submitted in partial fulfillment of the … nkpa mba.pdf · submitted in partial fulfillment of the...
TRANSCRIPT
1
OGAREKPE, NKPA MBA PG/M.ENG/08/49772
THE EFFECT OF HYDRAULIC JUMP ON THE
PERFORMANCE OF WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS
Civil Engineering
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN WATER AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
Webmaster
Digitally Signed by Webmaster’s Name
DN : CN = Webmaster’s name O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka
OU = Innovation Centre
2010
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA
2
THE EFFECT OF HYDRAULIC JUMP ON
THE PERFORMANCE OF WASTE
STABILIZATION PONDS
BY
OGAREKPE, NKPA MBA REG. NO. PG/M.ENG/08/49772
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
JANUARY, 2010
3
THE EFFECT OF HYDRAULIC JUMP ON THE
PERFORMANCE OF WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS
BY
OGAREKPE, NKPA MBA REG. NO. PG/M.ENG/08/49772
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN WATER AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
January, 2010
4
TITLE PAGE
THE EFFECT OF HYDRAULIC JUMP ON THE PERFORMANCE OF WASTE
STABILIZATION PONDS
CERTIFICATION
5
Ogarekpe, Nkpa Mba, a postgraduate student in the Department of Civil Engineering with Reg.
No. PG/M.ENG/08/49772 has satisfactorily completed the requirements for the research work
for the degree of Master of Engineering in Civil Engineering. The work embodied in this thesis
is original and has not been submitted in full for any other diploma or degree of this or any other
university.
................................................
Ogarekpe, Nkpa Mba
(Student)
................................................ ................................................
Engr. Prof. J. C. Agunwamba Engr. Prof. J. C. Agunwamba
(SUPERVISOR) (HEAD OF DEPARTMENT)
................................................................ .........................................................
DEAN, FACULTY OF ENGINEERING (EXTERNAL EXAMINER)
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to the Almighty God and my parents for their love and encouragement.
6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to express my endless gratitude to God for his continuous protection throughout
the period of this work.
7
I am greatly indebted to my supervisor Engr. Prof. J.C. Agunwamba whose invaluable
guidance, comments, patience, efficient supervision, direction and encouragement saw to the
completion of the project.
Also, I wish to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of the laboratory technologists,
Mr. Nwogu, Mr. Anyanwu Chinedu, Mrs. Eze and the undergraduate colleagues for assisting me
in the practical work.
My sincere gratitude goes to Engr. Abraham Avi Levi, the Chief Resident Engineer,
Tahal Consulting Engineers Ltd., Engr. Alfred Obeten and the entire staff of Tahal Consulting
Engineers for their love and understanding.
Not the least, are all the people whose names are not mentioned at this point. Please
accept my appreciation for your different contributions.
Finally, my appreciation goes to all the members of the Ogarekpe’s family for their love,
encouragement and support.
ABSTRACT
One of the simplest forms of biological treatment processes used in the tropics is the waste
stabilization pond (WSP). The relative simplicity and low operating cost of the WSP make it the
preferred technology for handling, treatment and disposal of municipal waste for small
8
communities. However, its use in urban areas is limited because of its large area requirement.
Hence, the research is aimed at investigating if the introduction of hydraulic jump in the Waste
Stabilization Pond can increase treatment efficiency and consequently reduce the land area
requirement. Thus, WSPs with varying number of hydraulic jumps were constructed using
metallic tanks. The hydraulic jumps were created to introduce turbulence thereby adding
dissolved oxygen in the pond. Wastewater samples collected from different points (including
inlets and outlets) in the ponds were examined for physio-chemical and biological characteristics
for a period of ten weeks. The parameters examined were dissolved oxygen, coliform,
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand and dispersion number. The
efficiencies of the WSPs with respect to these parameters fluctuated with variations in the
atmospheric conditions and varying discharge with the highest efficiency obtained from the pond
with two hydraulic jumps. The research revealed that the cost of wastewater treatment using
hydraulic jump-enabled WSP was about one and a half times lower than the conventional WSP
for the same efficiencies.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE.......................................................................................................................ii
CERTIFICATION PAGE...................................................................................................iii
DEDICATION......................................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT....................................................................................................v
ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS.....................................................................................................vii-viii
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................ix
9
LIST OF PLATES................................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES..............................................................................................................xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study..................................................................................................1-2
1.2 Research Problem.......................................................................................................2
1.3 Significance of Research............................................................................................2
1.4 Research Objectives...................................................................................................3
1.5 Limitations.................................................................................................................3
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Overview of Waste Stabilization Pond.......................................................................4-5
2.2 Waste Stabilization Pond Processes...........................................................................6-7
2.3 Types of Waste Stabilization Pond.............................................................................7
2.3.1 Anaerobic Ponds..............................................................................................8
2.3.2 Facultative Ponds.............................................................................................8-10
2.3.3 Maturation Ponds.............................................................................................10-11
2.3.4 High Rate Algal Pond......................................................................................11
2.3.5 Microphyte Pond.............................................................................................11-12
2.3.6 Other Types.....................................................................................................12
2.4 Factors Affecting the Efficiency of Waste Stabilization Pond..................................12
2.4.1 Pond Geometry................................................................................................12
2.4.2 Solar Altitude Angle........................................................................................13
2.4.3 Solar Azimuth Angle.......................................................................................13
2.4.4 Temperature.....................................................................................................13
2.4.5 Solar radiation..................................................................................................13-14
2.5 Effect of Algae Concentration and Organic Loading on the Kinetic Models of Bacteria
die-Off .........................................................................................................................15-16
2.6 Pond Hydraulics...........................................................................................................16
2.7 Inlet and Outlet Structures...........................................................................................16-17
2.8 Effluent Standards........................................................................................................17-18
2.9 Evaluation of Pond Performance.................................................................................19
2.10 Design and Construction of Pond with Hydraulic Jump.............................................19-20
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study Area...............................................................................................................21
3.2 Collection of Samples and Description of Experimental Setup............................21-23
3.3 Methods of Analysis...............................................................................................24
3.4 Laboratory Method.................................................................................................24
3.4.1 Coliform Test..............................................................................................24
3.4.2 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)........................................................25
3.4.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD).............................................................25
3.4.4 Dissolved Oxygen (DO)..............................................................................26
10
3.4.5 Tracers Studies............................................................................................26-28
3.5 Calculation of Parameters.......................................................................................29
3.5.1 Total Coliform MPN Test...........................................................................29
3.5.2 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)........................................................29
3.5.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD).............................................................29-30
3.5.4 Tracers Studies............................................................................................30
3.5.5 Dispersion Number.....................................................................................30
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Presentation of Results……………………………………………………………31
4.2 Effect of Hydraulic Jump on the Treatment Efficiency.........................................31
4.2.1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand....................................................................31-32
4.2.2 Chemical Oxygen Demand.........................................................................32
4.2.3 Coliform Bacteria.......................................................................................32-33
4.2.4 Dissolved Oxygen.......................................................................................33
4.2.5 Dispersion Number.....................................................................................33
4.2 Graphs.....................................................................................................................34-37
4.3 Cost Benefit Analysis.............................................................................................38
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Conclusion..............................................................................................................39
5.1 Recommendations..................................................................................................40
REFERNCES..........................................................................................................41-43
APPENDICES.........................................................................................................44-109
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Minimum Recommendation: Effluent Standards....................................18
Table 3.1 Detailed Descriptions of the Various Ponds..............................................22
Table 4.1 Comparison between Pond with Hydraulic Jump(s) and the Conventional
Pond that will achieve the same Bacteria Reduction.................................39
11
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 3.1 Experimental Setup.................................................................................22
Plate 3.2 Collection of Sample at Pond with One Jump.........................................27
Plate 3.3 Coliform Test...........................................................................................27
Plate 3.4 Chemical Oxygen Demand Test..............................................................28
12
Plate 3.5 Dissolved Oxygen Test............................................................................28
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Pathways of BOD removal in primary facultative ponds....................9
Figure 2.2 Fully Developed Hydraulic Jump........................................................20
Figure 3.1 Schematic Diagram of Experimental Setup.........................................23
Figure 4.1 Efficiency of BOD removal versus time..............................................34
13
Figure 4.2 Efficiency of COD removal versus time..............................................34
Figure 4.3 Efficiency of Coliform removal versus time........................................35
Figure 4.4 Percentage Increase in DO versus discharge........................................35
Figure 4.5 Efficiency of BOD removal versus Height of Jump...........................36
Figure 4.6 Efficiency of BOD removal versus Height of Jump............................36
Figure 4.7 Efficiency of COD removal versus Height of Jump............................37
Figure 4.8 Efficiency of COD removal versus Height of Jump.............................37
Figure 4.9 Dispersion number versus Discharge....................................................38
Figure 4.10 Dispersion number versus Height of jump............................................38
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY
One of the primary objectives of science and engineering has been to harness all
the available abundant resources of nature, in order to achieve a reasonable standard of
living. However, the contaminations of these resources (air, water, land) have continually
posed the gravest pressing environmental problems facing the world today. As a source
of greater concern, humans must only depend only on the 0.62 percent of the earth's total
water supply for general livelihood and support of their varied technical and agricultural
activities.
In addition, the waste cycle obligates cities, towns and industries to send back
wastewater effluents of acceptable quality. At one end of the quality spectrum of water
14
lie objectives and standards for safe and palatable drinking water or waste water effluents
to be introduced into receiving streams. Between the two, fall quality criteria for bathing,
fishing, harvesting, irrigation and industrial waters. Consequent upon this, wastewater
treatment has become a critical factor in the public and economic development of most
parts of the world. It becomes the critical theme around which revolve prescriptions for
the reclamation of the physical, chemical and biological properties of water.
There is presently widespread interest with regard to the handling and treatment
of wastewater because of the effects on receiving streams and also future needs in some
areas. The introduction of hydraulic jump in waste stabilization ponds is herein studied to
determine the effect on the reclamation of the physical, chemical and biological
properties of water. The main constraint against selecting this technology is not land cost
but land availability.
A Hydraulic jump occurs when liquid at high velocity discharges into a zone of
lower velocity, a rather abrupt rise (a step or standing wave) occurs in the liquid surface.
The rapid flowing liquid is abruptly slowed and increases in height converting some of
the flow's initial kinetic energy into an increase in potential energy, with some energy
irreversibly lost through turbulence to heat. A hydraulic jump occurs when the upstream
flow is supercritical. There must be a flow impediment for hydraulic jump to occur. The
downstream impediment could be a weir, a bridge abutment, a dam or simply channel
friction. Water depth increases during hydraulic jump. A common example of a hydraulic
jump is the roughly circular stationary wave that forms around the central stream of
water. The jump is at the transition between the points where the circle appears still and
where the turbulence is visible.
15
1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM
Due to the fact that treatment of wastewater by hydraulic jump is not widely
known, there are few available data in this area. Additional information were obtained
from interviews of experts in WSP, internet, and journals.
1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH
This study on the effect of hydraulic jump on the performance of waste
stabilization ponds is to determine whether the introduction of hydraulic jump would
increase the efficiency of the treatment process and hence the reduction in land area
requirement of waste stabilization ponds. If this is achieved it will widen the applicability
and popularity of the waste stabilization pond and possibly make it more affordable for
use in rural communities.
1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study are:
1.4.1 To determine the effect of hydraulic jump on the efficiency of waste stabilization
pond for sewage treatment.
1.4.2 To determine the effect of hydraulic jump on other pond parameters.
1.4.3 To study the hydraulic properties of the ponds using tracer studies.
1.4.4 To investigate the cost implications of introducing hydraulic jump in waste
stabilization pond.
1.5 LIMITATION
The research is capital intensive due to high cost of the various reagents
used for the determination of the parameters. Due to this, the experiment could
16
not be conducted for a longer time.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 OVERVIEW OF WASTE STABILIZATION POND
Waste stabilization ponds (WSPs) are popular wastewater treatment system used
for the removal of organics and pathogenic organisms. It consists of a large, shallow
earthen basin in which wastewater is retained long enough for natural purification
processes to provide the necessary degree of treatment. High efficiencies of WSP have
been reported with respect to removal of intestinal nematode (Lakshminarayama and
Abdulappa, 1972; Feachem et al, 1983; Saqqar and Pescode, 1992); organic compounds
and faecal bacteria (Mara, 1976). In addition, it is also economical (Arthur, 1983). It is
simple to construct, operate and maintain and it does not require any input of external
energy.
17
The screened raw sewage is treated in the waste stabilization pond by natural
processes based on the activities of both algae and bacteria. Although some oxygen is
provided by diffusion from the air, the bulk of the oxygen in the ponds is provided by
photosynthesis (Howard et al., 1985). WSP system usually requires large land area
because of its long detention time which is still suitable in several African communities
where land acquisition is not a problem. Besides, its efficiency depends on the
availability of sunlight and high ambient temperature which are the prevailing climate
conditions in most of these communities.
In addition to being useful in the treatment of sewage, waste stabilization pond is
being applied in the treatment of industrial and agricultural wastes. Its long detention
time; its relatively slow-rates of sludge accumulation; and its physicochemical conditions
such as neutrality to alkaline pH, make it attractive in treating industrial wastewaters.
Besides, in maturation ponds, aerobic conditions promote precipitation of heavy metals.
Ponds have been successfully used to treat industrial wastes high in copper and group II
metals, waste from palm oil and natural rubber industries and polishing waste water from
activated sludge plants and trickling filter (Agunwamba, 2001).
However, the main constraint against selecting this technology is not land cost but
land availability. WSPs are limited in application by their large area requirement (Mara
et al., 1983). In the past, researches have been conducted to improve pond efficiency,
thereby maximizing land use by solar enhanced wastewater treatment in waste
stabilization ponds (Agunwamba et al., 2009), using optimization techniques
(Agunwamba and Tanko, 2005), using recirculation stabilization ponds in series (Shelef
et al, 1978), step feeding (Shelef et al., 1978), incorporating an attached growth system
(Shin and Polpraset, 1987) and more accurate estimation of pond design parameters
18
(Agunwamba, 1992; Marecos do Monte and Mara, 1987; Mayo, 1989; Polpraset et al.,
1983; Sarikaya and Saatci, 1987; Sarikaya et al., 1987; Sweeney et al., 2007). In
addition, higher pond depths have been investigated for reduction of the pond surface
area (Hosetti and Patil, 1987; Oragui et al., 1987; Pearson et al., 2005; Silver et al.,1987).
