Pansit Pansitan Research

8 test tubes were then labelled A-H, 1ml of DCPIP was added to each of the test tubes. 2ml of NaHCO3 was added tubes A through G.

Equipment- 250mL beaker, 125mL Erlenmeyer flask, cardboard square, chemical scoop, metric ruler, lab countertop, rubber stoppers, safety goggles, lab apron

3% hydrogen peroxide, a household blender, potatoes (3 medium size potatoes, that are peeled and quartered), tap water, 8 test tubes, 8 transfer pipets, sugar packets, salt, a small saucepan, a refrigerator with a freezer, stove, 4 clear plastic cups, tongs (to remove test tubes from boiling water), 4 coffee cups, cheesecloth to filter the potato extract, a wax pencil or Sharpie marker, a ruler, scale or balance, 250 ml graduated cylinder, and oven mitt or tongs.

OBJECTIVE The objective for Rabie and Curtis (2006) was to determine the influence of hand washing on the risk of respiratory infection. METHOD The method adopted by Rabie and Curtis (2006) was to study a number of primary and review articles from five diverse databases before June 2004 in differing languages, to create a systematic review. Included in the review were studies which identified the impact of an intervention to promote hand cleansing on respiratory infections. Studies regarding hospital-acquired infections, long-term care facilities and the elderly were excluded. All studies were then evaluated where a conclusive decision was reached by consensus. Interestingly, from a primary list of 410 articles, only eight interventional studies reached the eligibility criteria. RESULTS The eight eligible studies disclosed that hand washing with antiseptic soap lowered risks of respiratory infection; the risk reduction identified as being from 6% to 44% and this range figures implied that hand washing can indeed reduce the risk of respiratory infection by 16% (Rabie and Curtis 2006). CONCLUSION Rabie and Curtis (2006) concluded that the studies collected were of insufficient quality and only one of the studies related to severe disease as well as none of the studies related

4) One package of active dry yeast was added to bottle labeled ‘5mL’ and solution was swirled.

This experiment illustrates the importance of handwashing and proves that hand washing is worth it. Since our hands are constantly coming into contact with ourselves and others, touching surfaces, grabbing objects, being sneezed into, etc., keeping our hands clean is one of the most effective, yet simple way we can take to avoid getting sick and spreading germs to others. Many diseases and conditions are spread by not washing hands with soap and clean, running warm water. “The human skin is a host to anywhere between 10,000-10,000,000 bacteria per square centimeter and since health care providers come into contact with pathogenic bacteria by being engaged in patient care, hand washing can reduce the risk of spreading diseases (page 3).” The objective of the experiment is to test the effectiveness of hand washing and demonstrate normal flora. This report presents the procedures and materials for the experiment, the experiment's results, and an analysis of those results.

•Be sure to write a detailed procedure for each lab design so that the same procedure can be followed accurately by anyone who reads it. Include details on the setup, the control of variables, and how the rate of each trial will be compared.

4. Add 1mL of oleic acid to three of the wet filter papers, this creates the independent variable. One will go in each tin.

Hospital acquired infections are a big problem today, but the use of disinfectants by the medical staff can help to avoid or limit such exposures to pathogens. The authors’ main purpose of this research article was to educate and teach the importance of hand hygiene and test the reason why certain virucidal hand-rubs result in poor compliance due to the poor tolerability of the products. The overall goal with the study would to show the reason certain hand rubs are not being used and how to improve their formula to increase compliance. The article written by the author was very well written with a thorough abstract. The study was very easy to follow and read, due to the well thought out structure of the article. The authors introduction starts out by stating the approximate amount of hospital acquired infections in the European Union and why hand sanitizers play an important role to avoid such infections. The introductions statement showed the importance of the topic. Although some of the results were complicated and confusing, the discussion laid out the results in layman

• Bellis, Mary. "The History of Soap and Detergent." About.com Inventors. About.com, 17 June 2015. Web. 14 Jan. 2016.

Test tube 1 should have .04 g of benzophenone, test tube 2 should also have .04 g of benzophenone, etc., up to the fourth test tube.

As shown in Table 3.0, it was difficult to stir and combine the shortening and the lard with the sodium hydroxide and glycerol. Though the oil-based soaps were easy to make, they did not yield as much compared to the fat-based soaps. Table 6.0 shows that Soap 3 which was shortening based and Soap 4 which was lard based produced 11.18 g and 11.22 g, respectively. This was a much greater yield than the oil based soaps. Soap 1 which used olive oil yielded 3.154 grams and soap 2 using vegetable oil yielded 1.319 grams. This was something to consider when choosing which starting material to use and depends on whether ease of synthesis or greater yield is more important. The detergent synthesis methods were very similar but method 2 took less steps and was a bit easier than method 1. Table 6.0 shows that detergent 2 had a greater yield, 5.143 grams whereas detergent 1 had a yield of about 4 grams. The lathering test showed that though soaps 3 and 4 produced the most product of the soaps, they did not create many bubbles or a good lather according to Table 7.0. The soaps/detergents that produced the most bubbles were soap 1 which used olive oil followed by detergent 1 and then soap 2

Sufficient references samples of the starting materials and products need to be retained for future examination of the batch if necessary.

In low income communities, soil, mud or ash may be used as a zero cost alternative to soap for handwashing (Zeitlyn and Islam, 1991). Hoque et al (1995) again reported that altogether, 81% of non-soap users stated that they might use soap, but were unable to afford it.

The purpose of this lab was to create soaps and detergents and test their cleaning ability. We created four different soaps and two detergents using different starting materials composed of oils and fats for the soaps and lauryl alcohol and sulfuric acid for the detergents. Soaps are created by a process called saponification, which is the formation of a salt by combing an acid and a base.1 Soap and detergent are effective cleaning agents because they have hydrophilic and hydrophobic ends.1 The hydrophobic ends interact with the dirt and oil while the hydrophilic ends interact with the water molecules effectively washing the dirt and oil away.2 While soaps and detergents are very similar in their cleaning ability, they have a major difference being that soaps are made from natural products and detergents are made from synthetic materials.3 In order to make the soaps, we used four different starting materials including lard, shortening, olive oil, and vegetable oil.