Running Head BOTTLED WATER1BOTTLED WATER12Title.docx

Running Head: BOTTLED WATER
1
BOTTLED WATER
12
Title
Name
SCI 207: Our Dependence upon the Environment
Instructor
Date
Is Bottled Water Any Different Than Tap Water
Introduction
Body Paragraph #1 - Background: In this lab, we take a look at
the effects of groundwater contamination, the process that water
goes through in order to be treated for consumption, and the
quality of the water we drink, whether it be from the kitchen
faucet or out of a bottle. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is the agency that insures that the water people drink is
in compliance with standard regulations. In some water sources,
“barium, chromium, copper, lead, nitrate, and other chemicals,
as well as E. coli” have been found (Gorman, 2012, para. 2).
Many other contaminants may be flowing through tap water in
quantities that may be difficult to trace because they are
undetectable and odorless. Some contaminants are not even
considered because the EPA does not require testing on them.
These additional contaminants may not be dangerous alone, but
when combined with others and consumed over a lifetime, they
are certain to be of some health risks (Gorman, 2012).
Humans have the tendency to dispose of contaminants in almost

every place possible to include, dumping oil into the sewer
system or into the trash that eventually makes it into the
landfills. Washing your car outside on the driveway causes oil
to run into the sewer system. When washing machines fail,
people run hoses out to the streets to empty out the machine and
wait for the repairman that is driving a car that is leaking oil
throughout the entire route. Beauty shops carry products that
contaminate the water supply such as perfumes, lotions, and
deodorants. Contamination that is caused either accidentally or
intentionally can have very negative effects on the public’s
health. This contamination takes the public’s trust away from
the water distribution system (Rasekh, Shafiee, Zechman and
Brumbelow, 2014). Construction of storm water treatment
facilities are needed to filter and disinfect runoff that carries
these contaminants that humans allow to get into our water
systems. These facilities are supposed to screen the runoff
water and remove the trash and debris that flow in the water.
At the water treatment facility, the water passes through filters
that remove the solid waste and any other contaminants, and
then the water is disinfected to kill any pathogens. Finally, the
water goes through a “granular activated carbon filter designed
to remove residual ozone” (Landers, 2009, p. 23).
Body Paragraph # 2 - Objective: The main objective of this lab
was to determine the levels of contaminants found in our
drinking water. Also, were those contaminants removed, as
companies like Dasani and Fiji poured the water into bottles and
eventually sold to the public for consumption under the pretense
that bottled water is clear of contaminants. “The label may call
it “pure,” but is it? You can’t tell. Bottled water is not covered
by the Safe Drinking Water Act; it is regulated by the FDA,
which does not require bottlers to share quality-testing
information with the public” (Gorman, 2012, p. 7). Research
that has been conducted in the past indicates that bottled water
may contain the same contaminants as tap water. Bottled water
is only a convenience and not a healthy choice for consumers.
The price of bottled water is driven by the plastic needed, the

cost of bottling the water, transportation and handling, not by
the quality of the water in the bottle.
Body Paragraph # 3 - Hypotheses: Three hypotheses will be
examined in this lab that will allow a better understanding of
the effects of groundwater contamination, water treatment, and
drinking water quality. The first hypothesis is: if contaminated
water passes through the ground, the ground will act as a filter
and the contaminant will not reach the groundwater. In the first
experiment, the use of vegetable oil, vinegar, and laundry
detergent will be used as the contaminant. These are
contaminants that are used frequently in the household. The
second hypothesis is: if water is contaminated, then the
filtration process will de-contaminate the water. In the second
experiment, contaminated water will pass through a filtering
process that is typically found at water treatment facilities
throughout the United States. The third hypothesis is: tap water
will contain the most contaminants, followed by Dasani, and
finally Fiji will have the least contaminants in it. Past studies
have suggested that bottled water could possibly contain the
same or maybe worse bacteria and chemicals that are often
found in tap water. These studies concluded that bottled water
is not any healthier than tap water (Matos de Queiroz, de França
Doria, Rosenberg, Heller, & Zhouri, 2013).
Materials and Methods
Body Paragraph # 1: The first experiment was conducted at
home using the materials that were provided in the eScience Lab
kit. The kit consisted of beakers, stirring sticks, graduated
cylinder, vegetable oil (10 mL), vinegar (10 mL), liquid laundry
detergent (10 mL), soil, funnel, cheesecloth, scissors, and water
provided from the kitchen faucet. The research area was in the
dining room on top of the dining table. This experiment tested
the ability of soil to remove the vegetable oil, vinegar, and
laundry detergent from the water before it flowed into the
groundwater.
The following method was used to conduct the experiment. The

