1

An Investigation into the Effects of Concentration on the Cell Potential of Voltaic Cells
Aim
The aim of this investigation was to investigate how the voltage output of voltaic cells is
dependent on the concentrations of the aqueous solutions within the cell experimentally
depending on the metal used, then theoretically by comparing experimental values to those
produced from the Nernst Equation.
Introduction
Purpose:
The original idea for this investigation occurred to me due to my previous experience in doing a
lab with voltaic cells. However, in that lab, we had only worked to find the cell potential by
using two different metals and changing the ones we used. Later, the question was posed to think
of the effects of concentration of the aqueous solutions used on the cell potential, rather than the
metals, and upon trying it once, my partners and I found it made no difference in the voltage
reading. This confused me, considering a change in concentration theoretically meant an increase
or decrease in the electrons moving through the cell in the oxidation-reduction reaction which
should affect potential difference and thus voltage, so I decided to investigate further.
This lead me to some questions. How do the concentrations of the aqueous solutions within the
voltaic cell affect the cell potential? Is this dependent on the metal used as well? Is there a trend?
Thus, I decided to test these questions experimentally. Upon further investigation, I also
discovered the Nernst Equation which lead me to believe concentration should affect the cell
potential, considering it is a variable in the equation. This also gave me a means to produce
theoretical values that I would be able to compare to those I produced experimentally.
*Note that at any time M is used, it is the same as mol*𝐝𝐦−𝟑 .
Background:
Oxidation-Reduction (Redox) Reactions:
An oxidation-reduction (redox) reaction is one that occurs when there is a transfer of electrons
between species within the reaction, causing their oxidation numbers to increase or decrease,
depending on whether the species has gained or lost an electron. In a redox reaction, two parts
occur simultaneously: reduction and oxidation. In the reduction half, the substance being reduced
decreases in oxidation number because it receives the electron in the transfer. In contrast, the
oxidized substance in the oxidation half increases in oxidation number because it loses the
electron (Brar et al.).
This indicates that the oxidized substance gives up the electron that the reduced substance
receives. Thus, the substance that is oxidized is known as the reducing agent because it causes
the reduction of the other species. Alternatively, the reduced substance is called the oxidizing
agent because it causes the oxidized substance to lose its electron. There is no net gain or loss of
electrons, for the reducing agent gives up as many electrons as the oxidizing agent accepts.
 2

Voltaic Cells:
A voltaic cell is a type of electrochemical cell in which the redox reaction occurs spontaneously,
or when its Gibbs Free Energy value is less than zero (∆G < 0). This means that, due to the
redox reaction occurring and the natural transfer of electrons from a substance that has them to a
substance that does not, potential difference is created, releasing energy and generating
electricity, otherwise known as cell potential (LibreTexts). In other words, when energy is
released due to the movement of charged particles like electrons, there is potential difference,
and that maximum potential difference is called electromotive force (EMF).
The cell itself physically separates the two half reactions so that reduction occurs on one half and
oxidation occurs on the other. However, the two halves must be connected to form a complete
circuit. Otherwise, the redox reaction will not occur since the electrons cannot flow from one
half to another. Thus, the creation and set-up of a voltaic cell is crucial.
In a voltaic cell, there are two electrodes or metal strips
connected by an external wire to complete the circuit.
Oxidation occurs at the anode, while reduction occurs at the
cathode. Therefore, electrons flow across the external wire
from the anode to the cathode, or from the negative
electrode to the positive electrode. These are each placed in
respective electrolyte solutions or aqueous solutions that
allow for the flow of ions across the system. Depending on
the type of voltaic cell created, these electrolytes will be
connected by a salt bridge or other means like a porous pot
to allow flow between the two. However, if a salt bridge is
used, the solution inside should not interfere with the redox
reaction by oxidizing, reducing, or forming a precipitate.
Figure 1: Sample Voltaic Cells
Because there is a flow of electrons across the wire and (Houghton Mifflin Company,
electricity is produced, it is possible to quantitatively 358)
measure that electricity using a voltmeter to measure the Figure 2: Table of Standard
voltage output by attaching it to the electrodes. Reduction Potentials (RCSD Apps)
Standard Reduction Potentials:
Because electricity is produced from each half reaction, it
is possible based on previous calculations to know the
standard potential measured in voltage. Figure 2 is a list of
standard reduction potentials, or the potential of a half-
reaction to reduced. Because it is standard, it is compared
against that of H2 and measured at SATP, or 1 atm (101
kPa), 298°K, and with 1.00 mol*dm−3 solutions. Also,
when the half equations are the same, the redox reaction
has a ∆E⦵ =0 since the standard cell potential is found by adding that of the oxidation half
equation and the reduction half equation.
 3

