ROLE OF LAKE SEDIMENTS IN

GROUNDWATER QUALITY

SPONSORERS:

All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)◦ Role of Lake sediments in Ground water quality – TAPTEC

◦ Pilot plant studies on the treatability of combined industrial effluent – MODROB

Andhra Pradesh State Council of Science and Technology (APCOST)

PRILIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS:

Water Quality of Inlet, Outlet Nallahs and the Lake

Environmental Survey of Kattedan Industrial Area

RESEARCH CONDUCTED SO FAR &

IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEM

Studies limited to assessment of quality

Theoretical calculations on nutrient load

Reduction in size of the lake

Budha poornima accident & Impact of sediments

Lack of detailed information on Lake sediments

Deterioration of Ground water quality

Relation between sediments and ground water quality not established

Lack of Information & commitment on measures to be taken for remediation

Noor Mohammad Kunta, Pink Colour due to discharge of untreated effluents from dyeing industries

OBJECTIVES

• To study the land use practices in the catchment area

• To determine the water quality of incoming nallahs, Lake, outlet,

surrounding ground water, Sediments and Pore water and to study

progressive deterioration of lake

• To study variation in water quality during its journey

• Conducting soil column studies

• Application of mathematical model

• Conduct performance studies on CETPs

• Pilot plant studies on the treatability of combined industrial effluent

• Suggest remedial measures

PROBLEMS FACED BY URBAN LAKES

• Urbanization, Industrialization and

Encroachments

• Tampering of Inflow and Outflow

Channels & Improper design

• Cattle Wash • Washing Clothes

• Indiscriminate dumping of Waste • Continuous Flow of Untreated Waste

Water

• Invasive Weed • Pollution due to Idol Immersion

IMPACTS ON LAKE

Loss of water storage capacity

Frequent flooding

Lake water contamination

Ground water Pollution?

Loss of aquatic species

Loss of traditional Livelihood like fishing

Loss of recreational opportunities

Loss of aesthetics

Release of volatile gases and foul smell – air pollution.

STUDIES CONDUCTED

Land Use Practices

Catchment Area of Hussain Sagar Lake

Salient Features of the Lake:

S.No Parameter Specification

1 Year of Construction 1562 AD

2 Catchment Area Classification

Area of built up land (class – 1) 90 Sq Km

Area of built up land (class – 2) 68 Sq Km

Area of scrub forests 18 Sq Km

Area of crop lands 12.5 Sq Km

Area of lands with scrub 35 Sq Km

Area of lands without scrub 8.5 Sq Km

Area of water bodies 8 Sq Km

Total 240 Sq Km

3 Maximum water spread area 5.7 Sq km

4 Volume of lake 28.6 X 106 m3

5 Average depth at full capacity 5.02 m

6 Shoreline length 14 Km

Hydrological Data of Hussain Sagar Lake Water

Bathymetric contour map and Inlet and outlet nallas of Hussain sagar Lake (HUDA 2005)

Ground, Surface Water and sediment Sampling Locations in and around Hussain

Sagar Lake

SAMPLING LOCATIONS

Analysis of Samples Collected from the four Nallahs and the Lake

ParameterInlet Nullahs Outlet Nullahs (Lake)

Min Max Min Max

pH 6.9 8.5 7.8 8.1

Conductivity (mhos/cm) 2170 3600 2550 2700

Chlorides (ppm) 112 530 387 496

Sulphates (ppm) 26 299 235 340

Phosphates (ppm) 0.03 1.6 1.2 2.6

Hardness (ppm) 270 380 - -

Alkalinity (mg/lit) 432 560 - -

COD (mg/lit) 496 1120 107 186

BOD (mg/lit) 225 373.3 4 70

DO (mg/lit) 0 2.7 - -

TSS (mg/lit) 150 540 30 54

TDS (mg/lit) 980 2110 974 1242

Turbidity (NTU) 19 90

Nitrates (mg/lit) 58 85 7.24 13.7

Fluorides (mg/lit) 0.5 1 - -

WATER QUALITY IN INLET & OUTLET NALLAHS

Dissolved solids, TSS and Hardness pH, DO & Other Dissolved solids

CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN INLET AND OUTLET NALLAHS

GPS used for navigation

GPS Hand rover

Collection of water samples using Water Sampler

NAVIGATION AND SAMPLING IN THE ALKE

Table 5: Lake Water Quality Parameters

Pramaeter Min Max Mean

pH 8.2 8.4 8.3

Conductivity (mhos/ cm) 1000 1120 1063.33

Chlorides (mg/l) 116 325 145.73

Sulphates (mg/l) 12 40 21.28

Phosphates (mg/l) 0 1 0.65

Hardness (mg/l) 232 360 281

Calcium Hardness (mg/l) 110 290 186.87

Magnesium Hardness (mg/l) 14 186 87.87

Sodium (ppm) 71 76 73.56

Calcium (ppm) 44 122 75.37

Magnesium (ppm) 3.3 46 21.25

Lead (mg/l) 0.3 0.5 0.38

Chromium (mg/l) 0.3 0.5 0.368

QUALITY OF LAKE WATER

1

0.5

0.6

0

0.30.37

0.65

0.380.40

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Phosphates Lead Chromium

Co

nce

ntr

ati

on

in

mg/l

it)

