Kim​ ​1

Riah​ ​Kim
Amy​ ​Rebancos
IB​ ​DP​ ​Chemistry​ ​11
27​ ​September​ ​2017

Calculating​ ​the​ ​Density​ ​of​ ​Coca​ ​Cola​ ​and​ ​Coke​ ​Zero​ ​Using​ ​the​ ​Mass
and​ ​the​ ​Volume

Aim:
The​ ​aim​ ​of​ ​this​ ​lab​ ​is​ ​to​ ​practice​ ​the​ ​measuring​ ​and​ ​the​ ​graphical​ ​analyzing​ ​of​ ​the​ ​data
and​ ​to​ ​know​ ​how​ ​to​ ​calculate​ ​the​ ​percentage​ ​uncertainty​ ​and​ ​error.
In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​do​ ​so,​ ​I​ ​will​ ​measure​ ​the​ ​volume​ ​and​ ​mass​ ​of​ ​Coca​ ​Cola​ ​and​ ​Coca​ ​Cola
Zero.​ ​Using​ ​this​ ​data​ ​and​ ​a​ ​graphical​ ​method,​ ​I​ ​will​ ​calculate​ ​the​ ​density​ ​of​ ​the​ ​two​ ​liquids.​ ​I
will​ ​also​ ​calculate​ ​the​ ​percentage​ ​uncertainty​ ​and​ ​percentage​ ​error​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​comment​ ​on
systematic​ ​and​ ​random​ ​errors.

Hypothesis:
If​ ​you​ ​know​ ​the​ ​mass​ ​and​ ​the​ ​volume​ ​of​ ​a​ ​substance,​ ​you​ ​can​ ​calculate​ ​the​ ​density​ ​of​ ​the
substance​ ​as​ ​well.

Variables:
Variable​ ​Type Variable Units How?

Independent Volume​ ​of​ ​the​ ​liquid mililiters 15,​ ​30,​ ​45,​ ​60,​ ​75,
( ± 0.5 mL) 90​ ​mL

Dependent Mass​ ​of​ ​the​ ​liquid grams​ ​( ± 0.01 g) Will​ ​change

depending​ ​on​ ​the
volume

Controlled Type​ ​of​ ​the​ ​liquid No​ ​unit Coca​ ​Cola​ ​and​ ​Coca
Cola​ ​Zero

Beaker No​ ​unit Will​ ​use​ ​the​ ​same

beaker​ ​for​ ​all​ ​the
trials

Materials:
Item Quantity​ ​Used Size Unit​ ​of
measurement​ ​&
Uncertainty

Graduated​ ​Cylinder 1 100.0​ ​mL mL​ ​ ± 0.5​ ​mL

Beaker 1 250​ ​mL mL​ ​ ± 0.5​ ​mL

Actual​ ​Density​ ​of​ ​Coca-cola​ ​1.042g/mL​ ​ ​;​ ​Coca-cola​ ​zero​ ​0.997g/mL

 Kim​ ​2

Coca​ ​Cola 1​ ​Bottle 100​ ​mL mL​ ​ ± 0.5​ ​mL

Coca​ ​Cola​ ​Zero 1​ ​Bottle 100​ ​mL mL​ ​ ± 0.5​ ​mL

Electrical​ ​Scale 1 No​ ​size g​ ​ ± 0.01 g

Procedure:
1. Using​ ​a​ ​100​ ​mL​ ​measuring​ ​cylinder,​ ​carefully​ ​measure​ ​15​ ​mL​ ​of​ ​Coca​ ​Cola.​ ​Record
the​ ​volume​ ​and​ ​correct​ ​uncertainty​ ​from​ ​the​ ​measuring​ ​cylinder.
2. Add​ ​this​ ​volume​ ​to​ ​a​ ​clean​ ​dry​ ​250​ ​mL​ ​beaker.​ ​Measure​ ​the​ ​mass​ ​of​ ​the​ ​beaker​ ​and
its​ ​contents​ ​altogether​ ​and​ ​record​ ​the​ ​result.
3. Repeat​ ​steps​ ​1​ ​and​ ​2​ ​5​ ​more​ ​times,​ ​using​ ​a​ ​different​ ​volume​ ​each​ ​time.​ ​In​ ​this​ ​case,
30mL,​ ​45mL,​ ​60mL,​ ​75mL,​ ​and​ ​90mL.
4. Repeat​ ​steps​ ​1​ ​through​ ​3​ ​using​ ​Coca​ ​Cola​ ​Zero.
5. Using​ ​Google​ ​Sheets,​ ​make​ ​two​ ​graphs,​ ​one​ ​for​ ​each​ ​type​ ​liquid,​ ​with​ ​volume​ ​as​ ​the
x-axis​ ​and​ ​mass​ ​as​ ​the​ ​y-axis.
6. Use​ ​the​ ​graphs​ ​the​ ​find​ ​the​ ​density​ ​of​ ​Coca​ ​Cola​ ​and​ ​Coca​ ​Cola​ ​Zero.

