Running Head: WATER QUALITY
1
WATER QUALITY
4
Water Quality
Name
SCI
2
0
7
: Our Dependence upon the Environment
Instructor
Date
Introduction
Body paragraph #1: Background
Water is a commodity that everyone consumes on a daily basis all over the world. Water can be contaminated using biological, chemical, or human activities; thus affecting the health system of millions of individuals each day. It is therefore important to understand water quality and contamination and the impact of pollution on water. The lab will involve a deeper look at water quality, the process of treating water and the effects of groundwater contamination. The government has established agencies like Environmental Protection Agency which ensures that drinking water is safe for consumption and that the quality of water does meet the standard regulations. Water is obtained from different sources some of which may contain contaminants which flow through tap water in different quantities; some of this contaminant are very harmful to human consumption and difficult to trace because they are undetectable (Turk, 2014).
Human pollution is the major water contaminant given that people tend to dispose waste everywhere, which finally makes its way to the landfills and sewer system. The common mistakes people make is, for example, washing their cars outside especially on the drive way which causes oil to run into the nearby sewer system, or disposing of waste products such as those from a beauty shop which contain lotions, deodorants, and perfumes that contaminate water. Contaminated water has negative effects on human health. There is need to construct storm water facilities for treating through filtration and disinfection runoff. Only
3
% of our water is fresh water; hence the commodity is precious to a human being (Landers, 2009). Having high quality water clean for consumption allows us to undertake our daily activities without complications of different type of diseases such as cholera, dysentery, and malaria. Researchers have carried out many different types of research aimed at improving the quality of water, and as such their knowledge is largely used today in rectifying the amount of unclean water passed from one individual to another, thus savings many lives.
Body paragraph#2: Objective
The objective of this experiment is to determine if contaminated water can be made clean and of good quality for consumption. Running series of test involving water that has been contaminated and after that cleansing, the water for safe drinking will be our main objective. By using various tool to clean the water, we will understand how the process used in making clean water. Therefore, we will determine the levels of contaminants and the outcome product to access if the contaminants were removed. Many companies involved in selling water bottle label their container as “pure” water, but in a real sense, the water contained in the bottle may not be pure water but tap water. The different companies offer varying prices for these bottled water depending on the plastic container used, transportation cost, storage costs, and the cost of bottling, but not according to the quality of water contained in the bottle (Rasekh, 2014).
Body paragraph #3: Hypotheses
The main reason for conducting the experiment is to see how contaminants affect the quality of ground water. Three different hypothesis will be evaluated; the first hypothesis is to determine if oil is dumped on the ground, then the soil will stop the oil from reaching the water and contaminating it. The experiment may take into account if laundry and vinegar detergent dumped on the ground, then the soil will fail to stop these detergents from contaminating ground water. The second hypothesis is; if water and soil mixture is passed through the filtration system, then no traces of soil will be available, this explains the fact that the filtration system will de-contaminate the unclean water. The third hypothesis is; if three different sources of water are tested for contaminants such as chemical, then tap water will have a high quantity of contaminants, followed by water from Dasani, and finally, Fiji water will contain the least contaminants (Gorman, 2012).
Materials and Methods
The materials consisted of a graduated cylinder, beakers, vinegar (10mL), stirring sticks, vegetable oil (10mL), soil, the liquid detergent used in laundry, funnel, scissors, water, and cheesecloth. It is therefore clear that the experiment was conducted at home using eScience lab kit materials. The place of the experiment was in a spacious room with a wide table. The objective being to test the ability of soil in removing vinegar, laundry detergent and vegetable oil from water before it reached the ground water.
The process of conducting the experiment involved labeling the beakers with letters from 1-
8
for easier identification and to able to separate the containers. Half of the beakers were set aside for later use while the remaining were filled with different materials. Beaker number 1 was filled with only water, with beaker two filled with vegetable oil thoroughly mixed, beaker 3 contained vinegar thoroughly mixed, and beaker four was filled with laundry detergent.
The four beakers were filled with the right contents; the next step was to construct the filtration system with the layers of cheesecloth which were made big enough to fit in the funnel. Next, soil amounting to
6
0 mL were placed onto the four layers of cheesecloth, and the funnel was then placed into an empty beaker
5
to trap the contents passed from beaker 1. Results were recorded in table 1; water was allowed to flow from beaker 1 through the funnel for one minute. After that, soil and cheesecloth were separated from the funnel, and hot water with soap was used to wash the funnel. The experiment was repeated using the remaining beakers 2-4 with every experiment conducted separately and washing the funnel after each experiment was concluded while the observations were noted in table 1. The filtration of beaker 2-4 was made of beaker 6-8 respectively.
After recording observations from experiment 1, we moved to the next experiment using the eScience materials which included graduated cylinder, potting soil, gravel, beakers, activated charcoal, wooden stir stick, sand, funnel, bleach, alum, water, and stopwatch. The experiment involves similar techniques as wastewater treatment plants in testing how well the filtration method can clean the contaminated water.
In a 2
50
mL beaker, 100 mL of soil was placed in the beaker and water added up to 200 mL mark. The second beaker was used to mix the mixture in beaker one y transferring the mixture from beaker 1 to beaker 2 and vice versa 15 times. 10 mL of water that had been contaminated was poured into a 100 mL beaker to be used at the end of the filtration for comparison with the treated water. Alum was then added to the contaminated water and stirred thoroughly using the wooden stick for approximately 2 minutes; after that, the solution was allowed to sit for 15 minutes. The funnel was constructed using the four layers of cheesecloth lining.
40
mL of sand was then layered on the funnel before being activated using 20 mL of charcoal and 40 mL of gravel. For solidification, water was poured slowly through the filter to fill the funnel to the top. The funnel was allowed to sit for about 5 minutes on a beaker. Before proceeding with the experiment, the beaker was emptied out first, then three-quarter of the contaminated water was poured into the funnel. For 5 minutes, water was allowed to pass through the funnel. The water obtained after filtration had no smell compared to the ten mL of contaminated water set aside earlier. After filtration, drops of bleach was added to the filtered water, and the mixture stirred for about a minute.
The third experiment materials included; Fiji bottled water, Dasani bottled water, chloride test strips, ammonia test strips, phosphate test strips, beakers, 4-in-1 test strips, permanent marker, iron test strips, parafilm pipettes, tap water, stopwatch, and foil packets. The experiment was conducted in the same room as the previous ones. The aim of the experiment was to test the quality of the two bottled water and tap water by measuring their chemical components.
Three 250 mL beakers were labeled as tap water, Fiji and Dasani and water from each source being poured into the beaker 100 mL each. Next ammonia test trips were placed in the tap water moving the strips vigorously in water for 30 seconds, the test strips were then removed and any excess water removed was poured. The removed strips were then held for 30 minutes before they were turned pads facing away. The color of the strips was compared to the strip color in the chart. The same procedure was repeated for both Fiji and Dasani bottled water recording the results in table 2.
For the chloride test strips, the procedure involved submerging them into the reaction for a second; then the excess liquid was shaken off from the strip, whose color was then compared to the chart color after a minute. Repeating the same procedure using chloride test strips for Fiji and Dasani water, and the results were recorded in table 3. Next procedure involved the use of 4-in-1 test strips, by dipping them for 5 seconds into tap water. Strips were then removed from the water and excess water removed. After 20 seconds the color of the stripped water was compared to the color chart regarding pH, chorine, alkalinity, and hardness. The same procedure was then repeated for Fiji and Dasani water, and results recorded in table 4.
Next, the phosphate test strips, the strips were dipped in tap water for about 5 seconds; then the removed strips were held horizontally for 45 seconds before removing the excess water. After that, the color of the strip was compared to the chart color, and the procedure repeated for Fiji and Dasani water. Table 5 contains results from the experiment. The last strip to experiment was the iron test strips. Each beaker was filled with 30 mL of water, then one foil packet of powder was added to the beaker containing tap water, and the beaker was covered using a piece of parafilm and vigorously shook the beaker for 15 seconds. Parafilm was then removed, and iron test strip dipped into the tap water for about 5 seconds. The strip was then removed and excess water eliminated. After 10 seconds the color of the strip was compared to the chart color. The procedure was then repeated for Fiji and Dasani water, with the results recorded in table 6.
