You are on page 1of 3

What is the Quality of Our Water?

Purpose
We tested the water in the Toppenish to find out the quality of the water and if our water was safe to drink or not.
Hypothesis
I thought we would find that overall the water was in our area was good quality water.
Procedure
We used different testing methods to test the quality of the water at 4 different sites and our home water.
I used the turbidity tester to see how much sediment was in the water.
We filled a glass bottle with water from each different site we went to and put it in the turbidity tester. It
shines a light through the water to test the clarity.
Results
These are the results for all the tests our class did put together. Site 1 was the furthest upstream; each site was more
downstream than the one before.
The
down the
went the
quality of

Temp
(C)
HAD

pH

Conductivity
(us/cm) CC

Conductivity
(us/cm) JW

Site 1

9.4

7.0

68

Site 2

10.7

7.1

Site 3

11.3

Site 4
Average

Conclusions

Flow
Rate
(m/s)
XA
1.56

Flow
Rate
(m/s)
LM
0.784

Dissolved
Oxygen
(mL/L)

73.6

Flow
Rate
(m/s)
BM
0.41

Nitrate
(mg/L)

Ammonium
(mg/L)

Turbidity
(NTU)

3.2

120

128.2

0.223

1.62

0.154

87.8

20.5

6.9

146

151

0.265

0.28

0.28

76.7

0.02

2.2

67.1

13.2

6.6

169

171

0.164

0.473

0.626

44.4

0.01

121.4

11.15

6.9

125.75

130.95

0.265

0.983

0.461

69.633333

0.0075

0.55

53.05

farther
river we
worse the
water got.

The normal levels for turbidity are 1-10 NTU. The only site that the water was in the normal range was at Site 1. For
the class data as we continued downstream, the temperature rose (9.4C to 11.15C), the pH was further from neutral
(7.0 to 6.6), the flow rate of the river slowed down (.918 m/s average to .336 m/s average), there was less oxygen in
the water (87.8 mL/L to 44.4 mL/L), and the nitrates and ammoniums increased, with the exception of a few outliers.
This proved my hypothesis wrong because I thought the water would have good quality all over and it only had a
good quality at Site 1.
Reflection
Something I wouldve done differently is to take more than one sample of water at each site for even better and
more accurate results.

LAB REPORT RUBRIC


Not Proficient

Proficient

Purpose doesn't explain what you did

The purpose of the lab is brief and to

or why you did it in a way that I can


understand
Hypothesis is a question, guess or
prediction
Hypothesis doesnt fit what you
already know

the point. Tells me what you did and why


you did it
Clear hypothesis that makes sense
based on what you already know
You explain the reasoning for your
hypothesis very clearly

Procedure
&
Results

Procedure is there but its confusing. I


could not follow it without asking lots
of questions
Data and observations present but not
organized into tables and/ or graphs
Tables/ graphs are sloppy

Procedure and materials are explained


very clearly

Research
&
Conclusion

Research section is not clearly related


to the experiment or does not contain
sources
Conclusion explains the answer to your
question OR the hypothesis, but not
both
Data is not used to support your
conclusion

Background research into experiment


topic is clearly related to the experiment
and includes sources
Conclusion includes the answer to your
question and whether findings supported
your hypothesis
Data is clearly used to explain your
conclusion

Question
&
Hypothesis

Professional-looking and accurate


representation of the data in tables and/or
graphs

Reflection

To Exceed
Standards

Student does not clearly analyze the


quality of the data and experiment

Detail of report goes above and beyond requirements or includes exceptional insight
Include evidence (with sources) of deep research into science concepts or real world application related to experiment
Make an outstanding product that goes far above and beyond expectations

Temp pH
(C)
HAD
9.4
10.7
11.3
13.2
11.15

It is very clear what was learned from


the experiment & research
Student clearly analyzes the quality of
the data and of the experiment overall
Several good questions for further
investigation are provided

It is not clear what was learned from


the experiment & research

Conductivity Conductivity Flow


(us/cm) CC (us/cm) JW Rate
(m/s)
BM
7.04
68
73.6
0.41
7.14
120
128.2
0.223
6.88
146
151
0.265
6.63
169
171
0.164
6.9225 125.75
130.95
0.2655

Flow
Rate
(m/s)
XA
1.56
1.62
0.28
0.473
0.98325

Flow
Rate
(m/s)
LM
0.784
0.154
0.28
0.626
0.461

Dissolved Oxygen
(mL/L)

Nitrate Ammonium Turbidity


(mg/L) (mg/L)
(NTU)

87.8
76.7
44.4
69.6333333333333

0
0
0.02
0.01
0.0075

0
0
2.2
0
0.55

3.2
20.5
67.1
121.4
53.05