writing your science fair abstract n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Writing Your Science Fair Abstract PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Writing Your Science Fair Abstract

Writing Your Science Fair Abstract

62 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Writing Your Science Fair Abstract

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Writing Your Science Fair Abstract 250 Words or Less

  2. The Abstract Should Be: • A short summary of your complete work (250 words or less) • It should be written in 3rd person • It should include: • Your problem statement • Procedure/Methods • Results • Conclusion/Further Implications

  3. Your Problem Statement • This can be worded as a question or as a statement • Should be followed by a brief statement of why it is important or your hypothesis • Ex. What is the effect of wing angle of attack, or the angle between the airflow and the wing’s direction, on the lift, or upward force, produced by an airplane? • This information is vital for creating and flying more efficient airplanes.

  4. Your Problem Statement (cont.) • Ex. The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of essential oils on the growth of partially antibiotic resistant Streptococcus Pneumoniae. • The hypothesis was that when essential oils, specifically Thieves, Bergamot, Roman Chamomile, Geranium, Lavender, Lemon, Oregano, Peppermint, Pine, and Thyme, was added to partially resistant Streptococcus Pneumoniae, then the growth of said bacteria would be inhibited.

  5. Procedure/Methods • Should be a brief, yet detailed description of how the experiment was conducted. • Enough information must be given so that the reader understands how data was collected • Make sure to include what the control group and experimental group look like

  6. Procedure/Method Example • First, a wind tunnel, or a tool used to test the airplane, while it is kept stationary, in moving air, was constructed. Also constructed were three balsa wood gliders, with the angle of attack modified to 2° on plane “B” and 4° on plane “C”, both experimental groups. Plane “A”, the control, was not modified from the original 0° angle of attack. Wing size and shape were controlled by using the same brand and style of glider. The gliders were tested in the wind tunnel by attaching a paperclip to a string on the glider’s wing and setting the paperclip on an electronic balance scale.

  7. Procedure/Method Example • To test this, growth of the Streptococcus Pneumoniae took place in Petri dishes filled with a goat blood and agar mixture. A specific amount of Streptococcus Pneumoniae (0.5 McFarland) was inoculated into each of the 30 Petri dishes. 4 sterilized filter disks and 1 pre-inoculated Penicillin G. filter disk were evenly placed on each of the Petri dishes. One filter disk was left sterile (Control Group). Using a sterile loop to measure, 1 filter disk received 10 micro liters of an essential oil (Experimental Group), 1 filter disk received 20 micro liters of an essential oil (Experimental Group), and 1 filter disk received 30 micro liters of an essential oil (Experimental Group). Each of the 10 essential oils were tested in triplicate. The 30 Petri dishes were then incubated at 37ºC for 24 hours. Readings were taken using a caliper to measure the zone of inhibition for each disk.

  8. Results • Give the actual quantitative data that was collected • Ex. The final data shows that some of the oils were more effective against the growth of Streptococcus Pneumoniae than the Penicillin G. Those oils were Oregano and Thieves. Penicillin had an average zone of inhibition of 23.4 mm. Oregano had an average zone of inhibition of 28mm at 10 micro liters, 30mm at 20 micro liters, and 33mm at 30 micro liters. Thieves had an average zone of inhibition of 31mm at 20 micro liters and 32.33mm at 30 micro liters. Lavender oil received incorrect results due to a malfunction while inoculating the disks.

  9. Results (cont.) • Ex. Plane “A” created 0.355 g of lift, plane “B” created 0.415 g of lift, and plane “C” created 0.355 g of lift on average. This proves that plane “B”, with 2° angle of attack, created the most lift, and that a 4° angle of attack, plane “C”, was too much for the glider.

  10. Conclusion/Further Implications • What do the results tell us and how are these results useful • Ex. Companies producing toy gliders, like the ones in this experiment, should make them with a 2° angle of attack for the best lift. • Ex. This experiment leads to the conclusion that certain essential oils could be used topically against the growth of partially antibiotic resistant Streptococcus Pneumoniae. This could be useful in preventing the spread of Streptococcus Pneumoniae.

  11. Engineering Based Abstract (Ex.) • A serious problem exists within the petroleum industry. When oil is spilled into an aquatic environment the entire eco-system is threatened. A variety of filtering systems exist, but none are optimal. A safer more efficient and environmentally friendly system is needed. This project was designed to verify the effectiveness of three different types of natural filtering media on removing oil from water. A mechanical system utilizing a diaphragm pump to create suction through an oil boom, to extract the oil slick, from the water and transfer the fluid through a filter, capturing the oil and discharging the water. The filter system was comprised of three different media; Coconut Fibers, Hair, and Eco-Friendly pads. The system was targeted to remove the oil contaminants to a level of (9.98 mg/L), which is the allowable threshold for drinkable water. The target rate was achieved on the eco-pad filter only, with a 2.5 mg/L of oil contaminates.  The experiment offers a viable alternative to current filtering systems.