In the Laboratory

Conductimetric Titrations:
A Predict-Observe-Explain Activity for
General Chemistry
K. Christopher Smith,* Etinosa Edionwe, and Bayyinah Michel
Department of Chemistry, University of Texas-Pan American, Edinburg, Texas 78539-2999
*kcsmith@utpa.edu

Pyredict-observe-explain (POE) activities involve students

predicting what would happen in a particular situation, explaining their reasoning behind their predictions, observing the system
on which they previously made predictions, and explaining any
discrepancies between their predictions and observations (1).
POE activities are similar to interviews in that they allow
individuals to make their views explicit, through explaining their
reasoning behind their predictions and observations. As such,
POE activities are relevant to incorporate in general chemistry
laboratory experiments when seeking a more constructivist-based
approach (2).
Titrations are common laboratory activities in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum, and many novel applications of
titration experiments have been reported in this Journal. These
various titration experiments include chelating and compleximetric titrations (3-5), coulimetric titrations (6, 7), olfactory
titrations (8, 9), potentiometric titrations (10-12), redox titrations (13-15), and titrations aimed at determining the amounts
of ascorbic acid and citric acid in food products (16-21).
Explorations of the concept of conductivity are also common in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum, and various
articles reporting on novel aspects of conductivity have appeared
in this Journal. These reports include the construction of conductivity meters (22-25), as well as conductivity experiments exploring kinetics (26, 27), equilibrium (28), mechanisms (29, 30),
structure (31), micelles (32), and polymers (33).
Several reports of conductimetric titrations have also appeared
in this Journal, largely focused on acid-base conductimetric
titrations (34-37). Acid-base titrations are standard laboratory
activities in the undergraduate general chemistry curriculum, and
one common application of the acid-base titration is the
conductimetric acid-base titration of sulfuric acid with barium
hydroxide (38). As the titration proceeds, insoluble barium
sulfate precipitates and the conductivity of the mixture decreases
until it reaches zero at the equivalence point; further addition of
hydroxide results in an increase in the conductivity.
This article extends the idea of conductimetric titrations to
soluble acid-base systems within the framework of POE activities,
providing a contrast between strong and weak acids in an activity
suitable for high school or college general chemistry. This activity
incorporates real-time computer-based data collection, which
is of interest to students, while also enhancing the learning
experience by having students think and make predictions even
before conducting the experiments. One of the pedagogical goals
of this activity is to have students experience acid-base titrations
within the context of conductivity to complement and enhance
their normal experience of indicator-based or pH-based acid-base

titrations. Another pedagogical goal is to have students think

about and reflect on the behavior and reactions of the microscopic-level particles in the acid-base systems, and how this
behavior and these reactions affect the macroscopic-level conductivity measurements of the acid-base systems.
Experimental Procedure
At the beginning of the activity, students are given a short
background introduction to conductivity in aqueous solutions.
Students are given the opportunity to discuss the conductivity of
several aqueous solutions (0.1 M HCl, 1.0 M HCl, 0.1 M NaCl,
1.0 M NaCl), which highlight and contrast the factors governing
conductivity.
Each of the next three parts of the activity involves a
conductimetric acid-base titration: first the strong acid-strong
base titration of 0.1 M HCl(aq) with 0.1 M NaOH(aq), then the
weak acid-strong base titration of 0.1 M CH3COOH(aq) with
0.1 M NaOH(aq), followed by another weak acid-strong base
titration of 0.1 M CH3COOH(aq) with 0.1 M NaOH(aq)
under slightly different titration conditions. Before each titration,
students are asked to predict the shape of the conductimetric
titration curve and explain their reasoning. After each titration,
students are asked to compare their results to their predictions and
comment on or explain the similarities and differences between
their predictions and their results. All experimental measurements
were done using Vernier interfaces and conductivity probes (39),
with documentation accompanying the Vernier conductivity
probes indicating that the probes had a cell constant of 1.0 cm-1.
Results
Conductimetric Titration of 0.1 M HCl(aq) with 0.1 M
NaOH(aq)
Hydrochloric acid is a strong acid, so in aqueous solution,
it is completely dissociated into its ions:
HClaq f H aq Cl - aq
The titrant sodium hydroxide is a strong base, so in aqueous
solution, it is completely dissociated into its ions:
NaOHaq f Na aq OH - aq
The analyte hydrochloric acid reacts with the titrant sodium
hydroxide to yield sodium chloride and water:
H aq Cl - aq Na aq OH - aq
f Na aq Cl - aq H2 Ol

r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Vol. 87 No. 11 November 2010
10.1021/ed100538q Published on Web 08/30/2010

Journal of Chemical Education

1217

In the Laboratory

Figure 1. Conductimetric titration of 0.1 M HCl(aq) with 0.1 M NaOH(aq).

Figure 2. Conductimetric titration of 0.1 M CH3COOH(aq) with 0.1 M

NaOH(aq) added in 2.0 mL increments.

