Water Filter Challenge

Water Filter Challenge

Define:

For this project we have been asked to design a filter that will produce water safe for release in the Pitt River. This means we needed to have safe water levels, no toxic material and proper water quality. To see what we needed to change in the water we conducted a flame test using a Bunsen burner and reference metal ions like salt and calcium chloride. To test the unfiltered water we put it through filtered paper and then tested the solids on it.

Flame Test

Unfiltered Water While there was some slight blue/green coloring, in the beginning, the most prominent color was orange.
NaCl

(Salt)

It was orange with no other visible colors.
Cucl (Calcium Chloride) It had prominent blue-green tones with a little bit of orange. The flame color was bright and seemed to flicker between green and blue.
SrCl (Strontium Chloride) It was red with no other visible colors.
KCl (Potassium Chloride) Light purple with some red and orange like colors.

From these observations, we found that the dirty water we had contained salt and maybe low levels of Calcium Chloride.

We also took a Ph test before filtration, we used a petri dish, a Ph paper and some of the sample water. The outcome was an observed Ph level of 5 (on the scale of 1-14). This indicates that the water was slightly acidic. These two tests we did helped us to identify what needs to be removed from the water. From our observations, we saw that this substance that we needed to purify was liquid, translucent, slightly yellow, contained brown, black and green solids, and smelled like vinegar.

To understand what levels and requirements needed to be met for the water being poured into the Coquitlam river I looked at some information on average Ph levels in Canada, which ranged from 6.5-8.5. I also looked at a PDF from BC that talked about water guidelines and while we couldn’t necessarily test what I wanted to it increased my understanding.

Discover:

Similar projects have been conducted many times by many groups of people, specifically, the ‘bottle DIY filter’ is easy to find online. There are also many resources available to purify water in different ways that don’t rely on a plastic bottle, for example; iodine pills purify water, chlorine drops kill pathogens and bacteria, reverse osmosis and decanoic acid reduces salt content. All these ways to purify water are viable and work however we were not provided with these materials. So, while the research done on these methods increase understanding, it did not help with the creation of our specific filter. The problem of filtering water has been around for a long time, we as humans have taken many advances in the technology developed to produce clean water. Human-made water filtration dates back to over 4000 years. In the past, some solutions to this specific problem include boiling and filtration using sand and stones.

Dream:

Some ideas our group put out included things like reverse osmosis, boiling, and using different materials that we didn’t have. When we were able to recognize the materials, we were provided with we began to brainstorm different ideas like using filter paper, cotton balls and sand. We didn’t want the sand to fall into the water and create more solids in the water so we figured that we should use a filter on the bottom part to eliminate those sand grains. We also thought about how we could adjust the water to have a lower salt content and how we could balance out the Ph. To accomplish these things we tried to create a filter that would somehow get rid of salt, that included ideas like using progressively smaller rocks, stones and sand, trying to reduce the carbon dioxide (which is a large cause of Ph level change) and trying to separate the salt and the water. We were also curious about how well a sponge would work in the mouth of the bottle so using tap water we placed the sponge in the bottle and poured in water to see if it works

While all these ideas weren’t used, they were crucial to our filter making process and helped us to create our model. Our design ended up being made up to cotton, cheesecloth, filter paper, activated carbon and then we filtered it again through filter paper. We used this method because we took what we thought would work well from all of our brainstorming to create a filter that would hopefully work.

Deliver:

After we created our model, we were able to test it using the contaminated water. This resulted in the water coming the end was liquid, transparent, less yellow, contained no visible solids, and smelled less like vinegar. We then conducted another Ph test, we used a petri dish, a Ph paper and some of the filtered sample water. The outcome was an observed Ph level of 5 (on the scale of 1-14) which was the same as before the filtration. This indicates that the water is still slightly acidic.

Debrief:

                Overall, I think that this project was very interesting, engaging and improved my understanding of water quality. If I were to do it again, I would change some of the elements we worked with, for example include better use of the activated charcoal. I also wish we had more time to test and research because I think that would improve the project a lot, it would allow for diving deeper into questions I have and allow for more testing to be conducted. Materials I would have liked to use include a conductivity tester, decanoic acid, and I think it would have been really interesting to work with some different materials that affect Ph levels. If I had the opportunity to use these items I would have used the conductivity tester to get a better understanding to the TDS levels before and after the filtration. For the decanoic acid, while it doesn’t really relate to a filter it sounds very interesting to work with and I would like to see if it removes salt content. The materials that could help change the Ph levels vary, from what I’ve read and researched it seems that to increase Ph level you can use many materials like lemon/lime, baking soda and even wood ash. These changes to the project, I think, would make it better.

Sites:

  1. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/water/waterquality/water-quality-guidelines/approved-wqgs/chloride-or.pdf
  2. https://www.fondriest.com/environmental-measurements/parameters/water-quality/ph/
  3. https://www.chem.purdue.edu/jmol/cchem/aqua.html
  4. https://www.safewater.org/fact-sheets-1/2017/1/23/tds-and-ph
  5. https://www.instructables.com/id/Simple-Water-Filter-out-of-a-Waterbottle/
  6. https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/simple-salt-removal-to-get-fresh-water/3003646.article
  7. https://learn.allergyandair.com/water-filters/
  8. https://biologydictionary.net/semipermeable-membrane/
  9. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-67572-0_1
  10. https://www.coquitlamriverwatershed.ca/our-watershed/
  11. https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/freshwater-biome.php
  12. https://www.britannica.com/science/hydrosphere/River-and-ocean-waters
  13. https://www.onegreenplanet.org/lifestyle/diy-water-filter/

Aquatic Field Study

Aquatic Field Study

During this field study, the two locations visited were the Coquitlam River and Oxbow pond. In these two places samples of water, air temperature, water temperature, and invertebrates were taken by classmates at each respective site. To take these samples thermometers, nets, brushes, tubs to hold water, test tubes, waders, and examination sticks were used to effectively calculate these factors. These would be indicators of water quality along with previously observed factors such as phosphates, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, pH, nitrates and total dissolved solids. All results that come from the factors listed above may not be very accurate because they were not taken at the same time as the study was completed.

