Laboratory Experiment

Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95, 1816−1820 pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Buffers in Context: Baby Wipes As a Buffer System

Jon-Marc G. Rodriguez, Sarah Hensiek, Jeanne R. Meyer, Cynthia J. Harwood, and Marcy H. Towns*
Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, United States
*
S Supporting Information

ABSTRACT: An understanding of buffers is important in a variety of chemistry

subdisciplines, with relevant applications to the life sciences and health profession-related
fields. Here, we describe the development and implementation of a lab that involves
creating a buffer solution using baby wipes and deionized water. The goal of this lab was to
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

emphasize a conceptual understanding of buffers within a context that would be interesting

and relevant for students in a nonmajors general chemistry course, a population composed
Downloaded via UNIV OF SAO PAULO on February 26, 2019 at 15:39:43 (UTC).

primarily of health/human science and agricultural science majors. The prelaboratory

assignment and postlaboratory discussion focus on modeling by making connections
between laboratory observations and the particulate-level view of a buffer. Overall, the
experiment seeks to prompt students to think beyond the macroscopic view that buffers resist changes in pH and guide students
toward thinking mechanistically about how a buffer resists changes in pH, a process that depends largely on the buffer
components and their respective amounts.
KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, First-Year Undergraduate/General, Interdisciplinary/Multidisciplinary,
Laboratory Instruction, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Acids/Bases, Nonmajor Courses, pH

B uffers play a critical role in biological systems by

maintaining the physiological pH and preventing health
complications that result from deviations in the target pH.
research demonstrates that understanding buffers is not trivial.3
In a 2008 study by Orgill and Sutherland, the researchers
determined students have difficulty with multiple concepts
Many commercial products utilize buffer systems to help related to buffers: students tend to focus on a macroscopic
maintain a particular pH. By controlling the pH using a buffer view of buffers, attending to the fact that buffers resist changes
system, manufacturers can prevent microbial growth, increase in pH without understanding the mechanism involved;
shelf life, and fine-tune drug efficacy. Common examples of students are able to identify that buffers contain acids and
buffer solutions include contact lens solutions, skin care bases, but they do not make the connection regarding the
products, over-the-counter drugs, and baby wipes. Due to their relationship between them (weak acid and conjugate base or
wide application in a variety of contexts, buffers are often weak base and conjugate acid); and students have difficulty
studied in multiple courses offered in chemistry and biology determining what factors influence buffering capacity.3 One of
departments (e.g., general chemistry, analytical chemistry, the suggestions by Orgill and Sutherland to help students
biochemistry). Furthermore, in studies that have looked at better understand buffers and address the difficulties
chemistry topics and their relationship to health fields such as mentioned above is to help students consider the processes
nursing, acid and base concepts such as pH/buffers were that are occurring within a buffer at the particulate level and
consistently ranked first in order of importance and were also guide them in making connections and modeling the buffer
consistently classified as important and relevant for nursing mechanism.3
clinical practice.1,2 However, previous literature suggests One of the scientific practices outlined by the National
students have difficulty with concepts related to buffers, even Research Council (NRC) involves developing and using
after exposure to the content in multiple courses.3 In the case models, such as translating a process into a mathematical
of students intending to pursue a career in the health formalism, or thinking about a macroscopic system at the
professions, this is particularly problematic because of the particulate level.8 Modeling encompasses making connections
foundational role chemistry plays in fields related to the health between different domains and has been identified as a critical
sciences.4 piece of conceptual understanding in chemistry, as described
The importance of buffers has also been recognized through by the “chemistry triplet” that involves thinking about
work done by the ACS Exams Institute (ACS-EI). In the chemistry at the macroscopic, particulate, and mathematical
Undergraduate Chemistry Anchoring Concept Content Maps levels.9−11 However, the limits of the chemistry triplet have
(ACCM) for General Chemistry released by the ACS-EI, it been noted, and revisions or alternative conceptualizations
tersely defines buffers based on their ability to resist changes in have been provided in the literature,9,10,12,13 such as the
pH (due to the presence of a conjugate acid−base pair), lists
buffers as an application of equilibrium that is relevant in Received: May 21, 2018
chemistry subdisciplines, and emphasizes the importance of Revised: July 26, 2018
understanding buffers conceptually and quantitatively,5−7 but Published: August 17, 2018
© 2018 American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc. 1816 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00378
J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95, 1816−1820
Journal of Chemical Education Laboratory Experiment

