4. Discussion

Analysis of Data:
When collecting the results, we observed the different environments and conditions for each of the collection points. Point 1 to Point 3 had no fish in the canal, while the areas from Point 4 onwards all had fishes and complex life. One thing to note for Point 1 is that there was a mosquito larvae in the collection sample. Collection Point 2’s collection point came from the landed property. We had to go another day for Collection Point 2 as the data was wiped out for it on our first day. When we went to Collection Point 2 the first day, everything was normal. However, on the second day, the water was foamy. Another point to note is Point 5. It was only a little after Point 4. Water here also came straight from the condominium. There were minimal life forms. Point 6 was from another waterway. We observed that there were a lot of fish here. Point 7 and Point 8 had the most life out of all the points. Point 7 was straight after the Y-junction of the two combining waterways. We observed larger and more diverse fishes, and some turtles. Also, there were egrets roaming around this area. At Point 9, there were also a minimal amount of organisms.

Key Findings:

After analysing the data, we can determine that the land use may affects the water quality, even though there were some points with the same land use had different readings. The water quality also has to do with what is being done at that time, such as in Point 2, where there was a car being washed, causing the data to change drastically. We had originally thought that places such as Point 9 would have a different reading as compared to the other points as we assumed that there would be waste material and pollutants being dumped there, but the readings show otherwise. The fact that it had rained very little during the period of time in which we collected our samples might be the reasons why our data was not consistent.

Explanation:
From the data collected, it is observed that temperature did not affect the amount of dissolved oxygen in the sample. In Sample 2, the water collected was noted to be soapy and cloudy. The dissolved oxygen readings were rather high and the turbidity also was higher that the other samples. The land use for that area was for landed property. As we were walking past the houses, we saw quite a number of people washing their cars and that the soapy water went down the drain into the canal. As there was no rain for quite some time, the readings at Collection Point 2 were not natural as the inflow of water, soap and other particles from the cars and floors were washed down into the canal, messing up the readings, therefore the irregularity for the data there.From the data collected, it is observed that temperature did not affect the amount of dissolved oxygen in the sample. In Sample 2, the water collected was noted to be soapy and cloudy. The dissolved oxygen readings were rather high and the turbidity also was higher that the other samples. The land use for that area was for landed property. As we were walking past the houses, we saw quite a number of people washing their cars and that the soapy water went down the drain into the canal. As there was no rain for quite some time, the readings at Collection Point 2 were not natural as the inflow of water, soap and other particles from the cars and floors were washed down into the canal, messing up the readings, therefore the irregularity for the data there.When collecting the results, we observed the different environments and conditions for each of the collection points. Point 1 to Point 3 had no fish in the canal, while the areas from Point 4 onwards all had fishes and complex life. Point 1 to 3 also had a high turbidity reading, which might be why there was no fishes. One thing to note for Point 1 is that there was a mosquito larvae in the collection sample. Collection Point 2’s collection point came from the landed property. We had to go another day for Collection Point 2 as the data was wiped out for it on our first day. When we went to it the first day, everything was normal. However, on the second day, the water was foamy. Another point to note is Point 5. It was only a little after Point 4. This also came straight from the condominium. There was a minimal fish population here. Point 6 was from another waterway. We observed that there were a lot of fish here. Point 7 and Point 8 had the most life out of all the points. Point 7 was straight after the Y-junction of the two combining waterways. We observed larger and more diverse fishes, and some turtles. Also, there were egrets roaming around this area. At Point 9, there were also a minimal amount of organisms.

Evaluation of Hypothesis:

Our hypothesis was not so accurate as the factory area in fact was not the most polluted part of the canal, in fact, the most polluted area of the canal was collection point 2, the area near the landed property. The least polluted are was the area near the condominiums, otherwise known as Collection Point 6. From points 4-9, there were many fishes, however, the water still was not as polluted as point 2, thus proving that water with direct usage may not be as polluted as water with direct usage.

Areas for Improvement:If we were to collect more data on different factors then our data, results and conclusion will be better. Also if we can recollect the data when there is not irregularity in the weather, the data will be much more accurate. If we could collect all the samples in one day, it would be better as the results would be more reliable.







No comments:

Post a Comment