In the Laboratory
An Experiment to Demonstrate How a Catalyst Affects
the Rate of a Reaction
Christine L. Copper* and Edward Koubek**
Department of Chemistry, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402-5026;
*copper@brass.mathsci.usna.edu, **koubek@brass.mathsci.usna.edu
Most chemistry students know that a catalyst is a
substance that causes the rate of a reaction to increase and is
regenerated at the end of the reaction, but they are not always
certain how or why a catalyst works. We believe that this is
because many beginning texts simply state that a catalyst
provides a new pathway for the reaction, one with a lower
activation energy (1). This, of course, need not be the case,
since any additional pathway will lead to an increase in rate
even if it has a higher activation energy. This is because two
reactions running simultaneously will always have a combined
rate that is faster than one alone. Too often, authors fail to
emphasize that the original reaction is still taking place and
that, depending upon conditions, it is possible for this original
reaction to proceed at a faster rate than the catalyzed reaction.
This situation is purposefully created by the conditions chosen
for this experiment.
The Experiment
The reaction studied is a variation of the familiar iodine
clock reaction (2). The reaction is
H2O2 + 2I { + 2H+ → I 2 + 2H2O (1)
For each reaction mixture studied (including those that
contain a small amount of MoO42{ as a catalyst [3–7]), the
initial reaction rate will be determined by adding starch and
a small known quantity of sodium thiosulfate to the iodide
ion solution before adding hydrogen peroxide. Upon mixing
the hydrogen peroxide with the iodide ion solution, the
molecular iodine initially produced (eq 1) is immediately
consumed by the thiosulfate according to the reaction
I 2 + 2S2O32{ → 2I { + S4O62{ (2)
However, after the small known quantity of thiosulfate is
exhausted, the iodine produced will form a complex with
the starch, producing a blue color in the reaction solution.
The interval between the final reagent mixing and the first
appearance of a blue color throughout the solution provides
the time data for the mixture.
Results and Discussion
The first thing students notice is that MoO42{ acts as a
catalyst for the reaction, since it (i) clearly speeds up the rate
of I2 production and (ii) must also be regenerated, since it is
present in far less than a stoichiometric amount. But very
much to the students’ surprise, when they subtract the
noncatalyzed rate from the overall rate obtained when the
catalyst is present, they find that the catalyzed pathway is
slower than the noncatalyzed reaction. The students’ first
response (if they have been reading their text) is that perhaps
the MoO42{ is providing an alternative pathway but one of
higher activation energy.
1714 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 76 No. 12 December 1999 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
W
Applying the Arrhenius equation, they will find that Ea
for the noncatalyzed reaction is 53 kJ/mol. A similar
calculation using the rates for the MoO42{-catalyzed reaction
yields an Ea of 42 kJ/mol. Clearly, the catalyzed reaction has
a lower activation energy, so why is it slower? At first, students
assume that their results are wrong or that “the experiment
did not work.” However, if they and their neighbors were
careful to maintain constant temperature (especially in the
ice bath) they will find others with similar results. This is
the time to point out that the concentration of a
homogeneous catalyst or the surface area of a heterogeneous
catalyst almost always appears in the rate law equation of a
catalyzed reaction. To influence a rate, it should be in the
rate law expression.1
By designing the experiment with only a small amount
(2.0 × 10{5 M) of MoO42{ added to several of the reaction
mixtures, one can demonstrate that the catalyzed rate can be
kept slow even though MoO42{ is a “good catalyst” (i.e., it
lowers the activation energy of the reaction by 10 kJ/mol). If
students are still confused, ask what they would expect the
rate of the catalyzed reaction to be if they lowered the
[MoO42{] all the way to zero. They will quickly get the idea
that the concentration of a catalyst must appear in the rate law
equation of the catalyzed reaction and that this concentration
is as important as the activation energy. Clearly one needs to
consider both these parameters in discussing how a catalyst
affects a chemical reaction.
By performing this experiment, students in general and
introductory physical chemistry can learn more about the
effect of a catalyst on a chemical reaction. This experiment
allows students to calculate rates of reaction, orders of reactants,
and activation energies. It also lets students discover that, to
increase a reaction’s rate, a catalyst need only provide any
additional pathway for the reaction, not necessarily a pathway
having a lower activation energy. Furthermore, students seem
to enjoy the experiment and some may even be encouraged
to do further work such as finding the actual rate law and
rate constant for the catalyzed pathway (8).
Notes
W
Instructions for procedures and calculations and additional
information for the instructor are available on JCE Online at
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/issues/1999/Dec/abs1714.html.
1. A catalyst concentration will appear in the kinetic rate law
expression for the overall reaction only if the catalyst is involved in a
relatively slow elementary reaction step that makes a significant con-
tribution to the overall kinetic rate law. It is possible, of course, under
conditions of large amounts of catalyst for some other steps to become
rate determining and then the catalyst would not be present in the overall
rate law expression. For a more detailed discussion of this point, it is
recommended that one consult an advanced text such as Chemical
Dynamics, by Steinfeld, Francisco, and Hase (9).
 In the Laboratory

Literature Cited 4. Sally, B. D.; Williams, P. L. Analyst 1962, 87, 653–657.

1. Zumdahl, S. S. Chemistry, 3rd ed.; D. C. Heath: Lexington, MA,
1993; p 576.
2. McAlpine, R. K. J. Chem. Educ. 1945, 22, 387–390.
3. Schumb, W. C.; Satterfield, C. N.; Wentworth, R. L. Hydrogen
Peroxide, 1st ed.; Reinhold: New York, 1955; p 557.
5. Smith, R. H.; Kilford, J. Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 1976, 8, 1–10.
6. Quin, B. F.; Woods, P. H. Analyst 1979, 104, 552–559.
7. Jianhua, W.; Ronghuan, H. Anal. Chim. Acta 1995, 303, 241–246.
8. Copper, C. L.; Koubek, E. Inorg. Chim. Acta 1999, 288, 229–232.
9. Steinfeld, J. L.; Francisco, J. S.; Hase, W. L. Chemical Dynamics,
2nd ed.; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1999; Chapter 5.

JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 76 No. 12 December 1999 • Journal of Chemical Education 1715