Cherry-Wajeeh 1

Effect of Temperature, Particle Size, and Mixing Method, on the Dissolution of

Copper II Sulfate.
Problem Statement:
Determine the effect of copper II sulfate particle size, temperature of water and
mixing method on the rate of dissolution.
Hypothesis:
The rate of dissolution will be highest when temperature is 55-60 C, particle size
is powder, and it is mixed one time per second.
Table 1
Variables
Extent of
mixing

Temperature
(C)

Particle Size

(-,-,-)

1 per 10
seconds

0-3

powder

Standards

5 per 10
seconds

22-28

Fine crystal

(+,+,+)

1 per
second

55-60

Medium crystal

Table one above shows the variables used in the experiment. The variables
include the mixing method, temperature and particle size. All of the variables have high,
low, and standard values. The dependent variable in this experiment is the amount of
time, in seconds, it takes for the particles to dissolve.

Cherry-Wajeeh 2
Materials
0-3C water, H2O
22-28C water, H2O
55-60 C water, H2O
Copper (II) Sulfate, CuSO4 *5H2O, fine
crystal
Copper (II) Sulfate, CuSO4 *5H2O,
powder
Copper (II) Sulfate, CuSO4 *5H2O,
medium crystal
Scale, 0.01g precision
Thermometer probe, 0.01C precision

10 mL graduated cylinder
100 mL graduate clyander
100 mL beaker
(3) Test tubes, large
(3) Test Tube stoppers
(14) Weight boat
Test tube rack
Tongs
Scoopula
Stop watch
hotplate
TI-Nspire calculator randomize function

Diagram:

Copper Sulfate high,

low, and standard

Graduated
Cylinder
Test Tube
Beaker
Test Tube

Weight boat
Scale
Scoopula

Test Tube

Thermometer

Figure 1 Materials
Figure 1 above shows the materials that were used during the experiment.

General 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 . Your
solutions should NEVER boil!!!
2. 5 C and 22-28 C solutions have already been prepared and are located in the cooler
and on the demo table respectively.
3. A clean dry test tube will be used before each experiment.
Protocol:

1. Using a weigh boat, mass out (3) 0.2 g samples of copper (II) sulfate fine crystal. Note:
the masses do not need to be exact but try to keep them with in 0.18-0.22 range. Record
the mass in the data table.
2. Using a weigh boat, mass out (5) 0.2 g samples of copper (II) sulfate medium crystal.
Note: the masses do not need to be exact but try to keep them with in 0.18-0.22 range.
Record the mass in the data table.
3. Repeat step 2 for copper (II) sulfate powder.
4. Randomize trials insuring that 1st, middle, and last trial are standards.
5. Fill a test tube with 10 mL of desired temperature water using the 10 mL graduated
cylinder.
6. Transfer the desired form of Copper (II) sulfate to the test tube and apply the
predetermined mixing method.
7. Record the time it takes for the solution to dissolve and note any observations in the
data table. (i.e. quality of mixing, color of solution, etc.). Note: if it takes more than 5
minutes for the solution to dissolve, record this fact along with any observations about
color and particulate remaining in the observations section of the data table and move on
to the next trial.
7. Empty the contents of the tube. Rinse and dry the tube.
8. Repeat steps 5-7 to complete the D.O.E.

Data and Observations:

Table 2
Test Results
Randomiz
e the Runs

Factor:
Particle
size

Factor:
Temp
( C)

Factor:
mixing
method

Particle
Mass (g)

Temperature

11
3
10
6
5
1

standard
+
+
+
+
standard

standard
+
+
standard

standard
+
+
standard

0.1858
0.1923
0.2038
0.1903
0.1801
0.1925

23.4
55.7
55.2
-0.1
-0.1
23.6

Results In
time of
dissolution
(s)
160
239
257
600
600
157

9
4
8
7
2

standard

+
+
standard

+
+
standard

0.2199
0.2155
0.1911
0.1975
0.2137

55
55.8
0.5
0.6
23.5

97
117
140
234
167

Table two above shows the results of all the trials. There were eleven trials that
were all randomized. The results, in seconds, varied a lot. The longest amount of time it
took for the particles to dissolve was over 600 seconds, while the shortest was only 97
seconds.

