Examination of Water Quality in Porter Brook (East Hartford) and Roaring Brook (Glastonbury)

Transcription

1 8 Examination of Water Quality in (East Hartford) and (Glastonbury) International Baccalaureate: Group Four Project Julia Sisson, Molly Gosselin, Elizabeth Melo, Justin Mills, Andrea Scott, Ashley Fuentes February 12, 2009

2 Examination of Water Quality in Porter Brook (East Hartford) and Roaring Brook (Glastonbury) International Baccalaureate: Group Four Project Julia Sisson, Molly Gosselin, Elizabeth Melo, Justin Mills, Andrea Scott, Ashley Fuentes Self Published: February 12, P a g e

3 Table of Contents Abstract 4 Carbon Dioxide Problem Statement 5 Dissolved Oxygen/BOD Hypothesis 5 Detergent Variables 5 Hardness 28 Materials 6 Turbidity Procedure 7 Nitrate-N Phosphate 30 Site Analysis 8 Phosphate Maps 10 Nitrates 32 Pictures 11 ph 33 Rifle-dwelling Benthic Macro Velocity 35 invertebrates 14 E. coli 16 Silica 18 Analysis Conclusion 41 Bibliography Salinity 20 3 P a g e

4 Abstract On November 13th, numerous experiments were carried out to test water quality in two rivers, located in Glastonbury, Connecticut, and, located in East Hartford, Connecticut. These experiments include, but were not limited to, determining the ph level of the water, the quantity of dissolved oxygen, and confirming the presence of riffle dwelling, benthic macro invertebrates. Tests however, were not limited to chemical properties but also physical properties, such as the temperature and velocity of the rivers. The data collected in the aforementioned experiments will be compared to experiments done in times past in order to determine whether or not the rivers are with acceptable physical and chemical parameters in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency. Problem 4 P a g e

5 What are the differences and similarities in water quality when comparing in East Hartford, CT and in Glastonbury, CT, and do these standards match the federal requirements for water quality? Hypothesis If site analysis is a dependable way of measuring water quality, then it will prove that is the better of the two brooks, because it appeared to be the best option after analyzing the appearances of both. Independent Variables: The independent variables are the sites which are in Glastonbury, CT and in East Hartford, CT. The qualities of the water in the site and the overall environment surrounding the bodies of water have a major effect on the dependent variables. Dependant Variables: The dependent variables are the results of all of the tests that we perform on the site and the brooks. The results of the dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, hardness, detergent, silica, nitrate -n- phosphate, phosphate, and salinity, and turbidity tests are all based off of materials and substances that the group has collected from the site. Therefore, they act as the dependent variables in this project. 5 P a g e

6 Controlled Variable: The control for the experiment is the United States Environment Protection Agency and the State of Connecticut Department of Environment Protection water quality standards. Materials LaMotte Dissolved Oxygen Test Model EDO Code 7414 LaMotte Nitrate-N Phosphate Test Model NDL Code 3119 LaMotte Phosphate Test Model NVM Code LaMotte Silica Test Model PSI Code 4463 LaMotte Hardness Test Model PHT-CM-DR-LT Code 4824-DR-LT LaMotte Carbon Dioxide Test Model PCO-DR Code 7297-DR LaMotte Detergent Test Model DS-1 Code LaMotte Salinity Titration Test Model POL-H Code 7459 LaMotte Turbidity Test Code 5887 LaMotte Temperature Test Model 545 Code 1066 LaMotte Precision ph Test Code 5858 LaMotte Nitrate Test Model NCR Code 3110 Geopacks Velocity Test Kit Escherichia coli Test Category # MC LOT F8DN69681 Lamotte Leaf Pack Sorting Sheets 6/set Code P a g e

7 Procedure See instructions provided in each of the following test kits: LaMotte Dissolved Oxygen Test Model EDO Code 7414 LaMotte Nitrate-N Phosphate Test Model NDL Code 3119 LaMotte Phosphate Test Model NVM Code LaMotte Silica Test Model PSI Code 4463 LaMotte Hardness Test Model PHT-CM-DR-LT Code 4824-DR-LT LaMotte Carbon Dioxide Test Model PCO-DR Code 7297-DR LaMotte Detergent Test Model DS-1 Code LaMotte Salinity Titration Test Model POL-H Code 7459 LaMotte Turbidity Test Code P a g e

