IB1 Chemistry HL

Lab Report
I. Aim
To find the effect of uncertainties on experimental results because of lab equipment using
density as an example.

II. Exploration

a. Background Information
When conducting an experiment, it is impossible to get exact measurements. This is due
to the uncertainties of the equipment used. While some of these uncertainties can be
reduced (systematic errors), others cannot be (random errors). Systematic errors are a
product of flaws in equipment or design while random errors result when reading any
scale.1

b. Materials Used
Table One
Materials Used
1. Electronic balance U= 0.01 g, ×2
2. Plastic graduated cylinder 100.0 ± 0.5 ml
3. Plastic ruler 15.00 ± 0.05 cm
4. Iron cube
5. Copper sphere
6. Water

c. Procedure
1. Weigh the iron cube on the electronic balance 3 times and record its mass each time.
Repeat this step on the other scale.
2. Using the plastic ruler, measure the cube’s side.
3. Weigh the copper sphere on the electronic balance 3 times and record its mass each time.
Repeat this step on the other scale.
4. Fill the 100.0 ml plastic graduated cylinder with 25.0 ml of water. Insert the copper
sphere in the cylinder. The water level rises. Record the new volume of water.

d. Safety/environmental/ethical issues
1
https://www.cerritos.edu/chemistry/_includes/docs/Chem_111/Lab/Exp%201%20Uncertainty%20in%20Measur
%20rev.pdf
 The whole procedure was safe. No corrosive chemicals were used.

e. Outline
This experiment starts by measuring the masses of an iron cube and copper sphere using
2 different balances (3 trials each). This is followed by also measuring their volumes to
finally calculate their densities aiding in practicing the propagation of uncertainties and
discovering how they affect the results.

III. Data Collection and Processing

a. Recording Qualitative Raw Data

The iron cube had a dark gray color. The surface was dull and smooth. It had a cool
temperature.
The copper sphere had a gold color. The surface was shiny and smooth. It had a cool
temperature.

b. Recording Quantitative Raw Data

Table Two
Mass of Iron Cube Using Balance 1
Number of Trials Mass of the iron cube in grams ± 0.01g
Trial 1 127.59
Trial 2 127.58
Trial 3 127.59

Table Three
Mass of Iron Cube Using Balance 2
Number of Trials Mass of the iron cube in grams ± 0.01g
Trial 1 127.44
Trial 2 127.45
Trial 3 127.44

Table Four
Side of Iron Cube Using Ruler
Number of Trials Side of the iron cube in cm ± 0.05g
Trial 1 2.50
 Table Five
Mass of Copper Sphere Using Balance 1
Number of Trials Mass of the copper sphere in grams ± 0.01g
Trial 1 65.58
Trial 2 65.57
Trial 3 65.58

Table Six
Mass of Iron Cube Using Balance 2
Number of Trials Mass of the iron cube in grams ± 0.01g
Trial 1 65.55
Trial 2 65.53
Trial 3 65.54

Table Seven
Volume of Copper Sphere Using Graduated Cylinder
Initial volume of water ± 0.5 ml Final volume of water ± 0.5 ml
25.0 32.0

c. Processing data

1. Calculating the average mass of the iron cube

i. Balance 1
m1+m 2+ m3 127.59+ 127.58+127.59
Average mass = = = 127.59 g
3 3
Where m1 is the mass of the cube in Trial 1, m2 is the mass of the cube in Trial
2, and m3 is the mass of the cube in Trial 3.
0.01+0.01+0.01
Propagation of uncertainties: Δm = = 0.01 g where ∆m is the
3
absolute uncertainty of the average mass.
The mass of the iron cube is 127.59 ± 0.01 g
 ii. Balance 2
m1+m 2+ m3 127.44+127.45+127.44
Average mass = = = 127.44 g
3 3
Where m1 is the mass of the cube in Trial 1, m2 is the mass of the cube in Trial
2, and m3 is the mass of the cube in Trial 3.
0.01+0.01+0.01
Propagation of uncertainties: Δm = = 0.01 g where ∆m is the
3
absolute uncertainty of the average mass.

The mass of the iron cube is 127.44 ± 0.01 g

2. Calculating the volume of the iron cube

Volume = S3 = 2.503 = 15.63 cm3
Relative % U (volume) = 3 × 0.05 = 0.15

Volume of the iron cube is 15.63 ± 0.15 cm3

3. Calculating the density of the iron cube

i. Balance 1
mass( g) 127.59
Density = = = 8.16 g•mol-1
volume (cm3) 15.63

Propagation of uncertainties:
0.01
% Relative U (mass) = ×100 % = 7.84 ×10-3 %
127.59
0.15
% Relative U (volume) = ×100 % = 0.96 %
15.63
Total % U = 7.84 ×10-3 + 0.96 = 0.96 %
0.96
D = 8.16 ± 0.96% g•mol-1 => × 8.16 = 0.08
100
 The density of the iron cube is 8.16 ± 0.08 g•mol-1

ii. Balance 2
mass( g) 127.44
Density = = = 8.15 g•mol-1
volume (cm3) 15.63

Propagation of uncertainties:
0.01
% Relative U (mass) = × 100 %= 7.85 ×10-3 %
127.44
0.15
% Relative U (volume) = ×100 % = 0.96 %
15.63

