USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
rewrite attached assignment
Running Head:
Title
1
Title
4
Title
Name
SCI 207: Our Dependence upon the Environment
Instructor
Date
*This template will provide you with the details necessary to begin a quality Final Lab Report. Utilize this template to complete the Week 3 Rough Draft of the 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 only the first experiment (Drinking Water Quality) from your Week Two Lab.
3. As you plan your final paper, think about how you can present a fact-based story about water quality issues. For example, consider what common concerns might be regarding water quality, and the role drinking water standards play in protecting our water supplies.
4. For further help, see the Sample Final Lab Report for an example of a final product on a different topic.
5. You may simply replace the text following the bold terms with the appropriate outline information to complete this assignment. Make sure to pay close attention to the information called for and provide all necessary material. Please delete this purple text before submitting your rough draft.
Title
Introduction
Body Paragraph #1 – Background: The rough draft of 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 outlining this section, make sure to at least list relevant resources in APA format that will be used in the final paper to develop the background for your experiment.
Body Paragraph # 2 – Objective: The rough draft of the introduction should also contain the objective for your study. This objective is the reason why the experiment is being done. Your rough draft should provide an objective that describes why we want to know the answer to the questions we are asking. Make sure the objective ties back to ideas you discussed in the Background, above.
Body Paragraph # 3 – Hypothesis: Finally, the introduction should end with your hypothesis. This hypothesis should be the same one that you posed before you began your Drinking Water Quality experiment. You may reword it following feedback from your instructor to put it in better hypothesis format; however, you should not adjust it to reflect the “right” answer. You will not lose points if your hypothesis was wrong; scientists often revise their hypotheses based on scientific evidence following an experiment. In addition to stating the hypothesis, offer your rationale for it; in other words, why did you make that particular hypothesis?
Materials and Methods
Body Paragraph # 1: The rough draft of 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 phosphate test strip in the water, then shake the test strips,” these steps can be simplified to read “we used phosphate test strips to measure phosphate levels in parts per million”, etc. This section should be written in the past tense and in your own words and not copied and pasted from the lab manual. Think cookbook recipe here; you should explain enough of what you did for others to repeat the experiment, but with nothing extra added.
Results
Tables: The rough draft of the results section should include all the tables used in your experiment. All values within the tables should be in numerical form and contain units (except pH, which does not have any). For instance, if measuring the amount of chloride in water you should report your measurement as 2 mg/L or 0 mg/L, not as two or none.
Body Paragraph # 1: The rough draft of the results section should also highlight important results in paragraph form, referring to the appropriate tables when mentioned. This section should only state the results; 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 such as, “No chlorine was found in the water, showing it to be cleaner than the other samples.”
Discussion
Body Paragraph #1 – Hypothesis: The rough draft of this section should interpret your data and provide conclusions. Start by discussing if your hypothesis was confirmed or denied and how you know this. Then 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?
Body Paragraph # 2 – Context: The rough draft of your discussion should also relate your results to bigger water concerns and challenges. For example, based on your experiment 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 outline should at least list some of the resources that you plan to utilize in your final paper to put your results into context.
Body Paragraph #3 – Variables and Future Experiments: Finally, the rough draft of your results section should also address any possible factors that affected your results, such as taking measurements over two different days instead of all at once. If possible sources of error were present, how might 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(s) might be devised to answer these questions.
Conclusions
Body Paragraph #1: This section of your rough draft should briefly summarize the key points of your paper. What main message would you like people to take way from this report?
References
Include at least 2 scholarly and 2 highly credible sources as well as your lab manual, in APA format.
