How does the duration of electrolysis (60s, 180s, 300s, 420s, 600s) affect the mass of copper

deposited on a graphite cathode during electroplating using Copper (II) Sulphate as

electrolyte, as verified through the calculation of Faraday’s constant?
Word Count: 2994
Student ID: xxxxxxxxxxxx

1
[Link]
In this investigation, the electrolysis of an aqueous solution of copper sulphate (CuSO4) will be investigated
to determine the relationship between mass of copper deposited and the total time the circuit is running. After
measuring the mass deposited over a given duration, the Faraday’s constant is calculated using Faraday’s First
Law of Electrolysis to determine the accuracy and precision of the experiment. The theoretical value of
Faraday’s constant is 96485 C mol-1 (NIST, 2024).

[Link] Question
How does the duration of electrolysis (60s, 180s, 300s, 420s, 600s) affect the mass of copper deposited on a
graphite cathode during electroplating using Copper (II) Sulphate as electrolyte, as verified through the
calculation of Faraday’s constant?

[Link]
It is hypothesized that a positive linear correlation between mass of copper deposited and the duration of
electrolysis will be observed in this experiment.

[Link] Research
4.1: Electrolysis of aqueous Copper (II) Sulphate using a Copper Anode
The electrolytic cell used in this investigation consists of an inert graphite cathode and a copper anode (Refer
Figure 1). Refer Appendix 1 for general theory of electrolytic cells.

2
 Graphite Cathode Copper Anode

Cu2+ cations
towards cathode

Cu2+ is reduced to Cu at
cathode. This is seen in Cu is oxidized to Cu2+ at
the form of a thin reddish anode. This Cu2+ flows in
𝑆𝑂42− anions the electrolyte
layer on the cathode towards anode

𝐶𝑢𝑆𝑂4 solution

Figure 1:A diagram of the electrolysis of aqueous Copper Sulphate using a copper anode (Self drawn picture)

In an aqueous solution, CuSO4 dissociates into its constituent ions.

𝐶𝑢𝑆𝑂4 (𝑎𝑞) → 𝐶𝑢 2+ (𝑎𝑞) + 𝑆𝑂42− (𝑎𝑞)
At cathode: The positively charged 𝐶𝑢 2+ ions move towards the negatively charged cathode. Here, they
undergo reduction to form solid Cu.
𝐶𝑢 2+ (𝑎𝑞) + 2𝑒 − → 𝐶𝑢 (𝑠)
Cu (s) can be seen as a thin reddish layer on the cathode. Since graphite is an inert electrode, it will have no
effect on the reaction.

At anode: The negatively charged 𝑆𝑂42− ions move towards the positively charged copper anode. However,
the standard electrode potential for the oxidation of 𝐶𝑢 to 𝐶𝑢 2+ is -0.34V, which is lower than the standard
electrode potential for the oxidation of 𝑆𝑂42− to 𝑆𝑂2 (+0.17V). So, Cu is stronger reducing agent and is
oxidized at the anode instead (Bratsch, 1989) (Milazzo et al., 1978). Thus, at anode:

𝐶𝑢 (𝑠) → 𝐶𝑢 2+ (𝑎𝑞) + 2𝑒 −

Overall, a thin layer of copper should be observed on the graphite electrode, and there should be a decrease
in the mass of the copper anode as more solid copper is oxidized to form copper ions.

