Comparing the quality of the water in Roaring Brook in Glastonbury CT, and Porter Brook in East Hartford CT

Transcription

1 Group 4 Project Comparing the quality of the water in Roaring Brook in Glastonbury CT, and Porter Brook in East Hartford CT Renzo Hidalgo, Sharif Islam, Kyler Jesanis, Jessica Mitchell, and Robert Moore

2 Table of Contents Page 1 Table of Contents 1 Abstract 3 Problem 4 Hypothesis 5 Variables 6 Kits 7 Maps 8 Watershed 10 Alkalinity 12 Benthic Macro Invertebrates 17 BOD 21 Dissolved Oxygen 26 Carbon Dioxide 30 Coliform Bacteria 36 Detergent 42 Hardness 48 Nitrate/Nitrogen 55 Nitrate 60 Percent Saturation 66 ph 67 Temperature 70 Velocity 75

3 Table of Contents Page 3 Conclusion 83 Sources of Error 84 Bibliography 85

4 Abstract Page 3 On November 13, 2008 for our Group 4 Project there was a series of experiments and water quality tests in Roaring Brook in Glastonbury, Connecticut and in Porter Brook located in East Hartford, Connecticut. Next, these experiments that we had conducted were to see which of the bodies of water had the best water quality. Also, comparing these two brooks in Connecticut, this was trying to see if they had met the standards of the Connecticut State Standards as well as the National Water Standards. The experiments that were conducted at Roaring Brook and Porter Brook were color, odor, temperature, dissolved oxygen, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Silica, Salinity, Benthic Macroinvertabrates, detergent, ph, phosphate, hardness, calcium, velocity, carbon dioxide, nitrate and nitrate nitrogen to see if they were present and with what quantities within the water Porter Brook, which is located in East Hartford, is a joining of two smaller streams that occurred upstream from where the testing had occurred. At each of the brooks, Roaring and Porter Brook it had seemed that Porter brook was in a more polluted area, having a bridge directly over, and a sewage pipe just upstream. Immediately thse houses and bridge brought to the groups attention that this water quality can be potentially a lot worse conditions than Roaring Brook. Roaring Brook on the other hand was in a wide open space with its river spreading over 4.0 meters longer than Porter Brook s. At the same time, Roaring Brook was also much more clearer water and from each of these sites, we had collected 3 mesh bags containing forms of benthic macroinvertabrates.

5 Problem Page 4 What is the effect of water qualities within Porter Brook and Roaring Brook if water tests and site analysis is conducted on each of the Brooks, and does these tests in fact prove which body of water is better?

6 Hypothesis Page 5 If two rivers are tested then the one that is in a more isolated environment, farther away from civilization, would have a better water quality because there is less human interference and contamination possible to reduce the water quality.

7 Variables Page 6 Control: (Connecticut State Water Standards) Connecticut Water Quality Department of Environmental Protection. Independent Variable: Roaring Brook or Porter Brook Dependent Variable: The quality of the water from each brook.

8 Kits Page 7 Test Kits Used: Ward s Phosphate Test Kit, Catalog # Lamotte Salinity Test Kit Model POL-H Code Lamotte Detergent Test Kit Model DS-1 Code Lamotte Hardness Test Kit Model PHT-CM-DR-LT Code 4824-DR-LT Lamotte Carbon Dioxide Test Kit Model PCO-DR Code 7297-DR Lamotte Dissolved Oxygen Test Kit Model EDO Code 7414 Lamotte Nitrate Nitrogen Test Kit Model PLN Code 7412 Geopacks Flow Meter Basic Kit

9 Maps Page 8 Porter Brook in East Hartford Localization of the test.

10 Maps Page 9 Roaring Brook in Glastonbury Localization of the test.

11 Roaring Brook Watershed Page 10 Roaring Brook s river bank was fairly muddy, which erosion was present. There were many large rocks located surrounding the river, as well as located inside of it as shown in the pictures above. There was lots of vegetation present such as mosses also shown above. There were trees present on the walk down to the river. Since the tests were completed during the fall, there was great presence of leaves in the water as well as surrounding it. This can have an affect by adding dirt and other materials into the water, affecting the color and affecting other tests that were conducted. The more leaves surrounding the river bank, then there will be less oxygen present in the air because the leaves will be within the water and on the ground. According to the Bank Erosion Charts, the amount of bank erosion was in small number of places which was a score of 3. On the other hand, the Bare Soil Evaluation was estimated to be about 41-80% which was overall fair; but not as good as expected. This was because there were many rocks present and at the same time, there as not much concrete present from what was seen. The Water in Roaring Brook in Glastonbury had a very small presence of algae and decaying plants. Yet, also there was no sewage present within the water or surrounding the river. However, there at the same time was not a lot of soil running into the water, thus showing the water quality that one would take from this sight would be fairly accurate. According to the water and soil odor, there was no unusual smell which meant it indicates that sewage was not present, or that there was extremely low levels. Next, the water appearance also had no unusual color by at the same time towards the rocks that were located in the water, there was indication of foam which meant there was detergent present within the waters. From our previous conclusion, there is going to be some decaying algae because of this.

