BI108&–&AIR&POLLUTION&LAB

I have a simple lab that needs to be done,  everything you need is attached.

BI108
 –
 AIR
 POLLUTION
 LAB
 

The
 air
 contains
 tiny
 particles
 of
 dust,
 soot,
 and
 pollen
 (known
 as
 particulate
 
matter),
 which
 can
 be
 seen
 with
 a
 hand
 lens.
 It
 may
 also
 contain
 particles
 of
 lead
 and
 
mercury,
 which
 are
 too
 small
 to
 see.
 Some
 particles
 come
 from
 faraway
 volcanic
 
eruptions
 and
 soil
 that
 has
 been
 blown
 into
 the
 air.
 Other
 sources
 are
 coal-­‐
 and
 oil-­‐
powered
 electricity-­‐generating
 plants
 along
 with
 factories,
 exhaust,
 and
 forest
 fires.
 
Some
 is
 released
 from
 cars.
 Because
 of
 its
 small
 size,
 particulate
 matter
 can
 travel
 
great
 distances
 and
 contribute
 to
 haze
 in
 cities.
 

 
Particulate
 matter
 also
 presents
 a
 very
 troubling
 human
 health
 concern.
 
 The
 small
 
particles
 can
 lodge
 in
 the
 lungs,
 causing
 asthma,
 wheezing,
 and
 chronic
 bronchitis.
 
 
Children
 and
 the
 elderly
 are
 at
 the
 greatest
 risk
 of
 suffering
 from
 respiratory
 
problems
 due
 to
 particulate
 matter
 inhalation.
 
 Particulate
 matter
 is
 also
 a
 
suspected
 carcinogen.
 

 
Other
 air
 pollutants
 we
 won’t
 be
 measuring
 in
 this
 lab
 including
 hydrocarbons,
 
nitrogen
 oxides,
 ozone,
 smog,
 carbon
 monoxide,
 and
 carbon
 dioxide.
 
 Hydrocarbons
 
or
 volatile
 organic
 compounds
 (VOC’s)
 occur
 when
 fuel
 does
 not
 burn
 completely.
 
 
Many
 hydrocarbons
 are
 both
 toxic
 and
 carcinogenic.
 
 Also,
 hydrocarbons
 react
 with
 
nitrogen
 oxide
 and
 sunlight
 to
 form
 ground-­‐level
 ozone,
 which
 damages
 the
 lungs,
 
eyes,
 and
 respiratory
 tract
 and
 forms
 one
 of
 our
 nation’s
 most
 widespread
 urban
 air
 
pollution
 problems.
 

 
In
 this
 lab
 we
 will
 measure
 and
 compare
 the
 particulate
 matter
 we
 can
 see
 both
 
inside
 and
 outside.
 These
 will
 be
 the
 two
 treatments
 –
 categories
 within
 the
 
experiment
 that
 you
 control.
 Below
 you
 will
 find
 the
 materials
 you
 need
 and
 the
 
methodology
 that
 you
 will
 follow.
 The
 data
 you
 collect
 will
 be
 the
 number
 of
 
particles
 you
 can
 see
 on
 the
 sticky
 ends.
 You
 will
 analyze
 this
 data,
 make
 graphs
 to
 
show
 the
 averages
 of
 your
 two
 treatments
 and
 then
 turn
 in
 a
 lab
 report
 (see
 below
 
for
 format)
 in
 which
 you
 present
 your
 data
 and
 describe
 what
 it
 means.
 

 

 

 

 
1.
 MATERIALS
 
 

• Roll
 of
 white,
 plastic
 furniture
 repair
 tape
 (or
 duct
 tape
 will
 work
 fine)
 
 
• Ten
 paint
 stirrers
 or
 foot
 long
 rulers,
 each
 labeled
 with
 a
 number
 (1-­‐10)
 
• Scissors
 
• Ten
 paper
 cups
 
 
• Masking
 tape
 
 
• Sharpie
 
 
• Hand
 lens
 (magnifying
 glass)
 

 
• Note
 cards
 (if
 needed
 to
 prevent
 disturbance)
 

2.
 METHODS
 
• For
 each
 stick,
 cut
 a
 strip
 of
 furniture/
 duct
 tape
 ~5
 inches
 (~13
 

centimeters)
 long
 and
 tightly
 wrap
 one
 end
 of
 each
 stick
 so
 the
 sticky
 side
 is
 
facing
 out.
 Overlap
 the
 ends
 of
 the
 tape
 to
 hold
 it
 in
 place.
 Try
 not
 to
 touch
 
the
 surface
 of
 the
 tape
 except
 at
 the
 back
 where
 the
 ends
 will
 overlap.
 

