So, in our experiment, we measured the optical rotation of a compound with a polarimeter, and then we have to calculate the specific rotation and the error in calculating the specific rotation.

I am using the formula $$\mathrm{[\alpha]=\frac{\alpha}{lc}}$$ where l is the path length and c is the concentration of the solution.

I am propagating the error using$$\mathrm{(\delta[\alpha]/[\alpha])^2=(\delta\alpha/\alpha)^2+(\delta l/l)^2+(\delta c/c)^2}$$

However, one of the compounds is a racemic mixture and the measured value of $\alpha$ is $0$. So, how do I calculate the error in this case, because clearly, $\delta\alpha/\alpha=\infty$ ?

There are some posts on various maths forums about calculating relative error when the magnitude is zero (they suggest avoiding the use of relative error), but I am not sure that I can apply that for error propagation.

[N.B.- The optical rotation is measured using a digital polarimeter, so we are considering that the error in the measurement is half of the last decimal point]


You can always propagate uncertainty without referring to relative quantities. In general, if you have a function $F(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_N)$ where the $x_i$'s are all independent, then $$\delta F = \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^N \left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial x_i} \cdot \delta x_i\right) ^2}$$

In this case, we have $F(\alpha, l, c)=\frac{\alpha}{lc}$, so $$\frac{\partial F}{\partial \alpha} = \frac{1}{lc}$$ $$\frac{\partial F}{\partial l} = -\frac{\alpha}{l^2 c}$$ $$\frac{\partial F}{\partial c} = -\frac{\alpha}{lc^2}$$

and so $$\delta F = \sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{lc} \delta \alpha \right)^2 + \left(\frac{\alpha}{l^2 c} \delta l\right)^2 + \left(\frac{\alpha}{lc^2} \delta c\right)^2}$$

If your measured value of $\alpha$ is zero, then the second and third terms vanish and your uncertainty reduces to

$$\delta F = \frac{\delta \alpha}{lc}$$

If $\alpha,l,c\neq 0$, then you can obtain the standard formula for the relative uncertainty $\frac{\delta F}{F}$ by dividing that big square root by $\frac{\alpha}{lc}$.

Again, this assumes that all of your errors can be approximated as uncorrelated, normally-distributed random variables. If your errors are correlated, or if they are sufficiently large that the assumption of normality is a very bad one, then all of this is out the window. You can find more information on error propagation in the wiki entry here.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This will be the same result if the OP had multiplied by $[\alpha]^2$ to normalise the infinities. $\endgroup$ Dec 17 '19 at 1:51
  • $\begingroup$ The OP has already made this assumtion in their choice of equation. It is good though to be made aware of. $\endgroup$ Dec 17 '19 at 1:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.