Russell - Stacheit - Stinson - Chemistry Paper

The Effect of Activated Carbon, Sand, and Gravel on Water Filtration
Nicholas Russell / Elizabeth Stacheit / Lucas Stinson
Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center
Honors Chemistry
10A
Jamie Hilliard / Mark Supal / Christine Kincaid Dewey
24 May 2017
Table of Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1
Review of Literature…………………………………………………………………………….... 2
Problem Statement Hypothesis And Data Measured……………………………………………...9
Experimental Design……………………………………………………………………………..11
Data And Observations……………………………...………………………………………….. 13
Data Analysis and Interpretation………………………………………………………………... 24
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………. 31
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………....35
Appendix A: Water Filter Construction………………………………………………………….36
Appendix B: Water Filter Stand Construction…………………………………………………...38
Appendix C: DOE Calculations………………………………………………………………….41
Works Cited…………………………....………………………………………………………... 43
Russell - Stacheit - Stinson 1
Introduction
Many people around the world are in need of fresh drinking water. To be considered safe
to drink, water needs to have a pH between 6 and 8, be free of harmful bacteria and heavy
metals, and not cause problems to an individual’s health ("Safe Drinking Water Is Essential”).
Some people do not have access to clean water due to cost and availability. It was hoped that the
development of a multi-layer filtration system containing activated carbon, sand, and gravel
could provide a cheap and efficient method to obtaining water safe for consumption.
A substance’s acidity is measured on the pH scale. The pH scale is determined by the
concentration of hydrogen in a substance. The higher the hydrogen concentration is, the lower a
substance’s pH will be. Water’s quality can be measured using pH. Drinking acidic water can
cause skin problems, as well as problems such as miscarriages and seizures (Rogers).
A simulated contaminated water solution was created with a low pH to test the filters.
The pH of the water was taken before and after filtration to measure the effects on pH. A three
factor Design of Experiments was conducted. Each filter contained various amounts of sand,
gravel, and activated carbon with the intention to determine which combination had the greatest
effect on pH. It was predicted that the water filter containing the high amount of activated
carbon, sand, and gravel would have the greatest effect on pH. The development of an affordable
and efficient filtration system could help more people get access to clean drinking water.
Review of Literature
There are more people that die every year from unsafe drinking water than from all forms
of violence around the world (Barlow). Most people have heard of the Flint Water Crisis where
the supply of water to the city of Flint, Michigan was contaminated by faulty pipes. The water
was contaminated primarily by lead which can cause a variety of different health problems
("Basic Information about Lead in Drinking Water").
If someone does drink unfiltered water, a range of things can happen, from impaired
mental and physical development of children, high blood pressure in adults, or even certain types
of cancer, depending on the contaminant in the water (Everpure). Everything from herbicide
runoff to corroded pipe material could potentially be found in drinking water. All those problems
could be avoided with a water filter.
Water filters come in many shapes and sizes, but the purpose of a water filter is always to
remove contaminants from the water and make it safe to drink. There are four main parts of
water purification: coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection, but this paper focuses
on the filtration aspect of water purification. Filtration is when small particles are passed through
filters to be removed (“Water Treatment”). From looking at previous research, the successful
components of multimedia filters were combined to design the most effective filter containing
activated charcoal, sand, and gravel.

Figure 1. Water Filter Diagram
The figure shows what the finished water filter will look like, specifically the standard
trials, as the others will have varying amounts of gravel, sand, and charcoal. To measure the
cleanliness of water, the pH scale will be used.
The purpose of this experiment is to design and construct a water filter using multiple
stages of filtration. As seen in figure 1, gravel, sand, and activated charcoal (CH4) were used to
filter the water. A cheesecloth permitted water to exit but not the charcoal, sand or gravel.
Commonly, CH4 is associated with methane, but it is also activated charcoal. Methane is a single
molecule of CH4, while activated carbon is a repeating structure of CH4. In this experiment,
water with a high concentration of iron oxide (Fe2O3), will be passed through the filter. Water
with high Fe2O3 levels has an acidic pH, which makes the water dangerous and undrinkable.
Water typically has a pH of 7, which is considered safe to drink. The pH scale, also
known as the potential hydrogen scale, is a measure of acidity and basicity, with the majority of
things falling between 0 and 14, 0 being acidic and 14 being basic (Ophardt).
Figure 2. pH Scale
Figure 2 shows the pH scale. It can be seen that vinegar has a much lower pH than water,
so the vinegar will make the water acidic, and therefore unsafe to drink.
In water (H2O), a small number of the molecules dissociate as shown in figure 4, and
some of the water molecules lose a hydrogen and become hydroxide ions (OH−). The "lost"
hydrogen ions bond to the water molecules to form hydronium ions (H3O+). Hydronium ions are
referred to as hydrogen ions H+, so H+ and H3O+ can be used meaning the same thing.
Figure 3. Water Lewis Structure
Figure 3 shows the Lewis Structure of water.
Figure 4. Disassociation of Hydrogen
Figure 4 shows the disassociation of hydrogen from water.
The point where moles of Hydroxide ions and moles of Hydronium ions are in
equivalence, like pure water, have a pH of 7. Basic solutions have a higher concentrations of
OH- than they do H3O+ and vice versa for acidic solutions. ("Acids, Bases, & the pH Scale").
Vinegar, or Acetic Acid, which will be added into the water, has a low pH, of approximately 2,
which will make the water acidic, and therefore unsafe to drink. Running the acidic water
through the filter brings the water closer to a pH of 7, making it safe to drink.
Iron is a heavy metal, meaning it is a metal with a high density. Heavy metals naturally
exist as part of the earth’s crust (Wolverton). It just so happens that iron is also the second most
abundant metal in the Earth’s crust, and is also found in many ores (Chang).
Rusting is a corrosion process taking place when there is iron and water with a low pH.
Corrosion of iron, also known as rusting, breaks down the iron. Corrosion is a chemical reaction
where a material reacts with the external environment and, over time, its structure will be
deteriorated, which causes it to break down into small pieces (Dunee).
Figure 5. Rust Equation
Figure 5 shows the chemical process for creating rust. The reactants of iron corrosion are
iron, water, and oxygen. The product is hydrated iron oxide, better known as rust. Adding rust to
water lowers the pH of the water because the rust is created in an acidic solution. Rust itself does
not directly have a pH, though the vinegar in the mixture that causes the iron to rust does have an
acidic pH.
Biosand filters are a type of water filter that can be used to remove iron from the water
and has proven effective 90% to 95% of the time. Another biosand filter designed by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology was used to remove arsenic from the water. That filter
contained sand and gravel (Cox). Iron and arsenic share similar properties due to the fact that
they are both heavy metals. Since the sand and gravel removed arsenic from the water, it was
assumed that sand and gravel would also remove iron. Removing the rust is essential to making
the water clean due to the fact that the heavy metal could be harmful. These filters work to
remove the heavy metals because the anion oxygen molecules in the sand (SiO2) bond to the
cation iron (Fe) molecules and trap them from the rest of the water, which is the primary reason
that sand and gravel are being used in this experiment.
Sand and gravel work together to filter out any debris or bacteria in the water. They are
good water filters because they form permeable layers ("What are the best materials to use for
cleaning water?”). When something is permeable, it allows liquids and gasses to pass through it
(“Permeable”). Gravel removes the large pieces of debris from the water, such as leaves, sticks,
and algae. (Rich). The sand removes smaller particles that managed to pass through the gravel
(Rich). The smaller the sand particles, the smaller the particles that will be able to be filtered out
("What are the best materials to use for cleaning water?”). At the same time, it is best for all of
the sand particles to be uniform sizes. This is because if the particles are different sizes, the
smaller sand particles can slip in between the larger sand particles and cause the filter to clog
(Munyori).
Activated charcoal, also known as activated carbon (CH4), is used in water filters,
chemical purification processes, and medicines with the goal to remove toxins (Helmenstine).
Activated charcoal is carbon that has been treated with oxygen. The added oxygen makes the
carbon very porous, with a surface area of 300-2,000 m2/g (Helmenstine). Activated charcoal
binds to the impurities in the water due to adsorption.

