Water Quality and Contamination

Abstraction
The quality of H2O is indispensable to our ecosystem and all living animals. In this study, I will reexamine three experiments in which I performed. The first experiment was of the effects of groundwater taint, the 2nd experiment was the H2O intervention procedure and the last was imbibing H2O quality. The intent of the first experiment is to demo the effects of when ordinary family points such as oil, acetum, and laundry detergent are mixed into our H2O supply and foul our H2O system. The consequences of this experiment were that the H2O became oily, smelly, and unserviceable. The intent of the 2nd experiment is to demo how our planet of course filtrates drinkable imbibing H2O. The method used required potting dirt, sand, wood coal, and crushed rock to of course filter the H2O. The experiment resulted in a drinkable H2O. The last experiment is to prove the quality of regular pat H2O compared to bottled H2O. The trial consequences showed that the quality of tap H2O is equal to, and in some instances were better than, commercialized bottled H2O. The purpose of all three of these experiments is to raise the consciousness of the necessity of holding quality H2O supply.
Introduction

Water is one of the most of import resources on Earth. Water covers about 70 % of the earth’s surface and the human organic structure ranges from 50 to 70 % of the human organic structure. The quality of H2O is really of import to our environment and for our ingestion. We use H2O for many things like irrigation, medical intents and to cleanse. Therefore, the quality of H2O is of importance because it plays a critical function in our ecological system. If our planet does non hold acceptable H2O quality it would destruct our flora, ocean population, carnal life, and/or human life. The absence of quality H2O in our universe would impact our manner of life and interrupt our ecological system. In this category, we conducted many three different H2O experiments. The intent of the experiments was to learn about functional H2O, land H2O, surface H2O, H2O contaminates, H2O intervention, and the quality of different imbibing Waterss. The intent of my survey is to raise consciousness to the readers of this survey on the importance of quality H2O for our environment. “Surface H2O quality has increasing importance worldwide and is peculiarly relevant in the semiarid North-central Chile, where agribusiness and excavation activities are enforcing heavy force per unit area on limited H2O resources”.
One experiment was to learn the effects of groundwater taint. These contaminations are points that we use in our places every twenty-four hours, but we ne’er realize what effects they have on our H2O system once they are assorted into our H2O supply. Another experiment was conducted to demo the assortment of common pollutants that enter our H2O supply system because of mundane human activity. The experiment used a similar process that wastewater intervention works use to filtrate and handle and sublimate H2O so that it is drinkable. The intent of the last experiment was to prove the quality of tap H2O compared to two separate name trade name bottled imbibing Waterss.
Tap H2O is believed to be merely every bit safe as bottled imbibing H2O. “Bottled H2O is n’t any safer or purer than what comes out of the pat, ” says Dr. Sarah Janssen, a scientific discipline chap with the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco, which conducted an extended analysis of bottled H2O back in 1999.  In fact, it ‘s less well-regulated, and you ‘re more likely to cognize what ‘s in tap H2O. ” Bottled and tap H2O come from basically the same beginnings: lakes, springs, and aquifers, to name a few. In fact, an important fraction of the bottled H2O merchandise on shop shelves is tap H2O albeit filtered and treated with excess stairs to better taste”. My hypothesis for the effects of groundwater contaminated with oil, acetum, and laundry detergent is that the H2O would be oily, smelly, and bubbly but that the filtering system would be able to keep the soil contamination. My hypothesis for the H2O intervention experiment is that the intervention procedure in relation to the natural filtering system would ensue in useable H2O. My hypothesis for the last experiment, proving imbibing H2O quality, is that I believe that tap H2O will hold the most contaminations compared to that of bottled H2O.
Materials and Methods
The type of stuff that was used in the effects of the groundwater taint experiment consisted of eight beakers in which 100 milliliters of tap H2O was used to make full four of the eight beakers. I numbered each beaker 1 through 8. After make fulling the beakers with H2O, I added 10 milliliters of vegetable oil to beaker # 2, so added 10 milliliters of acetum to beaker # 3 and 10 milliliters of liquid wash detergent to beaker # 4. Beaker # 1 contained merely H2O, no contaminations. After adding the pollutants to beakers 2 through 4, I stirred the contents with a wooden stick to guarantee that the H2O and the pollutant were assorted together good. Each beaker that contained a pollutant, I recorded the odor and or visual aspect of it when assorted with the H2O. Then I placed cheesecloth into a funnel and added 60 milliliters of potting dirt. I poured the contents of beaker # 1 ( apparent H2O ) through the dirt-filled funnel into an empty beaker, beaker # 5, and allow the H2O drain for about 5 proceedings. I so recorded what I observed from the filtered H2O that was poured into beaker # 5. After entering my findings, I discarded the dirt and cheesecloth from the funnel. Finally, I repeated the old stairs for beaker # 2, # 3, and # 4 ( beaker # 2 was filtered into beaker # 6, beaker # 3 was filtered into beaker # 7 and beaker # 4 was filtered into beaker # 8 ).
