submitted in partial fulfillment of the … nkpa mba.pdf · submitted in partial fulfillment of the...

1

OGAREKPE, NKPA MBA PG/M.ENG/08/49772

THE EFFECT OF HYDRAULIC JUMP ON THE

PERFORMANCE OF WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS

Civil Engineering

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN WATER AND

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

Webmaster

Digitally Signed by Webmaster’s Name

DN : CN = Webmaster’s name O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka

OU = Innovation Centre

2010

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

2

THE EFFECT OF HYDRAULIC JUMP ON

THE PERFORMANCE OF WASTE

STABILIZATION PONDS

BY

OGAREKPE, NKPA MBA REG. NO. PG/M.ENG/08/49772

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

JANUARY, 2010

3

THE EFFECT OF HYDRAULIC JUMP ON THE

PERFORMANCE OF WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS

BY

OGAREKPE, NKPA MBA REG. NO. PG/M.ENG/08/49772

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN WATER AND

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

TO THE

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

January, 2010

4

TITLE PAGE

THE EFFECT OF HYDRAULIC JUMP ON THE PERFORMANCE OF WASTE

STABILIZATION PONDS

CERTIFICATION

5

Ogarekpe, Nkpa Mba, a postgraduate student in the Department of Civil Engineering with Reg.

No. PG/M.ENG/08/49772 has satisfactorily completed the requirements for the research work

for the degree of Master of Engineering in Civil Engineering. The work embodied in this thesis

is original and has not been submitted in full for any other diploma or degree of this or any other

university.

................................................

Ogarekpe, Nkpa Mba

(Student)

................................................ ................................................

Engr. Prof. J. C. Agunwamba Engr. Prof. J. C. Agunwamba

(SUPERVISOR) (HEAD OF DEPARTMENT)

................................................................ .........................................................

DEAN, FACULTY OF ENGINEERING (EXTERNAL EXAMINER)

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to the Almighty God and my parents for their love and encouragement.

6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my endless gratitude to God for his continuous protection throughout

the period of this work.

7

I am greatly indebted to my supervisor Engr. Prof. J.C. Agunwamba whose invaluable

guidance, comments, patience, efficient supervision, direction and encouragement saw to the

completion of the project.

Also, I wish to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of the laboratory technologists,

Mr. Nwogu, Mr. Anyanwu Chinedu, Mrs. Eze and the undergraduate colleagues for assisting me

in the practical work.

My sincere gratitude goes to Engr. Abraham Avi Levi, the Chief Resident Engineer,

Tahal Consulting Engineers Ltd., Engr. Alfred Obeten and the entire staff of Tahal Consulting

Engineers for their love and understanding.

Not the least, are all the people whose names are not mentioned at this point. Please

accept my appreciation for your different contributions.

Finally, my appreciation goes to all the members of the Ogarekpe’s family for their love,

encouragement and support.

ABSTRACT

One of the simplest forms of biological treatment processes used in the tropics is the waste

stabilization pond (WSP). The relative simplicity and low operating cost of the WSP make it the

preferred technology for handling, treatment and disposal of municipal waste for small

8

communities. However, its use in urban areas is limited because of its large area requirement.

Hence, the research is aimed at investigating if the introduction of hydraulic jump in the Waste

Stabilization Pond can increase treatment efficiency and consequently reduce the land area

requirement. Thus, WSPs with varying number of hydraulic jumps were constructed using

metallic tanks. The hydraulic jumps were created to introduce turbulence thereby adding

dissolved oxygen in the pond. Wastewater samples collected from different points (including

inlets and outlets) in the ponds were examined for physio-chemical and biological characteristics

for a period of ten weeks. The parameters examined were dissolved oxygen, coliform,

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand and dispersion number. The

efficiencies of the WSPs with respect to these parameters fluctuated with variations in the

atmospheric conditions and varying discharge with the highest efficiency obtained from the pond

with two hydraulic jumps. The research revealed that the cost of wastewater treatment using

hydraulic jump-enabled WSP was about one and a half times lower than the conventional WSP

for the same efficiencies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE.......................................................................................................................ii

CERTIFICATION PAGE...................................................................................................iii

DEDICATION......................................................................................................................iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT....................................................................................................v

ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS.....................................................................................................vii-viii

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................ix

9

LIST OF PLATES................................................................................................................x

LIST OF FIGURES..............................................................................................................xi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study..................................................................................................1-2

1.2 Research Problem.......................................................................................................2

1.3 Significance of Research............................................................................................2

1.4 Research Objectives...................................................................................................3

1.5 Limitations.................................................................................................................3

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview of Waste Stabilization Pond.......................................................................4-5

2.2 Waste Stabilization Pond Processes...........................................................................6-7

2.3 Types of Waste Stabilization Pond.............................................................................7

2.3.1 Anaerobic Ponds..............................................................................................8

2.3.2 Facultative Ponds.............................................................................................8-10

2.3.3 Maturation Ponds.............................................................................................10-11

2.3.4 High Rate Algal Pond......................................................................................11

2.3.5 Microphyte Pond.............................................................................................11-12

2.3.6 Other Types.....................................................................................................12

2.4 Factors Affecting the Efficiency of Waste Stabilization Pond..................................12

2.4.1 Pond Geometry................................................................................................12

2.4.2 Solar Altitude Angle........................................................................................13

2.4.3 Solar Azimuth Angle.......................................................................................13

2.4.4 Temperature.....................................................................................................13

2.4.5 Solar radiation..................................................................................................13-14

2.5 Effect of Algae Concentration and Organic Loading on the Kinetic Models of Bacteria

die-Off .........................................................................................................................15-16

2.6 Pond Hydraulics...........................................................................................................16

2.7 Inlet and Outlet Structures...........................................................................................16-17

2.8 Effluent Standards........................................................................................................17-18

2.9 Evaluation of Pond Performance.................................................................................19

2.10 Design and Construction of Pond with Hydraulic Jump.............................................19-20

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study Area...............................................................................................................21

3.2 Collection of Samples and Description of Experimental Setup............................21-23

3.3 Methods of Analysis...............................................................................................24

3.4 Laboratory Method.................................................................................................24

3.4.1 Coliform Test..............................................................................................24

3.4.2 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)........................................................25

3.4.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD).............................................................25

3.4.4 Dissolved Oxygen (DO)..............................................................................26

10

3.4.5 Tracers Studies............................................................................................26-28

3.5 Calculation of Parameters.......................................................................................29

3.5.1 Total Coliform MPN Test...........................................................................29

3.5.2 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)........................................................29

3.5.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD).............................................................29-30

3.5.4 Tracers Studies............................................................................................30

3.5.5 Dispersion Number.....................................................................................30

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Presentation of Results……………………………………………………………31

4.2 Effect of Hydraulic Jump on the Treatment Efficiency.........................................31

4.2.1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand....................................................................31-32

4.2.2 Chemical Oxygen Demand.........................................................................32

4.2.3 Coliform Bacteria.......................................................................................32-33

4.2.4 Dissolved Oxygen.......................................................................................33

4.2.5 Dispersion Number.....................................................................................33

4.2 Graphs.....................................................................................................................34-37

4.3 Cost Benefit Analysis.............................................................................................38

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Conclusion..............................................................................................................39

5.1 Recommendations..................................................................................................40

REFERNCES..........................................................................................................41-43

APPENDICES.........................................................................................................44-109

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Minimum Recommendation: Effluent Standards....................................18

Table 3.1 Detailed Descriptions of the Various Ponds..............................................22

Table 4.1 Comparison between Pond with Hydraulic Jump(s) and the Conventional

Pond that will achieve the same Bacteria Reduction.................................39

11

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 3.1 Experimental Setup.................................................................................22

Plate 3.2 Collection of Sample at Pond with One Jump.........................................27

Plate 3.3 Coliform Test...........................................................................................27

Plate 3.4 Chemical Oxygen Demand Test..............................................................28

12

Plate 3.5 Dissolved Oxygen Test............................................................................28

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Pathways of BOD removal in primary facultative ponds....................9

Figure 2.2 Fully Developed Hydraulic Jump........................................................20

Figure 3.1 Schematic Diagram of Experimental Setup.........................................23

Figure 4.1 Efficiency of BOD removal versus time..............................................34

13

Figure 4.2 Efficiency of COD removal versus time..............................................34

Figure 4.3 Efficiency of Coliform removal versus time........................................35

Figure 4.4 Percentage Increase in DO versus discharge........................................35

Figure 4.5 Efficiency of BOD removal versus Height of Jump...........................36

Figure 4.6 Efficiency of BOD removal versus Height of Jump............................36

Figure 4.7 Efficiency of COD removal versus Height of Jump............................37

Figure 4.8 Efficiency of COD removal versus Height of Jump.............................37

Figure 4.9 Dispersion number versus Discharge....................................................38

Figure 4.10 Dispersion number versus Height of jump............................................38

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY

One of the primary objectives of science and engineering has been to harness all

the available abundant resources of nature, in order to achieve a reasonable standard of

living. However, the contaminations of these resources (air, water, land) have continually

posed the gravest pressing environmental problems facing the world today. As a source

of greater concern, humans must only depend only on the 0.62 percent of the earth's total

water supply for general livelihood and support of their varied technical and agricultural

activities.

In addition, the waste cycle obligates cities, towns and industries to send back

wastewater effluents of acceptable quality. At one end of the quality spectrum of water

14

lie objectives and standards for safe and palatable drinking water or waste water effluents

to be introduced into receiving streams. Between the two, fall quality criteria for bathing,

fishing, harvesting, irrigation and industrial waters. Consequent upon this, wastewater

treatment has become a critical factor in the public and economic development of most

parts of the world. It becomes the critical theme around which revolve prescriptions for

the reclamation of the physical, chemical and biological properties of water.

There is presently widespread interest with regard to the handling and treatment

of wastewater because of the effects on receiving streams and also future needs in some

areas. The introduction of hydraulic jump in waste stabilization ponds is herein studied to

determine the effect on the reclamation of the physical, chemical and biological

properties of water. The main constraint against selecting this technology is not land cost

but land availability.

A Hydraulic jump occurs when liquid at high velocity discharges into a zone of

lower velocity, a rather abrupt rise (a step or standing wave) occurs in the liquid surface.

The rapid flowing liquid is abruptly slowed and increases in height converting some of

the flow's initial kinetic energy into an increase in potential energy, with some energy

irreversibly lost through turbulence to heat. A hydraulic jump occurs when the upstream

flow is supercritical. There must be a flow impediment for hydraulic jump to occur. The

downstream impediment could be a weir, a bridge abutment, a dam or simply channel

friction. Water depth increases during hydraulic jump. A common example of a hydraulic

jump is the roughly circular stationary wave that forms around the central stream of

water. The jump is at the transition between the points where the circle appears still and

where the turbulence is visible.

15

1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM

Due to the fact that treatment of wastewater by hydraulic jump is not widely

known, there are few available data in this area. Additional information were obtained

from interviews of experts in WSP, internet, and journals.

1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH

This study on the effect of hydraulic jump on the performance of waste

stabilization ponds is to determine whether the introduction of hydraulic jump would

increase the efficiency of the treatment process and hence the reduction in land area

requirement of waste stabilization ponds. If this is achieved it will widen the applicability

and popularity of the waste stabilization pond and possibly make it more affordable for

use in rural communities.

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are:

1.4.1 To determine the effect of hydraulic jump on the efficiency of waste stabilization

pond for sewage treatment.

1.4.2 To determine the effect of hydraulic jump on other pond parameters.

1.4.3 To study the hydraulic properties of the ponds using tracer studies.

1.4.4 To investigate the cost implications of introducing hydraulic jump in waste

stabilization pond.

1.5 LIMITATION

The research is capital intensive due to high cost of the various reagents

used for the determination of the parameters. Due to this, the experiment could

16

not be conducted for a longer time.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 OVERVIEW OF WASTE STABILIZATION POND

Waste stabilization ponds (WSPs) are popular wastewater treatment system used

for the removal of organics and pathogenic organisms. It consists of a large, shallow

earthen basin in which wastewater is retained long enough for natural purification

processes to provide the necessary degree of treatment. High efficiencies of WSP have

been reported with respect to removal of intestinal nematode (Lakshminarayama and

Abdulappa, 1972; Feachem et al, 1983; Saqqar and Pescode, 1992); organic compounds

and faecal bacteria (Mara, 1976). In addition, it is also economical (Arthur, 1983). It is

simple to construct, operate and maintain and it does not require any input of external

energy.

17

The screened raw sewage is treated in the waste stabilization pond by natural

processes based on the activities of both algae and bacteria. Although some oxygen is

provided by diffusion from the air, the bulk of the oxygen in the ponds is provided by

photosynthesis (Howard et al., 1985). WSP system usually requires large land area

because of its long detention time which is still suitable in several African communities

where land acquisition is not a problem. Besides, its efficiency depends on the

availability of sunlight and high ambient temperature which are the prevailing climate

conditions in most of these communities.

In addition to being useful in the treatment of sewage, waste stabilization pond is

being applied in the treatment of industrial and agricultural wastes. Its long detention

time; its relatively slow-rates of sludge accumulation; and its physicochemical conditions

such as neutrality to alkaline pH, make it attractive in treating industrial wastewaters.

Besides, in maturation ponds, aerobic conditions promote precipitation of heavy metals.

Ponds have been successfully used to treat industrial wastes high in copper and group II

metals, waste from palm oil and natural rubber industries and polishing waste water from

activated sludge plants and trickling filter (Agunwamba, 2001).

