Hi must use scholarly sources and need to be 8-10 pagesFinal Lab ReportYou 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.
Week 5 final lab report
Haleh Keshtkar8/18/2017 2:48:38 PM Brenda, Overall you did a really great job of covering the required components of the final paper rough draft. I took off some points for a few issues as noted. Please see the Waypoint feedback for additional comments, feedback, suggestions and explanation of points lost. Other than those issues, you really covered most of the required components of the paper. For the final version I would recommend doing some editing and double checking of spelling and grammar and of course adding more content in a few sections as noted. Make sure you meet the resource requirement of 4 outside sources, scholarly and credible (the textbook does not count, and please read up on the difference between a scholarly source and a popular source) plus the lab manual. Overall, this is really good work! As always, make sure to check your paper against the grading rubric and the final paper template to avoid missing points for required content in the final paper. Don’t forget to include a thorough abstract for the final paper! If you work to implement these recommendations I have no doubt you can craft a truly excellent final paper! ~ Haleh ( 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. ( 1.25 / 1.25) Introduction Distinguished – Includes an introduction in a minimum of three paragraphs that thoroughly 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. ( 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. Comments: Overall good start concerning the methods section, but do not forget the materials. You should mention all of the materials used in your experiment at the beginning of the section. These should still be in paragraph form and not simply listed. Make sure that these are included in the Final Lab Report. Good start to a materials and methods section, but in your Final Lab Report, I will need to see much more detail. This section should be written so that an outsider reading your report could repeat your experiment. This does not meaning writing every little step like “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,” etc. since the kits come with instructions. However, just remember that enough detail is needed to repeat the experiment. 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. ( 1.25 / 1.25) Results Distinguished – Includes a results section that thoroughly addresses all of the tables utilized in the laboratory as well as at least one paragraph objectively explaining the data. ( 0.95 / 1.25) Discussion Basic – Includes a discussion section that somewhat explains whether or not the hypothesis was accepted or rejected, information including scholarly sources that put the results into context, any outside factors affecting the results and how they might be controlled, and future studies generated from the results. Moderate improvements are needed through additional detail, improvement of source material, and/or correction of errors. Comments: In addition to noting some of the potentially confounding variables that might have altered your results, make sure in your Final Lab Report that you also address some future experiments that may have arisen from your results. Results of scientific experiments always bring up new questions. What might some of these questions be and how might you do another experiment to address these questions? In addition to a substantial discussion surrounding how you decided to accept or reject your hypothesis, you also needed to provide a significant discussion of what the results mean. To do this, in your Final Lab Report you should discuss the consequences of your results and should utilize some scholarly sources to help drive these points home. Again, make sure that the sources are scholarly, not popular. Scholarly sources can be located in the Ashford Library or by using the Google Scholar search engine. ( 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. Comments: Good attempt here, but a few changes will need to be made on your Final Lab Report. This is one of the most often confused sections as people think it should just be a general closing sentence or two. While this should close out the report it should do so by summarizing your entire report. You should very briefly (still only a paragraph) sum up the objective, experiment conducted, the results, and what these mean to any future work or society. ( 1.00 / 1.00) Submits Grammarly Report Distinguished – Submits screen shot of the Grammarly report as required. ( 0.50 / 0.50) Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics Distinguished – Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to understand. ( 0.50 / 0.50) APA Formatting Distinguished – Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page. ( 0.44 / 0.50) Page Requirement Proficient – The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages. ( 1.32 / 1.50) Resource Requirement Proficient – Uses required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment. Overall Score: 8.98 / 10.00 Overall Grade: 8.98
Week 5 final lab report
Final Lab Report 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.