Results
Table 1: Water Observations (Smell, Color, Etc.) |
||
Beaker |
Observations |
|
1 |
Color: clear Odor: non-existent The water is not contaminated. |
|
2 |
Color: yellowish Odor: non-noticeable At first, a big bubble appears holding the vegetable oil at the top, once stirred oil mixed in but as it continued to settle. The oil rose to the top forming small bubbles. |
|
3 |
Color: clear Odor: slight odor detected Remained mixed with the water, no segregation noted. |
|
4 |
Color: green/blue Odor: slight odor detected Remained mixed after stirring with water, no segregation noted, formed suds. |
|
5 |
Color: slight brown Odor: smell of soil Water passed through immediately; 70 mL passed through. |
|
6 |
Color: slight brown Odor: no odor Water passed through immediately, about 5 seconds later a small gulp followed. No oil is observed. 70 mL passed through. |
|
7 |
Color: slight brown
Odor: odor exists Water passed through slowly, finished pouring water was still passing through. 80 mL passed through. |
|
8 |
Color: dark brown/green Odor: detected Water passed slowly, after pouring the water continued to pass through the filter. For approximately the first ten seconds, the water was a slow stream, then dripped slowly for the remainder of the time and up to 60 seconds passed the one minute marker. Some detergent is noted as having passed through since suds were forming at the top. 70 mL passed through. |
Table 2: Ammonia Test Results |
||||||||||
Water Sample |
Test Results |
|||||||||
Tap Water |
0 mg/L |
|||||||||
Dasani® Bottled Water |
||||||||||
Fiji® Bottled Water |
Table 3: Chloride Test Results |
Table 4: 4 in 1 Test Results |
||||||
pH |
Total Alkalinity mg/L |
Total Chlorine mg/L |
Total Hardness mg/L |
|||
.2 |
80 |
1.0 |
50 | |||
40 | 0 | |||||
Table 5: Phosphate Test Results |
|
1 0 ppm |
|
50 ppm |
|
Table 6: Iron Test Results |
||
0 ppm | ||
Body paragraph:
The first two experiment confirmed that contaminated water could be cleaned or filtered to provide clean drinking water, while the third experiment illustrated thee fact that tap water has the lowest level of pH compared Fiji water which contains high pH. The alkalinity of Dasani and Fiji water was 40 each while that of tap water was 80. Chlorine level in tap water was 1.0, Fiji was 0.2 and Dasani 0.0. The hardness of the three types of water was the same at 50.
Discussion: Body paragraph:
The first experiment hypothesis was to determine if the contaminated water was passing through the ground, the ground was to act as a filtration system to remove the contaminant. The result of the experiment indicated no presence of vinegar, vegetable oil or laundry in the collected water, and a given portion of the contaminated water remained in the soil; thus the hypothesis was accepted. The second experiment was to determine if the filtration process would decontaminate contaminated water. After the experiment, the comparison between treated water and the set aside contaminated water indicated that treated water was decontaminated; hence the hypothesis was accepted. The third hypothesis was to determine if tap water contains most contaminants, followed by Dasani water, then Fiji water. The results of the experiment concluded that tap water was the most contaminated with a pH level of 0.2, chlorine at 1.0 and alkaline of 80, followed by Dasani and Fiji water was the least contaminated; thus the hypothesis was accepted.
Body paragraph#2: Context
The experiments aimed at the utilization of filtration systems used by different water companies. The results indicated that bottle water also contains a given percentage of contaminants despite them being sold at different prices. The issue being many bottle water companies do not decontaminate their water before packaging thus the possibility of buying tap water at a cost instead of consuming the free tap water available at our homes.
Body paragraph#3: Variable and Future Experiments
The experiments were conducted on different days but at the same time. The weather conditions were favorable and thus did not hinder the outcome of the results obtained. The workplace was kept tidy and clean out of reach for outside contaminants. All materials used were first cleaned before conducting the experiments.
Conclusion
The experiments enlightened me on the importance of drinking on clean water and not just any type of water. Contaminants found in water some are invisible and very dangerous for human consumption. I learned the importance of having a well-constructed filtration system would aid in cleaning the water for safe drinking. After the experiment, it now clear the fact that tap water is cheap and readily available does not mean that it is unsafe for drinking given the fact that bottled water might still be tap water packaged in a bottle.
References
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (2015). Current Drinking Water Regulations. Retrievedfrom;http://www2.epa.gov/regulatory-information-topic/water#drinkingMay 26, 2015.
Gorman, R. (2012). Is your tap water safe?. Good Housekeeping, 254(3), 130.
Landers, J. (2009). Malibu Park will detain runoff, improve treatment facility operation. Civil Engineering (08857024), 79(12), 24-26.
Matos de Queiroz, J., de França Doria, M., Rosenberg, M., Heller, L., & Zhouri, A. (2013). Perceptions of bottled water consumers in three Brazilian municipalities. Journal of Water & Health, 11(3), 520-531. doi:10.2166/wh.2013.222
Rasekh, A., Shafiee, M., Zechman, E., & Brumbelow, K. (2014). Sociotechnical risk assessment
for water distribution system contamination threats. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 16(3),
531-549. doi:10.2166/hydro.2013.023
Turk, J., & Bensel. T. (2014). Contemporary environmental issues (2nd ed.) [Electronic version].San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
RunningHead: SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT
1
Sample Lab Report (The Optimal Foraging Theory)
Name
SCI 207 Dependence of Man on the Environment
Instructor
Date
SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 2
Sample Lab Report
Abstract
The theory of optimal foraging and its relation to central foraging was examined by using
the beaver as a model. Beaver food choice was examined by noting the species of woody
vegetation, status (chewed vs. not-chewed), distance from the water, and circumference of trees
near a beaver pond in North Carolina. Beavers avoided certain species of trees and preferred
trees that were close to the water. No preference for tree circumference was noted. These data
suggest that beaver food choice concurs with the optimal foraging theory.
Introduction
In this lab, we explore the theory of optimal foraging and the theory of central place
foraging using beavers as the model animal. Foraging refers to the mammalian behavior
associated with searching for food. The optimal foraging theory assumes that animals feed in a
way that maximizes their net rate of energy intake per unit time (Pyke et al., 1977). An animal
may either maximize its daily energy intake (energy maximizer) or minimize the time spent
feeding (time minimizer) in order to meet minimum requirements. Herbivores commonly behave
as energy maximizers (Belovsky, 1986) and accomplish this maximizing behavior by choosing
food that is of high quality and has low-search and low-handling time (Pyke et al., 1977).
The central place theory is used to describe animals that collect food and store it in a
fixed location in their home range, the central place (Jenkins, 1980). The factors associated with
the optimal foraging theory also apply to the central place theory. The central place theory
predicts that retrieval costs increase linearly with distance of the resource from the central place
SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 3
(Rockwood and Hubbell, 1987). Central place feeders are very selective when choosing food
that is far from the central place since they have to spend time and energy hauling it back to the
storage site (Schoener, 1979).
The main objective of this lab was to determine beaver (Castor canadensis) food selection
based on tree species, size, and distance. Since beavers are energy maximizers (Jenkins, 1980;
Belovsky, 1984) and central place feeders (McGinley & Whitam, 1985), they make an excellent
test animal for the optimal foraging theory. Beavers eat several kinds of herbaceous plants as
well as the leaves, twigs, and bark of most species of woody plants that grow near water (Jenkins
& Busher, 1979). By examining the trees that are chewed or not-chewed in the beavers’ home
range, an accurate assessment of food preferences among tree species may be gained (Jenkins,
1975). The purpose of this lab was to learn about the optimal foraging theory. We wanted to
know if beavers put the optimal foraging theory into action when selecting food.
We hypothesized that the beavers in this study will choose trees that are small in
circumference and closest to the water. Since the energy yield of tree species may vary
significantly, we also hypothesized that beavers will show a preference for some species of trees
over others regardless of circumference size or distance from the central area. The optimal
foraging theory and central place theory lead us to predict that beavers, like most herbivores,
will maximize their net rate of energy intake per unit time. In order to maximize energy, beavers
will choose trees that are closest to their central place (the water) and require the least retrieval
cost. Since beavers are trying to maximize energy, we hypothesized that they will tend to select
some species of trees over others on the basis of nutritional value.
Methods
This study was conducted at Yates Mill Pond, a research area owned by the North
SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 4
Carolina State University, on October 25th, 1996. Our research area was located along the edge
of the pond and was approximately 100 m in length and 28 m in width. There was no beaver
activity observed beyond this width. The circumference, the species, status (chewed or not-
chewed), and distance from the water were recorded for each tree in the study area. Due to the
large number of trees sampled, the work was evenly divided among four groups of students
working in quadrants. Each group contributed to the overall data collected.
We conducted a chi-squared test to analyze the data with respect to beaver selection of
certain tree species. We conducted t-tests to determine (1) if avoided trees were significantly
farther from the water than selected trees, and (2) if chewed trees were significantly larger or
smaller than not chewed trees. Mean tree distance from the water and mean tree circumference
were also recorded.
