CHAPTER 1

The Problem and Its Background

This chapter is the detailed presentation of the rationale of the study, the
theoretical framework, the illustration of the research paradigm, the statement of
the problem, the hypothesis of the study, and the operational definition of
variables vital in this research.
According to an article by the World Health Organization and UNICEF, 3
in 10 people worldwide lack support to safe drinking water at home and 6 in 10
people lack safely sanitation. Billions of people globally have gained access to
basic drinking water and sanitation services but not all people in a country have
it. In Philippines, 91% of the country's population has access to basic water
services but there's still some areas lack access to clean drinking water.
Clean and safe drinking water is essential to health. Although solutions
are continuously proposed to amend the problem, the immediate result is not yet
happening. One of the simplest solutions is Water Filtration. It is intended to
create a simple and easy to use filtration of water at home without using any
formulas and machines.
The coconut husk has been shown throughout the history to be extremely
effective for removing contaminants, tastes and odors from drinking water. On
the other hand, charcoals are most commonly used filters at home. It’s good at
removing many toxins from water. These two alternative materials have their own
benefits and advantages that’s why this group is interested on identifying which is
the best option for water filtration. Is it the coconut husk or the charcoal?
This study aimed to investigate the most effective household and eco-
friendly water filter between the coconut husk and charcoal.

1
Theoretical Background
This research uses the following theories to support the topic and to prove
that the research is existing and its credibility. The Water Theory defines water
as follows: "Water can be truly powerful and unstoppable. Water doesn't resist
objects; it flows around them. Water can be a highly concentrated force as well
as extremely soft, and much more." The Germ Theory of Disease stated that
many diseases are caused by microorganism and that microorganism is easy to
be adapted by water. This research is all about filtering the water using
alternative materials. The Adsorption Theory stated that the surface of the
adsorbent accumulates the molecules or atoms.
According to one of the three theories of Hapkido, the Water Theory, it is
important to note that despite adapting, water never fundamentally changes
itself. The next theory that we used is the Germ Theory. It was develop by Louis
Pasteur in 1864. It was used to study the relationship between the germs and
microorganism. This theory indicates that many diseases are caused by
microorganisms. These small organisms, too small to see without magnification,
invade humans, animals, and other living hosts. Their growth and reproduction
within their hosts can cause disease. As applied to this research, this holds that
researchers would expect that the water that easy to adapt contains
microorganism and that microorganism causes disease. The researchers make
an experiment on how to clean and filter the water to eliminate or to remove the
microorganisms that causes disease. According to Carl Wilhelm Scheele of the
Adsorption Theory, he discovers the adsorption of gases using activated
charcoal. Using Irving Langmuir Theory of Adsorption Isotherm stated that the
adsorption is a process that creates a film of the adsorbate the molecules or
atoms being accumulated, on the surface of the adsorbent. One of the best
examples of adsorbent the researcher can use is the charcoal.
To sum it all, these three theories can help the researchers in this
research because using these theories the research teams can predict what will
happen. Also, it adds some background information which the researcher can
use to widen our knowledge on that topic.

2
 Conceptual Framework

INPUT:

 Coconut husk OUTPUT:

PROCESS:
 Charcoal  Colour-
 Sand  Preparation less
 Water  Installation filtered
 Plastic bottle  observation water
 Colored Water
(Mixed of soy
sauce and
water)

Figure 1

Research Paradigm

Figure 1 shows the materials needed for the experimentation, the process
on how to make the process and the expected result after filtering the colored
water.

Statement of the Problem

This research should aim to get clean filtered water out of a filthy one by
using alternative materials. In this study, the researchers can have an answer to
help certain areas that lack access to safe and clean drinking water. However,
their current research is inefficient because they lack in scientific instruments in
conducting their groundwork.
This study sought answers to the following questions.
• How long would it last to filter the water?
• What color will be the result of the water after it is filtered with
Coconut Husk? With Charcoal?

3
 • What will be the volume of the water that is filtered after pouring a
500mL colored water on the alternative material?

Null Hypothesis:
There is no significant difference effect of coconut husk and charcoal in
filtering the water.

Scope and Delimitation

This study covers the effectiveness of the coconut husk and the charcoal
to water filtration. Specifically, its observation only limits in three trials of
experimentation. This research limits only when each trial has observe the time,
color and the volume of the water.
Furthermore, the group will use colored water, it was mixed with soy
sauce, for the experimentation for a better result and to prove if it’s really filtered.
Lastly, this study focuses on how it filtered the physical state of the water.
However, the current research is inefficient since they lack in scientific
instruments that will help them conduct their research.

