Running Head: WATER QUALITY AND CONTAMINATION 1 WATER QUALITY AND CONTAMINATION 7 Water Quality and Contamination Brenda Rouse SCI 207: Our Dependence upon the Environment Instructor: Haleh Keshtkar Date: August 17, 2017 Water Quality and Contamination Introduction Water is one of the most important factors for any animal’s survival (Teixeira, De Azevedo, Mendl, Cipreste, & Young, 2007). One could go for days without food, but could not last the same time without water. Therefore, everyone is often vulnerable to harmful organisms in the water, particularly when he or she is desperate enough for it. Notably, although about seventy percent of the earth’s surface is covered with water, a significant population of people does not have access to clean drinking water (Arheimer, 2016). In response to the demand, the government often avails alternatives to its citizens in the form of tap water, while investors make a more ambitious plan in providing bottled water. Like any other business, the bottled water investors often seek to make a profit. On the other hand, tap water also comes at a price since the government running the program needs funds to maintain the purification and delivery systems (Whelton et al., 2015). Therefore, it is necessary that the consumers understand whether they get enough value for their money, based on the differences in prices of the different water sources. This experiment hopes to provide, with certainty, the differences between some of the most common sources of water in the household. Since its quality determines the price of a product, the differences in quality, in this case, will be based on the level of contamination. If Dasani, Fiji, and tap water were tested for mineral components, then tap water would have the highest concentration of minerals, followed by Dasani, while Fiji would contain the least concentration of minerals. The difference would result from the fact that tap water goes through drainage pipes, which could at times be corroded, which adds to the minerals present in the water that could be absent in the Fiji and Dasani water (Dolnicar, Hurlimann, & Grün, 2014). Compared to Fiji, Dasani has more contaminants since I can often taste the minerals when I use the water. Materials and Methods To test for the presence of contaminants, different materials were necessary for recording and collection of the water utilized for the test process. We put the test strips in the water for duration of 5, 30, or 45 seconds determining which test was used and compared the strips to the chart after removing them from the water. This was repeated for the ammonia, phosphate, 4 in 1, iron and chloride tests. The charts provided a scale which would then determine the concentration of the iron in either of the Dasani, Fiji, and tap water samples. We then recorded the results on a table for each of the tests. The PH test included the use of jiffy juice, whose 5 ml was added to 25 ml of each of the water ...

1. Running Head: WATER QUALITY AND CONTAMINATION 1
WATER QUALITY AND CONTAMINATION 7
Water Quality and Contamination
Brenda Rouse
SCI 207: Our Dependence upon the Environment
Instructor: Haleh Keshtkar
Date: August 17, 2017
Water Quality and Contamination
Introduction
Water is one of the most important factors for any animal’s
survival (Teixeira, De Azevedo, Mendl, Cipreste, & Young,
2007). One could go for days without food, but could not last
the same time without water. Therefore, everyone is often
vulnerable to harmful organisms in the water, particularly when
he or she is desperate enough for it. Notably, although about
seventy percent of the earth’s surface is covered with water, a
significant population of people does not have access to clean
drinking water (Arheimer, 2016). In response to the demand, the
government often avails alternatives to its citizens in the form
of tap water, while investors make a more ambitious plan in

2. providing bottled water.
Like any other business, the bottled water investors often seek
to make a profit. On the other hand, tap water also comes at a
price since the government running the program needs funds to
maintain the purification and delivery systems (Whelton et al.,
2015). Therefore, it is necessary that the consumers understand
whether they get enough value for their money, based on the
differences in prices of the different water sources. This
experiment hopes to provide, with certainty, the differences
between some of the most common sources of water in the
household. Since its quality determines the price of a product,
the differences in quality, in this case, will be based on the
level of contamination.
If Dasani, Fiji, and tap water were tested for mineral
components, then tap water would have the highest
concentration of minerals, followed by Dasani, while Fiji would
contain the least concentration of minerals. The difference
would result from the fact that tap water goes through drainage
pipes, which could at times be corroded, which adds to the
minerals present in the water that could be absent in the Fiji and
Dasani water (Dolnicar, Hurlimann, & Grün, 2014). Compared
to Fiji, Dasani has more contaminants since I can often taste the
minerals when I use the water.
Materials and Methods
To test for the presence of contaminants, different materials
were necessary for recording and collection of the water utilized
for the test process. We put the test strips in the water for
duration of 5, 30, or 45 seconds determining which test was
used and compared the strips to the chart after removing them
from the water. This was repeated for the ammonia, phosphate,
4 in 1, iron and chloride tests. The charts provided a scale
which would then determine the concentration of the iron in
either of the Dasani, Fiji, and tap water samples. We then
recorded the results on a table for each of the tests. The PH test
included the use of jiffy juice, whose 5 ml was added to 25 ml
of each of the water samples. The color change was then

