What’s in a Lab Report?

Official criteria from the IB Chemistry guide 1

Approximate grades 4

Checklist to complete when writing your IA 5

Risk assessment 10

Definitions 10

Dp and sf 11

Propagating errors UNCERTAINTIES 11

Comparing your results with the literature 12

Graphs + error bars 14

Referencing 14

Official criteria from the IB Chemistry guide

Research design /6 25%
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student effectively communicates the methodology (purpose
and practice) used to address the research question.

Mark Descriptor

0 The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2 The research question is stated without context.
Methodological considerations associated with collecting data relevant to the research
question are stated.
The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data lacks the detail to
allow for the investigation to be reproduced.
3-4 The research question is outlined within a broad context.
Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to
answer the research question are described.
The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the
investigation to be reproduced with few ambiguities or omissions.
5-6 The research question is described within a specific and appropriate context.
Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to
answer the research question are explained.
The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the
investigation to be reproduced.

Notes: A research question with context should contain reference to the dependent and independent variables
or two correlated variables, include a concise description of the system in which the research question is
embedded, and include background theory of direct relevance.

Methodological considerations include:

• the selection of the methods for measuring the dependent and independent variables
• the selection of the databases or model and the sampling of data
• the decisions regarding the scope, quantity and quality of measurements (e.g. the range, interval or
frequency of the independent variable, repetition and precision of measurements)
• the identification of control variables and the choice of method of their control
• the recognition of any safety, ethical or environmental issues that needed to be taken into account.
The description of the methodology refers to presenting sufficiently detailed information (such as specific
materials used and precise procedural steps) while avoiding unnecessary or repetitive information, so that the
reader may readily understand how the methodology was implemented and could in principle repeat the
investigation.

Data analysis 6/ 25%

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence that the student has
recorded, processed and presented the data in ways that are relevant to the research question
The communication of the recording and processing of the data is both clear and precise.
The recording and processing of data shows evidence of an appropriate consideration of uncertainties.
The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out appropriately and accurately

Mark Descriptor
Mark descriptor
0 The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2 The recording and processing of the data is communicated but is neither clear nor precise.
The recording and processing of data shows limited evidence of the consideration of
uncertainties.
Some processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with
major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
3-4 The communication of the recording and processing of the data is either clear or precise.
The recording and processing of data shows evidence of a consideration of uncertainties but with
some significant omissions or inaccuracies.
The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with some
significant omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
5-6 The communication of the recording and processing of the data is both clear and precise.
The recording and processing of data shows evidence of an appropriate consideration of
uncertainties.
The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out appropriately
and accurately

Notes:
Data refers to quantitative data or a combination of both quantitative and qualitative data.
Clear communication means that the method of processing can be understood easily.
Precise communication refers to following conventions correctly, such as those relating to the annotation of
graphs and tables or the use of units, decimal places and significant figures. Consideration of uncertainties is
subject specific and further guidance is given in the Chemistry teacher support material.
Major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies impede the possibility of drawing a valid conclusion that
addresses the research question.
Significant omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies allow the possibility of drawing a conclusion that
addresses the research question but with some limit to its validity or detail

Conclusion /6 25%
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student successfully answers their research question with
regard to their analysis and the accepted scientific context.

Mark Descriptor
Mark descriptor
0 The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2 A conclusion is stated that is relevant to the research question but is not supported by the
analysis presented.
The conclusion makes superficial comparison to the accepted scientific context.
3-4 A conclusion is described that is relevant to the research question but is not fully consistent
with the analysis presented.
A conclusion is described that makes some relevant comparison to the accepted scientific
context.
5-6 A conclusion is justified that is relevant to the research question and fully consistent with
the analysis presented.
A conclusion is justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context
Notes:
A conclusion that is fully consistent requires the interpretation of processed data including associated
uncertainties.
Scientific context refers to information that could come from published material (paper or online), published
values, course notes, textbooks or other outside sources.
The citation of published materials must be sufficiently detailed to allow these sources to be traceable

Evaluation /6 25%
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence of evaluation of the
investigation methodology and has suggested improvements.
Mark descriptor
0 The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2 The report states generic methodological weaknesses or limitations.
Realistic improvements to the investigation are stated
3-4 The report describes specific methodological weaknesses or limitations.
Realistic improvements to the investigation that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or
limitations, are described.
5-6 The report explains the relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses or limitations.
Realistic improvements to the investigation, that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or
limitations, are explained