8 LaMotte Temperature Test Model 545 Code 1066 LaMotte Precision ph Test Code 5858 LaMotte Nitrate Test Model NCR Code 3110 Geopacks Velocity Test Kit Escherichia coli Test Category # MC LOT F8DN69681 Lamotte Leaf Pack Sorting Sheets 6/set Code Site Analysis Color The color of the water at in Glastonbury in comparison to the water at Porter Brook in East Hartford was clear and clean. The bottom of the brook could be seen as opposed to the water at where the water was brown and deposits in the water disabled anyone from being able to see the bottom of the brook. Odor The water and atmosphere at in Glastonbury is odorless and fresh. The water at in East Hartford was said to smell like nothing, but at a distance one can 8 P a g e

9 smell the water and its atmosphere. Many students have said that the atmosphere smells like animal waste and garbage. Temperature The air temperature in is 12.5 C, whereas in the temperature is 10 C. The temperature of the water at is 7 C, whereas in it is 7.3 C. This could have effects our experiments because many tests require or suggest that the water should be at certain temperatures. Bank Conditions The banks at are lined with rocks, trees, and fallen branches, no waste or debris. There could also be foam found in some parts of the brook. The banks are sturdy and stiff. The banks at are also lined with rocks and trees, but there is also a bridge going over part of the brook where it seems as though garbage is dumped over the side of the bridge. As well as muddy banks, one can find bottle caps, bottles, and spray canisters left over from the graffiti artists under the bridge. Deposits There are no deposits in the water of. There are bottles, spray canisters, cigarette buds, and other items in the water of and along its banks. Surrounding Structures The test site was directly under a bridge, which had a busy street on it. This may have lead to exhaust from vehicles mixing in with the water, which would lead to higher pollutant levels, and lowered the overall water quality. was fairly secluded, and required a few minutes of walking to reach the water from the road. 9 P a g e

10 Maps 10 P a g e

11 Map of Map of Pictures bank This illustrates the looseness of the bank mud. The mud is loose, which indicates that the water that mixes with the soil is of poor quality. The soil mixing with the water can also affect the results, as any pollutants that are found in the soil are then leeched into the water. 11 P a g e

12 bank The bank of is seen as much firmer than the bank of. This indicates that the water that mixes with the soil is of better quality than the water that is found in. It also shows that there are fewer environmental pollutants, because the environmental factors would be affecting soil, as well as the water. Water The water at is less clear than the water at. It is not possible to see the bottom of the brook, because it is so mucky. This may be because of the looseness of the soil. Because the soil is so loose, it breaks off easily, and mixes with the water, which makes it mucky. 12 P a g e

13 Water The water at is very clear. The bottom of the Brook can be easily seen. This may be because of a lack of pollution in the Brook, or because the soil is firm, and does not break off the bank. Surroundings This shows how much pollution is found at the site. The graffiti is very close to the water, and the chemicals have mixed in with the water and the soil. Surroundings 13 P a g e

14 The surroundings are much unpolluted, and very clean. The Brook is very well distanced from the high way. There is no litter, and hardly any signs of human interaction. Rifle-dwelling Benthic Macro invertebrates Rifle-dwelling Benthic Macro invertebrates can be used as a gauge of water quality. Since these are living organisms that can be easily seen with the human eye, they are useful to show how toxic the water is. If there is not a large amount of Rifle-dwelling Benthic Macro invertebrates in the sample, or even none at all, the water is not able to support life. However, if there is a large amount of Rifle-dwelling Benthic Macro invertebrates, it can be inferred that the water has enough nutrients and low enough levels of toxicity to support life. had the largest number of Rifle-dwelling Benthic Macro invertebrates, with a total of 75 Rifle-dwelling Benthic Macro invertebrates found at the site. However, only 34 total organisms were found at. 14 P a g e

15 Total Rifle-dwelling Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Roaring Roaring Porter Brook and True Flies May Flies 35 Amount Found True Bugs 30 Brook Brook 0 True Bugs True Flies Brook Roaring 9 Mayflies Water Beetles es at br s r te l ie ve in i sf dd c t Ca i nse s s n lie fl ie No e F s d er o n fl ie Al St on es / s ag fl i Dr s on etl e e b Do er B a t li es W F ay l ies F M u e gs T r Bu ue Tr Dobsonflies/Alderflies Dwelling Benthic 5 Water Beetles Riffle 2 Dobsonflies & 6 5 Alderflies Dragonflies 0 Dragonflies & 1 Damselflies Stone Flies 3 Noninsect 33 Stoneflies 2 Found in Roaring Brook and Porter Non-insect invertebrates Caddisflies Macroinvertebrates invertibrates 16 Caddisflies 0 Brook P a g e

