Enhancing water quality in agricultural

drains

in Middle Delta region

Prepared by

Eng. Emad Mahmoud

Under supervision

Prof. Dr. Ahmed Wagdy Dr. Yasmin Nassar

• Problem statement.

• Research objectives.

• Research methodology.

• BOD model.

• Decision Support System (DSS).

• Application.

• Results and Conclusions.

• Recommendations.

2

Outline

Problem statement

Water Resources in Egypt

3

water resources

76 BCM

Conventional water resources

63.1 BCM

The Nile River

55.5 BCM

Precipitation

0.9 BCM

Groundwater

6.7 BCM

Non-Conventional

water resources 13.2 BCM

Agricultural drainage

water

11.8 BCM

Treated wastewater

1.3 BCM

Desalination water

0.1 BCM

* MWRI-Irrigation Sector 2014

Agriculture drainage water

It is proposed to substitute

shortage in irrigation water by the

available agriculture drainage

water.

The Planned drainage water

reuse in Delta by 2017 is 8.468

BCM out of 13 BCM/ year.

(NWRP 2005).

4

Problem statement

Poor drainage water quality is increasingly

becoming a constraint for the drainage water reuse

policy and its future expansion plans

Agricultural drains contain now domestic,

industrial wastewater, fertilizers, pesticides and

solid waste.

5

Shortage in Irrigation

water

Reuse drainage water

in irrigation

Poor drainage water quality

Problem statement Problem statement

Effect of water quality on crop yield

6

2.796 2.78 2.79 2.83

2.67 2.68

2.55

2.67

2.4

2.45

2.5

2.55

2.6

2.65

2.7

2.75

2.8

2.85

2.9

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Yie

ld (

ton

/F

ed

)

Duration per years

Wheat prodution

4.32 4.45 4.39

4.19 4.1

3.93 3.87

3.94

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Yie

ld (

ton

/F

ed

)

Duration per years

Rice production

statistics of MALR2012

3.63

3.81 3.84

3.64

3.46 3.46

3.76 3.74

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Yie

ld (

ton

/F

ed

)

Duration per years

Maize production

20.43 20.46

20.76

21.35

20.71

20.46

19.96 19.99

19

19.5

20

20.5

21

21.5

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Yie

ld (

ton

/Fe

d)

Duration per years

Sugar Beet production

Problem statement

Research objectives

The overall objective of the research is to improve drain water

quality for future direct reuse in irrigation.

7

Improve drain water quality

Using Improved drain

water in irrigation

Improve crop yield

Research Objectives

Develop BOD model

Input Data Output Data

8

• (BOD) Conc.

•drain discharge

•drains cross

section

•water velocity

•Villages

population

•BOD

concentration

along the

drain

Develop DSS

Input Data Output

Data

•available space

•Drain discharge

•Water table

•capital cost

•O&M cost

•the removal

efficiency

•Selection of

the suitable

method to

reduce BOD

values

Research methodology

Application

Original DSS

Modified DSS

• Different

Temp.

•Different

cross –section

• Different

discharge

Research Methodology

9

Mixed flow Plug flow Mixed flow

Calculation of BOD concentration along the

drain

Cout = 𝐂𝐢𝐧 𝐐𝐢𝐧+𝑪𝒔𝑸𝒔

𝐐𝐭

BOD concentration

A Q sewage

C sewage

Q in

C in

Q1 total

total

Q sewage

C sewage

Q2 total

total =-

Q3 total

total

B

Research Methodology

10

BOD Model BOD model

Cross sectionInsert value

50 gram / day b= 2 Bottom Width /m

125 Lit / capita/day Y= 1.3 Water depth /m

100 Lit / capita/day P= 6.687 Wetted parameter x= 1.5 Side slope

0.7 m3/sec R= 0.768 hydraulic radius L= 3.52 Drain length /Km

500 mg/l V= 0.28 Velocity m/S

18 n= 0.03 manning factor

Do mafter mixing with drain water s= 1E-04 Slope

k Biodegrability factor 0.25 day -1

kt Kt=K0 * ϴt-20 0.4311 day -1 p R V

ϴ at T is between 20 -30 1.056 6.68722 0.768 0.279517357

T Temperature 30 C 0

Ci=C0*e-k*t First order decay reaction

Ci = (Qv*Cv+Qd*Cd)Qtotal

Ci=C0*e-k*tCi = (Qv*Cv+Qd*Cd)Qtotal

NO. Village PopulationLocation Distance t kt Qdrain Cdrain Qvillage Cvillage Qtotal Cdrian Before Cdrian after

