Lab 1

Measuring Density With

Different Types Of Glassware

Theresa Slaiwa
Chemistry 141
Section 9866
Instructor: Danica Moore
Completed: August 27, 2016
Turned in September 3, 2016

Introduction
Chemistry is a science in which it is necessary to take measurements, apply formulas, and
make calculations in order to obtain desired data. The best results of an experiment are both
precise and accurate. Such outcomes are the product of minimal systematic and random errors,
which are largely dependant on the quality and type of equipment one uses in an experiment.
 Objective
The equipment used in this experiment include a 100 mL beaker, 10 mL graduated
cylinder, and 10 mL pipet. The objective is to establish which of these three tools of
measurement yields the most accurate and precise data. This is done by measuring volumes of
water and finding their densities with the accepted formula: ( =m V ), eq.1. The equations
for standard deviation: , eq.2, and percent error:
([ observed valuetrue value]true value) 100 , eq.3, are then applied, which dictate the
precision and accuracy, respectively. The tool with the highest precision and accuracy is used to
measure the volumes and calculate the density of Regular-Coke and Diet-Coke.

Procedure
Prior to any calibration or measuring, all glassware must be subject to cleansing with DI
water. Part A of the procedure is dedicated to finding the most accurate and precise tool of
measurement. In Part A, Part I, we calibrate a beaker by filling it with water to the 50 mL mark,
weighing the beaker and its contents, draining it using the glass-to-glass-to-glass method, and
finally weighing the empty beaker. This procedure is carried out for three trials. The mass of
water delivered can then be calculated by subtracting the weight of the empty beaker from the
weight of the beaker plus the water. In Part A, Part II, we first record the temperature of the
water that is to be used in the experiment. Next, we weigh an empty bottle and cap to obtain a
tare weight. We then fill a graduated cylinder to the 10.0 mL mark with the water, empty the
contents into the plastic bottle using the glass-to-glass-to-glass method, and measure the
weight of the plastic bottle, cap, and water. This process is repeated, without emptying the plastic
bottle, for six trials. For Part A, Part III, we follow the same procedures as Part II, but instead
use a pipet to deliver 10 mL of water, and only do so for four trials. Part B of the experiment is
dependent on which tool is superior for measurement. Since the superior tool has proved to be
the pipet, we follow an identical procedure as Part A, Part III, but with Regular Coke and Diet
Coke instead of water. Three trials are done for each soft drink.

Results and Calculations

Part AI: Beaker Calibration + Demonstrated Calculations

Trial Beaker + H2O Empty Beaker Mass H2O |d^2|

Mass Mass Delivered

1 103.18g 53.28g 49.90g .46g

2 102.44g 53.32g 49.12g .01g

 3 101.92g 53.29g 48.63g .35g

Beaker Uncertainty +/- 1.0

Balance Uncertainty +/- .05

In order to interpret whether or not our measurements are precise, we must calculate the standard
deviation. The formula for standard deviation (eq.2) can be found in the Objective portion of this
text. A small standard deviation means a more limited amount of random and systematic errors.

Let us take this beaker calculation as a sample of standard deviation in action. First, we must
solve for the average Mass H2O Delivered by dividing the sum of values x by the amount of
values x. Such Calculations are demonstrated below.

Average = (49.9 + 49.12 + 48.63) / 3 = 49.22g

We then proceed to plug in the values required to solve for the standard deviation.
2
xx

= [(49.22 - 49.90)^2 + (49.22 - 49.12)^2 + (49.22 - 48.63)^2] = 0.82*


Standard Deviation = = 0.64g

According to the Laboratory Manual from this experiment, this standard deviation tells us the
precision of the beaker is good because two out of the three data points fall within one
standard deviation of the average Mass H2O Delivered. Going forward, the standard deviations
will be calculated as the one above.

Eq.1 and eq.3 were used to solve for the true values of volumes and percent errors below,
respectively. From the percent error, we can determine that the accuracy of the beaker is fair.