However, the main constraint against selecting this technology is not land cost but

land availability. WSPs are limited in application by their large area requirement (Mara

et al., 1983). In the past, researches have been conducted to improve pond efficiency,

thereby maximizing land use by solar enhanced wastewater treatment in waste

stabilization ponds (Agunwamba et al., 2009), using optimization techniques

(Agunwamba and Tanko, 2005), using recirculation stabilization ponds in series (Shelef

et al, 1978), step feeding (Shelef et al., 1978), incorporating an attached growth system

(Shin and Polpraset, 1987) and more accurate estimation of pond design parameters

18

(Agunwamba, 1992; Marecos do Monte and Mara, 1987; Mayo, 1989; Polpraset et al.,

1983; Sarikaya and Saatci, 1987; Sarikaya et al., 1987; Sweeney et al., 2007). In

addition, higher pond depths have been investigated for reduction of the pond surface

area (Hosetti and Patil, 1987; Oragui et al., 1987; Pearson et al., 2005; Silver et al.,1987).

Agunwamba (2001) investigated the effect of tapering on WSP performance.

However, no work seems to have been done on the utilization of ponds with

hydraulic jump.

Waste stabilization ponds are classified according to the nature of the biological

activities taking place. Other criteria for classification include the types of influent

(untreated, screened, or activated sludge influent), pond overflow condition, and method

of oxygenation. In terms of biological activities; ponds are classified as anaerobic,

facultative and maturation ponds.

2.2 WASTE STABILIZATION POND PROCESSES

The processes that take place in WSPs depend on the efficient utilization of

sunlight energy through large scale culture and algae in the satisfaction of the oxygen

demand of organic waste. Sunlight energy is absorbed by pond algae which through

photosynthesis release molecular oxygen into the pond. This oxygen is used by aerobic

sewage bacteria in decomposing the organic matter from waste newly introduced into the

pond and from aerobic sludge accumulated in the pond as a result of previous bacterial

activities. During bacterial oxidation of the organic matter, its basic molecular

components such as carbon dioxide, ammonia and phosphates are released into the liquid

and become available for algal growth. The cycle continues so long as sunlight and

nutrient are supplied. Thus, large energy is used to produce oxygen and to effect waste

treatment, excess oxygen is liberated into the atmosphere and excess algae are produced

19

in the process. It is then obvious that more oxygen will be produced in shallow lagoon

than in a deeper lagoon of the same volume. As the waste enters the lagoon, the heavier

solids settle and form a sludge layer where they undergo anaerobic digestion. The soluble

waste is firstly oxidized aerobically by lagoon bacteria according to the following:

Waste + O-2

+ Bacteria = Waste + New bacteria

Sewage treatment in stabilization pond depends on aerobic decomposition of organic

matter than the bacterial decomposition of this organic matter which release oxygen

during the day light. Oxygen also dissolves from the atmosphere at the lagoon surface.

Hence, a large ratio of surface area to volume is desirable. Aeration, however, may be

used to increase oxygen supply which decreases substantially at night and in cold weather

when algae depend solely on oxygen

Dissolution of oxygen in the pond also depends on mixing of contents. The oxygen

concentration is uniformly dispersed throughout the pond depth during mixing, but

during stratification, oxygen is only found in the upper 0.5cm of the pond, the major part

of the remaining is anaerobic. The situation now arises where, during summer, if the

wind velocities are insufficient to break the stratification, algae concentration is low.

Hence, the rate oxygen is produced is low and is not dispersed throughout the pond. At

the same time, BOD feed-back from the sludge is high and the rate of oxygen depletion is

high, if the dissolved oxygen capacity is insufficient to meet the increased oxygen

demand. The pond forms anaerobic and where the pond does not form anaerobic, sludge

rising to the surface may result to odour problems.

2.3 TYPES OF WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS

WSP systems comprise a single string of anaerobic, facultative and maturation ponds in

20

series, or several such series in parallel. In essence, anaerobic and facultative ponds are

designed for removal of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), and maturation ponds for

pathogen removal, although some BOD removal also occurs in maturation ponds and

some pathogen removal in anaerobic and facultative ponds (Mara, 1987). In most cases,

only anaerobic and facultative ponds will be needed for BOD when the effluent is to be

used for restricted crop irrigation and fish pond, fertilization as well as when weak

sewage is to be treated prior to its discharge to surface waters. Maturation ponds are only

required when the effluent is to be used for unrestricted irrigation, thereby having to

comply with the WHO guideline of > 1000 faecal coliform bacteria/100ml. The WSP

does not require mechanical mixing, needing only sunlight to supply most of its

oxygenation. Its performance may be measured in terms of its removal of BOD and

faecal coliform bacteria.

2.3.1 Anaerobic ponds

Anaerobic ponds are commonly 2 – 5m deep and receive wastewater with high organic

loads (i.e. usually greater than 100g BOD/m3.day, equivalent to more than 3000kg/ha.day

for a depth of 3m). They normally do not contain dissolved oxygen or algae. In anaerobic

ponds, BOD removal is achieved by sedimentation of solids, and subsequent anaerobic

digestion in the resulting sludge. The process of anaerobic digestion is more intense at

temperature above 15oC. The anaerobic bacteria are sensitive to pH < 6.2. Thus, acidic

water must be neutralized prior to its treatment in anaerobic ponds. A properly designed

anaerobic pond will achieve about 40% removal of BOD at 10oC, and more than 60% at

20oC. A shorter retention time of 1.0 – 1.5 days is commonly used.

21

2.3.2 Facultative Ponds

Facultative ponds (1-2m deep) are of two types: Primary facultative ponds that

receive raw wastewater, and secondary facultative ponds that receive particle-free

wastewater (usually from anaerobic ponds, septic tanks, primary facultative ponds, and

shallow sewerage systems). The process of oxidation of organic matter by aerobic

bacteria is usually dominant in primary facultative ponds or secondary facultative ponds.

The processes in anaerobic and secondary facultative ponds occur simultaneously

in primary facultative ponds, as shown in figure 2.1. It is estimated that about 30% of the

influent BOD leaves the primary facultative pond in the form of methane (Marais, 1970).

A high portion of the BOD that does not leave the pond as methane ends up in algae. This

process requires more time, more land area, and possibly 2-3 weeks water retention time,

rather than 2-3 days in the anaerobic pond. In the secondary facultative pond (and the

upper layers of primary facultative ponds), sewage BOD is converted into “Algal BOD,”

and has implications for effluent quality requirements. About 70-90% of the BOD of the

final effluent from a series of well-designed WSPs is related to the algae they contain.

Fig. 2.1 Pathways of BOD removal in primary facultative ponds (After Marais, 1970)

22

In secondary facultative ponds that receive particle-free sewage (anaerobic

effluent), the remaining non-settleable BOD is oxidized by heterotrophic bacteria

(Pseudomonas, Flavobacterium, Archromobacter and Alcaligenes spp.). The oxygen

required for oxidation of BOD is obtained from photosynthetic activity of the micro-algae

that grow naturally and profusely in facultative ponds.

Facultative ponds are designed for BOD removal on the basis of a relatively low surface

loading (100-400 kg BOD/ha.day), in order to allow for the development of a healthy

algal population, since the oxygen for BOD removal by the pond bacteria is generated

primarily via algal photosynthesis. The facultative pond relies on naturally-growing

algae. The facultative ponds are usually dark-green in colour because of the algae they

contain. Motile algae (Chlamydomonas and Euglena) tend to predominate the turbid

water in facultative ponds, compared to none-motile algae (Chlorella).

The algae concentration in the pond depends on nutrient loading, temperature and

sunlight, but is usually in the range of 500-2000µg chlorophyll-a/litre (Mara, 1987).

Because of the photosynthetic activities of pond algae, there is a diurnal variation in

dissolved oxygen concentration. The dissolved oxygen concentration in the water

gradually rises after sunrise, in response to photosynthetic activity, to a maximum level in

the mid-afternoon, after which it falls to a minimum during the night, when

photosynthesis ceases and respiratory activities consume oxygen. At peak algal activity,

carbonate and bicarbonate ions react to provide more carbon dioxide for the algae,

leaving an excess of hydroxyl ions. As a result, the pH of water can rise to above 9,

which can kill faecal coli form. Good water mixing, which is usually facilitated by wind

within the upper water layer, ensures a uniform distribution of BOD, dissolved oxygen,

23

bacteria and algae, thereby leading to a better degree of waste stabilization.

2.3.3 Maturation Pond

Maturation ponds (low-cost polishing ponds, which succeed the primary or

secondary facultative pond) are primarily designed for tertiary treatment, i.e., the removal

of pathogens, nutrients and possibly algae. They are very shallow (usually around 1m

depth, although Mara (1997) believes that at this reduced depth emergent plant growth

and mosquito breeding problems can result) to allow light penetration to the bottom and

aerobic conditions throughout the whole depth. The ponds follow a secondary treatment,

a facultative pond. The size and number of maturation ponds needed in series is

determined by the required retention time to achieve a specified effluent pathogen

concentration. In the absence of effluent limits for pathogens, maturation ponds act as a

buffer for facultative pond failure and are useful for nutrient removal (Mara and Pearson,

1998). Mara (1970) notes that if an anaerobic and secondary facultative pond system is

used, this will produce an effluent suitable for restricted irrigation. Therefore, addition,

maturation ponds will only be needed if a higher quality effluent is required.

Another technology that may replace maturation ponds to improve WSP system

performance is the use of constructed wetlands. Wetlands are areas which support the

growth of a variety of plant species adapted to flooded conditions for part of, or the year.

The plants are densely spaced and, together with the shallow water, provide habitats for

animal, bird and insect communities. Constructed wetland systems are designed to

simulate and optimize filtering and biodegradation processes that occur in natural

wetlands. They are a possible solution to improve the performance of pond systems, as

they can "polish" wastewater effluent before its discharge to a waterway.

24

During summer months, such a system may even result in zero discharge to waterways,

due to evaporation and evapotranspiration of the water component from the wetland.

2.3.4 High Rate Agal Pond

The high rate algal pond is designed to maximize algal growth and so achieve

high protein yields. It has high area to volume ratio, shallow depth of 0.2 - 0.6m and 2 -

4m wide. Mixing more than once daily to resuspend any settled solids and removal of

algae from tile final effluent are required. It is not actually a treatment pond. Besides, it

requires skilled personnel operation and maintenance.

2.3.5 Microphyte Pond

Microphyte ponds are ponds containing floating plants (for instance, water

hyacinth) or noted aquatic plants (e.g., Phyramities). A microphyte pond is designed such

that these aquatic plants form canopy on the ponds surface, and consequently reduce light

penetration needed for the growth of algae. These ponds are used for removal of algae,

and nutrients such as nitrate, ammonia and orthophosphate from waste waters

(Agunwamba et al, 2001). They are however associated with very high failure rate, low

pathogen die off and high rate of sludge accumulation.

2.3.6 Other Types

In many countries of South-East Asia, certain types of primary facultative ponds

called night soil ponds are used to treat batch loads of night soil (faeces and urine) (Mara

and Pearson, 1986). Fish pond is another type of pond, which is designed to provide

adequate nutrients for fish farming without encouraging eutrophication (growth of

excessive weeds).

25

2.4 FACTORS AFFECTING THE EFFICIENCY OF WASTE STABILIZATION

PONDS

The factors that affect the efficiency of waste stabilization ponds are as follows:

2.4.1 Pond Geometry

The pond geometry is placed in the position where it will receive a good intensity

of sunlight without disturbance. Therefore, it depends on the geometry of solar energy

since sun is one of the most important factors of waste stabilization pond treatment. To

locate the position of the pond, the movement of the sun is going to be monitored by

knowing the two degrees of freedom, which can be specified by two angles that are

sufficient information to locate the sun on the celestial sphere at any times. They are solar

altitude angle and azimuth angles.

2.4.2 Solar Altitude angle (ALT)

The solar altitude angel is measured upward from the level horizontal plane to a

line between the observer and the sun. The maximum solar angle occurs at noon in all

seasons of the year. In rainy season, the noon sun is only 26.5° above the horizontal

whereas in summer it is 73.3° above the horizon.

2.4.3 Solar Azimuth Angle

The azimuth angle is measured in the horizontal plane between the due south

direction and the projection of the sun earth line onto the horizontal plane. It has a sign

convention as do other solar angles, but for this purpose sign associated with solar are not

needed. It depends on the same three angles as solar altitude angle.

26

Another angle that is useful in solar pond design is the incidence angle (INC). It is

an angle between the beam radiation from the sun and a line constructed perpendicular to

an irradiated surface. Incident angle is zero if the surface is perpendicular to the direct

rays of the sun: it is 90° if the surface is parallel to rays from sun.

2.4.4 Temperature

Due to the effect of sunlight, the effective wavelength for microbial destruction

are the near ultra-violent ray band 320nm to 490nm with a temperature of 12°C to 50°C,

while Escherichia Coli will be inactivated by a much lower temperature and longer

retention time.

2.4.5 Solar Radiation

Solar radiation is the most effective factor that is responsible for the treatment of

waste stabilization pond. Every other factor depends on solar radiation in treatment of

wastewater. The growth of algae depends on solar radiation and production of oxygen by

algae through photosynthesis is by sunlight, which the bacteria need for respiration and

generation of energy. There are three types of solar radiation.

a. Beam radiation

The most significant type of radiation for solar thermal processes is beam

radiation. It is the one that travels from the sun to a point on the earth with negligible

change in direction. It is the type of sunlight that casts a sharp shadow, and on a sunny

day, it can be as much as 80% of the total sunlight striking a surface.

b. Diffuse or scattered radiation

27

The Diffuse or scattered radiation is the sunlight that comes from all directions in

the sky dome other than the direction of the sun.

c. Reflected radiation.

The reflected radiation may be direct or diffuse radiation reflected from the

foreground onto the solar aperture. Due to the above behaviour of sunlight, solar pond

has to be constructed for the treatment of wastewater, so that enough solar energy will be

stored or collected for the treatment of the wastewater since it is one of the simplest

devices for waste water treatment. Any pond converts-insulation to heat but most natural

ponds quickly lose that heat through vertical convection within the pond by evaporation

and convection at the surface. Artificial solar pond prevents either vertical convection or

surface evaporation and convection or both. Due to its massive thermal storage and

measures taken to reduce heat loss, a typical pond takes several hours than it takes a solar

pond to converts intermittent solar radiation into a steady source of thermal energy.

