الصفحات

الأحد، 9 سبتمبر 2018

Selection and Evaluation of Appropriate Sanitation Systems in Rural Egypt. Case Study in Sohag Governorate, Upper Egypt


Selection and Evaluation of Appropriate 

Sanitation Systems in Rural Egypt.

Case Study in Sohag Governorate, Upper Egypt


Hisham S. A.Halim1 , Walid Abdel-Halim2*, and M.Nazih2

E-mail: hishama.halim@access.com.eg 

1 Cairo University, Faculty of Engineering. 

Housing and Building Research Center, Cairo, Egypt.

* Currently: Institute of Water Quality and Waste Management, Hannover Uni., Germany

The Arab Regional Conference

“Rural & Urban Interdependencies ”

The High-Level Arab Meeting of the Economic

and Social Committee for Western Asia (ESCWA)

Concerning

"Sustainability of Arab Cities& Security of Housing

and Land Tenure and Urban Governance”

Cairo, Arab Republic of Egypt

15-18 December 2005



Abstract 

   Maintaining social justice for every one in Egypt is one of the most important duties of the government, and in this thought maintaining health and well being for individuals has been considered in Egypt’s Basic Legislation. Wastewater is one of the greatest environmental problems in Egypt, where more than 3000 local villages and sub-villages with a total population of about 25 millions have no facilities of wastewater treatment and/or wastewater collection. To provide these villages with the required facilities of wastewater collection, treatment and disposal, some of evaluation and selection tools must be done starting with selection of villages with high priority, selection of suitable sanitation system and ending to the implementation of the most eligible system in terms of technical and economical eligibility. Governorate of Sohag GOS was selected to be a case study of this study. It is located in Upper Egypt, 467 km south of Cairo, consists of 11 central units, 10 cities, 51 local units, 270 mother villages and 1217 small villages. Total population is 3,113,012 capita, 78% of them live in rural areas, and 67% of them need sanitation facilities and suffering from lack of infrastructure utilities and economic plans. The main objective of this study is producing of selection tool as well as a simplified computer program to assist in choosing suitable sanitation systems for different villages depending on a technology selection leading to a single or group of options for the sanitation technologies as well as economical comparison between the selected options to get the most economical option. The selection of sanitation options was based on the stateof-art technologies for different components of the system. Moreover, this study assists in determination of the preference factors to get the villages’ priorities for implementation. The proposed selection tool and the developed software was tested for a group of villages in GOS and proved successful and simple applicability.

Keywords rural sanitation; wastewater treatment and disposal; on-site systems; sewerage systems; drainage; Egypt.

5. Conclusion 

   The study proved the possibility of setting and successfully applying the proposed strategy of ww components selection as a helpful and simple technique for evaluation and selection of the most appropriate technical / economical options in the rural areas in Sohag Governorate. Also it is considered as a starting point to touch the actual need of wastewater systems for each village depending on its conditions and preference according to specific criteria for implementation priority. Based on the results obtained for the sanitation system options, a master plan for the rural sanitation systems could be developed considering the context of the national plans. Then, the system design can be prepared for the most preferable options to achieve the village’s need as a part of Sohag rural development program considering the sustainability of the project by setting the appropriate system management.


6. References: 

1- Dr. Amir H. Mahvi (2000). Prevailing of Wastewater Management in small Communities in Iran, Technical report, WHO. 

2- Lettinga G. et al. (1993) Anaerobic treatment of domestic sewage and wastewater. Wat. Sci. Tech., 27, 9, 67-73. 

3- M.M. Ghangrekar (2003): Performance and low cost potency of sewage treatment. Preceding of the 9 the IWA Specialized conference Design, Operation and economics of large wastewater treatment plants, pp. 379-386. 

4- Harremoes, P. (1997). Integrated water and wastewater management, waster science and technology, 35(9), 11-20. 

5- 5-Otterpohl, R. (2001). Design of highly efficient source control sanitation and practical experiences in decentralized sanitation and reuse. IWA publications, London. 

6- On-Site wastewater treatment and disposal, EPA design manuals, www.epa.gov 

7- EPA fact sheets on septic tanks, wetland, and anaerobic treatment. 

8- Hisham A. Halim (2003) “Planning and Design of Rural Sanitation Systems for GOS, Final Report”, Sohag Rural Development Program. 

9- Jordan Ministry of Water and Irrigation (1998). Wastewater Management Policy. (Amman, Ministry of Water and Irrigation) 

10- FAO (1997). Irrigation in the Near East Region in Figures. Water Report 9 (Rome, FAO) 

11- Otis R. (1996).Small Diameter Gravity Sewers: Experience in the United States. In D. Mara (Ed.) Low-Cost Sewerage (Chichester, Wiley and Sons) 

12- Mara D. (1996). Unconventional Sewerage Systems: Their Role in Low-cost Urban 

13- Sanitation. In D. Mara (Ed.) Low-Cost Sewerage (Chichester, Wiley and Sons) 

14- USEPA (1992a). Small Wastewater Systems. Report no 830/F-92/001 (Washington DC, EPA) 

15- FAO (1997). Irrigation in the Near East Region in Figures. Water Report 9 (Rome, FAO) 

16- Venhuizen D. (1997b). Paradigm Shift. Water Environment and Technology VOL. 9, NO. 8, pp.49 

17- Otterpohl R., Grottcker, M., Lange J. (1997). Sustainable water and wastewater management in urban areas. Water Science and Technology, VOL 35 NO 9, pp. 121 

18-Butler, R & MacCormick T. (1996). Opportunities for decentralized treatment, sewer mining, and effluent reuse. Desalination VOL 106 NO 1-3 pp. 273 

19- UNDP – World Bank Water and Sanitation Programme (1998). Roundtable on Innovative Experiences for Latin America in Sanitation for the Urban Poor, 17-18 July 1998 – www.wsp.org 

20- WHO-CEHA (1998) Unpublished proceedings of WHO/CEHA Regional Workshop onWastewater Management in Small Communities, June 1998 (Amman). 

21- 12-Hector A. Merino and Guevara (1991): Provision de agua en las ciudades mexicanas. Un reto permanente. Banco Nacional de Obras y Servicios Publicos (Banobars). 

22- World Bank (2002), ‘Arab republic of Egypt cost assessment of environmental degradation’, Report No. 25175-EGT. 

23- Elmitwalli, T.A.; Al-Sarawey, A.; El-Sherbiny, M.F.; Zeeman, G. and Lettinga, G. (2002) Anaerobic Biodegradability and Treatment of Egyptian Domestic Sewage. In Proceeding of 5th IWA conference in ”Small Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems” Turkey. 

24- M.Sundaravadivel and S. Vigneswaran (2001): "Wastewater Collection and Treatment Technologies for Semi-Urban Areas of India", Wastewater Science and Technology Vol 43 No 11 pp 329-336. 

25- Elmitwalli, T.A.; Zeeman, G.; Oahn, K.L.T.; Lettinga, G.: Treatment of Domestic Sewage in a Two –Step System Anaerobic Filter/Anaerobic Hybrid Reactor at Low Temperature. Water Research, Vol. 36, No. 9, 2002, pp. 2225-2232. 

26-IWA (2002) Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1. Report No. 13. IWA Publishing. 

27- USAID, http://www.usaid.gov/regions/ane/newpages/perspectives/egypt/egwater.htm 28- Zeeman, G. (1991) Mesophilic and psychrophilic digestion of liquid manure. Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 


Full Text 

 download    Click here



ليست هناك تعليقات:

إرسال تعليق