Page 181 - AJWEP-v22i3
P. 181

Maghnia wastewater and risk assessment

                The results revealed that the TSS concentration in the   3.6. DO
                effluent is significantly lower than that of the influent,   The  concentrations  of  DO  in  inflow  and  outflow
                indicating highly effective removal of suspended matter   wastewater are displayed in Figure 8 and Table 8. The
                during the treatment process.                       concentration of DO in the effluent is consistently higher
                  Statistical  analysis  confirms  a  highly  significant   than that of the influent, indicating an increase in DO
                reduction  (p < 6.01 ×  10 ) in  TSS concentrations   concentrations following treatment. This improvement
                                        −29
                between  the  influent  (mean:  244.33  mg/L;  95%   is primarily attributed to the aeration phase within the
                CI:  227.65  –  261.01  mg/L)  and  the  effluent  (mean:   activated sludge process.
                11.02 mg/L; 95% CI: 9.07 – 12.97 mg/L). This sharp     An independent  samples  t-test  revealed  a  highly
                                                                                                              −17
                decrease  is  accompanied  by  a  considerable  reduction   significant increase in DO levels (p = 2.65 × 10 ). The
                in variability, as reflected by the SD of 6.68 mg/L in   95% CI for the mean DO concentration in the influent
                the  effluent  compared  to  57.10  mg/L  in  the  influent.   ranged at 2.21 – 2.69 mg/L, while that of the effluent
                                                                    ranged at 4.95 – 5.85 mg/L. The non-overlapping CIs
                These results underscore the high performance of the   further  substantiate  the  statistical  significance  of  this
                treatment process in removing suspended solids.     increase.
                  The  extremely low  p-value  from the  independent   Interestingly,  the  SD  of  DO  concentrations  in  the
                samples t-test confirms the statistical significance of this   effluent (1.54 mg/L) is higher than that in the influent
                reduction, and the non-overlapping CIs further validate   (0.82 mg/L), suggesting greater variability in DO levels
                this conclusion.                                    post-treatment. This may reflect operational variations
                  The  removal  efficiency  was  consistently  high   or fluctuations in microbial activity during aeration.
                throughout the monitoring period, with an average of   In conclusion, the treatment  process demonstrates
                95.48%, a maximum  of 99.53%, and a minimum  of     a  statistically  significant  and  operationally  relevant
                88.09% (Figure  7B). All  effluent  TSS  concentrations   increase  in  DO  concentrations,  enhancing  the  quality
                were  well  below  the  regulatory  limit,  confirming   of  the  treated  effluent  for  potential  reuse,  despite  the
                compliance with the agricultural reuse standard.    observed increase in variability.
























                Figure 8. Variations in dissolved oxygen concentrations in inflow and outflow wastewater at the Lagfafe
                wastewater treatment plant

                 Table 8. Dissolved oxygen concentration in the inflow and outflow wastewater
                 Wastewater                                      Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)
                                   Average        Maximum         Minimum          Median        SD         95% CI
                 Inflow              2.45            4.58            1.45           2.12        0.82        2.2 – 2.69
                 Outflow             5.40            7.80            1.56           5.89        1.54       4.95 – 5.85
                 Note: The p-value was calculated to be 2.65×10 .
                                                   −17
                 Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; SD: standard deviation.


                Volume 22 Issue 3 (2025)                       175                           doi: 10.36922/AJWEP025120085
   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186