Oil Absorbency of Polypropylene Pads vs Natural Products

PURPOSE

The purpose of this experiment was to compare the oil absorbency of natural items with that of polypropylene pads, the most common consumer product used for this purpose.

I became interested in this idea when my math teacher told our class about the Exxon Valdez oil spill that occurred in 1989 in Prince William Sound, Alaska. When I did more research on the Valdez, I found that they were able to remove the oil, with talc, a powder made from talcum. I also found that many animals were harmed from the oil so I decided to find out if any natural sources could absorb more oil than consumer products.

 The information gained from this experiment could be useful to the consumer’s who need to clean oil from driveways, parking lots etc. It could also be helpful to store owners. It would be very useful to wildlife as well! 

HYPOTHESIS

My hypothesis was that polypropylene absorbent pads would absorb at least 10% more oil than hay would.

My second hypothesis was that polypropylene pads would absorb at least 10% more oil than sheep wool would.

I based my hypothesis on a 2002 science project by Arianne Judy. In her results it states her hypothesis, that natural products absorb equal or more oil than consumer, should be rejected.

EXPERIMENT DESIGN

The constants in this study were:

•    Type of oil (40 weight motor oil)

•    Container size and type

•    The amount of natural product used

•     The amount of oil “spilled” to collect

•    The temperature of the oil.

•    The temperature of the room.

•    Size and weight of mesh bags.

The manipulated variable was the type of product used to absorb oil; in this case it was hay, sheep wool, llama wool, and polypropylene pads.

The responding variable was the mass of oil absorbed. 

Using the triple beam balance I measured the amount of oil absorbed by taking the beginning mass of the material and subtracting that from the ending mass (the mass of the material plus oil). This was the mass of the oil absorbed.

MATERIALS

QUANTITY	ITEM DESCRIPTION
75g	Washed Sheep Wool
75g	Hay
75g	Water/oil Tray
1	Water/oil Tray
5	Polypropylene Pads (consumer products)
1800 ml	Tap Water
36	Mesh Bags
1	Triple Beam Balance
1 quart (.946ml)	40 Weight Motor Oil

  

PROCEDURES

1. Create Mesh Pouches

a)    Cut out 36 pieces of mesh fabric that are 12x20 cm.

b)    Fold them in half so they are 12x10cm.

c)    Sew along the two sides that were 20 cm. but are now folded on top of each other.  This will form 36 open pockets that are 12x10 cm. 

d)    Place 4.5g. of an absorbent inside the pouch using a triple beam balance to make sure the mass is 4.5g.

 •    Fill 12 mesh bags with polypropylene, 12 with hay, and 12 with fleece. 

e)     Sew the tops shut.

2. Begin Experiment #1-Without Water.

a)    Place 500-ml. motor oil in the tray DO NOT PUT WATER IN.

b)    Place each absorbent in pouch into the tray of oil. 

c)    Leave in oil for 20 minutes. Flip the pouches over every ten minutes. 

          d)    Remove from tray.

e)     Let the pouches drip for 24 hours. 

f)     Place a paper plate on the scale and record it’s weight. 

g)    Next, place one pouch on the plate and weigh it. Record the mass. Next, subtract the mass of the plate from the mass of the pouch and the plate, so you only have the weight of the pouch.

h)     Subtract 4.5g from the weight of the pouch minus the plate. The remaining weight is the mass of oil absorbed. Record the mass of oil that was absorbed in experiment number one. 

i)    Repeat steps f-h with each oil soaked pouch.

3. Begin Experiment #2-Water Only

a) Repeat Experiment number two with WATER ONLY (No oil) Use new absorbent pouches.

4. Begin Experiment #3(with oil and water).

a) Repeat experiment number one but float 500ml. oil in 1000ml. H2O.

RESULTS

The original purpose of this experiment was to compare the oil absorbency of natural items with that of polypropylene pads, the most common consumer product used for this purpose.

The results:

•    For oil only sheep wool absorbed the most oil (85g). 

•    For water only on average hay absorbed the most water (85g). Polypropylene absorbed the least amount (0.375g). 

•    For water and oil polypropylene absorbed the most (100.175g), followed by sheep wool (90.9g) and hay (14.3g).

CONCLUSION

My hypothesis was that polypropylene absorbent pads would absorb at least 10% more oil than hay would.

The results indicate that this hypothesis should be accepted because the polypropylene pads absorbed about seven times as much as hay did, far more than the 10% required.

My second hypothesis was that polypropylene pads would absorb at least 10% more oil than sheep fleece would.

The results are inconclusive for this hypothesis.  When absorbing oil only (no water), sheep wool absorbed more than polypropylene. When absorbing oil floating on water, the polypropylene did absorb 10% more than the wool did. I rejected this hypothesis but realized that more experimentation should be done.

