You are here

lcampion's blog

Persuasion Writting

Submitted by lcampion on Fri, 03/24/2017 - 14:58

Our beloved dogs are dying out! This is a crisis for dog-lovers everywhere! Not only are dogs wonderful companions, they are also an effective therapy tool and have provide services to people with medical conditions for decades. There is a vaccine that scienctist have created that would allow for one pregnant mother and her pups to survive this horrible viral outbreak! The most obvious choice for this life saving vaccine is a pregnant labrador retriever. This dog bread is simply the best! They can vary in color and provide owners with love and affection! Energectic but able to be trained to be service animals, these dogs have it all! Any other choice would simply be a lacking one when compared to the benefits of having labrador retrievers prevail.

Bacteria grows cement: PP

Submitted by lcampion on Thu, 03/23/2017 - 21:43

Ginger Krieg Dosie started a biotechnology start up called bioMASON in North Caroline which is paving the way for creating earth friendly building materials. This article focuses on their process of growing cement and forming bricks using the natural cellular metabolism product, calcium carbonate, from a bacteria when in prime conditions. This bacteria is a strain from the Bacillus family. This strain is ideal because it is naturally occuring and does not cause disease. The process of creating the biocement starts off by pouring a batch of the bacteria over fine sand. The mixture is stirred in a giant vat, similar to your every-day electric baking mixer. The mixture is them poured onto a table where pressure and vibration working together to form cement blocks. These blocks are them moved into a shipping container and left to dry at room temperature for three to four days. The finished product is an off white brink that can be easily colored or textured to designer needs. To ensure the bricks stand up to the same stress and pressure standards of conventional bricks, the company has put them to the test in the lab. So far the bricks have undergone water errosion testing, pressure and weight testing, and extreme temperature testing. They have also used the brinks in the real world, so far building small walls and walkways.  

Bacteria grows cement

Submitted by lcampion on Thu, 03/23/2017 - 21:42

Ginger Krieg Dosie started a biotechnology start up called bioMASON in North Caroline which is paving the way for creating earth friendly building materials. This article focuses on their process of growing cement and forming bricks using the natural cellular metabolism product, calcium carbonate, from a bacteria when in prime conditions. This bacteria is a strain from the Bacillus family. This strain is ideal because it is naturally occuring and does not cause disease. The process of creating the biocement starts off by pouring a batch of the bacteria over fine sand. The mixture is stirred in a giant vat, similar to your every-day electric baking mixer. The mixture is them poured onto a table where pressure and vibration working together to form cement blocks. These blocks are them moved into a shipping container and left to dry at room temperature for three to four days. The finished product is an off white brink that can be easily colored or textured to designer needs. To ensure the bricks stand up to the same stress and pressure standards of conventional bricks, the company has put them to the test in the lab. So far the bricks have undergone water errosion testing, pressure and weight testing, and extreme temperature testing. They have also used the brinks in the real world, so far building small walls and walkways.  

The best part about these bricks are their environmentally friendly manufacturing process. Compared to traditional cement bricks which require sand, limestone, and intense heating to 2800 degrees fahrenheit. This process results in a huge emission of carbon dioxide from both the buring of fossil fuel to create this temperature and the chemical reaction between the limestone and minerals in the sand which producing carbon dioxide as a biproduct. With the world in need of more and more cement for building material, and the growing push for companies to cut back on carbon emissons, the bacteria grown cement could solve a lot of problems. As the company continues to grow, they're working on mobile bacteria cement makers that would make it easy to grow the cement essentially any where.

 

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/carbon-emissions-growing-cement-bricks-bacteria-biomason/

Possible in class methods experiment

Submitted by lcampion on Fri, 03/03/2017 - 14:10

Finding scientific article about moss that had a methods section that was possible to replicate in this class. Since many moss species, such as Physcomitrella patens, are considered model organisms, there are hundreds of articles and experiments out there. As a model organism, there is already general understanding about the fundamental processes that plants undergo to survive. It was hard to find a simple experiment concerning moss.

This article discusses an experiment that focused on the effects of temperature on the growth of two specific moss species. The moss were collected and split into 4 temperature blocks and each block contained both mono-species and multi-species cultures. The moss was left to grow in the controlled climates for 154 days. Other factors such as water availability and light and dark periods were also controlled. The growth of the moss was measured by the thickness of the moss cover.

Breeuwer, Angela, et al. "The Effect of Temperature on Growth and Competition between Sphagnum Species." Oecologia, vol. 156, no. 1, May 2008, pp. 155-167. EBSCOhost, doi: 10.1007/s00442-008-0963-8

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=273ac227-eda4-448e-9248-432403ea277d%40sessionmgr103&vid=9&hid=101

Methods Project: Introduction

Submitted by lcampion on Thu, 03/02/2017 - 16:34

This project aims to create a multi-panel scientific figure of a moss specimen found on the University of Massachusetts Amherst. A methods section was written describing the the process of creating the figure. This methods section was then followed by another student. The two figures were then compared. The purpose of this recreation was to provide insight into the accuracy and level of clarity of the methods section.

    As a class, the subject of moss was chosen as many of us are not familiar with anything about moss. This topic was chosen to level the playing field and to provide new knowledge and understanding on the subject for everyone in the class.

