Presentation on theme: "STUDENT INTRODUCTION Hi, my name is Abigail Hope Marchetti. I am a homeschooled 8 th Grader. I take the Physical Science course in FLVS, and I recently."— Presentation transcript:
STUDENT INTRODUCTION Hi, my name is Abigail Hope Marchetti. I am a homeschooled 8 th Grader. I take the Physical Science course in FLVS, and I recently finished an M/J Keyboarding course. My Mom wanted my brother and me to be a part of the Science Fair since we were taking a science course. I am excited about participating in the Science Fair! This will be an interesting experience for me since I have never been in a Science Fair before and since this is online. I am curious as to what it will be like. I hope you will enjoy my project. I have learned a lot of valuable things from doing this science experiment!
PROJECT INTRODUCTION I wanted to do this experiment, Whats In Your Water?, because I thought it would be interesting and fun. This experiment provides a way for families to make the healthiest choice of which water to drink. My family drinks Glacier water, and it tastes better than any water Ive ever drank. Since it tastes much more delicious than any of my friends water or bottled water, I thought that it had the least amount of mercury, arsenic, and lead. Its important for families to have the cleanest water possible, since a large amount of our bodies is made up of water! If you have ever heard a doctor tell you to drink eight glasses of water a day, you will see how important it is to be drinking eight glasses of the right water! Whats in your water? My hypothesis: If six different kinds of bottled water, tap water, and home-purified water are compared for how much mercury, arsenic, and lead are in them, then Glacier water will be the healthiest, concerning metals. My purpose: My purpose is to find out which water is the healthiest concerning the amount of mercury, arsenic, and lead in each.
HYPOTHESI S If six different kinds of water are tested for how much mercury, arsenic, and lead are in them, then Glacier water will have the least amount of these contaminants.
INITIAL RESEARCH I searched for a nearby water plant, and I found the South Water Reclamation Facility. I talked to Ms. Amy Gilliam about my project, who directed me to Ms. Sonja Williams.
PURPOSE My purpose is to find out which water is the healthiest concerning the amount of mercury, arsenic, and lead in each.
MATERIALS 125 mL of Zephyrhills Distilled Water 125 mL of Zephyrhills 100% Spring Water 125 mL of Zephyrhills Drinking Water 125 mL of Tap Water 125 mL of Glacier Purified Water 125 mL of Home Purified Water 18 Large plastic measuring vials 18 Small plastic measuring vials 1 µ l of Nitric Acid 40 µ l of Matrix Modifier 3.75 mL of Potassium Permanganate 2 mL of Potassium Persulfate 1 mL of Nitric Acid 2.5 mL of Sulfuric Acid Assorted pipettes
METHOD > ARSENIC & LEAD 1. Pour 50 mL of each water sample into 6 different plastic measuring vials. 2. Add 0.5 microliters ( µ l) of Nitric Acid to each vial. 3. Pour 2 mL of the vials into even smaller vials. 4. Add 20 microliters of Matrix Modifier to the smaller vials. 5. Place the vials into STPGFAAGraphite Furnace Atomic Absorption and type the list of samples to be tested. 6. After receiving results, document the amounts displayed.
METHOD > MERCURY 1. Pour 25 mL of each water sample into 6 different plastic measuring vials. 2. Add 1 mL of Nitric Acid to each vial. 3. Add 2.5 mL of Sulfuric Acid to each vial. 4. Add 3.75 mL of Potassium Permanganate to each vial. 5. Add 2 mL of Potassium Persulfate to each vial. 6. Add 1.25 mL of Hydroxemene to each vial. 7. Place the water into the Manual Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption machine; type the list of samples to be tested; test the samples and document the results.
RESULTS > ARSENIC Some of the results are negative because they are negligible.
RESULTS > LEAD
RESULTS > MERCURY
RESULTS > STANDARD The EPA standards are… Arsenic = 0.010 mg/L Lead = 0.015 mg/L (action level) Mercury (inorganic) = 0.002 mg/L Compared to the standards, all of the waters are healthy concerning metals.
I thought I would be comparing more dramatic resultsfor example, 1.7 to 3.6 instead of a negative number to another negative number. All of the waters are good. The scientist I worked with, Ms. Sonja Williams, said so herself. There was an advertisement for a Pur® tap water filter that cost $39.99 and that claimed to remove 99% of the lead in tap water. Not that theres very much to remove. The mean amount of lead in tap water was a negative number! Ms. Sonja Williams herself, who works with data about metals in water, drinks tap water straight from the sink. It does claim to remove microbial cysts, though. Microbiology is a whole different story. DISCUSSION
Mistakes Made That Did Not Affect the Results One of the mistakes I made was not taking enough notes. If I had taken the time to take efficient notes, then I wouldnt have zapped some of the time of the scientists working at the laboratory. Errors That Might Have Affected the Results Normally, according to the EPAs methods, after chemicals are put in samples, the samples are left to settle overnight before the actual test takes place. We did not do that for this science experiment. Although I tried to pour the exact amount of water required for the samples (see slides 7-9) and pipette out the majority of excess water, some of the amounts could have been slightly higher or lower than the correct amount. When documenting the numbers off of the page of results, I could have looked at the wrong set of numbers, but I am pretty sure that the numbers are all correct.
CONCLUSIONS The results were negligible. The waters I tested are all fine to drink. My hypothesis was incorrect. Glacier water was not the best kind of water. None of the water types were the best. Please keep in mind that just because your drinking water does not have many metals in it does not mean that it is the best kind of drinking water. To get a full picture of how healthy your water is, you would need to run other tests on it such as tests for microbes and pesticides.
TRIBUTE TO SCIENTISTS This experience gave me a new respect for scientists. I want to thank those people who are willing to wade through an ocean of data to keep our water, our food, and our lives safe. The title of this project is Whats In Your Water? But here is another question– Whos Behind Your Water? This tribute is for every scientist working to keep my life from being endangered and working to improve it in any way they can.
BIBLIOGRAPHY I would like to thank my parents. I am also grateful for the help of Ms. Sonja Williams, Staff Scientist at OCU South Water Reclamation Facility. I am indebted to Ms. Kathleen Gauthier, another scientist at the SWRF. I would also like to thank Ms. Amy Gilliam, a PhD in Microbiology. The following are websites that I used as extra sources: http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/LAD/C5/C5_Size.html http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/method/files/200_9.pdf http://www.epa.gov/region9/qa/pdfs/245_1dqi.pdf http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm All three scientists worked at the OCU South Water Reclamation Facility. Orange County Utilities