Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Common sources of laboratory error
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Many systematic sources of error may have occurred during this experiment leading to faulty in the collection of data, overall result and outcome of the experiment. One example of this is the age of each Alka-Seltzer tablet. If one Alka-Seltzer had been older than another, the amount of time it took for each tablet to react to the water would be different. Specifically, the older tablets would most likely take a longer time to the react to the water because they were more stale than the newer tablets that would be more fresh. This systematic error could have been avoided by making sure all the tablets came from a fresh new box and not different boxes. To be even more accurate, check the date on the back of the box to make sure all the tablets were made at the same time and that they were all recently made. …show more content…
Another example of a systematic error that might have taken place during this experiment could have been that the room temperature water could have been in flux due to the fact that the temperature of the room may not have been constant and therefore the temperature of the room temperature water could have changed. This error could have been prevented by making sure that there were no occasional blasts of cold or warm air coming into the room that the experiment would be taking place
Random and systematic errors are both factors that can affect the reliability and accuracy of the results respectively. As all the graphs contained outliers, and hence, scatter, this indicates that random errors were present. Such errors may result from the inconsistent masses of the Alka Seltzer tablets. As these tablets were cut manually with a knife, it is unlikely that the mass of each half of an Alka Seltzer tablet would be the same. Thus, when using the tablets to react with HCl, the true number of tablets reacting would have not been the same as the number denoted for the trial, and with each repeated trial for the same number of tablets reacting, the reacting mass and ratio would have not been inconsistent. Consequently, the
* It was almost impossible to tell when the Alka-Seltzer tablet had dissolved, each time the experiment was done. This was a huge problem for the experiment as this could have totally caused problems to the experiment. A special type of detector apparatus, which bleeped when the correct amount of Alka-Seltzer tablet dissolved, could improve this, each time the experiment was done.
In this experiment, there were several objectives. First, this lab was designed to determine the difference, if any, between the densities of Coke and Diet Coke. It was designed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of several lab equipment measurements. This lab was also designed to be an introduction to the LabQuest Data and the Logger Pro data analysis database. Random, systematic, and gross errors are errors made during experiments that can have significant effects to the results. Random errors do not really have a specific cause, but still causes a few of the measurements to either be a little high or a little low. Systematic errors occur when there are limitations or mistakes on lab equipment or lab procedures. These kinds of errors cause measurements to be either be always high or always low. The last kind of error is gross errors. Gross errors occur when machines or equipment fail completely. However, gross errors usually occur due to a personal mistake. For this experiment, the number of significant figures is very important and depends on the equipment being used. When using the volumetric pipette and burette, the measurements are rounded to the hundredth place while in a graduated cylinder, it is rounded to the tenth place.
Possible sources of error in this experiment include the inaccuracy of measurements, as correct measurements are vital for the experiment.
Over the observed fifty seconds, there was a consistency among the temperatures. Without a calculated percent error, we are able to assume the average temperature was twenty-six degrees Celsius. There are factors that could have caused error to arise in our data collection. One factor could be that the temperature of the room was not consistent throughout the room. Another factor may have been the performance of the thermometer. The grasp in which the thermometer was held for procedure B may also be a factor.
Inconsistencies in this lab could have caused variations in data collecting. Collecting data from one petri dish was challenging because something could have been different on other petri dishes if this experiment was tested on several petri dishes. This could have been different because the other petri dishes could have had more micro-organisms in Section 2 instead of Section 1, or no bacteria could have grown at all in every section of the petri dish.- Second, nothing grew in section B even though there were no disinfectants in that section. The reason why the bacteria and mold might have grown in sections 1, 2, and 3 was because in the process of making the experiment, the coffee filter papers were touched with glove free hands and were not clean. If this lab was run again, some changes would be to wear rubber gloves, do not pour the hand sanitizers on the coffee filter paper but just pour one pump straight into the petri dish, have more than one petri dish to collect data off of, and check when the last time someone cleaned the door knob
One possible source of experimental error could be not having a solid measurement of magnesium hydroxide nor citric acid. This is because we were told to measure out between 5.6g-5.8g for magnesium hydroxide and 14g-21g for citric acid. If accuracy measures how closely a measured value is to the accepted value and or true value, then accuracy may not have been an aspect that was achieved in this lab. Therefore, not having a solid precise measurement and accurate measurement was another source of experimental error.
Another error could have been with the short amount of time we were given we could have not allowed the experiment to develop all the way. A lot of possibilities could have happened if we left the dead yeast in the incubator. The amount of carbon dioxide produced could have dramatically increased or decreased. If we would have more time we would have been able to collect more data, but at least we had enough. One last error that could have happened was that the logger pro on the computer might have gave us false data or something happened with the system that would result it to malfunction. An experiment we could conduct do to this experiment is we could have 2 beakers containing the same substances that were involved in this experiment. Then we could leave one beaker out and the other in the incubator. This could result in us asking, does temperature affect the amount of carbon dioxide that is being produced by dead
This suggests that either an error could have occurred during the process of the experiment, or that this certain experiment does not yield consistent results. It is possible that this could be explained if this experiment was tested a few more times. It is likely the factors that could have caused inaccurate results in the first experiment could have caused inaccurate results in the second experiment as well. Miscalculations, dirty equipment, and other factors of that nature could have played a role in the inconsistent results our group experienced in the first and second test of the optimum sucrose concentration
...executed was on the AstroTurf outside the school. This could have affected the subject’s performance and how the results were measured. To improve this, the experiment should have been carried out in a science lab on a treadmill so that the environment is constant and so that the heart rates are easier to measure. Thirdly, the temperature of when the experiment took place was about 10°C which may have affected the subject’s performance. If this experiment were recurrent then 5 subjects would do it inside (room temp. 21°C) using the treadmills and wearing the right clothing, and another 5 would do it outside to see if this factor did in fact affect the results and cause them not to be as accurate as it could be. Then we would be able to compare the two temperatures. Overall this experiment ran smoothly with some problems, which can be improved as I explained above.
In a 100ml beaker 30mls of water was placed the temperature of the water was recorded. 1 teaspoon of Ammonium Nitrate was added to the water and stirred until dissolved. The temperature was then recorded again. This was to see the difference between the initial temperature and the final temperature.
I agree with the conclusions of these experiments. They show a great deal of planning and research. The methods that were used were backed by previous research. I think that the only alternative explanation there could be it that the sample size was just too small.
Distillation is a process that separates two substances based on their boiling points. When the substances are heated in a flask, the substance with the lower boiling point will vaporize first, and therefore condense and turn into liquid first when cooled. The vapors of the substance travel through the 3 way adaptor and condense when they come into contact with the glass of the cool jack condenser, turning into a liquid and sliding down into the collection flask. The condenser is filled continuously with running water. This is used to cool down the vapors so the vapors will turn into liquid.
The last part of experiment 5, was learning about specific gravity and temperature. Specific gravity does not have any units, it is unitless. When measuring for the temperature, we used a thermometer to calculate the Celsius of the water, 10% sodium chloride, and isopropyl alcohol. The specific gravity uses a hydrometer to measure the gravity of the liquids. Using the hydrometer, to figure out the measurements we have to look at it from top to bottom. The water for specific gravity was .998 while the temperature of it was 24
There is also the potential of human error within this experiment for example finding the meniscus is important to get an accurate amount using the graduated pipettes and burettes. There is a possibility that at one point in the experiment a chemical was measured inaccurately affecting the results. To resolve this, the experiment should have been repeated three times.