To collect invertebrate samples in the Coquitlam River one person in the group put on waders and used the following supplies; a net, scrubbing brush, and two buckets. They then took a water sample by scooping the smaller bucket through a section of the water, next a 30cm x 30cm area was chosen. In this area, the person in the water faced upstream and picked up rocks and stones from the riverbed scrubbing them while they remained in the water. To collect invertebrate samples in the Oxbow Pond again one person in the group put on waders and used the following supplies; a net, and two buckets. They then took a water sample by scooping the smaller bucket through a section of the water, next the net was moved through three areas in the water, by foliage, along the edge of the bank and then a small amount of the bottom area.

At the first site; the Coquitlam River, as a collective class, the invertebrate samples numbered at twenty-four. Some of the invertebrates my specific group found were Dragonfly Nymph, a water mite, and a Stonefly Nymph. Overall the class found 28 invertebrates such as Mayfly larva, Dragonfly nymph, snails, a water mite, Stonefly Nymph, and Caddisfly larva. This could indicate Fair to Good water quality because many species found could live in Fair to Good, for example, the Dragonfly Nymph is categorized in the fair water quality section while the Mayfly larva (16 Mayfly larvae were found) is categorized under Good water quality. Note that 1 other non-invertebrate was found. Levels such as oxygen, nitrates, phosphorus, etc. have an overall Q factor of 89.75. These invertebrates along with the factors collected about water quality indicate that this body of water has very good water quality that can sustain life.

At the second site; the Oxbow Pond, as a collective class the invertebrate samples numbered at twenty. Some of the invertebrates my specific group found were Dragonfly Nymphs, Aquatic Sowbug, and water mite. Overall the class found 15 invertebrates such as Dragonfly Nymph, Aquatic Sow bug, Alderfly, and water mite. This could indicate Fair water quality because there were no discovered invertebrates that were categorized under Good water quality while many invertebrates were found that are categorized under Fair water quality. Note that 7 non-invertebrates were found. Levels such as oxygen, nitrates, phosphorus, etc. have an overall Q factor of 74.15. These invertebrates along with the factors collected about water quality indicate that this body of water has fair to good water quality that is mostly sustainable for life.

Above there are facts leading me to personally believe that the Coquitlam River has good quality water while the Oxbow Pond has fair quality water. Before doing this Aquatic Field Study I had assumed based solely on the visual intake that the Coquitlam River had very good quality water that was sustainable for most life forms because of how clear and clean it looked. As for the Oxbow pond, I thought, again based solely on visual intake, that it had very poor water quality that was not very suitable for life forms for thrive given the murkiness of the pond and how unclean and dirty it looked.

RIVER

Test Result Unit Q-Value Weighing Factor Weighted Q-Value
Dissolved Oxygen 92 % Saturation 9.5 0.23 21.85
pH pH units 8.8 0.15 13.2
Temperature Change 3 Degrees Celsius 80 0.14 11.2
Nitrates 0 Mg NO3 98 0.14 13.72
Phosphorus 0.4 Mg PO4 76 0.14 17.48
Turbidity 2 NTU 95 0.11 10.45
Total Dissolved Solids 50 Mg 87 0.10 8.7

 

POND

Test Result Unit Q-Value Weighing Factor Weighted Q-Value
Dissolved Oxygen 90 % Saturation 92 0.23 21.16
pH 5 pH units 54 0.15 8.1
Temperature Change 2 Degrees Celsius 85 0.14 11.9
Nitrates 0 Mg NO3 98 0.14 13.72
Phosphorus 5 Mg PO4 14 0.14 1.96
Turbidity 8 NTU 80 0.11 8.8
Total Dissolved Solids 100 Mg 85 0.10 9.5

 

https://www.meta-chart.com/share/invertebrates-found

During this activity, I learned a lot about water qualities and what makes water good or bad living conditions. I now understand how to interpret a chart or graph showing how to calculate Q levels of the many different things that can help to determine the water quality. I also have gained practice in using data gathered about the different life forms to create an educated guess to whether the water is of good or bad quality. I feel like this learning experience could have been enhanced if we had access to the chemistry kits which would allow to not only get more accurate results but also give us a chance to learn how to find and understand the work behind the data we get. Overall though this was a very enjoyable activity and I especially liked how involved we got to be the entire time.

In conclusion, I found this to be a very enlightening project on water quality, biotic and abiotic factors, and the chemical balances in different waters. It was fun to partake in and I hope that our class is able to continue similar projects throughout our different units. One of the hardest things was definitely working with the different invertebrates, everything from catching and collecting them to the identification. It was sometimes frusturating to try and collect certain samples into the test tube where they could be observed. Some success I had involved processing the data and information because I had found that challenging so I’m proud of how I was able to express my learning. In my opinion, this was a very engaging and fun way to learn.

 

Photo Sources:

Photo 1: Taken by a classmate

Photo 2: Taken by a classmate

Photo 3: “Invertebrates Found.” Share | Charts, 2019, www.meta-chart.com/share/invertebrates-found. (I used a bar graph building website)

Photo 4: Taken by a classmate