• Nu S-Au Găsit Rezultate

View of Consequences of Using Wastewater for Irrigation Purposes and Finding Inexpensive Solutions to Remove its Contaminants for Reusing

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Share "View of Consequences of Using Wastewater for Irrigation Purposes and Finding Inexpensive Solutions to Remove its Contaminants for Reusing"

Copied!
16
0
0

Text complet

(1)

4537

Consequences of Using Wastewater for Irrigation

Purposes and Finding Inexpensive Solutions to Remove its Contaminants for Reusing

El-Hadidi E.M1, El-Ghamry.A.M2, Sally F. Abo El-Ezz3, Amal A. Abd El-Hafez4*

1,2,3,4Soil sciences Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Mansoura University- El- Mansoura-Egypt

*[email protected]

ABSTRACT

In recent years due to the lack of water resources in Egypt, remediation of waste water become necessary. Also, the usage of low cost friendly safe for environment and easily available substances in this remediation is in demand. So, A laboratory experiment was carried out to evaluate wastewaters of five different sources for irrigation purposes and assesses activated charcoal and zeolite in removing the contaminants from these wastewaters. The activated charcoal and zeolite were added each separately at two different concentrations (1.0 and 2.0% ) Mixtures of wastewater and used natural ores were placed onto a rotary shaker at room temperature (20 ˚C), where each flask was prepared twice, the1st flask was shaken at 200rpm for one hour, while the 2nd flask was shaken at 200rpm for two hours. Thereafter, samples were filtered where the filtration was one day for the samples shaken for one hour only and two days for the samples shaken for two hours. The filtrate samples were chemically analyzed. The findings showed that the wastewater of Belqas and Batra agricultural drainage water, Sewage water from Station of Mansoura city, disposed of water of Aja Factory for the production of food are valid for irrigation after remediation, while industrial wastewater discharged from Sandoub Oil and Soap Factory is not suitable for agricultural purposes. Also, using zeolite and activated charcoal materials at the two different rates have a high capacity for the remediation of wastewaters, but the concentration of 2.0% was more effective in removing than 1.0%, also shaking for two hours was more effective in removing pollutants than one hour, moreover, the ability of activated charcoal in removing is more efficient than zeolite.

Keywords

Wastewater, remediation, zeolite and activated charcoal.

(2)

Introduction

Life is dependent on water, where it is vital for all life forms in the world.

Egypt is facing severe water scarcity and suffering from a freshwater shortage due to fixing its water budget. People in Egypt are under water poverty limit, where it has passed the threshold of absolute scarcity 1000 m3 capita-1year-1.

Nile River is the major source of fresh water in Egypt, where it supplies 55.5 BCM year-1 of fresh water that represents 97% of all renewable water resources in the country (National Water Resources Plan for Egypt, 2017).

To overcome the gap between the current supplies of water and those demands for the different human activities, some other sources of water should be used. Therefore, finding alternative sources for irrigation water became a necessity (El-Hadidiet al. 2020).

Usage of wastewater can be considered as a beneficial partial solution for the reparation of water shortage. Wastewater is the water resulted due to utilization of the fresh water for various purposes such as irrigation, industrial and domestic purposes. There are other criteria commonly used for assessing wastewater quality and its suitability for irrigation purposes and their associated expected hazards on soil and plants grown thereon e.g., salinity, pH and water sodicity. Waste water must be treated before its release into another water body due to possesses negative impacts on the plants irrigated with it due to its contamination with inorganics wastes eg., heavy metals (111Cd, 118Sn, 45Sc, 47 Ti, 51V, 60 Ni, 88 Sr, 137Ba, 208Pb) and several organics e.g., viruses, protozoa, pathogenic bacteria and helminths in high concentration. Mostly, the plants irrigated with wastewater causes damage to human and animals feeding on it (FAO, 2005). These hazards forced researchers towards finding out effective ways for removing wastewater pollutants or, at least, reducing their levels.

