International Baccalaureate

CHEMISTRY INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

Topic: To investigate the action of toothpastes with varied fluoride content on tooth decay.

Research Question: How various fluorides present in toothpastes affect tooth decay,
caused by reaction of acids with calcium carbonate at room temperature?

Word count: 3709

1
Introduction
Tooth decay has bothered all of youth since a very long time. With an immature mind, I
always believe, blindly, that cavities (tooth decay) were solely caused by chocolate
consumption. This were my views until a chemistry class in ninth grade. It turned out be a
revelation, in that, I realized tooth decay is result of a reaction between tooth enamel
component (calcium hydroxyapatite) and acids present in our foods. By revisiting the
memory lane, I found no better incident to seek inspiration for my investigation. As I delved
deeper into research, I found that tooth decay occurs when the equilibrium shifts towards
demineralization from re-mineralization. Demineralization of tooth enamel occurs when the
pH of our mouth drops to the “critical pH”. The normal pH level of our mouth (saliva)1 is 6.5-
7.5, but after consumption of acidic foods the pH tends drop to and below the critical pH
2
(5.5). The various sources of acids in our mouth are: acetic acid (vinegar, pickles,
mayonnaise, etc.), citric acid (oranges, lemons, soft drinks, jams, etc.), other organic acids
(tartaric acid, fumaric acids, phosphoric acids, etc.) and decomposition of sugars and
carbohydrates by bacterial activity.

1 http://altered-states.net/barry/update178/
2 http://www.cda-adc.ca/jcda/vol-69/issue-11/722.html

2
Background Information
Tooth decay usually occurs due to the reaction of food acids with tooth enamel. Tooth enamel
predominantly consists calcium hydroxyapatite. So upon reaction with acids Calcium
hydroxyapatite dissociates. The following reaction shows the process:

−¿ ( aq ) +2 H 2 O(l)
¿
2+¿ ( aq )+ 6 HP O4
¿
+¿ ( aq ) → 10Ca
Ca ( PO )4 ( OH )2 ( s ) +8 H ¿

But due to the unavailability of Calcium hydroxyapatite, Calcium carbonate has been used to
simulate the tooth enamel in this experiment. Therefore, the following reaction will occur in
place of the prior one:
2+¿( aq)+ C O2 (g)+ H 2 O(l)
+ ¿ ( aq ) →Ca¿
CaC O3 ( s ) +2 H ¿

Through this reaction, it is evident that when the pH of mouth is below the critical pH (excess
acid) initiates the breakdown of calcium carbonate. But the presence of fluoride in the mouth
reduces the effect of acid on tooth enamel.

During the re-mineralization process, when the pH of the mouth begins to rise, calcium
hydroxyapatite is re-formed. But brushing with fluoridated toothpastes, leaves fluoride in the
saliva. Therefore, during the re-mineralization process, instead of the formation of calcium
hydroxyapatite, fluoroapatite is formed. Even during the demineralization process, the once
Calcium hydroxyapatite is broken down, it tends to combine with the fluoride in the saliva to
form fluoroapatite. The fluoride ions replace the OH- ions in the apatite compound to form
fluoroapatite which is less soluble in acid resists from tooth decay. The following reaction
describes the action of a fluoridated toothpaste:
−¿ ¿
Ca(PO)4 (OH )2 fluoride Ca ( PO) 4 F 2 +OH
→

In today’s market, there is a plethora of toothpastes available, but I started to wonder whether
all the toothpastes are equally efficient, given their varied fluoride content? Hence I felt no
hesitation in choosing this topic for my exploration. Hence I wanted to test the reaction
between calcium carbonate and acidic food, without and with toothpastes of varied fluoride
contents.
Toothpaste 1’s constituent fluoride was stannous fluoride, Toothpaste 2’s constituent fluoride
is sodium fluoride and Toothpaste 3 had no fluoride content as it was an herbal toothpaste.

