Matt Prater

Lab 6
Turbidimetic determination of sulfate
Introduction
Turbidimetry is an analytical technique that uses the loss of intensity due to light being
scattered by particles that are present. The more particles present the more light gets scattered
and this causes intensity to be reduced as it hits the detector. This reduction in light intensity is
directly proportional with the amount of precipitate in the sample. A calibration curve was
established using values of 5 ppm through 40 ppm (by 5 ppm) sulfate concentrations in order to
form a linear curve that relates concentration of sulfate to Formazin Turbidity Unit and vice
versa. Once a calibration curve was established, the unknown #1 and the coal creek sample were
tested.
Procedure
Materials:
Magnetic stir bar/plate
Turbidimeter
Stop watch (x2)
Condition reagent (prepared by
Cameron)

BaCl2 crystals
Standard sulfate solution (100 ppm)
Distilled Water
Measuring Spoon

Following the preparation of the ~100 ppm standard by Madi Day, small volumes
of this solution were taken and diluted to form 5, 10, 15,,40 ppm standards using 5, 10,
15,, 40 mL of the standard and diluting to 100 mL. The solution for the 35 ppm
standard was diluted just above the calibrated line and therefore would be slightly below
the standard curve. The coal creek sample was diluted by 4 and the unknown was diluted
by 10 in order to use the turbidimeter. To each sample, 5 mL condition reagent which was
prepared by Cameron was added and then the 2-3 mL of BaCl2 crystals was added to
form a precipitate during one minute of stirring. While the first sample was stirring, a
blank was analyzed with the turbidimeter. Following the 1 minute of stirring, part of the
sample was poured into the sample vial and placed in the turbidimeter for a 1 minute
analysis. This occurred for the 8 standard solutions along with the two unknown samples.
Following the analysis, the calculations to relate concentration to the turbidity unit were
performed as in figure 1 below. One of the unknowns was a sample from the river at the
location in figure 2 below.

turbidity intercept
=concentration
slope
Figure 1: relation of turbidity to concentration.

Figure 2: Sampling location.

Results

The turbidimeter produced the following values: 0.51, 0.81, 1.08, 1.32, 1.55, 1.82,
2.01, and 2.40 for the concentrations of 5, 10, 15,, 40 respectively which formed a very
linear curve with an R2 value of 0.9961. These values are in table 1, and were used to
produce figure 3. The value from the turbidimeter for the unknown was 1.91 and the
value for the river sample was 1.88.

Calibration Curve
300
250
200
turbidity (unitless)

150

f(x) = 5.16x + 27.61

R = 1
Calibration Curve
Linear Regression

100
50
0
0 1020304050

Concentration (ppm)

Table 1: calibration data.

con
cent
rati
on
(pp
m)

5
10

15

20

25

30

T
u
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
5
1
8
1
1
0
8
1
3
2
1
5
5
1
8
2

35

40

2
0
1
2
4
0

Figure 3: Calibration curve.

The values from the river in order from the top of the creek to the bottom for
sulfate concentration were 130, 144, 129, 124, and 141 ppm with an average of 134 ppm
and a standard deviation of 8 ppm. These values appear in table 2. The unknown #1
concentration was 316.5 ppm.
Table 2: Sulfate river concentrations.
Location
rustys
canyon
park
lions
park
main
street
bridge
the Y
Unknow
n #1
Average
(river)
Stdev
(river)

Concentrat
ion (ppm)
130.3

144

129

124.3
141.4
316.5

133.8
8.4755530
79

Conclusion
The above values for the river concentrations all represent potable water due to a
maximum contamination for sulfate being 500 ppm.1 Due to a standard deviation of only
8 ppm, the values reported from the groups all agree to a pretty large extent. The river
sulfate concentration was 133.8 ppm is well within normal values and is very drinkable.
Turbidity as a method is very consistent yet the results were different than those of the
gravimetric analysis. This could be due to the difference in which day the water was
sampled and the time of day as well. The weather has been warming up and thus the ice
has been melting up higher; causing the flow rate to be higher and not solvate as many
ions in its travels. Therefore the concentration being lower makes sense.

References

(1)
USGS - NAWQA - Water Quality in the Allegheny and Monongahela River
Basins - Major Findings http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1202/major_findings.htm (accessed
Feb 2, 2015).