Results
SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 5
Overall, beavers showed a preference for certain species of trees, and their preference
was based on distance from the central place. Measurements taken at the study site show that
SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 6
beavers avoided oaks and musclewood (Fig. 1) and show a significant food preference. No
avoidance or particular preference was observed for the other tree species. The mean distance of
8.42 m away from the water for not-chewed trees was significantly greater than the mean
distance of 6.13 m for chewed trees (Fig. 2). The tree species that were avoided were not
significantly farther from the water than selected trees. For the selected tree species, no
significant difference in circumference was found between trees that were not chewed
(mean=16.03 cm) and chewed (mean=12.80 cm) (Fig. 3).
Discussion
Although beavers are described as generalized herbivores, the finding in this study
related to species selection suggests that beavers are selective in their food choice. This finding
agrees with our hypothesis that beavers are likely to show a preference for certain tree species.
Although beaver selection of certain species of trees may be related to the nutritional value,
additional information is needed to determine why beavers select some tree species over others.
Other studies suggested that beavers avoid trees that have chemical defenses that make the tree
unpalatable to beavers (Muller-Schawarze et al., 1994). These studies also suggested that
beavers prefer trees with soft wood, which could possibly explain the observed avoidance of
musclewood and oak in our study.
The result that chewed trees were closer to the water accounts for the time and energy
spent gathering and hauling. This is in accordance with the optimal foraging theory and agrees
with our hypothesis that beavers will choose trees that are close to the water. As distance from
the water increases, a tree’s net energy yield decreases because food that is farther away is more
likely to increase search and retrieval time. This finding is similar to Belovskyís finding of an
SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 7
inverse relationship between distance from the water and percentage of plants cut.
The lack of any observed difference in mean circumference between chewed and not
chewed trees does not agree with our hypothesis that beavers will prefer smaller trees to larger
ones. Our hypothesis was based on the idea that branches from smaller trees will require less
energy to cut and haul than those from larger trees. Our finding is in accordance with other
studies (Schoener, 1979), which have suggested that the value of all trees should decrease with
distance from the water but that beavers would benefit from choosing large branches from large
trees at all distances. This would explain why there was no significant difference in
circumference between chewed and not-chewed trees.
This lab gave us the opportunity to observe how a specific mammal selects foods that
maximize energy gains in accordance with the optimal foraging theory. Although beavers adhere
to the optimal foraging theory, without additional information on relative nutritional value of
tree species and the time and energy costs of cutting certain tree species, no optimal diet
predictions may be made. Other information is also needed about predatory risk and its role in
food selection. Also, due to the large number of students taking samples in the field, there may
have been errors which may have affected the accuracy and precision of our measurements. In
order to corroborate our findings, we suggest that this study be repeated by others.
Conclusion
The purpose of this lab was to learn about the optimal foraging theory by measuring tree
selection in beavers. We now know that the optimal foraging theory allows us to predict food-
seeking behavior in beavers with respect to distance from their central place and, to a certain
extent, to variations in tree species. We also learned that foraging behaviors and food selection is
SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 8
not always straightforward. For instance, beavers selected large branches at any distance from
the water even though cutting large branches may increase energy requirements. There seems to
be a fine line between energy intake and energy expenditure in beavers that is not so easily
predicted by any given theory.
SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 9
References
Belovsky, G.E. (1984). Summer diet optimization by beaver. The American Midland Naturalist.
111: 209-222.
Belovsky, G.E. (1986). Optimal foraging and community structure: implications for a guild of
generalist grassland herbivores. Oecologia. 70: 35-52.
Jenkins, S.H. (1975). Food selection by beavers:› a multidimensional contingency table analysis.
Oecologia. 21: 157-173.
Jenkins, S.H. (1980). A size-distance relation in food selection by beavers. Ecology. 61: 740-
746.
Jenkins, S.H., & P.E. Busher. (1979). Castor canadensis. Mammalian Species. 120: 1-8.
McGinly, M.A., & T.G. Whitham. (1985). Central place foraging by beavers (Castor
Canadensis): a test of foraging predictions and the impact of selective feeding on the
growth form of cottonwoods (Populus fremontii). Oecologia. 66: 558-562.
Muller-Schwarze, B.A. Schulte, L. Sun, A. Muller-Schhwarze, & C. Muller-Schwarze. (1994).
Red Maple (Acer rubrum) inhibits feeding behavior by beaver (Castor canadensis).
Journal of Chemical Ecology. 20: 2021-2033.
Pyke, G.H., H.R. Pulliman, E.L. Charnov. (1977). Optimal foraging. The Quarterly Review of
Biology. 52: 137-154.
Rockwood, L.L., & S.P. Hubbell. (1987). Host-plant selection, diet diversity, and optimal
foraging in a tropical leaf-cutting ant. Oecologia. 74: 55-61.
Schoener, T.W. (1979). Generality of the size-distance relation in models of optimal feeding.
The American Naturalist. 114: 902-912.
SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 10
*Note: This document was modified from the work of Selena Bauer, Miriam Ferzli, and Vanessa
Sorensen, NCSU.
Lab 2 – Water Quality and Contamination
Experiment 1: Drinking Water Quality
Bottled water is a billion dollar industry in the United States. Still, few people know the health
benefits, if any, that come from drinking bottled water as opposed to tap water. This experiment
will look at the levels of a variety of different chemical compounds in both tap and bottled water
to determine if there are health benefits in drinking bottled water.
POST-LAB QUESTIONS
1. Develop a hypothesis regarding which water sources you believe will contain the most
and least contaminants, and state why you believe this. Be sure to clearly rank all three
sources from most to least contaminants.
Hypothesis = Dasani water will have the most contaminants followed by Fiji water and tap
water will have the least
contaminants.
Table 1: Ammonia Test Results
Water Sample Test Results (mg/L)
Tap Water 0
Dasani® Bottled Water 0
© eScience Labs, 2016
– 1 –
1
2
1. Hypothesis = Dasani
water will have the most
contaminants followed by
Fiji water and tap water will
have the least
contaminants.
These are great observations
and predictions but for future
labs make sure you utilize an
if/then format for your
hypothesis:
https://www.youtube.com/wat
ch?v=bp2fbzWZDmA [Marc
Hnytka]
2. You also needed to explain
your reasoning behind your
hypothesis
[Marc Hnytka]
Fiji® Bottled Water 0
Table 2: Chloride Test Results
Water Sample Test Results (mg/L)
Tap Water 0
Dasani® Bottled Water 0
Fiji® Bottled Water 0
Table 3: 4 in 1 Test Results
Water Sample
Total
Alkalinity
(mg/L)
Total Chlorine
(mg/L)
Total
Hardness
(mg/L)
Tap Water 80 1.0 50
Dasani® Bottled Water 40 0 50
Fiji® Bottled Water 40 .2 50
Table 4: Phosphate Test Results
Water Sample Test Results (ppm)
Tap Water 10
Dasani® Bottled Water 50
Fiji® Bottled Water 50
Table 5: Iron Test Results
Water Sample Test Results (ppm)
Tap Water 0
Dasani® Bottled Water 0
Fiji® Bottled Water 0
Table 6: pH Results
© eScience Labs, 2016
– 2 –
[no notes on this page]
Water Sample Test Results
Tap Water .2
Dasani® Bottled Water 3
Fiji® Bottled Water 8
2. Based on the results of your experiment, would accept or reject the hypothesis you
produced in question 1? Explain how you determined this.
Accept/reject = Assuming that the higher the number means its more contaminated. I would
Accept, it appears based on the results that my Tap water is healthier followed by Dasani and
Fiji.
3. Based on the results of your experiment, what specific differences do you notice among
the Dasani®, Fiji®, and Tap Water?
© eScience Labs, 2016
– 3 –
1
2
1. Great job on filling out the
data tables completely!
[Marc Hnytka]
2. Accept/reject =
Assuming that the higher
the number means its more
contaminated. I would
Accept, it appears based on
the results that my Tap
water is healthier followed
by Dasani and Fiji.
You have some really great
explanation of why you
accepted or rejected your
hypotheses – this is great
work! [Marc Hnytka]
Answer = After my test results I notice that all had different PH levels, Alkalinity, and
phosphate levels. Both Fiji and Dasani waters had almost the same levels based on the
conducted test.
4. Based upon the fact sheets provided (links at the end of this document), do any of these
samples pose a health concern? Use evidence from the lab to support your answer.
Answer = The tap water had a low pH level, which means it can be acidic. According the
water system council acidic water can damage water pipes and leach metals from it
(Watersystemcouncil, 2007). Having a low level doesn’t necessarily mean we should be
worried about health risk. According to EPA water pH levels should be between 6.5 and 8.5.
