Essay, Research Paper: The Chemistry Of Natural Water

The Chemistry of Natural Water

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this experiment is to explore the hardness of the water on campus.
Hard water has been a
problem for hundreds of years. One of the earliest references to the hardness or
softness of water is in
Hippocrates discourse on water quality in Fifth century B.C. Hard water causes many
problems in both in
the household and in the industrial world. One of the largest problems with hard water
is that it tends to
leave a residue when it evaporates. Aside from being aesthetically unpleasing to look
at, the build up of
hard water residue can result in the clogging of valves, drains and piping. This build
up is merely the
accumulation of the minerals dissolved in natural water and is commonly called
scale.

Other than clogging plumbing, the build up of scale poses a large problem in the
industrial world. Many
things that are heated are often cooled by water running thru piping. The build up of
scale in these pipes
can greatly reduce the amount of heat the cooling unit can draw away from the source
it is trying to heat.
This poses a potentially dangerous situation. The build up of excess heat can do a lot
of damage; boilers
can explode, containers can melt etc. On the flip side of the coin, a build up of scale
on an object being
heated, a kettle for example, can greatly reduce the heat efficiency of the kettle.
Because of this, it takes
much more energy to heat the kettle to the necessary temperature. In the industrial
world, this could
amount to large sums of money being thrown into wasted heat.

In addition to clogging plumbing and reducing heating efficiency, the build up of hard
water also
adversely affects the efficiency of many soaps and cleansers. The reason for this is
because hard water
contains many divalent or sometimes even polyvalent ions. These ions react with the
soap and although
they do not form precipitates, they prevent the soap from doing it's job. When the
polyvalent ions react
with the soap, they form an insoluble soap scum. This is once again quite unpleasing
to look at and stains
many surfaces.

The sole reason for all these problems arising from hard water is because hard water
tends to have higher
than normal concentrations of these minerals, and hence it leaves a considerable
amount more residue
than normal water. The concentration of these minerals is what is known as the
water's Total Dissolved
Solids or TDS for short. This is merely a way of expressing how many particles are
dissolved in water.
The TDS vary from waters of different sources, however they are present in at least
some quantity in all
water, unless it has been passed through a special distillation filter. The relative TDS
is easily measured
by placing two drops of water, one distilled and one experimental on a hotplate and
evaporating the two
drops. You will notice that the experimental drop will leave a white residue. This can
be compared to
samples from other sources, and can be used as a crude way of measuring the
relative TDS of water from a
specific area. The more residue that is left behind, the more dissolved solids were
present in that
particular sample of water. The residue that is left, is in fact, the solids that were in the
water.

Another, perhaps more quantitative way of determining hardness of water is by
calculating the actual
concentrations of divalent ions held in solution. This can be done one of two ways.
One is by serially
titrating the water with increasing concentrations of indicator for Mg++ and Ca++ (we
will be using
EDTA). This will tell us the approximate concentration of all divalent ions. This
method of serial
titrations is accurate to within 10 parts per million (ppm) .

Another possible method for determining the hardness of water is by using Atomic
Absorption
Spectrophotometry or AA for short. AA is a method of determining the concentrations
of individual
metallic ions dissolved in the water. This is accomplished by sending small amounts
of energy thru the
water sample. This causes the electrons to assume excited states. When the
electrons drop back to their
ground states, they release a photon of energy. This photon is measured by a
machine and matched up to
the corresponding element with the same E as was released. This is in turn is related
to the intensity of
the light emitted and the amount of light absorbed and based on these calculations, a
concentration value
is assigned. A quick overview of how the atomic absorption spectrophotometer works
follows. First, the
water sample is sucked up. Then the water sample is atomized into a fine aerosol
mist. This is in turn
sprayed into an extremely high intensity flame of 2300 C which is attained by burning
a precise mix of
air and acetylene. This mixture burns hot enough to atomize everything in the
solution, solvent and solute
alike. A light is emitted from a hollow cathode lamp. The light is then absorbed by the
atoms and an
absorption spectrum is obtained. This is matched with cataloged known values to
attain a reading on
concentration.

