10th Research Paper 1

Student Names : Catherine August, Brooklyn Blevins, Alexandra Capatana Date: 5/23/18 Title of Paper: The Effects of Burning
Polyethylene Terephthalate, Polyvinyl Chloride, and Polypropylene on Carbon Dioxide Emissions
______ TITLE PAGE (5 pts)

a) appropriate title
b) names, school, class, section, teachers, date
______ INTRODUCTION (15 pts)

a) clear, concise, appropriate length
b) overall tense/grammar/spelling/formatting/title/citations
c) sentences are not wordy
d) purpose of experiment, intentions as a scientist, brief description of methods
______ REVIEW OF LITERATURE (15 pts)

a) clear and concise
b) overall tense/grammar/spelling/formatting/title/citations
d) referenced techniques for measuring properties, published values, importance in design
e) history, collection, extraction reaction, uses in industry/products, properties, electronic structure
______ PROBLEM STATEMENT (5 pts)

b) overall tense/grammar/spelling/formatting
c) problem, hypothesis with stated percentages, data measured
______ EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN (15 pts)

a) clear, concise, well designed to minimize error
b) overall tense/grammar/spelling/formatting/title/titles for materials, procedure, diagrams/appendix for constructed
items
d) materials, procedure, photos/diagram of setup
______ DATA AND OBSERVATIONS (15 pts)

a) clear and concise paragraph that summarizes the overall observations regarding the setup and equipment
b) tables that show raw data, the manipulated data, and an observation for each trial with correct sig figs
c) include any relevant photos of the sample with comments
d) include an appendix showing a sample calculation for each property
______ DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION (10 pts)

b) overall tense/grammar/spelling/formatting/title
d) completely labeled box plots with published. value labeled, also compute a percent error
e) flow chart showing how you made a decision on your element
f) discussion on weaknesses in the experiment and sources of error
______ CONCLUSION (15 pts)

b) overall tense/grammar/spelling/formatting/title
d) recap prob/hypoth. and state any support or denial, problems encountered, suggestions on how to make your
experiment better
______ BIBLIOGRAPHY (5 pts)

a) spelling/formatting/alphabetized/title
b) at least ten cited sources and three books/journals
c) Correct in text citing
______ Total Score 100 (10% loss if late)
The Effects of Burning Polyethylene Terephthalate, Polyvinyl Chloride, and Polypropylene on
Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Catherine August, Brooklyn Blevins, and Alexandra Capatana
Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center
Honors Chemistry Section 10A
Mrs. Hilliard / Mr. Supal / Mrs. Dewey
23 May 2018
Table of Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………1
Review of Literature…………………………………………………………………………….3
Problem Statement……………………………………………………………………………..8
Experimental Design…………………………………………………………………………..10
Data and Observations………………………………………………………………………..13
Data Analysis and Interpretation……………………………………………………………..22
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………...34
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………37
Appendix A: Safety Precautions……………………………………………………………..38
Appendix B: Carbon Dioxide Produced Sample Calculation……………………………..39
Appendix C: Two-Sample t Test Formula and Sample Calculation……………………...40
Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………………….42
August-Blevins-Capatana 1
Introduction
The temperature of the Earth is rising at nearly twice the rate it was about 50
years ago (Forsberg). One of the largest contributions to the Earth’s warming is the
emission of greenhouse gases. The most commonly released greenhouse gas is known
as carbon dioxide, or CO2. In 2016, 81% of the greenhouse gases emitted into the
atmosphere were CO2 (“Overview of Greenhouse Gases”). The rising carbon dioxide
emissions are becoming a concern among activists, because if the Earth continues to
warm at this alarming rate, many irreversible damages may occur, such as the
destruction of coastal areas and melting of arctic lands. To combat this damage,
recycling is used. Plastic is a common recycled material, yet about 12% of all plastics
were incinerated in 2017 (“Common Plastics #1 to #7”). This practice of incineration
releases carbon dioxide into the air, which contributes to the global warming of the
Earth.
The intent of this research was to determine which type of plastic, polyethylene
terephthalate (plastic type 1), polyvinyl chloride (plastic type 3), or polypropylene (plastic
type 5), released the most carbon dioxide emissions when burned. This sheds light on
how the practice of incineration, specifically of different plastics, harms the environment.
By noting which plastic released the most carbon emissions, the incineration rate could
be decreased to help improve the environment.
During experimentation, a Fiji water bottle was used as plastic type 1, a Doo Gro
Hair Oil container was used as plastic type 3, and a Country Crock butter container was
used as plastic type 5. A Butane torch was used to burn the plastic while a Vernier CO2
Gas Sensor measured the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere in parts per
million (ppm). The plastic was burned inside a bell jar, a closed system, to ensure the
data collected was accurate. The data collected was used to determine which plastic
type released the most carbon emissions, thus accomplishing the objective of the
research.
This research can help to understand and manage many existing problems. This
experiment may help people understand which plastics should not be incinerated. Being
informed on which plastic type releases the most carbon dioxide would allow people to
either use less of the plastic type, or to discard the plastic in a different way, such as by
recycling it. This could impact the growing green movement to reduce the rate at which
global warming occurs, which could drastically offset the dangerously high levels of
carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere brought about by incinerating plastics,
rather than recycling them.
This research could also help manufacturers and industries. Manufacturers and
industries that use plastic, including those that use plastic packaging for their products,
could reduce their environmental impact by using plastics that have low carbon dioxide
emissions when burned. This would result in less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,
thus reducing the rate at which global warming occurs. This research is also beneficial
for environmental scientists, as they would gain more information about which plastic
releases the most carbon dioxide when burned. They could then apply this to reducing
the rate at which global warming occurs by informing the public to use the plastic type
that released the least concentration of carbon dioxide emissions.

