This laboratory experiment had determined that the hypothesis, which states that if changing the optimal pH of a catalytic protein (an enzyme) will affect the temperature it denatures at by increasing the speed of the reaction, is supported.Table 2 shows the average time it take for the bubbles to rise for every ten mL with varying temperature values and Table 3 shows the average time it takes for the bubbles to rise for every ten mL with varying temperatures and pH values. In this case, when the enzymes were at 80 degrees celsius the rate of their reaction was the slowest, for every ten milliliters on average it took 60.3 second to move. But with the influence of a constant pH of 10 in the liver, at 80 degrees celsius the rate of the reaction, for every 10 milliliters it took 1.51 seconds. This is a drastic increase compared to the only temperature. This helps support that the rate of reaction was faster with the presence of an pH at high temperatures then presence of no pH in very high temperatures. The collected data helps shows, that when the rate of the reaction is faster, this means less of the catalytic proteins denatured. With the addition of pH values in temperature, the temperature did not have a drastic effect on the denaturing of the catalytic protein. As predicted in the hypothesis, the speed at which the liver denatures with only temperature and the speed of at which the liver denatures with a variance of pH values and temperatures increases the rate of reaction.There is no there laboratory experiences that can compare to the experimental data found. Due to a lack of other data that can be compared to this data, by performing a t- test you can compare experimental conditions within your own experiment. The t-test showed that there was no real significance to any of the data collected. When calculating the p value a .05 significance level was used. However, the pH value of 13 with varying temperatures compared to the 12.54 pH value at room temperature, p value was .0532. Even though the p value was not significant, if more trials were to be conducted, the p value could lower and become more significant.In the execution of and materials that were used during this experiment, had its limitations: First, although the mass of the liver it was in a rage between two to three grams this could have a factor on the experimental studies. If one liver is larger than the other the larger liver can contain more catalytic proteins. Even though, the livers were kept around the same size the smaller liver could have had a slower rate of denaturing then the larger sized liver. This can affect the study and chan cause outliers in the rate at which the catalytic proteins denature. Second, since each liver was left to sit out for 48 hours in a room temperature room, this can cause unknown particles to enter the test tubes. The test tubes were not sealed during their 48 hour time, particles in the air could have found their way into the test tubes a effected the experiment. Without the sealing of the test tubes during the 48 hours some of the acidic or basic solutions could have evaporated. The less of the acidic and basic solutions in these experiments could have caused less enzymes to denature and cause a faster rate of reaction.Third, when adding the pH to the liver in the test tubes, the pH could have not covered every surface of the liver. Allowing the liver to soak in the pH for 48 hours helped limit the amount of untreated Catalytic proteins, but there could still be some outliers. In the test tube the pH solutions may not have reached all the way to the bottom. The liver was at the bottom and the pH solution was poured at the top. This could have cause some of the liver to be untouched allowing some of the enzymes not to denature due to the pH, increasing the rate of the reaction. To resolve this problem, cover the test tubes with parafilm to limit the amount of particles and evaporated pH from entering and leaving the test tube.The primary source of random error in this experiment was the uncertainty of the time of reaction. The random error came about from the fact that stopping the clock exactly at 60 seconds can be difficult, and lapping the clock every time it passes ten mL can be off as well. Furthermore the clock used was accurate to the .00 second, but since there were so many trials the uncertainty became high. These uncontrollable systematic and random errors can be addressed in many ways, the size at each liver was massed to could be more precise. The mass is very important if eachliver is massed to the same size it is more likely they will contain similar amounts of catalytic proteins the varied masses of liver. Each test tube should be sealed to control particles getting into the test tube, and the evaporation of the pH solutions. Furthermore, when allowing the liver to soak in test tubes they should be stirred at least 2 times throughout their 48 hour sit. This can evenly distribute the amount of ph Solution in the whole liver. These call all hemp minimise the amount of systematic and hopefully random errors that occurs in the experiment.