Raw​ ​Data​ ​Table:

Mass​ ​of​ ​Coca​ ​Cola​ ​and​ ​Coca​ ​Cola​ ​Zero​ ​depending​ ​on​ ​their​ ​volumes
Coca​ ​Cola Coca​ ​Cola​ ​Zero
Trial Volume​ ​/​ ​mL
( ± 0.5 mL) Mass​ ​/​ ​g Mass​ ​/​ ​g
( ± 0.01 g) ( ± 0.01 g)

1 15 14.06 13.78

2 30 30.28 29.53

3 45 45.68 43.81

4 60 61.93 58.54

5 75 77.84 73.98

6 90 92.56 88.94
Beaker​ ​on​ ​its​ ​own:​​ ​103.88​ ​grams

Actual​ ​Density​ ​of​ ​Coca-cola​ ​1.042g/mL​ ​ ​;​ ​Coca-cola​ ​zero​ ​0.997g/mL

 Kim​ ​3

Sample​ ​Calculation:
- Density​ ​for​ ​Coca​ ​Cola​ ​Trial​ ​1
- 14.06 ÷ 15 = 0.9373
- Density​ ​for​ ​Coca​ ​Cola​ ​Zero​ ​Trial​ ​1
- 13.78 ÷ 15 = 0.9186
- Average​ ​Density​ ​for​ ​Coca​ ​Cola
- (0.937 + 1.009 + 1.015 + 1.032 + 1.038 + 1.028)/6 = 1.00983
- Average​ ​Density​ ​for​ ​Coca​ ​Cola​ ​Zero
- (0.919 + 0.984 + 0.974 + 0.976 + 0.986 + 0.988)/6 = 0.97116

Processed​ ​Data​ ​Table

Density​ ​of​ ​Coca​ ​Cola​ ​and​ ​Coca​ ​Cola​ ​Zero​ ​calculated​ ​using​ ​mass​ ​and​ ​volume
Trial Coca​ ​Cola Coca​ ​Cola​ ​Zero

Density​ ​/​ ​g/mL

1 0.937 0.919

2 1.009 0.984

3 1.015 0.974

4 1.032 0.976

5 1.038 0.986

6 1.028 0.988

Average 1.010 0.971

Relative​ ​Uncertainty​ ​Value:​ ​(of​ ​the​ ​calculated​ ​density)

Actual​ ​Density​ ​of​ ​Coca-cola​ ​1.042g/mL​ ​ ​;​ ​Coca-cola​ ​zero​ ​0.997g/mL

 Kim​ ​4

Absolute uncertainty
=​ ​ M easured experimental result
U ncertainty of mass
The​ ​uncertainty​ ​of​ ​the​ ​density​ ​ = U ncertainty of volume
=​ ​ 0.01 ÷ 0.5 = 0.02

- Coca​ ​Cola
0.02
- 1.010 = 0.0198
- Coca​ ​Cola​ ​Zero
0.02
- 0.971 = 0.0206

Percentage​ ​Error:
= ||
Literature value − experimental value |
Literature value | × 100%

- Calculated​ ​density​ ​vs.​ ​Density​ ​from​ ​the​ ​graph(slope)

- Coca​ ​Cola
- || 1.050−1.010
1.050
| × 100%
|
= || 1.050
0.04 |
| 100%
×
= 3.81%
- Coca​ ​Cola​ ​Zero
- || 0.998−0.971
0.998
| × 100%
|
= || 0.998
0.027 |
| 100%
×
= 2.71%

- Calculated​ ​density​ ​vs.​ ​Actual​ ​density

- Coca​ ​Cola
- || 1.042−1.010
1.042
| × 100%
|
= || 1.042
0.032 |
| 100%
×
= 3.07%
- Coca​ ​Cola​ ​Zero
- || 0.997−0.971
0.997
| × 100%
|
= || 0.997
0.026 |
| 100%
×
= 2.61%

- Density​ ​from​ ​the​ ​graph​ ​vs.​ ​Actual​ ​density

- Coca​ ​Cola
- || 1.042−1.050
1.042
| × 100%
|
= || −0.008
1.042 |
| × 100%
= 0.77%
- Coca​ ​Cola​ ​Zero
- || 0.997−0.998
0.997
| × 100%
|
= || −0.001
0.997 |
| × 100%
= |− 0.10%| = 0.10%
Conclusion:
As​ ​I​ ​mentioned​ ​at​ ​the​ ​beginning​ ​of​ ​the​ ​lab,​ ​the​ ​purpose​ ​of​ ​this​ ​lab​ ​was​ ​to​ ​practice​ ​the
measuring​ ​and​ ​the​ ​graphical​ ​analyzing​ ​of​ ​data​ ​and​ ​to​ ​know​ ​how​ ​to​ ​calculate​ ​the​ ​percentage
uncertainty​ ​and​ ​error.​ ​In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​do​ ​this,​ ​I​ ​calculated​ ​the​ ​density​ ​of​ ​Coca​ ​Cola​ ​and​ ​Coca​ ​Cola

