Question 1

Human body composition: Approximately what percentage of an average adult human body is water by weight?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Water is the dominant component of the human body and underpins circulation, cellular function, and temperature regulation. Estimating body water percentage is a basic biological fact relevant to health sciences and environmental engineering where human exposure and hydration are discussed. Given Data / Assumptions: Average healthy adult, mixed body composition. Estimates rounded to broad percentages. No special conditions such as extreme obesity or dehydration. Concept / Approach: Total body water spans intracellular and extracellular compartments. Typical averages cite about two thirds of body mass as water; many references summarize this as roughly 60 to 70 percent depending on sex, age, and body fat. For a broad recall question, 70 percent is a commonly taught value highlighting the predominance of water in tissues. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall the conventional range for adults: about 60 to 70 percent.Select the representative midpoint used in many textbooks and quizzes.Therefore, choose 70 percent as the standard answer for average adult context. Verification / Alternative check: Physiology texts show total body water approximately 0.6 to 0.7 times body weight. Variations by sex and age shift the exact number, but 70 percent remains a widely accepted rounded figure. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 20 percent and 40 percent are far below physiological norms. 85 percent is characteristic of certain organisms or infants, not average adults. 55 percent understates typical adult values used in general education. Common Pitfalls: Applying a single exact number to all populations. The exact percentage is context dependent; the question seeks a standard rounded estimate. Final Answer: 70 percent

Question 2

Drinking water quality: The presence of manganese in supply water most directly promotes the growth of which organisms or nuisances?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Trace metals such as iron and manganese in water create aesthetic and operational problems. Beyond staining and taste, these metals can support biofilm development and encourage the growth of specific nuisance micro-organisms. Identifying the correct biological response informs treatment choices like oxidation and filtration. Given Data / Assumptions: Distribution system carrying finished water with manganese present. Normal temperature conditions. Focus on biological growth influenced by manganese. Concept / Approach: Manganese can act as an energy source for certain bacteria, often referred to as manganese oxidizing or reducing bacteria. In distribution systems, these organisms produce deposits and slimy films, degrade aesthetics, and can shield pathogens. While nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates drive algal blooms in surface waters, manganese specifically correlates with biofilm and microbial nuisance issues inside pipes and fixtures. Step-by-Step Solution: Differentiate open water algae problems from closed pipe biofilm issues.Recognize that manganese favors specific micro-organisms that metabolize manganese compounds.Note that mosquitoes require stagnant surface water, not trace metals in treated water.Therefore, the presence of manganese promotes growth of micro-organisms. Verification / Alternative check: Utilities experiencing manganese problems report black deposits and microbiological growth, and remedy them through pre oxidation, greensand filtration, or biological filtration that targets iron and manganese removal. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Algae and higher plants are primarily nutrient limited by nitrogen and phosphorus. Mosquitoes depend on breeding habitats rather than dissolved manganese. Files is a typographical error for flies and is unrelated to dissolved metals. Common Pitfalls: Confusing nutrient driven algal blooms with metal associated biofilms. Control strategies differ substantially. Final Answer: Micro-organisms including nuisance bacteria

Question 3

Environmental acoustics: Approximately what sound level would an audience member in the 5th row experience during a large orchestra performance, expressed in decibels (dB)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Live music generates substantial sound pressure levels. Understanding representative decibel values helps assess exposure and hearing protection needs. An orchestra in a large hall produces peaks much higher than typical conversation, and audience position matters. Given Data / Assumptions: Large orchestra in a concert hall with the audience seated. Listener is in the 5th row near the stage. Decibel values refer to A weighted levels typical for exposure considerations. Concept / Approach: Decibels are logarithmic. Orchestral peaks can exceed 100 dB near the front rows, with averages somewhat lower. Extremely high values like 160 dB or 185 dB approach levels associated with shock waves or very close proximity to explosions, not seated audiences. A practical representative value in the 5th row is about 105 dB, which captures loud passages without resorting to unrealistic extremes. Step-by-Step Solution: Place the listener close to the sound source.Consult typical measurement ranges for orchestral performances.Select the value that aligns with known peak exposures in front rows.Therefore, 105 dB is the appropriate approximate value. Verification / Alternative check: Published measurements in halls show front row peaks crossing 100 dB, while mid hall levels are somewhat lower, reinforcing the chosen estimate. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 135 dB, 160 dB, and 185 dB are excessive for seated audiences and would risk immediate hearing damage. 85 dB is more typical of distant seats or average levels, not front row peaks. Common Pitfalls: Confusing average with peak levels or mixing small amplified venues with large acoustic halls. Final Answer: 105 dB

