Total Coliform Rule (Old)vs. Revised Total Coliform Rule (New)
Water Quality and Coliform Analysis of the Susquehanna River, Cabin Creek, and 3 Surrounding Wells...
1
Water Quality and Coliform Analysis of the Susquehanna River, Cabin Creek, and 3 Surrounding Wells Melissa Hall and Dr. Carolyn Mathur Department of Biological Sciences, York College of Pennsylvania Introduction • The Susquehanna River is broken down into 6 sub basins- the lower sub basin is the most developed including some of the most productive agricultural lands and largest population centers (Edwards 1998) • Most commonly reported problems in wells surrounding the Susquehanna River included hardness and bacterial content (Edwards 1998) • Agricultural activities including fertilizing and livestock production are the reason behind nitrate contamination (Ayebo 2006) • Coliforms in streams are primarily due to high agricultural use of the land and heavy uses of fertilizer especially in rural areas (Ayebo 2006) • Hardness is caused from the breakdown and dissolved minerals like calcium and magnesium (Swistock 2009) Objectives •To compare the basic water quality differences and similarities between the Susquehanna River, Cabin Creek, and 3 surrounding wells. •To determine if there is any influence of contaminants from the river and creek to the nearby wells. •To compare the coliform content in all 5 sample locations and differences in a 5 week interval during the summer months. •To compare the differences in water quality and coliform contents in varying depths in wells (50 and 150 ft depths). 5 sample locations X3 over 5 week intervals Chemical Analysis (Lead, Pesticides, Chlorine, pH, Hardness, Nitrate, and Nitrite) Bacteria Analysis Most Probable Number (MPN) positi ve Watersafe® bacteria test Incubate 48 hrs positiv e Eosin Methylene Blue Agar (EMB) plates Methods Contaminants Water Test Desired Values Bacteria None Lead Below 15 ppb Pesticides (atrazine/simazine) Below 3 ppb/4ppb Total Nitrate/Nitrite Below 10.0 ppm Nitrite Below 1.0 ppm Total Chlorine Below 4 ppm pH 6.5 to 8.5 Total Hardness 50 ppm or less Table 1. Maximum levels of contaminants that can be found in water in order to be considered safe to drink. Chemical contaminants found in all 3 well water samples that were over the maximum safe level on all the dates sampled and temperatures at each location. Conclusions 1. The nitrate levels in all 3 wells were considerably higher than the safe levels (below 10ppm), reaching levels up to 50ppm, which could be potentially dangerous for people and may be caused by the area being surrounded by high levels of agricultural use of the land and fertilizers in surrounding gardens while the nitrate levels in the river and creek were well below the safe levels. 2. Water hardness in all sample locations was also considerably higher than the listed safe levels of 50ppm which can cause problems in everyday life with regular household tasks. 3. The coliforms found were in the river and creek on all three sampling dates and only once in the shallow well closest to the river (well 3), which may have been caused by the heavy rainfall in the previous days to the sampling date (July). 4. The overall coliform content found in the river and creek did not differ significantly showing the environment factors such as runoff have the same effects on both locations but have no effect on the wells. 5. Overall contaminants found were higher in the wells than in the river and creek not supporting my hypothesis that the contaminants will be higher in the river and creek. Figure 4. Comparison of the hardness levels in ppm over the 15 week period. Using a One-way ANOVA the p value= 0.0245 showing a significant difference. A Tukey’s Multiple Comparison Test further showed the significant difference was between the river vs. well 1 and the creek vs. well 1. Figure 3. Comparison of the nitrate levels in ppm over the 15 week period and compared with a One-way ANOVA resulting with a p value= 0.3062 showing no significant difference between the wells. Cabin Creek Susquehanna River www.longlevelmarina .com Figure 1. Cabin Creek location running into the Susquehanna River where the samples were collected. Figure 6. Field behind the houses where the well water samples were collected. Literature Cited Ayebo, Amadu, D. Plowman, S. States. Nitrate, Coliforims, and Cryptosporidium spp. As Indicators of Stream Water Quality in Western Pennsylvania. Journal of Environmental Health. 