Joel Johnson, 2/6/15, Year 11 Term 2, EEI 1.2
Water Quality Analysis of the Dee River and a Nearby Bore
Photograph 1. The Dee River about one kilometre downstream of the mine
Introduction
The Dee River, located in Central Queensland, is one of Queensland’s most polluted waterways. The acid mine drainage from the Mount Morgan mine includes high levels of acid, sulphates, salts and heavy metals, including iron, copper, zinc and aluminium (King, 2013) (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, 2013).
Around 18 km downstream from the mine site, Fletcher’s Creek joins the Dee River. Both Fletcher’s Creek and the Dee River flow intermittently, mainly during periods of rainfall. Fletcher’s Creek is slightly alkaline (Chapman & Simpson 2005), so when it is flowing it will neutralize the Dee River water somewhat. It also dilutes the Dee, lowering the salinity levels.
Twenty kilometres downstream from the mine, the Dee River flows through ‘Mandalay’, where it is used to water beef cattle. The bore tested is located on a neighbouring property, about 400 Joel Johnson, 2/6/15, Year 11 Term 2, EEI 1.2 metres away from the Dee, and its primary purpose is also for watering beef cattle. The bore is around 23 metres deep, and presumably draws its water from an underground aquifer.
The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries states that “the highest levels of copper and aluminium observed in the Dee River may pose a low level of risk to animal health”, and suggests that “producers may consider whether to have the quality of bore water used for cattle watering tested, to confirm it is suitable for consumption” (2013).
This investigation will involve performing chemical analysis tests to determine whether the Dee River and the tested bore meet the Livestock Drinking Water Quality guidelines, as stated in the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (Department of the Environment (DE) 2000).
There are a number of parameters that should be considered when determining water quality for watering livestock; the Department of Primary Industries advises that the most important are pH, salinity and chloride levels (DPI 2014). This investigation will focus on pH, total dissolved solids (TDS) and conductivity (salinity), as chloride levels are somewhat difficult to determine.
Hypothesis
This investigation will determine whether the pH, TDS and conductivity of the Dee River, at ‘Mandalay’, and the bore water are acceptable for watering beef and dairy cattle1, according to the limits set by the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (DE 2000).
For watering cattle, the pH should be between 6.5 and 8.5, to prevent acidosis (caused by pH below 5.5), or digestive upsets (caused by a pH above 9). The Dee River is expected to have a low pH, due to the acidic mine water seeping into it. Howse (2007) found that the pH of the Dee River a few kilometres upstream of where Fletcher’s Creek enters ranged between 3.4 and 3.9. As the Dee River sampling point is below Fletcher’s Creek, the water was predicted to have a pH of about 4.5. Bores commonly contain bicarbonate ions, which are alkaline (Flairform 2015). It was predicted that the bore would be too far from the Dee River to be affected by its acidity, so would have a pH of around 7.5, i.e. slightly alkaline.
The Department of the Environment (2000) advises that no adverse effects (to beef cattle) should be caused by waters with a TDS of less than 4000 mg/L. Higher salinity levels will likely cause “a decline in animal condition and health” (DE 2000). The TDS of the Dee River has not been tested, however it was predicted to have a very high TDS
1 Dairy cattle drink a lot more water than beef cattle, so require better quality water. Joel Johnson, 2/6/15, Year 11 Term 2, EEI 1.2
(around 4000 mg/L), as the acidity of the mine drainage will dissolve extreme levels of salts (Mining Legacies 2015). The TDS of the bore water has not been tested before. It was hypothesised to be considerably less than the Dee, at about 1000 mg/L.
The conductivity of water that beef cattle drink from should be less than 5970 S/cm (Fitzroy Partnership for River Health 2013). Above these levels, cattle will be reluctant to drink the water, and so their health will decline (DPI 2014). The conductivity of the Dee just above Fletcher’s Creek has been measured to range from 1680 S/cm to 3180 S/cm (Howse 2007). The Dee’s high conductivity is due to the large amount of salts dissolved by the acidic mine water. Fletcher’s Creek will dilute the water, so the conductivity at the sampling point was predicted to be around 2500 S/cm. The conductivity of the bore water has not been tested before. It was predicted that the conductivity of the bore water would be less than the Dee River, at approximately 1200 S/cm.
It was hypothesised that the water in the Dee River is not suitable for watering cattle, due to its high levels of dissolved solids, and low pH. However, the pollution should not affect the bore water, as it is a considerable distance from the river, so the bore water should be suitable for watering cattle.