Hypothesis
I believe that the toothpastes with stannous fluoride will be the most effective toothpaste.
This is because stannous fluoride contains has other properties: anti-bacterial properties that
fight plaque and gingivitis, and it also provides anti-sensitivity mechanisms.3 The above
reasons are justification for my hypothesis. Besides stannous fluoride, I think the sodium
fluoride may be more effective that herbal toothpastes because I don’t think herbal
3 http://www.pharmacytimes.com/publications/issue/2014/august2014/r648_august2014

3
toothpastes have anything that reacts with the acid like fluoride toothpastes, therefore I think
herbal toothpastes maybe the least effective.

4
Variables
Independent variables – mass of calcium carbonate, pH of fruit juice, fluoride content of
each toothpaste.
Dependent variable – pH rise (final pH – initial pH) %
CONTROL VARIABLES HOW THEY CONTROL THE REACTION
1. Standard room temperatures Standard room temperature conditions
conditions ensured the rate of reaction remained
constant. Thus the experiment could yield
the desired results and they could be easily
compared and analysed.
2. Amount of toothpaste (1g) Using only 1g of toothpaste helped to
control the extent of the reaction and also
makes comparison more authentic.
3. Constant volume of juices Constant volume of juices control the
concentration of the acidic medium.
4. Time interval of recording data After the addition of Calcium carbonate and
toothpastes to the fruit juices, the readings
were collected after a period of 5 minutes so
that uniformity could be maintained. If not
collected in a fixed time interval, the
reactions may continue to takes for longer
periods resulting in disparity in readings.

Apparatus
Apparatus Why its used
1. Toothpaste 1 (stannous fluoride) Used as a fluoride content source for the
experiment.
2. Toothpaste 2 (sodium fluoride) Used as second source of fluoride for the
experiment
3. Toothpaste 3 (herbal – no fluoride) Used as third variety of toothpaste for
comparison.
4. Calcium Carbonate Used as a substitute for calcium
hydroxyapatite, due its unavailability.
5. Vernier pH meter and Logger Pro Used to measure and collect the pH of the
reaction mixtures.
6. Different Flavours of Fruit juices Used to simulate the acidic medium in our
(cranberry, apple, pomegranate, mouth. I felt it would more realistic to use
Litchi, Pineapple, Orange, fruit juices rather than laboratory acids
Mosambi) because of the fact that we consume fruit
juices and our mouth is acclimatised their
acids.
*Note: different flavours of fruit juices were used to vary the pH acid medium as it is one of
the independent variables.

5
Safety/ethical/environmental issues
1. My experiment uses non-corrosive and mild chemicals that are in no means harmful
to the environment and threaten the safety of anyone. Fruits juices and toothpastes are
certified products; they are not harmful in means. Calcium carbonate is also a
harmless chemical, thus it can be concluded that this experiment has very few or no
safety hazards involved.
2. The materials used in the experiment were disposed off safely, adhering to the
laboratory regulations, and were not disposed in the sink even though all the
chemicals used were in no means harmful.
3. This experiment has adhered to the all the ethical aspects of experimentation and has
in no ways portray unethical characteristics.
4. During the course of this experiment, no harm was caused to any living beings.

Methodology
The experimental procedure of this exploration mentioned above was used because of its
simplicity and the fact that it allows a lot of trials. There are other methods like titration,
which require extensive setups, almost give the results with similar accuracy and precision.
This makes the experimental setup used here more effective in terms time per trial and its
accuracy. Titrating with the addition of toothpaste is really hard task and that too the juices do
not easily neutralise the calcium carbonate and toothpaste, so titration would not have been
an ideal method to use. When Calcium carbonate is reacted with juices, it is simulation of the
tooth enamel in acidic medium. And the addition of 1g of toothpaste is the equivalent to
adding fluoride into our mouth: brushing. Therefore, this also is straightforward and
sequentially similar to the order of these reactions occurring in our mouth during tooth decay.

