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]