© eScience Labs, 2016
– 4 –
1
1. Answer = After my test
results I notice that all had
different PH levels,
Alkalinity, and phosphate
levels. Both Fiji and Dasani
waters had almost the same
levels based on the
conducted test.
This is a good start but for
this question your answer
should have described some
of the actual measured
numerical differences in pH,
alkalinity, chloride, chlorine,
phosphate, ammonia, and
iron. [Marc Hnytka]
5. Based on your results, do you believe that bottled water is worth the price? Use
evidence from the lab to support your opinion.
Answer = Based on my result, I don’t believe bottled water is worth the price. The price of
bottled water to me is driven by the amount of plastic needed, and all the cost associated with
bottling the actual water. I am actually getting a water softener installed for my whole house
as I conducted this research, and I want to try to test my water after my installation is
complete to see how much water changed with the softener installed.
**NOTE: Be sure to complete steps 1 – 32 of Lab 3, Experiment 1 (the next lab) before the
end of this week. Lab 3 involves planting seeds, and if the work is not started this week,
your plants will not have time to grow and the lab will not be finished on time.**
FACT SHEETS: Please refer to these to answer Question 3. If you use information from
any of these, don’t forget to cite and reference it in APA format in your lab. You are also
welcome to use additional or alternative credible resources that you locate online if you
wish.
© eScience Labs, 2016
– 5 –
[no notes on this page]
Ammonia https://www.wqa.org/Portals/0/Technical/Technical%20Fact
%20Sheets/2014_Ammonia.p
df
Chloride
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chloride
Phosphate
http://osse.ssec.wisc.edu/curriculum/earth/Minifact2_Phosphorus
Iron
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/iron
pH
https://www.watersystemscouncil.org/download/wellcare_information_sheets/potential_groundw
ater_contaminant_information_sheets/9709284pH_Update_September_2007
Alkalinity
http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water_quality/quality1/28-08-alkalinity.htm
Chlorine
http://www.watertechonline.com/testing-for-chlorine-in-drinking-water/
Hardness
http://des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/factsheets/dwgb/documents/dwgb-3-6
References
© eScience Labs, 2016
– 6 –
[no notes on this page]
https://www.watersystemscouncil.org/download/wellcare_information_sheets/pote
ntial_grou
ndwater_contaminant_information_sheets/9709284pH_Update_September_2007
© eScience Labs, 2016
– 7 –
1 1.
https://www.watersystemsc
ouncil.org/download/wellca
re_information_sheets/pote
ntial_grou
ndwater_contaminant_infor
mation_sheets/9709284pH_
Update_September_2007.p
df
This is not proper APA format
for your references list.
Please review the information
on proper APA format for
references on the Ashford
Writing Center website:
http://writingcenter.ashford.ed
u/format-your-reference-list
[Marc Hnytka]
You are required to write a complete laboratory report that covers the drinking water quality experiment from “
Lab 2: Water Quality and Contamination
,” using knowledge gained throughout the course. Use the instructor feedback on your Rough Draft from Week Three to guide your writing. Be sure to download the
Final Lab Report Template
and utilize this form (not the Rough Draft template) to ensure proper formatting and inclusion of all required material. Additionally, view the
Sample Final Lab Report
before beginning this assignment, which will illustrate what a Final Lab Report should look like. You must use at least two scholarly sources, two other highly credible sources, and your lab manual to support your points. The report must be six to ten pages in length (excluding the title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style. For information regarding APA samples and tutorials, visit the Ashford Writing Center, located within the Learning Resources tab on the left navigation toolbar, in your online course.
The Final Lab Report must contain the following eight sections in this order:
1 Title Page – This page must include the title of your report, your name, course name, instructor, and date submitted.
2 Abstract – This section should provide a brief summary of the methods, results, and conclusions. It should allow the reader to see what was done, how it was done, and the results. It should not exceed 200 words and should be the last part written (although it should still appear right after the title page).
3 Introduction – This section should include background information on water quality and an overview of why the experiment was conducted. It should first contain background information of similar studies previously conducted. This is accomplished by citing existing literature from similar experiments. Secondly, it should provide an objective or a reason why the experiment is being done. Why do we want to know the answer to the question we are asking? Finally, it should end the hypothesis from your Week Two experiment, and the reasoning behind your hypothesis. This hypothesis should not be adjusted to reflect the “right” answer. Simply place your previous hypothesis in the report here. You do not lose points for an inaccurate hypothesis; scientists often revise their hypotheses based on scientific evidence following the experiments.
4 Materials and Methods – This section should provide a detailed description of the materials used in your experiment and how they were used. A step-by-step rundown of your experiment is necessary; however, it should be done in paragraph form, not in a list format. The description should be exact enough to allow for someone reading the report to replicate the experiment, however, it should be in your own words and not simply copied and pasted from the lab manual.
5 Results – This section should include the data and observations from the experiment. All tables and graphs should be present in this section. In addition to the tables, you must describe the data in text; however, there should be no personal opinions or discussion outside of the results located within this area.
6 Discussion – This section should interpret your data and provide conclusions. Discuss the meanings of your findings in this area. Was your hypothesis accepted or rejected, and how were you able to determine this? Did the results generate any future questions that might benefit from a new experiment? Were there any outside factors (i.e., temperature, contaminants, time of day) that affected your results? If so, how could you control for these in the future?
7 Conclusions – This section should provide a brief summary of your work.
8 References – List references used in APA format as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
In this class, you have three tutoring services available: Paper Review, Live Chat, and
Tutor E-mail
. Click on the Writing Center (AWC) tab in the left-navigation menu, in your online course, to learn more about these tutoring options and how to get help with your writing.
Running head: TITLE
1
Title
3
Title
Name
SCI 207: Our Dependence Upon the Environment
Instructor
Date
*This template will provide you with the details necessary to finalize a quality Final Lab Report. Utilize this template to complete the Week 5 Final Lab Report and ensure that you are providing all of the necessary information and proper format for the assignment. Before you begin, please note the following important information:
1. Carefully review the Final Lab Report instructions before you begin this assignment.
2. The Final Lab Report should cover the Drinking Water Quality Experiment from your Week Two Lab.
3. Review instructor feedback from the Week Three outline of the Final Lab Report and make changes as necessary.
4. Review the Sample Final Lab Report for an example of a final product on a different topic. Your format should look like this sample report before submission.
5. Make sure your final report is in proper APA format. Use the Sample Final Lab Report as a guide, or obtain an APA Template from the Writing Center.
6. Run your Final Lab Report through Turnitin using the student folder to ensure protection from accidental plagiarism
Title
Abstract
The abstract should provide a brief summary of the methods, results, and conclusions. It should very briefly allow the reader to see what was done, how it was done, and the results. It should not exceed 200 words and should be the last part written (although it should still appear right after the title page).
Introduction
The introduction should describe the background of water quality and related issues using cited examples. You should include scholarly sources in this section to help explain why water quality research is important to society. When writing this section, make sure to cite all resources in APA format.
The introduction should also contain the objective for your study. This objective is the reason why the experiment is being done. Your final report should provide an objective that describes why we want to know the answer to the questions we are asking.
Finally, the introduction should end with your hypothesis. This hypothesis should be the same one posed before you began your experiment. You may reword it following feedback from your instructor to illustrate a proper hypothesis, however, you should not adjust it to reflect the “right” answer. You do not lose points for an inaccurate hypothesis; scientists often revise their hypotheses based on scientific evidence following an experiment. Include an explanation as to why you made the hypothesis that you did.
Materials and Methods
The materials and methods section should provide a brief description of the specialized materials used in your experiment and how they were used. This section needs to summarize the instructions with enough detail so that an outsider who does not have a copy of the lab instructions knows what you did. However, this does not mean writing every little step like “dip the chloride test strip in the water, then shake the test strip,” these steps can be simplified to read “we used chloride test strips to measure the chloride levels of each sample in mg/L”, etc. Additionally, this section should be written in the past tense and in your own words and not copied and pasted from the lab manual.
Results
The results section should include all tables used in your experiments. All values within the tables or graphs should be in numerical form and contain units. For instance, if measuring the amount of chloride in water you should report as 2 mg/L or 0 mg/L, not as two or none.
The results section should also highlight the important results in paragraph form, referring to the appropriate tables when mentioned. This section should only state the results as no personal opinions should be included. A description of what the results really mean should be saved for the discussion. For example, you may report, 0mg/L of chlorine were found in the water, but should avoid personal opinions and interpretations of the data (e.g., “No chlorine was found in the water showing it is cleaner than the others samples”).
Discussion
The discussion section should interpret your data and provide conclusions. Start by discussing whether you accepted or rejected your hypothesis and how you arrived at this decision. In the same section, consider some of the implications of your results. Given the chemical differences you may have noted between the water samples, are any of the differences causes for concern? Why or why not?
