Conclusion (wrap up investigation – discuss results in a paragraph that answers the following prompts)

Question

was hypothesis true or false
what is the data that told you it was true or false
describe errors or issues that happened during the experiment
was there a problem gathering data
would more trials have provided more reliable inforation
was it difficult to measure or time the events, or build the models
did the seeds not sprout, plants die, liquids spill, etc.
how did you change the process to adjust for the problem experienced
give suggestions for another investigation that could be done in the future to add new information to what you discovered

HYPOTHESIS: If different methods are used to filter polluted water, then cotton balls would be most effective, because the cotton balls fibers could trap the solid particles.

DATA:
Filter Media
Dirty Water pH
pH after Filtration [Trial 1]
pH after Filtration [Trial 2]
pH after Filtration [Trial 3]
pH after Filtration [Trial 4]
pH after Filtration [Trial 5]
Avg.
Cotton Balls
6.2
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.48
Coffee Filter
6.2
6.5
6.6
6.4
6.6
6.6
6.54
Charcoal
6.2
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.46
Sand
6.2
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.08
Marble
6.2
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.7
6.8
6.74

Answer 1

In conclusion, the hypothesis that cotton balls would be the most effective method for filtering polluted water was supported by the data collected during the experiment. The average pH after filtration using cotton balls was 6.48, which was lower than the averages for coffee filters (6.54), charcoal (6.46), sand (7.08), and marble (6.74), indicating better removal of impurities and pollutants. However, there were several issues encountered during the experiment that could have affected the results. One significant problem was the inconsistent flow rate of water through the different filter media, which made it difficult to accurately compare their effectiveness. This variable could have skewed the data, suggesting that more trials would indeed provide more reliable information by accounting for anomalies and variations in flow rates. Furthermore, measuring the pH before and after filtration was sometimes challenging due to variations in water temperature and possible contamination of the samples, leading to possible inaccuracies in the pH readings. To adjust for these issues, we established a more consistent experimental setup, including standardizing the amount of dirty water used and the time allowed for filtration. For future investigations, I recommend exploring alternative filtering materials, such as natural fibers or combinations of existing ones, to determine if a multi-layered filtration system could yield even better results in terms of removing pollutants from water. This would not only evaluate different materials but also assess how layering affects filtration efficacy.