Total % U = 7.85 ×10-3 + 0.96 = 0.97%

0.97
D = 8.15 ± 0.97% g•mol-1 => × 8.15 = 0.08
100

The density of the iron cube is 8.15 ± 0.08 g•mol-1

4. Calculating the average mass of the copper sphere

i. Balance 1
m1+m 2+ m3 65.58+65.57+65.58
Average mass = = = 65.58 g
3 3
Where m1 is the mass of the sphere in Trial 1, m2 is the mass of the sphere in
Trial 2, and m3 is the mass of the sphere in Trial 3.
0.01+0.01+0.01
Propagation of uncertainties: Δm = = 0.01 g where ∆m is the
3
absolute uncertainty of the average mass.

The mass of the copper sphere is 65.58 ± 0.01 g

 ii. Balance 2
m1+m 2+ m3 65.55+65.53+65.54
Average mass = = = 65.54 g
3 3
Where m1 is the mass of the sphere in Trial 1, m2 is the mass of the sphere in
Trial 2, and m3 is the mass of the sphere in Trial 3.
0.01+0.01+0.01
Propagation of uncertainties: Δm = = 0.01 g where ∆m is the
3
absolute uncertainty of the average mass.

The mass of the copper sphere is 65.54 ± 0.01 g

5. Calculating the volume of the copper sphere

Volume of sphere= Final volume of water – Initial volume of water = 32.0 – 25.0 =
7.0 ml
Δv 0.1
% Relative U (volume) = ×100% = ×100% = 1.4%
v 7.0
1.4
V = 7.0 ± 1.4 % cm3=> × 7.0 = 0.1
100

The volume of the iron cube is 4.0 ± 0.1 cm3

6. Calculating the density of the copper sphere

i. Balance 1
mass( g) 65.58
Density = = = 9.4 g•mol-1
volume (cm3) 7.0

Propagation of uncertainties:
0.01
% Relative U (mass) = ×100 % = 0.02 %
65.58
0.1
% Relative U (volume) = ×100 % = 1.4 %
7.0
Total % U = 0.02 + 1.4 = 1.4 %
1.4
D = 16.4 ± 1.4% g•mol-1 => × 16.4 = 0.2
100
 Density of the iron cube: 9.4 ± 0.2 g•mol-1

ii. Balance 2
mass( g) 65.54
Density = = = 9.4 g•mol-1
volume (cm3) 7.0

Propagation of uncertainties:
0.01
% Relative U (mass) = × 100 %= 0.02 %
65.54
0.1
% Relative U (volume) = ×100 % = 1.4 %
7.0
Total % U = 0.02 + 1.4 = 1.4%
1.4
D = 16.4 ± 1.4 % g•mol-1 => × 16.4 = 0.2
100

Density of the iron cube: 9.4 ± 0.2 g•mol-1

IV. Evaluation
The density of the iron cube investigated on balance 1 was calculated as 8.16 ± 0.08
g•mol-1 and 8.15 ± 0.08 g•mol-1 on balance 2. The density of the copper sphere
investigated on balance 1 and balance 2 were both calculated as 9.4 ± 0.2 g•mol-1.
The literature value for the density of iron is 7.872 g•mol-1 and the literature value for the
density of copper is 8.963 g•mol-1.

The percentage error can be calculated using the following equation:

¿
Percentage error = ¿ theoretical value−experimental value∨ theoretical value × 100¿

The density of the iron cube investigated on balance 1:

2
https://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/26/iron
3
https://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/29/copper
 ¿
% error = ¿ 7.87−8.16∨ 7.87 × 100 % ¿ = 3.68 %

The density of the iron cube investigated on balance 2:

¿
% error = ¿ 7.87−8.15∨ 7.87 × 100 %¿ = 3.56 %

The density of the copper sphere:

¿
% error = ¿ 8.96−9.4∨ 8.96 ×100 % ¿ = 4.9 %

Comparing these with the percentage uncertainties, which were 0.96% for the iron cube
on balance 1, 0.97% on on balance 2, and 1.4% for the copper sphere on both balances,
the percentage errors for both were greater. In the end, the literature values and
experimental values had a percentage error that averaged around 4%. In other words, the
main type of errors in the investigation were systematic errors. These errors may have
occurred as a result of the balances not being properly calibrated. This affected the
accuracy of the results. Having the balances calibrated next time would ensure less
uncertainties in measurements occur. The ruler to measure the side of the cube to
calculate its volume could have been replaced with the water displacement method and
the graduated cylinder could have been replaced by a volumetric pipette for more
accurate measurements. Moreover, the measured mass on the balance fluctuated if
someone placed a hand next to it or moved near it which also affected the accuracy. Also,
by taking more trials, the precision can be improved. This sort of error can be reduced by
using an analytical balance. This investigation can be extended by repeating the same
procedure using calibrated balances and the previously mentioned, more accurate
equipment. Then, the results and percentage errors can be compared to investigate how
much uncertainties of lab equipment affect them. In conclusion, the uncertainties of lab
equipment affect the accuracy and precision of experimental results and can be reduced
by using more accurate equipment and methods.