|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
After having conducted this experiment, I hope to learn more about the
way that evergreen trees behave when subjected to flame. I also hope to
gain the knowledge of which flame-retardant chemical will best prevent
the combustion of the evergreen trees. I believe that the INSPECTA-SHIELD
PLUS® flame-retardant chemical will best prevent the combustion of
the tree limbs. This experiment will consist of several sets of tests.
One of the tests will be a test of the constant group, this is the group
without any chemicals. The next test group is one in which the tree limbs
have been subjected to flame-retardant chemicals. The last group is one
in which the evergreen tree limbs have been subjected to flame-retardant
chemicals and tree preserving chemicals. I will make sure that each tree
limbs is cut on the same day and that they are kept in water for the same
amount of time. In this experiment I will measure if the tree limb actually
combusts or not. I will do this by measuring at least 5 centimeters
up from the tip of the Bunsen burner, which is where the tree limb will
be. The tree limb will be subjected to the flame for 10 seconds and then
taken out of the flame. After it is taken out, I will wait for 5 seconds
and if the tree limb is still on fire then it has combusted.
I concluded that part of my hypothesis was correct, The INSPECTA-SHIELD
PLUS was the best prevention of combustion.
Western Red Cedar |
The purpose of this experiment is to test the effectiveness of commercial flame-retardant chemicals on various species of evergreen trees. Every year on average, 11 people lose their life and 93 people are injured due to household fires that are caused by the combustion of Christmas trees. The results of this experiment may be useful in preventing the combustion of evergreen trees that serve their purpose as household Christmas trees. In addition, the results of this experiment could also be useful in preventing forest fires in areas where evergreen trees are dominant. If these results could aid in any one of these two areas, then they could ultimately save lives, and therefor fulfill their purpose.
I believe that the INSPECTA-SHIELD PLUS® flame retardant will best
prevent the combustion of the various species of evergreen trees.
I base this statement on the research I have done, including comparison
of each flame retardant and its price. I went to the places of business
where the flame-retardant chemicals were sold and I talked to each of the
retailers about their product. I basically got the same response
from each of them. They all established the fact that their product should
be very effective in the prevention of combustion of the evergreen trees.
The retailer of the INSPECTA-SHIELD PLUS® was a little more confident
with his product. He said that if the product did not work that I
should come back and talk to him about it. These are the grounds on which
I base my hypothesis.
Also, I believe that the test group of evergreens that have, in addition,
been subjected to the tree preserving chemicals will have a higher flammability
rate. The reason that I believe this is because of the printed matter
on the backside of the tree preserving chemical bottle. The print
stated that the product was in fact flammable. I did take into consideration
that the tree limbs would soak up the preserving chemicals, but I persistently
arrived at the illation stated above because I decided that in any form,
the preserving chemicals would still be present. The fact that the flammable
chemicals were still present reduces the level of preventing combustion
of the evergreen trees.
The experiment that I will be conducting will determine the effects of
flame retardant-chemicals on various species of evergreen trees.
I will be testing five different species of evergreen trees, which are
found in the front area of my yard. The five species of evergreen
trees are Thuja Plicata, Pinacae, Abies Alba, Pseudotsuga Menzieii, and
Picea Pungens. I will be applying three different flame-retardant chemicals
to each species of tree. The three flame-retardant chemicals are DO IT
YOURSELF®, FYREX® FLEXIBLE FYREX®, and INSPECTA-SHIELD PLUS®.
In addition to applying flame-retardant chemicals, a separate test group
will also be subjected to tree preserving chemicals. My control group will
be limbs from each individual evergreen tree that have not been subjected
to any chemicals whatsoever.
The following
items will act as my constants:
- All limbs will
be put in exactly 3.785L (1gal) of water.
- Every limb will
be cut from the tree on the same day.
- Each limb will
be stored in an 18.925L (5gal) bucket.
- Each test group
that will be subjected to a tree preserving chemical will be subjected
to the same amount (8oz[1cup])
- Every flame-retardant
chemical will be applied in the same manner, by being sprayed on.
- Every one of
the limbs will be in water for the same amount of days.
- Every bucket
full of limbs will be in the same storage area.
- Each limb will
be taken out of water on the same day.
- Every limb will
be out of water for the same amount of days.
- Each limb will
be put into the water at the same time.
- Every limb will
be at least 60 centimeters (2 feet) in length.
- Each limb will
be subjected to the same Bunsen burner.
- Every limb will
be clamped with the same clamp.
