PREDICTION OF WATER QUALITY OF A STREAM

CARRYING INDUSTRIAL TREATED WASTE WATER

USING QUAL2K
A Thesis Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Award of
the Degree of

MASTERS OF ENGINEERING

IN

INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING
Submitted By
ARYAVART CHAUDHARY

801623007
Under Supervision of

Dr. Bholu Ram Yadav Dr. Dwarika Nath Ratha

Assistant Professor Associate Professor
School of Energy and Environment Department of Civil Engineering

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

THAPAR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
(A DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), PATIALA, PUNJAB.
JUNE 2018
 DECLARATION

I, Aryavart Chaudhary, hereby declare that the work prepared in thesis entitled “Prediction of
water quality of a stream carrying Industrial treated waste water using QUAL2k” in fulfillment
of the requirement for the award of degree of Master of Engineering in Infrastructure
Engineering in the Civil Engineering Department, Thapar Institute of Engineering and
Technology (Deemed to be University), Patiala is an authentic work carried out under
supervision of Dr. Bholu Ram Yadav, Assistant Professor, School of Energy and Environment
and Dr Dwarika Nath Ratha, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Thapar
Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala during July 2016 to July 2018. The matter
presented in this has not been submitted either in part or full to any other university or institute
for the award of any degree.

Date: Aryavart Chaudhary

Reg. No. 801623007

Dr. Bholu Ram Yadav Dr Dwarika Nath Ratha

Assistant Professor Associate Professor
School of Energy and Environment Department of Civil Engineering
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is matter of immense pleasure to acknowledge my debt to my revered teachers and

Supervisor’s Dr. Bholu Ram Yadav, Assistant Professor, School of Energy and Environment and
Dr Dwarika Nath Ratha, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Thapar Institute
of Engineering and Technology, Patiala. It is because of their priceless intellectual guidance,
innovative and constructive ideas, which paved the way for the successful completion of this
work. It is indeed my privilege to work under them.

I also feel very much obliged to Dr Prem Pal Bansal, Head of Department of Civil Engineering,
Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala for giving me the opportunity to work

on this project.


I am also thankful to non-teaching staff members of the department for their invaluable
cooperation and help during the entire tenure of my studies in the department. I take this
opportunity to thank all my friends for their help and moral support. I thank my parents and my
family members for their encouragement, blessings and motivation at each and every step.

Aryavart Chaudhary
Reg No. 801623007

iii
 ABSTARCT

Water is essential to life, and its contamination affects all living beings on earth. Dissolved

oxygen (DO), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), pH are some of the most important water

quality parameter not only for human beings but also for the survival of aquatic life. Discharge

of organic, industrial, agricultural, biodegradable wastewater into rivers, results in decrease of

DO concentration and increase of BOD concentration in downstream waters. In this work, we

have considered point sources of pollution and their effect on the river water quality. Qual2K

model is used for analysis of river water quality. The water quality parameters included in the

model were DO, BOD, among others.

In real situations, the water quality monitoring stations are located at some distance and many

point sources might discharge water into the river between two monitoring stations. In such

situations, the contributions of the various point sources to the degradation in water quality

become difficult to ascertain. The QUAL2K model has proved to be especially useful in

predicting the impact of point sources on DO in downstream water quality.

The experiments for the study were chosen using statistical designs. The values of various

parameters were considered at various points along the stretch. The model was run with the

values of two-point source discharges and head water. The water quality was predicted for a

point at a distance from the last sampling point. The results predicted by the model were

validated by testing the water quality at five points along the stretch.

The data from simulations were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and explicit and

implicit regression models were obtained to explain the data using simple equations.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION........................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................... iii

ABSTARCT .................................................................................................................................. iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. v

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER: 1

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Origin of Study ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Need of Study ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Objective of Study .................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Scope of Study .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Outline of Thesis ....................................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER: 2

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 4

2.1 Previous studies done on water streams.................................................................................... 4
2.2 Modelling of Rivers .................................................................................................................. 8
2.2.1 Use of Models .................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Details of various Water Quality Models ........................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Comparison of Various Models: ...................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 3

METHDOLOGY......................................................................................................................... 17
3.1 Area of Study .......................................................................................................................... 17
3.2 Regulation for Collection and Preservation of Sample........................................................... 18
3.2.1 Collection of Samples ...................................................................................................... 18

v
 3.2.2 Methods of Sampling ....................................................................................................... 18
3.2.3 Sample Containers............................................................................................................ 18
3.2.4 Sample Volumes .............................................................................................................. 19
3.2.5 Sample storage and preservation ...................................................................................... 19
3.2.6 Summary of Special Sampling and handling requirements ............................................. 19
3.3 Procedure of various tests to be performed for determining various parameters: .................. 20
3.3.1 DO: ................................................................................................................................... 20
3.3.2 BOD: ................................................................................................................................ 20
3.3.3 COD: ................................................................................................................................ 21
3.3.4 NH3-N/ Org.N: ................................................................................................................. 21
3.3.5 Alkalinity:......................................................................................................................... 21
3.3.6 EC:.................................................................................................................................... 21
3.3.7pH: ..................................................................................................................................... 21
3.4 Water Quality Modelling by QUAL2K .................................................................................. 21
3.5 Validation Studies ................................................................................................................... 26
3.6 Statistical Analysis .................................................................................................................. 28
3.6.1 Input data for Statistical Analysis of Alkalinity ............................................................... 29
3.6.2 Input data for Statistical Analysis of COD ...................................................................... 30
3.6.3 Input data for Statistical Analysis of BOD ...................................................................... 31
3.6.4 Input data for Statistical Analysis of DO ......................................................................... 32
3.6.5 Input data for Statistical Analysis of Org. N .................................................................... 33
3.6.6 Input data for Statistical Analysis of NH3-N.................................................................... 34

CHAPTER-4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................................................................... 35

4.1 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 35
4.2 Comparison of Results ............................................................................................................ 37
4.2.1 Comparison for Alkalinity ............................................................................................... 37
4.2.2 Comparison for BOD ....................................................................................................... 38
4.2.3 Comparison for COD ....................................................................................................... 39
4.2.4 Comparison for DO .......................................................................................................... 40
4.2.5 Comparison for NH3-N .................................................................................................... 41
4.2.6 Comparison for Org. N..................................................................................................... 42
vi
 4.2.7 Comparison for pH ........................................................................................................... 43
4.3 Development of Analytical Equations .................................................................................... 43
4.3.1 Alkalinity:......................................................................................................................... 43
4.3.2 COD ................................................................................................................................. 45
4.3.3 BOD ................................................................................................................................. 46
4.3.4 DO .................................................................................................................................... 48
4.3.5 Org. N ............................................................................................................................... 49
4.3.6 NH3-N............................................................................................................................... 50

CHAPTER-5

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 53
5.2 Further works that can be done: .............................................................................................. 53

REFRENCES .............................................................................................................................. 54

ANNEXURE-I ............................................................................................................................. 56

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2.1 COMPARISON OF VARIOUS WATER QUALITY MODELS ................................................... 15

TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF SPECIAL SAMPLING AND HANDLING REQUIREMENTS............................... 20
TABLE 3.2 PRIMARY SETTINGS DONE TO THE MODEL ..................................................................... 23
TABLE 3.3 LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE OF REACHES ...................................................................... 24
TABLE 3.4 METROLOGICAL VALUES INPUT INTO THE MODEL ......................................................... 26
TABLE 3.5 CHARACYERISTICS OF HW, INPUT POINT 1 &2 ............................................................... 26
TABLE 3.6 CHARACTERISTICS OF 5 VALIDATION POINTS ................................................................ 27
TABLE 3.7 INPUT VALUES FOR ALKALINITY ................................................................................... 29
TABLE 3.8 DATA SET USED FOR ALKALINITY ................................................................................. 29
TABLE 3.9 INPUT VALUES FOR COD ................................................................................................ 30
TABLE 3.10 DATA SET USED FOR COD ............................................................................................ 30
TABLE 3.11 INPUT VALUES FOR BOD .............................................................................................. 31
TABLE 3.12 DATA SET USED FOR BOD ............................................................................................ 31
TABLE 3.13 INPUT VALUES FOR DO ................................................................................................ 32
TABLE 3.14 DATA DET USED FOR DO.............................................................................................. 32
TABLE 3.15 INPUT VALUES FOR ORG. N .......................................................................................... 33
TABLE 3.16 DATASET USED FOR ORG. N......................................................................................... 33
TABLE 3.17 INPUT VALUES FORNH3-N ............................................................................................ 34
TABLE 3.18 DATA SET USED FORNH3-N .......................................................................................... 34
TABLE 4.1 PREDICTED VALUES OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS ............................................................. 36
TABLE 4.2 ANNOVA DETAILS OF ALKALINITY ................................................................................ 44
TABLE 4.3 MODEL SUMMARY OF ALKALINITY ............................................................................... 44
TABLE 4.4 COEFFICIENT FOR EQUATION OF ALKALINITY ............................................................... 45
TABLE 4.5 ANNOVA DETAILS OF COD ............................................................................................. 45
TABLE 4.6 MODEL SUMMARY OF COD ............................................................................................ 45
TABLE 4.7 COEFFICIENT FOR EQUATION OF COD ............................................................................ 46
TABLE 4.8 ANNOVA DETAILS OF BOD ............................................................................................. 47
TABLE 4.9 MODEL SUMMARY OF BOD ............................................................................................ 47
TABLE 4.10 COEFFICENT FOR EQUATION OF BOD PREDICTED ........................................................ 48
TABLE 4.11 ANNOVA DETAILS OF DO ............................................................................................. 48

viii
TABLE 4.12 MODEL SUMMARY OF DO ............................................................................................ 48
TABLE 4.13 COEFFICIENT FOR EQUATION OF DO ............................................................................ 49
TABLE 4.14 ANNOVA DETAILS OF ORG. N....................................................................................... 49
TABLE 4.15 MODEL SUMMARY OF ORG. N ..................................................................................... 50
TABLE 4.16 COEFFICIENTS FOR EQUATION OF ORG. N .................................................................... 50
TABLE 4.17 ANNOVA DETAILS OF NH3-N ........................................................................................ 51
TABLE 4.18 MODEL SUMMARY OF NH3-N ....................................................................................... 51
TABLE 4.19 COEFFICENTS FOR EQUATION OF NH3-N ...................................................................... 52

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 3.1 LINE DIAGRAM SHOWING THE STUDY AREA ................................................................. 18

FIGURE 4.1 COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF OBSERVED AND PREDICTED VALUES OF ALKALINITY ..... 37
FIGURE 4.2 COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF OBSERVED AND PREDICTED VALUES OF BOD.................. 38
FIGURE 4.3 COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF OBSERVED AND PREDICTED VALUES OF COD.................. 39
FIGURE 4.4 COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF OBSERVED AND PREDICTED VALUES OF DO. ................... 40
FIGURE 4.5 COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF OBSERVED AND PREDICTED VALUES OF NH3-N ............... 41
FIGURE 4.6 COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF OBSERVED AND PREDICTED VALUES OF ORG. N ............. 42
FIGURE 4.7 COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF OBSERVED AND PREDICTED VALUES OF PH.................... 43

x
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

B BETA VALUE
BOD BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CBOD CARBENOCOUS BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CBOD FAST FAST CBOD
CBOD SLOW SLOW CBOD
CBOD U ULTIMATE CBOD
COD CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CPCB CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
DF DEGREE OF FREEDOM
DO DISSOLVED OXYGEN
D/S DOWNSTREAM
EC ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY
GA GENERIC ALGORITHM
HW HEADWATER
I1 INDUSTRY-1
I2 INDUSTRY-2
N NITROGEN
NH3 AMMONIA
NH3-N AMMONICAL NITROGEN
NO−
3 NITRATE
ORG. N ORGANIC NITROGEN
ORG. P ORGANIC PHOSPHOROUS
P PHOSPHOROUS
PH POUVOIR HYDROGENE
R PEARSON CORELATION
SIG. SIGNIFANCE VALUE
SOD SEDIMENT OXYGEN DEMAND
TN TOTAL NITROGEN
TP TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS

xi
TSS TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
US EPA UNITED STATES ENVOIRNMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

xii
 CHAPTER: 1

INTRODUCTION

India is a large country with a total area of 32 lakh sq. kilometers out of which around 9% is
covered by water bodies and streams. According to this fact it comes out to be that India has
ample amount of water resources for the people of the country.
But, this is not the scenario in the present day. The uncontrolled and uneconomical use of water
streams by the people has led to an increased pressure on the water bodies.
India has seven major rivers mainly Ganga, Yamuna, Brahmputra, Godavri etc. Other than
rainfall these seven rivers along with their tributaries constitute to be the major source of water
required by the people for drinking, irrigation and other day to day activities.
Due to the increased, uncontrolled, unmonitored use of water bodies the quality as well as
quantity of water bodies has depleted at a very fast rate. This depletion has become a great issue
of concern, which requires to be instantly looked after.

