Saved science fair projects:

This is a saved copy of the relevant third party website. We save only the first page of every project because we've found that the third party sites are often temporarily down. We do not save all pages of the project because copyright belongs to the third party author.

 

The National Student Research Center

E-Journal of Student Research: Science

Volume 7, Number 2, March, 1999


The National Student Research Center is dedicated to promoting student research and the use of the scientific method in all subject areas across the curriculum, especially science and math.

For more information contact:

John I. Swang, Ph.D.
Founder/Director
National Student Research Center
2024 Livingston Street
Mandeville, Louisiana 70448
U.S.A.
E-Mail: nsrcmms@communique.net
http://youth.net/nsrc/nsrc.html

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1. Do Different SPF's Make A Difference When Using Same Brand Sunblock? Does Price Affect The Way Sunblock Works?
  2. Viscosity
  3. The Growing Of Plants Under Different Colored Lights
  4. How Humidity Affects The Growth Of Cherries
  5. The Flammability Of Household Fabrics
  6. Which Household Items Lubricate Metal The Best?
  7. Root Development
  8. The Decomposition Of Different Foods In Different Environments
  9. The Effect Of pH On The Life Span Of A Tadpole
  10. Mouthwash And Bacteria

Title:  Do Different SPF's Make A Difference When Using Same
Brand Sunblock? Does Price Affect The Way Sunblock
Works?
Student Researcher: Laura Barkin School: Edgemont Jr/Sr. High School White Oak Lane Scarsdale New York 10583 Grade: 7 Teacher: Ms. Russo I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis: I wanted to know if SPF matters when you buy sun block. For example, does a CVS brand 30 sunblock work better than a CVS brand 15 sunblock? I also wanted to know if higher priced sunblock works better than lower priced sunblock of the same SPF? My hypothesis was that the higher the SPF the better it would protect and that higher priced sun block would work better than lower priced. II. Methodology: For the first part of my project, I bought four types of CVS brand sunblock. Each of these sunblocks had a different SPF. The different SPF's were 30, 15, 8, and 4. I also bought a pack of developing paper at a local photography store and 4 clear plastic report folders. I then got some distilled water and a dish pan. I asked my science teacher for sodium thiosulfate. The first thing I did was divide the report folder in 4 equal squares using masking tape. I then labeled each sun block 1, 2, 3, or 4. I labeled each square 1, 2, 3, or 4. I then applied the numbered sunblock to the appropriate square. I put the same amount of sunblock on each square making it as even as possible. After I put the sunblock on, I dimmed the lights very low. I carefully took out a piece of developing paper, making sure to close the case afterwards to keep the light away from the other sheets. I put the developing paper, glossy side up, inside the report. I then quickly took it outside on the driveway where it was very sunny. I left it there for exactly 5 minutes. While it was in the sun I made the mixture of the sodium thiosulfate and distilled water in the dish pan. When the 5 minutes was up I brought the report folder back inside to the semi-darkened room. There I carefully took out the developing paper from the report folder and layed it glossy side down in the mixture for three seconds. Then I immediately rinsed it with cold water and let it dry for 15 minutes. When it was dry I observed it. For the second part of my experiment I did the exact same thing except I used the sun blocks that varied in price, but had the same SPF. My controlled variables was that I used the same amount of light, same dish pan, and the same mixture of sodium thiosulfate. My manipulated variables were the different sunblocks with the different SPF's or the differently priced sunblock. The responding variable were my results. III. Analysis of Data: On the developing paper, the sunblock which allowed the least amount of sun to penetrate, turned the whitest. When I observed the data from my first experiment I was very surprised at what I saw. I noticed that the SPF 30 sunblock was darker than the SPF 4 sunblock. This was very strange because I surely thought that 30 was better than 4. What I then saw was that in some places I had put more sunblock on the number 4 square than others, also the places where I had put more sunblock were the lightest and where I hadn't put much on it was the darkest. For trial one SPF 4 was the best, then SPF 8, then SPF 15, and last SPF 30. For trial two, SPF 8 was the best, then SPF 4, then SPF 15, and last SPF 30. For the second part of the