HOW DOES GAVISCON AND TUMS ANTACIDS HELP NEUTRALIZING HYDROCHLORIC

ACID IN THE STOMACH AND WHICH ONE IS MORE EFFICIENT

Abstract: In this laboratory practice two antacids were analyzed to prove their effectiveness neutralizing
hydrochloric acid, the aim was to identify which one according to it’s dose works more efficiently in the
stomach, according to the results obtained and after making the proper analyzis with each relative
uncertainty during the 3 trials, the conclusion was that in general Gaviscon antacid tablet is more
effective than Tums, as it required less drops/ grams of acid to see a change in the solution.
Introduction:
This topic was chose because it seems curious to me that these pharmaceutical drugs can have such a
good effect on neutralizing acid. Ever wondered why people suffer of dyspepsia, gastritis, peptic ulcer,
and other common stomach diseases? Well, this is due to excessive production of hydrochloric acid in
the stomach that in some cases also produce bloating or heartburn. There are several types of antacids
that can quickly increase the pH of gastric juice by reacting with hydrochloric acid. Some common
antacids are carbonates, hydroxides, calcium, and magnesium. Gaviscon, which is composed by
magnesium carbonate and Tums that is composed of calcium carbonate are well-known commercial
antacids, therefore are going to be tested in this investigation.
Research question: Which of the two antacids can neutralize the greater amount of hydrochloric acid
and which one has a greater effectiveness?
Objective: In doing so, the intend is to identify which brand is more efficient. By examining the
chemical composition of each antacid, and after recording the number of drops of hydrochloric acid
needed to neutralize the excess acid a conclusion will be made so as to evaluate their effectiveness on
the stomach.
Hypothesis: As both antacids are going to be tested in the same way being the crushed tablet the
controlled variable, in average they will neutralize the same amount of hydrochloric acid, as their
chemical composition is similar too.

Background:

“The process of digestion involves a series of catabolic reactions that transform food nutrients into small
molecules. Many of these reactions take place in the stomach, where the food is mixed with a digestive
fluid. This fluid, also known as gastric juice, is composed of water, salts (mostly KCl and NaCl),
hydrochloric acid (HCl), and enzymes (pepsins), which are secreted by the cells in the stomach lining.
These enzymes are primarily responsible for the breakdown of proteins into peptides and individual
amino acids. Other cells produce hydrogen carbonate ions and gastric mucus to buffer the acid and
prevent the gastric juice from digesting the stomach tissues” (Sergey bylikin, 2014).

“The concentration of hydrochloric acid in the stomach varies from approximately 0.003-to 0.1 mol

(0.021-0.4%), which corresponds to a pH range of 1.0 to 2.5. Although the acid itself does not
break down food molecules, it denatures proteins and provides an optimum pH for pepsin and other
enzymes in the gastric juice. In addition, hydrochloric acid acts as a disinfectant, killing nearly all-
harmful microorganisms that are ingested with the food” (Sergey bylikin, 2014).
 “The presence of acid in the gastric juice was first described in 1838 by surgeon William Beaumont,
who was observing a patient with a gastric fistula (an unhealed hole in the stomach) left by a gunshot.
By taking samples of gastric juice and using them to “digest” food in glass containers, Beaumont
discovered that digestion was a chemical rather than mechanical process. Further experiments revealed
the negative effects of excess stomach acid, which led to the development of antacids. Finally, the study
of digestion at the cellular level led to the creation of new pharmaceutical drugs, which regulate the
acidity of the stomach by suppressing the secretion of hydrochloric acid” (Sergey bylikin, 2014).

Methodology:
To understand what is the effect of Tums and Gaviscon tablet antacids in the stomach, the theoretical
molecular equation and the ionic equation for both are going to be used.

Antacid Base name Formula Balanced molecular formula

Tums Calcium
Carbonate (s)+2HCl(aq) (aq)+ (g)+ (l)

Gaviscon Magnesium (s)+2HCl(aq) (aq)+ (g)+ (l)

Carbonate

Table #1: Is showing the two antacids tested molecular formulas that act as weak Brønsted–Lowry
bases.

Antacid Ionic equation

Tums (s)+ (aq) (aq)+ (g)+ (l)
Gaviscon (s)+ (aq) (aq)+ (g)+ (l)
Table #2: Present the ionic equations for the above molecular formulas showing that antacids reduce the
concentration of (aq) ions increasing the pH of gastric juice.

