Artifical Photosynthesis

[irregular]

Hello Donna,

Me, too - I was really happy when I got my freezing point results and they made sense!

I have attached my Excel document, and all of the graphs I've made so far. You will notice that I have two temperature depression graphs (one with each sample's depression, one with the average of each paired samples). I will make the sugar content (measured by the hydrometer) line graph tomorrow. I don't think that I will be using my calculated density, calculated potential alcohol and calculated sugar contents measurements and graphs. I will take another look at the graphs again, mabe edit them and mention in the discussion about my possible measurement errors or other reasons (eg too much yeast explains the hydrometers readings).

I will also do the standard curve work tomorrow as well.



I've been reflecting on possible titles for the past few days. Since my project is quite complex, ideally I want to use a title which is short, fun and understandable, and a subtitle which is more extensive. For my main title, I've thought of "Newspaper- Your car's favourite meal" for example. For my subtitle, I've thought of "The application of pretreatment on newspaper for the production of cellulosic ethanol". Since I'm using a standard sized tri-fold display board with a title board, this may be too lengthy. I'll hopefully finalize the title by Wednesday.

By the way, I realized that I missed out on the "applications" part of my report. Mainly I would discuss the usage and research of newspaper as lignocellulosic biomass for cellulosic ethanol production on a commercial scale, etc. I think that I might merge it with my discussion if there won't be enough space on my board.

I used 10g of newspaper. You're right, the residual newspaper amount is consistent, but I was surprised that they were all basically the same amounts in all samples. I was expecting less newspaper in the organosolv samples and possibly the delignified samples, since they were pretreated however the cellulose-to-glucose conversion was the same as all of the other samples, including the no pretreatment sample. However, my temperatures in the freezing point test vary. Why all of the residual amounts were the same could be a subject in my discussion too.

I will definitely mention the salt in the discussion section as well, thanks for the link.

Unfortunately, if you indicate that you had a mentor, the registeration process on the website requires the indication of the mentor's phone number and email address in order for the registeration to be complete. If I absolutely cannot fill in these spaces, I will try contacting the science fair committee.

My father inquired about the testing of my samples at work, and received a positive response. My samples will be tested tomorrow at his workplace using gas chromatography.

I'm still working on the report, I think that I'll be able to send you the discussion, data analysis and conclusions tomorrow, hopefully.

Thank you for being flexible, and for all of your help and time!

[donnahardy2]

Hi Irregular,

I have a suggestion for all of your graphs. They are very well done, but still difficult to interpret. I think that if you will use 4 colors instead of 7 it will help. Make all duplicate samples the same color. Also, call your sucrose sample, “sucrose control” so the purpose of this sample will be clear.

I showed your graphs to one of my coworkers who is also a jewelry artist, and she made the following suggestions for your graphs to make them clearer:

Use a single background color (either orange or purple is fine) and delineate the data points, using a different shape point for each sample, e.g. circles for control, triangle for organosolv, etc. Make each line thicker so it can be seen clearly. She suggested the following color combinations, but anything with contrast would work well.

Orange background- use blue, green, purple, white (for the sucrose control)

Purple background-use blue, green, orange, and white


I like your temperature graph. Going back to your materials and methods section, however, you should say that you maintained the temperature between 25 and 30 degrees Centigrade during the experiment so your text will match your graph.

The first freezing point bar graph is very elegant and you should include it in your research report, but I think it is too confusing to include on your board. The freezing point depression graph is excellent, but you should use the 4 different colors for the samples, and again call the sucrose sample sucrose control.

I love your title. It’s perfect for your project, and the subtitle will explain what it’s really about. For your subtitle, you could consider asking the question that your project will answer, “Does using a pretreatment step to remove inhibitors of fermentation improve the production of bioethanol?” That combination will let your viewer know immediately what your project is all about.

The residual newspaper results do suggest that the same quantity of newspaper was hydrolyzed in each sample. In your discussion section, you can mention that the organosolv and the hydrogen peroxide techniques were designed to remove the inhibitors and apparently didn’t affect the hydrolysis step. You could also mention that the procedure that you used for hydrolyzing the newspaper did work, but the method needs to be optimized to improve the efficiency of the process (in another science fair project, not this one).

I cannot find any phone number on the Science Buddies website. However, the website address is [email protected]. I think your form was designed before online mentoring was available, so try putting in the e-mail address in the phone number field, or if that’s not possible, then check with your teacher or the science fair committee and ask for advice. If it is deadline for submitting the application and you don’t have an answer, then either say you did not have a mentor or put your home phone number and explain the situation if someone calls. Don’t let this detail prevent you from submit ing your project in the fair.