4
 DEFINITION OF TERMS

Adsorption. The adhesion in an extremely thin layer of molecules (as of

gases, solutes, or liquids) to the surfaces of solid bodies or liquids with
which they are in contact.

Coconut husk. It is a natural fiber extracted from the husk of coconut and
used in products such as floor mats, doormats, brushes and mattresses.

Charcoal. It is a porous black solid, consisting of an amorphous form of

carbon, obtained as a residue when wood, bone, or other organic matter is
heated in the absence of air.

Filtration. The process of filtering.

Granular. It means resembling or consisting of small grains or particles.

Homemade. It is made at home, rather than in a store or factory.

Isotherm. A line on a map or chart of the earth's surface connecting

points having the same temperature at a given time or the same mean
temperature for a given period.

Liquidation. To determine by agreement or by litigation the precise

amount of (indebtedness, damages, or accounts).

Magnification. The apparent enlargement of an object by an optical

instrument.

Microorganism. An organism (such as a bacterium or protozoan) of

microscopic or ultramicroscopic size.

Ozone Generator. It is a device that turns regular are into ozone, which is
capable of removing contaminants in the air and has an effect on some
sources of odor inside a vehicle.

5
Sanitation. The process of keeping places free from dirt, infection,
disease, etc., by removing waste, trash and garbage, by cleaning streets,
etc.

Water. The clear liquid that has no color,taste,or smell,that falls from
clouds as rain,that forms streams,lakes and seas and that is used for
drinking,washing etc.

Water Filtration. General term that refers to any system or process that is
used to filter out particles and pollutants from water

Water Purification. It is the process of removing undesirable chemicals,

biological contaminants, suspended solids, and gases from water.

Van der Waals Forces. Weak, short-range electrostatic attractive forces

between uncharged molecules, arising from the interaction of permanent
or transient electric dipole moments.

6
 CHAPTER 2

RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents various literature and studies from both local and
international publications which provide the researchers valuable insights and set
the direction of the study.

A. Water Filtration vs. Water Purification

Many are still wondering what the difference between water filtration and
water purification is. Science Daily (2018) cited that Water Purification is the
removal of contaminants from raw water to produce drinking water that is pure is
called water purification. It is purified for human consumption or industrial use.
Parasites, bacteria, algae, viruses, fungi, minerals and other man-made chemical
pollutants are substances that are removed during the process. To reduce the
risk of re-contamination, small amount of disinfectant is intentionally left in the
water. Aquifers can take thousands of years to recharge and groundwater is
cheaper to treat. Microbial disease-causing contaminants on surface water so it
should be carefully monitored. Treatment plant need to be kept secured from
vandalism and terrorism. Water cannot be determined if it is safe just by looking
at it. They mentioned that boiling or use of household charcoal filter is not
sufficient for treating water from an unknown source.

Water Filtration, on the other hand, is the process of cleaning in water by

removing its sediment and unwanted substances through a homemade filtration.
There are many alternative materials in filtering water and helps a lot of people in
their daily lives. Madison (2004) in her journal “Water Filtration” found that water
from many sources such as lakes, rivers and ground water supply are treated to
remove impurities and to make it appropriate for human consumption. She also
found out that some particles can be removed by filtration through sand.
Activated charcoal is used to adsorb and some colored substances. Water can
be disinfected by chlorine. Fuertes (2013) in his book "Water Filtration Works"
discussed the purity of water depends upon its source and upon polluting and

7
purifying influences to which it has been subjected. He explained that there are
two principles on how the filter-plants became successful. The first one is filtered
slowly, through beds of sand, without the use of chemicals; while the other water
is filtered quickly also through beds of sand after coagulating material has been
introduced into the water. He recommended that the slow type is suited for
polluted water, while the rapid type is more suited in removing turbidity and color.

Moreover, Khaled Salem (2011) in his essay, the portion of water in the
Earth is around 71% but the percentage of drinkable water doesn’t yet reach 3%.
He mentioned the concept of “necessity is the mother of invention” and it
explains why people started to discover new ideas of making sea water safe for
drinking. And the process of Water purification will make it possible. We all know
that water purification is very essential and he believed life can totally change
without it. Furthermore, scientists are still trying their best to look out for new
method and way to make undrinkable water to the best drinkable condition.