2.5 EFFECTS OF ALGAE CONCENTRATION AND ORGANIC LOADING ON THE

KINETIC MODELS OF BACTERIA DIE-OFF

The literature has revealed that die-off bacteria in WSP depend on environmental

and climatological parameters. Several hypotheses have tried to explain the causes of

bacterial reduction, including the presence of antibacterial substances produced by algae.

The high pH levels common in the ponds, the production of toxic extracellular

compounds by algae, the depletion of nutrients, the microbial antagonism, and the high

oxidation reduction potential in algal-bacteria cultures. Although no evidence was found

to support the view that the release of bactericidal substances from algal material was

responsible for the reduction in coliform count, he reported that the complex pond

28

environment, along with the involvement of a greater variety of algal species, resulted in

increased die-off rates of the enteric bacteria. Parhad and Rar(1974) experimentally

found that the growth of different algae in sterilized wastewater resulted in an increase of

pH from 7.5 to more than 10. This increased pH caused reduction of E. coli when grown

in association with algae. Based on first order kinetics and assuming completely mixed

conditions, Marais and Shaw proposed a model for the die-off of indicator bacteria in

WSP. Because temperature was found to affect the bacterial removal efficiency

substantially, Marais altered the model and derived a first-order equation in which the

first-order rate constant was assumed to be temperature dependent. Other coliform decay

models in WSP, developed by Ferrara and Harlmman(1980), were one of the first-order

reactions in which the decay rate is temperature dependent.

In fact, the WSP should be considered as a complex system encompassing the

existence of several living species, especially the interrelationship of algae and bacteria,

which bring about an ecological pattern different from pure culture behaviour. Numerous

authors have pointed to a need to improve existing models of coli form decay. The

comprehensive model should include the relationship of coli form die-off to other major

parameters: algal biomass concentration (Cs), temperature (T), organic loading (OL),

sunlight intensity (1), Sunlight duration (L), hydraulic detention time (0), substrate

degradation rate (Ks), and pond dispersion number (d). A research programme was

undertaken to develop mathematical relationships of the bacterial die-off in WSP

incorporating two proposed models, one for the algal concentration, Cs. Verification of

the results obtained was made with experimental data from the full-scale WSP and some

published data for existing ponds in northeast Brazil.

29

2.6 POND HYDRAULICS

Like in other wastewater treatment systems, the hydraulic of the pond influences

the mixing characteristic and detention time and ultimately its efficiency. The pond

hydraulic is influenced by the presence of unused dead space (Polprasit and Bhattarai,

1985); length to width ratio (Mangelson and Watters, 1977), inlet and outlet positions

(Mara and Pearson, 1987) and pond depth. In the design of ponds, it is very essential to

choose configuration that will give minimum short –circulating. Short –circuiting can be

reduced and hence hydraulic efficiency increased by introducing baffles (Mangelson and

Watters, 1972; Olarewaju and Ogunrombi, 1992) and by limiting the length to width ratio

to a value not less than 3.

2.7 INLET AND OUTLET STRUCTURES

Wastewater treatment inlet and outlet structures are very important parameters to

determine, so that the amount of influent in a pond will be determined and effluent will

also be determined. The inlet and outlet positions are very important in determining the

pond hydraulics, since the hydraulics of the pond influences the mixing characteristics

and detention times and also its efficiency (Polprasert and Bhattarai, 1985).

According to Mara and Pearson (1987), good inlet structures should

a. be simple and inexpensive

b. facilitate sampling; and

c. reduce short circuiting.

30

In the design of ponds, it is very important to choose configurations that will give

minimum short circuiting. Short-circuiting can be reduced and hence hydraulic efficiency

increased by introducing baffles (Mangelson and Watters, 1972; Olanrewaju and

Ogurombi, 1992). Inlet to the anaerobic and primary facultative ponds should discharge

below the liquid level to reduced the quantity of scum, secondary facultative ponds and

maturation pond should discharge either below or above the water liquid (Agunwamba,

2001). The outlet of all ponds should be sited to reduce the discharge of scum. Mara and

Pearson (1987) recommended the following take-off levels:

Anaerobic ponds, 30cm;

Facultative ponds 60m;

Maturation ponds; 5cm.

2.8 EFFLUENT STANDARDS

To achieve its aims wastewater treatment must produce an effluent of a certain

quality (Metcalf et al.,1982). The required effluent quality should be established by a

governmental agency. It becomes the duty of the design engineer to ensure that this

design can achieve the established standards. In the absence of legal standards, the

designer must still design the work to produce an effluent that:

(a) Is suitable for its intended reuse (or will not pollute receiving water course).

(b) will not constitute a risk to public health.

Certain minimum standard can be identified in (Table 2.3) In many cases, a more

stringent standard may of course be necessary.

Table 2.1: Minimum Recommendation: Effluent Standard

31

Parameter Agriculture/

Irrigation

Fish Rearing Recharge

BODs (mg/ litre) No limit <10 < 5

Suspended solids

(mg/litre)

< 30 Low <30

total dissolved solid

(mg/ litre)

2500

<2000

Low

Faecal coliforms

(MPN/100ml)

<1000

<1000

<1000

2.9 EVALUATION OF POND PERFORMANCE

Evaluation of pond performance is expensive, time consuming and it requires

experienced personnel to interpret the data obtained. Pearson et al (1987) have proposed

the guidelines for the maximum evaluation of pond analyzed on at least five days over a

five-week period at both the hottest and coldest times of the year but in the case of this

practical work due to time constraint and cost, samples were taken over a period of ten

weeks. Samples are required of the raw wastewater and the effluent of each pond in the

series. The parameters to be measured were: BOD, COD, faecal coli form, dissolved

oxygen and dispersion number performed on the effluent.

32

2.10 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF POND WITH HYDRAULIC JUMP

Moore (1943) and Rand (1955) analyzed a single-step drop structure for a horizontal step,

the flow condition near the end of the step change from sub critical to critical at some

section a short distance back from the edge. The flow depth at the brink of its step at db is

db = 0.715 dc……………………………………………………..………..(2.1)

where dc is the critical flow depth (Rouse, 1936). Downstream of the brink, the nappe

trajectory can be computed using potential flow calculated complex numerical methods

of approximate method as that developed by Montes (1992).

Application of the momentum equation to the base of the overfall leads to (White, 1943)

h

d

h

dc

54.01 1.275…………………………………………………………………………………....

(2.2)

where d1 is the flow depth and h is the step height.

The flow depth and total head are given by the classical hydraulic jump equation.

)3.2.....(......................................................................2

2

42

1

2

1

2

11

2g

dvddd

db

h

db

h

h

d

h

Ldc

21

23

……………………………………………...(2.4)

where length of the drop Ld is given by

33

d cdb

d1dc

h = 0.4m

Figure 2.2 Fully D eveloped H ydraulic Jum p

d2

Supercritical

flow

H ydraulic

jum p

Subcritical

flow

CHAPTER THREE

EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY AND SET UP

3.1 STUDY AREA

Located at the north-eastern end of the University campus about 800m from the

junior staff quarters, the treatment plant at Nsukka consists of a screen (6mm bar racks

set at 12 mm centres) followed by two Imhoff tanks, each measuring about 6.667 m X

34

4.667 m X 10m, and two facultative waste stabilization ponds. Sludge is discarded from

the Imhoff tank once every ten days onto one of the four drying beds, so that the beds are

loaded at 40 days interval. The beds have a total area of 417 m2. Although its efficiency

has deteriorated, its effluent is used for uncontrolled vegetable irrigation by some village

dwellers. The poor effluent quality is also partly attributable to overloading because of

population growth.

3.2 COLLECTION OF SAMPLES AND DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL

SETUP

Sewage samples were collected from the University of Nigeria, Nsukka

stabilization pond for laboratory analysis. Three ponds were constructed with iron sheet

for the experiment. Two (2) out of the three ponds were constructed with steps which

enabled the introduction of hydraulic jumps. The third pond was without any step hence

no hydraulic jump. The setup also included an overhead storage tank (1.2m 1.5m 1.5m)

and a sewage storage tank (1.2m 0.5m 0.5m). The detailed description of the various

ponds are explained in Table 3.1 and graphically represented in Fig.3.1

Table 3.1 Detailed Descriptions of the Various Ponds

Experimental pond Size(m) Characteristics Purpose

0

1

2

0.4x0.4x0.8

0.4x0.4x0.8

0.4x0.4x1.6

No hydraulic jump

One hydraulic jump

Two hydraulic jumps

Control

Measure the effect

of hydraulic jump

Measure the effect

of hydraulic jumps

35

The first pond was made without hydraulic jump to serve as control while the

other ponds were designed and constructed with one and two hydraulic jumps

respectively.

Plate 3.1: Experimental Setup

The overhead storage tank (1.2m 1.5m 1.5m) was usually filled intermittently

with sewage from the University of Nigeria, Nsukka facultative WSP through an

underground pipe with the help of a generator powered pumping machine. The sewage

storage tank (1.2m 0.5m 0.5m) gets its supply from the overhead storage by gravity

flow through a pipe connecting both. Both tanks were usually filled to supply the three

ponds with sewage wastewater. The samples were collected at an interval of twice per

36

week from the three ponds for ten weeks. Samples were collected from one pond at a

time. For Pond 0, samples (0a and 0b) were collected at both the inlet and outlet. For

Pond 1 and Pond 2, five samples each were collected at intervals of 160mm at different

points along the channels. These points corresponded to 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d

and 2e for Pond 1 and Pond 2 respectively. Thereafter, samples collected from the three

ponds were taken for laboratory analysis to determine the concentration of BOD, COD,

total Coli form and Dissolved Oxygen. Date of collection of sample was recorded for the

duration of the research.

O verhead Tank

(1 .5m deep)

Storage Tank

(0 .5m deep)

Pond

2

Pond

1

Pond

0(0 .4m )

Fig 3.1 Schematic Diagram of Experimental Setup

3.3 METHODS OF ANALYSIS

All sewage samples collected for laboratory analysis were analyzed

immediately they were brought into the sanitary laboratory of the University of

Nigeria, Nsukka. Owing to time limitation, samples which could not be analyzed

on the collection day were preserved in the refrigerator and analyzed the

37

following day. All the analysis was based on the standard methods (APHA,

1985).

3.4 LABORATORY METHOD

3.4.1 Coliform Test

In carrying out the experiment, double strength of maconkey as nutrient

medium was prepared by dissolving 45.5g of maconkey broth in 650ml of

distilled water. 10ml of the medium was siphoned into 12 sets of test tubes, 3

fermentation tubes for each sample. Then equal volume of distilled water was

added to the remaining portion of the medium as single strength. 1ml of the single

strength medium was siphoned into another 12 sets of small test tubes, 3

fermentation tubes for each sample. Also, 0.1ml of the single strength medium

was siphoned into another 12 sets of small fermentation tubes, 3 test tubes for

each sample. The 10 ml, 1ml and 0.1ml portion of the samples were sterilized for

15min at 1210C. Thereafter, the tubes were inoculated at 37°C for 48 hours. The

tubes with gases were recorded as positive test indicating the presence of harmful

bacteria in water where the number of coliforms corresponding to the positive

tubes was read from the most probable number (MPN) table.

3.4.2 Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Dilution water was prepared by adding 4ml of phosphate buffer,

magnesium sulphate, calcium chloride and ferric chloride solution for each 4 litres

of water. The dilution water was saturated with air and several dilutions of the

38

samples were prepared and siphoned into twelve pairs of BOD bottles for both 5

days incubation and the other for the determination of initial DO in mixture by

using the dissolved oxygen meter. After five days incubation, oxygen demand

was again determined for the second twelve bottles (or five days DO) using the

dissolved oxygen meter.

3.4.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand

The procedure of COD was carried out by first weighing of 0.4g portion of

mercury sulphate (HgSO4) and placed in the labelled reflux flask A, B, C, D, E, F,

G ,H, I, J, K and L 20ml of the sample were pipetted to the flask and 20ml of

distilled water in one other flask, which served as blank; 10ml standard potassium

dichromate K2Cr2O solution was added to the twelve bottles A, B, C, D, E, F, G

,H, I, J, K and L with some granules of glass beds (previously heated to 60°C in a

furnace). The flasks were connected to the condensers and 30ml sulphuric acid

was gently added through the open top of the condenser with a pipette. Heat was

applied for two hours, after which, the condensers were washed down with

distilled water to 150ml level. After putting three drops of ferrous indicator to the

mixture and stirred. A blue-green colour changes to reddish-brown at end point of

the titration as the mixture was titrated with standard ferrous ammonium sulphate.

3.4.4 Dissolved Oxygen

Portable waterproof dissolved oxygen meter, HI 9142(Hanna Instrument)

was used for the determination of dissolved oxygen. The protective cap was

39

removed and the tip of the probe immersed in the sample to be tested. For

accurate dissolved oxygen measurements, a minimum water movement of 0.3m/s

is required. This was to ensure that the oxygen-depleted membrane surface is

constantly replenished. To quickly check if the water speed was sufficient, the

reading was allowed to stabilize before moving the DO probe. For situations

where the reading was still stable, the measurement was right.

During field measurements, this condition was met by manually agitating

the probe while during laboratory measurements; the use of magnetic stirrer to

achieve a certain velocity in the fluid was used. No reading was taken while the

liquid was at rest.

3.4.5 Tracers Studies

Common salt was used as tracer for this research. 5g of common salt was

added to the sewage in the sewage tank and properly stirred. Samples were

collected at the outlet of the each pond consequent upon the outflow from the

sewage tank. Samples were collected at regular intervals while the first sample was

collected just before the theoretical detention time. The process was continuous as

equivalent inflow was simultaneously allowed from the overhead tank into the

sewage tank. A blank sample was usually collected before the addition of the

common salt. The above process was repeated for the other values of discharges

studied.