16 E. coli Escherichia coli, more commonly referred to as E. coli, is a bacterium found in the lower intestines of animals and humans. E. coli is also exists within the fecal waste of plants and animals, and is transmitted from organism to organism via food and/or water in which the aforementioned fecal matter has come into contact with. E. coli, upon infecting an individual, possesses the ability to inflict upon the infected individual severe food poisoning, which could become fatal. Thus, it is vital that the streams, and, are kept at low levels of E. coli, in order to prevent the infection of individuals that come into contact with the water. As such, the Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that drinking water must contain less than one fecal colony per 100 millilitres of water. Water associated with partial body contact must contain a value less than or equal to 1000 fecal colonies per 16 P a g e

17 100 millilitres of water, and treated sewage effluent must contain less than 200 fecal colonies per 100 millilitres of water. Number of Blue Colonies Found in and River Sample Number Number of Blue Colonies (Presence of E.Coli) Number of Blue 3 0 Colonies Present in and 4 0 Number of Blue Colonies P a g e

18 Silica Silica is usually found in the chemical form silicon dioxide in freshwater systems. Silica is not easily dissolved in water and is not a naturally found element in water. Silica is derived from silicate minerals, which break down over time and are eventually released into the water. It is very common for large amounts of silica to be present in water and is generally harmless when its accumulation does not exceed a certain level.i The compound silicon dioxide is an essential nutrient in many microorganisms and is an important part of plant growth. Silica should never exceed 2 mg/l according to the Connecticut State standards for freshwater systems. Silica Concentration in and Name of River Silica Concentration (in parts per million, or ppm) 2.5 ppm 2 ppm 18 P a g e

19 Silica Concentration (in parts per million, or ppm) Silica Concentration In and Name of River 19 P a g e

20 Salinity Salinity is the amount of salts or dissolved salts found in water. Under natural conditions, salt in freshwater is balanced enough for organisms and plant life to grow. However, when it rains or salt from the soil runs into the water, it can greatly disrupt the ecosystem and have a negative affect on organisms. Most organisms in freshwater systems are found in areas according to their tolerance to salt. Most can survive during small fluctuations of salinity levels, but when salt increases dramatically, it sinks to the bottom of the water source and creates a saline layer that decreases dissolved oxygen.ii Organisms within the highly saline water are forced to relocate to an area with a lower salinity. The state of Connecticut requires that freshwater sources should never exceed 250 mg/l Salinity in and Name of River Salinity (in parts per thousand, or ppt) 1.6 ppt 1.2 ppt 20 P a g e

21 Salinity of and Roaring Brook Salinity (in parts per thousand, or ppt) Name of River Carbon Dioxide: 21 P a g e

22 The test of carbon dioxide is a measurement not only of the levels of the gas in the water, but of the respiration of plants and animals. Carbon dioxide, if too high, can prevent animals from attaining oxygen necessary to breathe. If carbon dioxide is too high it can also combine with water to form carbonic acid, which can lower an already mildly acidic ph.1 This is clearly harmful to fish, but can also harm plants and other organisms.2 Data: Carbon Dioxide Levels in and Brook Carbon Dioxide Present Trial 1:35 ppm Trial 2: 35 ppm Trial 1: 50 ppm Trial 2: 50 ppm Carbon Dioxide (ppm) Carbon Dioxide Levels in Roaring Brook and Name of River 22 P a g e

23 Analysis: The levels of carbon dioxide in both brooks are clearly troubling. The levels at which the carbon dioxide had appeared to have risen were much, much higher than they should have been, and completely incongruous with any expected test or the results of other tests in the same area. Based on these data patterns, it is clear that these results cannot be used in the final analysis of water quality. 23 P a g e

24 Dissolved Oxygen/BOD Dissolved oxygen is a test designed to find the amount of oxygen that has been dissolved into the water. Because all living things respire, they all require oxygen, and dissolved oxygen is the only available source for most aquatic animals and plants. If oxygen levels are too low, they can not only indicate large numbers of plants or animals, and could be a sign of temperature being too high. If oxygen levels are too high, it can poison plants and animals. Oxygen levels must be monitored in order to see if levels are too high or too low (3 ppm at bare minimum).3 BOD is a test designed to roughly understand the amount of biochemical waste in the water being tested. A high level BOD could not only account for low dissolved oxygen levels, but could also be an indicator for dumping waste and other harmful activities.4 BOD can also be an explanation for a low number of living aquatic beings the higher the amount of waste, the lower the amount of living things. 24 P a g e

