The National Student Research Center

E-Journal of Student Research: Science

Volume 5, Number 5, May, 1997

John I. Swang, Ph.D.

Founder/Director

National Student Research Center

2024 Livingston Street

Mandeville, Louisiana 70448

U.S.A.

E-Mail: nsrcmms@communique.net

http://youth.net/nsrc/nsrc.html

1. Holding Your Breath
2. Which Crane Will Lift More?
3. The Effects of Length on the Musical Pitch of Organ Pipes and Calliope Whistles
4. he Effect of Electromagnetic Fields on Plant Growth
5. The Effect of Acid Rain On Seed Germination And Plant Growth
6. How Does Different Colored Light Affect Plant Growth?
7. Analysis of pH in a Small Lake Over Time
8. Nitrates in Drinking Water

TITLE:  Holding Your Breath

STUDENT RESEARCHER:  Mr. Carbone's Math Class
SCHOOL:  North Stratfield
         Fairfield, Connecticut
GRADE:  4
TEACHER:  Mr. V. Carbone, M.Ed.


I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS:

We want to find out who can hold their breath the longest.  We 
want to test a sixth, fourth, and third grade class of 
students.  Our hypothesis states that the sixth graders will be 
able to hold their breath the longest.  

II. METHODOLOGY:

We tested third and fourth grade students in Connecticut and 
sixth grade students in Louisiana.  We had each class keep time 
as to how long each student could hold their breath.  All 
students completed two tests.  In the first test, everyone took 
a deep breath and held it.  For the second test, everyone 
exhaled and then held their breath.  

III. ANALYSIS OF DATA:

                  Average Time              Average Time
                  Breath Held               Breath Held
                  (Inhaled)                 (Exhaled)

Sixth Grade       43.0 Seconds              23.3 Seconds
Fourth Grade      55.8 Seconds              33.5 Seconds
Third Grade       32.3 Seconds              27.3 Seconds


IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

The fourth graders held their breath the longest in both tests.  
We rejected our hypothesis.  We thought the sixth graders would 
be able to hold their breath the longest because they are 
bigger than the third and fourth grader.  We are not really 
sure why the fourth graders won.  We do know that we had 
trouble with some of the third graders we tested.  Some were 
fooling around.  

V. APPLICATION:

Holding one's breath the longest does not seem to matter on 
size or height.  



TITLE:  Which Crane Will Lift More?

STUDENT RESEARCHER:  Chris Pacilio
SCHOOL:  Dawson Elementary
         Holden, MA
GRADE:  5
TEACHER:  Wayne A. Boisselle


I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS: 
        
I want to find out how much Lego machines can lift.  My 
hypothesis states that the crane with more gears will lift more 
than the crane with fewer gears.

II.  METHODOLOGY:  

First, I wrote my statement of purpose.  Next, I wrote my 
literature review.  Then I wrote my hypothesis.   The next 
thing I did was build my cranes and perform my experiment.  I 
built two types of cranes using Lego Dacta Technique II cards 
and the LogoWriter Robotics program.  The first one I built had 
four gears (two large and two small) set up small to large, 
small to large.  The other crane I built had six gears set up 
the same way as the first crane, except I added another small 
and large gear.  Each crane was attached to a separate base.  I 
then set up each crane with string and cup to hold weight.  I 
started off with 50 grams in the first cup and added 50 grams 
after each trial.  I marked my data on my collection chart.   
Then I analyzed my data and accepted or rejected my hypothesis.  
Finally, I drew my conclusions and applied my data to the real 
world outside of the classroom.

III.  ANALYSIS OF DATA:

Crane 1 with six gears lifted 1,700 g. on both trials and crane 
2 with four gears lifted 250 g. on both trials.  

IV.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

My data shows that crane 1 lifted more than crane 2 both times.  
Therefore, I accept my hypothesis which stated that the crane 
with more gears will lift more than the crane with fewer gears.

V.  APPLICATION: 

My report will help people in the work world make stronger 
cranes.



