Propagation of Significant Figures

Lowell M. Schwartz
University of Massachusetts, Boston; MA 02125
Not long ago the following'question arose with regard t o a
eeneral chemistrv exercise. Students were asked to weieh
several pennies on a balance and to calculate the mean we&
with oroner regard to sienificant firmres. One student recorded
five mensureients: 2.i4, 2.45, 2.%, 2.50, and 2.47 g. In calculating the mean he summed the five weights finding a total
of 12.36 g, divided by five on a calculator and obtained
2.4720000 e. In order to write this number with moper sienificant figures, he reasoned correctly as we had taught. -

. .

1) When numbers are added or subtracted, write the result

with the same number of decimal places as the number
having the fewest decimal places.
2 ) When numbers are multiplied or divided, write the result with the same number of significant figures as that
number having the fewest significant figures.
3 ) Numbers that are exact are treated as if they had infinitely many significant figures.
Since all his weighings were to two decimal places, the student followed rule 1 and wrote the sum with two decimal
places, as 12.36 g. Then, understanding that the denominator
5 in the division 12.3615 was exact because the count of five
weighings was exact, he reasoned that the mean weight was
limited by the four significant figures in the sum and so reported his result with four significant figures, as 2.472 g.
Meanwhile, we bad explained the meaning of significant figures in terms of those uncertainties which unavoidably creep
into most numbers derived from ex~eriment.The more certain or accurate a number, the more significant figures that
must be used to convev that level of accuracv. The last significant digit in a given number has some uncertainty in &i
value; previous significant digits in that number should be
firm. This student saw the inconsistency and asked, "When
I weighed each penny, I was sure of the first two digits in the
weight, but thethirddigit in the second decimal place was in
doubt so the weighings are good to three significant figures.
But the average of these weighings seems to be good to four
significant figures. How can the average of five numbers each
with uncertaintv in the hundredths nlace have uncertaintv
in the thousandths place?" Good question. Somewhat he&
tantlv and unhaonilv
. . . I answered that the rules for combinine
significant figures areonly approximateand sometimes lead
tu sienificant fieure counts that arr slirhtlv off. I hestitated
because I also knew another possible a n s w e r h a t the precision
of the mean was meater than that of the individual measurements, and if thestatistical uncertainty of the mean turned
out to be less than 0.01 g, the mean should, indeed, be written
with three decimal places. However, I later calculated the
standard error of the mean as 0.012 g. This confirmed that the
statistical uncertainty of the mean as expressed as the standard error estimate was within the hundredths decimal place.
Therefore, in this particular case the correct expression for
the mean seems to be 2.47, not 2.472 e.
This episode demonstrated to me tLt the subject material
on significant figures, which I have been teaching for many
yeari, has not been entirely correct. T o no a v a i l j searched
through general and analytical chemsitry textbooks for some
insight into the prohlem. All of the 20 or so books included
some discussion of significant figures and all presented virtually the same information: that the number of significant