- Each limb will
have the same amount of tests performed on it (3 tests).
- Every limb will
be bound with the same rope.
- Each limb will
be outside for the same amount of time.
- Every limb will
be indoors for the same amount of time.
- Each limb
will be burned in the same manner.
This experiment will include fifteen total test groups, three for each
tree (5 trees), and will also include two manipulated variables.
The five different trees are Thuja Plicata, Pinaceae, Abies Alba, Pseudotsuga
Menzieii, and Picea Pungens. The manipulated variables are the flame-retardant
chemicals and the tree-preserving chemicals. Each tree will have three
test groups, one will be the constant (no chemicals added), the next will
be the group that has three different flame-retardant chemicals applied,
and then the third group that has flame-retardant chemicals and tree preserving
chemicals applied.
In this experiment I will measure if the tree limb actually combusts or
not. I will do this by measuring at least 5 centimeters up from the
tip of the Bunsen burner, which is where the tree limb will be. Then, I
will clamp the tree limb tightly and subject it to the flame. The tree
limb will be subjected to the flame for 10 seconds and then taken out of
the flame. After it is taken out, I will wait for 5 seconds and if the
tree limb is still on fire then it has combusted.
QuantityItem
2, 16oz
Bottles of “Do it Yourself” spay on Flame Retardant. Each cost
$2.50. Bottles were white with green print and had an illustration
of an Evergreen tree. They came with a spray nozzle attached.
1, 16oz
Bottle of INSPECTA-SHIELD PLUS® Flame retardant. Cost
$19.95 per bottle, was white with orange print, the cap was
a screw-on but it came with a spray nozzle.
1 453.59g
Bag of Fyrex®, Flexible Fyrex® Flame retardant. Cost $3.95
The white granular solid was in a clear plastic bag with a red seal
at the top.
1
Spray bottle to put the soluble flame retardant in. Bottle was
Purple and was triangular in shape.
1
Bunsen burner, borrowed from designated supervisor, metal and
silver in color.
1
Flint striker to light Bunsen burner, borrowed from designated
supervisor. Metal, silver in color
1 Stopwatch, black with gray buttons that clicked, all print was white.
1
Rubber tube connecting the methane gas to the Bunsen burner. Tube
was black in color with a grain texture.
1, 16oz
Spray bottle filled with water. Clear in color with a company
logo on the front.
1
Fire extinguisher From ABC® Fire Company (borrowed) Red in
color with ABC® logo on the front of it.
1
Standard size display board to block wind. Made from wood, varnish
was applied previous. The coloring was an intense yellow.
1 Ring stand base, rusty blue in color, made of metal
1 Ring stand pole, silver in color, made of metal
1
Ring stand clamp, silver, gold, and blue in color. 3 places to tighten
and adjust clamp covering was plastic and rusty blue in color.
15, 18.925L
Buckets, white in color, with metal handles and number labels
on them.
8, 16oz
Bottles of tree preserving chemicals. Bottle was white in color with
an illustration of an evergreen tree on the front.
1. Label
all of the trees that are used in the experiment by marking them in a distinct
way (ex. Numbers, tree
#1, #2, and so on).
2.
Have sample branches analyzed to identify what species each tree is.
3.
Using a tree-pruning tool cut 27 limbs off of each tree. Make sure
that every limb that you cut is AT LEAST 60cm (2 ft).
4.
Separate the 27 limbs of each tree into 3 piles of 9 limbs in each.
5.
The 9 limbs are going to all be in the same bucket (separated) with the
same amount of water. So, it is necessary to separate the piles of 9 into
small piles of 3. Make sure the 3 piles of 3 limbs each do not get mixed
up with the other 3 piles of the other larger piles of 9.
6. Apply
the flame-retardants on to each of the 3 limbs evenly and according to
the Manufacturers directions. After you have done this to each of
the three limbs, apply the next flame retardant to the other three limbs
and the next flame retardant to the next three limbs. Repeat this step
to one of the other groups of 9 from that same tree.
7.
The last group of 9 limbs from each tree will be the control group. The
reason for cutting 9 limbs for the control (even though there are not 3
flame-retardants being applied) is so that each limb would soak the same
amount of water from the bucket.
8.
Repeat step 6 for each tree.
9.
Measure 3.785 liters [1 gal] of tap water. Fill 15 buckets (18.925L[5 gal]
buckets) with 3.785L of water.
10.
Label buckets in accordance with the trees that the limbs are taken from.
