Berger Gallis 1

Introduction
Coral reefs, which are actually translucent, get their vibrant colors from the algae
that live on them. Both coral reefs and algae grow and perform best in environments at
temperatures they have been growing at for over fifty million years. Though algae has a
specific temperature range where it can still sustain life, changes in temperature or the
amount of pollution may cause the algae to leave their homes. What causes these
changes? One of the biggest factors is the amount of sunlight that reaches the water
(Coral).
One of the key components of most life forms is light. Light makes vision
possible, and also produces heat, therefore enabling life. The main source of light is the
Sun. Without the Sun everything would be as dark as space, and life would cease to exist.
Light is most commonly measured in lux, or one lumen per square meter. This is
also known as the amount of visible light intensity. Some amounts of light intensities
affect people, especially their eyesight. A room with a light intensity of about 700 lux
would be harmful to humans. The average light intensity in an average meeting room, or
what one is normally exposed to, is about 150 to 300 lux (Szigeti). In addition, other
types of matter can hold a greater amount of light intensity.
Throughout various locations, different amounts of light are admitted through and
to matter. The amounts of light are all different because of many different factors. One of
these is temperature. Temperature is defined by the degree or intensity of heat present in
a substance or object. For example, the average body temperature is about 98.6F. Water
freezes at 32F, and boils at 212F. Temperature affects many things, even in small
amounts. If the temperature of Earth were to increase by 10F, many plants and animals
Berger Gallis 2


would slowly move up to northern latitudes or die off, and ocean levels would increase
because polar ice caps would melt.
Another factor that changes the light intensity is salinity, or the amount of salt in a
substance. Salt is a common household item, which is also found in every living thing
and in ninety percent of the worlds water (Berke). Too much salt in a human body can
cause congestive heart failure, cirrhosis, or kidney disease (Aronow). Likewise, when
fish are exposed to too much salt, they may die immediately. For example, in the Dead
Sea between Israel and Jordan, there is not a single species of fish able to live in the body
of water because the salinity levels are at 300000 to 400000 parts per million. This can be
compared to the Atlantic Ocean, which contains only of 33 to 37 parts per million
(Berke).
Besides temperature and salinity, particle size affects the admission of light. By
definition, particle size is the magnitude of solid, liquid, or gaseous particles. The size of
particles varies dramatically, ranging from dust, sand, or even the size of organisms. For
humans, particle size is very important when analyzing the size of substances in the air
and water. Smaller droplets or powder sizes penetrate lungs deeper than larger sizes. But
even small things like the particle size of cocoa powder affects the color and flavor of
chocolate, and the particle size of cement influences the strength (A Guidebook to
Particle Size Analysis").
The amount of light intensity fluctuates during different times of the day and
throughout various locations on the world. Bodies of water, for example, all admit
different amounts of light, therefore have different light intensities. Temperature, salinity,
and particle size all are factors that affect the amount of light that passes through water. A
Berger Gallis 3


small change of each factor can change the amount of light passing through, but by how
much? Which factor has the greatest effect?
It is known that organisms need light to survive and can survive in all different
types of environments on earth, but even a slight fluctuation in these environments can
damage or even kill them. A research experiment was performed to observe which factor,
temperature, salinity, or particle size, had the largest impact on the light intensity in
water. Light was passed through a container filled with water. In each trial, the
temperature and salinity of the water were changed. Varying particle sizes were sprinkled
into the water, and the average change in intensity of light was recorded. For temperature,
three values chosen were to mimic freezing water, normal ocean water, and
approximately boiling water. The three different salinities were tested with the water to
mimic freshwater, brackish water, and ocean water. Three different particle sizes of sand
were also passed through the light to represent the suspended particles found in oceans
and lakes, such as microscopic organisms, pollutants, or debris, but on a macro scale.
From this research, more knowledge could be gained as to why certain species of
marine life live in certain areas of the earth. Furthermore, this research could help to
explain why changes in a certain area was no longer suitable for a certain species to live.
Research could also be done on a specific species that died out or was forced to relocate
to determine what caused this drastic change. Was it just more salt in the water, or a
slight rise in temperature? Or was it really due to these factors allowing more or less
sunlight through the water, causing a negative effect on the species? Using this research
as a basis for these questions, answers could be found for some of the most puzzling
occurrences in marine life.
Berger Gallis 4