Review of Literature
Despite today’s eco-friendly society, plastic is often incinerated, emitting carbon
dioxide (CO2), which negatively affects the environment. Plastic takes 400 years to
degrade, and 12% of plastic waste was incinerated in 2017 (“Common Plastics #1 to
#7”). The incineration of plastic is a combustion reaction, which produces vapor and
CO2. In a series of other reactions that occur, sulfur and nitrogen oxides are produced.
CO2 emissions are an issue, because they contribute to global warming.
When plastics are burned, the release of CO2 contributes to the greenhouse
effect, shown in Figure 1. Molecules of CO2 absorb infrared (IR) radiation from the sun.
The energy from the IR photon causes the CO2 to vibrate, so the molecule releases this
energy by emitting another IR photon. When this occurs, the molecule stops vibrating.
This transfer of energy and remittance of energy is what makes CO 2 a heat-trapping
greenhouse gas (“Carbon and Infrared Radiation”). With the increase of burning
plastics, a greater amount of CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere, which allows more IR
radiation to be absorbed by the CO2 (Oktyabrskiy). Having more CO2 in the air results in
more IR radiation being absorbed, causing global warming. Global warming is the rising
average temperature near Earth’s surface over the past 100 to 200 years (Anderson).
Figure 1. Greenhouse Effect (Smithsonian)
Figure 1 shows the greenhouse effect. The IR radiation from the sun warms the
Earth. CO2 molecules vibrate and the CO2 molecule releases this energy by emitting a
photon, warming the Earth. Incineration is a global issue with increased plastic disposal.
Figure 2. Landfill and Incineration (Shonfield)
Figure 2 shows how incineration impacts the global warming potential. On a
scale from 1 to 16, incineration of waste ranked 16 in harmfulness in the category of
global warming potential, meaning that CO2 emissions are directly linked to global
warming (Shonfield). Global warming has prominent effects, including hurricanes,
droughts, and the sea level rising 4 feet by 2100, leaving coastal areas in danger and
the ice melts, leaving no home for arctic animals (“Global Climate Change: Effects”).
Plastics are moved to landfills or put in incinerators after their use. About 12% of
plastic was incinerated in 2017 in the United States (“Common Plastics #1 to #7”).
Incineration is a way of destroying waste by burning it. During incineration, the waste is
converted into gases, particles, and heat. These products are later used to generate
electricity. The gases are treated for eradication of pollutants entering the atmosphere.
Reasons for incineration rather than using landfills is landfills fill up quickly and use up
space. Also, incinerated waste can be converted into electricity, a resource many
people use, from home appliances to lights on the streets (“Plastic Recycling”).
Incinerators, in the absence of effective controls, emit harmful pollutants into the
air and water to influence health and the environment (“Plastic Recycling”). When
plastic is incinerated, dioxins are released, which causes cancer, neurological damage,
and harms respiratory systems. Humans are exposed to these toxics compounds when
breathing the air, which affects workers in the plant and people that eat locally produced
foods that were contaminated by pollutants from the incinerator. Although incineration of
plastics and energy recovery forms an essential part waste management, controls are
needed to prevent negative impacts on health (“Plastic Recycling”).
Plastics are sorted into seven number categories based on their properties. In
this experiment, plastic numbers one, three, and five were used. Plastic number one is
polyethylene terephthalate, or PET, and is used for water bottles and food containers.
The formula for PET is (C10H8O4)n and is shown in Figure 3. The subscripted "n" means
that the formula is a repeating unit. About 29% is recycled, as it is made into lower
quality products, such as fleece, and eventually cannot be recycled. When it is
incinerated, it has a yellow flame and releases smoke. It leaches antimony trioxide, a
carcinogen. Workers exposed to antimony trioxide have experienced respiratory and
skin irritation, and females experience menstrual issues (“Common Plastics #1 to #7”).
Figure 3. Polyethylene Terephthalate Structural Formula (Prasad)
Figure 3 shows the structural formula for polyethylene terephthalate (PET). PET
is produced using condensation polymerization, in which polymers are formed by a
stepwise reaction of molecules with functional groups. This endothermic reaction
releases a small molecule such as water or methanol as a product. As other byproducts
are created, less energy is used to form CO2 and therefore less CO2 is released. It is
the most recycled plastic, as it is thought to release the lowest concentration of CO2.
Plastic three is polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and is used for household objects such
as laundry detergent containers and flooring. The formula is (C2H3Cl)n and is shown in
Figure 4. Less than 1% is recycled, as it contaminates the recycling stream. When PVC
is incinerated, dioxins such as organic pollutants and carcinogens are emitted. PVC is
toxic, because the monomers that make polymers are carcinogens (Verma).
Figure 4. Polyvinyl Chloride Structural Formula (“Polyvinyl Chloride”)
Figure 4 shows the structural formula for polyvinyl chloride. PVC is produced
using addition polymerization, the formation of polymers from monomers containing a
carbon-carbon double bond through an exothermic reaction. This reaction proceeds
without losing atoms from reaction monomers. No byproducts other than CO2 are
released, so this plastic is believed to release more CO2 than other types.
Plastic five is polypropylene (PP) and is used for containers for butter, yogurt,
and ketchup. The formula is (C3H6)n and can be seen in Figure 5. The recycling rate is
less than 1% as the products are difficult to sort, as they are mixed with other resins. It
is a safe plastic for use and not toxic, however, it releases chemical additives when
incinerated to contribute to asthma in burning facilities (“Common Plastics #1 to #7”).
Figure 5. Polypropylene Structural Formula (“Polypropylene”)

Figure 5 shows the structural formula for PP. It is also produced using addition
polymerization, as explained in Figure 4. As this plastic is also an addition polymer, the
only byproduct produced is CO2, therefore this plastic is believed to release more CO2.
Other researchers conducted similar tests. A study by Chloe Sky Ortiz
experimented by burning gasoline and diesel to calculate CO2 emissions. Ortiz used
water displacement to quantify the CO2 emissions. Diesel had the most CO2, while
gasoline had the least (“CSSF Category Awards: Chemistry”). A study by Jordan
Frontiero and Anna Swando recorded the change in mass, duration of burn, and change
in carbon dioxide levels when burning PET, polypropylene, and polystyrene (Frontiero).
This experiment is different from previous research. Unlike Ortiz’s, burning plastic
was assessed rather than fuel. This research determined which plastic released the
greatest concentration of CO2, while Ortiz’s research implemented cleaner fuel use.
Also, a Vernier CO2 Sensor (measured in ppm) was used rather than a titration kit. In
Frontiero’s and Swando’s experiment, the change in CO2 and the duration of burn was
recorded, whereas this experiment only tested the CO2 levels with a constant burn time.
Information from previous research was useful for the experimental design. Ortiz
determined that CO2 is emitted when burning plastic, providing an idea. Frontiero and
Swando determined CO2 is emitted after a minute, as their longest trial was 65 seconds.
Knowing that CO2 emissions need a minute to occur determined the time for each trial.
Ortiz’s experimental design used a well-ventilated area due to the CO2
emissions. In this experiment, the burning will occur in a closed system to get accurate
data. Frontiero’s and Swando’s experimental design required equal sized samples of
polymers. Likewise, in this experiment, each polymer sample was 0.25 grams.
Problem Statement
Problem:
The purpose of this experiment was to determine which type of plastic,
polyethylene terephthalate (C10H8O4)n, polyvinyl chloride (C2H3Cl)n, or polypropylene
(C3H6)n, produces the most carbon dioxide emissions when burned. This experiment
intends to shed light on how the practice of incineration, specifically of different plastics,
can harm the environment. The results from this experiment can be used to help
understand the need to decrease the carbon emissions released from the incineration of
plastic and can in turn help to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, therefore
reducing global warming.
Hypothesis:
When polyvinyl chloride is burned, it will produce the most carbon dioxide
emissions in parts per million, or ppm, when compared with polyethylene terephthalate
and polypropylene. This is because only about 1% of polyvinyl chloride is recycled by
typical methods of heating due to the large amount of carbon emissions it produces.
Data Measured:
The independent variable for this experiment was the type of plastic that was
burned, whether it be polyethylene terephthalate (plastic number one), polyvinyl chloride
(plastic number three), or polypropylene (plastic number five). The dependent variable
is the concentration of carbon emissions released by the burning of each plastic, which
is measured in parts per million, or ppm. Constants in this experiment include the
temperature of the room in Celsius, the temperature of the heat source used to burn the
plastics in Celsius, and the mass of each plastic used in grams. To analyze the data
recorded, three two-sample t tests will be conducted to compare the mean carbon
emissions, measured in parts per million, released by the burning of each type of
plastic.
Experimental Design
Materials:
Vernier Lab Quest, Model 61055 (1 ppm precision)
Vernier CO2 Gas Sensor, Model CO2-BTA (1 ppm precision)
2.5 Grams of Fiji Water Bottle (Plastic Type 1)
2.5 Grams of Doo Gro Hair Oil Bottle (Plastic Type 3)
2.5 Grams of Country Crock Butter Container (Plastic Type 5)
TI-Nspire Calculator Randomize Function
Aluminum Foil (1 roll)
Scale, Model GA200 (0.0001 g precision)
Bell Jar (10 in. by 13 in.)
Butane Torch, Model 330194
Single Edge Razor Blade
Watch Glass
Procedures:
1. Follow the safety precautions stated in Appendix A.
2. Affix the carbon dioxide gas sensor inside the bell jar. Refer to Figure 7 to view this
set up.
3. Cut ten pieces of each of the three plastic types with a razor blade and using the
scale with 0.0001 g precision, measure each piece to be 0.25 grams.
4. Using the TI-Nspire calculator randomizing function, randomize the thirty trials by
plastic type. Numbers one, three, and five, representing the type of plastic, are
generated until each number appears ten times.
5. Place the randomized sample of plastic on a square, 3 inch by 3 inch piece of