Experimental Setup and Procedure

1. 5 beakers were each filled with 25cm3 of fruit juice.
2. The logger pro pH meter had to be calibrated first. To do so, a buffer solution of pH 4
had to prepared. Then the pH meter was placed in the buffer solution and the reading
of the pH was reset to pH 4. The setting can be found in the experiment option in the
toolbar and under “experiment” select the calibrate option
3. Once the first calibration was finished, the pH meter was placed in the beakers with
fruit juices and their pH values were measured.
4. 0.1g, 0.2g, 0.3g, 0.4g, 0.5g of calcium carbonate were added to each beaker and they
were stirred thoroughly until all the calcium carbonate was dissolved.
5. Again the pH of each beaker was measured.
6. The afore-mentioned steps were followed for 3 trials, so that the effects of random
errors could be negated.
7. All the above-mentioned steps apply for trials without toothpaste.
8. For trials involving toothpastes, the same procedure was followed with the addition of
a few further steps.
9. After completion of the above steps, 1g of Toothpaste 1 was added to each beaker and
was stirred thoroughly in order to completely dissolve the toothpaste.
10. Then the pH of each mixture was measured.
11. All the aforementioned steps were followed for all trials with all toothpastes and fruit
juices.

6
Data Processing
Table 1: pH values of reaction mixtures having varied calcium carbonate mass

Status Name of Juice pH Mass of calcium carbonate (g) /

initial/ ±0.01g
±0.01 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
NO TOOTHPASTE Cranberry 2.71 3.45 3.58 3.67 3.74 3.85
Apple 2.88 3.72 3.87 3.96 4.04 4.11
Pomegranate 2.95 3.92 4.01 4.12 4.18 4.23
Litchi 3.12 3.89 3.98 4.05 4.14 4.23
Pineapple 3.42 4.61 4.73 4.81 4.94 5.03
Orange 3.68 5.07 5.19 5.43 5.46 5.48
Mosambi 3.83 5.06 5.15 5.23 5.38 5.49
TOOTHPASTE 1 Cranberry 2.71 3.05 3.12 3.19 3.25 3.39
(stannous fluoride) Apple 2.88 3.43 3.51 3.58 3.63 3.69
Pomegranate 2.95 3.63 3.68 3.74 3.78 3.81
Litchi 3.12 3.46 3.53 3.59 3.62 3.64
Pineapple 3.42 4.27 3.34 3.38 3.43 4.50
Orange 3.68 4.43 4.49 4.55 4.61 4.70
Mosambi 3.83 4.64 4.78 4.83 4.90 4.93
TOOTHPASTE 2 Cranberry 2.71 3.19 3.27 3.33 3.39 3.45
(sodium fluoride) Apple 2.88 3.56 3.63 3.70 3.74 3.79
Pomegranate 2.95 3.74 3.81 3.89 3.93 3.98
Litchi 3.12 3.59 3.66 3.70 3.78 3.83
Pineapple 3.42 4.39 4.45 4.52 4.58 4.63
Orange 3.68 4.54 4.63 4.71 4.79 4.84
Mosambi 3.83 4.76 4.85 4.89 4.95 5.05
TOOTHPASTE 3 Cranberry 2.71 3.31 3.39 3.43 3.49 3.56
(herbal toothpaste) Apple 2.88 3.62 3.71 3.79 3.84 3.91
Pomegranate 2.95 3.81 3.89 3.93 3.97 4.03
Litchi 3.12 3.72 3.77 3.84 3.90 3.95
Pineapple 3.42 4.48 4.56 4.63 4.69 4.72
Orange 3.68 4.72 4.80 4.88 4.99 5.12
Mosambi 3.83 4.83 4.88 4.91 5.03 5.08

To make the above data more easily comprehensible and comparable, calculating pH rise

percentage will address the mentioned earlier.

