PHYSICOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS OF WATER FROM TWO SELECTED SPRINGS

OF KYAMUHUNGA VILLAGE IN KYAMUHUNGA SUB COUNTY-BUSHENYI

DISTRICT.

STUDENT: SSENYONGA PASCAL

REG. NO: 2015/BS/080

A RESEARCH REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY,

FACULTY OF SCIENCE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE WITH EDUCATION

OF MBARARA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE

AND TECHNOLOGY

MAY, 2018
DEDICATION

With a lot of love, I dedicate this work to my parent Mr. Kiiza Vincent, my brothers Kyanku John,
Mwesigwa Ronald, Ssenyonyi Rogers, Mbaziira Michael, Balikulungi Moses and Wavamuno
Ezekiel, and my friends, Mubiru David, Opio George, Zaake Abubakali, Ainomugisha Jazirah and
Ocira Charles and lastly to the Almighty God for the love and support they have given to me.

i
DECLARATION

I SSENYONGA PASCAL, affirm that the work presented in this report is my work, except
otherwise stated and has never been submitted for the award of a degree in any University or higher
institution of learning.

Signed Date

………………………………………… …………………………………

SSENYONGA PASCAL

2015/BS/080

APPROVAL

This report has been submitted to the Faculty of Science with my approval as a supervisor.

Signed Date

………………………………….. …………………………………….

Assoc. Prof. Grace Birungi

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In preparing this work, I have gained help from a number of people and my special gratitude goes
to the Almighty God who has given life and guidance, to my lovely farther Mr. Kiiza Vincent.
Thank you for your financial support, encouragement and guidance.

I am also thankful to my brother Mr. Kyanku John for the support you gave to me, my friends
Mubiru David, Anomugisha Jazirah, Niwasiima Isaac, Tullehe Stella, Opio George for your love
and encouragement.

Great thanks goes to my dearest friends Mr. Ocira Charles and Asaba Moses for the facilitation in
terms of the PC.

In a special way I also thank Mr. Tonny and my supervisor Assoc. Prof. Grace Birungi for the
time, commitment, guidance, support and corrections made towards the success of this report.

Lastly, I wish to extend my sincere thanks to Mr. Raphael Wangalwa, Mr. Nkwangu David and
not forgetting my classmates for the help and guidance they offered towards the success of this
research.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................. i

DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................ ii

APPROVAL ................................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................. iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF PLATES ....................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................. ix

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... x

CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 11

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 11

1.1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ................................................................................. 14

1.2. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................. 14

1.2.1 Main objective .............................................................................................................. 14

1.2.2 Specific objectives ........................................................................................................ 14

1.3. HYPOTHESIS ................................................................................................................... 15

1.4. JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY.................................................................................. 15

1.5. STUDY AREA................................................................................................................... 15

1.6. SCOPE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................. 17

1.7. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 17

CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................... 21

2.0. METHODS AND MATERIALS ........................................................................................... 21

iv
 2.1. SAMPLE COLLECTION AND PREPARATION ............................................................ 21

2.2. SAMPLE ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 22

2.2.1. pH, Temperature, Total Dissolved Solids and Electrical Conductivity ...................... 22

2.2.2. Dissolved Oxygen........................................................................................................ 22

2.2.3. Total Hardness ............................................................................................................. 22

2.2.4. Calcium Ion ................................................................................................................. 23

2.2.5. Magnesium Ion ............................................................................................................ 24

2.2.6. Total Alkalinity............................................................................................................ 24

2.2.7. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) ............................................................................ 24

2.2.8. Chloride Ion ................................................................................................................. 24

2.2.9. Phosphate Ion. ............................................................................................................. 25

2.2.10. Nitrate Ion. ................................................................................................................. 25

2.2.11. Data analysis .............................................................................................................. 26

CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 27

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ........................................................................................... 27

3.1. pH trend of water collected from Kyamuhunga village. .................................................... 28

3.2. Temperature. ...................................................................................................................... 28

3.3. Total Dissolved Solids of water collected from Kyamuhunga village............................... 29

3.4. Dissolved Oxygen of water collected from Kyamuhunga village. .................................... 30

3.5. Electrical Conductivity of water collected from Kyamuhunga village. ............................. 31

3.6. Total Hardness of water collected from springs of Kyamuhunga village. ......................... 32

3.7. Calcium Ion concentration of water collected from Kyamuhunga village. ....................... 33

3.8. Magnesium Ion concentration of water collected from Kyamuhunga village ................... 34

3.9. Total Alkalinity of water collected from Kyamuhunga village. ........................................ 35

v
 3.10. Biological Oxygen Demand of water collected from Kyamuhunga village. ................... 36

3.11. Chloride Ion concentration of water collected from Kyamuhunga village. ..................... 37

3.12. Phosphate Ion concentration of water collected from Kyamuhunga village. .................. 38

3.13. Nitrate Ion concentration of water collected from Kyamuhunga village. ........................ 39

CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................................... 41

4.0. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ..................................................................... 41

4.1. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 41

4.2. Recommendation. ............................................................................................................... 41

4.3. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ..................................................................................... 42

REFERENCE ................................................................................................................................ 43

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 46

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Mean±SE for physicochemical parameters measured from spring 1 and spring 2, P-values
for independent sample T test and WHO standard guidelines for drinking water........................ 27

Table 2: Mean physicochemical parameters of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February. . 46

Table 3: SPSS output for independent samples t-test for comparing the physicochemical
parameters of spring 1 and spring 2. ............................................................................................. 47

Table 4: Results of physicochemical parameters obtained by Mahmoud and Sial....................... 48

Table 5: Physicochemical results obtained from the Nile system in the Upper Egypt. ................ 48

Table 6: Temperature values obtained from 10 protected springs in Katwe and Kisenyi in
Kampala City. ............................................................................................................................... 49

Table 7: Results for physicochemical parameters of drinking water from Arbaminch springs. .. 50

vi
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. 1: Map of Uganda showing the study area .................................................................... 16

Figure 3. 1: Mean pH for spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February. .................................. 28

Figure 3. 2: Mean temperature of spring 1 and spring 2 for January and February. .................... 29

Figure 3. 3: Mean TDS for spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February. ................................ 30

Figure 3. 4: Mean DO for spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February. .................................. 31

Figure 3. 5: Mean EC of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February. .................................... 32

Figure 3. 6: Mean total hardness of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February. ................... 33

Figure 3. 7: Mean calcium of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February. ............................ 34

Figure 3. 8: Mean concentration of magnesium for spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February.
....................................................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 3. 9: Mean total alkalinity of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February. .................. 36

Figure 3. 10: Mean BOD of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February................................ 37

Figure 3. 11: Mean chloride concentration of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February. ... 38

Figure 3. 12: Mean concentration of phosphates of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February.
....................................................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 3. 13: Mean concentration of nitrates of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February. 40

vii
LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1: Appearance of site 1 (spring 1). ....................................................................................... 51

Plate 2: Appearance of site 2 (spring 2). ....................................................................................... 51

Plate 3: Titrimetric determination of total hardness ..................................................................... 52

Plate 4: Titrimetric determination of total calcium ....................................................................... 53

Plate 5: Titrimetric determination of total alkalinity .................................................................... 53

Plate 6: Titrimetric determination of chloride .............................................................................. 54

Plate 7: Spectrophotometric determination of Nitrate and Phosphate .......................................... 54

viii
LIST OF ACRONYMS

ANZECC: Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

APHA: American Public Health Association

DO: Dissolved oxygen

TDS: Total dissolved solids

TSS: Total suspended solids

pH: potential of hydrogen ions

EC: Electrical conductivity

BOD: Biological oxygen demand

NEMA: National Environmental Management Authority

UNEP: United Nations Environmental Program

UNBS: Uganda National Bureau of Standards

WHO: World Health Organization

ix
ABSTRACT

Springs are important sources of water. In this study, water quality for two springs located in
Kyamuhunga village, Kyamuhunga Sub County in Bushenyi District was assessed to determine
the suitability of water for drinking purpose with respect to World Health Organization (WHO)
drinking water guidelines.

A total of 24 water samples were collected from 2 purposively selected springs in Kyamuhunga
village with various human activities, the samples were analyzed for physicochemical parameters
including pH, temperature, TDS, DO, EC, total hardness, total alkalinity, calcium, magnesium,
phosphate, nitrate, chloride and BOD using American Public Health Association (APHA) standard
methods.