Pollutants

Max

Min

Mean

PHOSPHATE AND HEAVY METALS CONCENTRATION IN LAKE

Hardness, Chlorides and Conductivity pH and Dissolved Solids

1120

212

360290

186

1000

116

232

110

14

1063.33

145.73

281

186.875

87.87

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Co

nce

ntr

ati

on

in

mg

/lit

exce

pt

EC

(μ

mh

o/c

m)

Pollutants

Max

Min

Mean

8.4

40

76

122

46

8.212

71

44

3.38.3

21.28

73.56 75.37

21.256

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Co

nce

ntr

ati

on

in

pp

m (

exce

pt

pH

)

Pollutants

Max

Min

Mean

CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN LAKE WATER

PROGRESSIVE DETERIORATION OF THE LAKE

Variation in Physico-Chemical Characteristics of Hussain Sagar Lake since 1977

Parameters

Year of Study

1977 1979 1985 1986 1988 1991 1992 1998 2005 2007

pH 8.7 8.1 7.1 8 7.5 8 8 8.3 9.3 7.56

Electronic Conductivity (µmho’s/cm) 1567 2314 2687 3780 3310 1899 2310 1516 1480 2133

Turbidity (NTU) 48 12.5 67 84 72 162 183 210 192 160

Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) 10.6 9 11.67 12 12 16 22 25 28 31

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l) 935 1254 1363.33 1023 1352 1234 1037 974 1134 1242

Alkalinity (mg/l) 347.8 360 328 420 220 206 250 369 457 587

Chlorides (mg/l) 166.2 183 263.3 390 260 201 245 212 312 390

Total Hardness (mg/l) 288 296 254 301 325 314 317 360 382 367

Nitrates (mg/l) 0.37 2.5 2.7 3.22 4.35 5.48 7.5 10.47 9 13.7

Sulphates (mg/l) 117 108 137.3 159.2 120 137.9 90 75.6 92.58 136

Phosphates (mg/l) 1.05 0.82 0.66 5.85 5.75 6.08 6.7 0.93 9.2 13.6

Chemical Oxygen Demand (mg/l) - - 81.33 85.2 89 123 140 170.67 165 237

Biological Oxygen Demand (mg/l) - - 30.33 35.2 40 42 53.75 70 64 85

Variation in Physico-Chemical Parameters of Hussain Sagar Lake water

during different years, a, b- Pollutants with increasing Trend. c- Pollutants

with Random Trend

Turbidity TSSAlkalinit

yHardness Nitrates Phospates COD BOD

pH EC TDS ClSulphate

s

COLLECTION AND STORAGE OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES

Collection of surface sediment samples using Ekman Grab Sampler

Collection of deep sediments using Kajak – Brinkhurst Core Sampler

Collection and Storage of Core sediment Samples

.

Extraction of Pore water from sediments

Pore water samples were extracted from the sediments using filter presses and

centrifuge and then filtered through wattman filter paper using vacuum filtration

techniques before analysis.

Parameter Min Max Mean

pH 7.7 8.2 7.88

Chlorides (ppm) 4 36.4 11.65

Sulphates (ppm) 5 38 17.99

Hardness (ppm) 52 152 97.53

Calcium Hardness (ppm) 16 80 52.62

Magnesium Hardness (ppm) 20 72 44.92

Sodium (ppm) 8 55 15.46

Calcium (ppm) 13 64 25.47

Magnesium (ppm) 5 17 10.82

Potassium (ppm) 4 8 6

Chromium (mg/kg) 20 74 42.81

QUALITY OF SEDIMENTS

Concentrations of Pollutants in Sediments in ppm

8.2

36.4 38

152

8072

5564

17 8

74

7.88 11.6517.99

97.53

52.6244.92

15.4625.47

10.82 6

42.81

7.7 4 5

52

16 20

813

5 4

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Pollutants

Max

Mean

Min

120

177.3

6372.2

10 7.919

3.8

58.9245.5

39.2029.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Zinc © Zinc (G) Lead © Lead (G)

Co

nce

ntr

ati

on

in

mg

/kg

Pollutants

Max

Min

Mean

G – Grab C- Core

ParameterCore Samples Grab Samples

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean

Zinc (mg/kg) 10 120 58.92 7.9 177.3 45.5

Lead (mg/kg) 19 63 39.2 3.8 72.2 29.5

CONCENTRATION OF HEAVY METALS IN SEDIMENTS

Parameter Min Max Mean

pH 7.0 7.5 7.13

Conductivity (μ mho/cm) 1260 3860 2179.2

Chlorides (ppm) 100 375 113

Sulphates (ppm) 2.5 13 7.84

Hardness (ppm) 1275 4850 2117.3

Calcium Hardness (ppm) 300 1220 498.46

Magnesium Hardness (ppm) 995 3630 1627.3

Sodium (ppm) 120 300 175.38

Calcium (ppm) 120 488 199.38

Magnesium (ppm) 231 878 392.38

Lead (ppm) 0 0.2 0.133

Potassium (ppm) 20 69 33.92

Phosphates (ppm) 0.005 0.04 0.016

Zinc (ppm) 0 1.1 0.315

QUALITY OF PORE WATER

Graph showing the concentration of Pollutants in Pore Water

Hardness and Conductivity Dissolved Solids

3860

4850

1220

3630

1260 1275

300

995

2179.21744

498.5

1627.3

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

pp

m

Pollutants

Max

Min

Mean

a

375

300

488

878

69

100

120 120

231

20

113175.4

199.4

393

34

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Cl- Na Ca+ Mg+ K

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

pp

m

Pollutants

Max

Min

Mean

b

Variation in Pb, Zn concentrations in Grab, Core, Pore water of sediments

0.04

72.2 63

0.2

177.3

120

1.10.005 3.8

190 7.9 10

00.016

29.539.2

0.133

45.558.92

0.3150

20406080

100120140160180200

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

pp

m

Pollutants

Max

Min

Mean

G – Grab C- Core P - Pore

7.8811.65 17.99

715.5

42.81 39.2

58.92

7.13

113

7.84

34

175.4

0.13 0.3150

102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190

pH Cl- So42- K Na Cr Pb ZnCo

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

pp

m(e

xc

ep

t p

H)

