This assignment requires both analysis and annotation. Based on your major and your academic interest, locate one lab report using the CCNY Library Database. Annotate and analyze the report and discuss each of the eight elements described in chapter 19.

Lab Report Analysis

For this paper, I have analyzed a lab report on my interest in the engineering field, which is biomedical engineering. Published on December 20, 2019, the lab report “Microfluidic vascular-bed devices for vascularized 3D tissue engineering: tissue engineering on a chip” by Hiroaki Takehara, Katsuhisa Sakaguchi, Hidekazu Sekine, Teruo Okano & Tatsuya Shimizu is shown to follow the essential elements and structure of lab reports like Title, abstract, Introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, Conclusion, and references. This lab report follows the format of Chapter 19 in Technical Communication by Mike Markel and Stuart A. Selber. This lab primarily focuses on the interaction of cells to cells, which still holds a lot of mystery in the biomedical engineering field, especially involving how to use devices to understand advanced interactions with cells and how this information can allow future medical advancements. Microfluidic vascular-bed devices for vascularized 3D tissue engineering: tissue engineering on a chip lab report explains how the development of the Microfluidic device can be used for 3D tissue engineering, allowing future patients to carry healthier and more oxygen into their systems.

Chapter 19 of Technical Communication by Mike Markel and Stuart A. Selber states, “The title should be informative enough to enable readers to decide whether the report interests them” (Markel & Selber, pg. 534). In this analyzed lab report, the reports successfully and effectively do gain their desired audience as the use of language like “Microfluidic” and “3D tissues engineering,” which is a large searched and experimented subject in biomedical engineering, which is the main reason why this lab report was tested and published. The abstract summarises the lab quickly, explaining the lab’s introduction, methods, results, discussions, and conclusion in one paragraph. The lab report’s abstract gives me a sense of what the lab is about and how it is essential to experiment with this subject. An abstract should contain questions motivated by the study “In this report, we describe a microfluidic vascular-bed (micro-VB) device providing a platform for 3D tissue engineering with vascular network formation (Sakaguchi, Sekine, Okano, Shimizu, 2019), answers that were discovered “Moreover, the micro-VB device can be installed in a standard 100 mm-diameter Petri dish” (Takehara, Sakaguchi, Sekine, Okano, Shimizu, 2019), and implication “Thus, these micro-VB devices are expected to substantially improve the routine application of 3D tissue engineering to regenerative medicine” (Takehara, Sakaguchi, Sekine, Okano, Shimizu, 2019).

The introduction is where the lab report is fully introduced and where the importance of the report is established. The Microfluidic vascular-bed devices for vascularized 3D tissue engineering: tissue Engineering on a Chip lab report emphasizes the importance of the tested lab is crucial in understanding drug development and the process of transplanting tissue for diseases that attack parts of the body, especially vascular disease (heart and blood) for example diabetes, cancer, cardiac arrest, and stokes. The report defines important terms by linking to other lab reports that they have used to build upon the Micro-VB lab. Sakaguchi, Sekine, Okano, and Shimizu using other labs in their lab shows the proper motivation and credibility they have in their research allowing their audience become more intrigued by the report and even allow other researchers to expand the report, “Although your methods section provides a detailed account of your approach, your introduction should persuade your readers that your methods are appropriate given what has been done in previous studies” (Markel & Selber, pg. 535). I also analyzed the lab report’s introduction, which provided some of the methods they have used by acknowledging the weaknesses in techniques and materials in many other reports on the same subject interest. With all their deep research before starting the experiment, it is clear what the purpose/hypothesis of the lab is and how the Mirco-VB device can mimic arterial and venous networks for efficient fluid diffusion into 3D-engineered tissues.