25 Data: and Dissolved O2 and Biochemical Oxygen Demand Brook Dissolved Oxygen 11.2 ppm 10.3 ppm BOD Percent 1.2 ppm.3 ppm Saturation 85% 75% Percent Saturation of Dissolved Oxygen and BOD in and Percent Saturation Name of River 25 P a g e

26 Detergent Detergent tests for the levels of detergents in the water these can be soaps, and often cause a foamy layer on top of water, especially around rough waters and rapids. Detergent in too high amounts can be dangerous for aquatic life forms, and sometimes is responsible for the death of massive numbers. Detergent could be higher from a multitude of factors, 26 P a g e

27 including the dumping of waste from factories into the water. The effect is so strong, that detergent levels above 5 mg/l will kill a fish.5 Data: Detergent Detected in and Brook Detergent Detected Amount of Detergent Some Detergent in Sample >1.0 ppm Some Detergent in Sample >1.0 ppm Detergent Levels of and Detergent (ppm) Name of River Analysis 27 P a g e

28 Overall, the trends displayed were not at all congruous with what was expected for the brooks it was expected, based on the site analysis, that Porter brook would have much more detergent present than was actually found. However, these results are very similar to those found by other, similar experiments, and the comparison could not be questioned. Perhaps levels of detergent may have gone down due to recent rainfall. 28 P a g e

29 Total Hardness This experiment is performed to determine the hardness ions in a solution of water. Water hardness has a great deal to do with the layers of rock and earth water passes through or comes in contact with because some of these materials may remain within the water. This test measures the dissolved salts, both calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate, in the water in parts per million (ppm) which makes up the entire total hardness and can also be affected by temperature and the ph of the water. Total Hardness of Water in and Name of River Hardness (in pppm) 125 ppm 142 ppm Hardness of and Porter Brook Hardness (ppm) Name of River 29 P a g e

30 Turbidity Turbidity is the measure of suspended particles in the water. As the water gains more and more suspended solid particles, the clarity of the water decreases and the water becomes cloudy. A high turbidity can be caused by a great number of things such as waste disposal, microscopic organisms, high iron levels, humic acids, and other matter. Turbidity of and Name of River Turbidity (in JTU) 0 JTU 20 JTU Turbidity of and Porter Brook Hardness (JTU) Name of River 30 P a g e

31 Nitrate-N Phosphate Nitrate occurs organically in nature from the decaying of plants and animals and their nutrients fertilizing the soils. If a human being were to ingest too much Nitrate-N Phosphate they could get a condition known as methemoglobinemia. Since Nitrate-N Phosphate does occur naturally, functioning as a fertilizer, it can help supply some nitrate in the ground; it would be helpful to have much nitrate in the water. The chemical parameters are between 0.2 and 1.0 ppm. Nitrate-N Phosphate Levels of and Nitrate-N (ppm) Average Phosphate (ppm) Trial Trial Nitrate-N Phosphate Levels in Roaring Brook and Nitrate-N Phosphate Levels (ppm) Name of River Phosphate 31 P a g e

32 It is important for a natural water supply to have phosphate in it. Phosphate is a chemical necessary for plants and animals to grow. However, phosphate is maintained in the soil. Phosphate can become toxic to humans or animals when ingested in large amounts. In fairly small amounts, phosphate will not have much of an effect on their well being. The availability of phosphate affects the rate of photosynthesis, so the presence of phosphate is very important to the survival of plants in a freshwater environment. Phosphate Levels of and Phosphate (ppm) Average (ppm) Trial Trial Phosphate Level (ppm) Phosphate Levels in and Name of River Nitrates The nitrate test is designed to measure the amount of nitrate in freshwater sources. Nitrate, the form of nitrogen available to plants through most inorganic fertilizers, can leach out of soil and run off into water sources when used in excess. It can stimulate the growth of algae, 32 P a g e

