RBS: Really Big Stuff

Hey readers!

It's been a crazy week, like always! Right now, we've basically finished the final experiment that I needed to have a complete set of data to answer my question. So, this week has been packed with 3 stages of research simultaneously: data collection, data analysis, and writing.

If you remember, at the beginning of my data collection stage, we were unable to do RBS (Rutherford Backscattering Spectrometry) on human blood. However, since performing RBS and determining elemental composition of 2 different spots is crucial, I still collected as much data as I could using Balanced Saline Solution (which mimics intraocular humor, so it's a complex ionic solution like blood). On Thursday, we had a marathon 10 hour continuous RBS session to take a bunch of data. RBS is super awesome, so even though this post is about my paper, I wanted to show you guys some really cool pictures of samples:

Here's the organization system I created for my samples  with a $1.50 box from Joann Fabrics!
Each compartment has a 8 mm x 8 mm sample wrapped in a cellulose wipe, to prevent contamination.

Here is a sample in the vacuum chamber on the sample holder.
The laser beam shows where the ion beam will hit the sample!

Do you see that purple light?
That is the sample (an insulator) fluorescing when the ion beam hits it.

Since Thursday, I've been working as hard as I can to finish analyzing this new data, with 46 runs of 100,000 counts (ions) each to analyze. I calibrated the energies, and now I am looking at the data to overlay spectra and calculate elemental composition (uniformity). It will be done by tonight.

The data has been extremely interesting so far, and I have a lot to add to my results/discussion section about it. We took the approach of finding the composition of a bare slide, a slide with coating, and a slide with coating and a saline drop applied. 

Check out this cool plot overlaying 100k to 400k ions hitting 2 drops on the same sample! The "steps" represent elements' compositions (e.g., K, Ca, Na, and Si)

Visually, we can see that the compositions are similar across 8 spectra, especially in the overlay.
But, don't worry, I have quantitative calculations of uniformity as well.

It's really liberating to have this data finally, as I have had the opportunity to analyze data continuously without waiting on anything. 

Now that we've talked about where I am on data collection/analysis and what I've been up to, let's hone in on the paper!

Actually it's due tonight...

Since I am still analyzing some data, some of my results sections and discussion sections still need to be written up, since I need to fill in some numbers and draw a few more conclusions from the new analysis I have been working on. However, they will be completed within the next few days, in time for my editing spot on Thursday. 

So far, I am really happy with the robust dataset I have collected. I have 3 parts of my results, including (i) 3LCAA data on the surface energy of my samples, (ii) qualitative image analysis of saline drops, (iii) Ion Beam Analysis of canine blood, human blood, and saline. I think that the amount of data and analysis I have done really answers my question and can lead my reader through logically why I decided to use this three-pronged approach. Of course, lots of data means I have a lot to talk about in all of my sections. 

Let's just say this isn't big data, but the data sure is BIG ;)

Apart from being happy with the data I collected, I think that the connection between my methods and results section is really strong, specifically how I describe my data analysis. When I edited my paper at the beginning of the first trimester, I focused on aligning these parts very well and connecting the importance of uniformity in a clinical setting to the data in my experiment.  

Now, for the weaknesses and what to look for... 

Always word count.

Since my paper is already above the word limit without the new data, I definitely need to figure out sections or parts that are dispensable. Anything that can be made shorter would be greatly appreciated.

Moreover, I think that something I really need to be strong are the transitions between the results sections and justifications of looking at specific samples. In the beginning of the project, I set ambitious goals and planned a huge experiment. However, we encountered some obstacles, so my actual experiment did collect a bit less data. Therefore, I want to make sure that as a reader, the justifications of only performing RBS on certain samples is robust enough (apart from the weak, hey, I couldn't). I think using the previous 3LCAA data as a way to narrow down and select specific samples to RBS was a solid approach though. 

The transitions better be good, but not too explicit either...

Next, I think that identifying any extraneous information in the Lit Review or Methods that doesn't perfectly align with the slightly modified experiments I performed would be a major key 🔑  in cutting down my paper.

Finally, I wanted to make sure that I connected my research to the applications clearly in the discussion (e.g., implementing HemaDrop as a technology), as that is ultimately the significance of my research and will make my project more focused and digestible for all.

I tried to break up the dense post with some dank memes, so hope you enjoyed!

Entering the homestretch, so let's goooo!

Yash 🦁

(942)