8+Science+4+Mason's+MSW+Project

 __Bissell Municipal Solid Waste Study__ __Comparing amounts of trash with and without re-usable products__


 * Voicethread:** http://ccds.ed.voicethread.com/#u451552.b954911.i5108715

Our project is testing if the use of re-usable cups and products in advisory will lower the amount of trash and recycling. For our project we put three trash bins in three different advisories to measure the amount of trash before the re-usable products are given to the three advisories. The three advisories are Mrs. Richardson's advisory room, Mrs. Preiss's advisory room, and Mr. Keilty's advisory room. We placed signs on each bin to make sure that the trash is not taken out. The hypothesis we are testing is If there are re-usable products in each advisory then the amount of trash will decrease. After the 4 days of trash collection without re-usable products we will give the advisories their re-usable products. We will then measure another 4 days with re-usable products and see if the amount of trash with the re-usable products decreased.
 * I. Introduction:**

1. Re-usable plastic cups 2. 3 trash bins 3. 3 trash bags 4. Scale to weigh trash collected 5. 6 signs to show where trash bins are and why they are there 6. Protection against harmful germs # 1, 7, 9, 12 7.Getting harmed by sharp objects in trash bags # 4, 5, 10, 13
 * II.** **Materials:**

1. Collect materials 2. Place one new trash bin for only advisory trash in Mr. Keilty, Mrs. Preiss, and Mrs. Richardson's room 3. Label the new trash bins to make sure no waste other than advisory waste goes in the trash bins 4. Do not collect trash in those rooms for three days to allow for trash build up 5. After day 3 collect all the advisory trash 6. Weigh the trash after 3 days 7. Record weight from advisory trash after 3 days without collecting the trash 8. Place re-usable products in advisories (hard plastic cups that can be washed) 9. Collect data and see if the use of re-usable cups had an effect on the amount of trash in the advisories
 * III. Procedure:**

Independent Variable: Amount of re-usable material in advisory Dependent Variable: Weight of trash

Control Group: Amount of trash in trash cans prior to re-usable products being placed in the advisories Experimental Group: Placement of re-usable products in advisories


 * IV. Data:**

Wednesday Feb. 17, Thursday Feb. 18, Friday Feb. 19- Collecting trash before re-usable products in advisories Wednesday Feb. 24, Thursday Feb. 25, Friday Feb. 26- Collecting trash after re-usable products in advisories


 * || Advisory trash before re-usable products || Advisory trash after re-usable products ||
 * < Mr Keilty's advisory trash ||< 3 pounds ||< 1 pound ||
 * < Mrs.Richardson's advisory trash ||< .5 pounds ||< .7 pounds ||
 * < Mrs. Preiss's advisory trash ||< 1 pound ||< .3 pounds ||


 * V. Analysis:**

-The trend in my graph is that the amount of waste decreased in two of the three advisories. Mrs. Richardson's advisory trash did not decrease after the re-usable cups being placed in the advisory because the advisory did not use the cups very much, and the trash from the advisory was not high to begin with. In Mr. Keilty's advisory trash showed the most significant decrease not all because of the cups but more the fact that he had an advisory lunch before we placed the re-usable cups in the advisory but not after. Mrs. Preiss's advisory was a better source for data than the other two advisories because she did not have an advisory lunch to interfere with the data and she seemed to keep up with putting her trash in the special bin fairly well.
 * VI. Conclusion:**

-Our hypothesis, if the use of re-usable cups and products in advisory will lower the amount of trash and recycling, was supported and also not supported. Our hypothesis was supported in Mr. Keilty's advisory because his amount of trash after the re-usable cups did decrease, along with Mrs. Priess's advisory. Our hypothesis was not supported in Mrs. Richardson's advisory because her amount of trash after the re-usable cups did not decrease. -There were many errors in our project that changed the outcome of our data, our group did not think through the process and possible problems with the experiment before beginning. Our group did not make sure that all the advisories were keeping up with putting their trash in the bins for us to be able to collect our data which was a human error.This was a huge problem because without the actual amount of trash the advisory generated we can not have a correct outcome and answer for our project. We as a group should have made sure that there were no differences in the advisories that could have interfered with our data such as advisory lunches, non consistent trash collecting, and placement of the bins to make sure that they were visible which was an experimental error. -We faced the problem of an advisory having an advisory lunch which made the amount of trash much higher and not accurate, also we faced the problem of slacking in data collecting with advisories, forgetting to put their advisory trash in the special bin for us to collect, janitors taking the trash during collection days, etc. -With as many problems as we faced during our experiment, we now know what to do if we were to do this project again. We could be more mindful in the placement of our trash bins and the signs to show where it is. We could have also made sure that all the advisories had equal times, such as advisory lunches and advisory games out of the room, so that our data would be more correct. We could send out emails frequently to remind the advisors to remind their advisees to put their trash in the advisory trash bin. We also could have made our signs more noticeable so that the janitors would be able to see them easier. we could have focused our project on a more narrow topic such as advisory lunches with and without re-usable cups to make a greater impact.