culated for each group of measurements.Discussion:Our experiment was designed to determine whether boiling and decrease in light will have negative effects on the rate of photosynthesis in chloroplasts. Our results proved the hypothesis true.Our results confirm with our predictions because by looking at the cuvette that had boiled chloroplast you see that it did not have a lot of photosynthesis occurring neither did the chloroplast that received no light. However the ones that were unboiled and in the light did have a high rate of photosynthesis occurring.From our results it is possible to see that in cuvette 2 there was a small increase in % of light transmittance, from 19.5% to 26.4%. In cuvette 3 there was a very significant climb in % of light transmittance up to the 10 minute mark, from 26.6% to 98.4%. In cuvette 4 there was a very small increase in % of light transmittance, from 21.2% to 23.3%. In cuvette 5 there was actually a decrease in % of light transmittance, from 29.0% to 25.6%. These were the averages of the classes results.Basically the boiling of chloroplasts and the decrease in light did have negative effects on the rate of photosynthesis.Some of the groups may have gathered their data in a different way and they might have made a mistake in the paths that they had chose to complete this experiment. If they had gathered false information they would have distorted everyone's graphs. So the class average would have been way off.Some problems that occurred was during the recalibraion of the spectrophotometer. It seemed almost impossible to get the dial on 0% light transmittance. This would have affected the data collected from the spectrophometer.To get more reliable results it might have been better for everyone to do the experiment one day and then have them do the experiment again the following days. This would ensure that the procedure is followed one way and it would not change and the next day would be to ...