The discussion should also relate your results to the bigger water concerns and challenges. For example, based on your experiments you might discuss how various bottled water companies use different filtration systems. Or, you could discuss the billion dollar bottled water industry. For example, do you think it is worth it to buy bottled water? Why or why not? Your final lab report should utilize credible and scholarly resources to put your results into context.
Finally, the results section should also address any possible factors that may have affected your results, such as possible contamination in the experiments or any outside factors (e.g., temperature, contaminants, time of day). If so, how could you control for these in the future? You should also propose some new questions that have arisen from your results and what kind of experiment might be proposed to answer these questions.
Conclusions
The conclusion section should briefly summarize the key findings of your experiment. What main message would you like people to have from this report?
References
Include at least two scholarly references, two credible references, and your lab manual in APA format.
WaterQuality and Contamina on
22
Usable water
Ground water
Surface water
Ground water contaminates
Water treatment
Drinking water quality
Figure 1: At any given moment, 97% of the planet’s water is in oceans. Only a small fraction of
the remaining freshwater is usable by humans, underscoring the importance of treating our wa-
ter supply with care.
It is no secret that water is one of the most valuable resources on Earth. Every plant and animal requires wa-
ter to survive, not only for drinking, but also for food production, shelter creation, and many other necessities.
Water has also played a major role in transforming the earth’s surface into the varied topography we see to-
day.
While more than 70% of our planet is covered in water, only a small percentage of this water is usable fresh-
water. The other 99% of water is composed primarily of salt water, with a small percentage being composed
23
of glaciers. Due to the high costs involved in transforming salt water into freshwater, the earth’s population
survives off the less than 1% of freshwater available. Humans obtain freshwater from either surface water or
groundwater.
Surface water is the water that collects on the ground as a result of precipitation. The water that does not
evaporate back into the atmosphere or infiltrate into the ground is typically collected in rivers, lakes, reser-
voirs, and other bodies of water, making it easily accessible.
Groundwater, on the other hand, is located underneath the ground. This water is stored in pores, fractures,
and other spaces within the soil and rock underneath the surface. Precipitation, along with snowmelt, infil-
trates through the ground and accumulates in available underground spaces.
Aquifers are areas in which water collects in sand, gravel, or permeable rock from which it can be extracted
for usable freshwater. The depth of aquifers varies from less than 50 feet to over 1,500 feet below the sur-
face. The water within an aquifer typically does not flow through, as it would through a river or stream, but in-
stead soaks into the underground material, similar to a sponge. As aquifers are depleted by human use, they
are also recharged from precipitation seeping into the ground and restoring the water level. However, many
times the recharge of the aquifers does not equal the amount of water that has been extracted. If that cycle
continues, the aquifer will eventually dry up and will no longer be a viable source of groundwater.
Evapora on
Cloud forma on
Precipita on
Groundwater
Evapora on
Transpira on
Precipita on
Precipita on
Figure 2: Water is a renewable source, purified and
delivered across the planet by the hydrological cycle.
24
While the water that precipitates in the form of rain is relatively pure, it does not take long for it to pick up con-
taminants. There are natural, animal, and human-made sources of water pollutants. They can travel freely
from one location to another via streams, rivers, and even groundwater. Pollutants can also travel from land
or air into the water. Groundwater contamination most often occurs when human-made products, such as mo-
tor oil, gasoline, acidic chemicals, and other substances, leak into aquifers and other groundwater storage
areas. The most common source of contaminants come from leaking storage tanks, poorly maintained land-
fills, septic tanks, hazardous waste sites, and the common use of chemicals, such as pesticides and road
salts.
The dangers of consuming contaminated water are
high. Many deadly diseases, poisons, and toxins can
reside in contaminated water supplies, severely affect-
ing the health of those who drink the water. It is also
believed that an increased risk of cancer may result
from ingesting contaminated groundwater.
With the many contaminants that can infiltrate our wa-
ter supply, it is crucial that there be a thorough water
treatment plan in place to purify the water and make it
drinkable. While each municipality has its own water
treatment facility, the process is much the same at
each location.
The process begins with aeration, in which air is added
to the water to let trapped gases escape while increasing the amount of oxygen within the water. The next
step is called coagulation or flocculation, in which chemicals, such as filter alum, are added to the incoming
Water is the only substance
that is found naturally in
three forms: solid, liquid,
and gas
If the entire world’s supply
of water could fit into a one-
gallon jug, the fresh water
available to use would equal
less than one tablespoon
Approximately 66% of the
human body consists of wa-
ter – it exists within every
organ and is essential for its
function
Figure 3: Sedimentation tanks, such as those shown
above, are used to settle the sludge and remove oils
and fats in sewage. This step can remove a good por-
tion of the biological oxygen demand from the sew-
age, a key step before progressing with the treat-
ments and eventually releasing into the ground or
body of water.
25
water and then stirred vigorously in a powerful mixer. The alum causes
compounds, such as carbonates and hydroxides, to form tiny, sticky clumps
called floc that attract dirt and other small particles. When the sticky clumps
combine with the dirt, they become heavy and sink to the bottom. In the next
step, known as sedimentation, the heavy particles that sank to the bottom
during coagulation are separated out and the remaining water is sent on to
filtration. During filtration, the water passes through filters made of layers of
sand, charcoal, gravel and pebbles that help filter out the smaller particles
that have passed through until this point. The last step is called disinfection,
in which chlorine and/or other disinfectants are added to kill any bacteria
that may still be in the water. At this point, the water is stored until it is dis-
tributed through various pipes to city residents and businesses.
After the water goes through the treatment process, it must also pass the
guidelines stated in the Safe Drinking Water Act, in which various compo-
nents are tested to ensure that the quality of the water is sufficient for drink-
ing. There are currently over 65 contaminants that must be monitored and maintained on a regular basis to
keep local drinking water safe for the public. Some of these chemical regulations include lead, chromium,
selenium, and arsenic. Other components, such as smell, color, pH, and metals, are also monitored to ensure
residents are provided clean and safe drinking water.
Figure 4: Fresh water is essen-
tial to humans and other land-
based life. Contaminated water
must be treated before it can be
released into the water supply.
26
Bottled water is a billion dollar industry in the United States. Still, few people know the health benefits, if any,
that come from drinking bottled water as opposed to tap water. This experiment will look at the levels of vari-
ous different chemical compounds in both tap and bottled water to determine if there are health benefits in
drinking bottled water.
1. Before beginning, record your hypothesis in post-lab question 1 at the end of this procedure. Be sure to
indicate which water source you believe will be the dirtiest and which water source will be the cleanest.
2. Label three 250 mL beakers Tap Water, Dasani®, and Fiji®. Pour 100 mL of each type of water into the
corresponding beakers.
3. Locate the ammonia test strips. Begin by placing a test strip into the Tap Water sample and vigorously
moving the strip up and down in the water for 30 seconds, making sure that the pads on the test strip are
always submerged.
Dasani® bottled water
Fiji® bottled water
Jiffy Juice
Ammonia test strips
Chloride test strips
4 in 1 test strips
Phosphate test strips
Iron test strips
(3) 250 mL Beakers
(3) 100 mL Beakers
(1) 100 mL Graduated Cylinder
Permanent marker
Stopwatch
Parafilm®
Pipettes
(3) Foil packets of reducing powder
*Tap water
*You must provide
27
4. Remove the test strip from the water and shake off the excess water.
5. Hold the test strip level with the pad side up for 30 seconds.
6. Read the results by turning the test strip so the pads are facing away from you. Compare the color of the
small pad to the color chart at the end of the lab. Record your results in Table 1.
7. Repeat the procedure for both Dasani® and Fiji|® bottled water. Record your results for both in Table 1.
8. Locate the chloride test strips. Begin by immersing all the reaction zones (“the pads”) of a test strip in the
Tap Water sample for 1 second.
9. Shake off the excess liquid from the test strip. After 1 minute, determine which color row the test strip
most noticeably coincides with on the color chart at the end of the lab. Record your results in Table 2.
10. Repeat the procedure for both Dasani® and Fiji® bottled water. Record your results for both in Table 2.
11. Locate the 4 in 1 test strips. Begin by dipping a test strip in the Tap Water for 5 seconds with a gentle
back and forth motion.
12. Remove the test strip from the water and shake once, briskly, to remove the excess water.
13. Wait 20 seconds and use the color chart at the end of this lab to match the test strip to the Total Alkalini-
ty, Total Chlorine, and Total Hardness on the color chart. Be sure to do all of the readings within seconds
of each other. Record your results in Table 3.
