J.Price1, T.Chaosakul2, N.Surinkul2, J.Bowles2, S.Rattanakul2, N.Pradhan,W.Simphan2, A.Ghimire2, K.Wilaingam2, L.M. Truong2, T.V. Nguyen2,

T.Pussayanavin2, N.Proysurin2, S.Singjan2, V.Longaphai2, S.N.Kalaimathy2, T.Koottatep2, K.N.Irvine1

1) Geography and Urban Planning and Center for Southeast Asia Environment and Sustainable Development,Buffalo State, State University of New York, USA

*(Email: Jameieka14@yahoo.com)2) Environmental Engineering and Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand

Assess the water quality in the Rangsit Canal, Rattanakosin Village, Thailand by:

• Analyzing for biological and chemical characteristics

• Assessing health risk

• Assessing metabolism characteristics

•Located N. of Bangkok

•Population 76,973

•Area of 20.80 km2

•Precipitation 124.8mm

•Outlets to C.Phraya

•Primarily Residential •Used for transp. & irrg

CAUSE

• It’s a small peri urban area

• Pump Station used to prevent flooding

• Increased in agricultural production

• Declining water quality in the canals

EFFECT

• Frequent flooding

• Untreated discharge into canal

• Increased agricultural runoff into the canal

• Effects 80,000 people in multiple ways

BEFORE FLOODING AFTER FLOODING

Rangsit Canal

•Patarasiriwong (2000) / Ongsakul & Sajor (2006) •Studies have shown that:

• Canal was not contaminated by organochlorine pesticides

•Highest levels of contaminants near the canal

•2006 study samples exceeded Thailand’s Class 3 standards

• Sampled from 6 June – 29 June 2011

• Specialized water quality instruments

• Multiple locations

Boeng Yai

Boeng Yai

Rangsit CanalDownstream Upstream

Informal houses

Pump Station

• YSI measures DO, pH, and temperature

• Automatically collected data every 15 mins

• Located in the Rangsit Canal

• Indicator of contaminants in the water

• + values gain electrons, - values lose electrons

•Oxidizers +, reducing agents -

• Spot measurements at 5 different locations

• Grab samples to analyze for BOD, COD, E.coli

• Standard methods was used for sampling

• 5 day test standard method

• Determines the amount of oxygen used by aerobic bacteria to decompose OM

• 2 hour test standard method

• Determines the capacity of water to consume oxygen during decomposition of OM

• Non standard method

• Analyzed at all 5 sites

• Analyzed at 6 informal houses• Used for Microbial Risk Analysis

•Common activities that pose a health risk• fishing, vegetable farming, swimming

•4 different case scenarios for microbial risk analysis

• Is a function of gross primary production, the rate of respiration, and the rate of oxygen uptake by diffusion and this can be expressed as:

P(t) is time varying photosynthesis rate, mgO/L/day Ka is first order reareration coefficient ( per day)

C is D.O. concentration, mg/L

Cs is saturated D.O. concentration, mg/L

R is respiration rate, mg/L

•P(t) is approximated by a half sine wave based on photoperiod and maximum production•ka is a function of time lag between solar noon and d.o. maximum as well as

photoperiod•R is a function of average productivity, ka, and the average daily dissolved

oxygen deficit (McBride and Chapra, 2005)

• Sampling 6 – 29 June

• Wet weather 1-7 June 95.5 mm

• higher concentrations

• Dry weather 16-26 June

• lower concentrations

Dry Weather Wet WeatherPump Station

•All 3 sewer sites had high concentrations•Sewer Site 1 highest concentrations 1,000,000•Downstream concentrations higher than upstream

Clay Tank

Piped Water

Filter Box

3 informal houses

800 CFU/ 100ml

200 CFU / 100 ml

60 CFU/ 100 ml

0 CFU/ 100 ml

•E.coli results taken from the sewer system & canal •We used 4 different health risk scenarios•Acceptable level 0.00010 Scenario C is the safest

a) Risk of infection, Beta-Poisson model, PI=1-[1+D/N50 (21/ α – 1)]-α (Haas et al., 1999) α =

