APES

Mrs. Norris

18 April 2016

Water Quality Lab

Introduction

Water quality is defined as the measure of the suitability of water for a particular use

based on selected physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. It is important to know the

quality of water because we must know if it is safe to consume or safe for aquatic organisms to

inhabit. If the water is not clean, it can have detrimental effects on aquatic organisms or humans.

Water can be contaminated by numerous pollutants like mercury which can bio accumulate in

the ecosystem, pathogenic microorganisms which can cause diseases like cholera and typhoid,

excess nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen which over stimulate plant growth and deplete the

water of oxygen, oil spills which can affect food webs, and thermal sources which can reduce the

ability of the water to hold oxygen (Thorpe). Also, water quality can be contaminated by

dissolved metals and sediment, which can hinder aquatic plant productivity and the health of

fish and other aquatic organisms (Fraser). Most of these pollutants come from anthropogenic

activities like fertilizing, combustion of fossil fuels, and careless discharge of effluents. In

order to minimize water pollution, the use of fertilizers and fossil fuels must be limited and

humans must monitor where waste is disposed.In this lab, the quality of water will be tested

using the following tests: pH, amount of phosphates, amount of nitrates, turbidity, and dissolved

oxygen.
Purpose

The purpose of this lab is to determine how environmental conditions and the quality of the

water found in both Smith Creek and Holding Pond were affected over time, and understand

what influenced the change.

Hypothesis

If ​the quality of water​ ​of both Smith Creek and the Holding Pond are tested, then​ over

time ​the quality of the water from both the stream and pond will be worse as compared to​ the

quality in 1994​ because of increased population size and increased pollution.

Data and Analysis:

Test Smith Creek Holding Pond

Temperature (℃) 19 21

pH 6.5 7.5

Phosphate (ppm) 2 1

Nitrate (ppm) 0 0

Turbidity 0 JTU 0 JTU

Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 1 0

Table 1​: Results of water tests from 4/11/16

Test Smith Creek

Temperature (℃) 5

pH 7.4

Phosphate (ppm) 0.06

Nitrate (ppm) 1.54

Turbidity 0 JTU

Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 13.6

Table 2: ​Results of water quality tests in 1994

 Fig 1​:

Figure 1 shows the results of the water quality tests from 1994 in comparison to the results

from April 11, 2016. We did not expect the nitrate levels (ppm) of the stream today to be less

than the nitrate levels in 1994. The nitrate levels for the stream today is 0 ppm, which is ideal for

water, however, the nitrate level in 1994 was 1.54 ppm, which is not that bad for water, but could

be better. After analyzing these results, I figured there might have been some error, because the

nitrate levels of today could never be better than the nitrate levels in 1994 due to environmental

changes and possible contamination around the area. I am led to believe that there is a degree of

error. An inaccurate measurement of the nitrate level might have caused the degree of error, or

the season could have affected the level of nitrates because the 1994 tests could have been

conducted in a season other than spring. Different seasons of data collection could have also
affected the results. Nitrogen is the nutrient that is widely used for lawn care and crop

production, However Nitrate is highly leachable, and can runoff into the water (Oram). This

indeed makes it easier for nitrate levels to fluctuate . Nitrate levels would be higher, for example,

in the summer when lots of crops have been planted and fertilized. The temperature and humidity

of the day—in our case, 22°C and 43%—may have also been different, due at least in part to the

time of year at which the data was collected in 1994.

Conclusion

Over time, both Holding Pond and Smith Creek responded negatively to changing

environmental conditions, and, as a result, the water quality in both sources of water decreased.

First, the overall temperatures of the creek and the pond have become warmer as compared to

1994. Today, Holding Pond reaches a temperature of 21° Celsius and Smith Creek reaches 19℃

degrees. This is significantly warmer than the 5° Celsius Smith Creek reached in 1994, and even

hotter than the 11.5℃ that Holding Pond reached in 2015. Climate change, caused by the

increased levels of development surrounding the water sources, explains this change in

temperature; as Earth becomes warmer, so will its water sources. Second, the pH of the creek

and the pond has only slightly fluctuated since 1994. The pH of the 1994 creek, 7.4, and the 2016

creek, 7.5, has only become slightly more basic. However, both the 2015 pond and the 2016

pond had a pH of 6.5, or experienced no change whatsoever. This could mean that some

pollution, such as fertilizer runoff, doesn’t pose a huge threat to the water sources. Third, the

phosphate level of the 1994 creek, .06 ppm, and the 2016 creek, 1 ppm, shows a slight increase.

