Motor Oil On The Survival Rate of Brine Shrimp

PURPOSE

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of motor oil on the survival rate of brine shrimp.

I first became interested in this idea because I had heard horrible reports, over and over, from watching the news about the pollutants getting in our lakes, rivers, seas, and oceans that damage the aquatic life. I wanted to see for myself how a common pollutant would affect an organism. I chose to test on brine shrimp because they are at the bottom of the food chain. If the motor oil killed them then the whole food chain itself would collapse. 

The information gained from this experiment could warn anyone who owns a car how much the motor oil that they dispose of could affect the population of living creatures in our waters. Oil must be disposed of correctly. Pollutants add up in the environment, so my results would help us in the future. 

HYPOTHESIS

My first hypothesis was that as the amount of motor oil in the water increased the survival rate of the brine shrimp would decrease.

My second hypothesis was that the more motor oil there was in the water the shorter time the brine shrimp would survive.

 

EXPERIMENT DESIGN

The constants in this study were:

-    The amount of brine shrimp in each Petri dish (10)

-    The amount of water in each Petri dish (5 ml.)

-    The type of water in each Petri dish (salt water)

-    The total time the brine shrimp were left in the Petri dishes (1 hour)

-    The frequency of when the brine shrimp are checked during the test (every 10 min.)

The manipulated variable was the amount of motor oil put in each Petri dish. 

The responding variable was the rate of the deaths of the tested brine shrimp.  

To measure the responding variable, I counted how many brine shrimp survived in each petri dish about every 10 min. for a period of 1 hour.

   

MATERIALS

QUANTITY	ITEM DESCRIPTION
4	droppers
1	brine shrimp hatcher
1	container of brine shrimp eggs
20	Petri dishes
1	timer
1	bottle motor oil
1	L. water
55	g. salt
1	egg
1	disecting microscope
4	syringes

                     

PROCEDURES

1.    Prepare the salt water

a) mix 55 grams of non-iodized salt into each 1 liter of distilled  water 

2.    Culture brine shrimp at 20ο  C.

a)add ¼ tsp. Of dry eggs to ½ a liter of salt solution

b)Let them grow for about 48 hours

3.    Mixing together the salt water and motor oil

a)Mix water and motor oil together using an emulsifier, then stir

          b)I used 5 ml. of egg white in each petri dish

c)Have 10%of motor oil with 5 ml. of salt water into one petri dish

d)Then double the amount of motor oil that you put in on the other petri dishes as you go on, but keep the amount of salt water the same

4.    Move 10 brine shrimp into the 5 petri dishes 

a) using a dropper

b) count the brine shrimp that are inside just by looking inside

5.    Checking the brine shrimp

a)I took each petri dish with the different amounts of motor oil one at a time under a microscope and counted how many were still living

b)They might not be moving around much, but check carefully to see if they are still kicking

c)Every 10 min. I counted how many were living out of 10

d) I continued each trial for 1 hour 

e) Then I recorded how many brine shrimp had survived the trial at the last counting

RESULTS

The original purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of motor oil on the survival rate of brine shrimp. 

The average results of the experiment were that the brine shrimp that were held in the petri dish with 5% motor oil only had 85% living after 1 hour. The brine shrimp that where being held in the petri dish with 10% motor oil only had 83% living after 1 hour. The brine shrimp that were being held in the petri dish with 20% motor only had 76% living after 1 hour. The brine shrimp that were being held in the petri dish with 40% motor oil only had 76% living after 1 hour. The control group with no oil had 98% living after 1 hour.

CONCLUSION

My first hypothesis was that as the amount of motor oil in the water increased the survival rate of the brine shrimp would decrease.

The results indicate that my first hypothesis should be accepted, because having the motor oil increase did have the survival rate of brine shrimp decrease.

My second hypothesis was that the more motor oil there was in the water the shorter time the brine shrimp would survive.

The results indicate that my second hypothesis should be accepted, because the more motor oil there was in the water the shorter time the brine shrimp would survive.

After thinking about the results of this experiment, I wonder if antifreeze would decrease the survival rate of brine shrimp even more than the motor oil did. Antiifreeze is soluable in water and motor oil is not. I also wonder if I used water from a different water source the results would change. 

If I were to conduct this project again I would probably add  more motor oil in with the brine shrimp to get bigger results.

 Researched by ---- Lyndsey S

Read More

Antifreeze on the Survival Rate and Growth of Algae

 

PURPOSE

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of water pollution (antifreeze) on the survival rate and growth of algae.

I became interested in this idea when my old fish tank became coated with algae. I was going to use bleach and soap on it, but my mom said that if I put too much in and didn’t wash it out well enough then it would kill my fish. So I wondered if certain types of pollution that people dumped into the sea or oil that came from ships would affect the growth and survival rate of algae.  