Note: You will not be using the pH reading obtained from the 4 in 1 test strips. The pH will be
determined at the end of this experiment using a different method.
14. Repeat the procedure for both Dasani® and Fiji® bottled water. Record your results for both in Table 3.
15. Locate the phosphate test strips. Begin by dipping a test strip into the Tap Water for 5 seconds.
16. Remove the test strip from the water and hold it horizontally with the pad side up for 45 seconds. Do not
shake the excess water from the test strip.
28
17. Compare the results on the pad of the test strip to the color chart at the end of this lab. Record your re-
sults in Table 4.
18. Repeat the procedure for both Dasani® and Fiji® bottled water. Record your results for both in Table 4.
19. Now, label the three 100 mL beakers Tap Water, Dasani®, and Fiji®. Use the 100 mL graduated cylinder
to measure 30 mL of the Tap Water from the 250 mL beaker. Pour the Tap Water into the 100 mL beaker.
Repeat these steps for the Dasani® and Fiji® bottled water.
20. Beginning with the Tap Water, open one foil packet of reducing powder and add it to the 100 mL beaker.
Cover the beaker with a piece of Parafilm® and shake the beaker vigorously for 15 seconds.
21. Locate the iron test strips. Remove the Parafilm® and dip the test pad of an iron test strip into the Tap Wa-
ter sample, rapidly moving it back and forth under the water for 5 seconds.
22. Remove the strip and shake the excess water off. After 10 seconds, compare the test pad to the color
chart at the end of this lab. If the color falls between two colors on the color chart, estimate your result.
Record your results in Table 5.
23. Repeat the procedure for both Dasani® and Fiji® bottled water. Record your results for both in Table 5.
24. Use your 100 mL graduated cylinder to measure and remove 45 mL of the Tap Water from the 250 mL
beaker. Discard this water. Your 250 mL beaker should now contain 25 mL of Tap Water. Repeat these
step with the Dasani® and Fiji® bottled water.
25. Use a pipette to add 5 mL of Jiffy Juice to the Tap Water. Mix gently with the pipette or by swirling the liq-
uid.
26. Compare the color of the Tap Water to the pH chart in the key. Record the pH in Table 6.
27. Repeat the procedure with both the Dasani® and Fiji® bottled water and record your results in Table 6
29
0 10 30 60 100 200 40
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
≥3000
Ammonia (mg/L)
Chloride (mg/L)
4-in-1 Test Strip:
*Note there are 4 pads on this test strip. From top to bottom (with the bottom of the strip being the handle),
the pads are: pH, Chlorine, Alkalinity, and Hardness. Remember that the pH is not to be measured using the
strip.
pH Chlor. Alk. Hard.
0 0.2 1.0 4.0 10.0
0 40 80 120 180 240 500
0 50 120 250 425 1000
Soft Hard Very Hard
Total Chlorine (mg/L)
Total Alkalinity (mg/L)
Total Hardness (mg/L)
30
0 0.15 0.3 0.6 1 2 5
0 10 25 50 100
Phosphate (ppm)
Total Iron (ppm)
pH
1-2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-12
Running Head: WATER QUALITY
1
Water Quality
Oscar Vasquezmolina
SCI 207: Our Dependence upon the Environment
Instructor: Marc Hnytka
Date: 29 January 201
8
– 1 –
[no notes on this page]
WATER QUALITY
2
Introduction
Body paragraph #1: Background
Water is a commodity that everyone consumes on a daily basis all over the world. Water
can be contaminated using biological, chemical, or human activities; thus affecting the health
system of millions of individuals each day. It is therefore important to understand water quality
and contamination and the impact of pollution on water. The lab will involve a deeper look at
water quality, the process of treating water and the effects of groundwater contamination. The
government has established agencies like Environmental Protection Agency which ensures that
drinking water is safe for consumption and that the quality of water does meet the standard
regulations. Water is obtained from different sources some of which may contain contaminants
which flow through tap water in different quantities; some of this contaminant are very harmful
to human consumption and difficult to trace because they are undetectable (Turk, 2014).
Human pollution is the major water contaminant given that people tend to dispose waste
everywhere, which finally makes its way to the landfills and sewer system. The common
mistakes people make is, for example, washing their cars outside especially on the drive way
which causes oil to run into the nearby sewer system, or disposing of waste products such as
those from a beauty shop which contain lotions, deodorants, and perfumes that contaminate
water. Contaminated water has negative effects on human health. There is need to construct
storm water facilities for treating through filtration and disinfection runoff. Only 3% of our water
is fresh water; hence the commodity is precious to a human being (Landers, 2009). Having high
quality water clean for consumption allows us to undertake our daily activities without
complications of different type of diseases such as cholera, dysentery, and malaria. Researchers
have carried out many different types of research aimed at improving the quality of water, and as
– 2 –
1
2
1. Background
Your introduction is off to a
great start. You have enough
background information
supported by scholarly
sources.
[Marc
Hnytka]
2. (Turk, 2014).
These are the correct
citations for the textbook:
(Turk & Bensel, 2014)
Turk, J., & Bensel, T. (2014).
Contemporary environmental
issues (2nd ed.) [Electronic
version]. Retrieved from
https://content.ashford.edu/
[Marc Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY
3
such their knowledge is largely used today in rectifying the amount of unclean water passed from
one individual to another, thus savings many lives.
Body paragraph#2: Objective
The objective of this experiment is to determine if contaminated water can be made clean
and of good quality for consumption. Running series of test involving water that has been
contaminated and after that cleansing, the water for safe drinking will be our main objective. By
using various tool to clean the water, we will understand how the process used in making clean
water. Therefore, we will determine the levels of contaminants and the outcome product to
access if the contaminants were removed. Many companies involved in selling water bottle label
their container as “pure” water, but in a real sense, the water contained in the bottle may not be
pure water but tap water. The different companies offer varying prices for these bottled water
depending on the plastic container used, transportation cost, storage costs, and the cost of
bottling, but not according to the quality of water contained in the bottle (Rasekh, 2014).
Body paragraph #3: Hypotheses
The main reason for conducting the experiment is to see how contaminants affect the
quality of ground water. Three different hypothesis will be evaluated; the first hypothesis is to
determine if oil is dumped on the ground, then the soil will stop the oil from reaching the water
and contaminating it. The experiment may take into account if laundry and vinegar detergent
dumped on the ground, then the soil will fail to stop these detergents from contaminating ground
water. The second hypothesis is; if water and soil mixture is passed through the filtration system,
then no traces of soil will be available, this explains the fact that the
filtration system will de-
contaminate the unclean water. The third hypothesis is; if three different sources of water are
tested for contaminants such as chemical, then tap water will have a high quantity of
– 3 –
1
2
1. Three different
hypothesis will be
evaluated; the first
hypothesis is to
determine if oil is dumped
on the ground, then the soil
will stop the oil from
reaching the
water
and contaminating it. The
experiment may take into
account if laundry and
vinegar detergent
dumped on the ground,
then the soil will fail to stop
these detergents from
contaminating ground
water. The second
hypothesis is; if water and
soil mixture is passed
through
the filtration
system, then no traces of
soil will be available, this
explains the fact that
the
filtration system will de-
contaminate the unclean
water.
This final paper is on the
week 2 lab only. What you
are talking about here is the
week 3 lab.
[Marc
Hnytka]
2. The third hypothesis is; if
three different sources of
water are tested for
contaminants such as
chemical, then tap water
will have a high quantity of
Great job on the structure of
your hypotheses! [Marc
Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY
4
contaminants, followed by water from Dasani, and finally, Fiji water will contain the least
contaminants (Gorman, 2012).
Materials and Methods
The materials consisted of a graduated cylinder, beakers, vinegar (10mL), stirring sticks,
vegetable oil (10mL), soil, the liquid detergent used in laundry, funnel, scissors, water, and
cheesecloth. It is therefore clear that the experiment was conducted at home using eScience lab
kit materials. The place of the experiment was in a spacious room with a wide table. The
objective being to test the ability of soil in removing vinegar, laundry detergent and vegetable oil
from water before it reached the
ground water.
The process of conducting the experiment involved labeling the beakers with letters from
1-8 for easier identification and to able to separate the containers. Half of the beakers were set
aside for later use while the remaining were filled with different materials. Beaker number 1 was
filled with only water, with beaker two filled with vegetable oil thoroughly mixed, beaker 3
contained vinegar thoroughly mixed, and beaker four was filled with
laundry detergent.
The four beakers were filled with the right contents; the next step was to construct the
filtration system with the layers of cheesecloth which were made big enough to fit in the funnel.
Next, soil amounting to 60 mL were placed onto the four layers of cheesecloth, and the funnel
was then placed into an empty beaker 5 to trap the contents passed from beaker 1. Results were
recorded in table 1; water was allowed to flow from beaker 1 through the funnel for one minute.
