Based on the results from the lab practical, we can analyze the antibacterial effectiveness of the different treatments using the provided data. The null hypothesis (H0), which states that there is no significant difference in antibacterial effectiveness among the treatments, can be rejected because the F value (16.835) exceeds the F critical value (3.47805), and the P value (0.00023) is much lower than the commonly accepted threshold of 0.05. This strong statistical evidence indicates that at least one of the plant-derived skincare products is significantly more effective than the negative control. The alternative hypothesis (H1), asserting that at least one plant-derived product shows greater antibacterial effectiveness than water and is at least comparable to Ceftriaxone, is accepted. The Honest Significant Difference (HSD) value of 0.04256 supports this conclusion by demonstrating that the differences in the zones of inhibition among the various products are statistically significant. The HSD indicates that the differences between the treated groups (herbal, gentel, and macadamia) and the controls are not due to random variation, further confirming that these products have appreciable antibacterial properties. Therefore, we can conclude that the plant-derived skincare products exhibit effective antibacterial activity, as opposed to the null hypothesis which suggested otherwise.
Discuss the results Using the information given below with the results from the lab practical, Acknowledge when a hypothesis may be incorrect. Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis which hypothesis is rejected and which is accepted and state why it rejected and why other accepted. Explain how HSD support to rejecting null hypothesis. State your explanation in detail in one paragraph in simple English terms.
P1 (Herbal)
0.3 cm
0.3 cm
0.4 cm
P2 ( Gental)
0.6 cm
0.6 cm
0.8 cm
P3 (Macado)
0.4 cm
0.5 cm
0.7 cm
Negative control ( water)
0.5 cm
0.2 cm
0.1 cm
Positive Control ( Ceftriaxone)
1 cm
1 cm
1.1 cm.
F value. 16.835
P value. 0.00023
F critical 3.47805
With a Honest Significant Difference (HSD) 0.04256
Hypothesis
Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in the antibacterial effectiveness of the plant-derived skincare products (herbal extracts, gentel, and macadamia oil) compared to the negative control (water) and the positive control (Ceftriaxone) in inhibiting bacterial growth as measured by the zones of inhibition on agar plates.
Alternate Hypothesis (H1): At least one of the plant-derived skincare products (herbal extracts, gentel, or macadamia oil) demonstrates a significantly greater antibacterial effectiveness in inhibiting bacterial growth compared to the negative control (water) and shows comparable or superior effectiveness to the positive control (Ceftriaxone) as measured by the zones of inhibition on agar plates.
1 answer