Determining Which Composition of Shellac and Ethanol Would Give the Correct

Amount of Breakdown of Four to Six Hours in Hydrochloric Acid

Madeline Manuel and Matthew Schultz
Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center
AP Biology
12A
Mr. Estapa, Mrs. Cybulski, Mrs. Dewey
8 December 2015

Determining Which Composition of Shellac and Ethanol Would Give the Correct
Amount of Breakdown of Four to Six Hours in Hydrochloric Acid
This experiment focuses on which of the two compositions of shellac and
ethanol would provide the correct time of breakdown of four to six hours when
placed in hydrochloric acid. It was hypothesized that the composition with the
greater amount of shellac would give the right breakdown time. To perform this
experiment, the two compositions had thirty trials each. In each test tube, 1mL of
hydrochloric acid was placed, followed by a mixture of shellac using
confectioners glaze and ethanol. One composition had 1mL of each; the other
2mL of shellac and no ethanol. Each mixture was placed on top of the
hydrochloric acid and then stirred for ten seconds while avoiding mixing the acid.
The trials were then recorded using an iPad with a time-lapse camera for six
hours. The time of the breakdown was then determined when the mixture settled
to the bottom of the tube. The lower composition of shellac had an average
breakdown time of 2.7 hours while the higher shellac composition had an
average of 4.5 hours. A two-sample t-test that the higher and lesser compositions
were not equal as shown statistically with a p-value of nearly zero, showing that
the two are significantly different. The hypothesis that the higher concentration of
shellac would give the correct breakdown of four to six hours in this experiment
was thus accepted. By performing this experiment, patients awaiting fecal
transplants, especially low-income patients, can avoid surgery for a lower cost,
and researchers can learn how to prolong the effects of pills so that the medicine
in them will avoid getting dissolved as they reach their destination.

Table of Contents
Introduction
..................................................................................................................................
1
Review of Literature
..................................................................................................................................
4
Problem Statement
..................................................................................................................................
7
Experimental Design
..................................................................................................................................
8
Data and Observations
..................................................................................................................................
10
Data Analysis and Interpretation
..................................................................................................................................
16
Conclusion
..................................................................................................................................
21
Appendix A
..................................................................................................................................
24
Appendix B
..................................................................................................................................
25
Appendix C
..................................................................................................................................
26
Works Cited

27

Manuel-Schultz 1

Introduction
The first pills created were not the pills people know today. In fact, as far
as 4,000 B.C., they were liquidly prepared, where the patients were instructed to
pulverize various seeds, plant resins and leaves together (Mestel). They were
then drunk with beer (Zeldovich). It was the ancient Egyptians that formed little
balls composed of bread dough, grease, or honey mixed with plant powders,
beginning the formation of the shape of pills known today. As the pills began to
improve, people sought ways to easily swallow them. Some coated the pills with
a slimy substance to swallow it and reduce the bad taste. Others even coated the
pills with silver or gold, but this proved useless as it passed through them without
releasing their medicine. It was not until the 17 th century that people became
excited about pills, to the point where they can receive special patents from their
king for their formulas. Finally, in the 19th century, doctors improved the pills by
creating sugar coating and gelatin coating for them as well as gelatin capsules
(Mestel). Looking back at this, people can see the drive for finding simpler
methods to care for themselves and the drastic progress of pills, from little balls
of food with only plants and silver to help the patients to gelatin coated pills
containing bacteria.
As history continues to improve the pill, this experiment focuses on
creating delayed-action pills to find a substitute for fecal transplants. In this
procedure, a tested donor gives their fecal matter, which is then mixed with saline
or another solution, and then surgically inserted in a patient through colonoscopy.
This surgical procedure is preformed to replace the damaging bacteria created

