Scholarly article on topic 'The assessment of treated wastewater quality and the effects of mid-term irrigation on soil physical and chemical properties (case study: Bandargaz-treated wastewater)'

The assessment of treated wastewater quality and the effects of mid-term irrigation on soil physical and chemical properties (case study: Bandargaz-treated wastewater) Academic research paper on "Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries"

CC BY
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Appl Water Sci
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{""}

Academic research paper on topic "The assessment of treated wastewater quality and the effects of mid-term irrigation on soil physical and chemical properties (case study: Bandargaz-treated wastewater)"

Appl Water Sei CrossMark

DOI 10.1007/s13201-016-0420-5

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The assessment of treated wastewater quality and the effects of mid-term irrigation on soil physical and chemical properties (case study: Bandargaz-treated wastewater)

Kami Kaboosi1

Received: 12 July 2015/Accepted: 28 April 2016

© The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract This study was conducted to investigate the characteristics of inflow and outflow wastewater of the Bandargaz wastewater treatment plant on the basis of the data collection of operation period and the samples taken during the study. Also the effects of mid-term use of the wastewater for irrigation (from 2005 to 2013) on soil physical and chemical characteristics were studied. For this purpose, 4 samples were taken from the inflow and outflow wastewater and 25 quality parameters were measured. Also, the four soil samples from a depth of 0-30 cm of two rice field irrigated with wastewater in the beginning and middle of the planting season and two samples from one adjacent rice field irrigated with fresh water were collected and their chemical and physical characteristics were determined. Average of electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, sodium adsorption ratio, chemical oxygen demand and 5 days biochemical oxygen demand in treated wastewater were 1.35 dS/m, 707 ppm, 0.93, 80 ppm and 40 ppm, respectively. Results showed that although some restrictions exist about chlorine and bicarbonate, the treated wastewater is suitable for irrigation based on national and international standards and criteria. In comparison with fresh water, the mid-term use of wastewater caused a little increase of soil salinity. However, it did not lead to increase of soil salinity beyond rice salinity threshold. Also, there were no restrictions on soil in the aspect of salinity and sodium hazard on the basis of many irrigated soil classifications. In comparison with fresh water, the mid-term use of wastewater caused the increase

& Kami Kaboosi

kkaboosi@yahoo.com

1 Department of Water Engineering, Gorgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Gorgan, Iran

Published online: 10 May 2016

of total N, absorbable P and absorbable K in soil due to high concentration of those elements in treated wastewater.

Keywords Bandargaz • Irrigation • Soil • Treatment • Wastewater

Introduction

Today, due to the constraint in availability of the freshwater for irrigation, wastewater especially sewage water is being used for irrigation of agriculture fields (Singh et al. 2012). Specially, in arid and semi-arid regions, irrigation water shortage turns treated wastewater into an attractive source of water for irrigated agriculture (Pescod 1992). Hamilton et al. (2007) reported that globally around 20 million ha of land were irrigated with reclaimed wastew-ater, and the amount would increase markedly during the next few decades as water stress intensifies (after Chen et al. 2013c). However, Chen et al. (2015a) reported in spite of poor general public's knowledge on water resources, their awareness on reclaimed water reuse was high. Moreover, some of the stakeholders had concerns about the potential risks from reclaimed wastewater reuse.

Several studies have been done to investigate the possibility of using treated wastewater for irrigation. For example, Torabian and Motallebi (2003) in addition to evaluating the wastewater quality of EKBATAN treatment plant presented the plan of wastewater reuse management. Ghasemi and Danesh (2012) studied the wastewater samples from Mashhad treatment plant and stated that according to Ayers and Westcot Guide (1985), wastewater can be used for irrigation of agricultural land. Results of Hasanli and Javan (2006) and Salehi et al. (2008) showed

^j^dlxLc dLLcJI CÚJZLO A\ 0

^GT^ig^ H Springer

that the application of treated wastewater for irrigation of green and afforestation species is possible.

As an irrigation water resource, reclaimed water from sewage treatment plants can provide soils with the nutrients and organic matter, ameliorating health conditions (biodegradable organic matter and beneficial microorganisms), soil biological activities and thus promote soil quality and sustainability. However, reclaimed water also contains nonessential toxic elements and most noticeably salts, which may lead to soil salt levels intolerable to most landscape plants or crops, especially in heavy soil (Chen et al. 2013a, b, 2015b; Lyu and Chen 2016). Moreover, the greatest health concern in using reclaimed wastewater for irrigation is directed to pathogens (Chen et al. 2013a). Wang et al. (2013) reported that concentration of some aroma chemical components (HHCB and AHTN) can be significantly increased in reclaimed wastewater-irrigated soils, although it would take 243 and 666 years for their accumulation in soils to reach the levels that harm the ecosystem and soil biota such as germinating plants and earthworms.

Assouline and Narkis (2011) stated that treated wastewater application will differently affect different zones in the soil profile, depending on irrigation management parameters and plant uptake characteristics. Results of Singh and Agrawal (2012) showed that wastewater irrigation led to beneficial changes in physico-chemical and biological properties of the soil. Generally, wastewater application for irrigation will lead to the reduction of soil porosity and consequently decrease in water retention (Aiello et al. 2007), decrease of saturated hydraulic conductivity (Aiello et al. 2007; Assouline and Narkis 2011), reduction of soil infiltration rate (Rohani Shahraki et al. 2006; Assouline and Narkis 2011), increase the soil contamination to heavy metals (Hoseinpoor et al. 2008; Singh and Agrawal 2012; Chen et al. 2013c), increase of soil salinity (Taghvaiian et al. 2008; Hoseinpoor et al. 2008; Chen et al. 2013b; Lyu and Chen 2016), increase of soil

water retention (Taghvaiian et al. 2008), decrease of soil bulk density (Rohani Shahraki et al. 2006), increasing risks of nutrient imbalances and groundwater contamination of nitrate with irrational managements of reclaimed water (Candela et al. 2007) and increase of soil surface microbial contamination and concentrations of some pathogens like viruses and Giardia (Aiello et al. 2007; Levantesi et al. 2010). However, there is no consistency as reclaimed urban wastewater impacts were dependent on the quality of reclaimed water, irrigation rate and practices, irrigation period, soil properties, influent water characteristics, treatment process, crop characteristics and local climate conditions (Pereira et al. 2012; Chen et al. 2015b).