The information gained from this experiment could help beneficial algae grow more efficiently and keep workers from polluting the water. Also it would help scientist know if oil or other pollutants would affect the growth and survival rate of algae. 

HYPOTHESIS

My first hypothesis was that as the antifreeze had more time in contact with the algae, the less the dissolved oxygen level would be.

My second hypothesis was that ethylene glycol would have more effect than the other pollutants and would decrease the dissolved oxygen level most.

I based my second hypothesis on information that I got from a 2005 science project, “Effect of Antifreeze Type and Concentration on Soybean Growth.” The conclusions stated that ethylene glycol affected the growth of soybeans more than propylene glycol.

EXPERIMENT DESIGN

The constants in this study were:

•      Type of dissolved oxygen meter

•      Water type

•      Amount of water

•      Type of container

•      Type of pollutant

•      Species of algae

The manipulated variable was the antifreeze concentration.  

The responding variable was how much of the algae survived.

To measure the responding variable, I used a dissolved oxygen meter.

MATERIALS

QUANTITY	ITEM DESCRIPTION
4 quarts	Water
24	Eggs
5  , 2 liter	Plastic containers
2-liter	Algae
12	Small jars
2 quarts	Antifreeze concentrations
1	Dissolved oxygen meter

PROCEDURES

1)    Obtain all supplies and algae

2)    Create Pollutant Mixtures in Decreasing Concentrations

A)    Pour 8 ml of pollutant into a graduated cylinder and add 12 ml of distilled water.  Mix well.  This yields 20 ml of polluted water.  Pour exactly 10 ml of this into a disposable cup.  One half of the pollutant (4 ml) is in this cup and the other half (4 ml) is still in the graduated cylinder.   Mark this cup “4 ml”.

B)    Add an additional 10 ml of distilled water to the graduated cylinder (still containing 4 ml of pollutant) to make 20 ml total.  Mix well.  Pour exactly 10 ml of this “half strength” pollutant into a second disposable cup and label “2 ml” because that is how much of the original pollutant is still in this water.

C)    Add an additional 10 ml of distilled water to the graduated cylinder (now containing 2 ml of pollutant) to make 20 ml total.  Mix well.  Pour exactly 10 ml of this “quarter strength” pollutant into a third disposable cup and label “1 ml” because that is how much of the original pollutant is left.

D)    Repeat this process again.  Add an additional 10 ml of distilled water to the graduated cylinder (now containing 1 ml of pollutant) to make 20 ml total.  Mix well.  Pour exactly 10 ml of this into a fourth disposable cup and label “0.5 ml”.

E)    Add an additional 10 ml of distilled water to the graduated cylinder (now containing 0.5 ml of pollutant) to make 20 ml total.  Mix well.  Pour exactly 10 ml of this into a fourth disposable cup and label “0.25 ml”

F)    Add an additional 10 ml of distilled water to the graduated cylinder (now containing 0.25 ml of pollutant) to make 20 ml total.  Mix well.  Pour exactly 10 ml of this into a fourth disposable cup and label “0.125 ml”

3)    Add Algae to Pollutant Mixtures

A)    Go back and add exactly 40 ml of algae/water to each of the 10 ml samples of polluted water in each of the disposable cups.  Here is the math:

i)    40 ml algae + 10 ml polluted water = 50 ml total (including 4 ml of pure pollutant).  So 4 parts pollutant in 50 parts liquid = 4/50 = 8% 

ii)    40 ml algae + 10 ml polluted water = 50 ml total (including 2 ml of pure pollutant).  So 2 parts pollutant in 50 parts liquid = 2/50 = 4% 

iii)    40 ml algae + 10 ml polluted water = 50 ml total (including 1 ml of pure pollutant).  So 1 part pollutant in 50 parts liquid = 1/50 = 2% 

iv)    0.5 part pollutant in 50 parts liquid = 0.5/50 = 1% 

v)    0.25 part pollutant in 50 parts liquid = 0.25/50 = 0.5% 

vi)    0.125 part pollutant in 50 parts liquid = 0.125/50 = 0.25% 

B)    Control Group - Algae with NO Pollutant

i)    Create control groups with absolutely no pollutant.  Use 40 ml algae + 10 ml distilled water to keep the amount of algae in control samples equal to algae in treatment samples. 

4)    Start Observations

5)    This is “TIME ZERO.” Do first dissolved oxygen reading for each group.

6)    Repeat step 5 with other concentrations

RESULTS

The original purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of water pollution on the survival rate and growth of algae.

The results of the experiment were the algae reacted most to the ethylene by dropping dissolved oxygen.