In the H2O intervention experiment, I used 100 milliliters of potting dirt, two 250 milliliter beakers, two 100 milliliter beakers, a 100 milliliter graduated cylinder, 40 milliliters of sand, 20 milliliters of activated wood coal, 60 milliliters of crushed rock, one wooden splash stick, alum, a funnel, cheesecloth, bleach, a stopwatch, and regular pat H2O. Using one of the 250-milliliter beakers, I poured 100 milliliters of dirt and so filled it with mater to the 200 mL grade of the beaker. Then, utilizing the 2nd 250-milliliter beaker, I poured the contents of the first beaker back and Forth about 15 times between the two beakers to blend the solution, making contaminated H2O. Then take about 10 milliliters of the new mixture into a clean 100-milliliter beaker. I used this sample at the terminal of the experiment to compare it to the filtrated H2O. Then I added 10 gms of alum to the 250-milliliter soil-solution, stirring it with the wooden stick for no more than two proceedings so I allowed the solution to sit for about 15 proceedings. Meanwhile, I took a piece of cheesecloth and lined the funnel. Then utilizing one of the 100-milliliter beakers, I poured 40 milliliters of sand, 20 milliliters of activated wood coal, and 40 milliliters crushed rock into the funnel that is lined with the cheesecloth. I so to indurate the filter, I poured fresh pat H2O through the filter four times ( throwing out the rinse after each fill ). I allowed the funnel to sit over the beaker for 5 proceedings to run out. I so poured about 3/4 of the contaminated H2O into the deposit ( hardened sand/charcoal and crushed rock ). After about 5 proceedings of filtering, I added a few beads of bleach to the filtered H2O and stirred it for about a minute utilizing the wooden stick.
The concluding experiment, imbibing H2O quality, I used Dasani bottled H2O, Fiji bottled H2O, ammonia trial strips, chloride trial strips, 4 in 1 trial strips, phosphate trial strips, Fe trial strips, three 250 milliliter beakers, a lasting marker, a halt ticker, Parafilm, pipettes, three foil packages of cut downing pulverization and tap H2O. First I labeled each beaker, one as pat H2O, the 2nd as Dasani, and the last as Fiji. Then I poured 100 milliliters of each type of H2O into its corresponding beaker. I took an ammonia trial strip, and one at a clip, I placed an ammonium hydroxide strip into the H2O, traveling it up and down for about 30 seconds while doing use the strip does non come out of the H2O. After the 30 seconds, I shook off the extra H2O and leveled the strip with the tablet side up for 30 seconds. After about a minute, I matched the trial strip with one of the colors from the Color Test Strip Key Chart and recorded my consequences. ( I repeated the exact same stairs for the staying two water-filled beakers and recorded those consequences ) .
With the chloride trial strip, I wholly immerged the trial strip into the H2O guaranteeing that each reaction zone of the strip has made contact with the H2O for one second. I shook off the extra H2O and after about a minute compared the strip the Color Test Strip Key Chart and recorded my consequences. ( I repeated the same stairs for the staying H2O filled beakers ) . The 4 in 1 trial strip, I dipped the trial strips ( one at a clip ) into each H2O filled beaker for approximative 5 seconds. Then I shook off the extra H2O, waited about 20 seconds and so matched the consequences with the Color Test Strip Key Chart to the pH. Alkalinity, Cl, and hardness. ( I repeated the same stairs for the staying H2O filled beakers ) .
The phosphate trial strip, I dipped it into one of the beakers filled Waterss no more than five seconds. Then, without agitating the extra H2O off, I placed it in a horizontal place for about 45 seconds. Then I compared the consequences to the Color Test Strip Key Chart and recorded my consequences. ( I repeated the same stairs for the staying H2O filled beakers ) . The before I performed the concluding trial, the Fe trial strip, I removed approximative 70 milliliters of the H2O from each beaker goes forthing merely 30 milliliters each type of H2O in at that place labeled beakers. I poured the power from the defeated package into the first H2O filled beaker, covered the beaker with the Parafilm, and shook it up for approximately 15 seconds. Then I tipped the Fe trial strip ( traveling it about ) into the H2O for about 5 seconds. Then I shook off the extra H2O and waiting about 10 seconds, so matched the trial strip to the Color Test Strip Key Chart and recorded my consequences. ( I repeated the same stairs for the staying H2O filled beakers ) .
Consequences
The undermentioned tabular array was used to document the consequences of the experiments:
Experiment 1: Effects of Groundwater Contamination