The mean pH and temperature ranged between 5.42 - 5.86 and 22.0 °С -22.2 °С respectively. The
mean TDS values were found to be between 43.2 and 45.8 mg/L and the mean EC values ranged
between 93.0 – 93.7 µЅ/cm. The mean DO values were found to be between 5.5 – 4.7 mg/L; while
the mean BOD was in the range of 0.52 -1.23 mg/L. The lowest and highest mean for calcium
were 20.7 mg/L and 28.7 mg/L, respectively. On the other hand, the mean values of magnesium
ranged between 43.1 – 51.4 mg/L and the recorded mean total hardness ranged between 59.7 –
71.8 mg/L. Meanwhile, the mean total alkalinity and chloride ions were in the range of 31.6 – 51.8
mg/L and 39.2 – 46.9 mg/L respectively. Mean phosphates and nitrates were found to be between
42.6 – 45.7 mg/L and 24.2 – 42.63 mg/L respectively. The mean values of most of the
physicochemical parameters measured were found to be within the safe limits set by WHO except
temperature, pH, magnesium, phosphates and nitrates. The recorded water temperatures for each
site (each spring) was above the WHO threshold temperature of 15 °С. Also the pH for all the two
sites in Kyamuhunga village were below the WHO minimum guideline value of 6.5 hence acidic.
The values for Magnesium were also found to be above the WHO guidelines of 30 mg/L hence
hard. Nitrate concentration were found to be above the WHO threshold (10 mg/L) for drinking
water however, they were still within the acceptable range (10-50 mg/L). Phosphate concentration
was also higher than the permissible level for portable drinking water. Therefore, water from the
two springs of Kyamuhunga village is suitable for human drinking.

Keywords

Springs, drinking water sources, Kyamuhunga village & physicochemical parameters.

x
CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Contamination of water is a worldwide concern (WHO, 2015) because if it occurs it would reduce
on the availability of clean water for human consumption and other uses. In addition, declining
water quality has become a global issue of concern as human populations grow, industrial and
agricultural activities expand, and climate changes threatens to cause major alterations to the
hydrological cycle (WHO, 2011).

Water quality can be defined as the chemical, physical, biological and radiological characteristics
of water, usually in respect to its suitability for a designated use (Hanaor & Sorrel, 2011). Thus
water for different purposes has its own requirement for composition and purity.

According to WHO (2000), over 1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water; about 80% of
all the diseases in human beings are caused by drinking contaminated water (WHO, 2000).
Drinking contaminated water results into a number of water borne diseases like Typhoid, Cholera,
Dysentery, Schistosomiasis, Hepatitis A, premature births and other health problems especially to
infants (Exner & Spalding, 1993).

The quality of water is very much related to the activities carried out in a given area,
(Chennakrishnan, 2008). Human activities which involves for example use of fertilizers like tea
and banana farming tend to put water at a risk of being contaminated with those fertilizers. The
fertilizers mainly used are in solution form and hence during precipitation they may find their way
into the hydrological cycle of water bodies hence causing contamination of the waters. Elevated
nutrient concentration especially nitrogen and phosphorous which are the key components of
fertilizers can result into eutrophication of slow moving water ways.

Most water bodies in Uganda are exploited by man but little attention is paid to safeguard them
against contamination. The water sources are at a high risk of being contaminated from many
sources of contaminants like pit latrines, agricultural activities, and industrial wastes (Nerendra &
Sharma, 1995). Pollutants can change the pH of the water thus affecting all organisms from algae
to vertebrates (Sharma & Sharma, 1994.) and therefore analysis of water quality is paramount.
Ahimbisibwe, (2018) reported that 66% of the people in Bushenyi district depends on spring water.

11
The report also revealed that out of 2,201 springs available only 1,590 were operating putting the
available supply under pressure from the population, moreover no information on the suitability
of this spring water for drinking was reported hence the need to carry out this study.

Water quality analysis refers to measurement of parameters of water, following standard methods,
to check whether they meet the standards. Water quality standards are put in place to ensure that
water meets the requirements for a designated purpose. Drinking water quality guidelines and
standards are designed to enable the provision of clean and safe water for human consumption,
thereby protecting human health. In this case internationally and nationally recognized parameters
set by (WHO, 2008) were used (table 1).

Among water quality parameters, oxygen is perhaps the most well established indicator of water
quality. The proportion of dissolved oxygen in water is about 35% (Ibanez, 2017). Oxygen is
slightly soluble in water and gets into water by diffusion from the atmosphere and as a waste
product of photosynthesis by green plants. The solubility of oxygen in water depends on physical
conditions like temperature, atmospheric pressure, turbulence and salinity. Other factors which
affect oxygen availability in water include biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen
demand (COD) and amount of mixing between air and water. DO levels are important as they
indicate level of water pollution (Derapu, 2011); low levels indicate water pollution and high DO
levels speed up corrosion in water pipes however the high level of DO in water supply community
is good because it makes water taste better(Derapu, 2011). Oxygen affects a vast number of other
water indicators, not only biochemical but also aesthetic ones like odor, clarity and taste. Dissolved
oxygen can be determined either by Winkler (iodometric) method or by other methods like
dissolved oxygen electrodes.

The pH is a measure of the acid balance of a solution and is defined as the negative of the logarithm
to the base 10 of the hydrogen ion concentration (UNEP, 1999). pH of water affects the solubility
of toxic and nutritive chemicals; therefore, availability of these substances to aquatic organisms is
greatly affected. According to WHO & APHA (1989), a pH of 6.5 to 8.5 is ideal for drinking water
because it is neither acidic nor alkaline to be dangerous in the human body. Water with a pH less
than 6 can be corrosive and toxic, water with a pH of higher than 8.5 can be hard, which poses less
of health risks than acidic water and may taste bad. Pure water has a pH of exactly 7.0 and it
contains neither acids nor bases and it can be determined using a pH meter (WHO, 1996 & UNEP,

12
1999). pH affects other parameters like total alkalinity and dissolution of some ions in water
(WHO, 1996). Low or high pH make water unfit for drinking.

Temperature, affects the ability of water to hold oxygen, the rate of photosynthesis by aquatic
plants and the metabolic rates of aquatic organisms. Causes of temperature change in water include
weather, discharge of hot water and water washed from dry pavements into the water body
(Andronova, N.G, 2000). Other parameters studied included total dissolved solids (TDS), total
hardness, total alkalinity, electrical conductivity and ions like calcium, magnesium, chloride,
nitrate and phosphate ions. As the level of TSS increases, a water body begins to lose its ability to
support a variety of aquatic life. Suspended solids absorb heat from sunlight which increases water
temperature and subsequently decreases levels of dissolved oxygen. Water with a TSS
concentration less than 20 ml/L is considered clear, water with a TSS levels between 40 to 80 ml/L
tends to appear cloudy while water with TSS levels greater than 150 ml/L usually appears dirty
(WHO, 2008).

There are various sources of water which also have different qualities. For example, fresh water
sources versus marine water sources. Standard values of some physicochemical parameters in
freshwater and marine water are shown in table 2. In Uganda, freshwater sources are the most
preferred as they are habitat for many different species of plants and animals. They harbor reptiles,
fish, amphibians, aves and many mammals. Examples of freshwater sources include; freshwater
lakes, rivers, springs and ponds. Human existence mainly depend on freshwater supply which are
less than 1% of the water available on planet earth. Ground water or spring water represents an
important source of drinking water but its quality is always threatened by a combination of over-
abstraction, microbiological and chemical contamination which may enter underground aquifers
and contaminate the waters (Girija, T.R, 2007). Springs play an important role as they are source
of water for drinking, bathing, cooking, agriculture, swimming, industrial activities, fishing and
many others.

Springs are a major source of water for domestic use in Kyamuhunga village, Kyamuhunga Sub
County- Bushenyi district in Western Uganda. Though spring water is considered to be
aesthetically acceptable for domestic use, presence of poorly designed pit latrines, poor solid
management, poor agricultural practices and inadequate spring protection, may lead to

13
contamination of spring water with pathogenic bacteria (Edmond & Rukia, 2005) and other
pollutants. The quality of water is also related to the social and economic activities carried out in
an area (Darapu, et al, 2011). In Kyamuhunga village, activities like cattle grazing, tea farming,
and banana farming are practiced and surround the springs. Since the springs are located in the
valley, they may be susceptible to contamination by surface runoffs from various anthropogenic
sources such as runoffs from fertilizers like phosphates and nitrates applied on tea and banana
plantations, discharge of human and animal wastes and effluents from cars and motorcycles
washes or from the road after precipitation. These may contaminate the springs thus changing the
chemistry and quality of the water.

Information about the quality of spring water used for human consumption in Kyamuhunga village
is scarce, hence the need to carry out this study. The study provided physicochemical data of spring
water quality, which can serve as baseline information for future studies.

1.1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Despite the importance of spring water to the people of Kyamuhunga, there was scarcity of
information about its quality and its suitability for human consumption. Therefore, there was the
need to analyze the quality of water in selected springs of Kyamuhunga village in to determine
whether it met drinking water quality standards.

1.2. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

1.2.1 Main objective

To assess the suitability of water from selected springs of Kyamuhunga village in Kyamuhunga
Sub county-Bushenyi District for human consumption.

1.2.2 Specific objectives

1. To determine the physical parameters of water collected from selected springs of Kyamuhunga
village in Kyamuhunga sub county-Bushenyi District.

2. To determine the chemical parameters of water from selected springs of Kyamuhunga village
in Kyamuhunga Sub county-Bushenyi District.

14
1.3. HYPOTHESIS

Null: There is no significant difference in the mean physicochemical parameters of spring 1 and
spring 2.

