Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Common sources of laboratory error
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Many systematic sources of error may have occurred during this experiment leading to faulty in the collection of data, overall result and outcome of the experiment. One example of this is the age of each Alka-Seltzer tablet. If one Alka-Seltzer had been older than another, the amount of time it took for each tablet to react to the water would be different. Specifically, the older tablets would most likely take a longer time to the react to the water because they were more stale than the newer tablets that would be more fresh. This systematic error could have been avoided by making sure all the tablets came from a fresh new box and not different boxes. To be even more accurate, check the date on the back of the box to make sure all the tablets were made at the same time and that they were all recently made. …show more content…
Another example of a systematic error that might have taken place during this experiment could have been that the room temperature water could have been in flux due to the fact that the temperature of the room may not have been constant and therefore the temperature of the room temperature water could have changed. This error could have been prevented by making sure that there were no occasional blasts of cold or warm air coming into the room that the experiment would be taking place
Over the observed fifty seconds, there was a consistency among the temperatures. Without a calculated percent error, we are able to assume the average temperature was twenty-six degrees Celsius. There are factors that could have caused error to arise in our data collection. One factor could be that the temperature of the room was not consistent throughout the room. Another factor may have been the performance of the thermometer. The grasp in which the thermometer was held for procedure B may also be a factor.
Per the hypothesis, most of the results in the lab are in accordance with the expected results. It was expected that the subjects drinking caffeine, diet caffeine free soda, and 16 ml/Kg of water would have a higher rate of production than the control group drinking 7.5 ml/Kg of water due to less water being reabsorbed. Results showed an increase in rate of production, most notably in subjects drinking diet caffeine free soda but seemed to decrease towards the end. For the rest of the subjects, the data shows a gradual rise over time with every subject (besides caffeine free) having a higher rate of production than the control group. The subjects drinking caffeine free soda were the only ones to record a lower rate of production than the control group. This could be due to an increase in glucose reabsorption causing water to follow back into the blood stream. The lack of caffeine does not hinder ADH secretion, which will cause an increased permeability to water in the collecting
In this experiment, there were several objectives. First, this lab was designed to determine the difference, if any, between the densities of Coke and Diet Coke. It was designed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of several lab equipment measurements. This lab was also designed to be an introduction to the LabQuest Data and the Logger Pro data analysis database. Random, systematic, and gross errors are errors made during experiments that can have significant effects to the results. Random errors do not really have a specific cause, but still causes a few of the measurements to either be a little high or a little low. Systematic errors occur when there are limitations or mistakes on lab equipment or lab procedures. These kinds of errors cause measurements to be either be always high or always low. The last kind of error is gross errors. Gross errors occur when machines or equipment fail completely. However, gross errors usually occur due to a personal mistake. For this experiment, the number of significant figures is very important and depends on the equipment being used. When using the volumetric pipette and burette, the measurements are rounded to the hundredth place while in a graduated cylinder, it is rounded to the tenth place.