Review of Literature
According to Rosmanitz, light is a form of energy that makes all life possible.
Light travels by either electromagnetic waves, or photons. Waves are measured by their
wavelengths, amplitudes, and frequencies. The wavelength of a wave is the distance
between the two highest parts of a wave. The amplitude of a wave is half the vertical
distance from the crest to the trough of a wave. Pertaining to light, amplitude affects the
brightness. Finally, the frequency is the number of times the wave passes through a given
point in one second (Rosmanitz). Electromagnetic waves have two waves moving
together: electric fields, and magnetic fields. The wave created by the electric field occurs
because of oscillating electric charge. A magnetic field runs perpendicular to the electric
field, and oscillates due to the changing electric field. Photons, or particles of light
energy, oscillate back and forth with the electric and magnetic fields, making up the
electromagnetic waves (Strobel). A light waves intensity is determined by the amount of
photons travelling through the wave, the frequency, and the amplitude of the wave.
Light behaves in different ways as it travels through space and encounters
different mediums. When light strikes an object, depending on the objects material, it
will behave in one of four different ways: reflect, absorb, scatter, or refract. When light is
reflected, it comes into contact with a point, and then changes direction at the same angle
according to the normal. Objects are only visible to the human eye because light is
reflected off of them. Some objects reflect more light than others, such as mirrors or
water. Absorption occurs when the light energy is absorbed by the particle it contacts and
is transferred to another form of energy (i.e. sound or heat). Sometimes, when light hits
atmospheric particles, it is scattered in different directions; not all photons continue
Berger Gallis 5


traveling in the same direction. The wavelength of the light is not changed when this
occurs, but the photons are dispersed. Both refraction and scattering reduce the light
energy traveling in the original direction.
Refraction occurs when a light wave comes into contact with a new medium, which
changes the general direction of the light wave (Light Absorption and Scattering Water
Samples). For example, when light travels through water, it is often refracted. This
makes the view of an object in water disfigured, such as a spoon looking magnified and
disconnected when placed partially in and partially out of a glass of water. The light is
redirected according to the angle it hits the water at, as shown in Figure 1. No refraction
occurs when the angle is 180 because it would be continuing through the same medium,
moving horizontal (Refraction of Light by Water). When the light passes through the
water at a 180 angle, no refraction occurs because the light passes directly down through
the medium, vertically, instead of it bending at an angle. While refraction differs from the
lights behaviors in the experiment, it helps to provide more understanding of the
properties of light.
Berger Gallis 6



Figure 1. Light Refraction Through Water
Figure 1 shows how light is refracted when light passes through a water medium.
The velocity of the light wave decreases when it passes through air into water, and
because of the difference in mediums, the direction of the light wave changes.
One of the factors that was analyzed and used in this experiment was particle size.
As reported by Campbell Scientific Inc, Light transmission through a water sample is
determined by physical properties such as particle size, shape... (Downing). Slight
alterations in these properties all result in a massive variation in light intensity. Particles
either absorb or scatter light photons.
Scattering of light changes the direction of light and is affected by both the
chemical and physical properties of a particle. The attenuation coefficient, c(), is the
measure of the amount of light lost from both effects of scattering and absorption over a
unit of length through a medium. A particles attenuation coefficient does not change,
Berger Gallis 7


regardless of the amount of light during day or night (Light Absorption and Scattering in
Water Samples).
Most particles found in nature, lakes, streams, and oceans, have larger particles
than in pure water used in science experiments. When particles suspended in water are
larger than pure water, it results in half the original light energy scattering into a 10-
degree forward-directed cone and less than 2.5 percent of it being reflected backwards
(Light Absorption and Scattering in Water Samples).
In an experiment conducted by Dutch scientists Paaijmans and Takken, the effect
of water turbidity (an expression of the optical properties of a sample that causes light
rays to be scattered and absorbed rather than transmitted in straight lines through the
sample) on the near-surface water temperature of larval habitats of the malaria mosquito
was tested. This research found that particles in water, in addition to increasing the
turbidity of the water, contributed to a rise in temperature from the sunlight. This
information helped the researchers hypothesize that the particle size would have a strong
interaction effect with temperature (Paaijmans et. al.).
Besides particle size, the other factor that was used in the researchers experiment
was salinity. The amount of salt in the water, salinity, is measured in parts per million
(ppm). Freshwater usually contains about 10 ppm, marine water usually contains between
33-44 ppm, and brackish water usually contains between 11-32 ppm (Ghosh). These
values were converted into grams per liter by the researchers to determine the low, high,
and standard salinity values.
Berger Gallis 8



Figure 2. Sodium and Chloride Ions Found in Salt Water
Sea water is composed of about 96.5% pure water molecules. Figure 2 shows the
sodium (Na
+
) and chloride (Cl
-
) ions that make up the other 3.5%. Oxygen is more
effective in scattering light because of its small size, and both of these ions have oxygen
in them (Reed). In air, oxygen atoms are responsible for the skys blue color because the
atom and wavelengths are approximately the same size. In water, the blue hue is a result
of the blue, high energy waves being reflected back. The amount of salinity and particles
in the water can affect the hue of the water.
The final factor used in this experiment is temperature. This is one of the two
ways to change viscosity, a fluids resistance to flow. For this research, changes in
temperature were used to alter the viscosity levels of water. Liquids with a very high
viscosity, such as motor oil, are extremely resistant to flow and therefore very thick.
Thinner liquids, such as benzene, have a very low viscosity and flow easily. As a liquids
temperature is increased its viscosity generally decreases. This occurs due to increased
kinetic motion at high temperatures. The atoms in the liquids become excited and move
at a faster velocity, which promotes the breaking of intermolecular bonds (Grubbs). Light
is able to travel through thin mediums more easily than more dense mediums, so liquids
Berger Gallis 9


with a low viscosity allow more light to pass. In warm liquids, the light passes through
more easily.
In conclusion, these three factors, particle size, salinity, and temperature, do, from
previous research, affect the light intensity through a medium. The researchers were
looking for the effect of each factor, and how great each was on light intensity. With this
information they formulated a hypothesis, and had different methods for formulating an
experiment.












