WEMBURY FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK

12 ASSESSMENT OF WEMBURY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT The report (written individually) should be a maximum of 1500 words TYPED IN Ariel 12 font with 1.15 line spacing. The hard copy report must be handed in to Faculty Office before the deadline. Check the module guidance notes for the deadline for this report. The report will be graded on the overall structure and presentation, your appreciation of the analytical data quality and your understanding of the environmental significance of the data. All sections and pages should be numbered. All Tables and Figures should be numbered and have full details in the caption. Captions go above tables and below figures. Do NOT include appendices. The general structure should be: COVER SHEET with your name, module code, assessment title and word count (excluding tables, captions to figures, reference list). TABLE OF CONTENTS (with page and section numbers) 1. INTRODUCTION. Include hypothesis, aims and objectives (≈100 words). 2. FIELDWORK. Include field site and sampling strategy (≈50 words) and ONE figure containing a GIS based land use of the sampling sites and surrounding area (Fig. 1). Use suitable colours and font size for easy viewing. An expanded inset should show the location of the sampling sites and the stream at a suitable resolution. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. 3.1. Summary of results (≈50 words) with ONE table for water data (Table 1) and ONE table for sediment data (Table 2). Include data from ALL groups. All data must be reported as mean ± 2 x s.d. for each site, i.e. combining all groups and morning/afternoon data, with the correct units and number of significant figures (2 for nutrients and 3 for metals). All mean ± 2 x s.d. data entries should be on a single line so some reformatting of tables may be required. Uncertainties (i.e. ± 2 x s.d.) should be reported to the same decimal place as the mean. All of the water results should be expressed as mg L-1 of the element and all sediment results should be in mg kg-1 (dry weight) of the element. Use Excel for data input to the tables provided. Do NOT include CRM or LOD data in these tables. 3.2. Critical interpretation of the analytical data quality (≈150 words). Comment in general terms on the accuracy (by comparing the experimental CRM results with the certified values for the three metals), the precision (based on standard deviations) and the sensitivity (based on detection limits). Include ONE table of CRM experimental values (mean ± 2 x s.d.) and certified values (mean ± 2 x s.d.) and LODs (Table 3). 3.3. Environmental significance of the water data (≈400 words). Comment on the mean values for each element, sources/sinks (e.g. links with the underlying geology/land use/anthropogenic inputs), environmental chemistry (e.g. water hardness, iron solubility). Note that the table of field data may be relevant to this discussion. Include ONE table (with references giving data sources in the caption) comparing Wembury data with literature data for other catchments in 13 SW England (Table 4). Give geographical locations for any catchments for which you present data. Note that you are studying a freshwater catchment NOT an estuary so do not use estuarine data. 3.4. Environmental significance of the sediment data. (≈400 words). Comment on the mean values for each element, sources/sinks (e.g. links with the underlying geology/land use/anthropogenic inputs), environmental chemistry and spatial differences. Include ONE table (with references) comparing Wembury data with literature data for other catchments, preferably in SW England (Table 5). Note that your data are for freshwater sediments. 3.5. Comparison with legislative guidelines (e.g. environmental quality objectives). (≈200 words). Include an assessment of the environmental quality of the catchment with reference to EU Water Framework Directive quality guidelines for surface waters (not drinking water). Legislation on sediment quality guidelines are less developed but you should be able to find data for zinc. 4. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK. (≈150 words). Make an explicit comment on the environmental quality of the Wembury catchment. Comment on the sampling strategy and data quality and give recommendations on how these could be improved in future work. 5. REFERENCES. These should be listed in full with consistent format and be properly cited in the text. They should be predominantly from primary sources, i.e. not web sites. You may need to apply outlier rejection tests such as Dixons Q-test or Grubbs test if you are considering removing any individual data points from your dataset. You can use t-tests and/or ANOVA to determine if differences between data sets are environmentally significant. For data <LOD it is suggested that you use a value of LOD/2 in accordance with Littlewood et al. 1998 (see reference list for details). PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU DONT HAVE TO WRITE THE INTRODUCTION AND FIELDWORK. Introduction This paper explains Wembrey trip and water and sediment samples that has been taken from that place. Where it was taken three samples of and sediment water from three different places from Wembrye river. These samples were analyzed and knowledge of the items in phosphorus, iron and determining their rates in those samples. The goal is to know the elements such as iron, phosphorus rates, and whether those waters are valid, and what the extent of that contamination of sediment, and what the difference between those samples is. The goal is also to find the problems, if any, knowledge of its sources and then knead to find solutions to the problems. Fieldwork RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 50 words Table 1 Parameters Units Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Overall Means Mean ±2 SD Mean ±2 SD Mean ±2 SD Mean ±2 SD Water temperature ˚C 13.05 0.178 13.3 0.354 12.75 0.0354 13.03 0.534 Conductivity μS 292 82.4 347.5 26.5 318 36.8 478.75 64.9 Dissolved oxygen % 97.05 2.16 90.45 22.0 88.35 0.1 137.925 12.8 Dissolved oxygen mg L-1 10.2 0 9.5 3.08 9.25 0 9.65 1.64 pH 7.8 0.389 7.95 1.91 7.55 0.4 7.76 0.96471 Eh mV 147 2.83 237.5 7.42 141 263.0 175.16 152.25 Suspended Solids mg L-1 6 3.18 6 0.707 5.5 7.8 5.83 3.80 Flow Rate m3 s-1 0.075 0.0651 0.025 0.0446 0.05 0 0.05 0.0650 Table 2 Water table Element Nutrients Metals Values (MgL-1) Nitrogen (N) Phosphorus (P) Silicon (Si) Calcium (Ca) Magnesium (Mg) Iron (Fe) Zinc (Zn) Site 1 Mean Concentration 7.0 0.17 3.1 58 10.4 0.115 0.0054 Standard Deviation 2.2 0.19 1.1 N/A 3.66 0.126 0.0072 Site 2 Mean Concentration 6.5 0.13 2.5 57 8.77 0.0601 0.0054 Standard Deviation 1.2 0.16 2.2 N/A 0.86 0.121 0.0072 Site 3 Mean Concentration 7.6 0.17 2.7 58 9.87 0.116 0.0054 Standard Deviation 2.4 0.16 1.6 N/A 2.63 0.124 0.0072 Value for all Sites Mean for all Sites 7.0 0.16 2.7 57 9.61 0.102 0.0054 Standard Deviation 1.7 0.16 1.8 0.8 2.28 0.123 0.0072 Table 3 Sediment table Element Nutrients Metals Units MgKg-1 Phosphorus (P) Silicon (Si) Calcium (Ca) Magnesium (Mg) Iron (Fe) Zinc (Zn) Site 1 Mean 240 160 2600 4950 23200 116 Standard Deviation 120 270 220 629 4050 19.7 Site 2 Mean 320 180 5500 8060 26600 136 Standard Deviation 160 240 330 735 3940 21.9 Site 3 Mean 380 230 4500 4000 23500 111 Standard Deviation 150 420 280 607 6160 12.9 Total Values Mean for all Sites 310 220 4200 5670 24500 121 Standard Deviation 130 430 3000 578 3420 17.3 Table 4 CRM AND LOD table Metal Certified Reference Material (CRM) Experimental Value Certified Values Limit Of Detection (LOD) MgKg-1 ±2sd MgKg-1 ±2sd MgKg-1 ±2sd Iron (Fe) 36200 3490 33,800 1700 0.0346 0.0410 Zinc (Zn) 191 31.9 5,900 350 0.0125 0.0124 Magnesium (Mg) 5880 1324 164 20 0.00214 0.00360