figures represent the accuracy or uncertainty of a written

number: how to count sienificant firmres in a eiven number:
and how t o propagate iignificant ?igure or 2ecimal place
counts throueh s i m ~ l earithmetic o~erations.However. no
text that I sa; and "oneof several a r h s p u b l i s h e d inTHls
JOUHNAI.~
mentions the limitations of the propagation procedures. Recause this subject appears in virtually all general
chemistrv texts. it amears to br of sufficient interest to merit
a better Aders&dKg than what currently exists. I have done
some numerical exploration towards this end and offer the
results in this article. It is hoped that this will stimulate others
to do so also.
I shall focus on the propagation of significant figures
through those arithmetic operations which are of interest in
general chemistry: the ubiquitous addition, subtraction,
multiplication, division, and also the taking of common logarithms and antilogarithms, which come up in pH, solution
equilibria, Nernst equation, and chemical kinetics calculations. Because the word "number" is needed in too many
different contexts, I shall adopt the practice of using the word
"result" for a number which is calculated from other numbers.
These other numbers I will call "data" (or the singular
"datum"). Thus "results" are calculated from "data." The
rules for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division
are well known and these are set off as rules 1 and 2, respectively, in the opening paragraph. The rules for logarithms and
antilogarithms are less well known but are given in several
texts. These are:
4 ) When taking common logarithms, if L is the logarithm
of A , ( L = log A ) , the number of decimal places in L is
the same as the number of significant figures in A .
Conversely, if A is the antilogarithm of L , ( A = antilog
L or A = l o L ) ,the number of significant figures in A is
the same as the number of decimal places in L .
The procedures which are numbered 1,2, and 4 above are
often called "rules of thumb," a descriptor that implies not
only that the procedures are simple t o use but also that they
are crude in the sense that they do not always work. The
particular ,problems that I wish to explore are ( 1 ) how to
propagate significant figures properly under any circumstances and ( 2 ) the specification of those conditions under
which the rules of thumb break down. Both these problems
require an understanding of the relationship between the
uncertainty of a number and the significant figure representation of that number.
The specification of how to write a number with significant
figures appropriate to its uncertainty has been stated many
alternative wavs but mv oreference is: The uncertaintv in the
value of a n u m k r shouidbe within the decimal place occupied
bv the riehtmost dieit onlv. For examnle. if the uncertaintv
in the number 1.006 is f6.05, the uncertainty is within thk
hundredths decimal lace and so the number is ~ r o ~ e r l v
written 1.00, the rightmost written digit being in ihehuidredtbs place. Or, if the uncertainty in 6398.7 is f25, theuncertainty reaches to the tens place. The units digit 8 and the
tenths digit 7 are not significant. Thus the number is properly

' F a example. Hurley. F. H.. J. CHEM.OK.. 17, 334 (1940);Pinkerton. R., and Gleit. C. .. J. CHM. OK.. 44,232 (1967);Anderlik. 6..
J. CHEM.EOUC..
57. 591 (1980l.
Volume 82 Number 8 August 1985

693

to he significant. The analytical concentration of the acid C

= 0.072412 M, and a t this low concentration the fraction of
the acid which dissociates is substantial. We solve the quadratic equation K. = x2/(C - x), where x is the hydronium ion
concentration, and find x = 0.042212 M and the pH is 1.3746.
Next, in order to find the proper significant figure count, we
must calculate maximum and minimum pH values corresponding to extremes in the uncertainty ranges of the four
data: 500 mL, 3.26 g, 90.04 g mol-', and K. = 0.059. The
datum 500 mL presents an obstacle. The significant figure
count of this number is ambieuous and we cannot oroceed
without additional information. Having noted that the particular flask used was marked "Class A" by the manufacturer,
we consult a supply-house catalog and find that 500-mL volumetric flasks so marked have a tolerance o f f 0.2 mL. Thus
the volume datum is good to four significant figures and
should have been written 500.0 mL. The next obstacle is to
decide how to combine data uncertainties to actually achieve
a maximum in the DH. Usina algebraic or chemical reasonink-,
we conclude that <he pH rekdiis maximized by maximizing
the volume and the molecular weiaht data and by minimizing
the mass and the K , data. (I wili return to this prohlem of
reasoning after finishing the calculation.) Thus the maximum
pH corresponds to 500.2 mL, 90.05 g mol-',3.25 g, and K. =
0.058, and this turns out to he 1.3779 pH units. Similarly, the
minimum pH of 1.3713 is calculated using 4.998 mL, 90.03 g
mol-l, 3.27 g, and K . = 0.060. Subtracting the two pH extremes vields an uncertaintv ranee of 0.0063. which mav be
expressed as f0.003. ~herefbre,the result is &certain inthe
third decimal olace or the fourth sienificant firmre and should
be written 1.3?5 pH units.
The problem of reasoning how to achieve a maximum or
minimum in the result of a complicated calculation is one
which some instructors will hesitate to pose to general
chemistry students. An alternative procedure exists which
circumvents this reasoning prohlem hut which requires more
calculational effort and is not quite as rigorous. However, in
most circumstances the two procedures yield the same significant figure count for the result. Again, discrepancies may
occur in nonlinear cases when data have relativelv. high
..
uncertaintiei, i.e.. when several data are each expressed with
a sinele
- sienificant figure or with no sicnificant tiaures at all
(order-of-magnitude&). In the alternative procedure, the
uncertainty due to each datum is propagated one a t a time to
the result, the absolute values of these propagated uncertainties are summed, and this sum represents the total uncertainty in the result. We illustrate with the same pH prohlem. Corresponding to tht, four h a , we must carry out four
more 1'11 (.nlruli~tL~ns
in addition to the hase calculation which
yirlded pH = l.:l:26 from the original data set:

1) Using an extreme volume of 500.2 mL (499.8 mL would

do just as well) and the other three original data, we
calculate pH = 1.3747. This differs from the hase pH by
0.0001 and so we conclude that the uncertainty o f f 0.2
mL in the volume propagates to f 0.0001 in the pH.
2) Usine 90.05 e mol-'. 500 0 mL and the other orieinal
' data,we f i n l P =
~ 1.3746 (to four decimal placesjand
conclude that the uncertainty in pH due to our estimated f0.01 g mol-' is beyond the fourth decimal place
in the DH. We susoect that this uncertainty is nealieihle
in comparison t o t h e others in this prohiem. ~ h u we
s
choose not to repeat the calculations carrying more digits
in an effort to find an explicit uncertainty in the pH due
to the molecular weight uncertainty.
3) With a mass of 3.27 g and the other original data, we
calculate pH = 1.3736, which, when compared to the
hase, yields an uncertainty o f f 0.0010 pH units.
4) Using K. = 0.060 and the other original data, we find pH
= 1.3724 and n propagated unrertainty o f f 0.0022 pH.

The total uncertainty due to all four data uncertainties

sums to f 0.0033 DH which leads to the same threedecimal-place or four-significant-figure expression of
1.375 pH for the result.
Perhaps the verbal descriptions together with the illustrations above suffice to explain the general propagation
procedure, hut here is the alternative procedure expressed in
symbolic form:
Let y he the result of a computation involving one or more,
say I, data values xi. Functionally,
Each datum xi is uncertain by an amount Axi. Ax; may he
known explicitly or may he estimated t o he one unit in the
rightmost decimal place of xi. Let Ayj he the uncertainty in
y due to Ax;. These are each estimated as the absolute value
of the difference between the value y itself and the value of
y computed with (xi Ax;) or (xi - Ax;) replacing xi, i.e., for
i = 1,2,. . .I,

The total uncertainty in y is Ay where

I

AY =

i-1

AY;

(3)

Finally, assuming that y is originally computed to more digits

than are significant, y is rounded off as necessary so that Ay
reaches to the rightmost decimal place only.
Some nrecautions should be observed in imnlementine this
procedu;e. First, as we saw with the molecul~rweight datum
in the nH
. .orohlem. one sometimes finds that a difference Av;..
is apparently exactly zero even though Axi is not zero. This
means either that too few digits were retained in the computation of hoth terms subtracted in eqn. (2) or that y is really
~s
of an
not a function of that articular x;, ~ e r h a because
o\,erlooked rancrllation.'~herttmedi-es'are06vious: recompute
the difl~renceinem. ( 2 )retaining more digitg,or confirm the
cancellation of x; from the function. The second precaution
is to he aware of functions in which a particular datum appears
more than once and to calculate only a single Ayi f o r t h a t
datum. For example, suppose the result is an average molecular weight M of a binary mixture of hypothetical components
having molecular weights 40.000 and 44.000 g mol-'. If the
mole fraction of the first component is 0.48, one might compute the average molecular weight from
The uncertainty in this result is due to three inexact data
whose values are 40.000, 44.000, and 0.48. The number 1in
eqn. (4) is the sum of hoth mole fractions, and, since this is an
exact numher, it propagates no uncertainty to M. Both molecular weiehts are exnrissed with five simificant
fieures and
"
these propagate negligible uncertainty to M when compared
to the uncertaintv- oro~aeated
hv the mole fraction. The un. .
certainty in M is approximately

