Measuring Cell Potential Between

Various Metals Using Vinegar in a

Voltaic Cell to Determine Battery
Efficiency
Bekah Kuster, Katie Austin, Oli Sakadinsky
April 2015
Animas High School

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this lab was to examine different metals and their voltage capacities and
efficiency in a battery. The goal was to see which two metals produced both the highest and
most consistent voltage to determine which would be optimal to use in an actual battery. To
explore this, we tested different combinations of metals by placing a piece of cardboard soaked
in vinegar (an electrolyte) between the metals we were testing and measured the resulting
voltage using a multimeter. Our results indicated that nickel and tins percent recoveries
(adherence to the theoretical results) were highest, and that when tested together they also
yielded the highest voltage. On a larger scale, finding out the reactivity between two metals and
the possibility of reversing the reaction can help us improve current non-rechargeable batteries.
By finding the two most reactive metals in our experiment, we could potentially optimize the
batteries in place and predict the future materials surrounding advancements in battery
technology. Additionally, we can corroborate our results with the metals found to be most
effective in current rechargeable batteries.
____________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION
Diagram 1: Standard Voltaic Cell

This lab was conducted to observe the

reactivity between different metals. The results
were used to predict the reactivity between any
two metals. The two metals that created the
highest voltage could be used as a more
effective cathode (where reduction occurs) and
anode (where

potential is measured in DCV (Direct Current

Voltage). The higher the potential is the more
reactive it will likely be. We expected that our
experimental results would align with the
theoretical values, which were brass and
aluminum. In our experiment we used a voltaic
cell, which is an electrochemical cell that allows
two metals to go through an oxidation-reduction
reaction. This type of reaction is when metal A
in a reaction oxidizes and metal B goes through
the process of reduction. Oxidation is when
metal A loses/gives electrons to metal B in the
reaction. Reduction is when metal B gains the
electrons lost from metal A. To conduct the
experiment, we attached alligator clips to each
metal and then to a multimeter, a device used
to measure voltage (DCV), to create a circuit
that allowed us to observe the effectiveness of
specific metals in creating electricity. Our
battery was similar to the design of a primitive
battery aside from the use of cardboard, which
in original batteries would have been a barrier
of salt water.

oxidation occurs) in batteries today. In order to

find the highest voltage between metals we
looked at the standard reduction potential. The METHODS AND MATERIALS
standard reduction potential is the tendency for Before testing starts, cut 21 strips of cardboard
to the size of the metal strips being tested, one
a metal to be reduced. Standard reduction
for each metal combination being tested. After

this is completed, attach the first metal being

Tin (Sn) strip
tested (Metal A) to the cathode with an alligator Brass (BR) strip
clip and lay it down on a flat surface. Then,
Zinc (Zn) strip
soak one strip of cardboard in vinegar (the
Vinegar
electrolyte) for five seconds to ensure even
Beaker
vinegar saturation on all strips. Once these five Multimeter
seconds have passed, place the cardboard strip Scissors
on top of Metal A. With the second metal of the Cardboard strips
combination (Metal B), attach it to the anode
Alligator clips
with another alligator clip and place this on top
of the cardboard strip and Metal A. Once the
Hazards:
resulting voltage registers on the multimeter,
Copper- To avoid harm, do not ingest or inhale
record the DCV reading. For the first test, adjust and avoid contact with eyes and skin.
the dial on the multimeter so it displays the
Iron- Nonhazardous
most accurate measurement possible. Finally, Nickel- To avoid harm, do not ingest or inhale
repeat this process on the other metal
and avoid contact with skin.
combinations.
Aluminum- Avoid inhalation.
Tin- Nonhazardous
Materials:
Brass- Nonhazardous
Copper (Cu) strip
Zinc-Nonhazardous
Iron (Fe) strip
Vinegar- Nonhazardous but avoid prolonged
Nickel (Ni) strip
inhalation of vapors.
Aluminum (Al) strip

RESULTS
Table 1: Experimental Cell Potentials of Various Metal Combinations
Experimental

Cu

Fe

Ni

Al

Sn

BR

Zn

Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)

0.45 +

Nickel (Ni)

0.16 -

0.32 +

Aluminum (Al)

0.53 -

0.09 -

0.53 -

Tin (Sn)

0.45 -

0.03 +

0.34 -

0.05 +

Brass (BR)

0.01 +

0.46 +

0.22 +

0.50 +

0.39 +

Zinc (Zn)

0.50 -

0.05 -

0.35 -

0.07 -

0.12 -

0.40 -

Table 2: Theoretical Cell Potentials of Various Metal Combinations

Theoretical

Cu

Fe

Ni

Al

Sn

BR

Zn

Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)