The purpose of this is so you know what trees are in what buckets.
11.
Label all of the limbs just as the buckets were labeled. Also, label the
groups of 3 limbs (within the group of 9) according to the flame retardant
that was applied, you can do this with string, rubber bands, etc.
12.
There are a total of 15 buckets (3 buckets per tree [3 test groups per
tree] there are 5 trees) in one of the three buckets, pour one cup (or
as directed) of tree preservant. This will be another test group (flame
retardant and preservant).
13.
Set each group of 9 limbs into a bucket. Make sure that none of the
limbs that have different retardants on them come in contact with each
other. Do this by placing a barrier between them or by tying each
group to a separate section of the bucket.
14.
Set the buckets in a place where they are to be stored for several days.
15.
Store the limbs for 8 days.
16.
After the 8 days are over, then take the limbs out of the water to simulate
the period of time when household Christmas trees are not in water because
of various reasons (like when the tree is on the “lot” waiting to be purchased).
Leave them out of water for 5 days.
17.
Set up the area where the limbs will be burned.
18.
Create the data table which looked like this:
Part 1
Yes No 10.
sec
Part 2
Yes No 10.
sec
Part 3
Yes No 10.
sec
This data table
had to be used for EACH limb. Be sure to indicate on the data table which
flame retardant was used during that test.
19.
Clamp the branch in place on the ring stand. Make sure that the branch
is at least 5 cm away from the tip of the Bunsen burner.
20.
As soon as the limb is placed over the flame, start the stopwatch and wait
for 10 seconds.
21.
After the 10 seconds is past, slowly take the limb away from the flame
and start the stopwatch again. This time, wait foe 5 seconds, after this
time is past, record whether or not the limb is still on fire.
22.
In the data table circle “Yes” if the limb was still on fire or circle
“No” if it was not still on fire. Record the exact time the limb
was over the flame by entering the appropriate two suffixes after the “10.”
on the data table.
23.
Rotate the limb 3 times and test the 3 different parts of the limbs.
24.
Repeat steps 19-23 for every limb.
25.
Record all observations.
Experimentation
 |
 |
 |
 |
INTRODUCTION-
This project was designed to determine the effects of flame-retardant chemicals
on various species of evergreen trees. The evergreen tree should
be protected as well as the lives of the people who come in contact with
it, by this I mean the households whom obtain evergreen trees as ornamental
Christmas trees. Also the evergreen trees that live out their time
in a forest and are endangered by the spreading threat of forest fires.
Another aspect of this experiment is to determine the “anatomy” of the
flame, along with the flame is combustion, specifically the combustion
of evergreen trees. One more thing that this experiment will touch on is
the aspect of an evergreen tree itself. Understanding these key aspects
will aid in conducting the experiment itself. This knowledge will
also help to better understand the process of combustion that takes place
during the experimentation.
THE THREAT OF FIRE
Each year, on average, 11 people lose their lives and 93 people are severely
injured due to household fires started by the combustion of their Christmas
tree. That happens each year just because someone decides to bring
a Christmas tree into his or her home and they have an accident, which
causes a fire. Every year there are 37,500 forest fires that occur,
these fires cause the destruction of whole forests inhabited by living
creatures. In an average year these fires consume 3.8 million acres. Those
same fires cost 1.3 billion dollars and required 30,000 people to combat
the strong flames. Two thirds of forest fires are started accidentally,
one quarter of them are started on purpose by people, and 10% of the fires
are started due to lightning. The largest fires usually take place
in the western United States (that happens to include Washington State).
In the year 2000 four of them (the biggest ones) happened in Idaho, two
in Alaska, and the rest were in Wyoming, Montana, Washington, and Oregon.
ANATOMY OF FIRE
Fire-
Flame is
a spectacular phenomenon that takes place when there is a chemical reaction
between tow gases. The gases usually consist of the fuel of choice, and
atmospheric oxygen. The light that is given off from a flame is the product
of the chemical reaction(s), the luminosity is caused by solid particles
that are foreign. The actual flame takes shape when one gas (such as hydrogen)
burns in another gas (such as oxygen). The inner cone shape of a flame
(the blue area) is unburned gas, therefor not the hottest part of the flame.
