This objective required us to calculate the densities of both sodas and determine which of the three pieces of glassware used, beaker, graduate cylinder, or buret, was most accurate and which was most precise. The pooled class data revealed that the buret was the most accurate for both Coke and Diet Coke. The actual density of Coke is 1.038 g/mL and the buret had a density of 1.041 g/mL, which is 0.003 g/mL greater than the actual density. This density was the closest to Coke. The density of Coke with a beaker was 0.92 g/mL, which is 0.118 g/mL less than the actual density and the density with the graduated cylinder was 0.998 g/mL, which is 0.04 g/mL less than the actual density. The actual density of Diet Coke was 0.997 g/mL and the buret was closest with a density of 1.006 g/mL, which is 0.008 g/mL greater than the actual density. The beaker gave a density of 0.87, which is 0.128 g/mL less than the actual density, and the graduated cylinder gave a density of 0.945 g/mL, which is 0.053 g/mL less than the actual density. …show more content…
Unlike accuracy, Coke and Diet Coke had different pieces of glassware that produced the answer with the most precision.
For Coke, the buret produced the most precise answer, and for Diet Coke the graduated cylinder produced the most precise answer. To determine which piece of glassware is most accurate we need to compare the standard deviations and look to see which is closest to zero. For Coke, the standard deviation of the beaker is 0.08 g/mL, the standard deviation of the graduation cylinder is 0.048, while the standard deviation of the buret is 0.023 g/mL. From these figuresit is evident that the buret is the most precise because it has the smallest standard deviation. For Diet Coke, the standard deviation for the beaker is 0.08 g/mL, the standard deviation for the graduated cylinder is 0.056 g/mL, and the standard deviation for the buret is 0.062 g/mL. For the Diet Coke the most precise piece of glassware is the
beaker. After preforming each of the six calculations and comparing our results to the pooled class data, it was revealed that there are different densities for Coke and Diet Coke. The difference in densities is caused by the sweeteners used in the sodas. Coke is sweetened with sugar (C12H22O11) which has a molar mass of 342.3 g; the high molar mass of sugar causes the density to increase because so much sugar is required to give Coke its distinct taste. On the other hand, Diet Coke is sweetened with Aspartame (C14H18N2O5) which has a molar mass of 294.3 g. The molar mass of Aspartame is 48 g less than that of sugar and a significantly less amount of Aspartame is required to sweeten Diet Coke. In this lab, we used Coke and Diet coke that were “flat” or had no carbonation. The absence of CO2 decreased the mass of the soda because there are few particles. When CO2 is present in the soda, the density is larger because the carbonation is forced into the soda, which adds more mass to the soda.
Briefly describe an alternative technique that could be used to measure the amount of glucose within sports drinks. (5 points)
Random errors reflect a low precision through high scatter. Increasing the sample size of the number of tablets used will produce more data that can be graphed, and from which a more reliable and representative line of best fit could be produced, ultimately minimising random errors. Additionally, increasing the number of trials for each number of reacting Alka Seltzer tablets would minimise random errors by helping to produce a more precise average change in mass. Modifying the method can also help minimise the effect of random errors, by obtaining more reliable results. For example, instead of cutting the Alka Seltzer tablets in half, whole Alka Seltzer tablets could have been used, and the amount of reacting HCl could have been increased to account for the increase in the number of tablets used for each ample. In doing this, the mass of the reacting Alka Seltzer tablets will be more consistent for each trial, and the state of subdivision of the tablets could be truly kept
A random error is caused by any factor which randomly affects the amount of scatter in the data. An increase in sample size allows averages to be calculated which reduces the effects of these random errors. By removing outliers in the data, the effect of random errors can be further minimised. A large amount of scatter in results indicated low precision and a large number of random errors. Some possible random errors in this experiment may have arisen when measuring the 12mL of milk solution for each test tube; some may have had slightly more and others slightly less than 12mL. Another random error could have occurred when adding 4 drops of methylene blue, some drops may have contained more liquid than others, meaning some test tubes may have contained less methylene blue indicator than
could not have really known if the liquid in the glasses was cola, dark beer, or
Regarding the densities of Coke and Diet Coke, I believed that the density of coke would be greater than the density of Diet Coke. Because the content of Coke contains more sugar than Diet Coke, it would contain more mass and since density is mass dependent, Coke would be denser than Diet Coke. From the results of the experiment, there was a slight difference between the densities of Coke and Diet Coke. The measurements obtained from the pipette and the graduated cylinder demonstrated that Coke is denser than Diet Coke while Diet Coke was shown to be denser than Coke using the burette. With the pipette, the average density of Coke is 1.02 and the average density of Diet Coke is 0.99. With the graduated cylinder, the average density is 0.976968 and the average density of Diet Coke is 0.95. With the burette, the average density of Coke is 0.99 and the average density of Diet Coke is 1.0. Among the three instruments, the most precise was the graduated cylinder and the most accurate was the volumetric pipette. Since density is defined as mass/volume, changing the volume of Coke or Diet Coke would have changed.
