Running Head LAB REPORT .docx

Running Head: LAB REPORT
LAB REPORT
8
Lab Report
Student Name
University Affiliation
Instructor’s Name
Introduction
Water safety and especially in terms of drinking is a subject that
has come up recently. To promote good health among people in
the world, there is need to ensure the consumption of clean
water. Drinking water quality is a subject that has been
investigated for a long period of time. Different studies has
shown what constitutes drinking water that should be regarded
as quality. A research was for instance conducted with an aim
of studying the various chemical compounds of surface water,
drinking water and groundwater and how they affect human
health. To address this research, provisional drinking water
guidelines values were used for 50 most common contaminants
related to drinking water and the water cycle in general. For
drinking water guidelines, the values were based upon literature
of toxicological data. Concentration levels of chemicals in these
waters were recorded and were then compared to the provisional
guidelines. The study focused on two main river basins which
were Meuse and Rhine. From the study, it was found out that
compounds found in these river basins posed no appreciable
concern to the health of the users (Schriks et.al, 2010). From
study, it is very clear that there has been a need to ensure

humans consume water that is safe or free from any harmful
levels of contaminants.
The experiment was carried out with an aim of understanding
whether there are benefits in consuming bottled water in
comparison to the tap water. Generally, water contains various
chemical compounds. It is, however, very important to note that
bottled water normally undergoes certain purification levels in
which the tap water is never subjected to. The experiment was
thus conducted to identify whether drinking bottled water can
be beneficial health wise in comparison to the direct
consumption of tap water.
The hypothesis for this experiment was that if tap water straight
from the faucet contains the most contaminants, then bottle
water will have less added to them. This means that it is
expected that bottled water will contain fewer contaminants
when compared to tap water, once the experiment is conducted.
This is the expected result as bottled water normally undergoes
extra purification process compared to tap water.
Materials and Methods
Different contaminants were under investigation in this
experiment. They included ammonia, chloride, phosphate, iron,
pH and the 4 in 1 test that included total alkalinity, total
chlorine and total hardness. Three different water samples were
also used; they included tap water, Dasani bottled water and Fiji
bottled water. The following were the materials used for this
experiment: ammonia test strips, chloride test strips, 4 in 1 test
strips, phosphate test strips, iron test strips, (3) 250ml beakers,
(3) foil packets of reducing powder, pipettes, parafilm,
permanent marker and stopwatch. Each of these materials had
unique roles as will be described in the following procedures.
The three-250ml beakers were labelled tap water, Dasani and
Fiji with 100ml of each water type being poured into these
beakers. The first test involved ammonia; the ammonia test
strips were placed in the tap water sample for a period of 30
seconds while vigorously moving the strip up and down. The

test strips were then removed from the tap water sample with
excess waters shaken off. The color of the small pad was then
compared to the color chart. This procedure was then repeated
for both Fiji and Dasani bottled water. The same procedure was
used for chloride with the only difference being the reaction
zone (the pad) was immersed in the three water types for 1
second and left for one minute before being compared to the
color it coincided with at the chart.
For the 4 in 1 test, the strips were dipped into tap water for 5
seconds in a back and forth motion that was gentle. The strip
was then removed from the tap water and shaken once for the
purposes of eliminating excess water. After 20 seconds, the
strip was matched to total alkalinity, total chlorine, total
hardness and pH on the color chart. This was then repeated for
both Fiji and Dasani bottled waters. For phosphate test,
phosphate strips were dipped in the tap water for 5 second. The
strips were then removed and held horizontally for 45 seconds
after which the color was compared to the color chart. This was
also repeated for Fiji and Dasani waters. The last test was the
iron test. This was conducted differently from other tests. It
began by removing 70ml of water from each of the three
beakers so that it would remain 30ml. One foil packet was
added to the beaker with tap water and covered with the
parafilm after which it was shaken vigorously for 15 seconds.
The parafilm was then removed and an iron test strip was
introduced into the sample rapidly for five seconds. Excess
water was shaken off and after 10 seconds, the test pad was
compared the color at the chart. The same procedure was
conducted for Dasani and Fiji waters. All results collected in
these procedures were recorded in tables (Esciencelabs.com
2012).
Results
The following tables show the results that were obtained from
all the experiments that were conducted.
Table 1: Ammonia Test Results
Water Sample