TITLE:  The Effects of Length on the Musical Pitch of Organ 
        Pipes and Calliope Whistles

STUDENT RESEARCHER:  Don P. Elbers
SCHOOL:  Mandeville Middle School
         Mandeville, Louisiana
GRADE:  6
TEACHER:  Mrs. M. Smith


I.  STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS:

What is the effect of the length of an organ pipe or calliope 
whistle on the frequency of the sound produced?  My hypothesis 
states that I think that decreasing the length of an organ pipe 
or calliope whistle will result in tones of higher frequencies.  
Lengthening the pipe or whistle will result in the production 
of lower frequency tones.

II.  METHODOLOGY:

A centrifugal blower was used to supply air to different types 
and sizes of organ pipes and calliope whistles.  The length of 
a whistle or pipe, measured with a tape, was varied.  The 
musical pitch, measured with a piano tuner and frequency, 
monitored with a frequency meter, were recorded as the length 
of each device was varied.

III.  ANALYSIS OF DATA:

For each pipe or whistle it is shown by the data collected that 
an increase in length represents a lowering of pitch and 
frequency.  A decrease in length causes the pitch and frequency 
to increase.

IV.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

The rate of vibration of the air within the pipe or whistle 
increases as the length decreases.  It appears that sound waves 
bounce back and forth within the pipe or whistle, at a higher 
rate, over short distances and a lower rate over long 
distances.

V.  APPLICATION:

If you applied this information to real life you would know how 
to tune calliope whistles such as those on the calliope on the 
Mississippi Queen Riverboat and organ pipes such as those on 
the organ on the City Park Carousel.



TITLE:  The Effect of Electromagnetic Fields on Plant Growth

STUDENT RESEARCHER:  Richard Kaufmann
SCHOOL:  Mandeville Middle School
         Mandeville, Louisiana
GRADE:  6
TEACHER:  Ellen Marino, M.Ed.


I.  STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS:

I wanted to know more about the effect of electromagnetic 
fields (EMF's) on plant growth.  The abbreviation EMF stands 
for electromagnetic fields.   They are produced when 
electricity flows through a wire.  The fields are silent and 
invisible.  Humans are not biologically equipped to detect 
them.  They go unnoticed even though we're surrounded by EMF's 
all the time.  You can be exposed to EMF's anywhere electricity 
flows such as through power lines, microwave ovens, electric 
ranges, electric razors, hair dryers, television sets, 
computers, air conditioners, and electric clocks.  I chose this 
because there is a great deal of controversy about whether 
these fields are dangerous to living organisms.  My hypothesis 
states that electromagnetic fields will have an effect on plant 
growth.

II.  METHODOLOGY:

First, I wrote my statement of purpose, review of literature 
about EMF's possible effect on plant growth, and hypothesis. 
Second, I gathered my materials: electric radio/clock, radish 
seeds, potting soil, and two identical pots.  Then I planted 30 
radish seeds in each of two pots.  The seeds were planted to a 
depth of one millimeter in the potting soil.  I placed both 
pots in front of a large, sunny picture window. Both pots 
received the same amount of sunlight and water each day.  The 
pots were one meter apart.

I placed the experimental pot on an electric clock/radio and 
left it there all through my research.  It received a 200 
milligauss electromagnetic field coming from the electric 
clock/radio.  The control pot received normal background EMF 
radiation of less than .5 milligauss.  The electromagnetic 
fields surrounding each plant were measured each day with a 
Gauss meter obtained from Central Louisiana Electric Company.

My methodology included several variables which I held 
constant: type of seeds, sunlight, amount of water, size of 
pots, kind and amount of soil, depth seeds were planted, and 
growing temperature.  The manipulated variable was the 
electromagnetic field applied to experimental plant.  The 
responding variables included the growth of the plants, the 
number of leaves on each plant, the color of the leaves, and 
the health of the plants.

I collected the following data and recorded it on a data 
collection sheet:  date of seed germination, average height of 
plants, average number of leaves per plant, color of plants and 
general health of plants.  I recorded the data for 14 on each 
of the two trials.  Then I accepted or rejected my hypothesis, 
wrote my summary and conclusion, where I accepted or rejected 
my hypothesis, and applied my findings to the world outside the 
classroom.  Finally I published my research in a printed 
electronic journal of student research.