In the analyte solution as the titration proceeds, the number of

Na ions increases from the addition of the sodium hydroxide
titrant, the number of H ions decreases due to reaction with the
OH- from the sodium hydroxide titrant, and the number of Clions remains constant. As a result, as the titration proceeds to the
equivalence point (the point at which the amount of added base
is equivalent to the amount of acid initially present), the analyte
solution contains fewer H ions and more Na ions, until all the
H ions are replaced by Na ions at the equivalence point.
Because the conductivity of Na is less than the conductivity of
H, the conductivity of the solution decreases until the equivalence point. However, the conductivity does not decrease to zero
because there are Na and Cl- ions present at the equivalence
point.
When the titrant sodium hydroxide is added past the
equivalence point, the result is an increase in the number and
concentration of Na and OH- ions in the solution. As a result,
the conductivity of the solution begins to increase. The equivalence point of the titration is the point at which the conductivity
stops decreasing and begins increasing. A representative conductimetric titration of 0.1 M HCl(aq) with 0.1 M NaOH(aq)
obtained by a group of students is shown in Figure 1. The data
show the conductivity decreasing until the equivalence point,
then increasing. This figure illustrates the typical shape of the
conductivity titration curve for a strong acid-strong base system
in which reactants and products are soluble.

of the analyte solution is very low (but not zero due to a small
extent of acetic acid dissociation), the conductivity of the
solution increases until the equivalence point.
When the titrant sodium hydroxide is added past the
equivalence point, the result is an increase in the number and
concentration of Na and OH- ions in the solution. Hydroxide
ions have a greater conductivity than acetate ions (40), so the
conductivity of the solution begins to increase at a greater rate.
The equivalence point of the titration is the point at which
the slope of the conductimetric titration begins to increase.
A representative conductimetric titration of 0.1 M CH3COOH
(aq) with 0.1 M NaOH(aq) obtained by a group of students is
shown in the Figure 2. The data show the conductivity increasing
until the equivalence point, then increasing at a greater rate past
the equivalence point. This figure illustrates the typical shape of
the conductivity titration curve for a weak acid-weak base
system in which reactants and products are soluble.

Conductimetric Titration of 0.1 M CH3COOH(aq) with

0.1 M NaOH(aq)

Given this small amount of dissociation, at the beginning of the

titration, the H in the analyte acetic acid reacts with the titrant
sodium hydroxide to yield sodium acetate and water:

Acetic acid is a weak acid, so in aqueous solution, it exists

mainly in its undissociated form: CH3COOH(aq). The analyte
acetic acid reacts with the titrant sodium hydroxide to yield
sodium acetate and water:
CH3 COOHaq Na aq OH - aq
f Na aq CH3 COO - aq H2 Ol
In the analyte solution as the titration proceeds, the number of
Na ions increases from the addition of the sodium hydroxide
titrant, and the number of CH3COO- ions increases due to the
reaction of the CH3COOH with the OH- from the sodium
hydroxide titrant. As a result, as the titration proceeds to the
equivalence point, the analyte solution contains more Na and
more CH3COO- ions, until all the CH3COOH has been
reacted at the equivalence point. Because initially the conductivity
1218

Journal of Chemical Education

Vol. 87 No. 11 November 2010

Another Conductimetric Titration of 0.1 M CH3COOH(aq)

with 0.1 M NaOH(aq)
Acetic acid is a weak acid, so in aqueous solution, it exists
mainly in its undissociated form: CH3COOH(aq). However,
there is a small degree of dissociation:
CH3 COOHaq T H aq CH3 COO - aq

H aq CH3 COO - aq Na aq OH - aq
f Na aq CH3 COO - aq H2 Ol
As the titration initially proceeds, the number of Na ions
increases from the addition of the sodium hydroxide titrant,
the number of H ions decreases due to reaction with the
OH- from the sodium hydroxide titrant, and the number of
CH3COO- ions remains constant. As a result, as the titration
initially proceeds, the analyte solution contains fewer H ions
and more Na ions; because the conductivity of Na is less than
the conductivity of H, the conductivity of the solution initially
decreases. After this initial decrease, because the acetic acid exists
mainly in its undissociated form, the conductivity of the solution
increases until the equivalence point, then increases at a greater
rate past the equivalence point, as described previously.

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

In the Laboratory

Figure 3. Conductimetric titration of 0.1 M CH3COOH(aq) with 0.1 M

NaOH(aq) added in 0.5 mL increments.

In the previously described conductimetric titration of

0.1 M CH3COOH(aq) with 0.1 M NaOH(aq), the sodium
hydroxide titrant is added in increments of 2 mL, so the initial
decrease in conductivity is not observed. If the sodium hydroxide
titrant is added in smaller 0.5 mL increments, the initial decrease
in conductivity is observed. A representative conductimetric
titration of 0.1 M CH3COOH (aq) with 0.1 M NaOH(aq)
added in 0.5 mL increments obtained by a group of students is
shown in Figure 3. The data show the conductivity initially
decreasing, then increasing until the equivalence point, then
increasing at a greater rate past the equivalence point. This figure
illustrates the typical shape of the conductivity titration curve for
a weak acid-weak base system in which reactants and products
are soluble, and in which the titration method is sensitive enough
to detect the initial decrease in conductivity.
Discussion: Student Performance
This experiment has been carried out by students in three
high school chemistry classes, and a dry run of the experiment
was conducted with students in a general chemistry college class.
The experiment was carried out by students in two high school
grade 11 AP chemistry classes. One of the classes had 14 students,
whereas the other class had 16 students. The teacher of the AP
chemistry classes went over the ideas and concepts underlying the
experiment before the students carried out the experiment, so
there was no allowance for the students to give their predictions
on each of the different parts of the experiment. The students
did, however, complete the experimental procedure, which gave
insight into how the experiment worked in a typical student
laboratory setting. The students worked in groups of 3-4, with
each group working with their own interfaces, conductivity
probes, and experimental setups. Most of the students (20 of
the 30 students) completed the experiment in two 53 min
periods, whereas the rest of the students required an additional
period.
The HCl-NaOH titrations as well as the CH3COOHNaOH (2 mL increments) titrations showed very good results (as
shown in Figures 1 and 2), whereas the CH3COOH-NaOH
(0.5 mL increments) titrations showed an equivalence point
earlier than expected (at 18 mL NaOH added versus 25 mL
NaOH added), as shown in Figure 3. This early equivalence
point may have resulted from a NaOH molarity being too great,
although the teacher whose students ran the experiments reported
following all directions. However, even though the equivalence