Test Results (mg/L)
Tap Water
0
Dasani® Bottled Water
0
Fiji® Bottled Water
0
Table 2: Chloride Test Results
Water Sample
Test Results (mg/L)
Tap Water
500
0
0
Table 3: 4 in 1 Test Results
Water Sample
Total Alkalinity
(mg/L)
Total Chlorine
(mg/L)
Total Hardness
(mg/L)
Tap Water
80
0.12
0
40
0
0

40
1.0
50
1.
Table 4: Phosphate Test Results
Water Sample
Test Results (ppm)
Tap Water
0
50
0
Table 5: Iron Test Results
Water Sample
Test Results (ppm)
Tap Water
0.15
0
0
Table 6: pH Results
Water Sample
Test Results
Tap Water
7
6
5
From the above data, it is evident that none of the water
samples had ammonia in them. Tap water had the highest among
of chlorides, with Dasani and Fiji bottled waters having none.
Tap water also had the highest total alkalinity, standing at
80mg/L, with Fiji and Dasani waters standing at 40 each. Total

hardness was highest in Fiji bottled water, with the Tap water
and Dasani water having no hardness. Total chlorine was also
highest in Fiji water in comparison to the other two samples.
Phosphate levels were highest in Dasani water while iron was
highest in tap water. The three samples had different pH levels
as shown in the table.
Discussion
From the above results, it is very evident that the hypothesis
was confirmed. Tap water had the most contaminants in
comparison to the bottled waters. Most of the contaminants
tested were present in tap water with the exception of ammonia,
which was absent in all the water samples.
The results clearly show that bottled water is more beneficial to
humans in terms of consumption. Presence of contaminants in
drinking water in one way or another poses great health risks to
humans. Tap water as seen contained most of the contaminants
which were tested in this experiment; thus posing the greatest
health risks among the three samples tested. Each of these
contaminants have thresholds that should not be exceeded.
Bottled waters normally undergo purification processes with
little or no chemicals added to them. This is why the results
clearly show the bottled waters having less contaminants
compared to the tap water. It is also important to note that most
of the tap water normally pass through pipes of different nature.
The metals also introduce more contamination and this is why
the tap water sample had more contaminants. The experiment
was conducted under strict conditions therefore eliminating the
possibility being affected by other factors (Turk & Bensel,
2014).
One possible future question that may arise based on this
experiment is on the processes in which bottled waters undergo.
Most bottled waters have certain unique tastes that makes the
process they undergo to be questionable. Despite the fact the
experiment may show it has less contaminants, taste in these
waters may be a question to consider in the future.

Conclusion
In conclusion, water quality is a very sensitive area in which
humans must focus on. To ensure good health among humans
drinking water quality should become a priority. It is therefore
important to encourage the consumption of bottled waters as a
result of the benefits they have on human body (Davison et.al
2005).
References
Schriks, M., Heringa, M. B., van der Kooi, M. M., de Voogt, P.,
& van Wezel, A. P. (2010). Toxicological relevance of
emerging contaminants for drinking water quality. Water
research, 44(2), 461-476.
Esciencelabs.com (2012). Introduction to Science.
Turk, J. & Bensel, T. (2014). Contemporary environmental
issues (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
Davison, A., Howard, G., Stevens, M., Callan, P., Fewtrell, L.,
Deere, D., ... & World Health Organization. (2005). Water
safety plans: managing drinking-water quality from catchment
to consumer.
Running Head: SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 1
Sample Lab Report (The Optimal Foraging Theory)

