Lundgren 1

Lab Report

Bret Lundgren

April 12th, 2018

Experiment 10: The Chemistry of Natural Waters

Course: Chemistry 113

Section: 003

Group Members: Isabella Maczko, Paige Lorimer,

Stephen Lombardo

TA: William Jeffries

 Lundgren 2

Introduction:

In the lab that my group and I did, we were experimenting and investigating water

hardness and its properties. Water is a very important and often-used resource in day to day

life. The properties of water, such as its hardness, contribute a lot to how much water can help,

or hurt, whatever we are trying to do with it. Water hardness can be defined as “the presence

of the dissolved divalent cations Ca2+ and Mg2+ (and other polyvalent cations)” found in water.1

Water is considered hard water when a sample of the water is found to have high

concentrations of dissolved minerals, but specifically high amounts of Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions.

Water is considered soft water when a sample of water is found to have low concentrations of

dissolved minerals, but specifically low amounts of Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions. In terms of the hardness

itself, it is usually measured in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or parts per million (ppm) of CaCO3.2

Table 1: Degrees of Hardness of Water3

Degree of Hardness ppm or mg/L

Soft <17.0

Slightly Hard 17.1-60

Moderately Hard 60-120

Hard 120-180

Very Hard >180

Table 1 shows the various degrees of hardness of water for classifying how hard or soft a

sample of water really is.

Knowing the hardness of the water that is being dealt with or used for really anything is

very important. This is due to the fact that if the water is too hard, it can cause a lot of
 Lundgren 3

problems. For example, hard water can cause problems with clothes when doing the laundry,

skin while bathing, and dishes when washing the dishes. When doing the laundry, hard water

can leave clothes looking bad and often make them feel odd to wear, even uncomfortable.

When bathing in hard water, the soap used for washing can combine with the hard water and

leave behind a film on the skin. The film can cause a lot of problems because it doesn’t allow

the skin to return to its natural state and can even cause irritation. In regards to the dishes, the

hard water can leave a film on dishes as well as give them a dull and unclean appearance. Not

only does hard water cause problems with these day to day activities, but it can cause a lot of

problems on an industrial scale. Hard water can be attributed to be a large contributor of

inefficiency and costing more to operate machines that use the water. This is because the hard

water, when heated, causes “a scale of calcium and magnesium minerals (limescale deposits).”

The scale lines the walls of the pipes that the water flows through, basically clogging them over

time as the scale builds up more and more. On the positive side, hard water can be a

contributor of a small amount of the necessary calcium and magnesium that the human body

requires when it is drank, which means that it can actually be beneficial to the human body. 4 If

the water hardness is known beforehand, then precautions can either be taken to soften the

water before use, or to know to clean the pipes and monitor efficiency so that the scale buildup

becomes too bad. The best-case scenario would to be to soften the water appropriately before

use, that way scale buildup can be avoided mostly altogether. For example, in the 1930s, it was

found that magnetic treatment would be able to remove the scale that was building up inside

of pipes. People have been trying to remove the scale from pipes, or prevent it, for many years

now because of all the negative effects that scale has, which is why hard water is so bad. 5
 Lundgren 4

To even begin to take precautions against water hardness, it has to be known how to

measure the hardness of the water. There are two primary ways to measure water. The first

way is with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and the other way is with Atomic

Absorption Spectrophotometry (AA).1

An EDTA titration can be used to determine the divalent cation concentration. First, to

do this, a known volume of the water sample needs to have its pH adjusted with an NH3/NH4

buffer so that it is a pH of 10. Then, EBT indicator is added to the water and buffer solution, and

the solution turns blue. At first, only the Mg2+ can react with the indicator, so a red chelate will

be formed. At this point, the EDTA gets added via a pipet. The EDTA reacts with the Ca 2+ at first,

which forms a colorless chelate. Once all of the Ca2+ has reacted with the EDTA, the EDTA will

then start to react with the magnesium indicator chelate from before to make a colorless