Decision rule:

The null hypothesis is rejected when the P-valve ≤ 0.05 and only accepted when the P-valve >
0.05.

1.4. JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

Water is the most important substance that determines human survival next to oxygen and all
human activities like settlement depends on the availability of water (Amanial HR, 2015).
Therefore, its contamination reduces on the availability of good and clean freshwater for human
consumption, hence the need to carry out this study. The study provided physicochemical data of
water quality which served as baseline information for further related studies. The study also
determined the suitability of spring water of Kyamuhunga village in Kyamuhunga Sub County for
drinking by comparing the physicochemical parameters with drinking water standards set by the
World Health Organization (WHO).

The study also determined the effect of human activities surrounding the springs. For example,
schools, banana plantation, tea plantation and cattle grazing areas on the quality of water.

1.5. STUDY AREA

The study was conducted in Kyamuhunga village found in Bushenyi District, Western Uganda,
and 338.9 km from Kampala (capital city of Uganda) via Masaka-Mbarara-Kabaale road at
longitude of 30.1133°S and latitude of -0.451389°E. Kyamuhunga is located at an elevation of
1601 meters above sea level with a total population of 21,580 people and a population density of
75 people per Km (Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2017). It is 12 km from Ishaka town along
Mbarara-Kasese highway. In Kyamuhunga Sub County, 83% of the water sources are functional
and 90% of the people have access to safe water, which means 17% of the water sources are not
functional and 10% of the people have no access to safe drinking water (Ministry of Water &
Environment, Republic of Uganda, 2018). Two springs (Spring 1 and Spring 2) were selected for
this study. The two springs are surrounded by two schools (Kyamuhunga secondary school and
Kyamuhunga Central primary school). Spring 1 is at a geographical coordinate -0.44887°S,
15
30.11567°E and spring 2 at -0.45024°S, 30.11380°S. The surrounding communities are involved
in agriculture where fertilizers both organic and inorganic are used to increase on the yields of
their farms like banana and tea plantations. Cattle rearing is also practiced around the spring which
could also contribute to spring water contamination. The springs provide water for domestic
purposes to the people, animals and many others.

Figure 1. 1: Map of Uganda showing the study area

16
1.6. SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study was limited to the analysis of physicochemical parameters of water from the two springs
of Kyamuhunga village in Kyamuhunga Sub County-Bushenyi District to determine its suitability
for use as drinking water. The parameters analyzed were temperature, pH, color, DO, TDS, total
hardness, electrical conductivity, total alkalinity, calcium, magnesium, chloride, nitrate and
phosphate ions.

1.7. LITERATURE REVIEW

The suitability of water for various uses depends on the physico-chemical and biological properties
of water (Mirribas & Rahnama, 2008). The physic-chemical parameters play an important role in
the biochemistry of water bodies. Changes in these parameters have an effect on the water quality
which in turn affects the spatial and temporal distribution of nutrients and biological communities.
According to Mustapha & Omotosho (2005), the interaction between the physical and chemical
water properties has a significant role in composition, distribution, abundance, movement and
diversity of aquatic organisms. The physical-chemical parameters of a spring reflect the water
quality and pollution (Birley & Lock, 1999).

Due to the fact that all life on earth is dependent on water, it is therefore important to understand
the physical, chemical and biological factors which alter the quality of water. In the analysis of
water quality of springs, a number of parameters such as pH, TDS, temperature, DO, total
alkalinity, electrical conductivity, BOD, chloride ion, nitrate ion, phosphate ion, calcium ion,
magnesium ion and total hardness were analyzed.

Water for supply or human consumption should be free from pathogens, toxic chemicals,
physically clear and appealing taste (WHO, 2000). Water contaminated with pathogens may lead
to water bone diseases, toxic chemicals can change the physicochemical parameters of water like
pH, EC, DO and others. Water that is physically unclear indicates a high concentration of TSS and
TDS.

In the study carried from springs in Katwe and Kisenyi, Kampala City (Haruna R, 2005), the pH
ranged from 4.4 to 6.7. The study revealed that only 5% (4 out of 80) of the samples had a pH
within the WHO recommended range of 6.5 to 8.5 hence, the water from most springs was acidic
and unsuitable for human consumption. The study also determined the pH of water in the springs

17
and the results ranged between 5.86 to 5.42, another study conducted on springs in Arbaminch
University in Ethiopia revealed that the pH of water was in the range of 7.13 to 7.5 and all the
water samples analyzed had concentrations within the safe limit range of 6.5 to 8.5 standard set by
WHO, 2008 hence suitable for human consumption.

The availability of plant nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorous are important
determinants of biological productivity of aquatic ecosystems. Sewage, animal wastes, and many
industrial effluents contain high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous. The major source is fertilizer
runoff from urban areas and agricultural catchments (Langennegger D, 1981). The presence of
these nutrients results into eutrophication of water bodies among in which springs are inclusive
(Kinsey, 1997). The possibility of fertilizer run offs from tea and other plantations contaminating
water coupled with lack of information of whether this contamination may have occurred in
Kyamuhunga hence the need for this study.

Dissolved oxygen (DO) affects the bacterial activity, photosynthesis and availability of nutrients
(Premlata, 2009). During dry season there were generally higher levels of DO (Mugidde, 2003)
due to increased temperatures and duration of bright sunlight owing to longer days which had an
influence on the percentage of soluble gases. DO as a physical property of water was explored in
the study to indicate the water quality.

Electrical conductivity (EC) is a measure of how much total salt (inorganic ions such as sodium,
chloride, magnesium, and calcium) is presents in the water (Varol. M & Sen. B, 2012), the more
the ions, and the higher the water conductivity. According to Nadia (2006) discharge of waste
water with a high Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) level would have adverse impact on aquatic life,
making the receiving water unfit for drinking and domestic purposes. In the study conducted from
the springs of Arbaminch in Ethiopia, the EC values 150.76 µЅ/cm, 154.96 µЅ/cm and 158.32
µЅ/cm. the concentrations in all study sites were below the WHO permissible limit of 1000 µЅ/cm.

Various methods have been used for analysis of water parameters; Mahmoud and Sial (1999)
determined water quality (elevated water pollution) due to agricultural and industrial activities
using various methods like titrimetric, field observation, thermometry and spectrophotometry and
some of the parameters analyzed were pH, EC, temperature, potassium ions, chloride ions and
nitrate ions. There were 3 sites and the values obtained were summarized in table 4. They described
some aspects of surface and groundwater pollution, best management practices and remedial

18
measures required to minimize water pollution. Improper waste disposal for example, from both
human and animal, atmospheric decomposition of nitrogen from industrial releases, car exhaust,
volatilization of animal wastes, direct industrial discharge into the water bodies and intense
settlement around water bodies like springs, streams and others. The study also employed methods
like spectrophotometry and titrimetric for analyzing some physicochemical parameters and the
methods gave adequate results.

In the study done on the hydraulic and hydro-chemical impacts of the Nile system in the Upper
Egypt (Hay & Mahmoud, 2001). Six parameters including TDS, calcium ions, magnesium ions,
sulphate ions, chloride ions and total hardness were assessed. The study reported that, the water
quality in the Nile River and in the most of the irrigation canals in addition to some drains was
suitable for drinking and irrigation purposes basing on the concentration of the above mentioned
parameters. The concentrations of the analyzed parameters in the 3 sites were summarized in table
5. The study also determined physicochemical parameters mentioned above to determine the
suitability of water in the springs of Kyamuhunga village in Kyamuhunga sub county- Bushenyi
District. However, the study was carried on springs not on Rivers.

Studies from protected springs in Katwe and Kisenyi parishes, Kampala city in Uganda found out
that; springs were the major source of water for domestic purposes in the sub-urban areas of
Kampala (Haruna R, 2005). Though spring water was found acceptable for domestic use, presence
of poorly designed pit latrines, poor solid waste management and inadequate protection of springs
may lead to contamination of spring water with pathogenic bacteria. Physicochemical and
biological parameters were analyzed and these included TDS, electrical conductivity, pH,
temperature, total hardness, DO, nitrate, phosphate, fecal coliform and fecal streptococci. The
study revealed that 60% of the samples had nitrate levels above the WHO recommended limit.
There was also no correlation between the levels of chloride and nitrate and the levels of indicators
of fecal bacterial contamination. Therefore, water from the 10 protected springs studied was found
unsuitable for drinking without treatment.

Agbebi & Badalona (2013) suggested that; no other single factor can affect development and
growth of aquatic biodiversity as water temperature. Temperature also affects the solubility of
biologically important gases such as oxygen and carbon dioxide. It has a big effect on the rate of
chemical and biological process in water (WHO, 2008). The values of temperature from 10

19
protected springs in parishes of Kisenyi and Katwe in Kampala City were summarized in table 6.
The values were above the WHO threshold temperature of 15 °С.

Studies from Arbaminch University of Ethiopia on Arbaminch springs reports, that for drinking
water quality, physico-chemical parameters such as pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total
dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), total alkalinity, total hardness (TH), chlorine
and nitrate were analyzed and the obtained values of each of the parameters compared with the
standard values set by World Health Organization (WHO, 1993). There were 3 sampling sites (S1,
S2 & S3) and they found out the following results (table 6).