After that, soil and cheesecloth were separated from the funnel, and hot water with soap was
used to wash the funnel. The experiment was repeated using the remaining beakers 2-4 with
every experiment conducted separately and washing the funnel after each experiment was
– 4 –
1
1. materials consisted of a
graduated cylinder,
beakers, vinegar (10mL),
stirring sticks, vegetable oil
(10mL), soil, the liquid
detergent used in laundry,
funnel, scissors, water, and
cheesecloth. It is therefore
clear that the
experiment
was conducted at home
using eScience lab
kit materials. The place of
the experiment was in a
spacious room with a wide
table. The
objective being to test the
ability of soil in removing
vinegar, laundry detergent
and vegetable oil from
water before it reached the
ground water.
The process of conducting
the experiment involved
labeling the beakers with
letters from 1-8 for easier
identification and to able to
separate the containers.
Half of the beakers were set
aside for later use while the
remaining were filled with
different materials. Beaker
number 1 was filled with
only water, with beaker two
filled with vegetable oil
thoroughly mixed, beaker 3
contained vinegar
thoroughly mixed, and
beaker four was filled with
laundry detergent.
The four beakers were filled
with the right contents; the
next step was to construct
the
filtration system with the
layers of cheesecloth which
were made big enough to fit
in the funnel.
Next, soil amounting to 60
mL were placed onto the
four layers of cheesecloth,
This is the materials and
methods for the week 3 lab.
This paper is only on the
week 2 lab. [Marc Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY
5
concluded while the observations were noted in table 1. The filtration of beaker 2-4 was made of
beaker 6-8 respectively.
After recording observations from experiment 1, we moved to the next experiment using
the eScience materials which included graduated cylinder, potting soil, gravel, beakers, activated
charcoal, wooden stir stick, sand, funnel, bleach, alum, water, and stopwatch. The experiment
involves similar techniques as wastewater treatment plants in testing how well the filtration
method can clean the
contaminated water.
In a 250 mL beaker, 100 mL of soil was placed in the beaker and water added up to 200
mL mark. The second beaker was used to mix the mixture in beaker one y transferring the
mixture from beaker 1 to beaker 2 and vice versa 15 times. 10 mL of water that had been
contaminated was poured into a 100 mL beaker to be used at the end of the filtration for
comparison with the treated water. Alum was then added to the contaminated water and stirred
thoroughly using the wooden stick for approximately 2 minutes; after that, the solution was
allowed to sit for 15 minutes. The funnel was constructed using the four layers of cheesecloth
lining. 40 mL of sand was then layered on the funnel before being activated using 20 mL of
charcoal and 40 mL of gravel. For solidification, water was poured slowly through the filter to
fill the funnel to the top. The funnel was allowed to sit for about 5 minutes on a beaker. Before
proceeding with the experiment, the beaker was emptied out first, then three-quarter of the
contaminated water was poured into the funnel. For 5 minutes, water was allowed to pass
through the funnel. The water obtained after filtration had no smell compared to the ten mL of
contaminated water set aside earlier. After filtration, drops of bleach was added to the filtered
water, and the mixture stirred for about a minute.
– 5 –
1
2
1. concluded while the
observations were noted in
table 1. The filtration of
beaker 2-4 was made of
beaker 6-8 respectively.
After recording
observations from
experiment 1, we moved to
the next experiment using
the eScience materials
which included graduated
cylinder, potting soil,
gravel, beakers, activated
charcoal, wooden stir stick,
sand, funnel, bleach, alum,
water, and stopwatch. The
experiment
involves similar techniques
as wastewater treatment
plants in testing how well
the filtration
method can clean the
contaminated water.
In a 250 mL beaker, 100 mL
of soil was placed in the
beaker and water added up
to 200
mL mark. The second
beaker was used to mix the
mixture in beaker one y
transferring the
mixture from beaker 1 to
beaker 2 and vice versa 15
times. 10 mL of water that
had been
contaminated was poured
into a 100 mL beaker to be
used at the end of the
filtration for
comparison with the treated
water. Alum was then
added to the contaminated
water and stirred
thoroughly using the
wooden stick for
approximately 2 minutes;
after that, the solution was
allowed to sit for 15
minutes. The funnel was
constructed using the four
layers of cheesecloth
lining. 40 mL of sand
This is all week 3 material.
[Marc Hnytka]
2. was then layered on the funnel before being activated using 20 mL of
charcoal and 40 mL of gravel. For solidification, water was poured
slowly through the filter to fill the funnel to the top. The funnel was
allowed to sit for about 5 minutes on a beaker. Before proceeding with
the experiment, the beaker was emptied out first, then three-quarter of
the
contaminated water was poured into the funnel. For 5 minutes, water
was allowed to pass
through the funnel. The water obtained after filtration had no smell
compared to the ten mL of contaminated water set aside earlier. After
filtration, drops of bleach was added to the filtered
water, and the mixture stirred for about a minute.
This should not be included in the final paper. [Marc Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY
6
The third experiment materials included; Fiji bottled water, Dasani bottled water,
chloride test strips, ammonia test strips, phosphate test strips, beakers, 4-in-1 test strips,
permanent marker, iron test strips, parafilm pipettes, tap water, stopwatch, and foil packets. The
experiment was conducted in the same room as the previous ones. The aim of the experiment
was to test the quality of the two bottled water and tap water by measuring their chemical
components.
Three 250 mL beakers were labeled as tap water, Fiji and Dasani and water from each
source being poured into the beaker 100 mL each. Next ammonia test trips were placed in the tap
water moving the strips vigorously in water for 30 seconds, the test strips were then removed and
any excess water removed was poured. The removed strips were then held for 30 minutes before
they were turned pads facing away. The color of the strips was compared to the strip color in the
chart. The same procedure was repeated for both Fiji and Dasani bottled water recording the
results in table 2.
For the chloride test strips, the procedure involved submerging them into the reaction for
a second; then the excess liquid was shaken off from the strip, whose color was then compared to
the chart color after a minute. Repeating the same procedure using chloride test strips for Fiji and
Dasani water, and the results were recorded in table 3. Next procedure involved the use of 4-in-1
test strips, by dipping them for 5 seconds into tap water. Strips were then removed from the
water and excess water removed. After 20 seconds the color of the stripped water was compared
to the color chart regarding pH, chorine, alkalinity, and hardness. The same procedure was then
repeated for Fiji and Dasani water, and results recorded in table 4.
Next, the phosphate test strips, the strips were dipped in tap water for about 5 seconds;
then the removed strips were held horizontally for 45 seconds before removing the excess water.
– 6 –
1
1. Your materials and
methods section should be
paraphrased and summarized
a little more in order to make
them more concise. [Marc
Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY
7
After that, the color of the strip was compared to the chart color, and the procedure repeated for
Fiji and Dasani water. Table 5 contains results from the experiment. The last strip to experiment
was the iron test strips. Each beaker was filled with 30 mL of water, then one foil packet of
powder was added to the beaker containing tap water, and the beaker was covered using a piece
of parafilm and vigorously shook the beaker for 15 seconds. Parafilm was then removed, and
iron test strip dipped into the tap water for about 5 seconds. The strip was then removed and
excess water eliminated. After 10 seconds the color of the strip was compared to the chart color.
The procedure was then repeated for Fiji and Dasani water, with the results recorded in table 6.
Results
Table 1: Water Observations (Smell, Color, Etc.)
Beaker Observations
1
Color: clear
Odor: non-existent
The water is not
contaminated.
2
Color: yellowish
Odor: non-noticeable
At first, a big bubble appears holding the vegetable oil at the top, once stirred oil mixed
in but as it continued to settle. The oil rose to the top
forming small bubbles.
3
Color: clear
Odor: slight odor detected
Remained mixed with the water, no segregation noted.
4
Color: green/blue
Odor: slight odor detected
Remained mixed after stirring with water, no segregation noted, formed
suds.
– 7 –
1
1. Color: clear
Odor: non-existent
The water is not
contaminated.
2 Color: yellowish
Odor: non-noticeable
At first, a big bubble
appears holding the
vegetable oil at the top,
once stirred oil mixed in but
as it continued to settle.
The oil rose to the top
forming small bubbles.
3 Color: clear
Odor: slight odor detected
Remained mixed with the
water, no segregation
noted.
4 Color: green/blue
Odor: slight odor detected
Remained mixed after
stirring with water, no
segregation noted, formed
suds.
Do not include in final paper.
[Marc Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY
8
5
Color: slight brown
Odor: smell of soil
Water passed through immediately; 70 mL passed
through.