Question 4

Water pollution effects: The presence of non biodegradable surfactants such as alkyl benzene sulphonate (ABS) in a polluted stream most directly causes which visible or operational problem?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Surfactants reduce surface tension and change how bubbles form and persist. Non biodegradable detergents such as alkyl benzene sulphonate, abbreviated as ABS, were historically problematic in wastewater because they resisted biological breakdown and created conspicuous foaming. Understanding this signature effect helps diagnose pollutant types during field observations. Given Data / Assumptions: ABS present in polluted surface water or wastewater. Aeration from turbulence or cascading flow exists. No advanced treatment steps removing surfactants. Concept / Approach: Surfactant molecules stabilize air water interfaces. Under agitation, bubbles coalesce and are prevented from collapsing rapidly, forming long lasting foam blankets. Biodegradable linear alkylbenzene sulfonates replaced early ABS to mitigate this issue. Oxygen depletion may occur indirectly due to high organic loads, but the most characteristic, immediate symptom of ABS is persistent foam formation that accumulates downstream of weirs, aerators, or outfalls. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the pollutant class: non biodegradable surfactant.Recall the primary physical manifestation: stable foam.Relate field conditions: turbulence enhances foam visibility.Therefore, persistent foam is the most direct effect. Verification / Alternative check: Historical case studies show excessive foaming in rivers receiving detergent laden effluents before regulatory changes mandated biodegradable formulations. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Fire and explosion hazards are not typical for dilute surfactants. Dissolved oxygen depletion may arise from broader organic loading, not uniquely from ABS. Immediate fish kills require acute toxicity or severe hypoxia rather than surfactant presence alone. Common Pitfalls: Attributing any foam to ABS. Natural foams can occur from organic matter; chemical analysis is needed for confirmation. Final Answer: Persistent foam on the water surface

Question 5

Environmental engineering safety: in human exposure terms, at approximately what carbon monoxide (CO) concentration in ambient air (ppm) does the risk escalate to a level where death is expected if exposure persists (note: 0.3% by volume equals 3000…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless and odorless gas produced by incomplete combustion. In environmental engineering and occupational hygiene, recognizing the order of magnitude at which CO becomes fatal is essential for designing controls, alarms, and response plans. This item asks for the concentration at which death is expected if exposure persists, using the ppm scale common to air monitoring. Given Data / Assumptions: Ambient air exposure context, not short-duration, high-pressure lab exposure. Units are parts per million (ppm). Relationship: 0.3% by volume equals 3000 ppm. No supplied oxygen enrichment or respiratory protection. Concept / Approach: CO binds with hemoglobin to form carboxyhemoglobin (COHb), reducing oxygen delivery to tissues. As concentration and duration rise, COHb increases nonlinearly. Guidance tables associate low hundreds of ppm with serious symptoms over time and thousands of ppm with rapid collapse and death. Thus the highest option given, 3000 ppm, corresponds to a level where fatality is expected in the absence of rapid rescue. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Map 0.3% to 3000 ppm to align units. 2) Compare typical health effects by range: tens of ppm cause mild symptoms with prolonged exposure; hundreds cause severe symptoms; thousands lead to rapid loss of consciousness and death. 3) Select the option that matches fatal conditions: 3000 ppm. Verification / Alternative check: Alarm standards and toxicology summaries consistently indicate that several thousand ppm of CO can be rapidly fatal, matching 3000 ppm as a lethal regime. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 50 ppm: elevated but not generally fatal with brief exposure. 500 ppm: very hazardous, but not inevitably fatal with short exposure. 1000 ppm: extremely dangerous; still lower than typical fatal regime in this framing. Common Pitfalls: Confusing short-term ceiling limits with certain-fatality thresholds; ignoring exposure duration effects and victim susceptibility. Final Answer: 3000 ppm (0.3%)