1.1 ORIGIN OF STUDY

Most of the industries operating in the country discharge their waste materials in the water
bodies. Though now the environmental agencies and many NGO’s have started raising voice
against the uncontrolled depletion and pollution of the water bodies. Earlier there was no
controlling authority over the industries and not much interest was shown by the Government
towards the protection of the water bodies, which thereby led to the depletion of the water bodies
and it has now become a major concern for the Government of India to protect and preserve the
water bodies so that they can be used by the future generations.
So, to maintain the quality standards of the rivers such that the coming generations can also
benefit from them various river protection schemes have been implemented by the government
of India. Also, to minimize the pollution loading in the water bodies various guidelines and
waste pollutant parameters have been set by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). These
guidelines have acted as a check to the pollutants emitted into the rivers, but the damage done in
the past still requires a lot of care to be taken care of.

1
1.2 NEED OF STUDY

The city of Patiala has a total area of 3430 sq km with a population of 18, 92,282 people. A lot of
waste water is generated every day in the city. There are a lot of industries in the vicinity of the
city which discharge their waste water in the small water streams passing through the city and
ultimately falling off in river thereby polluting the river and also leading to an increase in the
load on the water treatment plants located along the river body. Though the dispersion
coefficient of the water body dilutes and reduces the pollutant level in the water body to some
extent but the excess pollutant discharge and uneconomical use reduces quantity of water, which
makes the dispersion very less effective.

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY

1. To predict the effect of the industrial discharge on the water stream.

2. To develop an equation to predict the impact on the various water quality parameters.
3. To optimize the various water quality parameters using QUAL2K.

1.4 SCOPE OF STUDY

The scope of the study is to determine the effect of the discharge from the industries on to the
water stream. And, for the purpose of determining the effect on the water stream several steps
shall be undertaken in a proper sequence.
1. First, of all waste water samples shall be collected from all the major points of inflows
and headwater in the stretch.
2. The samples collected shall then be analyzed in the laboratory and the values of various
parameters shall be determined. The sampling shall be repeated again so as to determine
any change in parameter values.
3. After, the sampling has been done and parameter values decided the model shall be run.
Before, running the model to predict results the model shall be calibrated to meet the field
conditions.
4. The model shall then be run and the values of parameters at various distances shall be
predicted.

2
 5. For the validation of the predicted values sampling shall again be done. 5 points
situatedevenly all along the stretch shall be selected and again analyzed in the laboratory
for determination of values of parameters.
6. The results obtained shall then be compared with the predicted results. If the predicted
results are not in accordance to the observed values, the model shall be run again.
7. The model shall be again and again calibrated and run till the observed and predicted
values are in accordance with each other.
8. After the predicted and observed values are in accordance with each other SPSS shall be
used to check the significance of the model and to create equations for every parameter
modelled by us. Simple linear regression shall be used for this purpose.

1.5 OUTLINE OF THESIS

The thesis comprises of five chapters starting with the present one which throws light on
introduction to the water scenario in the country and the scope and objective of the study. The
second chapter includes the literature review of the research done on the various water bodies
and on various parameters of water, important for various purposes and also tells about the
various other water quality models. Chapter three deals with experimental programme which
includes materials, tests conducted and procedure adopted for the experimental study. Chapter
four has all the results and findings of the experimental study. Further, the comparison of
predicted and observed values is also included in this and new equations derived are also
included in this chapter. After, this chapter follows the conclusion.

3
 CHAPTER: 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter we discussed about the previous research done on river bodies. We also discussed
about the various water quality models available for the purpose of water quality modelling and
why one is different than other and which the best is.

2.1 PREVIOUS STUDIES DONE ON WATER STREAMS

Park S.S. and Lee S.Y.(2001) conducted water quality modelling of the Nakdong River
(situated in Korea). Both QUAL2K and QUAL2E were applied to the model to predict the
results. The river was divided into 54 reaches. Each reach was further subdivided into uniform
computitional elements. Both, QUAL2K and QUAL2E were calibrated and verified using March
to May and September to November data Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Biochemical Oxygen
Demand(BOD), Nitrogen (N), Phosphorous (P) and Chlorophyll are the parameters included in
the model. The model was run until the observed and predicted values were in agreement with
each other. It was concluded that the results predicted were same and quite reasonable for both
QUAL2K and QUAL2E.

KannelR.P. et al. (2007) performed water quality modeling for river Bagmati. A stretch of 20
kms which receives the maximum pollution load is selected for the study purpose. The data was
collected for 30-hour duration for pre monsoon season and for post monsoon season. The pre
monsoon season testing was done to monitor critical flows as clearly as possible. 11 monitoring
stations were set up all along the downstream. The flow was assumed to be constant and
uniformly distributed over time. Temperature, pH, Nitrite + Nitrate nitrogen, Organic Nitrogen
(Org. N), DO, BOD and many more important water quality parameters were monitored. The
20.5 km stretch was divided into 41 reaches with 0.5 km length each. The calculation time step
was taken as 5.25 minutes. Euler’s method was used for integration. Model was run for a
population size of 100 with 50 generations. The results obtained were well in agreement with the
measured data with a few exceptions. In spite of the variations in the measured and observed
values of some parameters the calibration and validation results are acceptable for developing
countries with financial limitations.

4
Fan C, Ko Han C and Wang S.W.(2009) assessed the water quality of a tidal river in northern
Taiwan using QUAL2K and HEC-RAS. The various parameters used for simulation were
BOD,Ammonical Nitrogen (NH3-N), Total Phosphorous (TP) and Sediment Oxygen Demand
(SOD). Estimation of hydraulic constants for atmospheric re-aeration constant calculation and
the estimation of the water level profile variations was done by HEC RAS. Different loading
combinations showed that BOD is the most important contaminant. The results obtained showed
excellent agreement with the observed data.

Oliveria B et al. (2011) conducted a study on Certimariver situated in Portugal. A stretch of

25.7km was selected for the purpose of study. It was further divided into 4 segments of same
geometrics and physical properties. Each segment was further sub divided into 500m interval.
The channel slope varied from 0.003 to 0.0008, with a side slope varying from 0.35 to 0.25. The
input parameters used were temperature, pH, Conductivity (EC), DO, BOD, Total Suspended
Solids(TSS), Ammonia (NH3), Nitrate (NO3− ), TP, Average Daily Flow, Depth Profile and Flow
Velocities. The model response for DO was in good agreement with the data. Sensitivity
Analysis conducted that Ammonium Nitrification rate, Bottom plants death rate, Bottom plants
maximum growth rate, Manning coefficient are the parameters to which the model is most
sensitive.

Zhang R et al. (2015) conducted a study on the Taihulake and Hongqui river, which is a
polluted tributary of Taihu lake in China, so as to facilitate the selection of an optimal program
for the water improvement. These scenarios consisted of a series of three water treatment
technologies in different configurations, from upstream to downstream. The results showed that
the optimal scenario comprised a bio-contact oxidation system upstream, followed by an
ecological floating bed, and a vertical moveable eco-bed downstream. The reduction rates
achieved by this scenario for BOD,NH3–N, Total Nitrogen (TN) and TP were 49.50%, 32.81%,
35.94%, and 45.27%, respectively. The QUAL2K model proved to be an effective tool in the
comparative evaluation of potential water quality improvement programs. The method applied in
this study can prevent the implementation of water quality improvement programs that would not
achieve the desired goals.

Sarda Dr P (2013) presented an approach for water quality modelling of Godavari River. A 15
km stretch was taken for the purpose of analysis. It was divided into 2 reaches depending on the
point of inflows. The hydraulic parameters considered wereflow rates, dimensions of river
5
reaches, location of upstream and downstream ends, height, width, shape of weirs, dams and
waterfalls, rating curve parameters, Manning’s ‘n’ for river reaches. The water quality data
considered included temperature, EC, Organic Phosphorous (Org P), DO, phytoplankton, Slow
Carbenacous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBODslow), Fast Carbenaceous Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (CBODfast), pathogens, Org. N , Alkalinity, pH. Air temperature, Wind speed,
and Dew point temperature. The state variable plots were obtained for Temperature, EC, DO,
CBODslow, CBODfast, pH, Pathogens, Alkalinity, TN, Total P. The model was run and calibrated
for the data of 2000-2008. The model represented the field data quite well with some exceptions.
Senstivity analysis predicted that the model was sensitive to TN, Carbenecous Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (CBOD), depth coefficient.

Gupta R.C., Gupta K.A. and Shrivastava R.K.( 2013) conducted the water quality modelling
of river Kshipra. A stretch of 19.79 km was selected for the study which was further divided into
20 reaches. Manning’s coefficient was taken as 0.7. Reareation model was selected through
internal calculations. Euler’s method was used for the solution of integration. pH modelling was
done with the help of Newton-Raphson. The model was calibrated for the data of 3 months(
April-June) The model was run for a population of 100 with 50 generations. The model was
validated using the results from the data of October- December. The discripency in the validated
and observed data was found to be maximum upto 10%.

Lakshmi E and G Dr Madhu(2014) conducted a study for the modelling of the Dissolved
Oxygen. and temperature on Periyar river in South India. Secondary data (surface water
temperature, DO, air temperature) for a period of 28 years ie from 1980-2008 was obtained form
the departments. For QUAL2K modelling the river was divided into 7 reaches. Temperature and
DO were modelled using QUAL2K. Data obtained from sampling and secondary data was used
for modelling. By simple linear regression equations for water temperature and DO were
obtained.
Water Temperature = 22.858 + 0.202 x Air Temperature………………………………………2.1
DO = 9.197 – 0.103 x Water Temperature……………………………………………………...2.2
Calibration data of 2008 and 2013 also predicted that the data for all the reaches is in well
agreement with the results of the model.

Kalburgi B.P., Shareefa N.R. and Deshannavas B.U.(2015) used QUAL2K to develop the
BOD-DO model of river Ghataprabha in Karnatka. A 50km stretch was selected for the study.
6
Arc Gis technique is used to obtain some hydro-geometric data of the river for input to model
QUAL2K. 6 different location were monitorred for calibration and validation. The calibrated
model was validated to predict water quality using a different set of data under different
conditions. The results showed that the predicted results were well in agreement with the
observed results.

Sarda P and Sadgir P( 2015) conducted a study and treid to explain how different parameters
effect the water quality. All the parameters have an important effect on water be the usage of
water be for irrigation, drinking or any other work. Temperature, pH, Total Dissolved Solids
TDS, EC, DO, BOD, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) are the broad range of water quality
parameters for drinking, irrigation, aquatic life for surface water.

Sharma D, Kansal A and Pelletier G(2015) performed water quality modelling of the urban
reach of river Yamuna. For the purpose of calibration of the QUAL2K model 90 months’ data
was collected over 4 monitoring stations. Thirteen waste water channels and a tributary
conveying household sewage have been considered in the investigation. The data was gathered
for pH, DO, BOD, nitrogenous mixes, COD, alkalinity, temperature and EC. The river was
divided into 21 sub reaches and 17 reaches. Various necessary worldwide parameters are
adjusted to get the wellness while looking at the observed information and the model forecasts.
The model was calibrated for the first 45 months and then modelled for the next 45 months.
Time step of 5.625 minutes was set. Population of 200 with 100 generations was used for the
purpose of Generic Algorithm (GA). The sensitivity analysis anticipated that DO is very delicate
to CBOD, oxidation rate, alkali nitrification rate, HW stream and reareation rate. The observed
and predicted values were well in accordance with each other.

Idris S, Abdu A.Y. and Saini G(2016) conducted a study on river Yamuna for the asssessment
its surface water quality with the help of QUAL2K. The total study area of 22km was divided
into 16 reaches of 0.3km each. The calibration of the model was done for DO, temperature,
Alkalinity, TN and pH. The BOD value keep increasing as the sewage starts flowing in the river.
The DO values were found to be below the permissible limits. The pH and temperature were also
not in the prescribed limits. Senstivity analysis depicted that the model is highly sensitive to river
flow and point source discharges and moderately sensitive to fast CBOD and nitrification rate.
Overall the results predicted by the model were quite in agreement with the observed values.

7
Ashwani S et al. (2017) used QUAL2K to predict the water quality of Pamba river. A stretch of
12.63km was selected as the study area. Other than that a point 8.2km from the last sampling
point was selected for which the water quality parameters were to be predicted. The stretch was
divided into 22 reaches of unequal lenghts. Post monsoon data of a steady weather condition was
taken for calibration. Time step of 5.65 minutes was used. pH, temperature, EC, TSS, TDS, DO,
BOD,NO−
3 , Alkalinity, TP were the parameters consideed for model input. The parameters

predicted were BOD, TSS, TN, TP and Alkalinity. Internal calculation was used. The results
obtained were well in agreement with the observed data.