The issue of how to remove metal ions and pollutants from wastewater has been studied widely, but thus far, findings are disappointing. Therefore, the usage of inexpensive, practical, effective and stable substances to remove and/or degrade those pollutants has become one of the most necessary aims in wastewater remediation. The adsorption method using natural ores is one of the techniques, which is comparatively more economical and useful for

(3)

4539

removal, where dissolved contaminants adhere to the porous surface of used solid particles in this physical process (Jiuhui, 2008).

Activated charcoal is the most commonly used adsorbent and it is quite similar to common charcoal. Powdered activated carbon and granular activated carbon are the forms in common use. The activated charcoal efficiency is due to its high porousharacter, whereby Vanderwaals attractive forces pull the contaminates out of the solution and onto active carbon surface. The efficiency of the adsorption depends on the pore size, surface area, nature of the carbon particle, hardness and density as well as the nature of the contaminants (hydrophobicity, concentration, polarity) (Bauduet al. 1991 and Yang and Benton, 2003).

Zeolite substance is aluminosilicates with a silicon /aluminum ratio between one and infinity. Its adsorptive property is due to the crystalline nature. The channels in zeolite are cavities. It possesses a surface area of 1–20 m2/g.

Natural zeolite usage in the remediation of wastewater is very useful (Margetaet al. 2013). It can remove heavy metal, radionuclides, organics and other humic substances, as well as microorganisms capturing and this makes zeolite material is suitable as a biofilter for removal of pathogenic microorganisms (Karapınar 2009 and Jafarpouret al. 2010).

Generally, agricultural drainage water, industrial effluents and municipal disposal wastewater may be a potential resource for the partial solution of the irrigation water deficit in Egypt. So, the current investigation aims at evaluating some natural ores i.e. activated charcoal and zeolite in the amelioration of some wastewater samples taken from different drains of El- Dakahlya governorate, Egypt and also assessing criteria controlling the suitability of these water samples for irrigation purposes.

Materials and Methods 1. Sources of Wastewater

The wastewater samples used in the current study were collected from five drains of wastewater in the El-Dakahlia governorate i.e.Belqas (sample code, W1) and Batra (sample code, W2) agricultural drainage water, sewage water

(4)

from Station of Mansoura city (sample code, W3), disposed water of Aja Factory for the production of food (sample code, W4) and industrial wastewater discharged from Sandoub Oil and Soap Factory (sample code, W5).

2. Adsorbed Natural Ores.

Activated charcoal (powder) was obtained from Al-Jamal Factory Producing activated and granulated carbon powder from rice husk, Damietta governorate, Egypt, while zeolite was obtained from El-Ahram Mining Company, Egypt.

3. Expermintal work.

The wastewater samples taken from the investigated five sources were put in five separated polyethylene bottles, transported immediately to the laboratory of Soil Dep., Agri. Faculty, Mans. Univ, Egypt and analyzed for their chemical characteristics then these samples were evaluated for irrigation purposes according to international standards.

A laboratory experiment was carried to evaluate activated charcoal and zeolite substances in removing the contaminants from the investigated wastewater samples. The activated charcoal and zeolite were added each separately at two different rates [2.5 and 5.0 g (dry basis) equivalent to 1.0 and 2.0 %, respectively] into flasks containing 250 mL of wastewater sample represent the evaluated drains each separately. Mixtures of wastewater and used natural ores were placed onto a rotary shaker at room temperature (20˚C), where each flask was prepared twice, the1st flask was shaken at 200rpm for one hour, while the 2nd flask was shaken at 200rpm for two hours. Thereafter, samples were filtered using nylon membrane filters (0.22 mm pore size), where the filtration was one day for the samples shaken for one hour only and two days for the samples shaken for two hours. The filtrate samples were chemically analyzed.

4. Wastewater properties determined.

The chemical traits of wastewater samples were determined twice, once in their initial status ( before treating) and other after treating with natural ores according to the standard methods for examination of waste water in the

(5)

4541

Laboratory of Soil Fertility and fertilizers at Mansoura University (ISO 17025 certified) as follows;

Electrical conductivity (EC) and pH values were determined using EC meter and pH meter, respectively as well ascalcium, magnesium, sodium, sulfate, chloride, potassium, carbonate and bicarbonate were determined according to Faithfull, (2002). While, total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), biological oxygen demand (BODs), chemical oxygen demand (COD) were measured according to APHA, (2005). Total nitrogen (TN), total phosphate (TP) were measured according to APHA, (1995).The residual sodium carbonate (RSC, meq L-1) was calculated using the following formula according to Gupta and Gupta (1980).