Table 3
Observations
Trial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Observations
Had difficulty mixing initially, alternated mixers periodically solution
bluish-white
Had problems mixing, alternated mixers once, powdered blue color after
mixing time was over
One mixer, difficulty with stopwatch, surplus water added accidentally,
clouded baby blue color
Stopwatch turned off temporarily, some powder stuck to edge of test tube,
contents swirled in a spiral-like pattern when mixed.
Mixing time exceeded 5 minutes, excess powder accidently added, sky-blue
color
Mixing time exceeded 5 minutes, crystal was idle for awhile; waiting for
cold water, blue color
Bluish-white color, excess powder stuck to side of test tube
Two mixers used, cloudy-blue color

9
10
11

Water temperature declining rapidly, only trial with transparent solution

Stopwatch turned off unexpectedly, excess powder accidently added
Alternated mixers once, solution swirled in a spiral-like manner when
mixed

Table three above is all the observations for the eleven trials. Notice, when the
particles dissolved, the water-changed color to a light blue tint. Also, in some of the
trials, more than one mixer was used through the finishing of the trial.

Data Analysis
Table 4
Factors
Extent of
mixing

Temperature
(C)

Particle Size

(-,-,-)

1 per 10
seconds

0-3

powder

Standards

5 per 10
seconds

22-28

Fine crystal

55-60

Medium
crystal

(+,+,+)

1 per second

Table four above shows the values for our standard, high, and low for the
experiment. The high for mixing was 1 per second. The standard was 5 per 10 seconds,
and the low was a 1 per 10 seconds. The high for Temperature was 55-60C, the standard
was 22-28C, and the low was 0-3C. The high for particle size was a medium crystal,
the standard was a fine crystal, and the low was a powder.

Satandards Scater Plot

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

10

12

Figure 2 Standards Scatter Plot

Figure two above shows the range of standards. The range of standards is ten.
The highest standard was 167 and the lowest was 157. This shows that the standards
were consistent because of how close in number they were.

Table 5
Effect of Mixing Method
Mixing
(-) Values:
(+) Values:
257
239
600
600
117
97
234
140
Average: 302
Average: 269
Effect= -33
Table five above shows the effect of the mixing method. With the low amount
there was an average of 302 seconds. With the high amount, there was an average of 269
seconds. With this data, there was an effect of -33, proving that the data was significant,
because two times the range of standards is 20 and the absolute value of the effect of
ethyl alcohol is bigger than two times the range of standards.

Effect of Mixing Method

310
302

300
290
280

Seconds

270 269
260
-1

250
1

Figure 3 Effect of the Mixing Method

Figure three above also shows the effect of the Mixing Method. This gives more
of a visual on the effect. With the low amount there was an average of 302 seconds.
With the high amount, there was an average of 269 seconds.

Table 6
Effect of Temperature
Temperature
(-) Values:
(+) Values:
600
239
600
257
140
97
234
117
Average: 393.5
Average: 177.5
Effect= -216
Table six above shows the effect of temperature. When the amount was low, the
average number of seconds taken to dissolve was 393.5. When the amount was held
high, the average number of seconds was 177.5, making the effect of temperature an even
number of -216 seconds.

Effect of Temperature
500
393.5

400
300

Secomds

200

177.5

100
-1

0
1

Figure 4 Effect of Temperature

Figure four above shows the effect of temperature. For the average low of
temperature it is 393.5 and the average high of temperature it is 177.5. To find the effect
of temperature you take the high minus the low to get -216.

Table 7
Effect of Particle Size
Particle Size
(-) Values:
(+) Values:
97
239
117
257
140
600
234
600
Average: 147
Average: 424
Effect=277
Table seven above shows the effect of particle size. When the amount was low,
the average number of seconds taken to dissolve was 147. When the amount was held
high, the average number of seconds was 424, making the effect of temperature an even
number of 277 seconds.

Effect of Particle Size

500
400

424

300
Seconds

200
147
100
0
2

Figure 5 Effect of Temperature

Shown above is the effect of temperature. For the average low of temperature it is
147 and the average high of temperature it is 424. To find the effect of temperature you
take the high minus the low to get 277.

Table 8
Interaction Effect of Mixing Method and Temperature

Mixing
Method

Temperature
(-)

(+)

Line Segment Solid

(+)

220

168

Line Segment Dotted

(-)

267

187

Table eight above shows the interaction effect of temperature and the mixing
method and the temperature. The table shows that when both of the low amounts of both
factors were used, there was an average of 220 seconds. When the amounts were both
high, there was an average of 168 showing a decrease in the number of seconds taken to

dissolve the particles. This shows that the factors of the mixing method and temperature
do affect the amount of seconds taken for copper two sulfates to completely dissolve.

