[MODEL] Research Log #1 - Solutionary Project 2022

Date: Feb. 9, 2020

Name: Paige Turner
Essential Question: Should Hawaii institute the death penalty?

Three Points to Prove: #1: The death penalty is not a deterrent of crime.
#2: The death penalty is inhumane.
#3: The death penalty is not cost effective.

Point that this Source Proves: # 1: The death penalty is not a deterrent of crime.

Excerpts (These should provide insight into the Point to Prove):

Early in the article, Carlisle explained in simple terms, “When the smaller crimes go down--the quality of life crimes--
then the murder rate goes down.”

Carlisle reported that in Hawaii we don’t have “the death penalty, but we have one of the lowest murder rates in the
country.” He continued, “The F.B.I. statistics for 1998 showed Hawaii’s homicide rate was the fifth lowest.”

Changing voters’ minds will not be easy: “Culture and religion play a role, as well as political vagaries in each state.”

Analysis (How does this source support the Point to Prove?):

This website provides arguments against capital punishment. The author suggests the death penalty is not a
deterrent of crime. Surprisingly, the homicide rates of several different states that do not have the death penalty are
actually lower than those with the death penalty. Hawaii is one of these states. There are quotes from judges,
governors, and the prosecuting attorney from Hawaii, Peter Carlisle. Carlisle makes a reference to the Bryan Uyesugi
case – where the defendant shot seven of his co-workers at the Xerox copy machine company.
There is specific evidence against the death penalty that indicates it is not a deterrent of crime. For example,
even without the death penalty, Hawaii has the fifth lowest homicide rate in the nation. This proves, at least to some
degree, that a state without the death penalty can thrive as a one of the safest states in the nation. Along these same
lines of reasoning, homicide rates in the states that do have the death penalty are still high, such as Texas and
California. This indicates that the death penalty doesn’t necessarily deter crime. To ground this in more specific data,
the NY Times found that during the last twenty years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48%
to 101% higher than states without the death penalty!
Culture, religion, politics, and the overall ideologies that dominate a community influence whether the death
penalty will remain law. In more conservative states, the death penalty is more prevalent. Interestingly, at Michigan’s
constitutional convention in the 1960s, some argued that those who were executed were predominantly poor and of
racial minorities. If valid, this is concerning as it indicates corruption in the system (a system that can end life). If the
death penalty remains, more efforts must be taken to ensure the quality and fairness of the justice system through
which they will be punished.

Work Cited (correct MLA format): https://www.citationmachine.net/mla/cite-a-journal

Bonner, Raymond and Ford Fessenden. “States with No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates.” The New York
Times. The New York Times. 22 September 2000. Web. 4 Jan 2004.

This is a reputable and reliable article because it was published in The New York Times Magazine and it only hires
the nation’s most highly trained and experienced writers.

Research Log #1 - Solutionary Project 2022

 Date: April 4, 2022
Name: Jaycie Simpliciano
Essential Question: What are the different methods that air can be filtered?
Three Points to Prove: #1: Masks have a filter efficiency which proves to be a staple in various environments.
#2: HEPA filters are efficient in filtering air pollution.
#3: Electrostatic filters are commonly used to filter and clean polluted air.

Point that this Source Proves: #1 Masks have a filter efficiency which proves to be a staple in various
environments.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468042720300117

Excerpts (These should provide insight into the Point to Prove):

- Early in the article, a study showed that “MDs provided about twice as much protection as homemade
masks. FFP2 masks provided adults with about 50 times as much protection as homemade masks, and
25 times as much protection as MDs.”
- Within the study, statistical data demonstrated the following: “The increase in protection for children
was less marked, about 10 times as much protection by FFP2 versus homemade masks and 6 times as
much protection as MDs.”
- According to a comparative experimental study (12), they found that “common household fabrics
(100% cotton T-shirt, scarf, tea towel, pillowcase, antimicrobial pillowcase, vacuum cleaner bag,
cotton mix, linen and silk) were tested with high concentrations of Bacteriophage MS2 and viral
aerosols (Bacillus atrophaeus) to assess their filtration effectiveness... Both masks significantly
reduced the number of microorganisms expelled by volunteers, although the MD was 3 times more
effectual in blocking transmission than the homemade mask.”

