Irrigation Water Quality Analysis Biology Essay

Published:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

A study was done on the performance of the UWI Sewage treatment processes, to see if the processes of treatment were being done properly that is it met the sewage effluent standards outlined by NEPA. Also the study was done to identify if the water was suitable for irrigation activities.

This report focuses on the Acid Neutralizing Capacity, pH, cations, hardness and conductivity data collected between September and October 2010. The data collected was interpreted with respect to cation-anion balance and interrelationships between them.

Over a period of three weeks visits were made to the lake Sidrak which contained waste water which had passed through the UWI waste water treatment plant. From this site water samples were taken and analyzed. The pH of the water samples ranged between and the Acid Neutralizing capacity had a range of despite the fact that the Lake Sidrak water system was not in operation during the period of the study the values found were acceptable according to the standards to the standards set by NEPA. Hence the water was suitable for irrigation activities.

Although the water was suitable several recommendations were made to prevent the buildup of salinity in the soils. These include the regular leaching of the soil and the planting of several salt tolerant plants.

Introduction

Nearly all waters contain dissolved salts and trace elements, many of which result from the natural weathering of the earth's surface. The concentrations of these determine the water quality. In most irrigation situations, the primary water quality concern is salinity levels, since salts can affect both the soil structure and crop yield.[4]

Most salinity problems in agriculture result directly from the salts carried in the irrigation

water. Numerous parameters are used to define irrigation water quality, to assess salinity hazards, and todetermine appropriate management strategies. These include :

1) the total concentration of soluble salts,

2) the relative proportion of sodium to the other cations, SAR

3) the bicarbonate concentration as related to the concentration of calcium and magnesium.

The amounts and combinations of these substances define the suitability of water for irrigation and the potential for plant toxicity. The key irrigation water quality parameters are the electrical conductivity EC , the sodium adsorption ratio SAR, pH, Alkalinity, and total Hardness. These terms are all comparable and all quantify the amount of dissolved "salts" (or ions, charged particles) in a water sample.

Conductance is the measurement of the ability of water sample to convey an electrical current, and it is related to the concentratration of ionized substances in the water. EC measures salinity from all the ions dissolved in a sample. This includes negatively charged ions and positively charged ions. It can be used as approximate measure of the total concentration of inorganic substances in water. Ions that have a major influence on the conductivity of water are H+, Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+,Cl- and HCO3-. Conductivity increases with increasing mineral content of a water sample. The primary effect of high ECw water on crop productivity is the inability of the plant to compete with ions in the soil solution for water (physiological drought). The higher the EC, the less water is available to plants, even though the soil may appear wet. [4]

The SAR is the relative proportion of sodium (Na+) to calcium (Ca2+) and magnesium (Mg2+) ions. The sodium hazard is typically expressed as the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). Calcium will flocculate (hold together), while sodium disperses (pushes apart) soil particles. This dispersed soil will readily crust and have water infiltration and permeability problems.[5] The Total Hardness of water represents primarily the total concentration of Calcium and Magnesium ions expressed as calcium carbonate. [6]

The Acid neutralizing capacity is a measure of the capacity of water to neutralize acids, while the alkalinity is the total amount of basic species in natural water. It measures the presence of carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydroxide ions that are naturally present in water. The pH gives an indication of the acidity and alkalinity. It is a measure of the concentration of free hydrogen ions (H+). High pH's above 8.5 are often caused by high bicarbonate (HCO3-) and carbonate (CO32- ) concentrations.

High carbonates cause calcium and magnesium ions to form insoluble minerals leaving sodium as the dominant ion in solution. This alkaline water could intensify sodic soil conditions. When total carbonate levels exceed the total amount of calcium and magnesium, the water quality may be diminished. When the excess carbonate (residual) concentration becomes too high, the carbonates combine with calcium and magnesium to form a solid material (scale) which settles out of the water. The end result is an increase in both the sodium percentage and SAR.[6]

For any water body to function adequately in satisfying the desired use, it must have corresponding degree of purity. Each water use has specific quality need. Therefore standard are made for each desired quality of a water body.

