Results


 * Results**

//Computer Generated Data//:

The graph and data table above show the computer-generated data we collected. Over a span of 5 minutes, we used the computer to measure the levels of CO2 in the 3 different yeast solutions. Interestingly, the data seemed to contradict our hypothesis, in fact suggesting that lower levels of glucose cause yeast to respire faster. In the graph, you can see that the solution with no glucose respired at a much faster rate than either of the other two, and that the solution with 5 grams of glucose respired at a faster rate than the one with 10 grams of glucose. However, we believe that this is false for a couple of reasons. For one, it makes no sense that our negative control could respire. Without any glucose, it cannot perform cellular respiration. In addition, there is an unexplained spike in the graph. This could not be a result of respiration, since respiration does not occur that quickly. Most likely, the cause of this spike was because the CO2 probe was damaged and could not obtain a proper reading. The next graph reveals more problems with our computer-generated results.
 * <  ||<   ||< **C02 Emitted (ppm)** ||<   ||
 * < **Time (minutes)** ||< 0g of glucose ||< 5g of glucose ||< 10g of glucose ||
 * < 0 ||< 78 ||< 7 ||< 161 ||
 * < 0.25 ||< 101 ||< 43 ||< 25 ||
 * < 0.5 ||< 244 ||< 110 ||< 31 ||
 * < 0.75 ||< 189 ||< 307 ||< 31 ||
 * < 1 ||< 12 ||< 650 ||< 27 ||
 * < 1.25 ||< 12 ||< 464 ||< 27 ||
 * < 1.5 ||< 12 ||< 215 ||< 27 ||
 * < 1.75 ||< 12 ||< 254 ||< 27 ||
 * < 2 ||< 12 ||< 178 ||< 47 ||
 * < 2.25 ||< 12 ||< 224 ||< 15 ||
 * < 2.5 ||< 12 ||< 213 ||< 218 ||
 * < 2.75 ||< 12 ||< 184 ||< 158 ||
 * < 3 ||< 12 ||< 168 ||< 273 ||
 * < 3.25 ||< 1239 ||< 178 ||< 253 ||
 * < 3.5 ||< 4414 ||< 224 ||< 235 ||
 * < 3.75 ||< 4321 ||< 255 ||< 234 ||
 * < 4 ||< 4367 ||< 220 ||< 235 ||
 * < 4.25 ||< 4375 ||< 196 ||< 112 ||
 * < 4.5 ||< 4402 ||< 190 ||< 22 ||
 * < 4.75 ||< 4394 ||< 182 ||< 22 ||

By looking at the graph, you can see the net increase in CO2 of the different solutions. But when observing the 10g solution, the net amount of CO2 decreased by 139 ppm. This makes no sense, since one of the products of cellular respiration is CO2, and the level of this product would forcibly have to go up as the reaction took place. Because our computer-generated data was flawed, we had to ignore these results and instead rely on the non-computer generated data collected by the other p-group.
 * **Net Increase in CO2 (ppm)** || **Amount of Glucose (g)** ||
 * 4316 || 0 ||
 * 175 || 5 ||
 * -139 || 10 ||

//Non-Computer Generated// //Data//:

In this test, the other p-group measured how much water was displaced by respiring yeast. The graph and table show these amounts. In the table, higher levels of water displacement indicate higher levels of yeast respiration. In the graph, lines with steeper slopes indicate faster rates of respiration. This time, the data made more sense. Our negative control did not respire, since it had no glucose to convert to ATP, CO2, and H2O. As we predicted, the yeast with more glucose respired at a faster rate than those with less glucose. This data confirmed our alternative hypothesis, and was more accurate than our previous tests. This final graph shows the net displacement of water by the yeast. Again, it confirms our alternative hypothesis, and falsifies the null hypothesis. It indicates that as the level of glucose increases, the amount of water displaced increases, meaning that the rate of respiration increases.
 * ||  |||| **Water Displaced (mL)** ||
 * **Time (minutes)** || 0g of glucose || 5g of glucose || 10g of glucose ||
 * 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 ||
 * 1 || 0 || 0.2 || 0.4 ||
 * 2 || 0 || 0.3 || 0.5 ||
 * 3 || 0 || 0.4 || 0.6 ||
 * 4 || 0 || 0.5 || 0.8 ||
 * 5 || 0 || 0.6 || 1.1 ||
 * 6 || 0 || 0.8 || 1.3 ||
 * 7 || 0 || 1 || 1.5 ||
 * 8 || 0 || 1.1 || 1.7 ||
 * 9 || 0 || 1.2 || 1.8 ||
 * 10 || 0 || 1.3 || 2 ||
 * **Net Displacement of Water (mL)** || **Amount of Glucose (g)** ||
 * 0 || 0 ||
 * 1.3 || 5 ||
 * 2 || 10 ||