DATE: June 14, 2022

TITLE: Energy content analysis and food tests

AIMS: 1.) To determine the energy content of a peanut.

​ 2.) To find out which classes of foods occur in peanuts.

APPARATUS/MATERIALS: Bag of peanuts, electronic scale,

retort stand, clamp, boiling tube, distilled water, paper clip,
lighter, candle, thermometer, mortar and pestle, small spoon,
measuring cylinder, aqueous iodine solution, spotting tile, test
tubes, Benedict’s solution, hot water bath, 0.2 mol/dm3
hydrochloric acid, 0.2 mol/dm3 sodium hydroxide, red litmus
paper, copper (II) sulphate solution, ethanol, filter paper disk.

METHOD:

Method 1 - Energy content analysis

First, the clamp was attached to the retort stand via the
clamp’s screw. Next, the boiling tube was placed into the clamp
at an angle. This was done by only pinching one half of the
clamp and then placing the large test tube in the gap that was
created. After this was done, a peanut was randomly selected
from the bag of peanuts and then weighed using the
electronic scale. While the peanut was being weighed, 10cm3 of
distilled water was being measured out via the measuring
cylinder. This volume was then poured into the boiling tube.
​ Once this was done the thermometer was placed into the
distilled water in such a way that the thermometer was not
touching the boiling tube’s bottom (thermometer was not
removed). The initial temperature of the water was then
recorded. Following this, the paper clip was unfolded and was
then used to pierce the peanut. Soon after, the experimenter
ignited the candle by using the lighter.
​ The peanut was then placed into the candle’s flame. As
soon as the peanut had been set ablaze, the peanut was placed
directly below the bottom of the boiling tube, but not touching
the boiling tube. In the case that the peanut’s flame had
become extinguished, the peanut was quickly relighted. The
highest temperature obtained by the thermometer during this
period was then recorded in result table 1. Calculations were
then performed using these values.

Draw pic of apparatus here

 Method 2- Food tests

First, approximately 10 peanuts were randomly selected from

the bag of peanuts and were then crushed into as fine a
paste as was possible by using the mortar and pestle. A small
volume of distilled water was then added to the paste so that
a viscous suspension was formed (the viscosity of vegetable
oil is optimal). A small amount of this suspension was used to
carry out each of the following food tests. All results were
recorded in results table 2.

1.​ Starch test - A small amount of the suspension was

taken out and placed on the spotting tile. Next, a few
drops of the iodine solution were added to the
suspension. The suspension was then left to rest for
approximately twenty minutes. Observations were then
recorded.

2.​Reducing sugar (Benedict’s test) - A small amount of the

suspension was added to a test tube. Next, approximately
four drops of Benedict’s solution were added to the test
tube. The mixture was shaken gently and then placed into
the hot water bath for approximately two minutes. Once
the time elapsed, observations were recorded.
3.​ Non-reducing sugar test - A small amount of the
suspension was added to a test tube, followed by 1 cm3
of hydrochloric acid. The test tube was then placed into
a hot water bath for approximately two minutes. Once
the time had passed, the test tube was removed and 1cm3
of sodium hydroxide was added to the test tube, so as to
neutralise the acid. Red litmus was then used to check if
the suspension was neutral. If not, small volumes of
sodium hydroxide were added until the solution became
neutral. Following this, approximately four drops of
Benedict’s solution were added to the test tube, which
was then shaken gently and placed back into the hot
water bath for another approximate two minutes.
Observations were then recorded.
4.​Biuret’s test - A small amount of the suspension was
added to a test tube. Following this, 1 cm3 of sodium
hydroxide was added to the test tube. The test tube was
then shaken and four drops of the copper (II) sulphate
solution were added. Observations were then recorded.
5.​Fat emulsion test - Two test tubes were prepared. In the
first, a small amount of the suspension was added, while
in the second, a small amount of distilled water was
added. A small amount of ethanol was then added to the
first test tube. This was followed by shaking the test
 tube. Immediately after this was done, a small portion of
the first test tube’s contents were poured into the
second test tube. Observations were then recorded.
6.​Grease spot check - A small amount of the suspension
was placed onto a filter paper disk and then spread
around the disk’s surface using the small spoon. The disk
was then left to dry. Once the disk was finished drying,
observations were recorded.
RESULTS:

TABLE SHOWING THE DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS AND

CALCULATIONS OBTAINED FROM METHOD 1

Table No.1
Calculations

Mass of peanut 0.4

Volume of water (cm3) 10

Initial temperature (℃) 31

Final temperature (℃) 91

Change in temperature 60

Energy gained by water 2520

Energy released by peanut 6300

TABLE SHOWING THE RESULTS OF THE FOOD TESTS
CARRIED OUT
Table No.2

Food test carried out Observations made

Biuret’s test The suspension developed a

purple complex after a few
minutes had passed

Reducing sugar test Suspension took the colour

of the Benedict’s solution -
blue

Non-reducing sugar test Suspension acquired a slight

red colour

Fat emulsion test The suspension formed a

separation after coming into
contact with the distilled
water

Starch test Suspension developed a dark

coloured complex after
approximately 20 minutes

Grease spot check A semi-translucent spot was

formed where the suspension
was rubbed on
CALCULATIONS:

Change in temperature

Change in temperature = Final temperature - initial

temperature
Change in temperature = 91℃ - 31℃
∴ Change in temperature = 60℃

Energy gained by the water (Egw)

Egw = Volume of water used * Change in temperature *

specific heat capacity of water
Egw = 10cm3 * 60℃ * 4.2J/℃/cm3
∴ Egw = 2520J

Energy released from peanut (Erp)

Erp = Energy gained by water / mass of peanut

Erp = 2520J / 0.4g
∴ Erp = 6300J/g
DISCUSSION: As per the law of conservation of energy,
energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Whatever
energy is seemingly lost by a system is simply transferred to
the surroundings. This therefore means that all energy is
transferable. An example of this would be a human eating a
peanut. When a human eats a peanut, the peanut is broken
down into component molecules, thereby allowing the human to
access the chemical potential energy present in the peanut.
This energy is then used to fuel the human in the human’s day
to day activities.
​ This fact however, brings up a question. That being, what
is energy? Energy is defined as the ability to do work. Energy
is denoted by the S.I units of Kgm2/s2 (J). On the other hand,
energy content is a property of food. Energy content is a
measure of the amount of heat energy which is produced by
burning 1g of a substance; this is measured in the S.I units of
Kgm2/s2g (J/g).
​ For many years the energy content of a food has been
measured in calories. A calorie may be defined as the heat
energy which is required to increase the temperature of one
gram of water by 1℃ (274.15 K). In addition to this 1℃ is equal
to 4.2J (the specific heat capacity of water). An important
point to note is that although the joule is the S.I unit of energy,
many nutritionists still measure a food’s energy content in
calories.
​ A food’s energy content is typically calculated by burning
a known mass of food and measuring the heat energy
released to a known mass of water. If the change in
temperature is known (the difference between the final and
initial temperatures) the following equation can then be applied
to determine said food's energy content:

Energy content = energy gained by the water / mass of the

food

In the energy content analysis portion of the experiment, the

energy content of a peanut was determined by burning a
peanut of mass 0.4 grams, finding the temperature change
(60℃) and then applying the above formula. The value obtained
was 6300J/g. This value is very close to the actual value of a
peanut’s energy content because according to cusd80.com,
the actual value is 6186.4J/g. The obtained value may have
differed from the actual value due to slight errors in
measurement and the difference in apparatus and apparatus
quality.
​ Moving away from the energy content analysis portion
of the experiment, the food test portion will now be
addressed. This portion aimed to determine some of the
nutrients that were present in the peanut. However, a
definition of the word ‘nutrients’ will prove to be useful. A
nutrient is a chemical compound or ion which is required by an
organism to live. Nutrients can be classified into two groups-
organic and inorganic nutrients. Organic nutrients are
composed of carbohydrates, proteins, lipids and vitamins.
Inorganic nutrients on the other hand are composed of
mineral ions.
​ The first food test which was carried out involved the
testing for starch. The reagent used was an iodine solution.
This reagent was used because iodine reacts with starch to
form a blueish-black complex. In this rendition of the
experiment, a dark complex (colour interpretation varies
from person to person) was formed, in contrast to the
suspension’s cream colour, thereby confirming that starch
was present in the peanut. This result was aligned with the
experimenter’s expectations as peanuts are very starchy
plants.
​ The second food test, the Reducing sugar test, involved
testing for reducing sugars within the peanut. Benedict’s
solution was chosen as the reagent because when Benedict’s
solution comes into contact with reducing sugars, a redox
reaction occurs. Benedict's solution is the oxidising agent while
the sugar is the reducing agent. In addition to this, when
Benedict’s solution is reduced, the colour changes from that
of blue to a brick red, thereby allowing for the easy
identification of reducing sugars. The results of this food
test proved negative for reducing sugars as the suspension
retained the blue colour of Benedict's solution - blue. This
result went against the experimenter’s expectations as the
experimenter thought that since the peanuts contain starch,
reducing sugars must be present as well.
​ The third food test, the non-reducing sugar test, involved
testing for non reducing sugars by first hydrolysing the
suspension and then adding Benedict's solution. Non-reducing
sugars are sugars which are comprised of two or more
rings of reducing sugars. Hydrolysing the sugars involves
splitting the sugars via the addition of water molecules. This
was made possible by adding hydrochloric acid to the
suspension. The sodium hydroxide was then added to the acidic
suspension to neutralise the suspension.
​ Since Benedict’s solution is alkaline, the slight acidity of
the suspension may have triggered a reaction with the
Benedict's solution. Once the hydrolysing of the suspension
was complete, Benedict’s solution was added to the suspension
for the same reasons as those in the previous food test. In
contrast to the negative test from the previous experiment,
the suspension acquired a slight red colour. This therefore
meant that non-reducing sugars are present in peanuts.
Furthermore, due to these results the experimenter’s
expectations of there being non-reducing sugars present in
peanuts were met.
​ The fourth food test involved the testing for protein.
The reagents used in this experiment were sodium hydroxide
and copper(II) sulphate. These reagents were used because
copper (II) sulphate and sodium hydroxide react with proteins
to form a purple complex. The results obtained were positive
as a purple complex was formed when the two solutions
were added to the suspension. In addition to this, the result
aligned with experimenter’s expectations as the experimenter
thought that peanuts have protein.
​ Both the fifth and sixth food tests involved the testing
for lipids within the peanut. Within the fifth, ethanol and distilled
water were used as the reagents because lipids are soluble in
ethanol, but not in distilled water. This difference in solubility
would allow for a separation to be formed when the
suspension was dissolved in the ethanol and then poured onto
the distilled water.
​ The sixth test, the grease spot test, involved the use of
lipids’ ability to leave a semi translucent stain on filter paper
when allowed to dry. This therefore meant that the filter
paper was the reagent used. The experiment provided a
positive result as a semi translucent spot was obtained on the
filter paper.
​ The results of the fifth and sixth experiments aligned
with the experimenter’s expectations. The reasoning behind this
is that, after the energy content analysis portion of the
experiment, a brown oily liquid was seen seeping from the
peanut. The experimenter thought this liquid to be peanut oil.
Since these experiments both had positive results, then the
experimenter concluded that this oily liquid had a high chance
of being a lipid. Therefore, the experimenter’s expectations
were met.
​
LIMITATIONS: There were three limitations which affected this
experiment. The first of which was that since the day on
which the experiment was conducted was rainy, the
temperatures of the hot water baths decreased. These
decreased temperatures resulted in the test tubes having to
be placed in the hot water baths for extended periods of
time so that results could be obtained.
​ The second limitation was that a portion of the test
tubes used were contaminated with other substances. This
contamination resulted in various portions of the experiment
having to be redone so as to obtain proper results.
​ The final limitation was that after the energy content
analysis section of the experiment, a few drops of oil could
have been seen dripping from the peanut. This meant that
there was still a small portion of the peanut which was not
burned, thereby resulting in a small portion of the peanut’s
energy being unaccounted for.

