Chemical Analysis of What Ions are Present in the Animas River Watershed Lab

Abstract:
The purpose of this lab was to discover what ions were released into the Animas River after the
Gold King Mine spill and whether not the river is safe. We collected water from Cement Creek,
Mineral Creek, and the Animas River in Silverton Colorado as our test samples. We tested water
from different places along these water sources so we could determine how toxic the river is and
how safe it is. To identify the different toxins we had to do the same process with each possible
ions. The test water, a substance that did have the toxin in it was the control sample, and distilled
water were each put into separate wells. Then two to three drops of an indicator solution were
put into each of these substances. By looking at the precipitate created by the chemical reaction
of the control sample and indicator solution and comparing it to the test water we were able to
see if there was any reaction either proving or disproving possible toxins in the water. Repeating
this test for calcium, chloride, sulfate, iron, copper, and lead showed us that most of these are not
at all present in the water. Out of all the water locations, Sulfate was the most commonly found
toxin in the water and it was not even found very often. This shows us that the water at the
moment is not unsafe or too contaminated with toxins, but there are still more test that would
need to be done that would investigate more ion levels in the water.
Methods:
Before conducting this lab there are a few precautionary matters that must be taken care of to
ensure safety and precision. Silver nitrate, lead, and barium chloride are three substances being
used that cannot be rinsed down the sink and must be rinsed out into a waste container. Silver
nitrate and lead nitrate are poisonous if ingested so be cautious when using them and goggles
should be worn at all times with any solution use. For each ion a separate experiment must take
place, but the basic steps are repeated for each one. There will always be a positive control which
you will compare your test water to, a negative control which in this lab is distilled water, test
water, and an indicator which is added to the three prior substance to give you results. Each
substance is put into separate wells in order to compare. It is important to use the proper pipette
for each substance to assure the accuracy of the results.
When testing for calcium in our test water you must first put ten drops of distilled water into the
first well using the correct pipette, then add ten drops with the correct pipette of Ca 2+, CaCl2
which is your reference solution for this ion to the next well, and put ten drops of your test water
into the last well. Three drops of sodium carbonate, or Na 2Co3 is the indicator solution and is
added to each well. You then write your results based on whether or not you see a precipitate in
your test water that matches the precipitate in your references solution. The same steps are
applied for testing for Chloride and your ten drops of reference solution is the same. Your
indicator solution is silver nitrate and three drops are adding to each well of substance. This test
contains silver nitrate and must be rinsed into a contamination container. Testing for iron requires
twenty drops of Fe3+ or Fe(NO3)3 as the reference solution into one well, 10 drops of distilled

water, test water, and one to two drops of potassium thiocyanate or KSCN as the indicator
solution into each of the three wells. Results are to be recorded based on the absence or
appearance of a precipitate in the test water. This test must also be disposed of into the waste
container because it contains iron. Testing for Sulfate in the water requires twenty drops of SO 42or FeSo4 into one well, distilled water, three drops using the correct pipette of barium chloride
(BaCl2) into each well, and test water. Record results and then dispose of the substances into a
waste container. Copper and Lead are tested for together and have two reference solutions. The
first reference solution is twenty drops Cu+2 or CuSO4 into one well and the second reference
solution is twenty drops Pb+2 or Pb(NO3)2 into the second well. Distilled water and your test
water are added to the third and fourth wells, then one to two drops of the indicator solution,
potassium iodide(KI), is added to all four wells. Once this has been done and the test water has
been checked for either precipitate, results should be written down to keep track of present toxins
or ions in the test water.
Results:
Table 1: Number of Ions found in test water from site A68
Calcium
test

Chloride
test

Sulfate
test

Iron test

Copper test Lead test

Positives

Semi-positives

Negatives

10
negatives

10
negatives

10
negatives

10
negatives

10
negatives

10
negatives

In this table you are able to see how that this site along the river had none of the tested ions
present in the test water.
Table 2: Number of Ions found in test water from site A72
Calcium
test

Chloride
test

Sulfate
test

Iron test

Copper test Lead test

Positives

Semi-positives

Negatives

9
negatives

9
negatives

9
negatives

9 negatives 9 negatives 9 negatives

For site A72, we saw that there were no precipitates formed in the test water thus telling us that
none of the ions were present at detectable concentrations.
Table 3: Number of Ions found in test water from site CC@14