Notes:
Generic is general to many methodologies and not specifically relevant to the methodology of the investigation
being evaluated.
Methodological refers to the overall approach to the investigation of the research question as well as
procedural steps.
Clarifications for evaluation Weaknesses could relate to issues regarding the control of variables, the precision
of measurement or the variation in the data.
Limitations could refer to how the conclusion is limited in scope by the range of the data collected, the
confines of the system or the applicability of assumptions made.
 Approximate grades (from previous years)

Checklist to complete when writing your IA

● My report is no more than 3,000 words. This is excluding Charts and diagrams • Data tables •
Equations, formulas and calculations • Citations/references (whether parenthetical, numbered,
footnotes or endnotes) • Bibliography • Headers
● At the front of my report I have stated the:
● Title of the investigation
● My IB candidate code (alphanumeric, for example, xyz123)
● The Number of words
● There is NO cover page or a contents page

Introduction (Research)
Gives context to the report by discussing (in no particular order)

● I have used a title which clearly reflects what is being done in this experiment
● I have clearly stated my RQ linking my dependent to my independent variable and stating the reaction
or technique used.
[this experiment aims to answer the research question “________”]
[The effect of ”independent variable” on “dependent variable”; using the _____
reaction/technique]
● I have linked my IV to my DV using IB level Scientific theory, including extra detail AND correct use of
keywords.
● Keywords have been defined
● I have given relevant background information including, but not limited to, relevant scientific theory
related to the IB
● [As seen in ________research]
● [Previous studies have found]
[ _______is a well-established concept in chemistry]
[This study links to ________ theory]
● I have given a concise description of the system in which the RQ is embedded using correct
terminology.
[X reacts with Y in a nucleophilic substitution reaction]
● I have given a concise explanation of the technique used
[To answer my research question _____ will be measured using the well established ____
technique]
● I have made links to practical applications of my project or wider implications (IM, NOS environmental
issues)
[This project has practical applications in_____]
[ This project links to the wider ideas or concepts of _____]
[This project has environmental or economic or industrial applications because_____]]
● I have stated a clear hypothesis
 ● I have EXPLAINED my hypothesis (summarising IB level theory)
● I have correctly cited my sources !- https://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm

Method (Design)
Past tense personal or passive voice- state what you did so anyone could follow the experiment exactly and
justify it e.g. why you used that technique, number of repeats, equipment .!

● I have written in the past tense first person singular or passive voice in paragraph form. It is clear
enough that anyone would be able to follow it exactly
[I made a standard solution of sodium carbonate by_____]
[ A standard solution of sodium carbonate was made by]
● I have stated if my method was adapted from a pre-existing method
● I have justified the choice of method
[A gas syringe is the most precise method for gas collection available in the lab ]
[Colorimetry is a well-established method for the determination of X concentration ]
● I have given a clear, ordered and detailed account of my method. Another student could follow this
method exactly and repeat my experiment.
● I have stated which variable I manipulated manipulated (IV) and how I did this
● I have stated the level of precision (sig fig) of the IV
● I have stated which variable changed as a result of manipulating the independent variable (DV) and how
it was measured
● I have stated the level of precision (sig fig) of the DV
● I have used preliminary trials to justify the scope (range, interval or frequency of the IV) values used
[A temperature range of 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 was chosen as in preliminary trials this resulted in a
measurable difference]
[A temperature range of 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 was chosen as in preliminary trials it was possible to
control these temperatures in the laboratory using a water bath]
[The temperatures were spread evenly apart to make interpolation_______]
[5 different temperatures were chosen as this is the minimum required for
● The number of repeats is justified (5 x IV and 3 repeats)
[Initially 5 repeats were planned but due to time constraints only _____ were completed in the
time]
● I have justified my choice of equipment and stated its precision/uncertainty
● [A burette 50cm3 was chosen as it measures volume more precisely than a measuring cylinder]
● I have clearly stated how I will collect a broad enough range of data to reach a reliable conclusion the
research question (general rule of thumb: for a continuous IV you need a minimum of 5 data points to
be able to interpret the relationship between the IV and DV, you need to repeat each data point until
you get concordant results or a minimum of 3 times)
● [In order to answer my research question using valid and reliable data I took________repeats
(repeats, data range etc)]-really this should be implicit in the design]
● I have identified and explained how other variables may affect the results (cv)
● I have stated how I will effectively control and monitor CV and if known sig fig
you could do this as a table e.g.
variable How it can affect results How I will keep it constant

