Osmosis and tonicity experiment report

By. Sasha Cholleti

0
 Table of Contents:
1.0 Rationale (150-200)☐.....................................................................................................................2
2.0 Research question............................................................................................................................2
3.0 Methodology...................................................................................................................................3
3.1 Original........................................................................................................................................3
3.2 Modifications...............................................................................................................................3
3.2.1 Refinements/ Extension........................................................................................................3
3.3 Safety and Risk Management......................................................................................................3
4.0 Results.............................................................................................................................................5
4.1 Qualitative data??........................................................................................................................5
4.2 Raw Data.....................................................................................................................................5
4.3 Sample Calculations....................................................................................................................5
4.4 Processed Data (INCLUDE YOUR OWN).................................................................................6
4.5 Controlled Variables....................................................................................................................7
4.6 Graph...........................................................................................................................................7
4.7 Interpretation and Analysis of Data.............................................................................................9
5.0 Evaluation of Methodology...........................................................................................................10
6.0 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................10
7.0 Appendices....................................................................................................................................11
7.1 Appendix 1: Original Experiment Procedure.............................................................................11
7.2 Appendix 2: Raw Data...............................................................................................................12
7.3 Appendix 3: Excel Calculations.................................................................................................13
8.0 Bibliography (use APA REF)........................................................................................................15

1
1.0 Rationale ✘
Potatoes are made up of microscopic plant cells. These cells contain cytoplasm which secures the
various organelles and are surrounded by the cell membrane; this cell membrane is the foundation
of osmosis (Britannica, n.d). Osmosis is a passive process which involves solvent molecules travelling
through a semi-permeable membrane from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower
concentration following the concentration gradient (National STEM Learning Centre, 2021). A
byproduct of osmosis is the change of mass within the cell; the rate of mass change identifies the
rate of osmosis. The measure of the capability to modify the volume of cells through an alteration in
their water content due to a transfer of solutions through a plasma membrane is tonicity
(Maldonado, 2023). In a saline environment with an unbalanced sodium chloride level on both sides,
transportation through the membrane is to be expected and the osmolarity of the solution can be
observed depending on whether its tonicity is hypertonic, hypotonic, or isotonic (Khan Academy,
n.d.). This brings about the question; To what extent does varying osmolarity of a saline solution
impact the mass change due to osmosis over a specific period.

2.0 Research question ✘

2
3.0 Methodology ✘
3.1 Original
An experiment was conducted to observe how varying sodium chloride solutions of 0%, 1% and 5%
affect the mass of potatoes in grams to investigate osmosis and tonicity. The experiment was carried
out by first cutting potatoes into 1cm pieces and, for each trial, placing 3 pieces each into a beaker
with a varying concentration of sodium chloride. The potatoes were left in the saline solutions for
30-minutes to allow osmosis to transpire so tonicity could be observed.

Refer to Appendix 1 for the original experiment procedure.

3.2 Modifications
3.2.1 Refinements/ Extension

3
3.3 Safety and Risk Management

4
4.0 Results
4.1 Qualitative data??
What was observed during experiment?

 Water slowly became translucent and foggy over time.

4.2 Raw Data

Refer to Appendix 2 for raw data.

5
4.3 Sample Calculations
Refer to Appendix 3 for the excel calculations.

6
4.4 Processed Data

Figure 1: Processed Experiment Data

7
 4.5 Controlled Variables
What was controlled in the experiment.

 The weight of the potatoes in each trial.

 The ambient temperature in the lab.
 The amount of solution in each trial (25ml).
 All measuring devices were kept constant.
 All tool and equipment used were unchanged.
 The time the potatoes were left withing the solution.

4.6 Graph

Figure 2: Cumulative Percentage Mass Change (%) Vs Percent Sodium Chloride

Concentration in Solutions to Observe Osmosis in Potato Cells.