The availability of the gas chromatograph is exciting news. The freezing point results confirm you did obtain ethanol, but there is not much difference between the acid sample and the two pretreatment samples. There was more ethanol produced in the sucrose sample, but that was expected. A GC result for each sample would be excellent!


I’ll look forward to your next posting. Don’t spend too much time on one thing; focus on completing the project, but not perfection in every detail.

Donna Hardy

[irregular]

Hello,

Thank you so much for all of the great advice!

I've attached the Excel spreadsheet again with the changes to the graphs. I have added new graphs for the GC and cellulose to glucose tests, but have not changed them aesthetically yet. I will edit and print them tomorrow.

I've also attached my data analysis and discussion. I will finish a portion of the data analysis, write my conclusions and possibly extend my discussion, but I have a question which I would like to ask you before I can continue to do so:

I have three main tests which tell me how much ethanol I've produced 1) cellulose to glucose newspaper weighing test shows POTENTIAL ETHANOL 2) freezing point test shows temperature depression translated into concentration (of pure ethanol; the concentrations before and after fermentation aren't accurate therefore, but the ratio is, and so the difference in concentration of the before and after sample is useful) 3) GC test shows % of ethanol (you will notice, once you see the GC graph and table, how very low the ethanol concetrations are). I am looking at the column of data in each table which is in italics, located in my data analysis section.

In my data analysis section, I want to compare these results to the theoretical amount of ethanol I should make, based on how you showed me how to calculate. I've calculated a percentage of ethanol that I should have (cellulose to glucose test), produced (freezing point test) and have (GC), but I want to confirm how I'd convert these percentages into weight of ethanol. I would simply take each of my percentages, and find that percentage of my volume (in my cellulose to glucose test I'd use the volumes of the samples after hydrolysis, in the freezing point test I'd use the volume of the samples at _________ time, and in the GC test I'd use the volumes of the samples after fermentation), right? I hope I don't sound too confusing.

On my board, I have 4 regular papers worth of space for my graphs. I am thinking of putting the pH and salinity graphs on one page, freezing point results graph on another page, specific gravity graph on another page, and possibly the GC results and cellulose-to-glucose conversion graphs on one page.



Thanks!

[irregular]

[The extension doc has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

[donnahardy2]

Hi Irregular,

Thanks for the updated information. You are becoming an Excel expert. Your bar graphs are great.

The science fair judges will be looking to see if you have made a connection between your data and the significance of the results, and your analysis for each measurement is very perceptive. I have added just a few comments in bold to your data analysis section. I put (parenthesis) around words that I thought you should omit. Your analysis is amazingly perceptive, especially since you have not had chemistry yet. Your explanations show that you really understood what was happening. I have added an explanation of what happened when you added the NaOH to the acid hydrolysis samples that I hope will be helpful.

Unfortunately, all of the hydrometer results are of limited use in analyzing exactly what happened. I have suggested that perhaps all of the hydrometers were either not sensitive or precise enough to demonstrate a difference. You have noted in your discussion that the hydrometer readings increased after yeast was added, so perhaps there was interference due to the sample composition as well.

The freezing point and GC analysis are the only results that really measure the ethanol in the sample. The low ethanol concentrations may explain why the hydrometer readings did not change significantly. For purpose of your experiment, it doesn’t matter that the quantities were small; the purpose of your project was to compare results. You knew that the NaCl would inhibit fermentation and so you were able to compare results. You will say in your final conclusion that the method could be optimized by omitting the salt from the sample by deionization. If you were to continue this project, I’m sure that more of the potential ethanol would be converted to actual ethanol. You could deionize the sample and optimize the other nutrients and perhaps try a different strain of yeast, for example. You definitely accomplished the purpose of your project.

Your idea to compare the actual results to the theoretical results is an excellent idea if you have time to do this. For the freezing point, I would use the volume at the end of the experiment. I can understand your question, and it is a good one.

The GC results are interesting. The freezing point suggests that the organosolv method might be a little better than acid hydrolysis without pretreatment, but the GC results do not show a significant difference in the results. So, with these results you will not be able to conclude that pretreatment improved the ethanol yield.

Your plan for the graph space allocation is a good one and I think captures the essential data of your experiment.

You are almost done. Good luck!