beakers were first labeled 1-8 to be able to easily identify and
separate the contaminated water. Beakers 1-4 were then filled
with 100 mL of water and beakers 5-8 were set aside for later
use. Table 1, contains the observations that were noted for each
beaker. Beaker number 1 only contained water. Beaker number
2 included 10 mL of vegetable oil that was mixed thoroughly.
Beaker number 3 included 10 mL of vinegar mixed thoroughly.
Beaker number 4 included 10 mL of liquid laundry detergent
mixed thoroughly.
Once observed and notations were made of beakers 1-4, the
experiment continued by constructing the filtration system that
consisted of placing four layers of cheesecloth big enough to
line the inside of the funnel. Then, 60 mL of soil were placed
into the cheesecloth lined funnel. The funnel was then placed
into beaker number 5 so that the contents of beaker number 1
could be poured and passed through the funnel. The water was
allowed to flow through for one minute and the observations
noted were documented in table 1. The cheesecloth and soil
were discarded from the funnel and the funnel was washed with
hot water and soap. The filter was constructed again for each of
the remaining beakers (beakers 2-4). Beaker number 2 was
filtered into beaker number 6, beaker number 3 was filtered into
beaker number 7, and beaker number 4 was filtered into beaker
number 8.
Experiment number two was conducted at the same location as
experiment number 1, again using the eScience lab kit. For this
experiment the following items were used: potting soil, beakers,
graduated cylinder, sand, activated charcoal, gravel, wooden stir
stick, alum, funnel, cheesecloth, bleach, stopwatch, and water.
This experiment uses a similar technique that is used by
wastewater treatment plants to test the filtering method on how
well it can clean contaminated water.
The following method was used to conduct the second
experiment. 100 mL of soil were added to a 250 mL beaker and
then water was added to the 200 mL mark. Using two, 250 mL

beakers, the soil solution was transferred back and forth for a
total of 15 times. After creating the soil solution, 10 mL of the
“contaminated” water was poured into a 100 mL beaker that
would be used at the end of the filtration process to compare it
with the “treated” water. Next, 10 grams of alum were added
to the “contaminated” water and slowly stirred with the wooden
stir stick for two minutes. The solution was allowed to sit for
15 minutes. While the solution coagulated, the funnel was
prepared with 4 layers of cheesecloth lining the inside of the
funnel. The funnel was then layered with 40 mL of sand at
first, then 20 mL of activated charcoal, followed by 40 mL of
gravel. Next the filter was solidified by slowly pouring water
through the filter until the funnel was filled to the top. The
water was discarded from the beaker and the procedure was
repeated four more times. The funnel was placed back into the
beaker and allowed to sit for five minutes. The beaker was
emptied out one last time before continuing with the
experiment. The next step was to pour approximately ¾ of the
“contaminated” water into the funnel. The water was allowed to
pass through for five minutes. Comparing it to the 10 mL
sample set aside earlier, the filtered water had no smell to it and
the contaminated water had the rotten soil smell. The filter was
removed from the beaker and a few drops of bleach were added
to the filtered water. The bleach and water were stirred for one
minute.
The final experiment (number 3) was conducted, again, at the
same location as experiment number 1 using the eScience lab
kit. For this experiment the following items were used: Dasani
bottled water, Fiji bottled water, ammonia test trips, chloride
test strips, 4-in-1 test strips, phosphate test strips, iron test
strips, beakers, permanent marker, stopwatch, parafilm,
pipettes, foil packets of reducing powder, and tap water. This
experiment tested the quality of two separate bottled waters and
the tap water from the kitchen faucet by measuring a variety of
chemical components within the water.

