The Chemistry of Natural Waters and their Hardness
Lab Report
Robert Derosky
November 12, 2015
Chemistry 111: Experimental Chemistry
Section 107
Group Members
José Del Río Pantoja
Erika Del Pilar
Robert Donohue
TA
Ray Zhu
2
Introduction
Water hardness is something that affects everyone from families at their homes to the
agency that overlooks the pipes that transport water across the city. Water hardness is simply the
amount of magnesium and calcium dissolved in a sample of water1. Water hardness is an
important topic in the world because it affects everyone, not only those working in the water
industry. Calcium and magnesium scale buildup can cause little problems like affecting the flow
of water from a faucet, or large problems, like clogging water pipes completely, causing a
drainage problem, or even flooding. These buildups do not only affect households, as large
companies also must maintain water pipes and faucets plagued by buildup. Even fish are affected
by water hardness. The same water hardness that affects humans can affect the creation of
columnaris disease, which can damage a fish’s gills, costing the United States Aquaculture over
$40 million per year2.
Typically, water hardness is measured in milligrams per liter (mg/L). Water that has 0 to
17 mg/L is considered soft water, 18 to 60 mg/L is considered slightly hard water, 61 to 120
mg/L is considered moderately hard water, 121 to 180 mg/L is considered hard water, and 181
mg/L and greater is considered very hard water11. A common conversion is 1 mg/L to 1 ppm
(parts per million), so all of the previously listed classifications are equal in size in parts per
million as in mg/L3.
There are two main processes used to determine the hardness value of parts per million.
First, the EDTA titration method uses ethylenediaminetetracetic acid (EDTA) to determine the
total divalent cation concentration. Using a sample of water, EBT indicator fluid, and a
NH3/NH4Cl/MgEDTA buffer, all of an equal size of one drop, and then by adding a serially
titrated amount of EDTA solution, the concentration of divalent cations can be calculated4.
3
Another method to determine water hardness, atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AA), uses
an atomic absorption spectrophotometer to determine the absorption values of either calcium or
magnesium. The machine uses a high temperature flame to burn the aerosol of a water sample,
while shining a light, with a specific wavelength, through the flame. The light that remains after
being passed through the flame is measured, and a reading is given based on the amount of light
absorbed by the ions being burned. This reading is then compared to readings of known
concentration solutions to determine the hardness concentration. Due to the accuracy of the
machine being used, the user is able to determine the concentration of Ca2+ and Mg2+ separately.
In order to find total water hardness (CaCO3), the concentrations of calcium and magnesium are
added together3. Both EDTA and AA methods are used because of less focused results obtained
from EDTA for low concentrations of magnesium and calcium5.
Experiment Number 10 from the PSU Chemtrek4 is an experiment that involves
becoming acquainted with the various methods for determining water hardness, and using these
methods on water samples students obtained. This project is about the procedure I used, the
results myself and my group members obtained, and how these results correlate to my
hypotheses. In our group of four, we obtained four different samples of water to be tested. All of
these samples were found in State College, Pennsylvania, on the Pennsylvania State University
campus. José Del Río Pantoja obtained his water sample from the pond outside of Osmond
Laboratory, Erika Del Pilar obtained her sample from a bottle of Aquafina Purified Water,
Robert Donohue obtained his sample from the tap in the bathroom of Geary Hall, and I, Robert
Derosky, obtained my sample from a water bottle fountain in Ritner Hall.
In the fountain outside of Osmond Laboratory, the water is a mixture of the initial water
used, presumably tap water, along with rain water, which is soft. The mixture is being run
4
through a filter as it is redistributed, which will remove some degree of hardness, but not a
significant amount. According to the State College Borough Water Authority (SCBWA), the
water in the State College, PA area has between 120 and 190 ppm of hardness6. I expect this
water to be moderately hard. I expect the Aquafina bottled water to have the lowest level of
hardness of all of our samples, because bottled water is filtered extensively so that the water is
pure for providing a better taste. I expect the sample of tap water from Geary Hall to have a
moderate amount of hardness. The SCBWA states that the water in this area has between 120
and 190 ppm of hardness, however I do not notice extensive amounts of scale buildup around the
fixtures, which is typically present around hard waters. For my sample, I used many physical
observations of the water and its source, as well as the information from the SCBWA. I believe
the filtering throughout the fountain would reduce the amount of hardness somewhat. Also, I
visually inspected the source and water itself. I did not see any visible particles in or tints of the
water, and I did not notice extensive white scaling on the fixture. Taking into account all of the
information I collected, before I completed the experiment, my hypothesis was that my sample of
water would be slightly hard.