Actual​ ​Density​ ​of​ ​Coca-cola​ ​1.042g/mL​ ​ ​;​ ​Coca-cola​ ​zero​ ​0.997g/mL

 Kim​ ​5

Zero​ ​by​ ​measuring​ ​its​ ​mass​ ​and​ ​the​ ​volume,​ ​saw​ ​how​ ​the​ ​results​ ​differ​ ​from​ ​the
theoretical(actual)​ ​values,​ ​and​ ​found​ ​the​ ​percentage​ ​error.

We​ ​had​ ​two​ ​types​ ​of​ ​experimental​ ​density​ ​values:​ ​one​ ​from​ ​the​ ​calculation​ ​by​ ​using
the​ ​mass​ ​and​ ​the​ ​volume,​ ​and​ ​another​ ​one​ ​that​ ​was​ ​the​ ​slope​ ​of​ ​the​ ​mass​ ​vs.​ ​the​ ​volume
graph.​ ​The​ ​percentage​ ​errors​ ​between​ ​the​ ​two​ ​experimental​ ​data​ ​were​ ​3.81%(Coca​ ​Cola)​ ​and
2.71%(Coca​ ​Cola​ ​Zero)​ ​each,​ ​meaning​ ​the​ ​two​ ​data​ ​were​ ​pretty​ ​close;​ ​they​ ​weren’t​ ​so
different​ ​from​ ​each​ ​other.​ ​The​ ​percentage​ ​errors​ ​between​ ​the​ ​calculated​ ​experimental​ ​data
and​ ​the​ ​actual​ ​data​ ​were​ ​3.07%​ ​and​ ​2.61%​ ​each,​ ​and​ ​those​ ​between​ ​the​ ​experimental​ ​data
from​ ​the​ ​graph​ ​and​ ​the​ ​actual​ ​data​ ​were​ ​0.77%​ ​and​ ​0.10%​ ​each.​ ​We​ ​can​ ​see​ ​that​ ​the​ ​graphical
data,​ ​the​ ​slopes,​ ​were​ ​closer​ ​to​ ​the​ ​actual​ ​value​ ​than​ ​the​ ​calculated​ ​data​ ​were,​ ​meaning​ ​that
the​ ​graphical​ ​data​ ​were​ ​more​ ​accurate​ ​that​ ​the​ ​calculated​ ​ones.

I​ ​believe​ ​that​ ​our​ ​data​ ​had​ ​high​ ​precision,​ ​since​ ​the​ ​data​ ​from​ ​the​ ​trials​ ​in​ ​general
were​ ​close​ ​to​ ​each​ ​other,​ ​and​ ​if​ ​we​ ​look​ ​at​ ​the​ ​graph,​ ​we​ ​can​ ​see​ ​that​ ​the​ ​r2​​ ​ ​value​ ​is​ ​1​ ​for​ ​both
graphs.​ ​The​ ​r2​​ ​ ​value​ ​represents​ ​how​ ​close​ ​the​ ​data​ ​are​ ​to​ ​the​ ​fitted​ ​regression​ ​line,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​fact
that​ ​r2​​ =1​ ​means​ ​all​ ​the​ ​data​ ​match​ ​with​ ​the​ ​regression​ ​line;​ ​they​ ​have​ ​similar,​ ​or​ ​possible​ ​the
same,​ ​slope.​ ​I​ ​believe​ ​that​ ​the​ ​data​ ​had​ ​high​ ​accuracy​ ​as​ ​well,​ ​since​ ​the​ ​percentage​ ​errors
compared​ ​with​ ​the​ ​actual​ ​data​ ​were​ ​around​ ​2​ ​or​ ​3%;​ ​none​ ​of​ ​them​ ​exceeded​ ​5%.​ ​There​ ​were
uncertainties​ ​for​ ​the​ ​result​ ​that​ ​were​ ​caused​ ​by​ ​the​ ​uncertainty​ ​of​ ​the​ ​measuring​ ​equipments,
which​ ​are​ ​the​ ​cylinder​ ​and​ ​the​ ​mass​ ​in​ ​this​ ​case.​ ​So​ ​basically​ ​the​ ​uncertainty​ ​has​ ​to​ ​do​ ​with
systematic​ ​uncertainty,​ ​problems​ ​caused​ ​by​ ​the​ ​equipments,​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​human​ ​errors​ ​or
uncertainty​ ​of​ ​my​ ​own.​ ​The​ ​levels​ ​of​ ​uncertainty​ ​for​ ​our​ ​experiment​ ​were​ ​0.0198(Coca​ ​Cola),
and​ ​0.0206​ ​(Coca​ ​Cola​ ​Zero).

