evaluation of the performance indicators for safety reuse ... afif jomma_0.pdf · -dr. orwa houshia...
TRANSCRIPT
An –Najah National University
Faculty of Graduate Studies
Evaluation of the Performance Indicators
for Safety reuse of Treatment Greywater
in Northern West Bank
By
Abeer Afif Jomma
Supervisor
Prof. Marwan Hadad
Co-Supervisor
Dr. Heba Al-Fares
This Thesis is Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Master of Environmental Science, An-Najah National
University, Nablus, Palestine.
1024
II
Evaluation of the Performance Indicators
for Safety reuse of Treatment Greywater
in Northern West Bank
By
Abeer Afif Jomma
This thesis was defended successfully on 24/1/1024 and approved by:
Defense Committee Members Signature
- Prof. Marwan Hadad /Supervisor ………………….
- Dr. Heba Al-Fares / Co-Supervisor ………………….
- Dr. Orwa Houshia / External Examiner ………………….
- Dr. Hassan Abu Qa’ud / Internal Examiner ………………….
III
Dedication
For my Mother, the soul of my Father
To my dear husband Dr Abdulla Alimari who supported and helped me
in my research
To my kids ( Tala, Essam,Tuleen and Jana)
To my Sisters and Brothers
To everyone who helped and supported me in my research with
love and respect.
IV
Acknowledgments
After thanking Allah, who granted me the power to finish this work.
I would like to express my special thanks to my supervisor Dr. Marwan
Haddad and Dr. Heba Al-Fares that helped me in my research.
My thanks are also expressed to all faculty members of An-Najah National
University specially water and environmental studies institute.
V
اإلقرار
أا الوقع/ج أدا , الشسالح التي تحول العاى:
An Integrated Evaluation of the Performance Indicators for Safety
reuse of Treatment Greywater in North West Bank
اقش أى ها اشتولت عليح ز الشسالح ,إوا ي تاج جذي الخاص, تاستثاء ها توت اإلشاسج إلي
يقذم هي قثل ليل أيح دسجح , أ لقة علوي حيثوا سد, اى ز الشسالح كلا , أ أي جزء ها لن
,أ تحثي لذ أيح هؤسسح تعليويح,أ تحثيح أخش.
Declaration
The work provided in this thesis, unless otherwise referenced is the
researcher's own work, and has not been submitted elsewhere for any other
degree or qualification .
Stud,s Name: : اسم الطبلبت
Signature: :التوقيع
Date : التبريخ :
VI
Table of content page Subject No
III Dedication
IV Acknowledgement
V Declaration
VI Table of Content
IX List of table
X List of figure
XII Abbreviations
XIII Abstract
1 Chapter one: Introduction
2 Introduction 1.1
5 Performance indicator 1.2
7 Chapter two : Literature Review
8 Literature Review 2.1
9 Greywater in Palestine 2.2
13 Greywater definitions 2.3
13 Greywater sources 2.4
15 Composition of household greywater 2.5
18 Trace elements in the environment 2.6
19 Factors affecting the concentration and distribution of
trace elements in soil
2.7
22 Long term impact of treated greywater reuse on chemical
and physical soil characteristics
2.8
22 Chapter three : Methodology
23 Methodology 3.1
23 introduction to Performance indicators 3.1.1
23 Socio economic 3.1.2
23 Questionnaires 3.1.2.1
24 Questionnaire themes 3.1.2.2
24 Greywater Sampling 3 .2
24 Chemical analysis of the greywater in target area 3. 3
25 Soil sampling 3 . 4
25 Chemical parameters 3.4.1
25 Analytical Methods of treated greywater 3.5
25 Chemical parameters 3.5.1
25 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Electrical conductivity
and pH
3.5.1 .1
26 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 3.5.1 .2
VII
26 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 3.5.1 .3
26 Chloride test Cl- 3.5.1 .4
26 Sulfate SO42-
3.5.1 .5
26 Total hardness 3.5.1 .6
27 Greywater station in the study area 3.6.2 .1
27 Sites selections 3.6.2.2
27 Description of household greywater treatment plant
used at the research area
3.6.2.3
32 Chapter four : Result
31 Short term indicator 4.1
32 COD 4.1.1
34 BOD5 4.1.2
35 Phosphate ( PO43-
) 4.1.3
36 Hardness 4.1.4
37 HCO3- 4.1.5
38 Cl ccl Cl- 4.1.6
39 NO3- 4.1.7
42 TDS 4.1.8
41 pH 4.1.9
42 E.Coli 4.1.12
43 Total Coliform 4.1.11
44 Major ions (Mg2+
, Ca2+
, Na+ and K
+ ) 4.1.12
45 Efficiency 4 .2
47 Long term indicator 4.3.1
48 The impact of irrigation of treatment greywater on
chemical properties of the soil
4.3.2
52 pH values 4.3.2.1
52 Electrical Conductivity (EC) 4.3.2.2
51 Heavy metals (Zn, Cu, Cr & Mn) 4.3.2.3
51 Socio economic indicator 4.4
52 Extension and environmental awareness 4.4.1
53 Water Consumption 4.4.2
53 Role of extension agents 4.4.3
54 Information on treated greywater 4.4.4
55 Knowledge on the use of greywater 4.4 .5
55 Source of water for irrigation 4.4 .6
56 Water services 4.4 .7
57 General information of GWTP unit 4.4.8
59 Wastewater Systems “Cesspits” for the households who
have no treatment units at their houses
4.4.9
61 Relations between dependant factor and qualitative 4.4.12
VIII
factors (independent):
66 Relations between dependant factor and quantitative
factors (independent):
4.4.11
67 Relation between socio economic and chemical analysis 4.4.12
68 Chapter five: Recommendations
69 Conclusions 5.1
72 Recommendations 5.2
71 References
79 Appendix (1)
86 Appendix (2) الولخص ب
IX
List of Table Page Subject No
14 Summary of untreated greywater characteristics from each
source
2.1
15 Treated greywater biological Characteristics 2.2
16 Treated greywater Physical and Chemical Characteristics 2.3
18 Reclaimed wastewater classification, (Sixth draft of treated
wastewater standard).
2.4
32 Summary of Averaged Data Acquired from the Stations
for Raw and Treated water.
4.1
46 Summary for the Data Acquired from the Stations for Raw
graywater (before treatment).
4.2
47 Summary for the Data Acquired from the Stations for treated
graywater (after treatment).
4.3
49 Soil extract analysis results 4.4
51 Sample distribution by governorate 4.5
52 Person Personal information for the studied communities. 4.6
53 Percent of family who have environmental training course,
acquired knowledge and acceptance to buy crops irrigated
with greywater
5.7
57 Cesspits average discharge number per year, cost and
acceptance to construct GWTP
4.8
61 Chi-square for use GWTPs for garden irrigation qualitative
independent factors
4 .9
63 Chi-square for change in efficiency with time and qualitative
independent factors
4.12
63 Anova table Acceptance of GWTP construction 4.11
66 Anova table for the use of GWTPs for garden irrigation. 4.12
X
Table of Figure
page Subject No
29 3.1
34 COD values in treated greywater from the six targeted
treatment plants
4.1
35 Values of Measured BOD5 before and after treatment.
water from the six targeted treatment plants
4. 2
36 Figure Values of Measured PO4 prior and after treatment. 4. 3
37 Values of Measured Hardness before and after treatment 4.4
38 Values of Measured HCO3- before and after treatment. 4.5
39 Values of Measured Cl- before and after treatment. 4. 6
42 Values of Measured NO32-
before and after treatment. 4. 7
41 Values of Measured TDS befor and after treatment 4. 8
42 Values of Measured pH before and after treatment. 4. 9
43 Values of Measured E.Coli befor and after treatment 4.12
44 Values of Measured Total.Ciliform before and after
treatment. 4. 11
45 Overall average values of Mg, Ca, K and Na measured
for treated greywater 4. 12
46 Efficiency of Treated Greywater System as Percent
Removal 4. 13
48 the efficiency % of the plant during 2211 and 2215. 4.14
49 Impact of irrigation of treatment greywater on chemical
properties of the soil 4.15
53 Level for agricultural service 4.16
54 Farmers oriented when a problem occurs 4.17
54 the nature of the information indicative of greywater 4.18
55 The information of the families on the use of treated
greywater in agriculture. 4.19
55 Source of information about the use of greywater 4.22
56 Important source of water usage for garden irregation 4.21
56 Major water problems 4.22
57 The most important uses of water 4.23
58 limiting factor for dissemination of the treatment units
among the communities 4.24
59 Peoples satisfaction with the applied GWTP 4.25
59 The important problem of GWTP 4.26
62 level of cesspit‟s owners satisfied 4.27
XI
62 Own GWTP related with knowledge on greywater reuse
and environmental and agriculture service . 4.28
64 Acceptance of construction GWTP related to education 4.29
65 Acceptance of construction GWTP related with future
worries 4.32
65 Acceptance of construction GWTP related with determine
factor 4.31
67 Households who use GWTPs for garden irrigation related
to garden area 4.32
67 The relation between household who use GWTPs for
garden irrigation related to the number of time discharge 4.33
XII
ABBREVIATIONS EC Electrical Conductivity
EQA Environment Quality Authority
GW Grey Water
GWTP Grey Water treatment plant
ICRDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Area
NARC National agriculture research center
NGOs Nongovernmental organizations
PSI Palestinian Standards Institute
PWA Palestinian Water Authority
SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio
TDS Total Dissolve solid
TWW Treated wastewater
WHO World Health Organization
MENA Middle east and north Africa
XIII
An Integrated Evaluation of the Performance Indicators for safety
reuse of Treatment Greywater in North West Bank
By
Abeer Afif Jomma
Supervisor
Prof. Marwan Hadad
Co- Supervisor
Dr. Heba Al-Fares
Abstract
The conventional groundwater sources supply in Palestine is vulnerable
and scarce. Among potential alternative sources of supply is greywater
which usually comprises 52–82: of residential wastewater.
The aim of this research is to assess the long and short term impacts and
social acceptance of onsite GWTPs. Performance indicators were used for
assessing the quality and efficiency of the execution of treated greywater
reuse stations in the North West Bank. Six home gardens from Jenin and
Tubas governorates used treated greywater (constructed wetland system)
for fruit tree (citrus and olive) and fodder (sorghum) plantations were
assessed. A field survey (Questionnaires) were designed for the
beneficiaries. Data was collected and analyzed using Excel and SPSS
package. The short term indicator included greywater quality parameter
before and after treatment during the period from June and July 2215.
pH , TDS, Na+ ,Ca
2+ ,Cl
- ,BOD ,PO4
2+ and SO4
2-fall within the
Palestinian standard for treated wastewater (2212). The average were
7.5, 1224.27, 128.2, 65.6, 224, 178, 7.69 and 139 respectively. While
XIV
Mg2+
,NO-3and COD were higher than the standard. The average were
288.3, 77.8 snd 422.8respectively
The long term indicator includes greywater treatment result in 2211 carried
out by North Agriculture Research Centre NARC compared with the
greywater treatment results in the year 2215 and the impact of irrigation
with treated greywater on chemical properties of the soil.
During 2215, the efficiency of total coliform removal was 33.3: compared
to 87 % in 2211. The decrease was 53.3:. In 2215, the efficiency of E
.coli was 37.3: compared to 55.3 % in 2211. The decrease was 18:. The
efficiency of BOD was 72.8 in 2215 compared to 75.8 % in 2211. The
decrease was 5:. The efficiency of EC was 9.8 % in 2215 compared to
27.3 % in 2211. The decrease was 17.5:. The TDS decrease 16.3 % . The
important parameters as BOD, TDS, EC, and E .coli showed a decrease in
the efficiency of the stations by time, but it remains within the accepted
Palestinian standards .
Three soil samples were collected from the garden irrigated with treated
graywater at depth 2-32cm and 32-62cm copared with the control irrigated
with fresh water. The results of the pH was 6.67 and for Ec was 2.65
which remains within the accepted Palestinian standards. The average
concentrations of Zn, Cu, Cr and Mn were 3.3, 2.44, 2.69 and 5.16
respectively in soils were not significantly higher than control. The results
also do not show any relationship between long time application of
greywater and heavy metals accumulations in the soil. In total, 62: of
individuals do not have information about greywater. The study shows that
XV
nearly 76: of the respondents face a water shortage and the same percent
reported that water prices being a major constraint they have to deal with.
The average number of seepage times is 4.6 and the average cost is 95 NIS
per each time. This reflects the high cost of the seepage. Moreover, 33: of
treatment units‟ owners stated that the units need regular maintenance.
About 71: of unit‟s owners stated that the units increase crop production in
the home garden. In addition, 89 % of them indicated the decrease in units
efficiency by time. These results are inagreement with chemical analysis.
The economic factor (37:) was limiting factor for dissemination of the
treatment units among the communities. People‟s satisfaction with the
applied GWTPs was very promising, as the majority 71.4: of GWTPs
beneficiaries are satisfied with the treatment stations.
1
Chapter one
Introduction
2
2.2 Introduction
Water supply in Palestine is one of the most serious problems facing
Palestinian society. The lack of water resources and the competition
between different uses, i.e. domestic, agricultural and industrial is
increasing demand with time. The limitation of water resources for the
Palestinians is mainly due to the Israeli occupation authorities laws and
practices. Israeli settlements control water resources, waste a lot of fresh
water quantities, and produce a lot of wastewater which is disposed on
Palestinian land contaminating the soil and the limited water resources
available for Palestinians(Al-Jayyousi, 2223).. Cesspits used by
Palestinians to dispose their wastewater are a major source of pollution to
water resources. These cesspits also form a large burden on the income of
the Palestinian families, where some families spend about 22: of their
monthly income to manage water and wastewater at house level (PHG,
2227). Palestine is one of the most water-poor countries of the Middle East
due to natural and artificial constraints. It is also one of the most highly
populated, a fast developing country in the region and is thought to be
under significant environmental stress. Urgent actions are required to
mitigate this situation, including environmental protection and the
utilization of the available non- conventional water resources, precisely,
the utilization of the treated wastewater. At present, water needs exceed
the available water supply. The gap between water supply and water
demand is steadily growing and is calling for the adoption of the integrated
water resources management approach and the mobilization of any
3
additional conventional and non-conventional water resources. Treated
wastewater is seen as one of the promising solutions that can assist in
partially filling the gap of the growing needs for water (Mahmoud and
Mimi, 2228). Most of the wastewater is generated from households. The
domestic wastewater usually contains disease- causing pathogens and
contain heavy metals or toxic components. Controlled treatment of
wastewater is essential to reducing potential pollution of surface or
groundwater. In addition, treated wastewater can be an excellent source for
irrigation purposes. Food security is at risk because the amount of fresh
water that can form sustainable supplies to people is reaching its limits
because of Israeli restrictions, which is extended to whole of Palestine. The
current main source of income is agriculture for the majority of the
population. A state of conflict and competition over land and water
resources has arisen and continues to prevail. This has had an adverse
impact on the living and food security conditions of the household.
Properly treated wastewater can be reused to reduce the demand on high
quality freshwater resources. Wastewater recycling increases the
availability of water supply, reduces vulnerability to droughts and enables
greater human benefit with less use of fresh water. By reducing the need
for fresh water and wastewater discharges, water recycling has the
potential to make a substantial contribution to meeting human water needs,
and reducing mankind‟s impact on the world‟s water environment. As in
many developing countries, sanitation tends to receive less attention and
fewer financial resources than water supply. This leads to a lack of
4
maintenance even for existing wastewater treatment plants (WWTP), as is
the case, for example, in Morocco and Algeria where more than half of the
WWTP are not functioning properly (Coppola et al., 2224). In many
small-to-medium-sized communities, wastewater treatment requirements
are met using conventional onsite septic tanks, with effluent being
disposed into the groundwater. In Palestinian rural areas the sewage
problem is even more complicated and wastewater management at all
stages is inadequate. The existing on-site sewage disposal in rural areas
(the majority of the households in the West Bank villages use septic tanks
and cesspits) does not accommodate the vast increases in wastewater
generated by the population. Thus, untreated sewage contaminates ground
water and agricultural fields and causes critical community and
environmental health risks. Palestinian NGOs with international funds are
the main organizations involved in the construction of wastewater
treatment plants in the rural areas in the West Bank.