Because there are so many problems with hard water, we decided that perhaps the
water on Penn State's
campus should be examined. My partners and I decided to test levels of divalent ions
(specifically Mg++
and Ca++ ) in successive floors of dormitories. We hypothesized that the upper level
dormitories would
have lower concentrations of these divalent ions because seeing as how they are
both heavy metals, they
would tend to settle out of solution. The Ca++ should settle out first seeing how it is
heavier than the
Mg++, but they will both decrease in concentration as they climb to higher floors in the
dormitories.


PROCEDURE
We collected samples from around Hamilton Halls, West halls. In order to be
systematic, we
collected samples in the morning from the water fountains near the south end of the
halls. We collected
water samples from each floor in order for comparison. The reason we collected them
in the morning was
so that the Mg++ and Ca++ would be in noticeable quantities. We then went about
and tested and
analyzed via serial titrations and via Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry. We also
obtained a TDS
sample merely for the sake of comparison, and to ensure that were in fact dissolved
solids in our water
samples (without which this lab would become moot). For the serial titration, we
merely mixed the water
sample with EBT, and then with increasing concentrations of EDTA. The EBT served
as an indicator to
tell us when the concentrations of the EDTA and the divalent ions in solution were
equal (actually it told
us when Mg++ was taken out of solution but that served the same purpose). This
allowed us to find the
concentration of the divalent ions dissolved in solution. Based on this, we calculated
the parts per million
and the grains per gallon for each water sample. Finally, we took an AA reading for
each sample. This
gave us absorption values and concentration values for each of the two main metals
we were observing;
Ca++ and Mg++. We then plotted a graph of Atomic Absorption Standards. These
were values given to
us by the AA operator. These values helped us to calibrate the machine. The parts
per million that we
find will be based on plugging in the reported absorption value into the resulting curve
from the graph of
these values. The resulting concentration was used as the final value for the
hardness for that particular
sample. All calculations and conclusions were done based on these final values
obtained for the
concentration of Ca++ and Mg++.
For more detail, refer to full in depth procedure as directed by: Penn State Version of...
Chemtrek
August 1996 - July 1997; Stephen Thompson; Prentice Hall; Englewood Cliffs, NJ
07632; © 199


RESULTS
Molarity x (100g CaCO3 / 1 mole CaCO3 ) x (1000 mg / 1g) = Xmg/1000g = ppm
Grains/Gallon = ppm /17.1

Example:
(1.6 x 10 -3 moles / 1 Liter) x (100g CaCO3 / 1 mole CaCO3 ) x (1000 mg / 1g) = 160
ppm
160 ppm/17.1 = 9.35 grains/gallon

Serial Titration Results
Name: # Molarity Parts Per Million Grains Per Gallon
Samir Sandesara 1 1.6 x 10 -3 160 9.35
Andy 2 1.6 x 10 -3 160 9.35
Ben 3 1.2 x 10 -3 120 7.01
Tom 4 1.8 x 10 -3 180 10.5

Table #1: This table displays the values obtained by serial EDTA titration of the water
samples.
Conversion Factors Given by AA operator: Ca++ = 2.5
Mg++ = 4.2
Ca++ x 2.5 = CaCO3 hardness ppm value
Mg++ x 100 x 4.5 = Mg CO3 hardness ppm value *NOTE: the Mg++ is x 100 because
it was diluted
before it was
put into the AA.
Example:
Ca++: 27.52 x 2.5 = 68.8 ppm 4.02 g/gal
Mg++: .251 x 100 x 4.2 = 105.42 6.16 g/gal
Atomic Absorption Values
Name
: # Abs
Mg++ Abs Ca++ AA ppm
Mg++ AA ppm
Ca++ ppm
Mg++ ppm
Ca++ g/Gal
Mg++ g/Gal
Ca++
Samir 1 0.2270 0.5923 0.251 27.52 105.42 68.8 6.16 4.02
Andy 2 0.2041 0.5493 0.225 25.10 92.40 62.75 5.40 3.67
Ben 3 0.3633 0.5800 0.401 26.83 168.22 67.07 9.88 3.90
Tom 4 0.2673 0.5589 0.295 25.65 123.90 64.11 7.24 3.75

Table #2: This table displays the values obtained from AA analyzation, and shows
the hardness of the
water as contributed by each
individual element.














