Final Lab Report Research Paper
Would you like us to handle your paper? Use our company for better grades and meet your deadlines.
Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper
You are required to write a complete laboratory report that covers the drinking water quality experiment from “Lab 2: Water Quality and Contamination,” using knowledge gained throughout the course. Use the instructor feedback on your Rough Draft from Week Three to guide your writing. Be sure to download the Final Lab Report Template and utilize this form (not the Rough Draft template) to ensure proper formatting and inclusion of all required material. Additionally, view the Sample Final Lab Report before beginning this assignment, which will illustrate what a Final Lab Report should look like. You must use at least two scholarly sources, two other highly credible sources, and your lab manual to support your points. The report must be six to ten pages in length (excluding the title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style. For information regarding APA samples and tutorials, visit the Ashford Writing Center, located within the Learning Resources tab on the left navigation toolbar, in your online course.
The Final Lab Report must contain the following eight sections in this order:
- Title Page – This page must include the title of your report, your name, course name, instructor, and date submitted.
- Abstract – This section should provide a brief summary of the methods, results, and conclusions. It should allow the reader to see what was done, how it was done, and the results. It should not exceed 200 words and should be the last part written (although it should still appear right after the title page).
- Introduction – This section should include background information on water quality and an overview of why the experiment was conducted. It should first contain background information of similar studies previously conducted. This is accomplished by citing existing literature from similar experiments. Secondly, it should provide an objective or a reason why the experiment is being done. Why do we want to know the answer to the question we are asking? Finally, it should end the hypothesis from your Week Two experiment, and the reasoning behind your hypothesis. This hypothesis should not be adjusted to reflect the “right” answer. Simply place your previous hypothesis in the report here. You do not lose points for an inaccurate hypothesis; scientists often revise their hypotheses based on scientific evidence following the experiments.
- Materials and Methods – This section should provide a detailed description of the materials used in your experiment and how they were used. A step-by-step rundown of your experiment is necessary; however, it should be done in paragraph form, not in a list format. The description should be exact enough to allow for someone reading the report to replicate the experiment, however, it should be in your own words and not simply copied and pasted from the lab manual.
- Results – This section should include the data and observations from the experiment. All tables and graphs should be present in this section. In addition to the tables, you must describe the data in text; however, there should be no personal opinions or discussion outside of the results located within this area.
- Discussion – This section should interpret your data and provide conclusions. Discuss the meanings of your findings in this area. Was your hypothesis accepted or rejected, and how were you able to determine this? Did the results generate any future questions that might benefit from a new experiment? Were there any outside factors (i.e., temperature, contaminants, time of day) that affected your results? If so, how could you control for these in the future?
- Conclusions – This section should provide a brief summary of your work.
- References – List references used in APA format as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
Final Lab Report Research Paper
– 1 – 1 1. Shante, I have recorded screencast feedback for you. To view the video, please copy and paste this link into your browser window: http://screencast-o- matic.com/watch/cben3P6TS L If the link does not work, clear your browser cache, including cookies and search history. Restart your browser and try again. If that fails, try another browser (I use Chrome.). If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Clifford [Clifford Blizard] Running head: WATER AND CONTAMINATION Water and Contamination Shante’ Smith SCI 207: Our Dependence upon the Environment Instructor: Clifford Blizard February 27, 2017 – 2 – [no notes on this page]WATER AND CONTAMINATION 2 Water and Contamination Introduction Water is a vital resource for the human life survival as well as other living beings. The earth is however not endowed with fresh water sources, and hence a lot of water purification is always needed before consumption of the water. Research has been carried to check on the