Estimating Weighing Uncertainty From

Balance Data Sheet Specifications

Sources Of Measurement Deviations And Uncertainties

Determination Of The Combined Measurement Bias
Estimation Of The Combined Measurement Uncertainty

© METTLER TOLEDO, Arthur Reichmuth March 2000

Uncertainty & Specs 1.1

Abstract
To a lesser or greater extent, the performance of any scale or
balance is limited. These limitations are given in the specifica-
tion sheet.
It is common practice to accompany the measurement result
with its uncertainty. This paper shows how the uncertainty of
a weighing or the minimum allowable weight can be
estimated from the specifications of a balance given in the
data sheet. The model and assumptions used for this
deduction, together with its limitations and neglections, are
discussed.

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
 —1—

Sources Of Measurement Deviations And Uncertainties

Sources of measurement deviations and uncertainties with
laboratory balances are (including, but not limited to):
Readability
• rounding of the measurement value to the last digit inher-
ently introduces quantization noise
Repeatability
• noise of the electronic circuits (especially by the A/D
converter’s reference, predominantly 1/f and burst noise)
• wind draft at the site of the balance (especially with resolu-
tions of 1mg and below)
• vibrations
• pressure fluctuations
Non-Linearity
• kinematic non-linearities of the weighing cell, especially of
the parallel guiding mechanism and the lever (where pre-
sent)
• load dependent deformations of the weighing cell
• the electrodynamic transducer’s inherent non-linearity
between current and force
• non-linear A/D conversion
Sensitivity Accuracy And Sensitivity Temperature
Coefficient
• Adjustment tolerance, or determination accuracy, of the
calibration weight
Without re-calibration and adjustment:
• deviations induced by both temperature and spontaneous
drift of the lever's mechanical advantage, the
electrodynamic transducer’s magnetic flux, and the A/D
converter's reference

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
—2—

Determination Of The Combined Measurement Bias

Systematic deviations (bias) of the balance's transfer
characteristic from weighing load to reading—provided, they
are of systematic origin and invariable—are eliminated either
through adjustment after assembly, or measured and stored
in the balance, such that these deviations can be com-
pensated on-line by means of signal processing algorithms.
These include:
• non-linearity correction
• correction of temperature influence (with on-line measure-
ment of the temperature)
• correction of the calibration weight’s adjustment deviation
• on-site adjustments for sensitivity and sometimes non-line-
arity with many balances
The remaining deviations after adjustment or compensation…
• are—provided, they are of systematic origin—too small by
definition to be compensated (had they been large
enough, they would have been compensated);
• are time dependent in an unknown manner (unknown
systematic deviations);
• are caused by unknown ambient conditions (such as tem-
perature or humidity);
• are of entirely unknown origin—neither their source or
amount, nor their course over time are known—and
therefore are by definition not identifiable as systematic
deviations.
Hence, these influences must be regarded as random
contributions, and are treated here as such.

Estimation Of The Combined Measurement Uncertainty

The basis for the following strategy is derived from probabili-
ty theory. From error analysis, it is known that…
• the variances of multiple random influences on a mea-
surement—provided they are mutually independent, or at
least uncorrelated—may be added;
• this resulting sum of variances may be used as variance of
all influences combined.

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
 —3—

We now apply this method to a balance, while considering

the following influences:
• readability
• repeatability
• non-linearity
• sensitivity
• temperature coefficient (of sensitivity)
However, we do not consider here influences caused by
• eccentric loading
Readability
The internal measurement value is generally rounded halfway
between the readability steps d of the balance (4-5
rounding). The variance introduced by this process can be
calculated as follows
1 d2 .
s 2RD = 12 unit: [g2]
Generally, with laboratory balances the display step is
smaller compared to repeatability. In this case, not only the
uncertainty introduced by rounding may be neglected in
favor of repeatability, but there is also no bias introduced.
What is more, for practical reasons repeatability can not be
determined isolated from the contribution of readability, since
both their contributions will be measured at the same time 1).
Without further notice, it is understood here that the
uncertainty contribution from readability is included in the
measurement or specification of the repeatability.
Therefore, the readability’s contribution as such need not be
considered any further and therefore it will be dismissed
here. 2)
Repeatability
Repeatability of the balance is specified by the standard de-
viation. It is valid for one weighing and can usually be found
in the data sheet. For some balance models there may be

1) Unless a smaller readability (smaller step size) is available when

determining repeatability. In this case, the influence of readability
can be eliminated.
2) Particularly the ”±1 count” specification, often seen in this context,
is inappropriate.