Berger Gallis 10


Problem Statement
Problem:
What is the effect of particle size, salinity, and temperature on the change in light
intensity of light through water?

Hypothesis:
If there is high temperature 175F, low salinity of 5 grams per 1000ml, and low
particle size of less than 1/50 inch, the change in light intensity through water will be the
greatest.

Data Measured:
The independent variables were the size of sand particles, measured in inches
(x<1/50, 1/50<x<1/30, x>1/30) the salinity of water, measured in grams per 1000ml of
water (5, 17.5, 30), and the temperature of the water, measured in degrees Fahrenheit
(50, 80, 175). The dependent variable is the intensity of light through the water,
measured using a light meter in lux. The statistical method used to analyze the data is a
Three Factor Design of Experiment (DOE). Four DOEs were conducted.





Berger Gallis 11


Experimental Design

Materials:
Clear Plastic Container
(14.5x14.5x6 cm)
Vernier Light Meter
80g High Value Sand
80g Low Value Sand
60g Standard Value Sand
LabQuest
(2) Epson (Salt 26 oz.)
(2) Books (0.5 inch Spine)
Stirring Rod
Mass Scale (0.01 g)
Windowless Room with Light Switch
Brookstone Astro Super Flashlight
Ice (15 15x45cm Trays)
1000 mL Beaker
Corning Hot Plate
Rubber Grippers
Vernier Temperature Probe


Procedures:
1. Prepare the value for particle size as instructed in Appendix A.
2. Heat 1000 mL of water using the beaker and hot plate until it reaches 180F, if
denoted for trial. Cool 1000 mL of water in ice until it reaches 50F if denoted by
trial.
3. Using the Mass Scale, measure the appropriate amount of salt, and add to water as
denoted by trial. If denoted trial is high use 30 grams, if standard, 17.5 grams, and if
low use 5 grams.
4. Stir thoroughly to incorporate salt with water.
5. Using the Mass Scale, measure the five grams of sand.
6. Place the clear plastic container securely on counter.
7. Transfer the salt water mixture from the beaker to the plastic container.
8. Place both 0.5 inch spine books on parallel sides of the container.
Berger Gallis 12

9. Place flashlight securely on book, so the light is pressed against the side of the plastic
container.
10. Set up light sensor and lab quest.
11. Place light sensor securely on the other book, opposite side of the flash light.
12. Turn off the lights in the dark room.
13. Turn on flashlight.
14. Start the LabQuest light recording.
15. Slowly continuously shake sand into the container.
16. Stop the LabQuest recording after all the sand has been poured into the container.
17. Highlight the area of the graph on the LabQuest from when the sand was being
poured. Average the light reading value. Record in data table.
18. Empty the plastic container and clean both the container and beaker.
19. Repeat steps 1 through 18 for each trial.
20. Conduct nine trials and three standards (the order should be determined using a
simple random sample) for each DOE conducted.








Berger Gallis 13

Diagram:

Figure 3. Diagram of Experimental Setup
Figure 3 is a diagram of how the materials are set up exactly to conduct the
experiment. The light meter records the light from the flashlight after it has passed
through the container of water. The containers contents (values of salt and temperature)
change every trial according to the DOE, as well as the particle size of the sand being
poured in.













Berger Gallis 14


Data and Observations
Data:
Table 1
First DOE

Table 1 shows the data from the first DOE trials performed. The change in light
intensity was greatest in standard and in low temperature, low salinity, and high particle
size. Also, the change in light intensity was the least for the high temperature, high
salinity, and low particle size. The average high temperature ranged from 149.2F to
186.2F and the low temperature ranged from 48.0F to 57.7F which both contained
consistency.




Trial Intensity (lux)
**** standard 73 17.5 1/50 < x < 1/30 1192
7 + 186.2 + 30 + x < 1/50 186.2
3 + 149.2 + 30 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 149.2
5 + 170.2 - 5 + x < 1/50 170.2
2 + 191.8 - 5 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 191.8
**** standard 81.3 17.5 1/50 < x < 1/30 1195
4 - 53.9 + 30 + x < 1/50 677
1 - 48 + 30 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 895
8 - 57.7 - 5 + x < 1/50 1303
6 - 53 - 5 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 948
**** standard 80 17.5 1/50 < x < 1/30 828
Temperature (F) Salinity (g) Particle Size (in)
Berger Gallis 15


Table 2
Second DOE

Table 2 shows the average data from the second DOE trials performed. The
change in light intensity was greatest in low temperature, low salinity, and high particle
size, and the change in light intensity was the least for the high temperature, high salinity,
and low particle size. The average high temperature ranged from 159F to 197.2F and
the low temperature ranged from 44F to 53.9F which both somewhat contained
consistency.








