Lab 1 - Identification of Metals_ Discussion & Conclusion (1).docx

The Identification of Metals Lab was conducted to determine the density of an unknown metal by determining the relationship between mass and volume. The formula D=m/v helped us find the density and understand the proportional relationship between mass and volume. Additionally, the manual graph showe...

The Identification of Metals Lab was conducted to determine the density of an unknown metal by determining the relationship between mass and volume. The formula D=m/v helped us find the density and understand the proportional relationship between mass and volume. Additionally, the manual graph showed us that when volume remains constant, both density and mass increase, indicating a proportional relationship between mass and density. Understanding these variables\' connection is essential in a lab environment and in real-life applications like manufacturing, healthcare, forensics, and waste management. Certain metals like lead and arsenic are toxic to humans when inhaled. By identifying these harmful elements, we can prevent serious injuries that may lead to death. By calculating the mass and volume of various metal samples, I determined the density of each metal piece. Furthermore, I found the average density (12g/mL) of the metal using the points (0.40mL, 6.274g) and (1.0mL, 13.729g) from the manual graph. Also, the Excel graph had an average density of 12.7g/mL, and the manual calculation gave me an average density of 14.0g/mL. These values were critical in identifying the unknown metal. The element closest to the results appears to be Lead (Pb), which has an average density of 11.342g/mL. Based on the two graphs, both represent a straight line through the data set, indicating a positive linear relationship between density and mass. Therefore, as the mass of an object increases, so does density. There appears to be discrepancies between the actual average (11.342g/mL) and my approximated average (12g/mL, 14.0g/mL, 12.7g/mL) of density for Pb. The percent of error (Estimated Number- Actual Number/ Actual Number x 100) for the manual graph, Excel graph, and manual calculation is 5.80%, 12%, and 23.4%, respectively. The average of the three percent of error values is 13.7%. The average percent error of the three graphs suggests that my data deviates mainly from the actual average density of Pb. I believe these inaccuracies occurred due to different sources of error. The mass collection for each sample was not the most accurate measurement because the scales in the lab kept reporting different numbers and sometimes also increased in mass despite being placed on a weighing dish. Additionally, the scales may need to be better calibrated, to avoid these inaccuracies. Another source of error occurred during the measurement of volume. I had to remove the deionized water and refill it with the same mL line on the graduated cylinder for each sample. This resulted in pouring too much or too little deionized water, resulting in measurement errors. Additionally, reading above the meniscus proved challenging, given how close the measurement lines were to each other; this may have led to incorrect values. The most accurate method of determining density would be the computer-generated graph. Computers can plot points with high precision, reducing the risk of human error. It ensures that every data point is plotted correctly based on its numerical value. Also, Excel accounted for the slope based on all data points, whereas using the slope formula for the manual graph accounts for only one data point, making the computer-generated graph more representative of the data set. Although my data did not fully represent the average density mass, I could still apply concepts learned within the course lecture in a lab environment and understand these concepts at a more profound and meaningful level.