MgEDTA chelate. As this occurs, the Mg2+ is being removed from the indicator, which turns the

solution back to its original blue color. The end point of the titration will be very apparent,

because the wine-red color will go to a sky-blue color.1

AA works on the principle that each individual atom has its own energy level change

E. Monochromatic light of the energy that corresponds to the E of the atoms that are

wanted to be observed and measured is projected through the water sample. Any atoms having

the E that the AA was set to will absorb this light. Therefore, an absorbance amount can be

found. From this, the concentration of the metal atoms in the water sample can be calculated. 1

Despite both EDTA and AA being methods to determine the divalent cation

concentration, they do have some differences in how they go about it and the actual values

they find. One obvious thing is the actual methods are different, as described above. One of the
 Lundgren 5

major differences is what ions are actually being detected by the different methods. For EDTA,

a specific ion cannot be programmed to be found, but instead, every divalent cation is found

and a total concentration of all of the divalent cations is produced to find the water hardness.

Even though the concentrations of Ca2+ and Mg2+ are the ones that show up in the most

appreciable amounts, the other divalent cations still influence the value. On the other hand, the

AA can be used to find one specific ion concentration at a time, so it would ignore the

concentrations of the other divalent cations, which would ultimately yield a lower result of

hardness, in ppm, than the EDTA method would yield.1

Being that hard water can be so hard on pipes in terms of scale buildup, there have

been multiple ways found out that can be used to treat hard water to soften it up, so the

effects of scale are lessened. Some ways in which hard water can be softened is through

chemical softening, membrane separation softening, and cation exchange softening. 3

With all of the background of hard water in mind, it is crucial to see how this was

applied to the experiment done in the lab and what was trying to be found out. This experiment

was done in order to learn about water hardness, how EDTA titration works, and how the AA

works. The project that my group was working on was investigating if what type of source the

water came from had an effect on water hardness in terms of the size of the source and if it

was stagnant water or not. We had four samples involved in our project. My water sample was

from a spring in Echo, Pennsylvania. Isabella Maczko’s water sample was from the

Cowanshannock Creek in Rural Valley, Pennsylvania. Paige Lorimer’s water sample was from

the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Florida. Stephen Lombardo’s water sample was from the

Connecticut River in Connecticut.

 Lundgren 6

Amongst our group, we came up with the hypothesis that if the water sample was from

a smaller source of running water, then it would be very soft water compared to a very large

water source that is stagnant, which we predict to be very hard water. The basis for this

hypothesis is the fact that many people drink spring water and say that it tastes very good, but

no one drinks ocean water, because it is stagnant, salty, and is very hard water. Intuition also

tells us that the smaller water sources seem to have the cleanest, softest water. In the grand

scheme of things, any type of unfiltered water from the earth will have some hardness to them,

and they usually are of a harder nature. Both small and large water supplies have the same

issue of water hardness. In fact, “calcium concentrations up to and exceeding 100 mg/L are

common in natural sources of water, particularly grounwater.”6 It will be interesting to see

what results are found at the conclusion of the experiment.

Procedure:

The procedure for the experiment that was done came from the Penn State University

Chemtrek.1 Before the actual experiment could take place, each person in the group had to

decide on where to obtain water samples. After figuring this out, each person was to then get a

sample of water from their chosen location and bring it to the laboratory for testing.

In the first portion of the lab, the water sample was to be prepared, which included

potentially filtering and/or diluting the sample if need be. Two large pipets had their stems cut

off so that only the bulb and about a centimeter of the stem remained. Then each bulb was

filled about 2/3 full of the prepared sample of water. In my case, it was unfiltered and undiluted

water. Then, the samples were taken to the AA machine in a different room so that the

presence of Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions could be detected separately to determine their concentrations
 Lundgren 7

in the sample of water. The point of this section was to learn how to use the AA machines in

order to determine the overall hardness of a water sample.

In the next part of the lab, we had to get a small piece of foil and put one drop of each

of the sample of water, distilled water, and 1.00*10-3M Ca2+ on it. Then we place the foil on a

hotplate and evaporated the drops. After the evaporation, the residue that was left was

observed, which is all called a measurement of the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) that was in our

water sample. The goal of this section was to determine the TDS that was in the water sample

compared to two other standards.

