How does the height of an optically active liquid affect its polarising angle?

Introduction

Polarisation is defined as "the phenomenon whereby the oscillations of a transverse wave are restricted to
a particular plane." An optically active substance is one that rotates the plane of polarisation of a beam
that passes through.

I chose to do this topic because the effect of polarisation was intriguing and I wanted to explore it more.
The polarisation of light has many real world applications such as polarised lenses which reduces glare
and the intensity of light, it is used in monitors. Usually the equipment I will be using in this experiment,
the polarimeter, is used to determine the concentration of substances, the amount of sugar in a substance
and the optical activity of a substance. I, however, will be measuring the effect on the polarising angle
from a change in height of the optically active substance.

Polarised light is light that has its electric field oscillating in one plane. This is different from unpolarized
light where its electric field oscillates in random directions as shown in the diagram below. When
polarised light travels through an optically active substance, the plane of polarisation rotates. This is
known as optical rotation.

Figure 1 (https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-is-polarised-light/)

The angle that the plane of polarisation is rotated through is called the polarising angle. This angle
depends on multiple factors such as the wavelength of light, temperature, concentration and the height of
a liquid. In this IA I will be measuring the effect of a change in the height of an optically active substance
on the polarising angle.

In order to measure the polarising angle relative to the initial angle I will be using a polarimeter as
shown in figure 1. This equipment measures the intensity of light emitted and the polarising angle.
 Figure 2 (https://www.vernier.com/files/manuals/chem-pol.pdf)

The effect of a change in height can be described through the following equation:

𝑎 = [𝑎] 𝑙 𝑐.

Where 𝑎 is the observed optical rotation, [𝑎] is the specific rotation in degrees, 𝑙 is the length of the cell in
units dm and 𝑐 is the concentration of the liquid in unit grams per millimetre.

In order to determine that the angle I was measuring was always when the specific rotation was at 90° I
used the formula

2
𝐼 = 𝐼𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (θ)

Where I is the observed intensity, Io is the maximum intensity and θ is the specific rotation in degrees. I
used this formula to make the assumption that when 𝐼 is at its lowest, the specific rotation is 90°. I made
this assumption as cos90 is equal to zero meaning that, theoretically, 𝐼 should be 0. However due to
background light and other facts 𝐼 will not be perfectly zero but we can assume when 𝐼 is the smallest the
specific angle is 90.

Using this we can determine that [𝑎] is 90 when the intensity is at its lowest. I also determined that the
concentration of Corn Syrup was 1.39 grams per millilitre.
Independent variable:
In this experiment the independent variable is the height of the liquid which is measured in decimeters.
To determine a suitable range I measured data points from 0.1 dm to the highest point, 1 dm, incrementing
by 0.1 dm each time. When getting data points I realised that there was a significant jump from 0.5 dm to
0.6 dm and the heights that came after 0.6 which I could not attribute to any factor. In order to avoid this
jump I decided to measure values from 0.1 to 0.45 dm incrementing by 0.05 dm each time. I measured the
height of the liquid by using the measurements on the chemical sample cell which measured its height in
cm. The smallest scale division was 0.01 dm, which means the uncertainty would be ± 0.005 dm.

Dependent variable:
The polarised angle is my dependent variable. I specifically measured the point at which the intensity
was lowest for each of the points as I knew it was 90 degrees; however, the intensity could be at its lowest
at 90 and 270. I decided to measure the smaller of the 2 degrees given. On logger pro the data is shown on
a graph that we can hover over and see the points as seen in the diagram below.

Figure 3
 Controlled Variables
Specific rotation
Optically active substance used
Diameter of the sample cell
Apparatus:
Equipment Quantity
Vernier Polarimeter
Chemical polarimeter
sample cell
Bottle of corn syrup
Laptop
Check Figure 1 and 3 for diagrams.
Significance
The specific rotation must be the
same each time otherwise the
formula would not work. The
specific rotation must be
constant throughout the
experiment.
If I change the optically active
substance, the concentrations
may differ so the correlation
would not be the same.
Therefore we must keep the
concentration constant
The sample cell given measures
the height of the liquid, if the
test tube was changed, the
diameter would also differ. If the
diameter was changed then the
height would be inaccurate and
therefore the experiment would
not be accurate
Figure 4
Uncertainty
1 ± 0.3°
1 ±0.005 dm
1 -
1 -
Figure 5
How it will be controlled
I will measure the angle at the
lowest Intensity throughout the
experiment. I also measured the
lower of the two angles that we
can see in figure 3.
I will use corn syrup as my
optically active substance
throughout the experiment.
Use the same sample cell
provided with the vernier lab
equipment.
Purpose
To measure the
observed angle
To hold the optically
active substance and
to change the height/
The optically active
substance we will be
changing the height of
To view the data
collected using logger
pro.
Method:
1. Setup vernier polarimeter by plugging into laptop and opening up logger pro.
2. Fill up the sample cell with the first height being measured.
3. Insert the sample cell into the polarimeter when done
4. Press record on logger pro and start rotating the metal disc until data has stopped being recorded.
5. On the graph, find where the intensity was lowest and measure the angle at that point
6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 two more times. Three repeats in total
7. Repeat step 6 with different heights on the sample cell

- Measuring the height of the corn syrup was a problem because it is a very viscous fluid and when
I poured it in, it would take a lot of time to accumulate in the bottom. Sometimes it was hard to
tell when it was done accumulating so the height of the liquid could have been greater than
intended so it was very slow waiting for the corn syrup to accumulate before putting it into the
polarimeter.
- I also originally tried to measure the distance between the maximum and minimum because I
thought that for different results it would be different; however, it was the same across all results
so I decided to measure the maximum.
- There were always a lot of values for the angle at the lowest point so I decided to average the
angles instead of picking one.
- The polarimeter measured angles in increments of 0.25.