B. Steps in Water Filtration and Purification

Arrowhead (2018) mentioned that today, the water is reused over and
over again. Not only to recycle but also to produce enough to sustain people in
everyday lives. The process of filtration and purification is essential in making the
water clean and safe to drink that's why Aquafina Inc. is using a filtration system
called HydRo-7. He stated that unlike companies that use spring water, Aquafina
reuses public eater. He gave the 7 simple steps enabling a public water source to
be safe and clean to drink:

1. The first step is by removing the particles with Pre-filtration.

2. Next step is seizing smaller particles then removes organic matters by the
use of UV.
3. Then removes solid minerals by using reverse osmosis and sets apart
traced elements by the help of Activated Carbon filter.
4. After that, they make the water very clear in the presence of Polishing
Filter.

8
 5. The final purification is done in Ozonized Water Tank and the Ozone
Generator.
C. Alternative Materials to Water Filtration

In previous research by Siong, Idris, Atabaki (2013) from Malaysia

presented a paper to study the performance of activated carbon in filtering water.
These activated carbons are also called activated charcoal and are commonly
used to eliminate water contaminants from well water and tap water. They stated
that activated carbon is excellent in its adsorption capacity. In their experiment,
they used two types of granular activated carbon; one granular carbon-A (GAC-
A) and the other granular activated carbon-B (GAC-B) to study their performance
in their filters. In conclusion, they found out that GAC-A is much effective than
GAC-B in removing the contaminants in water.

Also, according to Josh Kearns (2007) in his study "Charcoal Filtration

Basics" found out that Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) as the preeminent
accessible technology for the control of many agrochemicals and cultivated
organic chemicals in drinking water. Although it isn't possible to produce high-
grade GAC without an industrial process, low-grade carbon or household
charcoal may exhibit appreciable capacity for contaminant adsorption. Their
study has showed that household charcoal from the burning crop residues about
one-third as efficient for absorbing contaminants rather than industrial grade
activated charcoal.

Another study about Activated carbon filtration, Dvorak, Skipton (2013)

discussed the principles and processes of activated carbon filtration system for
the household user. They found out that activated carbon filtration can efficiently
reduce certain organic compounds and chlorine in drinking water.

Hatch (2001) in his study “Filtration: Advantages of Water Treatment with

Coconut Husks” he found out that some naturally occurring materials are used to
produce husks. After the process, there is another treatment after the heating or
burning the carbonaceous materials. There is the process called activation in

9
which internal pores are formed with the charred husks particles. It provides
adsorption sites. To open the pores, they used the process steam activation.

Azhari (2010) demonstrated in his thesis “The Effectiveness of Coconut

Husks as Wastewater Pollutant Removal” the effect of coconut husk in filtering
the water. One of the most popular and important issue today’s society is the
scarcity of having a clean and safe water. In his experiment, he used the water
that comes in drainage as their wastewater, and used coconut husk to filter it.
The quality of filtering the water became clear when it was poured in coconut
husk. In the end, he found out that coconut husk can filter dirty water.

10
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methods and techniques used population and
the sample of the study, instrument of the study, data gathering procedure, and
the data processing and statistical treatment of the study.

Research Design

The control group didn’t use any other product aside from what is totally
proven. The control just used the commercial water filter but there are times that
there’s a discrepancy. The experimental group used coconut husk and charcoal.

This research was mixed of qualitative and quantitative, which comprised

of experiment that focused on which of the two alternative materials is the most
effective in terms of filtering the water by observing the color of the water and by
getting the mean of the time and the volume of the water. The research team
used the same fine sand with the same kind of water. This study used
experimental and controlled group design. The research team divided it to three
set-ups: Set 1, they used Charcoal and Sand; Set 2, Coconut Husk and Sand.
Last, set 3 this was the control group that used the household filtering device that
was bought in hardware. All three set ups started at the same time and being
observed which one filtered first and the one who cleanse the water.

