الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 275 |  |  |
| | | from | 275 | | |
Abstract
Mohamed Tawfiek Shaaban
Hanaa Hassanein Morsi
Mostafa Mohammed El-sheekh
Nashwa Mokhtar Hassan Rizk
Mohamed Tawfiek Shaaban
Water is essential to sustain life, and availability of safe drinking water is very
important. Ground water and surface water are the two main sources of drinking
water in Egypt. Surface water and ground water are the two main sources of
drinking water in Egypt. Although Egypt has the great Nile River, which is the
main resource of water, Egypt depends on ground water as a secondary resource
for drinking water. The International standards for drinking water demands that
water recommended for human consumption must be free of organisms and of
chemical substances in concentrations that may be a hazardous to health. In
addition, drinking water should be pleasant to drink. Access to safe drinking water
is a fundamental human need and therefore a basic human right.
In the recent years, several experimental studies have been evaluated for
treatment of surface water. The coagulation of water is to remove colloidal
suspensions, both inorganic and organic compounds, which could be a good
support for pathogens development, and presents a great threat to drinking water
aspect. Aluminum sulfate is a well known chemical coagulant, being used in water
and wastewater treatment as a preferred reagent as its low cost and high efficiency.
Although aluminum is the most commonly used coagulant in the developing
countries, studies have linked it to the development of neurological diseases (e.g.
pre-senile dementia or Alzheimer’s disease) due to the presence of aluminum ions
in the drinking water. Some studies on natural coagulants have been carried out
and various natural coagulants were produced or extracted from microorganisms,
animals or plants such Moringa oleifera seeds. Moringa oleifera seeds are also
used as a primary coagulant in drinking water clarification and wastewater
treatment due to the presence of a water-soluble cationic coagulant protein able to
reduce turbidity of the water treated.
The aim of this work was performing comparison between different sources of
drinking water (surface and ground) before and after treatment in regard to
microbiological and chemical status from two different regions in EL-Menoufia
(Shebin El-kom and Menof cities). And also, evaluation an effective process of
water treatment and comparing between two different coagulants, aluminum
sulfate (chemical coagulant) and Moringa oleifera seeds extraction (natural
coagulant) in treatment of surface water.
In this study physical, chemical, and microbiological parameters of surface
water and ground water in Shebin El-kom and Menof cities were evaluated to
estimate the water quality for drinking water. Physical parameters included
temperature, turbidity, total dissolved salts, conductivity while chemical parameter
included pH, total hardness, calcium hardness, magnesium hardness, alkalinity,
iron, manganese, chlorides, sulfate, phosphate, ammonia and nitrate. from the
results of this study surface water was better than ground water in their
physicochemical parameters, as it had fewer total dissolved salts, iron, manganese,
calcium ions, magnesium ions, phosphates and chlorides than ground water. Also
total hardness and alkalinity of surface water are less than ground water. Water
temperature of Shebin El Kom and Menof surface water was ranged from 19.5°C
to 30.3°C while in ground water, ranged from 19.5°C to 30.3°C. Turbidity was
ranged from 7.3 NTU to 10.8 NTU while in ground water, ranged from 0.3 NTU to
2.3 NTU. TDS and conductivity were ranged from 215 ppm to 362 ppm, 332 to
581µS/cm, respectively while in ground water, ranged from 406 to 594 ppm, 652
µS /cm to 822 µS /cm, respectively. The range of pH of surface water was from 7.8
to 8.2 while in ground water, ranged from 7.6 to 8.0. The range of total hardness
was from 120 ppm to 172 ppm while in ground water, was from 260 ppm to 370
ppm. Total alkalinity was ranged from 144 ppm to 180 ppm while in ground water, ranged from 250 ppm to 350 ppm. The range of chlorides of surface water was
from 20 ppm to 50 ppm while in ground water, was from 45 ppm to 100 ppm. Iron
was ranged from <0.01 ppm to 0.30 ppm in surface water while in ground water
ranged from 0.27 ppm to 0.62 ppm. Manganese in surface water was ranged from
<0.01 ppm to 0.21 ppm while in ground water ranged from 0.76 ppm to 1.75 ppm.
The range of Sulfate in surface water was from 25 ppm to 50 ppm while in ground
water, was from 28 ppm to 106 ppm. Phosphate was from <0.01 ppm to 0.12 ppm
in surface water while in ground water, was from 0.28 ppm to 0.49 ppm. In surface
water nitrate was ranged from 0.04 ppm to 0.44 ppm while in ground water ranged
from 0.05 ppm to 0.20 ppm. Finally, ammonia in surface water was ranged from
0.15 ppm to 0.45 ppm while in ground water ranged from 0.21 ppm to 0.78 ppm.
Bacteriological quality of water is usually indicated by certain parameters
such total coliform as indicator of environmental pollution and fecal coliform
indicator of fecal pollution. In addition to the use of fecal Streptococci as a
parameter for Judgment of water pollution tends to give confirmatory information
for the quality of water intended for civic use. from the results of this study
ground water had fewer total bacterial number than surface water but after
disinfection with chlorine, all both of them showed negative results except some
cases in ground water weren’t completely disinfected. The number of
heterotrophic bacteria in raw surface water was ranged from 3300 to 38900 CFU /
ml. In raw ground water heterotrophic bacteria was ranged from 20 to 22300 CFU
/ ml. The number of total coliform bacteria in raw surface water was ranged from
18000 to 77000 total coliform /100ml. while raw ground water they ranged from
negative result to (330 total coliform /100ml). The number of fecal coliform
bacteria in raw surface water was ranged from 1600 to 19500 fecal coliform
/100ml. while in raw ground water, were ranged from negative result to 90 fecal
coliform /100ml. The number of fecal Streptococcus bacteria in raw surface water was ranged from 100 to 2600 fecal Streptococcus /100ml. In ground water all raw
and treated samples showed negative results.
Enumeration of algae in surface water samples is often a necessary part of
water quality monitoring and algal research. The results from this study showed
various phytoplankton structures belonging to five groups, namely,
Bacillariophyta, Chlorophyta, Cyanophyta, Pyrrophyta and Euglenophyta. They
varied in their numbers during the period of investigation in the tested water
plants. The total number of phytoplankton stock per year in Shebin El-kom water
plant exceeded the total number in Menof water plant. Bacillariophyceae
represent the most abundant group in all investigated samples and Chlorophyta
ranked as the 2nd group in their occurrence during the period of investigation in
both Shebin El-kom and Menof water plants. Cyanophyta were present during the
period of investigation low species number and ranked as the 3rd group in their
occurrence in both Shebin El-kom and Menof water plants. Pyrrophyta and
Euglenophyta showed rare occurrence during the period of investigation in both
Shebin El-kom and Menof water plants.
Surface water was treated and coagulated with two different coagulants,
chemical coagulant (aluminum sulfate) and Natural coagulant (Moringa oleifera
seeds). The chemical parameters weren’t affected negatively with using M.
oleifera seeds extraction or aluminum sulfate as coagulants for water treatment.
Some parameters were decreased such turbidity, total dissolved solids (TDS),
alkalinity, phosphates and ammonia. Others were increased such nitrates in using
M. oleifera and aluminum sulfate, sulfate in using aluminum sulfate only. The
remaining parameters had slightly changes with using both of M. oleifera seeds
extraction or aluminum sulfate as coagulants. Coagulation with M. oleifera seeds
extraction was very effective than aluminum sulfate, as it reduced turbidity of raw Nile water from 13.8 NTU to 2.2 NTU with algal removal 98.7% without
chlorination, and with chlorination reduced turbidity of raw Nile water from 5.5
NTU to 1.5 NTU with algal removal 99.1%. On other hand aluminum sulfate
reduced turbidity of raw Nile water from 13.8 NTU to 2.0 NTU with algal
removal 85.8 % without chlorination, and with chlorination reduced turbidity of
raw Nile water from 5.5 NTU to 1.2 NTU with algal removal 96.8%.
Moringa oleifera was more effective on bacteria of raw water without
chlorination than aluminum sulfate. The heterotrophic plate count (HPC) was
decreased by 83.6% using Moringa oleifera while in aluminum sulfate, was
decreased by 44.3 %. The total coliform bacteria using Moringa oleifera were
decreased by 94.2 % while using aluminum sulfate were decreased by 34.6 %.
The fecal coliform bacteria using Moringa oleifera were decreased by 98 % while
using aluminum sulfate were decreased by 47.8%. The fecal streptococcus
bacteria with using M. oleifera were decreased by 98.7% while using aluminum
sulfate was decreased by 60.6 %. All chlorinated treated samples showed negative
bacteriological results.