Assesment of physicochemical quality of water from source to consumer level . A case study in...

SOKOINE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE

FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT OF FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

SPECIAL PROJECT REPORT

TITLE: ASSESMENT OF PHYSICOCHEMICAL QUALITY OF WATER FROM

SOURCE TO CONSUMER LEVEL A CASE STUDY IN MOROGORO MUNICIPARITY

NAME OF STUDENT: MTAKI REVOCATUS

NAME OF SUPERVISOR: PROF. E.E. MAEDA

REG. NO: FST/E/10/T/0096

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR AWARD OF

A DEGREE IN FOODSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE SOKOINE UNIVERSITY

OF AGRICULTURE. MOROGORO, TANZANIA.

DATE: July, 2013

ii

ABSTRACT

Water quality physicochemical parameters in three water sources

namely, Mzinga River, Mindu Dam and Morogoro River (RDD) were

assessed. Three samples from each source were drawn, before

water treatment, after treatment and at the consumer level. pH,

Chloride, Calcium, conductivity total dissolved solids and the

degree of total hardness concentration were determined using

standard procedures (UNEP/WHO). World Health Organization

(WHO) and Tanzania Bureau Standards (TBS) acceptable limits

for drinking water were used as reference. The mean values

pH, total hardness, calcium, chloride, conductivity and TDS for

Mzinga river were 6.772, 22.667mg/l, 6.389mg/l, 8.199mg/,

61.211µs/cm and 32.757 respectively. The mean values pH, total

hardness, calcium, chloride, conductivity and TDS for Mindu dam

were pH 6.897, 44.22mg/l, 9.078mg/l, 10gm/l, 98.611µs/cm

59.156mg/l. respectively. The mean values pH, total hardness,

calcium, chloride, conductivity and TDS for RDD were 6.927,

22.111mg/l, 3.667mg/l, 8.656mg/l, 36.292µs/cm and 19.889mg/l

respectively. The measured values for all parameters were within

i

the WHO and TBS guidelines for drinking water. The results

showed that there was a significant different in mean values for

some physicochemical parameters between water source and status

at p< 0.05.The differences may be due to the effect of water

treatment. It is Concluded that the water sources and

water status analyzed were unpolluted based on the analyzed

water quality parameters. Therefore physicochemical parameter

values were within the range for water intended for domestic

use. It is recommended that drinking water sources for

domestic use should be protected from polluted sources.

DECLARATION

I, Mtaki Revocatus , do hereby declare to the Senate of Sokoine

University of Agriculture, that this special project is my

original work, and has not been submitted for a degree award in

any other university.

ii

Signature………………SUPERVISOR:

Date…………………….. Name……………………….Signature……………… Date……………………..

iii

COPYRIGHT

No part of this special project report may be produced, stored

in any retrieval system, or transmitted in hard copy or

electronic media or by any means without prior written

permission from author or the Sokoine University of Agriculture

in that behalf.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all I thank the Almighty God to enable me to complete

my studies in peace, health and successfully. I am very

grateful to my supervisor Prof E.E Maeda for taking the time and

trouble to read this report and made many helpful corrections. I

am also expressing my appreciation to my fellow students for

their ideas, cooperation and encouragement during my study. My

special thanks are due to the staff of the Department of Food

Science and Technology for their moral and material assistance

during the implementation of this study.

I would also like to extend my special thanks and profound

appreciation to the Higher Education Students Loan Board

financial support that facilitated my studies at Sokoine

University of Agriculture (SUA).

v

To my wife Tujenagwe, I thank her for her endless encouragement,

understanding, and support. Words on a page will never allow me

to express her importance to me. I would also like to thank to

my son Ladislaus,

Last but not least I would like extent my thanks to all members

of my class especially, Othiambo Marry J, Clement C Bundi and

Mwinuka Beda for their constant, encouragement and support.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT......................................................i

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

COPYRIGHT...................................................iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..............................................iv

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

LIST O TABLES...............................................vii

LIST OF FIGURES............................................viii

LIST OF ACRONYMS..............................................x

CHAPTER ONE...................................................1

vi

INTRODUCTION..................................................1

CHAPTER TWO...................................................5

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................5

2.1 Total hardness...........................................5

2.1.1.Calcium and Magnesium Hardness.......................6

2.1.2 Carbonate and non-carbonate hardness.................6

2.2 Chloride in water.........................................6

2.3 Calcium in water..........................................7

2.4 Water pH................................................7

2.5 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)..............................8

2.6 Conductivity of water.....................................9

CHAPTER THREE................................................10

3.0 MATERIAL AND METHODS...................................10

3.1 Location of the stud.....................................10

3.2 Sample collection.......................................10

3.3. Experimental Design.....................................11

3.4 Analyses.................................................12

3.4.1. Measurement of water pH levels......................12

3.4.2 Measurement of Total hardness of water...............12

3.4.3. Analysis of calcium...............................12

3.4.4. Analysis of chloride...............................13

3.4.5. Conductivity.......................................13

3.4.6 Total Dissolved Solids..............................13

CHAPTER FOUR.................................................14

4. 0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..................................14

4.1 pH level.................................................14

4.2 Total Hardness...........................................16vii

4.3 Chloride concentration...................................17

4.4 Total dissolved solids (TDS)...........................18

4.5 Calcium..................................................20

4.6 Conductivity.............................................20

CHAPTER FIVE.................................................23

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION................................23

REFERENCES...................................................24

APPENDICES...................................................29

viii

LIST O TABLES

Table 1: Mean values of water source........................17

Table 2: Mean value of water status...........................17

Table 3: Separated mean values of physicochemical parameters

for water source samples...........................19

Table 4: Separated mean values of physicochemical parameters for

water status samples...................................19

Table 5: Mean values of water source and status interaction...22

Table 6: Separated mean values of physico-chemical parameters

for water source status interaction....................22

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Physicochemical parameters in mgL-1 for mzinga river

...........................................................15

Figure 2: Physicochemical parameters in mgL-1 for mindu dam

...........................................................15

Figure 3: Physicochemical parameters in mgL-1 for RDD......21

Figure 4: Conductivity in µs/cm from water samples from

different water source....................................21

x

LIST OF PLATE

Plate 1: The Mindu Dam.......................................11

xi

LIST OF ACRONYMS

BOD Biological oxygen demand

CAS Chemical Abstract services

COD Chemical oxygen demand

DO Dissolved oxygen

EDTA Ethylenediaminetetra acetic acid

RDD Regional development director

TBS Tanzania Bureau Standards

TDS Total dissolved solids

UNNGLS United Nations Non Government Liaisonservices

WHO Health Organization

xii

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Water is a universal solvent essential to man for various uses

such as drinking, cooking, industrial and agricultural

processes, waste disposal and human recreation (Adeniyi, 2004).

