Group 4 Comparison of Urban Porter Brook and Rural Roaring Brook. Group 4 Comparison of Urban Porter Brook and Rural Roaring Brook

Transcription

1 Group 4 Comparison of Urban Porter Brook and Rural Roaring Brook Jorge Juan Rodriguez V Saipin Widomski Carl A. D'Oleo-Lundgren Group 4 Comparison of Urban Porter Brook and Rural Roaring Brook Sakina Baqar James Benjamin Nathalie Philips Jorge Juan Rodriguez V Saipin Widomski Carl A. D'Oleo-Lundgren Sakina Baqar James Benjamin Nathalie Philips

2 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents.1 Abstract 3 Problem Statement, Hypothesis, Variables..4 Standards of Good Water Quality as defined by Cliff Jacobson.5 Maps of Porter Brook...6 Maps of Roaring Brook...7 Site Analysis 8 Temperature.9 Dissolved Oxygen..13 Biochemical Oxygen Demand...18 Carbon Dioxide..24 ph...29 Silica..33 Nitrate 38 Phosphate...42 Detergent 46 Hardness...53 Turbidity 59 Coliform Bacteria...63 Velocity..69 2

3 3 Salinity...73 Benthic Macro Invertabrates..78 Analysis..88 Conclusion.90 Validity..91 Sources of Error.92 Improvements 93 Bibliography..94 3

4 4 Abstract On November 13, 2008 Jorge Juan Rodriguez V, Saipin Widomski, Carl A. D'Oleo-Lundgren, James Benjamin, Nathalie Philips, and Sakina Baqar will go to Porter Brook in East Hartford, Connecticut, an urban environment, and Roaring Brook in Glastonbury, Connecticut, a rural environment, to test and compare the water quality of an urban and rural environment. To test the water quality of these two brooks the group w ill do several tests. These tests include Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Biochemical Ox ygen Demand, PH, Carbon Dioxide, Silica, Nitrate, Phosphate, Detergent, Hardness, Tur bidity, Coliform Bacteria, and Benthic Macroinvertabrates. Testing these different things will allow for the ability to compare the two brooks and find which brook has better wate r quality and thus determine if an urban or rural environment has better quality. The water quality is dependant on many factors. There are other factors that affec t it as well, things such as location and if the brook has another water source feeding into it or if it is feeding into another water source. The water quality of these brooks are impor tant to test because of the effects the water can have on organisms in the water. Water quality of water determines many things. Some of these things that are dete rmined are if the water is suitable to sustain life. Depending on the results of the tests the group will be able to determine if the living conditions of the water are suitable for all the organisms in water such as fish, benthic macroinvertabrates, etc. 4

5 5 Problem Statement Does a brook in an urban environment or a brook in a rural environment have better water quality? Hypothesis If water from a Rural Location and Urban Location were to be studied and compared in their Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, ph, C arbon Dioxide, Silica, Nitrate, Phosphate, Detergent, Hardness, Turbidity, Coliform Bact eria, and number of Benthic Macroinvertabrates then one would find that the Rural Location would have better water quality. Because of the more remote location and lower population density that correlate with higher pollution, the water from the Roaring Brook will have better water quality. Variables Independent Variable: Roaring Brook and Porter Brook Dependent Variable:0020Water Quality Control: Standards of Good Water Quality as defined by Cliff Jacobson 5

6 6 Standards of Good Water Quality as defined by Cliff Jacobson Temperature- 15 to 40 degrees Celsius Dissolved Oxygen- <6.0 mg/l Biochemical Oxygen Demand- 1-5 mg/l Carbon Dioxide mg/l ph- 6.5 to 8.2 Silica-.5 to 10.0 ppm Nitrate- As close to 0.0 ppm as possible Phosphate- around 0.1 mg/l Detergent- <.010 mg/l Hardness- 61 to 120 ppm Turbidity- 0 to 40 JTU Coliform Bacteria- <200 FC/100mL Velocity- n/a Salinity- ~550 ppm 6

7 7 Porter Brook 7

8 8 Roaring Brook 8

9 9 Site Analysis Roaring Brook Roaring Brook is a brook in a Rural Location. The brook is relatively wide in diameter and the water is relatively clear. The terrain is rugged and the soil is damp. There are no leaves disturbing the water and the area around the brook is abundant in plants and algae. 9

10 10 Porter Brook Porter Brook is a brook in an Urban Location. It is relatively thin in width and the water is quite murky. The terrain around the brook is not rugged and it s a hilly area with damp soil. There are a copious amount of leaves disturbing the water and not a large amount of algae around the brook, not a large amount of plants neither. Temperature In testing the temperature, one will take a thermometer, and place it about 4 inches under water and read and record the temperature of the brook in one area. Then go to another area about half a mile upstream with similar conditions to the first location and repeat taking the temperature and do the same thing again half a mile downstream from the central location. The reason the temperature is taken in three different locations with similar characteristics is to make sure that the temperature of the brook is consistent throughout the brook. The reason temperature is taken is because temperature affects a lot of things in the water; the amount of dissolved oxygen, the rate of photosynthesis by aquatic plants, the sensitivity of organisms to toxic wastes, and it also affects parasites and diseases. Because it affects so many things, temperature is a parameter. Thus in it 10

11 11 being a parameter that affects other things it does not have any chemical parameters. There are however specific parameters for specific organisms. Different species of fish thrive in specific temperatures. In the same way Diatoms thrive at degrees Celsius, green algae at degrees Celsius, and blue-green algae at degrees Celsius. Materials LaMotte Armored non-mercury Thermometer Procedure 1.Chose a central location in the brook. 2.Place the thermometer about 4 inches under water and hold for about 10 seconds 3.Read and Record the temperature of the central location in Celsius 4.Find a location.5 miles upstream from the central locations with similar characteristics to the central location 5.Repeat steps 2 and 3 11

12 12 6.Find a location.5 miles downstream from the central locations with similar characteristics to the central location 7.Repeat steps 2 and 3 8.Keep Thermometer in the air for 30 seconds 9.Read and Record the temperature of the air Data Temperatures in Various Locations of Roaring Brook and Porter Brook Central.5 Miles.5 Miles Brook Roaring Location Upstream Downstream Air Brook Porter Brook 7 C 6 C 6 C 5 C 5 C 5 C 12.5 C 10 C 12

