Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
(C-11) -WATER CONSERVATION REPORT (HCT)
Table of Contents
S. No. Title
Page Number
1. Details of water supply system
2
2. Figure 1. Diagram of SBR technology based grey
water treatment system
3
3. Figure 2. Diagram of SBR technology driven HCT
grey water treatment system
4
4. Detailed potable cold water budget
5
5. Detailed potable hot water budget
6
6. Detailed irrigation water budget
6
7. Sensitivity analysis
6
8. Drawings, schematic diagrams etc.
7
9. Contact information of the report authors
7
10. Water reuse treatment system
7
11. Result and Discussion
8
12. Microbial load in HCT Eco House grey water
8
13. ANOVA for HCT Eco House grey water
8
14. Post Hoc Analysis (Holm-Sidak method)
8
15. Table 1. Data for microbial load (CFU/100 ml) in
various water types
9
16. Table 2. One way ANOVA for comparing
microbial load (CFU/100 ml) in various water
types
9
2
17. Table 3. Post Hoc analysis (Holm-Sidak method)
for microbial load (CFU/100 ml) in various water
types
10
18. Figure 3. Vertical stacked graph for comparing
microbial load (CFU/100 ml)
11
19. Figure 4. Bar graph for comparing microbial load
(CFU/100 ml)
12
20. Figure 5. (Bacterial colony in Tap water/control
T0)
13
21. Figure 6. (Bacterial colony in Tank 1 with
aeration)
13
22. Figure 7. (Bacterial colony in Tank 2 with UV
treatment)
14
23. Figure 8. (Bacterial colony in Tank 3 storage tank
after UV treatment)
14
24. Contact information of the report authors
15
25. References
15-16
1. DETAILS OF WATER SUPPY SYSTEM: GRAF wastewater treatment system (Member of
German Water Partnership) with Manufacturing certified according to ISO 9001. SBR
Technology: Sequencing Batch reactors or SBRs use a separate pre-treatment section in the tank
to mechanically hold back solids (if any) and a biological aeration and settling tank (Fig 1). The
wastewater treatment system used for HCT eco house uses SBR technology (Fig 2). Treating grey
water with SBR technology is an advance treatment technology, where on a very small footprint
hygienically acceptable recycled grey water is produced effectively (Lamine et al., 2007).
3
Fig 1. Diagrammatic representation of SBR technology driven HCT wastewater treatment system
(Reference: http://www.graf-water.com/download/catalogues/wastewater-treatment.html)
4
Fig 2. Diagrammatic representation of SBR technology driven HCT wastewater treatment system
5
2. DETAILED POTABLE COLD WATER BUDGET: The details of potable cold water budget
required for the HCT eco house that is designed for 4 people.
Item wise Indoor water budget for ECO house at HCT.
Item Use Rate Flow rate No of persons
Total usage in
US gallons
Toilet
4.0 fluses per
person per day
1.6
4
25.6
Shower
4.8 minutes per
person per day
2.5
4
48
washing machine
0.30 loads per
person per day
40 gal per
load ( avg.) 448
Dishwasher
0.17 loads per
person per day 8.5 45.78
Faucet N/A 8.5
Baths
0.14 baths per
person per day
50 gal.per
bath ( avg) 4 28
Total 163.88 163.88
Toilet 25.6
Dishwasher 5.78
132.5 Gallons
Total grey water consumed for irrigation in litres per day 501.5125 Liters
927.5 Gallons
Note: with reference to both calculations, we have 501.2 liters of grey water per day for irrigation purpose.
esitmated quantity
Total grey water generated in Gallons per week
Remarks
one us gallon is equal to 3.785
liters
Total grey water consumed for irrigation in Gallons per day
water which is not usable ( sewer water)
6
3. DETAILED POTABLE HOT WATER BUDGET: The details of potable hot water budget
required for the HCT eco house that is designed for 4 people
Note: Potable hot water is included in shower water and dishwater.
4. DETAILED IRRIGATION WATER BUDGET: The detail information of irrigation water
budget is required for the HCT eco house.
5. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS THAT EXPLORES THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE WATER
BUDGET AS A FUNCTION OF WEATHER VARIABLITY, OCCUPANT BEHAVIOUR.
APPLIANCE USAGE PATTERNS, SUPPLY PRESURE ETC.
Not Applicable (NA)
LA = GW/ET*PF*.62 after re-arranging GW= LA *ET*PF* 0.62 PF: Plant factor
LA = Land scape area GW: gallons per week ET: Evapotranspiration * ( inch per week)
PF is not available for specif trees and we used the maximum PF 1.2 for water balance.
