Method:
1. Set up the apparatus as shown in the diagram above but leaving out the pond weed, funnel, test tube, water, and the sodium hydrogen carbonate.
2. Fill the beaker with 450 cm3 of water and 50 cm3 of NaHCO3.
3. Select 1 or 2 pieces of pond weed each roughly 5-10 cm long and cut off the stems.
4. Place the pond weed in the beaker and secure the funnel upside down over (on top of) the pond weed using the plasticine.
5. Place a water-filled test tube upside down and over the funnel (see diagram).
6. Place the ruler so that the "0" measurement is aligned with the side of the beaker. (distance measured from side of beaker to edge of light bulb)
7.) Place the lamp directly in front of the plant so that it is 0 cm away from the beaker. 8.) With the light shining on the plant, record the number of bubbles emitted in a 1 minute duration. Switch off the lamp and wait for another minute before taking another reading.
9.) Take 3 readings at the current distance and move the lamp 5 cm further away from the plant.
10.) Repeat steps 8 and 9 until 3 readings from at least 5 intervals of 5 cm have been taken.
11.) Proceed to the data analysis stage.
Results:
Distance (cm) Light Intensity (LUX) Bubbles per Minute Average bubbles/minute
1 2 3
0 (off scale) 240 249 251 246.7
5 11,000 201 222 214 212.3
10 5,800 183 185 188 185.3
15 3,570 154 152 158 154.7
20 2,320 128 118 124 123.3
25 1,780 93 88 90 90.3
30 1,320 67 65 70 67.3
35 1,050 53 50 48 50.3
40 850 38 38 37 37.7
45 690 26 25 24 25
50 580 17 17 18 17.3
The temperature of the water stayed a constant at about 29.5O C throughout the experiment.
Conclusion:
From the results that I have gathered I can state that an increase in light intensity certainly does increase the rate of photosynthesis. As was also expected in my prediction, the relationship between light intensity and the rate of photosynthesis was non-linear. From both graphs there is a best-fit curved line. This means that the rate of photosynthesis increases at an exponential rate.
However, my prediction that light intensity is inversely proportional to the distance squared did not fit into my results perfectly. The rule existed but there was often quite a large margin of error.
When measuring light intensity in terms of distance, the greater the distance, the slower the rate of photosynthesis. While the rate of photosynthesis was decreasing, the rate at which it was decreasing at was also decelerating. This is where the line in graph 1 shallowed.
When measuring the light intensity in terms of LUC, the greater the distance, the slower the greater the rate of photosynthesis. While the photosynthetic rate increased, the rate at which it increased was decreasing. This is where the line in graph 2 shallows.
The shallowing of the line in graph 1 can be explained by the fact that light intensity is inversely proportional to the distance squared. This means that as distance increases the light intensity decreases at an exponential rate. If light intensity decreases exponentially, photosynthetic rates that depend on light intensity also decreases exponentially. The line in graph 1 would eventually reach "0" where photosynthesis stops as light intensity limits this rate.
The shallowing of the line in graph 2 is due to other factors limiting the rate of photosynthesis. These other factors do not immediately limit the rate of photosynthesis but rather gradually. As light intensity increases the photosynthetic rate is being limited by certain factors such as carbon dioxide and temperature. As light intensity increases further, these factors limit the rate of photosynthesis even more until photosynthesis is completely limited and the graphed line become horizontal. This is when photosynthesis is being carried out at a constant rate.
The reason that a "f 1/b2 did not apply was due to the apparatus used. The lamp that I used had a cover that directed the light energy somewhat. The light energy did not spread out as much as a plain light bulb with no cover. The distribution of the light energy was more concentrated, changing the gradient of the graph.
Evaluation:
Overall, I would state the experiment as a success since my predictions were supported by my results. This is important in reflecting success only if my prediction was sensible and logical. Just as important is where the experiment was not a success and why. This photosynthesis investigation was probably not performed as accurately as it could have been due to some controllable and uncontrollable conditions. Some mistakes can be corrected.