After the TDS test came the divalent cation analysis by EDTA titration. A 1x12 well strip

had one drop of EBT go into each of the first three wells. Then, one drop of NH 4OH/NH4Cl

buffer was added to both well two and well three. One drop of 1.00*10 -3M Mg2+ solution was

put into the third well and each well was stirred. Now, another 1x12 strip was needed, and one

drop of 1.00*10-3M Ca2+ was added to each of the twelve wells, along with one drop of both

EBT indicator and NH3/NH4Cl/MgEDTA buffer. After this was done, the prepared 1x12 well strip

was serially titrated with 2.00*10-4M EDTA. This section’s purpose was to get familiar with the

EDTA titration before doing it with the sample of water brought in.

The fourth part to be done is very similar to the previous part, but with the sample of

water brought in instead, so that they hardness of the sample could be determined. A 1x12

strip was needed, and one drop of the water sample brought in was added to each of the

twelve wells, along with one drop of both EBT indicator and NH3/NH4Cl/MgEDTA buffer. After

this was done, the prepared 1x12 well strip was serially titrated with 2.00*10-4M EDTA.
 Lundgren 8

Duplicate analysis was done to ensure good data was taken and an average could be found. The

purpose of the portion was to determine the hardness, in ppm, of the water sample brought in.

The last section in the experiment was to remove the divalent cations by ion exchange.

An 8 mL vial and pop cap was to be obtained and cleaned. A small amount of cation exchange

resin was added to the vial so that just the bottom was covered. Then, about 1cm or more of

the water sample was added to the vial and shook gently for about a minute. After shaking, it

had to be left alone to settle for a little bit. After settling, the supernatant liquid could be

removed using a pipet and have its pH tested with pH paper. A 1x12 well strip was obtained and

had one drop of the supernatant liquid put into each well, along with one drop of both EBT

indicator and NH3/NH4Cl/MgEDTA buffer. After this was done, the prepared 1x12 well strip was

serially titrated with 2.00*10-4M EDTA. Duplicate analysis was done to ensure good data was

taken and an average could be found. The point of this section was to determine the hardness

of the resin-treated water sample to see how the water can be softened in this manner.

The overall purpose of the whole experiment was to learn about water hardness, how

to determine water hardness though different methods such as EDTA titration and AA, and to

see how a water sample of our choice compares to others in terms of hardness. This

experiment helps us get acquainted with water hardness, the science behind it, and how to use

the information surrounding water hardness.

 Lundgren 9

Table 2: Group Member Water Sample Information

Water Sample Dilution Factor Filtered

Spring Water, Echo, Pennsylvania N/A No

(Lundgren, Bret, 2018)7

Cowanshannock Creek Water, Rural Valley, Pennsylvania N/A No

(Maczko, Isabella, 2018)8

Atlantic Ocean Water, Spring Lake, New Jersey 1:25 Yes

(Lorimer, Paige, 2018)9

Connecticut River Water, Connecticut N/A No

(Lombardo, Stephen, 2018)10

Table 2 shows each member of the group, what water sample they had, where they got the

water sample, if it was diluted and the dilution factor, and if it had to be filtered or not.
 Lundgren 10

Results:

Table 3: AA Standards for both Ca2+ and Mg2+ along with the Percent Errors

Ca2+ Light Percent Mg2+ Light Percent

Concentration Absorbance Error for Concentration Absorbance Error for

(ppm) (at 422.7nm) Ca2+ (ppm) (at 202.5nm) Mg2+

1.000 0.00499 62% 1.000 0.01741 10%

5.00 0.02898 8.6% 5.00 0.08705 0.6%

10.00 0.05780 1.5% 10.00 0.14006 8.9%

25.0 0.13066 2.04% 25.0 0.28948 1.96%

50.0 0.24689 1.62 30.0 0.34848 2.1%

Table 3 shows the AA Standards obtained for Ca2+ and Mg2+ prior to the lab starting, along with

their percent errors.