From the experimental data above, it was found that the concentration of Cl- was higher than the
permissible levels of Cl- for safe drinking water set by WHO. Water containing Cl- more than 250
mg/L has detectable salty taste. Total alkalinity was found also to be higher as compared to desired
limit value set by WHO. But the rest of the parameters were within the safe limit drinking water
quality standards and were safe for drinking and other domestic purposes.

In this study all the physicochemical parameters included in the above report and other important
physicochemical parameters like phosphate ions, BOD, temperature were determined. Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division (CDPHE-WQCD)
regulations (5CCR 1002-31) reported that water for domestic use should not have DO
concentrations below 3 mg/L, very high DO concentrations can be harmful to humans and also to
aquatic life.

The chemical, physical and biological aspects of water quality are inter-related and must be
considered together. For example, high water temperature reduces the solubility of dissolved
oxygen and may cause shortage of dissolved oxygen which may kill many aquatic organisms.

Water quality is highly variable over time due to both natural and human factors. Water
temperature, photosynthetic activity, and flows vary with season flows, and therefore suspended
sediments can vary daily with rainfall, when it rains more sediments and other contaminants are
washed into the springs. Nutrient load can vary with seasons, fertilizing periods in springs, runoff
mechanisms and human management. A comprehensive characterization of natural water quality
therefore requires a large amount of data and water quality data is expensive and time consuming
to acquire, however, water quality managers usually deal with a large amount of uncertainty. The
study assessed seasonal variation, the samples were collected in the dry and rainy seasons.
20
CHAPTER TWO

2.0. METHODS AND MATERIALS

The research design was experimental. This involved determination of the physicochemical
parameters of water in order to assess the qualitative and quantitative aspects of drinking water
from 2 springs by comparing it with existing water quality standards set by the World Health
Organization. Sampling was done twice in the month of January and February, 2018, the samples
were immediately analyzed after collection for physicochemical parameters.

The samples for comparison in this study were collected at 2 different sites, judgmental and
random sampling techniques were used during sample collection. The samples were collected at a
4 hours’ time interval 3 times a day in order to represent the average conditions of the springs.
That is at 8:00 am, 12:00 pm and 4:00 pm. pH, temperature, TDS and EC were determined on
station and results recorded in the research note book. After sample collection, the samples were
transported to Mbarara University of Science and Technology for analysis.

2.1. SAMPLE COLLECTION AND PREPARATION

The sampling sites were selected using both random and judgmental sampling techniques. The
coordinates of the study sites were determined first using a handheld Global Positioning System
(GPS).

Sampling was done twice in the month of January and February, 2018. That is at 8:00am, 12:00pm
and at 4:00pm using high quality, PET bottles. The sample bottles were washed 3-4 times with
water and then rinsed with the sample prior to collection to prevent contamination of samples. The
samples were collected as the water was gushing out of the springs and analyzed using different
methods like titrimetric, analytical meters and spectrophotometry.

Statistics were used to determine the adequate number of samples to be collected at a 95%
confidence interval and 5% levels of significance as described by (Douglas. A. Skoog, 1992). A
total of 24 samples were collected for analysis of physicochemical parameters of drinking water
quality.

The samples (spring water) were collected directly into the sampling bottles when the ground water
was gushing out. The bottles were completely filled, and sealed tightly as water was gushing out
to prevent entry of air bubbles into the samples. The samples were labeled carefully with
21
waterproof markers and a masking tape individually with site name, sample number, date of
collection and time of collection.

The samples were placed in an insulated box, sealed tightly with a masking tape and put in a black
polythene paper to prevent direct sunshine. The samples were then transported to Mbarara
University of Science and Technology Laboratory for further analysis. Some physicochemical
parameters like pH, TDS, temperature and electrical conductivity were measured while still in the
field and the results recorded in the research note book. The samples measured for dissolved
oxygen were kept in a cool place at room temperature (25°C) for 7 days. After the 7 days, they
were then analyzed in order to determine BOD of water.

2.2. SAMPLE ANALYSIS

2.2.1. pH, Temperature, Total Dissolved Solids and Electrical Conductivity

pH, temperature, dissolved solids and electrical conductivity were determined using a multi-
purpose waterproof HANNA digital pH meter (HI 98129) during sample collection in the field.
The meter was calibrated by dipping the electrodes in the acidic buffer, neutral buffer and alkaline
buffer before it was used. The meter was immersed in the water sample, readings taken after
stabilization and recorded in the research note book.

2.2.2. Dissolved Oxygen.

Dissolved oxygen was determined using a digital oxygen meter, M.R.C (Q586314). The method
was convenient, quick and reasonably accurate. The meter was calibrated by connecting the probe
to the meter and then switching it on, the DO/ 𝑂2 button was then pressed and the probe
disconnected from the meter. The probe was connected to the meter again until a stable reading.
The meter was set to zero mark by pressing the zero button, the Cal button was pressed followed
by mg/L (DO) button. The probe was dipped in the water sample being constantly stirred and
dissolved oxygen recorded from the scale in ml/L after a stable value.

2.2.3. Total Hardness

Total hardness was analyzed by complexometric method using EDTA (Harris & Towsend, 1981).
The method is applied to water samples with a range of 1 mg/L to 1000 mg/L of calcium and
magnesium expressed as calcium. A 0.01M EDTA solution was prepared by weighing 7.45g of

22
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt using the top loading balance into a clean plastic
beaker and then dissolved in distilled water. 0.05g of magnesium chloride was added and the
solution transferred into a 2.0 L volumetric flask and made up to the mark with distilled water. An
aliquot (10.00 ml) of standard calcium carbonate (0.01M was pipetted into a clean conical flask. 2
ml of Ammonium chloride-ammonium hydroxide buffer (pH 10) added to the conical flask and
3drops of Eriochrome black T indicator added. The standard solution was then titrated with EDTA
solution from the burette until the color changed from red to blue. The titration was performed in
triplicate and the number of moles of EDTA obtained from the stoichiometric equation for the
reaction.

An aliquot (10.0 mL) was pipetted into a clean conical flask, 2.0 mL of Ammonium chloride-
ammonium hydroxide buffer (pH 10) added and 3drops of Eriochrome Black T indicator were
added to the conical flask. The burette was filled with EDTA and the initial burette reading
recorded. The sample was then titrated with EDTA until the end point was reached (color changes
from red to blue). And the final volume of EDTA used recorded. The titration was done in triplicate
and the average volume of EDTA taken.

2.2.4. Calcium Ion

Calcium ion was also analyzed by complexometric method using a 0.01M EDTA (Harris &
Towsend, 1981).

An aliquot (10.0 mL) was pipetted into a clean conical flask. 2 ml of 2M sodium hydroxide solution
added to adjust the pH to 12 and 0.1 g of murexide indicator added and then the solution titrated
with a 0.01M standard EDTA solution from the burette until the end point when the color change
from wine red to purple. A triplicate was performed and the average volume of EDTA required to
reach the end point recorded. Calcium ion concentration is obtained from the reaction equation
below.

𝐶𝑎2+ (𝑎𝑞) + 𝐸𝐷𝑇𝐴(𝑎𝑞) → 𝐶𝑎(𝐸𝐷𝑇𝐴)2− (𝑎𝑞)

23
2.2.5. Magnesium Ion

Magnesium ion was also analyzed by complexometric titration using standard EDTA (Harris &
Towsend, 1981).

At pH 12, magnesium ions are precipitated from the sample as magnesium hydroxide

𝑀𝑔2+ (aq) + 𝑂𝐻 − (aq) → 𝑀𝑔(𝑂𝐻)2 (s)

Only calcium ions reacted with the EDTA, therefore, magnesium ion hardness was obtained from
the difference between total hardness and calcium hardness.

2.2.6. Total Alkalinity

The method of analysis was titration using a 0.01M Sulphuric acid (acid-base titration). The burette
was filled to the top with standard 0.01M Sulphuric acid while ensuring that there were no air
bubbles in the burette tip by allowing a few milliliters of the acid to flow out. And the initial burette
reading was recorded. An aliquot (10.0 mL) was pipetted into a clean conical flask and 2 drops of
bromocresol green indicator added. The sample was gently swirled and then titrated with 0.01M
Sulphuric acid till the end point, when the color changes from blue to green. The final volume of
the acid used was recorded in the table.

2.2.7. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)

Samples (10.0 mL) were placed in a 250 mL bottle and filled to the mark with previously prepared
dilution water. A blank solution of the dilution water was similarly prepared and placed in BOD
bottles. The bottles were stoppered, sealed and incubated for 7 days at room temperature. BOD
was calculated from; BOD = (D1-D7)/P, whereby, D1 = dissolved oxygen for day1, D7 = dissolved
oxygen in diluted sample after 7 days and P is amount of sample used.

2.2.8. Chloride Ion

Chloride ion was analyzed by Argentometric titration (Mohr’s method).