Manuel-Schultz 2

from antibiotics with essential bacteria for digesting food and other functions in
the colon. A notable deadly bacterium is Clostridium difficile, or C. diff., which
causes severe diarrhea. This bacterium has been spreading, with about 347,000
Americans diagnosed with it in 2012 and 14,000 people or more dying from it.
Although the fecal transplant has a success rate of over 90%, most people have
not heard it, and there are very few people willing to donate their fecal matter to
help patients in need of this procedure (The Fecal Transplant Foundation).
The purpose of this experiment was to determine which composition of
shellac and ethanol would give the correct time of breakdown when immersed in
hydrochloric acid. Creating two compositions using shellac and ethanol would
simulate a pill coating, and the hydrochloric acid would act like the stomach acid,
as the stomach creates hydrochloric acid to break down food into nutrients
(McAdams). The mixtures were broken down with the hydrochloric acid for about
six hours because the normal breakdown of food in the stomach is four to six
hours (Kumria). By creating a pill that can outlast the time of breakdown, the pill
can ultimately reach its designated destination and ultimately release its
medicinal compounds there.
As stated previously, this experiment focuses on finding a substitute for
fecal transplants. As long as the danger of C. diff. continues to rise, and as long
as there is a scarcity of donors to assist in these transplants, doctors must find
another way to cure patients infected with this bacterium. The most efficient

Manuel-Schultz 3

method to do this is to create a delayed-action pill that will reach the colon and
release the good bacteria there. By creating this pill, the danger of this bacterium
will drop, and there is little harm in this process. Instead of wasting hours
performing this surgery, patients can instead use a small yet efficient pill to get rid
of bacteria. Like creating the first pill and then greatly improving it, creating a
delayed-action pill against C. diff. will drive future doctors to create more pills
aimed to fight against other illnesses focused on bacteria and maybe even
against viruses.

Manuel-Schultz 4

Review of Literature
In this experiment, the goal was to find a composition of shellac that, when
mixed with ethanol, will produce a delayed-action coating for a pill that can
release medicine in the large intestines and colon so that the medicine isnt
dissolved by the stomach acid. This delayed-action pill was designed to
breakdown in stomach acid over a long period of time so that the medicine or
bacteria would not be released in the stomach acid. The desired time for the
shellac coating to fully breakdown is four to six hours, because that is the time it
takes for substances to pass through the stomach and small intestines (Kumria).
Shellac is a soluble substance, meaning it will dissolve in water, and when
mixed with ethanol, it will dissolve easily (Apolloni). The product forms a hard,
shiny, coating. This is formed because shellac produces multiple layers of film on
almost any surface due to the hydroxyl groups in its structure (McGowanJackson). The reason this pill can work as a delayed-action pill is because it
takes a substantial amount of time for the mixture to be broken down enough to
release the medicine or bacteria from it. However, the coating is water soluble, so
stomach acid would immediately start to eat away at the thick layer of coating. In
this experiment, hydrochloric acid was used to simulate stomach acid. At a
molecular level, when a shellac coating is exposed to hydrochloric acid, the
coating molecules dissolve within the hydrochloric acid. A major problem that this
experiment can solve was a problem that deals with a person who does not have
the proper bacteria inside them to break down the food they eat. If this person
can take a pill that contains these bacteria and is coated with the shellac solvent,
then the breakdown time would cause the bacteria to be released after it gets

Manuel-Schultz 5

through the stomach, so that the bacteria will not be killed by the stomach acid
and reach its specified location.
An experiment similar to this one was conducted by Rachna Kumria,
affiliated with Panjob University. She wanted to design a pill that would have a
delayed-action and have the drug released in the colon specifically. This would
require a release time of around four hours. She and a team of researchers put
together four different pill coatings, one of them being shellac, and tested each
pills drug release time. In the results and conclusion section, Kumria found that
the shellac coating delayed the drug release by up to nine hours. She also
determined that the shellac coating provided the best drug release percentage
and time for the purpose to her experiment, which means that shellac can be
used to create a functioning delayed-action pill, and assures that this experiment
to be successful (Kumria).
Similar to Kumrias research, this experiment deals with having a delayedaction pill to have the medicine released from the pill after it passes through the
stomach and small intestines. This will ensure that the medicine will not be killed
within the stomach, and released into the large intestines and colon so that any
medicine with that purpose can reach those areas of the body and function to its
purpose. Another similarity is that this experiment also used a shellac coating to
provide the source for a delayed-action. Instead of having four different coatings,
however, this experiment involved different compositions of shellac in order to be
time specific. Similar major materials in both experiments were shellac, and
ethanol. From Kumrias experiment, shellac has been proven to work as a

Manuel-Schultz 6

delayed-action pill coating, which suggests solid conclusions to this experiment

also.

