Lab Analysis

                                                               Analysis of Two Lab Reports

                                                                                Miguel Infante

                                                                  The City College of New York

                                                                                       3/8/20

          Across numerous databases and in many parts of the world, scientists are always conducting different studies in the pursuit of an answer to a question. The undisclosed product of those studies are the lab reports written by the many who worked on the different experiments that present their valuable information. The two lab reports that are to be analysed on this paper are scientific reports that each pertain to a different background of science. One lab report chosen involves the life science of achieving a more optimal sustainability in farming crops to make it produce a healthier nutritional value. This article is titled  “The enhancement of plant secondary metabolites content in Lactuca sativa L. by encapsulated bioactive agents” by Slaven Jurić, Katarina Sopko Stracenski, and several other researchers at the University of Zagreb. The other lab report, “Imaging active faulting in the western Taiwan Strait” by Yifeng Zahng, Hao Kuo-Chen, and others at the Institute of Earth Sciences, involves the study of Earth’s physical science of plate tectonics. The scientists on that paper are working to analyze the kinematics of a fault in the Earth’s oceanic plates. In these lab reports are a set of elements commonly used by scientists around the world in order to present their data to an audience. These elements include and are not limited to the title, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and references. They also structure their lab report in different ways in order to get the information across better by introducing data at specific times so that the audience can better understand what they are doing in that lab report and how the information connects to each other. The analysis of these two lab reports will attempt to show these ideas for how a lab report can look like. 

          The first element of any lab report is the title – a vital piece of identifying it for others to research and remember it. The first lab report is titled “The enhancement of plant secondary metabolites content in Lactuca sativa L. by encapsulated bioactive agents” by Jurić, et al. The short meaning of the title is “make lettuce yield more nutrients with biological supplements”. There are complex terms in the title and “encapsulated bioactive agents” refers to an unspecified set of  materials, meaning that this lab report may involve different experimental variables. At first glance, this title can be for an audience of people interested in agricultural matters since it involves botanical studies. The second labs title, “Imaging active faulting in the western Taiwan Strait” by Zahng et al is a short and straightforward title. Researchers have collected images of a tectonic fault line in order to analyze its kinematics in the lab report. From looking at the title, it may appear that there are not too many variables involved in this lab and a single task is performed. Both titles in each lab report are precise and get straight to what the study will conduct. The titles are different in that they give off different ideas of what is being studied in the lab – for instance the first lab title involves a plural set of bioactive agents while the second title is just referring to the analysis of a single object.

          The next element of a lab report is the abstract. It is a short summary that may not sum up all of the other elements of a lab report. The abstract of “The enhancement of plant secondary metabolites…” is a descriptive abstract. The first sentence states: “Encapsulated bioactive agents… present an innovative approach to stimulate the production of plant secondary metabolites…” (Jurić et al, 2020, p. 1). The abstract then continues with the results of the experiment and how microparticles increase the nutritional value of lettuce (Jurić et al, 2020, p. 1). Here, it can be seen that the authors are just summarizing the lab to the audience. Unlike the abstract of the first lab report, the abstract of “Imaging active faulting in the western Taiwan Strait” is an informative abstract. They bring up the history behind what has been done in the western Taiwan Strait and relate it to what they are currently investigating. Zhang and the others state that “…earthquakes off the coast of China’s Fujian province point to important tectonic activity… that, until recently, has received little attention” (Zhang et al, 2020, p. 1). It is brought up that earthquakes in the past are their motives behind imaging the Taiwanese fault. Both abstract fulfill their purpose of summarizing the main points of the lab reports. There are other similarities in how the abstracts of both lab reports present their data and the only difference is whether or not they are descriptive or informative abstracts. 

          A lab report element that comes right after the abstract is the introduction, which is present in all scholarly articles. The introduction of “The  enhancement of plant secondary metabolites…” by Jurić et al spans for a few pages and is moderately lengthy. It may seem long, but in it, the authors fully introduce and break down why the lab is carried out and what their materials are to the readers. One of the sentences states “Plants require these compounds for pigmentation, growth,… and for many other functions…” (Jurić et al, 2020, p. 2). The authors explain the importance of the bioactive agents. They also introduce plant secondary metabolites as compounds used for a healthy human diet (Jurić et al, 2020, p. 1). Since they’re making things simpler to be read, it suggests that this lab report is directed to a broad spectrum of audience including the public and agricultural entities, not just the scientific community. The intro of the second lab report “Imaging active faulting in the western Taiwan Strait” by Zhang et al is not so long in contrast to the report by Jurić et al with it consisting of just four paragraphs. It includes a graphic representation of where the Taiwan fault is and its history. In this intro, the authors do not fully explain some scientific terms in the context of the fault. It is stated that the history of the fault “…began with rifting during the Early to Late Eocene and, by the late Early Oligocene…” (Zhang et al, 2020, p. 2). Words like Oligocene and Eocene used to describe time periods on Earth are not defined. The target audience would be the scientific community for this lab report since the authors expect the reader to know what both terms mean. The introductions differ in how effective each topic is introduced for whoever is reading it.

