pubs.acs.

org/jchemeduc Article

An Experimental Approach with a Twist: Helping High School

Students to Understand the Concept of Limiting Reactant
Valeria Edelsztein*

Cite This: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00986 Read Online

ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations

See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

ABSTRACT: High school students and students in the first years

of college have difficulties in understanding the topic of
Downloaded via NATL LBRY OF SERBIA on March 24, 2023 at 08:12:19 (UTC).

stoichiometry and, in particular, the concept of limiting reactant.

Proposals aimed at overcoming these learning obstacles tend to
focus on analogies, and there are few sequences that approach
teaching from an experimental perspective. Those that do it usually
involve specific reactions whose reagents are not easily obtained or
require special equipment. In this article, an experimental activity
was designed to introduce the concept of limiting reactant with
nonhazardous, inexpensive, and readily available materials in
combination with an innovative visual and graphic representational
approach. It was implemented with three groups of 16−17 years
old students (N = 74) with some previous knowledge (acid and base reactions, indicators, and slight experience in handling
laboratory material). From their own observations and reasoning and without the need to go through analogical mediation, it was
possible to satisfactorily arrive at the concept of limiting reactant. Subsequently, the proposal was adapted for students with no prior
knowledge, and it was implemented with three groups of 9−12-year-olds (N = 27) in an informal teaching environment with similar
results. This intervention could potentially help high school students better understand the concept of limiting reagents and
overcome future learning obstacles in relation to other chemical phenomena that rely on this concept.
KEYWORDS: Elementary/Middle School Science, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Acids/Bases

