1

Raritan Valley Community College

Water Quality Index: An Analysis of the Environmental

Health and Potential Urban Impacts on the South Branch of
the Raritan River

Michelle Hatfield, Ellie Huntington, Devon Johnson, and Monika Soliman

BIOL 102
Dr. Emilie Stander
04x-04
 2

ABSTRACT:
The purpose of this research was to observe and analyze aspects of the South Branch of
the Raritan River in alignment with the Water Quality Index in order to evaluate the condition of
the water body. We predicted that the surrounding industries will evince a negative effect on the
water quality, due to any excess chemicals, metals, or like substances that could run off into the
water system. Given that the river is also a lotic ecosystem characterized by continuous
unidirectional flow, we expected that it would hold a medium water quality rating according to
the Water Quality Index Table, with relatively low temperatures, reasonably high dissolved
oxygen levels, slightly acidic pH, high turbidity, and a low count of total solids. Our goals were
to acquire an understanding of the quality of the body of water, see how healthy the ecosystem
was and to what extent it could support life. We collected our water samples and tested for total
solids, pH, temperature, nitrates, phosphates, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), turbidity and fecal coliforms using tools such as vernier probes, EMB plates and Durham
tubes. We didn’t predict that the water quality would be very good, but our results indicated a
much better result than expected. We estimated a medium WQI rating, but ended up with a good
rating instead.

INTRODUCTION:
The study was executed over a series of weeks, as samples were collected from the South
Branch of the Raritan River and transferred back to the laboratory, where the team conducted a
series of tests necessary to complete a Water Quality Index profile. As we had already
successfully performed the same tests on the RVCC pond, we had a solid frame of reference, and
thus developed hypotheses before beginning our analysis. We wanted to answer questions we
had about how healthy the water system was and how well or to what extent it harbored life. The
RVCC pond is a lentic ecosystem, meaning that it has very little flow and is generally fairly still.
In comparison, the South Branch of the Raritan River is a lotic system, with continuous flow in a
single direction. As such, we expected the water quality to be slightly higher than that of the
RVCC pond, as the greater amount of water movement helps to decrease temperature, increase
dissolved oxygen levels, increase turbidity, and decrease the count of total solids. However,
given that the South Branch of the Raritan River is also situated quite close to urban areas and
associated industries, we also expected there to be a certain level of nutrient pollution, perhaps
 3

giving the water body a slightly acidic pH. Overall, we predicted that the South Branch of the
Raritan River would score a medium rating on the Water Quality Index, given all of these
factors. After gathering our data, we prepared to develop objective recommendations for the
further improvement of the river’s environmental quality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

We collected our water sample from the South Branch of the Raritan River located along
River Road in Flemington, NJ. We collected our water samples in two 500 mL Nalgene bottles
by fully submerging the bottles vertically upside down before turning them right side up to fill
with river water. We also filled a smaller glass BOD bottle, capped it with a stopper, and covered
it completely with aluminum foil so that no light could penetrate through. This bottle was
specific to the BOD test at a later time. While out in the field, the water and air temperatures
were recorded in degrees Celsius using a thermometer.
With everything collected and brought back to the lab, we were able to conduct a series
of water quality analysis tests on our sample. We cleaned and placed two 250 mL beakers in the
drying oven, set at 100-105 oC, to sit and dry before completed the total solids test. The glass
BOD bottle was stored in a dark cabinet and left to sit for a week. We proceeded to work on
measuring results for the temperature difference, pH, and dissolved oxygen tests. These tests
utilized Vernier temperature, pH, and DO probes that were plugged into the LabQuest interface
connected to the laptop, using LoggerPro software to generate our results.
The DO probe had to first be calibrated before use by defining the zero-oxygen and
saturated DO calibration points. Sodium sulfite was used to calibrate the state of zero-oxygen
while a saturated DO calibration point was found using a grommet with a quarter inch of distilled
water inside to calibrate the maximum DO level. The probe was inserted but did not touch the
distilled water. After the DO probe was calibrated, it was ready to be submerged into our river
water sample for a 10-second reading. The average DO of the time interval was recorded as the
initial DO reading.
The temperature and pH probes were each individually submerged into the water samples
for 10-second intervals as well, taking the average of the time interval for each test, and
repeating for a second reading for each. Once we had our two readings for the water
 4