III.  ANALYSIS OF DATA:

In trial one, all seeds had germinated in the experimental and 
control pots after four days.  On the fourth day, both the 
control and experimental group of plants grew an average of one 
and a half centimeters tall.  On the fifth day, both groups of 
plants grew to an average two and a half centimeters tall.  On 
the sixth day, the control plants were an average four 
centimeters tall and the experimental plants were three and a 
half centimeters tall.  On the seventh day, the control plants 
were six and a half centimeters tall and the experimental 
plants were six centimeters tall.  On the eighth day, the 
control plants were seven centimeters tall and the experimental 
plants were six and a half centimeters tall.  On the ninth day, 
the control plants were an average of eight centimeters tall 
and the experimental plants were an average of seven and a half 
centimeters tall.  On the tenth day of the experiment, the 
control plants were eight and a half centimeters tall and the 
experimental plants were eight centimeters tall.  The plants 
stopped growing on the eleventh day.  All plants in the control 
and experimental pots had two leaves by the end of the ninth 
day of the experiment.  All plants had two leaves by the end of 
the 14th day of the experiment.  The color of all plants in the 
control and experimental pots was green and their health was 
good.

In trial two, all seeds had germinated in the experimental and 
control pots after four days.  On the fourth day, the control 
plants grew to an average of two centimeters tall and 
experimental group of plants grew an average of three 
centimeters tall.  On the fifth day, the control plants grew to 
an average three centimeters tall and the experimental plants 
grew to an average of four centimeters tall.  On the sixth day, 
the control plants were an average five centimeters tall and 
the experimental plants were six centimeters tall.  On the 
seventh day, the control plants were six centimeters tall and 
the experimental plants were six and a half centimeters tall.  
On the eighth day, the control plants were seven centimeters 
tall and the experimental plants were six and a half 
centimeters tall. On the ninth day, the control plants were an 
average of seven centimeters tall and the experimental plants 
were an average of seven and a half centimeters tall.  On the 
tenth day of the experiment, the control plants were seven 
centimeters tall and the experimental plants were eight 
centimeters tall.  The plants in both pots stopped growing on 
the tenth day.  All plants in the control and experimental pots 
had two leaves by the end of the ninth day of the experiment.  
All plants had two leaves by the end of the 14th day of the 
experiment.  All plants were green and were in good health 
through out the second trial.

IV.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

The only difference between the two trials was that in the 
first trial the control plants which did not receive the strong 
electromagnetic field grew to an average height of nine 
centimeters while the experimental plants growing in the strong 
electromagnetic filed grew to an average height of eight 
centimeters.  In the second trial, the control plants grew to 
an average of seven centimeters and the experimental plants 
grew to an average of eight centimeters.

I averaged my data for both trials.  The control and 
experimental plants both grew to an average height of eight 
centimeters tall.  The plants in the control and experimental 
pots all germinated at about the same time in the first and 
second trial.  All the plants had two leaves, were green in 
color, and in good health by the end of the experiment.  I 
therefore reject my hypothesis which stated that 
electromagnetic fields will have an effect on plant growth.  On 
average, there was no difference between the growth in the 
control and experimental plants.

V.  APPLICATION:

I can tell gardeners that EMF's do not seem to effect plant 
growth.  The findings in this research should not be 
generalized to animal and human growth or health. Therefore, 
while EMF's may not affect plants growing in a garden, they 
still may affect the gardener.



TITLE:  The Effect of Acid Rain On Seed Germination And Plant
        Growth

STUDENT RESEARCHER:  Michael Phillips
SCHOOL:  Mandeville Middle School
         Mandeville, Louisiana
GRADE:  6
TEACHER:  John I. Swang, Ph.D.