The samples were titrated by reacting with standard silver ions (0.02M) using chromate ion as the
indicator. The end point is signaled by appearance of a brick red silver chromate precipitate. After
the equivalence point, any excess silver ion reacts with the indicator.

24
The titration was performed in neutral or slightly basic medium (pH = 7-10) to prevent silver
hydroxide formation at pH greater than 10 or formation of chromic acid at pH less than 7. A 10.0
mL aliquot was pipetted into a clean conical flask and the pH of the sample measured. 5drops of
potassium chromate indicator solution were added to the sample in the conical flask and the
solution titrated with standard silver nitrate solution to the end point (brick red precipitate). The
volume of the titrant used at the end point was recorded and chloride ion concentration calculated.

2.2.9. Phosphate Ion.

Phosphate ion was analyzed using a 6705 UV/VIS Spectrophotometer (JENWAY). A stock
solution of phosphate was prepared and diluted to solutions containing 2.0 ppm, 5.0 ppm, 10.0
ppm and 15.0 ppm standards. The standard solutions and deionized water (blank) was used to
calibrate the spectrophotometer. An aliquot (20.0 ml) was pipetted into a 250 ml beaker and 5.0
ml of nitric acid added. 5.0 ml was measured from the solution in the beaker into the test tube. To
the test tube was added 1.0 ml of Vanadate molybate followed by 1.0 ml of sulphuric acid. This
was then left to stand for 10 minutes. The spectrophotometer was then set at 436 nm, the sample
mixtures were placed in the cuvettes and inserted in the UV spectrophotometer for analysis. The
absorbance and concentrations of each of the standards were obtained and a calibration curve was
constructed. Using the calibration curve for the standard, the concentration of phosphates in the
samples were determined.

2.2.10. Nitrate Ion.

Nitrate ion was analyzed using a 6705 UV/VIS Spectrophotometer (JENWAY). Nitrate is the most
common chemical contaminant in the world’s groundwater aquifers (Spalding & Exner, 1993).
Nitrate (50 ppm) stock solution was used to prepare 2.0 ppm, 5.0 ppm, 10.0 ppm standards. These
were used to calibrate the spectrophotometer. 20.0 ml aliquot was pipetted into a 250 ml beaker
and 5.0 ml of Sulphuric acid added. 5.0 ml was measured from the solution in the beaker into the
test tube. To the test tube was added 1.0 ml of sulfanilic acid and 1.0 ml of N-1-
naphthylethylenediamine. The spectrophotometer was then set at 520 nm, the sample mixtures
were placed in the cuvettes and inserted in the UV spectrophotometer for analysis. The absorbance
and concentrations of each of the standards were obtained and a calibration curve was constructed.
Using the calibration curve for the standard, the concentration of nitrates in the samples were
determined.
25
2.2.11. Data analysis

MS Excel 2013 and SPSS 20.0 statistical packages were used to present and analyze data. Mean
and standard error mean were used to assess the spread of the data. Mean of the physicochemical
parameters were calculated using SPSS. Mean difference of the parameters between the water
sources were determined using independent sample T-test at 5% level of significance and 95%
confidence interval.

26
CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Results of physicochemical analysis of water collected from springs in Kyamuhunga village in

Bushenyi district;

Table 1: Mean±SE for physicochemical parameters measured from spring 1 and spring 2, P-values
for independent sample T test and WHO standard guidelines for drinking water.

PARAMETER SPRING 1 SPRING 2 P-value for T test WHO GUIDELINE

pH 5.86 ± 0.07 5.42 ± 0.05 0.004 6.50-8.50

Temperature 22.20 ± 0.35 22.00 ± 0.23 0.591 15.00 °С

TDS 43.20 ± 5.46 45.80 ± 3.61 0.692 500.00-1500.00 mg/L

DO 5.50 ± 0.28 4.70 ± 0.27 0.039 10.00-12.00 mg/L

EC 93.00 ± 12.73 93.70 ± 7.02 0.964 750.00-1000.00 µЅ/cm

Calcium 28.70 ± 2.85 20.70 ± 0.99 0.024 50.00-75.00 mg/L

Magnesium 43.10 ± 5.55 51.40 ± 9.98 0.729 30.00-50.00 mg/L

Total hardness 71.80 ± 5.43 59.70 ± 7.80 0.058 100.00-300.00 mg/L

Total alkalinity 51.80 ± 3.39 31.60 ± 2.12 0.000 200.00 mg/L

BOD 1.23 ± 0.22 0.53 ± 0.14 0.024 Not clear

Chloride 39.20 ± 3.90 46.90 ± 3.98 0.199 250.00 mg/L

Phosphate 42.60 ± 1.75 45.70 ± 2.19 0.279 5.00 mg/L

Nitrate 24.20 ± 3.74 42.63 ± 4.55 0.665 10.00-50.00 mg/L

27
All the parameters were measured in mg/L except pH, temperature (°С) and electrical conductivity
(µЅ/cm)

3.1. pH trend of water collected from Kyamuhunga village.

In this study, the pH ranged from 5.94 to 5.85 with a mean value of 5.86 ± 0.07 mg/L at spring 1
and from 5.50 to 5.53 with a mean value of 5.42 ± 0.05 mg/L at spring 2 as shown in tables 1 & 2.
The study revealed that the pH values for both springs were below the WHO threshold (6.5) hence
acidic. The mean pH for spring 1 was higher than that for spring 2 in both months (figure 3. 1).
The lower pH (acidic) of water in the springs could be attributed to the higher concentrations of
phosphate and nitrate ions which were higher than the WHO permissible limits. These ions are
chemical species of strong acids. The results differed from those obtained in the springs of
Arbaminch in Ethiopia, where the values of pH for all the 3 sites were within the WHO allowable
limits (Amanial. HR, 2015). There was a significant difference in pH for spring 1 and spring 2 (P
< 0.05), table 3.

This indicated that water in spring 2 was more acidic that of spring 1

6.2
6
5.8
5.6
pH

5.4
5.2
5
4.8
January February
spring 1 spring 2

Figure 3. 1: Mean pH for spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February.

3.2. Temperature.

Temperature is among the physicochemical parameters useful in evaluating the quality of drinking
water as it influences the overall quality of water including solubility of gases in water and rate of

28
chemical reaction in the body of organisms. The temperature ranged from 22 °С to 22.40 °С with
a mean value of 22.20 ± 0.35 mg/L at spring 1 and from 21.80 °С to 22.10 °С with a mean value
of 22.00 ± 0.23 mg/L at spring 2 as shown in table 1 & 2. However, all the recorded water
temperatures for both springs were above the WHO threshold (15 °С) hence not palatable. Similar
results were obtained from 10 selected springs from parishes of Katwe and Kisenyi, Kampala City
(Haruna R, 2005), where the mean temperature for all the 10 springs were above the WHO
threshold. The mean temperatures in February for both springs were higher than the mean
temperatures in January (figure 3 2). This meant that February was slightly warmer than January.
The higher temperatures in February could be attributed to precipitation which is always
accompanied with temperature raise. There was no significant variation in temperature for spring
1 and spring 2 (P > 0.05), table 3.

22.8
22.6
22.4
Temperature (°С)

22.2
22
21.8
21.6
21.4
21.2
21
January February
spring 1 spring 2

Figure 3. 2: Mean temperature of spring 1 and spring 2 for January and February.

3.3. Total Dissolved Solids of water collected from Kyamuhunga village.

TDS is the measure of the amount of the dissolved materials in water, it affects the taste of
drinking water if the concentrations are found above the WHO standard limits. TDS ranged from
33.30 mg/L to 53.00 mg/L with a mean of 43.20 ± 5.46 mg/L at spring 1 and from 40.30 mg/L to
51.30 mg/L with a mean of 45.80 ± 3.61 mg/L at spring (table 1 & 2). The TDS values for both
springs were below the WHO allowable limit of 1000 mg/L, hence making these water sources
suitable for drinking. Total dissolved solids showed no significant difference between spring 1 and

29
spring 2 (P > 0.05), table 3. Similar results were obtained from the springs of Arbaminch in
Ethiopia (Amanial. HR, 2015), hence water was considered suitable for drinking. Figure 3.3
showed that the mean TDS in January was higher than that in February for spring 1 and that for
spring 2 was higher in February than January. This could be attributed to the dissolved solids like
calcium, magnesium, nitrates and phosphates.

70

60
TDS concentration (mg/L)

50

40

30

20

10

0
January February

spring 1 spring 2

Figure 3. 3: Mean TDS for spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February.

3.4. Dissolved Oxygen of water collected from Kyamuhunga village.

DO is an important parameter of water quality and an indicator of physical and biological processes
taking place in water which favors its solubility in water. The DO values ranged between 5.4 mg/L
to 5.60 mg/L with a mean of 5.50 ± 0.28 mg/L at spring 1 and 4.10 mg/L to 5.20 mg/L with a mean
of 4.70 ± 0.27 mg/L at spring 2 (table 1 & 2). The DO values for both springs were below the
WHO threshold (10) for dissolved oxygen in fresh water, hence an indication of more oxygen
consuming processes in the water. There was a slight increase in DO values in the months of
February than those in January. This could be attributed to the slightly elevated temperatures
associated with the rainy season in the month of February. This was also supported by the P-value
which was less than 0.05. Figure 3. 4 also showed that the Do values were higher in the month of
February for both springs as compared to those of January due to increased temperatures in the

30
rainy season of February. Dissolved Oxygen showed significant difference between spring 1 and
spring 2 (P < 0.05), table 3.

