Queensland Academy for

Science, Mathematics and Technology

1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Year 12 Chemistry: Internal Assessment

1.1.1.1.1.1.2 IA Criteria Checklist

INTRODUCTION:
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION: Commented [CS1]: -Research question is focused. The
dependent and independent are clearly stated in the RQ
What is the effect of different salinity levels (2 ppt, 12 ppt, 22 ppt, 32 ppt, 32 ppt, 42 ppt, 52 ppt) on the dissolved
oxygen (DO) content in the lower reaches of the Brisbane River through use of the Winkler Method?

1.3 RATIONALE: Commented [CS2]: The justification given for choosing

the research question and/or the topic under investigation
Water pollution occurs when toxic substances enter a water body, such as a river, lake, etc. It is an ever-increasing
demonstrates personal significance, interest or curiosity.
concern in first-world countries due to the increase in industrial waste and toxic substances brought about by
modernisation. The deterioration of water-quality in the Brisbane River epitomises this, as the estuary does not meet
national guidelines for environmental safety routinely, and in 2008, the river received a very poor rating for water
quality from the Health Waterways Report (The Courier Mail, 2009). Therefore, I wanted to conduct a chemical analysis
on the water quality of the Brisbane River myself. It was at this point when I realised that my chemistry knowledge
could fulfil this goal; when learning about oxidation-reduction reactions, I came across a method to determine the
dissolved oxygen level of water bodies - the Winkler method. The DO level of a water body is one significant parameter
for its healthiness and gives a broad indication for its water quality. Therefore, I was able to link what I studied at
school to important real-life situations and utilise my chemistry knowledge for academic research in an important field.

1.4 BACKGROUND RESEARCH: Commented [CS3]: Is entirely relevant and addresses

sufficient information needed to understand the chemistry
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is the amount of free gaseous oxygen (O2) dissolved in a water-body. It is one parameter for
in the investigation
the healthiness and quality of water for a water-body, i.e., a creek, because oxygen is a vital part of aquatic and marine
life. There are many ways in which oxygen can enter water, the two main processes being absorption from the -Theory supports hypothesis and is directly related to RQ
atmosphere and as waste from plant photosynthesis (Dauphin Island Sea Lab, n.d.). Dissolved oxygen can also (experimental design).
influence the solubility of nutrients, in that low DO levels can promote higher release of nutrients from sediments -Referencing is correct
(Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program, n.d.). However, lower DO means that the water-body is unhealthy and is of
poor quality since it is of necessity to all forms of aquatic life. Thus, DO levels that are too high or too low will endanger
the lives of many aquatic organisms and subsequently the quality of water which those organisms reside. The lowest
DO level that can sustain most fish life is general accepted to be 5 ppm, but fish eggs and some types of fish may
require a higher DO level (Water Research Centre, n.d.). Bacteria and most micro-organisms do not require DO levels
much higher than 1 ppm. Moreover, a major factor at play for dissolved oxygen levels is the salinity levels in water,
and they have an inverse relationship (Fundamentals of Environmental Measurements, 2013). On average, saltwater
only has 80% of the dissolved oxygen content in freshwater. Two other factors that affect DO content in water are
pressure and temperature. (Hach, 2017).
The Winkler Method is one of the many techniques used to measure DO; it is often used as it is accurate especially
when oxygen levels are low and other methods, such as ones involving electrodes are not appropriate (Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 2006). In this method, water samples are collected using special BOD bottles that prevent
oxygen from the air escaping into the water sample (King, 2011). A series of stoichiometric equation are shown below
- these equations are the chemical backbone of the Winkler Method (MACscience, 2010).
STANDARDISATION:
𝐼𝑂3− + 8𝐼 − + 6𝐻 + → 3𝐼3− + 3𝐻2 𝑂
𝐼3− + 2𝑆2 𝑂32− → 3𝐼 − + 𝑆4 𝑂62−
The sodium thiosulfate (NaS2O32-, where Na is a spectator ion) was standardised.
WINKLER TITRATION:
𝑂2 + 4𝑀𝑛2+ + 8𝑂𝐻 −  2𝑀𝑛2 𝑂3 + 4𝐻2 𝑂
The manganese (II) ions are oxidised by the dissolved oxygen to form manganese (III) in the compound, 𝑀𝑛2 𝑂3 . This
is what causes the dirty brown colouration in the solution after adding manganese chloride.
𝑀𝑛2 𝑂3 + 6𝐻 + 2𝑀𝑛3+ + 3𝐻2 𝑂
The 𝑀𝑛2 𝑂3 is then dissolved using a strong acid, in this case, concentrated sulfuric acid, which causes the precipitate
to dissolve.
2𝑀𝑛3+ + 2𝐼 −  2𝑀𝑛2+ + 𝐼2
3+
The added iodide will react with the 𝑀𝑛 ions to produce iodine, which is responsible for the yellowish colour of the
solution.
𝐼2 + 2𝑆2 𝑂32−  2𝐼 − + 𝑆4 𝑂62−
The iodine produced will be titrated with sodium thiosulfate solution as per the above equation. From the above set
of equations used for the Winkler Method, it is clear that the dissolved oxygen content (O2) in a water sample can be
calculated through the molar ratio between sodium thiosulfate (NaS2O32-) and oxygen (𝑂2 ), that is: 4:1. Because
sodium thiosulfate is the titrant, the volume of sodium thiosulfate used can be multiplied with its concentration
(0.018M stated, actual concentration will be determined and used) to find the number of moles of NaS2O32-. Note that
sodium is a spectator ion in the sodium thiosulfate compound, hence why it is not present in the system of chemical
equations above.
A titration, or more specifically, a redox titration is the procedure used to carry out the Winkler Method. The purpose
of a titration is to reach the equivalence point- the point in which the moles of titrants are stoichiometrically equal to
the moles of analyte (Dunn & Chappell, 2017). This is not to be confused with the end-point of a titration, which is
when the indicator, in this case, 1% starch illustrates a colour change that signifies the end of a titration. This point is
usually similar to the equivalence point, but not the same due to misjudgements made in noticing colour change.
(Xavier, 2016).
The Brisbane river Estuary is
the longest river in Southeast
Queensland, originating from
the great dividing and ending
in Moreton Bay. The
settlement of people near the
Brisbane River had many
adverse impacts on its health
and water quality (UKEssays,
2015).
The solubility of sodium
chloride (NaCl) in water is
important in this investigation
because different salinity
levels will be established
through adding NaCl. The
degree to which salt can
dissolve in water is influenced
by temperature, but the
solubility of sodium chloride in
Figure 1: Salinity and Dissolved Oxygen Levels in the Brisbane River, 1974 (Rankin, Robert
water is 360 g/kg of water sample Osmond., 1976)
at 273K (Chemistry Stack
Exchange, n.d.). Since the maximum salinity level of the Brisbane river is less than 30 g/kg (refer figure 1), it can be
deduced that more salt can be added and thus the salinity levels can be manipulated.

