Though there were some positive results in this experiment, there was a lot of standardization that was involved. The negative data from some experiments such as a very low absorbance in the experimental wells, a kill of 60% instead of 40% in H₂0₂ treated controls led us to analyze our data. We found that this was attributed to the pH of the medium. Upon testing the pH of the medium, it was found to be 9 instead of 7. The pH of the medium was adjusted to 7.0 in all the other experiments. We performed each treatment in replicates of eight and repeated each experiment thrice to overcome the inconsistencies among the wells in a row, errors in cell density etc. After combining several experiments that tested similar concentrations of extracts, a definite trend was seen. In some experiments we saw a trend but with drastically different values in the experiments which could be attributed to the late passage number of the cells. We performed most of the experiments within the first 10 passage numbers. Only few were performed at a later passage number. In an early passage, there would have been fewer differences from the frozen cells, than there would have been in the later passaged cell wherein the cells have been passaged 19 times.  There will always be the outliers in the experiment. As the parameters that affect the cell culture experiment is variable, we did a Statistical analysis on data pooled from 3 experiments using a software Graphpad prism 3. Each value was represented as Means ± Standard error. The final data was in the form of a histogram. The untreated cells (control) were represented as 100% viability and the treated cells were expressed in relation to the control. In future experiments the discrepancies can be kept at a minimum by keeping the passage number of the cells and the pH of the medium as controlled as possible.  This would hopefully reduce the amount of error encountered in the experiments.