contamination levels of water from different sources. According to Hawkins, (2017), using bottled water which has more mineral content is safer than the tap water. This is further backed by Poland survey which showed that bottled water was preferred based on its taste, odor and maybe color, and this has constantly led to the rise of the bottling water ready market (Górski & Siepak, 2014) . The organoleptic has also been evident in surveys conducted in France. The research done by …… show that some prefer bottled water for health-related reasons. Another reason for consumption of the bottled water would be packaging and the marketing tools that entice the potential customers (de Queiroz, Doria, Rosenberg, Heller, & Zhouri, 2013). Due to the limited research, available, it is important to do more lab analysis on the mineral contents of the Dasani water, Fiji water, and tap water to determine which is best for human consumption and what each category lacks (de Queiroz et al., 2013). This will be used to create public awareness to individuals demystify on the safety and health risk on water. This will lead to the reduction in the cases of drinking contaminated water that exposes one to diseases such as typhoid and ingesting of harmful toxins. The hypothesis being experimented on is whether the bottled water contains fewer chemicals, if any, that come from the local tap water and should be healthier. Fiji water is expected to contain the least number of contaminants because the water is bottled at the source. – 3 – [no notes on this page]WATER AND CONTAMINATION 3 It is bottled from an artesian aquifer and remains untouched by man (FijiWater.com). An artesian aquifer is essentially a well that is in particular geologic layer that stores water. Following the Fiji water, the Dasani water will contain more contaminants than the Fiji water but less than my local tap water because Dasani is jus t purified water. Dasani’s purified water is filtered using reverse osmosis then minerals are added in after the purification process (Dasani.com). Finally, the local tap water is expected to contain the greatest number of contaminants because there is no purification system in place. Materials and Methods The experiment requires the sample of Fiji bottled water, Dasani bottled water and tap water. To aid in testing the mineral components use the Ammonia test strips, Chloride test strips, 4 in 1 test strips, Phosphate test strips, and Iron test strips. Other additional equipment are beakers, stopwatch, parafilm, and pipettes Using the Ammonia strips test, insert a strip in each of the labeled beakers, working on each beaker at a time, and ensure its fully submerged and move it up and down the beaker for 30 seconds. Then remove the strip from the water and shake off to get rid of excess water and hold the strip pad side up for 30 seconds (Van Hulle & Cristina Ciocci, 2012). Holding the pads away from you now compare with that of the color chart table and collect the results. Carry out the same procedure for the two samples and record the results. The chloride test strips are carried out by immersing “the pads” in the water samples for 1 second and then remove from water and shake off excess water leaving it for 1 second before comparing the “pads” to the color chart and record the results. One should repeat the procedure on the other two samples. – 4 – [no notes on this page]WATER AND CONTAMINATION 4 In the 4 in 1 method, the strips are immersed in the sample water in a back and forth movement for 5 seconds. Then remove the strip and shake off fast before leaving it for 20 seconds. Compare the strips on the color chart to match on Total Alkalinity, Total Chlorine and Total Hardness and record results. Finally, repeat the procure for the other two samples. The phosphate test is a bit different, and the strip is immersed in the sample water for 5 seconds and removed from the water. While still soaked in water, the strip is held horizontally with the pads on the upside for 45 seconds (Van Hulle & Cristina Ciocci, 2012). Compare the test pad on the color chart and record the results. Repeat procedure for the other two samples of water. On the iron test strip, the sample water is measured 30ml into a beaker, and the reducing powder is added to the beaker and covered with parafilm then shake the beaker vigorously for 15seconds. Dip iron strips into the beaker in a back and forth movement for 5 seconds and then remove iron strips from the beaker and shake off excess water. Wait for 10 seconds before comparing the test strips to the color chart and record results (Van Hulle & Cristina Ciocci, 2012). Repeat the procedure for the other two samples. The PH test involves measuring 25ml of sample water to a beaker and the using a pipette add 5ml of jiffy juice and mix by swirling the beaker and then compare the color of the water with that of the Ph chart. Repeat the test on the other two samples. Results Table 1: Test Results Water Sample Ammonia Test Chlorine test