The Effect of Hydrochloric Acid Molarity, Hydrochloric Acid Volume, and Calcium

Carbonate Mass on the Rate of Decomposition of Calcium Carbonate

Carly Filion, Emily Gi, Knicko Mojica

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Chemistry

10B

Mrs. Hilliard / Mr. Supal / Mrs. Kincaid Dewey

24 May 2017
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 1

Table of Contents

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………... 2
Review of Literature …………………………………………………………………………… 3
Problem Statement …………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Experimental Design …………………………………………………………………………... 9
Data and Observations ………………………………………………………………………. 11
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
Appendix A: Rate of Reaction ………………………………………………………………. 33
Appendix B: Gas Collection Apparatus …………………………………………………….. 34
Appendix C: Research Logo ………………………………………………………………... 35
Appendix D: Randomization ……………………………………………………………….... 36
Works Cited ………………………………………………………………………………….... 36
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 2

Introduction

Since the middle of the 19th century, acid rain has been an issue, and continues

to be a problem today. Created by pollution, it infects the world water supply, kills entire

ecosystems, and erodes exteriors of buildings. pollution is a global problem, acid rain

can fall anywhere, from the most famous cities to rural areas.More specifically, global

historic landmarks such as the Taj Mahal, the Colosseum, and Westminster Abbey all

have been affected by acid rain (“Impact of Acid Rain on Buildings”). This research

focuses on the effect of acid rain on buildings and other structures made of calcium

carbonate (CaCO3). The experiment was designed to determine how much gas was

released by the reaction, and therefore the rate of decomposition was found. By finding

the rate of decomposition, the scientific community would be able to determine the

speed at which a substance breaks apart, which could be applied to many different

circumstances, including the analysis of building strength.

The experiment recorded the effect of three factors, molarity of HCl, volume of

HCl, and mass of CaCO3, through the use of a three-factor design of experiment. It was

hypothesized that the largest concentration of HCl (6 M), the greatest volume of HCl (15

mL), and the smallest mass (0.3 g) of CaCO3 powder (or the (+,+,-) trial) will prove to

have the highest rate of decomposition. Instead, the highest concentration of HCl (6 M),

the largest amount of HCl (15 mL), and the largest mass (0.7 g) of CaCO 3 powder (or

the (+,+,+) trial) produced the fastest rate of decomposition instead. The hypothesis

was proved to be false because a larger mass equates to more surface area for the HCl

ions to collide with the CaCO3 ions, leading to more reactability between the two

substances.
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 3

Review of Literature

The buildings of the world are constantly affected by phenomena such as acid

rain. From glass windows in the United States to concrete structures in China, the

effect of acid rain on building materials can be seen everywhere ("Impacts of Acid Rain

on Buildings"). In order to test the acidic effects of acid on building materials, this

experiment will utilize calcium carbonate (CaCO3), which is abundant in limestone and

natural materials, and test it against different concentrations of hydrochloric acid (HCl)

to experiment on the acidic durability of calcium carbonate. It is imperative to

understand kinetics, collision theory, and the rate of reaction in order to test this

experiment. Additionally, rate law and the reaction order are also useful concepts to

know before conducting this experiment.

Kinetics is the study of how the collision of atoms or molecules affects the rates

of chemical reactions (“Kinetics 1”). Those chemical reactions can be affected by the

rate of reaction, other various variables, the re-arrangement of atoms, the formation of

intermediates, and some other factors (Green). Not only that, they can also range from

instantaneous to unnoticeably slow. The aim of chemical kinetics is to make predictions

about the composition of reaction mixtures (“Kinetics 2”). In this experiment, CaCO 3

reacts with HCl and results in a transformation of reactants into products that increase

as the former decreases.

𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑂3 (𝑠) + 2𝐻𝐶𝑙 (𝑎𝑞) → 𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑙2 (𝑎𝑞) + 𝐶𝑂2 (𝑔) + 𝐻2 𝑂 (𝑙)

Figure 1. Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid

The reaction between solid calcium carbonate, CaCO3, and aqueous

hydrochloric acid, HCl produces aqueous calcium chloride, CaCl2, carbon dioxide, CO2,

and water, H2O. When hydrochloric acid reacts with any carbonates, the products that
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 4

are formed include a metal chloride, water, and carbon dioxide ("GCSE Bitesize

Science - Strong and Weak Acids : Revision."). The chloride ion present in HCl is an

anion and reacts with calcium ion in calcium carbonate, which is a cation, forming

calcium chloride. Two hydrogen ions can combine with an oxygen from the calcium

carbonate, creating H2O. Left in the carbonate are two oxygen atoms and one carbon

atom, thus creating the CO2 compound.

Once the CO2 is recorded, the rate of reaction would be found. It is the speed at

which a chemical reaction occurs, or the speed at which the concentrations of the

reactants decrease (Studios). It can be determined by measuring the amounts of

reactants or products as a function of time (Moretti). During the experiment, the rate of

reaction can be seen as being the speed at which concentrations of CaCO 3 and HCl

decrease in their chemical reaction.