pH final−pH initial
To calculate the pH rise percent: ∗100
pH initial

3.45−2.71
Sample calculation = ∗100 = 27.30%
2.71

7
Table 2: pH rise percentages of all trials
Status Name of Juice pH Mass of calcium carbonate (g) /
initial/ ±0.01g
±0.01 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
NO Cranberry 2.71 27.31 32.10 35.42 38.01 42.07
TOOTHPASTE Apple 2.88 29.17 34.38 37.50 40.28 42.71
Pomegranate 2.95 32.88 35.93 39.66 41.69 43.39
Litchi 3.12 24.68 27.56 29.81 32.69 35.58
Pineapple 3.42 34.80 38.30 40.64 44.44 47.08
Orange 3.68 37.77 41.03 47.55 48.37 48.91
Mosambi 3.83 32.11 34.46 36.55 40.47 43.34
TOOTHPASTE 1 Cranberry 2.71 12.55 15.13 17.71 19.93 22.09
(stannous fluoride) Apple 2.88 19.10 21.88 24.31 26.04 28.13
Pomegranate 2.95 23.05 24.75 26.78 28.14 29.15
Litchi 3.12 10.90 13.14 15.06 16.03 16.67
Pineapple 3.42 24.85 26.90 28.07 29.53 31.58
Orange 3.68 20.38 22.01 23.64 25.27 27.72
Mosambi 3.83 21.15 24.80 26.11 27.94 28.72
TOOTHPASTE 2 Cranberry 2.71 17.71 20.66 22.88 25.09 29.31
(sodium fluoride) Apple 2.88 23.61 26.04 28.47 29.86 31.60
Pomegranate 2.95 26.78 29.15 31.86 33.22 34.92
Litchi 3.12 15.06 17.31 18.59 21.15 22.76
Pineapple 3.42 28.36 30.12 32.16 33.92 35.38
Orange 3.68 23.37 25.82 27.99 30.16 31.52
Mosambi 3.83 24.28 26.63 27.68 29.24 31.85
TOOTHPASTE 3 Cranberry 2.71 22.14 25.09 26.57 28.78 33.37
(herbal toothpaste) Apple 2.88 25.69 28.82 31.60 33.33 35.76
Pomegranate 2.95 29.15 31.86 33.22 34.58 36.61
Litchi 3.12 19.23 20.83 23.08 25.00 26.60
Pineapple 3.42 30.99 33.33 35.38 37.13 38.01
Orange 3.68 28.26 30.43 32.61 35.60 39.13
Mosambi 3.83 26.11 27.42 28.20 31.33 32.64

8
Uncertainty calculation
pH final −pH initial
pH rise percent ¿ ∗100
pH initial
∆ numerator =∆ pH final + ∆ pH initial

∆ numerator ∆ pH final
∆ pH rise percent = ( numerator
+
p H final)∗ pH rise percent

Sample Calculation
pH rise percent = 27.31%
∆ numerator =0.01+0.01=0.02
0.02 0.01
∆ pH rise percent = ( 3.41−2.71 +
3.41 )
∗27.31%

= 0.86%
The values of uncertainty were calculated using the principles of uncertainty calculations.
The value of 0.01 was taken as the value of uncertainty for the pH values because the
maximum number of decimal places were two. The same reason applies for the uncertainty
value for mass: 0.01g.

The uncertainty of mass of toothpaste was considered negligible since it is very sticky and
not all the toothpaste could be transferred in the beaker with reaction mixture. Therefore, it
was indeterminable and was considered to be negligible. Anyways, the mass of toothpaste
was not used for any calculation, therefore it is a very concerning factor. Another uncertainty
excluded in calculations is that the measurement of amount of liquids. The uncertainty of the
measuring cylinder is about 0.05ml. This estimation was arrived at by divided its least count
of 1ml by 2.

9
 pH rise percent for each toothpaste (2.71)
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
pH rise percent

no toothpaste
25.00 toothpaste 1
20.00 toothpaste 2
15.00 toothpaste 3

10.00
5.00
0.00
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
mass of calcium carbonate/g

Graph 1: pH rise percent for each toothpaste with initial pH 2.71

pH rise percent for each toothpaste (2.88)

45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
pH rise percent

no toothpaste
25.00 toothpaste 1
20.00 toothpaste 2
15.00 toothpaste 3
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
mass of calcium carbonate/g

Graph 1: pH rise percent for each toothpaste with initial pH 2.71

10
 Graph 2: pH rise percent for each toothpaste with initial pH 2.88

pH rise percent for each toothpaste (2.95)

45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
ph rise percent

no toothpaste
25.00 toothpaste 1
20.00 toothpaste 2
15.00 toothpaste 3

10.00
5.00
0.00
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
mass of calcium carbonate/ g

Graph 3: pH rise percent for each toothpaste with initial pH 2.95

Graph 3: pH rise percent for each toothpaste with initial pH 2.95

ph rise percent for each toothpaste (3.12)

40.00
35.00
30.00
ph rise percent

25.00 no toothpaste
20.00 toothpaste 1
toothpaste 2
15.00 toothpaste 3
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
mass of calcium carbonate / g