1
1.5 AIM:
To determine the effect of salinity changes on the dissolved oxygen content in the Brisbane River Water (lower
reaches).

1.6 HYPOTHESIS:
It is hypothesised that as the salinity increases in water, its dissolved oxygen content will decrease and vice versa. This
is supported by academic research, which indicates that salinity and dissolved oxygen content have an inverse
relationship, that is, an increase in salinity will lead to a decrease in dissolved oxygen content, because it lowers the
solubility of oxygen in water.

2 METHODOLOGY:
2.1 VARIABLES:
Table 1: Table of Variables
Variable type Variables Measured How the variable will be Effect on Data if not
changed/ measured/controlled Controlled (if applicable)
Controlled Same volume of water Utilising the same volumetric DO levels of different water Commented [CS4]: States sufficient controls necessary to
sample from the same flask to conduct the experiment sources are different; volume produce a set of results that allow for a valid conclusion to
source and ensure water sample is from changes lead to inconsistencies be drawn
the same source and random error States how the control variables will be controlled in
Laboratory apparatus Utilise the same equipment and Random error may occur sufficient detail
and chemicals kept the chemicals
same Includes reason for each control, referring specifically to the
impact on the data produced for each
Environmental Experiment conducted in fume Random error may occur,
conditions (pressure, hood temperature has an inverse
wind, and temperature) relationship with DO, and
pressure is proportional to
DO.
Independent Salinity NaCl weighed out in steps of N/A Commented [CS5]: Features a number of changes to
10g/kg of water for 108 mL 0.108 independent variable that allow for a valid conclusion to be
kg) of sample water: additional drawn
10g/kg, 20g/kg, 30g/kg, 40g/kg,
50g/kg of NaCl. It was then
added to the sample water.
Dependent Dissolved oxygen Calculated through molar ratio N/A
Content in water sample from the volume of Sodium Commented [CS6]: States the dependent variable with
Thiosulfate used in titration. sufficient explanation for how it will be measured

2.2 APPARATUS: Commented [CS7]: Lists all apparatus needed to address

Table 2: Table of Apparatus research question
Equipment Chemicals
1 x 250 mL Conical Flask 1% starch solution as indicator (50 mL)
1 x 125 mL Erlenmeyer Flask 18M Sulfuric Acid (25 mL)
1 x 100 mL Volumetric Flask with glass stopper 60 g manganese (II) chloride
1 x 10 mL Graduated pipette (±0.075 mL) 0.18M Sodium Thiosulfate stock solution (10 mL)
1 x Bulb pipette filler 0.4 g Potassium Iodate (solid)
2 x 100 mL beaker 60 g 4M Potassium Iodide
6 x 3 mL Graduated plastic pipette dropper (±0.25 mL) 32 g 4M Potassium Hydroxide
1 x 250 mL plastic beaker 100 g Pure Sodium Chloride
1 x Digital Scale (±0.0001 g)
2
 1 x 50 mL Burette with stopcock (±0.075 cm3)
1 x Clamp and Stand for Burette Solutions
1 x White textile board Sample water from Brisbane River at Hamilton (1750 mL)
1 x Glass funnel Distilled water (1000 mL)
1 x 500 mL Waste beaker
1 x 250 mL Measuring cylinder (±1 mL)
6 x Nitrile gloves
1 x Safety glasses
2 x 50 mL Amber glass bottle

2.3 PROCEDURE Commented [CS8]: Features sufficient steps necessary

for answering the research question to a sufficient extent
2.3.1 Water Collection
Water was collected in a 1.25 L bottle from the Brisbane River (Hamilton region). It was overfilled to ensure that no method demonstrates the effective control of most
extra oxygen would be introduced to the sample which would skew results. This process was then repeated for a 500 variables by stating concentrations of solutions to be used,
mL bottle so that a total of 1.75 L of sample water was collected. and choosing apparatus that minimises uncertainty

2.3.2 Reagent Preparation

Table 3: Reagent Preparation
Reagent Preparation Procedure
Manganese (II) 60 g of MnCl2∙4H2O was weighed out on a scale and dissolved in 60 mL of distilled water
Chloride (3M): collected with a 200 mL measuring cylinder. After the MnCl2∙4H2O was completely dissolved,
the solution was made up to 100 mL with 40 mL of distilled water collected from a 200 mL
measuring cylinder. This solution was filtered into a 50 mL amber glass bottle to be stored in
the refrigerator.
Potassium Iodide 60 g of Potassium Iodide was weighed out on a scale and dissolved in 60 mL distilled water
(4M) and collected with a 200 mL measuring cylinder. The solution was discarded if it became a
Potassium yellowish-brown. The mixture was cooled to 22 ℃ when 32 g of Potassium Hydroxide was
Hydroxide (8M): added to the solution. The solution was made up to 100 mL with 40 mL of distilled water
collected from a 200 mL measuring cylinder. It was then filtered and stored in an amber glass
bottle in the chemical fridge (4℃).
Sulfuric Acid (50%): 25 mL of 18M H2SO4 was added to 25 mL of distilled water collected from a 200 mL measuring
cylinder and then stored in the refrigerator (4 ℃). The mixture was cooled to 22℃.
Sodium Thiosulfate 90 mL of distilled water collected with a 200 mL measuring cylinder was added to 10 mL of
Working Solution 0.18M sodium thiosulfate solution in a 200mL beaker. This solution was stored in the
(0.018M): refrigerator (4 ℃)
Potassium Iodate 0.04 g of KIO3 was weighed out on scale and then put into a 200 mL beaker. This was made
Solution (0.002M): up to 100 mL with distilled water collected using a 200 mL measuring cylinder.

