Various Preservatives on the Color of Applesauce

Purpose

The purpose of this experiment was to compare the effectiveness of various preservatives on the color of applesauce.

I became interested in this idea because I like apples and applesauce. Nearly all my friends like applesauce and so do my family members. I have noticed that infants are often fed applesauce as one of their first solid foods. I have also noticed that people who are sick in the hospital often are given applesauce with their meal. I also know that elderly people in nursing homes also seem to eat applesauce fairly often. Applesauce seems to be an important part of people’s diet.

The information gained from this experiment could help nutritionists and apple processors learn about the effectiveness of various preservatives on the color of applesauce. This would also help those who eat applesauce as part of their diet.

Hypothesis

My hypothesis was that, the applesauce treated with the ascorbic acid and heat would get the highest USDA score.

I based my hypothesis on finding out that ascorbic acid works very well when making applesauce. I thought heat would even make it lighter.

Experiment Design

The constant in this study was: 

•    The raw applesauce prior to treatment

•    The type of apples

•    Amount of apples

•    Grinding method

•    General testing procedures

•    Use of colorimeter

The manipulated variable was the type of preservative used to make applesauce.

The responding variable was the color (lightness) of the applesauce.

To measure the responding variable, I used a Hunter Reflectance Spectrophotometer (colorimeter.)

Materials

QUANTITY	ITEM DESCRIPTION
8	Apples
1 g.	Citric Acid
3g.	Ascorbic Acid
1	Microwave Oven
1	Food Processor
1	Apple Peeler
1	Hunter Reflectance Spectrophotometer
1	Knife
1	Cutting Board

 Procedures

1.    Set up materials at local apple processing lab.

          A.)    Peel and core 2 apples (I used “Cameo” apples)

          B.)    Use the peeling and coring machine.

  C.)    Finish peeling off the extra skin by hand with peeling knife

2.    Treatment #1 (Ascorbic acid preservative plus heat)

A.)    Cut up two apples previously peeled and cored into 8 pieces each.

          B)    Weigh and record.

          C)    Place them all into food processor.

  D)    Add 0.3 grams of ascorbic acid to the apples in food processor.

  E)    Grind up the contents for 30 seconds, then stop.

          F)    Stir well.

          G)    Grind for another 30 seconds.

          H)    Pour all ground up contents into a cup.

  I)    Heat the applesauce (which you just made) slowly in microwave oven until it is 88° C. (190° F.)

  J)    Test applesauce with the colorimeter

  K)    Record results on the data table (shown in the   appendix)

3.    Treatment #2 (Citric acid preservative)

A.)    Repeat Steps 1 and 2, except do NOT heat or add ascorbic acid.

        B.)    Instead, add 0.3 grams of Citric acid

4.    Control Group (Applesauce with no preservative)

A.)    Repeat Steps 1 and 2, except do NOT add ascorbic acid (and do not heat)

5.    Treatment # 3 (Ascorbic acid preservative)

 A.)    Repeat Steps 1 and 2, except do NOT heat, and ADD ascorbic acid!

6.    Test each applesauce every 15 minutes, four times in the colorimeter.

Results

The original purpose of this experiment was to compare the effectiveness of various preservatives on the colour of applesauce.

The results of the experiment was the Ascorbic acid plus heat preservative, had the highest and best USDA score. 

Conclusion

My original hypothesis was the applesauce treated with the ascorbic and heat would get the highest USDA score.

The results indicate that this hypothesis should be accepted, because after testing the applesauce, the ascorbic acid + heat treatment resulted in the highest USDA score.

After thinking about the results of this experiment, I wonder if we ground up the apples with a different method, would the colorimeter data still be relatively the same?  I also wonder if other types of apples, like Granny Smith, would have similar results.

If I were to conduct this project again I would grind up the apples more carefully.  In this experiment, I got better and better at grinding up the apples every time.  This affected the colorimeter results; but not greatly.  Lastly, I would do more trials for each treatment.  In this experiment, I only did one trial for each of the four preservatives, but I tested the one applesauce treatment four times.  I should have used the system above, but repeated two or three times.

Researched by Kacey H

Read More

Amount of Time Compacted Soil in Layers Holds Back Water

Purpose

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of dirt compaction on the ability of dirt to hold water in a simulated levee.

I became interested in this idea when I read in the newspaper that New Orleans had been flooded and destroyed because a levee had broken.

The information gained from this experiment could protect people from getting their homes destroyed and being killed by floods because levees weren’t compacted in layers enough. Lots of people would care, especially engineers trying to build or protect people with levees.