Figure 6. Activated Carbon Lewis Structure
Figure 6 shows the activated carbon Lewis Structure.
Activated charcoal is known as an adsorbent. Adsorption is defined as the adhesion of a
chemical species onto a surface of particles. Particles, called the adsorbate molecules, bind to a
solid or liquid adsorbent, which is a substance that adsorbs another (Helmenstine). Adsorbents
use chemical attraction to bond the adsorbate molecules to it ("What is activated charcoal and
why is it used in filters?"). Activated carbon is hydrophobic, which means that it repels water.
The activated carbon repels the water, but forms hydrogen bonds between the oxygen in the
activated carbon and the hydrogen in the water (Kirk). A hydrogen bond is a type of chemical
bond that occurs from the attraction of two molecules due to a difference in charge. One atom,
the hydrogen, typically has a positive charge, and the other, the oxygen, has an unshared electron
pair, which makes it negatively charged. Through electrostatic attraction, the hydrogen shares its
hydrogen with the oxygen, creating a hydrogen bond (“Hydrogen Bonding”). The hydrogen
bonds cause polarity in the activated carbon, which allows it to attract and absorb the iron and
other things in the water. The polarity occurs from the hydrogen bonding because one side of the
bond is more positive and the other is more negative (“Hydrogen Bonding”).
While other researchers did not experiment with the amounts of sand, gravel, and
activated charcoal, differing amounts will be tested in this experiment. Other researchers have
filtered out different types of metal, but the same principles used in their research can be applied
to this experiment. This research will use gravel, sand, and activated charcoal to remove iron and
vinegar from water.
If a water filter containing activated carbon, sand, and gravel works to remove toxins and
debris from the water, it would make water much safer to drink. Activated charcoal, sand, and
gravel, could all work together to give people access to cleaner water.
Problem Statement Hypothesis And Data Measured
Problem:
The availability of clean drinking water is a global crisis. Development of affordable
accessible filtration systems could help address this issue. This research investigates multilayer
filtration systems as an attempt to address this issue.
Hypothesis:
It was predicted that the water filter with the highest masses of activated charcoal
(117.6726 g), sand (300.383 g), and gravel (236.7888 g) would produce the greatest difference in
pH of the water before and after filtration.
Data:
The data collected from the experiment was the difference of the initial pH of the water
and the final pH of the water. A three factor Design of Experiments (DOE) was used to calculate
the effects of the activated charcoal, sand, and gravel in varying masses, and calculate the
interaction effects. The independent variables were the amount of activated carbon, sand, and
gravel used. The amount of each material used in the filter is as follows.
Table 1
Amount of Materials in Filters
Material Low Standard High
Activated Charcoal
33.4195 75.1392 117.6726
(g)
Sand
80.6153 174.6460 300.383
(g)
Gravel
73.9064 146.9994 236.7888
(g)
Table 1 shows the amounts of materials used in the construction of the water filters.
These numbers were obtained by scaling down numbers in the experiment this one was based off
of, from numbers for a 2 liter to numbers for a 16 oz bottle.

Experimental Design
Materials:
pH Probe (0.01) (3) 250 mL Beakers
(12) Grade #0000 Steel Wool Pads 5 Gallon Bucket
(2) 4 Hole Bottle Stands (see Appendix B) 11.3 L Meijer White Vinegar
3 Hole Bottle Stand (see Appendix B) 3.8 L Distilled Water
(11) Water Filters (see Appendix A) (13) 12 oz Red Solo Cups
Vernier Lab Quest
Procedures:
1. Place 12 steel wool pads in the 5 gallon bucket with 3.8 L of vinegar and leave exposed
to air for 2-3 days to oxidize. Stir and record daily.
2. Measure 3.84 L of distilled water and 7.6 L vinegar and add it to the rust mixture created
in step 1 to create synthetic contaminated water.
3. Measure out 200 mL of synthetic contaminated water into a 250 mL beaker, and use the
pH probe to test the initial pH. Record initial pH in data table. Rinse the pH probe in
distilled water after each use.
4. Prepare the water filter (see Appendix A) and water filter stand (see Appendix B).
5. Secure the water filter that is being tested (see Appendix A) on the water filter stand (See
Appendix B).
6. Place a red solo cup underneath the cap end of the water filter on the table.
7. Add the 200 mL of synthetic contaminated water measured in step 3 into the column.
Pour the synthetic contaminated water onto the layer of gravel in the water filter being
tested in circular motions. Keep the pouring method consistent throughout each trial
8. Use the pH probe to measure the pH of the filtered water that fell in the cup after being
filtered. Record final pH in the data table. Rinse the pH probe in sterile water after each
use.
9. Record the difference between the final pH and the initial pH.
10. Repeat steps 3-9 for each water filter being tested.
Diagrams:
Figure 7. Water Filter Setup
Figure 7 shows the water filter setup with the water filters in the stand and the red solo
cups underneath to catch the filtered water. The filters left to right are (-,+,+) (-,+,-) (-,-,+) (-,-,-).
All filters but (-,-,+) are currently filtering.