Trials True Values of Volume Percent Error

1 50 mL 0%

2 49 mL 2%

3 49 mL 2%

Part AII: Graduated Cylinder Calibration

 Trial Bottle Mass (With Cap) Mass H2O Delivered |d^2|

1 22.41g 9.76g .0064

2 32.00g 9.59g .0081

3 41.74g 9.74g .0036

4 51.39g 9.65g .0009

5 61.08g 9.69g .0001

6 70.71g 9.63g .0025

Bottle Tare Mass 12.64g

Water Temperature 24.5 C

Graduated Cylinder Uncertainty +/- .5

Balance Uncertainty +/- .05

The Mass Delivered in this part of the experiment was derived from subtracting consecutive
measures of mass, beginning with the tare weight of 12.64g; each subtraction followed the
addition of 10 mL H2O to the plastic bottle. The calculated average of the Mass Delivered was
9.68g. The standard deviation was 0.0710, which allows us to see that the precision of the
graduated cylinder is good because four of the six trials fell within one deviation of the
average.
Using the density of water at the temperature recorded, 0.997g/mL, we are able to
calculate the true value of the average volume of water using eq.3, which is 9.71 mL. We then
insert this amount into eq.1 to find the percent error of the measurements, which is .309%. Based
on the percent error, we can conclude the accuracy of the graduated cylinder is good.
Part AIII: Volumetric Pipet Calibration

Trial Bottle Mass (With Cap) Mass H2O Delivered |d^2|

1 22.48g 9.94g .0016

2 32.47g 9.99g .0001

3 42.44g 9.97g .0001

4 52.44g 10.00g .0004

 Bottle Tare Mass 12.54g

Water Temperature 24.5 C

Pipet Uncertainty +/- .05

Balance Uncertainty +/- .05

The procedures for this part of the experiment were almost identical to Part II, an so the
average Mass Delivered was calculated to be 9.98g, while the standard deviation was calculated
to be 0.0271. The standard deviation tells us that the precision of the pipette is good because
three of the four trials fell within one deviation of the average.
Again, the density of water at the temperature recorded, 0.997g/mL, can be inserted into
eq.1 to find the true volume. This value, 10.00mL is then used to solve for the percent error,
0.2%. This percent allows us to conclude that the pipet has a good accuracy.

Part B: Measuring the Density of Regular Coke and Diet Coke

The previous calculations and tests allow us to rule out which of the three types of
glassware was more precise and accurate: the pipet. Therefore, it will be used in Part B of this
experiment because we will get the best sets of data. The method used is identical to that of the
pipet, except with three trials instead of four. The following data was collected while the soft
drinks were at 24.5 C.

Reg. Coke
Trial Mass Reg. Coke Volume Density |d^2|
Delivered

1 10.39g 10.00mL 1.039g.mL .0001

2 10.50g 10.00mL 1.050g/mL .0144

3 10.24g 10.00mL 1.024g/mL .0196

Average Density Reg. Coke 1.038g/mL

Standard Deviation Reg. Coke 0.1306g

 Diet Coke
Trial Mass Diet Coke Volume Density |d^2|
Delivered

1 10.00g 10.00mL 1.000g/mL .0001

2 9.98g 10.00mL 0.998g/mL .0001

3 9.99g 10.00mL 0.999g/mL .0000

Average Density Diet Coke 0.999g/mL

Standard Deviation Diet Coke 0.01g

Discussion
Of all the tools of measurement available, the volumetric pipet has proved to be the most
precise, based on standard deviation, and the most accurate, based on percent error. It had the
lowest standard deviation of 0.0271g, while the other two had standard deviations of 0.0710g
and 0.64g. The pipet also had the lowest percent error, 0.2%, compared to .309% and 2%.
These variations in results are most likely the cause of systematic and random errors, since the
measurements on a beaker and graduated cylinder are much larger than that of a pipets, and
therefore have a smaller number of significant figures.
With the accuracy and precision of the pipet, we were able to determine that Diet Coke is
less dense than Regular Coke, as it has an average density of 0.999g/mL, while Regular Coke
has an average density of 1.038g/mL.

Conclusion
The final result of this experiment is that the 10mL pipet is both more accurate and more
precise than the 150mL beaker and 10mL graduated cylinder. With the pipet, we were able to get
data accurate and precise enough to differentiate the two densities of Regular Coke and Diet
Coke, discovering that Diet Coke is the less dense of the two soft drinks.