0115 966 7955 Today's Opening Times 10:30 - 17:00 (BST)

Comparing Oxygen Levels to Heart Rate Recovery and Peak Time

Published: Last Edited:

Disclaimer: This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. You can view samples of our professional work here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

Research Question

How do different concentrations of oxygen provided to the respiratory system affect the heart rate and thus a subjects[JB1] athletic capabilities?

Introduction[JB2]

Firstly, it is important to investigate how the body's respiratory system functions. The lungs have two primary functions, releasing carbon dioxide from the body and integrating oxygen into the bloodstream 3. The lungs never reach peak capacity and are not responsible for the limitation in oxygen delivered to the muscles 1. This is important because, in the case of this experiment the limitations may be reached[JB3]. There is always approximately the same amount of oxygen in the air in relation to everything else: 21%. However[JB4] as altitude increases there is less air pressure and thus less oxygen available to the lungs per diaphragm contraction cycle. Instead of changing the barometric pressure, there will simply be less or more oxygen in the air, in this experiment[JB5]. This may cause an abnormal result as the body responds differently to drastically altered conditions. When the oxygen content of the air is drastically reduced[JB6], the blood will most likely be [JB7]significantly less saturated and when the oxygen content of the air is drastically increased [JB8]the blood should be more saturated with oxygen 2.

It is then necessary to investigate how this might affect the cardiac system. The amount of oxygen that is available to the cells while they are producing ATP[JB9] to drive the body is important, because if there is not enough oxygen available for aerobic respiration, than[JB10] anaerobic respiration will take place. Anaerobic respiration will produce lactate and carbon dioxide. The lactate (lactic acid), triggers a response from the sympathetic nervous system1, 2. The noradrenergic sympathetic nervous system produces norepinephrine. The SA node (sinoatrial node), stimulated by the norepinephrine hormone increases both the rate that the heart beats and the degree to which the heart completes a systolic contraction 1,2. In addition to the sympathetic nervous system, the medulla senses the increase of carbon dioxide in the blood due to anaerobic respiration. The medulla then sends an electrical signal through the cardiac nerve to the SA node2.

A live O2 machine will be used [JB11]in order to [JB12]carry out this experiment. It produces and stores 15% oxygen and 95% oxygen separately. These will be the two concentrations of oxygen that will be used [JB13]to compare the times it takes for heart rates to peak and then recover. The independant[JB14] variable is the concentration of Oxygen. The dependant[JB15] variable is the time it takes for the subject to peak and the time it takes for the subject to recover. The experiment will be controlled [JB16]by regulating the speed at which the treadmill is set [JB17]to. Since the point of this experiment is to compare differences[JB18] the difference in the individual's athletic ability should not make a difference in the data.

Materials

Live O2 Machine

Oxygen mask

Treadmill

Heart rate/oxygen saturation monitor

Clorox and paper towels

Timer

Experimental Overview

The Live O2 machine which will be used [JB19]to create, store and deliver the two different concentrations of oxygen is comprised of an oxygen machine, storage bag with two compartments, a delivery system with a mask and a switch to change which concentration of oxygen is being delivered[JB20].

[JB21]

The picture above, depicting the live[JB22] O2 system is the one that was used[JB23], except a treadmill was used[JB24] instead of a stationary bike as is depicted[JB25]. The test subjects heart rate peak times and recovery times were first tested [JB26]with the increased level of oxygen, they were then given [JB27]a period of rest while another subject ran on the treadmill. Then, after the period of rest the subject would run on the treadmill again and their peak and recovery times would be measured [JB28]with the restricted levels of oxygen. The threshold for the heart rate peaking was 140 bpm[JB29]. The threshold for recovered was when the heart rate of the subject was within 10 of their original resting heart rate. For example, if the test subject's resting heart rate was 65 bpm, they would be considered [JB30]recovered when their heart rate dropped back below 75.

Procedure

Step 1

First 8[JB31] willing people were found[JB32], who were athletically fit [JB33]enough that there would not be any damage to their body through the testing. Then the 8[JB34] people were instructed [JB35]not to drink any sort of caffeine or any other stimulant before the experiment. The mask of the live[JB36] O2 machine was cleaned [JB37]with clorox[JB38] and the oxygen machine was turned [JB39]on to fill up the two individual bags.

Step 2

Then the resting heart rate of the subject was taken [JB40]with the heart rate monitor. Ten was added [JB41]to the resting number to determine the threshold that the heart rate must reach during recovery to determine whether or not [JB42]the subject has 'recovered.' The heart rate monitor was left [JB43]on the subjects[JB44] finger to monitor their heart rate, Then[JB45] the oxygen was se[JB46]t to the 95% setting and the treadmill was set [JB47]to 5 miles per hour. Then, once the subject was at 5 miles per hour the timer was started [JB48][JB49]and the subject was instructed[JB50] to hold the mask to their face. The timer was stopped [JB51][JB52]once the subjects heart rate reached 140 bpm. Then the treadmill was stopped [JB53]and the subject was instructed [JB54]to keep the mask on. Then the time it took for their heart rate to return to the predetermined resting rate was measured[JB55].

Step 3

The first subject was then given [JB56]rest while subject 2 performed step 2. Once subject 2 was done [JB57]with step 2, subject 1 repeated step 2 with 15% oxygen instead of 95% oxygen followed again by subject 2. The mask was cleaned [JB58]with clorox[JB59] between each subject.

Step 4

Steps 1-3 were repeated [JB60]with the remained of the test subjects and the data was recorded [JB61]in a table within the lab book.

Safety considerations

Since this lab works with the human body and measuring its responses to what could be considered[JB62] strenuous situations, there must be precautions taken. Firstly, all of [JB63]the subjects that were tested[JB64], were either in good or exceptional physical condition and had no preexisting health complications that would endanger them during the experiment. To further ensure that there was no physical harm done to the subjects, the subject's saturation was constantly monitored [JB65]with the heart rate/oxygen saturation monitor. If at any point during the 15% oxygen test the saturation dipped too low (below 85% saturation) and remained there for more than a couple seconds[JB66] then the 95% oxygen would immediately been switched on and that round of testing would be terminated and the subject time [JB67]to rest. The mask that was being used [JB68]was also constantly cleaned [JB69]with clorox[JB70] to prevent the spreading of germs.

Analysis

Qualitative variables[JB71]

The two main variables that may have affected the data were: the heart rate monitor and the oxygen mask. The fact that the subject had to hold the monitor on their finger and the mask while running made the heart rate monitor slightly inaccurate and sometimes would simply not take readings. It only worked when the subject was holding onto it and this disrupted their normal running patterns. Some subjects also had trouble holding the mask to their face with enough force to hold a seal while running. This may have let some of the natural air into the mask. Holding the mask also inhibited the subjects natural running pattern. The fact that the subjects natural running pattern was inhibited [JB72]made it harder for them to keep a normal running pace even with the treadmill set at a constant 5 miles per hour. Having to control all of these [JB73]things at once may have also added to the strain on the subject's body, which could have affected the results. Then finally, there is also the fact that everyone that was being tested [JB74]was different in their biological makeup and therefore will respond slightly differently to the two concentrations of oxygen.

Data

Complete Peak and Recovery times (in seconds)

run:[JB75]

95% Oxygen Peak times (s)

95% Oxygen Recovery time (s)

15% Oxygen Peak times (s)

15% Oxygen Recovery time (s)

1

187

45

62

185

2

180

56

52

102

3

200

64

40

188

4

181

69

39

73

5

153

71

36

123

6

108

52

60

201

7

181

21

56

133

8

144

61

27

177

This table displays each run and the times in seconds associated with it. The runs where the higher concentration of oxygen (95%) was used [JB76]are displayed [JB77]first, on the left. The runs where the lower concentration of oxygen (15%) was used [JB78]are displayed [JB79]second, on the right. The peak times (the time it takes for the subjects[JB80] heart rate to reach 140 bpm from resting) are displayed [JB81]in the 2nd and 4th column and the recovery times (the time it takes for a subject's heart rate to go from 140 bpm back to within 10 of resting) are displayed [JB82]in the 3rd and 5th column.

This bar graph displays the average recovery times and peak times for the two different levels of oxygen concentration. The recovery times are listed [JB83]at the top and the peak times are listed [JB84]at the bottom.

Average Difference in Peak and Recovery time in seconds

Peak time (s)

Recovery time (s)

Difference

120.25

92.875

This table displays the difference between the average peak time of the 95% and 15% oxygen concentration. As well as the difference between the average recovery time of the 95% oxygen and the 15% oxygen concentrations.

Evaluation

Conclusion of results

There is a clear difference between the times for the two different concentration of oxygen. When the subject was administered [JB85]95% oxygen their peak times took an average of 166.75 seconds, while when the average peak time when only 15% oxygen concentration was administered [JB86]was 46.5 seconds. This is a difference of 120.25 seconds, so clearly when a subject is administered [JB87]more oxygen it provides more oxygen for the system, this allows the body to stay out of anaerobic respiration longer and thus allows the heart to beat slower for a greater amount of time.

The difference seen in recovery times was also significant. On average, with the higher 95% oxygen concentration the subjects recovered around 54.875 seconds. However[JB88] when the subjects were administered [JB89]the lower concentration of oxygen the recovery times took much longer, averaging out at 147.75 seconds. The difference was 92.875 seconds. This occurred because when the body was already deprived[JB90] of oxygen and the saturation was low there was a large amount of carbon dioxide and lactic acid build up from anaerobic respiration. Then, after the subject stopped running, the low oxygen concentration most likely caused [JB91]the subjects to stay in anaerobic respiration as the body tried to oxygenate the tissue. With the higher concentration of oxygen, the subjects body was able to [JB92]quickly oxygenate the tissue and return the body to complete or near complete aerobic respiration. This would have stopped the build up[JB93] of lactic acid and carbon dioxide and allowed the body to flush the two out of its system. Once the lactic acid and carbon dioxide has either been absorbed [JB94]or in the case of carbon dioxide, exited the lungs, the heart rate would return to resting.

Therefore, the results matched what should have happened according to [JB95]previous scientific research, outlined in the introduction.

How the lab could be improved [JB96]and extended

The first thing that would be helpful would be to use a more accurate heart rate monitor. Most likely the [JB97]best solution would be a heart rate monitor that could be taped [JB98]to the finger being used [JB99]in unison with a chest heart rate monitor. Using both of these [JB100]simultaneously would ensure the best and most consistent results. In addition[JB101][JB102] it would remove the responsibility from the subject of holding onto the heart rate monitor.

Another issues[JB103] that could be easily solved [JB104]is the oxygen mask. The straps that were provided [JB105]with the mask fell off very easily during running. As a result[JB106] the subjects had to hold the mask to their face as they ran. This hindered their ability to run smoothly and did not guarantee a complete seal around the face. Next time a full head cap could be used [JB107]to ensure that a seal was maintained [JB108]and would allow the subject to run normally.

To further extend this experiment saturation rates could also be compared [JB109]to heart rate and oxygen concentration. When the subjects were performing the test their saturation rates were monitored [JB110]for safety reasons but not recorded. If the saturation rates could be recorded [JB111]throughout the test at specific points along with the heart rate it would be interesting to look into [JB112]how the saturation rates are correlated [JB113]with the heart when very low and very high concentrations of oxygen are being administered [JB114][JB115]to the subject.

 

Works Cited[JB116]

  1. Burton, Deborah Anne, FRCA, Keith Stokes, BSc PhD, and George M. Hall, MBBS PhD DSc FRCA. "Physiological Effects of Exercise." Continuing Education in Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain. Oxford Journals, n.d. Web. 10 May 2016.
  2. Damon, Alan, Randy McGonegal, Patricia Tosto, and William Ward. Higher Level Biology. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
  3. "How Your Lungs Work." How Your Lungs Work. Cleveland Clinic, 13 Oct. 2010. Web. 13 May 2016.

 

Appendix

Release forms: [JB117]

I, Jonas Kaare-Rasmussen understand that the experiment I am involved in and the tasks that I am performing, could be dangerous for my health. I assume all liability for my actions and understand that slight Oxygen deprivation may cause health problems.

Electronically signed by: Jonas Kaare-Rasmussen

I, Jack Larsen understand that the experiment I am involved in and the tasks that I am performing could be dangerous for my health. I assume all liability for my actions and understand that slight Oxygen deprivation may cause health problems.

Electronically signed by: Jack Larsen

I, Danielle Zimber understand that the experiment I am involved in and the tasks that I am performing could be dangerous for my health. I assume all liability for my actions and understand that slight Oxygen deprivation may cause health problems.

Electronically signed by: Danielle Zimber

I, Hailey Zimber understand that the experiment I am involved in and the tasks that I am performing could be dangerous for my health. I assume all liability for my actions and understand that slight Oxygen deprivation may cause health complications.

Electronically signed by: Hailey Zimber

I, Alex Kellam understand that the experiment I am involved in and the tasks that I am performing could be dangerous for my health. I assume all liability for my actions and understand that slight Oxygen deprivation may cause health problems.

Electronically signed by: Alex Kellam

I, Taso Warsa understand that the experiment I am involved in and the tasks that I am performing could be dangerous for my health. I assume all liability for my actions and understand that slight Oxygen deprivation may cause health problems.

Electronically signed by: Taso Warsa

I, Ben Voter understand that the experiment I am involved in and the tasks that I am performing could be dangerous for my health. I assume all liability for my actions and understand that slight Oxygen deprivation may cause health problems.

Electronically signed by: Ben Voter

I, Alex Alsop understand that the experiment I am involved in and the tasks that I am performing could be dangerous for my health. I assume all liability for my actions and understand that slight Oxygen deprivation may cause health problems.

Electronically signed by: Alex Alsop

 

Grading or Evaluation Rubric

Personal engagement - This criterion assesses the extent to which the student engages in the exploration and makes it their own. One may recognize personal engagement in different attributes and skills. The student could discuss his or her individual interests. Also, the student could show evidence of independent thinking, creativity or initiative in the design, implementation, or presentation of the investigation.

Mark

Descriptor

Awarded

0

This report does not meet the standards described.

2

1

The student presents limited evidence of personal engagement with the exploration with little independent thinking, initiative, creativity, or insight.

The justification submitted by the student for selecting the research question and the topic under investigation does not show personal significance, interest, or curiosity.

There is little evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation, or presentation of the investigation.

2

The proof of personal engagement with the exploration is evident with important independent thinking, initiative, creativity, or insight.

The student showed personal significance, interest or curiosity in the justification given for selecting the research question used.

The student demonstrates personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation, or presentation of the investigation.

Comments on personal engagement: The student showed how the investigation was personal by using several different attributes and skills to achieve the goal. The student's personal interests guided the investigation. The student showed independent thinking, creativity, and initiative in the design, implementation, and presentation of the inquiry.

Exploration - This criterion assesses the extent to which the student sets up the scientific context for the work, tells a clear and focused research question and uses concepts and techniques proper to the Diploma Program level. Where proper, this criterion also assesses awareness of safety, environmental, and ethical considerations.

0

The student's report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

4

1-2

The student named the topic of the investigation, and a research question of some relevance is stated but not focused.

The background information included is superficial or of limited relevance and does not aid the understanding of the context of the investigation.

The method of the inquiry is only proper to discuss the research question to a very limited extent since it takes into consideration few of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability, and sufficiency of the collected data.

1. Independent variable not listed

2. Dependent variable not listed

3. Controls not listed

4. Hypothesis not presented (If --, then --, because --)

5. Materials specified, but incomplete

6. Procedure specified, but incomplete

The report shows evidence of limited awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the method of the investigation*

3-4

The student named the topic of the investigation and described a relevant but not fully focused research question.

The background information included is proper and pertinent and aids the understanding of the context of the inquiry.

The method of the investigation is proper to discuss the research question but has limitations since it takes into consideration only some of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability, and sufficiency of the collected data.

1. Independent variable considered

2. Dependent variable considered

3. Controls showed and considered

4. Hypothesis presented in incorrect format (If -, then -, because -)

5. Materials not specified completely

6. Procedure not specified completely

The report shows evidence of some awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the method of the investigation*

5-6

The student named the topic of the investigation and described a relevant and fully focused research question.

The background information included is entirely proper and pertinent and enhances the understanding of the context of the inquiry.

The method of the inquiry is highly proper to discuss the research question because it takes into consideration all, or most, of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability, and sufficiency of the collected data.

1. Independent variable named

2. Dependent variable named

3. Controls shown

4. Hypothesis presented in correct format (If --, then --, because --)

5. Detailed materials listed

6. Detailed procedure listed

The report shows evidence of full awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the method of the investigation*

Comments on exploration: The student set up the scientific context for the work, telling a clear and focused research question and using concepts and techniques proper to the program. The student considered and were aware of safety, environmental, and ethical considerations. Student did not list a hypothesis, but the report alludes to the hypothesis. Deeper development of background information would improve the report.

Analysis - This criterion assesses the extent to which the student's report offers evidence that the student has selected, recorded, processed, and interpreted the data in ways that are relevant to the research question and can support a conclusion.

0

The student's report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below

5

1-2

The report includes insufficient relevant raw data to support a valid conclusion to the research question.

The student carried out some basic data processing, but it is either too inaccurate or too inadequate to lead to a valid conclusion.

The report shows evidence of little consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty in the analysis.

The student incorrectly or insufficiently interpreted the processed data so that the conclusion is invalid or very incomplete (Lacking statistical analysis)

3-4

The report includes relevant but incomplete quantitative and qualitative raw data that could support a simple or partially valid conclusion to the research question.

The student carried out proper, and enough data that could lead to a broadly valid conclusion, but there are significant inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the processing.

The report shows evidence of some consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty in the analysis.

The student processed the data so that a broadly valid but incomplete or limited conclusion to the research question to allow a conclusion (Statistical analysis were proper - mean, median, mode, Chi-square, T-test, other)

5-6

The report includes enough relevant quantitative and raw qualitative data that could support an accurate and valid conclusion to the research question.

The student carried out proper and sufficient information processing with the accuracy needed to enable a reader to reach a conclusion to the research question fully consistent with the experimental data.

The report shows evidence of full and proper consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty in the analysis.

The student correctly interpreted the processed data so that one can deduce a completely valid and detailed conclusion to the research question (Statistical analysis where proper - mean, median, mode, Chi-square, T-test, other)

Comments on Analysis: The student's report offers evidence that the student selected, recorded, processed, and interpreted the data in ways that are relevant to the research question and can support a conclusion. More detailed statistical analysis would improve the report.

Evaluation - This criterion assesses the extent to which the student's report offers evidence of evaluation of the investigation and the results of the research question and the current scientific context.

0

The student's report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

5

1-2

The student outlined a conclusion which is not relevant to the research question or has no support by the data presented.

The conclusion makes a superficial comparison to the current scientific context.

The student outlined the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, but restricts the information shown to an account of the practical or procedural issues faced.

The student has outlined very few realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.

3-4

The student describes a conclusion which is pertinent to the research question and supported by the data presented.

The student describes a conclusion which makes some relevant comparison to the current scientific context.

The student describes the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, and offer evidence of some awareness of the methodological issues* involved in showing the conclusion.

The student has described some realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.

5-6

The student describes and justifies a definite conclusion which is entirely relevant to the research question and fully supported by the data presented.

The student correctly describes a conclusion and justifies it through relevant comparison to the current scientific context.

The student discusses strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, and offers evidence of a clear understanding of the methodological issues involved in setting up the conclusion.

The student has discussed practical and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.

Comments on evaluation: The student's report offers evidence of evaluation of the investigation and the results of the research question and the current scientific context. An in-depth discussion and application of statistical analysis would improve report.

Communication - This criterion assesses whether the student presents and reports the investigation in a way that supports effective communication of the focus, process, and outcomes.

0

The student's report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

3

1-2

The presentation of the investigation is unclear, making it difficult to understand the focus, process, and outcomes.

The report is not well structured and is unclear: the necessary information on focus, process and the student either presented the results in an inconsistent or disorganized manner or are missing.

The student obscures an understanding of the focus, process, and outcomes of the investigation by the presence of inappropriate or irrelevant information.

There are many errors in the use of subject-specific terminology and conventions**.

Sources not properly cited and/or Works Cited page missing, not following Modern Language Association (MLA) style guidance.

3-4

The presentation of the investigation is clear. Any errors do not hamper understanding of the focus, process, and outcomes.

The report is well structured and definite: the necessary information on focus, process and the results are present and presented in a coherent way.

The report is relevant and concise thereby helping a ready understanding of the focus, process, and outcomes of the investigation.

The use of subject-specific terminology and conventions is proper and correct. Any errors do not hamper understanding**.

Sources properly cited and Works Cited page included, following Modern Language Association (MLA) style guidance.

Comments on Communication: The student presented and reported the results of the investigation in a way that supports effective communication of the focus, process, and outcomes while having some errors in the correct format and MLA style guidance.

Marks achieved

19

Numeric grade (based on 100%)

79.2

IB Marks Grade

5

* One should apply this indicator only when proper to the investigation.

** For example, incorrect/missing labeling of graphs, tables, images; use of units, decimal places, referencing and citations.

Conversion from marks to percentage - Pre-lab report

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

8.4

16.6

25.0

33.4

41.6

50.0

58.4

66.6

75.0

83.4

91.6

100.0

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Conversion from marks to percentage - Lab report

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

4.2

8.3

12.5

16.7

20.8

25.0

29.2

33.3

37.5

41.7

45.8

50.0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

54.2

58.3

62.5

66.7

70.8

75.0

79.2

83.3

87.5

91.7

95.8

100.0

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

OVERALL COMMENTS:

This is an interesting investigation. You proposed a good research question, but you did not make a prediction or hypothesis for your report. It appears implied within the report, but I believe you should list it outright. The paper has large amount of passive voice, if you choose to correct that. The student wrote the report at a grade 11 level, so that is fine. There are some errors in spelling and capitalization, which detract from your report. Good luck in your final submission.


[JB1]Possessive

[JB2]Where is the hypothesis?


To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Request Removal

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal:


More from UK Essays

We can help with your essay
Find out more
Build Time: 0.0039 Seconds