Results:
This line excludes the first data point taken at 1M: it was obvious that the assay did not react appropriately at that concentration. Excluding that point, the correlation between absorbance and concentration was very strong and indeed very visible.
(From left to right: 1M, 0.1M, 0.01M, 0.001M)
There was an odd outlier in our 0.01M LB solution, but barring that, which may have been due to error, all the samples were around 0.06 in absorbance.
Sample Wavelength Absorbance
LB 1 450 0.060613
LB 0.1 450 0.060613
LB 0.01 450 0.214448
LB 0.001 450 0.071711
This means that the absorbances noted for our samples can only be compared to each other.
Sample Wavelength Absorbance
cphA 1 450 1.986121297
cphA 2 450 1.130933166
cphA 3 450 0.557710588
cphB 1 450 1.323578715
cphB 2 450 0.383529276
Dud 1 450 1.34328568
Dud 2 450 0.918852449
Our most consistent data comes from the duds, neither of which was supposed to impact the nitrate concentration in the media. Unfortunately because of the LB standard curve not providing a clear translation from absorbance to concentration, it’s not possible to extrapolate from the absorbance to any particular strain’s impact on the media’s nitrate concentration. However, it is possible to note the consistency among the duds, the higher consistency between the cphA samples, and the relative chaos of the cphB samples.