I.  STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS:

I want to find out how acid rain affects the germination of 
seeds and the growth of the plants that sprout from them.  Acid 
rain is defined as a harmful precipitation formed when fossil 
fuels are burned and emit harmful gases that combine with 
atmospheric moisture and fall to the earth causing much damage 
to plants, buildings, and animals.  My first hypothesis states 
that seeds will germinate faster when given water with a pH 
level of 6.0 than when given water with a pH level of 4.0.  My 
second hypothesis states that the plants sprouting from the 
seeds given water with a pH level of 6.0 will grow taller, be 
in better health, and be greener than the plants sprouting from 
the seeds given water with a pH level of 4.0.

II.  METHODOLOGY:

First, I wrote my statement of purpose, conducted a review of 
literature on acid rain, and stated my hypothesis.  I then 
developed a methodology to test my hypothesis.  Next, I wrote a 
list of materials needed to test my hypothesis and made my data 
collection form.

In this experiment, the variables held constant were the size 
of the pots, the amount of water given to the seed/plant, the 
placement of the pots, and the amount of sunlight given to the 
plants.  The manipulated variable was the pH level of the water 
given to the plants.  The responding variables were the seed 
germination, the height of the plant, the number of leaves on 
the plant, the color of the plant, and the health of the plant.

Next, I gathered the needed materials.  I soaked sixty radish 
seeds in water for two days and then planted thirty of them in 
one pot filled with soil, and thirty in the other pot also 
filled with the same amount of soil.  The seeds were each 
planted about two centimeters deep.  I marked the first pot the 
experimental pot and the second pot the control pot, and placed 
them both inside near a window, where they would each receive 
the same amount of sunlight.

I then prepared my acid rain solution by filling a one quart 
container with tap water.  I then used a TetraTest pH kit to 
determine that it's pH level was 8.0.  Next, I added five drops 
of pH DOWN liquid to the water to lower it's pH level to 6.0, 
the level of acidity of normal rain water.  Then I measured out 
and poured 50 mL of this solution into the control pot.  Next, 
I added five more drops of pH DOWN liquid to the solution, to 
lower it's pH level to 4.0, the average level of acidity for 
rain water in the northeastern United States.  I then measured 
out and poured 50 mL of this solution into the experimental 
pot.

Then I began to observe the average height of the plants, the 
number of leaves on the plants, the color of the plants, the 
health of the plants, and how many seeds had germinated.  I 
repeated all these steps everyday for fourteen days, and 
recorded the information on my data collection form.  Then I 
analyzed the data and wrote my summary and conclusion.  Next, I 
applied my findings to the world outside of my classroom, and 
published my research.

III.  ANALYSIS OF DATA:

All of the seeds in the experimental pot had germinated by day 
9 and all of the seeds in the control pot had germinated by day 
12.  The color of the plants in the control pot on day 14 was 
green.  The color of the plants in the experimental pot was a 
mix of yellow and brown.  The plants grew to an average height 
of 11 cm in the control pot. The plants in the experimental pot 
grew to an average height of 10 cm.  The plants in both pots 
had a averages of two leaves.  The health of the plants in the 
control pot was, on day 14, excellent.  The health of the 
plants, in the experimental pot, was poor.

IV.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

In my research, I discovered that seeds given acid rain 
germinated faster.  The plants given normal rain water grew 
taller, were in better health, and were green. The experimental 
plants were yellow and brown.  Both the experimental and 
control pots' plants had an average of 2 leaves per plant.  
Therefore, I reject my first hypothesis, which stated that the 
plants given normal rain water would germinate faster than the 
plants given acid rain.  I accept my second hypothesis which 
stated that the plants given normal rain water would grow 
taller, be in better health, and be greener than plants given 
acid rain.

V.  APPLICATION:

I could apply my findings to the world outside of my classroom 
by telling owners of factories to install scrubbers to reduce 
the emission of harmful pollutants to the atmosphere.  I could 
also tell owners of automobiles to find out more about 
pollution prevention devices for automobiles.  This would 
reduce the amount of acid rain.



TITLE:  How Does Different Colored Light Affect Plant Growth?

