2800Excel_Word

2800Excel_Word - .009 Percent Error 1.35% 1.35% 0.29%...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Brittney Brown September 1, 2010 Chem2800/L Formula A Formula B Formula C Formula D Equation E: 2NaHCO 3 (s) → Na 2 CO 3 (s) + CO 2 (g) + H 2 O(g) Equation F: 6NO 3 - + 6H + + 5(NH 2 ) 2 CO → 8N 2 (g) + 5CO 2 (g) + 13H 2 O Table G x i y i mg SO 4 2- /L, c x Turbidimeter Reading, R 0.00 0.06 5.00 1.48 10.00 2.28 15.0 3.98 20.0 4.61
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Table H SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics R Square 0.983389947 Observations 5 Coefficients Standard Error Intercept 0.162 0.213204128 X Variable 1 0.232 0.017408044 Equation 1 Table 1. Results of Iron analysis (mg/tab) of a Food Supplement by a Gravimetric Method A B C 16.2 16.9 16.8 17.8 17.2 16.9 17.1 17.2 16.9 16.3 18.0 16.8 17.7 17.5 17.2 18.2 16.6 17.1
Background image of page 2
M(true value)= 17.0 mg/tab A B C Average (mg/tab) 17.23 17.23 16.95 Standard Deviation 0.83 0.48 0.16 Percent Relative Standard Deviation 4.82% 2.79% 0.94% 95% Confidence level 0.87 0.51 0.17 % RSD 0.048 0.027
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: .009 Percent Error 1.35% 1.35% 0.29% Precision/ Accuracy Not Precise & Not Accurate Precise but Not Accurate Precise & Accurate Grubbs Test No outliers No outliers No outliers The design sample A is the most suitable for analyzing the solution of unknown concentration, because it had the highest R 2 value (0.9964). As R 2 approaches unity, the model fits the data points well. The worse calibration curve was sample B, which had a R 2 value of 0.9278. R 2 values less than 0.9600 have errors associated with the calibration. Table 3. Predicted concentrations of Ca 2+ in Milk Sample A A Predicted [Ca 2+ ] mM Absorbance 0.178 0.0353 0.175 0.0347 0.182 0.0360 0.178 0.0352...
View Full Document

Page1 / 4

2800Excel_Word - .009 Percent Error 1.35% 1.35% 0.29%...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online