The outer area of the flame (the orange area) is where the chemical reaction
is taking place. In the case of a Bunsen burner the flame which is
produced is a more complex flame, this flame takes shape when the combustible
gas is mixed with the air before it is ignited. This idea of creating flame
(a decrease in light with an increase in heat) is what brought about the
idea of the Bunsen burner. The Bunsen burner flame has three sections
rather than two. The inner flame is still the unburned gas, the middle
section is referred to as the reduction zone (or reducing flame), the outer
section is the oxidizing zone. The candle flame is even more complex…yes,
you heard right, even more complex. The candle flame, like the Bunsen burner
flame, also has three sections. The inner section is where the melted
wax produces several gases, the middle section is where the gases are decomposed
to hydrogen, and the outer section is the hardly visible section where
combustion is complete.
Combustion-
Combustion, like flame, is a rapid chemical reaction of two or more chemicals, combustion is thought of also as heat and light, it is often referred to as burning. An example of combustion would be the burning of a fuel like wood, natural gas, oil, coal, etc. in the atmospheric air. Combustion does not require oxygen, like when hydrogen burns in chloride to form hydrogen chloride with the characteristics of heat and light. Combustion involves the actions of oxidation and reduction. Before any substance will begin to burn it must be heated to a certain point (ignition point). Pure substances have a characteristic ignition point. These ignition points are constant but the time varies according to factors such as the form of the substance and how mush oxygen is in the air at the time. Divided parts of a substance are more easily burned rather than a whole substance, like sawdust burns easier than a log does. The nature of combustion is not always understood. The ancient Greeks thought that fire was to be the basic element of the universe. It was not until 1774 that French chemist A. L. Lavoisier performed the experiments that led to the modern understanding of combustion.
EVERGREEN TREES
The term Evergreen is often synonymous with the term Conifer. Evergreen does not only mean Conifer, but also it is applied to the broad-leaved plants that bear green leaves throughout the whole year. Evergreens that exist in warmer, more tropical regions the growing season are prolonged. Evergreens that grow in colder climates are more like broad-leaved shrubs. Some broad-leaved evergreens shed all of their leaves for a brief period of time; the others lose their leaves continually, they gain more as soon as they lose them. The term “half-evergreen” is applied to deciduous plants with relatively persistent leaves. Species of evergreen trees widely vary in characteristic properties. Some have blue-silver coloring, some have soft leaves, some hard, some have pine-cones, and some don’t.
CONCLUSION
This experiment was conducted using the preceding knowledge. The anatomy of fire plated a very important role in the process of conducting this experiment. Understanding flame and combustion was a key aspect of this report and of my experiment. Another major aspect was understanding exactly what an evergreen tree was and what their patterns of behavior happen to be.
The intent of this experiment was to determine which one of the three commercial
flame-retardant chemicals would best prevent combustion of various species
of evergreen trees. I wanted to test this because the results might
aid in preventing household fire of prevention of forest fires where these
evergreen trees are present. All of the control groups in this experiment
show that combustion of the limbs came easily. There were definitely
more instances where the tree limbs caught on fire rather than the times
when they did not (see figures 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E). I predicted that
this situation would take place.
The test groups where a flame retardant had been applied were almost
equally divided. But, in that group the results indicate that there were
actually more instances when the limbs did not combust (see figures 2A,
2B, 2C, 2D, and 2E). That fact leads me to infer that the flame-retardant
chemicals did in fact have an effect on the various species of evergreen
trees.
In the third and final test group, where a flame retardant and a tree preserving
chemical were applied, the results surprisingly reveal that there were
more tests conducted where the limb did not combust rather than times when
it did (see figures 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, and 3E). It is almost as the
tree-preserving chemical acted as an aid in the combustion prevention process.
This, in my opinion, happens to be rather odd. I say this because
of the fact that the tree-preserving chemical stated on the bottle that
it was a flammable chemical. If a flammable chemical were present
as stated, I would infer that the tree limbs would be more likely to combust.
Some of the species of trees tended to burn easier than some of the other
species did. In the second test group the Thuja Plicata burned fairly
easily (see figure 2A), opposed to the Abies Alba, which did not burn easily
at all (see figure 2C)
A reoccurring pattern that took place while al of the tests were being
conducted was that all of the tree limbs made a crackling sound when they
combusted. The sound was quite loud; all of the trees obtained this
characteristic. Also, all of the trees produced a distinct smell
as they were burned, it smelt of campfire. The Picea Pungens needles
began to “pop” off of the branch as soon as the flame was applied underneath
it.
