The Density of Solids and Liquids

Experiment No. 1

Donovan Dicks

Chemistry AP
Mount Hebron High School
September 8th 2014
Abstract:
This experiment contained four different tests on the density of both solids (copper and
aluminum) and liquids (Sunny D). The densities of each substance were calculated using a
variety of methods and data collected using different tools. It was found that using a pycnometer
and a hydrometer was very precise, and produced a percent difference of only .205, making both
methods viable for the experiment. When calculating the density of solids, however, the data
shows that dimensional analysis is more accurate than the water displacement method using the
pycnometer.

Apparatus:

Theory:
There are a few underlying principles exemplified in this lab. The two major theories are
density and specific gravity. Density is the ratio of mass to volume, or mass per unit volume.
This fundamental property relates to pressure and temperature, and as such is necessary to
consider when those conditions are not kept constant. Density is especially relevant when
working with gaseous substances, as temperature and pressure has a far more noticeable impact
on gases. Specific gravity of a liquid is defined as the ratio of the mass of a liquid relative to the
mass of an equivalent volume of water. Temperature is crucial to this principle as the density of
liquids change depending on the temperature. When volume is added to the equation, dividing
both the numerator and the denominator by the volume, the value of the fraction does not change
as the volumes are equal values. However, this refines the equation to compare the density of a
liquid to the density of an equal volume of water.
Other basic theories include experimental errors and accuracy and precision. There are
two types of experimental error: systematic errors and random errors. Systematic errors are
commonly caused by improper or malfunctioning equipment, such as a poorly calibrated balance
or corroded weights on a scale. These errors usually repeat the same way every time the
experiment is done (if not corrected), producing the same error. Random errors are caused by
uncontrolled variations in the experiment, and are often dubbed outliers in a set of multiple trials.
These errors are uncontrollable, but can be easily spotted when as many things are kept constant
as possible and multiple trials are conducted. Accuracy is the measure of how close and
experimental value is to an accepted value, and is represented by the percent calculations. This
shows how correct the experimental value is. Precision is a measure of how closely
experimental values lie together. This is shown by the percent deviation or difference
calculations.

Procedure:
Part I
Measure the mass of a DRY pycnometer. You will need to obtain distilled water and use a
thermometer to measure the temperature of the water. After this, take the same pycnometer and
fill it with the distilled water, and then insert the stem making sure that water comes out the top.
Be sure to remove any air bubbles and dry the pycnometer completely before measuring the
mass with water in it. Repeat this process for two more trials, making sure to read the
thermometer and record the temperature each time the pycnometer is weighed.

Part II
Place a hydrometer in a large bottle of water and a large bottle of another beverage (in this case,
Sunny D). The hydrometer should not be touching the bottle. Measure the reading at the lowest
point of the meniscus. Make sure to measure the temperature of the liquid in order to adjust your
measuremetns: .001 for every 3 C.

Part III
Cut two pieces of aluminum and copper wire. Flatten the wires as best as possible, and, using a
ruler, measure the length of each segment of wire. Be sure to read the package for the correct
diameter of the wires. Then, measure the mass of each segment. With these measurements,
calculate the volume of each segment and then the density.

Part IV
Measure the mass of a segment of copper and aluminum wire. Then, weigh a totally dry
pycnometer. Fill the pycnometer with water making sure that the water comes out of the tip of
the stem, dry it off, and find its mass. Then, remove the stem and place a wire segment in the
pycnometer. Replace the stem and dry the pycnometer. Now, find the mass of the pycnometer
with the metal segment inside it. Repeat this process for the other segment of wire.
Data:

Part I
Water Pycnometer Dry Pycnometer Water Temp Water Mass Water Density
Mass (g) Wet Mass (g) (C) (g) (g/mL)
Trial #1 16.341 .001 42.560 .001 25.0 .1 26.219 .001 .997075
Trial #2 16.341 .001 42.577 .001 25.5 .1 26.236 .001 .996946
Trial #3 16.341 .001 42.588 .001 25.5 .1 26.247 .001 .996946

Sunny D Pycnometer Dry Pycnometer Wet Sunny D Temp Sunny D Mass (g)
Mass (g) Mass (g) (C)
Trial #1 16.341 .001 43.271 .001 24.1 .1 26.930 .001
Trial #2 16.341 .001 43.288 .001 24.0 .1 26.947 .001
Trial #3 16.341 .001 43.288 .001 24.0 .1 26.947 .001

Average Volume of Pycnometer: 26.313

Average Density of Sunny D: 1.0239 g/mL

Part II
Substance Specific Gravity Temperature (C) Corrected Specific Gravity
Water .988 24.0 .1 .9908
Sunny D 1.019 24.0 .1 1.0218

Part III
Metal Diameter (cm) Radius (cm) Length (cm) Mass (g) Calculated
Density (g/mL)
Copper .13 .065 3.06 .344 8.47
Aluminum .12 .06 3.14 .072 2.03

Part IV
Metal Pycnometer Water Mass with Water Water Calculated
Wet Mass (g) Temp Metal (g) Displaced Density Density
(C) (g) (g/mL) (g/mL)
Copper 42.564 .001 25.4 .1 42.871 .307 .996972 7.56
.001
Aluminum 42.564 .001 25.4 .1 42.624 .06 .996972 1.69
.001
Calculations:
Part I

Pycnometer Volume:

Sunny D Density:

% Difference between Class Average and Part I

Part II

% Difference between Part I and II

% Difference between Part II and Class Average

Part III

Copper Wire

% Error
% Difference between Part III and Class Average

Part IV

Copper Density

% Error

% Difference between Part III and IV

% Difference between Part IV and Class Average

Conclusion:
Both the accuracy and precision of the results obtained from parts I and II were very high. The
percent errors and percent differences were very low when compared between the collected data
as well as the class average. This signifies proper experimental technique with little experimental
and random errors. However, parts III and IV produced significantly higher percent error and
difference values, both when compared to the collected data and the class average. These high
percentages show that the measurements were inaccurate and imprecise, and suggest many
sources of error. The percent error for the copper density in part III was 5.47%, and this is fairly
decent. This procedure used dimensional analysis, meaning the imprecision of the human body
must be taken into account, and thus suggests a few systematic and random errors. However, the
percent error for the aluminum density using the same procedure was 24.81%, suggesting more
systematic errors rather than random errors. Part III was overall more precise and accurate than
part IV, again suggesting systematic errors in the procedure of part IV. To improve the accuracy
and precision of the experiment, more exact equipment would be required. Also, to alleviate the
effects of human inaccuracy, many more trials should be done to collect a proper average value.
Many sources of error come mainly with the pycnometer. Part of the error was inadequately
drying the pycnometer, leaving droplets of water which increased the mass. Also, any air bubbles
in the pycnometer would have decreased the mass; however these proved very challenging to
avoid. Errors in dimensional analysis most likely occurred from the inaccuracy of the measuring
devices (a ruler) and improper estimations. All of these errors in measurement later affected the
various calculations, causing the volume and density data to be skewed and inaccurate. Overall,
the experiment provided an excellent example for multiple methods of collecting data, a chance
to calculate both percent error and deviation, and also an opportunity to analyze error.