Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Grade Level/Subject AP Biology Unit Big Idea 2 Enduring Understanding 2.B. Growth, reproduction and dynamic homeostasis require that cells create and maintain internal environments that are different from their external environments. 2.B.1 Cell membranes are selectively permeable due to their structure Essential knowledge Title Determine the water potential of a potato tuber Learning Objective 2.10 The student is able to use representations and models to pose scientific questions about the properties of cell membranes and selective permeability based on molecular structure. 2.11 The student is able to construct models that connect the movement of molecules across membranes with membrane structure and function 2 (Question and Methods Given; Solution Open) Inquiry Level Materials Required 1 M sucrose solution diluted to 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7 M; potato, knife, beakers, scale in g, timer, paper towels, MEASURING WATER POTENTIAL IN POTATO TUBERS OBJECTIVE The objective of this lab is to measure the water potential of potato tuber tissues. We will monitor water uptake or loss by tissues in different sucrose solutions to identify an isotonic solution with water potential equal to that of the tissue. INTRODUCTION Water potential () is a measure of the driving force that governs the movement of water from the soil into plants and finally into the atmosphere. Water potential is the amount of energy per unit volume (or pressure) contained in a system (like a plant cell, tissue, or soil) and is expressed in units of megapascals (Mpa). For reference, pure water in a free standing solution has a water potential of zero. Water potential of a plant cell is made up of two important components, and the relationship among these components is expressed mathematically as: = s + p is the overall water potential of a cell. s is the solute or osmotic potential and represents the contribution made by dissolved solutes to . Adding dissolved solutes to a system always decreases water potential, thus this component is always negative. In a plant cell, important contributors to solute potential include mineral ions, sucrose, starch, amino acids, proteins, and anything else that can accumulate to high levels in the cytosol or vacuoles. p is the pressure potential and represents the contribution made by pressure to . Fully turgid cells whose plasma membranes are pressing against the cell wall have a positive p. Cells at incipient plasmolysis (the point at which the membrane is just barely touching the cell wall) have a p of zero. Cells under tension, like those in the xylem during active evapotranspiration, have a negative p. The objective of this experiment is to measure the of potato tubers. When placed in a free standing sucrose solution, water will move into or out of a plant tissue depending upon its water potential relative to the solution. Gain or loss of water can be detected by weighing the plant tissue before and after immersion in the solution. By incubating tissues in a series of sucrose solutions of different concentrations, the solution that causes no change in tissue weight can be identified. The water potential of this isotonic solution is assumed to equal the water potential of the tissue. PROCEDURE 1) Pick up one of the sucrose concentrations:0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7 M (mol/L solution) sucrose. Add 75 mL of each solution to the appropriate labeled beaker using a clean graduated cylinder for each solution. 2) Obtain 2 pieces of potato without skin, trim to 4 cm. Work quickly to prevent the tissues from drying out as you cut them. What problems would tissue drying cause in the experiment? 3) Quickly blot the potato pieces on paper towels to remove any excess moisture and weigh them together, sets of two, to the nearest 0.01g. Record the weights in Table 1. After weighing, quickly transfer them to the sucrose solution beaker and ensure that they are fully immersed. 4) After 45 minutes, remove the potato pieces, blot excess moisture with paper towels, and reweigh them in sets of two, exactly as in step 3. Record the weights in Table 1. Calculations Complete the following in your noteboooks. 1. Subtract the initial tissue weights from the final weights. Second, divide the difference by the initial weight and multiply by 100 to get the percent weight change. Make Table 1 in your notebooks. Molarity [Sucrose] Initial weight Final weight weight % weight 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 2. Create a graph by plotting the percent change in weight (y-axis) vs. sucrose concentration (x-axis) in your notebook. Calculate the regression line (y=mx+b). Determine the exact concentration of sucrose that would cause no change in weight in the potato tubers (isotonic). The water potential of this solution will equal the water potential of the potato tissue. 3. In an open solution where there is no turgor pressure, therefore p is equal to zero. Thus, the of a solution is equal to the s of a solution. = s + Calculate the s of the solution causing no change in weight of the potato tissues using the following formula: (Eq. 2) s = -miRT m = mol L-1 i = ionization constant = 1 for sucrose R = gas constant = 8.31 kPa L K -1 mol -1 T = room temperature in K (ºC + 273 = K) Table 1. Weight change in potato tissues in sucrose solutions of different concentration. Due next week in lab: 1. Excel graph with regression line. 2. Table 1. 3. Value of s with calculations shown. 4. Answers to the following questions: Why did we use sucrose as the solute in our solutions? How might using another solute influence the results? Tissues in which treatments have a water potential equal to that of their solution after the incubation period? How can you tell? What influence would increasing temperature have on our calculation of water potential? The results of the calculations of water potential usually vary among years, among lab sections, and even among groups within one lab. Why might this be? What deficiencies were present in our experimental design? Disregarding human error, how could even better data be obtained?