Kinetic energy is closely related to collision theory. The collision theory states

that, “chemical reactions occur when molecules collide with sufficient kinetic energy”

("Collision Theory - Chemistry | Socratic"). As more collisions in a system occur, there

will be more combinations of molecules bouncing into each other. If there are more

possible combinations, there is a higher chance that the molecules will complete the

reaction. The reaction will happen faster, which means the rate of that reaction will

increase as well (Goldberger). In this experiment, the rate at which HCl broke down

CaCO3 is based on collision theory, since the HCl collided with the CaCO3.
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 5

Figure 2. Gas-Collection Apparatus

The figure shows how the volume of CO2 was measured. HCl was poured into

the Erlenmeyer flask containing a sample of calcium carbonate, and the stopper

connected to the syringe would be placed on after. As the reaction occurs, CO 2 is

released and would rise and collect into the syringe.

In prior experiments, researchers conducted a lab that studied the rate of

decomposition of calcium carbonate. Through the use of a gas-collection apparatus

(see Figure 2), varying concentrations of hydrochloric acid were added into an

Erlenmeyer flask containing a 0.5 g sample of calcium carbonate, and the volume of the

carbon dioxide, CO2, that was released as a result of the reaction was measured in one-

minute intervals for ten minutes and graphed. It was found that as the concentration of

hydrochloric acid decreases, the rate of the reaction also decreases (“Rate of

Decomposition of Calcium Carbonate”). The rate was found by using the rate of

reaction in accordance with the volume of the gas released and the time in which the

reaction was completed (refer to Appendix A). Additionally, these results were also
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 6

found to be true in other experiments that looked at the decomposition of calcium

carbonate.

Although previous experiments prove to be similar to this one, there are still

differences that set them apart. In example, this experiment utilizes a three-factor

design of experiment to interpret the results. Not only that, instead of making the

molarity of HCl the only factor in the decomposition of CaCO3, this experiment also tests

volume of HCl and the mass of the CaCO3 powder (see Table 1). Additionally, both the

research and this experiment will be measuring the volume of the carbon dioxide gas in

milliliters and the mass of the CaCO3 powder in grams.

 Filion - Gi - Mojica 7

Problem Statement

Problem:

To determine the highest rate of decomposition of calcium carbonate (CaCO 3)

using varying concentrations of hydrochloric acid (HCl), 2 M, 4 M, and 6 M, differing

volumes of HCl, 4 mL, 9 mL, and 14 mL, and different masses of CaCO 3 powder, 0.3 g,

0.5 g, 0.7 g.

Hypothesis:

The largest concentration of HCl, which is 6 M, the largest amount of HCl the

CaCO3 will soak in, 14 mL, and the CaCO3 chip at the smallest mass of around 0.3

grams, will prove to have the highest rate of decomposition.

Data:

In the experiment, a three factor design of experiment was executed. Those

three factors included different concentrations of HCl, differing volumes of HCl, and the

varying masses of CaCO3 powder. Consequently, the three different concentrations of

HCl were 2 M, 4 M, and 6 M, while the varying volumes were 4 mL, 9 mL, and 14 mL.

For the CaCO3 masses, the values were 0.7 grams for high trials, 0.5 grams for

standard trials, and 0.3 grams for low trials. The maximum time in which the CaCO 3

powder was allowed to be submerged was at most 5 minutes, or 300 seconds. The

variable that was measured and interpreted in the end is the rate of decomposition of

the CaCO3 powder, which is the moles of CO2 emitted over the amount of time the

CaCO3 was soaked calculated in seconds. However, in order to measure the amount of

CO2 emitted, the volume must be found in milliliters. In all, the independent variables

include the concentration of HCl, the time in which CaCO3 reacts, and the mass of the

CaCO3 powder. The dependent variables are the amount of CO2 gas released and the
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 8

rate at which the CaCO3 decomposes. Also, the concentration of HCl is measured in

molarity, or the number of moles divided by the volume in liters, and the size or mass of

the CaCO3 powder will be recorded in grams for a detailed observation.

 Filion - Gi - Mojica 9

Experimental Design

Materials:
10 g Calcium carbonate Buret clamp
(powder), CaCO3 (2) Erlenmeyer flasks, 125 mL
90 mL Hydrochloric acid solution, Gas collection apparatus
6M 140 mL Syringe
70 mL Hydrochloric acid solution, Syringe adapter
4M Stopcock
90 mL Hydrochloric acid solution, Stopper, one-hole
2M (3) Graduated cylinder, 25 mL
3785.41 mL Water, distilled (2) Support stand
Analytical scale (0.0001 g Timer or stopwatch
precision) (3) Weigh boats, small
TI-nspire CX (3) Funnel
Procedure:
Safety Precaution:
Hydrochloric acid is corrosive to skin and eyes and is toxic by inhalation or skin
absorption. Avoid contact with eyes and skin, and wear appropriate chemical goggles,
gloves, and aprons.

Running the Experiment

1. Setup the gas collection apparatus (see Appendix B).

2. Obtain about 0.5 g of calcium carbonate (powder).

3. Measure the precise mass on the analytical scale.
4. Record the exact of mass of the CaCO3 sample.
5. Place the massed sample into the 125 mL Erlenmeyer flask.
6. Measure 9 mL of 4 M HCl in a 25 mL graduated cylinder.
7. Remove the stopper and syringe assembly from the Erlenmeyer flask and
quickly add the acid into the flask.
Note: Be sure that the stopper is placed firmly inside the flask.
8. Immediately replace the stopper and syringe assembly in the flask and
begin timing with the timer/stopwatch.
9. Note any observations as the reaction occurs.
10. Stop the timer when the CaCO3 has completely dissolved in the HCl
solution.
11. Record reaction time and amount of gas released by looking at the 140
mL syringe.
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 10

