Introduction-

With our collected sample, we decided to test for seven important water quality parameters and compare them to the EPA drinking water standards in order to determine a treatment regimen that will treat the sample to drinkable levels. The parameters that we tested for encompass a wide range which includes: pH, turbidity, total solids, chemical oxygen demand (COD), alkalinity, hardness, and phosphates. Each of these has the potential to cause adverse health effects in humans and/or damage and nuisance to drainage systems and it is therefore highly relevant for the purposes of this class. The source of our sample that we used in our analysis was the San Diego River on November 21st, 2013 at 11:00am after a rainfall. According to the EPA, the recommended range for pH in drinking water is 6.5 to 8.5. When the pH falls far outside of the spectrum to a pH below 4 or above 11, potentially serious health problems can occur. At these pH levels, common effects include skin, eye, and mucous membrane irritation in addition to the worsening of existing skin conditions upon ingestion. More serious effects come from pipe corrosion in which acidic water allows the leaching of heavy metals such as lead, which is known to lead to neurological and reproductive problems. To compound on this, overexposure to zinc, copper and other metals from corroded pipes can cause nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. It is therefore extremely important to monitor and maintain the pH of drinking water within a neutral range in order to prevent these potential hazards to human health. In our sample, we found the pH to be slightly below this threshold at 6.31, which is outside of the EPA recommended range for drinking water. It is therefore indicative of needing treatment before being declared safe for consumption. In regards to turbidity, or the cloudiness of a fluid caused by suspended solids, the EPA limit for drinking water is <1 NTU. Turbidity is a primary parameter for water quality; not because it is a health concern in itself, but because high levels of turbidity are indicative of a high number of suspended solids which can contain potentially harmful compounds and/or microbes. The types of

pollutants present in turbid water depend on the water streams proximity to pollution sources, such as farmland or freeways. High turbidity levels has a high potential for human health problems, as any harmful bacteria or viruses bind to suspended colloids in the water and can become resistant to ultraviolet light or chlorine sterilization procedures in treatment plants. As a result, any turbidity measurements higher than 1 in our sample must be treated via a method such as flocculation before it can be deemed safe to drink. In order to test for this parameter, we used a Hach turbidimeter to measure our sample in triplicate. One parameter that is closely linked to turbidity is total solids (TS). Turbidity itself is a representative measurement of the total solids suspended in the water, but it is usually not sufficient for a thorough qualitative analysis. The total solids in a sample represent the combined amount of organic and inorganic compounds dissolved and suspended within a sample of water. While the potential health effects due to elevated TS levels in a sample depend entirely on the exact composition of dissolved chemicals and organics, a TS level of less than 500 mg/L is considered to be aesthetically neutral in regards to odor, taste, and color. As a result, taking a measurement of the total solids in our sample will give us insight as to the hardness of the water and of the aesthetics of the water. To accurately measure the TS levels in our sample, we used the gravimetric method with 3 measured dishes filled with 40 ml of sample water. We then took a second weighing of the residue on the dishes after 16 hours in a dessication chamber. Another important water quality parameter is chemical oxygen demand, or COD. COD is often used to measure the amount of organic matter present in wastewater, treated effluent, and receiving waters. Although COD measures more than organic constituents, the organic fraction usually predominates and is the constituent of interest. Chemical oxygen demand was developed as an alternative to the more lengthy BOD analysis. While this parameter cannot be directly applied towards drinking water, high levels of COD in water have been found to correlate with threats to human health including toxic algae blooms bacteria from organic wastes and seafood; in which contaminants