13 13 Temperature Comparison between Porter Brook and Roaring Brook 8 7 Degrees in Celsius 6 5 Porter Brook Roaring Brook central location.5 mile upstream.5 mile downstream Location of Data Collection Analysis In looking at the data one can conclude that the water in a rural location, Roaring Brook, is better for sustaining life because it is closer to the parameters for the thriving conditions of the organisms that prefer colder water, diatoms. Although not by much, the rural area did have warmer water than the urban area by.5 degrees Celsius. However, the air temperature of the rural area was also warmer than that of the urban area by 2.5 degrees Celsius. Diatoms thrive at temperatures of between degrees Celsius and the temperatures are Roaring Brook are closer than those of Porter Brook to sustaining this life. Conclusion 13

14 14 In conclusion, the rural areas of Roaring Brook had a better temperature for the survival and thrive of most freshwater aquatic wildlife than did the urban area of Porter Brook. Dissolved oxygen Most of the parameter have tended to depend on the level of the water due the fact that all of the water come from different areas and then collectively combined into one and the presence of living plants in the water could have contributed to photosynthesis that would have also had added to the amount of oxygen that was in the water. The factors in and out of the water have largely determined the amount of oxygen that is in the water it has shown to have the potential oxygen levels have show to be relatively significant for the amount of oxygen that was need to be used for the aquatic animals in the water. For example the more that the area is rocky the dissolved oxygen rises. The scales that are usually used to measure the amount of oxygen that is in the 14

15 15 water is that they are measure on a scales basis of ppm so if there was 0 ppm in the water then that would mean that there was no dissolved oxygen in the water. But the highest amount of ppm that there can be is ten which is not commonly found since is it continuously being used most of the time by plants and other various organisms. If there is a low ppm then that result shows that there are bad living conditions for any thing that would have surrounded the river. There are possibilities of having a higher ppm then ten but is very uncommonly found. Materials Pair of gloves Water sample water bottle Small plastic spoon that contains 1.0 g in size Titrator 0377 Test tube with a cap that had a 20 ml line on it 30ml Manganous sulfate solution 30ml alkaline potassium iodide azide 50g sulfamic acid powder 30 ml sufric acid solution 15

16 16 60 ml sodium thiosulfate solution 30 ml starch indicator solution Procedure 1.Fill the water sample bottle all the way to the top while the water bottle is submerged underneath the water 2.After the sample water bottle has been filled to the top then take the Manganous sulfate solution and add 8 drops to the sample water bottle filled with water from the brook s 3.After the solution has been added to the sample water bottle then add Alkaline potassium iodide Azide an add it to the sample water bottle 4.Mix the sample water bottle and make sure that it has been capped 5.Then wait for 9 minutes or until the solution meaning the whole entire liquid in the water has settled 6.Take the test tube that had the line of 20 ml on it and fill it with the fixed water solution to the 20 ml line 7.Then take and fill it all the way up with the sodium thiosulfate 8.Use the titrate and fill into the test tube until the sample water has turned to a pale yellow 9.Then add 8 drops of the starch indicator to the water 10.Then keep adding the rest of the titrate to the water until the water the color blue of the water has disappeared from the solution 16

17 17 Data Levels of Dissolved Oxygen in Roaring Brook and Porter Brook Roaring Brook Porter Brook 17.2 mg/l 24.1 mg/l Dissolved Oxygen 17

18 18 Dissolved Oxygen 30 ppm levels Dissolved Oxygen Roaring Brook Porter Brook brooks Analysis Dissolved oxygen is found when there is oxygen that is coming an area around the water as the water comes together the oxygen becomes absorbed into the water. Since oxygen is in the air and is at a constant exposure to oxygen and that how the water absorbs the gas. 18

19 19 The oxygen that is in the water is initially used by the animal specifically the aquatic animals so that they may use the oxygen as other animals do on dry lands. When there is a shortage of oxygen in the water it shows that there can be smaller amounts of aquatics animals that live their in the specific brook. The sign of less oxygen in the water should have also indicated that there was pollution in the water but there could have been other physical signs that would have shown that there was pollution in the water such as an odor that would have indicated that some of the water or the general area around the brook was polluted. Conclusion What the two brooks had shown was that there was a higher percentage of oxygen in roaring brook than there was in Porter book. It seems to have been because of the fact that the river seems to have moved more allowing the circulation of the water to move more. Thus over a period of time the percent saturation of oxygen has increased. Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOD is the chemical demand that is usually tested after a period of five days to show how much of the oxygen that is in the water has been used up by the organism that live in the water still. The level of dissolved oxygen should have decrease for the fact that 19

20 20 there were some aquatic animals in the water that would have used up the oxygen in the sample water bottle. Materials Pair of gloves Water sample water bottle Small plastic spoon that contains 1.0 g in size Titrator

21 21 Test tube with a cap that had a 20 ml line on it 30ml Manganous sulfate solution 30ml alkaline potassium iodide azide 50g sulfamic acid powder 30 ml sufric acid solution 60 ml sodium thiosulfate solution 30 ml starch indicator solution Aluminum foil Procedure 1.After the period of five days has been complete then redo the dissolved oxygen test 2.Fill the water sample bottle all the way to the top while the water bottle is submerged underneath the water the water should have been collected five days before that and had been capped and wrapped in aluminum foil them. 3.Then after the sample water bottle has been filled to the top then take the Manganous sulfate solution and add 8 drops to the sample water bottle filled with water from the brook s 4.After that solution has been added to the sample water bottle then take the Alkaline potassium iodide Azide an add it to the sample water bottle 5.Mix the sample water bottle and make sure that it has been capped 6.Then wait for about 9 minutes or until the solution meaning the whole entire liquid 21

22 22 in the water has settled 7.Take the test tube that had the line of 20 ml on it and fill it with the fixed water solution to the 20 ml line 8.Then take and fill it all the way up with the sodium thiosulfate 9.Use the titrate and fill into the test tube until the sample water has turned to a pale yellow 10.Then add 8 drops of the starch indicator to the water 11.Then keep adding the rest of the titrate to the water until the water the color blue of the water has disappeared from the solution Data: The B.O.D levels for Roaring Brook and Porter Brook Five day B.O.D Roaring Brook 9.2 Porter Brook

23 23 Five day B.O.D 11 ppm levels Five day B.O.D Roaring Brook Porter Brook brooks Analysis The measured amounts in the amounts of oxygen have shown the amount of organic matter that has been decomposed in the brook water. Then the B.O.D the chemicals that were used in this test show the amount of oxygen that can used up by the 23

