Benedict we were unable to acquire filter paper. The

Benedict Lee (19)     LE403Geographical Investigation1Stage 1: Pre-field InvestigationThe aim of this Geographical investigation is to investigate the quality of water at different sites in different parks, with the goal of proving that the presence of different factors in the surrounding environment will affect the quality of water in the parks.The inquiry question for this investigation is how does the surrounding environment affect the quality of water. My hypothesis is that the larger the amount of human interaction in the surrounding environment, the lower the quality of water. The 2 parks investigated were Springleaf Nature Park and Macritchie Reservoir Park.The main factor investigated in the surrounding environment was the amount of human activity.The sampling method was stratified random. To collect data on quality of water, we would first choose 2 sites from each park that differed from each other in terms of amount of human activity in the surrounding environment. Then, at each site, we collected 1 sample of water, approximately every 15 minutes, over the course of an hour. Each sample contained about 20 ml of water. To collect water, we would use the clear plastic cups to scoop the water. After collecting the sample, we carried out testing on site, to test the quality of water. Determining the quality of water was based off 3 factors: the turbidity of the water, the pH level of the water, and the weight of the residue in the water.Firstly, turbidity. To measure turbidity accurately, a turbidimeter is needed. However, the cheapest, proper turbidimeter I could find on the internet was at least SGD$1,000, which is too expensive to purchase. As such, we devised a method to 2overcome the lack of a turbidimeter. Since turbidity, as defined by the USGS, “can make water appear cloudy or muddy, is caused by the presence of suspended and dissolved matter, such as clay, silt, finely divided organic matter, plankton and other microscopic organisms, organic acids, and dyes.”, the main measure of turbidity would be the amount of light that can pass through the liquid. Thus, to measure turbidity, we would shine the torch light from an iPhone 6s from the bottom of the cup, then use a Samsung Galaxy Note 3 to take a picture from above the cup. While this method won’t have results in a definite unit of turbidity, we were then able to place the different pictures side by side and compare which picture was brighter. Secondly, determining the pH level of the water. For this, we went to Guardian to buy a box of universal indicator paper, which had a range of pH1 – pH11. Photo 1The universal indicator litmus paper we purchased and usedAfter performing the tests for turbidity, we would then proceed to insert one strip of the universal indicator paper into the water sample for 3 seconds, and then remove it. We would then compare the color shown on the wet end of the strip to the guide on the back of the box to determine the pH level of the water sample. Lastly, measuring the weight of the residue in the water. First, we would filter out 3the residue from the water using a filter cup. This filter cup was an improvisation we made as we were unable to acquire filter paper. The filter cup was created by using a safety pin to poke holes into the bottom of a plastic cup, which would allow the water to drip out but not the residue. Once we had filtered out the water, using this weighing scale,Photo 2The weighing scale used for the investigationWe would measure the weight of the cup and the residue. We had already measured the weight of the empty plastic cup to be 10g. Then, we would use the weight of the cup + residue, minus the weight of the cup to get the weight of residue.4Empty sample of recording sheet:Photo 3Empty recording sheet List of equipment used:Clear plastic cupsMetal pole and pailUniversal indicator litmus paperSafety pinWeighing scaleiPhone 6s (For its torchlight function)Samsung Galaxy Note 3 (For its camera function)5Stage 2: Field InvestigationHere are a few photos from the investigation:Photos 4, 5, 6, and 7Photos of the team at the site6Photos 8 and 9Maps of Macritchie park and Springleaf park respectivelyTabulated dataSpringleaf park7Macritchie park8Stage 3: Post-Field InvestigationDataWeight of empty plastic cup = 20gGraph 1 – Data from Macritchie park, site AGraph 2 – Data from Macritchie park, site B9Graph 3 – Data from Springleaf park, site AGraph 4 – Data from Springleaf park, site B10Turbidity:Macritchie park – Site APhotos 10, 11, 12, and 13Samples 1, 2,3 and 4 in the top left, top right, bottom left, and bottom right respectively11Macritchie park – Site BPhotos 22, 23, 24, and 25Samples 1, 2,3 and 4 in the top left, top right, bottom left, and bottom right respectively12Springleaf park – Site APhotos 14, 15, 16 and 17Samples 1, 2,3 and 4 in the top left, top right, bottom left, and bottom right respectively13Springleaf park – Site BPhotos 18, 19, 20, and 21Samples 1, 2,3 and 4 in the top left, top right, bottom left, and bottom right respectively14Analysis of dataFrom the data, it can be seen that my hypothesis, that the larger the amount of human interaction in the surrounding environment, the lower the quality of water, is in fact correct, however to a small extent. The three measures of quality of water used to arrive at this conclusion are turbidity, pH level and weight of residue.First, we will compare the 2 different sites within Macritchie park, site A, which has more human activity, and site B, which has less