GEOL 0008 (Geochemistry) Term Report (deadline term’s end = Friday March 28)
Which is the best drinking water?
Modern society has come to value bottled water, whether it is well water, mineral water, spring water or simply ‘re-ionised’ distilled or purified water. It is hard though as a consumer to know the difference between all these types of water or the difference between commercial water brands and simple tap water, which commonly undergoes similar or even more rigorous treatment while also originating often as groundwater itself.
UCL’s tapwater has been analysed in the department’s laboratories. The mean concentrations of the eight major ions are: Ca = 100.20 ppm or mg/L; Mg = 4.51 mg/L; Na = 32.63 mg/L; K = 7.35 mg/L; Cl = 55.80 mg/L; SO4 = 53.87 mg/L, HCO3 = 206.5 mg/L; CO3 = 10.4 mg/L. This is similar to the concentrations reported in water quality reports from ThamesWater for the Bloomsbury Area (see Moodle) that contain a great deal of other information, too.
Many bottled waters, but not all, show their major chemical constituents on the bottles themselves. Some waters like smartwater (below) are classified differently, and it is sometimes difficult to know what it contains, and how it is made. Smartwater is essentially a re-ionised form of distilled mineral water, in this case Abbey Well, and so smartwater bottles contain no useful information whatsoever because it is classified as a foodstuff.
In your groups (3-5 people groups only please), plan how you will in week 7 (March 4) conduct a simple, but scientifically rigorous experiment to determine which type of drinking water is the most desirable, based on taste, value-for-money and major ions, or anything else you can manage to think up. In week six, we looked at how to report water quality, e.g. in the form of Piper diagrams, and what is meant by hard water, both of which will provide essential context to your experiment. Some scientific papers are also available on Moodle for further context.
Following the experiment, you will need to write up the results as a group in the form of a short term paper (<1000 words in total), following the usual norms for a scientific article (Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions and References). The <1000 word paper needs to include a comparison between the taste and chemical composition of a range of drinking waters of your choice, and a discussion of the uncertainties in your experiment.
You need to include also a statement of author contributions (or CRediT statement). CRediT stands for ‘Contributor Roles Taxonomy’, e.g. see here: https://www.elsevier.com/en-gb/researcher/author/policies-and-guidelines/credit-author-statement
Feedback and Marking Scheme for term report (deadline March 28)
You are required to submit a term paper of <1000 words (not including references, tables, figure captions and CRediT statement) that describes the results of your group’s experiment.
SoRA students are entitled to extra time, but no submission will be accepted after April 11.
MARKS OUT OF 5 FOR EACH CATEGORY Mark
Experiment (0-5):
Is the experiment adequately described?
Work is below standard (£ 2) - The experiment is inadequately described and/or poorly understood so that readers cannot replicate the results
Working towards standard (2.5) – Some attempt has been made to describe the experiment fully but errors are evident and/or descriptions superficial
Standard is met (3) – The experiment is described well but details are insufficient in some aspects
Work exceeds standard (3.5) - The experiment is described well, in depth and with appropriate nuance, but the description falls short in one aspect
Work is of high standard (> 3.5) - The experiment is described in depth, including informative illustrations, in a self-contained body of text of publishable standard
Water composition (0-5):
Is the chemical content of tested waters adequately presented?
Work is below standard (£ 2) – Water content is not outlined for the reader
Working towards standard (2.5) – An attempt has been made to present water content but errors are evident and/or details superficial
Standard is met (3) – Water content is described well but details are insufficient in some aspects
Work exceeds standard (3.5) - Water content is described well, using a tables and/or a figure, but the account falls short in one aspect
Work is of high standard (> 3.5) - Water content is described well, using a table and figure, of publishable standard
Writing style. (0-5):
Is the writing grammatically correct and logical in its flow? Or does the English formulation or structure stand in the way of understanding? Are statements suitably nuanced?
Work is below standard (£ 2) – Inadequate writing quality prevents understanding
Working towards standard (2.5) – Poor writing makes some sections hard to understand
Standard is met (3) – Writing is good in general but is insufficient in some aspects, such as missing words, ambiguous statements, unsuitable terms, inappropriate hyperbole, etc.
Work exceeds standard (3.5) - Writing is good throughout but falls short in one aspect
Work is of high standard (> 3.5) – Writing is good throughout and of publishable standard
Uncertainty (0-5)
Is uncertainty take into account in the students’ work, e.g. by clearly explaining and attempting to constrain experiment bias, accuracy, precision and reproducibility.
Work is below standard (£ 2) – The report lacks any attempt to account for uncertainty
Working towards standard (2.5) – An attempt has been made to account for uncertainty but is unconvincing
Standard is met (3) – The report accounts for uncertainty but falls short in some aspect
Work exceeds standard (3.5) – The report presents a reasonable account of uncertainty, covering each aspect with some rigour
Work is of high standard (> 3.5) - The report presents a convincing account of uncertainty of publishable standard
Presentation (0-5):
Is the report logically organised, clearly presented, suitably illustrated? Could it be submitted in its present form. as a complete, professional report, or are any aspects missing or inadequate?
Work is below standard (£ 2) – The report lacks clarity, logical structure, suitable illustrations and is inadequately referenced
Working towards standard (2.5) – An attempt has been made to present an organised, illustrated report with references but remains insufficient
Standard is met (3) – The report is clearly structured, illustrated and referenced, but falls short in some aspects
Work exceeds standard (3.5) - The report is clearly structured, illustrated and referenced, but falls short in one aspect
Work is of high standard (> 3.5) - The report is clearly structured, engagingly illustrated and fully referenced to publishable standard
TOTAL MARK OUT OF 25