Donna Hardy

[The extension doc has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

[irregular]

Hello,

Thank you so much for your feedback! I have attached my updated and final (after your review) data analysis, conclusions, and discussion sections. I wanted to run them by you for confirmation and comments, since they are important sections of my project (like any other). I will only have 3 pages total for my data analysis, conclusions and discussion sections on my display board, so I will shorten the information and for the data analysis just include the tests where ethanol production was measured.

I wrote my abstract as well. There is a 100 word limit, so I had to simply state, for my results part of it, "Results showed the organosolv sample produced the most ethanol."

I'm about finished my other written work now. Thanks for all of your help!

[donnahardy2]

Hi Irregular,

Amazing! You have done a comprehensive job in evaluating your results and in making appropriate conclusions based on your data. This is really excellent.

I have been wondering why the gas chromatography results were so much lower than the freezing point results, and the results of the replicate samples were not as good as I would have expected. Your description of the sampling process may explain the problem, and you can include this in the analysis of the data. Ethanol is very volatile and it evaporates and disappears from samples. So you can add a comment that the ethanol in the GC samples might have evaporated before testing. Since the GC results are questionable and you are not using them for your conclusion, it’s important to explain why you are disregarding them.

You are using the freezing point results for your conclusion that the organosolv method worked best, and I agree with this. Your freezing point results of the duplicate samples appear to be very good and the percentage of ethanol is consistent with your description of the fermentation.

For the analysis of the control samples, you noted that sucrose was used and is consists of 50% glucose and 50% fructose and you used 2.5 grams of glucose for your calculations. Saccharomyces cerevisiae can use fructose to produce as much energy and ethanol as a glucose molecule. So the glucose is equivalent to a fructose. You did not use pure glucose for your fermentation control because pure glucose is not readily available.

On your last paragraph of the data analysis sections, perhaps you should just state that the sucrose control sample yielded the most ethanol and that this was expected. The sucrose control demonstrated that your experiment was working. The purpose of your project was to demonstrate that newspaper could be used to produce ethanol, and to verify the effectiveness of a pretreatment step, and you did accomplish this goal. Perhaps you can add a statement to this effect in the first paragraph of the conclusion section before you start on the possible improvements that could be made.

For your GC results, you should add the information about how GC results were obtained in your materials and methods section. Since you did not do the testing, you should state that the samples were tested by gas chromatography by an “X brand” gas chromatograph ( if you know this) at “Y company.” In your acknowledgements, you should thank the individual who did the testing for you and include the name of your father’s company. Since this is an 8th grade project, you definitely don’t want to give the impression that you did this testing yourself.

I don’t know what other students have been doing for their projects, but I think you have a winning project here.

Donna Hardy

[irregular]

Hello,

Thank you so much for the support!

I have finished and printed all of my display board material and report. I will continue on working on organizing my display board and presentation now.

By the way, I created two graphs comparing ethanol content, one by weight, one by percentage, in my samples according to the theoretical, potential, pure (FP test) and actual amounts. They're helpful because in the ethanol content by percentage (concentration) graph, the organosolv pretreatment sample is observably the newspaper sample with highest concentrations. However, in the ethanol content by weight graph, the results change and it seems as if the no pretreatment and organosolv sample have similar efficiencies. I changed the last paragraph on the data analysis section based on this, too.

[The extension xls has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

I know that HCL and NaOH would have reacted in my experiment to form NaCL. I was curious if the glucose produced from cellulose hydrolysis could react with the HCL and produce glucoside, and if the glucose produced from cellulose hydrolysis could react with the NaOH, resulting in a total of glucose reacting with NaCL. After doing some research, I came across the fact that pH (the acids and bases) simply affects the glucose by it switching into its linear and cyclic forms. I just want to make sure that this is correct.

Secondly, I was reading the Data Analysis for Advanced Science Projects Science Buddies article (https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science- ... ysis.shtml). I found this paragraph interesting:

Lastly, it is always important to not just have your data stand alone, but to put it into context. Simply put, expressing your data relative to other data is much more enlightening. For example, the data in a study on the height of Japanese male professional basketball players might show that the average player height is 6 feet 5 inches. This data becomes more informative if you compare it to the average height of Japanese males, 5 feet 7 inches, thus allowing you to conclude that in Japan, basketball players are likely to be 14 percent taller than the average male. Similarly, if your research is a replicate of previous work or a methodological improvement on a process, it is critical to analyze your data in direct comparison with the previously published data.