Research Instrument

To determine the efficacy of filtration, the researchers used the following

materials:

 Commercial water filter

 Powdered charcoal
 Fine sand
 Coconut husk

11
Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers conducted an experiment using control and experimental

group. The experimental group used coconut husk and charcoal while the control
group used the filtering device that can be bought in hardware. In the said
experiment, the research team observed which of the following made the water
colorless and physically clean and which filtered it fast. On the first trial in a
Charcoal Group, researchers made a layer where the sand is the first layer
followed by charcoal until it created 6 layers. As a result of the first trial the
filtered water was colorless. On the first trial in Coconut Husk Group, researchers
made 3 layers of and coconut husk with the total of 6 layers in the end the filtered
water became dark yellow color which was the fastest one to filter the water. On
the second trial in Charcoal Group, researchers washed the sand and made 3
layers of charcoal and sand alternate with total of 6 layers. When the researcher
team poured the uncleaned water, it took time to witness the result but in the end
the result was the water turned transparent or colorless. In a Coconut Husk
Group, they made 3 layers of sand and coconut husk alternate with the total of 6
layers, when they poured the colored water, it was filtered but it became a dark
yellow color. Lastly, in the control group, both three attempts was light yellow and
it didn’t filter the water 100% as expected. The Charcoal Group was the slowest
to witnessed the result but, in the end, the colored water was filtered which made
it colorless.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The researchers used the formula of finding the mean to know the
average time and volume of the water after it is filtered. Also the researcher used
observation in the color of the filtered water.

12
 CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results and discussion of the data gathered in
the study to answer the problems set forth Chapter 1.

Statement of the Problem #1

How long would it last to filter the water?
Table 2 shows the time the water is filtered with washed and unwashed
coconut husk and charcoal.
Table 1
The Time the Water is Filtered
Control Group Experimental Group
Trial Commercial Water Coconut Husk Charcoal
Filter
1 7 minutes 3 minutes 20 minutes
2 9 minutes 3 minutes 17 minutes
3 6 minutes 4 minutes 15 minutes
Average 7 minutes and 3 3 minutes and 3 17 minutes and
second second 3 seconds

In the Control Group, using the commercial water filter, the first trial took 7
minutes while it got slower on its second trial when it took 9 minutes and became
faster when the third trial took 6 minutes to witness the results of every trial. The
Experimental Group, using coconut husk, the first and second trials both took 3
minutes before it filtered the water while the last trial took a bit slower when it
spent 4 minutes to filter the water. On the other hand, the charcoal happened to
be the slowest for it took 20 minutes on its first trial to filter. It took 17 minutes on
its second trial and took 15 minutes on its last trial. In addition, the average time
of commercial water filter was 7 minutes and 3 seconds, coconut husk was 3
minutes and 3 seconds and in charcoal, its average time was 17 minutes and 3

13
seconds. Therefore, in conclusion, the charcoal was the slowest in filtering the
water and since the commercial water filter has no layering, it was fast in filtering
the water.

Statement of the Problem #2

What color will be the result of the water after it is filtered with
Coconut Husk? With charcoal?

Table 3 shows the result color of the water after it is filtered using coconut
husk, charcoal and the commercial water filter.

Table 2
The Result Color of the Water After It is Filtered

Control Group Experimental Group

Trial Commercial Water Coconut Husk Charcoal
Filter
1 Light yellow Dark yellow Colorless
2 Light yellow Dark yellow Colorless
3 Light yellow Dark yellow Colorless

The table 2 shows what happened to the water after it is filtered using
coconut husk, charcoal and the commercial water filter. The commercial water
filter, which is the control group, became constantly light yellow. On the other
hand, in all three trials, the coconut husk did not properly filter the water as it
turned dark yellow. However, the result of charcoal was all clear and apparent.
Among the control and experimental group, charcoal showed the most effective
result in water filtration. Although the controlled group used commercial water
filter, it didn't filter the water as great as the charcoal did.

14
Statement of the Problem #3

What will be the volume of the filtered water after pouring a 500mL
colored water on the alternative material?

Table 3 shows the result volume of the water after it was filtered using the
coconut husk, charcoal and the commercial water filter.

Table 4

The Result Volume of Water After it is Filtered

Trial Commercial Water Coconut Husk Charcoal

1 500 mL 450 mL 350 mL

2 500 mL 470 mL 390 mL

3 500 mL 390 mL 400 mL

The table 3 shows what happened to the volume of water after it is filtered
using commercial water filter, coconut husk and charcoal. The experimentation
started with 500 mL colored water that was used for the filtration. On the
controlled group, since there was no layering in the commercial water filter, it was
still 500 mL as a result. On the other hand, in experimental group, the volume of
water of coconut husk on the first trial was 450 mL while 470 mL on the second
trial and became 390 mL on the third trial. In addition, charcoal’s resulting volume
of water on the first trial was 350 mL while 390 on the second trial and became
400 mL on the third trial. The researchers concluded that the charcoal resulted
into little volume of water because of the adsorption ability of charcoal; it was
also mentioned on the theoretical framework of this research.