Name
SCI 207 Dependence of Man on the Environment
Instructor
Date
SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 2
Sample Lab Report
Abstract
The theory of optimal foraging and its relation to
central foraging was examined by using
the beaver as a model. Beaver food choice was examined by

noting the species of woody
vegetation, status (chewed vs. not-chewed), distance from the
water, and circumference of trees
near a beaver pond in North Carolina. Beavers avoided certain
species of trees and preferred
trees that were close to the water. No preference for tree
circumference was noted. These data
suggest that beaver food choice concurs with the optimal
foraging theory.
Introduction
In this lab, we explore the theory of optimal foraging and the
theory of central place
foraging using beavers as the model animal. Foraging refers to
the mammalian behavior
associated with searching for food. The optimal foraging theory
assumes that animals feed in a
way that maximizes their net rate of energy intake per unit time
(Pyke et al., 1977). An animal
may either maximize its daily energy intake (energy maximizer)
or minimize the time spent
feeding (time minimizer) in order to meet minimum
requirements. Herbivores commonly behave
as energy maximizers (Belovsky, 1986) and accomplish this

maximizing behavior by choosing
food that is of high quality and has low-search and low-
handling time (Pyke et al., 1977).
The central place theory is used to describe animals that
collect food and store it in a
fixed location in their home range, the central place (Jenkins,
1980). The factors associated with
the optimal foraging theory also apply to the central place
theory. The central place theory
predicts that retrieval costs increase linearly with distance of
the resource from the central place
(Rockwood and Hubbell, 1987). Central place feeders are very
selective when choosing food
that is far from the central place since they have to spend time
and energy hauling it back to the
storage site (Schoener, 1979).
The main objective of this lab was to determine beaver
(Castor canadensis) food selection
based on tree species, size, and distance. Since beavers are
energy maximizers (Jenkins, 1980;

Belovsky, 1984) and central place feeders (McGinley &
Whitam, 1985), they make an excellent
test animal for the optimal foraging theory. Beavers eat several
kinds of herbaceous plants as
well as the leaves, twigs, and bark of most species of woody
plants that grow near water (Jenkins
& Busher, 1979). By examining the trees that are chewed or
not-chewed in the beavers' home
range, an accurate assessment of food preferences among tree
species may be gained (Jenkins,
1975). The purpose of this lab was to learn about the optimal
foraging theory. We wanted to
know if beavers put the optimal foraging theory into action
when selecting food.
We hypothesized that the beavers in this study will
choose trees that are small in
circumference and closest to the water. Since the energy yield
of tree species may vary
significantly, we also hypothesized that beavers will show a
preference for some species of trees
over others regardless of circumference size or distance from
the central area. The optimal
foraging theory and central place theory lead us to predict that
beavers, like most herbivores,

will maximize their net rate of energy intake per unit time. In
order to maximize energy, beavers
will choose trees that are closest to their central place (the
water) and require the least retrieval
cost. Since beavers are trying to maximize energy, we
hypothesized that they will tend to select
some species of trees over others on the basis of nutritional
value.
Methods
This study was conducted at Yates Mill Pond, a research area
owned by the North
Carolina State University, on October 25th, 1996. Our research
area was located along the edge
of the pond and was approximately 100 m in length and 28 m in
width. There was no beaver
activity observed beyond this width. The circumference, the
species, status (chewed or not-
chewed), and distance from the water were recorded for each
tree in the study area. Due to the
large number of trees sampled, the work was evenly divided
among four groups of students

working in quadrants. Each group contributed to the overall
data collected.
We conducted a chi-squared test to analyze the data with
respect to beaver selection of
certain tree species. We conducted t-tests to determine (1) if
avoided trees were significantly
farther from the water than selected trees, and (2) if chewed
trees were significantly larger or
smaller than not chewed trees. Mean tree distance from the
water and mean tree circumference
were also recorded.
Results
Overall, beavers showed a preference for certain species of
trees, and their preference
was based on distance from the central place. Measurements
taken at the study site show that

beavers avoided oaks and musclewood (Fig. 1) and show a
significant food preference. No
avoidance or particular preference was observed for the other
tree species. The mean distance of
8.42 m away from the water for not-chewed trees was
significantly greater than the mean
distance of 6.13 m for chewed trees (Fig. 2). The tree species
that were avoided were not
significantly farther from the water than selected trees. For the
selected tree species, no
significant difference in circumference was found between trees
that were not chewed
(mean=16.03 cm) and chewed (mean=12.80 cm) (Fig. 3).
Discussion
Although beavers are described as generalized herbivores, the
finding in this study
related to species selection suggests that beavers are selective
in their food choice. This finding
agrees with our hypothesis that beavers are likely to show a
preference for certain tree species.
Although beaver selection of certain species of trees may be