In the materials and methods section of the lab, I focused on how reliability is involved in this lab. Reliability is essential, especially in the materials and methods, because it allows the expansion and improvement of the subject to enable more research in advanced medicine from other scientists and engineers. As stated in chapter 19, “Describe your methods in enough detail that another researcher could perform the same experiment using the same materials and methods” (Markel & Selber, pg. 536). The lab starts with the vital part of the study question/ hypothesis, which is to contrast the Mirco-VB device. Sakaguchi, Sekine, Okano, and Shimizu not only provide the concluded steps in the text but show a complete and organized visual of their predicated construction of the Mirco-VB and carefully label all the parts of the visual, which illustrates that they are taking into consideration a fast audience and their needs. Observing their methods and materials, I saw something different: how the methods were broken down into multiple parts and needed a list of materials. The separated parts of the methods are all organized in the same way. The questions were brought up in the lab’s introduction, such as how to construct the device, device fabrication, cell preparation, culture conditions, perfusion of fluorescent molecules and microspheres, imaging, and evaluation of network formation. In the lab report “Microfluidic vascular-bed devices for vascularized 3D tissue engineering: tissue engineering on a chip” by Hiroaki Takehara, Katsuhisa Sakaguchi, Hidekazu Sekine, Teruo Okano & Tatsuya Shimizu, the results included raw data in the forms of numbers and how it relates to the outcome of the experiment and the hypothesis. The first part of the results, which is also broken down into two sections due to the two questions that are a part of the hypothesis, is how the Mirco-VB device can be used to mimic arterial and venous networks for efficient fluid diffusion into 3D-engineered tissues, the results raw data prove the credibility on how the results were successful by providing trends and statistical numbers to show that there was an experiment done with proven math. Chapter 19 states, “In the results section, your task is to summarize the data relevant to the question or hypothesis you discussed in your introduction” (Markel & Selber, pg. 537).

The lab report results also how statistical significance as they took consideration of the materials used like fibrin gel and used the density of that material to produce the measurements of the channels and used the correct amount of fibrin gel for the Micro-VB device so it can work correctly, “Fibrin gel density influenced the area occupied by vessels as quantified in Fig. 3c (vessels area: 62 ± 2% in 2.5 mg/mL (mean ± SE, n = 3), 28 ± 2% in 10 mg/mL (n = 4), 7 ± 1% in 25 mg/mL (n = 3)). Hence, it was confirmed that the fibrin gel of 2.5 mg/mL was adequate for endothelial network formation” (Takehara, Sakaguchi, Sekine, Okano, Shimizu, 2019). In the lab report conclusion, the main points are again answered by reviewing them in one concise paragraph: “Summarize the main points covered by your report in one or two concise paragraphs. Begin by reviewing the purpose of your research or experiment and the hypothesis (or hypotheses) you tested” (Markel & Selber, 2021 pg. 538). The lab conclusion might seem like the introduction as they both play a role in summarizing the reports in different ways; the conclusion summarizes the methods and importance of the findings of the lab report hypothesis. The researchers also used the conclusion as the last way to persuade the reader by stating how their findings are essential to the field and society, “The micro-VB device provides a solution to a major technical obstacle in 3D tissue engineering, i.e., the size mismatch between artificial tubes and endothelial capillaries” (Takehara, Sakaguchi, Sekine, Okano, Shimizu, 2019). Not only was their use of data and other reports seen as credible, but Takehara, Sakaguchi, Sekine, Okano, and Shimizu have cited all the sources they used for the lab report, giving credit to the suitable sources, which allows readers and other research to use those sources in their report or expanding on this report. Due to this report having many people involved, acknowledgment is rather vital for the colleagues to thank each other and acknowledge the funding the report was given. The Japan Society funded this lab report for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) through the Funding Program for World-Leading Innovative R&D on Science and Technology (FIRST Program), initiated by the Council for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP).

In Conclusion, this lab report does indeed follow the format of Chapter 19 in Technical Communication by Mike Markel and Stuart A. Selber. This lab primarily focuses on the interaction of cells to cells, which still holds a lot of mystery in the biomedical engineering field, especially involving how to use devices to understand advanced interactions with cells and how this information can allow future medical advancements. Microfluidic vascular-bed devices for vascularized 3D tissue engineering: tissue engineering on a chip lab report explains how the development of the Microfluidic device can be used for 3D tissue engineering, allowing future patients to carry healthier and more oxygen into their systems. It also proves that no matter which country or field lab reports are done, they all follow the same structure of providing information like Title, abstract, Introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, Conclusion, and references.