Table of Standards for Waste water used for Irrigation

Parameter

NEPA Standards

India Desireable Limit

pH

6.0-8.5

6.0-9.0

Electrical conductivity at 25 oC micro mhos/cm

-

2250

Alkalinity, mg/l, Max

-

200

Total Hardness (as CaCo3), mg/l, Max (meq/L)

-

300 (5.995)

Chlorides (as Cl), mg/l,

300 mg/l

250

Calcium as (Ca), mg/l,

No Standard

75

Magnesium (as Mg), mg/l, Max

No standard

30

Sodium

100 mg/l

-

Overview of UWI Treatment System

Location: North 17o 59min 41.7sec

West 7o 44min 4.03 sec

250m above sea level

Pre-treatment

-Grill removes large solids

-Grit Channels remove

dense particles

Primary Treatment

-Removal of Organis

Secondary Treatment of Liquid

-Filtration of water

- aerobic bacterial which

digests organic material.

Secondary Treament of Sludge

-aerobic digestion of

organic matter in sludge

digestion tanks

Sludge Drying Beds

Tertiary Treatment.

-75% treated with chlorine.

and then sent to the gully

and river.

-25% is sent to the tertiary treatment.

-reed beds remove

phosphate and nitrates.

Dispose of Dry Solids

-Fertilizers

Lake Sidrak

The UWI Sewage Plant consists of the preliminary, primary, secondary and tertiary treatment of waste water. It does not facilitate sludge treatment. The primary and secondary treatment is done at the Hermitage plant in August Town, St Andrew while the tertiary treatment is done on the UWI Mona Campus.

Preliminary Treatment

Sewage from UWI campus enter treatment plant at a rate of 1000-1500m3 per day. The sewage is grayish in colour and contains 98% liquid and 2% solid. The sewage first undergo preliminary treatment to make it suitable for the main treatment processes. This includes screening and removing grit.

On entering a sewage treatment works, water passes through screens which remove large solids articles that could damage machinery or block pipe systems such as paper, bottles etc. Screens consist of vertical bars or grills spaced close together or perforated plates that are cleaned by rakes or water jets. The cleared material is then disposed of.

The liquid from the screening process then enters grit channels. In this water flows slowly as heavy particles settle. This leaves the water clearer than how it was when it entered.

Primary treatment

After preliminary treatment the sewage flows into large round tank called the primary clarifier. This is where digestion of organic material begins and further separation of the solids from the liquids takes place resulting in a decrease in O2 in the effluent. the heavier organic material sinks to the tank floor and is swept by a scraper blade to a submerged outlet. From here it is pumped as slurry to a storage tank for subsequent treatment. Most of the solids in wastewater are removed in this process and concentrated into thick slurry. This slurry is known as sewage sludge and it is dealt with separately. The liquid element flows over a weir to the liquid holding tank.

Secondary treatment

Secondary treatment involves the trickle filter system, the humus tank and the drying beds. Approximately 85% of organic matter is removed. The liquid from the liquid storage tank is then transferred to trickling filters. In this process the liquid is distributed via small holes in continuously moving arms over a stone bed. The water pressure causes the arms to rotate and deposit the water on the stones packed below in the tank The stone bed acts as filter. Stones are large at the top and gradually get smaller. Then stones are coated with aerobic bacterial which digests organic material. The stones act as an ideal place for bacteria and other micro-organisms to live and grow. They form a biological film on the stones which remove the dissolved organic material as the settled sewage trickles downward. The flow then passes to a settlement tank called humus tank where the excess biological film is separated and removed as humus sludge. In the humus tank there is further digestion an filtration of organic material. If holding time is too long the inorganic materials will be converted back to organic.

The sewage sludge in the solid holding tanking is transported to the sludge treatment tanks. In this system the sludge is mixed with a blend of bacteria and other micro-organisms known as activated sludge and aerated by manual agitation. The sludge tank contains the waste from the holding tank for solids and is stored here for a total of 6 weeks The drying bed is where the sludge is dried for several weeks and any water remaining is filtered through sand and sent back to the pretreatment area of the plant

Tertiary treatment

After the liquid leaves the Humus tank it is sent to the pump house after which 75% is sent to the chlorine house where it is treated and then sent to the gully and the Hope river. The remaining 25% is sent to the tertiary treatment which consists of reed beds where the plants remove nutrients such as phosphates and nitrates present in the water. The water is then purified by UV light and then sent to Lake Sidrak.

