Fungus toFuel

Primary source: http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/ef9015872

Secondary source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100609111318.htm

The article that I have chosen deals with the growing concern and need for renewable and accessible fuels; in particular the article focuses on the extraction of biodiesel from fungus to be used in renewable fuels. There is a growing concern in the global community about the rapid depletion and increasing scarcity of petroleum, the life blood of the modern world. Alternative fuels have been brought forth that have been synthesised from oils found in soy, sunflower seeds and palm. Though these fuels are clean burning and efficient, known as biodiesel, they bring up controversies about the use of edible food for fuel. The article being analysed addresses a ground breaking alternatives to the places that we find these oils needed for biodiesel; within microorganisms such as fungi.

Both the primary and secondary sources address the depletion of fossil fuels and the alternatives of fungi extracted biodiesel. However, the secondary source gives only a brief overview of both the research being done and the process by which the biomass extraction is being transformed into useable biodiesel. The secondary source also only mentions one specific fungi species being used in the research, being the one given the most attention and study, when, in fact, there are several species of fungi and microorganisms being tested and processed for the extracting of lipids and biomass. The primary source addresses the variety of organisms being studied but pays particular attention to the species Mucor circinelloid. The primary source mentions that it is due the lack of need for arable land and sunlight as well as no food completion that make oleaginous microorganisms such as fungi ideal for mass commercial production and research. The research paper then goes on to explain why the use of this particular fungi is used for the extraction of lipids. It explains that this is one of the only fungi in the study that has its genome completely sequenced and this allows for more in depth analysis of the of the fungi’s ability to produce such useful lipids. Connected to this the secondary source fails to mention the fact that the genome of the M. circinelloid is altered by replacing a certain mutant allele leuA with a wild allele. This genetic modification is only mentioned briefly in the primary research paper; this may pose more difficulty to the mass production of biodiesels in the future if genetic modification is required.

How exactly do they extract the biodiesel from the fungus to be used for fuel? The secondary source article doesn’t even so much as mention the process by which the lipids are extracted, except for a brief mention that the biodiesels are extracted without even extracting oils. This process is brought into full explanation by the primary article, though there are several weaknesses within their description of this process. The article describes the process as being a single- step method that transforms the oils within the biomass of the microorganism into useable fatty acid methyl esters, or FAME’s for short. This process of oil transformation is a little more complicated than the article seems to suggest at first. Once the reader gets past the complexity of the scientific terms, language and equations being used they can see that the process of FAME extraction involves incubation in a cocktail mixture of chemicals. This incubation also involves being kept in the dark for up to 96 hours and being spun at a constant of 250 spm. The solution then requires monitoring every 24 hours in order to keep the ph level steady with NaOH. The process continues through an acid-catalyzed transesterifictaion involving catalyst such as Br3, H2SO4 and HCl. A reagent – solvent system mixture of methanol and chloroform was added and placed in a rotary evaporator. The using various gases the residue of FAME’s was extracted and we are finally left with our desired produced to be used in the creation of biodiesel. As you can see this is much more than a one step process and more complicated than both the secondary source touches on and the primary sources pre determines. The matter of time also become a factor as both sources fail to mention the time requirement need for just one preparation of FAME’s ; this near week long process can pose a threat to the commercial production of biodiesel unless more efficient ways of extraction are developed.

The whole process involves the oils found in the fungus, but the secondary source does not specify which oils are involved. There are many different oils found in M. Circinelloides but only a small group of free fatty acids are suitable for processing in the acid-catalyzed transesterification. The oils percentages of the free fatty acids are also pretty abundant, but not quite as abundant as other oils and lipids found in the fungus.

Both the primary and secondary sources provide useful information on the research being done in the development of biodiesels from micro organic biomass. Though both these sources have useful strengths supporting the research they contain weaknesses in their description of the process of extraction and, as seen in the secondary source, in the lack of detail divulged. And BOOM goes the dynamite!!

Human's Influence on the Ocean Floor

On September 14, 2010, an article titled “Human Impacts on the Deep Sea Floor” was published in Science Daily. The article discusses the results of recent research dealing with the footprint of human activity on the seafloor of the North East Atlantic. This study, titled “Human Activities on the Deep Sea Floor in the North East Atlantic: An Assessment of Spatial Extent” was published in the PLoS ONE journal in September 2010, and deals primarily with data from 2005. Five activities were taken into consideration: the installation and presence of submarine communication cables, the effects of marine scientific research, bottom trawling for commercial fishing, the endeavors of the oil and gas industry, and past dumping of radioactive waste, chemicals, and munitions.

One point which the author of the article in Science Daily makes fundamentally clear is that bottom trawling single-handedly exceeds the footprint of all other considered activities. Though this statement does coincide with the results of the study, the author fails to fully recognize the limitations of the research. In the journal article, it is made evident that much of the results are based upon educated estimations because all the desired information was hard to come by. It is further noted that military activities were not taken into consideration, as most militaries refused to divulge their past and present behaviour. However, it is no secret that militaries used the ocean as a dumping site for munitions and chemical weapons to a great extent in the past. Surely if these numbers were included in the study, the effects from said activities would influence the results of the research. Furthermore, the journal article points out that since the data was colleted in 2005, there have been some newly approved rules and procedures for bottom trawling adopted by the European Union as well as the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission in the pursuit of protecting underwater ecosystems. The harmful effects of bottom trawling are indisputable, and by no means is the author conveying different results from what the researchers revealed, but through censoring out important information, it seems to portray the author’s personal opinion that the fishing industry is the main factor responsible for damage to the ocean’s ecosystems. Even if this opinion is highly plausible, the author should not have ignored the other contributing factors which the primary source brought light to.

A huge limitation to the study is due to the fact that only the footprint of intentional and direct human behavior was taken into account. The resulting effects of pollution, radioactive contamination, and related disturbances were not acknowledged, as it is much harder to ascertain the source of these problems. The research paper acknowledges that only the immediate effects were included in their study, as they had acceptable data to work with. They then point out the flaw in this by noting that some of the studied activities have an immediate effect on the sea floor, whereas others may have a delayed effect. It is noted that some consequences may be short-lived and the environment will be able reestablish itself quickly, whereas others are much longer lasting and ultimately may be the true source of damage. For example, when a drum of radioactive waste is dumped into the ocean, its initial effect would be to upset the surrounding environment of the ocean where it had sunk to. This is obviously not ideal, but in the greater scheme of things, it will not have a huge influence on the health of the ocean’s floor, as it is only a small percentage that will be affected. However, once one considers the possible leakage of radioactive waste from the drums, the consequences of its presence in the ocean seem much more widespread and grave. The article in Science Daily briefly mentioned that the study did not include ensuing effects such as pollution, however there was no discussion of the possible short term versus long-term effects. This is clearly a huge limitation to the research, which is noted so visibly in the primary source, yet the article ceased to mention it. The article may have failed to acknowledge this shortcoming in order to simplify the research and portray the results as much more conclusive then they in fact were.

Though I have predominantly remarked on the article’s lack of accuracy in regards to the original research, I do feel that overall it did a rather good job at portraying the information provided. One of the most important aspects of the study which the secondary source did not fail to mention was that much more work needs to be done in order to further understand the influence of human activities on the deep ocean floor. Through out the entire study, it is evident that many of the numbers provided are simply guesswork, hence data needs to be more adamantly governed and collected. Both the study and the article conclude by mentioning that there still remains a huge lack of knowledge of the seafloor, and we must aim to increase this understanding as it is becoming exceedingly integral for the world we live in. I found it very redeeming that the article in Science Daily mentioned this, because it acts as an acknowledgement that the research results are not set in stone and do need to be improved upon. Though the secondary source may have overlooked some important information that the research included, it is almost inevitable when summarizing a twenty-five page report into a page and a half. This simply acts to prove the point that when reviewing a secondary source, the reader must take what is given to them with a grain of salt and be apprehensive to accept what they are reading as absolute truth. In order to fully understand the findings which the secondary source is conveying, it is best to go straight to the primary source.

References:

Angela R. Benn, Philip P. Weaver, David S. M. Billet, Sybille van den Hove, Andrew P. Murdock, Gemma B. Doneghan, Tim Le Bas, Peter Roopnarine. Human Activities on the Deep Seafloor in the North East Atlantic: An Assesment of Spatial Extent. PLoS ONE, 2010; 5 (9): e12730 DOI: 10. 1371/journal.pone.0012730

National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (UK) (2010, September 14). Human Impacts on the deep seafloor. Science Daily. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100914115244.htm

http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfneap/map.htm (picture)

Oil Sands Study of Emissions

The oil sands of Alberta were percieved by critics to be emitting up to three to five times more emissions than other sources. But a recent study done by the Primary source, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates (IHS CERA), suggests that it might be considerably less than previously thought. Oil exported to the United States from the oil sands might only emit about six percent more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than the average oil consumed in the U.S. The study, “wells-to-wheels” was conducted by the primary source to examine existing studies and disprove criticisms of three to five times more emissions from the oil sands (The Calgary Herald 2010).
‘“There's a big range of numbers out there, and what we really tried to do is look not only at the range among all the study results, but try to create a number that represents the average for the industry,’ said IHS CERA director Jackie Forrest, who is stationed in Calgary.” (The Calgary Herald 2010) (Healing, 2010).
This is the second of a four-part report published by the Primary source IHS CERA; the first report, published in May 2010, stated that the oil sands could become the U.S.’s largest supplier of crude oil by this year and could supply 20-36 percent of their oil by 2030 which was not mentioned in the Secondary source.
The primary source study doesn’t quite convince environmentalists who say that the research done by the Primary source only proves that the oil sands are more GHG concentrated, according to the Secondary source. (Healing, 2010)
The Secondary source shows different opinions expressed by numerous people such as Simon Mui from the Natural Resources Defence Council in San Francisco. He stated that he can’t understand where the Primary source came about its numbers. Mui then compared it to a NRDC study published earlier this year. NRDC’s results showed a range in emissions between eight and 37 percent higher life-cycle emissions than what the U.S. presently uses. The article has many criticisms and tells very little information about how IHS CERA got its data. It simply stated facts from the study done by the Primary source but gave opinions and arguments about the validity of the results.
The research analysis done by Primary source includes emissions produced by crude oil extraction, processing, distribution, and combustion in an engine which is not mentioned in the article. The Primary source is much more in-depth than the Secondary source which only focuses on part of the research done by the Primary source. It excludes how the life-cycle GHG analyses are being used to modify transportation fuel policy.
The Primary source states facts that were found in their analysis of “wells-to-wheels” and includes everything from a whole rather than a certain part of an operation. I agree with the Primary source in that this analysis should be done as a whole instead of by parts because the study is done on a broad basis about the oil sands, greenhouse gases, and US oil supply. All of these come into play when the question is asked “how much do the oil sands emit?”
This causes criticism because as Terra Simieritsch of the Pembina Institute suggests that there could be a large difference in results when tailpipe emissions are included. When tailpipe emissions are included, the overall emission statistics are increased which consequently reduces the percentage differences between the GHG emissions and the average oil consumed in the U.S. If these emissions are not included in the analysis then the result could be 60 percent higher than U.S. domestic crude (The Calgary Herald 2010). The title of the article by Dan Healing grabs interest in the hope that the oil sands could possibly not be as large polluters as previously criticized. The facts summarized by Healing are correct and bring across the main points of the analysis done by IHS CERA, but Healing also included many criticisms from other people.
Potential areas of limitation in the analysis done by IHS CERA could be caused by the fact that the oil exported to the U.S. are often blended products of oil sands and lower carbon products rather than being entirely derived from oil sands (IHS CERA Analysis 2010).
Some admitted problems in collecting data is that it is often done by general rules or estimation but the GHG emissions are constantly changing and can vary greatly over time. Even for a particular crude oil source, there are many different GHG emission values that have been calculated (IHS CERA Analysis 2010).
I believe that Healings summarization of the research and analysis done by IHS CERA is a good review of the main points of the Primary source. But the Secondary source does show some favouritism towards the criticisms of the Primary source. There are no quotes from the Primary source, but many in the secondary source speaking against validity of the breakdown of the information that led to the results.

Works Cited
IHS CERA, I. (2010). Oil Sands, Greenhouse Gases, and US Oil Supply: Getting the Numbers Right. IHS CERA: Special Report .
Healing, D. (2010). Oilsands products don't emit as some think: Study. The Calgary Herald .
Picture. Alberta Geological Society. Retrieved from http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/energy/oilsands/alberta_oil_sands.html

Increase in BPA Levels [Primary vs. Secondary Source]

A journal outlines an experiment and its main results. An article outlines the journal, usually conveying the most important results that would apply to the reader. Simple enough, right? Not always. Since the article is limited to a certain amount of words, it has to condense the journal down to its main points. The article can almost be thought of as a Cole’s Notes version of the journal. It translates the heavily worded and abbreviation plagued text into something more understandable for the reader. During all this translating and condensing a lot of points from the main journal can be cut out. This can result in the main findings or even the topic of the journal to be changed.  Sometimes this can cause a large difference between the primary and secondary source, but not always. In this post, the journal “Similarity of Bisphenol A Pharmacokinetics in Phesus Monkeys and Mice: Relevance for Human Exposure” by Julia A. Taylor and the corresponding articles “BPA Levels Much Higher Than FDA Estimates, Study Says” and “Higher Than Predicted Human Exposure to the Toxic Chemical Bisphenol A or BPA, New Study Indicates”, both of which do not have authors listed, will be compared to see the difference between a primary and secondary source.

The journal “Similarity of Bisphenol A Pharmacokinetics in Phesus Monkeys and Mice: Relevance for Human Exposure” goes through how several researchers administered bioactive and non-bioactive Bisphenol A (BPA) to adult female monkeys and mice and then tested after predetermined amounts of time how much remained in their systems. From this they would be able to tell how much of the BPA was digested and if any of it accumulated in the system with time. They could then compare their results with pre-existing data from a previous experiment done with humans to see if there was any relation. From their data they would be able to tell whether monkeys, mice, and humans all digested BPA differed. The article “BPA Levels Much Higher Than FDA Estimates, Study Says” talks about how humans may be ingesting more BPA than previously thought and from different sources.  As you can see, the main points of the journal and the article aren’t really matching up. This is an example of an article focusing in on just one point of a journal. The proposal that humans were ingesting more BPA was mentioned in the journal in the results section, it just was not one of the main objectives of the experiment. The reason the article would focus in on this point is because the idea that the public is taking in a harmful chemical is a very appealing subject. It is something that people would want to know about.  For the rest of the article it refers to other studies done for products with possible BPA content and talks about North America’s way of dealing with such products. There is no mention of how the experiment was conducted or how they concluded the high levels of BPA were being ingested. The article only uses points that support the one conclusion, and makes no mention of any of the other findings in the journal.

Another article that was based on this journal is titled “Higher Than Predicted Human Exposure to the Toxic Chemical Bisphenol A or BPA, New Study Indicates”. It too focused on the conclusion that humans were consuming more BPA through different products. The difference between its delivery of the information and that of the previous article is that it gives more information about the experiment itself. The tagline to the article is:  “Researchers have discovered that women, female monkeys and female mice have major similarities when it comes to how bisphenol A (BPA) is metabolized. . .”. So right away the reader is told a bit more about the experiments results.  Then, like the previous article, it talks a little bit about the products BPA can be found in, basic facts about it and what the United States are doing about it. 

A secondary source can sometimes focus on a small point made in a journal and sometimes it can take a point out of context. With the articles mentioned today, we only came across the prior point. However, we did see how the articles can differ. Both articles mentioned the point that BPA may be found in more products than originally thought and one article went into a bit more detail about the experiment involved. So to say whether an article of a journal is bad or not one must decide how much information about that topic they need. The first article went into nice detail about BPA products and how Canada and the USA are dealing with them, while the second article related the topic more to how it was concluded. Therefore, we can see that the focus of an article can differ from the main focus of the journal it is related to. 

References:

Taylor JA, vom Saal FS, Welshons WV, Drury B, Rottinghaus G, Hunt PA, et al. 2010. Similarity of Bisphenol A Pharmacokinetics in Rhesus Monkeys and Mice: Relevance for Human Exposure. Environ Health Perspect :-. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002514 link:http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1002514#Ahead%20of%20Print%20%28AOP%29

Environmental Leader. (2010, September). BPA Levels Much Higher Than FDA Estimates, Study Says. Retrieved from http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/09/23/bpa-levels-much-higher-than-fda-estimates-study-says/

Sciencedaily (2010, September 21). Higher than predicted human exposure to the toxic chemical bisphenol A or BPA, new study indicates. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2010/09/100920173008.htm

Image from: http://www.ohdeedoh.com/ohdeedoh/green-ideas/rubbermaid-products-bpa-status-049821

Julia Lee -- 0722659 -- ENVS*1020

Contaminated River caused by Oil Sand Mines

By: Jacquelyn Saturno

One of the main focuses of research is getting right to the source and filling in the answers to all our questions. By obtaining this information directly the speculation to whether or not the resource has some exaggerated statements are very minimal; this research being the primary source. That being said, reading up on articles, journals, reports would be our first step; these being secondary sources. Articles contain our topic of interest with facts and studies from the primary source to make it true. The two sources, primary and secondary, are important aspects when doing thorough research.


For this blog I have chosen the article entitled, "Environment Minister to look into oil sand pollution monitoring", September 19, 2010. This article describes the environmental issue regarding the pollution in the Athabasca River, tainted by neighbouring oil and mine companies. Fish deformities and cancer victims have increased over the years due to the compound known as polycyclic aromatic compound, which is found in oil sand. The increase concentration of dissolved polycyclic aromatic compound is more likely poisonous to fish embryos. This article is referring to how the government is getting involved with monitoring the water quality and the controversy on whether or not the neighbouring oil sand mining companies are truly responsible. This article is based off of the study "Oil sands development contributes polycyclic aromatic compounds to the Athabasca River and its tributaries" written by David W. Schindler, Eric N. Kelly and few more staff members from the Department of Biological Science at the University of Alberta. This study was published online before print by PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) on December 7, 2009. Keep in mind; this is the study determining the effects of the oil sand development on the Athabasca River. It is research written and evaluated by scientists and contains an immense amount of information.


On the other hand, the article is the resource that brings up issues to inform the public about current affairs. The focus of the article is different from the focus of the report by David Schindler and his colleagues. This news article was wrapped around the topic about the controversy about the truths behind the severity of the contamination. RAMP (Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program) denied any claims that the conditions of the water was getting worse. Also, as stated at the title, the environment minister will be reviewing the RAMP program. Although, some of this information is mentioned in the primary source, it remains irrelevant to the main focus of the primary source. The primary source is the research that the scientists of the University of Alberta worked on and the results that they obtained from their experiments. They discuss the different locations, Althabasca River, its tributaries, the Athabasca Delta, and the Lake Athabasca that they took samples from and tested for polycyclic aromatic compounds. They mentioned the type of methods and forms of technology that were used to give a detailed described to support their results. The article doesn't get into that sort of detail, the focus remained political.



The strengths and limitations of both sources are linked to the detail of information, depending on what the reader is looking for. The primary source hasn't been written to gain public attention but mainly as a new discovery for other scientists, politicians, etc. Its audience is limited in that way. It is structured in an overwhelming format with all of their detailed research displayed in a way that most people would have a difficult time understanding. On the other hand, the fact that the report is detailed gives the reader more information after they have read the article. The secondary report informs the reader, but the primary report gives a thorough background and fills in the holes. The picture on the right is one of the pictures found in the primary report. It gives a thorough idea about the locations the scientists visited and where polycyclic aromatic compounds have been located. This picture wouldn't be found in the secondary report because the image requires a lot of detailed information from the research to grasp the purpose behind it.

Despite lacking an immense amount of detailed research, articles or other secondary sources are not put at a disadvantage. The focus of articles is to gain the interest of its readers and inform them, like I stated before. Not too many people would show much interest in reading up on scientific research and learn about these scientists' studies. Not until this new research is put into effect to solve, in this case, environmental issues. The research from the primary source is used to back up arguments mentioned in this article. The reader will get the gist of the research in order to be able to follow with the argument in the article.

In conclusion, although both sources are significantly different in terms of description and detail, the secondary source used the primary source very well and didn't leave out any important details. The primary source was very informative and gave a great amount of important facts that David Schindler and his colleagues gathered together. The article remained dedicated to the story but still used information from the research when appropriate.

References

Dearing, Stephanie. "Environment Minister to look into oil sand pollution monitoring." www.digitaljournal.com/article/297792 Sept. 19, 2010

Schindler, David., et al. "Oil sands development contributes polycyclic aromatic compounds to the Athabasca River and its tributaries" www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0912050106.full.pdf+html Dec. 7, 2009

Using Bed Bug Mating for Pest Control

Pest Control Canada (2010).

Humankind has always been fascinated by the world around him, and has always monitored other living things closely in the hope of learning more about them. But all too often, these discoveries can be clouded by people’s desire to use these for their own purposes. As a result, miscommunications are made, as these findings are passed along to broader mediums which are more likely to be noticed by the general public.

I am talking, of course, about the disconnect that can be found between the scientific journals which describe their hypotheses, experiments, analyses, and communications in depth; and the daily newspapers and other news sources whose job it is to describe these in brief, comprehensible terms. However, they risk leaving out important details while doing so. At times, these secondary sources will even depart from the original purpose of the primary source completely, replacing the original hypothesis with a new subject that might be more appealing to the average civilian.

Such is the case with the Toronto Star article “Bedbug sex, interrupted,” published by Nicole Baute on Friday, September 10, 2010. The article cites a study from BMC Biology which researched the mating style of the male bed bug; and the method that bed bug nymphs, mistaken for females, used to drive off the lust-fuelled intruders. However, the focus of the secondary article is not really bed bug behaviour at all, but a scientific look at pest control:

In a new study published by BMC Biology Wednesday, scientists in Sweden found young bedbugs, called nymphs, release an “anti-aphrodisiac” pheromone that stops adult males from sexually harassing them.

The researchers think the pheromone could one day be used as part of a pest control method to help families and cities battling bedbugs.

The bugs are an ongoing problem in Toronto, where Toronto Public Health has received more than 1,000 calls about bedbugs this year alone. Later this month, stakeholders will meet at Queen’s Park for a “Bedbug Summit” hosted by MPP Mike Colle, who says there’s an abundance of pest control options but little comprehensive research on which ones actually work.

The spike in international bedbug infestations in the past decade has brought new scientific interest and funding for research.

During experiments for Lund University’s chemical ecology department, Vincent Harraca watched thousands of bedbugs mate (or try to).

A word of warning: bedbug sex is not a gentle affair. It involves something called ‘traumatic insemination.’

A male bedbug’s penis is sharp, “like a weapon,” Harraca says, allowing it to pierce the abdomen of a female bedbug before releasing sperm.

The eager male will jump on not only female bedbugs but also other adult males and nymphs of both sexes, which are not yet fully developed.

Harraca and his colleagues found that, when mounted, a nymph bedbug releases a pheromone that sends a signal to its attacker to leave it alone.

“When the male jumps on the nymph, the nymph will open his gland and release the pheromone and the male will jump off very quickly,’” Harraca explains.

He believes a man-made version of the pheromone, sprayed alongside an insecticide, could be used to interfere with bedbug sex, confusing the male bedbugs into thinking all the others are nymphs and thus slowing the bedbug reproduction rate.

Because it sends the bugs running, the pheromone might also make the insecticide more effective.

Baute (2010).

Had a reader viewed only the article without also looking at the original study, he or she might conclude that the purpose of this experiment was to find an effective insecticide for bed bugs. Although the title and study itself both allude to a focus on a bed bug’s mating behaviour, large sections of the article are devoted instead on the bed bug problem in Toronto, and how this research could end it by developing an agent to get rid of the bugs. And while the person talking about this was apparently one of the people behind the study, the journal entry itself does not mention it once. The real objective of the study is clearly illustrated in the hypothesis of the abstract:

Background: Abdominal wounding by traumatic insemination and the lack of a long distance attraction pheromone set the scene for unusual sexual signalling systems. Male bed bugs (Cimex lectularius) mount any large, newly fed individual in an attempt to mate. Last instar nymphs overlap in size with mature females, which make them a potential target for interested males. However, nymphs lack the female’s specific mating adaptations and may be severely injured by the abdominal wounding. We, therefore, hypothesized that nymphs emit chemical deterrents that act as an honest status signal, which prevents nymph sexual harassment and indirectly reduces energy costs for males.

Harraca et al. (2010).

All that can be noted there are general facts about bed bug sex and the educated guess as to how they avoid the painful process when it is unnecessary—both of which were also in the Toronto Star article. What is missing, though, is the connection to developing a potential insect-killer. Additionally, the abstract’s conclusion merely reflects what had been originally hypothesized.

Conclusions: By combining behavioural and sensory studies, we show that the nymph-specific alarm pheromone plays an important role in intra-specific communication in the common bed bug. Alarm pheromones are commonly looked upon as a system in predator/prey communication, but here we show that alarm pheromones may be used as multipurpose signals such as decreasing the risk of nymphal mating by males.

Harraca et al. (2010).

As the abstract suggests, the real focus of the research done here is merely bed bug behaviour and communication. The paper contains no concrete applications to the results here, such as the concept of producing an insecticide out of synthetic pheromones. And so the original objective is lost in translation in the Toronto Star article, beset by unreliable conclusions which will still most likely interest several readers anyway. After all, with the recent talk of bed bug infestations such as the supposed one at Toronto’s Scotiabank Theatre, such a way to eliminate them would certainly be welcomed.

Still, it would not be wise to heed early promises, especially when even the Toronto Star article treats this concept with caution. This can be noted when the article quotes Toronto MPP Mike Colle, who has called the study “piecemeal and contradictory” (Baute, 2010). Baute then goes on to state Colle’s desire to conduct more in-depth research devoted to finding a way to eradicate the bed bugs once and for all.

A reader might either like the fact that the article is aware of the primary-secondary disconnect, or instead turn to a paper that is surer of the primary source that it cited. Regardless, though, these concerns focus solely on the objective of the secondary article. Colle does not want a closer look on how bed bugs communicate; instead, he just wants the bed bugs gone, and is willing to present extensive scientific research to do so.

By this point, the secondary article has cast off the subject of the primary article completely, even though it never would have been written had the primary paper not been published. Admittedly, the secondary paper is not entirely at fault, as the focus on insect extermination came from one of the same people who wrote the original research paper. All points considered, though, both papers displayed here show what can happen when a secondary source twists new ideas into a primary source. And this is certainly a concept that people should be curious to learn more about.  

Reference List

Baute, N. Bedbug sex, interrupted. (2010, September 10). Toronto Star. Retrieved September 21, 2010, from

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/bedbugs/article/858913--bedbug-sex-interrupted.

Harraca, V. et al. Nymphs of the common bed bug (Cimex lectularius) produce anti-aphrodisiac defence against conspecific males. (2010, September 9) BMC Biology. Retrieved September 21, 2010, from

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7007-8-121.pdf.

Pest Control Canada. Bed Bugs. (2010, September 15). [Photograph]. Retrieved September 23, 2010, from

http://pestcontrolcanada.com/INSECTS/bedbugs.htm. 

Water Fleas can Convert Nitrates and Nitrites to Toxic Nitric Oxide

Toxicologists from the North Carolina State University recently released the results of a study that they conducted that alters many common beliefs about nitrates and nitrites. The Nation Science Foundation has posted a secondary source article in order to create interest and consciousness about the issue within the public. The secondary source article is based of the original primary source article that was posted on PLos One on August 27, 2010. The basis of the sources is that the toxicologists preformed a study that found that water fleas could convert nitrites and nitrates into toxic nitric oxide. The effects of nitric oxide have thus far been found to be extremely negative in the water fleas. This creates further questions about what are the implications of this for humans, other organisms, and ecosystems? There are many similarities and differences in the articles, which are due mainly to the restrictions created based on the type of source that they are, primary and secondary.

The two sources vary in many ways such as tone, structure, thoroughness and scientific language. First of all, the tones of the two sources were dissimilar due to the different purposes that each source was meant for. The scientific primary article is meant to alert the scientific community of the specific findings resulting from the study preformed. It leaves any opinions about what should be done with the subject matter up to the reader. In contrast the secondary source can be much less formal in their approach. This means that they can include opinions and stress certain subject matter to their liking to convey the point they wish to make to the reader. For instance, I could deduce that the author of the secondary source believes that fertilizers are the biggest concern, when talking about things that introduce nitrates and nitrites into water systems because fertilizers are the only source they mention (and include in their title). However, the primary source reveals that there are actually many other sources for the nitrates and nitrites to come from such as the manure from concentrated animal feed operations. Secondary sources can also include opinions from interviews with the author of the primary source. My secondary source did include quotations from one of the authors of the primary source, which clearly created a tone of genuine concern for the environment.

The structures of the two sources were also very different in that the primary source was strictly organized with multiple titles and subtitles to create a more lab format for the journal. The secondary source was much shorter and did not contain any subheadings. These differences are because the actual journal and the article written about it contained vastly different amounts of information. The journal is required to be extremely detailed and thorough in order to have credibility in the scientific community. There are countless differences in thoroughness between the two sources but one that I feel would have been beneficial to include in the secondary source is that the study was carried out on Drosophila S2 (which are insect cells from a fly) as well as the water fleas. I feel that including that the second test subject would make the public feel it is a greater issue if it is proven in two subjects rather than just one. Also, the secondary source lumps nitrates and nitrite completely as one, when in actual fact the study found that nitrites had significantly more severe consequences than nitrates. This doesn’t mean that nitrates aren’t bad, it would simply clarify for the reader that nitrites are a bigger problem that need to be dealt with. Lastly, I believe that the secondary source should have elaborated more on the negative reproduction effects found in the water fleas instead of mostly just the developmental effects. I believe they should have included the information from the primary study that less offspring were produced from female water fleas that were exposed to the nitric oxide. I think that this is important because it shows the reader that not only do underdeveloped features reduce the life expectancy of an organism and thus endangering the population, but also that there are less in the population to begin with making the survival of the few all the more important.

Lastly, the two sources vary in language, meaning that the primary source is displayed in much more scientific words than the secondary source. The difference makes the secondary source easy to read and understand. In contrast however, the primary source is extremely difficult to read and understand completely what is being said.

The two sources are also similar in a few ways. They both do a good job at presenting the severity of the problem by comparing the concentrations of nitrates and nitrites in actual water bodies (1 to 2 milligrams per litre of water) to the concentrations that effects were recorded at in the fleas (roughly .3 milligrams per litre). The primary source uses exact values from the tests and the secondary source uses rougher estimates from the interview but both show the reader that our current concentrations are high enough to do significant damage to populations that are effected by nitric oxide.

The conclusions of both sources leave the reader with different ideas about what the next step of action should be. The course of action suggested for each source is very appropriate for whom each source is directing their ideas to. The primary source suggests that the next step is to discover the mechanism by which nitrates and nitrites are converted to nitric oxide within the water flea’s body. This is very appropriate because it is directed at the scientific community and they are the ones with the capabilities to pursue this course of action. The secondary source’s conclusion attempts to lead the reader’s thoughts and actions towards ways to keep the chemicals out of the water system. This is also very suitable because, the readers have the possibility to look for things in their lifestyles they could change, which could set examples to possibly reduce the problem in the long run.

Refrence List:

Secondary Source:
"Fertilizer Chemicals Linked to Animal Developmental Woes." Us News. 2010. National Science Foundation. Web.22 September 2010.
from http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/08/31/fertilizer-chemicals-linked-to-animal-developmental-woes.html

Primary Source:
Hannas BR, Das PC, Li H, LeBlanc GA (2010) Intracellular Conversion of Environmental Nitrate and Nitrite to Nitric Oxide with Resulting Developmental Toxicity to the Crustacean Daphnia magna. PLoS ONE 5(8): e12453.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012453
from http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012453

Photo:
Daphnia. Photograph. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Web. 23 Sep. 2010
.

By: Kate Robinson 0719523

Blog Assignment #1 Primary Source vs. Secondary Source

Liyan Liu

ID 0276777

ENVS*1020

Professor Jonathon Newman

University of Guelph

September 23, 2010

Blog Assignment #1

Primary Source vs. Secondary Source

In Nature article “Climate change: A glacial test of timing” (09 September 2010) the author, Martin P. Kirkbride, states few obstacles which encountered when we refer to the glacial test of timing in climate change. In Quaternary Geochronology, the article “In situ cosmogenic ¹⁰Be production-rate calibration from the Southern Alps, New Zealand” composed by A.E. Putnam, J.M. Schaefer and their colleagues demonstrate and present a rich array of statistics of the production-rate values and the consistencies of the production rate from their rigorous field investigations. In the rest of my blog I would like to compare and contrast these two articles in terms of their interpretations of dating the moraines deposited in the glacial formation, also the strength of their claims and the limitations in these two research sources.

First of all two articles are all investigating on the examination of the glacial timing. That is, we can find there are fundamentally similarities between them, like on the concepts of calculating the ¹⁴C and ¹⁰Be production-rate calibration in the tests, the seemingly intractable issues of the time-integrated production-rate uncertainties refer to the standard methods of measurements and also some problems which come across when they talk about errors related to the uncertanties.

At the time the dissimilarities of these two papers also can not be overlooked even they based on a same issue because the results are definitely different. Firstly by comparison of the two articles, in the secondary source article, the author pays more attention on laying out what problems or highlights have emerged in the research rather than really going through or addressing the problems. Nevertheless the Putnman and his teams have done tests and acquired to some degree of agreement and consistencies. For instance, in the discussion session of the research report, they obtains a successful performance of the Macaulay production rates at the BST (Boundary Stream tarn) test site which can be perfectly applied on the calculation of exposure ages in the New Zealand. Concequentially they also provide the conditions of usage of these production rates of the Macaulay calibration site, which exactly figures out avoiding the uncertainties that blocked in the calculations. Apparently, when we go back to the Martin’s article, it mostly like an impossible mission that how to settle down the deposit-date of the last glaciation. So we can see that the primary literature tries to use tests to clarify the problems instead of which in sencondary resource foucusing on attracting readers by bombarding them with exaggerated puzzles.

Moreover the strength of the claim of the magazine is not pretty concrete in compare with the original material. Obviously the primary source has illustrated more facts and evidences from their team research which has stronger and academic structure than that of the magazine article. Let’s be specific, when Martin tries to illustrate the study from the Southern Alps of New Zealand of a contemporary glacier advance, he can solely demonstrates no more than a general statement that the group of scientists have “combined rigorous fief investigations and state-of-the-art geochronology to resolve a long-standing debate” (Martin 2010), which feels like just getting right on the tangent or edge of the core but not being supported by any material. Whereas, in the original research paper that constructed by A.E. Putnam and his colleagues are thoroughly specific and providing enough evidences which could rely on thire data. For example, in the method session, they can firmly inventory the name of institutions and laboratories, like the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) or the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) that have analysised and supported their data processing, which can be one of the reasons why the primary source is a reliable and authoritative reference material.

Admittedly the limitations of the two types of resources can still be exposed by their advantages. The magazine article is mostly written for common public readers so Martin is trying to make the article more interesting, fascinating, but also knowledgeable . In this case he illustrated many aspects of questions encountered from the academic research and study. However, these benefits can lead to the depreciating of the article. For example, after Martin finishes all the tangential statements about the problems, at the end of the report he makes a argument that the problem that why we still have these a lot of problematic difficulties is deposited by the scientists do not make effort on leaving us with a better set of questions. In my opinion I don’t think this kind argument could give me a relief from those intractable puzzles of the glacial test of timing if I am a big fan of this magazine.

On the other hand the original journal could be concretely and specifically related to the research, but it also could be overwhelming and lengthy for a common reader. For this case we can even compare by illustrations which showed in the articles.

A. Putnam shows a seneray photo as evidence to say how scientist dated moraine ridges. However the original reseach point out the selected sample sites when researchers operated the measurement.

In conclusion there is similarities in these two sources ,yet the distiguishments between them are also unavoidable. But I think this is also understandable that the publications must have its own target readers which have demands matching with the features of the press or sources.

References

Martin P. Kirkbride (2010) Climate change: A glacial test of timing. Nature 467,169-161, 08 September 2010.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7312/full/467160a.html#/references. Published online 08 September 2010

A.E. Putnam & J.M. Schaefer (2009), “In situ cosmogenic ¹⁰Be production-rate calibration from the Southern Alps, New Zealand”, Quaternary Geochronology 5 (2010) 392-409

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B83WJ-4XWMNKX-1&_user=1067211&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000051237&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1067211&md5=354a3a8882d9b3e2cf135bd25f82b58a&searchtype=a