12 Porter Brook Watershed Page 11 Porter Brook, Evaluating the River Bank, Water and Soil Odor: In Porter Brook located in East Hartford, Conencticut the way to get down to the river was very steep hinting that erosion was very present in this area. The stream was very narrow, only 6.4 meters across to the other side in many spots. Also, at the same time, there were several trees that had been pulled out of the ground due to wind conditions, possibly causing more erosion. There was also evidence of lots of sand surrounding the water and there were steep ledges showing there was more present. The decreased dissolved oxygen levels also show that erosion was present as well as the increasing Porter Brook s turbidity and water temperature. Next, the amount of erosion that would be estimated in the bare Soil Evaluation would be 41-80% which was fair. As well as the Bank Erosion Evaluation which was extensive erosion which makes Porter Brook in East Hartford poor in this category. Also, for the soil odor, it smelt like rotten eggs and sulfur so therefore this mean that there was organic pollution present such as industrial wastes due to the sewage pipes. The water was salty to many people and had looked light to dark brown in places where the testing had begun. This means that erosion is the common source of this water color and this is the high levels of suspended solids in the water.

13 Alkalinity Page 13 The purpose for doing the alkalinity tests in freshwater Roaring brook, Glastonbury Ct, and freshwater Porter Brook, East Hartford Ct, is to determine the levels of alkalinity. Alkalinity is a measure of the ability of a solution, in this case water, to neutralize acids to equal the amounts of carbonate and/or bicarbonate. However, the acid neutralizing capacity refers to the combination of the solution and solids present (e.g., suspended matter, or aquifer solids), and the contribution of solids. (

14 Alkalinity Page 13 Chemical Parameters: The correct total alkalinity helps maintain ph. The acceptable range is 80ppm to 200ppm. Materials: BCG-MR Indicator Tablets Alkalinity Titration Reagent B 1 Test Tube, ml, glass, w/cap 1 Direct Reading Titrator, Range Phenolphthalein Tablets

15 Alkalinity Page 14 Procedure: 1. Fill test tube (0778) to 5 ml line with sample water. 2. Add one Phenolphthalein Tablet (T-2246). Cap and mix until tablet disintegrates. If solution does not turn red, Alkalinity is 0. If solution turns red, proceed to Step Fill the Direct Reading Titrator (0382) with *Alkalinity Titration Reagent B (4493DR). Insert Titrator into center hole of test tube cap. 4. While gently swirling tube, slowly press plunger to titrate until red color disappears. Read test result where plunger tip meets Titrator scale. Record as ppm P Alkalinity as CaCO3. EXAMPLE: Plunger tip is 3 minor divisions below line 80. The test result is 80 plus 12 (3 divisions x 4) equals 92 ppm. 5. If plunger tip reaches the bottom line on the Titrator scale (200 ppm) before the color change occurs, refill the Titrator and continue the titration. When recording test result, be sure to include the value of original amount of reagent dispensed (200 ppm). The titration is continued in the T Alkalinity procedure. 6. Being careful not to move plunger, remove Titrator and cap from test tube containing sample that was titrated in Step Add one BCG-MR Tablet (T-2311). Cap and shake until tablet disintegrates. Solution will turn green-blue. 8. Reinsert Titrator in cap and continue titration until color changes from green-blue to pink. Read result where plunger tip meets Titrator scale. Record as ppm T Alkalinity as CaCO3. Be sure to include in test result value the total amount of titration reagent dispensed (i.e.see Step 5). 9. If only Total Alkalinity is to be tested, perform Steps 1,7 and 8 only, using a full Titrator in Step 8.

16 Alkalinity Page 16 Alkalinity Data 1 Trial 1 Trial Amount of Roaringbrook Porter Brook State Standards Alkalinity 100 ppm 250 ppm 80ppm to 200ppm Amount of Alkalinity 300 parts per million Roaring Brook Porter Brook Place Tested

17 Alkalinity Page 16 Analysis- As result of strictly this test it is determinable that Roaring Brook has better water quality because it has less alkalinity values and is within acceptable chemical parameters, where as Porter Brook doesn t. The level of alkalinity in water is important because it shows the fluctuation of ph. The more alkalinity there is in water shows that the ph levels are not as good as they need to be so the alkalinity to control the ph levels and put them where they need to be. So the lower the ph levels the better the water quality.

18 Benthic Macro Invertebrates Page 17 Benthic Macroinvertabrates are those invertebrates or small animals that are almost left unseen to the naked eye. At the same time, these organisms lack a backbone and are usually found living at the bottoms of river beds and streams and these are vital parts of an ecosystem. Because they are usually food to the other larger animals such as fish. These benthic macroinvertabrates provide fish with energy and also since these benthic macroinvertabrates are so important to their ecosystems, therefore a test was conducted known as a Pollution Tolerance Index. The water pollution and water quality have a great affect on the types of benthic macroinvertabrates because some are more sensitive to water pollution such as the stonefly and the mayfly. If benthic macroinvertabrates are found within either of the brooks Roaring Brook or Porter brook then one can conclude that if the water quality meets or exceeds the high standards of the aquatic wildlife and ecosystem. Some macroinvertabrates such as the worm or the leech can live and tolerate water pollution, providing a wide variety of benthic macroinvertabrates within the brooks. If some benthic macroinvertabrates are found in the water that somewhat polluted then one can conclude that the water quality is decent and can be labeled as fair. And finally, if the water quality is polluted and leeches are found one can say that the water is poor and label from there. Yet, only if there are benthic macroinvertabrates found within Roaring Brook and Porter Brook can one determine the Pollution Tolerance Index and see what types of water is excellent, fair or poor. The Benthic macroinvertebrates found provide great information in determining the quality of the water of both brooks.. For the first part, these benthic macroinvertabrates have been living in the water for longer periods of time. By using the pollution tolerance index one can figure which either Porter Brook or Roaring Brook has the better water quality by the amounts of benthic macroinvertabrates that can live in poor, fair and excellent conditions.

