Burgin Drylie Introduction Every year, somewhere around 3,400 people and countless numbers of household pets die

e from ingesting ethylene glycol, the most common component of antifreeze (Antifreeze Factsheet). Ethylene glycol is a sweet-tasting, odorless chemical that can kill a grown man with as little as 120 milliliters. Victims that consume ethylene glycol are afflicted by mental symptoms that mimic drunkenness and physiological symptoms such as seizures, arrhythmias, respiratory distress, and even heart failure or coma. If no medical help is sought, the victim may suffer irreparable renal damage and will ultimately die. An alternative to ethylene glycol is propylene glycol, a chemical commonly used in food preservatives, but the use of propylene glycol is expensive, averaging $100 dollars per gallon (Propylene Glycol, 500 mL), while ethylene glycol is comparably cheaper, approximately $60 per gallon (Ethylene Glycol, 500 mL). Another potential alternative for use in antifreeze is the chemical glycerin, a byproduct of biodiesel. Glycerin is a natural, non-toxic, easily accessible chemical. It was first used in antifreeze as early as the 1900s, but because biodiesel was uncommon, it was very expensive and difficult to come by in its naturally occurring form. Ethylene glycol was cheaper antifreeze that eventually made the use of glycerin obsolete. However, since biodiesel production has been growing steadily for the last three years, reaching 1.1 billion gallons annually in 2011 and 2012, there now exists a surplus of glycerin (Production Statistics). Today, one gallon of glycerin costs about $87 (Glycerin, 500 mL). Although more expensive then the

Burgin Drylie toxic ethylene glycol, it is cheaper than the other nontoxic antifreeze, propylene glycol. This research intended to discover if a safer and less expensive antifreeze than ethylene glycol or propylene glycol exists, concentrating on glycerin. The purpose of this research was to determine if glycerin, now readily available, is as effective an antifreeze as the commonly used chemicals ethylene and propylene glycol. Glycerin as an antifreeze would be a safe, environmentally friendly alternative. Since the purpose of antifreeze is to lower the freezing point of water so that fluid in car engines does not freeze in the winter, the experiment tested the freezing point depression of different concentrations of solutions made with ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, and glycerin. A control of pure water was also tested. The experiment tried to discover which chemical depressed the freezing point the most by finding which solution had the smallest change in temperature. This was done by measuring the change in temperature after a certain amount of time after the solutions were submersed in an ice-water bath. The chemical that allowed the temperature of the solution to change by the smallest amount was the most effective antifreeze. This is because the solution froze at a slower rate. If it was determined that glycerin was as or more effective than the more commonly used chemicals in antifreeze, it could potentially replace the harsh and dangerous chemicals. Non-toxic antifreeze would be safer for humans, pets, and the environment. Because glycerin is being made more abundant in recent times do to its status as a byproduct of biodiesel production, this antifreeze that is safe

Burgin Drylie to humans and to the environments is also cheaper than what is currently on the market. If glycerin was proven effective, the results of this experiment could be used in the future to employ glycerin as safer, inexpensive antifreeze to replace the common, toxic chemicals used today.

Burgin Drylie Review of Literature Antifreeze is a substance that lowers the freezing temperature of a water solution. There are numerous different antifreezes with different uses. Some types are used in car engines while some are used in the environment. Road salt, for instance is an antifreeze that allows ice to melt at lower temperatures by adding ions that disrupt water molecules to make it harder for them to join together and form ice, so that roads are not icy (Marder). Antifreeze agents can also be used to keep brittle items that contain water from cracking in cold conditions due to the expansion of water as it freezes. Antifreeze also elevates the boiling point of a solution so that water will not boil until higher temperatures are reached, so that engines in cars do not overheat (How Does Antifreeze). Perhaps the most well-known application of antifreeze chemicals is the use of a mixture of antifreeze and water as coolant in automobile engines.

Figure 1. Diagram of Vehicle Engine (Jenkins)

Burgin Drylie Figure 1above shows a diagram of a vehicle engine with components vital to making the vehicle move labeled. In an engine, there are pistons situated inside of cylinders in the chamber of the engine. These pistons are attached to cams which are attached to cam shafts. Inside each of the chambers, there are fuel injection systems. In a timed fashion, a small amount of gasoline is sprayed into the cylinder. At the exact moment that the fuel is sprayed into the cylinder, the spark plug sparks and a small explosion occurs. This explosion forces the piston down into the cylinder head. When the piston is pushed down the cylinder, the cam shaft rotates, and lobes on the cam shaft turn other pistons back up toward the top. The cam shaft is connected to a drive shaft that turns the wheels, and this process repeats at a fast pace to make the car move. However, the burning gas in the combustion makes the engine get very hot, which can potentially cause the engine to overheat (Brain).

Figure 2. Diagram of Vehicle Cooling System and Radiator (Dasan) 5

Burgin Drylie When an engine overheats, the car does not function properly. Thus, a cooling system must be used to keep the engine running at a safe temperature. Such a system is shown above in Figure 2. This system involves a radiator that is typically located in the front of the engine. Various tubes are attached to radiator and go to other points in the engine that need to be cooled (Jennings). A mixture of water and antifreeze circulates through the system to keep the engine cool, as the heat from the system is transferred to the coolant, due to the Law of Thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy is always transferred, and is therefore changed and transferred in the system. The coolant circulates through and around the head of engine to keep it cool and eventually goes back to the radiator where it is cooled by fans and circulated back through the system (Nice). Water alone cannot be used as a coolant in the engine. Water alone freezes at too high of a temperature, 0 C, and boils at too low of a temperature, 100 C, to keep from freezing or boiling inside the engine in extreme temperatures. For this reason, it is necessary to use a solution of antifreeze and water inside of the car to keep the coolant from boiling or freezing when temperature extremes are reached because adding a solution to the water may lower the freezing point or raise the boiling point of water due to the disruption of molecules created by the addition of solution (Antifreeze Factsheet). As temperatures inside the engine can rise above the boiling point of water, a solution must be used to elevate the boiling point of the coolant so that it does not boil inside the radiator. However, this solution also serves as a freezing point

Burgin Drylie depressant in the winter when temperatures drop below freezing to keep the coolant from freezing when the engine is not running. Antifreeze is therefore an important feature in automobiles. To understand how antifreeze works, one must understand why water freezes when its temperature reaches freezing point, 0C. Liquid water becomes solid as the temperature decreases due to a loss of heat that slows the molecules down. Bonds between molecules are formed as more energy is released, and the water becomes solid. The molecules then form a crystalline structure and freeze to form ice (Luedtke).