Phosphate Iron pH Tap Water 0(mg/L) 0(mg/L) 50ppm 0.15ppm 7 Dasani ® Bottled Water 0(mg/L) 0(mg/L) 10ppm 0ppm 3 Fiji ® Bottled Water 0(mg/L) 0(mg/L) 100ppm 0ppm 6 – 5 – [no notes on this page]WATER AND CONTAMINATION 5 Table 2: Test Results Sample water Total Alkalinity Total Chlorine Total Hardness Tap Water 0(mg/L) 4.0(mg/L) 50(mg/L) Dasani ® Bottled Water 0(mg/L) 0(mg/L) 0(mg/L) Fiji ® Bottled Water 0(mg/L) 4.0(mg/L 50(mg/L) According to the experiment carried out, it was established that all the water sampled i.e. Fiji, Dasani and tap water did not contain ammonia and chlorine. The 4 in 1 test shows that there were no alkalinity levels in all the water samples. However, the Total Chlorine and Total hardness were noticed on the Tap water and Fiji water at similar proportio ns. The phosphates show greater levels in Fiji water and least on the Dasani Bottled water. The iron test was only positive on the tap water. Finally, using the Ph kit, the highest levels were recorded in the Tap water and least on the Dasani Bott led water. Discussion About the hypothesis drawn, one would reject the hypothesis because the Fiji Bottled Water contained the same amount of chlorine and hardness as the tap water and the bottled Dasani water contained no hardness or chlorine. Also, the Fiji Bottled Water had the highest amount of phosphate present followed by the local tap water then the Dasani Bottled Water. As far as the iron test the Dasani water and Fiji water was the same and my local tap water had .15 ppm of iron present in its water (Górski & Siepak, 2014). Finally, pH results showed that Dasani had the least amount of pH present followed by Fiji than the local tap water. In conclusion, the Dasani Fiji Bottled Water and my tap water almost the same number of contaminants. Surprisingly, the Dasani Bottled Water that is just purified tap water had the least number of contaminants even with the minerals added in the water after the purification process (Saylor, Prokopy, & Amberg, 2011). – 6 – [no notes on this page]WATER AND CONTAMINATION 6 The consumption of water is critical and is affected by many factors, this research backs up previous research carried on the same topic, and the results are much similar. Just like the study conducted by de Queiroz, Doria, Rosenberg, Heller, & Zhouri, (2013) that also found contamination in tap water as compared to bottled water. The research did not focus on the different brands of bottled water to check consistency. The major research carried out shows drinking too much-chlorinated water may impose the health risk of bladder cancer there also so many other long-term downsides in drinking chlorinated water. The source of the tap water is quite varied, and hence this may greatly influence the experiments carried out in different geographical regions Conclusion The bottled water is worth the price, but the source of water and process of purification should be kept in mind because you may be drinking water that contains more contaminants than the local tap water (Hawkins, 2017). In this instance, the Dasani Bottled Water would be worth the price to protect one from any health risks. Further research needs to be carried out by examining the contamination levels of various brands of bottled water before being launched in th e market. – 7 – [no notes on this page]WATER AND CONTAMINATION 7 References Chemical Quality of Tap Water versus Bottled Water: Evaluation of Some Heavy Metals and Elements Content of Drinking Water in Dakhlia Governorate – Egypt. (2010). The Internet Journal of Nutrition and Wellness , 9 (2). http://dx.doi.org/10.5580/12ef de Queiroz, J., Doria, M., Rosenberg, M., Heller, L., & Zhouri, A. (2013). Perceptions of bottled water consumers in three Brazilian municipalities. Journal of Water and Health , 11 (3), 520. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wh.2013.222 Górski, J. & Siepak, M. (2014). Assessment of metal concentrations in tap-water – from source to the tap: a case study from Szczecin, Poland. Geologos , 20 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/logos-2014-0004 Hawkins, G. (2017). The impacts of bottled water: an analysis of bottled water markets and their interactions with tap water provision. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water , e1203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1203 Saylor, A., Prokopy, L., & Amberg, S. (2011). What’s Wrong with the Tap? Examining Perceptions of Tap Water and Bottled Water at Purdue University. Environmental Management , 48 (3), 588-601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9692-6 Van Hulle, S. & Cristina Ciocci, M. (2012). Statistical evaluation and comparison of the chemical quality of bottled water and flemish tap water. Desalination and Water Treatment , 40 (1-3), 183-193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2012.671166
Final Lab Report Research Paper
