The document is based on a topic that will attract a broad general interest particularly from individuals interested in the field of ecotoxicology. The introduction opens the topic decently aside from the fact that the author kicks off the discussion starting with the definite article “the” oblivious to the fact that the particular issue had not been mentioned before this point. The author does well to include in the introduction specific examples of globally present persistent organic pollutants (POPs) notably the Polychlorinated 36 biphenyls (PCB), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, and dibenzofurans (PCDD/F). This helps give the author enough credibility regarding his knowledge of the topic at hand.
The discussion on the chemical characteristics of the POPs that render them harmful to the environment is also commendable especially since the author clearly contrasts the negative effects of the pollutants with the benefits that are obtained from the products whose waste is the POPs. The discussion basically revolves around the chemical tests and experiments that were carried out to evaluate the impact of the POPs on the environment and therefore it is impressive to see a section specifically dealing with materials and methodology. The breakdown of this section into subsections such as sampling and analytical methods gives the report a lot of credibilities and it gives the entire document a professional outlook.
The method of sampling and the variety of the regions chosen makes the experiment and study balanced such that when the researcher is to give an analysis and discussion of the findings, arguments of disproportionate sampling are omitted. The statistical analysis subsection of the materials and methodology section should however have been slightly expanded given the fact that this is basically the foundation on which the entire research was grounded. The extraction and cleanup section is well discussed except for the author of the document omitting various key explanations pertaining to some of the steps taken.
For example, it is not evident why the researcher categorically used a 120 degrees Celsius temperature for quantifying the extraction. It is recommended that proper citation be provided to publications or scholarly articles that provide evidence that such is the required heat level for the particular amount of test sample used.
Given the scope of the research, it is definitely clear that the hierarchical cluster analysis had to follow a number of basic steps and it would have been advisable for the author to at least give some of the primary steps that were followed in the general analytical process. The results and discussion section was perfectly done and this can be clearly noted from the way the author/researcher ensured that his discussion points were mainly based on the findings of the experiment while at the same time giving reference to explanations from scholarly documents regarding several aspects of the notable revelations.
The depth of the discussion guides the reader and basically draws him/her into the primary conclusion that persistent organic pollutants are as detrimental to the environment as had earlier been pointed in the introduction. The explanations provided for the differing levels of the PCBs based on the different points of the collection are however not convincing and the researcher using non-specific words such as “probably” clearly illustrates the fact that he did not delve deeply into analyzing documented explanations for the observation.
It is acceptable that one researcher cannot be charged with the responsibility of studying all phenomena in his line of specialization. However, in this instance, the author should have taken time to review the works of peers so as to avoid embarrassing omissions such as the one pointed earlier.
This document is original but cannot be classified as new. This is because most of the elements of discussion depend on previous research findings and even though the author spatially made reference to them, they formed the bulk of the pre-research discussions. These secondary sources also served to inform most of the methods and methodology area as well as the post-experiment discussion. The report is however recommended for publishing in a scholarly journal especially because the amount of data provided is enough to guide several research processes in this field of study. The report is well written and it follows a step-by-step format with each section flowing and interlocking well with preceding and succeeding sections making the whole document read seamlessly.
The tables and graphs section at the end of the document is necessary for consolidating the figures and statistical elements mentioned earlier in the document. The number of secondary sources utilized is sufficient for the particular discussion and the diversity of the sources is commendable. However, some of the sources used may not be up to date and it would have been better if the researcher limited the selection only to documents published after the year 2000. The grammatical objectivity of the report wording is very thought out and the document has very few errors as far as language is concerned.