19 Benthic Macro Invertebrates Page 18

20 Benthic Macro Invertebrates Page 19 Porter Brook True Bugs 0 True Flies 3 Mayflies 9 Water Beetles 3 Dobson & 2 Alderflies Dragonflies & 0 Damselflies Stoneflies 3 Non-insect 33 Invertebrates Caddis Flies 22 Roaring Brook True Bugs Page 0 True Flies 4 Mayflies 0 Water Beetles 6 Dobson & 5 Alderflies Dragonflies & 1 Damselflies Stoneflies 2 Non-insect 16 Invertebrates Caddis Flies 7 Amount of Benthic Macro Invertebrates for Roaring and Porter Brook 35 Amount of Macro Invertebrate True Bugs True Flies Mayflies Water Beetels Dobsonflies & Alderflies Dragonflies & Damselflies Stoneflies Non-insect invertebrates Caddisflies Roaring Brook Porter Brook

21 Benthic Macro Invertebrates Page 20 Analysis: By collecting these three mesh bags from each Roaring Brook and Porter Brook, one can conclude that Roaring Brook had a better population Tolerance Index by having more benthic macroinvertebrates. These organisms that were found in Roaring Brook were for the most part ones that had lived in less polluted water such as the Non Insect invertebrates as well as the Caddis flies. However at the same time, leeches and worms were found more prevalent in Porter Brook which indicates that the water quality is much worse because the presence shows the water quality is not up to par. Also, according to the Pollution Tolerance Index, it is able to conclude that the greater number in Roaring Brook had more importance and is between the numbers which makes the amounts more accurate.

22 BOD Page 21 Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) is a chemical procedure for determining how fast biological organisms use up oxygen in a body of water. It is used in water quality management and assessment, ecology and environmental science. BOD is not an accurate quantitative test, although it could be considered as an indication of the quality of a water source. BOD can be used as a gauge of the effectiveness of wastewater treatment plants. It is listed as a conventional pollutant in the U.S. Clean Water Act.

23 BOD Page 23 Chemical Parameters: Pristine Rivers should have less than 1 mg/l off BOD in the water, whereas moderately polluted rivers can have between 2mg/L and 8mg/L. Materials: -Pair of gloves -water sample water bottle -small plastic spoon that contains 1.0 g in size -titrator 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

24 BOD Page 23 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 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 ( 4167) 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 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 the traitor 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

25 BOD Page 24 Brook Roaring Brook BOD (ppm) Porter Brook BOD (ppm) Trial Trial Trial Average Average 5 Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (in ppm) for Roaring Brook and Porter Brook Biochemical Oxygen Demand Levels (in ppm) Roaring Brook BOD (ppm) Porter Brook BOD (ppm) Roaring Brook BOD (ppm) Porter Brook BOD (ppm)

26 BOD Page 26 Analysis: From the BOD graphs and charts the conclusion is that since the difference between Roaring Brook s two dissolved oxygen rates were 2.6ppm and Porter Brook s difference was 1.1ppm that in fact Roaring Brook had a better 5 Day BOD. The difference between these two was also 1.5ppm. Both of these brooks would have been labeled, in between excellent and good because their numbers fall between 0ppm and 4ppm. In fact, since Porter Brook s was closer to 0 it in fact would have been better capable of a more accurate Biochemical Oxygen Demand. By finding the quantity of dissolved oxygen that was used up by bacteria as they had broken down materials over than 5 days one can see that there is possibly more bacteria present in Porter brook because of it s placement in a more urban environment. Thus, the lower amount of dissolved oxygen in this BOD test, then this means there was less amounts of oxygen being taken away from the aquatic organisms and their dissolved oxygen rates they needed to live within each brook were maintained and sustained. Therefore, this low amount of BOD shows us that there was little Biochemical waste, but had some bacteria present within the water.

27 Dissolved Oxygen Page 26 Dissolved Oxygen is important for this experiment because it measures the amout of gaseous oxygen in an aqueous solution. Oxygen then get into the water by diffusions from surrounding air, by aeration which is the rapid movement. The total dissolved gas concentrations within the water should never travel or exceed 110 percent. With a percent higher than this, aquatic wildlife can die, from a gas bubble disease. Dissolved Oxygen is required for the water quality to be at its best, in terms it allows purification and also gives oxygen to the aerobic life within the body of water. Any dissolved oxygen level that drops below 5.0 mg/l puts the organisms under stress. When the dissolved oxygen is getting lower, then that also puts the stream at risk. If oxygen levels stay low even 1-2 mg/l then large amounts of the benthic macroinvertabrates will not live. The reduced amount of oxygen in stream water can be concluded from if the water is too warm. Many tests rely upon this dissolved oxygen such as salinity, temperature, pressure on the capacity of water.