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
—4—

multiple repeatability specifications given, ranked according

to weighing load. This would reflect the fact that repeatability
depends on total load (sum of tare and weighing sample),
usually increasing with weighing load.
The repeatability’s variance that accompanies the weighing
result equals the square of the repeatability specification
s 2RP = SPC RP2 3). unit: [g2]
As a rule, the repeatability specification describes the corre-
sponding property of the balance, not the one of the weigh-
ing object. To determine the repeatability specification,
uncritical test loads are used, usually weight standards or
other compact metal weights.
If the weighing object possesses a large surface, or other
properties detrimental to the weighing process, it may de-
grade the repeatability of the weighing process. In such
cases, or when no figure for repeatability is available, it may
be sensible to determine the repeatability on-site, preferably
with the weighing object in question. With laboratory
balances, a measurement series of ten weighings is usually
carried out, which is evaluated as follows:
n
s 2RP = 1
Σ
n–1 i = 1
xi – x 2 ., where unit: [g2]

xi is a single measurement value (a weighing), obtained

as the difference of the reading when the tare alone is
placed on the weighing pan, and the reading when the
tare and sample weight together are placed on the
weighing pan (pair of readings, making up the weighing
of an object 4);

3) ”SPC” stands here, and in all following instances, for the value of a
property's specification as given in the data sheet.
4) i) If there is no tare weight (such as a beaker, boat, or other
container), the reading is taken with empty pan instead.
ii) If the balance is re-zeroed at any load, then the first reading is
zero, by definition. Consequently, the reading with the sample is
then equal to the second reading (of the tare and sample weight),
and the difference need not be calculated by the operator, as the
balance ”took” the first reading and has already subtracted it from
the second reading.

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
 —5—

n
x = n1 Σ
i =1
xi is the mean of this measurement series (or
weighings, i.e., differences of pairs of readings);
n is the number of measurements (or weighings, i.e.,
differences of pairs of readings) 5).
Non-Linearity
The non-linearity of a balance can be read from the data
sheet, too. This specification describes the largest deviation
between the actual and the ideal, i.e., linear characteristic
curve 6)
SPC NL max yNL .
As the characteristic curve of an individual balance, although
a systematic deviation, is generally unknown to the user, we
have to treat the actual deviation for any given load as a ran-
dom contribution.
Because the non-linearity specification only gives the limits
within which the linearity deviation lies, we have to make an
assumption about its random distribution to determine its
variance. For lack of further knowledge, we assume here a
uniform distribution of the non-linearity within the specified
limits:
pNL x = 1 within –SPC x SPC
NL NL
2 SPC NL
With this assumption we are able to evaluate an equivalent
variance of the non-linearity:
SPC NL SPC NL

s 2NL = x2 pNL x dx = x2 1 dx =
–SPC NL –SPC NL
2SPC NL

5) Be aware, that even with as many as 10 weighings, the standard

deviation derived from such a series may vary considerably, as its
outcome is itself a random process, hence subject to stray. This
applies even more with fewer weighings.
6) The characteristic curve of a balance is the relationship between
displayed value and load. To get hold of a balance’s characteristic
curve, one has to load the balance from zero load to its full capaci-
ty, in small (enough) load steps, and record all corresponding
readings.

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
—6—

= 1 1 x3 SPC = 1
NL
x3 SPC = NL

–SPC
2SPC NL 3 –SPC 6 SPC NL
NL
NL

= 1 SPC NL3– –SPC NL3 = 13 SPC NL2 [g2]

6 SPC NL

Sensitivity (Deviation)
With the assumption that the balance’s sensitivity was ad-
justed with an internal or external calibration weight, we first
have to deal with the weight’s tolerance. Usually its deviation
is given in the data sheet as a tolerance band
SPC CAL max m CAL ,
and we find ourselves in the same situation as we were when
deriving a variance for the non-linearity. With the same rea-
soning we can write for the variance of the calibration weight
deviation
2
sCAL = 13 SPC CAL 2 . unit: [g2]
Furthermore, as calibration can only take place through a
weighing of the calibration weight, strictly speaking, we
would have to consider the repeatability of this calibration
weighing. However, calibration is a special case insofar as a
special signal processing is applied to it, i.e., usually a
stronger filtering and a longer measurement interval, thereby
improving the repeatability of the calibration weighing. For
practical reasons, this contribution may therefore be ne-
glected, which we will do here.
A further complication occurs if the calibration weight does
not amount to the balance’s full weighing capacity. When the
calibration weight is smaller than the weighing capacity, the
obtained calibration measurement is extrapolated to the
corresponding calibration value at full capacity.
Unfortunately, this calculation increases a potential linearity
deviation occurring at the load of the calibration weight by
the same factor. Particularly with precision balances,
possessing weighing capacities of several kilograms, it is for
practical reasons not always possible to build in a calibration
weight equal to its full capacity. With analytical balances, on
the other hand, the built-in calibration weight usually
embraces the full weighing capacity of the balance.

