The mean BOD concentration for the effluent during the wet season was 4

0 Comment

The mean BOD concentration for the effluent during the wet season was 4.3333 (+2.5166) and in the dry season it was 14.9100(+6.5851) during the dry season as indicated in figure 4. The resulting difference was partly due to the fact that in the wet season, high volumes of effluent are experienced due to rain hence diluting organic material which is responsible for raising BOD leading to low BOD (Kumar: 2008). In dry season, low effluent levels from the town increase organic concentrations which in turn increase BOD. The means for both the wet and dry seasons were below the recommended EMA standard of 30 mg/L. There was no statistical significant difference between wet season and dry season concentrations of BOD parameters (P>0.05).

Figure 5

Figure 4 above shows that the average concentration of nitrates found in the effluent during the wet season was 0.5133 (+ 0.0862) mg/l. During the dry season, the mean changed to 1.2100(±0.2358) mg/l and the increased change may be attributed to the decrease in water content which in turn increases the nitrate concentration in the wastewater (Kumar: 2008). The mean concentrations were below the recommended quantity of 10mg/l according to EMA standards. However, there was a significant difference between the two mean concentrations (P0.05).
Figure 10 below shows that high TDS values with mean influent concentration of 921.00 (±388.83) mg/l in the wastewater were recorded during the wet season and the mean concentration of 1046.67 (±408.43) mg/L in groundwater was obtained in the dry season as shown in figure 7. Mean groundwater concentrations were all above the recommended EMA standard of 500 mg/L. High TDS concentrations were due to the presence of highly soluble minerals coming into contact with groundwater (Government of Saskatchewan: 2008). These high levels render the groundwater not fit for human consumption (WHO: 2008) as there is a chance of occurrence of diseases. There was also a significant difference between the mean concentration of the wet season and the mean concentration of the dry season.

Figure 11

Figure 10 indicates that the mean chloride for the wet season was 21. 7778 (+ 9.0385) mg/l represented a 9.12% less than that in the dry season which was at 26.145 (+ 8.5153) mg/l. The increase in the mean concentration may be due to the increased rate of leaching by rocks which then released various minerals including chlorides (Harris: 2003). The chloride concentrations were lower than the WHO recommended quantities of 250mg/l. There was no significant difference between the concentrations.

As indicated in figure 8 below, the mean faecal coliforms for the wet season was 0.33 (± 0.50) whilst those for the dry season was 0.33 (±0.71). The concentrations in both the wet and dry seasons were above the WHO standards for drinking water which requires 0mg/l coliforms. The presence of the faecal coliforms underground indicates underground water contamination by wastewater through leaching. There was no significant difference between the two means.

Figure 12

Total coliforms had a mean concentration of 12.44 (± 12.98) during the wet season whilst in the dry season, the mean was 4.33 (± 3.71) as indicated in figure 11. The wet season was high because of precipitation increased chances of washing away bacteria and other contaminants from the surface into groundwater through infiltration. The mean concentrations were both above the WHO (2011) guidelines which require total coliforms to be 0/100ml. this shows that the water sources were contaminated by faecal related microorganisms. There was no significant difference between the two means.

The turbidity of the groundwater had a mean of 17.78 (+ 18.89) NTU in the wet season whilst in the dry season it had 21.67 (± 21.36). The quantities were above the maximum required standards by WHO (2011) of 5NTU/100ml. Turbidity was high partly because of the geological factors such as leaching rocks and soil texture which promotes the cloudiness of the water. There was no significant difference between the two means.
Table 2
17.78 21.67 5NTU

Figure 13

As indicated in figure 12, the amount of coliform decreased as the distance from the waste stabilization ponds increased. This was due to the filtration capacity of the soil which was able to reduce the faecal coliforms as the distance increased.
4.41 Responses on Sex Distribution of the sample size
Table 3
Sex Respondents Percentage %
Female 11 37
Male 19 63
Total 30 100
Table 3 shows that 37% respondents out of 30 respondents were female whilst the remaining 63% were male. This indicates that men were mostly the heads of households who were responsible for tackling issues that affect their families as they were the most respondents who answered the questionnaires.
4.42 Responses on Educational level of the sample
Table 4
Level of education Respondents
Primary 11
Secondary 18
Never went to school 1
Total 30

Table 4 shows that out of the 30 respondents that answered the questions, 37% attained primary level, 60% obtained secondary level and 3% never went to school. Since the area under study is a peri-urban, education enabling facilities were accessible since schools were proxy to their households. This reflects that most of the respondents could read and write.
4.43 Responses on Employment status
Table 5
Employment status Respondents Percentage %
Employed 9 30
Self employed 19 63
Unemployed 2 7
Total 30 100
Table 5 shows that 30% of the respondents cited that they were employed whilst 63% where self-employed and the remaining 7% were unemployed. Most people in the area were into gardening and they sold their produce in the town centre where they were part of the magnitude of vendors that populated the town.
4.44 Responses on Marital status
Figure 14

Figure 13 shows that out of 30 respondents, 10% were single whilst 80% were married and 7% were divorced. 3% of the respondents highlighted that they were widowed as well. In the African culture and tradition it is generally known that men and women marry, live together and grow a family of their own. Thus the study captured data mostly from established functional families.
4.45 Responses on purpose of waste stabilisation ponds
Table 6
Purpose response Percentage
Storing sewage 19 70%
Treating sewage 7 26%
Converting sewage to manure 1 4%
Recycling sewage 0 0%
The table 6 shows that 70% of the respondents said that the purpose of the waste stabilisation ponds is to store sewage from the town whilst 26% indicated that they are for treating the sewage. 4% of the people said that the ponds are for the production of manure as well. The wastewater ponds are seldomly maintained and are left to operate naturally hence people suggesting that they are mostly for storing sewage and not knowing their other core functions.
4.46 Responses on smelling ponds from households
Figure 15

From the above illustrated figure 14, 56% of the people did not smell the wastewater from the ponds probably because they lived a bit far away from the ponds whilst 44% did smell the wastewater from their homesteads. This was because they lived near the ponds and also on the windward side of the pond where all the air from the ponds passed through hence the people and the smells are always in contact.

4.47 Responses on whether it is proper to smell ponds from households
Figure 16

Figure 15 shows that 97% of the people did not view the smelling of the wastewater from their households as ideal whilst 3% saw no problem with the smells. The waste ponds produce some pungent smells that can be carried by the wind to the homesteads and this reduces the quality of air being breathed by the local community.
4.48 Response on negative effects of smells
Figure 17
N =30

Figure 16 shows that 44% strongly agree that smelling air from the wastewater has some negative effects to health whilst 20% agree that smells have negative effects. However, 23% of the people disagree that smells have adverse effects with 13% strongly disagreeing. The disagreement can be attributed to the long time period some of the people have lived in the area whilst being exposed to the smells but not being medically affected.
4.49 Response on visibility of waste ponds from home
Figure 18

Figure 17 show that 30% of the population do see the waste stabilisation ponds from their homesteads whilst 70 % do not view them. The scramble for land and construction of new houses by new families towards the wastewater ponds has led to some constructing homes directly in front of the ponds hence they are visible every day to them.

4.4.10 Response on passing through waste ponds
Figure 19

From the figure 18 above, 54% of the population was found to be passing near the waste stabilisation ponds when going somewhere. 46% of the people used other roads that were not within the proximity of the ponds as their homesteads were far away from the waste stabilisation ponds. Passing through the wastewater ponds is done as it is a shortcut used to quickly pass the ponds as compared to going around the ponds which is longer and slower.
4.4.11 Disadvantage of having waste ponds near homes
Table 7
Advantage Responses Percentage %
Off odours in the environment 5 20
Mosquito breeding 12 48
fly-breeding 3 12
Spread of disease 5 20
Total 25 100

The table shows that 20% of the population believed that waste ponds produced off odours whilst 48% saw them as breeding sites of mosquitoes because of high mosquito prevalence in the area. 12 % of the people saw the ponds as a breeding of flies as well and 20% said that having ponds near homes promoted the spread of diseases. This may be caused by the fact that the people would be exposed to enabling factors such as wastewater and disease vectors like flies. Hence some of these experiences would ensure that the people know the disadvantages of wastewater ponds.

4.4.12 Responses on children playing near waste ponds
Figure 20

In the figure 19 above, 63% of the population noted that there were no children who play along the waste stabilisation ponds whilst 37% of the population admitted that children do play at the wastewater ponds. The children mostly plat at the ponds whilst coming from school or when herding cattle during the holidays and weekends.

4.4.13 Responses on flies near waste pond
Figure 21

Figure 20 show that 67% of 30 the respondents said that there are many flies in the area whilst 33% highlighted that there are few flies in the area. The presence of flies may be due to the off odours produced by the ponds which are attractive to the vectors.