Analysis (How does this source support the Point to Prove?):

This website provides statistics from an experimental study to show the effectiveness of masks. Since
scientific studies aren’t credible sources in showing the undisputed filtration efficiency of varying masks,
results from this experimental study “showed that all types of masks reduced aerosol exposure, regardless of
the duration of wear or type of activity, but with a high degree of individual variation.”
In the hierarchy of evidence the scientific community considers RCTs more reliable because they
reduce spurious causality and bias (25-27). While there are consistent RCTs, evidence in healthcare workers
that wearing MDs and N95 respirators can reduce the risks of respiratory illnesses by at least 50% (28-31),
there is limited evidence from RCTs that homemade masks show some degree of protection. RCTs evidence
in the general population is more limited because it is challenging to carry out in practice and 356 A.
Santarsiero et al. there is high risk of non-compliance and cross-contamination (15, 32).
According to these studies the surgical mask was 2-3 times more effective in blocking transmission
than the homemade mask, and N95/FFP2 masks provided adults with about 6-50 times more protection than
home-made masks.

Work Cited (correct MLA format):

Santarsiero, A., et al. "Effectiveness of face masks for the population." Ann Ig 33.4 (2021): 347-359.

This is a reputable and reliable article because

... with the current ongoing pandemic, the study is relevant to data present recently and because it was an
experiment that included the scientific process, we know that it is a primary source.
 Research Log #2 - Solutionary Project 2022
Date: April 4, 2022
Name: Jaycie Simpliciano
Essential Question: What are the different methods that air can be filtered?
Three Points to Prove: #1: Masks have a filter efficiency which proves to be a staple in various environments.
#2: HEPA filters are efficient in filtering air pollution.
#3: Electrostatic filters are commonly used to filter and clean polluted air.

Point that this Source Proves: #1: Masks have a filter efficiency which proves to be a staple in various
environments.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753520303921

Excerpts (These should provide insight into the Point to Prove):

- Early in the article, the study introduces filteration and explains that “filtration efficiency examines
the masks ability to filter four different filtrates; particulates, bacterial, viral and NaCl (Rengasamy et
al., 2017). The face masks and respirators are tested for fluid (Borkow et al., 2010) and flame
(Rengasamy et al., 2018) resistance to ensure the materials are not susceptible to penetration, but
liquids and can withstand acceptable heath levels.”

- Within the study, different types of masks are observed and it showed that “disposable masks can be
made from a variety of polymers such as polyethylene, polycarbonate and polyester (Fadare and
Okoffo, 2020). These have three different layers with the outer layer being a waterproof nonwoven
fibre, a melt-blown middle layer that filters most of the particulates and a soft fibre inner layer. Mask
using filters are “fibrous”; they use layers of unwoven fibres to trap particulates. The size of the
particulate they can trap depends on the thickness of the fibres, the openings left between the fibres
and how many layers are present (McDiarmid et al., 2020).”

- According to an overview of the standards and testing the efficiency of the filtration of masks, they
found that “there are different methods to measure the filtration efficiency in the 42 CFR Part 84
certification protocol, such as the particulate filtration efficiency (PFE), bacterial filtration efficiency
(BFE), viral filtration efficiency (VFE), and NIOSH (Rengasamy et al., 2017, CDC, xxxx).