project my results were not as strange, but were not what I expected. For trial one, "Bain de Soliel", which was the highest priced, worked the best. "Banana Boat", which was the least expensive, was second. "Bio Sun", the second highest priced was next, and then the second lowest priced, "Neutrogena" came in last. IV. Summary and Conclusion: As I said before, I was very surprised when I saw the results of both tests. They did not agree with my hypothesis at all. For the first experiment, it seemed to me that it did not matter what SPF you used, but how much you put on of each one. That is why I think SPF is irrelevant, if you put a lot of sunblock on and keep reapplying it. For my second experiment, I think it mattered how thick the sunblock was. Bain de Soliel was the thickest and then Banana Boat. But Neutrogena which came last was not thick and was very light. So, for my second experiment, I feel price does not matter, but thickness does. V. Application: I can apply the results of this experiment in many ways to my life now. I now know I can use any type of sunblock and the SPF will not matter. I will just have to remember to put a lot on and keep reapplying it. I also know that if I buy a sunblock and it has a thin texture to find another brand. These results can be critical for many people. With the depletion of our ozone layer, skin cancer is a common problem. People need to be aware of the SPF confusion and be informed about thick application of sunblock to prevent the damaging effects of the sun. Title: Viscosity Student Researcher: Caitlin Dieck School: Fox Lane Middle School RT 172 Bedford, New York 10506 Grade: 6 Teacher: Carolynn Sears, Ph. D. I. Statement of Purpose The purpose of my experiment was to find out if the name brand or temperature of olive oil effects its viscosity. My first hypothesis stated that the Pope Delicato and Candoni (Extra Virgin) will be most viscous. My second hypothesis stated that cold olive oil will be more viscous than warmer olive oil. II. Methodology I designed two experiments to test my hypotheses. The materials I needed for the experiments were a stopwatch, a paper clip, a measuring cup, 4 types of olive oil, a microwave, a magnet, and a bottle. The first experiment is called the Pour Test. My mom would set the bottle on the ramp to let the olive oil pour into the measuring cup. I would be next to her timing how long it took to pour to the 1 cup line. We would do this with all four brands/types at the different temperatures. We would pour each oil three times and then average the times. The controlled variable is the size of the measuring cup. The manipulated variables are the temperature of the olive oil and the different brands of olive oil. The dependent variable is the time it takes for 1 cup of olive oil to pour. The second test was called the Paper Clip Test. I would take the paperclip, put it in the olive oil, then take the magnet and pull the paperclip right above the olive oil, and then release the paperclip. My mom would stand next to me and time how long it took to touch the bottom of the bottle. We would do this in all the brands/types in the different temperatures. We would drop the paper clip three times to get an average. The controlled variables were the size of the paper clip and the measuring cup, and how the paper clip is dropped. The manipulated variables were the temperature of the olive oils and the different brands. The dependent variable is the time for the paper clip to drop through the olive oil. III. Data Analysis The data showed that the extra virgin olive oils (purer olive oils) were generally more viscous and that cold olive oil was generally more viscous. IV. Conclusion In my conclusion, the Candoni (Extra Virgin) and Pope (Extra Virgin) are most viscous. Candoni (Extra Virgin) was most expensive, then came Pope (Extra Virgin). Out of the temperatures, the cold olive oils were most viscous in most of my data. In my hypothesis, I thought that the Pope Delicato and Candoni (Extra Virgin) were going to be most viscous, but I was wrong. V. Application From doing this experiment, I found that Candoni (Extra Virgin) and Pope (Extra Virgin) are most viscous and that cold olive oil is more viscous than hot olive oil. I have also learned more about graphing and organizing my data. I learned a lot. One thing I will remember is to let the olive oil become room temperature before pouring it for cooking. Title: The Growing Of Plants Under Different Colored Lights Student Researcher: Thomas McConville School Address: Fox Lane Middle School Route 172 Bedford New York 10506 Grade: 6 Teacher: Dr. Sears and Mr. Karlsson I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis I wanted to find out whether the color of the light