1. The Effects of Additional Phosphates on
The Water Surrounding Johnson ParkAmanda Peraino
Josh Rochotte
Veerin Sirihorachai
Kripa Patel
Section 22 Group 4
Group Number: 4
Semester: Fall 2014
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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 Demand
2. Fecal Coliform
3. pH
4. Total Solids
5. Turbidity
6. Colony Forming Unit (CFU) Assay
5. 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
6. Materials:
6x 1.4 Liter aquariums
6x 250 mL beakers
4x 2 Liter Nalgene Bottles
1x 1L Nalgene Bottle attached to a 6ft pole(for water collection)
Multiple Microfuge Tubes
6 BOD Bottles
1x Pair of Tongs
1x Mettler Ae100 Balance
1x Scale Pro spe123 Balance
1x Vernier DO Probe
1x Vernier pH Probe
1x Vernier Turbidity Sensor
1x Lab Quest 2
1x P-1000 Pipetman
1x P-200 Pipetman
1x P-20 Pipetman
6x 10 mL Serological Pipets
6x 5 mL Serological Pipets
1x Suction Bulb
1x 100 mL graduated cylinder
2 Fecal Coliform Test Kits
6 Agar Plates
Gloves
Kim Wipes
Rolls of Tape
Markers
Multiple Microfuge Tubes
Pipet Tips
Sterile Water
7. 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
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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
13. 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.
