CHARACTERISATION AND OPTIMISATION OF

MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER OF CHENNAI CITY

FOR IRRIGATION

PHASE I

REVIEW I

Submitted by

P.CIBICHAKRAVARTHY

in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree of

MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI

AUGUST 2017
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

The increasing population in our country results in increase in demand for

resources which requires increase in production of goods and services at a satisfying
rate so that the needs of entire population is met. In that case, the need for food
resources led to necessary increase in agricultural productivity which in turn
requires a large volume of water for irrigation.

This demand needed to be satisfied can be sufficed by looking for available

source of water by waste reduction and reuse strategies. In such a trend the domestic
sewage containing and large fraction of water is treated and disposed of into water
bodies and is not considered vastly for reuse. This treated sewage can be considered
for optimization of characteristics for irrigational use so that a partial fulfillment of
water demand for irrigation can be met.

1.2 NEED FOR STUDY

India being a highly populated nation there is a need for large scale
agricultural production leading to huge water demand for irrigation. The monsoon
failure and change in climate pattern has resulted in large scale depletion available
water reserves for irrigation. Thus there is need for finding alternate sources of
water for irrigation.

The sewage generation in Indian cities is large due to its dense population.
The larger fraction of sewage being water has a huge potential for satisfying water
demand for irrigation. But for irrigational use of effluent certain standard limits of
parameters are needed to be met. So the treated effluent characteristics has to be
analyzed and the required treatment process for optimizing it for irrigation use has
to be identified.
1.3 OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study is

 To quantify the sewage and treated sewage generation in Chennai city

 To analyze the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of raw and
treated sewage
 To assess the parameters that are needed to be optimized for irrigational use
 To identify the parameters that do not comply with effluent discharge
standards and to identify suitable treatment methods
 To quantify the demand of water for irrigation that can be satisfied and also
analyze its socio-economic benefits
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 GENERAL

The quantity and quality of sewage is the determining factor needed to be

studied. In case of Chennai city the installed capacity for sewage treatment is
234MLD. The typical characteristic of domestic sewage is high TSS, BOD, COD,
Nitrogen, Phosphorous and other substances such as fats, grease and oil. The
treatment of sewage will pull down the characteristics under desirable limits for safe
disposal. For irrigational use of effluent certain limits are needed to be maintained.
For this specific treatment processes are needed to be done so that the effluent
meets the requirements for use to irrigation.

2.2 RAPID HEALTH-RISK ASSESSMENT OF EFFLUENT IRRIGATION

ON AN AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY CAMPUS

Chris Derry et al, (2005) studied that there was a deteriorating

bacteriological effect due to use of treated effluent for irrigating lawns, fields and
crops in Australian university campus. Therefore a health-risk assessment was
carried out to study the impacts of using treated effluent for irrigation. The
bacteriological effects were found to be development of rapid algal bloom in
catchment tanks and odour development.

They concluded that with sound risk management the terrestrial application of
tertiary treated effluent offers a safe irrigation option for a wide range of crops,
including foodstuffs, and that by diverting effluent away from water bodies an
ultimate improvement in regional water quality.

2.3 REUSE OF TREATED SEWAGE EFFLUENT IN QATAR

Saad Y.Jasim et al, (2016) studied the reusability of waste water for
agricultural and landscaping activities that is practiced in various countries. The
study states that developed countries make use treated waste water to meet a
significant share of their water demand for agricultural purpose. Singapore meets
30% of its water demand by reclaiming waste water. In Israel about 80% of
domestic waste water is recycled and reused. Qatar is now alarmingly increasing
its use of Treated Sewage Effluent (TSE) for agricultural purpose. By 2012 the TSE
generation rate is 117 million m3 out of which two third is reused for agriculture and
landscaping purpose. The use of TSE is also cost effective and the cost estimates
are only about one-fourth of cost required for desalination of water. This is due to
low energy requirements when compared to other sources of water treatment
facilities.

2.4 REUSE OF TREATED SEWAGE IN DELHI CITY: MICROBIAL

EVALUATION OF STPS AND REUSE OPTIONS
Atul K.Mittal et al, (2009) performed the microbial evaluation of Sewage
Treatment plant Effluent and reuse options at Delhi. They observed the extended
Aeration process and Oxidation pond based STPs showed better effluent quality and
comparatively higher reduction of Fecal coliforms (FC) and Fecal Streptococcus
(FS) than other STP effluents. The analysis results showed that the Fecal Coiliform
and Fecal Streptococcus count were minimum at STPs which are based on
Oxidation Ponds.

