significant figures displayed on an instrument are an indication of the precision of
the instrument. The diagram below illustrates the difference between accuracy ...
Sep 2, 2015 - ... dioxide, carbon monoxide, volatile and persistent organic compounds [1-3]. ... emission including carbon dioxide (CO2), propane (C3H8) and ...
of the precision of the value 5' 6". What is ... technique to report the contribution of this uncertainty to the measured value. .... and found the mass of penny B to be.
Introductory Methods of Numerical Analysis, S.S. Sastry, Prentice Hall of India. •
Numerical Methods for Engineering, S.C. Chapra and R.C. Canale, McGraw-Hill
...
tion of important habitat data (Valley et al. ... al. 1990). However, until the advent of global positioning systems (GPS) in ..... Agency Guntersville Project Aquatic.
pedicle screw placement in pediatric spinal fusion surgery. Andrew Chana ...... Spine 2012;37:E473â8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318238bbd9 . [24] Sakai Y ...
One of the most practically useful features of a crystallographic least squares refinement is ... all pdfs have variances; a good example is the cauchy (lorentzian) distribution, for which the .... calculated data points with respect to the model var
then the slope of the plot for log(path length) vs log(step size) is 1−D, yielding one ... Thus the estimated gross distance is sensitive to the starting point .... Wide range: 1–20. 5–20. 1–10. 2.5–10. Path length. (steps). Number of paths. Min na .
Dec 7, 2011 - bedside EELV measurement may help to set positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). Nitrogen washout/washin for. EELV measurement is ...
Hartmann (1983); Rakerd and Hartmann (1986) provided a useful set of equations to ... cation is T. Overlines indicate the mean operation. common name.
IUCr Commission on Crystallographic Nomenclature, and is available as ...... D. Schwarzenbach, S.C. Abrahams, H.D. Flack, E. Prince, and A.J.C. Wilson, Acta ...
Sep 25, 2010 - quantitative analytical methods for phytochemicals of interest. Quantitative .... to quantitative chemical analysis of natural products, space is limited and ..... Dietary-Supplement-web-site/slv_guidelines.pdf (accessed 5/11/10).
Downloaded By: [O'Grady, Shannon] At: 23:28 8 December 2010 ... and un-processed samples were refrigerated and treated with activated charcoal for 24 h. Previous unpublished ... S.P. O'Grady et al. ..... [4] D.A. Schoeller, Measurement of Energy Expe
at flow rates of 1, 3, 5, and 10 L/min in 91 flow meters, and they were ... stipulated flow rate at 1 L/min, very close for 3 L/min, and higher for the 5 and 10 L/min ...
recorded every second from the pulse CO-oximeter and data extraction was performed using. TrendCom software (Masimo Corp.; Irvine, CA). The Perfusion ...
Jul 21, 2009 - Eun-Young Seo, Tae-Seok Ahn, and Young-Gun Zo*. Departement of .... SEO ET AL. APPL. ENVIRON ...... Company, New York, NY. 57. Suzuki ...
For variable volume pipettes, three volume settings are selected per ... 5000. P10ml, U10ml. 1000. 5000. 10000. Microman. M10. 1. 5. 10. M25. 3. 10. 25. M50.
Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development. Consistency, precision ... Mark D. Geil, PhD. Department of Kinesiology and Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA ... using software, and automatically manufacture either a positive model to b
Nov 30, 2016 - 3NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA. 4LuftBlick, Kreith .... instruments (serial number 103 and 104) were deployed at. Toronto ... sumption that there is no multiplicative bias between Pan- doras and ...... an a
inches" or "nineteen years, three months." But how ... certainty: systematic and random. (1). Systematic ... Figures B-2 and. B-3 show a ball rolling off the edge of.
Dec 14, 2017 - Key words: Unmanned aerial vehicles, terrestrial laser scan- ..... data was collected after completing campaign one, ... need to answer the following questions: (i) How well ...... the test site; Andreas Huber and Armin Graf for.
Biodex recordings was less than 1°/s for all test velocities. ..... Table 1. The mean difference between the app and the Biodex was less than 1° for all test ...
IMS Health, National Sales Perspectives, Nov. 2011, National Prescription Audit, ... basics/diabetes-statistics Chicago:
Oct 1, 2008 - sistent and reliable analysis of lateral tibial plateau fractures monitored by .... which would be achieved clinically during a surgical approach.
experimental readings and imperfect instrument calibration. ... balance (±0.2 mg) and a 25 mL volumetric pipet (±0.03 mL) and a 25 mL graduated cylinder (±0.3 ...