SOURCES OF ERRORS: There were four sources of errors

present within this experiment. The first of which was that
parallax errors while taking the measurements may have
occurred. These errors may have resulted in certain
measurements being recorded incorrectly.
​ The second source of error was that some of the test
tubes that were used were contaminated with other unknown
substances. This contamination may have affected the results
obtained. In one case of the food tests, a rendition of the
Biuret’s test, when the sodium hydroxide was added to the
test tube, a purple complex was immediately formed on the
test tube’s side. This observation suggests that a food test
had previously been carried out in that test tube.
​ The third source of error was that after the energy
content analysis portion of the experiment q few drops of oil
could have been seen dripping from the peanut. This meant
that there was still a small portion of the peanut which was
not burned, thereby resulting in a small portion of the peanut’s
energy being unaccounted for.
​ The final source of error was that during the
non-reducing sugar test, after adding two portions of sodium
hydroxide to the acidic suspension, the suspension still proved
to be slightly acidic. However in the interest of time, no more
portions of sodium hydroxide could have been added. This slight
acidity may have resulted in a reaction with the alkaline
Benedict’s solution, thereby affecting the results obtained.

PRECAUTIONS: There were three precautions which were

taken in this experiment. The first of which was to be
careful when handling the ignited objects used. Such objects
can cause extreme damage to the other apparatus, the
experimenter and possibly the whole lab.
​ The second precaution was to avoid breathing in, coming
in contact with or ingesting the fumes of any of the
chemicals used. For example, inhaling the copper (II) sulphate
may have caused the experimenter’s respiratory tract to
become irritated. In addition to this, the hydrochloric acid and
the sodium hydroxide may have slightly corroded the
experimenter’s skin as these chemicals are corrosive.
​ The final precaution was to not have the thermometer
touch the bottom of the test tube when carrying out the
steps in method 1. This was done because pyrex heats up
vastly differently as compared to water. If the thermometer
was touching the bottom of the test tube, then not only would
the heat of the water affect the thermometer’s reading, but
the test tube would as well.
IMPROVEMENTS: There are three improvements which could
have been made to this experiment. The first of which would
have been to have the water in the hot water bath be boiling
instead of just being very hot. Since the rates of chemical
reactions increase with temperature, then if the temperature
of the hot water bath was increased, then the rate of all the
reactions involving the hot water bath would increase as well.
This increased rate of reaction would allow for better
results.
​ The second improvement would have been to use very
clean test tubes. The contaminated test tubes may have
affected the results.
​ The final improvement would have been to record the
temperature of the hot water baths. This information could
then be used to compare different renditions of this
experiment with varying temperatures of the hot water bath.

CONCLUSION: The peanut tested in the energy content and

analysis portion of the experiment was determined to contain
6300 J/g. This value was very close to the actual value of the
energy content of a peanut- 6186.4J/g. The difference of
113.6 J/g may have occurred due to errors in measurement
and the quality of the apparatus used.
​ In terms of the food tests, the starch test, Biuret’s test,
non-reducing sugar test, fat emulsion test and grease spot
check test all had tested positive for the tests’ associated
nutrients. This therefore meant that peanuts contain starch,
protein, non-reducing sugars, and lipids.