S toichiometry is a cornerstone of chemistry teaching at the

high school and early college levels. Students are frequently
asked to determine the amount of product formed in a chemical
reaction given certain amounts of the reactants, and this, of
course, depends on the fixed and quantitative relationship
between them, i.e., the stoichiometry of the reaction. Since most
of the time the reagents are not in stoichiometric quantities, it is
necessary for students to understand the concept of limiting
reagent.
The limiting reagent is defined as the one that is used up first
during a chemical reaction; it is the reagent that prevents the
reaction from proceeding and the one that determines how
much product will be obtained.1 Understanding the concept of
limiting reactants and being able to operate with it is not an easy
task for students. Common misconceptions are presented in
Table 1.1−5
Different authors have suggested that many of these
misconceptions arise from the mere memorization of algorithms
by students.1,2 Moreover, Stamovlasis et al.6,7 and Boujaoude
and Barakat8 have demonstrated that competence in algorithmic
problem solving has little impact in conceptual understanding:
although the majority of the strategies used by students to solve
chemistry problems were algorithmic, their results were highly
inefficient (efficient strategies are defined by Boujaoude and
© XXXX American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
A J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Barakat8 as “being more conceptual, shorter and a well thought-
out solution to the problem” than traditional ones (p. 94)), and
their conceptual understanding was found to be a determining
factor in success. Therefore, the teaching of stoichiometry by
formulas and algorithms has limitations.
Proposals aimed at overcoming these learning obstacles
generally focus on analogies. For example, Haim et al.9
developed an analogy for teaching stoichiometry and limiting
reagent based on the number of sandwiches that can be prepared
with a given number of ingredients; Toth10 created one in which
students had to assemble competitive teams given a certain
number of men and women; Witzel11 presented an activity with
LEGOs, Cain12 one with S’mores, and Ault created Mole City.13
Also, the Limiting and Excess Reactants POGIL Activity that
appeals to a car factory is a popular resource among high school
teachers. Other approaches have emphasized the conceptual
Received: October 4, 2022
Revised: February 20, 2023
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00986
Journal of Chemical Education
Table 1. Common Misconceptions among Students on “Limiting Reactant”
Common Misconception
Thinking that the reactant with the lowest stoichiometric coefficient is necessarily the
limiting one.
Establishing the reagent that is present in less quantity than the limiting one.
Calculating the amount of product formed as the sum of the amounts of the
reactants.
Working directly with quantities expressed in grams.
aspect incorporating visual representations1,14 or have resorted
to gamification.15 There are few proposals that approach
stoichiometry from an experimental perspective,16 and they
usually involve specific reactions whose reagents are not easily
obtained or require special equipment.17−20
In this paper, an experimental activity with nonhazardous,
inexpensive, and readily available materials will be described.
Inspired by the well-known Balloon Race demonstration,21 it
incorporates a novel approach that allows linking a hands-on
activity with an innovative visual and graphic representation, an
important step in a conceptual approach to stoichiometry.1,22 It
was first implemented with 16−17-year-old students who were
able to arrive at the concept of limiting reagent without the use
of analogies. Later, it was adapted for younger students and
implemented with 9−12-year-olds in an informal teaching
environment.
■ PARTICIPANTS
In these activities, 74 students between 16 and 17 years old (42%
female, average age: 16.6 years) and 27 students between 9 and
12 years old (33% female, average age: 10.7 years) from the City
of Buenos Aires with a middle-class socioeconomic background
participated. In all cases, parents were informed by school
authorities or were present at the activity when those were held
in informal educational settings. The activities were recorded
(audio only), and photographs were taken with the respective
consent.
■ ABOUT THE ACTIVITY
In this proposal, students explored the reaction between acetic
acid (in vinegar) and sodium bicarbonate (that yields carbon
dioxide and sodium acetate) in order to gather, visually present,
and analyze data to arrive at the concept of limiting reactants.
This activity uses common household chemicals that are
inexpensive. Following the experiment, all the solutions can be
discarded in the sink with running water. As a safety precaution,
students should use safety goggles for potential spattering of the
reaction mixture.
The activity was divided into two phases:
• Phase I: Hands-on activity for each group.
• Phase II: Gathering of the data and group discussion.
Phase I: Hands-on Activity for Each Group
High school students came to this activity as part of a broader
sequence to work on the topic of “acid−base reactions”. They
were familiar with the concepts of chemical reactions, acids and
bases, and the reaction between acetic acid and vinegar in
particular, indicators (phenolphthalein and anthocyanin from
red cabbage as universal indicator23), and they had some
experience in handling laboratory material.
The class was divided into six small groups of two to four
members and each of them worked in parallel with their own set
B https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00986
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
Underlying Errors
It ignores the stoichiometric relationship that is established between the
reactants.
It does not consider that during chemical reactions the atoms of the molecules
are rearranged.
It ignores that the stoichiometric relationship is between moles of reactants.
of materials: 600 mL plastic bottles, balloons, funnel, measuring
cylinder or measuring cup, measuring spoon, and string.
First, a demonstrative experience was performed for the whole
class so that students could see the procedure: 150 mL of vinegar
were placed inside the bottle using the funnel and 6 g of solid
sodium bicarbonate were placed inside the balloon with a spoon.
Then, the neck of the balloon was placed around the neck of the
bottle and the bicarbonate was poured over the vinegar. The
carbon dioxide generated was collected in the balloon (Figure
1). When the bubbling stopped, the balloon was surrounded by a
Figure 1. (a) Carbon dioxide generated in the acid−base reaction is