28 Dissolved Oxygen Page 28 Parameters: Materials: 30mL Manganeous Sulfate Solution 4167-G 30mL Alkaline Potassium Iodide Azide 7166-G 50g Sulfuric Acid Powder (7414) 6286-H 30mL Sulfuric Acid 1: WT-G 60mL Sodium Thiosulfate.025N 4169-H 30mL Starch Indicator Solution 4170WT-G 1 Spoon 1.0g, plastic Test Tube, ml Glass, w/ cap Water Sampling Bottle, 60mL, glass 0688-DO Di Pro 1) F Sam (06 2)

29 Dissolved Oxygen Page 28 Procedure: 1) Fill water Sampling Bottle (0688-DO) 2) Ad 8 drops of Manganous Sulfate Solution (4167) 3) Add 8 drops of Alkaline Potassium Iodide Azide (7166) 4) Cap and mix 5) Allow to precipitate and settle 6) Use 1.0g spoon and add Sulfamic Acid Powder (6286) or add 8 drops of Sulfuric Acid 1:1 (6141WT) 7) Cap and mix until reagent and precipitates and dissolves. 8) Fill test tube (0608) to the 20mL line. 9) Fill titrator with Sodium Hyposulfite.025N (4169) 10) Titrate until sample color is pale yellow. Do not disturb Titrator 11) Ad 8 drops of starch indicator (4170 WT) 12) Continue titration until blue color just disappears and solution is colorless. 13) Read result in ppm Dissolved Oxygen ssolved Oxygen cedure: ill water pling Bottle 88-DO) Ad 8 drops of Manganous Sulfate Solution (4167)

30 Dissolved Oxygen Page 29 Analysis: From the Dissolved Oxygen experiment conclusion that Roaring Brook had better water quality for this particular experiment because the lower the dissolved oxygen rate, that means there is more oxygen to be had within the ecosystem. Also, aquatic wildlife and organisms strive under conditions when the dissolved oxygen rate is within 9.0ppm to 9.6ppm. PPM stands for parts per million. Good fishing waters can be found in those conditions and any dissolved oxygen rate that drops below 3.0 ppm is considered deathly to fish. Therefore our data for Roaring Brook which is only.1 ppm over the desired range would be considered acceptable. Thus, in Roaring Brook there would be more likely to have more fish than Porter Brook which had a Dissolved Oxygen of 11.2 ppm.

31 CO 2 Page 30 This carbon dioxide test is being conducted because through this carbon cycle, that is present within the water, one can study the energy flow of materials and this carbon dioxide test will how if there are organic compounds present within Roaring Brook and Porter brook. Also, this aquatic water cycle is concerned with the movements of carbon through these environments. During photosynthesis, plants need to transfer carbon dioxide, whether its within water, or outside of water so that the amount of oxygen that is present is enough to sustain life. Next, the carbon dioxide affects the levels of ph that are present and helps as well in respiration. Carbon Dioxide is the odorless and colorless gas that is produced when animals and plants release. Also, when Carbon Dioxide levels are high and oxygen is low within the water, then it is more unlikely that the organisms are respiring as much.

32 CO 2 Page 31 Chemical Parameters: Amount of Carbon Dioxide (mg/l) : Fish Avoid these Waters 12: Few fish can survive for long periods of time in water with a carbon dioxide level greater than this 30: Kills the most sensible fish immediately 45: Maximum limit for trout Above 50: Trout eggs won t hatch. Levels within the water rarely ever exceed 20mg/L because it combines with water to form a very weak acid known as carbonic acid Materials: 15mL Phenolphalein Indicator 1% (2246-E) 60 ml Carbon Dioxide Reagent B (4253DR-H) 1 Direct Reading Titrator, 0-50 Range (0308) 1 Test Tube, ml (0608)

33 CO 2 Page 32 Procedure: 1) Fill the test tube (0608) to the 20mL line with sample water 2) Add 2 drops of Phenolphalein indicator 1% (2246). If solution remains colorles, proceed to step 3. If solution turns red, no free carbon is present. 3) Fill direct reading titrator with carbon reagent b (4253DR) one drop at a time, until faint pink color is produced and persists for 30 seconds. Read test result directly from the scale where the large ring on the titrator meets the titrator barrel. Record as ppm Carbon Dioxide. Page 28

34 CO 2 Page 33 Carbon Dioxide Levels (ppm) Average Carbon Dioxide for Roaring Brook and Porter Brook Brook Roaring Brook (ppm) Porter Brook (ppm) Trial Trial Trial Average Carbon Dioxide (ppm) for Roaring Brook and POrter Brook Roaring Brook Porter Brook Roaring Brook Porter Brook

35 CO 2 Page 34 Analysis: The average carbon dioxide level within Roaring Brook was 3.93 ppm s and in Porter Brook was 3.7ppm. There was a difference of.23ppm s between each, however their difference is so small that their numbers may be possibly insignificant. The levels within Roaring Brook and Porter Brook are fairly low and did not exceed the number around 4.2ppm. Next, the conclusion that can result from the data that both of these ecosystems are fairly healthy and can maintain life in regards to their carbon dioxide levels that were present within the water. At the same time, this carbon dioxide is present within these brooks because of the fact that it is needed for photosynthesis and there are plants within the water so the addition of this is logical. Also, from this data that was collected, according to the Connecticut State Standards as well as the Federal Standards that fish can live within these waters because fish tend to avoid waters such as Porter Brook s because it is much to high. With the averages that were received from Roaring Brook and Porter Brook it is conclude that some benthic macroinvertabrates and other fish cannot live within these waters. As for the fish, many can live and strive with the carbon dioxide levels up to 45 ppm and they to die when the water is 30 ppm and less. Very few species are known to scientists that are found living in the water of 12 ppm and lower. Next, when compared to the data of last years 2007 data from Ping Yang s group one can conclude that the data is fairly valid. For Roaring Brook they had 3.9 ppm and from this years data there was 3.93 ppm so there was only a difference of.3 ppm within the water. As for Porter Brook, they had gotten carbon dioxide levels of 3.75ppm and this years data was 3.7ppm s, so a difference of.5ppm.