Irrigation water scarcity in the summer season in Ban-dargaz region, which coincides with the peak crop water requirement period, result in farmers interest to use treated wastewater as an unconventional water resource. Since a few years, farmers in the Bandargaz region used the treated wastewater for irrigation, this study was conducted to investigate the characteristics of inflow and outflow wastewater of the Bandargaz wastewater treatment plant and the effects of mid-term use of the wastewater for irrigation on soil physical and chemical characteristics.

Materials and methods

Bandargaz City with an area exceeding 239.3 km2 is located in the west at a distance of 40 km from the center of Golestan Province (Gorgan). The direct distance of Bandargaz wastewater treatment plant from the sea is about 1.7 km and the distance where the wastewater discharged into the sea from the Miankaleh protected area is 35 km (Fig. 1). Origin of the raw wastewater is domestic and municipal. Secondary treatment method in the Bandargaz plant is aerated lagoons. This plant with a capacity of 3,100 m3/day was launched in 2005 (however, quality and quantity data in wastewater plant were gathered from

It-; ■ Nt

I H .It' j? [ • ■,:■■:• —

/ i;' -1 gc«3h [

/ Irri» D'. • DalalGlcB»

I MW.ty.M »5''ff4V'-S^"-l&J

Fig. 1 Location of Bandargaz wastewater plant related to sea and Miankaleh protected area

jjjillvr dlloJI ¿in» c • KACSTaAaJlq ^QjiU ^ Sprmger

Table 1 Some descriptive statistics of influent and effluent wastewater based on monthly average