r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

point occurred earlier than expected, the other relevant features

of the titration curve were still present (including the dip early on
and the increase in the slope after the equivalence point). This
aspect shows that, even if the procedure is not followed to the
letter, the results obtained still show the relevant features.
The teacher reported that the students understood the ideas
and concepts underlying the experiment as well as the features of
the titration curves and how they related to the behavior and
reactions of the molecules and ions. In addition, the teacher
reported that the main problem encountered was an issue with
calibrating some of the conductivity probes; this problem was
remedied by having a Vernier representative visit and service the
conductivity probes.
The experiment was also carried out by students in a high
school grade 12 post-AP chemistry class, taught by the same
teacher of the previously mentioned AP chemistry classes. There
were 19 students in the class, and they worked in six groups of
2-4, with each group working with their own interfaces,
conductivity probes, and experimental setups. The students
completed the experiment in three 53 min periods. In this
implementation of the experiment, the teacher did not go over
the ideas and concepts underlying the experiment beforehand,
and allowed the students to conduct the experiment as it is
written.
The experiment was also carried out as a dry lab activity
with students in second-semester general chemistry college
course. The college students were given the same introductory
materials as the high school students completing the experiment,
then the college students discussed the conductivity of several
aqueous solutions (0.1 M HCl 1.0 M HCl 0.1 M NaCl, 1.0 M
NaCl), and gave their predictions on the various titrations. The
students were then shown the results of the various titrations,
and they compared their predictions to the results. There were 46
students in the class, and they worked in 12 groups of 2-5; the
students completed the activity in one 75 min class period. The
results of performance of the post-AP students as well as the
general chemistry college students on this activity are summarized in Table 1, with further detailed explanatory text included
in the supporting information.
These results showed that the post-AP and college students
performed well in their prelab comparisons of the conductivities
of various solutions, but had some issues in considering particular
aspects of the titrations, including the weak acid nature of
CH3COOH, the dip in the CH3COOH-NaOH titrations,
and what happens beyond the equivalence point in the titrations.
These difficulties might be helped by providing brief demonstrations, with explanations, of the conductivities of each solution
used before the laboratory activity is carried out.
During the experimental data collection, the post-AP
students collected their titration data as conductivity versus time
instead of conductivity versus volume of NaOH added. As such,
it was difficult for the students to compare their experimental
results to their predictions. However, the teacher did go over the
ideas and concepts underlying the experiment after the students
had completed the experiment, and the teacher reported that the
students understood the ideas and concepts as well as the features
of the titration curves and how they related to the behavior and
reactions of the molecules and ions. One interesting question
from the students that the teacher reported concerned why the
mobility of H ions is greater than Na ions as H ions form
hydrogen-bonds with water and would tend to get stuck, and

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Vol. 87 No. 11 November 2010

Journal of Chemical Education

1219

In the Laboratory
Table 1. Preditictions and Explanations of the Post-AP and College Student Groups on the Various Portions of the Activity
Lab Portion

Predictions on Conductivities

Post-AP Groups

College Groups

Prelab comparisons on conductivities of solutions

1.0 M HCl(aq) > 0.1 M HCl(aq)

1.0 M NaCl(aq) > 0.1 M NaCl(aq)
0.1 M HCl(aq) > 0.1 M NaCl(aq)
1.0 M HCl(aq) > 1.0 M NaCl(aq)

5
5
5
5

12
12
12
12

Conductivity of the HCl-NaOH titration

Conductivity increases
Conductivity decreases
Conductivity decreases then increases
No prediction
Similar to a pH titration curve

2
1
2
1
0

2
9
0
0
1

Lab Portion

Explanations of Differences

Post-AP Groups

College Groups

Conductivity of the HCl-NaOH titration

Recognition of the equivalence point

No explanation
Prediction of pH titration curve

7
4
1

Lab Portion

Predictions on Conductivities

Post-AP Groups

College Groups

Conductivity of the CH3COOH-NaOH titration (2 mL increments)

Conductivity increases
Conductivity decreases
Conductivity decreases then increases
Similar to a pH titration curve

5
0
1
0

4
7
0
1

Lab Portion

Explanations of Differences

Post-AP Groups

College Groups

Conductivity of the CH3COOH-NaOH titration (2 mL increments)