source has an effect on the growth of plants. My hypothesis was that regular white light from a regular light bulb would be the most effective light source on the plant. The other two colors in my experiment were red from one end of the spectrum and green from the other end of the spectrum. II. Methodology I purchased radish seeds because they grow very quickly. Then I gathered my materials which were: three light bulbs, (red, green, and white), 20 seeds, four pots exactly the same size, potting soil, three lamps. I placed one plant in the sun (natural light), and this was my control. The different colored lights were the independent variable. The controlled variables were: the same brand of lamps, the distance of the lights from the plants I grew, the temperature and amount of water, the amount of soil, the pot size, the depth that the seeds were planted. The plants were placed in a closet with the same temperature, and each plant received the same amount of light (same watt bulb). The dependent variable was the amount that the plants grew under the different colored lights. Once I gathered all of my materials, I planted the seeds the same depth in the same size pot and the same amount, and kind of potting soil. I watered with the same amount and temperature of water to begin this experiment. I watered my plants every other day. I placed the three pots in a dark closet, with the different colored lights above them at the same distance. I turned on the light sources for twelve hours each day. I watched every day to see which plant grew the fastest. I measured the length of the stem and took observations of this experiment. I also took pictures of this experiment. III. Analysis of Data My hypothesis proved to be correct: the white (or clear bulb) proved to be the best light source. The next tallest was the plant under the red bulb. The next tallest was the plant under the green bulb and the last was the plant growing in natural light. However, the plants in the natural light were the healthiest and had the largest leaves. IV. Summary and Conclusion I found out that clear or white light grew the tallest plants. Their leaves were also full. This probably happened because there was twelve hours of continuous light per day. Although the red and green plants were the next tallest, they were not as healthy looking. The plants under the natural light were not as tall, but had very full leaves and looked the healthiest. My hypothesis was correct. V. Application Although natural light may not grow plants as fast, they will turn out to be healthier. My second choice for growing plants would be a regular white light left on for at least 12 hours per day. Title: How Humidity Affects The Growth Of Cherries Student Name: Michael Kistenmacher School Address: Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School White Oak Lane Scarsdale, NY 10583 Grade: 7 Teacher: Ms. Russo I. Statement and Purpose and Hypothesis: My hypothesis states that if cherry branches are covered in a transparent plastic bag and are allowed to accumulate humidity, the percentage of blossoms that become cherries will be higher on the covered branches than on the uncovered branches. II. Methodology: I selected, in May 1998, four branches of a cherry tree in my garden. Over the first and third branch, I put a transparent plastic bag. I counted the blossoms on each of the branches and also recorded the percentage of blossoms that became cherries. In addition, I recorded the high and low temperature every day. I recorded these temperatures in order to know if there was a frost or excessive heat, that could have affected the growth of the cherries. Sometimes I took pictures of the branches. Inside of the plastic bag there were always water drops and that explains the high humidity inside. Sometimes I had to remove water from the plastic because it was too humid inside. If I would have left the water there, mold could be produced inside. III. Analysis of Data: I recorded the data every day and wrote them on a data table. From that data, I generated two charts of the percentage of the blossoms that turned into cherries and another one just for the amount of the cherries. I also checked the temperature in order to know if there was excessive heat or frost that could affect the cherries. The maximum temperature was 34.4 C and the low was 2 C. Therefore there was no negative temperature effect on the cherries. IV. Summary and Conclusion: The data show that between 10 and 2S percent of all the blossoms turned into cherries in the first weeks. The uncovered blossoms had totally different results then the covered blossoms. The second branch (uncovered) grew fast, but the fourth (uncovered) branch lost it's blossoms. The blossoms of the branches