Nernst Equation:
There is another quantitative method to calculate cell potential rather than experimentally
through use of a voltmeter and voltaic cell. This equation, the Nernst equation, “correlates the
Gibb's Free Energy ∆G and the EMF of a chemical system known as the galvanic cell” (Chieh):
RT [C]c [D]d
∆E = ∆E⦵− nF (ln [Aa ][B]b )

Where ∆E is the cell potential of the galvanic cell, ∆E⦵ is the standard cell potential, R is the gas
constant 8.314 J mol-1 K-1, T is the temperature of the cell in Kelvin, n is the number of electrons
transferred, F is Faraday’s constant 96,485 C, and the natural log is taken of the equilibrium
[C]c [D]d
constant of the system (K eq = [Aa ][B]b). Thus, one can theoretically see that the cell potential is
affected by the activity difference between the two metals in EMF as indicated by the ∆E⦵
variable, temperature, and concentration.
0.0592 Volts [C]c [D]d
However, the Nernst Equation can be simplified to ∆E = ∆E⦵− (log [Aa ][B]b ).
n

Therefore, this investigation can compare the theoretical values of cell potential produced by the
Nernst Equation to experimental values. In this investigation, the activity difference between the
two metals will be constant and by using the same metal, will be 0, and that the temperature will
remain constant at 298°K to assess the effect of concentration only on the cell potential.
Design
Research Question: How do the concentrations of the electrolyte solutions within the voltaic
cells effect the cell potential of the redox reactions occurring, and does this depend on the metal
used?
Hypothesis: The greater the difference in concentration of the aqueous solutions in each cell, the
greater the cell potential because a greater difference in concentration means a greater potential
difference of electrons and thus more flow of electrons to create electricity and voltage.
However, the metal used should have no effect on the cell potential except for when the metal
affects the amount of electrons transferred.
Variables:
Independent Variable(s):
• The concentration of the electrolyte in Cell 2 per metal
• The metal used
Dependent Variable:
• The cell potential or voltage produced by the voltaic cell
Controls:
• The activity difference between the two metals and thus ∆E⦵= 0
 4

