Encabo Rasch 1

The Effect of Bacterial Growth on Ultrasonic Waves

Introduction:
There are countless reasons why ultrasonic waves are important to many people. These
waves can be used for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes in medical applications. Ultrasonic
waves also are involved in industrial applications. They have a frequency of approximately 20
kHz, nearby the limit of human hearing, and knowing that these waves reach as high as the limit
of human hearing, ultrasound is considered safe for humans. Other animals (i.e. mouse, cat, and
dog) can hear ultrasound because they tend to hear higher frequencies of sound.
Ultrasonic waves are used in a various devices with different purposes. For instance,
since ultrasound is used in medical applications, they are important to many medical devices that
visualize internal body structure, monitor developing babies, or generate heat to tissues.
Nevertheless, not all devices that use ultrasound are used in the medical field. For example,
ultrasound is used as a repellent for rodents, and can be used as well to measure distances. To
summarize, ultrasound is used around the world for many things.
Many people nationwide want to rid bad bacteria in their homes and their bodies. Some
bacteria found in the digestive tract are necessary to maintain good health and support healthy
immune function, but others unfortunately can colonize to cause infection or even disease. Some
bacteria poison humans, and are the cause of food spoilage (such as E. coli). Since ultrasonic
waves are useful in many fields, one question that can come up in ones mind is whether it kills
bacteria or not or how it affects bacterial growth. If bacteria made contact with ultrasonic waves,
then the ultrasonic waves will kill the bacteria living in the affected area.

Encabo Rasch 2
Variables:
To begin with, the bacteria used in the experiment will be E. coli. Additionally, the
response variable is the amount of light passing through E. coli (lm). The amount of light passing
through an area can help determine a population. For this example, lets say that theres a
classroom. In that classroom, there are many people; it is highly populated. The amount of
sunlight or suns rays passing through the classroom is low because the people in the classroom
are blocking the light from hitting the classroom. By using what was learned from that example,
if the amount of light passing through bacteria is low, then the population of bacteria is high. If
the amount of light passing through bacteria is high, then the population of bacteria is low. To do
this, a spectrometer would be required in the lab.
The two predictor variables used in the experiment are temperature ( C) and distance
(cm). These two factors were chosen for the experiment because it is opinionated that they would
be the most effective in affecting bacterial growth, along with the ultrasonic waves, of course.

Table 1
Factors Used in Experiment
Temperature ( C)
Standard
36
37

+
38

10

Distance (cm)
Standard
20

+
30

Table 1 provides information about the predictor variables (or treatments) used in the
experiment. The two seen factors are temperature ( C) and distance (cm). Each of the treatments
had a low, standard, and high value. The values of temperature are 36 C (low), 37 C
(standard), and 38 C (high). The values of distance are 10 cm (low), 20 cm (standard), and 30
cm (high). The three incubator machines used during the experiment were set (by default) to be
at 36 C, 37 C, and 38 C, so temperatures between 36-38 C were only allowed. The distances
were modified and finally decided by basing it on the dimensions of a tank used for ultrasonic

Encabo Rasch 3
wave blockage. The length of the tank is approximately 70 cm. The ultrasonic device used was
20 cm long and 15 cm wide, so only partial amount of space (approximately 50 cm long) could
be used. A test tube rack helped adjust the distances.
Observations:
Table 2
Data from Trials
Amount of Light Passing Through E. Coli (lm)
(Temperature/C, Distance/cm)
DOE

(+. +)

(+, -)

(-, +)

(-, -)

Standard

87.2

89.2

52.6

67

96

57.7

57.9

33.9

46.7

57.2

28.2

26.6

15

26.4

22.4

31

34

21.4

38.4

35.8

33

31.6

19.6

34.8

36.2

22.4

30.6

14.4

32.2

30.8

30

34

30

19.6

27.8

30.4

17.8

17.6

17.4

16.2

32.8

34.8

24.6

26.4

34.8

10

34

37.4

36.4

26

41.8

11

42.1

42.4

40.3

30.7

49.2

12

50.1

47.3

44.1

35.3

56.6

13

58.2

52.3

48

40

64

14

66.2

57.2

51.8

44.6

71.4

15

70

71.2

41.2

49.4

75.6

44.9

44.3

32.7

35.7

47.8

Average

Table 2 shows how many trials were completed and the exact sequence in which the trials
were executed. When there is less light passing through bacteria, then there is more bacteria, and
vice-versa. It can be assumed by table 2 that the amount of light passing through the tested
bacteria in trials 1-3 decreased, meaning that the amount of bacteria increased. In trials 4-10, the
numbers seem to be going up and down. Finally, in trials 11-15, the amount of bacteria is going