3
4.2: Faraday’s First Law of Electrolysis
Faraday’s First Law of Electrolysis states that the mass of any substance deposited or liberated at any
electrode is proportional to the charge that is passed through the electrolyte (Kheterpal & Dhawan, 2023).
So,
𝑊 ∝ 𝑄 … (𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 1)
Where W is the mass deposited/liberated
Q is the charge
The current I is defined as the amount of charge Q that passes through a given area in a time t. So,
𝑄
𝐼=
𝑡
⇒ 𝑄 = 𝐼 × 𝑡 … (𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 2)
Substituting Equation 2 into Equation 1.
𝑊 ∝𝐼×𝑡
⇒ 𝑊 = 𝑍 × 𝐼 × 𝑡 … (𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 3)
Here Z is a constant of proportionality called the electrochemical equivalent. The electrochemical equivalent
is the mass of a substance that is deposited when 1 Coulomb/1C of charge is passed through an electrolyte
(Walsh, 1991). Mathematically,
𝑀𝑟
𝑍= … (𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 4)
𝑛×𝐹
Where Mr is the molar mass
n is the number of electrons exchanged
F is Faraday’s constant
Faraday’s constant F is a constant that is equal to the electric charge of one mole of electrons, and it is equal
to 96485 C mol-1 (Oppermann, 2023) (NIST, 2024). So,
𝐹 = 𝑁𝐴 × 𝑒
Where NA is Avogadro’s number = 6.02  1023 mol-1
e is the elementary charge/charge of one electron = 1.0  10-19 C
For the cell used in this investigation, as the only substance being oxidized/reduced is copper, the molar
mass will be the molar mass of copper. In the reactions, 2 electrons are produced at the anode, and 2
electrons are used up at the cathode. There is a net exchange of 2 electrons (Kheterpal & Dhawan, 2023).
𝑀𝑟 = 63.55 𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑙 −1 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛 = 2
Substituting into Equation 4
63.55
𝑍= 𝑔 𝐶 −1 … (𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 5)
2×𝐹
Substituting Equation 5 into Equation 3 gives us the full expression for the mass of copper deposited on the
cathode.
63.55
𝑊= × 𝐼 × 𝑡 … (𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 6)
2×𝐹
4
 [Link] Experiment
Referring Section 4.1, an electrolytic cell was designed for a preliminary experiment to identify potential
errors and solutions to mitigate them, as described below.
Table 1: Changes done in main experiment after observing errors in preliminary experiment

Changes to Main Experiment Reason

A system of rubber bands and clips The freestanding electrodes caused current fluctuations due to
(Refer Section 6) was designed movement. So, they had to be held in place.
t=60s taken as smallest duration of During a trial for t=30s, a very small amount of copper was
electroplating deposited because of small current, and the change in mass of
cathode could not be measured.
Smaller time intervals < 900s for During a trial for t=900s, a large amount of copper was left floating
electroplating in the solution (Refer Figure 2) because of small surface area of the
graphite cathode. Hence, smaller time intervals for electroplating
were used.

Copper floating in
the solution during
preliminary
experiment instead
of getting deposited
on cathode

Figure 2: Copper floating in the solution after 900s during preliminary experiment (Self drawn picture)

5
Table 2: Values retained in main experiment from preliminary experiment

Retained in main experiment Reason

Small volume of CuSO4 (50 cm3) High voltage is needed to provide substantial current required for
deposition of copper when there is large volume of electrolyte, and
the electrodes are small. So, 50 cm3 of electrolyte was used.
Concentration of CuSO4 kept Since focus was to study impact of duration of electrolysis on
constant at 1 mol dm-3 electroplating, concentration was kept constant.
A small current(1A) was used High current density (current per unit area) can cause pitting or burnt
deposits, impacting accuracy of this experiment (Morgan, 2022). So,
1A current was used.

[Link]
Type of What is it? How it was manipulated/measured.
Variable
Independent Time ‘t’ The total duration of electroplating was manipulated. A timer with
(Unit: second s) uncertainty ±1s was used and the cell was left running for 60s, 180s,
300s, 420s, and 600s. These intervals were picked to get a large range of
datapoints in the time constraints of the experiment.
Dependent Mass Deposited The initial mass of the graphite electrode was measured using a mass
on Cathode ‘W’ balance of uncertainty ±0.0001g. After the electrolysis was completed,
(Unit: gram g) the mass of the graphite electrode was measured again. The mass of
copper deposited on the cathode was calculated by subtracting the initial
mass from the mass of the electrode after electrolysis.

Control Why was it controlled? How it was controlled.