temperature a higher temperature will increase the rate
of reaction, usually exponentially, (Nichols,
2022). Increasing the kinetic energy of
particles resulting in more collisions per unit
time and an increase in successful collision
as a higher proportion of proportion of
particles have E≥Ea (Bylikin, et al., 2014)
The experiment will be carried out in a A 5dm3
water bath SciChem NE1-28 set to the desired
temperature. the temperature of the solutions
at the start and end of the reaction will be
recorded using an initialTM Brannan -20-110 ± 0.5
o
C thermometer.

● My method clearly indicates all the apparatus and materials used, including the:
 ● Volumes of tubes and cylinders (SI units with uncertainties)
● Concentrations of solutions (SI units and uncertainties)
● The model and manufacturer of any complex apparatus
● I have included a clear LABELLED diagram or picture of my experimental set-up
● I have clearly annotated my diagram to show how variables were involved – especially controlled
variables. Do not just label the equipment. Additional diagrams are ok.
● I have explained how my data was processed. Giving the formulas I used
● [______and ______was be used to calculate __________(link to research question)]
● [__________was shown graphically to calculate/or answer _______part of the research
question]
● I have shown how my data was presented with justification
● [The results are presented as a graph of _____ with _______, in order to identify any
association between the independent and dependent variable and to provide evidence to support
or reject the hypothesis “_______”]
● I have included a full risk assessment and ethical consideration * see supporting material.
● e.g. could be done as a table
● Hazard is what cause the harm
● Risk should be specific and include , who could get harmed and how, the severity and
likelihood of this happening
● Steps to minimise the risk should be clear
Hazard Risk Steps to minimise risk

Hot water in the water bath Burns, to tongs and goggles will be used when the temperature of
students. Medium the water bath is above 30oC
risk

1 mol/dm3 HCl irritant, eye goggles will be worn throughout the experiment, any spills
damage, to will be cleaned up immediately using excess water.
students, medium
risk

● I have described any ethical consideration (including reagents/equipment used and waste generated) OR
I have Explicitly stated there are no ethical considerations.
● “There are no ethical considerations in this experiment because…..”
● I have explicitly mentioned how any waste will be disposed of (cited using Hazcards)
● I have correctly cited my sources
https://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm
● I have checked my method after the final report is submitted to make sure it is consistent with the
work presented in the report.

Results (data analysis)

Data should be presented and then discussed in the text. The reader SHOULD NOT have to scroll back.
The goal is for lab reports to look like scientific journal articles.

Qualitative data.
● I have presented clear and detailed qualitative data (observations)
Raw data.
● I have presented raw quantitative data (see notes on tables)
● I have captioned all tables and graphs underneath the table/diagram/graph
e.g. Table 4. Raw data showing the volume of gas every 30 seconds for each repeat. The start, end and mean
temperature of the solutions was 31, 29 and 30 ± 0.5 oC respectively.
● I have briefly described and explained any anomalies and trends underneath the table(s)
Processed data
● I have written out the equation used and any algebraic rearrangement without data
 ● I have shown one sample calculation for each type of calculation using my data and then presented the
final calculations for the remaining data (following rules for sf)
● I have shown propagation of uncertainty for each sample calculation see table below

Same units (+ or -) Different units x or ÷

option 1. option 2 option 1 option 2.

