QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL

HARDNESS IN DRINKING WATER BY

COMPLEXOMETRIC EDTA TITRATION

J. JUAN1 and K. MENDOZA1

1

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY, COLLEGE OF

SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY 1101, PHILIPPINES
DATE SUBMITTED: 6 APRIL 2015
DATE PERFORMED: 17 MARCH 2015

ABSTRACT

The drinking water Hidden Spring, with NH3NH4+ solution as buffer and
EBT
(Eriochrome
Black
T)
as
indicator,
is
titrated
with
EDTA
(ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) solution by complexometric titration to
determine its total hardness or total mineral content. The EDTA solution is
standardized by the primary standard CaCO 3 with 99.9% purity. The resulting
average molar concentration of EDTA after three (3) trials is 0.0059 M, while the
calculated titer is 0.593 mg CaCO3 per mL of EDTA. The endpoint when the water
sample was titrated was observed when the color changed from wine-red to
clear-blue. The theoretical total hardness of the drinking water is 206.559 ppm
CaCO3 which was obtained from its calcium and magnesium content of 25 ppm
and 35 ppm respectively, while 191.74 ppm is the average total hardness
obtained experimentally. Both data classify Hidden Spring under very hard
water according to the water hardness scale. The relative standard deviation
was 264.92 ppt and the confidence interval was 191.74 126.11 ppm CaCO 3.
The theoretical and experimental values of the total hardness of the drinking
water differ by 7.18%.

INTRODUCTION

Water is a very important element in

our everyday lives since it is useful in
many aspects industry, health,
medicine,
materials
production,
market, and many more. The human

body is made up largely of water,

which means it is important to be
conscious
about
the
actual
composition of the water we are
taking in.
A drinking water can either be tap or
unprocessed, distilled which is free

of impurities, or mineralized the

one containing minerals such as
calcium,
magnesium,
iron
and
manganese.
The
presence
of
minerals in a drinking water,
commonly calcium and magnesium,
which are good for the body, makes
water hard. The total hardness of
water generally measures the quality
of water or the total amount of
minerals present in it.

Ethylenediaminetetraacetic
acid
(EDTA), the used titrant in this
experiment, is an aminocarboxylic
acid and a chelating agent, which
means it has two (2) or more groups
capable of complexing with a metal
ion. The completely protonated form
of EDTA, H6Y2+ (Figure 1), is a
hexaprotic weak acid.

In
this
experiment,
the
total
hardness of the drinking water
Hidden Spring was determined by
complexometric EDTA titration.
A complexation reaction involves
reactions
of
the
undissociated
neutral molecules and the complex
ions in the solution; the formed
complex must be very soluble. In a
complexometric titration, a solution
containing free metal ions is titrated
with a solution of a ligand an ion
capable of providing more than one
pair of electrons to a metal ion.
Ligands are also called chelating
agents which capture metal ions
present in water. When a chelating
agent is involved, the complex is
called a chelate. A titration with a
chelating
agent
is
called
a
chelometric titration a specific type
of complexometric titration.

Figure 1. Structure of EDTA (fully

protonated form)

Figure 2. Structure of EDTA

(completely deprotonated form)

EDTA in its completely deprotonated

form (Figure 2) is a Lewis acid with
four
(4)
negatively
charged
carboxylate groups and two (2)
tertiary amino groups six (6)
binding sites in total that can
donate six (6) pairs of electrons to a
metal ion. The metal ion will
complexate with EDTA particularly in
those six (6) groups to satisfy the
coordination number of the metal
ion. As a result, the metal-EDTA
complex is very stable since EDTA
forms a cage-like structure around
the metal ion (Figure 3). Its
property as a ligand in the metalEDTA complex is hexadentate as it
has the ability to bind to the metal
ion six (6) times. The number of
coordination sites depends on the
size of the metal ion, but all metalEDTA complexes react in a ratio of
1:1, which means they produce only
one endpoint. Moreover, the metal
ion in the complex then acts as a
Lewis acid with EDTA as the Lewis
base. EDTA as a ligand is a weak
acid.