6
DO concentration (mg/L)

0
January February

spring 1 spring 2

Figure 3. 4: Mean DO for spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February.

3.5. Electrical Conductivity of water collected from Kyamuhunga village.

The presence of dissolved ions in water like chloride, magnesium, calcium and many others
indicates that water can conduct electricity. In this study, EC values ranged from 65.70 µЅ/cm to
120.33 µЅ/cm with a mean of 93.00 ± 12.73 mg/L at spring 1 and 82.67 µЅ/cm to 104.70 µЅ/cm
with a mean of 93.70 ± 7.02 mg/L at spring 2 (table 1 & 2). The mean EC values for both springs
were below the WHO permissible limit of 1000 µЅ/cm. There was no significant difference in the
electrical conductivity between spring 1 and spring 2 (P > 0.05), table 3. Similar results were
obtained for water samples from springs of Arbaminch in Ethiopia where the EC values were
below the WHO allowable limit (Amanial. HR, 2015), hence suitable for drinking. The electrical
conductivity of spring 1 in January was slightly higher than that of February while that of spring
2 was slightly higher in February than in January (figure 3. 5). Higher EC values could be attributed
to dissolved ions in water. This was supported by higher concentrations of calcium, magnesium,
phosphate and nitrate ions in both springs.

31
 160

140
Electrical conductivity (µЅ/cm)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
January February

spring 1 spring 2

Figure 3. 5: Mean EC of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February.

3.6. Total Hardness of water collected from springs of Kyamuhunga village.

Total hardness of water is the total concentration of calcium and magnesium ions. Total hardness
varied from 67.40 mg/L to 76.10 mg/L with a mean of 71.80 ± 5.43 mg/L at spring 1 and 42.60
mg/L to 76.80 mg/L with a mean of 59.70 ± 7.80 mg/L at spring 2 (table 1 & 2). The mean total
hardness for both springs were below the WHO recommended value of 200 mg/L, hence the water
is not hard and it’s suitable for drinking and for other domestic uses. Total hardness showed no
significant difference between spring 1 and spring 2 (P > 0.05), table 3. Similar results were
obtained from the study carried out in the springs of Arbaminch in Ethiopia (Amanial. HR, 2015).
Total hardness for both spring 1 and spring 2 were higher I February than in January (figure 3.6).
This was due to more dissolved calcium and magnesium ions in the rainy season. It also showed
that the total hardness for spring 1 was higher than that for spring 2 in January. This was because
spring 1 had a higher concentration of calcium ions than spring 2.

32
 100
90
80
Total hardness (mg/L)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
January February

spring 1 spring 2

Figure 3. 6: Mean total hardness of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February.

3.7. Calcium Ion concentration of water collected from Kyamuhunga village.

Calcium is one the important minerals for growth, maintenance and reproduction of the human
body. Calcium ranged from 26.30 mg/L to 31.10 mg/L with a mean of 28.70 ± 2.85 mg/L at spring
1 and from 20.00 mg/L to 21.30 mg/L with a mean of 20.70 ± 0.99 mg/L at spring 2 (table 1 & 2).
The mean values of calcium for both springs were below the WHO acceptable range of 50-75
mg/L, hence the water is not hard and is suitable for human consumption. Significant mean calcium
concentration difference was observed between spring 1 and spring 2 (P < 0.05), table 3. Similar
results were obtained from the study carried on springs of Arbaminch in Ethiopia whereby the
mean concentration of calcium ions for all the springs were within the standard values of WHO of
75 mg/L (Amanial. HR, 2015). This indicated that in terms of calcium contents the spring water is
safe for drinking and other domestic purposes. Generally, spring 1 had a higher concentration of
calcium than spring 2 (figure 3.7). However, the concentration of calcium in spring 1 in February
was slightly higher than that in January while that of spring 2 remained almost constant for both
months. Hence waters in spring 1 were slightly harder than in spring 2. The slightly higher
concentration of calcium ions in the month of February than in January was due to slightly higher
temperatures in February which has an increase in the solubility of ions in water.

33
 40
Concentration of Calcium (mg/L)
35

30

25

20

15

10

0
January February

spring 1 spring 2

Figure 3. 7: Mean calcium of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February.

3.8. Magnesium Ion concentration of water collected from Kyamuhunga village

Magnesium is a major dietary requirement for human and it’s the second major constituent of
hardness, it comprises of 15-20% of the total hardness. Magnesium ranged from 41.10 mg/L to
45.10 mg/L with a mean of 43.10 ± 5.55 mg/L at spring 1 and from 46.00 mg/L to 76.80 mg/L
with a mean of 51.40 ± 9.98 mg/L at spring 2 (table 1 & 2). The mean values of magnesium for
springs were above the WHO threshold (30 mg/L), hence unsuitable for drinking. Spring 2 had a
slight higher concentration of magnesium compared to spring 1. The higher concentrations of
magnesium in the 2 two springs could be attributed to leaching of the mineral from rocks and run
off into the water sources especially from cropland, latrines, landfills, animal and other wastes
from nearby schools. Figure 3. 8 indicated that spring 2 had a higher concentration of magnesium
than spring 1 in both months. The slightly higher concentration of magnesium ions in the month
of February than in January was due to slightly higher temperatures in February which has an
increase in the solubility of ions in water. Magnesium concentration showed no significant
difference between spring 1 and spring 2 (P > 0.05), table 3.

34
 70
Concentration of Magnesium (mg/L)
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
January February

spring 1 spring 2

Figure 3. 8: Mean concentration of magnesium for spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February.

3.9. Total Alkalinity of water collected from Kyamuhunga village.

Alkalinity of water is the ionic concentration, which can neutralize the hydrogen ions. In this study,
total alkalinity varied from 44.70 mg/L to 58.90 mg/L with a mean of 51.80 ± 3.39 mg/L at spring
1 and 29.30 mg/L to 33.97 mg/L with a mean of 31.60 ± 2.12 mg/L at spring 2 (table 1 & 2). For
both springs, the total alkalinity was within the WHO permissible limit (200 mg/L), hence the
water is not too alkaline and is suitable for drinking and other domestic purposes. Higher levels of
alkalinity would be dangerous to human beings. Total alkalinity was significantly different
between spring 1 and spring 2 (P < 0.05), table 3. The results differed from studies carried on
springs of Arbaminch in Ethiopia where the concentrations of total alkalinity were reported to be
above the WHO and SON limits of 200 mg/L (Amanial. HR, 2015). Spring 1 had a higher
concentration of total alkalinity than spring 2 in both months (figure 3.9). This was supported by
a slightly higher pH (5.86±0.08) in spring 1 than in spring 2 (5.42 ± 0.08) and also the P < 0.05.

35
 70

60
Total alkalinity (mg/L)

50

40

30

20

10

0
January February

spring 1 spring 2

Figure 3. 9: Mean total alkalinity of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February.

3.10. Biological Oxygen Demand of water collected from Kyamuhunga village.

BOD is a measure of the amount of oxygen consumed by microorganisms in breaking down

organic matter in water. It’s a chemical procedure for determining the amount of dissolved oxygen
needed by aerobic microorganisms in water to break down organic matter present in a water sample
at a specific temperature over a given period of time. BOD values ranged from 0.95 mg/L to 1.50
mg/L with a mean of 1.23 ± 0.22 mg/L at spring 1 and 0.27 mg/L to 0.78 mg/L with a mean of
0.53 ± 0.14 mg/L at spring 2 (table 1 & 2). The study found out that the mean BOD for both springs
were below the WHO permissible limits, hence the water is not contaminated with organic matters
and suitable for drinking. There was slight increase in BOD values in the rainy season (February)
as compared to the ones in the dry season (January) for both springs. The increase could be
attributed to the fact that in the rainy season, organic matter is washed away easily and could have
leached into water bodies. Figure 3.10 showed that the mean BOD values for both springs were
higher in February than in January. This was because of increased Do values in the rainy season
of February. Also spring 1 had a higher BOD in January than spring 2. Biological oxygen demand
also showed a significant difference between spring 1 and spring 2 (P < 0.0), table 3.

36
 2
1.8
1.6
1.4
BOD (mg/L)

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
January February

spring 1 spring 2

Figure 3. 10: Mean BOD of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February.

