Conclusion
The water from the water conservation is collected in a large open area, therefore it ought to contain more dissolved oxygen. The wind blowing on the surface of the water causes the oxygen in contact with the water to dissolve in. On the other hand, water from the canal has smaller surface area to volume ratio as it is deep, but the surface area is low. At the same time, as the data shows, the water from the canal is more saturated with other compound and nutrient. As the environment suggest, the canal water contain more garbage floating at the surface, limiting the surface area for the oxygen to come in contact with the water, therefore the oxygen level in the canal is significantly lower than the pond’s.
The ideal level of dissolved oxygen level is no less than 5 ppm, but most organisms are still able to function at the oxygen level as low as 3 ppm. If the value go lower than 2 ppm, the environment is no longer suitable for living things as most of the living thing respire and require oxygen. The oxygen level in the canal is not suitable as the average oxygen level is at 0.9 ppm, while the oxygen level in the water conservation is around 5.1, which is the ideal.
The level of phosphate in the canal is higher than the level in the water conservation. Considering that the surrounding of the canal is compacted with household, it is possible that the phosphate may come from detergent, animal waste and farm fertilizer. Detergent may run off from the surrounding household, while the fertilizer may got washed off from the soil in the area. Since the area is not ideal for living things, some of them die off and the corpse decomposed, forming higher level of phosphate. After the phosphate enter the water, they may disperse as they get further from the source. Therefore the level of phosphate in the canal is higher than the pond. At the same time, the pond’s oxygen level is ideal for living, so there is not as much corpse than the canal. The floating objects in water were also roughly filtered before entering the water conservation area, therefore the level of phosphate in the pond is lower than the canal. It is worthy to note that since there is a lot of rain lately in the area, the level of phosphate may rise as they got washed off from the soil.
The high level of phosphate may cause the plants to function better as they have more nutrients available, but since the environment in the canal is not suitable for living things, this high level of phosphate may not promote the population of the living things in the water. The canal is dangerous in relative to the phosphate level as it is around 5.6 ppm. The idea level of phosphate is to be less than 0.3 ppm. The pond water is at the ideal level as it is at 2 ppm.
Nitrogen in form of nitrate are produced from decomposition of waste or washed off water from fertilizer. The high level of nitrate indicate the amount of waste from the community or washed off nitrate from soil. The data on nitrate in the water from both sources could not be measured as the value might be too low. Using the available apparatus, the lowest measurable value is 0.5 ppm. The value of nitrate in water can be deduced that it has the value lower than 0.5 ppm, but is higher than 0 because it is not possible for the water to not have nitrate. With the relation to nitrate level in the environment, the water in this area is rather safe as the level is not detectable. It may be because this water source is further away from source of nitrate pollution. The idea level is to be lower than 20 ppm.
The level of sulfide is not detectable for the pond water, while it is at 0.5 for canal water. The sulfide may be presented in form of hydrogen sulfide which smells rotten, the common smell for polluted water. The difference is obvious as the canal water emits strong smell while the pond does not. There might be an extremely low level of sulfide in the water, but not enough to be detected by this instrument. This is safe as a high level of sulfide in water is lethal. Generally, the 1-2 ppm already emits rotten smell, while the ideal is to be less than 10 ppm.
In conclusion, the water in the canal is relatively more polluted and dangerous than the water in the pond. The oxygen level of the canal is too low, as well as the level of the phosphate that is too high than the ideal condition. The pond/water conservation, on the other hand, is all under ideal condition. The cause of the differences could be suggested that the water in the water conservation area is under the control of an organization while the canal is in a public area, and is also attached to a living community.
The ideal level of dissolved oxygen level is no less than 5 ppm, but most organisms are still able to function at the oxygen level as low as 3 ppm. If the value go lower than 2 ppm, the environment is no longer suitable for living things as most of the living thing respire and require oxygen. The oxygen level in the canal is not suitable as the average oxygen level is at 0.9 ppm, while the oxygen level in the water conservation is around 5.1, which is the ideal.
