Analysis of the water quality in the Umgeni River

Savannah Agar
Life Science
Grade 12
Maris Stella
!1
Contents:

Introduction Page 3

Review of literature Page 4

Methodology Page 11

Presentation of findings Page 21

Analysis of findings Page 27

Conclusion Page 29

Reference list Page 30

Appendix Page 31

!2
Introduction:

The Umgeni River begins in the Drakensberg mountains and meanders its way through the valley of
1000 Hills for 230km, ending North of the Durban harbour. The Umgeni River is home to many
species and a variety of vegetation. It is also a main water source for thousands of people who
reside near the river or on the river banks. The aim of this project was to determine if the town of
Howick has a negative effect on the Umgeni River. Negative factors include pollution, littering, and
unbalancing both the wildlife cycles and biodiversity of the river.

We assume that if the Umgeni River water quality is negatively affected then this will have a
negative affect on the biodiversity in the river. In order to obtain accurate results for our experiment
we visited three different sites along the Umgeni River, where we carried out various tests that
would help us to determine the water quality at each site. We performed seven different tests on the
water in the Umgeni River that comprised of the riparian health audit, methylene blue test, aquatic
biodiversity, temperature, nitrates, pH and lastly turbidity test. These seven tests helped us to
determine whether the water was safe or not. The data that we are working with in this
investigation is primary data as we have collected it ourselves from the Umgeni River.

Water can be purified to a certain degree, at waste water plants at the Umgeni Waterworks. Here the
water is purified through many processes and this is a costly exercise. Water is made safe for
humans to consume and without this process, life would be in danger because of all the water borne
diseases. This is an indication of just how polluted the water around us is and how important it is
for us humans to prevent water pollution as much as possible because this expensive process is
done just for drinking water for people but there are animals that live and drink the un-purified
waters of the rivers. My hypothesis is that the water quality of the Umgeni River is negatively
affected by the town of Howick.

Figure 1: Showing a map of the Umgeni River (http://www.bikelife.co.za/review/durban-green-corridor/)

!3
Review of Literature:

Source One:
Water access is an arising problem in South Africa because poorer regions struggle to get fresh,
clean water as there is very little availability if they are not situated near a source of water. Often
water that is available is heavily polluted and undrinkable thus reducing the amount of water
available for consumption. The demand for fresh water in South Africa is always increasing with
available fresh water not being enough to meet the needs of the people. The constant development
of informal settlements along river banks and industrial factories is contributing to the pollution and
decreasing the water quality. Physico-chemical variables, such as temperature and pH influence
biochemical reactions in water systems. The pollution in the water is causing many health problems
with humans, as the pollution can develop cancer of the skin, lungs and nasal cavities. The water fr
m the Umngeni river is mainly used as drinking water for livestock, human activities and irrigation.
The Umgeni River is 230km long and the area of the catchment is 5000km2 . (Olaniran, Naicker,
Pillay , 2012)

The river supplies water to over 3.5 million people and aids economic production as big companies
use the water for many of their production processes. Parts of the Umgeni River have been stripped
of its riparian vegetation due to man’s intervention. This assessment on the Umgeni River was done
from October 2008 to July 2009 and tests were taken every 3 months. The water temperature of the
Umgeni River varied from 13 degrees Celsius in the Winter and reached as high as 26.5 degrees
Celsius in the warmer months, a mercury thermometer being used for the measuring. The pH levels
were extremely varied along the river, from readings of 6.30 to 8.45. Some areas were severely
polluted and others were in very good condition, having little to no pollution. Turbidity ranged from
0.53 to 15.6 which also shows varying pollution. (Olaniran, Naicker, Pillay , 2012)

The purpose of the study was to find solutions and to analyse the damage the informal settlements
and infrastructure has on the pollution levels, water quality and biodiversity of the river and to find
a solution to help improve the matter, which proves this source to be very useful to us and very
relevant to our study as it too is analyzing the effects humans are having on the water quality of the
Umngeni river, and using various tests similar to ours to arrive at a scientifically accurate result.
(Olaniran, Naicker, Pillay , 2012)

!4
The data provided by the source matches very closely to the data that I have collected from the river
which shows that the source is valid and reliable. I was able to compare my data closely to the
source, giving me a better understanding of my research task, as well as commenting on very
similar tests and information to what I have carried out, making the source very useful with regards
to my river study.