Hypothesis

My first hypothesis was that the more compacted layers there were, the longer it would hold back water.

I based my hypothesis on the fact that earthen dams and levees are usually built layer by layer with compaction of each layer before the next one is added.

Experiment Design

The constants in this study were:

•    Width of PVC pipe

•    Length of PVC pipe

•    Amount of water put in PVC pipe

•    Type of water put in PVC pipe

•    Amount of dirt put in PVC pipe

        •    Type of dirt put in PVC pipe

•    Temperature where testing

•    Time brick compacted dirt

The manipulated variable was the number of layers that were compacted.

The responding variable was the amount of time it took before the dirt plug broke.

To measure the responding variables, I used a stopwatch and started it when I put the water in and stopped it when plug broke.

Materials

Procedures

1.    Build system

a.    Connect the 133cm in length of PVC pipe to the 2in PVC pipe elbow

b.    Connect PVC pipe valve to the elbow

c.    Build plugs

i.    Put 473ml of dirt in the 30.5cm length of 2in (5cm) PVC pipe

ii.    Place compactor in PVC pipe on dirt then place a 16.78kg brick

for 4 seconds on the circle to compact the dirt.

iii.    Repeat steps i. - ii. until an 8 layer plug is created with 8 compactions.

iv.    Repeat steps i. - iii. until 5 plugs are created

v.    Repeat steps i. – iv., reducing layers by half and doubling the time the brick sits on the circle compactor

1.    For the first repetition, reduce the layers to 4 and double the compaction times to 8 seconds

2.    For the second repetition, reduce the layers to 2 and double the compaction times to 16 seconds

3.    For the third repetition, reduce the layers to 1 and double the compaction times to 32 seconds

2.    Ready Experiment

a.    Place plug tube horizontally into PVC valve so that side with the dirt is away from the valve.

b.    Make sure the valve is shut

c.    Support so the long pipe is vertical

3.    Conduct Experiment

a.    Fill vertical pipe, 133cm with tap water to the top

b.    Start the stopwatch when you turn the valve

c.    Stop the stop watch when the plug breaks and record

4.    Repeat with other dirt plugs in this compaction group

5.    Repeat with other compaction groups

6.    Average results within each group

Results

The original purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of dirt compaction in layers on the ability to hold water.

The results of the experiment were inconsistent because there is no recognizable trend. The results were low then high having no recognizable relationship.

Conclusion

My hypothesis was that the more compacted layers there were the longer it would hold back water.

The results indicate that this hypothesis should be rejected, because of the inconsistence results. The problem is that the harder you compact it the plug is compacted so great there is no path of air for it to follow instead of the plug breaking it is pushed out by the pressure. Though if you are compacting the plug little air cracks will be left. If the cracks are found by the water it will lead it out when you start to see the water come out it erodes half of the plug in one second. The problem is that the air cracks maybe harder to find.

After thinking about the results of this experiment, I wonder if the type of material used as a plug would make a difference in the time it held water. I also wonder if the amount of time the soil was being compacted would matter at all.  For example if each compaction lasted 64 seconds instead of 32, would that improve the water resistance?  What if the dirt was dry, damp, or frozen?  One could also test the amount of dirt used in the plug.  Would twice as much dirt double the time water was held?

If I were to conduct this project again I would conduct more trials probably ten or 12.  I would also test a plug with a larger number of layers, perhaps 16.

Researched by Connor H

Read More

Deicer Salt on the Growth of Barley

Purpose :- :-

       The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of deicer salt on the growth of barley.

       I became interested in this idea when I saw people putting deicer on the roads and sidewalks in the winter. I wondered if the salt dissolved and got into the soil, would it affect how much plants grew. My family and I grew a garden, so salt in the soil could cause problems.  

        The information gained from this experiment could be of interest to gardeners, farmers, the Department of Transportation employees who salt the roads and homeowners who use deicer on their sidewalks and driveways. If salt damages plant growth, then this study could act as a warning. 

Hypothesis

My first hypothesis was that the barley plants with more deicer salt would grow more slowly than the plants without it.

My second hypothesis was that as the amount of deicer increased, the percent of surviving plants would decrease.  

       My third hypothesis was that as the amount of deicer salt increased, the weight of the plants would decrease.

       I based my hypothesis on an Internet article called “Sources of Soil Salinity”.  The article said that salt doesn't affect how plants grow much, unless a high amount of salt is present.

