1 / 9

Experimental Errors Just because a series of replicate analyses are precise does not mean the results are accurate

Experimental Errors Just because a series of replicate analyses are precise does not mean the results are accurate Sometimes less precise results for a series of analyses are more accurate than a more precise series of replicates See Figure 2-3 in FAC7, p. 15

johana
Télécharger la présentation

Experimental Errors Just because a series of replicate analyses are precise does not mean the results are accurate

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Experimental Errors • Just because a series of replicate analyses are precise does not mean the results are accurate • Sometimes less precise results for a series of analyses are more accurate than a more precise series of replicates • See Figure 2-3 in FAC7, p. 15 • Consider three situations that give results producing scatter in data or deviations from the true value • Determinate error sometimes called systematic error that produces a deviation in the results of an analysis from the true value • Indeterminate error sometimes called random error that produces uncertainty in the results of replicate analyses • Results in scattering in the observed measurements or results • The uncertainty is reflected in the quantitative measures of precision • Gross errors which occur occasionally and often are large in magnitude

  2. Experimental Errors • Determinate Errors are inherently determinable or knowable • Instrumental errors are produced because apparatus is not properly calibrated, not clean or damaged • Electronic equipment can often give rise to such errors because contacts are dirty, power supplies degrade, reference voltages are inaccurate, etc. • Method errors result from non-ideal behavior of reagents and reactions used for analysis • Interferences • Slowness of reactions • Incompleteness of reactions • Species instability • Nonspecificity of reagents • Side reaction • Personal errors involve the judgement of the analyst • Bias in reading an instrument • Number bias - preference for certain digits

  3. Experimental Errors • Effect of determinate errors on the results of an analysis • Constant error example: Suppose there is a -2.0 mg error in the mass of A containing 20.00% A • Examine the effect of sample size on %A calculated • The result is that for a constant error, the relative quantity of A approaches the true value at high sample masses.

  4. Experimental Errors • Effect of determinate errors on the results of an analysis • Proportional error example: Suppose there is a + 5 ppt relative error in the mass of A for a sample that’s 20.00 % in A • Effect of sample size on %A • The %A is independent of sample size if a proportional error of constant size exists in the mass of A

  5. Experimental Errors • Mitigating determinate errors • Instrument errors can be reduced by calibrating one’s apparatus • Personal errors can be reduced by being careful! • Method errors can be reduced by • Analyzing standard samples • The NIST has a wide variety of standard samples whose analyte concentrations are well established • The effect of interferences can often be accounted for by spiking the analytical sample with a known quantity of analyte or performing a standard additions analysis • The effect of the interferences on the added analyte should be the same as that on the original analyte • Independent analysis of replicates of the same bulk sample by a well proven method of significantly different design can check for determinate errors • Blank determinations may indicate the presence of a constant error • Carry out the analysis on samples that contain everything but the analyte • Vary the sample size in order to detect a constant error

  6. Experimental Errors • Gross errors - such as arithmetic mistakes, using the wrong scale on an instrument can be cured by being careful! • Indeterminate or random errors producing uncertainty in results • Arise when a system is extended to its limit of precision • There are many, often unknown, uncontrolled, opportunities to introduce small variations in each measurement leading to an experimental result • One way to examine uncertainty is to produce a frequency distribution • Example: examine the frequency distribution for a measurement that contains four equal sized uncertainties, u1, u2, u3, u4 • The combinations of the u’s give certain numbers of possibilities:

  7. This data is plotted in Figure FAC7 3-1, p 22.

  8. Experimental Errors • One way to examine uncertainty is to produce a frequency distribution • If the number of equal sized uncertainties is increased to 10 • only 1/500 chance of observing + 10u or -10u • If the number of indeterminate uncertainties is infinite one expects a smooth curve • The smooth curve is called the Gausian error curve and gives a normal distribution • Conclusions about the normal distribution • The mean is the most probable value for normally distributed data • This is because the most probable deviation from the mean is 0 (zero) • Large deviations from the mean are not very probable • The normal distribution curve is symmetric about the mean • The frequency of a particular positive deviation from the mean is the same and the same sized but negative deviation from the mean • Most experimental results from replicate analyses done in the same way form a normal distribution

  9. Experimental Errors • Examine the data for the determination of the volume of water delivered by a 10.00 mL transfer pipet - FAC7, Table 3-2, p. 23 and Table 3-3, p. 24 and Figure 3-2, p. 24 • 26% of the 50 results are in the 0.003 mL range containing the mean • 72% of the 50 measurements are within the range ±1s of the mean • The Gaussian curve is shown for the smooth distribution having the same s=s and the same mean as this 50 sample set of data

More Related