Question 6

Atmospheric layers and temperature profile: identify the wrong statement regarding the mass distribution, temperature trend, and position of the troposphere and stratosphere within the earth system up to roughly 200 km.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Environmental engineering frequently draws on basic meteorology to understand pollutant dispersion, stability, and ozone shielding. This question checks conceptual understanding of where air mass is concentrated and how temperature changes with height in the lowest two layers: the troposphere and the stratosphere. Given Data / Assumptions: Focus on troposphere vs stratosphere only. Qualitative temperature trends with altitude are sufficient. Heights are approximate; the atmosphere extends well beyond 200 km, but 200 km is a commonly cited round figure in simple descriptions. Concept / Approach: The troposphere contains the majority of atmospheric mass (on the order of 75–80%) and exhibits a temperature decrease with altitude on average (the environmental lapse rate). The stratosphere sits above the troposphere and displays increasing temperature with height due to ozone absorption of ultraviolet radiation. Therefore, any statement that assigns most mass to the stratosphere or says that stratospheric temperature steadily decreases is incorrect. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Mass distribution: most air mass resides in the troposphere due to compression by gravity. 2) Temperature trend: average troposphere cools with height; stratosphere warms with height. 3) Evaluate each statement; the one claiming the stratosphere both contains ~70% of mass and cools with height conflicts with fundamentals. 4) Select that statement as the wrong one. Verification / Alternative check: Standard-atmosphere profiles show a 6.5 C per km average tropospheric decrease and a positive gradient in the stratosphere. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option (b): Ozone concentration peaks in the stratosphere above the tropopause; correct. Option (c): The troposphere hosts weather, clouds, and most water vapor; correct. Option (d): 200 km is a rounded descriptive figure; while simplification, it is acceptable in many primers. Common Pitfalls: Mixing up the sign of the temperature gradient; assuming equal mass per layer by thickness rather than by compression effects. Final Answer: Statement (a) is wrong.

Question 7

Radioactive solid nuclear wastes: select the recommended disposal method used in practice to isolate long-lived radionuclides safely from the biosphere.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Nuclear facilities and some medical or industrial processes generate radioactive solid wastes that may remain hazardous for decades to millennia. The aim of disposal is to keep radionuclides isolated from people and ecosystems over the relevant time scales. This question asks which method aligns with established practice for high-integrity isolation. Given Data / Assumptions: Waste is radioactive solid material, not low-hazard general refuse. Objective is long-term isolation rather than volume reduction alone. Compliance with multi-barrier containment concepts. Concept / Approach: Safe radioactive waste disposal relies on engineered and natural barriers. Incineration or pyrolysis are thermal volume-reduction techniques that are appropriate for combustible non-radioactive wastes or certain low-level streams after robust off-gas controls, but they do not constitute final isolation for long-lived nuclides. Deep or secure underground burial using robust containers and backfill, often in geologically stable formations, provides the required long-term containment. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the regulatory goal: isolate radionuclides for long times. 2) Evaluate options that reduce volume but fail isolation (incineration, pathological incineration, pyrolysis). 3) Select the method that ensures physical separation and containment: underground burial in concrete or engineered containers. Verification / Alternative check: Repository designs use multiple barriers such as waste forms, containers, backfills, seals, and the host rock to minimize migration. Why Other Options Are Wrong: High-temperature incineration: not a final isolation method and creates radioactive off-gas issues. Pathological incineration: a term for biomedical wastes, not suitable as a final method for radioactive solids. Pyrolysis: thermal treatment without assured long-term containment. Common Pitfalls: Equating volume reduction with safe disposal; overlooking the necessity of geological stability and engineered barriers for long-lived waste. Final Answer: Underground burial in concrete containers

Environmental Engineering Questions