Could this be applicable to my project? If I don't have enough time, I guess that I don't have to include it on my display board, I can simply mention it in my speech. For my project, I'm guessing that this would be done by comparing ethanol yield and cellulose-to-glucose conversions using newspaper as biomass in literature with my experiment's results.

Along with this, I noticed that I could calculate standard deviation and error. I didn't do this in my project, but how would I go about doing this, if I were to?One last thing; I've been reviewing my literature, and noticed that in the paper "Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol production: a review" , the very first table shows that newspaper is made up of 40-55% celllulose, 25-40% hemicellulose, and 18-30% lignin. (http://books.google.ca/books?id=jLFmier ... er&f=false). The other Saxena paper indicated 85% cellulose and about 12% lignin. The Saxena paper appears to be older than the other.

Thanks!

[donnahardy2]

Hi Irregular,

I’m so sorry I wasn’t able to post a reply on a timely basis. We had a power outage here and then there were problems getting back on the internet, so I’m just getting a chance now to reply. Fortunately you were working ahead, so you have everything under control.

I like you new graphs. The colors and labeling are very clear to it’s easy to “see” the results. One question about the labeling. Usually weight is done on a per volume basis. So is the result here grams per liter? Or total grams in your sample? Also comparing the freezing point and GC results, it is apparent that the results are discrepant. I suspect that the freezing point results are more accurate than the GC results, but additional testing would be necessary to resolve the discrepancy. One more comment; the significance of theoretical glucose values might not be clear to those unfamiliar with hydrometer readings.

The HCl will not affect the basic structure of the glucose. HCl was used in your experiment to hydrolyze the bonds between the glucose monomers in the cellulose, but it cannot degrade the glucose further, so all of the energy in the glucose molecule was available for the yeast to utilize. Yeast do not have the enzymes to break the bonds in the cellulose, so the acid hydrolysis step was used to release the glucose.

Yes a brief review of the literature would give a good background and context for your project. I believe that the one of the references included a historical review. However, you included a few references and stated your problem in the introduction, so this would be sufficient for your project. If your project is selected to go to the next level of judging, you could improve it by including a brief review of the literature in the introduction.

You don’t have quite enough data to calculate standard deviation and standard error. Next year, when you are designing an experiment, if you can do your experiment in triplicate and then repeat it, there will be enough data for statistical analysis. For this experiment, each data point was an incredible amount of work, and I can’t imagine doing more.

Good job in noticing the difference in reports in the literature! You would have to do an analysis on the actual newspaper that you used to know the composition, but it makes sense that newspaper would contain lignin, hemicellulose, and cellulose since it is made from wood. I would guess that newer reference is probably more accurate. Saccharomyces can only utilize the 6-carbon sugar, glucose, from the cellulose and cannot use the 5-carbon sugars from the hemicellulose.

Donna Hardy

[irregular]

Hello,

No problem, I understand.

I will make it clear in my presentation; I meant total grams in each sample. I think that the concentration by percentage chart is better to focus on rather than the total weight, since when I was calculating the weights, the total volumes of all samples weren't the same. This is another example of standard error.

What exactly do you mean when you say "the significance of theoretical glucose values might not be clear to those unfamiliar with hydrometer readings"?

Thank you for the other information. For now, I'll focus on studying and presenting what I have.

Since the composition analysis is different on newspaper in the newer paper, should I adjust the theoretical ethanol calculation that we made for the newspaper samples to about 40-55% cellulose?

Thank you!

[donnahardy2]

Hi,

Your project is quite complex and you are presenting 3 discrepant sets of results for ethanol concentration and this is going to be very confusing to someone briefly reviews your project. It should not be a problem for the judges, who will take the time to read your project and understand the results. The potential ethanol reading is a hydrometer reading based in the density of the sample that predicts how much alcohol will be produced if conditions are optimum. So potential alcohol is just a theoretical number. Since the density of your samples increased during fermentation, the hydrometer readings were not useful in confirming the presence of ethanol, and you used freezing point depression and GC to test the actual concentration of ethanol in the sample. The freezing point results are consistent with expected results and with your observations on the samples. The GC results are suspiciously low, possibly because of sample handling. The potential alcohol results are interesting, but maybe not accurate because of the nature of your sample.

However, data is data and your ability of analyze and explain your data is a very important part of the presentation. I would not recommend changing anything in your board at this point, but in your speech you should focus primarily on the importance of your project and your primary results.