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
 —7—

We do not further pursue here the consequences of this con-

tribution.
Remark:
As we will show later, it is sometimes more convenient to use
the relative calibration deviation, instead of the absolute one.
The relative deviation is the absolute deviation normalized to
the mass of the calibration weight. The corresponding ex-
pressions are
SPC CAL m CAL
SPC CAL,rel = max unit: [1]
m CAL m CAL
2 2
s SPC
sCAL,rel 2 = CAL
2 = 13 2
CAL
unit: [1]
m CAL m CAL

Temperature Coefficient
The temperature coefficient of sensitivity may also be taken
from the data sheet (if this item is specified). This specification
describes the largest static sensitivity deviation caused by a
change in ambient temperature.
SPC TCS max TC S .
Again, we use the same procedure to obtain the variance
from the band limits (see derivation under the linearity devia-
tion)
2
sTCS = 13 SPC TCS 2 . unit: [1/K2]
About the properties of the temperature excursion we can
only speculate here. Unless there is additional knowledge
available about the course of ambient temperature, the
following assumptions seem reasonable:
• If the temperature at the location of the weighing is con-
stant, we can drop the influence of the temperature (coeffi-
cient) altogether.
• The temperature excursion at the location of the weighing
stays within a band of ±d t degrees.
• If an automatically induced calibration (for example
”FACT”) is active, then it is realistic to assume that a
maximum temperature change of ±2°C may occur, before
the balance gets adjusted.

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
—8—

In the latter two cases, the assumption

d t max t , with d t 2°C
is justifiable, if we assume a temperature band of ±2°C (or
±2K).
For the variance of the ambient temperature we get—using
the well known assumption of uniform distribution—
st2 = 13 d t2 . unit: [K2]
We obtain the change of the balance’s sensitivity as product
of temperature coefficient and temperature change
d TS = d TCS d t . unit: [1]
As a last step, we need to determine the variance of this de-
viation. Because we have a product of two individual contri-
butions, its derivation is not trivial. It can be shown, however,
that the product of the variances is a reasonable approxima-
tion, which we will use here
2 2
sTS = sTCS st2 .
Finally, we get
2
sTS = 13 SPC TCS 2 13 d t 2 = 19 SPC TCS d t 2 unit: [1]

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
 —9—

Combination Of The Variances 7)

The combined variance of all deviations considered, can now
be obtained by adding all single variances of the individual
deviations.
n
2
sTOT = si2 .
i=1
A required condition to justify this operation is statistical in-
dependence, or at least uncorrelatedness, between the single
contributions. It can be shown that the individual causes for
the balance’s deviation from its ideal performance are inde-
pendent from each other.
All contributions to a single measurement—the difference of a
tare-weighing and a sample weighing (i.e., tare and weigh-
ing object)—now produce the following result:

Repeatability
Repeatability is an absolute deviation and by definition was
determined from the difference of pairs of readings.
Therefore, its contribution to one weighing (i.e., difference of
two readings) is the simple variance
s 2RP . unit: [g2]
Non-Linearity
Non-linearity is an absolute deviation. It occurs when weigh-
ing the tare, as well as the sample (tare and weighing ob-

7) We do not consider corner load deviations that may occur, if the

weighing object is not placed in the center of the weighing pan. (If
the weighing object is placed in the center of the platform, this
deviation vanishes.)
Neither do we consider any other influences on the weighing pro-
cess, besides those explicitly stated in the text.
Particularly, we do not consider influences such as (including, but
not limited to): ambient climate (rapid temperature change, humidi-
ty change), air draft, pressure fluctuation, heat radiation, mechani-
cal influence (leveling, vibration), electromagnetic influence (elec-
trostatic or magnetic), air buoyancy.
In case of such influences, the effects have to be dealt with sepa-
rately.

