Ailey Jhae U. Alvarez Ms. Maisie R.

Aviñante
Grade 11 - STEM 1 April 29, 2024

PRACTICAL RESEARCH 1
Research Hypothesis

I. Complete the statement below about citations using the pool of words given. After, read the
statement completely.

Guide Questions:

1.Why is it important for a hypothesis to be based on existing literature?

A hypothesis should not be a mere guess. Instead, it should be grounded in existing

theories and knowledge. By reviewing relevant literature, researchers gain insights
into the topic, understand previous findings, and identify gaps or unanswered
questions. This informed perspective allows them to formulate hypotheses that
built upon existing understanding. Moreover, when a hypothesis is based on
existing literature, researchers can design experiments or collect data that directly
address the proposed relationship between variables. Also, by referring to it,
researchers can avoid duplicating studies that have already been conducted.
Conversely, if literature contradicts a hypothesis, researchers can modify their
approach or explore alternative explanations. In short, using literatures as basis
ensures that investigations and hypotheses are purposeful, relevant, and aligned
with current understanding.
 Ailey Jhae U. Alvarez Ms. Maisie R. Aviñante
Grade 11 - STEM 1 April 29, 2024

PRACTICAL RESEARCH 1
Research Hypothesis

2. Why must a hypothesis be empirically testable?

A hypothesis must be empirically testable for the researchers to prove its validity.
This means that the hypothesis can be confirmed or disproved through testing, data
collection, experience, or experimentation. A testable hypothesis allows
researchers to apply the scientific method effectively. By formulating hypotheses
that can be tested, scientists ensure that their investigations are thorough and
systematic. In addition, a testable hypothesis ensures that others can reproduce the
results. When different researchers conduct similar experiments based on the same
hypothesis, they should arrive at consistent outcomes. Reproducibility strengthens
the validity of scientific findings. To cut it short, empirically testable hypothesis are
essential for meaningful research, as they allow for validation and contribute
significantly to scientific progress.

3. How does the hypothesis contribute to the overall research process?

The hypothesis provides a clear direction for research. It outlines the specific
relationship between variables that the study aims to investigate. Without a
hypothesis, researchers might wander aimlessly or collect irrelevant data. The
hypothesis guides decisions about data collection, sample size, and measurement
techniques. Additionally, it provides context for interpreting results. Whether the
findings confirm or refute the hypothesis, they contribute to scientific knowledge.
Researchers can discuss implications and propose future studies based on the
outcomes. In summary, the hypothesis serves as a compass, steering research
efforts toward meaningful discoveries and contributing to the advancement of
knowledge.

II. Identify the type of hypothesis exemplified by the given statements. Write NULL if the
statement pertains to the null hypothesis; otherwise, write ALTERNATIVE if it pertains to
the alternative hypothesis.
Ailey Jhae U. Alvarez Ms. Maisie R. Aviñante
Grade 11 - STEM 1 April 29, 2024

PRACTICAL RESEARCH 1
Research Hypothesis
Grade and Section: 11-STEM 1
Group no. 8
Leader: Ailey Jhae U. Alvarez
Members: Precious Lindsay Carpio
Precious Emerald C. Chavez
Tyrone Jikaine T. Ladanan
Jewel Alexxa L. Maca

PRACTICAL RESEARCH 1
Research Hypothesis

Create Your Research Hypothesis: Using the previous discussion, read your statement of the
problem and state your null and alternative hypothesis in a clear and concise sentence. Use the
symbol for null and alternative to represent each hypothesis formulated. Be guided by the
rubric in citing sources relevant to your study.
Statement of the Problem and Hypothesis

H0:

1.1 There is no significant rating for ChloroPernaPlast in terms of transparency.

1.2 There is no significant rating for ChloroPernaPlast in terms of color.
1.3 There is no significant rating for ChloroPernaPlast in terms of texture.

Ha:

1.1 There is a significant rating for ChloroPernaPlast in terms of transparency.

1.2 There is a significant for ChloroPernaPlast in terms of color.
1.3 There is a significant for ChloroPernaPlast in terms of texture.
H0:

2a. There is no significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast without the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of biodegradability.

