Application of Water Quality Model QUAL2K To Model The Dispersion of Pullutants in River Ndarug, Kenya
Application of Water Quality Model QUAL2K To Model The Dispersion of Pullutants in River Ndarug, Kenya
Application of Water Quality Model QUAL2K To Model The Dispersion of Pullutants in River Ndarug, Kenya
Abstract
Ndarugu River, Kenya, during its course through the different agricultural and industrial areas of
Gatundu, Gachororo and Juja farms, receives untreated industrial, domestic and agricultural waste
of point source discharges from coffee and tea factories. During wet season the water is also pol-
luted by non-point (diffuse) sources created by runoff carrying soil, fertilizer and pesticide resi-
dues from the catchment area. This study involved the calibration of water quality model QUAL2K
to predict the water quality of this segment of the river. The model was calibrated and validated
for flow discharge (Q), temperature (T˚), flow velocity (V), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),
dissolved oxygen (DO) and nitrate (NO3-N), using data collected and analyzed during field and la-
boratory measurements done in July and November-December 2013. The model was then used in
simulation and its performance was evaluated using statistical criteria based on correlation coef-
ficient (R2) and standard errors (SE) between the observed and simulated data. The model re-
flected the field data quite well with minor exceptions. In spite of these minor differences between
the measured and simulated data set at some points, the calibration and validation results are ac-
ceptable especially for developing countries where the financial resources for frequent monitor-
ing works and higher accuracy data analysis are very limited. The water is being polluted by the
human activities in the catchment. There is need for proper control of wastewater by various
techniques, and preliminary treatment of waste discharges prior to effluent disposal. Management
of the watershed is necessary so as to protect the river from the adverse impacts of agricultural
activities and save it from further deterioration.
*
Corresponding author.
How to cite this paper: Hadgu, L.T., et al. (2014) Application of Water Quality Model QUAL2K to Model the Dispersion of
Pollutants in River Ndarugu, Kenya. Computational Water, Energy, and Environmental Engineering, 3, 162-169.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/cweee.2014.34017
L. T. Hadgu et al.
Keywords
BOD5, DO, QUAL2K, River Pollution, Water Quality Modeling
1. Introduction
Intensive developments of industry, agricultural production and ever intensive urbanization have led to the in-
crease in number of pollutants and the amount of wastewater which pollute water flows. On the contrary, the
need for water of satisfying quality continuously grows. A big amount of agricultural, municipal and industrial
wastewater discharges to water bodies around the world. The discharging of degradable wastewater in water bo-
dies result in decrease in water quality generally and particularly DO (Dissolved Oxygen) concentrations [1].
Disposal of municipal, agricultural and industrial wastewater into the rivers with little or no treatment prior to
discharge is a common practice in many developing countries. This has caused a serious concern over the dete-
rioration of river water quality. Many big and small rivers in Kenya such as Nairobi River, Athi River and their
tributaries are under threat due to influx of pollutants without prior treatment. Therefore, it is important and
timely that a rigorous approach to the water quality modeling of such water-courses be undertaken. Ndarugu
River is a tributary of Athi River which is the second longest river in Kenya. During its flow through the differ-
ent agricultural and industrial areas of Gatundu, Gachororo and Juja farms, it receives untreated industrial and
agricultural waste discharges such as effluent from coffee and tea factories in the catchment area and the neigh-
boring small settlements situated on the bank of the river. This river is a main source of fresh water for domestic
use to the villages along the river bank and Nairobi City. Considering the implications of water pollution on hu-
man and aquatic health, the effective management of this segment of the river is important. QUAL2E model,
developed by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), is the most widely used mathematical
model for conventional pollutant impact evaluation [2]. However, several limitations of the QUAL2E have been
reported. One of the major inadequacies is the lack of provision for conversion of algal death to carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD). Another limitation of this model is that the river section has to be seg-
mented in to equal lengths reaches and equal the number of elements in each reach. Park and Lee [3] developed
QUAL2K after modification of QUAL2E. The modifications include the expansion of computational structures
and addition of more parameters. An enhanced and modernized version of QUAL2E, QUAL2K version 2.11,
was developed as a continuation of modification and simplification of the model [4]. In most of the studies car-
ried out in the application of QUAL2K model, it was observed that the model represented the field data quite
well and this reasonable modeling guarantees the use of QUAL2K for future river water quality options [5]. For
example Q2K was applied for water quality modeling in the Baghmati River and this application showed that,
the model represented the field data pretty accurate. In this study, various water quality management options are
taken into account to control DO, such as pollution loads modification and local oxygenation (by affixing weirs).
Apparently local oxygenation is effective in raising DO levels [6]. The water environmental capacity of the
Hongqi River (China) was simulated by Q2K. In this study Q2K was calibrated and confirmed using data from
field monitoring carried out during the winter of 2009 and spring of 2010. The simulated results correlated with
the measured data precisely [7]. The aim of the study was to model the water quality of the polluted segment of
Ndarugu River by the comprehensive application of water quality model QUAL2K and evaluate the perfor-
mance of the model using statistics based on correlation coefficient (R2) and standard error (SE).
