Download - Viva presentation
An Assessment of Environmental Impact of Sugar Mills in District Rahim Yar Khan, Punjab, Pakistan.
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of M. Phil in Zoology.
BySaghir Ahmad
Roll No. 1Session 2005-2007
INSTITUTE OF PURE AND APPLIED BIOLOGYBAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN
In Pakistan, 77 Sugar mills constitute the second most important industry sharing 16% in agricultural economy.
Of these 38 are in punjab,32 in Sindh,6 in NWFP 1 in AK.
Sugar mills use various chemicals during processing which include Calcium Hydroxide, polyelectrolyte, limestone, phosphoric acid, sulphur dioxide, caustic soda, HCl and Lead sub acetate etc.
It is high time to keep an eye on our habitat and assess whether some sort of pollution is being caused by sugar industry or not.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The study was structured to ascertain the impact of growing Sugar Industry on natural resources including soil and water.
Materials and Methods Area of Study :
JDW Sugar Mills, N 28.41.40.4″ E 70.44.41.9″ Humza Sugar Mills, N 28.41.40.5″ E 70.44.42.1″ United Sugar Mills, N 28.34.39.9″ E 7019.18.7″ Ettehad Sugar Mills, N 28.15.01.1″ E 70.02.25.5″
KEY:JDW Sugar Mills
Hamza Sugar Mills
United Sugar Mills
Ettehad Sugar Mills
JDW Sugar Mills
Sampling Sites Water Sampling
(site I, II, III, IV, V) Soil Sampling
(site I, II, III, IV, V)
Fig. Saghir at site III of Humza Sugar Mills
Saim- Nullah near Humza Sugar Mills
Sampling Duration and Analysis
May 2007 to April 2008
S & W Testing Lab. Multan
S & W Testing Lab. R Y KHAN
Figure 1: Showing average monthly variation of EC in water at JDW Sugar Mills.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
month
EC
I
II
III
IV
V
Figure 2: Showing monthly variation of Ca++, Mg++ in water at JDW Sugar Mills.
.
0
12
3
45
6
78
9
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April
Months
Ca+
+,M
g+
+
I
II
III
IV
V
Figure 3: Showing monthly variation of sodium in water at JDW Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Limited
.
0
12
3
45
6
78
9
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April
Months
Ca+
+,M
g+
+ I
II
III
IV
V
Figure 4: Showing Monthly variation of Bi-carbonate in water at JDW Sugar Mills.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
May
June Ju
lyAug Sep Oct Nov
DecJa
nFeb
Mar
chApr
il
months
Bi-
carb
on
ate
I
II
III
IV
V
Figure 5: Showing monthly variation of sodium absorption ratio (SAR) in water at JDW Sugar Mills.
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
May
June Ju
lyAug Sep Oct Nov
DecJa
nFeb
Mar
chApr
il
months
SA
R
I
II
III
IV
V
Figure 6: Showing monthly variation of Chloride in water at JDW Sugar Mills.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April
month
ch
lori
des
I
II
III
IV
V
Figure 7: Showing monthly variation of EC in water at Humza Sugar Mills
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
months
EC
I
II
III
IV
V
Figure 8: Showing monthly variation of Ca++, Mg++ in water at Humza Sugar Mills
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
months
Ca+
+,M
g+
+
I
II
III
IV
V
Figure 9: Showing monthly variation of Chlorides in water at Humza Sugar Mills
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
month
ch
lori
des
I
II
III
IV
V
Figure 10: Showing Monthly variation of sodium in water at Humza Sugar Mills.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
May
June Ju
lyAug Sep Oct Nov
DecJa
nFeb
Mar
chApr
il
month
sod
ium
I
II
III
IV
V
Figure 11: Showing monthly variation of SAR in water at Humza Sugar Mills.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
months
SA
R
I
II
III
IV
V
Figure 12: Showing monthly variation of Bi-carbonates in water at Humza Sugar Mills.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
months
SA
R
I
II
III
IV
V
Figure 13: Showing monthly variation of overall Parameters in water at United Sugar Mills.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April
Ca++Mg++
Sodium
HCO3-
Chlorides
SAR
EC
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April
EC
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April
Para
mete
rsCa++Mg++
Sodium
HCO3-
Chlorides
SAR
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April
EC
Figure 15: Graph showing monthly depth wise (6” – 48”) EC comparison in soil samples taken from JDW Sugar Mills effluent sites.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April
monthsE
C
I
II
III
IV
V
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April
months
EC
I
II
II
IV
V
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April
months
EC
I
II
III
IV
V
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April
months
EC
I
II
III
IV
V
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April
months
EC
I
II
III
IV
V
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April
months
EC
I
II
III
IV
V
EC
at
12
”
EC
at
18
”
EC
at
24
”
EC
at
30
”
EC
at
36
”
EC
at
48
”
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April
months
pH
I
II
III
IV
V
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8
9
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April
Month
pH
I
II
III
IV
V
7
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8
9
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April
month
pH
I
II
III
IV
V
7
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8
9
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April
month
pH
I
II
III
IV
V
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April
months
pH
I
II
III
IV
V
7
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April
month
pH
I
II
III
IV
V
pH
at
12”
pH
at
18”
pH
at
24”
pH
at
30”
pH
at
36”
7
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April
months
pH
I
II
III
IV
V
Figure 16: Graph showing monthly depth wise (6” – 48”) pH
comparison in soil samples taken from JDW
Sugar Mills effluent sites.
DISCUSSION Water EC =Salinity
Water Salinity @ Calcium, Magnesium, Bi-carbonates, Chlorides, Sodium &SAR
pH @ CO2 ,Bicarbonates, carbonates, hydroxyl ions,
Calcium & Magnesium etc
Sugar Mills produce effluents CO2 Bicarbonates, carbonates, hydroxyl ions, Calcium & Magnesium etc.
Water pollution>>>>seepage + irrigation>>>Soil Pollution.
CONCLUSION
Habitat degradation, Ecological Imbalance, Desertification.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is evident from the results that effluents these sugar mills are polluting the nearby natural resources.
NEQS must be enforced on the basis of “Acta non Verba”
QUESTIONS ?