Another error could have been with the short amount of time we were given we could have not allowed the experiment to develop all the way. A lot of possibilities could have happened if we left the dead yeast in the incubator. The amount of carbon dioxide produced could have dramatically increased or decreased. If we would have more time we would have been able to collect more data, but at least we had enough. One last error that could have happened was that the logger pro on the computer might have gave us false data or something happened with the system that would result it to malfunction. An experiment we could conduct do to this experiment is we could have 2 beakers containing the same substances that were involved in this experiment. Then we could leave one beaker out and the other in the incubator. This could result in us asking, does temperature affect the amount of carbon dioxide that is being produced by dead
This suggests that either an error could have occurred during the process of the experiment, or that this certain experiment does not yield consistent results. It is possible that this could be explained if this experiment was tested a few more times. It is likely the factors that could have caused inaccurate results in the first experiment could have caused inaccurate results in the second experiment as well. Miscalculations, dirty equipment, and other factors of that nature could have played a role in the inconsistent results our group experienced in the first and second test of the optimum sucrose concentration
Random and systematic errors are both factors that can affect the reliability and accuracy of the results respectively. As all the graphs contained outliers, and hence, scatter, this indicates that random errors were present. Such errors may result from the inconsistent masses of the Alka Seltzer tablets. As these tablets were cut manually with a knife, it is unlikely that the mass of each half of an Alka Seltzer tablet would be the same. Thus, when using the tablets to react with HCl, the true number of tablets reacting would have not been the same as the number denoted for the trial, and with each repeated trial for the same number of tablets reacting, the reacting mass and ratio would have not been inconsistent. Consequently, the
...executed was on the AstroTurf outside the school. This could have affected the subject’s performance and how the results were measured. To improve this, the experiment should have been carried out in a science lab on a treadmill so that the environment is constant and so that the heart rates are easier to measure. Thirdly, the temperature of when the experiment took place was about 10°C which may have affected the subject’s performance. If this experiment were recurrent then 5 subjects would do it inside (room temp. 21°C) using the treadmills and wearing the right clothing, and another 5 would do it outside to see if this factor did in fact affect the results and cause them not to be as accurate as it could be. Then we would be able to compare the two temperatures. Overall this experiment ran smoothly with some problems, which can be improved as I explained above.
In a 100ml beaker 30mls of water was placed the temperature of the water was recorded. 1 teaspoon of Ammonium Nitrate was added to the water and stirred until dissolved. The temperature was then recorded again. This was to see the difference between the initial temperature and the final temperature.
I agree with the conclusions of these experiments. They show a great deal of planning and research. The methods that were used were backed by previous research. I think that the only alternative explanation there could be it that the sample size was just too small.
There is also the potential of human error within this experiment for example finding the meniscus is important to get an accurate amount using the graduated pipettes and burettes. There is a possibility that at one point in the experiment a chemical was measured inaccurately affecting the results. To resolve this, the experiment should have been repeated three times.
The strength of this experiment was that we have achieved that what we want to check we have counted the bubbles produced by pond weed in 2 minutes by the light rate effect on it. I have measured distilled water and potassium carbonate powder accurately and I did not break any glass wear and I wore lab coats, goggles so I carried out experiment safely by following the health and safety rules. I sat down on the stool to keep the measuring cylinder on the eye level so I would measure exact amount of
The last part of experiment 5, was learning about specific gravity and temperature. Specific gravity does not have any units, it is unitless. When measuring for the temperature, we used a thermometer to calculate the Celsius of the water, 10% sodium chloride, and isopropyl alcohol. The specific gravity uses a hydrometer to measure the gravity of the liquids. Using the hydrometer, to figure out the measurements we have to look at it from top to bottom. The water for specific gravity was .998 while the temperature of it was 24
Inconsistencies in this lab could have caused variations in data collecting. Collecting data from one petri dish was challenging because something could have been different on other petri dishes if this experiment was tested on several petri dishes. This could have been different because the other petri dishes could have had more micro-organisms in Section 2 instead of Section 1, or no bacteria could have grown at all in every section of the petri dish.- Second, nothing grew in section B even though there were no disinfectants in that section. The reason why the bacteria and mold might have grown in sections 1, 2, and 3 was because in the process of making the experiment, the coffee filter papers were touched with glove free hands and were not clean. If this lab was run again, some changes would be to wear rubber gloves, do not pour the hand sanitizers on the coffee filter paper but just pour one pump straight into the petri dish, have more than one petri dish to collect data off of, and check when the last time someone cleaned the door knob
viii. The experiment could have been performed over one a longer period of time day (rather than 14 days), which would have greatly reduced any loss of water from the sodium hydroxide solution, which may have improved results slightly.
Distillation is a process that separates two substances based on their boiling points. When the substances are heated in a flask, the substance with the lower boiling point will vaporize first, and therefore condense and turn into liquid first when cooled. The vapors of the substance travel through the 3 way adaptor and condense when they come into contact with the glass of the cool jack condenser, turning into a liquid and sliding down into the collection flask. The condenser is filled continuously with running water. This is used to cool down the vapors so the vapors will turn into liquid.