Source Two:
In the source the Umgeni River system, and the use of its water, was analysed by looking at the
catchment system as a whole. This in turn helped to identify the various land and water uses that
occur along the length of the river, as well as providing solutions that will help to maintain the river
and ecosystem without the risk of destroying the system, whilst still being able to be utilised as a
water source for the surrounding land. Agriculture, commercial plantations, forestry and cattle
farming are the predominant land uses along the Umgeni River, as well as being the biggest
contributors to water use. The different land uses along the Umgeni River all take up a certain
amount of land, as well as all of them using up a certain amount of water from the catchment areas.
So therefore in order to maintain a stable and healthy ecosystem with regards to the river, the land
uses and their individual water uses can be calculated to establish whether or not they are using up
too much water or not, and therefore in turn the maximum amount of land that can be used by each
differing land use that maintains a stable environment and ecosystem with regards to the Umgeni
River could be established. (Van Der Zel, 1975)

The article focused predominately on water use by the surrounding land that falls into the catchment
of the Umgeni River system, looking at the relative size of the different types of land use (ie
agriculture and forestry) as well as the amount of water the particular land was using. The input and
output flow of the Umgeni River was effected by these land uses in different ways, as each different
land use uses up different amounts of water, therefore the surface runoff along the river was
effected in different ways. The article focused on managing the amount of water being used by the
various land uses in order to protect the ecosystem and functioning of the river without running into
problems due to excess water use by the surrounding areas. (Van Der Zel, 1975)

The article provided detailed analysis of how the water flowing into and out of the Umgeni River is
used up, as well as showing us the predominant land uses along the length of the river and how they
use up the water on different scales. In regards to our investigation, the article does not tie into the
topic of mans influence on the water quality of the river, which is our main focus of our report.

!5
However, the article allows us to identify the main land uses surrounding the river and how they
depend on the river as a water source, which in turn provides us with insight in determining whether
or not these particular land uses are negatively effecting the water quality of the river. So although
there is no information pertaining to how the land uses are affecting the quality of the river, we are
able to gain insight into the possible factors (due to the mentioned land uses) that could be affecting
the quality of the water in a negative way. The article was useful in determining the major land uses
along the river, which proves a vital part in determining whether or not humans are negatively
influencing the water quality or not, as the main land uses along the river have been stated. (Van
Der Zel, 1975)

A limitation for this source would be that it was researched in 1975 which makes the data very old
and can vary quite substantially from the research I have performed.

Source Three:
Source three is an article on the study of the water quality in the Umgeni River as well as an
analysis of the overload of phosphorous that comes into the river from the the town of Howick. The
effect that formal and informal settlements have on the river is very high due to pollution, sewage
and toxic waste entering the Umgeni River. The Umgeni River has many tributaries leading off of it
which are water supplies to different parts of KwaZulu-Natal. The area around the Umgeni river is
constantly expanding due to many opportunities but they will need skilled labour, safety precautions
for the river and resources. According to a study from1989, South Africa is listed as a country with
limited water for use, however if we use the right strategies then we can preserve and have access to
more fresh water, which is why we must protect the river because the more pollution there is, when
we one day need to freshwater it may be too late to try retrieve it. (Hudson, Pillay, Terry, 1991)

According to the source, the river is heavily polluted in different areas due to human influences
from the areas surrounding the river. Although there is no toxic agents present in the water, there is
a rather high level of bacteria that is negatively effecting the aquatic animals and surrounding plants
as well as the overall condition of the water. Due to there being so much bacteria in the water,
using the water for basic human needs is being prevented, and the water can only be used for
activities that the bacteria does not have a negative health effect on. The phosphorus and nitrogen in
the water negatively effect the turbidity of the water, the oxygen levels of water, as well as causing

!6
an algae scum and foul taste and odour which is a clear indication that the water is not safe for
consumption. (Hudson, Pillay, Terry, 1991)

If certain precautions are not taken then the water could become so polluted that it will have no use
to humans or it will cost unsustainable amounts of money to treat the water. It is estimated that
pollution will increase from 3.6 million to 9.2/12.4 million. Security measures can be taken to
preserve the state of the river and prevent deterioration so that the river can still have multiple uses.
(Hudson, Pillay, Terry, 1991)

This source is useful to us as it relates directly back to the aim of our assignment, being to prove
that humans are having a negative effect on the water quality of the Umgeni River. This article
focuses predominantly on how human influence is causing bacteria to build up in the river and
decrease the water quality, relating directly to our study. The source is reliable to us as it provides
scientific data that proves its purpose in the form of tests and studies on the river. It states to us how
the impact of humans is negatively effecting the water quality of the Umgeni River and then backs
up this statement with scientific proof in the form of tests and data. There are no real limitations
with this article as its focus is the same as the focus of our study, making it easy for us to relate
directly to the tests that were carried out and the statements given.

