Here are well-structured **sample answers** to the loophole-based questions to help you

prepare thoroughly for your defense:

---

**1. How will you ensure uniform particle size during the grinding and sieving process to avoid
clogging or inconsistent ink flow?**
*Answer:*
We use a mesh screen after grinding to ensure only fine and uniform particles are included in
the ink. Uniformity is essential for consistent flow and to prevent clogging. The mesh helps
eliminate coarse particles that may disrupt performance.

---

**2. Have you tested the pH or chemical stability of the ink? Could it degrade the marker
components over time?**
*Answer:*
This initial study did not include pH testing, but future research will involve analyzing the
chemical properties of the ink to assess potential reactivity with plastic barrels or nibs. Stability
testing will be included in the extended phase.

---

**3. Why did you choose those specific ratios in your treatments (T2, T3, T4)? Is there a
theoretical basis or are they arbitrary?**
*Answer:*
The ratios were selected based on preliminary trials and literature on similar studies using
charcoal-based inks. The incremental increase in pigment allows us to observe how
concentration affects color intensity, flow, and other physical properties.

---

**4. What criteria will you use to determine if your ink is “comparable” to commercial inks? Is
there a quantifiable benchmark?**
*Answer:*
We compare the alternative ink to commercial ink using physical parameters like drying time,
color intensity, and erasability, rated via a 9-point hedonic scale. A performance rating close to 7
or higher on this scale will be considered comparable.

---

**5. How will you validate user satisfaction? Are you including a statistically significant number
of users or just a few evaluators?**
*Answer:*
Initially, a limited group of students and teachers will evaluate the samples. In future expansions,
we plan to include a larger and more diverse group to obtain statistically significant feedback,
including both qualitative and quantitative data.

---

**6. Have you considered how shelf life or storage conditions might affect the ink's properties
over time?**
*Answer:*
This proposal does not cover long-term storage tests. However, we recognize the importance
and plan to evaluate the ink’s shelf life and stability over time in different environmental
conditions in subsequent phases.

---

**7. How do you plan to prevent microbial growth or contamination in your ink, especially since it
includes natural ingredients like coconut oil and gum arabic?**
*Answer:*
The inclusion of isopropyl alcohol provides a degree of antimicrobial protection. In future
studies, we aim to analyze microbial stability and explore adding natural preservatives if
needed.

---

**8. Is there a risk that coconut oil will affect the drying time or erasability on whiteboards?**
*Answer:*
There is a potential risk. That’s why it is used in minimal quantity (1 mL per formulation) to act
as a binder without significantly affecting drying or erasability. Adjustments may be made based
on test results.

---

**9. If your ink dries inside the marker, how will you address or prevent that issue?**
*Answer:*
Proper sealing of the marker barrel is essential. We also rely on isopropyl alcohol to keep the
ink fluid. Future improvements may involve adding moisture-retention components or
redesigning the container.

---

**10. What are your control mechanisms to ensure reproducibility of the ink formulation in
different batches?**
*Answer:*
Each batch follows precise weighing and mixing procedures. Ratios are strictly recorded, and all
ingredients are measured using a digital scale. The process is designed for consistent
replication.

---

**11. Have you considered the environmental impact of carbonization itself? Is it truly
sustainable considering the heat/energy required?**
*Answer:*
Yes, we acknowledge that carbonization uses energy. However, it is done using locally available
biomass fuel and small-scale low-oxygen burning, minimizing fossil fuel usage. Further
sustainability improvements will be assessed later.

---

**12. Why limit the study to black ink only? Would adding colorants or pigments affect the
sustainability or performance?**
*Answer:*
We limited it to black to establish baseline feasibility using natural carbon. Adding colorants
might introduce synthetic substances, compromising the eco-friendly goal. However, natural
dyes can be tested in future expansions.

---

**13. Do you have plans for testing the ink on different types/brands of whiteboards? What if it
performs poorly on certain surfaces?**
*Answer:*
For now, we used a standard school-issued whiteboard. Future studies will include testing on
multiple board types to assess versatility and limitations, especially regarding erasability and
residue.

---

**14. How scalable is this process? Could local communities realistically replicate your method
without specialized equipment?**
*Answer:*
Yes, the materials and tools used (mortar, sieve, metal can, alcohol) are accessible. The
process was designed with rural communities in mind, and we aim to develop training modules
for replication.

---

**15. What challenges do you anticipate in transitioning from a prototype to a usable commercial
product?**
*Answer:*
Major challenges include consistency across batches, durability of ink over time, regulatory
compliance, and packaging. Addressing these will require collaboration with chemists and
potential investors for small-scale manufacturing.

What is the main problem your research is addressing, and why is it important?
Answer:
The study addresses the environmental and health concerns related to the use of whiteboard
marker inks made from non-renewable and synthetic materials. It seeks to provide a
sustainable, eco-friendly alternative by utilizing carbonized coconut shells—an agricultural
waste abundant in Sanchez Mira, Cagayan—as a pigment for whiteboard marker ink.

What are your research objectives, and how are they aligned with your problem statement?
Answer:
The general objective is to formulate an eco-friendly whiteboard marker ink using carbonized
coconut shells. Specifically, it aims to evaluate the ink's physical qualities including color
intensity, consistency, drying time, smudge resistance, erasability, and longevity—qualities
essential for practical use.

What is your conceptual framework and how does it support the research?
Answer:
The study uses the Input-Process-Output (IPO) model. Inputs include raw materials and tools;
the process involves carbonization, grinding, mixing, and formulation; and the output is the
eco-friendly ink evaluated for performance. This framework aligns with the research's focus on
systematic formulation and testing.

Can you justify your choice of research design and methodology?

Answer:
An experimental research design is used to allow for controlled testing of different ink
formulations. This design is appropriate for assessing the performance of each formulation
against commercial ink under standardized conditions.

Why did you choose carbonized coconut shell, and how is it sourced?
Answer:
Coconut shells are locally abundant agricultural waste in Sanchez Mira. Their carbonized form
produces a black pigment suitable for ink. They are sourced from local farmers and processed
through carbonization and grinding to produce pigment.

How will the ink be evaluated for quality and effectiveness?

Answer:
The ink will be evaluated using physical performance metrics: color intensity, consistency, drying
time, smudge resistance, erasability, and longevity. A 9-point hedonic scale will be used to
quantify performance across four treatments (T1 to T4).

What is the significance of your study to the local community and beyond?
Answer:
It promotes waste recycling, reduces environmental harm, and offers a potential livelihood
opportunity. For students and teachers, it provides a safer and more affordable alternative to
commercial markers. It also supports local and national sustainability goals.

What are the limitations of your study?

Answer:
The study is limited to the use of carbonized coconut shells and does not explore other coconut
by-products or other ink types. It focuses solely on black ink and does not address large-scale
production or commercialization.

How does your study differ from or build upon related literature?
Answer:
Previous studies explored alternative ink materials like charcoal, mangosteen leaves, and
chicken bones. This study is unique in using carbonized coconut shells, which have not been
explored in this context despite their abundance and pigment potential.

What is your expected output, and how do you plan to apply it?
Answer:
The expected output is a formulated ink prototype with acceptable performance characteristics.
The most effective formulation will be recommended for use in schools and offices as a
sustainable and safe whiteboard marker ink.