Seawater Lab

Better Essays
All four tests involved eight clean test tubes (per test) filled with our water samples from Long Wharf, Rowes Wharf, Hewitt’s Cove, Short Beach, Doggy Beach, a fresh pond water reservoir and the Charles River by B.U. as well as M.I.T. All tests were taken using the LaMotte Urban Water Test Kit. For the nitrate test, all of the test tubes were filled to 5 mL with the water we collected, and one Nitrate WR TesTab was added into each tube. Immediately after adding the tablet, each tube was placed into a protective sleeve due to UV light sensitivity. The test tubes are then capped and mixed for two minutes and set to rest for five minutes before analyzing the results in comparison to the nitrate color chart (LaMotte, 2010).
The phosphate procedure
…show more content…
A healthy pH in water for aquatic organisms ranges from 6.5 to 8.2. Our water samples ranged from 6.5-8.5. Although there did not seem to be any significant differences in our results of freshwater versus seawater samples, the most notable contrast seemed to be that the freshwater obtained a pH of 8.5. This can be a result from metal pipe corrosion which produces high levels of copper, lead and iron in the water. Corrosion can occur due to low pH, so operators will change the pH to comply with the high levels of these elements, thus making the water moderately basic (LaMotte…show more content…
Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species database, from 1981 to 2007, 112 recovery plans were put in place for 156 species that were put in danger because of eutrophication (Dodds, 2008). One of these plans includes the recovery of the Nashville crayfish (Orconectes shoupi), starting in 1989 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989). The plan included spreading education and awareness around the local area and starting a program to monitor the population and their activities. Scientists also searched for additional populations to introduce to the remaining species. In addition, service biologists worked with groups like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to create permits that created efforts to protect the species. Scientists investigated the crayfish’s aquatic habitat and found that their primary threat was the Mill Creek drainage in Nashville, Tennessee (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2017). Currently, the Nashville crayfish species are stable and have recovered up to 25 percent. Although the Nashville crayfish are stable and are being recommended to be downlisted to threatened, their recovery required a lot of time and money to aid (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2017). It is estimated that the government is spending $44 million annually to combat the biodiversity losses that are linked to eutrophication (Dodds,
Get Access