Manuel-Schultz 7

Problem Statement
Problem:
The purpose of this experiment was to determine what composition of
shellac and ethanol would provide the correct amount of time, four to six hours,
of breakdown in hydrochloric acid.
Hypothesis:
The hypothesis of this experiment was that the highest composition of
shellac, 30%, would result in the correct amount of breakdown time.
Data Measured:
The first concentration of shellac was 30%, with the other 75% being
ethanol. This was because in many sources, a composition of 20-30% shellac
was used. The composition of shellac was changed by lowering the composition
of shellac to around 15%, which was attained by adding more ethanol to
confectioners glaze. 30 trials were run for each composition, and a two-sample ttest was conducted to determine the best composition of shellac for the correct
time.

Manuel-Schultz 8
Experimental Design

Materials:
150 mL Confectioners food glaze
(shellac)
150 mL Ethanol
150 mL Hydrochloric acid
10 mL Graduated cylinder

40 Unit test tube tray

iPad (time-lapse camera)
(3) 1mL Pipettes
(30) 10mL Test tubes

Procedure:
1. Choose which one of the two compositions of shellac and ethanol to use:
1 mL of ethanol and 1 mL of shellac or 2 ml of shellac and 0 mL of ethanol.
2. Use a pipette to withdraw 1 ml of hydrochloric acid.
3. Pour the hydrochloric acid into a test tube.
4. Place the desired amount of confectioners food glaze (either 1 or 2 mL
based on the trial) into another graduated cylinder.
5. Pour the confectioners glaze into the test tube. Make sure it settles on top
of the hydrochloric acid.
6. Rinse the graduated cylinder with hot water.
7. Use a second pipette to withdraw the desired amount of ethanol (either 1
or 0 mL based on the trial).
8. Place the ethanol in the test tube.
9. With a third pipette, stir the confectioners food glaze and ethanol for ten
seconds. Avoid stirring them with the hydrochloric acid.
10. Place the test tube back in the test tube tray and repeat steps 1-8 for each
test tube. When 30 test tubes are filled, place the tray on a table.
11. Set up the iPad (or time-lapse camera) with a 15 frame interval and 1
frame per second. Record the test tubes as the hydrochloric acid breaks
down the mixture.
12. Watch the video to determine the breakdown time of each test tube.
13. Repeat steps 2-12 for the second composition.

Manuel-Schultz 9

40 unit test
Test
tray
tube

Confectioners glaze
(shellac)

Ethan
ol

10 mL graduated
cylinder

Figure 1. Materials

Pipette Hydrochloric
s

This figure shows the materials for the experiment. Not pictured
here is the iPad (time lapse camera).

Data and Observations

In this experiment, shellac and ethanol was mixed together when placed
on top of hydrochloric acid and then left for six hours to breakdown. To determine
the breakdown time, the trials were recorded using an iPad that had time lapse or
using a time lapse camera. The hypothesis was that the higher composition of
shellac would give the correct amount of breakdown time. The measurements of