Trial Intensity (lux)
**** standard 80 17.5 1/50 < x < 1/30 552
2 + 173.1 + 30 + x < 1/50 759
4 + 159 + 30 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 386
6 + 197.2 - 5 + x < 1/50 979
8 + 176.5 - 5 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 577
**** standard 71.4 ` 17.5 1/50 < x < 1/30 754
3 - 44 + 30 + x < 1/50 591
1 - 52.3 + 30 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 412
5 - 53.9 - 5 + x < 1/50 1059
7 - 52.12 - 5 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 608
**** standard 78.6 17.5 1/50 < x < 1/30 520
Temperature (F) Salinity (g) Particle Size (in)
Berger Gallis 16

Table 3
Third DOE

Table 3 shows the average data from the third DOE trials performed. The light
intensity was greatest in low temperature, low salinity, and high particle size, and the
light intensity was the least for the low temperature, high salinity, and low particle size.
The average high temperature ranged from 171.2F to 190.0F and the low temperature
ranged from 44.4F to 54.3F which both contained somewhat consistency. This doe had
data that on average was smaller than the rest.
Table 4
Fourth DOE

Trial Intensity (lux)
**** standard 78.8 17.5 1/50 < x < 1/30 549
2 + 178.1 + 30 + x < 1/50 610
5 + 171.2 + 30 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 419
6 + 190 - 5 + x < 1/50 306
1 + 185.2 - 5 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 673
**** standard 17.5 1/50 < x < 1/30 473
8 - 52.1 + 30 + x < 1/50 428
7 - 44.4 + 30 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 235
4 - 54.3 - 5 + x < 1/50 875
3 - 50.5 - 5 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 603
**** standard 17.5 1/50 < x < 1/30 551
Temperature (F) Salinity (g) Particle Size (in)
Trial Intensity (lux)
**** standard 73.2 17.5 1/50 < x < 1/30 340
4 + 173.6 + 30 + x < 1/50 394
3 + 171.8 + 30 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 308
5 + 181.5 - 5 + x < 1/50 707
7 + 173.4 - 5 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 663
**** standard 76.2 17.5 1/50 < x < 1/30 394
1 - 73.2 + 30 + x < 1/50 380
2 - 43.3 + 30 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 287
8 - 44.6 - 5 + x < 1/50 1035
6 - 51.6 - 5 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 291
**** standard 81.1 17.5 1/50 < x < 1/30 473
Temperature (F) Salinity (g) Particle Size (in)
Berger Gallis 17

Table 4 shows the average data from the fourth DOE trials performed. The change
in light intensity was greatest in low temperature, low salinity, and high particle size, and
the change in light intensity was the least for the low temperature, high salinity, and low
particle size. The average high temperature ranged from 171.8F to 181.5F and the low
temperature ranged from 43.3F to 51.6F which both contained consistency.
Table 5
Average DOE Trials


Table 5 shows the average data from all four DOE trials performed. The change
in light intensity was the highest in low temperature, low salinity, and high particle size,
and the change in light intensity was the lowest for the high temperature, high salinity,
and low particle size. The average high temperature ranged from 162.8F to 184.73F
and the low temperature ranged from 47F to 55.8F which both contained consistency.



Trial Temperature (F) Salinity (g) Particle Size (in) Intensity (lux)
**** standard 17.5 1/50 < x < 1/30 658.25
+ 177.75 + 30 + x < 1/50 487.3
+ 162.8 + 30 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 315.55
+ 184.725 - 5 + x < 1/50 540.55
+ 181.725 - 5 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 526.2
**** standard ` 17.5 1/50 < x < 1/30 704
- 55.8 + 30 + x < 1/50 519
- 47 + 30 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 457.25
- 52.625 - 5 + x < 1/50 1068
- 51.805 - 5 - 1/30 < x < 1/25 612.5
**** standard 17.5 1/50 < x < 1/30 593
Berger Gallis 18

Observations:
Table 6
Observations for All DOE Trials
Trial Observations
1-4, 12
Data was taken on April 23. LabQuest was never reset during
any of the trials. Trial 1 used 1050 ml of water.
5-16, not 12
Data was taken on April 24. LabQuest was never reset during
any of the trials. Trial 16 used 29.7 grams of salt.
17-29, 33
Data was taken on April 25. LabQuest was reset every five
trials. Two other people came to help measure the grams of
salt and sand.
30-44, not 33
Data was taken on April 26. LabQuest was reset every five
trials. Trials 37, 38, 39 and 40 the sand was poured in
duration of two seconds slower. One person came to help
measure the grams of salt and sand.
All
High value sand particles sunk to the bottom of the container
almost instantly, while small particles stayed suspended in
the water for longer.