Procedure
As previously mentioned, the PSU Chemtrek4 lab manual was explicitly used for the
water sample hardness experiment; every step was followed exactly as published. Section A of
the experiment involves testing the water samples in an atomic absorption spectrophotometer.
Due to a high-expected level of hardness, I was directed to dilute my water sample. To do so, I
mixed 25mL of my water sample with 25mL of distilled water. This is considered using a 1:1
dilution factor. Two separate small samples of the diluted samples were used for AA
spectroscopy. Due to the spectrophotometer required to be calibrated for calcium and magnesium
5
separately, one sample was used to test for calcium and another for magnesium. An absorption
value was recorded for each. In section B, a drop of my undiluted water sample, distilled water,
and 1.00 x 10-3 M Ca2+, were each placed on a piece of aluminum foil and then placed on a hot
plate in order to evaporate the water. The leftover material is the total dissolved solids that were
in the water. Section C focuses on the acquaintance with EDTA titration. First, we are shown the
effect of NH3/NH4Cl/MgEDTA buffer solution on different solutions. In the second part of
section C, I mixed a titrated serially amount of EDTA solution combined with a drop of EBT
indicator, NH3/NH4Cl/MgEDTA buffer, and a drop of Ca2+ in each well, of a 12 well strip. Then,
I tested the accuracy of EDTA titration, solving for the concentration of Ca2+ and comparing it to
the concentration given on the bottle. Also, the concentration of a drop of Ca2+ and Mg2+
combined was found using the same procedure. This is important, because it provides insight
into how accurate EDTA titration will be when used with water samples.
In section D, we used EDTA titrations to determine the hardness of our water samples.
Using the same solutions listed above with our water samples instead of the Ca2+, we calculated
the total CaCO3 hardness of our water samples. Section E is focused on a method to reduce the
hardness of water. After mixing cation exchange resin with our water sample, I used the resulting
water to test the hardness using EDTA titration like before. Section F is mostly calculations to
determine the hardness value of our water samples using AA. Using calibration data given in
class per AA spectrophotometer, graphs and trend lines were created and used to find the
concentration of calcium and magnesium in the water sample. Then, using conversions, the
concentration was found in ppm and then added to find the total hardness of the fountain water
sample.
6
My partners and I had four water samples total. José Del Río Pantoja7 obtained a sample
of pond water from the pond located outside of Osmond Laboratory. This sample was diluted
with a 1:1 factor for both AA and EDTA titration. Erika Del Pilar8 obtained a sample of purified
drinking water of Aquafina Bottled Water. This sample was not diluted due to its small amount
of expected hardness. For EDTA titration, a sample of one drop of 1.00×10!! M Ca2+ was used
instead of the bottled water sample due to the very little hardness present. After calculating, the
actual water hardness value will be less than that of Ca2+. Robert Donohue9 obtained a sample of
tap water from a faucet in Geary Hall. This sample was diluted with a 1:1 factor. I, Robert
Derosky10, obtained a sample of tap water from a water bottle fountain in Ritner Hall. This
sample was diluted with a 1:1 factor. None of these samples were filtered.
