Post-Lab Heading: Experiment #1: Determination of the Density of Water and an Unknown Solid Sample Sally Nasser August

25, 2012-September 5, 2012 Part A: Discussion of Results and Error Analysis: In order to determine the density of water, one must first retrieve the mass of an empty 50-mL beaker. Once recorded the mass, proceed to collect 10-mL of distilled water. Transfer the water to the empty beaker and record the mass. Now the mass of the beaker + water in grams is available. Subtract the two in order to retrieve the mass of water only. Once all the information is gathered, divide the mass of the water by the actual volume of the water used. This will give you the density. Trial One Example: Density: Mass/Volume D: 9.61/10.1 = Density .95g/mL The class average(s) were 1.0023g/mL for the graduated cylinder; .989g/mL for the volumetric pipette; .9936g/mL for the burette. The standard deviation(s) were .0977g/mL for the graduated cylinder; .0222g/mL for the volumetric pipette; .1617g/mL for the burette. Having relating these appropriately, the precision of the class data regarding the average was very close which leads to being properly precise. On the other hand, the standard deviation was only 75% precise. The accuracy was very close too when speaking amongst the average but unfortunately not accurate within the class standard deviation. Ranking the volumetric glassware from least to most precise: Most precise: volumetric pipette; Precise: burette; Least precise: graduated cylinder. It was determined this order by simply plotting the information on a graph, which developed into a line graph. The graph clearly showed which instrument was most accurate by the amount of space each instrument held between every result. Since the volumetric pipette had the least spaces in between, it was viewed as most precise. The literature value for the density of water at the temperature that was measured was .997747 Part B: Density and Identification of the Unknown Obtain the unknown and use a top loading balance to mass out 15-20 grams. Use a 50mL plastic graduated cylinder and fill approximately half way. After taking note of the volume, drop the unknown into the cylinder. Record the new mass and then continue by subtracting from the old mass. This will give a new volume of the unknown. Divide the mass of the unknown by the volume sample and retrieve the density sample. Trial One Example: Density: Mass/Volume. Mass of unknown: 16.309g/mL; Volume sample: 2.90-mL; 16.309/2.90= Density 5.62g/mL. The average value for density is 7.04g/mL. The reason density can be used to help identify the unknown is simply because density cannot change. In this case, if you know the density of an object you are more likely to name the unknown. Since density is an intensive property, no matter how much stuff you add into the stuff the density will remain the same. Volume and mass on the other hand are not intensive properties, which will cause switches in the same unknown and can steer away from the right unknown. These are also called extensive properties.

List of densities and physical properties of possible unknown: Pb 11.4 g/mL- malleable, ductile; Cu 8.89 g/mL-shiny, orange; Zn 7.19 g/mL- blueish gray metal; Fe 7.87 g/mL-conducts heat and electricity; Al 2.7 g/mL-light in weight and strong; Jasper/Agate 2.65 g/mL-smooth, holey; Lead Tin Solder 9.63 g/mL- melts at high temperatures; Brass - 8.4 g/mL-smooth, gold. The definitive of the unknown sample is zinc. The reason being is, first, it matches all physical properties. Second, zinc has a density of 7.19%. Since the average density of the sample was 7.33%g/mL, it was the closest related density to each unknown metal. The percent error was 7.23%. The relative range was 1.77% The precision of the relative range was fair and the accuracy was perfect since it was such a small number. On the other hand, the percent error was a little off concluding that there was a lot more errors than planned. The measuring devise that may have limited my precision could have been the 50mL graduated cylinder. The reason being is because going back to the records, it shows that the most differentiated numbers are in the volume water + sample. Although the numbers are only off by a tad, each difference counts. In order to have a more precise outcome one fix would have been looking at the graduated cylinder at eye-level. Also, the top loading balance could have made all the difference as well. When balancing out the unknown, the balance was not at zero. In order to fix this, one would have to make sure the balance is set at zero before placing an object to mass out on it. The only other error that would be added is human error. There might have been a slip up with calculations. Conclusion: Overall my numbers seemed precise and ready to use. I finalized my unknown to Zinc. The numbers were very close together and seemed accurate. Although I could have used a little less human error on this lab and have been a little more careful with rounding numbers, etc., but the general idea was is that the main problem of the unknown factor had matched up to its metal.