69: 16-21. October 2006. Edwards, Robert E. The 1998 Susquehanna River Basin Water Quality Assessment305(b) Report. November 1998. http://www.srbc.net/pubinfo/techdoc/ Publications_1998/305bReport_201.pdf. Swistock, Bryan R., Stephanie Clemens, and William E. Sharpe. Drinking Water Quality in Rural Pennsylvania and the Effect of Management Practices. School of Forest Resources and Institute of Energy and the Environment, Pennsylvania State University. January 2009. Available from: http://www.rural.palegislature.us/ drinking_water_quality.pdf. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr. Mathur for all of her time, assistance, and guidance throughout the entire project! Cabin Creek Susquehanna River Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Figure 2. Locations of test sites are starred and wells samples are characterized as: Well 1: Shallow (50 ft deep) ~250 from River, Well 2: Deep (150 ft deep) ~ 200 ft from river, and Well 3: Shallow (50 ft deep) ~ 50 ft from river Contaminants Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Dates 6/2 1 7/2 9 9/ 4 6/2 1 7/2 9 9/ 4 6/2 1 7/2 9 9/4 Pesticides + - - + + - - - - Nitrate (ppm) 5.0 5.0 0. 5 20 20 5 10 10 50 pH 8.0 7.5 7. 5 8.0 8.0 7. 5 8.5 8.5 7.0 Hardness (ppm) 250 250 25 0 250 250 12 0 250 250 120 Temperature (°C) 22 22 18 22 22 18 20 22 24 http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl Coliform Content (MPN Index per 100ml) on all Sampling Days Date 6/21/10 7/29/10 9/04/10 River 23 11 540 Creek 280 130 540 Well 3 -- 5 -- Figure 5. The overall comparison of coliforms found in the river and creek from all 3 sample dates. Sample locations compared using a non parametric t-test resulting in a p value of 0.5854 showing no significant difference between the two sample locations. Table 2. All locations that coliforms were found in on the 3 sampling dates. Results Results (continued)
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of Water Quality and Coliform Analysis of the Susquehanna River, Cabin Creek, and 3 Surrounding Wells...
Water Quality and Coliform Analysis of the Susquehanna River, Cabin Creek, and 3 Surrounding WellsMelissa Hall and Dr. Carolyn Mathur
Department of Biological Sciences, York College of Pennsylvania
Introduction•The Susquehanna River is broken down into 6 sub basins- the lower sub basin is the most developed including some of the most productive agricultural lands and largest population centers (Edwards 1998)
•Most commonly reported problems in wells surrounding the Susquehanna River included hardness and bacterial content (Edwards 1998)
•Agricultural activities including fertilizing and livestock production are the reason behind nitrate contamination (Ayebo 2006)
•Coliforms in streams are primarily due to high agricultural use of the land and heavy uses of fertilizer especially in rural areas (Ayebo 2006)
•Hardness is caused from the breakdown and dissolved minerals like calcium and magnesium (Swistock 2009)Objectives
•To compare the basic water quality differences and similarities between the Susquehanna River, Cabin Creek, and 3 surrounding wells.
•To determine if there is any influence of contaminants from the river and creek to the nearby wells.
•To compare the coliform content in all 5 sample locations and differences in a 5 week interval during the summer months.
•To compare the differences in water quality and coliform contents in varying depths in wells (50 and 150 ft depths).
5 sample locations
X3 over 5 week intervals
Chemical Analysis(Lead,
Pesticides, Chlorine, pH,
Hardness, Nitrate, and
Nitrite)
Bacteria Analysis
Most Probable Number (MPN)
positive
Watersafe® bacteria
test
Incubate 48 hrs
positive
Eosin Methylene Blue Agar (EMB) plates
Methods
Contaminants Water Test Desired Values
Bacteria NoneLead Below 15 ppbPesticides (atrazine/simazine)
Below 3 ppb/4ppb
Total Nitrate/Nitrite Below 10.0 ppmNitrite Below 1.0 ppmTotal Chlorine Below 4 ppmpH 6.5 to 8.5Total Hardness 50 ppm or lessTable 1. Maximum levels of contaminants that can be found in water in order to be considered safe to drink.
