## 6 Conclusions  
This report highlights that comparing quantities measured under diverse environmental conditions (like air temperature, pressure, and density) and with different instruments necessitates establishing normative conditions, especially for temperature. This must align with international and oil industry standards, as well as national regulations. To ensure accurate comparisons, quantitative measurement results (lithe ke volume and weight) require adjustment using specific correction factors. Physically, we can directly compare mass measured by instruments and converted to mass in a vacuum at a reference temperature with mass indirectly calculated from volume and density at the same standard temperature. Any disparities between these masses primarily arise from the precision of the various measuring instruments used for each method. Our proposed consistent result evaluation sequences and result expression methods, based on standardized approaches, ensure the comparability of results obtained through different means and methods. Crucially, all these conclusions hold only when the instruments used meet the characteristics outlined in the standards [9; 38; 55] and their performance is confirmed through calibration or, if required by legal metrology, through verification procedures. The simulation of the air buoyancy correction coefficient and its impact on measurement outcomes indicates that buoyancy has a more pronounced effect on the measurement of light petroleum than on heavy petroleum. As a result, the mass in a vacuum rises by0.15% for light petroleum and by 0.1% for heavy petroleum. These changes are notable, especially in relation to the measurement errors of the instruments used, which range between 0.1% and 0.5%. This implies potential losses between 11 and 15 tonnes per ten thousand tonnes when weighing light and heavy petroleum. Therefore, we acknowledge the significant effect of buoyancy correction on the measurement results of LPP and recommend that any weighing result be corrected by calculating the mass in vacuum. Ultimately, the decision to incorporate buoyancy corrections for weighing petroleum products should be made by the company itself, taking into consideration the actual losses incurred in the broader context of income and costs. The potential financial losses due to neglecting buoyancy correction in a medium-sized refinery can be substantial, reaching approximately $3 million per year in this scenario. Assume that the refinery processes 10,000 tonnes of petroleum products daily, and the average petroleum price for both light and heavy petroleum is $650 per tonne. This highlights the importance of implementing buoyancy correction for accurate mass determination and accounting. Based on this study, the buoyancy factor is not applicable when weighing LPG in a closed pressure vessel. This is due to the specific properties of the liquid mixture, saturated vapor, and the weighing method used. However, a correction factor of 0.99985 must be applied to the measured result, known as the conventional mass. This correction factor remains constant and does not vary with the type of measuring instrument, the weight of the load, the product composition, or the units of measurement used in the calculation. Consequently, the calculated mass in vacuum in the case of LPG weighing will be lower by approximately 0.015% of the measured value, equivalent to 1.5 tonnes per 10,000 tonnes in favor of the LPG supplier. Its financial impact on a medium-sized refinery is relatively small, approximately $130,000 per year in this scenario. Given that this correction factor is not legally mandated in many countries, and its impact is minor compared to other potential sources of error and loss in the petroleum industry, we recommend against applying it for LPG weighing. This simplifies measurement processes and avoids unnecessary adjustments, especially considering the potential for confusion and disputes that could arise from applying a non-mandatory correction.