Agunwamba (2001) investigated the effect of tapering on WSP performance.
However, no work seems to have been done on the utilization of ponds with
hydraulic jump.
Waste stabilization ponds are classified according to the nature of the biological
activities taking place. Other criteria for classification include the types of influent
(untreated, screened, or activated sludge influent), pond overflow condition, and method
of oxygenation. In terms of biological activities; ponds are classified as anaerobic,
facultative and maturation ponds.
2.2 WASTE STABILIZATION POND PROCESSES
The processes that take place in WSPs depend on the efficient utilization of
sunlight energy through large scale culture and algae in the satisfaction of the oxygen
demand of organic waste. Sunlight energy is absorbed by pond algae which through
photosynthesis release molecular oxygen into the pond. This oxygen is used by aerobic
sewage bacteria in decomposing the organic matter from waste newly introduced into the
pond and from aerobic sludge accumulated in the pond as a result of previous bacterial
activities. During bacterial oxidation of the organic matter, its basic molecular
components such as carbon dioxide, ammonia and phosphates are released into the liquid
and become available for algal growth. The cycle continues so long as sunlight and
nutrient are supplied. Thus, large energy is used to produce oxygen and to effect waste
treatment, excess oxygen is liberated into the atmosphere and excess algae are produced
19
in the process. It is then obvious that more oxygen will be produced in shallow lagoon
than in a deeper lagoon of the same volume. As the waste enters the lagoon, the heavier
solids settle and form a sludge layer where they undergo anaerobic digestion. The soluble
waste is firstly oxidized aerobically by lagoon bacteria according to the following:
Waste + O-2
+ Bacteria = Waste + New bacteria
Sewage treatment in stabilization pond depends on aerobic decomposition of organic
matter than the bacterial decomposition of this organic matter which release oxygen
during the day light. Oxygen also dissolves from the atmosphere at the lagoon surface.
Hence, a large ratio of surface area to volume is desirable. Aeration, however, may be
used to increase oxygen supply which decreases substantially at night and in cold weather
when algae depend solely on oxygen
Dissolution of oxygen in the pond also depends on mixing of contents. The oxygen
concentration is uniformly dispersed throughout the pond depth during mixing, but
during stratification, oxygen is only found in the upper 0.5cm of the pond, the major part
of the remaining is anaerobic. The situation now arises where, during summer, if the
wind velocities are insufficient to break the stratification, algae concentration is low.
Hence, the rate oxygen is produced is low and is not dispersed throughout the pond. At
the same time, BOD feed-back from the sludge is high and the rate of oxygen depletion is
high, if the dissolved oxygen capacity is insufficient to meet the increased oxygen
demand. The pond forms anaerobic and where the pond does not form anaerobic, sludge
rising to the surface may result to odour problems.
2.3 TYPES OF WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS
WSP systems comprise a single string of anaerobic, facultative and maturation ponds in
20
series, or several such series in parallel. In essence, anaerobic and facultative ponds are
designed for removal of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), and maturation ponds for
pathogen removal, although some BOD removal also occurs in maturation ponds and
some pathogen removal in anaerobic and facultative ponds (Mara, 1987). In most cases,
only anaerobic and facultative ponds will be needed for BOD when the effluent is to be
used for restricted crop irrigation and fish pond, fertilization as well as when weak
sewage is to be treated prior to its discharge to surface waters. Maturation ponds are only
required when the effluent is to be used for unrestricted irrigation, thereby having to
comply with the WHO guideline of > 1000 faecal coliform bacteria/100ml. The WSP
does not require mechanical mixing, needing only sunlight to supply most of its
oxygenation. Its performance may be measured in terms of its removal of BOD and
faecal coliform bacteria.
2.3.1 Anaerobic ponds
Anaerobic ponds are commonly 2 – 5m deep and receive wastewater with high organic
loads (i.e. usually greater than 100g BOD/m3.day, equivalent to more than 3000kg/ha.day
for a depth of 3m). They normally do not contain dissolved oxygen or algae. In anaerobic
ponds, BOD removal is achieved by sedimentation of solids, and subsequent anaerobic
digestion in the resulting sludge. The process of anaerobic digestion is more intense at
temperature above 15oC. The anaerobic bacteria are sensitive to pH < 6.2. Thus, acidic
water must be neutralized prior to its treatment in anaerobic ponds. A properly designed
anaerobic pond will achieve about 40% removal of BOD at 10oC, and more than 60% at
20oC. A shorter retention time of 1.0 – 1.5 days is commonly used.
21
2.3.2 Facultative Ponds
Facultative ponds (1-2m deep) are of two types: Primary facultative ponds that
receive raw wastewater, and secondary facultative ponds that receive particle-free
wastewater (usually from anaerobic ponds, septic tanks, primary facultative ponds, and
shallow sewerage systems). The process of oxidation of organic matter by aerobic
bacteria is usually dominant in primary facultative ponds or secondary facultative ponds.
The processes in anaerobic and secondary facultative ponds occur simultaneously
in primary facultative ponds, as shown in figure 2.1. It is estimated that about 30% of the
influent BOD leaves the primary facultative pond in the form of methane (Marais, 1970).
A high portion of the BOD that does not leave the pond as methane ends up in algae. This
process requires more time, more land area, and possibly 2-3 weeks water retention time,
rather than 2-3 days in the anaerobic pond. In the secondary facultative pond (and the
upper layers of primary facultative ponds), sewage BOD is converted into “Algal BOD,”
and has implications for effluent quality requirements. About 70-90% of the BOD of the
final effluent from a series of well-designed WSPs is related to the algae they contain.
Fig. 2.1 Pathways of BOD removal in primary facultative ponds (After Marais, 1970)
22
In secondary facultative ponds that receive particle-free sewage (anaerobic
effluent), the remaining non-settleable BOD is oxidized by heterotrophic bacteria
(Pseudomonas, Flavobacterium, Archromobacter and Alcaligenes spp.). The oxygen
required for oxidation of BOD is obtained from photosynthetic activity of the micro-algae
that grow naturally and profusely in facultative ponds.
Facultative ponds are designed for BOD removal on the basis of a relatively low surface
loading (100-400 kg BOD/ha.day), in order to allow for the development of a healthy
algal population, since the oxygen for BOD removal by the pond bacteria is generated
primarily via algal photosynthesis. The facultative pond relies on naturally-growing
algae. The facultative ponds are usually dark-green in colour because of the algae they
contain. Motile algae (Chlamydomonas and Euglena) tend to predominate the turbid
water in facultative ponds, compared to none-motile algae (Chlorella).
The algae concentration in the pond depends on nutrient loading, temperature and
sunlight, but is usually in the range of 500-2000µg chlorophyll-a/litre (Mara, 1987).
Because of the photosynthetic activities of pond algae, there is a diurnal variation in
dissolved oxygen concentration. The dissolved oxygen concentration in the water
gradually rises after sunrise, in response to photosynthetic activity, to a maximum level in
the mid-afternoon, after which it falls to a minimum during the night, when
photosynthesis ceases and respiratory activities consume oxygen. At peak algal activity,
carbonate and bicarbonate ions react to provide more carbon dioxide for the algae,
leaving an excess of hydroxyl ions. As a result, the pH of water can rise to above 9,
which can kill faecal coli form. Good water mixing, which is usually facilitated by wind
within the upper water layer, ensures a uniform distribution of BOD, dissolved oxygen,
23
bacteria and algae, thereby leading to a better degree of waste stabilization.
2.3.3 Maturation Pond
Maturation ponds (low-cost polishing ponds, which succeed the primary or
secondary facultative pond) are primarily designed for tertiary treatment, i.e., the removal
of pathogens, nutrients and possibly algae. They are very shallow (usually around 1m
depth, although Mara (1997) believes that at this reduced depth emergent plant growth
and mosquito breeding problems can result) to allow light penetration to the bottom and
aerobic conditions throughout the whole depth. The ponds follow a secondary treatment,
a facultative pond. The size and number of maturation ponds needed in series is
determined by the required retention time to achieve a specified effluent pathogen
concentration. In the absence of effluent limits for pathogens, maturation ponds act as a
buffer for facultative pond failure and are useful for nutrient removal (Mara and Pearson,
1998). Mara (1970) notes that if an anaerobic and secondary facultative pond system is
used, this will produce an effluent suitable for restricted irrigation. Therefore, addition,
maturation ponds will only be needed if a higher quality effluent is required.
Another technology that may replace maturation ponds to improve WSP system
performance is the use of constructed wetlands. Wetlands are areas which support the
growth of a variety of plant species adapted to flooded conditions for part of, or the year.
The plants are densely spaced and, together with the shallow water, provide habitats for
animal, bird and insect communities. Constructed wetland systems are designed to
simulate and optimize filtering and biodegradation processes that occur in natural
wetlands. They are a possible solution to improve the performance of pond systems, as
they can "polish" wastewater effluent before its discharge to a waterway.
24
During summer months, such a system may even result in zero discharge to waterways,
due to evaporation and evapotranspiration of the water component from the wetland.
2.3.4 High Rate Agal Pond
The high rate algal pond is designed to maximize algal growth and so achieve
high protein yields. It has high area to volume ratio, shallow depth of 0.2 - 0.6m and 2 -
4m wide. Mixing more than once daily to resuspend any settled solids and removal of
algae from tile final effluent are required. It is not actually a treatment pond. Besides, it
requires skilled personnel operation and maintenance.
2.3.5 Microphyte Pond
Microphyte ponds are ponds containing floating plants (for instance, water
hyacinth) or noted aquatic plants (e.g., Phyramities). A microphyte pond is designed such
that these aquatic plants form canopy on the ponds surface, and consequently reduce light
penetration needed for the growth of algae. These ponds are used for removal of algae,
and nutrients such as nitrate, ammonia and orthophosphate from waste waters
(Agunwamba et al, 2001). They are however associated with very high failure rate, low
pathogen die off and high rate of sludge accumulation.
2.3.6 Other Types
In many countries of South-East Asia, certain types of primary facultative ponds
called night soil ponds are used to treat batch loads of night soil (faeces and urine) (Mara
and Pearson, 1986). Fish pond is another type of pond, which is designed to provide
adequate nutrients for fish farming without encouraging eutrophication (growth of
excessive weeds).
25
2.4 FACTORS AFFECTING THE EFFICIENCY OF WASTE STABILIZATION
PONDS
The factors that affect the efficiency of waste stabilization ponds are as follows:
2.4.1 Pond Geometry
The pond geometry is placed in the position where it will receive a good intensity
of sunlight without disturbance. Therefore, it depends on the geometry of solar energy
since sun is one of the most important factors of waste stabilization pond treatment. To
locate the position of the pond, the movement of the sun is going to be monitored by
knowing the two degrees of freedom, which can be specified by two angles that are
sufficient information to locate the sun on the celestial sphere at any times. They are solar
altitude angle and azimuth angles.
2.4.2 Solar Altitude angle (ALT)
The solar altitude angel is measured upward from the level horizontal plane to a
line between the observer and the sun. The maximum solar angle occurs at noon in all
seasons of the year. In rainy season, the noon sun is only 26.5° above the horizontal
whereas in summer it is 73.3° above the horizon.
2.4.3 Solar Azimuth Angle
The azimuth angle is measured in the horizontal plane between the due south
direction and the projection of the sun earth line onto the horizontal plane. It has a sign
convention as do other solar angles, but for this purpose sign associated with solar are not
needed. It depends on the same three angles as solar altitude angle.
26
Another angle that is useful in solar pond design is the incidence angle (INC). It is
an angle between the beam radiation from the sun and a line constructed perpendicular to
an irradiated surface. Incident angle is zero if the surface is perpendicular to the direct
rays of the sun: it is 90° if the surface is parallel to rays from sun.
2.4.4 Temperature
Due to the effect of sunlight, the effective wavelength for microbial destruction
are the near ultra-violent ray band 320nm to 490nm with a temperature of 12°C to 50°C,
while Escherichia Coli will be inactivated by a much lower temperature and longer
retention time.
2.4.5 Solar Radiation
Solar radiation is the most effective factor that is responsible for the treatment of
waste stabilization pond. Every other factor depends on solar radiation in treatment of
wastewater. The growth of algae depends on solar radiation and production of oxygen by
algae through photosynthesis is by sunlight, which the bacteria need for respiration and
generation of energy. There are three types of solar radiation.
a. Beam radiation
The most significant type of radiation for solar thermal processes is beam
radiation. It is the one that travels from the sun to a point on the earth with negligible
change in direction. It is the type of sunlight that casts a sharp shadow, and on a sunny
day, it can be as much as 80% of the total sunlight striking a surface.
b. Diffuse or scattered radiation
27
The Diffuse or scattered radiation is the sunlight that comes from all directions in
the sky dome other than the direction of the sun.
c. Reflected radiation.
The reflected radiation may be direct or diffuse radiation reflected from the
foreground onto the solar aperture. Due to the above behaviour of sunlight, solar pond
has to be constructed for the treatment of wastewater, so that enough solar energy will be
stored or collected for the treatment of the wastewater since it is one of the simplest
devices for waste water treatment. Any pond converts-insulation to heat but most natural
ponds quickly lose that heat through vertical convection within the pond by evaporation
and convection at the surface. Artificial solar pond prevents either vertical convection or
surface evaporation and convection or both. Due to its massive thermal storage and
measures taken to reduce heat loss, a typical pond takes several hours than it takes a solar
pond to converts intermittent solar radiation into a steady source of thermal energy.
2.5 EFFECTS OF ALGAE CONCENTRATION AND ORGANIC LOADING ON THE
KINETIC MODELS OF BACTERIA DIE-OFF
The literature has revealed that die-off bacteria in WSP depend on environmental
and climatological parameters. Several hypotheses have tried to explain the causes of
bacterial reduction, including the presence of antibacterial substances produced by algae.
