Lab Exercises/Demonstrations ........

A Laboratory Experiment, Based on the

Maillard Reaction, Conducted as a
Project in Introductory Statistics
Olena Kravchuk, Antony Elliott, and Bhesh Bhandari

Introduction
ABSTRACT: A simple laboratory experiment,
based on the Maillard reaction, served as a
project in Introductory Statistics for undergraduates in Food Science and Technology.
By using the principles of randomization
and replication and reflecting on the sources of variation in the experimental data,
students reinforced the statistical concepts
and techniques introduced to them in lectures before the experiment. The experiment was run simultaneously by several student groups, using the same materials.
Comparing the results of their analyses of
variance, students became aware of the
difference between P values and significance levels in making statistical decisions.
In the experiment, the complete randomized
design was applied; however, it is easy to adjust the experiment to teach students simple
regression and randomized block designs.

The benefits of incorporating laboratory-based experiments in the curriculum of

an introductory statistics course for teaching non-statistics majors are well recognized in statistical education literature (Smith 1998; Martinez-Dawson 2003). Laboratory experiments in statistical courses improve student appreciation of the relevance and importance of statistics in their programs and enrich student research
skills in their major areas.
In Food Science and Technology programs, there is no shortage of simple and inexpensive experiments as students have extensive practical classes in chemistry,
biochemistry, food processing, and other disciplines. However, as Martinez-Dawson (2003) noticed, statistical design and analysis of experiments are often left outside practical courses where students concentrate only on performing the experiment; the statistical analysis of the results is not emphasized. There is an immediate
appeal to students to have a statistical component added to the practical aspects in
their major disciplines. We would also argue that when a project in introductory
statistics is related to the major disciplines, it helps students retain statistical knowledge in a long-term perspective as if the statistical concepts are not integrated with
their discipline knowledge, it may be difficult for student to recall and apply these
concepts later (Boyle 1999).
The level of complexity of a laboratory experiment to be incorporated into introductory statistics depends on several factors: the place of the statistical course in
the program, the time available, and the learning objectives associated with the experiment. In many introductory statistics courses, the material is taught almost exclusively in transmission mode in lectures with students having little more independence in tutorials/computer classes. A course project often provides an opportunity to balance such transmission learning by utilizing the learning-in-action approach; for the project to be a success, it is crucial to give student the advantage of
gathering data themselves, not merely viewing a demonstration of research-grade
instrumentation (Stanley and Baker 2002).
In many applied science programs, an introductory statistics course is commonly
the only service course that teaches how to design an experiment and manage experimental data. The number of methods covered in such a course may be large;
moreover, students often experience difficulties with statistical thinking. According
to Smith (1998), a way to help student develop their statistical reasoning is to incorporate active-learning strategies that allow student to supplement what they
have heard and read about statistics by actually doing statisticsdesigning studies,
collecting data, analyzing their results, preparing written reports, and giving oral
presentations. We argue that all these goals may be fulfilled in a course project
based on a laboratory experiment.
This article demonstrates an example of the action-learning approach exercised in
the School of Land and Food Sciences, Univ. of Queensland, Australia, in the introductory statistics course (STAT2701, Biometrics 1) by undergraduate student in Food
Science and Food Technology programs. The article is structured as follows: in the
Study Description section, we indicate the present state of the students knowledge
MS 20050334 Submitted 6/3/05, Revised 7/1/05, Accepted 8/25/05. The authors are with
School of Land and Food Sciences, Univ. of Queensland, Brisbane, 4072, QLD, Australia. Direct
inquiries to author Kravchuk (E-mail: o.kravchuk@uq.edu.au).

70

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE EDUCATIONVol. 4, 2005

2005 Institute of Food Technologists

An experiment in introductory biometrics . . .

Table 1Assessment scheme for the project
Assessment criteria

Expectations

Individual performance during experiment (total 30)

A student is actively involved in every stage of experiment and demonstrates an

understanding of the procedures (proposed scheme of randomization and experimental
protocols). The student also takes responsibility for and fulfils a certain function in the
group. The student is actively involved in peer discussion.
Project report (total 50)
A student reflects honestly and thoroughly on all the observed errors in the experiment,
including materials, methods, and people involved. The project report is prepared in
Minitab following the criteria for statistical report available on the Blackboard site of
the course. In the report, the student demonstrates a good understanding of formal
statistical techniques and the corresponding Minitab procedures.
Group presentation (5-min oral presentation) (total 15) A team presents its results in an engaging way, explains the observed variability,
interprets the statistical conclusions of the project, and proposes possible improvements
to the experiment.
Team-work (total 5)
A team respects and supports its members and works effectively within the given time.
The collected results are distributed to every member of the team.