• The electrolyte used

• The anion in the electrolyte (NO3 − for this investigation)
• Temperature (must be 25.0°C or 298°K for this version of the Nernst Equation)
• Pressure (preferably 1 atm or 101kPa for this version of the Nernst Equation)
• The concentration of the electrolyte in Cell 1 per metal (1.00M in this lab)
Materials:
• A student voltaic cell. (In this lab, a porous pot is used)
• A voltmeter: preferably one with metal clips
• Electrodes: 2 Copper, 2 Nickel, 2 Zinc, 2 Lead, and 2 Aluminum
• 1.00M solutions of Cu(NO3 )2 , Ni(NO3 )2 , Zn(NO3 )2 , Pb(NO3 )2 , and Al(NO3 )3 .
• 0.00100 M, 0.0100 M, 0.0500 M, 0.100 M, 0.500 M, and 2.00 M solutions for aqueous
Cu(NO3 )2 , Ni(NO3 )2 , Zn(NO3 )2 , Pb(NO3 )2 , and Al(NO3 )3.
• If making solutions, use 10cm3 graduated cylinders for either dilution, adding distilled
water, etc. When making solutions requiring solids of Cu(NO3 )2, Ni(NO3 )2 , Zn(NO3 )2 ,
Pb(NO3 )2 , or Al(NO3 )3 , use a weigh scale, preferably with ±0.001 grams.
Procedure:
1. It may be necessary to mix your solutions for different concentrations. Therefore, obtain
solid Cu(NO3 )2 and use a weigh scale to measure masses to make each solution at the
different concentrations and add the correct amount of distilled water using a graduated
cylinder. Otherwise, standard dilution of a solution already had can occur too.
2. Obtain 2 copper electrodes, 1 beaker, 1 porous pot, 1.00M of aqueous Cu(NO3 )2 , and 1
voltmeter. Also, take the temperature of the room. If 25.0°C or 298°K, the simplified
version of the Nernst Equation can be applied.
3. To make the voltaic cell, place the porous pot inside the beaker. Then, place 1 copper
electrode in the beaker and 1 in the porous pot.
4. Pour 1.00M of aqueous Cu(NO3 )2 in the beaker
or Cell 1 until the bottom of the electrode is
covered.
5. Obtain 0.00100M aqueous Cu(NO3 )2 and pour
this into the porous pot or Cell 2 until the bottom
of the electrode is covered.
6. Clip each metal clip of the voltmeter to an
electrode to measure the voltage output and
complete the circuit. If the voltmeter’s value is
negative, reverse the metal clips. Figure 3: My experimental
7. The voltaic cell should look like Figure 3: voltaic cell
 5

8. Record the voltmeter’s value and repeat this process with the same concentration of
electrolyte in Cell 2 at least three times to perform a coherency check on the data and
take an average.
9. Repeat steps 5-8 using 0.0100 M, 0.0500 M, 0.100 M, 0.500 M, and 2.00 M of aqueous
Cu(NO3 )2 in the porous pot and again do three trials, recording the voltage each time.
10. Repeat steps 1-9, this time using aqueous solutions of Ni(NO3 )2 , Zn(NO3 )2 , Pb(NO3 )2 ,
and Al(NO3 )3 and their corresponding metal electrodes at the differing concentrations of
the porous pot as stated in step 9.
Safety:
When working with chemicals, wear safety goggles for eye protection, gloves and a lab coat for
skin protection, and work cautiously within the lab environment to prevent spills or other issues.
Metal nitrates are strong oxidizing agents, and may cause explosions when mixed with reducing
or combustible agents. In this lab, mixing the two will not occur, but this is important to
consider if one is around other chemicals. Nitrate compounds are also carcinogenic and toxic,
and one should avoid inhaling or touching them, particularly Ni(NO3 )2 and Pb(NO3 )2 .
Results
Qualitative Data: Not much visually occurred, besides the fact that the electrolytes and
electrodes stayed the same. However, there was extremely slight effervescence, which may have
come from the electrolysis of the distilled water as will be addressed later.
Raw Data:
*For all data, 25.0°C was calculated and therefore 298°K.
For Copper:
Cell 1 (Reduction): Cu2+ (aq) + 2𝑒 − ↔ Cu(s) with E⦵= 0.34V

Cell 2 (Oxidation): Cu(s) ↔ Cu2+ (aq) + 2𝑒 − with E⦵= -0.34V

Therefore, the overall cell potential is E⦵= 0.00V and there is a transfer of 2𝑒 − .
0.0592 [Cu2+ (aq) ]
Therefore, the Nernst Equation becomes: Ecell= 0.00- ( )(log [Cu2+ )
2 (aq) ]

Cu2+ (aq) + Cu(s) ↔ Cu(s) + Cu2+ (aq)

For each other metal, this same process occurs and this version of the Nernst Equation can apply
to Nickel, Zinc, and Lead as well.
Table 1:
Cell 1 Cell 2 Concentration Cell Nernst Percent
Concentration Concentration Difference Potential Equation Error
(mol*dm−3 or M) (Voltage in
 6