How Changing Percentage Concentrations of NaCl Solution affect the Cumal-

tive Percentage Mass of Potatos
10.00

5.00
% Cumulative ∆ Mass (%)

R² = 0.830101054445135

0.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

-5.00

-10.00

-15.00

-20.00

Solutions of NaCl concetration (%)

8
4.7 Interpretation and Analysis of Data ✘
Figure 1 depicts the processed data collected and displays the percentage change in mass, along
with averages and the standard deviation and error. Figure 2 illustrates how the cumulative
percentage mass of the potatoes were affected by the varying concentrations of sodium chloride
throughout the experiment.

The 1%, 2% and 3% NaCl solutions all depicted a decrease in percentage mass change, with data on
the table conveying an average loss of -4.23%, -15.73% and -10.49% respectively. According to the
average percentage change in mass (Figure 1) or -7.14% and -12.68% following the polynomial
trendline displayed (Figure 2). Therefore, from the data provided in Figure 1 and 2, both the 1% and
the 2% solutions were hypertonic to the potato cell due to the higher sodium concentration within
the cell, resulting in mass decrease (Khan Academy, n.d).

However, the 1% NaCl trial showed an average increase in percentage mass change of 3.50% (Figure
1). This increase means the cell contained a lower concentration of NaCl, resulting in weight gain,
therefore, the solution was hypotonic to the plant cell (APEC Water, 2013). Thus, it be assumed that
the point of isotonicity laid between the 2% NaCl and 3% NaCl. However, this assumption is limited
by the large gap between concentrations (Figure 2).

The polynomial trendline corroborates with the experiment data and indicates a relationship
between the independent (The %NaCl) and the dependent variable (The ΣΔ % mass change) (Figure
2). The relationship follows the trend presented, as the concentration of NaCl increases the
cumulative mass of the potatoes decreases, except for 3% (Figure 2).

This relationship is logical and follows the theory of osmosis (National STEM Learning Centre, 2012)
and was supported by the R2 value which indicated correlations in the data and displayed the direct
corroboration between the %NaCl concentration and the Σ %Mass change of 83%. The 17%
difference can be expiated through errors in the methodology.

In Figure 1, a low standard deviation of 0.81% for 3%NaCl was shown alongside higher deviations
reaching 2.88% for 2%NaCl. These deviation shows the significant discrepancy between collected
data and the mean. Additionally, the average SD for all concentrations was 1.92. This statistic
indicates presence of arbitrary errors throughout the experiment. Furthermore, it can be observed
that the standard deviation for 2% and 3% NaCl are similar, suggesting the occurrence in these trials
(Figure 2)

The standard error shown remained below 2%, however still averaged at 0.96, denoting the ubiety
of more errors within the methodology and the uncertainty around the estimated mean (Figure 1).

Any/all discrepancies and deviations shown through the evaluation and analysis of data can be
explained through a thorough evaluation of the methodology.

9
5.0 Evaluation of Methodology
Once the original experiment concluded, modifications were made to ensure a valid and accurate
conclusion could be derived for the research question. It was determined that increasing the
concentration of a saline solution by 1% decreases the cumulative mass of potatoes originally
weighing 7-7.2g prior to the 30-minute period of the experiment.

The experiment was modified due to limitations. Such as the presence of random and/or systematic
errors which affected the precision and accuracy of measurements. Another limitation is the sample
size of only three trials and three sodium chloride concentrations. More trials reduce the impact of
errors, hence, an experiment with a high average remains unaffected by shortcomings and provides
superior accuracies. Furthermore, to avoid (random/ systematic) errors in during measurement,
potatoes were measured collectively per trial to ensure precision in the data set.

Following the resolution of the modified experiment the results were then interpreted and analysed.
From that analysis anomalies were detected.

The NaCl concentrations of 2% and 3% are anomalies. The data for 3% NaCl trials deters from the
relationship presented on the polynomial trendline. Although 3% may appear to be the largest
deviation, 2%NaCl is the most significant deviation from the trend and is conceivable through the
linear trendline shown in appendix 7.4 (Figure 2 & Appendix 7.4). Moreover, as already mentioned,
the largest deviation present originated from the 2% NaCl trials (Figure 1).