2.2 MODELLING OF RIVERS

Modelling of rivers is a great method of depicting the characteristics of the river in the form of a
model and predicting the characteristics of the river which are not known to us. Different models
are available for different river characteristics.

2.2.1 Use of Models

Due to the development and management policies the envoirnmental, social and economic
effects are assesssed by the help of river basin models. Positive(descriptive) models are used to
determine and predict the outcomes due to changing conditions. Models are generally chosen
from a range of models so that they meet the best suited objective. The model which are used in
almost all the conditions are normative models. Results obtained are interpreted so as to reveal
the opportunities for improvement. The models behaves as an indespensible model for decision
making. Models are generally divided on the type of problem to be solved by the. The models
can be static or dynamic, deterministic or srochastic, single or multiple, economic or engineering
oriented.

Static vs Dynamic : The examination of the condition due to change in system is depicted with
the help of static models. For example, the nature of construction of a wastewater treatment plant
on the river water quality. The transistory effects such as the changing landscape, alteration in
water flows and many more are depicted by dynamic models. These are generally used to
describe intertemporal behavior of some of the model components due to the change in
conditions. [Pandurang G.S. 2006]

8
Deterministic vs Stochastic: Deterministic models are used in scenarios where the information
affecting the outcomes is known or is assumed and the influence of unknown parameters is very
small. Stochiastic model are generally used to incorporate information about the reliabilty of
information in the model. Results from the stochiastic models can indictae the outcomes of
alternative projects in probablistic terms. [Pandurang G.S. 2006]

Single vs Multiple Objectives : The most common used models single models are based on the
assumption that the values effected can be denominated in a common unit and compared in that.
Multiple Objective models are generally used when units don’t have to be changed and they can
be compared in completely different units. [Pandurang G.S. 2006]

2.2.2 Details of various Water Quality Models

Depending upon the type of flow, type of conditions, parameters modelled by the model various
models are available and a person can use anyone which fulfills his needs.

MIKE 11: It is a deterministic, hydrodynamic model. It was developed by the Danish Hydraulics
Institute and is used by the agencies all over the world. It has been applied in Africa, Australia,
India and in many other countries. In England it is the recommended model for assesing the
effect of discharges on river and eustaries. [Pandurang G.S. 2006]

Mike 11 is a one-dimensional powerful stream demonstrates which reproduces hydrodynamics,

water quality and residue transport in conduits, estuaries, water framework structures, channels
and other water bodies. It relies upon an isolated structure including modules for reproducing:
precipitation overflow, hydrodynamics, change in climate conditions, water quality and deposit
transport. The center of this model is a hydrodynamic module which grasps the Saint-Venant
conditions and the kinematic wave or diffuses wave modifications to reenact the streams inside
broadened and circled conduit systems. These can be portrayed either comprehensive or locally
for each cross-section. [Tsakiris G and Alexakis D. 2012]

The rainfall-runoff component can be applied to produce sidelong inflows from contributing
catchments. The shift in weather conditions(advection)—scattering condition is then solved
utilizing a verifiable limited contrast plot for suspended or dissolved materials. The water quality
module, combined with the yields of the shift in weather conditions—scattering module,
reproduces the response forms of multi compound frameworks. The water quality module
9
incorporates a few models among which the straightforward model; eutrophication and
substantial models can likewise be spoken to utilizing different models.The basic model models
theBOD—DO connections including the impacts of nitrification (ammonium, nitrates and
nitrites) and the nearness of organic matters. [TsakirisG and Alexakis D. 2012]

Mike 11 requires time arrangement of stream and synthetic focus alongside a few other water-
quality parameters, for example, degradation rates to mimic the developments of chemicals in an
extended waterway network. The yields incorporate time arrangement of stream and substance
fixations for each scope. [Pandurang G.S. 2006]

Models like MIKE 11 are very confusing and their nature of outcomes generally depends upon
‘great quality stream’ and water quality time arrangement

QUAL2E: It is a case of a steady-state state deterministic model. [Pandurang G.S. 2006]

QUAL2E is a one dimensional model created by the US EPA (U.S. Envoirnmental Protection
Agency) and it recreates the water quality and stream systems by explaining the mass transport
equations. The transport components (advection and dispersion), are just thought to be applicable
along the principle waterway station. Be that as it may, various waste releases, tributary streams,
withdrawals and incremental inflow and surge can likewise be incorporated. This model
evaluates DO and BOD together with 13 more determinantss.The waterway network is
schematically partitioned into reaches, every one of which is then isolated into computational
components of equivalent length. The stream framework design requires the accompanying
attributes:
• number of reaches for sectioning the stream
• number of stream intersections and headwater sources
• number of sources of inputs or withdrawals
• length of computational component
A unique reach number, reach name and reach length is defined to each reach. A maximum of 50
reaches can be represented in the model. Functional or Geometric representation is used to
characterise the hydraulic characteristics of the model.Each span may include 7 unique kinds of
computational components: headwater source, standard component (incremental inflow or
surge), component on standard instantly upstream of an intersection, intersection, most
downstream component, point source, and withdrawal component. The steering calculation for

10
each computational component is then characterized by the sort of component chose.
[Pandurang G.S. 2006]
Every intersection or juncture is in this manner described by a one of a kind number and a name,
and also their numbering position contrasted with:
(i) the last component in the compass instantly upstream from the intersection,
(ii) the first component in the scope instantly downstream from the intersection and
(iii) the last component in the last reach of the tributary entering the intersection.
QUAL2E plays out the energy balance for heat exchange over the air—water interface to speak
to the reliance of temperature on topography and climatology. Information are in this manner
required for reach elevation, dust elevation, cloudiness, dry and wet bulb temperature, wind
speed and barometric pressure would then be characterized. These information can be
characterized as worldwide or reach specific values. Inside QUAL2E, the BOD concentration is
reproduced by explaining a first order equation including BOD removal because of
sedimentation and deoxygenation, which requires a deoxygenation rate and a settling rate. While
recreating DO the impacts of algae, nitrogen, phosphorus and BOD forms are considered. Flow
augmentation is modeled at the reach level so as to avoid the DO concentration from dropping
below a certain level.Settling and benthos mechanisms are needed because non conservative
determinants are modeled using them. Information on flow and determinant characteristics is
defined once the river network and the determintant characteristics are explained. After all the
values have been input then QUAL2K predicts the value of all the determinants in each specified
reach. [Pandurang G.S. 2006]
QUAL2E just as MIKE11 does a realistic representation of the various procesess. Though it
demands less data then MIKE11 but still the data requirement due to the complex proccesses
included is quite high.

TOMCAT: an example of a steady-state stochastic model

In England and Wales, under the Water Resources Act 1991 , it is an offense to "cause or
intentionally allow" pollutants to enter controlled waters without authorization. In this way, the
release controlling conditions, called Consents, are set up for each release to control volumes and
concentrations. TOMCAT was produced by Thames Water (England, UK) and intended to aid
the survey of UK consents, specifically Ammonia, BOD and DO, on a catchment scale. It
depends on the Hybrid Monte-Carlo deterministic strategy and recreates stream distribution and

11
concentration of key determinands (BOD, smelling salts, DO, and temperature) utilizing Monte-
Carlo shots to give discrete examples from the user characterized distribution. As TOMCAT is a
stochastic model, it requires the client to determine the number of shots to be embraced
alongside the number of sub-catchments to be reenacted. There is in addtition a feature of
defining the seasons and with different distributions and providing the mean monthly
temperature corresponding to each catchment. The streams and concentrations inside TOMCAT
are evaluated utilizing a straightforward mass balance equation which does not speak of
advection (shift in weather conditions) and scattering. The synthetic procedures are solved
utilizing a first order decay equation which just considers in-stream evacuation. DO is evaluated
by use of the Streeter Phelps condition. [TsakirisG and Alexakis D. 2012]
The TOMCAT model is substantially less difficult than Mike 11 or QUAL2E, and the amount of
input data required is less.

MONERIS (Modelling Nutrient Emissions in River Systems): MONERIS is a model that is built
over 8 sub models that simulate and predict the generation and transport of sediments in the river
system. MONERIS is a GIS-situated model which depends on the empirical way to depict
complex connections basically. It is a reasonable model for the evaluation of nutrient emissions
from point and non-point sources in stream catchments bigger than 50 km 2. The model consists
of a scenario manager that helps to assess the effects of the nutrients on the different units and
pathways. [TsakirisG and Alexakis D. 2012]

SIMCAT (Simulation of Catchments): SIMCAT was developed in United Kingdom somas to

assist in the process of planning of measures for water quality management. It is a deterministic,
stochiastic, steady state, one dimensional model that displays the outcome and transport of
solutes in the stream and the inputs from point sources of discharges on the basis of the behavior
of:

1. A relationship of temperature, reareation and BOD Decay is used to represent DO.

2. NO−
3 and BOD (non-conservative substances which decay)

3. Conservative Substances which do not decay.

12
1400 parameters of up to 600 reaches can be modelled in the model. The reaches have to be
defined by the user himself generally depending on the points of abstractions and inflows.
Random values from the given input are selected for quality and flow on every run of the model.

The output of the model is generally in the form of summary of each reach and each pollutant.In
United Kingdom the model has been used successfully as it is a satisfactory management tool,
though sediment interactions are not considered in it. The model can also not analyze complex
scenarios.[Pandurang G.S. 2006]

GREAT-ER (Geo-referenced Regional Exposure Assessment Tool for European Rivers)

The goal of the software is to give exact forecasts of sea-going compound introduction and count
of sensible circulation of down-the-drain chemicals ecological concentrations for use in the EU
chance appraisal plot, in view of a particular approach. Not at all like the Mackay or EUSES
models, the GREAT-ER manages georeferenced 'genuine' datasets rather than normal or
nonspecific qualities, which permits more dependable forecasts, and accordingly higher-level
hazard evaluation contrasted with models utilizing single qualities speaking to most pessimistic
scenario situations. The model core is deterministic and gives a robotic meaning of the diverse
procedures considered inside the stream and waste water drainage region. However a stochastic
layer is included utilizing Monte-Carlo simulations where 'shots' are obtained before the
deterministic model is run. Distributions of four types, each having different input data
requirements are available i.e.: constant, normal, log-normal and uniform.[Pandurang G.S.
2006]

QUAL2K Model: QUAL2K (or Q2K) is a waterway and stream water quality model that is
planned to represent a modernized variant of the QUAL2E (or Q2E) model. The Enhanced
Stream Water Quality Model (QUAL2K) is a thorough and flexible one-dimensional stream
water quality model. It reenacts the significant responses of nutrient cycles, algal generation,
benthic and carbonaceous demand, air reaeration and their consequences for the dissolved
oxygen balance. Furthermore, the program incorporates a heat balance for the calculation of
temperature and mass balance for moderate minerals, coliform microorganisms, and non-
conservative constituents, for example, radioactive substances. The model is proposed as a water
quality planning instrument for creating total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and can likewise

13
be utilized as a part of conjunction with field examining for recognizing the magnitude and
quality attributes of point and nonpoint sources. QUAL2K has been created for steady stream
and steady waste load conditions and is thus a "steady state model" in spite of the fact that
temperature and green algae functions can differ on a diurnal basis. [ChapraS.C. and Pelletier
G.J. 2003]

Model inputs
QUAL2K requires some level of demonstrating refinement and mastery. The user must supply in
excess of 100 individual information sources, some of which require extensive judgment to
estimate. The information can be assembled into three classifications: a stream/waterway
framework, global factors and forcing functions. The first group, input information for the
stream/waterway framework, portrays the stream framework into a configuration the model can
read. The general variable gathering portrays the general simulation factors. [ChapraS.C. and
Pelletier G.J. 2008]

Model Outputs
QUAL2K produces three sorts of tables-hydrodynamics, reaction coefficient, and water quality-
in the output document. The outputs can be effectively imported into other application, for
example, spreadsheets for investigation and furthermore incorporates some graphic analysis of
the model outcomes. State factors can be plotted at characterized distances along the reaches.
Also, the user can include field observations for dissolved oxygen with minimum, average and
maximum values. The model uses those values to plot the observed information versus the
predicted ones. If there should be an occurrence of dynamic simulations, the model produces
temperature and algae esteems on the characterized time step. [ChapraS.C. and Pelletier G.J.
2008]

Model Application:
QUAL2K is extremely appropriate for waste load allocation studies and other planning
exercises. Waste load allocations are performed for states of steady low stream and most extreme
allowed effluent discharge rate. QUAL2K is proposed particularly for the relentless stream flow,
consistent effluent release conditions indicated in the water quality guidelines for waste load
distribution. Accordingly, QUAL2K has been generally utilized by specialists and administrative

14
organizations and is considered as the standard for water quality models. for example, units,
water quality constituents and some physical attributes of the basin. The compelling capacities
are client indicated inputs that drive the system being modeled.[Pandurang G.S. 2006]

2.2.3 Comparison of Various Models:

Each model is unique in its own way. Some model has some characteristics and some have the
other one. So, a detailed comparison between the various models studied above is given in the
Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Comparison of various water quality models[(Tsakiris G and Alexakis D 2012) (Pandurang
G.S. 2006) (Chapra S.C. and Pelletier G.J. 2008)]

MODEL DIMENSION AND POLLUTANT TYPE COMMENTS

STATE OF
HYDRAULICS
MIKE 11 1D DO, BOD, 𝑁𝑂3 , 𝑁𝐻4 , Full Hydrodynamic
UNSTEADY coliforms, P

MONERIS Semi-Static Total N, Total P, heavy Semi-empirical, conceptual

metals and some priority model. Based on data for
substances run-off water quality for the
study area along with a GIS.
SIMCAT 1D DO, BOD, 𝑁𝑂3 , CI, 𝑁𝐻4 Stochastic, deterministic,
Steady State ( time Monte Carlo analysis
invariant) techniques.
TOMCAT 1D DO,BOD, 𝑁𝐻4 Monte Carlo analysis
Steady state ( time techniques
variant)
QUAL2K 1D TN, TP, DO, BOD, SOD, Not Stochastic, Not dynamic
(Q2K) Steady State( time algae, pH, periphyton,
invariant) pathogen
GREATER - Exact forecasts of down-the Deterministic, uses Monte
drain chemicals Carlo simulation.