Equipment
Equipment required:
1L bottles to hold water samples Evaporating dish pH meter or test paper Digital scales accurate to 0.01 g Funnel, filter paper Bunsen burner or drying oven Several 250/500 ml beakers Conductivity probe
Procedure
1. TESTING THE pH
A sample of the water was obtained from near the middle of the water body A pH test strip was dipped in the water until it stopped changing colour (around 20 seconds) The colour of the test strip was matched to the pH chart, visually estimating the pH to the nearest 0.2
2. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Joel Johnson, 2/6/15, Year 11 Term 2, EEI 1.2
200 g of sample water was measured out. The 200 g of water was assumed to be approximately 200 ml (see Appendix note 1). One piece of medium flow filter paper was weighed The suspended particles in the sample water were filtered out using the filter paper and funnel The filter paper and suspended particles were dried No visible particles were visible on the paper, and the weight of the suspended solids was <0.01 g, so the filter paper’s weight after drying was not recorded The evaporating dish was heated, allowed to cool, and weighed The filtered sample water was transferred to the evaporating dish, and evaporated to dryness with a Bunsen burner Photo 2. The Dee River at the sampling site. After the dish cooled, it and the dissolved solids were reweighed to determine the amount of dissolved solids in the sample water
3. CONDUCTIVITY
The conductivity probe was held in water sample to be tested It was left for about 30 seconds, until measurements stabilised
Results Table 1. Data Collected Water Quality Test Dee River Bore Water Sample Sample pH 5.8 7.0 Total Dissolved Solids (measured by 2050 mg/L 950 mg/L evaporation) Conductivity (measured by probe) 2120 S/cm 1602 S/cm
Joel Johnson, 2/6/15, Year 11 Term 2, EEI 1.2
Analysis of Results
Table 2. Data Compared to Recommended Limits for Cattle Water Quality Test Dee River Bore Water Recommended Limits for Cattle Sample Sample pH 5.8 7.0 6.5 – 8.5 (DPI 2014) Total Dissolved 2050 mg/L 950 mg/L 4000 mg/L (beef) Solids 1600 mg/L (dairy) (DE 2000, p. 4.3-4) Conductivity 2120 S/cm 1602 S/cm 5970 S/cm beef (Fitzroy Partnership for River Health 2013) 2500 S/cm dairy (Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee 2008) pH The water from the Dee River had a pH of 5.8, Graph 1. pH which is considerably lower than the 8 recommended lowest pH of 6.5 for cattle (see 7 Graph 1). The Department of Primary Industries 6 (2014) cautions that “if the pH is highly acidic Dee River (less than 5.5), acidosis and reduced feed 5 Bore water 4 intake may occur”. The Dee River is at the pH borderline of this limit, so acidosis may or may 3 Beef Cattle not occur. However, the pH is definitely 2 Standards unacceptable. The pH was higher than 1 predicted; this was probably caused by lower 0 flow rates in the Dee River at the time of sampling. The water sample from the bore had a neutral pH (7.0), which is recommended for cattle. The bore was not alkaline, but the hypothesis of pH 7.5 was relatively close.
Joel Johnson, 2/6/15, Year 11 Term 2, EEI 1.2
Total Dissolved Solids Graph 2. Total The TDS of the Dee River (2050 mg/L) was within the 4000 mg/L recommended limit Dissolved Solids for beef cattle, but not for dairy cattle 4500 (1600 mg/L) (see Graph 2 and Table 2). The 4000 Dee River
TDS was slightly lower than hypothesised; 3500 this was probably also due to the lower 3000 Bore water flow rates from the Dee, and more dilution 2500 by 2000 Fletcher’s Creek. Beef Cattle Standards TDS (in mg/L) TDS 1500 The amount of dissolved solids in the bore 1000 Dairy Cattle water was 950 mg/L, well within the limits 500 Standards for both beef and dairy cattle. The TDS of 0 the bore was slightly lower than my prediction of 1200 mg/L. Conductivity Graph 3. Conductivity 7000 The conductivity of the Dee River, at 2120 S/cm, was within the limits for beef cattle 6000 Dee River
(5970 S/cm), but only just within the 5000 S/cm) recommended limits for dairy cattle (2500 Bore water 4000 S/cm). This is shown in Graph 3. The measured conductivity of the Dee was 3000 Beef Cattle slightly lower than my hypothesis of 2500 Standards 2000 Dairy Cattle
S/cm. This roughly corresponds to (in Conductivity Standards previous upstream measurements of 1000 between 1680 S/cm and 3180 S/cm 0 (Howse 2007). The bore water was measured to have a conductivity of 1602 S/cm, which is within the recommended limits for conductivity for both dairy and beef cattle. The conductivity of the bore was somewhat higher than my 1200 S/cm prediction.