0.3
Light Absorbance Value @ 422.7nm

0.25
y = 0.0049x + 0.0049
R² = 0.9985
0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Ca^2+ Concentration (ppm)

Graph 1: This graph above shows the Light Absorbance Value at 422.7nm plotted against the

Ca2+ Concentration of the AA Standards.

 Lundgren 11

0.4

Light Absorbance Value @ 202.5nm

0.35
y = 0.0109x + 0.0216
0.3 R² = 0.994
0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Mg^2+ Concentration (ppm)

Graph 2: This graph above shows the Light Absorbance Value at 202.5nm plotted against the

Mg2+ Concentration of the AA Standards

Graph 1 (for Ca2+) best-fit line equation: y = 0.0049x + 0.0049

y = 0.0307, 0.0307 = 0.0049x + 0.0049, x = 5.2653 ppm = concentration of Ca2+ ppm

Graph 2 (for Mg2+) best-fit line equation: y = 0.0109x + 0.0216

y = 0.0456, 0.0456 = 0.0109x + 0.0216, x = 2.2018 ppm = concentration of Mg2+ ppm
Hardness = (5.2653 ppm Ca2+)*[((100.09g CaCO3)/(1 mole))/((40.08g Ca2+)/(1 mole))] = 13.1488
CaCO3 = 13.1488 ppm hardness
Hardness = (2.2018 ppm Mg2+)*[((100.09g CaCO3)/(1 mole))/((24.31g Mg2+)/(1 mole))] = 9.0653
CaCO3 = 9.0653 ppm hardness
Total hardness value = 13.1488 ppm hardness + 9.0653 ppm hardness = 22.2141 ppm hardness

Example of how to convert absorbance to CaCO3:

1. C1V1 = C2V2
2. [EDTA] * (drops of EDTA) = [CaCO3] * (drops of CaCO3)
3. (2 x 10-4 M) * (2 drops) = [CaCO3] * (1 drop)
4. [CaCO3] = 4.0 x 10-4 M
5. 4.0 x 10-4 M CaCO3 * (100 g/mol CaCO3) * (1000 mg/g CaCO3) = 40 ppm CaCO3
 Lundgren 12

Table 4: TDS Observations for Each Water Sample

Distilled Water Ca2+ Water Sample
Spring Water, Echo, Pennsylvania No white rings White residue in White residue in
or residue left 0.5cm diameter 0.25cm diameter
(Lundgren, Bret, 2018)7 over circle circle

Cowanshannock Creek Water, No white rings Small amount of White residue left
or residue left white residue behind in ring,
Rural Valley, Pennsylvania over left behind heavier than for
Ca2+
(Maczko, Isabella, 2018)8

Atlantic Ocean Water, Spring No white rings Small, faint Distinct white ring,
or residue left white ring shows up better
Lake, New Jersey over than for Ca2+

(Lorimer, Paige, 2018)9

Connecticut River Water, No white rings Small amount of Faint white circle
or residue left white ring present
Connecticut over present

(Lombardo, Stephen, 2018)10

Table 4 shows the observations made while looking at the TDS for each water sample.
 Lundgren 13

Table 5: AA Values for Each Water Sample

Ca2+ Absorbance Mg2+ Absorbance
Spring Water, Echo, Pennsylvania 0.0307 0.0456
(13.1488 ppm) (9.0653 ppm)
(Lundgren, Bret, 2018)7

Cowanshannock Creek Water, 0.0263 0.0451

Rural Valley, Pennsylvania

(Maczko, Isabella, 2018)8

Atlantic Ocean Water, Spring 0.0481 0.0339

(1:25 dilution) (1:25 dilution)
Lake, New Jersey

(Lorimer, Paige, 2018)9

Connecticut River Water, 0.0421 0.0273

Connecticut

(Lombardo, Stephen, 2018)10

Table 5 shows the values obtained from the AA for each water sample.
 Lundgren 14

