Solana Narum Section 1

Drinkability of Water from Arb Pond 1

Introduction

The drinkability of Arboretum Pond 1 was determined by testing abiotic and biotic variables. If

the water source is polluted, everything in the ecosystem that directly or indirectly interacts

with that water source will be affected. Both abiotic and biotic factors are tested as they give

different data for that water source. Abiotic factors can determine the level of contamination in

a water source. Edwin Chadwick first realized that water sources were being polluted by

sewage and his efforts vastly helped the health of England (Water Fit to Drink 1970). Biotic

factors tell researchers what kind of life is present in the water source. The diversity of primary

producers can show the quality of the water (Oswald 2019). A large presence of coliform

bacteria can indicate that there are other toxic bacteria in the water. The purpose of this study

was to determine Arboretum Pond 1’s suitability for human consumption.

Methods

The water was collected from the west side of Arboretum Pond 1 when a foot of snow was

covering the land and the pond, but the pond was not completely frozen. The water was from

the surface near the edge of the pond. Due to the snow there were no observations about the

presence of life around the water source.

The HACH M-coliBlue24 test is done to determine the presence of coliform bacteria and E. coli

in the water. A filter apparatus is set up using the lid, cup, and base that HACH provided. These

are placed on top of a filter flask and connected to a vacuum. A positive control is made by
using sterilized by flame forceps to place a thick pad in a petri dish, which is then covered with

2 mL media. The filter paper is placed grid side up between the base and the cup pieces. The

base and cup are placed on top of the filter flask. The cup is filled with sterile water to the 50

mL mark. 0.5 ml of diluted positive control is added to the cup and the vacuum is turned on

until all of the water pulls into the filter flask. Place the filter paper onto the media pad in the

petri dish. This procedure is repeated instead using the negative control bacteria sample into a

new petri dish. It is repeated again with 50 mL of pond water and no added bacteria into a new

set up petri dish. The petri dishes were incubated for 48 hours at 37 degrees Celsius.

The Earth Force Water Monitoring kit was another method used to identify the presence of

coliform bacteria. The same kit was used to rate the turbidity, pH, dissolved oxygen, nitrate

levels and phosphate levels.

We used positive and negative controls in the HACH M-coliBlue24 to account for other variables

such as contamination, incubation time, refrigeration time, and vacuum strength.

To determine the biodiversity of the sample, 0.2 mL of pond water was used to make a wet

mount slide. This slide was then studied under a compound microscope to identify and count

the organisms found in the slide. The species richness is just the number of species that were

found. The relative abundance was determined by comparing the amount of individuals in one

species to another species. The biomass was calculated by adding all of the individuals from the

0.2 ml wet mount slide and multiplying that by 5 so that the total organisms per 1 mL were

found.

Once the values for the abiotic results were found, there was a score card that rated how good

or bad that value was. The number of red, blue, and white colonies in the petri dishes from the
HACH M-ColiBlue24 assay was counted to find the amount of E. coli and coliform. Once multiple

people had found organisms in the pond water under the microscope, they compared results to

determine if anyone had missed any species. The results from all of the tests were compared

with tests done on different pond water to determine the drinkability of different water

sources.

Results

The turbidity test’s result was 60 JPU, which is given a score of 2, fair. There was a large amount

of variety in the scores of turbidity from different ponds (Figure 1). The phosphate test’s result

was 4 ppm , which gave a score of 2, fair. This was the same for each pond (Figure 1). The

dissolved oxygen test’s result was 48%, which gave a score of 2, fair. One other pond had a

score of 2, but the other four ponds had scores of 1 (Figure 1). The nitrate test’s result was 0

ppm, which gave a score of 3, good. Every other pond tested had a nitrate score of 2(Figure 1).