24 24 chemical itself. The temperature and the ph scale can have a large effect on the type of organisms that live in the water. The reason that this test even conducted in the first place is to see how much and how fast the oxygen was used in the water from the two brooks. The more the level of oxygen is used up shows that there were was oxygen that was going to the organisms to be able to use in order for them to survive. Some of the other reason to conduct this test is so that it can show how well the living conditions are for the animals that surround the water are good enough to live in. If there was a low amount of oxygen then it would mean that there are not a lot of aquatic animals that can survive in this water thus leading to make the conclusion that the water is polluted and thus that there should be a large amount of bacteria in the water. Some other materials that can have a large effect on the B.O.D are that that there can be wood more of dried debris would adsorb some of the chemicals. Then there is also that dead plants and animals that were in the water source could have also affected it largely. Though the bacteria in the water would be considered to be a sign of waste there should have been other sign as the odor of the water and soil to show the amount of pollution that was around in the water and soil. But bacteria is not always a bad thing because of the fact that bacteria also breaks down some of the compounds in the water so that they can be used to make an improvement for the aquatic animals to be able to live in. 24

25 25 The smaller level of the B.O.D would show how well that the water is or the organisms to be able to live in any thing that has a B.O.D that is higher that 8 is bad 8 itself being a fair number of ppm for the two brook to use. A problem that can have occurred with the data is that since the brooks had added oxygen to the water through the water making a path over the rocks and other things that could have a water fall. The B.O.D that are deeper and slower the levels for the chemical demand would have shown exactly how much of the oxygen was being used over a period of five days. Conclusion Initially the Roaring Brook was the best for dissolved oxygen because of the fact that there were rocks that had allowed the circulation for the oxygen to develop into the water because the more the water was moving the more the oxygen was absorbed into the water. Since there was a better rate of B.O.D in the water for Roaring Brook it had allowed visual representation on how well the oxygen was used by the organisms and how much of the water was saturated into the water. Carbon dioxide 25

26 26 The reason why this test was completed was so that it would show the results of how many organisms were living in the two books. The more that there was a higher level of carbon dioxide had shown that there were more organisms living in the water showing that the result for which brook was better would have been the brook that had the higher result of carbon dioxide. More organism leads to more oxygen being needed. Materials Phenolphthalein indicator 15 ml 26

27 27 Carbon dioxide reagent b 60ml Titrate 50 ranges Test tube glass with a twenty ml line on it Procedure: 1.Take the glass test tube that has the 20 ml line on it and fill it with the water from the brook 2.Make sure that there is minimal movement of the water as it is going into the test tube the result of allowing the water to be shaken to a degree can release the carbon dioxide form the water and allow other gasses such as oxygen in to the water. 3.The take the Phenolphthalein indicator bottle and add precisely two drops of this solution into the water sample 4.If the color has remained to be color less then the test can be continued but the result of the chemical can show there to be a slight whiteness to be added to the water but that shall disappear once the water has had fully time to develop into water. 5.Then by taking the titrate take the insert it into the carbon dioxide regent until it is filling the hole at the top of the solution then turn then bottle with the titrator in it upside down and pull back the handle of the lever till it become filled with the solution to the maximum 6.Then put the titrator to the tip of the water test glass tube and insert the solution in the titrator into the glass test tube and one drop at a time add the solution till the water has become slightly pink. 7.Wait thirty seconds before proceeding to allow the chemicals to dissolve fully into the 27

28 28 water 8.Then slightly shake the water in the test tube 9.Record the ppm of the carbon dioxide Data Carbon Dioxide Levels of Roaring Brook and Porter Brook 28

29 29 Roaring Brook Porter Brook 3.9 mg/l 3.74 mg/l Carbon Dioxide levels Carbon Dioxide levels 3.95 ppm levels Carbon Dioxide levels Roaring Brook Porter Brook brooks Analysis There have seemed to have some organism that have been living in the water and the more oxygen that they have been using has shown that that the organism living in the 29

30 30 water were breathing out Carbon dioxide. When then five day B.O.D was completed it had shown that there was a decrease in the oxygen levels showing that there was use of it and allowing the carbon dioxide levels to rise. Conclusion It showed how since there was more oxygen in Roaring Brook which means that there were more organisms that were using the oxygen in there for respiration and had exhaled carbon dioxide. There for since it seemed as though there was more of a pollution problem it would make sense for organism to have a less amount of oxygen to breath in also because there was a more of a larger movement. So the more respiration that was occurring with the organisms had resulted to a larger carbon dioxide in the water. ph To test the ph of the water take an electronic ph reader and simply stick it n the water. To have data like that of temperature, take a ph test in the same three locations as 30

31 31 temperature was taken, in a central location, a location half a mile upstream and half a mile downstream. What this tests is the amount of hydrogen ions in the water. The more hydrogen ions the water has the more acidic the water is thus the lower the ph is. ph is the amount of hydrogen in the water. The ph test is extremely important. The optimal chemical parameter for the ph level for organisms is 6.5 to 8.2. Depending on the ph and the surroundings of water, a lot of conclusions can be made. If the ph isn t in this optimal range it will explain the amount of organisms in the water. If there are algae that remove carbon dioxide from the water, this will explain why the ph level might be higher. Materials LaMotte Electronic ph tester 31

32 32 Procedure 1.Place the bottom of the electronic ph tester in the water in a central location (the same central location as the temperature test) 2.Read and Record the ph 3.Place the bottom of the electronic ph tester in the water in a location half a mile upstream from the central location (the same location as the temperature test) 4.Repeat step 2 5.Place the bottom of the electron ph tester in the water in a location half a mile downstream from the central location (the same location as the temperature test) 6.Repeat step 2 Data PH of Roaring and Porter Brook in Different Locations Brook Central.5 Miles.5 Miles 32

33 33 Roaring Brook Porter Brook Location Upstream Downstream PH Comparison Between Porter Brook and Roaring Brook PH of Water 7.8 Porter Brook Roaring Brook central location.5 mile upstream.5 mile downstream Location of Data Collection Analysis The rural environment has a ph much higher than that of the urban environment. The ph of urban Porter brook is much more optimal to sustain life than is the rural Roaring Brook being at 7.3 and 7.4 which is better to sustain life than 8.4, 8, and

34 34 found in Roaring Brook. Although both are inside the ideal parameters of between 6.0 and 8.2 Roaring Brook has an instance in which it is much too high. Conclusion In conclusion the original hypothesis is incorrect because in fact the urban area has much more optimal conditions to sustain life. Silica Silica is basically Silica is an oxide of silicon, and is present in almost all minerals. It s found in well water as well as regular rivers or lakes water in the range of 1 34

35 35 to 100 mg/i. Silica is considered to be colloidal in nature because of the way it reacts in with absorbents. In the resent test that was investigates, the test range was ppm and it was found that it couldn t be finish testing because there were reagents that were missing from the case, and so a conclusion was unavailable for Silica. The boundaries are 0.5 as being the not that bad, 10.0 to have a lot of Silica in the water. If the test color, the water is supposed to change colors, if it s darker than.10 ppm, then the test must be redone, the test is over because there s nothing for silica higher than.10 ppm. Materials SILICA TEST KIT MODEL PSI CODE 4463 QTY. CONTENTS CODE 30 ml *Silica Re agent #1 *4571-G 15 ml *Silica Re agent #2 *4467-E 35