Safety, environment and Ethical Concerns:

The main safety concern would be dropping the test tube. Throughout the experiment I would be dealing
with corn syrup, a very slippery substance. This substance could get on my hands and cause the glass test
tube to slip and fall onto the floor. In order to prevent this I will wash my hands thoroughly and dry them
fully before handling any equipment in order to ensure that I don’t drop them. There are no major ethical
concerns or environmental concerns in my experiment.
Raw Data:

Figure 6

Sample calculations:
𝑎 = [𝑎] 𝑙 𝑐
𝑎 = 90 * 0. 45 * 1. 39
𝑎 = 56. 3

calculating concentration of corn syrup

𝑎 = [𝑎] 𝑙 𝑐
𝑎
𝑐 = [𝑎] 𝑙
28.33
𝑐 = 90*0.3
𝑐 = 1. 049
real value = 1.39

Uncertainty
(𝑚𝑎𝑥−𝑚𝑖𝑛)
= 2
127.50−127.00
= 2
= 0. 25
Graph:

Figure 7
Maximum Gradient
= 150. 4 °/𝑑𝑚
= 150 °/𝑑𝑚

Minimum Gradient
= 121. 3 °/𝑑𝑚
= 121 °/𝑑𝑚

Average Gradient
𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝑚𝑖𝑛
= 2
150.4 + 121.3
= 2
=135.9 °/dm
= 140 °/𝑑𝑚

Uncertainty in average gradient

𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑚𝑖𝑛
= 2
150.4 − 121.3
= 2
= ±14. 6 °/𝑑𝑚
= ±10 °/𝑑𝑚

Formula
𝑎 = [𝑎] 𝑙 𝑐
𝑎
[𝑎] = 𝑙𝑐
1 𝑎
[𝑎] = 𝑚 * 𝑙
𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑚 = 𝑐
𝑎
𝑐
= 135. 9
90
𝑐= 135.9
inverse c
135.9
𝑐 = 90
𝑐 = 1. 51 g/ml

Fractional Uncertainty in concentration

% uncertainty in measuring specific rotation + % uncertainty in gradient
0.3 14.6
90
+ 135.9
= 0. 11
0. 1

Uncertainty in Concentration
𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 × 𝑐
1. 51 * 0. 1
= 0. 151
= ± 0. 2 𝑔/𝑚𝑙

% discrepancy in c
𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
= 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
1.51 − 1.39
= 1.39
= 0. 086
= 8. 6%

Conclusion
The data indicates that there is a positive trend between the path length of the light and the polarised
angle. As the path length of the light increases, so does the polarised angle. The relationship is linear as
we see in the graph which matches the relationship formed in the equation which validates our hypothesis.
The max / min lines are similar which suggests that our data was accurate; however, our equation predicts
the y intercept to be 0 but in our case the y intercept is shown to be around -13. The error that led to this
mistake was a human error as I had not calculated the polarised angle of my first data point. Since the
polarised angle is the difference between two data points, starting at a path length of 0.1 dm and setting
the polarised angle for that path length to be zero meant I did not take into account the polarised angle of
it and this meant my data points were all shifted downwards. This meant that my data was low in
precision but because the uncertainty was not very high it meant that it was highly accurate.

The absolute uncertainty also increased as the data points moved to the right. This is because the value
for specific rotation was made by adding all the previous values of specific rotation which caused far
higher absolute uncertainty. My average gradient was calculated to be 140 ± 10 °/𝑑𝑚. The equation
𝑎 = [𝑎] 𝑙 𝑐 predicted a positive gradient of this magnitude as when I used the gradient to calculate a
value for the concentration of corn syrup I got a percentage discrepancy of 8.6% which is very low.
Although, as I had stated above, I assumed my precision to be low since I did not take into account the
specific rotation of light with path length 0.1 dm, the percentage discrepancy shows that my experiment
was precise and also accurate. This suggests that the influence of random error, system error and other
errors was low.

Evaluation

The data was precise as the uncertainty and the variability of repeats was quite low. Although the
gradient was precise, the actual polarity of light for each length was off due to an error made when
collecting data.

As mentioned above this is due to the fact that the polarising angle is measured by comparing the
difference between two different lengths so starting at length 0.1 with polarity of “0” would mean that our
data points would be off by some value equal to the polarity of light at length 0.1 dm.
Although my data is precise and accurate, there are many ways in which errors could have occurred. One
of those errors is the presence of background light. If background light is present, it would mean that the
minimum point on the graph in figure 3 would be much more flat and would cause variability in the data
points. This may have affected the precision of the experiment as it would mean that the uncertainty in the
polarising angle would be significantly larger than it is. However, it does not seem to have affected my
experiment.