Encabo Rasch 4
down because the amount of light passing through the bacteria went up. The averages in the
amount of light passing through E. coli are 44.9 lm (+, +), 44.3 lm (+, -), 32.7 lm (-, +), 35.7 lm
(-, -), and 47.8 lm (double standard).
This table can also be used to find the grand average. The fives averages are 44.9 lm,
44.3 lm, 32.7 lm, 35.7 lm, and 47.8 lm. To find the grand average, add all of the averages
together and divide it by the number of averages added up. The sum of the averages is 205.4 lm.
Since there are five averages, divide the sum by five. The grand average is 41.08 lm.
Table 3
Fifteen Standards
96

Fifteen Standards
57.2 22.4 35.8 36.2 30.8 27.8 16.2 34.8 41.8 49.2 56.6

64

71.4 75.6

Table 3 shows the fifteen standards recorded from table 2. To find the range of standards,
subtract the minimum range with the maximum range. The minimum range is 16.2, and the
maximum range is 96. Mathematically, 96 subtracted by 16.2 is 79.8. The range of standards is
79.8.

Encabo Rasch 5
Figure 1. Standards Plot
Figure 1 is a scatter plot graph that shows how much light passed through E. coli when
given the standard dose of the factors. As seen in this graph, the results were as low as 16.2 lm
and as high as 96 lm. Knowing that the range of standards (found under table 3) is 79.8 lm,
doubling the range of standards would be 159.6 lm.
Effects of Temperature and Distance:
Table 4
Effect of Temperature
Temperature
32.7
35.7
Avg. 34.2

+
44.9
44.3
Avg. 44.6

Table 4 provides the average amount of light that passed through bacteria when
temperature affected bacterial growth. This table shows both the high and low amounts, as well
as an average of the two. When the temperature that affects the bacteria is high, an average of
44.6 lm passed through bacteria. When the temperature the affects the bacteria is low, an average

Amount of Light Passing Through E.

coli (lm)

of 34.2 lm passed through bacteria.

34.2

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

-1

44.6

1
Temperature

Encabo Rasch 6
Figure 2. Effect of Temperature
Figure 2 shows the effect of temperature. The effect of the temperature is found from
subtracting the low value from the high value. In this case, the low value is 34.2 lm and the high
value is 44.6 lm. When 44.6 is subtracted by 34.2, the result is 10.4. The effect of the
temperature is 10.4.
Table 5
Effect of Distance
Distance
44.3
35.7
Avg. 40

+
44.9
32.7
Avg. 38.8

Table 5 provides the average amount of light that passed through bacteria when distance
affected bacterial growth. When the distance that affects the bacteria is high, an average of 38.8
lm passed through bacteria. When the distance the affects the bacteria is low, an average of 40

Amount of Light Passing Through E. coli

(lm)

lm passed through bacteria.

40

40.2
40
39.8
39.6
39.4
39.2
39

38.8

38.8
38.6
38.4
38.2
-1

1
Distance

Figure 3. Effect of Distance

Encabo Rasch 7
Figure 3 shows the effect of distance. Remember that to find the effect of the distance,
subtract the low value from the high value. In this case, the low value is 40 lm and the high value
is 38.8 lm. The effect of the distance is -1.2.
Interaction Effect:
Table 6
Interaction Effect
Distance

Temperature

(-)

(+)

Solid Segment

(+)

44.3

44.9

Dotted
Segment

(-)

35.7

32.7

Encabo Rasch 8
Table 6 is a table comparing the total averages between the temperature and distance

Amount of Light Passing Through E. coli

(lm)

when the two factors are interacting with one another.

44.3

50

44.9

45
35.7

40

35

32.7

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-1

1
Distance

Figure 4. Interaction of Distance and Temperature (Part 1)

Figure 4 shows the interaction effect between distance and temperature. The red solid
segment in the figure represents the high averages of distance and the blue dotted segment
represents the low averages of distance. The slope of the red solid segment is 0.3, while the slope
of the blue dotted segment is -1.5. Knowing these values, the interaction effect can be found. To
find the interaction effect of temperature and distance, subtract the slope of the dashed (low)
segment from the slope of the solid (high) segment. Remember that the high slope is 0.3 while
the low slope is -1.5. 0.3 subtracted by -1.5 equals 1.8; therefore, the interaction effect of
temperature and distance is 1.8.