Discussion Overall, the Dee River appeared to be less polluted than predictions suggested. This is probably due to the water sample being collected during a period when the Dee was not flowing very much. Joel Johnson, 2/6/15, Year 11 Term 2, EEI 1.2
There was evidence of severe pollution in Photo 3. Metal precipitate (probably iron) in an some parts of the river (Photo 3), which has inlet. probably built up over decades. However, there does not appear to be any connection between the two water sources. This had been predicted, as the bore is 400 metres from the river, and thus should be relatively isolated from it.
Conclusion The test results suggested that the water from the Dee River was unsuitable for watering cattle due its low pH of 5.8. Additionally, the amount of dissolved solids was above the recommended limit for watering dairy cattle. The results indicated that the water from the bore was suitable for watering cattle. There were no obvious relationships between the two water sources, which supported my hypothesis that the Dee River does not pollute the bore.
Recommendations Recommendations for future testing of these water sources include: Use more precise equipment, including volumetric flasks to measure volume, and more accurate scales to weigh the dissolved solids. Also, use an oven and balance to dry the dissolved solids to a constant weight to increase the accuracy of the measurements. Use an accurate pH meter. Calibrate the conductivity probe before using it.
The Dee River is very polluted by acid mine drainage from the Mount Morgan Mine. To remedy its pollution, either its course needs to be diverted, or the source of pollution must be eradicated. There are several options for remediating acid mine drainage, including aeration and lime addition, and biological methods (Johnson & Hallberg 2004). At the Mount Morgan Mine, aeration and lime addition is currently taking place, albeit at a very slow rate. Until some other remediation is implemented, the mine water will continue to drain into the Dee Rive during periods of rainfall. In the meantime, the best action is to continue monitoring the river, Joel Johnson, 2/6/15, Year 11 Term 2, EEI 1.2 and remove livestock from the paddocks when the measured parameters exceed the recommended limits.
Appendix Note 1 Volume (in ml) = mass (in g) / density (g/ml) = 200.0g / 0.9982 g/ml* = 200.36 ml * the density of water depends on the temperature; at 20ºC the density of water is 0.9982 g/ml (Smith et al. 2012).
Bibliography Chapman, H & Simpson, S 2005, ‘Toxicity of acid water from Mt Morgan mine site, central Queensland, to the freshwater shrimp Caradina indistinct´, Australasian Journal of Ecotoxicology, vol. 11, pp. 93-99, available at http://www.ecotox.org.au/aje/archives/vol11p93.pdf. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries 2013, Dee River: Information for primary producers, Available at: https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/animal-industries/animal-health-and- diseases/protect-your-animals/dee-river-information-for-primary-producers [Accessed 4 Jun 2015]. DE see Department of the Environment Department of the Environment 2000, Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality: Volume 1 - The guidelines (Chapters 1-7), October, viewed 2 June 2015, http://www.environment.gov.au/water/quality/publications/australian-and-new-zealand- guidelines-fresh-marine-water-quality-volume-1. Department of Primary Industries 2014, Water for livestock: interpreting water quality tests, April, viewed 11 June 2015, http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/111348/water-for-livestock- interpreting-water-quality-tests.pdf. DPI see Department of Primary Industries Fitzroy Partnership for River Health 2013, ‘Community Salinity Explorer’, Fitzroy Partnership for River Health, viewed 9 June 2015, http://www.riverhealth.org.au/waterweek/results.php. Flairform 2015, Water Quality for Hydroponic Gardening, viewed 24 June 2015, http://www.flairform.com/hints/water_quality.htm. Joel Johnson, 2/6/15, Year 11 Term 2, EEI 1.2
Howse R 2007, ‘Chironomids abound in the acid mine drainage of the Dee River, Mount Morgan’, Australasian Journal of Ecotoxicology, vol. 13, pp. 3-8, available at http://www.ecotox.org.au/aje/archives/vol13p3.pdf. Johnson, DB & Hallberg, KB 2004, Acid mine drainage remediation options: a review, viewed 18 June 2015, http://www.hsph.harvard.edu//mining/files/Acid_mine_drainage_remediation_options_- _a_review_JOHNSON_20.pdf. King, A 2015. Tests reveal "shocking" level of heavy metals in Dee River, Rockhampton Morning Bulletin, viewed 4 June 2015, http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/out-of-his-own- pocket-mount-morgans-tom-foster-pai/1873276.
Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee 2008, Water Quality Guidelines August 2008, viewed 24 June 2015, http://mrccc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/WQ-Guidelines-Aug- 2008.pdf. Mining Legacies 2015, Mount Morgan, viewed 19 May 2015, http://www.mininglegacies.org/mines/queensland-2/mount-morgan/. Smith, D, Monteath, S, Gould, M & Smith, R 2012, Chemistry in Use Book 1, Cengage Learning, Melbourne. World Health Organization 2004, Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality: Recommendations, Volume 1, World Health Organization, viewed 11 June 2015, https://books.google.com.au/books?id=SJ76COTm- nQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.