Parameter BODin BODout CODin CODout SSin SSout Q

Mean 119.5 23.0 233.0 48.1 150.1 21.1 4,091.3

SD 46.8 10.2 96.4 16.1 52.1 6.1 1,956.7

Std. error of mean 19.1 4.1 39.4 6.6 21.3 2.5 798.8

Minimum 45.0 15.0 57.0 25.0 55.0 15.5 600.0

Maximum 178.4 42.0 324.7 71.7 197.3 30.3 5,999.0

Range 133.4 27.0 267.7 46.7 142.3 14.8 5,399.0

Variance 2,189.6 103.1 9,294.6 259.1 2,713.5 37.8 3,828,630.7

% of total sum 7.4 8.2 7.8 8.4 7.5 10.4 9.6

Mean 118.1 21.6 230.5 44.8 148.7 16.1 3,733.3

SD 40.6 9.6 86.4 15.0 43.0 3.5 1,590.8

Std. error of mean 16.6 3.9 35.3 6.1 17.6 1.4 649.5

Minimum 65.0 13.5 85.0 23.0 75.0 11.0 650.0

Maximum 175.2 39.2 325.3 67.1 195.0 20.5 5,059.4

Range 110.2 25.7 240.3 44.1 120.0 9.5 4,409.4

Variance 1,646.1 91.8 7,468.6 225.9 1,848.8 12.4 2,530,749.2

% of total sum 7.3 7.7 7.7 7.8 7.4 7.9 8.8

Mean 132.8 23.6 232.0 46.7 140.5 15.9 3,206.1

SD 38.8 8.3 89.6 11.4 42.3 6.0 1,263.9

Std. error of mean 15.8 3.4 36.6 4.6 17.3 2.4 516.0

Minimum 66.0 13.8 82.0 35.0 75.0 8.5 700.0

Maximum 173.0 37.2 326.4 64.0 185.5 25.0 4,073.3

Range 107.0 23.4 244.4 29.0 110.5 16.5 3,373.3

Variance 1,506.1 68.8 8,019.8 129.3 1,792.8 36.0 1,597,529.4

% of total sum 8.2 8.4 7.8 8.1 7.0 7.9 7.5

Mean 138.7 20.6 238.7 43.7 151.7 20.6 2,948.6

SD 46.1 9.9 84.4 17.8 41.3 14.7 1,145.4

Std. error of mean 18.8 4.0 34.5 7.3 16.9 6.0 467.6

Minimum 60.0 10.0 90.0 13.0 75.0 10.9 700.0

Maximum 188.0 37.6 333.4 66.6 192.5 50.0 3,851.0

Range 128.0 27.6 243.4 53.6 117.5 39.2 3,151.0

Variance 2,122.4 97.7 7,123.2 317.5 1,707.8 217.0 1,312,043.8

% of total sum 8.6 7.3 8.0 7.6 7.6 10.2 6.9

Mean 144.2 22.6 250.7 50.1 143.0 13.4 2,879.5

SD 39.9 7.5 74.5 8.8 71.3 7.9 775.2

Std. error of mean 16.3 3.1 30.4 3.6 29.1 3.2 316.5

Minimum 76.5 14.4 123.5 37.6 1.1 0.0 1,626.0

Maximum 182.6 34.4 336.4 63.9 192.7 22.0 3,747.7

Range 106.1 20.0 212.9 26.3 191.6 22.0 2,121.7

Variance 1,591.2 56.1 5,543.1 77.3 5,090.3 62.0 600,977.4

% of total sum 8.9 8.0 8.4 8.7 7.1 6.6 6.8

Mean 145.7 24.1 245.3 49.1 141.4 14.5 2,864.4

SD 43.4 8.1 82.6 11.1 71.6 8.5 943.4

Std. error of mean 17.7 3.3 33.7 4.5 29.2 3.5 385.1

Minimum 78.0 12.8 95.0 30.0 1.5 0.0 1,445.0

Maximum 198.2 33.8 334.1 61.9 204.4 24.3 3,815.0

Range 120.2 21.0 239.1 31.9 202.9 24.3 2,370.0

Variance 1,886.9 64.9 6,830.6 122.5 5,126.9 71.5 889,983.2

% of total sum 9.0 8.6 8.2 8.6 7.1 7.2 6.7

1 Snrinapr

KACSTöajüUIg ^WJ ^ springer

Table 1 continued

Parameter BODin BODout CODin CODoUt SSin SSout Q

Mean 143.6 23.6 247.5 46.2 139.4 13.5 3,169.9

SD 52.5 9.5 90.3 14.3 73.0 8.3 1,331.6

Std. error of mean 21.4 3.9 36.9 5.8 29.8 3.4 543.6

Minimum 63.0 14.0 89.0 19.0 0.3 0.0 1,186.0

Maximum 206.0 39.8 333.9 56.6 211.0 19.8 5,082.1

Range 143.0 25.8 244.9 37.6 210.7 19.8 3,896.1

Variance 2,751.6 90.2 8,162.1 204.5 5,335.3 68.7 1,773,072.9

% of total sum 8.9 8.4 8.3 8.0 7.0 6.7 7.4

Mean 152.0 27.8 258.4 49.2 315.3 13.1 3,498.5

SD 43.0 14.6 71.4 13.0 357.9 8.7 1,074.9

Std. error of mean 17.6 5.9 29.2 5.3 146.1 3.5 438.8

Minimum 80.5 11.4 136.3 26.0 135.5 0.0 2,009.0

Maximum 204.8 46.6 335.4 64.6 1,044.0 21.0 4,787.2

Range 124.3 35.2 199.2 38.6 908.5 21.0 2,778.2

Variance 1,848.9 212.2 5,100.8 168.3 128,125.3 75.3 1,155,468.6

% of total sum 9.4 9.9 8.7 8.6 15.7 6.5 8.2

Mean 141.7 27.3 254.8 49.7 164.5 17.9 4,107.7

SD 30.7 12.7 63.0 6.5 27.8 3.1 1,092.9

Std. error of mean 12.6 5.2 25.7 2.7 11.4 1.3 446.2

Minimum 87.4 14.2 174.3 39.0 130.8 14.8 3,150.8

Maximum 171.6 49.4 321.7 58.0 214.2 23.3 5,832.1

Range 84.2 35.2 147.5 19.0 83.4 8.5 2,681.3

Variance 945.3 161.9 3,968.7 42.2 773.6 9.5 1,194,324.6

% of total sum 8.7 9.7 8.5 8.7 8.2 8.8 9.6

Mean 127.4 24.9 266.6 47.7 162.9 16.9 3,740.1

SD 64.2 12.0 50.7 9.9 27.7 3.6 909.0

Std. error of mean 26.2 4.9 20.7 4.1 11.3 1.5 371.1

Minimum 16.0 12.6 180.6 33.8 141.0 12.9 2,432.0

Maximum 190.8 47.2 310.3 59.6 215.2 23.0 5,137.3

Range 174.8 34.6 129.7 25.8 74.2 10.1 2,705.3

Variance 4,120.3 143.1 2,569.6 98.8 766.8 12.7 826,254.1

% of total sum 7.9 8.9 8.9 8.3 8.1 8.4 8.8

Mean 131.4 22.4 264.7 48.6 172.5 21.0 4,002.9

SD 36.5 12.4 42.0 8.7 27.7 8.4 1,135.0

Std. error of mean 14.9 5.1 17.2 3.5 11.3 3.4 463.4

Minimum 73.0 11.3 193.2 37.8 135.0 10.5 2,500.0

Maximum 171.6 45.4 309.9 61.1 216.0 32.0 5,809.0

Range 98.6 34.1 116.7 23.3 81.0 21.5 3,309.0

Variance 1,329.0 154.9 1,766.3 75.0 769.0 71.1 1,288,308.8

% of total sum 8.1 8.0 8.9 8.5 8.6 10.4 9.4

Mean 126.1 19.5 259.8 50.4 172.8 18.6 4,384.1

SD 36.8 7.6 42.0 7.2 30.1 4.4 1,022.3

Std. error of mean 15.0 3.1 17.1 3.0 12.3 1.8 417.4

Minimum 60.3 10.7 204.3 44.4 133.5 13.2 3,483.8

Maximum 162.0 30.3 309.3 63.1 216.7 25.0 6,271.1

Range 101.7 19.6 105.0 18.7 83.2 11.8 2,787.3

Variance 1,354.1 58.3 1,760.1 52.5 906.7 19.5 1,045,178.4

% of total sum 7.8 6.9 8.7 8.8 8.6 9.2 10.3

jjjilliir dllall iüja» c •

KAcsTäLLöUiq rnqjiU ^ springer

Table 1 continued

Month Parameter BODin BODout CODin CODout SSin SSout Q

Total Mean 135.1 23.4 248.5 47.9 166.9 16.9 3,552.2

SD 41.8 9.9 70.1 11.4 114.4 7.6 1,238.7

Std. error of mean 4.9 1.2 8.3 1.3 13.5 0.9 146.0

Minimum 16.0 10.0 57.0 13.0 0.3 0.0 600.0

Maximum 206.0 49.4 336.4 71.7 1,044.0 50.0 6,271.1

Range 190.0 39.4 279.4 58.7 1,043.7 50.0 5,671.1

Variance 1,750.4 97.3 4,913.8 129.1 13,076.8 57.1 1,534,365.1

% of total sum 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Unit of biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD) and settlement solids (SS) is mg/l and discharge (Q) is m3/day. Influent and effluent wastewaters are shown by in and out subscripts

2007). Wastewater using concrete pipe reached the natural earth channels and then emptied into the sea (Fig. 1). Within the last 9 years, farmers have removed the manhole doors and pumped the treated wastewater to agricultural lands.

In the study area, rice cultivation is dominant and irrigation season is approximately 2.5-3 months (mid-May-mid-August) along with peak of irrigation water requirement within July. In other month of year, treated wastew-ater is discharged to the sea.

To evaluate influent and effluent quality characteristics of wastewater, some parameters that were measured in the Bandargaz plant laboratory (from 2007 until 2012) were obtained. These parameters include biological oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), settlement solids (SS) and discharge (Q). One sample in month was taken by wastewater treatment plant. Data normality was evaluated by one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Smirnov 1948). Calculation of some descriptive statistics, data analyses of variance and means comparison (by least significant difference test at 5 % statistical level) were carried out using SPSS 16.0 package (Gomez and Gomez 1984).