2.3.3 Standardisation
1. A 50 mL burette was rinsed with distilled water, then fully drained and the solution rinsed out was dispensed
into a 500 mL waste beaker. The burette was clamped to the stand.
2. A 10 mL pipette was rinsed with distilled water and then fully drained. The solution rinsed out was dispensed
into a 500 mL waste beaker.
3. 27.2 mL of sodium thiosulfate working solution was added into the burette using a funnel.
4. 15 mL of sample water was added to a 150 mL Erlenmeyer flask.
5. Using a 10mL volumetric pipette, 10 mL of 0.002M Potassium Iodate was carefully added to the solution. The
solution was swirled.
6. 1 mL of potassium iodide-potassium hydroxide reagent was added using a plastic disposable dropper, and the
solution was swirled once again.
7. 1mL of manganese chloride was added using a plastic disposable dropper and mixed thoroughly.
8. 90mL of distilled water was added to the solution with a 200 mL measuring cylinder and mixed once again.
9. 50 mL of this solution was poured into a separate 100 mL Erlenmeyer flask using a 200 mL measuring cylinder.
10. This solution was titrated against the sodium thiosulfate which was slowly added until the solution turned pale
yellow.
3
 11. 1 drop of 1% starch solution was added to the solution. The titration was resumed but sodium thiosulfate was
added one drop at a time until the solution became colourless.
12. Steps 9-12 were repeated until three trials were within 0.1mL of each other.
2.3.4 Modifying Salinity
1. 10 g/kg of sodium chloride equated to 1.08 g of pure sodium chloride because there was 108 mL (0.108 kg) of
sample water. This was weighed on the scale with weighing boats.
2. This exact amount of sodium chloride was added to 108 mL of sample water in the 250 mL plastic beaker and
then swirled with a spatula to ensure that the NaCl completely dissolved.
3. Steps 1-2 were repeated for the other concentrations of salt added (additional: 20g/kg,30g/kg,40g/kg,50g/kg).
2.3.5 Redox Titration
1. The cleaning and preparation procedure for titrations (steps 2-3 of 3.3.3) was repeated.
2. 108 mL of sample water was poured into a 200 mL chemical cylinder and then dispensed into a 100 mL
volumetric flask. The volumetric flask was overfilled so that no additional oxygen could be introduced to the
solution, so the volume marking was ignored. The total volume of solution will be determined in subsection
3.3.6.
3. Using a disposable plastic pipette, 1 mL of Manganese chloride was added to the solution below the water line
to not introduce extra oxygen to the solution.
4. Using a disposable plastic pipette, 1mL of Potassium Hydroxide Potassium Iodide was added to the solution
below the water line to not introduce extra oxygen to the solution.
5. The solution was covered by placing the glass stopper in the volumetric flask. It was then inverted and mixed
for 2-3 minutes, when the brown precipitate formed.
6. Using a plastic disposable pipette, 1 mL of sulfuric acid was added to the solution below the water line to not
add oxygen to the solution.
7. The volumetric flask was covered, then inverted and mixed until the precipitate disappeared. Although the
addition of these chemicals has theoretically stabilised the oxygen content of the water sample, every
precaution was still taken to ensure that the solution had the least contact possible with outside air.
8. 50 mL of this solution was poured into a 200 mL measuring cylinder with a funnel, and then poured into a 100
mL Erlenmeyer flask with a funnel for titration.
9. Using a glass funnel, the burette was filled with 0.018M sodium thiosulfate and the initial reading was recorded.
10. The solution was titrated against 0.018M sodium thiosulfate until the solution reached a pale-yellow colour.
11. 1 drop of 1% starch indicator was added to the solution.
12. The titration was continued by adding the sodium thiosulfate drop by drop until the solution turned clear.
13. The volume of sodium thiosulfate used to bring the solution to its end-point was recorded and the waste
solution was dispensed into the waste beaker, which was labelled and then given to the laboratory assistant
to dispose of in order to minimise environmental impact.
14. Another 2 trials were repeated for the same salinity, then steps 1-13 were repeated for the other salinity levels
(additional: 10g/kg, 20g/kg, 30g/kg, 40g/kg, 50g/kg). Commented [CS9]: -method allows for sufficient
The entire experiment barring a few steps, e.g., adding water sample to flask, was conducted in the fume cupboard in relevant data to be collected to answer the research
the preparation room for concentrated sulfuric acid could cause extreme heat and is very corrosive. question multiple trials are planned so that the reliability
of the data can be evaluated.
2.3.6 Determining the Total volume of solution:
-At least 3 repeated measurements have been planned to
The volumetric flask was overfilled past the 100 mL marking, so the total volume was calculated by adding water to allow the calculation of a mean.
the very top of the volumetric flask (without stopping at the 100 mL marking) and then pouring it into a 200 mL
measuring cylinder. This gave a reading of 108 mL, which will be the basis for additional salinity level changes since -5 values have been planned to allow graphs are to be
NaCl will be added as a ratio of the total mass of solution (g/kg). plotted

2.3.7 Determining the Original Salinity of Solution

The original salinity of the solution was determined using the PASCO conductivity sensor connected to SparkVUE. The
water sample gave a conductivity reading of 𝜎 ≈ 3900 ± 1 𝜇𝑆 𝑐𝑚−1 at a temperature of 24.8 °C. This corresponds to
a salinity level of approximately 2 parts per thousand (ppt) (Hamza's Reef, n.d.) Thus, the salinity levels referred to
henceforth will be the result of the added salt concentration combined with the salinity of the original sample which
was 2.000 ± 0.012 ppt. The uncertainty figure was also converted using the aforementioned conversion calculator
(Hamza's Reef, n.d.)

4
Method adapted from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2006 and MACscience, 2010. NB: The adaptations
were only applied to subsection 3.3.5 of the procedure.