    The particular specimen chosen to be the subject of this methods section was located in the Durfee Conservatory greenhouses on campus. Certain factors were identified as variable that should be controlled in the methods section. These factors included:  the moss specimen in question, the specific location of the moss specimen, both on campus and within the Durfee Conservatory, the content of each of the three images to be used in the figure (a close up of the moss, a further away image of where the moss was located, and an image of a map depicting the location of the Durfee Conservatory on the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus), the program used to create the figure, the layout of the images within the figure, the elements of the figure’s labels, the location of the caption, and the relative size and proportion of each image in the figure.

 

Methods: Abstract

Submitted by lcampion on Thu, 03/02/2017 - 16:33

By following the methods provided, a replication of the original scientific figure was created. This replicated figure was then compared to the original figure off which the methods were written. The differences between the figures were identified and attributed to both the flaws in the methods and not following the methods completely. Overall the original and the replicated figures were quite similar but slight changes and additions should be made to the methods to ensure replicated figures are as close to identical as possible.

 

Methods: Discussion PP

Submitted by lcampion on Fri, 02/24/2017 - 17:28

The methods were not followed completely to recreate the figure. For example, the replicated figure does not show the Durfee Conservatory “in relation to a well known landmark, the campus pond” as indicated in the methods and the location of the conservatory in the replicated figure is not obviously identifiable. It was not indicated that the map was a street view of campus in the methods so the replicated figure did not have the same image. The methods did not include instructions to create the red arrow to label the Durfee Conservatory in image C of the figure that is present in the original. Image A of the moss close up, is not as magnified in the replicated image in comparison to the original but the level of magnification was not mentioned in the methods. As far as the other labels for the structures of the moss, the replicated image does follow the methods. The labels are capitalized in the replicated figure but not in the original but this detail was not stated in the methods. The methods also did not clearly indicate that the caption was not over labeling image C, but rather standing alone at the bottom right hand corner of the map with a white background. The methods did not indicate the size of the letters marking the images A, B, and C. Other aspects of the figure that were mentioned in the methods are present in the replicated figure. As for the size of the multi-panel figure itself, although it isn’t directly said that the figure takes up the entirety of the page, it is implied in the methods with, “the size of the two images were adjusted to meet about half way across the page.” This is not followed in the replicated figure and as a result the scale of the figure is off compared to the original.

Methods Project: Discussion draft

Submitted by lcampion on Fri, 02/24/2017 - 17:27

Discussion:

What caused these differences?:

The methods were not followed completely to recreate the figure. For example, the replicated figure does not show the Durfee Conservatory “in relation to a well known landmark, the campus pond” as indicated in the methods and the location of the conservatory in the replicated figure is not obviously identifiable. It was not indicated that the map was a street view of campus in the methods so the replicated figure did not have the same image. The methods did not include instructions to create the red arrow to label the Durfee Conservatory in image C of the figure that is present in the original. Image A of the moss close up, is not as magnified in the replicated image in comparison to the original but the level of magnification was not mentioned in the methods. As far as the other labels for the structures of the moss, the replicated image does follow the methods. The labels are capitalized in the replicated figure but not in the original but this detail was not stated in the methods. The methods also did not clearly indicate that the caption was not over labeling image C, but rather standing alone at the bottom right hand corner of the map with a white background. The methods did not indicate the size of the letters marking the images A, B, and C. Other aspects of the figure that were mentioned in the methods are present in the replicated figure. As for the size of the multi-panel figure itself, although it isn’t directly said that the figure takes up the entirety of the page, it is implied in the methods with, “the size of the two images were adjusted to meet about half way across the page.” This is not followed in the replicated figure and as a result the scale of the figure is off compared to the original.

 

Methods Project: Results draft

Submitted by lcampion on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 21:58

Results:

Differences between figures:

Original figure= figure 1 and Reproduction figure= figure 2

  • Figure 2 does not take up the whole document as figure 1 does

  • Figure 1 has a smaller, more magnified frame for image A compared to image A in figure 2

  • Image A in figure 2 does not include a ruler for size reference as in figure 1

  • As a result of the lesser magnification, the words for the structures and their arrows are not as accurately placed

  • The words for the structures on image A, figure 2 are capitalized while they are not in image A, figure 1

  • Image B is taken at different angles in figures 1 and 2

  • Figure 1 used a street view for image C while figure 2 used a satellite view

  • Image C, figure 2 shows the Durfee Conservatory at a much more close up view when compared to image C, figure 1

  • Image C, figure 1 includes the campus pond and other landmarks and streets while image C, figure 2 is a close up of the Durfee Conservatory that doesn’t have any landmarks in it

  • There is no red arrow pointing to the Durfee Conservatory in image C, figure 2

  • The size of the letters (A, B, and C) are larger in figure 2

  • The caption is over image C in figure 2 but has its own box in figure 1

Manuscript Requirements for the journal Advances in Environmental Biology

Submitted by lcampion on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 20:17

Journal Title: Advances in Environmental Biology

Link to the Guidelines: http://www.aensiweb.com/AEB/authors.html 

Brief Summary of Requirements:

The manuscript must be summitted using Microsoft Word. The layout of the paper must be that of tradtionall scientific papers and should not exceed 15 pages upon follwing their formating guidelines. The page limit must be with figures included. The manuscript must have an abstract should be between 300-500 words and should include a summary of each section of the paper. References must be correctly cited and provided at the end of the manuscript. Along with submition of the manuscript, a separt cover letter document must be summitted including the authors and co-authors of the paper, with their affiliations, and a short biography of the author(s). A corresponding author must be indicated and their contact information must be clearly provided. Both documents, the cover letter and the manuscript, must be emailed to the contact at the journal for review. Not conforming to the guidelines will result in the return of the documents for revision.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - lcampion's blog