RSC =(CO3--+HCO3-)-(Ca+2+Mg+2)

Micronutrients i.e. B, Cu, Zn, Fe, Mn and heavy metals i.e.47Ti, 88Sr, 51Cr, 59Co, 60Ni, 111Cd, 208Pb were determined using inductively coupled plasma (ICP–OES, Perkin Elmer Optima2100 DV).

5. Removal efficiency of heavy metal.

Removal efficiency of heavy metal and some of contaminants e.g., boron from wastewater was calculated using the following formula;

𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 = 𝐈𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 − 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐱 𝟏𝟎𝟎

Results and Discussion

1. Evaluation in Initial Status

Table1 represents the results obtained at the initial characterization of wastewater samples of Belqas and Batra agricultural drainage water, sewage water of Mansoura city Station, disposed of industrial wastewater of Aja Factory for the production of food and industrial wastewater discharged from

(6)

Sandoub Oil and Soap Factory. The pH values of all studied samples were7.55, 7.50,8.35,8.00 and 12.3 for W1, W2, W3, W4 and W5, respectively, which means that the industrial wastewater discharged from Sandoub Oil and Soap Factory (sample code, W5) was only of a pH exceeding the permissible values (6.5-8.4) according to Ayers and Westcot (1985). Therefore, the high pH value of this water (W5) is expected to negatively affect the availability of most nutritive elements (Asano, 1998). Regarding salinity, the EC values were 3.90, 4.10, 4.75, 2.67 and 8.67 dSm-1 for W1, W2, W3, W4 and W5, respectively. Except for disposed water of Aja Factory for the production of food (sample code, W4) which may don't cause a problem upon their usage for irrigation purpose since its EC value don’t exceed 3 dSm-1 according to Ayers and Westcot (1985), the other wastewaters will cause severe problems upon their usage for irrigation purpose especially the industrial wastewater discharged from Sandoub Oil and Soap Factory (W5), which have EC value of 8.67 dSm-1.

Values of TSS ranged from 464.10 mgl-1 to 5119.5, so the studied wastewaters are expected to cause hazard problems to the soil irrigated with these studied waters due to the values of TSS were more than 50 mgl-1 (exceed the permissible ones for the irrigation with wastewater according to Ayers and Westcot, 1985). Therefore, using these wastewaters for irrigation purposes may lead to clogging of drippers and sprinkler's nozzles as well as may cause sludge deposition (Asano, 1998).Also, the values of TDS were greater than 2000 mgl-1, which means that usage of all studied wastewater for irrigation purposes will lead to severe problems. The values of COD ranged from 90.0 to 1407 mgl-1while BODs values ranged from 55.0 to 920mgl-1. According WHO, (2000), the values of COD and BODs of W5sample are very high, thus it cannot be used for irrigation process because its high values of COD and BOD. Values of soluble Na+ in all studied samples showed that Na hazard is expected as a result of usage of the investigated wastewater for irrigation purpose since the content of all studied samples generally exceeded 13.6 mmol l-1. Likewise, values of chloride, CO3 +HCO3 are far higher than the permissible limits according to Ayers and Westcot, (1985). On the other hand, according to Richard, (1985), the RSC value of the wastewater of Belqas (sample code, W1) agricultural drainage water is safe upon usage for irrigation purposes, whereas the samples of other wastewater are of moderate to severe hazard. Values of total nitrogen (IN) ranged from 5.1 to 80.9 mgl-1,

(7)

4543

where the values of the wastewater samples that holds code W4 and W5 exceeded 30 mgl-1, which means that these wastewater may cause severe issues upon utilization for irrigation purposes. Also, values of total phosphorus (IP) ranged from 0.1 to 504mgl-1 and the problems were with the same both W4 and W5 (Shuval,1986).Concerning micronutrients and heavy metals, irrigation purposes require that heavy metals e.g.,Cd, B, Cr, Fe, Mn, Ni, Zn, Cu, Pb concentrations in the wastewater not be more than 0.01, 1.25, 1.0, 5.0, 10, 0.2, 2.0, 5.0 and 5.0 mgL-1, respectively (Shuval, 1986 and FAO, 2005) which indicates that the studied wastewaters can be easily used for irrigation after remediation, except for the wastewater that holds code W3

and W5 which contained many obstacles that make them unfit for irrigation process and require the high-cost method for treating.

Generally, the wastewater of Belqas and Batra agricultural drainage water and disposed of water of Aja Factory for the production of food may be valid under some precautions for irrigation, while sewage water of Station in Mansoura city maybe required a high-cost method for treating. On the contrary, the industrial wastewater discharged from Sandoub Oil and Soap Factory is not suitable for agricultural purposes.

Table1. Characteristics of studied wastewaters in initial status

Sampl e code PH

EC, dSm-

1

RSC TSS TDS COD BOD

5 Ca Mg K Na Cl Co3 + Hco3 So4

mg l-1 mmol l-1

W1

7.55 3.90 - 10.35

705.2 0

6500.

0 118 75.0 9.5 7.35 1.4 20.75 18.8 6.6 13.6 W2

7.50 4.10 -9.0

464.1 0

8200.

0 90.0 55.0 10.5 5.4 2.35 22.75

17.8 6.9 16.3 W3

8.35 4.75 1.61

921.8 0

5778.

0 280 240

12.0

3 8.46 0.95 26.06 13.41 22.1 11.9

9 W4

8.00 2.67 1.95

607.0 0

6500.

0 195 160 6.58 5.35 1.17 13.60 7.50 13.88 5.32 W5

12.3 8.67 1.95

5119.

5

1899

0 1407 920 16.5

8 15.35 21.1

7 33.6 37.5 33.88 15.3 2

Cont. Table1.

Sampl e code

T.N T.P Cd B Cr Fe Mn Ni Sr Zn Cu As Ti Co Pb

mg l-1 W1

5.100 0.2300 0.00

1 0.192 0.096 0.09 0.012 0.020 0.12 0.02 0.089 0.002 0.006 0.00 0.052 W2

5.800 0.1110 0.00

5 0.138 0.008 0.264 0.120 0.120 0.074 0.015 0.063 0.029 0.006 0.00 0.029 W3 14.10 0.6820 0.05 1.408 1.204 7.708 11.63 0.345 0.669 2.19 6.54 0.1 1.896 0.00 1.043

(8)

2 6 W4

80.90 6.7630 0.00

1 0.312 0.008 0.264 0.204 0.021 0.075 0.042 0.082 0.016 9.95 0.00 0.364 W5

65.60

504.25 4

0.24

6 9.47

11.99

1 54.82 2.125 8.119 2.21 4.88 6.996 0.032 391.2

2

0.26

3 3.744

2. Removal by adsorption

Data of Tables from 2 to 6 show the role of natural ores i.e. zeolite and activated charcoal substances in removing the contaminants from the investigated wastewater samples. It was found that using zeolite and activated charcoal materials at two different rates [2.5 and 5.0 g ores per 250 ml wastewater] have a high capacity for the remediation of wastewaters, but the quantity of 5.0 g ores was more effective in removing than 2.5g, also shaking for two hours was more effective in removing than one hour, moreover the ability of activated charcoal in removing pollutants is more than zeolite and this may be attributed to the surface area of carbonaceous sorbents is largely bigger than zeolite as mentioned by Mosaet al. (2020). It can be said that both zeolite and activated charcoal substances could relatively remediate thewastewater of Belqas and Batra agricultural drainage water, disposed of water of Aja Factory for the production of food and make them valid for irrigation purposes. On the other hand, although both zeolite and activated charcoal substances removed contaminants from the wastewater of W3, W5, they cannot make them valid for irrigation purposes.

Sewage water of Station in Mansoura city maybe required a high-cost method for treating, but industrial wastewater discharged from Sandoub Oil and Soap Factory still not suitable for agricultural purposes after remediation so, it is not recommended for irrigation purposes completely by using studied materials.

Table 2. Characteristics of studied wastewater of Belqas agricultural drainage water (sample code, W1) after remediation and percentage reduction of some contaminants.

Treatments

PH EC, dSm-

1

RSC

TSS TD

S COD BOD

5 Ca Mg K Na Cl Co3 + Hco3 So4

Natur al ores

Dose (%)

Shakin g time (h)

mg l-1 mmol l-1

Zeolite

1%

1 7.50 3.82 -10 80

197

0 80 65 9.3 7.2

1.3

0 20.4 18.

6 6.5 13.1 2 7.30 3.66 -9.9 76

190

0 75 61 9.2 7.0

1.2 5

19.1 5

17.

9 6.3 12.4 2%

1 7.10 3.47 -9.7 71 181

0 69 56 9.0 6.7

1.1 5

17.8 5

17.

0 6.0 11.7 2 6.95 2.99 -8.8 55

157

0 55 43 8.1 5.8

1.0 5

14.9 5

14.

8 5.1 10.0

Activate charcoal 1%

1 7.00

3.25 -9.3 63 169

0 63 50 8.6 6.3 1.1

0 16.5 16.

0 5.6 10.9 2 6.90

2.70 -8.1 45 140

0 45 35 7.5 5.1 1.0

0 13.4 13.

5 4.5 9.00

2% 1 6.85 2.38 -7.3 34 120 35 26 7.0 4.3 0.9 11.5 12. 4.0 7.80

(9)

4545

0 5 5 0

2 6.66

2.01 -6.3 21 100

0 22 16 6.4 3.3 0.9

0 9.5 10.

0 3.4 6.70

Cont. Table 2.

Treatments T.N T.P Cd B Cr Fe Mn Ni Sr Zn Cu As Ti Co Pb Natur

al ores

Dose (%)

Shakin g time (h)

mg l-1

Zeolite

1%

1 5.0 0.23 0.0

0.12

4 0.093 0.08

9 0.01

0 0.01

1 0.12

0 0.01

0 0.0 0.00

1 0.00

5 0.0 0.05

0

2 4.8 0.22 0.0

0.12

0 0.091 0.08

7 0.00

7 0.01

0 0.11

0 0.00

5 0.0 0.00

0 0.00

4 0.0 0.04

0 2%

1 4.5 0.21 0.0

0.11

0 0.088 0.08

2 0.00

6 0.01

0 0.09

5 0.00

0 0.0 0.00

0 0.00

1 0.0 0.02

5

2 3.4 0.18 0.0

0.08

8 0.078 0.06

5 0.00

6 0.00

8 0.08

0 0.00

0 0.0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.0 0.00

9

Activate charcoal

1%

1 4.0 0.20 0.0

0.09

6 0.084 0.07

5 0.00

3 0.00

9 0.08

8 0.00

0 0.0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.0 0.00

0

2 2.7 0.16 0.0

0.05

2 0.070 0.05

4 0.00

1 0.00

6 0.07

1 0.00

0 0.0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.0 0.00

0 2%

1 2.0 0.13 0.0

0.03

5 0.060 0.04

2 0.00 0.00

4 0.06

1 0.00

0 0.0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.0 0.00

0

2 1.2 0.09 0.0

0.01

5 0.047 0.02

9 0.00 0.00

2 0.05

0 0.00

0 0.0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.0 0.00

0

Cont. Table2.

Treatments Percentage reduction ( removal efficiency),%

Natur al ores

Dose (%)

Shaking time (h)

EC, dSm-

1

TSS TDS T.N T.P B Cr Fe Mn Ni Sr Zn As Ti Pb

Zeolite

1%

1 2.0 88.6 69.6 1.96 0.00 35.4 3.12

5 1.1 16.6 45 0.0 50 50 16.

6 3.8 2 6.1 89.2 70.7 5.88 4.34 37.5 5.20 3.3 41.6 50 8.30 75 100

33.

3 23.0 2%

1 11.0 89.9 72.1 11.7 8.69 42.7 8.3 8.8 50.0 50 20.8 100 100 83.

3 51.9 2 23.3 92.2 75.8 33.3 21.73 54.1 18.7 27.7 50.0 60 33.3 100 100 100 82.6

Activate charcoal

1% 1 16.6 91.0 74.0 21.5 13.04 50.0 12.5 16.6 75.0 55 26.6 100 100 100 100 2 30.7 93.6 78.4 47.0 30.43 72.9

27.0

8 40.0 91.6 70 40.8 100 100 100 100 2% 1 38.9 95.1 81.5 60.7 43.47 81.7 37.5 53.3 100 80 49.1 100 100 100 100

2 48.4 97.0 84.6 76.4 60.86 92.1 51.0

4 67.7 100 90 58.3 100 100 100 100

(10)

Table 3. Characteristics of studied wastewater of Batra agricultural drainage water (sample code, W2) after remediation and percentage reduction of some contaminants.

Treatments

PH EC, dSm-

1

RSC

TSS TDS COD BOD

5 Ca Mg K Na Cl

Co3

+ Hco

3

So4

Natur al ores

Dose (%)

Shakin g time (h)

mg l-1 mmol l-1

Zeolite

1%

1

7.4

5 3.9 -8.7 60 3600 88 53 10.3 5.2 2.30 21.5 17.6 6.8 14.9 0 2

7.3

8 3.7 -8.5 58 3525 86 52 10.1 4.9 2.23 20.0 17.4 6.5 13.3 3 2%

1

7.2

8 3.4 -8.1 54 3360 81 49 9.7 4.5 2.13 18.0 17.1 6.1 11.1 3 2

7.0

0 2.7 -7.0 40 2850 66 37 8.5 3.5 1.85 13.5 15.5 5.0 6.85

Activate charcoal 1%

1

7.1

5 3.1 -7.65 49 3150 74 44 9.2 4.05 2.00 16.0 16.5 5.6 9.15 2

6.8

0 2.24 -5.8 30 2400 55 30 7.7 2.6 1.65 10.5 14.3 4.5 3.65 2%

1

6.6

5 1.76 -4.9 19 1725 43 22 6.8 2.0 1.40 7.40 11.7 3.9 2.00 2

5.6

8 1.22 -3.7 8.0 975 28 13 5.7 1.3 1.10 4.10 7.8 3.3 1.10

Cont. Table3.

Treatments

T.N T.P Cd B Cr Fe Mn Ni Sr Zn Cu As Ti C

o Pb Natur

al ores

Dose (%)

Shakin g time (h)

mg l-1

Zeolite

1%

1 5.6 0.10 0.0

3 0.13

2 0.00

6 0.220 0.11 0.09 0.07

0 0.01

3

0.06 0 0.02

0.00 4

0.

0 0.02 2 5.3 0.09

0.0 1

0.08 2

0.00

4 0.200 0.10 0.08 0.06

6 0.01

1

0.05 5 0.01

0.00 4

0.

0 0.01 2%

1 4.9 0.07 0.0 0.04

0 0.00

3 0.150 0.09 0.04 0.06

0 0.00

7

0.00 4

0.00 5

0.00 1

0.

0 0.004 2 3.8 0.00 0.0 0.0

0.00

0 0.060 0.07 0.01 0.05

0 0.00

2

0.00 2 0.00

0.00 0

0.

0 0.000

Activate charcoal 1%

1 4.4 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.00

1 0.110 0.03 0.00 0.02

5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0.

0 0.000 2 3.1 0.00 0.0 0.0

0.00

0 0.010 0.00 0.00 0.01

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0.

0 0.000 2%

1 2.1 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00

0 0.007 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0.

0 0.000 2 1.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0

0.

0 0.000

(11)

4547

Cont. Table3.

Treatments Percentage reduction ( removal efficiency),%

Natur al ores

Dose (%)

Shaking time (h)

EC, dSm-

1

TSS TDS T.N T.P B Cr Fe Mn Ni Sr Zn As Ti Pb

Zeolite

1%

1 4.8 87.0 56.0 3.4 9.9 4.3 25 16.6 8.3 25 41.6 13.3 31.

0 33.

3 31.0 2 9.7 87.5 57.0 8.6 18.9 40.5 50 24.2 16.6 33.3 45 26.6

65.

5 33.

3 65.5 2%

1 17.0 88.3 59.0 15.

5 36.9 71.0 62.5 43.1 25.0 66.6 50 53.3 82.

7 83.

3 86.2 2 34.1 91.3 65.2

34.

4 100 100 100 77.2 41.6 91.6 58.3 86.6 100 100 100

Activate charcoal

1%

1 24.3 89.4 61.5 24.

1 72.9 100 87.5 58.3 75.0 100 79.1 100 100 100 100 2 45.3 93.5 70.7

46.

5 100 100 100 96.2 100 100 91.6 100 100 100 100 2%

1 57.0 95.9 78.9 63.

7 100 100 100 97.3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2 70.2 98.2 88.1

82.

7 100 100 100 99.2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 4. Characteristics of studied sewage waste water of Station in Mansoura city (sample code, W3) after remediation and percentage reduction of some contaminants.

Treatments

PH EC, dS m-1

RSC

TSS TDS COD BOD

5 Ca Mg K Na Cl Co3 + Hco3 So4

Natur al ores

Dose (%)

Shaki ng time

(h)

mg l-1 mmol l-1

Zeolite

1% 1 8.25 4.59 1.7 190 1700 116 100 12.0 8.3 0.90 24.7 12.5 22.0 11.4 2 8.15 4.47 1.6 176 1660 110 99 11.8 8.1 0.88 23.92 12.2 21.5 11.0 2% 1 7.90 4.34 1.8 168 1600 106 94 11.2 7.9 0.85 23.45 12.0 20.9 10.5 2 7.15 4.09 2.9 147 1420 100 80 9.70 7.2 0.75 23.25 11.1 19.8 10.0

Activate charcoal 1% 1 7.55 4.24 2.5 163 1520 104 88 10.7 7.6 0.80 23.3 11.6 20.8 10.0

2 6.65 3.84 2.9 145 1290 99 70 9.00 6.7 0.72 21.98 10.4 18.6 9.40

2% 1 6.05 3.50 3 117 1100 92 60 8.20 6.2 0.70 19.9 9.40 17.4 8.20

2 5.50 3.13 3.6 110 800 89 50 7.10 5.3 0.62 18.28 8.20 16.0 7.10

Cont. Table4.

Treatments T.N T.P Cd B Cr Fe Mn Ni Sr Zn Cu As Ti Co Pb Natur

al ores

Dose (%)

Shakin g time (h)

mg l-1

Zeolite

1%

1 14.0 0.622 0.05

0

1.39

0 1.20 7.50 11.6

0 0.32

0 0.60 2.10 6.00 0.09

0 1.85 0.00 0.99 2 13.2 0.600

0.04

8 1.30 1.18 7.45 11.4

5 0.30

0 0.58 2.00 5.6 0.08

0 1.82 0.00 0.92 2% 1 12.0 0.570 0.04 1.28 1.16 7.32 11.3 0.29 0.54 1.95 5.4 0.05 1.80 0.00 0.90

(12)

5 0 8 0 2 9.80 0.460

0.03

0 1.10 1.12 7.00 11.1

1 0.28

2 0.52 1.82 4.8 0.00

8 1.73 0.00 0.80

Activate charcoal 1%

1 11.0 0.520 0.04

0 1.20 1.14 7.21 11.1

5 0.29

0 0.54 1.90 5.1 0.02

0 1.78 0.00 0.84 2 8.80 0.400

0.02

0 0.95 1.08 6.80 10.8 0.27

0 0.50 1.74 4.6 0.00

4 1.68 0.00 0.71 2%

1 7.6 0.320 0.01

5 0.75 1.06 6.50 10.6 0.23

0 0.46 1.70 4.2 0.00

1 1.61 0.00 0.54 2 5.00 0.200

0.01

0 0.45 1.02 6.10 10.3 0.20

0 0.40 1.60 3.6 0.00

0 1.50 0.00 0.25

Cont. Table4.

Treatments Percentage reduction ( removal efficiency),%

Natur al ores

Dose (%)

Shaking time (h)

EC, dSm-

1

TSS TDS T.N T.P B Cr Fe Mn Ni Sr Zn As Ti Pb

Zeolite

1%

1 3.3 79.3 70.5 0.7 8.79 1.27 0.33

2 2.6 0.30 7.2 10.3

1

4.10 9 10

2.4 2

5.08 1 2 5.9 80.9 71.2 6.3 12.02 7.67

1.99

3 3.3 1.5 13.0 13.3

0

8.67 5 20

4.0 0

11.7 9 2%

1 8.6 81.7 72.3 14.8 16.42 9.09 3.65

4 5.0 2.8 13.6 19.2

8

10.9 5 50

5.0 6

13.7 1 2 13.9 84.0 75.4 30.4 32.55

21.8 7

6.97

6 9.1 4.5 18.2 22.2

7

16.8 9 92

8.7 5

23.2 9

Activate charcoal

1%

1 10.7 82.3 73.6 21.9 23.75 14.7

7 5.31

5 6.4 4.1 15.9 19.2

8

13.2 4 80

6.1 1

19.4 6 2 19.1 84.2 77.6 37.5 41.34

32.5 2

10.2

9 11.7 7.1 21.7 25.2

6

20.5 4 96

11.

3 31.9

2 2%

1 26.3 87.3 80.9 46.0 53.07 46.7

3 11.9

6 15.6 8.9 33.3 31.2

4

22.3 7 99

15.

0 48.2

2 2 34.1 88.0

86.1

5 64.5 70.67 68.0

3 15.2

8 20.8 11.4 42.0 40.2

0

26.9 4 100

20.

8 76.0

3

Table 5. Characteristics of disposed water of Aja Factory for the production of food (sample code, W4) after remediation and percentage reduction of some contaminants.

Treatments

PH EC, dSm-

1

RSC

TSS TD

S COD BOD

5 Ca Mg K Na Cl Co3 + Hco3 So4

Natur al ores

Dose (%)

Shakin g time (h)

mg l-1 mmol l-1

Zeolite

1%

1 7.8 2.5 1.57 70

196

0 80 78 6.53 5.3 1.16 12.6

6 7.1 13.4 5.15 2 7.7 2.5 1.4 68

190

0 76 73 6.5 5.3 1.15 12.1

5 6.8 13.2 5.1 2%

1 7.5 2.4 1.5 63 182

0 72 67 6.3 5.2 1.13 11.6

9 6.72 13 4.6

2 7.0 2.2 1.7 49 155

0 58 51 5.6 4.8 1.04 10.9

6 6.3 12.1 4

Ac tiv at e ch ar co al1% 1 7.3 2.3 1.65 56 169 66 60 6.1 5.05 1.09 11.2 6.52 12.8 4.2

Referințe

DOCUMENTE SIMILARE

Moshe de Leon.(65) Therefore, in lieu of assuming that Jewish philosophy would, invariably, inhibit Jewish mysticism from using extreme expres- sions, there are examples of the

Toate acestea sunt doar o parte dintre avantajele in care cred partizanii clonarii. Pentru a si le sustine, ei recurg la o serie de argumente. Unul dintre ele are in atentie

(2016) have used in their research study two types of edible and also medicinal fungi species, Ganoderma lucidum and Pleurotus ostreatus, and have chosen as a

A more difficult problem is to obtain results of the type (2) for weighted arithmetic means and to determine the maximal interval for the parameter for which the inequalities hold..

Talvila , Estimates of the remainder in Taylor’s theorem using the Henstock- Kurzweil integral,

(1 − α)C, with α ∈ (0, 1), G, C being the geometric and anti-harmonic means, and we find the range of values of α for which the weighted mean is still greater or less than

These operators have the following advantages: Firstly, they have the same moments of finitely many orders as we arbitrarily choose as Sz´ asz-Mirakjan operators, hence they can be

By contrast to Yeats’ central position at the time, as acknowledged agent of cultural power, Joyce’s resistance was catalyzed by the energy of self-exiling –a third space