Drain Start 0 0 0 0.000 0.431 0.700 18.000 0.000000 0 0.70 18.00 18.00

1 Izbat Al nahyteen 3860 200 200 0.008 0.431 0.700 18.000 0.004468 100 0.70 17.94 18.46

2 Izbat Ali Abd Almtaal 6577 1100 900 0.037 0.431 0.704 18.456 0.007612 500 0.71 18.16 23.31

3 Izbat AL mosalth 5489 2500 1400 0.058 0.431 0.712 23.313 0.006353 500 0.72 22.74 26.96

4 Izbat Yousf Salama 3658 3100 600 0.025 0.431 0.718 26.958 0.004234 500 0.72 26.67 29.44

5 Izbt Al Hafsa 1480 3500 400 0.017 0.431 0.723 29.444 0.001713 500 0.72 29.23 30.35

BOD Concentration Drain design criteria

Open channel cross section

BOD = R= (b+xy)*y/(b+2y*(1+x2)^.5

Water consumption = P= b+2*y*(1+x2)^.5

Q sewage= .8 *125

Q drain =

BOD concentration = Cs

C : before and after Villages

Cin= From Water quality sheet mg/l

V= (R2/3 * S1/2)/n

time= distance/Velocity

11

Relation between BOD concentration and travel time for different initial

BOD concentrations

The chart shows the degradation of BOD along the stream over the

time considering that there is NO sewage effluent from villages.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

BO

D c

on

cen

trati

on

(m

g/l)

Travel time (day)

Stream concentartion over time with no effluent from villages

c = 10 c = 15 c =20 C = 25 C=30 C=35

BOD model

BOD stream concentration = 30 mg/l, at t = 0.1 day

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

BO

D c

on

cen

trat

ion

(m

g/l)

Discharge (m3/s)

Popualtion = 30000 Population =5000 Population = 60000

Relation between BOD concentration and drain discharge for different

populations

BOD model

Decision support system

Based on available space, water supply, drain discharge, ground water table,

Accessibility, the available capital cost & operational/maintenance cost and

the required removal efficiency.

13

DSS tool

Value (0-10) Weight (0-1) Score (0-10) Value (0-10) Weight (0-1) Score (0-10) Value (0-10) Weight (0-1) Score (0-10) Value (0-10) Weight (0-1) Score (0-10)

Water Supply Availiability 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029

Available Space 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142

Drain Discharge 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080

Groundwater Table 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040

Accessibility 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029

Available Capital costs 0.267 0.267 0.267 0.267

Available O & M Costs 0.133 0.133 0.133 0.133

BOD Removal Efficiency 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200

BOD Concentration 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080

Low Cost Treatment Technologies

Anaeraobic FilterUASB

Te

chn

olo

gy

Sp

eci

fic

Instream WetlandAnaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR)

ConditionCriteria

Sit

e S

pe

cifi

c

Pl ease Select

Please Select

Please Select

Please Select

Please Select

Please Select

Please Select

Please Select

Please Select

ResetDone

Collect the required data

Plot BOD values along the drains

Validate calculated BOD

Using DSS to select the suitable technology to reduce BOD

Evaluate drains salinity

14

Application Application

Water supply (main canals)

• Bahr Tera

• Meet Yazeed

• EL Kasede

• Bahr Nashrat

• El Kodaba

Excess water from Kafr El

Sheik is drained to:

• The Mediterranean Sea though

Burullus lake

• The Sea direct

• The sea through Rosetta branch.

Total farm land 577,000 Feddan. 15

Kafr EL Sheikh

Kafr El Sheikh as a study area Application

Selection of drains

16

Directorate request

farmers claims

Water quality

21 drain

Application

Collect the required data

17

Water quality data

Drain cross section – hydraulic charactrstics

Data related to number of villages, villages distance, and villages

population

Application

18

BOD concentration before treatment for drains (a) Arian (b) Abo khashaba (c) Mekhazan

Plot the BOD values along the drain

BOD concentration before treatment for drains (a) No. 11 (b) Abo rayaa (c) El Ganeen

Application

19

BOD values along the drain

14.0

17.2 18.1

0

5

10

15

20

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

BO

D C

on

cen

trati

on

(m

g/

L)

Distance (m)

EL Ganaeen drain

EC= 1.6 ds/m

10.0

13.6

17.4

0

4

8

12

16

20

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

BO

D c

on

cen

trati

on

(m

g/

L)

Distance (m)

Mekhazan drain

EC= 3.0 ds/m

Application

20

BOD values along the drain

29.8

27.3

27.0

0

10

20

30

40

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

BO

D c

on

cen

trati

on

(m

g/

L)

Distance (m)

Sandala Drain

10.0

13.7 15.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

BO

D c

on

cen

trati

on

(m

g/

L)

Distance (m)

Faraon drain

Application

21

17.2 17.4

13.6 13.72

27.3

20 19 18 19

30

18

13

12 11

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

AL Ganeen Mekhazan NO. 11 Faraon Sandala

BO

D C

on

cen

trat

ion

(m

g/l)

Calculated BOD Maximum point Minum point

Comparison between BOD calculated and BOD measured

Serial drain names

BOD Concentration

Name of the village Kilo metrage BOD calculated Sep-13 Apr-14 May-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14

1 Fasrh AL Ganaeen

Um-Sann AL Kobra

14 17.2 18 18 16 15 21 20

2 Mekhazan EL Batanoni 4.9 17.4 19 18 14 12 13 12

3 No.11 Tall Motabas 14.2 13.6 13 12 14 18 18 15

4 Faron AL Mazaniha 9 13.72 19 15 19 19 17 11

5 Sandala AL Khamseen 13 27.3 25 25 19 30 23 18

Application

22

Application

Apply DSS on Hood Al Hagar drain

16.0

18.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

BO

D c

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(m

g/L

)

Distance (m)

EC= 1.4 ds/m

Before treatment

Q = 3.8 m3/s

17.98

16.00

8.28

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

BO

D c

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(m

g/L

)

Distance (m)

After treatment

ABR

23

Application

Value (0-10) Weight (0-1) Score (0-10) Value (0-10) Weight (0-1) Score (0-10) Value (0-10) Weight (0-1) Score (0-10) Value (0-10) Weight (0-1) Score (0-10)

Water Supply Availiability 10 0.029 0.29 10 0.029 0.29 10 0.029 0.29 10 0.029 0.29

Available Space 8 0.142 1.136 10 0.142 1.42 10 0.142 1.42 8 0.142 1.136

Drain Discharge 8 0.080 0.64 0 0.080 0 8 0.080 0.64 8 0.080 0.64

Groundwater Table 10 0.040 0.4 10 0.040 0.4 10 0.040 0.4 10 0.040 0.4

Accessibility 10 0.029 0.29 10 0.029 0.29 10 0.029 0.29 10 0.029 0.29

Available Capital costs 8 0.267 2.136 10 0.267 2.67 6 0.267 1.602 6 0.267 1.602

Available O & M Costs 10 0.133 1.33 10 0.133 1.33 8 0.133 1.064 10 0.133 1.33

BOD Removal Efficiency Yes 0.200 2 No 0.200 0 Yes 0.200 2 Yes 0.200 2

BOD Concentration 6 0.080 0.48 6 0.080 0.48 10 0.080 0.8 8 0.080 0.64

Total 1.000 8.70 1.00 6.88 1.00 8.51 1.00 8.33

Recommendations:

-- It is recommended to use: Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR)

-- The highest Score equal: 8.702

Decision-Making Support Tool

Low Cost Treatment Technologies

Anaeraobic FilterUASB

Te

chn

olo

gy

Sp

eci

fic

Instream WetlandAnaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR)

ConditionCriteria

Sit

e S

pe

cifi

c

Yes

Medium

1.0 - 5.0 CM/S

More than 2.0 m

Full Access

500 000 - 1 000 000 LE

1 500 - 3 000 LE

50%-65%

250 - 500kg/d

ResetDone

Selected treatment technology through DSS

Apply DSS for Abo Khashaba Drain

24

Water Supply Availiability

Available Space

Drain Discharge

Groundwater Table

Accessibility

Available Capital costs

Available O & M Costs

BOD Removal Efficiency

BOD Concentration

Total

Recommendations:

-- It is recommended to use: UASB

-- The highest Score equal: 9.68

Tech

nolo

gy Sp

ecifi

c

ConditionCriteria

Site

Spec

ific

Yes

Small

Less than 1.0 CM/S

Less than 2.0 m

Full Access

More than 1 000 000 LE

More than 3 000 LE

More than 80%

250 - 500kg/d

ResetDone

Application

30.3

18.00 13.06

16.81

0

7

14

21

28

35

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

BO

D c

on

cen

trat

ion

(m

g/L

After first treatment

UASB

Apply DSS for Abo Khashaba Drain

25

Application

Water Supply Availiability

Available Space

Drain Discharge

Groundwater Table

Accessibility

Available Capital costs

Available O & M Costs

BOD Removal Efficiency

BOD Concentration

Total

Recommendations:

-- It is recommended to use: Instream Wetland

-- The highest Score equal: 10

Tech

nolo

gy Sp

ecifi

c

ConditionCriteria

Site S

pecif

icYes

Small

Less than 1.0 CM/S

Less than 2.0 m

Full Access

Less than 500 000 LE

Less than 1 500 LE

50%

0 - 250kg/d

18.00 8.72 10.45

0

7

14

21

28

35

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

BO

D c

on

cen

trat

ion

(m

g/L)

Distance (m)

Dual treatment

In-stream wetland

26

DSS performance under the original case

12

5

3

1

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Anaerobic BaffledReactor (ABR)

Anaerobic Filter (AF) Up-flow AnaerobicSludge Blanket (UASB)

Instream wetland Dual treatment

No

. o

f u

sin

g t

reatm

en

t te

ch

no

log

y

Type of treatment technology

DSS performance under the original case

DSS tool

27

Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR)

Can be built and repaired with locally available

materials

Long service life

No real problems with flies or odors if used

correctly

High reduction of organics

Moderate capital costs, moderate operating c

Advantages of ABR

Application

BOD concentration variability and its effect on

decision support system performance

28

BOD concentration variability under different stream

discharge, temperature, and cross section, and its effect

on sewage waste treatment technology selection through

DSS

Cross section Temperature Discharge

Application

29

BOD concentration variability under different

temperature

25.8

28.4

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

BO

D c

on

cen

trati

on

(m

g/

L)

Distance (m)

zaghloul EL Sharqi

T1 = 30 C T2 = 18 C

27.0

30.1

0

10

20

30

40

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

BO

D c

on

cen

trati

on

(m

g/

L)

Distance (m)

Sandala

T1 = 30 C T2 = 18 C

Application

Biodegradability factor under different

temperature

30

The relation between the biodegradability factor K day and various

temperature.

𝒌𝒕=𝒌𝟎𝜽𝑻 𝟐𝟎

𝜽 = 1.135 for T from (4-20) 𝑪𝒐

𝜽 = 1.056 for T from (20-30) 𝑪𝒐

0.20

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Bio

deg

rad

ab

ilit

y F

ato

r K

T (d

ay)-

1

temperature Celsius

Relation between Biodegradability factor and Temperature

T = 0-20 T=22-40

Application

31

DSS performance under different temperature

12

5

3

1

4

12

3

5

1

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Anaerobic BaffledReactor (ABR)

Anaerobic Filter (AF) Up-flow AnaerobicSludge Blanket

(UASB)

Instream wetland Dual treatment

No

. o

f u

sin

g t

reatm

en

t te

ch

no

log

y

Type of treatment technology

DSS performance under different temperatures

DSS with temp. T= 30 c DSS with Temp. T = 18 C

Application

BOD concentration variability under different

stream discharge

32

30.3

35.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

BO

D c

on

cen

trati

on

(m

g/

L)

Distance (m)

Abo Khashaba

Q = Q1 Q2 = 0.5 Q1

30.6

35.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

BO

D c

on

cen

trati

on

(m

g/

L)

Distance (m)

El Hadood

Q = Q1 Q2= 0.5 Q1

Q= 0.8 m3/s

Application

Q= 0.7 m3/s

33

DSS performance under different stream

discharge

12

5

3

1

4

8

5

8

0

7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Anaerobic BaffledReactor (ABR)

Anaerobic Filter (AF) Up-flow AnaerobicSludge Blanket (UASB)

Instream wetland Dual treatment

No

. o

f u

sin

g t

reatm

en

t te

ch

no

log

y

Type of treatment technology

DSS performance under different discharge

DSS with stream dischareg Q1 = (Q1) DSS with stream dischareg Q1= 0.5 Q1

Application

34

BOD concentration variability under different

stream cross-section

31.4

29.7

0

10

20

30

40

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

BO

D c

on

cen

trati

on

(m

g/

L)

Distance (m)

EL Bahrawy

A = (A1) A = 2(A1)

33.0

28.2

0

10

20

30

40

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

BO

D c

on

cen

trati

on

(m

g/

L)

Distance (m)

Tahwelet Nashart

A = (A1) A = 2(A1)

Application

35

DSS performance under different stream cross-

section

12

5

3

1

4

13

4

3

1

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Anaerobic BaffledReactor (ABR)

Anaerobic Filter (AF) Up-flow AnaerobicSludge Blanket (UASB)

Instream wetland Dual treatment

No

. o

f u

sin

g t

reatm

en

t te

ch

no

log

y

Type of treatment technology

DSS performance under different cross section

DSS with Cross section A = (A1) DSS with Cross section A = 2(A1)

Application

36

Scenarios Cost

Scenarios for 21 drain Capital Cost/

Thousand -EGP M&O Cost/ 15 year

Original DSS 23,400 9,198

Different discharge 32,900 12,351

Different Temp. 26,300 10,260

different cross-section 24,250 9,468

Treatment technology Capital Cost / EGP M&O cost/Month O& M/ 15 Year (EGP)

ABR 950000 2000 360000

AF 1000000 2500 450000

UASB 1500000 3200 576000

IW 500000 1000 180000

Modi Iw 800000 1400 252000

Application

37

In-stream Wet-land

The analysis of data showed that the In-stream wet-land is

proposed to be used in 1 out of 21 drains although this

technology is the cheapest option for slightly polluted

drains that’s because;

The removal efficiency 50 %

The drain discharge less than 1 m3/s

Application

38

Modification of in stream wet-land design

Increase Air entrainment and DO values through :

Micro-bubble an oxygen Producer device (MBD)

Drop structure

That will reflect on BOD removal efficiency.

Application

DO and BOD concentration in

Kafr EL Sheikh drains

39

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

BO

D &

DO

Co

ncen

trati

on

(m

g/

L)

BOD and DO concentration

DO Concentration BOD Concentration

Application

40

Modification of in stream wet-land design

Micro-bubble device (an oxygen Producer) after sedimentation pond

Application

41

Modification of in stream wet-land design Application

Time - Distance

DO (mg/l) NO. of sets

5m 50m 200m 500m 1000m

Before operating T=0 DO = 1.3 (mg/l)

Drain No. 4 T= 3 hours 2.45 1.98 1.5 1.5 1.4 2 sets (21 mm)

T= 1 hour (T. Channel) 6.45 5.45 2.35 2 1.5 1 set (21 mm)

T=1 hour (T. Channel) 6.49 5.84 5.03 4.6 3.85 2 sets (21 mm)

BOD (mg/l)

Before operating T=0 BOD = 30 (mg/L)

T=1 hour (T. Channel) 25 21 18 12 10 2 sets (21 mm)

42

Micro bubble test results

Micro-bubble device increase dissolved oxygen (DO) from 1.6 (mg/l)

to 4.6 (mg/l) after 1 operating hour (at 500 m)

COD value improved from50mg/l to 20mg/l and it took

approximately 1 hour.

Application

43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200BO

D &

DO

co

ncen

trati

on

(m

g/

L)

Distance (m)

Sandala Drain

Do concentration BOD concentration BOD original concentration

Application

The relation between DO and BOD

concentration

44

Modified In-stream Wet-land

Micro Bubble Device increase the in-stream

wetland removal efficiency from 50 % to 70 %

MBD reduce retention time so the in-stream

wetland can be used for drains with discharge

ranged from 0.1 - 5 m3/s.

MBD increase the capital cost from 500,000 EGP

to implement in-stream wetland to 800,000

Egyptian pound.

Application

45

DSS performance under different removal

efficiency (Modified instream wetland)

12

5

3

1

4

7

4

2

8

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Anaerobic BaffledReactor (ABR)

Anaerobic Filter (AF) Up-flow AnaerobicSludge Blanket

(UASB)

Instream wetland Dual treatment

No

. o

f u

sin

g t

reatm

en

t te

ch

no

log

y

Type of treatment technology

DSS performance under modified Instream wetland

Dss with IW removal eff. 50% Dss with IW rem. Eff. 70%

Application

46

Sensitivity analysis for the selected treatment

technologies through DSS

12

7

13

8

12

3 2

3

8

5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Original DSS Change removaleffieicny

Various Crosssection

Various discharge Varioustemperature

No

. o

f u

sin

g t

reatm

en

t te

ch

no

log

y

different scenarios

ABR AF UASB (I W) Dual treatment

Application

47

Capital and operational / maintenance cost

23,400000

32,900000

26,300000 24,250000

22,050000

9,198000

12,351200 10,260000 9,468000

7,632000

0

5000000

10000000

15000000

20000000

25000000

30000000

35000000

Original DSS Differentdischarge

Different Temp. different cross-section

ModifiedInstream wetland

CO

ST

(E

GP

)

Different scenarios

Capital Cost M&O Cost/ 15 year

Application

48

Determination of drains salinity

There are a high salinity values in some agriculture drains in the study

area, because of the limited share of good quality irrigation water

farmers irrigate their land by drainage water which classified as a low

quality water leads to decrease crop yield and productivity.

