Can you discuss the practical we completed in class today, I would like you to comment on the reliability, precision and accuracy of your results, and the method itself.
The equipment used meant that the method was very accurate:
-We didn't have measuring cylinders with small enough intervals, which meant the value wasn't accurate. -The syringes we stiff, so air bubbles were hard to get out, and this could have affected the volume of solution within the bubbles. -The bungs didn't fit well into the top of the boiling tubes, which meant that carbon dioxide could have been escaping.
There were also issues with the method: -The sodium alginate was hard to evenly distribute throughout the water, which means that some of the yeast beads could have contained more than others. -The way of calculating the average size of the beads was imprecise, as it was hard to line all of the beads up in a completely straight line along the rulers edge, as to ensure there was no gaps, so only the beads being measured.
Therefore it is likely that our results are inaccurate, due to flaws in the method and equipment. They are also likely to be unreliable,as only on replication for each size yeast bead was completed, so to increase reliability, more than one trial needs to be completed.
I agree with all the points that Katherine has mentioned. Furthermore, we failed to maintain the water bath at a constant temperature- which will have been the reason behind the yeast's extremely slow rate of respiration, and partly explains why we failed to produce any results. In the future, we require a more reliable and constant water bath. In our experiment we realised (too late) that we should have been topping up the water bath with warm water and monitoring the temperature with a thermometer. However, despite this, the temperature of the water bath would still fluctuate- even our best efforts could not ensure that the temperature remained constant at all times .
The temperature is an important factor in rate of respiration, and should have been controlled in this particular experiment - therefore, our results (had we got any) would have been highly unreliable as this control variable was not maintained throughout the experiment
In the future, an electrically heated and self-regulating water bath would ensure that the experiment produces reliable results. Has anyone got any other suggestions for maintaining the temperature of the water bath?
Alternatives to a rule could be using a computer software which measures as this would increase the accuracy and the precision, as it would be able to measure to smaller decimals. However, for us, we could measure each bead individual, to prevent the beads string moving around. In terms of the water bath, I think the best alternative would be the electrical ones, however if this wasn't possible, better management and observation of the water would be the best way to maintain its temperature.
The equipment used meant that the method was very accurate:
ReplyDelete-We didn't have measuring cylinders with small enough intervals, which meant the value wasn't accurate.
-The syringes we stiff, so air bubbles were hard to get out, and this could have affected the volume of solution within the bubbles.
-The bungs didn't fit well into the top of the boiling tubes, which meant that carbon dioxide could have been escaping.
There were also issues with the method:
-The sodium alginate was hard to evenly distribute throughout the water, which means that some of the yeast beads could have contained more than others.
-The way of calculating the average size of the beads was imprecise, as it was hard to line all of the beads up in a completely straight line along the rulers edge, as to ensure there was no gaps, so only the beads being measured.
Therefore it is likely that our results are inaccurate, due to flaws in the method and equipment. They are also likely to be unreliable,as only on replication for each size yeast bead was completed, so to increase reliability, more than one trial needs to be completed.
I agree with all the points that Katherine has mentioned. Furthermore, we failed to maintain the water bath at a constant temperature- which will have been the reason behind the yeast's extremely slow rate of respiration, and partly explains why we failed to produce any results.
ReplyDeleteIn the future, we require a more reliable and constant water bath. In our experiment we realised (too late) that we should have been topping up the water bath with warm water and monitoring the temperature with a thermometer. However, despite this, the temperature of the water bath would still fluctuate- even our best efforts could not ensure that the temperature remained constant at all times .
The temperature is an important factor in rate of respiration, and should have been controlled in this particular experiment - therefore, our results (had we got any) would have been highly unreliable as this control variable was not maintained throughout the experiment
In the future, an electrically heated and self-regulating water bath would ensure that the experiment produces reliable results. Has anyone got any other suggestions for maintaining the temperature of the water bath?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the resolution of the ruler? What else could we have used?
ReplyDeleteAlternatives to a rule could be using a computer software which measures as this would increase the accuracy and the precision, as it would be able to measure to smaller decimals. However, for us, we could measure each bead individual, to prevent the beads string moving around.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the water bath, I think the best alternative would be the electrical ones, however if this wasn't possible, better management and observation of the water would be the best way to maintain its temperature.