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Water Quality and Contamination
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Table 1: Water Observations ( Smell, Color, Etc. )

Beaker
Observations

1
100 milliliter ( field ) H2O is clear

2
The water looks oily due to adding the 10mL vegetable oil.

3
Water appears clear but has an olfactory property due to adding the 10-milliliter acetum

4
Clear H2O with little bubbles due to adding 10 milliliter of liquid wash detergent

5
Water is brown with little atoms of soil on the underside

6
Slightly brown H2O with minimum soil residue on the underside

7
Discolored H2O with acetum olfactory property and minimum soil residue on the underside of beaker

8
Discolored H2O with acetum olfactory property and minimum soil residue on the underside of beaker

Experiment 3: Drinking Water Quality

Table 2: Ammonia Test Results

Water Sample
Trial Consequences

Tap Water
0

Dasani® Bottled Water
0

Fiji® Bottled Water
0

Table 3: Chloride Test Consequences

Water Sample
Trial Consequences

Tap Water
0

Dasani® Bottled Water
0

Fiji® Bottled Water
0

 

Table 4: 4 in 1 Trial Consequences

Water Sample
pH
Entire Alkalinity
Entire Chlorine
Entire Hardness

Tap Water
7
4.0
80
0

Dasani® Bottled Water
3
0
0
0

Fiji® Bottled Water
9
10.0
0
0

 

Table 5: Phosphate Test Consequences

Water Sample
Trial Consequences

Tap Water
25

Dasani® Bottled Water
0

Fiji® Bottled Water
100

 