Σ absolute uncertainty Σ √(absolute uncertainty)2 Σ relative Σ √(relative uncertainty)2
uncertainties
myimaths/A level/statistics myimaths/A
1 / standard deviation lesson where relative level/statistics 1 /
1. uncertainty = standard deviation lesson 1.
absolute uncertainty
measurement

● I have presented processed data (see notes on tables) (IV and DV)
● I have captioned all tables and graphs underneath the table/diagram/graph
e.g. Table 4. Raw data showing the volume of gas every 30 seconds for each repeat. The start, end and mean
temperature of the solutions was 31, 29 and 30 ± 0.5 oC respectively.
● I have briefly described and explained any anomalies and trends underneath the table(s)
● I have linked any anomalies and trends to my qualitative observations
● I have plotted a graph of my processed data (one graph should come from one table, IV on X axis DV on
Y axis)

Tables
● My table gridlines are shown, the table is on a single page
● My table has IV column on left, followed by DV, data manipulation columns and finally uncertainty
Time/ ± 0.2s volume of gas/ ± 0.5cm3

repeat 1 repeat 2 repeat 3 mean

● My table headers include title and SI units and uncertainties

e.g. Title / unit ± uncertainty
● I have used Scientific units and terms
e.g. NaCl instead of salt; volume instead of amount; length instead of size
● My data manipulation in my table shows propagation of uncertainty
e.g. titration:
initial volume / ± 0.05cm final volume / ± 0.05cm titre volume ± 0.1cm3

0.00 21.05 21.1

● Absolute uncertainties are expressed to:

● 2 sig fig if less than 2
● 1 sig fig if less than 10
● 1 whole number if more than 10
● I have aligned (right alignment) decimals in my table
● All values in a column end at the same decimal place
● I have used the correct number of dp, sf and uncertainty in my tables and calculations
● e.g. Raw data dp the same as the uncertainty (precision) of the equipment and consistent
● Manipulated data (different units and x or ÷ same number of sf as least precise data in
calculation)

Graphs
 ● I have used scatter-plots with error bars and best-fit lines. The best-fit line should pass through all
error bars.
● My graph data is sourced from single table
● My graph axes are the same as the column & row headings in the table
● My graph axis includes titles, units and uncertainties.
● I have clearly captioned my graph underneath
e.g. Figure 1. A graph to show the mean volume of gas collected per 30s for each temperature.
● The graph is large (half page is ideal)
● I have used a simple scale
[usually 1,2 or 5 times a multiple/power of 10]
[scale does not have to start at zero]
● I have plotted my IV on the X-axis , and my DV on the y-axis (there are some exceptions)
● I have used error bars of either
● the lowest and highest value (range)
● OR of my uncertainty are for each point
● OR standard deviation (only is using manipulated data not raw data)
● I have stated what I have used as errors bars and justified my choice.
● Line of best fit drawn-this is not necessarily linear, it should be based on expected correlation. Data
should fit within the errors bars (if not comment on this under the graph)
● I have shown the R2 value and discussed its significance (e.g. weak, moderate or strong relationship and
cite your source e.g. Henseler et al 2019).
The R2 value is the percentage of the dependent variable variation that a linear model explains
Note that a high R2 values does not necessarily mean the correlation is significant (you would need to do
further statistical analysis and usually more than 30 values for the IV would be needed) . Rule of thumb
can be found in this reference. https://www.researchgate.net/post/what_is_the_acceptable_r-
squared_value#:~:text=Since%20R2%20value%20is%20adopted,substantial%2C%20moderate%20and
%20weak%20respectively.

● I have discussed the correlation and any patterns in my data under each table or graph presented
● [Figure 1.2 shows that as ____increases ______increases, the relationship is directly
proportional]
● [It is clear from the table that there is a general trend of increasing ___ with ______; points
___and ___ did not follow this trend]
● The R2 value of ____ suggests that the correlation is strong/ weak/moderate.

Conclusion
Discuss the validity and reliability (accuracy and precision) of your results. It is not enough to simply state
that results are accurate/precise or not. An explanation with supporting evidence must be given.

● I have stated whether my results provide evidence to reject or provide evidence to accept my
hypothesis.
● [My results show _____________ which provides evidence to support/reject my hypothesis
“_______”]
● I have stated a conclusion that is relevant to the research question (explicitly links my IV to my DV)
[In answer to my research question “_________” this project provides evidence to support OR
in support of _________”]
Remember we can never “prove” anything in science (only disprove it) so our data will only
support or reject a hypothesis

● I have supported my conclusion with the results of my experiment.