36 36 15 ml *Silica Re agent #3 *4468-E 5 ml *Reducing Re agent *6405-C 2 Test Tubes, 5 ml, glass, w/caps Pipet, plain, plastic Pipet, 0.5 ml, plas tic Silica Comparator, ppm 4465 Procedure 1. Fill test tube (0230) to line with sample water. 2. Add 7 drops of *Silica Reagent #1 (4571). Cap and mix by inverting 4 times. 3. Add 6 drops of *Silica Reagent #2 (4467). Cap and mix. Wait 5 minutes. 4. Add 6 drops of *Silica Reagent #3 (4468). Cap and mix. Wait 2 minutes. 5. Use pipet (0352) to add 2 drops of *Reducing Reagent (6405). Cap and mix. A BLUE color develops in 10 seconds if silica is present. 6. Insert test tube into Silica Comparator (4465). Match sample color to a color standard. Record as ppm Silica. NOTE: If test color is darker than the 10.0 ppm standard, repeat test on diluted sample. Use pipet (0353) to add 0.5 ml of water sample to test tube. Dilute to 5 ml mark with DI water. Follow Steps 2 through 6 above. Multiply result by 10. Record as ppm Silica. 36

37 37 Data Silica Levels for Porter Brook and Roaring Brook Silica Trial 1 Trial 2 37

38 38 Porter Brook Roaring Brook Silicon present (ppt) Porter Brook vs. Roaring Brook Porter Brook Roaring Brook Trial 1 Trial 2 Number of Trials Analysis This experiment proved the hypothesis that Porter Brook had a better quality of water than Roaring Brook. The test for silica determines the number of silicon found and present in the water and so Porter Brook had a number of 7.5 ppt of silicon in 38

39 39 it s waters for both of the trials that were conducted. Roaring Brook on the other hand showed that it had a number of 8 ppt of silicon present, thus the experiment conducted proves that the brook that has the best water quality is Porter Brook and not Roaring Brook. Conclusion In conclusion the test proved the hypothesis to be true. In that Porter Brook had a better water quality than Roaring Brook. In testing for which of the brooks had more silicon present it was evident that Porter Brook had the better quality of water than Roaring Brook. Nitrate Nitrate is usually formed from bacteria and fungi that are in the surrounding area. Nitrate from ground water originates primarily from fertilizers, septic systems, and manure storage or spreading operations. Nitrate is found in any water and in many areas around including, the soil and air. For water though too much nitrate is not recommended for drinking, if there is a high percentage of nitrate then the water is contaminated and 39

40 40 could cause harm to anyone who drinks it. During the experiment in Roaring Brook and Porter Brook, the level of nitrate in the water was tested and examined. If there was a high level of nitrate then the water would be declared unsuitable for drinking. Having animals, pollution, and bacteria near a body of water would add to the nitrate concentration therefore having the level rise and not be usable. Materials 2 x 30 ml *VM Phosphate Reagent *4410-G 30 ml *Reducing Reagent *6405-G 1 DistilledWater Ampoule, 5 ml Pipet, 1.0 ml, plastic Pipet, plain, plastic

41 41 4 Test Tubes, 10 ml, glass, w/caps Axial Reader Phosphate Comparator, Low Range, ppm.procedure 1. Fill test tube (0843) to line with sample water. 2. Use the 1 ml pipet (0354) to add 2 ml of *VM Phosphate Reagent (4410). Cap and invert several times to mix.wait 3 minutes. 3. Use the plain pipet (0352) to add 4 drops of *Reducing Reagent (6405). Cap and mix. Color will develop within 10 seconds. 4. Remove stopper from test tube. Place tube in Phosphate Comparator (7608) with Axial Reader (2071).Match sample color to a color standard. Record as ppm Orthophosphate. Data Levels of Nitrate (ppm) Found in Porter Brook and Roaring Brook Trial 1 Trial 2 Average Porter Brook.2ppm.2ppm.2ppm Roaring Brook.2ppm.2ppm.2ppm 41

42 42 Level of Nitrate in Porter Brook and Roaring Brook 0.25 Nitrate (ppm) Porter Brook Roaring Brook 42

43 43 Analysis Both Brooks showed the same amount of nitrate in the water. When the data was taken the solution from both brooks and both trials came out to be a light shade of pink. A light shade of pink that is almost clear indicates that the nitrate level is not high. There fore the water is suitable for drinking because there was no great amount of harmful bacteria or fungi in the area or surrounding area. Conclusion Based on the hypothesis and given the data for this section, the hypothesis was incorrect. The hypothesis states that because the Roaring Brook is in a urban area, it would not have a better water quality than that of Porter Brook. From the data shown above, the amount of Nitrate found in the two different brooks was the same. Two trials were done for each of the brooks and the average for Porter Brook ended up being.2ppm and the same was found for Roaring Brook. So based on this data alone, it can be said that the water quality for both is the same and they both have traces of bacteria and fungi. Given that it is only.2ppm though, also means that there is not a lot of bacteria and fungi so it is acceptable for drinking. 43

44 44 Phosphate Phosphate is a chemical compound that contains the element phosphorus. Phosphorus is needed for plant and animal growth; phosphates usually enter the water during the rain. The soil from nearby would be washed from the dry land into the waterways. A little bit of phosphate is ok to have in the water, but a noticeable amount is hazardous to the water and drinking water. A lot of phosphorus because it is made up of fertilizers, pesticides, cleaning compounds, etc. is not healthy and can be harmful. The actual rating (i.e., soil Phosphorus level) is based on a "relative" range of extractable Phosphorus in ppm (e.g., 0-5 ppm, VL; 6-10 ppm, L; ppm, M; ppm, H; 2125 ppm, VH). ( For this experiment the water from Roaring Brook and Porter Brook will be examined and studied for phosphate if a great deal of phosphate shows then the water is not sanitary. 44

45 45 Materials 2 x 30 ml *VM Phosphate Reagent *4410-G 30 ml *Reducing Reagent *6405-G 1 DistilledWater Ampoule, 5 ml Pipet, 1.0 ml, plastic Pipet, plain, plastic Test Tubes, 10 ml, glass, w/caps Axial Reader Phosphate Comparator, Low Range, ppm Procedure 1. Fill test tube (0843) to line with sample water. 2. Use the 1 ml pipet (0354) to add 2 ml of *VM Phosphate Reagent (4410). Cap and invert several times to mix.wait 3 minutes. 3. Use the plain pipet (0352) to add 4 drops of *Reducing Reagent (6405). Cap and mix. Color will develop within 10 seconds. 4. Remove stopper from test tube. Place tube in Phosphate Comparator (7608) with Axial Reader (2071).Match sample color to a color standard. Record as ppm Orthophosphate. 45