Of all renewable resources on the earth, water has a unique

place. It is essential for sustaining all forms of life and

economic development and for general well being. Though water is

important to life it is one of the most poorly managed resource

in the world (Fakayode, 2005).Water quality refers to all

attributes of water, which make it acceptable to the people.

Water quality is the measure of the condition of water relative

to the requirements of one or more biotic species and or to any

human need or purpose (FAO, 2003).Water is the most important

natural resource in the world since water plays a vital role in

development of the community. A reliable supply of water is

therefore an essential pre request for the establishment of

permanent community settlement (Shayo et al., 2007).

1

Due to high development of industry and agriculture sectors,

the water ecosystem has become perceptibly altered in several

aspects in recent years and as such they are exposed to all

local disturbances regardless of where they occur (Vencatesan,

2007). In view of its occurrence and distribution pattern, water

is not easily available to man in the desirable amount and

quality. It is estimated that 1.2 billion people around the

world lack access to safe water (UNNGLS, 2003). Over 2 billion

people of the world’s population have suffered from

diseases related to drinking polluted waters. More than

250 million new cases of waterborne diseases are reported

each year, resulting in more than 10 million deaths and

nearly 75% of these waterborne disease cases occur in

tropical areas (McFeters, 1990). The relationship between

water quality and health problems are complicated and

include both negative and positive effects (Tebbut, 1983).

The Bonn International Conference on Freshwater in 2001 revealed

that half of the people in Africa suffer from water-related

diseases.

2

According to Metcalf and Eddy (1991) water quality falls into

physical, biological and chemical parameters. Physical

parameters includes water turbidity, pH, temperature and thermal

stratification, suspended solids, light penetration,

transparency etc. Chemical parameters include nitrate,

phosphate, ammonia, dissolved oxygen, iron, and carbon dioxide

content. Biological parameters which includes phytoplankton,

microbial activity (BOD and COD), and micro invertebrates etc.

key physicochemical quality parameters namely pH, total

dissolved solids (TDS), conductivity, calcium, chloride, and

degree of total hardness was assessed in water at source up to

consumer level in the Morogoro Municipality.

Using contaminated water for drinking and processing food

products, results into inherent health problems. The increase in

population density within Morogoro municipalitycurrently at 24

persons per km2. (RC-Morogoro,2006). While the increase in

population density has increased demand for social services. The

natural resources including water has kept on declining at a

very high rate (Jouni, 2004). Water quality depletion due to

improper waste disposal domestic, agro-industrial wastes and3

environmental degradation consequential to deforestation of

river catchments for instance from Mzinga River (Yanda and

Munishi, 2007). Not only that but also due to the old age of

intake and distribution network pipe line for instance the

Momboro treatment plant is not working which can add chemical

contamination to the water (Moruwasa, 2012). According to

Mulengera et al, (2009) the major cause of water pollution in

Morogoro includes soil erosion land degradation in the Uluguru

Mountains as the result of tree cutting to meet increasing

firewood and charcoal demands, inappropriate agricultural

practices, and shortage of suitable land for cultivation.

Therefore the high soil erosion rates has caused serious land

degradation, increased sediment loads in streams and rivers,

leading to rapid siltation of water reservoirs (e.g. Mindu dam).

In this study, six physicochemical parameters were

analyzed, which are pH, total dissolved solids (TDS),

conductivity, calcium, chloride, and degree of total hardness.

The anticipated impacts are to provide effective maintenance

water quality through appropriate control measures and

continuous monitoring of its quality parameters. This will4

ensure that water is safe for domestic, industrial and

agricultural use

.

Water pollution are sufficiently to render the water

unacceptable for its usage hence there is an inherent health

implication in the consumption of contaminated or polluted water

which can lead to outbreak of many diseases and even death when

contaminated with organic or chemical pollutant (Bartran and

Balance, 1996). The possible health effects can be acute

(immediate) for example, nausea, lung irritation, skin rashes,

vomiting dizziness and even death (Stewart et al., 1989). Chronic

health effects occur long after repeated exposure to small

amount of chemicals example cancer, liver and kidney damage,

disorder of the nerve system, damage to the immune system and

birth defects have also been reported (Sandra and Herman, 1996).

To avoid any health hazard as the result of consumption of

contaminated water, physicochemical analysis of water is

unavoidable. Therefore in this study of assessment of

physicochemical parameters of water in Morogoro municipality

5

from its source to the consumer level is imminent. The results

that will be obtained will be compared to documented Tanzanian

standards for water quality and World health organization

standard (WHO), and will be used to provide useful information

about the quality of water in Morogoro Municipality. Also the

results from study will serve as baseline data for water

treatments to ensure that safe water is supplied to the consumer

and safeguard them from physicochemical water pollutants and

the associated health effects.

6

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

It has been reported that water is a common substance that

supports life on earth (Yoo and Boyd, 1994). Water is the major

component of living things whereby most of living things contain

great proportion. Water is important physiologically where it

plays an essential role in temperature control of organisms,

solvent in which gases, minerals, organic nutrients and

metabolic waste dissolves.Water quality describes the physical,

7

chemical and microbiological, properties of water that determine

its fitness for use (Boyd and Tucker, 1992) many of these

properties are controlled or influenced by substances which are

either dissolved or suspended in the water

2.1 Total hardness

Boyd (1990) define hardness as a characteristic of water

representing the total concentration of calcium and magnesium

expressed as their calcium carbonates equivalent when other

polyvalent metal ions are present in a significant level. They

are also determined and reported as hardness. The hardness of

water was originally defined in term of its ability to

precipitate soap. Calcium and Magnesium ions are the principal

causes, although, Iron, Aluminium, Manganese, Strontium, Zinc

and Hydrogen ions are capable of producing the same effect

(Stednick, 1991). Hardness does not affect the sanitary quality

but is of importance in domestic use such as laundry, boiler

water with high hardness value are referred to as hard while

those with low hardness value are soft (Horan, 1991). There are

two forms of water hardness as explained here under .