Absorbency Values
Parts Per Million
0.000 0.0
0.125 0.1
0.403 0.5
0.716 1.0













Absorbency Values
Parts Per Million
0.0000 0.000
0.0142 0.493
0.0262 0.985
0.0536 1.970
0.2360 9.850
0.4540 19.700
0.9230 49.250


Floor Number Hardness (ppm)
1 174.3
2 159.1
3 235.5
4 188.0




DISCUSSION
The final hardness values were obtained by graphing the AA Standards on the
previous page
and then plugging
in the absorption values give by the AA (Table #2). This is the grey line that appears
in both graphs.
When this
line was extended down from the point of intersection, it was able to read the ppm
value at that point.
The ppm
value for both Ca++ and the Mg++ were then summed to attain the final hardness of
the water.

The other numbers above reveal much about the water in Hamilton Hall. Looking at
the final hardness
values
that were attained, it is clear that the two upper floors had harder water than the lower
floors. However,
table
#2 shows that the concentration of Ca++ decreased overall as the water climbed
higher in the dormitory.
What
was unexpected was that the concentration of Mg++ actually increased as it climbed
higher. As of
present, I have
no rational scientific explanation for this. The only possible explanation I could
possibly think of is
perhaps there
is something within the plumbing that contains Mg and the further the water travels in
it, the more
dissolves of
the Mg dissolves. Aside from that, there does not seem to be any possible
explanation. What is also
interesting
is that with the exception of the #3 sample, the hardness values attained from the AA
were very similar to
those
attained by serial EDTA titration. These indicates a low source of error and gives
support to my numbers.
Even more support is added to the numbers when the ppm values are added up in
Table 2. These values,
for
the most part, also seem to be in a relatively tight "ball park" of the final AA values.
Given that the
accuracy
of serial titrations is ± 10 ppm, it is extremely safe to say that my numbers are correct.
A brief overview of the numbers seems to show that there is indeed a trend, and the
more in-depth look at
the
numbers shows that they all seem to back each other up. This seems to imply a that
most if not all of the
results
are quite accurate and precise.


CONCLUSION
Upon completion of this lab, it can be said that the data supports only half of the
original
hypothesis. Yes, the Ca++ did seem to decrease as the water got further from the
source and climbed
higher in the dormitories. However, the Mg++ did not. Instead it did quite the opposite
and showed a
general trend of increasing in concentration as it got further away from the source and
higher in the
dormitories. Perhaps a viable explanation could be attained if studies were done on
the plumbing inside
the building. Perhaps there is a high concentration of magnesium in the solder used
to hold the pipes
together. Perhaps it is not in the pipes but rather perhaps the people on the upper
floors get up later and
therefore at the time of collection, the water in the upper floors had been sitting longer
than that on the
lower floors. In either case,. More investigation would have to be conducted in order
determine what
caused the unexpected results.

In light of this discrepancy, the overall accuracy of the lab was very good. The
numbers all seem to back
each other up and correlate very well. As was mentioned in the previous section, the
precision and
accuracy with which this lab was carried out seems to indicate that there is very little
source of error. The
only one that was possibly flawed was sample #3. This could have been due to an
error in the dilution or
any other factor. Since I personally did not carry out that portion of the experiment, I
cannot be sure.
However, the other 3 samples provide more than ample ammounts of accurate
information. Overall, it
seems that the lab was quite well done.
The hypothesis would have to be revised and as of this point, without further
investigation, it would have
to be reformulated to say that only the Ca++ would decrease in concentration
whereas the Mg++ would
increase.



REFERENCES
1) Brown, Theodore L. et al; Chemistry The central Science; Sixth Edition; Prentice
Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ; ©1994

2) Stephen Thompson; Penn State Version of...Chemtrek; August 1996 - July 1997;
Prentice Hall;
Englewood
Cliffs, NJ; © 1990

3) Internet Resource; http://www.kinetico.com/hard.htm