Creek Water Quality

So we can conclude that the creek is not polluted based on this evidence. The creek creature are mostly from group 1 and 2. Also, the creek water contains little to no nitrates and phosphates. The creek also contains a high amount of dissolved oxygen (9.8ppm to be exact) Lastly, the creek limestone neutralize acid rain. The pH of the water is also a healthy 7. After all this evidence we can conclude that the creek is not

The health of the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay was found based on Biological (macroinvertebrates and wildlife) and Chemicals characteristics (pH, dissolved oxygen, phosphates, nitrates, etc.) as well as physical observations (amount of forested buffers, wetlands, etc.) Overall it was concluded that the health of the water was good to excellent. What was found was that many of the macroinvertebrates found in the water were sensitive or facultative, meaning the water quality was good enough for them to live in. Also, the level of ph, temperature, dissolved oxygen, phosphates, nitrates, and turbidity showed that the water quality was good. Finally, while we were canoeing down the Susquehanna River, observations were made on the land

Not only is pollution the cause of the death of many organisms essential to ecological balance, but human drinking water has also been affected.

There were 3 different groups of the critters. If they were in the 1st group the water wasnt polluted, if they were in the second group the water was somewhat polluted, and if they were in the 3rd group, the water would be polluted. We found more critters living in group 1. In the graph it shows that we found 88% of the critters in group 1 are living in the water. The critters we found in group 1 were the gilled snails, water pennies, and the mayflies. It also shows that in group 2, only about 2% of the critters living in the water. The insect we found in group 2 was the crayfish. Than, in group 3, it shows that 10.7% of critters are living in the water. The critters found in group 3 were the dragonflies, worms, and the pouched

The first piece of evidence supporting this statement is a water quality index of 48. The 7 pollution sensitive organisms in the creek are worth three points each on the water quality index, plus the 10 moderately tolerant organisms each 2 points and the 7 tolerant organisms each 1 point add up to get the 48 water quality index. The water quality level is considered excellent if it is 23 or above. The water quality in the U-High creek is more than twice that. There were many different types of organisms found in the creek including 7 pollution intolerant micro invertebrates. The total number of organisms including the 88 pollution intolerant Caddis fly larvae point to a low pollution level in the creek. The 10 moderately tolerant micro invertebrates also point to low polluted creek. There were also a high number of midges and aquatic worms. The water in the creek was also very clear and did not have a smell. There were many small fish and plants growing in and around it concluding a low pollution level in the

The first station we had was counting crustaceans and macroinvertebrates in the water. We found 113 critters that belonged in group 1 which means it is quality water. There were 2 organisms in group 2 which was somewhat quality water. Also, 16 critters in group 3 which means the water is very polluted. Overall, based on the critter

Either or both of those two things could have runoff from the land and drained into the creek. They are negative to the creek. Our results showed that the creek was containing little to no phosphate. The average number after 15 tests was just 0.3- zero being the best. Similarly, nitrate is a salt or ester, but it is made of nitric acid, containing the anion NO3. It is found in runoff from fertilized farms and treatment plants. The same process was used for testing nitrate levels. The average level out of eight tests was 0.8, which is a higher than phosphate but still relatively low. Both of those test results were very positive. It showed that the creek was low in eutrophication. Another chemical test is testing for dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen is microscopic bubbles of oxygen (O2) that are in the water and there for aquatic organisms to breathe in, which is necessary for almost all organisms. The testing process was similar to that of nitrate and phosphate tests. After testing the water, we got an average level of 11.4. More dissolved oxygen allows for more gaseous bubbles for organisms to breathe in. Therefore, a higher number is better. Twelve is the highest level of dissolved oxygen possible. Thus, since 11.4 is very close to 12, the dissolved oxygen level was very good. Dissolved oxygen can be changed in a number of ways. First, stagnant, or not moving, water has a much lower level of dissolved oxygen. Also, hotter water has less dissolved water. Lastly, chemicals like phosphate and nitrate can cause the growth of algae (which will be discussed in more detail in paragraph three), taking away oxygen. Additionally, the students tested for acid rain pollution. The tests falling under the acid rain category would test for acidity or alkalinity in water. We took a pH test, which is a level expressing the

or three to do the tests. There were three different elements to test for (phosphate, nitrate, and dissolved oxygen). After EVERY GROUP did a test for each element we than found the averages of each element. Phosphate’s average was 0.1 parts per million, Nitrate came in at 0.9 parts per million and dissolved oxygen had a grand total of 9.8 parts per million. These numbers were average, they weren't great but they were not awful. These numbers also proved that the creek is not

