Our main aim was to highlight the areas of our local creek that were the most polluted and why this was.

In order to have a clear plan of action we created some set questions that we would aim to answer throughout the project.

1. Which areas in Faversham creek are the most polluted?

2. Why do the levels of pollution vary in Faversham creek?

3. What can we do to reduce the levels of pollution in Faversham creek?

The purpose of our experiment was to make it known to the town how polluted the Creek is and which areas to avoid. We wanted to do this because in recent times there have been several incidents where people have become ill after swimming in the waters. We wanted to find out where these pollutants were coming from.

Originally we thought of handing water collectors from posts up and down the creek to monitor pollution. We decided against this and opted to collect samples from the creek using a one of our parents boats. We would label these samples and test them back at the lab in the following weeks.

We spent a great deal of time planning our experiment as everything had to line up perfectly. We had a lot of things to consider this included Tides, Weather and Logistics (Getting people there). We had a few dates in mind but most of them were not practical as it would have involved us getting up ridiculously early in order to catch the tide.

In order to get ready for our field day (9 October 2018) we had to label bottles and work out where we would take our samples.

In order to stay safe whilst collecting the samples Alfie’s dad Tim supervised us and allowed us to use his boat.

When going on the water there are many risks. So we had to make sure that we would be safe whilst out collecting data.

Tim is a qualified RYA Dinghy Instructor as well as a RLSS registered lifeguard. Whilst on the water we had to make sure that we wore life jackets or buoyancy aids. We also had to make sure that we did not touch our faces after collecting the samples to prevent us from catching something.

In order to properly carry out our experiment we researched different tests and what healthy water should read as. Natural water (e.g. rain and groundwater) is sometimes slightly acidic but no lower than 6 on the pH scale. Although one of the by products of air and water pollution is higher acidity, so more polluted water has higher acidity. This is bad because as pH drops, more fragile plants and animals can get sick and die and pH changes can affect the microorganisms living within the water, affecting the aquatic food chain. The salt content of water represents the percentage of salt in water. Around 71% of salt in water comes from natural sources, however the remaining 29% is manmade, almost half of that coming from compounds used to clear up snow and ice. Significant changes in conductivity compared to a baseline measurement could be an indicator that a source of pollution has entered the water. Human disturbance increases the amount of dissolved solids entering water which results in increased conductivity.

Our data matches up pretty well and we can get a clear picture of what each sample of water is like.

By looking at our results we can see that although the properties and chemical characteristics of the samples are similar, they have distinct differences that tell them apart from each other. For example although the samples taken at the sewage works are similar to those taken in other places they have lower pHs and a higher conductivity. The other results alight showing a difference couldn’t support our thesis in the way in which we had originally hoped. From our infrared spectroscopy session we saw that there is less resonance created in the sugar and cellulose region at the sewage works. This can show that there is less natural material present here.

With the results from our spectroscopy we can make the conclusion that the sewage works and the close area around it is more polluted. With the Swale and Hollowshore being the least polluted sites.

Our hypothesis was correct as we can see a clear difference in the properties and characteristics, between the water collected from the area around the clean sewage output point and the other areas that we collected samples from that, aren’t located in the near vicinity of the clean sewage output point. We have produced an answer for all our project questions: 1) We have found that the most polluted area is the area around Faversham Sewage plant 2) The pollution in Faversham Creek varies due to a variety of factors, many of these are environmental, such as varying wildlife at different locations and plants on the size of the bank of the banks and/or in the river bed. But, humans can contribute to this, for example by releasing chemicals into the Creek or dumping rubbish into it. 3) We think that pollution in the Creek can be reduced by making people aware of the current situation of the pollution in the Creek. Pollution can also be reduced by moving organisms from the banks, such as animals. If we were to do this again we would investigate more properties of water to try and find more patterns and correlations. We would also look to see if there is a link between the abiotic factors (non-living factors, for example, pH and light)are affecting the biotic factors (living organisms).

Our method allowed us to collect results that showed a pattern with notable differences at the collection points, it would be interesting to compare samples with different areas within the creek to allow us to find more patterns. We didn’t conduct a fair experiment as we compared data that was taken when the tide was coming in and when the tide was coming out, this could have a massive effect on our results, for example, debris, sediments and chemicals. for the wider ocean network. As a whole, our results weren’t reliable as we didn’t take many samples from each collection point and included more collection points, if we had done this we would have conducted the same test on each sample and took an average of all the results in the same collection point, thus achieving reliable results. If we were to do this again we would investigate more properties of water to try and find more patterns and correlations. We would also look to see if there is a link between the abiotic factors (non-living factors, for example, pH and light)are affecting the biotic factors (living organisms). With some off our results we jumped to conclusions before properly analyzing our results, this could have affected our results. We also carried out a nitrate/nitrite test but the results were corrupted due to lack of proper washing up of equipment. In future we would aim to eliminate it.