Effect of Mixing Method and Temperature

267
220

300

187
200
168

Mixing Method (+)

Mixing Method (-)

Seconds
100

0
1

-1

Figure 6 Interaction Effect of Mixing Method and Temperature

The above table shows the interaction effect between mixing and temperature.
The dotted line represents the low for mixing method and the solid line represents the
high for mixing method. The start of the line, on the left, is where temperature is low and
the end of the line, to the right, represents where temperature was high. To find the
interaction effect you take the slope of the high line minus the slope of the low line. The
interaction effect in our case is -66.

MethodMixing

Table 9
Interaction Effect of Mixing Method and Particle Size
Particle Size
(-)

(+)

Line Segment Solid

(+)

118.5

269.5

Line Segment Dotted

(-)

142

278.5

Table nine above shows the interaction effect of the mixing method and the
particle size. The table shows that when both of the low amounts of both factors were
used, there was an average of 142 seconds. When the amounts were both high, there was

an average of 269.5 showing an increase in the number of seconds taken to dissolve the
particles. This shows that the factors of the mixing method and temperature do affect the
amount of seconds taken for copper two sulfates to completely dissolve.

Effect of Mixing Method and Particle Size

300
278.5
269.5
200

Mixing Method (+)

Mixing Method (-)

Seconds
142
118.5
100

-1

0
1

Figure 7 Interaction Effect of Mixing Method and Particle Size

The above table shows the interaction effect between mixing method and particle
size. The dotted line represents the low for mixing method and the solid line represents
the high for mixing method. The start of the line, on the left, is where particle is low and
the end of the line, to the right, represents where particle was high. To find the interaction
effect you take the slope of the high line minus the slope of the low line. The interaction
effect in our case is 7.25.

SizeParticle

Table 10
Interaction Effect of Particle Size and Temperature
Temperature
(-)

(+)

Line Segment Solid

(+)

300

248

Line Segment Dotted

(-)

187

107

Table ten above shows the interaction effect of the particle size and temperature.
The table shows that when both of the low amounts of both factors were used, there was
an average of 187 seconds. When the amounts were both high, there was an average of
248 seconds, showing an increase in the number of seconds taken to dissolve the
particles. This shows that the factors of the mixing method and temperature do affect the
amount of seconds taken for copper two sulfates to completely dissolve.

Effect of Particle Size and Temperature

400
300
300
248
Seconds

187

200

Particle Size (+)

Particle Size (-)

107
100

-1

0
1

Figure 8 Interaction Effect of Particle Size and Temperature

The above table shows the interaction effect between particle size and
temperature. The dotted line represents the low for particle size and the solid line
represents the high for particle size. The start of the line, on the left, is where particle is
low and the end of the line, to the right, represents where particle was high. To find the
interaction effect you take the slope of the high line minus the slope of the low line. The
interaction effect in our case is -66.

Interpretation
The first factor in the experiment was mixing method. The mixing method was
tested at one per ten seconds, fiver per ten seconds, and one per second. When the
mixing method was lowest, the average number of seconds was 302. When the mixing
method was held high, there was an average time of 269 seconds. This gives the mixing
method an effect of -33. This shows that because the effect was negative, when the
mixing method was faster, the time required to dissolve went down, and therefore,
mixing method does effect the dissolving rate.
The second factor in the experiment was temperature. The different amounts that
were used were 0-3C, 22-28C, and 55-60C. When the amount was held standard, the
amount of time taken to dissolve was between 167 and 157 seconds. When the amount
was held low, there was an average of 393.5 seconds. When the amount was held high,
the average amount of time was 177.5 seconds. This gives temperature an effect of -216.
This means that when temperature raises, the amount of seconds taken to dissolve copper
two sulfate decreases.
The last factor in the experiment was particle size. The different amounts that
were used were powder, fine crystal, and medium crystal. When the amount was held
standard, the amount of time taken to dissolve was between 167 and 157 seconds. When
the amount was held low, there was an average of 147 seconds. When the amount was
held high, the average amount of time was 424 seconds. This gives particle size an effect
of 277. This means that when temperature raises, the amount of seconds taken to dissolve
the compound decreases.
The first interaction graph is the effect of mixing method and temperature. For
this interaction effect, the mixing method was held constant and the temperature was held
high and low. When the two lines are drawn on the graph, the solid, and the dotted, they