Moreover, taking into consideration the significant factors that may relevance, reliability and sufficiency
of the collected data, there are:

Controlled variable Independent Variable Dependent variable

Crushed antacid weight Acid drops pH
Table #3: Shows the investigation variables.

Materials:

1. Stomach antacid tablets (Tums, Gaviscon) (3g)

 2. 2.5 % Hydrochloric acid (50mL)
3. Bromphenol blue solution (5 mL)
4. Graduated cylinder (100 mL )

5. Erlenmeyer flask (250 mL )

6. Burette (50 mL )

7. Beaker (50 mL )
8. Distilled water (50 mL)
9. Dropper
10. Analitical balance
11. Watch glass
12. Scoopula
13. Glass stirring rod

Experimental procedure:

1. Obtain the antacid tablet.

2. Determine the mass of the tablet using the analytical balance and record it, then record the tablet
identity.
3. Crush the antacid tablet with the scoopula. To minimize waste sample the tablet instead of using
the whole tablet. (Save the rest for more trials)
4. Weight 0.5 g of the crushed tablet to the nearest precision of the analytical balance inside the
watch glass.
5. Transfer the crushed tablet to the 250 mL Erlenmeyer flask.
6. Using the burette add exactly 20 mL of distilled water to the flask and gently swirl with the glass
stirring rod to dissolve the crushed tablet as completely as possible.
7. Using the dropper add 2-3 drops of blue indicator solution to the flask.
8. Start adding HCl with the dropper until you see a change.
9. Record the number of drops required to neutralize the excess acid.
10. Do more trials using the same brand of antacid, and the do the same procedure with another one
so that you can compare.
Disposal:
Empty all the materials used and rinse them three time times with distilled or deionized water, discard
completely any of the antacid tablets partially crushed.

Safety precautions:
 Wear approved eye protection in the laboratory at all times.
 Hydrochloric acid is corrosive. In the event of skin contact, wash well with water. If the skin is
blistered or broken, seek professional medical treatment.
 Sodium hydroxide is caustic. In the event of skin contact, wash well with water. If the skin is
irritated or broken, seek professional medical treatment.
  Stomach antacid tablets used in this experiment has been stored under laboratory conditions and
may be contaminated. Do not taste any materials used in this experiment.

Raw data:

Tums Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

Antacid tablet weight 1.9 1.8 1.9
Crushed antacid weight 0.5 0.5 0.5
pH of solution without 10 units 10 units 10 units
acid
pH of solution with acid 2 units 2 units 2 units
Drops of acid required 105 120 117
to see a change
Table #4: Quantitative data; weight and titration of tums.

Gaviscon Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

Antacid tablet weight 1.5 )g 1.5 g 1.6 ( g
Crushed antacid weight 0.5 g 0.5 g 0.5 g
pH of solution without 8 units 8 units 9 units
acid
pH of solution with acid 2 units 2 units 2 units
Drops of acid required 90 93 115
to see a change
Table#5: Quantitative data; weight and titration of tums.

Qualitative observations:

Tums Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

After being crushed The powder was pale The powder was very The powder was white
pink and thin pale blue and thin
With HCl addition The solution turned The solution turned The solution turned
cloudy cloudy milked white
With blue indicator The solution became The solution became The solution became
light pink pink light purple.
Table #6: Tums observations recorded.

Gaviscon Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

 After being crushed The powder was white The powder was white The powder was white
With HCl addition The solution turned Started to appear The solution turned
cloudy bubbles in the solution cloudy like jelly.
With blue indicator The solution became The solution became The solution became
yellow light purple light pink.
Table #7: Gaviscon observations recorded.

Analysis:

Drops/grams=

Antacid Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 % Relative

calculation calculation calculation uncertainty
Tums
=210 drops/ grams =240 drops/ =234 drops/ =0.2%

grams grams
Gaviscon
=180 drops/ grams =186 drops/ =230 drops/ x100= 0.2%

grams grams
Table #8: It is showing the calculation of average drugs of acid required for neutralization and their
respective relative uncertainty, therefore as it can be seen in the data below, in trials 1 ad 2 Gaviscon
needed less drops/ grams of acid compared to Tums antacid tablets, and both share the same % of
uncertainty.
 Graph#1: Presents table #8 results, with the respective % uncertainties. As seen in the graph, Gaviscon
require lesser drops of acid to be neutralized than Tums.