36 CO 2 Page 35 Thus, the conclusion that from the other groups from previous years that Roaring Brook s carbon dioxide levels are higher than that of Porter Brook s. These high levels of carbon dioxide may be because of the weather conditions. The temperature was measured at 12 degrees Celsius. Since the weather was overcast the day of testing, carbon dioxide levels would be more likely to become higher because with less sunlight and exposure, then the plants would engage in respiration more so than photosynthesis. This would make the transpiration photosynthesis compromise become unequal as stated before and would result in a greater concentration of carbon dioxide present within the water. Next, from what had been stated about the cloud cover, the conclusion that there theoretically should have been more cloud cover during this time of year than last years was because there was more carbon dioxide levels present in both Roaring Brook and Porter Brook. This Carbon Dioxide test should have be conducted over a longer period of time which would allow more accurate data from the amount of carbon dioxide that was present within the water.

37 Coliform Bacteria Page 36 The purpose of this test is to validate the low contamination level of water. Coliform bacteria are known to be contained in feces of all mammals and other warm-blooded species. Coliform bacteria are the commonly-used bacterial indicator of sanitary quality of foods and water. These bacteria are rod-shaped Gram-negative non-spore forming organisms that ferment lactose with the production of acid and gas when incubated at C. Coliforms are abundant in the feces of warm-blooded animals, but can also be found in the aquatic environment, in soil and on vegetation. In most instances, coliforms themselves are not the cause of sickness, but they are easy to culture and their presence is used to indicate that other pathogenic organisms of fecal origin may be present. Fecal pathogens include bacteria, viruses or parasites. E. coli can be distinguished from most other coliforms by its ability to ferment lactose at 44 C, and by its growth and color reaction on certain types of culture media. Unlike the general coliform group, E. coli are almost exclusively of fecal origin and their presence is thus an effective confirmation of fecal contamination. The EPA s coliform safety standards read that the coliform contamination should not reach past 5% MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level). Although, they strive to for a 0% level of contamination, the EPA considers 5% natural occurrence of coliform bacteria from the feces of animals of the area. This test determines the presence of coliform bacteria in shades of blue, green, and yellow. If the sampler in which bacteria-contaminated water is held displays spots or areas of blue, then there are coliform bacteria in the water. Yellow and green areas are other forms of bacteria, non-coliform.

38 Coliform Bacteria Page 37 Chemical Parameters: There should be zero fecal coliform colonies in 100 ml samples. Materials: Salinity Indicator Reagent A (15 ml) 7460-E Salinity Titration Reagent B (60 ml) 7461-H PWB-3 Dematerializer Bottle 1151 Titration Tube, 10 ml, w/cap 0648 Direct Reading Titrator, 0-20 Range 0378 Direct Reading Titrator, Range 0376 *Test Range: 0-20 ppt Salinity*

39 Coliform Bacteria Page 38 Procedure: 1. Fill the 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 mar. 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 tips 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

40 Coliform Bacteria Page 39 Data: Number of Bacterial Colonies in Roaring Brook Color of Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Average Colony Green Yellow Blue Number of Bacterial Colonies in Porter Brook Color of Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Average Colony Green Yellow Blue

41 Coliform Bacteria Page 40 Comparision of Different Bacterial Colonies (Green, Yellow, Blue) in Roaring Brook (Glastonbury, CT) Amount of Bacterial Colonies Green Yellow Blue Test Samples Comparision of Different Bacterial Colonies (Green, Yellow, Blue) in Porter Brook (East Hartford, CT) Amount of Bacteria Colonies Green Yellow Blue Test Samples

42 Coliform Bacteria Page 41 Analysis: The sample taken from Roaring Brook and Porter Brook revealed that there was not a presence of coliform bacteria in the water bodies. Yet there were high levels of green colonies in both sources. There was also a small amount of yellow bacteria present also. Therefore, one can conclude that there isn t a relevant level of coliform bacteria residing in the waters of Roaring Brook or Porter Brook. The EPA s requirements look at the Coli-Count, considering safe water and quality with no more than 5% on the contaminant level. Hence, both brooks meet this condition and would be qualified as coliform-free freshwater sources.

43 Detergent Test Page 42 Aquatic organism are extremely sensitive to the presence of detergent, therefore the presence of detergent in an aquatic habitat like Porter Brook and Roaring Brook would cause a decrease in the number of organisms living in it.

44 Detergent Test Page 43 Parameters: The chemical parameter in the detergent test was being able to get the amount of detergent inside of the second test tube to be 1.00 ppm after two drops of DS Reference Solution. Materials: 60 ml DS indicator Reagent 15 ml DS reference solution 60 g ph Adjustment powder 1 Test tube, Test Sample w/cap 1 Test Tube, Reference Sample w/cap 1 Pipet glass 1 Test Tube, 1-8 ml, plastic w/cap 1 spoon, 0.25 g plastic

45 Detergent Page 44 Data: Roaring Brook Test tube 1: Bottom layer Top layer Quick reading Some Color Some Color Some Detergent in Sample Test Tube 2: Contains drops of reference solution Test Sample Color Darker than reference Darker than reference after 2 drops Lighter than reference after 3 drops Same color as reference after 4 drops Test Sample Contains <1.00 ppm of detergent <1.00 ppm of detergent >1.00 ppm of detergent = 1.00 ppm of detergent