6
Color: slight brown
Odor: no odor
Water passed through immediately, about 5 seconds later a small gulp followed. No oil
is observed. 70 mL
passed through.
7
Color: slight brown
Odor: odor exists
Water passed through slowly, finished pouring water was still passing through. 80 mL
passed through.
8
Color: dark brown/green
Odor: detected
Water passed slowly, after pouring the water continued to pass through the filter. For
approximately the first ten seconds, the water was a slow stream, then dripped slowly
for the remainder of the time and up to 60 seconds passed the one minute marker. Some
detergent is noted as having passed through since suds were forming at the top. 70 mL
passed through.
Table 2: Ammonia Test Results
Water Sample Test Results
Tap Water 0
mg/L
Dasani® Bottled Water 0 mg/L
Fiji® Bottled Water 0 mg/L
Table 3: Chloride Test Results
Water Sample Test Results
– 8 –
1
1. Color: slight brown
Odor: smell of soil
Water passed through
immediately; 70 mL passed
through.
6 Color: slight brown
Odor: no odor
Water passed through
immediately, about 5
seconds later a small gulp
followed. No oil is
observed. 70 mL passed
through.
7 Color: slight brown
Odor: odor exists
Water passed through
slowly, finished pouring
water was still passing
through. 80 mL
passed through.
8 Color: dark brown/green
Odor: detected
Water passed slowly, after
pouring the water
continued to pass through
the filter. For
approximately the first ten
seconds, the water was a
slow stream, then dripped
slowly
for the remainder of the
time and up to 60 seconds
passed the one minute
marker. Some detergent is
noted as having passed
through since suds were
forming at the top. 70 mL
passed through.
Do not include in final paper.
[Marc Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY
9
Tap Water 0 mg/L
Dasani® Bottled Water 0 mg/L
Fiji® Bottled Water 0 mg/L
Table 4: 4 in 1 Test Results
Water Sample pH
Total Alkalinity
mg/L
Total Chlorine
mg/L
Total Hardness
mg/L
Tap Water .2 80 1.0 50
Dasani® Bottled Water 3 40 0 50
Fiji® Bottled Water 8 40 .2 50
Table 5: Phosphate Test Results
Water Sample Test Results
Tap Water 10 ppm
Dasani® Bottled Water 50 ppm
Fiji® Bottled Water 50 ppm
Table 6: Iron Test Results
Water Sample Test Results
Tap Water 0 ppm
Dasani® Bottled Water 0 ppm
Fiji® Bottled Water 0 ppm
Body paragraph:
The first two experiment confirmed that contaminated water could be cleaned or filtered
to provide clean drinking water, while the third experiment illustrated thee fact that tap water has
– 9 –
1
2
1. Great job on filling out the
data tables completely!
[Marc Hnytka]
2. experiment
grammar issues [Marc
Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY
10
the lowest level of pH compared Fiji water which contains high pH. The alkalinity of Dasani and
Fiji water was 40 each while that of tap water was 80. Chlorine level in tap water was 1.0, Fiji
was 0.2 and Dasani 0.0. The hardness of the three types of water was the same at 50.
Discussion: Body paragraph:
The first experiment hypothesis was to determine if the contaminated water was passing
through the ground, the ground was to act as a filtration system to remove the contaminant. The
result of the experiment indicated no presence of vinegar, vegetable oil or laundry in the
collected water, and a given portion of the contaminated water remained in the soil; thus the
hypothesis was accepted. The second experiment was to determine if the filtration process would
decontaminate contaminated water. After the experiment, the comparison between treated water
and the set aside contaminated water indicated that treated water was decontaminated; hence the
hypothesis was accepted. The third hypothesis was to determine if tap water contains most
contaminants, followed by Dasani water, then Fiji water. The results of the experiment
concluded that tap water was the most contaminated with a pH level of 0.2, chlorine at 1.0 and
alkaline of 80, followed by Dasani and Fiji water was the least contaminated; thus the hypothesis
was
accepted.
Body paragraph#2: Context
The experiments aimed at the utilization of filtration systems used by different water
companies. The results indicated that bottle water also contains a given percentage of
contaminants despite them being sold at different prices. The issue being many bottle water
– 10 –
1
2
3
1. Your results section needs
to include a more thorough
written description of the
results. [Marc Hnytka]
2. experiment indicated no
presence of vinegar,
vegetable oil or laundry in
the
collected water, and a given
portion of the contaminated
water remained in the soil;
thus the
hypothesis was accepted.
The second experiment was
to determine if the filtration
process would
decontaminate
contaminated water. After
the experiment, the
comparison between
treated water and the set
aside contaminated water
indicated that treated water
was decontaminated; hence
the hypothesis was
accepted.
This should be taken out for
the final paper. [Marc
Hnytka]
3. paragraph#2: Context
The experiments aimed at
the utilization of filtration
systems used by different
water
companies. The results
indicated that bottle water
also contains a given
percentage of
contaminants despite them
being sold at different
prices. The issue being
many bottle water
Hello Oscar,
The context part of the
discussion section should
utilize multiple scholarly
sources to put the results into
the context of real world water
quality issues. You need to
find, use, and properly cite at
least 2-3 more scholarly or
credible sources to support
the discussion of the context
of the experimental results.
~Marc [Marc Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY
11
companies do not decontaminate their water before packaging thus the possibility of buying tap
water at a cost instead of consuming the free tap water available at our homes.
Body paragraph#3: Variable and Future Experiments
The experiments were conducted on different days but at the same time. The weather
conditions were favorable and thus did not hinder the outcome of the results obtained. The
workplace was kept tidy and clean out of reach for outside contaminants. All materials used were
first cleaned before conducting
the experiments.
Conclusion
The experiments enlightened me on the importance of drinking on clean water and not
just any type of water. Contaminants found in water some are invisible and very dangerous for
human consumption. I learned the importance of having a well-constructed filtration system
would aid in cleaning the water for safe drinking. After the experiment, it now clear the fact that
tap water is cheap and readily available does not mean that it is unsafe for drinking given the fact
that bottled water might still be tap water
packaged in a bottle.
References
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (2015). Current Drinking Water Regulations.
Retrievedfrom;http://www2.epa.gov/regulatory-information-topic/water#drinkingMay 26, 2015.
Gorman, R. (2012). Is your tap water safe?. Good Housekeeping, 254(3), 130.
Landers, J. (2009). Malibu Park will detain runoff, improve treatment facility operation. Civil
Engineering (08857024), 79(12), 24-26.
– 11 –
1
2
3
1. Future Experiments
Your discussion section also
needed to include some new
questions that arose from the
results of the experiment and
a brief description of at least
one experiment that could be
conducted to explore the new
research question. [Marc
Hnytka]
2. The experiments were
conducted on different
days but at the same time.
The weather
conditions were favorable
and thus did not hinder the
outcome of the results
obtained. The
workplace was kept tidy
and clean out of reach for
outside contaminants. All
materials used were first
cleaned before conducting
the experiments.
You needed to discuss some
potential forms of error that
could be present in your
experiment including: human
error, faulty testing
equipment, sampling error,
and other factors.
In the final paper make sure
you discuss these potential
sources of error and any
efforts made to reduce the
probability of these errors.
[Marc Hnytka]
3. Conclusion
The experiments enlightened me on the importance of drinking on clean
water and not
just any type of water. Contaminants found in water some are invisible
and very dangerous for
human consumption. I learned the importance of having a well-
constructed filtration system
would aid in cleaning the water for safe drinking. After the experiment,
it now clear the fact that
tap water is cheap and readily available does not mean that it is unsafe
for drinking given the fact that bottled water might still be tap water
packaged in a bottle.
Your conclusion section needed to summarize the main points from your
– 11 (cont) –
paper including the methods, results, and discussion. [Marc
Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY
12
Matos de Queiroz, J., de França Doria, M., Rosenberg, M., Heller, L., & Zhouri, A. (2013).
Perceptions of bottled water consumers in three Brazilian municipalities. Journal of
Water & Health, 11(3), 520-531. doi:10.2166/wh.2013.222
Rasekh, A., Shafiee, M., Zechman, E., & Brumbelow, K. (2014). Sociotechnical risk assessment
for water distribution system contamination threats. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 16(3),
531-549. doi:10.2166/hydro.2013.023
Turk, J., & Bensel. T. (2014). Contemporary environmental issues (2nd ed.) [Electronic
version].San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
– 12 –
1
1. You needed to use and cite
the lab manual.
The proper citation for the lab
manual is:
In-text:
(Bottcher & Rex, 2012)
Reference list:
Bottcher, A., & Rex, A.
(2012). Environmental
science student manual.
Sheridan, CO: eScience
Labs. [Marc Hnytka]