STUDENT RESEARCHER:  Dana Blount
SCHOOL:  Mandeville Middle School
         Mandeville, Louisiana
GRADE:  6
TEACHER:  John I. Swang, Ph.D.


I.  STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS:

I want to know how different colored light affect plant growth.  
The different colors of light have different wavelengths.  Red 
has a long wavelength and violet has a short wavelength.  My 
hypothesis states that plants grown under red light will grow 
taller than the plants grown under violet light.

II.  METHODOLOGY:

First, I wrote mt statement of purpose and did my review of 
literature on plant growth, electromagnetic radiation, and 
photosynthesis.  To test my hypothesis, I wrote the following 
methodology.  First, I gathered my materials which included 60 
radish seeds, 3 flower pots of the same size, 3 cardboard 
boxes, a ruler with centimeters, a measuring cup, potting soil, 
red Reynolds Wrap, clear Reynolds Wrap, and blue Reynolds Wrap.  
Then I cut a square in the side of each box.  Then I cut 3 
squares of red Reynolds Wrap and 1 square of blue wrap to fit 
the box.  Then I cut 2 clear squares to fit the box.  Next, I 
taped 2 squares of red wrap on the first experimental box and 1 
red and 1 blue on the other experimental box to make violet.  I 
taped 2 squares of clear on the control box.  Next, I soaked my 
60 radish seeds in water over night.  Then I planted 20 seeds, 
1 mm. deep in the soil, in each pot.  I then placed one pot in 
the box with the red wrap, one in the box with the violet wrap, 
and one in the box with the clear wrap.  I watered the plants 
every other day with the same amount of water.  I put 2 
milliliters of water in each pot.  Next, I wrote down my 
variables as shown below.

My variables held constant were the amount of water given to 
each plant, the amount of sunlight they receive, the amount of 
soil in each pot, the number of seeds in each pot, the size of 
the pots, and the size of the boxes.  My manipulated variable 
was the color or the electromagnetic frequency of the light.  
My responding variables were how tall the plants grew, how many 
leaves they had, and the color of the plants.

I observed my plants every day for 14 days.  I recorded my data 
on my data collection form.  Then I analyzed my data. Next, I 
wrote mt summary and conclusion where I accepted or rejected my 
hypothesis.  Then I applied my findings to everyday life.  
Finally, I published my abstract in The Journal of Student 
Research.

III.  ANALYSIS OF DATA:

On the first day, all of my radish seeds had sprouted.  When I 
measured them I discovered that the seeds in the 3 pots had an 
average height of 3 cm.  After 14 days, the plants grown under 
the violet light grew to an average height of 7.1 cm.  The 
plant grown under the red light grew to an average height of 
7.1 cm.  The control plant only grew to an average of 5.7 cm. 
after 14 days.

Over the entire experimental period, all the plants remained 
green with 2 leaves.

IV.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

After analyzing my data thoroughly, I discovered that the 
plants placed under the violet and red light grew taller.  
Therefore, I accept my hypothesis which stated that the plants 
under the red light would grow taller.  They did grow taller 
than the control plant.  It is possible that the experimental 
plants grew taller because they were growing up to find a 
source of full spectrum light.  That may be why the control 
plant didn't grow as tall as the experimental plants.  

V.  APPLICATION:

I can apply my findings to everyday life by telling gardeners 
that if they want taller, but not necessarily healthier plants, 
they should place them under a violet or red light.



TITLE:  Analysis of pH in a Small Lake Over Time

STUDENT RESEARCHER:   Sabrina O'Hara
SCHOOL ADDRESS:  Fairmont Catholic Grade School
                 Fairmont, West Virginia
GRADE:  8th
TEACHER:  Terry Kerns


I.  STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESES:  

Rock Lake, a man-made lake in Marion County, has had problems 
with pH in the past.  The purpose of this study was to help 
Rock Lake residents have a better understanding of pH in the 
lake and its possible causes.  I tried to figure out if the pH 
varied at the different sites and if the temperature, weather 
changes, amount of rain and/or the groundwater springs affected 
the pH.