Variable
Current in The mass of copper deposited also depends The current in the circuit was kept
Circuit on the current flowing in the cell (Refer constant at 1A using a rheostat and
Section 4.2). So, having different currents measured using an ammeter of
for each trial would introduce additional uncertainty ±0.025A.
uncertainties.
Concentration Higher concentration electrolytes have more 1 mol dm-3 of CuSO4 was used for all
of CuSO4 ions, so changing the concentration changes trials.
the current and introduces uncertainties.

6
Control Why was it controlled? How it was controlled.
Variable
Moisture on A wet cathode has a higher mass than a dry The cathode was allowed to dry for 3
cathode cathode. So, using wet cathode directly on minutes after each trial and then
mass balance (which measured up to 4 measured. This ensured there was no
decimal places) would cause a noticeable excess CuSO4 dripping from the cathode.
change in the mass of cathode, and the
calculated value of F would be lower than
expected.
Surface Area A larger surface area dipped in the A line was marked on the electrodes, and
of electrodes in electrolyte allows more copper to be the electrodes were dipped in the
electrolyte oxidized at the anode and reduced at the electrolyte until that line to keep surface
cathode. So, the rate of reaction increases as area constant.
the surface area increases, and more mass is
deposited.
Distance If the electrodes are closer, then the Rubber bands in an “X” shape and
between resistance of the solution decreases and the wooden clips were used to hold the
electrodes in current increases. So, distance must be kept electrodes in fixed positions.
the electrolyte constant to keep the current constant.
Cathode

Rubber
bands

Anode

Figure 3: Rubber bands in an "X" shape to hold the

electrodes in the beaker (Self drawn picture)

7
7. Materials List
Table 3: Materials used with their quantity and associated uncertainties, where white cells represent materials with no associated uncertainties.

Material Quantity Uncertainty

1 mol dm-3
CuSO4 solution 750cm3
Copper Electrode 1
Graphite Electrode 2
Beakers 100cm3 1
Beakers 250cm3 1
Graduated Measuring 1 ±0.05cm3
Cylinder 100cm3
Mass Balance 1 ±0.0001g
Timer 1 ±1s
Power Bank 1
Variable Resistor/ Rheostat 1
Ammeter 1 ±0.025A
Switch 1
Alligator Clips 4
Wires 10
Retort Stand 1
Sandpaper 3 A4 size sheets
Rubber bands 4
Permanent Marker 1

[Link]
The experiment was setup as shown in Figure 4 and 5 below, with the graphite electrode connected to the
negative terminal of the battery and the copper electrode to the positive terminal. An ammeter and rheostat
were also connected in the circuit. A graduated measuring cylinder was used to pour 50 cm3 of copper
sulphate solution in the beaker. The system of rubber bands as shown in Figure 3 was setup.

8
 50 cm3 of 1 mol
dm-3 CuSO4

Figure 4: Simplified Experimental Setup (Self drawn picture)

Figure 5: Actual Experimental Setup (Taken by self)

9
Steps:
1) Mark a line on the electrodes to ensure that the electrodes are only submerged till this line.
2) Fill the beaker with 50cm3 of 1 mol dm-3 CuSO4 solution.
3) Measure mass of the graphite cathode (𝑊𝑖 ) using mass balance.
4) Place the electrodes into the solution. Ensure that the electrodes are not touching.
5) Set a timer for t=60s.
6) Begin the timer and switch on the circuit. Adjust the rheostat so that the ammeter shows a reading of
1A.
7) After the timer rings, switch off the circuit. Take out the graphite electrode. Dry it for 3 minutes.
8) Measure the mass of dried electrode using the mass balance once more and record this mass (𝑊𝑓 ).
9) Throw away the existing CuSO4 solution.
10) Use the sandpaper and rub it across the graphite electrode to sand the copper layer from the
electrode.
11) Repeat Steps 5-10 for t=180s,t=300s,t=420s, and t=600s. Repeat Steps 2-4 before setting the timer.
12) Repeat Steps 2-11 three times to get three trials of the data.

8.1: Safety, Environmental, and Ethical Considerations

Table 4: Safety, Environmental, and Ethical considerations taken in this experiment.

