The Islamic University High Studies Deanery Faculty of Engineering

Gaza

./1 !"$%&'( !)$*+-( *"2)-( 3*&(45-( .6*78 !":57-( !&59;-( >@A !&59;-( !"2< B*"7-( 46*C$ .4(6E

Civil Engineering Department Water Resources Management

Evaluation and Design Model of Decentralized Units for Wastewater Treatment

By Mohammed Khalil El.Halabi

Supervised by

Dr. Jehad Hamed

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Civil/ Water Resources Management

1426 - 2005

ABSTRACT
Deterioration of the public health can be caused due to the discharge of untreated wastewater into the aquatic environment. Cesspits systems are the most common treatment units on household level in rural areas of Gaza Strip. The aims of this study were to evaluate the decentralized wastewater treatment plant in Gaza strip, develop a mathematical model for optimum design of small wastewater treatment units and redesign of the existing units using the developed model. In this research, the available two local treatment systems were implemented by Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG) and Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees (PARC). They were studied to find out the weak points and then a mathematical model was developed to get the efficient design. The results show that by using the PHG system, the average removal rate of BOD and COD were 57% and 52% respectively while the removal rate of BOD and COD of PARC system were 75% and 57% respectively. The operators of both systems have ignored many essential factors as Boron, heavy metals CO3 and HCO3. It can be concluded that the improper design of both systems had negatively affected the treatment efficiency that influenced the natural growth of irrigated plants and the quality of irrigated soil. By using the developed mathematical model, many technical problems in the design were addressed and produced the proper design of both systems with results of BOD and COD removal compliant with local and international standards for reuse. Utilizing solar energy in heating wastewater was also investigated. An experiment was conducted to raise the temperature of wastewater by cycling heated water from solar system in copper pipes through the tanks to a considerable degree that increases the of treatment efficiency. The results presented in this thesis clearly demonstrate the big potential of this technology for the decentralized treatment of domestic wastewater in rural areas; nevertheless additional research work needs to be done, including an economic evaluation and the need to develop appropriate standards to be utilized for the design and construction of decentralized wastewater systems and also to promote realistic and acceptable standards for treated wastewater.

: !"#$
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`["; ,'($"#$%) ,'35($% 9''"#($% :15 :)3@( )+ "(( ."+9'L) >)9);$% ) O"-);9U';$% aO"-);9U$% .X( b93$ BOD >'*1TU^$ 7*)T$)';$% Y"'05G% ,3UE( 234 :3B0$% =0 7;"15$% YQ)(-$% .\C >() .>'("F-$% 78 ,'-P0$% .U"E($% D'(*) COD >'*1U^$ 7A"'('U$% Y"'05G%) =%!C0T1"; Z$Q) ,*$"#($% c"HU !"'K$ ,(!"#$% &"'($% >'C10$ 71(E >'C10 ="F- =%!C01% =0) .,*$"#($% O"-%KC 78 &"'($% 9')!0$ ,3N"- :';"-<

D'1)0 :*)0' %Q$ b93$ .'!; &"'( 9!6(U ,'KU9($% ,*$"#($% ,'(+< 234 I5;$% ]A"0- O9WF< 7T8 "W(%!C0T1G ,'35( 9''"#( 9')@0 9)9`) ,'!"60NG% &%)!* ,1%9!) V'8 I5;$% 9A%! .='(60$%

Dedication I proudly dedicate this thesis to my parents, as I always feel their prayers in all aspects of my life, my beloved brothers, sisters, friends and finally my wife Ola and my lovely child Khalil.

II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Mere appreciation and thanks to Dr Jehad Hamed, who served as the chairman of my thesis committee, is nothing compared to what I actually feel for his unparalleled supervision, help and guidance. This work would not have been accomplished without his support and encouragement to me. I would like to thank the joint efforts by the Islamic University of Gaza, Graduate school Deanery, Faculty of Engineering and Faculty of Science for providing us with high standard of Education through the duration of a Master program, Purdue University, Flemmish Government and UNESCO office in Cairo for their valuable research related information. Special thanks are due to prof. David Sammons, Prof. Jim Vorst, Dr. Rabi Montar, Katy Ibrahim and Prof. Dirk Raes for their substantial efforts in supporting the program. I would like sincerely like to thank two special individuals, Eng. Wesam Al.Madhoun and Eng. Mahmoud Abed Latif for their efforts, support and suggestions in this research.

III

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AF : Anaerobic Filter BOD : Biological Oxygen Demand BORDA : Bremen Overseas Research and Development Association CFSGAS : Continuous-Flow, Suspended-Growth Aerobic System COD : Chemical Oxygen Demand DEWATS : Decentralised Wastewater Treatment Plants EQA : Environmental Quality Authority HRT : Hydraulic Retention Time IDRC : International Development Research Centre NGO's : Non Governmental Organizations PARC : Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees PDS : Palestinian Draft Standard PHG : Palestinian Hydrology Group RSC : Residual Sodium Carbonate S1 : Sample number one SAR : Sodium Adsorbtion Ratio SS : Suspended Solids ST : Septic Tank SWIS : Subsurface Wastewater Infiltration System Tci : Inflow Cold Water Temperature Tco : Outflow Cold Water Temperature TDS : Total Dissolved Solids TKN : Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen UASP : Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket UPVC : Unplasticised Polyvinyl Chloride UV : Ultra Violet WHO : World Health Organization WWTP : Wastewater Treatment Plant

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract Dedication Acknowledgment Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables 1 Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 Background Objectives Scope of study

I II III V VIII XI 1 1 2 2 3 3 5 5 7 8 9 9 9 11 11 21 23 26

Literature Review 2.1 Present Situation of Water and Wastewater in Gaza strip 2.1.1 Wastewater Composition in Gaza Strip 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Wastewater from a Household Wastewater Treatment Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plants Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Plants (DEWATS) 2.5.1 History of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems 2.5.2 Nature of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems 2.5.3 Common Parts of Dewats 2.5.4 Common Types of Dewats 2.6 Local Trials in Decentralized Systems 2.6.1 Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG) treatment system 2.6.2 Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees (PARC) treatment system 2.7 Current International Developed Decentralized Systems. 2.7.1 USA Dewats System 2.7.2 Germany Dewats System

29 29 34

Methodology

38

3.1 3.2

Selected Local Decentralized Systems Description of the Utilized Systems 3.2.1 Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG) Treatment System 3.2.2 Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees (PARC) Treatment System

39 39 40 40

3.3 3.4 4

Mathematical Simulation Criteria Utilization of Solar System

40 41 46

Results and Discussion

4.1 4.2

Characteristics of Influent In Each System Discussion of the Efficiency of Both Systems (PHG, PARC) 4.2.1 Quality of PHG Treatment System Effluent 4.2.2 Quality of PARC Treatment System Effluent

42 50 50 52 54 54 54 54 55 55 55 56 57 79 92 93

4.3

Reasons of Technical Deficiency of Both Systems 4.3.1 Flow Quantity 4.3.2 Mass of Filter 4.3.3 Type of Soil 4.3.4 Type of Crops 4.3.5 Irrigation Management

4.4 4.5 4.6

The System Impact On The Environment Operation and Maintenance Mathematical Model 4.6.1 Calibration of the System

4.7

System Improvement By Solar Energy 4.7.1 Case Study

Conclusions and Recommendations

94

5.1

Conclusions

94 95 96 99

5.2 Recommendations Bibliography Appendix

VI

List of Figures Figure (2.1): A centralized wastewater treatment system Figure (2.2): Decentralized wastewater treatment system Figure (2.3): Typical conventional septic tanks (a) Concrete type with reinforcing steel and (b) fiberglass 8 10 12

Figure (2.4): Schematic typical septic tanks : (a) two-compartments tank and (b) a single compartment tank Figure (2.5): Cross section of Imhoff Tank Figure (2.6): Septic Tank with Upflow filter section Figure (2.7): Low and high loaded anaerobic ponds sections Figure (2.8): Baffled septic tanks sections Figure (2.9): Upstream Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASP) sections Figure (2.10): Principles of Horizontal Gravel Filter process Figure (2.11): Aerobic Stabilization Ponds section Figure (2.12): Anaerobic Filter section Figure ( 2.13): Local conventional septic tank in Palestine Figure (2.14): Schematic diagram of wastewater collection system Figure (2.15): PHG on site treatment plant. Figure (2.16) : Screening manhole in PARC system Figure (2.17): PARC decentralized treatment plant tanks Figure (2.18): PARC decentralized treatment plant trickling filter Figure (2.19) : Grey water treatment system Figure (2.20): Diagram of a septic system Figure (2.21): A basic CFSGAS configuration Figure (2.22): An enhanced CFSGAS or high biomass! system Figure (2.23). Lateral view of conventional SWIS-based system Figure (2.24):Pre-composting tank (Rottebehaelter) for decentral pre-treatment of domestic wastewater Fig (3.1): Schematic diagram of wastewater collection system Figure (3.2) : Utilizing solar energy in heating wastewater Figure (4.1): BOD influent and effluent of PHG system

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 36 37 39 41 44

VII

Figure (4.2): COD influent and effluent of PHG system Figure (4.3): BOD influent and effluent of PARC system Figure (4.4): COD influent and effluent of PARC system Figure (4.5): Suspended solids influent and effluent of PARC system Figure (4.6): Flowchart of wastewater production per capita Figure ( 4.7): Flowchart of septic tank design Figure ( 4.8): COD removal in settlers Figure (4.9): Simplified curve of ratio of efficiency of BOD removal to COD removal Figure (4.10): Reduction of sludge volume during storage Figure(4.11): Longitudinal and cross section of Septic Tank from software program results Figure (4.12) : Flowchart of baffled septic tank design Figure (4.13) :Longitudinal section of Baffled Septic Tank from software program results Figure ( 4.14) : Cross section of Settler from software program results Figure ( 4.15) : BOD removal relative to HRT in baffled septic tank Figure ( 4.16) : BOD removal relative to HRT in baffled septic tank Figure(4.17): BOD removal in baffled septic tanks related to wastewater strength Figure(4.18): BOD Influence of number of up flow chambers on BOD removal rate Figure(4.19): Influence of temperature on BOD removal rates in baffled septic tanks Fig (4.20): Longitudinal section of Anaerobic Filter from software program results Figure ( 4.21 ): Flowchart of anaerobic filter(AF) design Figure ( 4.22 ): COD removal relative to temperature in anaerobic filter Figure ( 4.23 ): COD removal relative to wastewater strength in anaerobic filter Figure ( 4.24 ): COD removal relative to filter surface in anaerobic filter Figure ( 4.25 ): COD removal relative to HRT in anaerobic filter Figure (4.26): The Calculation sheet of BOD and COD influent for PARC system Fig(4.27): The Calculation sheet of BOD and COD effluent for PARC system Fig(4.28): The Calculation sheet of practical PARC system dimensions Figure (4.29): The calculation sheet of BOD and COD influent for international system Figure (4.30): The calculation sheet of BOD and COD effluent for international system Figure (4.31): The calculation sheet of international system dimensions

45 48 48 49 58 59 61 61 62 63 63 64 65 68 69 69 70 70 72 73 76 77 77 78 81 81 82 84 84 85

VIII

Figure(4.32): The calculation sheet of BOD and COD influent for proper PHG system Figure (4.33): The calculation sheet of BOD and COD effluent for proper PHG system Figure (4.34): The calculation sheet of PHG system dimensions Figure (4.35): The details for proper PHG system Figure (4.36): The calculation sheet of BOD and COD influent system Figure (4.37): The calculation sheet of BOD and COD effluent for proper PARC system Figure (4.38): The calculation sheet of PARC system dimensions Figure (4.39): The cross section for proper PARC system septic tank Figure (4.40): The cross section for proper PARC system baffled septic tank Figure (4.41): Energy balance in the tank heating system. Figure (4.42): Plan of PHG septic tank involving solar heating system for proper PARC

86 87 87 88 89 90 90 91 91 92 93

IX

List of Tables Table(2-1): Typical characteristics of wastewater in Gaza strip Table (2-2): Types of wastewater from household Table (2-3) : Typical characteristics of domestic wastewater Table(2-4): Typical characteristics of domestic wastewater fraction Table(4-1): The characteristics of influent and effluent of PHG system Table (4-2): Characteristics of treated wastewater in PHG system Table (4-3): Characteristics of irrigated soil with treated wastewater at different depths Table(4-4): The characteristics of influent and effluent of PARC system Table (4-5): Calculations of wastewater production per capita Table (4-6): Calculations of septic tank design Table (4-7) : Calculations of baffled septic tank design Table (4-8) : Calculations of anaerobic filter design Table (4-9): Theoretical and practical results of PARC and PHG systems Table (4-10): Theoretical and practical removal rate for international unit 5 6 6 7 43 45 46 47 58 60 65 74 79 83

CHAPTER ONE Introduction

1.1

Background

It has been reported that the discharge of untreated wastewater into the aquatic environmental is worldwide the main cause of diarrhoeal diseases (Lens et al. (2001). Developing countries are focusing on this issue where public health is seriously affected by diseases directly related to inadequate wastewater management. In Africa, 80 million people are exposed to cholera and 16 million cases of typhoid infections were reported (WHO, 1996). One of the most important reasons for that grievance is the misapprehension of many governmental agencies, which are responsible for wastewater management. Today, the conventional, centralized wastewater management approach is the only applied solution. These systems are very expensive and sophisticated in construction and operation and therefore neither affordable nor manageable by most municipalities in developing countries. The decentralized wastewater management approach on the other hand could be a valuable alternative to conventional, centralized approaches, if low cost processes adapted to the local conditions are applied and properly maintained. The decentralized wastewater management approach includes the collection, the treatment and the disposal or reuse of wastewater from individual homes, clusters of homes, isolated communities, and institutional facilities at or near to the point of waste generation (Crites & Tchobanoglous, 1998). In most developing countries, including Palestine, the conventional septic tank is the most frequent onsite treatment facility for domestic wastewater in residential areas where no available infrastructure exists. Although septic tanks remove COD, BOD, SS, TKN and helminthes eggs to a certain extent, the technology is not able to produce an effluent, which meets national quality standards. Some techniques are known to upgrade conventional septic tanks, such as septic tank with baffled tanks or with small trickling filters and baffled septic tank with anaerobic

filter. One of the main objectives of this study is to evaluate the existing decentralized treatment units using many assessment indicators. Another objective is to develop a computer model for optimum design of small wastewater treatment units.

1.2 Objectives The study will focus on the following specific objectives: Evaluation of the decentralized wastewater treatment plants in Gaza strip and West Bank using different indicators. Developing a mathematical simulation model for optimum design for small wastewater treatment units. Redesign of the existing units using the developed model. Utilizing solar energy in heating wastewater in treatment tanks. 1.3 Scope of study The data of local decentralized units were collected from the implementing associations that adapted the system . The main implementing associations were Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees. (PARC) and Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG). They implemented a system of anaerobic filter tanks with a trickling filter and system of septic tank with a trickling filter respectively. The evaluation criteria will consider many indictors as treatment efficiency, operation and maintenance, and environmental impacts and need to lands. The two systems were implemented in Gaza strip and involved more than 50 units in the rural areas.