15
Concluding Remarks

From the above provided literature it is quite evident that QUAL2K is a reliable model and the
results predicted by the model are of great reliability and get validated also by the conditions
prevailing. Amongst the various models available for the purpose of modeling of rivers
QUAL2K is the best because it is easy to operate and also the results are correct also QUAL2K
is the only model which predicts the maximum number of parameters. Though TOMCAT also
predicts a number of parameters but it is not stable and the calculations take a lot of time.

From, the literature we are also able to decide that pH, Temperature, TDS, EC, BOD, COD and
N are the most important parameters that affect the quality of water and generally influence the
organic life of the water streams.

Gap Analysis: From, the literature it was quite evident that no such study has been conducted for
water streams in Patiala. It is also seen that the studies done earlier only predict the values of the
parameters. They do not make any relation between the dependent and independent
characteristics of the parameter, which would aid in prediction in future studies.

16
 CHAPTER 3

METHDOLOGY

In this chapter we discussed about the study area, the conditions prevailing there. We also
discussed about the procedure of tests followed by us and the data input into the model and
various other settings set in the model.

3.1 AREA OF STUDY

 The above said study was conducted for an old river known as “ChottiNadi” passing
through the city of Patiala.
 A 1.3km stretch of the river was selected for undertaking our aforesaid study.
 The 1.3km stretch selected for the purpose of study had2 point sources of discharge in it
which are the discharge point for two Paper Mills respectively.
 The first input point was situated at a distance of 0.35km from Headwater and the second
input point was situated at a distance of 1.25 km from Headwater.
 The river had gone dry but the headwater of the river was taken as the discharge from the
Effluent Treatment Plant which is discharged into the river and is the main source of
water in the river.
 The discharge from the ETP is around 46 MLD which accounts for 0.532 𝑚3 /sec.
 As the paper industries generally use recycled paper as their main source of raw material
so the water discharge by them is low compared to other paper industries which use
wooden pulp as their raw material.
 The discharge from both the industries was around 8640 L/day and 9000 L/ day. So, for
the purpose of calculation the discharge from industries was taken as 0.0001 𝑚3 /sec.
 The testing of the water quality parameters was done for 5 days varying over a period of
a month, so as to check and determine the changes in the parameter values with respect to
temperature and other conditions.

17
HEADWATER INDUSTRY-1
Q = 0.532 𝑚3 /sec Q = 0.0001 𝑚3 /sec

0 km 0.35 km 1.25 km 1.30km

INDUSTRY-2
Q = 0.0001 𝑚3 /sec
Figure 3.1: Line diagram showing the study area.

3.2 REGULATION FOR COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF SAMPLE

The main objective of sampling is to collect representative sample. Representative sample by

means is a sample in which a relative proportion of all the pertinent components will be the same
as in the material being sampled. Moreover, the sample should be handled in such a way that
there is no change in composition of the sample before the sample is analyzed. The sample
volume should be such that it is small enough that it is transported easily and large enough for
analytical purposes.

3.2.1 Collection of Samples

Grab sampling was done in the study. The samples were collected over a selected location, depth
and time. The variation in the source was easily represented in the samples. [APHA 2015]

3.2.2 Methods of Sampling

Manual sampling was done for the purpose of collection of samples. No equipment was brought
into use for the purpose of sampling. [APHA 2015]

3.2.3 Sample Containers

As, the parameters to be tested were not toxic parameters. So, plastic containers were used for
storing of samples. [APHA 2015]. Sample labeling is a very important part of sampling. The
following information was properly included in the label. Water proof ink was used for labeling.
18
 1. Date and Time of sampling
2. Sampling point
3. Notes

3.2.4 Sample Volumes

2-liter sample was collected for the purpose of testing of various parameters. [APHA 2015]

3.2.5 Sample storage and preservation

3.2.5.1 Sample Storage before Analysis: Zero head space was left in the bottles filled with the
sample. The bottles were checked for air bubbles and it was taken care that no air bubbles were
present in the bottle. The samples were taken as quickly as possible after collection to the
laboratory for testing purposes because temperature changes lead to a change in the pH and DO
values of the sample. [APHA 2015]

3.2.5.2 Preservation Techniques: Preservation of samples is very important because if the

samples are not preserved properly the values tend to change thereby leading to discrepancies in
the result. As, most of the tests were conducted on the day of the collection of the sample and the
remaining sample was refrigerated at 4C for further use. [APHA 2015]

3.2.6 Summary of Special Sampling and handling requirements

The type of container used, minimum sample volume collected and all the other required
information about the parameters is discussed in the Table 3.1. All these points were decided in
accordance with the APHA guidelines

19
 Table 3.1 Summary of special sampling and handling requirements

Determination Minimum Sample Preservation Max.

Size (mL) recommended
storage
Alkalinity 200 Refrigeration 24h
BOD 1000 Refrigeration 6h
COD 100 Refrigeration 7d
Conductance 500 Refrigeration 28d
Nitrogen Ammonia 500 Add 𝐻2 𝑆𝑂4 to pH <2, 28d
refrigeration
Organic Nitrogen 500 Add 𝐻2 𝑆𝑂4 to pH <2, 28d
refrigeration
Dissolved Oxygen 300 Analyze immediately, 0.25h
Titration may be delayed
after acidification
pH 50 Analyze immediately 0.25h

3.3 PROCEDURE OF VARIOUS TESTS TO BE PERFORMED FOR DETERMINING

VARIOUS PARAMETERS:

3.3.1 DO: Oxygen is one of the most important component over which the living organisms are
dependent in one way or the other. Measurement of DO is important because:
1. Concentration is very important in the testing of water and waste water samples for BOD.
2. Operation and control of aerobic biological treatment units.
3. Management of water streams for protecting them through monitoring the DO levels.
DO is determined by the help of the Wrinkler’s method as mentioned in APHA. [APHA 2015]
Complete procedure is mentioned in Annexure-I.
3.3.2 BOD: BOD is used to measure the quantity of oxygen required for oxidation of
Biodegradable organic matter present in water samples by aerobic biological action.BOD bottle
method as mentioned in the APHA is used for the determination of BOD. [APHA
2015]Complete procedure is mentioned in Annexure-I.

20
3.3.3 COD: COD Test is widely used as a means of measuring the organic strength of domestic
and industrial wastes. The test allows measurement of a waste in terms of the total quantity of the
oxygen required for oxidation to carbon dioxide water and ammonia. Closed Reflux Method as
mentioned in APHA is used for the determination of COD. [APHA 2015]Complete procedure is
mentioned in Annexure-I.

3.3.4 NH3-N/ Org.N: In waste waters the forms of nitrogen of greatest interest are, in order of
decreasing oxidation state,NO− −
3 , NO2 , NH3 and Org.N. Kjeldahl method as mentioned in APHA

is used for the determination of nitrogen. [APHA 2015]Complete procedure is mentioned in

Annexure-I.

3.3.5 Alkalinity: Alkalinity of water and waste waters is the capacity to neutralize acids. The
alkalinity of water is mainly due to the presence of Hydroxides, Carbonates and Bicarbonates.
The type and extent of alkalinity present in the water can be determined by titrating the sample
with standard sulphuric acid (0.02N) at room temperature using phenolphthalein and methyl
orange indicator. [APHA 2015]Complete procedure is mentioned in Annexure-I.

3.3.6 EC: EC is the measure of the water’s capability to pass electrical flow. This ability is
directly related to the concentration of ions in water. These ions which conduct electricity come
from dissolved salts and inorganic materials such as alkalis, chlorides, sulfides and other
compounds. Instrumental method is the most commonly used method of EC determination.
[APHA 2015]Complete procedure is mentioned in Annexure-I.

3.3.7pH: pH is a logarithmic scale used to specify the acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution.
A pH less than 7 is said to be acidic whereas a pH more than 7 is said to be basic. The pH
determination is usually done by electrometric method, which is the most accurate one, and free
from interferences. [APHA 2015]Complete procedure is mentioned in Annexure-I.

3.4 WATER QUALITY MODELLING BY QUAL2K

QUAL2K is a river and stream water quality model. It is typically used to assess the
environmental impact of multiple pollution discharges along rivers.

21
Pollutants can come from point sources such as industrial wastewater, municipal sewers, storm
water, agricultural or urban runoff, and commercial activity such as forestry, mining, and
construction.
It is available as freeware from the US-EPA.
The model is written in MS Windows Visual Basic, and Microsoft Excel is used as the graphical
user interface. All input and outputs are organized in a series of worksheet tabs.
Different color tabs correlate to the various inputs and outputs. All numerical calculations are
implemented in Fortran 90 in order to decrease the time of calculation.
The model requires us to input various data which could help in the modelling of the river
characteristics. A detailed table showing the type of data being entered is shown in Table 3.2.

The various other data entered are :

 The Local Standard Time was taken as 4 hours because the conditions prevailing to this
time zone are very similar to the condition for our site and in all the studies done before
on Indian rivers the time zone is taken as 4. [Sarda P 2013]
 The Calculation step is calculated by the model with the help of the GA present in it. The
time step was found to be 1.4 minutes by the model. A time step lower than 1.4 minutes
makes the model unstable and a time step bigger than 5 minutes gives inaccurate results.
 Repeating Diel method was used for simulation.
 Euler method was used for the purpose of integration. In addition to Euler method
RangaKutta method is also available for integration but it is generally not used because
Euler’s method attains sufficiently accurate results at a moderate computational price.
Though, where Euler’s method produces unstable results in those places we can use a
more computationally heavy RangaKutta 4th order method. [ Chapra S.C., Pelletier G.J.
and Tao H. 2008]
 For the solution of pH, Brent method was used. Brent method is the advanced form of the
Newton-Raphson method and the Bisection method. Bisection method is very slow and
Newton Raphson method goes unstable at a lot of places. So, for the best results Brent
method is being used. [Chapra S.C., Pelletier G.J. and Tao H. 2008]

22
Table 3.2 Primary settings done to the model

SYSTEM ID
River Name ChottiNadi
Saved File name Patiala 21-5-18
Directory where the input/output file are saved C:\Users\Chaudhary\Desk
top\thesis\data\data files
Month 5
Day 21
Year 2018
Local standard time zone relative to UTC 4 hours
Daylight savings time Yes
Simulations and Output options
Calculation Step 1.40625 minutes
Number of days for the simulation period 5 days
Simulation Mode Repeating diel
Selected date for output of longitudinal and 24-hr diel 22/5/2018
plots
Solution method (integration) Euler
Solution method (pH) Brent
Simulate hyporheic transient storage zone (HTS) Level 1
Simulate surface transient storage zone (STS) Yes
Option for conduction to deep sediments in heat Lumped
budget
Display dynamic diel output for selected date Yes
State variables for simulation All
Simulate sediment diagenesis No
Simulate alkalinity change due to nutrient change Yes
Write dynamic output of water quality for entire No
simulation
Print interval for dynamic output 4
( multiple of time steps)
Program determined calc step 1.40625 minutes
Time elapsed during last model run 0.65 minutes