40

Plate 3.2 Collection of Sample at Pond with One Jump

Plate 3.3 Coliform Test

41

Plate 3.4 COD Test

Plate 3.5 Dissolved Oxygen Test

42

3.5 CALCULATION OF PARAMETERS

3.5.1 Total Coliform MPN Test

The Most Probable Number of total coliform for positive tubes is obtained

from MPN index per 100 ml from the table of MPN index and 95% confidence

limits for various combinations of positive and negative results when three 10-ml

portions, three 1-ml portions and three 0.1-ml portions are used.

3.5.2 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

BOD at each pond can be calculated using the formula;

BOD = D1 - D2

P

where,

D1 = Dissolved oxygen of diluted sample in 15 minutes after preparation of

(BOD1).

D2 = Dissolved oxygen of diluted sample after 5 days incubation (BOD5).

P = Decimal fraction of sample used = 2 = 0.0067

300

3.5.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

COD at each pond can be calculated using this formula

Mg/L COD = (a - b) xNx8000

ml of sample

where, a = ml of Fe (NH4) (SO4)2 in bank sample titration = varies

43

b = ml of Fe (NH4)2 (SO4)2 in sample titration = varies

N = Normality of Fe (NH4)2 (SO4)2 = 0.1N

3.5.4 Tracers Studies

Concentration of salt tracer for each pond can be calculated using the formula below

Salt Concentration (mg/l) = (a - b) xNx3450

ml of sample

where, a = ml of Silver nitrate in blank sample titration = varies

b = ml of Silver nitrate in sample titration = varies

N = Normality of Silver nitrate = 0.0141

3.5.5 Dispersion Number

Dispersion Number for each pond can be calculated using the formula below

σƟ = [ ΣƟ2C/ΣC – (ΣƟC/ΣC)

2] (ΣC/ΣƟC)

2

δ = 1/8 [ √(1 + 8 σƟ2) – 1 ]

where, σƟ = Normalized variance = Varies

Ɵ = Time = Varies

C = Concentration of salt tracer = varies

δ = Dispersion number = Varies

44

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The first sample collection was made on the 31st of August, 2009 and the

following results on Biological Oxygen Demand, Chemical Oxygen Demand, Dissolved

Oxygen, coliform and dispersion number were calculated and tabulated in Appendices A

and B respectively.

4.1 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

The experimental results are presented in Figures 4.1 – 4.8. Figures 4.1 – 4.3

depict temporal variations of treatment efficiencies of the control pond and hydraulic

jump enabled ponds with respect to coliforms, BOD and COD. Figures 4.4 show the

effect of the hydraulic jump on the addition of dissolved oxygen. Figures 4.5 – 4.6 show

the variations of treatment efficiencies of hydraulic jump enabled ponds with respect to

BOD and COD considering the height of jump. Figures 4.7 – 4.8 shows the extent of

dispersion in the ponds.

4.2 EFFECTS OF HYDRAULIC JUMP ON TREATMENT EFFICIENCY

4.2.1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand

From the results obtained from the laboratory analysis, pond 2 was observed to

record the highest efficiency of BOD removal followed by pond 1 and pond 0 as shown

in figure 4.1 and figure 4.6. This was as a result of the two hydraulic jumps in the pond.

Though pond 1 and pond 0 have the same geometry, pond 1 shows a higher efficiency of

BOD removal than pond 0 due to the single hydraulic jump. All three ponds were

45

exposed to the same discharge per sampling period. The minimum outlet concentrations

of BOD in pond 2, pond 1 and pond 0 were 21.6mg/l, 34.8mg/l and 46.8mg/l

respectively. Also, the maximum outlet concentrations of BOD in pond 2, pond 1 and

pond 0 were 150mg/l, 210mg/l and 240mg/l respectively.

4.2.2 Chemical Oxygen Demand

From the results obtained from the laboratory analysis, pond 2 was observed to

record the highest efficiency of COD removal followed by pond 1 and pond 0 as shown

in figure 4.2 and figure 4.8. This was as a result of the two hydraulic jumps in the pond.

Though pond 1 and pond 0 have the same geometry, pond 1 shows a higher efficiency of

COD removal than pond 0 due to the single hydraulic jump. All three ponds were

exposed to the same discharge per sampling period. The minimum outlet concentrations

of COD in pond 2, pond 1 and pond 0 were 40.8mg/l, 65.3mg/l and 93.8mg/l

respectively. Also, the maximum outlet concentrations of COD in pond 2, pond 1 and

pond 0 were 312mg/l, 400mg/l and 512mg/l respectively.

4.2.3 Coliform

After the treatment of wastewater using hydraulic jump ponds, the results

obtained from the laboratory analysis were plotted as shown in figure 4.3. Pond 2 was

observed to record the highest efficiency of coliform removal followed by pond 1 and

pond 0. This was as a result of the two hydraulic jumps in the pond. Though pond 1 and

pond 0 have the same geometry, pond 1 shows a higher efficiency of coliform removal

than pond 0 due to the single hydraulic jump. All three ponds were exposed to the same

discharge per sampling period. The minimum outlet most probable number of coliform in

pond 2, pond 1 and pond 0 were 3 per 100ml, 9 per 100ml and 21 per 100ml respectively.

46

Also, the maximum outlet concentrations of coliform in pond 2, pond 1 and pond 0 were

43 per 100ml, 150 per 100ml and 1100 per 100ml respectively.

4.2.4 Dissolved Oxygen

The dissolved oxygen in the three ponds was found to increase from the inlet to

the outlet of the ponds as shown in figure 4.4. However, pond 2 was notably higher than

that of pond 1 and pond 0. This increase was observed for all the discharges of the

sewage from the inlet to the outlet. This was as a result of the turbulence caused by the

hydraulic jump thereby allowing for oxygen transfer between the atmosphere and the

wastewater as shown in figure 4.5 to figure 4.8

4.2.5 Dispersion Number

From the results obtained from the tracers studies of the three ponds, pond 2 was

observed to record the lowest dispersion number for all discharges studied indicating a

high degree of axial dispersion. This therefore implies that pond 2 has the highest

efficiency of treatment. Furthermore, pond 1 recorded a low dispersion number however;

its dispersion number was higher than that of pond 2 indicating a high efficiency of

treatment next to pond 2. Pond 0 recorded the lowest efficiency of treatment compared to

ponds 2 and 1 (figures 11-12). All three ponds were exposed to the same discharge during

tracers studies. The minimum dispersion numbers for pond 2, pond 1 and pond 0 were

0.000148, 0.000153 and 0.000305 respectively. Also, the maximum dispersion numbers

for pond 2, pond 1 and pond 0 were 0.000296, 0.000447 and 0.000737 respectively.

47

4.2 GRAPHS

Days

Figure 4.1: Efficiency of BOD removal versus time

Days

Figure 4.2: Efficiency of COD removal versus time

48

Days

Figure 4.3: Efficiency of Coliform removal versus time

Figure 4.4: % Increase in DO versus discharge

49

Figure 4.5: Efficiency of BOD removal versus Height of Jump

Figure 4.6: Efficiency of COD removal versus Height of Jump

50

Figure 4.7: Dispersion number versus Discharge

Figure 4.8: Dispersion number versus Height of jump

51

4.3 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

An analysis was done in order to compare the cost benefit of the hydraulic jump

ponds with the conventional waste stabilization pond. Refer to Table 4.1 and Appendix C

below. Also refer to Appendix D for the cost implication of constructing the existing

WSPs at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka with one hydraulic jump.

Table 4.1 Comparison between Pond with Hydraulic Jump(s) and the Conventional Pond

that will achieve the same Bacteria Reduction

S/N Criteria Conventional Ponds Hydraulic Jump Enabled

Ponds

Pond O

(Control)

Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 1 Pond 2

1

2

3

4

Land Area

Cost of Land

Area of metal sheet

Total cost of

construction with

sheet

0.32 m2

N 964.44

1.12 m2

N 7,384.44

0.32 m2

N 964.44

1.12 m2

N 7,384.44

0.64 m2

N 1,928.88

2.24 m2

N13,328.88

0.22 m2

N 653.50

0.76 m2

N 5,003.70

0.37 m2

N 1122.22

1.30 m2

N 7,754.74

52

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSION

Experimental investigations were carried out on three ponds based on facultative

pond approach to treat wastewater using hydraulic jump. Two out of the three ponds

constructed with metals were fitted with steps. The steps were used to introduce hydraulic

jump in order to enhance oxygen transfer between the atmosphere and the wastewater.

Two hydraulic jumps were introduced in Pond 2; while one hydraulic jump was

introduced in pond 1 and pond 0 (control) was without hydraulic jump.

There is no gain saying that oxygen is very essential in the biological treatment of

wastewater. However, this research was to investigate the effect of artificially increasing

the oxygen concentration in the wastewater.

From the experimental results obtained from the Water and Environmental

Engineering laboratory of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, it was confirmed that the

introduction of hydraulic jump in the waste stabilization pond has significant effect on

wastewater treatment. From the samples collected from pond 2, pond 1 and pond 0, it

shows that treatment was higher in pond 2 due to higher oxygen transfer followed by

pond 1. Pond 0 had the least treatment due the absence of hydraulic jump.

Cost benefit analysis was carried out which proved that ponds with hydraulic

jumps will take less land area than the conventional pond.

53

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of this research, it is recommended that:

1. Waste stabilization ponds be constructed with steps in order to increase the

rate of microbial activities in the pond thereby increasing the pond

performance.

2. Supercritical velocity of discharge of the waste stabilization pond influent

should be encouraged to enable the occurrence of hydraulic jump.

3. From the findings of the study, the use of hydraulic jump to reduce land area

requirement is recommended.

54

REFERENCES

Agunwamba, J.C. (2001) Effect of Tapering on the Performance of Waste Stabilization Ponds.

Water Res. 35 (5). 1191-1200.

Agunwamba, J.C. (1992) Field Pond Performance and Design Evaluation Using Physical

Models. Water Res.. 26 (1). 1403-1407.

Agunwamba, J.C. (2001). Waste Engineering and Management Tools. Immaculate Publication

Ltd., Enugu. pp. 37-72, 117 – 147

Agunwamba, J.C. (2008). Water Engineering Systems. Immaculate Publication Limited,2nd

ed.

Enugu. pp. 82-86

Agunwamba, J.C.,Egbuniwe, N. and Ademiluyi, J.O.(1992). “Prediction of the Dispersion

Nunber in Waste Stabilization Ponds” Water Research (G.B.), 26 (1), pp. 85-90.

Agunwamba, J.C.; Tanko, J.A. (2005) Waste Stabilization pond Design Using Geometric

Programming. Technol. Dev., 9, 123-128.

Agunwamba, J.C.; Utsev, J.T.; Okonkwo, W.I. (2009) Solar Enhanced Wastewater Treatment in

Waste Stabilization Ponds. Water Environ. Res.. 81 (5). 540-544.

American Public Health Association; American Water Works Association; Water Environment

Federation (1992) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 16th

ed.; American Public Health Association: Washington, D.C.

APHA, AWWA, and WPC (Ed.) (1985). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and

Wastewater. Washington D.C. (15th

Ed.) USA.

Arthur, J.P. (1983), “Notes on the Design and Operation of Waste Stabilization Ponds in Warm

Climates of Developing Countries”. World Bank, Washington D. C. pp.211-221.

Benchokroun, S.; Imziln, B.; Hassani, L. (2003) Solar Inactivation of Mesophilic Aeromonas by

Exogenous Photooxidation in High-Rate Algal Pond Treating Wastewater. Microbiol.,

94 (3), 531-538.

Chanson, H.(1994). Hydraulic Design of Stepped Cascades, Channels, Weirs and Spillways.

Pergamon, Great Britain. Pp. 44 - 60

Davies-Colley, R.J.; Graggs, R.J.; Park, J.; Nagels, J.W. (2005) Optimal Characteristics of Waste

Stabilization Ponds; Recommendations for Monitoring. Water Sci. Technol., 51 (12),

153-161.

55

Feachem, R.G. et. al.(1986). Sanitation and Disease: Health aspect of Excreta and Water

Management. John Wiley Chichester.

Ferrara, R.A; and Harlmann, D.R.F. (1980). “Dynamic Nutrient Cycle Model for waste

Stabilization Ponds”. ASCE, 106. Eel, pp. 37-42.

Hoseui, B.B.; Patil, H.S. (1987) Performance of Waste Stabilization Ponds of Different Depths.

Water Air Soil Pollut., 34, 199-206.

Kayombo, S. and Ladegaard, S. E. (1998). Waste Stabilization Ponds and Constructed Wetlands

Design Manual UNEP-IETC, Tanzania, pp. 6 – 15.

Lakshmarayana, J. S. And Abelulapa, M.K. (1972). The Effect of Sewage Stabilization Ponds on

Helminths in Low Cost Waste Treatment. C. A. Sastry (ed.) Central Public Health

Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur, 290.

Mangelson, K. A.and Watters, G.Z.(1972). Treatment Efficiency of Waste Stabilization Ponds.

ASCE, Sanitary Engineering Div., SA2, 407-425.

Mara, D. (1976). Sewage Treatment in Hot Climates. John Wiley and Sons, London.

Mara, D. D. and Pearson, H.W. (1987). “Waste Stabilization Ponds”. Design Manual for

Mediterranean Europe. University of Liverpool, pp.24-31.

Mara. D.D.; Pearson, H.W.; Silva, S.A. (1983) Brazilian Stabilization Pond Research Suggests

Low-Cost Urban Applications. World Water, 6, 20-24.

Marais, G.V.R. (1974) Faecal Bacteria Kinetics in Stabilization Ponds. ASCE. J. Environ. Eng.

Div.. 100, 119-139.

Marecos do Monte, M.H.F.; Mara, D.D. (1987) The Hydraulic Performance of Waste

Stabilization Ponds in Portugal. Water Sci., 19 (12), 219-227.

