The purpose was to determine the relationship between number of times 10 grams of lettuce was chewed and the amount of nitrite it gave rise to in the spit.
The results show a clear increase in the amount of nitrite when the number of chewings is increased and as opposed to the hypothesis a curve that levels off but one that appear linear in the investigated range.
The various trials lie within the range of each other’s uncertainties as shown in tables 2 and 3. This suggests that the results have a very high precision, which in turn indicates that the random errors that occurred during the various experiments will have had a minor effect. Since it wasn’t possible to find a literature value to compare with I can’t say whether the accuracy is low or not and therefore can’t say whether the systematic errors had a large effect on the results. The slope of the standard curve can vary inside the range of the shown error bars, this variation can go in either direction. This is a random error, which could have been limited by having more data points for making the best-fit line. However, the effect of this would be the same on each data point and would therefore somewhat cancel each other out. …show more content…
From figure 1 we can see that the straight line does not go through the origin and it only goes through two of the eight points. This indicates that the curve should have had either a higher or a lower gradient. If the drawn line is too steep, then the results are too high and if the line is drawn with a too low slope, then the results are too low to be determined, at least if the line isn’t very close to 0.0. However, we can also see that the correlation is 0.9996 which indicates that the data points are very close to the best-fit line. That the line doesn’t go through the origin will have been due the cali-bration of the spectrophotometer or imprecise data points for the standard