The following method was used to conduct the experiment.
Labeled three 250 mL beakers as tap water, Dasani, and Fiji and
then poured 100 mL of each of the waters into the
corresponding beaker. The ammonia test strips were used first
by placing the test strip into the tap water and vigorously moved
the strip in the water for 30 seconds. Removed the test strip
from the water and removed the excess water. Held the strip
level for 30 seconds and then turned it so the pads were facing
away, then compared the color on the strip to that of the color
chart. The procedure was repeated with the Dasani and Fiji
water. Results are annotated in table 2. The Chloride test strips
were used second. The strip was submerged with the reaction
zones into the water for one second. Removed the strip and
shook of the excess liquid and after one minute determined
which color row the strip most coincided with the color chart.
The procedure was repeated with the Dasani and Fiji water.
Results are annotated in table 3. The 4-in-1 test strips were
used third. The strip was dipped into the tap water for five
seconds. Removed the strip from the water and removed the
excess water. After waiting for 20 seconds, the next step was to
compare the color chart to match the strip to the pH, total
alkalinity, total chorine, and total hardness. These readings
were conducted within seconds of each other. The procedure
was repeated with the Dasani and Fiji water. Results are
annotated in table 4. The phosphate test strips were used fourth.
The strip was dipped into the tap water for five seconds.
Removed the strip from the water and held horizontally and then
waited for 45 seconds. In this case, the excess water was not
removed. The last step was to compare the results on the strip
to that of the color chart. The procedure was repeated with the
Dasani and Fiji water. Results are annotated in table 5. The
iron test strips were used last. This procedure began by leaving
30 mL of water in each beaker. The next step was to open one
foil packet and add the powder contents to the tap water beaker.
Covered the beaker with a piece of parafilm and shook the
beaker vigorously for 15 seconds. Next step was to remove the

parafilm and dipped the iron test strip into the tap water for five
seconds. Removed the strip from the water and eliminated the
excess water. Waited for 10 seconds and then compared the
strip to the color chart. Special instructions for this test were to
estimate the results if the colors fell between two colors in the
color chart. The procedure was repeated with the Dasani and
Fiji water. Results are annotated in table 6.
Results
Table 1: Water Observations (Smell, Color, Etc.)
Beaker
Observations
1
Color: clear
Odor: non-existent
The water is not contaminated.
2
Color: yellowish
Odor: non-noticeable
At first, a big bubble appears holding the vegetable oil at the
top, once stired oil mixed in but as it continued to settle. The
oil rose to the top forming small bubbles.
3
Color: clear
Odor: slight odor detected
Remained mixed with the water, no segregation noted.
4
Color: green/blue
Odor: slight odor detected

Remained mixed after stirring with water, no segregation noted,
formed suds.
5
Color: slight brown
Odor: smell of soil
Water passed through immediately; 70 mL passed through.
6
Color: slight brown
Odor: no odor
Water passed through immediately, about 5 seconds later a
small gulp followed. No oil is observed. 70 mL passed through.
7
Color: slight brown
Odor: odor exists
Water passed through slowly, finished pouring water was still
passing through. 80 mL passed through.
8
Color: dark brown/green
Odor: detected
Water passed slow, after pouring the water continued to pass
through the filter. For aproximetly the first ten seconds, the
water was a slow stream, then dripped slowly for the remainder
of the time and up to 60 seconds passed the one minute marker.
Some detergent is noted as having passed through since suds
were forming at the top. 70 mL passed through.
Table 2: Ammonia Test Results
Water Sample

Test Results
Tap Water
0
Dasani® Bottled Water
0
Fiji® Bottled Water
0
Table 3: Chloride Test Results
Water Sample
Test Results
Tap Water
0
0
0
Table 4: 4 in 1 Test Results
Water Sample
pH
Total Alkalinity
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Tap Water
.2
80
1.0
50
3
40
0
50
8
40
.2

50
Table 5: Phosphate Test Results
Water Sample
Test Results
Tap Water
10
50
50
Table 6: Iron Test Results
Water Sample
Test Results
Tap Water
0
0
0
Body Paragraph # 1: Overall, the first two experiments showed
that the contaminated water can be filtered and brought back
down to acceptable levels for drinking. The third experiment
showed the pH level is much lower in tap water, and higher in
the Fiji bottled water. The total Alkalinity for tap water came
in at 80 while Dasani and Fiji came in at 40 each. Tap water did
include the most chlorine at 1.0, Fiji contained .2, and Dasani
revealed no chlorine in it. All three waters presented the same
amount of total hardness at 50. Pure water is measured with a
pH level of 7.
Discussion
Body Paragraph #1 - Hypotheses: The first hypothesis was: if
contaminated water passes through the ground, the ground will
act as a filter and the contaminant will not reach the
groundwater. This hypothesis was accepted. After conducting
the first experiment, it was noted that there was no vegetable
oil, vinegar, or laundry detergent present in the water. It was

