Project Purpose We noticed that adults and students were avoiding drinking the school water, which comes from a well on campus. In fact, we surveyed 28 teachers and staff in our school, and 77% of them said that they never drink the school fountain or tap water. 47% of the adults said they avoid the school water because they were “worried it wasn’t as clean” as bottled water. Additionally, 27% said they “did not like the taste” of school water. (See attached graphs.) Since all of our team members consistently drink the school water and felt it was fine, we were wondering how it actually compares to bottled water, in both water quality testing and taste testing.

We decided to conduct experiments to answer the following question: “Is there validity to the claim that East Vincent tap and fountain water is not as good as bottled water?” For our experiment, we considered “good” water to be water that does not have coliform bacteria present, has low amounts of nitrate present, received the most acceptable (good or excellent) water quality ratings, and has a favorable taste.

Our problem fits into the “Food, Health, and Fitness” eCybermission mission challenge, more specifically, “Health and Nutrition in Schools” as water is important for nutrition and health. Our problem is very important for our local community because teachers and students could save lots of money and plastic by just drinking the school water instead of buying bottles. In fact, the United States spends $21 BILLION annually on bottled water. In our survey, we found that the average person was using approximately one disposable water bottle per day, and the average disposable water bottle cost about $1.21 in 2013. With about 650 people in our school, that is $786.50 per day, or $141,570 per school year! With that money, we could buy 355 iPads Airs, enough for every student in grades 3 – 6 at East Vincent, with plenty to spare.

If we found that the water quality of sink and fountain water was poor, we would want to let our principal know. She would need to inform the engineers of our new school building (scheduled to be completed in 2017), so they could upgrade the water quality. Additionally, if we found the water was unsafe to drink, she would need to alert the students and staff to avoid drinking the water until the problem was resolved.

Abstract We researched the question: “Is there validity to the claim that the tap and fountain water at East Vincent is not as good as bottled water?”

We conducted two different experiments to test our question. The first round of tests determined if the sink and fountain water quality was comparable to bottled water. We hypothesized that East Vincent’s water quality would be just as good as bottled water, since one of our team members drank the water nearly every day. We tested our question by measuring several different water quality criteria (dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, coliform bacteria, phosphate, nitrate, turbidity, and biochemical oxygen demand). We found that bottled water is better for you. However, neither the sinks nor the fountains tested positive for coliform bacteria, but they had higher levels of nitrate than permitted by the EPA.

For the second experiment, we conducted a double blind taste test where we served six samples of the water to 45 staff members. We tested one brand of bottled water, one sink, and one fountain at both room and refrigerated temperature. We found that Wegmans refrigerated water tastes the best and room 106 fountain tasted the worst. In addition, we saw that the average rating for school refrigerated water was similar to Wegmans unrefrigerated water. This suggests that East Vincent students and staff can save money by filling a jug of water straight from the tap and refrigerating it, instead of bringing in a bottle of water.

School Water Opinion Survey Results

Average person uses 1 disposable bottle per day

At that rate, the school would use 650 bottles per day.

How often do you drink the school water?

School Water Opinion Survey Results

Why don’t people want to drink the school water?

Water Attitudes Survey Results

Hypothesis We hypothesized that the East Vincent tap water quality ratings and taste would be just as good as bottled water. If the claim that “East Vincent tap water is not as good as bottled water” is false, then tap water should have better or similar turbidity, biochemical oxygen demand, nitrate, temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, coliform bacteria, and phosphate ratings and measurements. Based on our research, we found that the most important criteria to human health was coliform bacteria and nitrate ratings of water. Therefore, we considered “good” water to be water that does not have coliform bacteria present, has low amounts of nitrate present, received the most number acceptable (good or excellent) water quality ratings, and has a favorable taste to the taste testers.

After conducting round 1 water quality tests, we hypothesized that refrigerated bottled water would taste the best because it had the best water quality ratings. If water quality affects taste, then the taste testers would choose bottled water (both room temperature and refrigerated) as the best, rating them as number one and two, or the best tasting water. We also hypothesized that temperature would affect the taste of water. If temperature affects tasted, then the taste testers will choose the refrigerated water (no matter the water source) as the top three waters.

If the outcome supported our hypothesis, students and staff could save a lot of money and plastic since they could drink the school water. People are more convinced by facts and data than they are by general statements, so we could use the results to convince our community to drink school water through morning announcements, posters placed near the water fountains, and emails to teachers and staff.

