1. The effect of water on bacteria survival
By Declan Reilly

2. Introduction
In this day and age, water can be bought in many different forms and packaging. For example, some types of water have different products such as minerals or electrolytes added to them.
These minerals and electrolytes can foster a good environment for bacteria to live and flourish, which can become a major health risk. 

3. Variable Smart water Has electrolytes that improve your energy.
Has other minerals that help with taste.
This will most likely wield the greatest results from the bacteria.
Contains vapor distilled water one liter, calcium chloride 0.2%, magnesium chloride 0.9% and potassium bicarbonate 0.4% electrolyte 1% for taste.

4. Regular(Kirkland ) bottle water
It is predicted there will be a low amount of bacteria surviving colonies from this type of water.
purified water
potassium bicarbonate 0.1%
calcium citrate 3%
magnesium oxide 2%
calorie free
sodium free

5. Tap
The tap water will have a low survival rate, tap water is tested by Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority for a bacteria or disease. Because chlorine is used to treat the water, there may be some chlorine residue remaining. This will help to kill bacteria leading to the low surviving colonies.
Fluoride- 2ppm
Nitrate- 3ppm
Barium- 1ppm
Cyanide- 0.2ppm
Total organic compound- 39.2ppm

6. Tap continued Trihalomethanes- 13ppm Haloacetic Acids - 8ppm
NaCEL- 21ppm
Free Chlorine- 0.2ppm

7. MODEL BACTERIA
E. coli
Prokaryotic, gram negative, unicellular, bacterial cell 
Intestinal mammalian symbiont 
Inexpensive laboratory variable, easily cultured
Pathogen

8. SDF Isotonic environment
Used as a controlled variable for many experimented.
SDF (Sterile Dilution Fluid)
100mM KH2P04 ,10mM MgSO4, 1mM NaCl

9. Purpose
If the bacteria can survive and thrive this can lead to a major health problem.

10. Hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis: The different kinds of bottled water, such as the Smart Water will have an increase of bacteria survival of the colonies.
Null hypothesis: The different kinds of bottle water will have no effect on the survival of the bacteria .

11. Materials •Sidearm Flask •Turn-table Spreader bars •Vortex
•Incubator
•Cone/Beaker
•Tap water, Smart water, regular bottle water
•SDF (Sterile Dilution Fluid)- 100mm KH2PO4, 10mm MgSO4, 1mm NaCl
•Ethanol
Spreader bars
YEPD Agar Plates (1% Yeast Extract, 2% Peptone, 2% Glucose)
Escherichia coli C600
•Burner

12. Procedure 1. E. coli was grown overnight in sterile LB media.
2. A sample of this culture was added to LB media in a side arm flask.
3. The culture was incubated until a density of 50 Klett units.

13. Concentration grid Type SDF Tap Smart water Regular Water E. Coli
0.1ml
Variable
9.9ml
Total
10ml
Concentration
99%

14. Procedure
4. 0.1mL of cell culture was then added to the test tubes, yielding a final volume of 10mL and had a cell density of approximately 10^3 cells/mL/
5. The solution was mixed by vortex.
6. After vortex to evenly suspend cells, 0.1 aliquots were removed from the tubes and spread on YEPD agar plates.
7. The plates were incubated at 37 degrees Celsius for 24 hours.
8. The resulting colonies were counted. Each colony is assumed to have risen from one cell

15. Data SDF Regular Tab Smart 5 min 185 119 208 104 174 115 155 134 14375
116 97
137 84
159 86
125 91 95
45 min
101
176
102
126
129
163
135
114
175
128
138
117

17. Column 1 control SDF
Column 2 Regular
Column 3 Tap
Column 4 Smart

19. Column 1 control SDF
Column 2 Regular
Column 3 Tap
Column 4 Smart

20. 5 min dunnett test T crit of 3.29
Tap
Smart Water
Regular
Not Significant
-1.275
.232
1.129

21. 45 minute dunnett test T crit of 3.29
Regular
Smart water
Tap
Significant
Not significant
Not Significant
.001
.0001

22. Conclusion
For both of the anova, 5 minutes and 45 minutes, the f value is greater then the f crit this means that the null can be rejected.
The p value is below 0.05 this support that the null hypothesis was rejected.
Dunnett shows all have no significant variation. This fails to reject the null hypothesis.The regular water has a significant variation to the control which reject the null.

23. Limitations Plating was slightly unsynchronized Only one concentration
Only two exposure times
Only one method was used.

24. Extension Add different variables Try different types of soda.
Different test times
See if a long exposure cause harm.
Use different models

25. Works cited
How Do Fertilizers Affect the Environment.” Environment News South Africa,
Environment News South Africa, 18 Aug. 2018,
issues/how-do-fertilizers-affect-the-environment.html.
“Why It's Time to Stop Punishing Our Soils with Fertilizers.” Yale E360,
e360.yale.edu/features/why-its-time-to-stop-punishing-our-soils-with-fertilizers-and-
chemicals.
“How Fertilizers Harm Earth More Than Help Your Lawn.” Scientific American,
Hunt, Janet. “Harmful Effects of Chemical Fertilizers.” Hunker.com, Hunker, 24 Oct.
2010,
Disabled World. “What Are Body Electrolytes and How Do They Work.” Disabled
World, Disabled World, 22 Aug. 2013,
world.com/health/electrolytes.php