CHM131 Postlab1

Experiment No.
1
Use of Analytical Balance and Calibration of Volumetric Glassware
[CHM131L: Analytical Chemistry 1 (Laboratory), A01 – Group 2]
A. Data and Results
I. ANALYTICAL WEIGHING
Table 1.1. Effect of fingerprints in weighing
Condition Mass (g)
Mass of beaker using crucible tongs 30.1630 g
Mass of beaker handled with bare hands 30.1632 g
Table 1.2. Comparison of methods in weighing

Conditions Mass / Volume
2.1. Mass crucible cover, g 15.3069 g
2.2. Mass crucible and cover, g 38.0440 g
2.3. Mass crucible, g 22.7370 g
2.4. Mass crucible and cover – mass crucible 15.3070 g
only, g
2.5.a. Mass of bottle with NaCl, g 8.9367 g
2.5.b. Mass of wash bottle, g 292.0592 g
2.5.c. Mass of dry beaker, g 28.2442 g
2.6. Mass of bottle – NaCl, g 7.4072 g
2.7. Mass of beaker + NaCl, g 29.7661 g
2.8. Mass beaker + NaCl + water, g 40.2524 g
2.9. Mass wash bottle – water, g 281.5591 g
2.10. Mass salt (by addition) (2.7. – 2.5.c), g 1.5219 g
Mass salt (by difference) (2.5.a. – 2.6), g 1.5295 g
2.11. Mass water (by addition) (2.8 – 2.7), g 10.4863 g
Mass water (by difference) (2.5.b. – 2.9), 10.5001 g
g
II. STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF MEASUREMENT
Table 1.3. Mass of individual coin and statistical analysis.
COIN Mass, g Coin (in increasing Mass, g
mass)*
1st coin 5.3891 g 1 5.2775 g
2nd coin 5.9922 g 2 5.2991 g
3rd coin 5.2775 g 3 5.3026 g
4th coin 5.3950 g 4 5.3636 g
5th coin 5.4205 g 5 5.3649 g
6th coin 5.4308 g 6 5.3891 g
7th coin 5.3636 g 7 5.3950 g
8th coin 5.2991 g 8 5.4205 g
9th coin 5.3026 g 9 5.4308 g
10th coin 5.3649 g 10 5.9922 g
Q – test 5.9922 g
Mean 5.3603 g
Average deviation (-) 0.0014
Range 0.1533
Standard Deviation 0.0554
Coefficient of Variation 1.03%
Confidence limits of the 4.7493 g – 5.9713 g
mean (90% level)
The mass of the coins has undergone the Q-test method to know if an outlier is present in the
data. According to the test, the second coin with a mass of 5.9922 is considered an outlier of
the group. Here are sample calculations as to why it became an outlier.
Qcrit at 90% confidence level = 0.412
|𝑠𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒| |5.2775 − 5.2991|
𝑄5.2775 = = = 0.0302
|𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒| |5.9922 − 5.2775|
𝑄5.9922 = = = 0.7855
Qcrit > Qlowest = Not an outlier
Qcrit < Qhighest = An outlier
Qcrit at 90% confidence level = 0.437
𝑄5.2775 = = = 0.1409
𝑄5.4308 = = = 0.0672
Qcrit > Qlowest = Not an outlier
Qcrit > Qhighest = Not an outlier
∑𝑥 5.2775 + 5.2991 + 5.3026 + 5.3636 + 5.3649 + 5.3891 + 5.3950 + 5.4205 + 5.4308
𝑥̅ = = = 5.3603
𝑛 9
𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒, 𝑛 = 𝑥𝑛 − 𝑥1 = 5.4308 − 5.2772 = 0.1533 𝑔
∑(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥̅ )2
𝑠𝑡𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑣 = √ = 0.0554
𝑛−1
Where:
xi = individual mass
𝑥̅ = mean
n = number of samples
𝑠𝑡𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑣 0.0554