3. observed against a color chart which would further indicate the
PH level of either of the samples.
Results
Table 1: Ammonia Test Results
Water Sample
Test Results (mg/l)
Tap water
0 mg/l
Dasani Bottled Water
0 mg/l
Fiji Bottled Water
0 mg/l
Table 2: Chloride Test Results
Water Sample
Test Results (mg/l)
Tap water
0 mg/l
Dasani Bottled Water
0 mg/l
Fiji Bottled Water
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
40 mg/l
0 mg/l
50 mg/l
Dasani Bottled Water

4. 40 mg/
0 mg/l
0 mg/l
Fiji Bottled Water
40 mg/l
4.0 mg/l
50 mg/l
Table 4: Phosphate Test Results
Water Sample
Test Results (ppm)
Tap water
25 ppm
Dasani Bottled Water
10 ppm
Fiji Bottled Water
100 ppm
Table 5: Iron Test Results
Water Sample
Test Results (ppm)
Tap water
0.15 ppm
Dasani Bottled Water
0 ppm
Fiji Bottled Water
0 ppm
Table 6: PH Results
Water Sample
Test Results (mg/l)
Tap water
4 mg/l
Dasani Bottled Water
3 mg/l
Fiji Bottled Water

5. 7 mg/l
As indicated in tables one and two, the water samples indicated
no presence of ammonia and chlorine. However, there was 0.15
ppm of iron in tap water while there was none in the other two
water samples. The test on PH indicated that tap and Dasani
bottled water had levels of relatively weak acidity, indicating
readings of 4 and 3 respectively. Conversely, Fiji bottled water
indicated basic properties, with a reading of 7 on the PH scale.
Each of the three samples tested positive for the presence of
Phosphates, with a tap, Dasani, and Fiji each having 10, 25, and
100 ppm on the scale. Similar results were obtained in the test
for alkalinity with each of the test subjects scoring 40mg/l on
the scale. However, Dasani and Tap water did not contain any
chlorine levels while Fiji had 4m/l. Further, Dasani had 0 mg/l
when tested for hardness, while Fiji and tap water each had 50
m/l.
Discussion
The findings of the study indicate that there is not enough
evidence to indicate that Fiji is better than Dasani bottled water,
and neither is it better than tap water. Apparently, the price of
tap water does not suit the benefits it serves to use it, and that
of Fiji bottled water does not match its quality according to the
analysis herein. For instance, the high levels of phosphates in
the Fiji bottled water is a cause of concern, especially based on
its health implications and the purity levels implied by the
company in advertisements for the product.
Based on the determined quality of the bottled water, it raises a
concern that the industry collects so much revenue from the
public while the products do not match the price. Notably, every
consumer seeks value for any amount spent in a particular
market, and such would only be met when the said individual
derives the anticipated quality from a particular product.
Apparently, there appears to be some form of consistency in the
results, which one could consider being a result of possible
errors in the experimentation process. Like any other lab