Week 5 final lab report
Title 4 Title Name SCI 207: Our Dependence Upon the Environment Instructor Date *This template will provide you with the details necessary to finalize a quality Final Lab Report. Utilize this template to complete the Week 5 Final Lab Report and ensure that you are providing all of the necessary information and proper format for the assignment. Before you begin, please note the following important information: Carefully review the Final Lab Report instructions before you begin this assignment. The Final Lab Report should cover the Drinking Water Quality Experiment from your Week Two Lab. Review instructor feedback from the Week Three outline of the Final Lab Report and make changes as necessary. Review the Sample Final Lab Report for an example of a final product on a different topic. Your format should look like this sample report before submission. Make sure your final report is in proper APA format. Use the Sample Final Lab Report as a guide, or obtain an APA Template from the Writing Center. Run your Final Lab Report through Turnitin using the student folder to ensure protection from accidental plagiarism Title Abstract The abstract should provide a brief summary of the methods, results, and conclusions. It should very briefly 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 The introduction should describe the background of water quality and related issues using cited examples. You should include scholarly sources in this section to help explain why water quality research is important to society. When writing this section, make sure to cite all resources in APA format. The introduction should also contain the objective for your study. This objective is the reason why the experiment is being done. Your final report should provide an objective that describes why we want to know the answer to the questions we are asking. Finally, the introduction should end with your hypothesis. This hypothesis should be the same one posed before you began your experiment. You may reword it following feedback from your instructor to illustrate a proper hypothesis, however, you should not adjust it to reflect the “right” answer. You do not lose points for an inaccurate hypothesis; scientists often revise their hypotheses based on scientific evidence following an experiment. Include an explanation as to why you made the hypothesis that you did. Materials and Methods The materials and methods section should provide a brief description of the specialized materials used in your experiment and how they were used. This section needs to summarize the instructions with enough detail so that an outsider who does not have a copy of the lab instructions knows what you did. However, this does not mean writing every little step like “dip the chloride test strip in the water, then shake the test strip,” these steps can be simplified to read “we used chloride test strips to measure the chloride levels of each sample in mg/L”, etc. Additionally, this section should be written in the past tense and in your own words and not copied and pasted from the lab manual. Results The results section should include all tables used in your experiments. All values within the tables or graphs should be in numerical form and contain units. For instance, if measuring the amount of chloride in water you should report as 2 mg/L or 0 mg/L, not as two or none. The results section should also highlight the important results in paragraph form, referring to the appropriate tables when mentioned. This section should only state the results as no personal opinions should be included. A description of what the results really mean should be saved for the discussion. For example, you may report, 0mg/L of chlorine were found in the water, but should avoid personal opinions and interpretations of the data (e.g., “No chlorine was found in the water showing it is cleaner than the others samples”). Discussion The discussion section should interpret your data and provide conclusions. Start by discussing whether you accepted or rejected your hypothesis and how you arrived at this decision. In the same section, consider some of the implications of your results. Given the chemical differences you may have noted between the water samples, are any of the differences causes for concern? Why or why not? The discussion should also relate your results to the bigger water concerns and challenges. For example, based on your experiments you might discuss how various bottled water companies use different filtration systems. Or, you could discuss the billion dollar bottled water industry. For example, do you think it is worth it to buy bottled water? Why or why not? Your final lab report should utilize credible and scholarly resources to put your results into context. Finally, the results section should also address any possible factors that may have affected your results, such as possible contamination in the experiments or any outside factors (e.g., temperature, contaminants, time of day). If so, how could you control for these in the future? You should also propose some new questions that have arisen from your results and what kind of experiment might be proposed to answer these questions. Conclusions The conclusion section should briefly summarize the key findings of your experiment. What main message would you like people to have from this report? References Include at least two scholarly references, two credible references, and your lab manual in APA format.
Week 5 final lab report
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.