Figure 3. The Freezing of Pure Water vs. the Freezing of a Solution (Snelling) Antifreeze changes the freezing point of water so that water does not freeze until a lower temperature has been reached.. When the temperature of pure water drops to 0C, the water molecules have slowed down enough for ice to form. When a dissolvable substance, known as the solute, is added to water, ions are introduced to the water that disrupt the placement of the molecules of water and the formation of the crystalline structure of ice is impeded. The water molecules are forced to move farther apart from each other, and more energy 7

Burgin Drylie must be removed before the molecules slow down enough to form bonds and become solid. Therefore, a lower temperature must be reached before water can freeze when a solute is added (Solutions and Colligative Properties: Antifreeze). The difference in how pure water and solutions change is shown in the graphs in Figure 3. This difference is called freezing point depression, as the freezing point of the solution is lower than the freezing point of water. When water boils, it changes from its liquid phase to its gas phase, water vapor. This occurs because when water reaches its boiling point of 100C, its vapor pressure is equal to the vapor pressure of the outside air, and water vapor escapes in the form of steam. This pressure is caused by the movement of molecules, which increases as the molecules gain energy in the form of heat.

Figure 4. Boiling Point Elevation (Smith) When solutes are added to the water, the vapor pressure of the water decreases as additional ions are added to disrupt the water molecules so that it takes a higher temperature for the liquid water to change to steam. This is called boiling point elevation, as the boiling point of the solution is higher than the 8

Burgin Drylie boiling point of water (Widom). This process is shown in Figure 4 above, as the boiling point of the solution, the curve labeled 1, is higher than the boiling point of water, the curve labeled 2. Freezing point and boiling point of water are colligative properties. This means that they depend on the concentration of the dissolved substance, the antifreeze, and not on the chemical properties of the solute added. This is the case because it depends on the number of ions introduced to displace the water molecules, and not on the identity of said ions. However, not just any chemical solutes can be put into cars and expected to be safe to use as antifreeze. The chemicals used as antifreeze must be nonvolatile, non-corrosive, and safe to use at the temperatures required in an engine. That is, they must not evaporate under normal conditions, and they must not be damaging to the chemical makeup of the engine of the car. In automobiles today, the most common antifreeze used is composed of ethylene glycol (C2H6O2), dyes, and corrosion inhibitors. This chemical is noncorrosive and stable at high temperatures and is safe to use in cars. Unfortunately, ethylene glycol is a toxic chemical, and ethylene glycol poisoning is not uncommon. Ethylene glycol is sweet tasting substance that can be accidentally ingested by animals and children. As the chemical metabolizes in the body, it forms metabolites that are toxic to humans, and that inhibit many systems that are necessary to keep the body functioning. As these toxins move through the system, the body is subject to damage that is often irreparable. Ingesting as little as 100 mL of ethylene glycol can prove to be fatal, and

Burgin Drylie ingesting any of the substance can cause mental symptoms that mimic drunkenness, and physiological symptoms such as seizures, arrhythmias, coma, and renal damage that may take over a year to fully recover from (Bannerjee). Using a nontoxic antifreeze in automobiles would therefore be a sensible choice. Another chemical, propylene glycol (C3H8O2), is used as a green, safe, antifreeze by some people, but it is more expensive than ethylene glycol. Today, one gallon of pure ethylene glycol can be purchased for about $60 (Ethylene Glycol, 500 mL) while one gallon of pure propylene glycol can be purcha sed for about $100 (Propylene Glycol, 500 mL). Although ethylene glycol and propylene glycol are generally the only antifreeze agents used in cars, another substance, glycerin (C3H8O3), has being considered as an alternative antifreeze in recent years. In the past, glycerin was used as automobile antifreeze but it was not as readily available as ethylene glycol. In recent times, however, glycerin is more readily available, as it is a product of biofuel production that is becoming more and more common (Treacy). If glycerin is as effective at lowering the freezing point and raising the boiling point of water, it could be used as antifreeze today, as a safer alternative to ethylene glycol. To determine if glycerin was as effective an antifreeze as the more commonly used chemicals, a freezing point depression laboratory experiment was performed. A boiling point elevation procedure was planned, but could not be carried out due to safety issues that arose after reviewing the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS).

10

Burgin Drylie One such freezing point depression experiment was published by a Wisconsin AP Chemistry school teacher, Michael Nikson. In his experiment, a solution made of a chemical and distilled water was placed into a test tube and the tube was placed into an ice-salt bath inside of a beaker. The test tube solution was stirred until ice crystals formed and the temperature at that point was recorded to be the freezing point of the solution (Nikson). The methods used in Nikson's experiment are similar to the methods used in this experiment in that a chemical-water solution in a test tube is placed into an ice-water-salt bath in a beaker. However, Nikson's methods differ from methods used in this experiment because the solution does not get stirred. A temperature probe measures the change in temperature as the solution remains in the ice water, and the freezing point is calculated that way. Another way the effectiveness of glycerin as an antifreeze could be tested was through a boiling point elevation laboratory experiment. One experiment that tested this was published by a teacher at a notable Korean school, Jeong S. Joo. The boiling point was found using this experiment by recording the temperature of each chemical solution as they were heated until the solution boiled. The boiling point was reached when the temperature remained constant for three readings at 30 second intervals (Joo). Unfortunately, due to laboratory limitations and safety issues that were brought up after reviewing the MSDS, an experiment comparing the boiling points of these chemicals could not be performed. The hypothesis was tested by carrying out an experiment that compares freezing

11

Burgin Drylie point. Glycerins ability to change the rate at which water freezes will be used as judgment of how effective it is as an antifreeze. Common antifreeze, although useful, is dangerous to humans, animals, and the environment when it is made with ethylene glycol. Unfortunately, ethylene glycol is cost-effective compared to a less harmful antifreeze chemical, propylene glycol. As a byproduct of biodiesel production, glycerin could potentially be a cost-effective, eco-friendly alternative to the chemicals most commonly used in antifreeze.

12

Burgin Drylie Problem Statement Problem: To determine if glycerin is an effective antifreeze by comparing the change in temperature of glycerin solutions to solutions of ethylene glycol and propylene glycol at three different concentrations. Hypothesis: There will be no statistical difference between the mean changes in temperatures of the solutions, and glycerin will therefore be an effective antifreeze. Data Measured: The independent variables in the experiment were the type of chemical, either glycerin, ethylene glycol, or propylene glycol, and the concentration of the solution which was measured in molarity (M). The dependent variable in the experiment was the change in temperature of the solution, measured in C. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was carried out to determine if there was a significant difference in the mean changes in temperature of each concentration of each temperature.