12. Rinse out the Erlenmeyer flask and release the gas in the syringe.

13. Repeat steps 1 - 8 for the other trials of the design of experiment with
differing concentrations, amounts of HCl, and masses of CaCO3.
Note: Steps 2 - 6 describe the variables used in the standard trials in the design
of experiment.
Diagram:

140 mL Syringe

Stopcock (open position)

Syringe Adapter

Stopper, one-hole

125 mL Erlenmeyer Flask

Figure 3. Gas Collection Apparatus Set-Up

Figure 3 displays the setup of the gas collection apparatus, which includes a

syringe, a syringe adapter, a stopcock, a stopper, a buret clamp, and an Erlenmeyer

flask. The sample of calcium carbonate will be placed into the flask followed by the the

hydrochloric acid. As the the reaction occurs, the resulting CO2 gas produced will

accumulate in the syringe.

 Filion - Gi - Mojica 11

Data and Observations

The experiment conducted aimed to determine the rate of decomposition of

calcium carbonate (CaCO3). To do this, varying concentrations of hydrochloric acid

(HCl), differing amounts of HCl, and different sized calcium carbonate chips (CaCO 3)

chips were used to analyze the overall rate of decomposition. Three complete sets of

three - factor DOEs were completed, and the data and observations gathered

throughout the trials are described below.

Data:

Table 1
DOE Factors for the Rate of Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
Concentration
Amount of HCl CaCO₃
Factors of HCl
(mL) Mass (g)
(M)
Low (-) 2 4 0.3
Standard 4 9 0.5
High (+) 6 14 0.7

Shown above are the values used pertaining to each factor in the DOE

experiment. Prior to conducting trials, the values of each factor were changed in order

to ensure proper results in a short time frame.

Table 2
DOE 1 Rate of Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
Rate of
Mass Reaction Time Gas Released
DOE 1 Run Reaction
(g) (s) (mL)
(mL/s)
Standard *** 0.5006 17.98 59.0 3.3
(+,+,+) 8 0.6969 11.03 90.0 8.2

(+,+,-) 2 0.3014 6.64 17.0 2.6

(+,-,-) 4 0.3005 19.95 48.0 2.4

Standard *** 0.5016 17.50 60.0 3.4
DOE 1 Run Mass Reaction Time Gas Released Rate of
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 12

(g) (s) (mL) Reaction

(mL/s)
(-,+,-) 1 0.3043 13.80 23.0 1.7
(-,-,+) 3 0.7084 72.89 79.0 1.1
(-,-,-) 7 0.3000 52.46 30.0 0.6
Standard *** 0.5000 17.15 63.0 3.7

Table 3
DOE 2 Rate of Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
Rate of
Reaction Time Gas Released
DOE 2 Run Mass (g) Reaction
(s) (mL)
(mL/s)
Standard *** 0.5002 15.44 65.0 4.2
(+,+,+) 3 0.6996 13.76 91.0 6.6
(+,+,-) 1 0.3018 6.98 17.0 2.4
(+,-,+) 8 0.7027 52.25 130.0 2.5
(+,-,-) 5 0.3060 18.89 46.0 2.4
Standard *** 0.5001 15.21 62.0 4.1
(-,+,+) 7 0.7024 35.96 119.0 3.3
(-,+,-) 6 0.3002 17.27 19.0 1.1
(-,-,+) 4 0.7075 69.14 71.0 1.0
(-,-,-) 2 0.3011 53.40 23.0 0.4
Standard *** 0.5077 16.05 58.0 3.6

Table 4
DOE 3 Rate of Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
Rate of
Mass Reaction Time Gas Released
DOE 3 Run Reaction
(g) (s) (mL)
(mL/s)
Standard *** 0.5004 15.53 59.0 3.8
(+,+,+) 2 0.7022 10.43 89.0 8.5
(+,+,-) 3 0.3095 6.72 19.0 2.8
(+,-,-) 7 0.3032 19.08 44.0 2.3
Standard *** 0.5014 16.78 59.0 3.5
(-,+,+) 8 0.7041 36.03 115.0 3.2
DOE 3 Run Mass Reaction Time Gas Released Rate of
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 13

(g) (s) (mL) Reaction

(mL/s)
(-,-,+) 5 0.7044 70.30 74.0 1.1
(-,-,-) 6 0.3050 59.82 28.0 0.5
Standard *** 0.4996 15.83 61.0 3.9

Tables 2 - 4 show the results of DOE 1, 2, and 3 respectively. The mass of the

CaCO3 sample was recorded in grams, then the amount of time it took for the reaction

to occur, in seconds, followed the the amount of CO2 gas released during the reaction,

in milliliters, and finally the rate of the reaction, which is the amount of gas released

divided by the reaction time.