163
L. T. Hadgu et al.
1˚08'59'' South and longitudes 36˚53'33'' East and 37˚10'25'' East. Its UTM zone is 37S, at an average altitude of
1560 meters above sea level. The drainage area is coded by the Government of Kenya as 3CB sub catchments in
Athi Basin. The study area covers a 15.5 km stretch of the river starting 2.4 km downstream of Munya estate and
0.5 km downstream of Karakuta estate (upstream boundary of the stretch) to the upstream side of Juja farm
(downstream boundary of the stretch). Figure 1 shows the location of catchment area in Kiambu County and
Figure 2 shows the sampling sites for water quality testing along the river stretch selected for the study.
164
L. T. Hadgu et al.
Table 1. Physicochemical parameters of the water samples in dry and wet seasons.
Sampling Turbidity
Season pH Temp. (˚C) EC (µS/cm) DO (mg/l) BOD5 (mg/l) NO3 (mg/l)
Points (NTU)
01 Dry 7.18 18.42 61.5 25.37 5.79 19.15 18.6
Wet 7.22 17.9 52.7 49.02 7.64 16.9 25.3
02 Dry 7.1 18.24 58.6 25.11 5.57 19.19 20.4
Wet 7.28 18.02 56.5 51.45 7.12 17.32 27.7
03 Dry 7.09 18.45 63.7 24.85 5.17 19.45 19.3
Wet 7.13 17.8 61.1 58.36 6.4 17.45 26.1
04 Dry 7.06 18.4 66.9 25.53 4.82 19.78 17.6
Wet 7.15 18.1 58.3 52.27 6.45 18.08 28
05 Dry 7.2 18.44 66.1 22.09 4.14 19.84 19.2
Wet 7.04 18.54 56.9 63.45 6.14 17.67 28.2
06 Dry 6.93 18.37 67.7 28.21 4.21 20.24 18.1
Wet 7.06 18.6 62.7 57.9 6.12 19.32 28.5
07 Dry 6.98 18.24 72.1 27.23 3.82 20.99 22.2
Wet 6.93 17.1 64.3 58.6 5.93 18.99 28.9
WHO 6.5 - 8.5 - 500 - 5000 5 >5 - 50
165
L. T. Hadgu et al.
2.6 18.6
Q(data) Q(simulated) Temp(data) Temp(simulated)
18.4
Temperature (˚C)
2.4
Discharge (m3/s)
2.2 18.2
2.0 18.0
1.8 17.8
14.2 10.6 7.2 5.4 3.8 2.3 0.0 14.2 12.4 8.9 6.3 4.6 3.1 1.2 0.0
Distance from downstream (km) Distance from downstream (km)
(a) (b)
0.9 7.0
Velocity(data) Velocity(simulated) DO(data) DO(simulated)
6.5
0.8
6.0
0.7
Velocity (m/s)
5.5
DO (mg/l)
0.6 5.0
4.5
0.5
4.0
0.4 3.5
3.0
0.3
14.2 10.6 7.2 5.4 3.8 2.3 0.0 14.2 12.4 8.9 6.3 4.6 3.1 1.2 0.0
Distance from downstream (km) Distance from downstream (km)
(c) (d)
30 6.0
BOD5(data) BOD5(simulated) NO3-N(data) NO3-N(simulated)
28 5.5
5.0
NO3-N (mg/l)
26
BOD5 (mg/l)
24 4.5
22 4.0
3.5
20
3.0
18
14.2 12.4 8.9 6.3 4.6 3.1 1.2 0.0 14.2 12.4 8.9 6.3 4.6 3.1 1.2 0.0
Distance from downstream (km) Distance from downstream (km)
(e) (f)
Figure 3. (a)-(f) Calibration results. (a) Calibration graph of discharge; (b) Calibration graph of temperature; (c) Cali-
bration graph of velocity; (d) Calibration graph of DO; (e) Calibration graph of BOD5; (f) Calibration graph of NO3-N.
