ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

ADDIS ABABA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF CHEMICAL AND BIOENGINEERING

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM

Thesis on Water Quality Analysis and Pollution Prevention Options of

Lake Ziway, Around Ziway City

By: Demeke Fantaw

Adviser: Dr.Ing. Zebene Kiflie

Thesis Paper December 2018

Thesis submitted to the school of Bio and Chemical Engineering in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science in
Environmental Engineering

Water Quality Analysis and Pollution Prevention Options of Lake Ziway,

Around Ziway City

Demeke Fantaw
December 2018

Approved by Board of Examiners Signature

Dr. Ing Zebene Kiflie
_________________________ _____________ ____________
Advisor Signature Date

__________________________ ______________ ____________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

__________________________ _______________ ___________

External Examiner Signature Date

__________________________ _______________ ___________

Chairperson Signature Date

Page |i
Declaration
I, hereunder declare with signature that this thesis paper is my original work and has not
been presented for any degree in any other university, and that all sources of material
used for the thesis have been duly acknowledged.

Name: Demeke Fantaw

Signature: __________________
Date_______________________

Confirmation
This thesis paper can be submitted for examination with my approval as a university
advisor.

Name: Dr. Ing. Zebene Kifle

Signature: ________________
Date: _____________________

Place and date of submission: Addis Ababa, October 2018

P a g e | ii
Acknowledgement
First of all I would like to thank the almighty GOD for endowing me the strength to do this thesis
work. I would also like to appreciate my advisor Dr. Ing Zebene Kifle for his proper and unreserved
follow up, constructive and encouraging advice at every stage of this thesis paper’s preparation. I
am also thankful to Dr. Tassisa Kaba for his keen help in the proposal writing. I am grateful for
Addis Environmental Services PLC manager Dr. Addis Alem Zeleke for allowing me to do the
laboratory works and Mrs. Bethelhem Zenebe for helping me during laboratory work. My deepest
acknowledgement also goes to all my instructors, School of Bio and Chemical Engineering –
Environmental Engineering laboratory stuff, my friends and family for their endless support. Last
but not least I would like to express my gratitude to Wolkite University for their support to pursue
my MSc study and individuals at Ziway area who helped me in giving information about Lake
Ziway and its causes of pollution before sample collection.

P a g e | iii
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Scope of the Study ........................................................................................................................... 4
1.4. Objectives......................................................................................................................................... 5
1.4.1. General objective..................................................................................................................... 5
1.4.2. Specific objectives ................................................................................................................... 5
1.5. Significance of the Study ................................................................................................................ 6
2. Literature Review ............................................................................................................................... 7
2.3. Sources of pollution for Lake Ziway ....................................................................................... 10
2.4. Benefits of Lake Ziway ............................................................................................................. 11
2.5. Impacts of surface water pollution .......................................................................................... 13
2.6. Impacts of Surface Water Pollution on Lake Ziway.............................................................. 14
2.7. Ethiopian Environmental policy, Regulation and Standards ................................................... 15
3. Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 24
4. Results and Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 31
4.1 Results .............................................................................................................................................. 31
4.2 Discussion......................................................................................................................................... 35
5. Preventive and treatment Options................................................................................................... 54
6. Conclusion and Recommendation ................................................................................................... 60
6.1 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 60
6.2 Recommendation............................................................................................................................. 61
7. References .......................................................................................................................................... 63
8. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 67

P a g e | iv
List of Tables

Table 1. Fish production from Lake Ziway

Table 2. Ethiopian Standard for discharges of pesticides to water

Table 3. International standards of drinking water quality

Table 4. Physicochemical standards for supporting fresh water ecosystems

Table 5. Spatial and Temporal results of water quality parameters

Table 6. Spatial and Temporal results of sediment quality parameters

Table 7. Descriptive statistics for water quality parameters

Table 8. Descriptive statistics for sludge/sediment quality parameters

Table 9. Oneway ANOVA of water quality variables by station at constant time

Table 10. Oneway ANOVA of water quality variables by time ignoring spatial variation

Table 11. One way ANOVA of sediment/sludge quality variables by time ignoring spatial variation

Table 12. One way ANOVA of sediment/sludge quality variables by station at constant time