of food chemistry and statistics, provide the study description, state

the learning objectives, and explain the assessment criteria; in the
Laboratory Experiment section, we describe the experiment and
list the materials, methods, and time requirements; in the Student
Learning section, we discuss the outcomes of the experiment in
the context of student learning and suggest possible modifications
to the experiment; in the Conclusions section, we argue that the
experiment was a success in the outcomes achieved and suggest
that a standard laboratory practicum may be a valuable source of
projects for a corresponding introductory statistics course. In the
Appendix, we present an example of a student report.

Study Description
In the School of Land and Food Sciences, Univ. of Queensland,
introductory statistics (Biometrics I) is taught in the 1st semester of
the 2nd y of the 3-year Bachelor of Applied Science (Food Science and Nutrition) and 4-year Bachelor of Food Technology programs. Food chemistry is taught in the 2nd semester of the 2nd y
following the introductory statistics course. One of the goals of Biometrics I is to ensure that, upon completing the course, students
will be able to communicate effectively with biometricians . . .
about how to design the experiment; what variables to measure
and how often; how to organize the data; what sort of data analysis is required; possible problems and limitations of the experiment; research questions that may be answered (Course outline,
STAT2701, 2005). The concepts of statistical importance and significance, and their corresponding measures, R2 (coefficient of determination) and P value, are often difficult for students to understand; nevertheless, these concepts are essential to the data analysis for their final year projects. For the Food Technology students
in the School, analysis of variance (ANOVA) is the most common
type of statistical analysis in their final-year projects; hence, efforts
are made in the introductory statistics course to enhance the students understanding of various experimental designs.
At the time of this experiment (week 9 of a 13-wk course), the
students had been taught the concepts of t tests and ANOVAs and
the elementary principles of experimental design (randomization,
replication, and control of experimental error). The timeframe of
the course allowed us to allocate two 2-hour tutorials and a 1hour lecture for the course laboratory project: the 1st tutorial was
supervised laboratory work; the 2nd was a computer class and
the lecture time allowed students to present their results.
The following learning objectives were associated with the experiment:
1. Enhance students understanding of the basic principles of
Available on-line at: www.ift.org

statistical design: replication, randomization, and control of experimental error.

2. Improve students experience in handling the standard techniques of 1-way ANOVA: computations and discussion of the assumptions (normality, independence, and homoscedacity of the
experimental error).
3. Accentuate that the P value and coefficient of determination
(R2) of the experiment are statistics, that is, random values that depend on the data observed in an experiment.
The students were provided with an elementary background of
the Maillard reaction, the description of the experiment, a laboratory safety manual, and a simple statistical questionnaire before
the experiment. They worked in groups (4 to 8 students) for 2 h in
a food science laboratory under the supervision of a technician
and biometrician. After the experiment, the students performed
the data analysis in Minitab 14 and in the lecture, a fortnight after the experiment, delivered short oral group presentations. The
students worked on the data analysis and presentations in the
same group in which they conducted the laboratory experiment.
However, the final reports (including Minitab project files) were
submitted individually. Improvement in the students understanding of the statistical concepts was evaluated by short interview, the
statistical report, and group presentation.
To facilitate group work in the project, the assessment scheme
included students individual participation, as well as cooperation
within the groups. This scheme worked well, with students being
actively engaging to participating in group discussions. The assessment scheme of the project is shown in Table 1.
To emphasize the statistical component of the experiment, the
students were asked to discuss in groups and complete simple
questionnaires before and after the experiment. They were shown
how to set up data files and perform the data analysis in Minitab.
Instructions were also provided to the students on the expected
format of the presentation of results in the final report. However,
the discussion section of the report and group presentations were
not guided, with the students only being asked to connect what
they experienced in the experiment to what they had learned in
STAT2701 and to reflect on the accuracy of their experimental
techniques in connection to the R2 observed.
The students were also asked to comment on the experiment.
The general feedback was very positive, with students commenting that they liked the opportunity to apply statistical techniques
in practice. Some minor suggestions were provided for the time
management before and during the experiment. Additional comments about student feedback is further discussed in the Student
Learning section.
Vol. 4, 2005JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE EDUCATION