Mahaffy tetrahedron, which augments the traditional triplet by students were not asked to prepare two different ammonia/
adding a “human element” or rich context for the presentation ammonium ion buffers.
of chemistry content.13,14 After preparing the three buffers described above, the
Laboratory experiments that place chemistry in a rich students were directed to titrate two aliquots of each of these
context for students have been previously published in this solutions to determine the buffer capacity, first titrating with a
Journal,15 as well as other laboratories that explore ideas strong acid (hydrochloric acid) and then with a strong base
related to buffers.16 The experiment presented herein was (sodium hydroxide). By recording the amount of acid/base
designed with similar intentions, working toward placing that was added to the buffer and the corresponding change in
chemistry in a context that is relevant and useful for students in pH (the target was a change of one pH unit), students
the course, while simultaneously focusing on a conceptual calculated the buffer capacity for each of the trials performed
understanding through the use and development of models. (acid or base titration). Using the same protocol, the buffer
The experiment was designed for a nonmajors general capacity of deionized water was also determined. In the last
chemistry course, with primarily health/human science and part of the experiment, the students prepared a solution from
agricultural science majors, and it was inspired, in part, by an baby wipes and then determined the buffer capacity using the
interesting study published in Pediatric Dermatology that previously described protocol (for more information, see the
studied the efficacy of baby wipes in reducing skin irritation provided Supporting Information). From a practical stand-
through the use of a buffer system.17 point, the protocol for creating a baby-wipe buffer was simple

■ PRELABORATORY DISCUSSION
The course associated with this laboratory experiment was
and easy to implement, requiring little planning before the lab
and reflecting a straightforward procedure for the students.
The development of this protocol involved testing different
designed so that the laboratory content is connected to and is wipe-to-water ratios. In order to have a large enough volume
discussed with the lecture content. By the time the students for the students to work with and have a solution that was
completed the buffer lab, they had already learned about concentrated enough to reliably behave as a buffered solution,
equilibrium and (weak) acids/bases, performed two acid−base we found it was effective for the students to use eight wipes in
laboratories involving titrations, and received instruction about 90.0 mL of deionized water. The students simply had to place
buffers in lecture. the baby wipes (straight from the package) into a 600 mL
The role of the prelaboratory questions were to prompt the beaker, add the deionized water, and then twist and wring the
students to start thinking about what they would be doing in baby wipes, collecting the solution in the same beaker. From
lab, with an emphasis on getting students to model the buffer this initial buffer solution the students pipetted aliquots and
system by considering it at the particulate level. One of the titrated to determine the buffer capacity. The laboratory
prelab questions that highlights the buffer mechanism involves experiment was designed to take roughly 2 h for the students
adding a strong base to a generic buffer system (see Box 1) and to complete.

Box 1
■ HAZARDS
Hazards associated with this laboratory experiment involve
working with irritants and corrosive chemicals that may cause
serious damage to skin and eyes. Proper personal protective
equipment such as gloves and safety goggles are required.
Chemicals used and their potential hazards include acetic acid
(CAS No. 64-19-7), corrosive, causes serious eye damage/
irritation; ammonium chloride (CAS No. 12125-02-9),
thinking about how this influences the components in the
harmful if swallowed, causes serious eye damage/irritation;
buffer. Student responses to this question should mention that
sodium acetate (CAS No. 127-09-3), irritates skin, eyes, and
the concentration of HA decreases (reacts with the base), the
respiratory system; aqueous ammonia (CAS No. 7664-41-7),
concentration of A− increases (is produced), the amount of
harmful if inhaled, causes severe skin burns and eye damage;
H2O and H3O+ should remain roughly the same, and the pH
aqueous hydrochloric acid (CAS No. 7647-01-0), corrosive,
should remain the same (or increase slightly). The additional
causes serious eye damage/irritation; and sodium hydroxide
prelab questions are included in the Supporting Information
(CAS No. 1310-73-2), corrosive, causes serious eye damage/
associated with this article.