Data And Observations
Table 2
Amount of Materials in Filters
Activated Charcoal
33.4195 75.1392 117.6726
(g)
Sand
80.6153 174.6460 300.383
(g)
Gravel
73.9064 146.9994 236.7888
(g)
Table 2 shows the amount of sand, gravel, and activated charcoal needed for each type of
trial being conducted. For example, when the low amount of activated charcoal is needed,
33.4195 g of activated charcoal will be placed in the filter.
Table 3
Average Change in pH for Each Filter Design
DOE 1 DOE 2 DOE 3 DOE 4 DOE 5 Average
(+++) 0.86 0.78 0.79 0.91 0.88 0.85
(++-) 0.63 0.73 0.88 0.82 0.73 0.76
(+-+) 0.22 0.46 0.51 0.43 0.63 0.45
(+--) 0.53 0.34 0.48 0.36 0.56 0.45
(-++) 0.97 1.01 1.10 1.01 1.06 1.03
(-+-) 0.98 0.87 0.96 0.99 1.01 0.96
(--+) 0.34 0.37 0.24 0.34 0.35 0.33
(---) 0.42 0.56 0.37 0.29 0.29 0.39
Table 3 shows the results and averages of the experiment. It can be seen that the trial with
the greatest change in pH was (-++), which is the low amount of activated charcoal, the high
amount of sand, and the high amount of gravel. The trial with the smallest average change in pH
was the (--+), which is the low amount of sand and activated charcoal and the high amount of
gravel. It can be observed that when the sand was held high the greatest differences in pH were
seen.
Table 4
DOE 1 Pre and Post Filtration Color Observations
Trial Color Observations
Standard Apple cider colored to begin and dark brown when finished.
(-++) Murky yellow in beginning and grey when finished.
(++-) Murky yellow in beginning and black when finished.
(-+-) Apple cider colored to begin and sludgy dirty brown when finished.
(---) Apple cider colored to begin and murky gray color at end.
Standard Apple cider colored to begin and murky gray/green color at end.
(--+) Apple cider colored to begin and slightly darker apple cider color at end.
(+++) Apple cider colored in beginning and foggy murky yellow color at end.
(+-+) Apple cider colored to begin and slightly darker apple cider color at end.
(+--) Apple cider colored to begin and murky green color at end.
Standard Apple cider colored to begin and murky gray/green color at end.
Table 4 shows the color observations made before and after the filtration in DOE 1. The
color of the contaminated water before filtration was an apple cider or murky yellow color and
after filtration it turned into a darker color.

Table 5
Standard No observation.
(-++) Light yellow and transparent in beginning and murky brown at end.
(++-) No observation.
(+-+) Light yellow and transparent in beginning and black at end.
(+++) Very light yellow and transparent in beginning and cloudy dark brown at end.
Standard Light yellow and transparent in beginning and murky brown at end
(-+-) Very light transparent yellow at start and cloudy brown at end.
(+--) Dark brown color at end.
(--+) Apple juice colored at end.
(---) Muddy dark brown color at end.
Standard Very light yellow and transparent in beginning and cloudy dark brown at end.
Table 5 shows the pre and post filtration color observations of DOE 2. The color pre
filtration was a light yellow color and post filtration the color was mostly a dark brown color.
Table 6
Standard Beer colored in beginning and very dark orange color at end.
(+++) Dark orange in beginning and coffee colored at end.

(---) Dark orange in beginning and dark brown at end.
(+-+) Dark orange in beginning and muddy brown at end.
(-++) Apple cider colored in beginning and murky brown at end.
Standard Dark orange in beginning and murky and dark brown at the end.
(+--) Dark orangey brown in beginning and murky dark brown at end.
(-+-) Dark orangey brown in beginning and murky dark brown at end.
(++-) Beer colored in beginning and muddy brown at end.
(--+) Beer colored in beginning and muddy brown at end.
Standard Beer colored in beginning and light brown murky caramel color at end.
Table 6 shows the color observations made before and after the contaminated water went
through the filter in DOE 3. The water was usually a dark orange color before filtration and a
murky dark brown after filtration.
Table 7
Standard Orange juice color in beginning and murky dark brown color at end.
(-++) Dark apple cider colored in beginning and muddy brown color at the end.
(++-) Dark apple cider colored in beginning murky orange brown at end.
(-+-) Apple cider colored in beginning and murky brown at end.
(---) Dark apple cider color in beginning and murky dark orange at end.
Standard Dark apple cider in beginning and very murky dark brown at end.
(--+) Apple cider colored in the beginning and slightly darker apple cider color at end.
(+++) Apple cider colored in the beginning and murky brown color at end.
(+-+) Apple cider colored in the beginning and murky brown color at end.
(+--) Apple cider colored in the beginning and murky dark brown color at end.
Standard Apple cider colored in the beginning and muddy dark brown at end.
Table 7 shows the pre and post filtration color observations of the contaminated water in
DOE 4. The water pre filtration was usually an apple cider color and then became a murky
brown or orange color.

Table 8
Standard Dark apple cider color in beginning and murky brown color at end.
(+--) Dark apple cider color in beginning and dark brown color at end.
(-++) Dark apple cider color in beginning and muddy brown at end.
(++-) Dark apple cider color in beginning and lighter orange color at end.
(+-+) Dark apple cider color in beginning and muddy brown at end.
Standard Dark apple cider color in beginning and murky brown color at end.
(+++) Dark apple cider color in beginning and lighter brown color at end.
(-+-) Dark apple cider color in beginning and yellowy brown color at end.
(--+) Dark apple cider color in beginning and dark orange murky color at end.
(---) Dark apple cider color in beginning and light muddy brown color at end.
Standard Dark apple cider color in beginning and light brown color at end.
Table 8 shows the color changes observed between the initial solution and the final
solution in DOE 5. The color in the initial solution was a dark apple cider color and in the final
solution it was a brownish color.
Table 9
DOE 1 Trial Errors and Observations
Trial Errors Observations
Water sloshed out of the top of the filter Bubbles rose to the top of
when it was shook by researcher 2. filter. Researcher 3 poured.
Standard Water filter clogged and researcher 2
unclogged the filter by pressing in on the
cheesecloth.
No observation. Bubbles rose to top of filter.
(-++)
Researcher 1 poured.