Shante Smith: Ashford 4 Assignment Numeric Grade: 8.71 / 10 pts Weighted Average (Earned/Possible): 8.71 % / 10 % Letter Grade: Comments: View Waypoint markup for SCIWeek3RoughDraft.edited (1).docx View Waypoint markup for Screenshot 2017-02-27 at 9.45.55 PM.pdf The following files ha ve been attached to your f eedback Shante, I have recorded screencast feedback for you. To view the video, please copy and paste this link into your browser window: http://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/cben3P6TSL If the link does not work, clear your browser cache, including cookies and search history. Restart your browser and try again. If that fails, try another browser (I use Chrome.). If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Clifford (0.25 / 0.25) Title Page Distinguished – Provides a title page that includes the title of the report, course name, student’s name, instructor, and date submitted. (1.1 / 1.25) Introduction Proficient – Includes an introduction in a minimum of three paragraphs that discusses the background into the topic supported by scholarly sources, an objective of the study, and a hypothesis for the experiment along with an explanation of how the student arrived at that hypothesis. Minimal improvement is needed through additional detail, improvement of source material, and/or rewording of hypotheses. (0.95 / 1.25) Materials and Methods Basic – Partially describes the materials and methods section. Relevant details are missing that limits the repeatability of the experiment, and/or excessive information is present. Very detailed methods section here. This is certainly an excellent beginning; however, your outline actually provides too much detail. You only need to provide vital steps that summarize how you conducted the experiment. For instance, when calculating pH, you do not need to include steps such as “dip the pH test strip in the water, then shake the test strips.” These steps can be simplified to read “we used pH test strips to measure water pH” as such testing strips will come with instructions. If you have any questions about this, feel free to email me directly or post your concerns in the Ask Your Instructor section of the course. (1.1 / 1.25) Results Proficient – Includes a results section that addresses all of the tables utilized in the laboratory as well as at least one paragraph objectively explaining the data. Minor errors are seen in the data tables, or details are missing in the data explanation. (0.8 / 1.25) Discussion Below Expectations – Includes a discussion section; however, does not explain one or more of the required components. Many improvements are needed through additional detail, inclusion of source material, and correction of significant errors. (0.57 / 0.75) Conclusion Basic – Includes a conclusion section that summarizes all facets of your experiment. Moderate improvement is needed to accurately summarize the report. (1 / 1) Submits Grammarly Report Distinguished – Submits screen shot of the Grammarly report as required. (0.44 / 0.5) Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics Proficient – Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors, and is mostly easy to understand. (0.5 / 0.5) APA Formatting Distinguished – Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page. (0.5 / 0.5) Page Requirement Distinguished – The length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages. (1.5 / 1.5) Resource Requirement Distinguished – Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment. Overall Score: 8.71 / 10
Final Lab Report Research Paper
Running Head: SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 1 Sample Lab Report (The Optimal Foraging Theory) Name SCI 207 Dependence of Man on the Environment Instructor Date SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 2 Sample Lab Report Abstract The theory of optimal foraging and its relation to central foraging was examined by using the beaver as a model. Beaver food choice was examined by noting the species of woody vegetation, status (chewed vs. not -chewed), distance from the water, and circumference of trees near a beaver pond in North Carolina. Beavers avoided certain speci es of trees and preferred trees that were close to the water. No preference for tree circumference was noted. These data suggest that beaver food choice concurs with the optimal foraging theory. Introduction In this lab, we explore the theory of optimal foraging and the theory of central place foraging using beavers as the model animal. Foraging refers to the mammalian behavior associated with searching for food. The optimal foraging theory assumes that animals feed in a way that maximizes their net rate of energy intake per unit time (Pyke et al., 1977). An animal may either maximize its daily energy intake (energy maximizer) or minimize the time spent feeding (time minimizer) in order to meet minimum requirements. Herbivores commonly behave as energy ma ximizers (Belovsky , 1986) and accomplish this maximizing behavior by choosing food that is of high quality and has low -search and low -handling time (Pyke