Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

0% found this document useful (0 votes)
61 views73 pages

Water Qualilty and Monitoring

Presentation on Water Quality and Monitoring

Uploaded by

Sanaullah Salam
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
61 views73 pages

Water Qualilty and Monitoring

Presentation on Water Quality and Monitoring

Uploaded by

Sanaullah Salam
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 73

Mrs.

Huma Ilyas
MSc Environmental Science (Water Quality Management)
(UNESCO-IHE, The Netherlands)
MSc Chemistry (Organic Chemistry)
(PU, Pakistan)
PhD Researcher Environmental Biogeochemistry
(IPGP, France)
Co-owner and Director General
(WTM Consult, The Netherlands)
[email protected]
Describe and apply different
methods of water quality
monitoring and assessment

2
Water quality
management
Water quality
monitoring
Water quality
assessment
Reporting
Conclusions
Chemical Ecological
monitoring monitoring
Chemical Ecological
status status

Monitoring Design
Objectives monitoring
programmes

Rivers
Lakes and reservoirs

3
4
Definition: Evaluation of the physical, chemical, and biological nature
of water in relation with natural water quality, human effects, and
different uses (irrigation, drinking water, ecology etc.)

➢ Water quality assessment and reporting are important steps of


monitoring cycle
➢ Conclusions are drawn with respect to the water quality, in relation
to the water quality standards and guidelines set for different water
uses

5
Chemical
status

Water quality
status

Ecological
status

6
Chemical
status

Bad status Good status Yardstick

Biotic
elements Moderate Good
Bad Poor status status High
status status status
Abiotic Differs Slight
elements moderately changes Close to
from type from type undisturbed
specific specific conditions
conditions conditions

Target Maximum Reference


Ecological ecological
status
status potential

7
Chemical status

8
➢ For overall interpretation of the monitoring data (water quality)
➢ For physico-chemical parameters: ~ 30 WQ indices are used in the
world, making use of 3-72 variables
➢ The variable values are lumped together
➢ All indices include at least three of the following parameters to
come to overall water quality score
• DO
• pH
• TSS
• BOD and/or COD
• Nitrate
• Ammonia
• Orthophosphate

9
Class 1 2 3 4 5
Water quality High Good Moderate Poor Bad
Index interval 0.1-1 1-2 2-4 4-8 10
pH 6.5-8.0 6.0-6.4 & 5.0-5.9 & 3.9-4.9 & < 3.9 &
8.1-8.4 8.5-9.0 9.1-10.1 > 10.1

% O2 88-112 75-87 & 50-74 & 20-49 & < 20 & > 200
113-125 126-150 151-200
20 BOD (mg L-1) 0.0-1.5 1.5-3.0 3.0-6.0 6.0-12 > 12
5

COD (mg L-1) 0.0-10 10-20 20-40 40-80 > 80


TSS (mg L-1) 0.0-20 20-40 40-100 100-278 > 278
NH3 + NH4+ (mg L-1) 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.3 0.3-0.9 0.9-2.7 > 2.7

NO3- (mg L-1) 0.0-4.0 4.0-12 12-36 36-108 > 108


Cl- (mg L-1) 0.0-50 50-150 150-300 300-620 > 620

Modified from: Prati et al. (1971)


10
To find the value of Prati Index at a station
➢ For each water quality parameter calculate score
➢ Which class?
➢ Which index interval?
➢ Determine score by interpolation
➢ The worse a water quality → More points
➢ Add up all scores and divide by number of parameters
➢ The value in the Index intervals → Overall class of the Water Quality

11
Parameter value Points
pH 4.5 6.0
% O2 70% 2.5
20 BOD (mg L-1) 5.0 3.5
5

COD (mg L-1) 20 2.0


TSS (mg L-1) 35 2.0
NH3 + NH4+ (mg L-1) 0.8 3.5

NO3- (mg L-1) 20 2.5


Cl- (mg L-1) 100 1.5
Total - 23.5

Then the Prati Index = Total/n = 23.5/8 = 2.9 = Class 3 (moderately polluted)

12
Parameter Value Points
pH 4.5 6.0
% O2 70% 3.0
20 BOD (mg L-1) 5.0 4.0
5

COD (mg L-1) 20 2.0


TSS (mg L-1) 35 2.0
NH3 + NH4+ (mg L-1) 0.8 4.0

NO3- (mg L-1) 20 3.0


Cl- (mg L-1) 100 1.5
Total - 25.5

Then the Prati Index = Total/n = 25.5/8 = 3.2 = Class 3 (moderately polluted)

13
➢ Water quality data in WQ
Course 2010
➢ Fieldwork Sudan
(Kelderman, 2011)

14
Parameter Blue Nile White Nile Downstream
Values values Values
pH 8.2 8.3 8.2
% O2 84 73 78
NH4+-N (mg L-1) 0.0 2.2 1.1

NO3--N (mg L-1) 0.02 7.4 3.8


PO43--P (mg L-1) 0.23 1.7 0.18

➢ Assess the quality of water


➢ Which class?

15
Class 1 2 3 4 5
Water quality High Good Moderate Poor Bad
Index interval 0.1-1 1-2 2-4 4-8 10
pH 6.5-8.0 6.0-6.4 & 5.0-5.9 & 3.9-4.9 & < 3.9 &
8.1-8.4 8.5-9.0 9.1-10.1 > 10.1

% O2 88-112 75-87 & 50-74 & 20-49 & < 20 & > 200
113-125 126-150 151-200

NH4+-N (mg L-1) 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.3 0.3-0.9 0.9-2.7 > 2.7

NO3--N (mg L-1) < 1.0 1.0-5.0 5.1-10 10.1-20 > 20


PO43--P (mg L-1) < 0.05 0.05-0.25 0.26-0.50 0.51-0.75 > 0.75

16
Parameter Values Points
pH 8.2
% O2 84
NH4+-N (mg L-1) 0.0

NO3--N (mg L-1) 0.02


PO43--P (mg L-1) 0.23
Total -

➢ Prati Index = …….


➢ Class → …….

17
Parameter Values Points
pH 8.2
% O2 84
NH4+-N (mg L-1) 0.0

NO3--N (mg L-1) 0.02


PO43--P (mg L-1) 0.23
Total -

➢ Prati Index = …….


➢ Class → …….

18
Parameter Values Points
pH 8.3
% O2 73
NH4+-N (mg L-1) 2.2

NO3--N (mg L-1) 7.4


PO43--P (mg L-1) 1.7
Total -

➢ Prati Index = …….


➢ Class → …….

19
Parameter Values Points
pH 8.2
% O2 78
NH4+-N (mg L-1) 1.1

NO3--N (mg L-1) 3.8


PO43--P (mg L-1) 0.18
Total -

➢ Prati Index = …….


➢ Class → …….

20
Parameter Values Points
pH 5.5
% O2 48
NH4+-N (mg L-1) 1.0

NO3--N (mg L-1) 15


PO43--P (mg L-1) 0.63
Total -

➢ Prati Index = …….


➢ Class → …….

21
Parameter Values Points
pH 7.9
% O2 108
NH4+-N (mg L-1) 0.4

NO3--N (mg L-1) 1.5


PO43--P (mg L-1) 0.07
Total -

➢ Prati Index = …….


➢ Class → …….

22
➢ Only give overall picture of water quality, lumping together the
various parameters
➢ Weighing factors should be introduced to differentiate between
important/not so important parameters
➢ Overall water quality index may be up to standard
➢ But water quality with respect to one/few parameters may be extremely
bad
➢ A solution could be to base the value of the overall water quality index
upon the “worst case parameter”

23
Ecological status

24
25
❖ Physico-chemical methods give snap-shot view of water
quality
❖ Organisms such as algae, bacteria, plants give more a
history of the pollution
❖ Concentrations may be immensely low but still have effect

26
• Characterize the quality of ecosystems
• Monitoring of indicator bacteria (e.g., E. coli)
• Toxicity tests (chemicals and organisms)
Biomonitoring • In water and sediments
• Monitoring of lake eutrophication
• Algae species
• Presence/absence of different species/
families of macro-invertebrates

• Accumulation of heavy metals and organic


Bioaccumulation micro-pollutants in
monitoring • Fish
• Mussels

• Behavioral changes under sudden water


Early warning quality changes
biomonitoring • Fish
• Water flee
• Mussels

27
❖ Good indicators for organic
pollution in rivers and streams
❖ From top to bottom the organisms
can cope with less oxygen
❖ Applicable all over the world
❖ Disadvantages:
• Dependent on substrate present
(e.g., sand, stones, boulders,
clay)
• Difficulty in comparison
between different regions
(e.g., upstream/downstream,
climate)

Bartram and Balance (1996)


28
In shallow rivers: Agitate the sediment with the
feet/hands to catch the invertebrates in a downstream
positioned net (appropriate mesh size: 300-400 μm)

• Various habitats should be sampled


Hand net

• Basket sampler with stones


• It is used for deep waters
• The sampler should be kept
there for a few weeks

29
• Many organisms accumulate certain
contaminants in their body, especially
into the fatty tissues
Bioaccumulation • Contaminants digested with the normal
food
• Passively adsorbed through the body
surface

• The increase in concentration in the


sequential stages of food chain
Biomagnification • Organic micro-pollutants in the food
chain, the relatively high values in top
predators

30
Application:
• World Mussel Watch
Programme
• Monitoring in mussels
world-wide
• Heavy metals (Hg)
• Organic micro-pollutants
(PCB)

Chapman (1996)

31
❖ To monitor the immediate biological response in the test
organisms placed in the water system under consideration
❖ The more detailed investigation of the causes includes chemical
monitoring
❖ These systems nearby important water intakes → close down the
water inlet temporarily
❖ The position of the sampling sites will be set by the response time
required for:
• Sampling
• Analysis
• Interpretation

32
• Goldfish: Fish move upstream
• In case of some stress (pollutant) fish move
with the stream
• Automated recording system
• Alarm warns the supervisor
• The system is susceptible to false alarm
Fish • Often used at water extraction points of
drinking water companies

33
• Daphnia spp.
Water flee • Use of swimming activities
• Changes in case of stress
• Sensitive to organic micro-pollutants

Kelderman (2011)

34
• Dreissena Spp.
• Behavior of mussels
Mussels • Toxicant → Mussels close valves
• Register by computer
• Activate alarm

Musselmonitor

35
• Arrow indicates moment when toluene
arrived at the location
Musselmonitor • Mussels 2 and 3 were dead
• Mussel 4, 5, 6, and 7 closed valves at the
same moment

Kelderman (2011)

36
• Fully automated and continuous
monitoring using:
• Biological systems (water fleas,
algae)
• Physico-chemical variables
Early warning in (standard variables, radioactivity,
rivers Rhine and organic micro-pollutants, etc.).
Meuse • Alarm levels → Warnings go to:
• drinking water companies
• Downstream
• Water Boards
• Results →Internet in real time
• Coordinated through:
• Centre of Water Management

37
±
Red = very polluted

Chapman (1996)

38
Red = very polluted

Chapman (1996)

39
❖ Based on macro-invertebrates
❖ This method involves the quantitative
assessment at family/species level →
biological score
❖ This method is simple and cheap
❖ Offers good integrative results
❖ Frequency: Few times (1-2) per year

40
Indices:
• Saprobic Index (e.g., in Germany)
• Biological Monitoring Working Party
(BMWP) score
• Trent Biotic Index
• Chandler Biotic index

41
❖ Standardized by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
❖ Invertebrates collected from different habitats (e.g., gravel, silt, weed
beds)
❖ Identified to the required taxonomic level (normally family level)
❖ Each group or family is allocated a score between 1 and 10, according to
their sensitivity to environmental disturbance
• The most sensitive organisms: such as Capniidae (stoneflies), score 10
• The least sensitive: such as oligochaete worms, score 1
❖ The scores for each family represented in the sample are then summed to
give the BMWP score

42
Score Groups of organisms

10 Aphelocheiridae, Beraeidae, Brachycentridae, Capniidae,


Chloroperlidae, Ephemerellidae, Ephemeridae, Goeridae,
Heptageniidae, Lepidostomatidae, Leptoceridae, Leptophlebiidae,
Leuctridae, Molannidae, Odontoceridae, Perlidae, Perlodidae,
Phryganeidae, Potamanthidae, Sericostomatidae, Siphlonuridae,
Taeniopterygidae
8 Aeshnidae, Agriidae, Astacidae, Cordulegasteridae, Corduliidae,
Gomphidae, Lestidae, Libellulidae, Phylopotamidae, Psychomyiidae
(Ecnomidae)
7 Caenidae, Limnephilidae, Nemouridae, Polycentropodidae,
Rhyacophilidae (Glossosomatidae)
6 Ancylidae (Acroloxidae), Coenagriidae, Corophiidae, Gammaridae
(Crangonyctidae), Hydroptilidae, Neritidae, Platycnemididae,
Unionidae, Viviparidae

43
Score Groups of organisms

5 Clambidae, Corixidae, Dendrocoelidae, Dryopidae, Dytiscidae


(Noteridae), Elmidae, Gerridae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Hydrometridae,
Hydrophilidae (Hydraenidae), Hydropsychidae, Hygrobiidae,
Mesovelidae, Naucoridae, Nepidae, Notonectidae, Planariidae
(Dogesiidae), Pleidae, Scirtidae, Simuliidae, Tipulidae
4 Baetidae, Pisicolidae, Sialidae
3 Asellidae, Erpobdellidae, Glossiphoniidae, Hirudinidae, Hydrobiidae
(Bithyniidae), Lymnaeidae, Planorbidae, Physidae, Sphaeriidae,
Valvatidae
2 Chironomidae
1 Oligochaeta

Bartram and Balance (1996)

44
BMWP score Biological quality
Over 130 Very good (natural)
81 – 130 Good
51 – 80 Fair
11 – 50 Poor
0 – 10 Very poor

https://oart.org.uk/our-work/projects/water-quality/biological-monitoring

45
❖ To reduce the effects of sample size, sampling effort, and
sampling efficiency on the results obtained by this method, the
ASPT can be considered
❖ This is obtained by dividing the BMWP score by the total
number of taxa (families) in the sample.
❖ The number of taxa present is indicative of the diversity of the
community

46
ASPT Water quality
Over 7 Very good (natural)
6.0 – 6.9 Good
5.0 – 5.9 Fair
4.0 – 4.9 Poor
3.9 or less Very poor

https://oart.org.uk/our-work/projects/water-quality/biological-monitoring

47
1. Add the scores for all groups to give the BMWP score
2. Add up the total number of groups occurring in the sample
3. Divide the BMWP score by the total number of groups present
to give the ASPT
4. Record the result as BMWP score……
5. Record the result as ASPT……

48
BMWP score Biological quality ASPT Water quality
Over 130 Very good (natural) Over 7 Very good (natural)
81 – 130 Good 6.0 – 6.9 Good
51 – 80 Fair 5.0 – 5.9 Fair
11 – 50 Poor 4.0 – 4.9 Poor
0 – 10 Very poor 3.9 or less Very poor

https://oart.org.uk/our-work/projects/water-quality/biological-monitoring

49
Taxonomic group Score
Oligochaeta 1
Assellidae 3
Sphaeriidae 3
Baetidae 4

BMWP score = 11
Total number of groups = 4
ASPT = 11/4 = 2.8
Biological water quality (Very poor)

50
Taxonomic group Score
Nemouridae
Elmidae
Hirudinidae
Goeridae
Coenagriidae
Corduliidae
Pleidae

BMWP score = ……..


Total number of groups =……..
ASPT = ………..
Biological water quality………….
51
52
❖ Aim of water quality monitoring : Generalization of reliable data
❖ Data must be presented in understandable way, especially for non-
specialists
❖ Not only Tables with raw data

53
❖ Statistical analysis of the data (However, always keep the
original data set as well)
• Use computer software (EXCEL, SPSS,..)
• Mean
• Standard deviation
• ANOVA
• t-Test/z-Test
• Pearson Correlation

54
Table. Removal efficiency (mean % and standard deviation) of pharmaceuticals in
different types of CWs.

Pharmaceutical FWSCW (n) HFCW (n) VFCW (n) HCW (n)


Diclofenac 42±24 (22) 39±24 (45) 50±17 (13) 56±32 (25)

Ibuprofen 57±28 (27) 53±27 (61) 79±24 (10) 62±29 (32)

Naproxen 50±22 (28) 63±26 (42) 75±17 (8) 64±24 (24)

Sulfamethazine 48±48 (9) 45±27 (21) 35±30 (12) 74 (1)

Sulfamethoxazole 54±29 (13) 43±24 (10) 54±29 (14) 61±31 (7)

Sulfapyridine 79±4 (6) 84±3 (6) 84±5 (12) 99 (1)

Trimethoprim 70±21 (15) 65±31 (12) 69±27 (12) 96±5 (3)

(Ilyas and van Hullebusch, 2020a)

55
Table. The results (P values) of one-way ANOVA and z-Test

Parameter TSS COD NH4+-N TN TP


ANOVA results
VFCW 0.21 0.05 0.001 0.05 0.04
HFCW NA 0.03 0.001 0.001 0.72
HCW 0.002 0.93 0.14 0.26 0.06
z-Test results
TF-VFCW VS NA-VFCW 0.33 0.05 0.001 0.17 0.01
ER-VFCW VS NA-VFCW 0.14 0.10 0.04 NA 0.76
AA-VFCW VS NA-VFCW NA 0.003 0.01 0.01 0.23
TF-HFCW VS NA-HFCW NA 0.01 0.01 NA 0.62
AA-HFCW VS NA-HFCW NA 0.11 0.01 0.01 NA
ER-HCW VS NA-HCW 0.01 0.77 0.09 0.17 0.04
AA-HCW VS NA-HCW 0.31 0.70 0.38 0.69 0.24

Bold values indicate significant difference at α = 0.05 (p < 0.05) for ANOVA and z-test
results; NA: Not available. (Ilyas and Masih, 2018)

56
120 TSS COD NH4+-N TN

100
Removel efficiency (%)

80

60

40

20

0
TF-VFCW TF-HCW ER-VFCW ER-HCW AA-VFCW AA-HFCW AA-HCW
Aeration method-Wetland type

❖ Graphical presentation: Present the data in clear graphs


❖ Bar graphs
Figure: Comparison of removal efficiencies among different types of constructed wetlands
and aeration methods. (Ilyas and Masih, 2017)

57
58
❖ Bar graphs
Figure: The removal efficiency of six selected sreroidal hormones with different types of
constructed wetlands.
Note: 17α-ethinylestradiol: 'a' shows that FWSCW exhibit significant difference from HCW; 'b'
shows that HFCW and HCW are significantly different from each other; 'c' shows that VFCW
exhibit significant difference from HCW; 17ß-estradiol: 'a' shows that FWSCW exhibit
significant difference from HFCW; Estrone: 'a' shows that HFCW exhibits significant
difference from HCW; Estriol: 'a' shows that FWSCW exhibit significant difference from
VFCW; 'b' shows that HFCW and VFCW are significantly different from each other; 'c' shows
that HCW exhibit significant difference from VFCW; Progesterone: 'a' shows that HFCW
exhibit significant difference from HCW at α = 0.05 (P < 0.05).

(Ilyas and van Hullebusch, 2020b)

59
120
Summer Winter
a
100 a
Removal efficiency (%)

a a a
80

60 a

40

20

Figure: Removal efficiency of pharmaceuticals with different types of constructed wetlands in


different seasons.
Note: For naproxen, salicylic acid, and caffeine “a” shows the significant difference in the
removal efficiency during summer and winter at α = 0.05 (p < 0.05).
(Ilyas and van Hullebusch, 2019)

60
TSS COD NH4+-N TN
0.50
a
0.40 a
a
0.30 a
a
Pearson correlation coefficient (-)

0.20

0.10

0.00

-0.10

-0.20

-0.30 a
a
-0.40

-0.50 a

-0.60
Depth Area HLR OLR Effluent DO

❖ Pearson Correlation
Figure: Correlation statistics among the studied factors and water quality parameters.
Note: 'a' shows a significant correlation between the parameters at 95% confidence level.
(Ilyas and Masih, 2017)

61
❖ Time series
Figure: Flow (solid black line) and EC (circles) for (c) Noordkaap, (d) Suidkaap, and (e)
Kaap catchments; 1978-2012. Red arrows indicate rainfall and flow values higher than y‐axis.
(Okello et al., 2018)

62
❖ Box and Whisker plots
• Mean
• Maximum
• Minimum
• Percentiles
Comparison of boxplots of water
quality for the four catchments.
(Okello et al., 2018)

63
❖ Use geographical information system (GIS) to relate monitoring
data (water quality) with geographical locations (in the forms of
maps)
❖ Data on surface/ground water quality data on population,
land use or geology

64
❖ The water quality monitoring report must demonstrate a clear structure
and be comprehensible
❖ Report must include:
• A (short) summary
• An introduction on the objectives of the programme
• A description of the region
• The different methods used (field/laboratory)
• A clear presentation and analysis of the results
• Conclusions and recommendations for future research needs and decision
making

65
66
Field
equipment

Transport Office
facilities

Monitoring Overall cost


activities

Qualified
personnel Others

Certified
laboratory

67
• Lack of careful planning
• Absence of distinctive objectives
• Inappropriate equipment
• Erroneous programming
• Lack of systematic maintenance
• Change of activities focus which is not
reflected on the equipment
• Incompatible add-ons

High
Mismatched/missing data
monitoring
Increase in data analysis time
costs

68
Bartram, J., Ballance R., (eds.), 1996. Water quality monitoring. Chapman and Hall,
New York, 383 pp.
Chapman, D. (ed.), 1996. Water Quality assessments. A guide to the Use of biota,
sediments and water in environmental monitoring. Chapman and Hall, London,
626 pp.
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October
2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water
policy. Official Journal of the European Communities. 327/72.
European Environmental Agency, 2018. European waters assessment of status and
pressures. No 7, ISSN 1977-8449.

69
Ilyas, H., van Hullebusch, E.D., 2019. Role of Design and Operational Factors in
the Removal of Pharmaceuticals by Constructed Wetlands. Water. 11 (11),
2356, 1-24.
Ilyas, H., van Hullebusch, E.D., 2020a. Performance comparison of different types
of constructed wetlands for the removal of pharmaceuticals and their
transformation products: a review. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research (In Press)
Ilyas, H., van Hullebusch, E.D., 2020b. A review on the occurrence of steroidal
hormones in wastewater: Their fate and removal during treatment with
different types of constructed wetlands. Journal of Environmental Chemical
Engineering (In Press)
Ilyas, H., Masih, I., 2017. The performance of the intensified constructed wetlands
for organic matter and nitrogen removal: A review. Journal of Environmental
Management. 198 (1), 372-383.

70
Ilyas, H., Masih, I., (2018), "A comparative analysis of the performance of
intensified constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment". International
Conference on Water Science for Impact (16-18 October 2018), Wageningen
University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Kelderman, P., 2011. Water quality and monitoring. Lecture notes. IHE Delft, The
Netherlands.
Metcalf and Eddy Inc., 2003. Wastewater engineering: treatment, disposal, reuse.
4th Edition, McGraw Hill, New York.
Okello, A.M.L.S., Uhlenbrook, S., Jewitt, G.P.W. Masih, I., Riddell, E.S., Van der
Zaag, P., 2018. Hydrograph separation using tracers and digital filters to
quantify runoff components in a semi‐arid mesoscale Catchment. Hydrological
Processes. 32,1334-1350.

71
Voulvoulis, N., Arpon, K.D., Giakoumis, T., 2017. The EU Water Framework
Directive: From great expectations to problems with implementation. Science of
the Total Environment. 575, 358-366.
Prati, L., R. Pavanello and F. Pesarin, 1971. Assessment of surface water quality by a
single index of pollution. Water Research. 5, 741-751.
Thomann, R.V., Müller, J.A., 1987. Principles of surface water quality modelling
and control. Harper and Row, New York, 644 pp.
World Health organization, 2017. Guidelines for drinking-water quality: fourth
edition incorporating the first addendum, Geneva, Switzerland.
Pictures from: https://images.google.com/

72
73

You might also like