ET = 2 in per week in california assumption California is hot and humid like Muscat
Land Scape area proposed by
HCT Team for different
plants/ grass etc
Land scape area
in sq feet Plant factor
GW for each
type ofplant
Total Water
demand in GW
area in Sq
meter
Morning glory, Petunia, and
Catharanthus roseus 167.8248 0.8
GW for each
type ofplant 166.4822016 15.6
Diffenbechia 42.70926 0.8
GW for each
type ofplant 42.36758592 3.97
Aloe vera 13.9854 0.7
GW for each
type ofplant 12.1393272 1.3
Khouta 244.42176 1
GW for each
type ofplant 303.0829824 22.72
Quisqualis Indica 41.9562 0.6
GW for each
type ofplant 31.2154128 3.9
Organic Vegetable** NA 1 NA NA NA 183 L/Year
Buffalo Grass 430.32 0.5
GW for each
type ofplant 266.7984 40
Date palm trees** ( 2 big and
4 small=6) existing.
Information : one tree
consuming 12 liters per day
in july which is maximum
water consumption NA NA NA NA 432 L/year
small 10 trees for barrier.
1liter per day per plant
GW for 10
green trees
for barries 18 Not defined
** NA : Not Applicable as grey water is not to be used for vegetable or fruit plants (as per the law)
Gallons available per week 927.5 840.08591Water balance per week =
(GW- Total surplus water) 87.4141
Balance of available grey water after being used for irrigation
http://www.fao.org
/docrep/006/y4360
e/y4360e0b.htm
for water balancing, gallons per week is considered, and we
have extra grey water for the existing plants, as per formula I
converted liter per day in gallons per week and we have extra
7
6. IF DRWAINGS, SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS, AND OTHER RELEVANT
INFORMATION ARE ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE DRAWINGS AND
DOCUMENTATION LIBRARY, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DUPLICATE THEM IN
THE WATER CONSERVATION REPORT. INSTEAD, PROVIDE CROSS
RERERENCES TO THESE OTHER DELIVERABLES.
(Please see the file ‘HCT-Greenest As built drawings as of 01312016)
7. PROVIDE CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE REPORT AUTHORS
(a) Dr. Pankaj Sah
Lecturer in Applied Biology
Applied Sciences Department
Higher College of Technology (HCT)
Al-Khuwair, PO Box 74; PC 133
Muscat (Sultanate of Oman)
(b) Dr. Kesaraju Seeta Ramchander Rao
Lecturer in Applied Biology
Applied Sciences Department
Higher College of Technology (HCT)
Al-Khuwair, PO Box 74; PC 133
Muscat (Sultanate of Oman)
8. WATER REUSE TREATMENT SYSTEM:
The reuse of domestic grey water has a significant role to play in sustainable urban future (Dixon et al.,
1999). It has been found that the grey water is the largest potential source of water conservation in
domestic residences, which contributes around 50 to 80% of total water use (Boal et al., 1996; Eriksson
et al., 2002; Jenssen and Vrale, 2003; Flowers, 2004; Al-Hamaiedeh and Bino, 2010). The pressure on
urban planning for sustaining ever-growing human population has initiated novel thoughts that can
potentially help in conserving precious water resources of the world.
The effluent produced by the installed treatment system has been subjected to test ‘microbial load’ in
HCT Applied Biology Laboratory. The results are as follow:
8
Result and Discussion:
Microbial load in HCT Eco House grey water: Studies suggest that the micro-organisms can be
introduced into grey wastewater by hand washing after toilet use, washing of babies or small children
connected with diaper changes and diaper washing in bathrooms, as well as washing of uncooked
vegetables and raw meat in kitchen. The knowledge of introduction, survival and transformation of micro-
organisms in a grey wastewater system is a highly relevant issue to evaluate the efficacy of grey water
treatment system (Eriksson et al., 2002). The microbiological investigation of water is used worldwide to
monitor and control the water quality and safety of various types of water (Barrell et al., 2000). We
studied the microbial count in water following membrane filter technique with a pore size of 0.45 µm.
The membrane filter method is usually preferred over other methods for the detection of microbes in
water, this is especially the case where a few microorganisms are to be detected and enumerated in
relatively large volumes of liquid. The filter was taken out by using sterilized forceps and planted on
nutrient agar medium in a nutrient agar place in aseptic conditions. The inoculated nutrient agar plates
were place in an incubator at 37 0C for 48 hours in Applied Sciences Department project laboratory. The
bacterial colonies were counted by a colony counter for all the water samples (Fig 6 – 9). The experiment
was done in triplicates for all the water types.
The data was analyzed for comparative statistics e.g., mean ± standard error, One Way Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA), and t-test (two tailed). Values of P < 0.05 were considered as significant. All
statistical analyses were performed using Sigma Plot (Systat Software, San Jose, California USA)
The data and mean values were expressed in tabular form (Table 1).
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for HCT Eco House grey water: In order to understand the
effectiveness of grey water treatment system, we performed comparative statistics through one way
analysis of variance among all the grey water samples. ANOVA exhibited that there is a statistically
significant difference in ‘microbial load’ among the studied water samples (F = 20.123; df= 3; P < 0.001)
(Table 2). It was also found that the maximum microbial load (mean = 456.65 CFU/100 ml) was present
in ‘Tank 1 with aerated grey water’, and the minimum microbial load (mean = 60 CFU/100 ml) was
present in ‘Tank 3 i.e. post UV and storage tank for irrigating landscape plants (Fig 3 and 4; Fig 5 - 8).
This proves that the treated grey water from HCT eco house if very safe for landscape irrigation. Studies
have shown that WHO guidelines for treated waste water used for irrigation of agricultural crops and
public sports fields limit faecal coliforms to <1000/100 ml (World Health Organization, 1989). The
results show that the coliform bacteria are much lesser than the permissible limits of WHO guidelines for
HCT eco house treated grey water system.
Post Hoc Analysis (Holm-Sidak method) All Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures: We wanted
to explore the data further and to investigate the significant differences pair wise. For this pairwise
multiple comparison purpose we used post-hoc analysis with Holm-Sidak method. It was found that there
were statistically significant differences between all pairs of various water types (t value from 2.660 to
6.734; P value < 0.05 to < 0.001). However, there was no statistically significant difference found
between the pair of tap water (control) and tank 3 (final treated grey water (mean difference = 30
CFU/100 ml; t = 0.509; P = 0.620) Table 3. The results show that the grey water treatment system at
HCT eco house is treating the grey water very effectively and the final output water is safe for irrigating
landscape plants.
9
Table 1. Data for microbial load (CFU/100 ml) in various water types for SBR based grey water
treatment system at HCT eco house
Type of Water Tap Water
(Tap Water/Control)
CFU/100 ml
Tank 1
(Aeration)
CFU/100
ml
Tank 2
(UV Treatment)
CFU/100 ml
Tank 3
(Post UV State)
CFU/100 ml
First replicate 150 470 230 80
Second replicate 60 270 380 70
Third replicate 60 630 290 30
Mean Value 90 456.6 300 60
One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Normality Test (Shapiro-Wilk) Passed (P = 0.053)
Table 2. One way ANOVA for comparing microbial load (CFU/100 ml) in various water types for
SBR based grey water treatment system at HCT eco house
Group Name N Missing Mean Std Dev SEM Replicates 4 4 -- -- -- Tap Water
(Control)
4 0 90.000 42.426 21.213
Tank 1
(Aeration)
4 0 456.650 147.271 73.636
Tank 2 (UV
Treatment)
4 0 300.000 61.644 30.822
Tank 3 (Post
UV State)
4 0 60.000 21.602 10.801
Source of
Variation
DF SS MS F P
Between
Groups
3 418902.667 139634.223 20.123 <0.001
Residual 12 83266.670 6938.889
Total 15 502169.337
The differences in the mean values among the treatment groups are greater than would be expected by
chance; there is a statistically significant difference (P = <0.001).
Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 1.000
One way ANOVA shows that there is a significant difference among the types of water (F =20.123; df =
3; P < 0.001). The results confirm that bacterial count was found to be highest in Tank 1 (with aeration)
mean = 456.666, followed by Tank 2 (UV) mean = 300 and Tank 3 (post UV and storage tank) mean = 60
CFU/100 ml. The microbial load in treated grey water is well below the guidelines set for International
standards.
10
Post hoc analysis: All Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures (Holm-Sidak method):
Overall significance level = 0.05. Comparisons for factor:
Table 3. Post Hoc analysis (Holm-Sidak method) for pairwise multiple comparisons among various
water conditions in SBR based grey water treatment system at HCT eco house.
S. No. Comparison for microbial
load in CFU/100ml
Difference of
Means
t value P value P < 0.05*
1. Tank 1 (Aeration) vs. Tank
3 (Post UV State)
396.650 6.734 <0.001*** Yes
2. Tank 1 (Aeration) vs. Tap
Water (Control)
366.650 6.225 <0.001*** Yes
3. Tank 2 (UV Treatment) vs.
Tank 3 (Post UV State)
240.000 4.075 <0.01**
Yes
4. Tank 2 (UV Treatment) vs.
Tap Water (Control)
210.000 3.565 <0.01**
Yes
5. Tank 1 (Aeration) vs. Tank
2 (UV Treatment)
156.650 2.660 <0.05* Yes
6. Tap Water (Control) vs.
Tank 3 (Post UV State)
30.000 0.509 0.620 NO
(Not
Significant)
11
Types of water at HCT eco house SBR based grey water treatment system
First Replicate Second ReplicateThird Replicate Mean Value
Mic
rob
ial l
oa
d in C
FU
/10
0 m
l
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Tap Water (Control)
Tank 1 (Aeration)
Tank 2 (UV Treatment)
Tank 3 (Post UV State)
Figure 3. Vertical stacked graph showing detailed comparisons of microbial load (CFU/100 ml) with
triplicates in various water types for SBR based grey water treatment system at HCT eco house
12
Types of water
Tap W
ate
r
Tank 1
(A
era
tion)
Tank 2
(U
V T
reatm
ent)
Tank 3
(P
ost
UV
Sta
te)
Ba
cte
ria
l Lo
ad
(C
FU
/10
0 m
l)
0
100
200
300
400
500
Mean Bacterial load
ANOVADF = 3; F = 20.123; P < 0.001
Figure 4. Bar graph showing comparison of microbial load (CFU/100 ml) in various water types for SBR
based grey water treatment system at HCT eco house
13
Figure 5. (Bacterial colony in Tap water/control T0)
Figure 6. (Bacterial colony in Tank 1 with aeration)
14
Figure 7. (Bacterial colony in Tank 2 with UV treatment)
Figure 8. (Bacterial colony in Tank 3 storage tank after UV treatment)
15
9. CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE REPORT AUTHORS: The contact information of the
report authors is as follow:
(c) Dr. Pankaj Sah
Lecturer in Applied Biology
Applied Sciences Department
Higher College of Technology (HCT)
Al-Khuwair, PO Box 74; PC 133
Muscat (Sultanate of Oman)
(d) Dr. Kesaraju Seeta Ramchander Rao
Lecturer in Applied Biology
Applied Sciences Department
Higher College of Technology (HCT)
Al-Khuwair, PO Box 74; PC 133
Muscat (Sultanate of Oman)
References:
1. Lamine, M., Bousselmi, L., Ghrabi, A. (2007). Biological treatment of grey water using
sequencing batch reactor. Desalination, Vol. 215, pp. 127-132.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mona_Lamine/publication/234037338_Biological_treatment
_of_grey_water_using_sequencing_batch_reactor/links/0fcfd50e71f565d8db000000.pdf
2. http://www.graf-water.com/download/catalogues/wastewater-treatment.html
3.
4. Eriksson, E., Auffarth, K., Henze, M., Ledin, A. (2002). Characteristics of grey wastewater.
Urban Water, Vol. 4, pp. 85-104.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mogens_Henze/publication/257587685_Characteristics_of_
grey_wastewater/links/0a85e52dd93473e947000000.pdf
5. Dixon, A., Butler, D., and Fewkes, A. (1999). Water saving potential of domestic water reuse
systems using grey water and rain water in combination. Wat. Sci. Tech. Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 25-
32.
6. Boal, D.C., Evans, R.E., McFarlane, S. (1996). An investigation into greywater reuse
for urban residential properties, Desalination, Vol. 106, pp. 391–397.
7. Barrell, R.A.E., Hunter, P.R., Nichols, G. (2000). Microbiological standards for water and their
relationship to health risk. Communicable Disease and Public Health. Vol. 3, pp. 8-13.
8. Eriksson, E., Auffarth, K., Henze, M., Ledin, A. (2002). Characteristics of grey wastewater,
Urban Water, Vol. 4, pp. 85–104.
9. Jenssen, P.J., Vrale, L. (2003). Greywater Treatment in Combined Bio-filter/Constructed
Wetlands in Cold Climate, (Invited Lecture) 2nd International Symposium on Ecological
Sanitation, IWA.
10. Flowers, B. (2004). Domestic water conservation: greywater, rainwater, and other
innovations. http://beta.csa.com/hottopics/water/overview.php.
16
11. Al-Hamaiedeh, H., and Bino, M. (2010). Effect of treated grey water reuse in irrigation on soil
and plants. Desalination, Vol. 256, pp. 115-119.
12. World Health Organization (1989). Health guidelines for the use of wastewater in agriculture and
aquaculture. Technical Report Series 778, ISSN 0512-3054.