et al. , 1977). The central place theory is used to describe animals that collect food and s tore it in a fixed location in their home range, the central place (Jenkins , 1980). The factors associated with the optimal foraging theory also apply to the central place theory. The central place theory predicts that retrieval costs increase linearly wit h distance of the resource from the central place SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 3 (Rockwood and Hubbell , 1987). Central place feeders are very selective when choosing food that is far from the central place since they have to spend time and energy hauling it back to the storage site (Sch oener, 1979). The main objective of this lab was to determine beaver ( Castor canadensis ) food selection based on tree species, size, and distance. Since beavers are energy maximizers (Jenkins , 1980; Belovsky , 1984) and central place feeders (McG inley & Whitam, 1985), they make an excellent test animal for the optimal foraging theory. Beavers eat several kinds of herbaceous plants as well as the leaves, twigs, and bark of most species of woody plants that grow near water (Jenkins & Busher , 1979). By examining the trees that are chewed or not -chewed in the beavers’ home range, an accurate assessment of food preferences among tree species may be gained (Jenkins , 1975). The purpose of this lab was to learn about the optimal foraging theory. We wanted to know if beavers put the optimal foraging theory into action when selecting food. We hypothesized that the beavers in this study will choose trees that are small in circumference and closest to the water. Since the energy yield of tree species may vary significantly, we also hypothesized that beavers will show a preference for some species of trees over others regardless of circumference size or distance from the central area. The optimal foraging theory and central place theory lead us to pred ict that beavers, like most herbivores, will maximize their net rate of energy intake per unit time. In order to maximize energy, beavers will choose trees that are closest to their central place (the water) and require the least retrieval cost. Since beav ers are trying to maximize energy, we hypothesized that they will tend to select some species of trees over others on the basis of nutritional value. Methods This study was conducted at Yates Mill Pond, a research area owned by the North SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 4 Carolina State Un iversity, on October 25 th, 1996. Our research area was located along the edge of the pond and was approximately 100 m in length and 28 m in width. There was no beaver activity observed beyond this width. The circumference, the species, status (chewed or no t- chewed), and distance from the water were recorded for each tree in the study area. Due to the large number of trees sampled, the work was evenly divided among four groups of students working in quadrants. Each group contributed to the overall data coll ected. We conducted a chi -squared test to analyze the data with respect to beaver selection of certain tree species. We conducted t -tests to determine (1) if avoided trees were significantly farther from the water than selected trees, and (2) if chewed tr ees were significantly larger or smaller than not chewed trees. Mean tree distance from the water and mean tree circumference were also recorded. Results SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 5 Overall, beavers showed a preference for certain species of trees, and their preference was based on distance from the central place. Measurements taken at the study site show that SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 6 beavers avoided oaks and musclewood (Fig. 1) and show a significant food preference . No avoidance or particular preference was observed for the other tree species. Th e mean distance of 8.42 m away from the water for not -chewed trees was significantly greater than the mean distance of 6.13 m for chewed trees (Fig. 2). The tree species that were avoided were not significantly farther from the water than selected trees. F or the selected tree species, no significant difference in circumference was found between trees that were not chewed (mean=16.03 cm) and chewed (mean=12.80 cm) (Fig. 3). Discussion Although beavers are described as generalized herbivores, the finding in this study related to species selection suggests that beavers are selective in their food choice. This finding agrees with our hypothesis that beavers are likely to show a preference for certain tree species. Although beaver selection of certain species of trees may be related to the nutritional value, additional information is needed to determine why beavers select some tree species over others. Other studies suggested that beavers avoid trees that have chemical defenses that make the tree unpalatable to b eavers (Muller -Schawarze et al. , 1994). These studies also suggested that beavers prefer trees with