PERSEPHONE's et al-science-chemistry.pptx

All about heat retention

1. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HEAT RETENTION IN INSULATED CUPS Albania, Paul Andrei O. Bato , Irelyn G. Casas, Rojin C. Norca , Sarah S. Sendon , Angelica G.

2. Courtesy of Panay News Courtesy of Llc (2022) Rationale Courtesy of Huang et al. (2021)

3. Rationale Courtesy of Llc (2022)

4. Courtesy of Panay News Courtesy of Daily Guardian General Objective Courtesy of Philippine Daily Inquirer Courtesy of Chickenoro , Inc. This analysis aims to identify which cup designs are most effective at preventing heat loss and maximizing beverage temperature retention.

5. Specific Objective 1. To determine the heat loss of hot water in different types of cups 2. To determine if there is a significant difference between the heat loss of hot water in different types of cups 3. To determine if there is a significant relationship between the time elapsed and the temperature of the hot water.

6. Methods Experimental groups Types of cups: • Paper cup • Styrofoam cup • Ceramic cup

7. Procedures (Preparation of hot water) Heating Water to around 70°C. Pouring the hot water into the graduated cylinder Transferring the hot water into the cups

8. Procedures ( Checking the water temperature) Checking the initial temperature Checking the temperature every minute Checking the final temperature

9. Procedures (Oil Uptake Test) Pre-weighing Lowering in a crystallizing dish with oil Removal of xerogels Xerogel (13x13x1 cm) Weight determination

10. Water Pick-up Ratio Oil Uptake Ratio SWT - SO SO SST - SO SO SO = weight of the dry xerogel SST = weight of wet xerogel with oil SO = weight of the dry xerogel SWT = weight of the wet xerogel with water

11. Statistical Analysis Tool 1. What is the sorbent efficiency of the xerogels at varying keratin concentration (10%, 15%, 20%) in terms of Water pick-up and Oil uptake? Mean and Standard Deviation 2. Is there a significant difference between the sorbent efficiency of the xerogels at varying keratin concentration (10%, 15%, 20%) in terms of Water pick-up and Oil uptake? One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) 3. Is there a significant relationship between the sorbent efficiency of the xerogels at varying keratin concentration (10%, 15%, 20%) in terms of Water pick-up and Oil uptake? Pearson Correlation Coefficient

12. Results and Discussion Table 1 Water Pickup Ratio of Keratin-Based Xerogels Time (min) Paper Mean Styrofoam Mean Ceramic Mean 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 1 67.2 68 64 66.4 67 68.2 69 68 61 61 61 61 2 64.1 66 61 63.7 64 66.3 66.2 65.5 57 58 56.8 57.2 3 60.7 62.3 58.2 60.4 60.2 64.8 64 63 55 55 54.5 54.8 4 58.1 59.8 56 57.9 59.1 61.3 61.7 60.7 52.9 52.9 52.4 52.7 5 56.3 57.5 54 55.9 58.5 59.2 59.6 59.1 51 51.2 50.8 51 6 54.5 55.2 52.1 53.9 56 57.5 57.8 57.1 49.2 49.8 49.8 49.6 7 53 53.2 50.5 52.2 54.3 56 56.1 55.4 47.8 48.2 48 48 8 51.3 52 49.1 50.8 53.2 54.5 54.5 54 46.8 47 46.1 46.6 9 50 50.2 48 49.4 52 53 53.2 52.7 45.3 45.8 45.2 45.4 10 49 49 46.2 48 50.7 51.8 52.1 51.5 44.8 44.8 44 44.5 Table 1. Recorded Temperature for each Type of Cup

13. Results and Discussion Table 2 . Heat Loss Heat Loss (J) Types of Cup R1 R2 R3 Mean Standard Deviation Paper -4,389 J -4,389 J -4,974.2 J -4,584.1 J 337.87 Styro -4,033.7 J -3,803.8 J -3,741.1 J -3,859.5 J 154.05 Ceramic -5,266.8 J -5,266.8 J -5,424 J -5,319.2 J 90.759

14. Results and Discussion Table 3 ANOVA Results df Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Statistic P-value Between Groups 2 3195996.348 1597998.174 32.8078 0.0005881 Within Groups 6 292247.2737 48707.879 Total 8 3488243.622 436030.4527

15. Results and Discussion Table 4 Tukey HSD Results Pair Mean Difference Std. Error p-value

16. Results & Discussion Table 5 Pearson Correlation Result Parameter Cup 1 Pearson correlation coefficient (r) -0.9862 r² 0.9726 p-value 2.435e-8 Covariance -23.71 Sample size (n) 11 Statistic -17.8789

17. Results and Discussion Table 6 Pearson Correlation Results Parameter Cup 2 Pearson correlation coefficient (r) -0.9933 r² 0.9866 p-value 9.829e-10 Covariance -20.7 Sample size (n) 11 Statistic -25.706

18. Results and Discussion Table 7 Pearson Correlation Result Parameter Cup 3 Pearson correlation coefficient (r) r² p-value Covariance Sample size (n) Statistic

19. Parameter Value Pearson correlation coefficient (r) -0.9707 r 2 0.9423 p-value 0.1544 Covariance -5.25 Sample Size (n) 3 Statistic -4.0415 Results indicated that there is a nonsignificant large negative relationship between the concentration and oil uptake ratio. Results and Discussion Table 8 Pearson Correlation Results Figure 2 Line Fit Plot

20. Conclusion The paper cup showed the lowest average heat loss but also the most variability, while styrofoam and ceramic cups demonstrated more consistent heat retention. The ANOVA test revealed no statistically significant difference in heat loss between the cup types, suggesting the observed differences could be due to random variation. The Pearson correlation coefficient indicated a strong negative relationship between time and temperature for all cup types, meaning temperature decreased consistently as time increased.

21. Recommendations These findings suggest that manufacturers could focus on improving the consistency of paper cup materials, while styrofoam’s consistent performance makes it a good choice for thermally insulated cups. To improve the accuracy and expand the scope of the experiment, researchers could standardize cup selection, control pouring technique, control environmental conditions, increase repetitions, and explore other materials, cup designs, and insulating layers.

22. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HEAT RETENTION IN INSULATED CUPS Albania, Paul Andrei O. Bato , Irelyn G. Casas, Rojin C. Norca , Sarah S. Sendon , Angelica G.