0.37

Nickel (Ni)

0.59

0.21

Aluminum (Al)

2.00

1.22

1.41

Tin (Sn)

0.48

0.10

0.11

1.52

Brass (BR)

0.73

1.11

1.32

2.73

1.21

Zinc (Zn)

1.10

0.72

0.51

0.90

0.62

1.83

Table 3: Percent Recovery of Different Metal Combinations

Theoretical

Cu

Fe

Ni

Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)

122%

Nickel (Ni)

27%

152%

Aluminum (Al)

27%

7%

38%

Al

Sn

BR

Zn

Tin (Sn)

94%

30%

309%

3%

Brass (BR)

46%

41%

17%

18%

32%

Zinc (Zn)

46%

7%

69%

8%

19%

22%

Table 4: Average Percent Recovery of All Metals

Copper

0.60

Iron

0.60

Nickel

1.02

Aluminum

0.17

Tin

0.81

Brass

0.29

Zinc

0.29

Figure 1: Average Percent Recovery and Experimental Voltage of Different Metals

Some observations to be noted in Tables 1 and
2 start with the difference in range of the two
data sets. There was a lot more variance in the
theoretical results. Its data range of 2.63 was

over five times that of the experimental results,

which was 0.52. Similarly, there was no
experimental value recorded that was over 0.53
DCV.

According to Table 4 and Figure 1, the metals

with the highest percent recoveries
were nickel and tin, the metals with medium
percent recoveries were copper and iron, and
the metals with the lowest percent recoveries

were aluminum, brass, and zinc. The theoretical

combination that would yield the highest voltage
was with brass and aluminum, while the
experimental combination was with both
aluminum and copper and aluminum and nickel.

recovery. Table 4 showed that individually,

nickel and tin had the highest overall percent
DISCUSSION
recovery. From the results shown in Table 1, we
We conducted this experiment to find the
noticed that aluminum and copper together had
different conductivities between different
the highest voltage. However, these results
combinations of metals. This allowed us to find
were not reflected through the theoretical data.
the most reactive metals, which in theory when
Areas of uncertainty could be attributed to the
used could improve todays batteries. Based on
fact that theoretical numbers do not necessarily
our table of theoretical values (Table 2), Brass
work in practice and our voltaic cell was not
and Aluminum had the highest cell potential and
fully functional.
therefore would be the most efficient metals to
use in batteries. Finding the two metals that
More accurate results would be more significant
yielded the highest combined voltage could
because they would help increase the efficiency
of rechargeable batteries. Although our results
did not seem to be accurate, we noticed that
nickel and tin had the highest voltage. Nickel is
help to create more efficient batteries in the
a component in batteries today so we know that
future. This would help increase storage
our results at least somewhat reflect the
capacity in batteries, which could improve solar
average cell potential of a battery.
panel effectiveness among other products.
We are not very confident in our results. This
could be attributed to one, our experiment not
The three most significant pieces of information
going as planned and two, to the variances in
are the experimental data, theoretical data,
the experimental and theoretical results. Our
percent recovery of metal pairings, and percent
original plan was to use a standard voltaic cell
recovery of individual metals, which are found
using aqueous solutions of each metal.
in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Our
However, we then changed our plan to just
experimental data showed two major results:
using an electrolyte (vinegar), which may have
together aluminum and copper yielded the
affected our results. Also, during the lab, the
highest voltage and together brass and copper
standard voltaic cell did not produce results.
yielded the lowest voltage. The theoretical data
This required us to create a makeshift battery
was very different from the experimental data:
out of the various metals as well as cardboard
brass and aluminum yielded the highest
soaked in vinegar. The cardboard served as a
voltage, while tin and iron yielded the lowest
replacement for the salt bridge that would be
voltage. This inconsistency between the
found in the voltaic cell. The problems that
experimental and theoretical data caused us to
occurred in the lab gave us results that did not
seek another category of information by looking
match up with the expected results. These
at trends between the experimental and
areas of uncertainty were random because we
theoretical data based on the reactions of metal
didnt see any trends in the errors of our results.
pairings and individual metals. From our new
If we were to do this lab again, we would use
understanding of the data, we created two
the actual sulfate solutions, which would allow
tables, one showing the percent recovery of
for a stronger current between the metals. We
metal pairings and the other showing the
would also use a functioning voltaic cell, which
average percent recovery of each individual
would improve the accuracy of our results. For
metal (Tables 3 and 4 respectively). Table 3
further experimentation, we could try to make a
showed that together tin and copper as well as
battery with the two highest metals and
zinc and nickel had the highest percent
compare it to an actual battery. This would help

us understand whether our original hypothesis

was correct.