Testing the Hypothesis We measured our hypothesis in two different ways. If the school water is just as good as the bottled water (our control group), then it should have similar ratings in both water quality and water taste.

During round 1 testing (water quality), we tested each water source three times, each time on a different day. This gave us a total of 18 samples to test. We measured the water quality for each source based on 8 different criterions (turbidity, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), nitrate, phosphate, temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen, coliform bacteria). By repeating the tests three times, we were able to make sure our results were consistent, valid, and not affected by error.

During round 2 testing (taste testing), we randomized the tasting order, so that order of tasting would not affect the ratings. We had 45 adult participants taste and rate the water. We then found the mean score for each water sample, and the sample with the lowest rating was considered to be the best water. Testing such a large number of participants ensured that our results were valid, and not affected by a few outlying opinions.

Team Member Responsibilities JEANNE ANDREW JACKSON

Water Quality Research Temperature pH Dissolved Oxygen

Phosphate Turbidity Coliform bacteria

Nitrate Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Round 1 (Water Quality)

Mission Plan

Collaborative

Water Quality Testing

Data Analysis Collaborative

Presentation Board (for School Fair)

Collaborative

Round 2 (Taste Test)

Mission Plan

Collaborative

Taste Testing 15 participants

15 participants

15 participants

Data Analysis Collaborative

eCybermission Folder Problem Statement Experimental Design Data Analysis

Drawing Conclusions Community Benefit Team Collaboration

Presentation Board (for

County Fair)

Collaborative

Team Collaboration While researching water quality tests during round one of our project, we divided the water quality criteria into three groups (one group for each team member). Each team member then became the expert for that criteria group, including what levels are dangerous, what levels are acceptable, and the causes/effects of poor ratings. Whatever criteria a team member researched, he or she conducted those water quality tests. We used Google Docs to collaboratively write our mission plan (materials list, variables, constants, procedures, etc) so that we could get more done faster. For the data analysis, we all sat around the same computer to combine our individual data into a spreadsheet and analyze the data so we could reach a conclusion we all agreed was valid. To create the presentation board, we all pitched in and glued down different sections of the trifold board.

For round two testing, we again used Google Docs to collaboratively write our mission plan, and we all worked together to create the different materials needed for the test. Then, since we wanted to test 45 different participants, we each found 15 people to take the water taste test. For the data analysis, we again worked collaboratively to combine our individual data into a spreadsheet, analyze the data, and reach a valid conclusion. Then we worked together to create our second presentation trifold board.

We assigned roles to complete the mission folder. Each team member was given three sections to complete individually. For example, Jeanne did the Problem Statement and Hypothesis sections, Andrew completed the Experimental Design and Data Analysis sections, and Jackson worked on the Drawing Conclusions, Community Benefit, and Team Collaboration sections. After we were all done this, we all come together to revise and edit the mission folder.

Team Collaboration (cont.) For the whole project, we also had a calendar of due dates (see attached). To make sure work was completed, we would write sticky notes or use our planners to remind ourselves about upcoming due dates. We also checked in with each other first thing in the morning to make sure nobody forgot about their assignment. If we forgot, we would use Tier Time (independent class time) or recess to catch up. A completion log was set up to record what was done and what needed to be done. In addition, we took advantage of our skills when assigning smaller tasks to the team. For example, Jeanne focused on the aesthetics of the science fair board; Andrew would put the data into a graph; and Jackson led the preparation of supplies for the taste tests. This way we would divide and conquer, getting much more done. Please see attached table of team member responsibilities.

Project Timeline

Project Calendar

Project Calendar

Project Calendar

Project Calendar

Project Calendar

Project Calendar

Independent Variable Our independent variable in our project is the different water sources. For example, we tested the room 106 sink, the 106 fountain, the room 225 sink, the music hallway fountain, Dasani bottled water, and Wegmans bottled water during round 1 (water quality) testing. During round 2 (taste test), we tested Wegmans bottled water, room 106 sink water, and room 106 fountain water. Additionally, each water sample was tested at both room temperature and refrigerated temperature.

For both rounds of testing (water quality and taste test), the bottled water served as the control group.

The dependent variable for our first round testing (water quality) was the turbidity, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), nitrate, phosphate, temperature, pH, coliform bacteria, and dissolved oxygen ratings for each water source. For round 2 (taste testing), we used a rating scale for our dependent variable. The test subjects ordered the cups from worst (6) to best (1).