■
irritation.
EXPERIMENTAL SECTION
For this experiment, the students worked in groups of two to
prepare buffers and calculate the buffer capacity of each
■ POSTLABORATORY DISCUSSION AND
ASSESSMENT
solution as described in the Supporting Information. The first During the laboratory experiment, the students recorded their
portion of the experiment involved the students preparing an data in their laboratory notebooks and reported their data on a
ammonia/ammonium ion buffer and two acetic acid/acetate laboratory report form that was provided for them (included in
ion buffers that contained differing amounts of sodium acetate. the Supporting Information). The report form contained all of
The rationale behind preparing two acetic acid/acetate ion the necessary data tables where the students could record their
buffers was to allow for direct comparison of the buffer data and calculate values. After the students completed the
capacity of these solutions and give the students a basis on laboratory experiment, they had additional discussion ques-
which to make connections regarding how the relative amounts tions to address. The discussion questions prompted the
of weak acid and conjugate base influence the ability of the students to analyze and interpret their data in the context of
buffer to resist changes in pH. Due to time constraints, the the chemical system they were studying. The experiment
1817 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00378
J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95, 1816−1820
Journal of Chemical Education Laboratory Experiment

primarily required that students obtain data to determine the

buffer capacity of the system, and so the postlaboratory
questions supported students in making connections between
their observations and developing a chemical understanding
related to why the buffer capacity of an acetic acid/acetate ion
solution changed when it was diluted, why deionized water did
not resist pH changes, and why it may be useful to use one
buffer system over another (e.g., acetic acid/acetate ion instead
of ammonia/ammonium ion).
As a means to assess student understanding of buffers, the
authors designed two multiple-choice questions that were
administered as part of an exam in the course. According to the
literature, students often have a fundamental misunderstanding Figure 1. Student responses to the two multiple-choice assessment
about buffer strength/capacity, and they often have difficulty questions. The total number of students enrolled in the course was n
thinking about buffers on the particulate level, specifically, = 826. For the buffer capacity question, the correct response is a, and
understanding the mechanism of how buffers resist changes in the correct response for the buffer mechanism question is b.
pH.3 The questions were designed to address student
alternative conceptions and focus on a conceptual under- response question in Box 3 during their exam. This item
standing of buffers. The multiple-choice questions along with assessed the extent to which students could carry out
their responses and distractors (see Box 2) were designed by
Box 3
Box 2

calculations and analyze data from the buffer capacity lab. In

terms of NGSS science practices, this question assessed the
students’ ability to use mathematics, analyze and interpret data,
and construct an explanation.8 Although students likely had a
model of a buffer that they used to answer the question, the
model was implicitly used in constructing responses rather
than explicitly assessed. The construction of this assessment
taking into account considerations of reliability and validity item was guided by principles outlined in Underwood et al.’s
suggested by the literature (e.g., avoiding negative phrasing and recent article describing how to implement the three-
absolute terms, items should only have one correct answer and dimensional learning assessment protocol (3D-LAP).19,20
should be answerable without looking at responses, etc.).18 Out of 803 students who took the exam, 31% completed all
The first question in Box 2 was designed to test student parts correctly or had only a small error such as leaving out the
understanding of buffer capacity and the factors that influence units in part a. Approximately one-third of the students
a buffer’s ability to resist changes in pH, and the second struggled to correctly analyze and interpret the data and
question was designed to assess student understanding of the construct an explanation that earned half-credit or less. The
mechanism involved when a buffer resists changes in pH. grading and analysis of students’ responses supported the
The laboratory was piloted during the summer session in generation of examination questions that required students to
2017 with 15 students, which allowed us to test the laboratory make their reasoning explicit through the construction of
and associated assessment questions. The laboratory experi- arguments based on evidence and explanations, which are two
ment and the assessment that contained the questions in Box 2 of the NGSS science practices·8 As instructors, we learned
were subsequently implemented in spring of 2018 with 826 more about the impact of the laboratory on student learning
students. The distribution of student responses for the two through this free response question in comparison to a
buffer questions is provided in Figure 1 below. multiple choice question regarding the definition of a buffer or
In addition to the multiple-choice questions in Box 2 and buffer capacity. It further inspired us to revise our curriculum
Figure 1, the students in the spring also completed the free in the coming academic year to include instruction on
1818 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00378
J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95, 1816−1820
Journal of Chemical Education