46 Detergent Page 46 Porter Brook Test Tube 1: Bottom layer Top layer Quick Reading No color Color No detergent in Sample Test Tube 2: Contains drops of reference solution Test Sample Color Lighter than reference Lighter than reference after 2 drops Lighter than reference after 3 drops Lighter than reference after 4 drops Lighter than reference after 5 drops Same color as reference after 6 drops Test Sample Contains > 1.00 ppm of detergent >1.00 ppm of detergent >1.00 ppm of detergent >1.00 ppm of detergent >1.00 ppm of detergent = 1.00 ppm of detergent

47 Detergent Page 47 Analysis: The first chart shows the amount of detergent contained in the water at Roaring Brook based upon if there is in the test tube does not contain a lot of detergent but there are little amounts of detergent in the test tube. The second chart shows the amount of detergent contained in the water at Porter Brook and this is based upon if there is no color in the bottom layer of the test tube and color in the top layer of the test tube contains no detergent.

48 Hardness Page 48 The Hardness quality in water depends on the amount of minerals that this certain water contains. If the water has a high mineral content, then this water is said to be hard, if the water has a low mineral content then it s said to be soft. The hardness of the water mostly consist of the minerals magnesium and calcium, these minerals enter the water in form of limestone and chalk, which is found in the surroundings of the water area. It s important to know the hardness in these brooks because, in rivers, hard water tends to be more dangerous for organisms living on them than hard water is. The reason of this is that hard water makes poisonous metals such as mercury, copper and lead. To determine if the water from Roaring Brook and Porter Brook is hard or not it is necessary to measure the amount of calcium and magnesium it contains.

49 Hardness Page 49 Parameters: Description Very Soft Soft Fairly Soft Fairly Hard Hard Very Hard Level of Part per Million (ppm) 0-22 ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm 120- greater ppm Materials: Sodium Hydroxide Reagent with Metal Inhibitor Calcium Hardness Indicator Tablets Hardness Reagent #5 Hardness Reagent # 6 Tablets Hardness Reagent # 7 Glass Test tube with cap Direct Reading Titrator Pipet 0.5 Ml plastic

50 Hardness Page 50 Procedure: Fill a test tube with 12.9 ml of water. Add five drops of Hardness Reagent # 5 into the test tube containing the water. Then swirl to mix them. Add one Hardness Reagent # 6 Tablet into the test tube. Close the test tube and swirl to mix it until the table disintegrates. Fill the Direct Reading Titrator with Hardness Reagent # 7. Insert the titrated into the whole of the test tube cap. Gently swirl the test tube and slowly press the plunger to tirate the Hardness Reagent # 7 in the test tube. The red color would now change to blue. Read the test result where the plunger meets the titrator and record it as ppm.

51 Hardness Page 51 Data : Total Calcium Hardness Levels (In the unit ppm) in Roaring Brook and Porter Brook Brook Roaring Brook Porter Brook Total Calcium Hardness (ppm) Trial 1 Trial 2 Average Total Magnesium Hardness Levels ( In the unit ppm) in Roaring Brook and Porter Brook Brook Roaring Brook Porter Brook Total Magnesium Hardness (ppm) Trial 1 Trial 2 Average Total Hardness Levels (in the unit ppm) in Roaring Brook and Porter Brook Total Hardness (ppm) Brook Trial 1 Trial 2 Average Roaring Brook Porter Brook

52 Hardness Page 52 Total Calcium Hardness (ppm) for Roaring Brook and Porter Brook Total Calcium Hardness (ppm) Roaring Brook Porter Brook 10 0 Roaring Brook Porter Brook Total Magnesium Hardness Levels (ppm) in Roaring Brook and Porter Brook Total Calcium Hardness (ppm) Roaring Brook Porter Brook 5 0 Roaring Brook Porter Brook

53 Hardness Page 53 Total Hardness Average of the two Brooks Roaring Brook Porter Brook Total Hardess Level (ppm)

54 Hardness Page 54 Analysis: c It is determine that the better quality of the water exist when the level the hardness in the water is low. By comparing the two brooks with the Hardness Chemical of Parameters, it is derived that the water in Roaring Brook is hard, while the water in Porter brook is at a soft level. Going deeper, the average level of the total Calcium Hardness for Roaring Brook is 84 ppm which falls in the hard range, while at Porter Brook the average its only 18 making it go in the soft range. In the test for magnesium hardness, the average quantity for Roaring Brook is of 26 ppm, while the average at Porter Brook is only of 5 ppm. This shows than in every test, the hardness of the water in Porter Brook was in lower ppm than at Roaring Brook, therefore that water at Porter Brook is softer than the water at Roaring Brook. Conclusion: Since the water at Porter Brook is softer than the water in Roaring Brook, then the place in which the quality of water is better would be Porter Brook; however, even though the qualities of Roaring Brook are not as good in Porter Brook, this does not mean that the water quality is bad because the data shows the Roaring Brook was low in Magnesium, and in the chemical parameters, Roaring Brook s water quality did not go farther than just hard, this allows species to still habitat this are at Roaring Brook.

55 Nitrite/Nitrogen Page 55 The purpose for doing the nitrite/nitrogen tests in freshwater Roaring brook in Glastonbury Ct, and freshwater Porter Brookin East Hartford Ct, is to determine the levels of nitrite/nitrogen. Nitrite/nitrogen compound is either a salt or an ester of nitrous acid using this to test the levels of salt and nitrous acid in the water.