𝐶𝑉 = 𝑥 100 = 𝑥 100 = 1.03%
𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 5.3603
𝑡 1.833
𝐶𝐼 = 𝑥̅ ± = 5.3603 ± = 4.7493g – 5.9713g
√𝑛 √9
III. GLASSWARE AND SAMPLE PREPARATION

Table 1.4. The Water temperature
Container Temperature (degree Celsius)
250 mL beaker 20.5°C
Distilled water bottle 21.5°C
IV. CALIBRATION OF 50 mL BURET

Table 1.5. Calibration of 50 mL buret.
Conditions Trial 1
Mass of Erlenmeyer Flask, g 111.4058 g
10-mL delivery (1st)
Final volume, mL 10 mL
Initial volume, mL 0 mL
Volume used, mL 10 mL
Mass of flask + 10 mL water, g 121.3706 g
Mass of water, g 9.9648 g
10-mL delivery (2nd)
Mass of flask + 10 mL water, g 131.3324 mL
10-mL delivery (3rd)
Final volume, mL 28.9 mL
Volume used, mL 8.89 mL
10-mL delivery (4th)
Initial volume, mL 28.9 mL
Volume used, mL 11.1 mL
Mass of Erlenmeyer flask, g 111.5023 g
Table 1.5. Volumes for the 50 mL buret

Conditions Trial 1
Apparent volume, mL 10 mL
Corrected mass, g 9.9800 g
True volume, mL 10.0000 mL
Correction value, mL 0 mL
Correction value, mL -0.003 mL
10-mL delivery (3rd)
Apparent volume, mL 8.89 mL
Correction value, mL 0.9384 mL
The values in table 1.4 Calibration of 50 mL buret were used for the calculation of the true
volume and correction values. True volume is the volume that accounts all other forces that
affect the result, specifically the density and buoyancy. To get first the true volume, corrected
mass should be calculated by the equation:
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
Mass of water with buoyancy = 49.9443 g * 1.00153  is the buoyancy correction at 21°C
= 50.0207 g
The corrected mass is then divided by the density at specified temperature (21°C) to get its
true volume.
𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 50.0207
𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = = = 50.1211 𝑚𝐿
𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 0.9979955
The correction value is simply the difference between the true volume and the apparent
volume.
𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 − 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 50.1211 − 50 = 0.1211 𝑚𝐿
The correction value is not within the ± 0.05 tolerance.
V. CALIBRATION OF 10 mL VOLUMETRIC PIPET
Table 1.6. Calibration of 10 mL measuring pipet.