Dependent Variable

Constants – Water Quality Testing

Constants Description Water Quality Test Kits

We used the same type of test kit to test each source (Earth Force Low-Cost Water Quality Monitoring Kit)

Water Quality Criteria

Each water source was tested for the same criteria (turbidity, biochemical oxygen demand, nitrate, phosphate, temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen), following the directions in the kit.

Water Condition The water was tested “as is” when it came out of the source.

Location Water testing was conducted at East Vincent Elementary. Amount of water For each criterion, we used the recommended amount of water every time so that

our results would be as accurate as possible. Test Tube and Mason Jar Sterilization

We sterilized the test tubes and Mason jars in the microwave before testing.

Constants – Double Blind Taste Test

Constants Description Temperature

Each source was tested at room temperature (73.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and refrigerated temperature (37.4 degrees Fahrenheit).

Amount of water 30 mL for each source was provided to the taste testers.

Cups All water was tested in the same type of cup (Dixie Cups, 3 oz size).

Directions to participants

Each taster was read the same set of directions.

Test conductor bias

The test conductor did not know which water source matched each cup symbol.

Test taster bias The taste testers were only told that they were tasting 6 different water samples and that all water was safe to drink (no clues were provided about source provided).

Tasting order Tasting order was randomized (using www.random.org) to insure that order doesn’t affect taster ratings.

Water sources Each participant tasted one refrigerated and one room temperature sample from Room 106 sink, Fountain outside of room 106, and Wegmans bottled water.

Water storage location

Two gallons of each source was placed in the fridge in the school nurses’ office, on the same shelf to ensure water was the same refrigerated temperature for testing. Two gallons of each source was placed on the countertop in the same corner of room 106 to ensure water was the same room temperature for testing.

Materials List

Round 1: Water Quality Round 2: Taste Test Test kits: 2 Earth Force Low-Cost Water Quality Monitoring Kits iPads: 3 iPads 1 Mason Jar of Water from the 6 different water sources: 106 sink, water fountain outside room 106, room 220 sink, music hallway water fountain, Wegmans Bottled Water, Dasani Bottled Water Scientific Inquiry Journals: 3 Mason Jars: 3 jars Taylor thermometer: at least 1

Microwave: 1

10 mL test tubes with caps: 48

Test tube racks: 3

Test rating scales: 3 sets

Water from sources - room 106 sink, water fountain outside room 106, and Wegmans Bottled Water: 2 gallons of each source refrigerated and 2 gallons of each at room temperature Dixie Cups, 3 oz size: 300 cups File Folder Labels: 10 sheets Computer (With printer): 1 Thermometer: at least 1 Key (for water source symbols, read by team after testing is concluded, not subjects): 1 Data Logs: 3 sets Clipboard: 3 Taste Ordering Sheet: 3 White printer paper: 1 sheet 60 mL beakers: 54 Random.org access: 1 computer

Water Quality Procedure

Nitrate

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

Phosphate

Turbidity

Coliform Bacteria

Temperature

Dissolved Oxygen

pH

Criteria Tested:

Total tests conducted:

144

Procedure - Water Quality Testing STARTING PROCEDURE

1. Sterilize the Mason jars by microwaving them for 3 minutes, and record any qualitative observations (for example, foggy appearance, dirty faucet, etc.)

2. Gather 3 large Mason jar samples of bottled water for both Wegmans and Dasani, and 1 sample from each of the following locations: the sink in room 106, sink room 225, music hallway water fountain, and 2nd grade hallway water fountains.

3. Measure the turbidity, biochemical oxygen demand, nitrate, phosphate, temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen (see specific directions below).

4. Record readings in journal using the rating scales in the water testing manual.

5. Repeat for each water source on 3 different days.

6. Using the rating scale to rank each test result as excellent, good, fair, or poor.

7. Determine the total number of excellent, good, fair, and poor ratings for each water source. Graph results.

8. Water quality is determined as acceptable if it passes the nitrate and coliform tests.

Procedure - Water Quality Testing TURBIDITY TESTING 1. Stick the secchi disk at the bottom of the

bucket slightly off center. 2. Wait 24 hours to ensure that the secchi disk

will stick to the bottom. 3. Fill bucket with the water being tested to the fill

line. 4. Assess the clearness of the water in JTU

(Jackson Turbidity Units) using the rating card.

5. Record results in journal. pH TESTING 1. Fill test tubes with water until it reaches the

top. 2. Add one pH test tab. 3. Shake until tab is dissolved. 4. Compare color to chart and find the reading. 5. Record results in journal.

COLIFORM BACTERIA TESTING 1. Pour the water being tested into a large test

tube containing a tablet until it reaches the 10 milliliter mark.