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
— 10 —

ject) 8). Since the two loadings are statistically

independent 9), their contribution is twice the variance
2s2NL . unit: [g2]
Tolerance Of Calibration Weight
The normalized calibration weight tolerance is a relative de-
viation. The deviation of a weighing (i.e., difference of pair
of readings) is proportional to the sample weight m . Its
contribution is the simple variance times the square of the
sample weight
sCAL,rel 2 m 2 . unit: [g2]
Sensitivity Drift
Sensitivity temperature drift is a relative deviation. The devia-
tion of a weighing (i.e., difference of pair of readings) is
proportional to the sample weight m . Its contribution is the
simple variance times the square of the sample weight
2 m2 .
sTS unit: [g2]
Total Variance
Under these assumptions, we get for the combined variance
of a weighing (i.e., difference of pair of readings)
s2 = s2RP +2s 2NL+sCAL,rel 2m 2+sTS
2
m2 =
= s 2RP+2s 2NL+m 2 sCAL,rel 2+sTS
2 .
We now substitute the variances with their previously deter-
mined expressions and obtain
s2 = SPC RP 2+23 SPC 2 1
NL + 3 m
2 SPC CAL,rel 2+13 SPC TCS d t 2
unit: [g2]
Total Variance, Normalized To Sample Weight
Most often we are interested in the normalized variance, i.e.,
the quotient of absolute variance and sample weight. We find

8) With the exception of weighings that include either zero load, full
capacity, or weighings with zero sample weight.
All three cases are but of academic interest, therefore they are not
considered here.
9) There may be a dependence of the readings for small samples. If
there is knowledge about such a correlation, it can be used; here,
we do not consider it for the sake of simplicity.

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
 — 11 —

this value by dividing the former expression by the square of

the sample mass
2
2s
srel
= 2=
m
= 12 SPC RP 2+ 23 SPC NL2 +13 SPC CAL,rel 2+13 SPC TCS d t 2
m
unit: [1]
From this variance, we can derive the normalized standard
deviation for one weighing (i.e., difference of pair of
readings). This yields
srel =
= 1 SPC 2+2 SPC 2
+ 13 SPC CAL,rel 2+ 13 SPC TCS d t 2
RP 3 NL
m2
10) unit: [1]

Measurement Uncertainty
It is reasonable to assume that a balance’s combined mea-
surement deviation resembles a normal distribution. As one
of its justifications we mention the fact that some contributions
themselves are normally distributed already (e.g., repeatabili-
ty). A second reason is that there are multiple contributing
sources of independent deviations which favors a normal
distribution of their combined deviation.
From the combined standard deviation we can determine an
uncertainty interval from the laws of normal distribution,
provided a confidence level is given. We first derive from the
confidence level the expansion (or coverage) factor k, i.e.,
the quotient relating uncertainty to the standard deviation
u
kP = ,
s

10) This combined standard deviation considers the influences of re-

peatability, non-linearity, calibration weight adjustment and tem-
perature coefficient, under the assumption of a temperature band.
Not considered are, among others, eccentric load and deviation
due to calibration weights not comprising the weighing capacity.

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
— 12 —

which is a function of the confidence level P 11). Multiplying

the standard deviation with this factor yields the (single sided)
uncertainty interval
u = k P ·s .
Hence, with a probability of P , the true value can be as-
sumed to lie between the limits
R–u m R+u
where R is the weighing result (i.e., the difference of two
readings), and m the true sample weight 12).
With a probability of
Q = 1– P
the true value will lie outside these limits.
Example: Determining The Weighing Uncertainty On An
Analytical Balance
Balance Type: AT201: 200g/0.01mg
Using this balance, a sample of 1g shall be weighed in a
190g container. What is the resulting uncertainty of this
weighing, conforming to a 95% confidence level?

11) Expansion Factor Confidence Level Expected Missing

(Single Sided) (Expectation Prob.) Probability
k P Q=1–P
——————— ——————— ———————
1 68.27% 31.73%
1.645 90% 10%
1.960 95% 5%
2 95.45% 4.55%
2.576 99% 1%
3 99.73% 0.27%
4 99.994% 0.006%
5 99.99994% 0.00006%
12) To keep things simple, we have consequently refrained from deter-
mining, or correcting for, the degree of freedom. Of course, no-
thing stands against the notion of correcting for the degree of free-
dom, if it is known of all individual contributions. An instruction for
how to determine the correction factor can be found in ”Guide To
The Expression Of Uncertainty In Measurement”, first edition
[1995], ISBN 92-67-10188-9.