Conditions Trial 1 Trial 2
Mass of beaker, g 28.2437 g 28.2440 g
10-mL delivery (1st trial)
Volume delivered, mL 10 mL 10 mL
Mass of beaker + 10 mL 38.1724 g 38.2183 g
water, g
Mass of water, g 9.9287 g 9.9743 g
Corrected mass, g 9.9439 g 9.9896 g
True volume, mL 9.9639 mL 10.0097 mL
10-mL delivery (2nd trial)
Mass of beaker + 10 mL 48.0190 mL 48.0190 mL
water, g
10-mL delivery (3rd trial)
Mass of beaker + 10 mL 57.8295 g 58.0325 g
water, g
Sample calculations:
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 + 10𝑚𝐿 − 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 (1𝑠𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 10 𝑚𝐿) = 38.1724 g − 28.2437 g = 9.9287 g
Note: the initial mass to be used after every delivery is the mass of the beaker + 10 mL water
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
Mass of water with buoyancy = 9.9287 g * 1.00153  is the buoyancy correction at 21°C
= 9.9439 g
The corrected mass is then divided by the density at specified temperature (21°C) to get its
true volume.
𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 9.9439
𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = = = 9.8815 mL
𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 0.9979955
Table 1.7. Statistical Analysis of the gathered data
STATISCIAL ANALYSIS
Average volume 9.8969 mL 9.9613 mL
Standard Deviation 0.0207 0.0550
RSD 0.21% 0.55%
95% confidence level 8.5921 – 11.2017 8.6565 – 11.2661
% relative error -1.031% -0.39%
Sample calculations for Trial 1:
∑𝑥 9.9639 + 9.8815 + 9.8452
𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 = = = 9.8969
𝑛 3
∑(𝑥 − 𝜇)2
𝑠𝑡𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑣 = √ = 0.0207
𝑛
𝑠𝑡𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑣
𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑣 = 𝑥100 = 0.21%
𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛
𝑡 2.26
𝐶𝐼 = 𝑥̅ ± = 9.8969 ± = 8.5921 – 11.2017
√𝑛 √3
𝑥̅ − 𝜇 9.8969 − 10
%𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑥100 = 𝑥 100 = −1.031%
𝜇 10
B. Discussion
In part I Analytical Weighing, fingerprints play a role in determining the mass of an object,
in this case, the beaker. When the beaker is held with gloves, the object weighed 30.1630 g
and it weighed 30.1632 g when removed and held with bare hands. This means that the
0.0002 g difference between the mass accounts for the added fingerprint in the beaker. The
analytical balance can therefore weigh even the slightest change on an object and is very
sensitive to addition and removal of fine increments. Other means of weighing may include
the use of crucible tongs.
Due to the sensitivity of the analytical balance, different precautions must be observed
when weighing an object. But first, the analytical balance must be “tared” or recalibrated to
0.0000g. This is to ensure that balance will not indicate something other than 0.0000g.
Analytical balances have a draft shield or weighing chamber which are glass doors-like that
enclose the weighing pan to give more accurate results. These doors should be closed while
weighing in order to prevent air currents from disturbing the results. Objects must also be
measured at room temperature because an object with higher temperature than normal
would have a mass lighter than it really is. This is due to the set-up of a convection current
inside the balance enclosure. Warm air inside the enclosure is less dense than the air that it
displaces, resulting also to a negative determinate error. Before usage of an analytical
balance, it is important to check the leveling on the balance. This is done through looking at
the leveling bubble on the floor of the weighing chamber and checking if it is centered. If not,
it must be centered by turning the leveling screws on the bottom toward the back of the
balance. After turning it on, a row of zeros will appear which indicates that the balance is
zeroed and leveled and is ready for use. While weighing, the table in which the balance is
placed must not be leaned on since slightest vibrations may impact the readings.
In part 1 Analytical weighing table 1.2, the crucible, bottle with NaCl, dry beaker and wash
bottle were weighed through the analytical balance. The table shows the values that are
measured either directly or indirectly. Direct weighing is calibrating the balance to "zero"
and calibrating it with the container to "zero" before weighing your sample and record.
Indirect weighing means weighing by means of the direct measurement. There are two
indirect weighing methods, weighing by addition and weighing by difference.
Weighing by addition means getting the mass of a sample indirectly by pre-weighing the
beaker, for this experiment, and then adding the desired object to be weighed while the
beaker is still on the weighing pan. The difference in the weight obtained will be the mass of
the desired object. On the other hand, weighing by difference means measuring an object
indirectly by removal of parts. In this experiment, the bottle with NaCl was measured first,
and the bottle was weighed again without the NaCl this time. The difference in the obtained
mass from this will result to the mass of the NaCl that has been removed. Same is through
for the mass of the distilled water. According to David Chesney (2018), weighing by
difference is the most accurate method to measure quantitatively the mass of a solid sample.
Results show that there is a difference when using the weighing by addition and weighing
by difference. The mass of NaCl by addition is 1.5219 g, and the mass by difference is 1.5295g.
The 0.0076 variation in the mass is due to other factors affecting each result. For weighing
by difference, only the removed substance is accounted so the result has better
accuracy/precision. In weighing by addition, some transfer methods may result to
inaccuracy since substances may be lost during transfer. For the mass of the water, mass by
addition is 10.4863 g while the mass by difference is 10.5001g. The 0.0138 variation is also
due to the factors affecting the results as stated above.
For the measurement of the crucible, the difference between the direct weighing of
crucible cover (15.3069g) and weighing by difference of mass crucible cover and mass
crucible only (15.3070mg) is 0.0001g. The result agrees within the 0.5 mg, so the methods
are comparable to each other.
In part II Statistical evaluation of measurements table 1. 3, ten one-peso coins were
weighed individually. By applying Q-test, it is found that the second coin measurement,
5.9922 g, lies an abnormal distance from other values of the samples, and thus differ
significantly from other observations. It may be due to variability in the measurement or it
may indicate experimental error, so it is excluded from the data set. The average value of all
the data except the outlier is 5.3603. All values lie around this central value. This has a
standard deviation of 0.0554 which indicates how spread out the data set is around the