Running Head: BOTTLED WATER
1
BOTTLED WATER
1
2
Title
Name
SCI 2
0
7
: Our Dependence upon the Environment
Instructor
Date
Is Bottled Water Any Different Than
Tap Water
Introduction
Body Paragraph #1 – Background: In this lab, we take a look at the effects of groundwater contamination, the process that water goes through in order to be treated for consumption, and the quality of the water we drink, whether it be from the kitchen faucet or out of a bottle. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the agency that insures that the water people drink is in compliance with standard regulations. In some water sources, “barium, chromium, copper, lead, nitrate, and other chemicals, as well as E. coli” have been found (Gorman, 2012, para. 2). Many other contaminants may be flowing through tap water in quantities that may be difficult to trace because they are undetectable and odorless. Some contaminants are not even considered because the EPA does not require testing on them. These additional contaminants may not be dangerous alone, but when combined with others and consumed over a lifetime, they are certain to be of some health risks (Gorman, 2012).
Humans have the tendency to dispose of contaminants in almost every place possible to include, dumping oil into the sewer system or into the trash that eventually makes it into the landfills. Washing your car outside on the driveway causes oil to run into the sewer system. When washing machines fail, people run hoses out to the streets to empty out the machine and wait for the repairman that is driving a car that is leaking oil throughout the entire route. Beauty shops carry products that contaminate the water supply such as perfumes, lotions, and deodorants. Contamination that is caused either accidentally or intentionally can have very negative effects on the public’s health. This contamination takes the public’s trust away from the water distribution system (Rasekh, Shafiee, Zechman and Brumbelow, 201
4
). Construction of storm water treatment facilities are needed to filter and disinfect runoff that carries these contaminants that humans allow to get into our water systems. These facilities are supposed to screen the runoff water and remove the trash and debris that flow in the water. At the water treatment facility, the water passes through filters that remove the solid waste and any other contaminants, and then the water is disinfected to kill any pathogens. Finally, the water goes through a “granular activated carbon filter designed to remove residual ozone” (Landers, 2009, p. 2
3
).
Body Paragraph # 2 – Objective: The main objective of this lab was to determine the levels of contaminants found in our drinking water. Also, were those contaminants removed, as companies like Dasani and Fiji poured the water into bottles and eventually sold to the public for consumption under the pretense that bottled water is clear of contaminants. “The label may call it “pure,” but is it? You can’t tell. Bottled water is not covered by the Safe Drinking Water Act; it is regulated by the FDA, which does not require bottlers to share quality-testing information with the public” (Gorman, 2012, p. 7). Research that has been conducted in the past indicates that bottled water may contain the same contaminants as tap water. Bottled water is only a convenience and not a healthy choice for consumers. The price of bottled water is driven by the plastic needed, the cost of bottling the water, transportation and handling, not by the quality of the water in the bottle.
Body Paragraph # 3 – Hypotheses: Three hypotheses will be examined in this lab that will allow a better understanding of the effects of groundwater contamination, water treatment, and drinking water quality. The first hypothesis is: if contaminated water passes through the ground, the ground will act as a filter and the contaminant will not reach the groundwater. In the first experiment, the use of vegetable oil, vinegar, and laundry detergent will be used as the contaminant. These are contaminants that are used frequently in the household. The second hypothesis is: if water is contaminated, then the filtration process will de-contaminate the water. In the second experiment, contaminated water will pass through a filtering process that is typically found at water treatment facilities throughout the United States. The third hypothesis is: tap water will contain the most contaminants, followed by Dasani, and finally Fiji will have the least contaminants in it. Past studies have suggested that bottled water could possibly contain the same or maybe worse bacteria and chemicals that are often found in tap water. These studies concluded that bottled water is not any healthier than tap water (Matos de Queiroz, de França Doria, Rosenberg, Heller, & Zhouri, 2013).
Materials and Methods
Body Paragraph # 1: The first experiment was conducted at home using the materials that were provided in the eScience Lab kit. The kit consisted of beakers, stirring sticks, graduated cylinder, vegetable oil (
10
mL), vinegar (10 mL), liquid laundry detergent (10 mL), soil, funnel, cheesecloth, scissors, and water provided from the kitchen faucet. The research area was in the dining room on top of the dining table. This experiment tested the ability of soil to remove the vegetable oil, vinegar, and laundry detergent from the water before it flowed into the groundwater.