Table 6: EDTA Values for Each Water Sample

Unsoftened Number of Resin Softened Numbed of
Drops Drops
Spring Water, Echo, Pennsylvania 40 ppm 20 ppm

(Lundgren, Bret, 2018)7

Cowanshannock Creek Water, 40 ppm 20 ppm

Rural Valley, Pennsylvania

(Maczko, Isabella, 2018)8

Atlantic Ocean Water, Spring 4000 ppm 20 ppm

Lake, New Jersey

(Lorimer, Paige, 2018)9

Connecticut River Water, 80 ppm 60 ppm

Connecticut

(Lombardo, Stephen, 2018)10

Table 6 shows the values obtained from the EDTA titration for each water sample.

Discussion:

When looking at all of the analysis and lab experiments, it is imperative to compare the

data obtained to see if I can either confirm my hypothesis or reject it in order to experiment

again. Overall, my hypothesis was that if the water sample was from a smaller source of

running water, then it would be very soft water compared to a very large water source that is

stagnant, which we predict to be very hard water. According to the AA analysis and the totals of

the two ions, Ca2+ and Mg2+, the water sample from the Connecticut River had the least amount

of ions present, meaning that it would be the softest water out of the samples used at a
 Lundgren 15

combined absorbance 0.0694. The second softest sample, according to AA analysis came from

the Cowanshannock Creek and had a combined absorbance value of 0.0714. The spring water

sample from Echo, Pennsylvania, which was my sample of water, has the second highest

combined absorbance value of 0.0763. This absorbance value gave me a combined hardness

value of 22.2141 ppm. The hardest sample of water, according to AA analysis, was the sample

from the Atlantic Ocean and had a combined absorbance value of 0.082, and this value was

even obtained using a 1:25 diluted sample of the water. This data can be viewed Table 5: AA

Values for Each Water Sample.

The results for the hardness of the samples were a little different from the EDTA

titration analysis. Both the sample of spring water from Echo, Pennsylvania, which was my

sample of water, and the sample of creek water from the Cowanshannock Creek had an

unsoftened hardness of 40 ppm, making them the softest of the samples of water according to

the EDTA titration. The water from the Connecticut River had a hardness of 80 ppm according

to the EDTA titration, making it the second hardest sample of water in this analysis. The hardest

sample of water, yet again, was the sample of water from the Atlantic Ocean, which had a

hardness of 4000 ppm, after taking into account the 1:25 dilution of the sample, according to

the EDTA titration. This data can be observed in Table 6: EDTA Values for Each Water Sample.

Both the methods of analysis and their results lead me to believe that the sample of

water from the Atlantic Ocean was, by far, the hardest sample of water, which does agree with

the hypothesis that was formulated. The other three samples had some ambiguity in terms of

which was harder than the other in terms of the results being compared from both types of

analysis. The sample of water from the Cowanshannock Creek and the sample of water from
 Lundgren 16

the spring in Echo, Pennsylvania had very similar hardness, and were the softest samples out of

all of the samples. The sample from the Cowanshannock Creek, however seems to be the

softest water sample, just slightly. The second hardest sample of water, overall, was the sample

from the Connecticut River.

These results do seem to make sense, according to the various tests and analysis done

on the water samples. Therefore, for the most part, the conclusions do fit fairly well with my

hypothesis. Also, a map of the United States depicting the average concentration of hardness as

calcium carbonate, in mg/L, in various areas around the country help to reinforce the results.

Image 1: This is an image of the map of the United States with the concentration of hardness as

Calcium Carbonate which depicts the average hardness of water in various areas.11
 Lundgren 17

The image above shows that the water samples from the Cowanshannock Creek and the spring

water sample from Echo, Pennsylvania, are both in Pennsylvania, and have an average 61-120

mg/L of calcium carbonate, which is not the hardest that the samples could be. In the

Connecticut area, where the sample taken from the Connecticut River has an average hardness

of 0-60 mg/L of calcium carbonate. The sample taken from the Atlantic Ocean, in New Jersey is

from an area that has an average water hardness of 61-120 mg/L of calcium carbonate.11 These

average hardness values of various areas agree fairly well with the results from the AA.