Table 5
Mean Rate of Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
Mean
Mean Gas Mean Rate of
Mean Mass Reaction
Mean DOE Released Reaction
(g) Time
(mL) (mL/s)
(s)
Standard 0.5004 16.32 61.0 3.8
(+,+,+) 0.6996 11.74 90.0 7.8
(+,+,-) 0.3042 6.78 17.7 2.6
(+,-,+) 0.7033 52.79 123.7 2.4
(+,-,-) 0.3032 19.31 46.0 2.4
Standard 0.5010 16.50 60.3 3.7
(-,+,+) 0.7026 36.49 116.0 3.2
(-,+,-) 0.3018 15.61 20.3 1.3
(-,-,+) 0.7068 70.78 74.7 1.1
(-,-,-) 0.3020 55.23 27.0 0.5
Standard 0.5024 16.34 60.7 3.7

The means of the measured mass, reaction times, gas released, and rate of all

three DOEs were calculated. It can be seen that the trial with the highest rate is the

(+,+,+) trial, whereas the trial with the lowest rate is the (-,-,-) trial. This outcome was

slightly unexpected to what was hypothesized before the experiment was conducted.
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 14

Observations:

Table 6
Observations During Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
Trial Observations

1 (-,+,-); HCl turned murky, there was some fizzing; Chemist 1 & 2

(+,+,-); HCl turned slightly murky, lots of fizzing and movement, very fast
2
reaction, Chemist 1 & 3

(-,-,+); HCl turned near opaque white, too much CaCO3, did not all react
3
with HCl, Chemist 1 & 2

4 (+,-,-) HCl mostly clear, lots of fizzing, later reaction, Chemist 1 & 3
DOE 1
5/01/17 (+,-,+); Lots of bubbling in early reaction, went up a lot, HCl turned near
5
opaque and not all CaCO3 disappeared; Chemist 1 & 2

(-,+,+) HCl became murky, controlled fizzing, longer reaction time,

6
steady gas release, Chemist 3, 2 & 1

(-,-,-) Slightly murky, Chemist 3 had to agitate, slow fizzing, average

7
reaction, Chemist 3 & 2

(+,+,+); Slightly murky, practically clear HCl, quick reaction; Chemist 1 &
8
2

(+,+,-); HCl turned slightly murky, lots of fizzing and movement, very fast
1
reaction, Chemist 3 and 2

(-,-,-); Pressure stopped increasing early on, delayed reaction, CaCO3

2
was left behind; Chemist 1 & 2

DOE 2 (+,+,+); Still mostly transparent, lots of fizzing and movement, large
5/03/17 3
CaCO3 piece lagged reaction; Chemist 3 & 1

(-,-,+); Near opaque white HCl, a lot of CaCO3 compared to amount of

4
HCl; Chemist 1 & 2

5 (+,-,-); HCl hit the CaCO3 all at once, short reaction; Chemist 1 & 2
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 15

6 (-,+,-); HCl became murky, there was some fizzing; Chemist 3 & 1

Trial Observations

(-,+,+); Excessive bubbling, reacted quickly, slightly murky HCl

7
afterwards; Chemist 1 & 2
DOE 2
5/03/17
(+,-,+); Reacted fast at start, HCl is slightly murky, lots of gas released;
8
Chemist 3 & 2

1 (+,-,+); HCl is slightly murky, lots of fizzing; Chemist 1 & 2

(+,+,+); HCl is slightly murky but more transparent, there was fizzing;
2
Chemist 1 & 2
3 (+,+,-); Liquid ended up slightly murky; Chemist 1 & 2

DOE 3 4 (-,+,-); Some fizzing, murky liquid; Chemist 1 & 2

5/04/17 (-,-,+); Near opaque HCl, close to being solid white, slow reaction;
5
Chemist 1 & 2
6 (-,-,-): Small amount of gas released, small reaction; Chemist 1 & 2
7 (+,-,-); Shorter reaction time, less gas released, Chemist 3 & 2
8 (-,+,+); HCl became murky, steady fizzing; Chemist 1 & 2

The observations for each DOE continued to stay consistent. Whichever trials

had a ratio of less HCl to more CaCO3 proved to show the HCl having a more opaque

color to it in the end, while if the opposite happened, the liquid would be merely a little

bit colored. In addition, all trials appeared to have some amount of fizzing proving that

a chemical reaction was occurring.

Table 7
Standard Observations During Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
Trial Observations
DOE 1 Standard, HCl murky, fizzing, immediate reaction, CaCO3
Standard
5/01/17 movement, Chemist 3 & 2

DOE 1 Early fizzing and bubbling, fast reaction, practically clear HCl;
Standard
5/01/17 Chemist 1, 2, & 3
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 16

Standard HCl is partially murky, fast reaction; Chemist 1, 2, & 3

Standard May have missed some of reaction; Chemist 1 & 2

DOE 2
5/03/17
Standard HCl slightly murky, fast reaction, Chemist 3 & 1

Trial Observations
DOE 2
Standard A little murky, slow reaction; Chemist 1, 2 & 3
5/03/17
Fast reaction, slightly murky, lots of CaCO3 movement, Chemist
Standard
3&1
DOE 3 Liquid ended up being partially murky, quick reaction; Chemist 3
5/04/17 Standard
&2

Standard Fizzing, just slightly cloudy HCl; Chemist 1 & 2

The standard trials remained fairly consistent throughout the experiment, with the

HCl solution becoming murky, the occurrence of fizzing from the CaCO3 reaction, and a

moderately fast reaction, in comparison to the other trials.

Figure 4. Murky HCl Solution

An example of a trial that did not fully react is shown. In the trial (-, -, +), 0.7 g of

CaCO3 was used, but only 0.4 mL of 2 molarity HCl was used. Since there was an
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 17

overwhelming difference between the ratio of CaCO3 and HCl, the solution became a

murky white color rather than the usual colorless appearance.