and observing that this uncertainty reaches to the hundredths

place in M, the proper representation is 42.08, with four significant figures. However, if one mistakenly treats hoth
numbers 0.48 in eqn. (4) as independent data, these would
propagate f0.40 and f0.44 uncertainties to M, which are
clearly erroneous. This example shows that the procedure may
not always be applied blindly to a numerical computation
without some knowledge of the meanings associated with the
data values. Parenthetically, the rules of thumb break down
drastically in this example. By these rules hoth terms of the
sum in eqn. (4) are good to two significant figures because both
terms are multiplications limited by the two significant f w e s
Volume 62

Number 8 August 1985

695

of the mole fractions. The sum of these two terms. hoth mod
to the units place, yields a value of M also with$ignifi>ant
dieits onlv to the units nlace. Thus the rules of thumb dictate
t h i t M ii42, good to t a o significant figures rather than the
correct four significant figures.
This general procedure is useful for propagating significant
fieures from data to a c o m ~ u t e dresult in cases where no rule
ofthumb exists a t all. A s&gle example will suffice. Given that
the N-H bond distance and the bond angles in ammonia are
0.1008 nm and 107.3", respectively, calcdate the H-H bond
distance. My geometrical construction leads to the calculation
(O.l008)(2)sin (107.3/2) = 0.16237 nm for the H-H distance.
With no further information available, I propagate f 0.0001
nm and f O . 1 in N-H length and angle, respectively. A recalculation using 0.1009 nm and 10'7.4' yields a maximum
H-H distance of 0.16264 nm. Thus the uncertainty in the result is in the fourth decimal place and the appropriate significant fieure exnression is 0.1624 nm.
A well-!&own alternative procedure exists for the special
case when the result is computed by multiplication and/or
division of data. I t can he easily shown2 that the relative uncertaintv of the result eauals the sum of the relative uncertainties of the data in these circumstances. Hence, the uncertainty in the result y is
This is entirely equivalent to eqn. (3), and which procedure
to use for multiplicationldivision is largely a matter of personal preference.
Success or Failure of Rules of Thumb
The final problem to be addressed is to seek to define those
circumstances under which the rules of thumb break down.
This is a simple matter for additionlsuhtraction. If the uncertainty in each datum is assumed to he f1 unit in the
riRhrmoit decimal place, then this rule hrraks down when a
result involves ten or more additions andlor subtractions of
data all having the same limiting numher of decimal places.
The total uncertainty propagated to the result from these data
reaches to the next higher decimal place. Thus the rightmost
significant digit is a t that higher decimal place. Unfortunately,
it does not seem nossible to summarize the break down circumstances for &ultiplication/division as simply as for additionlsuhtraction. I have done emnirical calculations to test
ftn success or failure oi these rules and will shuw these results
in tabular form. Perhaw interested readers will accent the
challenge of finding more concise ways of expressing these
results.
Empirical testingfor the success or failure of the multiplication rule of thumh involves computing significant figures
for the result y = xn, where x is a datum with a specified
numher of significant figures. The testing procedure is the
same as that used in the examples of success versus failure
given above. For example, consider the case y = 2.003 where
y = 8.00 has three significant figures according to the rule
of thumb. The uncertainty in this y is f 1Z.013 - 8.001 =
f0.12 which reaches to the tenths decimal place. Therefore,
only two digits in y are significant and the rule fails. By contrast, however, in the case y = 2.004, y = 16.0 has three significant figures hy the rule of thumh and its uncertainty is
f0.32. Thus the tenths digit is again significant but the result
carries three significant figures and so the rule of thumh
succeeds. The table shows some of the results of these tests.
the upper table for data carrying one significant figure and the
lower table for two simificant fieures. Each row shows the
in the first column and each column
tests for the datum

See fcn example: Swartz. C. E.. "Used Maih for the First Two Years
of College Science, Prentice-Hall, Inc.. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1973, p.
9.