56 Nitrite/Nitrogen Page 56 Materials: ϖ 30 ml Nitrite Nitrogen Reagent A ϖ 30 ml Nitrite Nitrogen Reagent B ϖ 10 g Nitrite Nitrogen CR ϖ 2 Test Tubes, plain, glass, w/caps ϖ 1 pipet, 1.0 ml, plastic ϖ 2 pipets, plain, plastic, w/caps ϖ 1 spoon,.15 g, plastic ϖ 1 nitrite comparator, ppm

57 Nitrite/Nitrogen Page 57 Procedure: 1. Use the 1.0 ml pipet to add 4.0 ml of sample water to a test tube. 2. Use a plain pipet to add 10 drops of Nitrite Nitrogen Reagent A. 3. Use other plain pipet to add 10 drops of Nitrite Reagent B. Cap and invert several times to mix. Allow to stand for 30 seconds 4. Use the.15g spoon to add one level measure of Nitrite Nitrogen CR. Cap and mix until dissolved. Wait 3 minutes. 5. Insert test tube into Nitrite Comparator. Match sample color to color standard. Record as ppm Nitrite Nitrogen.

58 Nitrate/ Nitrogen Page 58 Data: 1 Trial 1 Trial Amount of Roaringbrook Porter Brook State Standards Levels of Nitrite (ppm) ppm Nitrite/ Nitrogen Parts per Milliom Roaring Brook Porter Brook 0 Roaring Brook Porter Brook Place Test ed

59 Nitrate/Nitrogen Page 59 Analysis: As a result of strictly this test it is able to be determined that the water quality in Porter Brook is not as good as the water quality from Roaring Brook because the nitrite/nitrogen levels are higher than what are the state standards for nitrite/nitrogen in running water. That means that the water quality is not within the state parameters of.1 to.4 ppm of nitrogen acceptable in water. Meanwhile Roaring Brook manages to get into the state parameters making it of higher water quality than Porter Brook.

60 Nitrate Page 59 Nitrates can affect organisms when there are high quantities of nitrates, as well as in the water. High levels are unsafe to living organisms due to the fact that it prevents and reduces the amount of oxygen within the air. Next, when the nitrate levels go too high in life, animals can die. The parameters of this experiment are such that over 30ppm of nitrates can inhibit growth, while it can also weaken the immune system and causes stress within certain aquatic species, (Toxicology 26). In many cases when the nitrate solution is too high it is usually because of the fact that surface runoff has traveled into the aquatic systems and also the lands surrounding the body of water have been landscaped with receiving excess amounts of nitrate fertilizer. Also, Nitrates form a component of total dissolved solids, which helps show the water quality, (Romano Toxicology 85). Lakes often also rely upon ground water that is affected by nitrification through this process. Nitrates become toxic to fish (and plants) at levels of ppm. Next, nitrates are produced by animal waste and fertilizers. It is composed of one atom of nitrogen and three atoms of oxygen (NO3). This experiment is being conducted to see if the levels of nitrates is too high that the animals would not be safe in the conditions that they were in. The standards in water is 10 milligrams per liter or 45 mg/l nitrate of NO3. These levels usually refer to the amount of nitrogen present.

61 Nitrate Page 61 Chemical Parameters: There should not be any more than 1 mg/l. Materials: 2 x 60 Ml Mixed Acid Reagent 1 Dispenser Cap 1 Spoon, 0.1 g, plastic 2 Test Tubes, 2.5 and 5.o Ml,glass with caps 1 Nitrate N Comparator, o ppm

62 Nitrate Page 62 Procedure: Fill sample bottle with sample water. Fill one test tube to the 2.5 ml with water from the sample bottle. Dilute to 5 ml line with Mixed Acid Reagent. Use the 0.1 g spoon to add one level measure of Nitrate Reducing Reagent. Cap and invert gently 60 times in one minute. Wait 10 minutes. Insert test tube into Nitrate N Comparator. Match sample color to a color standard. Record as ppm Nitrate as Nitrate Nitrogen. To convert to ppm Nitrate multiply by 44.

63 Nitrate Page 63 Data: Nitrate Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average Roaring Brook (ppm) Porter Brook (ppm) Average Nitrate Levels (ppm) Average Nitrate Levels of Roaring Brook and Porter Brook Freshwater Sources Roaring Brook Porter Brook

64 Nitrate Page 64 Analysis: One mg/l equals one ppm. While converting the unites of the data, it shows that the nitrate levels meet the standards. A seen in the data, nitrate levels are very low in the freshwater sources, Roaring and Porter Brook. Aquatic organisms, therefore, aren t as badly affected by nitrate's presence in the water. The nitrogen does not affect the population of algae, decreasing the amount of oxygen

65 Percent Saturation Page 65 The Percent Saturation of Oxygen at Roaring brook was 20 degrees Celsius which in turn would make the Percent Reagent 88. This means according to the chart, that this is excellent because of the fact that there is plenty of dissolved oxygen that is present within the ecosystem. Now, in Porter Brook there was a Percent saturation of 78, which had a temperature of 14 degrees Celsius which means that the Percent Saturation rate of Oxygen is around 91% to 95% which was in the ideal range of data.

66 ph Page 65 The precision ph test is used to measure the level of a water sample s baseness or acidity. The best ph, actually the most neutral, would be 7. this is best because if water becomes too acidic or too basic, lower than 4.5 and higher than 9.5, aquatic life will be changed and some organisms may even die.