Water scarcity in the West Bank poses a critical constraint to further
expanding, or even maintaining present irrigated areas. There is an
increasing demand for agricultural water use to be restricted in favor of
other water consumers, such as local communities and industry. The West
Bank is that part of the Palestinian areas that were occupied by Israel in
1967 war and is at present partially under Palestinian Authority. Since
1967 Israel has controlled water resource and management in Palestine,
including the licensing, operation, administration of wells and prohibition
of new well drilling without authorization. In fact, Palestinians in the West
5
Bank are limited to 125 (million cubic meters) MCM of their water
resources per year for all purposes. From this quota, 93 MCM are used for
agriculture to irrigate around 6 percent of the Palestinian cultivated area in
the West Bank (1.68 million dunums, 1 dunum = 1222 square meters). In
contrast, Israel enjoys a plentiful supply of water (1252 MCM) to irrigate
271777522 dunums that form 62 percent of its cultivated land (Arij,2211) .
2.1 Performance indicator
A performance indicator is a measurement survey to evaluate progress
toward periodic achievement of the efficiency or productivity of a process
that reflects the outcome or results of the process activities (Fitz-Gibbon
1992). Performance indicators may be considered as providing key
information needed to define the efficiency and performance of a facility
or a system (Calor Taylor 1997). Performance indicators (PI) are
evaluation tools that measure potential advantages and restrictions within
the preparation and implementation of greywater reuse projects. The final
verdict and success of a water reuse task depends on many different
aspects such aseconomic, technical, geological, sociological,
environmental, political, and quality as well as risk issues. The purpose of
developing these performance indicators of treated greywater reuse in the
north west bank is to create impact estimation indicators of the project
interventions on farming systems and the environment (land and water
resources). Socio-economic, technical, and environmental aspects leading
to safe and productive use of wastewater for crop production systems at
the farm level and similar use of greywater at the household level .
6
Efficiency is the extent to which the resources of an undertaking are used
to provide the service by maximizing delivery and minimizing misuse.
Waste water and greywater reuse for agricultural purposes in Palestine is
being slowly introduced for a number of reasons (Houshia 2212, 2213).
Development of agriculture in north west bank (Palestine) is especially
troubled by a number of challenges, the most important of which is
constrained water resources since, as an arid and semi-arid country, it
receives very little rain (PWA). This in turn limits the extent of rain-fed
agriculture. Irrigated agriculture still has room for growth; however, it
must compete with other demands for the limited available water mainly
from domestic and industrial consumers. Thus, farmers understand that it
is vital that all available water resources in the country be put to the most
beneficial economic use, including the use of treated waste and greywater.
2.1 Research Questions
What is the impact of short and long term use of treated graywater on
Economic, social and physical aspect ?
7
Chapter two
Literature review
8
1.2 Literature review
Many studies on wastewater address socioeconomic and political issues
associated with its use for agriculture. Decentralized greywater
management in Japan, North America and Australia are considered the
highest ranked globally. In areas with low population densities, such as
throughout North America and Australia, greywater reuse is common
practice due to water scarcity and lack of centralized treatment facilities.
Since greywater is a reflection of household activities, its main
characteristics strongly depend on factors such asliving standard, cultural
habits, type of household chemicals used,household demography, etc. In
Cyprus, a study on greywater reuse indicates a 36: reduction in water
usage when household greywater is reused. The generated amount of
greywater greatly varies as a function of the dynamics of the household. It
is influenced by factors such as existing water supply systems, and
infrastructure, number of household members, age distribution, lifestyle
characteristics, typical water usage patterns etc. Most system failures are
caused by inappropriate operation and maintenance, sometimes also
resulting from a lack of system understanding by the owners (Sandec,
2226). Framers and common public of the MENA (Middle East And
North Africa) countries have limited knowledge and unclear perceptions
towards wastewater reuse and the prevailing water shortage. Many people
believe that Islamic religion prohibits reuse of treated wastewater.
Conversely, Islamic religion supports water demand initiatives as well as
9
reuse of treated wastewater that does not have negative impacts on public
health. Joint efforts are needed from academic, governmental,
nongovernmental, and aid institutions on developing awareness and
appropriate educational programs and initiatives that improve public
knowledge and perceptions (AbuMadi and Al-Sa‟ed, 2229).
A decentralized system employs a combination of onsite and/or cluster
systems and is used to treat and dispose of wastewater from houses and
businesses close to the source. Decentralized wastewater systems allow for
flexibility in wastewater management, and different parts of the system
may be combined into “treatment trains,” or a series of processes to meet
treatment goals, overcome site conditions, and to address environmental
protection requirements. Managed decentralized wastewater systems are
viable, long-term alternatives to centralized wastewater treatment facilities,
particularly in small and rural communities where they are often most cost-
effective. These systems already serve a quarter of the population in the
U.S. and half the population in some states. They should be considered in
any evaluation of wastewater management options for small and mid-sized
communities (Pipeline, 2222).
1.1 Greywater in Palestine
Scarcity and misuse of water are serious and growing threats to sustainable
development and protection of the environment. Human health and well
fare, industrial development, food security, and the ecosystems on which
they depend are all at risk, unless water and land resources are managed
more effectively than they have been in the past to meet the increasing
12
population demands (Al-Jayyousi, 2223). With increased population
growth and development in Palestine (PCBS, 2212), the conventional
groundwater sources supply is becoming increasingly vulnerable and
scarce. This growth, combined with recent years of low rainfall, political
turmoil, has resulted in increasing pressure on water supplies in
Palestine(Amjad, 1999). To circumvent this problem, an alternative water
resource plan is being advocated. Among these potential alternative
sources of supply is greywater(Faruqui and Al-Jayyousi. 2223). Greywater
from a single household, if treated Properly, can be considered a resource
and can be used on-site for garden irrigation, washing machines, toilet
flushing, and other outdoor uses(AlHamaiedeh and Bino. 2212). Garden
irrigation and toilet flushing, for example, do not need water with drinking
quality (Bino, Al-Beiruti and Ayesh, 2212). Greywater refers to the
wastewater generated from kitchens, bathrooms and laundries, not black
water, which is waste water containing human excrement. Greywater can
be used untreated, or it can be treated to varying degrees to reduce
nutrients and disease-causing microorganisms. The appropriate uses of
greywater depend on both the source of greywater and the level of
treatment. The potential health risks associated with greywater recycling
when it has been sourced from a multi-dwelling or commercial premises
are considered potentially greater than those associated with greywater
recycling within single domestic premises. Therefore, greywater recycling
must always occur in a safe and controlled manne (Al- Hamaiedeh, 2212).
In the northern part of the Palestine (West Bank), there are many
11
communities with sparse population and large landscape area that have not
permanent water resources. For agriculture and domestic purposes these
communities get their water from either the seasonal rainfall or they resort
to trucking water in tanks from a distant source. Those towns and villages
lack proper sewage system. The reuse of grey-water at household scale has
become an important tool to enhance water efficiency, which enables them
to use for water for multi-purpose irrigation.
The generated amount of greywater greatly varies as a function of the
dynamics of the household. Its influence by factors such as infrastructure,
existing water supply systems, age distribution, number of household
members, typical water usage patterns, and life style characteristics etc.
Reuse of treated greywater in irrigation can significantly contribute to
reducing water usage and increasing food security. Greywater reuse is
especially recommended in areas facing water stress such as the Middle
East and Sub-Saharan Africa. Most system failures are caused by improper
operation and maintenance, sometimes also resulting from a lack of system
understanding by the owners (Sandec, 2226). Greywater contains
impurities and micro-organisms derived from personal and household
cleaning activities. While bathroom and laundry water are relatively
moderate, kitchen water often needs special attention because it is
contained with organic matter from food wastes. Greywater is distinct
from black water (from the toilet or urinal) as there are fewer
environmental and health risks associated with its use. If used wisely and
appropriately, Greywater including its separation, containment and use can
12
be a simple home-based water demand management strategy that has
benefits at the household level as it can be considered as an alternative
water resource to optimize productivity (Redwood, 2227). Greywater thus
does not contain the same elevated level of pathogens (WHO, 2226).
Greywater should be regarded as a valuable resource and not as a waste.
Despite the described inadequate greywater management risks, greywater
has, nevertheless, a great potential to reduce the water stress currently
faced by regions in the world. Reuse of greywater for irrigating home
gardens or agricultural land is widespread, especially in regions with water
scarcity or high water prices such as the Middle East, Latin America and
parts of Africa. Greywater is thus perceived and recognized as a valuable
resource (Sandec, 2226). Greywater in contrast to common perception,
may be quite polluted, and thus may pose health risks and negative
aesthetics (i.e., offensive odour and colour) and environmental effects
(Diaper et al., 2221). Onsite greywater reuse is a feasible solution for
decreasing overall urban water demand, not only from an environmental
standpoint, but also from economic profitability under typical conditions
(Friedler and Hadari, 2225). One strategy may be to encourage more on-
site sanitation rather than expensive transport of sewerage to centralized
treatment plants: this strategy has been successful in Dakar, Senegal, at the
cost of about 422 US$ per household (World Bank, 2225). A series of
projects on greywater treatment and reuse have been implemented in
Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine. The projects explored water management
techniques, simple technological innovations and creative agricultural
practices for greywater reuse at the household level. Households used the
recycled water to irrigate crops with associated social and economic
13
benefits. Officials monitored the quality of the greywater used for
irrigation over time and concluded that the system met WHO‟s standard
for restricted irrigation (AWC, 2226)
1.1 Greywater definitions
Greywater is washing water from bathtubs, showers, bathroom
washbasins, clothes washing machines and laundry tubs, kitchen sinks and
dishwashers. (Del Porto and Steinfeld, 2222)
Whereas NSW Health(2222) defined greywater as a wastewater which is
not grossly contaminated by feces or urine, i.e. the wastewater arising from
plumbing fixtures not designed to receive human excrement or discharges
and includes bath, shower, hand basin, laundry and kitchen discharges.
Greywater safer (2224) defined greywater as a wastewater generated in the
bathroom, laundry and kitchen, and is therefore the components of
wastewater which have not originated from the toilet.
Greywater arises from domestic washing operations. Sources include
waste from hand basins, kitchen sinks and washing machines, but
specifically exclude black water from toilets, bidets and urinals. (Jefferson
et al., 2221)
Greywater is defined as all wastewaters generated in the household,
excluding toilet wastes. It can come from the sinks, showers, tubs, or
washing machine of a home. (Casanova et al., 2221)
1.2 Greywater sources
Greywater can be divided into several groups, according to the source of
the greywater. In this section work the structure shown in Table (1) is
14
used. Table (1) gives a first overview of the general characteristics of the
three main greywater source types.
Table ( 1.2): Untreated greywater characteristics from each source
Water sources Characteristics
Laundry Biological: high in biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD).
Microbiological: variable thermotolerant coliform
loads Chemical :ammonia, boron, nitrogen ,
phosphate, sodium, surfactants, and from soap
powders and soiled clothes.
Physical: turbidity, high in suspended solids and
lint.
Bathroom Biological: lower levels of concentrations of
biochemical oxygen demand(BOD).
Microbiological: lower levels of thermotolerant
coliforms Chemical: cleaning chemicals, hair dyes
,shampoo, soap and toothpaste.
Physical: hair, high in suspended solids, and
turbidity.
Kitchen Biological: high in biochemical oxygen
demand(BOD).
Microbiological: variable thermotolerant coliform
loads.
Chemical: detergents, cleaning agents.
Physical: fats, grease, food particles, oils, turbidity
Source: (Queensland, 1001)
The most significant pollutants of greywater are powdered laundry
detergents. These contain high salt concentration and in many cases still
contain phosphorus, and are often very alkaline. Long term garden reuse of
laundry water containing high salt and phosphorus concentrations can lead
to salt accumulations in the soil and stunting of plants with low
15
phosphorus tolerance. Regions with regular rainfall may not suffer salt
build-ups due to leaching of salts from soil after rain. There are several
alternatives to using powdered laundry detergents. These include liquid
detergents (which are generally much lower in salt content), pure soap
flakes (e.g. Lux soap flakes) or ceramic disks (e.g. Tri-Clean laundry
disks). High strength cleaners should be avoided in the home, as they are
often toxic to both people and the environment. If caustic cleaners are
washed down the drain, they are likely to kill beneficial treatment bacteria
in soils if greywater is reused for onsite garden irrigation (Marshall, 1996).
1.3Composition of household greywater
Table 2.2 presents the microbiological quality (the number of
thermotolerant coliforms) of greywater from various sources in a
residential dwelling. Thermotolerant coliforms are also known as faecal
coliforms (expressed as colony forming units per 122 ml) and are a type of
micro-organism which typically grow in the intestine of warm blooded
animals (including humans) and are shed in their millions to billions per
gram of faeces. A high faecal coliform count is undesirable and indicates a
greater chance of human illness and infections developing through contact
with the wastewater.
Table (1.1) : Treated greywater biological Characteristics
Characteristic Unit limits
Escherecia coli cfu/122ml **
Intestinal Helminthes
Eggs
egg/ L ≤1
Source: Water -Reclaimed greywater in rural areas- Jordanian standards (1002)
16
The chemical and physical quality of treated greywater is shown in Table
2.2. The high variability of the greywater quality is due to factors such
aswater use efficiencies of appliances, individual habits, source of water
and fixtures, products used (detergents,soaps, shampoos) and other
characteristics.
Table (1.1):Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Treated greywater.
Characteristic Unit limits
BOD5 mg/l 322
COD mg/l 522
TSS mg/l 152
pH Unit 6-9
NO3- mg/l 52
T-N mg/l 72
Turbidity NTU 25
Phenol mg/l 2.25
MBAS mg/l 25
TDS mg/l 1522
T-P mg/l 15
Cl- mg/l 352
SO4- mg/l 522
Source: Water -Reclaimed greywater in rural areas- Jordanian standards (1002).
Wastewater Reuse Water reuse can be planned through specifically
designed projects to treat, store, convey and distribute treated wastewater
for irrigation. Examples of planned reuse can be found in Tunisia. Indirect
reuse can also be planned as in Jordan and Morocco, where treated
wastewater is discharged into open watercourses. Wherever available,
farmers prefer to rely on freshwater, which is usually very cheap and
socially acceptable. But if no other source of water is available, especially
in arid and semiarid regions such as the case in the Middle East, farmers
17
throughout the region would be encouraged to use wastewater for
irrigation (EMWATER, 2224). Recycling wastewater for food production
is less common than using wastewater for municipal uses, golf courses, or
wetlands. Yet, it is common in poorer countries of the world where water
is simply unavailable or where the economic incentive to reuse is
substantial. It is estimated that 22 million farmers worldwide uses
untreated or partially treated wastewater (WHO, 2228). There are several
theoretical advantages of using wastewater: It is available for 365 days a
year, it comes in reliable and predictable quantities, quantities are not
normally reduced during a drought, it can be made available cheaply.