No observation. The solution dripped fast out
of filter and bubbles rose to the
top of filter. A large bubble
(++-) hung from underneath the
cheesecloth.Researcher 1
poured.
The water filter clogged, and researcher 2 Lots of bubbles rose to the top
unclogged the filter by pressing in on the of the filter. Researcher 1
(-+-)
cheesecloth. Sand ended up on top of the poured.
gravel in the filter.
No observation. A steady stream of water came
(---) out of the filter. Researcher 3
poured.
Standard out of the filter. Researcher 3
poured.
The water filter clogged and the Researcher 3 poured.
(--+) researchers unclogged the filter by
pressing in on the cheesecloth.
All of the initial solution did not fit in the An air bubble formed under
(+++) filter. Approximately 70 mL were left, the cheesecloth. Researcher 1
making the pouring method inconsistent. poured.
(+-+) No observation. Researcher 1 poured.
(+--) out of the filter and researcher
3 poured.
Standard No observation. Researcher 3 poured.
Table 9 shows the errors and observations that occurred during the first DOE. In the filter
with the high amount of sand, gravel, and charcoal, all of the contaminated water solution did not
fit in the water filter, which made the pouring method inconsistent.
Table 10
The filter clogged, so researcher 2 Air bubbles came up about
unclogged the filter. every two seconds. There was
(-++)
a slow drip of water.
No observation. A large bubble hung off the
end of the cheesecloth. Small
(++-) bubbles formed off of a large
bubble on the cheesecloth.
The filter clogged, so researcher 1 Researcher 1 poured.
(+-+)
unclogged it.
(+++) Not all water fit into filter at once. Researcher 1 poured.
The filter clogged, so researcher 2 Sand, gravel, and charcoal all
unclogged the filter. Sand floated to the combined to form one layer
(-+-) top of the dirty water in the filter. rather than the 3 separate
layers that they began with.
(+--) No observations. Researcher 1 poured.
(--+) No observations. Researcher 1 poured.
(---)
unclogged it.
unclogged it. The cheesecloth came off of
Standard the bottle and activated carbon fell out of
the filter into the clean water. The bottle
was repaired with fresh cheesecloth.
Table 10 shows the trial errors and observations of DOE 2. In the third standard run in
DOE 2, the cheesecloth came off of the filter, and some activated carbon fell out of the filter.
Table 11
The filter clogged and researcher 2 Sand was found in the water
Standard unclogged it. The cheesecloth was that came out of filter.
replaced on the filter. Researcher 1 poured.
Not all of the solution fits in the filter at Researcher 1 poured.
(+++) once, making the pouring method
inconsistent.
The filter clogged and researcher 1 Researcher 2 poured the water
unclogged it. The cheesecloth tore and in the filter. Water rushed out
(---)
was replaced. of filter. Sand found in the
clean water.
(+-+) The cheesecloth was replaced. Researcher 1 poured.
The filter clogged and researcher 2 Bubbles came out of the top of
(-++) unclogged it. The cheesecloth was the filter.
replaced.
The filter clogged. Researcher 2 Researcher 1 poured.
Standard
unclogged it.
(+--) No observations. Researcher 1 poured.
The cheesecloth was about to come off of A steady stream of water came
(-+-) the bottle, so it was replaced. out of the filter. Researcher 1
poured.
(++-) No observations. Researcher 1 poured.
Standard No observations. Researcher 1 poured.
Table 11 shows the errors and observations from DOE 3. The cheesecloth was replaced
on several of the filters because it was coming off, which may have altered data.
Table 12
Trials Errors Observations
The beaker was not washed before the A steady stream of water came
Standard
initial sample was collected. out of the filter.
The filter clogged, so researcher 1 Water came out of the filter in
(-++) unclogged the filter. a very fast drip. Researcher 3
poured.
(++-) Sand was floating at the top of filter. No observations.
All separate layers of the filter had A steady stream of water came
combined to form one layer. out of the filter. Researcher 3
(-+-)
poured. Water was heard
coming out of the filter.
No observations. Researcher 3 poured. Sand was
(---)
stuck on the side of the filter.
Standard
unclogged it.
No observations. Researcher 2 poured. A steady
(--+) drip of water came out of the
filter.
All of the solution did not fit into the filter Researcher 3 poured. A bubble
(+++) at one time, so two pours was necessary. was formed on bottom of the
cheesecloth.
(+-+) No observations. Researcher 1 poured.
(+--) Fungus grew onto the gravel in the filter. Researcher 1 poured.
No observations. Researcher 3 poured. A steady
Standard stream of water came out of
the filter.
Table 12 shows the errors and observations that occurred during DOE 4. Fungus grew on
filters (see figure 8), and the beaker was not washed before the trial was conducted in the first
standard trial.
Table 13
Fungus grew on filter. The sand started Researcher 1 poured. Slow
mixing with the gravel. drip of water. The filter was
Standard
clogged, so researcher 1
unclogged it.
(+--) Fungus grew onto the gravel in the filter. Researcher 1 poured.
(-++) No observations. Researcher 1 poured.
(++-) Fungus grew onto the gravel in the filter. Researcher 1 poured.
(+-+) Carbon and sand swapped places in filter. Researcher 1 poured.
Standard Fungus grew onto the gravel in the filter. Researcher 1 poured.
Not all of the vinegar solution fit in the Researcher 1 poured.
(+++) filter, so the pouring method was
inconsistent.
(-+-) Fungus grew onto the gravel in the filter. Researcher 1 poured.
No observations. Rust specks were found at the
(---) bottom of the beaker after
vinegar solution was poured.
Standard Fungus grew onto the gravel in the filter. Researcher 1 poured.
Table 13 shows the errors and observations that happened during DOE 5. The solution
did not fit in the (+++) filter all at once, and fungus grew in most of the filters (see figure 8).
Figure 8. Filter Fungus

Figure 8 shows the white fungus that was found growing on the gravel layer of the filter.
The fungus grew on most of the filters, the figure only shows the Standard filters.
Figure 9. Single Layer Filter
Figure 9 shows how the sand, gravel, and charcoal combined in some of the filters to
form a single layer rather than the three layers. This occurred during DOE 2 in the (-+-) filter.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
The amount of activated charcoal, sand, and gravel were changed in each trial to
determine the effect of each on raising the pH of the water to make it safer to drink. Since 3
factors were changed in the experiment, a 3 factor DOE was used to analyze the data.The
difference between the final pH and the initial pH was used to determine the effectiveness of
each filter. The standard water filters, which had the same ratio of each material as the filters in
the experiment that this one was based off of, acted as a control for the experiment. The trials
were randomized using the calculator’s randomization feature to prevent confounding. Five
DOE’s for a total of 55 trials were run to make sure that the data occurred repeatedly.
Table 14
Amount of Material in Filters
Factor Low Standard High
Activated Charcoal
33.4195 75.1392 117.6726
(g)
Sand
80.6153 174.6460 300.3837
(g)
Gravel
73.9064 146.9994 236.7888
(g)
Table 14 shows the amount of activated carbon, sand, and gravel used in the water filters
for each trial.