CHAPTER ONE Literature review

2.1 Present Situation of Water and Wastewater in Gaza strip

Palestine is experiencing a severe water crisis caused mainly by the lack of control over the Palestinian Water Resources. Therefore, most houses are served from indoor taps and depend on municipal wells for domestic use. According to reports and studies by the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA), 95 % of Gaza residents receive service, which means that most of the population has access to an indoor tap (MEnA, 2002). Most of the distribution systems in the municipalities operate a timetable for supplying drinking water. The use of rooftop tanks with a 1-2 m3 capacity is a common practice in all houses in Gaza Strip. Such storage tanks provide at least some security in the case of any failure in the water supply system (MEnA, 2002). In term of wastewater in Gaza, access to sewerage facilities at present varies from areas where more than 80 % of the households are served by well-functioning sewerage systems, to areas where there is no sewerage system at all. On average, it is estimated that about 60 % of the population is connected to a sewerage network. Cesspits and boreholes are the other wastewater disposal systems in the area. There are three treatment plants in Gaza Strip, at Beit Lahia, Gaza City and Rafah, but none is functioning effectively. Approximately 70-80 % of the domestic wastewater produced in Gaza is discharged into the environment without treatment, either directly, after collection in cesspits, or through leakages and overloaded treatment plants. Most wastewater is discharged into the Mediterranean. The effluent from Gaza and Rafah treatment plants is mostly discharged into the Mediterranean. In the case of the Beit Lahia treatment plant, a substantial quantity of wastewater infiltrates into the ground, contaminating soil and groundwater in the area (MEnA Desk study, 2002). The total annual wastewater production in Gaza strip is estimated to be 30 million m3, of which 20 million m3 passes into sewerage networks and the rest to cesspits or pit latrines. The Beit Lahia wastewater treatment plant is located some 1.5 km east of

the city of Beit Lahia in the northern part of Gaza Strip. It was constructed in stages, commencing in 1976 during the Israeli occupation, and modifications were made in 1996 as a result of increased sewage inflow. The plant serves the town of Jabalia, as well as nearby refugee camps and the communities of Bait Lahia (part) and Beit Hanoun. The area s total population is more than 250,000 people. The plant has no pre-treatment facilities comprising two anaerobic ponds, two aerated lagoons, two facultative lagoons and maturation pond. It has a designed peak flow capacity of 5,000 m3 per day. In the year 2002, about 12,000 m3 per day passes through the plant (MEnA Desk study, 2002). The major aim of the plant was to produce effluent of a quality suitable for direct use in irrigation. However, as a result of the poor quality of the treated wastewater, which is far below World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for use in agriculture, plans for transporting treated wastewater to agricultural areas were never completed. The plant is located in a closed depression without a natural outlet to the sea, although the distance to the sea is only 4.5 km. The original design of the wastewater treatment plant included four original effluent ponds that would recharge the aquifer or evaporate. However as time passed and the volume of effluent increased, the effluent overflow has formed a lake covering more than 40 hectares, which has become a significant pollutant of the aquifer and a major environmental health problem for the population surrounding the lake. As a result, 14 groundwater wells in the area are no longer being used. A new wastewater treatment plant for the Northern Governorate is planned at another location some five kilometers from the existing plant. It is to be completed in year 2010 and provide a capacity of 40,100 m3 per day. The Gaza treatment plant is located to the southwest of Gaza City and has recently been rehabilitated with an influent flow rate of 42,000 m3 per day (equivalent to what is normally a population of 300,000 discharges). Nevertheless, the plant is still receiving more wastewater than it has capacity to treat (MEnA, 2002). Most of the effluent is discharged to the Mediterranean Sea. The Rafah wastewater treatment plant was designed for a capacity of 1,800 m3 per day (equivalent to what is normally a population of 21,000 discharges). At present

the plant is overloaded and receives in excess of 4,000 m3 per day. As a result, effluent from the plant far exceeds the recommended values. The wastewater treatment plant has reportedly sustained recent damage as a result of the ongoing conflict. Gaza WWTP has a better quality effluent for irrigation than that for Beit Lahia or Rafah WWTPs. Special care directed to Gaza WWTP and its recent rehabilitation contributed partially to the improvement of the effluent quality. Although little improvement has been introduced to Beit Lahia WWTP, Rafah WWTP does not get any improvement. The influent quality wastewater in all plants are shown in table (2-1). Table(2-1): Typical characteristics of wastewater in Gaza strip (PWA, 2003) Parameter BOD5 (mg/L) COD (mg/ L) SS (mg/ L) SS/BOD BOD/COD Wastewater Characteristics North Area 728 1385 663 0.9 0.526 667 1306 617 0.949 0.51 Gaza 777 1399 540 0.69 0.56 Rafah

2.1.1 Wastewater Composition in Gaza Strip Total wastewater for the Gaza strip and West Bank is estimated at 72 million m3 (PCBS, 2002). Low per-capita water consumption within Palestinian households affects the sewage composition by increasing the organic constituents and influent salinity. The biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) level of sewage in Gaza averages 686 mg per liter. This is higher than the common BOD levels of 200-300 mg per liter in many developed countries. 2.2 Wastewater from a household

There are four types of wastewater from the household that varies in their strength and contents. They can be characterized as follow in Table (2-2) (Winnerberger, 1969; Li et al., 2001):

Table (2-2): Types of wastewater from household. No 1 Type of wastewater Gray water Source of wastewater washing water from kitchen, bathrooms, laun-dry, etc. without faeces and urine 2 Black water water from flush toilets (faeces and urine with flush water) 3 Yellow water urine from separation toilets and urinals (with or without water for flushing) 4 Brown water black water without urine or yellow water

The strength of wastewater depends mainly on the degree of water dilution, which can be categorized as strong, medium, or weak, as shown in Table (2-3). These wastewater characteristics can vary widely with local conditions, hour of the day, day of the week, season, and type of sewers (either separate or combined sewers where storm water is included) (Polprasert, 1996) in addition to the places of praying. Table (2-3) : Typical characteristics of domestic wastewater(Polprasert, 1996) Parameter Strong BOD5 COD Org-N NH3-N Total N Total P Total solids Suspended solids 400 1,000 35 50 85 15 1,200 350 220 500 15 25 40 8 720 220 Concentration (mg/L) Medium 110 250 8 12 20 4 350 100 Weak

The common wastewater types from domestic uses are gray and black wastewater. Table (2-4) shows the wastewater characteristics from different household sources

for both types of domestic wastewater. Table(2-4): Typical characteristics of domestic wastewater fraction (US EPA, 1980) Parameter BOD5 SS Nitrogen Phosphorus Concentration (mg/l) Black water 280 450 140 13 Grey water 260 160 17 26

2.3

Wastewater Treatment

The term "treatment" means separation of solids and stabilization of pollutants. Stabilization means the degradation of organic matter until the point at which chemical or biological reactions stop. Treatment can also mean the removal of toxic or otherwise dangerous substances (for e.g. heavy metals or phosphorous) which are likely to distort sustainable biological cycles, even after stabilization of the organic matter.!(Sasse, 1998).

2.3.1

General parameters to measure organic pollution

COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) is said to be the most general parameter to measure organic pollution. COD describes how much oxygen is required to oxidize all organic and inorganic matter found in the wastewater sample. BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand) describes what can be oxidized biologically, with the help of bacteria and is always a fraction of COD. Usually BOD is measured as BOD5 meaning that it describes the measured amount of oxygen consumed over a five days measurement period. It is a direct measurement of the amount of oxygen consumed by organisms removing the organic matter in the waste. Suspended Solids (SS) describes how much of the organic or inorganic matter is not dissolved in water and contains settleable solids that sink to the bottom in a short time and non settleable suspended solids. It is an important parameter because SS causes turbidity in the water causing clogging of filters etc. The mentioned parameters are measured in mg/l (Sasse, 1998).

2.4 Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plants The concept of centralised wastewater treatment plant is to have one system that treats wastewater for the whole area or city. Figure (2.1) illustrates the concept of centralised wastewater treatment plant . In Urban areas, wastewater is carried over by sewers to a large scale centralised treatment plant, which can satisfy the requirements for safe wastewater dispopsal. Unfortunately, complete sewerage is not possible for small communities and specially communities live in a critical economic situation in developing countries and suffer from limited finance and limited operation and maintenance budget. The number of people without sewers is increasing because of the population growth that exceeds the provision of new sewer connections. The need of such communities to get the same degree of treatment of discharge effluent up to the same standards as the large communities (US.EPA, 1980).

Figure (2.1): A centralised wastewater treatment system (Anaant, 2003).

2.5 Decentralised Wastewater Treatment Plants (DEWATS).

2.5.1

History of decentralised wastewater treatment systems

King Minos installed the first known water closet with a flushing device in the Knossos Palace in Crete in 1700 BC. In the intervening 3,700 years, societies and the governments that serve them have sought to improve both the removal of human wastes from indoor areas and the treatment of that waste to reduce threats to public health and ecological resources. The Greeks, Romans, British, and French achieved considerable progress in waste removal during the period from 800 BC to AD 1850. But removal often meant discharge to surface waters; severe contamination of lakes, rivers, streams, and coastal areas; and frequent outbreaks of diseases like cholera and typhoid fever (Curry. 1998). The past century has witnessed an explosion in sewage treatment technology and widespread adoption of centralized wastewater collection and treatment services throughout the world. Although broad uses of these systems have vastly improved public health and water quality in urban areas, homes and businesses without centralized collection and treatment systems often continue to depend on technologies developed more than 100 years ago. Septic tanks for primary treatment of wastewater appeared in the late 1800s, and discharge of tank effluent into gravel lined subsurface drains became common practice during the middle of the 20th century (Curry. 1998). Scientists, engineers, and manufacturers in the wastewater treatment industry have developed a wide range of alternative technologies designed to address increasing hydraulic loads and water contamination by nutrients and pathogens. These technologies can achieve significant pollutant removal rates.

2.5.2

Nature of decentralised wastewater treatment system

The concept of decentralised wastewater treatment plants (DEWATS) is to have a wastewater treated system as close as possible to the fresh wastewater source. A decentralized system employs a combination of onsite and/or cluster systems and

is used to treat and dispose of wastewater from houses, public buildings close to the source. Decentralized wastewater systems allow for flexibility in wastewater management, and different parts of the system may be combined into "treatment trains," or a series of processes to meet treatment goals, overcome site conditions, and to address environmental protection requirements. Figure (2.2) illustrates the concept of decentralised wastewater treatment plant . Dewats if properly designed and implemented, it will be distinguished by many properties as it is an approach rather than just a technical hardware. And as a result of many trials in various countries, it provides treatment for wastewater flows from 1-500 m3/day from both domestic and industrial resources. It is based on a set of treatment principles of which has been determined by their reliability and tolerance towards inflow fluctuation, it also works without technical energy and thus cann't be switched off intentionally and it is the best solution where skilled and responsible operation and maintenance is quaranteed. It doesn't require sophisticated maintenance. It is implemented with low cost and distinguished by long desludging intervals (Anaant, 2003).

Figure (2.2): Decentralised wastewater treatment system (DEWATS) (Anaant, 2003).

10

2.5.3

Common systems of Dewats

DEWATS is based on four treatment systems: - Sedimentation and primary treatment in sedimentation ponds, septic tanks or Imhoff tanks. - Secondary anaerobic treatment in fixed bed filters (anaerobic filters) or baffled septic tanks. - Secondary and tertiary aerobic/anaerobic treatment in constructed wetlands (subsurface flow filters). - Secondary and tertiary aerobic/anaerobic treatment in ponds. These systems are combined in accordance with the wastewater influent and the required effluent quality

2.5.4 Common types of Dewats. The common types of Dewats that are used in the world are conventional septic tanks, Imhoff tanks, septic tank with up flow filter, anaerobic ponds, baffled septic tanks, upstream anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), horizontal gravel filter, aerobic stabilization ponds and anaerobic filter.

a- Convential septic tank The most common of decentralised units is convential septic tank, it is used to receive wastewater discharged from individual residences, and other non-sewer facilities, for examples; toilet water, water used from cooking or bathing. While relatively simple in construction and operation, the septic tank provides a number of important functions through a complex interaction of physical and biological processes. The essential functions of the septic tank are as follow: # To separate solids from the wastewater flow. # To cause reduction and decomposition of accumulated solids. # To provide storage for the separated solids (sludge and scum). # To pass the clarified wastewater (effluent) out to a leaching field or pit. Septic tanks (Figure 2.3a and 2.3b) provide a relatively quiescent body of water

11

where the wastewater is retained long enough to let the solids, oils and greases separate by both settling and flotation. This process is often called a primary treatment and results in three products: scum, accumulated sludge (or septage), and effluent. These tanks serve as combined settling and skimming tanks, unheated unmixed anaerobic digesters, and as sludge storage tanks (Crites and Tchobanoglous, 1998). In some countries, the septic tank is followed by a soil absorption system, or another post-treatment unit. The organic material retained in the bottom of the tank undergoes facultative and anaerobic decomposition and is converted to more stable compounds and gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and hydrogen sulphide (H2S). The sludge that accumulates in the septic tank is composed primarily of ligneous material contained in toilet paper. While these materials will be eventually decomposed biologically, the rate is extremely slow, which accounts for the accumulation (USEPA, 1980).

Figure (2.3): Typical concentional septic tanks (a) Concrete type with reinforcing steel (under construction) and (b) fiberglass type (http://www.wieserconcrete.com). In order to improve the treatment performance, an in-tank baffle is sometimes used to divide the tank, and access ports are provided to permit inspection and cleaning (Figure 2.4). Two compartments have been used to limit the discharge of solids in the effluent from the septic tank. Based on measurements made in both single and double compartments, the benefit of a two-compartment tank appears to depend

12

more on the design of the tank. Currently, most houses in several cities of developing countries are equipped with septic tank or other on-site systems. The use of septic tanks can be traced back to the year 1860 in France (Crites and Tchobanoglous, 1998). Septic tanks are made out of concrete, steel, red-wood or polyethylene, but the use of steel and redwood tanks is no longer accepted by most regulatory agencies. Polyethylene tanks are inferior to concrete and fibreglass tanks because they will deform after some years in operation. Today, most of the conventional septic tanks are made out of concrete or fibreglass. Fiberglas septic tanks are rather expensive. They are usually used in areas where concrete septic tanks can not be installed. Regardless of the material of construction, a septic tank must be watertight and must be able to withhold the wastewater loads if it is to function properly; especially where subsequent treatment units such as intermittent or recirculating packed bed filters or pressure sewers are to be used.

Figure (2.4): Schematic typical septic tanks : (a) two-compartments tank and (b) a single compartment tank (http://www.septic-info-com).

b- Imhoff Tank Imhoff tanks are used for domestic or mixed wastewater flows where effluent will undergo further treatment on ground surface. The Imhoff tank is divided into an upper settling compartment in which sedimentation of solids occurs as illustrated in

13

Figure (2.5). Sludge then falls through opening at the bottom into the lower tank where it is digested anaerobically. Methane gas is produced in the process and is prevented from disturbing the settling process by being deflected by baffles into the gas vent channels. Effluent is odorless because the suspended and dissolved solids in the effluent do not come into contact with the active sludge causing it to become foul. When sludge is removed, it needs to be further treated in drying beds or such for pathogen control. Treatment efficiency in Imhoff tank is equivalent to primary treatment as it achieves 40% BOD reduction and 65% suspended solids reduction but effluents continue to be contaminated due to the poor pathogen removal. In term of operation and maintenance, the construction of such system requires skilled labors with no need to electrical requirement and high area of land. To be maintained well, removal of scum and sludge has to be carried out at regular intervals. This system has the advantages of low cost, electrical requirements, land space and operational and maintenance requirements. Therefore, it needs skilled contractor for construction and it also doesn t meet the required reuse quality because of the existence of pathogens.

Figure (2.5): Cross section of Imhoff Tank.

c- Septic Tank With Up flow Filter This is essentially a septic tank with an up flow filter that is incorporated directly after the second chamber of the septic tank as shown in Figure (2.6). Effluent after

14

leaving the second chamber of the septic tank is directed upwards through the bottom of the filter before exiting to be disposed of either in leach fields etc. It is also mainly designed for onsite treatment of domestic sewage. In the up flow filter the effluent enters at the base and flows up through the layer of coarse aggregate, which is then discharged over a weir at the top. Anaerobic bacteria grow on the surface of the filter material and oxidize the effluent as it flows past. Disposal of the effluent may be into a stream or into soakage pits etc. Septic Tank With Up flow Filter produce good effluent quality, it can reduce BOD up to 70 % in addition to changing the highly turbid gray water to an odorless clear light yellow effluent. This system is applicable for both gray water and black water that can be flushed through the system. In term of operation and maintenance, the construction of such system requires skilled labors with no need to electrical requirement and high area of land. Filter is expected to operate without maintenance for 18-24 months, then it needs to be washed out be fresh water. Septic tank needs to regular desludging.

