Mark Pipp, Lindsay Mensch, Kim Mitchell

Dr. Knittle
AP Biology - 4th hour
7 January 2015

Toothpickase Lab - Data Analysis

1. See graphs.
2. The number of toothpicks broken increased as the amount of time increased.
However, the rate of toothpicks broken per second increased sharply then slowly
dropped. So, when the amount of time increased, toothpicks were being broken slower
and slower. This is likely to have happened because there were more broken toothpicks in
the pile, thus decreasing the probability of finding a whole one. When there was a short
amount of time, whole toothpicks were plentiful so the rate was higher.
3. See graphs.
4. The rate of toothpicks broken without the noncompetitive inhibitor appeared to be
higher most of the time than the rate with the inhibitor. The rates with and without the
inhibitor got closer together as the pile size increased. The toothpicks are easier to break
without the inhibitor so thats why those rates were usually higher. The rates might have
gotten closer as the pile size increased because there were plenty of toothpicks to break
and the noncompetitive inhibitor got less effective.
5. If the toothpicks were spread out across the table, the reaction rate would likely
decrease. Spreading toothpicks out would increase the area for the possible reactions,
leaving a less concentrated space for enzymatic activity. By lowering the concentration of
substrate, the enzyme would encounter fewer toothpicks and reaction rate would
decrease.
6. Doubling the amount of substrate would increase the rate of reaction. Since the
number of enzymes is not being affected, eventually, a saturation point will be reached

and the reaction rate will see a steady decline. This decline, however, will be less steep
than the data we found when the substrate was not doubled. See graph 1.
7. If two students broke the toothpicks instead of one, then the number of reactions
would increase along with the reaction rate. As long as the number of toothpicks
remained constant, the reaction would also reach equilibrium much faster than if only one
student was breaking toothpicks.
8. The noncompetitive inhibitor produced data showing a trend where its rate was
lower than the experiment without an inhibitor. This occurs because inhibitor affected the
rate for each pile equally. Noncompetitive inhibitors reduce enzymatic activity by altering
the conformation of the active site, in contrast to competitive inhibitors, which fit in and
block the active site from accepting substrate. In an experiment with a competitive
inhibitor, the addition of substrate can overwhelm the inhibitor. On a graph, the average
reaction rates with and without the competitive inhibitor merge for that reason. The
competitive inhibitor also came closer to equilibrium because it did not affect the reaction
rate much until little substrate remained.