6. experiment, there are potential sources of error in the herein
discussed results. For instance, there was significant use of pre-
prepared scales, which determined the identified amount of
contaminants in the sampled water. However, only one sample
was used, and one scale was used as well. Had the tests been
repeated, they may have been more accurate and less consistent
than they now are.
Conclusions
The assumptions that bottled water is always the best one to
drink are flawed. The purity of water depends on how much
effort an institution puts towards ensuring that it is safe enough
to drink. However, the society can never get to know the purest
water source, unless scholars consistently test the level of
purity from different water suppliers, and make such
information public. Such would not only ensure the public’s
safety but would also increase the investor’s efforts to make
sure that they put health ahead of profits.
References
Arheimer, B. (2016, April). The active liquid Earth-importance
of temporal and spatial variability. In EGU General Assembly
Conference Abstracts (Vol. 18, p. 17409).
Dolnicar, S., Hurlimann, A., & Grün, B. (2014). Branding
water. Water research, 57, 325-338.
Teixeira, C. P., De Azevedo, C. S., Mendl, M., Cipreste, C. F.,
& Young, R. J. (2007). Revisiting translocation and
reintroduction programmes: the importance of considering
stress. Animal Behaviour, 73(1), 1-13.
Whelton, A. J., McMillan, L., Connell, M., Kelley, K. M., Gill,
J. P., White, K. D., ... & Novy, C. (2015). Residential tap water
contamination following the Freedom Industries chemical spill:
perceptions, water quality, and health impacts. Environmental
science & technology, 49(2), 813-823.
SCI207.W5A1.08.2016

7. Description:
Total Possible Score: 24.00
Title Page
Total: 0.50
Distinguished - Provides a title page that includes the title of
the report, course name, student’s name, instructor, and date
submitted.
Proficient - Provides a title page that is missing one required
component.
Basic - Provides a title page that is missing two required
components.
Below Expectations - Provides a title page that is missing three
or more required components.
Non-Performance - The title page is either nonexistent or lacks
the components described in the instructions.
Abstract
Total: 1.20
Distinguished - Provides an abstract that accurately summarizes
the methods, results, and conclusions of the Week Two
Laboratory.
Proficient - Provides an abstract that summarizes the methods,
results, and conclusions of the Week Two Laboratory. Minor
details are missing or slightly inaccurate.
Basic - Provides an abstract that summarizes the methods,
results, and conclusions of the Week Two Laboratory. Relevant
details are missing and/or inaccurate, or extraneous information
is present.
Below Expectations - Provides an abstract that summarizes the
Week Two Laboratory; however, significant details of the
methods, results, or conclusions are missing, and/or excessive
information is present.
Non-Performance - The abstract is either nonexistent or lacks
the components described in the assignment instructions.

8. Introduction
Total: 3.40
Distinguished - Provides a thorough introduction that includes
background on the topic, an objective of the study, and a
hypothesis for the experiment with an explanation as to how the
student arrived at that hypothesis. The introduction is at least
three paragraphs long and fully supported with information from
scholarly sources.
Proficient - Provides an introduction that includes background
on the topic, an objective of the study, and a hypothesis for the
experiment with an explanation as to how the student arrived at
that hypothesis. The introduction is at least three paragraphs
long and supported with information from scholarly sources.
Minimal improvement is needed through additional detail,
enhancement of source material, and/or rewording of the
hypothesis.
Basic - Provides an introduction that includes background on
the topic, an objective of the study, and a hypothesis for the
experiment with an explanation as to how the student arrived at
that hypothesis. The introduction is at least partially supported
with information from scholarly sources. Moderate
improvement is needed through additional detail, enhancement
of source material, and/or rewording of the hypothesis.
Below Expectations - Provides an introduction, but it requires
major revisions to background and source material, objectives,
or hypothesis. One or more of the required components may be
missing.
Non-Performance - The introduction is either nonexistent or
lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Materials and Methods
Total: 3.40
Distinguished - Provides a materials and methods section that
thoroughly details in one’s own words how to repeat the
experiment from the Week Two Laboratory.
Proficient - Provides a materials and methods section that