CONCLUSION

My first hypothesis was that as the antifreeze had more time in contact with the algae, the less the dissolved oxygen level would be. The results indicate that this hypothesis should be accepted, because the amount of dissolved oxygen generally decreased across time.

My second hypothesis was that ethylene glycol would have more effect than the other pollutants and would decrease the dissolved oxygen level most.  The results indicate that this hypothesis should also be accepted, because the amount of dissolved oxygen generally was lowest for ethylene glycol.

After thinking about the results of this experiment, I wonder if I used a stronger pollutant like gasoline or oil would affect the algae in a different way? Also if I used higher concentrations with my antifreeze, if that would have brought the results down more?

If I were to conduct this project again   I would of used oil or a stronger pollutant, I would have put in higher concentrations, bought a lot more algae so I could use maybe two or three types of pollutant.

Researched by ----- Natalie F

Read More

Error Correction Routines on the Efficiency of a Robot

PURPOSE

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the most efficient software instruction set for a light-sensing robot to follow a visual path.

 I became interested in this idea because when I’m older I would like to have a job with technology involved. So I thought that discovering a system that could affect manufacturers across the state would be a great first step toward my future.

 The information gained from this experiment could allow manufacturers to have a better, more useful robot. If a robot has a malfunction it will most likely stop working, but if I can design a program that will allow a robot to handle malfunctions on its own, it could use my programming and handle itself. 

  

HYPOTHESIS

My first hypothesis was that specific programmed instructions could be varied to obtain a maximum speed and accuracy for the robot. 

My second hypothesis was that specific programmed instructions optimized for one task would also give the maximum speed and accuracy on a second similar but different task. 

I based my hypothesis on information about robots that explained the importance of the programmed instructions. 

 

EXPERIMENT DESIGN

The constants in this study were:

•    Robot components

•    Stopwatch 

•    Design of robot

•    Use of light sensor

•    Basic program controlling robot 

•    Use of course 1 and 2 

The manipulated variable was the error correction factors in the software instruction set.

The responding variable was the time it took for the robot to follow the intended route.

To measure the responding variable, I used a stopwatch for each trial to know how long it took for the robot to complete its task.   

MATERIALS

QUANTITY	ITEM DESCRIPTION
1	Stopwatch
1	Computer
1	“Mind Storms For School” Lego set
1	ROBOLAB 2.4.5 software for Windows
18"X24"	Tag board
1	Black Construction Paper
1	Scissors
1	Protractor

   
    PROCEDURES

The following instructions assume two things.  First the experimenter must be very well acquainted with using Lego’s, especially how gears work to power a small vehicle forward, backward, and in turns.  Second, the software that controls the robot is “RoboLab 2.5.4.b” for a Windows PC.  The experimenter must spend many hours becoming familiar with the basics of using this program.  Since there is no true instruction manual for the software, one must go through a series of “Training Missions” to learn the basics for programming the robot.  There are an enormous number of possible commands and programming options, and the training missions do not adequately lead you through more than 25%.  So the next step is hours of trial and error effort to get to a point where a “formal experiment” can even be attempted.

1)    Build basic robot using Lego “Mind storms for Schools” kit

a)    Create compact vehicle powered with two electric motors each attached via direct     gearing to its own drive wheel on an independent axle.  There must be one more point of support, a tiny low-friction skid plate, to keep the vehicle upright and level.

b)    Attach the RCX 1.0 computer module to the vehicle to act as its “brain”.  Attach output A to the left motor and output C to the right motor. (Note these motors work in  opposition.)

2)    Create a basic program to make the robot do each of the following

          a)    Go straight forward for several seconds

b)    Go straight backward for several seconds 

c)    Rotate clockwise

d)    Rotate counter-clockwise.

3)    Test vehicle and improve design and program as needed

a)    Upload program to RCX using the USB controlled infra-red transmitter

b)    Press “RUN” button on RCX to activate program

c)    Observe and evaluate robot’s actions

4)    Add light sensor to front of robot and connect to RCX input 

5)    Create a second basic program to make the robot do each of the following: 

a)    Read the input from the light sensor and display the lightness value

b)    Stop or alter motion depending on a change in the light sensor reading

6)    Create test course with black line on white paper

a)    Create test course on white construction paper (18 X 24 inches).  Draw basic course in pencil.  Be sure to have a long straight-away, several “S” curves and several 90° zigzags.

b)    Use black construction paper that is 3/4 inch wide to make continuous course following pencil line.

c)    Glue down all of the pieces to your course.

d)    Label one direction as Course 1 and the other as Course

e)    Place test course on a flat and level surface and tape down.