13

Burgin Drylie Experimental Design Materials: Ethylene Glycol, C2H6O2 Propylene Glycol, C3H8O2 Glycerin, C3H8O3 Graduated Cylinder, 10 mL Graduated Cylinder, 50 mL (2) Stir Rod (10) Beaker, 50 mL (1) Beaker, 600 mL Ring Stand (2) Test Tube Clamp (4) Test Tube, 50 mL Temperature Probe LabQuest Distilled Water Ice Rock Salt, NaCl Spoon (3) Weighboat 1000 mL Beaker Refrigerator

Procedures: 1. Fill a 1000 mL beaker with water and place in refrigerator to keep the water cold. 2. In the 50 mL beakers, prepare three solutions each of ethylene glycol, propylene glycol and glycerin by using the graduated cylinders to measure the necessary volume of the chemical with the necessary volume of distilled water. Refer to Appendix A for detailed procedures on how the solutions were made. 3. 4. Fill the last 50 mL beaker with 30 mL of distilled water. Setup the LabQuest by attaching the temperature probe and verifying that the data collection is set to time based, and that the trial will run for 20 minutes, taking a data point every 0.1 minute. 5. Measure three 15 g samples of rock salt into three separate weigh boats.

14

Burgin Drylie 6. Fill the 600 mL beaker with approximately 200 mL of ice, and add water from the refrigerated beaker until the ice water reaches the 200 mL line on the beaker. 7. Set up the ring stand by placing the 600 mL beaker containing the ice water on the stand and attaching the two test tube clamps so that they are close together and nearly touching the top of the beaker. 8. 9. 10. Place 10 mL of the first solution in the test tube. Place the test tube in the lower test tube clamp. Place the temperature probe in the test tube, and secure by tightening the top test tube clamp on the temperature probe. 11. 12. Start data collection. Quickly lower the test tube clamps so that the test tube with temperature probe is inside the ice water bath. 13. When 0.5 minutes have passed since the data collection started, add one of the 15 g samples of salt to the ice water and stir with a stirring rod until the salt is no longer sitting on top of the ice. 14. After seven minutes have passed, add another 200 mL of ice and refrigerated water and another 15 g of salt to the ice water bath and stir. 15. Repeat the process with a final 200 mL of ice water and the final weigh boat of 15 g of salt after 14 minutes have passed. 16. When the 20 minutes are up, save the data and record the change in temperature that occurred.

15

Burgin Drylie 17. Repeat for four trials each of the other solutions and the control of pure distilled water. Diagram:

Temperature Probe

Ring Stand

Clamps

Rock Salt

Propylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Glycerin

50 mL Test Tube Distilled Water

1000 mL Beaker 600 mL Beaker Graduated Cylinder Spoon Weigh Boats Stir Rod Figure 5. Materials Figure 5 shows all of the materials used in the experiment. 50 mL Beaker LabQuest Ice

Cold Water

16

Burgin Drylie

Figure 6. Setup of Experiment Figure 6 shows the setup of the experiment. The solution is inside the test tube in the ice water bath and is being measured by the temperature probe.

17

Burgin Drylie Data and Observations Table 1 Average Temperature Change of 3M Solutions 3M Solutions of Ethylene Glycol, Glycerin, and Propylene Glycol Initial Volume Trial of Solution (mL) 5 16 29 36 2 11 30 40 13 23 28 32 10.0 10.1 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.9 10.0 10.0 9.9 10.0 10.1 10.0 Starting Temp. of Solution (C) 21.1 21.6 23.0 21.6 20.1 22.2 21.9 21.9 19.5 23.9 22.7 23.8 Ending Temp. of Solution (C) 0.2 -0.6 -1.6 -2.0 -0.4 -2.4 -2.5 -0.3 -3.4 -2.3 0.0 -0.1 Temp. Change (C) 20.9 22.2 24.6 23.6 20.5 24.6 24.4 22.2 22.9 26.2 22.7 23.9 Avg. Change in Temp. (C)

Chemical

Ethylene Glycol

22.8

Glycerin

22.9

Propylene Glycol

23.9

Table 1 above shows the raw data from the trials that used 3M concentrations of solutions. The trial numbers were randomized along with the 6M and 9M solutions and the control, and 40 total trials were carried out. The Starting Temperature and Ending Temperature columns were found from directly reading information from the LabQuest, and the Temperature Change was found my subtracting the ending temperature from the starting temperature to find a positive value for the decrease in temperature. The Initial Volume column is the initial volume of solution that was measured in a graduated cylinder and placed into the test tube. The average change in temperature for each chemical solution was found by adding the changes in temperature for each solution and dividing the result by four, the number of trials for each chemical. 18

Burgin Drylie Table 2 Average Temperature Change of 6M Solutions 6M Solutions of Ethylene Glycol, Glycerin, and Propylene Glycol Initial Volume Trial of Solution (mL) 3 10 19 35 8 18 21 33 6 20 27 38 10.0 9.9 10.1 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Starting Temp. of Solution (C) 20.2 21.2 20.4 27.0 20.9 22.1 21.8 23.2 19.9 21.8 21.7 22.3 Ending Temp. of Solution (C) -0.8 -1.4 -3.8 -1.5 0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -2.6 0.2 0.6 -0.5 -2.3 Temp. Change (C) 21.0 22.6 24.2 28.5 20.0 23.0 22.7 25.8 19.7 21.2 22.2 24.6 Avg. Change in Temp. (C)

Chemical

Ethylene Glycol

24.1

Glycerin

22.9

Propylene Glycol

21.9

Table 2 above shows the raw data from the trials that used 6M concentrations of solutions. It also shows the average change in temperature for each chemical solution at 6M concentration.

19

Burgin Drylie Table 3 Average Temperature Change of 9M Solutions 9M Solutions of Ethylene Glycol, Glycerin, and Propylene Glycol Initial Volume Trial of Solution (mL) 9 12 17 39 22 24 26 31 1 4 7 37 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.1 9.9 10.0 Starting Temp. of Solution (C) 21.5 22.9 21.9 20.6 23.9 22.1 24.0 25.0 22.0 20.8 21.4 22.3 Ending Temp. of Solution (C) -0.9 0.3 -2.9 0.1 -1.4 -3.6 -1.1 -2.5 0.5 -1.3 0.0 -1.8 Temp. Change (C) 22.4 22.6 24.8 20.5 25.3 25.7 25.1 27.5 21.5 22.1 21.4 24.1 Avg. Change in Temp. (C)

Chemical

Ethylene Glycol

22.6

Glycerin

25.9

Propylene Glycol

22.3

Table 3 above shows the raw data from the trials that used 9M concentrations of solutions. It also displays the average change in temperature for each chemical solution at 9M concentration. Table 4 Control Data Initial Volume (mL) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.1 Control, H20 Starting Ending Temperature Temperature (C) (C) 23.4 -1.6 22.8 -1.0 22.0 -2.5 24.1 -2.4 Temperature Change (C) 25.0 23.8 24.5 26.5

Trial 14 15 25 34

Table 4 above shows the raw data from the control trials that used distilled water instead of a chemical solution. 20

Burgin Drylie

Figure 7. Final Temperature Formula Figure 7 shows the formula used to find the final temperature of the solution. The ending temperature was subtracted from the starting temperature to find the change in temperature as a positive value, although each temperature change was a decrease in temperature.