33 but can also cause a drop in oxygen which can kill off plant life especially due to the overabundance of algae.1 Nitrates should usually stay below levels of 10 ppm to prevent excess algae growth.2 Data: Nitrates in and 0.1 ppm 0.1 ppm 0.1ppm Trial 1 Trial 2 Average 0.4 ppm 0.2 ppm 0.3 ppm Average Nitrates in and 0.35 Nitrates (ppm) Name of River ph The ph shows that if the water is more of a base, acid or neutral. Ideally, water will have a ph of 7. A ph of 7 means its neutral. The water tested should be neutral, because the organisms depending on it are used to a neutral environment. However, the ph may change, due to pollution. If the ph is higher than 7 then the water is more basic, if it s lower than 7, the water is more acidic. The national standards for the ph levels are P a g e

34 Data: The ph of and Roaring Brook trial trial Average ph The Average ph for and Name of River Analysis: This shows that both the water from and are natural. They are neither basic nor acidic. The average ph for is 7.3. The average ph for is 7.7. Both averages are very similar and have a neutral water ph. This shows that the air pollution and the other types of pollution didn t affect it as much. But the water from is a little bit more basic. 34 P a g e

35 Velocity Velocity can be defined as the speed at which a river flows. It is important to include velocity when studying the water quality of a river because the quality of the water effects how fast it flows. A river with a high content of debris, sediment, and garbage has a slower speed and therefore a slower velocity. A river with a faster flow will have fewer chemicals and debris to inhibit it and future clogging is less likely. Velocity of and 35 P a g e

36 Velocity of and 2 meters 0.6Depth Flow Speed (m/s) Distance from shore 0.5 Counts Flow per minute Speed Depth Counts per minute m/s Flow Speed m/s 1m m/s 1m m/s 0.1 1m & 62.5 m m/s 1m & 62.5 m m/s Porter 540Brook.5112 m/s m/s meters 1m Roaring 1m Brook Name of River 8 meters Average 1m & 62.5 m m/s 1m & 62.5 m m/s 1m m/s 1m m/s 1m & 62.5 m m/s 1m & 62.5 m m/s m/s m/s 36 P a g e

37 Conclusion: The data supports the hypothesis that would have a better water quality then Porter Brook because it has a faster velocity. The velocity of is.4864 m/s while has a velocity of.3583 m/s. By the definition of velocity, it can be concluded that has fewer obstacles to inhibit its flow and will wash away more unwanted pollutants than. Analysis The difference in water quality at and is extreme. Upon arrival at the two test sites, it can be noted that even the quality of air is different. The air at is noticeably potent, while the air at is much cleaner smelling. This is indication that the two settings are very different in quality. If the air is of poor quality, the water is not likely to be better, because they are being influenced by the same factors. 37 P a g e

38 The amount of rifle dwelling benthic macroinvertebrates serves as an indicator of water quality in fresh water areas. This is because of all the tests done, this is the only test measuring the amount of sentient organisms found in the environment. The organisms need to have the water they live in be somewhat clean, and free of pollutants. yielded a total of 75 rifle dwelling benthic macroinvertebrates. This is a fairly average amount to be found. However, did not have nearly as many, with only 34 rifle dwelling benthic macroinvertebrates found. This shows that the water at is less of a sustainable environment than. There are not enough nutrients that can be found in the water at, and the pollution levels are much higher. E. coli is a bacterium found transmitted mainly by fecal matter. Since E. coli has long been a cause for concern among human consumers, one is lead to believe that finding E. coli in drinking water means that the quality of this water is much worse than that of another body of water. However, this is not necessarily the case. There was minimal E. coli found at the test sites. The only brook that had any E. coli colonies found was. This is, however, to be expected. Judging by the difference between how many rifle dwelling benthic macroinvertebrates, the area in and around sustains better wildlife than the area in and around. Since more wildlife is able to survive in the environment at, there is more a chance that an animal excremented in the water near the test site. This would cause E. coli to enter the water samples. did not show E. coli at all, because there were so few animals to be found in the environment. Only 34 rifle dwelling benthic macroinvertebrates could be found living in water there, so it is not surprising that there were so few animals in the surrounding areas. Silica is a necessary nutrient for microorganisms. However, if there is too much silica in the water sample, this can be harmful to the organisms within the water source. However, 38 P a g e