For Cu(NO3 )2 (mol*dm−3 or M) (mol* Volts (V) ± (Volts (%) for

(±0.01 For Cu(NO3 )2 dm−3 or M) 0.00005) (V)) Voltage
mol*dm−3 ) (±0.01 (±0.01
mol*dm−3 ) mol*dm−3 )
1.00 0.0100 0.99 0.05000 0.05920 15.5
1.00 0.0500 0.95 0.02990 0.03850 22.3
1.00 0.100 0.90 0.01850 0.02960 36.5
1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00000 0.00000 0.00
1.00 2.00 1.00 0.04700 0.00891 427
Table 2 For Nickel:
Cell 1 Cell 2 Concentration Cell Nernst Percent
Concentration Concentration Difference Potential Equation Error
(mol*dm−3 or M) (mol*dm−3 or M) (mol* (Voltage in (Volts (%)
For Ni(NO3 )2 For Ni(NO3 )2 dm−3 or M) Volts (V) ± (V)) For
(±0.01 (±0.01 (±0.01 0.00005) Voltage
mol*dm−3 ) mol*dm−3 ) mol*dm−3 )
1.00 0.0100 0.99 0.07810 0.05920 31.9
1.00 0.0500 0.95 0.04930 0.03850 28.0
1.00 0.1000 0.90 0.07210 0.02960 144
1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00000 0.00000 0.00
1.00 2.00 1.00 0.07880 0.00891 784

Table 3 (For Zinc):

Cell 1 Cell 2 Concentration Cell Nernst Percent
Concentration Concentration Difference Potential Equation Error
(mol*dm−3 or M) (mol*dm−3 or M) (mol*dm−3 or M) (Voltage (Volts) (%)
For Zn(NO3 )2 For Zn(NO3 )2 (±0.01 in Volts for
(±0.01 (±0.01 mol*dm−3 ) ± Voltage
mol*dm−3 ) mol*dm−3 ) 0.00005)
1.00 0.0100 0.99 0.00982 0.05920 83.4
1.00 0.0500 0.95 0.08340 0.03850 117
1.00 0.100 0.90 0.07210 0.02960 144
1.00 0.500 0.50 0.08350 0.00891 837
1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00000 0.00000 0.00

Table 4 (For Lead):

Cell 1 Cell 2 Concentration Cell Nernst Percent
Concentration Concentration Difference Potential Equation Yield
(mol*dm−3 or M) (mol*dm−3 or M) (mol*dm−3 or M) (Voltage (Volts (%) for
For Pb(NO3 )2 For Pb(NO3 )2 (±0.01 in Volts (V)) Voltage
(±0.01 (±0.01 mol*dm−3 ) (V) ±
mol*dm−3 ) mol*dm−3 ) 0.00005)
 7

1.00 0.0100 0.99 0.20200 0.05920 241

1.00 0.0500 0.95 0.09670 0.03850 151
1.00 0.100 0.90 0.06380 0.02960 116
1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00000 0.00000 0.00

For Aluminum:
Because of the transfer of 3𝑒 − unlike the previous metals, the Nernst Equation becomes:
0.0592 [Al3+ (aq) ]
Ecell= 0.00- ( )(log [Al3+ )
3 (aq) ]

Table 5:
Cell 1 Cell 2 Concentration Cell Nernst Percent
Concentration Concentration Difference Potential Equation Error
(mol*dm−3 or M) (mol*dm−3 or M) (mol*dm−3 or M) (Voltage (Volts (%) for
For Al(NO3 )3 For Al(NO3 )3 (±0.01 in Volts (V)) Voltage
(±0.01 (±0.01 mol*dm−3 ) (V)±
mol*dm−3 ) mol*dm−3 ) 0.00005)
1.00 0.00100 0.999 0.13500 0.05920 128
1.00 0.0100 0.99 0.06440 0.03950 63.0
1.00 0.0500 0.95 0.12000 0.02570 367
1.00 0.100 0.90 0.08260 0.01970 319
1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00000 0.00000 0.00

Processed Data: *In each graph, error bars are applied to indicate uncertainty.