2. Recap the test tube. 3. Stand the tube upright with the tablet lying flat

on the bottom of the large test tube. 4. Store tube out of sunlight, standing upright, and

in an area that has a temperature between 70 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit.

5. Wait 48 hours. Then compare the color of the liquid to the rating chart.

6. Record results in journal. NITRATE TESTING 1. Put 5 milliliters of the water into the test tube. 2. Immediately place a nitrate test tab and slide the test tube into the silver sleeve. 3. Shake the test tube with the silver sleeve for 2 minutes. 4. Take the tube out of the silver sleeve and let the tube sit for five minutes. 5. Compare the color of the water in the tube to the comparison graph and record.

Procedure - Water Quality Testing BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND TESTING 1. Fill the small test tube all the way to the top and

cap. 2. Wrap the tube in aluminum foil and place in a

dark room (with no sunlight) for five days. 3. Unwrap the tube, remove the cap, and add two

dissolved oxygen tabs to the tube. 4. Cap the tube and invert until the tabs and

completely disintegrated. 5. Compare the color of the water in the tube to the

dissolved oxygen chart. 6. Record results in journal. PHOSPHATE TESTING 1. Fill a large test tube to the 10 milliliter mark. 2. Add one phosphate tablet and recap. 3. Shake and invert the tablet until it disintegrates

and the water turns blue. 4. Let the test tube sit undisturbed for five minutes

to let the color develop. 5. Score the color by the shade of blue in ppm

(parts per million). 6. Record results in journal.

DISSOLVED OXYGEN TESTING 1. Fill a small test tube all the way full with water. 2. Add two dissolved oxygen tablets. 3. Shake until tablets are dissolved. 4. Let sit completely still for 5 minutes. 5. Compare color of the water with the chart and record it in your journal. TEMPERATURE TESTING 1. Turn on Taylor thermometer by pressing “on”, and make sure it is set to Celsius. 2. Submerge bottom part of thermometer (the long end) in the water sample. 3. Wait until the reading is consistent, and then record it. (It will be shown on the screen). 4. Record results in journal.

Water Quality Testing Pictures

Water Quality Testing Results

For each type of water, this graph shows the percentage of tests that qualified for the different rating categories. Any color other than red is

acceptable.

Water Quality Testing Results

Water Quality Testing Results

We met with our school principal to confer about the concerning nitrate levels in the school water. She contacted the water company who tests our water each year to make sure that it meets all the regulations. The water was last tested in September by Suburban Testing Lab, and the nitrate level was 3.24 ppm, which is considered safe.

Sink Water Quality Results

Fountain Water Quality Results

Bottled Water Quality Results

Water Quality Results (Summary)

Taste Test Procedure

Water samples were marked with symbols for the

taste test.

Water samples were collected for the double blind

taste test.

45 participants

rated the water.

Procedure – Double Blind Taste Test 1. Using a computer, printer, and file folder labels, make the labels for the cups. Since this was a

double-blind taste test, we used symbols to represent different water sources and temperatures (circle, pentagon, star, triangle, trapezoid, and rhombus).

2. Stick the labels on the cups, so that each set of 6 has one of each symbol. Make a total of 45 sets.

3. Collect four samples of water from each source (room 106 sink, fountain outside room 106, Wegmans water) using sanitized Mason jars.

4. So that this is a double-blind taste test, have another person label each water source/temperature with a different symbol and create a key. The test conductors should not see this key until after all testing is concluded.

5. Place two gallons of water from each source in the same refrigerator, and two gallons of water from each source in the same place at room temperature. Leave the gallons in their locations for at least 24 hours.

6. Using the website random.org, create 15 different random orders for taste testing. This will make sure that the tasting order doesn’t affect our results.

7. Make a taste testing recording sheet, so that testers can place the cups according to the best (1) to the worst (6).

8. After at least 24 hours, remove the water gallons from their locations.

9. Sanitize the thermometers. Take and record the temperature of each gallon.

Procedure – Double Blind Taste Test 10. Using a sanitized beaker, measure 30 mL of water into cups with labels that match the

source. Each day, every tester will conduct three tests. Prepare 3 sets for each tester, so that each set of 6 has one of each symbol.