23
  The model provides us the feature to divide the stretch of river into smaller reaches.
Reaches are generally referred to segments having the same hydraulic characteristics.
[Chapra S.C. and Pelletier G.J. 2003]
 So, we divided our stretch into to reaches of 100m each. In total, the 1.3km stretch was
divided into 13 reaches. The exact details of the reaches are shown in table 3.3.
 In correspondence to these distance various other parameters such as the depth of the
channel, width of the channel, slope of the channel, latitude longitude of the reaches were
entered in the model.
 The average depth of the channel was found to be 2.8m. So, for the purpose of
calculations depth of the channel was taken as 2.8m.
 The width of the channel was taken as 8.1m.
 The channel slope was calculated by the model itself taking into consideration the
latitude and longitude coordinates. The latitude of the stretch was 30.28 whereas
longitude variesbetween 76.37 to 76.36. The exact details of the latitude and longitude
are given in the Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Latitude and Longitude of Reaches

REACH NUMBER REACH LENGTH LATITUDE LONGITUDE

0 30.28 76.37
1 0.10 30.28 76.37
2 0.10 30.28 76.36
3 0.10 30.28 76.36
4 0.10 30.28 76.36
5 0.10 30.28 76.36
6 0.10 30.28 76.36
7 0.10 30.28 76.36
8 0.10 30.28 76.36
9 0.10 30.28 76.36
10 0.10 30.28 76.36
11 0.10 30.28 76.36
12 0.10 30.28 76.36
13 0.10 30.28 76.36

24
  So, with the variation of the latitude and longitude the channel slope varied from 0.004 to
0.003.
 The Manning’s Coefficient ‘n’ was taken as 0.1. Because in the mountain streams with
boulders the value of ‘n’ varies from “0.04 - 0.1”. And in streams with heavy brushes it
varies from “0.05 – 0.20”. As, our site has heavy brushes and an ample amount of
boulders, so we took the value of ‘n’ as 0.1.
 The model provides for a feature of Auto- Calibration and all the parameters which are
not know to us such as the Reaeration rates, CBOD Rates etc. The model uses Genetic
Algorithm for the purpose of Auto- Calibration. [Chapra S.C. and Pelletier G.J.2003]
For the purpose of Auto-Calibration the model is run for 50 generations of 100
population size.
 After the filling up of all the required data the Auto-Calibration feature was run so as to
find the remaining parameters. Auto- Calibration is generally run till the predicted values
are quite well in agreement with the observed values. The Auto- Calibration was run two
times. In the second times the predicted results were quite in agreement to the observed
values.

NOTE: though we had divided the reaches into 100m each but as the model changed the lengths
of some reaches after the Auto- Calibration as it sought them to be of same parameters.

 The model requires us to input the water quality values of the headwater and all the
inflows and outflows so that it can predict the model. As, in addition to the headwater the
1.3km stretch had two waste water inflows (input point 1 (situated at a distance of 0.35
km from the headwater) and input point 2 (situated at a distance of 1.25 km from
headwater)), so the detailed values of the various parameters such as the flow, pH,
alkalinity and many more of all the three point are given in Table 3.5.
 The model also requires us to enter some additional details about the site conditions (such
as the air temperature, dew point temperature and a few more) in addition to the water
quality inputs. The data entered in the model is given in Table 3.4.

25
Table 3.4 Metrological input values in the model

PARAMETER VALUE
Air Temperature 26.9C
Dew Point Temperature 14C
Wind Speed 2m/sec
Cloud Cover 50%

The model requires us to input the details of all the parameters to be modelled by the model. The
values have to be entered for all the input sources and the headwater.

Table 3.5 Characteristics of Head Water, Input Point 1&2

PARAMETER UNIT VALUE

HEADWATER INPUT POINT 1 INPUT POINT 2
Flow 𝑚3 /sec 0.532 0.0001 0.0001
Temperature C 26 30 31
Electrical uS/cm 25ºC 0.46 0.2 0.2
Conductivity
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 4 7.5 6
BOD mg/L 18 40 48
Organic Nitrogen ugN/L 709 1120 840
Ammonical ugN/L 16091 26508 21280
Nitrogen
Generic mg/L 40 80 100
Constituent / COD
Alkalinity mgCa𝐶𝑂3 /L 574 530 400
pH 8.28 8.35 8.36

3.5 VALIDATION STUDIES

For, the validation of the predicted results validation study was undertaken. For, the purposes of
validation of the predicted values sample were collected from five different points in our stretch.
The five points were 0.20km from headwater, 0.35 km from headwater, 0.50 km from headwater,
1.0 km from headwater, and 1.2 km from headwater.
26
  For, the purpose of validation samples was collected for 4 days over a period of 4 weeks.
As, most of the values were close to each other so the most adverse values were used for
the purpose of validation. The values obtained from validation studies are shown in Table
3.6.

Table 3.6 Characteristics of the 5 validation points

PARAMETER UNIT VALUE

0.20 km 0.35 km 0.50 km 1.0 km 1.20 km
Travel Time Days 0.0116 0.012 0.0256 0.045 0.06
Electrical uS/cm 25ºC 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Conductivity
Dissolved mg/L 4.587 5.324 5.435 6.26 6.39
Oxygen
BOD mg/L 17.925 17.87 17.8 17.6 17.6
Organic ugN/L 683.3 668.5 654.1 608.7 591
Nitrogen
Ammonical ugN/L 16040.69 16008.87 15976.2 15865.5 15820
Nitrogen
Generic mg/L 40.011 40.011 40.011 40.013 40.015
Constituent /
COD
Alkalinity mgCa𝐶𝑂3 /L 573.83 573.75 573.67 573.45 573.28
pH 8.33 8.35 8.37 8.42 8.44

As, our main motive of conducting this study was to predict the water quality parameters of the
water stream and this was done with the help of the QUAL2K model. But, to provide aid for the
future studies and in helping them determine the values of the water quality parameters at
specific distances form the headwater we can create equations by applying linear regression
through SPSS.
So, here we have obtained equations for the point situated at 1.3 km from the headwater. The
parameters for which the equations are determined are
1. Alkalinity
2. COD

27
 3. BOD
4. DO
5. NH3-N
6. Org. N

3.6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Statistical Analysis was performed to develop the equation which could be used to predict the
water quality parameter values. SPSS was used to perform the analysis.
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences also commonly known as SPSS is a Java platform
software package developed by IBM and is basically used for batched and non-batched statistical
analysis.
Regression analysis is a statistical technique that is used to predict the variable of interest
(known as dependent variable, criterion or target, the outcome) from a set of other variables
(known as independent variables, regressor or explanatory variables, the predictor). Generally, a
regression analysis having two or more independent variables is called as multiple regression
analysis.

Regression analysis can be used for forecasting and prediction of various models. The results of
regression analysis also help in depicting the independent variable which has major effect on the
value of dependent variable. Checking R-squared value of the model is most common way of
deciding its reliability. Also, the p-value obtained by the ANOVA table can be used for
determining the significance of generated models. [Pandurang G.S. 2006]

Multiple linear regression was used to develop a co relation between the final value at the end
point and the independent parameters such as the values from the headwater and the input points.
It was performed for all the important parameters and an equation was formed depending upon
the input and output values.

 SPSS was used for the purpose of regression.

 3 cases for every parameter were studied to obtain a data set for SPSS.
 27 cases for every parameter were run in QUAL2K to obtain the resultant values.

28
 3.6.1 Input data for Statistical Analysis of Alkalinity

The three different cases by which a set of 27 values was formed consist 1 for which the
modelling is done and the other 2 sets consist of the less adverse conditions. The 3 sets are
shown in Table 3.7

Table 3.7 Input values used for Alkalinity

HEADWATER INPUT POINT 1 INPUT POINT 2

574 530 400
580 535 500
590 552 440

The 27 different combinations created by using the 3 sets of data available were used for the
regression analysis. The 27 combination are shown in Table 3.8.

Table 3.8 Data set used for Alkalinity

HEADWATER INDUSTRY- INDUSTRY- RESULT HEADWATER INDUSTRY- INDUSTRY- RESULT

1 2 1 2
574 530 400 573.27 580 535 500 580.006
574 530 500 574 580 552 400 579.99
574 530 440 573.996 580 552 500 580.009
574 535 400 573.989 580 552 440 579.998
574 535 500 574.01 590 530 400 589.982
574 535 440 573.997 590 530 500 590.001
574 552 400 573.993 590 530 440 589.99
574 552 500 574.011 590 535 400 589.983
574 552 440 574 590 535 500 590.002
580 530 400 579.98 590 535 440 589.991
580 530 500 580.005 590 552 400 589.987
580 530 440 579.994 590 552 500 590.005
580 535 400 579.987 590 552 440 589.994
580 535 440 579.995

29
 3.6.2 Input data for Statistical Analysis of COD

The three different cases by which a set of 27 values was formed consist 1 for which the
modelling is done and the other 2 sets consist of the less adverse conditions. The 3 sets are
shown in Table 3.9.

Table 3.9 Input values used for COD

HEADWATER INPUT POINT 1 INPUT POINT 2

40 80 100
45 75 98
50 70 120

The 27 different combinations created by using the 3 sets of data available were used for the
regression analysis. The 27 combination are shown in Table 3.10.

Table 3.10 Data set used for COD

HEADWATER INDUSTRY- INDUSTRY- RESULT HEADWATER INDUSTRY- INDUSTRY- RESULT

1 2 1 2
40 80 100 40.02 45 75 120 45.016
40 80 98 40.0184 45 70 100 45.0162
40 80 120 40.01842 45 70 98 45.0164
40 75 100 40.0183 45 70 120 45.01682
40 75 98 40.018 50 80 100 50.015
40 75 120 40.01 50 80 98 50.0151
40 70 100 40.0181 50 80 120 50.0148
40 70 98 40.0179 50 75 100 50.01501
40 70 120 40.0186 50 75 98 50.0152
45 80 100 45.0169 50 75 120 50.0156
45 80 98 45.0165 50 70 100 50.0154
45 80 120 45.017 50 70 98 50.0156
45 75 100 45.0168 50 70 120 50.01501
45 75 98 45.01

30
 3.6.3 Input data for Statistical Analysis of BOD

The three different cases by which a set of 27 values was formed consist 1 for which the
modelling is done and the other 2 sets consist of the less adverse conditions. The 3 sets are
shown in Table 3.11.

Table 3.11 Input values for BOD

HEADWATER INPUT POINT 1 INPUT POINT 2

18 40 50
20 37 45
22 35 52

The 27 different combinations created by using the 3 sets of data available were used for the
regression analysis. The 27 combination are shown in Table 3.12.

Table 3.12 Data set used for BOD

HEADWATER INDUSTRY- INDUSTRY- RESULT HEADWATER INDUSTRY- INDUSTRY- RESULT
1 2 1 2
18 40 50 17.58 20 37 52 19.5347
18 40 45 17.5831 20 35 50 19.5352
18 40 52 17.5843 20 35 45 19.53501
18 37 50 17.5824 20 35 52 19.53497
18 37 45 17.5839 22 40 50 21.487
18 37 52 17.5841 22 40 45 21.501
18 35 50 17.5828 22 40 52 21.485
18 35 45 17.5836 22 37 50 21.4903
18 35 52 17.5846 22 37 45 21.486
20 40 50 19.535 22 37 52 21.49
20 40 45 19.535 22 35 50 21.4876
20 40 52 19.5349 22 35 45 21.4902
20 37 50 19.5351 22 35 52
20 37 45 19.5348

31
 3.6.4 Input data for Statistical Analysis of DO

The three different cases by which a set of 27 values was formed consist 1 for which the
modelling is done and the other 2 sets consist of the less adverse conditions. The 3 sets are
shown in Table 3.13.

Table 3.13 Input values for DO

HEADWATER INPUT POINT 1 INPUT POINT 2

3.8 7.0 5.8
4.0 7.5 6.0
4.3 7.9 7.4

The 27 different combinations created by using the 3 sets of data available were used for the
regression analysis. The 27 combination are shown in Table 3.14.

Table 3.14 Data set for DO

HEADWATER INDUSTRY- INDUSTRY- RESULT HEADWATER INDUSTRY- INDUSTRY- RESULT

1 2 1 2
4 7.5 6 6.43 3.8 7 7.4 6.40099
4 7.5 5.8 6.429 3.8 7.9 6 6.40104
4 7.5 7.4 6.428 3.8 7.9 5.8 6.40103
4 7 6 6.4283 3.8 7.9 7.4 6.40108
4 7 5.8 6.42829 4.3 7.5 6 6.4725
4 7 7.4 6.42834 4.3 7.5 5.8 6.4726
4 7.9 6 6.4284 4.3 7.5 7.4 6.4723
4 7.9 5.8 6.42839 4.3 7 6 6.4725
4 7.9 7.4 6.42844 4.3 7 5.8 6.47251
3.8 7.5 6 6.401 4.3 7 7.4 6.473
3.8 7.5 5.8 6.4009 4.3 7.9 6 6.47261
3.8 7.5 7.4 6.40104 4.3 7.9 5.8 6.4726
3.8 7 6 6.40094 4.3 7.9 7.4 6.472
3.8 7 5.8 6.4

32
 3.6.5 Input data for Statistical Analysis of Org. N

The three different cases by which a set of 27 values was formed consist 1 for which the
modelling is done and the other 2 sets consist of the less adverse conditions. The 3 sets are
shown in Table 3.15.