Analysis (How does this source support the Point to Prove?):

This website provides statistics regarding the efficiency of face masks and respirators in the COVID-
19 pandemic. When breaking down face masks and looking into the types of materials it is made of, the level
of filtration is detected which therefore explains which masks are suitable for certain environments, whether
it would be pollution, bacteria, or toxins. For example, disposable masks are made of either polyethylene,
polycarbonate, or polyester, and therefore it uses filters that are fibrous, which means that they use layers of
unwoven fibers to trap bacteria particles.
Based on the evidence from the study, every mask has a type of filtration within the mask itself. In
order to see which masks are suitable for different situations or environments, there are different ways to
measure its filtration efficiency which include either the filtration efficiency, bacterial filtration efficiency,
viral filtration efficiency, or through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Based on the
filter, the stronger the filter is the harsher environments it can with handle and provide as a safe protection
for individuals.
In the hierarchy of evidence from this scientifical study, the scientific community found that filtration
efficiency is determined by how effectively it can filter particulates, bacterial, viral, and sodium chloride.
Through the materials that various masks are made of and how close the fibers are together, the better or
worse it protects against these different factors which allows it to be suitable for various conditions.

Work Cited (correct MLA format):

Forouzandeh, Parnia, Kris O'Dowd, and Suresh C. Pillai. "Face masks and respirators in the fight against
the COVID-19 pandemic: An overview of the standards and testing methods." Safety science 133
(2021): 104995.

This is a reputable and reliable article because …

it is a primary source and I know this because it is an actual scientific study, so the information comes from first-hand.

Research Log #3 - Solutionary Project 2022

Date: April 4, 2022
Name: Jaycie Simpliciano
Essential Question: What are the different methods that air can be filtered?
Three Points to Prove: #1: Masks have a filter efficiency which proves to be a staple in various environments.
#2: HEPA filters are efficient in filtering air pollution.
#3: Electrostatic filters are commonly used to filter and clean polluted air.

Point that this Source Proves: #2: HEPA filters are efficient in filtering air pollution.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0194599820941838

Excerpts (These should provide insight into the Point to Prove):

- Early in the journal, the author introduces us to HEPA filters which stands for “high efficiency
particulate air filter” and explains that “HEPA filters are usually manufactured by pleating microfiber
glass or other fibrous media made with multiple layers of randomly arranged fibers, with diameters
ranging from 2 to 500 nm.4 As air flows through the filter and in between the fibers, airborne particles
—such as respiratory and aerosol droplets—will be trapped by 1 of 3 mechanisms: impaction,
interception, and diffusion.”

- During the scientific study performed to test the efficiency of HEPA filters, the author explains that
“to qualify as HEPA grade, filters must remove at least 99.97% of all particles that are 0.15 to 0.2
µm, for which HEPA filters are least effective. Thus, HEPA filters have at least 99.97% efficiency
for removing all particles, with even higher efficiencies for particles both larger and smaller than 0.15
µm. The interesting U-shaped efficiency curve of all HEPA filters, which has a minimum at 0.15 µm,
is due to the relative effectiveness of the 3 mechanisms of particle capture at various sizes.”
 - According to the scientific study, it proved that HEPA purifiers of various sizes and power will
remove particles at different rates. They explain that “the clean air delivery rate (CADR) is an
important performance parameter created by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers to
quantify the cubic feet per minute of air completely filtered of a particle by the air purifier. The
CADR is calculated as flow of air through the filtration system multiplied by the efficiency of
filtration of the particular particle. CADR score is specific to particle sizes and typically reported for
3 categories of particle sizes: pollen (2.5-80 µm), dust (1-30 µm), and tobacco smoke (0.1-1 µm).”