9. thoroughly details in one’s own words how to repeat the
experiment from the Week Two Laboratory. Minor details are
missing, or some excessive information is present.
Basic - Provides a materials and methods section that details in
one’s own words how to repeat the experiment from the Week
Two Laboratory. Relevant details are missing, and/or excessive
information is present, limiting the repeatability of the
experiments.
Below Expectations - Provides a materials and methods section,
but significant details are missing, greatly limiting the
repeatability of the experiments, and/or steps are largely copied
from the lab manual.
Non-Performance - The materials and methods section is either
nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment
instructions.
Results
Total: 3.40
Distinguished - Provides a thorough results section that includes
all of the tables utilized in the laboratory as well as at least one
paragraph objectively describing the data.
Proficient - Provides a results section that includes all of the
tables utilized in the laboratory as well as at least one paragraph
objectively describing the data. Minor errors are present in the
tables, or details are missing or slightly inaccurate in the
description.
Basic - Provides a results section that includes all of the tables
utilized in the laboratory as well as at least one paragraph
describing the data. Relevant errors are present in the tables,
details are missing and/or inaccurate in the description, and/or
personal opinions are included.
Below Expectations - Attempts to provide a results section that
includes tables utilized in the laboratory as well as a description
of the data; however, significant errors or omissions are present
in the tables, details are missing and inaccurate in the
description, and personal opinions are included.

10. Non-Performance - The results section is either nonexistent or
lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Discussion
Total: 3.40
Distinguished - Provides a thorough discussion that addresses
whether the hypothesis was accepted or rejected, the meaning of
the findings, future studies generated from the results, outside
factors impacting the results, and possible future experiments.
The discussion is at least three paragraphs long and fully
supported with information from scholarly sources.
Proficient - Provides a discussion that addresses whether the
hypothesis was accepted or rejected, the meaning of the
findings, future studies generated from the results, outside
factors impacting the results, and possible future experiments.
The discussion is at least three paragraphs long and supported
with information from scholarly sources. Minimal improvement
is needed through additional detail, enhancement of source
material, or correction of minor inaccuracies.
Basic - Provides a discussion that addresses whether the
hypothesis was accepted or rejected, the meaning of the
findings, future studies generated from the results, outside
factors impacting the results, and possible future experiments.
The discussion is at least partially supported with information
from scholarly sources. Moderate improvement is needed
through additional detail, enhancement of source material,
and/or correction of inaccuracies.
Below Expectations - Provides a discussion, but it requires
major revisions to the content and source material and
correction of significant inaccuracies. One or more of the
required components may be missing.
Non-Performance - The discussion section is either nonexistent
or lacks the components described in the assignment
instructions.
Conclusion

11. Total: 1.20
Distinguished - Provides a conclusion that thoroughly and
accurately summarizes the experiment and reiterates key
findings.
Proficient - Provides a conclusion that summarizes the
experiment and reiterates key findings. Minimal improvement is
needed to accurately summarize the experiments.
Basic - Provides a conclusion that summarizes the experiment
and reiterates key findings. Moderate improvement is needed to
accurately summarize the experiments.
Below Expectations - Provides a conclusion that summarizes the
experiment, but may not reiterate key findings. Significant
improvement is needed to accurately summarize the
experiments.
Non-Performance - The conclusion is either nonexistent or lacks
the components described in the assignment instructions.
Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics
Total: 2.00
Distinguished - Displays meticulous comprehension and
organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and
grammar. Written work contains no errors, and is very easy to
understand.
Proficient - Displays comprehension and organization of syntax
and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work
contains only a few minor errors, and is mostly easy to
understand.
Basic - Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics,
such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few
errors, which may slightly distract the reader.
Below Expectations - Fails to display basic comprehension of
syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written
work contains major errors, which distract the reader.
Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or
lacks the components described in the instructions.

12. Resource Requirement
Total: 3.50
Distinguished - Uses more than the required number of
scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support
ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited
correctly within the body of the assignment.
Proficient - Uses required number of scholarly sources to
support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and
cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Basic - Uses less than the required number of sources to support
ideas. Some sources may not be scholarly. Most sources on the
reference page are used within the body of the assignment.
Citations may not be formatted correctly.
Below Expectations - Uses inadequate number of sources that
provide little or no support for ideas. Sources used may not be
scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are not used
within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted
correctly.
Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or
lacks the components described in the instructions.
APA Formatting
Total: 1.00
Distinguished - Accurately uses APA formatting consistently
throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.
Proficient - Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper.
However, layout contains a few minor errors.
Basic - Exhibits basic knowledge of APA formatting throughout
the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements.
Below Expectations - Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA
formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout
difficult to distinguish as APA.
Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or
lacks the components described in the instructions.
Page Requirement