Table 6 shows the observations taken during the trials for all four DOE trials. One
through eleven were part of the first DOE, twelve through twenty two were part of the
second DOE, twenty three through thirty three were part of the third DOE, and thirty four
through forty four were part of the fourth DOE. The observations were taken throughout
the experiment and recorded for future reference. Most trials took approximately five
seconds to pour all of the sand in.

Berger Gallis 19


Figure 4. Before Data was Recorded
Figure 4 shows the experimental process from the side view. As shown, the
procedure is set up correctly, but the lights are still on in the windowless room; therefore,
data has not yet been recorded. The flashlight was held down by teacher tack, so it stayed
in place. The flashlight and the light sensor were set up directly across from one another.
The water did not completely fill up the container, but this did interfere with the data.
Also, the thickness of the container was consistent on all sides.

Figure 5. After Data was Recorded
Figure 5 shows the after process of the expiriment. The sand has sunk to the
bottom of container, and the data has been recorded in the LabQuest.
Berger Gallis 20

Data Analysis and Interpretation
This research was conducted using control, randomization, and replication,
(however, the data collected does not seem reliable). The order of each DOE trial was
randomized using the Random Integer function using a TI-Nspire calculator. This order
was followed exactly and every DOE was conducted in a different order. This helped to
reduce any bias. Four DOEs were conducted for replication, which helped determine the
most average value for each trial. The setup of the experiment, as well as the source of
the water, was kept consistent throughout the entire testing time. The light produced by
the flashlight was a constant in this experiment, so the incident light passing through the
container for every trial was constant. The standard values were controls used to compare
to the results of the levels of the factors. The trials were conducted using the same strict
procedures each time. Despite this careful experimentation, the data does not seem to be
reliable.
Table 7
Values
Factors (+) Values Standards (-) Values
Temperature (F) 175 80 50
Salinity (g/100ml) 30 17.5 5
Particle Size (in) 1/30 < x < 1/25 1/50 < x < 1/30 x < 1/50

Table 7 shows the values used for each factor. The temperature was measured in
degrees Fahrenheit, the salinity was measured in grams per 100 ml, and the particle size
was measured in inches.

Berger Gallis 21


Figure 6. Standards
Figure 6 shows the range of standards collected from this experiment. If all data is
collected accurately and precisely, the standards should be all the same. However, in this
research, there is a very large range in standards. As time went on, the change in light
intensity decreased. The highest standard value collect was 1192 lux and the lowest was
340 lux. This is a very large range, which may suggest the data collected may not be
accurate.








0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 5 10 15
C
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

o
f

L
i
g
h
t

(
l
u
x
)

Trials
Standards
Berger Gallis 22

Table 8
Factor: Temperature
(-) VALUES: (+) VALUES:
519 487.30
457.25 315.55
1068 540.55
612.50 526.20
AVERAGE:
664.19
AVERAGE:
467.40


Figure 7. Effect of Temperature
Table 8 and Figure 7 show all of the intensity readings collected when
temperature was both high and low. On average, as temperature increases, the change in
light intensity decreases by approximately 196 lux. This suggests temperature may have
had an effect on the change in light intensity.




664.19
467.40
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
-1 1
L
i
g
h
t

I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
l
u
x
)

Temperature
Berger Gallis 23

Table 9
Factor: Salinity
(-) VALUES: (+) VALUES:
540.55 487.30
526.20 315.55
1068 519
612.50 457.25
AVERAGE:
686.78
AVERAGE:
444.78


Figure 8. Effect of Salinity
Table 9 and Figure 8 show the change in light intensity data collected when
salinity was both high and low. On average, as salinity increases, the change in light
intensity decreases by 242 lux. This suggests salinity may have had an effect on the
change in light intensity.





686.78
444.78
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
-1 1
L
i
g
h
t

I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
l
u
x
)

Salinity
Berger Gallis 24

Table 10
Factor: Particle Size
(-) VALUES: (+) VALUES:
315.55 487.30
526.20 540.55
457.25 519
612.50 1068
AVERAGE:
477.88
AVERAGE:
653.71


Figure 9. Effect of Particle Size
Table 10 and Figure 9 show the change in light intensity measured when the
particle size was changed between high and low. On average, as particle size increased,
the change in light intensity increased by 176 lux. This change suggests that particle size
may have had an effect on the change in light intensity.




477.88
653.71
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
-1 1
L
i
g
h
t

I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
l
u
x
)

Particle Size
Berger Gallis 25

Table 11
Interaction of Temperature and Salinity
(-) (+)
Line Segment (+) (solid)
533 401
Line Segment (-) (dotted)
840 488

Table 11 shows the data collected when temperature and salinity were both high
and low. Since the data values are so varied within each group (high temperature/low
salinity, etc.) the analysis conducted may not be true to all data. These averages were
used to graphically view the interaction effect, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 10. Interaction of Temperature and Salinity
Figure 10 shows the interaction effect of temperature and salinity. The dotted line
shows the average change in light intensity when temperature was low, and the solid line
shows when temperature was high, and shown in Table 11. When temperature was low,
the average change in light intensity was 545 lux, as shown in Table 8. This value is 295
lux higher when salinity is low, and 57lux higher than when salinity is high. When
temperature was high, the average change in light intensity was 467 lux, also shown in
533
401
840
488
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
-1 1
L
i
g
h
t