[For the conditions that I used in my experiment my results show OR there was a clear trend of
_________]
● I have recognised any limitations in the amount of data collected or anomalies in answering my
conclusion
 [It should be noted that with only 5 data points and 3 repeats the correlation between temperature and
rate of reaction may not be statistically significant ]
● I have explained the impact of uncertainties on my conclusion
[the true value of _____ may lie between ____ and _____ due to the precision of the
apparatus/equipment that I used]
If relative uncertainties overlap the literature value then your main source of error and therefore
improvement is the precision of the equipment (random errors).
If relative uncertainties do not bring your calculated value within the range of the literature value then
there are other methodological/systematic errors you need to improve
OR you have found evidence that goes AGAINST current theory.
● I have calculated the percentage error
Percentage Error = ((Experimental value – Actual value)/ actual value) x 100
[the data I collected lies within ___% of published values]
[As my results lie % outside of published values and my uncertainty is _______, it is clear that
systematic and or random errors have significantly impacted my results]
● I have compared my conclusion with IB level Scientific theory (using correct terminology and detail)
[The results of this investigation are also supported by scientific theory. E.g. Kinetic theory is well
established and explains why____________-give concise accurate detail and cite sources]
● I have compared my conclusion with previous Scientific research
[The results of my project are also supported by scientific studies. E.g. Watson et al. 1998 also
found __________]
● I have used IB Scientific theory or previously published scientific work to suggest reasons for any
discrepancies between my conclusion and the established scientific context,
E.g. [I did not find a difference in rate when the concentration of potassium iodide was doubled,
this may be due to an alternative reaction mechanism. Brown and Smith 1998 proposed the following
reaction mechanism which shows the rate to be independent of KI concentration ]

Evaluation
How much do you trust your results and therefore your conclusion.

● I have included and opening statement to introduce this section

[In order to evaluate the validity of my results it is essential that variables that could have
affected my data are considered along with the strengths and weaknesses of my investigation]
Strengths
● I have discussed the strengths of my investigation
[e.g. were your results close to the literature values ? Was your correlation (R2) strong, did
your trend agree with scientific theory ? Were your uncertainties small ?]
Weaknesses

● I have considered how well/not well I controlled my control variables*see table

● I have considered how the precision of the equipment affected my conclusion by:
● Identifying my largest source of uncertainty
● Stating if the random error due to uncertainty in the equipment would have brought
your mean value within the range of the literature value.
Could be included in a table
● I have identified the type of error (systematic and random)
● I have explained how any random or systematic error could have affected my DV (and therefore
my conclusion)
● I have given REALISTIC steps for improvement (e.g. in a school laboratory setting)
This could be done as a table

error and type how DV may have been affected Steps for improvement

Heat loss to the the ΔT would be less than the true value Insulate the reaction vessel using
 surroundings resulting in the calculated value of aluminium foil and bubble wrap.
(systematic) enthalpy change being lower than the
true value

● I have considered how the choice of methodology may have affected my conclusion
Look up other ways the RQ could have been answered-did you have the best method ? If
so justify it or suggest an alternative method
● I have considered how the data analysis chosen may have affected my conclusion

Limitations
● I have discussed the limitations of my investigation by:
● Explaining any assumptions in the data analysis (if I did not fill these requirements how does it
affect the validity of your conclusion)
Look up assumptions of coefficient of determination-did you meet them ?
The R2 value is the percentage of the dependent variable variation that a linear model explains
Note that a high R2 values does not necessarily mean the correlation is significant (you would need to do
further statistical analysis and usually more than 30 values for the IV would be needed)
● Explaining the effect the range of data collected may have had on your conclusion
[the conclusion is only valid for temperature of ____ and ______ there may be a different
relationship above and below this]
[the conclusion is only valid for concentrations of ___to____ above this a different reaction
mechanisms occur]
● Explaining the boundaries of the system investigated
Your conclusion only SUPPORTS your hypothesis for the conditions you used, it may not apply
outside of this range, for different reagents etc.
● Considering all of the above I have suggested the most important AND REALISTIC changes that
could:
[The following improvements could improve the accuracy of my investigation]
● Lead to more accurate results
[[the largest source of random error was _____ so using a more precise balance would be the best way to
reduce this error]
[The largest source of error was the heat loss (systematic) so the most important improvement would be to
________]
● Extend the range/scope of the investigation
[In order to extend the range/scope of my investigation addition repeats at the following temperatures could
be taken]
[In order to fully answer my research question this investigation could be extended by __________]
In order to extend this study future investigations could __________this would allow inferences on _____to
be made]
● My suggestions are specific and relevant to/an extension of your current research question.
● I have correctly cited my sources.
https://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm

Risk assessment
This is often most easily achieved using a table.
Use http://science.cleapss.org.uk/resource/student-safety-sheets-all.pdf (also on manage bac) to help.