          The next element of a lab report is the methods and materials. In the lab done by Zhang and his colleagues, the element is called Methodology instead of methods and materials. However, the materials are still mentioned in how they created an image of the Taiwan Strait fault. The methodology states “A 1350 meter-long Sentinel streamer containing 108 hydrophones spaced at 12.5m was towed…” (Zheng et al, 2020, p. 10). There is no description of a Sentinel streamer or what a hydrophone is adding onto the idea that this paper is meant for the scientific community – complex terms aren’t broken down. The materials and methods of the lab done by Jurić and his team include the lab’s methods and also how the materials are made. Microparticles are formed by “…cross-linking solution under mechanical stirring, then washed several times with distilled water and filtered through Buncher funnel” (Juric et al, 2020, p.4). In fully revealing how they’re made, this lab can be easily replicated by others. The lab “Imaging Active Faulting in the Western Taiwan Strait” can also be replicated but at a different fault line since the authors of this lab report highlight their methodology and not what equipment they used. Each team of scientists have their own specific approach in the field of physical sciences unlike the first lab which shows a precise set of directions.

          Following the materials and methods of a lab report are the results which contribute to the hypothesis in some way. In “The enhancement of plant secondary metabolites…”, since different variables of the lab are tested, the authors decide to categorize the results of introducing microparticles to the plants. The chlorophyll content of lettuce has increased, polyphenolic contents have gone up, antioxidants have increased in numbers, and microparticles have proven their value in modifying lettuce for the better (Juric et al, 2020, p. 8). There is so much information to present that each category is represented individually. The results for the second lab are structured differently. All that is done is analysis after having acquired an image of the Taiwan Strait fault. One of the results state “In all profiles, the top of the basement coincides with a high-amplitude reflection below which the crust is  overall acoustically transparent” (Zhang et al, 2020, p. 5) and several images of the fault follow. Since the plant-based lab report is trying to prove an idea, the results are an absolute culmination of work as mostly having nothing to add onto them. However, when it comes to the results of the Taiwan Fault imaging, analysis is what is mainly done by the authors which means that more data is needed by others so the fault can be further examined. The results of both articles are presented in different manners so that their audience can conclude things differently about the information given to them.

          After the results comes the discussion which is somewhat of a reflection of the lab so it can be put up for debate to be improved in some way. In the lab report written by Zhang et al, the authors discuss their theories of the kinematics of the Taiwan Strait after having analyzed the image of it. In the first paragraph of the discussion they present fault imaging data and say “Seismicity suggests that certain parts of the fault system are active to depths of greater than 20km…” (Zhang et al, 2020, p. 9). They are suggestive in their kinematics theory of the plate and can’t determine the precise depth of the active areas in the fault. Yet again, this adds onto the idea that this paper is meant for the scientific community to look upon and add on ideas in some way. There is no discussion in the lab report written by Juric et al. Ways of improving the lab are not mentioned and their motive for agricultural use of microparticles has already been stated in their introduction. 

          To finish the bulk text of the lab report, the conclusion comes last as the element of it. In “The enhancement of plant secondary metabolites…”, they conclude with how their research has improved the nutritional value of lettuce as said in their title. Encapsulating particles “…proved to be an efficient way to deliver both chemical and biological agents for plant nutrition / protection and the production of functional foods” (Juric et al, 2020, p. 12). In “Imaging active faulting in the western Taiwan Strait”, there is no conclusion. The lab is mainly full of analysis and theory which can be seen as the reason why there is no conclusion as more research is needed. After the conclusions come the lab report element of references. Both the references of the articles include scientific books, peer-reviewed journals, and other scientific reports. They add onto the information of the work and extend the understanding of their research.

          In the two lab reports that were analyzed, most of the elements required to define it as a lab report were present. The discussions element was left out of the lab report done by Juric et al and a conclusion was not found in the lab regarding the Taiwan Strait. Each team of writers even structured the elements differently. The results came right after the introduction of “Imaging active faulting in the western Taiwan Strait” instead of after the materials and methods. Zhang and his colleagues did this since their methodology was of a second priority since readers among the scientific community may already have an idea of how they acquired the image. The frist lab report followed the element format due to the fact that it is a classic experiment procedure of having controlled variables to test. Both lab reports had their different manners in presenting the information to increase the effectiveness of doing so. 

          Lab reports contain a number of elements that are structured in a way that defines their objective and flow. The lab reports “The enhancement of plant secondary metabolites content in Lactuca sativa L. by encapsulated bioactive agents” by Slaven Jurić, Katarina Sopko Stracenski, et al and “Imaging active faulting in the western Taiwan Strait” by Yifeng Zahng, Hao Kuo-Chen, et al both contain these elements. The authors of each lab report structure their lab report elements in a way that gets their information across to their audience most efficiently. The elements in both lab reports explain how their experiments are carried out and the information about them that explains what they are. 

Works Cited 

Jurić, S., Stracenski, K. S., Król-Kilińska, Ż., Žutić, I., Uher, S. F., Đermić, E., … Vinceković, M. (2020, February 28). The enhancement of plant secondary metabolites content in Lactuca sativa L. by encapsulated bioactive agents. Retrieved March 5, 2020, from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-60690-3?proof=trueMay

Zhang, Y., Kuo-Chen, H., Alvarez-Marron, J., Brown, D., Lin, A. T.-S., Xie, Z., & Jin, X. (2020, February 28). Imaging active faulting in the western Taiwan Strait. Retrieved March 5, 2020, from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-60666-3