Figure (2-6): Septic Tank with Upflow filter section d- Anaerobic Ponds Anaerobic ponds use the same biological process and same basis for loading as septic tanks but on a much larger scale. Anaerobic Ponds as the name implies operates in the absence of air. Therefore deep tanks with small surface areas operate more efficiently then shallower ponds. Before using these ponds, they should be filled with water to prevent foul conditions from occurring. After functioning of these ponds, raw sewage sludge will accumulate on the bottom of the pond and a

15

crust will form on the surface which eliminates all odors. The wastewater type and the method of post treatment outline the role of the anaerobic ponds. Anaerobic ponds are designed for hydraulic retention times of between 1-30 days depending on strength and type of wastewater and also the desired treatment effect. Storm water could cause shock volumetric loads which may affect the performance of ponds and should be taken into account in earlier stages of pond development. The system can achieve 70 % reduction in term of BOD in addition to changing the highly turbid gray water to an odorless clear light yellow effluent. This system is applicable for both gray water and backwater that can be flushed through the system. In term of operation and maintenance, the construction of such system requires skilled labors with no need to electrical requirement and high area of land. Filter is expected to operate without maintenance for 18-24 months, then it needs to be washed out be fresh water. Septic tank needs to regular desludging. It is distinguished by feasibility as it doesn t need to electrical, operation and maintenance requirements and the system produces high effluent quality by low loaded ponds with long HRT. Figure (2.7) illustrates the anaerobic ponds system.

Figure (2.7): Low and high loaded anaerobic ponds sections. e- Baffled Septic Tanks This process is suitable for all kinds of wastewater including domestic. The baffled septic tank consists of an initial settler compartment and a second section of a series baffled reactors as shown in Figure (2.8). Sludge settles at the bottom and the active sludge that is washed out of one chamber becomes trapped in the next. The reason for the tanks in series is to assist in the digestion of difficult degradable substances especially towards the end part of the process. For the purpose of quicker digestion

16

influent upon entering the process is mixed with active sludge present in the reactor. Wastewater flows from bottom to top causing sludge particles to settle on the up flow of the liquid wastewater allowing contact between sludge already present with incoming flow. The settler can be used for treatment after effluent has left the tank. Hydraulic and organic shock loads have little effect on treatment efficiency. In term of effluent quality, the system achieve moderate effluent quality as, 70-95% BOD removal and 65-95% COD removal, This system is applicable for both gray water and blackwater that can be flushed through the system. The system requires skilled labors for construction with no need to electrical power or big area of land. Therefore, it requires moderate operation and maintenance process as the regular removal of sludge. The system is distinguished by low cost, availability of construction materials and low land space requirements.

Figure (2.8): Baffled septic tanks sections.

f- Upstream Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) This process is suitable for all kinds of wastewater including domestic. The UASB maintains a cushion of active sludge suspended on the lower part of the digester and uses this sludge blanket directly as filter medium. The sludge blanket is kept in place by the equilibrium formed between the upstream velocity and settling speed of the sludge. After weeks of maturation, granular sludge forms that improve the stability and filter capacity of the sludge blanket. The organic load of the system is

17

responsible for the development of new sludge. A fully controlled UASB is used for relatively strong industrial wastewaters where biogas can be utilized, with slanting baffles separating gas bubbles from solids. UASB require several months to mature i.e. to develop sufficient granular sludge for treatment. This system is applicable for both gray water and blackwater that can be flushed through the system. The system requires low land space and cost. Therefore, it requires moderate operation and maintenance process, time to stabilize process and operator intervention from time to time to control and adjust treatment process. Figure (2.9) illustrates the UASB system.

Figure (2.9): Upstream Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASP) sections.

g- Ponds/Beds/Lagoons (Reed bed systems, Horizontal Gravel Filter) Reed bed systems are suitable for domestic and industrial wastewater that has undergone preliminary treatment and that has a COD content not higher than 500mg/l. The reed bed system is 1m deep basin sealed with clay or some other form of lining to prevent percolation into groundwater with the basin itself being filled with soil in which reeds are then planted. Oxygen is transported through the pores of the plant down to the roots whereby the oxygen content increases the biological activity of the soil. When wastewater runs through the root zone soil organic compounds and other impurities are eliminated by microorganisms in the soil.

18

This system achieve good effluent quality as it gives 84% COD removal rate and 86% for BOD that are considered as high effluent quality in addition to the low requirement for operation and maintenance as only trenches are to be maintained regularly from erosion. Moderate requirement for land and costs and no requirement for electrical power. Figure (2.10) illustrates the principles of horizontal gravel filter process. .

Figure (2.10): Principles of Horizontal Gravel Filter process.

h- Ponds/Beds/Lagoons(Aerobic Stabilization Ponds/Algal Ponds/Oxidation Ponds) In aerobic stabilization ponds the organic matter causing pollution is consumed by biological organisms that need oxygen in proportion to the amount of organic matter removed. Oxygen is supplied in these ponds by a growth of algae, which is dependent on photosynthesis. If there is not enough oxygen supplied to organisms that consume organic matter then they will not function and anaerobic organisms will become active causing offensive odors and polluted effluent to be produced. Aerobic ponds should be half-filled with water before use to prevent offensive conditions from occurring. The treatment efficiency increases with longer retention times.

19

This sytem is produces high quality effluent as it achieves 82% BOD removal rate that reaches 97% in multiple pond systems and 78% COD removal rate and 95% pathogen removal . It needs high volume of water for transportation to treatement site, regular desludging in defined intervals and stsrt up needs special arrangements and moderate requirements for land and costs. Therefore, it requires low operation and maintenance and no electrical powers. Figure (2.11) illustrates the aerobic stabilization ponds system.

Figure (2.11): Aerobic Stabilization Ponds section.

i- Filters, Anaerobic Filters/Fixed Bed Reactor/Fixed Film reactor The anaerobic filter is suitable for domestic wastewater and all industrial wastewater that have a lower content of suspended solids. Anaerobic filters allow the treatment of non settleable and dissolved solids by bringing them into close contact with surplus active bacterial mass. The dispersed or dissolved organic matter is digested by bacteria within short retention times. Bacteria fix themselves to filter material like gravel, rocks, and cinder etc. allowing incoming wastewater to come into contact with active bacteria. Preliminary treatment may be required to remove solids of larger size. The system achieves 70-90% BOD removal in a well operated anaerobic filter and moderate effluent quality for other measures. It serves well when only receives liquid waste and not suitable where scarce or unreliable water and it is applicable for gray and black water. It requires high operation and maintenance, desludging regularly, cleaning of filter

20

material, electrical power and high cost. Figure (2.12) illustrate the anaerobic filter system.

Figure (2.12): Anaerobic Filter section.

2.6 Local Trials in Decentralised Systems. The decentralised wastewater treatment units were for long time existing in rural and camps areas in a conventional form that is a cylindrical shape constructed from concrete bricks for external walls without any linning in the bottom as shown in Figure (2.13). These units consist of unsanitary construction system and depend mainly on infiltration to remove the wastewater that contaminated the soil ground water in Gaza for large extent. Another case of onsite treatment units in Palestine was adding a seperation rectangular tank before the septic tank. It is estimated that 40% of the houses in Gaza have such convential septic tank and more than 80% before 1994 (MEnA, 2002). The idea of decentralized wastewater treatment plants (DEWATS) has been used by the local community as a technology but as a tradition. Unsanitary septic tank system was used for long time as a result of unavailable sewerage. Most of Gaza and West bank people were suffering from unavailable sanitary sewerage system due to the ignorance of refugee camp in addition to many cities and villages from such services as an Israeli policy of deteriorating the Palestinian environment. Their policy had been well implemented as it has deteriorated the groundwater, soil and surface water

21

of Palestinian areas. Unavailable sewerage has forced the people to implement conventional septic tanks beside their dwellings to discharge wastewater from houses and other facilities. The traditional decentralised wastewater treatment plant in Palestine was only a cylindrical septic tank constructed from concrete bricks with holes and without any isolating linning in the bottom of the septic tank. The lack of the linning system normally accelerates the infiltration of wastewater to the soil and percolation to the groundwater. The situation has been improved since 1994 after the coming of the Palestinian Authority that got the fund from many donors to implement many sanitation projects in the Palestinian territories. However, the fund was not enough that lift many areas without sewerage or other infrastructure that encouraged the non governmental organizations (NGO's) to participate in the mitigation of the stress over environment. The first initiative to develop the decentralized treatment system was adapted by these organizations in the beginning of last decade to treat gray water in the rural areas of Gaza strip because of the defeciency of irrigation water in addition to the bad quality of existing water.

Figure ( 2.13): Local convential septic tank in Palestine.

22

Twenty five septic tanks were implemented by the Union of Agricultural Work committees using the same system of the traditional system but with some additional sanitary measures as tank ground linning and totally closed walls of tank that prevente to some extent the infiltration to the ground water but with very small fraction in treatment effeciency. NGO's have tried to develop the idea and implemented more than 150 system in Gaza and West Bank since 1995. The main two NGO's were the Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG) through their Wastewater treatment and reuse in Agriculture project and Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees (PARC).

2.6.1 Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG) treatment system PHG system was one of the first trials in Gaza strip to treat wastewater in rural areas. The system was designed to treat gray water and to utilize the system as a potential source for treated wastewater reuse. The system was implemented in many parts of Gaza strip specially in the rural areas where treated wastewater can be reused. The aims of the system implementation were to protect the environment and to enhance the non traditional water resources use and decreasing the use of Cesspools. The system has some basic stages as, wastewater collecting network, wastewater treatment plant and reuse the treated wastewater through the distribution network in the olives trees field. The unit has the capacity to treat 12 cubic meter per day and serving seven families with average 80 members. The treated wastewater used for irrigating five dunum of land farmed with olive trees. Wastewater treatment unit consists of septic tank and trickling filter beside collecting tank. The treatment method depends on the primary Treatment by using the Septic Tank and the secondary treatment by Trickling filter. The used system had many parts as collection part, treatment part and reuse part. A- Collection Part It is the local collection networks within the rural areas to serve both the farm and the houses as shown in Figure (2.14). This part involves UPVC pipes with 8 Inch diameter and 305 m in length, UPVC pipes with 8 Inch in diameter and 30 m in

23

length, 10 manhole with 80cm diameter and one manhole with 60cm diameter.

Fig (2.14): Schematic diagram of wastewater collection system.

B- Tanks The first tank is a septic tank where separation of solids happens primarily by gravity in addition to flotation to remove fat, grease and oil. It consists of a primary septic tank in addition to a chamber forming half of the first tank volume as shown in Fig (2.16). The outside volume of the septic tank is 13.2 cubic meter with 3.0 m length , 2.0m width and 2.2m height.

C- Trickling filter It is a cylindrical plastic tank with 1.50 m3 volume depending on the volume of effluent and involving internal filter of gravel with a ironic water distributer to equally distribute water over the filter as shown in Figure (3.2).

24

Figure (2.15): PHG on site treatment plant.

D- Treated water collection system This system includes two cylindrical plastic tank, the upper collection tank and final collection tank with volumes equal 1.5 m3 and 1.0 m3 respectively. The first one receives water from the trickling filter and the final one receives water from it to the irrigation network system.

E- Irrigation water collection tank The disposal field was selected to be Olive farms, the network length was 550 m of 2 to 4 inch in diameter of UPVC pipes conveying treated water to the site to be utilized to irrigate 5daunms.

Effeciency of the system

Fifteen tests were carried out to measure the extent that the system has reached to achieve its objectives to treat wastewater and reuse it in irrigation of olive farms. The tests included many wastewater parameters as BOD, COD, Electrical conductivity (ECw), Total dissolved solids (TDS), Cations and anions, Nutrients and miscellaneous.

25

2.6.2 Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees (PARC) treatment system The system of PARC has been implemented in West Bank and Gaza and was funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) in cooperation with gricultural committees in the rural areas to reuse treated wastewater in irrigating farms. The system was designed to treat 10 m3 and serving five families with average 70 numbers. The used system consist of many parts as screening manhole, tanks, pump, trickling filter and water collection tank.

A- Screening Manhole It is a small manhole with 40 cm diameter as shown in Figure (2.16), it is involving an internal screen with holes not greater than one cm2 to allow the waste water flow easily and to prevent clogging in the pipes.

Figure (2.16) : Screening manhole in PARC system.

26

B- Tanks The first tank is a septic tank where separation of solids happens primarily by gravity in addition to flotation to remove fat, grease and oil. Unwanted flotation occurs in septic tanks and other anaerobic systems where floating layers of scum are easily formed. The second tank is anaerobic gravel filter contains solid stones with diameter 2-3 cm to provide a fixed surface for treatment of bacteria and they form a physical obstacle for the smaller solid particles by creating adhesion of particles to their surfaces. This tank receives wastewater from the first tank by steel pipes in the bottom of the tank with regular holes on their surface for well distribution of water. The third tank constitute the same previous filter media but with diameter 0.5 $ 1 cm with also anaerobic filter. The fourth tank is a collection tank that receives water from the third tank through upflow pipe. Electrical pump is placed in this tank to pump water to the trickling filter as shown in Figure (2.17).

Figure (2.17): PARC decentralized treatment plant tanks.

27

C- Trickling filter It is a cylindrical plastic tank with 0.5 $ 1 m3 volume depending on the volume of effluent and involving three layers of 20cm thick of sand, coal and gravel starting up from sand and receiving water from the fourth treatment tank by the pump as shown in Figure(2.18).

D- Irrigation water collection tank It is a cylindrical plastic tank with a volume 0.5 $ 1.0 m3 used for collection and storing treated water to be utilized in irrigation later Figure (3.5).

Figure (2.18): PARC decentralized treatment plant trickling filter.

E-Irrigation system It involves a small network linking the collection tank with irrigation network transporting water to the farm.

28

2.7 Current International Developed Decentralised Systems.

2.7.1

USA Dewats System

One of the most common systems in the united states is the graywater treatment system that is shown in Figure (2.19). The usage of this system is adapted in the areas where there is a lack of water for irrigation which is existing in california and others ( EPA, 2003).

Figure (2.19 ) : Gray water treatment system( EPA, 2003)

Septic systems consist of two basic parts, a septic tank and a soil absorption system as shown in Figure (2.20). The septic tank provides a small portion of the treatment by creating a large quiet compartment to allow solid material to settle out of the

29

wastewater and collected in the tank. Once the large solid material is settled out, the sewage follows into a deep layer of unsaturated soil where the soil and microorganisms growing in the soil removing the pollutants before the wastewater infiltrates into the ground. Septic systems are simple to operate and when properly designed, constructed, and maintained, they do an excellent job of removing pollutants from wastewater to protect water resources.

Figure (2.20): Diagram of a septic system.

An other common system is Continuous-Flow, Suspended-Growth Aerobic Systems (CFSGAS). The activated sludge process is an aerobic suspended-growth process that maintains a relatively high population of microorganisms (biomass) by recycling settled biomass back to the treatment process. The biomass converts soluble and colloidal biodegradable organic matter and some inorganic compounds into cell mass

30

and metabolic end products. The biomass is separated from the wastewater through settling in a clarifier for recycling or wasting to sludge handling processes. Preliminary treatment to remove settleable solids and floatable materials is usually provided by a septic tank or other primary treatment device. Most onsite designs are capable of providing significant ammonia oxidation and effective removal of organic matter. The basic system consists of a number of interrelated components as shown in figure (2.21) as follows: # An aeration tank or basin. # An oxygen source and equipment to disperse atmospheric or pressurized air or oxygen into the aeration tank at a rate sufficient to always maintain positive dissolved oxygen. # A means to appropriately mix the aeration basin and ensure suspension of the biomass (usually accomplished by the aeration system). # A clarifier to separate the biomass from the treated effluent and collect settled biomass for recycling to the aeration basin.