one and three (covered) grew fast and did not loose cherries as fast as the fourth branch did. But, in the end, only 1 to 5 percent of the cherries remained. There was no advantage for the covered branches. I conclude that my hypothesis is wrong. V. Application: My results show that, in 1998, a cherry farmer did not have to put a plastic bag around the branches of a cherry tree, because there was no advantage in doing so, in the New York area. Because there could be different temperatures in other states or in other years, the effect of the plastic bag could help to prevent frost damage. Also, in very dry climates, the humidity might be useful for the growth of cherries. Title: The Flammability Of Household Fabrics Student Researcher: Andrew Laub School Address: Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School White Oak Lane Scarsdale, New York 10583 Grade: 7 Teacher: Ms. Russo I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis: The purpose of my project is to find out more about the flammability of household fabrics used in the home, and maybe find a relationship between the size of the fabric, the length of time that it was exposed to fire, and the length of time that it takes to burn. Since I picked out a lot of different kinds of fabric to test, I wasn't sure of what to expect. My hypothesis states that most of the fabric would burn (or melt) rather quickly. II. Methodology: I tested my hypothesis through a cycle of using two different sizes of the same fabric, tested twice. My controlled variables were the unit measurement of time (in seconds), and the way the fabric was lighted (by using a match held directly to the fabric which was folded over to help get the fire going on all sides). This was done for every single piece of cloth tested. The responding variable was the time the fabric took to burn. The manipulated variables were the kinds of fabrics used and the two different sizes of the fabric (4 in. squares and 16 in. squares). I used 7 different kinds of fabric: Nylon, Satin Taffeta, Terry Cloth, Brushed T-Shirt Cotton, Broad Cloth, Linen, and Rayon. Both the Nylon and the Terry Cloth weren't fully consumed by the flame at any time in the experiment, I made a special graph for those two fabrics. One size set of replications was 16 square inches of cloth per square, and the other, 4 square inches per square. On our grill, which was lined with aluminum foil, I would put down one piece of cloth at a time, fold it over, and light a match to it. The second I touched the match to it, I started my stopwatch. When the cloth caught on fire, I pressed the "Laps" button. When either the cloth had smoldered, in which case I would just give the cloth some more seconds on its time before stopping the watch, or it had been consumed, I would press the "Stop" button. I would read the first time that I recorded, the exposure-before-igniting-time, the burning time, and the whole time in seconds and record it on to my data chart. III. Analysis of Data: The data I collected from my 4 in. square cloth pieces indicated that Nylon was the fastest to burn, (although Nylon was never fully consumed), and Linen the slowest. The average time Nylon took to burn was 38.79 seconds, Satin Taffeta was 41.24 seconds, Terry Cloth was 78.28, Brushed T-Shirt Cotton was 86.43 seconds, Broad Cloth was 46.39, Linen was 133.74 seconds, and Rayon was 66.87. These are the times for the 4 in. square pieces of cloth. As for my hypothesis, it was generally proven wrong by the fact that only 3 groups of cloth burned in under one minute on average. One of the groups burned on average in over two minutes. The data I collected from my 16 in. square cloth pieces indicated that Satin Taffeta, this time, took the shortest time to burn; and Linen, again, the longest time to burn. Nylon averaged to burn in 35.22 seconds, Satin Taffeta in 33.53 seconds, Terry Cloth in 55.81, Brushed T-Shirt Cotton in 103.36 seconds, Broad Cloth in 48.79, Linen in 121.05 seconds, and Rayon in 76.47. As my hypothesis is concerned, it was, again, generally proven wrong because only 4 groups of cloth burned in under one minute on average. The Nylon and the Terry Cloth were never fully consumed during the project, so that may have caused numbers to be off and more groups in the 4 in. square group to have less types of cloth burn in under one minute. IV. Summary and Conclusion: I have found out that most fabrics burn moderately fast, but nothing close to the ones that you might hear about in colonial stories with women who stand too close to the fire and their dresses go up in flames in a snap. Most of the cloth burned slowly. Therefore, I reject my hypothesis because I thought that most of the fabric would burn quickly, but they burned