SCI 207
Running Head: WATER QUALITY 1
Water Quality
Oscar Vasquezmolina
SCI 207: Our Dependence upon the Environment
Instructor: Marc Hnytka
Date: 29 January 2018
- 1 -
[no notes on this page]
WATER QUALITY 2
Introduction
Body paragraph #1: Background
Water is a commodity that everyone consumes on a daily basis all over the world. Water
can be contaminated using biological, chemical, or human activities; thus affecting the health
system of millions of individuals each day. It is therefore important to understand water quality
and contamination and the impact of pollution on water. The lab will involve a deeper look at
water quality, the process of treating water and the effects of groundwater contamination. The
government has established agencies like Environmental Protection Agency which ensures that
drinking water is safe for consumption and that the quality of water does meet the standard
regulations. Water is obtained from different sources some of which may contain contaminants
which flow through tap water in different quantities; some of this contaminant are very harmful
to human consumption and difficult to trace because they are undetectable (Turk, 2014).
Human pollution is the major water contaminant given that people tend to dispose waste
everywhere, which finally makes its way to the landfills and sewer system. The common
mistakes people make is, for example, washing their cars outside especially on the drive way
which causes oil to run into the nearby sewer system, or disposing of waste products such as
those from a beauty shop which contain lotions, deodorants, and perfumes that contaminate
water. Contaminated water has negative effects on human health. There is need to construct
storm water facilities for treating through filtration and disinfection runoff. Only 3% of our water
is fresh water; hence the commodity is precious to a human being (Landers, 2009). Having high
quality water clean for consumption allows us to undertake our daily activities without
complications of different type of diseases such as cholera, dysentery, and malaria. Researchers
have carried out many different types of research aimed at improving the quality of water, and as
- 2 -
1
2
1. Background
Your introduction is off to a
great start. You have enough
background information
supported by scholarly
sources. [Marc Hnytka]
2. (Turk, 2014).
These are the correct
citations for the textbook:
(Turk & Bensel, 2014)
Turk, J., & Bensel, T. (2014).
Contemporary environmental
issues (2nd ed.) [Electronic
version]. Retrieved from
https://content.ashford.edu/
[Marc Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY 3
such their knowledge is largely used today in rectifying the amount of unclean water passed from
one individual to another, thus savings many lives.
Body paragraph#2: Objective
The objective of this experiment is to determine if contaminated water can be made clean
and of good quality for consumption. Running series of test involving water that has been
contaminated and after that cleansing, the water for safe drinking will be our main objective. By
using various tool to clean the water, we will understand how the process used in making clean
water. Therefore, we will determine the levels of contaminants and the outcome product to
access if the contaminants were removed. Many companies involved in selling water bottle label
their container as “pure” water, but in a real sense, the water contained in the bottle may not be
pure water but tap water. The different companies offer varying prices for these bottled water
depending on the plastic container used, transportation cost, storage costs, and the cost of
bottling, but not according to the quality of water contained in the bottle (Rasekh, 2014).
Body paragraph #3: Hypotheses
The main reason for conducting the experiment is to see how contaminants affect the
quality of ground water. Three different hypothesis will be evaluated; the first hypothesis is to
determine if oil is dumped on the ground, then the soil will stop the oil from reaching the water
and contaminating it. The experiment may take into account if laundry and vinegar detergent
dumped on the ground, then the soil will fail to stop these detergents from contaminating ground
water. The second hypothesis is; if water and soil mixture is passed through the filtration system,
then no traces of soil will be available, this explains the fact that the filtration system will de-
contaminate the unclean water. The third hypothesis is; if three different sources of water are
tested for contaminants such as chemical, then tap water will have a high quantity of
- 3 -
1
2
1. Three different
hypothesis will be
evaluated; the first
hypothesis is to
determine if oil is dumped
on the ground, then the soil
will stop the oil from
reaching the water
and contaminating it. The
experiment may take into
account if laundry and
vinegar detergent
dumped on the ground,
then the soil will fail to stop
these detergents from
contaminating ground
water. The second
hypothesis is; if water and
soil mixture is passed
through the filtration
system, then no traces of
soil will be available, this
explains the fact that the
filtration system will de-
contaminate the unclean
water.