7)    Create the test program using components from the basic programs above.  It must have the following elements:

a)    Activate both motors to move the robot forward in a straight line while constantly monitoring light sensor

b)    If light sensor value is 43 or less (still tracking the black line) loop back to the beginning of the program and continue going forward

c)    If light sensor value is 43 or greater (off-course, now on white instead of black), begin the first error correction routine:

i)    Stop motors

ii)    Add 3 to the temporary memory

iii)    Rotate left and slightly back up using the following method (which will later be varied)

iv)    Make left motor (A) reverse with a power setting of 5

v)    Make the right motor (C) go slightly forward with a power setting of 3

vi)    Do this for the exact amount of time indicated by the temporary memory (the first time it will be 3/100 second)
vii)    Stop all motors

d)    If light sensor value is 43 or less (back on the black line) loop back to the beginning of the program and start going forward

e)    If light sensor value is 43 or greater (still off-course, rotating left didn’t work), begin the second error correction routine:

i)    Add 3 more to the temporary memory

ii)    Rotate right and slightly back up using the same power settings as in 6.c.iv-v above (only in opposite directions)

iii)    Do this for the exact amount of time indicated by the temporary memory (the first time it will be 6/100 second) Note: the result of adding more time to the temporary memory causes the robot to rotate back to the beginning direction and continue on the same rotation to the opposite side.

iv)    Stop all motors

f)    If light sensor value is 43 or less (back on the black line) loop back to the beginning of the program and start going forward

g)    If light sensor value is 43 or greater (still off-course, rotating right didn’t work either), try the first error correction routine again, only with a longer duration (which means a wider swing). Go back to 6.c.ii.

8)    Upload program to RCX using the USB controlled infra-red transmitter

9)    Conduct your first set of trials

a)    Reset stopwatch. 

b)    Place robot on Course 1 start point.

c)    Start stopwatch at the same time you press the “RUN” button on robot.

d)    If something goes wrong while you are conducting a trial or robot gets stuck on a part of your course for longer than thirty seconds, define the trial as an “error.”

e)    Stop both the watch and the robot when it ends the course.

f)    Record time on data collection sheet.

g)    Repeat steps 9 (a-f) for 10 trials.

10)    Repeat step 9 using Course 2 (opposite direction)

11)    Change motor power setting variables

a)    Now change the program variables that control the motors:

i.  First error correction routine should now make left motor 

(A) reverse with a power setting of 6 and make the right motor 

(C) go slightly forward with a power setting of 2.

ii.     Second error correction routine should now make left motor (A) go slightly forward with a power setting of 2 and make the right motor (C) reverse with a power setting of 6.

12) Conduct second set of trials

a)  Repeat steps 8-10 at the current settings.

13) Change motor power setting variables as in step 10 except use the values of  7 and 1

14) Conduct next set of trials as in step 11

15) Change correction routine duration variables

a)    Repeat steps 7-13 except change temporary memory increment value to 5.  First trial should start with motor power settings of 5 and 3 as in first trials.  Note: the result of increasing the amount of time added to the temporary memory causes the robot to rotate back and forth through larger swings. 

b)    Repeat step 14.a. except change value to 7.

16) Analyze results. 

RESULTS

The original purpose of this experiment was to determine the most efficient software instruction set for a light-sensing robot to follow a visual path.

 The results of the experiment were that motor power settings of 6 and 2 had the best times overall.  The error correction duration of 7 also provided the best times overall.

Another observation was that I could have predicted the outcome of any settings without so many trials. Five trials would have been more than enough. Also, the robot doesn’t run both courses equally, the robot scored a few seconds better on the second course.  

CONCLUSION

My first hypothesis was that specific programmed instructions could be varied to obtain a maximum speed and accuracy for the robot. 

The results indicate that my first hypothesis should be accepted, because the combination of power settings of 6,2 with an error correction duration increase of 7 gave the fastest times in both directions.

My second hypothesis was that, specific programmed instructions optimized for one task would also give the maximum speed and accuracy on a second similar but different task. 

The results indicate that my second hypothesis should also be accepted, because the same settings worked best on both tasks. I am uncomfortable with this statement because when the settings are slightly off the errors that result are much different for the two tasks. I think more research is needed on this hypothesis.

After thinking about the results of this experiment, I wonder how much changing the body style would affect performance.  The distance of the light sensor in front of the axle would probably make a difference. Having two light sensors would also be a good thing to test. Most animals have two eyes so it is possible that it could be better for a robot as well.  

If I were to conduct this project again I would have completed more trials and tested smaller variations of duration. Testing on longer and more difficult courses would be worth while.  A more complex programming system could also result in less jerky movement of the robot and faster times. I would have tried to build a better body style. In addition I would have done something to stop the tires from slipping on the wheel rims.

Researched by  ----- Taylor Dale V

Read More