The high pH levels common in the ponds, the production of toxic extracellular
compounds by algae, the depletion of nutrients, the microbial antagonism, and the high
oxidation reduction potential in algal-bacteria cultures. Although no evidence was found
to support the view that the release of bactericidal substances from algal material was
responsible for the reduction in coliform count, he reported that the complex pond
28
environment, along with the involvement of a greater variety of algal species, resulted in
increased die-off rates of the enteric bacteria. Parhad and Rar(1974) experimentally
found that the growth of different algae in sterilized wastewater resulted in an increase of
pH from 7.5 to more than 10. This increased pH caused reduction of E. coli when grown
in association with algae. Based on first order kinetics and assuming completely mixed
conditions, Marais and Shaw proposed a model for the die-off of indicator bacteria in
WSP. Because temperature was found to affect the bacterial removal efficiency
substantially, Marais altered the model and derived a first-order equation in which the
first-order rate constant was assumed to be temperature dependent. Other coliform decay
models in WSP, developed by Ferrara and Harlmman(1980), were one of the first-order
reactions in which the decay rate is temperature dependent.
In fact, the WSP should be considered as a complex system encompassing the
existence of several living species, especially the interrelationship of algae and bacteria,
which bring about an ecological pattern different from pure culture behaviour. Numerous
authors have pointed to a need to improve existing models of coli form decay. The
comprehensive model should include the relationship of coli form die-off to other major
parameters: algal biomass concentration (Cs), temperature (T), organic loading (OL),
sunlight intensity (1), Sunlight duration (L), hydraulic detention time (0), substrate
degradation rate (Ks), and pond dispersion number (d). A research programme was
undertaken to develop mathematical relationships of the bacterial die-off in WSP
incorporating two proposed models, one for the algal concentration, Cs. Verification of
the results obtained was made with experimental data from the full-scale WSP and some
published data for existing ponds in northeast Brazil.
29
2.6 POND HYDRAULICS
Like in other wastewater treatment systems, the hydraulic of the pond influences
the mixing characteristic and detention time and ultimately its efficiency. The pond
hydraulic is influenced by the presence of unused dead space (Polprasit and Bhattarai,
1985); length to width ratio (Mangelson and Watters, 1977), inlet and outlet positions
(Mara and Pearson, 1987) and pond depth. In the design of ponds, it is very essential to
choose configuration that will give minimum short –circulating. Short –circuiting can be
reduced and hence hydraulic efficiency increased by introducing baffles (Mangelson and
Watters, 1972; Olarewaju and Ogunrombi, 1992) and by limiting the length to width ratio
to a value not less than 3.
2.7 INLET AND OUTLET STRUCTURES
Wastewater treatment inlet and outlet structures are very important parameters to
determine, so that the amount of influent in a pond will be determined and effluent will
also be determined. The inlet and outlet positions are very important in determining the
pond hydraulics, since the hydraulics of the pond influences the mixing characteristics
and detention times and also its efficiency (Polprasert and Bhattarai, 1985).
According to Mara and Pearson (1987), good inlet structures should
a. be simple and inexpensive
b. facilitate sampling; and
c. reduce short circuiting.
30
In the design of ponds, it is very important to choose configurations that will give
minimum short circuiting. Short-circuiting can be reduced and hence hydraulic efficiency
increased by introducing baffles (Mangelson and Watters, 1972; Olanrewaju and
Ogurombi, 1992). Inlet to the anaerobic and primary facultative ponds should discharge
below the liquid level to reduced the quantity of scum, secondary facultative ponds and
maturation pond should discharge either below or above the water liquid (Agunwamba,
2001). The outlet of all ponds should be sited to reduce the discharge of scum. Mara and
Pearson (1987) recommended the following take-off levels:
Anaerobic ponds, 30cm;
Facultative ponds 60m;
Maturation ponds; 5cm.
2.8 EFFLUENT STANDARDS
To achieve its aims wastewater treatment must produce an effluent of a certain
quality (Metcalf et al.,1982). The required effluent quality should be established by a
governmental agency. It becomes the duty of the design engineer to ensure that this
design can achieve the established standards. In the absence of legal standards, the
designer must still design the work to produce an effluent that:
(a) Is suitable for its intended reuse (or will not pollute receiving water course).
(b) will not constitute a risk to public health.
Certain minimum standard can be identified in (Table 2.3) In many cases, a more
stringent standard may of course be necessary.
Table 2.1: Minimum Recommendation: Effluent Standard
31
Parameter Agriculture/
Irrigation
Fish Rearing Recharge
BODs (mg/ litre) No limit <10 < 5
Suspended solids
(mg/litre)
< 30 Low <30
total dissolved solid
(mg/ litre)
2500
<2000
Low
Faecal coliforms
(MPN/100ml)
<1000
<1000
<1000
2.9 EVALUATION OF POND PERFORMANCE
Evaluation of pond performance is expensive, time consuming and it requires
experienced personnel to interpret the data obtained. Pearson et al (1987) have proposed
the guidelines for the maximum evaluation of pond analyzed on at least five days over a
five-week period at both the hottest and coldest times of the year but in the case of this
practical work due to time constraint and cost, samples were taken over a period of ten
weeks. Samples are required of the raw wastewater and the effluent of each pond in the
series. The parameters to be measured were: BOD, COD, faecal coli form, dissolved
oxygen and dispersion number performed on the effluent.
32
2.10 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF POND WITH HYDRAULIC JUMP
Moore (1943) and Rand (1955) analyzed a single-step drop structure for a horizontal step,
the flow condition near the end of the step change from sub critical to critical at some
section a short distance back from the edge. The flow depth at the brink of its step at db is
db = 0.715 dc……………………………………………………..………..(2.1)
where dc is the critical flow depth (Rouse, 1936). Downstream of the brink, the nappe
trajectory can be computed using potential flow calculated complex numerical methods
of approximate method as that developed by Montes (1992).
Application of the momentum equation to the base of the overfall leads to (White, 1943)
h
d
h
dc
54.01 1.275…………………………………………………………………………………....
(2.2)
where d1 is the flow depth and h is the step height.
The flow depth and total head are given by the classical hydraulic jump equation.
)3.2.....(......................................................................2
2
42
1
2
1
2
11
2g
dvddd
db
h
db
h
h
d
h
Ldc
21
23
……………………………………………...(2.4)
where length of the drop Ld is given by
33
d cdb
d1dc
h = 0.4m
Figure 2.2 Fully D eveloped H ydraulic Jum p
d2
Supercritical
flow
H ydraulic
jum p
Subcritical
flow
CHAPTER THREE
EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY AND SET UP
3.1 STUDY AREA
Located at the north-eastern end of the University campus about 800m from the
junior staff quarters, the treatment plant at Nsukka consists of a screen (6mm bar racks
set at 12 mm centres) followed by two Imhoff tanks, each measuring about 6.667 m X
34
4.667 m X 10m, and two facultative waste stabilization ponds. Sludge is discarded from
the Imhoff tank once every ten days onto one of the four drying beds, so that the beds are
loaded at 40 days interval. The beds have a total area of 417 m2. Although its efficiency
has deteriorated, its effluent is used for uncontrolled vegetable irrigation by some village
dwellers. The poor effluent quality is also partly attributable to overloading because of
population growth.
3.2 COLLECTION OF SAMPLES AND DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL
SETUP
Sewage samples were collected from the University of Nigeria, Nsukka
stabilization pond for laboratory analysis. Three ponds were constructed with iron sheet
for the experiment. Two (2) out of the three ponds were constructed with steps which
enabled the introduction of hydraulic jumps. The third pond was without any step hence
no hydraulic jump. The setup also included an overhead storage tank (1.2m 1.5m 1.5m)
and a sewage storage tank (1.2m 0.5m 0.5m). The detailed description of the various
ponds are explained in Table 3.1 and graphically represented in Fig.3.1
Table 3.1 Detailed Descriptions of the Various Ponds
Experimental pond Size(m) Characteristics Purpose
0
1
2
0.4x0.4x0.8
0.4x0.4x0.8
0.4x0.4x1.6
No hydraulic jump
One hydraulic jump
Two hydraulic jumps
Control
Measure the effect
of hydraulic jump
Measure the effect
of hydraulic jumps
35
The first pond was made without hydraulic jump to serve as control while the
other ponds were designed and constructed with one and two hydraulic jumps
respectively.
Plate 3.1: Experimental Setup
The overhead storage tank (1.2m 1.5m 1.5m) was usually filled intermittently
with sewage from the University of Nigeria, Nsukka facultative WSP through an
underground pipe with the help of a generator powered pumping machine. The sewage
storage tank (1.2m 0.5m 0.5m) gets its supply from the overhead storage by gravity
flow through a pipe connecting both. Both tanks were usually filled to supply the three
ponds with sewage wastewater. The samples were collected at an interval of twice per
36
week from the three ponds for ten weeks. Samples were collected from one pond at a
time. For Pond 0, samples (0a and 0b) were collected at both the inlet and outlet. For
Pond 1 and Pond 2, five samples each were collected at intervals of 160mm at different
points along the channels. These points corresponded to 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d
and 2e for Pond 1 and Pond 2 respectively. Thereafter, samples collected from the three
ponds were taken for laboratory analysis to determine the concentration of BOD, COD,
total Coli form and Dissolved Oxygen. Date of collection of sample was recorded for the
duration of the research.
O verhead Tank
(1 .5m deep)
Storage Tank
(0 .5m deep)
Pond
2
Pond
1
Pond
0(0 .4m )
Fig 3.1 Schematic Diagram of Experimental Setup
3.3 METHODS OF ANALYSIS
All sewage samples collected for laboratory analysis were analyzed
immediately they were brought into the sanitary laboratory of the University of
Nigeria, Nsukka. Owing to time limitation, samples which could not be analyzed
on the collection day were preserved in the refrigerator and analyzed the
37
following day. All the analysis was based on the standard methods (APHA,
1985).
3.4 LABORATORY METHOD
3.4.1 Coliform Test
In carrying out the experiment, double strength of maconkey as nutrient
medium was prepared by dissolving 45.5g of maconkey broth in 650ml of
distilled water. 10ml of the medium was siphoned into 12 sets of test tubes, 3
fermentation tubes for each sample. Then equal volume of distilled water was
added to the remaining portion of the medium as single strength. 1ml of the single
strength medium was siphoned into another 12 sets of small test tubes, 3
fermentation tubes for each sample. Also, 0.1ml of the single strength medium
was siphoned into another 12 sets of small fermentation tubes, 3 test tubes for
each sample. The 10 ml, 1ml and 0.1ml portion of the samples were sterilized for
15min at 1210C. Thereafter, the tubes were inoculated at 37°C for 48 hours. The
tubes with gases were recorded as positive test indicating the presence of harmful
bacteria in water where the number of coliforms corresponding to the positive
tubes was read from the most probable number (MPN) table.
3.4.2 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Dilution water was prepared by adding 4ml of phosphate buffer,
magnesium sulphate, calcium chloride and ferric chloride solution for each 4 litres
of water. The dilution water was saturated with air and several dilutions of the
38
samples were prepared and siphoned into twelve pairs of BOD bottles for both 5
days incubation and the other for the determination of initial DO in mixture by
using the dissolved oxygen meter. After five days incubation, oxygen demand
was again determined for the second twelve bottles (or five days DO) using the
dissolved oxygen meter.
3.4.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand
The procedure of COD was carried out by first weighing of 0.4g portion of
mercury sulphate (HgSO4) and placed in the labelled reflux flask A, B, C, D, E, F,
G ,H, I, J, K and L 20ml of the sample were pipetted to the flask and 20ml of
distilled water in one other flask, which served as blank; 10ml standard potassium
dichromate K2Cr2O solution was added to the twelve bottles A, B, C, D, E, F, G
,H, I, J, K and L with some granules of glass beds (previously heated to 60°C in a
furnace). The flasks were connected to the condensers and 30ml sulphuric acid
was gently added through the open top of the condenser with a pipette. Heat was
applied for two hours, after which, the condensers were washed down with
distilled water to 150ml level. After putting three drops of ferrous indicator to the
mixture and stirred. A blue-green colour changes to reddish-brown at end point of
the titration as the mixture was titrated with standard ferrous ammonium sulphate.
3.4.4 Dissolved Oxygen
Portable waterproof dissolved oxygen meter, HI 9142(Hanna Instrument)
was used for the determination of dissolved oxygen. The protective cap was
39
removed and the tip of the probe immersed in the sample to be tested. For
accurate dissolved oxygen measurements, a minimum water movement of 0.3m/s
is required. This was to ensure that the oxygen-depleted membrane surface is
constantly replenished. To quickly check if the water speed was sufficient, the
reading was allowed to stabilize before moving the DO probe. For situations
where the reading was still stable, the measurement was right.
During field measurements, this condition was met by manually agitating
the probe while during laboratory measurements; the use of magnetic stirrer to
achieve a certain velocity in the fluid was used. No reading was taken while the
liquid was at rest.
3.4.5 Tracers Studies
Common salt was used as tracer for this research. 5g of common salt was
added to the sewage in the sewage tank and properly stirred. Samples were
collected at the outlet of the each pond consequent upon the outflow from the
sewage tank. Samples were collected at regular intervals while the first sample was
collected just before the theoretical detention time. The process was continuous as
equivalent inflow was simultaneously allowed from the overhead tank into the
sewage tank. A blank sample was usually collected before the addition of the
common salt. The above process was repeated for the other values of discharges
studied.
40
Plate 3.2 Collection of Sample at Pond with One Jump
Plate 3.3 Coliform Test
41
Plate 3.4 COD Test
Plate 3.5 Dissolved Oxygen Test
42
3.5 CALCULATION OF PARAMETERS
3.5.1 Total Coliform MPN Test
The Most Probable Number of total coliform for positive tubes is obtained
from MPN index per 100 ml from the table of MPN index and 95% confidence
limits for various combinations of positive and negative results when three 10-ml
portions, three 1-ml portions and three 0.1-ml portions are used.
3.5.2 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
BOD at each pond can be calculated using the formula;
BOD = D1 - D2
P
where,
D1 = Dissolved oxygen of diluted sample in 15 minutes after preparation of
(BOD1).