Unfortunately, in Palestine policy to promote reuse attempts so far have
not been conclusive (World Bank, 2229). Oron et al. (1999) identified two
basic requirements for utilization of wastewater as a solution for water
shortage problems whilst minimizing the health and environmental risks:
(i) the need for comprehensive wastewater collection systems, and (ii) the
need for well-operated wastewater treatment facilities. The most important
barriers for reuse of reclaimed wastewater in the MENA region, the reuse
of reclaimed wastewater are often recognized after the design and
implementation of treatment plants. Due to low tariffs of irrigation water,
farmers are not attracted to replace freshwater with reclaimed wastewater,
framers and common public of the MENA countries have limited
knowledge and unclear perceptions towards wastewater reuse and the
prevailing water shortage (Abu-Madi and Al-Sa‟ed, 2229). Palestine has
its own standard “The sixth draft of treated wastewater standard”, which
18
has been prepared by a special technical committee. The main components
of the standard are as elaborated in Table (2-4).The standard consists of a
combination of factors that influence the use treated wastewater in several
purposes, and reclaimed wastewater is classified into 4 groups as shown in
the Table (2-4) below.
Table (1.2)Reclaimed wastewater classification, (Sixth draft of treated
wastewater standard).
Class Water Quality Parameters
BOD5 TSS Fecal coliforms
Class A
Class B
Class C
Class D
High quality 22 mg/l, 32 mg/l 222 MPN/122 ml
Good quality 22 mg/l, 32 mg/l, 1222 MPN/122 ml
Medium quality 42 mg/l, 52 mg/l, 1222 MPN/122ml
Low quality 62 mg/l, 92 mg/l, 1222 MPN/122 ml
Source: Palestinian Standards Institute (PSI, 1020)
1.4 Trace elements in the environment
Trace elements are released into the environment from the natural
weathering of rocks and minerals from various sources related to human
activity. Although the concentration of these elements occurring in nature
is generally low, they may directly or indirectly affect the chemical
composition of foodstuff and animal feed, potable water supplies and
airborne particulates and dust. The practical implication of trace elements
in the environment relates to their availability for plant uptake from the
soils and their release into water systems. The content of trace elements in
19
soil is an indication of possible excesses or deficiencies for plant nutrition
and ultimately animal and human health (Haluschak et al., 1998).
1.2 Factors affecting the concentration and distribution of trace
elements in soil
The concentrations of trace elements in the soil and water is the result of
interaction between various factors affecting geological weathering and
soil forming processes (Haluschak et al., 1998).local soil and hydrological
conditions affecting processes of soil formation, soil development and
availability of trace elements for plant uptake. Heavy metal content in soils
irrigated by treated wastewater soil is an essential natural resource but with
time degradation will be increased due to the deposition of pollutants. The
study of Maldonado (2228) demonstrated that among the variables, soil
type was the only factor showing a statistical difference. It was noted that
concentrations of boron, chromium, copper, iron and nickel concentrated
in deeper soil layers while cadmium, potassium, sodium, and lead showed
the opposite effect.
It was also noted that organic material is an important variable and that it
can influence the mobility of metals in those areas where high
concentrations, coincide with constant irrigation. Clearly, the area has been
constantly exposed to certain health hazardous metals. More attention is
recommended, even though at this time a wastewater treatment plant has
22
been built and partly treated water is used to irrigate the crops (Maldonado
et al., 2228). In contaminated soils, heavy metals such as arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury and zinc are common
(Raymond et al., 2211).
1.2 Long term impact of treated greywater reuse on chemical and
physical soil characteristics
In Jordan, the use of treated greywater (GW) for irrigation in home
gardens is becoming increasingly common. According to a study
conducted by Mutah University and The Inter-Islamic Network on Water
Resources Development and Management, Amman, Jordan on Effect of
treated greywater reuse in irrigation on soil and plants, treated greywater
produced from 4-barrel and confined trench treatment units were used for
irrigation of olive trees and some vegetable crops. The quality of treated
and untreated GW was studied to evaluate the performance of treatment
units and the suitability of treated GW for irrigation according to Jordanian
standard. Effect of treated GW reuse on the properties of soil and irrigated
plants at Al-Amer villages, Jordan, has been investigated. The results
showed that salinity, Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR), and organic content
of soil increased as a function of time, therefore leaching of soil with fresh
water was highly recommended. The chemical properties of the irrigated
olive trees and vegetable crops were not affected, while the biological
quality of some vegetable crops was adversely affected (Al-Hamaiedeh et
al., 2212). Glasshouse experiments were conducted to examine the effects
21
of greywater irrigation on the growth of silver beet plants, their water use
and changes in soil properties. Results showed that greywater irrigation
had no significant effect on soil total Nitrogen and total Phosphorous after
plant harvest, but there were significant effects on the values of soil pH
and EC. Furthermore, there were no significant effects of greywater
irrigation on plant dry biomass, water use and number of leaves. Irrigating
alternate with potable water and greywater could reduce some of the soil
health risks associated with the reuse of greywater (Pinto et al., 2212).
A controlled study of the effect of greywater (GW) irrigation on soil
properties was conducted by Micheal et al., (2212), Containers of sand,
loam and loess soils were planted with lettuce, and irrigated with fresh
water, raw artificial greywater or treated artificial greywater. Greywater
was treated using a recalculating vertical-flow constructed wetland. It was
demonstrated that raw artificial greywater significantly increased the
development of hydrophobicity in the sand and loam soils, as determined
by water droplet penetration time. No significant changes were observed
for the loess soil under all treatments. This study demonstrates that treated
greywater can be effectively used for irrigation without detrimental effects
on soil or plant growth. Hamaiedeh (2212) showed that there is no
increase in the rate of water born diseases after greywater reuse for
irrigation. The accumulation of heavy metals in the soil was insignificant
and the uptake of these metals by the irrigated plants did not occur.
22
Greywater contains significant concentrations of materials with potential
negative environmental and health impact, such as salts, surfactants, oils,
synthetic chemicals and microbial contaminants (Gross et al., 2227).
Chapter three
Methodology
23
1.2 Methodology
1.2.2 introduction to Performance indicators
Performance indicators were considered in this study for an
integrated evaluation of the performance indicators for safety reuse of the
treatment of gray water in Northern west bank. Performance indicators for
greywater reuse are qualitative and quantitative indicators for assessing the
quality and efficiency of the execution of treated greywater reuse projects
in the North West Bank. The Performance indicators are divided into
social, economic, and environmental indicators.
Social indicators: training, quality of life, society awareness of water
resources and cover employment.
Economic indicators: saving, cover supply, process/service saving,
infrastructure needs, increased crop productivity, and economic
development .
24
Environmental indicators: change in soil composition ,cover changes in
water composition (physical–chemical) and ecological quality (Alimari et
al.,2212).
To measure the above indicators, the following activities were conducted:
1.2.1 Socioeconomic impacts of treated grey water
1.2.1.2 Field Questionnaires Formulation
A field survey covered the main groups of interest for reuse of treated
greywater in irrigation in north west bank. Questionnaires were designed
for the target group and were distributed for the direct and indirect
beneficiaries. Data were collected and analyzed using Excel and SPSS
package.
1.2.1.1 Questionnaire themes
The sample size of 71 households was selected and personally interviewed
from two governorates Jenin 33 and Tubas 38.
The questionnaire covered baseline information on the following:
- Social information on farmer‟s household.
- Irrigation quantities, quality, cost, irrigation methods.
- Level of awareness of safety reuse of greywater.
- Identification of the impact of greywater treatment unit on the
environment.
- Evaluation of the total saving in freshwater use.
- Evaluation of the farming, fertilizer use ,and crop patterns.
- Conduct economic analyses to assess previous farming practices and
farm greywater reuse scheme.
25
1 .1 Greywater Sampling
Field visits were carried out to determine greywater sampling, and
greywater treatment unit locations in Jenin and Tubas. Six unites were
chosen. sampling was conducted according to ministry of agriculture guide
line.
1. 1 Chemical analysis of the greywater in target area
Analysis of the greywater before and after the treatment were performed
acquiring several samples and analyzing the parameters. These include
analysis of Cations such as: Mg2+
, Ca2+
, K+, Na
+, and Anions such: NO
3-,
PO43-
,Cl-, CO3
2-. Other important parameters include chemical oxygen
demand (COD), biological oxygen demand (BOD), Conductivity, Total
Coliforms (TC), and the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).
1 .2 Soil sampling
Soil samples were collected from three plan from Tubas and Jenin village
(three home gardens irrigated by treated greywater) and control sample
irrigated by fresh water. sampling was conducted according to ministry of
agriculture guide line. Samples were collected from two depth 2-32 cm
and 32-62cm and placed in plastic bags for transport and storage.
1.2.2 Chemical analysis for the soil.
Analysis of the irrigated soil with treated greywater will be performed
acquiring several soil samples and analyzing the parameters. These include
analysis of Cations such as: Mg2+
, Ca2+
, K+, Na
+ and Anions such: NO
3-,
PO43-
, Cl- and CO3
-2. Other important parameters including Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS) and the biological oxygen demand were
monitored.
26
1.3 Analytical Methods of treated greywater
Several analytical methods for treated greywater parameters, namely
chemical, physical and microbiological were analyzed. Chemical
analyzing was conducted according to An-Najah National University.
1.3.2 Chemical parameters
1.3.2.2 pH, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and Electrical conductivity.
pH, TDS, EC and were measured in situ by a multipurpose EC- pH meter
(HACH) (Clescerl et al., 1998).
1.3.2.1 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)was determined by digesting water
sample with potassium dichromate and concentrated sulfuric acid, and
after that sample was titrated with 2.25M potassium dichromate(Clescerl
et al., 1998).
1.3.2.1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
The air tight bottle was filled by 122 ml water and incubated at 22 (C for 5
days. After 5 days, Biochemical dissolved oxygen reading (ppm) was
measured by using the dissolved oxygen test kit (Clescerl et al., 1998).
1.3.2.2Chloride test Cl--
Titrated 12 ml volume sample and12 ml distilled water volume (blank)and
3 drops of potassium chromate K2CrO4(indicator) using 2.2141 N
AgNO3(Clescerl et al., 1998).
1.3.2.3 Sulfates (SO2-1)
27
Spectrophotometer at an absorbance of 422 nm wavelengths was used to
measure sulfate from paper-filtered sample(Clescerl et al., 1998).
1.3.2.4 Total hardness
Hardness was determined by titrated sample against disodium ethylene
demine tetra acetate (EDTA) to it is equivalence point by using eriochrome
black T indicator. The result changes of the solution from red to blue.
After titration, pH of the sample was adjusted to 12.2 with ammonium
buffer kit (Clescerl et al., 1998).
1.4.1.2 Greywater station in the study area
In West Bank there are many localities with a consider able population
numbers and area, mainly in the northern part, have no permanent water
resources and depend mainly on rainfall or water transportation from far
sources to obtain their needs for domestic and agriculture purposes. For
these towns and the village that also lack sewage system, the reuse of
greywater at household scale became an important tool to enhance water
use efficiency, which enables people to obtain additional water to be used
for irrigation purposes.
1.4.1.1 Sites selections
Jenin, Tubas which are located in North West Bank, which are a major
agricultural area with limited water resources. They mainly cultivated rain
fed crops, such as wheat, barley and some forages. Eastern parts of these
areas are considered a marginal region with limited rainfall that do not
exceed 322 mm in the good year.
28
1.4.1.1 Description of household greywater treatment plant used in
the research area
The constructed wetland system was developed by ICARDA and adopted
by NARC. The design of the treatment unit of the “wetland system”
consisted of the followings:
The greywater from the house is transferred to the manhole through a PVC
pipe (diameter = 4 inches) for further gravity separation. The manhole
contains two valves for maintenance and controlling overflow to cesspits,
and is covered with a concrete lid (diameter 52cm, depth 52cm).
Gravity separation: A 122 L tank which separates greywater into three
layers: solids in the bottom (if present), the upper layer of grease and oils,
and a middle layer consisting of greywater. There is a filter connected to
the end of the line to take the water to the next part. The other end is
connected to a pierced horizontal 3˝tube. The upper end of the U-tube is
connected to a 52cm tube for sampling. The 3˝ U – pipe tube were used to
transfer the middle layer (water) to the next part.
The third compartment is used as up flow Tuff. This part has been
constructed from concrete and cinder-blocks (Dimensions W=82cm,
H=82cm, L= 4m). The compartment has a slight ground slope of 1:. There
is a layer of soft sand to adjust the slope and to protect internal black-
plastic cover (thickness 622 micron). An insulating sheet of polystyrene
(thickness 2cm) is placed between the walls of the compartment and the
black-plastic cover. Finally, the volcanic Tuff (diameter ~22 mm) was
placed in the compartment.
29
The fourth compartment (barrel = 122 liter) is a collection and a pumping
stage. This drum is placed below the ground level by a 25 cm. A concrete
slab is poured into the barrel to hold it in place. Holes of 2.5 cm are then
drilled through the sides of the barrel to a height of up to 52 cm. Then, a
submersible pump is installed within the barrel and an electric aeration unit
is installed to pump the air from the bottom of the barrel to the top
(bubbling air). A drip irrigation system is connected with the setup to
efficiently distribute the water to the garden trees (Houshia et al.,2212)
Figure (1. 2): grey water treatment plant .
32
Chapter Four
Results and discussion
31
Research plan was fully implemented as presented in the methodology.
The result obtained as an average for all plans including short term
indicator, long term indicator and socioeconomic indicator are presented
and discussed below.
2 .2 Short term indicator
The short term indicator included greywater quality parameter before and
after treatment during the period from June and July 2215 (see Table 4.1).
The table show that the pH, TDS, Na+, Ca
2+, Cl
-, BOD, PO4
2+ and SO4
2-
fall with the Palestinian standard for treated wastewater (2212). The
average were 7.5, 1224.27, 128.2, 65.6, 224, 178, 7.69 and139
respectively. While Mg2+
, NO-3 and COD were higher than the standard.
The average were 288.3, 77.8 and 422.83respectively (see appendix 2)
32
Table (2.2): Summary of Range and Average Data Acquired from the
Stations for Raw and Treated water. Averageof
treated water
Range of
treated water
Average of
raw water
Range of
raw water Parameter
7.51 7.2-7.9 5.76 4.8-6.5 pH
1.62 1.2-1.7 1.77 1.27-3.5 EC(mmohes)
625.25 466.7-764.4 361.93 164.7-469.5 HCO32-
(ppm)
353.45 282-434 326.26 312.5-412.5 Hardness (ppm)
1224.27 794-1254 1211.92 687-1292 TDS (ppm)
128.2 126-156 111.55 88-136.8 Na+ (ppm)
65.16 51-78 62.58 37.5-91 Ca2+
(ppm)
288.29 229-371 258.65 222-363 Mg2+
(ppm)
224.21 171.9-329.9 326.37 224.9-394.9 Cl- (ppm)
28.59 17.6-47.7 31.47 22.7-41.5 K + (ppm)
77.83 33.8-149 453.58 62.5-816 NO3- (ppm)
178.28 151-242 712.42 591.5-788.8 BOD (ppm)
7.69 5.8-12.5 15.64 8.7-23 PO4-3
138.99 77.5-232 274.52 151-458 SO4-2
422.83 122-842 2277 962-3222 COD
1172.833 157.5-2822 1882.5 262-3222 E-coli
(cfu/122ml)
12345.83 1222-3422 145526. 1837.5-
282222
T. Coliform
(cfu/122ml)
33
The following paragraphs are discussion of each of the indicator
separately.
2.2.2 COD
Figure (4. 1) illustrate the values of effluent COD of the six analyzed
greywater treatment plants. The minimum COD value was122ppm while
the maximum was 842ppmin the treated greywater. The minimum COD
value was962ppm while the maximum was 3222ppmin the raw greywater.