I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
l
u
x
)

Salinity
Temp (-)
Temp (+)
Berger Gallis 26

Table 8. This value is 66 lux higher when salinity is low, and 66 lux lower when salinity
is high. Furthermore, the two line segments are not parallel. These all suggest that an
interaction between temperature and salinity may have occurred. The interaction effect of
temperature and salinity, which is found by subtracting the slope of the high temperature
segment minus the slope of the low temperature segment, is 110 lux.
Table 12
Interaction of Temperature and Particle Size
(-) (+)
Line Segment (+) (solid)
420.88 513.93
Line Segment (-) (dotted)
534.88 793.50

Table 12 shows the data collected when temperature and particle size were both
high and low. Since the data values are so varied within each group (high temperature/
low particle size, etc.) the analysis conducted may not be true to all data. These averages
were used to graphically view the interaction effect, as shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Interaction of Temperature and Particle Size
420.88
513.93
534.88
793.50
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
-1 1
L
i
g
h
t

I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
l
u
x
)

Particle Size
Temp (-)
Temp (+)
Berger Gallis 27

Figure 11 shows the interaction effect of temperature and particle size. The dotted
line segment shows the average change in light intensity when temperature was low, and
the solid line segment shows when temperature was high, and shown in Table 12. When
temperature was low, the average change in light intensity was 545 lux, as shown in
Table 8. This value is 10 lux lower when salinity is low, and 252 lux higher than when
salinity is high. When temperature was high, the average change in light intensity was
467 lux, also shown in Table 8. This value is 46 lux lower when salinity is high, and 47
lux higher when salinity is high. Furthermore, the two line segments are not parallel.
These all suggest that an interaction between temperature and particle size may have
occurred. The interaction effect of temperature and particle size is -83 lux.














Berger Gallis 28

Table 13
Interaction of Salinity and Particle Size
(-) (+)
Line Segment (+) (solid)
386.40 503.15
Line Segment (-) (dotted)
569.35 804.28

Table 13 shows the data collected when salinity and particle size were both high
and low. Since the data values are so varied within each group (high salinity/low particle
size, etc.) the analysis conducted may not be true to all data. These averages were used to
graphically view the interaction effect, as shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Interaction of Salinity and Particle Size
Figure 12 shows the interaction effect of salinity and particle size. The dotted line
segment shows the average change in light intensity when salinity was low, and the solid
line segment shows when salinity was high, and shown in Table 13. When salinity was
low, the average change in light intensity was 687 lux, as shown in Table 9. This value is
386.40
503.15
569.35
804.28
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
-1 1
L
i
g
h
t

I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
l
u
x
)

Particle Size
Salinity (-)
Salinity (+)
Berger Gallis 29

301 lux lower when particle size is low, and 184 lower than when particle size is high.
When salinity was high, the average change in light intensity was 445 lux, also shown in
Table 9. This value is 124 lux higher when particle size was high, and 359 lux higher
when particle size is high. Furthermore, the two line segments do not appear to be
completely parallel. These all suggest that an interaction between temperature and
salinity may have occurred. The interaction effect between temperature and particle size
is -59 lux.
Grand average of all trials (except standards): 565.7938
Overall effect of factors
Effect of Temperature (T) = 196
Effect of Salinity (S) = -242
Effect of Particle Size (P) = 176
Interactions between factors
Effects of:
Temperature and Salinity = 110
Temperature and Particle Size = -83
Salinity and Particle Size = -59

( )

( )

( )

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()
Figure 13. Prediction Equation
Figure 13 shows the prediction equation used to predict the effect of each factor
on the change in light intensity through water. In these equation, values can replace each
factor to determine how much of an effect it would have.
Berger Gallis 30


Figure 14. Dot Plot of Effects
Figure 14 shows the dot plot of effects for each factor and interaction.

|| ( )
|| ( )
|| ()
||
Figure 15. Test of Significance
Figure 15 shows the test of significance for each effect. If the absolute value of
the effect is greater than or equal to two times the range of standards, it is considered
significant. This research produced a very large range of standards (852 lux), so none of
the effects were considered significant. This large range of standards means that there is a
lot of variability in the experiment. The research suggested that though effects of
temperature, salinity, particle size, and all of their interactions suggest a significant effect
may have occurred, the data was too inaccurate to draw concrete conclusions.