Source Four:

South African rivers are under huge threat from pollution caused by infrastructure and informal
settlements, with the Umtata River being the focus of this source. Some areas of the river are
already very polluted, causing water-borne diseases to arise which are affecting people all over the
country and spreading disease amongst people in the areas surrounding the river . There is a huge
need for protection of this ecosystem against people further polluting it and causing the water
quality to decrease further. According to the source there is high erosion and turbidity present in the
river which is a sign of very bad pollution. The fine silt caused by this causes water purification
problems and makes the water very hard to purify as the silt gets stuck in the filters and blocks the
process. The water is not safe for domestic use as it is very heavily polluted and has got many
insects and water creatures living inside.

!7
The Umtata River cannot be used by humans as it poses a huge threat for their health as it causes a
gastric illness. The nitrate and turbidity levels are both exceeding the South African limit of
turbidity of 0.1 NTU and nitrate has exceeded at certain sites exceeding 10mg/l, which is an
indication of the pollution in the Umtata River. There is presence of blue-green algae which releases
toxic substances that can be very harmful to humans and even animal life, it has caused the death of
millions of livestock due to the water being their main form of keeping hydrated. There are also
traces of metals in the river which can indicate that there is a chance that their was a factory that
leaked substances into the river.

This source is useful to an extent to us, as it too focuses around the negative effects humans are
having on the water quality within a river and the devastating effects that this is having, yet the
focus is on the ,Umtata River and not the Umgeni River, making the source less useful as it does not
relate back directly to the River in question in our hypothesis. The source can be seen as being
reliable as it is a thorough study of the river that has taken into account every aspect that can be
causing pollution and analysed it. The large number of tests and scientific research within this
source shows that we can rely on this source to be valid with regards to the information and data
collected. As stated before, a limitation with this article is the fact that it doesn't relate to the
Umgeni River and although the information is along the same lines as our hypothesis , being the
study of the effect of humans on the water quality of a river, it does not provide information on the
particular river in our study, limiting us to the amount of information we can use from this article to
help with our study.

Source Five:
The Rio das Velhas River in Brazil experiences a large amount of sewage discharge running through
its waters due to lack of treatment of the river. This large amount of sewage discharge is owing to
the rapid urbanisation occurring around this water system, which is causing water quality and river
biodiversity to come under threat. Six sites were located for testing, varying from being upstream of
the sewage treatment plants, in close proximity to the sewage treatment plants and further
downstream from the plants. According to the source, the upper course of the river was relatively
healthy, with high dissolved oxygen levels of 6 mg/L and relatively no presence of E.coli and fecal
matter. The results from the middle course of the river were slightly more concerning, with a low
level of dissolved oxygen (0.50 mg/L) and high presence of E.coli (24 000 N/ml as compared to 2
400 N/ml further upstream. The presence of fecal matter was also alarmingly high in this region,
!8
and it was discovered that there was a decrease in the quantities of fish species as you moved
further down the river. The lower course results had a dissolved oxygen content of 3.2 mg/L, yet the
fecal matter measured at 56 000 N/ml. The sewage discharge therefore had very negative effects on
both the water quality of the river as well as on the presence of fish and aquatic species, yet
unfortunately due to the lack of dams along the course of the Rio das Velhas Basin, there is an
opportunity for water quality improvement and river rehabilitation.

According to the year 2000 the poor sewage treatment systems along the river (as a result of rapid
urbanisation) have caused sewage leakages to affect the Rio das Velhas River. The water quality
above the treatment stations is relatively high, with a strong and healthy aquatic presence. However,
as seen from the results, further down the river we see that the water quality drops drastically, with
increased levels of E.coli, fecal matter and lower dissolved oxygen levels, as well as a decline in the
aquatic life present in the river. This is all due to the poor sewage treatment systems that are
effecting the river quality negatively, and rapid urbanisation in surrounding areas is the main reason
for this ecosystems decline.

This research study ties in directly with the topic at hand, as it is a study of how urbanisation is
affecting the water quality of the river. The concise and thorough tests and studies that were put into
place enabled the quality of the river to be studied in every aspect, making the article very reliable
and valid due to the professionalism and depth of the study. This enabled the results to prove in
many ways that the urbanisation and sewage treatment plants were the reason for the poor water
quality and declining aquatic life, and ultimately that mans influence was negatively affecting the
water quality of the Rio das Velhas River, tying in well with our study topic involving the Umgeni
River. Although this article does not provide us with any information pertaining to the Umgeni
River and the effects that humans are having on it, it allows us to see how it is possible for man to
negatively affect a river ecosystem, and use this knowledge as further insight into our own study.

