Lab Report Analysis Paper

Introduction to the LRA

Handheld smartphone devices have grown dramatically over the last few years given the recent developments in technology. These devices are already incorporated into everyday life due to their size and high-speed processors. A smartphone is practically a handheld computer you can take anywhere with you. The three lab reports that were chosen, aim to deviate the smartphone’s normal use from social media & communication and aim to incorporate it into different employment areas. Lab one refers to the smartphone-based activity measurements in patients with newly diagnosed bipolar disorder, unaffected relatives, and control individuals. Lab two refers to a lab-on-paper optical sensor for smartphone-based quantitative estimation of uranyl ions. Lastly, lab three refers to the experiment on smartphones with interfaced electrochemical chips for on-site gender verification. Furthermore, the analysis of these three reports will be done section by section in order to determine which report is the strongest.

Title / Abstract

The title of a lab report is supposed to display the major focus of the study whereas the abstract summarizes key results, conclusions, and the approach. Labs one and three have decent titles & abstracts which convey their focus and are simple to understand. These reports also include what the main study or focus would be. Lab three uses words and phrases such as “smartphone’’ and ‘‘gender verification” (Deng et al., 2016) to indicate that it will have something to do with determining an individual’s gender. Lab one also uses phrases such as “bipolar disorder” to show that there is a study related to bipolar disorder (Sharleny et al., 2020). On the other hand, lab two introduces an idea that it will use an “optical sensor on uranyl ions” (Abo et al., 2018) which is misleading because it abbreviated uranium, rather than using the full word assuming that the reader knows what uranyl means. Furthermore, the lab wasn’t specific enough to mention that the optical sensors it planned on using were smartphones. Although lab’s one title was simple, their abstract was the complete opposite because it included excessive information which became incomprehensible. In comparison, lab three had the best title and abstract because it was simplistic and to the point.

Introductions

Introductions are supposed to explain the topic, problem/hypothesis, and theory of the experiment. All three labs presented some background towards the study detailing any previous experiments or reasons to perform the study along with the purpose of the experiment. The three labs have an area where it proposes a method of testing and states that it should be suitable to accomplish the task or purpose of the experiment. Lab one, lists out “one aim’s of the study” (Sharleny et al., 2020) and then uses a different hypothesis for each aim. It stands out because it had an in depth explanation of the aim of the experiment and what should occur. However, lab three fails to indicate an explicit purpose for the experiment because it only states that it want’s “efficiency” (Deng et al., 2016). Oppositely, lab two describes its purpose around the deadly effect of uranium whereas lab one describes the need to treat Bipolar Disorder properly detect it. Although lab one has the strongest structure within their introduction, it still lacks key information describing the method of testing and completing the experiment making lab three clearer.

Materials and Methods

The materials and method section often includes the equipment and its procedure. Lab two attempts to use a smartphone to identify the presence of uranium within an ore but it has the weakest materials and methods section within the report. This lab attempts to describe different compounds such as “ARZ, SDFCL and others such as Ammonium ferrous sulfate” (Abo et al., 2018) and fails to explain their use and how it pertains to the experiment. It briefly mentions the use of the individual chemicals but doesn’t expand on what those chemicals are or how they’re used. Whereas lab one performs a study within an experiment, creating excessive confusion within this section. It first describes the participants within the survey, then states how the smartphone will track particular data for different activities while monitoring specific patients. In addition, it mentions automatic reports and self based reports which creates multiple variables and factors, confusing the audience of the article even more. This lab also added ethical considerations to show participants who would be willing to comply with the survey, leading to a limitation within the experiment itself since the participants with BD won’t be compensated. The participants wouldn’t have a reason to record or participate within the survey. Opposingly, lab three which deals with forensics at a crime scene has varying data when referring to the different enzymes it describes. However, the lab attempts to explain what the data is by classifying it as a part of an animal muscle or human serum which makes it easier to follow along with the diagrams presented. There is difficult information presented towards the end of the procedure which would require more research to understand, but the majority of it is explained unlike lab one and two, making lab three’s materials and methods the strongest.

Results and Discussion

The results and discussion section has one purpose, to present and interpret the results of the experiment. Lab two does summarize the data presented but it lacks information explaining key components or chemicals it used. It adds a lot of data such as the “absorbance of RGB” (Abo et al., 2018) and tests that aren’t fully explained. In comparison, lab three follows a similar trend but it attempts to explain the data while omitting details that would create a simple understanding of the material. It describes a “CK” and “ALT” enzyme but only explains what the enzyme represents later on in the discussion (Deng et al., 2016). If the lab had stated what the enzymes were used for when the enzymes were first introduced, it would have prevented the need to go back and forth within the material. Lastly, lab one explains the data that it researched while adding it’s limitations resulting in half of it’s data becoming irrelevant. Lab one made claims that individuals did not have the app because of the different platforms and devices participants had (Abo et al., 2018). It also added that certain participants carried their phone differently (Sharleny et al., 2020). In conclusion, lab one’s limitations help disprove their original claim and data mentioned, making it contradictory. Therefore, lab three had the most relevant results and discussion section because it explained the information better than lab two, and had less contradictions than lab one.

Conclusion

Conclusions within a lab report only aim to summarize the findings and make recommendations. The conclusions presented by the three labs all stick to a strict format where it briefly describes the purpose of the experiment and summarizes the findings. Lab three differs by addressing the limitations that are negligible and that the results are still feasible for estimating. However, lab two states that more research is being done, in order to improve the proposed method. Although this isn’t new information, it makes it seem that this experiment isn’t complete because it’s not at peak efficiency. Finally, lab one’s conclusion presents that its data may be useful, which creates uncertainty in the experiment and the purpose of the lab. Therefore lab three’s conclusion best summarizes the overall experiment.

Conclusion to the LRA

All the labs discussed aimed at using smartphone technology to create a new way for efficiency within a given area. Although lab one was a new experiment aiming to test new data, it had numerous flaws with its limitations that were overlooked prior to performing the experiment, and lab two had various unidentified equipment and materials which caused more confusion rather than creating an efficient experiment. Lab three, although it had multiple components aimed to explain their purpose and use which was more than lab two did, and it also had more feasible data than lab one showing what a lab report should do. Although none of the chosen labs dictate a perfect lab report, lab three was the strongest in terms of content and the closest to a decent report.

Works Cited

Abo, D., Ahmed, S., & Eman, B. (2018, 11). Lab-on-paper optical sensor for smartphone-based quantitative estimation of uranyl ions. Springer Link. Retrieved 2 28, 2021, from https://link-springer-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/article/10.1007/s10967-018-618 9-2

Deng, W., Dou, Y., Song, P., Xu, H., Aldalbahi, A., Chen, N., El-Sayed, N. N., Gao, J., Lu, J., Song, S., & Zuo, X. (2016, 9 15). Lab on smartphone with interfaced electrochemical chips for on-site gender verification. Science Direct. Retrieved 02 28, 2021, from https://www-sciencedirect-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/science/article/pii/S15726 65716304039

Sharleny, S., Maj, V., Sigurd, M., Mads, F., Jonas, B., E, B. J., Vedel, K. L., & Maria, F. J. (2020, 12 01). Smartphone-based activity measurements in patients with newly diagnosed bipolar disorder, unaffected relatives and control individuals. Springer Open. Retrieved 02 28, 2021, from https://journalbipolardisorders.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40345-020-00195-0