DEPERTMENT OF CHEMICAL AND FORENSIC SCIENCES

MODULE NAME: STATISTICS AND CHEMOMETRICS

MODULE CODE: CHEM 309

LAB EXERCISE 1: DETERMINATION OF MASS AND UNCERTAINITY OF

WEIGHING ITEMS WITH ELECTRONIC- ANALYTICAL BALANCES

Picture credits:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?
q=tbn:ANd9GcRxiXuiTxtx3pld2nAR7KG76e_X84yKHKPHjhedQ_BiVkPJTfFqcZKXHYsdhxm3TBiZ_Ww&
usqp=CAU

NAME: ORATILE NAWA

STUDENT ID: 19001330
PROGRAMME: BSc PURE AND APPLIED CHEMISTRY
1. AIM
The aim of this experiment was to determine the mass and uncertainty of weighing items with
electronic-analytical balances.
2. EXPERIMENTAL
2.1 Apparatus
 Electronic-analytical balance (EAB), Mettler Toledo M2 104/01; TDNR
28.28.3.2111.1016; SNR B23730218 Max=220 g and readability= 0.0001 g; Made in
Japan
 weighing boats and gloves
 Tweezers
2.2 Materials
 certified calibration masses (50,10 and 2g weights)
 sample objects (stone, water,125ml conical fask,25ml conical flask)
2.3 Procedure
The electronic analytical balance was carefully checked for any damage, dirt or residue on
the weighing table and also made sure that it was levelled properly before beginning the
experiment. It was then calibrated using one of the provided certified calibration masses
(CCM’s) and any deviation from expected mass was used to assess the uncertainty of
repetitions. Tare button was pressed, and four different samples were weighed repeatedly. All
the observations were recorded and time of measurement for every single item was noted.
Each sample was weighed seven times and the masses of five different samples were
determined together with uncertainty of repetitions.
3.0 RESULTS
The results for the experiment were recorded in the MS Excel spreadsheet and statistical
functions necessary for data analysis were evaluated.
Table 1 below shows measured subjects using analytical balance

CMM50 CMM CMM stone 125ml conical 25ml conical water

g 10g 2g flask flask
50.1597 10.021 2.0103 10.472 93.9994 29.0533 5.2501
50.1604 10.0206 2.0099 10.476 93.9989 29.0534 5.2416
6
50.1601 10.0208 2.0099 10.476 93.9985 29.0529 5.2402
9
50.1605 10.0207 2.01 10.475 93.9981 29.053 5.2382
8
50.1599 10.0211 2.0099 10.476 93.998 29.0529 5.2366
9
50.1604 10.0209 2.0101 10.476 93.9981 29.0529 5.2341
8
50.1597 10.0209 2.0101 10.477 93.9977 29.0528 5.2324
4
Table 2 shows summary statistics of certified calibrated masses measured on analytical
balance
CMM 50g   CMM 10g   CMM 2g  

Mean 50.1601 Mean 10.02085714 Mean 2.010029

Standard Error 0.00012 Standard Error 6.49437E-05 Standard 5.65E-05
9 Error
Median 50.1601 Median 10.0209 Median 2.01
Mode 50.1597 Mode 10.0209 Mode 2.0099
Standard 0.00034 Standard 0.000171825 Standard 0.00015
Deviation 2 Deviation Deviation
Sample 1.17E-07 Sample 2.95238E-08 Sample 2.24E-08
Variance Variance Variance
Kurtosis -2.15657 Kurtosis - Kurtosis 0.469624
0.638085328
Skewness -0.1054 Skewness -0.16896417 Skewness 0.998389
Range 0.0008 Range 0.0005 Range 0.0004
Minimum 50.1597 Minimum 10.0206 Minimum 2.0099
Maximum 50.1605 Maximum 10.0211 Maximum 2.0103
Sum 351.120 Sum 70.146 Sum 14.0702
7
Count 7 Count 7 Count 7
Confidence 0.00031 Confidence 0.000158912 Confidence 0.000138
Level(95.0%) 6 Level(95.0%) Level(95.0%)

Table 3 below shows masses of objects measured repeatedly in analytical balance

STONE   125ml   25ml   WATER  
conical conical
flask flask

Mean 10.476 Mean 93.998 Mean 29.053 Mean 5.2390

06 39 03 29
Standard 0.0007 Standard 0.0002 Standard 8.65E- Standard 0.0022
Error Err or 23 Error 05 Error 11
Median 10.476 Median 93.998 Median 29.052 Median 5.2382
8 1 9
Mode 10.476 Mode 93.998 Mode 29.052 Mode #N/A
9 1 9
Standard 0.0018 Standard 0.0005 Standard 0.0002 Standard 0.0058
Deviation 53 Deviation 9 Deviation 29 Deviation 51
Sample 3.43E- Sample 3.48E- Sample 5.24E- Sample 3.42E-
Variance 06 Variance 07 Variance 08 Variance 05
 Kurtosis 5.5138 Kurtosis - Kurtosis - Kurtosis 1.6207
39 0.0656 0.6359 28
8
Skewness - Skewness 0.8572 Skewness 1.0295 Skewness 1.1067
2.2968 48 69 25
8
Range 0.0054 Range 0.0017 Range 0.0006 Range 0.0177
Minimum 10.472 Minimum 93.997 Minimum 29.052 Minimum 5.2324
7 8
Maximum 10.477 Maximum 93.999 Maximum 29.053 Maximum 5.2501
4 4 4
Sum 73.332 Sum 657.98 Sum 203.37 Sum 36.673
4 87 12 2
Count 7 Count 7 Count 7 Count 7
Confidenc 0.0017 Confidenc 0.0005 Confidenc 0.0002 Confidenc 0.0054
e 14 e 46 e 12 e 11
Level(95.0 Level(95.0 Level(95.0 Level(95.0
%) %) %) %)

