Olive Oil Chromatography Lab Report

Experiment 2 “Density” was about how to measure the mass and volume and determine the density of water, alcohol, and a solid. For this lab, we begin by calculating the mass of empty graduated cylinder and the mass of 25 mL of tap water. After taking the mass of water and cylinder, we record it on “Density of Water: Data Table”. Since we did not have enough time of complete the whole lab, so we skipped the procedure to measure the density of alcohol. We jumped to the next procedure, which was density of a solid. For that we used a copper and it density 8.95. For this lab, my partner and I did not make any mistakes or errors. But, for better improvement I think we should have more time to complete the whole lab. I felt like we was rushing through

There are several sources of error to this experiment due to random and systematic errors. The only source of random error was the measurement that we took through the graduated cylinder which was only accurate to the nearest 1%. We took the largest error from this one percent, which was +/- 3. The largest relative error this yielded was only 3%, so this did not affect how precise this experiment was too much. We can still make this more precise by making the masses of the water larger. For example if we started the masses at 300mL and went up by 50mL, the largest error this would yield would be 2% due to the largest error being +/- 5. This would cause smaller errors in the amount of water.

The purpose of this experiment was to test multiple brands of popcorn under the same setting in order to conclude which one statistically popped the most kernels. I tested the butter flavor of Orville Redenbacher, Wal-mart’s Great Value brand, and Pop Weavers. The different bags of popcorn were popped in the same microwave for the same amount of time, 3 minutes and 15 seconds. Then, the popped corn was counted, as well as the un-popped kernels, in order to determine a ratio, and then I recorded the results in the data table. I repeated these steps two more times for a total of 3 trails for each brand. Then I compared the ratios of all the bags to determine which brand yielded the most popped corn. The statistical technique used to evaluate the data was to find a ratio between the number of kernels in the bottom of the bowl and the number of popped kernels. To find this, I divided the number of the actual popped corns by the total number of kernels left in the bottom of the bowl. The ratios and percent were then compared. Once all my results were in the data table, I averaged the 3 trials for each brand of popcorn.

I will be doing this experiment to understand density of water compared to the volume of an object. D=m/v=mass/volume

9. The accepted value for the density of water is 1 g/mL and the accepted density for isopropyl alcohol is 0.786 g/mL. Determine the percent error between your calculated densities and the accepted values for both water and isopropyl alcohol. Record the percent error in Data Table 4.

This experiment was performed to observe differences in density based on the chemical makeup of an object. Pennies minted before 1982, pennies minted after 1982, and an unknown metal sample was tested to see if there were any differences in their densities. Ten pennies from each category and the metal sample were weighed using a scale to find mass and the displacement method was used to find their volumes. The masses and volumes were then used to calculate the densities of the pennies (D=m/v). The density of the pre-1982 pennies were 8.6 g/mL while the post-1982 pennies were 6.9 g/mL. The metal sample’s density was 1.7 g/mL. Following the experiment we were given the real densities of each item to calculate the percent error with the formula

Weight 10 dry post-82 pennies which get 77.12g, using 30ml initial volume measuring the volume of 10 pennies, record the data 9.1ml. Using equation Density= Mass/Volume, get the density of the pre-82 pennies is 8.47g/ml. Then calculate the error%=0.04%, and the deviation%=7.13%.

There were three different runs in order to have comparable data and to increase the validity of the experiment. The first run gave 39% of Sodium Bicarbonate. The second run gave 34% of Sodium Bicarbonate while the third one gave 39%, which is the same as the first run. The average percentage was 37% which is much lower than the manufacturer's percentage of 59%. The percent error came out to be -37%.

The volume and the boiling point of each collected sample was recorded in a table (for Fractions A, B, and C). The data in the table was converted into a graph (both of which are attached to the back of the report). There is, like in all experiments, an ideal set of data. In this experiment, if the distillation for the unknown mixture (which has two compounds) was done properly, the temperature vs. volume graph should show two plateaus for temperature. (See hand drawn graph attached on back). We look at the plateau temperatures because they are essential to find out what the unknown compounds are. This is because the plateau temperatures show us the boiling point ranges for the unknown compounds. In addition, as shown in the table and calculations attached to back, the volume of the collected sample can be utilized to figure out a ratio of the compounds. But, of course, since ideal and pure samples were not collected, the ratios that are calculated are just estimates. There is one plateau for the boiling point of both lower and higher boiling point compounds. The lower boiling point plateau comes first. The transition phase that occurs between the first and second plateaus was collected. This transition phase represented the mixture of the two compounds in the experiment. If the experiment yielded ideal results, sample A would show to be consisted of primarily the lower boiling point compound. This would be the case up to the point when the temperature is raised to match the boiling point of the higher boiling point compound. The compound is sample C. During the experiment this sample was gathered in a falcon tube. But there is some error in my results. Some of the reasons why there was error in the experiment are stated. I boiled Fraction A for too long, the boiling rate was too high, or a combination of these errors occurred. If the boiling rate is too fast, the side arm will heat up as the

In the third stage of this experiment, the density of a liquid was determined and compared to known standards. A 100ml beaker was filled to about half-full with room-temperature distilled water. The temperature of the water in ◦C was recorded in order to compare to known standards later. A 50ml beaker was then weighed on a scale in order to determine mass and recorded. A sample of the distilled water with an exact volume of 10ml was then placed in the 50ml beaker using a volumetric pipette. The 50ml beaker with the 10ml of water was then weighed again and the initial mass of the beaker was subtracted from this mass to obtain the mass of the 10ml of water. With the volume and the mass of the water now known, density was calculated using d = m/V and recorded in g/ml. This process was then repeated to check for precision and compared to standard values to check for accuracy. Standard values were obtained from CRC Handbook, 88th Ed.

The uncertainty for a 250 mL volumetric flask is ± 0.15 mL. The volume is 250 mL when the flask is full. To calculate percent uncertainty: (0.15 mL)/(250 mL)*100=0.06%

The purpose of this lab was to identify unknown substances using density. We had three unknown substances; a yellow liquid and two metal rods. For each substance we measured volume using the water displacement method in a graduated cylinder and mass using a triple beam balance. Then we calculated density using the formula density (g/cm3)= mass (g)/volume (cm3). The data we collected in the lab is in the table below. After comparing our data with the density chart we were able to determine the identities of the substances. The liquid was cooking oil and the rods 1 and 2 were copper and aluminium, respectively. In conclusion, density - a characteristic property- is important because even though many substances may look the same but have different

All of the tests were fair enough. Our first experiment was ⅓ (667 milliliters) and that test went very well. Our second experiment was ½ (1000 milliliters),⅓ (667 milliliters), and ¼ (500 milliliters). We tested all three bottle and it came down to two water amounts which were ½ (1000 milliliters) and ⅓ (667 milliliters). We used a mountain dew round cylinder bottle in all of our tests because it was the best type of bottle more than the rest of the bottle and we did a lot of research and that bottle was the most common bottle to build a bottle rocket . We filmed videos on both water amount and they both went really high except there was a .2 second difference between the two amounts. Overall the group decided that ⅓ was the highest since it beat ½ by .2 seconds. Some Manipulated variables are The water

Our experimental value was compared with randomly generated data, because the experimental value means very little

When conducting the experiment the results for each alcohol were where they were anticipated to be supporting the