Initial Overview of the Paper
This paper presents the view that the current methodology surrounding biofilm dispersal is an insufficient mechanism for current industrial processes given its uncontrollable nature. As such, the use of an artificial hydrogel matrix to contain the biofilm was proposed to mitigate the dispersal rate and make it more industrially applicable. The contents of the paper are well-researched and gives a thorough examination of the processes that go into biofilm creation, what are the current caveats to the approach, and what methods can be implemented to resolve the identified issues.
However, the level of detail in the paper can work against it since only a person familiar with the subject-matter would be able to immediately understand the terminologies, techniques, and processes that were mentioned. This would not be a concern if the paper were primarily intended for publication in a research journal or slated for review mainly by peers within their respective department within a university. If it was meant for members of the general public, it is unlikely they would be able to understand it without a significant rehashing of the content to make it more understandable.
Overall, the paper is an excellent example of a scientific study but could have done without the use of overly complicated terminologies which hinder rather than improve the flow of the text. While it is true that complex vocabularies enable a paper to show academic competence, they should be used sporadically for laying out the information in an easy to read fashion.
Examination of Introduction
The introduction does an excellent job introducing what biofilms are, their potential applications and the current research gap that the study is attempting to resolve. From a formatting and citation point of view, the introduction is well-done and fulfills all the requirements of an academic paper. It does a good job of transitioning readers from the background of biofilms to what the study intends to investigate and how the subsequent chapters of the paper will go about doing so.
Examining the Literature Review
The literature review of the paper is quite expansive and goes over many aspects related to biofilms, the bacteria that will be used in the study, some of the processes that will be implemented and what methods are frequently used for this type of experimentation. Ordinarily, an expansive literature review is a positive addition to paper since it helps readers to understand the process that will be utilized for scientific experimentation and the intended outcomes.
However, after going over the literature review in this paper, there seems to be a lot of superfluous content. Yes, a background on the process that you will use is necessary, but there must be a balance between structured content and elaboration. In this case, the balance is tipped towards elaboration. The literature content should have focused briefly on the history of biofilms, a background on how biofilms are naturally and scientifically induced, what are the current processes used by various industries, and why your proposed method using hydrogel is superior.
This is not to say that the literature review section does not positively contribute to the study, it does, but readers would be lost in the background of the study rather in the intended process that you want to implement. Scientific research papers typically place emphasis on the process rather than on an expansive history of the materials involved.
Examining the Process Utilized in the Study for the Hydrogel Encapsulation of the Biofilms
The next chapter of the study delved into the process of hydrogel encapsulation of the biofilms. Overall, the researchers did an excellent job when it came to portraying the methods that they utilized to obtain their desired study results. First, it is important to note that detail is everything when it comes to a scientific study since a review board can pick apart the methods that you have utilized. This is to determine whether the process was capable of producing the desired results and if the results you have match up with the methodology that you used.
To address this issue, the study extensively employed a wide variety of graphs and charts which documented the process and reaction that came about. What is nice to see in this study is the use of various illustrations which are usually eschewed in most academic papers. This is a nice change of pace since it helps readers see the processes involved and the reactions that took place.
Examining the RNA extraction methods and Quorum sensing system
In chapters four and five of the paper, the researchers presented their method of RNA extraction and the regulation of the hydrogel-based film via a quorum sensing system. The methods presented, after reading through other similar studies for clarification, seem sound and well-presented. As mentioned in the previous section, the extensive illustrations used in this study are a very helpful way for readers to visualize what the researchers did and the intended results. In fact, the researchers really should be commended since instead of simply adding pictures; a significant effort was made wherein the illustrations depicted the individual steps they took to implement the RNA extraction and quorum sensing.
Combined with the tables and graphs that they utilized, readers can see the individual outputs of each step and determine their validity. This helps in any evaluation process of their work and definitely, makes it easier to determine the veracity of their approach. The only drawback that can be taken from these chapters is that some of the tables were far too extensive. Yes, they contribute towards justifying the methods used and the accuracy of the results; however, it is likely that most readers would skip over most of them just to get the rest of the text of these chapters. [Click Essay Writer to order your essay]
The researchers should have placed the most extensive tables in the appendix section of the paper and put the label “please see appendix for the expanded table”. This would have made this section easier to read and far less bulky. One of the problems with this part is that the researchers seem to have a habit of placing expansive definitions behind the process before stating the results. Technically, this is fine, since it helps readers understand what a particular process does and the intended effect, but this would have been better suited in the literature review section of the study.
Yes, background information is relevant, but it seems superfluous since this part should primarily deal with the outcomes of the research with the literature review primarily being intended for defining the process. It was mentioned earlier on in the evaluation that the problem with the literature review is that it was not process oriented. The sheer amount of background process definitions in chapter four and five shows why this becomes an issue later on in a paper if a researcher wants to justify why a particular method was used over another.
One possible way this could have been handled would have been to place the background of the processes in the literature review and debate their merits there instead of in this segment. However, this does not mean that it is not a good part; rather, it is more accurate to state that the section could have been improved to a greater degree if the researchers had taken this into consideration.
Examining the Regulation of Biofilm Development
The quality of the content in this section of the paper is similar to what has already been mentioned in this paper wherein the researchers were able to show the effectiveness of their process when compared to other biofilm development methods. Overall, this section was better than chapters four and five since it went straight to the point regarding the methods utilized. One rather odd thing that the researchers did was add in a very brief introduction to the history of bio-film surface associated microbial communities.
While placing the information itself may not seem odd, it was already mentioned in the literature review section and is not necessary for this section of the study. Aside from this, the researchers did extensively document and justify the use of their design for a gradient-generation flow cell and how its use helps to create the intended effect that they were going for. It would have been nice if they transferred this to the literature review instead of placing it here. They could have mentioned that this was the design they were going for and justified it there instead of having to justify it in this section.
This particular argument was referred to in the previous part of this review and shows why delving into the process instead of just details in the literature review is a preferred approach in many studies. If they had done this, they could have gone directly into the results instead of having to justify the process used. [Need an essay writing service? Find help here.]
Examining the Conclusion
Overall, the study showed the effectiveness of a hydrogel mix as a platform to analyze the impact of particular chemicals on biofilms. The conclusion is short, details exactly what was done and helped to showcase the potential implications of the study on this type of research approach.
The recommendation section also helps point future researchers on the right path when it comes to future studies and contributes to explaining gaps in the research approach that other studies could take advantage of.
Overall Impression of the Study
This was an excellent study to read since it delved into the creation of a new way in which research can be done to examine the impact of chemicals on particular biofilms. This can help environmental analysts consider how man-made chemicals can interact with natural environments and the potential adverse implications this would have. Do note though that the study did have some undesirable aspects such as the way in which the literature review section was made and the impact this had on the subsequent chapters of the paper. However, this is a relatively minor issue since the paper is still quite good and an excellent contribution to current scientific studies on biofilms.[“Write my essay for me?” Get help here.]
What The Researchers Should Have Done
The main caveats that prevent this paper from being great are the way in which they presented information on the processes used in the study. They should have focused on processes in the literature review and justified their use there. Aside from this, some of the tables were far too expansive to be placed in the central part of the paper. They should have been mentioned in passing, and if the readers were interested in more details, they could have referred them to the Appendix of the paper. All in all, though, the paper is good but could have been much better.