Here is our SetBC project on Bat Conservation. We are proud of the work we’ve put in and how it turned out. We hope it will make a positive change in our community.
Science 10 Honours
EnLIGHTening chemical reactions involving flames
Today we did a series of experiments which involved chemical reactions and equations.
The three tests were with calcium metal and water, decomposition of hydrogen peroxide, and sodium carbonate and hydrochloric acid.
Calcium metal and water
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab The gas we were testing for was hydrogen gas and we could tell that we got the correct one because we used a lit splint and water. When the fuel (the splint) reacted to the calcium and water mixed together, the heat from the flame and the chemicals made a loud sound because of how fast and how hot everything in the test tube. The molecules expanded and that caused the flame to extinguish and create a noise. Also, the only time hydrogen reacts with air is when there is an ignited flame that creates oxygen. Therefore, the product of hydrogen gas and oxygen is water
Decomposition of hydrogen peroxide
Loading...
The gas we tested for in this experiment was oxygen gas and we knew we had the correct gas because the glowing embers of the splint were able to ignite when placed inside the test tube. The reason why the embers could create a flame was because when hydrogen peroxide decomposes, it then turns into water and oxygen. Since fire needs oxygen and fuel to ignite and with the oxygen in the test tube, it immediately caused the embers to create a flame. There was also a popping noise when the splint entered the tube and created the flame and this was from how quickly the heat and oxygen molecules reacted with one another.
Sodium carbonate and hydrochloric acid
Loading...
The gas we tested for this time was carbon dioxide gas and we knew we had the correct gas because the flame was extinguished when it entered the test tube. In order for fire to stay ignited, it needs heat, fuel, and oxygen and when one of this aspects are not present, the flames cannot stay lit. Since one of the products of this reaction created carbon dioxide, this made it impossible for a flame to substain itself.
Knowing how embers and flames react with gases such as hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide gas can be extremely helpful in our everyday lives. By knowing was extinguished and ignites flames, it can be useful for potentially stopping a fire from spreading, since you know what will kill the flame and what will make it worse. Also, you know what to expose or not expose open flames to and this can help prevent a fire.
Overall, this experiment was an awesome experience and I’m glad I got the chance to work on balancing equations and seeing the different chemical reactions!
Epigenetics Sway
Our task was to research our given topic and create a presentation for the class and have a seperate script to read off of. Our topic was epigenetics which is the study of how your environment affects your phenotype. Throughout this assignment I learned a lot about how this relates to the “Nature vs Nurture” concept and much more!
Mendelian Genetics – Cystic Fibrosis
Our task today was to research a Mendelian genetic trait and find some interesting information about it. The trait I picked is Cystic Fibrosis.
Cystic Fibrosis is a fatal genetic disease that affects Canadians of all ages and currently, there is no cure. This disease has many awful effects on the human body, mostly in the digestive system and the lungs. For certain people the severity of the disease worsens and then destroys the lungs and their function which then eventually ends the life of many. There are many complications caused by Cystic Fibrosis such as trouble digesting fats and proteins, sinus infections, lung damage and infections, diabetes, and much more.
The cause of this awful disease starts when a child receives two defective recessive copies of the Cystic Fibrosis gene, one coming from each parent. About one in every twenty-five Canadians carry one copy of this gene and they are perfectly normal, healthy, and do not have any of the symptoms related to the disease. However, when two carriers of the CF gene have a child together, there is a 25% chance the child will be born with the disease as well. There is a 50% chance the child will be a carrier, as well as a 25% chance the child will not carry the gene at all, leaving them free of the disease. This shows that the percentage of people that get the dominant gene rather than the recessive gene is 75% – 25% because even if you carry the recessive gene, you need two faulty copies to have the disease.
Citations
“What Is Cystic Fibrosis?” Cystic Fibrosis Canada, Cystic Fibrosis Canada, www.cysticfibrosis.ca/about-cf/what-is-cystic-fibrosis.
DNA Isolation – Human Cheek Cells
Today we did an experiment using our cheek cells to extract DNA out of the nucleus. We took the cells out of some water that was swished inside our mouths. We then added 20 drops of Salt Water and mixed the substances together. Afterwards, we added 20 drops of alcohol and observed the way the liquids reacted to one another. We then were able to see our very own DNA in the test tube! It was an interesting experiment and a cool opportunity to learn about DNA.
Bubble Gum Science Lab
Today our task was to find out what brand of gum produces the biggest bubbles.There were two parts to this lab – blowing the bubbles and stretching the gum itself. The two brands were Hubba Bubba and Big League Chew. From our first observations, we noticed that the two gums were physically different from one another: Hubba Bubba (Gum A) was a solid, square piece and the Big League Chew (Gum B) was in thin, short strings. After observing the two chewing gums, we came to a hypothesis that was If the Hubba Bubba gum is chewed, then it will stretch farther than Big League Chew because the cube-shaped solid consistency is much stronger than the small strings.
We soon tested our hypothesis by chewing each gum for 3 minutes and then blowing a few bubbles each. We found it to be incorrect since the average diameter length for Gum A was only 8.3 cm compared to 10 cm from Gum B.
After the first experiment from Part 1, we then observed some key points:
- The consistency of gum B was much softer and this helped it mold together easier and much quicker, which lead it to be easier to produce large bubbles with it.
- Gum B started already in a solid form which meant the person chewing it had to chew at a much faster rate so that it could be as mixed together as possible.
For part 2 we had to hold the gum by either side and then walk as far apart from each other as possible to see the distance the gum could be stretched. We knew that the stretch ability of the gum has much to do with the bubble size because in order to produce bigger bubbles, the gum must be able to stretch farther.
When we took gum A, it only reached 49 cm whereas gum B stretched only 39 cm.
After the two experiments, we noticed that the results were opposite each other. However, there were some key factors that could have affected the results of our tests:
- The ability we had to blow our bubbles – if we couldn’t blow very well, it didn’t properly represent the stretch ability of the gum
- How the gum was chewed – was it being chewed fast or slow? This could affect the final consistency of the gum
- The strength of the jaw – if your jaw isn’t very strong, it makes it very difficult to keep up the pace and constantly chewing.
- Whether or not the person was talking – it isn’t very easy to chew gum while talking!
- How recently the gum was chewed before being stretched – if it had sat out for a while, the gum will harden and this will make it harder to stretch
Final Conclusion
After observing what happened with both parts of the experiment and getting opposite results both times, my hypothesis should be refuted because the 5 factors that I listed definitely played a role in the success of the experiment. Overall, I think that the stretch ability of the gum has a major affect on the results because it isn’t easy to blow bubbles with stiff gum because the amount of air being taken into the bubble is significantly smaller than with a soft piece of gum. I also think that the time that gum A had been sitting out really affected our results as well. When we tried to pull it apart, it stiffened quickly and was tougher to stretch out. Despite the fact that gum A was able to be pulled farther apart (not by much), it does prove our hypothesis to have some truth in that the solid consistency was stronger than a thin consistency. Although the results were not super accurate, this experiment proved that Gum B was the better gum for blowing bubbles because of the way the gum is before chewing (thin and stringy), how easily it molded together, and the smooth and elastic-like consistency. I do think that if the experiment was to be completely accurate, we would need to revise our hypothesis, do some more precise observations, and retest the experiment.
