Dissolved Oxygen Lab Report

The only hypothesis that was wrong was the dissolved oxygen. pH and Water hardness proved to be correct. Because of the fact the creek waters result in pH is low, indicated that it is acidic compared to the tap water. Also through the data, it was found that Creek water IS “harder” than tap water.
As seen in graph 1 and graph 2, Tap water has higher dissolved oxygen than creek. It is apparent in these graphs that the tap has higher dissolved oxygen levels but has lower levels of other unknown substances residing in the water itself. There aren’t much of differences between the two water samples.
In graphs 3 and 4, even though the water samples were renewed, tap water still has a higher pH level than the creek. This suggests that the creek

Even in Ca2+ and Mg2+, Creek has a higher level than tap. Since water hardness does not pose a real threat to the human health, the result that is being collected won’t matter deeply.
The result of dissolved oxygen could have appeared due to the fact that the temperature of the room was warmer than the creeks environment temperature. Temperature affects the level of dissolved oxygen. Another possible fact could be the bacteria may have grown more in numbers due to the right conditions in the room temperature and the bacteria may have consumed oxygen, leading to the reason why the creek waters dissolved oxygen is less than tap waters. Another possibility would be that the data is the truth, therefore implying that the waters are unsafe.
The result of water hardness was predictable due to natural reasons such as rain, affecting the creeks water system. Also a factor such as limestone’s giving minerals to the water. Tap water should have had lower water hardness, as all tap waters are meant to be treated so it is safe for humans to drink. Also the result of pH is related to water hardness as rain water also affects the acidic level of the creek water. And also the tap should not be that acidic due to its treatment to make it safe for human

The three tests taken seem to have all abnormal results. The most abnormal results would be tap water as it surprisingly had similar values for each test to that of creek water. The pH level of the two water samples are too high, however the newly taken water pH is around average. Between those two different pH’s, there is a big gap even though it is coming from the same source. This suggests that the water collected before had extra minerals due to heavy rain before the water samples were collected. Otherwise the experiment had been done improperly, therefore giving out abnormal results. The source of error lies in the fact that the experiment hadn’t been done several times to find its maximum accuracy. Another error made may be human error, such as mixing up the chemicals on accident or over dosing more than the experiment needed. There are other errors such as systematic errors that could have had an impact on this experiment. Refinement to make this experiment’s data more accurate could be done by cleansing all the equipment that is going to be used thoroughly and use a consistent quality of water. Another refinement could be doing the test several more times to have enough data to provide its stance.
As mentioned before the data that was collected in the experiment is wrong. It is apparent as the secondary data clearly states that the data collected in this experiment is wrong. In the future, further testing would be preferred