Sunny Chieng, Cheryl Kao, and Maho Hayashi present:
Energy Within Foods!
Aim: To research the amount of energy present per gram in different foods offered at the snack bar.
Background:
The amount of energy per gram present in different foods is important as we consume foods everyday. Some high energy foods may not be good for health as they often do not have the nutrients that we need and are just an excess of calories. Obesity is a global issue that stems from overconsumption of foods that are high in energy but lack nutrients. Knowing the amount of energy in foods is important because it can help people determine how much food they should eat to maintain their weight or to lose weight (in the case of overweight people) or to gain weight (in the case of underweight people). Raising awareness of high energy foods may also help solve the problem of obesity in the future as people will become more aware of how their food choices affect their weights.
Method:
1. Different kinds of foods were obtained from the snack bar (by Ms. Peters).
2. The experiment was set up as shown:
3. Fill the beaker with 40cm3 of water for each trial.
4. A piece of each food was broken off and held over a candle flame until it caught on fire.
5. The fire was then extinguished as soon as possible because the food was supposed to be heated until most of the liquids were no longer present, facilitating the burning of the food.
6. The piece of food was then weighed and the mass was recorded.
7. The food was then held over the candle flame again. When the piece of food had caught on fire, it was quickly placed into the crucible.
8. Logger pro was then started, and temperature change in the water in the beaker was then collected over 60 seconds.
9. Repeat steps 3-8 for each trial until 5 trials of each food has been completed.
Data Collection and Processing:
Banana Muffin Trial One:°C/second:
Banana Muffin Trial Two:°C/second:
Banana Muffin Trial Three:°C/second:
Banana Muffin Trial Four:°C/second:
Banana Muffin Trial Five:°C/second:
Granola Bar Trial One:°C/second:
Granola Bar Trial Two:°C/second:
Granola Bar Trial Three:°C/second:
Granola Bar Trial Four:°C/second:
Granola Bar Trial Five:°C/second:
Chip Trial One:°C/second:
Chip Trial Two:°C/second:
Chip Trial Three:°C/second:
Chip Trial Four: °C/second:
Chip Trial Five:°C/second:
Chicken Trial One:°C/second:
Chicken Trial Two:°C/second:
Chicken Trial Three:°C/second:
Chicken Trial Four:°C/second:
Chicken Trial Five:°C/second:
Banana BreadTrial One:°C/second:
Banana Bread Trial Two:°C/second:
Banana Bread Trial Three:°C/second:
Banana Bread Trial Four:°C/second:
Banana Bread Trial Five:°C/second:
FriesTrial One:°C/second:
Fries Trial Two:°C/second:
Fries Trial Three:°C/second:
Fries Trial Four:°C/second:
Fries Trial Five:°C/second:
QuesadillaTrial One:°C/second:
Quesadilla Trial Two:°C/second:
Quesadilla Trial Three:°C/second:
Quesadilla Trial Four:°C/second:
Quesadilla Trial Five:°C/second:
Table I: Average Change in Mass for Snack Bar Foods.
Food
Trial 1 .
Trial 2 .
Trial 3 .
Trial 4 .
Trial 5 .
Average Change in Mass (g)
Banana muffin
0.927
0.100
0.393
0.492
2.195
0.821
Granola bar
0.491
0.492
0.318
1.468
0.504
0.655
Chip
1.274
0.947
1.072
0.973
0.822
1.018
Chicken
0.049
0.206
0.226
0.161
0.174
0.163
Banana bread
0.200
1.029
0.409
0.361
0.306
0.461
Fries
0.237
0.070
0.103
0.251
0.176
0.167
Quesadilla
0.157
0.092
0.215
0.268
0.820
0.310
Table II: Average Change in Temperature for Snack Bar Foods.
Food
Trial 1 .
Trial 2 .
Trial 3 .
Trial 4 .
Trial 5 .
Average Change in Temperature (°C)
Banana muffin
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.38
Granola bar
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
Chip
3.2
2.7
1.2
2.8
1.5
2.28
Chicken
1.1
0.1
0.1
0.07
0.1
0.294
Banana bread
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
Fries
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.42
Quesadilla
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.5
3.5
0.85
Table III: Average Change in Temperature per gram (∆t/g).
Food
Change Temperature per Gram (°C)
Banana muffin
0.463
Granola bar
0.306
Chip
2.241
Chicken
1.801
Banana bread
0.434
Fries
2.509
Quesadilla
2.738
Table IV: The Energy Each Food Contains:
Food
Energy (J) using q=mcΔt
Banana Muffin
77.414
Granola Bar
51.163
Chip
374.695
Chicken
301.127
Banana Bread
72.565
Fries
419.505
Quesadilla
457.794
Graph I: Comparison Between Change in Temperature per gram (∆t/g)for Snack Bar Foods.