collected in the balloon. (b) Balloons of different sizes according to the
amounts of reagents used.
string around its maximum diameter. The string was cut and
taped on a piece of paper to be further used for the visual
representation. The length of the string had a direct connection
with the volume of gas that had been produced.
Half of the groups were instructed to use fixed amounts (150
mL) of one of three types of vinegar (apple, alcohol, and wine
vinegar, 4% m/v acetic acid) and variable amounts of
bicarbonate (2, 4, 6, and 8 g). The other half was instructed to
use fixed amounts of bicarbonate (6 g) and variable amounts of
one of the three types of vinegar (50, 100, 150, and 200 mL)
(Table 2), giving a total of six different experiments (two�fixed
amount of vinegar and fixed amount of bicarbonate�with each
type of vinegar). Each group performed the experiment four
times and obtained four threads to create the visual
representation (Figure 2).
Table 2. General Schema for the Acid−Base Experiments
Fixed Vinegar Fixed Bicarbonate
Vinegar (mL) NaHCO3 (g) Vinegar (mL) NaHCO3 (g)
150 2 50 6
150 4 100 6
150 6 150 6
150 8 200 6
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 2. (a) Visual representations of the six experiments with the strings corresponding to the maximum diameter of the balloons. (b)
Reconstruction of the general shape of the graphics.
In this opportunity, we decided to use three different types of
vinegar so that the students could notice that if the reagent
involved (acetic acid) and its concentration are the same, the
reaction and its stoichiometry does not vary no matter the
“origin” (apple, alcohol, wine). As will be mentioned later, this
variable was not introduced with the elementary school group
because their background knowledge was lesser. How many
types of vinegar are used is a variable that can be adjusted
according to the background of each particular group. This may
also provide an opportunity, in the case of vinegars (or other
solutions) with different acetic acid concentrations, to discuss
how this difference has an impact in the amount of gas produced
and at which point the acetic acid or bicarbonate becomes the
limiting reagent.
As mentioned before, these high-school students had some
knowledge about the subject, but for groups without this
background, it may be advisable to use an inquiry approach
instead of the traditional demonstration. An adaptation of the
activity to students with no prior knowledge is presented below.
In this particular case it was done with elementary school
students, but it could be applied to high school students without
any previous knowledge. Extra time was required to present the
reaction (without using chemical formulas). We worked in two
2-h sessions.
During the first day, the class was divided into groups of 2−4
students, which were given plastic cups, spoons, baking soda,
and vinegar (in this case, to simplify, we only worked with
alcohol vinegar). They were familiar with vinegar from its use in
salads and knew it was acidic. Some knew baking soda from its
use in baking, others from its medical uses. They were allowed to
experiment freely for 10 min and registered any changes
(bubbling, unreacted bicarbonate at the bottom, etc.). Then a
debriefing was held. It was explained to them that what they had
done was a chemical reaction: when we mix vinegar and
bicarbonate, one of the components of the vinegar�the acetic
acid�reacts with the bicarbonate and one of the products of the
reaction is a gas: carbon dioxide, which is the same gas in soda
and soft drinks. Then, they were asked if they thought it was
possible to trap the gas in some way. The teacher gave each
group balloons and different containers, including bottles, for
them to try to trap the carbon dioxide. After a few tries
manipulating the materials, they finally came up with the answer.
Together, we wrote a protocol to have at hand for the rest of the
activity. Thus, throughout the first session, the students were
able to understand that a gas was being produced in a chemical
reaction, that they could trap it, and that the amount of gas
produced depended in some way on the amount of vinegar and
bicarbonate added.
C https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00986
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
On the second day, the experimental work was identical with
that of the high school students, with the only exception that
each group was given the bottles loaded with the appropriate
amounts of vinegar and the amount of bicarbonate they need
previously weighed and placed in paper envelopes.
Phase II: Gathering of the Data and Group Discussion
At the end of the hands-on activity the whole class reunited to
share the data each group had collected and, together, discussed
and interpreted the information. The following is a description
of what happened with the high school groups.
First, the visual representations were analyzed. From the
strings of different lengths obtained in their experiments, each
group prepared a graph on a poster. To do this, the groups that
had worked with the same type of vinegar got together and
divided the poster into two parts: one corresponding to fixed
amounts of vinegar and the other to fixed amounts of
bicarbonate. They placed the strings stretched along the y-axis
with one of the extremes on the x-axis in the spaces marked 2, 4,
6, and 8 (grams of bicarbonate) and 50, 100, 150, and 200 (mL
of vinegar) according to the corresponding experiments. The
upper ends were held in place with tape. The graphs were
presented altogether on the blackboard (Figure 2a) and the
general shape of the graphs was reconstructed (Figure 2b). For
this, axes were drawn on the blackboard and the information
from the posters was transferred by measuring the length of each
string and placing that value as the y-coordinate. Thus, each
point corresponded to (x,y) = (amount of reagent in grams or
mL, string length).
One of the first conclusions the students reached was that
there were no major differences between the three types of
vinegar. Then, some students noticed the particular shape of the
graphs: in most cases, for the last two points, the length of the
thread did not vary (plateau). This prompted the teacher (the
author of this article) to ask them what they thought was going
on.
After a few minutes of exchange, someone suggested that
“maybe the last balloons were punctured and that is why the
strings are shorter than they should be”. Another student
suggested that they could have made a mistake with the
quantities. The teacher proposed repeating the experience with
6 g of bicarbonate and 150 and 200 mL of vinegar. Once again,
both balloons turned out to be the same size (and therefore, the
length of the strings as well). In response to this, the following
exchange took place with the students:
