CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter contains all the data gathered during the conduct of the study,
through presenting, analyzing and interpreting those that were served as the results and
conclusions. These texts support and strengthen the research paper’s preparation in
conducting the study.

1. QUALITY ATTRIBUTES OF THE VAPOR RUB

TABLE 1A

Comparing Means (t-test for independent samples)

TIME OF
COLOR SCENT APPEARANCE SOOTHING
TREATMENTS

 SD  SD  SD  SD

LaNella 3.33 0.488 3.67 0.488 3.6 0.507 136.67s 7.63

Commercialize 3.47 0.64 3.47 0.517 3.47 0.517 125s 5

Table
1A above showed the summary of the mean and standard deviation of each of the quality
attributes (Color, Scent, Appearance and Time of Soothing) of the two treatments which are
LaNella vapor rub and the commercialized vapor rub.

Based on the means of the quality attributes of the two vapor rub, all of the quality
attributes has set a LIKE EXTREMELY 4-point likert acceptability that has means ranges from
3.1-4. Thus, most of the respondents has almost the same acceptability and perspective on the
color, scent, appearance, and time of soothing of the two vapor rub.

Moreover, the means of the LaNella Vapor Rub is higher than the mean of the
commercialized vapor rub in terms of the quality attributes. However, statistically, it is not
significantly different in terms of its color, appearance scent, and time of soothing.
 Furthermore, the null hypothesis in all the quality attributes of LaNella vapor rub was
accepted, and no null hypothesis was rejected.

2. EFFECTIVITY OF THE VAPOR RUB

2A. COLOR OF THE VAPOR RUB

In determining whether there exists a significant difference between the alternative vapor
rub and the commercialized vapor rub the means were compared. Results are shown below.

Table 2A.

Independent Means t-test on Color of the Alternative Vapor Rub and Commercialized Vapor
Rub

Treatment Mean Standard t-value t-critical

Deviation (5%)
LaNella Vapor 3.33 0.488
Rub
0.674 2.048
Commercialize 3.47 0.640
Vapor Rub

Table 2A above shows that the mean of the LaNella Vapor Rub is lower than the mean
of the commercialized vapor rub. However, statistically, it is not significantly different in terms of
its color.

Further, the computed t-value obtained is 0.674 with 28 degrees of freedom (df). This
value is not significant at 0.05 level of confidence due to lesser than 2.776, tabular value, of
0.05 level at df=28 (t 0.05(4) = 2.048). This implies that the quality of the color of the alternative and
commercialize vapor rub was almost the same with each other. Therefore, the null hypothesis is
accepted. Thus, most of the respondents have similar acceptability on the color of the two vapor
rubs and have set a LIKE EXTREMELY acceptability that ranges from 3.1 to 4.

2B. APPEARANCE OF THE VAPOR RUB

In determining whether there exists a significant difference between the appearance of

the alternative vapor rub and the commercialized vapor rub, the means were compared. Results
are shown below.

Table 2B.
 Comparing Means (t-test for independent samples)

Treatment Mean Standard t-value t-critical

Deviation (5%)
LaNella Vapor 3.6 0.507
Rub
0.695 2.048
Commercializ 3.47 0.517
e Vapor Rub

Table 2B above shows that the mean of the LaNella Vapor Rub is higher than the mean
of the commercialized vapor rub. However, statistically, it is not significantly different in terms of
its appearance.

Further, the computed t-value obtained is 0.695 with 28 degrees of freedom (df). This
value is not significant at 0.05 level of confidence due to lesser than 2.048, tabular value, of
0.05 level at df=28 (t0.05(28) = 2.048). This implies that the quality of the appearance of the
alternative vapor rub and commercialized vapor rub are almost the same. Therefore, the null
hypothesis is accepted. Thus, most of the respondents have similar acceptability on the
appearance of the two vapor rubs and have set a LIKE EXTRMELY acceptability that ranges
from 3.1 to 4.

2C. SCENT OF THE VAPOR RUB

In determining whether there exists a significant difference between the scent of the
alternative vapor rub and the commercialized vapor rub, the means were compared. Results are
shown below.

Table 2C.

Comparing Means (t-test for independent samples)

Treatment Mean Standard t-value t-critical

Deviation (5%)
LaNella Vapor 3.67 0.488 1.090 2.048
Rub
Commercialize 3.47 0.517
 Vapor Rub

Table 2C above shows that the mean of the LaNella Vapor Rub is higher than the mean
of the commercialized vapor rub. However, statistically, it is not significantly different in terms of
its scent.