Methodology

Over the week of study using groups of two samples were collected in 1L pre-cleaned plastic bottles from the Lake Sidark. Each group received small aliquots until their bottles were filled so that each sample was homogenous and equivalent. The samples were brought to the lab and analyzed without delay to prevent biological transformation. The environmental conditions for each day of sampling were noted. As a part of quality control samples were analyzed in duplicates.

The Methods of analysis for irrigation water quality included titrimetry, pH measurements, electrical conductivity and flame photometry. In the determination of the Acid neutralizing capacity the major anions, carbonate, bicarbonate found in water were analyzed with titration of the sample with a standardized 0.1M HCl solution using a methyl orange indicator. The pH of solution for each 1 ml addition of HCl was recorded. Using a Gran plot the Acid neutralizing capacity was determined.

The hardness of the water sample was determined by EDTA titration using erichromeblack T as an indicator. Using this method there would be difficulty in estimating the endpoints. The Calcium and magnesium present in irrigation water was measured using atomic absorption spectroscopy while the sodium and potassium were determined using flame photometry. Calcium and Magnesium determination in prone to interference by phosphate and therefore a lanthanum solution should be used.

Results

Table 2 of Sampling site observations

Characteristics

20/09/10

27/09/10

4//10/10

Location

The pond ran from north to south. Sampling was done on the west side.

Time

10:35am

10:42am

10:35am

Weather

Partly cloudly with a slight breeze.

Partly cloudy with a little wind

Partly Cloudy, Gentle Breeze.

Colour

Green

Green

Green

System Features

2 sprinkler, artificial waterfall which serves to aerate the water. System was not working

System was not working

System was not working

Depth of water

Usually 7 ft deep in the centre. Now about 4 ft deep (measured by the distance of water level from the pipe)

about 4 ft deep (measured by the distance of water level from the outlet pipe)

about 4 ft deep (measured by the distance of water level from the outlet pipe)

Surrounding features

Grass trimmed with dragonflies, a bird, and butterflies moving around

Presence of green mats (possibly algal mats)

Leaves

A couple of cups and about 4-5 plastic bags

2 sprinkler systems and a waterfall

Lawn around pond was being cut. Rainfell the weekend before sampling was done.

Dragon flies, frogs, red fish

Bacteriology

Water had been through the tertiary treatement so it is assumed that there were no sewage or pathogen bacteria.

No sewage bacteria present

No sewage bacteria present

Temperature in shade

27.3

26.8°C

32oC

Temperature in sunlight

27.9

30.0°C

33.1oC

Temperature of water

33

31.0°C

33.2oC

Table 3 of slopes intercept and detection limit for Na, K, Ca and Mg calibration curve.

Parameters

20/09/10

27/09/20

4/10/10

Na dl

0.2

0.3

1.0

1.0

1.2

Analysis abandoned due to lack of water

K dl

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

Ca dl

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

1.2

Mg dl

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Na slope

15.2

12.8

9.4

9.4

9.5

Analysis abandoned due to lack of water

K slope

30.6

19.9

23.3

23.3

49.8

Ca slope

0.025

0.025

0.047

0.044

0.041

0.033

0.033

0.036

Mg slope

0.619

0.619

0.690

0.751

0.644

0.869

0.869

0.839

Na intercept

-0.5

-0.5

-4.3

-4.3

-3.0

Analysis abandoned due to lack of water

K intercept

-0.1

-0.1

-0.4

-0.4

0.8

Ca intercept

0.000

0.000

0.005

0.004

0.005

0.032

0.032

0.009

Mg intercept

0.007

0.007

0.014

0.009

0.007

0.014

0.014

0.014

The detection limit of the Calibration curve for each cation was low indicating a good calibration. A poor calibration curve implies the analytical technique was not good. The slopes for Na were fairly consistent also indicating that the method worked. The average slope is 14.18. For potassium the 49.8 was rejected using the Q test at a 95% confidence limit and the average slope was 30.79. The slopes obtained for calcium increased over the second week and decreased on the third. However for each day there were good agreement with the slopes obtained. The average slope was 0.752.