11
 Graph 4: pH rise percent for each toothpaste with initial pH 3.12

ph rise percent for each toothpaste (3.42)

50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
ph rise percent

30.00 no toothpaste
25.00 toothpaste 1
toothpaste 2
20.00
toothpaste 3
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
mass of calcium carbonate / g

Graph 5: pH rise percent for each toothpaste with initial pH 3.42

12
 ph rise percent for each toothpaste (3.68)
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
ph rise percent

30.00 no toothpaste
25.00 toothpaste 1
toothpaste 2
20.00
toothpaste 3
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
mass of calcium carbonate / g

Graph 6: pH rise percent for each toothpaste with initial pH 3.68

13
 ph rise percent for each toothpaste (3.83)
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
ph rise percent

no toothpaste
25.00 toothpaste 1
20.00 toothpaste 2
15.00 toothpaste 3
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
mass of calcium carbonate / g

Graph 6: pH rise percent for each toothpaste with initial pH 3.68

Graph 7: pH rise percent for each toothpaste with initial pH 3.83

Data Analysis

Across all the graphs, for all pHs, the general trend is that of increase in the pH rise values in
increase of mass of calcium carbonate. This indicates that the increase in mass of carbonate
stimulates the reaction with acid. Larger mass of calcium carbonate will increase the presence
of base, therefore there result of the neutralisation between a weak acid and considerably
weak base is almost neutral. Therefore, more base to react, tends the reaction’s pH towards
the neutral pH.

The increase of pH rise percentage, can be seen from data table 2, that the increase in pH is
steeper with initial pH being lower. The range for pH rise for toothpaste 1, with initial pH
2.71, is 22.09 – 12.55 = 9.54, whereas the pH rise for the same toothpaste with initial pH is
3.83 is 28.72 – 21.15 = 7.57. The pH rise values for the lower pH values (2.71, 2.82) are
lower than the values produced by relatively higher pH values (3.68, 3.83). This because of
the higher acidic medium present in the mouth that increases the degree of tooth decay. While

14
at relatively higher pH that are closer to the critical pH, pH at which tooth decay occurs, the
pH rise is less steep for those values.
The range of pH rise percent values for initial pH 2.71 without the presence of toothpaste is
from 27.31 to 42.07. Whereas the pH rise values with the presence of toothpaste 1 has values
with range 12.55 to 22.09.
The lower pH rise values for toothpaste 1 indicates that this toothpaste did not allow or lessen
the occurrence of the reaction between calcium carbonate and the food acids. This in turn
indicates that toothpaste 1 (stannous fluoride) effective in prevention of tooth decay.

In case of toothpaste 2 (sodium fluoride), the range of pH rise percent (initial pH 2.71) is
from 17.71 to 29.31. The range of pH rise percent without toothpaste and with toothpaste 1
are 27.31 to 42.07 and 12.55 to 22.09, respectively. This confirms that toothpaste 2 reduce the
extent of the reaction. In real life application, it can be inferred that toothpaste 2 does
contribute in reducing the degree the tooth decay, but is not as effective as reducing the extent
of the reaction and degree of tooth decay are toothpaste 1.

In case of toothpaste 3 (herbal), the range of pH rise percent values (initial pH 2.71) is from
22.14 to 33.37. This more than those of obtained from toothpaste 1 and toothpaste 2. Thus it
can be concluded that toothpaste 3 (herbal) does contribute to re-mineralisation of tooth
enamel and reduces the extent of reaction and degree of tooth decay. It can also be inferred
that even though toothpaste 3 carries out all the functions carried out by toothpaste 1 and
toothpaste 2, but less effective than both in carrying out those functions, but not as effectively
as the other toothpastes.

For a particular mass (0.1g of calcium carbonate) the values of pH rise percent are highest for
reactions that took place without toothpaste and the lowest pH values can be observed in
reactions involving toothpaste 1. Toothpaste 2 and Toothpaste 3 do contribute to reduce the
extent of the reaction but are not as effective as toothpaste 1, therefore are second and third in
terms of their effectivity.

It can also be observed that in the higher pH values the pH rise percent values of all
toothpastes are nearly the same. This indicates all toothpastes are effective if the pH is
relatively higher, whereas when the pH is relatively lower, the toothpastes containing
fluorides, especially stannous fluoride is more effective than others.

