TLC was used to identify the actual unknown product as well as other products/reactants present in the filtered solution. The procedure was conducted by placing a TLC plate in a developing chamber that is filled with a small amount of solvent. The solvent cannot be too polar because it will cause spotted compounds on the TLC plate to rise up too fast, while a very non-polar solvent will not allow the spots to move. The polarity of the spots also determines how far it moves on the plate; non-polar spots are higher than polar ones. After spots on the TLC form, the Rf values are calculated and used to analyze the similarity of the compounds.
To determine the weight of the board we used a leaning tower which had a “hidden” weight. When determining the distance from this leaning tower to the rotation point we didn’t take into consideration where that “hidden” weight would be and instead just measured from its center. Since we didn’t measure the distance from the point of the “hidden” weight it would have resulted in an inaccurate measurement. This, in turn, would have then resulted in inaccurate calculations leading to an inaccurate
Like measuring off by a slight amount or leaving behind some of the substance if transferring it over to another flask or beaker. A person could not do something so perfectly because humans always do errors while doing things, it would be very unlikely for a chemists to get a 100% yield after for a chemical reaction. 6. The percentage yield was not 100%. Some factors that could have affected the experiments end result could have been through measuring the all the reactants and equipment their might have been an error somewhere there.
Another weakness would be that they used tap water as their solute. Tap water can contain other substances, therefore might affect the electrical conductivity. However, it probably did not have that much of an effect because they kept the solvent (tap water) controlled throughout the experiment. They did not use tap water for some trials and distilled water for other trials. Something I found difficult in carrying out the method was to make sure that the amount of substance is exactly 10g (or 30g or 60g).
Different result was encountered with the temperature as it was decreasing with time . An important issue limiting the applicability of the TDR is the effect of the main assumption (of the device run) that only the real part of the dielectric permittivity determines the value of the TDR-measured apparent dielectric permittivity. This statement is not applicable for conductive soils (clay soils) or where high concentrations of electrolyte are present in the soil solution (saline soils) because, under these conditions, the contribution of the imaginary part is important (Bittelli et al., 2008; Topp et al., 2000). As a concise conclusion, no theoretical data is given or calculated to know if the measurement is precise, however, lots of factors could affect the measurement. One of the main effects of dielectric losses on the TDR measurement is overestimation of WC.
This is as opposed to traditional autopsy, where any form of samplings would be possible. Furthermore, if these non-invasive techniques are carried out slightly longer after death due to delays, decomposition-induced artifacts would begin to form. These artifacts will once again affect the accuracy of the analysis and cause possible confusion to the coroner/analyst reading the scan pictures (Burton & Underwood, 2007). These challenges pose a significant challenge to the forensic medicine
However, the enzyme will only deteriorate if there is a high concentration of sodium chloride and not if S3odium chloride is simply present. Therefore, by increasing the sodium chloride concentrations it is expected that the rate of change in absorbance, and therefore rate of reaction of amylase, will decrease exponentially as illustrated in the graph
For example, a stakeholder may state, “The application is slow—a single operation takes ages to complete.” This statement requires further investigation. The BA should, in this instance, verify which operation is slow, the speed of the network, and if other users have encountered the same problem. The user for instance, could have been executing a complex calculation involving an extensive range of data over a poor network connection. Such claims should be investigated critically before recommendations are made. The key takeaway is to be investigative in your approach.
Now, imagine that we have combined the results from eight different laboratories in which everything was identical, except for the positions of the thermocouples in the water. In this case, each laboratory would report a different time of freezing. These differences were a major barrier to obtaining reproducible results during the early phase of this study. A difference in position of only a few millimeters can be significant depending on the size of the container”
Besides the inaccuracy in determining the freezing point and problems in the enthalpy of dissolution, the largest source of error was the temperature probe. Over the course of the multiple trials, the temperature probe would read somewhat inconsistent values. Due to this uncertainty, trials were performed on pure deionized water to see how far the probe read from zero degrees Celsius. Another source of error was in the calorimeter. Using two foam cups as a calorimeter is sufficient, although far from perfect.
2. The potential sources of error for a skinfold measurement are the evaluator may not obtain just the adipose tissue but part of the muscle as well, which will decrease accuracy. Also, the evaluator may not obtain all of the adipose tissue present, which will decrease accuracy of measurements as