Calculations:
Conclusions:
By burning the foods, we were able to extrapolate the energy that the foods in the snack bar provide to students at TAS. The quesadilla had the largest amount of temperature change. This suggests that quesadillas have higher amounts of energy and will stimulate weight gain at the school if the students do not exercise (burn lipids) at a matching pace. This will be addressed later on in the lab.
The uncertainty for the quesadilla stems from the burning of multiple types of food in the beginning of the trials ie. cheese, tomato, green pepper, onions, jalapenos, and cumin powder. This provides liquids and will contribute to different temperature changes resulting in the incongruity of the overall ∆t. Additionally, the properties of cheese allow for a fast rate of heat absorption (low boiling point) therefore the cheese would raise the temperature of the water much more rapidly than the burning of the wrap skin.
The granola bar did not greatly increase the temperature of the water which therefore asserts that the food-type in the cafeteria would not greatly replenish the strengths of students. What will be analyzed is the overall choices of the students presented by their daily fitness routine which would maintain their healthy shape. Now the uncertainty from granola bars, similar to the quesadilla is a result of the burning of different types of foods present in the granola bar itself. The outer layer was easily heated however the inside was composed of a sticky jelly which restricted the fire from burning the rest of the granola bar.
This uncertainty would carry on to the other foods: Although we tried to burn one part of the food, there were still external factors which impacted the temperature.
The analysis of the food would therefore affect the diet of the student population at TAS. For the students who eat at the snack bar, looking at the number of students we surveyed and their daily schedules, it can be inferred that the majority of them spend a lot of time working and sitting in a chair reading with only less than an hour's exercise within the daily routine. Looking at the amounts the majority of students offered as a response, a medium-to-large filling meal was eaten everyday. Since many students also skipped out on breakfast, they also stated that lunch and dinner became compensations. Some would indulge on snacks throughout the day (this includes the Snack Bar) others decided to have some fries or desert from the snack bar as well.
However, looking at the amount of exercise, considering that each students eats more calories than they burn, this would lead to obesity within the school. For students smaller than juniors, who must take a mandatory fitness class, the hour and twenty minutes of fitness is described a fun and exhausting. An encouraged time period of exercise for students who work a lot is encouraged by this lab report--this would actually be beneficial for any student since exercise does stimulate cognitive abilities in students.
Evaluation of Procedure:
There are several errors in this experiment, such as the fact that the mass of the food wasn’t regulated. Instead of measuring out a set amount of food for each trial, the food was taken by chunks and heated to get rid of the water, and then heated again and placed underneath the beaker of water after it caught on fire. Another error would be that when the food was being heated the second time (after being blown out after the water evaporated so that it could be weighed) it would have lost energy as we heated the food. The third error would be the time in between heating the food the second time and placing it underneath the beaker to record the energy within the food; the food would have lost energy as we heated it the second time and as we moved it underneath the beaker. The fourth error would be that the experiment wasn’t a closed system, it was an open system, therefore not all of the energy would have been absorbed by the water; it could have gone anywhere.
To improve the problem of different masses, it would have been logical to use a metal-webbed net to hold the food while its being heated, instead of tongs. The reason that the food wasn’t weighed in the end was because if the food is set at a specific weight, it would have to be chopped up, therefore making it harder to hold it with tongs. However, if a metal-webbed net was used, it would have allowed us to place small chucks of food on, without the fear of dropping it. Another way to improve this experiment would be to change the procedure. If the candle was placed on the bottom of the calorimeter, the metal-webbed net placed on the top, the food placed on the net, and another calorimeter was used to cover it over, then not as many energy from the food will escape, compared to the previous method. Then, after checking if the food's water evaporated/and it caught on fire, place the beaker next to the food, inside the calorimeter, on the metal-webbed net. This method can trap more energy within the calorimeter, giving better results, and is much more "closed" system compared to the previous method.
The uncertainty for the quesadilla stems from the burning of multiple types of food in the beginning of the trials ie. cheese, tomato, green pepper, onions, jalapenos, and cumin powder. This provides liquids and will contribute to different temperature changes resulting in the incongruity of the overall temperature changes per trial.
Like a Boss...
Terry Chen, Calvin Ma, Monica Shih,
Sunny Chieng, Cheryl Kao, and Maho Hayashi present:
Energy Within Foods!