• If
 you
 live
 someplace
 where
 the
 sticks
 are
 likely
 to
 be
 disturbed,
 make
 a
 card
 
for
 each
 that
 says
 “Experiment
 in
 progress
 –
 please
 do
 not
 disturb”
 

• Place
 a
 paper
 cup
 on
 the
 taped
 end
 of
 each
 stick,
 but
 don’t
 touch
 the
 sides
 of
 
the
 cup
 to
 the
 front
 of
 the
 tape
 (where
 the
 ends
 don’t
 overlap.
 (You’re
 using
 
the
 cups
 to
 keep
 particles
 off
 the
 tape
 until
 you
 put
 the
 sticks
 where
 you
 need
 
them.)
 

• Five
 of
 the
 sticks
 will
 be
 taped
 to
 signs
 somewhere
 outside
 (a
 parking
 lot
 or
 
somewhere
 near
 the
 street
 if
 possible).
 The
 other
 five
 should
 be
 attached
 
somewhere
 inside.
 Place
 all
 where
 they
 will
 be
 exposed
 to
 normal
 air
 flow
 for
 
where
 they
 are,
 but
 where
 they
 are
 unlikely
 to
 be
 disturbed,
 bumped
 into,
 
etc.
 Attach
 your
 sticks
 so
 that
 the
 side
 without
 the
 over
 lapping
 ends
 (the
 
‘front’)
 is
 unobstructed
 and
 so
 that
 they
 will
 remain
 where
 you
 put
 them.
 
Once
 you
 have
 attached
 your
 sticks,
 remove
 the
 paper
 cups
 to
 expose
 the
 
tape.
 Attach
 your
 “do-­‐not-­‐disturb”
 signs
 (if
 needed)
 under
 each
 of
 your
 
sticks.
 
 

 

 
• After
 3
 days,
 recollect
 your
 sticks
 and
 re-­‐cover
 them
 with
 the
 cups
 to
 protect
 

them
 in
 transit
 back
 to
 wherever
 you
 will
 look
 at
 them
 (again,
 take
 care
 not
 
to
 contact
 the
 front
 of
 the
 tape
 with
 the
 cup).
 
 

• On
 the
 squared
 off
 ends
 of
 each
 stick,
 use
 a
 sharpie
 or
 pen
 to
 draw
 lines
 2
 and
 
3
 cm
 from
 the
 top
 of
 the
 stick.
 
 

• Use
 a
 strong
 magnifying
 glass
 to
 count
 the
 number
 of
 visible
 particles
 on
 the
 
front
 side
 of
 the
 tape
 (the
 side
 without
 the
 overlapping
 ends)
 between
 the
 
sharpie
 marks
 you
 made.
 Anything
 on
 the
 tape
 counts
 as
 a
 particle
 –
 pollen,
 
specks
 of
 dirt,
 bugs,
 etc.
 Making
 the
 marks
 makes
 sure
 you
 count
 particles
 
from
 the
 same
 area
 for
 all
 sticks
 (so
 you
 can
 compare
 between
 them),
 but
 
will
 allow
 you
 to
 look
 at
 a
 smaller
 overall
 area
 (might
 be
 nice
 in
 case
 you
 
have
 lots
 of
 particles
 from
 one
 location.
 
 

• IF
 YOU
 FIND
 THAT
 NONE
 OF
 YOUR
 STICKS
 HAVE
 MANY
 (OR
 ANY)
 
PARTICLES
 between
 the
 marked
 lines,
 count
 from
 the
 rest
 of
 the
 front
 of
 the
 
tape
 to
 see
 if
 you
 will
 pick
 up
 anything,
 BUT
 if
 you
 do
 this
 from
 one
 stick,
 you
 
have
 to
 do
 them
 from
 all
 of
 them
 –
 we
 need
 to
 compare
 apples
 to
 apples,
 so
 
you
 can’t
 compare
 the
 number
 of
 particles
 in
 1
 cm
 from
 a
 few
 sticks
 and
 from
 
5
 cm
 from
 the
 others.
 