Table 13. Correlation values and their strength

Table 14. Correlation matrix between water quality variables

Table 15. Correlation matrix between sediment/sludge quality variables

Page |v
List of Figures

Figure 1. Total Fish Production from 1990 – 2010

Figure 2. Sampling sites in and around Lake Ziway

Figure 3a-c. Collected samples in laboratory, mixing palintest photometric reagents with water
samples and Palintest photometer

Figure 4. The normally unfitted Q-Q plots of water quality parameters

Figure 5. The normally unfitted Q-Q plots of sludge quality parameters

Figure 6. Dendrogram diagram showing clusters of surface water samples

Figure 7. Dendrogram diagram showing clustering of sediment/sludge quality parameters

Figure 8. The location of constructed buffer zone by Sher Ethiopia, Floriculture Farm

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Tests of normality tables

Appendix B. The normal and detrended normal Q-Q plots

Appendix C. Questionnaire prepared for convenient interviews

Appendix D. Palintest photometric procedures

Appendix E. Chain of Custody (form) and units of measurement

P a g e | vi
List of Acronyms

AOX – Alcohol Oxygenase

APHA – American Public Health Association
ASTM – American Scientific Testing of Materials
BOD – Biological Oxygen Demand
COD – Chemical Oxygen Demand
DO – Dissolved Oxygen
FDRE – Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
ISO – International standard organization
LC – MS – Liquid Chromatography – Mass Spectrometer
PCBs – Polychlorinated biphenyls
TSS - Total suspended solid
USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency
WHO – world Health Organization

P a g e | vii
Abstract
Water is a key factor for ecological balance and to support biodiversity. But it is getting polluted
as a result of human interventions and natural phenomenon. Lake Ziway is one of the surface
waters getting devastating effects from floriculture farms, agricultural practices, and irrigation
schemes and usage of chemicals. The objective of this thesis is to analyze the pollution status of
the Lake. Water samples were collected and laboratory analysis was done for color, odor, pH, EC,
TDS, turbidity, ammonia, total hardness, sodium, potassium, total iron, manganese, calcium,
magnesium, alkalinity, bicarbonate, chloride, Sulphate, nitrate, nitrite, fluoride, phosphate, DO,
BOD and COD at seven sites from February to March in 21 runs. Sediment samples were also
taken from four sampling sites and analysis was done for pH, EC, CEC, total iron, manganese,
total nitrogen and total phosphorus in the same period with water quality analysis in12 runs. The
results were compared with WHO’s drinking water quality guide lines and also the datasets were
evaluated statistically. The mean values of turbidity, manganese, BOD and COD levels exceed the
WHO standards. All water quality parameters have a significance values of P≤ 0.05 for spatial
variation except BOD and COD that have P- values of 0.196 and 0.143 respectively. Whereas the
significant temporal variations are only observed for potassium (0.03), BOD (0.001) and COD
(0.002). The dendrogram diagram shows two significant clusters for both water and sediment
samples. Generally, the results revealed that the major causes of water quality deterioration are
inflow of effluents from the floriculture industries, domestics, agricultural practices, saline seeps
and other uncontrolled human interventions as observed in sites one, two, three, four and five. The
other cause results from people’s activities in boats and islands. Run off, silt, waste effluents and
etc. also are taken to be the causes of the lakes pollutions as shown in cluster one. Constructed
buffer zones, waste water treatment and recycling, integrated pest management practices, proper
disposal of liquid and solid wastes and other BMPs are recommended prevention and treatment
options to safeguard water quality.

Keywords: Lake Ziway, Water quality, pollution, floriculture farms, statistical analysis, prevention
and treatment options

P a g e | viii
 1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Water is a key factor for ecological balance and the sustainability of biodiversity. The Earth’s
ecosystems variation, plants, animals, crustaceans, algae bacteria etc. along with their physical and
chemical environments depends on the quality and quantity of water. Water comprises of ground
water and surface water. Surface waters includes streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands.
Surface waters and their associated ecosystems provide habitat to many plant and animal species.
The fishes and aquatic life in lakes for example use plants and insects as habitat or food. The food
chain in surface water is therefore interlinked and complicated, the life an aquatic life depends on
others to sustain. Because surface waters are on the land surface, they are also easily developed
for use and hence exposed to stresses that result from such human activities.

Lake Ziway is found 160 kms south of Addis Ababa in the Ethiopian Central Rift Valley. The area
of the lake was 500 km2 in the year 1967/68 but recently, it fluctuates between 435 to 485 km2
with a mean depth of 2.5 meters.