Graph 1:
Copper: Concentration Difference of Cell 1 and
Cell 2 vs. Cell Potential For copper, it can be
graphically observed
0.08
that, as the difference in
Cell Potential (Volts)

1, 0.047 y = 1E-07e13.233x
0.06 R² = 0.9994 concentration between
0.04 0.99, 0.05 Cell 1 and Cell 2
0.02 0.95, 0.0299 Series1 increases, the cell
0 0, 0.0000001 0.9, 0.0185 Expon. (Series1) potential also does in a
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 nearly exponential,
-0.02
direct relationship.
Concentraton Difference of Cell 1 and Cell 2 (Cu〖(NO3)〗2) in
mol*dm^(−3) or M
(±0.01 mol*dm^(−3))
 8

Graph 2:
Nickel: Concentration Difference of Cell 1 and Cell 2 vs.
Cell Potential For nickel, it appears
that, similar to copper,
0.12 0.99, 0.0781
0.1
as the difference in the
Cell Potential (Volts)

1, 0.0788 y = 1E-06e11.513x
0.08 R² = 0.9924 concentrations between
0.06 0.9, 0.0721 Cell 1 and Cell 2
0.95, 0.0493
0.04 increases, the cell
0.02 Series1
potential increases in a
0 0, 0.000001 Expon. (Series1) nearly direct,
-0.5 -0.02 0 0.5 1 1.5
-0.04
exponential
relationship.
Concentraton Difference of Cell 1 and Cell 2 (Ni〖(NO3)〗2) in
mol*dm^(−3) or M Graph 3:
(±0.01 mol*dm^(−3))
For Zinc, it still appears
Zinc: Concentration Difference of Cell 1 and Cell 2 vs. roughly that, as the
Cell Potential difference in
concentration of the two
0.14
y = 9E-06e9.623x cells increases, the cell
0.12 0.5, 0.0835 R² = 0.6868 potential also increases
0.1 0.95, 0.0834
Cell Potential (Volts)

in a roughly direct,
0.08
exponential
0.06
0.9, 0.0721 relationship. However,
0.04 Series1
0.99, 0.00982 there appear to be two
0.02
Expon. (Series1) outliers at 0.50M and
0 0, 0.000001
-0.5 -0.02 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.99M concentrations,
-0.04 most likely due to error
Concentraton Difference of Cell 1 and Cell 2 (Zn〖(NO3)〗2) in within the system, that
mol*dm^(−3) or M skews the trend to the
(±0.01 mol*dm^(−3)) data slightly.
Lead: Concentration Difference of Cell 1 and Cell 2 vs. Graph 4:
Cell Potential
For lead, and similar to
0.3
y = 1E-06e12.241x the previous three
0.25 0.99, 0.202 metals, as the difference
Cell Potential (Volts)

R² = 0.9997
0.2
in concentration
0.15 0.95, 0.0967
between the two cells
0.1
0.9, 0.0638 increases, the cell
0.05 Series1
0, 0.000001 potential increases in a
0 Expon. (Series1)
-0.5 -0.05 0 0.5 1 1.5 nearly direct,
-0.1 exponential
Concentraton Difference of Cell 1 and Cell 2 (Pb〖(NO3)〗2) in relationship.
mol*dm^(−3) or M
(±0.01 mol*dm^(−3))
 9

Graph 5:
Aluminum: Concentration Difference of Cell 1 and
Cell 2 vs. Cell Potential For aluminum, like the
rest of the metals, as the
0.2
difference in
y = 1E-06e11.869x
Cell Potential (Volts)

0.15 0.999, 0.135 concentration between

R² = 0.9903
0.1
0.95, 0.12 Cell 1 and Cell 2
0.9, 0.0826 increases, the greater the
Series1
0.05 0.99, 0.0644 cell potential is in a
Expon. (Series1)
0 0, 0.000001 nearly direct, exponential
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 relationship.
-0.05
Concentraton Difference of Cell 1 and Cell 2 (Al〖(NO3)〗3) in Graph 6:
mol*dm^(−3) or M…