11. Each team member will conduct 15 tests. For each test subject:

a. Read the following to the test subject: “We are conducting a water taste test for our science experiment. We will need you to taste 6 different water samples. You will rate them by taste in order from 1 (best) to 6 (worst).”

b. Have the test subject sign the informed consent form.

c. Using a tasting order from the random order sheet, have the testers sip from each water cup.

d. After the testers have sipped from all the cups, have them order the cups on the testing record sheet in order from their favorite to their least favorite.

e. Record their results on the score data table.

f. Record any qualitative observations (for example, taste tester comments, facial expressions, etc.)

g. Cross off the order that was used on the random order sheet.

12. Repeat until all 45 tests have been conducted.

13. Compile the data. Find the mean score for each water source after matching the water source with the cup symbol using the symbol key.

Taste Test: Directions and Random Order

Taste Test: Participant Rating Sheet

Taste Test Results

Taste Test Ratings (raw data)

Taste Test Ratings (raw data)

Taste Test Ratings (raw data)

Taste Test Ratings (data summary)

Data Summary In round 1 water quality testing, both sinks (room 225 and room 106) had 4-5 poor readings, with room 225 having 5 poor ratings. Both had their worst ratings in the categories of nitrate and dissolved oxygen. As for the two fountains (2nd grade and music hallways), they each had 4 poor readings, similar to sink 106, which also had 4 poor readings. Again, nitrate and dissolved oxygen appear to be the worst, with the second grade hallway fountain having all poor readings in the dissolved oxygen category. In fact, half of the water fountain tests and two-thirds of the sink tests for nitrate had 20 ppm, which exceeds the limit set by the EPA and the state of Pennsylvania.

The water bottles (Dasani and Wegmans water) both had the best results. Wegmans had 13 excellent readings and only 3 poor ratings all in dissolved oxygen. Dasani had 10 excellent ratings and only 3 poor ratings, which were also in dissolved oxygen. By tallying all the results, Wegmans has been proved to have the best water quality. See attached tables and graphs for more information.

We considered a water source to be overall “good” water if it ranked higher than fair on the tests that were the most important: nitrate and coliform tests. Both of the sinks failed this test, as they had greater than or equal to 20 parts per million (ppm) of nitrate present. However, few teachers and students drink from the classroom sinks. At most, people rinse out dishes at the sinks, and they are primarily used for hand washing. The fountains had mixed results, as they had both poor and fair nitrate readings. This is a little more concerning to us because many students do drink from the fountains. This should be addressed by the school because even though are school population is not younger than 6 months of age (the age that nitrate levels greatly affect health), it is still concerning because the nitrate levels exceeds the state and EPA allowable levels. However, neither the sinks nor the fountains tested positive for coliform bacteria.

Data Summary (cont.) Both brands of water bottles fully passed our nitrate and coliform bacteria tests. Since we used a “low cost” water quality kit, we would have been suspicious of the accuracy of the nitrate test if the water bottles also failed this test. Since the water bottles passed, we can conclude the nitrate tests are valid for all water sources.

In round 2 water taste testing, we discovered that the Wegmans bottled water ranked number one in not only water quality, but also in water taste. It received the lowest average rating of 2.3 (with 1 being the best tasting and 6 being the worst tasting). After our second round of testing, we saw that the average rating for school refrigerated water was similar to Wegmans unrefrigerated water (refrigerated sink: 3.4; refrigerated fountain: 3.3; Wegmans room temperature: 3.2). However, unrefrigerated school water had significantly poorer taste testing scores (room temperature sink: 4.1; room temperature fountain: 4.9). Overall, the room 106 unrefrigerated fountain water did the worst on the taste test. See attached graphs for more information.

Data Analysis The question we wanted to answer was “Is there validity to the claim that the tap and fountain water at East Vincent is not as good as bottled water?” We conducted two different experiments to test our question.

The first test’s purpose was to see if the water at East Vincent was just as clean as bottled water brands (Wegmans or Dasani) because the tap water is rumored to be unclean and disgusting. We hypothesized that East Vincent tap water is just as good as bottled water based on water quality ratings, since our team members drank the water nearly every day. We tested our question by measuring several water quality criterion, specifically dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, coliform bacteria, phosphate, nitrate, turbidity, and biochemical oxygen demand. Our first hypothesis was refuted because most of the school water sources had poor nitrate ratings. This did not surprise us because when we looked at the water in the jars and test tubes, it looked foggy and unclean. The high nitrate ratings may be caused by agricultural runoff since our school is located in a rural area, and a farm is directly behind our school.