Lake Ziway is one of the three largely interlinked central rift valley lakes of Ethiopia. It has inlets
and outlets. The main water inlet into Lake Ziway is via Meki and Keti rivers and the outlet is via
Bulbula River. The water flow destines at Lake Abyata.

The average depth of Lake Ziway is 2.5 meters with 0.8 m annual surface level reduction
(Welcomme, 1972). On the other hand there are occasions to fluctuate up to 2 meters in the dry
seasons (Ayenew, 2004).

The water volume of Lake Ziway fluctuates according to rainfall around the neighboring highlands
and obviously the surface level of the lake becomes high at rainy seasons. Upstream irrigation
practices depending on the tributary rivers to the lake also impacts the amount of water of the lake
to decrease.

The aquatic life or biodiversity in Lake Ziway includes different species of fish, macro
invertebrates, flora and fauna, and many more. The composition and richness of the lake’s
biodiversity is decreasing from time to time. The candidate reasons for this decrement might be
the water pollution due to the chemicals used for different purposes around the lake.

Page |1
There are different sources of pollution for the lake including floriculture industries, small and
large agricultural practices, and chemical industries around the lake. The pollutants (pesticides,
growth regulators, fertilizers etc.) make their ways to the lake due to surface runoff, atmospheric
deposition or leaching. In support to this claim, some researchers has found a range of pesticides
including some high risk pesticides in the lake (Jansen & Harmsen, 2010). The detections of
pesticides in the vicinity of the lake is expected to be the results of the growing trends of small and
large scale agricultural practices (Zhou et al., 2017). There are also natural pollutions including
dust deposition, evapotranspiration, natural leaching etc.

The capacity of pesticides to harm aquatic life is largely a function of their toxicity, exposure time,
dosage rate and persistence in the environment (Helfrich & Specialist, 2009.). The same is true for
other pollutants.

Pollutants can reduce the availability of plants and insects that serve as habitat and food for fishes
and other aquatic animals. Insect-eating fishes can lose a portion of their food supply when
pesticides are applied. A sudden inadequate supply of insects can force fish to range farther in
search of food where they may risk greater exposure to predation (Helfrich & Specialist, 2009).
Spraying herbicides can also reduce reproductive success of fish and aquatic animals (Helfrich &
Specialist, 2009).

So, such problems should be monitored or mitigated. But the main problem for taking monitoring
or mitigation measures against aquatic pollutions is lack of reliable information.

Though many researches have been practiced in this area the problem is still not solved. The aim
of this thesis is to compare results with previous works and determination of other pollutants in
Lake Ziway. It also assesses some pollution prevention methods for surface waters particularly for
Lakes.

Page |2
 1.2. Statement of the Problem
Lake Ziway is one of the surface waters getting the devastating effects from natural phenomena
and intense human activities in the area. The irrigation schemes from the lake tributaries and the
usage of toxic chemicals including fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides
by large commercial floriculture companies are assumed as the major human activities threatening
the lake. Small holder agriculturalists have also an impact as far as they use agrochemicals for
increasing productivity. The pollutants coupled with natural phenomena like regular and irregular
rainfall, wind and sun aggravates the influence in the aquatic life.

Rainfall can cause runoff of nutrients (fertilizers) via the tributary rivers and lake size increment
that brings flooding offshores. On the other hand, irregular rainfall may increase run off of water
and increase the turbidity of the lake water, hampering photosynthetic activity, primary production
and the breathing of fish.

Apart from rainfall, the floriculture farms’ effluents/pollutants most of which without treatment
flows via its water drainage to the lake disturbing the water quality of the lake, making it harsh
environment to the aquatic life. The nutrients encourages eutrophication and the pesticides distract
the food chain.

Relevant data about the lake quality are very important to take appropriate prevention, monitoring
and mitigation measures. For that, several studies of analysis have been done in and around Lake
Ziway though no treatment methods are studied so far. A research on the Lake has correlated the
physicochemical parameters to the abundance and diversity of macro invertebrates in the lake
(Tamiru, 2007). But pollutants specifically nutrients and pesticides that critically impacted the
composition and richness of aquatic life were not identified by this study. The pollution sources
and pathways also needs more study. Besides, the changes of the physicochemical and biological
parameters need to be frequently studied so that the monitoring strategies will be understood.