bioaccumulate in the tissues of shellfish. Because our sample was gathered post-storm, we anticipated our COD level to be high, attributed to residual food waste from cans, bottles, antifreeze, and emulsified oils from the proximity of the 805, 15, 8, and 5 freeways. The COD of our water sample was determined via potassium dichromate in the presence of sulfuric acid, which completely oxidized the degradeable material in the water. Another parameter that we examined in our sample is alkalinity, or buffer capacity, read in the form of mg/L as calcium carbonate CaCO3. Alkalinity is a measure of the anions present in a body of water that will readily react with protons and maintain a stable pH. Unlike the previously discussed parameters, alkalinity currently is not considered a health-risk factor and in appropriate doses is showing to beneficial for human wellbeing and environment stability. However, if the alkalinity of a sample is compared to total hardness and is found to be significantly less, then it is an indication of elevated levels of chlorine, sulfate, or nitrates in the water; which can be potential problems. To test for our sample alkalinity, we used sulfuric acid buret titration with phenolphthalein and bromocresol green indicators in triplicate, which yielded a reliable total alkalinity and carbonate alkalinity. Similar to alkalinity, hardness is a water quality parameter that does not pose a direct threat to human health in high doses, as it is indicative of the amount of multivalent cations such as calcium and magnesium in water. While this parameter is not a considered health risk factor, this parameter is important in regards to industry and water distribution. Hard water produces soap scum most noticeable on tubs and showers, white mineral deposits on dishes more noticeable on clear glassware, reduces the efficiency of devices that heat water. As hardness deposits build in thickness, they act like insulation, reducing the efficiency of heat transfer. To determine an accurate reading of hardness for our sample, we used buret titration with EDTA. The final parameter that we tested for in our sample was phosphorous in the form of orthophosphate. While there are no EPA standards regarding consumption, the WHO determined that a concentration greater than 5mg/L should be avoided. In the environment, levels of phosphates above

this threshold are liable for algal blooms and deaths, causing eutrophication and the poor aesthetics of water. As such, it is important for us to determine the levels of phosphates present in the sample in order to ensure that the threshold concentration is not met or exceeded and recommend treatment accordingly. To do so, we used the Hach method 8048 with the use of PhosVer3 powder packets.

http://www.stormwaterx.com/Resources/IndustrialPollutants/COD.aspx
DeZuane, John (1997). Handbook of Drinking Water Quality (2nd ed.). John Wiley and Sons A.G. Mann, C.C. Tam, C.D. Higgins, & L.C. Lodrigues. (2007). The association between drinking water turbidity and gastrointestinal illness: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 7(256): 1 7

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm#Secondary http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms510.cfm http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/p.htm

Process and analysis-

To determine the levels of phosphate in our sample, we used the Hach method 8048 with a phosphate standard solution, hach colorimeter, and PhosVer 3 reagent pillows. We first created our calibration curve in which to fit our sample data results by making 10 ml dilutings of a phosphate standard solution to 0, .5, 1, 3, and 5 mg/l respectively. Next, we added the entire contents of a PhosVer 3 reagent pillow into each vial, capped and shook them for approximately 30 seconds before letting them stand for two minutes. Doing so allowed varying hues of blue to develop in our vials, which indicated how much phosphate was present. After two minutes, we transferred a portion of the sample into a cuvet and measured the absorbance of a colorimeter set to 880 nanometers. After setting up our calibration curve, we then proceeded to test our sample, undiluted to determine whether or not it would need to be weakened to meet the limits of our curve. By repeating the same procedure as before, we determined that our sample fell within our curve range for a good fit, and proceeded to test the sample two more times to ensure accuracy and precision.

Concentration 0 .5 1 3 5 Unknown (no dilution) Unknown (no dilution) Unknown (no dilution)

Absorbance (880nm) .089 .289 .330 .789 1.063 .135 .151 .135

From our test results, we were able to determine that the levels of phosphate in our sample were well below the threshold recommended by the World Health Organization and would not be a major contributing factor to algal blooms, which require a phosphate level of at least 5 mg/L. From our test, we concluded that our sample read a level of .245 mg/L, which we found to be surprising. In our sample, we visually saw bubbles and a slight trace of foam, which is typically indicative of phosphates from detergents and other cleaning compounds which form lather. As a result, we anticipated the levels to be high. However, from our test we were able to conclude that for drinking and discharge purposes that we would be able to ignore treatment for phosphate and concentrate our efforts on other key parameters.

Phosphate vs Absorbance
1.2 y = 0.2082x + 0.089 1 Absorbance (880nm) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Phosphate Concentration (mg/l)

In this figure, the blue line indicates the absorbance relative to the concentration of phosphate. Our sample, undiluted, fell into the lower spectrum of our curve, contrary to what we had anticipated, reading an average absorbance of 0.140, or .245 mg/L.

y= 0.2082x+0.089 x= (y-0.089)/0.2082 Phosphate=(absorbance-0.089)/0.2082 Phosphateunk=(absorbanceunk,avg-0.089)/0.2082 Phosphateunk=(0.140-0.089)/0.2082 Phosphateunk= .245mg/l