At this station, we tested the creek water for phosphates, nitrates, and dissolved oxygen. What we found for phosphates was an average of 0.3 phosphates. For nitrates, we found an average of 0.8 nitrates. For the dissolved oxygen, we got an average of 11.4. This shows that the Conodoguinet Creek is pretty healthy. We also tested for acidity and alkalinity. To do this, we needed to use a pH scale. A pH scale goes from 0 (acidic) to 14 (alkaline). A good place for the water to be is 7, this means that the water is not acidic, nor has alkaline in it, but it is neutral. The water in the Conodoguinet Creek was at 7, so it was

The eutrophication test tested if the creek has too many nutrients. If we found high levels of phosphate and nitrate in the water, that would mean the creek has eutrophication, which is bad. Phosphate and nitrates are found in fertilizers, and some detergents. On average, we found out the creek had .1% phosphate in it which is good.We, also, found out that was .9% nitrate in the creek, which is also good. The dissolved oxygen test tested how much oxygen was in the water. We found a 9.8% average for dissolved oxygen, which determines the type and number of macroinvertebrates that may live there. In past years it was tested that the water was warmer. The velocity of the water could affect this. As a result, I conducted the river does not have eutrophication.

Several species and organisms rely on water to survive. Some organisms use it as a source to drink and others uses water as their living environment. This experiment is to calculate many aspects of the water that surrounds Corpus Christi. Water is the key to life on Earth and thus why water is so important. According to the Lab Report water quality is the quality of water and if it is considered acceptable drinking water. Water quality consist of its chemical, physical and biological characteristics. These properties can be studied through pH testing, nitrogen testing, Phosphorous testing and many other useful ways. Water quality is important because it allows scientist to identify if the water is in a good condition to drink or sustain life overall and it dramatically effects how healthy it is. The objective of this lab was to experiment if the water quality around the Corpus Christi is a reliable source of water for organisms and to reach an understanding of the water quality of the water surrounding Corpus Christi.

I infer that the water quality was affected more by other factors. The two sites with about the same amount of human activity were McKinney Falls State Park and Bulls Creek. On the other hand, Wild Basin swimming is not allowed. Our results showed that the order from greatest to least amount of nitrate and phosphorous concentration was Bulls Creek, McKinney Falls, and Wild Basin at the lowest. Hence, because Bulls Creek was had the high amounts of human activity and nitrate and phosphorous levels, this relates

The big question of this study is, Does Sawmill Creek have a good water quality, and a healthy ecosystem? We made a hypothesis stating that Sawmill Creek has a healthy ecosystem, and a good water quality. The findings were quite liked amongst people, with the pH right around 7, making it nearly neutral. The DO was a little different with getting two very different answers for both tests, but making it appear as though it has a good level, right around 10 ppm. The ecosystem is decently diverse, with the findings of different trees and plants around the stream, and the different macroinvertebrates, with only 1 aquatic plant found, which was algae. With all the plants, and macroinvertebrates, none of them seem to be polluting, or causing poor

Water pollution impacts how humans and other living organisms live their life. Most common way humans are effected by water pollution is through diseases while drinking the water. Scientists have found over “five hundred different types of diseases” that can affect humans. (Book). These diseases get into the water streams by human and animal wastes. The diseases in the water can often lead to death for humans. Recent research has shown that that each year

According Oraclethinkquest, "Water pollution has the potential to have a harmful effect on all living things including plants and animal species. Chemicals, radioactive waste, industrial waste in the water can affect species and their development. There is no