endpoints that are hard to detect

since the starting and ending colors
are almost the same. Thus, a
solution with a pH of 10 is used
because the color of the metal-EBT
complex due to ammonia buffering is
wine red and turns clear blue at
endpoint; the color change will be
easy to distinguish. Also, the
minimum solution pH for calcium to
complexate with EDTA is 7.3, while it
is 10 for magnesium and so a pH of
10 is chosen for the reaction to
occur.
Figure 3. Structure of EDTA with a
divalent metal ion (metal-EDTA
complex)
Most indicators for complexometric
titrations are organic dyes known as
metallochromic indicators. They form
stable complexes with metal ions. In
this experiment, Eriochrome Black T
(EBT) was used as an indicator
because it is also a chelating agent
and its complexes have different
colors from the reagents. It contains
three (3) ionizable protons and is
represented as In in the chemical
equations. Alike to EDTA, EBT is also
a weak acid, and so are most
metallochromic indicators.
The NH3-NH4+ buffer solution was
used because the power of the acid
dissociation
constant
(pKa)
of
ammonia is ~9.26, which is very
close to 10 the desired pH for the
experiment. A basic buffer solution
was added because the reaction
must take place within a constant
pH. A pH of 10 is required to allow
the complexes Ca-EDTA and MgEDTA to form stoichiometrically and
have a sharper endpoint. The buffer
was chosen also because the EBT
indicator has different properties in
different pH ranges. If the pH value
used was less than 6.3, a color
transition from wine red to red will be
observed. Moreover, if the pH value
is greater than 11.6, the color
transition will be from wine red to
orange.
Both
conditions
have

EDTA differs with varying pH levels

(Figure 4). At pH 10, EDTA is
represented as Y4- in equations. This
unprotonated ligand is responsible
for the formation of the complexes of
EDTA. The electron pairs of EDTA are
only available to the metal ion when
the acid is dissociated. Because of
this, the effectiveness of EDTA is
strongly affected by the pH. The
increase in the concentration of H+
ions due to a low pH may interfere
with the complexation of the metal
ions and EDTA. However, many metal
ions complexates with hydroxide ions
and so the effectiveness of EDTA will
also be reduced at a high pH level.

Figure 4. Forms of EDTA in different

pH levels

The degree of ionization, , is the

reason why the conditional stability
constant of EDTA varies with pH. At a
pH of 10, the of EDTA is 3.5 x 10 -1
or 0.35, which means the chance is
higher that EDTA will be dissociated
and displace ions in a reaction
(Table 1). But if the pH is increased,
the endpoint will be too sharp.

poisoning it binds to the lead and

the complex is secreted through the
patients urine. Generally, EDTA
reduces the reactivity of the metal.
In this experiment, EDTA is used to
determine the total amount of
calcium and magnesium ions present
in the drinking water Hidden Spring.
It is expressed as ppm CaCO3.

METHODOLOGY
Table 1. Values of 4 for EDTA at
different pH

pH

pH

2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0

3.7 x 10-14
1.4 x 10-12
2.5 x 10-11
3.6 x 10-9
3.5 x 10-7
2.2 x 10-5

7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0

4
4.8
5.4
5.2
3.5
8.5
9.8

x
x
x
x
x
x

10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
10-1
10-1

EDTA has many industrial uses it

can be used to prevent unwanted
metals or impurities from reacting or
having negative effects on products.
In personal skin care products, EDTA
purifies them by binding to free
metal
ions;
it
serves
as
a
preservative. EDTA removes metal
ions from enzymes that cause
spoilage in food. It reduces the
hardness in the processing of tap
water to become a shampoo or soap
for enhancing the effectiveness of
cleansing of the product because
calcium and magnesium ions hinder
their cleaning action. In textiles, it
prevents the discoloring of dyed
fabrics by binding to the harmful free
metal ions and removing them. It
also gets rid of residue left on
broilers (industrial equipment). The
chelating property of EDTA, in the
field of medicine, can be used to
prevent precipitation in eye drops
and also to prevent infections caused
by gram-negative bacteria that have
calcium and magnesium in their
outer cell walls. EDTA can also be
used to treat patients suffering lead

The EDTA and Ca2+ stock solutions

were prepared as well as an NH3
NH4+ buffer solution.
The 500 mL 0.1 M stock EDTA
solution was made by weighing
~18.6120 g of Na2H2EDTA-2H2O
crystals and transferring it to a 400mL beaker. A volume of ~200 mL
distilled water was added to dissolve
it and then 1.0 g of MgCl 2-6H2O
crystals was added. The solution was
transferred to a 500-mL volumetric
flask and diluted to mark.
The 100 mL 0.05 stock Ca2+ solution
was set by weighing ~0.4917 g of
99.9% pure CaCO3 into a 250-mL
beaker. An amount of ~40-mL of
distilled
water was
added.
A
hydrochloric acid (HCl) solution was
also added to dissolve the solids
while the solution is being heated
and stirred, although the process of
addition must be slow to prevent the
production of carbon dioxide which
leads to loss of material. The
resulting solution was transferred to
a 100-mL volumetric flask and
diluted to mark, covered and mixed.
The NH3 NH4+ buffer solution with a
pH of ~10 was made by mixing
~14.19 mL of concentrated 14.8 M
NH3 and ~2.1396 g of NH4Cl crystals.
The solution was transferred to a
250-mL volumetric flask and diluted
to mark. The pH was tested with the
use of a pH meter.

