Introduction to Measurement Uncertainty and Propagation of Error

Introduction
In this experiment, the notion of measurement uncertainty and propagation of error were introduced. The
density of water was calculated based on measurements including the volume of an amount of water and
its corresponding mass. Since both the measurements of the volume and mass of the water contained a
degree of uncertainty, the calculated density would instead be a range of values. Additionally, multiple
measurement devices were used to illustrate the concepts of precision and accuracy and to further
emphasize the notion of measurement uncertainty.

Procedure
The pressure of the environment, the temperature of the room and the temperature of the water were all
measured at the beginning at end of the lab. Three measurement devices were utilized to measure some
volume of water: a 150 mL beaker, a 50 mL graduated cylinder, and a 100 mL volumetric flask. Each
piece of dry glassware was weighed. An uncertainty of ± 0.0002 g was attributed to each mass
measurement. This uncertainty was deemed as such since the balance would often fluctuate up and down
slightly at the ten-thousandths place of precision. The uncertainty due to the balance was deemed the
same for all mass calculations, since the same balance was utilized for all measurements. Three trials for
each piece of glassware were ran, where a set volume (100 mL for the beaker and volumetric flask and 50
mL for the graduated cylinder) was to be measured using the glassware and then weighed on the balance.
The uncertainty in the volume measurements varied based on the measurement instrument. For the
beaker, the uncertainty was determined to be ± 3 mL; this value came as a ‘guess’ for how much the
volume could differ before the change was detectable to the observer. The uncertainty for the graduated
cylinder was similarly determined. However, since the graduated cylinder is a more precise measuring
tool (the gap between indicated measurements is significantly smaller), the uncertainty was determined to
be ± 0.2 mL. In the case of the volumetric flask, the uncertainty in measurement was labeled on the
glassware as ± 0.16 mL; this accepted value was deemed to be the measurement uncertainty in the
volumetric flask.
Results and Discussion
The range for the density of water (and the corresponding uncertainty) was determined based on the
measurement tool for the volume. The calculated densities along with the measurement tool the
calculations were based on are as follows: 0.977 ± 0.0367 for the 150 mL beaker, 0.974 ± 0.00477 for the
50 mL graduated cylinder, and 0.995 ± 0.00196 for the 100 mL volumetric flask. Two out of the three
calculated density ranges contained the accepted value for the density of water1 at 24.25°C and 763.95
mmHg. The density range calculated based on the measurements of the graduated cylinder did not
encompass the accepted value for the density of water. It is possible that the ‘guess’ of the uncertainty
based on the equipment was too small. If the uncertainty is greater, the range of the density will increase.
This influence of the measured variables on a calculated value illustrates the concept of error propagation.
This notion is also seen in the size of the other two density ranges. The range for the beaker was the

1
Online calculation of properties of water and steam
http://www.peacesoftware.de/einigewerte/wasser_dampf_e.html (accessed Sep 18, 2016).
largest, while that of the volumetric flask was the smallest. This was to be expected, as the larger the
uncertainty is in one of the measurements the greater the impact on the calculation of the density. Since
the calculation of density depends on two measured quantities - mass and volume - which both contain
measurement uncertainty, the uncertainty in the density value will be determined from both the mass and
volume uncertainties. Finally, one can speculate how the uncertainty in the density calculation would
change if the number of measurements were to increase. If the number of measurements or ‘trials’ were to
increase, one can expect the uncertainty to decrease. In other words, the range of values for the density
would be smaller. With a greater number of measurements random error will have much less of an impact
on the final calculation. For instance, if one mass measurement was taken with a scale that was
improperly calibrated, the average mass would be either artificially high or low. This erroneous
measurement can be mitigated as the number of measurements taken increases.