166
L. T. Hadgu et al.
5.0 23
Temp(data) Temp(simulated)
Q(data) Q(simulated)
4.0
21
Discharge (m3/s)
Temperature (˚C)
3.0
19
2.0
17
1.0
0.0 15
14.2 10.6 7.2 5.4 3.8 2.3 0.0 14.2 12.4 8.9 6.3 4.6 3.1 1.2 0.0
Distance from downstream (km) Distance from downstream (km)
(a) (b)
1.2 7.5
Velocity(data) Velocity(simulated) 7.0
1.0 DO(data) DO(simulated)
6.5
Velocity (m/s)
0.8 6.0
DO (mg/l)
5.5
0.6
5.0
0.4 4.5
4.0
0.2
3.5
14.2 10.6 7.2 5.4 3.8 2.3 0.0 14.2 12.4 8.9 6.3 4.6 3.1 1.2 0.0
Distance from downstream (km) Distance from downstream (km)
(c) (d)
26 7.5
BOD5(data) BOD5(simulated) 7.0
24 NO3-N(data) NO3-N(simulated)
6.5
NO3-N (mg/l)
6.0
BOD5 (mg/l)
22
5.5
20
5.0
4.5
18
4.0
16 3.5
14.2 12.4 8.9 6.3 4.6 3.1 1.2 0.0 14.2 12.4 8.9 6.3 4.6 3.1 1.2 0.0
Distance from downstream (km) Distance from downstream (km)
(e) (f)
Figure 4. (a)-(f) Validation results. (a) Validation graph of discharge; (b) Validation graph of temperature; (c) Validation
graph of velocity; (d) Validation graph of DO; (e) Validation graph of BOD5; (f) Validation graph of NO3-N.
season. This was due to the runoff of soil and other particles from the catchment area. Electrical conductivity, an
indirect measure of the total dissolved solids (TDS), was slightly lower in wet season than in dry season. This
could be due to the dilution of the salt particles (TDS) by the input of rainfall and runoff. Nutrients, particularly
nitrate values showed a considerable increment in wet season due to the runoff of fertilizers from the agricultural
areas in the catchment. The flow and velocity patterns were varying significantly because of the low flow in the
dry season and the input of runoff in the rainy season and discharge of effluents from drains across the reach.
The QUAL2K generated results are in the form of graphs combined with the observed data set as shown in Fig-
ures 3(a)-(f) and Figures 4(a)-(f). The correlation between simulated and observed values for all the parameters
showed a high correlation coefficient (R2) and lower standard errors as shown in Table 2. These high correlation
coefficients between observed and simulated values show that this model is perfectly reliable in modeling streams
when detailed and complex data are not available due to an acceptable match of the simulated data with meas-
ured data. Thus the QUAL2K model can be used to predict the effect of point and non-point diffusion and ab-
straction at any section of the river on its water quality on the downstream side. This saves time and capital
which would otherwise be required for frequent monitoring works. The method applied in this study can provide
a basis for water environmental management in decision making for the future.
The results indicated that most of the physico-chemical water quality parameters for Ndarugu River were
167
L. T. Hadgu et al.
Calibration Validation
Parameter
2 2
R SE R SE
within the WHO and Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) limits for drinking water and the water is therefore
suitable for domestic purposes. The pH of the river was within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 both in the dry and rainy
seasons. The DO in dry season was significantly depleted and reduced due to the mixing of these wastewaters
even though re-aeration (replenishing with dilution and surface re-aeration) is expected at the surface of the river.
Turbidity level varied from wet to dry season with higher levels in the wet season and was higher than the WHO
and KEBS limits for drinking water throughout the study period. Electrical conductivity level reduced slightly
during wet season due to the dilution from the runoff. Nutrient levels were generally low during the study pe-
riod although they were higher during the wet season than the dry season. However, despite these low levels
care should be taken in the application of inorganic fertilizers in order to protect the river from eutrophication.
References
[1] Nakhaei, N. and Shahidi, A.E. (2010) Waste Water Discharge Impact Modeling with QUAL2K, Case Study: The Za-
yandeh-Rood River. International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (IEMSS), Ottawa.
[2] Brown, L.C. and Barnwell, T.O. (1987) The Enhanced Stream Water Quality Models QUAL2E and QUAL2E-UNCAS
(EPA/600/3-87-007). US Environmental Protection Agency, Athens.
[3] Park, S.S. and Lee, Y.S. (2002) A Water Quality Modeling Study of the Nakdong River Korea. Ecological Modeling,
152, 65-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00489-6
[4] Chapra, S.C., Pelletier, G.J. and Tao, H. (2008) QUAL2K: A Modeling Framework for Simulating River and Stream
Water Quality, Version 2.11. USA: Documentation and User’s Manual. Civil and Environmental Engineering Depart-
ment, Tufts University, Medford.
[5] Kalburgi, P.B., Shivayogimath, C.B. and Purandara, B.K. (2010) Application of QUAL2K for Water Quality Modeling
of River Ghataprabha (India). Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering, 4, 6-11.
[6] Kanne, P.R., Lee, S., Lee, Y.S., Kanel, S.R. and Pelletier, G.J. (2007) Application of Automated QUAL2Kw for Water
168
L. T. Hadgu et al.
Quality Modeling and Management in the Bagmati River. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 503-517.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/
[7] Zhang, R.B., Qian, X., Yuan, X.C., Ye, R., Xia, B.S. and Wang, Y.L. (2012) Simulation of Water Environmental Ca-
pacity and Pollution Load Reduction Using QUAL2K for Water Environmental Management. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 9, 4504-4521. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9124504
169