The EDTA and Ca2+ working solutions

were from the stock solutions. A 250mL 0.01 M working EDTA solution
was prepared by measuring 25 mL of
the EDTA stock solution, transferring
it to a 250-mL volumetric flask, and
diluting it to mark. For the 50 mL
0.005 M working standard Ca2+
solution, 5 mL of the stock Ca 2+
solution was measured out in a 50
mL volumetric flask and diluted to
mark.
The standardization of 0.01 M EDTA
solution was done by pipetting 10 mL
of the working standard Ca 2+ solution
into each of the three (3) 250-mL
Erlenmeyer flasks, with the addition
of 75 mL distilled water for each.
After the addition of 3 mL of the
buffer solution along with ~3 drops
of EBT indicator, the solution was
titrated with the 0.01 M standard
EDTA solution until a color transition
from wine red to clear blue was
observed. The same was done for
the 2 other solution-containing
flasks.
For the analysis of the drinking water
Hidden Spring, 50 mL was measured
out from the sample and was
transferred to a 250-mL Erlenmeyer
flask. The titration procedure was
same with that of the standardization
adding 3 mL of the buffer solution
along with ~3 drops of EBT indicator
to the solution and titrating it with
0.01 M standard EDTA solution until
the same clear blue complex
appears. This was done 2 more
times.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Upon the preparation of stock EDTA

solution for the standardization of
the
EDTA
solution,
MgCl2-6H2O
crystals were added to dissolve the
EDTA salt due to diverse ion effect
and also to ensure a sharp endpoint
during titration (Ca-EBT is not very

stable). As a result, the complex MgEDTA forms. Because EDTA is

insoluble in water and will dissolve
when the pH is neutralized to 8,
NaOH pellets were also added for the
facilitated dissolution of EDTA in acid
form, along with the application of
heat in the system while stirring it.
Also, they are added to dispel
turbidity in the solution. However,
addition of excess NaOH pellets may
result in the formation of the
precipitate Magnesium Hydroxide
(Mg(OH)2) which will upset the pH
balance.
EDTA was standardized through the
titration of the CaCO3 working
standard solution, with EBT as the
indicator and NH3-NH4+ solution as
the buffer. The mole standardization
ratio of EDTA:Ca2+ from the CaCO3
standard is 1:1. The concentrations
in molarity of EDTA for the three (3)
trials were obtained using, basically,
the molar concentration of the
primary standard CaCO3, its volume,
and the volume of the EDTA solution
needed for the titration. (Table 2).
The average molarity of EDTA as
computed was 0.0059 M (refer to
appendix B for calculations).

Table 2. The resulting molar

concentrations of standardized EDTA

Tria
l

VCa(II) std.

Net
VEDTA

10 mL

7.9 mL

10 mL

8.8 mL

10 mL

8.2 mL

[EDTA]
0.0062
M
0.0056
M
0.0060
M

Only a small amount of indicator was

added because the addition of too
much indicator would cause a wide
range of resistance in pH change,
making the endpoint not very sharp.
As the EBT indicator was added, the
resulting color of the solution

appears to be closer to pink/violet

than wine red (as expected in the
water sample analysis). This is
because the Mg-EBT complexes are
the main reason for the wine-red
color and there are no Mg 2+ ions
present in the CaCO3 solution to
complexate with EBT and form the
color. The Ca2+ ions present in the
CaCO3 solution are the ones bound to
EBT.

Ca2+ +HIn2 CaHIn (1)

At the endpoint, the Ca2+ ions in the
solution are displaced from the CaEBT complex by EDTA unbinding to
the Mg2+ ions because the Ca-EDTA
complex has a higher formation
constant, Kf, than the Mg-EDTA
complex.
Ca2+ +MgH2Y CaH2Y +Mg2 (2)
Mg2+ +CaHIn MgHIn +Ca2 (3)

This means that the EDTA has a

greater tendency to complexate with
Ca2+ ions than Mg2+ ions. However,
the Ca-EDTA complex is unstable
because it requires a higher energy
in order to form (Table 3). This is
why, in preparing the stock EDTA
solution from the beginning, MgCl 26H2O crystals were added to
enhance the endpoint of the
titration.