2.4 MODIFICATIONS TO PROCEDURE Commented [CS10]: PE - There is evidence of personal

Table 4: Modifications to Procedure input and initiative in the designing, implementation or
presentation of the investigation.
Modifications Reason for Modification
standard method used as the bases of the design but has
Used Potassium Iodide and Potassium Sodium Iodide was not readily available and the laboratory technician been modified showing personal input into design and
Hydroxide Instead of Sodium Iodide and indicated that it is hazardous when inhaled and very hazardous when referenced.
Sodium Hydroxide, which was what MIT ingested. Thus, NaI-NaOH could not be used, but it was clear that the
used. sodium in both compounds were spectator ions and could therefore
be swapped by another compound. Potassium was chosen because it
produced the same charge on the overall compound as sodium and
thus would not interfere with the Winkler equations
Volumetric Flasks with glass stopper were The school laboratory did not have BOD bottles, but volumetric
used instead of BOD bottles flasks w/ glass stoppers were a perfect substitute because the total
volume was approximately the same and the glass stopper would
ensure that there was no extra oxygen introduced
Table 4 continues onto the next page

0.04 grams of potassium iodate were Level of precision too high for tool error of scale and the rest of the
weighed instead of 0.03213 grams experiment
Reagent preparation procedures were Excessive amount of reagents for just one experiment
scaled down (by ten-fold or more)
Different salinity levels (original salinity, Research question necessitated this, as salinity was the dependent
additional: 10g/kg, 20g/kg, 30g/kg, 40g/kg, variable
50g/kg) were established

2.5 RISK ASSESSMENT Commented [CS11]: EX - The report shows evidence of

Table 5: Risk Assessment full awareness of the significant safety, ethical or
environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology
Chemical/Equipment Identified Risk Method of Minimizing Risk of the investigation.
Manganese (II) Toxic to aquatic and humans life Do not swallow, wash hands after contact; wear
chloride 3M gloves
Potassium Iodate - May intensity fire Do not swallow, wash hands after contact; wear
(solid) - Skin irritation gloves
- Serious eye irritation
- Possible respiratory irritation
Sulfuric Acid 18M - Extremely Severe skin burns Do not swallow, wash hands for 10 minutes after
and eye damage contact; wear gloves. Wash eyes under eye wash if
- Extreme heat chemical spills on them
Potassium hydroxide - Extremely Severe skin burns Do not swallow, wash hands for 10 minutes after
4M and eye damage contact; wear gloves. Wash eyes under eye wash if
- Harmful if swallowed chemical spills on them
Potassium Iodide Toxic if swallowed and irritates skin Do not swallow, wash hands for 10 minutes after
and serious eye irritation contact; wear gloves. Wash eyes under eye wash if
chemical spills on them
Burette Cuts by glass shards breaking Discard any chipped shards of glass and sweep
Erlenmeyer Flask broken glass with brush and dustpan. Do not touch
Glass Pipette glass with hands.
Retort Stand Centre of mass high so could be Ensure stand is not on the edge of a table; utilize
toppled over common sense.

There was likely no environmental or ethical violations regarding this experiment because it was conducted in the
fume cupboard inside a fully controlled laboratory. All chemicals were disposed into labelled waste beakers which was

5
then given to the laboratory technician to dispose of. Additionally, safety glasses, Nitrile gloves and a lab coat were
used throughout the experiment, minimising the risk of chemical danger.

3 RESULTS
3.1 RAW DATA
3.1.1 Qualitative Observations Commented [CS12]: -Valid and relevant qualitative
3.1.1.1 Preparation observations recorded
 The water sample was cloudy and it remained so after pure sodium chloride (NaCl) was added
 When manganese chloride was added, the solution fizzed and foamed but no colour change was witnessed
 When potassium iodide-potassium hydroxide was added, a brown sludge formed in the solution
 When sulfuric acid was added, the brown sludge turned into a yellowish colour and the precipitates dissolved

3.1.1.2 Redox Titration

 For trials with salinity levels of 42.000 ppt and 52.000 ppt respectively, gas bubbles were observed after the
solution was mixed following the addition of sulfuric acid. This indicated that extra oxygen was introduced to
the solution, providing reason for the increase in dissolved oxygen content for higher salinity levels which
contrasted chemical theory
 Certain trials were over-titrated, i.e., the end-point was past the equivalence point, resulting in more titrant
used, thereby increasing the experimental DO levels of these trials.
 The colour change from pale yellow to clear was relatively easy to distinguish as a white textile board was
placed beneath the conical flask bearing the solution

3.1.2 Quantitative Data

The volume of Na2S2O3 used was determined by calculating the difference between the initial and final burette
readings shown in table 5. The uncertainties for the initial and final readings are the same as the tool error of the
burette at ±0.075 cm3. Thus, the uncertainty for the volume of Na2S2O3 used is double that at ±0.15 cm3 because both
readings are considered.
Standardisation
Table 6: Results of Standardisation of Sodium Thiosulfate (Raw Data)
Trials Initial (±𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) Final (±𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) Volume used (±𝟎. 𝟏𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 )
1 26.200 31.800 5.60
2 31.800 37.500 5.70
3 37.500 43.100 5.60
Average Volume Used (cm3) 5.63

The temperature whereby the trials were conducted in was 23 ± 0.5°𝐶. This was recorded during every trial with a
thermometer whose tool error was ±0.5°𝐶 . A standardisation titration was conducted to determine the actual
concentration of the S2O32- in case it differed to the concentration of 0.018M written on the bottle.
Table 7: Sample Calculations for Determining Actual Molarity of Sodium Thiosulfate Working Solution
Explanation of Calculations Formula Sample Calculation
The experimental concentration of sodium 𝑛 = 𝑐𝑣 𝑛(𝐼𝑂3− ) = 0.002 × 10 × 10−3
thiosulfate was determined through molar ratios, 𝑛(𝐼𝑂3− ) = 2.0 × 10−5 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐼𝑂3−
so the number of moles of IO3- was first calculated.
Molar ratio between IO3- and I3- is 1:3, so the 𝑛(𝐼3− ) = 3 × 𝑛(𝐼𝑂3− ) 𝑛(𝐼3− ) = 6.0 × 10−5 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐼3−
number of moles of I3- was found by multiplying
the number of moles of I3- by 3.
Molar ratio between I3- and S2O32- is 1:2, so the 𝑛(S2 O32− ) 𝑛(S2 O32− ) = 12.0
number of moles of S2O32- was found by = 2 × 𝑛(𝐼3− ) × 10−5 𝑚𝑜𝑙 S2 O32−
multiplying the number of moles of I3- by 2.
The concentration of the sodium thiosulfate was 𝑛 12.0 × 10−5
𝐶= 𝐶(S2 O32− ) =
determined multiplying its volume and number of 𝑣 5.63 × 10−3
moles. = 0.0213 𝑀