The phosphate levels of the 2015 pond, 1 ppm, and the 2016 pond, 2 ppm, shows a slight

increase as well. Because both of the water sources showed an increase in phosphate level we
can assume that soil erosion played a part in increasing the phosphate levels. The phosphates

could have adhered to soil particles near the stream and pond. Due to the more recent logging of

trees, soil erosion around both the stream and pond has increased because there are no more tree

roots to hold the soil, therefore increasing the amount of phosphate in the water. Fourth, the

nitrate levels in both water sources experienced opposite results than the phosphate levels. In

both the creek and the pond, the 1994 and 2015 data shows a slight amount of nitrates, whereas

the 2016 data shows no trace of nitrates. This could prove perhaps that fertilizer runoff doesn’t

make its way into the water sources, and that nitrates are not present in gasoline. Fifth, the

amount of dissolved oxygen, DO, in both water sources displayed a significant decrease over

time. The 1994 creek contained 13.6 ppm of DO, while the 2016 creek contained 0 ppm of DO.

The 2015 pond contained 3 ppm of DO, while the 2016 pond contained 1 ppm of DO. This

depletion of dissolved oxygen may have resulted from the gasoline runoff that enters the pond

directly from the student parking lot. The gasoline runoff hinders the ability of aquatic plants to

perform photosynthesis.The absence of plants is also common in the oxygen sag; due to the

decreased amounts of plants, there isn’t a lot of oxygen being released. This results in decreased

levels of DO. Lastly, the turbidity has not been affected over time. All of the water sources,

including the 1994 creek, 2015 pond, and 2016 creek and pond, all showed a 0 JTU, or a 0%

turbidity. This means that no suspended particles, or a substantial amount, have been found in the

water sources. This could be due to the types of pollution the water experiences; instead of solid

waste/material (cans, bottles, plastic bags), the water contains liquid (gasoline runoff, acid rain,

fertilizer) and gaseous (climate change) pollutants. The hypothesis of this lab can be accepted

because the collected data proves that water conditions in Smith Creek and Holding Pond have
worsened over time. Acid precipitation, gasoline runoff, fertilizer runoff were all possible

sources of contamination to the pond and creek. However, because the pH was not affected over

time, it can be concluded that acid precipitation and fertilizer runoff were not key contaminators.

The gasoline runoff caused a huge problem for the water because it caused the plants to die off.

Without plants, photosynthesis doesn’t occur, and the amount of oxygen the water contains (DO)

decreases.

Because the water quality is so poor, solutions need to be put in place to reverse the

damage inflicted on Smith Creek and Holding Pond. Logging in the area needs to be stopped;

even though the trees are cut down to ensure the “safety” of the power lines, the absence of trees

leads to soil erosion that negatively increases the amount of phosphates in the water. There could

also be some kind of barrier built between the student parking lot and the pond/creek because a

barrier would decrease the amount of gasoline or fertilizer runoff contaminating the water. Both

solutions would result in an improved water quality for both Smith Creek and Holding Pond.

Due to the poor water quality in Smith Creek, only tolerant macroinvertebrates would be located

in the water there. This would include: pouch snails, midge larvae, and aquatic worms (Mullins

& Stuart, 2016). This means that intolerant species like stone flies, crayfish, and mayflies would

be wiped out by the poor water quality thus decreasing the biodiversity and ruining food webs in

the ecosystem.

The main source of error encountered in this lab was the measurements. This is due to the

fact that all of our measurements were determined by eye (they weren’t scientific per say). The

usage of more precise equipment could have reduced the percentage of error, and made the

calculations more accurate. The setup of the lab was very effective; it allowed the lab to be
completed in the simplest and least time consuming way. The experiment effectively achieved

the main purpose of the lab. By studying the results, it can be concluded that the water quality of

Smith Creek and Holding Pond worsened over time due to changing environmental conditions,

resulting from the impact of humans/civilization. The results of this lab differed slightly from the

rest of the class, but this can be justified by the time difference. Each class gathered their water at

different times of the day, and since both the humidity and temperature changes, the water

samples from each class would be different. Also, since the creek contains fast moving water,

and even the water in the pond is not stationary, each class was not collecting the same water.

So, the samples for each class should be different depending on the specific water they sampled

and the temperature and humidity at that time of day.

 Works Cited

Fraser. "Determining Water Quality – MiningFacts.org." ​Determining Water Quality –

MiningFacts.org​. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.

Mullins, Gary W., and Stuart Lewis. "Macroinvertebrates as Indicators of Stream Health." ​The

American Biology Teacher​ 53.8 (1991): 462-66. ​Michigan Technological University​.

Western U.P. Center for Science, Mathematics & Environmental Educ, 2016. Web. 18

Apr. 2016.

Oram, Brian. "Many People Have Questions about the Impact of Nitrate in Their Drinking

Water." ​Nitrate Nitrite Nitrogen in Surfacewater and Drinking Water​. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.

Thorpe, Gary S. ​Barron's AP Environmental Science​. Hauppauge, NY: Barron's, 2013. Print.