Question

Difficulty: MediumIdentifying Sources of Error and Confounding Variables

A group of students designed three separate experiments to investigate different physical and chemical processes. In each design, a specific uncontrolled variable or a systematic source of error was introduced.

* Experiment 1: To study how the concentration of reactant AA affects the rate of a chemical reaction, students combined reactant AA with reactant BB in three separate test tubes. They used 1.0 M1.0\text{ M}, 2.0 M2.0\text{ M}, and 3.0 M3.0\text{ M} solutions of reactant AA. However, they used test tubes of different diameters (15 mm15\text{ mm}, 20 mm20\text{ mm}, and 25 mm25\text{ mm}) for each concentration, measuring the time it took for the mixture to change color.
* Experiment 2: To study the effect of temperature on the rate of gas diffusion, students placed a gas canister at 20C20^\circ\text{C}, 40C40^\circ\text{C}, and 60C60^\circ\text{C} at one end of a closed horizontal tube and measured the time required for the gas to travel to the other end. Because the trials were performed on different days, the relative humidity in the room fluctuated between 30%30\% and 75%75\% during testing.
* Experiment 3: To compare the density of three different liquid samples (XX, YY, and ZZ), students used a graduated cylinder to measure 50 mL50\text{ mL} of each liquid and recorded their masses using a digital balance. However, the balance was not zeroed (tared) before measuring Liquid ZZ, so the balance registered an initial reading of +1.2 g+1.2\text{ g} before any mass was added.

Match each experiment with its primary source of error or confounding variable.

  • Experiment 1 (Reactant Concentration)Varying test tube diameters, which alters the surface area of the liquid-gas interface and geometry of the reaction volume.
  • Experiment 2 (Gas Diffusion)Fluctuating ambient relative humidity, which alters the density of the surrounding air and impacts molecular collision rates.
  • Experiment 3 (Liquid Density)A systematic calibration offset in the scale, which introduces a constant measurement bias to one of the samples.

Answer

Experiment 1 matches with varying test tube diameters; Experiment 2 matches with fluctuating relative humidity; Experiment 3 matches with a systematic calibration offset in the scale.
Each experimental setup contains a specific design flaw: Experiment 1 fails to control test tube geometry, Experiment 2 fails to control ambient environmental conditions, and Experiment 3 suffers from systematic scale calibration error.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Experiment 1 to identify any parameters changed other than the independent variable.
The independent variable is reactant concentration, but the tube diameter is also varied. This changes the liquid's surface area and reaction geometry, representing an uncontrolled factor.
To determine the source of error, identify any variable that changes between trials other than the independent variable.
2
Analyze Experiment 2 for external environmental conditions that were not held constant.
The relative humidity in the room fluctuated between 30%30\% and 75%75\% across different testing days, which affects air density.
Environmental factors that vary during testing are uncontrolled variables that can confound the rate of gas diffusion.
3
Analyze Experiment 3 for measurement or instrumentation issues.
The digital balance was not zeroed before weighing Liquid ZZ, resulting in a +1.2 g+1.2\text{ g} offset.
Failure to zero a balance before measurement causes a systematic measurement error (offset bias).

Key Concept

Identifying sources of error (systematic error) and confounding variables (uncontrolled factors) in scientific experiments.
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question