temperatures, we were able to calculate the average of the two readings, as well as the difference
of the two.
In preparation for the total solids test, we had removed the beakers from the drying oven
and set them to cool. We then weighed the mass of each empty beaker on an analytical balance,
and recorded to the nearest 0.001 g. We used a 100 mL graduated cylinder to measure out 200
mL of sample river water into each beaker, being sure to remove much of the larger particles that
we could. The beakers were then placed back into the drying oven to allow the water to
evaporate and leave only the solids that remain. The following week, we removed these beakers
from the drying oven. Once cooled, we were able to weigh these beakers a second time. The
difference of the masses of the empty beakers and the fully dried beakers with the total solids
gave us the mass of our total solids.
We took a second DO reading from the glass BOD bottle that had been sitting in the dark
cabinet by taking the average of a 10-second interval. We submerged the tip of the probe directly
into the glass bottle. We were able to calculate the BOD by subtracting our initial DO reading
with our final DO reading.
To test for turbidity, we plugged the Vernier turbidity sensor into the LabQuest interface.
Before we could test the turbidity of our sample of river water, we first calibrated the device by
taking first and second calibration points. A blank cuvette of distilled water was used to calibrate
the minimum turbidity value while a cuvette containing a turbidity standard was used for the
second calibration point and set as the maximum value turbidity. After the turbidity sensor had
been calibrated, we emptied and rinsed the cuvette of distilled water, and filled it with sample
river water, and wiped clean with a Kimwipe. We recorded the average turbidity of the sample
from a 10-second interval, and repeated for a second reading.
Meanwhile, we had been letting the Vernier nitrate ion-selective electrode (ISE) soak in
nitrate high standard solution for 15 minutes. We connected the ISE to the LabQuest interface,
and calibrated the electrode using the nitrate high standard solution and the low standard. We
were then able to place the ISE in our sample water, and record the average of a 10-second
interval of running data. This was done twice for a second reading.
To test for phosphate, 25 mL of sample water was measured into an Erlenmeyer flask.
Potassium Persulfate and 2 mL of sulfuric acid were added to the flask. The sample was then
boiled for 30 minutes to perform a digestion that would convert the different phosphates into
 5

orthophosphates to be measured by the Vernier colorimeter. After the digestion period, 2 mL of

sodium hydroxide was added to the flask. Connecting the Vernier colorimeter to the LabQuest
interface, we first tested a blank, and then a phosphate standard solution to calibrate the
colorimeter. The river sample was then prepared for testing and the phosphate absorbance level
was recorded.
We then prepared the test for E. coli as an indication of fecal coliform bacteria. Three
Durham tubes of double-strength lactose broth were filled with 10 mL of sample water, three
tubes of single-strength lactose broth were filled with 1 mL each of sample water, and another
three tubes of single-strength lactose broth were filled with 0.1 mL of river water sample. All
nine tubes were incubated at 35oC for 24 hours, then set in the refrigerator for the remainder of
the week. The following week, we were able to determine the most probable number CPUs per
milliliter of the original water sample. For the tubes containing lactose broth, we looked at
whether or not there were air bubbles in the Durham tubes to yield a positive result, and were
able to calculate the MPN. Finally, taking one of the Durham tubes that had been presumed
positive for fecal coliform bacteria, we transferred 100 𝜇𝑙 of that culture to an EMB plate. We
used several sterile glass beads to distribute the inoculum across the surface as the beads rolled
around. Removing the beads, we enclosed the plate and flipped them upside-down for
incubation. The results would either confirm or deny our results from the presumptive test, and
were recorded the following week. A positive result confirming our presumptive test would
produce an E. coli bacterial culture growth, and can be identified by it’s shimmery green tint.
With all the data collected necessary to calculating the river’s water quality according to
the Water Quality Index Table, we were able to collect the appropriate Q-values of each test
from the Q-value graphs provided. The resulting Q-values weighed into the river’s overall
quality, and were added up collectively to indicate the river’s Water Quality Index Rating.
RESULTS:
Measuring the field temperatures in degrees Celsius, we had recorded the air and water
temperatures on site. However, the river sample water temperature, although kept chilled, had
experienced a considerable temperature change by the time we brought it into the lab for a
second set of temperature readings and further data collection.
 6

Table 1: SB Raritan River Sample Temperature Change

Table 1 above displays the temperature readings collected. Although we saw a significant
difference between the field’s recorded temperature and the readings recorded in lab, we were
relieved to find the two separate readings taken during lab so similar to each other.