While performing the experiment, the piece of pond weed did not photosynthesize at a steady rate, even when the distance from the plant to the light source was kept a constant. The second reading at 0 cm was far greater than the first reading at 0 cm. While the number of oxygen bubbles was being recorded, the rate at which the plant was photosynthesizing had increased several times. This may be due to the poor circulation of sodium hydrogen carbonate at the beginning of the experiment. Carbon dioxide may have initially limited the rate of photosynthesis. The readings at 0 cm and 5 cm were repeated many times until the rate of photosynthesis had begun to settle. From then on, there were no more similar problems during the experiment. To make sure that the there
The negative effects from this problem may be inaccurate data for some readings. These would show up on my graph. However, there seemed to be few anomalies than was expected when the experiment was being performed. Almost all readings were in correlation with each other and all of the anomalies were in the high photosynthetic rate end of the results. This was when the distance from plant to light source was 0 cm or only 5 cm.
A large factor in determining data accuracy is the amount of human error during experiments. The rate at which oxygen bubbles were being produced by my plant was so high that I found it difficult to count the amount of bubbles. I estimate a margin of error of at least 3 bubbles for each reading taken. To improve the accuracy of the results, the readings would have to be taken several more times. The entire experiment could have been performed again, and the new results could be combined if the same plant is used. But the photosynthetic rate of the same piece of pond weed would eventually decrease over time anyway. Repetitions would, however, improve the overall reliability of the results.
There are quite a few factors that could affect the results of my experiment. Some of these are variables that were mentioned earlier and could not be controlled, or they were variables that were not initially considered.
While performing the experiment, some of the oxygen produced from photosynthesis may have dissolved into the water. Some oxygen may have even been used by micro-organisms living on the pond weed. The amount of oxygen dissolved or used by microbes is probably insignificant to my results since the degree of accuracy at which I measured was not high enough. Some oxygen is also used during the respiration of the plant. But since only bubbles were counted, the volume of bubbles was not as important. But to volume of oxygen produced is important, since it was volume in terms of bubbles that were measured. As the rate of photosynthesis decreased due to a decrease in light intensity, the size of the bubbles produced also became smaller. This change in bubble size was no accounted for when the results were analyzed. For a more accurate analysis of the collected data, volume should have been measured instead of bubble quantity since the size of bubbles can vary. Using a capillary tube in place of the test tube so that the volume of each bubble could have been measured could have done this.
During the high intensities I had experienced counting difficulties of the bubbles being produced. There are also factors affecting accuracy at low light intensities. With low light intensity, the pond weed receives some light energy from background light such as sunlight seeping through curtains or the light from the lamp of another student's experiment. To eliminate most all background light, the experiment must be performed in a completely dark room. Even then, some of the light from the lamp in my experiment would reflect of the table and reach the plant though this amount of light is probably insignificant in affecting the rate of photosynthesis.
Temperature was also another factor that was controlled by the lamp being used. Even though a glass block was used in front of the lamp to prevent some heat from reaching the plant, not all the heat can be blocked. The extra heat, however, did not affect the temperature of the water, which stayed at between 290 and 300 C.
The method of the experiment could probably also be improved to obtain more reliable results. As already mentioned, the a capillary tube should be used in place of a test tube to accurately measure the volume of the oxygen produced. Due to the high rates of photosynthesis of the pond weed, readings should be taken within shorter time periods. I had originally chosen to count the number of bubbles in one minute but this produced miscounts in the readings. If during a repeated experiment, counting bubbles is still used, there is a smaller chance for human error when counting within a smaller time frame. If the capillary tube option was to be chosen, volume should be measured for a smaller time frame to reduce the overall time to complete the experiment. Also, during high rates of photosynthesis, it would still be difficult and impractical to measure the volume of oxygen produced for a long duration.
Due to the nature and convenience of the experiment, it could be easily modified to investigate another variable of photosynthesis. Since sodium hydrogen carbonate (NaHCO3) is used to provide the pondweed with carbon dioxide. Performing the experiment with different volumes of NaHCO3 could vary the amount of CO2. The plant would be kept at a constant distance from the lamp and a constant volume of water would be added to the sodium hydrogen carbonate. Another experiment using almost identical apparatus would be to vary the color of the light the plant absorbs. Using translucent color filters in front the lamps could vary this. Since light wave length has already been identified as a variable of photosynthesis, it would be interesting to actually test it. The only problem of this experiment is that there is no way to define or "measure" the color of light. Wave length would be a solution but this cannot be measured with available equipment. We only have a general idea of how to class colors. Because of this, the colored light experiment should not be taken as seriously as light intensity or carbon dioxide.
to find effects of distance of a light source from pond weed has on the amount of oxygen
produced
Photosynthesis
All green plants need to be able to make their own food.They do this by a
process called photosynthesis.For photosynthesis to occur they need sunlight
energy.This energy is absorbed by a green pigment called chlorophyll,which
is mainly found in the leaves.This energy then combinEs with water molecules
(from the soil) and carbon dioxide (from the air).Then as a result of this,a
type of sugar is produced .This is called glucose.Also oxygen is made.