The overall COD average was 2277ppm in raw greywater and 422.83 ppm
in treated water. All of the measured COD values indicate that treated
greywater can be used for irrigation purposes. This agreed with Al-
Hamaiedeh and Bino (2212)results were the COD in raw greywater ranged
from 92 to 2263 ppm and from 36 -763 ppm in treated greywater. The
chemical oxygen demand (COD) is often high. It also typically contains
indicator bacteria, including thermotolerant coliforms, hence may contain
fecal pathogens. Eriksson et al., (2223) reported COD in greywater ranged
from 77-242 mg/l while Carden et al., (2227) analysis of COD in
greywater ranged from 1472-8492 mg/l the value of COD depends
largely on the amount of water used and the household cleaning products.
In addition, there are differences in COD between various sources of
greywater for example laundry 725-1815 mg/l COD; and kitchen 26-1382
mg/l COD (Nolde, 1999; Eriksson et al., 2222). Jefferson (2228) also
identified laundry greywater as the greatest contributor to the COD of the
greywater fraction. Concentration of COD in greywater is derived from
household chemicals such as dishwashing and laundry detergents, food
34
waste from the kitchen sinks, and body dirt. Although organics vary in
their sorption, volatility and persistence in soil, if greywater is released to
soil, high removal of organics is expected with an overall removal of ≥92:
(Weston, 1998).
Figure(2.2):COD values in treated greywater from the six targeted treatment plants.
2.2.1 BOD3
Figure(2.1) illustrate the values of effluent BOD5 of the six analyzed
greywater treatment plants. The minimum BOD5 value was151 mg/l while
the maximum was 242mg/l for treated greywater. The minimum BOD5
value was 591.5 mg /l while the maximum was 788.5mg/l for raw
greywater.
The overall BOD5 average was in raw greywater 712 mg/l and 178mg/l
for treated greywater. Typical values for BOD5 in grey waterw as reported
by Siegrist (1977) which ranged from 33-292 mg/L, while values for an
untreated domestic wastewater range from 122-422 mg/L.Kiplagat Kotut
et al., (2211) reported BOD in greywater ranged from 412-6252 mg/l.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
123456avarege
pp
m
COD
before after
35
This is also compared to the values obtained by Al-Hamaiedeh and Bino
(2212) where raw greywater ranged from 112 to 1242 mg/l and treated
greywater ranged from 12 to 412 mg/l. These values of BOD5 in this
research indicated that the treated greywater can be used for unrestricted
irrigation purposes.
Figure (2.1):Values of Measured BOD5 before and after treatment water from the six
targeted treatment plants.
2.2.1 Phosphate (PO21-
)
Figure (2.1) illustrate the values of effluent PO4 of the six analyzed
greywater treatment plants. The minimum value was5.8 mg/l while the
maximum was 12.5mg/l for treated greywater. The minimum PO4 value
was8.7 mg /l while the maximum was 23 mg/l for raw greywater. In
comparison with Eriksson et al., (2222) who foundthat total phosphorus
ranged from 4–14 mg/l this value depends on the detergents used with or
without phosphate. The overall PO43-
average was for raw greywater15.6
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
123456avarege
pp
m
BOD5
before after
36
mg/l and 7.7mg/l for treated.This data was similar to the finding of
Aburahma (2213) who reported a range from 2-6 mg/l with an overall
value of 3.4 mg/l. This data fall within the Palestinian standard for treated
wastewater (2212) where it was 32 mg/l for trees (appendix 2).
Figure (2. 1): Values of Measured PO4 before and after treatment from the six targeted
treatment plants.
2.2.2 Hardness
Figure(2.2) illustrate the values of effluent Hardness of the six analyzed
greywater treatment plants. The minimum Hardnessvalue was282mg/l
while the maximum was 434mg/l for treated greywater. The minimum
Hardness value was257 mg /l while the maximum was 412.5 mg/l for raw
greywater. The overall Hardness average was 323mg/l for raw greywater
and 353.5 mg/l for treated greywater. This data fall within the Palestinian
standard for treated wastewater (2222) where it was 462 mg/l for trees.
Pangarkar et al., (2212) reported a total hardness value of raw greywater
374 mg/l and 187 mg/l for filtrated water.
0
5
10
15
20
25
123456avarege
mg/
l
PO43-
before
after
37
Figure (2.2):Values of Measured Hardness before and after treatment from the six
targeted treatment plants.
2.2.3 HCO1-
Figure(2.3)shows the values of effluent HCO3- of the six analyzed
greywater treatment plants. The minimum HCO3- value was 466.7mg/l
while the maximum was 764.5 mg/l for treated greywater. The minimum
HCO3- value was 164.7mg/l while the maximum was 469.5mg/l for raw
greywater. The overall HCO3- average was 361.9 mg/l for raw greywater
and 625mg/l for treated greywater.
Standard parameters values for using wastewater in irrigation according to
FAO (1992) range from less than 92 for unrestricted used to greater than
519 mg/l for restricted use.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
123456avarege
pp
m
Hardness
before after
38
Figure (1. 3): Values of Measured HCO-3 before and after treatmen from the six
targeted treatment plants.
2.2.4 Cl-
The analysis of Chloride effluent (figure4.6)shows the values of the six
analyzed greywater treatment plants. The minimum Cl- value was
171.9mg/l while the maximum was 329.9mg/l for treated greywater. The
minimum Cl- value was 224.9 mg /l while the maximum was 394.9mg/l
for raw greywater. The overall Cl-average was 326.3 mg/l for raw
greywater and 224 mg/l for treated greywater. This value of Cl- due to
precpitiation in the treatment unit after the reaction with cations Ca, Na
and other .This data fall within the Palestinian standard for treated
wastewater (2212) where it was 422-622 mg/l for trees (appendix 2). All
samples have slight to moderate restrictions to be used in irrigation, and
does not exceed the recommended limits. Aburahma (2213) reported a
minimum value of 272 mg/l for treated greywater while the maximum was
322.6 mg/l with an overall average 291.2 mg/l.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
123456avarege
pp
m
HCO3-
before after
39
Figure (2.4):Values of Measured Cl- before and after treatment from the six targeted
treatment plants.
2.2.2 NO1-
Figure(4.6)show the values of effluent NO1- of the six analyzed greywater
treatment plants. The minimum NO1- value was 33.8mg/l while the
maximum was 149mg/l for treated greywater. The minimum NO1- value
was 62.5mg /l while the maximum was 816 mg/l for raw greywater. The
overall NO1- average for raw greywater was 453.6 mg/l and 77.8 mg/l for
treated greywater. Nitrate values were lower in effluent than in the raw
greywater with a reduction of 82.8%. This value is higher than the
Palestinian standard for treated wastewater (2212) where it was 52 mg/l
for trees (appendix 2). This value due to the denitrification resulted from
bacteria . These levels of nitrate meet the FAO (1985) standard for
moderate restriction where value fall between 9.5- 518.5 mg/l.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
123456avarege
pp
m
before
after
42
Figure(2.2):Values of MeasuredNO3 before and after treatment from the six targeted
treatment plants.
2.2.2 TDS
Figure(4.8) illustrate the values of effluent TDS of the six analyzed
greywater treatment plants. The minimum TDS value was 794 mg/l while
the maximum was 1254mg/l for treated greywater. The minimum TDS
value was 687.4mg/l while the maximum was 1292.8 mg/l for raw
greywater. The overall TDS average was 1211.9 mg/l for raw greywater
and 1224.3 mg/l for treated greywater. TDS values were reduced by 15:
by the treatment. This data fall within the Palestinian standard for treated
wastewater (2212) where it was 1522 mg/l for irrigated trees(appendix 2).
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
123456avarege
pp
m
NO3-
before
after
41
Figure(2.2): Values of Measured TDS before and after treatment from the six
targeted treatment plants.
2.2.4 pH
Figure(4.9) illustrate the values of the effluent pH of the six analyzed
greywater treatment plants. The pH ranged from 7.2 to 7.9 for treated
greywater while the range from 4.8 to 6.5 for raw greywater. The overall
pH average was 5.8 for raw greywater and 7.5 for treatment greywater.
This increase pH resulted from the degradation detergent which could
release cations as P, Na+, K
+ , in the treatment unit, addition of the effect
sulfonic acid setric acid used in preparation detergent. The overall average
was 7.3 and falls within the standard limits. The variability of pH values
indicates that the constituents of greywater are not steady and changes
from acid to base depend on the discharged greywater from domestic
sources. The lower pH values may result from the use of water without any
alkalinity adjustment, whereas the high figures indicate the presence of
0
1000
2000
3000
mg/
l
TDS
before after
42
bleach. This data fall within the Palestinian standard for treated wastewater
(2212) where it was 6-9 for irrigated trees(appendix 2).
Figure(2.4):Values of Measured pH before and after treatment from the six targeted
treatment plants.
2.2.20 E. coli
Figure (2.20)illustrate the values of effluent E. coliof the six analyzed
greywater treatment plants. The range of E.colifrom157.5 to 2822 cfu/ml
for treated greywater and ranged from 262 to 3222for raw greywater .The
overall E. coli average was 1882.2 cfu/122ml for raw greywater and
1172.8 cfu/122mlfor treated greywater. E. coli is bacteria that may or may
not be pathogenic, and its ubiquitous in the human intestinal tract.
Generally more than 92: of the fecal coliform are Escherichia (usually
written as E. coli). This value is higher than Palestinian standard for
treated wastewater (2212) where it was 1222 cfu/122 ml for irrigated trees
(appendix 2).When untreated greywater is stored, it will turn septic, giving
rise to offensive odors and providing suitable conditions for
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
123456avarege
pH Value
pH before
pH after
43
microorganisms to multiply. E. coli multiplies between 12 and 122 times
during the first 24 to 48 hours of storage. Therefore, untreated greywater
must only be stored temporarily, for less than 24 hours, in a surge tank.
Figure(2.20): Values of Measured E. coli before and after treatment from the six
targeted treatment plants.
2.2.22 TotalColiform
Figure(2.22) illustrate the values of effluent T.Coliform of the six
analyzed greywater treatment plants. The treated greywater ranged from
1222 to 34222cfu/122 ml and the raw greywater ranged from 1837.5 to
282222cfu/122 ml. The overall E. coli average was 145526.3 cfu/122 ml
for raw greywater and 12345.8cfu/122 ml for treated greywater. Total
Coliform counts generally were high and exceeded our dilution ranges.
Guideline (Dixon, A., Butler D., and Fewkes A., 1999) for Fecal
Coliforms in reclaimed water for irrigation is set at 222 cfu/122.The total
Coliform is an indicator that the fecal pollution has occurred and microbial
pathogens might be present. Total and fecal coliforms, and the enterocci -
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
cfu
/10
0m
l
E. coli
before after
44
fecal streptocci are the indicator of organisms currently used in the public
health area. Coliform bacteria include all aerobic and facultative anaerobic,
gram-negative, nonspore-forming, rod-shaped bacteria that ferment lactose
with gas formation. There are three groups of coliform bacteria used as
standards: Total Coliforms (TC), Fecal Coliforms (FC) and Escherichia
coli. Total coliforms are the broadest grouping including Escherichia,
Enterobacter, Klebsiella, and Citrobacter found naturally in the soil, as
well as in feces. Fecal coliforms are the next widest groups, which
includes many species of bacteria commonly found in the human intestinal
tract. Usually between 62: and 92: of total coliforms are fecal coliforms
(Houshia et al.,2212).
Figure(2. 22):Values of Measured Total Coliform before and after treatment from the
six targeted treatment plants.
2.2.21 Major cations (Mg1+
, Ca1+
, Na+ and K
+)
The four major cations were analyzed during the research study are
presented in Figure (4.12). The presented data are within the allowable
050000100000150000200000250000300000350000400000450000500000
1234567
cfu
/10
0m
l
T.Coliform
before after
45
concentration for unrestricted irrigation. The concentration of some cations
as Mg2+
, Ca2+
, Na+ indicated the accumulation of these cations with time.
Figure(2.21): Overall average values of Mg2+
, Ca2+
, K+ and Na
+
measured for treated greywater.
2 .1 Efficiency
TDS values were reduced by 15.5: as represented in Figure 13. Total
coliforms were lowered by 33%, which was a good considering that these
microbes occur in large quantities in the soil. The detected E. coli in the
effluents decreased by 37.8: lower than in the raw greywater. This
suggests a high efficiency of the stations in pathogens removing. The
efficiencywas72.8% for BOD, 15.5% for TDS, and 87% for NO3- which
falls within the standards approved by the Palestine Standards Institute
recently and by the Palestinian Authority in 2212 (appendix 2) .
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
NaKMgCa
pp
m
before after
46
Figure (2. 21): Efficiency of Treated Greywater System as Percent Removal
The results obtained from each station are presented in Tables (4.2 & 4.3)
below.
Table (2.1): Summary for the Data Acquired from the Stations for
Raw graywater (before treatment). Average 6 5 4 3 2 1 Station
Mohamed
Yahya
Nesreen
Aborob
Ala‟
Aboara
Ali
Saed
Mahmoud
Soliman
Ala‟
Ganam Name
5.9 5.4 6.3 4.9 5.1 6.4 7.1 pH
1.8 1.2 2.22 1.2 1.7 3. 5 1.1 EC(mmohes)
362 363 472 165 378 421 376 HCO32-(
ppm)
326 313 353 413 325 296 258 Hardness (ppm)
1211.9 1232 1293 792 1255 2215 687 TDS(ppm)
111. 6 111.7 136.8 127.8 126 98.9 88.1 Na+ (ppm)
62.6 62.5 67 49.5 91 68 37.5 Ca2+
(ppm)
258.7 221 285.5 363.22 234.1 228.1 222.1 Mg2+
(ppm)
326.4 353.1 273.1 522.3 394.9 229.9 224.9 Cl- (ppm)
31.467 25 24.5 41.5 35 22.8 42.25 K + (ppm)
453.6 617.5 446.5 79.5 62.5 699.5 816 NO3 - (ppm)
712.42 719 684 788.5 737 742.5 591.5 BOD (ppm)
15.7 15.5 13.4 23.3 19.3 13.6 8.7 PO43-
97.2 61.77 317.49 32.94 18.3 126.38 47.9 SO4
2277 2282 3262 3222 2842 962 1322 COD
1172.8 622 1292.5 157.5 2822 1775 422 E-coli (cfu/122ml)
145398 9922 2652 1837.5 28222
2 452222 128222
T.Coliform
(cfu/122ml)
The above table (4.2) show the variation in the composition of raw water
before treatment for all assessed households.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
effi
cien
cy %
47
Table (2.1): Summary for the Data Acquired from the Stations for
treated graywater (after treatment). Average 6 5 4 3 2 1 Station
Mohame
d Yahya
Nesree
n
Aborob
Ala‟
Aboar
a
Ali
Saed
Mahmou
d Soliman
Ala‟
Ganam Name
7.5 7.6 7.44 7.2 7.43 7.9 7.4 pH
1.6 1.24 1.9 1.4 1. 5 1.6 1.9 EC(mmohes)
625.3 466.7 764.5 585.6 475.8 738.1 622.9 HCO3(ppm)
353.5 282.1 367.9 362.2 362.1 318.11 434.2 Hardness (ppm)
1224.3 794.24 1254.1 875.5 947.5 1285.12 1189.1
2 TDS(ppm)
128.2 126.3 156.3 118 127.1
5 145.5 116 Na
+ (ppm)
65.2 51 77.9 62.5 71 66 62.5 Ca2+
(ppm)
288.3 229.1 292 297.7 289.1 252.1 371.7 Mg2+
(ppm)
224.21 219.9 171.9 179.9 329.9 224.9 237.4 Cl- (ppm)
28. 6 27.1 19.12 17.7 28.35 31.55 47.75 K + (ppm)
77.83 149 83.45 45.25 74.5 33.25 81.5 NO3 - (ppm)
178.28 189 239.5 167.5 145.5 176 151 BOD (ppm)
7.6917 7.35 6.6 5.8 4.35 12.53 9.53 PO43-
61.77 61.77 317.49 32.94 18.31
5 126.38 47.985 SO4
622.8 842 1245 162 522 722 122 COD
1172.8 622 1292.5 157.5 2822 1775 422 E-coli (cfu/122ml)
12341 1675 2252 1222 21222 34222 1922 T.Coliform
(cfu/122ml)
The above table (4.3) show the variation in the composition of treated
graywater for all assessed households.
