| Literature DB >> 30505166 |
Hamed A El-Serehy1,2, Hala S Abdallah3,4, Fahad A Al-Misned1, Saleh A Al-Farraj1, Khaled A Al-Rasheid1.
Abstract
Lake Timsah is considered as the biggest water body at Ismailia City with a surface area of 14 km2. It is a saline shallow water basin lies approximately mid-way between the south city of Suez and the north city of Port Said at 30o35'46.55"N and 32o19'30.54″E. Because it receives water with high and low salinities, salinity stratification is producing in the Lake Timsah, with values of 14-40‰ for the surface water and over 40‰ for the bottom water. The temperature of the lake water decreased to below 19 °C in the winter and rose to above 29 °C in the summer; the concentration of dissolved oxygen ranged between 6.5 and 12.2 l-1 and the pH fluctuated between 7.9 in its lower value and 8.2 in its higher value. Water transparency was very low as indicated by Secchi disc readings recorded during this study and varied between 0.3 and 2.7 m. The main chemical nutrient (phosphorus) reached its highest levels of 96 µg l-1 in winter and their lowest values of 24 µg l-1 during summer. This nutrient concentration is high especially by comparing with those of unpolluted marine waters, but is typical of the more eutrophic coastal waters worldwide. The composition and abundance of phytoplankton with dominancy of diatoms and increased population density (20,986 cell l-1) reflect the eutrophic condition of the lake. The intensive growth of phytoplankton was enriched by high concentration of chlorophyll a with annual values ranged between 6.5 and 56 µg l-1. The objective of the present work was quantitative assessment of the quality of the water of the Lake Timsah using different approaches. During the present study, three different approaches were applied for the quantitative assessment of Lake Timsah water quality: the trophic state index (TST); trophic level index (TLI) and water quality index (WQI). Application of the trophic state and trophic level indices (TSI & TLI) revealed that the Lake Timsah has trophic indices of 60 and 5.2 for TSI and TLI, respectively. Both indices reflected the eutrophic condition of the lake waters and confirmed that the eutrophication is a major threat in the Lake Timsah. On the other hand, the WQI calculated for the Lake Timsah during the present study with an average of 49 demonstrated that the water of the Lake Timsah is bad and unsuitable for main and/or several uses. Moreover, WQI allows accounting for several water resource uses and can serve a more robust than TSI and/or TLI and can be used effectively as a comprehensive tool for water quality quantification. In conclusion, the three subjective indices used for the assessment process for the lake water are more suitable and effective for needs of the sustainable water resources protection and management of the Lake Timsah.Entities:
Keywords: Algal blooms; Eutrophication; Lake Timsah; Phytoplankton; Suez Canal; Trophic status; Water quality assessment
Year: 2018 PMID: 30505166 PMCID: PMC6252019 DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2018.05.022
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci ISSN: 2213-7106 Impact factor: 4.219
Fig. 1A map of the Lake Timsah showing the location of the four sampling stations in the Lake Timsah. The inset shows the position of the Lake Timsah on the Suez Canal.
Limnological variables for the Lake Timsah.
| Parameters | Lake Timsah |
|---|---|
| Location | Ismailia City on the Suez Canal |
| Origin | Natural |
| Latitude | 30o35′46.55′'N |
| Longitude | 32o19′30.54′'E |
| Surface area (km2) | 14 |
| Water volume (m3) | 80 × 106 |
| Average depth (m) | 2–28 |
| Catchment area (km) | 4.5 |
Locations and descriptive features of anthropogenic activities of the four sampling stations of the Lake Timsah.