After thinking about the results of this experiment, I wonder if the kind/weight of the oil would affect the amount that is absorbed. My oil was refined, but how would crude oil affect the results?

If I were to conduct this project again I would test more types of materials, and do many more trials with each material. I did have a couple of strange outliers and doing more trials would help dilute the effect of unusual weights in the final average.

Researched by  ------ Tensie P

Read More

Effect of Antibacterial And Non-Antibacterial Hand Soap

PURPOSE

The purpose of this experiment was to compare the effect of anti-bacterial and non-anti-bacterial hand soap on the amount of bacteria on the hands.

I became interested in this idea when I was watching television and I saw ads for hand soaps that said they killed 99.9% of bacteria after washing your hands. I also wondered why my mom was so concerned about people washing their hands.

The information gained from this experiment could help doctors, nurses, parents, and children. No one wants to get sick! It is important to protect people from diseases.

HYPOTHESIS

My first hypothesis was that anti-bacterial hand soap would remove more bacteria than non-anti-bacterial hand soap.

My second hypothesis was that non-anti-bacterial hand soap would remove at least 50% of bacteria from the washed hands.

I based my hypotheses on a Compton’s Encyclopedia article on bacteria which said that one bacterium could produce over 1,000,000,000 more after 24 hours, and that not one hand soap could remove all bacteria from your hands.

   

EXPERIMENT DESIGN

The constants in this study were:

•    The amount of time spent washing hands

•    The motion of washing hands

•    The approximate strength used to wash hands

•    The amount of hand soap used (2 ml.)

•    The temperature of the water

•    The pressure of the water

•    Time incubating

•    The temperature of the incubator

•    The number of blood agar plates used to culture bacteria

The manipulated variable was the type of hand soap: Anti-bacterial vs. Non-Anti-Bacterial

The responding variable was the number of colonies of bacteria on agar plates after being inoculated with samples from the hands.

To measure the responding variable, I counted the colonies of bacteria on the plates after they were incubated for 24 hours.

  

Materials

QUANTITY	ITEM DESCRIPTION
42	sterile swabs
1	bottle of anti-bacterial hand soap
1	bottle of non-anti-bacterial hand soap
1	incubator
2	lab coats
2	pairs of gloves
24	blood agar plates

  

PROCEDURES

1.    Gather the signed permission slips

2.    Get the materials

3.    Obtain the subjects

4.    Swab the subject’s left hand (5 times in a left/right direction, 5 times in an     upward/downward motion)

5.    Put swab away in bag marked with subject’s number and hand (L/R)

6.    Repeat steps 4,5 on the rest of the subjects

7.    Show the subjects the method to wash their hands (10 seconds on the top, 10 seconds on the palm, 10 seconds between the fingers,

10 seconds rinsing)

8. Have the subjects’ wash their hands with anti-bacterial hand soap in water, under the same  sink

9.    Swab the subject’s right hand (5 times in a left/right direction, 5 times in an upward/downward motion)

10.     Repeat step 5

11. Repeat steps 4-10 with non-anti-bacterial hand soap

12.    Rub/twirl one swab onto one blood agar plate in an up/down motion

13.     Turn the plate 45 degrees

14.     Repeat steps 11 and 12 for each bag, with same label as the bag

15.     Place blood agar plates into the incubator for 72 hours

16.     Come back to the hospital in 72 hours

17.     Take blood agar plates out of incubator

18.     Count colonies with naked eye under a white light

19.     Record data

  

RESULTS

The original purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of antibacterial and non-antibacterial hand soaps on the amount of bacteria on the hands.

The results of the experiment were that the non-antibacterial soap removed more bacteria than the antibacterial soap.  Also, the non-antibacterial hand soap did remove more than 50% of the bacteria.

CONCLUSION

My first hypothesis was that anti-bacterial hand soap would remove more bacteria than non-anti-bacterial hand soap.

The results indicate that this hypothesis should be rejected, because the amount of bacteria on the blood agar plates with antibacterial soap was greater than the plates with non-antibacterial testing.

My second hypothesis was that non-anti-bacterial hand soap would remove at least 50% of bacteria from the washed hands. This hypothesis should be accepted.

After thinking about the results of this experiment, I wonder if different brands would change the results of this experiment. I also wonder if the amount of time spent washing would reduce more bacteria.

If I were to conduct this project again, I would test a different brand of soap, and try to see which active ingredient removed more bacteria.

Researched by--- Joseph R

Read More

Effect of Voltage on Copper Electroplating

PURPOSE

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the amount of voltage that would be the most suitable for copper electroplating.

I became interested in this idea when I learned that electroplating was important in manufacturing and I wanted to learn what the best way of electroplating was.

The information gained from this experiment could benefit manufacturers everywhere so they would know the amount of voltage that would be the most fitting for copper electroplating.