Type Precaution Reason

Safety Rubber gloves were used. Experiment requires working with electricity
Gloves, goggles, and an apron were According to CLEAPSS, 1mol dm-3 Copper
worn (II) Sulphate is a skin irritant and can cause
serious eye damage
Environmental CuSO4 solution was stored in a separate Copper (II) Sulphate, being a heavy metal
container and was disposed of according solution, can negatively impact the
to local regulations in Germany environment if disposed of improperly (Elise,
2023).
Ethical None

10
9. Data Analysis
9.1: Qualitative Data
• Some of the trials had flaky/porous copper deposited on the graphite cathode.
• There was an increase in the temperature of the solution (not measured).
• There was a decrease in the value of current as the time interval increased, indicating that the Cu 2+
ions in the solution were being reduced faster than Cu was oxidized. To compensate, the rheostat was
adjusted constantly so that the ammeter showed a reading of 1A.
• In third trial there was a large amount of copper left in the solution when t=420s (See Figure 6). This
observation is confirmed by the data, as the value of the mass of copper deposited is much lower in
the third trial than in the first two trials. Filter paper was used to extract this copper from the
solution. However, this copper could not be measured because the filter paper absorbed copper
sulphate when the electrolyte containing the copper was poured on it. So, subtracting the mass of the
filter paper after the extraction from the mass of the dry filter paper to determine the mass of copper
was not possible. Additionally, due to the small size of each flake, they remained stuck to the wet
filter paper and could not be removed without significant losses.

Copper floating in
the solution after
electrolysis for
t=420s that did not
get deposited on
the cathode.

Figure 6: Copper remaining in solution after t = 420s during the third trial (Taken by self)

11
9.2: Quantitative Data
Table 5: Raw Data for the initial and final mass of the graphite cathode for each trial

Time (s) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

(±1s) Initial Mass Final Mass Initial Mass Final Mass Initial Mass Final Mass
𝑊𝑖 (g) 𝑊𝑓 (g) 𝑊𝑖 (g) 𝑊𝑓 (g) 𝑊𝑖 (g) 𝑊𝑓 (g)
(±0.0001g) (±0.0001g) (±0.0001g) (±0.0001g) (±0.0001g) (±0.0001g)
60 8.9780 9.0025 8.7930 8.8125 8.3153 8.3293
180 8.9341 8.9899 8.7418 8.7855 8.2042 8.2590
300 9.1121 9.2242 8.6997 8.7663 8.1671 8.2297
420 8.8929 8.9929 8.6129 8.7040 8.1560 8.1937
600 9.0645 9.2360 8.5172 8.6989 8.1959 8.3390

Table 6: Mass of Copper Deposited on the cathode, and the average mass across all trials, and the corresponding value of Faraday’s constant

Time (s) Mass Deposited (g) (±0.0002g) Average Mass Value of Uncertainty
(±1s) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 of Copper Faraday’s of Faraday’s
Deposited W Constant F Constant
(g) (±0.0002g) (g C-1) (g C-1)
60 0.0245 0.0195 0.0140 0.0193 98782 2670
180 0.0558 0.0437 0.0548 0.0514 111274 1051
300 0.1121 0.0666 0.0626 0.0804 118563 690
420 0.1000 0.0911 0.0377 0.0763 174908 874
600 0.1715 0.1817 0.1431 0.1654 115266 331

9.3: Sample Calculations:

9.3.1) Mass of copper deposited:
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑑𝑒 − 𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑑𝑒
For t = 60s in the first trial (highlighted in green in Table 5)
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 = (9.0025g ± 0.0001g) − (8.9780g ± 0.0001g) = 0.0245𝑔 ± 0.0002𝑔

9.3.2) Average Mass of Copper Deposited (W)

𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 (𝑊)
(𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 1) + (𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 2) + (𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 3)
=
3
For t=60s (highlighted in green in Table 6)

12
 (0.0245g ± 0.0002g) + (0.0195g ± 0.0002g) + (0.0140g ± 0.0002g)
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 =
3

