A increase in the enzyme’s strength (Trail 3) -To break two toothpicks at a time. Dependent Variables The number of toothpicks broken. The reaction Procedure 1. Gather 50 toothpicks. 2. Place them in a pile on the table. -To tape the index 3. Choose one member of your group of 4 to break the toothpicks. They are the one and only “enzyme”. 4. Using the “enzyme’s” thumb and index finger on your dominant hand, break the toothpicks completely in half. Repeat this for 120 seconds and record the amount of broken toothpicks every 10 seconds. Break the toothpicks without looking. Once broken, the “enzyme” must drop the toothpicks directly back into the same pile of unbroken toothpicks. 6. Choose one person to record the amount of broken toothpicks, the time (10 second intervals of 120), and a person to count the toothpicks during the reactions. 7. Repeat steps 1-6 except the “enzyme’s” index finger and thumb must be taped together. Record your quantitative results. (Trail 2) 8. Repeat steps 1-6 again and allow the enzyme to break two toothpicks at a time. Record your results. Lab report toothpicks By Jewell-Prim DATA AND OBSERVATIONS Observations
The “enzyme” we chose was Mohammed, a boy. The table we worked on was flat and smooth. Data Tables and Graphs *the graphs are separately attached. Control- Enzyme Reaction Time (10 seconds) Number of Reactions Reaction Rate 10 2 http/10 sec 20 5 http/10 sec 7 http/1 Cosec 11 http/10 sec 50 12 1 tap/10 sec 14 70 18 24 110 26 120 27 Trail 2- Enzyme Mutation (Tied Fingers) Time (10 Seconds) 3 4 Top/l O sec 6 8 9 Trial 3- Enzyme Mutation (Breaking two at a time) 15 Data Analysis: Trends/ Significant Findings The trend of the control graph is to increase at a standard rate of 2 toothpicks per 10 seconds.
As time went on and towards the end of the two minutes the rate started to stay the same. The trend between the Control and the Trail 2- Enzyme Mutation (Tied Fingers) graph is that Trail 2 produced fewer reactions, averaging at 1 toothpick per 10 second, in the same amount of time. This is because the “enzyme’s” index and middle finger were taped together, preventing it to conduct efficient work. The trend between the Control and the Trail 3- Enzyme Mutation (Breaking two at a time) graph is that the line displayed an initial increase, then a gradual decline. Finally, the rate increased once again and then started to stabilize.
This applies to the graph of Trail 3 where the enzyme broke two toothpicks at a time to increase the substrate. SOURCES OF ERROR Possible Errors The toothpicks used were not all the same. The toothpicks that were broken may not all of been completely broken in half. The ‘enzyme” may have looked during the breaking of the toothpicks. The recorder or counter may have made a mistake while counting the toothpicks. Error Influence of A particular brand of toothpicks may have been stronger than others, which would low the reaction rate because more force would have to be exerted during the reaction.
The toothpicks that aren’t broken completely in half do not count as a reaction therefore they could not influence the reaction rate. If the “enzyme” looks while conducting the reaction then it doesn’t count towards the reaction rate and then decreasing it. If a reaction was accidentally over looked that could’ve increased or decreased the reaction rate, then the data is inaccurate Control of Error The brand could have been controlled by keeping all of the same toothpicks together ND only using those. The clean break of toothpicks could have been controlled by the “enzyme” making sure that the break was complete by feeling the substrate.
The error of looking could have been prevented by blind folding the “enzyme”. The error of inaccurate counting could have been prevented by doing more trails. This wouldn’t prevent the mistake since it is human error but, it could validate accuracy. CONCLUSION The hypothesis for Trial 2 was if the enzyme has a weakening mutation then the reaction rate will be slower compared to the Control Trial’s. The hypothesis was purported because based off of the data and trends of the graph the reaction rate averaged at 1 toothpick per 10 seconds while the Control Trial’s reaction rate averaged at 2. 5 toothpicks every 10 seconds. This decrease in reaction rate is due to the mutation of taping the “enzyme’s” index finger and thumb together. As shown in the Reaction Rate vs.. Time graph, you may notice a decrease in the reaction rate over 120 seconds by the green line. The decrease in reaction rate between the control and this case of a mutated enzyme that is shown can be attributed to the hindering tuition of the dominant hand. Since taping the index finger and thumb together was the only thing changed this mutation was responsible for the decrease in reaction rate.
This can relate to the present world because scientific studies have shown that some mutated enzymes will have fewer reactions with the substrates therefore they decrease the reaction rate. The hypothesis for Trial 3 is if the enzyme has a strengthening mutation then the reaction rate will be quicker compared to the Control Trial. This hypothesis was refuted because due to the evidence presented in he data graphs and tables, the reaction rate averages at about one broken toothpick every 10 seconds while the Control averaged at about 2. 5 toothpicks every 10 seconds. The initial increase and the gradual decline of the reaction rate can be attributed to the mutation of the “enzyme” breaking two toothpicks at a time. Referencing the orange line on the Reaction Rate vs.. Time graph there was an overall decrease in the reaction rate compared to the Control Trial’s, the purple line. This decrease in reaction rate between the mutated abilities of the enzyme and the intro indicates that by increasing the amount of toothpicks the enzyme could break even caused a decrease in the reaction rate.
Since breaking two toothpicks at a time reaction rate. I can relate this to real life situations because if more used products are in the way of the new substrates then it will be hard to identify which one can be used. After completing this experiment I am led to conclude that the reaction rate of an enzyme will fluctuate between high and low amounts of reactions but it will ultimately decrease as the substrates become harder to find. INTRODUCTION The problem during this experiment was needing a physical representation of enzyme action.
In order to do this we simulated enzyme reactions through breaking toothpicks. In the experiment one person is the “enzyme” and will be breaking the toothpicks. The other members of the group will be writing down the quantitative results, timing the reactions, or counting the reactions. After that you will find the reaction rate of each trial. At least two trials need to have been changed in a way that would alter your results. You can compare your results using a line graph. There you ill be able to see how each reaction rate is different.
Finally you can conclude why. An enzyme is a catalyst therefore it can decrease the activation energy that is needed to start a chemical reaction but still increase the rate of the chemical reaction. Enzymes exist in living things and are found as proteins in cells. A substrate is a specific reactant that an enzyme acts on. Each enzyme has a specific substrate that it will only act on. The different conditions that an enzyme is exposed to, whether it be temperature, mutation, or increased substrates, will affect the reaction that an enzyme has.
Catalysts are needed to speed up the process of essential chemical reactions that occur at an organism’s body temperature. When substrates bind to an enzyme the chemical bonds start to grow weaker resulting in the need for less activation energy in order to break the bonds. In this experiment there were many roles. One person of a group acts as an enzyme for the whole experiment. Specifically, their index finger and thumb on their dominant hand is the enzyme. The toothpicks are the substrate. The active site, where the substrate and enzyme fit together, is in between your finger and thumb.
The product from the chemical action that is using the “enzyme” is the halved toothpicks. The hypothesis for the Control Trial was if the enzyme is without mutation then the reaction rate will be constant. Our second hypothesis, For Trial 2, was if the enzyme has a weakening mutation then the reaction rate will be slow compared to the Control Trial. Our final hypothesis, for Trial 3, was if the enzyme has a strengthening mutation then the reaction rate will be quicker, in comparison to the Control Trial.