Manuel-Schultz 10

the shellac and ethanol compositions were recorded in mL, and the time of the
breakdown was recorded by hours. The composition of the hydrochloric acid
stayed constant at 1mL.
Table 1
Breakdown of 15% Shellac Composition
Shellac
Ethanol
Breakdown
Trial # Composition Composition
Time
(mL)
(mL)
(Hr.)
1
1.0
1.0
2.0
2
1.0
1.0
2.0
3
1.0
1.0
3.5
4
1.0
1.0
3.5
5
1.0
1.0
3.0
6
1.0
1.0
3.0
7
1.0
1.0
3.5
8
1.0
1.0
2.0
9
1.0
1.0
2.0
10
1.0
1.0
2.5
11
1.0
1.0
3.0
12
1.0
1.0
2.5
13
1.0
1.0
2.0
14
1.0
1.0
3.0
15
1.0
1.0
3.5
16
1.0
1.0
2.5
17
1.0
1.0
2.5
18
1.0
1.0
2.5
19
1.0
1.0
3.0
20
1.0
1.0
2.5
Shellac
Ethanol
Breakdown
Trial # Composition Composition
Time
(mL)
(mL)
(Hr.)
21
1.0
1.0
2.0
22
1.0
1.0
3.0
23
1.0
1.0
3.0
24
1.0
1.0
2.5
25
1.0
1.0
2.5
26
1.0
1.0
3.0
27
1.0
1.0
3.0
28
1.0
1.0
3.0
29
1.0
1.0
3.5

Manuel-Schultz 11

30
Averag
e

1.0
1.0

1.0

2.5

1.0

2.7

Table 1 displays the breakdown time of shellac when a 15% composition

was used. This composition was obtained by combining 1mL of confectioners
glaze, and 1 mL of ethanol, which can be observed in the above table. All of the
trials had a breakdown time between two and three and a half hour. The average
breakdown of these trials is 2.7 hours, or about 2 hours and 45 minutes. It is
suggested from this data that a 15% shellac composition is not a good fit for the
target breakdown time of 4 hours.

Table 2
Breakdown of 30% Shellac Composition
Shellac
Ethanol
Breakdown
Trial # Composition Composition
Time
(mL)
(mL)
(Hr.)
1
2.0
0.0
4.5
2
2.0
0.0
5.0
3
2.0
0.0
3.0
4
2.0
0.0
5.0
5
2.0
0.0
5.0

Manuel-Schultz 12

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Averag
e

2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

5.5
5.0
4.0
5.0
3.0
3.5
4.5
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
3.5
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
3.5

0.0

4.5

Table 2 displays the breakdown time of shellac when a 30% composition

was used. This composition was obtained by placing 2 mL of confectioners glaze
in the test tubes, which can be observed in the above table. All of the trials had a
breakdown time of between three and five and a half hour. The average
breakdown of these trials is 4.5 hours, or about 4 hours and 30 minutes. It is
suggested from this data that a 30% shellac composition is a good fit for the
target breakdown time of 4 hours. In addition, it can be suggested that the 30%

Manuel-Schultz 13

composition has a significantly longer breakdown time than the 15% composition.
Because of this, further testing is required.
Table 3
Notable Observations for 15% Composition
Trial
Observations
#
2 The mixture was not stirred properly
4 Had to be scrapped and redone because of lost shellac.
9 The mixture was not stirred properly
A small amount of hydrochloric acid was lost when transferring it into a test
7
tube
15 Some shellac was spilled and more had to be added
20 The mixture was not stirred properly
29 There was bubbling in the pipette when withdrawing ethanol
Table 3 displays notable observations from the 15% shellac composition
that may have influenced the results.
Table 4
Notable Observations for 30% Composition
Trial
Observations
#
6 Some hydrochloric acid was lost on the transfer into the test tube
10 Had to be redone because of spilled shellac
11 A small amount of shellac was lost
Bubbling in the pipette when withdrawing hydrochloric acid, had to refill the
22
supply
28 Was scrapped and redone because of lost shellac
30 Bubbling in the pipette when withdrawing hydrochloric acid
Table 4 displays notable observations from the 30% shellac composition
that may have influenced the results.

Manuel-Schultz 14

Figure 2. 15% Composition trial

Figure 2 displays three pictures of the 15% composition. The first picture
shows the test tubes at the start of the trials. The picture on the right shows the
composition in the middle of the breakdown. As seen from the picture, the
breakdown of the mixture becomes more evident, especially with the first,
second, eighth, ninth, and tenth test tubes. The last picture shows the test tubes
at the end of the trials. As shown, the mixture has settled to the bottom in large
amounts.