also noted that between 20-30 mL of the contaminated water
remained trapped in the soil, an indicator that the filtering
process worked. The second hypothesis was: if water is
contaminated, then the filtration process will de-contaminate
the water. This hypothesis was accepted. After the second
experiment, the results were compared between the “treated”
water and the “contaminated” water and the results indicated
that the “treated” water was filtered and de-contaminated. The
third hypothesis was: tap water will contain the most
contaminants, followed by Dasani, and finally Fiji will have the
least contaminants in it. This hypothesis was accepted. After
conducting the third experiment, the results indicated that tap
water appeared to be the most contaminated by having a pH
level of .2, total Alkalinity of 80, and with the most chlorine in
it at 1.0. Dasani is the second most contaminated and finally,
Fiji was the cleanest water of the three tested in the experiment.
Body Paragraph # 2 - Context: The plan is to use sources that
refer to the water companies use of different filtration systems
or possibly discuss the billion dollars bottled water industry.
Body Paragraph #3 – Variables and Future Experiments: Here, I
will discuss the possible factor that there was doubt in my mind
of whether or not I used the test strips correctly.
Conclusions
Body Paragraph #1: The message that I will attempt to convey
would be something to the effect that bottled water is just a
convenience. There is no significant difference in tap water and
bottled water.
References
Gorman, R. (2012). Is your tap water safe?. Good
Housekeeping, 254(3), 130.
Landers, J. (2009). Malibu Park will detain runoff, improve
treatment facility operation. Civil Engineering (08857024),
79(12), 24-26.
Matos de Queiroz, J., de França Doria, M., Rosenberg, M.,
Heller, L., & Zhouri, A. (2013). Perceptions of bottled water
consumers in three Brazilian municipalities. Journal of Water &

Health, 11(3), 520-531. doi:10.2166/wh.2013.222
Rasekh, A., Shafiee, M., Zechman, E., & Brumbelow, K.
(2014). Sociotechnical risk assessment
for water distribution system contamination threats.
Journal of Hydroinformatics, 16(3),
531-549. doi:10.2166/hydro.2013.023
Discussion 4 week 4 ---Lis Du
Polypharmacy is the effect of taking two or more medications to
treat health problems. For example, taking medications to treat
diabetes and hypertension. Polypharmacy is usually problematic
and this can be seen when the patient takes too many medication
from different health providers who are independent of one
another. If appropriately used, medication can prolong life
while the adverse effect of Polypharmacy can lead to the elderly
patients developing problems.
One of the ways in which Polypharmacy can occur is through
having different health providers who do not completely know
about the patient’s medication (Woodruff, 2015). Therefore, a
risk factor for Polypharmacy is seeing several health providers.
In order to alleviate such a problem, advanced nurse
practitioner should research the medical background of a
patient. A nurse practitioner should also keep information about
a patient up to date. This avoids development of medication
duplication and provides with the best treatment of patients.
Advanced nurse practitioners themselves can lead to
Polypharmacy. One way they may do this is through the
misconception that patients have to take with them a drug which
may not be necessary. There can also be poor or inaccurate
advice which can lead to patients taking the wrong medications
(Hughes, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, & United States,
2012). Poor knowledge on drugs and failure to review the
medications of a patient on regular basis can lead to
Polypharmacy. A solution to this involves doing medication
reviews. In this case, a nurse practitioner may be able to take

multiple reviews (Hughes, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, &
United States, 2012). He or she should provide the right
information to the patient which can then be sent to patients
using emails or texts to ensure that they have the needed
information any time they require it. A nurse can use the
assistance of a physician when administering complex
medication. The idea is to reduce errors resulting from
medication errors brought about by a nurse.
One of the effective methods of alleviating Polypharmacy is
through the use of medication card which has a list of current
medications in which one should adhere with. The list should be
shared with the physician as well as other people involved and
as a result the patients will be able to adhere with it. Review of
a patient’s medication is also used to alleviate Polypharmacy.
Studies show that 10 to 70 percent of medications given to the
elderly were not appropriate (Madaffari, 2013).
References
Hughes, R., Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, & United States.
(2012). Patient safety and quality: An evidence-based handbook
for nurses. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality.
Madaffari, V. A. (2013). Implementation of a medication
management improvement system for community- dwelling
older adults. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 3(7).
doi:10.5430/jnep.v3n7p85
Woodruff, K. (2015). Preventing polypharmacy in older
adults. American Nurse Today, 5(10), 1-8.
Running Head: Title
1
Title

