Name: Anushka Aritri Rahman Grade: 9-B
Title:
Does the difference of the types of nut also affect the amount of energy it consists?
Aim:
To try and find out whether or not the difference of the type of nut affects the amount of energy it consists.
Hypothesis:
Predictions related to this investigation are:
1) The cashew nut and the pistachio will have similar amounts of energy.
2) The peanuts will probably contain high amounts of energy.
3) The amount of energy in all of the nuts will be generally high.
Scientific Reasons:
The scientific explanations to my predictions are:
1) The cashew nut and the pistachio are from the same family. As this is a similarity, there is a chance that the amounts of energy will also be similar.
2) Peanuts are nutritious and high in energy. The seeds contain 40 to 50 percent oil and 20 to 30 percent protein, and they are an excellent source of B vitamins.
3) All nuts contain certain amounts of fat, which in itself makes it high in energy. It also has vitamin B (many sorts) and protein in it.
Key variables:
There are three types of variables. They are:
I. Independent Variable.
II. Dependent Variable
III. Controlled Variable.
I. The independent variable is the object or substance that I control or test. In this case, the independent variable is:
a) The total amount of energy burnt from the nuts.
II. The dependent variable is the substance(s) that is affected, in either measurement or features. In this case, the dependent variable is:
a) The physical state of the nuts.
b) The colour of the nuts.
c) The residual amount of nuts left over from the experiment.
d) The amount of water in the test tube.
e) The energy with be used up as the experiment progresses, as all the food will be burnt and the energy will be spent.
f) The temperature of the water in the test tube.
III. The controlled variable is the substance(s) and object(s) that will not change. In this case, the controlled variables are:
a. The original mass of the nuts at the beginning- 1.5 g
b. The amount of water used-20 cm3
c. The flame used to burn the nuts- blue flame.
d. Clamp position and hold over the test tube.
e. The difference of height between the nuts and the flame.
Apparatus/materials used:
The materials that I have used for this experiment are:
v 5 test tubes
v Droppers
v Bromine water
v Samples- Olive oil, Vegetable oil
v Margarine
v Formic Acid
v Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil
Method/Procedure That Will Be Used For This Experiment:
Pre-experiment…
¨ Before the start the actual experiment, we have to consider a variety of variables, and facts. A selection of food is put to the experimenter discretion and choice. Whatever is chosen has to be done so after a concrete aim has been selected and understood.
¨ The necessary apparatus has to be put together in the desired position and place.
¨ The desired materials have to be acquired from the selection of food. In my case, I chose the three nuts- cashew nut, pistachio, and peanuts.
¨ As a fair test was required, I decided that I would ground the nuts(separately of course), and use the same amount of nut for each experiment. I decided to use 1.5 g of each of the nuts as my experiment default.
¨ I then made sure I had the right amount of each of the nuts, by measuring it on the chemical balance.
¨ As I knew that dry biomass was an essential element in the burning of energy, I noted that the pistachio was a bit wet, compared to cashew and peanut, which were both a dusty powder after the grinding.
During the experiment…
¨ I took the temperature of water which had been put into the test tube.
¨ I turned on the Bunsen burner and put on the blue flame.
¨ I then put the Bunsen burner on top of the ceramic pot, so that the food endured maximum heat from the flame.
¨ I continued to hold the flame on top of the food, until it started to produce its own flame.
¨ I then quickly removed the Bunsen burner, and put the water-filled test tube on top of it. As a result, the heat of the food was heating the water directly.
¨ I kept an eye on the thermometer, which told me how my the temperature of the water was currently, and at what rate the water was heating up.
¨ After the ‘food flame’ had burnt itself out, I quickly measured the final temperature of the water and the amount of water that was left in the test tube.
¨ After the residual mass of food had cooled off, I measured the current weight of the food.
¨ I followed the same method for each of the nuts.
After the experiment…
I cleaned and cleared up all the used apparatus and work surfaces.
I recorded all findings in the appropriate table.
In order to find the amount of energy burnt, I had to use this simple formula:
Energy Produced by burning food = Mass of water (g) X 4.2J X Temperature rise (˚C)
Cashew nut can be used as an example as to how I found my required result [Refer to: Result Table, for measurements used in this example]:
Energy Produced by burning food = 20 (g) X 4.2J X 13 (˚C)
= 1092 J.
I followed the same method to find the energy burnt for pistachio and peanuts.