moderately fast. V. Application: These findings could improve in-home fire safety for many families by encouraging them to buy, and more stores to use, linen in their clothing, although it is kind of a weird fabric for regular clothing. But it could be encouraged to be more widely used in household fabrics in general for human safety. It could prevent even the smallest things like table top candle accidents from spreading all around the house. These are some ways that my findings can make the world a better place. Title: Which Household Items Lubricate Metal The Best? Student Researcher: Mandy Mitchell School Address: Hillside Middle School 1941 Alamo Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Grade: 7 Teacher: Barbara A. Minar I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis In my experiment, I planned to find out which household items lubricated metal the best. Of baby oil, Softsoap, vegetable oil, and Vaseline, I thought vegetable oil would lubricate metal the best followed by baby oil, Softsoap, and Vaseline. II. Methodology To test my hypothesis, I built a ramp 57.5 cm tall, 13 cm wide, and 103.5 cm long. This created a 29.5 degree angle from the surface it sits on and the slanted board. The slanted board was covered with a very smooth aluminum sheet 1 mm thick. I also bought a steel block l cm wide, l cm tall, and 14 cm long. Then I rounded the edges on the corners to make sure there weren't any burrs. I also gathered distilled white vinegar, Vaseline, baby oil, vegetable oil, paper towels, a level surface big enough to set the ramp on, a stopwatch that is accurate to the hundredth of a second, a 5 ml calibrated container, four disposable paint brushes, and a permanent marker. In doing the experiment, the controls were the degree of the ramp, the surface of the ramp, the positioning of the block, the amount of the lubricant, the method of timing the block, the method of cleaning the ramp, the spread of the lubricant, the type and brand of the paint brushes, and the brands of the lubricants, vinegar, and paper towels. To begin, place the ramp on the level surface. Measure out 5 ml of whatever lubricant you decide to start with. To keep from confusing them, label the paint brushes with the permanent marker. Also color one end on one side of the metal block with the permanent marks. When testing, this part of the block should face upward and be nearest the top of the ramp. To test, brush the 5 ml of lubricant as evenly as possible onto the metal surface of the ramp. Ready the stopwatch and release the metal block from the top edge on "3, 2, 1, GO!" (releasing on "GO!"). Stop the watch when the front edge of the block touches the end of the ramp. Record the time on your data chart. Now use the paper towels and white vinegar to remove the lubricant from the ramp. Do not touch the surface again because of the oil from your fingers. Repeat the experiment for each of the four lubricants three times. III. Analysis of Data: When I finished the experiment I found my hypothesis to be almost completely unsupported. Instead of vegetable oil having the best (shortest) time, followed by baby oil, Softsoap, and lastly Vaseline; Softsoap came in first followed by baby oil, vegetable oil, and Vaseline. The only part that turned out as I had predicted was that Vaseline would come in last. These are the average times it took the block to read the end of the ramp with each lubricant: Softsoap = 0.63 sec. baby oil = 0.88 sec. vegetable oil = 1.01 sec. Vaseline = 1.22 sec. IV. Summary and Conclusion: In my experiment, I found that, after three trials, Softsoap had the best average, baby oil came in second, vegetable oil was third, and Vaseline was last. Therefore, my hypothesis was unsupported. My hypothesis stated that vegetable oil world work the best and that it would be followed by baby oil, then Softsoap, and finally Vaseline. One thing I learned from this experiment was that just because a substance is dense does not mean it cannot lubricate. This and the data I collected caused me to reject my hypothesis. I ran into only one problem while doing the experiment. That problem was the cleaning of the ramp. I found using Dawn dish snap to be unfair because one of the lubricants was soap, also. It also left a very thin residue. In its place, I used plain distilled white vinegar. This solved my problem. V. Application: To generalize my findings, I would say I have found that a substance's ability to lubricate is not determined by its density. There are not any uses for this knowledge now, but in the future we may use these products in cars or moving sidewalks. The possibilities are endless. Even after this experiment, there are still questions unanswered. "Does the angle of the ramp affect