Scribd
Upload
107 views

Errors in Chemical Analyses: Assessing The Quality of Results

Systematic errors have a definite cause and affect all measurements in the same way, leading to bias. They can be constant or proportional. Calibration helps detect instrument errors while analyzing standards, using independent methods, blanks, and varying sample sizes helps detect systematic method errors. The effects of systematic errors depend on if they are constant or proportional.

Uploaded by

Doe Black
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
107 views

Errors in Chemical Analyses: Assessing The Quality of Results

Systematic errors have a definite cause and affect all measurements in the same way, leading to bias. They can be constant or proportional. Calibration helps detect instrument errors while analyzing standards, using independent methods, blanks, and varying sample sizes helps detect systematic method errors. The effects of systematic errors depend on if they are constant or proportional.

Uploaded by

Doe Black
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 12

Chapter 5

Errors in Chemical Analyses:


Assessing the Quality of Results
Errors in Chemical Analyses: Assessing the Quality of
Results

• -It is impossible to perform a chemical analysis in such a way that the results
are totally free of errors or uncertainties. We can only hope to minimize these
errors and estimate their size with acceptable accuracy.
• -Every measurement is influenced by many uncertainties that combine to
produce a scatter of results
• -Measurement uncertainties can never be completely eliminated, so the true
value for any quantity is always unknown. However, the probable magnitude
of the error in a measurement can often be evaluated. It is then possible to
define limits within which the true value of a measured quantity lies at a given
probability.
• -It is seldom easy to estimate the reliability of experimental data.
Nevertheless, we must make such estimates whenever we collect laboratory
results because data of unknown quality are worthless!
5A—Defining Terms

• -5A-1 The Mean and the Median


• -Mean, arithmetic mean, and average are synonyms for the quantity
obtained by dividing the sum of replicate measurements by the
number of measurements in the set.
• -The median is the middle result when replicated data are arranged in
order of size

• Example: Calculate the mean and the median for this set of data
• [(19.4) , (19.6) , (19.5) , (19.8) , (20.1) , (20.3)]

• mean = (19.4+19.5+19.6+19.8+20.1+20.3) = 19.78


• 6

• median = (19.6+19.8) = 19.7


• 6
-5A-2 What is Precision?

• -Precision describes the reproducibility of measurements, or the


closeness of the results that have been obtained in exactly the same
way.
• -Three terms are widely used to describe the precision of a set of
replicate data
• -Standard Deviation, Variance, and Coefficient of Variation
• -All above terms are a function of the deviation from the mean

• dI = | xi – x |
-5A-3 What About Accuracy?

• -Accuracy indicates the closeness of the measurement to its true or


accepted value and is expressed by the error.
– -Note that the basic difference between accuracy and precision is that
accuracy measures agreement between a result and its true value,
while precision describes the agreement among several results that
have been obtained in the same way.
• -We may determine precision just by replicating or repeating a measurement,
but we can never determine accuracy exactly because a true value of a
measured quantity can never be known exactly.
• -Accuracy is expressed in terms of either absolute or relative error.
• -Absolute error
• -The difference between the accepted and experimental results
• E = Xi - Xt -Relative Error
• Er = Xi - Xt x 100 -Absolute error divided by the accepted value
• Xt
•
-5A-4 Classifying Experimental Errors

• -Random, or indeterminate error, causes data to be


scattered more or less symmetrically around a mean
value, and affect the precision of measurement.
• -Systematic, or determinate error causes the mean of
a set of data to differ from the accepted value.
• -Gross error usually only occur occasionally, are
often large, and may cause a result to be either high
or low
• -Lead to outliers, results that appear to differ
markedly from all other data
5B—Systematic Errors

• -Systematic errors have a definite value, an assignable cause, and are


of about the same magnitude for replicate measurements made in the
same way
• -Lead to bias in measurement technique
• -Affects all the data in a set in approximately the same way and
bears a sign
-5B-1 How Do Systematic Errors Arise?

• 1-Instrument errors are caused by imperfections in measuring devices


and instabilities in their components
• -differences in calibration, distortion in container walls, etc.
• 2-Method errors arise from nonideal chemical or physical behavior of
analytical systems
• -slowness or incompletion of reactions, instability of certain
species, etc.
• 3-Personal errors result from the carelessness, inattention, or personal
limitations of the experimenter
• -estimation errors, observation errors, etc.
-5B-2 What Effects Do Systematic Errors Have on
Analytical Results?

• -Systematic errors may either be constant or proportional


• -The magnitude of a constant error does not depend on the size of the
quantity measured
• -Proportional errors increase or decrease in proportion to the size of
the sample taken for analysis
– -A common source of proportional errors is the presence of
interfering contaminants in the sample.

• Example: Suppose that 0.50 mg of precipitate is lost as a result of being washed with 200 mL of
wash liquid. If the precipitate weighs 500 mg, the relative error due to solubility loss is –(0.50/500) x
100% = -0.1%. Loss of the same quantity from 50 mg of precipitate results in a relative error of –
0.1%.

•
-5B-3 Detecting Systematic Instrument and Person Errors

• -Systematic errors are usually found and


corrected by calibration
• -Most personal errors can be minimized
by care and self-discipline
-5B-4 Detecting Systematic Method Errors

• -Bias in method is particularly difficult to detect. Use the following


steps to help.
• 1-Analyzing Standard Samples
• -The best way to estimate the bias of an analytical method is by
analyzing standard reference materials, materials that contain one or
more analytes at well-known or certified concentration levels
• 2-Using an Independent Analytical Method
• -The independent method should differ as much as possible from the
one under study to minimize the possibility that some common factor
in the sample has the same effect on both methods
-5B-4 Detecting Systematic Method Errors

• 3-Performing Blank Determinations


• -Blank determinations are useful in detecting certain types of constant
errors
• -In a blank, all steps of the analysis are performed in the absence of a
sample. The results from the blank are then applied as a correction to
the sample measurements.
• -Reveal errors due to interfering contaminants from the reagents and
vessels employed in analysis
• 4-Varying the Sample Size
• -As the size of a measurement increases, the effect of a constant error
decreases. Thus, constant errors can often be detected by varying the
sample size.

You might also like