Antacid Effectiveness =

Antacid Trial 1 % Relative Trial 2 % Relative Trial 3 % Relative

calculation uncertainty calculation uncertainty calculation uncertainty
Tums
= 37 = 44g/dose =41 g/dose
3,7%
g/dose 3.5%
Gaviscon
= =41 g/dose = 48
4.4% 4.1%
40g/dose 4.4% g/dose
Table #9: This table is presenting the calculation of Tums and Gaviscon effectiveness on each trial. Note
that the recommended dose of antacid is 1 tablet 3 times a day; therefore the weight of the antacid tablet
present on tables #4 and #5 was multiplied by 3 to obtain the recommended dose in grams. Analyzing
the table it could be stated that Gaviscon on trial 3 was the more effective, and again in general terms
Gaviscon antacid had the greater values of effectiveness.
Data table is also presenting high % relative uncertainties for each trial, which reduce reliability on the
antacid effectiveness.
Graph #2: Presents table #9 results, with the respective % uncertainties. It can be seen from the graph
above that there were some discrepancies between the effectiveness of Gaviscon and Tums antacid
tablets but in general Gaviscon is more effective according to g/ dose values.

Evaluation: In this point is important to make a reflection about the limitations of the data sources of
error and suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.

Systematic Random
Could be errors in the readings taken from pH Other ingredients of the antacid may affect the pH
meter as the last time that the instrument was value of the mixture and therefore the obtained
calibrated is unknown. results.

Smaller crushed antacid table weight because Not enough time to stir completely perfect the
when transferring the crushed sample some grains solution.
may be lost.
Table #10: Establish of experimental errors.
 Factor Effect on Experiment
Lack of materials It was never enough hydrochloric
acid for making more trials,
therefore the extension of the
experiment was reduced to just 3
trials.
Not enough time As the time for making the
experiment was short, each drop
of acid was poured really fast so
as it didn’t had enough time to
react maybe more drops of what
the solution really needed where
used.
Not crushing the tablet perfectly Could increase the number of
drops needed to neutralize the
solution as larger particles take
more time to dissolve.
Uncertainties As they are high they could affect
the accuracy and reliability of the
investigation.
Table #11: Limitations and improvements of the investigation.
Improvement
This investigation is actually and
improvement of a chemistry lab
report I did months ago but with
the complete parts I couldn’t do
before.
Wait more time before pouring
each drop of acid to the solution,
by that way low accuracy will be
reduced.
Using another type of material
that will crush 100% the antacid
tablet.
The balance used is the most
precise balance, therefore the
improvement could be in terms of
a deeper analysis of errors.

Conclusion:

The main conclusions arising from this study are as follows:

1. As seen in the methodology, both antacids were very similar in their molecular formulas and
therefore in their ionic equations, which mean that, both work likely in the stomach and may
differ few in terms of effectiveness.
2. The investigation procedure and methodology were consistent leading to a good laboratory
practice.
3. The aim of the laboratory was to determine which antacid was more effective. According to
results presented in tables #8 and #9 Gaviscon antacid tablet is more effective than Tums, as it
required less drops/ grams of acid to see a change in the solution.
4. It is a fact, antacids are reliable for reducing stomach acid, as seen in data tables #4 and #5 when
pH of hydrochloric acid was 2 but the antacid with the solution had pH of 8-10 which in the
stomach will rapidly increase gastric juice.
5. Not all antacids are equally effective due to the ingredients they are composed but they work
similar in our organisms.
 6. Considering the impact of measuring uncertainty in the analysis, is possible to state that due to
the high relative uncertainties on each trial, results presented in the investigation could be
affected reducing their reliability and therefore Gaviscon or Tums could reduce more acid or
either less acid.

References:

[1] James M. Miller and Don V. Zahniser, “Antacid Analysis”, Chemistry, 44, (no. 7) July-
August 1971, page 28.

[2] Katz., D. A. (2009, August 2). TITRATION: STANDARDIZATION OF A BASE AND

ANALYSIS OF STOMACH ANTACID TABLETS. Retrieved January 28, 2016, from
http://www.chymist.com/Analysis of stomach antacids 151.pdf

[3] Sergey bylikin, S.B. (2014). PH regulation of the stomach. In Gary horner, G.H, Brian
murphy, B.M & David tarcy, D.T (Eds), Chemistry (pp. 737-740). United Kingdom: Oxford
university.

[4] The Editors of Consumer Reports, The Medicine Show, Revised Edition, Consumers Union,
Mount Vernon, N.Y. 1963, pages 38-40.