Experiment Design

The constants in this study were:

•    The amount of water given to the plants (5cc)

•    The amount of soil in each cell

•    The type of soil

•    The amount of light given (14 hours a day)

•    The temperature the plants were grown at (20°C)

•    The type of plant seed (barley)

•    The depth of the plant seed (1 cm)

The manipulated variable was the amount of deicer salt used. 

         The responding variables were the growth of the barley and the survival rate. 

         To measure the responding variables, I measured the weight of the barley using a triple beam balance and counted the number that survived. 

Materials

Quantity	Item Description
2	Planting trays with 72 cells
1	Triple Beam Balance
432	Barley Seeds
1	Bag of potting soil
1	Bag of deicer rock salt
	Tap Water
1	Growing Light
1	Syringe
2	Plastic Clear Domes
1	Timer
5	Plastic Jugs

                          

Procedures

1.    Planting seeds

A. Fill all of the cells in both planting trays 1/2 full with potting soil.

B. Add 15cc of water to each cell using the syringe.

        C. Place 3 barley seeds evenly spaced into each cell.

        D. Cover the barley seeds with a layer of potting soil.

        E. Add another 15cc of water. 

        F. Place a plastic, clear dome over each of the planting trays.

G. Set the timer for the fluorescent light to turn on for 14 hours every day and make sure the light is placed 30 centimeters above the soil.

2.    Label Groups

A. Divide up the cells so you have 3 groups of 24 cells in each tray (a total of 6 groups).

        B. Label the first group “no salt”.

        C. Label the second group “2.25 grams of salt”.

        D. Label the third group “4.5 grams of salt”.

        E. Label the fourth group “9 grams of salt”.

        F. Label the fifth group “18 grams of salt”.

        G. Label the sixth group “36 grams of salt”.

3.   Creating Saltwater Solutions

A. Put 2.25 grams salt into a plastic jug, add 1 liter water, label it “2.25 grams”.

B. Put 4.5 grams salt into a plastic jug, add 1 liter water, label it “4.5 grams”.

C. Put 9 grams salt into a plastic jug, add 1 liter water, label it “9 grams”.

D. Put 18 grams salt into a plastic jug, add 1 liter water, label it “18 grams”.

E. Put 36 grams salt into a plastic jug, add 1 liter water, label it “36 grams”.

4.    Experimental Treatments

A. Every other day add 5cc of salt solution to each cell using the syringe. Use the correct jug of water for each group.

B. At the end of the experiment, uproot and weigh all of the plants in each group using a triple beam balance. 

 C. Find the total mass for each group, then find the average mass for each group by taking the total mass for each group and dividing it by the number of plants in that group.

Results

The original purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of deicer salt on the growth of barley.

The results of the experiment were that the groups with more deicer salt weighed less than the groups with less deicer salt.

The group with no salt had an average mass of .25 grams.

The group with 2.25 grams of salt had an average mass of .23 grams.

The group with 4.5 grams of salt had an average mass of .20 grams. The group with 9 grams of salt had an average mass of .17 grams. 

The group with 18 grams of salt had an average mass of .12 grams. The group with 36 grams of salt had an average mass of .09 grams. 

The group with no salt had 100% surviving and the group with 36 grams of salt had 22% surviving.

Conclusion

        My first hypothesis was that the barley plants with more deicer salt would grow more slowly than the plants without it. 

       The results indicate that my first hypothesis should be accepted, because once the salt concentrations were applied, the groups with the higher amounts of salt grew the least. 

       My second hypothesis was that as the amount of deicer increased, the percent of surviving plants would decrease.

      The results indicate that my second hypothesis should be accepted, because once the salt concentrations were applied, the groups with more salt had fewer surviving plants.

      My third hypothesis was that as the amount of deicer salt increased, the weight of the plants would decrease. 

      The results indicate that my third hypothesis should be accepted, because the groups with the more deicer salt have a lower average mass.

        After thinking about the results of this experiment, I wonder if a different type of deicer would affect how much barley grows. For example, the Department of Transportation sprays a special type of deicer on the roads. I wonder if that deicer would affect barley. Also, there are a lot of different types of plants that could be tested. I wonder if what the effect of deicer would be on wheat, soybeans, apple trees, or any other type of plant.

        If I were to conduct this project again I would have used six different syringes so I would have had one for each group, because the next time I watered the plants, some of the salt could still have been in the syringe from last time. I also would have grown the plants in natural sunlight outside in the summer instead of using an artificial light inside in the winter because that would be more natural. I also would have used more plants in each group and more variations of salt concentrations to discover the smallest amount of salt having a negative effect. 

 Researched by ----- Ashley B

Read More