D2 = Dissolved oxygen of diluted sample after 5 days incubation (BOD5).
P = Decimal fraction of sample used = 2 = 0.0067
300
3.5.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
COD at each pond can be calculated using this formula
Mg/L COD = (a - b) xNx8000
ml of sample
where, a = ml of Fe (NH4) (SO4)2 in bank sample titration = varies
43
b = ml of Fe (NH4)2 (SO4)2 in sample titration = varies
N = Normality of Fe (NH4)2 (SO4)2 = 0.1N
3.5.4 Tracers Studies
Concentration of salt tracer for each pond can be calculated using the formula below
Salt Concentration (mg/l) = (a - b) xNx3450
ml of sample
where, a = ml of Silver nitrate in blank sample titration = varies
b = ml of Silver nitrate in sample titration = varies
N = Normality of Silver nitrate = 0.0141
3.5.5 Dispersion Number
Dispersion Number for each pond can be calculated using the formula below
σƟ = [ ΣƟ2C/ΣC – (ΣƟC/ΣC)
2] (ΣC/ΣƟC)
2
δ = 1/8 [ √(1 + 8 σƟ2) – 1 ]
where, σƟ = Normalized variance = Varies
Ɵ = Time = Varies
C = Concentration of salt tracer = varies
δ = Dispersion number = Varies
44
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The first sample collection was made on the 31st of August, 2009 and the
following results on Biological Oxygen Demand, Chemical Oxygen Demand, Dissolved
Oxygen, coliform and dispersion number were calculated and tabulated in Appendices A
and B respectively.
4.1 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
The experimental results are presented in Figures 4.1 – 4.8. Figures 4.1 – 4.3
depict temporal variations of treatment efficiencies of the control pond and hydraulic
jump enabled ponds with respect to coliforms, BOD and COD. Figures 4.4 show the
effect of the hydraulic jump on the addition of dissolved oxygen. Figures 4.5 – 4.6 show
the variations of treatment efficiencies of hydraulic jump enabled ponds with respect to
BOD and COD considering the height of jump. Figures 4.7 – 4.8 shows the extent of
dispersion in the ponds.
4.2 EFFECTS OF HYDRAULIC JUMP ON TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
4.2.1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
From the results obtained from the laboratory analysis, pond 2 was observed to
record the highest efficiency of BOD removal followed by pond 1 and pond 0 as shown
in figure 4.1 and figure 4.6. This was as a result of the two hydraulic jumps in the pond.
Though pond 1 and pond 0 have the same geometry, pond 1 shows a higher efficiency of
BOD removal than pond 0 due to the single hydraulic jump. All three ponds were
45
exposed to the same discharge per sampling period. The minimum outlet concentrations
of BOD in pond 2, pond 1 and pond 0 were 21.6mg/l, 34.8mg/l and 46.8mg/l
respectively. Also, the maximum outlet concentrations of BOD in pond 2, pond 1 and
pond 0 were 150mg/l, 210mg/l and 240mg/l respectively.
4.2.2 Chemical Oxygen Demand
From the results obtained from the laboratory analysis, pond 2 was observed to
record the highest efficiency of COD removal followed by pond 1 and pond 0 as shown
in figure 4.2 and figure 4.8. This was as a result of the two hydraulic jumps in the pond.
Though pond 1 and pond 0 have the same geometry, pond 1 shows a higher efficiency of
COD removal than pond 0 due to the single hydraulic jump. All three ponds were
exposed to the same discharge per sampling period. The minimum outlet concentrations
of COD in pond 2, pond 1 and pond 0 were 40.8mg/l, 65.3mg/l and 93.8mg/l
respectively. Also, the maximum outlet concentrations of COD in pond 2, pond 1 and
pond 0 were 312mg/l, 400mg/l and 512mg/l respectively.
4.2.3 Coliform
After the treatment of wastewater using hydraulic jump ponds, the results
obtained from the laboratory analysis were plotted as shown in figure 4.3. Pond 2 was
observed to record the highest efficiency of coliform removal followed by pond 1 and
pond 0. This was as a result of the two hydraulic jumps in the pond. Though pond 1 and
pond 0 have the same geometry, pond 1 shows a higher efficiency of coliform removal
than pond 0 due to the single hydraulic jump. All three ponds were exposed to the same
discharge per sampling period. The minimum outlet most probable number of coliform in
pond 2, pond 1 and pond 0 were 3 per 100ml, 9 per 100ml and 21 per 100ml respectively.
46
Also, the maximum outlet concentrations of coliform in pond 2, pond 1 and pond 0 were
43 per 100ml, 150 per 100ml and 1100 per 100ml respectively.
4.2.4 Dissolved Oxygen
The dissolved oxygen in the three ponds was found to increase from the inlet to
the outlet of the ponds as shown in figure 4.4. However, pond 2 was notably higher than
that of pond 1 and pond 0. This increase was observed for all the discharges of the
sewage from the inlet to the outlet. This was as a result of the turbulence caused by the
hydraulic jump thereby allowing for oxygen transfer between the atmosphere and the
wastewater as shown in figure 4.5 to figure 4.8
4.2.5 Dispersion Number
From the results obtained from the tracers studies of the three ponds, pond 2 was
observed to record the lowest dispersion number for all discharges studied indicating a
high degree of axial dispersion. This therefore implies that pond 2 has the highest
efficiency of treatment. Furthermore, pond 1 recorded a low dispersion number however;
its dispersion number was higher than that of pond 2 indicating a high efficiency of
treatment next to pond 2. Pond 0 recorded the lowest efficiency of treatment compared to
ponds 2 and 1 (figures 11-12). All three ponds were exposed to the same discharge during
tracers studies. The minimum dispersion numbers for pond 2, pond 1 and pond 0 were
0.000148, 0.000153 and 0.000305 respectively. Also, the maximum dispersion numbers
for pond 2, pond 1 and pond 0 were 0.000296, 0.000447 and 0.000737 respectively.
47
4.2 GRAPHS
Days
Figure 4.1: Efficiency of BOD removal versus time
Days
Figure 4.2: Efficiency of COD removal versus time
48
Days
Figure 4.3: Efficiency of Coliform removal versus time
Figure 4.4: % Increase in DO versus discharge
49
Figure 4.5: Efficiency of BOD removal versus Height of Jump
Figure 4.6: Efficiency of COD removal versus Height of Jump
50
Figure 4.7: Dispersion number versus Discharge
Figure 4.8: Dispersion number versus Height of jump
51
4.3 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
An analysis was done in order to compare the cost benefit of the hydraulic jump
ponds with the conventional waste stabilization pond. Refer to Table 4.1 and Appendix C
below. Also refer to Appendix D for the cost implication of constructing the existing
WSPs at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka with one hydraulic jump.
Table 4.1 Comparison between Pond with Hydraulic Jump(s) and the Conventional Pond
that will achieve the same Bacteria Reduction
S/N Criteria Conventional Ponds Hydraulic Jump Enabled
Ponds
Pond O
(Control)
Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 1 Pond 2
1
2
3
4
Land Area
Cost of Land
Area of metal sheet
Total cost of
construction with
sheet
0.32 m2
N 964.44
1.12 m2
N 7,384.44
0.32 m2
N 964.44
1.12 m2
N 7,384.44
0.64 m2
N 1,928.88
2.24 m2
N13,328.88
0.22 m2
N 653.50
0.76 m2
N 5,003.70
0.37 m2
N 1122.22
1.30 m2
N 7,754.74
52
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 CONCLUSION
Experimental investigations were carried out on three ponds based on facultative
pond approach to treat wastewater using hydraulic jump. Two out of the three ponds
constructed with metals were fitted with steps. The steps were used to introduce hydraulic
jump in order to enhance oxygen transfer between the atmosphere and the wastewater.
Two hydraulic jumps were introduced in Pond 2; while one hydraulic jump was
introduced in pond 1 and pond 0 (control) was without hydraulic jump.
There is no gain saying that oxygen is very essential in the biological treatment of
wastewater. However, this research was to investigate the effect of artificially increasing
the oxygen concentration in the wastewater.
From the experimental results obtained from the Water and Environmental
Engineering laboratory of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, it was confirmed that the
introduction of hydraulic jump in the waste stabilization pond has significant effect on
wastewater treatment. From the samples collected from pond 2, pond 1 and pond 0, it
shows that treatment was higher in pond 2 due to higher oxygen transfer followed by
pond 1. Pond 0 had the least treatment due the absence of hydraulic jump.
Cost benefit analysis was carried out which proved that ponds with hydraulic
jumps will take less land area than the conventional pond.
53
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of this research, it is recommended that:
1. Waste stabilization ponds be constructed with steps in order to increase the
rate of microbial activities in the pond thereby increasing the pond
performance.
2. Supercritical velocity of discharge of the waste stabilization pond influent
should be encouraged to enable the occurrence of hydraulic jump.
3. From the findings of the study, the use of hydraulic jump to reduce land area
requirement is recommended.
54
REFERENCES
Agunwamba, J.C. (2001) Effect of Tapering on the Performance of Waste Stabilization Ponds.
Water Res. 35 (5). 1191-1200.
Agunwamba, J.C. (1992) Field Pond Performance and Design Evaluation Using Physical
Models. Water Res.. 26 (1). 1403-1407.
Agunwamba, J.C. (2001). Waste Engineering and Management Tools. Immaculate Publication
Ltd., Enugu. pp. 37-72, 117 – 147
Agunwamba, J.C. (2008). Water Engineering Systems. Immaculate Publication Limited,2nd
ed.
Enugu. pp. 82-86
Agunwamba, J.C.,Egbuniwe, N. and Ademiluyi, J.O.(1992). “Prediction of the Dispersion
Nunber in Waste Stabilization Ponds” Water Research (G.B.), 26 (1), pp. 85-90.
Agunwamba, J.C.; Tanko, J.A. (2005) Waste Stabilization pond Design Using Geometric
Programming. Technol. Dev., 9, 123-128.
Agunwamba, J.C.; Utsev, J.T.; Okonkwo, W.I. (2009) Solar Enhanced Wastewater Treatment in
Waste Stabilization Ponds. Water Environ. Res.. 81 (5). 540-544.
American Public Health Association; American Water Works Association; Water Environment
Federation (1992) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 16th
ed.; American Public Health Association: Washington, D.C.
APHA, AWWA, and WPC (Ed.) (1985). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater. Washington D.C. (15th
Ed.) USA.
Arthur, J.P. (1983), “Notes on the Design and Operation of Waste Stabilization Ponds in Warm
Climates of Developing Countries”. World Bank, Washington D. C. pp.211-221.
Benchokroun, S.; Imziln, B.; Hassani, L. (2003) Solar Inactivation of Mesophilic Aeromonas by
Exogenous Photooxidation in High-Rate Algal Pond Treating Wastewater. Microbiol.,
94 (3), 531-538.
Chanson, H.(1994). Hydraulic Design of Stepped Cascades, Channels, Weirs and Spillways.
Pergamon, Great Britain. Pp. 44 - 60
Davies-Colley, R.J.; Graggs, R.J.; Park, J.; Nagels, J.W. (2005) Optimal Characteristics of Waste
Stabilization Ponds; Recommendations for Monitoring. Water Sci. Technol., 51 (12),
153-161.
55
Feachem, R.G. et. al.(1986). Sanitation and Disease: Health aspect of Excreta and Water
Management. John Wiley Chichester.
Ferrara, R.A; and Harlmann, D.R.F. (1980). “Dynamic Nutrient Cycle Model for waste
Stabilization Ponds”. ASCE, 106. Eel, pp. 37-42.
Hoseui, B.B.; Patil, H.S. (1987) Performance of Waste Stabilization Ponds of Different Depths.
Water Air Soil Pollut., 34, 199-206.
Kayombo, S. and Ladegaard, S. E. (1998). Waste Stabilization Ponds and Constructed Wetlands
Design Manual UNEP-IETC, Tanzania, pp. 6 – 15.
Lakshmarayana, J. S. And Abelulapa, M.K. (1972). The Effect of Sewage Stabilization Ponds on
Helminths in Low Cost Waste Treatment. C. A. Sastry (ed.) Central Public Health
Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur, 290.
Mangelson, K. A.and Watters, G.Z.(1972). Treatment Efficiency of Waste Stabilization Ponds.
ASCE, Sanitary Engineering Div., SA2, 407-425.
Mara, D. (1976). Sewage Treatment in Hot Climates. John Wiley and Sons, London.
Mara, D. D. and Pearson, H.W. (1987). “Waste Stabilization Ponds”. Design Manual for
Mediterranean Europe. University of Liverpool, pp.24-31.
Mara. D.D.; Pearson, H.W.; Silva, S.A. (1983) Brazilian Stabilization Pond Research Suggests
Low-Cost Urban Applications. World Water, 6, 20-24.
Marais, G.V.R. (1974) Faecal Bacteria Kinetics in Stabilization Ponds. ASCE. J. Environ. Eng.
Div.. 100, 119-139.
Marecos do Monte, M.H.F.; Mara, D.D. (1987) The Hydraulic Performance of Waste
Stabilization Ponds in Portugal. Water Sci., 19 (12), 219-227.
Mayo, A.W. (1989) Effect of Pond Depth on Bacterial Mortality Rate. ASCE J. Environ. Eng.
Div., 115 (5), 964-977.
Metacalf, L; and Eddy, H.P. (1982). “Wastewater Engineering, Treatment, Disposal and Reuse”
Second Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York pp. 506-511
Olanrewaju, M.O. and Ogunrombi, J.A. (1992).” Improving Facultative Ponds Hydraulics with
Baffles”. The Nigerian Engineer 27(20),pp. 9-20.
Oragui, J.I.; Curtis, T.P.; Silva, S. A.: Mara, D. D. (1987) The Removal of Secreted Bacteria and
Viruses in Deep Waste Stabilization Ponds in North East Brazil. Water Sci. Technol. 19,
567 – 573.
56
Parhab, N. M. And Rar, N.U.(1974).”Effect of pH on Survival of Escherichia Coli” .J. Wat.
