Comparative Analysis

of Methods for
Measuring Dissolve
Oxygen Concentration
AFRICANO, BERNARDO, CARREON, POLANES
BIO426L
2 - IBIO
Introduction

Water is a natural resource that is essential to all

organisms as it supports life

Sources of water may come from rivers, lakes, streams,

and some may come from groundwater and those from
precipitates of rainfall

Water is not restricted to consumption, but it plays an

essential part in several economic sectors and various
industries
Introduction

Certain parameters in the quality of water may be harmful

and may limit to support life

Variables like salinity, pH levels, and content of Dissolved

Oxygen (DO) are the most commonly observed parameters

The concentration of DO relies on various activities of

bodies of water. It can indicate whether the quality of
water is safe or not
Introduction

Two of the most common methods in determining the

content of DO: Electrical Dissolved Oxygen Probe (DOP)
and Iodometric Method or Winkler Method (WM)

The objective of this study is to determine the

difference between WM and DOP in terms of its
accuracy in obtaining DO concentrations.
Methods: Data Gathering
Water samples were obtained from the Fountain of
Knowledge, located at the University of Santo
Tomas Campus

Two methods were used to assess the DO in

the water: DOP and WM.

Three replicates were analyzed in WM and nine replicates

for DOP. All of the water samples analyzed in DOP were
obtained at the same time. WM samples were obtained
before and after performing the DOP (approx. ±30 minutes).
Methods: Reagents List

REAGENTS
Alkaline Sodium Solution

Manganous Sulfate

Starch Indicator

0.025M Sodium Thiosulfate

Methods: WM

Samples
were
DO in the
contained 200 mL of
sample was
in BOD the sample
fixed using
bottles and was
specific
was taken titrated
reagents
back to the
lab
Methods: DOP

Hach® HQ40D
portable
Analysis of DO The probe
multimeter
was was dipped in
and an
performed the fountain
optical sensor
directly on until the read
probe
the study site out stabilizes.
(IntellicalTM)
was used
 Results

Replicates DOP WM

Trial 1 9.52 mg/L 6.0 mg/L

Trial 2 9.4 mg/L 17.3 mg/L

Trial 3 9.19 mg/L 8.1 mg/L

Trial 4 9.35 mg/L -

Table 1: Amount of DO concentration using DOP and WM

Results:

Replicates DOP WM

Trial 5 9.63 mg/L -

Trial 6 9.81 mg/L -

Trial 7 9.67 mg/L -

Trial 8 9.33 mg/L -

Trial 9 9.33 mg/L -

Table 1: Amount of DO concentration using DOP and WM

Results

Figure 1: Comparison of DOP and WM in the obtained amount of DO

Results

The result of Welch’s T-test shows that there is no significant

difference between the means of both methods.

With t = -0.28717 and p-value = 0.801, in a 95% confidence

interval, there is no true difference in the means of the two
methods. Hence, not rejecting the null hypothesis.
 The accuracy of DO analysis is not
affected using different methods
since the mean DO concentrations
of both results are similar

Discussion
However, results may be invalidated
as there are many observed
uncertainties caused by errors in
the utilization of methods
 The standard deviation of the DO concentration of WM is higher
than that of the DOP

Low number of replicates for WM

Discussion
The inconsistency in WM can be due to the systematic errors
(inaccurate measurements of reagents, wrong sampling procedure,
and contamination)

Sampling time was not the same for WM replicates

The accuracy of DOP can also become uncertain as the sensor is

subjected to changing concentrations of DO, affecting the
stabilization and calibration process
Conclusion
Too many errors are made which affect the process of DOP and WM
which increases the unreliability of the obtained data.

Data is insufficient to compare the accuracy of the two methods

More replicates are needed to thoroughly assess the difference

between the two methods

Analysis of DO by WM should be performed with extreme caution to

minimize the errors that can affect the results

A good statistical test that can dissociate minimal variations is also

recommended for future experients