The following tests were performed:

• Riparian Health Audit
• Methylene Blue Test
• Aquatic Biodiversity
• Temperature
• Nitrates
!9
• pH
• Turbidity
The methods for each of these tests are given below.

!10
Methodology:
In the methodology the instructions on how to perform the various tests we did on the Umgeni
River sites are given. We visited four sites to perform our seven tests, the site and test names follow
below as well as the method and description for each test.

Visual tests:
Site 1
Date of Investigation: 25/11/2016
Name of catchment: Petrous Stroom, above Midmar
Name of River: Umgeni River
GPS co-ordinates: 29°29’16.7” S ; 30°09’27.3” E
Description
There was no particular smell or odour but the water was murky and brown so therefore I would not
suggest drinking it. There were no dead animals, visible soak pits, people washing, wastewater from
house worlds, factory effluent or any sewage contamination.

Site 2
Date of Investigation: 25/11/2016
Name of Catchment: Above Howick Falls
Name of River: Umgeni River
GPS co-ordinates: 29°29’16.05” S ; 30°14’25.83” E
Description
There was a slight smell of sewage and the water was brown so I would not suggest the water to be
safe to drink. There were no visible dead animals, soak pits, people washing or wastewater from
households but their was factory effluent such as sludge and a thick layer of oil on the surface of the
river, there was also evidence of sewage contamination.

Site 3
Date of Investigation: 26/11/2016
Name of Catchment: Fish Jump Falls (UVNR)
Name of River: Umgeni River
GPS co-ordinates: 29°29’44.48” S ; 30°14’43.80” E
Description

!11
There was a slight smell of chlorine and the water was a brown and green colour. The water was
definitely not safe to drink, there were no visible dead animals but there were visible soak pits that
were far from the river and there were no people washing. There was visible wastewater from
households as well as factory effluent such as brown broth and there was no sign of sewage
contamination.

Site 4
Date of Investigation: 26/11/2016
Name of Catchment: Mkobongo Tributary
Name of River: Umgeni River
GPS co-ordinates: 29°28’31” S ; 30°14’21”E
Description:
There was a strong smell or filth and dirt but the water was very clear although not safe for
drinking. There were no visible dead animals but there were soak pits very close to the river, there
was also no people washing, wastewater from households, factory effluent or sewage
contamination.

Riparian Health Audit

Description:
A Riparian Health Audit is used to examine vegetation, pollution, river development and give it a
rating from 0-5, visually analysing the health of the river and the effects the surrounding
infrastructure has on the river.
Table 1 showing the percentage change and the impact it has on the River

Rating: Percentage Change or Coverage: Description:

0 0 No impact
0.5 1 - 10 Minor impact

1 11 - 20
1.5 21 - 30 Moderate impact

2 31 - 40
2.5 41 - 50 Large impact

3 51 - 60
3.5 61 - 70 Serious impact
!12
 4 71 - 80
4.5 81 - 90 Critical impact

5 91 - 100

(Table taken from Umgeni Valley Nature Reserve)

The table is used to determine how damaged the surroundings are. This is a visual test so it is based
on the person and what they see. One must decide on the rating, percentage and then they will find
the result in the description.

Method:
1. Examine the surroundings of the site.
2. Examine exotic vegetation, rubbish dumping, bank erosion, inundation, flow modifications,
channel modifications and evidence of decreased water quality.

Methylene Blue Test

Description:
This test is used to measure the amount of oxygen in the river water. Bacteria in the water uses up
oxygen during respiration, so therefore if the amount of oxygen in the river is high there will be a
small amount of bacteria present, but if there is little oxygen present there will be a large amount of
bacteria. Methylene blue indicator is a dark blue substance, if it is put in water with lots of oxygen it
will remain blue, but if it is put in water with little oxygen the methylene blue becomes light blue or
clear.
Table 2 to show how to determine whether the water is polluted or not by examining the colour

Percentage of pollution: (%) Colour change:

100 Very dark blue (Very clean water)

80 Dark blue (Clear water)

60 Blue (Slightly polluted)

40 Light blue (Polluted)

20 Very light blue (Very polluted)

0 Clear (Severely polluted)

(Table taken from Umgeni Valley Nature Reserve)

!13
Table 2 is used to determine the amount of pollution in the water of the river. Depending on the
colour of the samples taken from each site will determine the pollution in the water. Once the period
of 6 days is over, one must look at the colour of each bottle and compare the results to Table 2 to
see how polluted the water is.
Equipment:
- Two 30ml bottles for each site.
- A bottle of Methylene blue indicator.
- A dropper.
- Some tinfoil to wrap the 30ml bottle in.
- A clean 2 litre plastic bottle to take water back for boiling.