the ratio of the differences of the lubricant's times?" is only one. "Would it make a difference if the ramp was longer?" is another. Despite this research there are many questions yet unanswered. Title: Root Development Student Researcher: Stephanie Frey School Address: Hillside Middle School 1941 Alamo Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Grade: 7 Teacher: Barbara A. Minar I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis I wanted to find out which type of water would help plants grow roots the best, salt water, sugar water, distilled water, or well water. I thought that well water would help plants grow the longest roots and distilled water would grow the second longest roots. I thought the plant given sugar water would have the third longest roots and the plant given salt water would grow the smallest roots. II. Methodology: I tested my hypothesis by purchasing a pothos at Wedel's Greenhouse and asked the sales people which plant would make the best clippings. I cut off four leaves and kept their stems. I placed one plant clipping in each glass. I filled each glass with 150.0 ml of one of the different types of water. I then put plastic wrap over the mouth of the glass to cover the opening to prevent evaporation. I cut a hole in the plastic wrap and put the stem of the plant into the water. I put all the glasses on the same window shelf in the southern part of our dining room for 52 days and watched the root growth and changes in the plant clippings. I did not take plants out of the water until day 49 for actual measurements. If I had taken them out of the water to measure them, the roots may have been damaged and would affect the growth and the results would have been inaccurate. My independent variable is the water type. The dependent variable is the root development. III. Analysis of Data: My data showed sugar water grew roots 2.25 cm long. Distilled water grew roots 0.50 cm long. Well water grew roots 0.50 cm long. Salt water grew roots 0.0cm long. IV. Summary and Conclusion: When I experimented to see if plant clippings grew longer roots with sugar water, salt water, distilled water, or well water I found the best root growth in the sugar water. Salt water grew the least roots. I had thought distilled water would have grown the longest roots. This part of my hypothesis was not supported by my data. I also thought that salt water would not grow long roots. This part of my hypothesis was supported by my data. V. Application: From my research, I learned that distilled water can grow roots even though the minerals have been removed, because of the organic materials that are left behind. The amount of organic materials depend upon the source of the water. City water can have more chemicals in the water like fluoride for our teeth. I found this out when I called the 800 number from Country Fresh, the company that sold me the distilled water. Water out in the country can have more organic materials in it because of the crops and livestock. Farmers use more fertilizers and this can get into the well water. Further research with salt water plants world be helpful. Poorer nations could use this information with crops when their rain fall is low and the mineral content is high. This information would be helpful to farmers trying to propagate plants. Title: The Decomposition Of Different Foods In Different
Environments
Student Researcher: Michael DeSantis School: Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School 200 White Oak Lane Scarsdale, NY 10583 Grade: 7 Teacher: Mr. Rubenstein I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis: I wanted to find out which of the foods that I gathered would decompose faster in two different environments. My first hypothesis stated that soil will help the food matter decompose faster rather than the twigs + grass mixture. My second hypothesis stated that the food matter will decompose faster for the room-temperature group rather than the cold-temperature group. My third hypothesis stated that, of the three foods that I selected (oranges, tomatoes, and potatoes), the tomatoes will decompose the fastest. II. Methodology: For my experiment, I used plastic cups, soil, twigs, grass, a shoe box, labels, a refrigerator, tape, a marker, a tomato, a potato, and an orange. After gathering the materials that I needed, I constructed the base or containment for each of the two groups (cold/room temperature). I then put the plastic cups into the bottom of the shoe box (6 cups) and taped them down. I then filled them with either the soil or the twigs + grass. I repeated this for the top side of the shoe box. I placed the food into the selected cups. Before I started to fill the cups, I made a data chart. I placed one box into the