21

Burgin Drylie Table 5 Observations Concentration Trial 13

Chemical Propylene Glycol Propylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Glycerin

32 3M 36

40

Ethylene Glycol

6M

21

Glycerin Propylene Glycol Propylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol

27

38

12

17 9M 31

Ethylene Glycol

Glycerin

37

Propylene Glycol

Observations LabQuest 1, Channel 2. Researcher 2. The second batch of new ice was added 0.5 minutes early, after 13.5 minutes had passed. LabQuest 1, Channel 2. Researcher 1. The first batch of new ice went in after 8.2 minutes, 1.2 minutes later than it should have been. LabQuest 1, Channel 2. Researcher 2. This trial was redone because the temperature probe was never lowered into the solution the first time. LabQuest 1, Channel 2. Researcher 2. There was a little more than the 200 mL of ice water that there should have been at the start of the trial. LabQuest 2, Channel 1. Researcher 2. Temperature increased after first batch new of ice, the water added was too warm because it was early in the day and had not been refrigerator very long. Second batch of new ice went in at 14.5 minutes, 0.5 minutes late. LabQuest 1, Channel 2. Researcher 2. This trial had to be redone because of evaporation that affected the original solution concentration. LabQuest 2, Channel 1. Researcher 1. This trial had to be redone because of evaporation that affected the original solution concentration. LabQuest 2, Channel 1. Researcher 1. This trial was started before the other trials were ran at the same time because the LabQuest would not load. LabQuest 2, Channel 1. Researcher 1. The graph shown on the LabQuest was unusually wavy, but the trial was carried out in the same way as the other trials. Added ice water at 14.9 minutes, 0.9 minutes late. LabQuest 2, Channel 1. Researcher 1. This trial was redone because the solution used the first time was affected by evaporation and the molarity may have been off. LabQuest 1, Channel 1. Researcher 1. Approximately 1 mL of solution dripped down the side of the test tube before the trial started, so there was not as much solution in the test tube to be frozen. The first batch of new ice went in 1 minute late, after 8.0 minutes. LabQuest 1, Channel 1. Researcher 2. The second batch of new ice went in after 14.5 minutes, slightly later than it should have been. 22

Burgin Drylie Table 5 shows the important and unusual observations that were taken throughout the experiment. Note that Trials 17, 21, 27, and 36 were redone due to evaporation that led to a possible change in concentration or other experimental errors. Trials 3, 31, and 40 had errors that may have affected the resulting temperature change. Also, many of the trials had batches of ice go in slightly early or late, which may change the results of the experiment slightly.

23

Burgin Drylie Data Analysis and Interpretation The data was collected by reading the final temperature off of the LabQuest after the solution had been in the ice water bath for the 20 minute trial. This final temperature was subtracted from the initial temperature to find the change in temperature. The final, lower temperature was subtracted from the higher, initial temperature so that the change in temperature was a positive value. To produce valid and viable data, the experiment had elements of control, randomization, and repetition. These elements were used to ensure that the effects of lurking variables were minimized and that the data can be trusted. Trials with distilled water as opposed to the different concentrations of solutions were run to act as controls in the experiment. These control trials were used to see if the experiment was done correctly, because the data from the controls should have been relatively horizontal.

Controls
Change in Temperature (C) 27 26.5 26 25.5 25 24.5 24 23.5 0 1 2 Control Trial 3 4 5

Figure 8. Data From Control Trials They acted as a valid control because lurking variables in the experiment would have affected these trials in the same way they affected the experimental 24

Burgin Drylie trials. However, as shown in Figure 8, the controls were not perfectly horizontal, and the experiment may therefore have been affected by some lurking variables. Randomization was used in the experiment as the trial numbers were randomized to determine the order in which to test each chemical and each concentration. The molarity and chemical of the solution used for each trial was randomized to minimize the effect of lurking variables. Repetition was used in the experiment to determine if the data from the same solutions had trends. Forty trials were carried out, with four trials from each concentration of each solution, and four control trials were carried out. There were an equal number of trials from each concentration of each solution. The repetition of data resulted in less varied results, according to the Law of Large Numbers. In order to determine if there was in fact a difference in the mean temperature changes for each of the concentrations, three Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests were used. These tests were appropriate because the means of three or more populations, in this case concentrations, were compared to one another in each test. The tests were valid to use because of the ANOVA Rule of Thumb: it is okay to use the test when the largest sample standard deviation is no more than twice as large as the smallest standard deviation. For each test, two times the smallest sample standard deviation was in fact larger than the largest sample standard deviation, so all three tests would be valid.

25

Burgin Drylie

Figure 9. Comparative Boxplots of Solutions at 3 M Figure 9 above shows all of the data for 3 M solutions graphed as different boxplots. Glycerin has the highest spread among all of the different groups. The upper and lower quartiles for that specific group are larger than any other group. The data for 3 M ethylene glycol was most normally distributed. The medians of all groups are very close to each other. The median of propylene glycol is the largest at 23.4C and the median of ethylene glycol is the smallest at 22.9C. Between the smallest and largest, there is only a difference of 0.5C. This could indicate that there is not much of a difference in how the different solutions affected the change in temperature. Although the boxplots show similar trends in the data across all different groups, the ANOVA test was used to see if there was a statistically significant difference among the obstacles.

26

Burgin Drylie

Figure 10. Comparative Boxplots of Solutions at 6 M Figure 10 above shows all of the data for 3 M solutions graphed as different boxplots. Glycerin and ethylene glycol both have a large amount of spread. The upper quartile for ethylene glycol is fairly large compared to the other groups. The data for 6 M glycerin, however, was most normally distributed despite the spread. The medians of all groups are again very close to each other. The median of ethylene glycol is the largest at 23.4C and the median of propylene glycol is the smallest at 21.7C. Between the smallest and largest, there is only a difference of 1.7C. Although this difference in temperature change is larger than that of the 3 M solutions, this could still indicate that there is not much of a difference in how the different solutions affected the change in temperature. Although the boxplots show similar trends in the data across all different groups,

27

Burgin Drylie the ANOVA test was used to see if there was a statistically significant difference among the obstacles.

Figure 11. Comparative Boxplots of Solutions at 9 M Figure 11 above shows all of the data for 9 M solutions graphed as different boxplots. Ethylene glycol had the largest amount of spread but was also the most normally distributed data among the other groups. The medians of all groups are again very close to each other, although the median for 9M glycerin is quite a bit higher in this grouping of solutions than it had been in the others. The median of glycerin is the largest at 25.5C and the median of propylene glycol is the smallest at 21.8C. Between the smallest and largest, there is only a difference of 3.7C. Because this difference is larger than the other two concentrations, this could indicate that there may be a difference in how the different solutions affected the change in temperature. To be sure,

28

Burgin Drylie another ANOVA test was used to see if there was a statistically significant difference among the obstacles.

Figure 12. Boxplot of Control Data Figure 12 above shows a boxplot of data taken during the trials using a control of distilled water. The median of the control data was 24.75C. The data appears to be relatively normally distributed. The control was used to ensure that other trials were being done correctly.