Method:
1. The 30ml bottles were labelled: TEST and the other CONTROL.
2. 2 drops of Methylene blue were put in the 30ml bottle.
3. River water was poured into the 30ml bottle till almost overflowing.
4. The bottle was sealed and checked that there weren't air bubbles.
5. The number from each site was written on the lid of each test performed.
6. The 2 litre bottle was filled with water from the stream (will be used to fill the CONTROL
bottle after the water has been boiled) repeat the above steps with the sterile water.
7. Each 30ml bottle was wrapped in tin foil which is to be left in the dark and at room temperature.
8. Every 6-12 hours for 6 days the tests were checked to see if the colour had changed
(CONTROL bottle should remain blue).

Aquatic Biodiversity
Description:
Bio-indicators are living creatures that indicate water quality and pollution levels in rivers. Some of
the plants and animals are very sensitive to pollution so they will not be seen if the water is highly
polluted. Others can survive in heavily polluted areas so by seeing what kind of plants and animals
are in the are we are able to see how polluted the area is.

!14
Interpretation of the Mini SASS score:
Table 3.1 to show however many animals were caught determines the health of the River

Ecological Category (Condition): Score:

Unmodified - Natural Condition > 7.9

Largely natural/ few modifications (Good 6.8 - 7.9

conditions)
Moderately modified (Fair condition) 6.1 - 6.8

Largely modified (Poor conditions) 5.1 - 6.1

Seriously / Critically modified (Very poor < 5.1

condition)

(Table from the Umgeni Valley Nature Reserve)

Table 3.2 to show the Mini SASS Score Sheet and the sensitivity score of each insect

Groups: Sensitivity Score:

Flat Worms 3

Worms 2

Leeches 2

Crabs or Shrimps 6

Stoneflies 17

Minnow Mayflies 5

Other Mayflies 11

Damselflies 4

Dragonflies 6

Bugs or Beetles 5

Caddisflies 9

True Flies 2

Snails 4

Total Score

Number of Groups

Final Average (Divide the total score

by the number of groups to get your final
score.)

(Table from Umgeni Valley Nature Reserve)

The Mini SASS score sheet is used by whatever animals are caught fall under a different group
category, one must find which group the animals they have caught and using the sensitivity score,

!15
divide the total score by the number of groups of insects and then one will find their final score.
Using the final score go to Table 3.1 and then find which category the final score falls under and it
will tell you the condition of the river.

Equipment:
- Plastic container for keeping creatures in.
- Mini SASS identifying chart.
- Water quality slide.
- Polystyrene cups to collect creatures.
- Permanent marker.
- Net.

Method:
1. Collecting cups were used to catch bugs on rocks or in the stream.
2. They were then decanted into the plastic container.
3. The Mini SASS identifying chart was used to identify the creatures that had been caught and
they were then circled on the chart. (See Table 3.2)
4. The different groups of creatures were captured, counted and then written down on the result
sheet using the Score Sheet.
5. Each groups sensitivity score was then counted and added up.
6. The final average was calculated by dividing the total score by the number of groups captured
and then Table 3.1 determined the condition of the river.

Temperature
Description:
Water temperature affects levels of dissolved oxygen, the rate of photosynthesis and metabolic rates
of water life. Water temperature can also affect the amount of parasites and bacteria in the water.
Most animals and plants need a specific range of temperature to survive properly in the river. Most
of the fish species can survive between 8 - 24 degrees Celsius.

Equipment:
- Thermometer.

!16
Method:
1. The thermometer was held in water for 2 minutes.
2. The number next to the red line was read.
3. It was repeated 3 times and then the average was calculated.

Nitrates
Description:
Nitrates are plant nutrients that contribute to enrichment. Nitrate enrichment
through sewage contamination and fertiliser run-off is not as critical as
phosphate because aquatic ecosystems are not as sensitive to an increase in
nitrate levels. Blue-green algae can convert nitrogen from the air into
ammonia and nitrates that can be used by aquatic plants.
(Figure 2 showing own photograph)
Equipment:
- Nitrate strips.
- Nitrate colour chart.
- A 100ml bottle.