0.0580g ± 0.0006g
⟹ 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 =
3
⟹ 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 0.0193𝑔 ± 0.0002𝑔
Converting to percentage uncertainty
0.0002
× 100 = 1% (1. 𝑠. 𝑓)
0.0193
A graphical representation of the average mass deposited and the corresponding time is seen in Figure 7.
0.2000

0.1800

0.1600

0.1400
Mass of Copper Deposited (g)

0.1200

0.1000

0.0800

0.0600

0.0400

0.0200

0.0000
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660
-0.0200
Time (s)

Figure 7: Graph demonstrating the relationship between mass of copper deposited and the time for electroplating (Plotted in Excel)

9.3.3) Calculating the value for Faraday’s constant F for each trial
Substituting I=(1A ± 0.025 A) in Equation 6,
63.55 × (1 ± 0.025) × 𝑡
𝐹= … (𝐸𝑞 7)
2×𝑊
Calculating percentage uncertainty of current
0.025
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 = × 100 = 3% (1. 𝑠. 𝑓)
1
For t=(60s ±1s), W=(0.0193g±0.0002g). Substituting these values into Equation 7,
Calculating percentage uncertainty of timer:
1
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑟 = × 100 = 2% (1. 𝑠. 𝑓)
60
Thus

13
 63.55 × (1 ± 3%) × (60 ± 2%)
𝐹= 𝑔 𝐶 −1
2 × (0.0193 ± 1%)
⟹ 𝐹 = 98782𝑔 𝐶 −1 ± 6%
Converting to absolute uncertainty,
6
𝐴𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 = × 98782 = 5927 𝑔 𝐶 −1
100
⟹ 𝐹 = 98782 𝑔 𝐶 −1 ± 5927 𝑔 𝐶 −1
9.3.4) Calculation of percentage error and percentage uncertainty for the value of Faraday’s
constant calculated
To determine the accuracy and precision of each trial, the percentage error and percentage uncertainty for
each value of Faraday’s constant is calculated.
|𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒|
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = × 100
𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
𝑈𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 = × 100
𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
For t=60s (Marked in blue in Table 7)
98782 − 96485
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = × 100 = 2.38%
96485
5927
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 = × 100 = 6% (1. 𝑠. 𝑓)
98782
The results for every value of Faraday’s constant are seen in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Faraday Constant calculated in this experiment, with the corresponding absolute uncertainty, percentage uncertainty, and percentage
error

Time (s) Value of Faraday’s Uncertainty of Percentage Percentage

(±1s) Constant F calculated Faraday’s Constant Error Uncertainty
(g C-1) calculated
(g C-1)
60 98782 5927 2.38% 6%
180 111274 4451 15.3% 4%
300 118563 5928 22.9% 5%
420 174908 6996 81.3% 4%
600 115266 3458 19.5% 3%

14
10. Conclusion
The aim of this investigation was to answer the research question “How does the duration of electrolysis
(60s, 180s, 300s, 420s, 600s) affect the mass of copper deposited on a graphite cathode during
electroplating using Copper (II) Sulphate as electrolyte, as verified through the calculation of Faraday’s
constant?” Overall, the hypothesis that there will be a positive linear correlation between mass of copper
deposited and the duration of electrolysis was demonstrated (Refer Figure 7). This is expected, since from
Faraday’s Law, the mass of copper deposited is proportional to the charge passing through the electrolyte.
Equation 3 demonstrates that the charge is proportional to the time that the current is running in the circuit.
Thus, the mass deposited should be linearly proportional to the duration of electroplating.

The points corresponding to t=60s,t=180s,t=300s, and t=600s demonstrated the expected increase in mass
deposited. However, the point corresponding to t=420s was an outlier and did not demonstrate the expected
increase, which could have occurred because of a random error which caused copper to float instead of
getting deposited, or because of the non-uniform current density in the electrolyte.

The theoretical value for Faraday’s constant is 96485 C mol-1 (NIST, 2024). From Equation 6, it is evident
that a lower mass deposited caused an increase in the calculated value of Faraday’s constant. Since higher
values for Faraday’s constant were calculated than the theoretical value, it can be inferred that the degree of
deposition of copper was lower than expected across all trials due to systematic errors. One such systematic
error that may have caused this lower deposition could be the change in cathode shape from cylindrical to
approximately conical due to sanding. The reduced surface area of the electrode decreased the rate of copper
deposition, and a lower amount of copper was deposited.