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
 — 13 —

Specifications from data sheet Spec (SPC) SPC2

• Readability 0.01mg 1x10–10g2
• Repeatability up to 50g 0.015mg 2.3x10–10g2
50-200g 0.04mg 1.6x10–9g2
• Non-Linearity within 10g 0.03mg 9x10–10g2
within 200g 0.12mg 1.4x10–8g2
• Calibration Weight Tolerance 1.5ppm 2.3x10–12
• Temperature Coefficient 1.5ppm/K 2.3x10–12K–2
Environment (Assumption) Spec (SPC) SPC2
• Ambient Temp. Excursion 2K 4 K2

The formula valid for the combined normalized standard de-

viation for a single sample weighing is
srel = 1 SPC 2+ 2 SPC 2 + 1 SPC 2 1
+ SPC d 2
RP 3 NL 3 CAL,rel 3 TCS t
m2
As the repeatability specification at 191g is unavailable, we
use the 200g specification instead. Thus, we obtain as
standard deviation for a 1g sample:
srel = 1 1.6 10 –9g 2+ 32 9 10 –10g 2 + 31 2.3 10 –12+13 2.3 10 –12K –24K 2 =
2
1g

= 2.2 10 –9 +13 2.3 10 –12+3.1 10 –12 = 2.2 10 –9+1.8 10 –12 47 10 –6

Conclusion:
The mass of a 1g sample, weighed in a 200g container, can
be determined on this balance with a relative standard de-
viation of approximately
srel < 50 10 –6 .
Based on a confidence level of 95%, the corresponding un-
certainty amounts to twice the standard deviation, namely
u rel = 2srel = 1 10 –4 .

Remark:
It can be seen from this example that with small sample
weights 13) the contribution to uncertainty originating from
the balance’s sensitivity (calibration weight tolerance and un-

13) small compared to the balance’s weighing capacity

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
— 14 —

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
 — 15 —

certainty due to drifting temperature) are minor, compared to

those stemming from repeatability and non-linearity. This
applies to most balance types. We will use this property later
when determining the minimum sample weight.
The diagram on the opposite page shows the relative uncer-
tainty versus sample weight and (total) load, respectively.
Minimum Sample Weight
The minimum sample weight to be weighed conformally on a
balance (a.k.a. ”minimum (sample) weight”) can be
estimated, provided the specifications of the balance, as well
as the uncertainty and confidence level to be met, are given.
To this end, we need once more the expansion factor k, this
time as quotient of relative uncertainty and relative standard
deviation
u rel u /m u
kP = = = ,
srel s/m s
which is clearly the same function of the confidence level P
as introduced above. From the required properties of the
sample weighing, namely the relative uncertainty and the
confidence level, from which the expansion factor was deter-
mined, we derive the standard deviation
u rel
srel = .
k( P)
The formula used in the previous chapter for the relative
standard deviation we now solve for the sample weight m .
We obtain
1
SPC RP + 23 SPC NL2
2 2
m= m MIN .
srel 2 – 13 SPC CAL,rel 2+13 SPC TCS d t
2

Substituting the expression for the relative standard deviation

yields for the minimum sample weight
1
2 2 SPC 2
SPC RP + 3 NL
2
m MIN .
2
u rel
– 13 SPC CAL,rel 2+ 13 SPC TCS d t 2
k( P)

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
— 16 —

Approximations
Revisiting the figures of the previous example, we recognize
that with a sample weight of 1/200 of the weighing capacity,
the variance of the sensitivity deviation, calibration weight
tolerance and temperature coefficient, equals 1.8 10 –12 , an
amount negligible compared to the variance due to
repeatability and non-linearity ( 2.2 10 –9 ). It may be presumed,
that this be the case for all small sample weights. We will
show that this is true.
Taking the radicand of the relative uncertainty
1 SPC 2+2 SPC 2 + 1 SPC 2 1
+ SPC d 2
2 RP 3 NL 3 CAL,rel 3 TCS t
m
and expanding it by m 2, we get
2
SPC 2+ 2 SPC 2 + m SPC
RP 3 NL
2 1
+ SPC
CAL,rel d 23 TCS t
3
According to the assumption, that m is small (minimum
sample weight!), a fact which is even more true for its square
(m 2), we may drop the second term in favor of the first, and
we get as an approximation

srel 1 SPC 2+ 2 SPC 2 =

RP NL
m2 3
1
=m SPC RP 2+ 23 SPC NL2
(valid for small samples).
Respecting the previous requirements, we determine from this
formula the approximate sample weight to be

m MIN 1 SPC RP 2+ 23 SPC NL2 =

srel
= uk SPC RP2+23 SPC NL2
rel
(valid for small samples).
From this we conclude that the minimum sample weight is es-
sentially determined by the two specifications of repeatability
and non-linearity; calibration weight tolerance and tempera-
ture coefficient do not occur in the formula. Traditionally,
sensitivity adjustment is given too much attention when
dealing with small sample weights: With the exception of