Method:
1. Water was collected from stream in a 100ml bottle.
2. A nitrate strip was dipped into a sample for 1 second.
3. The strip was shaken to remove bubbles.
4. 1 minute passed to then compare on the nitrate colour chart.

pH
Description:
A healthy river pH should be pH 7 or slightly acidic, but pollution causes the water to become too
acidic. Certain vegetation and soil erosion causes the water to be too alkaline which is not good for
animal life, so a pH between 6-7 is a healthy river. On a pH chart one will see (Figure 3) that pH 1
is extremely acidic and pH 14 is extremely alkaline. For any form of life it is best for them to be in
a neutral environment which is a pH of 7 which is ideal for the body to flourish.

!17
 (Figure 3. Taken from: http://www.energiseforlife.com/free-acid-alkaline-food-ph-chart)

Table 4 to show the grading of the river from 0% (Polluted) - 100% (Clean)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

pH > 9 or pH pH > 8 or pH pH > 7,5-8 or pH > 7.5-7 or pH 6,5-7 pH 6,5

<4 <5 pH < 5.5 pH < 6

Very severely Severe Pollution Some Good. Excellent.

polluted. pollution. problems pollution is
occur. present.

(Table taken from Umgeni Valley Nature Reserve)

Once the test has been performed and the result of the pH has been obtained, one must look at the
table above and find which column the result falls under. Once they have found the correct column
they will then see the percentage of pollution in the river and how severe the pollution is.

Equipment:
- pH strips.
- pH colour chart.
- A 100ml bottle.

Method:
1. Some water is collected from the stream in a 100ml bottle.
2. The pH strip is dipped into the water sample for 15 seconds.
3. The tested pH strip is them compared with the colour chart. (See figure 2)

Turbidity
Description:
This is the process used to see how clear the water is, because if the water is murky the black
magnet will not be visible. This test helps give a fairly accurate reading of how clear the water is.
!18
Grading the river from 0% (Polluted) - 100% (Clean)
Table 5 to show the amount of pollution determined from the amount of visibility

0% 35% 50% 75% 100%

Extreme Severe Very polluted. Pollution is Very little or no

pollution. pollution. present. pollution.

(Table taken from Umgeni Valley Nature Reserve)

Once the experiment has been performed, one must determine for themselves the percentage of
visibility within in the clarity tube, once they have determined the percentage of clarity they can
look at the table and see under which category they would say the water clarity falls under which
will help them determine how polluted the water is.

Equipment:
- Clarity tube.

Method:
1. The clarity tube is filled with water.
2. The black magnet is then position at number one.
3. The tube is then held in a horizontal position, the tube is then looked through and the black
magnet is moved until it cannot be seen.
4. The number is then read on the side of the tube.
5. Repeat 3 times.

Ethics:
When the Grade 11 Biology and Geography girls went to each of the four sites, they arrived and the
river banks were free from litter and pollution, so they made a conscious effort to leave the site the
way they found it. Whenever they had to catch aquatic animals in the river, they made sure not to
harm them in any way and then returned them to the river once they had finished examining them.
They did not leave any litter lying around and they cleaned up after themselves to avoid harming or
polluting any of the animals and the environment around them. The Grade 11’s walked along the
allocated paths so that they did not trample on any of the vegetation. They were accompanied down
to the river by the staff of the Umgeni Valley Nature reserve and they guided they with each of the

!19
tests the Grade 11’s performed. The staff of the Umgeni Valley Nature Reserve compiled a
guideline of what each experiment entails so that the Grade 11’s had the correct information for
their task.

!20
Presentation of Findings:

Riparian Health Audit:

Table 1 to show the results from 4 different sites to analyse the Vegetation and Health of the Umgeni River.

Site no. Exotic Rubbish Bank Inundatio Flow Channel Evidence Vegetatio Total
vegetatio Dumping Erosion n Modifica Modifica of n Score
n tions tions decrease Removal
d water
quality
Site 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 5

Site 2 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 1 2 0.5 10.5

Site 3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 4 0.5 7.5

Site 4 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 4.5

Bar graph 1 to show the averages of the Riparian Health Audit from the
Umgeni River
11

8,25
Total score of vegetation

5,5

2,75

0
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
Sites
!21
Methylene Blue:
Table 2 to show the results from the Meythelene Blue test from the four different sites

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Total: (%)

Site 1 Very dark Very dark Dark blue Dark blue Blue Blue 60
blue blue

Control 1 Very dark Very dark Very dark Very dark Very dark Very dark
blue blue blue blue blue blue
Site 2 Dark blue Blue Blue Light blue Light blue Extremely 20
light blue