Table 3.15 Input values for Org. N

HEADWATER INPUT POINT 1 INPUT POINT 2

700 1100 800
709 1120 840
720 1140 860

The 27 different combinations created by using the 3 sets of data available were used for the
regression analysis. The 27 combination are shown in Table 3.16.

Table 3.16 Data set used for Org. N

HEADWATER INDUSTRY- INDUSTRY- RESULT HEADWATER INDUSTRY- INDUSTRY- RESULT

1 2 1 2
700 1100 800 580.2409 709 1120 860 587.5809
700 1100 840 580.2471 709 1140 800 587.575
700 1100 860 580.25 709 1140 840 587.5813
700 1120 800 580.244 709 1140 860 587.5844
700 1120 840 580.2501 720 1100 800 596.5234
700 1120 860 580.253 720 1100 840 596.5296
700 1140 800 580.2479 720 1100 860 596.5327
700 1140 840 580.254 720 1120 800 596.52696
700 1140 860 580.257 720 1120 840 596.5331
709 1100 800 587.568 720 1120 860 596.5362
709 1100 840 587.574 720 1140 800 596.53
709 1100 860 587.5773 720 1140 840 596.5367
709 1120 800 587.571 720 1140 860 596.5398
709 1120 840 587.5779

33
 3.6.6 Input data for Statistical Analysis of NH3-N

The three different cases by which a set of 27 values was formed consist 1 for which the
modelling is done and the other 2 sets consist of the less adverse conditions. The 3 sets are
shown in Table 3.17

Table 3.17 Input values for NH3-N

HEADWATER INPUT POINT 1 INPUT POINT 2

16000 26400 21200
16091 26508 21280
16200 22600 21400

The 27 different combinations created by using the 3 sets of data available were used for the
regression analysis. The 27 combination are shown in Table 3.18.

Table 3.18 Data set used for NH3-N

HEADWATER INDUSTRY- INDUSTRY- RESULT HEADWATER INDUSTRY- INDUSTRY- RESULT

1 2 1 2
16000 26400 21200 15720.357 16091 26508 21400 15809.643
16000 26400 21280 15720.3722 16091 26600 21200 15809.624
16000 26400 21400 15720.3944 16091 26600 21280 15809.638
16000 26508 21200 15720.3776 16091 26600 21400 15809.661
16000 26508 21280 15720.3924 16200 26400 21200 15809.466
16000 26508 21400 15720.4145 16200 26400 21280 15809.48
16000 26600 21200 15720.3948 16200 26400 21400 15809.503
16000 26600 21280 15720.4096 16200 26508 21200 15809.486
16000 26600 21400 15720.4317 16200 26508 21280 15809.501
16091 26400 21200 15809.5867 16200 26508 21400 15809.523
16091 26400 21280 15809.6016 16200 26600 21200 15809.503
16091 26400 21400 15809.623 16200 26600 21280 15809.518
16091 26508 21200 15809.606 16200 26600 21400 15809.54
16091 26508 21280 15808.63

34
 CHAPTER-4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

After all the testing and input of values was done the model was run and the values were
predicted by the model for a stretch of 1.3km. The last point in the stretch was at a distance of
0.50km from the second input point. The predicted results and the comparison studies have been
shown in this chapter.

4.1 RESULTS

The model predicted values very accurately.

 The water temperature varied from 26C at the headwater to 24.76C at the end point.
 The DO level varied from 4 mg/L at the headwater to 6.43 mg/L at the end point.
 The BOD level decreased along the stretch from 18.0 mg/L at the headwater to 17.58
mg/L at the end point.
 Alkalinity reduced from 574.00mgCa𝐶𝑂3 /Lat the headwater to 573.27 mgCa𝐶𝑂3 /Lat the
end point.

All the other predicted values of the various parameters that were modelled are shown in
Table 4.1.

35
The model was used to predict the values of various parameters over a stretch of 1.3km. The results predicted by the model are shown
in the table below:

Table 4.1 Predicted values of various parameters

REACH DISTANCE T EC DO BOD COD ORG. N NH3-N ALKALINITY pH DISPERSION

D/S (C) uS/cm (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (ugN/L) (ugN/L) (mgCa𝐶𝑂3 /L) (𝑚2 /sec⁡)
(km) 25ºC
Headwater 1.30 26.00 0.46 4.00 18.00 40.00 709.00 16091.00 574.00 8.28
1 1.25 25.90 0.46 4.41 17.97 40.00 698.60 16070.79 573.95 8.30 0.266075
2 1.15 25.80 0.46 4.76 17.94 40.01 688.42 16051.08 573.86 8.32 0.266075
3 1.05 25.70 0.46 5.07 17.91 40.01 678.40 16029.96 573.81 8.34 0.266075
4 0.95 25.60 0.46 5.32 17.88 40.01 668.55 16008.50 573.75 8.36 0.266075
5 0.85 25.50 0.46 5.55 17.85 40.01 658.89 15986.73 573.70 8.38 0.26605
6 0.75 25.41 0.46 5.72 17.81 40.01 649.37 15964.53 573.65 8.39 0.26605
7 0.65 25.31 0.46 5.87 17.78 40.01 640.03 15942.15 573.59 8.41 0.26605
8 0.55 25.22 0.46 6.01 17.75 40.01 630.87 15919.61 573.54 8.42 0.26605
9 0.45 25.13 0.46 6.12 17.71 40.01 621.88 15896.94 573.49 8.43 0.26605
10 0.35 25.03 0.46 6.23 17.68 40.02 613.11 15875.15 573.43 8.44 0.26605
11 0.25 24.94 0.46 6.30 17.65 40.02 604.42 15852.07 573.37 8.45 0.26605
12 0.15 24.85 0.46 6.37 17.62 40.02 595.89 15828.96 573.32 8.46 0.26599
13 0.05 24.76 0.46 6.43 17.58 40.02 587.53 15805.82 573.27 8.47 0.26599
Terminus 0.00 24.76 0.46 6.43 17.58 40.02 587.53 15805.82 573.27 8.47 0.26599

36
The model very well predicted the scenario of the water stream. Various conclusions were
predicted from the obtained results. The results predicted that
 With the increase in distance the DO level increases, which is an indication that the
organic matter/biological matter disperses with distance.
 The BOD content of the water stream fell with the increase in the distance. It could also
be implied from the fact that DO level was increasing in the water which was a clear
indication that BOD level was falling.
 The water stream had a dispersion value of 0.26 which was almost constant throughout
the length.

4.2 COMPARISON OF RESULTS

So, as to check that the predicted values are correct, sampling was done at 5 point along the 1.3
km stretch and the results obtained were compared to the results predicted by the model.The
comparison so done is shown via means of various graphs. The predicted and observed results
were found to be quite in agreement with each other. Figure 4.1 to Figure 4.8 show the
comparison of the predicted and the observed values of the variousparameters that were
considered for our study

4.2.1 Comparison for Alkalinity

574.1
574
ALKALINITY (mgCaCO3/L)

573.9
573.8
573.7
573.6 PREDICTED VALUES

573.5 OBSERVED VALUES

573.4
573.3
573.2
0 0.5 1 1.5
DISTANCE D/S (km)

Figure 4.1 Comparison of results of observed and predicted values of Alkalinity

37
As, from the graph it is quite evident that alkalinity of the water is decreasing with the distance
as predicted by the software. The blue line shows the predicted values. The observed values are
depicted with the help of orange line. The observed and predicted values show that both the
results are well in accordance with each other. The maximum error between the observed and the
predicted values was found to be 0.0008%. The results predicted and observed both show that
the alkalinity is decreasing with distance which is the main reason why we are seeing an increase
in the pH of water with distance.

4.2.2 Comparison for BOD

18.05
18
17.95
17.9
BOD (mg/L)

17.85
17.8
PREDICTED VALUES
17.75
OBSERVED VALUES
17.7
17.65
17.6
17.55
0 0.5 1 1.5
DISTANCE D/S (km)

Figure 4.2 Comparison of results of observed and predicted values of BOD

As, from the graph it is quite evident that BOD of the water is decreasing with the distance as
predicted by the software. The blue line shows the predicted values. The observed values are
depicted with the help of orange line. The observed values show that the predicted results are
well in accordance with the predicted values, though in some places the observed value is less
than the predicted value which is good from the designing point of view. The maximum error
between the observed and the predicted values was found to be 0.3679%. The decrease in BOD
means that the biological content in the water stream is decreasing thereby leading to an increase
in the DO content in the water stream, which is also seen in our results.

38
4.2.3 Comparison for COD

42

41.5

41
COD (mg/L)

40.5
PREDICTED VALUES

40 OBSERVED VALUES

39.5

39
0 0.5 1 1.5
DISTANCE D/S (km)

Figure 4.3 Comparison of results of observed and predicted values of COD

As, from the graph it is quite evident that COD of the water is increasing with the distance as
predicted by the software. Though the increase is very small but in overall it would be said that
COD is increasing. The blue line shows the predicted values. The observed values are depicted
with the help of orange line. The observed and predicted values show that both the results are
well in accordance with each other. The maximum error between the observed and the predicted
values was found to be 0.01749%. As, from our results we can see that the BOD is decreasing
but the COD is increasing though at a very slow rate but it is increasing, so that means that the
bacteria present in the water stream is non oxidisable. That is the main reason why COD is not
decreasing rather increasing.

39
4.2.4 Comparison for DO

6.5

5.5
DO (mg/L)

5
PREDICTED VALUES
4.5 OBSERVED VALUES
4

3.5

3
0 0.5 1 1.5
DISTANCE D/S (km)

Figure 4.4 Comparison of results of observed and predicted values of DO

As, from the graph it is quite evident that dissolved oxygen of the water is increasing with the
distance as predicted by the software. The blue line shows the predicted values. The observed
values are depicted with the help of the orange line. The observed values show that the predicted
results are well in accordance with the predicted values. The observed values are a little less than
the predicted values and it is also in good accordance as BOD is decreasing so DO is increasing.
The maximum error between the observed and the predicted values was found to be 0.7.15%.

40
4.2.5 Comparison for NH3-N

16150

16100

16050
NH4-N (ugN/L)

16000

15950
PREDICTED VALUES
15900 OBSERVED VALUES
15850

15800

15750
0 0.5 1 1.5
DISTANCE D/S (km)

Figure 4.5 Comparison of results of observed and predicted values of NH3-N

As, from the graph it is quite evident thatNH3-Ncontent of the water is decreasing with the
distance as predicted by the software. The blue line shows the predicted values. The observed
values are depicted with the help of the orange line. The observed and predicted values show that
both the results are well in accordance with each other. The maximum error between the
observed and the predicted values was found to be 0.0001%.

41
4.2.6 Comparison for Org. N

750

700
ORG. N (ugN/L)

650
PREDICTED VALUES
OBSERVED VALUES
600

550
0 0.5 1 1.5
DISTANCE D/S (km)

Figure 4.6 Comparison of results of observed and predicted values of Org. N

As, from the graph it is quite evident that organic nitrogen of the water is decreasing with the
distance as predicted by the software. The blue line shows the predicted values. The observed
values are depicted with the help of the orange line. The observed and predicted values show that
both the results are well in accordance with each other. The maximum error between the
observed and the predicted values was found to be 0.0001%.

42
4.2.7 Comparison for pH

8.5

8.45

8.4
pH

PREDICTED VALUES
8.35
OBSERVED VALUES

8.3

8.25
0 0.5 1 1.5
DISTANCE D/S (km)

Figure 4.7 Comparison of results of observed and predicted values of pH

As, from the graph it is quite evident that pH of the water is increasing with the distance as
predicted by the software. The blue line shows the predicted values. The observed values are
depicted with the help of the orange line. The observed and predicted values show that both the
results are well in accordance with each other. The maximum error between the observed and the
predicted values was found to be 0.29%. The increase in pH is quite linear to the decrease in
alkalinity. As, the alkalinity is decreasing with distance the pH is increasing with distance.

4.3 DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTICAL EQUATIONS

Linear regression via SPSS was used for the formation of equations which would help the
prediction of water quality of certain parameters of the water stream very easy.

4.3.1 Alkalinity:

The linear regression was run for the 27 cases formed earlier. The analysis showed that the
model is significant. The model had a p value less than 0.05 (as shown in Table 4.3) and a R
square value of 1.00 (as shown in Table 4.4) which is very good.

43
Table 4.2Anova Details of Alkalinity

Model Sum of Df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square
Regression 1185.814 3 395.271 21151.889 0.00
Residual .430 23 0.019
Total 1186.244 26
a. Dependent Variable: Result
b. Predictors: (Constant), Indsustry-2, Industry-1, Headwater

Table 4.3 Model Summary of Alkalinity

Model R R Adjusted Std. Change Statistics

Square R Error of R F df1 df2 Sig. F
Square the Square Change Change
Estimate Change
1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.1367 1.00 21151.8 3 23 0.00
a. Predictors: (Constant), INDUSTRY-2, INDUSTRY-1, HEADWATER
b. Dependent variable: RESULT

Final equation was derived from the results obtained in Table 4.5. The equation obtained is as
follows:

Value of Alkalinity = -4.432 + 1.004 HW + 0.003I1 + 0.001I2…………....................................4.1

Where,
HW stands for alkalinity value in Head Water
I1stands for alkalinity value in Industry 1
I2 stands for alkalinity value in Industry 2

44
 Table 4.4 Coefficients for Equation of Alkalinity

Model Unstandardize Standardized t Sig. Correlations Collinearity

d Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
B Std. Beta Zero- Partial Part Tolerance VIF
Error Order
(CONSTANT) -4.432 2.779 -1.595 0.124
HEADWATER 1.004 0.004 1.00 251.89 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
INDUSTRY-1 0.003 0.003 0.004 1.051 0.304 0.004 0.214 0.004 1.00 1.00
INDUSTRY-2 0.001 0.001 0.006 1.441 0.163 0.006 0.288 0.006 1.00 1.00
a. Dependent Variable: Result

4.3.2 COD

The linear regression was run for the 27 cases formed earlier. The analysis showed that the
model is significant. The model had a p value less than 0.05 (as shown in Table 4.6) and a R
square value of 1.00 (as shown in Table 4.7) which is very good.

Table 4.5Anova Details for COD

Model Sum of Df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 449.790 3 149.939 32354467.79 0.00
Residual 0.00 23 0.00 1
Total 449.790 26
a. Dependent Variable: Result
b. Predictors: (Constant), Indsustry-2, Industry-1, Headwater

Table 4.6 Model Summary of COD

Model R R Adjusted Std. Error Change Statistics
Square R of the R F df1 df2 Sig. F
Square Estimate Square Change Change
Change
1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0021527 1.00 32354467.79 3 23 0.00
a. Predictors: (Constant), INDUSTRY-2, INDUSTRY-1, HEADWATER
b. Dependent variable: RESULT

45
 Final equation was derived from the results obtained in Table 4.8. The equation obtained is
as follows:

Value of COD = 0.27 + 1.0 HW + 2.32 x 10−5 I1 + 2.386 x 10−5I2………………....…………4.2

Where,
HW stands for COD value in Head Water
I1 stands for COD value in Industry 1
I2 stands for COD value in Industry 2

Table 4.7 Coefficients for Equation of COD

Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Correlations Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
B Std. Beta Zero- Partial Part Tolerance VIF
Error Order

(CONSTANT) -0.27 0.010 2.786 0.11

HEADWATER 1.000 0.00 1.00 9852.076 0.00 1.00 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00
INDUSTRY-1 2.322E- 0.00 0.000 0.229 0.821 0.000 0.048 0.000 1.00 1.00
005
INDUSTRY-2 2.386E- 0.00 0.000 -0.572 00.573 0.000 -0.118 0.000 1.00 1.00
005
a. Dependent Variable: Result

4.3.3 BOD

The linear regression was run for the 27 cases formed earlier. The analysis showed that the
model is significant. The model had a p value less than 0.05 (as shown in Table 4.9) and a R
square value of 1.00 (as shown in Table 4.10) which is very good.

46
Table 4.8Anova Details of BOD
Model Sum of Df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 68.673 3 22.891 2694084.99 0.00
Residual 0.00 23 0.00 0
Total 68.673 26
a. Dependent Variable: Result
b. Predictors: (Constant), Indsustry-2, Industry-1, Headwater

Table 4.9 Model Summary of BOD

Model R R Adjusted Std. Error Change Statistics
Square R of the R F df1 df2 Sig. F
Square Estimate Square Change Change
Change
1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0029149 1.00 269084.99 3 23 0.00
Predictors: (Constant), INDUSTRY-1, INDUSTRY-2, HEADWATER
Dependent variable: FINAL

Final equation was derived from the results obtained in Table 4.11. The equation obtained is as
follows:

Final value of BOD = 0.012 + 0.977 HW + 3.667 x 10−5 I1 + 0.001 I2…………………….…..4.3

Where,
HW stands for BOD value in Head Water
I1 stands for BOD value in Industry 1
I2 stands for BOD value in Industry 2

47
 Table 4.10 Coefficients for Equation of BOD
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Correlations Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
B Std. Beta Zero- Partial Part Tolerance VIF
Error Order
(CONSTANT) 0.12 0.015 0.776 0.446
HEADWATER 0.977 0.00 1.00 2842.931 0.00 1.00 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00
INDUSTRY-1 3.667E- 0.00 0.000 0.134 0.894 0.00 0.028 0.000 1.00 1.00
005
INDUSTRY-2 0.001 0.00 0.000 1.055 00.303 0.00 -0.215 0.000 1.00 1.00
a. Dependent Variable: Result

4.3.4DO

The linear regression was run for the 27 cases formed earlier. The analysis showed that the
model is significant. The model had a p value less than 0.05 (as shown in Table 4.12) and a R
square value of 1.00 (as shown in Table 4.13) which is very good.

Table 4.11: Anova Details of DO

Model Sum of Df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 0.23 3 0.008 18451.51 0.00
Residual 0.00 23 0.00
Total 0.23 26
a. Dependent Variable : Result
b. Predictors: (Constant), Industry-2, Industry-1, Headwater

Table 4.12 Model Summary of DO

Model R R Adjusted Std. Error Change Statistics
Square R of the R F df1 df2 Sig. F
Square Estimate Square Change Change
Change
1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00065 1.00 18451.51 3 23 0.00
a. Predictors: (Constant), IDUSTRY-2, INDUSTRY-1, HEADWATER
b. Dependent Variable: Result

48
 Final equation was derived from the results obtained in Table 4.14. The equation obtained is as
follows:

Final value of DO = 5.855 + 0.143 HW + 0.001 I1 + 6.711 x 10−5 I2………………………..4.4

Where,
HW stands for DO value in Head Water
I1 stands for DO value in Industry 1
I2 stands for DO value in Industry 2

Table 4.13 Coefficients for Equation of DO

Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Correlations Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
B Std. Beta Zero- Partial Part Tolerance VIF
Error Order
(CONSTANT) 5.855 0.04 1576.242 0.00
HEADWATER 0.143 0.01 1.00 235.275 0.00 1.00 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00
INDUSTRY-1 0.001 0.00 0.001 0.317 0.754 0.01 0.066 0.01 1.00 1.00
INDUSTRY-2 6.711E- 0.00 0.002 -0.381 0.707 -0.02 -0.079 -0.02 1.00 1.00
005
a. Dependent Variable: Result

4.3.5 Org. N

The linear regression was run for the 27 cases formed earlier. The analysis showed that the
model is significant. The model had a p value less than 0.05 (as shown in Table 4.15) and a R
square value of 1.00 (as shown in Table 4.16) which is very good.
Table 4.14: Anova Details of Org. N
Model Sum of Df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 1197.048 3 399.016 8617528472.19 0.00
Residual 0.000 23 0.00
Total 1197.048 26
a. Dependent Variable : Result
b. Predictors: (Constant), Industry-2, Industry-1, Headwater
49
 Table 4.15 Model Summary of Org. N
Model R R Adjusted Std. Error Change Statistics
Square R of the R F df1 df2 Sig. F
Square Estimate Square Change Change
Change
1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0002152 1.00 8617528472.19 3 23 0.00
a. Predictors: (Constant), IDUSTRY-2, INDUSTRY-1, HEADWATER
b. Dependent Variable: Result
c.
Final equation was derived from the results obtained in Table No 4.17. The equation obtained is
as follows:

Final value of Org. N = 10.028 + 0.814 HW + 0.001 I1 + 0.001 I2………………………...4.5

Where,
HW stands for Org. Nitrogen value in Head Water
I1 stands for Org. Nitrogen value in Industry 1
I2 stands for Org. Nitrogen value in Industry 2

Table 4.16 Coefficients for Equation of Org. N

Model Unstandardized Standardized T Sig. Correlations Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
B Std. Beta Zero- Partial Part Tolerance VIF
Error Order
(CONSTANT) 10.028 0.05 2095.803 0.00
HEADWATER 0.814 0.00 1.00 160787.35 0.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00
INDUSTRY-1 0.001 0.00 0.000 69.118 0.00 0.00 0.998 0.00 1.00 1.00
INDUSTRY-2 0.001 0.00 0.001 93.986 0.00 0.001 0.999 0.001 1.00 1.00
a. Dependent Variable: Result

4.3.6NH3-N

The linear regression was run for the 27 cases formed earlier. The analysis showed that the
model is significant. The model had a p value less than 0.05 (as shown in Table 4.18) and a R
square value of 0.704 (as shown in Table 4.19) which is very good.
50
Table 4.17: Anova Details of NH3-N
Model Sum of Df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 33528.679 3 1117.226 18.205 0.00
Residual 14119.616 23 613.896
Total 47648.295 26
a. Dependent Variable : Result
b. Predictors: (Constant), Industry-2, Industry-1, Headwater

Table 4.18 Model Summary of NH3-N

Model R R Adjusted Std. Error Change Statistics
Square R of the R F df1 df2 Sig. F
Square Estimate Square Change Change
Change
1 0.839 0.704 0.665 24.7769314 0.704 18.205 3 23 0.00
a. Predictors: (Constant), IDUSTRY-2, INDUSTRY-1, HEADWATER
b. Dependent Variable: Result
Final equation was derived from the results obtained in Table 4.20. The equation obtained is as
follows:

Final value of NH3-N= 8832.201 + 0.431 HW + 0.001 I1 + 0.001 I2………………….4.6

Where,
HW stands for NH3-Nvalue in Head Water
I1 stands for NH3-Nvalue in Industry 1
I2 stands for NH3-Nvalue in Industry 2

51
 Table 4.19 Coefficients for Equation of NH3-N
Model Unstandardized Standardized T Sig. Correlations Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
B Std. Beta Zero- Partial Part Tolerance VIF
Error Order
(CONSTANT) 8832.201 2190.388 4.032 0.01
HEADWATER 0.431 0.058 0.839 7.390 0.00 0.839 0.839 0.839 1.00 1.00
INDUSTRY-1 0.001 0.058 0.000 0.003 0.998 0.00 0.001 0.00 1.00 1.00
INDUSTRY-2 0.001 0.058 0.001 0.004 0.997 0.001 0.001 0.001 1.00 1.00
a. Dependent Variable: Result

52
 CHAPTER-5

CONCLUSION

The objective of the study was to predict the water quality parameters of water stream in which
waste water was being discharged from two input points.
From, various studies conducted earlier it was quite evident that the parameters most dominant
and effective in water streams are pH, COD, DO, BOD, NH3 -N, Org N, EC. From the studies it
was also evident that the most accurate and easy to use model available freely for water quality
modelling is QUAL2K.
The results predicted from the model were found to be quite in agreement with the tests
performed in the laboratory. From the tests performed it was quite evident that pollutant quantity
decreases with distance and the pollutants from input sources were not that effective because the
quantity of discharge from them was very less compared to the head discharge.
The functional relationship between the dependent and independent terms is made using SPSS
and found that the predicted equation which is used to determine the various parameters such as
BOD, DO, COD etc. associated well with the observed values.

5.2 FURTHER WORKS THAT CAN BE DONE:

1. A fresh water stream having a more dominant impact on the lives of the people can be
taken up for study.
2. A larger stretch of the river can be taken up for the study purpose.
3. More advanced parameters such as phosphorous, sodium etc. can be included in the
study.

53
 REFRENCES

1. Ashwani S et al. (2017). Application of QUAL2K model for prediction of water quality
in a selected stretch of Pamba river, International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology (IJCIET), Vol. 8, pp 75–84.


2. Chapra, S.C. and Pelletier, G.J. QUAL2K: A Modeling Framework for Simulating River
and Stream Water Quality: Documentation and Users Manual, 2003.

3. Chapra, S.C., Pelletier, G.J. and Tao, H. QUAL2K: A Modeling Framework for
Simulating River and Stream Water Quality, Version 2.11: Documentation and Users
Manual, 2008.

4. Fan C, Ko Han C and Wang S W. (2009). An interactive modeling approach using

QUAL2K and HEC-RAS integration to assess the impact of tidal effect on River water
simulation, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 90, pp 1824-1832.

5. Gupta R.C., Gupta K.A and Shrivastava R.K. (2013). Water Quality Modelling of a
Stretch of River Kshipra (India), Nature Environment and Pollution Technology. An
International Quarterly Scientific Journal, Vol.12, pp 511-516.

6. Idris S, Abdu A.Y. and Saini G (2016). Assessment of Surface Water Quality Using
QUAL2K Software: A Case Study of River Yamuna, India, European Journal of
Advances in Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3, pp 16-23

7. Kalburgi B.P., Shareefa N.R. andDeshannavas B.U., (2015). Development and

Evaluation of BOD–DO Model for River Ghataprabha near Mudhol (India), using
QUAL2K, I.J. Engineering and Manufacturing,DOI: 10.5815/ijem.2015.01.02

8. Kannel R.P. et al. (2005). Application of QUAL2Kw for water quality modeling and
dissolved oxygen control in the river Bagmati, Environ Monit Assess (2007) 125:201–
217 DOI 10.1007/s10661-006-9255-0.

9. Lakshmi E and GDrMadhu. (2014), Modeling of Dissolved oxygen and Temperature of

Periyar river, South India using QUAL2K, International Journal of Computational
Engineering Research (IJCER), Vol. 4, pp 24-31.

10. Oliveria B et al. (2011), Application of QUAL2Kw model as a tool for water quality
management: Cértima River as a case study, Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:6197–
6210 DOI 10.1007/s10661-011-2413-z.

54
11. Pandurang G.S., Application of Statistical techniques and design of experiments in
determining river water quality. M.Tech Thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering.
Indian Institute of Technology. Rorkee, 2006.

12. Park S. S. and Lee S.Y. (2002), A water quality modeling study of the Nakdong River,
Korea, Ecological Modelling, Vol. 152, pp 65-75.

13. Sarda, Dr. P. (2013), Water quality modeling of river by QUAL2Kw, International
Journal of Advances in Management, Technology & Engineering Sciences, Vol. 2, pp 13-
15.

14. Sarda P and Sadgir P (2015). Assessment of Multi Parameters of Water Quality in
Surface Water Bodies-A Review, International Journal for Research in Applied Science
& Engineering Technology (IJRASET), Vol. 3, pp 331-336.

15. Sharma D, Kansal A and Pelletier G, (2015).Water quality modeling for urban reach of
Yamuna river, India (1999–2009), using QUAL2Kw, Appl Water Sci
 DOI
10.1007/s13201-015-0311-1.

16. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, ISBN: 978-0-87553-
287-5, 22 edition.

17. Tsakiris G and Alexakis D. (2012). Water quality models: An overview, European Water,
Vol. 37, pp. 33-46.

18. Zhang R,et al. (2012), Selection of optimal river water quality improvement programs
using QUAL2K: A case study of Taihu Lake Basin, China, Science of the Total
Environment, Vol. 431, pp. 278-285.

55
 ANNEXURE-I

VARIOUS METHODS OF ANALYSIS

DO

DO is generally determined by the help of the Wrinkler’s method. It is based upon the fact that
oxygen oxidizes 𝑀𝑛2+ to a higher state of valency under alkaline conditions.

REAGENTS TO BE USED:
1. Manganese Sulfate Solution: Dissolve 480g 𝑀𝑛𝑆𝑂4 . 4𝐻2 𝑂in 600ml distilled water. Filter
the sample after dissolution and make total volume one litre with distilled water.
2. Alakali-Iodide-azide reagent: Dissolve 500gm of NaOH and 135gm of NaI or 700gm
KOHand 150gm KI in distilled water. Take 10gm of 𝑁𝑎𝑁3 and dissolve in 40ml distilled
water. Add this solution in the above mixture and make total 1 litre solution.
3. Concentrated Sulfuric Acid
4. Starch Indicator: Add 2gm of soluble starch and 0.2gm of Salicylic acid in 100ml of
warm distilled water.
5. Standard Sodium thiosulfate (0.025N): Dissolve 6.205g 𝑁𝑎2 𝑆2 𝑂3 . 5𝐻2 𝑂in distilled
water. Make the total volume 1 litre.

PROCEDURE:
1. Fill the sample in 300ml bottle. Add 1ml 𝑀𝑛𝑆𝑂4solution and then 1ml alkali-iodide-
azide solution at the bottom of the bottle or atleast 1/4 below from the top. Brown
precipitate will appear.
2. Mix the precipitates by shaking the bottle up and down and allow them to settle for 2-
3 minute. When the precipitates have settled sufficiently, add 2ml alkali-iodide azide
solution.
3. Restopper and mix the content by inverting several times until dissolution of floc is
complete.
4. Take 200 ml of sample in a conical flask and titrate it with 0.025N sodium thiosulfate
in the presence of starch as indicator. The end point will be blue to colorless.

56
PRECAUTIONS:
1. Protect the stored sample from strong sun light.
2. Identify the end point by the first decolorization of the sample then addition of starch and
again make it colorless.

BOD

If the analysis is done within 2 hours of sampling then no cold storage is required. But, otherwise
the sample should be stored at 4 C

REAGENTS:
1. Phosphate Buffer: Dissolve 8.5gm𝐾𝐻2 𝑃𝑂4 , 21.75gm𝐾2 𝐻𝑃𝑂4, 33.4gm𝑁𝑎2 𝐻𝑃𝑂4 . 7𝐻2 𝑂,
and 1.7gm 𝑁𝐻4 𝐶𝑙 in 50ml distilled water and dilute it to 1 litre. The pH should be 7.2
without further adjustment.
2. Magnesium Sulfate Solution: Dissolve 22.5gm of 𝑀𝑔𝑆𝑂4. 7𝐻2 𝑂in distilled water and
dilute it to 1 litre.
3. Calcium Chloride Solution: Dissolve 27.15gm 𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑙2in Distilled water and dilute to 1
litre.
4. Ferric Chloride: Dissolve 0.25 𝐹𝑒𝐶𝑙3 . 6𝐻2 𝑂in distilled water and dilute to 1 litre.

Calculate the dilution factor and then prepare the Dilution Water by aerating water for 24 hours
by keeping it at 20C and then adding 1ml / lt each of phosphate buffer, 𝑀𝑔𝑆𝑂4 , 𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑙2 𝑎𝑛𝑑𝐹𝑒𝐶𝑙3 .

PROCEDURE:
1. Prepare the dilution water. ( As mentioned above)
2. Collect the representative sample and find out the dilution factor of the sample.
3. Transfer the water into the BOD bottle through siphoning from aspirator bottle.
4. Fill atleast 5 bottles for 1 sample. Keep 3 bottles at 20C for incubation and measure the
DO for the remaining 2 bottles.
5. For, the bottles incubated at 20C ensure that the bottles have water in the funnel acting
as a water seal. After the desired period of incubation test the bottle forthe DO
concentration and consider this DO as the final DO

57
COD

Closed Reflux Method is used for the determination of COD. Here, the sample and blank are
digested/ oxidized in a closed system of culture tubes with sealed ampulas placed in a block
digester or in an oven preheated at 150 ± 2C for 2 hours. The digested sample is cooled and then
titrated with FAS. The sample used generally varies from 2.5 to 10ml. The method is cost
advantageous and it generates minimum hazardous waste.

REAGENTS
1. Standard potassium dichromate solution 0.0167M: Dissolve 4.913gm of𝐾2 𝐶𝑟2 𝑂7 , 167 ml
of concentrated sulfuric acid and 33.3gm of Mercuric Sulfate in 500ml of distilled water,
cool the solution and make a total volume of 1 litre.
2. Standard dichromate (0.0347M): Dissolve 10.216gm of Potassium Dichromate in the
same amount of 𝐻2 𝑆𝑂4and Mercuric sulfate.
3. Ferrous Ammonium Sulfate Solution (FAS) (0.01M): Dissolve 39.2gm of FAS in
distilled water. Add 20ml concentrated sulfuric acid, then cool and dilute to one litre
standardize the FAS solution.
4. Ferrion Indicator: Dissolve 1.485gm of Phenanthroline monohydrate and 695 mg
𝐹𝑒𝑆𝑜4 . 7𝐻2 𝑂 in distilled water and dilute to 100ml.

PROCEDURE:
1. Add 1.5 standard dichromate solution in culture tube and 3.5ml of sulfuric acid reagent.
Take 2.5ml of sample and add it in the culture tube. Mix the content carefully by shaking
the tubes up and down.
2. Place the sample for 2 hours in COD digestor at 150 ± 2C
3. After 2 hours remove the culture tube from the digestor and transfer the sample into
conical flask. Add 1 to 2 drops of ferrion indicator and titrate the contents with FAS and
note down the amount of FAS used.

58
NH3-N

In waste waters the forms of nitrogen of greatest interest are, in order of decreasing oxidation
state, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia and organic nitrogen. There are two major factors that influence
the selection of the method to determine ammonia are concentration and presence of
interferences.

REAGENTS
1. Borate Buffer: Add 88ml of 0.1 NaOH solution in 500ml of 0.025M sodium tetra borate(
9.5g 𝑁𝑎2 𝐵4 𝑂7 . 10𝐻2 𝑂/L of water)
2. Boric Acid: 20g 𝐻3 𝐵𝑂3⁡ in one litre of distilled water.
3. Sodium Thiosulfate: (Dechlorinating agent 3.5g of sodium thiosulfate in 250ml distilled
water and make total volume of 1 litre.
4. Mixed Indicator Solution: Dissolve 200mg methyl red indicator in 100ml 95% ethyl
alcohol. Dissolve 100mg methylene blue in 50ml 95% ethyl alcohol. Combine both
solutions.

PROCEDURE
1. Use 500ml sample. Add 25ml of borate buffer solution and adjust the pH to 9.5 with 6N
NaOH using a pH meter.
2. Take 50ml of Boric acid in a 500ml conical flask and place it at the receiving end of
distillation unit.
3. Connect the distillation unit and start the heater. Start water circulation also in the unit.
4. Collect 250ml distilled sample in the conical flask.
5. Titrate the sample with standard 0.02N𝐻2 𝑆𝑂4 until the indicator turns pale lavender.

ORG. N

REAGENTS
1. Mercuric Sulfate: Dissolve 8g of red mercuric oxide, Hgo, in 100ml 6N𝐻2 𝑆𝑂4.
2. Digestion Reagent: Dissolve 134g 𝐾2 𝑆𝑂4in 650 ml water and 200ml conc.𝐻2 𝑆𝑂4. Add
with stirring, 25ml mercuric sulfate solution. Dilute the combined solution to one litre
with water.
59
 3. Sodium hydroxide Sodium Thiosulfate reagent: Dissolve 500g NaOH and 25g of
𝑁𝑎2 𝑆2 𝑂3 . 5𝐻2 𝑂in distilled water and dilute it to one litre.

PROCEDURE
1. The start of the experiment is the same as for Ammonical Nitrogen.
2. Cool the sample obtained after ammonical nitrogen determination. Add 50ml Digestion
Reagent to the Kjeldahl flask.
3. Boil the sample again until only 25-50 ml of the sample is left.
4. Add 250-300ml of distilled water and 50ml of Sodium Thiosulfate and connect it to the
distillation apparatus.
5. Collect 200ml of distillate in the conical flask containing 50ml boric acid connected to
the other end of the distillation apparatus.
6. Titrate the sample with standard 0.02N𝐻2 𝑆𝑂4 until the indicator turns pale lavender.

ALKALINITY

Alkalinity of water and waste waters is the capacity to neutralize acids. The alkalinity of water is
mainly due to the presence of Hydroxides, Carbonates and Bicarbonates. The type and extent of
alkalinity present in the water can be determined by titrating the sample.

REAGENTS
1. Standard HCl or 𝐻2 𝑆𝑂4 (N/50)
2. Phenolpthalein Indicator
3. Methyl Orange Indicator

PROCEDURE
1. Take 100ml of sample in a conical flask and add 2 drops of phenopthalein indicator.
Titrate the sample with standard HCL until the pink colour just disappears. Note down
the titre value as phenopthalein end point.
2. Add 2-3 drops of methyl orange indicator to the same sample solution and continue the
titration until a sharp color changes from yellow to orange. Note the total titre value from
the beginning of the experiment as methyl orange end point.

60
EC

EC is the measure of the water’s capability to pass electrical flow. This ability is directly related
to the concentration of ions in water. These ions which conduct electricity come from dissolved
salts and inorganic materials such as alkalis, chlorides, sulfides and other compounds.
PROCEDURE
1. Take a 100ml beaker and weigh it.
2. Pass 100ml of sample from filter paper.
3. Fill the beaker with 100ml of filtered sample water.
4. Place the beaker in heater for a period till the water dries completely from it.
5. Weigh the dried beaker.
6. The difference between the two weights is the value of total dissolved solids
7. With the help of the relation: EC = TDS x 2/1000. We get the value of EC.

PH

pH is a logarithmic scale used to specify the acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution. A pH less
than 7 is said to be acidic whereas a pH more than 7 is said to be basic.

PROCEDURE:
pH can be very easily checked with the help of an electronic pH meter.

61