human activity. Comparing the data from site A and B, it can be seen that site B generally has a better quality of water. The pH level of the samples at both sites are mostly pH 5, except for one anomaly at site B which has pH 6. This indicates that the water at site B is very slightly less acidic than the water at site A. For the weight of residue, site A had an average of 2.5g of residue, while site B had an average of 2g of residue. Also, comparing the turbidity photos of site A and B, a lot more residue, such as leaves and grass, was observed within the samples at site A. From these three measures, it can be observed that the water quality at site B, which has less human interaction, is better than the water quality at site A, which has more human interaction. Thus, the comparison of the 2 sites within Macritchie park proves the hypothesis correct, that the larger the amount of human interaction in the surrounding environment, the lower the quality of water. Next, we will compare the data between the two sites within Springleaf park. In Springleaf park, site A had less human activity while site B has more human activity. The pH level of both sites was 6 for all samples taken. The most telling indication of quality of water for these two sites was the weight of residue and the turbidity photos. Surprisingly, site A had 0g of residue, while site B had an average of 1.75g of residue. This differential of 1.75g can also be seen from the turbidity photos. From the photos, 15the water at site B is almost completely clear, while the water at site A has some residue inside. The data from the investigation clearly shows that the amount of human activity, in the surrounding environment has affected the quality of water, as site A, which had less human activity than site B, has a much better water quality of water than site B. Thus,  the comparison of the 2 sites within Springleaf park also proves the hypothesis correct, that the larger the amount of human interaction in the surrounding environment, the lower the quality of water.Lastly, I will compare the results between the 2 parks. Compared to Macritchie park, Springleaf park has much less human activity in the surrounding environment. The average pH level of water at Macritchie park was pH 5, while the average pH level of the water at Springleaf park was pH 6, meaning the water at Macritchie park is more acidic than the water at Springleaf park. Next, the weight of residue. The average weight of residue from Macritchie park was 2.25g, while the average weight of residue from Springleaf park was 0.88g (3 s.f.). Lastly, comparing the turbidity photos. The photos show that the water from Macritchie park generally is dirtier than the water from Springleaf park. The water from Macritchie park has more residue, and is more opaque compared to the water from Springleaf park, which has less residue and is clearer. Thus, the comparison of the 2 parks with differing levels of human activity also proves the hypothesis correct, that the larger the amount of human interaction in the surrounding environment, the lower the quality of water.16Reliability of Data There were 2 main issues with the reliability of data. Firstly, using the weight of residue as a measurement of water quality. In theory, this was a good idea. However, the problem was that we did not have the proper equipment to handle the scale. The difference in weight of residue in the water would be extremely tiny, in the range of micrograms to milligrams. However, the equipment we used was not suited for this, as it was meant to measure grams and kilograms. Thus, using the weight of residue as a measurement of water quality in this case can lead to inaccuracies.Secondly, at Springleaf park, site A, it rained in between collecting samples, which may have led to inaccuracies in the data, as the rain may have interfered with the quality of water, or moved the water mass completely so the samples we were collecting from the same site may not have been from the same patch of water from earlier samples, which can lead to inaccuracies. To minimize the first inaccuracy, we should have either obtained suitable equipment for measuring the residue left in the water, or completely scrap using weight of residue as a measurement of quality of water. If a suitable equipment was acquired, then using the weight of residue as a measurement of quality of water would actually be very effective. However, obtaining an instrument of that caliber would require a lot of money, and since we would not be reimbursed for any purchases made during the investigation, this option is not feasible. To minimize the second inaccuracy, after it rained, we should have scrapped the samples we took before the rain, and take another 4 samples instead. This way, even if the rain did affect the quality of water at the site, that difference affect all of the samples, making it more accurate.17ConclusionTo conclude, despite some inaccuracies, this investigation to find out if the presence of different factors in the surrounding environment does affect the quality of water in the parks, was a success. The hypothesis, that the larger the amount of human interaction in the surrounding environment, the lower the quality of water, was proven to be correct by comparing the data samples from across the 2 parks. Citation listWebsiteUSGS – U.S. Geological Survey Office of Water Quality. “6.7 Turbidity.” USGS Water-Quality Information: 6.7 Turbidity, water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/Chapter6/6.7_contents.html18