Iycee Charles de Gaulle Summary Effect Of Enzyme Concentrations On Production Of Oxygen Biology Essay

Effect Of Enzyme Concentrations On Production Of Oxygen Biology Essay

The map of an enzyme is explained by the lock and cardinal theory: the active site of an enzyme ( the lock ) has a specific form in which merely the precise sum of substrate ( the key ) will suit – organizing an enzyme-substrate composite ( the merchandise ) .

Catalase can rush up the decomposition of H peroxide as the form of its active site matches the form of the H peroxide molecule. This type of reaction is an anabolic reaction ( when a molecule is broken down into smaller molecules ) .

Enzymes are able to increase the rate of reaction without really being consumed in the procedure. Small measures at low temperatures are able to bring forth consequences, which would usually necessitate high temperatures and a violent reaction from any normal chemical agencies. Although additions in temperature may rush up the reaction, the heat will besides denature the enzymes and do them unstable. All enzymes are accelerators ( a substance that causes or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected ) , and they work best at pH7.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Equally long as the concentration of the enzyme substrate ( hydrogen peroxide ) is much higher than the enzyme ( catalase ) concentration, the rate of reaction is straight relative to the concentration of the catalase. This is because, as the enzyme concentration rises, the figure of active sites that are available to interact with the substrate besides rises ; this increases the rate of merchandise formation.

My original experiment was an probe into how the temperature of barm would impact their rate of respiration. However when it came to the existent experimentation we found that the volume of dye and the volume of barm we were utilizing was excessively great ( ensuing in the dye really lifting out of the ‘U tubing ‘ ) : this meant that I would hold to scale these down. However, we shortly found that by diminishing these volumes the consequences produced were really little so I decided to wholly alter my experiment ; alternatively of proving temperature, I decided to alter the concentrations of the barm I was utilizing, and see how that would hold an consequence on the barm ‘s rate of respiration and therefore the volume of O evolved.

Key Variables

Concentration of barm: The rate of respiration in barm ( and hence the volume of O evolved ) may alter depending on its concentration

Volume of H peroxide: I am blending this with the barm so the catalase will do it to break up into H2O and O

Type of barm: The rate of respiration may change in different types of barm

Temperature of the room: the temperature can impact the rate of respiration for the barm depending how hot or cold it is

Type of equipment: the length of the glass bringing tubing can impact the volume of O evolved

Volume of yeast solution: The volume of O evolved in barm may differ depending on the volume of yeast solution

Independent Variable

Concentration of barm: I am look intoing how the volume of O evolved from barm ( specifically the enzyme in the barm – catalase ) alterations when the concentration of yeast suspension varies so it is of import to alter this variable

Controlled Variables

Volume of H peroxide: since I am already altering the concentrations of the barm I use, I must maintain the volume of H peroxide the same throughout in order to do it a just trial

Type of barm: I must utilize the same type of barm throughout: otherwise this could impact the sum of O evolved in the barm

Temperature of the room: I am traveling to keep the same temperature in the room I am carry oning my experiment in to seek and acquire the most accurate consequence I can

Type of equipment: the size and diameter of the glass bringing tubing affects how the long the trial lasts – finally holding an consequence on the volume of O evolved

Volume of yeast solution: I have to maintain this the same if I want to acquire accurate consequences

Dependent Variable

Volume of O evolved: The volume of O evolved will alter depending on how much concentrated barm is being assorted with the H peroxide

My anticipation:

I think that as I increase the concentration of barm, the sum of O evolved will increase proportionately: this is because as the enzyme concentration rises, the figure of active sites that will be available to interact with the substrate ( hydrogen peroxide ) besides rises – increasing the rate of O evolved.

My experiment

Apparatus used:

Gloss bringing tubing

Screw cartridge holder

Clamp

Rubber tube

Litre beaker

Inverted barrel

Boiling tubing

Plastic panpipes

Rubber spile

Glass stirring rod

Stopwatch

Experimental Procedure

First, I used clinchs to back up the boiling tubing and attached the gum elastic tubing to the barrel of the 20cm3 syringe

Then I removed the plastic syringe, go forthing the acerate leaf in the same place, and removed the spile from the boiling tubing

After stirring the barm suspension ( which I made by adding 10g dried barm to 100cm3 H2O I prepared it one hr before I really needed to utilize it ) , I used a fictile syringe to present 5cm3 of barm to the boiling tubing

I so filled the 1cm3 syringe with and placed it into place

I opened the prison guard cartridge holder to pull H2O into the barrel of the 20cm3 syringe and closed it one time the barrel was full, so I injected the H peroxide into the boiling tubing

I measured and recorded the volume of O collected in the barrel of the 20cm3 syringe over a period of five proceedingss ( I besides used a stop watch to mensurate how much O was evolved per minute )

This was repeated utilizing 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30cm3 barm suspension in the boiling tubing ( with fresh samples of barm and H peroxide )