8

2.1.1.Calcium and Magnesium Hardness.

Calcium ion and Magnesium ions (Ca2+ and Mg2+) is identified by

the mineral involved. Hardness caused by Calcium is called

Calcium hardness due to Calcium Sulphate and that due to

Magnesium is called magnesium hardness. Therefore total hardness

= calcium hardness+ magnesium hardness (Hem, 1970).

2.1.2 Carbonate and non-carbonate hardness.

This is identified by both the bicarbonates (HCO3-) salts of

calcium ions (Ca2+) and by normal salts of calcium and magnesium

ions involved in causing water hardness. Carbonate hardness is

primarily caused by the bicarbonate of calcium and

magnesium .According Gallagher and Miller, (1996) calcium and

magnesium ions combine with carbonates and thereby contributing

carbonate hardness.

WHO, (2008) reported that, Public acceptability of the degree of

hardness of water may vary considerably from one community to

another, depending on local conditions. In particular, consumers

are likely to notice changes in hardness. The taste threshold

9

for the calcium ion is in the range of 100–300 mg/litre,

depending on the associated anion, and the taste threshold for

magnesium is probably lower than that for calcium. In some

instances, consumers tolerate water hardness in excess of 500

mg/litre.

2.2 Chloride in water

The chloride ion (Cl-) is the negatively charged chlorine atom

(Cl) (CAS No. 7782-atomic mass 35.45 g/mol) formed when the

chlorine atom picks up one electron. The chloride ion never

exists in free form in the environment (Nagpal et al., 2003). The

chloride ion commonly occurs as a salt. Some common chloride

salts include NaCl, KCl, MgCl2, and CaCl2 (used as a dust

suppressant on roads), AlCl3 (used in municipal drinking water

and waste water treatment facilities for removal of suspended

particles). Chloride containing compounds are highly soluble in

water (e.g. solubility of NaCl is 35.7g/100g water at 0oC),

hence they easily dissociate and tend to remain in their ionic

forms (e.g. Na+ and Cl-) (Mayer et al., 1999). High concentrations

of chloride ions can cause water to have an objectionable salty

10

taste and corrode hot-water plumbing systems. High-chloride

waters have a laxative effect to some people. Also an

intentional use chloride above the normal content in portable is

a remedy against suspected faecal pollution from human sewage,

animal manure or industrial wastes (Roxanne, and Tom 2012)

2.3 Calcium in water.

Calcium is the fifth most abundant natural element (CAS # 7440-

70-2).This element is presentin all natural waters (Dickson,

and Goyet, 1994). The most common source of calcium groundwater

is through the erosion of rocks such as limestone and dolomite,

as calcite and magnesite. Calcium may have beneficial effects

when ingested. It may block the absorption of heavy metals in

the body and is thought to increase bone mass and prevent

certain types of cancer (Nova Scotia Environment, 2008). Very

high concentrations of calcium may adversely affect the

absorption of other essential minerals from the gastrointestinal

tract (Marque et al., 2003).

11

2.4 Water pH

This parameter shows the quantity of hydrogen ions (H+) in the

water. The concentration of bases and acids in the water

determines its pH. Boyd (1990) proposed the scale for measuring

the degree of acidity is called the pH scale, which ranges from

1 to 14. A low pH is acidic and a high pH is basic; a pH of 7 is

neutral. Roxanne and Scherer (2012) reported that pH can be

affected by chemicals in the water; pH is an important indicator

of water that is changing chemically. Drinking water with a pH

between 6.5 and 8.5 generally is considered satisfactory. Acidic

waters are corrosive to plumbing and faucets, particularly if

the pH is below 6. Waters with a pH above 8.5 may have a bitter

or soda like taste (WHO, 2008) Water with a pH of 7 to 8.5

requires more chlorine for the destruction of pathogens (disease

organisms) than water that is slightly acidic (Scherer, 2012)

Although pH usually has no direct impact on consumers, it is one

of the most important operational water quality parameters.

Careful attention to pH control is necessary at all stages of

water treatment to ensure satisfactory water clari cation andfi

disinfection (WHO, 2008)

12

2.5 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

The total dissolved solid is a measure of the total amount of

all the materials that are dissolved in water. These materials,

both natural and anthropogenic (made by humans) are mainly

inorganic solids and a minor amount of organic material. Total

dissolved solids can vary greatly from a few milligrams per

litre to percent levels (tens of thousands of milligrams per

litre)depending on the type of water (Ben, 2004). Drinking Water

Standards recommend that the total dissolved solids

concentrations in drinking water not exceed 500 mg/L, based on

taste and aesthetics (Ashim, 1998). The total dissolved solids

givean indication of the degree of dissolved substances.

Dissolved oxygen (DO) is very crucial for survival of aquatic

organisms and it is also used to evaluate the degree of

freshness of a river (Fakayode 2005).

2.6 Conductivity of water

Mark (2006) defines conductivity as a measure of the ability of

water to pass an electrical current. Conductivity in water is

13

affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids such as

chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate anions (ions that

carry a negative charge) or sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron,

and aluminum cations (ions that carry a positive charge).

Conductivity is also affected by temperature: the warmer the

water, the higher the conductivity (Ben, 2004).Organic compounds

like oil, phenol, alcohol, and sugar do not conduct electrical

current very well and therefore have a low conductivity when in

water. Significant changes in conductivity can be an indicator

that a discharge or some other source of pollution has entered

the water (Apha, 1992).

14

CHAPTER THREE

3.0MATERIAL AND METHODS

3.1 Location of the stud

The study was conducted at Mindu dam, Regional development

director (RDD) ,Mzinga River and tap water from SUA, Morogoro

city centre and Kihonda.within Morogoro municipality. Mindu dam

is located at 6_ 50' S 37_ 35' E, 6 km west of Morogoro.

(Kayambazinthu, 1989). Access is from the main town of

Morogoro along Mikumi road. According to MORUWASA, (2012) Mindu

dam is the main of water supply in Morogoro Municipality; it

supplies about 70% of water to it residents in Morogoro

Municipality

15

3.2 Sample collection.

Water sample drawn at three different points at two different

surfaces, and at the entry point prior to treatment which were

labeled sample A, B and Crespectively from each water source.