Aim: To research the amount of energy present per gram in different foods offered at the snack bar.
Background:
The amount of energy per gram present in different foods is important as we consume foods everyday. Some high energy foods may not be good for health as they often do not have the nutrients that we need and are just an excess of calories. Obesity is a global issue that stems from overconsumption of foods that are high in energy but lack nutrients. Knowing the amount of energy in foods is important because it can help people determine how much food they should eat to maintain their weight or to lose weight (in the case of overweight people) or to gain weight (in the case of underweight people). Raising awareness of high energy foods may also help solve the problem of obesity in the future as people will become more aware of how their food choices affect their weights.
Method:
1. Different kinds of foods were obtained from the snack bar (by Ms. Peters).
2. The experiment was set up as shown:
3. Fill the beaker with 40cm3 of water for each trial.4. A piece of each food was broken off and held over a candle flame until it caught on fire.
5. The fire was then extinguished as soon as possible because the food was supposed to be heated until most of the liquids were no longer present, facilitating the burning of the food.
6. The piece of food was then weighed and the mass was recorded.
7. The food was then held over the candle flame again. When the piece of food had caught on fire, it was quickly placed into the crucible.
8. Logger pro was then started, and temperature change in the water in the beaker was then collected over 60 seconds.
9. Repeat steps 3-8 for each trial until 5 trials of each food has been completed.
Data Collection and Processing:
Banana Muffin Trial One: °C/second:
Banana Muffin Trial Two: °C/second:
Banana Muffin Trial Three: °C/second:
Banana Muffin Trial Four: °C/second:
Banana Muffin Trial Five: °C/second:
Granola Bar Trial One: °C/second:
Granola Bar Trial Two: °C/second:
Granola Bar Trial Three: °C/second:
Granola Bar Trial Four: °C/second:
Granola Bar Trial Five: °C/second:
Chip Trial One: °C/second:
Chip Trial Two: °C/second:
Chip Trial Three: °C/second:
Chip Trial Four: °C/second:
Chip Trial Five: °C/second:
Chicken Trial One: °C/second:
Chicken Trial Two: °C/second:
Chicken Trial Three: °C/second:
Chicken Trial Four: °C/second:
Chicken Trial Five: °C/second:
Banana Bread Trial One: °C/second:
Banana Bread Trial Two: °C/second:
Banana Bread Trial Three: °C/second:
Banana Bread Trial Four: °C/second:
Banana Bread Trial Five: °C/second:
Fries Trial One: °C/second:
Fries Trial Two: °C/second:
Fries Trial Three: °C/second:
Fries Trial Four: °C/second:
Fries Trial Five: °C/second:
Quesadilla Trial One: °C/second:
Quesadilla Trial Two: °C/second:
Quesadilla Trial Three: °C/second:
Quesadilla Trial Four: °C/second:
Quesadilla Trial Five: °C/second:
Table I: Average Change in Mass for Snack Bar Foods.
Food
Trial 1 .
Trial 2 .
Trial 3 .
Trial 4 .
Trial 5 .
Average Change in Mass (g)
Banana muffin
0.927
0.100
0.393
0.492
2.195
0.821
Granola bar
0.491
0.492
0.318
1.468
0.504
0.655
Chip
1.274
0.947
1.072
0.973
0.822
1.018
Chicken
0.049
0.206
0.226
0.161
0.174
0.163
Banana bread
0.200
1.029
0.409
0.361
0.306
0.461
Fries
0.237
0.070
0.103
0.251
0.176
0.167
Quesadilla
0.157
0.092
0.215
0.268
0.820
0.310
Table II: Average Change in Temperature for Snack Bar Foods.
Food
Trial 1 .
Trial 2 .
Trial 3 .
Trial 4 .
Trial 5 .
Average Change in Temperature (°C)
Banana muffin
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.38
Granola bar
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
Chip
3.2
2.7
1.2
2.8
1.5
2.28
Chicken
1.1
0.1
0.1
0.07
0.1
0.294
Banana bread
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
Fries
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.42
Quesadilla
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.5
3.5
0.85
Table III: Average Change in Temperature per gram (∆t/g).
Food
Change Temperature per Gram (°C)
Banana muffin
0.463
Granola bar
0.306
Chip
2.241
Chicken
1.801
Banana bread
0.434
Fries
2.509
Quesadilla
2.738
Table IV: The Energy Each Food Contains:
Food
Energy (J) using q=mcΔt
Banana Muffin
77.414
Granola Bar
51.163
Chip
374.695
Chicken
301.127
Banana Bread
72.565
Fries
419.505
Quesadilla
457.794
Graph I: Comparison Between Change in Temperature per gram (∆t/g) for Snack Bar Foods.