Discussion
As it is evident through the graphs that every type of toothpaste does affect tooth decay in a
positive manner, the differentiating fact being that some toothpastes carry those processes
more efficiently and effectively. This experiment was conducted in order to my hypothesis
that toothpastes with stannous fluoride are the most effective in tooth care, especially in
reducing tooth decay turned out to be accurate. The results of this experiment prove my
hypothesis to be true. Toothpaste containing stannous fluoride turned out to be the most
effective in countering tooth decay, whereas the herbal toothpaste was the least effective.

The rise in pH rise percent values peak at lower pH levels and are comparatively lower in the
higher pH levels. This would be because the demineralisation is highest at lower pH levels
and the acidic medium is stronger in our mouths therefore will react strongly with base.
Whereas with the higher pH values, the change is less pronounced because the pH is
comparatively closer to the critical pH value 5.5pH at which demineralisation begins.

15
Because all the graphs have a steady increase in pH rise percent values, it can be inferred that
the mass of calcium carbonate is the limiting reactant and the acid is strong enough to
neutralise all the base. As more base is provided, the salt produced is less acidic, therefore
there is an increase in the trend of pH rise percent values as indicated by all the graphs for all
initial pH values and all toothpastes.

The fact that toothpaste 1, containing stannous fluoride, gives best protection against tooth
decay is true. But we simply cannot rule out the other toothpastes just because they are less
effective in protecting against tooth decay, because there can be other factors taken into
account by the toothpaste manufacturer. For example, stannous fluoride toothpastes are more
expensive than toothpastes with sodium fluoride, but are almost doing an equally good job.
Therefore, the manufacturers of toothpastes not only are concerned about one role of the
toothpastes, but multiple other factors.

Tooth decay can be governed is mainly governed by the reaction between the acidic medium
and tooth enamel, but there can also be other factors that contribute to tooth decay. So
toothpaste with varied fluoride contents are used to address those factors, with each
toothpaste having its primary aim to address one or more of those factors. For example,
unlike toothpastes 1 and 2, toothpaste 3 has no fluoride but has other organic ingredients that
may be less abrasive and may have other qualities like anti-bacterial protection or they may
be milder than the chemical toothpastes, which cause severe problems if used in excess.
A very common problem that occurs with excess fluoride presence in our mouths, and in turn
in our bodies is ‘fluorosis4’. This is not a disease. but is a cosmetic condition that mainly
affects the appearance of our teeth. The excess fluoride can change the colour of teeth, form
irregularities on their surface, cause darkening of teeth over time, etc. Thus we can can
conclude that each toothpaste has its known merits and demerits.

Conclusion
After the analysis of the results of this experiment, the above mentioned research
question, “How various fluorides present in toothpastes affect tooth decay, caused by
reaction of acids with calcium carbonate at room temperature?” can be answered by the
fact that toothpaste 1 (stannous fluoride) has the least pH rise percentage for all masses
and pH levels, therefore it can be said to be the most effective in protecting against tooth
decay.

Evaluation
Limitations of the experiment
1. Tooth enamel component, Calcium hydroxyapatite could have been used instead of
Calcium carbonate. This could have the authenticity of the conditions of this
experiment as Calcium carbonate was just a simulator, not the same tooth enamel
component.
2. The absence the saliva-like component could be also be drawback, in terms of
achieving accurate results, in the experimental setup. The saliva-like system can be
created using a buffer solution.
3. Another improvement to this experiment is that, it could have been carried out at 37 oC
because that is the average temperature of the mouth and the following reactions are
more likely to take place at that temperature in reality.