2b1. There is no significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast without the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of water solubility.

2b2. There is no significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast without the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of acetic acid solubility.

2c. There is no significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast without the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of tensile strength.

2d. There is no significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast without the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of water absorbency.

2e. There is no significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast without the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of thermal conductivity.

2f. There is no significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast without the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of heat resistance.

Ha:

2a. There is a significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast without the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of biodegradability.

2b1. There is a significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast without the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of water solubility.

2b2. There is a significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast without the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of acetic acid solubility.

2c. There is a significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast without the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of tensile strength.

2d. There is a significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast without the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of water absorbency.

2e. There is a significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast without the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of thermal conductivity.
2f. There is no significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast without the incorporation of
mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of heat resistance.

H0:

3a. There is no significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast with the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of biodegradability.

3b. There is no significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast with the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of water solubility.

3b1. There is no significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast with the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of acetic acid solubility.

3b2. There is no significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast with the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of tensile strength.

3c. There is no significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast with the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of water absorbency.

3d. There is no significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast with the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of thermal conductivity.
3e. There is no significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast with the incorporation of
mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of heat resistance.

3f. There is no significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast with the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of heat resistance.

Ha:

3a. There is a significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast with the incorporation of mussel

shells as a bioadditive in terms of biodegradability.

3b. There is a significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast with the incorporation of mussel

shells as a bioadditive in terms of water solubility.

3b1. There is a significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast with the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of acetic acid solubility.

3b2. There is a significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast with the incorporation of

mussel shells as a bioadditive in terms of tensile strength.

3c. There is a significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast with the incorporation of mussel

shells as a bioadditive in terms of water absorbency.

3d. There is a significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast with the incorporation of mussel

shells as a bioadditive in terms of thermal conductivity.

3e. There is a significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast with the incorporation of mussel

shells as a bioadditive in terms of heat resistance.

3f. There is a significant measurement of ChloroPernaPlast with the incorporation of mussel

shells as a bioadditive in terms of heat resistance.
H0:

4a. There is no significant difference between the ChloroPernaPlast with mussel shells as a
bioadditive and ChloroPernaPlast without mussel shells as bioadditive in terms of
biodegradability.

4b1. There is no significant difference between the ChloroPernaPlast with mussel shells as a
bioadditive and ChloroPernaPlast without mussel shells as bioadditive in terms of water
solubility.

4b2. There is no significant difference between the ChloroPernaPlast with mussel shells as a
bioadditive and ChloroPernaPlast without mussel shells as bioadditive in terms of acetic acid
solubility.

4c. There is no significant difference between the ChloroPernaPlast with mussel shells as a
bioadditive and ChloroPernaPlast without mussel shells as bioadditive in terms of tensile
strength.

4d. There is no significant difference between the ChloroPernaPlast with mussel shells as a
bioadditive and ChloroPernaPlast without mussel shells as bioadditive in terms of water
absorbency.
4e. There is no significant difference between the ChloroPernaPlast with mussel shells as a
bioadditive and ChloroPernaPlast without mussel shells as bioadditive in terms of thermal
conductivity.

4f. There is no significant difference between the ChloroPernaPlast with mussel shells as a
bioadditive and ChloroPernaPlast without mussel shells as bioadditive in terms of heat
resistance.

Ha:

4a. There is a significant difference between the ChloroPernaPlast with mussel shells as a
bioadditive and ChloroPernaPlast without mussel shells as bioadditive in terms of
biodegradability.

4b1. There is a significant difference between the ChloroPernaPlast with mussel shells as a
bioadditive and ChloroPernaPlast without mussel shells as bioadditive in terms of water
solubility.

4b2. There is a significant difference between the ChloroPernaPlast with mussel shells as a
bioadditive and ChloroPernaPlast without mussel shells as bioadditive in terms of acetic acid
solubility.

4c. There is a significant difference between the ChloroPernaPlast with mussel shells as a
bioadditive and ChloroPernaPlast without mussel shells as bioadditive in terms of tensile
strength.