Water sample from Kihonda, Sua and Morogoro city centre

collected from tap water, before sampling water allowed to

flowing out for 15 to 30 seconds. The collected samples were put

in a bucket with ice blocks so as to maintain its original state

as might be caused by temperature fluctuation. The chilled

samples were immediately taken to the Food science and

technology Laboratory (SUA) for determination of physicochemical

parameters.

16

3.3. Experimental Design.

The data was subjected to the Complete Randomized Design (CRD),

for each variable analysis of variance was done by using MSTAT C

program (Freed et al., 1990). Mean were separated by Duncan

Multiple Range test to test for significant difference at

p<0.05(Appendix…2)

Plate 1: The Mindu Dam

17

3.4 Analyses.

The analyses of water samples were conducted using standard

method (UNEP/WHO, 1996)

3.4.1. Measurement of water pH levels

The measurement of pH was done by using a table pH meter in

food laboratory at Sokoine University of Agriculture. The meter

was calibrated with standard buffer solutions of pH 4. The

electrode was removed from the buffer and rinsed with the sample

and after adjustment, the pH was recorded. The electrode was

rinsed with distilled water between successive measurements.

3.4.2 Measurement of Total hardness of water.

Total hardness was obtained by titrating a sample

solution with a 0.01 N of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid

(EDTA) solution by using Eriochrome black T indicator, until

the color changes from purple to pure blue. Approximate 50

ml of water sample was accurately transferred into a

250 ml conical flask, and then 2 ml of buffer solution

were added, stirred and mixed with Eriochrome black T.

19

Indicator was added and mixed well until dissolved. After that

the mixture was titrated with 0.01 N, EDTA solution

until the color change from purple to pure blue.

Calculation. Total hardness (Mg/L as CaCo3 = (T-S) * C * 1000Volume of sample.

3.4.3. Analysis of calcium.

Calcium content was determined by titration method in which 50ml

of sample was pipetted to 250ml conical flask, 5ml 8N of sodium

hydroxide solution was added, a dash of 2-hydroxy-1-(2-hydroxy-

4-sulfo-1-naphthylazo-3-naphthoic acid (calcium indicator)

added and mixed the solution was titrated against EDTA 0 .01N

solution till the color change to blue.

Calcium hardness (mg/L) = Volume of EDTA*N* 50* 1000

Volume of

sample used

Calcium in water sample = calcium hardness in mg/L as CaCO3 *

molecular weight of Ca

Molecular weight of CaCO3

20

3.4.4. Analysis of chloride.

For analysis of chloride, 50ml sample was pipette into a 250ml

conical flask; 1ml K2Cro4 solution was added and mixed. The

solution titrated against silver nitrate solution till brownish

colors appear.

CL (mg/L) = volume of AgNO3 used *N*35.45* 1000

Volume of sample (50ml)

3.4.5. Conductivity

Conductivity was measured by conductivity meter (digimeter L21)

from soil science laboratory, recorded inmicro siemens per

centimeter (µs/cm).

3.4.6 Total Dissolved Solids

Total Dissolved Solids was measured by colorimeters.

21

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 pH level

The mean pH values from the three sources were within the

acceptable range of pH for drinking water quality as per TBS

(2007) and WHO (1996) standards which ranges from 6.5 - 8.5.

The mean pH for water from the Mindu dam, (Plate I), Morogoro

River (RDD). Mzinga River were 6.897/, 6.927 and 6.772

respectively. Statistically results show that the mean value pH

for Mzinga river was significant different at P >0.05.

According to Fakayode (2005) the closeness to neutral pH point

suggests the water regarded as neutral and unpolluted. Also The

mean pH values for status of the three water sources were within

the permissible limit for potable water according to TBS and

WHO, the mean pH for water before treatment, after treatment and

consumer level were 6.909, 6.848 and 6.839 respectively and were

not significantly different. (P< 0.05).

There was insignificance decrease pH level of the Mzinga water

after treatment. (Fig 1), There was also a slightdecrease of pH

22

level at the consumer level.The mean pH value for Mindu dam

waterdecreased from source to the consumer level (Fig 2).

Figure 1: Physicochemical parameters in mgL-1 for mzinga river

pH TH Ca+2 CL- TDS0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Before treatmentAfter treatmentconsumer level

Parameter

Mean

value

Figure 2: Physicochemical parameters in mgL-1 for mindu dam

23

pH TH Ca+2 CL- TDS0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Before treatmentafter treatmentconsumer level

Parameter

Mean

value

24

4.2 Total Hardness

The mean total hardness values of water sources and status were

within the WHO/TBS standards. The total hardness

concentration is not supposed to exceed 500 mgL-1 and 600

mgL-1 according to WHO standards and TBS standards

respectively , Mean total hardness value for Mzinga River,

Mindu dam and RDD were 22.667mgl-1, 44.222mgl-1 and 22.111mgl-1

respectively,(Table 1).The mean total hardness value for Mindu

dam was significantly different at P> 0.05. Also the mean value

for water status was within the recommended limit according to

TBS and WHO drinking water specifications. Mean total hardness

value of the three sources after treatment, and consumer’s

level were, 27mg/l and 24mg/l. respectively The mean value

before treatment was significant different at P>0.05. WHO

(1996), reported that water containing less than 60 mg of

calcium carbonate per liter generally being considered as soft.

Hardness levels above 500 mg/litter are generally considered to

be aesthetically unacceptable, although this level is tolerated

in some communities (Zoeteman, 1980).

25

In Fig 1 results showed that the concentration of total hardness

of water at source was high, after treatment there was a

decrease in the total hardness concentration, also level of

concentration at consumer level showed slightly decrease,

statistically there was no significant different at p<0.05.

Results shown in Fig 2 showed that total hardness at water

source was high, but after treatment the concentration

decreased slightly to consumer level. The mean values were

statistically insignificant following the analysis of variance.

But at RDD as shown in fig 9, total hardness concentration at

water source was low, after treatment there was an increase in

the concentration.