Table 4 of Hardness Cations concentration and conductance measurement of samples

Parameters

Hardness meq/L

mg Na/L

mg K/L

mg Ca/L

mg Mg/L

Conductance µSm-1

20/09/10

3.41

15.3

1.84

39.6

10.3

311

6.97

18.3

2.82

35.0

9.6

447

27/09/10

1.78

13.9

2.34

19.0

8.5

398

1.93

13.3

3.24

23.8

8.7

405

1.64

12.9

4.36

26.3

10.1

415

4/10/10

1.17

Analysis abandoned due to lack of water

18.5

3.35

Not done

1.14

9.4

3.35

288

1.25

19.9

3.91

280

1.10

12.1

3.84

288

21/09/09

1.77

46.3

6.37

NR

NR

584

2.61

45.1

6.47

NR

NR

572

1.96

46.3

6.58

NR

NR

583

28/09/09

1.89

28.8

0.64

49.4

8.76

590

1.77

29.2

0.67

53.8

8.87

599

2.22

29.2

0.67

52.1

10.57

591

5/10/09

1.42

47.0

6.79

26.2

6.44

531

1.19

48.0

6.33

39.5

6.98

533

1.37

48.4

6.62

25.0

6.38

528

1.87

49.2

6.71

28.3

6.87

529

12/10/09

3.15

19.0

30.4

56.0

10.85

927

3.08

19.0

28.8

75.9

15.37

2.75

18..5

29.8

61.9

13.95

880

4.06

20.0

29.1

53.6

12.40

906

22/09/08

1.49

18.46

3.10

40.19

4.50

347

1.02

14.11

0.47

34.96

3.50

29/09/08

1.52

13.49

3.70

30.52

8.50

393

1.72

31.82

1.36

32.26

8.20

6/10/08

1.34

12.20

0.98

33.21

10.00

56

1.33

13.15

9.31

35.91

9.96

13/10/08

1.26

10.22

2.11

32.68

8.12

151

2.90

8.29

1.80

33.73

7.75

311

Table 5 of the calculated Hardness Conductance and SAR

Parameter

Hardness

Calculated Hardness

Measured Conductance

Calculated Conductance

SAR

20/09/10

3.41

2.8238

311

178.158

0.560151

6.97

2.535

447

171.725

0.706894

27/09/10

1.78

1.647

398

115.7498

0.666237

1.93

1.903

405

129.352

0.59306

1.64

2.142

415

142.416

0.542073

4/10/10

1.17

1.198

Not done

60.841

1.14

0.744

288

37.229

1.25

1.314

280

66.620

1.10

0.919

288

46.113

The total hardness was determined from the titration of the sample with a standardized EDTA. Over the weeks there was no consistency in the Hardness measurements. On the 27/09/10 and 4/10/10 there were good agreements between the hardness measurements for samples taken on those days. On the 20/09/10 there is a difference between the two samples of 3.41 and 6.97meq/L. This may have been a result of an error in the analytical method. Overall these values are below the standard for irrigation of 5.994meq/L

The Hardness can also be equal to the sum of calcium and magnesium. The Hardness calculated from the sum of Ca and Mg was slightly different from the Hardness measured from the titration of samples with EDTA. Using the F statistical test it was observed that the method of using the concentration of Ca and Mg was a more precise method. However for conductance the measured conductance was more precise than the conductance calculated using the ion concentrations. During the titration with EDTA there would be difficulty in identifying the end point. You will never get 100% it is impossible to analyze every single ions in the water.

Blue - Calcium

Green - Sodium

Orange - Magnesium

Purple - Potassium

All the concentration of the cations were below the suggested standard values.

The calculated SAR over the years was less than 2.5 This means that the potential for sodium hazard was low.