Calcium
test

Chloride
test

Sulfate
test

Iron test

Copper test Lead test

Positives

Semi-positives

Negatives

15
negatives

15
negatives

11
negatives

15
negatives

15
negatives

15
negatives

Out of fifteen test the only ion that was found present in the test water was sulfate, and only four
out of the fifteen were positive.
Table 4: Number of Ions found in test water from site CCAC
Calcium
test

Chloride
test

Sulfate
test

Iron test

Copper test Lead test

Positives

Semi-positives

Negatives

4
negatives

9
negatives

7
negatives

8 negatives 8 negatives 8 negatives

The test water directly from Cement Creek below Gold King mine showed more precipitates
react in several different ions. Calcium was found present in the water more than any other ion.
Table 5: Number of Ions found in test water from site MC
Calcium
test

Chloride
test

Sulfate
test

Iron test

Copper test Lead test

Positives

Semi-positives

Negatives

11
negatives

12
negatives

12
negatives

12
negatives

12
negatives

12
negatives

From all twelve tests of the water found at site MC, there was only one test that found calcium
positive in the test water.
Table 6: Number of Ions found in test water from site SFCC

Positives

Calcium
test

Chloride
test

Sulfate
test

Iron test

Copper test Lead test

Semi-positives

Negatives

10
negatives

10
negatives

9
negatives

9 negatives 10
negatives

0
10
negatives

Almost all tests taken showed no precipitate in the test water except for one for Sulfate and one
for Iron.
Discussion:
In this experiment we were testing for different ions that may be present in the Animas River,
Cement Creek, and Mineral Creek because of the recent Gold King mine spill. While collecting
water from these three water sources there was a clear color difference between them and it was
assumed that Cement Creek would have many positive precipitates created for each ion based on
how unclear and orange it looked. The other water resources seemed less likely to contain as
many present ions because the water would be diluted by other tributaries and water sources. It
was expected that CCAC, Cement Creek above the confluences, and SFCC, South Fork Cement
Creek would have the highest number of ions because of how close they are to the actual spill.
Whereas site MC, CC@14, A72, and A68 were expected to have less ions present because of
added waters and the distance away from the spill site.
Even though through performing the experiment we did see that the sites closest to the mine spill
did have more ions present in the water, we expected to see more positive precipitates of each ion
found in the test water. There were three positives and two semi-positive precipitates of calcium
found in the test water from site CCAC(Table 4), but we were surprised to see that most of the
other ions were almost or all negative. Sites A72 and A 68, the farthest testing places, both
showed no positive reactions to any of the ions(Tables 1 and 2), thus proving our previous
expectations correct by having less ions. By examining all of the results as a whole our initial
expectation is correct in saying that water testing areas closest to the spill do have the highest
amount of ions present, just not as many as we had expected. If we had more tests done of each
area, each ion that was present closer to the spill would probably appear farther downstream just
at a less likely rate.
Our results are important in understanding what ions are swimming along with us in the river.
We cannot yet tell if the river is safe or even if we should be swimming in it because even though
we know what ions are in the river, we do not know what their doses are. We need to test their
doses because the higher percentage of an ion in the river will directly relate to how dangerous or
safe it it. When conducting this experiment we were working with several ions that could be
poisonous if ingested or could irritate the skin and it is important to know if those ions are
present in the water so we dont expose ourselves to them.

Our results seemed very low when compared to other organizations data found when testing the
same water. Something we didnt think about until after we performed our experiment was that
the acidity levels of the river and creeks may be affecting the results we are getting. Some of the
ions we were expecting to see at higher rates werent visible because they couldnt react in such
an acidic environment. We did a quick experiment to test this by adding some base to the test
water to try and neutralize it. We found that ions we hadnt seen in the water had a precipitate
now that it was more basic. If we could redo this entire experiment it would be crucial to have
another well of test water that was neutralized to see if a precipitate of an ion not seen before
would be present. Also to fully capture the effects of this spill and be able to honestly say that the
river is safe, or unsafe, we need to test for more possible ions in the water and what their doses
are.