Table 3. The complex formation

constant (Kf) values and hierarchy

complex

Kf

Ca-EDTA
5.0 x 1010
Mg-EDTA
4.9 x 108
Mg-EBT
1.0 x 107
Ca-EBT
2.5 x 105
Ca-EDTA > Mg-EDTA > Mg-EBT > CaEBT
Likewise, the Mg-EDTA complex has a
greater Kf than the Mg-EBT complex

(Table 3). This means that after

(assuming) all the Ca2+ ions are
consumed
by
EDTA,
it
will
2+
complexate with the Mg ions next
after it displaces the ion from the
Mg-EBT complex. This will result to
the lone EBT ions in the solution. The
appearing color, hence, is clear blue.
MgHIn +H2Y2 MgH2Y +HIn2 (4)

The titer (mganalyte per mLtitrant)

obtained was 0.593
(refer to
appendix B for calculations).
For the water sample analysis, the
water sample was titrated with the
standardized
EDTA
for
the
determination of its total hardness or
total ion content. It is expressed in
ppm [parts per million] because it
measures the weight of the mineral
(calcium and magnesium) per 1 liter
of the solution (in this experiment,
drinking water).
Upon preparation of water sample
solution, the wine-red color appears
as the EBT indicator was added to
the solution. This is because of the
Mg-EBT complex formed.
Mg2+ +HIn2 MgHIn (5)

The EBT binds with the Mg2+ ions

present in the water sample more
than it does with the Ca 2+ ions
because Mg-EBT complex has a
higher Kf than the Ca-EBT complex
(Table 3). This means that the
formation of Mg-EBT is more favored.
Before the equivalence point (during
titration), the titrant, which consists
of Mg-EDTA complexes, was added to
the solution. The Mg2+ ions from the
Mg-EDTA complex are displaced by
the Ca2+ ions in the water sample to
form the complex Ca-EDTA, as what
also happened in the standardization
of the EDTA solution.
At endpoint, the Mg2+ ions from the
Mg-EBT complex (5) react with EDTA,

forming the Mg-EDTA complex. The

free EBT ions left due to the
displacement (4) cause the clearblue color of the solution.
The drinking water used, Hidden
Spring, has a mineral content of 25
ppm
calcium
and
35
ppm
magnesium. Theoretically, it has a
total hardness of 206.559 ppm. The
gathered data in the experiment
show that the experimental average
total hardness of the water sample is
191.74 ppm (Table 4). The total
hardness was determined three (3)
times for comparison and precision.
A Q-test at 95% confidence level was
performed to omit a possible outlier.
All data are accepted. The calculated
total hardness for each trial involved
the titer value, the net volume of
EDTA, and the volume of the water
sample (refer to appendix B for
calculations).

Table 4. Data for the water sample

analysis

Trial
Vsample
Net VEDTA
Total
Hardness, ppm

Average

50 mL 50 mL 50 mL
14.0
21.1
13.4
mL
mL
mL
166.0
250.2
158.9
4
5
2
191.74 ppm

Theoretically and experimentally, the

water sample from Hidden Spring
can be classified as very hard
because they are both greater than
180
ppm
(Table
5).
The
experimental value differs in the
theoretical value by 7.18%, which
means the experiment was almost
accurate.

Table 5. The water hardness scale

Water
Hardness

ppm CaCO3

Soft
Moderately soft
Moderately hard
Hard
Very hard

0 20
20 60
61 120
121 180
greater than 180

Statistical parameters were also

evaluated. The relative standard
deviation was 264.92 ppt, and the
confidence limits obtained given by
the confidence interval were 65.63
ppm and 317.85 ppm.
Errors in the experiment may be a
result of overtitration because the
clear-blue color of the endpoint is not
easy to distinguish from the purple
color (after the wine-red color). The
color shift may also be slow and so
will be the detection of its change.
The weight of the CaCO 3 and EDTA
crystals in the beginning can also be
a source of error since they might be
affected by the accuracy of the
analytical balance. The pH meter
used in determining the exact pH of
the ammonia buffer solution might
also bear inaccuracy. Also, too much
or inadequate amount of the
indicator can cause an early or late
endpoint. Human and parallax errors
also contribute since one may
mistake lines in the burette, for
example, as a different value.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