| Sampling sites | Coordinates of sampling sites | General features of anthropogenic activities |
|---|---|---|
| (Station I) | 30°33′18″N-32°17′69″E | -Recreational beach along the lake shore |
| -Sediment texture are dominated by median sand | ||
| -Vegetation: | ||
| Few seaweeds | ||
| -Macrofaunal abundance: | ||
| High abundance | ||
| (Station II) | 30°34′45′'N-32°16′87″E | -Freshwater intrusion |
| -Wastewater discharge | ||
| -The floor of the lake is covered with sand and rocks | ||
| -Vegetation: | ||
| Filamentous and thalloid algae | ||
| Blue green algal mats | ||
| -Macrofaunal abundance: | ||
| High abundance of copepod and amphipod crustaceans | ||
| (Station III) | 30° 35′ 46″N-32° 18′ 25″E | -Recreational beach along the lake shore |
| -Domestic outfall areas | ||
| -Oil contamination | ||
| -Vegetation: | ||
| Filamentous and thalloid algae | ||
| Blue green algal mats | ||
| -Macrofaunal abundance: | ||
| High abundance of polycheate, acidians and barnacles | ||
| (Station IV) | 30°35′64″N-32°19′30″E | -Recreational beach along the Suez Canal shore |
Minimum (Min), Maximum (Max), average, and standard deviation (SD) of physico- chemical parameters measured during the present study and used to evaluate: trophic state index (TSI); trophic level index (TLI) and water quality index (WQI) of the Lake Timsah.
| Parameter | Min | Max | Average | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Secchi disc transparency (m) | 0.5 | 2 | 1 | ±0.30 |
| Temperature (°C) | 16 | 30 | 22 | ±2.40 |
| Salinity (‰) | 17 | 40 | 36 | ±4.80 |
| pHc | 7.8 | 8.4 | 8.2 | ±0.01 |
| Total Phosphorus | 24 | 96 | 48 | ±7.00 |
| Total Nitrogen | 430 | 780 | 720 | ±76.8 |
| Chlorophyll | 6.5 | 56 | 20 | ±5.70 |
| TN/TP ratio | 15.5 | 16.7 | 16 | ±4.30 |
| Phosphate | 63.6 | 85.2 | 81.4 | ±6.20 |
| Nitrate | 6.7 | 17.8 | 9.75 | ±5.40 |
| Silicate | 1.4 | 4.1 | 3.4 | ±0.70 |
| Ammonia | 0.2 | 1.2 | 0.8 | ±0.10 |
| Dissolved oxygen | 6.5 | 12.2 | 9.4 | ±3.00 |
| Nitrite | 0.08 | 0.8 | 0.6 | ±0.03 |
| TSI | 50 | 70 | 60 | ±9.30 |
| TLI | 4.1 | 6.3 | 5.2 | ±0.87 |
| WQI | 27 | 67 | 49 | ±8.83 |
Measured parameters used for calculating TSI.
Measured parameters used for calculating TLI.
Measured parameters used for calculating WQI.
List of phytoplankton taxa and species collected from the coastal water of the Lake Timsah during the present study.
| 70. | |
| 1. | 71. |
| 2. | 72. |
| 3. | 73. |
| 4. | 74. |
| 5. | 75. |
| 6. | 76. |
| 7. | 77. |
| 8. | 78. |
| 9. | 79. |
| 10. | 80. |
| 11. | 81. |
| 12. | 82. |
| 13. | 83. |
| 14. | 84. |
| 15. | 85. |
| 16. | |
| 17. | 87. |
| 18. | 88 |
| 19. | 89. |
| 20. | 90. |
| 21. | 91. |
| 22 | 92 |
| 23. | 93. |
| 24. | 94 |
| 25. | 95. |
| 26. | |
| 27. | 1. |
| 28. | 2. |
| 29. | 3. |
| 30. | 4. Ceratium falcatum (Kofoid) Jørgensen |
| 31. | 5. |
| 32. | 6. |
| 33. | 7. |
| 34. | |
| 35. | 9. |
| 36. | 10. |
| 37 | 11. |
| 38. | 12. |
| 39. | 13. |
| 40. | 14. |
| 41. | 15 |
| 42 | 16 |
| 43. | 17. |
| 44. | 18. |
| 45. | 19. |
| 46. | 20. |
| 47. | 21. |
| 48. | 22. |
| 49 | 23. |
| 50. | 24. |
| 51. | 25. |
| 52. | 26. |
| 53. | 27 |
| 54. | 28 |
| 55. | 29. |
| 56. | 30. |
| 57. | 31. |
| 58. | |
| 59. | 1. |
| 60. | 2. |
| 61. | 3. |
| 62. | 4. |
| 63. | 5. |
| 64. | 6. |
| 65. | 7. |
| 66. | 8. |
| 67. | 9. |
| 68. | 10 |
| 69. | 11 |
| 1. | 1. |
| 2. | 2. |
| 3. | 3. |
| 4. | 4. |
| 5. | 5. |
| 6. | 6. |
| 7. | 7. |
| 8. | 8. |
| 9. | 9. |
| 10. | 10. |
| 11 | 11. |
| 12 | 12. |
| 13. | 13. |
| 14. |
Characteristic phytoplankton groups and algal indicator species for the trophic status classification of the Lake Timsah.
| Criteria | Lake Timsah |
|---|---|
| Population Density | Rich (20986 cell l−1) |
| Variety | Considerable number (164 species) |
| Distribution | To little depth (<3 m) |
| Algal blooms | Frequent |
| Diatom quotient (Centrales/Pennales) | 1.2 |
| Characteristic groups and algal indicator species | |
Internationally accepted criteria for trophic status classification of the water bodies with comparison applied to the Lake Timsah.
| Chlorophyll | (µg l−1) | Transparency | (m) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trophic status | TP (µg l−1) | Mean | Maximum | Mean | Maximum |
| Ultra-oligotrophic | <4 | <1 | <2.5 | >6 | >12 |
| Oligotrophic | <10 | <2.5 | <8 | >3 | >6 |
| Mesotrophic | 10–35 | 2.5–8 | 8–25 | 1.5–3 | 3–6 |
| Eutrophic | 35–100 | 8–25 | 25–75 | 0.7–1.5 | 1.5–3 |
| Hypereutrophic | >100 | >25 | >75 | <0.7 | <1.5 |
| Ultra-oligotrophic | <4 | <1 | <2.5 | >6 | >12 |
| Oligotrophic | 4–10 | <2.5 | <8 | >3 | >6 |
| Mesotrophic | 10–20 | 2.5–8 | 8–25 | 1.5–3 | 3–6 |
| Meso-eutrophic | 20–35 | – | – | – | – |
| Eutrophic | 35–100 | 8–25 | 25–75 | 0.7–1.5 | 1.5–3 |
| Hypereutrophic | >100 | >25 | >75 | <0.7 | <1.5 |
| Oligotrophic | 4–10 | 1–3 | – | 5–12 | – |
| Mesotrophic | 10–30 | 3–8 | – | 2.5–5 | – |
| Eutrophic | 30–100 | 8–25 | – | 1–2.5 | – |
| Hypereutrophic | – | – | – | – | – |
| Oligotrophic | <10 | <3.5 | – | – | – |
| Mesotrophic | 10–30 | 3.5–9 | – | – | – |
| Eutrophic | 31–100 | 9.1–25 | – | – | – |
| Hypereutrophic | – | – | – | – | – |
| Oligotrophic | <15 | <3 | – | >3.96 | – |
| Mesotrophic | 15–25 | 3–7 | – | 2.43–3.96 | – |
| Eutrophic | 25–100 | 7–40 | – | 0.91–2.43 | – |
| Hypereutrophic | >100 | >40 | – | <0.91 | – |
| Ultra-oligotrophic | – | – | – | – | – |
| Oligotrophic | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mesotrophic | – | – | – | – | – |
| Eutrophic | 24–96 | 20 | 56 | 1 | 2 |
| Hypereutrophic | – | – | – | – | – |
Transparency by Secchi disk depth.
Ryding and Rast (1994).
Environment Canada (2004).
MDDEP (2007).
Nürnberg (2001).
University of Florida (1983).
Present study.
Descriptions corresponding to the use of water quality index (WQI) [modified from Smith, 1990], trophic level index (TLI) [modified from Burns et al., 2005] and trophic state index (TSI) [modified from Carlson, 1977] applied for the Lake Timsah.
| Excellent | 91–100 | Eminently usable for all purposes | 2–3 | Oligotrophic | <40 Oligotrophic | |
| Good | 71–90 | Suitable for all uses | 3–4 | Mesotrophic | 40–50 Mesotrophic | |
| Intermediate | 51–70 | Main use and/or some uses may be jeopardized | 4–5 | Meso-eutrophic | 50–60 Eutrophic | |
| Bad | 25–50 | Unsuitable for main and/or several uses | 5–6 | Eutrophic | 60–80 Eutrophic | |
| Very Bad | 0–25 | Totally unsuitable for main and/or many uses | 6–7 | Hyper-eutrophic | >80 Eutrophic | |