refrigerator and one box in my living room. I took a picture of each box every week and recorded the percent of the food not decomposed of each cup every day for 24 days. The controlled variables were the size of the cups and the amount of soil and the amount of twigs + grass mixture used. The manipulated variable was the temperature in which each box was kept. The responding variable was the rate of decomposition of the foods being tested. III. Analysis of Data: As it turned out, my hypothesis was not entirely correct. The food in the room-temperature box did in fact decompose faster. The tomatoes also decomposed faster in both boxes. But the food in the cups containing twigs + grass decomposed faster than the food in the cups filled with soil. Room Temperature % Not Decomposed Soil Twigs and Grass Date Tomato% Orange% Potato% Tomato% Orange% Potato% 4/29/98 84 98 99 79 96 100 5/ 2/98 52 90 96 48 87 99 5/ 6/98 42 80 95 39 78 97 5/ 9/98 42 73 95 39 72 96 5/13/98 40 72 94 39 71 96 5/16/98 40 71 94 39 69 95 5/19/98 40 70 94 38 68 94 Cold Temperature % Not Decomposed Soil Twigs and Grass Date Tomato% Orange% Potato% Tomato% Orange% Potato% 4/29/98 97 98 99 79 98 100 5/ 2/98 94 94 97 94 97 99 5/ 6/98 86 89 96 89 91 98 5/ 9/98 82 88 96 85 89 97 5/13/98 81 88 96 80 88 97 5/16/98 78 88 96 75 87 97 5/19/98 77 88 96 74 87 97 IV. Summary and Conclusion: I found out that tomatoes are one of the fastest decomposing foods, especially being compared with oranges and potatoes. But to my surprise, I also found out that twigs + grass do contribute by increasing the rate of decomposition compared to soil. Room temperature is also better than cold temperature for decomposing matters which is what I expected before conducting this experiment. V. Application: The information I found out while conducting my experiment can help the earth. For example, now that I know that twigs + grass are better for decomposing foods than soil, people should use twigs and grass for the ground (especially for a compost pile). Also, land fills or places trying to minimize the amount of garbage (including food scraps) should use twigs and grass for the ground. Also, knowing that tomatoes are very fast at decomposing, is useful information when planning a compost pile. Title: The Effect Of pH On The Life Span Of A Tadpole Student Researcher: Aaron Friedman School: Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School White oak Lane Scarsdale, New York 10583 Grade: 7 Teacher: Ms. Maria Russo I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis: I wanted to know more about the effect of pH on a tadpole's life span. pH is how acidic or basic a liquid is. Does the pH of water in which a tadpole is placed affect its life span? Will neutral water tadpoles live longer then acidic or basic ones? My hypothesis stated that, if one tadpole lives in neutral water and another lives in acidic water, the one in neutral will live longer. I feel that a tadpole's water is naturally neutral and if it is anything else it may be in danger of death or injury. II. Methodology: In order to test this hypothesis, I needed 6 bowls, 6 tadpoles, tadpole food, acidic drops, basic drops, indicator strips, water, and a net. First, I filled 6 bowls with water. Two bowls then received 15 drops of acidic drops making their pH 9. Two other bowls were left at pH 7. The last two bowls received 15 drops of basic drops making their pH 5. I made sure each pH was correct by testing the water with indicator strips everyday. I put one tadpole in each bowl. Every other day, I changed the water and reapplied the drops. Everyday, I feed them a pinch of food. There are many other variables that I controlled. The tadpoles were all placed on the same table and received the same amount of oxygen. They also received the same amount of food and water. Their water was changed at the same time and they were fed at the same time. The manipulated variable is the pH. The acidic tadpoles received 15 drops of acidic drops. The basic tadpoles received 15 drops of basic drops. The responding variable is the number of days the tadpoles stayed alive. III. Analysis of Data: My hypothesis was pretty correct. The acidic tadpoles did die on the first day. As for the basic tadpoles, they did survive the whole test (33 days). As the acidic tadpoles were dying, their skin was shedding and they were trying to jump out of the bowl. Many other odd occurrences happened during my testing. For example, for about a week, one tadpole we lying upside down and gasping for breath. Eventually, this ailment went away and the tadpole was fine. Tadpole # Days Alive Acidic Tadpole #1 1 Acidic Tadpole #2 1 Neutral Tadpole #1 33 Neutral Tadpole #2 33 Basic Tadpole #1 33 Basic Tadpole #2 33 IV. Summary and