EDTA was used as the titrant

because it is a chelating agent able
to react with a metal ion at a 1:1
stoichiometric
ratio.
In
standardization of the EDTA solution
to determine its exact molar
concentration, 99.9% CaCO3 was
used as the primary standard.
Magnesium crystals were added in
the EDTA for enhanced solubility. The
indicator
used,
EBT,
is
a
metallochromic indicator that has
complexes
of
different
colors

compared to the reagents. The NH3NH4+ buffer solution with a pH of ~10

was used because the calcium and
magnesium complexes form in this
kind of environment. The endpoint in
this pH is also easy to detect
because the shift of the color of EBT
is from wine-red to clear-blue. After
standardization,
the
obtained
average molar concentration of EDTA
(with no outlier in the data) is 0.0059
M. The computed titer was 0.593 .
This was used to compute the
amount of CaCO3 in ppm present in
the water sample.

inaccuracy of equipment, too less or

too much addition of indicator or
buffer, and sometimes bad reading
of the data.

In the water sample analysis, the

drinking water Hidden Spring was
titrated with the standardized EDTA
solution. The water sample has a
calcium content of 25 ppm and
magnesium content of 35 ppm. The
same
procedure
as
in
the
standardization was done, and after
three (3) trials, values of the total
ppm content were obtained 166.04
ppm, 250.25 ppm, and 158.92 ppm.
The average ppm CaCO3 was 191.74
ppm, a close value to that of the
claimed or theoretical ppm content
of the drinking water which was
206.559 ppm. The two (2) values
differ by 7.18%.

[2] "Experiment#8." Chemistry 26.1

2nd Written Laboratory Examination
Reviewer A.Y. 2010 2011. Web. 6
Apr.
2015.
<https://breakthelight.files.wordpres
s.com/2013/01/chemistry-26-1-2ndlaboratory-examinationreviewer.pdf>.

Since
the
theoretical
and
experimental total hardness of the
drinking water Hidden Spring are
both greater than 180, the drinking
water can be classified as very hard
water according to the water
hardness scale (Table 5). This
means that Hidden Spring is suitable
to be a drinking water since it
contains enough amount of minerals
(particularly Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions).
Some errors may be coming from
overtitration of the solution, a late
detection of the color change
because of its late transition,

REFERENCES

[1] Zeng, Allen. "EDTA." UCDavis

ChemWiki. Web. 6 Apr. 2015.
<http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Inorga
nic_Chemistry/Coordination_Chemistr
y/Ligands/EDTA>.

[3]
Petrucci,
Ralph.
General
Chemistry: Principles and Modern
Applications. 10th ed. Ontario City:
Pearson Canada, 2011. 1426. Print.
[4]
Southway,
Dr.
C.
"Complexometric Titrations EDTA."
APCH231: Chemical Analysis. Dr. C.
Southway. Web. 6 Apr. 2015.
<http://cheminnerweb.ukzn.ac.za/lib
raries/apch231_h_govender_s_notes/
apch231_edta.sflb.ashx>.
[5] De La Camp, Ulrich, and Oliver
Seely.
"Complexometric
Ca
Determination." Complexometric Ca
Determination.
Web.
<http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/che23
0/labmanual/calcium.htm>.
[6]
Harvey,
David.
"Titrimetric
Methods
of
Analysis.
Modern
Analytical
Chemistry.
1st
ed.
McGraw-Hill Companies, 2000. 816.
Print.

APPENDIX A
DATA SHEET
EXPERIMENT 7
QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL HARDNESS IN DRINKING
WATER
BY COMPLEXOMETRIC EDTA TITRATION
Standardization of EDTA solution
Standard CaCO3 solution
Weight of pure CaCO3: 0.4917 g
Formula mass of 1 standard:
100.086
% Purity of pure CaCO3: 99.9%
Volume of final solution: 100 mL
Working standard CaCO3 solution
Volume of standard CaCO3
solution: 50 mL
Volume of final solution: 88.15 mL

Trial

Volume of working Ca(II) standard, mL

10

10

10

Final volume of EDTA, mL

10.6

11.5

19.7

Initial volume of EDTA, mL

2.7

2.7

11.5

Net volume of EDTA, mL

7.9

8.8

8.2

M EDTA

0.0062

0.0056

0.0060

Average M EDTA

0.0059

Titer

0.593

Sample Analysis
Brand of mineral water used: Hidden Spring
Mineral Water content
ppm Ca: 25
ppm Mg: 35

ppm CaCO3 from ppm Ca: 62.432

ppm
ppm CaCO3 from ppm Mg: 144.127
ppm

Total Water Hardness: 206.559 ppm

Trial
Volume of water sample, mL
Final volume of EDTA, mL
Initial volume of EDTA, mL
Net volume of EDTA, mL