Control 2 Very dark Very dark Very dark Very dark Very dark Very dark
blue blue blue blue blue blue
Site 3 Very dark Dark blue Dark blue Blue Blue Light Blue 40
blue

Control 3 Very dark Very dark Very dark Very dark Very dark Very dark
blue blue blue blue blue blue

Site 4 Very dark Very dark Very dark Very dark Dark blue Dark blue 80
blue blue blue blue
Control 4 Very dark Very dark Very dark Very dark Very dark Very dark
blue blue blue blue blue blue

Graph 2 to show the results from the Methylene Blue test from the four
different sites at the Umgeni River
80

64
Grading the river from 0% - 100%

48

32

16

0
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
Sites

!22
Aquatic Biodiversity:
Table 3 to show the results of the Aquatic Biodiversity tests performed at four different sites

Groups: Site 1: Site 2: Site 3: Site 4:

Flat Worms - - 3 -

Worms - - 2 2

Leeches - - - 2

Crabs or Shrimps - 6 - 6

Stoneflies - - - -

Minnow Mayflies 5 - - -

Other Mayflies 11 - - -

Damselflies - 4 - -

Dragonflies - - - -

Bugs or Beetles 5 - 5 -

Caddisflies 9 - - -

True Flies - - 2 -

Snails - - - -

Total Score 30 10 12 10

Number of 4 2 4 3
Groups
Final Average: 7.5 5 3 3.3

!23
 Bar graph 3 to show the averages of the Aquatic Biodiversity in the Umgeni
River
8
Final average of insects in the river

0
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
Sites tested

Temperature:
Table 4 to show the different test results of temperature for each of the 4 sites

Site 1: Site 2: Site 3: Site 4:

Trial 1: 19℃ 19℃ 17℃ 18℃
Trial 2: 19℃ 18℃ 18℃ 17℃
Trial 3: 18℃ 21℃ 16,℃ 19℃

Averages: 18.7℃ 19,3℃ 17,5℃ 18℃

Bar graph 4 to show the averages of each sites temperature in the Umgeni
River
20

19,25
Temperature (℃)

18,5

17,75

17
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
Sites
!24
Nitrates:
Table 5 to show the Nitrate levels in each of the 4 sites

Site 1: Site 2: Site 3: Site 4:

Trial 1: 10 10 10 10

Bar graph 5 to show the Nitrate levels in the four different sites of the Umgeni
River
10

7,5
Nitrate levels (mg/l)

2,5

0
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
Sites

pH:
Table 6 to show the pH levels from the four sites at the Umgeni River

Four sites tested

No. of tests performed Site 1: Site 2: Site 3: Site 4:

Trial 1: 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

Trial 2: 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0

Trial 3: 6.5 6.0 6.5 5.0

Average: 6.2 6.0 6.3 6.7

!25
 Bar graph 6 to show the averages of the pH from each different site of the
Umgeni River
6,7
Average of pH from each site

6,3

5,9
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
Sites

Turbidity:
Table 7 to show the averages of turbidity from the four different sites the Umgeni River

Site 1: Site 2: Site 3: Site 4:

Trial 1: 33 37 32 89
Trial 2: 32 43 31 87

Trial 3: 33 38 39 81
Average: 32,7 39,3 34 85,7

Bar graph 7 to show the averages of the turbidity from each site
90
Average of the turbidity (%)

67,5

45

22,5

0
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
Sites

!26
Analysis of Findings:

Each test and its results have been analysed individually in order to gain an accurate result with
regards to proving or disregarding my hypothesis, as well as to compare the sites for each test and
determine their quality. Three trials were performed at each site to make our results more accurate.

The Riparian Health Audit results showed that all four sites had very minor impact as each site
varied from between 4.5 and 10.5 and the site with the most impact is site 2 at 10,5 total score. This
is a very good sign that the river appears to be healthy from just viewing it as it shows there is very
little pollution such as litter and human waste lying around. Site 4 was the healthiest part of the
river as it had the least amount of environmental impact, this result is due to site 4 being the control.

The Methylene Blue test results show a range of results being 80% clear water to 20% clear water.
Site 2 showed the most results of pollution being 20% clear water and site 4 being the most clear
water with a result of 80%. The results being so varied make it difficult to determine the quality of
the water because the results are so wide spread.

