Republic of the Philippines

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MINDANAO

Kabacan, Cotabato

AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY: THE CONCEPT OF CONSTANT WEIGHING AND

THE DENSITY OF MATERIALS TO DETERMINE ERRORS

Omalde, Jerry D.

Padua, Lehi David A.

Segocio, Leo Alfred S.

Tubiano, Ravin Rhyll L.

March 2023
OBJECTIVES:

1. The main objective of this study is to quantify the accuracy and precision of

several scientific instrument and to use the concept of constant weighing and the

density of materials to determine errors using mean, standard deviation and

percent error.

INTRODUCTION

The topic of how to weigh small things with an electrical device that has a precision

comparable to a chemical beam balance is being studied at our lab. It is a direct-reading null-

balance device that reads data more quickly and with less operator training that a mechanical

balance. An analytical balance, which measures to the nearest 0.0001g and is easier to read, is

the balance that is most accurate. For precise mass measurement, analytical balances

commonly combine draught-proof weighing chambers with anti-vibration tables.

Measurement result uncertainty is a serious issue in all measuring fields. Weighing is an

essential step in every chemical laboratory or analytical procedure. When measuring

uncertainties in an analysis, it’s a substantial source of uncertainty (Clark, 1947).

Uncertainty of a measurement result is a major issue in all fields of measurement.

Weighing is a critical step in any chemical laboratory and analytical methods. It is a

significant source of uncertainty in the measurement of uncertainties in an analysis. In this

paper, we attempted to present the factors that influence the uncertainty measurement of a
mass determination. Technical specifications of a balance such as: Readability, Repeatability,

Non-linearity, Sensitivity Tolerance, Temperature Coefficient of Sensitivity and effects of

environmental factors such as air humidity (Salahinejad, 2007).

Moreover, weighing is a typical activity in any chemical laboratory. The outcomes of

weighing process, like all other working procedures and their data, are unclear to some

extent. The technical features of the balance are covered in this article along with additional

factors that interact to affect measurement uncertainty in a mass determination. A scientific

inquiry must be conducted with as little bias and mistake as possible, and the data collected

must be precise and correct. Accuracy and precision both refer to how closely a measurement

reflects its actual or true value.

 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Water
Trial Beaker 049 Beaker 030

1 39.1517 38.5614

2 39.0964 38.6081

3 39.1748 38.5895

Mean 9.9148 8.9185

Standard deviation 0.0403 0.0235

Percent error -0.852% -0.815%

Metal Material: Nickel

Trial Beaker B-50 Beaker 030

1 39.3878 37.7624

2 39.0854 37.7349

3 39.6004 37.7222

Mean 8.8508 9.0718

Standard deviation -0.9052 -0.999

Percent error -0.552% 1.930%

 In this exercise, we weigh water and a metal material made of nickel in 2 separate

sets. Each set contains three trials. We use a variety of measuring devices. We weighed water

first, so the first materials included a pipette, a beaker with a constant weight, and a beaker

with an unknown constant weight. Making use of the pipette. We poured 10 mL of constant

weight water into the beaker. During each trial, we replace the water inside. We weigh

(39.1517), (39.0964), and (39.1748) respectively. With a mean of (9.9147), the standard

deviation is (0.0403), and the percent error is (-0.852%).

We used the same materials as in the first set in the second set, with the exception of a

beaker with an unknown constant weight. The procedure was also consistent. We weigh

(38.5614), (38.6081), and (38.5895) respectively. With a mean of (9.9185), the standard

deviation is (0.0235), and the percent error is (-0.815%).

The second weighing procedure we carried out involved measuring the metal

material, which is the nickel. Three pieces of nickel were placed in the beaker with constant

weight and weigh it in an analytical balance. As soon as we have the results of the three trials,

we always switch the nickel we used in each weigh. We weigh (39.3878), (39.0854) and

(39.6004) are the weights that we get respectively. The mean is (8.8508), and its standard

deviation is (-0.9052), with an error rate of (-0.552%).

We used the same materials as in the first set in the second set, with the exception of a

beaker with an unknown constant weight. The procedure was also consistent. We weigh

(37.7624),(37.7349 ), and (37.7222) respectively. With a mean of (9.0718), the standard

deviation is (-0.999), and the percent error is (1.930%).

REFERENCES:

Clark J.W.(1947)Review of Scientific Instruments, Volume 18, Issue 12, p.915-918

Salahinejad, M., & Aflaki, F. (2007). Uncertainty measurement of weighing results from an
electronic analytical balance. Measurement Science Review, 7(6), 1-9.