Table 6 of Acid neutralizing capacity ANC and pH measurements

Parameters

Lab pH 1

Lab pH 2

ANC meq/L 1

ANC meq/L 2

20/09/10

10.41

1.11

10.24

10.30

1.48

1.44

10.17

8.66

2.46

1.32

27/09/10

10.22

10.18

1.30

1.34

10.27

10.28

1.03

1.15

9.70

9.90

0.45

1.06

10.31

10.07

1.28

1.21

4/10/10

7.48

8.31

1.42

1.48

8.86

8.76

1.50

1.44

8.17

8.91

21/09/09

9.44

0.49

1.31

9.30

1.26

1.84

9.46

2.37

2.50

28/09/09

9.04

9.07

2.32

2.33

9.50

3.43

9.29

9.01

1.88

1.71

9.76

9.76

3.05

3.25

5/10/09

9.60

9.55

1.27

1.47

9.55

9.46

1.91

1.76

9.47

9.56

2.21

1.83

9.33

9.50

1.67

1.67

12/10/09

6.98

5.80

7.43

7.33

6.45

6.46

7.08

7.15

7.50

7.74

22/09/08

9.18

9.08

2.35

1.86

9.14

9.27

2.15

1.94

29/09/08

7.89

7.82

1.99

2.01

8.09

8.07

2.28

2.27

6/10/08

7.73

7.64

0.74

1.07

8.14

8.00

1.43

1.55

13/10/08

7.73

8.61

1.26

1.48

8.99

8.95

1.49

1.40

8.66

8.62

1.47

1.32

17/09/07

9.19

9.26

1.72

8.75

9.24

2.57

9.25

2.29

2.41

9.06

2.30

2.44

24/09/07

9.46

9.36

2.38

2.39

9.32

9.36

3.14

3.25

9.38

2.69

2.69

9.32

1.65

2.59

1/10/07

8.99

1.68

2.35

9.15

2.67

2.56

9.03

6.12

2.84

9.07

2.11

2.05

8/10/07

8.65

1.70

2.07

8.82

2.11

2.33

8.28

1.63

Table 7 of Average pH and its standard deviation, average ANC and its standard deviations

Parameter

Average pH

Standard deviation

Average ANC

Standard Deviation

20/09/10

10.41

1.11

10.27

0.042

1.46

0.028

9.415

1.067

1.32

27/09/10

10.2

0.028

1.32

0.028

10.275

0.007

1.09

0.084

9.8

0.141

0.755

0.431

10.19

0.169

1.245

0.049

4/10/10

7.895

0.586

1.45

0.042

8.81

0.070

1.47

0.042

8.17

8.91

21/09/09

9.44

0.9

0.579

9.3

1.55

0.410

9.46

2.435

0.091

28/09/09

9.05

0.021

2.325

0.007

9.5

3.43

9.15

0.197

1.795

0.120

9.76

3.15

0.141

5/10/09

9.575

0.035

1.37

0.141

9.46

1.835

0.106

9.515

0.063

2.02

0.268

9.415

0.120

1.67

12/10/09

6.98

7.33

0.007

7.115

0.049

0.169

22/09/08

9.13

0.070

2.105

0.346

9.205

0.091

2.045

0.148

29/09/08

7.855

0.049

2

0.014

8.08

0.014

2.275

0.007

6/10/08

7.685

0.063

0.905

0.233

8

1.49

0.084

13/10/08

8.17

0.622

1.37

0.155

8.97

0.028

1.445

0.063

8.64

0.028

1.395

0.106

17/09/07

9.225

0.049

1.72

8.995

0.346

2.57

9.25

2.35

0.084

9.06

2.37

0.098

24/09/07

9.41

0.070

2.385

0.007

9.34

0.028

3.195

0.077

9.38

2.69

9.32

2.12

0.664

1/10/07

8.99

2.015

0.473

9.15

2.615

0.077

9.03

2.319

9.07

2.08

0.042

8/10/07

8.65

1.885

0.261

8.82

2.22

0.155

8.28

1.63

The pH values recorded over the years was not consistent with the standard range. for 2010 the values were all above the limit of 8.5. This means there is should be an increase in carbonates and an expected increase in ANC and decrease in calcium and magnesium. However this was not observed

Overall for the analysis done in October all results changed variably for each test. It must be noted that the week before the sampling was there was heavy rainfall. The greatest difficulties in this exercise arose from the sampling process. It produced the greatest uncertainty as sample was not homogenous. Problems may have arisen from the buffer solutions thus electrodes were not calibrated properly. With the exception of the test for cation test, the samples were not filtered. The presence of suspended solids may have altered the results.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Water quality criteria should be used as a guideline to define appropriate management practices in irrigated agriculture to maintain existing soil productivity with the benefits of high crop yields under irrigation. Overall it can be concluded that despite the system at Lake Sidrak was not operating at the time of analysis, the water was still suitable for its irrigation purposes.

Although the water quality measurement indicated that the water was suitable for irrigation, the objective of salinity control is to maintain an acceptable crop yield, therefore several management options are available for salinity control.