Initial low conductivity of CH3COOH

Adding NaOH increases conductivity
No explanation

6
3
3

Lab Portion

Predictions on Conductivities

Post-AP Groups

College Groups

Conductivity of the CH3COOH-NaOH titration (0.5 mL increments)

Conductivity increases
Conductivity decreases
Conductivity decreases then increases
Similar to a pH titration curve

5
0
1
0

1
10
0
1

Lab Portion

Explanations of Differences

Post-AP Groups

College Groups

Conductivity of the CH3COOH-NaOH titration (0.5 mL increments)

Dip caused by adding NaOH slowly

Dip caused by sudden reaction
Dip represents equivalence point
No explanation

6
1
1
4

should therefore have a lower mobility. This concept was explained

to the teacher by the authors in terms of H transfer, whereby an
H that became attached to a particular water molecule would
cause another H from that same molecule to become quickly
displaced, allowing for a high mobility of H ions. In addition,
the students' feedback on the experiment included comments
indicating that, although the experiment was fairly easy, it was a
long experiment.
In addition, after the activity with the college students, one
author (K.C.S.) went over the ideas and concepts underlying the
activity, and the students understood the ideas and concepts as
well as the features of the titration curves and how they related to
the behavior and reactions of the molecules and ions.

a laboratory setting. Another option is to use this activity as a

demonstration, with each part of the activity performed by the
demonstrator after students make their predictions and give their
explanations for their predictions. A third option is to use the
playback feature of the Vernier software, where a previously
performed conductimetric titration can be played back at various
speeds to show the point-by-point progresison of the titration. In
this option, the demonstrator would perform the conductimetric
titrations before class, then during class each part of the activity
would be played back after students make their predictions and
give their explanations for their predictions.

Laboratory Activity versus Demonstration Activity

Hydrochloric acid, acetic acid, and sodium hydroxide fumes

or mist can cause severe irritation of the respiratory tract; these
compounds should be used in a well-ventilated area. Contact
with hydrochloric acid, acetic acid, and sodium hydroxide can

Using the Vernier interfaces and conductivity probes, this

conductimetric titration activity can be carried out by students in
1220

Journal of Chemical Education

Vol. 87 No. 11 November 2010

Hazards

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

In the Laboratory

cause burns and irritation to the skin and eyes. If contact occurs,
the affected area should be washed with plenty of cold water for
at least 20 min. Proper laboratory clothing and eye protection
should be worn at all times.
Conclusions
The conductimetric titrations described in this activity
illustrate the differences in the characteristic shapes of the
titration curves of strong acid-strong base and weak acid-weak
base systems with soluble reactants and products. Students who
were introduced to this activity understood the chemical concepts and principles behind the activity. This activity also highlights the issue of sensitivity in chemical experiments, which is an
important issue throughout the chemistry curriculum. Finally,
this activity can be incorporated into the general chemistry
laboratory or classroom as an experimental or a demonstration
activity.
Acknowledgment
We would like to acknowledge Julian Medrano of Edinburg
North High School as well as his chemistry students, and our
chemistry students, for all their assistance. We would also like to
acknowledge the Welch Foundation Grant BG-0017 for financial assistance.
Literature Cited
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

Gunstone, R. F. Aust. Sci. Teach. J. 1990, 36, 919.

Shiland, T. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 107109.
Belle-Oudry, D. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 12691270.
Yang, S.-P.; Tsai, R.-Y. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 906909.
Novick, S. G. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 1463.
Lotz, A. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 775777.
Swim, J.; Earps, E.; Reed, L. M.; Paul, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73,
679683.
Wood, J. T.; Eddy, R. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 257258.
Neppel, K; Oliver-Hoyo, M. T.; Queen, C.; Reed, N. J. Chem. Educ.
2005, 82, 607610.
Kraft, A. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 554559.
Powell, J. R.; Tucker, S. A.; Acree, W. E., Jr.; Sees, J. A.; Hall, L. H.
J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 984985.
Baretto, M. D. C. S.; Medeiros, L. D. L; Furtado, P. C. D. H.
J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 9192.
Cooper, C. L.; Koubek, E. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 652.

