Calculating Significant Figures for Mole Quantity to Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter DarthRoni
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Significant figures
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the calculation of mass from mole quantity using significant figures, specifically for carbon dioxide (CO2). The molar mass of CO2 is calculated as 44.01 g/mol, derived from its atomic components. The participant demonstrates that when converting 3.3 moles of CO2 to mass, the final result is 1.5 x 102 grams, emphasizing that significant figures should only be applied at the end of calculations to minimize rounding errors. The conversation also touches on the importance of understanding measurement errors and uncertainty in calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of significant figures in scientific calculations
  • Basic knowledge of molar mass and its calculation
  • Familiarity with error propagation methods
  • Concept of measurement uncertainty
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "Error Propagation in Calculations" to understand how to quantify uncertainty
  • Learn about "Significant Figures Rules" for various mathematical operations
  • Explore "Molar Mass Calculation Techniques" for different compounds
  • Study "Numerical Methods for Maintaining Accuracy" in scientific computations
USEFUL FOR

Chemistry students, educators, and professionals involved in quantitative analysis who need to accurately convert between moles and mass while considering significant figures and measurement uncertainty.

DarthRoni
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
I am trying to convert a mole quantity into a mass. ##m_{CO_2}## will represent mass, ##M_{CO_2}## will represent molar mass and ##n_{CO_2}## will represent mole quantity.
I have ##n_{CO_2} = 3.3## and ##M_{CO_2} = (12.01 + 2(16.00))##
So, ##m_{CO_2} = 3.3(12.01 + 2(16.00))##
If I compute the value of ##M_{CO_2}## first,
##m_{CO_2} = 3.3(44.01)## I don't have to round yet, since I am still only using significant figures.
I then complete my multiplication and due to 3.3 only having 2 significant figures, I get ##m_{CO_2} = 1.5 * 10^2##.

If I distribute in the following way:
##m_{CO_2} = 3.3(12.01) + 3.3(2)(16.00)##
I have to make sure each term only have 2 significant figures
##m_{CO_2} = 40 + 110 = 1.5 * 10^2##
My textbook suggest that I reduce rounding errors by grouping similar operations. Is one way better than the other?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Personally, I don't think you should round anything until the final result is obtained. In that case, the order of operations is irrelevant.
 
DarthRoni said:
My textbook suggest that I reduce rounding errors by grouping similar operations. Is one way better than the other?

In ancient times, when multiplication was done on paper, using less digits and tricks that allowed to maintain accuracy with using less digits were valuable as they could be use to speed up calculations. As of today they don't matter.

That being said, in numerical methods sometimes it is important to know what you are doing to not loose accuracy, but that's a completely different thing.
 
So let me get this straight, I can do all my operations and then only involve my significant figures at the end? Regardless if there's both addition and multiplication?
 
DarthRoni said:
I can do all my operations and then only involve my significant figures at the end?

Yes.

Actually it is the only correct way.
 
Actually, if you really want to know the precision of your calculation, you should take into account that the number of significant figures is typically due to measurement errors, e.g. the amount of moles has only been measured with a certain precision and the molar mass is only known with some uncertainty e.g. due to variations in isotopic composition.
Typically, the uncertainty is of the order of the last figure given e.g. n=3.3 (+/- 0.1).
Then you could use error propagation to determine the uncertainty of your final result.
The number of significant figures is a way to approximate this method.
There is lots to be found on the internet, e.g.:
http://www.rit.edu/~w-uphysi/uncertainties/Uncertaintiespart2.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks guys !
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
11K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K