Results
Table 1: Comparison of Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (Section A)
Sample Absorption Value for Ca2+ (at 422.7 nm)
Absorption Value for Mg2+ (at 202.5 nm)
Osmond Lab Pond Water7 0.2579 0.2752 Aquafina Bottled Water8 0.0013 0.0000
Tap Water9 0.2297 0.2201 Water Bottle Fountain Water10 0.2046 0.2187
Table 2: Calibration data for AA *Data found by AA Operator White
Ca2+ Concentration (ppm) Absorbance Value (at 422.7 nm) Check Standard (ppm) 1.000 0.00574 1.04 5.00 0.04020 5.28 10.00 0.07657 10.24 25.0 0.18331 25.01 50.0 0.34689 50.53
Mg2+ Concentration (ppm) Absorbance Value (at 202.5 nm) Check Standard (ppm) 1.000 0.01315 1.28 5.00 0.06371 4.59 10.00 0.14213 9.90 25.0 0.30911 25.58 30.0 0.34672 29.62
7
Figure 1: AA spectrophotometer calibration of calcium (Ca2+) concentration in water
Figure 2: AA spectrophotometer calibration of magnesium (Mg2+) concentration in water
Calculation 1: Ca2+ and Mg2+ concentration in water sample using AA
The equation of the trend line for Ca2+: y = 0.0069x + 0.0048
(y = absorbance value, x = Ca2+ concentration)
Absorbance value for Ca2+ of the water bottle fountain water10: y = 0.2046
0.2046 = 0.0069x + 0.0048 (solve for x)
x = 28.95 ppm Ca2+ (because of a 1:1 dilution factor, this value needs to be multiplied by 2)
28.95 × 2 = 57.90 ppm Ca2+
Mg2+ concentration in water bottle fountain water10: 35.94 ppm Mg2+
y = 0.0069x + 0.0048 R² = 0.99884
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50
Absorbtion Values for Ca
2+ (at 422.7
nm)
Ca2+ Concentration (ppm)
AA Standards for Ca2+
y = 0.0116x + 0.0102 R² = 0.99357
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Absorbtion Values for Mg2
+ (at
202.5 nm
)
Mg2+ Concentration (ppm)
AA Standards for Mg2+
8
Calculation 2: Finding the total CaCO3 water hardness using AA
57.90 ppm Ca!!×
100.09 g CaCO!1 mole CaCO!40.08 g Ca!!1 mole Ca!!
= 144.59 ppm CaCO! hardness
35.94 ppm Mg!!×
100.09 g CaCO!1 mole CaCO!24.31 g Mg!!1 mole Mg!!
= 147.97 ppm CaCO! hardness
To find the total water hardness, we add the hardness values of Ca2+ and Mg2+:
144.59 ppm + 147.97 ppm = 292.56 ppm CaCO3 hardness
Table 3: Comparison of TDS residues from one drop of various samples (Section B)
Sample Observation Distilled Water10 No residue
1 x 10-3 M CaCl2 (reference)10 Faint white ring Osmond Lab Pond Water7 Much heavier ring compared to reference Aquafina Bottled Water8 No residue
Tap Water9 Heavier ring compared to reference
Water Bottle Fountain Water10 A strong white ring that is more pronounced than reference
Calculation 3: Finding the % error in EDTA titration using a known solution (Section C)
We use the equation: MEDTA VEDTA = MCa2+ VCa2+ (M= molarity, V= volume)
MEDTA is given on the bottle of the EDTA solution: MEDTA = 2.00×10-4 M
(5 drops of EDTA solution is used for Ca2+ and 10 drops used for Ca2+ and Mg2+)
(2.00x10-4 M) (VEDTA) = (MCa2+) (1 drop)
(2.00x10-4 M) (5 drops) = (MCa2+) (1 drop)
MCa2+ = 1.00×10!! M Ca2+
For the second part of Section C, we used 1 drop of Ca2+ and 1 drop of Mg2+
(2.00x10-4 M) (10 drops) = (MCa2+ and Mg2+) (2 drops)
MCa2+ and Mg2+= 1.00×10!! M Ca2+ and Mg2+
Concentrations found on the bottles of solutions: 1.00×10!! M Ca2+, and 1.00×10!! M Mg2+
9
% error = 1.00×10!! M Ca! +−1.00×10!! M Ca!