r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

14. Huang, T. H.; Salter, G.; Kahn, S. L; Gindt, Y. M. J. Chem. Educ.

2007, 84, 14611463.
15. Deal, S. T.; Pope, S. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 547.
16. Sigmann, S. B.; Wheeler, D. E. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81,
14791481.
17. Drossman, H. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 124127.
18. Soaw, S.; Kondo, A. E. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 550551.
19. Haddad, P. J. Chem. Educ. 1977, 54, 192193.
20. Kumar, V.; Courie, P.; Haley, S. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69,
A213A214.
21. Johnson, E. R. J. Chem. Educ. 1988, 65, 926927.
22. Haworth, D. T.; Bartelt, M. R.; Kenney, M. J.; Howald, R. J. Chem.
Educ. 1999, 76, 625627.
23. Rocha, R. T. D.; Gutz, I. G. R.; Lago, C. L. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1997,
74, 572574.
24. Katz, D. A.; Willis, C. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 330332.
25. Zawacky, S. K. S. J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72, 728729.
26. Pollnow, G. F. J. Chem. Educ. 1982, 59, 134135.
27. Pace, R. D.; Regmi, Y. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 13441348.
28. Onuchukwu, A. I.; Waziri, M. K. J. Chem. Educ. 1988, 65, 546547.
29. Newton, T. A.; Hill, B. A.; Olson, J. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 5860.
30. Newton, T. A.; Hill, B. A.; Olson, J. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81,
6162.
31. Boggess, R. K.; Zatko, D. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1975, 52, 649651.
32. Bachofer, S. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 861864.
33. Gruber, J.; Santana, H. D.; Gruber, I.; Gazotti, W., Jr. J. Chem.
Educ. 1997, 74, 418421.
34. Hiller, J. M.; Mohan, M. S.; Brand, M. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1979, 56,
207208.
35. Rosenthal, L. C.; Nathan, L. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 656658.
36. Kooser, A. S.; Jenkins, J. L.; Welch, L. E. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78,
15041506.
37. Holdsworth, D. K. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 7374.
38. Chemistry Comes Alive! Conductimetric Titration. http://jchemed.
chem.wisc.edu/JCESoft/CCA/CCA2/MAIN/CONTITR/CD2R1.
HTM (accessed Aug 2010).
39. Vernier Software and Technology. http://www.vernier.com/ (accessed
Aug 2010).
40. Levine, I. N. Physical Chemistry, 5th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York,
2002.

Supporting Information Available

Student handout; information for instructors. This material is
available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Vol. 87 No. 11 November 2010

Journal of Chemical Education

1221

Lab Documentation
Background Information for Students
Two of the main factors governing conductivity are solute concentration and solute
nature, with solute nature being influenced by solute mobility and solute charge (5). In terms of
solute concentration, the greater the solute concentration, the greater the conductance. In terms of
solute nature, various solutes have differing conductivities, based on mobility and charge; the
greater the mobility and the magnitude of charge, the greater the conductivity. As an example,
the molar conductivity of the H+ (H3O+) ion at 25C and 1 atmosphere is 350.0 -1cm2mol-1,
while the conductivity of the similarly-charged Na+ ion is 50.1 -1cm2mol-1 (5); hence, the H+
ion is more mobile than the Na+ ion.
Discuss the following questions with your lab partners.
a) If you compare the conductivities of 0.1M HCl(aq) and 1.0M HCl(aq), which solution do
you think would have the greater conductivity? Why?
b) If you compare the conductivities of 0.1M NaCl(aq) and 1.0M NaCl(aq), which solution
do you think would have the greater conductivity? Why?
c) If you compare the conductivities of 0.1M HCl(aq) and 0.1M NaCl(aq), which solution
do you think would have the greater conductivity? Why?
d) If you compare the conductivities of 1.0M HCl(aq) and 1.0M NaCl(aq), which solution
do you think would have the greater conductivity? Why?
Directions and Experimental Procedures for Students
Conductimetric Titration of 0.1M HCl(aq) with 0.1M NaOH(aq)
1. HCl(aq) Acid Solution: Using a pipet, transfer 25 mL of 0.1M HCl to a 100 mL beaker.
Add 25 mL of distilled water to the beaker. Place the beaker on a magnetic stirrer and

place a stirring bar into the beaker (if there is no magnetic stirrer available, stir with a
stirring rod during the titration). CAREFUL! Hydrochloric acid fumes or mist can cause
severe irritation of the respiratory tract. In addition, contact with hydrochloric acid can
cause burns and irritation to the skin and eyes. If contact occurs, the affected area should
be washed with plenty of cold water for at least 20 minutes.
2. NaOH(aq) Base Solution: Obtain a 50 mL buret and wash it out with three 5-mL
aliquots of 0.1M NaOH. Clam the buret to a ring stand and fill it with 0.1M NaOH to the
0.00 mL mark. Place the beaker containing HCl under the buret. CAREFUL! Sodium
hydroxide fumes or mist can cause severe irritation of the respiratory tract. In addition,
contact with sodium hydroxide can cause burns and irritation to the skin and eyes. If
contact occurs, the affected area should be washed with plenty of cold water for at least
20 minutes.
3. Rinsing the Conductivity Probe: Rinse the bottom portion of the conductivity probe
twice with distilled water and gently blot it dry.
4. Conductivity Probe Setup: Connect the conductivity probe to a channel on the Vernier
computer interface. Connect the interface to the computer. Set the selector switch on the
conductivity probe to read in the range of 0-20000 S. Attach a utility clamp to the ring
stand so that it can support the conductivity probe while the probe is in the HCl solution.
Position the conductivity probe in the HCl solution and adjust its position to ensure that
the stirring bar does not hit it. Start the Logger Pro program on the computer, and open
the 16a Conductimetric experiment set-up.
5. Conductimetric Titration: Click Collect to begin data collection. Carry out the
titration carefully as described below:

Before adding NaOH titrant, monitor the conductivity value displayed on the
computer screen. Once the conductivity has stabilized, click Keep. In the first
row in the Volume column on the computer screen, type 0.00, which is the
current buret reading in mL. Press ENTER to store the first
conductivity/volume data pair for this titration.

Add approximately 2.00 mL of 0.1M NaOH to the beaker containing HCl. When
adding the NaOH to the HCl solution, allow the solutions to mix together for
about 5 9 seconds in order for the conductivity to stabilize. When the
conductivity value has stabilized, click Keep. In the second row of the
Volume column on the computer screen, type the current buret reading in mL.
Press ENTER to store this data pair.

