Running head: PROJECT 2: ANALYSIS OF FLORIDA WATER

Project 2: Analysis of Florida water

Anthony Beauchamp
University of South Florida
General Chem II Laboratory
CHM2046L.009U16
Dr. Anderson
July 23, 2016

PROJECT 2: ANALYSIS OF FLORIDA WATER

Project 2: Analysis of Florida water

Introduction: Every year tens of billions of bottles of water are purchased in the U.S.
alone, that averages out to 167 bottles per person per year (Statistic Brain, 2016). Why do
people choose to pay hundreds to thousands of times more for bottled water over tap? While
concerns about health and water safety are cited, water taste is particularly important in
peoples decision to not drink from the tap (Doria, 2006). The mineral content, water
hardness, of water plays a major role in how it tastes. Although municipal water sources in
the U.S. are routinely tested and highly regulated for safety, taste varies depending on the
region, water source, or season. High concentrations of calcium and magnesium dissolved in
the water is what is responsible for waters hardness. Besides taste, high mineral content in
the water also causes scaling, buildup, and corrosion of water pipes. The purpose for this lab
was to analyze Florida water samples to determine the quality of the drinking water by
measuring the concentration of calcium in the samples.
Methods:
Safety: Personal protective equipment was worn at all times, lab safety rules were
followed, caution was used when handling glassware, small amounts of chemicals were used
for safe handling, MSDS guidelines for all chemicals used in the lab were followed, and
upon the completion of the lab hands were thoroughly washed.
Materials: General laboratory glassware, : (1) 50 mL Burette, (1) 250 mL beaker, (1)
Volumetric Flask, (3) Erlenmeyer Flasks; (1) Conductometer; (1) pH meter; Known and
Unknown Calcium Solutions; De-ionized H2 O; 0.1 M EDTA; Electronic balance; Calmagite
Indicator; pH 10 buffer solution.

PROJECT 2: ANALYSIS OF FLORIDA WATER

Procedure: Using CaCl2 and 0.1M EDTA, titration, pH and conductivity tests were
performed. Using stoichiometric calculations, it was determined that 3.7224g of EDTA was
needed to prepare a 100 mL solution in a volumetric flask. Three 0.1198 g samples of CaCl2
were weighed and placed in separate Erlenmeyer flasks. 20 mL of DI H2 O, 2 mL of pH 10
buffer solution and 5 drops of Calmagite indicator were added to each flask. The final pH of
the solution was checked with pH strips. A pH of 10 was necessary to ensure proper titration
calculations. A 50 mL burette was filled with the EDTA solution used to titrate the CaCl2.
EDTA solution was slowly titrated into the CaCl2 solution until indicator revealed end point
was reached. The volume of EDTA was then recorded. Conductivity and pH for the CaCl2
solution was then performed. All tests were performed three times and recorded for each
trial.
Following the above procedure, the titration, pH, and conductivity tests were
performed for two samples containing unknown concentrations of calcium solutions. After
titration, pH and conductivity of each solution were tested and recorded three times,
calculations were performed to determine the quantity of calcium in the samples.
Results:
Table 1: Titration Test between EDTA and Known CaCl2 solutions
Trial

Initial
Volume (ml)

Final Volume
(ml)

Change (ml)

50.0

40.0

10.0

50.0

39.9

10.1

50.0

39.5

9.50

Concentration of CaCl2 solution

(mol/L)

1.01

PROJECT 2: ANALYSIS OF FLORIDA WATER

Table 2: Conductivity and pH test on Known CaCl2 solutions

Trial

Conductivity (mS)

pH

10.32

8.2

10.48

8.0

9.860

8.0

Table 3: Conductivity and pH test on de-ionized water

Trial

Conductivity (mS)

pH

14.75

7.0

29.50

7.0

28.20

7.0

Sample Calculations for Concentration of CaCl2 :

M1 V1 = M2 V2
Molarity of EDTA * Total Volume of EDTA = Molarity of CaCl2 *Average Volume of
CaCl2
(0.1M)*(100 ml) = (X)*(9.86)
(X) = 1.01 M
Table 4: Titration Test between EDTA and Unknown Calcium Solution 1
Trial

Initial Volume
(ml)

Final
Volume (ml)

Change (ml)

50.0

48.3

1.70

50.0

48.3

1.70

50.0

48.3

1.70

Concentration of CaCl2 solution

(mol/L)