Table 15
Average Change in pH for Each Filter Design
DOE 1 DOE 2 DOE 3 DOE 4 DOE 5 Average
(+++) 0.86 0.78 0.79 0.91 0.88 0.85
(++-) 0.63 0.73 0.88 0.82 0.73 0.76
(+-+) 0.22 0.46 0.51 0.43 0.63 0.45
(+--) 0.53 0.34 0.48 0.36 0.56 0.45
(-++) 0.97 1.01 1.10 1.01 1.06 1.03
(-+-) 0.98 0.87 0.96 0.99 1.01 0.96
(--+) 0.34 0.37 0.24 0.34 0.35 0.33
(---) 0.42 0.56 0.37 0.29 0.29 0.39
Table 15 shows the results of the 5 DOE’s completed and the average for each type of
trial.
The effect of each variable in a DOE can be calculated (see Appendix C).In order to find
the effect value, the average of the trials with the variable’s low amount needs to be subtracted
from the average of the trials when the variable was held high. When the effect value was found
to be positive, the pH of the water became more basic; when the effect value was found to be
negative, the pH of the water became more acidic.
Table 16
Effect of Activated Charcoal
Effect of Activated Carbon
(-) 33.4195 g (+) 117.6726 g
1.03 0.85
0.96 0.76
0.33 0.45
0.39 0.45
Avg = 0.68 Avg = 0.68
Figure 10. Effect of Activated Carbon

Table 16 and figure 10 show the effect of the activated carbon on the pH of the water. It
was found that, on average, as the amount of activated charcoal increased from 33.4195 g to
117.6726 g, the pH of the water solution decreased by 0.0485, which made the water more
acidic.
Table 17
Effect of Sand
Effect of Sand
(-) 80.6153 g (+) 300.383 g
0.45 0.85
0.45 0.76
0.33 1.03
0.39 0.96
Avg = 0.40 Avg = 0.90
Figure 11. Effect of Sand
Table 17 and figure 11 show the effect of the sand on the pH of the water. As the amount
of sand increased from 80.6153 g to 300.3837 g, the pH increased by about 0.50, which made the
water more basic, and therefore, safer to drink.
Table 18
Effect of Gravel
Effect of Gravel
(-) 73.9064 (+) 236.7888
0.76 0.85
0.45 0.45
0.96 1.03
0.39 0.33
Avg = 0.64 Avg = 0.66
Figure 12. Effect of Gravel

Table 18 and figure 12 show the effect that the gravel had on the pH change of the water
before and after being run through the filter. The pH of the water increased by about 0.02 when
the amount of gravel increased from 73.9064 g to 236.7888 g.
The interaction effects between each variable in a DOE can also be calculated (see
appendix A). The interaction effect is calculated by the slope of the high minus the slope of the
low. To find the slope of the high, the average difference in pH between the trials when the first
variable is held high and the second variable is held low is taken, and subtracted from the
average difference in pH when the first variable is held high and the second variable is held high.
The subtracted answer is then divided by two.
Table 19
Interaction Effect of Activated Charcoal and Sand
Effect of Activated Carbon and Sand
Sand (-) (+)
Solid 0.45 0.85
(+)
Activated Segment 0.45 0.76
Carbon Dotted 0.33 1.03
(-)
Segment 0.39 0.96
Figure 13. Interaction of Carbon and Sand
Table 19 and figure 13 show the interaction effect between the activated charcoal and the
sand in the water filter. The dashed segment on the graph represents the low amount of activated
carbon and the solid segment represents the high amount of the activated carbon. When the
carbon and sand were held high, the pH decreased by about 0.14, making the water more acidic.
The slope of the dashed segment represents the difference between the high amount of sand and
the low amount of sand while the carbon was held low. It can be seen that the dotted and solid
segments intersect, so there appears to be an interaction between the activated carbon and sand.
Table 20
Interaction Effect of Activated Charcoal and Gravel
Effect of Activated Carbon and Gravel
Gravel (-) (+)
Solid 0.76 0.85
(+)
Activated Segment 0.45 0.45
Carbon Dotted 0.96 1.03
(-)
Segment 0.39 0.33
Figure 14. Effect of Activated Carbon and Gravel
Table 20 and figure 14 show the interaction between the activated charcoal and the gravel
in the water filters. The interaction effect was found to be 0.02, which means that when the
activated charcoal and the gravel were both held high, the pH increased by about 0.02 and the
water became more basic. The two segments are nearly parallel, which implies that there is
probably not an interaction.
Table 21
Interaction Effect of Sand and Gravel
Gravel
Effect of Sand and Gravel
(-) (+)
Solid 0.45 0.85
(+)
Segment 0.33 1.03
Sand
Dotted 0.45 0.45
(-)
Segment 0.39 0.33
Figure 15. Effect of Sand and Gravel

Table 21 and figure 15 show the interaction effect between the sand and gravel on the
difference in pH. The interaction was found to increase the pH of the water by about 0.06, which
means that the water became more basic when both the sand and gravel were held high. The two
segments are similar in slope, so there appears not to be an interaction between the sand and
gravel.
Figure 16. Graph of Standards
Figure 16 shows the graph of the 15 standard trials run during the experiment. It can be
seen that a pattern occurred in the standards. The pattern in the standards implies that the data
may not be valid. Every third trial, when the standard 2 filter was used, the pH change was
significantly higher than the trials run on standard filters 1 and 3. The range of standards was
found to be 0.23 by subtracting the lowest standard of 0.56 from the highest standard of 0.79.
To determine if the effect was significant, the range of standards was multiplied by two.
If the calculated effect fell outside of the fences set up at positive and negative two times the
range of standards, the effect was considered significant, which means it did not happen by
chance alone. The fences are at twice the range of standards which fall at +0.46 and -0.46.
Figure 17. Dot Plot of Effects
Figure 17 shows the effects of activated charcoal (C), sand (S), gravel (G), the interaction
effect of activated charcoal and sand (CS), the interaction effect of activated charcoal and gravel
(CG), and the interaction effect of sand and gravel (SG). The only effect that was found to be
significant was the sand.
A parsimonious prediction equation can be used to predict results within the data set
using only the statistically significant factors.

