Sample Results
After completing our chemical tests and serial data, we were left with a whole lot of data. In order to make sense of it all, we used tables and graphs.
To keep data organized for analysis, Table 1.1 is an effective format.
Table 1.1
| Sample | Avg. Mold | Avg. Al | Avg. Fe |
| 2.1 a | 380,000 | 95 | 7.5 |
| b | |||
| c | |||
| 2.4 a | 76,666.67 | 110 | 5.83 |
| b | |||
| c | |||
| 2.3 a | 16666.67 | 39.17 | 1.67 |
| b | |||
| c | |||
| 3.4 a | 30,000 | 38.3 | 2.5 |
| b | |||
| c | |||
| 4.2 a | 7,000 | 125 | 21.67 |
| b | |||
| c | |||
| 3.2 a | 173,333.33 | 110 | 4.17 |
| b | |||
| c | |||
| 3.3 a | 133,333.33 | 110 | 5 |
| b | |||
| c | |||
| 3.1 a | 1,333.33 | 31.67 | 0 |
| b | |||
| c | |||
| 2.2 a | 10,333.33 | 6.67 | 0 |
| b | |||
| c |
We compared the average aluminum/iron levels and mold density using bar graphs such as Graph 1.1 and 1.2.
Graph 1.1
Graph 1.2
In order to compare the site's aluminum, iron, and mold density to each other, we made simple bar graphs like graphs 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 to compare to graphs 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.
|
Graph 1.3
|
Graph
2.1
|
|
Graph
1.4 |
Graph
2.2
|
|
Graph
1.5 |
Graph
2.3 |