Mayo, A.W. (1989) Effect of Pond Depth on Bacterial Mortality Rate. ASCE J. Environ. Eng.

Div., 115 (5), 964-977.

Metacalf, L; and Eddy, H.P. (1982). “Wastewater Engineering, Treatment, Disposal and Reuse”

Second Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York pp. 506-511

Olanrewaju, M.O. and Ogunrombi, J.A. (1992).” Improving Facultative Ponds Hydraulics with

Baffles”. The Nigerian Engineer 27(20),pp. 9-20.

Oragui, J.I.; Curtis, T.P.; Silva, S. A.: Mara, D. D. (1987) The Removal of Secreted Bacteria and

Viruses in Deep Waste Stabilization Ponds in North East Brazil. Water Sci. Technol. 19,

567 – 573.

56

Parhab, N. M. And Rar, N.U.(1974).”Effect of pH on Survival of Escherichia Coli” .J. Wat.

Pollut. Contr.Fed.34,pp.149-161

Pearson, H. W; Silva, S. A: Athayde, G. B. (2005) Implications for Physical Design: The Effects

of Depth on the Performance of Waste Stabilization Ponds. Water Sci. Technol. 51 (12),

69 – 74.

Polprasert. C.; Bhattarai, K. K. (1985) Dispersion Model for Waste Stabilization Ponds. ASCE J.

Envrion. Eng. Div., 111 (1), 45 – 59.

Polprasert, C.; Dissanayake, M. G.; Thanh, N. C. (1983) Bacterial Die-Off Kinetics in Waste

Stabilization Ponds. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 55 (3), 285 – 296

Saqqar, M.M. and Pescod, M.B. (1992). “Modelling Coliform Reduction in Wastewater

Stabilization Ponds”. Wat. Sci. Tech. 26(7/8): pp. 1667-1677.

Sarikaya, H. Z,; Saatci, A. M. (1987) Bacterial Die-Off Kinectics in Waste Stabilizaiton Ponds.

ASCE J. Environ. Eng. Div. 113 (2), 366 – 382.

Sarikaya, H. Z,; Saatci, A. M,; Abdulfattah, A. F. (1987) Effect of Pond Depth on Bacterial Die-

Off. J. Environ. Eng. Div., 113 (6), 1350-1361.

Shelef, G.; Juanico, M.; Vikinsky, M. (1987) Reuse of Stabilization Pond Effluent. Water Sci.

Technol., 19 (12), 229-235.

Shelef, G.; Moraine. R.; Messing, A.; Kanarek, A. (1978) Improving Stabilization Ponds

Efficiency and Performance. International Conference on Development in Land. Methods

of Wastewater Treatment and Unlization Melbourne, Australia, October.

Shin, H. K,; Polprasert, C. (1987) Attached-Growth Waste Stabilization Pond Treatment

Evaluation. Water Science Technol., 19 (12), 229 – 235.

Silva. H. K,; Mara, D. D.; de Oliveira, R. (1987) The Performance of a Series of Five Deep

Water Stabilization Ponds in North-East Brazil. Water Sci. Technol., 19 (12), 61 – 64.

Sinton, L. W.; Hall C. H.; Lynch, P. A.; Davies-Colley R. J. (2002) Sunlight Inactivation of

Fecal Indicator Bacteria and Bacteriophages from Waste Stabilization Effluent in Fresh

and Saline Waters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 68 (3), 1122 – 1131.

Sweeney, D. G.;L Nixon, J. B.; Cromar, N. J.; Fallowfield, H. J. (2007) Temporal and Spatial

Variation of Physical, Biological and Chemical Parameters in a Large Waste Stabilization

Pond, and the Implications for WSP Modeling. Water Sci. Technol., 55 (11), 1-9.

57

APPENDIX A

ILLUSTRATION ON THE CALCULATION OF PARAMETERS

Calculation of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

BOD at each pond can be calculated using the formula;

BOD = D1 - D2

P

where,

D1 = Dissolved oxygen of diluted sample in 15 minutes after preparation of (BOD1).

D2 = Dissolved oxygen of diluted sample after 5 days incubation (BOD5).

P = Decimal fraction of sample used = 2 = 0.0067

300

Sample Oa of first day

BOD = 8.0 – 6.8

0.0067

= 180 mg/l

Calculation of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

COD at each pond can be calculated using this formula

COD = (a - b) xNx8000

ml of sample

where, a = ml of Fe (NH4) (SO4)2 in bank sample titration = varies

b = ml of Fe (NH4)2 (SO4)2 in sample titration = varies

N = Normality of Fe (NH4)2 (SO4)2 = varies

58

Sample Oa of first day

COD = (28.0 – 19.2) x0.1x8000

20

= 8.8 x0.1x8000

20

= 352 mg/l

Calculation of Concentration of Salt Tracer

Concentration of salt tracer at each pond can be calculated using this formula

Salt Concentration (mg/l) = (a - b) xNx3450

ml of sample

where, a = ml of Silver nitrate in blank sample titration = varies

b = ml of Silver nitrate in sample titration = varies

N = Normality of Silver nitrate = 0.0141

ml of sample = 50ml

Sample Ob of discharge = 0.09l/s

Salt Concentration (mg/l) = (5.6 – 5.0) x0.0141x3450

50

= 0.58mg/l

Calculation of Dispersion Number

For pond with no hydraulic jump with discharge = 0.09 l/s

59

σƟ = [471.78/2.91 – (36.36/2.91) 2

](2.91/36.36) 2

= 0.038448

δ = 1/8 [ √(1 + 8 x 0.0384482) – 1 ]

= 0.000737

60

APPENDIX B

RESULTS OF PARAMETERS

DISCHARGE = 0.09 l/s

31/08/2009

DISSOLVED OXYGEN

With no hydraulic jump

Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave

Oa 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6

Ob 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.7

With one hydraulic jump


1a 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.6

1b 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.8

1c 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.1

1d 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8

1e 5 5.2 5.2 5.1

With two hydraulic jump


2a 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.6

2b 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0

2c 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2

2d 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.4

2e 5.5 5.5 5.7 5.6

COLIFORM

with no hydraulic jump

Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)

Oa 3 - 3 - 3 ≥2400

Ob 3 - 3 - 1 460


61


1a 3 - 3 - 2 1100

1b 3 - 3 - 1 460

1c 3 - 2 - 2 210

1d 3 - 2 - 1 150

1e 3 - 1 - 1 75

With two hydraulic jumps


2a 3 - 1 - 0 43

2b 3 - 0 - 0 39

2c 2 - 2 - 0 21

2d 2 - 1 - 0 15

2e 2 - 0 - 0 9

CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of

sample (ml)

COD (mg/l)

Oa 28.0 19.2 20 352

Ob 28.0 20.9 20 284


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of

sample (ml)

COD (mg/l)

1a 28.0 20.0 20 336

1b 28.0 20.3 20 308

1c 28.0 21.2 20 272

1d 28.0 21.7 20 252

1e 28.0 22.7 20 212


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of

sample (ml)

COD (mg/l)