46 46 Data Levels of Phosphate (ppm) found in Porter Brook and Roaring Brook Porter Brook 0 ppm 0 ppm 0 ppm Trial 1 Trial 2 Average Roaring Brook 1 ppm.5 ppm`.5 ppm Level of Phosphate (ppm) for Porter Brook and Roaring Brook ppm Porter Brook Roaring Brook 46

47 47 Analysis: When measured for Phosphate in Roaring Brook the Phosphate solution came out a light blue. When the same test was done for Porter Brook the ending result was a clear color meaning no ppm or Phosphate. And therefore, the water from both Porter Brook and Roaring Brook are not harmful drinking water. Conclusion The hypothesis, according to this section of data, was correct. Porter Brook being a brook in the urban area has better water quality than Roaring Brook which is located in an rural area. Two trials were done to test for the level and amount of phosphate for each brook. Based on the data shown, there was no amount of phosphate detected in Porter Brook. In Roaring Brook on the other hand during the first trial 1ppm was detected and on the second trial.5 ppm was detected. Having had more ppm in 47

48 48 Roaring Brook than in Porter Brook, shows that the water quality in Porter is slightly better than that of Roaring. Detergent Surfactants and detergents are common contaminants of surface water due to their common usage in every type of washing and cleaning operation. Modern detergents contain more than surfactants. Cleaning products may also contain enzymes to degrade protein-based stains, bleaches to de-color stains and add power to cleaning agents, and blue dyes to counter yellowing. Detergent surfactants are made from a variety of petrochemicals (derived from petroleum) and/or oleochemicals (derived from fats and oils). The presence of detergent surfactants in a storm drain system is a strong indicator of run-off or effluent discharges. Detergents lower the amount of oxygen available to fish. (Water Quality Objectives 2) Chemical Parameters: < mg/l Ideal mg/l Average 48

49 mg/l More than desirable > mg/l Excessive (potential nuisance concentration) Materials: 60 ml DS Indicator Reagent 4508-H 15 ml DS Reference Solution 4513-E 60 g ph Adjustment Powder 4509-H 1 Test Tube, Test Sample w/cap Test Tube, Reference Sample w/cap Test Tube, 1-8 ml, plastic, w/cap Pipet, glass Spoon, 0.25 g, plastic 0695 Procedure PART I Determine If Detergent is Present 49

50 50 1.Use the calibrated test tube (0755) to measure 5 ml of the sample solution. Add to the screw cap tube marked Test Sample (0282). 2.Use the 0.25 g spoon (0695) to add one measure of ph Adjustment Powder 94509). Shake ntil dissolved. 3.Fill the pipet (0347) with DS Indicator Reagent (4508) by squeezing the rubber bulb, then inserting pipet into reagent. Add this amount of DS Indicator Reagent to te Test Sample tube. Cap and shake for one minute. 4.Allow the tube to stand until the two layers of the solution to separate. The water layer will settle to the bottom and the reagent layer will rise to the top. Use the chart below to determine if detergent is present. Bottom layer Colorless Some Color Colored Top layer Colored Some Color Colorless Quick Reading No detergent in sample Some Detergent in sample High Detergent in sample NOTE: If the amount of detergent in the sample is to be determined, save this Test Sample and proceed to Part II. PART II Determines the Amount of Detergent Present in the Sample 1.Use the calibrated test tube (0755) to measure 5 ml of detergent-free water. Add to t screw cap tube marked Reference Sample (0283). (On field trips it may be necessary to carry a small supply of detergent free water.) 2.Use the 0.25 g spoon (0698) to add one measure of ph Adjustment Powder (4509). 50

51 51 Shake until dissolved. 3.Fill the pipet (0347) with DS Indicator Reagent. Add this amount of DS Indicator Reagent to the Reference Sample tube. 4.Add one drop of DS Reference Solution (4513). Cap and shake for one minute. 5.Allow the tube to stand until the two layers of solution separate. The color produced in the bottom (water) layer is equivalent to 1 ppm of detergent. 6.Compare the color in the bottom layer of the Test Tube Sample from Part I to the color of the bottom of the Reference Sample Tube. Add one drop of DS Reference If Test Sample Color Is Lighter than Reference Same as Reference Darker than Reference Test Sample Contains Less than 1.0 ppm Detergent 1.0 ppm Detergent More than 1.0 ppm Detergent Solution (4513) to the Reference Sample Tube. Shake to mix. Compare the color as before. The color in t Reference Sample is now equal to 2.0 ppm. Continue this procedure, counting the number of drops of DS Reference Solution (4513) added to the Reference Sample Tube is equal to 1.0 ppm detergent in the sample. 51

52 52 Data Detergent Presence Roaring Brook: Nov. 13, 2008 Color of Bottom Layer of Test Tube Top Layer Some Color Layer of Water in Brook Bottom Layer Some Color Detergent Presence Porter Brook: Nov. 13, 2008 Color of Bottom Layer of Test Tube Top Layer Some Color Layer of Water in Brook Bottom Layer Some Color 52

53 53 Trial Number Trial Number Amount of Detergent Present Roaring Brook: Nov. 13, 2008 Color of Bottom Layer of Test Tube 1 Some Color More than Top Brook Layer 2 Some Color More than Bottom Brook Layer Amount of Detergent Present Porter Brook: Nov. 13, 2008 Color of Bottom Layer of Test Tube 1 Some Color More than Top Brook Layer 2 Some Color More than Bottom Brook Layer Analysis 53

54 54 At both Roaring Brook and Porter Brook, the trial runs for both the bottom and top layers of water were found to have some color in the bottom layer of their test tubes after adding DS Indicator Reagent and DS Reference Solution. These results meant that in both the bottom and top layers of both Roaring Brook and Porter Brook, the presence of detergent was detected. DS Indicator Reagent and DS Reference Solution were then added to detergent free water to create reference samples in the same way as done with the water from each brook. These were then used as a basis of comparison for the tests in which brook water was used. In the same way as the trials with brook water, the bottom layer of liquid in the test tubes were determined to have some color in them. However, this some color was darker than the test samples. The color found in the reference samples was equal to an amount of detergent 1.0 parts per million (ppm). This meant that in the trial runs, both brooks and both layers (top and bottom) for each brook, the amount of detergent present was less than 1.0ppm. Conclusion While both of the brooks were found to have less than 1.0 ppm detergent in their water, this still poses a problem. The particular test conducted to determine the presence of detergent is none too specific, and thus, the closest measurement obtainable through the test is merely less than 1.0 ppm. It is unclear the actual figures as to the amount of detergent in water. This being said however, the maximum possible amount of detergent in a water source as stated in the chemical parameters for determining such is mg/l. Because 1.0ppm = 1.0 mg/l of water, most values under 1.0 ppm are still much too high to be acceptable. 54