29

Burgin Drylie Table 6 Table of Means, Sample Sizes, and Sample Standard Deviations
Chemical Ethylene Glycol Propylene Glycol Glycerin Ethylene Glycol Propylene Glycol Glycerin Ethylene Glycol Propylene Glycol Glycerin x (C) 22.8 23.9 22.9 24.1 21.9 22.9 22.6 22.8 25.9 n 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 s 1.617 1.605 1.948 3.226 2.058 2.371 1.760 1.255 1.095

3M

6M

9M

Table 6 above shows each chemical and concentration as well as its sample mean, x, sample size, n, and sample standard deviation, s. This table was used for easy reference while performing the three ANOVA tests. Hypotheses for 3 M Solutions: Ho: eth3M = prop3M = glyc3M Ha: Not all eth3M, prop3M, glyc3M are equal Hypotheses for 6 M Solutions: Ho: eth6M = prop6M = glyc6M Ha: Not all eth6M, prop6M, glyc6M are equal Hypotheses for 9 M Solutions: Ho: eth9M = prop9M = glyc9M Ha: Not all eth9M, prop9M, glyc9M are equal The null hypothesis of each test is that all sample means for all three sample groups are equal to each other and that there is no difference between solutions. The alternative hypothesis is that not all sample means are equal. This

30

Burgin Drylie would signify that there was a difference in how the different chemicals affected the change in temperature of the solution. Assumptions: i independent simple random samples normal distribution in each population same unknown standard deviation, , among sample groups Most assumptions for the statistical test were met. Each sample i, where i is any one of the chemicals, was randomly assigned to a trial. Because each trial took 20 minutes to complete, the researchers were only able to complete 4 of each sample with the time and resources available, so there is no way of knowing if they were normally distributed. In each of the groups, standard deviation, , was unknown. Even though one of the assumptions may not have been met, the ANOVA tests were carried out anyway. The F statistic of the test is the proportion of the variation among sample means between each population to the variation among individuals in all the samples within each population. In other words, the F statistic is the mean square group, MSG, divided by the mean square error, MSE.

efore this value could be determined, the weighted mean x had to be found. This is found by multiplying the sample size for each population by the mean for each population, adding them together, and dividing by , the total number of trials in all samples combined. efer to Appendix for the formula

and calculations. After all values were input into the formula, the value of x for 31

Burgin Drylie M solutions was found to be 23.225C, 6 M solutions was found to be 22.958C, and 9 M solutions was found to be 23.583C. Next, the mean square group, MSG, had to be calculated. This formula takes the sample size of each population, multiplies it by the difference in sample mean and weighted mean squared, adds them all together, and divides by one less than I, the number of populations. Refer to Appendix B for the formula and calculations. The value of 3 M solutions was found to be 1.480, 6 M solutions was found to be 4.643, and 9 M solutions was found to be 16.191. Finally, the mean square error, MSE, was calculated. This formula uses the sample size of each population minus one and multiplies it by the squared sample standard deviation. This is done for each population and they are added together. Then the entire thing is divided by N I, the total number of populations subtracted from the total number of samples. Refer to Appendix B for the formula and calculations. The value of 3 M solutions was found to be 2.996, 6 M solutions was found to be 6.756, and 9 M solutions was found to be 1.957. Now that MSG and MSE had been determined for each of the tests, the F statistic could be found. The F statistic is found by dividing MSG by MSE. See Appendix B for the actual calculations. The F statistic for the 3 M solutions was 0.494. This corresponds to a p-value of 0.626. Because of this, it was concluded that the null hypothesis failed to be rejected at =0.05 significance level because the p-value is greater than the alpha level. There is no significant evidence to suggest that the different chemicals for 3 M solutions had an effect on the amount the temperature

32

Burgin Drylie changed. The p-value states that there is about a 62.6% chance that results this extreme were attained by chance alone if the null hypothesis was assumed to be true. The F statistic for the 6 M solutions was 0.687. This corresponds to a p-value of 0.527. Because of this, it was concluded that the null hypothesis failed to be rejected at =0.05 significance level because the p-value is greater than the alpha level. There is no significant evidence to suggest that the different chemicals for 6 M solutions had an effect on the amount the temperature changed. The p-value states that there is about a 52.7% chance that results this extreme were attained by chance alone if the null hypothesis was assumed to be true. The F statistic for the 9 M solutions was 8.272. This corresponds to a p-value of 0.009. Because of this, it was concluded that the null hypothesis was rejected at =0.05 significance level because the p-value is smaller than the alpha level. There is significant evidence to suggest that the different chemicals for 9 M solutions had an effect on the amount the temperature changed. The p-value states that there is about a 0.900% chance that results this extreme were attained by chance alone if the null hypothesis was assumed to be true. There was no significant difference in temperature change for 3 M and 6 M solutions, which means that glycerin was just as effective as ethylene and propylene glycol as antifreeze. However, there was a difference in temperature change in the 9 M solutions, which means that 9 M glycerin is not as effective as 9 M solutions of the other chemicals.

33

Burgin Drylie Conclusion The purpose of this experiment was to determine if glycerin is an effective antifreeze by comparing the change in temperature in various concentrations of glycerin solutions in an ice bath to the changes in temperature in various concentrations of solutions made with commercially-used antifreezes. After researching antifreeze and how it worked, an experiment was designed to compare glycerin, ethylene glycol, and propylene glycol solutions of 3 M, 6 M, and 9 M concentrations. Although the most common concentration of antifreeze used in cars is a 50% solution of ethylene glycol, percent concentrations could not be used in the experiment because the true molar concentrations of the chemicals needed to be the same for the experiment to be valid. The original hypothesis was that there would be no statistical difference between the mean temperature depression, the changes in temperatures of the solutions, and glycerin will therefore be effective antifreeze. After carrying out the experiment and running ANOVA tests on the results, the hypothesis was accepted because two of the three ANOVA tests that were carried out directly support the hypothesis. The results of the third ANOVA test did not support the hypothesis, but the results may be attributed to design flaws that occurred in the experiment such as testing under non-ideal conditions. A total of 40 randomized trials were carried out in the experiment, including four control trials in which distilled water was used instead of a concentrated solution. One solution with a designated concentration was used per trial and placed into a test tube that was submerged in an ice bath. Salt was

34

Burgin Drylie added to maximize temperature depression of the ice bath by depressing the freezing point of the ice, and the temperature of the solution was recorded with a LabQuest temperature probe for 20 minutes. When the experiment was completed, the data was analyzed using three ANOVA tests, one for each concentration. The ANOVA tests were used to determine if there was a difference in the mean temperature changes for each of the concentrations. For the 3 M solutions, the test resulted in a p-value of 0.626. This means that the null hypothesis failed to be rejected at the alpha level , 0.05, and there was no difference in temperature change between different solutions at 3 M. In regards to the problem, this means that 3 M glycerin is as effective an antifreeze as the standard antifreeze chemicals, ethylene and propylene glycol. For the 6 M solutions, the test resulted in a p-value of 0.527. This means that the null hypothesis failed to be rejected at the alpha level , 0.05, and ther e was no difference in temperature change between different solutions at 6 M. In regards to the problem, this means that 6 M glycerin is an effective an antifreeze, like the standard antifreeze chemicals, ethylene and propylene glycol. For the 9 M solutions, the test resulted in a p-value of 0.009. This means that the null hypothesis was rejected at the alpha level , 0.05, and there was a difference in temperature change between different solutions at 9 M. In regards to the problem, this means that 9 M glycerin was not as effective an antifreeze as the standard antifreeze chemicals, ethylene and propylene glycol.