Another research output from Lake Ziway indicated that the number of pesticides detections was
in a decreasing trend compared to previous researches done (Jansen & Harmsen, 2010). In
contrary, the presence of many registered pesticides of various function has been reported from
the lake and its tributaries and outlet. But there is no information whether unregistered and banned
chemicals or pesticides are present. Apart from the function of most of the pesticides as

Page |3
insecticides, herbicides, growth regulators, metabolites and others in the farming process;
pesticides have a negative effect on the lake and its aquatic lives. The fertilizers emanated from
the farm areas create eutrophication in the lake. This calls intensive study to be made and measures
to be taken.

Surface water pollution studies should not be made only by using the water or soil samples.
Sediment/sludge samples are also very important for the identification and quantification of the
polluting agents of surface waters particularly of lakes. This is important because some persistent
toxic chemicals, organochlorides and metals are found in considerable amount in sediments than
in waters. This thesis proposal is therefore one part of those endeavors.

Measures taken so far for restoring Lake Ziway and safeguarding the environment and human
wellbeing in general are not satisfactory. So, additional endeavors are urgently needed to identify
the root causes of the pollution driving forces and resulting environmental pressures; to restore the
natural state of the environment; to minimize the environmental deterioration of the lake by
increasing the effectiveness of the public or societal responses against the deterioration of the lake
quality.

This study will find out the pollutants of the lake and their sources then the best available
prevention and treatment options will be studied and forwarded based on the analysis results.

1.3. Scope of the Study

The scope of this study is limited for the completion of master’s degree in Environmental
Engineering. The research only focuses in Lake Ziway and it will be completed in a year of which
three months are for sampling and analysis of the water composition. The study will assess the
current condition of the lake and appropriate prevention strategies and treatment technologies at
the pollution sources will be studied and recommended.

Page |4
 1.4. Objectives
1.4.1. General objective
The general objective of this thesis is to analyze the water quality of Lake Ziway around Ziway
town and suggest appropriate prevention and treatment options.

1.4.2. Specific objectives

- Determination of physicochemical/nutrient composition and Biological parameters
- Evaluating the physicochemical & nutrient values of the samples against WHO standards
for the aquatic community and drinking water
- Employing statistical tools like ANOVA, descriptive analysis, correlation and cluster
analysis for the analysis of surface water quality data.
- Identifying pollution sources and pathways
- Studying prevention strategies and treatment options
- Recommending appropriate prevention methods and treatment options at the pollution
sources based on the results obtained from the study.

Page |5
 1.5. Significance of the Study
This thesis work is important to get data on the pollution of Lake Ziway and to determine and
quantify pollutants that are not determined previously. The quantification of the pollutants of the
lake will be used to forward monitoring and mitigation strategies up on extended studies. Even the
challenges to pesticide registration, formulation, distribution and use in Ethiopian small holder and
commercial farming might get an attention. Pesticides used in vegetable and floriculture farms are
of priority concern for such challenges.

Added to that, other concerned audiences including the community may get an awareness about
the devastating effects of surface water pollutions from the research output. By that, emphasis
towards human health and ecological concerns from related causes will be given.

This study will give a clue on how to fill some information gap related to the pollutants and their
effect which are uncovered by previous researchers in and around the lake. It is also assumed as
important for undertaking similar researches in other surface waters in other similar sites like rivers
and streams and even other lakes.

The final result of this study is used to recommend the appropriate prevention and treatment
options for surface water pollutants at source for different water bodies in Ethiopia.

Page |6
 2. Literature Review
2.1. Surface Water, Its pollutants and their Sources
Surface water according to S. Manahan in Fundamentals of Environmental Chemistry is the water
found in Lakes, streams, and reservoirs whereas groundwater is found in aquifers underground
(Manahan, 2001). The water that humans use is primarily fresh surface water and groundwater.
The use of surface water is various ranging from agricultural activities to ecosystem balance and drinking.
Surface water is interlinked with the ground water, its affection also affects the ground water and vice versa.
Moreover, the ecosystem balance is greatly supported by surface water.

The supplies for surface water are not reliable since quantities often fluctuate widely during the
course of a year or even a week, and water quality is affected by pollution sources (Weiner &
Matthews, 2003). For example, if a river has an average flow of 10 cubic feet per second (cfs), this
does not mean that a community using the water supply can depend on having 10 cfs available at
all times (Weiner & Matthews, 2003).

