MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1531355669 · doi:10.51415/10321/1251

Determinants of key drivers for potable water treatment cost in uMngeni Basin

2015· dissertation· en· W1531355669 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Innocent Rangeti

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesDurban University of Technology
Mots-clésTurbidityWater qualityEnvironmental scienceWater supplyEnvironmental engineeringHydrology (agriculture)Water resource managementEcologyEngineeringBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The study entailed the determination of key water quality parameters significantly influencing treatment cost in uMngeni Basin. Chemical dosage was used as a substitute for treatment cost as the study indicated that cost, in its monetary value, is influenced by market forces, demand and supply, which are both not directly linked to water quality. Chemical dosage is however, determined by the quality of water and thus provides a clear illustration of the effect of pollution on treatment cost. Three specific objectives were set in an effort to determine key water quality parameters influencing treatment costs in uMngeni Basin. The fourth objective was to develop a model for predicting chemical dosages. The first approach was analysis of temporal and spatial variability of water quality in relation to chemical dosage during production of potable water. The trends were explained in relation to river health status. For this purpose, time-series, box-plot, and the Seasonal-Kendal test were employed. The results showed that the quality of water significantly deteriorated from upstream to downstream in relation to algae, turbidity and Escherichia coli (E. coli). High mean range of E. coli (126-1319 colony count/100mL) and turbidity (2.7-38.7 NTU) observed indicate that the quality of water along the basin is not fit for human consumption as these parameters exceeded the target range stipulated in South Africa’s guidelines for domestic use. For water intended for drinking purpose, turbidity should be below 5 NTU, while zero E. coli count is expect in 100 mL. Among the six sampling stations considered along the uMngeni Basin, three dam outflows (Midmar, Nagle and Inanda) showed an improved quality compared with their respective inflow stations. This was expected and could be attributed to the retention and dilution effects. These natural processes help by providing a self-purification process, which ultimately reduces the treatment cost. While considering the importance of disseminating water quality information to the general public and non-technical stakeholders, the second objective of the study was to develop two water quality indices. These were; (1) Treatability Water Quality Index and (2) River Health Water Quality Index. The Treatability Water Quality Index was developed based on the Canadian Council Minister of Environment Water Quality Index (CCME-WQI). The technique is used to determine fitness of water against a set of assigned water quality resource objectives (guidelines). The calculated Harmonised Water Quality Resource Objectives (HWQRO) were used to compare the qualities of the raw water being abstracted at Nagle and Inanda Dam for the purpose of treatment. The results showed that Nagle Dam, which supplies Durban Heights, is significantly affected by E. coli (42% non-compliance), turbidity (20% non-compliance) and nitrate (18% non-compliance) levels. Wiggins Water Treatment Plant which abstracts from Inanda Dam has a problem of high algae (mean 4499 cell/mL), conductivity (mean 26.21 mS/m) and alkalinity (mean 62.66 mg/L) levels. The River Health Water Quality Index (RHWQI) was developed using the Weighted Geometric Mean (WQM) method. Eight parameters, namely, E. coli, dissolved oxygen, nitrate, ammonia, turbidity, alkalinity, electrical conductivity and pH were selected for indexing. Rating curves were drawn based on the target ranges as stipulated in South Africa’s guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Five classes were used to describe the overall river health status. The results showed that the water is still acceptable for survival of freshwater animals. A comparison of the RHWQI scores (out of 100) depicted that dam inflow station (MDI(61.6), NDI(74.6) and IDI(63.8)) showed a relatively deteriorated quality as compared with their outflows (MDO(77.8), NDO(74.4) and IDO(80)). The third objective was to employ statistical analysis to determine key water quality parameters influencing chemical dosage at Durban Heights and Wiggins Water Treatment Plants. For each of the two treatment plants, treated water quality data-sets were analysed together with their respective raw water data-set. The rationale was to determine parameters showing concentration change due to treatment. The t-test was used to determine the significance of concentration change on each of the 23 parameters considered. Thereafter, the correlations between water quality parameters and the three chemicals used during treatment (polymer, chlorine and lime) were analysed. The results showed that the concentrations of physical parameters namely, algae, turbidity and total organic carbon at both treatment showed a significant statistical (p<0.05) reduction in concentration (R/Ro<0.95). This results implies that such parameters were key drivers for chemical dosage. From the results of the first three objectives, it is recommended that implementing measures to control physical parameter pollution sources, specifically sewage discharges and rainfall run-off from agricultural lands along the uMngeni Basin should assist in reducing the chemical dosage and ultimately cost. The fourth objective was to develop chemical dosage models for prediction purposes. This was achieved by employing a polynomial non-linear regression function on the XLStat 2014 program. The resultant models showed prediction power (R2) ranging from 0.18 (18%) up to 0.75 (75%). However, the study recommends a comparative study of the developed models with other modelling techniques.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,619
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,333
Écart entre enseignants0,293 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentTravaux en français237 207