4 http://www.aestheticfamilysmiles.com/2015/02/13/causes-effects-of-fluorosis/

16
 4. This experiment does fail to answer other questions like, “the functions of herbal
ingredients in the herbal toothpaste.”
5. This experiment just indicates that stannous fluoride is more effective that other
fluorides, but fails to give a reason of why this is the case. I would like know stannous
fluoride is more effective.
Sources of error in the experiment
1. The improper calibration of pH probe may lead to incorrect readings. This can be
prevented by calibrating the pH meter regularly, advisably after every 5-10 readings
to get more accurate results.
2. The pH meter, if not wiped with a clean, dry tissue while placing it in other liquids
can lead incorrect readings.
3. Parallax errors could have occurred with the meniscus of analogue instruments. This
is a random which can be reduced by multiple trials.
4. The weighing scale isn’t very accurate when it comes to measure mass of such low
order because even the slightest movement of the weighing scale or watch glass could
change the readings.
5. Finally, other external matter could have interfered with the reaction mixture causing
unaccounted reactions that may hamper the readings.

References and Bibliography:

1. http://www.pharmacytimes.com/publications/issue/2014/august2014/r648_august2014

2. www.thefactsabout.co.uk/how-does-toothpaste-work/content/115

3. https://www.thoughtco.com/how-fluoride-works-prevent-tooth-decay-607857

4. http://www.aestheticfamilysmiles.com/2015/02/13/causes-effects-of-fluorosis/

5. http://altered-states.net/barry/update178/

6. http://www.cda-adc.ca/jcda/vol-69/issue-11/722.html

7. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cavities/symptoms.../syc-20352892

8. https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Mouth

9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4733546/

17
Appendix

Raw Data

Litchi
sample 1(0.1) sample 2(0.2) sample3 (0.3) sample (0.4) sample (0.5)
pH initial 3.11 3.13 3.11 3.12 3.13
Without T 3.89 3.98 4.05 4.14 4.23
With T1 3.46 3.53 3.59 3.62 3.64
With T2 3.59 3.66 3.7 3.78 3.83
With T3 3.72 3.77 3.84 3.9 3.95

Cranberry
sample 1(0.1) sample 2(0.2) sample3 (0.3) sample (0.4) sample (0.5)
pH initial 2.71 2.69 2.7 2.71 2.72
Without T 3.45 3.58 3.67 3.74 3.85
With T1 3.05 3.12 3.19 3.25 3.31
With T2 3.19 3.27 3.33 3.39 3.45
With T3 3.31 3.39 3.43 3.49 3.56

Apple
sample 1(0.1) sample 2(0.2) sample3 (0.3) sample (0.4) sample (0.5)
pH initial 2.89 2.89 2.87 2.88 2.86
Without T 3.72 3.87 3.96 4.04 4.11
With T1 3.43 3.51 3.58 3.63 3.69
With T2 3.56 3.63 3.7 3.74 3.79
With T3 3.62 3.71 3.79 3.84 3.91

Orange
sample 1(0.1) sample 2(0.2) sample3 (0.3) sample (0.4) sample (0.5)
pH initial 3.67 3.7 3.68 3.68 3.69
Without T 5.07 5.19 5.43 5.48 5.46
With T1 4.43 4.49 4.55 4.61 4.7
With T2 4.54 4.63 4.71 4.79 4.84
With T3 4.72 4.8 4.88 4.99 5.12

18
 Mosambi
sample 1(0.1) sample 2(0.2) sample3 (0.3) sample (0.4) sample (0.5)
pH initial 3.82 3.8 3.84 3.84 3.85
Without T 5.06 5.15 5.23 5.38 5.49
With T1 4.64 4.78 4.83 4.9 4.93
With T2 4.76 4.85 4.89 4.95 5.05
With T3 4.83 4.88 4.91 5.03 5.08

Pomegranate
sample 1(0.1) sample 2(0.2) sample3 (0.3) sample (0.4) sample (0.5)
pH initial 2.95 2.93 2.95 2.95 2.95
Without T 3.92 4.01 4.12 4.18 4.23
With T1 3.63 3.68 3.74 3.78 3.81
With T2 3.74 3.81 3.89 3.93 3.98
With T3 3.81 3.89 3.93 3.97 4.03

Pineapple
sample 1(0.1) sample 2(0.2) sample3 (0.3) sample (0.4) sample (0.5)
pH initial 3.41 3.42 3.43 3.43 3.42
Without T 4.61 4.73 4.81 4.94 5.03
With T1 4.27 4.34 4.38 4.43 4.5
With T2 4.39 4.45 4.52 4.58 4.63
With T3 4.48 4.56 4.63 4.69 4.72

19
,

20