related to the nutritional value,
additional information is needed to determine why beavers
select some tree species over others.
Other studies suggested that beavers avoid trees that have
chemical defenses that make the tree
unpalatable to beavers (Muller-Schawarze et al., 1994). These
studies also suggested that
beavers prefer trees with soft wood, which could possibly
explain the observed avoidance of
musclewood and oak in our study.
The result that chewed trees were closer to the water accounts
for the time and energy
spent gathering and hauling. This is in accordance with the
optimal foraging theory and agrees
with our hypothesis that beavers will choose trees that are close
to the water. As distance from
the water increases, a tree's net energy yield decreases because
food that is farther away is more
likely to increase search and retrieval time. This finding is
similar to Belovskyís finding of an

inverse relationship between distance from the water and
percentage of plants cut.
The lack of any observed difference in mean circumference
between chewed and not
chewed trees does not agree with our hypothesis that beavers
will prefer smaller trees to larger
ones. Our hypothesis was based on the idea that branches from
smaller trees will require less
energy to cut and haul than those from larger trees. Our finding
is in accordance with other
studies (Schoener, 1979), which have suggested that the value
of all trees should decrease with
distance from the water but that beavers would benefit from
choosing large branches from large
trees at all distances. This would explain why there was no
significant difference in
circumference between chewed and not-chewed trees.
This lab gave us the opportunity to observe how a specific
mammal selects foods that
maximize energy gains in accordance with the optimal foraging
theory. Although beavers adhere
to the optimal foraging theory, without additional information
on relative nutritional value of
tree species and the time and energy costs of cutting certain tree

species, no optimal diet
predictions may be made. Other information is also needed
about predatory risk and its role in
food selection. Also, due to the large number of students taking
samples in the field, there may
have been errors which may have affected the accuracy and
precision of our measurements. In
order to corroborate our findings, we suggest that this study be
repeated by others.
Conclusion
The purpose of this lab was to learn about the optimal foraging
theory by measuring tree
selection in beavers. We now know that the optimal foraging
theory allows us to predict food-
seeking behavior in beavers with respect to distance from their
central place and, to a certain
extent, to variations in tree species. We also learned that
foraging behaviors and food selection is
not always straightforward. For instance, beavers selected large
branches at any distance from

the water even though cutting large branches may increase
energy requirements. There seems to
be a fine line between energy intake and energy expenditure in
beavers that is not so easily
predicted by any given theory.
References
Belovsky, G.E. (1984). Summer diet optimization by beaver.
The American Midland Naturalist.

111: 209-222.
Belovsky, G.E. (1986). Optimal foraging and community
structure: implications for a guild of
generalist grassland herbivores. Oecologia. 70: 35-52.
Jenkins, S.H. (1975). Food selection by beavers:› a
multidimensional contingency table analysis.
Oecologia. 21: 157-173.
Jenkins, S.H. (1980). A size-distance relation in food selection
by beavers. Ecology. 61: 740-
746.
Jenkins, S.H., & P.E. Busher. (1979). Castor canadensis.
Mammalian Species. 120: 1-8.
McGinly, M.A., & T.G. Whitham. (1985). Central place
foraging by beavers (Castor
Canadensis): a test of foraging predictions and the
impact of selective feeding on the
growth form of cottonwoods (Populus fremontii).
Oecologia. 66: 558-562.
Muller-Schwarze, B.A. Schulte, L. Sun, A. Muller-Schhwarze,
& C. Muller-Schwarze. (1994).
Red Maple (Acer rubrum) inhibits feeding behavior by
beaver (Castor canadensis).