Although both fountains and sinks came back negative for the coliform testing, they did have unacceptable levels of nitrate and bottled water had better water quality ratings overall. We found that even though bottled water is better for you, the percentage of oxygen saturation was high. If this was tap water, high oxygen saturation could lead to the corrosion of pipes. However, this does not apply to bottled water because it does not run through pipes right before people drink it. Therefore, since no sources tested positive for coliform bacteria, the fountain and sink water is acceptable to drink for people over the age of six months. However, the bottled water has higher quality ratings because it scored better in nitrate and phosphate.

For the second experiment, we wanted to find out if the difference in water quality rating actually affected water taste.

Data Analysis (cont.) To do this, we conducted a double blind taste test where we served six samples of the water to staff members in our building from three different sources (room 106 sink, fountain outside room 106, and Wegmans bottled water). We suspected that water temperature would affect the taste of water, so we had staff members taste and rate two samples of each source (one refrigerated and one room temperature). We hypothesized that refrigerated bottled water would taste the best because it had the best water quality ratings. We also hypothesized that temperature would affect the taste of water. Both of our hypotheses for round two were confirmed. First, Wegmans refrigerated water tastes the best, based on the results from the taste test (lowest average rating of 2.3, with 1 being the best tasting and 6 being the worst tasting) and the unrefrigerated school water samples were the two worst tasting (room temperature sink: 4.1; room temperature fountain: 4.9). Our hypothesis was additionally confirmed because the average rating for school refrigerated water was similar to Wegmans unrefrigerated water (refrigerated sink: 3.4; refrigerated fountain: 3.3; Wegmans room temperature: 3.2). This shows that temperature does indeed affect taste.

We conducted research to determine why taste testers chose refrigerated water samples to be better than unrefrigerated samples. One reason people prefer cold water is that their taste buds are less sensitive when drinking colder liquids; therefore, the refrigerated water tastes more pure. A second reason may be that due to cultural preferences. In Europe, people prefer room temperature beverages. In Asia, they generally drink hot beverages with dinner, but Americans are known for drinking ice-cold beverages. Interestingly, ice-cold water greatly diminishes your ability to appreciate the sweetness foods. This may be way Americans crave such sweet foods. A third reason is colder water lowers any odor of the liquid. Smell and taste are closely connected for humans, so even if the water has an unpleasant smell, people will not notice it if the water is colder.

Conclusions

Water Quality

Taste Test Results

Reduce Waste

Change

Opinions

Although our test kit showed that the nitrate levels were concerning to children under six months, we sent a sample of our school water to a testing lab to see if our results matched a state approved test. This way, we can make sure the problem of nitrate levels is resolved.

While refrigerated water tastes best, there was a little difference between room temperature Wegman’s bottled water and refrigerated sink and fountain water.

We can save money and the environment by filling up a reusable water bottle with cold tap water or fountain water. Doing this will reduce all of the waste that we all throw away.

We can convince people to change their behavior by telling them how we could buy 355 iPads with the money saved from refilling a reusable bottle with fountain or tap water.

Conclusions Our research question was: “Is there validity to the claim that East Vincent fountain and tap water is not as good as bottled water.” Through testing we found that there was validity to the claim. In round 1 water quality testing, the sink and fountain water didn’t have as strong of ratings as bottled water did. Additionally, the claim that the tap water isn’t safe is true, because both the sink and fountain water had high amounts of nitrate. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the maximum contaminate level of nitrate is 10 ppm for infants below six months, and some fountains had 20 ppm, which is not safe for people who want to drink from the fountains. While we do not have infants younger than 6 months in our school, the nitrate levels still do not meet the EPA and Pennsylvania water regulations. We have a meeting scheduled with our principal for March 5, 2015 to discuss the nitrate levels in the fountain water so that the school retest the water with a higher quality testing kit and try to work out a solution to the problem.

Next, we wanted to determine if there was a difference in taste between tap, fountain, and bottled water. During round 2 testing, we conduct a double-blind taste test with 45 participants. We have determined that Wegmans refrigerated water tastes the best, as well as having the best water quality ratings. The worst ranked water was unrefrigerated Room 106 fountain water. This was not surprising to us because the fountains had poor readings. Another very important piece of information we discovered was how much temperature affects the taste. For example, when the school water was refrigerated, it scored similar to unrefrigerated bottled water.

Potential Sources of Error During round 1 testing, one thing we noticed was that we ended up running out of TesTabs very quickly, due to the fact that they constantly crumbled under the sloppy control of the rubber gloves. If we were to repeat the project, we would order more TesTabs so that we could run additional tests and verify the reliability of our results.