4d. There is a significant difference between the ChloroPernaPlast with mussel shells as a
bioadditive and ChloroPernaPlast without mussel shells as bioadditive in terms of water
absorbency.

4e. There is a significant difference between the ChloroPernaPlast with mussel shells as a
bioadditive and ChloroPernaPlast without mussel shells as bioadditive in terms of thermal
conductivity.

4f. There is a significant difference between the ChloroPernaPlast with mussel shells as a
bioadditive and ChloroPernaPlast without mussel shells as bioadditive in terms of heat
resistance.
References/Basis of Hypothesis

The primary goal of bio-based plastics is to materialize from renewable resources and introduce

them to the market as an eco-friendly and sustainable option compared to traditional-use plastics
(Ruggero et al., 2019). When comparing bioplastics to traditional plastics, the main point of interest
lies in biodegradability. According to Piras et al. (2022), bio-based plastics are expected to degrade
when exposed to sunlight or through fragmentation induced by living organisms that release

extracellular enzymes, whether in the presence or absence of oxygen. As per the instructions set by the
American Society for Testing and Materials, bio-based plastic is "a plastic containing organic carbon
of renewable origin, living in a natural environment in equilibrium with the atmosphere," while
biodegradable plastic is "a degradable plastic in which the degradation results from the action of
naturally occurring microorganisms." In agreement with this, the European Bioplastics Association
recognizes that bioplastics can either be bio-based, biodegradable, or both. Based on a study by Chia
et al. (2020), the enzymes found in microalgae cause the chemical bonds in plastic polymers to weaken,
aiding in the biodegradation of plastic waste. Additionally, starch is also found as one of the
compounds of algae biomass that can develop biodegradable plastics. Considering these factors,
utilizing algae has shown great potential to become a promising source for producing bio-based and

biodegradable plastics.

As mentioned by Oluwasina et al. (2021), a bioplastic can only be considered good if it can
withstand humid conditions for a few hours. However, its quality varies due to exposure to different
moisture levels. Hence, assessing the water solubility of bioplastics is crucial. On the other hand,
despite the favorable characteristics of bioplastics, they encounter several issues, including poor
mechanical properties and high moisture content levels. To address these issues and enhance a
bioplastic's properties, including fillers such as calcium carbonate, is essential. Incorporating calcium

carbonate as a filler has the potential to enhance the strength, durability, and working properties of
bioplastics (Abidin et al., 2021). According to Nigam et al. (2021), raising the percentage of
plasticizers in the films affected their water solubility. Introducing 20% more plasticizer resulted in a
minor increase in the film's solubility in water, whereas films formulated with 30%, 40%, and 50%
plasticizer exhibited a gradual rise in water solubility.
References/Basis of Hypothesis
In addition to the bioplastic's water solubility, its tensile strength is also a key characteristic to

consider. The tensile strengths of bioplastics derived from microalgae can vary depending on the strain
of microalgae utilized, the polymerization procedure, and any additives incorporated in their
formulation (A & Kishore, 2024). Moreover, Chia et al. (2020) mentioned that in a study by Shi et al.,
it showed that the mechanical properties of an algae-based bioplastic were comparable to those of

plastic films despite their low tensile strength. Consequently, calcium carbonate is added to the
bioplastic to increase its stiffness and strength. When 0.7% to 1.0% calcium carbonate was added, the
bioplastic exhibited longer elasticity than without the calcium carbonate. The reason for this is that
calcium carbonate is a hygroscopic compound, therefore increasing the bioplastic's density and
stretching extent (Nuriyah et al., 2019).

According to Peelman et al. (2015), poor heat resistance may result in polymer degradation
during processing. Hence, using an additive to improve the bioplastic's low heat resistance is necessary
(Amatullah et al., 2023). That is why adding fillers such as calcium carbonate is highly beneficial as it
can not only increase tensile strength but also enhance heat resistance (Syafri et al., 2017).

Incorporating these additives or fillers is a common strategy employed to improve bioplastic thermal
stability. By doing so, it opens new doors for utilization and paves the way for bioplastic to be
introduced to the market as a replacement for conventional plastics (Zhao et al., 2023).