62

2a 28.0 22.2 20 232

2b 28.0 22.8 20 208

2c 28.0 23.0 20 202

2d 28.0 23.4 20 184

2e 28.0 23.9 20 164

BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND with no hydraulic jump

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

Oa 1 2 300 8.0 6.8 180

Ob 4 2 300 8.1 7.2 135


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

1a 6 2 300 8.4 7.3 165

1b 9 2 300 8.5 7.5 150

1c 10 2 300 8.5 7.6 135

1d 11 2 300 8.5 7.7 120

1e 18 2 300 8.5 7.8 105


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

2a 20 2 300 8.5 7.7 120

2b 23 2 300 8.5 7.8 105

2c 2 2 300 8.6 7.9 105

2d 1 2 300 8.6 8.0 90

2e 6 2 300 8.7 8.2 75


04/09/2009

DISSOLVED OXYGEN


63


Oa 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.3

Ob 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4



1a 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6

1b 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.8

1c 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1

1d 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.4

1e 4.6 4.7 4.9 4.7



2a 4.6 4.5 3.7 4.6

2b 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0

2c 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2

2d 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.4

2e 5.5 5.5 5.7 5.6

COLIFORM



Oa 3 - 3 - 2 1100

Ob 3 - 2 - 1 150



1a 3 - 3 - 2 1100

1b 3 - 2 - 2 210

1c 3 - 2 - 1 150

1d 3 - 1 - 1 75

1e 3 - 0 - 0 39

With two jumps


2a 3 - 0 - 0 39

2b 2 - 2 - 2 27

2c 2 - 2 - 0 21

64

2d 2 - 1 - 0 15

2e 2 - 0 - 0 9


With no jump

Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of

sample (ml) COD mg/l

Oa 28.0 17.2 20 432

Ob 28.0 18.1 20 396


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


1a 28.0 17.9 20 404

1b 28.0 18.4 20 384

1c 28.0 19.3 20 348

1d 28.0 20.6 20 296

1e 28.0 21.5 20 260


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


2a 28.0 21.3 20 268

2b 28.0 21.7 20 252

2c 28.0 22.3 20 228

2d 28.0 22.9 20 204

2e 28.0 23.1 20 196

BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND

with no jump

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

Oa 17 2 300 7.9 6.5 210

Ob 14 2 300 8.0 6.9 165

65

With one jump

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

1a 24 2 300 8.1 6.8 195

1b 5 2 300 8.0 6.7 165

1c U 2 300 8.1 7.0 165

1d K 2 300 8.1 7.1 150

1e J 2 300 8.0 7.1 135

With two jumps

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

2a 8 2 300 8.0 7.1 135

2b 7 2 300 8.2 7.4 120

2c 22 2 300 8.3 7.5 120

2d V 2 300 8.3 7.6 105

2e 0 2 300 8.4 7.8 90


07/09/2009

DISSOLVED OXYGEN

with no jump


Oa 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7

Ob 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.8

With one jump


1a 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.9

1b 4.9 5.0 5 5

1c 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.2

1d 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.8

1e 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8

With two jumps

66


2a 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.4

2b 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5

2c 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.9

2d 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.0

2e 6.1 6.0 6.1 6.1

Coliform with no hydraulic jump


Oa 3 - 3 - 2 1100

Ob 3 - 1 - 0 43



1a 3 - 3 - 2 1100

1b 3 - 2 - 1 460

1c 3 - 2 - 0 93

1d 3 - 1 - 0 75

1e 3 - 0 - 0 39

With two jumps


2a 3 - 0 - 0 39

2b 2 - 0 - 0 21

2c 2 - 1 - 0 15

2d 2 - 0 - 0 9

2e 1 - 0 - 0 7



67

Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


Oa 28.0 20.9 20 284

Ob 28.0 22.2 20 232


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


1a 28.0 21.9 20 244

1b 28.0 22.2 20 232

1c 28.0 22.9 20 204

1d 28.0 23.4 20 184

1e 28.0 23.7 20 172


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


2a 28.0 23.5 20 180

2b 28.0 23.8 20 168

2c 28.0 24.2 20 152

2d 28.0 24.5 20 140

2e 28.0 24.6 20 136

BOD with no jump

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

Oa 5 2 300 7.9 7.0 135

Ob 7 2 300 8.2 7.5 105

With one jump

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

1a 8 2 300 8.1 7.3 120

1b 14 2 300 8.1 7.3 120

1c 17 2 300 8.2 7.5 105

68

1d 22 2 300 8.3 7.7 90

1e 44 2 300 8.3 7.7 90

With two jumps

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

2a 0 2 300 8.3 7.7 90

2b 3 2 300 8.4 7.8 90

2c F 2 300 8.4 7.9 75

2d T 2 300 8.6 8.1 75

2e Y 2 300 8.6 8.2 60


10/09/2009

DISSOLVED OXYGEN

With hydraulic no jump


Oa 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0

Ob 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.1

With one jump


1a 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.2

1b 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.5

1c 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.8

1d 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.1

1e 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.2

With two jumps


2a 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.1

2b 4.7 4.9 4.8 4.8

2c 4.8 5.0 5.1 5.0

2d 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1

69

2e 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.2

COLIFORM



Oa 3 - 3 - 3 ≥ 2400

Ob 3 - 1 - 1 75



1a 3 - 3 - 1 460

1b 3 - 2 - 1 150

1c 3 - 0 - 0 23

1d 2 - 1 - 0 15

1e 2 - 0 - 0 11

With two jumps


2a 3 - 1 - 0 39

2b 2 - 2 - 0 21

2c 2 - 1 - 0 15

2d 2 - 0 - 0 9

2e 1 - 1 - 0 7


Wth no hydraulic jump

Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


Oa 28.0 14.7 20 532

Ob 28.0 15.2 20 512


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


1a 28.0 15.0 20 520

1b 28.0 15.6 20 496

1c 28.0 16.1 20 476

70

1d 28.0 17.1 20 436

1e 28.0 18.0 20 400


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


2a 28.0 17.7 20 412

2b 28.0 18.4 20 384

2c 28.0 18.9 20 364

2d 28.0 19.3 20 348

2e 28.0 20.2 20 312

BOD with no hydraulic jump

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

Oa 8 2 300 8.1 6.3 270

Ob 18 2 300 8.3 6.7 240

With one jump

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

1a 22 2 300 7.9 6.1 270

1b 20 2 300 7.9 6.2 225

1c 1 2 300 8.2 6.7 225

1d W 2 300 8.2 6.7 225

1e 0 2 300 8.3 6.9 210

With two jumps

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

2a 17 2 300 8.2 6.9 195

2b 5 2 300 8.3 7.0 195

2c 24 2 300 8.4 7.1 195

2d 4 2 300 8.4 7.3 165

71

2e 14 2 300 8.5 7.5 150


14/09/2009

Dissolved Oxygen with no jump


Oa 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.3

Ob 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.8

With one jump


1a 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.4

1b 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3

1c 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.5

1d 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.8

1e 4.8 4.9 5.0 4.9

With two jumps


2a 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.8

2b 6.4 6.3 6.5 6.4

2c 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.6

2d 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.7

2e 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.0

Coliform with no jump


Oa 3 - 3 - 3 ≥ 2400

Ob 3 - 3 - 1 460

With one jump


1a 3 - 3 - 3 ≥ 2400

1b 3 - 3 - 1 460

1c 3 - 3 - 0 240

1d 3 - 2 - 2 210

72

1e 3 - 2 - 0 93

With two jumps


2a 3 - 0 - 2 64

2b 3 - 1 - 0 43

2c 3 - 0 - 0 39

2d 2 - 2 - 0 21

2e 2 - 1 - 0 15

COD with no jump

Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


Oa 28.0 20.6 20 296

Ob 28.0 21.9 20 244

With one jump

Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


1a 28.0 20.9 20 284

1b 28.0 21.5 20 260

1c 28.0 21.6 20 256

1d 28.0 22.4 20 224

1e 28.0 22.9 20 204


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


2a 28.0 22.7 20 212

2b 28.0 23.1 20 196

2c 28.0 23.4 20 184

2d 28.0 24.0 20 160

2e 28.0 24.4 20 144

73

BOD with no jump

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

Oa 20 2 300 7.9 6.9 150

Ob 14 2 300 8.3 7.5 120

With one jump

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

1a 22 2 300 7.9 7.0 135

1b 17 2 300 7.9 7.0 135

1c 7 2 300 8.1 7.2 135

1d 5 2 300 8.3 7.5 120

1e 11 2 300 8.5 7.9 90

With two jumps

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

2a 22 2 300 8.0 7.3 105

2b 5 2 300 8.0 7.4 90

2c 20 2 300 8.4 7.8 90

2d 15 2 300 8.6 8.1 75

2e 18 2 300 8.7 8.2 75


17/09/2009



Oa 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5

Ob 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.8

With one jump


1a 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8

1b 5.2 5.0 5.1 5.1

74

1c 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.3

1d 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.8

1e 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.9

With two jumps


2a 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8

2b 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.9

2c 6.0 5.9 6.1 6.0

2d 6.2 6.1 6.2 6.2

2e 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.3



Oa 3 - 3 - 1 460

Ob 3 - 3 - 0 240

With one jump


1a 3 - 3 - 0 240

1b 3 - 2 - 1 150

1c 3 - 1 - 2 120

1d 3 - 1 - 1 75

1e 3 - 0 - 1 39

With two jumps


2a 2 - 2 - 1 28

2b 2 - 2 - 0 21

2c 2 - 1 - 0 15

2d 2 - 0 - 0 9

2e 1 - 1 - 0 7

COD with no jump

75

Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


Oa 28.0 18.7 20 372

Ob 28.0 19.0 20 360

With one jump

Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


1a 28.0 18.8 20 368

1b 28.0 19.1 20 356

1c 28.0 20.1 20 316

1d 28.0 20.9 20 284

1e 28.0 21.3 20 268


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


2a 28.0 21.8 20 248

2b 28.0 22.2 20 232

2c 28.0 23.0 20 200

2d 28.0 23.6 20 176

2e 28.0 24.1 20 156

BOD with no jump

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

Oa I 2 300 8.0 6.7 195

Ob G 2 300 8.1 6.9 180

With one jump

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

1a Y 2 300 8.3 7.1 180

1b U 2 300 8.5 7.4 165

1c N 2 300 8.2 7.2 150

76

1d F 2 300 8.4 7.5 135

1e L 2 300 8.5 7.7 120

With two jumps

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

2a Q 2 300 8.5 7.7 120

2b H 2 300 8.7 8.0 105

2c R 2 300 8.6 8.0 90

2d V 2 300 8.6 8.1 75

2e F 2 300 8.7 8.3 60


21/09/2009

DISSOLVED OXYGEN



Oa 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.6

Ob 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.9



1a 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.8

1b 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.3

1c 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5

1d 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8

1e 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.9


77


2a 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

2b 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.2

2c 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.3

2d 6.4 6.3 6.4 6.4

2e 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.6

COLIFORM



Oa 3 - 3 - 0 240

Ob 3 - 2 - 2 210



1a 3 - 2 - 2 210

1b 3 - 2 - 1 150

1c 3 - 1 - 1 75

1d 3 - 0 - 1 39

1e 2 - 2 - 1 28



2a 2 - 2 - 0 21

2b 2 - 1 - 0 15

2c 2 - 0 - 1 14

2d 2 - 0 - 0 9

2e 1 - 1 - 0 7



Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


Oa 24.7 19.9 20 192

Ob 24.7 20.3 20 176

78

With one jump

Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


1a 24.7 20.2 20 180

1b 24.7 20.9 20 152

1c 24.7 21.2 20 140

1d 24.7 21.7 20 120

1e 24.7 21.9 20 112


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


2a 24.7 22.3 20 96

2b 24.7 22.5 20 88

2c 24.7 22.8 20 76

2d 24.7 22.9 20 72

2e 24.7 23.0 20 68

BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (with no hydraulic jump)

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l

Oa 1 25 300 9.4 1.4 96.0

Ob 6 25 300 8.8 1.6 86.4


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle


1a 11 25 300 9.1 1.5 91.2

1b 14 25 300 8.9 2.2 80.4

1c 20 25 300 9.0 2.9 73.2

1d 23 25 300 9.1 3.5 67.2

1e X 25 300 9.2 4.0 62.4


79

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle


2a Z 25 300 9.0 4.3 56.4

2b F 25 300 9.0 4.9 49.2

2c O 25 300 9.1 5.3 45.6

2d W 25 300 9.2 5.8 40.8

2e G 25 300 9.3 6.0 39.6


24/09/2009



Oa 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.6

Ob 4.9 4.8 5.0 5.0

With one jump


1a 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.1

1b 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.4

1c 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5

1d 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8

1e 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

With two jumps


2a 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.2

2b 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.3

2c 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.5

2d 6.9 6.7 6.8 6.8

2e 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.0



Oa 3 - 2 - 2 210

Ob 3 - 1 - 2 120

80

With one jump


1a 3 - 2 - 1 150

1b 3 - 1 - 2 120

1c 3 - 2 - 0 93

1d 3 - 1 - 1 75

1e 3 - 0 - 2 64

With two jumps


2a 3 - 1 - 0 43

2b 3 - 0 - 1 39

2c 2 - 2 - 1 28

2d 3 - 0 - 0 23

2e 2 - 2 - 0 21

COD with no jump

Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of

sample (ml) COD (mg/l)

Oa 24.7 20.8 20 156

Ob 24.7 20.9 20 152

With one jump

Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


1a 24.7 21.1 20 144

1b 24.7 21.4 20 132

1c 24.7 21.6 20 124

1d 24.7 21.8 20 116

1e 24.7 22.0 20 108


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


81

2a 24.7 22.4 20 104

2b 24.7 22.7 20 80

2c 24.7 22.8 20 76

2d 24.7 22.9 20 72

2e 24.7 23.0 20 60

BOD with no jump

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

Oa 10 25 300 7.8 1.2 79.2

Ob K 25 300 7.9 1.5 76.8

With one jump

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

1a H 25 300 7.9 1.9 72.0

1b Y 25 300 8.0 2.3 68.4

1c I 25 300 8.1 2.7 64.4

1d Q 25 300 8.4 3.5 58.8

1e 5 25 300 8.6 4.1 54.0

With two jumps

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

2a 9 25 300 8.8 4.5 51.6

2b 3 25 300 9.0 5.0 48.0

2c L 25 300 9.2 5.8 40.8

2d S 25 300 9.3 6.1 38.4

2e A 25 300 9.4 6.4 36.0


28/09/2009

DISSOLVED OXYGEN



Oa 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.4

82

Ob 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7



1a 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8

1b 4.9 5.2 5.0 5.0

1c 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.3

1d 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.4

1e 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6



2a 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.9

2b 6.1 6.0 6.1 6.1

2c 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.3

2d 6.4 6.6 6.5 6.5

2e 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.9

COLIFORM (with no hydraulic jump)