1.00×10!! M Ca!× 100% = 0% error
0% error for Ca2+ and Mg2+ combined
Table 4: Comparison of the number of drops of EDTA solution needed to turn the mixture blue
(denoting where there is excess EDTA not used by the reaction) (Section D)
Sample Average number of Drops of EDTA (unsoftened) (VEDTA)
Average number of Drops of EDTA (resin softened)
(VEDTA) Osmond Lab Pond Water7 9.5 1 Aquafina Bottled Water8 1 1
Tap Water9 7.5 2 Water Bottle Fountain Water10 6.5 1
Calculation 4: Hardness of the water bottle fountain water10 using EDTA titration
Mwater = 1.30×10-3 M CaCO3 (using equation in Calculation 3)
To find ppm, we use the following conversion:
1.3×10!! M CaCO! =!.!×!"!! !"# !"!#!
!"× !"".!"# !"!#!
! !"# !"!#!× !"""#$ !"!#!
!" !"!#!= 130 !"
!=
130 ppm CaCO! (Note: 1 !"!
= 1 ppm)3
130 ppm × 2 (dilution factor of 1:1) = 260 ppm CaCO! (unsoftened)
Mwater = 40 ppm CaCO3 (resin softened)
Calculation 5: Percent change in CaCO3 hardness from an unsoftened sample to a resin softened
sample (using water bottle fountain water10)
% change =260 ppm− 40 ppm
260ppm ×100% = 84.6% change
10
Table 5: Comparison of water hardness values using both EDTA and AA methods
Source Hardness (unsoftened, AA)
Hardness (unsoftened, EDTA)
Hardness (resin softened, EDTA)
Osmond Lab Pond Water7 (diluted, 1:1)
371.29 ppm CaCO3 380 ppm CaCO3 40 ppm CaCO3
Aquafina Bottled Water8 (undiluted)
≈ 0 ppm CaCO3 < 20 ppm CaCO3 < 20 ppm CaCO3
Tap Water9 (diluted, 1:1) 311.74 ppm CaCO3 300 ppm CaCO3 80 ppm CaCO3 Water Bottle Fountain Water10 (diluted, 1:1)
292.56 ppm CaCO3 260 ppm CaCO3 40 ppm CaCO3
*Dilution factors are accounted for in these hardness values
11
Discussion
During Section A, an absorbance value was obtained for calcium and magnesium. From
these values, concentrations of each divalent cation were calculated, along with the final total
water hardness. This hardness value is the total amount of hardness contributed by calcium and
magnesium, the main two contributors of water hardness1. The total hardness value, using AA on
the water bottle fountain water10, was found to be 292.56 ppm, which is considered to be very
hard water11. Both the tap water9 and Osmond Lab pond water7 are considered to be very hard
samples of water as well11. The Aquafina bottled water8, however, is considered to be soft,
because it is less than 20 ppm11.
My hypothesis for the Aquafina bottled water8 was correct, as very little hardness is
present. For the other samples, my hypotheses were incorrect. For the Osmond Lab pond water7,
the tap water9, and the water bottle fountain water10, the actual hardness values were much
higher than expected. I expected these samples to be considered less than hard, but the results
show that these samples are considered very hard11. A higher regard for the filtering involved in
the water dispensaries is the main reason for the underestimation in my hypothesis. From the
results obtained, I can now say with confidence that the Osmond Lab pond, tap, and water bottle
fountain waters are filtered minimally.
The two different methods used to determine water hardness were AA and EDTA
titration. On average, there is an 18.25-ppm difference between the results from each method.
For both the tap water9 and water bottle fountain water10, the EDTA titration result was less than
that of AA, and for the pond water from Osmond Lab7, the EDTA titration result was greater
than that of AA. These results are expected, as EDTA titration results should theoretically be less
than those of AA, because a specific ending point for the reaction is unable to be found; only an
12
estimate can be found using EDTA titration. EDTA titration measures the total divalent cation
(all ions with a 2+ charge) concentration4, while AA measures only the cations the user is
specifically interested in. According to the SCBWA, the tap water has a 0.020 ppm concentration
of Ba2+, which is a divalent cation as well6. Also, even though not mentioned on the Authority’s
webpage, iron is also possibly part of the group of divalent cations encompassed by EDTA
titration.