 Filion - Gi - Mojica 18

Data Analysis and Interpretation

A design of experiment, or a DOE, was used to analyze the data retrieved from

three factors. Since there were three separate factors possibly affecting the data, a

three-factor DOE was appropriate to analyze each factor individually and its combined

effects. From differing hydrochloric acid (HCl) molarities and volumes to differing

masses of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), the amount of gas released and the time it

required to reach that amount of gas was recorded throughout the reaction using a flask

and a syringe. From there, the rate of reaction was found by dividing the time in

seconds by the amount of gas in mL (see Appendix A). Thus, the rates are the values

that will be analyzed. Additionally, in order to assure that the data is valid, the

arrangement in which the trials were completed was randomized using the

randomization function on the TI-nspire calculator (see Appendix D). That way, it would

reduce bias in the results. There had also been three DOEs completed to reduce

variability using replication.

Table 8
DOE Factors for the Rate of Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
Concentratio Amount of CaCO₃
Factors
n of HCl (M) HCl (mL) Mass (g)
Low (-) 2.0 4.0 0.30
Standard 4.0 9.0 0.50
High (+) 6.0 14 0.70

Table 8 depicts the three factors used in the experiment as well as the high,

standard, and low values that were utilized.

 Filion - Gi - Mojica 19

Table 9
Mean Rate of Reaction of Calcium Carbonate and Hydrochloric Acid
CaCO₃ Mean Rate of
Concentration Amount of
Mass Reaction
of HCl (M) HCl (mL)
(g) (mL/s)
Standard 3.8
+ + + 7.8
Mean Rate of
Concentration Amount of CaCO₃
Reaction
of HCl (M) HCl (mL) Mass (g)
(mL/s)
+ + - 2.6
+ - + 2.4
+ - - 2.4
Standard 3.7
- + + 3.2
- + - 1.3
- - + 1.1
- - - 0.50
Standard 3.7
Grand Average: 2.7

The mean rate of reaction for each trial is shown above. Since three DOEs worth

of data was collected, the means were found by adding the rates of each individual trial

and dividing by three. It can be seen that the trials with higher values seem to have

increased rates, as opposed to the trials with the lower values that have

decreased/slower rates. Not only that, when added together and divided by 8, the

grand average, which excludes the standards, was found to be, 2.7 mL/s.
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 20

Table 10
Rates of Reaction of Standard Trials
Rate of Reaction (mL/s)
Standard
1 2 3
DOE 1 3.3 4.2 3.8
DOE 2 3.4 4.1 3.5
DOE 3 3.7 3.6 3.9
Average: 3.7

The mean rate of reaction for the standard trials was found by adding the rates of

the nine standard trials and dividing by nine, for nine standards, to get about 3.7 mL/s.

Looking at the standards, the values do not seem to stray far from a certain range. All

of them look to be fairly close to one another, showing the possibility that there may not

be much variance to the standards.

Figure 5. Scatter Plot of Standards

When looking at the scatter plot of standards, it can be seen that the values lie in

a consistent range in between 3 and 4.5 mL/s. No extreme variance and patterns can

be seen among the numbers. Even so, it can be noted that the second standard and

fifth standard, being 4.2 mL/s and 4.1 mL/s respectively, are the highest values and are

above 4, whereas the lowest value is the first standard, being at 3.3 mL/s. As 4.2 is the
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 21

highest and 3.3 is the lowest values, subtracting the former with the latter will get the

range of standards, or ROS. The range of standards will help determine the

significance of the factors and its interactions, or whether or not the values were

obtained by chance alone. By subtracting the two, the ROS became 0.9 mL/s.

Multiplying it by 2 will create the boundaries that decide whether or not an effect value is

significant. That value ends up being 1.8 mL/s. To decide if it is significant, |effect

value| ≥ 2 * ROS.

Table 11
Effect of HCl Molarity
(-) Values (+) Values
3.2 7.8
1.3 2.6
1.1 2.4
0.50 2.4
Average: 1.5 Average: 3.8
Effect Value: 2.3

Figure 6. Effect of HCl Molarity

The values for when the HCl molarity was high and low are shown in Table 11

and are graphed above. Compared to the low values of molarity, the high values have

an average rate that is 2.3 mL/s larger, which also creates the effect value. It was

calculated by subtracting the high values’ average by the low values’ average.

Additionally, when looked at with the range of standards multiplied by 2, where the

value is 1.8, the effect value proves to be statistically significant, meaning that the data

was not retrieved by chance alone. This is because the effect value itself is larger than
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 22

the ROS * 2, making it fall out of the boundaries set. Not only that, the positive slope of

the graph indicates that as the molarity of HCl increases, so will the rate of reaction.

Table 12
Effect of HCl Volume
(-) Values (+) Values
2.4 7.8
2.4 2.6
1.1 3.2
0.50 1.3
Average: 1.6 Average: 3.7
Effect Value: 2.1

Figure 7. Effect of HCl Volume

In regards to the volume of HCl, its low and high values are depicted in the table

and their averages are graphed in Figure 7. The effect value was found to be 2.1 mL/s,

in which can be interpreted as the higher values having an average rate that is 2.1 mL/s

faster than the lower values. When compared to the ROS * 2, the effect of HCl volume

also proves to be significant, even if just a small bit less than the molarity of HCl.

Analyzing the graph, it can be seen that the slope is positive. Also, the effect value,

which can also be considered as the slope, is also positive. This shows that as the

volume of HCl increases, the rate of reaction will correspondingly increase.