aluminum foil, which is placed on a watch glass. Refer to Figure 7 to view this set up.
6. Press play on the Vernier Lab Quest to record the initial amount of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere using the carbon dioxide sensor.
7. Immediately use the Butane torch to ignite the plastic for two seconds and place the
bell jar over the plastic.
8. Allow the plastic to burn for 120 seconds, while recording the carbon dioxide
emissions in parts per million (ppm) to 1 ppm precision on the Vernier Lab Quest.
9. Analyze the graph and find the point in which the amount of carbon dioxide emissions
was the greatest. Record this value in the data table.
10. Compute the change in the carbon dioxide concentration by subtracting the initial
carbon dioxide level from the final carbon dioxide level. A sample calculation is
shown in Appendix B.
11. Allow the carbon dioxide gas sensor to zero out.
12. Repeat steps five through eleven with the other pieces of plastic.
Diagram:
Bell Jar (10 in. by 13 in.) Country Crock Butter

Container (Type 5)
Watch Glass Doo Gro Hair Oil

Bottle (Type 3)
Fiji Water Bottle

(Type 1) Butane Torch
Vernier Lab Quest

Aluminum Foil
Vernier Carbon
Dioxide Gas
Sensor
Figure 6. Set Up
Figure 6 shows the materials used in the experiment. The materials shown in
Figure 6 that were used in the experiment include aluminum foil, Fiji water bottle for
plastic type one, watch glass, bell jar, Country Crock butter container for plastic type
five, Doo Gro hair oil bottle for plastic type three, Butane torch, Vernier Lab Quest with 1
ppm precision, and Vernier carbon dioxide gas sensor. Not pictured in Figure 6 is the
scale to weigh the pieces of plastic to 0.0001 g precision.
Bell Jar (10 in. by 13 in.)
Watch Glass Aluminum Foil
Vernier Carbon
Dioxide Gas Plastic (One,
Sensor Three, or Five)
Figure 7. Carbon Dioxide Sensor Affixed Inside Bell Jar
Figure 7 shows the carbon dioxide gas sensor affixed inside the bell jar. The
plastic is placed on a square, 3 inch by 3 inch piece of aluminum foil, which is placed on
a watch glass.
Data and Observations
In this experiment, three different types of plastics were burned to find the
different concentrations of carbon dioxide emissions that each would release. The
following tables show the data collected for each type of plastic.
Table 1
Polyethylene Terephthalate (Type 1) Data
Initial CO2 Highest CO2 CO2 Produced
Trial
(ppm) Reading (ppm) (ppm)
1 299 1159 860
2 444 1330 886
3 599 1421 822
4 414 1246 832
5 372 1222 850
6 432 1237 805
7 569 1404 835
8 338 1197 859
9 376 1228 852
10 364 1174 810
Averages 421 1262 841
Table 1 shows the concentration of carbon dioxide emissions produced when
polyethylene terephthalate (plastic type 1) was burned. The table includes the initial
carbon dioxide reading in the atmosphere in parts per million, the highest carbon
dioxide reading within 120 seconds after the plastic was burned in parts per million, and
the carbon dioxide that was produced. A sample calculation to find the carbon dioxide
that was produced is shown in Appendix B.

Table 2
Polyethylene Terephthalate (Type 1) Observations
Trial Observations
Initial mass was 0.2536 grams. Carbon dioxide concentration increased for the
entire 120 seconds. Plastic did not change color, but it partially melted on
1 aluminum foil. No strong smell as the burning was in a closed system.
Initial mass was 0.2593 grams. The Butane Torch was in contact with the
plastic for four seconds rather than two seconds as the plastic did not ignite
within the first two seconds. Plastic became very light brown and partially
2 melted on the aluminum foil. No strong smell.
entire 120 seconds. Initial carbon dioxide in the air was high due to emissions
from previous trials. Plastic did not change color but slightly melted on the
3 aluminum foil. Slight burning smell.
entire 120 seconds. Plastic became slightly brown and melted on the
4 aluminum foil. No strong smell as the burning was in a closed system.
whole 120 seconds. Had trouble igniting plastic, as it took four seconds rather
5 than two. Plastic did not melt and did not change color. Slight burning smell.
Initial mass was 0.2495 grams. Plastic appeared to have a smaller surface
area than the other pieces but was the same mass. Only one side ignited
while the other did not ignite. Slight burning smell. Carbon dioxide
6 concentration began decreasing at the 104 seconds mark.
Initial mass was 0.2556 grams. Plastic melted completely on aluminum foil and
became a light brown. No smell. Carbon dioxide concentration increased for
7 the first 110 seconds and then started to decrease for the last 10 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2578 grams. Corners of plastic piece melt and center of
plastic piece shriveled up. No smell emitted from bell jar. Carbon dioxide
8 concentration increased the entire 120 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2500 grams. Plastic did not change color when burned.
Plastic only slightly melted on one corner. No smell. Carbon dioxide
concentration increased for the first 114 seconds and decreased in the last 6
9 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2495 grams. Plastic appeared smaller than other plastic
pieces but had the same mass as the other pieces. When burned, the plastic
piece shriveled up and melted smooth on one side, but coarse on the other.
Slight burning smell. Carbon dioxide concentration increased for the first 100
10 seconds but began decreasing in the last 20 seconds.
Table 2 lists the observations that were recorded when polyethylene
terephthalate, or plastic type 1, was burned. Notice that trials 6 and 10 had the least
concentration of carbon dioxide produced. In both of those trials the plastic piece
appeared to have a smaller surface area than the other pieces yet they all had the same
mass. Also, in both of those trials, there was a slight burning smell emitted from the bell
jar, meaning some carbon dioxide may have escaped the closed system. Trial 2 had the
greatest concentration of carbon dioxide produced, which may be due to the higher
initial mass or the Butane torch being in contact with the plastic piece for four seconds
rather than two seconds.
Table 3
Polyvinyl Chloride (Type 3) Data
Trial
1 315 1481 1166
2 313 1408 1095
3 338 1542 1204
4 396 1488 1092
5 313 1460 1147
6 210 1346 1136
7 278 1408 1130
8 485 1596 1111
9 245 1409 1164
10 288 1437 1149
Averages 318 1458 1139
polyvinyl chloride (plastic type 3) was burned. The information in Table 3 is the same as
that contained in Table 1. A sample calculation can be found in Appendix B.