2.1.2 Long term indicator
The long term indicator includes greywater treatment result in 2211
carried out by NARC compared with the greywater treatment results in this
study 2215 and the impact of irrigation with treated greywater on chemical
properties of the soil.
During 2215, the efficiency of total coliform was 33.3: compared to87
%in 2211. The decrease was 53.3%. In 2215, the efficiency of E .coli was
48
37.3: compared to 55.3 %in 2211. The decrease was 18:. The efficiency
of BOD was 72.8 in 2215 compared to 75.8 % in 2211. The decrease was
5:. The efficiency of EC was 9.8 % in 2215 compared to 27.3 % in
2211. The decrease was 17.5:. The TDS decrease 16.3 % (Figure 4.13).
The important parameters as BOD, TDS, EC, and E .coli showed a
decrease in the efficiency of the stations by the time, but it remains within
the accepted Palestinian standards.
It was noted that with time the accumulation of some salts such as Ca2+
,
HCO3-, NO3
- exposed a risk of soil sanalization when using this water for
irrigation especially if the soil already has high levels of salinity.
Figure (2.22):The efficiency % of the plant during 2211 and 2215.
2.1.1 The impact of irrigation with treated greywater on chemical
properties of the soil
The impact of treated greywater irrigation on soil was assessed by testing
three soil samples irrigated by treated greywater(table4.5).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
eff
icie
ncy
%
2015 2011
49
Table (2.2): Soil extract analysis results
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Soil irrigated with treated greywater Control
Parameter Unit Unit A Unit B Unit C Average Sd
(Soil
irrigated
with fresh
water)
PH 6.75 6.64 6.62 6.67 2.27 7.37
Ec Ms 4.2 1.25 2.5 2.65 1.48 2.8
Cu ppm 2.39 2.52 2.43 2.45 2.27 2.21
Mn ppm 4.56 5.84 5.1 5.17 2.64 2.24
Zn ppm 3.66 3.27 3.21 3.31 2.31 1.69
Cr ppm 2.61 2.77 2.7 2.69 2.28 2.31
N-NO3- ppm 2.72 2.81 2.5 2.68 2.16 1.17
PO4 ppm 26.1 25.3 25.6 25.67 2.42 16.62
K2O ppm 12.5 13 12.6 12.7 2.27 2.34
Na ppm 7.5 6.8 7.2 7.17 2.35 2.15
Ca ppm 145 182 155 162 18.23 83
Mg ppm 73 77.8 74.6 75.13 2.44 41.3
CL ppm 465 216 292 323.67 127.8 181
SAR ppm 1.22 2.8 1.13 2.99 2.16 2.29
52
Figure (2.23):Impact of irrigation with treated greywater on chemical properties of the
soil
2.1.1.2 pH values
The variation of pH values, seems to be constant and it is remained in the
average 6.76.McIlwaine and Redwood (2212) reported value for pH of
soil not subject to greywater irrigation ranged from 7.7 to 7.9. In
comparison to previous research soil sample from different depth where
the pH values of 7.5, 7.1, and 6.9 for the 32-, 62-, and 92-cm soil depths,
respectively. (Veneman and Stewart 2222).
2.1.1.1 Electrical conductivity (EC)
The electrical conductivity (EC) of the soil correlated with soil properties
and affect crop productivity, cation exchange capacity (CEC), drainage
conditions, organic matter level and salinity. The average EC 2.65 for soil
irrigated with greywater while the average EC 2.8 for soil irrigated with
freshwater.
Mohammad and Mazahreh (2223) found that wastewater irrigation
increased the level of total salinity due to the wastewater salt content..
greywater projects undertaken in neighboring Jordan have found that there
were slight increases in soil salinity in the years after greywater systems
were introduced (Murad & Ayes,2212). According to the WHO
guidelines, salinity problems can occur when soil conductivity is greater
than 3 m/Sm (deciSiemens per meter); in the Jordanian case, salinity levels
rose from 2.34-2.96 m/Sm before greywater use to 1.1-1.82 m/Sm
51
afterward (WHO 2226; Murad, AlBeiruti& Ayes 2212). While this
increase is worrisome, it remains well below the levels at which salinity
problems can occur.
2.1.1.1 Heavy metals (Zn, Cu,Cr&Mn)
The average concentrations of Zn, Cu, Cr and Mn were 3.3,2.44,2.69 and
5.16 respectively in soils receiving treated greywater were not
significantly higher. The results also do not show any relationship between
long time application of greywater and heavy metals accumulations in the
soil. Mohammad and Mazahreh(2223) reported that soil Zn and Cu were
not significantly affected by wastewater irrigation. Zhang et al,(2227)
conduct a research in China and reported soil salinity increase due to
irrigation with treated wastewater, but remained within the acceptable
standards. Hamidiah (2212) found the irrigation with treated greywater for
about five years did not show accumulation of heavy metals in the soil,
which might be due to leaching of soil by rain and tap water.
2.2 Socioeconomic indicator
The field survey results are listed below by governorates. The
questionnaire covered many topics including general information,
infrastructure, crops, extension, gender, credits and water. Table (4.5)
shows that a sample of 71 households was selected and personally
interviewed from two governorates Jenin( 33) and Tubas (38).
Table(2.3): Sample distribution by governorate.
Percent Village Percent Governorate
16.9 Jalbon 46.5 Jenin
52
15.5 Der Abod
14.1 Faqu'a
25.4 Tayaseer 53.5
Tubas
28.2 Aqaba
122.2 Total 122.2 Total
The average number of family members is 6.4 and the average of the
income is 2194 NIS. The average number of males is 3.3 and the average
number of females is three. The basic education has 63.4 % of the sample
and 29.6 % has a higher education (Table 4.6).
Table(2.4). Personal information for the studied communities.
unit Item
71 Number of families
6.38 The average number of family members
2194 Average income
3.3 The average number of males in the family
3 The average number of females in the family
1.38 The average number of households owning garden
257.6 Rate area of the garden
62 No of family own cesspit
9 No of family own GWTP
122: Who possess electricity network ratio
122: Who owns the water rate system
2 Who possess a sewage network rate
63.4 The proportion of those with basic education
29.6 The proportion of those with a university education
2.2.2 Extension and environmental awareness
In total, 15.5 % of the families had environmental training course.
However, the acquired knowledge on greywater was 16.7: and the
53
acceptance to purchase crops irrigated with greywater by the people was
59 % (Table4.7).
Table(2.2).Percent of families have environmental training course,
acquired knowledge and acceptance to buy crops irrigated with
greywater Percent Item
15.5 Percent of families have environmental
training course
16.7 Acquired knowledge on greywater
59 Acceptance to pay crops irrigated with
greywater
2.2.1 Water consumption
The total 19 M3 of freshwater per month is the consumption of
householders. The results of the analysis indicated that 15.5: of the
surveyed farmers were not satisfied with the services of extension, against
33: of them stated that the level of these services is acceptable, and 52%
of them rated extension services as good (Figure 4.16).
Figure(2.24):Level for agricultural service
2.2.1 Role of extension agents
17%
33%
50%
poor Acceptable good
54
When farmers face a serious agricultural problem, 66: of them are trying
to solve it by themselves, and only 22: of them refer to extension agents
(Figure 4.17).
Figure(2.22):Farmers oriented when a problem occurs
2.2.2 Information on treated greywater
About 16.7: of the individual received information on the indicative
greywater and 83.3: had no information. About 47: of the nature of this
information were a training course (Figure 4.18).
Figure(2.22):The nature of the information indicative of greywater
22%
9%
3% 66%
ministery of agric private companies Neighbors solve them alone
12%
23%
47%
18%
Workshops Field visits Training courses Publications
55
Figure (4.19) illustrated that 62: of individuals do not have greywater
information and 18.5: have little information. This reflects the lack of
awareness and guidance campaigns.
Figure (2.24):The information of the families on the use of treated greywater in
agriculture.
2.2.3 knowledge on the use of greywater
About 61% of the farmers indicated that they have no knowledge on the
use of greywater. The source of the information on greywater treatment
from the private sector was 15.2: and 12: from neighbors (Figure 4.22).
Figure (2.10):Source of information about the use of greywater
2.2.4 Source of water for irrigation
nothinglowgood
60%
18.50% 21.50%
12%
15%
12% 61%
Ministry of Agriculture private institution
Relatives and neighbors I do not have information
56
About 48: of the farmers get irrigation water from wells, 27% from tanks
and 2.8 from the networks and this constitutes a major problem facing
farmers (Figure 4.21).
Figure(2.12):Source of water used for garden irrigation
2.2.2 Water services
Water services analysis shows that nearly 76: of the respondents face a
water shortage and the same percent reported that water prices being a
major constraint they have to deal with (Figure 4.22).Moreover, 35 % of
respondents stated that they use freshwater for washing and 34: for
irrigation gardens (Figure 4.23).
Figure (4.22) shows 35.2: consumed water for just domestic use and
33.8: of families use water for agriculture and domestic use.
Water network
wellWater netand well
well andtank
2.8%
47.9%
22.5% 26.8%
57
Figure(2.11):Major water problems
Figure(2.11):The most important uses of water
Table (2.2). Cesspits average discharge number per year, cost and
acceptance to construct GWTP
Percent/ cost Item
46: Solid cesspit
6.7 Average discharge number per year
95nis Average cost per each time
62: Acceptance to construct GWTP
Table (4.8) shows the average number of seepage times is 4.6 and the
average cost is 95 NIS per each time. This reflects the high cost of the
seepage. Moreover, 33: of treatment unit owners stated that the units need
regular maintenance. About 71 % of unit‟s owners stated that the units
shortageoutagepriceall
1.4%
19.7%
2.8%
76.1%
The use of homeMy house andcultivation
My house and drinkcattle
35.2% 33.8%
31%
58
increase crop production in the home garden. In addition, 89 % of them
indicated the decrease in units efficiency by the time and this with the
agreement with chemical analysis.
2.2.2 General information of GWTP unit
The treatment units (constructed wetland) which are distributed in the rural
communities have been constructed over the last five years by NARC in
collaboration with ICARDA. The finding showed that 33:of the total
constructed treatment units were not operated any more due to many
reasons including strong bad odor and its impacts on the owner and
neighbors. These results agreed with the results of Thaher and Mahmoud
(2212).
The treatment units require the availability of enough space area
surrounding the home. The average area of garden is 531 m2. On average
98.3 % of houses have a rain water harvesting system. The yield and food
security were improved by 77.8 %. Sandec (2226) pointed out that reuse
of treated greywater in irrigation can significantly contribute to reducing
water bills and increasing food security.
The economic factor (37:) was limiting factor for dissemination of the
treatment units among the communities (Figure 4.24).
economicHealthreligionenviromentHealth andenvio
36.5%
27%
6.3% 4.8%
25.4%
59
Figure(2.12):Limiting factor for dissemination of the treatment units among the
communities
People‟s satisfaction with the applied GWTPs was promising, as the
majority of GWTPs beneficiaries showed 71.4: are satisfied with the
treatment unit (Figure 4.25).
This results agreed with Khatun et al,(2211) founding where many people
still willing to accept greywater and adapt it to secure their water need for
irrigation due to shortage of water resources in the studied area.
Figure(2.13):Peoples satisfaction with the applied GWTP
Other reasons for the not satisfaction of the GWTP beneficiaries was due
to maintenance and insect with 52 % of the total beneficiaries (Figure
4.26).
Figure(2.14):The important problem of GWTP
satisfidnot satisfid
71.4%
28.6%
insect
mantanence
62
2.2.4 Wastewater Systems “Cesspits” for the households who have no
treatment units at their houses.
The findings showed 83: household interviewers have no idea about
greywater treatment systems. The majority of households 62: preferred
the use GWTPs. About 87.3: of the households used cesspits as the main
applied system for wastewater disposal.
About 12:of the cesspits owners did not ever discharge the wastewater
from cesspits since construction, and 88: discharge the cesspits each
month, this explains the pollution of the groundwater in which wastewater
percolate directly into the ground layers cause a direct pollution to
groundwater, soil contamination, and the negative effects on agriculture
(PWA, 2212(.
About 72: of cesspit‟s owners were not satisfied due to many reasons such
as financial burden on householders of continuous cesspits emptying,
environment pollution and leakage of wastewater to the neighboring
cistern, health concerns and odor emission, insects infestation, high capital
cost for cesspit construction and system‟s blockage (figure 4.27).
Figure (2.12): Level of cesspit‟s owners satisfied
satisfiednot satisfied
30%
70%
61
The average times of cesspits pools discharge were 6.7 per year for the
households who don‟t won treatment units and 4.2 per year for the
households who won treatment units. The average cost for each time of the
discharge is 92 NIS. The cost was decreased 37: by the use of treatment
units.
2.2.20 Relations between dependent factor and qualitative factors
(independent):
The relations between the people who use GWTPs for garden
irrigation(dependent factor) compared to the qualitative independent
factors are indicated in table (4.9). The independent factors were: family
size, knowledge of greywater treatment use for irrigation, education level,
environmental and agriculture service and acceptance to buy crops
irrigated with treated greywater.
Table(2.4): Chi square for use GWTPs for garden irrigation
qualitative independent factors.
Status Df Value Sig. Item
Not significant 11 5.246 8.2 Family size
Significant 1 29.26 .222 Knowledge of greywater
treatment use for irrigation
Not significant 3 1.877 .598 Education level
Significant 1 21.82
3 .22
Environmental and agriculture
service
Not significant 3 4.644 .22 Acceptance to buy crops
irrigated with treated greywater
62
The rates of increased knowledge on greywater reuse, environment and
agriculture service was significant for household who own GWTP (P <
2.25).Family size, Education level and acceptance to buy crops irrigated
with treated greywater were not significant (Table 4.9).
Figure (4.28) shows the percent of knowledge on greywater reuse for
GWTP owner group at 95: confidence interval. The percent of knowledge
on greywater reuse decreased from about 74 % household who owns
GWTP group to 26: in household who have no GWTP. The percent of
environmental and agricultural service was decreased from about 81:
household who owns GWTP to 19: in household who have no GWTP.
Figure(2.12): GWTP owner related toknowledge on greywater reuse and
environmental and agriculture service.
The relations between the change in efficiency of the GWTPs with
time(dependent factor) compared to the qualitative independent factors are
indicated in Table (4.12). The independent factors were: Fat removal, Air
pump, Oil removal, use of detergent,Cleaning of babies and Food waste.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
own GWTP have no GWTP
% p
erc
en
t
knowledge on graywater reuse
environmental andagriculture service
63
Table (2.20): Chi-square for change in efficiency with time and
qualitative independent factors
Status Value df Sig. Item
Not Significant 2.762 1 .722 Fat removal
Not Significant 2.683 1 .151 Air pump
Not Significant 2.683 3 2.443 Oil removal
Not Significant 3.729 3 .292 Use of detergent
Not Significant .473 2 .789 Cleaning of babies
Not Significant .473 2 .789 Food waste
No significant relation between change in efficiency for GWTP owner and
fat removal, air pump, oil removal, use of detergent, cleaning of babies and
food waste.
