This site uses cookie tracking technologies. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.
Chemistry IA Exemplar: Temperature Effects on Sodium Polyacrylate… | RevisionDojo
Loading document preview...
IB Chemistry HL Internal Assessment Example
Investigating How Differing Temperatures Affect the Swelling Capacity of Sodium Polyacrylate
6
Official IB Result
17/24
Was this exemplar helpful?
Want a report just like this?
Free mini report for your own coursework
Fast feedback on what to improve next
Annotated highlights on your writing
Criteria A: Research Design
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Research question context
Moderate
Methodological considerations
Good
Methodology description
Criteria Feedback
Research question articulated within a specific and relevant context linking practical applications and polymer chemistry
Controlled variables are clearly listed with rationales, supporting reproducibility
Procedure is described step by step with equipment tables and quantities enabling largely unambiguous reproduction
Lacks justification for choice of temperature intervals and step size
Insufficient rationale for the number of repeats and the 5 min swelling time regarding statistical reliability
Cooling protocol and filtration timing remain ambiguous, hindering full reproducibility
Polymer grade/molecular weight details and explicit molecular rationale for temperature effects are omitted
1.1·Strength
Page 2• Click to view
The research question is articulated clearly within a specific and relevant context, linking practical applications and polymer chemistry to justify the investigation’s significance.
1.2·Strength
Page 2• Click to view
The introduction provides strong context by detailing real-world uses of sodium polyacrylate and its absorption capacity, effectively grounding the research in practical applications.
1.3·Suggestion
Page 3• Click to view
The background section explains polymer structure but lacks explicit linkage to temperature‐dependent swelling mechanisms; include a clear molecular rationale for temperature effects.
1.4·Suggestion
Page 4• Click to view
The hypothesis is grounded in kinetic theory but could be refined by specifying how crosslink disruption contributes to swelling at higher temperatures.
1.5·Weakness
Page 5• Click to view
The rationale for choosing three repeats and a 5 min swelling time is stated but lacks justification of their sufficiency to ensure statistical reliability; explain why these parameters were adequate.
1.6·Weakness
Page 5• Click to view
The selection of temperature intervals (10–70 °C) is stated but lacks justification for step size; explain why these specific increments were chosen.
1.7·Suggestion
Page 6• Click to view
The materials list omits polymer purity or molecular weight information; include grade and manufacturer details to enhance experimental reproducibility.
1.8·Suggestion
Page 6• Click to view
Ethical and environmental issues are acknowledged, but disposal protocols remain general; propose specific eco‐friendly disposal or polymer recycling methods.
1.9·Strength
Page 6• Click to view
The controlled variables are listed with clear rationales and methods, facilitating reproducibility by ensuring only temperature changes affect the results.
1.10·Suggestion
Page 7• Click to view
The cooling protocol for low‐temperature trials is described but ambiguous; specify exact timing and fridge conditions to ensure consistent sample temperatures.
1.11·Suggestion
Page 8• Click to view
The filtration and mass‐recording step lacks detail on how residual water is removed consistently; standardize filtration time or method to improve reproducibility.
Criteria B: Data Analysis
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Communication of data recording and processing
Moderate
Consideration of uncertainties
Poor
Data processing quality
Criteria Feedback
Raw and processed data are well organised in clearly labelled tables with units and stated uncertainties
Graphs include titles, axes and trendlines, demonstrating clear communication of results
Swelling capacity calculations contain major numerical errors (off by orders of magnitude)
Uncertainty propagation is oversimplified and sometimes misapplied, with uniform ±1.02% used for all trials
Inconsistencies appear in the summary uncertainty table and axis scaling is compressed and lacks clear unit labelling
No statistical rationale (ANOVA or AIC) is provided for choosing between trendline models
2.1·Strength
Page 9• Click to view
Raw and processed data are organized in well‐labelled tables with uncertainties, demonstrating clear and precise communication of measurements.
2.2·Weakness
Page 11• Click to view
The calculation in the example misplaces the decimal in swelling capacity (reports ~8235 % instead of ~102 %); re‐evaluate the numerical steps in SC%=Wd(Ws−Wd)×100.
2.3·Weakness
Page 11• Click to view
Uncertainties are propagated uniformly as ±1.02 % for all trials without accounting for varying ranges; recalculate uncertainties using correct error‐propagation for each dataset.
2.4·Weakness
Page 12• Click to view
The summary table shows relative uncertainties but some entries appear inconsistent with raw data ranges; verify each percentage calculation against its absolute uncertainty.
2.5·Suggestion
Page 13• Click to view
The discussion of R2=0.7152 notes moderate strength but lacks critique of the linear model’s suitability; consider residual analysis or alternative fits.
2.6·Suggestion
Page 13• Click to view
The linear graph’s y‐axis uses a compressed scale and lacks clear unit labels; expand the scale and annotate axis units to improve readability.
2.7·Suggestion
Page 14• Click to view
The logarithmic model yields R2=0.7583 but model comparison lacks statistical testing; perform an ANOVA or Akaike information criterion to choose the best fit.
Criteria C: Conclusion
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Good
Conclusion relevance and support
Moderate
Scientific context comparison
Criteria Feedback
Conclusion accurately summarises the positive correlation and references R² values
Anomalous data point at 50 °C is identified and discussed
Comparison to literature (Liu & Guo 2001) is integrated and mechanistic explanations are offered
Comparison to scientific context remains qualitative without quantitative integration of literature data
The discussion does not address remaining processing errors and their potential impact on the conclusion
3.1·Weakness
Page 15• Click to view
The comparison to Liu & Guo (2001) is well integrated but remains qualitative; include quantitative comparisons of swelling capacities to strengthen the context link.
3.2·Weakness
Page 16• Click to view
The concluding discussion addresses the overall trend but omits the significant dip at 50 °C; explicitly reference this anomaly and its implications.
Criteria D: Evaluation
6/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Methodological weaknesses
Excellent
Suggested improvements
Criteria Feedback
Identifies specific methodological weaknesses (heat loss, filtration bias, mixing inconsistency) and explains their impact on results
Proposes realistic, detailed improvements (magnetic stirrer, standardized filtration timing, immediate temperature re-measurement) linked directly to enhanced reliability
Evaluation of random and systematic errors is precise, showing insightful understanding of their relative impacts
4.1·Strength
Page 18• Click to view
Random errors such as human reaction time and thermometer precision are identified with impact assessed as minimal, demonstrating insightful evaluation.
4.2·Strength
Page 18• Click to view
The specific weakness of final mass measurement bias is described with clear impact on results and a precise mitigation strategy, reflecting top‐band evaluation.
4.3·Strength
Page 19• Click to view
Filtration inconsistencies are identified and the proposal to standardize filtration timing is well‐targeted to reduce variability in water retention.
4.4·Strength
Page 19• Click to view
The identification of heat loss/gain during water transfer as a systematic error is precise, and re‐measuring temperature immediately before pouring is a realistic mitigation.
4.5·Strength
Page 19• Click to view
The suggestion of using a magnetic stirrer to improve mixing uniformity directly addresses inconsistent mixing, offering a realistic and relevant improvement.