Analysis (How does this source support the Point to Prove?):

High efficiency particulate air filters, also known as HEPA filters are made of multiple layers of
randomly arranged fibers, meaning that any type of respiratory or aerosol droplets will be trapped through
either impaction, interception, or diffusion. Impaction is when a particle is big in size and is unable to adjust
quick enough to the changes in the streamline direction near the filter. Interception is when the filter triggers
actions either before or after an incoming request is processed. Lastly, diffusion is when the particles come in
contact with one of the HEPA’s filters fibers and becomes stuck to it in which they are impeded and delayed.
Based on the information from this study, HEPA filters are efficient in filtering air pollution, or any
particles in general whether it is respiratory or aerosol droplets. In order for a filter to be qualified as a HEPA
filter it must remove at least 99.97% of all particles that range in sizes from 0.15 to 0.2 µm. Therefore, we
can come to the conclusion that these filters are effective in their role for these certain conditions as the
requirements for it be called a HEPA filters ensures its quality.
HEPA filters range in different sizes meaning that they vary in strengths at which they remove
particles. In other words, depending on the size of the filter, they will remove particles at different rates. The
rate at which a HEPA filter can remove particles is by using the clean air delivery rate, also known as
CADR. This categorizes the size of particles that a specific HEPA filter can efficiently filter whether it be a
pollen size (2.5-80 µm), dust size (1-30 µm), or tobacco smoke size(0.1-1 µm)

Work Cited (correct MLA format):

Christopherson, David A., et al. "High-efficiency particulate air filters in the era of COVID-19: function
and efficacy." Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery 163.6 (2020): 1153-1155.

This is a reputable and reliable article because…

It is written by a Pub website meaning that the article is written by individuals with a PhD or MD degree.

Research Log #4 - Solutionary Project 2022

Date: April 4, 2022
Name: Jaycie Simpliciano
Essential Question: What are the different methods that air can be filtered?
Three Points to Prove: #1: Masks have a filter efficiency which proves to be a staple in various environments.
#2: HEPA filters are efficient in filtering air pollution.
#3: Electrostatic filters are commonly used to filter and clean polluted air.

Point that this Source Proves: #2: HEPA filters are efficient in filtering air pollution.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2012.00787.x

Excerpts (These should provide insight into the Point to Prove):

- Early in the article, the author introduces us to high efficiency particulate air filters and explains that
“HEPA filters are advantageous because they are expected to capture at least 99.9% of bacteria (Bull,
2008), are aboard aircraft for months, and may collect particles from on the order of 107m3 of air
during their typical 5000-h use.”

- Within the article, they mention a study that took place on an aircraft in which they tested the
effectiveness of HEPA filters. They found the efficiency of these filters by stating that “in contrast,
the current study detected 3763 OTU from 606 bacterial subfamilies representing 41 phyla. This
greater diversity is probably due to the use of HEPA filters. The HEPA filters is capable of
identifying up to 70-fold more bacterial taxa than traditional cloning methods (La Duc et al., 2009)
and can detect bacteria that represent as little as 0.01% of a community (Brodie et al., 2007).”

- Towards the end of the article, the study “demonstrates that molecular analyses of aircraft HEPA
filters provide a way to deeply characterize bacteria in aircraft air. Molecular analyses of aircraft
HEPA filters could also be used after an outbreak has occurred to investigate the source of the
infectious organism; a similar use has recently been proposed for building ventilation filters
(Ackelsberg et al., 2011).”

Analysis (How does this source support the Point to Prove?):

This website provides an analysis of a scientific experiment that was done to test bacteria-based
communities in aircrafts with high efficiency particulate air filters which are assessed by PhyloChips. HEPA
filters are efficient in filtering at least 99.9% of bacteria, and therefore is a trusted method to filter air. HEPA
filters are used for a wide variety of purposes, and when looking at the study and at the data collected from
aircrafts, we found that HEPA filters work well to detect and identify bacteria.
Based on the information from the study, we find that HEPA filters are more accurate and precise
when detecting bacteria, therefore they provide as a good method to filter air. As you can see, HEPA filters
can detect bacteria that is so rare, or hard to find, for example representing bacteria that is present in as little
as 0.01% of a community. Throughout the study, it mentioned that HEPA filters can collect bacteria of all
sorts and are more efficient that traditional cloning methods.
HEPA filters is not only effective in filtering air in general, but could be used to filter out bacteria.
When connecting this knowledge to the real world, regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, HEPA filters have not
been used to take on the pandemic, however it shouldn’t be completely disregarded, and should be
considered as another method to filter out air. HEPA filters could be successful as it can be used to
investigate the source of the infectious organism instead of just filtering the air that comes its way.