Table 2: SB Raritan River Sample pH Levels

Table 2 above displays our resulting values from conducting the pH test as well as the average of
the two readings. Our two readings were similar to each other, with only a small difference of
0.03 pH units from each other, giving a more accurate average of the two as 6.28. A pH level of
6.28 indicates a slightly more acidic water body than normal stream and lake pH levels, which
usually range between pH 7 and 8. However, it isn’t too far off from acceptable drinking water,
which ranges from pH 6.5 to 8.5.

Table 3: SB Raritan River Sample Total Solids

 7

Table 3 displays the resulting values measured and calculated from completing the total solids
test. Our resulting average total solids value of 412.5 mg/L seems on the high side, as total solids
found in surface water usually fall within a range of 20 to 500 mg/L.

Table 4: SB Raritan River Sample Dissolved Oxygen

Table 4 shows the DO reading, the simultaneous water temperature, assumed atmospheric
pressure, the maximum DO level, as well as the water sample’s percent saturation. A 68%
saturation is not preferable, but is acceptable, and was lower than we had expected.
 8

Table 5: SB Raritan River Sample Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Table 5 displays the results of the BOD test, yielding an exceptionally satisfactory BOD level
value of 0.85 mg/L, calculated by subtracting the final DO reading from the initial DO reading.
BOD levels ranging from 1-2 mg/L ordinarily indicate a clean water source with little organic
waste. As our value falls below this range, this is an indication of exceptionally clean water in
terms of BOD.

Table 6: SB Raritan River Sample Turbidity

 9

Table 6 displays the readings of the measured turbidity of the river water sample. Our results
were surprisingly low, but is not necessarily a bad thing. Water generally becomes visibly turbid
at levels of 5 NTU or above. However, we would’ve liked to see our two readings more similar
to each other.

Table 7: SB Raritan River Sample Nitrates

Table 7 shows the results of the Nitrates test, resulting in an average of the two readings as 1.48
mg/L nitrate. This falls toward the lower end of normal nitrate levels in freshwater systems , as
they usually range from 0.1 to 4 mg/L NO3--N.

Table 8: SB Raritan River Sample Phosphates

 10

Table 8 shows our resulting absorbance value, yielding a phosphate concentration of 0. It is good
that there are not excess amounts of phosphorus found in our sample, as only small amounts of
phosphorus are needed for aquatic plants, however a lack of any phosphorus may limit aquatic
plant growth.

Figure 1: Fecal Coliform Presumptive Test Results

Figure 1 indicates that all three tubes of double-strength lactose broth with 10 mL sample water
yielded positive results, as well as all three tubes of single-strength broth with 1.0 mL of sample
water. However, none of the tubes containing single-strength broth with 0.1 mL of sample river
water yielded positive results. With these results, we were able to identify the correlating MPN
and Q-value. The EMB plate also yielded positive results for E. coli, confirming the results of
the presumptive test.

Table 9: Water Quality Index Data Table of SB Raritan River

 11

Table 9 displays the completed test results and their corresponding Q-values and weighting
factors. The higher Q-values indicate better results concerning that specific test. Four of the nine
tests, temperature, turbidity, BOD, and phosphate, all resulted in Q-values in the 90’s. The
accumulative score resulted in 73.12, which officially translates as good water quality.

DISCUSSION:
We set out to gauge the water quality of the South Branch of the Raritan River; to see
whether or not it harbored a healthy ecosystem; whether it can sustain life or not and to what
degree it does so. These were the goals we set for ourselves in the research, the questions we
tried to answer.
 12

