Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Cady Bright
4.12.18
Chemistry 11
y = 0.05196x + 0.009724 , correlation value = .9998, RMSE = 0.008621
0.638 0.398
2. The concentration of the unknown falls within the range of the concentrations of the standard solutions.
Therefore, the concentration of the unknown can be determined by interpolating from the calibration curve. To
do this, you would solve for the x-value (concentration of sugar in solution in g/dL) in the equation of the line of
best fit using your measured y-value (absorption). Show all work.
y = 0.05196x + 0.009724
Unknown A:
0.638 = 0.05196x + 0.009724
0.638 − 0.009724 = 0.05196x
0.628276 = 0.05196x
0.628276/0.05196 = x
12.0915319 = x
12.09g/dL
Unknown B:
0.398 = 0.05196x + 0.009724
0.398 − 0.009724 = 0.05196x
0.388276 = 0.05196x
0.388276/0.05196 = x
7.472594 = x
7.47g/dL
3. Compare your experimentally determined concentration value to the accepted value of the unknown solution
concentration that will be provided by your instructor using a percent error calculation. Show all work.
Unknown A:
|(12.09 − 12)/12| * 100 = .75%
Unknown B:
|(7.47 − 8)/8| * 100 = 6.625%
4. Describe the precision and accuracy of this method for determining the concentration of the Kool-Aid. Your
answer should consider the equation line of best fit, its measures of consistency (correlation value, r2 value and
RMSE), the methods employed in making standard solutions, how accurately your measured values of
unknowns match the expected values and the precision of the instruments used to measure absorption.
Overall, this method has shown to be quite accurate and precise in determining concentration using
absorbance measured by a spectrophotometer. Macroscopically, our procedure, while by human nature not
perfect, had little to no noticeable error. Our greatest difficulties were mixing the solvent and solute together
completely, and making the meniscus be where we wanted it to. The line of best fit appears to reflect the data
set well, when compared to others I have seen in this investigation.
Numerically, this method also appears very precise. Our correlation value was .9998, as measured on a
scale from -1 to 1 with 1 being a perfect positive association. Our RMSE value was 0.008621, which is also quite a
small margin of error. Perhaps the most accessible measure of our accuracy came when we tested the
unknowns. By using our previously created calibration curve to come up with the values for the unknowns and
then comparing them to the actual values utilising the experimental error equation, it can be again seen that
this method was quite precise. For Unknown A, our experimental error was .75%, while for Unknown B, it was
6.625%. Both of which are very low, however it would have been interesting to look further into why the
experimental error for Unknown B was higher.
A lot of our success lay in the equipment we were using, as the scales and spectrophotometers we
used are also used in college-level and higher settings. In fact, we had the most trouble being accurate with
getting exactly 1oo mL of solution in the flasks we were using. In the end, our struggles didn’t seem to affect
the investigation that much, and our methods proved reliable.