Breakdown of Starch by Salivary Amylase

Authors Avatar

Biology Coursework

Breakdown of Starch by Salivary Amylase

Amylase is an enzyme present in saliva in mouth produced by Salivary glands. Amylase hydrolyses starch into disaccharide Maltose. There are factors, which determine its rate of reaction. The main factors, which determine the rate of reaction of Amylase, are:

  • Temperature
  • PH

The Factor, which I will be investigating, will be the temperature. I will alter the temperatures and observe the time taken for Amylase to hydrolyse starch. The temperatures that will be chosen will range from low to quite temperatures (20°C-40°C).

Join now!

My prediction for the experiment will be that at 20°C, Enzymes will take longer to Hydrolyse starch. Enzymes work best at a specific temperature which is close to 37°C (the body temperature) and 20°C is much below that specific temperature, so at low temperature the enzymes are inactive and the rate of reaction of enzymes will be slower and so therefore this is why it will take longer for enzymes to hydrolyse starch.

As I increase the temperature, the rate of reaction should get faster so it should be quicker for enzyme to hydrolyse starch.

The temperatures ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

Avatar

** This report is the result of a student recording the results of a simulation software experiment and so does not include many of the key elements necessary for a good coursework investigation. Planning: Since the report is just the recording of software simulation results there is no experimental planning. There is very little consideration of the key variables in the opening section. The prediction needs to include the relevant background science to explain it fully. Carrying out: The student recorded the results of a software simulation exercise. The table headings did not all include units. No repeats were carried out. Conclusion and Evaluation: The student explained simply what was shown in the evidence but did not explain it using the relevant background theory. No graph was included. There could be no real experimental evaluation since this was a simulation exercise.