Journal of Chemical Ecology. 20: 2021-2033.
Pyke, G.H., H.R. Pulliman, E.L. Charnov. (1977). Optimal
foraging. The Quarterly Review of
Biology. 52: 137-154.
Rockwood, L.L., & S.P. Hubbell. (1987). Host-plant selection,
diet diversity, and optimal
foraging in a tropical leaf-cutting ant. Oecologia. 74:
55-61.
Schoener, T.W. (1979). Generality of the size-distance relation
in models of optimal feeding.
The American Naturalist. 114: 902-912.
*Note: This document was modified from the work of Selena
Bauer, Miriam Ferzli, and Vanessa
Sorensen, NCSU.
Running head: TITLE
1
Title

2
Title
Name
SCI 207: Our Dependence Upon the Environment
Instructor
Date
*This template will provide you with the details necessary to
finalize a quality Final Lab Report. Utilize this template to
complete the Week 5 Final Lab Report and ensure that you are
providing all of the necessary information and proper format for
the assignment. Before you begin, please note the following
important information:
1. Carefully review the Final Lab Report instructions before you
begin this assignment.
2. The Final Lab Report should cover the Drinking Water
Quality Experiment from your Week Two Lab.
3. Review instructor feedback from the Week Three outline of
the Final Lab Report and make changes as necessary.
4. Review the Sample Final Lab Report for an example of a
final product on a different topic. Your format should look like
this sample report before submission.
5. Make sure your final report is in proper APA format. Use the
Sample Final Lab Report as a guide, or obtain an APA Template
from the Writing Center.
6. Run your Final Lab Report through Turnitin using the student
folder to ensure protection from accidental plagiarism
Title
Abstract
The abstract should provide a brief summary of the methods,
results, and conclusions. It should very briefly allow the reader
to see what was done, how it was done, and the results. It
should not exceed 200 words and should be the last part written

(although it should still appear right after the title page).
Introduction
The introduction should describe the background of water
quality and related issues using cited examples. You should
include scholarly sources in this section to help explain why
water quality research is important to society. When writing
this section, make sure to cite all resources in APA format.
The introduction should also contain the objective for your
study. This objective is the reason why the experiment is being
done. Your final report should provide an objective that
describes why we want to know the answer to the questions we
are asking.
Finally, the introduction should end with your hypothesis. This
hypothesis should be the same one posed before you began your
experiment. You may reword it following feedback from your
instructor to illustrate a proper hypothesis, however, you should
not adjust it to reflect the “right” answer. You do not lose
points for an inaccurate hypothesis; scientists often revise their
hypotheses based on scientific evidence following an
experiment. Include an explanation as to why you made the
hypothesis that you did.
Materials and Methods
The materials and methods section should provide a brief
description of the specialized materials used in your experiment
and how they were used. This section needs to summarize the
instructions with enough detail so that an outsider who does not
have a copy of the lab instructions knows what you did.
However, this does not mean writing every little step like “dip
the chloride test strip in the water, then shake the test strip,”
these steps can be simplified to read “we used chloride test
strips to measure the chloride levels of each sample in mg/L”,
etc. Additionally, this section should be written in the past
tense and in your own words and not copied and pasted from the
lab manual.
Results

The results section should include all tables used in your
experiments. All values within the tables or graphs should be in
numerical form and contain units. For instance, if measuring
the amount of chloride in water you should report as 2 mg/L or
0 mg/L, not as two or none.
The results section should also highlight the important results in
paragraph form, referring to the appropriate tables when
mentioned. This section should only state the results as no
personal opinions should be included. A description of what the
results really mean should be saved for the discussion. For
example, you may report, 0mg/L of chlorine were found in the
water, but should avoid personal opinions and interpretations of
the data (e.g., “No chlorine was found in the water showing it is
cleaner than the others samples”).
Discussion
The discussion section should interpret your data and provide
conclusions. Start by discussing whether you accepted or
rejected your hypothesis and how you arrived at this decision.
In the same section, consider some of the implications of your
results. Given the chemical differences you may have noted
between the water samples, are any of the differences causes for
concern? Why or why not?
The discussion should also relate your results to the bigger
water concerns and challenges. For example, based on your
experiments you might discuss how various bottled water
companies use different filtration systems. Or, you could
discuss the billion dollar bottled water industry. For example,
do you think it is worth it to buy bottled water? Why or why
not? Your final lab report should utilize credible and scholarly
resources to put your results into context.
Finally, the results section should also address any possible
factors that may have affected your results, such as possible
contamination in the experiments or any outside factors (e.g.,
temperature, contaminants, time of day). If so, how could you
control for these in the future? You should also propose some
new questions that have arisen from your results and what kind