1
50
15.5
1.5
14.0
166.04
ppm

2
3
50
50
26.7
28.9
5.6
15.5
21.1
13.4
250.25
158.92 ppm
ppm
191.74 ppm CaCO3
264.92 ppt
(191.74 126.11) ppm CaCO3

Total Hardness
Average
RSD
Confidence Interval

APPENDIX B
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS AND WORKING EQUATIONS

Standardization of EDTA solution

1 mol 1 mol Ca2+
99.9% =4.907862238 x 10-3 mol Ca2+

100.086
g
1
mol
CaCO

mol Ca2+= 0.4917 g CaCO3

1.

0.00491 mol Ca2+

4.907862238 x 10-3 mol Ca2+ 1000 mL 1

=4.907862238 x 10-3 M Ca2+

2+
1 L 10
100 mL stock Ca

M Ca2+=

0.00491 M Ca2+
2.

4.907862238 x 10-3 M Ca2+ 10 mL Ca2+

M1 EDTA =

7.9 mL EDTA

=6.212483846 x 10-3 M1 EDTA

0.0062 M1 EDTA
3.

4.907862238 x 10-3 M Ca2+ 10 mL Ca2+

M2 EDTA =

8.8 mL EDTA

0.0056 M2 EDTA

=5.57711618 x 10-3 M2 EDTA

4.

4.907862238 x 10-3 M Ca2+ 10 mL Ca2+

M3 EDTA =

8.2 mL EDTA

=5.985197851 x 10-3 M3 EDTA

0.0060 M3 EDTA

5.
6.

M1 +M2 +M3
=5.924932626 x 10-3 0.0059 M EDTA

M EDTA =

g
100.086 g

Titer CaCO3 = 5.924932626 x 10-3 M EDTA

CaCO3 =0.593002806
mol
L

mg CaCO3
g
0.593 0.593
L
mL EDTA
Sample Analysis
1. ppm CaCO3 from ppm Ca and ppm Mg

1 mol CaCO3 100.086 g

1 mol

Ca
CaCO3

40.078 g 1 mol Ca 1 mol

62.432 ppm CaCO3

from ppm Ca 25 ppm Ca

62.43200759 ppm CaCO3

1 mol MgCO
3 1 mol CaCO3 100.086 g
1 mol

Mg
CaCO3 =144.1271343 ppm CaCO3

24.305
g
1
mol
Mg
1
mol
CO
1
mol

144.127 ppm CaCO3

from ppm Mg = 35 ppm Mg

2.

Total hardness = ppm CaCO3 from ppm Ca + ppm CaCO3 from ppm Mg =206.5591419 206.559 ppm

3.

g
0.593002806 L 14 mL EDTA 1000 mg

ppm1 CaCO3
166.0407857 ppm1 CaCO3
50 mL sample
1g

166.04 ppm1 CaCO3

4.

g
0.593002806 L 21.1 mL EDTA 1000 mg

ppm2 CaCO3
250.2471841 ppm2 CaCO3
50 mL sample
1g

250.25 ppm2 CaCO3

5.

g
0.593002806 L 13.4 mL EDTA 1000 mg

ppm3 CaCO3
158.924752 ppm3 CaCO3
50 mL sample
1g

158.92 ppm3 CaCO3

6.

166.0407857 250.2471841 158.924752 ppm CaCO3

191.7375739 191.74 ppm CaCO3
3

ppm CaCO3

7.

166.0407857 - ppm 250.2471841 - ppm 158.924752 - ppm

2

8.

3 - 1

50.79557407 50.80 ppm CaCO3

50.79557407 ppm CaCO3

1000 ppt 264.9223782 264.92 ppt
191.7375739 ppm CaCO3

RSD

9.

4.30 50.79557407 ppm CaCO3

CI95% =191.7375739 ppm CaCO3

=191.7375739 126.105405 ppm CaCO3

191.74 126.11 ppm CaCO3

Additional parameters
1.

206.5591419 - 191.7375739
100% 7.175459708% 7.18%
206.5591419

percent error

APPENDIX C
ATTACHED DATA SHEET