2.5 APPLICATION OF REVERSE OSMOSIS FOR REUSE OF

SECONDARY TREATED URBAN WASTE WATER IN
AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION
Nalan kabay et al, (2014) assessed the quality of RO treated secondary
treated
urban waste water which was subjected to biological treatment and their suitability
for agricultural use. They considered membrane treatment technologies to be the
best for waste water reuse and reclamation purposes. The membrane process
provides a treated output with most desirable characteristics for treated effluent
reuse. They concluded that the RO treated effluent is suitable for agricultural use
when blended with secondary (biological) treated urban waste water. The optimum
blending ratio was suggested to be 20-30% of secondary treated urban effluent and
70-80% of RO product.
2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH
REUSE OF WASTEWATER FOR IRRIGATION
Eman Shakir et al, (2016) studied the environmental and health risks
associated with wastewater reuse in Rustamia region of Baghdad city, Iraq. The
health risks were reported due to the presence of pathogens, heavy metals and toxic
salts. They also stated that when the salts removal is not done to a safer level it may
lead to Sodium hazard. It results from the cations and anions present in water used
for irrigation, which increases the osmotic pressure of soil and thereby affecting the
ability of plants to absorb water and nutrients.

2.7 CLOSING THE WATER CYCLE IN THE AGRO-INDUSTRIAL

SECTOR BY REUSING TREATED WASTEWATER FOR IRRIGATION
Alfieri police et al, (2017) studied the suitability of treated agro-industrial
waste water for agricultural purposes. They made cost analysis for waste water
reclamation in which they stated that overall cost of the tertiary treatment was 0.61
€/m3, higher than those normally calculated for municipal wastewater reclamation
0.35 €/m3. This shows that it is more economical to perform tertiary treatment
(disinfection) of municipal waste water for agricultural use than to treat industrial
waste water.

2.8 DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF A COST MANAGEMENT

MODEL FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND REUSE PROCESSES
Ines Ruiz-Rosa et al, (2015) developed a cost management model for wastewater
treatment and reuse systems from which they were able to state that the cost of
regenerating wastewater is less than any other source of water supply, i.e. it is
cheaper to regenerate a cubic meter of water than to produce it using conventional
or non-conventional means. Thus wastewater treatment and reuse strategy is an
economical approach and is significant source of water for activities like irrigation.
 The Environment (Protection) Rules, 33
1986

1
[SCHEDULE – VI]
(See rule 3A)

GENERAL STANDARDS FOR DISCHARGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL

POLLUTANTS PART-A : EFFLUENTS
S. Parameter Standards
No.
Inland Public Land for Marine coastal
surface Sewers irrigation areas
water

1 2 3

(a) (b) (c) (d)

1. Colour and odour See 6 of -- See 6 of See 6 of
Annexure-I Annexure Annexure-I
-I
2. Suspended solids 100 600 200 (a) For process
mg/l, Max. waste water-
100
(b) For cooling
water effluent
10 percent
above total
suspended
matter of
influent.
3. Particulate size of Shall pass 850 -- -- (a) Floatable
suspended solids micron IS solids, max. 3
Sieve mm.
(b) Settleable
solids, max.
850 microns.
2
4. *** * -- *** --
5. pH Value 5.5 to 9.0 5.5 to 9.0 5.5 to 9.0 5.5 to 9.0
6. Temperature shall not -- -- shall not exceed
o o
exceed 5 C 5 C above the
above the receiving water
receiving water temperature
temperature

1
Schedule VI inserted by Rule 2(d) of the Environment (Protection) Second Amendment Rules, 1993 notified
vide G.S.R. 422(E) dated 19.05.1993, published in the Gazette No. 174 dated 19.05.1993.
2
Omitted by Rule 2(d)(i) of the Environment (Protection) Third Amendment Rules, 1993 vide Notification
No.G.S.R.801(E), dated 31.12.1993.
34 The Environment (Protection) Rules,
1986

S. Parameter Standards
No.
Inland Public Land for Marine coastal
surface Sewers irrigation areas
water
1 2 3

(a) (b) (c) (d)

7. Oil and grease 10 20 10 20
mg/l Max.
8. Total residual 1.0 -- -- 1.0
chlorin mg/l Max.
9. Ammonical 50 50 -- 50
nitrogen (as N),
mg/l Max.
10. Total Kjeldahl 100 -- -- 100
Nitrogen (as NH3)
mg/l, Max.
11. Free ammonia (as 5.0 -- -- 5.0
NH3) mg/l, Max.
12. Biochemical 30 350 100 100
1
Oxygen demand [3
o
days at 27 C] mg/l
max.
13. Chemical Oxygen 250 -- -- 250
Demand, mg/l,
max.
14. Arsenic (as As), 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
mg/l, max.
15. Mercury (as Hg), 0.01 0.01 -- 0.01
mg/l, Max.
16. Lead (as Pb) mg/l, 0.1 1.0 -- 2.0
Max.
17. Cadmium (as Cd) 2.0 1.0 -- 2.0
mg/l, Max.
18. Hexavalent 0.1 2.0 -- 1.0
Chromium (as
Cr+6), mg/l max.

1
Substituted by Rule2 of the Environment (Protection) Amendment Rules, 1996 notified by G.S.R.176, dated 2.4.1996
may be read as BOD (3 days at 27oC) wherever BOD 5 days 20oC occurred.
 The Environment (Protection) Rules, 35
1986

S. Parameter Standards
No.
Inland Public Land for Marine coastal
surface Sewers irrigation areas
water

1 2 3

(a) (b) (c) (d)

19. Total chromium (as 2.0 2.0 -- 2.0
Cr.) mg/l, Max.
20. Copper (as Cu) 3.0 3.0 -- 3.0
mg/l, Max.
21. Zinc (As Zn.) mg/l, 5.0 15 -- 15
Max.
22. Selenium (as Se.) 0.05 0.05 -- 0.05
mg/l, Max.
23. Nickel (as Ni) mg/l, 3.0 3.0 -- 5.0
Max.
1
1
24. *** * * * *
1
25. *** * * * *
1
26. *** * * * *
27. Cyanide (as CN) 0.2 2.0 0.2 0.2
mg/l Max.
1
28. *** * * * *
29. Fluoride (as F) mg/l 2.0 15 -- 15
Max.
30. Dissolved 5.0 -- -- --
Phosphates (as P),
mg/l Max.
2
31. *** * * * *
32. Sulphide (as S) 2.0 -- -- 5.0
mg/l Max.
33. Phenoile 1.0 5.0 -- 5.0
compounds (as
C6H5OH) mg/l,
Max.

1
Omitted by Rule 2(d)(i) of the Environment (Protection) Third Amendment Rules, 1993 vide Notification
No.G.S.R.801(E), dated 31.12.1993.
36 The Environment (Protection) Rules,
1986

S. Parameter Standards
No.
Inland Public Land for Marine coastal
surface Sewers irrigation areas
water
1 2 3

(a) (b) (c) (d)

34. Radioactive
materials :
(a) Alpha emitter 10
-7
10
-7
10
-8
10
-7

micro curie/ml.
(b) Beta emitter 10
-6
10
-6
10
-7
10
-6

micro curie/ml.
35. Bio-assay test 90% survival of 90% 90% 90% survival of
fish after 96 survival of survival of fish after 96
hours in 100% fish after fish after hours in 100%
effluent 96 hours 96 hours effluent
in 100% in 100%
effluent effluent

36. Manganese (as 2 mg/l 2 mg/l -- 2 mg/l

Mn)
37. Iron (as Fe) 3 mg/l 3 mg/l -- 3 mg/l
38. Vanadium (as V) 0.2 mg/l 0.2 mg/l -- 0.2 mg/l
39. Nitrate Nitrogen 10 mg/l -- -- 20 mg/l
1
40. *** * * * *

1
Omitted by Rule 2(d)(i) of the Environment (Protection) Third Amendment Rules, 1993 vide Notification No. G.S.R.
801(E) dated 31.12.1993
 REFERENCES

1. Alfieri Pollice , Pompilio Vergine , Carlo Salerno, Angela Libutti, Luciano

Beneduce, Giuseppe Gatta, Giovanni Berardi (2017), ‘Closing the water
cycle in the agro-industrial sector by reusing treated wastewater for
irrigation’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 164,2017, Pages 587-596
2. Atul K.Mittal, Priyanka jamwal (2009), ‘Reuse of treated sewage in Delhi
city Microbial evaluation of STPs and reuse options’, Resources
Conservation and Recycling, Volume 54, 2010, Pages 211-221
3. Chris Derry, Roger Attwater, Sandy booth (2005), ‘Rapid health-risk
assessment of effluent irrigation on an Australian university campus’,
International journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, Volume 209,
2006, Pages 159-171
4. Eman Shakir, Zahraa Zahraw, Abdul HameedM.J. (2016), ‘Environmental
and health risks associated with reuse of wastewater for irrigation’, Egyptian
Journal of Petroleum, Volumee 26, 2017, Pages 95-102
5. Ines Ruiz-Rosa, Francisco J.Garcia-Rodriguez, Javier Mendoza-Jimenez
(2015), ‘Development and application of a cost management model for
wastewater treatment and reuse processes’, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Volume 113, 2016, Pages 299-310
6. Nalan Kabay, Samuel Bunani, Eren Yorukoglu, Umran Yuksel, Mithat
Yuksel, Gokhan Sert (2014), ‘Application of reverse osmosis for reuse of
secondary treated urban wastewater in agricultural irrigation’, Desalination,
Volume 364, 2015, Pages 68-74
7. Saad Y.Jasim, jayaprakash Saththasivam, Kavithaa Loganathan, Oluwaseun
O.Ogunbiyi, Sarper Sarp (2016), ‘Reuse of Treated Sewage Effluent (TSE)
in Qatar’, Journal of Water Process Engineering, Volume 11, 2016, Pages
174-182
8. Schedule – VI, The Environmental Protection Rules, 1986, Central Pollution
Control board