Further, the computed t-value obtained is 1.090 with 28 degrees of freedom (df). This
value is not significant at 0.05 level of confidence due to lesser than 2.048, tabular value, of
0.05 level at df=28 (t0.05(28) = 2.048). This implies that the quality of the scent of the alternative
vapor rub and commercialize vapor rub are almost the same. Therefore, the null hypothesis is
accepted. Thus, most of the respondents have similar acceptability on the scent of the two
vapor rubs and have set a LIKE EXTREMELY acceptability that ranges from 3.1 to 4

2D. TIME OF SOOTHING OF THE VAPOR RUB

In determining whether there exists a significant difference between time of soothing of

the alternative vapor rub and the commercialized vapor rub, the means were compared.
Results are shown below.

Table 2D

Independent Means t-test on Time of Soothing of the Alternative Vapor Rub and
Commercialized Vapor Rub

Treatment Mean Standard t-value t-critical

deviation (5%)

LaNella Vapor Rub

136.67 7.63
2.21 2.776
Commercialize 125 sec 5
Vapor Rub
 Table 2D above shows that the mean of the LaNella Vapor Rub is higher than the mean
of the commercialized vapor rub. However, statistically, it is not significantly different in terms of
its time of soothing.

Further, the computed t-value obtained is 2.21 with 4 degrees of freedom (df). This value
is not significant at 0.05 level of confidence due to lesser than 2.776, tabular value, of 0.05 level
at df=4 (t0.05(4) =). This means that the acceptability of the LaNella vapor rub and commercialized
vapor rub was almost the same to each other. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. The
respondents have similar acceptability on the time of soothing of the LaNella vapor rub and the
commercialized vapor rub.

2E. Cost Analysis

Table 2E.

Cost Analysis between the Alternative and Commercialize Vapor Rub

LaNella Vapor Rub Commercialize

Materials Cost Vapor Rub
Beeswax (30 grams) Php. 75. 00
Citronella essential oil
(10mL) Php. 60.00
Lagundi essential oil (10mL) Php. 60.00
 Vicks Vapor Rub
Coconut oil (30 mL) Php. 20. 00

  Php 215.00 Php 255.00

As shown by the table 2E, the price of hat made up of LaNella vapor rub is more
affordable than the commercialize vapor rub. The price of the experimental vapor rub is Php.
215.00 compared to Php. 255.00 for the Commercialize vapor rub.
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS, DISCUSSIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS

This part presents the answers or results, analysis and interpretation of the gathered
data. The queries raised in the statement of the problem were answering questions.

1. Quality Attributes of the Mouthwashes

Table 1.1
 Quality Attributes of the Mouthwashes

AROMA TASTE FRESHNESS COLOR CONSISTENCY

TREATMENTS
X X X X X
SD SD SD SD SD

CaLeNe 3.73 0.45 3.2 0.56 3.47 0.64 3.13 0.52 40.33s 1.53

COMMERCIALIZE 3.33 0.62 3.53 0.52 3.33 0.73 3.8 0.41 42.67s 0.58

The Table 1.1 showed the summary of the mean and standard deviation of each of the
quality attributes (aroma, taste, freshness, color, consistency) of the two mouthwashes which
are the CaLeNe mouthwash and commercialize mouthwash.

Based on the means of the quality attributes of both mouthwashes, it has a set of a “Like
Extremely” acceptability that ranges from 3.1-4. Thus, most of the respondents has the same
acceptability and perspective on the aroma, taste, freshness, color and consistency of the two
mouthwashes.

Moreover, the null hypothesis in terms of the aroma, taste, freshness and consistency
were accepted while the null hypothesis in terms of color was rejected.

2. Effectivity of the Mouthwashes

2.1. Aroma of the Mouthwashes

In determining whether there exists a significant difference between the aroma of the
CaLeNe mouthwash and the commercialized mouthwash, the means were compared. Results
are shown below.

Table 2.1
Independent Means t-test on Aroma of the CaLeNe mouthwash and Commercialized
Mouthwash
Treatment Mean Standard t-value t-critical
Deviation (5%)
CaLeNe
3.73 0.45
Mouthwash
2.03 2.048
Commercialized
3.33 0.62
Mouthwash
 The table above shows that the mean of the CaLeNe mouthwash is higher than the mean of
the commercialized mouthwash. However, statistically, it is not significantly different in terms of
its aroma.

Furthermore, Table 1 revealed that the computed t-value (2.03) is less than the t-critical
(2.048) which implies that it is not significant at tabular value of 0.05 level of confidence with 28
degrees of freedom (t0.05(28)=2.048). This means that the aroma of the CaLeNe Mouthwash and
Commercialized Mouthwash are almost the same. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted.
Thus, most of the respondents have the same perspective on the good aroma of the two
mouthwashes and have a set of Like Extremely which ranges from 3.1-4.