T
&
S
S
&
P
T
&
P
T
P S
Avg.
-1400 -900 -400 100 600 1100
Berger Gallis 31

Conclusion
This research was conducted to determine how the factors temperature, salinity,
and particle size affected of the passage of light through water, or the light intensity. The
initial hypothesis was that the change in light intensity would be greatest at the highest
temperature of approximately 175F, the lowest salinity value of 5 grams, and at the
lowest particle size of less than 1/30 of an inch. After conducting a DOE statistical
analysis of the measured data, this hypothesis was rejected. It was found that while high
temperature and low salinity did produce the highest light intensities, high particle size
actually did as well. The statistical analysis also found that though all three factors did
have an effect. A large range of standards discredited the data and them to be
insignificant. This shows errors were made during experimentation.
The results of this research coincide with the scientific principles explaining the
effects of temperature, salinity, and particle size. The data supports the science, but not
the hypothesis in full. While the hypotheses for temperature and salinity were correct, the
hypothesis for particle size was not.
In this research, it was found that when the salinity of the water was changed from
5g/1000mL to 30g/1000mL, the intensity of light decreased by 242 lux. The lower
salinity value allowed a lot more light through than the water with high salinity. The
researchers observed that the higher the salinity, the more cloudy the water became. Light
travels best through open space, so when it is obstructed it does not maintain its original
intensity. The cloudiness of the high salinity water prevented the light from reaching the
sensor with a high intensity. Photons scattered off the tiny salt particles in the water,
causing the lower intensity to reach the sensor. The values for salinity were based off the
Berger Gallis 32

real salinity of salt and fresh water, so these results found that freshwater allows more
sunlight through.
Results of this research also found that as temperature was increased from 50
degrees to 175 degrees, the intensity of light decreased by 197 lux. However, this effect
was most likely due to inaccurate data as the scientific facts say otherwise. High
temperatures lower the viscosity of a liquid, which by definition makes it thinner. When
it is more thin, light is able to pass through it more easily. This research should have
shown an increase in intensity of light as temperature increased (Grubbs).
The intensity of light was also affected by the particle size. It was initially
hypothesized that low particle size would allow the highest intensity of light due to the
smaller surface areas obstructing the light waves. This is not scientifically correct. Much
more scattering occurs on many small particles as opposed to less on larger particles. The
light waves reflect and scatter off larger particles at a small angle. Therefore, the
direction of the light is only slightly altered. When light hits smaller particles, the angle is
much larger and the light is scattered farther away from the initial direction (Light
Absorption and Scattering Water Samples). The gaps in between particles also grow as
the size of the particle itself does. Since most particles, especially at a molecular level,
are round, there is a small diamond of space created in between four touching particles.
Light can then pass through these larger gaps more easily than the gaps created from
smaller particles.
The statistical analysis showed that interactions may have occurred between all
three factors. However, it is believed that in the event an interaction occurred, the effects
are not very strong. The interaction effects are all under 110 lux, and because the
Berger Gallis 33

experiment produced so much variability. It is not likely that the interactions would have
occurred in a precise experiment.
The trials were conducted using the carefully written procedures, as explained in
the Experimental Design. However, the statistical analysis suggests that some errors were
made. One such error may be that the container used was not an isolated system, so the
temperature recorded for each trial may have been different than the true temperature
value of the water. Furthermore, the method for adding the sand to each trial was very
inconsistent as it was shaken in by Researcher 2 each time. This should have been a
steady pour. The light intensities may have also been inaccurate. For the first and second
DOE, the LabQuest was not calibrated every five trials, as it was in the third and fourth
DOEs. This error may have been the most contributing factor in the discrepancies within
the data.
The observations and trend in the range of standards showed that there were
inconsistencies in the data collected from day to day. The same light meter was used for
all trials, although the readings fluctuated greatly. The standards were all conducted
under the same conditions, so the light meter was responsible for the inconsistencies. It
can be inferred that the rest of the data also faced these inconsistencies.
It was found through data analysis that all of the errors made contributed to
inaccurate data. The range of standards was 1192 lux. If the experiment were conducted
with no errors, it would have a range of 0. This shows that the data collected is most
likely not reliable because all of the other data follows the same inaccurate downward
trend as the standards. Although the researchers used the effect findings to determine
which factors had effects on the data, this analysis cannot be considered conclusive
Berger Gallis 34

because none could be deemed significant due to the large range of standards and
inaccurate light meter. In order to ensure the findings are indeed true, this research would
need to be replicated with the errors and design flaws eliminated.
One way to help reduce errors would be to run more trials. However, this would
require more experimentation time, which would cross the researchers time constraints.
The data could have been more exact, and with a larger amount of data there would be
less room for error and less variability. Better equipment could have been used;
equipment such as an isolated system for the container or water and a more accurate light
meter for the LabQuest.
Coral reefs and their algae grow because of the sunlight passing through the ocean
water. According to the interaction effect of -83 between temperature and salinity, when
temperatures are decreased, salinity levels are heightened. Furthermore, this increased
sunlight will promote microorganism and plant growth, thus increasing the number of
small particles in water. These conditions will negatively affect the future growth of
coral, algae, and other marine life.
This research could be furthered in many different fields. For example, other
factors could be tested, such as colors, the composition of the medium, the length of the
medium (the length of the container), and more. The attenuation coefficient could also be
measured. This research could also be viewed from a more biological standpoint.
Scientists more familiar with marine plant life, specifically coral reefs and algae, could
investigate the conditions in which they thrive the most. Alternatively, they could also
investigate what causes marine life to die or relocate in a specific area. By looking at the
Berger Gallis 35

salinity and temperature of the water, as well as the size of the microorganisms that live
in it, they could draw these conclusions.

