 Filion - Gi - Mojica 23

Table 13
Effect of CaCO3 Mass
(-) Values (+) Values
2.6 7.8
2.4 2.4
1.3 3.2
0.50 1.1
Average: 1.7 Average: 3.6
Effect Value: 1.9

Figure 8. Effect of CaCO3 Mass

For the third factor, the low and high values of the mass of CaCO3 are shown in

Table 13, while the averages are graphed in Figure 8. Regarding the mass, the effect

value of the averages was found to be 1.9 mL/s. Being the lowest effect value of the

three factors, it can be said that the CaCO3 mass is the least significant amongst the

three. However, because its value is still larger than the ROS * 2, it is still considered a

significant factor. Thus, all three factors individually are significant in this experiment.

Additionally, Figure 8 displays that, because of the positives effect value or slope, as the

mass of CaCO3 gets larger, the rate of reaction will increase.

 Filion - Gi - Mojica 24

Table 14
Effect of Concentration and Amount of HCl
Amount of
HCl
(mL)
- +
Solid
Concentration Segment + 2.4 5.2
of HCl
(M) Dashed
-
Segment 0.80 2.3

Interaction Effect Value: 0.73

Figure 9. Effect of Molarity and Amount of
HCl

The average values of HCl molarity, or concentration, and the volume, or amount

of HCl were recorded in Table 14. To find the interaction effect, the difference between

the high and low values of each segment must be found and then divided by the values

on the x-axis subtracted, which becomes 2. After the values for each segment is found,

the solid segment must be subtracted by the dashed segment in order to get the

interaction effect value. In the case of this interaction, that value was 0.7 mL/s.

Compared to the ROS * 2 value, it shows to be statistically insignificant, since the effect

value is 0.7, and is less than the boundary of significance set by the standards, which is

set at 1.8 mL/s. Also, the graphs of the segments both have positive slopes that do not

directly intersect, which show a little bit more to the fact that it did not end up being

significant.
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 25

Table 15
Effect of HCl Molarity and CaCO3 Mass
CaCO3
Mass
(g)
- +
Solid
Concentration Segment +
2.5 5.1
of HCl
(M) Dashed
-
Segment 0.90 2.2

Interaction Effect Value: 0.73

Figure 10. Effect of HCl Molarity and
CaCO3 Mass

From the molarity of HCl and its effect with the mass of CaCO3, the averages of

the two factors were inserted in the table above. Additionally, the four values were

graphed on Figure 10. Since the slopes do not intersect, there appears to be little to no

interaction between the molarity of HCl and the mass of CaCO3. The effect of the

interaction of the two factors is also insignificant because the interaction effect of 0.7

mL/s is less than the range of standards multiplied by two (1.8 mL/s).

Table 16
Effect of HCl Volume and CaCO3 Mass
CaCO3
Mass
(g)
- +
Solid
Amount of Segment +
2.0 5.5
HCl
(mL) Dashed
-
Segment 1.5 1.8

Interaction Effect Value: 1.6

Figure 11. Effect of HCl Volume and

CaCO3 Mass
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 26

Regarding the last interaction between the volume of HCl and the mass of

CaCO3, the averages were put into the table and graphed above. Compared to the last

two graphs, this graph has a segment that has a much larger slope than the second

one. It seems that the line segments may intersect if they keep going on, however, with

just that, it is unknown whether or not the interaction is significant. Even so, the

interaction effect value for the volume of HCl and the mass of CaCO3 was calculated as

1.6 mL/s. It is the largest value of all three interaction effect values, and may be the

most significant of the three, but it is still a number that is less than the ROS * 2 value of

1.8 mL/s. Thus, it can be deemed as insignificant, as it does not fall out of the

significance boundaries set.

Figure 12. Dot Plot of Effects of the Rate of Decomposition of CaCO3

The dot plot above displays the effect values of the three individual factors and

then the interaction effect values between the relationships of each factor with another.

As shown in the dot plot, the interaction effects between the factors fell in between the

range of standards multiplied by two, meaning that they were deemed insignificant to

the rate of reaction between HCl and CaCO3. Additionally, the individual effects of the

standards fell outside of the range of standards multiplied by two, deeming them to be

statistically significant to the rate of decomposition of CaCO3.

 Filion - Gi - Mojica 27

2.3 2.1 1.9 0.7 0.7 1.6

𝑌 = 2.7 + 𝑀𝑜 + 𝑉𝑜 + 𝑀𝑎 + 𝑀𝑉 + 𝑀𝑀 + 𝑉𝑀
2 2 2 2 2 2
+ "𝑛𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑒"
Figure 13. Prediction Equation

The prediction equation is an equation that would determine the possible

outcomes of the experiment if it were to happen again. It proves that if it were to be

replicated, the person replicating it would most likely find the effects and interaction

effects that were found significant, significant as well. It is found by adding the grand

average to half of each effect value, while also taking any outside influence, (called

“noise”) into account. The grand average with each effect value, M being molarity, V

being volume, and m being mass, being taken into account.

2.3 2.1 1.9

𝑌 = 2.7 + 𝑀𝑜 + 𝑉𝑜 + 𝑀𝑎
2 2 2
+ "𝑛𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑒"
Figure 14. Parsimonious Prediction Equation

The parsimonious prediction equation only includes the effects that are

statistically significant, or least likely to occur by chance alone. In this case, those

effects that were statistically significant were only the factors individually. This equation

would reveal the results of the experiment if only the significant factors were taken into

account.