ef f ect
y = g rand average + 2
× f actor + "noise"
0.50
y = 0.65 + 2
× S + "noise"
Figure 18. Parsimonious Prediction Equation
Figure 18 shows the parsimonious prediction equation. The only factor present in the
parsimonious prediction equation is the sand because the sand was the only factor that proved to
be significant.
Conclusion
Multi-layer filtration systems containing various amount of activated carbon (CH4), sand
(SiO2), and gravel were designed in hopes of figuring out what would reduce pH to a level
conducive to consumption. Contaminated water solution was simulated using rust, vinegar, and
water was created and run through the constructed filters. The initial and final pH of the
contaminated water was measured to determine the change in pH.
The hypothesis that the water filter containing the high amount of carbon (117.6726 g),
the high amount of sand (300.3830 g), and the high amount of gravel (236.7888 g) would cause
the greatest change in pH was rejected. While it was true that when the amount of sand and the
amount of gravel were increased, the pH of the water became more basic, when the amount of
activated carbon increased, the pH of the water became more acidic.
Previous research has found that sand and gravel work together to filter water. The sand
and gravel form permeable layers that remove debris ("What are the best materials to use for
cleaning water?”). The sand was found to have the highest effect net pH change of 0.50, and the
gravel was found to have an effect net pH change of 0.20. This means that as the amount of sand
and gravel increased, the pH of the water also increased, making it more basic. Unlike previous
research, the interaction effect between sand and gravel was found to be 0.06, meaning they did
not depend on each other very much. The sand and gravel were effective because the anion
oxygen molecules in the sand and gravel bind to the cation iron molecules, and remove them
from the rest of the water. The pH of the sand is basic, which means that it has a higher
hydroxide concentration and wants to bind to hydrogen to become more neutral (Clark). Since
the contaminated water solution run through the filter was acidic, meaning it can donate
hydrogen ions, the sand bound to the vinegar in the water to accept the hydrogen causing
neutralization (Clark). The gravel works in the same way as the sand does, the only difference is
that the sand has more surface area which causes more binding of the vinegar to the sand.
Research shows that activated carbon to make water more basic, which is why it is often
used for filtration. Adsorption occurs when particles bind to a liquid or solid adsorbent
(Helmenstein). Adsorbents use chemical attraction to bond the adsorbate molecules to it ("What
is activated charcoal and why is it used in filters?"). The activated carbon is supposed to form a
hydrogen bond between the oxygen in the activated carbon and the hydrogen in the water (Kirk).
The hydrogen bond is supposed to form due to attractive forces between the hydrogen in the
activated carbon and the oxygen in the water(“Hydrogen Bonding”). The hydrogen bond would
also cause polarity, which would allow the carbon to bind to iron, acid, and other debris in the
water since it has both a positive and negative pole (“Hydrogen Bonding”).
The research conducted in this experiment did not come to the same conclusions as
previous researchers. When the researchers were conducting the experiment, carbon was found
to have an effect value of -0.05, meaning that the carbon ended up lowering the pH, making the
water more acidic. The researchers were not entirely sure of why this happened, but it is believed
that the carbon from the activated carbon bound to the oxygen in the water to create carbon
dioxide (CO2). The carbon dioxide that was potentially formed from this bond combined with the
hydrogen in the water to form carbonic acid (H2CO3) as shown in figure 19 (Waters). The
carbonic acid releases hydrogen ions when it dissociates, which makes the water more acidic as
it is filtered (Waters).
Figure 19. Carbonic Acid Formation and Dissociation
Figure 19 shows the formation and subsequent dissociation of carbonic acid from carbon
dioxide and water. The carbonic acid dissociates to form a hydrogen ion, and a conjugate base
(Akhtar). The carbonic acid’s dissociation into hydrogen makes the water more acidic.
Problematic experimental design errors need to be addressed for future research. For
example, after each trial, distilled water was not flushed through the water filters, which could
have allowed contaminants to sit in the water filters and interfere with data for the following
trial. Another problem could have been with the filter construction itself. A piece of cheesecloth
should have been placed between each layer in the filter to help keep the three layers separate.
Since there was nothing to help separate the three layers, the contents in some of the water filters
ended up combining to form a single layer. While it is not known if everything combining to
form a single layer affected the results, it would have helped to have separation between layers.
Another issue with the bottle construction was that there was not enough room in the filter with
the highest amount of materials to hold all of the sand, gravel, charcoal, and contaminated water
solution at the same time. The contaminated water was poured into the filter in portions because
it could not all fit, which did not allow for a consistent pouring method to be used. While it is
unknown if the inconsistent pouring method had any effect on the experiment, larger bottles
should have been used to allow for everything to fit in the bottle.
Execution errors made by the researchers need to be addressed so that the same mistakes
are not made in future research. One of the main errors that the researchers made involved not
replacing the cheesecloth on the filters consistently. The cheesecloth was replaced based on
whether or not it came off of the bottle or was about to come off. The researchers should have
replaced the cheesecloth on all of the bottles at the same time so that there would be no
confounding caused by cheesecloth replacement. It is unknown what effect replacing the
cheesecloth inconsistently actually had on the data, however.
An alternative question for future research could be what would happen if the
contaminated water were run through the filter multiple times. It would also be interesting to
look at the contaminated water under a microscope and look at the metallic debris in the water
before and after being run through the water filter to see if the filter was actually effective in
removing the iron from the water. It was hoped that through this research and future research
cheaper, more efficient water filters could be produced to provide more people access to clean
water.
Acknowledgements
First, the researchers would like to thank the staff at MMSTC, Mrs. Hilliard for supplies
and guidance both in the paper and the experiment itself. Mr. Supal for assisting the writing
process and letting us use the workshop to stage our experiment. Mrs. Dewey for the assistance
in analyzing data in the math portion of the paper. Also Mrs. Dory for supplying us a cart to
move our setup across the school.
The researchers would like to thank all of their parents for all they did. James Stinson and
his tools for helping make the water filter stands. Kelly Stinson and her Amazon Prime© account
for ordering materials that were vital to the success of the experiment. Annmarie Stacheit and
Mark Stacheit for buying materials and proofreading the paper. Annette and Frank Russell for
getting materials that were necessary for the experiment.
The researchers would like everyone else not mentioned above.

Appendix A: Water Filter Construction
Materials:
2484.358 g Pea Gravel Knife

6143.802 g Sand 9 Square Foot Cheesecloth
5051.3274 g Activated Carbon 11 Rubber Bands
11 20 oz Faygo bottles Permanent Marker
Scissors 30 cm Ruler
Procedures:
1. Mark 2 cm using the ruler from the bottom of the clean 20 oz Faygo bottle with a
permanent marker. Use a knife to cut off the bottom of the bottle from the line previously
marked.
2. Remove and discard the bottle label.
3. Cut two 7 cm X 7 cm squares of cheesecloth and layer the two squares on top of each
other.
4. Use the layered squares of cheesecloth to cover the mouth of the bottle where the cap is
normally attached. Secure the cheesecloth over the mouth of the bottle with a rubberband.
5. Invert the bottle, mouth facing down, and mount it in the appropriate bottle stand (see
Appendix B).
6. The first layer put in the bottle should be the activated charcoal. The amount of activated
charcoal placed in the bottle depends on the trial being conducted (see table 22).
7. Add the layer of sand. The sand should lay flat over the layer of activated charcoal. The
amount of sand placed in the bottle depends on the trial being conducted (see table 22).
8. Add the layer of gravel over the layer of sand. The gravel should lay flat over the layer of
sand. The amount of gravel placed in the filter depends on the trial being conducted (see
table 22).
9. Repeat steps 1-8 until 11 bottles are created.
10. Mark the exterior of the bottle with the amount of activated charcoal, sand, and gravel
contained within the filter.
Diagrams:
Table 22 Amount of Materials for Filters