Accuracy and Precision
Experiment
1 Experimental error is defined as the difference between an experimental value and the actual value of a quantity. This difference indicates the accuracy of the measurement. The accuracy is a measure of the degree of closeness of a measured or calculated value to its actual value. The percent error is the ratio of the error to the actual value multiplied by 100.
The precision of a measurement is a measure of the reproducibility of a set of measurements. The significant figures displayed on an instrument are an indication of the precision of the instrument. The diagram below illustrates the difference between accuracy and precision. Actual Value
Measured value
Measurement errors can be divided into two components: random error and systematic error. A random error is related to the precision of the instrument. These are inherent errors that are dependent on the instrument and can not be eliminated without changing the instrument. A systematic error is human error. These are errors related to imperfect experimental technique. Some examples include errors in experimental readings and imperfect instrument calibration. Systematic errors may be decreased as the laboratory techniques of the analyst improve. The accuracy of an experimental value is best determined by the average value of multiple measurements where xi represents a measurement and n is the number of measurements.
The precision of a set of measurements can be determined by calculating the standard deviation for a set of data where n-1 is the degrees of freedom of the system.
1
The above calculations are the absolute uncertainty of a measurement. The relative uncertainty of a measured value can be determined by dividing the standard deviation by the average value. If you multiply the relative uncertainty by 100, then you obtain the percent standard deviation.
The relative uncertainty for any given experimental value is dependent upon the precision of the precision of the instruments being used. If more than one instrument is made for the determination of an experimental value, then the errors propagate to give a final relative uncertainty. For example, if a 25.00 mL buret was used to deliver 18.45 mL of a solution. If the precision of the buret was reported to be ± 0.03 mL, then the reported value is 18.45 ± 0.03 mL. In part A of this experiment, a metal tag will be weighed on three different balances. The accuracy of each balance will be determined by calculated the percent error. In part B of this experiment, a digital balance (±0.2 mg) and a 25 mL volumetric pipet (±0.03 mL) and a 25 mL graduated cylinder (±0.3 mL) will be used. The accuracy and precision of the volume transferred will be determined by calculating the percent error and standard deviation. Equipment and Reagents Metal tag
triple beam balance
25 mL graduated cylinder
50 mL flask with stopper
centigram balance
25 mL volumetric pipet with bulb
Distilled water
analytical balance
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics
Procedure Part A – Accuracy of Weighing. 1. Obtain a numbered metal tag and record the tag number in your notebook. 2. Weigh the metal tag on a triple beam balance and record the weight in your notebook. The weight should include all of the measured significant digits. 3. Weigh the metal tag on a centigram balance and record the weight in your notebook. 4. Weigh the metal tag on an analytical balance and record the weight in your notebook. 5. Show the data to the instructor and obtain the actual value of the tag from the instructor. 6. Calculate the percent error for the weight of the metal tag for each instrument used. Part B – Accuracy and Precision of Volume Measurements. 1. Weigh a 50 ml flask with a stopper on the analytical balance. Add 25 mL of distilled water measured carefully with a graduated cylinder and re-weight the flask and stopper with the water. 2
2. Empty the water from the flask and repeat the above procedure two more times for a total of three measurements for the graduated cylinder. No need to dry the flask in between trails because you are measuring the water transferred into the flask. 3. Repeat the above procedure except you will replace the graduated cylinder with a 25 mL volumetric transfer pipet. Your lab instructor will demonstrate the use of the volumetric transfer pipet. You should have a total of three trials for the pipet. 4. Calculate the average percent error for each volumetric instrument used. 5. Calculate the standard deviation for each volumetric instrument used. 6. For each measuring device, report the average experimental value with the relative uncertainty. A sample calculation is shown below. Results and Discussion Tabulate the results for parts A and B. For part A, clearly state which balance is the most accurate. For part B, clearly state which instrument is more accurate and which has the greater precision. Also report the average experimental value with its relative uncertainty. See the following sample calculation. An example of the relative errors for the pipet measurements:
Assuming the experimental value was determined to be 24.98 mL, the relative uncertainty is: Relative uncertainty = 24.98 mL x 1.2x10-3 mL = 0.03 mL Average experimental value plus the relative uncertainty: 24.98 ± 0.03 mL