• Take
 a
 picture
 of
 your
 sticks
 to
 attach
 to
 your
 lab
 report.
 

• Record
 your
 observations
 in
 the
 table
 provided.
 Having
 multiple
 sticks
 from
 
each
 place
 gives
 you
 REPLICATES,
 will
 give
 you
 a
 better
 idea
 of
 what
 is
 really
 
going
 on
 in
 each
 place.
 After
 all,
 if
 you
 wanted
 to
 know
 how
 tall
 the
 average
 
man
 was,
 you
 wouldn’t
 just
 measure
 one!
 

• Calculate
 an
 average
 for
 each
 location
 and
 record
 it
 in
 the
 table.
 
• Make
 a
 graph
 showing
 the
 AVERAGE
 number
 of
 particulates
 for
 each
 

location.
 

 

 

 
With
 the
 data
 you
 collected,
 you
 will
 write
 a
 lab
 report
 and
 submit
 that
 through
 
Blackboard.
 I
 have
 posted
 an
 example
 of
 a
 properly
 formatted
 report
 from
 another
 
class
 to
 use
 as
 a
 guide.
 In
 your
 report,
 you
 should
 have
 the
 following
 sections:
 

 
An
 Abstract:
 this
 is
 a
 summary
 and
 should
 speak
 in
 general
 terms
 about
 the
 
purpose
 of
 the
 experiment,
 the
 methods,
 the
 findings
 and
 what
 they
 mean.
 It
 should
 
be
 SHORT
 and
 GENERAL
 –
 the
 bottom
 line
 on
 each
 of
 the
 sections
 that
 follow,
 so
 a
 
reader
 will
 have
 a
 general
 idea
 of
 what
 you
 did,
 what
 you
 found
 and
 what
 it
 means.
 

 
I.
 Statement
 of
 problem:
 
 What
 is
 the
 question
 that
 you
 are
 addressing
 and
 why
 is
 
it
 interesting/
 important?
 

 
II.
 Statement
 of
 working
 hypothesis:
 a
 statement
 that
 can
 be
 falsified
 such
 as
 “I
 
hypothesize
 that
 there
 will
 be
 more
 particulate
 matter
 collected
 on
 the
 inside
 
sticks.”
 

 
III.
 Experimental
 designs
 and
 methods:
 this
 is
 what
 you
 did
 to
 conduct
 the
 
experiment,
 including
 the
 materials
 you
 used
 but
 IT
 SHOULD
 NOT
 READ
 LIKE
 A
 
LIST!!!
 
 This
 section
 should
 be
 in
 SENTENCES
 and
 in
 PAST
 TENSE
 (you
 did
 the
 
experiment
 before
 you
 sat
 down
 to
 write
 the
 report
 after
 all).
 It
 should
 contain
 
enough
 detail
 that
 the
 person
 reading
 your
 lab
 report
 would
 understand
 what
 you
 
did,
 but
 you
 don’t
 have
 to
 tell
 us
 every
 time
 you
 sneezed.
 This
 section
 should
 contain
 
NO
 RESULTS
 –
 that
 comes
 later.
 

 
IV.
 Results:
 this
 is
 where
 you
 present
 your
 results,
 including
 the
 averages
 for
 your
 
two
 treatments
 (indoors
 &
 outdoors).
 You
 can
 and
 should
 include
 your
 table
 and
 
any
 graphs
 you
 make,
 BUT
 YOU
 SHOULD
 HAVE
 SENTENCES
 THAT
 PRESENT
 YOUR
 
RESULTS,
 independently
 of
 tables
 and
 graphs.
 The
 rule
 of
 thumb
 is
 that
 I
 should
 be
 
able
 to
 understand
 your
 results
 just
 from
 reading
 the
 sentences
 of
 the
 results
 
section
 but
 I
 should
 also
 be
 able
 to
 understand
 the
 results
 if
 I
 ONLY
 look
 at
 your
 
graphs
 and
 tables.
 In
 this
 section,
 present
 the
 results,
 but
 SAVE
 INTERPRETATIONS
 
of
 what
 those
 results
 mean
 for
 the
 next
 section.
 