Pollut. Contr.Fed.34,pp.149-161
Pearson, H. W; Silva, S. A: Athayde, G. B. (2005) Implications for Physical Design: The Effects
of Depth on the Performance of Waste Stabilization Ponds. Water Sci. Technol. 51 (12),
69 – 74.
Polprasert. C.; Bhattarai, K. K. (1985) Dispersion Model for Waste Stabilization Ponds. ASCE J.
Envrion. Eng. Div., 111 (1), 45 – 59.
Polprasert, C.; Dissanayake, M. G.; Thanh, N. C. (1983) Bacterial Die-Off Kinetics in Waste
Stabilization Ponds. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 55 (3), 285 – 296
Saqqar, M.M. and Pescod, M.B. (1992). “Modelling Coliform Reduction in Wastewater
Stabilization Ponds”. Wat. Sci. Tech. 26(7/8): pp. 1667-1677.
Sarikaya, H. Z,; Saatci, A. M. (1987) Bacterial Die-Off Kinectics in Waste Stabilizaiton Ponds.
ASCE J. Environ. Eng. Div. 113 (2), 366 – 382.
Sarikaya, H. Z,; Saatci, A. M,; Abdulfattah, A. F. (1987) Effect of Pond Depth on Bacterial Die-
Off. J. Environ. Eng. Div., 113 (6), 1350-1361.
Shelef, G.; Juanico, M.; Vikinsky, M. (1987) Reuse of Stabilization Pond Effluent. Water Sci.
Technol., 19 (12), 229-235.
Shelef, G.; Moraine. R.; Messing, A.; Kanarek, A. (1978) Improving Stabilization Ponds
Efficiency and Performance. International Conference on Development in Land. Methods
of Wastewater Treatment and Unlization Melbourne, Australia, October.
Shin, H. K,; Polprasert, C. (1987) Attached-Growth Waste Stabilization Pond Treatment
Evaluation. Water Science Technol., 19 (12), 229 – 235.
Silva. H. K,; Mara, D. D.; de Oliveira, R. (1987) The Performance of a Series of Five Deep
Water Stabilization Ponds in North-East Brazil. Water Sci. Technol., 19 (12), 61 – 64.
Sinton, L. W.; Hall C. H.; Lynch, P. A.; Davies-Colley R. J. (2002) Sunlight Inactivation of
Fecal Indicator Bacteria and Bacteriophages from Waste Stabilization Effluent in Fresh
and Saline Waters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 68 (3), 1122 – 1131.
Sweeney, D. G.;L Nixon, J. B.; Cromar, N. J.; Fallowfield, H. J. (2007) Temporal and Spatial
Variation of Physical, Biological and Chemical Parameters in a Large Waste Stabilization
Pond, and the Implications for WSP Modeling. Water Sci. Technol., 55 (11), 1-9.
57
APPENDIX A
ILLUSTRATION ON THE CALCULATION OF PARAMETERS
Calculation of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
BOD at each pond can be calculated using the formula;
BOD = D1 - D2
P
where,
D1 = Dissolved oxygen of diluted sample in 15 minutes after preparation of (BOD1).
D2 = Dissolved oxygen of diluted sample after 5 days incubation (BOD5).
P = Decimal fraction of sample used = 2 = 0.0067
300
Sample Oa of first day
BOD = 8.0 – 6.8
0.0067
= 180 mg/l
Calculation of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
COD at each pond can be calculated using this formula
COD = (a - b) xNx8000
ml of sample
where, a = ml of Fe (NH4) (SO4)2 in bank sample titration = varies
b = ml of Fe (NH4)2 (SO4)2 in sample titration = varies
N = Normality of Fe (NH4)2 (SO4)2 = varies
58
Sample Oa of first day
COD = (28.0 – 19.2) x0.1x8000
20
= 8.8 x0.1x8000
20
= 352 mg/l
Calculation of Concentration of Salt Tracer
Concentration of salt tracer at each pond can be calculated using this formula
Salt Concentration (mg/l) = (a - b) xNx3450
ml of sample
where, a = ml of Silver nitrate in blank sample titration = varies
b = ml of Silver nitrate in sample titration = varies
N = Normality of Silver nitrate = 0.0141
ml of sample = 50ml
Sample Ob of discharge = 0.09l/s
Salt Concentration (mg/l) = (5.6 – 5.0) x0.0141x3450
50
= 0.58mg/l
Calculation of Dispersion Number
For pond with no hydraulic jump with discharge = 0.09 l/s
59
σƟ = [471.78/2.91 – (36.36/2.91) 2
](2.91/36.36) 2
= 0.038448
δ = 1/8 [ √(1 + 8 x 0.0384482) – 1 ]
= 0.000737
60
APPENDIX B
RESULTS OF PARAMETERS
DISCHARGE = 0.09 l/s
31/08/2009
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
With no hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6
Ob 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.7
With one hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.6
1b 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.8
1c 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.1
1d 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8
1e 5 5.2 5.2 5.1
With two hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.6
2b 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0
2c 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2
2d 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.4
2e 5.5 5.5 5.7 5.6
COLIFORM
with no hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 3 - 3 ≥2400
Ob 3 - 3 - 1 460
With one hydraulic jump
61
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 3 - 3 - 2 1100
1b 3 - 3 - 1 460
1c 3 - 2 - 2 210
1d 3 - 2 - 1 150
1e 3 - 1 - 1 75
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 3 - 1 - 0 43
2b 3 - 0 - 0 39
2c 2 - 2 - 0 21
2d 2 - 1 - 0 15
2e 2 - 0 - 0 9
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
With no hydraulic jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml)
COD (mg/l)
Oa 28.0 19.2 20 352
Ob 28.0 20.9 20 284
With one hydraulic jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml)
COD (mg/l)
1a 28.0 20.0 20 336
1b 28.0 20.3 20 308
1c 28.0 21.2 20 272
1d 28.0 21.7 20 252
1e 28.0 22.7 20 212
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml)
COD (mg/l)
62
2a 28.0 22.2 20 232
2b 28.0 22.8 20 208
2c 28.0 23.0 20 202
2d 28.0 23.4 20 184
2e 28.0 23.9 20 164
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND with no hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
Oa 1 2 300 8.0 6.8 180
Ob 4 2 300 8.1 7.2 135
With one hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
1a 6 2 300 8.4 7.3 165
1b 9 2 300 8.5 7.5 150
1c 10 2 300 8.5 7.6 135
1d 11 2 300 8.5 7.7 120
1e 18 2 300 8.5 7.8 105
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
2a 20 2 300 8.5 7.7 120
2b 23 2 300 8.5 7.8 105
2c 2 2 300 8.6 7.9 105
2d 1 2 300 8.6 8.0 90
2e 6 2 300 8.7 8.2 75
DISCHARGE = 0.10 l/s
04/09/2009
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
With no hydraulic jump
63
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.3
Ob 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4
With one hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6
1b 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.8
1c 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1
1d 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.4
1e 4.6 4.7 4.9 4.7
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 4.6 4.5 3.7 4.6
2b 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0
2c 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2
2d 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.4
2e 5.5 5.5 5.7 5.6
COLIFORM
with no hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 3 - 2 1100
Ob 3 - 2 - 1 150
With one hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 3 - 3 - 2 1100
1b 3 - 2 - 2 210
1c 3 - 2 - 1 150
1d 3 - 1 - 1 75
1e 3 - 0 - 0 39
With two jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 3 - 0 - 0 39
2b 2 - 2 - 2 27
2c 2 - 2 - 0 21
64
2d 2 - 1 - 0 15
2e 2 - 0 - 0 9
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
With no jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
Oa 28.0 17.2 20 432
Ob 28.0 18.1 20 396
With one hydraulic jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
1a 28.0 17.9 20 404
1b 28.0 18.4 20 384
1c 28.0 19.3 20 348
1d 28.0 20.6 20 296
1e 28.0 21.5 20 260
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
2a 28.0 21.3 20 268
2b 28.0 21.7 20 252
2c 28.0 22.3 20 228
2d 28.0 22.9 20 204
2e 28.0 23.1 20 196
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
with no jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
Oa 17 2 300 7.9 6.5 210
Ob 14 2 300 8.0 6.9 165
65
With one jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
1a 24 2 300 8.1 6.8 195
1b 5 2 300 8.0 6.7 165
1c U 2 300 8.1 7.0 165
1d K 2 300 8.1 7.1 150
1e J 2 300 8.0 7.1 135
With two jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
2a 8 2 300 8.0 7.1 135
2b 7 2 300 8.2 7.4 120
2c 22 2 300 8.3 7.5 120
2d V 2 300 8.3 7.6 105
2e 0 2 300 8.4 7.8 90
DISCHARGE = 0.12 l/s
07/09/2009
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
with no jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7
Ob 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.8
With one jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.9
1b 4.9 5.0 5 5
1c 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.2
1d 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.8
1e 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8
With two jumps
66
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.4
2b 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5
2c 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.9
2d 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.0
2e 6.1 6.0 6.1 6.1
Coliform with no hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 3 - 2 1100
Ob 3 - 1 - 0 43
With one hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 3 - 3 - 2 1100
1b 3 - 2 - 1 460
1c 3 - 2 - 0 93
1d 3 - 1 - 0 75
1e 3 - 0 - 0 39
With two jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 3 - 0 - 0 39
2b 2 - 0 - 0 21
2c 2 - 1 - 0 15
2d 2 - 0 - 0 9
2e 1 - 0 - 0 7
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
With no hydraulic jump
67
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
Oa 28.0 20.9 20 284
Ob 28.0 22.2 20 232
With one hydraulic jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
1a 28.0 21.9 20 244
1b 28.0 22.2 20 232
1c 28.0 22.9 20 204
1d 28.0 23.4 20 184
1e 28.0 23.7 20 172
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
2a 28.0 23.5 20 180
2b 28.0 23.8 20 168
2c 28.0 24.2 20 152
2d 28.0 24.5 20 140
2e 28.0 24.6 20 136
BOD with no jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
Oa 5 2 300 7.9 7.0 135
Ob 7 2 300 8.2 7.5 105
With one jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
1a 8 2 300 8.1 7.3 120
1b 14 2 300 8.1 7.3 120
1c 17 2 300 8.2 7.5 105
68
1d 22 2 300 8.3 7.7 90
1e 44 2 300 8.3 7.7 90
With two jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
2a 0 2 300 8.3 7.7 90
2b 3 2 300 8.4 7.8 90
2c F 2 300 8.4 7.9 75
2d T 2 300 8.6 8.1 75
2e Y 2 300 8.6 8.2 60
DISCHARGE = 0.15 l/s
10/09/2009
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
With hydraulic no jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0
Ob 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.1
With one jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.2
1b 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.5
1c 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.8
1d 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.1
1e 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.2
With two jumps
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.1
2b 4.7 4.9 4.8 4.8
2c 4.8 5.0 5.1 5.0
2d 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1
69
2e 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.2
COLIFORM
with no hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 3 - 3 ≥ 2400
Ob 3 - 1 - 1 75
With one hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 3 - 3 - 1 460
1b 3 - 2 - 1 150
1c 3 - 0 - 0 23
1d 2 - 1 - 0 15
1e 2 - 0 - 0 11
With two jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 3 - 1 - 0 39
2b 2 - 2 - 0 21
2c 2 - 1 - 0 15
2d 2 - 0 - 0 9
2e 1 - 1 - 0 7
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
Wth no hydraulic jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
Oa 28.0 14.7 20 532
Ob 28.0 15.2 20 512
With one hydraulic jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
1a 28.0 15.0 20 520
1b 28.0 15.6 20 496
1c 28.0 16.1 20 476
70
1d 28.0 17.1 20 436
1e 28.0 18.0 20 400
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
2a 28.0 17.7 20 412
2b 28.0 18.4 20 384
2c 28.0 18.9 20 364
2d 28.0 19.3 20 348
2e 28.0 20.2 20 312
BOD with no hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
Oa 8 2 300 8.1 6.3 270
Ob 18 2 300 8.3 6.7 240
With one jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
1a 22 2 300 7.9 6.1 270
1b 20 2 300 7.9 6.2 225
1c 1 2 300 8.2 6.7 225
1d W 2 300 8.2 6.7 225
1e 0 2 300 8.3 6.9 210
With two jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
2a 17 2 300 8.2 6.9 195
2b 5 2 300 8.3 7.0 195
2c 24 2 300 8.4 7.1 195
2d 4 2 300 8.4 7.3 165
71
2e 14 2 300 8.5 7.5 150
DISCHARGE = 0.18 l/s
14/09/2009
Dissolved Oxygen with no jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.3
Ob 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.8
With one jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.4
1b 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3
1c 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.5
1d 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.8
1e 4.8 4.9 5.0 4.9
With two jumps
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.8
2b 6.4 6.3 6.5 6.4
2c 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.6
2d 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.7
2e 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.0
Coliform with no jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 3 - 3 ≥ 2400
Ob 3 - 3 - 1 460
With one jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 3 - 3 - 3 ≥ 2400
1b 3 - 3 - 1 460
1c 3 - 3 - 0 240
1d 3 - 2 - 2 210
72
1e 3 - 2 - 0 93