This final paper is on the
week 2 lab only. What you
are talking about here is the
week 3 lab. [Marc Hnytka]
2. The third hypothesis is; if
three different sources of
water are tested for
contaminants such as
chemical, then tap water
will have a high quantity of
Great job on the structure of
your hypotheses! [Marc
Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY 4
contaminants, followed by water from Dasani, and finally, Fiji water will contain the least
contaminants (Gorman, 2012).
Materials and Methods
The materials consisted of a graduated cylinder, beakers, vinegar (10mL), stirring sticks,
vegetable oil (10mL), soil, the liquid detergent used in laundry, funnel, scissors, water, and
cheesecloth. It is therefore clear that the experiment was conducted at home using eScience lab
kit materials. The place of the experiment was in a spacious room with a wide table. The
objective being to test the ability of soil in removing vinegar, laundry detergent and vegetable oil
from water before it reached the ground water.
The process of conducting the experiment involved labeling the beakers with letters from
1-8 for easier identification and to able to separate the containers. Half of the beakers were set
aside for later use while the remaining were filled with different materials. Beaker number 1 was
filled with only water, with beaker two filled with vegetable oil thoroughly mixed, beaker 3
contained vinegar thoroughly mixed, and beaker four was filled with laundry detergent.
The four beakers were filled with the right contents; the next step was to construct the
filtration system with the layers of cheesecloth which were made big enough to fit in the funnel.
Next, soil amounting to 60 mL were placed onto the four layers of cheesecloth, and the funnel
was then placed into an empty beaker 5 to trap the contents passed from beaker 1. Results were
recorded in table 1; water was allowed to flow from beaker 1 through the funnel for one minute.
After that, soil and cheesecloth were separated from the funnel, and hot water with soap was
used to wash the funnel. The experiment was repeated using the remaining beakers 2-4 with
every experiment conducted separately and washing the funnel after each experiment was
- 4 -
1
1. materials consisted of a
graduated cylinder,
beakers, vinegar (10mL),
stirring sticks, vegetable oil
(10mL), soil, the liquid
detergent used in laundry,
funnel, scissors, water, and
cheesecloth. It is therefore
clear that the experiment
was conducted at home
using eScience lab
kit materials. The place of
the experiment was in a
spacious room with a wide
table. The
objective being to test the
ability of soil in removing
vinegar, laundry detergent
and vegetable oil from
water before it reached the
ground water.
The process of conducting
the experiment involved
labeling the beakers with
letters from 1-8 for easier
identification and to able to
separate the containers.
Half of the beakers were set
aside for later use while the
remaining were filled with
different materials. Beaker
number 1 was filled with
only water, with beaker two
filled with vegetable oil
thoroughly mixed, beaker 3
contained vinegar
thoroughly mixed, and
beaker four was filled with
laundry detergent.
The four beakers were filled
with the right contents; the
next step was to construct
the
filtration system with the
layers of cheesecloth which
were made big enough to fit
in the funnel.
Next, soil amounting to 60
mL were placed onto the
four layers of cheesecloth,
This is the materials and
methods for the week 3 lab.
This paper is only on the
week 2 lab. [Marc Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY 5
concluded while the observations were noted in table 1. The filtration of beaker 2-4 was made of
beaker 6-8 respectively.
After recording observations from experiment 1, we moved to the next experiment using
the eScience materials which included graduated cylinder, potting soil, gravel, beakers, activated
charcoal, wooden stir stick, sand, funnel, bleach, alum, water, and stopwatch. The experiment
involves similar techniques as wastewater treatment plants in testing how well the filtration
method can clean the contaminated water.