Work Cited (correct MLA format):

Korves, T. M., et al. "Bacterial communities in commercial aircraft high‐efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filters assessed by PhyloChip analysis." Indoor air 23.1 (2013): 50-61.

This is a reputable and reliable article because

It comes from a primary source and I know this because it is a scientific study.
 Research Log #5 - Solutionary Project 2022
Date: April 4, 2022
Name: Jaycie Simpliciano
Essential Question: What are the different methods that air can be filtered?
Three Points to Prove: #1: Masks have a filter efficiency which proves to be a staple in various environments.
#2: HEPA filters are efficient in filtering air pollution.
#3: Electrostatic filters are commonly used to filter and clean polluted air.

Point that this Source Proves: #3: Electrostatic filters are commonly used to filter and clean polluted air.

Excerpts (These should provide insight into the Point to Prove):

- The article introduces us to electrostatic filters and found that the “significant differences in removal
kinetics were found according to the size of airborne particles. The air cleaner completely removed
larger particles between 10-12.5 µm within 30 minutes. The CADRs were particle size-dependent
and the difference between the CADRs with and without the air cleaner operation dramatically
increased as the size of the particles were larger. Particles larger than 15 µm settled down so rapidly
that they could not be accurately measured using the dust spectrometer.”

- When analyzing the results from the experiment it was that “HDM airborne particles between the size
ranges of 10.0-12.5, 5.0-6.5, and 2.0-2.5 µm were rapidly removed by the split electrostatic and fine
mesh mechanical air cleaner. The cleaner removed airborne HDM particles (size 2-12.5 µm) in the
chamber 11.4 ± 2.9 fold (cleaner operating for 15 minutes), 5.4 ± 0.7 fold (cleaner operational for 30
minutes), and 2.4 ± 0.2 fold (cleaner operating for 60 minutes) more than particle removal by natural
settling.”

- Within the study they found that “by running the cleaner for 30 minutes, 79.9 ± 2.6% of HDM
particles (2-12 µm) were removed compared to the 9.7 ± 5.0% of HDM particles removed by natural
settling. Approximately 64.3% of the HDM particles (size 2-12.5 µm) were still airborne 60 minutes
after the concentration of the HDM particles, sprayed from the particle feeder; use of the air cleaner
reduced this value to 10%.”

- After running the scientific experiment, it was concluded that “the air cleaner efficiently removed
airborne HDM particles. The air cleaner removed airborne HDM particles (size 2-12.5 µm) 11.4 ±
2.9 fold (cleaner operating for 15 minutes), 5.4 ± 0.7 fold (cleaner operating for 30 minutes), and 2.4
± 0.2 fold (cleaner operating for 60 minutes) more than the removal of HDM particles by natural
settle down. Removal kinetics differed according to the particle size of the airborne particles. The air
cleaner decreased the concentration of Der f 1 in the extraction of airborne particles collected on the
air sampling filter by 60.3%.”