Interpretation:

It can be concluded that all individual factors, of HCl molarity, HCl volume, and

CaCO3 are statistically significant, while their interactions are not statistically significant,

in regards to its effect on the rate of reaction. After conducting the test of significance,

where |effect value| ≥ 2 * ROS in order for it to be significant, each individual effect

value was found to be greater than the doubled range of standards, whereas the
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 28

interaction effects were not. Therefore, while the factors themselves were statistically

significant, the combined effects of each did not prove to be so. In context, this means

that only the individual factors had a significant effect on increasing the rate of the

decomposition of calcium carbonate, and their interaction effects did not.

 Filion - Gi - Mojica 29

Conclusion
The purpose of this experiment was to determine which factor, concentration of

hydrochloric acid, HCl, volume of HCl, or mass of calcium carbonate, CaCO3, affected

the rate of decomposition of CaCO3 the most through the use of a three-factor design of

experiment. The setup was designed to simulate the effect of acid rain on buildings.

Therefore, HCl represented acid rain, and CaCO3 represented buildings.

Ultimately, the hypothesis that the largest concentration of HCl (6 M), the

greatest volume of HCl (15 mL), and the smallest mass (0.3 g) of CaCO3 powder (or the

(+,+,-) trial) will prove to have the highest rate of decomposition was not accepted.

Instead, it was concluded that the highest concentration of HCl (6 M), the largest

amount of HCl (15 mL), and the largest mass (0.7 g) of CaCO3 powder (or the (+,+,+)

trial) produced the fastest rate of decomposition instead. While the (+,+,-) trial was

found to have a rate of 2.6 mL/s, the (+,+,+) trial had a rate of 7.8 mL/s. The original

hypothesis was proved to be false because a larger mass equates to more surface area

for the HCl ions to collide with the CaCO3 ions, leading to more reactability between the

two substances.

From a scientific standpoint, it is logical that the effect of HCl molarity was

significant in regards to the rate of decomposition, meaning that the outcome from the

molarity did not occur by chance alone. This is because the increase of the

concentration of hydrogen ions would easily make the liquid more acidic, thus allowing it

to decompose the CaCO3 at a much greater rate (Rate of Decomposition of Calcium

Carbonate). A higher concentration correlates with a higher number of ions, and a large

number of HCl ions allows for more reactability between the HCl and CaCO 3. Due to

more particles available to collide amongst each other, a faster rate of reaction is the
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 30

result. This can be seen in the mean (+,+,+) reaction, where the molarity of HCl was 6,

which led to a faster rate of reaction of 7.8 mL/s as compared to the mean (-,-,-)

reaction, where the molarity of HCl was 2, resulting in a slower rate of reaction of 0.50

mL/s.

The volume of HCl is another factor that proved to be significant because having

a larger volume of HCl allows for more moles of acid to react with CaCO3. For example,

if the volume of HCl is lower, then there would be less acid to react with the powder,

and in some cases could lead to having an amount of CaCO3 that did not react. This is

because the surface area of the CaCO3 was far too large compared to the surface area

of the HCl. Thus, the rate of reaction is affected since a lower amount of gas released

compared to a higher volume of acid makes for a lower value. This can be seen in the

interaction between CaCO3 mass and HCl volume (see Figure 7 in Data Analysis and

Interpretation), which indicates that an increase in HCl volume and CaCO3 mass results

in a higher rate of reaction in comparison to a lower HCl volume and CaCO3 mass.

It is also understandable that the mass of CaCO3 is a statistically significant

factor because as the mass increases, the increased amount of CaCO3 powder makes

for a larger surface area. Increasing the surface area of the CaCO3 leads to an increase

in the collision between the CaCO3 ions and the hydrogen ions, which results in an

increased rate of reaction, as per the collision theory. There would also be an increase

in gas release, which correlates directly with the rate of decomposition of the CaCO3

and makes for a faster rate value.

Some design flaws in the process included the timing in which the volume of gas

released was recorded, the syringe and stopper setup, and the CaCO3 amount.

Measuring the amount of gas released relied on someone placing a stopper inside of
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 31

the Erlenmeyer flask immediately after the HCl was added to initiate the reaction.

Allowing even the slightest amount of gas to escape the flask led to an inconsistent

collection of CO2. Maintaining a quick pace in replacing the stopper and syringe setup

was important to ensuring consistent data, but it proved to be difficult. Because of

outside factors, the stopper may not have been placed into the flask quick enough, thus

possibly missing a part of the reaction. Additionally, the amounts of CaCO3 proved to

be significant in the experiment, yet there were some cases where the ratio between the

HCl and CaCO3 was too large that there was not enough HCl and too much remaining

CaCO3. That showed a potential of the HCl missing a complete reaction, for the surface

area of the CaCO3 was too large.

In order to improve this experiment, a few changes can be made. First, a closed

system can be used to ensure that no CO2 gas escapes from the reaction. This can

include using a single syringe containing the HCl and injecting the acid into the flask

with the CaCO3. To record the data, the CO2 gas product of the reaction would

accumulate in the same syringe. The volume of HCl and and mass of CaCO 3 can also

be altered to ensure complete reactions between the HCl and CaCO3. For further

research, experiments can involve actual acid rain, which include solutions of sulfuric

and nitric acids, instead. It would still be used to test their effects on building materials,

such as CaCO3, to determine the long term quality and durability of building structures,

but with a substance closer to actual acid rain.