For my experiment I have chosen to use light distance as my variable.This
means that to carry out a fair test everything else must be kept the same
during the experiment.
Hypothesis
I think that as the light source (desk lamp) is moved closer to the
pondweed, the rate that oxygen is produced will increase therefore more
oxygen will be produced and also more glucose. I believe this will happen
because when the light source is nearer to the plant more of the plants
surface area is coming in to contact with the light from the desk lamp
therefore more photosynthesis will occur which will mean more oxygen and
glucose will be produced.
Apparatus
· Funnel.
· Measuring cylinder.
· Stop watch.
· Card board and foil(used to fillter the light).
· Beaker.
· Desklamp.
· one metre ruler stick.
· Balance.
· Pondweed.
· Carbon dioxide Powder.
· Water.
· Scapular.
Fair Test
To ensure that a fair test is carried out the following things must be done
· The same pondweed must be used every time we change the light distance.
· Do th e experiment three times for each distance to get an accurate
average.
· There must only be one variable and that is the distance of the light
source from the plant.
· Chose a value for carbon dioxide mixture and keep at the same value allthe
way through the experiment(3 grams).
· Keep the experiment at a constant 20degres (this is because more oxygen is
produced at this temperature).
· Take results after three minutes for each induvidual experiment.
Safety
· Follow lab safety rules (eg no running bags at back etc).
· keep the desklamp away from contact with water.
· Be careful when using scapuar.
Method
· Collect apparatus.
· Set up apParatus as in diagram.
· Fill measuring cylinder and beaker with water.
· Add carbon dioxide mixture to water.
· Set up desklamp in correct position(eg 10cm).
· Turn on desklamp and start stopwatch.
· Count the bubbles for the next three minutes and also make a note of the
change in volume.
· Record your results.
· Repeat experiment twice more for distance 10cm and then do the same with
distance 20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90, and 100cm.
Results
These are my results
Because my results did not go entirely to plan(because my pondweed was not
photosynthesising quick enough) I have been given a past years results which
I will now usS as my results instead.They are as follows-
Analysis
Looking at my results a can see a significant increase in the rate of
photosynthesis as the distanse decreases.All of the results I was given show
this pattern.In the experiment when the distance was 50cm there was not much
photosythesis taken place only about 13 bubbles of oxygen were produced,but
when the desklamp was 0cm away alot of photosythesis was occuring on average
184 bubles in three minutes a quite substanchal difference from 50cm,overall
it was a quite significant increase.I belive This is because when the
desklamp is close tho the pondweed more of the pondweeds surface area has
light energy shining upon it which means more photosythesis will occur in a
shorter time. The average no. of bubbles for different distances
arebasnfollows-
Looking at my results it is quite evident that the number of bubbles
produced is much greater when the distanse of the pondweed from the desklamp
is less.This proves that my original hypothesis was correct that "as the
distance decreases of the desklamp from the pondweed therefore more oxygen
bubbles are produced".As i mentioned before this is because there is more
light energy shining on a greater surface area when the desklamp is closer
so therefore greater surface area equals more photosynthesis.
Evaluation
I think that on the whole my experiment was ok.The results
i gathered were very odd i belive this is because of the poor quality of the
pondwed we used.But with the set of resuts we were given we were able to
calculate acurate averages which followed my prediction.
I belive our measurments were about as accurate as we could get usill
oung the apparatus that we did.
We experienced quite a few problems throughout our experiment.These
were first of all in our first experiment our pondweed was not of a high
standard and was photosynthesizing very slowly the only way we could have
got around this problem without using new pondweed would be to leave the
experiment for longer.Another problem we encountered was the change in
temperature when the desklamp was close to the pondweed because we could not
do anything to ammend this we had to accept any slight change in our
results.another problem we faced was counting the bubbles when the plant was
photosythesising the bubbles were different sizes,but as talked about in my
pelimenary data we overcame this problem by counting every individual bubble
as one.