Additionally, while we sterilized the Mason Jars, test tubes, and beakers, and we used rubber gloves when conducting the water quality tests, we did not wear rubber gloves during the taste test round. It is possible that putting our hands near the lip of the cups affected the taste of the water, and was not the most sanitary choice.

Our project’s experimental design could be improved in several ways. First, we used a “low cost” water quality kit. It would be interesting to retest the water (if we had the money) using a higher quality kit. A kit that uses digital probes to take readings would be more reliable than the TesTabs we used, which crumbled very easily. Secondly, during the taste test, we received interesting feedback from the participants. One participant suggested that the cups we used (paper Dixie cups) affected the waters’ taste, and he would have preferred plastic cups. Another participant worried that our fingers were too close to the lip of the cup when we removed them from the testing bin. Wearing plastic gloves during this part of the experiment would have solved that problem. A third person complained that six water samples was too much too taste at once. However, most people did not seem concerned with this. Finally, the bins we used to carry the water samples to the testing participants would sometimes leak a little. It would have been better if we had carts to move the water samples, instead of carrying them by hand.

Ideas for Project Improvement

Community Impact

Community Benefit Our findings are very important to our community for two reasons. First, if there are contaminates in the fountain water, students are drinking unsafe water and should bring a bottle from home. They can get very ill, causing them miss school and important instruction. Secondly, if the fountain water turned out to be just as good, similar, or better than bottled water in both quality and taste, then just drinking from the fountain will save lots of water and money and reduce wasted water bottles that are thrown away and/or recycled each day.

The good news is that neither the sinks nor the fountains tested positive for coliform bacteria. However, the nitrate levels were higher than the EPA and Pennsylvania regulations of 10 ppm. Even though our population is not under 6 months old (the most dangerous age for high levels of nitrate), this concern should be investigated further and fixed as soon as possible.

In addition, we saw that the average rating for school refrigerated water was similar to Wegmans unrefrigerated water. This suggests that East Vincent students and staff can save money by filling a jug of water straight from your tap and refrigerating it, instead of bringing in a bottle of water that is unrefrigerated, once the nitrate levels are brought under control. By doing this, our school could reduce the amount of plastic that is thrown away or recycled each day. The answers we have gathered could save our wallets and the planet as well.

We can inform students and staff that the school water is potable (after the nitrate problem is fixed) by putting up informative posters next to water fountains and making announcements over the PA system at the beginning or end of the school day. The best way to convince the school to drink the school water is to use the real facts and data we collected. Please see our attached posters, announcements, and emails.

Community Benefit (cont.) To expand our project in the future, we could test the school water for different minerals, since we learned through our research that minerals affect water taste. The school could potentially improve the water taste by adjusting the mineral content of the tap water, which could convince more people to drink the school water. For now, we would like to meet with our principal to discuss the nitrate levels of the water. The water quality at East Vincent could be improved for our new school building if the engineers address this problem.

Project Sharing

The Aqua Squad

shared this project at both the 2015

school and county Science Research

Fairs.

Morning Announcement: Water PSA

Community Outreach: PSA Poster

Email to School Principal

Research Summary During our research, we learned the specific effects and causes of poor ratings in water for the areas tested in our water quality kit. For example, the causes of poor phosphate readings are agricultural run-off, waste from humans and animals, and industrial pollution mixed in with the water source. Poor phosphate ratings are a problem because it leads to plant overgrowth, which stops sunlight from getting to animals below, causing more bacterial activity and lower dissolved oxygen levels. Since our water comes from a well, we don’t need to worry about fish and other aquatic life; however, it would be gross to find that algae were thriving in our well.

The causes of poor dissolved oxygen levels are naturally-occurring or human-induced changes to the ecosystem. High levels of bacteria from sewage pollution or lots of decaying plants can cause the percentage of saturation to go down.

Poor coliform bacteria ratings are caused by water that has sewage or fecal contamination present. Although coliform bacteria aren't pathogenic, they are found with intestinal pathogens, which harm the body. If the water has coliform bacteria present, it is likely that there are pathogenic organisms such Escherichia coli are present in the water. Drinking or swimming in high levels of fecal coliform can cause cramps, diarrhea, severe anemia, kidney failure, and possibly lead to death.

The causes of poor turbidity readings are as follows: colloidal and suspended matter, silt, organic/inorganic water, microscopic organisms, clay, any objects from boats, a large population of bottom feeders that stir up sediments, and algal blooms. Turbid water blocks light from getting to plants, suspended particles cover fish eggs and larvae, and the gill structure of fish get clogged. Since our water comes from a well, turbidity is less of a concern.