The pH test’s result was 8, which gave a score of 3, good. Most of the other ponds had a pH

score of 3 (Figure 1). The Earth Force Water Monitoring kit coliform results were positive, which

gave a score of 1, poor. Every pond had a positive result (Figure 1). The HACH M-ColiBlue24

assay found 1000 red colonies, which are E. coli, and 1500 blue colonies, which are other

coliform bacteria. This calculates to 30 E. coli per mL and 50 coliform per mL of pond water.

Every other pond had much less E. coli per mL, but for coliform, there were ponds with higher

and lower values (Figure 1). The low levels of both E. coli and coliform placed Lower Paradise

Creek in a higher drinkability rating than Arboretum Pond 2 (Figure 2). There were seven

species found and an unbalanced abundance of different species. Arboretum Pond 1 was within

the range of the other pond’s species richness and all the ponds had unbalanced abundance
 (Figure 1). The low species richness in Hordeman’s Pond placed it at a lower drinkability rating

than Arboretum Pond 1 (Figure 2). There was calculated to be 320 organisms per mL of pond

water, which is within range for the other ponds tested (Figure 1).

Biotic and Abiotic Factors

Source pH score nitrate score phosphate score turbidity score DO score coliform score # E. coli/mL # coliform/mL richness abundance biomass
Arboretum Pond 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 30 50 7U 320
Arboretum Pond 2 4 2 2 3 1 1 0.88 256 6U 170
Hordeman's Pond 3 2 2 3 1 1 0.04 16 4U 320
Upper Paradise Creek 3 2 2 1 2 1 0.4 26.4 6U 73
Lower Paradise Creek 3 2 2 1 1 1 0.18 1.92 8U 300
Clarkston Pond 3 2 2 4 1 1 1.66 51.34 8U 2570

Figure 1. This table shows the comparison of abiotic and biotic factors between different water

sources around the Moscow area. A score of 1 means poor; 2, fair; 3, good; and 4, excellent.

These factors’ scores caused the rating shown in Figure 2.

Drinkability Ratings

Drinkability Rating Sample Name Suspected Water Quality Level

1 Upper Paradise Creek pristine
2 Clarkston Pond organic
3 Lower Paradise Creek organic
4 Arboretum Pond 1 organic
5 Hordeman's Pond inorganic
6 Arboretum Pond 2 organic

Figure 2. This table shows the ranking of local water sources. The suspected water quality level

is judged off of the abiotic and biotic factors shown in Figure 1.

Discussion

The HACH M-coliBlue24 test generated better data than the EFWM kit test because it specified

the E. coli bacteria and provided a quantitative value for the amount of coliform and E. coli. The

EFWM kit test only gave a positive result for coliform. The HACH test allowed calculations for

the total amount of toxic bacteria in the sample.

The abiotic and biotic tests agreed that Arboretum Pond 2 water is not the most ideal source of

water or the worst (Figure 2). The species richness, unbalanced abundance and biomass all

indicate that the water source is enriched with organic runoff. The presence of high nitrate

levels and high coliform levels agrees that there is organic runoff perhaps from fertilizer or

manure. The fair score was common among each of the abiotic tests showing that there is not

an excessive amount of any contaminant and that the water is not too dirty.

Arboretum Pond 2 ranked 4th on the drinkability comparison of the six water sources. Many

water sources had high nitrate and phosphate levels. This can point to levels of contamination.

For instance, a study found that an increased use of fertilizer lead to an increase of nitrate in

groundwater (Hollis 1979). Other sources that had lower coliform levels were placed higher on

the list unless it also had low species biomass and richness, which indicates an inorganic

enrichment.

The only issues that we faced was not being able to access a deeper part of the pond due to

weather, which may impact species richness, biomass and the coliform results.

Literature Cited

Hollis, G.E. 1979. Environmental Management of Agricultural Watersheds. Area. 11(4): 288.

Oswald, Mary. 2019. Bio 144: Pond Life Packet. 1-3.

1970. Water Fit To Drink. The British Medical Journal. 3(5725): 719-720.