The most consistent data from the experiment has shown that the water sample from

the Atlantic Ocean is the hardest water sample overall. This is due to the fact that ocean water

is very hard water to begin with, for many reasons. One big reason, and one that makes a lot of

sense as to why the ocean is the hardest water sample, is that the biological processes and lives

of the fish depend on the ions in the water, such as the calcium. Therefore, the water would

need to be harder water, and would therefore contain more calcium and other ions, to

maintain the processes of the fish, which is very vital. For example, “calcium is necessary for

bone formation, blood clotting, and other metabolic reactions.”12

Two main methods were used in this experiment to determine the hardness of various

samples of water, which were an EDTA titration and AA. As stated in the introduction section,

an EDTA titration can be used to determine the divalent cation concentration. First, to do this, a

known volume of the water sample needs to have its pH adjusted with an NH3/NH4 buffer so

that it is a pH of 10. Then, EBT indicator is added to the water and buffer solution, and the

solution turns blue. At first, only the Mg2+ can react with the indicator, so a red chelate will be

formed. At this point, the EDTA gets added via a pipet. The EDTA reacts with the Ca 2+ at first,
 Lundgren 18

which forms a colorless chelate. Once all of the Ca2+ has reacted with the EDTA, the EDTA will

then start to react with the magnesium indicator chelate from before to make a colorless

MgEDTA chelate. As this occurs, the Mg2+ is being removed from the indicator, which turns the

solution back to its original blue color. The end point of the titration will be very apparent,

because the wine-red color will go to a sky-blue color. It is key to note that one drop of EDTA

effect the hardness because one drop of EDTA is said to be equal to approximately 20 ppm which is

about a 10% error for each well in the titration.1 When doing the EDTA titration duplicate analysis

for my sample of water, the same number of EDTA drops were required to reach the endpoint,

causing me to believe that EDTA titration is a fairly precise method of finding the hardness of a

sample of water. For question two in the lab manual, a 0% error was obtained, while a 20%

error was obtained for question three in the lab manual.7 Therefore, up to a 20% error can be

expected in the water hardness values when dealing with the EDTA titrations, as mentioned

before.

AA works on the principle that each individual atom has its own energy level change

E. Monochromatic light of the energy that corresponds to the E of the atoms that are

wanted to be observed and measured is projected through the water sample. Any atoms having

the E that the AA was set to will absorb this light. Therefore, an absorbance amount can be

found. From this, the concentration of the metal atoms in the water sample can be calculated. 1

Both methods do a fairly decent job in determining the hardness of the water samples.

Despite both EDTA and AA being methods to determine the divalent cation concentration, they

do have some differences in how they go about it and the actual values they find. One obvious

thing is the actual methods are different, as described above. One of the major differences is
 Lundgren 19

what ions are actually being detected by the different methods. For EDTA, a specific ion cannot

be programmed to be found, but instead, every divalent cation is found and a total

concentration of all of the divalent cations is produced to find the water hardness. Even though

the concentrations of Ca2+ and Mg2+ are the ones that show up in the most appreciable

amounts, the other divalent cations still influence the value. On the other hand, the AA can be

used to find one specific ion concentration at a time by shining a specific wavelength of light

through the machine, so it would ignore the concentrations of the other divalent cations, which

would ultimately yield a lower result of hardness, in ppm, than the EDTA method would yield.1

Both the EDTA titration method and the AA method of analysis have positive and

negative aspects to them. For one things, AA is a very easy method to use because the machine

does all of the work in terms of determining the absorbance value of the sample for separate

ions so that the total hardness can be calculated. Also, the AA machine is able to, as stated

before, detect just certain ions at a time, making it more specific to the hardness of just those

few ions instead of all divalent cations present in the sample of water. The EDTA titration,

however, is more tedious and has a larger error to it, but it can detect all divalent cations,

which leads to a more accurate measurement of the actual hardness of the water sample in

question.1 After all considerations made, both the EDTA titration method and the AA method of

analysis are fairly good method of determining the water hardness of a sample of water.