Table 3. Chemical contaminants found in all 3 well water samples that were over the maximum safe level on all the dates sampled and temperatures at each location.
Conclusions
1. The nitrate levels in all 3 wells were considerably higher than the safe levels (below 10ppm), reaching levels up to 50ppm, which could be potentially dangerous for people and may be caused by the area being surrounded by high levels of agricultural use of the land and fertilizers in surrounding gardens while the nitrate levels in the river and creek were well below the safe levels.
2. Water hardness in all sample locations was also considerably higher than the listed safe levels of 50ppm which can cause problems in everyday life with regular household tasks.
3. The coliforms found were in the river and creek on all three sampling dates and only once in the shallow well closest to the river (well 3), which may have been caused by the heavy rainfall in the previous days to the sampling date (July).
4. The overall coliform content found in the river and creek did not differ significantly showing the environment factors such as runoff have the same effects on both locations but have no effect on the wells.
5. Overall contaminants found were higher in the wells than in the river and creek not supporting my hypothesis that the contaminants will be higher in the river and creek.
Figure 4. Comparison of the hardness levels in ppm over the 15 week period. Using a One-way ANOVA the p value= 0.0245 showing a significant difference. A Tukey’s Multiple Comparison Test further showed the significant difference was between the river vs. well 1 and the creek vs. well 1.
Figure 3. Comparison of the nitrate levels in ppm over the 15 week period and compared with a One-way ANOVA resulting with a p value= 0.3062 showing no significant difference between the wells.
Cabin Creek
Susquehanna River
www.longlevelmarina.com
Figure 1. Cabin Creek location running into the Susquehanna River where the samples were collected.
Figure 6. Field behind the houses where the well water samples were collected.
Literature Cited
Ayebo, Amadu, D. Plowman, S. States. Nitrate, Coliforims, and Cryptosporidium spp. As Indicators of Stream Water Quality in Western Pennsylvania. Journal of Environmental Health. 69: 16-21. October 2006.
Edwards, Robert E. The 1998 Susquehanna River Basin Water Quality Assessment305(b) Report. November 1998. http://www.srbc.net/pubinfo/techdoc/Publications_1998/305bReport_201.pdf. Swistock, Bryan R., Stephanie Clemens, and William E. Sharpe. Drinking Water Quality in Rural Pennsylvania and the Effect of Management Practices. School of Forest Resources and Institute of Energy and the Environment, Pennsylvania State University. January 2009. Available from: http://www.rural.palegislature.us/drinking_water_quality.pdf. AcknowledgmentsI would like to thank Dr. Mathur for all of her time, assistance, and guidance throughout the entire project!
Cabin Creek
Susquehanna River
Well 1
Well 2
Well 3
Figure 2. Locations of test sites are starred and wells samples are characterized as: Well 1: Shallow (50 ft deep) ~250 from River, Well 2: Deep (150 ft deep) ~ 200 ft from river, and Well 3: Shallow (50 ft deep) ~ 50 ft from river
Contaminants
Well 1 Well 2 Well 3
Dates 6/21
7/29
9/4 6/21
7/29
9/4 6/21
7/29
9/4
Pesticides + - - + + - - - -Nitrate (ppm) 5.0 5.0 0.5 20 20 5 10 10 50pH 8.0 7.5 7.5 8.0 8.0 7.5 8.5 8.5 7.0Hardness (ppm)
250
250 250
250
250 120
250 250 120
Temperature (°C)
22 22 18 22 22 18 20 22 24
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl
Coliform Content (MPN Index per 100ml) on all Sampling Days
Date6/21/107/29/109/04/10
River2311
540
Creek280130540
Well 3--5--
Figure 5. The overall comparison of coliforms found in the river and creek from all 3 sample dates. Sample locations compared using a non parametric t-test resulting in a p value of 0.5854 showing no significant difference between the two sample locations.
Table 2. All locations that coliforms were found in on the 3 sampling dates.
Results
Results (continued)