Our river temperature collected on site of 10oC is on the low side for a suitable aquatic
environment to a variety of organisms like caddisfly larvae, mayfly larvae, stonefly larvae, water
boatmen, carp, and mosquito. However, most trout and smallmouth bass would have no
difficulties in this temperature, unlike the catfish. This low temperature can be explained by the
end of the winter season, when the temperature was recorded, as well as the water system being a
lotic system. The river, always moving, would be expected to have lower temperatures as it does
not ordinarily sit stationarily to warm under the sun. The water’s low temperature would then be
expected to contribute into a higher saturation of dissolved oxygen, as gases are more soluble to
waters of lower temperatures. However, the temperature of the water had decreased further by
the time the sample was brought to the lab for analyzation because it had been kept chilled. This
could have had further effects on following water quality tests. According to our research, water
flow in a lotic water system such as the river in question can greatly affect the water quality,
such as temperature being lower during high-flow years (Hadlock, 2002).
The acidity of the river was most likely due to recent rainfall, as rain usually has a
slightly acidic pH value between 5 and 6.5. The optimal pH for most organisms is between 6.5 to
8.2. The river’s resulting pH was 6.28 which is just slightly under this optimal range. Although
the pH we measured was slightly more acidic than most streams and lakes, it is unlikely to be
directly harmful to its inhabitants, excluding freshwater shrimp, which would not be able to
survive within these levels.
The river’s high level of total solids was most likely caused by an excess of dissolved
solids present in the water. We knew there couldn’t be too many suspended solids because of our
exceptionally low results from the turbidity test. Turbidity is a measure of the clarity, or lack
thereof, of water and our scores indicated that we had exceptionally clear water. We are led to
believe the high amount of dissolved solids is due to potential chemical runoffs from the nearby
factory or industrial park. In review of this entire report, it might have proved useful to have
more time to perform other tests to see if the cause of the low total solids score was because of
surrounding industries.
Despite our prediction that the river’s lower temperatures would yield a high dissolved
oxygen saturation, our resulting percent saturation was only 68%. While it’s not terrible, it is less
than expected. However, the level of dissolved oxygen will still support a variety of aquatic
organisms such as mosquito larvae, carp, catfish, mayfly larvae, and caddisfly larvae. This DO
 13

level is not sufficient to support trout or smallmouth bass, as it is just under their minimum DO
requirement of 6.5 mg/L.
BOD levels are dependant on the body of water in question. In lentic systems such as
ponds, the levels of BOD will be higher as there will be a lot of organic material. This organic
material gets decomposed by bacteria and microorganisms. A concentration of organic material
leads to a lot of decomposition and as such, higher levels of BOD and lower dissolved oxygen
content. This shouldn’t be the case for a rapid moving body of water, however. As everything is
always on the go, there shouldn’t be as much of a concentration of organic material as in a still
body of water. This was, in fact, reflected in our scores. We ended up with an excellent BOD
rating and a score of 98.
The low nitrate and phosphate concentrations suggest minimal amounts of nutrients are
being carried into the river as runoffs. This could be because the surrounding area does not get
fertilized, or simply because it is a lotic system, and would carry any nutrients further
downstream. This is a positive result as nitrate has been shown to be toxic to invertebrates and
even some fish species such as trout (McDowell & Laurenson, 2014).
The presence of fecal coliforms in the water had the greatest negative effect on the river’s
water quality. As the positive result from the EMB plate confirmed the presence of E. coli within
the waters, and we know that E. coli is always found in intestines, its presence in the water
indicates that fecal matter has contaminated the river. This could be from leaking sewer systems,
or runoff carrying animal waste, or even from geese that defecate in the river. However, even
though the EMB plate produced a positive result for E. coli, it gives no indication to the quantity
of the bacteria. Even if there was only a small amount in the sample, the EMB plate was put in
the perfect condition for the bacteria to grow, so of course the whole plate would be covered, no
matter the actual amount in the water.
Using an index to “grade” water in the way that the WQI does is somewhat of a
controversial topic (Brown, 2005). It needs to be kept in mind that the WQI system is but a
simple method for investigating water quality. It gives us a general idea, a starting point, for
understanding the issues confronting an aquatic ecosystem and the impacts of these issues so that
we may begin to formulate how we can remedy them.
 14

LITERATURE CITED:

Hadlock, D. (2002). A Water Quality Index for Ecology's Stream Monitoring Program.
Department of Ecology. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/0203052.html.

Brown, M. (2005). Water Quality Index. What Is a Water Quality Index? Boulder Area
Sustainability Information Network. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/watershed/wqi_info.html

McDowell, R., & Laurenson, S. (2014). Water: Water quality and challenges from agriculture. In
N. Van Alfen (Ed.), Encyclopedia of agriculture and food systems (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier Science & Technology. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from
http://ezp.raritanval.edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/estaafs/water_
water_quality_and_challenges_from_agriculture/0?institutionId=4109