Research Summary (cont.) The pH of water can be affected by factory waste, agriculture runoff, and acid rain. When the pH levels drop or rise, aquatic life may die from even the slightest change. In general, water with a pH < 6.5 could be acidic, soft, and corrosive to humans. Additionally, pH levels below 6.5 can also result in the release of toxic metals such as iron, copper, manganese, lead, and zinc. For bottled water, pH could affect taste; however, for our school water, this could be a problem as it runs through old pipes. By interviewing our school maintenance staff, we learned that our water is pH adjusted daily.

Poor biochemical oxygen demand is caused by lots of bacteria consuming the dissolved oxygen. A poor rating in this area may mean the water source is polluted. Finally, a poor rating of nitrate in drinking water is mainly caused by sewage contamination. High levels of nitrate in drinking water may weaken your body's ability to carry oxygen in your blood, which is dangerous.

We also researched what can affect the taste of water. We learned that when salts and metals are in the water (for example, iron, copper, manganese, or zinc), the taste of the water is affected in a negative way. Some people also do not like the taste of chlorine in their water. Our school uses well water, but the water is tested for safety and is chlorine-treated daily.

References "Basic Information about Nitrate in Drinking Water." Water: Basic Information about Regulated Drinking Water

Contaminants. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 05 Feb. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.

"Basic Information about Nitrate in Drinking Water." Basic Information about Nitrate in Drinking Water. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 5 Feb. 2014. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.

"Biochemical Oxygen Demand." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Oct. 2014. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.

"Bottled Water Statistics." Statistic Brain RSS. Statistic Brain, 1 Feb. 2014. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.

"Bottled Water." How Much Does Cost? International Bottle Water Association, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.

"BrainFacts.org." Taste and Smell -. Society for Neuroscience, 2015. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.

"Coliform Bacteria in Drinking Water Supplies." Coliform Bacteria in Drinking Water Supplies. New York State Department of Health, June 2011. Web. 16 Nov. 2014.

Dell'Amore, Solvie Karlstrom and Christine. "Why Tap Water Is Better Than Bottled Water." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 10 Mar. 2010. Web. 17 Feb. 2015.

Fishman, Charles. "U.S. Bottled Water Sales Are Booming (Again) Despite Opposition." Voices: Insights into the World of Fresh Water. National Geographic, 17 May 2012. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.

Heller, Lorraine. "Food Temperature Affects Taste, Reveal Scientists." FoodNavigator.com. Food Navigator, 19 Dec. 2005. Web. 27 Feb. 2015

"How The Temperature Of A Drink Changes The Taste Of Food." Worldcrunch.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.

“How Much Does America Spend On Bottled Water?" Filters Fast Local Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015

Low Cost Water Monitoring Kit Manual. Charlestown: LaMotte, n.d. Print.

"Measure Phosphates in Water -0 to 10 Ppm." Measure Phosphates in Water. Galvanic Applied Sciences, 2000. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.

Pastore, Richard. "Colloidal Matter." Lessons on Chemical Reactions, Properties, Characteristics, Types, and Composition of Matter. Learning Chemistry Easily, 24 Apr. 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.

References (cont.) Perlman, Howard. "Phosphorus and Water." Phosphorus and Water: The USGS Water Science School. U.S. Department of

the Interior, 17 Mar. 2014. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.

Pfaffmann, Carl. "Factors Affecting Taste Sensitivity." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.

"Private Water Wells." Drinking Water Management. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2015. Web. 2 Mar. 2015.

"Q&A: Nitrate in Drinking Water." Nitrate in Drinking Water. Washington State Dept. of Health, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.

Rogers, Chris D. "Health Effects of PH on Drinking Water." Livstrong.com. Livestrong, 16 Aug. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.

"Turbidity." Water Treatment Solutions. Lenntech, 2014. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.

"Water Properties: Dissolved Oxygen." Dissolved Oxygen, from USGS Water Science for Schools: All about Water. USGS, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.

Whelton, Andrew. Temperature Effects on Drinking Water Odor Perception. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2001.

"Why Don't Other Countries Use Ice Cubes?" Smithsonian. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.

Zeilig, Nancy. When Water Utility Customers Complain about Their Drinking Water, the Problem Is Usually Aesthetic Rather than Health-related (n.d.): n. pag. Advancing the Science of Water: WRF and Research on. Water Research Foundation, 2014. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.

Institutional Review Board Paperwork

Human Participants & Survey Approval

Risk Assessment & Informed Consent

Completed & signed by all 45 participants