6
Titration
Table 8: Results of Winkler Titration (Raw Data) Commented [CS13]: AN - The report includes sufficient
Salinity (±0.012 ppt) Volume (cm3) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 relevant quantitative and qualitative raw data that could
Initial (±𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 29.400 31.700 36.400 34.200 support a detailed and valid conclusion to the research
question.
Final (±𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 31.500 33.700 38.450 36.200 -3 trails recorded to allow averages to be calculated
2.000 ppt Difference (±𝟎. 𝟏𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 2.10 2.00 2.05 2.00 -5 independent variable recorded to allow raw data to be
graphed and trends drawn to reach a valid conclusion
Initial (±𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 34.300 36.450 29.700 32.000
Final (±𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 36.000 38.000 31.600 33.850
12.000 ppt Difference (±𝟎. 𝟏𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 1.70 1.55 1.90 1.85
Initial (±𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 34.100 35.750 35.050 37.150
Final (±𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 35.700 37.300 37.050 38.900
22.000 ppt Difference (±𝟎. 𝟏𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 1.60 1.55 2.00 1.75
Initial (±𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 39.000 40.800 41.300 43.300
Final (±𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 40.700 42.400 43.000 45.000
32.000 ppt Difference (±𝟎. 𝟏𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 1.70 1.60 1.70 1.70
42.000 ppt Initial (±𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 45.150 47.050 35.350 37.600
Final (±𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 47.000 48.800 37.000 39.300
Difference (±𝟎. 𝟏𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 1.85 1.75 1.65 1.70
Table 8 continues onto the next page

Initial (±𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 39.650 41.800 46.900 46.000

Final (±𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 41.200 43.500 48.700 47.800
52.000 ppt Difference (±𝟎. 𝟏𝟓 𝒄𝒎𝟑 ) 1.55 1.70 1.80 1.80

3.2 PROCESSED DATA Commented [CS14]: AN - Appropriate and sufficient data

processing is carried out with the accuracy required to
The mean values of the 4 trials for each salinity level were calculated so that a single value for the volume of Na2S2O3 enable a conclusion to the research question to be drawn
used was obtained for further calculations. The ranges and standard deviations for each data set were also calculated that is fully consistent with the experimental data.
so that the quality of the experimental results is evident. Only the calculations for the data of the original salinity will -Raw data is processed fully and correctly
be shown, because the same calculations were applied to all experimental conditions. -Calculations are easy to follow. They clearly show all the
steps involved in processing the raw data to produce the
Table 9: Sample Calculations final results.
Explanation of Calculations Sample Calculation for Original Associated Uncertainty
Salinity Calculations
𝑢𝑉(𝑆2 𝑂32−) AN - The report shows evidence of full and appropriate
The mean of the volumes of Na2S2O3 were found. Σx consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 = 𝑥̅ =
This value was rounded to 2 decimal places because 𝑛 𝑉(𝑆2 𝑂32− ) on the analysis.
all trials have 2 decimal places. The percentage 2.10 + 2.00 + 2.05 + 2.00 0.00015 -Precision of data is recorded consistently and with
= = × 100 associated uncertainties (raw and processed)
uncertainty was rounded to one significant figure 4 2.04 × 10−3
due to convention. ≈ 2.04 𝑐𝑚3 ≈ 7% -Significant figures in the data and the uncertainty in the
data are consistent (raw and processed)
The range of the two data sets were found. 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = 𝑥𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 − 𝑥𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 N/A -Number of significant figures is recorded consistently (raw
= 2.10 − 2.00 = 0.10 𝑐𝑚3 and processed)
The standard deviations (σ) of both data sets were N/A -Uncertainties are propagated correctly (or to a reasonable
Σ(x − 𝑥̅ )2 extent) for processed data
found. 𝜎=√
𝑛
= 0.041 𝑐𝑚3

3.2.1 Calculating the uncertainty in the Concentration of Sodium Thiosulfate

Now, the uncertainty in the molarity of the sodium thiosulfate working solution after dilution is determined. NB: 𝑢𝑥
𝑢
refers to the uncertainty in 𝑥, and 𝑥𝑥 refers to the percentage (when multiplied by 100) or relative uncertainty in 𝑥.
Table 10: Sample Calculations
Explanation Uncertainty Formula Uncertainty Calculation
The tool Error in Measuring cylinder is ±1 cm3 and 𝑢𝐶 𝑆2𝑂32− = 𝑢𝑛 + 𝑢𝑉𝑑𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑢𝐶
𝑆2 𝑂32− 1×10−3
= 0 + 100×10−3
10 cm3 of sodium thiosulfate was diluted tenfold to 𝐶𝑆2 𝑂32− 𝑛 𝑉𝑑𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐶𝑆 𝑂 2−
2 3

7
 100 cm3 and the number of moles of Na2S2O3 do not 𝑢𝐶 𝑆 2−
2 𝑂3
= 1%
have any associated uncertainties 𝐶𝑆2 𝑂32−

Table 11: Summary of Findings

Salinity Level (±0.012 Measures of Spread (cm3)
ppt) Mean Volume Range Standard Deviation
2.000 ppt 2.04 0.10 0.041
12.000 ppt 1.75 0.35 0.137
22.000 ppt 1.73 0.45 0.188
32.000 ppt 1.68 0.10 0.043
42.000 ppt 1.74 0.20 0.074
52.000 ppt 1.71 0.25 0.102

3.3 CALCULATING THE DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONTENTS IN EACH ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION

Using the chemical equations for the Winkler Method as stated in the background research (refer to section 2.3), the
molar ratios of the different molecules will be used to determine the O2 content in parts per million (ppm). The
uncertainties associated with each measured quantity will also be propagated. Again, only the calculations for the
original salinity will be shown, because the same calculations were applied to all experimental conditions.