With two jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 3 - 0 - 2 64
2b 3 - 1 - 0 43
2c 3 - 0 - 0 39
2d 2 - 2 - 0 21
2e 2 - 1 - 0 15
COD with no jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
Oa 28.0 20.6 20 296
Ob 28.0 21.9 20 244
With one jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
1a 28.0 20.9 20 284
1b 28.0 21.5 20 260
1c 28.0 21.6 20 256
1d 28.0 22.4 20 224
1e 28.0 22.9 20 204
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
2a 28.0 22.7 20 212
2b 28.0 23.1 20 196
2c 28.0 23.4 20 184
2d 28.0 24.0 20 160
2e 28.0 24.4 20 144
73
BOD with no jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
Oa 20 2 300 7.9 6.9 150
Ob 14 2 300 8.3 7.5 120
With one jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
1a 22 2 300 7.9 7.0 135
1b 17 2 300 7.9 7.0 135
1c 7 2 300 8.1 7.2 135
1d 5 2 300 8.3 7.5 120
1e 11 2 300 8.5 7.9 90
With two jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
2a 22 2 300 8.0 7.3 105
2b 5 2 300 8.0 7.4 90
2c 20 2 300 8.4 7.8 90
2d 15 2 300 8.6 8.1 75
2e 18 2 300 8.7 8.2 75
DISCHARGE = 0.20 l/s
17/09/2009
Dissolved Oxygen with no jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5
Ob 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.8
With one jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8
1b 5.2 5.0 5.1 5.1
74
1c 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.3
1d 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.8
1e 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.9
With two jumps
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8
2b 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.9
2c 6.0 5.9 6.1 6.0
2d 6.2 6.1 6.2 6.2
2e 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.3
Coliform with no jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 3 - 1 460
Ob 3 - 3 - 0 240
With one jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 3 - 3 - 0 240
1b 3 - 2 - 1 150
1c 3 - 1 - 2 120
1d 3 - 1 - 1 75
1e 3 - 0 - 1 39
With two jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 2 - 2 - 1 28
2b 2 - 2 - 0 21
2c 2 - 1 - 0 15
2d 2 - 0 - 0 9
2e 1 - 1 - 0 7
COD with no jump
75
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
Oa 28.0 18.7 20 372
Ob 28.0 19.0 20 360
With one jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
1a 28.0 18.8 20 368
1b 28.0 19.1 20 356
1c 28.0 20.1 20 316
1d 28.0 20.9 20 284
1e 28.0 21.3 20 268
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
2a 28.0 21.8 20 248
2b 28.0 22.2 20 232
2c 28.0 23.0 20 200
2d 28.0 23.6 20 176
2e 28.0 24.1 20 156
BOD with no jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
Oa I 2 300 8.0 6.7 195
Ob G 2 300 8.1 6.9 180
With one jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
1a Y 2 300 8.3 7.1 180
1b U 2 300 8.5 7.4 165
1c N 2 300 8.2 7.2 150
76
1d F 2 300 8.4 7.5 135
1e L 2 300 8.5 7.7 120
With two jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
2a Q 2 300 8.5 7.7 120
2b H 2 300 8.7 8.0 105
2c R 2 300 8.6 8.0 90
2d V 2 300 8.6 8.1 75
2e F 2 300 8.7 8.3 60
DISCHARGE = 0.21 l/s
21/09/2009
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
With no hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.6
Ob 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.9
With one hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.8
1b 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.3
1c 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5
1d 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8
1e 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.9
With two hydraulic jumps
77
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
2b 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.2
2c 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.3
2d 6.4 6.3 6.4 6.4
2e 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.6
COLIFORM
with no hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 3 - 0 240
Ob 3 - 2 - 2 210
With one hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 3 - 2 - 2 210
1b 3 - 2 - 1 150
1c 3 - 1 - 1 75
1d 3 - 0 - 1 39
1e 2 - 2 - 1 28
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 2 - 2 - 0 21
2b 2 - 1 - 0 15
2c 2 - 0 - 1 14
2d 2 - 0 - 0 9
2e 1 - 1 - 0 7
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
With no hydraulic jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
Oa 24.7 19.9 20 192
Ob 24.7 20.3 20 176
78
With one jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
1a 24.7 20.2 20 180
1b 24.7 20.9 20 152
1c 24.7 21.2 20 140
1d 24.7 21.7 20 120
1e 24.7 21.9 20 112
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
2a 24.7 22.3 20 96
2b 24.7 22.5 20 88
2c 24.7 22.8 20 76
2d 24.7 22.9 20 72
2e 24.7 23.0 20 68
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (with no hydraulic jump)
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
Oa 1 25 300 9.4 1.4 96.0
Ob 6 25 300 8.8 1.6 86.4
With one hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
1a 11 25 300 9.1 1.5 91.2
1b 14 25 300 8.9 2.2 80.4
1c 20 25 300 9.0 2.9 73.2
1d 23 25 300 9.1 3.5 67.2
1e X 25 300 9.2 4.0 62.4
With two hydraulic jumps
79
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
2a Z 25 300 9.0 4.3 56.4
2b F 25 300 9.0 4.9 49.2
2c O 25 300 9.1 5.3 45.6
2d W 25 300 9.2 5.8 40.8
2e G 25 300 9.3 6.0 39.6
DISCHARGE = 0.22 l/s
24/09/2009
Dissolved Oxygen with no jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.6
Ob 4.9 4.8 5.0 5.0
With one jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.1
1b 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.4
1c 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5
1d 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8
1e 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
With two jumps
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.2
2b 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.3
2c 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.5
2d 6.9 6.7 6.8 6.8
2e 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.0
Coliform with no jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 2 - 2 210
Ob 3 - 1 - 2 120
80
With one jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 3 - 2 - 1 150
1b 3 - 1 - 2 120
1c 3 - 2 - 0 93
1d 3 - 1 - 1 75
1e 3 - 0 - 2 64
With two jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 3 - 1 - 0 43
2b 3 - 0 - 1 39
2c 2 - 2 - 1 28
2d 3 - 0 - 0 23
2e 2 - 2 - 0 21
COD with no jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD (mg/l)
Oa 24.7 20.8 20 156
Ob 24.7 20.9 20 152
With one jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD (mg/l)
1a 24.7 21.1 20 144
1b 24.7 21.4 20 132
1c 24.7 21.6 20 124
1d 24.7 21.8 20 116
1e 24.7 22.0 20 108
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD (mg/l)
81
2a 24.7 22.4 20 104
2b 24.7 22.7 20 80
2c 24.7 22.8 20 76
2d 24.7 22.9 20 72
2e 24.7 23.0 20 60
BOD with no jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
Oa 10 25 300 7.8 1.2 79.2
Ob K 25 300 7.9 1.5 76.8
With one jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
1a H 25 300 7.9 1.9 72.0
1b Y 25 300 8.0 2.3 68.4
1c I 25 300 8.1 2.7 64.4
1d Q 25 300 8.4 3.5 58.8
1e 5 25 300 8.6 4.1 54.0
With two jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
2a 9 25 300 8.8 4.5 51.6
2b 3 25 300 9.0 5.0 48.0
2c L 25 300 9.2 5.8 40.8
2d S 25 300 9.3 6.1 38.4
2e A 25 300 9.4 6.4 36.0
DISCHARGE = 0.23 l/s
28/09/2009
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
With no hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.4
82
Ob 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
With one hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8
1b 4.9 5.2 5.0 5.0
1c 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.3
1d 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.4
1e 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.9
2b 6.1 6.0 6.1 6.1
2c 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.3
2d 6.4 6.6 6.5 6.5
2e 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.9
COLIFORM (with no hydraulic jump)
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 3 - 2 1100
Ob 3 - 3 - 1 460
With one hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 3 - 3 - 1 460
1b 3 - 3 - 0 240
1c 3 - 2 - 2 210
1d 3 - 2 - 1 150
1e 3 - 1 - 2 120
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 3 - 2 - 0 93
2b 3 - 1 - 1 75
2c 3 - 0 - 2 64
2d 3 - 0 - 1 39
2e 2 - 2 - 1 28
83
COD with no hydraulic jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
Oa 24.9 18.1 20 299.2
Ob 24.9 18.4 20 286.0
With one hydraulic jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
1a 24.9 18.5 20 281.6
1b 24.9 18.9 20 264.0
1c 24.9 19.1 20 255.2
1d 24.9 19.3 20 246.4
1e 24.9 19.6 20 233.2
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
2a 24.9 20.2 20 206.8
2b 24.9 20.4 20 198.0
2c 24.9 20.6 20 189.2
2d 24.9 20.8 20 180.4
2e 24.9 21.0 20 171.6
BOD with no hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
Oa Z 25 300 13.1 1.3 141.6
Ob F 25 300 13.3 1.6 140.4
With one hydraulic jump
84
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
1a 1 25 300 13.3 1.8 138.0
1b 6 25 300 13.4 2.2 134.4
1c 0 25 300 13.5 2.8 128.4
1d 23 25 300 13.5 3.2 123.6
1e 18 25 300 13.6 3.6 120.0
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
2a T 25 300 13.7 4.9 105.6
2b H 25 300 13.7 5.3 100.8
2c Q 25 300 13.8 5.7 97.2
2d 5 25 300 13.8 6.0 93.6
2e S 25 300 13.9 6.5 88.8
DISCHARGE = 0.24 l/s
01/10/2009
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
With no hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.4
Ob 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7
With one hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.6
1b 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.1
1c 5.3 5.2 5.3 5.3
1d 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.5
1e 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8
85
2b 6.0 5.9 6.0 6.0
2c 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.3
2d 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4
2e 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.6
COLIFORM
With no jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 2 - 2 210
Ob 3 - 1 - 2 120
With one jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 3 - 1 - 2 120
1b 3 - 1 - 1 75
1c 3 - 0 - 2 64
1d 3 - 1 - 0 43
1e 3 - 0 - 1 39
With two jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 2 - 2 - 1 28
2b 3 - 0 - 0 23
2c 2 - 2 - 0 21
2d 2 - 1 - 1 20
2e 2 - 1 - 0 15
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
With no jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
Oa 24.9 19.6 20 233.2
Ob 24.9 20.0 20 215.6
With one jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
86
1a 24.9 19.9 20 220.0
1b 24.9 20.1 20 211.2
1c 24.9 20.3 20 202.4
1d 24.9 20.4 20 198.0
1e 24.9 20.6 20 189.2
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
2a 24.9 21.5 20 149.6
2b 24.9 21.9 20 132.0
2c 24.9 22.0 20 127.6
2d 24.9 22.2 20 118.8
2e 24.9 22.5 20 105.6
BIOCHEMICAL OXGYEN DEMAND with no hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
Oa G 25 300 11.2 1.3 118.8
Ob Y 25 300 11.3 2.2 109.2
With one hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
1a I 25 300 11.2 2.0 110.4
1b U 25 300 11.3 2.4 106.8
1c N 25 300 11.4 2.9 120.0
1d L 25 300 11.5 3.2 99.6
1e F 25 300 11.5 3.5 96.0
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
2a H 25 300 11.6 4.9 80.4
2b R 25 300 11.7 5.4 75.6
87
2c V 25 300 11.7 5.9 69.6
2d Q 25 300 11.8 6.2 67.2
2e F 25 300 11.9 6.4 66.0
DISCHARGE = 0.25 l/s
05/10/2009
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
With no hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5
Ob 4.6 4.7 4.9 4.7
With one hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8
1b 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.3
1c 5.6 5.4 5.5 5.5
1d 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.9
1e 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.1
2b 6.0 6.2 6.2 6.2
2c 6.2 6.4 6.3 6.3
2d 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.5
2e 7.0 6.7 6.8 6.8
Coliform with no hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 1 - 2 120
Ob 3 - 1 - 1 75
With one hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 3 - 1 - 1 75
1b 3 - 0 - 2 64
88
1c 2 - 2 - 1 28
1d 3 - 0 - 0 23
1e 3 - 0 - 0 23
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 2 - 2 - 0 21
2b 2 - 1 - 1 15
2c 2 - 0 - 0 9
2d 1 - 1 - 0 7
2e 1 - 1 - 0 7
COD with no hydraulic jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
Oa 24.9 19.6 20 196.0
Ob 24.9 20.1 20 188.2
With one hydraulic jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
1a 24.9 20.4 20 176.4
1b 24.9 20.8 20 160.7
1c 24.9 21.5 20 133.3
1d 24.9 21.9 20 117.6
1e 24.9 22.2 20 105.8
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
2a 24.9 22.8 20 82.3
2b 24.9 22.9 20 78.4
2c 24.9 23.0 20 74.5
2d 24.9 23.1 20 70.6
2e 24.9 23.3 20 62.7
89
BOD with no hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
Oa I 25 300 8.2 1.2 84.0
Ob W 25 300 8.0 1.8 78.0
With one hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
1a J 25 300 7.9 2.2 68.4
1b U 25 300 8.0 2.7 63.9
1c F 25 300 7.9 2.9 62.4
1d Z 25 300 8.0 3.5 54.0
1e N 25 300 8.0 4.5 42.0
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
2a P 25 300 8.0 4.5 42.0
2b K 25 300 7.9 4.6 39.6
2c O 25 300 8.1 5.1 36.0
2d R 25 300 7.8 4.9 34.8
2e S 25 300 7.8 5.2 31.2
DISCHARGE = 0.27 l/s
08/10/2009
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
With no hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.6
Ob 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0
With one hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1
1b 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
1c 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.5
90
1d 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.8
1e 6.0 6.1 6.0 6.0
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 6.2 6.1 6.2 6.2
2b 6.3 6.5 6.4 6.4
2c 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.6
2d 6.9 7.0 6.9 6.9
2e 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.2
COLIFORM with no hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 1 - 1 75
Ob 3 - 1 - 0 43
With one hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 3 - 0 - 2 64
1b 3 - 1 - 0 43
1c 3 - 0 - 1 39
1d 2 - 2 - 1 28
1e 3 - 0 - 0 23
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 2 - 1 - 1 20
2b 2 - 1 - 0 15
2c 2 - 0 - 1 14
2d 2 - 0 - 0 9
2e 1 - 1 - 0 7
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
Wth no hydraulic jump
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
91
Oa 24.9 21.5 20 133.3
Ob 24.9 21.8 20 121.5
With one jump
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
1a 24.9 21.7 20 125.4
1b 24.9 21.9 20 117.6
1c 24.9 22.1 20 109.8
1d 24.9 22.3 20 101.9
1e 24.9 22.4 20 98.0
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
2a 24.9 22.6 20 90.2
2b 24.9 22.8 20 82.3
2c 24.9 22.9 20 78.4
2d 24.9 23.1 20 70.6
2e 24.9 23.3 20 62.7
BOD with no hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
Oa 10 25 300 7.7 2.2 66.0
Ob W 25 300 7.8 2.8 60.0
With one hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
1a H 25 300 7.8 2.5 63.6
1b Y 25 300 7.9 3.0 58.8
1c I 25 300 7.9 3.4 54.0
1d Q 25 300 8.0 4.0 48.0
1e 5 25 300 8.1 4.2 46.8
92
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
2a 3 25 300 8.1 4.3 45.6
2b 9 25 300 8.2 4.8 40.8
2c L 25 300 8.3 5.0 39.6
2d S 25 300 8.4 5.6 33.6
2e A 25 300 8.4 5.7 32.4
DISCHARGE = 0.29 l/s
12/10/2009
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
With no hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.6
Ob 4.9 5.0 4.8 4.9
With one hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0
1b 5.5 5.3 5.4 5.4
1c 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.7
1d 6.0 6.0 5.9 6.0
1e 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.3
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 6.4 6.6 6.5 6.5
2b 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.6
2c 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.7
2d 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.9
2e 7.0 7.2 7.2 7.1
Coliform with no hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 2 - 2 - 1 28
93
Ob 3 - 0 - 0 23
With one hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 2 - 2 - 0 21
1b 2 - 1 - 1 20
1c 2 - 1 - 0 15
1d 2 - 0 - 1 14
1e 1 - 1 - 1 11
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 1 - 2 - 0 11
2b 2 - 0 - 0 9
2c 2 - 0 - 0 9
2d 1 - 1 - 0 7
2e 1 - 0 - 0 4
COD with no hydraulic jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml)
COD (mg/l)
Oa 24.9 21.8 20 121.5
Ob 24.9 22.0 20 113.7
With one hydraulic jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml)
COD (mg/l)
1a 24.9 22.4 20 98.0
1b 24.9 22.6 20 90.2
1c 24.9 22.7 20 86.2
1d 24.9 22.8 20 82.3
1e 24.9 22.9 20 78.4
With two hydraulic jumps
94
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml)
COD (mg/l)
2a 24.9 23.0 20 74.5
2b 24.9 23.1 20 70.6
2c 24.9 23.3 20 62.7
2d 24.9 23.4 20 58.8
2e 24.9 23.5 20 54.9
BOD with no hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
Oa 1 25 300 7.9 3.1 57.6
Ob 4 25 300 7.7 3.3 52.8
With one hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
1a 7 25 300 7.6 3.5 49.2
1b 9 25 300 7.5 3.8 44.4
1c 10 25 300 7.6 4.0 43.2
1d 11 25 300 7.6 4.1 42.0
1e 12 25 300 7.7 4.4 39.6
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
2a I 25 300 7.6 4.6 36.0
2b 4
N 25 300 7.7 4.8 34.8
2c 14 25 300 7.9 5.1 33.6
2d 17 25 300 7.8 5.2 31.2
2e 18 25 300 7.8 5.5 27.6
95
DISCHARGE = 0.30 l/s
15/10/2009
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
with no hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.4
Ob 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.6
With one hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.5
1b 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.8
1c 5.0 5.1 5.0 5.0
1d 5.1 5.4 5.3 5.3
1e 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.6
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8
2b 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.9
2c 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.0
2d 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.2
2e 6.4 6.3 6.4 6.4
COLIFORM with no hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 3 - 2 1100
Ob 3 - 3 - 1 460
With one hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 3 - 3 - 0 240
1b 3 - 2 - 1 150
1c 3 - 1 - 2 120
1d 3 - 1 - 1 75
1e 3 - 0 - 1 39
96
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 3 - 0 - 1 39
2b 2 - 2 - 1 28
2c 2 - 2 - 0 21
2d 2 - 1 - 0 15
2e 2 - 0 - 0 9
COD with no hydraulic jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml)
COD (mg/l)
Oa 24.5 19.1 20 220.3
Ob 24.5 19.3 20 212.2
With one hydraulic jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml)
COD (mg/l)
1a 24.5 19.4 20 208.9
1b 24.5 19.6 20 199.9
1c 24.5 19.8 20 191.8
1d 24.5 19.8 20 191.8
1e 24.5 20.0 20 183.6
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml)
COD (mg/l)
2a 24.5 20.4 20 167.3
2b 24.5 21.1 20 138.7
2c 24.5 21.3 20 130.6
2d 24.5 21.7 20 114.2
2e 24.5 21.8 20 110.2
BOD with no hydraulic jump
97
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
Oa 4 25 300 10.2 1.0 110.4
Ob 9 25 300 10.2 1.2 108.0
With one hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
1a S 25 300 10.3 1.6 104.4
1b 4
N 25 300 10.3 1.9 100.8
1c 1 25 300 10.5 2.2 99.6
1d 7 25 300 10.4 2.3 97.2
1e T 25 300 10.5 2.8 92.4
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
2a W 25 300 10.4 2.7 92.4
2b 5 25 300 10.5 3.6 82.8
2c 8 25 300 10.6 4.0 79.2
2d 12 25 300 10.6 4.7 70.8
2e 17 25 300 10.7 5.6 61.2
DISCHARGE = 0.31 l/s
19/10/2009
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
With no hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7
Ob 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0
With one hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
98
1a 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0
1b 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5
1c 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8
1d 6.0 6.0 5.9 6.0
1e 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.3
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.6
2b 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.9
2c 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.2
2d 7.7 7.5 7.6 7.6
2e 8.0 7.8 7.9 7.9
Coliform with no hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 3 - 3 ≥2400
Ob 3 - 3 - 2 1100
With one hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 3 - 3 - 2 1100
1b 3 - 3 - 1 460
1c 3 - 2 - 2 210
1d 3 - 2 - 1 150
1e 3 - 1 - 2 120
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 3 - 2 - 0 93
2b 3 - 1 - 1 73
2c 3 - 0 - 2 64
2d 3 - 1 - 0 43
2e 3 - 0 - 1 39
COD with no hydraulic jump
99
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml)
COD (mg/l)
Oa 24.9 14.7 20 416.2
Ob 24.9 15.9 20 367.2
With one hydraulic jump
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml)
COD (mg/l)
1a 24.9 15.8 20 371.3
1b 24.9 16.3 20 350.9
1c 24.9 16.6 20 338.6
1d 24.9 17.0 20 322.3
1e 24.9 17.2 20 314.2
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml)
COD (mg/l)
2a 24.9 18.9 20 244.8
2b 24.9 19.3 20 228.5
2c 24.9 19.7 20 212.2
2d 24.9 19.9 20 204.0
2e 24.9 20.1 20 195.8
BOD with no hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
Oa 1 25 300 18.1 1.2 202.8
Ob 6 25 300 18.2 2.7 186.0
With one hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
1a 11 25 300 18.2 2.6 187.2
1b 14 25 300 18.1 3.5 175.2
1c 20 25 300 18.3 4.2 169.2
100
1d 23 25 300 18.4 4.9 162.0
1e X 25 300 18.5 5.2 158.4
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
2a Z 25 300 18.5 6.9 139.2
2b F 25 300 18.5 7.9 127.2
2c W 25 300 18.6 9.3 116.2
2d O 25 300 18.6 9.6 108.0
2e G 25 300 18.7 10.1 103.2
DISCHARGE = 0.33 l/s
22/10/2009
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
With no hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7
Ob 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.8
With one hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.9
1b 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.3
1c 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.7
1d 6.2 6.1 6.2 6.2
1e 6.3 6.1 6.4 6.3
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 6.4 6.5 6.4 6.4
2b 6.6 6.5 6.7 6.6
2c 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.9
2d 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1
2e 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.2
COLIFORM with no hydraulic jump
101
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 3 - 1 460
Ob 3 - 3 - 0 240
With one hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 3 - 2 - 1 150
1b 3 - 1 - 2 120
1c 3 - 1 - 0 43
1d 2 - 2 - 1 28
1e 3 - 0 - 0 23
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 2 - 1 - 0 15
2b 2 - 0 - 1 14
2c 1 - 2 - 0 11
2d 2 - 0 - 0 9
2e 1 - 0 - 0 7
COD with no hydraulic jump
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
Oa 24.5 21.5 20 122.4
Ob 24.5 21.9 20 106.1
With one jump
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
1a 24.5 22.1 20 97.9
1b 24.5 22.2 20 93.8
1c 24.5 22.3 20 89.8
1d 24.5 22.4 20 85.7
1e 24.5 22.5 20 81.6
102
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
2a 24.5 22.8 20 69.4
2b 24.5 22.8 20 69.4
2c 24.5 22.9 20 65.3
2d 24.5 23.0 20 61.2
2e 24.5 23.1 20 57.1
BOD with no hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
Oa 23 25 300 7.7 2.9 57.6
Ob 0 25 300 7.8 3.2 55.2
With one hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
1a Z 25 300 7.8 3.6 50.4
1b W 25 300 7.9 3.8 49.2
1c S 25 300 7.9 4.0 46.8
1d F 25 300 7.8 4.1 44.4
1e 20 25 300 7.9 4.3 43.2
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
2a 14 25 300 8.0 4.7 39.6
2b A 25 300 7.9 4.8 37.2
2c I 25 300 8.0 5.0 36.0
2d 6 25 300 8.1 5.2 34.8
2e K 25 300 8.1 5.3 33.6
DISCHARGE = 0.34 l/s
26/10/2009
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
103
With no hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7
Ob 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.9
With one hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8
1b 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.3
1c 5.6 5.8 5.7 5.7
1d 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.1
1e 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.4
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4
2b 6.6 6.5 6.7 6.6
2c 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.8
2d 7.0 6.9 7.1 7.0
2e 7.1 7.3 7.3 7.2
COLIFORM with hydraulic no jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 1 - 0 43
Ob 3 - 2 - 0 21
With one hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 2 - 2 - 0 21
1b 2 - 1 - 1 20
1c 2 - 1 - 0 15
1d 2 - 0 - 1 14
1e 1 - 1 - 1 11
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 1 - 1 - 1 11
104
2b 2 - 0 - 0 9
2c 2 - 0 - 0 9
2d 1 - 1 - 0 7
2e 1 - 0 - 1 4
COD with no hydraulic jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD (mg/l)
Oa 24.5 21.6 20 118.3
Ob 24.5 22.0 20 102.0
With one hydraulic jump
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD (mg/l)
1a 24.5 22.2 20 93.8
1b 24.5 22.3 20 89.8
1c 24.5 22.4 20 85.7
1d 24.5 22.5 20 81.6
1e 24.5 22.6 20 77.5
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample
Blank
a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD (mg/l)
2a 24.5 22.8 20 69.4
2b 24.5 22.9 20 65.3
2c 24.5 23.0 20 61.2
2d 24.5 23.1 20 57.1
2e 24.5 23.2 20 53.0
BOD with no hydraulic jump
105
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
Oa 4 25 300 7.8 3.0 57.6
Ob L 25 300 7.9 3.6 51.6
With one hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
1a S 25 300 7.9 4.0 46.8
1b I 25 300 7.9 4.2 44.4
1c 5 25 300 7.8 4.2 43.2
1d 7 25 300 7.7 4.4 39.6
1e 9 25 300 7.9 4.8 37.2
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5
BOD
mg/l
2a 4N 25 300 7.8 4.8 36.0
2b 8 25 300 7.8 4.9 34.8
2c 12 25 300 7.8 5.0 33.6
2d 17 25 300 8.0 5.4 31.2
2e 10 25 300 8.0 5.6 28.8
DISCHARGE = 0.35 l/s
29/10/2009
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
With no jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5
Ob 4.9 4.7 4.8 4.9
With one jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.8
1b 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.4
106
1c 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.9
1d 6.2 6.2 6.4 6.3
1e 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.6
With two jumps
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7
2b 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.8
2c 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.1
2d 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.3
2e 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.4
COLIFORM with no jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 0 - 0 23
Ob 2 - 0 - 0 21
With one jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 2 - 1 - 1 20
1b 2 - 1 - 0 15
1c 2 - 0 - 1 14
1d 1 - 2 - 0 11
1e 2 - 0 - 0 9
With two jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 2 - 0 - 0 9
2b 1 - 1 - 0 7
2c 1 - 0 - 0 4
2d 0 - 0 - 1 3
2e 0 - 1 - 0 3
COD with no jump
107
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
Oa 24.6 22.2 20 97.9
Ob 24.6 22.3 20 93.8
With one jump
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
1a 24.6 22.5 20 85.7
1b 24.6 22.6 20 81.6
1c 24.6 22.7 20 77.5
1d 24.6 22.8 20 69.4
1e 24.6 23.0 20 65.3
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
2a 24.6 23.2 20 57.1
2b 24.6 23.3 20 53.0
2c 24.6 23.4 20 49.0
2d 24.6 23.5 20 44.9
2e 24.6 23.6 20 40.8
BOD with no jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
Oa S 25 300 7.4 3.4 48.0
Ob 3 25 300 7.5 3.6 46.8
With one jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
1a 11 25 300 7.4 3.7 44.4
1b 22 25 300 7.5 4.0 42.0
1c A 25 300 7.6 4.2 40.8
108
1d 4 25 300 7.5 4.5 36.0
1e 23 25 300 7.6 4.7 34.8
With two jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
2a Q 25 300 7.6 5.0 31.2
2b U 25 300 7.7 5.3 28.8
2c A 25 300 7.7 5.5 26.4
2d 17 25 300 7.8 5.9 22.8
2e 0 25 300 7.8 6.0 21.6
DISCHARGE = 0.36 l/s
02/11/2009
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
With no hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.4
Ob 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5
With one hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7
1b 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0
1c 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6
1d 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.9
1e 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.2
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.4
2b 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.6
2c 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.9
2d 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1
2e 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.3
109
COLIFORM with no jump
With no hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 3 - 2 1100
Ob 3 - 3 - 1 460
With one hydraulic jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 3 - 3 - 1 460
1b 3 - 3 - 0 240
1c 3 - 2 - 2 210
1d 3 - 2 - 1 150
1e 3 - 1 - 2 120
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 3 - 2 - 0 93
2b 3 - 1 - 1 75
2c 3 - 0 - 2 64
2d 3 - 1 - 0 43
2e 3 - 0 - 1 39
COD with no hydraulic jump
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
Oa 24.7 18.9 20 232.0
Ob 24.7 19.2 20 220.0
With one hydraulic jump
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
1a 24.7 19.7 20 200.0
1b 24.7 19.9 20 192.0
110
1c 24.7 20.3 20 176.0
1d 24.7 20.9 20 152.0
1e 24.7 21.1 20 144.0
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
2a 24.7 21.6 20 124.0
2b 24.7 21.9 20 112.0
2c 24.7 22.0 20 108.0
2d 24.7 22.1 20 104.0
2e 24.7 22.2 20 100.0
BOD with no hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
Oa U 25 300 10.5 1.3 110.4
Ob I 25 300 10.4 1.3 109.2
With one hydraulic jump
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
1a L 25 300 10.5 1.6 106.8
1b F 25 300 10.4 1.8 103.2
1c N 25 300 10.5 2.2 99.6
1d G 25 300 10.6 3.3 87.6
1e H 25 300 10.5 3.6 82.8
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of
sample used
(ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
2a Y 25 300 10.6 4.1 78.0
2b R 25 300 10.5 4.2 75.6
2c Q 25 300 10.5 4.6 70.8
2d V 25 300 10.4 5.0 64.8
2e F 25 300 10.6 5.8 57.6
111
DISCHARGE = 0.37 l/s
05/11/2009
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
With no hydraulic jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
Oa 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1
Ob 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5
With one jump
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
1a 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3
1b 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.4
1c 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.9
1d 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.2
1e 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.8
With two jumps
Sample 1st 2nd 3rd Ave
2a 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.1
2b 6.5 6.6 6.4 6.5
2c 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.8
2d 7.0 7.0 6.9 7.0
2e 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1
COLIFORM with no jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
Oa 3 - 3 - 3 ≥2400
Ob 3 - 3 - 2 1100
With one jump
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
1a 3 - 3 - 2 1100
1b 3 - 3 - 1 460
1c 3 - 3 - 0 240
1d 3 - 2 - 2 210
1e 3 - 2 - 1 150
112
With two jumps
Sample Coliform MPN/100 (mg/l)
2a 3 - 1 - 2 120
2b 3 - 2 - 0 93
2c 3 - 1 - 1 75
2d 3 - 0 - 2 64
2e 3 - 1 - 0 43
COD with no jump
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
Oa 24.7 18.1 20 264.0
Ob 24.7 19.0 20 228.0
With one jump
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
1a 24.7 18.3 20 256.0
1b 24.7 18.9 20 232.0
1c 24.7 19.3 20 216.0
1d 24.7 20.1 20 184.0
1e 24.7 20.3 20 176.0
With two hydraulic jumps
Sample Blank a(ml)
Titre value
b(ml)
Vol. of
sample (ml) COD mg/l
2a 24.7 20.9 20 152.0
2b 24.7 21.3 20 136.0
2c 24.7 21.8 20 116.0
2d 24.7 22.0 20 108.0
2e 24.7 22.1 20 104.0
113
BOD with no jump
Sample BN
Vol. of sample
used (ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
Oa K 25 300 11.8 1.1 128.4
Ob O 25 300 11.9 2.0 118.8
With one jump
Sample BN
Vol. of sample
used (ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
1a P 25 300 11.8 1.4 124.8
1b R 25 300 11.8 1.8 120.0
1c S 25 300 11.8 2.7 109.2
1d J 25 300 11.9 3.4 102.0
1e F 25 300 11.9 4.2 92.4
With two jumps
Sample BN
Vol. of sample
used (ml)
Vol. of bottle
(ml) DO1 DO5 BOD mg/l
2a U 25 300 11.9 4.9 84.0
2b Z 25 300 12.0 5.3 80.4
2c I 25 300 12.0 6.2 69.6
2d W 25 300 12.1 6.4 68.4
2e N 25 300 12.1 6.9 62.4
Discharge(l/s) 0.09 0.1 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.2 0.21
Height of Ist
Jump(mm) 0.3 0.4 0.7 2.2 3.9 5.2 5.7
Height of 2nd
jump(mm) 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.9 3.4 4.5 5
Length of first
jump(mm) 1.4 1.5 3.4 10.8 19.4 26.1 28.6
Length of second
jump(mm) 1.2 1.3 2.9 9.4 16.9 22.7 24.8
114
Discharge(l/s) 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.3
Height of Ist
Jump(mm) 6.2 6.9 7.5 8 9.9 11.7 12.6
Height of 2nd
jump(mm) 5.4 6 6.5 7 8.6 10.2 11
Length of first
jump(mm) 31 34.4 37.3 40.2 49.3 58.7 63.1
Length of second
jump(mm) 26.9 29.9 32.5 35 42.9 51 54.9
Discharge(l/s) 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37
Height of Ist
Jump(mm) 13.6 15.6 16.6 17.6 18.5 19.7
Height of 2
nd
jump(mm) 11.8 13.6 14.5 15.4 16.2 17.1
Length of first
jump(mm) 67.9 77.9 83.1 88.2 93.2 98.5
Length of second
jump(mm) 59.1 67.8 72.3 76.8 81 85.7
TRACERS STUDIES
Discharge = 0.09 l/s
Pond with no jump
Sample Time(S) Blank
(ml)
Titre
Value
(ml)
Salt
Concentration
(mg/l)
Oa 6 5.6 5.6 0
Ob 9 5.6 5 0.58
Oc 12 5.6 4.1 1.46
Od 15 5.6 4.9 0.68
Oe 18 5.6 5.4 0.19
Pond with one jump
Sample Time(S) Blank
(ml)
Titre
Value
(ml)
Salt
Concentration
(mg/l)
1a 8 7.9 7.9 0
1b 12 7.9 7.5 0.39
1c 16 7.9 6.5 1.36
1d 20 7.9 6.9 0.97
115
1e 24 7.9 7.8 0.1
Pond with two jump
Sample Time(S) Blank
(ml)
Titre
Value
(ml)
Salt
Concentration
(mg/l)
2a 20 9.2 9.2 0
2b 26 9.2 8.3 0.88
2c 32 9.2 8 1.17
2d 38 9.2 8.4 0.78
2e 44 9.2 9.1 0.1
Discharge = 0.22 l/s
Pond with no jump
Sample Time(S) Blank
(ml)
Titre
Value
(ml)
Salt
Concentration
(mg/l)
Oa 10 10.9 10.9 0
Ob 14 10.9 9.2 1.65
Oc 18 10.9 8.4 2.43
Od 22 10.9 9.5 1.36
Oe 28 10.9 10.7 0.19
Pond with one jump
Sample Time(S) Blank
(ml)
Titre
Value
(ml)
Salt
Concentration
(mg/l)
1a 16 12.1 12.1 0
1b 22 12.1 10.6 1.46
1c 28 12.1 10.1 1.95
1d 34 12.1 11.2 0.88
1e 40 12.1 12 0.1
Pond with two jump
Sample Time(S) Blank
(ml)
Titre
Value
(ml)
Salt
Concentration
(mg/l)
2a 36 14.3 14.3 0
116
2b 45 14.3 13 1.26
2c 54 14.3 12.8 1.46
2d 63 14.3 12.9 1.36
2e 72 14.3 14 0.29
Discharge = 0.37 l/s
Pond with no jump
Sample Time(S) Blank
(ml)
Titre
Value
(ml)
Salt
Concentration
(mg/l)
Oa 16 9.8 9.8 0
Ob 19 9.8 10 0.19
Oc 22 9.8 10.2 0.39
Od 25 9.8 10.5 0.68
Oe 28 9.8 11.9 2.04
Of 31 9.8 13.8 3.89
Og 34 9.8 13.3 3.41
Oh 37 9.8 12.1 2.24
Oi 40 9.8 11.3 1.46
Oj 43 9.8 10.6 0.78
Ok 46 9.8 10 0.19
Ol 49 9.8 9.8 0
Pond with one jump
Sample Time(S) Blank
(ml)
Titre
Value
(ml)
Salt
Concentration
(mg/l)
1a 24 14.3 14.3 0
1b 27 14.3 14.4 0.1
1c 30 14.3 14.6 0.29
1d 33 14.3 14.9 0.58
1e 36 14.3 15.9 1.57
1f 39 14.3 16.8 2.43
1g 42 14.3 16.5 2.14
1h 45 14.3 16.1 1.75
1i 48 14.3 15.8 1.46
1j 51 14.3 15 0.68
1k 54 14.3 14.5 0.19
1l 57 14.3 14.3 0
117
Pond with two jumps
Sample Time(S) Blank
(ml)
Titre
Value
(ml)
Salt
Concentration
(mg/l)
2a 56 15.9 15.9 0
2b 62 15.9 16 0.1
2c 68 15.9 16.1 0.19
2d 74 15.9 16.3 0.39
2e 80 15.9 16.7 0.78
2f 86 15.9 17 1.1
2g 92 15.9 16.8 0.88
2h 98 15.9 16.6 0.68
2i 104 15.9 16.3 0.39
2j 110 15.9 16.2 0.29
2k 116 15.9 16 0.1
2l 122 15.9 15.9 0
118
APPENDIX C
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Area of Pond 0 = (0.4x0.4) + 3(0.4x0.8) = 1.12 m2
Area of Pond 1 = (0.4x0.4) + 3(0.4x0.8) = 1.12 m2
Area of Pond 2 = 2(0.4x0.4) + 6(0.4x0.8) = 2.24 m2
Welded perimeter of Pond 0 = 0.4x3 + 0.8x2 = 2.8m
Welded perimeter of Pond 1 = 0.4x3 + 0.8x2 = 2.8m
Welded perimeter of Pond 2 = 0.4x6 + 0.8x4 = 5.6m
Area of plot of land = 30.48 x 15.24 = 464.52 m2
Area of iron sheet = 2.98 m2
Labour cost of fabrication per metre length = N400.00
Cost of Pond 0
Assuming area of land 464.52 m2 cost = N400,000.00
Then area occupied by pond 0, 1.12 m2 will cost = 1.12 x 400,000
464.52
= N964.44
Number of iron sheet required = 1.12 = 0.38
2.98
Assuming 1 sheet cost N 10,000, 0.38 sheet cost = 0.38 x N10,000
= N3,800.00
Cost of transportation = N1,500.00
Cost of fabrication = 2.8 x 400 = N1,120.00
Total cost of construction of Pond 0
1. Cost of land = N964.44
119
2. Cost of iron sheet = N3,800.00
3. Cost of fabrication = N1,200 .00
4. Cost of fabrication = N1,500 .00
Total = N 7,384.44
Cost of Pond 1
Assuming area of land 464.52 m2 cost = N400,000.00
Then area occupied by pond 0, 1.12 m2 will cost = 1.12 x 400,000
464.52
= N964.44
Number of iron sheet required = 1.12 = 0.38
2.98
Assuming 1 sheet cost N 10,000, 0.38 sheet cost = 0.38 x N10, 000
= N3,800.00
Cost of transportation = N1,500.00
Cost of fabrication = 2.8 x 400 = N1,120.00
Total cost of construction of Pond 1
1. Cost of land = N964.44
2. Cost of iron sheet = N3,800.00
3. Cost of fabrication = N1,200 .00
4. Cost of fabrication = N1,500 .00
Total = N 7,384.44
120
Cost of Pond 2
Assuming area of land 464.52 m2 cost = N400,000.00
Then area occupied by pond 0, 2.24 m2 will cost = 2.24 x 400,000
464.52
= N1928.88
Number of iron sheet required = 2.24 = 0.75
2.98
Assuming 1 sheet cost N 10,000, 0.75 sheet cost = 0.75 x N10, 000
= N7,500.00
Cost of transportation = N1,500.00
Cost of fabrication = 5.6 x 400 = N2,240.00
Total cost of construction of Pond 2
1. Cost of land = N1928.88
2. Cost of iron sheet = N7,500.00
3. Cost of fabrication = N2,240 .00
4. Cost of fabrication = N1,500.00
Total = N 13,328.88
The above cost for ponds 1 and 2 can therefore be compared with pond 0 for equivalent
bacteria reduction. The average percentage efficiency of coliform removal of ponds 0, 1
and 2 can be obtained from data given in appendix B. They are given thus: 53.80%,
86.04% and 95.62% for ponds 0, 1 and 2 respectively. Please refer to table 4.1 for this
comparison.
121
APPENDIX D
COST IMPLICATION OF CONSTRUCTING THE WSPs AT THE UNIVERSITY
OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA WITH ONE HYDRAULIC JUMP
The existing WSPs at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka are given thus:
Ist pond = 123 X 30 X 1.2
2nd pond = 123 X 25 X 1.2
The average percentage efficiency of coliform removal of ponds 0,1 and 2 are given thus:
They are given thus: 53.80%, 86.04% and 95.62% for ponds 0, 1 and 2 respectively.
Pond 1 is 32.24% more efficient than Pond 0 (i.e. 86.04 – 53.80)
Equivalent percentage of BOD removal of pond 1 compared to pond 0
= 100 - 32.24
=67.76% = 0.68
For the existing pond: length(L)/width(W) = 123/30 =4.1
Which implies that L = 4.1W
Dimension of equivalent pond with one hydraulic jump is given thus
4.1w X w X 1.2 = 4428 X 0.68
4.92W2 = 3011.04
W = 24.74m
Dimension of equivalent UNN first pond with one hydraulic jump is given as
101.43 X 24.74 X 1.2
Similarly, dimension of equivalent UNN second pond with one hydraulic jump is given
as 101.45 X 20.62 X 1.2
Area of land 464.52m2 cost = N 400,000
122
Cost of excavation of 1m2 to 1.2m depth = N 1000
Cost of disposal of 1m3 of excavated material = N 250
from site
Cost of construction of 1st UNN pond
Cost of land (2509.38m2) = N 2,160,836.99
Cost of excavation of 2509.38m2 to 1.2m depth = N 2,509,380
Cost of disposal of 3011.25m3 excavated materials = N 752,813.46
Sub-total = N 5,423,030.45
Add 5% contingency = N 284,709.10
Total = N 5,694,181.97
Cost of construction of 2st UNN pond
Cost of land (2091.899m2) = N 1,801,342.46
Cost of excavation of 2091.899m2
to 1.2m depth = N 2,091,899
Cost of disposal of 2510.28m3 excavated materials = N 627,570.00
Sub-total = N 4,520,811.46
Add 5% contingency = N 226,040.57
Total = N 4,746,852.03