Name: Anushka Aritri Rahman Grade: 9-B
Result Table:
Table: All Data gathered from the ExperimentName of food / Mass of food before experiment
(g) / Mass of food after experiment
(g) / Temperature of water before experiment (˚C) / Temperature of water after experiment (˚C) / Total amount of temperature rise (˚C) / Mass of water before the experiment
(cm3) / Mass of water after the experiment (cm3) / Energy produced by 1.5 g of food (J)
Cashew nut / 1.5 / 0.50 / 28 / 41 / 13 / 20 / 19 / 1092
Pistachio / 1.5 / 1.02 / 26 / 29 / 3 / 20 / 18 / 252
Peanut / 1.5 / 0.89 / 21 / 30 / 10 / 20 / 20 / 840
Name: Anushka Aritri Rahman Grade: 9-B
Data Processing:
Name: Anushka Aritri Rahman Grade: 9-B
Data Analysis:
For the information that I have gathered, I thought that it would be best if I used three graphs to show and compare each type of data that were gathered. As all the collected data was inconsistent, I had to use bar graphs as my form of processed data. First, I drew graph which clearly showed the energy produced after each type of food was burnt. From this graph, I could see that cashew nut had by far produced the most energy out of the three (1092J), while the pistachio had produced the least (252J). However, given that all nuts contain high amounts of energy, there is likely to be some kind of error, either on my part, or some fault made during the experiment.
The second graph compared the increase of temperature of the water after the experiment, with its original temperature. Here, we can definitely see the increase of temperature, as the energy burnt gives off heat, and consequently heats up the water. Here we can see that the more energy the nut has (graph 1), the more the temperature of the water of is (graph 2). We can see this because yet again the cashew nut has the highest increase in water temperature compared to pistachio and peanut, and the pistachio has the lowest increase in water temperature compared to cashew nut, and peanut.
The third graph compared the decrease of mass of all the nuts, and again, we can see that the three types of data are inter-related. The cashew nut has the lowest mass compared to the others, and the pistachio has the highest. We can assume that this is because the cashew burnt the most, and the pistachio, the least.
Conclusion:
From the data analysis above, I can now conclude that my hypotheses are incorrect. Even though the pistachio and the cashew nut are from the same family, they have totally different amounts of energy. The only part where my third hypothesis turned out to be correct is that the cashew nut does have a high amount of energy. All of the data which were collected, seem are inter-related with each other. However, due to some unavoidable inaccuracies during the experiment as well as some limitations (See: Evaluation of the Procedure), there is still uncertainty as to how much my hypotheses can be applied in this subject, because of the inaccuracies involved.
Evaluation of the Procedure:
The mass of the foods used, were not only known, but were the same for all of the types of nuts. This made things easier to assess, without the awkwardness of inaccuracy hovering over my head. The apparatus were easy to handle, and nothing was impossible to understand.
The negative points of this experiment are so far and wide, that I can’t help but think ‘how was I so careless?’ Unfortunately, these negative points will have to be used as improvements if there is a next time to this experiment. The errors or questionable points are:
1. Reaction time- the amount of time taken to take away the Bunsen burner from the food, the amount of time taken to put the ceramic pot under the test tube, and so on. There is also the initial 0.25 s reaction time of our brain to register what it is seeing.
2. As the Bunsen burner was not at a fixed distance from the ceramic pot, an uncertainty can be developed as to how much heat the nuts were receiving; it was not a fair test from this point of view.
3. How much time each type of nut was taking to burn and how much it was burning, could not be accurately determined, as the time was not taken into account. This is a default in the planning, and has to be avoided from this point forward.
4. The food which was being used was expired, so there is a chance that it may not give as much energy as good food would.
5. The amount of water changed in the case of pistachio and cashew nut. Evaporation also has to be taken account of.
6. How much the food is being burnt and the residual amount seem to be related. So maybe the food was not properly burnt in the case of pistachio and peanuts, as their residual amount was quite close to its original mass.
7. The tests were taken on different days; therefore they were taken in different atmospheres. The difference between the starting temperatures can be problem, as well as the temperature, towards fair testing.
8. Also, the results were never properly checked, as there was not enough time. If I had had a chance to repeat each part of the experiment at least twice, then the average could have been taken, and more probable and accurate readings could have been taken.
As these errors and mistakes have been taken into account, improvements can also be made, so that if the experiment is repeated, these improvements can be considered, so that the same mistakes are not made again.
Here are some improvements:
1. 2 stop-watches can be used, so that one would time how much time it took to burn the food, and another would time how long it took to burn out. This way, we can tell how responsive each type of nut is to heat.
2. Next time, the time will have to be managed more efficiently, and each part of the experiment can be repeated. Also the test will have to be taken with the same
3. The Bunsen burner can be fixed at an angle by a clamp; therefore the food will receive the same amount of heat all the way through the test.
4. The food used next time could be real food, instead of expired food.
There are many ways to extend this investigation. For example, does the quality of a single type of nut effect the amount of energy it will give out? In other words, will the fact that it is expired or still good effect the amount of energy it gives out? What about other nuts? More nuts can be taken into account, for example, kernel, almond, chestnut, oats, and so on. Availability and cost will also have to be taken into account for these extensions.
Work Cited:
Pardee, William D. "Peanut." Microsoft® Encarta® 2006 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 2005.
“Cashew".Microsoft® Encarta® 2006 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 2005.
Stern, Kingsley R. "Fruit." Microsoft® Encarta® 2006 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 2005.
Work Consulted:
"Energy." Microsoft® Encarta® 2006 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 2005.