Concentration Difference of Cell 1 and Cell 2 vs. Cell Potential

0.25

y = 1E-05e9.8237x
0.2
Cell Potential (Volts)

R² = 0.999

0.15 y = 1E-05e9.4995x
R² = 0.9879
y = 1E-05e9.2254x
0.1
R² = 0.9926
y = 1E-05e8.5534x
0.05 R² = 0.9141
y = 1E-05e8.4811x
R² = 0.9994
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Difference in Concentration of Cell 1 and Cell 2 (mol*dm^(−3) or M
(±0.01 mol*dm^(−3))
Zinc Copper Nickel
Lead Aluminum Expon. (Zinc)
Expon. (Copper) Expon. (Nickel) Expon. (Lead)

This graph is used to compare the different metals when they have the same concentration of the
electrolyte solution in the porous pot (cell 2). From this graph, it appears that, overall, cell
potential increases in this order: copper, zinc, nickel, aluminum, to lead. This is not consistent
with the values predicted by the Nernst Equation (see Nernst Equation values in tables 1-5).
This graph may instead suggest the error associated with each metal. For example, among the
four metals that should have the same cell potentials according to the Nernst Equation (copper,
zinc, nickel, and lead), lead is the highest and also has the most percent error between the
experimental and Nernst Equation theoretical values (see table 4). In contrast, copper is the
lowest, but also the most accurate according to percent error values (see table 1). Therefore, a
higher trend line among these four metals may suggest a greater inaccuracy of cell potential
readings and more error within the lab itself. Lead, for example, is the least conductive metal
among the four and the most resistant, so it is probable that its cell potential readings would be
 10

more inaccurate than copper’s, the most conductive and least resistant metal among the four.
Additionally, there is a possibility that the concentration of the electrolyte was too low, allowing
the distilled water to go into a redox reaction, producing voltage that did not pertain to the metal.
If this is the case, it would help to do a follow-up experiment in which the pH was measured to
see if there was a change and the water was reacting.
This graph, however, still suggests the trend that, as the difference in concentration between cells
increases, the cell potential increases in a fairly direct, exponential relationship for each metal
investigated.
Conclusion and Evaluation
The question to be answered was how do the concentrations of the electrolyte solutions within
voltaic cells effect the cell potential created by redox reaction, and does this depend on the metal
used? From this experiment, the results indicate that, as one electrolyte concentration stays the
same and the other electrolyte concentration changes, the cell potential changes. Specifically, the
greater the difference between the concentrations of the electrolyte solutions, the greater the cell
potential produced by the spontaneous redox reaction in the voltaic cell and in an exponential
relationship. This supported the hypothesis that a greater concentration difference would produce
greater cell potential. In graphs 1-5, each trend line as an upward, positive slope, indicating that
the trend of an increase in cell potential as the difference in electrolyte concentration increased
occurred for each metal, or a direct relationship. This also corresponded with the theoretical
values produced using the Nernst Equation (Nernst Equation columns in tables 1-5). When the
concentration difference decreased from 0.99M to 0.90M, the voltage also decreased from
0.05920V to 0.02960V according to the Nernst Equation when 2 electrons are transferred, and
from 0.05000V to 0.01850V for Copper for example, indicating a direct relationship.
Voltage, or cell potential, is produced by the creation of energy which comes from the flow of
electrons. More electrons have to flow to reach a point of equivalence when the electrolytes in
the different cells have different concentrations since there are less moles of ions and electrons in
one than in the other. Therefore, potential difference is created, and the greater the concentration
difference, the greater the voltmeter reading.
However, in regard to the metals, the hypothesis that there was no difference except when there
was a different amount of electrons being transferred was not supported experimentally, but it
was supported theoretically. This is indicated by graph 6, since each metal produces a different
line with a greatly different slope. According to the Nernst Equation, when 2 electrons are
transferred and all other factors are held constant except the concentration of one of the
electrolyte solutions, the cell potential should be the same for each metal, yet my experimental
results do not support this, and it is likely due to error.
Error Analysis and Improvements
Error definitely occurred within this experiment, as indicated by the percent error calculations
within tables 1-5. Percent value can be calculated using the equation:
 11