71

JFSE: Journal of Food Science Education

Laboratory Experiment
Materials

The eggs (50 g each from Williams Eggs, Warwick, QLD Australia) used in this experiment were purchased from a local store; Dglucose monohydrate was purchased from Unilab (Seven Hills,
NSW, Australia), and filter papers were from Filtech (Armidale,
NSW, Australia). All aqueous solutions were prepared with highpurity water produced with a Millipore (Billerica, Ma., U.S.A.) Milli
Q system. All reagents were of analytical reagent grade unless otherwise stated.
Equipment

Each student group of no more than 8 students needed the following: 2 eggs; 1 mL pipette; 10 mL graduated pipette; pipette dispensers; fifteen 20-mL screw-top test tubes with lids; fifteen 20-mL
test tubes; fifteen 4.5-cm funnels; filter paper, Filtech 1893-090;
container; 2 test tube racks; marker pen; 4 different-colored
beads.
The class needed the following: vortex mixer (Ratek Instruments, Boronia, Victoria, Australia); covered water bath (Ratek Instruments shaking water bath); UV/Vis spectrophotometer (Pharmacia LKB, Alemeda, Calif.); 1 cm3 plastic or quartz spectrophotometer cells and distilled water for the reference cell.
Preparation of glucose solutions

These solutions were prepared before and made available for

the experiment:
1. 1% Glucose solution: 5 g of glucose dissolved in 500 mL of
distilled water;
2. 2% Glucose solution: 10 g of glucose dissolved in 500 mL of
distilled water;
3. 3% Glucose solution: 15 g of glucose dissolved in 500 mL of
distilled water;
4. 6% Glucose solution: 30 g of glucose dissolved in 500 mL of
distilled water.
Measurement of absorbance

The absorbance and hence browning of the egg white/glucose

samples was measured on a Pharmacia LKB Ultrospec III UV/vis
spectrophotometer at 420 nm (any spectrophotometer capable of
making measurements at 420 nm can be used for this experiment). Approximately 2.5 mL of each filtered egg white/glucose
solution was placed into a 1 cm3 plastic or quartz spectrophotometer cell for the absorbance measurement; distilled water was
used as the reference.
Experimental method

1. Preparation of egg whites

Students separated egg whites from egg yokes and placed the
egg whites into a container and mixed thoroughly. Students then
pipetted egg whites into 15 screw-topped test tubes by placing 1
mL of egg white into each of the test tubes.
2. Preparation of egg white solutions
Preparation of the control solution. Students prepared the control solution by adding 9 mL of distilled water to 1 mL of egg white
into a screw-topped test tube randomly selected out of the 15
tubes. This process was repeated twice more to produce 3 separate solutions.
Randomization of mixtures of egg white and glucose solutions. To
randomly allocate the 12 tubes with egg white to glucose solutions,
student used 4 colored beads, where each glucose concentration
was assigned 1 color. Beads were selected without replacement, 1 at
a time, at random. Once all 4 beads had been selected, the process
was repeated to allocate the next 4 tubes to the glucose solutions
and so on. Students then prepared the mixtures of egg white and glu72

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE EDUCATIONVol. 4, 2005

cose solutions (discussed subsequently) for the groups of 3 tubes

randomly assigned to the glucose concentrations.
Mixture of egg white with glucose solutions. Students added 9
mL of the prepared 1%, 2%, 3%, or 6% glucose solution to 1 mL
of egg white into a test tube assigned to the concentration. This
process was repeated twice more for each of the concentrations.
3. Marking the solutions
As students prepared each solution, they placed a cap on the
test tube and marked the concentration on the lid by marker pen;
then they placed the solutions into a test tube rack.
4. Mixing the solutions
In a random order, students took each solution separately out
of the test tube rack and thoroughly vortex mixed it. Students then
replaced the solutions into the rack.
5. Heating the solutions
The laboratory assistant placed the rack of 15 test tube solutions into a boiling water bath and the water bath was then covered. The egg white solutions were heated for 20 min.
6. Cooling the solutions
After this heating time, the laboratory assistant removed the rack
from the boiling water bath (CAUTION: HOT) and placed the test
tubes into ice to cool the egg white solutions to about 5 C.
7. Mixing the solutions
Once each test tube was cooled, the students thoroughly vortex-mixed each solution and then placed the tubes back into the
test tube rack in a random order.
8. Filter the solutions
Students filtered each solution through filter paper into another
test tube to produce a transparent solution. (As an alternative to
the filtration step of the experiment, the samples could be centrifuged instead with no adverse affect to the samples.)
9. Measure the absorbance
Student measured the absorbance of each solution at 420 nm
on a UV/vis spectrophotometer and recorded the results.
Time required