In a 250 mL beaker, 100 mL of soil was placed in the beaker and water added up to 200
mL mark. The second beaker was used to mix the mixture in beaker one y transferring the
mixture from beaker 1 to beaker 2 and vice versa 15 times. 10 mL of water that had been
contaminated was poured into a 100 mL beaker to be used at the end of the filtration for
comparison with the treated water. Alum was then added to the contaminated water and stirred
thoroughly using the wooden stick for approximately 2 minutes; after that, the solution was
allowed to sit for 15 minutes. The funnel was constructed using the four layers of cheesecloth
lining. 40 mL of sand was then layered on the funnel before being activated using 20 mL of
charcoal and 40 mL of gravel. For solidification, water was poured slowly through the filter to
fill the funnel to the top. The funnel was allowed to sit for about 5 minutes on a beaker. Before
proceeding with the experiment, the beaker was emptied out first, then three-quarter of the
contaminated water was poured into the funnel. For 5 minutes, water was allowed to pass
through the funnel. The water obtained after filtration had no smell compared to the ten mL of
contaminated water set aside earlier. After filtration, drops of bleach was added to the filtered
water, and the mixture stirred for about a minute.
- 5 -
1
2
1. concluded while the
observations were noted in
table 1. The filtration of
beaker 2-4 was made of
beaker 6-8 respectively.
After recording
observations from
experiment 1, we moved to
the next experiment using
the eScience materials
which included graduated
cylinder, potting soil,
gravel, beakers, activated
charcoal, wooden stir stick,
sand, funnel, bleach, alum,
water, and stopwatch. The
experiment
involves similar techniques
as wastewater treatment
plants in testing how well
the filtration
method can clean the
contaminated water.
In a 250 mL beaker, 100 mL
of soil was placed in the
beaker and water added up
to 200
mL mark. The second
beaker was used to mix the
mixture in beaker one y
transferring the
mixture from beaker 1 to
beaker 2 and vice versa 15
times. 10 mL of water that
had been
contaminated was poured
into a 100 mL beaker to be
used at the end of the
filtration for
comparison with the treated
water. Alum was then
added to the contaminated
water and stirred
thoroughly using the
wooden stick for
approximately 2 minutes;
after that, the solution was
allowed to sit for 15
minutes. The funnel was
constructed using the four
layers of cheesecloth
lining. 40 mL of sand
This is all week 3 material.
[Marc Hnytka]
2. was then layered on the funnel before being activated using 20 mL of
charcoal and 40 mL of gravel. For solidification, water was poured
slowly through the filter to fill the funnel to the top. The funnel was
allowed to sit for about 5 minutes on a beaker. Before proceeding with
the experiment, the beaker was emptied out first, then three-quarter of
the
contaminated water was poured into the funnel. For 5 minutes, water
was allowed to pass
through the funnel. The water obtained after filtration had no smell
compared to the ten mL of contaminated water set aside earlier. After
filtration, drops of bleach was added to the filtered
water, and the mixture stirred for about a minute.
This should not be included in the final paper. [Marc Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY 6
The third experiment materials included; Fiji bottled water, Dasani bottled water,
chloride test strips, ammonia test strips, phosphate test strips, beakers, 4-in-1 test strips,
permanent marker, iron test strips, parafilm pipettes, tap water, stopwatch, and foil packets. The
experiment was conducted in the same room as the previous ones. The aim of the experiment
was to test the quality of the two bottled water and tap water by measuring their chemical
components.
Three 250 mL beakers were labeled as tap water, Fiji and Dasani and water from each
source being poured into the beaker 100 mL each. Next ammonia test trips were placed in the tap
water moving the strips vigorously in water for 30 seconds, the test strips were then removed and
any excess water removed was poured. The removed strips were then held for 30 minutes before
they were turned pads facing away. The color of the strips was compared to the strip color in the
chart. The same procedure was repeated for both Fiji and Dasani bottled water recording the
results in table 2.