When​ ​we​ ​were​ ​measuring​ ​the​ ​mass​ ​of​ ​the​ ​liquid,​ ​we​ ​weighed​ ​the​ ​mass​ ​of​ ​the​ ​liquid
and​ ​the​ ​250​ ​mL​ ​beaker​ ​altogether.​ ​The​ ​reason​ ​why​ ​there​ ​was​ ​no​ ​need​ ​to​ ​mass​ ​it​ ​separately
was​ ​because​ ​since​ ​we​ ​were​ ​using​ ​the​ ​same​ ​beaker​ ​for​ ​all​ ​the​ ​trials,​ ​we​ ​could​ ​just​ ​measure​ ​the
mass​ ​of​ ​the​ ​beaker​ ​at​ ​the​ ​end​ ​and​ ​subtract​ ​the​ ​value​ ​from​ ​all​ ​the​ ​masses.​ ​I​ ​believe​ ​that​ ​among
the​ ​random​ ​errors​ ​and​ ​the​ ​systematic​ ​errors,​ ​random​ ​errors​ ​were​ ​more​ ​significant​ ​in​ ​this​ ​case,
since​ ​there​ ​was​ ​barely​ ​any​ ​systematic​ ​error.​ ​The​ ​electronic​ ​scale​ ​seemed​ ​to​ ​work​ ​normally,
and​ ​the​ ​beaker​ ​and​ ​the​ ​cylinder​ ​had​ ​the​ ​labels​ ​and​ ​scales​ ​marked​ ​clearly.​ ​I​ ​believe​ ​that​ ​the
fact​ ​that​ ​some​ ​coke​ ​were​ ​stuck​ ​on​ ​the​ ​side​ ​or​ ​on​ ​the​ ​“ceiling”​ ​of​ ​the​ ​cylinder​ ​and​ ​that​ ​they
weren’t​ ​poured​ ​to​ ​the​ ​beaker​ ​might​ ​have​ ​been​ ​a​ ​systematic​ ​source​ ​of​ ​error.​ ​Those​ ​1​ ​or​ ​2
grams​ ​of​ ​coke​ ​that​ ​were​ ​not​ ​measured​ ​might​ ​have​ ​affected​ ​the​ ​data​ ​significantly.​ ​Maybe​ ​the
reason​ ​because​ ​why​ ​I​ ​got​ ​a​ ​density​ ​that​ ​was​ ​a​ ​bit​ ​lower​ ​than​ ​the​ ​actual​ ​density​ ​was​ ​because​ ​of
these​ ​missing​ ​1​ ​or​ ​2​ ​grams.​ ​To​ ​improve,​ ​I​ ​will​ ​pour​ ​a​ ​bit​ ​more​ ​coke​ ​to​ ​the​ ​cylinder​ ​in​ ​the
experiment​ ​so​ ​that​ ​the​ ​additional​ ​amount​ ​can​ ​cover​ ​the​ ​leftover​ ​drops​ ​in​ ​the​ ​cylinder,​ ​which
will​ ​cancel​ ​out​ ​the​ ​systematic​ ​error.​ ​One​ ​of​ ​the​ ​random​ ​errors​ ​that​ ​might​ ​have​ ​occurred​ ​could
be​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​precision​ ​in​ ​eyesight,​ ​for​ ​example,​ ​I​ ​might​ ​not​ ​have​ ​been​ ​able​ ​to​ ​measure​ ​15​ ​mL
exactly​ ​because​ ​I​ ​couldn’t​ ​really​ ​see​ ​the​ ​graduations​ ​clearly.

Actual​ ​Density​ ​of​ ​Coca-cola​ ​1.042g/mL​ ​ ​;​ ​Coca-cola​ ​zero​ ​0.997g/mL

 Kim​ ​6

Works​ ​Cited

“BASIC​ ​RULES​ ​FOR​ ​UNCERTAINTY​ ​CALCULATIONS.”​ ​BASIC​ ​RULES​ ​FOR

UNCERTAINTY​ ​CALCULATIONS,

http://web.uvic.ca/~jalexndr/192UncertRules.pdf​.

Actual​ ​Density​ ​of​ ​Coca-cola​ ​1.042g/mL​ ​ ​;​ ​Coca-cola​ ​zero​ ​0.997g/mL