Abdur-Rafiq Alim

Professor Pamela Stemberg

4/10/22

ENG 202 202A

Rhetorical analysis of lab report

In this rhetorical analysis, two lab reports on the contamination of perfluorinated substance on drinking water. But the lab reports differ as the first one focus on conducting a new treatment on filtrating the substance, the second lab report aims is to show the link between the substance and the health and reproductive damage. The writings of those two reports will be analyzed based on the elements of lab reports: title, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and references.

Title 

The title of the first lab report is “Dual-functional phosphorene nanocomposite membranes for the treatment of perfluorinated water: an investigation of perfluorooctanoic acid removal via filtration combined with ultraviolet irradiation or oxygenation”. I’m aware it’s a bit too long for a title but it does give an idea of what the article is about. The second lab report’s title is “Reducing exposure to high levels of perfluorinated compounds in drinking water improves reproductive outcomes: evidence from an intervention in Minnesota”. Just like first one it’s lengthy but it at least gives the idea of what is in the report. While for both titles used some unfamiliar word, more so for the first one, they were written in a way that could readings get the concept of what it is saying. Both titles give a good idea of what they are about.

Abstract 

In the first lab report, within the abstract, the question isn’t as clear as one would hope to see, but the answer (solution) and the problem are addressed. It starts off with how effective the nanomaterial is in usefulness, then leads to why the research maybe needed and the problem itself: safe and effective means of removing per- and polyfluorinated chemicals (PFAS) from drinking water. Normal forms of filtration are ineffective in filtrating PFAS, it is because they are very small and persistent, resulting in needing better way of removing PFAS. The abstract gives a good hint into what to expect so I think it’s a good abstract.

The abstract of the second lab report addresses PFAS as well. But this one’s studies are towards how PFAS is linked to health problem, specifically reproduction. The abstract puts pieces of each of the structures of the lab report in it, the background of how PFAS effects our health, methods towards testing different filtrations, results from lab, PFAS link to reproductive problems, and the conclusion of it all. This abstract gives a good insight of what each section with contain. 

Introduction 

The first lab introduction goes into the details towards the filtration method. Goes into detail of graphene, phosphorus, what makes the nanomaterial useful, it describes the properties of phosphorene, and other chemicals that will be use. The authors wrote about the PFAS, they wrote about what it is, and how it affects those who had long terms effects from drinking water that had contained PFAS, its toxicity, and other details. There isn’t a clear in the introduction though, it does more to display the groundwork than persuade the ready why the substance and stuff is worth using.

The introduction of the second lab, is more of a background than an introduction. The aim of the studies isn’t revealed until around the end, and prior authors go into the harmfulness of PFAS, PFOS, and other substances, the places that are effect and places that tested the effects of their treatments in filtration. While it does address the problem, the answer to said problem isn’t clear. So, it does lose point in being an introduction, it does give a fair idea on what to expect.

Materials and Method 

The authors in the first lab report display the materials and methods in sections. They put the materials like the perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and put where they were purchased, the PFOA being purchased from Sigma Aldrich. Each step in the method was sectioned. They first did preparation of phosphorene by chemically exfoliating black phosphorus, then the sulfonation of Poly Ether Ether Ketone, they studied the water flux, then determined the water interaction parameter of the membranes, then removed the membranes and treated them to process the average concentrations of PFOA, analyzed the membrane PFOA Adsorption, measured the ion fluoride concentration, and so on till the data was compiled. The methods were well described and somewhat clear in the process. 

In the second lab report, the material isn’t put out well, it could be said that the data the authors could be the materials used but that’s debatable. The methods of the studies are going over different kinds of data; birth records, study population at an individual-level, exposure to PFAS at certain places like Oakdale and using them as testing grounds, viewing the outcomes, and compiling the statistics. They were clear, descriptive, and section to their own column. The authors made it so readers who weren’t familiar with the studies could understand. 

Results 

The results for the first lab report were sectioned, with each one being detailed with the data. The authors wrote the studies of the PFOA filtration studies, the hydrophobicity, adsorbed PFOA removal, membrane morphology, and the Proposed reaction pathway based on literature studies. Based on the studies the result did good with filtering and repealing the PFAS and PFOA, making the studies a success, giving reason to use this filtration system. 

The authors of the second lab report display multiply factors when consulting the effects of long-term exposure to the substances. Taking in the age group, race, place of origin, and so on. The author estimated that the substances in the lab report are link to reproduction problems. The result was long but was needed to draw out the results from the data.

Discussion 

The discussion in the first lab report was placed with the results. It detailed hoe effective in the filtration. The problem was that since the discussion is tied in with the results it hard to tell which was the discussion and which was the results but all and all, the authors put it out in details. 

Unlike the first lab report, the authors in the second lab report go long into the discussion. They discuss the effects, while mild, is still harmful, that it effects the general population, how certain places are taken into factor, and wrote the limitation of their studies like that drinking water isn’t the only pathway for PFAS.  

Conclusions 

In the first lab report, it’s summaries the previous point in the lab report. It discusses the success of the filtration treatment, the methods of said filtration, the data, and other points said in the lab report. The conclusion wasn’t long, it got the points out, and was a good summary. 

The conclusion of the second lab report was short, mainly showing the results of their studies. The authors concluded that the substances negatively affect our health like to our reproduction system, and places like Oakdale that had long exposure have an increase in birth related problems. But the conclusion doesn’t summarize the previous parts of the lab report in a noticeable way and so isn’t a strong way to end.

References

The references and citation in both lab report is accurate and well written. There is no clear idea of how they were organized in both lab reports.

Conclusion.

The lab reports of both were well informative and descriptive. They both provided good details into their studies, explaining the processes and how they worked so those unfamiliar with the context can learn while reading the reports. While each had their own aim in ties with perfluorinated substances and others in drinking water, the first talking about a form of filtration and the other how the substances linked to health problems. They both address the issue of certain contaminates in the drinking water and it needing to be addressed. The authors made good points towards the problem; the audience might find it somewhat boring but will get the detail in full.

Reference:

Eke, Joyner, Banks, Lillian, Mottaleb, M. Abdul, Morris, Andrew J, Tsyusko, Olga V, Escobar, Isabel C. (Jan, 2021). Dual-Functional Phosphorene Nanocomposite Membranes for the Treatment of Perfluorinated Water: An Investigation of Perfluorooctanoic Acid Removal via Filtration Combined with Ultraviolet Irradiation or Oxygenation. Membranes. Jan2021, Vol. 11 Issue 1, p18. 1p. 

Waterfield, Gina, Rogers, Martha, Grandjean, Philippe, Auffhammer, Maximilian, Sunding, David. (4/22/2020). Reducing exposure to high levels of perfluorinated compounds in drinking water improves reproductive outcomes: evidence from an intervention in Minnesota. Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source. 4/22/2020, Vol. 19 Issue 1, p1-11. 11p. 1 Chart, 3 Graphs. 

Self-reflection 

While this task has been tiring, it was informative, and I learn a few things. The lab reports helped with being aware of the type of contamination that are in our water supply, and the treatment being used for the contaminates. The assignment was very tiring though, having to decide with two lab reports that would interest me, reading through the report, which had terms that I’m not familiar with and needed to reread and decipher what it meant, and having to summaries it for my analysis wasn’t exactly fun. Though even through the work wore me out, I did learn a few things, the reports help with my understand of the elements of labs so some good came from this. The only experience I have in writing lab reports are in my chemistry class and those aren’t as descripted as the two I used for this assignment. All and all I’ve learned a few things during this assignment.