Pollutants

Lake Sediment

Pore water

Variation in Dissolved solids concentrations in Sediment and Pore Water

98 45 52.6 25.5 10.8

2117.3

1627

498

199.4393

0

200400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

Hardness MgHardness

CaHardness

Ca+ Mg+

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (

pp

m)

Pollutants

Lake Sediment

Pore Water

ParameterYear of Study

1998 2003 2008

pH 7.88 - 8.0

Mercury (ppm) - 2.07 24.58

Chromium (ppm) 46.14 77.65 -

Zinc (ppm) 67.99 280.28 -

Lead (ppm) 45.23 146.5 120.8

Arsenic (ppm) - 15.95 72.24

020406080

100120140160180200220240260280300

pH Mercury Chromium Zinc Lead ArsenicCo

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

pp

m (

exc

ep

t p

H)

Pollutants

1998

2003

2008

INCREASE OF HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATION IN

LAKE SEDIMENTS OVER A DECADE

Ground water sampling locations and contours of Ground water

table around Hussain Sagar Lake.

GROUND WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS & CONTOURS

Parameter Max Min Mean

pH7.9 6.6 7.32

Conductivity (μ mho/cm) 8770 476 2207.9

Chlorides (ppm) 740 36 198.69

Sulphates (ppm) 340 10 81.64

Hardness (ppm) 1530 170 525.32

Alkalinity (ppm) 816 168 422.1

Sodium (ppm) 53.3 2.6 15.62

Calcium (ppm) 1380 110 398.59

Magnesium (ppm) 420 15 151.07

Lead (ppm) 0.07 0 0.065

Potassium (ppm) 26 0 1.666

Phosphates (ppm) 1.3 0.08 0.038

GROUND WATER QUALITY

Graph showing the concentration of Pollutants in Ground Water

Conductivity and Hardness Dissolved Solids

8770

1380 1530

2207.9

398.59 525.32476110 1700

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Conductivity Calcium Hardness

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

pp

m (

exc

ep

t C

on

du

cti

vit

y)

Pollutants

Max

Mean

Min740

340

816

53.3

420

198.69

81.64

422.1

15.62

151.07

3610

168

2.6 150

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

pp

m

Pollutants

Max

Mean

Min

0.07

26

1.3

7.9

0.0651.666

0.038

7.32

00

0.08

6.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Lead Potassium Phosphates pH

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

pp

m(e

xc

ep

t p

H)

Pollutants

Max

Mean

Min

Graph showing the concentration of Various Pollutants in Ground Water

Parameters

Inlet Nallah Lake Sediments* Pore water Ground Water

Max MinMean

Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean

Alkalinity (mg/l) 560 432 507 372 320 369.3 - - - - - - 816 168 422.1

Sulphates (mg/l) 295 26.0 163 75.6 12.0 23.62 38.0 5.0 18.0 13.0 2.5 7.8 340 10.0 81.6

Chlorides (mg/l) 530 112 321 212 116 145.7 36.4 4.0 11.7 375 100 113 740 36.0 198.7

Hardness (mg/l) 380 270 325 360 232 281 152 52.0 97.5 4850 1275 2117.3 1530 170 525.3

Sodium (ppm) - -

-

76.0 71.0 73.6 55.0 8.0 15.5 300 120 175.4 53.3 2.6 15.6

Potassium (mg/l) - -

-

- - - 15.0 4.0 7.0 69.0 20.0 33.9 26.0 0 1.7

Ca Ions (ppm) - -

-

122 44.0 75.4 64.0 13.0 25.5 488 120 199.4 1380 110 398.6

Mg Ions (mg/l) - -

-

46.0 3.3 21.3 17.0 5.0 10.8 878 231 393.0 420 15.0 151.1

Ca Hardness

(mg/l)

- -

-

290 110 186.9 80.0 16.0 52.6 1220 300 498.5 - - -

Mg Hardness

(mg/l)

- -

-

186 14.0 87.9 72.0 20.0 44.9 3630 995 1627.3 - - -

Lead (mg/l) - --

0.5 0.3 0.4 63.0 19.0 39.2 0.2 0 0.1 0.07 0 0.063

Chromium (mg/l) - -

-

0.6 0.4 0.4 74.0 20.0 42.8 BDL BDL - BDL BDL -

Fluorides (mg/l) 1.0 0.5 0.75 - - - - - - - - - 1.8 0.3 1.1

Cadmium (mg/l) - -

-

- - - 9.0 5.0 6.8 BDL BDL - 0.01 0 0.001

Zinc (mg/l) - --

2.0 1.5 1.75 10.0 120 58.9 1.1 0 0.3 BDL BDL -

* Values in mg/kg

Variation in Concentration of Pollutants in Inlet, Lake, Sediments and Groundwater

a

b

Graphical Representation for variation in concentration of

Pollutants in Lake, Sediment, Pore and Ground Water

c

Ground water sampling locations and Hydraulic gradient of Ground water table around the Lake

along with the streams selected for study.

