Pollution In Water Pollution

Introduction: The purpose of this research is to determine whether there has been a change in the overall water quality of the Lake Tarpon Basin, and if so, whether the quality has improved or worsened. The variables that will determine whether the quality has changed are: nutrients (phosphates and nitrates) and dissolved oxygen (DO). The expected changes are lower dissolved oxygen levels (from the already low levels), higher nitrogen levels (from the already high nitrogen levels), and the state qualifications still are not met for nutrients and dissolved oxygen (Levy, Flock, Burnes, Myers, Weed, River 2010). This topic relates to environmental management because the changes in water quality would be due to pollution, which relates to the question “How does human activity lead to the pollution of water stores?” The hypothesis that will be tested is that Lake Tarpon’s water quality will have worsened since the last measurements by Levy, Flock, Burnes, Myers, Weed, and Rivera in 2010.

Thousands of plastic water bottles are being tossed inconsiderably into the bayous, rivers, and large bodies of water every year. Because of this action, it raises many concerning issues that appeal to a variety of people. The artist has strong view points and opinions towards the topic of pollution. The artist created an image of a photo-shopped iceberg made of plastic water bottles compared to a real natural iceberg in a body of water. The visual image is depicted in great detail in accordance to the contents of the subject as well as the point of view of the artist. The artist uses rhetorical appeals to bring awareness to the warnings, threats, and stifling of pollution, and what pollution means to them.

One reason the creek is not polluted is because of the number of pollutant sensitive animals. We know this because our class got a few rocks from the creek, counted and identified the animals on them. The graph on the right shows the percent animals that we found. The animals we find in the stream are classified into groups. Group 1: pollution

At the first station I was at, we were looking for macroinvertebrates and crustaceans. When we found one of the insects we had to determine which group they belonged in. One way to determine if the water is polluted is to look at which group the critters are mostly from. My group and I tested this by taking turns going into the creek and finding a rock to bring out. When we brought the rock out of the water and back to our group we had to make sure to turn the rock over because the critters normally live on the bottoms of the rocks and most likely would fall off if you didn’t turn it over. After we all took turns a couple of times

Water is probably the most important resource we as people have. Humans can survive without food for several weeks, but without water we would die in less than a week. On a slightly less dramatic note, millions of liters of water are needed every day worldwide for washing, irrigating crops, and cooling industrial processes, not to mention leisure industries such as swimming pools and water-sports centers. Despite our dependence on water, we use it as a dumping ground for all sorts of waste, and do very little to protect the water supplies we have.

There were 3 different groups of the critters. If they were in the 1st group the water wasnt polluted, if they were in the second group the water was somewhat polluted, and if they were in the 3rd group, the water would be polluted. We found more critters living in group 1. In the graph it shows that we found 88% of the critters in group 1 are living in the water. The critters we found in group 1 were the gilled snails, water pennies, and the mayflies. It also shows that in group 2, only about 2% of the critters living in the water. The insect we found in group 2 was the crayfish. Than, in group 3, it shows that 10.7% of critters are living in the water. The critters found in group 3 were the dragonflies, worms, and the pouched

As the data showed, the Conodoguinet creek is NOT polluted! There were many macroinvertebrates living in the creek that could only live in non polluted

Either or both of those two things could have runoff from the land and drained into the creek. They are negative to the creek. Our results showed that the creek was containing little to no phosphate. The average number after 15 tests was just 0.3- zero being the best. Similarly, nitrate is a salt or ester, but it is made of nitric acid, containing the anion NO3. It is found in runoff from fertilized farms and treatment plants. The same process was used for testing nitrate levels. The average level out of eight tests was 0.8, which is a higher than phosphate but still relatively low. Both of those test results were very positive. It showed that the creek was low in eutrophication. Another chemical test is testing for dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen is microscopic bubbles of oxygen (O2) that are in the water and there for aquatic organisms to breathe in, which is necessary for almost all organisms. The testing process was similar to that of nitrate and phosphate tests. After testing the water, we got an average level of 11.4. More dissolved oxygen allows for more gaseous bubbles for organisms to breathe in. Therefore, a higher number is better. Twelve is the highest level of dissolved oxygen possible. Thus, since 11.4 is very close to 12, the dissolved oxygen level was very good. Dissolved oxygen can be changed in a number of ways. First, stagnant, or not moving, water has a much lower level of dissolved oxygen. Also, hotter water has less dissolved water. Lastly, chemicals like phosphate and nitrate can cause the growth of algae (which will be discussed in more detail in paragraph three), taking away oxygen. Additionally, the students tested for acid rain pollution. The tests falling under the acid rain category would test for acidity or alkalinity in water. We took a pH test, which is a level expressing the