Continue to titrate the HCl solution by adding 2.00-mL increments of NaOH,

entering the current buret reading after each addition of NaOH. Titrate the HCl
solution until you have added approximately 30 35 mL of NaOH.

Conductimetric Titration of 0.1M CH3COOH(aq) with 0.1M NaOH(aq)

Repeat the steps for the conductimetric titration of 0.1M HCl(aq) with 0.1M NaOH(aq), but
instead of 0.1M HCl(aq) use 0.1M CH3COOH(aq). CAREFUL! Acetic acid fumes or mist can
cause severe irritation of the respiratory tract. In addition, contact with acetic acid can cause
burns and irritation to the skin and eyes. If contact occurs, the affected area should be washed
with plenty of cold water for at least 20 minutes.
Another Conductimetric Titration of 0.1M CH3COOH(aq) with 0.1M NaOH(aq)
Repeat the steps for the conductimetric titration of 0.1M CH3COOH(aq) with 0.1M NaOH(aq),
but instead of adding the NaOH in 2.00-mL increments, add it in 0.50-mL increments.

For Instructors: Answers to Background Information for Students

Comparing the conductivities of 0.1M HCl(aq) and 1.0M HCl(aq) illustrates the effect of
solute concentration on conductivity, with the 1.0M HCl(aq) solution giving a higher
conductivity due to the higher conductivity of the more concentrated 1.0M solution; comparing
the conductivities of 0.1M NaCl(aq) and 1.0M NaCl(aq) gives an analogous illustration.
Comparing the conductivities of 0.1M HCl(aq) and 0.1 M NaCl(aq) illustrates the effect
of solute mobility on conductivity, with the 0.10 M HCl(aq) solution giving a higher
conductivity due to the greater mobility of the H+ ion compared to the Na+ ion; the effects of the
magnitude of solute charge are not taken into account since all the ions under consideration have
the same magnitude of charge, namely 1. Comparing the conductivities of 1.0M HCl(aq) and
1.0M NaCl(aq) gives an analogous illustration. A table of conductivities can be provided to
students for further insight (5).
Materials Needed for the Experiment
Vernier computer interface

Vernier conductivity probe

computer

three 250-mL beakers

three 50-mL graduated cylinders

50-mL buret

magnetic stirrer

stirring bar

ring stand

utility clamp

distilled water

0.1M NaOH(aq)

0.1M HCl(aq)

0.1M CH3COOH(aq)

CAS Registry Numbers

Sodium hydroxide: CAS No.: 1310-73-2
Hydrogen chloride: CAS No.: 7647-01-0

Acetic acid: CAS No.: 64-19-7

Water: CAS No.: 7732-18-5
Hazards
Hydrochloric acid, acetic acid, and sodium hydroxide fumes or mist can cause severe
irritation of the respiratory tract; these compounds should be used in a well-ventilated area.
Contact with hydrochloric acid, acetic acid, and sodium hydroxide can cause burns and irritation
to the skin and eyes. If contact occurs, the affected area should be washed with plenty of cold
water for at least 20 minutes. Proper laboratory clothing and eye protection should be worn at all
times.
Student Performance on this Activity
This experiment has been carried out by students in three area high school chemistry
classes, and a dry run of the experiment was conducted with students in a general chemistry
college class within the past year.
AP Chemistry Students
The experiment was carried out by students in two high school grade 11 AP Chemistry
classes. One of the classes had 14 students, while the other class had 16 students. The teacher of
the AP Chemistry classes went over the ideas and concepts underlying the experiment before the
students carried out the experiment, so there was no allowance for the students to give their
predictions on each of the different parts of the experiment. The students did, however, complete
the experimental procedure, which gave insight into how the experiment worked in a typical
student laboratory setting. The students worked in groups of 3-4, with each group working with
their own interfaces, conductivity probes, and experimental setups. Most of the students (20 of

the 30 students) completed the experiment in two 53-minute periods, while the rest of the
students required an additional period.
The HCl-NaOH titrations as well as the CH3COOH-NaOH (2 mL increments) titrations
showed very good results (as shown in Figures 1 and 2), while the CH3COOH -NaOH (0.5 mL
increments) titrations showed an equivalence point earlier than expected (at ~18 mL NaOH
added versus 25 mL NaOH added), as shown in Figure 3. This early equivalence point may have
resulted from a NaOH molarity being too great, although the teacher whose students ran the
experiments reported following all directions. However, even though the equivalence point
occurred earlier than expected, the other relevant features of the titration curve were still present
(including the dip early on and the increase in the slope after the equivalence point). This aspect
shows that even if the procedure isnt followed to the letter, the results obtained still show the
relevant features.
The teacher reported that the students understood the ideas and concepts underlying the
experiment as well as the features of the titration curves and how they related to the behavior and
reactions of the molecules and ions. In addition, the teacher reported that the main problem
encoutnered was an issue with calibrating some of the conductivity probes; this problem was
remedied by having a Vernier representative visit and service the conductivity probes.
Post-AP Chemistry Students
The experiment was also carried out by students in a high school grade 12 Post-AP
Chemistry class, taught by the same teacher of the previously mentioned AP Chemistry classes.
There were 19 students in the class, and they worked in six groups of 2-4, with each group
working with their own interfaces, conductivity probes, and experimental setups. The students
completed the experiment in three 53-minute periods. In this implementation of the experiment,

