SCI 207

Table 4: 4 in 1 Test Results

Total Alkalinity

mg/L

Total Chlorine

mg/L

Total Hardness

mg/L

Running Head: WATER QUALITY

WATER QUALITY

Water Quality

Name

SCI

: 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

% 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-

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

0 mL were placed onto the four layers of cheesecloth, and the funnel was then placed into an empty beaker

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

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.

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.

mg/L

0 mg/L

Table 2: Ammonia Test Results
	Water Sample	Test Results
	Tap Water		0 mg/L
	Dasani® Bottled Water
	Fiji® Bottled Water

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

Tap Water

Dasani® Bottled Water

Fiji® Bottled Water

Water Sample

Test Results

Tap Water

Dasani® Bottled Water

Fiji® Bottled Water

50 ppm

Table 5: Phosphate Test Results

0 ppm

50 ppm

Water Sample

Test Results

Tap Water

Dasani® Bottled Water

0 ppm

Fiji® Bottled Water

0 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

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

– 1 –

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

– 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?

– 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.

– 4 –

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.

– 5 –

[no notes on this page]

Ammonia https://www.wqa.org/Portals/0/Technical/Technical%20Fact

%20Sheets/2014_Ammonia.p

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

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

– 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

– 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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

0 10 30 60 100 200 40

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)

0 0.15 0.3 0.6 1 2 5

0 10 25 50 100

Phosphate (ppm)

Total Iron (ppm)

1-2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-12

Running Head: WATER QUALITY

Water Quality

Oscar Vasquezmolina

SCI 207: Our Dependence upon the Environment

Instructor: Marc Hnytka

Date: 29 January 201

– 1 –

[no notes on this page]

WATER QUALITY

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

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

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. 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

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

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. Your materials and

methods section should be

paraphrased and summarized

a little more in order to make

them more concise. [Marc

Hnytka]

WATER QUALITY

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

Color: clear

Odor: non-existent

The water is not

contaminated.

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.

Color: clear

Odor: slight odor detected

Remained mixed with the water, no segregation noted.

Color: green/blue

Odor: slight odor detected

Remained mixed after stirring with water, no segregation noted, formed

suds.

– 7 –

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

Color: slight brown

Odor: smell of soil

Water passed through immediately; 70 mL passed

through.

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.

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. 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. 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]

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ SCI 207 ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Still stressed with your coursework?

Get quality coursework help from an expert!

Order now