For the chloride test strips, the procedure involved submerging them into the reaction for
a second; then the excess liquid was shaken off from the strip, whose color was then compared to
the chart color after a minute. Repeating the same procedure using chloride test strips for Fiji and
Dasani water, and the results were recorded in table 3. Next procedure involved the use of 4-in-1
test strips, by dipping them for 5 seconds into tap water. Strips were then removed from the
water and excess water removed. After 20 seconds the color of the stripped water was compared
to the color chart regarding pH, chorine, alkalinity, and hardness. The same procedure was then
repeated for Fiji and Dasani water, and results recorded in table 4.
Next, the phosphate test strips, the strips were dipped in tap water for about 5 seconds;
then the removed strips were held horizontally for 45 seconds before removing the excess water.
- 6 -
1
1. Your materials and
methods section should be
paraphrased and summarized
a little more in order to make
them more concise. [Marc
Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY 7
After that, the color of the strip was compared to the chart color, and the procedure repeated for
Fiji and Dasani water. Table 5 contains results from the experiment. The last strip to experiment
was the iron test strips. Each beaker was filled with 30 mL of water, then one foil packet of
powder was added to the beaker containing tap water, and the beaker was covered using a piece
of parafilm and vigorously shook the beaker for 15 seconds. Parafilm was then removed, and
iron test strip dipped into the tap water for about 5 seconds. The strip was then removed and
excess water eliminated. After 10 seconds the color of the strip was compared to the chart color.
The procedure was then repeated for Fiji and Dasani water, with the results recorded in table 6.
Results
Table 1: Water Observations (Smell, Color, Etc.)
Beaker Observations
1
Color: clear
Odor: non-existent
The water is not contaminated.
2
Color: yellowish
Odor: non-noticeable
At first, a big bubble appears holding the vegetable oil at the top, once stirred oil mixed in but as it continued to settle. The oil rose to the top forming small bubbles.
3
Color: clear
Odor: slight odor detected
Remained mixed with the water, no segregation noted.
4
Color: green/blue
Odor: slight odor detected
Remained mixed after stirring with water, no segregation noted, formed suds.
- 7 -
1
1. Color: clear
Odor: non-existent
The water is not
contaminated.
2 Color: yellowish
Odor: non-noticeable
At first, a big bubble
appears holding the
vegetable oil at the top,
once stirred oil mixed in but
as it continued to settle.
The oil rose to the top
forming small bubbles.
3 Color: clear
Odor: slight odor detected
Remained mixed with the
water, no segregation
noted.
4 Color: green/blue
Odor: slight odor detected
Remained mixed after
stirring with water, no
segregation noted, formed
suds.
Do not include in final paper.
[Marc Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY 8
5
Color: slight brown
Odor: smell of soil
Water passed through immediately; 70 mL passed through.
6
Color: slight brown
Odor: no odor
Water passed through immediately, about 5 seconds later a small gulp followed. No oil is observed. 70 mL passed through.
7
Color: slight brown
Odor: odor exists
Water passed through slowly, finished pouring water was still passing through. 80 mL passed through.
8
Color: dark brown/green
Odor: detected
Water passed slowly, after pouring the water continued to pass through the filter. For approximately the first ten seconds, the water was a slow stream, then dripped slowly for the remainder of the time and up to 60 seconds passed the one minute marker. Some detergent is noted as having passed through since suds were forming at the top. 70 mL passed through.
Table 2: Ammonia Test Results
Water Sample Test Results
Tap Water 0 mg/L
Dasani® Bottled Water 0 mg/L
Fiji® Bottled Water 0 mg/L
Table 3: Chloride Test Results
Water Sample Test Results
- 8 -
1
1. Color: slight brown
Odor: smell of soil
Water passed through
immediately; 70 mL passed
through.
