EXERCISE 1:

CELL WATER
POTENTIAL
DE GUZMAN, JOSE ANTONIO
DE JESUS, FRANCES AIMEE
DESEPEDA, JANNA MAE
FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL ALBERTO
4BIO2- GROUP 3
 OBJECTIVES
• Compute for the following
1. Water potential Ψ
2. Compute Solute potential Ψ s
3. Compute for Pressure potential Ψ p
 INTRODUCTION
• Water potential
• Force responsible
for movement of
water in a system
• Measured by
megapascals
• Psi

Ψ =ΨS + ΨP + Ψ M
3 COMPONENTS OF
WATER POTENTIAL:

Ψ =ΨS + ΨP + Ψ M
SOLUTE POTENTIAL (Ψ S)

• Determined by solute concentration

• Measurement of dissolved solute in water potential
• Addition of solute decreases the value of water potential
thus it is always negative in value
• Ion, sucrose, minerals and starch accumulated in cytosol and
vacuole can contribute as solutes
PRESSURE POTENTIAL (Ψ P)

• Applied pressure to water potential

• Exertion of pressure on membranes as water moves
MATRIC POTENTIAL (Ψ M)

• Due to the water-binding colloids in the cell

• For the experiment, this is the component that is assumed
to be very small so it is negligible.
• Hypertonic • Isotonic •Hypotonic
solutions solution solution
• Concentration is
• Concentration is higher • Concentration higher outside the
inside the cell inside and cell
• Water moves out of the outside is equal
• Water moves into
cell the cell
• Flaccid (plasmolysis) / • Turgid/hemolysis
crenation
 METHODOLOGY
A. Determination of Water Potential
Plant samples Plant samples were Placed in
were cut into submerged in 75mL solution for 15
Samples were then
of 7 different mins or 1.5
cubes and pre- sucrose solutions hours depending
again weighed
weighed and water on the sample

B. Determination of Solute Potential

through Cryoscopy
Plant Sap was At 1 degree,
Puree was
samples temperature
were
filtered using placed in was
cheesecloth ice-salt bath
blended recorded
 A. DETERMINATION OF
WATER POTENTIAL
Sucrose Initial Weight in Final Weight in Change in Weight (ΔW
%ΔW
Concentration grams (Wi) grams (Wf) = Wf – Wi)
Dist. H2O 15.2423 15.4324 0.1901 1.247

0.1m 15.3213 15.8981 0.5768 3.765

0.2m 14.0235 14.209 0.1855 1.323

0.3m 14.6513 14.5154 -0.1359 -0.93

0.4m 15.6073 15.4153 -0.192 -1.23

0.5m 15.723 15.615 -0.108 -0.69

0.6m 16.0212 15.897 -0.1242 -0.78

0.7m 14.7627 14.349 -0.4137 -2.8

𝜟𝑾
Eq.1.4: ΔW = Wf – Wi Eq. 1.5: %ΔW= x 100
𝑾
 INTERPOLATION METHOD

Molality %ΔW 𝑥 − 0.2 0 − 1.323

=
0.3 − 0.2 −0.93 − 1.323
A 0.2 1.323 C

B X 0 D −2.253𝑥 + 0.4506 = −0.1323

0.3 -0.93
−2.253𝑥 = −0.5829

𝒙 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟓𝟖𝟕
𝐴 𝐶
=
𝐵 𝐷
The value of x is the molality of
sucrose where %ΔW = 0.
FORMULA FOR SOLUTE POTENTIAL

𝝍𝒔 = −𝒎𝒊𝑹𝑻
Whereas
m = molality (1 molal = 1x103 mol m-3 H2O);
I = ionization constant (1 for sucrose);
R = gas constant (8.31 J K-1 mol-1);
T = room temperature in K (299K)

𝜓𝑠 = − 0. 2587𝑥103 (1)(8.31)(301)
−647,088.897
𝜓𝑠 = 6
= −0.6471 𝑀𝑃𝑎
10
B. DETERMINATION OF SOLUTE
POTENTIAL OF EXTRACTED SAP
THROUGH CRYOSCOPY

• Cryoscopy
• (gk) Cryo – cold & scopos - observe
• Freezing point & Solute potential
• Interrelated properties
 Apparent Freezing point

Degree of supercooling
FORMULA FOR REAL FREEZING POINT FORMULA FOR PRESSURE POTENTIAL
(NOTE THAT 𝜓 = 0 DUE TO FREEZING PT)

𝑇𝑓 = 𝑇𝑓′ − 0.0125(𝑡𝑠 ) 𝜓 = 𝜓𝑠 + 𝜓𝑝
𝑇𝑓 = (−3.2) − 0.0125 −3.4 0 = 𝜓𝑠 + 𝜓𝑝
𝜓𝑝 = −𝜓𝑠
𝑇𝑓 = −3.36 𝜓𝑝 = −(−4.460)
𝜓𝑝 = 4.460
FORMULA FOR SOLUTE POTENTIAL

𝜓𝑠 = 1.22𝑇𝑓 𝑐 FORMULA FOR WATER POTENTIAL

297
𝜓𝑠 = 1.22 −3.36 (
273
) 𝜓 = 𝜓𝑠 + 𝜓𝑝
𝜓𝑠 = −4.460 𝜓 = −0.6471 + 4.460
𝝍 = 𝟑. 𝟖𝟏𝟑
SUMMARY OF DATA
 WATER POTENTIAL OF ALL PLANT SAMPLES

Group 𝜓𝑠 𝜓p 𝜓 Average Ranking

Potato 1 0 2.2299648 2.2299648

2.075 4
6 -0.5676561 2.4921184 1.9244623

Carrot 2 -0.7897824 2.2332832 1.4435008

1.01 5
7 -0.4689333 1.053592 0.5846587

Camote 4 -1.6042455 6.3431216 4.7388761 4.74 1

Radish 5 -0.8144631 5.1534752 4.3390121 4.34 2
Turnip 3 -0.6416982 4.4599296 3.8182314 3.81 3
8 -0.9378666 0.4031856 -0.534681 - -
GRAPH FOR CRYOSCOPY METHOD OF
ALL PLANT SAMPLES
GRAPH FOR CRYOSCOPY METHOD OF
ALL PLANT SAMPLES
 CONCLUSION
• As the plant samples are compared, it can be observed that there are significant
differences among them and even to similar plants samples. These differences or
discrepancies may be the cause of such errors such as incorrect readings of values,
improper computation of data or inaccurate measurement of samples.
• Water potential is dependent on both solute and pressure potentials. It varies with
each plant sample such that fresh and succulent plants would have a higher water
potential compared to older and dry plants.
• Based from the results of the experiment, It did not follow the said principle.
Usually, turnip and radish should have higher water potentials than potato. This may
be possibly caused by errors in extracting, and getting the water potential of each
plant.