Encabo Rasch 9

Figure 5. Interaction of Distance and Temperature (Part 2)

Figure 5 shows the solid and dotted segments from figure 4. Although this figure does not
feature the segments colors and its points, it does show that these slopes depict the interaction of
distance and temperature from the previous figure.

Figure 6. Dot Plot Effects

Figure 6 shows the effects of the temperature (T), distance (D), and their interaction
effect (Interaction). (In this case, substitute Interaction from the dot plot with TD.) This
figure can be used to compare twice the range of standards to see if there are any significant
factors based on the data (also meaning that it can help find significant effects.) The dotted lines
represent the range of standards doubled; as said before, range of standards is 79.8; doubled that

Encabo Rasch 10
is 159.6. If the effects are outside the dotted lines, they are deemed statistically significant.
According to this figure, the effect of temperature, the effect of distance, and their interaction are
not deemed significant because none of them are shown outside the dotted lines.
To find their significance mathematically, divide the effects by the range of standards.
Remember that the range of standards is 79.8. If the result is greater than 2, then it is deemed
significant; if not, then it is not significant. When -1.2, 10.4, or 1.8 is divided by 79.8, the result
is less than 2. Therefore, none of them are mathematically deemed significant.
Equations:
= 41.08 + 5.2() 0.6() + 0.9() + "
Figure 7. Prediction Equation
Figure 7 shows the prediction equation, the grand average totaled with half of each of the
effects. T = temperature, D = distance, and TD = interaction effect of temperature and distance.
Noise is an unquantifiable variable that allows for inaccuracies due to experimental design and
follow through issues. It is known that the grand average is 41.08, while the half of the effect of
temperature is 5.2, the half of the effect of distance is -0.6, and the half of the interaction effect is
0.9.

= 41.08 + 5.2(1) 0.6(1) + 0.9(1) + "

= 46.58
Figure 8. Checked Prediction Equation
Figure 8 is the checked version of the prediction equation. The (+, +) experiment was
used in the trials. Note: +1 was always used when referring to any high value on a graph.
Since it is used to refer a high value, +1 is plugged in for the both of the effect variables in the

Encabo Rasch 11
equation. The equation equals 46.58, which was not the average of the (+, +) experiment, which
comes to the conclusion that the math conducted in the experiment is incorrect. (It could be
assumed that something has been done wrong during the experiment.)

= 41.08 + ""
Figure 9. Parsimonious Prediction Equation
Figure 9 shows the parsimonious prediction equation. The parsimonious prediction
equation is similar to the regular prediction equation, but only shows the effects that are deemed
significant. According to figure 6, none of the effects are deemed significant. Knowing that
algebra has been done to find their significance as well, and that the results were less than 2, it
can be concluded that none of the effects are deemed significant, and thus Y = the grand average,
which is 41.08. (The variable noise can be included into this equation as well.)

= 41.08
Figure 10. Parsimonious Prediction
Figure 10 shows a prediction of the grand average. The grand average, as said before, is
41.08. All of the effects are insignificant, and thus cannot be used to make a prediction. Since
none of the effects were significant. If this experiment was attempted again, a prediction of 41.08
lm would be expected to pass through the bacteria E. coli. This is because the effect of
temperature and distance would not have interfered as greatly as other factors such as sunlight
and location.

Encabo Rasch 12
Conclusion:
By seeing these numbers, this experiment can be interpreted that all of the effects were
insignificant and that there were other factors that may have clearly affected bacterial growth
more than the ultrasonic waves, temperature, and distance. For instance, where the bacteria lived
(or location) may be a huge factor that affected bacterial growth greater than the effects of
temperature and distance. There may be other factors that may have caused the change of
bacterial growth. It can be also interpreted that the chosen factors were not important whatsoever
in this experiment. Notice that according to table 2, there is no consistency with the amount of
light passing through the bacteria. (This is also known meaning that the numbers are going up
and down.) Knowing these observations, it can be interpreted that something has been done
wrong during the experiment.
In conclusion, the statistical results reject the hypothesis of the bacteria being killed by
the ultrasonic waves. The averages are lower than the amount of light in the first run (or trial). If
the averages are lower than the amount of light in the first trial, then that means that the
population of bacteria has increased most of the time. However, in the last five runs, the
population has decreased, with the amount of light going up. (Look at table 2 for more the
averages and trial numbers.) All of the effects were insignificant, and other factors may have
something to do with the bacterial growth rate. The change of the population of E. coli can also
be applied to exponential growth, in which the population increases, reaches a peak, and then
dies out.