The relations between the interviewer acceptance of construction GWTP
(dependent factor) compared the qualitative independent factors are
indicated in table (4.11). The independent factors were: determine factor to
not use treatment greywater in agriculture, Future worries about water
quality and level of education
Table (2.22).Anova table for Acceptance of GWTP construction
Status Value df Sig Item
Significant 45 4 222 Determinant factor to not use
treatment greywater in agriculture
Significant 73 7 222 Future worries about water quality
Significant 9.256 3 2.22 Level of education
The acceptance of GWTP construction increased significantly (P < 2.25)
for household who determine factor to not use treatment greywater in
64
agriculture, future worries about water quality and level of
education(Table 4.11).
Figure 4.29 shows the percent of the acceptance of GWTP construction
for GWTP owner group at 95: confidence interval. The percent of
educated households were 43: for basic education to household who
accept GWTP construction, whereas 17: of the household who don‟t
accept the construction of GWTP. The percent of educated households
increased from about 2: for uneducated households who accept GWTP
construction to 15: for the household who don‟t accept GWTP
construction (figure 4.28).
Figure(2.14): Acceptance of construction GWTP related to education
Figure(4.32) shows the percent of future worries for household
acceptance of construction GWTP group at 95: confidence interval. The
percent were 37: for health, 8: for health and insect, 5: for oder and
insect, 12:for pollution, religion and health. And this in agreement with
Prathapar et al., (2225) where the results indicated that household do not
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
not educatebasic educationhigh education
yes no
65
accept wastewater reuse due to environmental degradation 61: and human
health concerns 47:.
Figure (2.10):Acceptance of construction GWTP related to future worries
Figure (4.31)Shows the percent of determined factor for household
acceptance for construction GWTP group at 95: confidence interval. The
percent were 33: for economic factor, 15: for health factor, 6: for
religion factor, 6: for environmental factor and 2: for health & economic.
And this in agreement with Prathapar et al., (2225) as they found the main
reason for not accepting unlimited use treated wastewater indentifed health
42: and identified religion 37%.
Figure (2.12):Acceptance of construction GWTP related to determine factor
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
healthenviro &health
health &insect
oderinsect
pollutionreligion&health
yes
no
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
yes
no
66
2.2.22 Relations between dependent factor and quantitative factors
(independent):
The relations between the people who use GWTPs for garden
irrigation(dependent factor) compared to the quantitative independent
factors are indicated in table (4.12). The independent factors were: price,
garden area, consumption rate and Number of time of discharge.
Table (2.21): Anova table for the use of GWTPs for garden irrigation.
statues df F Sig. Anova
Not Significant 35.474 2.33 .856 Price of water
Significant 44 6.932 .212 Garden area
Not Significant 68 .241 .625 Consumption rate of water
Significant 69 26.564 .222 Number of time of discharge
The rates garden area and number of time discharge increased
significantly in households whom own GWTP (P < 2.25) price,
consumption rate were not significant (Table 4.12).
Figure (4.32) shows the average garden area for GWTP owner group at
95: confidence interval. The average garden area decreased from about
531 m2in the household who own GWTP group to 222 m
2 in household
who have no GWTP. The average of Number of time discharge decreased
from about 6 times for household who own GWTP.
67
Figure(2.11):Households who use GWTPs for garden irrigation related to garden area
Figure (2.11):The relation between household who use GWTPs for garden irrigation
related to the number of time discharge
2.2.21 Relation between socioeconomic characterization of targeted
group and chemical analysis
The result shows that 92: of the household who own GWTPs indicated
that the efficiency of GWTPs decrease by time and this agreed with the
chemical analysis for the most analyzed indicators.
The total E. coli form and total coliform, were increased by the time
(2215) analyzed samples compared to the results during 2211 and this is
might be due to no operation and maintenance of the air pump
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
household who have no GWTP household who own GWTP
m2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
own GWTP have no GWTP
nu
mb
er
of
tim
e d
isch
arge
68
69
Chapter Five
Conclusions and Recommendations
3.2 Conclusions
The main finding of this research is that reusing treated grey water for
irrigation is environmentally sound with respect to soil quality in the study
area. The specific conclusions are:
The pH, TDS, Na ־+,Ca
2+, Cl
-, BOD, PO4
2+ and SO4
2- fall within the
Palestinian standard for treated wastewater (2212).
While Mg ־2+
,NO-3 and COD were higher than the standard.
72
Soil quality remained non affected by the irrigation with treated ־
graywater after five years.
.Soil pH and Ec remained within the normal range ־
The average concentrations of Zn, Cu, Cr and Mn in the soil ־
irrigated by treated greywater were not significantly higher than the
standard. The results also do not show any relationship between
long time application of treated greywater and heavy metals
accumulations in the soil.
Recommendation:
This study recommends the use of treated greywater for agriculture home
garden. This decentralized small-scale technology can help to alleviate
water insecurity in rural communities.
It is recommended to increase the education programs and public
awareness campaigns that stress the safety of the system and its
effectiveness in crop irrigation. Targeted public awareness campaigns
71
reaching out to the social groups responsible for water management. which
is used by most rural communities in Palestine is fraught with
Public health risks of the current cesspit system in Palestine can
beeliminated through the implementation of greywater recycling systems
where cesspit systems fail to protect Palestine‟s vital freshwater resources.
Some rural Areas pays a high price for water and this form chronic water
insecurity. Treated greywater reduce the problem of water scarcity.
Women play a key role in the maintenance, sustainability and operation of
the greywater recycling systems. The empowerment of women will lead to
the sustainability of the station.
Increase the intervals of the extension services for the use of treated
graywater in the irrigation of home garden.
It is recommended to disseminate constructed wet land system for
household don't connected to the derange system.
Maintenance and flow up for the treatment unit increase the efficiency .
Reference
,Abu-Made M., Al-Sa‟ed R., Mahmoud, N. and Burnat J., 2212 ־
Comparative socioeconomic study of greywaterand cesspit systems in
Ramallah, Palestine. Greywater use in the Middle East. Technical,
Social, Economic and Policy Issues, available at
http://www.idrc.ca/openebooks/466-6/. Date Retrieved: 25 April 2211
Bino M., Al-.
72
Al- Hamaiedeh , H.D. (2212). The Impact of Greywater Reuse in ־
Irrigation on Public Health and Safety. Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering , 15(K), 1131-1138
Al-Hamaiedeh, H., and M. Bino. 2212. Effect of treated greywater ־
reuse in irrigation on soil and plants. Desalination 256 (1 -3):115-
119.
Al-Jayyousi, O.R. (2223), "Greywater reuse: Towards sustainable ־
water management", Desalination 156, Elsevier, 181–192.
Al-imari,A.,Boufaroua, M., Dhehibi,B., Al-Dadah,J., Al-Sbaihi,H., Abu ־
Sharekh,Y., and Houshia,O. (2213),"Performance Indicators for
Wastewater Reuse Systems in Gaza Governorates",Civil and
Environmental Research, Vol.3, No.12, 2213.
,Amjad, U. Q. (1999), "Water, Conflict, and Cooperation: Ramallah ־
West Bank" M.S. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
ARIJ, Applied Research Institute- Jerusalem. A proposed ־
Environmental Sound Wastewater management System for the West
Bank: Summary report, 2211.
AWC (Arab Water Council), (2226), Middle East and North Africa ־
Regional Document. Wastewater, Reuse for Water Demand
Management in the Middle East and North Africa.
Beiruti S. and Ayesh M. (2212) “Greywater use in rural home ־
gardens in Karak, Jordan” In: Greywater Use in the Middle East,
McIlwaine and Redwood (eds). IDRC.
73
Bino M., Al Beiruti S. and Ayesh M., 2212, Greywater use in rural ־
home gardens in Karak, Jordan,Greywater Use in the Middle East.
Technical, Social, Economic and Policy Issues, available at
http://www.idrc.ca/openebooks/466-6/. Date retrieved: 22 Feb. 2212.
Carden K, Armitage N, Sichone O and Winter K (2227). The Use and ־
Disposal of Greywater in the Non-Sewered Areas of South Africa.
WRC Report No. 1524/1/27, Water Research Commission, Pretoria,
South Africa. 242 pp.
Carol Taylor Fitz-Gibbon (1997), "Performance indicators", BERA ־
Dialogues (2), ISBN 978-1-85359-292-4.
Casanova, L.M., Gerba, C.P., and Karpiscak, M. (2221). Chemical and ־
microbial characterization of household greywater. In Journal of
Environmental Science and Health Part a- Toxic/Hazardous
Substances & Environmental Engineering, pp. 395- 421.
Clescerl, L. S, Greenberg, A. E. and D. Eaton,A.D. (1998). Standard ־
method for the Examination water and wastewater. (22th
ed.)
American Public Health Association(APHA).
Coppola. A, Santini. A, Botti.P, Vacca.S, V. Comegna.V, and ־
Severino.G., 2224. Methodological approach for evaluating the
response of soil hydrological behavior to irrigation with treated
municipal wastewater. Desal., 292(1-4),
Del Porto, D., and Steinfeld, C. (2222). The composting toilet system ־
book (Concord, Massachusetts: Massachusetts The Center for
Ecological Pollution Prevention (CEPP)), pp. 235.
74
,.Diaper C., Dixon A., Butler D., Fewkes A., Persons S.A., Stephenson T ־
Strathern M. and Strutt J., (2221), Water Sci. Technol., 43 (12) (83-
92).
EMWATER (Efficient management of Wastewater), 2224, Prospects of ־
Efficient Wastewater Management and Water Reuse in Palestine,
Country Study Prepared within the Framework of the EMWATER-
Project, its treatment and reuse in the Mediterranean countries” Institute
for Water and Environment Studies, Birzeit, Palestine, Adelphi
Research, Berlin, Germany, ENEA, Bologna, Italy.
.Eriksson, E., Auffarth, K., Henze, M. and Ledin, A. (2222) ־
Characteristics of grey wastewater. Urban Water, 4(1), 85.
FAO, 1992. Wastewater Treatment and Use in Agriculture; Irrigation ־
and Drainage Paper 47.
FAO, 1985. Water quality for agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage ־
Paper 29 .
Faruqui, N., and Al-Jayyousi O. (2223) “Greywater Reuse in Urban ־
Agriculture for Poverty Alleviation.” Water International , 27 (3):
387–394.
,Fitz-Gibbon (1992), "Performance indicators", BERA Dialogues (2) ־
ISBN 978-1-85359-292-4.
Friedler E. and Hadari M., (2225), Economic feasibility of on-site ־
greywater reuse in multistorey buildings, Desalination 192: 221–34
.Greywatersafer.com. (2224). Greywater safer (www.greywatersafer.com) ־
75
Gross A., Kaplan D., Baker K., (2227). Removal of chemical and ־
microbiological contaminants from domestic greywater using a
recycled vertical flow bioreactor (RVFB). Ecol. Eng., 317127–14.
Haluschak P. W., Mills G. F., Eilers R.G. and Grift S., (1998). Status of ־
Selected Trace Elements in Agricultural Soils of Southern Manitoba.
Brandon Research Centre. Research Branch. Technical Bulletin 1998-
6E.
,.HoushiaO,J., Abueid, M.,Daghlas ,A.,Zaid,M ., Zaid,O., Al Ammor,J ־
Souqia,N., Alary, R.,Sholi, N. (2212). Characterization of Grey Water
from Country-Side Decentralized Water Treatment Stations in
Northern Palestine. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, Vol
2, No 2, 2212.
Jefferson, B., Judd, S., and Diaper, C. (2221). Treatment methods for ־
greywater. (London).
Khatun M. H., Islam M. R., Mamun A., Nahar L., Luthfunnesa, and ־
Islam M. A. U. (2211). In Vivo Evaluation of CNS Depressant and
Antinociceptive activities of Methanol Extract of Hibiscus sabdariffa
Fruits’ Journal of Applied Sciences Research. 2211; 7 (6) 798-824
.Kiplagat Kotut, Victor G., Ngonga and Francis W. Kariuki. (2211) ־
Physical-chemical and microbial quality of Greywater from various
Households in Homa Bay Town. The Open Environmental
Engineering Journal 4, 162-169.
Mahmoud N. and Mimi Z., (2228). Perception of house onsite grey ־
water treatment and reuse in Palestinian rural areas. Water Practice
76
and Technology Vol No 3 IWA Publishing 2228 doi: 12.2166/WPT.
2228259.
,.Maldonado V. M., Rubio Arias H. O., Quintana1 R., Saucedo R.A ־
Gutierrez M., Ortega J. A. and Nevarez. G.V., (2228). Heavy Metal
Content in Soils under Different Wastewater Irrigation Patterns in
Chihuahua, Mexico. Environmental Research and Public Health
international J. ISSN 1661-7827.
,Marshall, G. (1996). Greywater Re-Use: Hardware, Health ־
Environment And The Law. In Sixth International Permaculture
Conference & Convergence, P. Austin, ed (Perth & Bridgetown,
Western Australia).
McIlwaine, S and Redwood, M. (2212). Greywater use in the Middle ־
East: Technical, Social, Economic and Policy Issues. Warwickshire:
Practical Action.
Mohammad M. J. and Mazahreh N., (2223). Changes in Soil Fertility ־
Parameters in Response to Irrigation of Forage Crops with Secondary
Treated Wastewater. Contam. in Soil and Plant Anal., 34 (9 & 12),
1281-1294.
NSWHealth. (2222). Greywater reuse in sewered single domestic ־
premises, NSWHealth, ed (NSWHealth), pp. 19.
Oron G., Campos C., Gillerman L., and Salgot M., (1999), Wastewater ־
treatment and reuse for agricultural irrigation in small communities.
Agricultural Water Management, 38: 223-234.
77
Otterpohl, R., Albold, A., and Oldenburg, M. (1999). Source control in ־
urban sanitation and waste management: ten systems with reuse of
resources. In Water Science and Technology, pp. 153-162.
Pangarkar B., Parjane S., and Sane M.G. (2212). Design and ־
Economical Performance of Gray Water Treatment Plant in Rural
Region. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 37.
PCBS (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics), (2212), Palestine in ־
figures. Ramallah – Palestine
.PHG ( Palestinian Hydrology Group ), (2227),Water for life report ־
Report 2227.
PWA (Palestinian Water Authority), (2212), survey research with ־
implementing agencies (NGOs) of onsite GWTPs, prepared by the
MSc. Students within the framework of the Austrian project in
cooperation with PWA
Pinto U., Maheshwari B. L., Grewal H. S., (2212). Effects of ־
greywater irrigation on plant growth, water use and soil properties.
Resources. Conservation and Recycling, 54, 429–35.
,Pipeline, (2222). Decentralized wastewater treatment system ־
NaLonal Small Flows Clearinghouse
Vol.11,No.4,http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/pdf/WW/publicaLons/pipline/P
L_FA22.pdf. Date retrieved: 32 Feb.2211
Prathapar, S., Jamrah, A., Ahmed, M., Al Adawi, S., Al Sidairi S. and Al ־
Harassi A. (2225), “Overcoming constraints in treated greywater
reuse in Oman”. Desalination, 2225(186), 177-186.
78
PSI (Palestinian Standards Institute), (2212), Reclaimed wastewater ־
classification, Sixth draft of treated wastewater standard, available at
offices of PSI, Ramallh- Palestine.
Queensland, G. (2222). Guidelines for the use and disposal of ־
greywater in unsewered areas, N.R.a.M. Queensland Government, ed,
pp. 12.
Redwood M. (2227), „Greywater use in the Middle East and North ־
Africa region’, Greywater Stock-taking Meeting, IDRC–CSBE, Aqaba,
Jordan.
Raymond A.Wuana, and Felix E. Okieimen.,( 2211). Heavy Metals in ־
Contaminated Soils: A Review of Sources, Chemistry, Risks and Best
Available Strategies for Remediation. International Scholarly
Research Network. ISRN Ecology. Article ID 422647, 22 pages.