the teacher did not go over the ideas and concepts underlying the experiment beforehand, and
allowed the students to conduct the experiment as it is written.
At the start of the experiment when the post-AP students discussed the conductivity of
several aqueous solutions (0.1M HCl(aq), 1.0M HCl(aq), 0.1M NaCl(aq), 1.0M NaCl(aq)), 5 of
the 6 groups of students gave correct explanations and interpretations when discussing the
conductivities of the solutions; one group did not report on their discussions for this part. These
results showed that the students understood the basic concepts and factors governing
conductivity.
In their predictions of the HCl-NaOH titration, two of the groups of post-AP students
predicted that as the titration proceeded the conductivity would increase (because of greater
concentrations of ions in the solution since Na+ and OH- were being added), one group predicted
that the conductivity would decrease (because the added OH- combines with the H+ of the acid),
two groups predicted that the conductivity would decrease then increase (because initially the
added OH- combines with the H+ of the acid then eventually the OH- is in excess) , and one
group gave no prediction.
In their predictions of the CH3COOH-NaOH titration in 2-mL increments, five groups
predicted that as the titration proceeded the conductivity would increase (with three of the groups
indicating that the CH3COOH is a weak acid with a low initial conductivity so the conductivity
of the solution increases as the titration proceeds, and two of the groups indicating that adding
NaOH increases the ions in the solution leading to a greater conductivity). In addition, one group
predicted that the conductivity would decrease then increase (because initially the added OHcombines with the H+ of the acid then eventually the OH- is in excess).

In their predictions of the CH3COOH-NaOH titration in 0.5-mL increments, five groups

predicted that as the titration proceeded the conductivity would increase, and one group predicted
that the conductivity would decrease then increase, which were the same predictions and
explanations as in the CH3COOH-NaOH titration in 2-mL increments.
These results showed that only some of the groups of students (3 of the 6 groups) were
correct in their predictions of the shape of the HCl-NaOH titration, with only some of the groups
(2 of the 6 groups) considering the reactions occurring and what would happen beyond the
equivalence point. In addition, most of the groups of students (5 of the 6 groups) were correct in
their general predictions of the shape CH3COOH-NaOH titrations (although only some of the
groups (3 of the 6 groups) considered the weak acid nature of CH3COOH in their predictions);
however, the students did not distinguish between the CH3COOH-NaOH titration in 2-mL
increments and the CH3COOH-NaOH titration in 0.5-mL increments in their predictions, and
none of the groups of students predicted detailed aspects of the CH3COOH-NaOH titrations,
such as the increase in the slope after the equivalence point, or the dip near the start of the
CH3COOH-NaOH titration in 0.5-mL increments.
During the experimental data collection, the post-AP students collected their titration data
as conductivity versus time instead of conductivity versus volume of NaOH added. As such, it
was difficult for the students to compare their experimental results to their predictions. However,
the teacher did go over the ideas and concepts underlying the experiment after the students had
completed the experiment, and the teacher reported that the students understood the ideas and
concepts as well as the features of the titration curves and how they related to the behavior and
reactions of the molecules and ions. One interesting question from the students that the teacher
reported concerned why the mobility of H+ ions is greater than Na+ ions since H+ ions form

hydrogen-bonds with water and would tend to get stuck, and should therefore have a lower
mobility. This concept was explained to the teacher by the authors in terms of H+ transfer,
whereby an H+ that became attached to a particular water molecule would cause another H+ from
that same molecule to become quickly displaced, allowing for a high mobility of H+ ions. In
addition, the students feedback on the experiment included comments indicating that although
the experiment was fairly easy, it was a long experiment.
College General Chemistry Students
The experiment was also carried out as a dry lab activity with students in the first
authors second semester general chemistry college course. The college students were given the
same introductory materials as the high school students completing the experiment, then the
college students discussed the conductivity of several aqueous solutions (0.1M HCl(aq), 1.0M
HCl(aq), 0.1M NaCl(aq), 1.0M NaCl(aq)), and gave their predictions on the various titrations.
The students were then shown the results of the various titrations, and they compared their
predictions to the results. There were 46 students in the class, and they worked in twelve groups
of 2-5; the students completed the activity in one 75-minute class period.
At the start of the activity when the college general chemistry students discussed the
conductivity of several aqueous solutions (0.1M HCl(aq), 1.0M HCl(aq), 0.1M NaCl(aq), 1.0M
NaCl(aq)), all 12 groups gave correct explanations and interpretations when discussing the
conductivities of the solutions, except one group which reported that the conductivity of 1.0M
HCl(aq) would be more conductive than 1.0M NaCl(aq) because of a greater molarity of H+ ions.
These results showed that the students understood the basic concepts and factors governing
conductivity.