Accuracy and precision are major considerations in calculating hardness using EDTA
titration and AA. Accuracy is defined as the degree of conformity and correctness when
compared to a true value; precision is defined as how consistently something is exact, or the
consistency of the outcomes of the same sample12. The precision of EDTA titration of the water
bottle fountain water10 was found to be 100 ppm, meaning there was a 100 ppm difference in
results of the two duplicate procedures from the average of them. The large value of precision is
caused by different numbers of drops of EDTA being used for each duplicate analysis: for the
first, 6 drops were used, and for the second, 7 drops were used. It was also found that if there
were a one-drop difference in EDTA volume, there would be a 40 ppm difference in
concentration of CaCO3. The accuracy of EDTA is represented by the percent error in
Calculation 3, which was 0% for each solution used. This gives an estimate of the accuracy of
the total water hardness value found using EDTA titration, which, while considering the percent
error, is very high.
Using AA, the accuracy of the water hardness is very high as well. AA is also precise due
to an elimination of subjectivity of water hardness. Two absorbance values are given for calcium
and magnesium, and no other cations will be factored into the AA hardness calculation. For the
accuracy of AA, we refer to the check standard values listed in Table 2. These values show the
13
concentration values calculated through the same procedure as in Calculation 1. The average
percent error of the concentration of Ca2+ is 2.50%; for Mg2+ it is 8.16%. Because of the
relatively low error percentages, AA is said to be accurate as well5. Also, due to the much
quicker analysis by AA, it is the preferred method for multiple analyses5.
Conclusion
After the experiment was completed, there were two main pieces of information found:
the Aquafina bottled water8 is soft, and the Osmond Lab pond water7, tap water9, and water bottle
fountain water10 are all very hard. These pieces of information prove that my hypothesis relating
to the bottled water was correct, as this water is filtered and purified extensively and is therefore
soft. However, this information also proves that my hypotheses relating to the pond, tap, and
fountain waters were on the correct path, but not to the correct extent, as these samples were
much harder than expected. I agree with my original hypothesis for the bottled water, but I
disagree with my hypotheses for the pond, tap and fountain waters.
References
1. “Water Hardness” http://water.usgs.gov/edu/hardness.html (accessed November 2015)
2. Avant, S. Water Harness Has Big Role In Fish Disease. Agricultural Research. 2015, pp
1-2.
3. “Milligrams/Liter to Parts/Million (Ppm)” http://www.unitconversion.org/concentration-
solution/milligrams-per-liter-to-parts-per-million-ppm-conversion.html (accessed
November 2015)
4. PSU Chemtrek; Keiser, J., Ed.; Hayden-McNeil: Plymouth, MI, 2015; pp. 10-1 – 10-24.
5. “Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometric and Ethylenediaminetetraacetate-Titration
Methods for Calcium and Magnesium Determinations”
14
http://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(69)86513-6/abstract (accessed
November 2015)
6. “State College Borough Water Authority” http://www.scbwa.org (accessed November
2015)
7. Del Río Pantoja, José, Chem 111 Laboratory Notebook, fall 2015, pp. 49-58.
8. Del Pilar, Erika, Chem 111 Laboratory Notebook, fall 2015, pp. 22-26.
9. Donohue, Robert, Chem 111 Laboratory Notebook, fall 2015, pp. 27-30.
10. Derosky, Robert, Chem 111 Laboratory Notebook, fall 2015, pp. 36-40.
11. Moore, J. W.; Stanitski, C. L.; Jurs, P. C. Chemistry: The Molecular Science; 1st ed.;
Thompson Brooks/Cole: Pacific Grove, CA, 2002; p. 718.
12. “Accuracy vs. Precision” http://www.diffen.com/difference/Accuracy_vs_Precision
(accessed November 2015)