The Aquatic Biodiversity results came back very negative, sites 2, 3, and 4 had very little aquatic
biodiversity scoring averages of 5, 3 and 3.3, and was labelled in very poor condition. Site 1 had
very plentiful biodiversity and was labelled as good condition. The biodiversity of a river is very
important as it shows if the water is clean and healthy enough for animals to reside near by. Site 4
being the control showed that the control we used was not very reliable.

The Temperature varied between 17,5 ℃ (Site 3) and 19,3 ℃ (Site 2) for all readings at all four
sites. The temperature shows that it is not an ideal temperature for wildlife to survive in as this
temperature is 22℃ (Source 3). The graph was an indirect proportional graph as there wasn't a
relationship between the temperature and the sites. The control site which is Site 4 had a
temperature of 18℃.

The nitrate results are all exactly the same in all the sites which is very good because they are the
same as the control which shows that nitrate levels haven't been effected throughout the whole
Umgeni River.

!27
The pH test results proved to be fairly close for all four sites - with only one of the sites values
being situated around the neutral area of 7. Scientific studies show that river water is normally
between 6.5 and 8 on the pH scale, and all the results recorded did not support these results. Site 2
had a pH reading of 6.0, which presented the water as alkaline and was the furtherest value from the
neutral 7. All the sites were on the acidic side of the scale due to chemical levels in the water
caused by pollutants. Overall the pH values seemed to be fairly close and ranged between 5 and 6.5,
with the variations being due to chemicals from the soil or from human pollutants. (Source 2)

The turbidity results are extremely bad and show that sites 1, 2 and 3 are severely polluted as they
only have up to 39.3% visibility being the highest (Site 2) this is due to commercial pollution, such
as oil spills, factory fluids and gas leaks. In site 4 the water clarity was 85.7% which is very good
and means that their is very little pollution.

The tests results confirm my hypothesis being the town of Howick has a negative effect on the
Umgeni River as the results came out showing the poor water quality. This also proves that the tests
did in fact help to determine the water quality.

The biodiversity is effected due to the unfavourable water temperatures and results from all the
tests. When the water is unfavourable the animals and wildlife will not reproduce and often die off
which effects the ecosystem creating and imbalance.

!28
Conclusion:

After performing the seven tests that helped us determine the water quality of the Umgeni River, I
can conclude that the Town of Howick is negatively effecting the Umgeni River. This conclusion
was reached from analysing the results of the Riparian health audit, Aquatic biodiversity, pH,
methylene blue test and turbidity test as they came back with poor results. I can therefore conclude
that the presence of the town of Howick, the informal settlements, infrastructure and mans activities
have a negative impact on the quality of the water in the river, proving my hypothesis, the town of
Howick does effect the water quality of the Umgeni River correct.

Limitations - A limitation would be that the Umgeni Valley Nature Reserve staff ran out of pH strips
and nitrate strips which forced us to share data with the other groups which could cause our data to
have been inaccurate as it may not have been done correctly. The weather was terrible which made
the river go a brown colour from the rain disturbing the soil which may have cause our visual
description to be inaccurate and the turbidity test to be incorrect.

Recommendations - In order to improve on this research task and gain more accurate results, the
testing of the sites could have been performed more than once on different days as the days we went
had very poor weather which can contribute to the rivers poor water quality, in order for the results
to be more accurate and for any anomalies to be disregarded. The tests could have been done once a
season so that the results can be averaged creating a far more accurate result.

!29
References:

Fatoki, O., Muyima, N., and Lujiza, N., (2001) , Situation analysis of water quality in the Umtata River
Catchment, Vol 27, No 4
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/wsa/article/view/4959/12492

Hudson, N., Pillay, M. and Terry, S. (1991), Nutrients and Bacteriological pollution loads in the
Umgeni river system: Impact on water quality and implications on resource management
http://www.ewisa.co.za/literature/files/1991%20-%2035.pdf

Olaniran AO, E. A. (2012) , Assessment of physico-chemical qualities and heavy metal

concentrations of Umgeni and Umdloti Rivers in Durban, South Africa, Environmental monitoring
assessment
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24338052

POMPEU, P.S. AND ALVES, C. B. M. (2005), The Effects of Urbanization on Biodiversity and Water
Quality in the Rio das Velhas Basin, Brazil , American Fisheries Society Symposium
http://www.sfrancisco.bio.br/arquivos/Pompeu%20PS001.pdf

Van der Zel, D.W(1975) , Umgeni River Catchment Analysis , Water SA Vol.1 No. 2 , SA journals
manuscript
http://www.wrc.org.za/Knowledge%20Hub%20Documents/Water%20SA%20Journals/
Manuscripts/1975/02/WaterSA_1975_1_0017.PDF

!30