Yes, since you have found newer information, you should adjust the calculation for the theoretical amount of glucose in the newspaper. If you use 50%, it will be easy to do.

Donna Hardy

[irregular]

Hello,

Whoops! By theoretical ethanol I meant calculated ethanol using the equation you showed me. I will update the calculation for the newspaper samples on the report and on the two graphs.

So:
10 grams of newspaper = 50% cellulose and 25-40% lignin, 18-30% lignin
50% of 10 grams newspaper = 5 grams cellulose, or potential glucose
5 grams glucose = 5 x 1 mole glucose/180 grams = 0.0278 moles of glucose
1 glucose molecule = 2 ethanol molecules + 2 carbon dioxide molecules
C6H12O6 → 2C2H5OH + 2CO2
0.0278 moles of glucose = 0.0556 moles of ethanol
0.0556 moles of ethanol = 0.0556 x 46 grams/1 mole = 2.558 grams of ethanol

Thanks!

[donnahardy2]

Hi Irregular,

Good job! This calculation shows the number of glucose molecules that you probably had in the newspaper and the potential ethanol that could have been produced if you had 100% efficiency in the conversion of glucose to ethanol.

Donna Hardy

[irregular]

Hello,

The science fair was yesterday and today, it went GREAT!!! I was chosen as Best Project in the Junior category and will be advancing to CWSF!

Thank you so much for your dedication and help, my parents send their regards as well.

Thank you!

[donnahardy2]

Hi Irregular,

Congratulations!!! This is absolutely the best news. Thanks so much for letting me know. Your hard work and dedication and your excellent science project has been recognized. I'm very happy for you and that you are going to CWSF. This is so exciting!

Please also give my regards to your parents!

Donna

[irregular]

Hi!

I'm progressing in preparation for the big event. I have two questions:

For hydrolysis, I used 1 mole (26.5ml of 31.45%) of HCL. Why did we agree to specifically add 1 mole? Another source I was reading added a 5% HCL solution.

In my graph, you can see that the salinity increased upon the addition of hydrochloric acid. However, hydrochloric acid is an acid, not a salt according to some sources, and according to some other, hydrochloric acid is also called a "spirit of salt". Is my interpretation that the salinity of my samples increased at the time of hydrolysis because hydrochloric acid (a salt) was added, still correct?

Thanks!

[donnahardy2]

Hi Irregular,

I hope you took a short break before continuing with the project, but it is a good idea to go over everything and make sure the details are in order. Your questions are excellent.

As I recall, we were trying to approximately match the concentration of acid used by other researchers, who were using 5% sulfuric acid Chemists prefer to use molar concentrations in their reports because M refers to a specific concentration of ions. A mole is 6.23 x 10 to the 23rd atoms or molecules of a substance. When added to water, a concentration of 1 mole per liter or 1 molar refers to a solution containing 1 mole of atoms or molecules in a liter of water. So the HCl you used contained 623,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms of hydrogen and the same number of atoms of chloride. The percentage of a compound refers to the number of grams in 100 ml of water and is sometimes used, but a 5% solution of HCl is a different concentration than 5% sulfuric acid because these acids do not have the same atomic weight. Hydrochloric acid has a molecular weight of 36.5 grams per mole and sulfuric acid is 98 grams per mole, and HCl contains 1 hydrogen and sulfuric acid contains 2 hydrogen ions. Let me know if this helps, or if you need additional explanation.

The concentration of hydrogen (actually hydronium) ions determines the rate of hydrolysis of cellulose at a specific temperature, so the really important point of using 1 M HCl was to ensure that the concentration of acid was a controlled parameter in all of your experiments.

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalch ... blmole.htm

When you added the acid to your sample, you were adding 1 mole of H+ and 1 mole of Cl- to the sample. Salinity is supposed to be salt, or sodium chloride, or Na+ and Cl- but the method you were using to measure salinity could not distinguish between HCl and NaCl so you saw an increase in the salinity measurement even though you were adding acid. When you added the sodium hydroxide, or NaOH, to your sample, the OH or hydroxide ions combined with the hydrogen ions in the acid to form water, and you actually had salt or Na + and Cl-. Your results are good, however, because they confirm that you did add a consistent amount of acid to your samples. What did you use to measure salinity? Was it the conductivity monitor or one of the hydrometers?

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you think of any other questions.


Donna Hardy

[irregular]

Hello,

Thank you for your answers, they were very helpful! By the way, I used the conductivity meter to measure salinity.