39 it is rare that this much silica will be found in a naturally occurring water source. To be toxic, the silica levels must be 2 mg/l. The highest concentration of silica found was 2.5 ppm, found at, and 2 ppm, found at. exceeds the States limits. Salinity measures how much dissolved salt is found in the water. In normal conditions, the salinity levels are balanced enough that organisms can thrive. However, rain or salt runoff can affect these balances and have a negative effect on the ecosystem. While has a lower salinity level than, with having 1.2 ppt, and having 1.6 ppt, both brooks fall under the state limit of less than 250 mg/ L. The levels of carbon dioxide in both brooks are clearly troubling. The levels at which the carbon dioxide rose to 35 ppm, a level much higher than it should have been at, and completely incongruous with any expected test or the results of the other tests in the same area. Based on these data patterns, it is clear that these results cannot be used in the final analysis of water quality. Overall, it is clear that the dissolved oxygen in each brook is well above the national limit. Though the results were unusually high, the BOD was low, and the dissolved oxygen was above optimal for life. Because was lower in dissolved oxygen and also had a lower BOD, its results are slightly puzzling. More puzzling was the fact that many other groups upon conducting the same experiment got much lower dissolved oxygen levels, down to even 9.6 ppm in. These are more likely chemical and mechanical failures, not water problems. Overall, the trends displayed were not at all congruous with what was expected for the brooks it was expected, based on the site analysis, that Porter brook would have much more 39 P a g e

40 detergent present than was actually found. However, these results are very similar to those found by other, similar experiments, and the comparison could not be questioned. Perhaps levels of detergent may have gone down due to recent rainfall. From the data shown and the chemical parameters of hardness, and Porter Brook both fall under the category of soft because they are between ppm. Roaring Brook has a hardness level of 125 ppm and has a level of 142 ppm. The data suggests that although there may be some amounts of magnesium and calcium in the water, there is not a great amount. The most abundant material that may be in the water is sodium, which tends to be common in soft water sources. The EPA s standard level for turbidity is 1 JTU. Both and are within the limits of the EPA s standards. The level of turbidity shows that there may be high levels of waste disposal, microscopic organisms, high iron levels, humic acids, and other matter. Of the two samples initial samples taken, no turbidity was found. However, the second sample taken at found a reading of 20 JTU. This is extremely high, and may have been caused by a mechanical error. The water at Roaring Book tested the same as the water in Porter brook for the Phosphate tests. The test may have been affected by the temperature of the water so the tests may be inconclusive. Two trials were run for each brook and both trials concluded to have the same amounts of phosphate in the brooks. With a total of four tests the average of each test came to a result of 1ppm in and 1ppm in Porter brook. The phosphate levels are efficient to satisfy the needs of the process of photosynthesis. The water at Roaring Book tested the same as the water in Porter brook for the Nitrate-N Phosphate tests. The test may have been affected by the temperature of the water and the different reoccurring types of phosphate so the tests may be inconclusive. All four 40 P a g e

41 tests came to the result averaging 1ppm in and 1ppm in Porter brook. Because Nitrate-N Phosphate occurs naturally in the environment, the EPA allows anywhere between 0.2 and 1.0 ppm of Nitrate-N Phosphate to be found in an inland Stillwater environment. It is clear that despite the lack of benthic macroinvertebrates living in either brook, their numbers cannot be accounted for by the amount of nitrates present in the water. The numbers were well below toxic, hardly influential for even drinking water standards. The nitrates were fine, and perfectly within range for both and. This shows that both of the bodies of water look are practically neutral and very similar. Both results from the data seemed to have about the same color just the shades were in different shades but it was still similar. Both results had a ph of about 7 or 8. This shows that the water from both places had the same kind of water. Conclusion Overall, the water quality could not be told simply by the appearance of the surroundings and the site assessment. It has been proven that out of the tests, though their results were quite close, proved to be of a higher water quality than Roaring Brook. Not only did it have better results in the tests concerning toxic materials, but it literally had more positive results than albeit by a very slim margin. 41 P a g e