13. Total: 1.00
Distinguished - The length of the paper is equivalent to the
required number of correctly formatted pages.
Proficient - The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the
required number of correctly formatted pages.
Basic - The length of the paper is equivalent to at least three
quarters of the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Below Expectations - The length of the paper is equivalent to at
least one half of the required number of correctly formatted
pages.
Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or
lacks the components described in the instructions.
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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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
SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 3
(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

17. 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

18. value.
Methods
This study was conducted at Yates Mill Pond, a research area
owned by the North
SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 4
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

19. 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
SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 5
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
SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 6
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

20. 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

21. 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
SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 7
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

22. 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

23. 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
SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 8
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.

24. SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 9
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.

25. 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

26. 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.
SAMPLE FINAL LAB REPORT 10
*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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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.
Final Lab Report

30. You are required to write a complete laboratory report that
covers the drinking water quality experiment from “Lab 2:
Water Quality and Contamination,” using knowledge gained
throughout the course. Use the instructor feedback on your
Rough Draft from Week Three to guide your writing. Be sure to
download the Final Lab Report Template and utilize this
form (not the Rough Draft template) to ensure proper formatting
and inclusion of all required material. Additionally, view
the Sample Final Lab Report before beginning this assignment,
which will illustrate what a Final Lab Report should look like.
You must use at least two scholarly sources, two other highly
credible sources, and your lab manual to support your points.
The report must be six to ten pages in length (excluding the title
and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style. For
information regarding APA samples and tutorials, visit the
Ashford Writing Center, located within the Learning Resources
tab on the left navigation toolbar, in your online course.
The Final Lab Report must contain the following eight sections
in this order:
1. Title Page - This page must include the title of your report,
your name, course name, instructor, and date submitted.
2. Abstract - This section should provide a brief summary of the
methods, results, and conclusions. It should 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).
3. Introduction - This section should include background
information on water quality and an overview of why the
experiment was conducted. It should first contain background
information of similar studies previously conducted. This is
accomplished by citing existing literature from similar
experiments. Secondly, it should provide an objective or a
reason why the experiment is being done. Why do we want to
know the answer to the question we are asking? Finally, it
should end the hypothesis from your Week Two experiment, and
the reasoning behind your hypothesis. This hypothesis should

31. not be adjusted to reflect the “right” answer. Simply place your
previous hypothesis in the report here. You do not lose points
for an inaccurate hypothesis; scientists often revise their
hypotheses based on scientific evidence following the
experiments.
4. Materials and Methods - This section should provide a
detailed description of the materials used in your experiment
and how they were used. A step-by-step rundown of your
experiment is necessary; however, it should be done in
paragraph form, not in a list format. The description should be
exact enough to allow for someone reading the report to
replicate the experiment, however, it should be in your own
words and not simply copied and pasted from the lab manual.
5. Results - This section should include the data and
observations from the experiment. All tables and graphs should
be present in this section. In addition to the tables, you must
describe the data in text; however, there should be no personal
opinions or discussion outside of the results located within this
area.
6. Discussion - This section should interpret your data and
provide conclusions. Discuss the meanings of your findings in
this area. Was your hypothesis accepted or rejected, and how
were you able to determine this? Did the results generate any
future questions that might benefit from a new experiment?
Were there any outside factors (i.e., temperature, contaminants,
time of day) that affected your results? If so, how could you
control for these in the future?
7. Conclusions - This section should provide a brief summary of
your work.
8. References - List references used in APA format as outlined
in the Ashford Writing Center.
Haleh Keshtkar8/18/2017 2:48:38 PM
Brenda,
Overall you did a really great job of covering the required