6 Color: slight brown
Odor: no odor
Water passed through
immediately, about 5
seconds later a small gulp
followed. No oil is
observed. 70 mL passed
through.
7 Color: slight brown
Odor: odor exists
Water passed through
slowly, finished pouring
water was still passing
through. 80 mL
passed through.
8 Color: dark brown/green
Odor: detected
Water passed slowly, after
pouring the water
continued to pass through
the filter. For
approximately the first ten
seconds, the water was a
slow stream, then dripped
slowly
for the remainder of the
time and up to 60 seconds
passed the one minute
marker. Some detergent is
noted as having passed
through since suds were
forming at the top. 70 mL
passed through.
Do not include in final paper.
[Marc Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY 9
Tap Water 0 mg/L
Dasani® Bottled Water 0 mg/L
Fiji® Bottled Water 0 mg/L
Table 4: 4 in 1 Test Results
Water Sample pH Total Alkalinity
mg/L
Total Chlorine
mg/L
Total Hardness
mg/L
Tap Water .2 80 1.0 50
Dasani® Bottled Water 3 40 0 50
Fiji® Bottled Water 8 40 .2 50
Table 5: Phosphate Test Results
Water Sample Test Results
Tap Water 10 ppm
Dasani® Bottled Water 50 ppm
Fiji® Bottled Water 50 ppm
Table 6: Iron Test Results
Water Sample Test Results
Tap Water 0 ppm
Dasani® Bottled Water 0 ppm
Fiji® Bottled Water 0 ppm
Body paragraph:
The first two experiment confirmed that contaminated water could be cleaned or filtered
to provide clean drinking water, while the third experiment illustrated thee fact that tap water has
- 9 -
1
2
1. Great job on filling out the
data tables completely!
[Marc Hnytka]
2. experiment
grammar issues [Marc
Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY 10
the lowest level of pH compared Fiji water which contains high pH. The alkalinity of Dasani and
Fiji water was 40 each while that of tap water was 80. Chlorine level in tap water was 1.0, Fiji
was 0.2 and Dasani 0.0. The hardness of the three types of water was the same at 50.
Discussion: Body paragraph:
The first experiment hypothesis was to determine if the contaminated water was passing
through the ground, the ground was to act as a filtration system to remove the contaminant. The
result of the experiment indicated no presence of vinegar, vegetable oil or laundry in the
collected water, and a given portion of the contaminated water remained in the soil; thus the
hypothesis was accepted. The second experiment was to determine if the filtration process would
decontaminate contaminated water. After the experiment, the comparison between treated water
and the set aside contaminated water indicated that treated water was decontaminated; hence the
hypothesis was accepted. The third hypothesis was to determine if tap water contains most
contaminants, followed by Dasani water, then Fiji water. The results of the experiment
concluded that tap water was the most contaminated with a pH level of 0.2, chlorine at 1.0 and
alkaline of 80, followed by Dasani and Fiji water was the least contaminated; thus the hypothesis
was accepted.
Body paragraph#2: Context
The experiments aimed at the utilization of filtration systems used by different water
companies. The results indicated that bottle water also contains a given percentage of
contaminants despite them being sold at different prices. The issue being many bottle water
- 10 -
1
2
3
1. Your results section needs
to include a more thorough
written description of the
results. [Marc Hnytka]
2. experiment indicated no
presence of vinegar,
vegetable oil or laundry in
the
collected water, and a given
portion of the contaminated
water remained in the soil;
thus the
hypothesis was accepted.
The second experiment was
to determine if the filtration
process would
decontaminate
contaminated water. After
the experiment, the
comparison between
treated water and the set
aside contaminated water
indicated that treated water
was decontaminated; hence
the hypothesis was
accepted.