55 55 Therefore, in regards to detergent and the presence thereof, both Roaring Brook and Porter Brook have less than desirable water quality Hardness 55

56 56 Hardness is just the amount of calcium and magnesium in the water because the two minerals are chiefly responsible for hard water. Water is said to contain a lot of hardness, which is hard water when soap wouldn t lather easily. The natural source of hardness usually is limestone rock which is dissolved by water that s been made acid by carbon dioxide. In a total hardness table a 0 to 60 milligrams per liter would be considered as soft water. 61 to 120 milligrams per liter would be moderately hard water, a 121mg to 180mg would be considered hard water, and a 181mg and up would be considered as very hard water. Materials 56

57 57 TOTAL, CALCIUM & MAGNESIUM HARDNESS TEST KIT MODEL PHT-CM-DR-LT CODE 4824-DR-LT QUANTITY CONTENTS CODE 15 ml *Sodium Hydroxide Reagent w/metal Inhibitor *4259-E 50 Calcium Hardness Indicator Tablets T-5250-H 15 ml *Hardness Reagent #5 *4483-E 100 Hardness Reagent #6 Tablets 4484-J 60 ml Hardness Reagent #7 4487DR-H 1 Test Tube, ml, glass, w/cap 1 Direct Reading Titrator, Range Pipet, 0.5 ml, plastic 0353 Procedure ANALYSIS OF HARDNESS IN SALT WATER When sea and estuarine waters containing very high levels of mineral salts are to be tested, the sample must be diluted to a feasible concentration before titration. This test is supplied with a calibrated pipet for performing the kit dilutions described below. TOTAL HARDNESS DILUTION (1 TO 25.8) 1. Use the 0.5 ml pipet (0353) to transfer 0.5 ml of the salt water to be tested to the test tube (0608). 57

58 58 2. Dilute to the 12.9 ml line with distilled water. 3. Follow Steps 2 through 7 under thetotal HardnessTest Procedure. MultiplyTitrator reading by Record as ppmtotal Hardness ascaco3. CALCIUM HARDNESS DILUTION (1 TO 12.9) 1. Use the 0.5 ml pipet (0353) to transfer 1.0 ml (two measures) of the salt water to be tested to the test tube (0608). 2. Dilute to the 12.9 ml line with distilled water. 3. Follow Steps 2 through 7 under Calcium Hardness test procedure. Multiply Titrator reading by Record as ppm Calcium Hardness ascaco3. To convert Calcium Carbonate to Calcium Chloride, multiply by Record as ppm Calcium Chloride. ppm CaCl2= ppm CaCO3 x 1.11 To convert Calcium Carbonate to Calcium, multiply by 0.4. Record as ppm Calcium. ppm Ca = ppm CaCO3 x 0.4 MAGNESIUM HARDNESS OF SALT WATER Subtract Calcium Hardness from Total Hardness. Record as ppm Magnesium Hardness as CaCO3. Magnesium Hardness (ppm CaCO3) = Total Hardness _ Calcium Hardness To convert Magnesium Hardness as CaCO3 to Magnesium Chloride, multiply by Record as ppm Magnesium Chloride. ppm MgCl2 = ppm CaCO3 x

59 59 To convert Magnesium Hardness to Magnesium, multiply by Record as ppm Magnesium. ppm Mg = ppm CaCO3 x 0.24 Data 59

60 60 Total Hardness for Roaring Brook and Porter Brook hardness Total Hardness Porter Brook 116 ppm 114 ppm Magnesium =58ppm 11458=56ppm Calcium Porter Brook Porter Brook Roaring Brook Magnesium =74ppm =50ppm 52 ppm Calcium Roaring Brook's Ave. Porter Brook's Ave = /3= ppm = /3= Total Hardness 116 ppm 114 ppm Magnesium 11658=58ppm Porter Brook 164/3= = Calcium =56ppm total hardness (ppm) Porter Brook vs. Roaring Brook Total Hardness Roaring Brook 114 ppm Magnesium =58ppm Total Hardness Roaring Brook Magnesium 12248=74ppm =50ppm Total Hardness Roaring Brook Magnesium 12248=74ppm 62 ppm Porter Brook's Ave. trials Analysis 60

61 61 While launching the test, testing all different aspect of this test, which include testing for the calcium and the magnesium the results of these test indicate that Porter Brook not by a lot has better water quality than Roaring Brook. Because water that is said to contain a lot of hardness, which is hard water when soap wouldn t lather easily. The testing that went on concludes that Porter Brook fell between the 61 to 120 ranks which signify that the water is all right. Making Porter Brook s water fall into the rank of being moderately hard. This makes the water at Porter Brook better than that of Roaring Brook. Thus, the water of Roaring Brook wasn t good enough. The water in Roaring Brook total hardness came out to be in the 121 ppm and 100 ppm, which means that the water that contained 121 ppm has considered according to the scale hard water. Also the water that came out to be 100 ppm meant that according to the water scale is considered as moderately hard. Thus, its evident that Porter Brook s water quality is better than Roaring Brook. Conclusion To conclude the total hardness is made up of the number of calcium and magnesium which makes the total hardness. The graph and the test show that Porter Brook has a better water quality than Roaring Brook and that there s not a huge difference with these waters. Turbidity 61

62 62 This test measures Turbidity, the relative clarity of water; cloudiness or haziness of the water. It is caused by particles in the water such as clay, silt, organic matter, and microscopic organisms. This test is important because it identifies where there is possible soil erosion, urban run-off, and algal blooms. It can also be a result of bottom sediment disturbances caused by boat traffic and bottom feeders. With a higher level of turbidity, water loses its ability to support aquatic life. Turbidity is measured with a Secchi Disk and in JTU (Jackson Turbidity Units). A turbidity of 0 JTU means perfect conditions for aquatic organisms JTU is good, JTU is fair, and greater than 100 JTU is poor conditions. Materials 62

