The experiment was also being conducted to establish whether filtration is an effective method of water treatment. Furthermore, the experiment was done to examine the difference in color and smell between contaminated and treated water. Another objective behind these experiments was to examine which ranking water source is good for drinking between; tap water, Disdain bottled water and Fiji bottled water. The hypotheses that require to be proofed in these experiments include; oil, vinegar and laundry detergents are agents of groundwater contamination.
Another hypothesis is that, filtration is an effective method of water treatment. Additionally, there is a difference in color and smell between contaminated water and treated water. Finally, tap water has the best water quality for drinking, followed by Disdain bottled water and then Fiji bottled water. Materials and methods: To test agents of ground water contamination and how effective filtration is in water treatment, the materials that were used included; beaker, soil, mall water, vinegar, oil, laundry soap and cheesecloth and funnel.
To determine which water source has quality water for drinking; ammonia test, chloride test and phosphate test and iron test will be conducted on mall of tap water, Disdain bottled water and Fiji bottled water. Results: oil failed to seep through the soil to reach groundwater specimen. Vinegar altered the water specimen in terms of smell and color as was observed during the experiment. Laundry soap had remarkable effects on both color and smell of water specimen. When a test was conducted on the effectiveness of filtration in water purification and treatment, some particles still seeped through the cheesecloth.
Even after all the other filtration layers such as charcoal were added during the experiment, some dirt particles still seeped through. The test on water quality between tap water, Disdain bottled water and Fiji bottled water showed that, tap water has the highest PH level while Disdain bottled water recorded the lowest level of PH. On the test on the water hardness, tap water recorded the highest level of hardness while Fiji recorded the lowest level of hardness. Discussion: oil does not contaminate groundwater because of the soil and also its viscosity that prevent it from mixing with water.
To this end, the first hypothesis has been partly rejected while the other two determinants have confirmed this hypothesis. The second hypothesis, which denotes filtration as an effective method of water treatment has been rejected by this experiment. The hypothesis that there is a difference in color and smell between contaminated water and treated water has been confirmed by this experiment. The hypothesis that identifies tap water as the drinking water with best quality has failed to meet he threshold of this experiment.
It has therefore been rejected by this experiment which shows that, tap water has the highest level of hardness and also PH amongst the three specimen. Conclusion: In conclusion, oil is not an agent of groundwater contamination. Filtration is not very effective in water treatment, other water treatment methods such as the coagulation, sedimentation and disinfection are necessary to supplement filtration. Treated and contaminated water can be differentiated by a matter of smell and color.
Tap water has the highest level of hardness hence contains a lot of impurities. Body Paragraph #3 – Variables and Future Experiments: In Experiment #1 Effects of Groundwater Contamination the possible factors that could have possibly affected my results would be the timing. For instance, if I had waited a little bit more instead of smelling and observing immediately when I mixed the water with the detergent, oil and vinegar could it have made a difference? I could control this by waiting the ideal time and carefully timing everything with a stopwatch.
I can also test this by doing the experiment and waiting at different times, for instance I can wait one minute, three minutes and five minutes. With experiment #1 1 was able to recognize that intimations that seep into the water are capable of causing consequences that can possibly affect our health. In Experiment #2 Water Treatment, the outcome indicated that filtered water isn’t 100% free of contaminants. Perhaps if I extended the filtration process the contaminated water might have been clearer.
Some possible factors that mightn’t affected the final result would be how contaminated the tap water in my area is and the state of health that was in. For instance, if I had a cold my sense of smell would not be as potent as they would be if I were cold-free. I could control this in the future by first investigating f my town’s tap water isn’t extremely contaminated. Also, if I was sick I could ask someone else to smell the solution to get more accurate results. In Experiment #3 we were able to determine that bottled water isn’t as safe and healthy as it is perceived to be.
The possible factor that could’ve affected the accuracy of the results is the timing, if I went over/under the time that was indicated to check the strip for the end result. I could control this by being attentive and careful and making use of the stopwatch that was provided. We know that contaminants are present in our water, so we consume it daily. Is it harmful or irrelevant? We can test this by giving groups of people the same water (tap water from their town) for a predetermined amount of time and then evaluate them.
Does one group have more energy than The key point of experiment #1 is that we should be more cautious with the way we discard our food and products because they can be contaminating our drinking water. In experiment #2 the key point is there is a big difference between contaminated and treated water, the filtration process is five steps long and even then contaminants may still be present. In experiment #3 the key point for me was that tap water isn’t as bad and unsafe as it is perceived to be, the titled water franchise is definitely deceiving.
The main message that I would like people to have from this report is that they can make a difference and that by simply changing one of their behaviors and making it more “greener”, this possibly can make a difference in their water quality.