CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

The gathered data were presented, analyzed and interpreted in this chapter. The data
presented in each table were preceded by a textual discussion.

Sensory Qualities of Taro

Bio Wax As Admixture in Concrete Plastering

Table 8 presents the results of the sensory evaluation of taro bio wax. The participants

evaluated the taro bio wax based on five sensory qualities: Adhesion, Cohesion, Appearance,

Spreadability, and Weather Resistance. The total mean score for Adhesion was 4.29, which was

interpreted as "Very Adhesive". The total mean score for Cohesion was 4.30, which was

interpreted as "Very Cohesive". The total mean score for Appearance was 4.33, which was

interpreted as "Very Acceptable". The total mean score for Spreadability was 4.39, which was

interpreted as "Very Spreadable". Lastly, the total mean score for Weather Resistance was 4.37,

which was interpreted as "Very Resistive". Overall, the results suggest that the taro bio wax was

evaluated positively for its sensory qualities..

Table 8. Sensory Qualities of Taro Bio Wax.

Variables Mean Verbal Interpretation

Adhesion 4.29 Very Adhesive
Cohesion 4.30 Very Cohesive
Appearance 4.33 Very Acceptable
 Spreadability 4.39 Very Spreadable
Weather Resistant 4.37 Very Resistive

Sensory Qualities of Taro Bio Wax

When Classified According to
Treatment A

Table 9 shows the sensory qualities of taro bio wax in terms of treatment A. Result

implied that it was “Very Adhesive” in terms of adhesion as reflected by the total mean score of

4.33. Thus, there was a total mean score of 4.27 which was interpreted as “Very Cohesive” in

terms of its Cohesion. In addition, it was “Very Acceptable” in terms of appearance as shown by

a total mean score of 4.39. Also, it was “Very Spreadable” in terms of spreadability as revealed

by a total mean score of 4.27. Furthermore, it was “Very Resistive” in terms of weather resistant

as shown by a total mean score of 4.39.

Table 9. Sensory Qualities of Taro Bio Wax When Classified According to Treatment A.

Variables Mean Verbal Interpretation

Adhesion 4.33 Very Adhesive
Cohesion 4.27 Very Cohesive
Appearance 4.39 Very Acceptable
Spreadability 4.27 Very Spreadable
Weather Resistant 4.39 Very Resistive

Sensory Qualities of Taro Bio Wax

When Classified According to
Treatment B

Table 10 exhibits the sensory qualities of taro bio wax in terms of treatment B. Result

implied that it was “Moderately Adhesive” in terms of adhesion as shown by the total mean score

of 4.03. Accordingly, there was a total mean score of 4.21 which was interpreted as “Very

Cohesive” in terms of its Cohesion. In addition, it was “Very Acceptable” in terms of appearance
as revealed by a total mean score of 4.36. Likewise, it was “Very Spreadable” in terms of

spreadability as shown by a total mean score of 4.36. Moreover, it was “Very Resistive” in terms

of weather resistant as revealed by a total mean score of 4.09.

Table 10. Sensory Qualities of Taro Bio Wax When Classified According to Treatment B.

Variables Mean Verbal Interpretation

Adhesion 4.03 Very Adhesive
Cohesion 4.21 Very Cohesive
Appearance 4.36 Very Acceptable
Spreadability 4.36 Very Spreadable
Weather Resistant 4.09 Very Resistive

Sensory Qualities of Taro Bio Wax

When Classified According to
Treatment C

Table 11 displays the sensory qualities of taro bio wax in terms of treatment C. Result

implied that it was “Very Adherence” in terms of adhesion as revealed by the total mean score of

4.52. Hence, there was a total mean score of 4.42 which was interpreted as “Very Cohesive” in

terms of its Cohesion. In addition, it was “Very Acceptable” in terms of appearance as shown by

a total mean score of 4.24. The same, it was “Very Spreadable” in terms of spreadability as

revealed by a total mean score of 4.55. Furthermore, it was “Very Resistive” in terms of weather

resistant as shown by a total mean score of 4.64.

Table 11. Sensory Qualities of Taro Bio Wax When Classified According to Treatment C.