Salts should be leached out of the root zone before they build up to levels that might affect yields. Around lawns it would be good to plant salt tolerant plants to avoid the impact of long-term salinity build-up. It is essential that fields under irrigation must be leveled .Land leveling provides uniform water application which is important for the leaching of excess salts brought with irrigation water. Field preparation must be such that it should increase soil infiltration. Occasional deep ploughing may improve infiltration. Mulching may prevent surface evaporation and upward transport of salts.

Irrigation scheduling also influences salinity hazard. Sprinkler irrigation is very effective in leaching of excess soil salts, provided water is not sparingly used. Irrigation with small application amount of water but applied with short intervals between each successive irrigation is better than irrigation made at long intervals. Sprinkler irrigation is more effective in leaching of saline soils than other irrigation methods. This is because the overall amount of irrigation water applied in sprinkler systems is comparatively lower than traditional gravity systems.

Appendix 1

Table of Standards for Waste water used for Irrigation

Parameter

Jamaica's Standard

India's Standard

pH

6.0-8.5

6.0-9.0

Electrical conductivity at 25 oC micro mhos/cm

2250

Alkalinity, mg/l, Max

200

Total Hardness (as CaCo3), mg/l, Max

300

Chlorides (as Cl), mg/l, Max

300 mg/l

250

Calcium as (Ca), mg/l, Max

No Standard

75

Magnesium (as Mg), mg/l, Max

No standard

30

Sodium

100 mg/l

Table of salinity of water based on Electrical Conductance values

Class

EC dsm-1

Comments

Low salinityy

<0.75

No detrimental effects will usually be observed

Medium salinity

0.75-3.00

May have detrimental effects on sensitive crops and will require careful management.

High salinity

>3.00

To be used only for salt tolerant crops on permeable soils with careful management.

Table of the sodium hazard of water based on SAR Values.

SAR values

Sodium Hazard of water

Comments

1-10

Low

Use on sodium sensitive crops such as avocados

must be cautioned.

10-18

Medium

Amendments (such as Gypsum) and leaching needed.

18-26

High

Generally unsuitable for continuous use.

>26

Very High

Generally unsuitable for use.

Appendix 2

To Convert

Opeartion

To Obtain

mg/L

x 1.0

ppm

Concentration (mol/m3)

x atomic weight

Concentration (ppm)

1 dS/m

x 1.0

1 mmho/cm

1 mmho/cm

x 1,000

1 µmho/cm

ECw(dS/m) for ECw<5 dS/m

x 640

TDS (mg/L)

EC (dS/m) for

EC >5 dS/m

x 800

TDS (mg/L)

EC (dS/m)

x 10

C -Sum of dissolved cations/anions (meq/L) or (mmolL-1)

mg/L

÷ by atomic weight of ion divided by ionic charge

(Na+=23.0 mg/meq, Ca++=20.0 mg/meq, Mg++=12.15 mg/meq)

meq/L

mg/l

÷ equivalent weight

meq/L

meq/L

x1.0

millimol/litre adjusted for electron charge.

Definitions

Abbrev.

Meaning

mg/L

milligrams per liter

meq/L

milliequivalents per liter

ppm

parts per million

dS/m

deciSiemens per meter

µS/cm

microSiemens per centimeter

mmho/cm

millimhos per centimeter

Writing Services

Essay Writing
Service

Find out how the very best essay writing service can help you accomplish more and achieve higher marks today.

Assignment Writing Service

From complicated assignments to tricky tasks, our experts can tackle virtually any question thrown at them.

Dissertation Writing Service

A dissertation (also known as a thesis or research project) is probably the most important piece of work for any student! From full dissertations to individual chapters, we’re on hand to support you.

Coursework Writing Service

Our expert qualified writers can help you get your coursework right first time, every time.

Dissertation Proposal Service

The first step to completing a dissertation is to create a proposal that talks about what you wish to do. Our experts can design suitable methodologies - perfect to help you get started with a dissertation.

Report Writing
Service

Reports for any audience. Perfectly structured, professionally written, and tailored to suit your exact requirements.

Essay Skeleton Answer Service

If you’re just looking for some help to get started on an essay, our outline service provides you with a perfect essay plan.

Marking & Proofreading Service

Not sure if your work is hitting the mark? Struggling to get feedback from your lecturer? Our premium marking service was created just for you - get the feedback you deserve now.

Exam Revision
Service

Exams can be one of the most stressful experiences you’ll ever have! Revision is key, and we’re here to help. With custom created revision notes and exam answers, you’ll never feel underprepared again.