Table 12: Sample Calculations for calculating DO

Explanation of Calculations Original Salinity Associated Uncertainty Calculations
The number of moles of Na2S2O3 was found 𝑢𝑛 𝑆 𝑂 2− 𝑢𝐶𝑆2 𝑂 2− 𝑢𝑉 (𝑆2𝑂32−)
2 3
by multiplying its mean volume and its 𝑛(𝑆2 𝑂32− ) = 𝐶𝑉 = 3
+
𝑛𝑆2𝑂32− 𝐶𝑆2𝑂32− 𝑉(𝑆2 𝑂32−)
concentration. The value was rounded to 3 = 0.0213 × 2.04 × 10−3
significant figures for consistency and = 4.35 × 10−5 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑆2 𝑂32− ≈ 1% + 7%
convention. ≈ 8%
Molar ratio between S2O3 and I2 is 2:1, so 𝑢𝑛(𝐼2 )
𝑛(𝑆2 𝑂3 )
the number of moles of I2 was found by 𝑛(𝐼2 ) = ≈ 8%
2 𝑛(𝐼2 )
dividing the number of moles of Na2S2O3 by
≈ 2.18 × 10−5 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐼2
2.
Molar ratio between I2 and Mn3+ is 1:2, so 𝑢𝑛(𝑀𝑛3+ )
𝑛(𝑀𝑛3+ ) = 2 × 𝑛(𝐼2 )
the number of moles of Mn3+ was found by ≈ 8%
≈ 4.35 × 10−5 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑀𝑛3+ 𝑛(𝑀𝑛3+ )
multiplying the number of moles of I2 by 2.
Molar ratio between Mn3+ and Mn2O3 is 2:1, 𝑛(𝑀𝑛3+ )
so the number of moles of Mn2O3 was found 𝑛(𝑀𝑛2 𝑂3 ) = 𝑢𝑛(𝑀𝑛2 𝑂3 )
2 ≈ 8%
by multiplying the number of moles of Mn3+ ≈ 2.18 𝑛(𝑀𝑛2 𝑂3 )
by 2. × 10−5 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑀𝑛2 𝑂3
Molar ratio between Mn2O3 and O2 is 2:1, so 𝑢𝑛(𝑂2 )
𝑛(𝑀𝑛2 𝑂3 )
the number of moles of O2 was found by 𝑛(𝑂2 ) = ≈ 8%
2 𝑛(𝑂2 )
multiplying the number of moles of Mn2O3
≈ 1.09 × 10−5 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑂2
by 2.
The mass of the dissolved oxygen contents 𝑚(𝑂2 ) = 𝑛 × 𝑀 𝑢𝑚
≈ 8%
in the water sample was found through ≈ 1.09 × 10−5 𝑚
multiplying its molar mass with its number × 31.99880 𝑢𝑛(𝑂2) ≈ 3.49 × 10−4 × 8%
of moles. = 3.48 × 10−4 𝑔 𝑢𝑛(𝑂2 ) ≈ 2.79 × 10−5
This was then converted to parts per million 𝑢𝑉 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ±1 × 10−3
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒 =
using the total volume of sample water for 𝑝𝑝𝑚 = 𝑉𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 50 × 10−3
each titration (50 mL). SI units were not 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
× 106 = 2%
needed because grams were used for both 𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑚
3.48 × 10−4 ≈ 8% + 2% ≈ 10%
variables. The uncertainty was propagated = × 106 𝑝𝑝𝑚
because not all of the solution made was 50 𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑚 ≈ 6.96 × 10% ≈ 0.696
= 6.96 𝑝𝑝𝑚
titrated; only 50 mL undergone titrations 𝑝𝑝𝑚(𝐷𝑂) ≈ 6.96 ± 0.696
∴ 𝑝𝑝𝑚(𝐷𝑂) ≈ 6.96 ± 10%
8
 per trial and a 200 mL measuring cylinder (±
1 mL) was used to transfer the solution.

NB: The approximately equal sign, ≈ was used when propagating molar ratios to indicate that even though only 3
significant figures were shown, the actual values were not changed. When calculating through molar ratios, exact
values were taken because nothing was measured.
Table 13: Final Results
Salinity Level Mass of dissolved Dissolved Absolute Percentage Percentage Error
(±0.012 ppt) Oxygen (g) Oxygen (ppm) Uncertainty (ppm) Uncertainty
2.000 ppt 3.49 × 10−4 6.96 0.70 10.1% 11.7%
12.000 ppt 2.98 × 10−4 5.96 0.72 12.1% 16.9%
22.000 ppt 2.94 × 10−4 5.90 0.71 12.0% 40.5%
32.000 ppt 2.86 × 10−4 5.73 0.69 12.0% No Literature
42.000 ppt 2.96 × 10−4 5.93 0.71 12.0% No Literature
52.000 ppt 2.91 × 10−4 5.83 0.70 12.0% No Literature

NB: the unit parts per million (ppm) was used when examining the about of DO in the water sample as opposed to a
percentage because it would yield such a small value.

Prior to graphing the results in table 13, the units for salinity were kept same, i.e., they were not changed to ppm
because doing so would yield equations and values too small to be meaningful. Therefore, a multiplier of 103 will be
applied to the salinity. Then, a graph with minimum and maximum trendlines depicting the relationship of salinity and
dissolved oxygen was constructed using a spreadsheet software on Microsoft Excel. Furthermore, the uncertainty for
salinity was determined to be ±0.001 𝑝𝑝𝑡 in section 3.3.7, but this was far too miniscule to be evident on figure 2.

Salinity vs DO
9
8
7
6
Dissolved Oxygen (ppm)

5
y = -0.0388x + 7.1457 Maximum Slope Trendline
4
y = 0.0047x + 6.2707 Minimum Slope Trendline
3
Best Fit Trendline
2 y = -0.0172x + 6.5186
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Salinity (103 ppt)
Figure 2: Graph Illustrating the Relationship of Salinity and Dissolved Oxygen with Maximum and Minimum
Trendline Constructed with Error Bars (Kann, 2016).
3.4 CALCULATING PERCENTAGE ERROR
The percentage errors were propagated so that the accuracy of these experimental values can be determined. NB: SI
units were not needed because all units are in ppm. The water sample obtained a salinity concentration of 2.000 ppt,
so the corresponding dissolved oxygen literature value from the Brisbane River was found to be 6.25 ppm (Rankin,
Robert Osmond, 1976).
𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100
𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
6.25 − 6.98
=| | × 100
6.25
= 11.7%