Figure (2.21): A basic CFSGAS configuration. Several modifications of this basic process are commercially available. These include different aeration devices; different means of sludge collection and recycling to the aerator; the use of coarse membrane filters, or in addition to, the clarifier; and process enhancement through the addition of an inert media area on which biofilms can grow. The addition of surfaces where biota can become attached and grow increases the capacity of the system (increased organic loading possible). This last modification is the most significant enhancement. The combined fixedfilm/suspended growth process is sometimes referred to as a class of treatment

31

processes called coupled contact aeration, enhanced, or high biomass systems. To enhance performance and increase the capacity of the aeration tank, an inert support medium is added to the aeration tank. This allows a fixed film of biomass to attach and grow on the medium to augment the suspended microbial population, providing more biomass to feed on wastewater constituents as shown in Figure (2.22). Synthetic trickling filter media, loops of fiber bundles, and a variety of different plastic surface configurations can be suspended in the aeration tank. Advantages include increased active microbial mass per unit volume, enhanced potential for nitrification, reduced suspended solids loading to the clarifier, improved solids separation characteristics, reduced sludge production, and resilience under variable influent conditions. Onsite package treatment units should be constructed of no corrosive materials, such as coated concrete, plastic, fiberglass, or coated steel. Units may be stand alone or manufactured to drop into a compartmented septic tank. Some units are installed above ground on a concrete slab with proper housing to protect against severe climatic conditions. Units may also be buried underground as long as easy access is provided to all mechanical parts, electrical control systems, and water surfaces (Mason, 1977; Rogella et al., 1988; Rusten et al., 1987).

Figure (2.22): An enhanced CFSGAS or% high biomass! system.

These systems are usually preceded by a septic tank and followed by a subsurface wastewater infiltration system (SWIS). Despite some claims of reduced SWIS sizing when compared to the conventional septic tank pretreatment, the designer is

32

cautioned to consider ground water protection. These systems should be applied only where onsite system management services are available. For surface water discharge, the system must be followed by disinfection at a minimum to consistently meet discharge standards. However, some subsurface (non-human-contact) reuse may be implemented without further treatment. High biomass systems can be a low-cost means of upgrading existing overloaded CFSGAS units that currently do not meet BOD or nitrification goals. They can also compete directly with conventional designs because they have greater stability in handling highly variable loadings (Mason, 1977; Rogella et al., 1988; Rusten et al., 1987). An other systems are the Subsurface wastewater infiltration systems (SWISs). SWISs are the most commonly used systems for the treatment and dispersal of onsite wastewater in development countries as shown in Figure (2.23). Infiltrative surfaces are located in permeable, unsaturated natural soil or imported fill material so wastewater can infiltrate and percolate through the underlying soil to the ground water. As the wastewater infiltrates and percolates through the soil, it is treated through a variety of physical, chemical, and biochemical processes and reactions. Many different designs and configurations are used, but all incorporate soil infiltrative surfaces that are located in buried excavations. The primary infiltrative surface is the bottom of the excavation, but the sidewalls also may be used for infiltration. Perforated pipe is installed to distribute the wastewater over the infiltration surface. A porous medium, typically gravel or crushed rock, is placed in the excavation below and around the distribution piping to support the pipe and spread the localized flow from the distribution pipes across the excavation cavity. The porous medium provides storage space for the wastewater within its void fractions (interstitial spaces, typically 30 to 40 percent of the volume) during peak flows with gravity systems. A permeable geotextile fabric or other suitable material is laid over the porous medium before the excavation is backfilled to prevent the introduction of backfill material into the porous medium. Natural soil is typically used for backfilling, and the surface of the backfill is usually slightly mounded and seeded with grass. Subsurface wastewater infiltration systems provide both dispersal and treatment of

33

the applied wastewater. Wastewater is transported from the infiltration system through three zones . Two of these zones, the infiltration zone and vadose zone, act as fixed-film bioreactors. The infiltration zone, which is only a few centimeters thick, is the most biologically active zone and is often referred to as the "biomat." Carbonaceous material in the wastewater is quickly degraded in this zone, and nitrification occurs immediately below this zone if sufficient oxygen is present. Free or combined forms of oxygen in the soil must satisfy the oxygen demand generated by the microorganisms degrading the materials. If sufficient oxygen is not present, the metabolic processes of the microorganisms can be reduced or halted and both treatment and infiltration of the wastewater will be adversely affected (Otis, 1978). The vadose (unsaturated) zone provides a significant pathway for oxygen diffusion to reaerate the infiltration zone (Otis, 1978, Siegrist et al., 1986). Also, it is the zone where most sorption reactions occur because the negative moisture potential in the unsaturated zone causes percolating water to flow into the finer pores of the soil, resulting in greater contact with the soil surfaces. Finally, much of the phosphorus and pathogen removal occurs in this zone (Robertson and Harman, 1999). There are several different designs for SWISs. They include trenches, beds, seepage pits, at-grade systems, and mounds. SWIS applications differ in their geometry and location in the soil profile. Trenches have a large length-to-width ratio, while beds have a wide, rectangular or square geometry. Seepage pits are deep, circular excavations that rely almost completely on sidewall infiltration. Seepage pits are no longer permitted in many jurisdictions because their depth and relatively small horizontal profile create a greater point-source pollutant loading potential to ground water than other geometries. Because of these shortcomings, seepage pits are not recommended in most world states. Infiltration surfaces may be created in natural soil or imported fill material. Most traditional systems are constructed below ground surface in natural soil (Hinson, 1994). Infiltration surfaces may be constructed at the ground surface ("at-grades") or elevated in imported fill material above the natural soil surface ("mounds"). An important difference between infiltration surfaces constructed in natural soil and those constructed in fill material is that a secondary infiltrative surface (which must

34

be considered in design) is created at the fill/natural soil interface. Despite the differences between the types of SWISs, the mechanisms of treatment and dispersal are similar. Results from numerous studies have shown that SWISs achieve high removal rates for most wastewater pollutants of concern with the notable exception of nitrogen. Biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, fecal indicators, and surfactants are effectively removed within 2 to 5 feet of unsaturated, aerobic soil. Phosphorus and metals are removed through adsorption, ion exchange, and precipitation reactions. However, the retention capacity of the soil is finite and varies with soil mineralogy, organic content, pH, redox potential, and cation exchange capacity. The fate of viruses and toxic organic compounds has not been well documented (Tomson et al., 1984). Field and laboratory studies suggest that the soil is quite effective in removing viruses, but some types of viruses apparently are able to leach from SWISs to the ground water. Fine-textured soils, low hydraulic loadings, aerobic subsoils, and high temperatures favor destruction of viruses and toxic organics. The most significant documented threats to ground water quality from SWISs are nitrates. Wastewater nitrogen is nearly completely nitrified below properly operating SWISs. Because nitrate is highly soluble and environments favoring denitrification in subsoil are limited, little removal occurs. Chlorides also leach readily to ground water because they, too, are highly soluble and are non reactive in soil.

35

Figure (2.23). Lateral view of conventional SWIS-based system (Bouma, 1975). Onsite wastewater treatment system designs vary according to the site and wastewater characteristics encountered. However, all designs should strive to incorporate the following features to achieve satisfactory long-term performance:

Shallow placement of the infiltration surface (< 2 feet below final grade) Organic loading comparable to that of septic tank effluent at its recommended hydraulic loading rate

Trench orientation parallel to surface contours Narrow trenches (< 3 feet wide) Timed dosing with peak flow storage Uniform application of wastewater over the infiltration surface Multiple cells to provide periodic resting, standby capacity, and space for future repairs or replacement

Based on the site characteristics, compromises to ideal system designs are necessary.

36

However, the designer should attempt to include as many of the above features as possible to ensure optimal long-term performance and minimal impact on public health and 2.7.2 Germany Dewats System (Pre-treatment of domestic wastewater with precomposting tanks) In Germany some existing pre-composting tanks for decentralized pre-treatment of domestic wastewater were investigated as shown in Figure (2.19). Inside the tanks two filter bags, one that is being used called active filter bag and another that has been already used called inactive filter bag, are hung side by side and used alternately in an interval of 6-12 months. The capacity of the systems varies from 4 to 40 inhabitants. Most of the systems have been in operation for 4-5 years. Precomposting tank is made up of concrete monolithically and constructed underground outside the building. It is covered with a prefabricated concrete slab and provided with ventilation. A shutter for changing filter bag, adding straw into the precomposting materials, inspection and cleaning has been provided on the covering of the tank. The filtrate is collected at the bottom of the tank which is (only bottom portion) divided by a partition wall with an overflow and a pumping sump. The filtrate is pumped with the help of a time and level controlled submersed pump in an interval of 2-5 times per day into the adjacent constructed wetlands, where it is treated and then discharged into the watercourses. Due to the appropriate sloping in some systems, an overflow pipe is provided, through which the filtrate flows into the constructed wetland.

Figure (2.24):Pre-composting tank (Rottebehaelter) for decentral pre-treatment of domestic wastewater.

37

CHAPTER THREE Methodology

To achieve the objectives of the research, two different local systems were studied to measure the effectiveness of both systems in achieving their objectives. The selected units were PHG and PARC units in Gaza strip. The methodology steps will be as shown in Figure (3.1).

Selection and study of the local decentralized systems

identification of indicators and developing evaluation criteria for selected systems

Assessment of selected systems

Application of a mathematical model using a actual characteristics of both system for model verification

Testing the applicability of the developed model in Gaza environment units

Utilizing solar energy in improving the efficiency

Figure (3.1) : Steps of evaluating the selected system.

3.1 Selected Local Units PHG has implemented four units in Abasan in the southern govenorate of Gaza strip in order to reuse the treated wastewater in irrigating olive trees that are tolerant to the moderate saline water. PHG has monitored the system for two years and carried out

38

the quality tests twice a year. The first five tests were carried out for the four units six months after operating the units and the other tests were carried out after thirteen months. PARC has implemented twenty units in northern Gaza strip and fifteen in southern Gaza strip in order to reuse the treated wastewater in irrigating olive and citrus trees, the units in the northern area were implemented twelve in Beit Lahia, four in Beit Hanoun and and five in Jabalia. The fifteen units in the southern area were

implemented in Khoza'a. Monitoring of units continued two years by PARC engineers to follow up the treatment effeciency of the units and tests were carried out once a year and four months after the operating the units, five samples were taken in the first year and other nine tests were carried out nine months after operating the units. For all units, the samples were taken by a technician from the Islamic University in accordance with sampling standard. All units were designed to produce effluent with a quality compliant with the local and international standard as shown in Appendix (1) that illustrates the Palestinian Draft Standard for reusing treated wastewater in different aspects.

3.2 Evaluation Criteria of the Two Systems. An evaluation study for the utilized systems of onsite wastewater treatment plants in Gaza strip was conducted here to explore the effeciency and the problems of the systems. Evaluation criteria will mainly depend on some significant indicators that are related to the effeciency, tolerance and feasibility that should be defined well to measure the effectiveness of the system. The most common needed indicators to assesse the systems are :

3.2.1 Treatment Efficiency Effluent will be analyzed to measure the quality of the treated wastewater and to measure the effeciency of the system. Technology chosen should produce effluent quality that is up to standard with regard to various quality measurements.

39

3.2.2 Impact on Environment Many elements related to the assessment of impact on environment would be studied as emissions of bad smells, noise, Insects existence and danger to public health. Also, effects on soil will be investigated to notice the extent of contamination on soils.

3.2.3 Maintenance and Operation Evaluation will focus on the extent skills needed to operate the system and carry out the maintenance. It is assumed that a certain degree of maintenance is required and also skilled owners to perform maintenance and operational duties when needed to operate and maintain the systems. 3.3 Mathematical Simulation Criteria A mathematical model to design the common utilized systems in Gaza strip that include septic tanks, anaerobic filter and baffled septic tanks was carried out. The mathematical formulas will consider the local circumestances surrounding area of the systems. Formulas will be used instead of curves in this program. These formulas visualize the most important relations between various parameters, they will enhance understanding of the factors that influence the treatment process. It should be noticed that the graphs have been developed on the base of mixed information.The formulas used will be based on the international results and checked by local measures . The mathematical simulation will be prepared on Visual Basic, version 6.0 and based on data that is available at both international and local levels. Some of the formula that will be used in the model is based on curves, which had been obtained from scientific publications. The formulas basically define trends. For Example, it is well known that the removal efficiency of an anaerobic reactor increase where COD/BOD ratio is narrow. in the

40

3.4 Utilization of Solar System An experiment will be carried out to utilize solar system in raising the temperature of wastewater by using the heated water from solar sytem to flow through a copper pipe passing in a container filled with cold water with determined temperature as shown in Figure (3.2). Many different hot waters with different temperature will be flowing in the pipe and check the heating rate to conclude an equation to design piping system to raise the temperature of wastewater into the treatment tanks.

Figure (3.2) : Utilizing solar energy in heating wastewater

41

CHAPTER FOUR Results and Discussion

4.1 Characteristics of Effluent In Each System The two systems used by PHG and PARC systems were implemented in Gaza strip to treat domestic gray water from houses of farmers in rural areas. The systems were implmented to reuse wastewater in irrigating olive and citrus farms in northern and southern governorates of Gaza strip. The influent of each system has different charactesristics because of many factors as the type of indoor uses of water and the charactesristics of the water supplied to the houses in each area. The tests of PHG system effluent have considered the BOD, COD, SS, Salinity, Cations and Anions, Nutrients and PH as shown in Tables (4-1, 4-2 and 4-3). The removal effeciency in term of BOD and COD was low as shown in Figures(4.1) and (4-2). The full data are available for PHG system where the above mentioned factors were measured. In which other important factors such as Boron and heavy metals were ignored.

42

Table(4-1): The characteristics of influent and effluent of PHG system.

Influent BOD No of Sample S1 S2 S3 S4 S15 Date 23/10/2001 23/10/2001 23/10/2001 23/10/2001 23/11/2001 Average Standard Deviation S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 06/01/2002 06/01/2002 06/01/2002 06/01/2002 06/01/2002 06/01/2002 Average Standard Deviation S12 S13 S14 09/02/2002 09/02/2002 09/02/2002 Average Standard Deviation Average of all samples 265 445 118 225 57% 52% 326 292 390 380 344 346 40.0 212 165 312 152 190 223 209 57 240 381 367 329 78 690 310 720 695 643 612 171 450 210 399 248 260 312 313 94 350 701 688 580 199 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.1 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.5 2.1 1.1 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.7 200 190 232 235 115 194 49 74 70 125 60 70 70 78 23 82 131 112 108 25 550 210 511 495 254 404 159 170 90 165 102 105 109 124 35 135 250 232 206 62 66% 66% 69% 61% 64% 66% 65% 58% 60% 61% 63% 69% 62% 57% 59% 59% 60% 65% mg/l COD mg/l COD/BOD Effluent BOD mg/l COD mg/l Removal Rate BOD Removal Rate 39% 35% 41% 38% 67% COD Removal Rate 20% 32% 29% 29% 60%

Table (4-llustrates the measurements of influent and effluent BOD and COD for different units in PHG system. These results show that there was a substantial fluctuation in the removal rates that is related to the variations of influent BOD and COD. The tests of PHG system were carried out for the four units that were implemented in Gaza strip in the same day and with different intervals of time.

43

BOD Effluent of PHG System

450 400 350 B OD m g/l 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 00 6 /2 2/ 23 /1 1 /2 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 /2 6 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 0 /2 0 /2 0 /2 0 /2 /2 00 2

1 /6

1 /6

1 /6

1 /6

1 /6

1 /6

2 /6

/1

/1

/1

23

23

23

23

/1

Date of Sample

2 /6

1/

BOD Influent BOD Effluent

Figure (4.1): BOD influent and effluent of PHG system.

Figure (4.1) illustrates that the removal increases with time due to the formation of bacterial cells that accelerate the process of treatment. It can be noticed from the figure that there were a variance in the influent BOD readings due to the entrance of irrigation water to the system that is mostly mixed with fertilisers and degradable organic materials. The last readings shows high degredation rates which results from the formation and stabilisation of bacteria and existence of degradable organic materials from irrigated water.

44

COD Effluent of PHG System

800 700 600 CO D m g /l 500 400 300 200 100 0

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 00 /2 2 /6 23 /1 1 /2 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 0 /2 0 /2 0 /2 0 /2 1 /6 1 /6 1 /6 1 /6 1 /6 1 /6 1 /6 2 /6 2 /6 /2 00 2

/1

/1

/1 23

23

23

23

/1

Date of Sample

COD Influent COD Effluent

Figure (4.2): COD influent and effluent of PHG system The figure illustrates the fluctuation of readings due to the existence of pesticides and other organic materials used by farmers. The path of COD curve is similar to the previous BOD curve that shows the effects of bacteria stabilization and existence of new substances from non domestic uses. Table ( 4-2): Characterestics of treated wastewater in PHG system. No Water Parameter Symbol Element content in PHG treated water

Salinity
1Electrical Conductivity Ecw deci siemens (dS)/m 2Total Dissolved Solids TDS mg/l 2.5 dS/m 1370 mg/l

Cations and Anions

123Calcium Magnesium Sodium Ca++ meq/l Mg++ meq/l Na+ meq/l 3.36 3.35 10

45

45-

Chloride Sulfate

CL-

meq/l

10 0.63

SO4-- meq/l

Nutrients
12Nitrate - Nitrogen Potassium (NO3 - N) mg/l K+ 0.5 0.3

Miscellaneous
12Acid / Bascity Sodium Ratio Adsorption pH SAR 7.88 5.62

Table (4-2) shows the quality of the effluent in PHG system. These elements were not greatly affected by the treatment of such system as they need special technologies and system to be decreased. The measured elements are essential and effective factors in the quality of reused wastewater, however, they are not adequate to assese the quality of wastewater in reusing for irrigation. Table (4-3): Characterestics of irrigated soil with treated wastewater at different depths. Depth(cm) Unit Parameter PH EC CL NO3 CO3 HCO3 Ca + Mg Na K SAR 7.9 mmho/cm 3.14 Meq/l Meq/l Meq/l Meq/l Meq/l Meq/l Meq/l Meq/l 18.8 387.9 0 2.4 15.2 12.4 1.01 4.5 0 40 cm 40 80 cm 8.02 2.76 9.1 100.2 0 2 17.4 10.36 0.45 3.5 80 120 cm 8.02 1.51 7.1 448.3 0 2.4 11.2 6.2 0.32 2.6

46

Table (4-3) indicates the effect of treated wastewater on the soil layers for many different depths which affect the soil quality for planting. The strength of most elements is reduced by increasing the depth which explains the filtration of soil for pollutants in the wastewater. The soil pollution increases by using the treated wastewater in irrigation, therefore, farmers should . Samples from PARC system were collected and analyzed twice a year. The measurements were only for BOD, COD and SS as shown in Table (4-4) that are not enough much to evaluate the extent of using the system effluent in irrigation due to the sensitivity of all plants to the ignored factors. Table(4-4): The characteristics of influent and effluent of PARC system.
Influent BOD No of Sample S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Date 22/1/2002 22/1/2002 22/1/2002 22/1/2002 22/1/2002 450 670 380 470 487 854 1278 732 925 925 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 120 150 90 140 165 534 734 652 712 678 mg/l COD mg/l COD/BOD Effluent BOD mg/l COD mg/l Removal Rate BOD Removal Rate 73% 78% 76% 70% 66% COD Removal Rate 37% 43% 11% 23% 27%

Average of all samples Standard Deviation S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 06/01/2002 06/01/2002 06/01/2002 06/01/2002 06/01/2002 06/01/2002 491 108 520 900 350 500 550 300 943 203 1068 2800 665 1600 1109 590 2.1 3.1 1.9 3.2 2.0 2.0 1.92 133 29 101 240 92 141 135 75 662 78 294 673 220 800 365 190 81% 80% 74% 72% 75% 75% 72% 76% 67% 50% 67% 68%

Average of all samples Standard Deviation S12 S13 06/02/2002 06/02/2002 520 211 680 400 1305 817 1320 978 1.9 2.4 2.375 131 59 157 70 424 253 352 261 77% 83% 73% 73%

47

S14

06/02/2002

530

1056

2.0

111

320

79%

70%

Average of all samples Standard Deviation 537 140 1118 179 2.1 0 113 44 311 46

Average of all samples

513

1136

128

485

75%

57%

The above table illustrates the measurements of influent and effluent BOD and COD for different units in PARC system. The tests were carried out for different units that PARC implemented in Gaza strip with different intervals of time.

BOD Effeciency Removal of PARC System

1000 900 800 700

BOD mg/l

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

22 /1 /2 0 22 02 /1 /2 00 2 22 /1 /2 0 22 02 /1 /2 0 22 02 /1 /2 00 2 1/ 6/ 20 02 1/ 6/ 20 02 1/ 6/ 20 02 1/ 6/ 20 02 1/ 6/ 20 02 1/ 6/ 20 02 1/ 6/ 20 02 1/ 6/ 20 02 2/ 6/ 20 02 2/ 6/ 20 02 2/ 6/ 20 02

Date of Sample

BOD influent BOD effluent

Figure (4.3): BOD influent and effluent of PARC system

Figure (4.3) illustrates that the removal increases with time due to the formation of bacterial cells that accelerate the process of treatment. It can be noticed from the figure that there were a variance in the influent BOD readings due to the entrance of irrigation water to the system that is mostly mixed with fertilisers.

48

COD Effeciency Removal of PARC System

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
22 /1 /2 0 22 02 /1 /2 0 22 02 /1/ 20 22 02 /1 /2 0 22 02 /1/ 20 0 1/6 2 /2 00 2 1/ 6/2 00 2 1/ 6/ 20 02 1/ 6/2 00 2 1/ 6/ 20 0 1/6 2 /2 00 2 1/ 6/2 00 2 1/ 6/ 20 02 2/ 6/2 00 2 2/ 6/ 20 0 2/6 2 /2 00 2

COD mg/l

Date of Sample

COD influent COD effluent

Figure (4.4): COD influent and effluent of PARC system Figure (4.4) illustrates the fluctuation of readings due to the existence of pesticides and other chemical materials used by farmers. The sharp increase in the curve is due to the high COD values that result from existence of non domestic materials from irrigating water. Suspended Solids Effeciency Removal of PARC System
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6

SS g/l

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

00 2 22 /1 /2 00 2 1/ 6/ 20 02 1/ 6/ 20 02 1/ 6/ 20 02 1/ 6/ 20 02 1/ 6/ 20 02 1/ 6/ 20 02 1/ 6/ 20 02 1/ 6/ 20 02 2/ 6/ 20 02 2/ 6/ 20 02 2/ 6/ 20 02 22 /1 /2 22 /1 /2 00 2

Date of Sample

Influent SS g/l Effluent SS g/l

Figure (4.5): Suspended solids influent and effluent of PARC system

49

Figure (4.5) illustrates the fluctuation of suspended solids readings due to the different indoor uses and mixing with irrigation water. Similar to Figure (4.4), The sharp increase in the curve is due to the high SS values that result from existence of non domestic materials from irrigating water. To evaluat the utilised decentralised wastewater treatment systems in Gaza strip, many significant indicators will be studied as they are related to the effeciency, tolerance and feasibility of the system.

4.2 Discussion of the Effeciency of Both Systems (PHG, PARC)

4.2.1 Quality of PHG Treatment System Effluent The PHG system gave an average of 118 mg/l and 225 mg/l of effluent BOD and COD respectively. As mentioned before, the outcomes of the analysis of the results taken from different units indicate that they did not meet with what was set in the Palestinian Draft Standard (PDS) or FAO and WHO standard which also similar to the Israeli standard (IUG, ONEP, CDG, 2002). Therefore, the biological treatment by PHG treatment system is not encouragable in term of BOD in addition to high value of COD which is higher than the maximum value. For the other wastewater properties of PHG system, total dissolved solids (TDS) is 1370 mg/l which is approved according to the PDS that put the ceiling at 1500 mg/l for various options except for garden irrigation that demands TDS to be less than 1200 mg/l. In term of Acid/Base factor (PH), the system has produced effluent with PH value equals to 7.88 that exists within the range of PDS that confirmes PH to be from 6 to 9. For Calcium Ca++, the system is producing 3.36 meq/l which is less than set by PDS that is 20 meq/l for various reuse options. The effluent content of sulfate (SO4-2), Magnesium (Mg+2) and Chloride (CL-) are 0.63, 3.35, 10 meq/l respectively that are fortunately fallen within th range of PDS that put Sulfate to be <10.4 meq/l, Magnesium <4.9 meq/l and Chloride to be <16.9 meq/l. According to PDS, Sodium (Na+2) has to be <8.7 meq/l to be used in irrigation at

50

the time, however its content in the effluent is about 10 meq/l that is higher than required. However, it is satisfied in term of Nitrate $ Nitrogen (NO3-N) that equals 0.5 mg/l which is less than required by PDS that requires it to be less than 10 mg/l. It was also satisfied for Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) that is one of the most important factors affecting the ability of reuse which is 5.62 in the treated water and 9 as set in PDS guidelines. The classification of irrigation water is described by the US Regional Salinity Laboratory with reference to SAR as an index for sodium hazard (S) and Ec as an index of salinity hazard. With SAR equals 5.62 and Ec equals 2500 s/cm, treated water of PHG system is classified as C4-S2 class as shown in Appendix (9) that means, C4 indicates that, it is considered as moderate water that suffer from high concentration of total soluble salts which causes many problems for irrigating water and should not be used under ordinary conditions, but could be used occassionally under special conditions. S2 indicates to medium-sodium water that will present an appreciable sodium hazard in fine textured soils of high cations exchange capacity specially under low leaching conditions. An other problem was the ignorance of many factors that are strongly affect the quality of treated wastewater as Boron that may reduce the yield of many common local crops irrigated by that treated water as citrus which is sensetive for more than 1 mg/l of Boron. There are two other factors ignored in the analysis such as CO3 and HCO3. They are two main causes of Calcium and Magnesium precipitation in soil by increasing the rate of Calcium and Magnesium adsorption on the soil particles surfaces. They are also the basis of Eaton equation for Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) that indicate the bicarbonate hazard. As the system controls only the BOD and COD with small fraction for the other elements like Sodium and Nitrate $ Nitrogen, so the problem now is focused on inproving the treatment of BOD and COD. To achieve the objective of the project that to treat wastewater to the level to be reusable, we have to classify the tolerant crops that bear the stress of TDS, chloride and Sodium (Na).

51

SAR value is between 3 and 9, ECw is between 0.7 dS/m and 3 dS/m, TDS is between 450 mg/l and 2000 mg/l and Chloride value is 10 meq/l, and the use of surface irrigation or splinker irrigations is currently applied, the use of PHG system treated water has to be carried out under slight to moderate restrictions. PHG system is used in irrigating Olive trees that is classified in the TDS tolerant group but with moderate tolerance to other factors. Therefore, the use of reclaimed treated wastewater of PHG system had not have a negative effects on the yield of olive trees and and the yield continued with previous range with no reduction. As the effluent of PHG system has achieved a good quality to treat Olive trees, it also will have no bad effects on irrigating corn (maize), alfalfa, Barley and cucumber which are tolerant to salinity, chloride and exchangeable sodium, (Aryes, R.S. and D.W. Westcot. 1994).

4.2.2 Quality of PARC Treatment System Effluent

For PARC system, BOD and COD effluent values were 128 mg/l and 485 mg/l respectively . The measurements were very far from what was set in the Palestinian Draft Standard by the Environmental Quality Authority (EQA) that confirmed the range of 45-60 mg/l for BOD and 150-200 mg/l for COD as shown in Appendix (1), so it is not suitable for irrigating various kinds of plants according to the FAO and WHO standard which also similar to the Israeli standard (IUG, ONEP, CDG, 2002). Therefore, the biological treatment of PARC treatment system is not encouragable in term of BOD in addition to high COD. Furthermore, using of PARC system effluent has affected the yield of the trees that was reduced to 75% in addition to the bad effects on the leafes of the trees that had darky colour (PARC Agri. Engineer, 2004). For PARC system, the important measures related to irrigation water quality have been ignored that complicated the process of detrermining the sources of yield reduction and the dark colour of leafes although the water was used to irrigate olive trees that are considered of the tolerant and moderately tolerant for various factors (Aryes, R.S. and D.W. Westcot. 1994). These marks are related to high content of Sodium or Chloride that have direct effects on leafes when absorbed by plants with more quantities than allowed by

52

standards (Aryes, R.S. and D.W. Westcot. 1994). For Sodium (Na), Sodium toxicity is not as easily diagnosed as chloride toxicity, but similar cases have been recorded in previous studies of PARC that confirmed these were results of relatively high sodium concentrations in the water (high Na or SAR). Typical toxicity symptoms are leaf burn, scorch and dead tissue along the outside edges of leaves in contrast to symptoms of chloride toxicity, which normally occur initially at the extreme leaf, tip (Aryes, R.S. and D.W. Westcot. 1994). An extended period of time (many days or weeks) is normally required before accumulation reaches toxic concentrations. Symptoms appear first on the older leaves, starting at the outer edges and, as the severity increases, move progressively inward between the veins toward the leaf centre. Sensitive crops include deciduous fruits, nuts, citrus, avocados and beans, but there are many others. For tree crops as Olive, sodium in the leaf tissue in excess of 0.25 to 0.50 percent (dry weight basis) is often associated with sodium toxicity (Aryes, R.S. and D.W. Westcot. 1994). Sodium toxicity is often modified or reduced if sufficient calcium is available in the soil. Whether indicated sodium toxicity is a simple one or is more complicated involving possible calcium deficiency or other interaction is presently being researched. Preliminary results indicate that for at least a few annual crops, calcium deficiency rather than sodium toxicity may be occurring. If confirmed, these crops should respond to calcium fertilization using material such as gypsum or calcium nitrate (Aryes, R.S. and D.W. Westcot. 1994). Another most common toxicity is from chloride in the irrigation water. Chloride is not adsorbed or held back by soils, therefore it moves readily with the soil-water, is taken up by the crop, moves in the transpiration stream, and accumulates in the leaves. If the chloride concentration in the leaves exceeds the tolerance of the crop, injury symptoms develop such as leaf burn or drying of leaf tissue (Aryes, R.S. and D.W. Westcot. 1994). Normally, plant injury occurs first at the leaf tips (which is common for chloride toxicity), and progresses from the tip back along the edges as severity increases. Excessive necrosis (dead tissue) is often accompanied by early leaf drop or defoliation. With sensitive crops, these symptoms occur when leaves accumulate

53

from 0.3 to 1.0 percent chloride on a dry weight basis, but sensitivity varies among these crops. Many tree crops, for example, begin to show injury above 0.3 percent chloride (dry weight), (Aryes, R.S. and D.W. Westcot. 1994). The yield reduction and dark leafes indicate that the treated water is suffering from high values of SAR and chloride specially when using treated water without any restrictions. If this reason exist, that indicates also the existence of pesticises or strong detergent in the influent that raised the value of COD in many samples.

4.3 Reasons of Technical Defficiency of Both Sytems All data in the previous tables show that the system has produced satisfied effluent quality for most factors except for BOD and COD, Chloride and Sodium content. The problem of BOD and COD has resulted from a technical problems in the design of the system that ignored many factors as :

4.3.1 Flow quantity There was no consideration for flow quantity. They used the same system for similar localities that involves from five to seven families which have different number of beneficiaries in each locality that strongly affected the flow quantity which directly affecting the hydraulic retention time in the tanks and the velocity of the wastewater in the tanks.

4.3.2 Mass of filter The mass of filter in the tanks of PARC system was randomly selected from common aggregate that is available in the local market without considering the specific surface of filter medium that should be from 80 m2/m3 to 120 m2/m3. Coal was one of the filter media used in the trickling filter in both systems at the time that activated carbon is the real media that should be put into the tank .

4.3.3 Type of soil The same system was implemented in many areas of Gaza strip with different soil structures (Sandy and clayey farms) in which it differs of their tolerance to the quantity of sodium and magnesium they receive from treated wastewater. For

54

example, clay has active charged, and large surface area that atract their ions to be adsorbed which reduce the permeability.

4.3.4 Type of crops. Treated water is used for many types of crops, citrus, olives, there was ignorance to the tolerance of various irrigated crops that negatively affected their growth. The weak awareness of farmers and operators regarding the quality of irrigation water was the main reason of project defeciency. The users only know that, olive trees are tolerant to dissolved solids without any intention to any other factors as cations and anions or Boron.

4.3.5 Irrigation Management Irrigation applications were used when the storage tank is being full without considering the need of crop, number of irrigation times, tool of irrigation and leaching requirement.

4-4 The system impact on the environment For smell, they were satisfied systems as they are well covered that also prevented the existence of insects on the surrounding area. The use of gray water without any mixing of black water that come from toilet had given a good quality of water without containing of viruses or helimenths that reduced the danger on the human from touching the body or plants. The problem was focused in sodium contents which has toxic effects on soil as they reduce the permeability of soil by increasing the alkalinity of the soil which is fragmenting soil particles and form expansive clay soil as a result of ionic exchange. Excessive sodium in irrigation water also promotes soil dispersion and structural breakdown but only if sodium exceeds calcium by more than a ratio of about 3:1. In the PHG system effluent, results show that Sodium to Calcium ratio is 3.03 : 1, such a relatively high sodium content (>3:1) often results in a severe water infiltration problem due to soil dispersion and plugging and sealing of the surface pores, in much the same way as does the very low salinity water. This is due to lack of sufficient calcium to counter the dispersing effects of the sodium. Excessive

55

sodium in the effluent and soil that exceeds the required by PDS may also make it extremely difficult to supply enough water to meet the crop water demand. Other related problems such as soil crusting, poor seedling emergence, lack of aeration, plant and root diseases, weed and mosquito control problems caused by the low rate of infiltration may further complicate crop management. An other soil problem that may be noticed in the future is the reduction of infiltration as SAR and ECe of applied water equal 5.62 and 2.5 ds/m respectively, and the same for SAR and ECe values in the soil measures for different depths. This kind of water is existing in the area of no infiltration problem but is near of the area of slight to moderate reduction in rate of infiltration by increasing the SAR value as shown in Appendix (4,) . In the past, several procedures have been used to predict a potential infiltration problem. The Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) method (Aryes, R.S. and D.W. Westcot. 1994) was widely used at one time. Recently, the most commonly used method to evaluate the infiltration problem has been and probably still is the Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) as shown in Appendix (5), (Aryes, R.S. and D.W. Westcot. 1994). Continued use of water having a high SAR leads to a breakdown in the physical structure of the soil. Sodium is adsorbed and becomes attached to soil particles. The soil then becomes hard and compact when dry and increasingly impervious to water penetration. Fine textured soils, especially those high in clay, are most subject to this action. Continuing application by this treated water will affect the properties of soil and crop yield very soon as SAR , Na are increased in the soil. 4-5 Operation and Maintenance The systems are easily operated because of considering the most essential factor that is the hydraulic head of wastewater flow. It depends on the method of up flow path system by using galvanzed steel transporting pipes with regular holes in transporting wastewater in up flow path. In term of maintenance, both systems consist of trickling filter unit that is a plastic

56

tank full of filter media " Gravel, Sand and Coal" put on ironic high support which sophisticate the removal of filter when need to clean up after clogging. The only clean up method would be the removal of the whole tank that needs to a hydraulic machine to lift it or to be pushed randomely. For transporting pipes into the tanks of PARC system, clogging begins after six months of receiving soil from filter media erosion in addition to the corrosion of ionic pipes from intensive contact with saline water. This problem is difficult to be recovered otherwise removing all parts of anaerobic filter when replacing the transporting pipes. Another problem is the submersible pump which needs to be maintained regularly to clean it from precipitated salts and also, it is to be replaced after two years of utilization.

4-6 Mathematical Model The mathematical model has been developed based on international model that was first implemented by a German research center "Bremen Overseas Research and Development Association" (BORDA) in 1998. This center has implemented many trials in India and Indonesia which consider the properties of climate, wastewater quality and consumption rate in each country. The following are the equations for the design of decentralised tratment units: a- Wastewater Production per Capita. The following calculations are based on the number of consumers, BOD5 per user, water consumption per user and COD/BOD5 ratio.

57

Table (4-5): Calculations of wastewater production per capita. A B C D E F G

Wastewater Production Per Capita

User (No) BOD5 per user Given g/day Water consumption per user 1 2 3 4 30-65 50-150 Given No Given Litre/day Given mg/l/ mg/l 1.8 Calculated M3/day Calculated Mg/l Approximate d Mg/l COD/BOD5 Daily flow of wastewater BOD5 concentration COD concentration

Input

1- Number of Users 2- BOD5 per user g/day 3- Water consumption per user Litre/day

Output

- Daily wastewater flow (M3/day). - COD concentration mg/l. - BOD concentration mg/l.

Figure (4.6): Flowchart of wastewater production per capita .

Daily flow of wastewater = (User (No)* Water consumption per user Litre/day )/1000 BOD5 concentration = User (No)* BOD5 per user Mg/l / Daily flow of wastewater M3/day COD concentration = COD/BOD5* BOD5 concentration Mg/l

58

b- Septic Tank The size of the septic tank is standarised in most countries. Local septic tanks in Gaza are cesspits with cylindrical shape with the same volume for most cases. However, In the developed systems around the world, they are designed according to many basic factors as volume, number of peak hours of flow and pollution load. Other chosen factors are the desludging interval and Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) because the designer decides the digester volume to store the accumulating sludge and the liquid volume. COD removal rates in settlers and the septic tanks depend to a great extent on the amount of settleable solids, their COD content.

- Daily wastewater flow (M3/day). Input - Time of moste wastewater flow ( hour)

Output

Maximum flow at peak hours (m3 / d). Input - COD inflow mg/l. - BOD 5 inflow mg/l. - HRT inside tank. (h). - SS/COD - Desludging interval (months)

- COD removal rate (%). - BOD outflow mg/l.. - Dimension of septic tank.

Output

Figure ( 4.7): Flowchart of septic tank design .

59

Table (4-6): Calculations of septic tank design. A B C D E F G H I J

General Calculation Sheet for Septic Tank, Input and Treatment Data
Daily wastewater flow Time most wastewater flow Given M3/day 1 2 COD/BOD5 12-24 0.35-0.45 domestic Given H Calcul. M3/h Given Mg/l Given Mg/l Chosen H Given Mg/l / Mg/l Calcul. % Calcul. Mg/l Calcul. Mg/l of Max flow at hours peak COD inflow BOD5 inflow HRT inside tank Settleable SS/COD ratio COD removal rate COD outflow BOD5 outflow

Dimensions of Septic Tank

Desludging interval Inner width of tank septic Minimum water depth outlet point Chosen months 3 4 Sludge l/g BOD rem. Chosen m Chosen m Requir. m Chosen m Requir m Chosen m Requir M3 Check M3 at Inner length of first chamber Length of second chamber Volume including sludge Actual volume septic tank of

60

Calculations of septic tank dimensions : A1 , B1, D1, E1 and G1 are to be given according to the input. C1=A1/B1 H1=(G1*Factor )/0.6 Factor is from Figure (4.8).

COD removal in settlers

0.6 0.5 0.4 Factor 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Settling time in hours

Figure ( 4.8): COD removal in settlers. I1=(1-H1)*D1 J2=Factor from Figure (4.9).
Simplified curve of ratio of effeciency of BOD removal to COD removal
1.14 1.12 1.1 1.08 1.06 1.04 1.02 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Factor (f)

COD rem.effeciency in %

Figure (4.9): Simplified curve of ratio of effeciency of BOD removal to COD removal.

61

J1=(1-H1*J2)*E5 E2=D1/E1 D3=2/3 * (H3/(B3*C3)) F3=D3/2 For X=((H4*(E1-J1)*A3*30*A1)/1000)+C1*F1, and Y=(2*A1*F1)/24 H3=1.1*Y if (X<Y) H3=1.1*x if (X>Y) The formula takes care that sluge volume is less than half of the total volume. H4=(0.005*Factor from Figure (4.10). I3=(E3+G3)*C3*B3

Reduction of sludge volume during storage

100% 80% Sludge volume 60% 40% 20% 0% 0 20 40 60 Months 80 100 120

Figure (4.10): Rduction of sludge volume during storage.

62

Figure(4.11): Longitudinal and cross section of Septic Tank from software program results. c- Baffled Septic Tank Volume, number of peak hours of flow and pollution load are the basic entries. Starting from these data, the entering parameters for designing a baffled septic tank is the up-flow velocity. However, the performance of the baffled septic tank depends as well as on the retention time which cannt be reduced by simply changing the the depth of the up flow chambers, because up flow velocity will then increase. To achieve the desired effluent quality, it is better to add another chamber because treatment effeciency increase with the number of chambers. The unit cross sections are as shown in Figure (4.13) and (4.14).

Input

- Daily wastewater flow (M3/day). - Time of moste wastewater flow

Output

Maximum flow at peak hours (m3 / d). Input - COD inflow mg/l. - BOD 5 inflow mg/l. - HRT inside tank. (h). - SS/COD - Desludging interval (months). - Lowest digester

- COD out of plant mg/l. - BOD out of plant. - Dimensions of settler and baffled septic tank.

Output

Figure (4.12) : Flowchart of baffled septic tank design.

63

Figure (4.13) : Longitudinal section of Baffled Septic Tank from software program results. Figure (4.13) shows the cross section of baffled septic tank and the path of wastewater in the system.

Figure ( 4.14) : Cross section of Settler from software program results.

Figure (4.14) shows the cross section of the settlers and the three holes for wastewater path to the tanks.

64

Table (4-7) : Calculations of baffled septic tank design A B C D E F G H I J K

General Calculation Sheet for Baffled Septic Tank with Integrated Settler
Daily wastewater flow Time most wastewate r flow Avg. M3/day 1 2 Given H Max. M3/h Given Mg/l Given Mg/l Calcul. Ratio Given Mg/l/ Mg/l 0.35-0.45 Given 0C Chosen Months Chosen H 1.5 Calcul % of Max flow at peak COD inflow BOD5 inflow COD/BO D ratio Settleable SS/COD ratio Lowest digester temp Desludging interval HRT in settler (HRT =0 when no settler) COD removal rate in settler

hours

Treatment Data
BOD5 removal rate in settler Calcul. % COD Mg/l BOD5 Mg/l Mg/l / Mg/l Inflow reactor into baffled COD/BOD5 ratio settler Calculated according to graphs foverload 3 f-strength f-Temp. f-chamb. f-HRT Applied after Factors to calculate BOD removal rate of baffled reactor Theoritical rate factors Calcul. Mg/l removal by BOD out calculated

65

Table (4-7) : Calculations of baffled septic tank design (Cont). Dimension of Settler Baffled Septic Tank

Total BOD5 removal rate

Total COD removal rate

COD out

Inner measurements

masonry choosen

Sludge accum. rate

Length of settler

Length of settler

Max upflow velocity

Number chambers

of

upflow

Depth at outlet

according to required volume Calcul. Mg/l Width m Depth m

Calcul. % 5 6

Calcul. %

Calcul. l/g COD

Calcul. m

Chosen m

Chosen m/h

Chosen No.

Chosen m

1.4 $ 2 m/h

66

Table (4-7) : Calculations of baffled septic tank design (Cont). Dimension of Baffled Septic Tank Length of chambers Area of Width of chambers shouldn t half depth exceed single upflow chambe r Calcul. m Chosen m Calcul. M2 Calcul m Chosen m Calcul l/g COD 7 Chosen m Actual upflow velocity Width of Actual downflo w shaft volume of baffled reactor Calcul M3 Calcul h Calcul M3/d HRT baffled tank Status in Organic Load (BOD5)

67

Calculations of baffled septic tank dimensions: C1=A1/B1 F1= D1/E1 K1= (G1/0.6)/ (f7 from Figure(4.8) A3= K1*A4 A4= From Figure(4.9). B3= D1*(1-K1) C3= E1*(1-A3) D3= B3/C3 E3= f1 from Figure ( 4.15).
BOD rem.according to HRT
1.2 1

Factor (f1)

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

HRT in hours

Figure ( 4.15) : BOD removal relative to HRT in baffled septic tank.

68

F3= f2 from Figure ( 4.16). Effect of organic overloading on BOD rem.

1.2 1

Factor (f2)

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Kg BOD/m3*d Figure ( 4.16) : BOD removal relative to HRT in baffled septic tank. G3= f3 from Figure(4.17). BOD rem. factor according to the strength
1.4 1.2

factor (f3)

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Inflow BOD5 mg/l Figure(4.17): BOD removal in baffled septic tanks related to wastewater strength.

69

H3= f4 from Figure(4.18). BOD rem. factor according to number of chambers

1.4 1.2 1 factoe (f4) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number of up-flow chambers

Figure(4.18): BOD Influence of number of upflow chambers on BOD removal rate.

I3= f5 from Figure(4.19).

BOD rem. in baffled reactors relative to temperature

1.2 1

factor (f5)

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Temperature in o C
Figure(4.19): Influence of temperature on BOD removal rates in baffled septic tanks.

J3= E3*F3*G3*H3*I3 K3= C3*(1-J3)

70

K4= From Figure(4.9). A5= 1-(K3/E1) B5= A5/K4 C5= (1-B5)*D1 F5= 0.005* (f6 from Figure(4.10)) For X = (F5*(E1-C2)*(30*I1*A1)/1000)+ J1*C1 , and Y = 2*J1*C1 G5=Y if X < Y, G5= X if X > Y A7= 0.5*K5 C7= C1/I5 D7= C7/A7 F7= C1/(B7*E7) G7= Chosen. H7= (G7+B7)*K5*J5*E7 I7= H7/((A1/24)*1.05)

71

d- Anaerobic Filter (AF) with integrated Septic Tank (ST)

Volume of flow and pollution load are the basic entries. Starting from that data, the entrance parameters for the anaerobic filter is the hydraulic retention time. The performance of anaerobic filter is based on the relation between hydraulic retention time and percent of COD removal and also based on the strength of wastewater and specific filter surface. The voids space of filter medium influences the digester volume which is required to provide sufficient hydraulic retention time. Gravel has approximately 35% void space while special plastic form pieces may have over 90 %. When filter height increases with total water depth, consequently, the impact of increased depth on HRT is less with gravel than with plastic form pieces. When filter height shall remain the same, the distance from filter bottom to digester floor must be increased. The longitudinal section of anaerobic filter and septic tank are shown in Figure (4.20).

Fig (4.20) : Longitudinal section of Anaerobic Filter from software program results.

72

Input

- Daily wastewater flow (M3/day). - Time of moste wastewater flow

Output

Maximum flow at peak hours (m3 / d). Input

- COD out of settler mg/l. - BOD out of settler. - COD/BOD Input

Output

- COD inflow mg/l. - BOD 5 inflow mg/l. - HRT inside tank. (h). - SS/COD - Desludging interval (months). - Lowest digester

- Specific surface of filter media m2/m3 - Voids in filter mass (%). - HRT inside AF reactor.

Output

- COD out of AF. - BOD out of AF. - Dimension of AF.

Figure ( 4.21 ) : Flowchart of anaerobic filter(AF) design.

73

Table (4-8) : Calculations of anaerobic filter design. A B C D E F G H I J K L

General Calculation Sheet for Anaerobic Filter (AF) with integrated Septic Tank (ST)
Daily wastewater flow Time most wastewater flow of Max flow peak hours at COD inflow BOD5 inflow Settleable SS/COD ratio Lowest digester temp HRT in septic tank Desludging interval COD removal rate septic tank Given M3/day 1 2 Given H Max. M3/h Given Mg/l Given Mg/l Given Mg/l / Mg/l Given 0C Chosen H Chosen Months Calcul % in BOD5 removal rate septic tank Calcul % Calcul Ratio in BOD/COD remov. factor

Treatment Data
COD inflow AF in BOD5 inflow into AF Specific surface of filter Voids in filter mass HRT inside AF reactor Factors to calculate COD removal rate of anaerobic filter COD removal rate (AF) only Given % Chosen H Calculated according to graphs f-Temp fstrength 3 fsurface f-HRT Calcul % Calcul Mg/l Calcul % COD outflow of AF COD rem rate of total system

media Calcul Mg/l Calcul Mg/l Given m2/m3

74

Table (4-8) : Calculations of anaerobic filter design (Cont.).

4

Dimensions of Septic Tank

BOD/COD rem. rate BOD5 rem. Rate total system 5 6 Calcul Ratio Calcul % Calcul Mg/l of BOD5 outflow of AF Inner width septic tank Chosen m of Minimum water depth at Inner length of first chamber Length chamber of second Sludge accum. Volume incl. sludge Actual volume of septic tank

inlet point Chosen m Calcul m Chosen m Calcul m Chosen M Calcul l/kg BOD Required m3 Calcul m3

Dimension of Anaerobic Filter

Volume of filter tanks Depth of Length of tank each Number of filter Width of Space below perforated slabs Calcul Chosen Calcul Chosen Required Chosen Calcul Filter height (Top 40 cm below water level)

filter tanks

filter tanks

tanks

m3 7

No.

75

Calculations of Anaerobic Filter (AF) dimensions: C1=A1/B1 J1=F1*(Factor (f7 from Figure (4.8)) L1= Factor from Figure (4.9). K1=J1*L1 D2=D1/E1 A3=(1-J1)*D1 B3=(1-K1)*E1 C3 and D3 are to be given. E3 is chosen F3=Factor from Figure ( 4.22).

Anaerobic reactors, CODrem relative to temperature

1.1 1 0.9 factor (f2) 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 10 15 20 25 30 35 Temperature in oC

Figure ( 4.22 ) : COD removal relative to temperature in anaerobic filter.

76

G3= Factor from Figure ( 4.23 ).

Anaerobic filter, CODrem in relation to wastewater strength

1.1 1.05 factor (f3) 1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 CODin mg/l

Figure ( 4.23 ) : COD removal relative to wastewater strength in anaerobic filter.

H3= Factor from Figure ( 4.24 ).

Anaerobic filter, CODrem in relation to specific filter surface

1.1 1.05 Factor (f4) 1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0 50 100 150 200 250 Specific filter surface in m2/m3

Figure ( 4.24 ) : COD removal relative to filter surface in anaerobic filter.

77

I3= Factor from Figure ( 4.25 ). Anaerobic filter, CODrem in relation to HRT, CODin 1500 mg/l
80% 75% 70% COD rem 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 0 20 40 HRT in hours 60 80 100

Figure ( 4.25 ) : COD removal relative to HRT in anaerobic filter.

D7 is chosen. For X=(F3*G3*H3*I3)*(1+(D7*0-04)), Y=0.98 J3=X if X<Y J3=Y if X>Y K3=(1-J3)*A3 L3=1-(D1/K3) A5= Factor from Figure ( 4.9) B5=A5*L3 C5=(1-B5)*E1 J5=0.005*( Factor from Figure ( 4.10 )) For X=(J5*(E1-B3)*I1*30*A1/1000)+H1*C1, Y=2*H1*C1 K5=1.15*Y for X<Y K5=1.15*X for X>Y F5=2*K5/(3*D5*E5) H5= 0.5*F5 L5=D5*E5*G5 A7=A1*E3/24 B7 is chosen C7=B7 D7 is chosen
78

F7 is chosen G7=B7-F7-0.4-0.05 E7=A7/(D7*((B7*0.25)+(C7*(B7-G7*(1-D3))))

4.6.1 Calibration of the system:

To check the validity of the design equations, an application for local practical trial has to be calculated by the calculation sheet to compare both results and to find out the degree of accuracy. The practical readings of both PARC and PHG systems were entered to the mathematical simulation program according to their dimensions and properties, and the theoritical results were very near to the practical results with no difference rate &5% . Table (4-9): Theoritical and practical results of PARC and PHG systems. Practical Removal Rate Theo. Removal Rate Difference Difference BOD Removal Rate

BOD COD BOD COD COD No of Removal Removal Removal Removal Removal Sample Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate PARC System Measures S6 S7 S8 S10 S11 S12 S13 81% 80% 74% 75% 75% 77% 83% 72% 76% 67% 67% 68% 73% 73% 81% 83% 78% 80% 77% 82% 81% 73% 75% 71% 72% 70% 74% 73%
1% -1% 4% 5% 2% 1% 0%

0% 3% 4% 5% 2% 5% -2%

PHG System Measures S14 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 79% 65% 58% 60% 61% 63% 70% 62% 57% 59% 59% 60% 83% 69% 62% 62% 65% 67% 74% 63% 57% 57% 60% 62%
4% 1% 0% -2% 1% 2% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4%

79

S10 S12 S13 S14 S15

69% 66% 66% 69% 67%

65% 61% 64% 66% 60%

71% 64% 70% 72% 65%

64% 59% 64% 66% 60%

-1% -2% 0% 0% 0%

2% -2% 4% 3% -2%

The following data are the properties of PARC system as an example of applications. Sample 13 was selected , the data of such sample that was taken in June 2002 are as following : BOD influent = 400 mg/l. BOD effluent = 70 mg/l. COD influent = 978 mg/l. COD effluent = 261 mg/l. Daily wastewater flow = 3.0 m3/d. Time of most wastewater flow = 12 hour. SS/COD = we take it as 0.435 (For domestic wastewater ). Lowest digester tempature = 20oC. HRT in septic tank = 12 hour. Desludging interval = 36 months. Specific surface of filter medium = we take it as 120 m2/m3. Voids n filter mass = we take it as 40 %. HRT inside anaerobic filter = 24 hours. Number of filter tanks = 3 (including Trickling filter). When entering the previous data to the software programe the following results will be conducted : COD removal rate in the practical system is 73% that is equal to the result of mathematical model . In term of BOD removal rate, the practical removal rate was 2% more than the theoritical one. So, the mathematical model gives accurate and acceptable measures that are very near to practical measures with no difference rate &5% .

80

Figure (4.26): The Calculation sheet of BOD and COD influent for PARC system.

Fig(4.27): The Calculation sheet of BOD and COD effluent for PARC system.

81

Fig(4.28): The Calculation sheet of practical PARC system dimensions .

The mathematical model that was a result of many international trials is identical to the conditions of Palestine and this was approved by the calibration applications of both systems in Gaza which shows that the difference rate is plus or minus 5% and this is acceptable rate. For the international unit, the results were taken from an experimental constructed unit in Thailand. The experiment was carried out under controlled conditions as temperature, HRT, flow and quantity of suspended solids. The practical readings of the International system were entered to the mathematical simulation program according to its dimensions and properties, and the theoritical results were very near to the practical results with no difference more than &5% . The practical and theoritical measurements of the unit are as following:

82

Table (4-10): Theoritical and practical removal rate for international unit . Organic SS/COD Practical Theo.BOD Difference Practical Theo.COD Difference loading BOD removal COD removal rate per removal rate removal rate user g/d rate rate
56.7 43 52.5 41 51.3 41.2 56.9 60 43.2 0.629 0.3165 0.1268 0.4368 0.26 0.303 0.1588 0.42 0.2215 91% 88% 82% 90% 90% 86% 90% 79% 87% 90% 85% 85% 87% 86% 84% 86% 80% 84% -1% -3% 3% -3% -4% -2% -4% 2% -3% 87% 86% 86% 86% 86% 81% 87% 73% 86% 88% 83% 83% 85% 84% 81% 84% 74% 81% 1% -3% -3% -1% -2% 0% -3% 1% -5%

The following data are the properties of one sample of the international system as an example of applications. The data of such sample that was taken in April 2003 are as following : No of users : 104. BOD per user : 60 g/day. Water consumption per user : 240 l/d. Daily wastewater flow : 24.96 m3/d. COD/BOD : 2.56 . BOD inf : 250 mg/l. BOD eff. : 54 mg/l. COD inf : 640 mg/l. COD eff. : 175 mg/l. After entering the previous data and running the programe, the following results were conducted: BOD eff. : 51 mg/l. COD eff. : 166 mg/l. The theoritical results were very near to the results from the on site unit with no difference more than &5% .

83

Figure (4.29): The calculation sheet of BOD and COD influent for international system.

Figure (4.30): The calculation sheet of BOD and COD effluent for international system.

84

Figure (4.31): The calculation sheet of international system dimensions.

The mathematical model is also identical to international results which show that the difference rate is &5% and this is acceptable rate.

85

Proper design for both systems: Both systems are to be designed to discharge effluent with acceptable properties to the Palestinian standards that require BOD to be 45 mg/l to 60 mg/l to be used in various irrigation applications. The recent PHG readings for influent are as follows: BOD influent = 284 mg/l. COD influent = 477 mg/l. SS/COD = 0.316 Using the mathematical model will give out put as following:

Figure(4.32): The calculation sheet of BOD and COD influnt for proper PHG system.

86

Figure (4.33): The calculation sheet of BOD and COD effluent for proper PHG system.

Figure (4.34): The calculation sheet of PHG system dimensions.

87

The new dimensions of the system are shown in Figure (4.34) shows the need to more baffled septic tanks to treat wastewater up to the PDS requirements.

Figure (4.35): The details for proper PHG system.

Figure(4.35) shows the details of the new systems that save effective HRT that keep a wet system without any drying of its parts. The designed system consideres the factors that highly affectes the effeciency of the system. The new system needs less area of land as it covers 3.3 m2 at the time the old system need for land was 6m2 in addition to a trickling filter. The reason of the increasing effeciency with less land that the new sytem has saved more surface area for the wastewater contact with bacteria and ideal HRT for the wastewater to complete stabilisation process.

88

In term of PARC system, the following are the input data of the system: BOD influent = 513 mg/l. COD influent = 1136 mg/l. SS/COD = 0.421 Using the mathematical model will give out put as following:

Figure (4.36): The calculation sheet of BOD and COD influnt for proper PARC system.

89

Figure (4.37): The calculation sheet of BOD and COD effluent for proper PARC system.

Figure (4.38): The calculation sheet of PARC system dimensions. The new dimensions of the system are shown in Figure (4.38) which explains the need to more anaerobic filter tanks to treat wastewater up to the PDS requirements.

90

Figure (4.39): The cross section for proper PARC system septic tank.

Figure (4.40): The cross section for proper PARC system baffled septic tank. The total area required for the new system is 5.8 m2 at the time, the existing system consumes 6.65m2. The new system gives more chance for more time for wastewater to be in intensive contact with bacteria that exist on a large surface areas of filter.

91

In both cases, the problem of the system was the design and the short path of wastewater on active sludge or to be in contact enough time with suspended bacteria on the filter mass.

4.7 System Improvement By Solar Energy:

To improve the effeciency of the system around the year, the temperature of wastewater has to be raised to activate anaerobic bacteria to proceed the organic matter degredation. I carried out an experiment carried by using a copper pipe with a length 2m put in water container with 2m length, 0.1m width and 6.25cm height containing 12.5 liter with temperature of inflow cold water Tci (15Co) and inflow hot water from solar system with tempertaure Thi (70 Co) inflowed through the pipe until the temperature of outflow water in the container reached Tco 30Co in which heat is transfered as shown in Figure (4.41). The time consumed was 10 minutes, so the heating rate was 1.25 liter/minute. The hot water pipe is from copper with a diameter 20 mm. The volume of the pipe is 0.628 liter which indicates the the heating rate is the double pipe volume of water per minute. This method has been carried out with different temperatures. The rate of heating is 0.0214 Thi Co/minute. The volume of pipes = (Peak flow litre/hour)*( H / Thi*0.0214) /120 -----------(4-1). H = Tco - Tci By using the equations, we can conclude the required temperature for wastewater by knowing the temperature of inflow hot water or vice versa. By using copper pipes, we can estimate the diamter and number of pipes needed to heat wastewater to a specific temperature in a specific time.

Figure (4.41): Energy balance in the tank heating system.

92

4.7.1 Case Study: The case study for solar energy utilization will be the PHG system. To raise the temperature of wastewater a 5Co to reach 25Co by copper pipes carrying hot water with temperature Thi equals 70Co, it needs (5/70)/0.0214 that equals 3.33 minutes to heat a volume of water equals double the hot water pipes volume. The peak wastewater loading rate is 330 litre/hour, so, from equation (4-1), in one hour, (60/3.3)*(2*volume of pipes) will equal 330 litre. The volume of pipes = 9.075 litre = 0.009075 m3. For a pipe with diameter (D) equals 2.0 cm, we need a length (L) = 0.009075 m3 /(!*D*L). L = 0.009075 / (3.14*0.02*0.02) = 7.22 m. The system should involve a heating pipe system as shown in Figure ( 4.42).

Figure (4.42): Plan of PHG septic tank involving solar heating system.

93

CHAPTER FIVE Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1

Conclusions

In this study, two types of decentralised wastewater treatment plants were studied as practical cases implemented in Gaza strip. Both systems have included septic tanks, baffled septic tanks and anaerobic filter tanks. Therefore, these two systems failed to comply with international and local standards of treated wastewater reuse in irrigation.

The implementing agencies have ignored many significant factors as BOD, COD, Boron and heavy metals that sophisticated the evaluation process despite of the importance of such factors in measuring the quality and suitability of treated wastewater to be used in irrigation and to verify the compliance of their objectives.

Improper designs of both systems had negatively affected the treatment effeciency. The design of both systems did not consider the flow quantity, failed to consider HRT, mass of used filters, type of irrigated soil and the capacity of irrigated crops to tolerate such water.

A mathematical model has been developed to design decentralised units. The model has been checked for local units and gave very good results and improved the removal effeciency up to 90% for both BOD and COD..

To improve the effeciency of treated wastewater treatement in winter, a solar system was used to raise the temperature of the wastewater to maintain high removal effeciency in winter as well as summer.

94

5.2

Recommendations

The local decentralised wastewater treatment plants should be further investigated in term of effeciency to treat different types of wastewater.

Further study and consideration on the reuse of treated wastewater should be invesigated .

Decentralised wastewater treatment systems should be widely adapted by non governmental organisations as well as governmental organisations. Due to the limited demand for improved wastewater management, the main challenge for planners and practitioners is to create improved systems, focusing not only on health but also on the improvements in the local environment and in household finances that may be achieved through improving wastewater management. Advocacy at the political level is required and, at the community level, awareness campaigns to promote the benefits of improved wastewater management, involving extensive social communication and mobilization, are necessary. Official design standards may not be framed in a way that supports the development of decentralized systems. Therefore, there is a need to develop appropriate standards to be utilized for the design and construction of decentralized wastewater systems, and also to promote realistic and acceptable standards for treatment where wastewater is reused. The policy needs to be based upon practical experiences and realistic objectives, and should be developed in close collaboration with organizations involved with those communities that the decentralized wastewater systems are designed to serve.

95

Bibliography
Anant, W. 2003. Upgrading Coventional Septic Tanks By Integrating In-Tank Baffles. Thesis of Master Degree, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT). Aryes, R.S. and D.W. Westcot. 1994. Water Quality for Agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome. Bouma, J. 1975. Unsaturated flow during soil treatment of septic tank effluent. Journal of Environmental Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, 101:967983 Curry, D. 1998. National Inventory of Key Activities Supporting the Implementation of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment. Fact Sheet No. 3-2. Research conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management. Available from Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA. Crites, R. and Tchobanoglous, C. 1998. Small and Decentralized Waste- water Management Systems, Mcgraw-Hill, Inc., New York D. R. Gajurel, O. Benn, Z. Li, J. Behrendt and R. Otterpohl, (Pre-treatment of domestic wastewater with pre-composting tanks). Hinson, T.H., Hoover M.T., and R.O. Evans. 1994. Sand-lined Trench Septic System Performance on Wet, Clayey Soils. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems, pp.245- 255. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.

IUG, ONEP&CDG, 2002, Policy Guidelines for Sustainable Wastewater Management in Gaza strip, Islamic University, ONEP, CDG, Gaza. Lens, P., Zeeman, G.& Lettinga, G. (2001) Decentralized sanitation and Reuse: Concepts, systems and implementation. WIA publishing, UK. Mason, D.G. 1977. A Unique Biological Treatment System for Small Plants. Paper presented at the 50th Water Pollution. MEnA, 2002. Desk Study, Palestinian Environmental Strategy. Palestinian National Authority, Ministry of Environmental Affairs. Otis, R.J. 1978. An Alternative Public Wastewater Facility for a Small Rural Community. Small Scale Waste Management Project. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.

96

 Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. 2002. %Regional Reports Series (No. 4), Gaza Strip.! . Polprasert, C. 1996 . Organic Waste Recycling, 2nd edition John Wiley and Sons, London. Rogella, F., J. Sibony, G. Boisseau, and M. Benhomme. 1988. Fixed Biomass to Upgrade Activated Sludge. Paper presented at 61st Annual Water Pollution Control Federation Conference, Philadelphia, PA. Robertson, W.D., and Harman J. 1999. Phosphate plume persistence at two decommissioned septic system sites. Ground Water 37:228-236. Robertson, W.D., Cherry J.A., and E.A. Sudicky. 1989. Ground water contamination at two small septic systems on sand aquifers. Ground Water 29:82-92. Robertson, W.D., Schiff S.L., and Ptacek C.J.. 1998. Review of phosphate mobility and persistence in 10 septic system plumes. Ground Water 36: 100-110. Rusten, B., Tetreault M.J., and Kreissl J.F.. 1987. Assessment of Phased Isolation Ditch Technologies for Nitrogen Control. In Proceedings of the Seventh European Sewage and Refuse Symposium, pp. 279-291, Munich, Germany. Siegrist, R.L., Anderson D.L., and Hargett D.L.. 1986. Large Soil Absorption Systems for Wastewaters from Multiple-Home Developments. EPA/600/S2-86/023. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, Small Scale Wastewater Treatment Plant Project Report, July 1999. Sasse, L. 1998 . Decentralized Wastewater Treatment in Developing Countries (DEWATS), BORDA publication. Tomson, M., C. Curran, J.M. King, H. Wangg, J. Dauchy, V. Gordy, and B.A. Ward. 1984. Characterization of Soil Disposal System Leachates. EPA/600/2-84/101. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. US. EPA. 1980. Design manual: Onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems. Office of water program Operations, Washington DC. WHO 1996, Water supply and sanitation sector monitoring. Report 1996: %Sector status as of 31 December 1994!. In: WHO/EOS/96.15. Geneva, Switzerland.

97

 Winnerberger, J.H.T.1974. Manual of grey water treatment practice. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. Michigan, U.S.A. Yates, M.V., and Yates S.R.. 1988. Modeling microbial fate in the subsurface environment. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science, CCECAU 17(4):307-344.

Useful Web Pages

http://www.wieserconcrete.com. http://www.septic-info-com. http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/wot/appa.html. http://www.bsi.vt.edu/biol_4684/BST/BST.html. http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/osreg1.doc.

98

Appendices

99

Appendix 1 : Palestinian Draft Standard (PDS) for water reuse.

Quality Parameters mg/l except otherwise indicated

BOD COD DO TDS TSS PH Color (PCU) FOG Phenol MBAS NO3-N NH4-N O.Kj-N PO4-P CL SO4 Na

Animals Feed

Parks, playgrounds

Seeds as corn

Aquifer Recharge

To the see 500m inside

60 200 >1 60 6-9 Free 10 1 25 25 5 10 5 1000 -

Forests not used as parks

Productive trees

60 200 >0.5 1500 50 6-9 Free 5 0.002 15 50 50 30 500 500 200

45 150 >0.5 1500 40 6-9 Free 5 0.002 15 50 50 30 500 500 200

40 150 >0.5 1200 30 6-9 Free 5 0.002 15 50 50 50 30 350 500 200

60 200 >0.5 1500 50 6-9 Free 5 0.002 15 50 50 30 500 500 200

40 150 >1 1500 50 6-9 Free 0 0.002 5 15 10 10 15 600 1000 230

60 200 >0.5 1500 50 6-9 Free 5 0.002 15 50 50 30 500 500 200

45 150 >0.5 1500 40 6-9 Free 5 0.002 15 50 50 30 400 500 200

45 150 >0.5 1500 40 6-9 Free 5 0.002 15 50 50 30 600 500 200

45 150 >0.5 1500 40 6-9 Free 5 0.002 15 50 50 30 400 500 200

100

Appendix 1 : Palestinian Draft Standard (PDS) for water reuse (Cont.).

Mg Ca SAR Residual C12 B FC (CFU/100ml) Pathogens 60 400 9 0.7 1000 Free 60 400 9 0.7 1000 Free 60 400 10 0.7 200 Free 60 400 9 0.7 1000 Free 150 400 9 1 1000 Free 2 1000 Free 60 400 9 0.7 1000 Free 60 400 9 0.7 1000 Free 60 400 9 0.7 1000 Free 60 400 9 0.7 1000 Free

101

Appendix 2: Guidelines for interpretations of water quality fir irrigation.

Degree of Restriction on Use Units Potential Irrigation Problem Salinity(affects crop water availability)2 ECw (or) TDS Infiltration(affects infiltration rate of water into the soil. Evaluate using ECw and SAR together)3 SAR = 0 =3 =6 = 12 = 20 3 6 12 20 40 and ECw = = = = = > 0.7 0.7 > 1.2 1.2 > 1.9 1.9 > 2.9 2.9 > 5.0 5.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.3 2.9 < 0.2 < 0.3 < 0.5 < 1.3 < 2.9 mg/l < 450 450 2000 > 2000 dS/m < 0.7 0.7 3.0 > 3.0 None Slight to Moderate Severe

Specific Ion Toxicity (affects sensitive crops) Sodium (Na)4 surface irrigation sprinkler irrigation Chloride (Cl)4 surface irrigation sprinkler irrigation Boron (B)5 Trace Elements (see Table 21) Miscellaneous Effects (affects susceptible crops) Nitrogen (NO3 - N)6 Bicarbonate (HCO3) (overhead sprinkling only) pH me/l < 1.5 1.5 8.5 > 8.5 8.4 mg/l < 5 5 30 > 30 me/l < 4 me/l < 3 4 >3 3.0 > 3.0 10 > 10 SAR < 3 me/l < 3 3 >3 9 >9

mg/l < 0.7 0.7

Normal Range 6.5

102

Appendix 3: Laboratory determinations needed to evaluate common irrigation water quality problems. Water parameter SALINITY Salt Content Electrical Conductivity (or) Total Dissolved Solids Cations and Anions Calcium Magnesium Sodium Carbonate Bicarbonate Chloride Sulphate NUTRIENTS2 Nitrate-Nitrogen Ammonium-Nitrogen Phosphate-Phosphorus Potassium MISCELLANEOUS Boron Acid/Basicity Sodium Adsorption Ratio B pH SAR mg/l 1$14 (me/l)1, 2 0$2 6.0 $ 8.5 0 $ 15 mg/l NO3-N NH4-N PO4-P K+ mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l 0 $ 10 0$5 0$2 0$2 mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l Ca++ Mg++ Na+ CO--3 HCO3ClSO4-me/l me/l me/l me/l me/l me/l me/l 0 $ 20 0$5 0 $ 40 0 $ .1 0 $ 10 0 $ 30 0 $ 20 me/l me/l me/l me/l me/l me/l me/l TDS mg/l 0 $ 2000 mg/l ECw dS/m 0$3 dS/m Symbol Unit1 Usual range in irrigation water

1 dS/m = deciSiemen/metre in S.I. units (equivalent to 1 mmho/cm = 1 millimmho/centi-metre) mg/l = milligram per litre , parts per million (ppm).
103

me/l = milliequivalent per litre (mg/l ' equivalent weight = me/l); in SI units, 1 me/l= 1 millimol/litre adjusted for electron charge. 2 NO3 -N means the laboratory will analyse for NO3 but will report the NO3 in terms of chemically equivalent nitrogen. Similarly, for NH4-N, the laboratory will analyse for NH4 but report in terms of chemically equivalent elemental nitrogen. The total nitrogen available to the plant will be the sum of the equivalent elemental nitrogen.The same reporting method is used for phosphorus.

104

Appendix 4: Relative rate of water infiltration as affected by salinity and SAR Source: FAO, 1985b.

105

Appendix 5: Nomogram for determining the SAR value of irrigation water and for estimating the corresponding ESP value of a soil that is at equilibrium with the water (Richards 1954)

106

Appendix 6: Relative tolerance of selected crops to exchangeable sodium.

Sensitive2 Avocado (Persea americana) Deciduous Fruits Nuts Bean, green (Phaseolus vulgaris) Cotton (at germination) (Gossypium hirsutum) Maize (Zea mays) Peas (Pisum sativum) Grapefruit (Citrus paradisi) Orange

Semi-tolerant2 Carrot (Daucus carota) Clover, Ladino (Trifolium repens) Dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum) Fescue, tall (Festuca arundinacea) Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) Bajara (Pennisetum typhoides) Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) Berseem

Tolerant2 Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) Barley (Hordeum vulgare) Beet, garden (Beta vulgaris) Beet, sugar (Beta vulgaris) Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Paragrass (Brachiaria mutica) Rhodes grass

107

(Citrus sinensis) Peach (Prunus persica) Tangerine (Citrus reticulata) Mung (Phaseolus aurus) Mash (Phaseolus mungo) Lentil (Lens culinaris) Groundnut (peanut) (Arachis hypogaea) Gram (Cicer arietinum) Cowpeas (Vigna sinensis)

(Trifolium alexandrinum) Benji (Melilotus parviflora) Raya (Brassica juncea) Oat (Avena sativa) Onion (Allium cepa) Radish (Raphanus sativus) Rice (Oryza sativus) Rye (Secale cereale) Ryegrass, Italian (Lolium multiflorum) Sorghum Wheat (Triticum vulgare)

(Chloris gayana) Wheatgrass, crested (Agropyron cristatum) Wheatgrass, fairway (Agropyron cristatum) Wheatgrass, tall (Agropyron elongatum) Karnal grass (Diplachna fusca)

Adapted from data of FAO-Unesco (1973); Pearson (1960); and Abrol (1982).

108

Appendix 7. Chloride tolerance of agricultural crops. Listed in order of tolerancea. (Adapted from Tanji, KK. 1990)

Maximum Cl- concentrationb without loss Crop in yield mol/m3 Strawberry Bean Onion Carrot Radish Lettuce Turnip Rice, paddyc Pepper Clover, strawberry Clover, red Clover, alsike Clover, ladino 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 30d 15 15 15 15 15 ppm 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 1,050 525 525 525 525 525

109

Corn Flax Potato Sweet Potato Broad bean Cabbage Foxtail, meadow Celery Clover, Berseem Orchardgrass Sugarcane Trefoil, big Lovegras Spinach Alfalfa Sesbaniac Cucumber Tomato Broccoli Squash, scallop Vetch, common Wild rye, beardless Sudan grass Wheat crested grass,

15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 25 25 25 30 30 30 30 standard 35

525 525 525 525 525 525 525 525 525 525 525 700 700 700 700 700 875 875 875 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,225

110

Appendix 8 : Salt salinity tolerance levels1 for different crops (Adapted from Ayers and Westcot, 1976).

Crop

Yield potential, ECe 100%

Maximum

90% 75% 50% ECe

Field crops Barleya Beans (field) Broad beans Corn Cotton Cowpeas Flax Groundnut Rice (paddy) Safflower Sesbania Sorghum Soybean Sugarbeet 8.0 1.0 1.6 1.7 7.7 1.3 1.7 3.2 3.0 5.3 2.3 4.0 5.0 7.0 10.0 1.5 2.6 2.5 9.6 2.0 2.5 3.5 3.8 6.2 3.7 5.1 5.5 8.7 13.0 2.3 4.2 3.8 13.0 3.1 3.8 4.1 5.1 7.6 5.9 7.2 6.2 11.0 18.0 3.6 6.8 5.9 17.0 4.9 5.9 4.9 7.2 9.9 9.4 11.0 7.5 15.0 28 7 12 10 27 9 10 7 12 15 17 18 10 24

111

Wheata Vegetable crops Beans Beetsb Broccoli Cabbage Cantaloupe Carrot Cucumber Lettuce Onion Pepper Potato Radish Spinach Sweet corn Sweet potato Tomato Forage crops Alfalfa Barley haya Bermudagrass Clover, berseem Crop

6.0

7.4

9.5

13.0

20

1.0 4.0 2.8 1.8 2.2 1.0 2.5 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.2 2.0 1.7 1.5 2.5

1.5 5.1 3.9 2.8 3.6 1.7 3.3 2.1 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.0 3.3 2.5 2.4 3.5

2.3 6.8 5.5 4.4 5.7 2.8 4.4 3.2 2.8 3.3 3.8 3.1 5.3 3.8 3.8 5.0

3.6 9.6 8.2 7.0 9.1 4.6 6.3 5.2 4.3 5.1 5.9 5.0 8.6 5.9 6.0 7.6

7 15 14 12 16 8 10 9 8 9 10 9 15 10 11 13

2.0 6.0 6.9 1.5

3.4 7.4 8.5 3.2

5.4 9.5 10.8 5.9

8.8 13.0 14.7 10.3

16 20 23 19 Maximum ECe

Yield potential, ECe

Corn (forage) Harding grass

1.8 4.6

3.2 5.9

5.2 7.9

8.6 11.1

16 18

112

Orchard grass Perennial rye Soudan grass Tall fescue Tall wheat grass Trefoil, big Trefoil, small Wheat grass Fruit crops Almond Apple, pear Apricot Avocado Date Palm Fig, pomegranate Grape Grapefruit Lemon Orange Peach Plum Strawberry Walnut

1.5 5.6 2.8 3.9 7.5 2.3 5.0 7.5

3.1 6.9 5.1 5.8 9.9 2.8 6.0 9.0

5.5 8.9 8.6 8.6 13.3 3.6 7.5 11.0

9.6 12.2 14.4 13.3 19.4 4.9 10.0 15.0

18 19 26 23 32 8 15 22

1.5 1.7 1.6 1.3 4.0 olive, 2.7

2.0 2.3 2.0 1.8 6.8 3.8

2.8 3.3 2.6 2.5 10.9 5.5

4.1 4.8 3.7 3.7 17.9 8.4

7 8 6 6 32 14

1.5 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.0 1.7

2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.3 2.3

4.1 3.4 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.9 1.8 3.3

6.7 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.1 4.3 2.5 4.8

12 8 8 8 7 7 4 8

1 Based on the electrical conductivity of the saturated extract taken from a root zone soil sample (ECe) measured in mmhos/cm. a During germination and seedling stage ECe should not

113

exceed 4 to 5 mmhos/cm except for certain semi-dwarf varieties. b During germination ECe should not exceed 3 mmhos/cm.

114

Appendix 9 : Diagram for the classification of irrigation waters.

115