Based on the data obtained, Table 1 demonstrates that when obtaining the percent recovery of ethanol, 25% ethanol was obtained. This represents a relatively good percent recovery because ideally about 30.1% ethanol should have been produced. According to Chemspider, the density of ethanol is 0.8 g/〖 cm〗^3 and the density of water is 1.00 g/〖 cm〗^3. Therefore, all of the densities present in Table 1 may be incorrect due to a variety of reasons, such as incorrectly recording the mass or volume of the product. The volume could have been perceived as a different number because perception varies from person to person. However, the data results make sense because none of the densities reported were below 0.8g/〖 cm〗^3 or higher than 1.00 g/〖 cm〗^3, therefore, the data results were relatively accurate, but probably contained impurities.
Possible sources of error in this experiment include the inaccuracy of measurements, as correct measurements are vital for the experiment.
However, the measured densities lied below the accepted densities of 0.933 g/mL, 0.900 g/mL, and 0.888 g/mL for methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, and propyl acetate respectively. Refractive indices increased across all groups, including Group 6, from the methyl acetate sample to the propyl acetate sample just as expected from the theoretical refractive index values of the pure liquids. In addition, the refractive index % error calculations of Group 6 indicate that samples 1,3, and 5 produced refractive index values relatively close to the theoretical refractive indices of methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, and propyl acetate respectively. Although no distillation produces a perfectly pure liquid, the lack of relatively constant temperatures seen in the data and plots makes it unlikely that the samples collected by the class distillations had a high level of purity. Evaporation from the samples due to a lack of properly fitting test tube caps also reduced the usefulness of the density and refractive index calculations for determining the closeness of the obtained samples to the pure
The purpose of this study is to prove that this author’s spouse who claims she is an expert in tasting certain expensive coffee beverages cannot tell the difference when a less expensive substitute is prepared in the same manner and served to this self-proclaimed expert. Many people claim they can tell the difference between certain coffees, such as Folgers vs. Maxwell House, Starbucks vs. Seattle’s Best vs. Starbucks, and so on. For this project, the author intends to prove that his spouse cannot actually tell the difference between her favorite expensive Keurig brewed Emeril’s Big Easy Bold and any other brand coffee when both are prepared in the exact same manner and served side by side. To make this test more interesting and inviting the author and his spouse or test subject made a little wager that if she could achieve a 75% accuracy rate throughout the course of the experiment then she would receive the tablet of her choice in addition to her Christmas gifts versus as a part of her Christmas gifts. On the flipside of this wager, if she could not achieve the 75% accuracy mark, then the author would receive permission to upgrade his ticket choice for a 2014 Dallas Cowboys game. Results of this wager are revealed at the end of the project. In order to properly conduct this experiment a proclamation or hypothesis must be made.
What we choose to drink can affect our health just as much as our eating habits. It is because of this that more and more people are going for little-to-no calorie options rather than high calorie options, which are supposed to be the ideal, chose. But is it? Have you ever had a sip of diet soda or regular soda and wonder what makes this drink so good? Or maybe the exact opposite, like what makes this drink so bad for you? These drinks can feel so refreshing on a hot summers day or even after a long day of work. What’s not so refreshing is what these drinks can do to your body.
The soft drink industry in the United States is a highly profitably, but competitive market. In 2000 alone, consumers on average drank 53 gallons of soft drinks per person a year. There are three major companies that hold the majority of sales in the carbonated soft drink industry in the United States. They are the Coca Cola Company with 44.1% market share, followed by The Pepsi-Cola Company with 31.4% market share, and Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. with 14.7% market share. Each company respectively has numerous brands that it sales. These top brands account for almost 73% of soft drink sales in the United States. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. owns two of the top ten brands sold. Colas are the dominant flavor in the U.S carbonated soft drink industry; however, popularity for flavored soft drinks has grown in recent years. The changing demographics of the U.S population have been an important factor in the growing popularity of these flavored soft drinks. The possible impact of this factor will be addressed later in the case.
Part A of the experiment, we were measuring the density of water. In this part, we measured by difference by measuring the mass of the empty graduated cylinder which was 46.35 grams and then added 25.0 milliliters of water to it. When subtracting by difference, our mass of the water was 25.85 grams. This was close to the measurements of the water added to the graduated cylinder. The density of the water was 1.0 grams/milliliters.
Discuss the unit of distance of the soda bottle that was used in this experiment. The unit of distance could be measured using the metric system, which would be centimeters, or meters or it might have been measured in inches or feet. My question is which unit of measurement did my lab partners use to measure the soda bottle.
Attempt number one: The first time I tried this, it completely failed. I don't drink pop (New Year's Resolution) so I tried one with a Sparkling Ice and one with a Diet Coke (I did it for science). I came home school and quickly rushed to try to get this done.
Experimentation with the new market for carbonated beverages on the decline coke has done experiments in new flavors and healthier alternatives to try to stay competitive. As well as investing in “Keurig Green Mountain is a K-Cup maker but has a new Keurig Cold that can deliver Coca-Cola through the new system.” (Cooper, 2014)