Ceramic Tiles From Crassostrea Iredalei (Oyster) Shells

1 CERAMIC TILES FROM Crassostrea iredalei (OYSTER) SHELLS

____________________________

A Research Paper presented to the Faculty of the Department of Physical Sciences Philippine Normal University

____________________________

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in Chemistry ____________________________

by

April Mae V. Agbayani Allen A. Espinosa

November 2006

PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY

2

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL This research paper entitled “CERAMIC TILES FROM Crassostrea iredalei (OYSTER) SHELLS” by April Mae V. Agbayani and Allen A. Espinosa in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in Chemistry, has been examined and recommended for acceptance and approval.

VIC MARIE I. CAMACHO Research Adviser

NELSON GARCIA Panel

ADOLFO P. ROQUE Panel

REBECCA C. NUEVA ESPAÑA Chair

This research paper is accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in Chemistry.

Date

MARIE PAZ E. MORALES Head, Department of Physical Sciences

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We wish to thank the following persons and institutions that, in one way or another, helped make this research study a success:

Dr. Rebecca C. Nueva España, our Chemical Research mentor and chair of the board of panelist, for sharing her expertise in Chemical Research and the research process as well. Prof. Vic Marie I. Camacho, our research adviser, for her guidance and assistance while in the process of doing our research. Prof. Nelson Garcia, our panel, for his guidance and assistance while doing our methodology or experimentation. For always reminding us of a certain lesson in life, that is, there are ideas that are possible and that there are also ideas which are not possible and that we have to think critically before pursuing something and the ones we done wrong should serve as a lesson so we might not repeat it. Prof. Adolfo P. Roque, our panel, for sharing his ideas regarding our research. Engr. Benito D. Shea of the Department of Mining, Geology and Ceramics Engineering of Adamson University for sharing his knowledge and for guiding us in our methodology. Prof. Cecilia F. Reynales, Senior Science Research Specialist of the Materials Science Division of the Department of Science and Technology for explaining to us what had happened to our research. Prof. Antonio G. Dacanay, our statistics mentor, for lending us statistics book.

4 Genelita P. Gallenito and Antonio V. Lumbo III, student assistants of the Department of Mining, Geology and Ceramics Engineering of Adamson University for patiently assisting us in the ceramics engineering laboratory. Mr. Ronnel Pantig, SRC technician, for patiently providing materials and chemicals needed in our experimentation. Dr. Susan R. Arco and Dr. Florian R. del Mundo of the Institute of Chemistry of the University of the Philippines and Prof. Gilbert U. Yu of the Department of Chemistry of the Ateneo de Manila University for giving ideas and possible topics for research while in the process of searching for a subject for research. Ma. Jesusa O. Araneta, our classmate, for sharing her Bato-Balani journal which has been a great help to the researchers. Reinier Augustus S. Isidro and Sherryl R. Jamito, our kuya and ate, for providing us a soft copy of their research paper about concrete blocks. The family of April Mae V. Agbayani’s husband, Allan Ray Berganos, especially Mr. Loloy Berganos for helping us do some of the laborious parts. Leah Mae G. Cariquitan, Christina C. Cuevas, Lea B. Florendo, Vivian Mary S. Palma and Carla Mari A. Pareja, our dear classmates, for helping us transport our research materials from PNU to AdU and vice versa. Department of Science and Technology - Industrial Technology Development Institute Library for providing us lots of information regarding ceramic tile making. University of the Philippines – College of Science Library for providing us lots of information about Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shell. Our dear classmates, for the friendship and encouragement.

5 Our family, for the unconditional love, understanding and support they extended to us. Our Creator, for giving us life, for us to experience the sweetness and bitterness of living which have certainly made us better persons. A. M. V. A A. A. E

6 ABSTRACT

This research study entitled “Ceramic Tiles from Crassostrea iredalei (Oyster) Shells” aimed to investigate the feasibility of the Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shell as base for ceramic tile making. The Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shell were substituted to silica sand in 40%, 50%, 60%, 100% and 0% substitution respectively. Slip casting was the forming method used in producing the tile body. Three firing procedures were utilized using the bisquit and glost firing. The produced tiles were subjected to impact strength and porosity tests. In the one-way ANOVA used in the study for comparing the said physical properties of the produced tiles with that of the commercial tiles, it shows that tile C3 is the most feasible among all the experimental tiles. Meaning, it is the only tile that is comparable with the commercial tiles in terms of impact strength and porosity. This also shows the feasibility of producing tile with 60% concentration of calcium carbonate and with a bisquit firingglazingglost firingproduct firing procedure.

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

i

Approval Sheet

ii

Acknowledgement

iii

Abstract vi List of Figures ix List of Tables x List of Appendices xii Chapter 1

Introduction 1 Objectives of the Study 2 Significance of the Study 2 Scope and Limitations of the Study 3 Definition of Terms 3

2

Crassostrea iredalei (Oyster) Shell: Chemical Components and Uses Ceramic Tile Production

7 Physical Properties of Ceramic Products on the Fired State 13

4

8 Local Studies Nata de Coco Reinforced Styrofoam as Tiles 18 Feasibility of Foam Polystyrene and Powdered Talaba Shells as Tiles 19 3

Materials and Reagents

21 Research Design 22 Phase I: Preparation of Ceramic Tiles from Oyster Shells Gathering of Samples 23 Mold Making 23 Preparation of Mixtures 24 Molding and Drying 24 Glaze Preparation 25 Glaze Application 25 Firing Technology 25 Phase II: Tests on Physical Properties Test for Impact Strength 26 Test for Porosity 27

9 4

Results and Discussions 28

5

Conclusion and Recommendations 46

Bibliography 48 Appendices A

Raw Data and Computations for Impact Strength Test

B

Raw Data and Computations for Porosity Test

C

Research Pictorials

50 58 66 Curriculum Vitae 70

10

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shell 2.2 Decomposition of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) into calcium oxide (CaO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) at a very high temperature 2.3 Pulverized Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shell 2.4 Process of ceramic tiles production 3.1

The schematic diagram of the entire research

3.2 The dimensions of the tile molder

11

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1

Chemical Components of Crassostrea iredalei (Oyster) Shell

4.1

Description of Mixtures, Molding and Drying

4.2

Firing Technology

4.3

Result of Impact Strength Test for Control Tiles F and G

4.4

Result of Impact Strength Test for Mixture A

4.5

Summary of one-way ANOVA applied to tile A2 versus tile F or G

4.6

Result of Impact Strength Test for Mixture B

4.7

Summary of one-way ANOVA applied to tile B3 versus tile F or G

4.8

Result of Impact Strength Test for Mixture C

4.9

Summary of one-way ANOVA applied to tile C3 versus tile F or G

4.10 Result of Impact Strength Test for Mixture E 4.11 Summary of one-way ANOVA applied to tile E1 versus tile F or G 4.12 Result of porosity test (in percent apparent porosity, %Pa) for control tiles F and G 4.13 Result of porosity test (in percent apparent porosity, %Pa) for mixture A 4.14 Summary of one-way ANOVA applied to tile A2 versus tile F 4.15 Result of porosity test (in percent apparent porosity, %Pa) for mixture B 4.16 Summary of one-way ANOVA applied to tile B1 versus tile F 4.17 Result of porosity test (in percent apparent porosity, %Pa) for mixture C

12 4.18 Summary of one-way ANOVA applied to tile C3 versus tile F 4.19 Result of porosity test (in percent apparent porosity, %Pa) for mixture E 4.20 Summary of one-way ANOVA applied to tile E1 versus tile F 4.21 Summary of results for the best tiles produced 4.22 Cost of materials utilized in the study

13

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A

Raw Data and Computations for Impact Strength Test

B

Raw Data and Computations for Porosity Test

C

Research Pictorials

14 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

Building commercial and residential infrastructures in our country is fast growing. One of the building materials is ceramic tile that is used as floorings in bathrooms, dining area, function halls, etc. Because of this, there is a demand of ceramic tiles and its industry is booming. On the other hand, every year, various solid wastes in our country have been a great problem to our government. One example is the shells of Crassostrea iredalei commonly known as oyster found near the seashores. It makes the seashore looks grimy and its foul odor when fresh is disgusting which is not inviting local and foreign tourists to visit tourist spots like beaches. It also serves as silt for reproduction of flies and other oil-causing insects, which are carriers of disease-causing bacteria and viruses. These shells are known fossil that contains ninety seven and a half percent (97.5%) calcium carbonate (CaCO3)1, which is a good source of calcium oxide (CaO) that made these shells rigid and firm. The presence of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) would make it an ideal component for tiles. This information brought the idea to the researchers to use the Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shells as raw material for ceramic tile making. Due to its high concentration of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), the proponents therefore would like to substitute it for the main material in ceramic tile making.

15 Objectives of the Study

The main objective of the study is to investigate the feasibility of the Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shell as base for ceramic tile making. Specifically, it aims to:

a. Utilize Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shells as substitute to silicon dioxide (silica sand) in ceramic tile making; b. Test the physical properties of the produced ceramic tiles: i.

Impact Strength;

ii.

Porosity: and

c. Compare the ceramic tile made of Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shells to commercially available ones such as the Mariwasa Ceramic Tiles® and Floor Center Ceramic Tiles® in terms of impact strength and porosity.

Significance of the Study

This study was conducted to eliminate solid waste pollution caused by Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shells on the seashores by recycling it. Moreover, it can also prevent the rapid growth of population of insects like mosquitoes living in the shells, which are carriers of disease-causing bacteria and viruses. In addition, new product means new opportunity for export and new hope for economic progress.

16

Scope and Limitations of the Study

The focus of the study is on the utilization of Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shells as raw material for ceramic tiles. The process of ceramic tile making including tests on properties such as impact strength and porosity are therefore incorporated in the study.

Definition of Terms

Ceramic tile is the tile made from Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shell and some basic components of a commercially available ceramic tile. Impact Strength is the ability of ceramic material to bear crushing loads. Oyster shells are the shells derived from Crassostrea iredalei. Porosity is the penetration of liquids and vapors through the material that usually causes structural damage.

17 Chapter 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This section includes literature concerning the topic that the researchers deemed important and relevant. It encompasses some background on Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shells and the process of ceramic tile making. Also, it includes local studies on tiles made from locally available materials.

Crassostrea iredalei (Oyster) Shell: Chemical Components and Uses

According to studies, ninety seven and a half percent (97.5%) of the chemical components of Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shell are calcium carbonate (CaCO3) or limestone.1 It is embedded between the layers of an organic substance known as conchiolin.2 Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is a compound used in brick making for its high compressive strength and boiling point.3 The presence of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in the shells indicates that it could be used as a source of calcium oxide (CaO), which was shown to strengthen blocks and dental fillings. Figure 2.1 Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shell

Table 2.1 Chemical Components of Crassostrea iredalei (Oyster) Shell1

18 CaCO3 (calculated from Ca) Calcium Silica as SiO2 (calculated from Si) Sodium Magnesium Iron Strontium Manganese Aluminum

97.5 % 39.00 % < 0.01 % 9200 ppm 1400 ppm 430 ppm 1400 ppm 430 ppm 3500 ppm

Boron Titanium Lead Copper Lithium Arsenic Nickel Heavy metals as Pb

1400 ppm 100 ppm less than 15 ppm 9 ppm less than 10 ppm less than 2.50 ppm 75 ppm less than 20 ppm

On a physical analysis done, calcium carbonate is found to have a dry brightness of 92.1, moisture at 105°C of 0.084%, oil absorption of 18.9g oil per 100g of oil, specific surface area of 0.423m2/g, weight/solid per gallon of 23.1lbs, specific gravity of 2.71, pH of 9.8, hexagonal particle shape, and density of 1.1 g/cm3. Its general uses includes synthetic/cultured marble, ceramic floor tiles, stucco, caulking compound, building products, polishing compound, grouting and thin set mortars, abrasive in powdered cleansers, sealants, adhesives, putty, and glues, paints (water-based), animal feeds, insecticides, plastics, PVC pipes, carpet underlays and paper.4 Other than being a good ingredient in strengthening tiles, researchers in Florida, USA and Korea have developed and successfully tested a new process to convert waste oyster shells into a compound that cleanses water of phosphorus, a common pollutant in urban, agricultural and industrial runoff. Heating the shells at very high temperatures in a nitrogen-rich atmosphere for about an hour efficiently converts their contents into a form of calcium oxide (CaO). Crushed-up oyster shell forces the phosphorus to leave the solution, become small particles and precipitate out, or fall to the bottom of the tank, where it can then be collected and discarded.5

19

CaCO3(s)  CaO(s) + CO2(g)

∆ Hrxn = 178.1 kJ/mol

Figure 2.2 Decomposition of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) into calcium oxide (CaO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) at a very high temperature.

Moreover, oyster shells are processed and made into oral calcium supplement tablets because of its high calcium content. Studies shown that thirty nine percent (39%) of the chemical components of oyster is calcium.1, 6 Furthermore, oyster shells are crushed into fine particles to be used as an organic fertilizer. Studies shown that finely crushed oyster shells raises pH in acidic soils. It also has other nutrients and micronutrients, which keeps the natural balance of the soil.7 Figure 2.3 Pulverized Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shell.

Ceramic Tile Production

20 Tiles are similar to bricks. They differ in uses, in shapes, and in finishing. While a brick is in the form of a block, a tile is in the form of a sheet. Both are made from the same process and materials but the tile may go through glazing which can give it a smooth finish. Tiles are used for walls and flooring.8 Figure 2.4 shows the schematic diagram of ceramic tile production. Ceramics is defined as products made out of clay and other earth materials that can be formed or molded into various shapes, then dried and fired into hardness at a given temperature.9 Ceramic tile is made of clay. After the formation of the tile body, it goes through a firing process.10 Basic ceramic raw materials include clay, feldspar and silica. Clay is an earth material that forms a sticky mass when mixed with water. When wet, this mass is readily moldable, but when dried, it becomes hard and brittle and retains its shape. When heated to redness, it becomes still harder and is no longer susceptible to the action of water. Such a material clearly lends itself to the making of articles of all shapes. Clays can be classified into kaolin/white clay and ball clay. Kaolin/white clay is the white-burning clay because of its low iron content. Because of its relative purity, it is more refractory than other clays. It is the base to which other ingredients are added to develop the desirable properties. Its strength varies almost directly with plasticity. 9 In a chemical analysis, kaolin is found to contain 46.87% SiO2, 37.60% Al2O3, 0.27% Fe2O3, 0.85% TiO2, 0.56% CaO, 0.09% Na2O, 0.10% K2O and 13.7% LOI.11 Ball Clays are extremely plastic clays that fire nearly white though is often black in the raw state. They usually contain slightly more impurities than kaolin, but are used to increase the plasticity and workability of the body. In a chemical analysis, ball clay is found to contain 56.74% SiO2, 26.94% Al2O3, 1.53% Fe2O3, 1.26% TiO2, 0.25% CaO, 0.64% MgO, 3.42% K2O,

21 0.41% Na2O and 8.81% LOI.12 Feldspars are used as flux in ceramic bodies. When the body is fired, the feldspar melts and forms a molten glass that causes the particles of clay to cling together. When this glass solidifies, it provides strength and hardness to the body. It is also a good source of soda and potash. Chemically, the feldspars are silicates of aluminum, containing sodium, potassium, iron, calcium, or barium or combinations of these elements. Silica or silicon dioxide in the form of quartz, is used in nearly all ceramic bodies for three reasons: to reduce the drying shrinkage and thus help prevent cracking of the piece, to give firing qualities by reduction of the firing shrinkage and to act as a sort of skeleton to hold the shape of the piece in the kiln. 8 Silica, along with alumina (silica-alumina), forms a major part of the crystal lattice of clay minerals. These decompose on firing and form part of the microstructure of clay based ceramics such as earthenware, stoneware and porcelain.13 The proportion of clay (kaolin and ball clay), feldspar and silica sand is 40%:30%:30%.14 Raw materials like clays, talc and other minerals of ceramic tile are quarries and refined. Great care is taken in the proper mixture of these materials, as one is critical to the success, quality and characteristics of the product produced. Once the raw materials are quarries prepared, and properly mixed, the tiles may now be formed. There are few common means of forming the tile. First is dust press, wherein an almost dry mixture of clays, talc, and other ingredients are pressed into a mold at extremely high pressures. Second is extrusion, wherein the ingredients are slightly wetter and are forced through a nozzle to form the desired tile shape. Third is slush mold or wet pour, wherein a much wetter mixture of ingredients is poured into a mold to form the desired shape. Fourth is rampress, which is very similar to dust press method, except that the size of the tile

22 shapes are generally much larger.10 Pressing is a kind of hand forming method in which the clay must be soft enough to flow into the cavity of the mold while under pressure. Pressed ware is commonly handled immediately after pressing and must be strong enough to retain its shape. 9 Slip casting method of forming the tile body includes the procedure in where sodium silicate is added to the clay mixture as a defloculant which is added to obtain good fluidity. Sodium silicate is added 0.3-0.6% of the total weight of the clay mixture on the other hand 30-45% of the total weight is water. The specific gravity of the mixture should fall within the range of 1.6-1.8. The mesh sieve number of particles should fall from 60-80. Plaster of paris (CaSO4 0.5H2O) is commonly used as a molder. 9 In general, there are essentially three basic production cycles to which the entire range of different types of ceramic floor and wall tile can be referred. The first of these three production cycles, based on single firing technology, is used to manufacture unglazed tile. The types of unglazed tile produced with this production technology are cotto, red stoneware, porcelain stoneware and clinker (klinker). The second of these is based on double-firing technology, which obtains its name from the fact that two distinct firing treatments are employed, i.e. one to consolidate the tile body and the other to stabilize This

the

glazes

production

and

cycle

decorations

applied

is

for

used

the

onto

the

fired

manufacture

tile of

body. the

majolica, cottoforte, and earthenware (white body). The third of these cycles is based on single-firing technology. The glazes and decorations are applied onto the dried, but still unfired, tile body. Then it is subjected to a single heat treatment single-firing. During this firing, consolidation of the tile body and stabilization of the glazes takes place at the same

23 time. This production cycle is use for the manufacture of single-fired whiteware and redware (monocottura and monoporosa) and glazed klinker.15 Glazes constitute an important element of ceramics. It maybe defined as a glassy coating melted in place on a ceramic body which may render the body smooth, nonporous and of desired color or texture. The primary function of glazes is to give strength and durability of products. Likewise, glaze protects ceramic wares from contamination, from the action of acids and alkaline and from scratching. They are also used for decoration purposes. Lime or calcium oxide (CaO) is an example of a glaze material. Its sources are pure calcium carbonate, whiting, limestone, dolomite and anorthite. Lime is a principal flux in medium and high temperature glazes but it is not very effective at lower temperatures. It contributes stability, hardness and durability.9 In the preparation of glaze, the universal method is to mix the glaze ingredients with water to form a suspension or slip. Weighing of glaze batches should be done in scales of good construction. Sensitive and precise to the smallest quantities required. Small quantity of glaze batch is prepared in mortar and pestle while in large quantity, pebble milling is introduced. 9 There are several ways of applying glaze slip on ceramic wares. One is dipping which involves having a small receptacle filled with glaze into which the ceramic piece is immersed into the glaze shaken vigorously to remove surplus of glaze. Another is pouring on which a quantity of glaze is poured into a ceramic piece until the surface of ware is covered with it. Brushing in which the application is done with the use of soft brush, even strokes are required to attain a good finish. Then, spraying in which the application is done with the use of air compressor and spray gun. 9

24

Bisquet firing is a technique where the dried ware should be fired to strengthen the body's resistance to strain and stress. Firing of wares depends on the product required. Porcelain, stoneware, and other wares to be glazed are fired at temperature of 800-900 degrees Celsius; for bricks, roof tiles, and other earthenware that do not need to be glazed, firing temperatures should reach at least its semi-vitreous state at about 900 degrees Celsius to 1200 degrees Celsius. Firing state should be normal and slow due to water smoking, dehydration, and other chemical and physical reactions undergone by the body from a dried state to its maturing state. Usually, firing is under an oxidizing flame. 9 Glost Firing is a technique where bisquet fired walls are glazed and then fired. Temperature for glost firing depends on the glaze used. Temperature ranges from 8001050 degrees Celsius; for stoneware and porcelain, temperature ranges from 1150-1380 degree Celsius. Oxidizing and reducing atmospheres inside the kiln depend on the glaze used, tone effect and product required. Usually, the glazed wares are first fired in an oxidizing atmosphere up to 1100 degrees Celsius, the wares are fired in reducing flame; lastly, the firing becomes slightly reducing or neutral. This step is called reducing firing. There are bodies which could be glaze on its green or dried state, then fired. This is called monofiring. 9

25

Pre-mix Clay Body

Weighing + water defloculant Blunging

Forming (Slip Casting)

Retouching

Drying

Bisquit Firing underglaze decoration application Glaze Application brushing, spraying, pouring Glost Firing

Quality Control

Packaging Figure 2.4 Process of ceramic tiles production14

Physical Properties of Ceramic Products on the Fired State

26 

Compressive Strength9 The compressive strength of a ceramic material is a measure of its ability to bear crushing loads. Since ceramics normally break under tension, its true compressive strength is difficult to measure. For a correct measurement of the compressive strength of a ceramic material, more care in simple preparation should be done. In particular, the specimen facing the bearing load must be absolutely flat and parallel. If this criterion is not met, the load will be carried unevenly by the specimen causing failure at low loads thus giving low compressive strengths. Cushioning materials are often used to distribute the load uniformly over the bearing surfaces. The compressive strength (Sc) is represented by the equation: Sc = where:

P/A P = the crushing load at failure (kg) A = the cross sectional area of the test sample (cm2)



Hardness9 Hardness is one of the most important properties of ceramics, but because of brittleness of ceramic materials hardness is also one of the most difficult properties to measure. Several methods have been developed which give fairly reliable results. Usually, a diamond stylus is forced into the surface of a ceramic specimen under a standard load and depth of penetration is measured. The test is run on polished samples employing a forty-five kilograms (45kg) load on the

27 diamond stylus. Although the numerical difference between alumina samples of various compositions is small, the test results are quite reliable. The second method and one of the most common tests used for hardness is the Moh’s scale. This scale uses ten standard minerals, each of which will scratch all minerals below it on the scale. Ceramics are rated on this scale by scratch trials with the standards: 1) Talc, 2) Gypsum, 3) Calcite, 4) Fluorite, 5) Apatite, 6) Orthoclase, 7) Quartz, 8) Topaz, 9) Corundum and 10) Diamond.



Modulus of Rupture (MOR) 9 The modulus of rupture is the fracture strength of the materials under a bending load. It is one of the quality control tests for the measurement of strength. The MOR measurement is made on a long bar of either a rectangular or circular cross section; supported near its ends, with a load applied to the central portion of the supported span. Any standard testing machine of suitable capacity may be used, so long as the specimen is properly mounted. In order to yield correct results, the bar must fracture at the center. The MOR is represented by the equation: MOR= 3/2 (PL/bd2) where: P= the load required to break the bar (kg) L= the span, distance between the outer supports (cm) b= the width of the bar (cm) d= the depth of the bar (cm)

28 Using cylindrical bar, the MOR is given by the equation: MOR = 8PL / D3 where: D= the diameter of the cylindrical bar (cm) Such a test assumes the pieces to be uniformly strong through all cross sections, which is not strictly true. To average out the variations, ten specimens are used for the test and individual values with more than 20% variation from the average are discarded. The most important factors in the MOR determinations are the rate of loading, the ratio of span to specimen thickness, and the specimen alignment. The specimen should be carefully aligned in the specimen holder so that the latter will not twist during the operation.



Porosity9 The porosity of a ceramic sample, particularly a fixed ceramic sample, should be carefully controlled. The greater the porosity of a sample, the more likely the penetration of liquids and vapors through the materials and usually, such penetration is accompanied by structural damage to the product. Example: refractories with high porosity will suffer internal chemical attack as a result of the penetration of slags into the interior. Also, table-ware that exhibits high porosity would absorb various substances during use and becomes permanently stained and unsanitary. There are few ceramic products produced today which do not have carefully controlled pore structures. Only the open pore volume, sometimes called the apparent pore volume, can be directly measured. When this

29 volume is expressed as a percentage of the bulk volume of the sample, it is called the percentage apparent porosity % Pa = Vop / Vb x 100 where: Pa = percentage apparent porosity Vop = the volume of open pores (cm3) Vb = the bulk volume of the sample (cm3) Substituting the weight quantities in the equation, the result is: % Pa = Wm – Wd / Wm – Wmm x 100 where: Wm = the unsaturated (dry fired/weight/g,kg) Wd = the unsaturated weight of the sample ( that is all the open pores are filled with water) Wmm = the weight of saturated sample when it is submerged in liquid for five hours (g, kg)



Percent Water Absorption9 Generally, the absorption test is the best single indicator of the quality of a ceramic body. It is a measure of the degree of vitrification achieved, in as much as, when the firing temperature of a body is increased, its absorption steadily

30 drops, and, as the absorption decreases, the mechanical strength of the body is greatly improved. Percentage water absorption is the ratio of the weight of water absorbed during saturation to the weight of the sample when it is saturated. It is represented by the equation: %WA = Wm-WD/WD x 100 where: WA = percentage water absorption Wm = the weight of the water-saturated (g, kg) WD = the weight of unsaturated (dry fired) sample (g, kg)

31 Local Studies

This section includes literature on tile making using locally available materials and the tests conducted to investigate the feasibility of the tiles produced.

Nata de Coco Reinforced Styrofoam as Tiles16

The rise of the nata de coco industry and the many uses of the said food product prompted a group of students to do research on the said fibrous material. An idea came up to use the cellulose fibers of nata de coco to reinforce the common Styrofoam. Nata de coco was placed in a large container then boiled in a 25% sodium hydroxide solution to remove the noncellulosic material. The mixture was allowed to settle for 10-15 minutes until the material had separated. The cellulose was then collected and placed in the drying oven for a few minutes to dry. The oven was occasionally observed to prevent the sheets from burning. The dried cellulose was then cut into small pieces and was placed in the Wiley mill for grinding. The powdered cellulose was then stored until the Styrofoam was ready for mixing. The Styrofoam was placed in a container and toluene was added to dissolve the material. The powdered cellulose was mixed with the Styrofoam and toluene. The mixture was stirred until all the Styrofoam had been dissolved into pure polystyrene. Four treatments of different ratios of Styrofoam with cellulose were prepared during the production; the four mixtures were as follows: 10:90, 15:85, 20:80, and 25:75 percent of cellulose with Styrofoam, respectively. Pure Styrofoam and pure cellulose

32 were also held as basis for comparison. The mixtures were mixed very evenly and carefully. When the cellulose and Styrofoam were mixed completely in each of the different treatments, the resulting polymer blend was poured into aluminum containers. The mixtures where then allowed to harden. Tests were made to examine the quality of the resulting material. Tests on flexibility, flammability, and water absorption were done. The test on flexibility was done by noting the expansion of the samples when exposed to the same tension. The flammability test was based on whether the tiles are easily burned or not. The water absorption test was done by submerging each sample into water and left there for a certain time then weighed to note the change in mass. The texture was also observed to see which appears to be closest to Styrofoam. Through the flexibility, flammability, and water absorption qualitative test and with the aid of statistical tests such as Friedmann’s statistical test prove that the product cannot substitute tiles since they do not possess the properties of commercially produced tiles. Feasibility of Foam Polystyrene and Powdered Talaba Shells as Tiles17 The study deals with the recycling of polystyrene foam or foam polystyrene more popularly known as Styrofoam. Foam polystyrene (FPS) was reused as an ingredient in making tiles. The tiles were made as follows: FPS was mixed with ground talaba shells after being dissolved in premium gasoline. This mixture was then placed into molds having 2.54 cm x 2.54 cm x 1.27 cm dimensions and was left to air dry. Three mixtures of FPS and gasoline with ground talaba shells were prepared. The mixtures have the

33 ratios of 60:40, 50:50, and 40:40. It was then removed from the molds and sanded into tiles having dimensions of one by 2.54 cm x 3.18 cm. The resulting tiles were tested (Impact Test) against some commercial tiles involving a test for the breaking of the tiles upon receiving the impact of a load. The results showed that the experimental tiles were comparable with the control. Impact Test The strength of the tiles will be tested in the following manner. The tiles would be placed on the floor underneath a piece of metal. A load would be dropped on the metal. This would be done on each of the tiles with increasing weight. A commercial tile would also be tested in this manner to compare its strength with that of the experimental tiles. Height = 0.68 m Load 1 = 0.587 kg Load 2 = 1.1567 kg Load 3 = 1.7577 kg Rating Scale: 5 – no cracks, no damage 4 – chipped; few cracks 3 – more cracks but did not break into fragments 2 – broke into fragments 1 – extensive damage; crushed

34 Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY

This section includes the details how the study was conducted, that is, the plans for different stages, experimentation, tools, special procedures or techniques.

Materials and Reagents

For the pulverization of Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shells, pounding steel is used while for the straining of the pounded shells, a metal screen with fine holes (70 mesh sieve) is used. For the preparation of mixtures, basins are used in the mixing of the pounded shells with the feldspar, kaolin, ball clay, sodium silicate and water. For further mixing, a labo mill is used. For master mold making, plaster of paris and water is used. For the molding and drying, a mold made of plaster of paris is used. For glaze preparation, calcium oxide, carboxymethyl cellulose and water is used. For the firing, a firing machine is used. For the impact test, a meter stick, loads of different weight and a flat metal are used. For the porosity and water absorption test, a triple beam balance and a basin are used.

35 Research Design

Phase I: Preparation of Ceramic Tiles from Crassostrea iredalei (Oyster) Shells Gathering of Crassostrea iredalei (Oyster) Washing of Impurities by Boiling Air & Sun Drying Pounding/Pulverizing & Filtering/Straining Master Mold Making Preparation of Mixtures (Slip Casting) Experimental 2:3 (A) 1:1 (B) 3:2 (C) 1:0 (D) 0:1 (E) Molding & Drying Glaze Preparation Bisquet Firing

Final Product

Glaze Application Glost Firing Final Product Phase II: Test for Physical Properties Impact Strength Figure 3.1 The schematic diagram of the entire research.

Porosity

36 Phase I: Preparation of Ceramic Tiles from Crassostrea iredalei (Oyster) Shells Gathering of Samples

The fifty kilograms (50kg) or one (1) sack of Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shells were obtained from the shores of Maragondon, Cavite on August 4, 2006. After the shells were collected, it was washed of impurities by boiling. It was done for ten (10) minutes and then air-dried and sun-dried for twenty four (24) hours. After drying, the shells were pounded using pounding steel. The pounded shells are subjected to a screen with fine holes (70 mesh sieve) to allow only the passage of finer shell particles. Shells that were left on the screen will be pounded again until such time that it pass through the screen with fine holes.

Mold Making

Each mixture of plaster of paris was carefully mixed for three (3) to four (4) minutes until it is about to start setting. The mixture’s composition is three hundred grams (300g) of plaster of paris added to sixty-seven milliliters (200mL) of water. The mixture was poured in the master mold. The master mold has a plastic walling to prevent sticking of the plaster of paris. The mater mold is made up of wood and is prepared by a carpenter.

37 Preparation of Mixtures

For the experimental group, five (5) different mixtures were made: mixtures A, B, C, D and E. The composition of each are: 2:3, 1:1, 3:2, 1:0, 0:1 (pulverized shells : fixed mixture of feldspar, kaolin and ball clay ratio of mass). The composition of the fixed mixture was 3:2:1 (feldspar : kaolin : ball clay ratio of mass). The composition of mixture D was 1:1 (pulverized shells : feldspar ratio of mass). The composition of mixture E was 0:1 (pulverized shells: fixed mixture of feldspar, kaolin and ball clay ratio of mass). Slip Casting was used in the preparation of mixtures. Sodium silicate is added to the mixtures. It was 0.5% of the total weight of the clay mixture on the other hand 36% of the total weight is water.

Molding and Drying

The prepared mixtures were poured into corresponding molds with 4 in x 4 in x 0.5 in in dimensions. Fifteen (15) replicates were prepared for each mixture. The mixtures were left over to dry.

0.5 in

4 in

4 in

Figure 3.2 The dimensions of the tile molder

38 Glaze Preparation

Thirty grams (30g) of lime or calcium oxide (CaO) was mixed with seventy milliliter (70mL) of water to form a suspension or slip. Three tenths grams (0.3g) of commercially prepared carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) was added to it. The mixture’s specific gravity is checked using a hydrometer. The specific gravity of the mixture was 1.5.

Glaze Application

Brushing glaze application is used. It was done with the use of a soft brush.

Firing Technology

Four (4) tiles from mixtures A, B, C, and E are subjected to bisquit firing without glaze at a temperature of 900°C. They were referred to as A1, B1, C1, and E1.

Another four (4) tiles from mixtures A, B, C, and E are subjected to glost firing with glaze at a temperature of 900°C. They were referred to as A2, B2, C2, and E2.

The last four (4) tiles from mixtures A, B, C, and E are subjected to bisquit firing without glaze at a temperature of 900°C. The glaze was added to the tile after firing. The

39 glazed tiles were subjected to glost firing at a temperature of 1100°C afterwards. They were referred to as A3, B3, C3, D3 and E3.

Phase II: Tests for Physical Properties Tests Impact Strength Test Two (2) tiles from A1, A2, A3, B1, B3, C1, C2, C3, E1, E2 and E3 and two commercially available tiles namely Mariwasa Ceramic Tiles® and Floor Center Ceramic Tiles® which were referred to as F and G respectively are subjected to Impact Strength Test.

The tiles would be placed on the floor underneath a piece of metal. A load would be dropped on the metal. This would be done on each of the tiles with increasing weight. The weight, height and rating scale is shown below. Height = 0.68 m Load 1 = 100 g Load 2 = 200 g Load 3 = 500 g Rating Scale: 50 – no cracks, no damage 40 – chipped; few cracks 30 – more cracks but did not break into fragments 20 – broke into fragments 10 – extensive damage; crushed

40 Porosity Test

Two (2) tiles from A1, A2, A3, B1, B3, C1, C2, C3, E1, E2 and E3 and two commercially available tiles namely Mariwasa Ceramic Tiles® and Floor Center Ceramic Tiles® which were referred to as F and G respectively are subjected to Porosity Test. Each tile was weighed using a triple beam balance to get its dry fired mass (Wm). After weighing, each tile was dipped in water instantaneously to fill the open pores then it was weighed again to get its unsaturated mass (Wd). After weighing, the tiles were submerged in water for five (5) hours and were weighed again to get its saturated mass (Wmm). To get the percent apparent porosity (%Pa), the values gathered from weighing was then be substituted to the equation: % Pa = Wm – Wd / Wm – Wmm x 100

41 Chapter 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS This section includes facts and figures gathered in the experimentation process of utilizing oyster shells as substitute to silica sand in ceramic tile making. The results of the study were described in the preceding sections. The oyster shells were mixed with five (5) treatments, referred to as mixtures A, B, C, D and E. The proportions of each mixture were 2:3, 1:1, 3:2, 1:0 and 0:1 (pulverized oyster shells : fixed mixture of ball clay feldspar and kaolin ratio of mass) respectively. Refer to Table 4.1 for the data.

Table 4.1 Description of Mixtures, Molding and Drying Mixture

Proportion*

No. of Tiles Molded

No. of Tile Body Formed

A

2:3

12

B

1:1

12

12

C

3:2

12

12

D

1:0

12

0

E

0:1

12

12

12

Description When placed in the plaster of paris mold, it dries, hardens & forms a tile body. When placed in the plaster of paris mold, it dries, hardens & forms a tile body. When placed in the plaster of paris mold, it dries, hardens & forms a tile body. When placed in the plaster of paris mold, it dries but did not harden, therefore not forming a tile body. When placed in the plaster of paris mold, it dries, hardens & forms a tile body.

* Pulverized shells: fixed mixture of ball clay, feldspar and kaolin ratio of mass

42 As shown in Table 4.1, mixtures A, B, C and E dries, hardens and forms a tile body. No cracking occurs when removing it in the plaster of paris mold. The said mixtures dry because the plaster of paris mold absorbs its water content. On the other hand, said mixtures harden & become moldable due to the presence of clays (ball clay and kaolin). Mixture B, however, did not form a tile body because it did not harden and it did not become moldable, though it dries. Drying of the mixture is due to the plaster of paris mold, but because it does not contain clays, it did not harden and it did not become moldable. It cracks when removing it to the plaster of paris mold. Mixture D contains feldspar only whose function is to provide strength and hardness to the tile body which is limited to the fired state of the tile.

Firing Technology

Three firing procedures were done. Different subscripts were used to indicate the firing procedure done on the tile. The subscript 1 indicates that the tile undergone bisquit firingproduct procedure. In contrast, the subscript 2 indicates that the tile underwent glazingglost firingproduct procedure. Nonetheless, the subscript 3 indicates that the tile go through bisquit firingglazingglost firingproduct procedure. Refer to table 4.2 for the data gathered.

43 Table 4.2. Firing Technology

Mixture

A

Groups*

No. of tiles fired

No. of tiles produced

No. of tiles that broke into fragments

A1

4

4

0

A2

4

4

0

A3

4

4

0

4

4

0

B2

4

0

4

B3

4

4

0

C1

4

4

0

C2

4

4

0

C3

4

4

0

4

0

4

0

4

0

B1

B

C

E1 E

E2 E3

4 4 4

Description

no cracks, no damage few cracks, little damage few cracks, little damage no cracks, no damage broke into fragments, extensive damage few cracks, little damage few cracks, brittle few cracks, brittle no cracks, no damage no cracks, no damage no cracks, no damage no cracks, no damage

*Firing Procedure: 1 - bisquit firingproduct 2 - glazingglost firingproduct 3 - bisquit firingglazingglost firingproduct

As shown in Table 4.2, all the groups except for B2 yields 100% though referring to the description of each groups, it is noticeable that almost all have little damage. Group B2 broke into fragments and exhibits extensive damage. This means that it is not feasible to make tiles with 50% concentration of calcium carbonate and with a glazingglost firing product procedure. On the other hand, the presence of feldspar provides strength

44 and hardness to the groups of tiles on the fired state because when the feldspar melts, it forms a molten glass that causes the particles to cling together. But due to a lesser concentration of it, qualitatively speaking, the produced tiles do not exhibit much hardness and strength. The absence of silica sand, however, is substituted by calcium carbonate which according to studies has the same function as the silica sand. Both silica sand and calcium carbonate acts as sort of skeleton, reduce firing shrinkage, drying shrinkage and cracking. But due to its higher concentration in mixtures, A, B and C the result is the other way around. This means that, higher concentration of calcium carbonate is not good. Proportions of raw materials should be distributed well.

Test for Physical Properties

The physical properties such as impact strength and porosity of the produced tiles from oyster shells were tested and compared with commercial ceramic tiles. The following sections describe the results of said tests.

A. Impact Strength Test

Impact strength is an important property of a ceramic tile on the fired state. It refers to the ability of ceramic material to bear crushing loads. Impact strength test is done to measure the capacity of the ceramic tiles produced to bear crushing loads of different masses. This test is done by dropping three loads of different masses (100g, 200g and 500g) consecutively on the tile 0.68m high.

45 Table 4.3 shows the result of the impact strength test done on the two commercial/control tiles F and G which will be used to compare with the experimental tiles. Table 4.3 Result of Impact Strength Test for Control Tiles F and G Trial 1 Loads

Tile

Trial 2 Loads

1(100g) 2(200g) 3(500g)

F G

50.0 50.0

50.0 50.0

30.0 30.0

M ean

43.3 43.3

1(100g) 2(200g) 3(500g)

50.0 50.0

50.0 50.0

30.0 30.0

M ean

43.3 43.3

Mean Rank Total 43.3 43.3

1.5 1.5

Table 4.3 shows the impact strength test conducted on the control tiles F and G. The rating 50.0 indicates that the tile has the greatest impact strength while the rating 10.0 indicates that the tile has the lowest impact strength. Referring to Table 4.3, it shows that the total mean indicates that control tiles F and G have the same impact strength. The impact strength result for each control tile will be used in comparing with the best tile for each mixture using one-way ANOVA but since control tile F and G have the same impact strength rating, either of the two can be used. Table 4.4 shows the result of the impact strength test done on mixture A. Table 4.4 Result of Impact Strength Test for Mixture A Trial 1 Trial 2 Tile Loads Loads 1(100g) 2(200g) 3(500g)

A1 A2 A3

20.0 40.0 40.0

20.0 30.0 20.0

20.0 20.0 20.0

M ean

20.0 30.0 26.7

1(100g) 2(200g) 3(500g)

20.0 30.0 40.0

20.0 30.0 20.0

20.0 20.0 20.0

M ean

20.0 26.7 26.7

Mean Rank Total 20.0 28.4 26.7

3 1 2

46 Table 4.4 shows the impact strength test conducted on experimental tile A. The rating 50.0 indicates that the tile has the greatest impact strength while the rating 10.0 indicates that the tile has the lowest impact strength. Referring to Table 4.4, it shows that the total mean indicates that tile A2 have the greatest impact strength while tile A1 have the lowest impact strength. For this reason, tile A2 is selected to be compared with control tiles F and G. Table 4.5 shows the summary of the one-way ANOVA applied in comparing tile A2 versus control tiles F or G. Table 4.5 Summary of one-way ANOVA applied to tile A2 versus tile F or G Source of Sum of df Mean F ratio Interpretation variation Squares Squares Between 223.5 1 223.5 Groups Within 111.8 Significant 3.800 2 1.9 Group Total 227.3 3 As shown in Table 4.5, the F-ratio is more than the critical value, 13.51, then the null hypothesis, which is, the 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of impact strength, will be rejected. Meaning, tile A2 differ significantly with that of the control tile F or G in terms of impact strength. Since the mean value of the result of impact strength test done on experimental tile A2 is less than the mean value of the result of impact test done on control tile F or G, tile A2 is more fragile compared with the control tiles. This indicates that it not feasible to make tiles with 40% concentration of calcium carbonate and with a bisquit firingproduct procedure if the impact strength is the only physical property to be considered.

47 Table 4.6 shows the result of the impact strength test done on mixture B. Table 4.6 Result of Impact Strength Test for Mixture B Trial 1 Trial 2 Tile Loads Loads 1(100g) 2(200g) 3(500g)

B1 B3

40.0 50.0

30.0 40.0

20.0 20.0

M ean

30.0 36.7

1(100g) 2(200g) 3(500g)

40.0 50.0

20.0 40.0

20.0 20.0

M ean

26.7 36.7

Mean Rank Total 28.4 36.7

2 1

Table 4.6 shows the impact strength test conducted on experimental tile B. The rating 50.0 indicates that the tile has the greatest impact strength while the rating 10.0 indicates that the tile has the lowest impact strength. Referring to Table 4.6, it shows that the total mean indicates that tile B3 have the greatest impact strength while tile B1 have the lowest impact strength. For this reason, tile B3 is selected to be compared with control tiles F and G. Table 4.7 shows the summary of theone-way ANOVA applied in comparing tile B3 versus control tiles F or G. Table 4.7 Summary of one-way ANOVA applied to tile B3 versus tile F or G Source of Sum of df Mean F ratio Interpretation variation Squares Squares Between 43.56 1 43.56 Groups Not Within -54.45 -1.600 2 -0.8 Significant Group Total 42.00 3 As shown in Table 4.7, the F-ratio is less than the critical value, 13.51, then the null hypothesis, which is, the 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of impact strength, will be accepted. Meaning, tile B3 do not differ with that of the control tile F or G in terms of impact strength. This indicates that it is feasible to make tiles with 50%

48 concentration of calcium carbonate and with a bisquit firingglazingglost firing product procedure if the impact strength is the only physical property to be considered. Table 4.8 shows the result of the impact strength test conducted on experimental tile C. Table 4.8 Result of Impact Strength Test for Mixture C Tile Trial 1 Trial 2 Loads Loads 1(100g) 2(200g) 3(500g)

C1 C2 C3

40.0 40.0 50.0

20.0 40.0 50.0

20.0 20.0 20.0

M ean

26.7 33.3 40.0

1(100g) 2(200g) 3(500g)

40.0 40.0 50.0

20.0 40.0 40.0

20.0 20.0 20.0

M ean

26.7 33.3 36.7

Mean Rank Total 26.7 33.3 38.4

3 2 1

Table 4.8 shows the impact strength test conducted on experimental tile C. The rating 50.0 indicates that the tile has the greatest impact strength while the rating 10.0 indicates that the tile has the lowest impact strength. Referring to Table 4.8, it shows that the total mean indicates that tile C3 have the greatest impact strength while tile C1 have the lowest impact strength. For this reason, tile C3 is selected to be compared with control tiles F and G. Table 4.9 shows the summary of the one-way ANOVA applied in comparing tile C3 versus control tiles F or G. Table 4.9 Summary of one-way ANOVA applied to tile C3 versus tile F or G Source of Sum of df Mean F ratio Interpretation variation Squares Squares Between 24.50 1 24.50 Groups Not Within 12.89 3.800 2 1.900 Significant Group Total 28.30 3

49 As shown in Table 4.9 the F-ratio is less than the critical value, 13.51, then the null hypothesis, which is, the 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of impact strength, will be accepted. Meaning, tile C3 is comparable to control tile F or G in terms of impact strength. This indicates that it is feasible to make tiles with 60% concentration of calcium carbonate and with a bisquit firingglazingglost firingproduct procedure if the impact strength is the only physical property to be considered. Table 4.10 shows the result of the impact strength test conducted on experimental tile E. Table 4.10 Result of Impact Strength Test for Mixture E Trial 1 Trial 2 Tile Loads Loads 1(100g) 2(200g) 3(500g)

E1 E2 E3

40.0 20.0 40.0

30.0 20.0 20.0

20.0 20.0 10.0

M ean

30.0 20.0 23.3

1(100g) 2(200g) 3(500g)

40.0 20.0 40.0

20.0 20.0 20.0

20.0 10.0 10.0

M ean

26.7 16.6 23.3

Mean Rank Total 28.4 18.3 23.3

1 3 2

Table 4.10 shows the impact strength test conducted on experimental tile E. The rating 50.0 indicates that the tile has the greatest impact strength while the rating 10.0 indicates that the tile has the lowest impact strength. Referring to Table 4.10, it shows that the total mean indicates that tile E1 have the greatest impact strength while tile E2 have the lowest impact strength. For this reason, tile E1 is selected to be compared with control tiles F and G. Table 4.11 shows the summary of the one-way ANOVA applied in comparing tile E1 versus control tiles F or G. Table 4.11 Summary of one-way ANOVA applied to tile E1 versus tile F or G Source of Sum of df Mean F ratio Interpretation variation Squares Squares

50 Between Groups Within Group Total

223.5

1

223.5

3.800

2

1.900

227.0

3

111.8

Significant

As shown in Table 4.11, the F-ratio is more than the critical value, 13.51, then the null hypothesis, which is, the 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of impact strength, will be rejected. Meaning, tile E1 differ significantly with that of the control tile F or G in terms of impact strength. Since the mean value of the result of impact test done on experimental tile E1 is less than the mean value of the result of impact strength test done on control tile F or G, tile E1 is more fragile compared with the control tiles. This indicates that it not feasible to make tiles with 0% concentration of calcium carbonate or silica sand and with a bisquit firingproduct procedure if the impact strength is the only physical property to be considered. In general, groups B3 and C3 are the tiles comparable with control tiles F or G in terms of impact strength.

B. Porosity Test Porosity is an important physical property of a ceramic tile on the fired state. It refers to the penetration of liquids and vapors through the material that usually causes structural damage. The porosity test is conducted to determine how much liquid the produced ceramic tile will absorb in standard period of time. It is done by measuring the unsaturated mass of the tile, the liquid-dipped mass of the tile and the saturated mass of

51 the tile. The resulting masses were then substituted to the equation for percent apparent porosity. Table 4.12 shows the result of the porosity test done on the control tiles F and G. Table 4.12 Result of porosity test (in percent apparent porosity, %Pa) for control tiles F and G Tile F G

Trial 1 %Pa (%) 48.57 45.46

Trial 2 %Pa (%) 40.00 46.73

Mean (%) 44.29 46.15

Rank 1 2

Table 4.12 shows the porosity test done on control tiles F and G. It illustrates that the lesser the percent apparent porosity, the lesser is its susceptibility to be penetrated by liquids, the better. As shown in Table 4.12 control tile F has the least percent apparent porosity, meaning it is less susceptible to be penetrated by liquids while control tile G has larger percent apparent porosity, meaning it is more susceptible to be penetrated by liquids and vapors. For this reason, control tile F is selected to be compared with the experimental tiles. Table 4.13 shows the results of the porosity test for mixture A. Table 4.13 Result of porosity test (in percent apparent porosity, %Pa) for mixture A Tile A1 A2 A3

Trial 1 %Pa (%) 46.00 39.90 47.47

Trial 2 %Pa (%) 45.82 40.46 47.74

Mean (%) 45.91 40.18 47.61

Rank 2 1 3

52

Table 4.13 shows the porosity test for mixture A. It illustrates that the lesser the percent apparent porosity, the lesser is its susceptibility to be penetrated by liquids, the better. Referring to Table 4.13, it shows that tile A2 has the least percent apparent porosity, meaning it is less susceptible to be penetrated by liquids while tile A3 have the largest percent apparent porosity, meaning it is more susceptible to be penetrated by liquids and vapors. For this reason, tile A2 is selected to be compared with control tile F. Table 4.14 shows the one-way ANOVA applied in comparing tile A 2 versus control tile F. Table 4.14 Summary of one-way ANOVA applied to tile A2 versus tile F Source of Sum of df Mean F ratio variation Squares Squares Between 19.38 1 19.38 Groups Within 1.053 36.82 2 18.41 Group Total 56.20 3

Interpretation

Not Significant

As shown in Table 4.14, the F-ratio is less than the critical value, 13.51, then the null hypothesis, which is, the 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of porosity, will be accepted. Meaning, tile A2 is comparable with control tile F in terms of porosity. This indicates that it is feasible to make tiles with 40% concentration of calcium carbonate and with a bisquit firingproduct procedure if porosity is the only physical property to be considered. Table 4.15 shows the results of the porosity test for mixture B.

53 Table 4.15 Result of porosity test (in percent apparent porosity, %Pa) for mixture B Tile B1 B3

Trial 1 %Pa (%) 47.54 49.61

Trial 2 %Pa (%) 48.96 47.29

Mean (%) 48.25 48.41

Rank 1 2

Table 4.13 shows the porosity test for mixture B. It illustrates that the lesser the percent apparent porosity, the lesser is its susceptibility to be penetrated by liquids, the better. Referring to Table 4.13, tile B1 has the least percent apparent porosity, meaning it is less susceptible to be penetrated by liquids while tile B3 have larger percent apparent porosity, meaning it is more susceptible to be penetrated by liquids and vapors. For this reason, tile B1 is selected to be compared with control tile F. Table 4.16 shows the summary of the one-way ANOVA applied in comparing tile B1 versus control tile F. Table 4.16 Summary of one-way ANOVA applied to tile B1 versus tile F Source of Sum of df Mean F ratio variation Squares Squares Between 12.94 1 12.94 Groups Within 0.6890 37.56 2 18.78 Group Total 50.50 3

Interpretation

Not Significant

As shown in Table 4.16, the F-ratio is less than the critical value, 13.51, then the null hypothesis, which is, the 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of porosity, will be accepted. Meaning, tile A2 is comparable with control tile F in terms of porosity. This indicates that it is feasible to make tiles with 50% concentration of calcium carbonate and

54 with a glazingglost firingproduct procedure if porosity is the only physical property to be considered. Table 4.17 shows the results of the porosity test for mixture C.

Table 4.17 Result of porosity test (in percent apparent porosity, %Pa) for mixture C Tile C1 C2 C3

Trial 1 %Pa (%) 63.56 64.06 59.92

Trial 2 %Pa (%) 64.60 64.02 59.47

Mean (%) 64.08 64.04 59.70

Rank 3 2 1

Table 4.17 shows the porosity test for mixture C. It illustrates that the lesser the percent apparent porosity, the lesser is its susceptibility to be penetrated by liquids, the better. Referring to Table 4.17, tile C3 has the least percent apparent porosity, meaning it is less susceptible to be penetrated by liquids while tile C1 have larger percent apparent porosity, meaning it is more susceptible to be penetrated by liquids and vapors. For this reason, tile C3 is selected to be compared with control tile F. Table 4.18 shows the summary of the one-way ANOVA applied in comparing tile C3 versus control tile F. Table 4.18 Summary of one-way ANOVA applied to tile C3 versus tile F Source of Sum of df Mean F ratio variation Squares Squares

Interpretation

55 Between Groups Within Group Total

234.5

1

234.5

35.50

2

17.75

270.0

3

13.21

Not Significant

As shown in Table 4.18, the F-ratio is less than the critical value, 13.51, then the null hypothesis, which is, the 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of porosity, will be accepted. Meaning, tile C3 is comparable with control tile F in terms of porosity. This indicates that it is somewhat feasible to make tiles with 60% concentration of calcium carbonate and with a bisquit firingglazingglost firingproduct procedure if porosity is the only physical property to be considered. Table 4.19 shows the results of the porosity test for mixture E. Table 4.19 Result of porosity test (in percent apparent porosity, %Pa) for mixture E Tile E1 E2 E3

Trial 1 %Pa (%) 29.32 32.42 24.44

Trial 2 %Pa (%) 23.26 30.02 23.33

Mean (%) 26.29 31.22 23.89

Rank 1 3 2

Table 4.19 shows the porosity test for mixture E. It illustrates that the lesser the percent apparent porosity, the lesser is its susceptibility to be penetrated by liquids, the better. Referring to Table 4.19, tile E1 has the least percent apparent porosity, meaning it is less susceptible to be penetrated by liquids while tile E2 have the largest percent apparent porosity, meaning it is more susceptible to be penetrated by liquids and vapors. For this reason, tile E1 is selected to be compared with control tile F.

56 Table 4.20 shows the summary of the one-way ANOVA applied in comparing tile E1 versus control tile F. Table 4.20 Summary of one-way ANOVA applied to tile E1 versus tile F Source of Sum of df Mean F ratio variation Squares Squares Between 320.3 1 320.3 Groups Within 546.1 1.173 2 0.5865 Group Total 375.6 3

Interpretation

Significant

As shown in Table 4.20, the F-ratio is more than the critical value, 13.51, then the null hypothesis, which is, the 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of porosity, will be rejected. Meaning, tile E1 differs significantly with control tile F in terms of porosity. But for this sample, E1 has lesser percent apparent porosity than control tile F. Meaning, tile E1 is less susceptible to the penetration of liquids than control tile F. This indicates that it is feasible to make tiles with 0% concentration of calcium carbonate or silica sand and with a bisquit firingproduct procedure if porosity is the only physical property to be considered. The hardened clays after firing that make this group resistant to action of liquids and vapors. But because it does not contain calcium carbonate or silica sand, the tile is fragile. In general, tiles A2 B1 and C3 are the tiles comparable with control tile F in terms of porosity. Table 4.21 shows the summary of results for the best tiles produced according to the one-way ANOVA used.

57 Table 4.21 Summary of results for the best tiles produced Tile* A2 B1 B3 C3

% Oyster Shells 40 50 50 60

Impact Strength Not Feasible Not Feasible Feasible Feasible

Porosity Feasible Feasible Not Feasible Feasible

Decision Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Feasible

*Firing Procedure: 1 - bisquit firingproduct 2 - glazingglost firingproduct 3 - bisquit firingglazingglost firingproduct

As shown in Table 4.21, it suggests that tile C3 is the most feasible experimental tile because it is feasible in both impact strength and porosity test done. This means that it is feasible to make tile with 60% concentration of calcium carbonate and with a bisquit firingglazingglost firingproduct procedure. However, as shown in Table 4.21, tiles A2, B1 and B3 are feasible in one physical property only that is why the decision for its acceptance is not feasible. It is very important that the produced tile pass all the tests for physical properties to achieve quality. It was also observed in the study that the lesser the calcium carbonate added to the tile, the smaller the porosity. The lesser the percent apparent porosity means that the susceptibility of the tile to absorb liquid or vapor is less. It is because calcium oxide (from fired calcium carbonate) easily absorbs liquids like water to form hydroxides. On the other hand, the greater the amount of calcium carbonate added to the tile, the greater is the impact strength. The greater the impact strength means that the ability of the tile to bear crushing load is better. It is because calcium carbonate reduces the drying

58 shrinkage, prevents cracking of the piece and act as a sort of skeleton to hold the shape of the piece. Table 4.22 shows the rough estimate of the costs of chemicals and equipment utilized in the study.

Table 4.22 Cost of materials utilized in the study Material Ball clay Feldspar Kaolin Plaster of paris Calcium carbonate Sodium silicate CMC Firing Machine

Quantity 1.00 kg 4.20 kg 2.00 kg 18.0 kg 0.48 kg 0.15 L 0.25 kg 1 pc

Unit Price P 15.00/kg 12.00/kg 28.85/kg 18.75/kg 21.50/kg 45.00/L 174.00/kg 500.00/day Total

Price P 15.00 50.40 47.70 337.50 10.32 6.75 43.50 500.00 P 1,011.17

Referring at Table 4.22, it shows that the total cost of the study amounted to roughly one thousand eleven and 17/100 pesos (P1,011.17). This amount was utilized in the production of 60 pieces of tiles. Dividing the amount used in the study with the number of tiles will give out 16.85. Meaning, if the tiles were to be sold, its unit price would be P16.85/piece which is higher than the price of the commercial tiles which is P12.50/piece. The difference would be P4.35.

59 The unit price may seem expensive but it should also be considered that the plaster of paris mold can be used over and over again and the firing machine could fire more than 60 tiles a day.

Chapter 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The main objective of the study is to investigate the feasibility of the Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shell as base for ceramic tile making. Specifically, it aimed to: (a) utilize Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shells as substitute to silicon dioxide (silica sand) in ceramic tile making; (b) test the physical properties like impact strength and porosity of the produced ceramic tiles; and (c) compare the ceramic tile made of Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shells to commercially available ones such as the Mariwasa Ceramic Tiles® and Floor Center Ceramic Tiles® in terms of impact strength and porosity via One-Way ANOVA.

60 Based on the statistical analysis, it was found out that utilizing Crassostrea iredalei (oyster) shells as substitute to silicon dioxide (silica sand) in ceramic tile making at a 60% substitution and with a bisquit firingglazingglost firingproduct firing procedure is feasible. The produced tile is comparable with the commercial tiles like Mariwasa Ceramic Tiles® and Floor Center Ceramic Tiles® in terms of impact strength and porosity. The other percent substitution of calcium carbonate including the firing procedure done is not as effective ad the 60% substitution.

To further enhance or modify this research study, the researchers throw the following recommendations: 1)

Utilize other test for the physical properties of the best tile produced.

2)

The use of other tile body forming method like the dust press method or the spray drying method;

3)

Reformulation of the proportions of the calcium carbonate, ball clay, feldspar and kaolin used.

61

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1

JEFE (2000). Downloaded on August 10, 2006 from http://www.jefo.ca/fiches_anglais/oyster_shells.html 2

Britannica, 1978

3

Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 4, 1988

4

Jamaica Export Trading Company. Downloaded on October 24, 2006 from http://www.exportjamaica.org/jetco/click.htm 5

University of Florida News (2004). Downloaded on August 10, 2006 from http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2004news/oystertip.htm 6

Rx List (2005). Downloaded on August 10, 2006 from http://www.rxlist.com/drugs/drug20939Calcium+Oyster+Shell+Oral.aspx?drugid=20939&drugname=Calcium+Oyster+Shell+Oral 7

Planet Natural (2004). Downloaded on August 10, 2006 from http://www.planetnatural.com/site/oyster-shell-lime.html 8

The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 16, 1958

62 9

Training Manual on Ceramic Artware Production published by the Rural Technology & Information Division, Industrial Technology Development Institute, Department of Science and Technology. 10

The Tile Doctor (2003). Downloaded on August 10, 2006 from http://www.thetiledoctor.com/tile_manufac.cfm 11

Alibaba.com (1999). Downloaded on October 5, 2006 from http://www.alibaba.com/catalog/11336587/Water_Washed_Lavigated_China_Clay_Kaoli n.html 12

(October 2001). China Raw Ball Clay QY-03 Chemical Analysis. Quezon City: Central Ceramic Center. 13

Wikipedia (2006). Downloaded on October 24, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica 14

Production of Ceramic Artwares published by the Rural Technology & Information Division, Industrial Technology Development Institute, Department of Science and Technology. 15

Ceramic-tile.com (2003). Downloaded on August 10, 2006 from http://www.ceramictile.com/class.cfm 16

Isidro, Reinier Augustus and Sheryll R. Jamito. 2006. Janitor Fish’s Skin Reinforced Concrete Blocks. Manila: Philippine Normal University Research Paper. 17

Camara, Paolo, Janssen Canicula, Rex Capuno, Don dela Cruz and Christopher Sanguyo. 2001. Feasibility of Foam Polystyrene and Powdered Talaba Shells as Tiles. Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Science High School Research Paper.

63

APPENDIX A Raw Data and Computations for Impact Strength Test Impact Strength Test

64

Tile A1 A2 A3 B1 B3 C1 C2 C3 E1 E2 E3 F G

Trial 1 Loads

Trial 2 Loads

1(100g) 2(200g) 3(500g)

20.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 50.0 40.0 40.0 50.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 50.0 50.0

20.0 30.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 50.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 50.0 50.0

20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 30.0 30.0

M ean

20.0 30.0 26.7 30.0 36.7 26.7 33.3 40.0 30.0 20.0 23.3 43.3 43.3

1(100g) 2(200g) 3(500g)

20.0 30.0 40.0 40.0 50.0 40.0 40.0 50.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 50.0 50.0

20.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 50.0 50.0

20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 30.0 30.0

M ean

Mean Total

20.0 26.7 26.7 26.7 36.7 26.7 33.3 36.7 26.7 16.6 23.3 43.3 43.3

20.0 28.4 26.7 56.7 36.7 26.7 33.3 38.4 28.4 18.3 23.3 43.3 43.3

Results of One-Way ANOVA Group A Trial 1 2 ∑

A2 30.0 26.7 56.7

F/G 43.3 43.3 86.6 ∑X = 143.3

Do the 2 groups of tiles differ in terms of impact strength? Step 1: Ho = H1 =

M1 = M2= the 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of impact strength M1 ≠ M2 = the 2 groups of tiles do differ in terms of impact strength

Step 2: .05 level Step 3: dfb = k-1 2-1 = 1 dfw = N-k = 4-2 = 2 Step 4: DR: if F ≥ 13.51 DR: if F < 13.51 Trial 1 2 ∑

reject Ho accept Ho A2 900 713 1613

∑X2 = 5361 F/G 1874 1874 3748

65

Step 5: (5.1) total sum of squares SSt = ∑ X2 _ (∑ X)2 N = 5361 – (143.3) 2 4 = 227.3 (5.2) sum of squares for between groups SSb = (∑ X)2 + (∑ X)2 - (∑ X)2 n1 n2 N = (30.0)2 + (26.7) 2 2 2 = 223.5

+

(43.3)2 2

(5.3) sum of squares for w/in groups SSw = SSt –SSb = 227.3 – 223.5 = 3.8 (5.4) mean squares * for between groups MSb = SSb K-1 (2-1) = 223.5 1 = 223.5

+

(43.3)2 - (143.3)2 2 4

* for w/in groups MSw = SSw N-k (4-2) = 3.8 2 = 1.9

(5.5) F ratio F = MSb MSw 223.5 = 1.9 = 111.8 Step 6: Decision: Reject Ho Step 7: The 2 groups of tiles differ in terms of impact strength Summary Table

Source of variation Between Groups Within Group Total

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Squares

223.5

1

223.5

3.800

2

1.9

227.3

3

F ratio

66 Interpretation

111.8

Significant

Group B Trial 1 2 ∑

B3 36.7 36.7 73.4

F/G 43.3 43.3 86.6 ∑X=160.0

Do the 2 groups of tiles differ in terms of impact strength? Step 1: Ho = H1 =

M1 = M2= the 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of impact strength M1 ≠ M2 = the 2 groups of tiles do differ in terms of impact strength

Step 2: .05 level Step 3: dfb = k-1 2-1 = 1 dfw = N-k = 4-2 = 2 Step 4: DR: if F ≥ 13.51 DR: if F < 13.51

reject Ho accept Ho

Trial 1 2 ∑

B3 1347 1347 2694

F/G 1874 1874 3748 ∑x2 = 6442

Step 5: (5.1) total sum of squares SSt = ∑ X2 _ (∑ X)2 N = 6442 – (160) 2 2 = 42 (5.2) sum of squares for between groups SSb = (∑ X)2 + (∑ X)2 - (∑ X)2 n1 n2 N

67 = (36.7)2 + (36.76) 2 2

2

+

(43.3)2 2

+

(43.3)2 2

- (160)2 4

= 223.5 (5.3) sum of squares for w/in groups SSw = SSt –SSb = 42 – 43.56 = - 1.6 (5.4) mean squares * for between groups MSb = SSb K-1 (2-1) = 10.9 2 = 43.56

* for w/in groups MSw = SSw N-k (6-2) = 28.7 6 = - 0.8

(5.5) F ratio F = MSb MSw 43.56 = -0.8 = - 54.45 Step 6: Decision: Accept Ho Step 7: The 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of impact strength

Source of variation Between Groups Within Group Total

Group C

Sum of Squares

Summary Table df Mean Squares

43.56

1

43.56

-1.600

2

-0.8

42.00

3

F ratio

Interpretation

-54.45

Not Significant

68 Trial 1 2 ∑

C3 40.0 36.7 76.7

F/G 43.3 43.3 86.6 ∑X=163.3

Do the 2 groups of tiles differ in terms of impact strength? Step 1: Ho = M1 = M2= M3 = the 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of impact strength H1 = M1 ≠ M2 ≠ M3 = the 2 groups of tiles do differ in terms of impact strength Step 2: .05 level Step 3: dfb = k-1 2-1 = 1 dfw = N-k = 4-2 = 2 Step 4: DR: if F ≥ 13.51 DR: if F < 13.51

reject Ho accept Ho

Trial 1 2 ∑

C3 1600 1347 2947

F/G 1874 1874 3748 ∑x2 = 6695

Step 5: (5.1) total sum of squares SSt = ∑ X2 _ (∑ X)2 N = 6695 – (163.3) 2 4 = 28.3 (5.2) sum of squares for between groups SSb = (∑ X)2 + (∑ X)2 - (∑ X)2 n1 n2 N = (40.0)2 + (36.7) 2 2

2

+

(43.3)2 2

= 223.5 (5.3) sum of squares for w/in groups SSw = SSt –SSb =28.3 – 24.5 = 3.8

+

(43.3)2 - (163.3)2 2

4

69 (5.4) mean squares * for between groups MSb = SSb K-1 (2-1) = 24.5 1 = 24.5

* for w/in groups MSw = SSw N-k (4-2) = 3.8 2 = 1.9

(5.5) F ratio F = MSb MSw 24.5 = 1.9 = 12.89 Step 6: Decision: Accept Ho Step 7: The 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of impact strength

Source of variation Between Groups Within Group Total

Sum of Squares 24.50

Summary Table df Mean Squares 1

3.800

2

28.30

3

F ratio

Interpretation

12.89

Not Significant

24.50 1.900

Group E Trial 1 2 ∑

E1 40.0 36.7 76.7

F/G 43.3 43.3 86.6 ∑X=143.3

Do the 2 groups of tiles differ in terms of impact strength? Step 1: Ho = H1 =

M1 = M2= the 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of impact strength M1 ≠ M2 = the 2 groups of tiles do differ in terms of impact strength

Step 2: .05 level

70

Step 3: dfb = k-1 2-1 = 1 dfw = N-k = 4-2 = 2 Step 4: DR: if F ≥ 13.51 DR: if F < 13.51

reject Ho accept Ho

Trial 1 2 ∑

E1 900 713 1613

F/G 1874 1874 3748 ∑x2 = 5361

Step 5: (5.1) total sum of squares SSt = ∑ X2 _ (∑ X)2 N = 5361 – (143.3) 2 4 = 227.3 (5.2) sum of squares for between groups SSb = (∑ X)2 + (∑ X)2 - (∑ X)2 n1 n2 N = (30.0)2 + (26.7) 2 2

2

+

(43.3)2 2

+

(43.3)2 - (143.3)2 2

4

= 223.5 (5.3) sum of squares for w/in groups SSw = SSt –SSb =28.3 – 24.5 = 3.8 (5.4) mean squares * for between groups MSb = SSb K-1 (2-1) = 223.5 1 = 223.5 (5.5) F ratio F = MSb MSw 223.5 = 1.9

* for w/in groups MSw = SSw N-k (4-2) = 3.8 2 = 1.9

71

= 111.8 Step 6: Decision: Reject Ho Step 7: The 2 groups of tiles do differ in terms of impact strength Summary Table

Source of variation Between Groups Within Group Total

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Squares

223.5

1

223.5

3.800

2

1.900

227.0

3

F ratio

Interpretation

111.8

Significant

APPENDIX B Raw Data and Computations for Porosity Test Porosity Test Tile A1 A2 A3 B1

Trial 1 %Pa (%)* 46.00 39.90 47.47 47.54

Trial 2 %Pa (%)* 45.82 40.46 47.74 48.96

Mean (%) 45.91 40.18 47.61 48.25

72 B3 C1 C2 C3 E1 E2 E3 F G

49.61 63.56 64.06 59.92 29.32 32.42 24.44 48.57 45.46

47.29 64.60 64.02 59.47 23.26 30.02 23.33 40.00 46.73

48.41 64.08 64.04 59.70 26.29 31.22 23.89 44.29 46.15

* % Pa = Wm – Wd / Wm – Wmm x 100

Results of One-Way ANOVA Group A Trial 1 2 ∑

A1 39.90 40.46 80.36

F 48.57 40 88.57 ∑X = 168.9

Do the 2 groups of tiles differ in terms of apparent porosity? Step 1: Ho =

M1 = M2= the 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of impact strength

H1 =

M1 ≠ M2 = the 2 groups of tiles do differ in terms of impact strength

Step 2: .05 level Step 3: dfb = k-1 2-1 = 1 dfw = N-k = 4-2 = 2 Step 4: DR: if F ≥ 13.51 DR: if F < 13.51

reject Ho accept Ho

Trial 1 2 ∑

F2 2359 1600 3959

A1 1592 1637 3229 2

∑x2 = 7188 Step 5: (5.1) total sum of squares SSt = ∑ X2 _ (∑ X)2 N

73 = 7188 – (168.9) 2 4 = 56.20 (5.2) sum of squares for between groups SSb = (∑ X)2 + (∑ X)2 - (∑ X)2 n1 n2 N = (39.90)2 + (40.46) 2 2

2

+

(48.57)2 2

+ 2

(40)2 - (168.9)2 4

= 19.38 (5.3) sum of squares for w/in groups SSw = SSt –SSb =56.20 – 19.38 = 36.82 (5.4) mean squares * for between groups MSb = SSb K-1 (2-1) 19.38 = 1 = 19.38

* for w/in groups MSw = SSw N-k (4-2) = 36.82 2 = 18.41

(5.5) F ratio F = MSb MSw 19.38 = 18.41 = 1.053 Step 6: Decision: accept Ho Step 7: The 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of apparent porosity Summary Table Source of variation Between Groups Within Group Total

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Squares

19.38

1

19.38

36.82

2

18.41

56.20

3

F ratio

Interpretation

1.053

Not Significant

74

Group B Trial 1 2 ∑

B1 47.54 48.96 96.50

F 48.57 40 88.57 ∑X=185.1

Do the 2 groups of tiles differ in terms of apparent porosity? Step 1: Ho = H1 =

M1 = M2= the 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of apparent porosity M1 ≠ M2 = the 2 groups of tiles do differ in terms of apparent porosity

Step 2: .05 level Step 3: dfb = k-1 2-1 = 1 dfw = N-k = 4-2 = 2 Step 4: DR: if F ≥ 13.51 DR: if F < 13.51

reject Ho accept Ho

Trial 1 2 ∑

B1 2260 2397 4657

F 2359 1600 3959 ∑x2 = 8616

Step 5: (5.1) total sum of squares SSt = ∑ X2 _ (∑ X)2 N = 8616 – (185.1) 2 4 = 50.50 (5.2) sum of squares for between groups SSb = (∑ X)2 + (∑ X)2 - (∑ X)2 n1 n2 N = (47.54)2 + (40.46) 2 2

2

+

(40)2 2

+

(48.57)2 - (185.1)2 2

4

75 = 12.94 (5.3) sum of squares for w/in groups SSw = SSt –SSb = 50.50 – 12.94 = 37.56 (5.4) mean squares * for between groups MSb = SSb K-1 (2-1) 12.94 = 1 = 12.94

* for w/in groups MSw = SSw N-k (4-2) = 37.56 2 = 18.78

(5.5) F ratio F = MSb MSw 12.94 = 18.78 = 0.6890 Step 6: Decision: accept Ho Step 7: The 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of apparent porosity

Source of variation Between Groups Within Group Total

Sum of Squares

Summary Table df Mean Squares

19.38

1

19.38

36.82

2

18.41

56.20

3

F ratio

Interpretation

1.053

Not Significant

Group C Trial 1

C3 59.92

F 48.57

76 2 ∑

59.47 119.4

40 88.57 ∑X = 208.0

Do the 2 groups of tiles differ in terms of apparent porosity? Step 1: Ho = M1 = M2= M3 = the 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of apparent porosity H1 = M1 ≠ M2 ≠ M3 = the 2 groups of tiles do differ in terms of apparent porosity Step 2: .05 level Step 3: dfb = k-1 2-1 = 1 dfw = N-k = 4-2 = 2 Step 4: DR: if F ≥ 13.51 DR: if F < 13.51

reject Ho accept Ho

Trial 1 2 ∑

C3 3550 3537 119.4

F 2359 1600 3559

Step 5: (5.1) total sum of squares SSt = ∑ X2 _ (∑ X)2 N = 11086 – (208) 2 4 = 270.0 (5.2) sum of squares for between groups SSb = (∑ X)2 + (∑ X)2 - (∑ X)2 n1 n2 N = (59.47)2 + (59.92) 2 2

2

+

(48.57)2 2

+ 2

(40)2 - (208)2 4

= 234.5 (5.3) sum of squares for w/in groups SSw = SSt –SSb =270.0 – 234.5 = 35.5 (5.4) mean squares * for between groups

* for w/in groups

77 MSb = SSb K-1 (2-1) = 234.5 1 = 234.5

MSw = SSw N-k (4-2) = 35.5 2 = 17.75

(5.5) F ratio F = MSb MSw 234.5 = 17.75 = 13.21 Step 6: Decision: accept Ho Step 7: The 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of apparent porosity Summary Table Source of variation Between Groups Within Group Total

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Squares

19.38

1

19.38

36.82

2

18.41

56.20

3

F ratio

Interpretation

1.053

Not Significant

Group E Trial 1 2 ∑

E1 29.32 23.26 56.28

F 48.57 40 88.57 ∑X=141.2

Do the 2 groups of tiles differ in terms of apparent porosity? Step 1: Ho = H1 =

M1 = M2= the 2 groups of tiles do not differ in terms of apparent porosity M1 ≠ M2 = the 2 groups of tiles do differ in terms of apparent porosity

Step 2: .05 level

78 Step 3: dfb = k-1 2-1 = 1 dfw = N-k = 4-2 = 2 Step 4: DR: if F ≥ 13.51 DR: if F < 13.51

reject Ho accept Ho

Trial 1 2 ∑

E1 859.7 541.0 1401

F 2359 1600 3959 ∑x2 = 5360

Step 5: (5.1) total sum of squares SSt = ∑ X2 _ (∑ X)2 N = 5360 – (141.2) 2 4 = 375.6 (5.2) sum of squares for between groups SSb = (∑ X)2 + (∑ X)2 - (∑ X)2 n1 n2 N = (29.32)2 + (23.26) 2 2

2

+

(48.57)2 2

+ 2

(40)2 - (141.2)2 4

= 320.3 (5.3) sum of squares for w/in groups SSw = SSt –SSb =375.6 – 320.3 = 1.173 (5.4) mean squares * for between groups MSb = SSb K-1 (2-1) = 320.3 1 = 320.3 (5.5) F ratio F = MSb MSw 320.3 = 0.5865

* for w/in groups MSw = SSw N-k (4-2) = 1.173 2 = 0.5865

79 = 546.1 Step 6: Decision: Reject Ho Step 7: The 2 groups of tiles do differ in terms of apparent porosity

Source of variation Between Groups Within Group Total

Sum of Squares 19.38

Summary Table df Mean Squares 1

36.82

2

56.20

3

Interpretation

1.053

Not Significant

19.38 18.41

APPENDIX C Research Pictorials Pulverizing/Sieving of Oyster Shells

F ratio

80 Mold Making

Preparation of Mixtures

Molding & Drying

81 Firing

Glaze Preparation

Glazing

82

Impact Strength Test

Porosity Test

83

CURRICULUM VITAE Name

:

APRIL MAE V. AGBAYANI

Address

:

Phase 1 Block 3 Castrence St. Los Pinos Village Imus,Cavite

Mobile No.

:

+63921 850 66 95

Personal Data Birth date

:

March 10,1983

Gender: Female

Civil Status

:

Single

Religion : Catholic

Filipino, English

Citizenship: Filipino

Languages Spoken:

Educational Background Tertiary

Bachelor of Secondary Education

2007

Major in Chemistry Philippine Normal University Taft Avenue, Manila Secondary

Maragondon National High School

2001

84 Elementary

Pura V. Kalaw Elementary School

1996

Affiliations Philippine Normal University Chemical Society

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name

:

ALLEN A. ESPINOSA

Address

:

# 12 A. Bautista St. Area 2 UP Campus Diliman, Quezon City

Mobile No.

:

+63 927 314 52 57

Personal Data Birth date

:

30 January 1985

Gender

Civil Status

:

Single

Religion

:

Catholic

Filipino, English

Citizenship

:

Filipino

Languages Spoken:

:

Educational Background Tertiary

Bachelor of Secondary Education

2007

Major in Chemistry Philippine Normal University Taft Avenue, Manila Secondary

Aurora National Science High School Baler, Aurora

2002

Male

85 Elementary

Baler Central School Baler, Aurora

Affiliations Philippine Normal University Chemical Society Philippine Association of Chemistry Students Microsoft Faculty and Student Ambassador Program

1998