Students required 2 h to perform the experiment: 15 min of

preparation and initial discussion and 1 h 45 min of the laboratory work with 20 min group discussion during the experiment
(while the tubes were being heated). We also allocated 2 h for doing the Minitab analysis during computer/tutorial class, and
enough time for group presentations (8 min per group). Students
were expected to spend 6 to 8 h outside class working on their
project reports.
Technical support and supervision

Technical assistants and biometricians supervised student in

the laboratory, with teaching load of approximately 5 student per
supervisor.

Student Learning
Assessment and discussion

There were 6 student groups participating in the experiment.

The group size varied from 4 to 8 students. The students learning
outcome was assessed individually and as a group based on their
oral and written reflections and formal statistical analysis and discussions.
Students were asked to report a standard statistical analysis: scatter plot of the experiment, the summary table (observed sample
means and standard deviations), the ANOVA of the experiment and
the corresponding interval plots, and the results of Tukeys multiple
comparisons. All calculations were performed in Minitab 14 with
the final report being set up in the Report Pad of Minitab. An example of the statistical report is given in the Appendix.
Available on-line at: www.ift.org

An experiment in introductory biometrics . . .

Table 2Group results for the experiment

Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group

1
2
3
4
5
6

Nr of
students

Observed R2

Observed statistic,
F(4,10)

Reported
P value

Estimated pooled
variance, MSE

8
4
4
5
5
7

0.68
0.87
0.89
0.98
0.98
0.78

5.4
16.8
21.4
138.6
115.0
9.0

0.014
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.049
0.031
0.023
0.007
0.007
0.040

Before the experiment, students were asked to discuss in

groups and to write individual answers to the following questions:
1. What is the research problem of the experiment?
2. What sources of variation do you expect to observe in the experiment?
3. What is a purpose of randomization in your experiment?
Directly after the experiment, while still in the laboratory, the
students were asked to discuss in groups and to write individual
answers to the following questions:
1. Are you ready to answer the research question of your experiment? What do you expect for your answer?
2. What sources of variation have you observed in the experiment?
3. How many randomization steps have you performed in the experiment? What was the meaning of these steps?
In the before-experiment questionnaire, the students easily answered the 1st question saying that they wanted to explore the relationship between glucose concentrations and browning (some
of the groups even formulated the hypotheses set: to test the null
hypothesis that there is no browning increase with increased glucose concentration versus the alternative hypothesis that there is a
significant difference in browning with increased glucose concentration). The students also argued what type of relationship could
be expected, and several groups pointed out that at the highest
concentration a plateau effect may happen. It is worthwhile to notice that, at the time of the experiment, the students did not have a
deep understanding of the Maillard reaction and relied on their
general background in Chemistry and the elementary treatise of
the Maillard reaction provided to them 2 d before the experiment.
The 2nd question of the questionnaire caused general confusion
and many students asked the instructors to interpret or restate the
question. After they were asked to think about what may constitute experimental error, they indicated several obvious causes of
variation in the data. The answers to the 3rd question demonstrated a lack of general understanding as almost all groups simply recalled a definition from the lectures and answered that randomization should eliminate personal bias in treatment allocations.
In the after-experiment questionnaire, the student referred to the
expected type of relationship between glucose concentration and
browning, many groups sketched the experimental data and tried
to fit a response curve. The 2nd question did not cause any difficulties. The students explained many sources of experimental error and even suggested some possible improvements to the experiment (they obviously used their previous experience in presenting data in laboratory reports). Interestingly, many students related
their answers back to the 2nd question of the before-experiment
questionnaire: The variation was initially thought to be only in
the glucose concentration, but was observed to be present in
some mechanical components of the practical including pipetting, human measuring and apparatus which can be concluded
to attribute to some unknown error in the results. The answers to
the 3rd question showed an improvement in the understanding of
the principle of randomization. The students argued that by randomizing glucose concentrations, they prevented the possibility
of making something very wrong just for 1 of the concentrations
Available on-line at: www.ift.org

(that is, confounding people laboratory experience and treatments). Some groups noticed that the randomization prevented a
possible spatial effect of the water bath. One group also concluded that randomization was performed to minimize undesired
possible correlation between observations in the experiment.
While preparing the group presentation, students used their
discussions, results of the analysis, and personal reflections. Interestingly, the conclusions of the group discussion varied from research-related (the students noticed that the expected saturation
curve did not eventuate and suggested another set of concentrations: 0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, and 10%) to business-related (the students argued that it was necessary to better control the experimental error as a food company would not be happy to have the
results of the analysis from a laboratory experiment that shows a
small R2) and even management-related (the students proposed
that they could design and analyze an experiment but to minimize human error, a skilful technician should be the one who performs the experiment).
In individual written reports, the students mostly related R2 to
the experimental error: with a coefficient of determination at
89.53% our test was fairly accurate. The rest of 10% cannot be
answered by the ANOVA test as errors like human and technical
errors have occurred, although many noticed the influence of the
data variation: this is a good example of how a single error can
compound itself into a larger one affecting nearly all areas of the
analysis. However, none of the students referred to the pooled
variation as being a measure of experimental error. This flaw in
their understanding was corrected in the lecture following the presentations when students discussed the comparative results of the
experiment, as presented in Table 2.
The experiment was designed to enhance students understanding of statistical principles by being encouraged to think independently and articulate their thoughts to a competent and appreciative judge. The following are some cautions we have formulated based on the observations during this exercise:
1. Do not use the experiment to lecture students, direct explanations have to be prohibited; instead, lead students to answers by
asking them questions.
2. Make it clear to students that they will not be penalized for any
flaw in their experimental technique; however, you expect that all
flaws will be discussed in their reports.
3. If using the before- and after-experiment questionnaire, do not
assess its context formally but allocate some marks for completion. Be sure that students are made aware of such an assessment
scheme (some of the students commented that this scheme allowed them to answer the questions honestly and openly without
hesitating about any lack in their knowledge).
4. Advise students before the experiment that a grade will be given for individual student participation in group discussion. Facilitate the discussion by asking groups provocative questions. For
example, we asked them whether it was possible to extend the
conclusion of their analysis further than the 2 eggs they used, the
carton of eggs that was purchased, the eggs from the supplier, and
so forth. Not having a deep understanding of the Maillard reacVol. 4, 2005JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE EDUCATION

73

JFSE: Journal of Food Science Education

tion, the students were not able to point out the possible difference in the pH levels of egg whites. However, thinking about this
question led to the general conclusion that it is important to know
the property of experimental material, that is, the population of interest in statistical terminology, to be able to expand the results
beyond the scope of a particular experiment.
5. Encourage students to send you a draft of their presentation,
but comment on their drafts in a very limited way so as not to
change the focus of their discussion.

ments and observations during and after the experiment. The 1st
author also expresses her gratitude to Dr Gloria DallAlba and participants of EDUC6000 (Graduate Certificate in Higher Education
for Experienced Teachers, Graduate School, UQ, Australia) for inspirational discussions. The authors are grateful to the Scientific and
Associate Editors and 2 anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions that helped us improve the clarity of our discussions.

Possible modifications of the experiment

Boyle C. 1999. A problem-based approach to teaching biostatistics. J Stat

Educ. Vol. 7, Issue 1. Available from: http://www.amstat.org/publications/
jse/secure/v7n1/boyle.cfm. Accessed Sep 23, 2005
Martinez-Dawson R. 2003. Incorporating laboratory experiments in an introductory statistics course. J Stat Ed. Vol. 11, Issue 1. Available from:
http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v11n1/martinez-dawson.html. Accessed Sep 23, 2005
Smith G. 1998. Learning statistics by doing statistics. J Stat Educ. Vol. 6, Issue 3. Available from: http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v6n3/
smith.html. Accessed Sep 23, 2005
Stanley DW, Baker KW. 2002. A simple laboratory exercise in food structure/texture relationships using a flatbed scanner. J Food Sci Educ. Accessed Sep 23, 2005
Univ. of Queensland. 2005. Course outline of STAT2701. Available from:
http://www.uq.edu.au/lafspa/. Accessed Sep 23, 2005

Similar layouts of the experiment may be used to enhance students understanding of regression or blocking. In the following,
we suggest regression and block designs.
Regression experiment
Concentrations of glucose (%): 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5,
4.0, 4.5.
Instructions: Every concentration is to be prepared and measured
once.
Learning objectives: hypothesis testing, estimation of the regression coefficients, prediction and confidence intervals of regression.
Statistical analysis: fitted-line plot, ANOVA of regression (test and
diagnostics), confidence interval of the rate of reaction; confidence interval and prediction interval of absorbance.
Report and disc ussion: the observed coefficient of determination,
R2, P value, and the mean square error (in the context of experimental error).
Randomized complete block design ANOVA (students as blocks)
Concentrations of glucose (%): 0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 6.0.
Instructions: Each student in a group should complete the experiment (1 replication per student). The results are to be combined
within the groups for data analysis with students being analyzed
as blocks.
Learning objectives: experimental design, blocking effect, replication, and randomization.
Analysis: scatter-plot, basic summary, ANOVA of Randomized
Complete Block Design (tests and diagnostics), multiple comparisons of treatments.
Report and discussion: the observed coefficient of determination, R2,
P value, and mean square error (in the context of experimental error).

References

Appendix: Student statistical

report of the experiment
Minitab project reporta
In this project a CRD experiment was preformed and an ANOVA analysis under taken to examine the effect of glucose concentrations on the degree of the Maillard reaction in egg whites. The
full statistical report on the recorded data is presented below.

Conclusions
It is possible to improve students understanding of statistical
principles and techniques by introducing a laboratory experiment
from the laboratory practicum of a major discipline into an introductory statistics course. In particular, in a Food Science and
Technology program, the experiment based on the Maillard reaction may be a suitable choice. It is related to their major area of
study, does not require expensive equipment, is doable in 2 h of
supervised work, and is easy to analyze and comprehend. When
an experiment is supervised by both a technician and biometrician, it provides a good opportunity to test and enhance students
understanding of randomization, replication, and hypothesis testing and error estimation.

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this
research provided by the Faculty of Natural Resources and Veterinary Science, Univ. of Queensland from the Facultys fund for enhancement of student learning. The authors also thank the students
enrolled in STAT2701, 1st semester of 2005, for their enthusiasm in
the project and willingness to share their reflections and experiences. The authors are grateful to Del Greenway for her valuable com74

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE EDUCATIONVol. 4, 2005

NB - Some unusual data present in concentrations 2 and 6.

Descriptive Statistics: Absorbance (OD)

Variable

Concentration
(%)
N

Absorbance (OD)

0
1
2
3
6

Mean
3
3
3
3
3

StDev

0.07067
0.1463
0.2170
0.1883
0.2337

0.01464
0.0231
0.0836
0.0410
0.0497

Available on-line at: www.ift.org

An experiment in introductory biometrics . . .

One-way ANOVA: Absorbance (OD) versus Concentration (%)
Source

DF

SS

MS

Concentration (%)
4
0.05106
0.01276
5.37
(P value very small therefore significant)
Error
10
0.02377
0.00238
Total
14
0.07483
S = 0.04876
R-Sq = 68.23%
R-Sq(adj) = 55.53%

P
0.014

NB - R-Sq is very low and would normally be unacceptable in a food practical,

technical errors have eventuated.

Tukey 95% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals

All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Concentration (%)
Individual confidence level = 99.18
Concentration (%)
NB - From graphs data appears to be both normal and random.

Interval Plot of Absorbance (OD) vs Concentration (%)

Center

Upper

Concentration (%) = 0 subtracted from:

1
0.05523
2
0.01544
3
0.01323
6
0.03211

Lower

0.07567
0.14633
0.11767
0.16300

0.20656
0.27723
0.24856
0.29389

Concentration (%) = 1 subtracted from:

2
0.06023
3
0.08889
6
0.04356

0.07067
0.04200
0.08733

0.20156
0.17289
0.21823

Concentration (%) = 2 subtracted from:

3
0.15956
0.02867
6
0.11423
0.01667

0.10223
0.14756

Concentration (%) = 3 subtracted from:

6
0.08556
0.04533
0.17623
Summary of Pairwise Comparisons
Concentration 0:a
Concentration 1:ab
Concentration 2:bc (It would have been expected that if 0% is similar
to 1 & 3 that 2 & 0 would be similar as well.)
Concentration 3:abcd
Concentration 6:bcde
NB - Concentration 2 displays unusual data, concluded to be attributed to large
human error.

Available on-line at: www.ift.org

a This report is an original student work: the grammar, discussions and formatting
are as presented by the student.

Vol. 4, 2005JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE EDUCATION

75