DO NOT FORGET WASTE DISPOSAL e.g. _______was neutralized with _____ and washed down the sink to
dilute it using plenty of tap water.
ETHICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS. E.g. There were no major ethical considerations of
this experiment other than the waste generated by this experiment. This was minimised by using
______amounts.

Hazard Risk Precautions to minimize risk

Heating Burn, electrical ● The area around the heating bath will be clear and all users of
bath shock
the laboratory informed that the heating bath will be set to 80 oC.
● The heating bath has an up to date PAT
● Goggle will be worn
● Retort stand will hold equipment in place so that hands do not
need to come into contact with the water
0.5moldm -3
Irritant and ● The lowest concentration possible is used
Sodium toxic can
hydroxide causes severe ● The smallest amount possible.
skin burns and ● Goggles will be worn for the duration of the experiment
eye damage.
● Spills will be reported immediately and cleaned up using a
damp cloth
● Spills on skin or eye will be rinsed with running water for 20
mins and a medic called immediately

Definitions

Precision:- This refers to how close the measured values are to one another. Readings may be very precise,
but wildly inaccurate.

Accuracy:- This refers to how close the precise values are to the literature accepted values (true values).

Repeatable:- This is linked to precision in that if one person is conducting the same experiment and
produces precise results the experiment is said to be repeatable.

Reproducible:- The is effectively the same as repeatable, but for other groups, or studies that produce the
same precise results.

Uncertainty:- The accepted accuracy of a piece of apparatus when used in the manner described by the
manufacturer.

Validity-needs to consider all of the factors above.

Systematic errors arise from a problem in the experimental set-up that results in the measured values
always deviating from the “true” value in the same direction—that is, always higher or always lower.
Examples of systematic error a poor insulation in calorimetry experiments.

Random errors arise from the imprecision/uncertainties associated with measurements and can lead to
readings being above or below the “true” value. Random errors can be reduced with the use of more precise
measuring equipment or their effect can be minimized through repeating measurements so that the random
errors cancel out.
Dp and sf
Raw data
• dp the same as the uncertainty (precision) of the equipment and consistent in a table or calculations
Manipulated data
• Same number of sf as least precise data in calculation

Propagating errors UNCERTAINTIES

Random errors (uncertainties) in raw data feed through a calculation to give an error in the final calculated
result. There is a range of protocols for propagating errors. A simple protocol is as follows.

When adding or subtracting quantities, the absolute uncertainties are added.

For example, if the initial and final burette readings in a titration each have an uncertainty of ± 0.05 cm3 then
the propagated uncertainty for the total volume is (± 0.05 cm3) + (± 0.05 cm3) = (± 0.1 cm3).

When multiplying or dividing quantities, the percentage (or fractional) uncertainties are added.
For example:

molarity of NaOH(aq) = 1.00 ± 0.05 mol/dm3

0.05
relative uncertainty = = 0.05 (no units)
1.00
percentage uncertainty = 5%

volume of NaOH(aq) = 10.0 ± 0.1 cm3

0.1
relative uncertainty= = 0.01
10.00
percentage uncertainty = [0.1/10.00] × 100 = 1%

Therefore, calculated moles of NaOH in solution = 1.00 × [10.00/1000] = 0.0100 moles (± 6%)

The student may convert the calculated total percentage uncertainty back into an absolute uncertainty or leave
it as a percentage.

e.g.0.0100 moles x 0.06 = 0.0006 so

0.0100 moles ± 0.0006

Note: A common protocol is that the final total percentage uncertainty should be cited to no more than one
significant figure if it is greater than or equal to 2%, and to no more than two significant figures if it is less
than 2%.