  

HYPOTHESIS

My hypothesis was that 4.8 volts would be the most suitable for copper electroplating.

I based my hypothesis on Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Deluxe 2001, which   said, “A steady direct current of low voltage, usually from 1 to 6 V, is required for the process”, and that led me to believe that 4.8 volts would be the best for copper electroplating because it was the most volts in this range that my power source could provide and probably would be the most effective. 

EXPERIMENT DESIGN

The constants in this study were:

• Type of metal (copper)

• Electrolyte used during testing

• Item being plated

• Weight of the item being plated

• Length of copper metal

• Time of the electroplating process (25 minutes)

• Testing procedure

• Weight of copper metal

• Electrical source

• Triple beam balance

The manipulated variable was the amount of voltage used during the electroplating process.

The responding variable was the change in mass of the plated object.

To measure the responding variable I used a triple beam balance. 

MATERIALS

                       

QUANTITY	ITEM DESCRIPTION
1	Triple beam balance
9	Copper strips
9	Zinc strips
200 ml.	Copper nitrate solution
1	Stopwatch
1	Beaker
2	Alligator clips
2	Wires
1	DC power source
1	Digital multi-meter w/ wires, alligator clips
2	Circuit connectors
1	Fine Grain sandpaper (220 grit)
1	Pegboard assembly
2	Clamps
3	Paper towels

  

PROCEDURES

1) Sand both sides of the 3 copper strips and the 3 zinc strips with the fine grain sandpaper on a paper towel.

2) Find the mass of the 3 copper and zinc strips by using the triple beam balance.

3) Record the mass of each copper and zinc strip.

4) Lay the metal strips on a paper towel and label them 1, 2, and 3 according to which one you measured first, second, and third.

5) Attach the two clamps onto the pegboard assembly so they will hold the electrodes at the right height and width.

6) Fill the beaker with 200 ml. of copper nitrate solution.

7) Connect the plug on the red wire to the red slot of the power source in the 0-5 volt range.

8) Connect the plug on the black wire to the black slot of the multi-meter in the 0-5 volt range.

9) Put one copper strip into one clamp and tighten the clamp by turning the wing nut until it holds the copper strip.

10) Repeat step 9 for a zinc strip except place it in the other clamp.

11) Connect the alligator clip on the red wire from the power source to the copper strip.

12) Connect the alligator clip on the black wire from the power source to the zinc strip.

13) Attach the alligator clip on the red wire from the digital multi-meter to the copper strip.

14) Attach the alligator clip on the black wire from the digital multi- meter to the zinc strip.

15) Set the digital multi-meter to volts DC.

16) Set the stopwatch to 25 minutes.

17) Turn on the power source.

18) Turn the knob on the power source until the digital multi-meter reads 4.8 volts.

19) Start the stopwatch so that the watch counts down from 25 minutes.

20) Every 5 minutes check the digital multi-meter to make sure the volts are holding steady at 4.8 volts. If not, then adjust the power.

21) After 25 minutes turn off the power source.

22) Take the alligator clips off the metal strips.

23) Loosen the clamp holding the copper strip and set the copper strip on a piece of paper towel.

24) Repeat step 23 for the zinc strip.

25) Once the metal strips have dried, measure the mass of the copper strip, then measure the mass of the zinc strip and record the measurements.

26) Repeat steps 9-25 for the next two trials at 4.8 volts.

27) Repeat steps 9-26 for the three trials at 2.4 volts and 1.2 volts.

RESULTS

The original purpose of this experiment was to determine the amount of voltage that would be the most suitable for copper electroplating.

The results of the experiment were that at 1.2 volts the increase in mass of the zinc strip was an average of 0.28 grams. At 2.4 volts the increase in mass of the zinc strip averaged 0.68 grams, and at 4.8 volts the increase of mass was an average of 1.3 grams.

CONCLUSION

My hypothesis was that 4.8 volts would be the most suitable for copper electroplating.

The results indicate that this hypothesis should be rejected because I predicted that 4.8 volts would be the most suitable for electroplating, but it plated so much onto the zinc that bits and parts of the coating were falling off. The lower voltages plated better than 4.8 volts did.

Because of the results of this experiment, I wonder if the thickness of the copper or zinc electrodes would affect the mass of the copper plated on the zinc. I also wonder if the amount of copper nitrate solution used as an electrolyte during testing would affect the copper’s plating ability. Finally I wonder if a different electrolyte like copper sulfate solution would affect how much the copper plated onto the zinc.

If I were to conduct this project again I would do more trials, or repeat my experiment again to see if my results were similar. I would use more voltage intervals like 1 volt, 2 volts, 3 volts, etc. Finally I would use a better power source that supplied more than 5 volts.

My findings should benefit manufacturers everywhere because now they know the amount of voltage that is proper for copper electroplating.

Researched by -- --Nathaniel H

Read More