Evaluation of Drinking Water Reverse Osmosis in the City of Al-Nasiriyah Using Bioassay

Murooj Abbas Buhlool  AL-Ghizzi

Murooj Abbas Buhlool AL-Ghizzi University of Thi Qar, Iraq

Keywords: Drinking Water, Reverse Osmosis RO, Al-Nasiriyah City, Bioassay

Abstract

The quality of drinking water is a priority in most countries. Drinking water is crucial for food production and must be free from harmful substances, while also having a composition that is beneficial to health (Cybulski et al., 2021). The research problem is represented by the low quality of drinking water in Reverse Osmosis (RO) drinking water filtration stations, represented by its physical and chemical characteristics in the city of Al-Nasiriyah and its impact on the general health of the city’s residents. Given the importance of RO drinking water used within a wide segment, the current study aims to evaluate the toxicity of water with chemical pollutants and its suitability for drinking for residents of the city of Al-Nasiriyah using the bioassay method.

To obtain toxicological results for this water in the current study in the city of Nasiriyah and at the various water filtration stations, samples were taken from water distributors in six different areas in the city of Al-Nasiriyah in 2024, which are Al-Shuhada, Al-Shumukh, Industrial Housing, Al-Salihiyah, Al-Rafidain, and Al-Mutnazah ) which are brought from stations. Toxicity, both acute and cumulative, was recorded in almost all samples, but the highest was at station 4 (Al-Abada station) in the Salhiya area, where the percentage of coefficient deviation from the growth rate was (88.23%) after 24 hours and (88.33%) after 96 hours, with a stimulating effect. This may be due to the presence of high concentrations of nutrients such as phosphates and nitrates in the aforementioned station, or as a result of water pollution during its distribution. While toxicity was recorded with an inhibitory effect in samples (1,2,3), but with a percentage of deviation coefficient lower than what was recorded in station (4), while station (6,5) was the least toxic station. The current results indicate the need to pay attention to stations for filtering and treating drinking water because they do not conform to the standard specifications for drinking water due to the dependence of a large number of the population on them.

References

[1] A.K. Chatterji, Introduction to Environmental Biotechnology (2nd Revise), PrenticeHall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2007.

[2] P.J. den Besten, M. Munawar, Ecotoxicological testing of marine and freshwater
ecosystems: emerging techniques, Trends and Strategies, CRC Press, Florida, 2016.

[3] C. Kienle, R. Kase, I. Werner, Evaluation of bioassays and wastewater quality: in vitro and in vivo bioassays for the performance review in the Project “Strategy MicroPoll” (Dübendorf), (2011).

[4] G.V. Aguirre-Martínez, M.A. Owuor, C. Garrido-Pérez, M.J. Salamanca, T.A. Del Valls, M.L. Martín-Díaz, Are standard tests sensitive enough to evaluate effects of human pharmaceuticals in aquatic biota? Facing changes in research approaches when performing risk assessment of drugs, Chemosphere 120 (2015) 75–85, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.05.087.

[5] A. Ginebreda, I. Munoz, M.L. de Alda, R. Brix, J. Lopez-Doval, D. Barcelo, Environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals in rivers: relationships between Hazard indexes and aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity indexes in the Llobregat River (NE Spain), Environ. Int. 36 (2010) 153–162, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. Envint.2009.10.003.

[6] J. Margot, C. Kienle, A. Magnet, M. Weil, L. Rossi, L.F. de Alencastro, C. Abegglen, D. Thonney, N. Chevre, M. Scharer, D.A. Barry, Treatment of micropollutants in Municipal wastewater: ozone or powdered activated carbon? Sci. Total Environ. 461–462 (2013) 480–498, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.034.

[7] D. van Wijk, M. Gyimesi-van den Bos, I. Garttener-Arends, M. Geurts, J. Kamstra, P. Thomas, Bioavailability and detoxification of cationics: I. Algal toxicity of Alkyltrimethyl ammonium salts in the presence of suspended sediment and humic Acid, Chemosphere 75 (2009) 303–309, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.

[8] W.E. Miller, J.C. Greene, T. Shiroyama, E. Merwin, Use of algal assays to determine Effects of waste discharges in the Spokane River system, Biostimulation Nutr. Work, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1975(660/3–75–034).

[9] N.E. O'Connor, Impacts of sewage outfalls on rocky shores: incorporating scale, Biotic assemblage structure and variability into monitoring tools, 2013.Ecol. Indic. 29:501-509.

[10] T. S. Katko and R. P. Rajala . Priorities for fresh water use purposes in selected countries with policy implications.” IJ of Water Resources Development. (2005) 21, 2: 311-323.

[11] R 52.24.808-2014. Assessment of the toxicity of land surface waters using biotesting using chlorophyll a / E.N. Bakaeva, N.A. Ignatova, G.G. Chernikova. Enter 2014-04-23.

[12] W. E. Miller, J. C. Greene, T. Shiroyama, and E. Merwin. 1975. The use of algal assays to determineeffects of waste discharges in the Spokane River system. Proc. Biostimulation and NutrientWorkshop, USEPA, 660/3-75-034.

[13] J. C. Goldman, D.B. Porcella, E.J. Middlebrooksand D.F. Torien. 1972. Review: The effect of carbonon algal growth- Its relationship to eutrophication.Water Res. 6:637-679.46.

[14] C. Vedrine , J.C. Leclerc, C. Durrieu, C. Tran-Minh, Biosens. Bioelectron. 18, 457 (2003).

[15] C. Durrieu J. Appl. Phycol. 15, 289 (2003)

[16] C. Chouteau, S. Dzyadevych, C. Durrieu, J.M. Chovelon, Biosens. Bioelectron., 21, 273 (2005).

[17] N.E. O'Connor, Impacts of sewage outfalls on rocky shores: incorporating scale, biotic assemblage structure and variability into monitoring tools. Volume 29, June 2013, Pages 501-509.

[18] R. J. Stevenson, F. R. Hauer. Integrating Hydrogeomorphic and Index of Biotic Integrity Approaches for Environmental Assessment of Wetlands. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21(3):502. September 2002. 21(3):502.
DOI:10.2307/1468486

[19] S. Sabater, J. Armengol, E. Comas, F. Sabater, I. Urrizalqui & I. Urrutia. (2000). Algal biomass in a disturbed Atlantic river: water quality relationships and environmental implications. Science of The Total Environment 263, 185-195.

[20] B. Vriens, A. Voegelin, D. J. Hug, R. Kaegi, L.H.E. Winkel, M.A. Buser, M. Berg. Quantification of element fluxes in wastewaters: a nationwide survey in Switzerland. (2017) Environ Sci Technol 51(19):10943−10953. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b01731

[21] G. Crini, E. Lichtfouse. Advantages and disadvantages of techniques used for wastewater treatment. Environ Chem Lett . (2019) 17:145–155.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-018-0785-9.

[22] J. Cybulski, A. Witczak, K. Pokorska-Niewiada.Essential and Toxic Elements in Drinking Water: Water Treatment and Wastewater Treatment. Research Square. 10 (2021).CC BY 4.0.
DOI:10.21203/rs.3.rs-975033/v1