35

Burgin Drylie The results of this experiment for the 3 M and 6 M solutions in which there was no statistical difference in the mean change in temperature were supported scientifically. Freezing point depression is a colligative property. When a dissolvable substance, known as the solute, is added to water, ions are introduced to the water that disrupt the placement of the molecules of water and the formation of the crystalline structure of ice is impeded. The water molecules are forced to move farther apart from each other, and more energy must be removed before the molecules slow down enough to form bonds and solidify. Because freezing point depression is a colligative property, it depends not on the identity of the solute, but of the concentration of the solution. Thus, the number of ions added is what matters, not what type of ions are added. Since each ANOVA test compared the means of each chemical at the same molarity, each of the solutions used in each group had the same ratio of solute to solvent on an atomic level. The solutions therefore all had the same concentration of ions and there should have been no difference amongst the results from each antifreeze used. These results are supported by past findings related to freezing point depression. In a lab that was written by Adrienne Oxley at Columbia College discussed colligative properties of water and used the freezing point to find the concentration of the solute, regardless of the identity of the dissolved substance (Oxley). In a different lab performed at North Carolina State University, the freezing point was predicted given the concentration of the solute (Lab ). These labs enforce that freezing point depression does not depend on the identity of the solute, but rather on the concentration of said solute, because in

36

Burgin Drylie each of these labs, the concentration of the solute was either used or found, but its identity was not a factor in the results achieved. Since freezing point depression is colligative, the identity of the solute did not matter for these labs, assuming the concentration of ions in the solution was constant throughout. The discrepancy between the results of this experiment and the colligative property that occurred for the 9 M solutions could have been due to design flaws and human error. Due to inadequate resources, many flaws occurred with the experiments set up and trials. Perhaps the largest design flaw that occurred was that the chemical solutions could not reach freezing point with the lab equipment available, so the change in temperature was used instead. The statistical test was run using the change in temperature, but there is no way to know if the same results would have been gleaned from the experiment if the temperatures of solutions were lowered all the way to freezing point. An additional design flaw was that certain aspects of the experiment were hard to control consistently. The times at which ice, water, and salt were added, for instance, were often early or late because multiple trials were run at the same time with the same requirements. If the salt was added to the ice bath at a later time, the salt may not have lowered the temperature of the bath by the same amount in each trial, and the temperature that the molecules in the solution were exposed to may have varied from trial to trial. The temperature of water added was also hard to control, because the earlier trials had warmer water that had been cooling in freezer for very long. The temperature of the water that was added to the ice bath may have affected the depression of freezing point

37

Burgin Drylie because when the temperature of the water in the ice bath was lower, the solution was given more of an opportunity to freeze as the molecules were at a lower temperature and thus, lower energy. These lurking variables could not be controlled, and the data obtained was therefore confounded. The design flaws in the experiment are likely what led to the results of the 9 M ANOVA test that were not supported scientifically. Had the design errors not occurred, it is possible that the 9 M solutions would also have been proven to have no statistical difference and all of the antifreezes would have had the same effectiveness. Testing whether or not 9 M solutions of the chemicals would be effective could be something tested under ideal circumstances in further research. If the experiment were to be repeated under ideal circumstances, the solutions would reach freezing point, and the freezing point and amount of time passed before it reached freezing would be recorded. Additionally, the water added would have been a more consistent temperature, and fewer trials would be run at once, so that the ice, water, and salt could be added at the right time. For further research, glycerin could be tested as antifreeze in an engine. Since its effectiveness at depressing the freezing point has been proven, it should hypothetically be capable of functioning as antifreeze. It must be tested in a functioning engine, however, to ensure that there are no problems with its performance in automobiles before people can start switching their ethylene glycol-based antifreeze for glycerin.

38

Burgin Drylie Another related experiment could be carried out to compare glycerins effectiveness at elevating the boiling point of water. This would be a dangerous experiment that could only be carried out with special lab equipment, but the results could further scientific confidence in glycerin as an alternative to ethylene glycol or propylene glycol. The results of this experiment, along with the results of possible future research can be used to employ glycerin as safer, greener antifreeze. Ethylene glycol is a toxic chemical that should not be introduced to the environment

("Ethylene Glycol: Environmental Aspects"). Propylene glycol is safer for

humans, but can still be hazardous to the environment in extreme conditions, and is expensive to produce and purchase. Glycerin, however, is nontoxic to humans and is not harmful to the environment. Furthermore, glycerin is a byproduct of biodiesel production, and is therefore abundant in recent times. Switching to glycerin as antifreeze would be safer for all who use antifreeze, and would be friendlier to the environment as a whole. Its abundance makes it an affordable, sensible choice for those looking to use safer antifreeze.

39

Burgin Drylie Acknowledgements The researchers would like to express their sincerest thanks to the following people for their continued support during the research process: Mrs. Hilliard, for helping during experimentation and being all-around supportive of the idea of the project. Mr. Supal, for the tips he provided along the way. The researchers would also like to extend their thanks to Mr. Darnell Jennings, without whom they would lack knowledge of real-life applications of vehicle engines and their components. It is also important to mention the wonderful parents involved, who also provided sufficient funding for the experiment: Mr. and Mrs. Burgin Mr. and Mrs. Drylie Once again, to everybody involved in this entire process, the researchers express their deepest thanks.

40

Burgin Drylie Appendix A To carry out the experiment, three different concentrations of solutions were made for each chemical. The concentrations used were 3 M, 6 M, and 9 M, which were roughly derived from 25%, 50%, and 75% solutions of the chemicals. Thirty mL of each solution were made so that three trials of 10 mL each could be carried out. Eventually, the process was repeated to make an additional 30 mL of solution and to run the final trial and redo trials as necessary. The molarity of a solution can be found by calculating the moles of the substance, and dividing it by the volume of the final solution according to the following equation:

in which volume is in liters. Each concentration of solution had to be made for each of glycerin, ethylene glycol, and propylene glycol. Calculations for Necessary Volume of Each Chemical: Table 7 Molecular Weight and Density of Each Chemical Molecular Weight (g/mol) Density (g/mL) Ethylene Glycol 62 1.11 Glycerin 92 1.26 Propylene Glycol 76 1.04 Table 7 above shows values that were used in calculating the volume of chemical needed to make each solutions: the molecular weight and the density of each chemical.