Analysis (How does this source support the Point to Prove?):

This source is a scientific study done to test the filtration dependency of an electrostatic fibrous filter.
An electrostatic filtration is an electronic air filter that uses static electricity to give particles a positive
charge as they enter the filter, which eventually results in the particles getting trapped. Electrostatic filters
are an efficient method to filter polluted air as it can efficiently and quickly remove large particles. When re-
analyzing the study, it is obvious to see that this filter works well to remove airborne particles of any
reasonable size.
Electrostatic filters are more efficient then other fibrous filters as shown from the statistics that the
airborne particles reduced the amount of particles by 10%. Although electrostatic filters are mainly for the
purpose of dust, it is still effective when filtering polluted air as dust and air has the same size particles,
therefore making them compatible between each other. From this study, we can conclude that electrostatic
filters are a staple in society and can work effectively and efficiently.
When applying this data to the real world, regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, it is hard to say if
electrostatic filters would be an efficient method to filter bacteria. As it is used for dust, bacteria and dust are
two totally different particles and since an electrostatic air filter releases the positive charge as the air
continues to travel through the layers of filters. In other words, using electricity to trap bacteria, is a lot
different from using electricity methods to trap dust particles.

Work Cited (correct MLA format):

Agrawal, Santosh Rani, et al. "Effect of an air cleaner with electrostatic filter on the removal of airborne
house dust mite allergens." Yonsei medical journal 51.6 (2010): 918-923.

This is a reputable and reliable article because…

It is a primary source since it is an actual scientific study that has been done.

Research Log #6 - Solutionary Project 2022

Date: April 4, 2022
Name: Jaycie Simpliciano
Essential Question: What are the different methods that air can be filtered?
Three Points to Prove: #1: Masks have a filter efficiency which proves to be a staple in various environments.
#2: HEPA filters are efficient in filtering air pollution.
#3: Electrostatic filters are commonly used to filter and clean polluted air.

Point that this Source Proves:

#3: Electrostatic filters are commonly used to filter and clean polluted air.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/02786826.2017.1331293?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Excerpts (These should provide insight into the Point to Prove):

- When analyzing the study which tested the filtration efficiency of an electrostatic fibrous filter, “the
results show that the efficiency of the electrostatic fibrous filter increased with increasing exposure
levels. The filter efficiency varies from 45% to 80% depending on the particle concentrations and
particle sizes including ultrafine particles.”

- When studying filtration dependency on ultrafine particle exposure and composition, the author states
that “the dendrites themselves contribute in capturing the other particles. Increasing exposure will
result in increasing the number of the dendrites because of the static charging and consequently
 increasing the efficiency. Static electrical charging of dendrites will spread out the branches,
increasing capture.”

- Towards the end of the experimental study, the author states that “electrostatic fibrous filters capture
particles efficiently, with a low pressure drop. Therefore, they have applications in building
ventilation systems.”

Analysis (How does this source support the Point to Prove?):

This source talks about filtration efficiency of fibrous filters such as the electrostatic fibrous filter.
The article states that it describes a study to investigate the relationship between ultrafine particle
concentrations and removal efficiencies for electrostatic fibrous filter in a laboratory environment. The
experiment was ran in a controlled environment, that being a laboratory environment where it used two
different particle counters which included a Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer and a NanoTracer.
Throughout this article we learned that electrostatic filter efficiency in removing any sort of particle
is directly proportional to the exposure. In other words, by decreasing the exposure, it will remove particles,
and vise versa, by increasing the exposure, it will not increase the particles, but instead no particles would be
removed, or not as much particles would be removed. We also learned that the efficiency of the electrostatic
fibrous filter changes with the varying exposures to particles.
This source effectively supports the idea that electrostatic filters are commonly used to filter and
clean polluted air. This is because these filters are successful at adapting. As mentioned, the efficiency of the
electrostatic filter changes with different exposures to particles. In other words, depending on the type of
particle that tries to pass through the filter will vary the efficiency. Therefore, although the electrostatic filter
won’t be suitable for all types of particles, it is efficient in filtering dust particles, which is still filtering air.

Work Cited (correct MLA format):

Ardkapan, Siamak R., et al. "Filtration efficiency of an electrostatic fibrous filter: Studying filtration
dependency on ultrafine particle exposure and composition." Journal of Aerosol Science 72 (2014):
14-20.

This is a reputable and reliable article because

It is another primary source since it is a actual experimental study and not just a review.