Also, water samples were taken in two stages during month of July 2013 (an interval of 20 days) and 25 quality parameters including pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), electrical conductivity (EC), chloride, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, phosphate, sulfate, total hardness (TH), total alkalinity, turbidity, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sodium, bicarbonate, carbonate, hydroxide alkalinity, BOD5, COD, total solids, total suspended solids (TSS), total coliform and fecal coliform were measured. To assess the feasibility of usage of wastewater for irrigation, wastewater effluent quality was compared with standards for irrigation water quality. Since farmers in the area surrounding the plant from the beginning of its operation (from 2005) were using treated wastewater for irrigation, the effects of its usage on soil characteristics were evaluated. For this reason, soil

samples were collected before of summer crop season and its middle (May and July, respectively) from 0-30 cm depth. Two rice fields irrigated with wastewater and one adjacent field irrigated with fresh water were selected. Then, soil physical and chemical properties including EC, pH, calcium, magnesium, sodium, bicarbonate, carbonate, sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), residual sodium carbonate (RSC), exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP), organic carbon, total nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and clay, silt and sand percentage of soil (soil texture) were measured. Soil infiltration was measured using double rings methods in three replications. Total wastewater and soil properties were measured based on APHA (2012) and Klute (1986), respectively.

Results and discussion

Assessment of influent and effluent wastewater

The results showed that all parameters were normal based on one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Some descriptive statistics of BOD5, COD, SS and discharge (Q) of influent and effluent wastewater based on monthly and yearly average are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Based on design criteria of Bandargaz wastewater plant, BOD5 and SS of effluent wastewater should be less than or equal to 170 and 205 mg/l, respectively. Tables 1 and 2 showed that in all months and years, means of BOD5 and SS of effluent wastewater were less than design criteria. However, in all years and approximately in all months, wastewater discharge (Q) was greater than plant capacity (3,100 m /day). It was due to the entrance of surface runoff to the wastewater collection network and street washing that led to chemical dilution of wastewater.

Assessment of influent and effluent wastewater based on analysis of variance of wastewater plant data is presented

Table 2 Some descriptive statistics of influent and effluent wastewater based on yearly average

Parameter BODin BODout CODin CODout SSin SSout Q

Mean 77.4 14.7 125.8 30.3 155.6 18.6 1,749.5

SD 19.3 4.0 50.5 9.3 284.8 15.7 1,097.7

Std. error of mean 5.6 1.1 14.6 2.7 82.2 4.5 316.9

Minimum 45.0 10.0 57.0 13.0 0.3 0.0 600.0

Maximum 114.0 25.0 204.3 44.5 1,044.0 50.0 3,991.0

Range 69.0 15.0 147.3 31.5 1,043.7 50.0 3,391.0

Variance 370.8 15.8 2,551.9 86.2 81,122.1 245.4 1,204,982.3

% of total sum 9.5 10.5 8.4 10.6 15.5 18.4 8.2

Mean 136.0 16.2 255.5 44.0 139.9 12.7 3,233.4

SD 15.5 2.5 36.3 6.8 9.1 4.7 767.0

Std. error of mean 4.5 0.7 10.5 2.0 2.6 1.4 221.4

Minimum 110.0 12.3 203.0 34.0 124.5 4.8 1,998.0

Maximum 152.4 20.4 294.8 54.5 151.1 19.3 4,409.0

Range 42.4 8.2 91.8 20.5 26.6 14.6 2,411.0

Variance 239.6 6.5 1,320.8 46.6 83.5 22.4 588,291.7

% of total sum 16.8 11.5 17.1 15.3 14.0 12.6 15.2

Mean 158.9 33.1 301.8 53.4 165.5 15.6 3,741.4

SD 14.0 11.9 5.9 6.3 10.2 4.9 580.2

Std. error of mean 4.0 3.4 1.7 1.8 3.0 1.4 167.5

Minimum 123.4 18.4 293.0 44.6 152.0 8.5 2,967.0

Maximum 172.4 49.4 310.8 63.1 185.5 24.3 4,809.4

Range 49.0 31.0 17.8 18.5 33.5 15.8 1,842.4

Variance 195.1 142.7 34.4 39.3 104.6 23.7 336,670.8

% of total sum 19.6 23.5 20.2 18.6 16.5 15.4 17.6

Mean 144.5 31.0 311.8 56.7 172.0 19.6 4,853.6

SD 58.6 11.0 39.2 11.5 10.6 3.9 969.5

Std. error of mean 16.9 3.2 11.3 3.3 3.1 1.1 279.9

Minimum 16.0 10.7 219.2 40.0 142.1 12.9 3,558.7

Maximum 179.4 44.2 336.4 71.7 186.5 30.3 6,271.1

Range 163.4 33.5 117.2 31.7 44.4 17.4 2,712.4

Variance 3,439.4 121.8 1,533.1 132.8 112.7 15.0 940,010.5

% of total sum 17.8 22.1 20.9 19.7 17.2 19.4 22.8

Mean 162.6 19.8 241.9 48.8 170.0 15.9 3,668.2

SD 41.2 3.3 35.5 3.1 9.8 1.1 876.2

Std. error of mean 11.9 1.0 10.2 0.9 2.8 0.3 252.9

Minimum 86.2 14.8 182.2 45.2 164.8 14.6 2,970.4

Maximum 206.0 26.2 297.5 57.5 196.5 18.7 5,702.3

Range 119.8 11.4 115.3 12.4 31.7 4.1 2,731.9

Variance 1,698.8 11.2 1,258.3 9.7 95.8 1.1 767,799.1

% of total sum 20.1 14.1 16.2 17.0 17.0 15.7 17.2

Mean 131.2 25.7 254.0 53.9 198.5 18.8 4,067.1

SD 12.6 2.6 31.5 2.7 28.6 4.8 468.3

Std. error of mean 3.6 0.7 9.1 0.8 8.3 1.4 135.2

Minimum 103.6 20.4 195.8 49.7 112.9 14.9 3,478.0

Maximum 147.0 28.8 287.3 58.0 216.7 32.0 4,998.4

Range 43.4 8.4 91.5 8.3 103.8 17.1 1,520.4

Variance 157.8 6.6 993.9 7.3 819.2 23.4 219,335.8

% of total sum 16.2 18.3 17.0 18.8 19.8 18.6 19.1

jjjilliir dllall iüja« c •

KAcsTöLLöUiq rnqjiU ^ springer

Table 2 continued

Year Parameter BODin BODout CODin CODout SSin SSout Q

Total Mean 135.1 23.4 248.5 47.9 166.9 16.9 3,552.2

SD 41.8 9.9 70.1 11.4 114.4 7.6 1,238.7

Std. error of mean 4.9 1.2 8.3 1.3 13.5 0.9 146.0

Minimum 16.0 10.0 57.0 13.0 0.3 0.0 600.0

Maximum 206.0 49.4 336.4 71.7 1,044.0 50.0 6,271.1

Range 190.0 39.4 279.4 58.7 1,043.7 50.0 5,671.1

Variance 1,750.4 97.3 4,913.8 129.1 13,076.8 57.1 1,534,365.1

% of total sum 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Unit of biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD) and settlement solids (SS) is mg/l and discharge (Q) is m3/day. Influent and effluent wastewaters are shown by in and out subscripts

Table 3 The results of analysis of variance for plant influent and effluent wastewater data

Source of variations df BODin BODout CODin CODout SSin SSout Q

Mean square Sig. Mean square Sig. Mean square Sig. Mean square Sig. Mean square Sig. Mean square Sig. Mean square Sig.

Monthly

Between 11 711 0.96 36 0.98 986 0.99 27.6 0.99 13,970 0.39 52.96 0.53 1,702,483 0.35

Within 60 1941 - 109 - 5634 - 147.8 - 12,913 - 57.80 - 1,503,543 -

Yearly

Between 5 11,432 0.00 712 0.00 52,853 0.00 1126 0.00 4,547 0.89 82.1 0.21 12,860,000 0.00

Within 66 1017 - 51 - 1282 - 53.6 - 13,723 - 55.2 - 676,182 -

Unit of biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD) and settlement solids (SS) is mg/l and discharge (Q) is m3/day. Influent and effluent wastewaters are shown by in and out subscripts

Table 4 The results of yearly means comparison for plant influent and effluent wastewater data

Year BODin BODout CODin COD0ut SSin SSout Q

2007 77.4d 14.7c 125.8c 30.3d 155.6a 18.6ab 1,749.5d

2008 136.0bc 16.2c 255.5b 44.0c 139.9a 12.7b 3,233.4c

2009 158.9ab 33.1a 301.8a 53.4ab 165.5a 15.6ab 3,741.4bc

2010 144.5abc 31.0ab 311.8a 56.7a 172.0a 19.6a 4,853.6a

2011 162.6a 19.8c 241.9b 48.8bc 170.0a 15.9ab 3,668.2bc

2012 131.2c 25.7b 254.0b 53.9ab 198.5a 18.8a 4,067.1b

In each column, means followed by at least one letter were not significantly different at the 5 % probability level (LSD test). Unit of biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD) and settlement solids (SS) is mg/l and discharge (Q) is m3/day. Influent and effluent wastewaters are shown by in and out subscripts

in Table 3. Month had significant effect on any parameters. In other words, means of all parameters had not significant differences in different months. However, year factor affected all parameters significantly, except influent and effluent SS. The results of yearly means comparison are presented in Table 4. Approximately, maximum values of all parameter were obtained in 2009-2010 and these values were increased since 2007-2010. This shows that there is

probably poor performance of plant because of some operation difficulties.

Quality parameters of four samples that were taken from the inflow and outflow wastewater are shown in Table 5. Comparing BOD5 values of influent and effluent samples (Table 5) with maximum and minimum values in July (Table 1) and total years (Table 2) showed that approximately sample values were located in the range of

Table 5 Values of quality parameters of plant influent and effluent wastewater

No. Parameter Unit Influent Effluent

Sample 1 Sample 2 Average Sample 1 Sample 2 Average

1 pH - 7.25 7.24 7.25 7.69 7.77 7.73

2 TDS ppm 671.5 629 650 664 749 707

3 EC is/cm 1,304 1,527 1,416 1,289 1,405 1,347

4 Cl ppm 770 740 755 790 880 835

5 NH3 ppm 23 43 33.00 34.5 30 32.25

6 NO3 ppm 0.2 1.4 0.80 2.4 2.48 2.44

7 NO2 ppm 0.27 0.2 0.24 0.4 0.36 0.38

8 PO4 ppm 5.6 10.5 8.05 10.5 7 8.75

9 SO4 ppm 90 10 50 10 20 15

10 TH ppm CaCO3 200 400 300 550 420 485

11 TA ppm CaCO3 700 850 775 600 580 590

12 Turbidity NTU 36 105 71 26 34 30

13 K ppm 26 76.8 51.4 90 54 72.0

14 Ca ppm 140 310 225.0 460 248 354.0

15 Mg ppm 38.9 21.9 30.4 21.9 41.8 31.9

16 Na ppm 85 63 74.0 71 42.1 56.6

17 CO3 ppm 420 510 465.0 360 353.8 356.9

18 HCO3 ppm 427 518.5 472.8 366 348 357.0

19 HA ppm 150 300 225 300 160 230

20 COD ppm 90 240 165 60 100 80

21 bod5 ppm 49 132 91 33 55 44

22 TS ppm 676 870 773 687 589 638

23 TSS ppm 15.6 325.2 170.4 28.4 29.6 29.0

24 Total coliform Count in 100 mL More than 1100 More than 1100 More than 1100 More than 1100 210 Incomputable

25 Fecal coliform Count in 100 mL More than 1100 More than 1100 More than 1100 More than 1100 150 Incomputable

TDS total dissolved solids, EC electrical conductivity, TH total hardness, TA total alkalinity, HA hydroxide alkalinity, COD chemical oxygen demand, BOD5 5 days biological oxygen demand, TS total solids, TSS total suspended solids

Table 6 Assessment of effluent-treated wastewater based on Ayers and Westcot Guide (1985)

Category Parameter Unit Sample 1 Sample 2 Average Restriction

1 EC dS/m 1.289 1.405 1.347 Low to moderate

TDS mg/l 664 749 706.5 Low to moderate

2 SAR - 0.88 0.97 0.93 No limitation

3 Na (surface irrigation) SAR 0.88 0.97 0.93 No limitation

Na (sprinkler irrigation) meq/l 3.09 2.74 2.92 No limitation

Cl (surface irrigation) meq/l 22.3 24.8 23.55 Severe

Cl (sprinkler irrigation) meq/l Severe

4 N-NO3 mg/l 2.4 2.48 2.44 Severe

HCO3 mg/l 366 348 357 Severe

pH - 7.69 7.77 7.73 No limitation

Conclusion Suitable for irrigation except sensitive crops to Cl

wastewater quality variations. However, COD values had some deviations from yearly and monthly ranges.

One of the major concerns regarding reclaimed water irrigation is on salinity (Chen et al. 2013b). Classification

Snrinapr

KAcsT^LLoUiq rnqjiU ^ springer

of Bandargaz-treated wastewater based on United State Salinity Laboratory (USSL) (Richards 1954; Wilcox 1955) was C3S1 that represents water with high salinity and without sodium hazard. However, it was C3 based on

Richards (1954) that is suitable for salt-tolerant crop. The results showed that based on Ayers and Westcot Guide (1985), Bandargaz-treated wastewater is suitable for irrigation except for chlorine sensitive crops (Table 6).

Soil texture is moderately fine (20-30 % clay) and annually precipitation is 650 mm in Bandargaz region. Based on Table 7, Manual of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (Minhas and Gupta 1992) indicated that 2.5, 4.5 and 8 dS/m water salinity can be used for irrigation of sensitive, semi-moderate and moderate crops, respectively. Then, Bandargaz-treated wastewater is suitable for total crop irrigation.

Classification of Bandargaz-treated wastewater based on Iranian guide for Water Quality Classification (IRNCID 2002) indicated that water is low saline and its usage is possible for total crop irrigation. Also, based on similar

classification presented by IRNCID (2002), Bandargaz-treated wastewater can be used in light- and medium-textured soils without limitations and provided with leaching and drainage in clay soils.

The results showed that based on handbook No. 535 Iranian Ministry of Energy (2010), almost all indices except the chlorine were located in the range of use of treated wastewater for irrigation (Table 8). However, effluent discharge into receiving surface water is not permitted due to high levels of chlorine, calcium, ammonium, phosphorus, BOD, COD and TDS. Comparing average values of BOD5 and COD of influent and effluent wastewater in July (Table 1) and their yearly averages (Table 2) with Iranian Ministry of Energy (2010) standard (Table 8) showed that raw wastewater (influent) was suitable neither irrigation nor discharging into resource

Table 7 Manual of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (1992)

Soil texture (clay %) Maximum level of water salinity (dS/m)

Sensitive crops Semi-tolerant crops Tolerant crops

Annually rain (mm) Annually rain (mm) Annually rain (mm)

<350 350-550 550-750 <350 350-550 550-750 <350 350-550 550-750

Fine (more than 30) 1 1 1.5 1.5 2 3 2 3 4.5

Moderately Fine (20-30) 1.5 2 2.5 2 3 4.5 4 6 8

Moderately Coarse (10-20) 2 2.5 3 4 6 8 6 8 10

Coarse (less than 10) 3 3 3 6 7.5 9 8 10 12.5

Table 8 Assessment of effluent-treated wastewater based on Iranian Ministry of Energy (2010) (4 no have limitation, 7 have limitation, - no limitation)

Parameter Unit Permissible limits Sample Conclusion

Discharge into surface Irrigation 1 2 Average Discharge into surface Irrigation

receiving receiving

Cl mg/l 600 600 790 880 835 7 7

SO4 mg/l 400 500 10 20 15 4 4

Ca mg/l 75 - 460 248 354 7 -

Mg mg/l 100 100 21.9 41.8 31.85 4 4

NH4 mg/l 2.5 - 34.5 30 32.25 7 -

NO2 mg/l 10 - 0.4 0.36 0.38 4 -

NO3 mg/l 50 - 2.4 2.48 2.44 4 -

PO4 mg/l 6 - 10.5 7 8.75 7 -

bod5 mg/l 30 100 33 55 44 7 4

COD mg/l 60 200 60 100 80 7 4

TSS mg/l 40 100 28.4 29.6 29 4 4

pH - 6.5-8.5 6.0-8.5 7.69 7.77 7.73 4 4

Turbidity NTU 50 50 26 34 30 4 4

Fecal Count in 400 400 >1100 150 Incomputable 4 4

coliform 100 mL

Total Count in 1000 1000 >1100 210 Incomputable 4 4

coliform 100 mL

jjj_sJlxLc clLLoJ cujoo KACSTojISLIIg foqlszJJ

Table 9 Australian guideline and the results of Bandargaz-treated wastewater assessment

Parameter Unit Risk Sample Conclusion

Low Medium High 1 2 Average

bod5 mg/l <40 40-1000 >1000 33 55 44 Low-medium

Total N mg/l <30 30-100 >100 34.5 30 32.25 Low

Total P mg/l <10 10-20 >20 10.5 7 8.75 Low

CaCO3 mg/l <200 200-500 >500 600 580 590 Medium-high

TDS mg/l <500 500-2000 >2000 664 749 706.5 Medium

SAR mg/l <3 3-9 >9 0.88 0.97 0.93 Low

Cl mg/l <150 150-350 >350 790 880 835 High

B mg/l <0.5 0.5-3 >3 - - - -

pH - 6.5-8.5 7.77 7.77 7.77 No limit

Table 10 Soil physical and chemical parameters based on saturation extract

Parameter Unit Wastewater-irrigated soil Fresh water irrigated soil

Before seeding Mid growth season Before seeding Mid growth season

Field 1 Field 2 Field 1 Field 2

Saturation percent % 62.8 57.7 66 65.1 61 58

ECe dS/m 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.5 2.1 2.0

pH - 7.7 7.8 7.6 7.5 7.36 7.8

Ca + Mg meq/l 19.8 16.4 17.2 15.4 13.1 14.0

Na meq/l 15.2 9.8 15.2 11.9 10.1 12.6

HCO3 meq/l 7.0 8.2 6.8 8.4 5.0 6.6

CO3 meq/l 0 0 0 0 0 0

SAR (meq/l)05 4.8 3.4 5.2 4.3 3.9 4.8

RSC meq/l 0 0 0 0 0 0

ESP % 5.5 3.6 6.0 4.8 3.4 5.4

Organic carbon % 1.26 1.02 0.98 1.09 1.01 0.90

Total N % 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.14

Absorbable P mg/l 18.4 11.1 18.9 39.3 11.6 13.7

Absorbable K mg/l 80 80 100 120 65 70

Clay % 22 22 22 20 19 21

Silt % 54 48 54 60 55 61

Sand % 24 30 24 20 26 18

Soil texture - Silty loam

Soil infiltration mm/h 18.5 19.2 16.3 15.1 17.2 17.4

receiving surface water. However, based on Tables 1 and 2, effluent wastewater was suitable for irrigation purposes and discharging into surface water receiving resources.

Myers et al. (1999) presented Australian guideline for sustainable effluent-irrigated plantations. This standard and results of Bandargaz-treated wastewater assessment are given in Table 9. The results showed that almost all indices except the chlorine were located in the range of use of treated wastewater for irrigation. Based on the average value of BOD5 of influent and effluent wastewater in July

Snrinapr

kacstolloUIq rnqjiU ^ springer

(Table 1) and its yearly average (Table 2), raw (influent) and treated (effluent), wastewater had medium and low risk, respectively, for sustainable irrigated plantations (Table 9).

Assessment of effect of wastewater on soil

Soil physical and chemical parameters are shown in Table 10. The results show that the soil salinity in wastewater-irrigated area is little more than fresh water

irrigated land. Similar results were reported by Taghvaiian et al. (2008), Hoseinpoor et al. (2008) and Chen et al. (2013b). Maas and Hoffmann (1977) and Ayers and Westcot (1985) presented yield loss (%) per unit increase of soil salinity excessive from soil salinity threshold value (ECe), where yield decrease starts (ranging from 1.5 dS/m for sensitive to 10 dS/m for salt-tolerant crops). For rice, these values are 3 dS/m and 12 %. Comparing these values with Table 10 shows that application of wastewater did not lead to increase of soil salinity beyond rice salinity threshold.

Richards (1954) divided soils into five categories on the basis of effects of soil salinity on crop yield. On the basis of Richards method (1954), soil salinity is relatively low and it has not limitations for different crops. However, yield of salt sensitive crops may be reduced in this condition.

Shainberg and Oster (1978) presented crops sensitivity to sodium hazard based on soil ESP. Crops were divided into five categories including very sensitive, sensitive, semi-tolerant, tolerant and very tolerant. Soil chemical parameters (Table 10) showed that in comparison with fresh water, the mid-term use of wastewater results in little increase of ESP but it did not cause the restrictions on soil even for sensitive crops. Chen et al. (2015b) observed a slight soil alkalization under reclaimed water irrigation that was in accordance with these findings.

Based on the criteria of Rhodes et al. (1992), the soil salinity in wastewater-irrigated area creates restrictions only for sensitive crops and there are no limitations for other plants.

Comparison of soil properties with Iranian guide for the irrigated land classification (2002) indicated that soil has any restriction in the aspect of salinity and sodium hazard.

Table 10 shows that in comparison with fresh water, the mid-term use of wastewater caused the increasing total N, absorbable P and absorbable K of soil. It was due to the high concentration of those elements in treated wastewater that were 35.07, 8.75 and 72 ppm, respectively (Table 5). Significant increase of N, P and K in soil irrigated by wastewater was reported by Meli et al. (2002), Salehi et al. (2008) and Singh and Agrawal (2012). Chen et al. (2015b) showed that soil nutrient conditions were ameliorated by reclaimed water irrigation, as indicated by the increase of soil organic matter content, total nitrogen and available phosphorus.

The results showed that the wastewater application did not reduce soil infiltration and even in some cases, it increased soil infiltration rate as well. Slight increase of soil infiltration rate was reported by Taghvaiian et al. (2008) according to this result. It happened because of increased soil organic carbon and Ca ? Mg concentration.

Conclusion

Results showed that the treated wastewater is suitable for irrigation based on standards and criteria of United State Salinity Laboratory (Richards 1954; Wilcox 1955), Ayers and Westcot Guide (1985), Manual of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (1992), Australian guideline (1999), Iranian guide for Water Quality Classification (IRNCID 2002) and handbook No. 535 Iranian Ministry of Energy (2010). In comparison with fresh water, the mid-term use of wastewater did not cause the restrictions on soil in the aspect of salinity and sodium rate on the basis of Richards (1954), Shainberg and Oster (1978), Rhodes et al. (1992), and Iranian guide for the irrigated land classification (2002).

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

References

Aiello R, Cirelli GL, Consoli S (2007) Effects of reclaimed wastewater irrigation on soil and tomato fruits: a case study in Sicily (Italy). Agric Water Manag 93:65-72 APHA (2012) Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater, 18th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington DC

Assouline S, Narkis K (2011) Effects of long-term irrigation with treated wastewater on the hydraulic properties of a clayey soil. Water Resour Res 47(8):1-12 Ayers S, Westcot DW (1985) Water quality for agriculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper, No. 29, Rev. 1. FAO, Rome, p 174

Candela L, Fabregat S, Josa A, Suriol J, Vigues N, Mas J (2007) Assessment of soil and groundwater impacts by treated urban wastewater reuse, a case study: application in a golf course (Girona, Spain). Sci Tot Environ 374(1):26-35 Chen W, Lu S, Jiao W, Wang M, Chang AC (2013a) Reclaimed

water: a safe irrigation water source. Environ Dev 8:74-83 Chen W, Lu S, Pan N, Jiao W (2013b) Impacts of long-term reclaimed water irrigation on soil salinity accumulation in urban green land in Beijing. Water Resour Res 49:1-10 Chen W, Lu S, Pen C, Jiao W, Wang M (2013c) Accumulation of Cd in agricultural soil under long-term reclaimed water irrigation. Environ Pollut 178:294-299 Chen W, Bai Y, Zhang W, Lyu S, Jiao W (2015a) Perceptions of different stakeholders on reclaimed water reuse: the case of Beijing, China. Sustainability 7:9696-9710 Chen W, Lu S, Pan N, Wang Y, Wu L (2015b) Impact of reclaimed water irrigation on soil health in urban green areas. Chemosphere 119:654-661

Ghasemi SA, Danesh Sh (2012) Application of wastewater treatment plants' effluent in agriculture and evaluation of potential impacts on soil and crops. J Sci Technol Agric Nat Resour Water Soil Sci 16(61 ):109-124

Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical procedures for agricultural

research. Wiley, New York, p 680 Hamilton AJ, Stagnitti F, Xiong XZ, Kreidl SL, Benke KK, Maher P (2007) Wastewater irrigation: the state of play. Vadose Zone J 6:823-840

Hasanli AM, Javan M (2006) The evaluating of municipal effluent in irrigation of green species (case study: Marvdasht sewage treatment plant). J Environ Stud 31(38):23-30 Hoseinpoor A, Haghnia GhH, Alizadeh A, Fotovat A (2008) Effect of irrigation with raw and treated wastewaters on some chemical characteristic of soil in different depth under continuously and intermittent flood conditions. Iran J Irrig Drain 1(2):73-85 Iranian Ministry of Energy (2010) Environmental criteria of treated

waste water and return flow reuse. Handbook No. 535, p 135 IRNCID (2002) Saline water utilization in sustainable agriculture. Iranian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (IRN-CID), No. 69, p 235 Klute A (1986) Methods of soil analysis, part 1: physical and mineralogical methods, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison Levantesi C, La Mantia R, Masciopinto C, Bockelmann U, Ayuso-Gabella MN, Salgot M, Tandoi V, Van Houtte E, Wintgens T, Grohmann E (2010) Quantification of pathogenic microorganisms and microbial indicators in three wastewater reclamation and managed aquifer recharge facilities in Europe. Sci Tot Environ 408:4923-4930 Lyu S, Chen W (2016) Soil quality assessment of urban green space under long-term reclaimed water irrigation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(5):4639-4649 Maas EV, Hoffmann GJ (1977) Crop salt tolerance. In: Tanji KK (ed) Agricultural salinity assessment and management manual. ASCE, New York, pp 262-304 Meli S, Porto M, Belligno A, Bufo SA, Mazzatura A, Scopa A (2002) Influence of irrigation with lagooned urban wastewater on chemical and microbiological soil parameters in a citrus orchard under Mediterranean condition. Sci Tot Environ 285(1-3):69-77 Minhas PS, Gupta RK (1992) Quality of irrigation water: assessment and management. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Publication Section, New Delhi, p 123 Myers BJ, Bond WJ, Benyon RG, Falkiner RA, Polglase PJ, Smith CJ, Snow VO, Theiveyanathan S (1999) Sustainable effluent-irrigated plantations: an Australian guideline (1999). An

Australian Guideline CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products, Melbourne

Pereira BFF, He ZL, Stoffella PJ, Montes CR, Melfi AJ, Baligar VC (2012) Nutrients and nonessential elements in soil after 11 years of wastewater irrigation. J Environ Qual 41:920-927 Pescod MB (1992) Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture. FAO

Irrigation and Drainage Paper, No. 47, p 113 Rhodes JD, Kandiah A, Mashali AM (1992) The use of saline water for crop production, water conservation and environmental production. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 48. FAO, Rome, p 153

Richards LA (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali

soils. USDA handbook 60, p 160 Rohani Shahraki F, Mahdavi R, Rezaee M (2006) Effect of irrigation with wastewater on certain soil physical and chemical properties. J Water Wastewater 16(1):23-29 Salehi A, Tabari M, Mohammadi J, Aliarb A (2008) Effect of irrigation with municipal effluent on soil and growth of Pinus eldarica Medw. trees. Iran J For Poplar Res 16(2):186-196 Shainberg I, Oster JD (1978) Quality of irrigation water. In: International Irrigation Information Center Publication 2, Bet Dagan, Israel. Pergamon Press, New York, NY, p 65 Singh A, Agrawal M (2012) Effects of waste water irrigation on physical and biochemical characteristics of soil and metal partitioning in Beta vulgaris L. Agric Res 1(4):379-391 Singh PK, Deshbhratar PB, Ramteke DS (2012) Effects of sewage wastewater irrigation on soil properties, crop yield and environment. Agric Water Manag 103:100-104 Smirnov N (1948) Table for estimating the goodness of fit of empirical distributions. Ann Math Stat 19(2):279-281. doi:10. 1214/aoms/1177730256 Taghvaiian S, Alizadeh A, Danesh S (2008) The effects of wastewater usage as irrigation water on soil physical and some chemical properties. Iran Irrig Drain J 1(1):49-60 Torabian A, Motallebi M (2003) Management plan for treated wastewater reuse (case study: Ekbatan Town). J Environ Stud 32:56-62

Wang M, Peng C, Chen W, Markert B (2013) Ecological Risks of Polycyclic musk in Soils Irrigated with Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 97:242-247 Wilcox LV (1955) Classification and use of irrigation waters. US Department of Agriculture, Arc 969, Washington DC

jjjilliir dlloJI iiii» Л\ Cnrinapr

KAcsTäLLöUiq rnoJiU ^ springer