4.Discussion

Discussion


4.1 Analysis of results
After testing all of the samples taken from Ulu Pandan Canal, we found out that the water at the end of the canal,nearest to where sample 6 is collected, has the highest clarity while the water sample 4 collected has the lowest clarity of water. The difference in clarity between sample 4 and 6 is 99.15% - 41.93% = 57.22% (refer to figure 1). We can see that as the clarity of water samples vary at different parts of the canal.


4.2 Key findings


As the reference point is based on water from the watercooler taken from the watercooler outside the lab, it was expected to have 100% clarity. However, after testing the water samples taken from Ulu Pandan Canal, we found out that the water sample taken at the end of the water canal (sample 6) was slightly clearer than the watercooler’s water (99.15% - 99% = 0.15%). This proves that the water sample collected at the end of the canal was cleaner than the one at the water cooler. Despite the water sample 6 being clearer than the water from the watercooler, the water collected at the end of the canal may not be safe for drinking due to possible presence of microbes that can cause water poisoning.


4.3 Explanation of key findings


At the Ulu Pandan canal, where sample 6 was collected it was observed that there were rocks in the canal of different sizes and shapes. Plants were also observed growing at the sides of the canal where the water was collected. We consulted our science teacher and researched online how the rocks might have been a natural filtration system for the canal after testing the six water samples taken at Ulu Pandan canal and reviewing the results . With the data collected and analysed, it is seen that the analysis and the information from our teacher and online sources are in agreement that rocks are indeed a part of the natural filtration system for Ulu Pandan canal, such that that the clarity of water is on par with watercooler’s water. Therefore, we can conclude that the rocks at the canal are important. Hence, we recommend more rocks to be strewn all over the canal if the canal’s objective is to channel water caught to the main reservoirs. To explain why the clarities of sample 4 and 5 are much lower than the others is that there is a possible that along the way is that there are drainage outlets for sample 4 and 5 which could affect the clarity of water which caused the low clarity of water.

4.4 Evaluation of Hypothesis

Based on our results, we can confirm that our hypothesis that the water collected at the end of the canal would have the highest intensity of light passing through is correct.

4.5 Areas for improvement

Limitations
Areas for improvement
Phone camera might not have the same exposure every time we take the picture of the result.
Use a proper film camera
The spectrophotometer might have not defracted the light properly and some light might have went into the surroundings.
Use a proper spectrophotometer from the chemistry lab or the bio lab
The box might not have shut off the surrounding light and some light might have got into the box and affected the experimentation.
Use a proper dark room

No comments:

Post a Comment