Activated Charcoal (g) 33.4195 75.1392 117.6726
Sand (g) 80.6153 174.6460 300.3837
Gravel (g) 73.9064 146.9994 236.7888

Table 22 shows the amount of sand, gravel, and activated charcoal needed for each type
of trial being conducted. For example, when the low amount of activated charcoal is needed,
33.4195 g of activated charcoal will be placed in the filter.
Figure 20. Water Filter Diagram
The figure shows what the finished water filter will look like, but will have varying
amounts of gravel, sand, and charcoal.

Appendix B: Water Filter Stand Construction
Materials:
150 cm x 9 cm x 2 cm Wooden Board Table Saw

100 psi Air Compressor 2 ⅛ in Forstner Bit
Nail Gun ¾ in Forstner Bit
(12) Nails Drill Press
(2) 30 in Wooden Dowel Wood Glue
Marking Pencil Tape Measure
(2) Vice Grips 40 in T-Square
Grade 3 Sandpaper 40 ft Tape Measure
Procedures:
1. Take the 150 cm x 9 cm x 2 cm board and use the tape measure to measure two portions:
one portion 40 cm in length and one portion 31 cm in length. Mark the distances with the
marking pencil.
2. Use the table saw to cut the board to marked measurements. Discard any excess wood.
3. Take the T-square and mark the middle of each board segment length-wise.
4. Mark the center of a circle 6.5 cm from the edge of the board, and then 3 more circles
each 9 cm apart on the 40 cm board.
5. Use the vice grips to secure the 40 cm board on the drill press, and put the 2 ⅛ in Forstner
bit on the drill press.
6. Put a scrap piece of wood under the board so that the drill press is not drilled into.
7. Use the drill press and the Forstner bit to put holes all the way through the board.
8. Repeat steps 4 - 7 for the other 40 cm board.
9. Do steps 4 - 7 for the 31 cm board, but only mark and drill 3 holes using the same
dimensions
10. Use the sandpaper to clean up the circles, and any other spots that need it.
11. Measure out 5 in pieces on the wooden dowels to be cut with the tape measure and mark
them with the marking pencil. Use the table saw to cut them. The complete stand should
stand at 14 cm tall.
12. Put the ¾ in forstner bit onto the drill press, and drill holes halfway through the boards in
each corner of the board
13. Put a bit of wood glue in the newly drilled holes and place dowels in the holes. Give it a
few minutes to dry. Turn on the air compressor so it can build up pressure
14. Carefully flip over the stands. Hook up the nail gun to the air compressor, and put a nail
in each dowel.
15. Wipe any excess glue and allow 5-10 hours for glue to completely dry
Diagram:
Figure 21. Filter Stands in Solidworks
Figure 22. Filter Stands Measurements

Figures 21 and 22 show the filter stands made in Solidworks. figure 21 shows the
assembly of the stands, representing the final product, while figure 22 shows the drawing with
measurements in millimeters.
Appendix C: DOE Calculations
The effects of each factor, the interaction effects of the three factors, and the range of
standards were found to analyze the three factor DOE.
Effect=High - Low
Effect=0.63-0.68 = -0.05
Figure 23. Effect of Activated Carbon Calculation
Figure 23 shows the effect of the activated carbon to be -0.05. The effect was calculated
by subtracting the average of the carbon when it was held low from the average of the carbon
when it was held high. This same calculation was used to find the effect of sand and gravel too.
S lope = y2−y1
x2−x1
I nteraction Ef f ect = (High Slope) − (Low Slope)
H igh Slope = 0.80−0.45
1−(−1)
=0.18
1.0−0.36
Low Slope = 1−(−1)
=0.32
I nteraction = 0.18 -0.32 = -0.14
Figure 24. Effect of Activated Carbon and Sand Calculation
Figure 24 shows the interaction effect between activated carbon and sand to be -0.14. The
interaction effect was calculated by subtracting the low slope from the high slope. The high slope
was found by finding the average pH change when carbon was held high and when sand was
held low (0.80). This was then subtracted from the average change in pH when both variables
were held high (0.45). The subtracted values are then divided by the change in “x” which is
1-(-1) or 2, this is due to the fact that the slope is calculated by the change in “y” over the change
in “x”. The low slope was found the same way as the high slope. However, the slope of the low
was calculated by subtracting the average pH change when both variables are held low from
when the carbon is held low and when the sand is held high. To find the interaction of effects
between activated carbon and gravel, and between sand and gravel the same formula is used.
2 ROS = 2 × (highest standard − lowest standard)

2 ROS = 2 × (0.79 − 0.56) = 2 × 0.23 = 0.46
Figure 25. Two Times the Range of Standards Calculation
The range of standards was found to be 0.23 by subtracting the lowest standard of 0.56
highest standard of 0.79. The range of standards was then multiplies by two to find twice the
range of standards.
Works Cited
"Acids, Bases, & the pH Scale." Science Buddies. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2017
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada;Government of Canada. "Filtration: How Does It Work?"

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada;Government of Canada. Canadian Government, 13
Aug. 2015. Web. 12 Mar. 2017
Akhtar, Sana, Pong, Emily, and Bassi, Harjeet. "Conjugate Acid-Base Pairs." Chemistry
LibreTexts. Libretexts, April & may 2016. Web. 15 May 2017.
"Basic Information about Lead in Drinking Water." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 15
Mar. 2017. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.
Brosky, Katherine. The Biosand Filter. University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering,
1 Nov. 2016. Web. 17 Mar. 2017
Chang, Raymond, and Kenneth A. Goldsby. Chemistry. 9th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Education, 2007 Print.
Clark, Jim. "Theories of Acids and Bases ." Theories of acids and bases. N.p., Nov. 2013. Web.
13 May 2017.
Cox, Patrick. "Arsenic Removal Article - Clean Drinking Water for Developing Countries."
Arsenic Removal Article - Clean Drinking Water for Developing Countries. N.p., n.d.
Web. 16 Mar. 2017
Danglor, Bipin, and Dorothee Spuhler. "Biosand Filter." Biosand Filter | SSWM. N.p., n.d. Web.
16 Mar. 2017
Dunee. "Home." Difference Between. N.p., 06 Dec. 2011. Web. 13 Mar. 2017
Everpure. "The Dangers Of Unfiltered Water." The Dangers Of Unfiltered Water. N.p., 2006.
Web. 14 Mar. 2017
Hale, Frank E., R. E. Miligan, Robert Spurr Weston, and AJ Provost, Jr. Iron Removal By Rapid
Sand Filtration [with Discussion]. Vol. 3. N.p.: Journal (American Water Works
Association), 1916. Archive. JSTOR. Web. 16 Mar. 2017
Helmenstine, Ph.D. Anne Marie. "Understand What Activated Charcoal Is and How It Works."
ThoughtCo. N.p., 13 Feb. 2017. Web. 14 Mar. 2017
"Hydrogen Bonding." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 08 Jan. 2016.