696

Journal of Chemical Education

shows the tests for the nower n eiven in the ton row. The
entries in the body of thk table g e integers or 'marks. An
integer represents the numher of significant figures in the
corresponding result y as computed by the test and an X indicates that the uncertainty in y is so large that y cannot be
written properly even with a single significant figure. Thus
the rule of thumb for multinlication is successful for a eiven
x n only if the corresponding tabular entry matches the
numher of significant figures taken for x. In the upper table

Success or Fallure of the Rule of Thumb tor Multlplicatlon as

Amlied to the ComDutation x"
1 Significant Figure

x
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

2
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 2
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1
. 1

3
l
X
1
1
2
1
1
1
1

"=

4
X
1
X
1
1
1
1
1
1

5
X
X
l
1
1
1
1
1
1

6
X
X
X
X
1
1
l
1
1

7 6 9 10 11 12 13
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
l X X 1 X X X
X X 1 X X X X
1 1 1 X X X l
X X l 1 1 1 X
1 1 1 1 X X X
1 1 1 1 1 1 1

14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1

15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1

16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1

17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1

16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1

19
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1

20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1

2 Significant Figures
15 16 17 18 19 20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1

1
1
X
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2

1
x
X
x
x
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1

1
x
X
1
1
1
X
X
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1

onlv 1's indicate successful a ~ d i c a t i o n of

s the rule, and only
37% of these applications ar~mccessful.In the lower table,
onlv 2's indicate success and here the success rate is about 60%.
~ u i c e s srates for similar testing using x values with more
significant figures (not shown) do not exceed 63.3%. We observe that the test results are somewhat erratic and thus difficult to express concisely. The rule of thumb is most successful for data which round to a 9 but fails even for simple
squares if x rounds to a 4. Similar patterns of successes and
failures occur for higher significant figure data.
I have also examined the success/failure pattern for the
loearithm and antiloearithm rules of thumb and in these cases
thYe results can be suknarized easily. For common logarithms
the rule yields the correct number of decimal places in the
result or i t yields one decimal place too few depending on the
value and on the significant figure count of the datum. Suppose the result y i;log x, where the datum x may be in any
order bf magnitude hut is written with k significant figures.
It is convenikt to express x in the exponential form z 2 10".'
where 0.1 5 z < 1.The number of significant figures in z is k
regardless of m. When k is large and when f1unit uncertainty
is assumed in the k t h significant digit, the transition from
successful to unsuccessful application of the logarithm rule
of thumb occurs a t z = loge = 0.43429. . . This statement is
justified by an argumentgiven in the Appendix. If k is not
large, the transition occurs at z values slightly below loge;
these transitions are summarized as follows:
Significant figures in x
1
1
2
2
3
3

large k
large k

Correct decimal places in log x

l i f z 50.3
2ifz 20.4
2 if z < 0.42
3 if z 2 0.43
3 if z 5 0.433
4 if z 2 0.434

k if z < loge = 0.43429..

k+lifz>loge

Decimal places in x Correct significant figures in antilog- x

2 if z 5-0.6
l i f z 20.7

large k
large k

+ 1if z < 0.63778..

k if z

> 0.63778. .

for propagating significant figures through arithmetic calculations frequently yield misleading results. Two procedures
are available for performing this propagation more generally
and more reliahlv than the rules of thumb, hut both procedures require considerably more calculational effort than do
the rules. I n seeking an understanding of those conditions
under which the rules succeed or fail I have examined the
operations of addition/subtraction, multiplication, common
logarithms and antilogarithms. T h e operation of division remains to be studied as well as the many calculations eucountered in chemistry which involve two or more rules. The calculation of the arithmetic mean discussed in the opening
paragraph is such as example. I hope this paper will stimulate
others to offer contributions toward these unsolved problems.
Appendlx