Application

Measured drains salinity

49

8.6

3.5

3.0

6.4

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

EC c

on

cen

trat

ion

(D

s/m

)

Drain name

Avarage drains salinity

Salt tolerant crops

halophytes plants

Mixing with fresh water

Application

How to overcome salinity problems

Reduce drains water salinity by mixing with fresh irrigation

water with suitable ratio.

50

Salinity of drainage water (ds/m) Restriction on use for irrigation

< 1.0 used directly for irrigation

1.0 - 2.3 mixed with canal water at ratio 1:1

2.3 - 4.6 mixed with canal water at ratio 1:2 or

1:3

> 4.6 not used for irrigation

Application

How to overcome salinity problems

51

It is recommended to use tolerant crops in the farm-land

surrounding drains with EC values more than 3 Ds/m.

Use halophytes in the farm-land surrounding drains with EC values

more than 5 Ds/m.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Re

lati

ve C

rop

yie

ld (

%)

ECe (ds/m)

Gross response to salinity

Salt Senstive crops Salt tolrant crops Halophyates

Application

Conclusion

52

It was observed that drains with discharges more than

5 m3/sec is less affected with BOD effluent from villages with

population up to 60,000 inhabitants.

There is a relation between BOD concentration and crop

pattern in the area, where in the summer season BOD values

concentration decrease with rice cultivation.

Irrigation with direct drainage water leads to increase soil

salinity Northern East part of Kafr EL sheikh Governorate.

Results and conclusions Results and conclusions

Conclusion

53

The change of temperature, stream cross section, and

stream discharge have an effect on the BOD

concentration and the selected treatment technologies

through decision support system.

Using a decentralized treatment station in the

beginning of the drains keep BOD concentration

values within the allowable limits which enable to

direct reuse of drainage water in irrigation.

Results and Conclusions Results and conclusions

Conclusion

54

Increasing air entrainment in the in-stream wetland

technology will increase the BOD removal efficiency from 50%

to 70% , and that modified scenario increase using instream

wetland to be used in 8 sites out of 21.

The modified in-stream wetland technology is the most

suitable solution in the study area in terms of the

required space and construction, operational and

maintenance cost ( especially drains with discharge less

than 5 m3/S.)

Results and conclusions Results and conclusions

Recommendations for further work

55

the scenario of using modified instream wetland have the least

Capital and M&O costs. The second best option is to modifying

the instream wetland although the capital cost is most equal the

original case, but in-terms of long term maintenance and

operational cost is less that the others scenarios.

Recommendations

The research focused on the point source of sewage waste

pollution comes from villages, it is recommended to consider

branch drains and sub-surface drainage effect in the calculation

in further works.

It also recommended to calculate the nitrate decay along the

drains.

Further works should study the behavior of the industrial wastes

and heavy metals concentration values in samples of water and

sediment along the drains.

56

57

Typical profile of the instream wetland

Sanors village AL Fayoum Sambo village – AL Garbayia

Kafe Al Hamam- AL Shrkiya AL Ibarhimia - Sharkeya 58

Examples of decentralize treatment technology

Flow (m3/day)

Flow (m3/S)

MBD

(Pump)Total kW

Diameter Units

5,000 0.058 21 mm 2 3.7

10,000 0.12 21 mm 2 7.4

50,000 0.58 15 mm 6 33.0

100,000 1.16 32 mm 4 45.0

500,000 5.79 32 mm 4 150.0

59

Micro bubble capacity

From the pervious data installing MBD before the vegetation zone by

500 m will be more efficient and reduce turbidity before the

vegetation zone.

No. of units and pump capacity required depending on stream

discharge and the diameter of MBD nozzle.

60

Typical profile of the instream wetland

sedimentation pond

Vegetation pond

Aeration zone (natural)

The control weir is located at drain outlet

EL Bahoo Drain – Idfena drain

61