Table 4
Polyvinyl Chloride (Type 3) Data
Trial Observations
Initial mass was 0.2533 grams. Plastic turned dark brown on the left side and
black on the right side. Aluminum foil under the plastic turned brown. Plastic
melted slightly on one corner. No smell. Carbon dioxide concentration
1 increased for the entire 120 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2487 grams. One corner of plastic turned black while the
rest was warm yet looked untouched. Slight burning smell. Trouble igniting
piece as it appeared to have a smaller surface area than the other pieces yet
they all had the same mass. Carbon dioxide concentration increased for the
2 first 108 seconds and began decreasing in the last 12 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2657 grams. One edge melted downward and the rest
turned black. When ignited, a small puff of smoke arose. No strong smell.
Ignited plastic had large flame. Carbon dioxide concentration increased for the
3 entire 120 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2525 grams. Plastic became dark brown when burned.
Plastic did not melt. Plastic appeared to have a smaller surface area than the
other pieces yet they all had the same mass. Slight burning smell. Carbon
4 dioxide concentration increased for the entire 120 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2569 grams. Plastic turned black but did not melt. No smell.
Carbon dioxide concentration increased for the first 114 seconds and began
5 decreasing in the last 6 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2560 grams. The initial amount of carbon in the air was low
and would not raise, therefore the trial was started as nothing could be done.
The plastic turned black on one end. No smell. Carbon dioxide concentration
6 increased for entire 120 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2573 grams. The plastic was completely black and shriveled
up after being burned. No burning smell. Carbon dioxide concentration
7 increased for the entire 120 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2638 grams. The Lab Quest was started 2 seconds late,
which is why the initial carbon dioxide concentration is high. After ignited, the
plastic turned dark brown in the center. Slight burning smell. Carbon dioxide
8 concentration increased for the entire 120 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2611 grams. When burned, plastic released small gust of
smoke and turned black on all edges. No strong smell. Carbon dioxide
Initial mass was 0.2647 grams. Plastic turned dark black and melted on
aluminum foil. No strong smell. Carbon dioxide concentration increased for the
10 entire 120 seconds.
Table 4 lists the observations made during the trials in which polyvinyl chloride,
or plastic type 3, was burned. Notice that trials 2 and 4 had the least concentration of
carbon dioxide produced. In both of those trials the plastic piece appeared to have a
smaller surface area than the other pieces yet they all had the same mass. Also, in both
of those trials, there was a slight burning smell emitted from the bell jar, meaning some
carbon dioxide may have escaped the closed system. Trial 3 had the greatest
concentration of carbon dioxide produced, which may be due to the higher initial mass
of 0.2657 grams.
Table 5
Polypropylene (Type 5) Data
Trial
1 532 1703 1171
2 362 1462 1100
3 441 1564 1123
4 629 1756 1127
5 444 1563 1119
6 363 1508 1145
7 367 1444 1077
8 473 1559 1086
9 245 1422 1177
10 205 1306 1101
Averages 406 1529 1123
polypropylene (plastic type 5) was burned. The information in Table 5 is the same as
that presented in Table 1. A sample calculation is shown in Appendix B.

Table 6
Polypropylene (Type 5) Data
Trial Observations
Initial mass was 0.2630 grams. When burned, plastic turned black around
right corner and melted slightly on the aluminum foil. When ignited, a small
puff of smoke arose. No strong smell emitted from bell jar. Plastic edge was
burned rather than a flat piece. Carbon dioxide concentration increased for
1 the entire 120 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2544 grams. Plastic turned dark black upon burning.
Burning smell strong for first 60 seconds, decreased during the next 60
seconds. Carbon dioxide concentration increased for the first 110 seconds
2 and began decreasing in the last 10 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2615 grams. The plastic had to be set on fire a second
time as the first time, it was believed that the fire barely grazed the plastic.
Plastic became black and there was a slight burning smell. Carbon dioxide
Initial mass was 0.2561 grams. Plastic became light brown and did not melt.
Slight burning smell. Carbon dioxide concentration increased for the first 106
4 seconds and began decreasing in the last 14 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2642 grams. Plastic was flexible after taken out of the bell
jar. One side of the plastic was hard while most was slightly darkened and
5 warm. Carbon dioxide concentration increased for the entire 120 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2600 grams. Plastic became black when burned and edges
melted on aluminum foil. No burning smell. Plastic edge was burned rather
than a flat piece. Carbon dioxide concentration increased for the entire 120
6 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2447 grams. Plastic became light brown color when
burned. Trouble igniting as the piece appeared to have a smaller surface area
than the other pieces. No smell. Carbon dioxide concentration increased for
7 the first 110 seconds and began decreasing in the last 10 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2408 grams. Plastic was light brown color when burning
was finished. This piece appeared to have a smaller surface area than the
other pieces. No smell. Carbon dioxide concentration increased for the first
8 102 seconds and then began decreasing in the last 18 seconds.
Initial mass was 0.2609 grams. The Butane torch became stuck underneath
the bell jar as it was being set down, allowing the fire to be in the system for
longer than the intended two seconds. Plastic had a large flame when
burned. Plastic melted on aluminum foil and aluminum foil became brown.
Plastic edge was burned rather than a flat piece. No smell. Carbon dioxide
Initial mass was 0.2599 grams. Plastic piece became brown when burned
and the edges melted onto the aluminum foil. No burning smell. Carbon
10 dioxide concentration increased for the entire 120 seconds.
Table 6 above shows the observations that were recorded when polypropylene,
or plastic type 5, was burned. Notice that trials 7 and 8 had the least concentration of
carbon dioxide produced. In both of those trials the pieces of plastic appeared to have a
smaller surface area than the other pieces and there was a burning smell emitted from
the bell jar, meaning that some of the carbon dioxide produced could have escaped the
closed system. Trials 1 and 9 had the greatest concentration of carbon dioxide
produced, which may be due to the higher initial masses. Also, in both trials, there was
not a strong burning smell, meaning that the carbon dioxide produced most likely did not
escape the closed system. Trial 9 also had the Butane torch inside the bell jar for longer
than the intended two seconds, as it became stuck underneath the bell jar while it was
being set down, which may have allowed this plastic piece to burn longer than the other
pieces.
Figure 8. Plastics Post Burning
Figure 8 shows how each type of plastic looked after it was burned. When
polyethylene terephthalate, or plastic type 1, was burned, the plastic did not usually
become brown or black. It tended to shrivel up around the corners and partially melt on
the aluminum foil. The piece shown in Figure 8 is from trial 9 in Table 2. When polyvinyl
chloride, or plastic type 3, was burned, the plastic tended to become a dark brown or
black. The piece shown in Figure 8 is from trial 5 in Table 4. When polypropylene, or
plastic type 5, was burned, the plastic tended to turn brown or black. In some trials,
such as trials 1, 6, 9, and 10 in Table 6, the plastic melted on the aluminum foil. The
piece shown in Figure 8 is from trail 10 in Table 6.
Figure 9. Foggy Bell Jar
Figure 9 shows the bell jar appearance during trial 1 in Table 6, in which
polyethylene terephthalate, or plastic type 1, was burned. In each trial, when the piece
of plastic was burned, the bell jar would become foggy due to the carbon dioxide
emissions from the plastic.
Figure 10. Surface Area of Pieces
Figure 10 shows the differing surface areas of pieces of plastic. The plastic piece
on the left is from trial 4 in Table 4 and the plastic piece on the right is from trial 1 in
Table 4. The pieces are both the same mass, however, the plastic piece on the left
appears to have a smaller surface area than the plastic piece on the right. When
burned, the plastic piece on the left produced 1092 ppm of carbon dioxide and the
plastic piece on the right produced 1166 ppm of carbon dioxide.

