Published using Google Docs
IB Membrane Diffusion Lab
Updated automatically every 5 minutes

Membrane Diffusion Lab[1]

In order to survive, all organisms need to move molecules in and out of their cells. Molecules such as gasses (e.g., O2, CO2), water, food, and wastes pass across the cell membrane. There are two ways that the molecules move through the membrane: passive transport and active transport. While active transport requires that the cell uses chemical energy to move substances through the cell membrane, passive transport does not require such energy expenditures. Passive transport occurs spontaneously, using heat energy from the cell's environment.

Diffusion is the movement of molecules by passive transport from a region in which they are highly concentrated to a region in which they are less concentrated. Diffusion continues until the molecules are randomly distributed throughout the system, thus reaching equilibrium. Osmosis, the movement of water across a membrane, is a special case of diffusion. Water molecules are small and can easily pass through the membrane. Other molecules, such as proteins, DNA, RNA, and salts are too large to diffuse through the cell membrane. The membrane is said to be semipermeable, since it allows some molecules to diffuse through but not others.

If the concentration of water on one side of the membrane is different than on the other side, water will move through the membrane seeking to equalize the concentration of water on both sides. When water concentration outside a cell is greater than inside, the water moves into the cell faster than it leaves, and the cell swells. The cell membrane acts somewhat like a balloon. If too much water enters the cell, the cell can burst, killing the cell. Cells usually have some mechanism for preventing too much water from entering, such as pumping excess water out of the cell or making a tough outer coat that will not rupture. When the concentration of water inside of a cell is greater than outside, water moves out of the cell faster than it enters, and the cell shrinks. If a cell becomes too dehydrated, it may not be able to survive. Under ideal conditions, the water concentration outside is nearly identical to that inside.

Key Terms:

Objectives:

Research Question:

Hypothesis:

Materials: (for each group)

Procedure:

  1. Label each beaker with its appropriate solution concentration.
  2. Pour 50 ml of distilled water into the beaker marked “0.0M.”
  3. Repeat this for the remaining saline solutions in the 5 beakers with their respective saline solutions.
  4. Cut 6 potato cubes to a length of 2cm3 (be as accurate as possible!). Remove any skin from the cubes.
  5. Find and record the mass for each potato cube and record in Table 1 under “Initial Mass.”
  6. Place 0.0 Molar potato cube in its’ respected beaker.
  7. Repeat Steps 5 and 6 for each of the remaining saline solution beakers.
  8. Ensure that all potato cubes are completely submerged; add an equal amount of solution to all beakers if one cube is not submerged.
  9. After 48 hours, remove the potato cube out of the 0.0 Molar Solution cup and carefully blot dry with a paper-towel.
  10. Find and record  the 0.0 Molar potato cube mass under Final Mass in Table 1.
  11. Repeat Steps 11 and 12 for each of the remaining saline solutions.
  12. Calculate the percent change in mass for each of the solutions:( (Final Mass-Initial Mass)/Initial Mass) x 100%
  13. Turn in group data for Percent Change in Mass for each solution concentration here.

Data Tables:

Table 1: Raw Data Individual Mass Change in Potato Tissue in Various Salt Solutions

Solution Molarity

Initial Mass (g)

Final Mass (g)

% Change in Mass

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Table 2. Raw Data Class Mean % Change in Mass in Potato tissue in various Saline Concentrations

*Each Trial represents the data from a different class group as found on the class data spreadsheet.

Percent Change of Potato Trials

Molarity of Solutions

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Table 3. Summarized Data Class Mean % Change in Mass in Potato tissue in various Saline Concentrations

Percent Change of Potato Trials

Molarity of Solutions

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Mean

Standard Deviation

SEM

95% CI

Copy and paste these tables into Excel in order to complete the calculations, then copy it back into this document (no need to fill it out twice).

Table 4. Measurement Uncertainties of Potato Cube Size

Mass Measurement Uncertainty

Table 5. Qualitative Observations of salt Concentration Effect on Potato Cube Mass

0.0 Molar

0.2 Molar

0.4 Molar

0.6 Molar

0.8 Molar

1.0 Molar

Qualitative Observations

Data Analysis

Evaluation

Turn-In:

Turn in via Canvas

Assessment:

IB Mark

Analysis Descriptor

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence that the student has

recorded, processed and presented the data in ways that are relevant to the research question.

5-6

  • The communication of the recording and processing of the data is both clear and precise.
  • The recording and processing of data shows evidence of an appropriate consideration of uncertainties.
  • The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out appropriately and accurately.

3-4

  • The communication of the recording and processing of the data is either clear or precise.
  • The recording and processing of data shows evidence of a consideration of uncertainties but with some significant omissions or inaccuracies.
  • The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with some significant omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.

1-2

  • The recording and processing of the data is communicated but is neither clear nor precise.
  • The recording and processing of data shows limited evidence of the consideration of uncertainties.
  • Some processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.

0

  • The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors above.

IB Mark

Conclusion Descriptor

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student successfully answers their research question with regard to their analysis and the accepted scientific context.

5-6

  • A conclusion is justified that is relevant to the research question and fully consistent with the analysis presented.
  • A conclusion is justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.

3-4

  • A conclusion is described that is relevant to the research question but is not fully consistent with the analysis presented.
  • A conclusion is described that makes some relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context

1-2

  • A conclusion is stated that is relevant to the research question but is not supported by the analysis presented.
  • The conclusion makes superficial comparison to the accepted scientific context.

0

  • The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors above.

IB Mark

Evaluation Descriptor

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence of evaluation of the

investigation methodology and has suggested improvements.

5-6

  • The report explains the relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses or limitations.
  • Realistic improvements to the investigation, that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or limitations, are explained.

3-4

  • The report describes specific methodological weaknesses or limitations.
  • Realistic improvements to the investigation that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or limitations, are described.

1-2

  • The report states generic methodological weaknesses or limitations.
  • Realistic improvements to the investigation are stated.

0

  • The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors above.


[1] This lab is primarily adapted from Mr. Herbstritt’s IB Biology Diffusion Lab.  The background information is from Vernier’s Osmosis Lab, #22.