IMPACT OF LAKE SEDIMENTS ON GROUND WATER QUALITY

Variation in Chlorides concentration along water flow path

Stream A Stream B

530

325

36

375

180154

128108112

293

4

100

321

116

12

113

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

mg

/lit

Sample Locations

Max

Min

Mean

530

325

36

375

105

8872.5 57

112

293

4

100

321

116

12

113

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

mg

/lit

Sample Locations

Max

Min

Mean

Stream C Stream D

530

325

36

375

262

240 195160

112 116

4

100

321293

12

113

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

mg

/lit

Sample Locations

Max

Min

Mean

530

325

36

375

232 224192

160

112 116

4

100

321293

12

113

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

mg

/lit

Sample Locations

Max

Min

Mean

Variation in Chlorides concentration along water flow path

Stream A Stream B

295

75.6

38

13

76

6048

3926

12 5 3

163

23.62 1880

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

mg

/lit

Sample Locations

Max

Min

Mean

295

75.6

38

13

80

72 6452

2612 5 3

163

23.62 1880

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

mg

/lit

Sample Locations

Max

Min

Mean

Variation in Sulphates concentration along water flow path

Stream C Stream D

295

75.6

38

13

84

76 74 72

2612 5 3

163

23.62 1880

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

mg

/lit

Sample Location

Max

Min

Mean

295

75.6

38

13

190

146

9675

2612 5 3

163

23.62 1880

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

mg

/lit

Sample Location

Max

Min

Mean

Variation in Sulphates concentration along water flow path

Stream A Stream B

380 360152

4850

480 440 420 370

0300600900

12001500180021002400270030003300360039004200450048005100

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

mg

/lit

Sample Locations

Max

Min

Mean

380360 152

4850

680530

380 320325 28198

2117

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

mg

/lit

Sample Locations

Max

Min

Mean

Variation in Hardness concentration along water flow path

Stream C Stream D

380360 152

4850

860570 540

370325 28198

2117

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

mg

/lit

Sample Locations

Max

Min

Mean

380 360152

4850

470385 300

325 28198

2117

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

mg

/lit

Sample Locations

Max

Min

Mean

480

Variation in Hardness concentration along water flow path

Stream A Stream B

76

55

300

24.6 18.3 12 10.3

71

8

120

73.56

15.46

175.38

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

mg

/lit

Sample Locations

Max

Min

Mean

76

55

300

13.2 10.6 8.9 7.2

71

8

120

73.56

15.46

175.38

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

mg

/lit

Sample Locations

Max

Min

Mean

Variation in Sodium concentration along water flow path

Stream C Stream D

76

55

300

13.3 11.3 9.3 7.5

71

8

120

73.56

15.46

175.38

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

mg

/lit

Sample Locations

Max

Min

Mean

76

55

300

18.6 14.6 12.6 8.6

71

8

120

73.56

15.46

175.38

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n in

mg

/lit

Sample Locations

Max

Min

Mean

Variation in Sodium concentration along water flow path

SOIL COLUMN STUDIES

Experimental Setup

Concentration Factor obtained

(f) = (C) = 0.78

(C0)

FIELD STUDIES AND RESULTS

Ground water sampling locations, contours of chlorides concentration around Hussain Sagar

Lake and stream lines considered for comparative analysis

The Concentration

factor obtained from the

Experiment Model

conducted on Soil

Column Experiment is

almost equal to the

concentration factor

between two

consecutive sampling

points in a certain

stream path which flows

in downstream direction.

Sample Points Field Values C/C0

Streamline A-A 0.84

48 154 0.86

39 128 0.83

40 108 0.84

Streamline B - B 0.76

46 130

57 88 0.68

42 72.5 0.82

41 57 0.78

Streamline C - C 0.8

30 296 0.76

31 240 0.81

33 195 0.81

52 160 0.82

Streamline D - D 0.82

25 224 0.78

26 192 0.86

27 160 0.83

Field observations of Chlorides concentration in ground water samples of respective streams

and C/Co values

MATHEMATICAL MODEL

The analytical equation

representing solute flow in the

aquifer used for the study is

(Fetter,1994):

Sample PointsField

Values

Mathematic

al Model

Values

Streamline A-A

48 154 147

39 128 137

40 108 132

Streamline B - B

46 130 168

57 88 160

42 72.5 135

41 57 132

Streamline C - C

30 296 169

31 240 166

33 195 147

52 160 127

Streamline D - D

25 224 141

26 192 136

27 160 128

Comparison of mathematical model results with

field data

Comparison of Solute Concentrations obtained from Field data and Mathematical model values

Comparison of Solute Concentrations obtained from Field data and Mathematical model values

POLLUTION CONTROL AND REMEDIAL MEASURES

The reasons for contamination of lakes are attributed to

Discharge of untreated / partially treated complex industrial effluents in to

lakes through inlet nallahs.

Inadequate sewage treatment facilities for the treatment of domestic sewage

entering the lake.

Indiscriminate disposal of solid waste in the catchments of nallahs carrying

water to the lake

Improper maintenance of drains / nallahs, which accumulate silts and solid

waste throughout the year and flows in to the lake in huge volumes during

floods.

Immersion of Idols and dumping of material used for worship and

Washing of cloths, cattle etc.