Teacher: What does it mean that both threads are the same
length?
Student 1: That the balloons are the same size.
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Teacher: And what does that tell us about the volume of gas
produced in the reactions?
Student 1: That is the same. They have the same volume of
gas.
Teacher: And what would have to happen for the same
amount of gas to be produced in both reactions?
Student 1: There must be the same amounts of reactants.
Student 2: But there was not the same amount of vinegar.
Student 1: Maybe something was left unreacted.
Teacher: Which of the reagents would be in excess in this case?
Student 3: The vinegar. Because we added more, and no more
gas was produced.
Teacher: How could we see if there is indeed an excess of
vinegar? Can you think of that?
Student 4: Throw something that is colored in contact with an
acid. The cabbage. I do not remember the name.
Teacher: An indicator.
Student 4: Yes. If there is vinegar left, it will turn... I guess it
was pink.
Student 5: Or we can throw more baking soda in the bottle
and see if it bubbles.
Teacher: Both ideas are good.
The teacher proceeded, first, to add a few drops of red cabbage
juice to the liquid remaining in the bottle. It turned fuchsia.
Then she added a spoonful of baking soda and bubbles were
observed.
Once the group agreed on what was happening, we performed
the same type of analysis with the graphic corresponding to fixed
amounts of vinegar. In this case they were able to notice that
there were traces of white solid at the bottom of the bottle:
unreacted bicarbonate. The students’ own demand to name the
reagent that was “left over” and the reagent that was “completely
used up” allowed the teacher to introduce the proper
vocabulary: limiting reactant and reactant in excess.
The same type of exchange, with few differences, was
observed in the other two occasions in which this activity was
carried out with other groups of students of the same ages.
The whole activity lasted 3 h.
As for the elementary students, the display of the results
proceeded in the same way.
As we gathered in front of the blackboard, it was explained
that each group had worked with a fixed amount of vinegar or
baking soda and varying amounts of the other reagent. Then, this
discussion took place.
They could not come to the idea that one of the reagents was
in excess on their own, but they came to this conclusion when
shown that adding bicarbonate to the remaining liquid in the
bottle still caused the reaction to occur. With some small
differences from this group, a very similar situation took place in
the other two groups: the discussion required a little more
teacher intervention, but finally in all cases it was possible to
introduce the concept of limiting and excess reactants.
■ RESULTS
For high school students, we know that introducing the concept
of a limiting reactant in this way was successful because, in
subsequent classes (that included acid/base reactions and
titrations), they were able to operate with it by applying it to
solve previously unseen problematic situations (e.g., quantifica-
tion of acetic acid and sodium carbonate by titration) and
relating it to other concepts (e.g., diprotic acids, indicators)
without further inclusion of analogies or other types of
explanations. Later on, they used it appropriately in the formal
D https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00986
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
evaluations for the subject. When compared to the results from
the evaluation (both formative and summative) of other groups
of students of the same age and the same school that were taught
the same contents in a traditional way (mediated by analogies),
they were able to perform as well as or better than them (Table
3).
Table 3. Quantitative Comparison between the Performance
of the High School Students Who Participated in the Activity
with the Experimental Proposal (N = 74) and the Students
Who Received Traditional Teaching (N = 26)
Average Percent of Correct
Answers
Experimental Traditional
Abilities Approach Teaching
Ability to explain in their own words what is the 90.5 88.5
limiting reagent in a reaction.
Ability to identify the limiting reagent in a 83.8 76.9
reaction.
Ability to operate numerically with the reagents 79.7 65.4
to calculate the amount of product obtained.
Ability to identify the change of the limiting 82.4 76.9
reagent when the amount of reagents involved
is modified.
Regarding the elementary school students, since they were not
going to continue working on this topic and, therefore, be
evaluated on it, we decided to present them with a problematic
situation�similar to the one they had experienced�to be
solved voluntarily one month after the implementation. Out of
the original 27 participants, 22 answered it.
The exercise read as follows:
Thomas and Sophie are twins and they are going to celebrate their
birthday. Since they like to do experiments, they plan to blow up the
balloons for their party... with chemical reactions! So, they get baking
soda and vinegar, bottles, spoons, measuring cups and, of course, the
balloons. They pour the same amount of vinegar in f ive different
bottles. Sophie puts one teaspoon of baking soda in a balloon, puts it
in the mouth of the f irst bottle and there it goes! The balloon turns
out to be quite small. Thomas says he wants the balloon to inflate
more so, instead of one, he adds two teaspoons of baking soda,
repeats the procedure and gets a bigger balloon. Sophie decides she
wants to make it even bigger, so she adds four teaspoons of baking
soda and the balloon gets very big. At the bottom of the bottle Sophie
notices that there is still baking soda. Thomas wants to make the
balloon even bigger. He is about to put eight teaspoons of baking
soda when his sister stops him and says “No, Thomas! Even if you
put more baking soda in it, we will not get a bigger balloon. I know
what we have to do to get a bigger one”.
a. Why does Sophie think they cannot get bigger balloons by
adding more baking soda?
b. What could Sophie do to show Thomas that she is right?
c. What idea do you think Sophie came up with to get bigger
balloons?
In their own words, out of the 22 children, 19 (86%) were able
to identify that the balloons could not get bigger because the
limiting reactant was now the vinegar and they always had the
same amount, 15 (68%) suggested that Sophie should add
vinegar to the bottle to show Thomas that bubbles appeared and
that this meant that there was still unreacted bicarbonate, and 3
(14%) mentioned that Sophie could have done the experiment
as Thomas suggested just to show him that the balloon was not
bigger, and 16 (73%) answered that to get bigger balloons it was
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