experimental − theoretical
| | 𝑥 100 = Percent Error
theoretical
Where experimental values are from the voltmeter, while theoretical values are those from the
Nernst Equation. The percent error equation indicates how different the experimental values are
from what they are predicted to be. The bigger the value, the greater the error.
One possible source of error in this experiment is the resistance or the lack of conductivity found
in each metal. This may explain why each metal produced different cell potentials even though
the Nernst Equation predicted they would be the same. Copper, as indicated in table 1, received
the lowest percent error overall and produced values closest to the theoretical values predicted by
the Nernst Equation. At the same time, copper is also the least resistant metal and most
conductive one out of those investigated (TIBTECH innovations), suggesting that the less
electrical resistance a metal has, the more accurate the voltage readings since the energy and
electrons could flow more easily through the cell.
Another source of error was, due to the limitation of the lack of supplies, from making my own
solutions by hand, whether that be mixing them after measuring the solids myself or by
performing dilutions. Therefore, error could have occurred through the use of the weigh scale
(±0.001 grams), the use of graduated cylinders when measuring distilled water or a solution
(10cm3 graduated cylinders with ±0.10cm3 ), or from transferring or spilling liquids and solids,
thus slightly altering the concentration of the solution I was making. Therefore, it would be
helpful to have the correct solutions made beforehand.
A strength of the experiment was the ability to control for multiple other confounding variables,
including the metals used and their activity difference, the electrolytes’ molarities, and the anions
in the electrolyte. A limitation, however, was the inability to precisely control the temperature
and pressure of the environment due to being in a school lab with a lack of resources. As
indicated by the Nernst Equation, temperature and pressure are also factors that affect cell
potential, indicating that they could have affected the results of the experiment and acted as a
confounding variable. If this experiment was replicated, it would be wise to maintain a constant
temperature within the lab or a more controlled environment if supplies are available.
It would also be interesting to test different voltmeters to see the effect this has on the voltage
reading. Voltmeters have wires that create friction and a loss of energy which could affect the
reading given. However, this is why, for my experiment, I did at least three trials per
concentration difference per element to receive an average and rid of potential outliers, a strength
of my experiment. One could also try a different set-up. For example, instead of using a porous
pot, a salt bridge could be used because it may work better.
Finally, in regard to further study, it would be interesting to do a similar experiment, but using
two different metals in the voltaic cell to see if that had any affect. One could still keep the E⦵
the same since the same two metals would be used, but again they could alter the concentrations
of the electrolytes to see the effect. It would also be intriguing to test other variables of the
Nernst Equation, such as the effect of temperature on the cell potential or the effect of the
activity difference of the two metals on the cell potential.
 12

References

Brar, L., Breitenbuecher, C., & Spohrer, C. (2017, January 20). Oxidation-Reduction Reactions.
Retrieved February 12, 2017, from
https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Analytical_Chemistry/Electrochemistry/Redox_Chemist
y/Oxidation-Reduction_Reactions
Chieh, C. (n.d.). Nernst Equation. Retrieved February 26, 2017, from
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c123/nernsteq.html
Houghton Mifflin Company. (n.d.). 19 B. Electrochemistry. In Ebbing/Gammon's General
Chemistry (pp. 357-362). Houghton Mifflin Company.
LibreTexts. (2016, July 21). Electrochemical Cells. Retrieved February 20, 2017, from
https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Analytical_Chemistry/Electrochemistry/Basics_of_Elect
rochemistry/Electrochemical_Cells
RCSD Apps. (n.d.). 17.2 Standard Reduction Potentials - AP Chemistry. Retrieved February 26,
2017, from https://sites.google.com/a/ramapocentral.net/ap-chemistry/chapter-17-
electrochemistry/standard-reduction-potentials
TIBTECH innovations. (2011). Properties table of Stainless steel, Metals and other Conductive
materials. Retrieved February 26, 2017, from http://www.tibtech.com/conductivity.php