Berger Gallis 36

Appendix A
Preparing the Particle Size:
Materials:
1 mm sifter
1/30 inch sifter
1/50 inch sifter
Sand
(3) Ziploc Bags
Procedures:
1. Take the 1mm sifter and sift the sand to take out the largest chunks of sand.
2. Take the 1/30 inch sifter and put it on top of the 1/50 inch sifter.
3. Pour the sand on top of the 1/30 inch sifter.
4. Sift the sand so it goes through each sifter, catching the largest particle size on top.
5. Pour all of the sand that was too large to go through the 1/30 inch sifter into a bag.
Label this as high.
6. Pour all sand that was too large to go through the 1/50 inch sifter, but small enough to
go through the 1/30 inch sifter into a bag. Label this as standard.
7. Pour all sand that was small enough to go through the 1/50 inch sifter into a bag.
Label this as low.




Berger Gallis 37

Diagram:

Figure 16. Setting Up the Sifters and the Process
Figure 16 shows the order the sifters are set up and the sand going through each
section. The sand that is caught in the 1 mm sifter is too large, so it was not used in the
experiment. This helped prevent skewed data in the high particle size trials. The sand that
was caught on top of the 1/30 inch sifter was bagged and labeled x>(1/30) high. The sand
that was caught on top of the 1/50 inch sifter was bagged and labeled (1/30)>x>(1/50)
standard. The sand that passed through the 1/50 inch sifter was bagged and labeled
(1/50)>x low.

High Particle Size
1/30 in < x < 1mm
Standard Particle Size
1/50 in < x < 1/30 in
Low Particle Size
x < 1/50 in
Berger Gallis 38

Works Cited
A Guidebook to Particle Size Analysis" Horiba. HORIBA Instruments, Inc, 2012. Web.
9 May 2013. <http://www.horiba.com/fileadmin/uploads/Scientific/eMag/PSA/>.
Aronow W. "Health Guide." Sodium in Diet Nutrition. The New York Times Company,
23 June 2012. Web. 09 May 2013. <http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/>.
Berke, Shari. "TED Case Studies." Dead Sea Canal. American University, The School of
International Service, Summer 1997. Web. 09 May 2013.
<http://www1.american.edu/ted/deadsea.htm>.
"Coral" National Geographic. National Geographic Society, n.d. Web. 09 May 2013.
<http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/invertebrates/coral/>.
Downing, John. "Effects of Light Absorption and Scattering in Water Samples on OBS
Measurements." Light Absorption & Scattering in Water Samples. Campbell
Scientific, Inc, Apr. 2008. Web. 19 May 2013.
<http://s.campbellsci.com/documents/us/technical-
papers/obs_light_absorption.pdf>.
Ghosh, Dipanjan. Water Pollution (Causes, Effects, and Prevention). Competition
Science Vision Web. Apr 2009. < http://books.google.com/books?>.
Grubbs, Tandy. Viscosity of Simple Liquids: Temperature Variation Stetson.edu.
Stetson University, n.d. Web. 4 April 2013.
<http://www2.stetson.edu/~wgrubbs/datadriven/viscosity/viscositywtgpdf.pdf >.
Berger Gallis 39

Light Absorption and Scattering in Water Samples D-A-Instruments.com D&A
Instrument Company. 2005. Web. 4 April 2013. <http://www.d-a-
instruments.com/light_absorption.html>.
Paaijmans, Krijn P., Willem Takken, Andrew K. Githeko, and A. F. Jacobs. "The Effect
of Water Turbidity on the Near-surface Water Temperature of Larval Habitats of
the Malaria Mosquito Anopheles Gambiae." Springer. International Journal of
Biometeorology, 17 July 2008. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.
<http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00484-008-0167-2#page-1>.
Reed, Don. "The Briny Deep." 12. Light. Department of Geology, 13 Mar. 1999. Web,
Image. 07 Apr. 2013. <http://oceansjsu.com/105d/exped_briny/1.html>.
Refraction of Light by Water ScubaGeek.com. ReefNet Inc. n.d. Web, Image.
<http://www.scubageek.com/articles/wwwrefr.html>.
Rosmanitz, Klaus. "Light Optics." English Online. English Language Learning
Resources, nd. Web. 08 Apr. 2013.< http://www.english-online.at/science/light-
and-optics/light-optics-electromagnetic-waves.htm>.
Szigeti, Tim. "Cisco TelePresence Fundamentals." Google Books. Cisco TelePresence
Fundamentals, 2009. Web. 09 May 2013. <http://books.google.com/books?>.
Strobel, Nick. "Electromagnetic Radiation." Astronomy Notes. Nick Strobel's Astronomy
Notes, 17 May 2001. Web. 19 May 2013.
<http://www.astronomynotes.com/light/s2.htm>.