32. components of the final paper rough draft. I took off some
points for a few issues as noted. Please see the Waypoint
feedback for additional comments, feedback, suggestions and
explanation of points lost.
Other than those issues, you really covered most of the required
components of the paper. For the final version I would
recommend doing some editing and double checking of spelling
and grammar and of course adding more content in a few
sections as noted.
Make sure you meet the resource requirement of 4 outside
sources, scholarly and credible (the textbook does not count,
and please read up on the difference between a scholarly source
and a popular source) plus the lab manual.
Overall, this is really good work! As always, make sure to
check your paper against the grading rubric and the final paper
template to avoid missing points for required content in the
final paper.
Don't forget to include a thorough abstract for the final paper!
If you work to implement these recommendations I have no
doubt you can craft a truly excellent final paper!
~ Haleh
( 0.25 / 0.25) Title Page
Distinguished - Provides a title page that includes the title of
the report, course name, student's name, instructor, and date
submitted.
( 1.25 / 1.25) Introduction
Distinguished - Includes an introduction in a minimum of three
paragraphs that thoroughly discusses the background into the
topic supported by scholarly sources, an objective of the study,

33. and a hypothesis for the experiment along with an explanation
of how the student arrived at that hypothesis.
( 0.95 / 1.25) Materials and Methods
Basic - Partially describes the materials and methods section.
Relevant details are missing that limits the repeatability of the
experiment, and/or excessive information is present.
Comments:
Overall good start concerning the methods section, but do not
forget the materials. You should mention all of the materials
used in your experiment at the beginning of the section. These
should still be in paragraph form and not simply listed. Make
sure that these are included in the Final Lab Report.
Good start to a materials and methods section, but in your Final
Lab Report, I will need to see much more detail. This section
should be written so that an outsider reading your report could
repeat your experiment. This does not meaning writing every
little step like "dip the pH test strip in the water, then shake the
test strips." These steps can be simplified to read "we used pH
test strips to measure water pH," etc. since the kits come with
instructions. However, just remember that enough detail is
needed to repeat the experiment. If you have any questions
about this, feel free to email me directly or post your concerns
in the Ask Your Instructor section of the course.
( 1.25 / 1.25) Results
Distinguished - Includes a results section that thoroughly
addresses all of the tables utilized in the laboratory as well as at
least one paragraph objectively explaining the data.
( 0.95 / 1.25) Discussion
Basic - Includes a discussion section that somewhat explains
whether or not the hypothesis was accepted or rejected,
information including scholarly sources that put the results into
context, any outside factors affecting the results and how they
might be controlled, and future studies generated from the
results. Moderate improvements are needed through additional
detail, improvement of source material, and/or correction of
errors.

34. Comments:
In addition to noting some of the potentially confounding
variables that might have altered your results, make sure in your
Final Lab Report that you also address some future experiments
that may have arisen from your results. Results of scientific
experiments always bring up new questions. What might some
of these questions be and how might you do another experiment
to address these questions?
In addition to a substantial discussion surrounding how you
decided to accept or reject your hypothesis, you also needed to
provide a significant discussion of what the results mean. To do
this, in your Final Lab Report you should discuss the
consequences of your results and should utilize some scholarly
sources to help drive these points home. Again, make sure that
the sources are scholarly, not popular. Scholarly sources can be
located in the Ashford Library or by using the Google Scholar
search engine.
( 0.57 / 0.75) Conclusion
Basic - Includes a conclusion section that summarizes all facets
of your experiment. Moderate improvement is needed to
accurately summarize the report.
Comments:
Good attempt here, but a few changes will need to be made on
your Final Lab Report. This is one of the most often confused
sections as people think it should just be a general closing
sentence or two. While this should close out the report it should
do so by summarizing your entire report. You should very
briefly (still only a paragraph) sum up the objective, experiment
conducted, the results, and what these mean to any future work
or society.
( 1.00 / 1.00) Submits Grammarly Report
Distinguished - Submits screen shot of the Grammarly report as
required.
( 0.50 / 0.50) Written Communication: Control of Syntax and
Mechanics
Distinguished - Displays meticulous comprehension and

35. organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and
grammar. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to
understand.
( 0.50 / 0.50) APA Formatting
Distinguished - Accurately uses APA formatting consistently
throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.
( 0.44 / 0.50) Page Requirement
Proficient - The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the
required number of correctly formatted pages.
( 1.32 / 1.50) Resource Requirement
Proficient - Uses required number of scholarly sources to
support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and
cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Overall Score: 8.98 / 10.00
Overall Grade: 8.98