41

Burgin Drylie

Figure 13. 3 M Glycerin Figure 13 above shows the calculations used to find the amount of glycerin and the amount of water needed to make 30 mL of the 3 M glycerin solution. The desired molarity and the volume were substituted in for M and L in the equation, and the moles were found to be 0.09. This was multiplied by the molar mass of glycerin, 92 g, to find the grams of glycerin needed. Since glycerin is a liquid, the liquid volume of glycerin was found using the density of glycerin, 1.26 g/mL. The volume of glycerin required was found to be 6.54 mL. Since the total volume of is 30 mL, the volume of glycerin was subtracted from 30 to find the necessary volume of water, 23.43 mL.

Figure 14. 6 M Glycerin

42

Burgin Drylie Figure 14 above shows the calculations used to find the volume of glycerin needed to make 30 mL of the 6 M glycerin solution.

Figure 15. 9 M Glycerin Figure 15 above shows the calculations used to find the volume of glycerin needed to make 30 mL of the 9 M glycerin solution.

Figure 16. 3 M Ethylene Glycol Figure 16 above shows the calculations used to find the volume of ethylene glycol needed to make 30 mL of the 3 M ethylene glycol solution.

43

Burgin Drylie

Figure 17. 6 M Ethylene Glycol Figure 17 above shows the calculations used to find the volume of ethylene glycol needed to make 30 mL of the 6 M ethylene glycol solution.

Figure 18. 9 M Ethylene Glycol Figure 18 above shows the calculations used to find the volume of ethylene glycol needed to make 30 mL of the 9 M ethylene glycol solution.

Figure 19. 3 M Propylene Glycol 44

Burgin Drylie Figure 19 above shows the calculations used to find the volume of ethylene glycol needed to make 30 mL of the 3 M propylene glycol solution.

Figure 20. 6 M Propylene Glycol Figure 20 above shows the calculations used to find the volume of ethylene glycol needed to make 30 mL of the 6 M propylene glycol solution.

Figure 21. 9 M Propylene Glycol Figure 21 above shows the calculations used to find the volume of ethylene glycol needed to make 30 mL of the 9 M propylene glycol solution.

45

Burgin Drylie Procedures for Making Solutions: Materials: 50 mL Beaker (9) 10 mL Graduated Cylinder (2) Stirring Rod Distilled Water Glycerin Procedures: 1. Use the graduated cylinder to measure the correct amount of the chemical to make the desired solution. 2. 3. Put the chemical into one of the 50 mL beakers. Use the second graduated cylinder to measure the necessary distilled water. 4. 5. Pour the distilled water into the beaker with the chemical. Use the stirring rod to mix the chemical and the distilled water to form the solution. 6. 7. 8. Cover the beaker with plastic wrap. Use the tape and marker to label the beaker. Repeat procedures to make each solution. Ethylene Glycol Propylene Glycol Tape Marker Plastic Wrap

46

Burgin Drylie Appendix B Calculations for the ANOVA Test for 3 M Solutions: An ANOVA test was used to determine if there was a significant difference between chemicals. All calculations for this test are shown here.

Figure 22. Formula to find Weighted Mean Figure 22 shows the formula used to find the weighted mean x for the experiment. This is found by multiplying the sample size for each population, n, by the mean for each population, x, adding this value from each population together, and dividing by N, the total number of trials in all samples combined.

Figure 23. Sample Equation Used to find Weighted Mean Figure 23 above shows the formula to find the weighted mean x when the correct values are input. All sample sizes, n, consisted of 4 trials. The samples means for each population were multiplied by n, and divided by 12, the total number of trials. The value was found to be 23.225.

Figure 24. Formula to find MSG Next, the mean square group, MSG, had to be calculated. The formula for this is shown in Figure 24 above. This formula takes the sample size of each population, multiplies it by the difference in sample mean and weighted mean

47

Burgin Drylie squared, adds this value for each population together, and divides by one less than I, the number of populations.

Figure 25. Sample Equation Used to find MSG Figure 25 above shows the formula to find the mean square group, MSG, when the correct values are input. All sample sizes, n, consisted of 4 trials. The weighted mean x was subtracted from each sample mean for each population, squared, and multiplied by n, then divided by 2, the total number of materials minus one. The value was found to be 1.48.
( ) ( )

Figure 26. Formula to find MSE Finally, the mean square error, MSE, was calculated. The formula to find MSE is shown in Figure 26 above. This formula uses the sample size of each population minus one and multiplies it by the squared sample standard deviation. This is done for each population and they are added together. Then the numerator is divided by N I, the total number of populations subtracted from the total number of samples.

Figure 27. Sample Equation Used to find MSE Figure 27 above shows the formula to find the mean square error, MSE, when the correct values are input into the formula. All sample sizes, n, consisted of 4 trials, so n-1 was 3 for each population. This value was then multiplied by the 48

Burgin Drylie sample standard deviation squared and each population was added together. Then it was divided by N-I, or 12-3, the total number of trials minus the number of populations. The value was found to be 2.99583. Now that MSG and MSE had been determined, the F statistic could be found. The F statistic is found by dividing MSG by MSE.

After dividing MSG by MSE, the F statistic of the test was found to be 0.49402. To calculate the p-value, the degrees of freedom had to be determined as well. This value was calculated by dividing I-1 by N-I.

The degrees of freedom allowed for one to find the general interval in which the p-value would fall. Using technology, the specific p-value was found to be 0.625792.

49

Burgin Drylie Calculations for the ANOVA Test for 6 M Solutions: An ANOVA test was used to determine if there was a significant difference between chemicals. All calculations for this test are shown here.

Figure 28. Formula to find Weighted Mean Figure 28 shows the formula used to find the weighted mean x for the experiment. This is found by multiplying the sample size for each population, n, by the mean for each population, x, adding this value from each population together, and dividing by N, the total number of trials in all samples combined.

Figure 29. Sample Equation Used to find Weighted Mean Figure 29 above shows the formula to find the weighted mean x when the correct values are input. All sample sizes, n, consisted of 4 trials. The samples means for each population were multiplied by n, and divided by 12, the total number of trials. The value was found to be 22.9583.

Figure 30. Formula to find MSG Next, the mean square group, MSG, had to be calculated. The formula for this is shown in Figure 30 above. This formula takes the sample size of each population, multiplies it by the difference in sample mean and weighted mean squared, adds this value for each population together, and divides by one less than I, the number of populations. 50

Burgin Drylie

Figure 31. Sample Equation Used to find MSG Figure 31 above shows the formula to find the mean square group, MSG, when the correct values are input. All sample sizes, n, consisted of 4 trials. The weighted mean x was subtracted from each sample mean for each population, squared, and multiplied by n, then divided by 2, the total number of materials minus one. The value was found to be 4.64333.
( ) ( )

Figure 32. Formula to find MSE Finally, the mean square error, MSE, was calculated. The formula to find MSE is shown in Figure 32 above. This formula uses the sample size of each population minus one and multiplies it by the squared sample standard deviation. This is done for each population and they are added together. Then the numerator is divided by N I, the total number of populations subtracted from the total number of samples.