■
Laboratory Experiment

constructing arguments and explanations in an effort to AUTHOR INFORMATION

improve student performance in this regard. Corresponding Author
It is worth stating that our discussion of buffer systems and
our assessment of student understanding have been primarily *E-mail: mtowns@purdue.edu.
qualitative in nature. Often when discussing buffers, students ORCID
are expected to make use of the Henderson−Hasselbalch Jon-Marc G. Rodriguez: 0000-0001-6949-6823
equation, as was the case for the previously published Marcy H. Towns: 0000-0002-8422-4874
laboratory experiment in this Journal, which involved using
student data to derive the relationship expressed in the Notes
Henderson−Hasselbalch equation.16 In contrast, this labo- The authors declare no competing financial interest.
ratory experiment focuses on reasoning conceptually about the
components of a buffer system, which provides insight into the
mechanism involved in resisting changes in pH. Here, we place
■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to thank the Towns research group for their support
more emphasis on the chemical system, rather than the and helpful comments on the manuscript and gratefully
mathematical rendering of the Henderson−Hasselbalch acknowledge J. David Rodriguez for his assistance with the
equation, in order to help students understand more about graphical abstract.

■
the chemical phenomena; this was influenced in part by
previous work that indicates students have difficulty reasoning REFERENCES
conceptually.21−31 Indeed, in the context of other general
chemistry topics, students have indicated a preference for (1) Walhout, J. S.; Heinschel, J. Views of Nursing Professionals on
Chemistry Course Content for Nursing Education. J. Chem. Educ.
reasoning algorithmically.21 Thus, our instruction and assess- 1992, 69 (6), 483−487.
ment redirects students’ attention to a conceptual under- (2) Brown, C. E.; Henry, M. L. M.; Barbera, J.; Hyslop, R. M. A
standing of the underlying chemistry.

■
Bridge between Two Cultures: Uncovering the Chemistry Concepts
Relevant to the Nursing Clinical Practice. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89,
CONCLUSION 1114−1121.
In the National Research Council’s A Framework for K-12 (3) Orgill, M.; Sutherland, A. Undergraduate Chemistry Students’
Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Perceptions of and Misconceptions about Buffers and Buffer
Ideas, science is presented as an integration of knowledge and Problems. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2008, 9, 131−143.
(4) Scalise, K.; Claesgens, J.; Wilson, M.; Stacy, A. Contrasting the
practices that afford scientists the tools needed to solve Expectations for Student Understanding of Chemistry with Levels
problems and advance our understanding of the world.8 With Achieved: A Brief Case-Study of Student Nurses. Chem. Educ. Res.
the adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards Pract. 2006, 7 (3), 170−184.
(NGSS), there is a movement toward an emphasis on (5) Holme, T.; Luxford, C.; Murphy, K. Updating the General
engagement in science practices,8 and although these standards Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map. J. Chem. Educ. 2015,
were designed for the K−12 setting, it is important that 92, 1115−1116.
undergraduate education, curriculum development, and assess- (6) Murphy, K.; Holme, T.; Zenisky, A.; Caruthers, H.; Knaus, K.
ment are informed by these changes.32,33 In the case of Building the ACS Exams Anchoring Concept Content Map for
chemistry laboratory courses, there is an inherent focus on Undergraduate Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (6), 715−720.
skills and their integration with knowledge, making them (7) Holme, T.; Murphy, K. The ACS Exams Institute Undergraduate
Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map I: General Chemistry. J.
particularly well suited for students to learn while engaging in Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (6), 721−723.
science practices (e.g., modeling). (8) National Reseach Council. A Framework for K-12 Science
Here, we described the development of a laboratory exercise Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas: Committee
that sought to improve student understanding of buffer on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards.
capacity and the buffer mechanism, with an emphasis on Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences
analyzing and interpreting data, constructing explanations, and and Education; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC,
modeling a buffer system at the particulate level. The 2012.
laboratory experiment was placed in a context that may be (9) Taber, K. S. Revisiting the Chemistry Triplet: Drawing upon the
of interest to our students in a nonmajors course who are Nature of Chemical Knowledge and the Psychology of Learning to
primarily focused on careers in the health profession and Inform Chemistry Education. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14, 156−
168.
agricultural sciences.