Calculations:
Conclusions:
By burning the foods, we were able to extrapolate the energy that the foods in the snack bar provide to students at TAS. The quesadilla had the largest amount of temperature change. This suggests that quesadillas have higher amounts of energy and will stimulate weight gain at the school if the students do not exercise (burn lipids) at a matching pace. This will be addressed later on in the lab.
The uncertainty for the quesadilla stems from the burning of multiple types of food in the beginning of the trials ie. cheese, tomato, green pepper, onions, jalapenos, and cumin powder. This provides liquids and will contribute to different temperature changes resulting in the incongruity of the overall ∆t. Additionally, the properties of cheese allow for a fast rate of heat absorption (low boiling point) therefore the cheese would raise the temperature of the water much more rapidly than the burning of the wrap skin.
The granola bar did not greatly increase the temperature of the water which therefore asserts that the food-type in the cafeteria would not greatly replenish the strengths of students. What will be analyzed is the overall choices of the students presented by their daily fitness routine which would maintain their healthy shape. Now the uncertainty from granola bars, similar to the quesadilla is a result of the burning of different types of foods present in the granola bar itself. The outer layer was easily heated however the inside was composed of a sticky jelly which restricted the fire from burning the rest of the granola bar.
This uncertainty would carry on to the other foods: Although we tried to burn one part of the food, there were still external factors which impacted the temperature.
The analysis of the food would therefore affect the diet of the student population at TAS. For the students who eat at the snack bar, looking at the number of students we surveyed and their daily schedules, it can be inferred that the majority of them spend a lot of time working and sitting in a chair reading with only less than an hour's exercise within the daily routine. Looking at the amounts the majority of students offered as a response, a medium-to-large filling meal was eaten everyday. Since many students also skipped out on breakfast, they also stated that lunch and dinner became compensations. Some would indulge on snacks throughout the day (this includes the Snack Bar) others decided to have some fries or desert from the snack bar as well.
However, looking at the amount of exercise, considering that each students eats more calories than they burn, this would lead to obesity within the school. For students smaller than juniors, who must take a mandatory fitness class, the hour and twenty minutes of fitness is described a fun and exhausting. An encouraged time period of exercise for students who work a lot is encouraged by this lab report--this would actually be beneficial for any student since exercise does stimulate cognitive abilities in students.
Evaluation of Procedure:
There are several errors in this experiment, such as the fact that the mass of the food wasn’t regulated. Instead of measuring out a set amount of food for each trial, the food was taken by chunks and heated to get rid of the water, and then heated again and placed underneath the beaker of water after it caught on fire. Another error would be that when the food was being heated the second time (after being blown out after the water evaporated so that it could be weighed) it would have lost energy as we heated the food. The third error would be the time in between heating the food the second time and placing it underneath the beaker to record the energy within the food; the food would have lost energy as we heated it the second time and as we moved it underneath the beaker. The fourth error would be that the experiment wasn’t a closed system, it was an open system, therefore not all of the energy would have been absorbed by the water; it could have gone anywhere.
To improve the problem of different masses, it would have been logical to use a metal-webbed net to hold the food while its being heated, instead of tongs. The reason that the food wasn’t weighed in the end was because if the food is set at a specific weight, it would have to be chopped up, therefore making it harder to hold it with tongs. However, if a metal-webbed net was used, it would have allowed us to place small chucks of food on, without the fear of dropping it. Another way to improve this experiment would be to change the procedure. If the candle was placed on the bottom of the calorimeter, the metal-webbed net placed on the top, the food placed on the net, and another calorimeter was used to cover it over, then not as many energy from the food will escape, compared to the previous method. Then, after checking if the food's water evaporated/and it caught on fire, place the beaker next to the food, inside the calorimeter, on the metal-webbed net. This method can trap more energy within the calorimeter, giving better results, and is much more "closed" system compared to the previous method.
The uncertainty for the quesadilla stems from the burning of multiple types of food in the beginning of the trials ie. cheese, tomato, green pepper, onions, jalapenos, and cumin powder. This provides liquids and will contribute to different temperature changes resulting in the incongruity of the overall temperature changes per trial.
Sources Referenced:
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y5022E/y5022e04.htm
http://healthyeatingclub.com/info/books-phds/books/foodfacts/html/data/data2a.html
http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bike/power/kcal_food_energy.html
Banana Muffin Trial One: °C/second