Inaccuracies within the results originated from personal oversight, flaws, and numerous errors.
Human errors such as the poor drying of potatoes caused the inclusion of excess water within
measurements. This impacted the overall validity as the targeted mass was impacted and thus, did
not meet its aim.

Another inaccuracy was the evidence of random and systematic errors shown as inconsistencies
(Figure 1). The term systematic error refers to reproduceable inaccuracies that consistently impact
the data and do not affect accuracy. An example of a systematic error would-be an offset or scale
factor error which occurred due to irregularity within the scale/measuring device. More exemplars
include researcher’s or analysis method error caused by oversight on the researcher’s part.

Random errors, however, are statistical fluctuation in measured data caused by precision limitations
of measurement device that result in unpredictable change such as causing an arbitrary
measurement to differ (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2019). Instances of random errors
include a slight variation in viewing angle affecting the perceived measurement and solution
amount, delay in reaction speed whilst removing potatoes from liquid and/or a variable within the
experiment environment namely light shining through the window or an irregular change in
temperature.

Figure 3: Sources of Error and Improvement

10
Furthermore, if the experiment was to be reconducted in the future, alteration to extend this
experiment and refine the methodology to continue to investigate osmosis and tonicity include:

 A refinement would be better controlling the environment for the experiment, both light
and temperature affect osmosis and affect the validity of the experiment.
 An extension would be increasing the accuracy of the experiment by increasing the number
of different NaCl concentrated solutions and the number of trials to allow osmosis to be
further investigated and the point of iconicity to be better identified.
 Another extension would be allocating time to account for the removal of the potatoes and
drying. The rushed removing, drying, and measuring procedure significantly impacted the
results.

11
6.0 Conclusion

The aim of the experiment was to investigate how increasing the concentration of NaCl by 1%
impacted the collective mass of potatoes originally weighing 7-7.2g over a 30-minute period. The
%NaCl was in the potatoes was ~2.5%, realised through the trendline intercept and experiment data.
It was shown that changing the concentration from 1% to 3% decreases the mass of the potatoes
(Figure 2). The solution was hypertonic to the potato cell causing water to flow out of the cell
following the concentration gradient (Khan Academy, n.d). The R2 value was 83% showing a strong
direct correlation between the percentage of salt and the percentage mass change. The data
supported the theory of osmosis through the significant decrease in mass seen as the %NaCl in the
solution increased. Figure 1 depicted the decrease in percentage mass change for 1%, 2% and 3%
NaCl solutions and conveyed an average loss of -4.23%, -15.73% and -10.49% respectively (Figure 1).
Figure 2 illustrated the low standard error and high standard deviation, with 2%NaCl having the
highest at 2.88% (Figure 2). Standard deviation and error were explained by an analysis of data and
methodology, which exhibited that the deviation and 17% difference were accounted by the
occurrence of systematic and random errors. In conclusion, by increasing the concentration of %NaCl
and encouraging osmosis, the mass is decreased over a 30-minute period.

12
7.0 Appendices
7.1 Appendix 1: Original Experiment Procedure
1. Cut potatoes into cubes 1cm x 1cm ensuring to cut the potato skin off.
2. Using a scale, weigh the tare mass of three potato cubes.
3. Fill each small beaker with 10mL of the varying solutions.
4. Place the potato cubes into the small beakers.
5. Leave the potato chips in the beakers for 30 minutes, weighing the mass of the potatoes at
ten-minute intervals. Ensure to use a dissecting needle to remove the potatoes from the
beaker and then dry with a paper towel before weighing the tare balance.
6. Observe any changes in the appearance of the potato cubes and record the weight change in
a table.
7. Calculate the change in mass as a percentage of the original mass.