The results of this experiment are in a wide range but I do hope that they
will begin to aid in efforts to prevent combustion of these evergreen trees.
| There are supposed to be tables in here but they will not cooperate.. SORRY!!!! |
What I learned from this experiment was that flame-retardant chemicals
do in fact aid in the prevention of combustion in evergreen trees. The
results also show the evergreens’ behavior when they were subjected to
a 1,200 degrees Celsius flame. Moreover, the results of this experiment
indicate which commercial flame-retardant chemical best prevents the combustion
of evergreen trees when applied in accordance to the manufacturer's directions.
The results support the statement in my hypothesis which says that the
INSPECTA-SHIELD PLUS® flame-retardant chemical would be the one that
would best prevent combustion of the evergreen trees. In my hypothesis
it was inferred about whether or not the tree-preserving chemical would
increase the combustion rate. I stated that the tree-preserving chemical
would greatly effect the combustion patterns of the tree limbs in the way
that it would increase the combustion rate. The effects I inferred that
the tree-preserving chemical would have were not supported by the results
of this experiment. My complete hypothesis was that the INSPECTA-SHIELD
PLUS® flame-retardant would best prevent the combustion of the various
species of evergreen trees. I based this part of the hypothesis on research
that i had conducted, including a comparison of each flame-retardant chemical
and it's price. I went to the places of business where each of the flame-retardant
chemicals were sold and I talked to each of the retailers about their product.
Almost the same results were driven from each discussion. They all made
the establishment that their product should be highly effective
in the prevention of the evergreen trees. The retailer of the INSPECTA-SHIELD
PLUS® was more confident in his product. He stated that if for some
reason this product failed to be effective that i should come back to the
place of business and talk to him about it. These are the grounds in which
i based my hypothesis.
Also, in my hypothesis, i stated that the test group of evergreens that
have, in addition, been subjected to the tree-preserving chemicals would
obtain a higher combustion rate.The reason that I believe this is because
of the printed matter the backside of the tree-preserving chemical bottle.
The print stated that the product was in fact flammable. I took into consideration
that the tree-preserving chemicals would be absorbed by the tree limbs,
but I persistently arrived at the inference that it would make them more
flammable. I arrived at this inference because I decided that the chemicals,
no matter what form they may be in, would still be present. The fact that
flammable chemicals were present increase the combustion rate of the object
it is to be applied to.
The results of this experiment caused me to accept the first half of my
hypothesis but to reject the second half. The first section of my hypothesis
was correct because the results indicated that the INSPECTA-SHIELD PLUS®
brand of flame retardant best prevented the combustion of the evergreen
tree limbs to which it had been applied. The second and final section of
my hypothesis was proven erroneous by my results. This was clear when the
results indicated that the tree limbs to which the tree-preserving chemical
had been applied did not combust as easily as the others did. It is almost
as the tree-preserving chemical acted as a second retardant.
After viewing the results of this experiment I wondered if there would
be an effect on the combustion rate if the limbs were subjected to a smaller
flame. Perhaps a child was playing with matches or someone was lighting
a cigarette with a lighter. Also, I ponder whether the results would be
affected in any way if I would have used propane gas opposed to methane
gas. The last question raised was if there would be an effect on the results
if the tree-preserving chemical would have been applied in another manner.
This meaning opposed to being a soak-in, it would be a spray-on.
There were non-intentional errors in this experiment. They were things
like; the testing took place on several different days, the wind variation
was not always blocked by the board, the limbs were not exactly 60 cm as
I had planned (they were all at least 60 cm). The tree limbs were not stored
in temperatures that would exactly replicate the “household” setting; the
last error was that instead of the tree limbs being out of water 5 days
before they were placed in water, they were taken out of the water for
5 days after they were placed in water.
If I were to conduct this experiment again there would be some things I
would choose to do differently. I would test all of the tree limbs on the
same day within the same temperature range. I would make sure that there
would be no wind that could affect the course of the flame in any way whatsoever.
I would also obtain at least 3 more different brands of flame-retardant
chemicals. I would use a thermal couple to test temperature versus time
and record that throughout each individual test. I also would want to test
another manipulated variable.
1. “Anatomy of Flame” http://amos.india.edu/library/scripts/flame.html (February 1st , 2002)
2. “Combustion”
http://www.infoplease/search.php3?query=combustion&in=all&go.x=17&go.y=7
(February 1st, 2002)
3. “Fire” Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia. Compact Disc 1999
4. “Fire” Scientific Encyclopedia 2002
5. “Flame” http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0818853.html (February 3,2002)
6. Martha J. Rice “RE: Could You Help a Student Out?” Available at martha_j_rice@RL.gov January 25th, 2002