| Literature DB >> 30094364 |
Samuel Kofi Tulashie1, Francis Kotoka1, Foster Kwame Kholi2, Samira Esinam Elsie Aggor-Woananu3, Gifty Rhodalyn Tetteh4.
Abstract
The need for simple, cheaper and high performance hospital effluent treatment system in Kete-Krachi District which is adjacent to the Lake Volta has necessitated this study. This study focuses on assessing, and treating Kete-Krachi District Hospital effluent using packed granular (GAC) and smooth activated carbon (SAC). The use of activated carbon is due to its less expensive method of operation, the ease to prepare from local raw materials, high availability, and effectiveness for treating hospital effluent. The dissolved oxygen (DO), chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), nutrient compounds (P-PO4, N-NO3), turbidity, pH, conductivity and total coliform parameters were investigated and later treated with the activated carbon. The average conductivity and P-PO4 removals were <50%. The average BOD5, COD, coliform, N-NO3, and turbidity removals for all the SAC treatments were 58.36%, 62.26%, 84.39%, 83.86%, and 50.74%, respectively. The DO also improved 3.8 times on the average. The pH of the raw and treated samples was within the limit 6.5-9. The results of this study suggest that the SAC is predominantly effective for reducing the pollutants concentrations of the hospital effluent which can result in oxygen depletion, eutrophication, algal bloom and ecosystem disturbance in the Lake Volta. It will also decrease the susceptibility of the Kete-Krachi residents to waterborne diseases as the effluents seep into the Lake.Entities:
Keywords: Engineering; Environmental science
Year: 2018 PMID: 30094364 PMCID: PMC6072895 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00692
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Fig. 1(a) Sketch of the sample treatment with granular activated carbon; (b) Sketch of the sample treatment with smooth activated carbon.
Physico-chemical and biological characteristics of the sample before and after treatment with GAC.
| pH | Cond (μS/cm) | Turb (NTU) | DO (mg/L) | BOD5 (mg/L) | COD (mg/L) | P-PO4 (mg/L) | N-NO3 (mg/L) | Pb (mg/L) | TC (Cfu/100 ml) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw hospital effluent | ||||||||||
| RSW1 | 6.70 | 1064 | 52.6 | 3.20 | 60.6 | 715 | 1.77 | 0.082 | <0.005 | 42 × 106 |
| RSW2 | 8.09 | 1757 | 338 | 1.40 | 75.0 | 670 | 2.19 | 0.353 | <0.005 | 230 × 106 |
| RSW3 | 8.17 | 1717 | 284 | 2.20 | 61.0 | 602 | 2.76 | 0.005 | <0.005 | 138 × 106 |
| Hospital effluent treated with granular activated carbon | ||||||||||
| GACW1 | 7.15 | 1060 | 50.5 | 4.0 | 58.5 | 695 | 1.50 | 0.080 | <0.005 | 36 × 106 |
| GACW2 | 8.50 | 1740 | 325 | 3.5 | 73.0 | 645 | 2.15 | 0.345 | <0.005 | 215 × 106 |
| GACW3 | 7.90 | 1710 | 255 | 4.0 | 60.5 | 600 | 2.65 | 0.010 | <0.005 | 127 × 106 |
Fig. 2The effects of granular activated carbon on the first week sample (a), second week sample (b), and third week sample (c).
Physico-chemical and Biological characteristics of the sample before and after treatment with SAC.
| pH | Cond (μS/cm) | Turb (NTU) | DO (mg/L) | BOD5 (mg/L) | COD (mg/L) | P-PO4 (mg/L) | N-NO3 (mg/L) | Pb (mg/L) | TC (Cfu/100 ml) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw hospital effluent | ||||||||||
| RSW1 | 6.70 | 1064 | 256 | 3.20 | 60.6 | 715 | 1.77 | 0.082 | <0.005 | 42 × 106 |
| RSW2 | 8.09 | 1757 | 338 | 1.40 | 75.0 | 670 | 2.19 | 0.353 | <0.005 | 230 × 106 |
| RSW3 | 8.17 | 1717 | 284 | 2.20 | 61.0 | 602 | 2.76 | 0.005 | <0.005 | 138 × 106 |
| Hospital effluent treated with smooth activated carbon | ||||||||||
| SACW1 | 6.90 | 597 | 130 | 9.5 | 27.2 | 275 | 1.55 | <0.001 | <0.005 | 12 × 106 |
| SACW2 | 7.18 | 1040 | 185 | 8.5 | 25.6 | 245 | 2.06 | 0.096 | <0.005 | 17 × 106 |
| SACW3 | 7.42 | 1442 | 120 | 5.5 | 28.0 | 230 | 2.16 | <0.001 | <0.005 | 15 × 106 |
Fig. 3(a) Comparison of the physico-chemical and biological characteristics of RSW1 and SACW1; (b) Comparison of the conductivity, turbidity and chemical oxygen demand of the RSW1 and SACW1.
Fig. 4(a) Comparison of the physico-chemical and biological characteristics of RSW2 and SACW2; (b) Comparison of the conductivity, turbidity and chemical oxygen demand of the RSW2 and SACW2.
Fig. 5(a) Comparison of the physico-chemical and biological characteristics of RSW3 and SACW3; (b) Comparison of the conductivity, turbidity and chemical oxygen demand of the RSW3 and SACW3.
Fig. 6Sketch of the treatment model using locally available materials.