Consider the propagation of significant figures from the datum x

to the result y = logl@.The datum is transformed if necessary to the

The meaning of this table can be illustrated by again examining the pK.'s corresponding t o K. of 2.35 X 10-3 and 9.35
X 10-3 both of which have k = 3 significant figures. Withz =
0.235, which is less than 0.43, we see that the corresponding
pK,is written 1.629, with three decimal places. But with z =
0.935, which is neater than 0.433, the correct expression is pK.
= 1.0292. with-four decimal places.
For anttlogirrithms, the rule of thumh arain is either correct
or off by onLsignificant figure dependinion the value of the
datum and its decimal place count. Suppose y = loz, where
x is a datum having integer part m and decimal fraction z
which is good to k decimal places. Again according to an
analysis given in the Appendix, we see that for large k and for
f 1unit uncertainty in that k t h place, the transition between
success and failure of the rule of thumb is a t the z value of (1
+ log(log e)) = 0.63778. . . For z values above this transition
the rule of thumb is correct and below the transition, the rule
yields one significant figure too few. If k is small, the transitional z is somewhat less than this value as is shown a t
the top of the next column. Thus if pK, = 4.52 with z = 0.52
and k = 2 decimal places, the corresponding K. = 3.02 X 10-5,
with three significant figures. But if pK. = 4.72 withz = 0.72,
the corresponding pK, is 1.9 X lOW, with two significant figures.

form zlOm,where 0.1 5 z < 1. The uncertainty in 1: is Ax and the

leftmost non-zero digit in Ax reaches to the kth significant figure of
x . The uncertainty in y which is Ay = llog(x +Ax) -log x i = log(1
+ Axlx). Ask increases, Adz decreases and Ay approaches the first
term of the Taylor series expansion which is (log e)Ar/x. The ratio
Axlz is the same as the relative uncertainty Adz. Because the leftmost non-zerodigit in Az is in the place of the kth significant figure
of 2 , we can write & asp X lo-' andp will be 1or more but less than
10. The ratio Adz or Axlx becomes p x 10-klr so tht Ay becomes
p(log e)/z X
The leftmostnon-zerodigit in the coefficientp(log
e)lz determines the orooer siznificantfizure reoresentation of v. If
this leftmost non-ze;o dieit isuiin the units olaci.
. . "v will be eood'to k
derimnl places and that will he the case u hrn p = I rrorrespondind
t o + I unit uncertainty in rhr kthsiynilicanr figurrolxland whrnz
is less than loge. Thus the rule of thumb is correct under these circumstances. But far p = 1and values of z greater than log e , the uncertainty in y reaches only to the (k + 1)thdecimal place and the rule
of thumb has underestimated the correct number of decimal olaces
ofy by one.
Now consider y = 10' where the datum x has integer part rn and
decimal fraction 2 which is good to k decimal places. The uncertainty
Az in z is assumed to be p X 10Wkand this propagates an uncertainty
toy whichis Ay = llOr+A* - 10"l = lO"lexp(hrlloge) - ll.Ifk is
large, A2 is small, exp(&llog e) approaches (1 + Ar(log el-'), and
Ay approaches Az(loge)-'(10") whichcan he writtenp(lO*llog el10-klOm.This latter quantity is to hecompared with y = 10210m.The
coefficient 10' in y has avalue in the range 15 10' < 10 because 0 5
2 < 1. The corresponding coefficient in Ay is p(l0'llog e)lO-k. If
p(lOZllage) is ten or above, the uncertainty Ay will reach to the (k
- 1)th decimal place and, therefore, y itself will be uncertain in its
kth significant figure, a success for the rule of thumb. However, if
p(lOZlloge)< 10, the uncertainty will reach only to the kth decimal
place which is the (k + 1)th significant figure ofy. The rule of thumb
in this ease has underestimated the proper significant figure count
hv one. Thus the transition between success and failure of the rule
oE thumh for antiloearithms
is at that r value for which o lO'/loe e
~"~
= 1Uond rhat rrirloll2 is I + loglloge~- lugp. Ifp = I,wrrrapunding
to 11 unit uncertainty in the klhdrcirl~alplacauiz, tlwoitical~i.;
at 1+ log(1oge) which is 0.63718. . .

~~

Summary

In this article I have tried to show that the rules of thumh

Volume 62

Number 8

~~

~.

August 1985

897