Conclusion: The acidic tadpoles did die before the neutral ones, but the basic ones stayed alive as long as the neutral ones. Therefore, tadpoles are able to survive if the pH is slightly basic. But if the pH becomes slightly acidic, the results may be fatal. V. Application: In this fast changing world, many environments are being destroyed and even ruined. If a tadpole needs to live in water with a pH of 7, it is important to know that so we won't accidentally change the pH. Also, things like acid rain could definitely harm the water's pH. Not only is the pH of water a problem for tadpoles, but all marine animals may be facing this potential problem. I hope to continue my studies and may expand it to include other animals. Title: Mouthwash And Bacteria Student Researcher: Chloe Asselin School: Edgemont Junior/Senior High School White Oak Lane Scarsdale, New York 10583 Grade: 7 Teacher: Maria Russo I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis: I wanted to know more about how clean your teeth could be by using mouthwash. To find how efficient the mouthwash was, I found out how much bacteria was left after using two different brands of mouthwash. I wanted to know if Fresh Burst Listerine worked better than Tom's of Maine Natural Mouthwash. My hypothesis stated that Fresh Burst Listerine worked better than Tom's of Maine Natural Mouthwash. II. Methodology: First, I wrote my hypothesis thinking that Fresh Burst Listerine was better than Tom's of Maine Natural Mouthwash because Tom's of Maine did not say, on the bottle, that it destroyed bacteria. I then got 23 grams of powdered agar, 1,000 ml of cold distilled water, petri dishes, masking tape, and Q-tips. I already had the bottle of Fresh Burst Listerine and the bottle of Tom's of Maine Natural Mouthwash. The manipulated variable was the kind of mouthwash. The responding variable was how much bacteria grew. The variables held constant were the size of the petri dishes, the amount of medium in each petri dish, the amount of mouthwash used, and the amount of bacteria spread in each petri dish. For conducting the experiment, I first had to make the agar gel. I suspended 23 grams of the medium into 1,000 ml. of cold distilled water. I then heated the medium to boiling to dissolve it completely. To sterilize the medium, I put it in the microwave and heated it minute by minute. When the medium began to bubble I turned off the microwave. I then poured the medium into the deeper dish of the petri dish. Next, I taped the petri dish and inverted it. The petri dishes were kept in a warm place. Then the real experiment was done. I took the tape off the petri dish and took the top off. At 7:30 AM and 9:30 PM, my brother and I used different mouthwash. We moved it back and forth in our mouths 50 times. We then spit it out and wiped a Q-tip along our bottom teeth. Next the Q-tip was smeared, in three different places, on the agar gel in the petri dish. For 2 days, my brother and I did these tests at 7:30 AM and 9:30 PM. I also did a control for each day, swabbing a Q-tip without a rinse with mouthwash. Next, I recorded my rating of the amount of bacteria grown on a scale of 0-4. Finally, I accepted or rejected my hypothesis and wrote a summary and conclusion. T he scale is from 0-4. O being no bacteria, 1 being a little bacteria, 2 being some bacteria and so on. III. Analysis of data: For 2 days, my brother and I did tests regarding bacteria. I observed that Fresh Burst Listerine worked better than Tom's of Maine Natural Mouthwash. The average number for Fresh Burst Listerine was 3 (a lot of bacteria). The average number for Tom's of Maine Natural Mouthwash was 4 (plate was overgrowing!!). The control stayed the same both days with an average of 3 (a lot of bacteria). IV. Summary and Conclusion: Fresh Burst Listerine worked better than Tom's of Maine Natural Mouthwash. The control had a lot of bacteria, but not overflowing in the petri dish. On the bottle of Fresh Burst Listerine, it says the mouthwash will kill germs and keep your breath fresh. On the Tom's of Maine bottle it just says the mouthwash will keep your breath fresh. Therefore, I accepted my hypothesis which stated Fresh Burst Listerine would work better than Tom's of Maine Natural Mouthwash. V. Application: I can apply this information to my life because I now know to use Fresh Burst Listerine if I want clean teeth and a fresh breath, which indicates the removal of bacteria. The Consumer Report Magazine should also conduct this experiment to show the public the benefits of using Fresh Burst Listerine.

 




Search for more science fair projects
Search science fair projects Browse science fair projects
or Ask the Mad Scientist for help with your Science Project

All Science Fair Projects