13
 7.2 Appendix 2: Raw Data

0% NaCl trial 1% NaCl trial 2% NaCl trial 3% NaCl trial

Averag Averag Averag

1 2 3 4 Average 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Time e e e
(min) Mass (grams)

7.10 7.10 7.20 7.20 7.15 7.20 7.00 7.20 7.10 7.13 7.20 7.10 7.10 7.20 7.15 7.10 7.20 7.20 7.10 7.15

Initial mass

7.40 7.40 7.30 7.50 7.40 6.80 6.50 7.10 6.90 6.83 6.20 6.20 5.80 5.90 6.03 6.40 6.40 6.50 6.30 6.40

Final mass
30

- - - - -
0.30 0.30 0.10 0.30 0.25 -0.1 -0.28 -1.00 -0.90 -1.30 1.30 -0.48 -0.80 -0.80 -0.75
0.40 0.50 0.10 0.70 0.70

Change in mass

- - - - - - - - - - -
4.23 4.23 1.39 4.17 3.50 -3.87 18.06 -6.70 -10.49
5.56 7.14 1.39 1.41 13.89 12.68 18.31 9.86 11.11 9.72 11.27
% Change in
mass

11
 7.3 Appendix 3: Excel Calculations
0% NaCl trial
Time (min) Mass (grams) 1 2 3 4 Average
Initial mass 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.2 =AVERAGE(D4, E4,F4,G4)
Final mass 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.5 =AVERAGE(D5,E5,F5,G5)
30
Change in mass =D5-D4 =E5-E4 =F5-F4 =G5-G4 =AVERAGE(D6, E6,F6,G6)
% Change in mass =D6/D4*100 =E6/E4*100 =F6/F4*100 =G6/G4*100 =AVERAGE(D7,E7,F7,G7)

1% NaCl trial
1 2 3 4 Average
7.2 7 7.2 7.1 =AVERAGE(I4,J4,K4,L4)
6.8 6.5 7.1 6.9 =AVERAGE(I5,J5,K5,L5)
=I5-I4 =J5-J4 =K5-K4 -0.1 =AVERAGE(I6,J6,K6,L6)
=I6/I4*100 =J6/J4*100 =K6/K4*100 =L6/L4*100 =AVERAGE(I7,J7,K7,L7)

2% NaCl trial
1 2 3 4 Average
7.2 7.1 7.1 7.2 =AVERAGE(N4,O4,P4,Q4)
6.2 6.2 5.8 5.9 =AVERAGE(N5,O5,P5,Q5)
=N5-N4 =O5-O4 =P5-P4 1.3 =AVERAGE(N6,O6,P6,Q6)
=N6/N4*100 =O6/O4*100 =P6/P4*100 =Q6/Q4*100 =AVERAGE(N7,O7,P7,Q7)

3% NaCl trial
1 2 3 4 Average
7.1 7.2 7.2 7.1 =AVERAGE(S4,T4,U4,V4)
6.4 6.4 6.5 6.3 =AVERAGE(S5,T5,U5,V5)
=S5-S4 =T5-T4 =U5-U4 =V5-V4 =AVERAGE(S6,T6,U6,V6)
=S6/S4*100 =T6/T4*100 =U6/U4*100 =V6/V4*100 =AVERAGE(S7,T7,U7,V7)

152
 Trial
SE (Standard
1 2 3 4 Mean SD
Error)
Initial Mass 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.2
Final Mass 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.5
0%NaCl
Change in mass =D5-D4 =E5-E4 =F5-F4 0.3
=I7/
%change in mass =D6/D4*100 =E6/E4*100 =F6/F4*100 =G6/G4*100 =AVERAGE(D7,E7,F7,G7) =STDEV.S(D7:G7)
SQRT(4)
Initial Mass 7.2 7 7.2 7.1
Final Mass 6.8 6.5 7.1 6.9
1%NaCl
Change in mass =D9-D8 =E9-E8 =F9-F8 -0.2
=AVERAGE(D11,E11,F11,G =STDEV.S(D11:G =I11/
%change in mass =D10/D8*100 =E10/E8*100 =F10/F8*100 =G10/G8*100
11) 11) SQRT(4)
Initial Mass 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.2
Final Mass 6.2 6.2 5.8 5.9
2%NaCl
Change in mass =D13-D12 =E13-E12 =F13-F12 1.3
=D14/ =E14/ =F14/ =AVERAGE(D15,E15,F15,G =STDEV.S(D15:G =I15/
%change in mass -18.06
D12*100 E12*100 F12*100 15) 15) SQRT(4)
Initial Mass 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.1
Final Mass 6.4 6.4 6.5 6.3
3%NaCl
Change in mass =D17-D16 =E17-E16 =F17-F16 -0.8
=D18/ =E18/ =F18/ =G18/ =AVERAGE(D19,E19,F19,G =STDEV.S(D19:G =I19/
%change in mass
D16*100 E16*100 F16*100 G16*100 19) 19) SQRT(4)