As seen in Table 7, the value calculated for F for t=60s is very accurate, demonstrated by the percentage
error of 2.38%. The values of F for higher times were not as accurate. A 15%-20% percentage error for
t=180s,t=300s, and t=600s, indicates that there may be a systematic error like the decreasing surface area of
the electrodes that may have skewed these results upwards. However, for t=420s, the percentage error is
much higher at 81.3%, so there may have been a random error. This error could be due to the copper floating
in the solution as explained above. This is further evidenced by Trial 3 for t=420s (highlighted in orange in
Table 6), which is much lower than the other values of mass deposited recorded and appears to be the cause
of this large deviation.

On the other hand, due to the very small values for the percentage uncertainty (ranging from 3-5%), this
experiment is very precise for all values of F calculated. Most uncertainties here appear to stem from
uncertainties in the measurement apparatus, the impact of which decrease with larger and larger values

15
measured. So, even if there may be systematic errors that impact the accuracy of the experiment, this
experiment was still very precise with low uncertainties.

11. Evaluation
Error and Impact Type of Solution
Error
Decrease in Surface Area of electrode: Faraday’s Systematic Using a fresh electrode whose surface
Law quantifies the relationship between mass area was measured before each trial
deposited and charge flowing, but it does not talk would reduce the impact of this error on
about where it is deposited. The mass deposited the experiment. Alternatively, the
on the cathode depends on the surface area of the surface area of the cathode can be
cathode. The surface area of the electrode impacts measured before each trial so that the
the rate at which copper is deposited. So, as the loss due to decreasing surface area can
surface area of the graphite cathode increases, the be quantified and accounted for in the
more copper would be deposited. However, analysis.
during the experiment, the surface area of the
graphite cathode decreased because sanding the
graphite to remove the copper layer also removed
layers of graphite from the cathode. This could
have caused the higher values of Faraday’s
constant calculated for t=180s,t=300s, and
t=600s because less copper could be deposited on
the cathode.
Non-Uniform Current Density: The current Systematic Current flows due to movement of ions
density refers to the current flowing per unit area in electrolyte. So, by ensuring that the
in the electrolyte, with a higher current density ions in the solution are all evenly
delivering more charge. (Lee et al., 2020) The distributed, the current density can be
data analysis assumed a uniform current density, made uniform. This is done by using a
but during this experiment it was noted that the magnetic stirrer placed at the bottom of
side of the cathode facing the anode had a thicker the electrolyte and ensuring that the
layer of copper deposited than the side facing stirring speed is kept constant and not
away from the anode, indicating that the side too fast to evenly distribute the ions in
facing away had a lower current density. So, the solutions. (Abelha Carrijo Gonçalves
because of the non-uniform current density, the et al., 2021)
mass of copper deposited on the cathode may
have been lower than predicted.

16
 Copper remaining in the solution: During the Random This copper is left floating in the
experiment it was noticed that there were still solution because there was either too
copper flakes floating in the solution, especially little surface area to deposit all the
in Trial 3 for t=420s, so some of the copper that copper on the graphite cathode, or
was to be deposited did not deposit on the because the current density in the
graphite cathode and instead was deposited in the solution was too high. These can both be
electrolyte itself. So, the measured mass solved by using electrodes with larger
deposited on the cathode was much lower than surface area placed in a larger volume of
the actual value that could be deposited, which electrolyte. This would also make the
caused the deviation in the value for t=420s. experiment more scalable, and larger
time intervals can be measured (Refer
Section 9).
Fluctuations in the current: There was a decrease Random To ensure that the current stays constant,
in the value of current as the time interval H2SO4 can be added to the copper
increased (Refer Section 9.1), indicating that the sulphate bath used in this experiment.
Cu2+ ions in the solution were being reduced By adding H2SO4, there are more
faster than Cu was oxidized, i.e., the total number sulphate ions in the electrolyte that can
of ions that could carry charge in the solution was carry charge, so the reduction in current
decreasing. So, the uncertainty in the value of the observed would not occur, current
current (±0.025A) may be higher. remains constant (Morgan, 2022).