Week 5 final lab report
SCI207.W5A1.08.2016 Description: Total Possible Score: 24.00 Title Page Total: 0.50 Distinguished – Provides a title page that includes the title of the report, course name, student’s name, instructor, and date submitted. Proficient – Provides a title page that is missing one required component. Basic – Provides a title page that is missing two required components. Below Expectations – Provides a title page that is missing three or more required components. Non-Performance – The title page is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions. Abstract Total: 1.20 Distinguished – Provides an abstract that accurately summarizes the methods, results, and conclusions of the Week Two Laboratory. Proficient – Provides an abstract that summarizes the methods, results, and conclusions of the Week Two Laboratory. Minor details are missing or slightly inaccurate. Basic – Provides an abstract that summarizes the methods, results, and conclusions of the Week Two Laboratory. Relevant details are missing and/or inaccurate, or extraneous information is present. Below Expectations – Provides an abstract that summarizes the Week Two Laboratory; however, significant details of the methods, results, or conclusions are missing, and/or excessive information is present. Non-Performance – The abstract is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions. Introduction Total: 3.40 Distinguished – Provides a thorough introduction that includes background on the topic, an objective of the study, and a hypothesis for the experiment with an explanation as to how the student arrived at that hypothesis. The introduction is at least three paragraphs long and fully supported with information from scholarly sources. Proficient – Provides an introduction that includes background on the topic, an objective of the study, and a hypothesis for the experiment with an explanation as to how the student arrived at that hypothesis. The introduction is at least three paragraphs long and supported with information from scholarly sources. Minimal improvement is needed through additional detail, enhancement of source material, and/or rewording of the hypothesis. Basic – Provides an introduction that includes background on the topic, an objective of the study, and a hypothesis for the experiment with an explanation as to how the student arrived at that hypothesis. The introduction is at least partially supported with information from scholarly sources. Moderate improvement is needed through additional detail, enhancement of source material, and/or rewording of the hypothesis. Below Expectations – Provides an introduction, but it requires major revisions to background and source material, objectives, or hypothesis. One or more of the required components may be missing. Non-Performance – The introduction is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions. Materials and Methods Total: 3.40 Distinguished – Provides a materials and methods section that thoroughly details in one’s own words how to repeat the experiment from the Week Two Laboratory. Proficient – Provides a materials and methods section that thoroughly details in one’s own words how to repeat the experiment from the Week Two Laboratory. Minor details are missing, or some excessive information is present. Basic – Provides a materials and methods section that details in one’s own words how to repeat the experiment from the Week Two Laboratory. Relevant details are missing, and/or excessive information is present, limiting the repeatability of the experiments. Below Expectations – Provides a materials and methods section, but significant details are missing, greatly limiting the repeatability of the experiments, and/or steps are largely copied from the lab manual. Non-Performance – The materials and methods section is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions. Results Total: 3.40 Distinguished – Provides a thorough results section that includes all of the tables utilized in the laboratory as well as at least one paragraph objectively describing the data. Proficient – Provides a results section that includes all of the tables utilized in the laboratory as well as at least one paragraph objectively describing the data. Minor errors are present in the tables, or details are missing or slightly inaccurate in the description. Basic – Provides a results section that includes all of the tables utilized in the laboratory as well as at least one paragraph describing the data. Relevant errors are present in the tables, details are missing and/or inaccurate in the description, and/or personal opinions are included. Below Expectations – Attempts to provide a results section that includes tables utilized in the laboratory as well as a description of the data; however, significant errors or omissions are present in the tables, details are missing and inaccurate in the description, and personal opinions are included. Non-Performance – The results section is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions. Discussion Total: 3.40 Distinguished – Provides a thorough discussion that addresses whether the hypothesis was accepted or rejected, the meaning of the findings, future studies generated from the results, outside factors impacting the results, and possible future experiments. The discussion is at least three paragraphs long and fully supported with information from scholarly sources. Proficient – Provides a discussion that addresses whether the hypothesis was accepted or rejected, the meaning of the findings, future studies generated from the results, outside factors impacting the results, and possible future experiments. The discussion is at least three paragraphs long and supported with information from scholarly