Table 6: Iron Test Results

Water Sample
Trial Consequences

Tap Water
0

Dasani® Bottled Water
0

Fiji® Bottled Water
0

 
The consequences of the first experiment, the effects of groundwater taint ( Table 1 ), resulted in the contaminations oozing through the filtering system. “Levels or tendencies in H2O quality that may be hurtful to sensitive H2O utilizations, including imbibing, irrigation, and farm animal lacrimation have been noted with mention to well-established guidelines”. The consequences of the 2nd experiment, the H2O intervention procedure ( Table 2 ), was that the H2O intervention processed appeared to work in the same manner/process that is used by the big H2O filtrating companies. The H2O looked, smelled, and visibly appeared drinkable. The consequences of the concluding experiment, the imbibing H2O quality ( Table 3 ), required testing of tap H2O versus bottled H2O, which determined that tap H2O is equal if non better than bottled H2O.
Discussion
The first experiment proved my hypothesis incorrect. The H2O was non merely oily, smelly, and bubbly it was beside contaminated with soil. The filtering system did non keep parts of the soil from oozing into the H2O system. The 2nd experiment, the H2O intervention procedure, proved my hypothesis right. I expected the filtering intervention procedure, which emulated the procedure of an intervention works, would ensue is useable H2O. The concluding experiment proved my hypothesis incorrect. My outlooks were that tap H2O would hold more contaminations compared to bottled H2O. In fact, tap H2O measured equal if non is better than that of bottled H2O. While carry on the first experiment, I did non recognize that some of our H2O is filtered through a natural procedure. When the H2O is in a watercourse or a lake, the works and water-creatures around it filter the H2O for us. “Consider the predicament of wetlands—swamps, fens, fens, bogs, estuaries, and tidal flats. Globally, the universe has lost half of its wetlands, with most of the devastation holding taken topographic point over the past half-century. The loss of these productive ecosystems is double harmful to the environment: wetlands non merely shop H2O and conveyance foods, but besides act as natural filters, soaking up and thining pollutants such as N and P from agricultural overflow, heavy metals from excavation and industrial spills, and natural sewerage from human settlements”.
What impressed me most about these experiments was that tap H2O is merely every bit good, if non is better, than expensive bottled H2O. Whether you are a tenant or a householder, you have to pay a monthly measure for the usage of tap H2O. Alternatively of passing 1000s of dollars on bottled H2O it would do more sense to utilize tap H2O because it goes through a really strict filtrating procedure in order to do it drinkable. “Sales of bottled H2O have increased dramatically in recent old ages, with worldwide gross revenues of more than $ 35 billion, mostly because of the public perceptual experience of pureness and safety and public concern about the quality of pat water”. Tap H2O is required to run into the EPA imbibing H2O criteria.
Decision
Indecision, land H2O taint experiment displayed what happens when our H2O system is contaminated. With points that we use on a day-to-day footing, our system can easily go contaminated if we are noncognizant of what we pour down the drain or pollutants that enter into our oceans. Everyday activities like rinsing down an oil private road, run outing pool H2O, which contains Cl, into the public sewerage and even giving your house pet a bath outside and letting the detergents to come in our H2O supply, which will do injury to our H2O supply. But with today’s engineering, there are big H2O filtrating corporations. Water treating works can take contaminated H2O and turn it into drinkable H2O. There are assorted types of trials and needed ordinances that each province must stay by referring to public imbibing H2O. So alternatively of purchasing this expensive bottled H2O, we can imbibe tap H2O because it is no different if non is better than most bottled H2O. “The ends of environmental statute law and associated ordinances are to protect public wellness, natural resources, and ecosystems. In this context, supervising plans should supply seasonably and relevant information so that the regulative community can implement statute law in a cost-efficient and efficient mode. The Safe Drinking Water Act ( SDWA ) of 1974 efforts to guarantee that public H2O systems ( PWS ) supply safe H2O to its consumers. As is the instance with many other federal environmental legislative acts, SDWA monitoring has been implemented in comparatively unvarying manner across the USA”.
Reference

Trade names, E., & A; Rajagopal, R. ( 2008 ).
Economics of place-based monitoring under the safe imbibing H2O act, portion III: Performance rating of place-based monitoring schemes. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 143 ( 1-3 ), 103-120. Department of the Interior: hypertext transfer protocol: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9961-2 Conis, E. ( 2008, October 13 ).
Bottled versus pat: Which is safer? The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/13/health/he-nutrition13 Espejo, L., Kretschmer, N., Oyarzun, J., Meza, F., Nunez, J., Maturana, H., Oyarzun, R., et al. , ( 2012 ) .
Application of Water Quality Indices and Analysis of the Surface Water Quality Monitoring Network in Semiarid North-Central Chile. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184 ( 9 ), 5571-88. Department of the Interior: hypertext transfer protocol: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-011-2363-5 Quagraine, E. K., & A; Adokoh, C. K. (2010).
Assessment of Dry Season Surface, Ground, and Treated Water Quality in the Cape Coast Municipality of Ghana. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 160 ( 1-4 ), 521-39. Department of the Interior: hypertext transfer protocol: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0716-5 Raj, S. D. ( 2005 ).
Bottled Water: How Safe Is It? Water Environment Research, 77 ( 7 ), 3013-8. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //search.proquest.com/docview/216066348? accountid=32521
Turk, J., & A; Bensel, T. ( 2011 ).

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code: AMBER

Order a unique copy of this paper

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
Top Academic Writers Ready to Help
with Your Research Proposal
Live Chat+1(978) 822-0999EmailWhatsApp

Order your essay today and save 25% with the discount code COCONUT