1. Ca 2+ in your water Naomi Bryner David Millard

2. Why experiment?  Does bottled water have an advantage to tap water?  Is the water company keeping up to their standards?  Has pollution ruined the ecosystem of our local waterways?  What are you putting into your body?

3. Method  Prepared EDTA solution to titrate with (re- standardized daily), prepared CaCO 3 solution to standardize with.  Ammonia buffer was treated to pH 10 daily.  Water samples (10) had pH and temperature recorded on day of testing.  Spike added to show titration method was valid.

4. Data Day 2  EDTA Concentration 1.017*10-3M  Water Fountain  [Ca 2+ ]: 8.069*10 -4 M, Hardness: 32.34ppm  Brockie (untreated)  [Ca 2+ ]: 8.402*10 -4 M, Hardness: 33.67ppm

5. Data (Continued) Day 3  EDTA Concentration 1.055*10 -7 M  Acadia bottled water  [Ca 2+ ]: 2.181*10 -8 M, Hardness: 8.739*10 -4 ppm  Aquafina bottled water  [Ca 2+ ]: 1.674*10 -9 M, Hardness: 6.709*10 -5 ppm

6. Data (Continued) Day 4  EDTA Concentration: 1.182*10 -6 M  Fiji bottled water  [Ca 2+ ]: 1.254*10 -6 M, Hardness: 5.276*10 -2 ppm  Dasani bottled water  [Ca 2+ ]:1.620*10 -7 M, Hardness: 6.493*10 -3 ppm

7. Data (continued) Day 4 (continued)  Tyler Run Creek  [Ca 2+ ]: 1.767*10 -6 M, Hardness: 7.080*10 -2 ppm  Brockie (treated)  [Ca 2+ ]: 3.854*10 -7 M, Hardness: 1.544*10 -2 ppm

8. Data (Continued) Day 5  EDTA Concentration: 1.359*10 -3 M  Well water (treated)  [Ca 2+ ]: 1.324*10 -3 M, Hardness: 53.07 ppm  Well water (untreated)  [Ca 2+ ]:1.495*10 -3 M, Hardness: 59.92 ppm

12. SampleSourceExperimental mean Reported value t calc significance95% CIRelationship to reported value 1 Well water untreated 59.92145.774.539ns[60.332, 59.511] Lower 2 Well water treated 53.0726.12125.0485ns[52.880, 52.264] Lower 3 Brockie Commons water untreated 33.67220.37.188ns[37.674, 29.669] Lower 4 Brockie Commons water treated 0.01540.690211.0433ns[0.147, -0.116] Higher 5 Tyler Run water 0.07080.020.226*[0.555, -0.414] Within 6 Dasani bottled water 0.0064900.0371*[0.384, -0.371] Within 7 Figi bottled water 0.05031855.202ns[0.750, -0.649] Higher 8 Aquafina bottled water 0.00006900.000355*[0.419, -0.419] Within 9 Campbell Hall fountain water 32.34020.362.685ns[32.753, 31.926] Lower 10 Acadia bottled water 0.00089920.381.582ns[0.536, -0.534] Higher

13. Discussion  Tyler Run, Dasani, and Aquafina had significantly different concentrations.  Difficulties finding known, reliable values.  Values were inferred, calculated, or previously reported.  Trace amounts were harder to detect and report.  A spike of 24ppm Ca 2+ was added to verify method.

14. Discussion (continued)  Endpoint of titration, sometimes questionable.  Instrumentation could have helped proven data.  Possible contamination.

15. Summary  Majority of reported values were close to stated values.  Difficulties gathering information on water samples.  Bottled water did have less Ca 2+.  Treatments for well water and Brockie water did lower Ca 2+ concentration.  Thanks to Dr. Foresman for supplying well water.

16. References  Fiji  www.fijiwater.com/media/newsroom/C A_Water_Quality_Report_June11.pdf  York Water Company  www.york water.com/  Well water  pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1045/pdf/ofr2012- 1045_Reddy_508.pdf

17. References (continued)  Acadia  www.ewg.org/reports/BottledWater/Bot tled-Water-Quality-Investigation  Susquehanna River  pa.water.usgs.gov/reports/ofr97-583.pdf  Pepsi and Coke  Customer service was called.