15
 CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusion and

recommendation.

This research paper investigated the most effective household

and eco-friendly water filter using the coconut husk and charcoal. The coconut
husk and charcoal of this study came from Wet Market of Sampaloc Site II BF
homes and San Antonio Valley 1 during the month of January-February 2019.

The researchers had undergone thorough observations of

their experiment. In using the alternative materials, the coconut husk and
charcoal with sand, they tried three attempts in using the alternative materials.
Every observation was presented using tabular data with performance indicator
each key.

Design/Method

The research paper utilized the coconut husk and charcoal as

alternative materials with sand for water filtration. The control group didn't use
anything, just the commercial filtering device. The experimental group used
coconut husk and charcoal for alternative material to experiment in filtration. This
research paper used mixed design which used both quantitative and qualitative.

Summary of Findings

1. The researchers found out that the charcoal was the slowest in filtering the
water, the average time of charcoal was 17 minutes and 3 seconds. Compare to
coconut husk, its average time only took 3 minutes and 3 seconds and since the
commercial water filter has no layering, it was fast in filtering the water, where it
only took 7 minutes and 3 seconds to filter. The researchers concluded that the
longer it takes to filter the water, the better the result.

16
2. It revealed that the results of commercial water filter remained the same in
all three trials as it turned light yellow. The coconut husk turned dark yellow in all
three trials, while the charcoal remained clear and colorless in also all trials.
Charcoal took so long to filter the water but the result was good because the dark
yellow-colored water turned into colorless water. The finding implies that if the
sand was washed smoothly, it will have a better result. This finding is similar to
the findings of Dvorak (2013) when he found out that activated charcoal filtration
can efficiently reduce certain organic compound and chlorine in the drinking
water.

3. The researchers found out that when using charcoal as an alternative

material in water filter did not result the same volume of water that they poured.
They started the experimentation with 500 mL colored water that was used for
the filtration. Since there is no layering in controlled group, it remained 500 mL in
the end. The volume of the water of coconut husk on the first trial was 450 mL
while 470 mL on the second trial and became 390 mL on the third trial. In
addition, charcoal’s resulting volume of water on the first trial was 350 mL while
390 on the second trial and became 400 mL on the third trial. The researchers
found out that the charcoal resulted into little volume of water because of the
adsorption ability of charcoal; it was also mentioned on the theoretical framework
of this research.

Conclusion and Implication

Clean drinking water is the one of the issues that some countries are
facing right now. Due to unfiltered water, particularly in some areas where clean
drinking water is hard to reach, people's health is in risk. In developing countries
such as those in Africa and Southeast Asia, the rate of unclean water is high.
Crowded conditions, poor sanitation, and lack of access to medical care are all
compounding factors in having an unsafe drinking water.

Medical professionals are now implementing new studies to dirty water

into clean drinking water. Medical experts are experimenting and inventing

17
affordable, convenient, and alternative water filter materials. However, these
alternative water filters aren't hundred percent effective since it only filters its
physical state and still need further filtration such as boiling. But in primary step-
in filtration, these alternative instruments have big help dealing with getting rid of
smaller dirty particles in water.

This research team had a further research in water filtration

and found out that charcoal and coconut husk is the main proponent in filtering
physical state of water. Charcoal is mostly consisting of carbon which helps in
absorbing and filtering thoroughly. On the other hand, coconut husks consist of
cellulose, pyro ligneous acid, lignin and other components that helped in filtering
liquids. The researchers concluded in their experimentation that charcoal is more
efficient and has more effective results in filtering water. In this study, the
research team did a careful research so that this could help save people's health
and contribute in producing clean and safe drinking water.

Recommendation

 The researchers should wash the sand and coconut husks properly for
better result.
 This research team recommends using activated charcoal in water
filtration.
 And should boil the filtered water after filtration to achieve safe and clean
drinking water.
 Clarity and deeper observation is needed in order to obtain the best
information in this experimentation.