Is the Conodoguinet creek polluted? I thought it was, but multiple tests from my peers and I proved my hypothesis wrong. To prove our hypotheses, my peers and I did multiple tests of the organisms living in the creek. We also tested the water quality. You may be wondering, “ How does this apply to me?” “ Why should I care?”, the fact is that the Conodoguinet runs through 100 miles of Pennsylvania. It runs through farms, towns, communities, and maybe even your backyard. So, making sure we protect it should concern all of us.

I’m reporting to the watershed area of the Conodoguinet Creek to discuss possible pollution in the creek. A type of pollution that can be a problem is Eutrophication. Eutrophication is the enrichment of an ecosystem with chemical nutrients. The Conodoguinet Creek runs through agricultural land, which means a lot of fertilizer. Phosphates and nitrates are found in fertilizers. When farmers use too much fertilizers, it can leak into the creek when it rains. When a lot of fertilizer gets into the creek in can get too many nutrients, and then excessive amounts of algae will grow causing many more problems. Acid rain is also another problem. Acid rain is caused by fossil fuels being burned, from cars, factories, etc. Acid rain can get into the

The first experiment we did to find out if the creek is polluted, was to count the macroinvertebrates in the creek. A macroinvertebrate is an aquatic insect, such as a crustacean. Different

The Conodoguinet Creek flows 101 miles through the Cumberland Valley of Pennsylvania. We traveled to just a small portion of the Conodoguinet Creek. In our area eutrophication and acid rain are common. Eutrophication is caused by sewage treatment plants, home sewage systems, and fertilizer runoff. Acid rain is caused by fossil fuel burning. If we were to test the Conodoguinet Creek for signs of acid rain, eutrophication or other types of pollution, then it would test with high levels of pollution. That way my hypothesis and what I thought about the pollution in the Conodoguinet Creek before I went there and tested the water.

After taking samples, and running tests on the water of the U-Creek, the conclusion was made that the water quality of the U-Creek is excellent. Water quality is not excellent in all cases, but keeping good water quality is very important for life of the organisms in the water. One way that humans could change the water quality, or pollute the water is through runoff. Rivers are a very convenient place for the companies or farms to get rid of waste. For example, farmers put pesticides and fertilizers on their crops to protect them from bugs, or to help them grow better. Fertilizers contain nitrates and phosphates, if large amounts of these two things end up in the water it will lead to an overgrowth of plant life, and algae growth. Over time as the algae starts to rapidly grow, the algae will start to use up all of the dissolved oxygen in the water. Dissolved oxygen is very important to organism life so if it is all gone then organisms will start to die. Another way that humans pollute water is through chemical water deposits. Chemical waste is discharged from industrial processes, that can end up in rivers or streams. An example of a

There were 10+ pieces of trash laying around. Some wrappers, beer cans, and other trash that was littered around the creek. The amount of trash can affect the water quality because the garbage can contaminate the water source. That could affect the water and the organisms living in and or around it. Another reason why the water quality is fair is because many dead organisms were found in and out of the creek. The amount of pollution in the water is caused by the phosphorus which can affect the water quality in a bad way. If the water is contaminated, the organisms can’t breath in the oxygen found in the water. Once that occurs many organisms can die off and affect the water quality. The last reason why the water quality is fair is because of the amount of algae. There was not a ton of algae found but there was enough to hurt the organisms. Some algae can hold toxins which can affect the water quality if it provides harmful

Water pollution affects plants and organisms living in these bodies of water; and, in almost all cases the effect is damaging not only to individual species and populations, but also to the natural biological communities.