Table 1: Mean values of water source

PHYSICOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS

WATER SOURCEpH TOTAL.H

(mg/l)CALCIUM(mg/)

CHLORIDE(mg/l)

CONDUCTIVITY(µs/cm)

TDS(mg/l)

MZINGA 6.772 22.667 6.389 8.199 61.211 32.757MINDU 6.897 44.222 9.078 10 98.611 59.156RDD 6.927 22.111 3.667 8.656 36.292 19.889

26

4.3 Chloride concentration

The mean chloride valuesconcentration in the sample analyzed

were within the setlimits by TBS and WHO. The mean value of

water source showed no significant deferent, mean chloride

values for Mzinga river, Mindu dam and RDD were 8.199mg/l,

10mg/l and 8.656mg/l respectively (Table 1). Result showed on

significant different at P< 0.05. The chloride mean values for

water before treatment, after treatment and at the consumer

level were.9.943mg/l, 8.478mg/l and 8.433mg/l respectively,

(Table 2). Statistically result showed that there was no

significant different at P<0.05. Aremu et al., (2011) reported

that Chlorides are the most stable components in water

and its concentration is largely unaffected by most

natural physiochemical and biochemical processes.

Table 2: Mean value of water status

PHYSICOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS

STATUS pH TOTAL.H(mg/l)

CALCIUM(mg/l)

CHLORIDE(mg/l)

CONDUCTIVITY(µs/cm)

TDS(mg/l)

Before treatment 6.909 37.00 8.644 9.943 92.097

49.156

27

After treatment 6.848 27.667 5.378 8.478 54.65

32.667

Consumer level 6.839 24.333 5.111 8.433 49.368

29.797

4.4 Total dissolved solids (TDS)

The total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrationof all water

samples under study was within the recommended limits set by WHO

and TBS which is 1000 mg/L and 500mg/l respectively. The mean

TDS value for Mzinga river, Mindu dam and RDD were 32.757mg/l,

59.156mg/l and 19.889mg/l respectively .The mean value for Mindu

dam was significantly different at P <0.05 following a mean

difference separation by DMR – Test (Table 3). TDS mean values

for water status before treatment, after treatment and consumer

level were 49.156mg/l, 32.667mg/l and 29.797mg/l respectively.

The mean TDS value before treatment showed a significant

different at P< 0.05 (Table 3). It was observed that the TDS

concentration was decreasing subsequently from water source to

the consumer level as shown in Fig, 1, 2 and 3 of all water

sources.

WHO (1996) reported that, The palatability of water with a TDS

level of less than 600 mg/litre is generally considered to be

28

good; drinking water becomes signi cantly and increasinglyfi

unpalat-able at TDS levels greater than about 1000 mg/litre. The

presence of high levels of TDSmay also be objectionable to

consumers, owing to excessive scaling in water pipes,heaters,

boilers and household appliances.

Table 3: Separated mean values of physicochemical parameters for water source samples

29

WATER SOURCE

PARAMETERS MZINGA RIVER MINDU DAM RDD

pH 6.772b 6.897a 6.927a

TH (mg/l) 22.667b 44.222a 22.111b

CALCIUM 6.389b 9.078a 3.667c

CNDUCTIVITY (µs/cm) 61.211b 98.611a 36.292c

TDS (mg/l 32.757b 59.156a 19.889b

Mean superscripted by different lower case letter in the same row are significant different following a separation by Duncan multiple Range Test at P <0.05

Table 4: Separated mean values of physicochemical parameters forwater status samples

WATER STATUS

PARAMETERSBefore

TreatmentAfter

Treatment Consumer level

TH (mg/l) 37.00a 27.667b 24.333b

CALCIUM (mg/l) 8.644a 5.378b 5.111b

CONDUCTIVITY (µs/cm) 92.097a 54.650b 49.368b

TDS (mg/l) 49.156a 32.667b 29.979b

Mean superscripted by different lower caseletter in the same row are significant different following aseparation by Duncan multiple Range Test at P <0.05

4.5Calcium

Calcium, which is essential for nervous system and for

the formation of bones, is commonly present in all

water bodies where it usually comes from the leaching

of rocks (Agunwamba, 2000). Calcium concentration of all

water source and water status was within the recommended30

limits.The mean calcium values of water sourcesfor MzingaRiver,

Mindu dam and RDD were 6.389mg/l, 9.078mg/l and 3.667mg/l

respectively. Mindu dam has high calcium concentration compared

to Mzinga and RDD.The mean Calcium value for mzinga river showed

significantly differences at P<0.05, Standard concentration set

by TBS and WHO is 300mg/l. The mean calcium values for water

before treatment, after treatment and consumer level were

8.644mg/l, 5.378mg/l and 5.11mg/l, respectively Mean calcium

value of water status before treatment was high and significant

different at p<0.05.

4.6 Conductivity

The conductivity of all water samples werewithin the limits of

acceptable standards for drinking and domestic use, from source

to the consumer.Mean Conductivity valueS for Mzinga river Mindu

dam and RDD were 61.211(µs/cm), 98.611µs/cm 36.292µs/cm

respectively. Statistically result showed significantly

different at p < 0.05. Mean conductivityvalue for Mindu dam

showed high concentration .Mean conductivity values of water

status before treatment after treatmentand consumer were

31

92.0972 µs/cm 54.560 µs/cm and 49.368 µs/cm respectively.Mean

conductivity value for Mzinga river wassignificantly different

at p<0.05. Results shown in Fig .4 subsequentlydecreases in

conductivity from water source to the consumer level.

32

Figure 3:Physicochemical parameters in mgL-1 for RDD

pH TH Ca+2 CL- TDS0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Before treatment

after treatment

consumer level

parameters

Mean

value

RDD

Figure 4: Conductivity in µs/cm from water samples from different water source

MinduMzinga

Rdd

020406080

100120140

Before treatmentafter treatmentconsumer level

33

Table 5: Mean values of water source and status interaction

Physicochemical parametersWATERSOURCE STATUS

pHLevel

TH(mg/l)

CALCIUM

(mg/l)

CHLORIDE

(mg/l)

CONDUCTIVITY

(mg/l)

TDS(mg/l)

MZINGABefore

treatment6.757

37.333

10.600 9.16 103.000 52.000

Aftertreatment

6.763

15.667

4.400 7.40 42.500 23.933

Consumerlevel

6.797

15.000

4.167 8.03 38.1333 22.337

MINDU

Beforetreatment

7.19 53.667

11.767 11.30 130.433 71.800

Aftertreatment

6.747

41.333

8.033 10.40 86.067 54.733

Consumerlevel

6.753

37.667

7.433 8.30 79.333 50.933

RDD

Beforetreatment

6.278

20.000

3.567 9.367 42.857 23.667

Aftertreatment

7.033

26.000

3.700 7.63 35.383 19.330

Consumerlevel

6.967

20.333

3.733 8.967 30.637 16.667

Table 6: Separated mean values of physico-chemical parameters

for water sourcestatus interaction.

PHYSICOCHMEICAL PARAMETERS

WATERSOURCE STATUS

pH Level CONDUCTIVITY(µs/cm)

TDS(mg/l)

MZINGABefore

treatment6.757c 42.5c 23.93b

Aftertreatment

6.763c 38.13c 22.34b

Consumerlevel

6.797c 130.4a 71.8a

MINDU

Beforetreatment

7.19a 86.07b 54.73a

After 6.747c 79.33b 50.93a

34

treatmentConsumerlevel

6.753c 42.86c

23.67b

RDD

Beforetreatment

6.78c 35.38cd 19.33b

Aftertreatment

7.033b 30.64cd 16.67b

Consumerlevel

6.967b 8.71d 8.508b

Mean superscripted by different lower case letter in thesame Colum are significant different following a separationby Duncan multiple Range Test at P<0.05.

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

In conclusion, this work has presented the levels of

physicochemical parameters namely pH, conductivity, total

dissolved solids, total hardness, calcium, and chloride contents

in the waters source and status. The results for comparison

between the chemical parameters of water sources, status

and WHO/TBS acceptable levels have shown that all

physicochemical parameters Were within the permissible levels.

This shows that the water sources and status analyzed are

unpolluted in terms of chemical parameters. Based on the

water quality parameters analyzed in this study .Nevertheless

this does not rule out completely the need for the

appropriate treatment of these water sources for

portability and safe drinking.

35

Due to the deforestation of the river catchments, especially

Mzinga river. Morogoro municipality should mobilize people

living in and around the catchments areas to shift and forestate

the area respectively.To prevent Environmental degradation

around Mindu dam, farming within the catchments areas should be

controlled and human activities barred around reservoir such as

cultivation and carwashes.Morogoro municipality should consider

the provision of safe drinking water a priority. This is so

because safe drinking water is a basic need to human

development, health and well-being.

36

REFERENCES

1. Adeniyi, I.F. (2004). The Concept of Water Quality in: Ife

Environmentalist, Official Bulletin of Nigerian

Society for Environmental Management (NISEM) O.A.U.,

1(1): calcium and magnesium in drinking water; an

ecological study in elderly people Eur. J. Epidemiol.

18(4):, Aquaculture Auburn University. 305-309.

2. Agunwamba JC, ( 2000) Water Engineering Systems, Immaculate

Publications Limited, , pp 33-139

3. APHA. 1992. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 18th ed.

American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.

74pp.

4. Aremu, M. O., Olaofe, O., Ikokoh, P., P and Yakubu, M.

M. (2011) physicochemical characteristics of strem,

well and borehole water soures in Eggon,

Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Journal Chemical Society

Nigeria, 36 (1), 131-136.

37

5. Ashim, D.G, (1998), Ground water and the Environment, in water

Resources: Environmental Planning, Management and

Development Asit K.B (Ed). Tata: McGraw-Hill.

6. Bartran, J,. Balance, R. (1996). Water Quality Monitoring: A

practical guide to the design and implementation

of fresh water quality studies and monitoring

programs. E and F. N. Spoon, London. 22pp.

7. Ben,P. (2004) Conductivity of water . Stream Team Quarterly

Newsletter,vol 4; 4pp.

8. Boyd, C.E,. and Tucker, C.S,. (1992). Water Quality and Pond

Soil Analyses for Aquaculture. Alabama .Agricultural

Experiment Station, Auburn University, Alabama, 183

pp.

9. Boyd,C.E. (1990).Water Quality in Ponds for Aquaculture.

Birmingham Publishing Company 110pp

10. Dickson, A. G,. and Goyet, C. (1994). . Handbook of method

for the analysis of the various parameters of the

carbon dioxide system in sea water, version 2.

ORNL/CDIAC-74. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium#cite_note-2

38

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium#cite_note-2

11. Fakayode, S.O. (2005): Impact Assessment of Industrial

Effluent on Water Quality of the Receiving ALaro

River in Ibadan, Nigeria. Ajeam-Ragee Volume 10, 1-

13.

13. FAO. (2003) Prevention of Water Pollution by Agriculture

and Related Activities.

14. Freed, R., S.P Eisensmith, S .Goetz, D, Rercosky, V.N Smail

and P. Wolberg (1990). A microcomputer program for

the design , management and analysis of agronomic

research experiment ed Betsy Bricker.

15. Gallagher, L.M., and Miller, L.A. (1996). Clean water Handbook.

Government Institutes, Inc.

Rocknlle, Maryland, USA; 95pp.

16. Hem, J, D. (1970) Water Chemistry, US. Government Print off

Washington.

17. Horan, N.J. (1991) Biological water treatment systems;

Theory and operation.310p

http://stream-team.org/Parameters/conductb.html retrieved 14/12/2012.

39

http://stream-team.org/Parameters/conductb.html%20retrieved%2014/12/2012

18. Jouni, P. (2004) Livelihoods, Vulnerability and Adaptation

to Climate Change in the Morogoro Region, Tanzania,

CSERGE Working Paper. Pg 14

19.Kayambazinthu, D. (1989). Effects of selected forest types on

the water input, Mindu Forest Reserve, Morogoro.

M.Sc. thesis, 189 pp., mimeograph. Sokoine

University of Agriculture, Morogoro.

20. Mark, H. (2006) A Practical Guide to Conductivity

Measurement, MBH Engineering System.

21. Marque, S., Jacqmin G. H., Dartigues, J.F,. Commenges, D.

(2003) Cardiovascular mortality and calcium and

magnesium in drinking water; An ecological study in

elderly people.Eur.J.Epidemiol.18, 305-309.

22. Mayer, T., Snodgrass, W.J., and Morin, D. (1999). Spatial

Characterization of the Occurrence of Road Salts and

Their Environmental Concentrations as Chlorides in

Canadian Surface Waters and Benthic Sediments. Water

Quality Research Journal of Canada 34: 545-574

40

23. Metcalf, P., and Eddy,.M.B. (1991) Waste water engineering;

Treatment, disposal and Reuse, 3rd ED. McGrew .Hill,

New York. 130.

24. Morogoro Regional Commissioner Office (2006); Land, People

and Climate, Morogoro 6pp

25 Morogoro urban water supply and sewage system, (20012)

http://moruwasa.co.tz/home/index.php?

option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=9

26. Mulengera,M. K., Lulandala, L. L. L,. and Maliondo, S. M. S.

(2009.) Tanzania Journal of

ForestrandNature Conservation, Volume 79(1).

McFeters GA (1990). Drinking Water Microbiology, Springer Velag,

New York

27. Nagpal. N.K., Levy, D.A,. Macdonald, D.D. (2003). Ambient

Water Quality Guidelines for Chloride- Overview

Report. British Columbia. Water, Air and Climate

Change Branch. Pp6

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/chloride/chloride.html

.

41

http://moruwasa.co.tz/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=9

http://moruwasa.co.tz/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=9

28. Nova Scotia Environment (NSE), (2008). The drop on

water Calcium and

Magnesium.www.gov.ns.ca/.../water/docs/droponwaterFAQ_Calcium

Magnesium.pdf - 5k - 2009-06-26. pp 2

29. Roxanne, J,.and Scherer, T. ( 2012) Drinking Water Quality,

WQ-1341 U.S. Department of Agriculture.

30.Sandra, A. Z,. Herman, G.M.(1996) health effect of drinking

wacontamination, North Carolina HE, 393Pp.

31. Scherer,.T. (2012) Drinking Water Quality.

Testing and Interpreting Your

Results. North Dakota State

University. www.ndsu.edu/waterquality .

32. Shayo, N. B., Chove, B. E., Gidamis, A. B. and Ngoma, O. B.

(2007) "The quality of water in small community

supplies of kingolwira village, Morogora,

Tanzania". Tanzan Health Res. Bull. Jav.,vol 9.

33. Stednick, J. D (1991). Wildland water quality sampling and

analysis, United Kingdom, Academic pres Limited pg

145.

42

http://www.ndsu.edu/waterquality

http://www.gov.ns.ca/.../water/docs/droponwaterFAQ_CalciumMagnesium.pdf%C2%A0-%205k%20-%202009-06-26.%20pp

http://www.gov.ns.ca/.../water/docs/droponwaterFAQ_CalciumMagnesium.pdf%C2%A0-%205k%20-%202009-06-26.%20pp

34. Stewart, J.C., Lemley, Ann T., H, Sharon I. and Weismiller,

R. A. (1989) Health Effects of Drinking Water

Contaminants. Cornell University and the University

of Maryland. Fact Sheet. 85-85pp

35.Tanzania Bureau of Standards (TBS) (1997).Finalized

Tanzania Standards: Specification for Drinking

Water-Part-1,TZS 574, Dar es Salaam

36. Tebbut TAY (1983). Principles of Water Quality,

University of Birmingham, Pergannon Press, UK.

37. United Nations Environment Programme and the World Health

Organization (UNEP/WHO) (1996) Water Quality

Monitoring - A Practical Guide to the Design and

Implementation of Freshwater Quality Studies and

Monitoring Programmes. Ed. Bartram J. and Balance R.

ISBN 0 419 22320 7 (Hbk) 0 419 21730 4 (Pbk)

38. United Nations Non Governmental Liaison Services (UNGLS)

(2003) .Third World Water Forum on water,

University of Leeds UK.

39. Vencatesan, J (2007). Protecting Wetlands. Curr. Sci. 93:

288-290.

43

40. World HealthOrganization (1996) Guidelines for Drinking-

Water Quality - Second Edition - Volume 2 - Health

Criteria and Other Supporting Information

41. World Health Organization (2008) Guidelines for drinking-

water quality [electronic resource]: incorporating

1st and 2nd addenda, Vol.1, Recommendations. – 3rd

ed.PG 215.

42. World Health Organization (1996). Guidelines for Drinking-

Water Quality, Health Criteria and Other

Supporting Informatio, Geneva: World Health

Organization, 2nd Ed. Vol.2.

43. Yanda, P. Z,. and. Munishi, P. K. T, (2007). Hydrologic and

land use/cover change analysis for the ruvu river

(uluguru) and sigi river (east usambara)

watersheds.pg 12.

44. Yoo, K.H and Boyd, C.E. (1994). Hydrology and water

supply for pond aquaculture. Chapman and Hall,

New York, USA, 483 pp.

45. Zoeteman B.C.J, (1980) .Sensory assessment of water

quality. Oxford, Pergamon Press.

44

APPENDICES

ANALYSIS OF VARIENCE OF PHYSICOCHEMICLA PARAMETERS OF

WATERFunction: FACTOR

Experiment Model Number 1:

Two Factor Completely Randomized Design

Data case no. 1 to 27.

Factorial ANOVA for the factors:

Replication (Var 3: REPLICATION) with values from 1 to 3

Factor A (Var 1: WATER SOURCE) with values from 1 to 3

Factor B (Var 2: STATUS) with values from 1 to 3

Variable 4: pH

45

Grand Mean = 6.865 Grand Sum = 185.360 Total Count = 27

T A B L E O F M E A N S

3 1 2 4 Total ------------------------------------------------------- * 1 * 6.772 60.950 * 2 * 6.897 62.070 * 3 * 6.927 62.340 ------------------------------------------------------- * * 1 6.909 62.180 * * 2 6.848 61.630 * * 3 6.839 61.550 ------------------------------------------------------- * 1 1 6.757 20.270 * 1 2 6.763 20.290 * 1 3 6.797 20.390 * 2 1 7.190 21.570 * 2 2 6.747 20.240 * 2 3 6.753 20.260 * 3 1 6.780 20.340 * 3 2 7.033 21.100 * 3 3 6.967 20.900 -------------------------------------------------------

A N A L Y S I S O F V A R I A N C E T A B L E

K Degrees of Sum of Mean FValue Source Freedom Squares Square Value Prob----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Factor A 2 0.121 0.060 8.6594 0.0023 4 Factor B 2 0.026 0.013 1.8751 0.1821 6 AB 4 0.467 0.117 16.7619 0.0000

46

-7 Error 18 0.125 0.007----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 26 0.740-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coefficient of Variation: 1.22%

s_ for means group 2: 0.0278 Number of Observations: 9 y


s_ for means group 6: 0.0482 Number of Observations: 3

Variable 5: TOTAL HARDNESS



3 1 2 5 Total ------------------------------------------------------- * 1 * 22.667 204.000 * 2 * 44.222 398.000 * 3 * 22.111 199.000 ------------------------------------------------------- * * 1 37.000 333.000

47

* * 2 27.667 249.000 * * 3 24.333 219.000 ------------------------------------------------------- * 1 1 37.333 112.000 * 1 2 15.667 47.000 * 1 3 15.000 45.000 * 2 1 53.667 161.000 * 2 2 41.333 124.000 * 2 3 37.667 113.000 * 3 1 20.000 60.000 * 3 2 26.000 78.000 * 3 3 20.333 61.000 -------------------------------------------------------


K Degrees of Sum of Mean FValue Source Freedom Squares Square Value Prob----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Factor A 2 2861.556 1430.778 16.7451 0.0001 4 Factor B 2 776.000 388.000 4.5410 0.0253 6 AB 4 682.444 170.611 1.9967 0.1382 -7 Error 18 1538.000 85.444----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 26 5858.000-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


48




Variable 7: CALCIUM



3 1 2 7 Total ------------------------------------------------------- * 1 * 6.389 57.500 * 2 * 9.078 81.700 * 3 * 3.667 33.000 ------------------------------------------------------- * * 1 8.644 77.800 * * 2 5.378 48.400 * * 3 5.111 46.000 ------------------------------------------------------- * 1 1 10.600 31.800 * 1 2 4.400 13.200 * 1 3 4.167 12.500 * 2 1 11.767 35.300 * 2 2 8.033 24.100

49

* 2 3 7.433 22.300 * 3 1 3.567 10.700 * 3 2 3.700 11.100 * 3 3 3.733 11.200 -------------------------------------------------------






50

y


====================================================================

Variable 8: CONDUCTIVITY



3 1 2 8 Total ------------------------------------------------------- * 1 * 61.211 550.900 * 2 * 98.611 887.500 * 3 * 36.292 326.630 ------------------------------------------------------- * * 1 92.097 828.870 * * 2 54.650 491.850 * * 3 49.368 444.310 ------------------------------------------------------- * 1 1 103.000 309.000 * 1 2 42.500 127.500 * 1 3 38.133 114.400 * 2 1 130.433 391.300 * 2 2 86.067 258.200 * 2 3 79.333 238.000 * 3 1 42.857 128.570

51

* 3 2 35.383 106.150 * 3 3 30.637 91.910 -------------------------------------------------------







52

Variable 9: TDS



3 1 2 9 Total ------------------------------------------------------- * 1 * 32.757 294.810 * 2 * 59.156 532.400 * 3 * 19.889 179.000 ------------------------------------------------------- * * 1 49.156 442.400 * * 2 32.667 294.000 * * 3 29.979 269.810 ------------------------------------------------------- * 1 1 52.000 156.000 * 1 2 23.933 71.800 * 1 3 22.337 67.010 * 2 1 71.800 215.400 * 2 2 54.733 164.200 * 2 3 50.933 152.800 * 3 1 23.667 71.000 * 3 2 19.333 58.000 * 3 3 16.667 50.000 -----------------------------------------------------


K Degrees of Sum of Mean FValue SourceFreedom Squares Square Value Prob----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Factor A 2 7213.057 3606.528 16.6095 0.0001

54

4 Factor B 2 1940.556 970.278 4.4685 0.0266 6 AB 4 545.662 136.415 0.6282 -7 Error 18 3908.460 217.137----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 26 13607.735-----------------------------------------------------------------------------





Variable 4: CHLORIDE



3 1 2 4 Total ------------------------------------------------------- * 1 * 8.199 73.790 * 2 * 10.000 90.000 * 3 * 8.656 77.900 ------------------------------------------------------- * * 1 9.943 89.490 * * 2 8.478 76.300

55

* * 3 8.433 75.900 ------------------------------------------------------- * 1 1 9.163 27.490 * 1 2 7.400 22.200 * 1 3 8.033 24.100 * 2 1 11.300 33.900 * 2 2 10.400 31.200 * 2 3 8.300 24.900 * 3 1 9.367 28.100 * 3 2 7.633 22.900 * 3 3 8.967 26.900 ------------------------------------------------------


K Degrees of Sum of Mean FValue Source Freedom Squares Square Value Prob----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Factor A 2 15.780 7.890 2.6962 0.0946 4 Factor B 2 13.290 6.645 2.2707 0.1320 6 AB 4 10.660 2.665 0.9107 -7 Error 18 52.675 2.926 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 26 92.405-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



56



Duncan’s Multiple Range Test

Case Range: 28 - 30Variable 7: CALCIUMFunction: RANGE

Error Mean Square = 3.930 Error Degrees of Freedom = 18No. of observations to calculate a mean = 9

Duncan's Multiple Range TestLSD value = 1.963 s_ = 0.6608 at alpha = 0.050 x

Original Order Ranked Order

Mean 1 = 6.389 B Mean 2 = 9.078 A Mean 2 = 9.078 A Mean 1 = 6.389 B Mean 3 = 3.667 C Mean 3 = 3.667 C

Data File : MTAKI04Title : ANALYSIS OF PHYSICOCHEMICLA PARAMETERS OF WATER

Case Range: 33 - 35Variable 7: CALCIUMFunction: RANGE

57


Duncan's Multiple Range TestLSD value = 1.963 s_ = 0.6608 at alpha = 0.050X


Mean 1 = 8.644 A Mean 1 = 8.644 A Mean 2 = 5.378 B Mean 2 = 5.378 B Mean 3 = 5.111 B Mean 3 = 5.111 B

Case Range: 28 - 30Variable 8: CONDUCTIVITYFunction: RANGE




Mean 1 = 61.21 B Mean 2 = 98.61 A Mean 2 = 98.61 A Mean 1 = 61.21 B Mean 3 = 36.29 C Mean 3 = 36.29 C

Case Range: 33 - 35Variable 8 : CONDUCTIVITY

58

Function: RANGE





Case Range: 28 - 30Variable 5: TOTAL HARDNESSFunction: RANGE




Mean 1 = 22.67 B Mean 2 = 44.22 A Mean 2 = 44.22 AMean 1 = 22.67 B Mean 3 = 22.11 B Mean 3 = 22.11 B

Case Range : 33 - 3559

Variable 5 : TOTAL HARDNESSFunction: RANGE





60

Assesment of physicochemical quality of water from source to consumer level . A case study in...

Documents

Transcript of Assesment of physicochemical quality of water from source to consumer level . A case study in...