Data Analysis and Interpretation
The experiment that was conducted tested which plastic, polyethylene
terephthalate (C10H8O4)n, polyvinyl chloride (C2H3Cl)n, or polypropylene (C3H6)n,
produces the most carbon emissions when burned. The results from the experiment are
beneficial as they can be used to help understand the need to decrease the carbon
emissions released from the incineration of plastic and can in turn help to reduce the
amount of carbon in the atmosphere, therefore reducing global warming. The data to be
analyzed in this section was collected by burning a piece of either type 1, type 3, or type
5 plastic and using a Vernier CO2 Gas Sensor to measure the carbon dioxide
concentration in the atmosphere in parts per million (ppm). The difference in carbon
emissions was found by subtracting the initial carbon dioxide concentration reading from
the highest carbon dioxide concentration reading, and a sample calculation for this can
be found in Appendix B.
To ensure that the data collected was reliable, controls, randomization, and
repetition were used. The data collected was controlled by having the same researcher
burn each piece of plastic, having the same researcher set the bell jar down after the
plastic was burned, and having the same researcher start the Lab Quest. It was
randomized by generating numbers one, three, and five, representing the plastic type,
until each number appeared ten times, and then completing the trials in the order the
numbers were generated. It had repetition as the experiment was repeated ten times
with each plastic type. The carbon dioxide produced for polyethylene terephthalate
(plastic type 1), polyvinyl chloride (plastic type 3), and polypropylene (plastic type 5) can
be compared to reveal which plastic releases the most carbon dioxide emissions when
burned. To do this, three two-sample t-tests will be used. The two-sample t-test was an
appropriate statistical test for this data because it allowed two means of independent
populations to be compared and the data collected met all necessary assumptions to
perform this statistical test.
There were three assumptions that had to be met to perform a two-sample t test.
The first assumption was that simple random samples were taken from independent
populations. This assumption was met as each individual unit, or piece of plastic, had
an equal chance of being selected. This is so, because the experiment was randomized
by generating numbers one, three, and five, representing the type of plastic, until each
number appeared ten times. The second assumption was that the samples used must
be no more than 1/10 their population sizes. This assumption was met as the population
of all plastic is greater than 100 pieces of 0.25 grams each, which is the sample size of
10 pieces multiplied by 10, for each plastic type. The third and final assumption that had
to be met was that the samples used in the two-sample t test were from normally
distributed populations, or at least 30 samples were done. This experiment did not have
30 or more samples of each type of plastic being used, meaning that the Central Limit
Theorem could not be used to determine that the sampling distributions were normal.
To determine if the samples used were from normally distributed populations, normal
probability plots and box plots had to be used to test for normality. Figures 11, 12, 13,
and 14 were used to determine if the data collected came from a normally distributed
population.
Figure 11 below shows the normal probability plot for polyethylene terephthalate,
or plastic type 1. The normal probability plot determines whether the data collected
could plausibly come from a normally distributed population.
Figure 11. Polyethylene Terephthalate (Plastic Type 1) Normal Probability Plot
As seen in Figure 11, the normal probability plot for plastic type 1 is roughly
linear, suggesting that the data can reasonably be modeled using a normal distribution.
This meets the third assumption for performing the two-sample t test, which is that 30 or
more trials are completed, as by the Central Limit Theorem the sampling distributions
are normal, or if there are not 30 or more trials, the sample comes from a normally
distributed population. As there were only 10 samples done for plastic type 1, the
normal probability plot in Figure 11 suggests the sample comes from a normally
distributed population.
Figure 12 shows the normal probability plot for polyvinyl chloride, or plastic type
3. Once again, the normal probability plot below helps assess whether the data
recorded could come from a normally distributed population.
Figure 12. Polyvinyl Chloride (Plastic Type 3) Normal Probability Plot
As shown in Figure 12, the data points create a roughly linear model. This
indicates that the data collected from plastic type 3 came from a normally distributed
population. This meets the third assumption to perform the two-sample t test, as the
roughly linear normal probability plot suggest that the data comes from a normally
distributed population.
Figure 13 shows the normal probability plot for polypropylene, or plastic type 5.
Making a normal probability plot was necessary since, like the rest of the plastics, there
were less than 30 samples of plastic type 5 in the experiment. This normal probability
plot was then used to determine whether the data comes from a normally distributed
population, which is important as it is needed for the two-sample t-test to be conducted.
Figure 13. Polypropylene (Plastic Type 5) Normal Probability Plot
As shown in Figure 13, the data points for polypropylene create a roughly linear
model. As the data points appear create a roughly linear model, it suggests that the
data recorded for plastic type 5 likely comes from a normally distributed population,
meeting the third assumption for the two-sample t test.