sources. Minimal improvement is needed through additional detail, enhancement of source material, or correction of minor inaccuracies. Basic – Provides a discussion that addresses whether the hypothesis was accepted or rejected, the meaning of the findings, future studies generated from the results, outside factors impacting the results, and possible future experiments. The discussion is at least partially supported with information from scholarly sources. Moderate improvement is needed through additional detail, enhancement of source material, and/or correction of inaccuracies. Below Expectations – Provides a discussion, but it requires major revisions to the content and source material and correction of significant inaccuracies. One or more of the required components may be missing. Non-Performance – The discussion section is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions. Conclusion Total: 1.20 Distinguished – Provides a conclusion that thoroughly and accurately summarizes the experiment and reiterates key findings. Proficient – Provides a conclusion that summarizes the experiment and reiterates key findings. Minimal improvement is needed to accurately summarize the experiments. Basic – Provides a conclusion that summarizes the experiment and reiterates key findings. Moderate improvement is needed to accurately summarize the experiments. Below Expectations – Provides a conclusion that summarizes the experiment, but may not reiterate key findings. Significant improvement is needed to accurately summarize the experiments. Non-Performance – The conclusion is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions. Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics Total: 2.00 Distinguished – Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors, and is very easy to understand. 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. Basic – Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors, which may slightly distract the reader. Below Expectations – Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors, which distract the reader. Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions. Resource Requirement Total: 3.50 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. Proficient – Uses required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment. Basic – Uses less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sources may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are used within the body of the assignment. Citations may not be formatted correctly. Below Expectations – Uses inadequate number of sources that provide little or no support for ideas. Sources used may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted correctly. Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions. APA Formatting Total: 1.00 Distinguished – Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page. Proficient – Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors. Basic – Exhibits basic knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements. Below Expectations – Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA. Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions. Page Requirement Total: 1.00 Distinguished – The length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages. Proficient – The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages. Basic – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least three quarters of the required number of correctly formatted pages. Below Expectations – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least one half of the required number of correctly formatted pages. Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Week 5 final lab report
Running Head: WATER QUALITY AND CONTAMINATION 0 Water Quality and Contamination Brenda Rouse SCI 207: Our Dependence upon the Environment Instructor: Haleh Keshtkar Date: August 17, 2017 Water Quality and Contamination Introduction Water is one of the most important factors for any animal’s survival (Teixeira, De Azevedo, Mendl, Cipreste, & Young, 2007). One could go for days without food, but could not last the same time without water. Therefore, everyone is often vulnerable to harmful organisms in the water, particularly when he or she is desperate enough for it. Notably, although about seventy percent of the earth’s surface is covered with water, a significant population of people does not have access to clean drinking water (Arheimer, 2016). In response to the demand, the government often avails alternatives to its citizens in the form of tap water, while investors make a more ambitious plan in providing bottled water. Like any other business, the bottled water investors often seek to make a profit. On the other hand, tap water also comes at a price since the government running the program needs funds to maintain the purification and delivery systems (Whelton et al., 2015). Therefore, it is necessary that the consumers understand whether they get enough value for their money, based on the differences in prices of the different water sources. This experiment hopes to provide, with certainty, the differences between some of the most common sources of water in the household. Since its quality determines the price of a product, the differences in quality, in this case, will be based on the level of contamination. If Dasani, Fiji, and tap water were tested for mineral components, then tap water would have the highest concentration of minerals, followed by Dasani, while Fiji would contain the least concentration of minerals. The difference would result from the fact that tap water goes through drainage pipes, which could at times be corroded, which adds to the minerals present in the water that could be absent in the Fiji and Dasani