Manuel-Schultz 15

Figure 3. 30% Composition trial

Figure 3 displays three pictures of the 30% composition: the beginning,
middle, and end of the trials. The picture on the left shows the start of the trials,
with the shellac lying on top of the hydrochloric acid. The picture on the right
shows the shellac composition breaking down gradually. As seen in this picture,
most of the test tubes contain a small amount of broken down shellac in the
bottom. The final picture shows the end of the trial, with all the test tubes
containing broken down shellac. However, unlike the trials shown in Figure 2,
there is less breakdown in the 30% composition.

Manuel-Schultz 16

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Throughout this experiment, the data collected was based off time in
seconds and is believed to be reliable data. The data was collected by observing
the test tubes with an iPad (or time lapse camera), then watching the video and
determining how many hours the shellac took to break down in the hydrochloric
acid. Two different compositions of shellac were compared to each other, and
they determined whether the breakdown time was significantly different than the
other composition. The trials being run were randomized using the TI-Inspire
calculator randomization function. The composition of shellac being used in a trial
was the factor being randomized throughout the experiment, which prevents any
suggestions of bias throughout the experiment. Also, thirty trials were run for
each composition of shellac in order for the experiment to meet its assumptions
that will later be discussed and to provide replication, which reduces variability in
the results. Because all of the above is true, the data collected was determined to
be reliable.

Manuel-Schultz 17

2.50 Q1 2.75
3.00
3.50

2.00

2.73 Mean

Median:
Q3:

4.00
3.00

5.50

Mean: 4.51
Time (Hours)

Figure 4. Box Plots of Data

Figure 4 displays the data collected for each composition of shellac
organized into box plots. As can be observed, the spread of the fifteen percent
composition appears to be normal, as it is evenly distributed on each side of the
median. The fifteen percent composition box plot also has a similar mean and
median. The thirty percent composition is left skewed because of the median
being at 5, and the mean being at 4.5.
When observed, the box plots appear to overlap; this is just a slight
overlap, however. It can be determined from the overlap that over 75% of the
thirty percent shellac data had a longer breakdown time than the fifteen percent
data. The means between both data sets is almost two hours in difference, and
the medians are nearly two and a half hours in difference. This suggests that the
thirty percent composition had a significantly longer breakdown time than the

Manuel-Schultz 18

fifteen percent composition. However, a two sample t-test would have to be

conducted to determine the significance of the data.
Ho: 15% = 30%
Ha: 15% 30%
Figure 5. Null and Alternative Hypotheses for the Two-Sample T-Test
The figure above displays the null and alternative hypotheses for the 15%
shellac composition data and the 30% shellac composition data. A two sample ttest was conducted on the data to determine the significance between both data
sets. This test was appropriate because the experiment compares two sample
means from two independent populations. The null hypothesis states that the two
compositions means are equal and will thus produce the same amount of
breakdown time. The alternative hypothesis states that the two compositions
have significantly different times and breakdowns.
The assumptions for the two-sample t-test are that the data is from
random samples or is a randomized experiment, the population distributions are
normal or large samples, and at least thirty trials are conducted. Almost all of
these assumptions were met as the trials were randomized, and thirty trials were
conducted for each composition of shellac. The problem was that the 30%
composition is left skewed instead of normal, which may affect the reliability of
the data. Regardless, the two sample t-test was conducted to determine the
significance of the data.

Manuel-Schultz 19

Figure 6. Results of Two Sample T-Test

Figure 6 shows the results from the test (see Appendix A for sample
calculations). For this test, the null hypothesis was rejected since the p-value of
3.19 x 10-16 is less than the alpha value of 0.05. There is significant evidence that
the two means of the populations breakdown time are not equal. There is almost
no chance that the data collected during the experiment happened by chance
alone, if Ho was true.

Figure 7. Results 95% Confidence Interval

Figure 7 shows the confidence intervals run for the true mean difference.
The confidence interval for this statistical test should be taken to the absolute
value because time has a positive value. It is with 95% confidence that the true
mean differences in breakdown time are between 1.47 and 2.09 for 30% and
15% shellac compositions. If repeated samples were taken and the 95%
confidence interval was computed for each sample, 95% of the intervals would
contain the population mean of the difference of breakdown time.

Manuel-Schultz 20

In conclusion, the statistical evidence shows that there is a significant

effect on the breakdown time when the percentage of shellac was changed
between 15% and 30%. Since the null hypothesis was rejected, the mean
breakdown times of both compositions were significantly different, which also
supports previous observations made from the raw data and the box plots.

Manuel-Schultz 21

Conclusion
In this experiment, the goal was to determine if different compositions of
shellac would be significantly different from each other in breakdown time. Two
compositions of shellac 30% and 15% were tested. The lower composition
was mixed with ethanol in order to lower its composition. The different
compositions were observed for five hours to determine the breakdown time in
hydrochloric acid, hydrochloric acid simulated stomach acid. The goal for
breakdown time was between four and five hours. The hypothesis of this
experiment was that the highest composition of shellac, 30%, would result in the
targeted amount of breakdown time. This hypothesis was accepted due to
multiple factors such as observations from the box plots, a two sample t-test
resulting in a p-value of 3.19E-19, and a 95% confidence interval between 1.47
and 2.09 units.
According to this data and testing, the means of the two compositions of
shellac were proven to be significantly different. The 30% composition had a
significantly higher breakdown time which can be observed in the data tables and
box plots. This was then proven with a two sample t-test and a confidence
interval. It can be justified that the results occurred significantly different because
of the large difference in the composition of shellac, as the higher composition
resisted breakdown in hydrochloric acid for a longer period of time, which
supports previously proven ideas. Shellac resists breakdown because many
layers of film are built from its hydroxyl structure. The higher composition had a
significantly longer breakdown time because more layers of film were constructed

Manuel-Schultz 22

within a higher concentration, resulting in a higher resistance to breakdown in

hydrochloric acid.
This experiment can be applied to aspects that benefit the scientific
community and the community in general. General information about delayedaction pill coating was proven, that shellac resists breakdown well in stomach
acid because of its hydroxyl group in its structure. Delayed-action pill coatings
can be a strong alternative to advanced medical procedures, such as fecal
transplants, for which this experiment was purposed to solve. The target time of
breakdown was around four hours because this would result in the contents of
the pill to be released after it passes through the stomach, so the contents would
not be dissolved in stomach acid. Future researchers will also be able to run
more advanced experiments to solve problems through the use of delayed-action
pill coatings.
This experiment can be related to an experiment run by Rachna Kumria,
who was mentioned in the Review of Literature. Kumrias experiment gave
similar results for the 30% shellac composition, where the breakdown time was
found to be between four and five hours. A difference between the experiments
derives from the 15% shellac composition, where the breakdown time was
around two and three hours. There is a difference in this composition because
there are less layers of film because of the lower concentration of shellac, which
means that it was easier for the shellac to be broken down. The connections
made between the two experiments provide an understanding to the subject of
delayed-action pill coatings.

Manuel-Schultz 23

Throughout numerous trials of experimentation, there were a few

noticeable design flaws and errors in the experiment. One error was that for the
ethanol and hydrochloric acid, the pipette would rarely withdraw bubbles and that
would result in less than 1 mL being drawn and placed in the test tube. Another
error in the experiment was the consistency of the confectioners glaze. It was
extraordinarily thick, and the total amount needed in each trial may not have
been exact because it would flow out of the graduated cylinder slowly, possibly
not expelling all the contents into the test tube. Another flaw in the experiment
was that the timing was not exact. A time lapse feature was used that would take
a picture of the test tubes every fifteen minutes. The times were not to the exact
minute. All of these small errors could have played a large role in influencing the
results of the experiment. If further testing is executed, it should be targeted to
limit these errors.
Further research can be done in relation to this experiment. Because this
experiment was limited to certain compositions of shellac, others should aim to
test different compositions of shellac when mixed with ethanol. Besides this,
researchers should aim to find another suitable substance for delayed-action
pills, as it would benefit the community greatly. Any further testing completed in
relation to this experiment would help the scientific community expand delayedaction pill knowledge, and help combat many problems within the world.

Manuel-Schultz 24

Appendix A: Two-Sample t-test

A two sample t-test was conducted to compare the breakdown time of

different compositions of shellac in hydrochloric acid, where

the 30% composition,

x 15

is the mean of the 15% composition,

standard deviation of the30% composition,

15% composition,

n30

x 30

S 15

is the mean of

S 30

is the

is the standard deviation of the

is the number of trials of 30% composition, and

n15

is

number of 15% composition trials. To calculate the t value, divide the quantity of
the mean of the 30% composition values minus the mean of 15% composition
values by the square root of the quantity of the standard deviation of 30%
composition trials squared over the number of 30% composition trials plus the
quantity of the 15% composition trials standard deviation squared over the
number of 15% composition trials.
t=

x 15 x 30

S 152 S 302
+
n15 n30

Shown below in Figure 8 is a sample calculation of the two sample t-test using
the data collected.
t=

x 15 x 30

S 152 S 302
+
n15 n30

Manuel-Schultz 25

2.734.51

(0.504)2 (0.676)2
+
30 trials 30trials
t=11.59

Figure 8. Two Sample t-test sample calculations

Appendix B: Confidence Interval
A confidence interval with a 95% confidence was used after the two

sample t test where

x 30

of the 15% composition,

S 15

is the mean of the 30% composition,

S 30

n15

is the mean

is the standard deviation of the 30% composition,

is the standard deviation of the 15% composition,

trials of 30% composition,

x 15

n30

is the number of

is number of 15% composition trials, and t* is

the value of confidence.

x

S15 2 S302
( 15 x 30 ) t
+
n15 n30

Shown below in Figure 9 is the calculation for the upper and lower confidence
interval 95% confidence. The value of t* in this experiment is 2.045.

Manuel-Schultz 26

S152 S302
( 15 x 30 ) t
+
n15 n30

( 2.734.51 ) 2.045

( 0.504 ) ( 0.676 )
+
30
30

2.09,1.47
Figure 9. 95% Confidence Interval Calculation

Appendix C: Professional Contact

Manuel-Schultz 27

Figure 10. Email of Apolloni, the Professional Contact

This Figure displays the continuous emails sent and received from the
professional contact, Karen Apolloni. She can be found in the works cited and
helped out with the experimental design by providing information about shellac
and ethanol.

Works Cited

Manuel-Schultz 28

Apolloni, Karen Krzisnik. Email interview. 26-29 October 2015.

Kumria, Rachna. Coating Polymers for Colon Specific Drug Delivery: A
Comparative in Vitro Evaluation. Acta Pharm. 53. By Vivek Ranjan Sinha.
Vol. 2003. Chandigarh: U Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2003. 4147. Print.
McAdams, Molly. "HCL Acid in Stomach." Healthy Eating. Demand Media, n.d.
Web. 30 Nov. 2015.
<http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/hcl-acid-stomach-5355.html>.
McGowan-Jackson, Holly. "Shellac in Conservation." 1992 Vol 18 No 1 & 2.pdf
(n.d.): n. pag. IACCM. Web. 1 Oct. 2015.
<http://aiccm.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/Bulletin1992/McGowanJackso
n_Bulletin_1992_Vol18No1and2.PDF>.
Mestel, Rosie. "The Colorful History of Pills Can Fill Many a Tablet." Los Angeles
Times. Los Angeles Times, 25 Mar. 2002. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.
<http://articles.latimes.com/2002/mar/25/health/he-booster25>.
"The Fecal Transplant Foundation." The Fecal Transplant Foundation. The Fecal
Transplant Foundation, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.
<http://thefecaltransplantfoundation.org/what-is-fecal-transplant/>.
Zeldovich, Lina. "Ancient Beer Recipes Lead to Modern Health Remedies."
Newsweek. Newsweek LLC, 26 Sept. 2015. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.
<http://www.newsweek.com/2015/10/09/ancient-beer-recipes-leadmodern-health-remedies-376935.html>.