Figure 14 shows the box plots for the data collected for each plastic type. The top
box plot is for the carbon dioxide concentration for plastic type 1, the middle box plot is
for the carbon dioxide concentration for plastic type 3, and the bottom box plot is for the
carbon dioxide concentration for plastic type 5.
=
Figure 14. Carbon Dioxide Concentration Box Plots
As shown in Figure 14, each box plot appears to be normal. The box plot for
plastic type 1 appears to be fairly normal with minimal skew to the left because the
mean is less than the median. The box plot for plastic type 3 also appears to be fairly
normal with minimal skew to the left because the mean is less than the median. The box
plot for plastic type 5 appears to be fairly normal with minimal skew to the right because
the mean is greater than the median. There are no outliers for any of the box plots,
suggesting the results are consistent.
When comparing the box plots, plastic type 1 has the smallest range of 84 ppm,
plastic type 3 has the largest range of 112 ppm, and plastic type 5 is in the middle with a
range of 100 ppm. The interquartile range for plastic type 1 is the smallest with 37 ppm,
plastic type, the interquartile range for plastic type 3 is the largest with 53 ppm, and
plastic type 5 is in the middle with an interquartile range of 45 ppm. This shows that
plastic type 1 has the least amount of variance and plastic type 3 has the most variance,
meaning the data is more spread out and less consistent for plastic type 3. The box plot
for plastic type 1 is the farthest to the left, suggesting that plastic type 1 had less carbon
dioxide emissions than plastic type 3 and plastic type 5. None of the data for plastic type
1 overlaps with that of plastic type 3 and plastic type 5, suggesting that on average,
plastic type 1 had much less carbon dioxide emissions than the other plastic types.
The median for plastic type 1 is 843 ppm, the median for plastic type 3 is 1142
ppm, and the median for plastic type 5 was 1123. The mean for plastic type 1 is 841.1,
the mean for plastic type 3 is 1139.4, and the mean for plastic type 5 is 1122.6. This
supports the hypothesis that plastic type 3 would have the most carbon dioxide
emissions when burned, as it has a higher mean and median than the other plastic
types. There is more than a 75% overlap between the distributions of plastic type 3 and
plastic type 5, with their medians being only 21 ppm apart and their means being only
16.8 ppm apart. This shows that the distributions of plastic type 3 and plastic type 5
were very similar. Looking at the medians of all three types of plastic suggests that on
average, the carbon emissions from plastic types 3 and 5 may be significantly higher
than the carbon emissions from plastic type 1.
Along with the range, mean, and median, the standard deviation can be used to
compare the patterns between the three plastic types. The standard deviation measures
how much the data is spread out around the mean. The standard deviation for plastic
type 1 is about 25, the standard deviation for plastic type 3 is about 35, and the
standard deviation for plastic type 5 is about 34. This shows that the data for plastic
type 3 and plastic type 5 was more spread out around the mean than the data for plastic
type 1. As a result, the normal probability plot for plastic type 1 was more linear with the
data having a better fit than the normal probability plots for plastics type 3 and 5.
As shown in Figures 11, 12, 13, and 14, the samples of each plastic can be
considered to come from normally distributed populations. As all three assumptions
were met for all three types of plastic, the results from each two-sample t test should be
reliable.
Figure 15 below shows the hypotheses when doing a two-sample t test
comparing the mean of carbon dioxide produced when plastic type 1 (µ1) is burned and
the mean carbon dioxide produced when plastic type 3 (µ3) is burned.
Ho: µ1 = µ3
Ha: µ1 < µ3
Figure 15. Plastic Type 1 and Plastic Type 3 Hypotheses
As shown in Figure 15, the null hypothesis, Ho, states that the mean carbon
dioxide produced when plastic type 1 is burned is the same as that when plastic type 3
is burned. The alternative hypothesis, Ha, states that the mean carbon dioxide produced
when plastic type 1 is burned is less than the carbon dioxide produced when plastic
type 3 is burned. This was determined to be the alternative hypothesis, because the
original hypothesis states that when plastic type 3 was burned, it would produce the
most carbon dioxide in parts per million.
Figure 16 shows the t value, the p-value, and the probability graph of the two-
sample t test comparing the mean carbon dioxide produced when plastic type 1 was
burned and the mean carbon dioxide produced when plastic type 3 was burned.
Figure 16. Probability Graph of Plastic Type 1 and Plastic Type 3
As shown in Figure 16, the t value was found to be -22.0931 and the p-value was
found to be 6.1 × 10−14 . A sample calculation to find the t value can be found in
Appendix C. From the results of the two-sample t test, the null hypothesis is rejected
because the p-value of 6.1 × 10−14 is less than the alpha (α) level of 0.05. There is
evidence that on average, the carbon dioxide produced when plastic type 1 was burned
is less than the carbon dioxide produced when plastic type 3 was burned. If the null
hypothesis was true, that is, if there was really no difference in the carbon dioxide
produced when plastic type 1 was burned and when plastic type 3 was burned, then
there would be almost no chance of getting a difference in carbon dioxide produced this
extreme by chance alone. Since this is so unlikely to happen, the null hypothesis was
rejected.
Figure 17 shows the hypotheses when doing a two-sample t test comparing the
mean of carbon dioxide produced when plastic type 3 (µ3) is burned and the mean
carbon dioxide produced when plastic type 5 (µ5) is burned.

Ho: µ3 = µ5
Ha: µ3 > µ5
dioxide produced when plastic type 3 is burned in the same as that when plastic type 5
when plastic type 3 is burned is greater than the carbon dioxide produced when plastic
type 5 is burned. This alternative hypothesis was determined, because the original
hypothesis states that when plastic type 3 was burned, it would produce the most
carbon dioxide in parts per million.
As shown in Figure 18, the t value was found to be 1.0001 and the p-value was
found to be 0.1429. Once again, a sample calculation to find the t value can be found in
Appendix C. From the results of the two-sample t test, fail to reject the null hypothesis
because the p-value of 0.1429 is greater than the alpha (α) level of 0.05. There is no
evidence that on average, the carbon dioxide produced when plastic type 3 was burned
is greater than the carbon dioxide produced when plastic type 5 was burned. If the null
hypothesis was true, that is, if there was really no difference in the carbon dioxide
produced when plastic type 3 was burned and when plastic type 5 was burned, then
there would be about a 14.29% chance of getting a difference in carbon dioxide
produced this extreme by chance alone. Since this is likely to happen, fail to reject the
null hypothesis.
Figure 19 shows the hypotheses when doing a two-sample t test comparing the
mean of carbon dioxide produced when plastic type 1 (µ1) is burned and the mean
carbon dioxide produced when plastic type 5 (µ5) is burned.
Ho: µ1 = µ5
Ha: µ1 ≠ µ5
dioxide produced when plastic type 1 is burned is the same as that when plastic type 5
when plastic type 1 is burned is not equal to the carbon dioxide produced when plastic
type 5 is burned. This was determined to be the alternative hypothesis, because the
original hypothesis states that plastic type 3 would produce the most carbon dioxide in
parts per million, meaning that plastic type 1 and plastic type 5 would both be lower than
the plastic type 3 emissions.

As shown in Figure 20, the t value was found to be -21.1926 and the p-value was
found to be 1.8456 × 10−13 . Once again, a sample calculation to find the t value can be
found in Appendix C. From the results of the two-sample t test, the null hypothesis is
rejected because the p-value of 1.8456 × 10−13 is less than the alpha (α) level of 0.05.
There is evidence that on average, the carbon dioxide produced when plastic type 1
was burned is different than the carbon dioxide produced when plastic type 5 was
burned. If the null hypothesis was true, that is, if there was really no difference in the
carbon dioxide produced when plastic type 1 was burned and when plastic type 3 was
burned, then there would be almost no chance of getting a difference in carbon dioxide
produced this extreme by chance alone. Since this is so unlikely to happen, the null
hypothesis was rejected.

Conclusion
The purpose of this experiment was to determine if there was a difference
between the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from polyethylene terephthalate
(C10H8O4)n, polyvinyl chloride (C2H3Cl)n, and polypropylene (C3H6)n. The hypothesis
states that when polyvinyl chloride is burned, it will produce the most CO2 emissions.
The hypothesis was accepted, because polyvinyl chloride released 1139 ppm of
CO2, which was the highest mean CO2 produced. The mean CO2 produced for plastic
type 1 was 841 ppm and plastic type 5 was 1123 ppm, which were both less than type
3. The two-sample t test comparing plastic types 1 and 3 resulted in a p-value of 6.1 ×
10−14, suggesting that the CO2 produced for plastic type 3 was significantly greater than
that produced for plastic type 1. The two-sample t test comparing plastic types 3 and 5
resulted in a p-value of 0.1429, suggesting that the mean CO2 produced for plastic type
3 was not significantly greater than that produced for plastic type 5.
The data collected supported the hypothesis, as polyvinyl chloride (plastic type 3)
is produced through addition polymerization rather than condensation polymerization.
Addition polymerization is when polymers are formed from monomers containing a
carbon-carbon double bond through an exothermic addition reaction. This reaction
proceeds without the loss of any atoms from reaction monomers. As no byproducts
other than CO2 are released, this plastic is believed to release more CO2 than other
plastic types (Vos). Condensation polymerization is when polymers are formed by a
stepwise reaction of molecules with different functional groups. This endothermic
reaction releases a small molecule such as water or methanol as a product. As there