will either intersect, or have slopes that are similar. To find the effect, the slopes are
subtracted. The effect for mixing method and temperature is -66. The interactions of
these two factors are significant because -66 is larger than two times the range of
standards, or 20.
The second interaction graph is mixing method and the particle size. For
this interaction, mixing method was held constant and the particle size was held high and
low. When the lines are drawn, they dont intersect, but they come very close around the
high values. To find the effect, the slopes are subtracted. The effect for mixing method
and particle size is 7.25. The interactions of these two factors are not significant because
7.25 is smaller than two times the range of standards, or 20.
The last interaction graph is the particle size and the temperature. For this
interaction, particle size is held standard, and the temperature is held high and low. When
the lines are drawn, they dont intersect. To find the effect, the slopes are subtracted. The
effect for particle size and temperature is -66. The interactions of these two factors are
significant because -66 is larger than two times the range of standards, or 20.
Lastly, is the importance of the Standards Scatter Plot. The importance of the
Standards Scatter Plot is to see if the standards are all similar. For example you do not
want your graph to look like it is snowing, so your standards are all relatively close to
each other. If the standards in an experiment are all far away from each other, it means
there was a problem in the experimental design or there was an error made. The standards
for this experiment were relatively close with a range of 10.
Prediction Equation=285.5
Figure 9 Prediction Equation

33 216 277 66 7.25 66

+
+
+noise
2
2
2
2
2
2

Figure nine displays the prediction equation of the effects of the variables used in
the experiment. The noise accounts for any outside variables that are possibly lurking in
the experiment that may affect the data in some way.

-300

-200

-100

100

200

300

400

Figure 10 Dot Plot of Effects

Figure ten shows the dot plot of the effects in the experiment. The data found to
be greater than 2 plus double the range of standards can be deemed significant.
Parsimonious Prediction Equation:
Parsimonious Prediction Equation
285.5

33
216 277
66
66
m
t+
p mt tp
2
2
2
2
2

Figure 11 Parsimonious Prediction Equation

Figure eleven shows the parsimonious prediction equation for the significant
effects in the experiment. The effect of mixing method and particle size was eliminated
from the equation due to the effect being smaller than double the range of standards; 20.
Conclusion:
The hypothesis from the beginning of the experiment was accepted. The
hypothesis stated that the rate of dissolution will be highest when temperature is 55-60

C, particle size is powder, and it is mixed one time per second. In the experiment, the
rate of dissolution was fastest (97 seconds) when copper II sulfate was a powder,
temperature was at 55-60C, and was mixed every second.
The extent of mixing had a significant part in the dissolution. Mixing every
second was the most frequent extent of mixing used in the experiment. On a molecular
level, the copper II sulfate is put in water. Since copper II sulfate is soluble, it will ionize
in water. Water is polar, meaning it has a positive and negative part to the molecule. This
property of water is used by isolating the different parts of copper II sulfate. Copper II
sulfate is also polar, so the positive hydrogen molecules isolate the positive copper
molecules, and the negative oxygen molecules isolate the negative sulfate molecules;
thereby ionizing the compound. Mixing frequently adds kinetic energy to the molecules,
leading in more collisions between water molecules and copper II sulfate, which leads to
more interactions and ultimately faster ionization.
Temperature also was a big factor. Heating up water, the solvent, added more
kinetic energy to the molecules. The kinetic energy added to the water molecules speed
them up more, which increased interactions with the solute, the compound being ionized.
A colder temperature would add less kinetic energy to the water molecules, slowing them
down, and having less molecular interactions with copper II sulfate.
Particle size had an impact on the rate of dissolution. A big crystal of copper II
sulfate is difficult for water to interact with. The water is colliding into the crystal, which
becomes very hard for the water to interact. However, if the copper II sulfate is a powder,
it gives the water more surface area to get into and interact with copper II sulfate. The
combination of more surface area, high temperature, and high amount of kinetic energy
speeding up ionization is called the kinetic molecular theory.

There were a few errors that occurred during the process of the experiment. On a
few trials, the mixers were switched up, so another person could set up more trials. This
could affect the severity of mixing between people, which may add more kinetic energy
to the molecules. On two of the trials regarding the particle size of a powder, a small
amount of powder stuck to the edge of the test tube. This could mean that less of the
copper II sulfate was interacting with the water molecules, resulting in a faster time of
dissolution.
What would the experiment be like if the test tube already had some copper II
sulfate inside? The water molecules would start doing exactly what it did in the
experiment; isolating each part of the compound and completely ionizing the solute.
However, when more copper II sulfate is added, the water will not be able to fully ionize
it. There will not be enough water molecules left to ionize the additional solute, since
many of the water molecules are already used in the ionization process. Therefore, some
copper II sulfate will be left on the bottom of the test tube, and no amount of mixing,
heat, or kinetic energy would be able to compensate for the lack of water molecules left
to spare.