63 63 Lamotte turbidity test kit (5887): turbidity tube (0839), turbidity chart (5887-CC) Procedure 1.Fill the turbidity tube to the line. 2.Place the base of the tube on the outline on the turbidity chart. 3.Look down through the sample water at the Secchi disk icon under the tube. 4.Compare the appearance of the Secchi disk icon under the tube to the gray Secchi disks in the either side of the tube to determine the turbidity in JTU. Data 63

64 64 Turbidity Levels for Roaring Brook and Porter Brook Roaring Brook 0 JTU 0 JTU Roaring Brook Perfect Trial 1 Trial 2 Turbidity Porter Brook 20 JTU 20 JTU Porter Brook Good Turbidity Chart Range 0 JTU 1-40 JTU JTU < 100 JTU Result Perfect Good Fair Poor Analysis Roaring Brook has better turbidity(0 JTU) than Porter Brook(20 JTU). Roaring Brook has great clarity in its water while Porter Brook had a slight cloudiness. It is possible that Porter Brook has more runoff from surrounding soil and water. While 64

65 65 testing this site there appeared to be drains leading into the brook. This could be cause for greater turbidity. As well, more sediment could have been disturbed than in Roaring Brook. Conclusion In conclusion Roaring Brook has better turbidity than Porter Brook at 0 JTU and 20 JTU respectively. Coliform Bacteria 65

66 66 It is important in that while many fecal bacteria are not pathogenic and are only mildly infectious themselves, their levels found in the water is an indicant of other pathogenic organisms that in turn are potentially very dangerous. Chemical Parameters: Drinking Water = 0 FC/100 ml Swimming = 200 FC/100 ml Partial body contact = 1000 FC/100 ml Treated sewage effluent = less than 200 FC/100 ml Materials 66

67 67 Millipore Blue Coli-Count Sampler (MC ) Illuminated Magnifier Procedure Testing Liquid Samples 1.Remove the Sampler from its plastic bag and write on the case with indelible marker the date, type and location of sampling. 2.Pour sample liquid into the Sample case, filling to the upper (18 ml) graduation. 3.Insert the Sampler paddle firmly and quickly, within guides, into case containing the bugger, and carefully lay the unit horizontally onto a flat surface with membrane facing down. Do not agitate unit after placing down, and make certain the membrane is uniformly wetted. 4.Remove the paddle and, with a firm snap of the wrist, shake off the excess liquid. Empty the case and reinsert the paddle. To prevent the paddle from drying out during incubation, it should be seated firmly in the case to form an airtight seal. 5.Incubate the Sampler, gridded side down, using the time and temperature specified in the chart on page 1. 6.After incubation, count appropriate colonies using an illuminated magnifier, or use the comparison chart for making rapid estimates. Millipore Samplers, Dilution Kits, and Swab Test Kits User Guide (P15325, Rev. E, 01/2006) 67

68 68 68

69 69 Data Number of Bacterial Colonies in Millipore Samplers after 24 Hrs. Incubation Time at 100 F. Roaring Brook: Nov. 13, 2008 Test Sample 1 Test Sample 2 Test Sample 3 Test Sample 4 Test Sample 5 Number of Bacterial Time at 100 Green Colonies in Millipore 33 Samplers after Hrs. Incubation F. 27 Porter Brook: Nov. 13, 2008 Color of Bacterial Colony Yellow Test Sample 1 0 Test Sample 2 0 Test Sample 3 0 Test Sample 4 0 Test Sample /13/08 Blue Green Color of Bacterial Colony Yellow /13/08 Blue

70 70 Number of Bacterial Colonies in Millipore Samplers after 24 Hrs. Incubation Time at 100 F. Roaring Brook: Nov. 13, Number of Colonies 25 Green 20 Yellow 15 Blue Column K Column L Column M Column N Column O Color of Colony 70

71 71 Analysis Both of the water sources, Roaring Brook and Porter Brook, had similar numbers of noncoliform bacteria in their samples, with Porter Brook having only a slightly lower average of such, which were observed in the test samples as green colonies. The yellow colonies, indicative of yeast, were not very numerous in the Roaring Brook samples, but due to observation difficulties, their presence was hard to detect in the Porter Brook samples, if there were any such colonies. The overall lack of coliform bacteria colonies in the samples indicates that in this respect, the water is safe for most organisms. In all of the tests that were performed, they were not present; thus, the amount of coliform bacteria colonies is about 0 FC/100mL. This means that both water sources are, in this respect, drinkable for humans and, likewise, for most other organisms. Conclusion The data collected show that in regard to levels of fecal bacteria, neither Porter nor Roaring Brooks had better water quality than the other. That is to say that in all of the test samples from both of the locations, no coliform bacteria colonies were observed. Thus, the hypothesized results were neither substantiated nor refuted by the data collected in that the rural as opposed to suburban locations of each brook appear not to directly affect the levels of coliform bacteria in these particular streams. 71

72 72 Velocity The velocity of a river or stream is the measurement of the water s speed. Although there are not any chemical parameters that determine velocity, there are a few physiological parameters that do. The first is river gradient; the slope of the river. A river flowing down a steep slope or gradient has higher velocity than one which flows down a gentler gradient. For example, the speed of flow in a river that plunges down a steep slope in the form of a waterfall is much higher than the speed of flow in a river that winds down a gentler slope. The second is channel roughness; obstacles in the river that inhibit the flow of water. The third is channel shape. Water that must flow through windy channels will be slower than that which flows through a straight channel. 72

73 73 Materials 115 meter tape measure Water speed indicator Stopwatch Procedure 1. Measure 2 meters into the width of the brook. Place the water speed indicator into the 2 meter mark with the propeller facing towards the current. With a stopwatch time one minute and record this data. 2. Measure 5 meters into the width of the brook. Place the water speed indicator into the 5 meter mark with the propeller facing towards the current. With a stopwatch time one minute and record this data. 3. Measure 8 meters into the width of the brook. Place the water speed indicator into the 8 meter mark with the propeller facing towards the current. With a stopwatch time one minute and record this data. 73

74 74 Data Velocity of Roaring Brook and Porter Brook Porter Brook Distance Depth Counts per No stick minute 243 No stick minute 199 Stick 322 Stick meters No stick Stick No stick Stick meters No stick Stick No stick Stick from shore 2 meters Average Depth Counts per Roaring Brook 74

75 75 Analysis A higher velocity can cause better circulation of water and allows for less contamination by bacteria. The overall quality of Roaring Brook can be affected by its velocity and can lead one to believe that it has better water quality than Porter Brook. The water quality of Porter Brook can be negatively affected by its velocity. Its average is far lower than Roaring Brook and a low velocity can lead to a build up of bacteria. Conclusion In conclusion the data shows that Roaring Brook has the higher velocity. 75