This method was repeated for the above three times and a average norm was calculated ; my consequences were recorded in a tabular array ( see my consequences )

Using the tabulated information I plotted graphs of my consequences before analyzing them

Experimental consequences

Volume of barm

suspension ( cm3 )

Volume of O

evolved ( cm3 )

foremost run

Volume O

evolved ( cm3 )

2nd tally

Volume O

evolved ( cm3 )

3rd tally

Average ( average )

volume of O

evolved ( cm3 )

5

4.8

4.3

5.2

4.77

10

5.0

5.4

5.6

5.33

15

4.9

5.7

6.4

5.67

20

5.1

6.4

6.8

6.1

25

5.1

6.6

7.3

6.33

30

5.0

6.9

7.6

6.5

In the above tabular array we can see that when 5cm3 of barm is being assorted with the enzyme substrate and an norm of 4.77cm3 of O is being evolved, so in theory when 10cm3 is being assorted with the enzyme substrate the volume of O evolved should be dual the mean volume produced for 5cm3 of barm ( 4.77cm3 x 2 = 9.54cm3 ) . However, this is non the instance, as really an norm of 5.33cm3 of O is being evolved for 10cm3 of barm being assorted with the H peroxide: this is because portion of the O evolved is really being used by the substrate for respiration – this consequences in the curve of the line in graph 3 + 4.

Graph 1

Graph 2

Graph 2

Graph 3

Graph 4

Data analysis of all graphs

In graph 1 a form can be seen in the consequences: the higher the barm concentration, the greater the volume of O is evolved. We can besides see that towards the terminal of tally 1 the volume of O produced does non alter and it becomes a consecutive line: this might be attributed to the fact that the barm has become saturated with the substrate. In my spread graph I have decided to utilize multinomial lines of best fit – this is because instead than a additive line of best tantrum ( which is wholly consecutive and does non really demo the curve/steepness of the changing consequences ) a multinomial line really shows the curve, and allows the spectator of the graph to see how the production of O really fluctuates and alterations.

In graph 2 we can see that most of the O evolved from the reaction passes into the roll uping vas within one minute of blending the two reactants together. Afterwards the rate slows and merely a little volume of O is produced afterwards ( peculiarly in between the 3rd and 5th proceedingss ) . The form of O development indicates that the reaction is highly rapid.

In graph 3 it can be seen that as I increase the concentration of yeast the volume of O evolved additions proportionately: this is because as the enzyme concentration additions, the figure of active sites that are available to interact with the H peroxide molecules besides rises – therefore raising the production of O.

In graph 4 we can see that the mistake bars are really little, which means that the consequences produced must be really accurate ( as there is non much scope between the different volumes of O produced per barm suspension ) .

Decision

Overall, my consequences show that there decidedly is a quantitative relationship between the concentration of yeast/catalase, and the volume of O evolved: the higher the barm concentration, the higher the volume of O was evolved: this was because as the enzyme concentration rose, the figure of active sites that were be available to interact with the substrate ( hydrogen peroxide ) besides rises – increasing the rate of O evolved ; hence, my original anticipation was right.

Evaluation

All in all I would state that my experiment was a success as I had no anomalous consequences ( so I would non necessitate to reiterate any ) , and my consequences agreed with my anticipation ; my consequences were besides significant plenty to allow me pull a decision from them. I would state that my experiment was kept just, nevertheless I believe that more could hold been done to do certain my consequences were of optimal truth: for one I could hold regulated the temperature of the research lab I conducted my consequences in ( possibly by holding a thermometer with me and doing certain that the temperature more or less stayed the same ) . Besides, when mensurating the volume of O evolved per minute, the consequences possibly could hold been more accurate ( as sometimes there was a hold in hesitating the stop watch, doing more seconds to be added onto the existent clip taken ) . However, as seen in graph 4, the mistake bars are really little, intending that the truth of my consequences were really precise: this is most likely due to the fact that I repeated the experiment for each of my barm concentrations three times so I could hold tonss of consequences to endorse up my prediction/conclusion.

If I had to do any alterations to my experiment, one would be that I covered a larger scope ( in footings of barm concentration ) so that I could hold even more consequences to endorse up my decision ; nevertheless I do n’t believe this would be a necessary alteration as I believe the consequences I have already steadfastly back up my decision.

Sometimes when I was mensurating the volume of O evolved per minute ( for a period of five proceedingss ) I sometimes experienced trouble in halting the stop watch every bit shortly as one minute had passed: possibly if I had had two people clocking individually for me, I could hold ensured that the concluding recorded clip was accurate. Apart from that though, the remainder of my equipment succeeded in doing my experiment a ‘fair trial ‘ – the panpipes had a set sum of substrate in them, therefore ensuing in me right shooting the precise volume of H peroxide each clip.

I would non do any betterments to my method other than rinsing each syringe after usage, to forestall any opportunity of taint.