5.88

PROJECT 2: ANALYSIS OF FLORIDA WATER

Table 5: Titration Test between EDTA and Unknown Calcium Solution 2

Trial

Initial Volume
(ml)

Final Volume
(ml)

Change
(ml)

50.0

46.6

3.40

46.6

42.4

4.20

42.4

38.8

3.60

Concentration of CaCl2 solution

(mol/L)

2.68

Table 6: Conductivity and pH test on Unknown Calcium Solution 1 & 2

Type of Solution

Trial

Conductivity (mS)

pH

Unknown
Calcium Solution
1

4.950

7.0

5.940

7.0

5.840

8.0

10.63

7.5

10.45

7.8

11.13

7.6

Unknown
Calcium Solution
2

Sample Calculations for Concentration of Unknown Calcium Solutions:

M1 V1 = M2 V2
Molarity of EDTA * Total Volume of EDTA = Molarity of Unknown Calcium Solution
*Average Volume of Unknown Calcium Solution
Unknown Calcium Solution 1:
(0.1M)*(100 ml) = (X)*(1.7)
(X) = 5.88 M
Unknown Calcium Solution 2:
(0.1M)*(100 ml) = (X)*(3.73)
(X) = 2.68 M

PROJECT 2: ANALYSIS OF FLORIDA WATER

Discussion: The titration of the EDTA solution in the CaCl2 solution revealed the
CaCl2 solution to be 1.01M. The average pH was 8 and conductivity tests averaged to 10.22
mS. The unknown calcium 1 sample was shown to have a concentration of 5.88M and the
unknown calcium 2 sample was 2.68M. The Tampa water departments threshold for water
hardness is between 80-280mg/L meaning that the unknown calcium sample is just about at
the top of the threshold for water hardness in Tampa, and that the unknown sample 1 is more
than twice the acceptable level for water hardness in Tampa. The pH of both unknown
samples fell within the threshold guidelines for the city of Tampas municipal water system.
A number of mechanical errors can be found through the lab. The digital scales are
noted to be inaccurate and inconsistent. In an attempt to reduce errors or improve accuracy,
the same digital scale was used for each measurement, multiple attempts were performed for
each item being measured, and the instrument was zeroed out before each attempt. The pH
meters were grossly inaccurate and could not be calibrated. Litmus paper was used instead to
measure pH. Human error may come into play when attempting to judge the pH value from
the litmus paper. Much care was taken during the titration process to minimize the chances of
overshooting the endpoint, however when using indicator to determine the endpoint, it is
rather subjective as to when the precise color is achieved compared to slightly overshooting
the endpoint.
Conclusion: The objective of this lab was to determine concentrations of calcium in
water samples from some of Floridas municipal water sources. Calcium and magnesium
mineral concentrations determine water hardness. These dissolved minerals in the water
account for how the water tastes, as well as having some negative effects if the mineral
concentrations are too high. Though the unknown samples may have been created in the lab,

PROJECT 2: ANALYSIS OF FLORIDA WATER

and not from actual tap water sources, the procedures that were performed would have
remained the same. While unknown sample 2 was more than twice the accepted level for
water hardness, the unknown sample 1 was still pretty high on the scale of acceptability. If
unknown sample 1 were actually from the municipal water supply, although it falls within
acceptable limits, the taste of the water may cause some people to choose bottled water over
tap.
Research connection: Hard water may be the cause for some people to choose bottled
water over tap, but for industry high mineral content in the water supply can be problematic.
As stated above, hard water sediment causes a buildup in pipes, pumps, farm and industrial
equipment. Industry spends a lot of effort reducing the amount of mineral content in their
water supply. One lesser known techniques for reducing these unwanted minerals is using
magnetic fields. The magnetic treatment has significant effect on water quality of irrigation
(Banejad & Abdosalehi, 2009)

PROJECT 2: ANALYSIS OF FLORIDA WATER

References
Banejad, H., & Abdosalehi, E. (2009). The effect of magnetic field on water hardness
reducing. Thirteenth International Water Technology Conference, 13, 117-128.
Retrieved from http://www.rainlikewater.com/research/THE-EFFECT-OFMAGNETIC-FIELD-ON-WATER-HARDNESS- REDUCING.pdf
Doria, M. F. (2006). Bottled water versus tap water: understandingconsumers preferences.
Journal of Water and Health, 4(2), 271-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wh.2006.008
Statistic Brain. (2016). http://www.statisticbrain.com/bottled-water-statistics/