Variables Mean Verbal Interpretation

Adhesion 4.52 Very Adhesive
Cohesion 4.42 Very Cohesive
Appearance 4.24 Very Acceptable
Spreadability 4.55 Very Spreadable
Weather Resistant 4.64 Very Resistive
Level of Acceptability of Taro Bio
Wax Among Three Treatments
as a Whole

Table 12 reveals the level of acceptability of taro bio wax among three treatments in

general. Statistics shows that treatment A had a mean score of 4.33 which was implied that it was

“Very Acceptable”. On the other hand, treatment B had a mean score of 4.24 which was implied

that it was “Very Acceptable”. In like manner, treatment C had a mean score of 4.49 which was
implied that it was “Very Acceptable”. Furthermore, treatment C had a highest mean score

compared to treatment A and treatment B.

Table 12. Level of Acceptability of Taro Bio Wax Among Three Treatments as a Whole.

Variables Mean Verbal Interpretation

Treatment A 4.33 Very Acceptable
Treatment B 4.24 Very Acceptable
Treatment C 4.49 Very Acceptable

Level of Acceptability of Taro Bio Wax

Among Three Treatments in
Terms of Adhesion

Table 13 displays the level of acceptability of taro bio wax among three treatments in

terms of adhesion. Statistics shows that treatment A had a mean score of 4.33 which was implied

that it was “Very Adhesive”. On the other hand, treatment B had a mean score of 4.09 which was

implied that it was “Moderately Adhesive”. However, treatment C had a mean score of 4.42

which was implied that it was “Very Adhesive”. Moreover, treatment C had a highest mean score
on its level of acceptability in terms of adhesion compared to treatment A and B.

Table 13. Level of Acceptability of Taro Bio Wax Among Three in Terms of Adhesion.

Variables Mean Verbal Interpretation

Treatment A 4.33 Very Adhesive
Treatment B 4.09 Moderately Adhesive
Treatment C 4.42 Very Adhesive

Level of Acceptability of Taro Bio Wax

Among Three Treatments in
Terms of Cohesion

Table 14 displays the level of acceptability of taro bio wax among three treatments in

terms of cohesion. Statistics shows that both treatment A and B had a mean score of 4.27 which

was implied that it was “Very Cohesive”. On the other hand, treatment C had a mean score of

4.42 which was implied that it was “Very Cohesive”. Thus, treatment C had a highest mean score

on its level of acceptability in terms of cohesion compared to treatment A and B.

Table 14. Level of Acceptability of Taro Bio Wax Among Three in Terms of Cohesion.

Variables Mean Verbal Interpretation

Treatment A 4.27 Very Cohesive
Treatment B 4.27 Very Cohesive
Treatment C 4.42 Very Cohesive

Level of Acceptability of Taro Bio Wax

Among Three Treatments in
Terms of Appearance

Table 15 displays the level of acceptability of taro bio wax among three treatments in

terms of appearance. Statistics shows that both treatment A and B had a mean score of 4.36
which was implied that it was “Very Acceptable”. On the other hand, treatment C had a mean

score of 4.30 which was implied that it was “Very Acceptable”. However, among the three, both

treatment A and B had a highest mean score on their level of acceptability in terms of appearance

compared to treatment C.

Table 15. Level of Acceptability of Taro Bio Wax Among Three in Terms of Appearance.

Variables Mean Verbal Interpretation

Treatment A 4.36 Very Acceptable
Treatment B 4.36 Very Acceptable
Treatment C 4.30 Very Acceptable

Level of Acceptability of Taro Bio Wax

Among Three Treatments in
Terms of Spreadability

Table 16 displays the level of acceptability of taro bio wax among three treatments in

terms of spreadability. Statistics shows that treatment A had a mean score of 4.27 which was

implied that it was “Very Spreadable”. On the other hand, treatment B had a mean score of 4.33

which was implied that it was “Very Spreadable”. Likewise, treatment C had a mean score of

4.55 which was implied that it was “Very Spreadable”. Moreover, treatment C had a highest

mean score on its level of acceptability in terms of spreadability compared to treatment A and B.

Table 16. Level of Acceptability of Taro Bio Wax Among Three in Terms of Spreadability.

Variables Mean Verbal Interpretation

Treatment A 4.27 Very Spreadable
Treatment B 4.33 Very Spreadable
 Treatment C 4.55 Very Spreadable

Level of Acceptability of Taro Bio Wax

Among Three Treatments in
Terms of Weather
Resistant

Table 17 displays the level of acceptability of taro bio wax among three treatments in

terms of water resistant. Statistics shows that treatment A had a mean score of 4.42 which was

implied that it was “Very Resistive”. On the other hand, treatment B had a mean score of 4.12

which was implied that it was “Moderately Resistive”. However, treatment C had a mean score

of 4.76 which was implied that it was “Very Resistive”. Furthermore, treatment C had a highest

mean score on its level of acceptability in terms of water resistant compared to treatment A and

B.