,Sandec (Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries), (2226) ־
Greywater Management in Low and Middle-Income Countries, at Eawag
(Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology), Report
No. 14/26.
Siegrist, R.L. (1977) " Waste segregation as a means to enhance onsite ־
wastewater management" Journal of Environmental Health
July/August: 529. In National Small Flows Clearinghouse, 1998,
Greywater Technology Package WWBKNG 82:2-6
Veneman and Stewart. 2222. Greywater characterization and treatment ־
efficiency. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection Bureau of Resource Protection
79
Water -Reclaimed grey water in rural areas- Jordanian ־
standard(1002)
WHO (World Health Organization), (2226), Guidelines for the Safe ־
Use of Waste-water, Excreta and Greywater (vols 1–4), WHO, Geneva.
WHO (World Health Organization), (2228), Using Human Waste ־
Safely for Livelihoods, Food Production and Health.
:World Bank, (2225), World Development Indicators 2225 ־
Environment, Table 2.15 Disease Prevention: Coverage and Quality.
Table 1.4: Water pollution, Table 3.11: Urban Environment,
http://www.worldbank. org/data/wdi2225/wditext. Date retrieved: 15
Sep. 2211
-Zhang Y.L., Dai J.L., Wang R.Q., Zhang J., (2227). Effects of long ־
term sewage irrigation on agricultural soil microbial structural and
functional characterizations in Shandong, China. Europ. Jour. of Soil
Biol., 44, 84 – 91.
Appendix (2)
82
: ) ( الستبيان
بسم ميحرلا نمحرلا هللا
إستبيان في لمستخدمي المياه العادمة الرمادية المعالجة دراسة الجانب اإلقتصادي واإلجتماعي
محافظات جنين، طوباس.
ذات طابع سرية وال تستخدم إال ألغراض البحث مالحظة: البيانات الوارد في هذه اإلستمارة .العممي
أسم المزارع: ..................................... أسم الباحث: ........................... تاريخ الزيارة: ...............................
5102اذار/
اوال: معمومات عامة:
81
.أسم رب السرة....................... . 3المرة: ......................... .2.المحافظة: .................. 1
/ مستأجر2/ ملن... 1البت الذي تسكنه: -5أنثى -2ذكر -1الجنس: -4
/منزل منفصل...........2/ شمة............ 1نوع السكن: -6
المستوى التعلم لرب االسرة. - 7
/ جامع واكثر4/ اساس 3/ مرأ وكتب 2/ ام 1
عذد أفشاد األسشج ركس ............. إاث ............ اإلجوالي ..... -8
عامل -3ربة بت -2موظف -1المهنة -9
-----الدخل الشهري لالسره بالشمل -11
. هل توفر لدن المرافك التالة:11
ال -2نعم - 1/ شبكة كهرباء 1
ال -2نعم - 1/ شبكة ماه 2
ال -2نعم - 1 / شبكة مجاري 4
ال -2نعم - 1/ حدمة منزله 5
2/ اذا كانت لدن حدمة منزلة ما هو إجمال مساحة الحدمة لدن :..............م12
ثانيا : الوعي البيئي:
ال -2نعم -1توعة بئة و زراعة: . هل هنان جهات تمدم لن13
. اذا كانت االجابة السابمة نعم ما هو مستوى هذه الخدمة الممدمة لن: 14
/ ممتاز4/ جد 3/ ممبول 2/ ضعف 1
. إذا حدثت عنن مشكلة طارئة أثناء العمل لمن تتوجه:15
/ أحاول حلها لوحدي4/ جران 3/ شركات خاصة 2/ وزارة الزراعة 1
هل تلمت أي معلومات ارشاده عن الماه الرماده -161
ال -2نعم -1
اذا كانت االجابة نعم ما طبعة هذه المعلومات -17
منشورات -4دورات تدربه -3زارات مدانه -2ورشات عمل -1
82
/ جدة 3/ للل 2/ ال وجد 1ما مدى معرفتن بالماه الرمادة .- 11
ماهو مصدر معلوماتن حول استخدام الماه الرماده -19
ال وجد لدي معلومات -4جران او الارب -3المؤسسات االهلة -2وزارة الزراعه -1
ثالثا : المياه
...شراء بالصهرج......5/غر ذلن....4/ نابع... 3/ آبار جمع. 2/ شبكة ماه.. 1ماه مصدر ال -21
ما ه المشاكل الت تواجها ف خدمات الماه: -21
. غر ذلن...تدن نوعة الماه او تلوثها6. كل ما ذكر 5.ارتفاع االسعار 4. صعوبة اصالها 3. االنمطاع 2النمص 1
3معدل االستهالن الشهري للماه ف الولت الحال ...................م -22
. سعر المتر المكعب من الماه.............. شمل23
اهم مجاالت استخدام الماه: -24.
............../ غر ذلن 5/ استخدام منزل 4/ صناعة 3/ شرب الماشة 2/ زراعة 1
-----------------غر ذلن حدد -2التنمط -1ماه طرمة الري المستخدمة لري الحدمه المنزله -25-
ماه العوامل المحددة لعدم استخدام الماه الرماده المعالجة ف حدمة المنزل -26
-5عوامل دنة -4عوامل صحة -3 عوامل التصادة -2عوامل اجتماعة -1
عوامل بئة
نعم -1هل لدن استعداد لشراء محاصل مروه اشجار او اعالف( على ماه رمادة معالجة -27
ال -2
ما ه التخوفات المستمبلة النشاء محطات لمعالجة الماه العادمة الرمادة؟ -21
..........................................................................................................................................
...............
ال -2نعم - 1هل وجد فصل للماه الرمادة عن السوداء)التوالت( ف المنزل -29
ال -2نعم -1نمة للماه الرمادة ف المنزل هل لدن محطة ت -31
اذا كانت االجابة نعم اجب عن الجزء االول اذا كانت االجابة ال انتقل الى الجزء التاني
83
الجزء االول
. اذا كانت اإلجابة نعم ما ه األصناف الت لمت بزراعتها: -31
/ غر ذلن 4/ أزهار 3/ أشجار 2 / خضار1
ال -2نعم - 1هل تذهب الماه السوداء الى حفرة امتصاصه -32
11111االرتفاع 1111111111العرض 11111111ماه مساحة هذه الحفرة الطول -33
ال -2 نعم - 1هل تحتاج الى نضح مستمر -34
11111111كم مره تحتاج الى نضح الحفره خالل السنة -35
ماه تكلفة النضح لكل مره....................... با لشمل -36
ما ه المحاصل الت تزرع بها الحدمة المنزلة: -37
/ غر ذلن 4/ أزهار 3/ أشجار 2/ خضار 1
111111االرتفاع 11111111العرض 111111111الطول 1ماه مساحة وحدة التنمه -31
ال -2نعم -1هل تلمت مساعدات من أي جهة النشاء المحطة -39
111111111111اذا كانت االجابه ال ماه التكلفه االجماله النشاء المحطة بالشمل -41
ال -2نعم -1لمحطة الى صانه مستمره هل تحتاج ا -41
ال -2نعم -1هل تواجه أي مشاكل من استخدام محطة معلجة الماه الرماده -42
اخرى حدد.......... -4صانه -3حشرات -2روائح -1اذا كانت االجابه نعم ما ه نوع هذه المشاكل – 43
ه هل تموم بكل مما لى للمرا -44
اعارض اعارض ال راي اوافك اوافك بشده بشدة
الوم بالتخلص من الزوت الملى ف المجلى
استخدم المدهش ومزل الدهون ف تنظف المغاسل والمجلى
اتخلص من بماا دهون االلحوم ف المجلى
الوم بتنظف االطفال على المغاسل
هل تموم برم مخلفات الطعام ف المجلى
التخلص من السوائل الكمائه السامه ف المغاسل والمجلى
ال -2نعم -1هل هنان مضخة هواء للمحطه -44
84
ال -2نعم -1 هل تموم تموم بصانتها باستمرار -45
التصادة -3صحه -2بئه -1 هل تتولع أي اثار سلبه لهذه المحطات -46
ال -2نعم -1هل تموم بازالة الدهون من المحطة باستمرار -47
ال -2نعم -1السمدة بكثره ف حدمتن هل تستخدم ا -41
1اذا كانت االجابة نعم ماه كمة اال سمدة المستخدمة خالل السنه .......... كغم -49
لبل استخدام محطة التنمة كم كانت كمة االسمدة المستخدمه .................... كغم -51
-2نعم -1زادت كمة النتاج لدن بعد استخدامن للماه المعالجة الرمادة ف ري الحدمة المنزلة هل -51
ال
% 25 -3% 51 -2% 71اذا كانت االجابة نعم ما ممدار هذة الزادة -51
-2نعم -1ستخدام الماه المعالجة الرماده لري المزرعة هل تخجل من الناس بسبب اعادة ا --52
ال
ال -2نعم -1 هل وجد صعوبة ف تسوك المنتجات المروة بالماه الرمادة: -53
ال -2نعم -1 المزروعة كمة الماه الرمادة المعالجة كافه للمساحة -54
ال -2نعم -1 هل تحتاج الى ري تكملى بماه عذبة -55
3م ---------------تكملى اذا كانت االجابه نعم كمة الماه المستخدمة ف الري ال -56
3ماه كمه الماه الت كنت تستهلكها لري الحدمة المنزله لبل انشاء المحطه التنمة ........................م -57
3ماه كمة الماه الت تستهلكها لري الحدمه بعد انشاء المحطه التنمة ........................م -51
ال -2نعم -1هل زاد انتاج المحاصل بعد استخدام الماه الرماده المعالجه ف ري المزروعات -59
ال -2نعم -1هل تشعر بتغر كفاءة المحطة بعد سنوات من االستخدام -61
غر راض - 3راض - 2راض جدا 1-ة عمل محطة التنمة لدن ما هو مدى رضان عن كفاء -61
...3هل هنان توفر ف كمة الماه العذبة المستخدمة بعد انشاء محطة التنمة نعم ال كم النسبة..........م -62
الجزء الثاني
85
غر ذلن 3 .(حفرة مصمتة )غر منفذة - 2 .حفرة منفذة - 1ما هو نوع الحفرة االمتصاصة؟ -63
حدد................
العمك – 3 ...............عرضال - 2 ............... :الطول - 1ما ه أبعاد الحفرة االمتصاصة باألمتار؟ -64
صخر طري -3صخر لاس -2تراب -1 كف كانت الطبعة الجولوجة للحفرة عند حفرها؟ -65
.....................................االمتصاصة؟ بالشكل ا ه تكلفة إنشاء الحفرة م -66
ال -2نعم -1 هل تم نضح الحفرة االمتصاصة؟ -67
خالل السنة ف الفترة الحالة؟ كم مرة تم نضح الحفرة االمتصاصة -61
ماه تكلفة النضح لكل مرة .......................... بالشمل -69
..................................... بالشكل اما ه تكلفة نضح الحفرة االمتصاصة ف كل مرة تم نضحه -71
نزعجال ت -4للل -3متوسط -2كبر -1من عملة نضح الحفرة اإلمتصاصة؟ والجران ما مدى انزعاج األسرة -71
ما هو مستوى الصوت الذي نتج ضمن محط المنزل من عملة نضح الحفرة اإلمتصاصة؟ -72
غر ممبول –صوت عال -3صوت ممبول -2صوت ال ذكر -1
ال - - 2نعم -1هل تم التخلص من محتوى الحفرة االمتصاصة بطرمة أخرى غر النضح؟ -73
..............................................إذا كان جواب نعم، فما ه هذه الطرمة؟ -74
ما هو المبلغ الذي تستعد لدفعه من أجل التخلص من الحفرة االمتصاصة واجاد بدل لها؟ )بالشكل/شهر -75
ال -2نعم - 1هل وجد بئر لجمع ماه األمطار محاذي للمنزل؟ -76
مختلط - 3 -صخر - 2باطون - 1ما ه مادة إنشاء البئر؟ -77
مكم تبعد الحفرة االمتصاصة عن البئر؟ -71
الماه الرمادة غر المعالجة. )ماه - 3 .البئر - 2 .شبكة الماه - 1ما هو مصدر ري المزروعات ف الحدمة؟ -79
ال تحتاج ماه )– 4 الغسل والجل
ال -2 نعم -1 هل كمة الماه المتوفرة لري المزروعات كافة؟ -11
ما هو سعر المتر المكعب من الماه ......................... شمل -11
ماه كمة االسمدة المستخدمه خالل السنه ف الحدمه المنزلة ............................كغم -12
ض غر را - 3راض - 2راض جدا - 1ما مدى رضان عن نظام الصرف الصح الحال؟ -13
86
ما هو سبب عدم الرضى؟ .ف حال عدم الرضى -14
ال -2نعم -1هل تعرف عن أنظمة معالجة الماه العادمة الرمادة؟ -15
هل تمبل بانشاء محطة معالجة للماه العادمة الرمادة ؟ -16
ال -2نعم -1هل تمبل باعادة استخدام الماه المعالجة الرمادة ف ري المزروعات ف الحدمة المنزلة؟ -17
1.........................الرمادة؟ بولن إلنشاء محطات معالجة الماهاذا كانت االجابة ال، ما ه أسباب عدم ل -11
87
Appendix (1)
المعايير الف لسطينية
للمياه العادمة المعالجة
مسودة
Palestinian Standards for
Treated Wastewater
“Draft”
السلطت الوطنيت الفلسطينيت
وزارة شئون البيئت
Palestinian National Authority
Ministry of Environmental Affairs
88
المحتويــبث
المجال -1 التعارف -2
االشتراطات العامة -3 االشتراطات الماسة -4 طرق الفحص -5 المراجع -6
المصطلحات الفنة -7 الجهات المشاركة -1
89
المجــال -0
تختتتتذ تتتوا فة بفالتتتاط ت التتتت فو ر فةبف تتتي تبا تتت اتتتا فة وتتت ا فة ن تتتط فة ة تتتط ب فةخ تتتط تتتن (.1ا فألب ه فة بينط اا فة نبل ) حو ر فة و ا فة ن ط فةتا يتم تال ياه أب إع نة فست ةه ا
فةت يتتف
فة لبثط تا ل بفن اللتط أب ست للط أب ا ييتط أب ئ لنت ر نةونتط نت تر أب فة و ا فة ن ط : ا فة و ا تخلار عن فة ن يل أب فة ت نا أب فة نلآر فة ختلاط.
فة وتت ا فة ن تتط فة ة تتط : تتا فة وتت ا فةن ت تتط عتتن حوتت ر ة تتط فة وتت ا فة ن تتط ب فة و تنتتط ةهتتوا فة بفالاط، ةم تختلط ت و ا ن ال ن أخ ى.
وت ر فة تطفالت ف
( حسي فاست ل 1ي ي أن تو بق فة و ا فة ن ط فة ة ط فةخبفذ فة بضحط اا فة نبل ةم )
فةنه لا فة خوط ةه.ي ي إون ف فة ي ةبل نا فة حالبل تأسببعين عنن فست ل فة و ا فة ة ط ةغ و ر ي فألل
ت ن فةث تتتتت فةستتتت ةوط ب فة ت ستتتتتط فة ث تتتت ة ب فة ح التتتتيل فةحنلوتتتتتط ب فألعتتتتتف ةبتتتتتل عيهتتتت ب فستتتتت ةأل ض.
ي تتي فألختتو ت تتين فاعتتتت حس ستتوط فة ي بعتت ر ةتتت ض فةختتبفذ ب فة ن التت اتتا فة وتت ا فة ة تتط عنن فختو فة حالبل ب فع ة فةتأثي فةسلبا على خبفذ فةت بط.