There are other protocols for combining uncertainties such as “root sum of square” calculations. These are not
required in IB chemistry but are acceptable if presented by a student (see option 2 in the checklist section on
certainty)
NOTE IF YOU ARE WORKING WITH exponents:
E.g. [H+] = 10-pH
H+=0.10 moldm-3
pH = 1.0
pH probe uncertainty =1.0 ± 0.2
0.2
Relative uncertainty in H+ ion concentration= 1x = 0.02 or 2%
10

https://www.slideshare.net/wkkok1957/ib-chemistry-on-31876125

Comparing your results with the literature

1 The error in the measurement can be expressed by comparing the experimental value with the textbook
or literature value.
e.g. A student measured the value of the ideal gas constant, R, to be 8.11 kPa dm3 mol–1 K–1 and the accepted
value is 8.314 kPa dm3 mol–1 K–1.
The error (a measure of accuracy, not precision) is 2.45% of the accepted value.
If the experimental uncertainty is only 2%, random errors alone cannot explain the difference and some
systematic error(s) must be present.

2 The experimental results fail to meet the accepted value (a more relevant comment).
e.g. The experimental range does not include the accepted value: the experimental value has an uncertainty of
only 2%. A critical student would appreciate that he or she must have missed something here. There must be
more uncertainty and/or errors than have been acknowledged.
In addition to the these two types of comments, students may also comment on errors in the assumptions of
the theory being tested, and errors in the method and equipment being used. Two typical examples of student
work are given in figures 5 and 6.

Figure 5

Intermolecular bonds are being broken and formed, which consumes energy. There is a definite correlation
between the melting point and the freezing point of a substance. If good data is collected, the melting point
should be the same as the freezing point. A substance should melt, go from solid to liquid, at the same
temperature that it freezes, goes from liquid to solid. Our experiment proved this is true because, while
freezing, the freezing point was found to be 55°C, and when melting, the melting point was also found to be
55°C (see graph).
The student states a conclusion that has some validity. However, no comparison is made with the literature
value and there is no evaluation of the procedure and results.
For IA, this would contribute to low marks in the analysis and evaluation criteria.
Figure 6

Melting point = freezing point = 55.0 ± 0.5°C

Literature value of melting point of para-dichlorobenzene = 53.1°C (( Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,
Haynes, W.M. (2012) CRC press).

The fact that % difference > % uncertainty means random errors alone cannot explain the difference and some
systematic error(s) must be present.
Melting point (or freezing point) is the temperature at which the solid and the liquid are in equilibrium with each other: (s)
⇌ (l). This is the temperature at which there is no change in kinetic energy (no change in temperature), but a change in
potential energy. The value suggests a small degree of systematic error in comparison with the literature value as random
errors alone are unable to explain the percentage difference.
Evaluation of procedure and modifications:
Duplicate readings were not taken. Other groups of students had % uncertainty > % difference, that is, in their
case random errors could explain the % difference, so repeating the investigation is important.
How accurate was the thermometer? It should have been calibrated. In order to eliminate any systematic
errors due to the use of a particular thermometer, calibration against the boiling point of water (at 1
atmosphere) or better still against a solid of known melting point (close to the melting point of the sample)
should be done.
The sample in the test tube was not as large as in other groups. Thus the temperature rises/falls were much
faster than for other groups. A greater quantity of solid, plus use of a more accurate thermometer (not 0.5°C
divisions, but the longer one used by some groups) would have provided more accurate results.
For IA, this could contribute to the attainment of the highest levels in the analysis and evaluation criteria.

Graphs + error bars

https://www.slideshare.net/wkkok1957/ib-chemistry-uncertainty-error-standard-deviation-error-
analysis-and-t-test-for-signif
referencing and citations refer to the “Academic honesty” section.
Errors bars-raw data plot + and – uncertainty

Manipulated data- Standard deviation (take largest).

https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/standard-deviation-formulas.html

Calculate R2 for trend line https://www.researchgate.net/post/what_is_the_acceptable_r-

squared_value#:~:text=Since%20R2%20value%20is%20adopted,substantial%2C%20moderate%20and%20weak
%20respectively.

Referencing
choose 1 system and BE consistent (Harvard is probably the easiest and used by many Scientific journals)

https://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm