A Study Into the Density of
Honey
CHM-1045L
Professor Alan Rodriguez Santiago
By:
Enzo M. Takane
Amanda Bermudez
Sebastian Artiga
● Purpose: The Purpose of this lab was to ascertain the density of
the honey sample we were given.
● Intro: Density measures how much matter is crammed into a
given area. More specifically, density is the ratio between the
mass and volume of a given substance. The equation for density
is p = m/v, where p is density, m is mass, and v is volume.
Honey’s reported range of density is 1.38 to 1.45 g/mL. Its sugar
and moisture contents mainly contribute to this reported range.
Both moisture and sugar contents are affected by seasons
because each season can contain different blossoming flowers
that have varied sugar contents in their nectar. Because of
seasonal weather, higher evaporation rates may affect the
amount of moisture in a bee hive’s surrounding land.
Furthermore, honey adulterated with high fructose corn syrup
will have a lower density than the reported range because high
fructose corn syrup’s density range is lower than honey. Lastly,
the honey sample we will utilize in our experiment came from
Liberty City, FL.
Secondly, to find the density in our experiment, we will
use Microsoft Excel to graph our data and to find the trend line
between our plotted points. A trendline is a line superimposed
on a chart revealing the overall direction of the data we
ascertain. We will look for two results in our trend line: the slope
2
of it and the coefficient of determination (𝑅 ). The slope of the
trendline will be our resulting density value, while the
coefficient of determination will measure the precision of our
measured data.
● MSDS:
1. Honey
2. Pure Water
● Procedure:
1. Before starting the lab, we thoroughly washed and dried a
graduated cylinder (10mL-25mL) and a funnel.
2. Afterward, we measured the dry mass of the graduated
cylinder.
3. We then inserted the funnel into the graduated cylinder
with extreme care to ensure that when honey was poured
through it, it would not touch the graduated cylinder’s
walls.
4. Once confident with our funnel position, we slowly
poured around 1~2mL of honey into the graduated
cylinder.
5. After pouring the entire honey content, we recorded the
volume in the graduated cylinder.
6. Following our volume measurement, we removed the
funnel from the graduated cylinder and recorded the wet
mass of the graduated cylinder.
7. We then repeated steps 3 through 6 six more times while
recording and graphing our data.
● Observations: Throughout our rigorous repetition of steps three
through six we were keen to notice the high presence of bubbles
within the honey inside the graduated cylinder.
● Data:
Cycle
Dry Mass(g) Wet Mass (g)
Volume (mL)
0
41.58
0
0
1
41.58
44.04
2.3
2
41.58
45.44
3.3
3
41.58
46.77
4.2
4
41.58
48.89
5.7
5
41.58
50.26
6.6
● Results:
Honey’s Volume(mL) Honey’s Mass (g)
2.3
2.46
3.3
3.86
4.2
5.19
5.7
7.31
6.6
8.68
● Discussion:
With the observations above, data, and results, we
confidently concluded that the honey sample from Liberty City
we used had a density value of around 1.44 g/mL. This data
aligns well with our expected result of around 1.38 to 1.45 g/mL,
suggesting high-quality honey with little impurities.
Furthermore, the coefficient of determination is near 1,
suggesting high precision within our results. Because of this, we
are confident that our measurements and results are correct,
considering our careful time spent measuring both the volume
and weight of the honey through each step and our meticulous
process of recording the data and calculating the results.
However, the many sources of errors that could have
affected our results must be highlighted:
1. Human error is the primary source of error in our
experiment, as throughout the process of measuring the
honey's volume in the graduated cylinder, the honey
could have touched the wall in a slight amount that was
not noticed by any of us, resulting in a higher value of the
density of the honey sample.
2. Another human error that could have been made was
while reading the volume of honey in the graduated
cylinder. Because of the meniscus effect, our readings may
have been off by .1mL because we could not discern the
accurate measurement.
3. While measuring the honey's volume, many air bubbles
were visibly present within the honey sample. The
bubbles within the honey could have been added. Though
most likely minute, they would have added more volume
to the honey, yielding a lower-density result.
If the test were to be redone, we would like to improve our
practices by using photographic equipment such as our cell
phones to take close photographs of the measured volumes,
allowing us to minimize the error caused by the meniscus effect
since we would be able to take a closer look at the graduated
cylinder measurement.
Thirdly, actual errors made by the team members must be
disclosed. During our first attempt at pouring the honey into the
graduated cylinder, the honey sample touched the graduated
cylinder's wall, causing us to dispose of around 1mL of honey to
clean the graduated cylinder for another attempt thoroughly.
Another error was when we did the first cycle of the procedures,
where we used a separate scale to measure the mass, while for
every other step, we used another scale. This error caused a
noticeable drop in our coefficient of determination, which led us
to omit the first measured mass and volume from our data and
result. To make up for this error, we repeated the procedures for
a sixth cycle to ensure we had the required five data points. In
both further tests and if this test was redone, we will use solely
one scale and take more time when pouring substances to
measure volume to ensure these errors are not made.
In conclusion, through a long and extensive process of
repetitively pouring and measuring honey, we could ascertain
that the honey sample we utilized had approximately 1.44 g/mL
of density.