The following method was used to conduct the experiment. The beakers were first labeled 1-
8
to be able to easily identify and separate the contaminated water. Beakers 1-4 were then filled with 100 mL of water and beakers
5
-8 were set aside for later use. Table 1, contains the observations that were noted for each beaker. Beaker number 1 only contained water. Beaker number 2 included 10 mL of vegetable oil that was mixed thoroughly. Beaker number 3 included 10 mL of vinegar mixed thoroughly. Beaker number 4 included 10 mL of liquid laundry detergent mixed thoroughly.
Once observed and notations were made of beakers 1-4, the experiment continued by constructing the filtration system that consisted of placing four layers of cheesecloth big enough to line the inside of the funnel. Then,
6
0 mL of soil were placed into the cheesecloth lined funnel. The funnel was then placed into beaker number 5 so that the contents of beaker number 1 could be poured and passed through the funnel. The water was allowed to flow through for one minute and the observations noted were documented in table 1. The cheesecloth and soil were discarded from the funnel and the funnel was washed with hot water and soap. The filter was constructed again for each of the remaining beakers (beakers 2-4). Beaker number 2 was filtered into beaker number 6, beaker number 3 was filtered into beaker number 7, and beaker number 4 was filtered into beaker number 8.
Experiment number two was conducted at the same location as experiment number 1, again using the eScience lab kit. For this experiment the following items were used: potting soil, beakers, graduated cylinder, sand, activated charcoal, gravel, wooden stir stick, alum, funnel, cheesecloth, bleach, stopwatch, and water. This experiment uses a similar technique that is used by wastewater treatment plants to test the filtering method on how well it can clean contaminated water.
The following method was used to conduct the second experiment. 100 mL of soil were added to a 2
50
mL beaker and then water was added to the 200 mL mark. Using two, 250 mL beakers, the soil solution was transferred back and forth for a total of 15 times. After creating the soil solution, 10 mL of the “contaminated” water was poured into a 100 mL beaker that would be used at the end of the filtration process to compare it with the “treated” water. Next, 10 grams of alum were added to the “contaminated” water and slowly stirred with the wooden stir stick for two minutes. The solution was allowed to sit for 15 minutes. While the solution coagulated, the funnel was prepared with 4 layers of cheesecloth lining the inside of the funnel. The funnel was then layered with
40
mL of sand at first, then 20 mL of activated charcoal, followed by 40 mL of gravel. Next the filter was solidified by slowly pouring water through the filter until the funnel was filled to the top. The water was discarded from the beaker and the procedure was repeated four more times. The funnel was placed back into the beaker and allowed to sit for five minutes. The beaker was emptied out one last time before continuing with the experiment. The next step was to pour approximately ¾ of the “contaminated” water into the funnel. The water was allowed to pass through for five minutes. Comparing it to the 10 mL sample set aside earlier, the filtered water had no smell to it and the contaminated water had the rotten soil smell. The filter was removed from the beaker and a few drops of bleach were added to the filtered water. The bleach and water were stirred for one minute.
The final experiment (number 3) was conducted, again, at the same location as experiment number 1 using the eScience lab kit. For this experiment the following items were used: Dasani bottled water, Fiji bottled water, ammonia test trips, chloride test strips, 4-in-1 test strips, phosphate test strips, iron test strips, beakers, permanent marker, stopwatch, parafilm, pipettes, foil packets of reducing powder, and tap water. This experiment tested the quality of two separate bottled waters and the tap water from the kitchen faucet by measuring a variety of chemical components within the water.
The following method was used to conduct the experiment. Labeled three 250 mL beakers as tap water, Dasani, and Fiji and then poured 100 mL of each of the waters into the corresponding beaker. The ammonia test strips were used first by placing the test strip into the tap water and vigorously moved the strip in the water for 30 seconds. Removed the test strip from the water and removed the excess water. Held the strip level for 30 seconds and then turned it so the pads were facing away, then compared the color on the strip to that of the color chart. The procedure was repeated with the Dasani and Fiji water. Results are annotated in table 2. The Chloride test strips were used second. The strip was submerged with the reaction zones into the water for one second. Removed the strip and shook of the excess liquid and after one minute determined which color row the strip most coincided with the color chart. The procedure was repeated with the Dasani and Fiji water. Results are annotated in table 3. The 4-in-1 test strips were used third. The strip was dipped into the tap water for five seconds. Removed the strip from the water and removed the excess water. After waiting for 20 seconds, the next step was to compare the color chart to match the strip to the pH, total alkalinity, total chorine, and total hardness. These readings were conducted within seconds of each other. The procedure was repeated with the Dasani and Fiji water. Results are annotated in table 4. The phosphate test strips were used fourth. The strip was dipped into the tap water for five seconds. Removed the strip from the water and held horizontally and then waited for 45 seconds. In this case, the excess water was not removed. The last step was to compare the results on the strip to that of the color chart. The procedure was repeated with the Dasani and Fiji water. Results are annotated in table 5. The iron test strips were used last. This procedure began by leaving 30 mL of water in each beaker. The next step was to open one foil packet and add the powder contents to the tap water beaker. Covered the beaker with a piece of parafilm and shook the beaker vigorously for 15 seconds. Next step was to remove the parafilm and dipped the iron test strip into the tap water for five seconds. Removed the strip from the water and eliminated the excess water. Waited for 10 seconds and then compared the strip to the color chart. Special instructions for this test were to estimate the results if the colors fell between two colors in the color chart. The procedure was repeated with the Dasani and Fiji water. Results are annotated 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 stired 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 slow, after pouring the water continued to pass through the filter. For aproximetly 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 | |||||||||||||
|
Dasani® Bottled Water |
||||||||||||||
|
Fiji® Bottled Water |
|
Table 3: Chloride Test Results |
|
Table 4: 4 in 1 Test Results |
||||||||
|
pH |
Total Alkalinity |
Total Chlorine |
Total Hardness |
|||||
|
.2 |
80 |
1.0 |
50 | |||||
| 40 | ||||||||
|
Table 5: Phosphate Test Results |
| 10 |
|
Table 6: Iron Test Results |
Body Paragraph # 1: Overall, the first two experiments showed that the contaminated water can be filtered and brought back down to acceptable levels for drinking. The third experiment showed the pH level is much lower in tap water, and higher in the Fiji bottled water. The total Alkalinity for tap water came in at 80 while Dasani and Fiji came in at 40 each. Tap water did include the most chlorine at 1.0, Fiji contained .2, and Dasani revealed no chlorine in it. All three waters presented the same amount of total hardness at 50. Pure water is measured with a pH level of 7.
Discussion
Body Paragraph #1 – Hypotheses: The first hypothesis was: if contaminated water passes through the ground, the ground will act as a filter and the contaminant will not reach the groundwater. This hypothesis was accepted. After conducting the first experiment, it was noted that there was no vegetable oil, vinegar, or laundry detergent present in the water. It was also noted that between 20-30 mL of the contaminated water remained trapped in the soil, an indicator that the filtering process worked. The second hypothesis was: if water is contaminated, then the filtration process will de-contaminate the water. This hypothesis was accepted. After the second experiment, the results were compared between the “treated” water and the “contaminated” water and the results indicated that the “treated” water was filtered and de-contaminated. The third hypothesis was: tap water will contain the most contaminants, followed by Dasani, and finally Fiji will have the least contaminants in it. This hypothesis was accepted. After conducting the third experiment, the results indicated that tap water appeared to be the most contaminated by having a pH level of .2, total Alkalinity of 80, and with the most chlorine in it at 1.0. Dasani is the second most contaminated and finally, Fiji was the cleanest water of the three tested in the experiment.
Body Paragraph # 2 – Context: The plan is to use sources that refer to the water companies use of different filtration systems or possibly discuss the billion dollars bottled water industry.
Body Paragraph #3 – Variables and Future Experiments: Here, I will discuss the possible factor that there was doubt in my mind of whether or not I used the test strips correctly.
Conclusions
Body Paragraph #1: The message that I will attempt to convey would be something to the effect that bottled water is just a convenience. There is no significant difference in tap water and bottled water.
References
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