The level of phosphate in the canal is higher than the level in the water conservation. Considering that the surrounding of the canal is compacted with household, it is possible that the phosphate may come from detergent, animal waste and farm fertilizer. Detergent may run off from the surrounding household, while the fertilizer may got washed off from the soil in the area. Since the area is not ideal for living things, some of them die off and the corpse decomposed, forming higher level of phosphate. After the phosphate enter the water, they may disperse as they get further from the source. Therefore the level of phosphate in the canal is higher than the pond. At the same time, the pond’s oxygen level is ideal for living, so there is not as much corpse than the canal. The floating objects in water were also roughly filtered before entering the water conservation area, therefore the level of phosphate in the pond is lower than the canal. It is worthy to note that since there is a lot of rain lately in the area, the level of phosphate may rise as they got washed off from the soil.
The high level of phosphate may cause the plants to function better as they have more nutrients available, but since the environment in the canal is not suitable for living things, this high level of phosphate may not promote the population of the living things in the water. The canal is dangerous in relative to the phosphate level as it is around 5.6 ppm. The idea level of phosphate is to be less than 0.3 ppm. The pond water is at the ideal level as it is at 2 ppm.
Nitrogen in form of nitrate are produced from decomposition of waste or washed off water from fertilizer. The high level of nitrate indicate the amount of waste from the community or washed off nitrate from soil. The data on nitrate in the water from both sources could not be measured as the value might be too low. Using the available apparatus, the lowest measurable value is 0.5 ppm. The value of nitrate in water can be deduced that it has the value lower than 0.5 ppm, but is higher than 0 because it is not possible for the water to not have nitrate. With the relation to nitrate level in the environment, the water in this area is rather safe as the level is not detectable. It may be because this water source is further away from source of nitrate pollution. The idea level is to be lower than 20 ppm.
The level of sulfide is not detectable for the pond water, while it is at 0.5 for canal water. The sulfide may be presented in form of hydrogen sulfide which smells rotten, the common smell for polluted water. The difference is obvious as the canal water emits strong smell while the pond does not. There might be an extremely low level of sulfide in the water, but not enough to be detected by this instrument. This is safe as a high level of sulfide in water is lethal. Generally, the 1-2 ppm already emits rotten smell, while the ideal is to be less than 10 ppm.
In conclusion, the water in the canal is relatively more polluted and dangerous than the water in the pond. The oxygen level of the canal is too low, as well as the level of the phosphate that is too high than the ideal condition. The pond/water conservation, on the other hand, is all under ideal condition. The cause of the differences could be suggested that the water in the water conservation area is under the control of an organization while the canal is in a public area, and is also attached to a living community.
Evaluation
The problems that happened during the data collecting process is the uncertainty in the concentration of oxygen. We used oxygen probe to collect the data of concentration of oxygen after we gathered the water sample into the water. The concentration of oxygen inside the bottle will change with the temperature, time and the movement of the water. We were using our hands to carry the bottle water while measuring the oxygen. It causes us to have two problems. First, the position of our hands will change the heat that is transferred to the water. It will change the temperature of water, causing it to has different concentration of oxygen. In addition, our hands were shaking so it will alter the measured the concentration of oxygen inside the water. The solution of these problems is to use the bottle holder to hold the bottle and the probe. In this way, there will be a very little change in temperature and movement of water, resulting in more precise data.
The other systematic error is the method of collecting the data of phosphate, nitrate and sulfide. The data requires the observer eyes to judge the color of tested solution to find the concentration of the nutrient. It means that the accuracy and precision of this method is very low because of the human errors.
The rain will also cause the nutrient concentration to decrease because there is higher volume of water with the same amount of compound. Because of the rain, the solute concentration decreases, therefore nitrate, sulfide and phosphate conservation can be harder to find as the concentration is lower.
The other systematic error is the method of collecting the data of phosphate, nitrate and sulfide. The data requires the observer eyes to judge the color of tested solution to find the concentration of the nutrient. It means that the accuracy and precision of this method is very low because of the human errors.
The rain will also cause the nutrient concentration to decrease because there is higher volume of water with the same amount of compound. Because of the rain, the solute concentration decreases, therefore nitrate, sulfide and phosphate conservation can be harder to find as the concentration is lower.