Oa 3 - 3 - 2 1100

Ob 3 - 3 - 1 460



1a 3 - 3 - 1 460

1b 3 - 3 - 0 240

1c 3 - 2 - 2 210

1d 3 - 2 - 1 150

1e 3 - 1 - 2 120



2a 3 - 2 - 0 93

2b 3 - 1 - 1 75

2c 3 - 0 - 2 64

2d 3 - 0 - 1 39

2e 2 - 2 - 1 28

83

COD with no hydraulic jump

Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


Oa 24.9 18.1 20 299.2

Ob 24.9 18.4 20 286.0


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


1a 24.9 18.5 20 281.6

1b 24.9 18.9 20 264.0

1c 24.9 19.1 20 255.2

1d 24.9 19.3 20 246.4

1e 24.9 19.6 20 233.2


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


2a 24.9 20.2 20 206.8

2b 24.9 20.4 20 198.0

2c 24.9 20.6 20 189.2

2d 24.9 20.8 20 180.4

2e 24.9 21.0 20 171.6


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

Oa Z 25 300 13.1 1.3 141.6

Ob F 25 300 13.3 1.6 140.4


84

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

1a 1 25 300 13.3 1.8 138.0

1b 6 25 300 13.4 2.2 134.4

1c 0 25 300 13.5 2.8 128.4

1d 23 25 300 13.5 3.2 123.6

1e 18 25 300 13.6 3.6 120.0


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

2a T 25 300 13.7 4.9 105.6

2b H 25 300 13.7 5.3 100.8

2c Q 25 300 13.8 5.7 97.2

2d 5 25 300 13.8 6.0 93.6

2e S 25 300 13.9 6.5 88.8


01/10/2009

DISSOLVED OXYGEN



Oa 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.4

Ob 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7



1a 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.6

1b 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.1

1c 5.3 5.2 5.3 5.3

1d 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.5

1e 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7



2a 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8

85

2b 6.0 5.9 6.0 6.0

2c 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.3

2d 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4

2e 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.6

COLIFORM

With no jump


Oa 3 - 2 - 2 210

Ob 3 - 1 - 2 120

With one jump


1a 3 - 1 - 2 120

1b 3 - 1 - 1 75

1c 3 - 0 - 2 64

1d 3 - 1 - 0 43

1e 3 - 0 - 1 39

With two jumps


2a 2 - 2 - 1 28

2b 3 - 0 - 0 23

2c 2 - 2 - 0 21

2d 2 - 1 - 1 20

2e 2 - 1 - 0 15


With no jump

Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


Oa 24.9 19.6 20 233.2

Ob 24.9 20.0 20 215.6

With one jump

Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


86

1a 24.9 19.9 20 220.0

1b 24.9 20.1 20 211.2

1c 24.9 20.3 20 202.4

1d 24.9 20.4 20 198.0

1e 24.9 20.6 20 189.2


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


2a 24.9 21.5 20 149.6

2b 24.9 21.9 20 132.0

2c 24.9 22.0 20 127.6

2d 24.9 22.2 20 118.8

2e 24.9 22.5 20 105.6

BIOCHEMICAL OXGYEN DEMAND with no hydraulic jump

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

Oa G 25 300 11.2 1.3 118.8

Ob Y 25 300 11.3 2.2 109.2


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

1a I 25 300 11.2 2.0 110.4

1b U 25 300 11.3 2.4 106.8

1c N 25 300 11.4 2.9 120.0

1d L 25 300 11.5 3.2 99.6

1e F 25 300 11.5 3.5 96.0


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

2a H 25 300 11.6 4.9 80.4

2b R 25 300 11.7 5.4 75.6

87

2c V 25 300 11.7 5.9 69.6

2d Q 25 300 11.8 6.2 67.2

2e F 25 300 11.9 6.4 66.0


05/10/2009

DISSOLVED OXYGEN



Oa 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5

Ob 4.6 4.7 4.9 4.7



1a 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8

1b 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.3

1c 5.6 5.4 5.5 5.5

1d 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.9

1e 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0



2a 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.1

2b 6.0 6.2 6.2 6.2

2c 6.2 6.4 6.3 6.3

2d 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.5

2e 7.0 6.7 6.8 6.8



Oa 3 - 1 - 2 120

Ob 3 - 1 - 1 75



1a 3 - 1 - 1 75

1b 3 - 0 - 2 64

88

1c 2 - 2 - 1 28

1d 3 - 0 - 0 23

1e 3 - 0 - 0 23



2a 2 - 2 - 0 21

2b 2 - 1 - 1 15

2c 2 - 0 - 0 9

2d 1 - 1 - 0 7

2e 1 - 1 - 0 7


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


Oa 24.9 19.6 20 196.0

Ob 24.9 20.1 20 188.2


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


1a 24.9 20.4 20 176.4

1b 24.9 20.8 20 160.7

1c 24.9 21.5 20 133.3

1d 24.9 21.9 20 117.6

1e 24.9 22.2 20 105.8


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


2a 24.9 22.8 20 82.3

2b 24.9 22.9 20 78.4

2c 24.9 23.0 20 74.5

2d 24.9 23.1 20 70.6

2e 24.9 23.3 20 62.7

89


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

Oa I 25 300 8.2 1.2 84.0

Ob W 25 300 8.0 1.8 78.0


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

1a J 25 300 7.9 2.2 68.4

1b U 25 300 8.0 2.7 63.9

1c F 25 300 7.9 2.9 62.4

1d Z 25 300 8.0 3.5 54.0

1e N 25 300 8.0 4.5 42.0


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

2a P 25 300 8.0 4.5 42.0

2b K 25 300 7.9 4.6 39.6

2c O 25 300 8.1 5.1 36.0

2d R 25 300 7.8 4.9 34.8

2e S 25 300 7.8 5.2 31.2


08/10/2009

DISSOLVED OXYGEN



Oa 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.6

Ob 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0



1a 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1

1b 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3

1c 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.5

90

1d 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.8

1e 6.0 6.1 6.0 6.0



2a 6.2 6.1 6.2 6.2

2b 6.3 6.5 6.4 6.4

2c 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.6

2d 6.9 7.0 6.9 6.9

2e 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.2

COLIFORM with no hydraulic jump


Oa 3 - 1 - 1 75

Ob 3 - 1 - 0 43



1a 3 - 0 - 2 64

1b 3 - 1 - 0 43

1c 3 - 0 - 1 39

1d 2 - 2 - 1 28

1e 3 - 0 - 0 23



2a 2 - 1 - 1 20

2b 2 - 1 - 0 15

2c 2 - 0 - 1 14

2d 2 - 0 - 0 9

2e 1 - 1 - 0 7


Wth no hydraulic jump

Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


91

Oa 24.9 21.5 20 133.3

Ob 24.9 21.8 20 121.5

With one jump

Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


1a 24.9 21.7 20 125.4

1b 24.9 21.9 20 117.6

1c 24.9 22.1 20 109.8

1d 24.9 22.3 20 101.9

1e 24.9 22.4 20 98.0


Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


2a 24.9 22.6 20 90.2

2b 24.9 22.8 20 82.3

2c 24.9 22.9 20 78.4

2d 24.9 23.1 20 70.6

2e 24.9 23.3 20 62.7


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle


Oa 10 25 300 7.7 2.2 66.0

Ob W 25 300 7.8 2.8 60.0


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle


1a H 25 300 7.8 2.5 63.6

1b Y 25 300 7.9 3.0 58.8

1c I 25 300 7.9 3.4 54.0

1d Q 25 300 8.0 4.0 48.0

1e 5 25 300 8.1 4.2 46.8

92


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle


2a 3 25 300 8.1 4.3 45.6

2b 9 25 300 8.2 4.8 40.8

2c L 25 300 8.3 5.0 39.6

2d S 25 300 8.4 5.6 33.6

2e A 25 300 8.4 5.7 32.4


12/10/2009

DISSOLVED OXYGEN



Oa 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.6

Ob 4.9 5.0 4.8 4.9



1a 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0

1b 5.5 5.3 5.4 5.4

1c 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.7

1d 6.0 6.0 5.9 6.0

1e 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.3



2a 6.4 6.6 6.5 6.5

2b 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.6

2c 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.7

2d 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.9

2e 7.0 7.2 7.2 7.1



Oa 2 - 2 - 1 28

93

Ob 3 - 0 - 0 23



1a 2 - 2 - 0 21

1b 2 - 1 - 1 20

1c 2 - 1 - 0 15

1d 2 - 0 - 1 14

1e 1 - 1 - 1 11



2a 1 - 2 - 0 11

2b 2 - 0 - 0 9

2c 2 - 0 - 0 9

2d 1 - 1 - 0 7

2e 1 - 0 - 0 4


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of

sample (ml)

COD (mg/l)

Oa 24.9 21.8 20 121.5

Ob 24.9 22.0 20 113.7


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of

sample (ml)

COD (mg/l)

1a 24.9 22.4 20 98.0

1b 24.9 22.6 20 90.2

1c 24.9 22.7 20 86.2

1d 24.9 22.8 20 82.3

1e 24.9 22.9 20 78.4


94

Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of

sample (ml)

COD (mg/l)

2a 24.9 23.0 20 74.5

2b 24.9 23.1 20 70.6

2c 24.9 23.3 20 62.7

2d 24.9 23.4 20 58.8

2e 24.9 23.5 20 54.9


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

Oa 1 25 300 7.9 3.1 57.6

Ob 4 25 300 7.7 3.3 52.8


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

1a 7 25 300 7.6 3.5 49.2

1b 9 25 300 7.5 3.8 44.4

1c 10 25 300 7.6 4.0 43.2

1d 11 25 300 7.6 4.1 42.0

1e 12 25 300 7.7 4.4 39.6


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

2a I 25 300 7.6 4.6 36.0

2b 4

N 25 300 7.7 4.8 34.8

2c 14 25 300 7.9 5.1 33.6

2d 17 25 300 7.8 5.2 31.2

2e 18 25 300 7.8 5.5 27.6

95


15/10/2009

DISSOLVED OXYGEN



Oa 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.4

Ob 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.6



1a 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.5

1b 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.8

1c 5.0 5.1 5.0 5.0

1d 5.1 5.4 5.3 5.3

1e 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.6



2a 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8

2b 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.9

2c 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.0

2d 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.2

2e 6.4 6.3 6.4 6.4



Oa 3 - 3 - 2 1100

Ob 3 - 3 - 1 460



1a 3 - 3 - 0 240

1b 3 - 2 - 1 150

1c 3 - 1 - 2 120

1d 3 - 1 - 1 75

1e 3 - 0 - 1 39

96



2a 3 - 0 - 1 39

2b 2 - 2 - 1 28

2c 2 - 2 - 0 21

2d 2 - 1 - 0 15

2e 2 - 0 - 0 9


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of

sample (ml)

COD (mg/l)

Oa 24.5 19.1 20 220.3

Ob 24.5 19.3 20 212.2


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of

sample (ml)

COD (mg/l)

1a 24.5 19.4 20 208.9

1b 24.5 19.6 20 199.9

1c 24.5 19.8 20 191.8

1d 24.5 19.8 20 191.8

1e 24.5 20.0 20 183.6


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of

sample (ml)

COD (mg/l)

2a 24.5 20.4 20 167.3

2b 24.5 21.1 20 138.7

2c 24.5 21.3 20 130.6

2d 24.5 21.7 20 114.2

2e 24.5 21.8 20 110.2


97

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

Oa 4 25 300 10.2 1.0 110.4

Ob 9 25 300 10.2 1.2 108.0


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

1a S 25 300 10.3 1.6 104.4

1b 4

N 25 300 10.3 1.9 100.8

1c 1 25 300 10.5 2.2 99.6

1d 7 25 300 10.4 2.3 97.2

1e T 25 300 10.5 2.8 92.4


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

2a W 25 300 10.4 2.7 92.4

2b 5 25 300 10.5 3.6 82.8

2c 8 25 300 10.6 4.0 79.2

2d 12 25 300 10.6 4.7 70.8

2e 17 25 300 10.7 5.6 61.2


19/10/2009

DISSOLVED OXYGEN



Oa 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7

Ob 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0



98

1a 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0

1b 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5

1c 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8

1d 6.0 6.0 5.9 6.0

1e 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.3



2a 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.6

2b 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.9

2c 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.2

2d 7.7 7.5 7.6 7.6

2e 8.0 7.8 7.9 7.9



Oa 3 - 3 - 3 ≥2400

Ob 3 - 3 - 2 1100



1a 3 - 3 - 2 1100

1b 3 - 3 - 1 460

1c 3 - 2 - 2 210

1d 3 - 2 - 1 150

1e 3 - 1 - 2 120



2a 3 - 2 - 0 93

2b 3 - 1 - 1 73

2c 3 - 0 - 2 64

2d 3 - 1 - 0 43

2e 3 - 0 - 1 39


99

Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of

sample (ml)

COD (mg/l)

Oa 24.9 14.7 20 416.2

Ob 24.9 15.9 20 367.2


Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of

sample (ml)

COD (mg/l)

1a 24.9 15.8 20 371.3

1b 24.9 16.3 20 350.9

1c 24.9 16.6 20 338.6

1d 24.9 17.0 20 322.3

1e 24.9 17.2 20 314.2


Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of

sample (ml)

COD (mg/l)

2a 24.9 18.9 20 244.8

2b 24.9 19.3 20 228.5

2c 24.9 19.7 20 212.2

2d 24.9 19.9 20 204.0

2e 24.9 20.1 20 195.8


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle


Oa 1 25 300 18.1 1.2 202.8

Ob 6 25 300 18.2 2.7 186.0


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle


1a 11 25 300 18.2 2.6 187.2

1b 14 25 300 18.1 3.5 175.2

1c 20 25 300 18.3 4.2 169.2

100

1d 23 25 300 18.4 4.9 162.0

1e X 25 300 18.5 5.2 158.4


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle


2a Z 25 300 18.5 6.9 139.2

2b F 25 300 18.5 7.9 127.2

2c W 25 300 18.6 9.3 116.2

2d O 25 300 18.6 9.6 108.0

2e G 25 300 18.7 10.1 103.2


22/10/2009

DISSOLVED OXYGEN



Oa 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7

Ob 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.8



1a 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.9

1b 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.3

1c 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.7

1d 6.2 6.1 6.2 6.2

1e 6.3 6.1 6.4 6.3



2a 6.4 6.5 6.4 6.4

2b 6.6 6.5 6.7 6.6

2c 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.9

2d 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1

2e 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.2


101


Oa 3 - 3 - 1 460

Ob 3 - 3 - 0 240



1a 3 - 2 - 1 150

1b 3 - 1 - 2 120

1c 3 - 1 - 0 43

1d 2 - 2 - 1 28

1e 3 - 0 - 0 23



2a 2 - 1 - 0 15

2b 2 - 0 - 1 14

2c 1 - 2 - 0 11

2d 2 - 0 - 0 9

2e 1 - 0 - 0 7


Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


Oa 24.5 21.5 20 122.4

Ob 24.5 21.9 20 106.1

With one jump

Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


1a 24.5 22.1 20 97.9

1b 24.5 22.2 20 93.8

1c 24.5 22.3 20 89.8

1d 24.5 22.4 20 85.7

1e 24.5 22.5 20 81.6

102


Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


2a 24.5 22.8 20 69.4

2b 24.5 22.8 20 69.4

2c 24.5 22.9 20 65.3

2d 24.5 23.0 20 61.2

2e 24.5 23.1 20 57.1


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle


Oa 23 25 300 7.7 2.9 57.6

Ob 0 25 300 7.8 3.2 55.2


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle


1a Z 25 300 7.8 3.6 50.4

1b W 25 300 7.9 3.8 49.2

1c S 25 300 7.9 4.0 46.8

1d F 25 300 7.8 4.1 44.4

1e 20 25 300 7.9 4.3 43.2


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle


2a 14 25 300 8.0 4.7 39.6

2b A 25 300 7.9 4.8 37.2

2c I 25 300 8.0 5.0 36.0

2d 6 25 300 8.1 5.2 34.8

2e K 25 300 8.1 5.3 33.6


26/10/2009

DISSOLVED OXYGEN

103



Oa 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7

Ob 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.9



1a 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8

1b 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.3

1c 5.6 5.8 5.7 5.7

1d 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.1

1e 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.4



2a 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4

2b 6.6 6.5 6.7 6.6

2c 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.8

2d 7.0 6.9 7.1 7.0

2e 7.1 7.3 7.3 7.2

COLIFORM with hydraulic no jump


Oa 3 - 1 - 0 43

Ob 3 - 2 - 0 21



1a 2 - 2 - 0 21

1b 2 - 1 - 1 20

1c 2 - 1 - 0 15

1d 2 - 0 - 1 14

1e 1 - 1 - 1 11



2a 1 - 1 - 1 11

104

2b 2 - 0 - 0 9

2c 2 - 0 - 0 9

2d 1 - 1 - 0 7

2e 1 - 0 - 1 4


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


Oa 24.5 21.6 20 118.3

Ob 24.5 22.0 20 102.0


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


1a 24.5 22.2 20 93.8

1b 24.5 22.3 20 89.8

1c 24.5 22.4 20 85.7

1d 24.5 22.5 20 81.6

1e 24.5 22.6 20 77.5


Sample

Blank

a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


2a 24.5 22.8 20 69.4

2b 24.5 22.9 20 65.3

2c 24.5 23.0 20 61.2

2d 24.5 23.1 20 57.1

2e 24.5 23.2 20 53.0


105

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

Oa 4 25 300 7.8 3.0 57.6

Ob L 25 300 7.9 3.6 51.6


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

1a S 25 300 7.9 4.0 46.8

1b I 25 300 7.9 4.2 44.4

1c 5 25 300 7.8 4.2 43.2

1d 7 25 300 7.7 4.4 39.6

1e 9 25 300 7.9 4.8 37.2


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle

(ml) DO1 DO5

BOD

mg/l

2a 4N 25 300 7.8 4.8 36.0

2b 8 25 300 7.8 4.9 34.8

2c 12 25 300 7.8 5.0 33.6

2d 17 25 300 8.0 5.4 31.2

2e 10 25 300 8.0 5.6 28.8


29/10/2009

DISSOLVED OXYGEN

With no jump


Oa 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5

Ob 4.9 4.7 4.8 4.9

With one jump


1a 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.8

1b 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.4

106

1c 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.9

1d 6.2 6.2 6.4 6.3

1e 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.6

With two jumps


2a 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7

2b 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.8

2c 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.1

2d 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.3

2e 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.4

COLIFORM with no jump


Oa 3 - 0 - 0 23

Ob 2 - 0 - 0 21

With one jump


1a 2 - 1 - 1 20

1b 2 - 1 - 0 15

1c 2 - 0 - 1 14

1d 1 - 2 - 0 11

1e 2 - 0 - 0 9

With two jumps


2a 2 - 0 - 0 9

2b 1 - 1 - 0 7

2c 1 - 0 - 0 4

2d 0 - 0 - 1 3

2e 0 - 1 - 0 3

COD with no jump

107

Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


Oa 24.6 22.2 20 97.9

Ob 24.6 22.3 20 93.8

With one jump

Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


1a 24.6 22.5 20 85.7

1b 24.6 22.6 20 81.6

1c 24.6 22.7 20 77.5

1d 24.6 22.8 20 69.4

1e 24.6 23.0 20 65.3


Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


2a 24.6 23.2 20 57.1

2b 24.6 23.3 20 53.0

2c 24.6 23.4 20 49.0

2d 24.6 23.5 20 44.9

2e 24.6 23.6 20 40.8

BOD with no jump

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle


Oa S 25 300 7.4 3.4 48.0

Ob 3 25 300 7.5 3.6 46.8

With one jump

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle


1a 11 25 300 7.4 3.7 44.4

1b 22 25 300 7.5 4.0 42.0

1c A 25 300 7.6 4.2 40.8

108

1d 4 25 300 7.5 4.5 36.0

1e 23 25 300 7.6 4.7 34.8

With two jumps

Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle


2a Q 25 300 7.6 5.0 31.2

2b U 25 300 7.7 5.3 28.8

2c A 25 300 7.7 5.5 26.4

2d 17 25 300 7.8 5.9 22.8

2e 0 25 300 7.8 6.0 21.6


02/11/2009

DISSOLVED OXYGEN



Oa 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.4

Ob 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5



1a 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7

1b 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0

1c 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6

1d 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.9

1e 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.2



2a 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.4

2b 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.6

2c 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.9

2d 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1

2e 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.3

109




Oa 3 - 3 - 2 1100

Ob 3 - 3 - 1 460



1a 3 - 3 - 1 460

1b 3 - 3 - 0 240

1c 3 - 2 - 2 210

1d 3 - 2 - 1 150

1e 3 - 1 - 2 120



2a 3 - 2 - 0 93

2b 3 - 1 - 1 75

2c 3 - 0 - 2 64

2d 3 - 1 - 0 43

2e 3 - 0 - 1 39


Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


Oa 24.7 18.9 20 232.0

Ob 24.7 19.2 20 220.0


Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


1a 24.7 19.7 20 200.0

1b 24.7 19.9 20 192.0

110

1c 24.7 20.3 20 176.0

1d 24.7 20.9 20 152.0

1e 24.7 21.1 20 144.0


Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


2a 24.7 21.6 20 124.0

2b 24.7 21.9 20 112.0

2c 24.7 22.0 20 108.0

2d 24.7 22.1 20 104.0

2e 24.7 22.2 20 100.0


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle


Oa U 25 300 10.5 1.3 110.4

Ob I 25 300 10.4 1.3 109.2


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle


1a L 25 300 10.5 1.6 106.8

1b F 25 300 10.4 1.8 103.2

1c N 25 300 10.5 2.2 99.6

1d G 25 300 10.6 3.3 87.6

1e H 25 300 10.5 3.6 82.8


Sample BN

Vol. of

sample used

(ml)