This should be taken out for
the final paper. [Marc
Hnytka]
3. paragraph#2: Context
The experiments aimed at
the utilization of filtration
systems used by different
water
companies. The results
indicated that bottle water
also contains a given
percentage of
contaminants despite them
being sold at different
prices. The issue being
many bottle water
Hello Oscar,
The context part of the
discussion section should
utilize multiple scholarly
sources to put the results into
the context of real world water
quality issues. You need to
find, use, and properly cite at
least 2-3 more scholarly or
credible sources to support
the discussion of the context
of the experimental results.
~Marc [Marc Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY 11
companies do not decontaminate their water before packaging thus the possibility of buying tap
water at a cost instead of consuming the free tap water available at our homes.
Body paragraph#3: Variable and Future Experiments
The experiments were conducted on different days but at the same time. The weather
conditions were favorable and thus did not hinder the outcome of the results obtained. The
workplace was kept tidy and clean out of reach for outside contaminants. All materials used were
first cleaned before conducting the experiments.
Conclusion
The experiments enlightened me on the importance of drinking on clean water and not
just any type of water. Contaminants found in water some are invisible and very dangerous for
human consumption. I learned the importance of having a well-constructed filtration system
would aid in cleaning the water for safe drinking. After the experiment, it now clear the fact that
tap water is cheap and readily available does not mean that it is unsafe for drinking given the fact
that bottled water might still be tap water packaged in a bottle.
References
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (2015). Current Drinking Water Regulations.
Retrievedfrom;http://www2.epa.gov/regulatory-information-topic/water#drinkingMay 26, 2015.
Gorman, R. (2012). Is your tap water safe?. Good Housekeeping, 254(3), 130.
Landers, J. (2009). Malibu Park will detain runoff, improve treatment facility operation. Civil
Engineering (08857024), 79(12), 24-26.
- 11 -
1
2
3
1. Future Experiments
Your discussion section also
needed to include some new
questions that arose from the
results of the experiment and
a brief description of at least
one experiment that could be
conducted to explore the new
research question. [Marc
Hnytka]
2. The experiments were
conducted on different
days but at the same time.
The weather
conditions were favorable
and thus did not hinder the
outcome of the results
obtained. The
workplace was kept tidy
and clean out of reach for
outside contaminants. All
materials used were first
cleaned before conducting
the experiments.
You needed to discuss some
potential forms of error that
could be present in your
experiment including: human
error, faulty testing
equipment, sampling error,
and other factors.
In the final paper make sure
you discuss these potential
sources of error and any
efforts made to reduce the
probability of these errors.
[Marc Hnytka]
3. Conclusion
The experiments enlightened me on the importance of drinking on clean
water and not
just any type of water. Contaminants found in water some are invisible
and very dangerous for
human consumption. I learned the importance of having a well-
constructed filtration system
would aid in cleaning the water for safe drinking. After the experiment,
it now clear the fact that
tap water is cheap and readily available does not mean that it is unsafe
for drinking given the fact that bottled water might still be tap water
packaged in a bottle.
Your conclusion section needed to summarize the main points from your
- 11 (cont) -
paper including the methods, results, and discussion. [Marc
Hnytka]
WATER QUALITY 12
Matos de Queiroz, J., de França Doria, M., Rosenberg, M., Heller, L., & Zhouri, A. (2013).
Perceptions of bottled water consumers in three Brazilian municipalities. Journal of
Water & Health, 11(3), 520-531. doi:10.2166/wh.2013.222
Rasekh, A., Shafiee, M., Zechman, E., & Brumbelow, K. (2014). Sociotechnical risk assessment
for water distribution system contamination threats. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 16(3),
531-549. doi:10.2166/hydro.2013.023
Turk, J., & Bensel. T. (2014). Contemporary environmental issues (2nd ed.) [Electronic
version].San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
- 12 -
1
1. You needed to use and cite
the lab manual.
The proper citation for the lab
manual is:
In-text:
(Bottcher & Rex, 2012)
Reference list:
Bottcher, A., & Rex, A.
(2012). Environmental
science student manual.
Sheridan, CO: eScience
Labs. [Marc Hnytka]