central tendency. The lowness of this value suggests that most of the numbers are close to
the mean. Same goes for the coefficient of variation. With a value of 1.03%, this suggests that
the level of dispersion around the mean is low. Lastly, the mean at 90% confidence level lies
between 4.7493 - 5.9713.
The results show that the data are dispersed closely around the mean. Thus, the product
of the machine for all one-peso coin varies insignificantly since it has high precision.
For the part III table 1.4, the distilled water is equilibrated first to room temperature to
minimize potential calibration errors and convection currents during calibration. The room
temperature obtained in the laboratory is 20.5 degree Celsius.
In the calibration of volumetric glassware, there are two types according to its
functionality. The first one is the TC or “to contain”. Volumetric glassware that are to contain
usually have an accurate measure of the volume contained, thus, the last drop must be blown
out or washed out with a solvent. On the other hand, TD or “to deliver” glassware is
calibrated to accurately transfer desired volume, and the last drop must not be blown out.
The calibration was done by delivering the equilibrated water from the beaker into the buret
until it reached the 0 mark. Then, 10 mL was delivered into the E. flask five times until it hit
the 50 mL mark. Same procedure was done for the 20 mL, which was delivered two times 30
mL, 40 mL and 50 mL which were delivered only once. At the beginning of every set, the
E.flask was first weighed. The initial volume and final volume were recorded, and the mass
of the flask with the added volume was weighed. The mass of the water was measured by
addition, where the initial mass of E.flask is subtracted from the mass of the flask + added
volume. When reading the volume mark, a buret card was used to see easily and read the
meniscus level to a perpendicular position to avoid the parallax error and eliminate other
sources of error while doing volumetric analyses.
To interpret each result, the corrected mass of water where the effect of buoyancy is
considered, the true volume where density is taken into account, and the correction values
are all calculated. These correction values are the difference between the apparent volume
(the volume used in the delivering process) and the true volume.
The graph illustrates the trend of correction values vs apparent volume in the calibration
of the burette.
Apparent volume vs Corresponding correction values
1.5
1
Correction values
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Apparent volume
Figure 1.1. Apparent volume vs Correction value
As seen in the figure above, all correction values lie on a close range except for two values.
It may indicate that there is an accuracy in the reading of the volume by the analyst, which
lead to a high correction value.
The first delivery of the 10 mL volume has resulted to 0 correction value, with a true
volume of 10 mL. This suggests that the reading that was read by the analyst was accurate
and precise. For the second delivery of 10 mL into the E. flask, a correction value of -0.003
mL was recorded. this means that the volume read was 0.003 lower than it actually is. For
the third and fourth delivery, a 0.9384 mL and -0.9790 mL correction values were calculated,
respectively. These readings do not agree within the ± 0.05 mL tolerance, which means that
the reading was done inaccurately by the analyst. The fifth 10 mL delivery has a correction
value of 0.0836 mL, which still does not conform to the tolerance value, but is almost near to
the accepted values. The first and second deliveries for 20 mL have correction values of
0.0486 mL and 0.0430 mL, which indicates that the readings are read accurately by the
analyst at eye level. Same is through for the 30 mL delivery and 40 mL delivery, with a
calculated correction value of -0.0046 mL and 0.0237 mL, respectively. On the 50 mL
delivery, the correction value is 0.1211 mL. This indicates that random or systematic errors
have occurred during the experiment. Some systematic errors that may have occurred
during the experiment is a change in temperature in the laboratory, changing the calibration
of the volumetric glassware. Parallax error, which is the deceptive change in the relative
position of an object with a change in the position of the observer, may have also contributed
to the calculated error Random errors are non-integer experimental measurement and are
usually estimated from the readability of the device.
Calibration of 10 mL volumetric pipet was done by getting the initial mass of the beaker
and getting the mass of the water by subtracting the initial mass of beaker to the final mass
with the added 10 mL volume. Then, the corrected mass is calculated to get the true volume
delivered.
During calibration, random errors may have occurred. These random errors cancel by
averaging, since the experiment is repeated many times. Upon many trials, random errors
have an effect only on the precision of a measurement. The average of the true volume of all
delivery in trial one and trial two is 9.8969 mL and 9.9613 mL, respectively. These values
have a standard deviation of 0.0207 and 0.0550, which indicates how dispersed the values
are around the mean. To interpret this result, the standard deviation shows that the data are
near to each other. Trial 1 has a relative error of -1.031% and trial 2 have a relative error of
-0.39% which is a measure of the uncertainty of measurement compared to the size of the
measurement. Both results indicate that the data gathered are lower compared to the true
value of the volume. In comparison, trial 1 has greater relative error than trial 2 which means
it has better accuracy.
C. Conclusion
In conclusion, this experiment shows the different types of techniques and methods that
can be used to measure the mass of the sample and the factors that directly affect the
measurements observed and gathered. Moreover, there are evident attributes that could
influence the precision and accuracy of the measurements. These are known as random and
systematic errors. For instance, temperature difference, parallax error, build up moisture
and others are all factors that can affect true measurements of samples. Errors cannot be
eliminated or avoided, but they can be lessened, minimized and controlled when the right
techniques and methods are used. Data gathered are analyzed statistically by determining
the measures of central tendency and measure of spread. This helped the analysts to better
interpret the results and have a better view of the true measurement.
The different set-ups of the experiment gave a clear way directed to fulfilling the
objective of the experiment, which is to develop proper techniques in using analytical
balance and in calibration of volumetric glass wares while being able to define the principles
behind it.
D. References
(2018, September 18). Retrieved from

