4. Discussion

4.0 Discussion
---------------------


4.1 Analysis of results


The water filtered by our straw is of much better quality. For the absorbance of the water, they were all 0.00 absorbance so it is not bad. For the turbidity of the water, the improvement is quite obvious and although the filtered water was not as clear as PUB’s water, it was good enough as the health regulations is 5 NTU and our filtered water has an average of 3.9125 NTU. In terms of acidity, the results would be better if the pH value was closer to the pH value 7. The average pH value of our filtered water is 8.065 pH and the average pH value of PUB’s water is 8.1. In terms of the alkalinity and acidity of the water, the filtered water more neutral than the unfiltered water. Overall, the filtered water is of better quality than the unfiltered water and should be safe for consumption.

Analysis of results:

(Tubidity/NTU - clarity)
The lower the value of NTU, the clearer the water. Our results were better after filtering the water compared to before. Thus we can conclude that our straw worked in terms of turbidity.
(pH value - acidity and alkalinity)

The nearer the value to the neutral pH (7), the better the results, as the water cannot be too alkaline or acidic to be consumable.  Our results were better after filtering the water compared to before. Thus we can conclude that our straw worked in terms of level of acidity and alkalinity (pH).
Our results were not as good as the PUB quality of water, but our straw is portable and does not take as much time to filter, thus it may not be as good as PUB’s water. Nevertheless, our water is still consumable.
(colorimter/absorbance - nitrate)
The absorbance level of our water samples are very good and much better than the standards of PUB's.
(Agar Plates - Presence of bacteria)
The original water (samples which we did not filter, not including the tap waters) too much colonies of bacteria to count and the second sample of rainwater even had an organism in it. The filtered water, was as good as the tap waters (from toilet & laboratory), had no colonies nor organisms.
(Overall)
Our results were not as good as the PUB quality of water, but our straw is portable and does not take as much time to filter, thus it may not be as good as PUB’s water. Nevertheless, our water is still consumable.

4.2 Limitations


Some limitations we met during our research was time constraint. We were unable to construct our 3 prototypes to test out as we did not have enough time, resulting in us only doing one prototype. Nevertheless, our prototype worked in terms of the effectiveness of cleaning the water.


4.3 Areas for Improvement

a) Practical Applications


Using the straw we constructed, we are able to provide clean water to the society for an affordable price. In places like Africa, people there have little access to clean, drinkable water. With our straw which is ranged at an affordable price, people in poor countries will be able to have access to clean water much easier. Not only will it improve their way of life, making it more convenient to get access to clean water, it will also prevent more people from contracting water-borne diseases.


b) Areas for further study

If we were given more time and resources, I think we could have studied further and more about quality of water, as well as test more components of our water. In addition, we could have tried out the other 2 prototypes proposed. To further our knowledge, I think we also could have studied more about water-borne diseases and how people contract the diseases.

No comments:

Post a Comment