162
 1.2 Appendix 4: linear trendline

How Changing Percentage Concentrations of NaCl Solution affect the Cumaltive Percentage
Mass of Potatos
10.00

5.00
R² = 0.830101054445135

0.00
% Cumulative ∆ Mass (%)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

-5.00

-10.00

-15.00

-20.00

Solutions of NaCl concetration (%)

Figure 4: Cumulative Percentage Mass Change (%) Vs Percent Sodium Chloride Concentration in Solutions with a linear trendline

172
1.3 Appendix 5: Graphs excluding anomalies.

182
 How Changing Percentage Concentrations of NaCl Solution affect the Cumaltive Percentage Mass of Potatos
excluding 3%
10.00

5.00
R² = 0.929813519622933
% Cumulative ∆ Mass (%)

0.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

-5.00

-10.00

-15.00

-20.00
Solutions of NaCl concentration (%)

Figure 5: Cumulative Percentage Mass Change (%) Vs Percent Sodium Chloride Concentration in Solutions excluding 3%

192
 How Changing Percentage Concentrations of NaCl Solution affect the
Cumaltive Percentage Mass of Potatos excluding 2%
6.00

4.00
R² = 0.920046659033531
2.00

0.00
% Cumulative ∆ Mass (%)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

-2.00

-4.00

-6.00

-8.00

-10.00

-12.00

-14.00

Solutions of NaCL concentration (%)

Figure 6: Cumulative Percentage Mass Change (%) Vs Percent Sodium Chloride Concentration in Solutions excluding 2%

202
212
8.0 Bibliography
APECWater. (2020). A Complete Resource Guide on Osmosis. Retrieved from APEC Water Systems :
https://www.freedrinkingwater.com/resource-a-complete-resource-guide-to-osmosis.htm

FutureLearn. (2021). What is Osmosis? Retrieved from Future Learn:

https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/teaching-biology-inspiring-students-with-plants-
in-science/0/steps/58750

Maldonado, K. A., & Mohiuddin, S. S. (2023, August 8). Biochemistry, hypertonicity. StatPearls - NCBI
Bookshelf:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541095/

KhanAcademy. (2020). Osmosis and tonicity. Retrieved from Khan Academy:

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/cell-structure-and-function/
mechanisms-of-transport-tonicity-and-osmoregulation/a/osmosis

Lodish, H. F., Staehelin, L. A., & Alberts, B. M. (2022, October 18). Cell. Retrieved from Britannica:
https://www.britannica.com/science/cell-biology/additional-info#history

Lopez, M. J., & Hall, C. A. (2022, March 18). Physiology, Osmosis. Retrieved from National Library of
Medicine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557609/#:~:text=An%20isotonic
%20solution%20is%20any,of%20water%20will%20take%20place.

Maldonado, K. A., & Mohiuddin, S. S. (2022, August 15). Biochemistry, Hypertonicity. Retrieved from
National Library of Medicine:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541095/#:~:text=Tonicity%20is%20the
%20capability%20of,moves%20out%20of%20the%20cell.

NIH. (2023, February 15). Cell Membrane (Plasma Membrane). Retrieved from National Human
Genome Research Institute: https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Cell-Membrane

Seastar. (2022). Concentration Terms . Retrieved from Seastar Chemicals :

https://www.seastarchemicals.com/support-faq/concentration-terms/#:~:text=Concentratio
n%20Terms%2C%20from%20Wikipedia%3A&text=It%20is%20the%20measure%20of,solute
%20dissolved%20in%20a%20solvent.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (2024, March 1). The University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. https://www.unc.edu/

13
‌

232
242