2.2. Taste of the Mouthwashes

In determining whether there exists a significant difference between the taste of the CaLeNe
mouthwash and the commercialized mouthwash, the means were compared. Results are
shown below.

Table 2.2
Independent Means t-test on Taste of the CaLeNe mouthwash and Commercialized
Mouthwash

Treatment Mean Standard t-value t-critical

Deviation (5%)
CaLeNe
3.2 0.56
Mouthwash
1.68 2.048
Commercialized
3.53 0.52
Mouthwash

The table above shows that the mean of the CaLeNe mouthwash is lower than the mean of
the commercialized mouthwash. However, statistically, it is not significantly different in terms of
its taste.

The computed t-value obtained is 1.68 with 28 degrees of freedom (df). This value is not
significant at 0.05 level of confidence because the t-value is lesser than the t-critical which is
2.048, tabular value of 0.05 level at df 28 (t 0.05(28) =2.048). This means that the taste of the
CaLeNe mouthwash and the commercialized mouthwash are almost the same. Therefore, the
null hypothesis is accepted. Thus, the respondents have similar acceptability in both
mouthwashes in terms of its taste that have a set of Like Extremely which ranges from 3.1-4.

2.3. Freshness of the Mouthwashes

 In determining whether there exists a significant difference between the effect time of the
Neem mouthwash and the commercialized mouthwash, the means were compared. Results
are shown below.

Table 2.3
Independent Means t-test on Freshness of the CaLeNe mouthwash and
Commercialized Mouthwash

Treatment Mean Standard t-value t-critical

Deviation (5%)
CaLeNe
3.47 0.64
Mouthwash
0.56 2.048
Commercialized
3.33 0.73
Mouthwash

The table above shows that the mean of the CaLeNe mouthwash is higher than the mean of
the commercialized mouthwash. However, statistically, it is not significantly different in terms of
its freshness.

Further, Table 3 revealed that the computed t-value (0.56) is less than the t-critical (2.048)
that means that is not significant at tabular value of 0.05 level of confidence with 28 degrees of
freedom (t0.05(28)=2.048). This means that the freshness of the CaLeNe Mouthwash and
Commercialized Mouthwash are almost the same. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted.
Thus, the respondents have the same perspective about the freshness in the mouth of the two
mouthwashes and have a set of Like Extremely that ranges from 3.1-4.

2.4 . Color of the Mouthwashes

In determining whether there exists a significant difference between the color of the Neem
mouthwash and the commercialized mouthwash, the means were compared. Results are
shown below.

Table 2.4
Independent Means t-test on Color of the CaLeNe mouthwash and Commercialized
Mouthwash

Treatment Mean Standard t-value t-critical

Deviation (5%)
CaLeNe 3.13 0.52 3.91 2.048
Mouthwash
 Commercialized
3.8 0.41
Mouthwash

The table above shows that the mean of the CaLeNe mouthwash is lower than the mean of
the commercialized mouthwash. However, statistically, it is significantly different in terms of its
color.

The computed t-value obtained is 3.91 with 28 degrees of freedom (df). This value is
significant at 0.05 level of confidence because the t-value is greater than the t-critical which is
2.048, tabular value of 0.05 level at df 28 (t 0.05(28) =2.048). This means that the color of the
CaLeNe mouthwash and the commercialized mouthwash differ with each other. Therefore, the
null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, most of the respondents have similar acceptability in both
mouthwashes in terms of its color and have a set of Like Extremely acceptability that ranges
from 3.1-4.

2.5. Consistency of the Mouthwashes

In determining whether there exists a significant difference between the consistency of the
Neem mouthwash and the commercialized mouthwash, the means were compared. Results
are shown below.

Table 2.5
Independent Means t-test on Consistency of the CaLeNe mouthwash and
Commercialized Mouthwash

Treatment Mean Standard t-value t-critical

Deviation (5%)
CaLeNe
40.33s 1.53
Mouthwash
2.48 2.776
Commercialized
42.67s 0.58
Mouthwash

The table above shows that the mean of the CaLeNe mouthwash is lower than the mean of
the commercialized mouthwash. However, statistically, it is not significantly different in terms of
its consistency.

Moreover, Table 5 revealed that the computed t-value (2.48) is less than the t-critical (2.776)
that means that is not significant at tabular value of 0.05 level of confidence with 4 degrees of
freedom (t0.05(4)=2.776). This means that the consistency of the CaLeNe Mouthwash and
Commercialized Mouthwash are almost the same. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted.
Therefore, most of the respondents have the same acceptability on the consistency of the two
mouthwashes and have a set of Like Extremely acceptability in both mouthwashes that ranges
from 3.1-4.