67 ph Page 66 Chemical Parameters: ph levels that are suitable for aquatic life are between 6.5 and 8.5 Materials: Small test tube ml - with cap Octet Comparator

68 ph Page 67 Procedure: 1. Collect 5.0 ml of sample water in a test tube. 2. Dispense 10 drops of indicator solution while holding the dropper bottle vertically. 3. Replace the cap on the test tube and shake thoroughly until mixed. 4. Insert the test tube into the Octet Comparator. Record the ph level of the color standard that sample water matches.

69 ph Page 68 Trial 1 Trial 2 Average Roaring Brook Porter Brook ph Levels Amount of ph Trial 1 Trial 2 Average Roaring Brook Porter Brook

70 ph Page 70 Analysis: The water samples from both Roaring Brook and Porter Brook were the same so the water qualities from this standpoint are equal. ph is important because if it becomes too high or too low it can kill aquatic life. Both water samples are within the state standards so the water qualities are good.

71 Temperature Page 70 By taking the temperature at Roaring Brook and Porter Brook for the air as the water one can decide which has better temperature. The thermometer will be placed under the water about 4-5 inches and then recorded for the temperature. Then, one will travel half a mile upstream, then half downstream as well as the central location and will record the temperature from each spot. The temperature directly affects the dissolved oxygen, 5 day BOD and percent saturation. Different species of fish and organisms thrive in specific temperatures. There are also many things that affect the temperature: season, temperature of water which supplies the waterway and depth of the water. The deeper the water, the colder the water temperature will be because the water will never be able to circulate from the top all the way down to the bottom. Next, ectothermic organisms cannot survive at zero degrees Celsius. Fish however, are the only organisms present in the ecosystems that require certain temperatures to thrive in.

72 Temperature Page 71 Chemical Parameters: 15 to 25 degrees Celsius Materials LaMotte Armored non-mercury Thermometer

73 Temperature Page 72 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 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 Read and Record the temperature of the air

74 Temperature Page 73 Central Loca-.5 Miles.5 Miles Brook tion Upstream Downstream Air Roaring Brook 7 C 6 C 5 C 12.5 C Porter Brook 6 C 5 C 5 C 10 C Temperature Comparison between Porter Brook and Roaring Brook Degrees in Celsius Porter Brook Roaring Brook central location.5 mile upstream.5 mile downstream Location of Data Collection

75 Temperature Page 74 Using solely this data it appears Roaring Brook has better water quality for temperature as it is better in the rand of 15 to 25 degrees Celsius. Only slightly though as Roaring Brook edged out Porter by 1/2 a degree of Celsius. However, the air temperature at Roaring Brook was also 2.5 degrees warmer. Diatoms thrive at temperatures of between degrees Celsius and the temperatures are Roaring Brook are closer than those of Porter Brook to sustaining these organisms.

76 Velocity Page 75 The velocity of the water in the water of a river is important because it affects the habitats for the organism living in those rivers. If the water is coming downstream at a faster velocity, then the habitat for the organisms would be less suitable than when the water is at a slow speed. A major factor for the water velocity in the river is the shape of the river. The river's width has a lot do with its water velocity because; when the river is wider the water has more space to mobilize, making the velocity decrease. If a river is narrow, then the small space that the water has creates a faster velocity in its current. Also, the incline of the river affects its velocity. If the river is very steep then its velocity would be greater.

77 Velocity Page 76 Materials : Impeller Stick Anenometer Basic Flowmeter

78 Velocity Page 77 Procedure: 1 Submerge the impeller Stick in the water, make sure that the Anemometer faces the current of th,e water so t would be able to work. 2 Arrange a spot in the brook in where to make your measurements. Measure the distance from this spot in the brook and the shore of the brook. Remember that this distance should remain the same for both Porter Brook and Roaring Brook. 2 Start the test by turning the apparatus on in the switch located in the flow meter. Record the amount of Rotations per minute. Do another trial for the data. 3 To get the velocity of the brook, use the equation: (V)= ( C) Where V is the velocity of the river and C equals the amount of rotations per minute. Record V as m/s.

79 Velocity Page 78 Data : Width of the brooks: Roaring Brook: 13.8 Porter Brook: 8.3 Number of rotations at two different distances, 2m and 5 m away from shore, in Roaring Brook and Porter Brook for three different trials and an average Number of Rotations Type of Brook Distance Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Averaqe Roaring 2m in Brook 5m in Porter 2m in Brook 5m in Velocity for the average number of Rotations at two different distances, 2 m and 5 m away from shore, in Roaring Brook and Porter Brook Velocity for Averaqe number of Rotations Type of Brook Distance V (m/s) Roarinq 2m in 0.44 Brook 5m in 0.45 Porter 2m in 0.2 Brook 5m in 0.25

80 Velocity Page 79 Velocity of The Water in Roaring Brook and Porter Brook at two different Locations Velocity V(m/s) Roaring Brook Porter Brook

81 Velocity Page 80 Weather Conditions: The day prior to the investigation, 11/12/08, the amount of.01 inches of rain was registered. The day of the investigation, the amount of.4 inches of rain was registered. Analysis The data shows that the velocity at 2m away from shore at Roaring Brook was.44 m/s, while at Porter Brook the velocity at 2m away from shore was equal to.20 m/s. The data also shows that at 5m away from shore the velocity of Roaring Brook was.45 m/s while at Porter Brook was.25 m/s. This data shows how the velocity of the two brooks is greater when it's farther away from the shore. The data also shows how the water velocity at Roaring Brook it's about twice the velocity of the water from Porter Brook.