Figure 33. Sample Equation Used to find MSE Figure 33 above shows the formula to find the mean square error, MSE, when the correct values are input into the formula. All sample sizes, n, consisted of 4 trials, so n-1 was 3 for each population. This value was then multiplied by the sample standard deviation squared and each population was added together.

51

Burgin Drylie Then it was divided by N-I, or 12-3, the total number of trials minus the number of populations. The value was found to be 6.75582. Now that MSG and MSE had been determined, the F statistic could be found. The F statistic is found by dividing MSG by MSE.

After dividing MSG by MSE, the F statistic of the test was found to be 0.687308. To calculate the p-value, the degrees of freedom had to be determined as well. This value was calculated by dividing I-1 by N-I.

The degrees of freedom allowed for one to find the general interval in which the p-value would fall. Using technology, the specific p-value was found to be 0.527494.

52

Burgin Drylie Calculations for the ANOVA Test for 9 M Solutions: An ANOVA test was used to determine if there was a significant difference between chemicals. All calculations for this test are shown here.

Figure 34. Formula to find Weighted Mean Figure 34 shows the formula used to find the weighted mean x for the experiment. This is found by multiplying the sample size for each population, n, by the mean for each population, x, adding this value from each population together, and dividing by N, the total number of trials in all samples combined.

Figure 35. Sample Equation Used to find Weighted Mean Figure 35 above shows the formula to find the weighted mean x when the correct values are input. All sample sizes, n, consisted of 4 trials. The samples means for each population were multiplied by n, and divided by 12, the total number of trials. The value was found to be 23.5833.

Figure 36. Formula to find MSG Next, the mean square group, MSG, had to be calculated. The formula for this is shown in Figure 36 above. This formula takes the sample size of each population, multiplies it by the difference in sample mean and weighted mean

53

Burgin Drylie squared, adds this value for each population together, and divides by one less than I, the number of populations.

Figure 37. Sample Equation Used to find MSG Figure 37 above shows the formula to find the mean square group, MSG, when the correct values are input. All sample sizes, n, consisted of 4 trials. The weighted mean x was subtracted from each sample mean for each population, squared, and multiplied by n, then divided by 2, the total number of materials minus one. The value was found to be 16.1908.
( ) ( )

Figure 38. Formula to find MSE Finally, the mean square error, MSE, was calculated. The formula to find MSE is shown in Figure 38 above. This formula uses the sample size of each population minus one and multiplies it by the squared sample standard deviation. This is done for each population and they are added together. Then the numerator is divided by N I, the total number of populations subtracted from the total number of samples.

Figure 39. Sample Equation Used to find MSE Figure 39 above shows the formula to find the mean square error, MSE, when the correct values are input into the formula. All sample sizes, n, consisted of 4 trials, so n-1 was 3 for each population. This value was then multiplied by the 54

Burgin Drylie sample standard deviation squared and each population was added together. Then it was divided by N-I, or 12-3, the total number of trials minus the number of populations. The value was found to be 1.95723. Now that MSG and MSE had been determined, the F statistic could be found. The F statistic is found by dividing MSG by MSE.

After dividing MSG by MSE, the F statistic of the test was found to be 8.27232. To calculate the p-value, the degrees of freedom had to be determined as well. This value was calculated by dividing I-1 by N-I.

The degrees of freedom allowed for one to find the general interval in which the p-value would fall. Using technology, the specific p-value was found to be 0.009146.

55

Burgin Drylie Works Cited "Antifreeze Factsheet." Antifreeze Factsheet. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. Bannerjee, Trina. "Ethylene Glycol Poisoning." Department of Medicine. NYU Langone Medical Center, n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2013. Brain, Marshall. "How Car Engines Work." HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks, Inc., n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2013. Dasan, Bharathi. Liquid Cooling. Digital image. Catia V5 Tutorials. Google, 23 Feb. 2012. Web. 01 Dec. 2013. "Ethylene Glycol, 500 ML." Flinn Scientific, Inc. Flinn Scientific, Inc, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2013. "Ethylene Glycol: Environmental Aspects." Ethylene Glycol: Environmental Aspects (CICADS). World Health Organization, 2000. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. "Glycerin, 500 ML." Flinn Scientific, Inc. Flinn Scientific, Inc, n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. "How Does Antifreeze Work, Anyway?" SSGM Magazine. Business Information Group, 01 Sept. 2000. Web. 21 Sept. 2013. Jenkins, Richard. Car Engine Uncovered. Digital image. Driving-testsuccess.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2013. Jennings, Darnell. Personal Interview. 6 Nov. 2013. Joo, Jeong S. "Lab: Boiling Point Elevation." Joo-Chem. Korea International School, n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2013.

56

Burgin Drylie "Lab 3 - Freezing Point Depression." General Chemistry II Labs. NC State University Chemistry Department, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. Luedtke, Scott. "Q & A: Freezing Water." Physics Van. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 27 Aug. 2006. Web. 01 Dec. 2013. Marder, Jenny. "How Does Salt Battle Road Ice?" PBS Newshour. PBS, 18 Jan. 2011. Web. 01 Dec. 2013. Nice, Karim. "How Car Cooling Systems Work." HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks, Inc., 22 Nov. 2000. Web. 10 Oct. 2013. Nikson, Michael. "Freezing Point Depression Lab." Falls Science. N.p., May 2011. Web. 21 Sept. 2013. Oxley, Adrienne, and Everett Spell. "Molar Mass Determination by Depression of the Freezing Point." Columbiasc.edu. Columbia College, 07 Feb. 2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. "Production Statistics." Biodiesel.org. National Biodiesel Board, n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. "Propylene Glycol, 500 ML." Flinn Scientific, Inc. Flinn Scientific, Inc, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2013. Smith, Heather. BPE at Stream Pressure. Digital image. Boiling Point Elevation Discussion. SysCAD, 11 Oct. 2012. Web. 01 Dec. 2013. Snelling, C. R. Cooling Curves. Digital image. Colligative Properties. Volunteer State Community College, 30 Sept. 2013. Web. 01 Dec. 2013. "Solutions and Colligative Properties: Antifreeze." ThinkQuest. Oracle Foundation, n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2013.

57

Burgin Drylie Treacy, Megan. "Glycerin: A Natural Replacement for Antifreeze?" EcoGeek.org. N.p., 22 Feb. 2013. Web. 21 Sept. 2013. Widom, Benjamin. "How Does Water Boil?" Ask A Scientist! Cornell Center for Materials Research, 30 July 2008. Web. 10 Oct. 201

58