The following null hypotheses were proposed:

1. The location from which the sample was taken will not affect 
the pH.
2. The day that the tests are run will not affect the pH.
3. The temperature of the water will not affect the pH.
4. The amount of rain within three days of the test will not 
affect the pH.
5. The pH of the underground water supplies will not vary by 
location. 
6. Differences in pH of the underground water supplies will not 
affect pH of nearby lake samples.

II.  METHODOLOGY:  

1.  Selected 17 representative sites on Rock Lake using a 7.5 
minute geological survey map and made arrangements to collect 
samples from two unused wells at the lake.
2.  Collected samples from sites during a three month period.
3.  Measured temperature and pH of each sample.
4.  Measured amount of rainfall and its pH during study

III.  ANALYSIS OF DATA: 

In general, the pH increased from August through October for 
all sites as well as for the overall average.  During any one 
test, the pH tended to increase the further the site was 
downstream.   No apparent pattern between temperature and pH 
was found.  During the test, the greater the amount of rain 
prior to the test,  the lower the pH level.  The pH of well 
water was much lower on the north side of the lake than it was 
on the south side.  However, no pattern of differences was 
noted between the sites on the north and south side of the 
lake.

IV.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: 

1. The data did not support the null hypothesis that the 
location from which the sample was taken will not affect the 
pH.  In general the pH increased the further downstream

2. The data did not support the null hypothesis that the day 
that the tests are run will not affect the pH.  In general, the 
pH increased from August through October.

3. The data did support the null hypothesis that the 
temperature of the water will not affect the pH.  No apparent 
pattern between temperature and pH was found.

4. The data did not support the null hypothesis that the amount 
of rain within three days of the test will not affect the pH.  
The greater the amount of rain prior to the test the lower the 
pH goes.

5. The data did not support the null hypothesis that the pH of 
the underground water supplies will not vary by location.  The 
pH of well water was much lower on the north side of the lake.

6. The data did seem to support the null hypothesis that 
differences in pH of the underground water supplies will not 
affect pH of nearby lake samples.  No pattern of differences 
were noted between the north and south side of the lake.

Rock Lake does seem to have a pH problem.  Levels rise above 
acceptable limits and at times can approach the 8.4 level at 
which state regulations prohibit swimming.  The cause of this 
problem is still to be determined.  Considering that the rain 
is rather acidic and that the area is one primarily of 
sandstone rather than limestone, these basic levels are 
surprising.

V.  APPLICATION:  

Since residents of Rock Lake wish to use the water for 
swimming, further studies need to be done to identify specific 
causes if they do not want to face closure of the lake during 
certain periods.



Title:  Nitrates in Drinking Water

Student Researcher:  Kate Waddick
School:  Christ the King & St. Thomas the Apostle School
         3210 W. 51st Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55410
Grade:  7
Teacher:  Mrs. C. Cope


I. Statement of Purpose and Hypothesis: 

The objective of this project was to determine nitrate levels 
in various drinking waters.  My first hypothesis stated that 
country untreated well water and city untreated spring water 
would contain nitrates.  The country well water would probably 
have nitrates since according to a professional laboratory 
analysis completed in 1993, this water contained 14 parts per 
million nitrates.  Since the city spring water is in a densely 
populated area with much use of fertilizers and run-off, it 
might also contain nitrates.  My second hypothesis stated that 
Minneapolis city treated water from CTK school and the city 
purified spring water from Glenwood Inglewood would not have 
nitrates. The Minneapolis water would not have nitrates because 
it is carefully monitored in a treatment plan, and the Glenwood 
Inglewood water would not have nitrates because of the spring 
depth and the purifying process as their laboratory analysis 
shows.

II. Methodology:

Materials used in this research included: city treated water 
from CTK school,  city untreated spring water from Lake 
Harriet, spring city purified spring water from Glenwood 
Inglewood, country untreated well water from a farm in western 
Minnesota, Hach Low Range Nitrate Test Kit Model Nl-14, 
NitraVer 6 Nitrate Reagent Powder Pillows, NitraVer 3 Nitrite 
Reagent Powder Pillows, clippers, two test tubes/color viewing 
tubes, and color comparator.