Web. 19 Mar. 2017
Kirk, Raymond E., Jacqueline I. Kroschwitz, and Donald F. Othmer. Encyclopedia of chemical
technology. Hoboken, N. J.: Wiley, 2007. ResearchGate. Web. 17 Mar. 2017
Lahlou, Dr. "Slow Sand Filtration." Slow Sand Filtration. Tech Brief, 14 June 2000. Web. 15
Mar. 2017
Munyori, George , and Gbekeloluwa Oguntimein. "Studies on Filtration of Fermentation
Wastewater Using Sand Carbon Filter." Department of Civil Engineering, Morgan State
University (2005): n. pag. Web. March & April 2017
Ophardt, Charles E. Elmhurst College Chembook. N.p.: n.p., 2003. Web. 14 Mar. 2017
"Permeable." Permeable - Biology-Online Dictionary. N.p., 9 May 2009. Web. 14 Mar. 2017
Rich, M. "How To Build A Bio Water Filter." Off The Grid News. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2017
Barlow, Maude. Blue future protecting water for people and the planet forever. New
York: New Press, 2014. Print.
Rogers, Chris Dinesen. "Health Effects of pH on Drinking Water." Livestrong.com. Leaf

Group, 16 Aug. 2013. Web. 18 May 2017.
"Safe Drinking Water Is Essential." Safe Drinking Water is Essential - Why is Safe Water
Essential? National Academies, 01 Sept. 2007. Web. 14 May 2017.
"Water Filtration." University of Memphis, n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2017
"Water Treatment." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 20 Jan. 2015. Web. 14 Mar. 2017
Waters, Hannah. "Ocean Acidification." Ocean Portal | Smithsonian. Smithsonian's National

Museum of Natural History, 29 Nov. 2016. Web. 13 May 2017.
"What are the Best Materials to use for Cleaning Water? - Let's Talk Science." What are the best
materials to use for cleaning water? - Let's Talk Science. N.p., 2017. Web. 14 Mar. 2017
"What is activated charcoal and why is it used in filters?" HowStuffWorks Science.

HowStuffWorks, 01 Apr. 2000. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.
Wolverton, B. C., PhD, and John D. Wolverton. Growing Clean Water: Nature's Solution to
Water Pollution. Picayune, Mississippi: Wolverton Environmental Services, Inc., 2001
Print.

Russell - Stacheit - Stinson - Chemistry Paper

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Russell - Stacheit - Stinson - Chemistry Paper

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Effect of Activated Carbon, Sand, and Gravel on Water Filtration

Nicholas Russell / Elizabeth Stacheit / Lucas Stinson

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Jamie Hilliard / Mark Supal / Christine Kincaid Dewey

Problem Statement Hypothesis And Data Measured……………………………………………...9

Data And Observations……………………………...………………………………………….. 13

Data Analysis and Interpretation………………………………………………………………... 24

Appendix A: Water Filter Construction………………………………………………………….36

Appendix B: Water Filter Stand Construction…………………………………………………...38

Appendix C: DOE Calculations………………………………………………………………….41

A substance’s acidity is measured on the pH scale. The pH scale is determined by the

(​"Basic Information about Lead in Drinking Water")​.

could be avoided with a water filter.

activated charcoal, sand, and gravel.

Figure 1. Water Filter Diagram

cleanliness of water, the pH scale will be used.

Figure 3. Water Lewis Structure

Figure 3 shows the Lewis Structure of water.

Figure 4. Disassociation of Hydrogen

Figure 4 shows the disassociation of hydrogen from water.

deteriorated, which causes it to break down into small pieces (Dunee).

Figure 5. Rust Equation

that sand and gravel are being used in this experiment.

binds to the impurities in the water due to adsorption.

Figure 6. Activated Carbon Lewis Structure

Figure 6 shows the activated carbon Lewis Structure.

Activated charcoal is known as an adsorbent. Adsorption is defined as the adhesion of a

vinegar from water.

Problem Statement Hypothesis And Data Measured

The availability of clean drinking water is a global crisis. Development of affordable

filtration systems as an attempt to address this issue.

pH of the water before and after filtration.

of, from numbers for a 2 liter to numbers for a 16 oz bottle.

Figure 7. Water Filter Setup

All filters but (-,-,+) are currently filtering.

Data And Observations

33.4195 g of activated charcoal will be placed in the filter.

(-++) Murky yellow in beginning and grey when finished.

(++-) Murky yellow in beginning and black when finished.

after filtration it turned into a darker color.

(+-+) Light yellow and transparent in beginning and black at end.

(+--) Dark brown color at end.

(--+) Apple juice colored at end.

(---) Muddy dark brown color at end.

(+++) Dark orange in beginning and coffee colored at end.

Trial Color Observations

(++-) Beer colored in beginning and muddy brown at end.

(--+) Beer colored in beginning and muddy brown at end.

murky dark brown after filtration.

(-+-) Apple cider colored in beginning and murky brown at end.

brown or orange color.

solution it was a brownish color.

Trial Errors Observations

Figure 8. Filter Fungus

Figure 9. Single Layer Filter

Data Analysis and Interpretation

for each trial.

negative, the pH of the water became more acidic.

Figure 10. Effect of Activated Carbon

Figure 11. Effect of Sand

water more basic, and therefore, safer to drink.

Figure 12. Effect of Gravel

the amount of gravel increased from 73.9064 g to 236.7888 g.

("Basic Information about Lead in Drinking Water").

"Hydrogen Bonding." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 08 Jan. 2016.

Rogers, Chris Dinesen. "Health Effects of pH on Drinking Water." Livestrong.com. Leaf

Waters, Hannah. "Ocean Acidification." Ocean Portal | Smithsonian. Smithsonian's National

"What is activated charcoal and why is it used in filters?" HowStuffWorks Science.