Vol. of bottle


2a Y 25 300 10.6 4.1 78.0

2b R 25 300 10.5 4.2 75.6

2c Q 25 300 10.5 4.6 70.8

2d V 25 300 10.4 5.0 64.8

2e F 25 300 10.6 5.8 57.6

111


05/11/2009

DISSOLVED OXYGEN



Oa 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1

Ob 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5

With one jump


1a 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3

1b 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.4

1c 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.9

1d 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.2

1e 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.8

With two jumps


2a 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.1

2b 6.5 6.6 6.4 6.5

2c 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.8

2d 7.0 7.0 6.9 7.0

2e 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1



Oa 3 - 3 - 3 ≥2400

Ob 3 - 3 - 2 1100

With one jump


1a 3 - 3 - 2 1100

1b 3 - 3 - 1 460

1c 3 - 3 - 0 240

1d 3 - 2 - 2 210

1e 3 - 2 - 1 150

112

With two jumps


2a 3 - 1 - 2 120

2b 3 - 2 - 0 93

2c 3 - 1 - 1 75

2d 3 - 0 - 2 64

2e 3 - 1 - 0 43

COD with no jump

Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


Oa 24.7 18.1 20 264.0

Ob 24.7 19.0 20 228.0

With one jump

Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


1a 24.7 18.3 20 256.0

1b 24.7 18.9 20 232.0

1c 24.7 19.3 20 216.0

1d 24.7 20.1 20 184.0

1e 24.7 20.3 20 176.0


Sample Blank a(ml)

Titre value

b(ml)

Vol. of


2a 24.7 20.9 20 152.0

2b 24.7 21.3 20 136.0

2c 24.7 21.8 20 116.0

2d 24.7 22.0 20 108.0

2e 24.7 22.1 20 104.0

113

BOD with no jump

Sample BN

Vol. of sample

used (ml)

Vol. of bottle


Oa K 25 300 11.8 1.1 128.4

Ob O 25 300 11.9 2.0 118.8

With one jump

Sample BN

Vol. of sample

used (ml)

Vol. of bottle


1a P 25 300 11.8 1.4 124.8

1b R 25 300 11.8 1.8 120.0

1c S 25 300 11.8 2.7 109.2

1d J 25 300 11.9 3.4 102.0

1e F 25 300 11.9 4.2 92.4

With two jumps

Sample BN

Vol. of sample

used (ml)

Vol. of bottle


2a U 25 300 11.9 4.9 84.0

2b Z 25 300 12.0 5.3 80.4

2c I 25 300 12.0 6.2 69.6

2d W 25 300 12.1 6.4 68.4

2e N 25 300 12.1 6.9 62.4

Discharge(l/s) 0.09 0.1 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.2 0.21

Height of Ist

Jump(mm) 0.3 0.4 0.7 2.2 3.9 5.2 5.7

Height of 2nd

jump(mm) 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.9 3.4 4.5 5

Length of first

jump(mm) 1.4 1.5 3.4 10.8 19.4 26.1 28.6

Length of second

jump(mm) 1.2 1.3 2.9 9.4 16.9 22.7 24.8

114

Discharge(l/s) 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.3

Height of Ist

Jump(mm) 6.2 6.9 7.5 8 9.9 11.7 12.6

Height of 2nd

jump(mm) 5.4 6 6.5 7 8.6 10.2 11

Length of first

jump(mm) 31 34.4 37.3 40.2 49.3 58.7 63.1

Length of second

jump(mm) 26.9 29.9 32.5 35 42.9 51 54.9

Discharge(l/s) 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37

Height of Ist

Jump(mm) 13.6 15.6 16.6 17.6 18.5 19.7

Height of 2

nd

jump(mm) 11.8 13.6 14.5 15.4 16.2 17.1

Length of first

jump(mm) 67.9 77.9 83.1 88.2 93.2 98.5

Length of second

jump(mm) 59.1 67.8 72.3 76.8 81 85.7

TRACERS STUDIES

Discharge = 0.09 l/s

Pond with no jump

Sample Time(S) Blank

(ml)

Titre

Value

(ml)

Salt

Concentration

(mg/l)

Oa 6 5.6 5.6 0

Ob 9 5.6 5 0.58

Oc 12 5.6 4.1 1.46

Od 15 5.6 4.9 0.68

Oe 18 5.6 5.4 0.19

Pond with one jump


(ml)

Titre

Value

(ml)

Salt

Concentration

(mg/l)

1a 8 7.9 7.9 0

1b 12 7.9 7.5 0.39

1c 16 7.9 6.5 1.36

1d 20 7.9 6.9 0.97

115

1e 24 7.9 7.8 0.1

Pond with two jump


(ml)

Titre

Value

(ml)

Salt

Concentration

(mg/l)

2a 20 9.2 9.2 0

2b 26 9.2 8.3 0.88

2c 32 9.2 8 1.17

2d 38 9.2 8.4 0.78

2e 44 9.2 9.1 0.1


Pond with no jump


(ml)

Titre

Value

(ml)

Salt

Concentration

(mg/l)

Oa 10 10.9 10.9 0

Ob 14 10.9 9.2 1.65

Oc 18 10.9 8.4 2.43

Od 22 10.9 9.5 1.36

Oe 28 10.9 10.7 0.19

Pond with one jump


(ml)

Titre

Value

(ml)

Salt

Concentration

(mg/l)

1a 16 12.1 12.1 0

1b 22 12.1 10.6 1.46

1c 28 12.1 10.1 1.95

1d 34 12.1 11.2 0.88

1e 40 12.1 12 0.1

Pond with two jump


(ml)

Titre

Value

(ml)

Salt

Concentration

(mg/l)

2a 36 14.3 14.3 0

116

2b 45 14.3 13 1.26

2c 54 14.3 12.8 1.46

2d 63 14.3 12.9 1.36

2e 72 14.3 14 0.29


Pond with no jump


(ml)

Titre

Value

(ml)

Salt

Concentration

(mg/l)

Oa 16 9.8 9.8 0

Ob 19 9.8 10 0.19

Oc 22 9.8 10.2 0.39

Od 25 9.8 10.5 0.68

Oe 28 9.8 11.9 2.04

Of 31 9.8 13.8 3.89

Og 34 9.8 13.3 3.41

Oh 37 9.8 12.1 2.24

Oi 40 9.8 11.3 1.46

Oj 43 9.8 10.6 0.78

Ok 46 9.8 10 0.19

Ol 49 9.8 9.8 0

Pond with one jump


(ml)

Titre

Value

(ml)

Salt

Concentration

(mg/l)

1a 24 14.3 14.3 0

1b 27 14.3 14.4 0.1

1c 30 14.3 14.6 0.29

1d 33 14.3 14.9 0.58

1e 36 14.3 15.9 1.57

1f 39 14.3 16.8 2.43

1g 42 14.3 16.5 2.14

1h 45 14.3 16.1 1.75

1i 48 14.3 15.8 1.46

1j 51 14.3 15 0.68

1k 54 14.3 14.5 0.19

1l 57 14.3 14.3 0

117

Pond with two jumps


(ml)

Titre

Value

(ml)

Salt

Concentration

(mg/l)

2a 56 15.9 15.9 0

2b 62 15.9 16 0.1

2c 68 15.9 16.1 0.19

2d 74 15.9 16.3 0.39

2e 80 15.9 16.7 0.78

2f 86 15.9 17 1.1

2g 92 15.9 16.8 0.88

2h 98 15.9 16.6 0.68

2i 104 15.9 16.3 0.39

2j 110 15.9 16.2 0.29

2k 116 15.9 16 0.1

2l 122 15.9 15.9 0

118

APPENDIX C

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Area of Pond 0 = (0.4x0.4) + 3(0.4x0.8) = 1.12 m2

Area of Pond 1 = (0.4x0.4) + 3(0.4x0.8) = 1.12 m2

Area of Pond 2 = 2(0.4x0.4) + 6(0.4x0.8) = 2.24 m2

Welded perimeter of Pond 0 = 0.4x3 + 0.8x2 = 2.8m



Area of plot of land = 30.48 x 15.24 = 464.52 m2

Area of iron sheet = 2.98 m2

Labour cost of fabrication per metre length = N400.00

Cost of Pond 0

Assuming area of land 464.52 m2 cost = N400,000.00

Then area occupied by pond 0, 1.12 m2 will cost = 1.12 x 400,000

464.52

= N964.44

Number of iron sheet required = 1.12 = 0.38

2.98

Assuming 1 sheet cost N 10,000, 0.38 sheet cost = 0.38 x N10,000

= N3,800.00

Cost of transportation = N1,500.00

Cost of fabrication = 2.8 x 400 = N1,120.00

Total cost of construction of Pond 0

1. Cost of land = N964.44

119

2. Cost of iron sheet = N3,800.00

3. Cost of fabrication = N1,200 .00


Total = N 7,384.44

Cost of Pond 1



464.52

= N964.44


2.98

Assuming 1 sheet cost N 10,000, 0.38 sheet cost = 0.38 x N10, 000

= N3,800.00








Total = N 7,384.44

120

Cost of Pond 2



464.52

= N1928.88


2.98

Assuming 1 sheet cost N 10,000, 0.75 sheet cost = 0.75 x N10, 000

= N7,500.00







4. Cost of fabrication = N1,500.00

Total = N 13,328.88

The above cost for ponds 1 and 2 can therefore be compared with pond 0 for equivalent

bacteria reduction. The average percentage efficiency of coliform removal of ponds 0, 1

and 2 can be obtained from data given in appendix B. They are given thus: 53.80%,

86.04% and 95.62% for ponds 0, 1 and 2 respectively. Please refer to table 4.1 for this

comparison.

121

APPENDIX D

COST IMPLICATION OF CONSTRUCTING THE WSPs AT THE UNIVERSITY

OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA WITH ONE HYDRAULIC JUMP

The existing WSPs at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka are given thus:

Ist pond = 123 X 30 X 1.2

2nd pond = 123 X 25 X 1.2

The average percentage efficiency of coliform removal of ponds 0,1 and 2 are given thus:

They are given thus: 53.80%, 86.04% and 95.62% for ponds 0, 1 and 2 respectively.

Pond 1 is 32.24% more efficient than Pond 0 (i.e. 86.04 – 53.80)

Equivalent percentage of BOD removal of pond 1 compared to pond 0

= 100 - 32.24

=67.76% = 0.68

For the existing pond: length(L)/width(W) = 123/30 =4.1

Which implies that L = 4.1W

Dimension of equivalent pond with one hydraulic jump is given thus

4.1w X w X 1.2 = 4428 X 0.68

4.92W2 = 3011.04

W = 24.74m

Dimension of equivalent UNN first pond with one hydraulic jump is given as

101.43 X 24.74 X 1.2

Similarly, dimension of equivalent UNN second pond with one hydraulic jump is given

as 101.45 X 20.62 X 1.2

Area of land 464.52m2 cost = N 400,000

122

Cost of excavation of 1m2 to 1.2m depth = N 1000

Cost of disposal of 1m3 of excavated material = N 250

from site

Cost of construction of 1st UNN pond

Cost of land (2509.38m2) = N 2,160,836.99

Cost of excavation of 2509.38m2 to 1.2m depth = N 2,509,380

Cost of disposal of 3011.25m3 excavated materials = N 752,813.46

Sub-total = N 5,423,030.45

Add 5% contingency = N 284,709.10

Total = N 5,694,181.97

Cost of construction of 2st UNN pond

Cost of land (2091.899m2) = N 1,801,342.46

Cost of excavation of 2091.899m2

to 1.2m depth = N 2,091,899

Cost of disposal of 2510.28m3 excavated materials = N 627,570.00

Sub-total = N 4,520,811.46

Add 5% contingency = N 226,040.57

Total = N 4,746,852.03

submitted in partial fulfillment of the … nkpa mba.pdf · submitted in partial fulfillment of the...

Documents