The nitrate test procedure (repeated five times for each type 
of water) included: 1. Fill one of the color viewing tube to 
the mark with the sample to be tested.  Stopper the tube and 
shake vigorously.  Empty the tube and repeat this procedure.  
2. Fill the color viewing tube to the mark with the sample. 3. 
Use the clippers to open one NitraVer 6 Nitrate Reagent Powder 
Pillow.  Add the contents of the pillow to the sample to be 
tested.  Stopper the tube and shake for three minutes.  Allow 
the sample to stand undisturbed for an additional 30 seconds.  
Unoxidized particles of cadmium metal will remain in the sample 
and settle to the bottom of the viewing tube.  4. Pour the 
prepared sample into a second color viewing tube carefully so 
that the cadmium particles remain in the first tube.  5. Use 
the clippers to open one NitriVer 3 Nitrite Reagent Powder 
Pillow.  Add the contents of the pillow to the sample.  Stopper 
the tube and shake for 30 seconds.  A red color will develop if 
nitrate is present.  Allow at least 10 minutes, but not more 
than 20 minutes, before completing steps 6-8.  6. Insert the 
tube of prepared sample into the right top opening of the color 
comparator.  7. Rinse the unoxidized cadmium metal from the 
color viewing tube used in step 2.  Fill to the mark with the 
original water sample and place in the left top opening of the 
comparator.  8. Hold the comparator up to a light source and 
view through the openings in front.  Rotate the disc to obtain 
a color match.  Read the mg/l nitrate nitrogen (N) through the 
scale window.  To obtain the results as mg/l/L nitrate (NO 3) 
multiply the reading on the scale by 4.4.

Three variables may exist.  One control variable is the season 
of the year the water samples are collected.  During the summer 
and fall the untreated spring and well waters may contain more 
run-off chemicals due to the increased use of fertilizers and 
chemicals during the summer on lawns, gardens, and farms.  
Since the water samples were taken in November, the nitrate 
run-off may not affect water sources as much.  This research 
could be repeated during different seasons.  A second variable-
-a controlled one is the presence in the water samples of other 
chemicals that may alter the effectiveness of the test 
solutions.  I believe I have accounted for this problem by 
following the testing directions given by Hach, a professional 
water testing company.  Another controlled variable is the 
temperature of the water which will be maintained at 40 degrees 
right after its collection.

III. Analysis of data: 

The results of the tests were not what I hypothesized.  These 
results are the averages of the five tests:

city untreated spring water                          o (ppm)
city purified spring water (Glenwood Inglewood)  .0528 (ppm) 
city treated water (Minneapolis)                 .3344 (ppm)
country untreated well water                     .5104 (ppm)

IV. Summary and Conclusion:

The results of my water testing were not what I hypothesized 
for several reasons.  One difference is the city untreated 
spring water from Lake Harriet spring does not contain 
nitrates.  The reason may be that the spring is so deep that 
nitrate nun-off never enters it or the water is not affected by 
run-off in November when I collected my water for testing.  
Another difference in is that the city treated water from CTK 
and the city spring water from Glenwood Inglewood do contain 
some nitrates, but not dangerous amounts.  The country 
untreated well water does contain nitrates, but the difference 
is not as much as I thought it would.  A test from 1993 showed 
the country water contained dangerous amounts of nitrates, but 
now it doesn't.  The reason for this change may be that the 
water I collected in November didn't have much run-off from 
fertilizers and animal waste like it might have had in the 
raining, flooding, and warm weather of summer.

V. Application: 

I can apply this knowledge to my life in three ways.  One way 
is that I can help prevent the contamination of city water by 
telling people about the hazards of using lawn pesticides and 
fertilizers.  Also I could write to pesticide and fertilizer 
making companies, farmers, and legislators trying to bring 
about reduction of contaminants to water.  Of greater 
importance, I need to start with myself by cutting down on the 
use of products that cause nitrate contamination to water.

© 1997 John I. Swang, Ph.D.