3.11. Chloride Ion concentration of water collected from Kyamuhunga village.

Chloride is the most dominant anion in water and it imparts salty taste to the water. In the present
study, chloride varied from 35.80 mg/L to 42.60 mg/L with a mean value of 39.20 ± 3.90 mg/L at
spring 1 and 39.30 mg/L to 54.40 mg/L with a mean of 46.90 ± 3.98 mg/L at spring 2 (table 1 &
2). The mean chloride for both springs were lower than the permissible levels (250 mg/L) of
chloride for safe drinking water set by WHO. There was no significant difference in the chloride
concentration between spring 1 and spring2 (P > 0.05), table 3. Similar results were obtained from
the study carried on 10 selected springs in parishes of Katwe and Kisenyi, Kampala City where
the chloride concentration for all the 10 springs were below the WHO maximum permissible level
of 250 mg/L (Haruna R, 2005), hence suitable for human consumption. However, the results
differed from those obtained in the springs of Arbaminch in Ethiopia where the chloride
concentration for all the springs were found higher than the WHO and SON maximum permissible
level of 250 mg/L. in general, spring 2 had a higher concentration of chloride ions than spring 1 in
both months (figure 3.11). In addition, the concentrations of chloride in February were slightly
higher than those of January.

37
 70
Concentration of chloride (mg/L)
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
January February

spring 1 spring 2

Figure 3. 11: Mean chloride concentration of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February.

3.12. Phosphate Ion concentration of water collected from Kyamuhunga village.

Phosphate is a measure of both organic and inorganic phosphates. Organic phosphate is attributed
to plants and animal wastes. Phosphate is an important plant nutrient and is often the most limiting
nutrient to plant growth in fresh water. In this study, phosphate concentration ranged between
39.54 mg/L to 45.35 mg/L with a mean of 42.60 ± 1.75 mg/L at spring 1 and 41.78 mg/L to 49.53
mg/L with a mean of 45.70 ± 2.19 mg/L at spring 2 (table 1 & 2). There is no clear acceptable
range of phosphate concentration in drinking water sources. However, a concentration of not less
than 5 mg/L is considered not harmful to human beings (Okada, 1990). In the present study, the
concentration of phosphates of both spring 1 and spring 2 were higher the recommended value (5
mg/L), hence the water in the springs is highly contaminated. The waters of the springs could have
compromised by human activities like croplands (tea and banana plantations), human and animal
wastes from homes and schools situated within the vicinity of these springs. Algal blooms usually
grow in water sources rich in phosphorus since it’s the most limiting nutrient for their growth.
Figure 3.12 also indicated that spring 2 had a slightly higher concentration of phosphates than
spring 1 for both months. Hence spring 2 is more contaminated than spring 1 in terms of phosphate
content. Higher concentrations of phosphates could be attributed to increased concentration of
calcium and magnesium ions in the springs which could have been due to phosphate dissolution.

38
There was no significant difference in the concentration of phosphates between spring 1 and spring
2 (P > 0.05), table 3.

60
Concentration of phosphates (mg/L)

50

40

30

20

10

0
January February

spring 1 spring 2

Figure 3. 12: Mean concentration of phosphates of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February.

3.13. Nitrate Ion concentration of water collected from Kyamuhunga village.

Follett RF et al reported that low levels of nitrogen in form nitrates are dangerous in groundwater
and surface water. However, elevated nitrate levels caused by human activity are contaminants in
water sources. Nitrates enter water sources like springs through many sources including leaching,
wild and domestic animal wastes, precipitation, municipal wastes and many others. In the present
study, the nitrate levels ranged between 23.36 mg/L to 25.11 mg/L with a mean value of 24.20 ±
3.74 mg/L at spring 1 and 30.00 mg/L to 55.26 mg/L with a mean value of 42.63 ± 4.55 mg/L at
spring 2 (table 1 & 2). The mean nitrate concentration for both springs were above the WHO
threshold of 10 mg/L of nitrates for drinking water but they were still within the WHO acceptable
range of 10-50 mg/L for drinking water, hence the water is safe for human consumption. Nitrate
concentration showed no significant difference between spring 1 and spring 2 (P > 0.05), table 3.
Similar results were obtained from the springs of Arbaminch in Ethiopia where the concentration
of nitrates for all the 3 sites were below the prescribed limit of 50 mg/L set by WHO and SON and
the water was considered safe for drinking ( Amanial. HR, 2015). However, the results deviated
from those obtained in the springs of Katwe and Kisenyi, Kampala City whereby the concentration
of nitrate for most of the springs (60%) were found higher than the WHO maximum permissible

39
level of 50 mg/L. nitrate concentration for both springs were higher in February than in January
(figure 3.13). In addition, the nitrate concentration for spring 2 in February was significantly higher
than that in January. The higher concentrations in February could be attributed to increased run
offs during precipitation which led to increased leaching of wastes in these water sources.

80
Phosphate ion concentrantion in mg/L

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
January February
Axis Title

spring 1 spring 2

Figure 3. 13: Mean concentration of nitrates of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February.

40
CHAPTER FOUR

4.0. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

4.1. Conclusion.

The concentrations of most of the physicochemical parameters for both springs were found to be
below the WHO permissible values indicating that the water of the two springs in Kyamuhunga
village is not highly contaminated. However, the concentrations of some physicochemical
parameters like temperature, pH, magnesium, phosphates and nitrates were reported to be above
the WHO threshold for drinking water. The deviations of some of the physicochemical parameters
from the WHO acceptable values could be compromised by anthropogenic activities (cropland like
tea and banana, animal wastes, human wastes and other wastes from schools) situated with in the
vicinity of the water sources.

The pH of both springs were below the WHO minimum guideline value hence acidic. Mean
temperature of the springs was above the WHO threshold temperature for portable water. The
concentration of magnesium for both springs were above the WHO allowable limit hence the water
is slightly hard. The nitrate levels were also reported to be higher than the lower permissible value
by WHO but still below the maximum permissible value thus the water is not highly contaminated.

Phosphate concentration for both springs were higher than the recommended value of phosphates
for drinking water, hence the water sources are contaminated with organic matter. In terms of
phosphate content, the spring waters are not suitable for drinking.

The study also indicated that, there was no much significant difference in the mean
physicochemical parameters for spring 1 and those of spring 2. This was supported by P-valve for
the parameters which was greater than the decision rule (0.05) for most of the physicochemical
parameters.

4.2. Recommendation.

The study was mainly based on physicochemical quality of spring water, therefore, I recommend
further studies on the biological and radiological characteristics of spring water in Kyamuhunga
village in Kyamuhunga sub county, Bushenyi District. In addition, people of Kyamuhunga village

41
should ensure proper sanitation and water safety plans like spring protection, proper disposal of
wastes and use of bio fertilizers in plantations in order to reduce further contamination of these
water sources from human activities.

4.3. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The study was hindered by many factors and these included, lack of enough funds to facilitate all
the activities and requirements of the research study. Due to this some parameters like turbidity,
fecal coli, COD and many others were not analyzed. In addition to the insufficient funds, transport
was a hindrance for example transporting sample from the field to the laboratories for analysis.
Personal and experimental errors for example during titration could have also affected the accuracy
and precision of the results.

42
REFERENCE

1. Agbebi, F. O., & Badalona, O. A. (2013). Physicochemical characteristics and Water

Quality Assessment from Kuramo Lagoon, Lagos, Nigeria. International Journal of
Advanced Biology Research. 3 (1), 98-102.
2. Amanial. HR. (2015). Assessment of physicochemical Quality of Spring Water in
Arbaminch, Ethiopia. Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, 2: 157.
3. Andronova, N.G, et al (2000). Causes of global temperature changes during the 19th and
20th centuries. Geophysical Resource, letter; 27(14), 2137-2140.
4. APHA. (1995). Standard methods for examination of water and wastewaters. 19th Edition.
American Public Health Association; Washington D.C.

5. Birley, M., & Lock, K. (1999). A Review of Health Impacts of Peri-urban Natural Resource
Development. Internatinal Health Impact Assessment Research Group.

6. Chennakrishnan, C., Manju, T., Raveen, R., & Stephen, A. (2008). Water Quality Status
of Three Vulnerable Freshwater Lakes of Suburban Chennai, India.
7. Derapu. (2011). Determining Water Quality Index for Evaluation of Water Quality of
Rivers. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, vol. 1, issue 2,
pp. 174-182.
8. Douglas. A. Skoog. (1992). Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry. 6th edition.
9. Edmond, K. & Rukia, H. (2005). The quality of water from protected springs in Katwe &
Kisenyi, Kampala City. Africa Health Science. 5(1), 14-20.
10. Exner, M. E. & Spalding, R. F. (1993). Occurrence of nitrate in groundwater: A review.
Journal of Environmental Quality 22:392–402.
11. Exner, M.E., & Splalding, A.F. (1993). Effects of sludge dispersal on ground water nitrate
concentration. Journal of Hydrology, 142,212-228.
12. Follett R, Keeney D, Cruse R. (1991). Managing Nitrogen for groundwater quality and
farm profitability, soil science society of America.
13. Girija, T.R. (2007). Water Quality Assessment of untreated impacted Urban Streams and
springs. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, pp. 221-236.