■
(10) Talanquer, V. Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: The Many
Faces of the Chemistry “ Triplet. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2011, 33 (2), 179−
ASSOCIATED CONTENT 195.
* Supporting Information
S (11) Holme, T. A.; Luxford, C. J.; Brandriet, A. Defining Conceptual
The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Understanding in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 1477−
1483.
Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00378.
(12) Sjostrom, J.; Talanquer, V. Humanizing Chemistry Education:
Possible prelaboratory questions, the laboratory protocol From Simple Contextualization to Multifaceted Problematization. J.
for students, a student report form, teacher’s notes, and Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1125−1131.
possible multiple choice and free response questions that (13) Mahaffy, P. The Future Shape of Chemistry Education. Chem.
could be posed on a quiz or examination (PDF) Educ. Res. Pract. 2004, 5 (3), 229−245.
(14) Mahaffy, P. Moving Chemistry Education into 3D: A
Possible prelaboratory questions, the laboratory protocol Tetrahedral Metaphor for Understanding Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ.
for students, a student report form, teacher’s notes, and 2006, 83 (1), 49−55.
possible multiple choice and free response questions that (15) Domingo, J. P.; Abualia, M.; Barragan, D.; Schroeder, L.; Wink,
could be posed on a quiz or examination (DOCX) D. J.; King, M.; Clark, G. A. Dialysis, Albumin Binding, and

1819 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00378

J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95, 1816−1820
Journal of Chemical Education Laboratory Experiment

Competitive Binding: A Laboratory Lesson Relating Three Chemical

Concepts to Healthcare. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 1102.
(16) Kulevich, S. E.; Herrick, R. S.; Mills, K. V. A Discovery
Chemistry Experiment on Buffers. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1207−
1211.
(17) Adam, R.; Schnetz, B.; Mathey, P.; Pericoi, M.; de Prost, Y.
Clinical Demonstration of Skin Mildness and Suitability for Sensitive
Infant Skin of a New Baby Wipe. Pediatr. Dermatol. 2009, 26 (5),
506−513.
(18) Towns, M. H. Guide To Developing High-Quality, Reliable,
and Valid Multiple- Choice Assessments. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91,
1426−1431.
(19) Laverty, J. T.; Underwood, S. M.; Matz, R. L.; Posey, L. A.;
Jardeleza, E.; Cooper, M. M.; et al. Characterizing College Science
Assessments: The Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol.
PLoS One 2016, 11 (9), e0162333.
(20) Underwood, S.; Posey, L.; Herrington, D.; Carmel, J.; Cooper,
M. Adapting Assessment Tasks To Support Three-Dimensional
Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95, 207−217.
(21) Bain, K.; Rodriguez, J. G.; Moon, A.; Towns, M. H. The
characterization of cognitive processes involved in chemical kinetics
using a blended processing framework. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2018,
19, 617−628.
(22) Cracolice, M. S.; Deming, J. C.; Ehlert, B. Concept learning
versus problem solving: A cognitive difference. J. Chem. Educ. 2008,
85 (6), 873−878.
(23) Nakhleh, M. B. Are Our Students Conceptual Thinkers or
Algorithmic Problem Solvers?: Identifying Conceptual Students in
General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70 (1), 52−55.
(24) Nakhleh, M. B.; Lowrey, K. A.; Mitchell, R. C. Narrowing the
Gap between Concepts and Algorithms in Freshmen Chemistry. J.
Chem. Educ. 1996, 73 (8), 758−762.
(25) Nakhleh, M. B.; Mitchell, R. C. Concept Learning versus
Problem Solving: There is a Difference. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70 (3),
190−192.
(26) Nurrenbern, S. C.; Pickering, M. Concept Learning versus
Problem Solving: Is There a Difference? J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64 (6),
508−510.
(27) Pickering, M. Further studies on concept learning versus
problem solving. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67 (3), 254−255.
(28) Sanger, M. J.; Vaughn, C. K.; Binkley, D. A. Concept learning
versus problem solving: Evaluating a threat to the validity of a
particulate gas law question. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 700−709.
(29) Sawrey, B. A. Concept learning versus problem solving:
Revisited. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67 (3), 253−254.
(30) Stamovlasis, D.; Tsaparlis, G.; Kamilatos, C.; Papaoikonomou,
D.; Zarotiadou, E. Conceptual understanding versus algorithmic
problem solving: Further evidence from a national chemistry
examination. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2005, 6 (2), 104−118.
(31) Zoller, U.; Pushkin, D. Matching Higher-Order Cognitive Skills
(HOCS) promotion goals with problem-based laboratory practice in a
freshman organic chemistry course. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007, 8
(2), 153−171.
(32) Cooper, M. M. Chemistry and the Next Generation Science
Standards. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 679−680.
(33) Reed, J. J.; Brandriet, A. R.; Holme, T. A. Analyzing the Role of
Science Practices in ACS Exam Items. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 3−10.

1820 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00378

J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95, 1816−1820