Table 17. Level of Acceptability of Taro Bio Wax Among Three in Terms of Weather
Resistant.

Variables Mean Verbal Interpretation

Treatment A 4.42 Very Resistive
Treatment B 4.12 Moderately Resistive
Treatment C 4.76 Very Resistive

Water Absorbency of Concrete Plastering with

Taro Bio Wax Admixture

The study aimed to test the efficacy of Taro Bio Wax as a waterproofing admixture in

concrete plastering and to determine the optimal concentration of the admixture. The water

absorbency test was conducted on the plaster samples with different concentrations of Taro Bio

Wax, and the results were presented in Table 18.The table indicated that the plaster samples with
higher concentrations of Taro Bio Wax had a lower water absorbency rate, with Treatment B

obtaining the highest mean percentage of 3.53, followed by Treatment A with a mean percentage

of 3.23, and Treatment C with the lowest mean percentage of 3.02. These results suggest that

Taro Bio Wax is effective in enhancing the water-resistant properties of concrete plastering.

Moreover, the study also found that Treatment C, with a concentration of 1.5% of Taro Bio Wax,

was comparable to the standard measure of not more than 10% water absorbency of concrete

plastering, as presented by Patel (2020). Therefore, Treatment C can be recommended as an

admixture due to its low water absorbency and comparable performance with the standard
measure.
Table 18.Result of water absorbency test of Taro Bio Wax Waterproofing Admixture in
Concrete Plastering.

Treatment RT1 RT2 RT3 Mean

TA(0.5%) 3.21 3.22 3.81 3.23
TB(1%) 3.42 3.40 4.79 3.53
TC(1.5%) 3.17 3.09 3.15 3.02

Differences in the Level of Acceptability

of Taro Bio Wax Among Three
Treatments When Classified
According to Sensory
Qualities

Table 19 discloses the differences in the level of acceptability of taro bio wax among

three treatments when classified according to sensory qualities.

The results revealed that there was no significant difference among the three treatments

in terms of adhesion and cohesion as indicated by the p-values greater than 0.01 (ns). This means

that the level of adhesion and cohesion did not differ significantly among the three treatments.On

the other hand, there was no significant difference among the three treatments in terms of

appearance, spreadability, and weather resistance. The p-values were greater than 0.01 (ns),

which indicates that the level of acceptability did not differ significantly among the three

treatments.However, it is important to note that the level of acceptability of taro bio wax differed
significantly in terms of weather resistance when classified according to treatments, specifically

Treatment C with 1.5% amount of taro bio wax. The F-value of 7.033 had a p-value of 0.001

which was less than 0.01 alpha, indicating that the level of acceptability of taro bio wax based on

the three treatments differs in weather resistance.Treatment C is the better option if the desired

outcome is to improved weather resistance

Table 19. Differences in the Level of Acceptability of Taro Bio Wax Among Three
Treatments When Classified According to Sensory Qualities.

Variable F-value p-value Remarks

Adhesion 1.381 0.256 ns
Cohesion 0.372 0.690 ns
Appearance 0.072 0.931 ns
Spreadability 1.119 0.331 ns
Weather Resistant 7.033 0.001 s
p-value > 0.01 = not significant; p-value < 0.01 = significant

Difference in the Level of Acceptability of

Taro Bio Wax as a Whole and When
Classified According to Treatment

Table 20 discloses that there was no significant difference in the level of acceptability of

taro bio wax as a whole and when classified according to treatment because the F-value of 1.488

had p-value of 0.231 which was greater than 0.01 alpha. The result further implied that the level

of acceptability of taro bio wax was the same regardless of treatment.

Table 20. Difference in the level of Acceptability of Taro Bio Wax as a Whole and When
Classified According to Treatment.

Variable Source of Sum of Mean

df F-value p-value Probability
Variation Squares Square
Treatment:
Between 1.089 2
0.545 1.488 0.231 ns
Groups
Within 35.137 96 0.366
Groups
Total 36.226 98
p-value > 0.01 = not significant