EXPERIMENT ONE: DETERMINATION OF MASS

AND UNCERTAINTY OF ELECTRONIC-

ANALYTICAL BALANCES (EAB)

BY KABELO KENNETH MOABI

BSC FORENSIC SCIENCE
19000038
CHEM 309

1. AIM
The main objective of this experiment is to determine both the exact mass as well as the
uncertainty associated with taking measurements from the electronic analytical balance by means
of statistical methods.
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 (2, 5,10 and 20g weights)
 sample objects (powder, pebbles, water, paper)
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 five different samples were weighed repeatedly. All the observations were recorded
and time of measurement for every single item was noted. Each sample was weighed ten 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 showing the sample calculations (mean, standard deviation, standard error margin,
variance, coefficient of variation and confidence level at 95%) of different samples

Sample Mean Standard Standard Variance Coefficient of Confidence 

deviation error variation Level (95%)
1g 1.00043 0.006661 0.002106 4.44E- -0.00022 0.004765
05
2g 2.002997 0.001002 0.000317 1E-06 -0.00015 0.000717
5g 5.01039 0.000228 7.22E-05 5.21E- -5.2E-05 0.000163
08
10 g 10.00079 0.000725 0.000229 5.25E- -5.4E-05 0.000519
07
20 g 20.00063 0.00032 0.000101 1.02E- -1.8E-06 0.000229
07
 stone 6.23026 0.000255 8.06E-06 6.49E- -1.6E-05 0.000182
08
paper 0.02946 0.000201 6.36E-05 4.04E- -3.6E-06 0.000144
08
Water 15.00125 0.000217 6.87E-05 4.72E- 6.24E-O5 0.000155
08
Soil 8.50144 0.000237 7.48E-05 5.6E-08 9.7E-06 0.000169

Table 2 indicating different uncertainties and means of samples

sample Weight (g)±(u)

s
1g 1.00043 ± 0.006661
2g 2.002997 ± 0.000317
5g 5.01039 ± 7.22E-05
10 g 10.00079 ± 0.000229
20 g 20.00063 ± 0.000101
stones 6.23026 ± 8.06E-06
paper 0.02946 ± 6.36E-05
water 15.00125 ± 6.87E-05
soil 8.50144 ± 7.48E-05

4. DISCUSSION
The experiment was successfully done even though there was 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
of 20 g was obtained to be 20.00063 g , 10 g being 10.00079, 5 g being 5.0001, 2 g being
2.002997 and finally 1 g to be 1.00043. These values are so close to the literature review results
which estimates high accuaracy 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 was
6.23026, paper 0.02946, water 15.00125 and soil being 8.50144. In addition to that standard
deviation also supported this 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 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 stone at 95% confidence interval the true value lies between 6.229929 - 6.230765 g, soil
indicates that its true value lies between 8.500994 - 8.501779, on the other hand water its true
value lies on 15.00073 - 15.00109 and finally paper has its true value lying on the range of
0.029144 - 0.029816.
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 occurred 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 a stone was 6.23026 ± 8.06E-0 , paper 0.02946 ± 6.36E-05 0.00014 , soil is
8.50144 ± 7.48E-05 and finally water was 15.00125 ± 6.87E-05.
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.