are byproducts created other than CO2, less energy is used to form CO2 and therefore
less CO2 is released (Vos).
Plastic types 3 and 5 are addition polymers, which explains why these types
released more CO2 at 1139 ppm and 1123 ppm. Plastic type 1 is a condensation
polymer, explaining why this type released a lower concentration of CO2 at 841 ppm.
The results from this experiment agree with existing research in the field. A study
by Chloe Sky Ortiz determined that burning polymers will release CO2, and in this
experiment, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increased when type 1, type 3,
and type 5 polymers were burned. The results also agree with a study by Jordan
Frontiero and Anna Swando, which determined that plastic types 5 and 6 release more
CO2 than plastic type 1 when burned. Although this experiment tested plastic type 3
rather than type 6, both studies resulted in plastic type 5 releasing a large amount of
CO2 (1123 ppm in this case).
This experimental design was helpful in reaching the conclusion as it was
efficient to use a Butane torch to burn the plastic. Originally, a grill lighter was used,
which made it difficult to ignite the plastic as the flame was weak. It was also helpful to
use a Vernier CO2 Sensor, as it is the easiest way to measure the CO2 concentration in
the atmosphere. However, the experimental design was also not helpful, as the plastic
had to be ignited and then the bell jar was placed over the plastic. It is possible that CO2
released from the burning exited the bell jar in the second it took to place the bell jar
over the burned plastic, possibly making the CO2 emitted inaccurate.
During this research, problems were encountered. One issue was the Vernier
CO2 sensor had trouble adjusting to the CO2 concentration of the room after each run.
This made the data appear as if a piece of plastic had more CO2 released than what
was actually released. This effect can be seen in the fourth trial in Table 5, as the final
concentration of 1756 ppm of CO2 appears to be a large amount, but it is due to the
large initial concentration of 629 ppm. To minimize this error, it is recommended that
there is at least three weeks for data collection to allow the CO2 gas sensor to return to
the CO2 concentration of the room after each run.
Another issue that faced was burning different parts of the butter container for
plastic type 5. When edges from the top of the container were burned, they released
more CO2 than flat pieces, as the edges had more surface area to ignite (although they
all were 0.25 grams). This effect can be seen in the first, sixth, and ninth trials in Table
5, as more CO2 was produced in these trials when the edge was burned. To minimize
this error, it is recommended that either a consistent part of the butter container is
burned, a different container is used, or the pieces are held in a consistent way.
Further research may be conducted to expand this research, including testing all
types of plastic rather than only types 1, 3, and 5. This would determine which plastic,
out of all 7 types, is best for the environment. It could also be expanded by burning
samples of plastic that are more than 0.25 grams to determine the actual CO2 emissions
that would be produced in factories. This information would be important to
environmental scientists, as they could learn more about the incineration of plastic
causing global warming, and how it can be reduced. Plastic manufacturers could use
this information to decide which plastic they should use to reduce their environmental
impact. Exploration into areas of greenhouse gases, CO2 emissions, and incineration
would determine ideas to prevent global warming, which could in turn save the planet.
Acknowledgements
The researchers would like to thank Jordan Frontiero and Anna Swando for
providing their research paper and guiding the experiment in the correct direction. Their
experimental successes and flaws were essential in creating the experimental design
for this study.
The researchers would also like to thank Mrs. Hilliard, Mr. Supal, and Mrs.
Dewey for helping with the scientific concepts related to this research, the formatting of
the paper, and the statistical analysis for the data.

Appendix A: Safety Precautions
 Wear goggles when performing this experiment.
 Have hair tied back.
 Do not wear loose clothing.
 Have a fire extinguisher nearby in case of emergency.
 Ensure that all the plastic bottles have no product left in them.
Appendix B: Carbon Dioxide Produced Sample Calculation
To find the concentration of carbon emissions released from burning the plastic,
the initial concentration of carbon dioxide was subtracted from the highest reading
concentration of carbon dioxide, which is shown below.
𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝐷𝑖𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 = ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 (𝑝𝑝𝑚) − 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑝𝑝𝑚)
A sample calculation to find the carbon dioxide emitted is shown in Figure 21
below with the data collected from the first trial when polyethylene terephthalate, or
plastic type 1, was burned.
𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝐷𝑖𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 = ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 (𝑝𝑝𝑚) − 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑝𝑝𝑚)

= 1159 𝑝𝑝𝑚 − 299 𝑝𝑝𝑚
= 860 𝑝𝑝𝑚
Figure 21. Calculating Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Figure 21 shows a sample calculation to find the carbon dioxide emissions
produced using the first trial in Table 1. The carbon dioxide produced was determined to
be 860 parts per million (ppm).

Appendix C: Two-Sample t Test Formula and Sample Calculation
The mean carbon dioxide produced for polyethylene terephthalate (plastic type
1), polyvinyl chloride (plastic type 3), and polypropylene (plastic type 5) were compared
to reveal which plastic released the most carbon dioxide emissions when burned. To do
this, three two-sample t-tests were used. The formula is shown below.
x̅ 1 − x̅ 2
𝑡=
𝑠1 2 𝑠2 2
√ +
𝑛1 𝑛2
The variable “x̅ 1 “ represents the mean from the first independent population,
which in this case, would be the mean carbon dioxide produced for plastic type 1. The
variable “x̅ 2 ” represents the mean from the second independent population, which in this
case, would be the mean carbon dioxide produced for plastic type 3. The variable “𝑠1 ” is
the standard deviation from the first independent population, which in this case, is the
standard deviation for the carbon dioxide produced for plastic type 1. The variable “𝑠2 ” is
the standard deviation from the second independent population, which in this case, is
the standard deviation for the carbon dioxide produced for plastic type 3. The variable
“𝑛1 ” is the sample size of the first independent population, which would be the 10 pieces
of plastic type 1 that were burned. Finally, the variable “𝑛2 ” is the sample size of the
second independent population, which would be the 10 pieces of plastic type 3 that
were burned. A sample calculation to find the t value is shown in Figure 22 when
comparing the mean carbon dioxide produced with plastic type 1 and plastic type 3.
x̅ 1 ppm − x̅2 ppm