76 76 Salinity Salinity is the amount of salt and soil in the water. It s called the saltiness of water; there are 4 categories in the Practical Salinity Scale. There s fresh water, backlash water, saline water, and brine. From.05% which is 500 ppm is considered fresh water, from.05-3% which is from ppm is considered brackish water, from 3-5, ppm it s considered saline water, and from 5% and up it s 50000ppm is considered as brine water. 76

77 77 Materials QTY. CONTENTS CODE 15 ml *Salinity Indicator Reagent A *7460-E 60 ml *Salinity Titration Reagent B *7461-H 1 PWB-3 Demineralizer Bottle Titration Tube, 10 ml, w/cap Direct Reading Titrator, 0-20 Range Direct Reading Titrator, Range

78 78 TEST RANGE: 0-20 ppt Salinity Procedure 1. Fill titration tube (0648) to 10 ml line with demineralized water from the Demineralizer Bottle (1151). 2. Fill the Direct Reading Titrator (0376) to 0 mark with sample water. Wipe any excess water off the Titrator. 3. Dispense 0.5 ml of sample water into titration tube by depressing plunger until tip is at 0.5 mark. Discard remaining water in Titrator. 4. Add 3 drops of *Salinity Indicator Reagent A (7460). Cap and gently swirl to mix. Solution will turn yellow. 5. Fill the 0-20 Direct Reading Titrator (0378) with *Salinity Titration Reagent B (7461). Insert Titrator into hole of cap. 6. While gently swirling sample, slowly depress the plunger until color changes from yellow to pink-brown. Read test result where plunger tip meets scale. Record as ppt Salinity. 7. If Titrator becomes empty before color change occurs, refill and continue titrating. Add original amount (20 ppt) to final result. NOTE: Each minor division = 0.4 ppt Salinity 78

79 79 Data Salinity Levels for Roaring Brook and Porter Brook 11-Dec-08 Trials Porter Brook 8 ppt Roaring Brook 9 ppt 9 ppt Average ppt 79

80 80 Porter Brook vs. Roaring Brook Salinity (ppt) Porter Brook Roaring Brook Two Rivers Analysis During the testing for salt for both Porter Brook and Roaring Brook, Porter Brook was found to have better water quality than Roaring Brook. Porter Brook having a salinity of 8 ppt for trial one and 9 ppt for trial 2, and a average of 8.5 ppt showing that Porter Brook has the best water quality. Whereas Roaring Brook had 9 ppt and 9 ppt with an average of 9 ppt, thus making the water in Roaring Brook have worse quality than the water of Porter Brook. 80

81 81 Proving that the hypothesis that was initially put forth was proved right when the testing for salt in both Porter Brook and Roaring Brook. Conclusion To conclude testing both waters Porter Brook and Roaring Brook for salinity, the water in Porter Brook was found better in quality than Roaring Brook because according to the graph the water in Porter Brook had less of a of a number of salt. Benthic Macro Invertebrates Riffle dwelling Benthic Macro invertebrates (BMI's) are the immature aquatic stages of insects (benthic = bottom; macro = seen with the naked eye; invertebrate = animal that lacks a backbone). This test measures the pollution tolerance of benthic macro invertebrates that were collected at Roaring Brook and Porter Brook. These organisms began to be collected on October 1st, Roaring Brook s organisms were retrieved on October 30th and Porter Brook s were retrieved on November 13th. The 81

82 82 organisms were identified and the number of each type was tallied. This test is important because the BMI's are sensitive to the environment, meaning that the presence or absence of these organisms in a stream, and their pollution tolerance, can be used to indicate the overall ecological quality of the two brooks. Many freshwater macro invertebrates require a specific range of chemical parameters to survive. This includes everything from ph to temperature and alkalinity. What we tested is the macro invertebrate s tolerance to pollutants. This was done by multiplying the number of types of macro invertebrates found by a constant and creating an index. A score of 16 and above is excellent, 12 to 15 is good, 8 to 11 is fair, and 7 or less is poor. Materials 2 Lamotte artificial substrate mesh bags(5882-lpb) 5 gallon bucket Petri dishes Lamotte BMI sorting sheet(5882-ss6) Spoon/tweezers Hand lens 82

83 83 Trays approx. 9x8x2 Pollution tolerance index chart Procedure Artificial Substrate Sampling 1. Fill the mesh bag with local leaves or plant material to create a leaf pack. Tie a knot to lose the bag. 2. Anchor the leaf pack in the river by tying it to the upstream side of a rock or cinder block. 3. Leave the leaf pack in place for about 6 weeks. 4. When removing the leaf pack from the river, care should be taken to disturb the leaf pack as little as possible. 5. Place the leaf pack in the bucket partially filled with water to transport it to the lab or sorting area. 6. Carefully transfer the contents to the tray. Also transfer any remaining organisms in the bucket to the tray. Sorting The Organisms 1. Place a petri dish on each circle on the sorting sheet. 2. Use the spoon to add some river water to each dish. 3. Use the spoon and tweezers to separate the organisms from the leaves in the tray. 4. Place each organism in the petri dish next to the drawing that it resembles. Use the hand lens to examine the organisms. 5. Observe the organisms to determine the pollution tolerance index. Calculating The Pollution Tolerance Index 1. Observe which petri dishes have organisms in them. 83

84 84 2. Put an X in Column A on the Pollution Tolerance Index Chart (similar if not exact to the one on bottom of page) next to the organisms that are in your sample. 3. Count the total number of X s for each group. Write this number in Column B. 4. Multiply the number in Column B by the appropriate index value in Column C and enter the result in Column D. 5. Add the numbers in Column D together to determine the pollution tolerance index. Pollution Tolerance Index 16 and above or less Score 4 (excellent) 3 (good) 2 (fair) 1 (poor) 84

85 85 Data Amount of Benthic Macro Invertebrates found in Roaring Brook and Porter Brook 85

86 86 BMI Roaring Brook Porter Brook True Bugs 0 0 True Flies 3 4 May Flies 9 0 Water Beetles 3 6 Dobsonflies & Alderflies 2 5 Dragonflies & Damselflies 0 1 Stoneflies 3 2 Non-insect Invertabrates Caddisflies

87 Al ay f lie s ad di sf te s lie s er te br a C ie s on ef lie s se lfl am St D in v & ct & M Fl ie s Bu gs de rfl ie W s at er Be et le s es es in se N on - D ra go nf li on fli D ob s ue Tr e A m o u nt of B e nt hi c M ac ro In ve rt e br at es Tr u 87 Benthic Macro Invertebrates Roaring Brook 15 Porter Brook Benthic Macro Invertebrates Pollution Tolerance Index 87

88 88 88