9
The limitation to the percentage error is that the literature dissolved oxygen content was taken in 1976, and no
updated information on the dissolved oxygen contents of the Brisbane river near the Hamilton area could be found.
The percentage errors of only the first three experimental conditions was calculated, and then tabled above. This is
because no literature value for dissolved oxygen for last three experimental conditions were found, so the percentage
errors could not be calculated.
Commented [CS15]: The processed data is correctly
4 DISCUSSION interpreted so that a completely valid and detailed
In freshwater, typical dissolved oxygen levels range from 1 ppm to 20 ppm depending on temperature, salinity and conclusion to the research question can be deduced.
pressure (Fundamentals of Environmental Measurements, 2013). However, a doctoral research report states that in
the Brisbane River, dissolved oxygen levels range from approximately 1 ppm to 7 ppm (Rankin, Robert Osmond., 1976),
A conclusion is correctly described and justified through
depending on the factors stated above. For the original sample of water, comparisons with literature DO values will relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.
be done with the experimentally recorded salinity level of 2.000 ppt, instead of a secondary source which states that
the Hamilton region of the Brisbane river has a salinity of approximately 20 ppt.
The experimental DO content in the salinity levels of 2.000 ppm, 12.000 ppm and 22.000 ppm was 11.7%, 16.9% and
40.5% larger than the literature value in terms of percentage error (refer to table 13). It can be seen from the best-fit
trendline in figure 2 that generally, as the salinity of a water sample increases, the dissolved oxygen contents decreases.
The last 2 salinity levels do not follow this trend because oxygen was introduced to it during the experiment (see table
14). However, figure 2 still shows that experimentally, salinity and dissolved oxygen content have an inversely
proportional relationship, which is also supported by published academic research (Rankin, Robert Osmond., 1976).
This can be attributed to the fact that when salinity increases, the solubility of oxygen in water decreases, thereby
inducing a lower DO level when salinity is increased. On average, the solubility of oxygen in water is approximately 20%
lower in seawater than it is in freshwater (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, n.d.). The solubility of oxygen decreases
when other solutes such as NaCl are added because the ions from the NaCl attracts the water molecules, decreasing
the affinity of the non-polar oxygen molecules and removes the DO from the H2O molecules (APEC Water Systems,
n.d.).
The results of the experiment were fairly precise as seen by the standard deviation figures which range from 0.041
cm3 to 0.188 cm3 and range figures fluctuate from 0.10 cm3 to 0.45 cm3. These values instigate that there was low
variance in the data, illustrating that there was a low possibility of random error occurring. Additionally, the precision
of this investigation could also be determined through the associated uncertainties of the DO quantities. For instance,
the original salinity (2.000 ppt) obtained an uncertainty of 0.7 ppm, close to 10.1% in a percentage compared to itself,
and this trend continues throughout the data, with the percentage uncertainties of the DO values rising to 12.1% at
the maximum. Because the uncertainty for DO is only 1/10th of the base value, this investigation entails a relatively
high degree of precision.

5 EVALUATION
The effectiveness of the experimental methodology can be determined through evaluating its strengths and
weaknesses and gauging the significance of any errors present. This is important because without understanding how
reliable the experimental methodology is, improvements cannot be suggested. The quality of the experimental
methodology can be demonstrated by the percentage errors shown in table 13 above, where the highest percentage
error was for the salinity level of 22.000 ppt at 40.5%. This entails that the methodology of this investigation could be
improved, because the relatively high value of the percentage error illustrates substantial systematic errors present in
this investigation.
A strength of the experimental methodology was that environmental conditions could not have influenced the
experimental results because it was conducted in the fume cupboard where temperature was regulated. If not
regulated, an increase in temperature would cause the DO level to decrease, because the solubility of water decreases.
Therefore, warmer water typically found on the surface of a water-body would require less DO for 100% air saturation,
and vice versa (Fundamentals of Environmental Measurements, 2013). Since this affects the data in a single direction,
temperature would be a source of systematic error if not controlled. To account for this, temperature was taken for
every trial using a thermometer and the temperature was recorded at 23 ± 0.5°𝐶 each time. Additionally, another
strength of the methodology of this investigation is that the standardisation of sodium thiosulfate was conducted to
establish the actual molarity of the solution, which was 0.0213M.

10
A weakness from the methodology was that the academic study found for the literature values of DO was conducted
in 1976 with primary data found in 1974, which is most likely a poor representation of the health of the Brisbane River
water now. Other weaknesses were tabled as sources of error and improvements were suggested for the investigation.
Table 14: Types of Error and Possible Improvement
Source of Error Impact on Results Suggested improvement Commented [CS16]: Strengths and weaknesses of the
Random Error investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of
Conversion of conductivity to Salinity could have been higher or lower Utilise a proper salinity meter with error, are discussed and provide evidence of a clear
understanding of the methodological issues* involved in
salinity is inaccurate because than it was shown because the original probes so that there could be more establishing the conclusion.
there are other solids in the water salinity was an inaccurate value. accuracy in the subsequent salinity
sample that conduct electricity, so level values. The student has described some realistic and relevant
the tabled values were most likely suggestions for the improvement of the investigation.
an average or an estimate, which
the sample water could have
deviated from.
Stock reagents could not have Dilutions and any other modifications of Ensure that stock reagents aren’t
been prepared to the molarity the stock reagents would have resulted out of date and are exactly the
that the containers claimed. in that error to compound in any molarity claimed. Ensure that the
direction because the calculations would lid is always screwed onto the
be inaccurate. bottle to reduce contamination.
Literature dissolved oxygen Imprecise readings because readings Unavoidable as no other studies,
content in the Brisbane River had could not have been reproduced theses, or any other type of
to be read from a graph (figure 1). efficiently. Thus, human error is academic research depict the DO
unavoidable because of the method levels which correspond to salinity
Table 14 continues onto the next page

used to read the literature values, so the levels in the Brisbane River.
percentage errors could have been
skewed in multiple directions.
Systematic Error
Some trials were over-titrated Over-titrations would have resulted in a Ensure that after one drop of starch
because the end-point was hard higher DO level than expected, skewing indicator (1%) was released into the
to judge. the data in one direction; consistently solution, titrations are continued
higher volumes of titrant used. drop by drop.
Gas bubbles formed in several The introduction of oxygen in these trials Ensure that the volumetric flask is
trials from the 42.000 ppt and would have led to more sodium completely sealed with the glass
52.000 ppt salinity levels inside thiosulfate being needed to bring the stopper so that oxygen cannot
the solution after shaking the solution to its equivalence point. The escape nor be introduced to the
volumetric flask following the molar ratios indicate that an increase in solution, which would increase the
addition of sulfuric acid, signifying sodium thiosulfate will lead to an accuracy of the investigation.
the introduction of external increase in dissolved oxygen.
oxygen.
Burette was not rinsed with titrantSodium Thiosulfate was unlikely to be Ensure that the burette is rinsed
(NaS2O23-) after being rinsed with the only solution present in the burette, with distilled water then with the
distilled water. causing it to be more dilute, so more titrant prior to titrations.
titrant (sodium thiosulfate) was needed
to fully titrate the solution. This would
have increased the calculated dissolved
oxygen content, resulting in a systematic
error.
It was observed that in before The leftover residue in the burette Ensure that the burette is rinsed
some titrations, there was residue would have caused the titrant to be with distilled water after every use.
in the burette. more concentrated, leading to a smaller
value for dissolved oxygen each time.