4
Title
Name
SCI 207: Our Dependence upon the Environment
Instructor
Date
*This template will provide you with the details necessary to
begin a quality Final Lab Report. Utilize this template to
complete the Week 3 Rough Draft of the 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 only the first experiment
(Drinking Water Quality) from your Week Two Lab.
3. As you plan your final paper, think about how you can
present a fact-based story about water quality issues. For
example, consider what common concerns might be regarding
water quality, and the role drinking water standards play in
protecting our water supplies.
4. For further help, see the Sample Final Lab Report for an
example of a final product on a different topic.
5. You may simply replace the text following the bold terms
with the appropriate outline information to complete this
assignment. Make sure to pay close attention to the information
called for and provide all necessary material. Please delete this
purple text before submitting your rough draft.
Title
Introduction
Body Paragraph #1 - Background: The rough draft of 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 outlining this
section, make sure to at least list relevant resources in APA
format that will be used in the final paper to develop the
background for your experiment.
Body Paragraph # 2 - Objective: The rough draft of the
introduction should also contain the objective for your study.
This objective is the reason why the experiment is being done.
Your rough draft should provide an objective that describes why
we want to know the answer to the questions we are asking.
Make sure the objective ties back to ideas you discussed in the
Background, above.
Body Paragraph # 3 - Hypothesis: Finally, the introduction
should end with your hypothesis. This hypothesis should be the
same one that you posed before you began your Drinking Water
Quality experiment. You may reword it following feedback
from your instructor to put it in better hypothesis format;
however, you should not adjust it to reflect the “right” answer.
You will not lose points if your hypothesis was wrong;
scientists often revise their hypotheses based on scientific
evidence following an experiment. In addition to stating the
hypothesis, offer your rationale for it; in other words, why did
you make that particular hypothesis?
Materials and Methods
Body Paragraph # 1: The rough draft of 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 phosphate test
strip in the water, then shake the test strips,” these steps can be
simplified to read “we used phosphate test strips to measure
phosphate levels in parts per million”, etc. This section should
be written in the past tense and in your own words and not

copied and pasted from the lab manual. Think cookbook recipe
here; you should explain enough of what you did for others to
repeat the experiment, but with nothing extra added.
Results
Tables: The rough draft of the results section should include all
the tables used in your experiment. All values within the tables
should be in numerical form and contain units (except pH,
which does not have any). For instance, if measuring the
amount of chloride in water you should report your
measurement as 2 mg/L or 0 mg/L, not as two or none.
Body Paragraph # 1: The rough draft of the results section
should also highlight important results in paragraph form,
referring to the appropriate tables when mentioned. This
section should only state the results; 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 such as, “No
chlorine was found in the water, showing it to be cleaner than
the other samples.”
Discussion
Body Paragraph #1 - Hypothesis: The rough draft of this
section should interpret your data and provide conclusions. Start
by discussing if your hypothesis was confirmed or denied and
how you know this. Then 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?
Body Paragraph # 2 - Context: The rough draft of your
discussion should also relate your results to bigger water
concerns and challenges. For example, based on your
experiment 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 outline should at least list some of the resources that

you plan to utilize in your final paper to put your results into
context.
Body Paragraph #3 – Variables and Future Experiments:
Finally, the rough draft of your results section should also
address any possible factors that affected your results, such as
taking measurements over two different days instead of all at
once. If possible sources of error were present, how might 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(s) might be devised to answer these questions.
Conclusions
Body Paragraph #1: This section of your rough draft should
briefly summarize the key points of your paper. What main
message would you like people to take way from this report?
References
Include at least 2 scholarly and 2 highly credible sources as
well as your lab manual, in APA format.

Running Head BOTTLED WATER1BOTTLED WATER12Title.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running Head BOTTLED WATER1BOTTLED WATER12Title.docx

Similar to Running Head BOTTLED WATER1BOTTLED WATER12Title.docx (20)

More from susanschei

More from susanschei (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running Head BOTTLED WATER1BOTTLED WATER12Title.docx