I was going to send you this message a few days earlier, attaching my CWSF display board pages so you could possibly take a look at them. Unfortunately, that night my USB stopped working and I lost all of my files. I had a copy of my display board pages and spreadsheet saved on my computer, but it was a day or two old and needed some editing. Today I just got the message that the USB cannot be recovered, so I will be re-editing those files and attaching them to a post by tomorrow night.

Thank you!

[donnahardy2]

Hi Irregular,

Oh no. I'm so sorry you lost everything, but at least it's no the night before the show and you have time to recover. I will be looking for your post tonight and I'll send back comments as quickly as possible.

Donna

[irregular]

Hello,

Thankfully I was able to recover most of my science fair documents. I re-edited the file, and have attached my display board in a report style. My actual display board will have a font size of 24 for regular text and 16 for captions. Graphs will be bigger. My procedural flowchart is also attached in another document.

Something specific things to look out for;

I combined my newspaper-to-glucose and gas chromatography results into one graph. I want to confirm with you that my analysis of this graph is proper and accurate (i.e. how I took the difference of both results).

I also inserted some labels of hydrolysis and neutralization&fermentation on my specific gravity graph.

Thank you so much!

[The extension doc has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

[irregular]

[The extension doc has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

[donnahardy2]

Hi Irregular,

I’m glad you were able to recover your computer files.

This is excellent! I’m really impressed with your project board. I like the way you have extracted the essential information from your project and presented it very clearly. The presentation of your experimental method with boxes and arrows makes your procedure very clear. The science fair judges will not be wondering what you did. The size font you will be using will make the project very readable. I like the combination of the potential ethanol and GC results; this was a good idea.

Your board is very good as it is; however, here are just a couple of optional comments that you can consider:

1. You can consider adding more information about the hydrometers, conductivity monitor, pH paper, and volume and temperature measurements so your science fair judges will know how you obtained your results. If you don’t have room, then you can display your board with your lab notebook or a more detailed report in front of the board. The gas chromatography results appear in the results section and acknowledgement sections, but not in materials and methods. The judges will be wondering where the GC results came from. You can state in your materials and methods section that the GC analysis was done by an outside lab. You can decrease the type size slightly if you are out of room.

2. Do you have any photographs of your experimental set up to add to the board? This would help tell the story of how you did your project.

3. In your depression of freezing point graph, you can include the percentage ethanol indicated by the freezing point depression results. Since these results are discrepant from the GC results, you can explain that the salinity of the sample contributed to the freezing point depression also. (this may make the explanation of your overall results too complicated, so do this only if you want to).

4. Bibliography. Are you including your bibliography on the board? You can include this in a smaller type size

This is a really great project!


Donna Hardy

[irregular]

Hello,

Thank you very much for your comments, and all of your help for my science fair project this year. I have implemented them in my display board to the best of my ability. I will be adding a photograph or so on my board.

Regards.

[donnahardy2]

Hi Irregular,

You are more than welcome! I have really enjoyed working with you on this project. I think you have learned a lot. Good luck at CWSF; I a looking forward to your next report.

Donna Hardy

[irregular]

Hello,

I came back from the CWSF on Saturday. I'd like to thank you for your mentorship and suggestions at all stages of my project. With your help, I was able to place a Gold Medal in the junior division with a $4,000 scholarship. Additionally, the Renewable Energy interdisciplinary award and the Energy Challenge award in the junior division also. The judging and awards process was quite different this year, you can read about it here if you'd like: http://cwsf.youthscience.ca/judging-awards

Thanks!

[donnahardy2]

Hi Irregular,

Thanks for your message! This is wonderful news so exciting. Congratulations on your gold medal at the CWSF; the $4000 scholarship is amazing. You overcame so many obstacles in getting this project done and I'm so happy that you won. I really appreciate your letting me know.

Donna

[amyC]

Hi Irregular - congratulations on your success at the fair! That's wonderful news, and I know how excited you and your family must be. I also know how much work went into your project!

On behalf of all of us at Science Buddies, congratulations!

Amy
Science Buddies

[amyC]

Hi Irregular - I would like to follow up with you about your science fair success and possibility highlight your story at Science Buddies. Can you email me at [email protected] ?

Amy
Science Buddies

[irregular]

Hello,

(Sorry for the late reply!)

Thank you once again, I really appreciate you for all of your help!

Amy, thank you so much! I've emailed you at your email address.

Thanks!