f(x) = NaN x + NaN

R² = 0 CMM50g
12

10

8
mass(g)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
run no

Figure 1 above graph of repeated measured mass of certified calibrated mass vs number of
runs
 f(x) = NaN x + NaN
R² = 0 CMM 10g
12

10

8
mass(g)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
run no

Figure 2 above graph of repeated measured mass of certified calibrated mass vs number of
runs

f(x) = NaN x + NaN

R² = 0 CMM 2g
12

10

8
mass(g)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
run no

Figure 3 above graph of repeated measured mass of certified calibrated mass vs number of
runs
 f(x) = NaN x + NaN
R² = 0 stone
12

10

8
mass(g)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
run no

Figure 4 above graph of repeated measured mass of stone vs number of runs

f(x) = NaN x + NaN

R² = 0 125ml conical flask
12

10

8
mass(g)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
run no

Figure 5 above graph of repeated measured mass of 125 conical flask vs number of runs
 f(x) = NaN x + NaN
R² = 0 25ml conical flask
12

10

8
mass(g)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
run no

Figure 6 above graph of repeated measured mass of 25 ml conical flask vs number of runs

f(x) = NaN x + NaN

R² = 0 water
12

10

8
mass(g)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
run no

Figure 7 above graph of repeated measured mass of water sample vs number of runs

4. DISCUSSION
The experiment was successfully done even though there were some challenges such as
uncertainties due to some results of the measurement. The means of different samples were
obtained successfully as they were more accurate and precise. The means of certified
calibration masses of 50g was obtained to be 50.1601, 10g being 10.02085714 and 2g being
2.010029. These values are so close to the literature review results which estimates high
accuracy and precision since they were so close to each other. Similarly, the means of
materials was also found so close to the literature review as the mean of stone was10.47606,
125ml conical flask 93.99839, 25ml conical flask 29.05303 and water 5.239029. In addition
to that standard deviation also supported these results as it showed some smaller Lerona,
2014) that the standard deviation measures how closely the data are clustered around the
mean. The smaller the standard deviation the more closely the data are clustered about the
mean as it was shown on table 2 and 3 that the standard deviations of all samples were so
close to the mean hence an indication that the results were more precise and accurate.
95% confidence interval sets the confidence interval limits of the mean in which there is 95%
probability that true mean lies in that interval miller (2010). The confidence interval for the
mean of CCM 50g at 95% confidence interval the true value lies between 50.1601±0.000316
g, CCM 10g indicates that its true value lies between 10.02085714±0.000158912 and CCM
2g lies between 2.010021±0.000138, on the other hand stone its true value lies between
10.47606±0.001714, 125ml conical flask lies between 93,988839±0.000546,25ml conical
flask lies between 29.053303 ±0.000212 and finally water mass has its true value lying on the
range of 5.239029±0.005411.
However, the experiment was not as successful to its best because of some errors that have
been encountered during the process. Zero error was one them as the instrument had a
problem to be zeroed when taking measurements, Wells (1992). This may have resulted on
occurrence of some outliers which was visibly shown on the graph. Also, another thing which
could have affected the results was contamination of the instrument by dust and some salts
that are normally measured on it. Also, some degree of human reaction error might occur
which contributed to bad results Populaire (2004). In order to reduce human reaction error,
the experiment must be repeated for several times in order to try to minimize it.
5.CONCLUSION
Since the analytical balances provide accurate measurements to four decimal places, it is
concluded that they have a standard uncertainty of approximately 0.00010g. The mass
uncertainty of CCM 50 was 50.1601±0.000129, CCM 10g 10.02085714 ±6.49437E-05, CCM
2g is 2.010029±5.65E-05, stone is 10.47606±0.0007, 125ml conical flask
93.99839±0.000223, 25ml conical flask 29.05303±8.65E-05 and finally water mass was
5.239029±0.002211.
REFERENCE
Amilbhar, S. V., & Lerona, P. E. (2004, September 19). Using Analytical Balance and
Piso Statistics. Retrieved:January 7, 2019, from
http://www.academia.edu/901227/Using_Analytical_Balanceand_Piso_Statistics
Miller, J. N., & Miller, J. C. (2010). Statistics and chemometrics for analytical chemistry.
pearson .
Populaire, S., & Giménez, E. C. (2006). A simplified approach to the estimation of analytical
measurement uncertainty. Accreditation and quality assurance, 10(9), 485-493.
Wells, D. E., Maier, E. A., & Griepink, B. (1992). Calibrants and calibration for analytical
balances. International journal of environmental analytical chemistry, 46(4), 255-264.