Table 4. Representative Responses of Elementary School Students to the Problematic Situation

Questions Representative Responses
Why does Sophie think they cannot get bigger balloons by • Because there is baking soda at the bottom and that means that there is too much and, therefore, what is
adding more baking soda? missing is not baking soda but vinegar.
• Because if you keep adding baking soda it will remain at the bottom and it will not react. There is too much
baking soda and the vinegar is always the same.
• If there is baking soda at the bottom, it means that there is too much. So what is missing is vinegar.
• Because there is too much baking soda and the amount of vinegar does not change.
What could Sophie do to show Thomas that he is right? • Sophie should add vinegar to the bottle to show Thomas that bubbles appeared and there is baking soda
left.
• Sophie could do what Thomas wanted and show him that the balloon is the same size.
What idea do you think Sophie came up with to get bigger • Add more vinegar to the bottle.
balloons? • Add more vinegar until there is no baking soda left in the bottom.
• Use twice as much vinegar and baking soda as you put in with the larger balloon.

necessary to add more vinegar. Below are some representative Notes

students’ responses (Table 4). The author declares no competing financial interest.

■ CONCLUSIONS
In this work, we took a well-known experimental activity (the
Balloon Race21) and added a novel twist that allowed us to
introduce the concept of limiting reactants without the need to
go through analogical mediation and with a hands-on visual
representational approach. It was implemented with 16−17-
year-old (N = 74) and 9−12-year-old (N = 27) students in a
total of six opportunities.
High-school students were able to apply the concept to
different situations in which they had to relate it to other
chemical concepts, and elementary students were able to apply
what they had done experimentally to a similar problematic
situation.
Regarding limitations, we must recognize that the sample size
was small. In the future, and the author is working in this sense,
implementations should be carried out in more groups of
students of different ages to ensure the generalizability of this
activity. Besides, we did not ask these same questions to children
who had not participated in the activities because they would
lack the necessary information to even understand what was
happening in the reaction. However, although there was not a
control group, it is important to note that, one month after the
activity, the students were able to apply the concept of limiting
reagents to solve a similar problematic situation and explain the
results.
This intervention with nonhazardous, inexpensive, and
readily available materials in combination with a visual
representational approach could potentially help high school
students better understand the concept of limiting reagents and
overcome future learning obstacles in relation to other chemical
phenomena that rely on this concept.
■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks to Maia Buligovich who carried out the activity
with me with one of the high school groups and to the editor and
reviewers whose suggestions greatly improved the manuscript.
■ REFERENCES
(1) Sostarecz, M.; Sostarecz, A. A Conceptual Approach to Limiting-
Reagent Problems. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1148−1151.
(2) Olmsted, J. Amounts Tables as a Diagnostic Tool for Flawed
Stoichiometric Reasoning. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (1), 52.
(3) Glažar, S. A.; Devetak, I. Secondary School Students’ Knowledge
of Stoichiometry. Acta Chim. Slov. 2002, 49, 43−53.
(4) Shadreck, M.; Enunuwe, O. C. Recurrent Difficulties:
Stoichiometry Problem-Solving. Afr. J. Educ. Stud. Math. Sci. 2018,
14, 25−31.
(5) BouJaoude, S.; Barakat, H. Secondary School Students’ Difficulties
with Stoichiometry. Sch. Sci. Rev. 2000, 81 (296), 91−98.
(6) Stamovlasis, D.; Tsaparlis, G.; Kamilatos, C.; Papaoikonomou, D.;
Zarotiado, E. Conceptual Understanding versus Algorithmic Problem
Solving: A Principal Component Analysis of a National Examination.
Chem. Educ. 2004, 9, 398−405.
(7) Stamovlasis, D.; Tsaparlis, G.; Kamilatos, C.; Papaoikonomou, D.;
Zarotiadou, E. Conceptual Understanding versus Algorithmic Problem
Solving: Further Evidence from a National Chemistry Examination.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2005, 6 (2), 104−118.
(8) BouJaoude, S.; Barakat, H. Students’ Problem Solving Strategies in
Stoichiometry and Their Relationships to Conceptual Understanding
and Learning Approaches. Electron. J. Res. Sci. Math. Educ. 2003, 7, 3.
(9) Haim, L.; Cortón, E.; Kocmur, S.; Galagovsky, L. Learning
Stoichiometry with Hamburger Sandwiches. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80
(9), 1021.
(10) Tóth, Z. Limiting Reactant. An Alternative Analogy. J. Chem.
Educ. 1999, 76 (7), 934.