PERFORMANCE STUDIES

Sanghi Polyesters Ltd.

Effluent Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram

Domestic sewage from the nearby colony (about 3600Cum/day) is added to

the industrial wastewater (1200Cum/day) in the ratio of 3:1 directly in contact

chamber to increase the bacterial content. Variation in quality parameters of

untreated and treated effluents are listed in Tables below.

Characteristics Raw water Treated water

pH

COD (mg/l)

BOD (mg/l)

Total Hardness (mg/l)

Calcium Hardness (mg/l)

Alkalinity (mg/l)

Total Suspended Solids (mg/l)

Total dissolved Solids (mg/l)

7 to 10

550Mg/1-1450

100Mg/l-300

200-2300

150-1200

600-1400

140-171

800-2200

7 to 8

100-235

20-28

790-2400

290-1340

690-930

69-82

1890-2090

Characteristics of Raw and Treated water of the CETP

Day

TSS removal

Efficiency of

clariflocculator (%)

BOD removal Efficiency

of Aeration Tank (%)

COD removal Efficiency of

Aeration Tank (%)

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

8th

72.0

71.0

72.0

75.0

70.0

74.8

69.8

71.2

83.0

80.3

69.7

87.2

52.4

74.8

66.1

77.4

83.5

80.3

88.8

88.9

50.0

74.7

66.1

77.4

Total Suspended Solid removal efficiency of clarifloculator and BOD & COD

removal efficiencies of aeration tank during study period

Jeedimetla Effluent Treatment Ltd

a) Raw effluent is collected in two equalization and neutralization tanks after

removing the floating material using screens.

b) Raw water is then pumped into the flash mixer unit after neutralizing with

lime/NaOH.

c) Rapid mixing of coagulants (polyelectrolyte) with effluents was done, for

the formation of flocks and then the effluent flows into the Clarifloculator

by gravity.

d) Settled sludge from the clarifier is sent into sludge thickener and then to

centrifuge where the liquid and the sludge separation takes place.

e) The liquid effluent from Overflow sump reaches to Diffused air flotation

(DAF), where the fine suspended particles are removed by air floatation

using compressed air.

f) The sewage in the Distribution Chamber is mixed thoroughly with effluent

in 2: 11/2 ratio and then pumped to the ASP unit.

g) With the help of Mechanical Aerators provided in the aeration tank the

microorganisms present in the combined effluent consumes oxygen and

stabilize the organic matter.

h) The effluent from the ASP then reaches the Final Clarifier. The average

discharge of treated effluent is 3300 cum/day.

Variation in concentration of various parameters in the inlet and outlet of the

treatment plant during year 1999.

Table shows the range of concentration of various inlet and outlets of the plant.

Parameter Inlet Outlet

pH 7.4 - 8.2 7.1 - 7.9

Total Dissolved Solids 49990 - 55000 21000 - 25370

Suspended Solids 210 - 320 33 - 90

COD 10880 - 12160 2172 - 2614

BOD 3400 - 3952 40.4 - 73.6

PILOT PLANT STUDIES ON KATTEDAN INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT

Experimental setup of Pilot Plant consisting of Influent tank the Reactor and Effluent

collection tank

Characteristics of individual and combined effluents

S.No Parameter Textile Edible Oil Dairy Combined

1 pH 7 – 7.5 8 – 8.9 7.3 – 7.8 7 – 8

2 Colour Pale yellow Pale yellow White Brown

3 Temperature, ° C 35 32 30 28

4 COD, mg/l 2890 – 3010 2500 – 9000 1940 – 3050 1400 – 8600

5 BOD, mg/l 1000 – 1200 800 – 4000 900 – 2000 1500 – 1700

6 Total Solids, mg/l 1650 – 1750 8000 – 8250 1750 – 1900 1750 – 2850

7Total Suspended

Solids, mg/l77 – 100 4200 – 4300 800 – 950 1550 – 1800

8 Chlorides, mg/l 390 – 420 400 – 450 110 – 140 280 –300

9 Total Alkalinity mg/l 200 –220 115 – 180 190 – 230 160 – 280

10Total Phosphorous,

mg/l- - - 12 – 14

11Total Kjeldal

Nitrogen, mg/l- - - 45-60

Design parameters of continuous flow stirred tank aerobic reactor

S.No Parameter Value

1 Volume of the reactor, l 4.5

2 Flow rate, l / day 3

3 Hydraulic Retention Time, q in hrs 36

4 Sludge Retention Time, qc in days 8.2 – 9.6

5 Food to Microorganism ratio, F/M (BOD/VSS) 0.04 – 0.15

6 Rate of Air supply, l / min 1.6

7 Sludge Volume Index, SVI 85

8 COD removal Efficiency ( After 20 days), % 90

9 Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS), X in mg/l 6800 -7900

Difference in clarity of untreated and treated effluents of the Pilot plant

The variation in the BOD & COD concentrations

The BOD and COD removal efficiencies of the reactor during the study period

CONCLUSION Steady growth of pollutant levels over a period of time indicating increased human

activity in the catchment area.

The measures undertook to abate pollution of the lake are inadequate.

Lake acts as a sink for the pollutants entering through incoming Nallahs.

Relatively higher concentrations of Dissolved solids present in the pore water than in

the dry sediments.

It was observed Very high concentrations of Electric conductivity in Pore water,

High values in Inlet Nallahs, Medium concentrations in near by Ground water and

low concentrations in lake water.