In their predictions of the HCl-NaOH titration, two of the groups of college general
chemistry students predicted that as the titration proceeded the conductivity would increase
(because NaOH was being added), nine groups predicted that the conductivity would decrease
(with two of the groups indicating that the added OH- combines with the H+ of the acid, five of
the groups indicating that the added NaOH was less conductive than the HCl so the resulting
solution would have a lower conductivity, and two of the groups offering no explanation), and
one group predicted that the conductivity titration curve would be similar to a strong acid-strong
base pH titration curve.
In their predictions of the CH3COOH-NaOH titration in 2-mL increments, four groups
predicted that as the titration proceeded the conductivity would increase (with one of the groups
indicating that the CH3COOH is a weak acid with a low initial conductivity so the conductivity
of the solution increases as the titration proceeds, two of the groups indicating that adding NaOH
leads to a greater conductivity, and one of the groups offering no explanation). Seven groups
predicted that the conductivity would decrease (with three of the groups indicating that the added
NaOH was less conductive than the CH3COOH so the resulting solution would have a lower
conductivity, two of the groups indicating that the CH3COOH and NaOH would react, and two
of the groups indicating CH3COOH is a weak acid, so adding NaOH would cause the
conductivity to decrease). In addition, one group predicted that the conductivity titration curve
would be similar to a weak acid-strong base pH titration curve.
In their predictions of the CH3COOH-NaOH titration in 0.5-mL increments, one group
predicted that as the titration proceeded the conductivity would increase (with this group
indicating that the CH3COOH is a weak acid with a low initial conductivity so the conductivity
of the solution increases as the titration proceeds). All seven of the groups which predicted that

10

the conductivity would decrease with 2-mL increments of added NaOH also predicted that the
conductivity would decrease with 0.5-mL increments (with four of the groups indicating a lesser
rate of decrease and one of the groups indicating a faster rate of decrease). Three of the groups
which predicted that the conductivity would increase with 2-mL increments of added NaOH
predicted that the conductivity would decrease with 0.5-mL increments (with two of the groups
indicating that adding NaOH leads to a greater conductivity, and one of the groups offering no
explanation). In addition, one group predicted that the conductivity titration curve would be
similar to a combination of a strong acid-strong base pH titration curve and a weak acid-strong
base pH titration curve.
These results showed that most of the groups of students (9 of the 12 groups) were
correct in their predictions of the shape of the HCl-NaOH titration, with only a couple of the
groups (2 of the 12 groups) considering the reactions occurring, and none of the groups
considering what would happen beyond the equivalence point. In addition, some of the groups of
students were correct in their general predictions of the shape of the CH3COOH-NaOH titrations
(4 of the 12 groups for the 2-mL increment titration, 1 of the 12 groups for the 0.5-mL increment
titration). However, overall only some of the groups (3 of the 12 groups) considered the weak
acid nature of CH3COOH in their predictions, and the groups which distinguished between the
0.5-mL increment titration and the 2.0-mL increment titration did so incorrectly, focusing on a
change in the slope of the titration curve (8 of the 12 groups). In addition, none of the groups of
students predicted detailed aspects of the CH3COOH-NaOH titrations, such as the increase in the
slope after the equivalence point, or the dip near the start of the CH3COOH-NaOH titration in
0.5-mL increments.

11

After the students gave their predictions, they were shown the results of the various
titrations, and they compared their predictions to the results. In their comparisons of their
predictions with the results of the HCl-NaOH titration, seven groups recognized the equivalence
point in the results, and three of these groups explained that as the equivalence point was reached
and excess NaOH was added, the conductivity would rise due to the excess NaOH. Four groups
offered no explanation for the differences between their predictions and the results, while one
group explained that their prediction followed a pH titration curve instead of a conductivity
titration curve.
In their comparisons of their predictions with the results of the CH3COOH-NaOH
titration in 2-mL increments, six groups recognized that their predictions were in error because
they did not take into account the fact that CH3COOH is a weak acid, and would begin initially
with a low conductivity. Three groups recognized that they should have predicted that the
conductivity would increase because the strong base NaOH was being added, and three groups
offered no explanation for the differences between their predictions and the results.
In their comparisons of their predictions with the results of the CH3COOH-NaOH
titration in 0.5-mL increments, six groups indicated that the dip near the beginning of the
titration was due to the NaOH being added in small increments. One group indicated that the dip
was caused by a sudden reaction near the beginning of the titration, while another group
indicated that the dip represented the equivalence point in the titration. Four groups offered no
explanation for the dip near the beginning of the titration.
These results showed that some of the groups of students (7 of the 12 groups) thought
about the equivalence point of the HCl-NaOH titration after viewing the titration results, but only
a few groups (3 of the 12 groups) explained how the shape of the titration was related to what

12

was going on in the titration. The explanations of the students about the CH3COOH-NaOH
titration (in 2-mL NaOH increments) were focused on the weak acid nature of CH3COOH (6 of
the 12 groups) and the effect of the added NaOH on the conductivity (3 of the 12 groups); none
of the groups focused on the equivalence point in the titration. The explanations of the students
about the dip in the CH3COOH-NaOH titration (in 0.5-mL NaOH increments) were focused on
the small increments of added NaOH (6 of the 12 groups); only one group focused on the
equivalence point, and their explanation was in error.
After the activity, the first author went over the ideas and concepts underlying the activity, and
the students understood the ideas and concepts as well as the features of the titration curves and
how they related to the behavior and reactions of the molecules and ions.

13