Bibliography
Abelha Carrijo Gonçalves, G., Manoel Silveira Campos, P., Costa Veloso, T., & Rosa Capelossi, V. (2021).

Influence of current density and temperature in the zinc electroplating process at sulfate-based acid

solution: study on process efficiency and coating morphology. Scientia Plena, 17(10).

[Link]

Bratsch, S. G. (1989). Standard Electrode Potentials and Temperature Coefficients in Water at 298.15 K.

Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 18(1), 1–21. [Link]

Brown, C., Ford, M., Canning, O., Economou, A., & Irwin, G. (2023). Higher Level Chemistry for the IB

Diploma Programme. Pearson Education Limited.

17
Elise. (2023, May 3). How can the health effects of heavy metals be reduced? Alcimed.

[Link]

Huo, H., Wang, C., Tian, Z., & Moshrefi, R. (2004). Electrolytic Cell - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics.

[Link]. [Link]

Kheterpal, S. C., & Dhawan, S. N. (2023). Pradeep’s New Course Chemistry (Vol. 1 & 2) for CBSE Class

12 - Examination 2023-2024. Pradeep Publications.

Kopeliovitch, D. (2023, December 13). Copper plating. [Link].

[Link]

Lee, J. K., Lee, C., Fahy, K. F., Zhao, B., LaManna, J. M., Baltic, E., Jacobson, D. L., Hussey, D. S., &

Bazylak, A. (2020). Critical Current Density as a Performance Indicator for Gas-Evolving

Electrochemical Devices. Cell Reports Physical Science, 1(8), 100147.

[Link]

Milazzo, G., Caroli, S., & Braun, R. D. (1978). Tables of Standard Electrode Potentials. Journal of the

Electrochemical Society, 125(6), 261C261C. [Link]

Morgan, E. (2022, April 27). Copper Electroplating: How It Works and Its Applications. Rapid Direct.

[Link]

NIST. (2024). CODATA Value: Faraday constant. [Link]. [Link]

bin/cuu/Value?f

Oppermann, A. (2023, February 10). What Is the Faraday Constant? (Definition, Formula) | Built In.

[Link]. [Link]

Song, K. (2019, May 23). Electrolysis. Chemistry LibreTexts.

[Link]

Chemistry)/Electrochemistry/Electrolytic_Cells/Electrolysis

Walsh, F. (1991, October). FARADAY AND HIS LAWS OF ELECTROLYSIS: AN APPRECIATION .

Researchgate. [Link]

Walsh/publication/320324279_FARADAY_AND_HIS_LAWS_OF_ELECTROLYSIS_AN_APPR

18
ECIATION/links/59ddf9200f7e9bec3bae0718/FARADAY-AND-HIS-LAWS-OF-

[Link]

19
Appendix

Appendix 1: Electrolysis and Electrolytic Cells:

Electrolysis is a process in which current is passed through an electrolyte to drive the non-spontaneous
decomposition of the electrolyte (Song, 2019).

An electrolytic cell consists of an anode (connected to the positive terminal of a battery) and a cathode
(connected to the negative terminal of a battery) that are dipped in an aqueous or molten electrolyte. When
current is run through this electrolyte, it undergoes electrolysis.

General Features of Electrolytic Cells (Brown et al., 2023)

• The cathode is negatively charged and the anode is positively
charged.
• In an aqueous or molten state, a salt dissociates into its constituent
ions to form an electrolyte. In an electrolytic cell, the positively
charged cations move towards the negatively charged cathode, and
the negatively charged anions move towards the positively charged
anode.
• The cations undergo reduction at the cathode, and the anions undergo
oxidation at the anode.
• After reduction or oxidation, the newly formed material can be seen
as a solid layer deposited on the electrode, or in the form of gas
bubbles around the electrode.
Figure 8: Labelled diagram of an electrolytic
cell (Huo et al., 2004)

20