43
14. Hanaor, D.H, & Sorrel, C. (2011). Review of the anatase to rutile phase transformation.
Journal of material science, 46(4), 855-874.
15. Haruna R, (2005). The Quality of Water from protected springs in Katwe and Kisenyi,
Kampala City. African Health Science, 5(1):14-20
16. Hay &Mahmoud A. (2001). Chemical evaluation of commercial bottled drinking water
from Egypt. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 14: 127-152.
17. Ibanez, (2017). Dissolved Oxygen in Water. Environmental Chemistry. Pp. 16-27.
18. Kinsey DW, (1997). Effects of elevated nitrogen and phosphorus on surface and
groundwater. 24: 935-940.
19. Langennegger. D. (1981). High nitrate Concentrations in shallow aquifers in rural areas of
Central Nigeria. Quality of ground Studies in Environmental science, 17: 135-140.
20. Lawson & Tarazona, J. V. (1995). Water Quality in Salmonid Culture. Review in Fisheries
Science 3(2): 109-39.
21. Mahmoud A & Sial. (2001). Chemical evaluation of commercial bottled drinking water
from Egypt. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 14: 127-152.
22. Mirribas, R., &Rahnama, M.B. (2008). Evaluation of irrigation water quality using fuzzy
logic. Research Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2(5).
23. Mugidde, (2003). Nutrient Enrichment Experiments in Tropical Great Lakes. International
Association for Great Lakes Research. Vol 29, supplement 2, 89-106.
24. Mustapha, M. K., & Omotosho, J. S. (2005). An Assessment of the Physico-chemical
properties of Lake Moro, Kwara State, Nigeria. African Journal of Applied Zoology and
Environmental Biology, 7, 3-77.
25. Narendra, P. & Sharma, H. (1995). African water resources (1sted). Washington, D.C,
USA: World Bank Publication.PP.1-22.
26. Premlata, V. (2009). Multivariant analysis of drinking water quality parameters of Lake
Pichola in Udaipur, India. Biological forum. International Journal, 1(2), 97-102.
27. Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2017). The National Population and Housing Census2014-
Area Specific Profile Series, Kampala, Uganda.
28. United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). (1999). Global Environmental Outlook
2000. New York and London: Author.

44
29. Varol. M & Sen. B, (2012). Assessment of nutrients and heavy metal contamination in the
surface water and segments of upper Tigris River, Turkey. Catena, 92: 1-10.
30. World Health Organization (2015). Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality (2nd ed.).
Geneva, Switzerland. Vol. 3.
31. World Health Organization. (1993). Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Volume I,
Recommendations. Second Edition, World Health Organization, Geneva, 188 pp.
32. World Health Organization. (2000). The global water supply and sanitation assessment
report. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization Press.PP.30-32.
33. World Health Organization. (2008). World health organization guidelines for drinking
water. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization Press.
34. World Health Organization. (2011). Guidelines for drinking water quality (4th ed.). Geneva,
Switzerland: Author.

45
APPENDIX

Table 2: Mean physicochemical parameters of spring 1 and spring 2 in January and February.

PARAMETER SPRING 1 SPRING 2

JANUARY FEBRUARY JANUARY FEBRUARY

pH 5.78 5.94 5.33 5.50

Temperature 22.00 22.40 21.80 22.10

Total dissolved solids 53.00 33.30 40.33 51.30

Dissolved oxygen. 5.40 5.60 4.10 5.20

Electrical conductivity 120.33 65.70 82.67 104.70

Calcium. 26.30 31.10 21.30 20.00

Magnesium. 41.10 45.10 46.00 56.80

Total hardness 67.40 76.10 42.60 76.80

Total alkalinity 58.90 44.70 33.97 29.30

Biological oxygen demand 0.95 1.50 0.27 0.78

Chloride. 35.80 42.60 39.30 54.40

Phosphate 45.57 39.54 49.53 41.78

Nitrate. 23.36 25.11 30.00 55.26

All the parameters were measured in mg/L except pH, temperature (°С) and electrical conductivity
(µЅ/cm)

46
 Table 3: SPSS output for independent samples t-test for comparing the physicochemical
parameters of spring 1 and spring 2.

t-test for Equality of Means

t df Sig. Mean Std. Error
(2-tailed) Difference Difference
Equal variances assumed 3.758 10 .004 .34000 .09047
pH
Equal variances not assumed 3.758 8.984 .005 .34000 .09047
Equal variances assumed .555 10 .591 .23333 .42058
Temperature
Equal variances not assumed .555 8.624 .593 .23333 .42058
Equal variances assumed -.407 10 .692 -2.66667 6.54642
TDS
Equal variances not assumed -.407 8.668 .694 -2.66667 6.54642
Equal variances assumed 2.382 10 .039 .93667 .39329
DO
Equal variances not assumed 2.382 9.979 .039 .93667 .39329
Equal variances assumed -.046 10 .964 -.66667 14.53425
EC
Equal variances not assumed -.046 7.787 .965 -.66667 14.53425
Equal variances assumed 2.648 10 .024 7.98333 3.01497
Calcium
Equal variances not assumed 2.648 6.200 .037 7.98333 3.01497
Equal variances assumed .356 10 .729 4.06667 11.42490
Magnesium
Equal variances not assumed .356 7.823 .731 4.06667 11.42490
Equal variances assumed 2.145 10 .058 20.38333 9.50218
Total hardness
Equal variances not assumed 2.145 8.924 .061 20.38333 9.50218
Equal variances assumed 5.055 10 .000 20.21667 3.99945
Total alkalinity
Equal variances not assumed 5.055 8.404 .001 20.21667 3.99945
Equal variances assumed -1.376 10 .199 -7.66667 5.57148
Chloride
Equal variances not assumed -1.376 9.996 .199 -7.66667 5.57148
Equal variances assumed -1.146 10 .279 -3.21167 2.80278
phosphate
Equal variances not assumed -1.146 9.551 .280 -3.21167 2.80278
Equal variances assumed -.446 10 .665 -5.53000 12.38818
Nitrate
Equal variances not assumed -.446 5.993 .671 -5.53000 12.38818

47
Table 4: Results of physicochemical parameters obtained by Mahmoud and Sial

Parameters S1 S2 S3

pH 7.13 7.70 7.50

EC 150.76 µЅ/cm 154.96 µЅ/cm 158.23 µЅ/cm

Temperature 23.40°C 24.30°C 23.50°C

Potassium 3.45 mg/L 3.68 mg/L 2.88 mg/L

Chloride 271.80 mg/L 260.00 mg/L 264.33 mg/L

Nitrate 20.17 mg/L 18.03 mg/L 19.57 mg/L

Table 5: Physicochemical results obtained from the Nile system in the Upper Egypt.

Physicochemical parameters S1 S2 S3

TDS 150.76 mg/L 154.96 mg/L 155.54 mg/L

Calcium ions 67.54 mg/L 70.16 mg/L 72.18 mg/L

Magnesium ions 60.44 mg/L 59.23 mg/L 63.55 mg/L

Sulphate ions 10.33 mg/L 16.73 mg/L 13.60 mg/L

Chloride ions 271.80 mg/L 260.00 mg/L 264.33 mg/L

Total hardness 220.00 mg/L 238.00 mg/L 222.00 mg/L

48
Table 6: Temperature values obtained from 10 protected springs in Katwe and Kisenyi in
Kampala City.

SPRING NAME TEMPERATURE (°С)

Nakatanza 23.6-25.2

Kazungu 23.6-25.3

Musoke 23.6-25.0

Kasule 24.0-26.3

Kakajo 24.2-25.5

Maam Betty 24.3-26.3

Kiteeso 24.1-25.0

Luzige 24.2-25.3

Bwanika 1 24.0-24.7

Bwanika 11 24.5-25.0

49
Table 7: Results for physicochemical parameters of drinking water from Arbaminch springs.

Physicochemical parameters S1 S2 S3

PH 7.13 7.70 7.50

Total alkalinity 680.33 mg/L 666.67 mg/L 711.11 mg/L

Total hardness 220.00 mg/L 238.00 mg/L 222.00 mg/L

TDS 150.76 mg/L 154.96 mg/L 155.54 mg/L

TSS 62.30 mg/L 21.10 mg/L 33.00 mg/L

EC 150.76 µЅ/cm 154.96 µЅ/cm 158.23 µЅ/cm

Chloride 271.80 mg/L 260.00 mg/L 264.33 mg/L

Nitrate 20.17 mg/L 18.03 mg/L 19.57 mg/L

Sulphate 10.33 mg/L 16.73 mg/L 13.60 mg/L

Calcium 67.54 mg/L 70.16 mg/L 72.18 mg/L

Magnesium 60.44 mg/L 59.23 mg/L 63.55 mg/L

50
List of plates.

Plate 1: Appearance of site 1 (spring 1).

Plate 2: Appearance of site 2 (spring 2).

51
Plate 3: Titrimetric determination of total hardness

52
Plate 4: Titrimetric determination of total calcium

After addition of methyl orange indicator End point (red colour)

Plate 5: Titrimetric determination of total alkalinity

53
After addition of 5 drops of potassium dichromate indicator. End point (Brick red precipitate)

Plate 6: Titrimetric determination of chloride

Plate 7: Spectrophotometric determination of Nitrate and Phosphate

54