11
 Commented [CS17]: A detailed conclusion is described
6 CONCLUSION and justified which is entirely relevant to the research
The aim of this investigation, which was to determine the effect of salinity on dissolved oxygen levels in the water question and fully supported by the data presented.
sample collected from the Brisbane River was achieved. The experimental results were fairly consistent with the
hypothesis that as salinity levels rise, dissolved oxygen levels decrease. This is because an increase in salinity levels
asserts that sodium chloride concentration is also increased, and the ions from this compound would attract the
water molecule, thereby decreasing the affinity of the oxygen molecules. Finally, because the degree to which
oxygen molecules would combine with the water molecules, the total dissolved oxygen content is decreased. In this
investigation, this phenomenon was evident: The 2.000 ppt salinity condition obtained a DO level of 6.96±0.7 ppm
whereas the sample with 22.000 ppt in salinity had an experimental DO level of 5.9±0.71 ppm. Although the latter
had a percentage error of 40.5%, it was still consistent with academic research conducted in this area (see figure 1)
that the higher the salinity, the lower the DO and vice versa. The data was relatively reliable because 4 experimental
conditions demonstrated this trend, and the last two salinity levels did not show this because external oxygen was
added (see table 14). In real life, knowledge about DO levels and salinity is imperative because DO influences marine
life substantially. The results of the experiment are why ocean salt-water has less dissolved oxygen content than
freshwater. Finally, the experimental DO levels in the salinity range of the Brisbane River (1-30 ppt), which is
approximately 5.73- 6.96 ppm can support micro-organisms and most macro-organisms like fish (refer to 2.2.3).
Therefore, with regards to DO, one parameter of the chemical analysis of water quality, a general indication that the
water quality of the Brisbane River is relatively high can be inferred.

Further research on the effect of temperature on DO content in the Brisbane River is a plausible extension because
temperature is frequently changing (night, day, etc.), so it would greatly influence DO. Therefore, research for this
will augment humanity’s understanding of another key factor which influences DO. This could then lead to
extrapolations on the dissolved oxygen content of similar river water-bodies because the correlation between
temperature and DO as well as salinity and DO would both be known. Commented [CS18]: The student has described some
realistic and relevant suggestions for the extension of the
investigation.
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anglers still hooked on Brisbane River. (2009). The Courier Mail. Retrieved from
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/anglers-still-hooked-on-river/story-e6freon6-1111118636523
Determination of Dissolved Oxygen By Winkler Titration. (2006). MITopencourseware. Retrieved 1 February 2018,
from https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/earth-atmospheric-and-planetary-sciences/12-097-chemical-
investigations-of-boston-harbor-january-iap-2006/labs/dissolved_oxygen.pdf
Determination of dissolved oxygen concentration in water. (2010). MACscience. Retrieved 1 March 2018, from
https://macscience.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/dissolved-oxygen-winkler-method.docx
Dissolved Oxygen. (2013). Fundamentals of Environmental Measurements. Retrieved 1 February 2018, from
http://www.fondriest.com/environmental-measurements/parameters/water-quality/dissolved-oxygen/
Does Salt Concentration or Salinity of Water Affect Solubility of Oxygen?. APEC Water Systems. Retrieved 25 April
2018, from https://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water_quality/water-science/j-9-08-does-salt-
concentration-salinity-water-affect-solubility-oxygen.htm
Dunn, K., & Chappell, C. (2017). Neutralization. Chemistry LibreTexts. Retrieved 1 October 2017, from
https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Acids_and_Bases/Acid%2F%2FBase_
Reactions/Neutralization
How does salinity affect Dissolved Oxygen solubility?. (2017). Hach. Retrieved 2 February 2018, from
http://hachcompany.custhelp.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1002879/~/how-does-salinity-affect-
dissolved-oxygen-solubility%3F
Kann, D. (2016). Free Linear Graphing Template for the 2016+ IB Physics Syllabus. IB Math Physics. Retrieved 1
January 2018, from http://davidkann.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/linear-graphing-template-for-2016-ib.html
King, W. (2011). Winkler Titrations – Measuring Dissolved Oxygen. Colby at Sea. Retrieved 3 February 2018, from
http://web.colby.edu/colbyatsea/2011/02/11/winkler-titrations-measuring-dissolved-oxygen/
12
Oram, B. Dissolved Oxygen in Water. Water Research Centre. Retrieved from https://www.water-
research.net/index.php/dissovled-oxygen-in-water
Physical Characteristics: Salinity. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Retrieved 25 April 2018, from
http://web.vims.edu/bio/shallowwater/physical_characteristics/salinity.html
Levels Of Pollution In The Brisbane River Environmental Sciences Essay. (2015). UKEssays. Retrieved 1 March 2018,
from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/environmental-sciences/levels-of-pollution-in-the-brisbane-river-
environmental-sciences-essay.php
Rankin, Robert Osmond. (1976). Salinity and Dissolved Oxygen Investigations and Simulation in the Brisbane River.
Salinity Conversion Calculator. Hamza’s Reef. Retrieved from
https://www.hamzasreef.com/Contents/Calculators/SalinityConversion.php
Solubility of NaCl in water. Chemistry Stack Exchange. Retrieved 1 February 2018, from
https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/69038/solubility-of-nacl-in-water
Water Quality Indicators: Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen. Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program. Retrieved
from http://www.ramp-
alberta.org/river/water+sediment+quality/chemical/temperature+and+dissolved+oxygen.aspx
What is Dissolved Oxygen?. (2017). Dauphin Island Sea Lab. Retrieved from
http://www.mymobilebay.com/stationdata/whatisDO.htm
Xavier, L. (2016). Titration Fundamentals. Chemistry LibreTexts. Retrieved 2 October 2017, from
https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Analytical_Chemistry/Lab_Techniques/Titration/Titration_Fundamentals

13