of experiment might be proposed to answer these questions.
Conclusions
The conclusion section should briefly summarize the key
findings of your experiment. What main message would you
like people to have from this report?
References
Include at least two scholarly references, two credible
references, and your lab manual in APA format.
Lab 2 – Water Quality and Contamination
Experiment 1: Drinking Water Quality
Bottled water is a billion dollar industry in the United States.
Still, few people know the health benefits, if any, that come
from drinking bottled water as opposed to tap water. This
experiment will look at the levels of a variety of different
chemical compounds in both tap and bottled water to determine
if there are health benefits in drinking bottled water.
POST-LAB QUESTIONS
1. Develop a hypothesis regarding which water sources you
believe will contain the most and least contaminants, and state
why you believe this. Be sure to clearly rank all three sources
from most to least contaminants.
Hypothesis = If tap water straight from the faucet contains the
most contaminants then bottle water will have less added to
them.
1 Tap water will most contaminated then Dasani and then Fiji
Table 1: Ammonia Test Results
Water Sample
Test Results (mg/L)
Tap Water

0 mg/L
0 mg/L
0 mg/L
Table 2: Chloride Test Results
Water Sample
Test Results (mg/L)
Tap Water
500 mg/L
0 mg/L
0 mg/L
Table 3: 4 in 1 Test Results
Water Sample
Total Alkalinity
(mg/L)
Total Chlorine
(mg/L)
Total Hardness
(mg/L)
Tap Water
80 mg/L
0.12 mg/L
0 mg/L
40 mg/L
0 mg/L
0 mg/L

40 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
50 mg/L
1.
Table 4: Phosphate Test Results
Water Sample
Test Results (ppm)
Tap Water
0 ppm
50 ppm
0 ppm
Table 5: Iron Test Results
Water Sample
Test Results (ppm)
Tap Water
0.15 ppm
0 ppm
0
Table 6: pH Results
Water Sample
Test Results
Tap Water
7
6
5
2. Based on the results of your experiment, would accept or
reject the hypothesis you produced in question 1? Explain how

you determined this.
Accept/reject = I accept my hypothesis. Tap water did contain
the most contaminants then bottle water.
3. Based on the results of your experiment, what specific
differences do you notice among the Dasani®, Fiji®, and Tap
Water?
Answer = The difference I see between these is that Fiji is most
impressive. Fiji water is less contaminated and tap is the most.
4. Based upon the fact sheets provided (links at the end of this
document), do any of these samples pose a health concern? Use
evidence from the lab to support your answer.
Answer = Base on my fact sheet the one that stood out the most
with health risk is tap water with Chlorine
5. Based on your results, do you believe that bottled water is
worth the price? Use evidence from the lab to support your
opinion.
Answer = I still feel that bottle water is worth the price and my
fact sheets can prove it.
**NOTE: Be sure to complete steps 1 - 32 of Lab 3, Experiment
1 (the next lab) before completing your work for this week. Lab
3 involves growing plants, and if the work is not started this
week, your seeds will not have time to grow and the lab will not
be finished on time.**
FACT SHEETS
Ammonia
https://www.wqa.org/Portals/0/Technical/Technical%20Fact%20

Sheets/2014_Ammonia.pdf
Chloride
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chloride.pdf
Phosphate
http://osse.ssec.wisc.edu/curriculum/earth/Minifact2_Phosphoru
s.pdf
Iron
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/iron
.pdf
pH
https://www.watersystemscouncil.org/download/wellcare_infor
mation_sheets/potential_groundwater_contaminant_information
_sheets/9709284pH_Update_September_2007.pdf
Alkalinity
https://www.safewater.org/PDFS/communitywatertestkit/Water_
Quality_Tests.pdf
Chlorine
http://www.watertechonline.com/testing-for-chlorine-in-
drinking-water/
Hardness
http://des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/factsheets/dwg
b/documents/dwgb-3-6.pdf
References
Any sources utilized should be listed here.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/public/water_disinfe
ction.html

Running Head LAB REPORT .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running Head LAB REPORT .docx

Similar to Running Head LAB REPORT .docx (20)

More from cowinhelen

More from cowinhelen (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running Head LAB REPORT .docx