Lab Report Template 06.13.2023

doc

School

Ashford University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

207

Subject

Geology

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

doc

Pages

Uploaded by ChancellorExploration4236

1 Ground and Surface Water Interactions Laboratory Ricardo Cortez SCI 207: Our Dependence Upon the Environment Professor: Dr. Kuchanur June 13, 2023

2 Ground and Surface Water Interactions Laboratory Introduction The interaction between groundwater and surface water and the issue of water pollution are paramount in environmental science. With above-average rainfall patterns occurring in certain regions, there is a growing recognition of the need to study water surplus and it is cycling processes. Contamination of groundwater and surface water sources has been observed, mainly due to activities such as oil spills and agricultural practices, leading to the pollution of streams and lakes. A nationwide study conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) found that nutrients, particularly nitrate, were detected in base flow in approximately two-thirds of the studied streams, with groundwater discharge identified as the source of these pollutants (U.S. Geological Survey, 2018). Human activities related to water sources have significant implications for the water cycle. Factors such as land use practices, changes in water quality, and excessive water consumption directly affect the interactions between groundwater and surface water. Understanding the current effects of these interactions is crucial for gaining insight into future scenarios. Hypotheses: Lab Activity 1: I hypothesized that the water level would rise in the wells. This is based on the expectation that the water poured into the wells, simulating rain, would slowly penetrate through the layers, increasing the water level.

3 Lab Activity 2: Despite a barrier, I hypothesized that the pollution would seep into the wells. I anticipated that some level of contamination would escape, as barriers may not be effective in preventing pollutants' movement. Lab Activity 3: For this activity, I hypothesized that the fertilizer would not affect the water. I expected that the water from both uphill and downhill wells would remain unaffected by impermeable and permeable barriers, assuming that the barriers would effectively prevent the fertilizers from contaminating the water. Observations Lab Activity 1 The water in the wells did not reach the level that I was expecting, and I observed the same reaction in both wells. Lab Activity 2 The polluted water did not reach the wells at all, Lab Activity 3 upon observation, there were no signs of fertilizer in either well.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 Graphs and Photographs Lab Activity 1

5 Activity 2:

6 Activity 3:

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7 Analysis For Lab Activity 1, I hypothesized that the water level would rise in the wells. This is based on the expectation that the water poured into the wells, simulating rain, would slowly penetrate through the layers, resulting in an increase in the water level. The water in the wells did not reach the level that I was expecting, and I observed the same reaction in both wells.

8 Based on the results of Lab Activity 1, I must reject my hypothesis. The observed water level in the wells did not align with my prediction of a rise in water level. Instead, the water level remained lower than anticipated. This suggests that the water poured into the wells did not penetrate the layers as expected or that there might have been some other factors influencing the water movement within the well. It is possible that the soil layers or other factors impeded the water movement, leading to a lower water level in the wells. Therefore, based on the observed results, I reject my hypothesis that the water level would rise in the wells. The evidence provided by the experiment does not support the expected outcome. For Lab Activity 2, I hypothesized that the pollution would seep into the wells despite a barrier. I anticipated that some level of contamination would escape, as barriers may not be effective in preventing pollutants' movement. The polluted water did not reach the wells at all, Based on the results of Lab Activity 2, I must reject my hypothesis. The experimental observations demonstrated that the pollution did not seep into the wells despite a barrier. Contrary to my initial expectations, the barrier effectively prevented the movement of pollutants and safeguarded the wells from contamination. The evidence from the lab observations supports the rejection of the hypothesis. The absence of polluted water in the wells suggests that the barrier successfully impeded contaminants' infiltration. While my hypothesis presumed that some level of contamination would escape, the actual outcomes of the experiment do not support this notion. The experimental data provide a clear indication that the barrier functioned as intended, ensuring the integrity of the wells and

9 underscoring the significance of employing practical barriers in real-world scenarios to prevent the pollution of groundwater resources. Lastly, for activity 3, I hypothesized that the fertilizer would not affect the water. I expected that the water from both uphill and downhill wells would remain unaffected by impermeable and permeable barriers, assuming that the barriers would effectively prevent the fertilizers from contaminating the water. Upon observation, there were no signs of fertilizer in either well. The results align with my hypothesis, as no evidence of fertilizer contamination was observed in either well. Based on the evidence from the lab observations, I accept my hypothesis. The absence of fertilizer in both wells indicates that the impermeable and permeable barriers effectively prevented water contamination by the fertilizer. These results support the notion that proper barrier systems can help safeguard groundwater and surface water from the impacts of fertilizers. Discussion The results of this lab provide insights into the interactions between groundwater and surface water, which have implications in both scientific literature and real-world applications. The findings align with existing knowledge that water movement through different soil layers can be complex and influenced by various factors. This understanding is crucial for addressing water resource management and potential contamination risks. According to a study by Lerner and Harris (2009), water movement through soil layers is influenced by factors such as soil properties, including permeability and porosity, and geological

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

10 features like fractures or faults. This corroborates the observations in Lab Activity 1, where the water level did not rise as expected in the wells. The challenge of water penetration through the soil layers could be attributed to the specific characteristics of the soil used in the experiment or other factors impeding water movement. Regarding Lab Activity 2, the results demonstrate the effectiveness of barriers in preventing pollution from seeping into wells. This aligns with the importance of implementing protective measures to safeguard groundwater quality. The significance of barriers, such as impermeable liners, in mitigating groundwater contamination by pollutants. The successful prevention of pollution observed in this lab activity underscores the importance of employing proper barriers in real-world scenarios to protect water resources from harmful substances. Challenges and possible mistakes during the lab could have impacted the accuracy of the results. For example, inconsistencies in the soil layers' properties or variations in pouring techniques when simulating rainfall could affect the water penetration and subsequent observations. Factors like uneven surface levels or measurement errors might have influenced the recorded water levels. These challenges and mistakes highlight the importance of conducting experiments with careful attention to detail and controlling variables to enhance the accuracy and reliability of the results. References

11 U.S. Geological Survey. (2018). Nutrients in the Nation's Streams and Groundwater: National Findings and Implications. Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1350/pdf/circ1350.pdf D. N., & Harris, B. (2009). The relationship between land use and groundwater resources and quality. Science Direct. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837709001306