ا وس ح ت ست ل نظ م فة ي ت ة ل ل ر. نبفع فةخض .ا وس ح ت ست ل وا فة و ا ة ي وع أ
ي ي فست ل فألن بيي عنن ننل فة و ا فة ة ط اا ن وق ت بط وفر نا ووط ع ةوط ب فةتا ةتن تترث على و ا فةخيفن فة باا أب فة و ا فةسوحوط فة ستخن ط ةلل ي.
92
ا وس ح بتخايف وا فة و ا ب وةك بخلوه اا بةتع حوتط فة ة تط تع وت ا ننوتط بهتنف تحنيتق ر فةبف نة اا وا فة يي .فالت فو
ا وس ح ت ست ل فة و ا فة ة ط ةتغووط فةخيفن فة باا عن و يق فةحنن فة ت ل . تت 555عنن تال يف فة و ا فة ن ط فة ة ط إةى فةتح ي ي أن وئبن خ ج فألنببي على ت ن
على فألةل ن فةل وئ. فالت فوت ر فةنو سيتط
( ب 1فة ن تتط فة ة تتط فالتتت فو ر فةنو ستتوط فةتتبف نة اتتا فة تتنبل ةتتم )ي تتي أن تتتتبفا اتتا فة وتت ا -حسي فاست ل فةنه لا ةه ب ت ت ن على يلا:
أن تكتتتبن فة ينتتت ر ثلتتتط ب تتتط علتتتى تتتنف فةيتتتبم ت ستتتتثن ل فةختتتبفذ فةتتتتا وحتتتت ج تحليلهتتت إةتتتى فة ينت ر ئ ت تب بضتح اتا فة تنبل عين ر نا نة ب أن وئبن عنن فة ين ر ب فةات ة فةي نوتط ألختو
(.2 ةم )( ت ت تتتن 1ألاتت فض تنيتتوم نبعوتتتط فة وتت ا فة ة تتتط ةألاتت فض فة ختلاتتط فة بضتتتحط اتتا فة تتتنبل ةتتم )
(.2فةات فر فةي نوط فة بضحط اا فة نبل ةم )% تتن عتتنن 25( عتتن 1أن ا تييتتن نستتتط فة ينتت ر فة ت تت بية ةتلتتت فو ر فة بينتتط اتتا فة تتنبل ةتتم )
( علتى أا تييتن ةو تط فةت ت بي 2 ر فةتا تتم هت ختتل اتت ة فةتنيتوم فة بينتط اتا فة تنبل ةتم )فة ين (. 1اا أي خ الوط عن خ سط أض ف فةحن فة س بح ته اا فة نبل ةم )
91
ة كحد أقصى ما لم يذكر خالف ذلك:القياسية لممياه العادمة المعالج(: االشتراطات 0)جدول
الخاصية ممجم/لتر
ما لم يذكر غير ذلك
تصريف إلى البحارعمى بعد متر 211
تغذية الخزانالجوفي بالترشيح
ري أعالف
جافة
ري أعالف خضراء
ري حدائق مالعب و متنزهات
ري محاصيل صناعية و حبوب
ري أشجار و حرجية غابات
ري أشجار حمضيا ت
ري أشجار زيتون
ري أشجار لوزيات
BOD3 40 20 40 23 20 40 40 23 23 23األكسجين الممتص حيويا
COD 100 230 100 230 230 100 100 230 230 230األكسجين الممتص كيميائيا
أكثر مه 2أكثر مه 2أكثر مه DOاألكسجين المذاب
0.3
أكثر مه
0.3
مه أكثر
0.3
أكثر مه
0.3
أكثر مه 0.3أكثر مه
0.3
أكثر مه
0.3
أكثر مه
0.3
TDS - 2300 2300 2300 2100 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 المواد الذائبة الكمية
TSS 40 30 30 20 10 30 30 20 20 20المواد الصمبة العالقة الكمية
pH 4-4 4-4 4-4 4-4 4-4 4-4 4-4 4-4 4-4 4-4الرقم الهيدروجيني
خبليت خبليت خبليت خبليت خبليت خبليت خبليت خبليت خبليت خبليت Color (PCU)المون
Fat Oilالزيوت والشحوم
&Greas 20 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Phenol 2 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001الفينول
MBAS 13 3 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23المنظفات الصناعية
NO1 (N) 13 23 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30نيتروجين –النترات
- - - - - NH2 (N) 3 20 - - 30نيتروجين –األمونيوم
91
O.K.N 20 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30النتروجين العضوي.نيتروجين
PO2 (P) 3 23 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10فسفور -الفوسفات
Cl - 400 300 300 130 300 300 200 400 200الكموريد
SO2 2000 2000 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300الكبريتات
Na - 110 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100الصوديوم
Mg - 230 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40الماغنسيوم
Ca - 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200الكالسيوم
SAR - 4 4 4 20 4 4 4 4 4نسبة ادمصاص الصوديوم
92
الخاصية ممجم/لتر
ما لم يذكر غير ذلك
تصريف إلى البحارعمى بعد متر 211
تغذية الخزانالجوفي بالترشيح
ري أعالف
جافة
ري أعالف خضراء
ري حدائق مالعب و متنزهات
ري محاصيل صناعية و حبوب
ري أشجار حرجية و غابات
ري أشجار حمضيات
ري أشجار زيتون
ري أشجار لوزيات
Al 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3األلمنيوم
Ar 0.03 0.03 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2الزرنيخ
Cu 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1النحاس
Fe 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3الحديد
Mn 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1المنغنيز
Ni 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1النيكل
Pb 0.2 0.2 2 2 0.2 2 2 2 2 2الرصاص
Se 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01السيمينيوم
Cd 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02الكادميوم
Zn 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1الزنك
CN 0.2 0.2 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03السيانيد
Cr 0.3 0.03 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2الكروم
Hg 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002الزئبق
Co 2 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03كوبالت
B 1 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2البورون
بكتيريا القولون البرازيةFaecal Coliform
(CFU/200ml)
30000 2000 2000 2000 100 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
93
خبليت خبليت خبليت خبليت خبليت خبليت خبليت خبليت خبليت خبليت Pathogensالجراثيم الممرضة
األميبا و الجاردياAmoeba & Gardia (Cyst/L)
- - - - - خبليت - - خبليت خبليت
الديدان الدائرية النيماتوداNematodes (Eggs/L)
2أقل مه 2أقل مه أقل مه 2أقل مه 2أقل مه 2أقل مه 2أقل مه 2أقل مه 2أقل مه
2
2أقل مه
( : غير محددة-)
94
وعية( مراقبة ن5) جدول
فترة التقييم* تكرارية العينات الخاصية الرقم الفحوصات الميكروبيولوجية -0
فةتح ي عن فثوم فةنبةبن ب فةنبةبن فةب فييط - فةتح ي عن فة فثوم فة ضط -
عينط / أسببعين
عينط / أسببعين / الوا ** عينط / له / لت ل***
لهب 3
اا ح ةط ظهب نتي ط أي عينط إي بوط يتم
أخو عينتين إض ايتين تا ق يب ين بينه ، ب إوف ئ نر نت لج وا فة ين ر إي بوط يتم إون ف
فست ل فة و ا ةل ي ةحين يبفل فةتلبث. الفحوصات البيولوجية -5
فةتح ي عن فةنينفن فة بوط ب فألبةو ر -
عينط / له ين
سنط الفحوصات الكيميائية -3
فةاحبال ر فة بتينوط . أ فةاحبال ر فةخ الط ت ة ن ال فةن ن ة ب فةثنيلط . ي
عينط / له عينط / سنط
سنط سنط
أساسا للحكم على نوعية المياه.)*( فترة التقييم: تعتمد الفترة السابقة لمرحلة التقييم
)**( صيفا: الفترة من بداية شهر أيار و حتى نهاية شهر تشرين أول.
)***( شتاء: الفترة من بداية شهر تشرين ثاني و حتى نهاية شهر نيسان.
95
المراجــع -5 1998( ة م 227"فة و ا فة ن ط فةخ ط ن فة ال نع" ةم )م ف فةالسوينوطفة بفالاط -1
(893/1995 و ا فةال ف فةالحا فة ة ط" ةم ) -فة بفالاط فأل ننوط "فة و ا -2
ة نبن فةبيلط فة ال ي "فة يي ب فة بفالا ر ةت ض فة بفن عنن تال ياه اا فةبيلط فةتح يط"( -3
نا " فةنبفعن فةخ الط بتال يف فة بفن فة تنانط فةس للط اا فةبيلط فةتح يطة نبن فةبيلط فة-4
1991ة م FAO Guidelines for Agriculture نظ ط فألاووط ب فةي فعط -5
الفنيـةالمصطلحـات -3
Bio-Chemical Oxygen Demand األكسجن الممتص حوا -1
(B.O.D)5
األكسجن الممتص -2 Chemical Oxygen Demand (C.O.D) كمائا
Dissolved Oxygen األكسجن المذاب -3
Grab samples عنات منفردة -4
Composite sample عنة مجمعة -5
Faecal coliforms عصات المولون -6
Intestinal nematodes الددان المعوة -7
Total Suspended Solids (T.S.S) المواد العالمة الكلة -1
Total Dissolved Solids (T.D.S) المواد الذائبة الكلة -9
Fat Oil and Grease (FOG) الزوت و الشحوم -11
Methylene Blue Active المنظفات الصناعة-11
Substance(MBAS) (foaming agent)
96
الجهات المشاركة-7
بيف ة للبن فةبيلط .1 فةالحط بيف ة .2 بيف ة فةي فعط .3 رسسط فة بفالا ر بفة ن يوس .4 سلوط فة و ا .5 بلنوط اية .6 فة ط فاست وط .7 ط فألي .8 ختب ط بي يير .9
جامعة النجاح الوطنية كمية الدراسات العميا
لالستخدام األمن لممياه تقييم مؤشرات األداء
الغربية الرمادية المعالجة في شمال الضفة
إعداد عبير عفيف برهان جمعة
إشراف أ.د مروان حداد د . هبة الفارس
قدمت هذه االطروحة استكماال لمتطمبات الحصول عمى درجة الماجستير في العموم البيئية بكمية
فمسطين، الوطنية في نابمسي جامعة النجاح الدراسات العميا ف5102
ب
الغربية تقييم مؤشرات األداء لالستخدام األمن لممياه الرمادية المعالجة في شمال الضفة إعداد
عبير عفيف برهان جمعة إشراف أ.د مروان حداد د . هبة الفارس
الممخص
ت نا السوين ن حس سوط ب نن ة ال ن فة و ا فة باوط فةتنلينوط بت تب فة و ا فة نوط بفةتا .% ن فة و ا فة نيةوط فة ن ط الن بنيل ةل و ا85-55 نتلئل
فةنالي بعلى فة نى ىن تنوم فستخنفم فة و ا فة نوط فة ة ط على فة إةى فةن فسطبتهنف وا .فة حو ر افةوبيل بفةنببل فة ت ا استخنفم و
فة نوط اا ل ل ةتنوم بنة بئا لة تنايو حو ر ة ط فة و ا فألنفلفستخن ر رل فر تنوم ) نظ م ستط حو ر ة ة ط فة و ا فة نوط ن ح اظتا نين بوبت س تم تنوم فةضاط فةغ بوط.
(بفألعتف )فةو ة فةييتبن(ب فة وتط ( فستخن ر ةي فعط أل فةا كهط ) فةح ضو رفأل فضا تم ع فةبو ن ر بتحليله ال ر فاست فر ن ف ل فة سح فة ينفنا ببيعر على فة ستاينين
Excel and SPSSت ستخنفم فة ة ط ختل ل و ا ةبل بت ن ة فةتحليل فةكو و لا فة رل فر على فة نى فةنالي ئ نر تل ل
له ي حيي فن بت بي pH , TDS, Na+ ,Ca2+ ,Cl- ,BOD ,PO4
3+, SO42- فة رل فر
حيث بلغر ناته على .ئ نر تنع ض ن فة و فةالسوينا ة و ا فةال ف فةالحا فة ة ط 139 ,7.69 ,178 ,224 ,65.6 ,128.2 ,1524.27 ,7.5 فةتبفةا
Mg2+, NO3 أعلى ن فة و حيث بلغر-, COD بين ئ نر فة نار ةل
.455 ,77.8 ,5288.3 على فةتبفةا 2511ت ةنستط ةل رل فر على فة نى فةوبيل ائ نر تل ل نت لج تحليل فة و ا اا
ج
ب ن نته ع نت لج تحليل فة و ا NARCبفةتا ناور ن ختل فة ئي فةبونا ةلتحبث فةي فعوط على فةخال لذ فةكو و لوط فة ي ت ستخنفم فة و ا فة نوط فة ة ط تأثي بن فسط 2515اا
ةلت بط. اا % 87 ن نط ي 33.3%بنستط Total Coliformئ نر ئا لة إيفةط 2515 ختل ع م
ن نط E.coli %37.3ئ نر ئا لة 53.3% .بنستط 2515 اا . بئ ن فانخا ض2511ع م اا ع م BOD :75.8. بئ نر ئا لة 18:. بئ ن فانخا ض 2511اا ع م 55.3%ي
EC . بئ نر ئا لة 5:. بئ ن فانخا ض بنستط 2511اا ع م 75.8: ن نط ع 2515 TDS.:17.5 . بئ ن فانخا ض 2511اا ع م 27.3: ن نط ع 2515اا ع م 9.8:
فنخا ض أظه ر coli E.ب BOD ،TDS ، ECفةه ط ثل فة رل فر5 16.3: بنستط رةل .ض ن فة يي فةالسوينوط نببا فةبةر، ةكنه ا ييفل ع حو ر فةاا ئا لة
سم 35-5ت و ا نوط ة ط على ع ق بوط ن حنفلق فةت بطتم ع ثتث عين ر ن ئ نر Ec ب pH 6.67بئ نر فةنت لج .ت و ا عوتط بوطسم ب ن نته ت ينط 65-35بع ق ,Zn, Cu, Cr ة ننف ةت فكم ت ةنستط أ .حيث ئ نر نببةط ت ةنستط ةل ي فةالسوينوط 2.65
Mn ن أعلىب ا ةوسر 5.16 ,5.69 ,5.44 ,3.3على فةتبفةا اا فةت بط انن بلغر ناته بط على عتةط بين فستخنفم فة و ا فة نوط فة ة ط اا فةت أيا تظه أوض فةنت لج .فة نل
.فة نى فةوبيل بت فك ر فة نن فةثنيلط اا فةت بط : ن بع فألا فن ةوس ةنيهم لب ر عن فة و ا فة نوط، ب وف و ئس عنم ب بن ح تر 65
ه ننال اا فة و ا بأا ن ناس : ن ألا فن تبف76فةتبعوط بفإل ل ن. بتبين فةن فسط أن ون ي ن 4.6عنن فر فة لح ب فةنستط أن أس فة و ا ت تب ع لن لوسو ةنيهم ةلت ل ه . تبسط
لوئل اا ئل ة. ب وف و ئس ف تا ع تكلاط فةنضح. بعتبة على وةك أا ن 95فةتكلاط ب تبسط : 71الو نط نتظ ط. بوئ حبفةا : ن أالح ي بحنفر فة ة ط أن فةبحنفر تحت ج إةى 33
ن أالح ي بحنفر فة ة ط أن فةبحنفر يفنر إنت ج فة ح اليل اا حنونط فة نيل. بت إلض اط : نهم فنخا ض اا ئا لة بحنفر فة ة ط ع ب فةبةر ب وف يتاق ع 89إةى وةك، أل
فةتحليل فةكو و لا.
د
نفر فة ة ط بين فة ت ر. بئ ن ض فةن س : فتخوبف فة ل فاةتال ني حننف ةنل بح37 :71.4 عن توبيق بحنفر ة ط فة و ا فة نوط بفعنة نف، حيث أظه ر ا ةبوط فة ستاينين
. فضبن عن بحنفر ة ط فة و ا فة نوط