Water: Prankster of the Natural World Part 2

If you haven’t read part 1 (why would you do that?), here is a review of the scenario we are considering in part 2:

 

Two identical containers of water (same volume, same container size and material) are placed into a freezer. One container contains water at just below its’ boiling point (< 100 °C) and the other at roughly room temperature (21 °C). Which will freeze first?

 

Well I have two jars right here!

In part 1 I discussed the Leidenfrost effect, named after a guy named Leidenfrost. In part 2 I will discuss the Mpemba effect named after, you guessed it, a guy named Mpemba. Interestingly, Erasto Mpemba was a young student when he made the initial observation that hot water can freeze faster than cold water. While he was not the first to make this discovery, his observation led to the first scientific study of the topic so it bares his name.

 

At first glance, the second scenario is decidedly less exciting. No boiling, no sizzling, and unfortunately no shoddy videography, but unlike the Leidenfrost effect the mechanism behind the Mpemba effect is still hotly debated. During the boiling experiment the lower thermal conductivity of a trapped steam layer prevented efficient heat transfer to the remaining liquid droplet. Several competing explanations are offered for the Mpemba effect, but I will only consider the influence of variation in heat transfer upon freezing. In general “heat transfer” can be considered to explain both the Mpemba and the Leidenfrost effect, and there are three modes of heat transfer. Last time I described conduction which is the transfer of heat within a solid material or between two physically connected bodies. Conduction assumes that the atoms involved in the transfer of heat are fixed in space, like they would be in the solid pan from the Leidenfrost scenario or the walls of the container for the Mpemba effect. Thermal conductivity as described in part 1 is a measure of heat conduction. In a fluid convection is the major mode of heat transfer and implies that atoms or molecules are free to move around. Convection is the reason a bath of cold water with hot water poured into it will eventually reach a single homogenous temperature or opening the front door on a cold day will “let the cold in”. When dealing with both solids and “fluid” phases (a fluid means a non-solid phase) both conduction and convection can be considered. A more detailed explanation of conduction and convection can be found here.

The third mode of heat transfer is radiation, which is the transfer and absorption of electromagnetic radiation. This was indirectly discussed in a previous article but is not important for these scenarios. A nice animation of each of the three modes mentioned here can be found on the web.

To observe the Mpemba effect I took two identical salsa jars and ate their contents. This did not result in the Mpemba effect so I cleaned the jars and set about a second experiment. In one jar I put ¼ cup of tap water and allowed the water to reach room temperature by setting it on the counter for a few minutes. The temperature of my room was about 24 °C (75 °F). In the second jar I put ¼ cup of boiling water. By the time I poured the water it had cooled slightly from the boiling point (100 °C or 212 °F) to about 88 °C (190 °F). I checked these temperatures with a meat thermometer intended for porkchops and roasted chickens so the accuracy is not perfect but for this experiment it doesn’t matter – we only want to confirm that one container has water at a significantly higher temperature than the other. I placed both containers into my freezer which according to the same thermometer is somewhere around -15 °C (5 °F). After two hours I took the containers out and had a look-see. The room temperature water was mostly frozen except for a cavity between the ice at the top of the jar and the bottom of the jar itself. The boiled water was frozen solid. If I moved both jars around motion of the remaining liquid water in the tap water jar was obvious. From left to right below is both jars from the top after freezing, the room temperature jar from the bottom, and the boiling water jar from the bottom. The opening image for this article shows both jars unfrozen.

 

Both jars after freezing – tap water on left
Boiled water frozen
Frozen tap water

 

The heat transfer explanation that fits my results goes something like this: due to a difference in density between hot and cold water, hot water in the boiled container rises to the top and delays freezing. When the hotter water cools slightly it sinks to the bottom of the jar and stirs the rest of the container, keeping the temperature in the container homogenous. These movement within the water due to relative density differences are called convective currents. The convective currents are strong enough to keep the average temperature in boiled hot water jar above freezing until the entire container freezes simultaneously. Convective currents due to temperature differences are responsible for many naturally occurring events like the movement of an atmosphere around a planet. Meanwhile, the initially cooler tap water freezes at the top of the container preventing convective heat transfer between the water and the cold air in the freezer. Convective currents are also present in the tap water jar, but the remaining heat distributed by them is not enough to prevent a top layer of ice from forming.

 

I feel obligated to admit that I had some difficulty getting this experiment to work. At first I tried using a whole cup of water in the same jars, checking the temperature in each container every five minutes. In this test I found that the boiled water dropped in temperature very rapidly at first whereas the tap water changed temperature very slowly. Both jars reached around 34 °F, just above the freezing point, at about the same time. The tap water jar froze on the top first making subsequent measurements of the underlying liquid difficult. Eventually both containers were mostly frozen but I couldn’t tell when the interior of either jar had frozen. Repeatedly opening the freezer door to inspect the jars also manipulates the experimental conditions, so when trying this at home I recommend you only check the freezer once an hour or so to see if anything is frozen. Transparent containers like my glass salsa jars make a quick inspection easier, but using containers of different materials could lead to some interesting results. It is this apparent sensitivity to experimental conditions that makes the mechanism responsible for the Mpemba effect subject to question. You can read more about some of these on the Wikipedia article for the Mpemba effect, but I encourage you to try some of your own tests and see what you find!

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.