In previous research, the correlation between rate of reaction and the molarity of

HCl coincided with the data collected in this experiment, where the molarity of HCl

increases, the rate of reaction increases as well (Rate of Decomposition of Calcium

Carbonate). It is logical that the rate of reaction value is higher for trials with a high
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 32

molarity. This is because as the molarity of HCl increases, the number of hydrogen ions

increases as the HCL ionizes and liberates these ions. Thus, it increases the collisions

between hydrogen and CaCO3 ions, which lead to an increase of gas released. With

more gas released, the rate of reaction will prove to be higher. Therefore, results from

previous research agree with the results found in this case.

Overall, this experiment benefits the real world from an infrastructural standpoint.

By analyzing the factors that were found to be statistically significant (all individual

factors), building industries can create materials that are resistant to the damage

caused by acid rain. Additionally, architectural engineers and designers can learn to

avoid materials like limestone and marble, which contain high levels of CaCO 3, and

therefore are more likely to decompose when exposed to acid rain. Also, with the

results revealed, the damaging effects of acid rain can be made clear to the general

public.
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 33

Appendix A: Rate of Reaction

In order to determine the overall effect of the molarity of HCl, the volume of HCl,

and the mass of CaCO3, the rate of reaction was determined.

𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑎𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 (𝑚𝐿)

𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 =
𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 (𝑠)

59 𝑚𝐿
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 = = 3.3 𝑚𝐿/𝑠
18 𝑠
Figure 1A. Rate of Reaction

The rate of reaction is the amount of gas released in milliliters over the time it

took to get to that amount in seconds. This process was repeated for each individual

trial, and then the mean rate of reaction for each different trial throughout the three

DOEs was found. For example, the rate of reaction of the first standard in the first DOE

was found by substituting the amount of gas released and the time into the rate of

reaction equation, as shown above. This calculation was necessary because the data

to be analyzed were the rates of reaction.

 Filion - Gi - Mojica 34

Appendix B: Gas Collection Apparatus

The experiment relied on collecting the amount of carbon dioxide, CO2, gas

released to determine the rate of reaction. To measure the volume of gas released, a

gas collection apparatus was used.

Materials:

140 mL Syringe Stopper, one-hole

Syringe adapter 125 mL Erlenmeyer flask
Stopcock Buret clamp
Procedure:

1. Pump air through the 140 mL syringe.

2. Screw the 140 mL syringe into the stopcock, setting stopcock to open position.

3. Insert syringe adapter firmly into the stopper and connect the adapter to the

stopcock.

4. Screw buret clamp to support stand and attach to 125 mL Erlenmeyer flask.

5. Begin the reaction (see Experimental Design).

6. Quickly and firmly place stopper and syringe into the flask ensuring no leaks.
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 35

Appendix C: Research Logo

To make a representation of the experiment, a logo was created in Solidworks

and printed using a 3D printer.

Figure 1C. Rate of Decomposition Research Logo

The design of the logo above was created to illustrate the decomposition reaction

of calcium carbonate with hydrochloric acid. The jagged lines towards the bottom

represent the calcium carbonate powder, and the circular bubbles represent the CO 2

gas released as a product of the reaction of hydrochloric acid and calcium carbonate.
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 36

Appendix D: Randomization

Materials:

TI-nspire CX Calculator

Procedure:

1. Turn on the calculator and open a calculator page.

2. Press menu, go to “5: Probability,” then click enter.

3. Go to “4: Random” then press enter.

4. Go to “6: Seed” then press enter.

5. Enter any number to seed the calculator for randomization purposes.

6. Repeat steps 2 and 3.

7. Go to “2: Integer” and click enter.

8. In the parenthesis of “randInt(),” enter “1,8” and press enter

9. Continue pressing enter until all numbers appear and there is an order for one of
the trials.

10. Assign the numbers to the respective trials in the order presented on the
calculator (i.e. “8”: (+,+,+), “5”: (-,-,-)).

11. Repeat steps 1 - 10 for each set of DOEs conducted.

Works Cited
"Collision Theory - Chemistry | Socratic." Socratic.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar.

2017. <https://socratic.org/chemistry/chemical-kinetics/collision-theory>.
 Filion - Gi - Mojica 37

"GCSE Bitesize Science - Strong and Weak Acids : Revision." BBC. BBC, n.d.

Web. 24 May 2017.

Goldberger, Marvin L., and Kenneth M. Watson. Collision Theory. Mineola, NY:

Dover Publications, 2004. Print.

Green, William H. "Editorial: 7th International Conference on Chemical Kinetics."

International Journal of Chemical Kinetics 44.1 (2011): 1. Web.

"Impacts of Acid Rain on Buildings." Effects of Acid Rain on Buildings. N.p., n.d. Web.

18 May 2017.

"Kinetics 1." Encyclopedia.com. Chemistry: Foundations and Applications. 16

Mar. 2017 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

"Kinetics 2." Khan Academy. Khan Academy, n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2017.

<https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/chem-kinetics>.

Moretti, Giuliano. "The 'extent of Reaction': A Powerful Concept to Study Chemical

Transformations at the First-year General Chemistry Courses." SpringerLink.

Springer Netherlands, 09 July 2014. Web. 24 May 2017.

Rate of Decomposition of Calcium Carbonate. Chem Fax. N.d. 3 March 2017.

Print.

Studios, Andrew Rader. "Rate of Reaction." Chem4Kids.com: Reactions: Rates of

Reaction. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2017.