The Effects of Additional Phosphates on The Water Surrounding Johnson Park

Amanda PerainoJosh RochotteVeerin SirihorachaiKripa Patel Section 22 Group 4Group Number: 4Semester: Fall 2014

Introduction:◼Fertilizer runoff reduces the quality of water

◼Phosphorus is a main ingredient

◼Diffuse water pollution major concern

◼Leads to algal blooms, subsequent eutrophication

◼Detrimental to aquatic plants and organisms

◼Promotes growth of harmful bacteria

Hypothesis and Predictions:◼The addition of a phosphorus rich fertilizer to the area surrounding Johnson Park will reduce the water

quality of the body of water.

Effects on:

1. Bacterial Growth

2. Total Solids

3. Biochemical Oxygen Demand

4. Turbidity

5. Fecal Coliform

6. pH

Experimental Design:◼ 6 tanks filled with 1L water from Johnson Park

◼ Control: 3 tanks unaffected (control)

◼ Experimental: 3 tanks with 4.220g phosphorus rich fertilizer

◼ Assays Performed:

1. Biochemical Oxygen Demand2. Fecal Coliform3. pH4. Total Solids5. Turbidity6. Colony Forming Unit (CFU) Assay

Experimental Design: Timeline◼ Week 8: Set up the containers and add the fertilizer to the experimental group

◼ Week 10: Measure pH, turbidity, initial BOD▪ Setup total solids▪ Setup agar plates for CFU Assay▪ Set up Fecal Coliform Tubes

◼ Week 11: Final BOD, determine bacterial growth, and total solids

Materials:

6x 1.4 Liter aquariums 6x 250 mL beakers4x 2 Liter Nalgene Bottles1x 1L Nalgene Bottle attached to a 6ft pole(for water collection)Multiple Microfuge Tubes6 BOD Bottles1x Pair of Tongs1x Mettler Ae100 Balance1x Scale Pro spe123 Balance1x Vernier DO Probe1x Vernier pH Probe1x Vernier Turbidity Sensor1x Lab Quest 2

1x P-1000 Pipetman1x P-200 Pipetman1x P-20 Pipetman6x 10 mL Serological Pipets6x 5 mL Serological Pipets1x Suction Bulb1x 100 mL graduated cylinder2 Fecal Coliform Test Kits6 Agar Plates GlovesKim WipesRolls of TapeMarkersMultiple Microfuge TubesPipet TipsSterile Water

Results:Effects of phosphorus rich fertilizer:

◼ Decrease in pH

◼ Increase in total solids

◼ Increase in turbidity

◼ Increase in fecal coliform

◼ Increase in number of CFUs

◼ Increase in biochemical oxygen demand

Statistically Significant Data:

Figure 1

Figure 1. The above graph shows that the average pH of the three control group water sources was higher than the average pH of the three experimental water sources. The error bars were generated using the mean value ± one standard deviation. The p-value for the results was 3.579E-07, demonstrating the significance of the results.

Statistically Significant Data (cont.)

Figure 2

Figure 2. In the graph shown, the average total solids was 3871.1 mg/L in the experimental group,, which is significantly higher than the control group at 346.67 mg/L. Standard error bars were generated for each set of data and represent the mean plus or minus one standard deviation. The p-value generated was 6.28158E-08 making our results statistically significant.

Statistically Insignificant Data

Figure 3

Figure 3. The graph shown displays that the biochemical oxygen demand is higher in the experimental group versus the control group. Standard error bars were generated for each group and represent the mean plus or minus one standard deviation. The p-value of the data is .807 and shows that the data is not statistically significant.

Statistically Insignificant Data (cont.)

Figure 4

Figure 4. The graph shown displays the Turbidity of our two aquariums, the experimental and control group. Results were generated and displayed with a ± 1 standard deviation for the results respective to their data set. The P value is 0.141 suggesting that there is little statistical significance between the two data sets.

Discussion:◼ Results supported the predictions and hypotheses

◼ Quality of water better in control group

◼ Excess nutrients leads to reduced water quality

◼ Fertilizer run off negatively affects many parameters of water quality

◼ Different fertilizer, different amount

Works Cited:Litke, D.W. Review of Phosphorus Control Measures in the United States and Their Effects on Water Quality [Internet]. Denver, (CO): National Water-

Quality Assessment Program; 1999 [cited 2014 Oct. 4]. Available from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri994007/pdf/wri99-4007.pdf

Water and Pollution Treatment: Diffuse Source Water Pollution [Internet]. [cited 2014 Oct 3] . Available from:

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/water/dswpoll.htm

Smith VH, Schindler DW. Eutrophication science: where do we go from here?. Trends in Ecology and Evolution [Internet]. 2009 [cited Oct 5

2014];24(4):201-207. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016953470900041X  

Transue, G., A. Vershon, D. Vengsarkar, H Stires, D. Jesperson and M. Torres. 2014. Biological Research Laboratory 01:119:117: Aquatic Ecology and DNA

Barcoding. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

What is Diffuse Pollution [Internet]. Buckinghamshire, (UK): The Foundation for Water Research. 2010 [cited 2014 Oct. 4]. 5 p. Available from

http://www.euwfd.com/html/sources_of_pollution_-_diffuse_pollution.html

1. Groundwater Contamination: Sources, Control, and Preventative Measures. 1989. Chester D. Rail. pub by Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., Lancaster, PA.

pp 17.

Questions?

The End