There are a number of ways that the experiment could be improve in order to possibly

obtain better data. For one things, the AA analysis and EDTA titrations could have been done

multiple times for each sample of water, in order to take an average of all of the readings to

gather a better definitive value of the hardness of each water sample. The AA machine could
 Lundgren 20

have been calibrated better, so as to decrease the percent error to obtain better data from it.

One source of error could be that the drop sizes for the EDTA titration might have been

different and not consistent, causing errors in the values obtained. Another thing that could

have provided a source of error was in the calibration for the AA machine. Some of the

standards had a sizeable percent error, which could have lead to inaccurate values to be

obtained from the AA machines, causing the values for the hardness of water to be different

from what they truly should be. The percent error values can be viewed in Table 3 above. The

calculations and conversions done in the lab notebook to find the hardness values of the

samples could have provided some error in the data results as well.

Conclusions:

As stated in the introduction to the lab report, water is a very important and often-used

resource in day to day life. The properties of water, such as its hardness, contribute a lot to how

much water can help, or hurt, whatever we are trying to do with it. Water hardness can be

defined as “the presence of the dissolved divalent cations Ca2+ and Mg2+ (and other polyvalent

cations)” found in water.1 Water is considered hard water when a sample of the water is found

to have high concentrations of dissolved minerals, but specifically high amounts of Ca 2+ and

Mg2+ ions. Water is considered soft water when a sample of water is found to have low

concentrations of dissolved minerals, but specifically low amounts of Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions. In

terms of the hardness itself, it is usually measured in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or parts per

million (ppm) of CaCO3.2

The hypothesis that my group has come up with is that if the water sample was from a

smaller source of running water, then it would be very soft water compared to a very large
 Lundgren 21

water source that is stagnant, which we predict to be very hard water. Our hypothesis was

weakly supported in the fact that, depending on which data set you looked at, the spring water

from Echo, Pennsylvania and the stream water from the Cowanshannock Creek were very soft

water samples and are small bodies of moving water, which is what we expected for the most

part. The water sample from the Connecticut River was the second hardest sample, again

depending on which data set you looked at, out of all of the samples of water, and was a larger

body of water, but is moving water. The ocean water from the Atlantic Ocean, which is a large

body of stagnant water, was the hardness sample of water out of all of the samples, and was a

very consistent result across many methods of analysis. Overall, the original hypothesis was

supported, but more data will need to be obtained in order to more strongly confirm this

hypothesis.
 Lundgren 22

References:

1. Thompson, S. PSU Chemtrek: Small-Scale Experiments for General Chemistry; Keiser, J.

Ed; Hayden McNeil Publishing: Plymouth, MI, 2017; pp 10-1 to 10-24

2. Perlman, H.; USGS. Water Hardness https://water.usgs.gov/edu/hardness.html

(accessed Apr 7, 2018).

3. Hardness https://www.wqa.org/learn-about-water/perceptible-issues/scale-deposits

(accessed Apr 7, 2018).

4. Hard Water Problems http://www.hardwater.org/hard_water_problems.html (accessed

Apr 7, 2018).

5. Donaldson, J., & Grimes, S. (1988). Lifting the scales from our pipes. New

Scientist, 117(18), 43-46.

6. Hardness in Drinking-water.

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/hardness.pdf

7. Lundgren, Bret, Spring 2018 Chemistry 113 Laboratory Notebook

8. Maczko, Isabella, Spring 2018 Chemistry 113 Laboratory Notebook

9. Lorimer, Paige, Spring 2018 Chemistry 113 Laboratory Notebook

10. Lombardo, Stephen, Spring 2018 Chemistry 113 Laboratory Notebook

11. USGS; U.S. Geological Survey Office. Water Hardness and Alkalinity

https://water.usgs.gov/owq/hardness-alkalinity.html (accessed Apr 7, 2018).

12. http://www2.ca.uky.edu/wkrec/hardness.htm (accessed Apr 7, 2018).