42 and did, however, prove that their water qualities were not necessarily of the most positive possible outcomes. Neither of them had decent levels of dissolved oxygen, and their results for salinity, turbidity, carbon dioxide, and silica were all above national guidelines. However, generally had results that were closer to the guidelines in these instances, whether these results are in its benefit or detriment. Roaring Brook had much more dramatic differences from the guidelines, its results proving to be either much better or much worse than expected. This may have made it difficult to analyze a final conclusion, but this inability to remain consistent throughout all the tests also made much less favorable than. This can be reinforced by information gathered in previous testing of the same brooks. Though the benthic macroinvertebrate count was much lower in 2008 than in previous years, the macroinvertebrate count also declined in years before. The general decline of riffle dwelling benthic macroinvertebrates over the course of the last several years was consistent with the decline in water quality. Also supportive of the results in 2008 was the general agreement in years past that had a marginally better water quality than. Though Roaring Brook had also had a much more positive site analysis in the beginning of each field test, the results were not at all reflective of the actual water quality. This supports the conclusion as well as the patterns visible in the data. It is clear that despite the assumption that water quality can be determined from the appearance of a brook; data has proven that this is not the case., against expectations, proved to be the better of the two in terms of overall water quality. Especially in regards to the concrete support that previous tests have given, it has been proven that 42 P a g e

43 generally had the greatest water quality though neither was necessarily favorable. An error found while testing was the age of the chemicals used within the experiment. Some of the chemicals used were saved from previous experiments and their age was unknown. Some chemicals dilute over time and their overall effects during tests are altered. To improve upon the experiment, further chemical testing would be beneficial in determining whether or has better water quality. Many chemicals found in rivers are runoffs from fertilizers. Two such chemicals are phosphorus and nitrate. While these two chemicals are highly important to test for, other chemicals are known to leech into rivers and further tests would allow for more accurate data. Bibliography 43 P a g e

44 i Astacio, DeJesus, D' Angelo, Branch, Bernachie, Metcalf, Almodovar, Massiel, Cristalee, Kristen, Jazmyn, Coddy, Heidi, Perdo. Analyzing the Water Quality of and. 1st. East Hartford, CT, USA: self published, ii "Current National Recommended Water Quality Criteria." Water Quality Criteria. November 4, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 20 Dec 2008 < "Drinking Water Contaminants Safewater Water US EPA." United States EPA. 28 Nov Enviromental Protection Agency. 16 Dec 2008 < "Explanation of Hardness." USGS Science for a Changing World U.S. Department of the Interior. 22 Dec 2008 < "Free Drinking Water. Com." Silica in Drinking Water APEC. 11 Dec 2008 < "Ground Water Quality." Ohio.gov Department of Natural Resources. June 1, The Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 11 Dec 2008 < "Hard Water." Wikipedia. December 21, Wikipedia. 22 Dec 2008 < "Health of the Rideau River." Nature. ca. May 18, Canadian Museum of Nature. 20 Dec 2008 < Jacobson, Cliff. Water, Water Everywhere, But... 1st. Loveland, Colorado : Hach Company, Kotoski, James E.. "Carbon Dioxide Amounts in Water." Black Earth Creek & Limnology Minifacts & Analysis Spring Harbor Environmental Magnet Middle School. 20 Dec 2008 <

45 _Dioxide.pdf>. Kotoski, James E.. "Chloride Amounts in Water." Black Earth Creek & Limnology Minifacts & Analysis Spring Harbor Environment Magnet Middle School. 11 Dec 2008 < e.pdf>. "Lenntech Silica and Water." Lenntech Lenntech Watertreatment- en Luchtbehandeling. 11 Dec 2008 < "Nitrates and Nitrites in Drinking Water." Wilkes University Center for Environmental Quality Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences Nitrates in Drinking Water Wilkes University. 22 Dec 2008 < Oram, Brian. "Drinking Water Testing, Water Quality." Wilkes University Center for Environmental Quality Wilkes University. 20 Dec 2008 < "Quality Criteria for Water 1986." EPA. May 1, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 20 Dec 2008 < "Salinity." Digital Library for Earth System Education DLESE. 20 Dec 2008 < %20&s=0&setVocabState=re&setVocabState=gr&setVocabState=ky&setVocabState=cs&s etvocabstate=su&gr=&re=&cs=&ky=&su>. "Total Phosphorus and Phosphate." Wilkies University Center for Environmental Quality Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences Phosphates and Water Quality Wilkies University. 22 Dec 2008 < "Turbidity." Lenntech Lenntech Water treatment & Air Purification Holding B.V.. 22 Dec 2008 < "Water Quality Standards." State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 20 Dec 2008 <

46 "What are the chemical parameters of good water quality?." Free Drinking Water. com APEC. 20 Dec 2008 < "Why Hard Water is Healthier than Soft Water." Triangular Waves Technologies, Inc Triangular Waves Technologies, Inc. 22 Dec 2008 <