Week 5 final lab report

Water Quality and Contamination

Brenda Rouse

SCI 207: Our Dependence upon the Environment

Instructor: Haleh Keshtkar

Date: August 17, 2017

Water Quality and Contamination

Introduction

Water is one of the most important factors for any animal’s survival (Teixeira, De Azevedo, Mendl, Cipreste, & Young, 2007). One could go for days without food, but could not last the same time without water. Therefore, everyone is often vulnerable to harmful organisms in the water, particularly when he or she is desperate enough for it. Notably, although about seventy percent of the earth’s surface is covered with water, a significant population of people does not have access to clean drinking water (Arheimer, 2016). In response to the demand, the government often avails alternatives to its citizens in the form of tap water, while investors make a more ambitious plan in providing bottled water.

Like any other business, the bottled water investors often seek to make a profit. On the other hand, tap water also comes at a price since the government running the program needs funds to maintain the purification and delivery systems (Whelton et al., 2015). Therefore, it is necessary that the consumers understand whether they get enough value for their money, based on the differences in prices of the different water sources. This experiment hopes to provide, with certainty, the differences between some of the most common sources of water in the household. Since its quality determines the price of a product, the differences in quality, in this case, will be based on the level of contamination.

If Dasani, Fiji, and tap water were tested for mineral components, then tap water would have the highest concentration of minerals, followed by Dasani, while Fiji would contain the least concentration of minerals. The difference would result from the fact that tap water goes through drainage pipes, which could at times be corroded, which adds to the minerals present in the water that could be absent in the Fiji and Dasani water (Dolnicar, Hurlimann, & Grün, 2014). Compared to Fiji, Dasani has more contaminants since I can often taste the minerals when I use the water.

Materials and Methods

To test for the presence of contaminants, different materials were necessary for recording and collection of the water utilized for the test process. We put the test strips in the water for duration of 5, 30, or 45 seconds determining which test was used and compared the strips to the chart after removing them from the water. This was repeated for the ammonia, phosphate, 4 in 1, iron and chloride tests. The charts provided a scale which would then determine the concentration of the iron in either of the Dasani, Fiji, and tap water samples. We then recorded the results on a table for each of the tests. The PH test included the use of jiffy juice, whose 5 ml was added to 25 ml of each of the water samples. The color change was then observed against a color chart which would further indicate the PH level of either of the samples.

Results

As indicated in tables one and two, the water samples indicated no presence of ammonia and chlorine. However, there was 0.15 ppm of iron in tap water while there was none in the other two water samples. The test on PH indicated that tap and Dasani bottled water had levels of relatively weak acidity, indicating readings of 4 and 3 respectively. Conversely, Fiji bottled water indicated basic properties, with a reading of 7 on the PH scale. Each of the three samples tested positive for the presence of Phosphates, with a tap, Dasani, and Fiji each having 10, 25, and 100 ppm on the scale. Similar results were obtained in the test for alkalinity with each of the test subjects scoring 40mg/l on the scale. However, Dasani and Tap water did not contain any chlorine levels while Fiji had 4m/l. Further, Dasani had 0 mg/l when tested for hardness, while Fiji and tap water each had 50 m/l.

Discussion

The findings of the study indicate that there is not enough evidence to indicate that Fiji is better than Dasani bottled water, and neither is it better than tap water. Apparently, the price of tap water does not suit the benefits it serves to use it, and that of Fiji bottled water does not match its quality according to the analysis herein. For instance, the high levels of phosphates in the Fiji bottled water is a cause of concern, especially based on its health implications and the purity levels implied by the company in advertisements for the product.

Based on the determined quality of the bottled water, it raises a concern that the industry collects so much revenue from the public while the products do not match the price. Notably, every consumer seeks value for any amount spent in a particular market, and such would only be met when the said individual derives the anticipated quality from a particular product.

Apparently, there appears to be some form of consistency in the results, which one could consider being a result of possible errors in the experimentation process. Like any other lab experiment, there are potential sources of error in the herein discussed results. For instance, there was significant use of pre-prepared scales, which determined the identified amount of contaminants in the sampled water. However, only one sample was used, and one scale was used as well. Had the tests been repeated, they may have been more accurate and less consistent than they now are.

Conclusions

The assumptions that bottled water is always the best one to drink are flawed. The purity of water depends on how much effort an institution puts towards ensuring that it is safe enough to drink. However, the society can never get to know the purest water source, unless scholars consistently test the level of purity from different water suppliers, and make such information public. Such would not only ensure the public’s safety but would also increase the investor’s efforts to make sure that they put health ahead of profits.

References

Arheimer, B. (2016, April). The active liquid Earth-importance of temporal and spatial variability. In EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts (Vol. 18, p. 17409).

Dolnicar, S., Hurlimann, A., & Grün, B. (2014). Branding water. Water research, 57, 325-338.

Teixeira, C. P., De Azevedo, C. S., Mendl, M., Cipreste, C. F., & Young, R. J. (2007). Revisiting translocation and reintroduction programmes: the importance of considering stress. Animal Behaviour, 73(1), 1-13.

Whelton, A. J., McMillan, L., Connell, M., Kelley, K. M., Gill, J. P., White, K. D., ... & Novy, C. (2015). Residential tap water contamination following the Freedom Industries chemical spill: perceptions, water quality, and health impacts. Environmental science & technology, 49(2), 813-823.