 

V.
 Conclusion/future
 directions:
 this
 is
 where
 you
 say
 what
 your
 results
 mean,
 
especially
 in
 terms
 of
 your
 original
 hypothesis
 (remember
 your
 hypothesis?!).
 If
 
there
 were
 any
 problems
 with
 the
 experiment
 (your
 cat
 attacked
 one
 of
 the
 stick
 
and
 it
 was
 covered
 with
 tabby
 fur),
 this
 is
 the
 place
 to
 mention
 them
 and
 how
 they
 
may
 have
 affected
 your
 results,
 but
 you
 don’t
 want
 to
 dwell
 too
 much
 on
 the
 various
 
problems.
 This
 is
 also
 where
 you
 put
 forward
 ideas
 about
 WHY
 you
 got
 the
 results
 
you
 did
 and
 any
 questions
 your
 results
 bring
 up
 (if
 you
 saw
 this
 when
 you
 did
 X
 (in
 
this
 experiment),
 what
 would
 happen
 if
 you
 did
 Y
 (a
 variation
 on
 the
 experiment)?
 

 
VI.
 References:
 any
 sources
 from
 which
 you
 collected
 background
 information
 or
 
information
 you
 used
 to
 interpret
 your
 results.
 

 

OUTSIDE
  INSIDE
 
Location
 description
  #
 particles
  Location
 description
  #
 particles
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
AVERAGE:
 
 
 
 

 

Laboratory

 

Project
 1

 

Diabetes
 and
 Hypertension
 in
 Patients
 with
 CKF
 

 

Abstract
 

From
 previously
 working
 with
 dialysis
 patients,
 I
 wanted
 to
 know
 how
 many
 people
 with
 Chronic
 
Kidney
 Failure
 (CKF)
 had
 diabetes
 and/or
 hypertension
 (high
 blood
 pressure).
 
 With
 my
 hypothesis
 I
 
intended
 to
 prove
 that
 patients
 with
 CKF
 were
 more
 likely
 to
 have
 either
 disease.
 
 I
 started
 my
 project
 
by
 contacting
 two
 dialysis
 clinics
 that
 I
 previously
 worked
 for
 to
 gather
 information
 and
 establish
 a
 
control
 group.
 
 I
 wanted
 to
 know
 how
 many
 patients
 assigned
 to
 the
 clinics
 had
 diabetes
 alone,
 how
 
many
 had
 hypertension
 alone,
 and
 how
 many
 had
 both.
 
 After
 receiving
 the
 numbers,
 I
 was
 able
 to
 
conclude
 that
 Clinic
 1
 had
 a
 total
 of
 62.5%
 of
 patients
 with
 diabetes,
 and
 55%
 of
 patients
 with
 
hypertension
 (this
 is
 combining
 the
 number
 of
 patients
 with
 diseases
 alone
 and
 diseases
 combined),
 and
 
Clinic
 2
 had
 66%
 of
 patients
 with
 diabetes
 and
 57%
 with
 hypertension.
 The
 results
 were
 relatively
 close
 
to
 each
 other
 and
 correlated
 well
 with
 the
 results
 I
 gathered
 from
 the
 National
 Kidney
 Foundation’s
 
website,
 which
 stated
 that
 diabetes
 and
 hypertension
 are
 responsible
 for
 up
 to
 two-­‐thirds
 (66%)
 of
 
cases
 of
 Chronic
 Kidney
 Failure
 (CKF).
 I
 feel
 that
 my
 findings
 were
 somewhat
 accurate
 and
 could
 be
 
better
 with
 more
 research
 and
 statistics
 from
 other
 clinics.
 

 

I.
 Statement
 of
 problem:
 
 It
 seems
 that
 most
 people
 on
 dialysis
 require
 blood
 glucose
 monitoring
 and
 
all
 require
 monitoring
 of
 blood
 pressure.
 How
 many
 people
 suffering
 from
 CKF
 have
 diabetes
 and/or
 
hypertension?
 