■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
Valeria Edelsztein − Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones
Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires C1425FQB,
Argentina; Centro de Formación e Investigación en Enseñanza
de las Ciencias (CEFIEC), Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y
Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA), Buenos Aires
C1428EGA, Argentina; orcid.org/0000-0001-6739-
1825; Email: valecaroedel@yahoo.com
Complete contact information is available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00986
(11) Witzel, J. Lego Stoichiometry. J. Chem. Educ. 2002,
DOI: 10.1021/ed079p352.
(12) Cain, L. S’mores: A Demonstration of Stoichiometric Relation-
ships. ACS Publ. 1986, 63, 1048.
(13) Ault, A. Mole City: A Stoichiometric Analogy. J. Chem. Educ.
2006, 83 (11), 1587.
(14) Nakhleh, M.; Postek, B. Learning Chemistry Using Multiple
External Representations 2008, 209−231.
(15) le Maire, N. V.; Verpoorten, D. Ph.; Fauconnier, M.-L. S.;
Colaux-Castillo, C. G. Clash of Chemists: A Gamified Blog To Master
the Concept of Limiting Reagent Stoichiometry. J. Chem. Educ. 2018,
95 (3), 410−415.
(16) Chen, Y.-H.; Yaung, J.-F. Alka-Seltzer Fizzing-Determination of
Percent by Mass of NaHCO3 in Alka-Seltzer Tablets. An Under-

E https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00986
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

graduate General Chemistry Experiment. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79 (7),

848.
(17) Martínez, V. A.; Ibanez, J. G. All Roads Lead to Rome: Triple
Stoichiometry with a Lithium Battery. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97 (11),
4103−4107.
(18) Tarino, J. Z. A Limiting Reactant Demonstration: Making A
Stoichiometric Concept Visible for Beginning Students. J. Coll. Sci.
Teach. 1996, 26 (1), 72−73.
(19) McCluskey, C. L.; Roser, C. E. Pressure and Stoichiometry. J.
Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (5), 638.
(20) Bodek, M.; Burch, M.; Cannon, J.; Finneran, D.; Geveke, K.;
Sinkinson, H.; Smith, W.; Tierney, J. Revisiting the Determination of
Percent Aspirin Lab: Using a Limiting Reactant Approach for Students
To Also Determine the Amount of Iron(III) Chloride. J. Chem. Educ.
2020, 97 (2), 574−577.
(21) Walker, J. P.; Sampson, V.; Zimmerman, C. O.; Grooms, J. A. A
Performance-Based Assessment for Limiting Reactants. J. Chem. Educ.
2011, 88 (9), 1243−1246.
(22) Chonkaew, P.; Sukhummek, B.; Faikhamta, C. Development of
Analytical Thinking Ability and Attitudes towards Science Learning of
Grade-11 Students through Science Technology Engineering and
Mathematics (STEM Education) in the Study of Stoichiometry. Chem.
Educ. Res. Pract. 2016, 17 (4), 842−861.
(23) Fortman, J. J.; Stubbs, K. M. Demonstrations with Red Cabbage
Indicator. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69 (1), 66.

Recommended by ACS
Teaching and Assessing Systems Thinking in First-Year
Chemistry
Micke Reynders, Marietjie Potgieter, et al.
MARCH 01, 2023
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION READ

Narrowing Achievement Gaps in General Chemistry Courses

with and without In-Class Active Learning
Ted M. Clark.
MARCH 09, 2023
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION READ

Interlocking Toy Bricks Help Nursing Students “Handle”

Valence Electrons, Molarity, Solubility, and More!
Angela L. Mahaffey.
FEBRUARY 27, 2023
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION READ

Building Industry-Inspired Medical Biotechnology

Investigative Laboratories to Enhance Experiential Capstone
Courses
Zareen Amtul, Athar Ata, et al.
MARCH 09, 2023
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION READ

Get More Suggestions >

F https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00986
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX