presentation

[mona]

hello,

i wana do presentation taking about article but my problem i have never present an article in scientific way so.. could you please tell me wut the important step to present an article ?


Direct determination of nickel in gas oil by atomic absorption spectrometry with electrothermal atomization


Abstract

Three commercially available high performance liquid chromatography columns are used in normal phase or quasi-normal phase mode for the separation of gas oil samples. The columns are tested with 20 analytical standards to determine their suitability for separations of petroleum samples and their ability to separate the nitrogen group-types (pyrrole and pyridine) found in petroleum. The columns studied are polymeric hypercrosslinked polystyrene (HGN), a biphenyl phase, and a Chromegabond “DNAP” column from ES Industries. The HGN column separates gas oils based on both ring structure and heteroatom, while the biphenyl phase has low retention of most compounds studied in quasi-normal phase mode. The “DNAP” column is selective for nitrogen-containing compounds, separating them from PAHs as well as oxygen and sulphur compounds. Retention data of standards on all three columns is shown, along with chromatograms of gas oil samples on the HGN and “DNAP” columns.




Highlights


► We study three commercial HPLC stationary phases for petroleum separations. ► Focus is on nitrogen-containing compounds. ► Model compounds and gas oil samples are used to determine separation capabilities. ► HGN separates compounds based on both heteroatom content and ring size. ► Commercial “DNAP” can separate nitrogen containing compounds from others.

Keywords: HPLC; Petroleum; DNAP; Hypercrosslinked polystyrene; Nitrogen groups


Article Outline
1. Introduction
2. Experimental
2.1. Apparatus
2.2. Chemicals
2.3. Calculations

3. Results and discussion
3.1. HGN: commercial hypercrosslinked polystyrene
3.1.1. Model compounds
3.1.2. Gas oil samples

3.2. Restek biphenyl phase
3.3. “DNAP”: dinitrophenyl phase
3.3.1. Model compounds
3.3.2. Gas oil samples

[tom jupille]

It would be a lot easier if you had seen a few other presentations at meetings or conferences.

I'll give you my two cents' worth (but I have a style that is somewhat unorthodox by academic standards):

Tell a story:

1. Here was the problem (or question).
2. To solve it, the authors took these steps.
3. (optional) These problems were encountered, and dealt with in this fashion.
4. Here are the results of the experiment.
5. Based on these results, we can conclude this, for these reasons
6. Here are the possible flaws and/or remaining questions/problems for further research.

[Don_Hilton]

Mona,

The first question to answer is: What kind of presentation and to what kind of audience. Tom has given you a format I am used to in business - and it works well. The format you have shown is typical in acedemia. The basic form:

(Abstract)
Introduction
Theory
Experimental
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Both are quite acceptable for science and reporting scientific results.

As I read your post you are perhaps making a presentation on an article you read? If you are presenting a review of an article as a class presentation, you might organize it more along what Tom suggested, changing the focus just a bit:
1) what the problem was that the author was trying to solve. Why it is important, What others had done (wiht success or failure).
2/3) How the Author's work addressed the issues.
4/5) Were the experiments well focused on the problem? Are the authors conclusions are strong or weak.
6) And what questions were left or may need a better answer than the author gave. (Hint on that is to look for papers that reference the article and see if any addressed weaknesses in the author's work.)

In any of these cases, the best way to be scientific is to be organized, show clear thinking, rational results, and conclusions drawn from the data or literature you have examined. You can use either general outline and kill the whole thing by having a conclusion like "I feel the author did a good job and this is a signficant contribution to science." It dies at the words "I feel." Show me how, and youre good.

[Don_Hilton]

Mona,

The first question to answer is: What kind of presentation and to what kind of audience. Tom has given you a format I am used to in business - and it works well. The format you have shown is typical in acedemia. The basic form:

(Abstract)
Introduction
Theory
Experimental
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Both are quite acceptable for science and reporting scientific results.

As I read your post you are perhaps making a presentation on an article you read? If you are presenting a review of an article as a class presentation, you might organize it more along what Tom suggested, changing the focus just a bit:
1) what the problem was that the author was trying to solve. Why it is important, What others had done (wiht success or failure).
2/3) How the Author's work addressed the issues.
4/5) Were the experiments well focused on the problem? Are the authors conclusions are strong or weak.
6) And what questions were left or may need a better answer than the author gave. (Hint on that is to look for papers that reference the article and see if any addressed weaknesses in the author's work.)

In any of these cases, the best way to be scientific is to be organized, show clear thinking, rational results, and conclusions drawn from the data or literature you have examined. You can use either general outline and kill the whole thing by having a conclusion like "I feel the author did a good job and this is a signficant contribution to science." It dies at the words "I feel." Show me (step by step) how the author did a good job, and youre good.