18
 REFERENCES

http://ukrfuel.com/news-chemical-properties-of-charcoal-
23.html?fbclid=IwAR1_552jnp5RpZYQQgDjWyPsOhMk9-
nV0jfO7q5obbox_zsoATOw-3hYUR0

https://www.bioenergyconsult.com/tag/coconut-
husk/?fbclid=IwAR3xxz8pqZRQ7_dSccyo7iO2OAeTHowyP1D8vzuVofw61lDnoo
ML_LEeV54

http://www.subwater.com/?fbclid=IwAR3sWQcZNqPlUpMbQTocoWdu8mz0zFdA
afhvTavjO5lQQY5tksVHWiA7kO4

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4612-4464-
6_6?fbclid=IwAR0Bt8tpQmGFbk0hHP-GJ5neZaTV-
gMlot6kskcNH_8kGFBJ7BRadhN61ys

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238622734_Literature_Review_of_Fee
dback_Control_for_Drinking_Water_Purification?fbclid=IwAR1aPxA4COuA-
3NClrXKqhd3-n32175AIKl0U_cAabfcw4IP614FARrNrFg

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234060484_Performance_of_activated
_carbon_in_water_filters?fbclid=IwAR1uY7zJjz9DzsCstrTpq6hKK8PzcJHBIC_32
D6nCP1vJRNVAXw8FMkJJz4

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/environmental-sciences/water-filtration-and-
purification-and-its-effects-environmental-sciences-
essay.php?fbclid=IwAR3GHwb9rIdb_TvzCQDdQByNpi9_vZ1M1L5IJMpYugClaG
TC1jq5eprUFj4

https://archive.org/details/waterfiltration02fuergoog/page/n12

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/water_purification.htm

19
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed081p224A

http://khaled-alyahmadi.blogspot.com/2011/11/water-filtrationpurification.html

https://archive.org/details/waterfiltration02fuergoog/page/n12

https://www.lenntech.com/library/adsorption/adsorption.htm

http://extensionpublications.unl.edu/assets/pdf/g1489.pdf

20
 APPENDICES

Colored Water

1st Trial

Set Up Result

2nd Trial

21
 3rd Layer

Name: HANS JIM SAN JOSE DELA CRUZ

22
Age: 16 years old

Birthday: September 02, 2002

Birthplace: Paranaque City

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Junior high: San Antonio National High School Paranaque

Hontiveros Compd., San Antonio, Paranaque City

2015-2019

Elementary: San Antonio Elementary School

2009-2015

Achievements/Skills: Grade 7 SSG Batch Representative

Top 9 (Grade 7)

Mobile Theater (1st Place)

Tableau (2nd Place)

Top 5 (Grade 9)

Grade 10 SSG Secretary

Speech Choir (Grade 10 Champion)

Playing Badminton

Photography

23
Name: GLENDA RAMIREZ ORGANISTA

Age: 15 years old

Birthday: April 27, 2003

Birthplace: Paranaque City

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Junior high: San Antonio National High School Paranaque

Hontiveros Compd., San Antonio, Paranaque City

2015-2019

Elementary: San Antonio Elementary School

2009-2015

Achievements/Skills: 5th Honorable Mention (Elementary)

SPG Auditor

Top 7 (Grade 7)

Top 1 (grade 8) with honor

School-based Science Quiz Bee Champion

Top 6 (Grade 9) with honor

School-based Speech Choir Champion (grade 10)

24
Name: JUSTINE CARL OPRECIO RAMOS

Age: 16 years old

Birthday; June 15, 2002

Birthplace: Paranaque City

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Junior high: San Antonio National High School Paranaque

Hontiveros Compd., San Antonio, Paranaque City

2015-2019

Elementary: Fourth Estate Elementary School

2009-2015

Achievements/Skills: Athlete of the year

Top 9 (Grade 7)

Mobile Theater (1ST Place)

Gold Medalist on Triple Jump, 4x100 Relay (Grade 8)

Silver Medalist on 4x400 Relay (Grade 8)

Top 9 with honor (Grade 9)

Jingle Rap (Champion)

Interpretative Dance (7th Place)

Best in Araling Panlipunan

Speech Choir (Grade 10 Champion – School based)

Playing Volleyball

25
Name: MA. CATHLEEN BALGUA SALCEDA

Age: 15 years old

Birthday: June 26, 2003

Birthplace: Pascual I, Paranaque City

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Junior high: San Antonio National High School Paranaque
Hontiveros Compd., San Antonio, Paranaque City
2015-2019

Elementary: Sampaloc Site II Elementary School

2009-2015

Achievements/Skills: Top 3 (Grade 8)

Top 1 (Grade 9)

Festival

Top 3 (Grade 10)

Speech Choir

Science Quiz Bee (1st Place)

AP Quiz Bee (3rd Place)

26
Name: LENGIE NAVARRO VICENTE

Age: 16 years old

Birthday: September 24, 2002

Birthdate: Carcar, Cebu

27