𝑡=
𝑠1 2 𝑠2 2
√
𝑛1 + 𝑛2
841.1 ppm − 1139.4 ppm

=
2 2
√25.0486 + 34.5774
10 10
≈ −22.0931
Figure 22. Comparing Plastic Type 1 and Plastic Type 3
Figure 22 shows a sample calculation to find the value t which represents the
number of standard deviations above or below the mean that average data lie in a t
distribution. This compares the mean carbon dioxide produced from plastic type 1
(x̅ 1 ) and plastic type 3 (x̅ 2 ). The t value was determined to be about -22.0931.
Works Cited
Anderson, Thomas R., et al. “CO2, The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming:
from the Pioneering Work of Arrhenius and Callendar to Today's Earth
System Models.” Endeavour, vol. 40, no. 3, 2016, pp. 178–
187.,doi:10.1016/j.endeavour.2016.07.002.,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160932716300308
“Carbon and Infrared Radiation.” Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-Emits Infrared
Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education, n.d., Web. 16 Mar. 2018,
scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation.
“Common Plastics #1 to #7.” Common Plastics No 1 to No 7 - Description,
Toxicity, Recyclability, Alternatives, n.d., Web. 15 Mar. 2018
www.lifewithoutplastic.com/store/common_plastics_no_1_to_no_7.
“CSSF Category Awards: Chemistry.” CSSF Category Awards: 2013,
Junior Chemistry, n.d., Web. 15 Mar. 2018,
cssf.usc.edu/History/2013/Awards/J06.html.
Forsberg, Michael. “Causes of Global Warming.” National Geographic, 14 July 2017,
Web. 16 May. 2018, www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-
warming/global-warming-causes/.
Frontiero, Jordan, and Swando, Anna. “The Effects of Different Recyclable Plastics on
Carbon Dioxide Emissions.” n.p., n.d., Web. 15 Mar. 2018
“Global Climate Change: Effects.” NASA, NASA, 27 Feb. 2018, Web. 23 Mar. 2018,
climate.nasa.gov/effects/.
Oktyabrskiy, Valery P. “A New Opinion of the Greenhouse Effect.” St. Petersburg
Polytechnical University Journal: Physics and Mathematics, vol. 2, no. 2,
2016, pp. 124–126., doi:10.1016/j.spjpm.2016.05.008.
“Overview of Greenhouse Gases.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 11 Apr.
2018, Web. 15 Mar. 2018, www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-
gases.
“Plastic Recycling” National Geographic, National Geographic Society, 20 July
2017, Web. 16 Mar. 2018, news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/plastic-
produced-recycling-waste-ocean-trash-debris-environment/.
“Polypropylene” Tektel, 21 Oct. 2016, Web. 23 Mar. 2018,
www.tektel.com/b1/what-is-polypropylene/.
“Polyvinyl Chloride.” Chem Products, n.d., Web. 28 Mar. 2018,
chemproducts4.wikispaces.com/.
Prasad, et al. “Structural and Optical Investigations of Radiation Damage in Transparent
PET Polymer Films.” International Journal of Spectroscopy, Hindawi, 6 Apr.
2011, Web. 23 Mar. 2018, www.hindawi.com/journals/ijs/2011/810936/.
Shonfield, Peter. “LCA of Management Options for Mixed Waste Plastics.” WRAP –
Circular Economy & Resource Efficiency Experts, n.d., Web. 23 Mar. 2018
www.wrap.org.uk/.
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. “Smithsonian National Museum of
Natural History.” Too Much of a Good Thing, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration , 2014, Web. 21 Mar. 2018,
forces.si.edu/atmosphere/02_04_07.html.
Verma, Rinku, et al. “Toxic Pollutants from Plastic Waste- A Review.” Procedia
Environmental Sciences, vol. 35, 2016, pp. 701–708.,
doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.069.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187802961630158X
Vos, Wim de. “Plastics Engineering - September 2016 - Preparing to Reflect, and to
Forge Ahead.” Plastics – It's All About Molecular Structure, n.d., Web. 13 Mar.
2018, read.nxtbook.com/wiley/plasticsengineering/september2016/fromspe_prep
aringtoreflect.html

10th Research Paper 1

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

10th Research Paper 1

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Student Names : Catherine August, Brooklyn Blevins, Alexandra Capatana Date: 5/23/18 Title of Paper: The Effects of Burning

Polyethylene Terephthalate, Polyvinyl Chloride, and Polypropylene on Carbon Dioxide Emissions

______ TITLE PAGE (5 pts)

______ INTRODUCTION (15 pts)

______ REVIEW OF LITERATURE (15 pts)

______ PROBLEM STATEMENT (5 pts)

______ EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN (15 pts)

______ DATA AND OBSERVATIONS (15 pts)

______ DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION (10 pts)

______ CONCLUSION (15 pts)

______ BIBLIOGRAPHY (5 pts)

Catherine August, Brooklyn Blevins, and Alexandra Capatana

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Honors Chemistry Section 10A

Mrs. Hilliard / Mr. Supal / Mrs. Dewey

Data and Observations………………………………………………………………………..13

Data Analysis and Interpretation……………………………………………………………..22

Appendix A: Safety Precautions……………………………………………………………..38

Appendix B: Carbon Dioxide Produced Sample Calculation……………………………..39

Appendix C: Two-Sample t Test Formula and Sample Calculation……………………...40

were incinerated in 2017 (“Common Plastics #1 to #7”). This practice of incineration

be decreased to help improve the environment.

rather than recycling them.

that released the least concentration of carbon dioxide emissions.

Despite today’s eco-friendly society, plastic is often incinerated, emitting carbon

CO2 emissions are an issue, because they contribute to global warming.

This transfer of energy and remittance of energy is what makes CO 2 a heat-trapping

Figure 1. Greenhouse Effect (Smithsonian)

Figure 2. Landfill and Incineration (Shonfield)

Figure 2 shows how incineration impacts the global warming potential. On a

scale from 1 to 16, incineration of waste ranked 16 in harmfulness in the category of

warming (Shonfield). Global warming has prominent effects, including hurricanes,

needed to prevent negative impacts on health (“Plastic Recycling”).

quality products, such as fleece, and eventually cannot be recycled. When it is

carcinogen. Workers exposed to antimony trioxide have experienced respiratory and

Figure 3. Polyethylene Terephthalate Structural Formula (Prasad)

is produced using condensation polymerization, in which polymers are formed by a

stepwise reaction of molecules with functional groups. This endothermic reaction

releases a small molecule such as water or methanol as a product. As other byproducts

Figure 4. Polyvinyl Chloride Structural Formula (“Polyvinyl Chloride”)

using addition polymerization, the formation of polymers from monomers containing a

carbon-carbon double bond through an exothermic reaction. This reaction proceeds

incinerated to contribute to asthma in burning facilities (“Common Plastics #1 to #7”).

Figure 5. Polypropylene Structural Formula (“Polypropylene”)

polymerization, as explained in Figure 4. As this plastic is also an addition polymer, the

Other researchers conducted similar tests. A study by Chloe Sky Ortiz

Ortiz’s experimental design used a well-ventilated area due to the CO2

The purpose of this experiment was to determine which type of plastic,

polyethylene terephthalate (C10H8O4)n, polyvinyl chloride (C2H3Cl)n, or polypropylene

reducing global warming.

and polypropylene. This is because only about 1% of polyvinyl chloride is recycled by

burned, whether it be polyethylene terephthalate (plastic number one), polyvinyl chloride

1. Follow the safety precautions stated in Appendix A.

5. Place the randomized sample of plastic on a square, 3 inch by 3 inch piece of

11. Allow the carbon dioxide gas sensor to zero out.

Bell Jar (10 in. by 13 in.) Country Crock Butter

Watch Glass Doo Gro Hair Oil

Fiji Water Bottle

Vernier Lab Quest

scale to weigh the pieces of plastic to 0.0001 g precision.

Bell Jar (10 in. by 13 in.)

Watch Glass Aluminum Foil

Figure 7. Carbon Dioxide Sensor Affixed Inside Bell Jar