The concentration of Chlorides also followed same pattern as conductivity.

High concentrations of Calcium, Magnesium and Hardness were found in pore

water, Medium and low concentrations were observed in ground water and lake

water respectively indicates accumulation of non-metal concentration in the

sediment bed and transportation of the same in to the ground water through

infiltration.

High concentrations of Lead, Chromium, Cadmium and Zinc were found in

Sediments, Medium concentrations in Lake water and nil concentrations in

surrounding ground water, Which indicate accumulation and adsorption of metals in

the sediment bed.

Sediment bed acts as filter media for heavy metals and source of pollution for non-

metals in ground water. Hence it is evident that sediment bed has a significant role in

controlling/contributing to ground water pollution.

The Performance Studies conducted on Sanghi Polymers indicates that Suspended

Solid removal efficiency varied from 69.8% to 75%. The BOD removal efficiency of

the plant ranged between 52.4% and 87.2% and the COD removal efficiency varied

between 50% and 82.9%.

The Performance Studies conducted on Jeedimetla Effluent Treatment Plant indicate

that when compared to the performance of the treatment plant in 1989, 1990 with

1999 the organic removal efficiency of the plant was high in 1999 due to addition of

domestic sewage with combined effluent

Mixing of easily biodegradable effluent with complex organic effluents in a common

effluent treatment plant would increase the efficiency of the treatment plant resulting

reduction in the pollution load on receiving water body.

COMMENTS BY THE REVIEWERS ON THE THESIS AND REPLIES BY THE SCHOLAR

S.No Comments by the Examiner Response by the Scholar

Chapter - 1

1

Scientific articulation is needed. In a scientific report, usage like

"somebody" should be avoided. Complete check for language is

required.

Modified the thesis with respect to scientific articulation. Also

checked and modified for Spellings and Grammar.

2

Reference at critical places is necessary. For eg., classification of

Hussain Sagar Lake as Dystrophic lake needs references for both

attributes and classification schema.

References included and style of representing reference is modified

throughout the thesis.

3

Significance of the present investigation needs to be brought out

very clearly here. For eg., how different is this work different from

the work of Srikanth et al.,(1993), Anitha et al.,(1995), Reddy et al

2001, and Rao, C.S.(2005) carried out on Hussain Sagar??

Elaborated the work carried out by the contemporary researchers,

gaps were identified and related with present study.

Srikanth et al (1995) compared mercury levels in lake water with

the levels in surrounding ground water. There was no mention

about sediment quality and its role in transmitting lake pollution to

groundwater.

Anitha et al (1995) studied the impact of industrial effluent on

aquatic life in Hussainsagar lake. It is purely the study related to the

biological aspects.

Reddy et al (2001) probably the study conducted by the scholar of

this work.

Rao C.S (2005) conducted studies on the sediment quality of the

lake and also carried out Heavy metal speciation study on Hussain

sagar lake sediments. Categorization of sediments and role of

sediments in transmitting pollutants to ground water is lacking in

this report.

Chapter - 2

1

The Literature Review chapter is more like a listing of so-and-so has

published so-and-so paper. Nowhere, the scientific content of the earlier

works are presented in logical and coherent way. This chapter needs a

complete overhaul incorporating various components necessary for this

investigation like sediment transport, sampling strategy, geo-chemical

analyses, and standards adopted in a lucid way. Plethora of literature is

available on above aspects and the candidate is expected to group these

works under different categories, identify the gaps and highlight the need

for the investigated approach.

Modified this Chapter as per suggestions of the reviewer.

2Standard and uniform reference style must be followed throughout the

thesis.Modified reference style as per suggestion of the reviewer.

Chapter - 3

1

In this Chapter, details on the hydrology, hydrogeology and land use

practices of the catchment and downstream of Hussainsagar is expected.

The downstream groundwater details beyond 1 km zone will provide

more insight on the effect of continent transport from the reservoir.

Hydrology and Land use practices in the catchment area of the lake was

obtained through the studies conducted by the self and reports of various

organizations (APPCB, HUDA, SAFEGE and AIC etc.) working on the

remediation of the lake. Since the research is basically on lake sediments, the

scholar concentrated more on the catchment area of the lake, which is the

source of pollutants in the lake.

2

What is the basis of arriving at the runoff coefficients? SCS-CN and

MUSCLE techniques are more appropriate for estimating the runoff and

soil loss potentials. Most of the data presented in this chapter seems to be

from some outdated report (dating back to 1990) rather than generated

from the candidate. Each table made using data from that report needs to

be credited by mentioning it in the caption.

Run off coefficients were obtained from APPCB report (1990). Majority of the

experimental work was carried out during the years from 1997 to 2000 and

few technical literature published during that period was referred.

Suggestion of reviewer with regard to source of information is reviewed and

implemented

3What are the sampling strategy and analytical procedures adopted to

arrive at Table 3.9?

The source of information provided in this table is from "M. Narayana Rao &

Amal K. Datta, 'Waste Water Treatment', Second Edition, IBH Publishing Co.

Pvt. Ltd (1987)

4Any map should contain coordinates, scale, legend etc. Both figures 3.1

and 3.2 are not containing any of these details.Modified as per suggestion of the reviewer.

Chapter - 41 The Chapter heading is not adequately reflecting the contents. Modified per suggestion of the reviewer.

2Instead of mentioning "standard procedures were adopted", better cite

the reference and detail the salient aspects.Modified per suggestion of the reviewer.

3

For how much time samples were sorted before analyses? Whether any

precautions were taken to prevent the biological activities and

precipitations?

Standard methods for examination of water and water analysis, 16th edition

(1985), APHA, AWWA, APCF was refered for Collection, storage,

transportation and analysis of water samples and USEPA Guidelines for

Analysis of Polluted Soils (1994) were followed for Sampling, collection,

Transportation, Storage and analysis of water and sediment samples.

4

In page - 50, it is mentioned that along with the other parameter pH was

also measured in laboratory. For studies of this kind, Insitu pH are

needed?

pH of the samples were measured in the laboratory on the same day of

collection.

5Why there is a clustering of water sampling adjoining the bund only?

Regular sampling downstream would have been more useful.

Groundwater samples collected from the existing bore/open wells available

between 0 and 1.5 km from shore line. Since the hydraulic gradient of the

groundwater flow was from NWW to SEE, more samples were collected in

the downstream of the lake in SEE direction.

6Figure 4.11: grain size distribution curves are usually plotted on semi-log

plots

This figure shows percentage of finer particles passing through the specific

size of sieve of dry sieve analysis. The sediments obtained by core samplers

were used for this analysis. Particles ranging from 4.75 to <0.075 mm were

present in these samples and includes sand, silt, clay and organic content.

Chapter - 5

1

This is a very small chapter and it could fit into the chapter-4 (sample

collection and analyses). The rational for breaking it as a separate chapter

is not clear.

As suggested, this chapter is now included in Chapter - 4

2Figure-5.1: Is this methodology developed by the candidate or already

established? If developed by some other worker, reference is needed.

Lokesh. “Transmission of Pollutants through Soils into Subsurface water in

certain industrial pockets of Karnataka- problems and Litigation”. A thesis

submitted to University of Mysore August (2000), was referred before

finalizing the methodology

3

Why only one sample collected for this test? Compaction alone may not be

the correct criteria. Why important properties like Eh, CEC, sorption, and

specification were not considered?

One soil sample from Indira park used for the soil analysis and soil column

studies. More emphasis was given to Sediment and groundwater quality.

From the field data it is evident that there is transportation of elements viz.

chlorides, sulphates, sodium and potassium from pore water of sediments to

the groundwater and the concentration of these elements decreases from

nearest well to the farthest well. The scholar made an attempt to apply

suitable model to resemble the change in concentration using a mathematical

model and could succeeded in assessing only one pollutant i.e. chlorides.

4Page-88: Please quantify the "sufficient time" allowed for the saturation of

the column with solution. I suppose it is a function of soil type.

Soil column was filled with the effluent and soaked the soil column until it

gets saturated. Sample collection from the sampling ports was started after

achieving constant discharge at the sampling port. This was achieved 38

hours after the soil column was filled with the effluent.

Chapter - 6

1

This Chapter is more like presenting the statistics of the data given in

earlier chapters rather than scientific processing, analyses and

interpretation. The data analyses and rationalizing the scientific aspects

are lacking. As observed in the previous chapters, the same data is

represented both as a table (Table 6.2, Figure 6.2 a,b,c; Table 6.3, Figures

6.3-6.6) and figure. This may help only in making the thesis bulky.

Analytical results of water samples from four Inlet nallahs, two Outlet

channels, Lake water, sediment and pore water samples from sixteen

locations of Hussain Sagar Lake and groundwater samples from fifty seven

locations around the lake were assessed and the results of all the samples

were represented in Chapter - 4. Summary of the results with minimum,

maximum and mean values of that particular group was analyzed and

discussed in this chapter.

2Many fold increases in dissolved salts between the inlet and outlet nallahs

are not reflected by corresponding changes in TDS and conductivity, Why?

Table no. 6.1 shows the analytical results of Inlets and outlets. Out of many

chemical parameters of water quality, this table only shows parameters like

chlorides, sulphates, nitrates etc. Other significant parameters like hardness,

alkalinity etc are not accounted for in outlet quality. Since conductivity is the

representative parameter for total solids, absence of major parameters like

carbonates and bicarbonate may not give true representation.

3

In page no. 102, section 6.4.1: concentration measured from core, grab

and pore water samples are compared but no inferences were drawn on

the contaminant retention/mobility.

Table 6.3 shows Maximum, minimum and mean values of heavy metals in

Core, Grab and pore water of sediments. the constituents core sample is

nothing but contents of grab sample after removal of pore water from it. The

mean values of Heavy metal concentrations in core and grab samples are

almost same and there are negligible concentrations in pore water. On the

other hand negligible concentrations of heavy metals were observed in

groundwater. It indicates that Heavy metals are retained and became part of

hardened sediments and there is negligible mobility towards groundwater.

4

I have serious reservations on the way the solute transport model is

made. Before adopting any model, the candidate needs to understand its

suitability for the chosen area.

(i) What is the representative K value chosen for arriving at V? In the

investigated area, aquifers are hard rocks, the transport is mostly channel

flow, and not porous media flow. How many layers were considered and

what are their hydraulic conductivities?

(ii) What are the secular changes in water table gradient and its role in

velocity changes?

(iii) What are the boundary conditions and their influence?

(iv) Why the model was not calibrated and tested?

(v) Like K, a is also a function of direction. A single value cannot represent

the issue addressed here.

In brief, the modeling carried out in this research is over simplified and

has no practical significance. This could be the reason for significant

deviation between measured and modeled values (Figures 4.6, a-d).

The Hydraulic conductivity value 'K' value Chosen was 1.0X105 m/s

One of the objectives of the present study is to differentiate sediments in to

hard sediments, surface sediments and pore water and find out what type of

pollutant accumulate in particular category of sediment. With the field values

it was evident that concentrations of non metals viz. Chlorides and sulphates

decreased from nearest to farthest ground water well indicating dispersion

of these elements present in higher concentrations in pore water of

sediments. The scholar did not concentrate much on the dispersion model.

Hence the model developed by Fetter 1994, was successfully used to

demonstrate dispersion of element chlorides in to groundwater aquifer.

5Speciation of different pollutants and accordingly their mobility is

expected in this chapter.

Studies on the speciation of pollutants have already been carried out by

Gurunadha Rao et al (2008). The literature on this is included in Chapter – 2

Chapter - 7

1

Conclusion no 1: It should be better to have low COD and BOD. If the

outlet values are lower than the inlet values, doesn't it mean dilution in

the lake?

Yes. Lake is receiving higher concentrations of BOD and COD and getting

diluted in the lake and considerably lower values of these elements were

present in outlets. Since lake act as a sedimentation tank, these elements

undergo decomposition and settle at the bottom of the lake and accumulate

in sediments either in pore water or in sediments. This was the reason why

higher concentrations of end products of decomposition occur in sediments.

2A solid conclusion on the specification of pollutants and a practically

validated, meaningful numerical dispersion pattern is expected here.

Studies on the speciation of pollutants have already been carried out by

Gurunadha Rao et al (2008). The literature on this is included in Chapter - 2

Chapter - 8

1

This Chapter seems like an appendage rather than part of the thesis. For

any CFSTR, parameters like (i) distribution of residence times in the

system, (ii) the quality of mixing, (iii) And the model used to describe the

system are very important. No mention is made about these anywhere.

This chapter was included as per the advice of the professors present in

Research Review meetings conducted by the Civil Engineering Department

prior to submission of the thesis.

Specific questions for Viva-Voce Examination

1

Why the results of “choosen” mathematical model

on pollutant mobility are very poor and have

significant deviation from the measured value?

Fetter’s (1994) equation was used to assess analytical values and compared with the field observations and

represented in tables 5.8 and 5.9 and in figure 5.16. The trend of observations are almost similar with minor

deviation. This deviation is attributed to interferences in the groundwater flow path.

2Why no attempt was made to investigate the

speciation of different pollutants?

Studies on the speciation of pollutants have already been carried out by Gurunadha Rao et al (2008). The

literature on this is included in Chapter – 2

3

Why the data on chemistry of sediments, Ground

water and pore water were not analysed in terms

of mass balance?

Collection and analysis of samples from Inlet, lake water, outlet, sediments (including surface, core and pore

water) and surrounding ground water were carried out over a span of 3 years at different intervals of time

and different seasons. The results of mass balance studies may not be representative due to variation in time

and concentrations.

4Why important points like Eh, CEC and sorption

were not considered?

One soil sample from Indira park used for the soil analysis and soil column studies. More emphasis was given

to Sediment and groundwater quality. From the field data it is evident that there is transportation of

elements viz. chlorides, sulphates, sodium and potassium from pore water of sediments to the groundwater

and the concentration of these elements decreases from nearest well to the farthest well. The scholar made

an attempt to apply suitable model to resemble the change in concentration using a mathematical model and

could succeed in assessing only one pollutant i.e. chlorides.

5What are the bases of selecting the single hydraulic

conductivity (K) and dispersivity (α)

One of the objectives of the present study is to differentiate sediments in to hard sediments, surface

sediments and pore water and find out what type of pollutant accumulate in particular category of sediment.

With the field values it was evident that concentrations of non metals viz. Chlorides and sulphates decreased

from nearest to farthest ground water well indicating dispersion of these elements present in higher

concentrations in pore water of sediments. The scholar did not concentrate much on the dispersion model.

Hence the model developed by Fetter 1994, was successfully used to demonstrate dispersion of element

chlorides in to groundwater aquifer.

6What is the effect of lake contamination in the

groundwater quality of downstream areas?

With reference to field observations represented in Table nos.5.7, and 5.9 and Figure nos. 5.10 through 5.14,

the pollutant concentration in ground water decreases from nearest well to the farthest well indicating

pollutant contribution from contaminated lake.

7

Can any general approaches be suggested for the

restoration of so many other lakes in other part of

India?

Measures for restoration of polluted lakes are described in recommendations in Page no. 156 of the thesis.

8The relationship of sediment physical properties

on its adsorption capacity may be explained?

Particle size, porosity and initial pollutant concentration in sediment are the main factors affecting pollutant

release through the sediment water interface. If a chemical is adsorbed to sediment particles, it will

accumulate in the bed and suspended load of aquatic systems and will not reach groundwater. If a chemical

is not adsorbed, it will accumulate in the water column of aquatic system, leach through the sediment

profile and may reach groundwater.

9 Bring out the conclusion from column studies?

The objective of conducting soil column studies is to find out reduction in concentration of pollutant after

passing specific distance through the soil column and compare concentration factors (C/Co) with the field

observed values. The concentration factors are presented in Table nos. 5.8 and 5.9. These factors are

matching with minor difference.

10

Whether the data from column studies can be

used to forecast the groundwater contamination

in nearby area?

Yes.