water (Dolnicar, Hurlimann, & Grün, 2014). Compared to Fiji, Dasani has more contaminants since I can often taste the minerals when I use the water. Materials and Methods To test for the presence of contaminants, different materials were necessary for recording and collection of the water utilized for the test process. We put the test strips in the water for duration of 5, 30, or 45 seconds determining which test was used and compared the strips to the chart after removing them from the water. This was repeated for the ammonia, phosphate, 4 in 1, iron and chloride tests. The charts provided a scale which would then determine the concentration of the iron in either of the Dasani, Fiji, and tap water samples. We then recorded the results on a table for each of the tests. The PH test included the use of jiffy juice, whose 5 ml was added to 25 ml of each of the water samples. The color change was then observed against a color chart which would further indicate the PH level of either of the samples. Results Table 1: Ammonia Test Results Water Sample Test Results (mg/l) Tap water 0 mg/l Dasani Bottled Water 0 mg/l Fiji Bottled Water 0 mg/l Table 2: Chloride Test Results Water Sample Test Results (mg/l) Tap water 0 mg/l Dasani Bottled Water 0 mg/l Fiji Bottled Water 0 mg/l Table 3: 4 in 1 Test Results Water Sample Total Alkalinity (mg/l) Total Chlorine (mg/l) Total hardness (mg/l) Tap water 40 mg/l 0 mg/l 50 mg/l Dasani Bottled Water 40 mg/ 0 mg/l 0 mg/l Fiji Bottled Water 40 mg/l 4.0 mg/l 50 mg/l Table 4: Phosphate Test Results Water Sample Test Results (ppm) Tap water 25 ppm Dasani Bottled Water 10 ppm Fiji Bottled Water 100 ppm Table 5: Iron Test Results Water Sample Test Results (ppm) Tap water 0.15 ppm Dasani Bottled Water 0 ppm Fiji Bottled Water 0 ppm Table 6: PH Results Water Sample Test Results (mg/l) Tap water 4 mg/l Dasani Bottled Water 3 mg/l Fiji Bottled Water 7 mg/l As indicated in tables one and two, the water samples indicated no presence of ammonia and chlorine. However, there was 0.15 ppm of iron in tap water while there was none in the other two water samples. The test on PH indicated that tap and Dasani bottled water had levels of relatively weak acidity, indicating readings of 4 and 3 respectively. Conversely, Fiji bottled water indicated basic properties, with a reading of 7 on the PH scale. Each of the three samples tested positive for the presence of Phosphates, with a tap, Dasani, and Fiji each having 10, 25, and 100 ppm on the scale. Similar results were obtained in the test for alkalinity with each of the test subjects scoring 40mg/l on the scale. However, Dasani and Tap water did not contain any chlorine levels while Fiji had 4m/l. Further, Dasani had 0 mg/l when tested for hardness, while Fiji and tap water each had 50 m/l. Discussion The findings of the study indicate that there is not enough evidence to indicate that Fiji is better than Dasani bottled water, and neither is it better than tap water. Apparently, the price of tap water does not suit the benefits it serves to use it, and that of Fiji bottled water does not match its quality according to the analysis herein. For instance, the high levels of phosphates in the Fiji bottled water is a cause of concern, especially based on its health implications and the purity levels implied by the company in advertisements for the product. Based on the determined quality of the bottled water, it raises a concern that the industry collects so much revenue from the public while the products do not match the price. Notably, every consumer seeks value for any amount spent in a particular market, and such would only be met when the said individual derives the anticipated quality from a particular product. Apparently, there appears to be some form of consistency in the results, which one could consider being a result of possible errors in the experimentation process. Like any other lab experiment, there are potential sources of error in the herein discussed results. For instance, there was significant use of pre-prepared scales, which determined the identified amount of contaminants in the sampled water. However, only one sample was used, and one scale was used as well. Had the tests been repeated, they may have been more accurate and less consistent than they now are. Conclusions The assumptions that bottled water is always the best one to drink are flawed. The purity of water depends on how much effort an institution puts towards ensuring that it is safe enough to drink. However, the society can never get to know the purest water source, unless scholars consistently test the level of purity from different water suppliers, and make such information public. Such would not only ensure the public’s safety but would also increase the investor’s efforts to make sure that they put health ahead of profits. References Arheimer, B. (2016, April). The active liquid Earth-importance of temporal and spatial variability. In EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts (Vol. 18, p. 17409). Dolnicar, S., Hurlimann, A., & Grün, B. (2014). Branding water. Water research, 57, 325-338. Teixeira, C. P., De Azevedo, C. S., Mendl, M., Cipreste, C. F., & Young, R. J. (2007). Revisiting translocation and reintroduction programmes: the importance of considering stress. Animal Behaviour, 73(1), 1-13. Whelton, A. J., McMillan, L., Connell, M., Kelley, K. M., Gill, J. P., White, K. D., … & Novy, C. (2015). Residential tap water contamination following the Freedom Industries chemical spill: perceptions, water quality, and health impacts. Environmental science & technology, 49(2), 813-823.
Why Choose Us
- 100% non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How it Works
- Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.