soft wood, which could possibly explain the observed avoidance of musclewood and oak in our study. The result that chewed trees were closer to the water ac counts for the time and energy spent gathering and hauling. This is in accordance with the optimal foraging theory and agrees with our hypothesis that beavers will choose trees that are close to the water. As distance from the water increases, a tree’s net energy yield decreases because food that is farther away is more likely to increase search and retrieval time. This finding is similar to Belovskyís finding of an SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 7 inverse relationship between distance from the water and percentage of plants cut. The lack of any observed difference in mean circumference between chewed and not chewed trees does not agree with our hypothesis that beavers will prefer smaller trees to larger ones. Our hypothesis was based on the idea that branches from smaller trees will requi re less energy to cut and haul than those from larger trees. Our finding is in accordance with other studies (Schoener , 1979), which have suggested that the value of all trees should decrease with distance from the water but that beavers would benefit from choosing large branches from large trees at all distances. This would explain why there was no significant difference in circumference between chewed and not -chewed trees. This lab gave us the opportunity to observe how a specific mammal selects foods that maximize energy gains in accordance with the optimal foraging theory. Although beavers adhere to the optimal foraging theory, without additional information on relative nutritional value of tree species and the time and energy costs of cutting certain t ree species, no optimal diet predictions may be made. Other information is also needed about predatory risk and its role in food selection. Also, due to the large number of students taking samples in the field, there may have been errors which may have aff ected the accuracy and precision of our measurements. In order to corroborate our findings, we suggest that this study be repeated by others. Conclusion The purpose of this lab was to learn about the optimal foraging theory by measuring tree selection in beavers. We now know that the optimal foraging theory allows us to predict food- seeking behavior in beavers with respect to distance from their central place and, to a certain extent, to variations in tree species. We also learned that foraging behaviors and food selection is SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 8 not always straightforward. For instance, beavers selected large branches at any distance from the water even though cutting large branches may increase energy requirements. There seems to be a fine line between energy intake and ener gy expenditure in beavers that is not so easily predicted by any given theory. SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 9 References Belovsky, G.E. (1984 ). Summer diet optimization by beaver. The American Midland Naturalist. 111: 209- 222. Belovsky, G.E. (1986 ). Optimal foraging and community structure: implications for a guild of generalist grassland herbivores. Oecologia. 70: 35-52. Jenkins, S.H. (1975) . Food selection by beavers:› a multidimensional contingency table analysis. Oecolo gia. 21: 157- 173. Jenkins, S.H. (1980) . A size -distance relation in food selection by beavers. Ecology. 61: 740- 746. Jenkins, S.H., & P.E. Busher. ( 1979). Castor canadensis. Mammalian Species. 120: 1- 8. McGinly, M.A., & T.G. Whitham. (1985) . Central place foraging by beavers ( Castor Canadensis): a test of foraging predictions and the impact of selective feeding on the growth form of cottonwoods (Populus fremontii). Oecologia. 66: 558- 562. Muller -Schwarze, B.A. Schulte, L. Sun, A. Muller-Schhwarze, & C. Muller -Schwarze. ( 1994). Red Maple ( Acer rubrum ) inhibits feeding behavior by beaver ( Castor canadensis). Journal of Chemical Ecology. 20: 2021 -2033. Pyke, G.H., H.R. Pulliman, E.L. Charnov. (1977) . Optimal foraging. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 52: 137-154. Rockwood, L.L., & S.P. Hubbell. (1987) . Host -plant selection, diet diversity, and optimal foraging in a tropical leaf-cutting ant. Oecologia. 74: 55- 61. Schoener, T. W. ( 1979) . Generality of the size- distance relation in models of optimal feeding. The American Naturalist. 114: 902-912. SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 10 *Note: This document was modified from the work of Selena Bauer, Miriam Ferzli, and Vanessa Sorensen, NCSU.
Do you need help with this or a different assignment? We offer CONFIDENTIAL, ORIGINAL (Turnitin/LopesWrite/SafeAssign checks), and PRIVATE services using latest (within 5 years) peer-reviewed articles. Kindly click on ORDER NOW to receive an A++ paper from our masters- and PhD writers. Get a 15% discount on your order using the following coupon code SAVE15
Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper