic
(has a lower solute concentration than the cell), then the water will have a net movement into the
cell into the concentrations reach equilibrium. In light of this concept, our data makes sense,
because as the solution increased in sucrose concentration and went from hypotonic to
hypertonic, the mass change tended negative, meaning that more water was leaving each cell
towards the hypertonic region on the outside of the cell membrane.
Weaknesses and Limitations:
Though there was a clear trend in our data in the direction we expected, there were
significant error bars for each data point and the data did not perfectly fit a trendline. This means
that there was significant, which may have had a number of sources. One possible source of error
is the yams used in the experiment, which were not all the same size. This was dealt with by
measuring percent mass change as opposed to net mass change, but this is still a potential source
of error. More massive pieces of yam have a smaller surface area-to-volume ratio, which could
cause error because the water must pass through the surface of the yam during osmosis. This may
have been a source of error because it may be harder for glucose to penetrate the skin of a larger
piece of yam. Another reason that the yams could have been a source of error is that, like all
living samples, they have imperfections and arent uniform. This could have caused error
because the imperfections may not have reacted as expected with the sucrose solution. An
additional potential source of error in this experiment is that some of the yam chunk deteriorated
or had cuts at some point before the final mass measurement. This could have been a source of
error because cuts and severed yam chunks have larger surface areas than whole chunks of the
same mass, so they may absorb sucrose differently or at different rates.
Improvements:

McDermott 5
If I were to repeat this experiment, there a number of ways I could improve it in order to
minimize error. In order to address the error that could have been caused by the irregularly-sized
yam chunks, the chunks could be pared down to constant sizes for example, 1cm x 1cm x 1cm.
This would eliminate potential error that could have been caused by variation in surface area-tovolume ratios. The next source of error, the intrinsic natural variation of yams, is all but
impossible to entirely get rid of. However, some uniformity can be established if, for example,
any chunks that are discolored or have an irregular consistency/texture could be thrown out. This
would help ensure that the yams are more uniform and that the mass change is only the result of
a concentration gradient across the membrane, rather than some sort of irregularity in the yams.
In order to address the error that could have been caused by including yam broken or deteriorated
yam chunks in the data pool, we could place six or seven, rather than five samples in each cup of
sucrose water, so that any yam chunks that had fallen apart or otherwise become unusable could
be thrown out without making the data pool too small.
Comparison:
The following is a graph of the data obtained by a group who completed the same
experiment as my group, except with potatoes instead of yams.

McDermott 6

Solution Molarity vs. Average Percent Change in Mass

20

10

0
0.1

f(x) = - 59.05x + 14.34

0.2 R =0.3
0.5
0.93 0.4

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

-10

Average Percent Change in Mass (%)

-20

-30

-40

-50

Solution Molarity (M)

In the graph of the yam data, the osmolarity was approximately 0.7M, meaning that if the
yam were placed in a 0.7M solution of glucose, the yam would neither gain nor lose mass over a
period of time. In contrast, the potato samples have an osmolarity of between 0.2M and 0.3M,
meaning that the potato samples require a much less concentrated solution in order to remain at
constant mass over a time period. The osmolarity of a sample is a product of its own glucose
concentration, because there will be a net zero osmosis if the concentrations of glucose on both
sides of the membrane are the same. This means that the yams have a much higher glucose
concentration than the potatoes.