https://support.hach.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1003829/~/what-is-
the-difference-between-to-contain-and-to-deliver-glassware?-.
(n.d.). Retrieved from

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/lab/equipment/analytical/instructions.
html.
Chesney, D. (2018). Weighing by Difference. Retrieved from
https://pages.mtu.edu/~hyliu/ch4212/ch2212/syllabus_files/WEIGHING BY
DIFFERENCE.pdf.
Libretexts. (2019, June 5). Proper Use of Balances. Retrieved from

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Ancillary_Materials/Demos,_Techniques,_
and_Experiments/General_Lab_Techniques/Proper_Use_of_Balances.
What is the difference between TD and TC Pipettes? Westlab. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.westlab.com.au/blog/2017/07/19/what-is-the-difference-between-
td-and-tc-pipettes.

CHM131 Postlab1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHM131 Postlab1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Experiment No.

Table 1.2. Comparison of methods in weighing

𝑠𝑡𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑣 0.0554

III. GLASSWARE AND SAMPLE PREPARATION

IV. CALIBRATION OF 50 mL BURET

Table 1.5. Volumes for the 50 mL buret

𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 − 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 50.1211 − 50 = 0.1211 𝑚𝐿

The correction value is not within the ± 0.05 tolerance.

V. CALIBRATION OF 10 mL VOLUMETRIC PIPET

Table 1.6. Calibration of 10 mL measuring pipet.

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 + 10𝑚𝐿 − 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 (1𝑠𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 10 𝑚𝐿) = 38.1724 g − 28.2437 g = 9.9287 g

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝑏𝑢𝑜𝑦𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

Table 1.7. Statistical Analysis of the gathered data

Figure 1.1. Apparent volume vs Correction value

(2018, September 18). Retrieved from

(n.d.). Retrieved from

Libretexts. (2019, June 5). Proper Use of Balances. Retrieved from

You might also like