0.1778, N50=8.60x107 for E. coli (Haas and Eisenberg, 2001); b) Annual risk of diarrhea

disease, PD = PI x PD/I, reported as per person per year (pppy) (Howard et. al., 2006)

Exposure scenario PI a PD b Ingestion/Consumption

A( Ingestion of swimming water)

5E-2 1.3E-2 100 mL per single exposure for 52

times/year

B(Ingestion of farming/fishing)

1.5E-3 3.8E-4 5 mL per single exposure for 300 days in

a year

C( Consumption of raw vegetables)

5.2E-5 1.3E-5 100 g of raw vegetables

D( Ingestion from pumping station)

2.6E-4 6.5E-5 exposure of 0.5 mL for 52 times/year

• BOD levels in the sewage were low due to on site leaching septic tank and bidets. Higher levels of BOD in Rangsit Canal due to increase in pollution load from the past ten years

• ORP levels in the sewers showed there was contaminants

• DO levels were low and 13-18 June < TC3 water quality standard of 4.0 mg/L.

Site BOD, mg/L(TC3 < 2.0 mg/L)

COD, mg/L D.O., mg/L(TC3 < 4.0 mg/L)

ORP, mV

Sewer Site 1PS1 InsystemPS1 CanalCanal UpCanal Down

28.4 (14.9)33.3 (11)

217.5 (2.1)6.7 (1.5)

169 (8.9)148 (17.7)

12462.9 (26.3)69.2 (39.9)

0.98 (0.4)0.82 (0.1)

1.221.18 (0.1)1.36 (0.4)

-185 (22.1)-231 (25.5)

-20180 (56.2)93 (61.3)

Mean and standard deviation in parenthesis

D.O. 11 June – 28 June Temperature 11 June – 28 June

• Both peak values occurred in the afternoon. pH 7•D.O. is inversely proportional to temperature•The diel D.O. trend exhibited in the rangsit Canal is driven by dominance of: photosynthesis during the day and respiration at night •Compared to a number of rivers the primary production of the canal is low while the respiration rate is high

To determine if the canal is autotrophic (P/R >1) or heterotrophic (P/R<1)

Site ka, per day P(t), mgO/L/day R, mgO/L/day P/R ratio

Rangsit CanalThames R., U.K.1

Pang R., U.K.1

Kennet R., U.K.1

Grand R., U.S.2

Santa Margarita R. #1, U.S.2

Santa Margarita R. #2, U.S.2

Waithou Str., N. Zealand2

Mangaoronga Str., N. Zealand2

Weija Lake, Ghana3

5.7 (8.4)5.7 (2.4)11.6 (7.7)5.0 (9.0)

5.511.515.46.08.53.6

5.0 (2.9)4.9 (2.1)9.6 (5.3)29 (7.4)

1612

11.70.613.332.1

46.2 (63.5)11.6 (6.0)17.9 (15.7)32.1 (31.0)

17.39

7.95.7277.5

0.200.420.540.900.921.31.50.10.494.3

Rangsit Canal is a heterotrophic waterbody 0.20<1

• There are severe water quality parameters associated with Rangsit Canal • when compared to Thailand’s standard for D.0. and BOD and

the canal is of low productivity, heterotrophic based on the delta method approach

• Results of the microbial risk analysis showed unacceptable risk for a number of activities (swimming, fishing, vegetable farming, pump station operation).

• Based on limited sampling, the piped water to the informal housing on the canal was good, although poor handling and storage practices could negatively affect the quality.

• Treatment is needed before discharging wastewater into the canal as a long-term planning solution to prevent the pollution entering the canal.

• The results could be used by local authorities to implement barriers/intervention for health risk reduction such as education campaigns about washing or bathing after exposures or using disinfection gel.

BUFFALO STATE COLLEGE

• Geography and Planning Department

• School of Natural and Social Sciences

• Undergraduate Research Office

• American Public Health Association (APHA). (1999). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater Analysis. American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation.

• Ansa-Asare, O.D., Marr, I.L. and Cresser, M.S. (1999). Evaluation of cycling patterns of dissolved oxygen in a tropical lake as an indicator of biodegradable organic pollution. The Science of the Total Environment, 231, 145-158.

• Chaosakul, T., Wijekoon, K.C., Kijjanapanich, P., Udom, T., Siripong, C., Dang, N.H., Sin, K., Samantarat, N., Koottatep, T., Irvine, K.N., Zumfelde, J. and Bakert, J. 2009. Modeling a peri-urban combined sewer system to assess drainage improvements: A case study of Rattanakosin Village, Thailand. The 7th International Symposium on Southeast Asia Water Environment, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 309-317.

• Haas, C.N. and Eisenberg, J.N.S. (2001). Risk assessment. In: Water Quality: Guidelines, Standards and Health, Assessment of Risk and Risk management for Water-related Infectious Disease. Fewtrell and Bartram (eds.) World Health Organization (WHO) in series. IWA Publishing, London, pp.161-183.

• Haas, C.N., Rose, J.B. and Gerba, C.P. (1999). Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.• Howard, G., Pedley, S. and Tibatemwa, S. (2006). Quantitative microbial risk assessment to estimate health risks attributable to water supply: can the technique be applied in developing

countries with limited data? Journal of Water Health, 4, 49-65.•  • Irvine, K., Rossi, M.C., Vermette, S., Bakert, J. and Kleinfelder, K. In Press. Illicit discharge detection and elimination: low cost options for source identification and trackdown in stormwater

systems. Urban Water Journal.•  • McBride, G.B. and Chapra, S.C. (2005). Rapid calculation of oxygen in streams: approximate delta method. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 131, 336-342.•  • Noophan, P., Paopuree, P., Kanlayaras, K., Sirivithayapakorn, S. and Techkarnjanaruk, S. (2009). Nitrogen removal efficiency at centralized domestic wastewater treatment plants in

Bangkok, Thailand. EnvironmentAsia, 2, 30-35.•  • Odum, H.T. (1956). Primary production in flow waters. Limnology and Oceanography, 1, 102-117.•  • Ongsakul, R. and Sajor, E.E. (2006). Water governance in mixed land use: a case study of Rangsit Field, peri-urban Bangkok. In: Proceedings: Regional Conference on Urban Water and

Sanitation in Southeast Asian Cities, AIT, pp. 329-340.•  • Patarasiriwong, V. (2000). Water quality of the Rangsit Prayoonsak Canal. Kasetsart J. (Soc. Sci.), 21, 109-117.•  • Pelletier, G.J. (2007). Delta_v21.xls - A Microsoft Excel/VBA workbook for the estimation of stream reaeration, primary production, and respiration from diel dissolved oxygen and pH

using Chapra and DiToro’s delta method. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/models.html•  • Pradhan, P. and Perera, R. (2006). Impact of urbanization on the water resources and public health in Pathumthani Province, Thailand. In: Proceedings: Regional Conference on Urban Water

and Sanitation in Southeast Asian Cities, AIT, pp. 87-102.•  • Suwanarit, A. (2010). Mosaic city: reading Bangkok’s urban-agricultural periphery. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Urban Sustainability, ICONUS 2010, University of Hong

Kong.•  • Tsuzuki, Y., Koottatep, T., Wattanachira, S., Sarathai, Y. and Wongburana, C. (2009). On-site treatment systems in the wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) service areas in Thailand:

scenario based pollutant loads estimation. Journal of Global Environmental Engineering, 14, 57-65.•  • Wang, H., Hondzo, M., Xu, C., Poole, V. and Spacie, A. (2003). Dissolved oxygen dynamics of streams draining an urbanized and an agricultural catchment. Ecological Modelling, 160,

145-161.•  • Williams, R.J., White, C., Harrow, M.L. and Neal, C. (2000). Temporal and small-scale spatial variations of dissolved oxygen in the Rivers Thames, Pang and Kennet, UK. The Science of the

Total Environment, 251, 497-510.•  • USEPA (1994). National primary drinking water regulations: Enhanced surface water treatment requirements; proposed rule. Fed.Reg., 59, 38,832-38,858.

• http://www.fitzsci.ie/home/about-us/news/July-2011/healthcare-facility-monitoring/ web 11/1/11 title healthcare facility monitoring July 2011• : http://deaf-dialogue.net/?p=254