 

II.
 Statement
 of
 working
 hypothesis:
 If
 people
 are
 diagnosed
 with
 CKF
 then
 they
 are
 most
 likely
 to
 
be
 diabetic
 or
 hypertensive.
 

 

III.
 Experimental
 designs
 and
 methods:
 
 I
 contacted
 a
 two
 dialysis
 clinics
 in
 two
 separate
 states
 from
 
which
 I
 was
 previously
 employed
 to
 obtain
 information
 from
 a
 controlled
 group.
 
 This
 allowed
 me
 to
 
collect
 data
 only
 from
 patients
 diagnosed
 with
 CKF.
 
 The
 nurses
 from
 each
 location
 pulled
 the
 patients
 
charts
 and
 tallied
 patients
 with
 diabetes
 alone,
 hypertension
 alone
 and
 those
 with
 both
 and
 reported
 
the
 results
 to
 me.
 
 I
 was
 able
 to
 conclude
 that
 the
 remaining
 patients
 had
 neither
 disease.
 

Once
 the
 data
 was
 collected
 from
 the
 clinics,
 I
 compared
 my
 findings
 to
 the
 statistics
 found
 from
 the
 
National
 Kidney
 Foundation
 website.
 

 

 
 

 

IV.
 Results:
 
 

From
 clinic
 1,
 7/40
 (17.5%)
 of
 patients
 were
 diabetic
 alone,
 4/40
 (10%)
 were
 hypertensive
 alone,
 18/40
 
(45%)
 had
 both
 diabetes
 and
 hypertension,
 and
 11/40
 (27.5%)
 were
 not
 affected
 by
 either
 disease.
 
 

 

 

In
 clinic
 2,
 out
 of
 56
 total
 patients,
 16/56
 (28.6%)
 had
 diabetes
 alone,
 11/56
 (19.6%)
 had
 hypertension
 
alone,
 21/56
 (37.5%)
 were
 both
 hypertensive
 and
 diabetic,
 and
 8/56
 (14.3%)
 were
 unaffected
 by
 either
 
disease.
 

 

17%
 

10%
 

45%
 

28%
 

 Clinic
 1
 CKF
 PaNents
 

Diabetes
 Alone
 

Hypertension
 Alone
 

Diabetes
 and
 Hypertension
 

Unaffected
 

29%
 

20%
 
37%
 

14%
 

Clinic
 2
 CKF
 PaNents
 

Diabetes
 Alone
 
Hypertension
 Alone
 
Diabetes
 and
 Hypertension
 
Unaffected
 

According
 to
 the
 National
 Kidney
 Foundation,
 diabetes
 and
 hypertension
 are
 responsible
 for
 up
 
to
 two-­‐thirds
 (66%)
 of
 cases
 in
 CKF,
 which
 correlates
 to
 my
 study
 from
 the
 two
 clinics.
 Clinic
 1
 had
 62.5%
 
(combined)
 diabetic
 patients
 and
 55%
 (combined)
 hypertensive
 patients,
 and
 Clinic
 2
 had
 66%
 
(combined)
 diabetic
 patients
 and
 57%
 (combined)
 hypertensive
 patients.
 
 
 

 

V.
 Conclusion/future
 directions:
 It
 appears
 that
 my
 findings
 from
 the
 two
 clinics
 fall
 within
 the
 two-­‐
thirds
 category
 and
 presents
 my
 hypothesis
 to
 be
 plausible.
 
 I
 feel
 that
 with
 more
 extensive
 research
 and
 
statistics
 from
 other
 clinics,
 I
 could
 gain
 a
 much
 more
 accurate
 result.
 

 

VI.
 References:
 
 

“About
 Chronic
 Kidney
 Disease.”
 The
 National
 Kidney
 Foundation:
 Kidney
 Disease.
 National
 Kidney
 
Foundation,
 Inc.,
 2013.
 Web.
 02
 Feb.
 2013.
 

• Statistical
 analysis
 collected
 from
 Carolina
 Dialysis
 LLC,
 Spartanburg,
 SC
 &
 Scott
 &
 White
 Dialysis,
 
Killeen,
 TX