Barrett, The Honors College Thesis/Creative Project Collection
Barrett, The Honors College at Arizona State University proudly showcases the work of undergraduate honors students by sharing this collection exclusively with the ASU community.
Barrett accepts high performing, academically engaged undergraduate students and works with them in collaboration with all of the other academic units at Arizona State University. All Barrett students complete a thesis or creative project which is an opportunity to explore an intellectual interest and produce an original piece of scholarly research. The thesis or creative project is supervised and defended in front of a faculty committee. Students are able to engage with professors who are nationally recognized in their fields and committed to working with honors students. Completing a Barrett thesis or creative project is an opportunity for undergraduate honors students to contribute to the ASU academic community in a meaningful way.
The Electoral College, the current electoral system in the U.S., operates on a Winner-Take-All or First Past the Post (FPTP) principle, where the candidate with the most votes wins. Despite the Electoral College being the current system, it is problematic. According to Lani Guinier in Tyranny of the Majority, “the winner-take-all principle invariably wastes some votes” (121). This means that the majority group gets all of the power in an election while the votes of the minority groups are completely wasted and hold little to no significance. Additionally, FPTP systems reinforce a two-party system in which neither candidate could satisfy the majority of the electorate’s needs and issues, yet forces them to choose between the two dominant parties. Moreover, voting for a third party candidate only hurts the voter since it takes votes away from the party they might otherwise support and gives the victory to the party they prefer the least, ensuring that the two party system is inescapable. Therefore, a winner-take-all system does not provide the electorate with fair or proportional representation and creates voter disenfranchisement: it offers them very few choices that appeal to their needs and forces them to choose a candidate they dislike. There are, however, alternative voting systems that remedy these issues, such as a Ranked voting system, in which voters can rank their candidate choices in the order they prefer them, or a Proportional voting system, in which a political party acquires a number of seats based on the proportion of votes they receive from the voter base. Given these alternatives, we will implement a software simulation of one of these systems to demonstrate how they work in contrast to FPTP systems, and therefore provide evidence of how these alternative systems could work in practice and in place of the current electoral system.
Much of Nepal lacks access to clean drinking water, and many water sources are contaminated with arsenic at concentrations above both World Health Organization and local Nepalese guidelines. While many water treatment technologies exist, it is necessary to identify those that are easily implementable in developing areas. One simple treatment that has gained popularity is biochar—a porous, carbon-based substance produced through pyrolysis of biomass in an oxygen-free environment. Arizona State University’s Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS) has partnered with communities in Nepal in an attempt to increase biochar production in the area, as it has several valuable applications including water treatment. Biochar’s arsenic adsorption capability will be investigated in this project with the goal of using the biochar that Nepalese communities produce to remove water contaminants. It has been found in scientific literature that biochar is effective in removing heavy metal contaminants from water with the addition of iron through surface activation. Thus, the specific goal of this research was to compare the arsenic adsorption disparity between raw biochar and iron-impregnated biochar. It was hypothesized that after numerous bed volumes pass through a water treatment column, iron from the source water will accumulate on the surface of raw biochar, mimicking the intentionally iron-impregnated biochar and further increasing contaminant uptake. It is thus an additional goal of this project to compare biochar loaded with iron through an iron-spiked water column and biochar impregnated with iron through surface oxidation. For this investigation, the biochar was crushed and sieved to a size between 90 and 100 micrometers. Two samples were prepared: raw biochar and oxidized biochar. The oxidized biochar was impregnated with iron through surface oxidation with potassium permanganate and iron loading. Then, X-ray fluorescence was used to compare the composition of the oxidized biochar with its raw counterpart, indicating approximately 0.5% iron in the raw and 1% iron in the oxidized biochar. The biochar samples were then added to batches of arsenic-spiked water at iron to arsenic concentration ratios of 20 mg/L:1 mg/L and 50 mg/L:1 mg/L to determine adsorption efficiency. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) analysis indicated an 86% removal of arsenic using a 50:1 ratio of iron to arsenic (1.25 g biochar required in 40 mL solution), and 75% removal with a 20:1 ratio (0.5 g biochar required in 40 mL solution). Additional samples were then inserted into a column process apparatus for further adsorption analysis. Again, ICP-MS analysis was performed and the results showed that while both raw and treated biochars were capable of adsorbing arsenic, they were exhausted after less than 70 bed volumes (234 mL), with raw biochar lasting 60 bed volumes (201 mL) and oxidized about 70 bed volumes (234 mL). Further research should be conducted to investigate more affordable and less laboratory-intensive processes to prepare biochar for water treatment.