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
 — 17 —

weighing heavy samples 14), sensitivity plays but an inferior

role.
If, for any reason, additional information is available about
the linearity deviation of a balance which shows that non-
linearity is inferior compared to repeatability, the contribution
of non-linearity may be neglected, too. Such information
could be gained by on-site measurements, or could stem from
other sources.
If the non-linearity specification (SPC NL) is 1/2 of the
repeatability spec (SPCRP), its contribution reduces to 14% of
the combined uncertainty, if non-linearity amounts to 1/3 of
repeatability, its contribution is 7%. Regarding these figures,
one may decide to drop this term altogether. In this case the
formula for minimum weight would reduce to
m MIN = uk SPC RP 2 = uk SPC RP
rel rel
(valid for small non-linearity).

Example: Determining The Minimum Sample Weight On An

Analytical Balance
Balance Type: AT201: 200g/0.01mg
What is the minimum sample weight required using a 190g
container, observing a relative uncertainty of 0.1% at a con-
fidence level of 95% (corresponding to k≈2)?
Specifications from data sheet Spec (SPC) SPC2
• Readability 0.01mg 1x10–10g2
• Repeatability up to 50g 0.015mg 2.3x10–10g2
50-200g 0.04mg 1.6x10–9g2
• Non-Linearity within 10g 0.03mg 9x10–10g2
within 200g 0.12mg 1.4x10–8g2
• Calibration Weight Tolerance 1.5ppm 2.3x10–12
• Temperature Coefficient 1.5ppm/K 2.3x10–12K–2
Environment (Assumption) Spec (SPC) SPC2
• Ambient Temp. Excursion 2K 4 K2

14) usually larger than 1/10 to 1/4 of the balance’s weighing capacity,
yet independent of total load

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
— 18 —

Since we are dealing here with a minimum sample weight,

we may use the approximation formula
m MIN k SPC RP 2+ 32 SPC NL2 .
urel
As the repeatability specification at 191g is unavailable, we
use the 200g specification instead. Thus, we obtain as a
minimum sample mass
m MIN 2 1.6 10 –9g 2+ 32 9 10 –10g 2 = 2000 1.6+0.6 10 –9g 2 =
10 –3
= 2000 2.2 10 –9g 2 = 2000 47 10 –6g = 94 mg .

If the sample amounts to about 100mg or more, then we can

be assured that the given requirements, namely the mass de-
termination with 0.1% uncertainty at 95% confidence, can be
achieved on this balance.
If we had additional information about this balance, such that
its linearity deviation is smaller than 0.02mg, this figure
would amount to 1/2 of repeatability (0.04mg). In this case,
its contribution is small, as can be seen
2 2
m MIN 1.6 10 –9g 2+ 32 20 10 –6g =
10 –3
= 2000 1.6 10 –9g 2+0.27 10 –9g 2 = 2000 1.9 10 –9g 2 =
= 2000 43 10 –6g = 86 mg ,
and we may decide to neglect it after all. We then have as a
minimal weight estimation
m MIN 2 0.04 mg = 2000 0.04 mg = 80 mg .
10 –3

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000
 — 19 —

Conclusion
In many instances, the weighing result needs to be qualified.
To this end, the measurement uncertainty accompanying the
weighing process is required, but usually not readily avail-
able, not least because it is dependent on the application at
hand. At other times, the operator needs to know the mini-
mum amount of mass he/she is able to conformally weigh to
a required relative uncertainty and confidence level
(minimum weight).
This paper explains how uncertainty and minimum weight
can be estimated from the data sheet specifications of a
balance. The assumptions and restrictions, under which this
deduction is valid, as well as when, and under which
conditions, neglections can be made, are discussed. Two ex-
amples with actual data from analytical balances are given
as illustrations.
The theory and examples provided enables the user to
estimate the appropriate figures of uncertainty or minimum
sample weight for his/her balance application.

© Mettler Toledo, A. Reichmuth Uncertainty & Specs 1.1 Prtd.: October 27, 2000