Surface water ecosystems (Lakes, Rivers ...) are sensitive to the chemicals developed for the ease
of life that changes water quality and quantity. The pollutants may arise from many human
activities or natural phenomena within their watershed. The main pollutants include pesticides,
sediments/ silts, nutrients and many more. These all affects the aquatic life in the surface water
directly or secondarily. For example, less than 0.1% of applied pesticides actually reaches the
targeted pests, while the rest (99.9%) has the potential to move into other environmental
compartments, including ground and surface waters (David Pimentel and Lois Levitan, 1985).
Surface waters can also get polluted from excessive use of fertilizers, growth regulators, and etc.
The guideline for Environmental Assessment of fertilizers in Ethiopia has clearly put that the
nutrients contained in fertilizers promotes algal and aquatic plants in rivers, lakes and the sea just
like they do for crops. The nutrients in excess of the natural ecosystems levels disturbs plant and
animal communities in surface waters by altering the composition and condition of the water in it.
Natural and synthetic chemicals are essential for modern life though they may enter ground and
surface waters through runoff, industrial and municipal waste discharges, atmospheric deposition,
or through releases from septic systems (Anderson et al, 2012).

Page |7
 2.2. Types of Surface water pollution

According to surface water pollution given by K.V Ellis (1989), i.e. surface water pollution is an
alteration in composition and condition of its waste, either directly or indirectly as a result of the
activities of man, which initiates modification of ecological systems, hazards to human health and
renders less acceptable to downstream users’(Ellis et al, 1989). Taking this definition right, surface
water pollution can then be divided into nine possible sections:

(1) Thermal pollution

(2) The addition of pathogenic organisms, creating a public health hazard

(3) Oil pollution

(4) The addition of inert, insoluble mineral material

(5) The addition of readily biodegradable organic material that will result in the depletion
or complete removal of dissolved oxygen

(6) Toxicity due to the presence of (a) synthetic organic compounds and (b) salts of heavy
metals

(7) Enhanced eutrophication

(8) Acid depositions or discharges

(9) Radioactivity

Different classification of pollutants may exist by various scholars based on their own assumptions
in their studies. Mason (1981) suggested that there are five different types of major toxic pollutants
that may commonly present in surface waters:

(1) The heavy metals (cadmium, zinc, lead, mercury, copper, etc.)

(2) Synthetic organic compounds (principally pesticides but also including polychlorinated
biphenyls, solvents, detergents, organometallic compounds and phenols)

(3) Toxic gases, e.g. chlorine, ammonia

(4) Toxic anions (cyanides, sulphides, fluorides, etc.)

Page |8
 (5) Acids and alkalis

From all of these Mason has put that the heavy metal compounds and the synthetic organic
compounds-especially the pesticides are of primary concern (Mason, 1981).

The pollutants may reach the surface water arising from either point sources or nonpoint sources.

Point sources: Point sources include those sources having a direct way to pollute the surface
waters. These sources contribute pollutants at defined sites like the outflow from pipes, ditches,
tunnels etc. Having defined origin, pollutants from point sources are often easy to measure and
monitor. Panagopoulos and his colleagues has found that point sources contribute of 17% of total
Nitrogen for the pollution of surface waters (Panagopoulos et al, 2011).

Nonpoint sources: Nonpoint sources of surface water pollution (aka diffuse sources) are various
undefined ways to distribute the pollution agents in to the surface water. Different fractions of
chemicals diffuse in different ways and hence it is difficult to measure or quantify the pollutant
load unlike in point sources. Pesticide or fertilizer runoff from various agricultural fields in a lake’s
catchment would be examples of nonpoint sources.

Diffuse sources from agricultural land and non-agricultural land are the different sources of water
enrichment with nutrients in surface water catchments (Panagopoulos et al., 2011). Non-point or
diffuse sources of pollution are often more challenging for managers and scientists.

A water quality protection guideline by the Government of Western Australia, department of water
has pointed out that high levels of nutrients, pesticides and other chemicals are contained in liquid
waste and leachate from floriculture activities (Department of Water, 2006). The sources for these
chemicals/contaminants according this guideline are the following:
i. process area wash down and contaminated storm water runoff from bulk storage areas;
ii. Disinfectants such as mild bleach solution used on knives, shears and harvesting
equipment;
iii. Glycerin solution or a silica gel that may be used as drying agents for preserved flowers;
iv. Dyes used to color dried flowers; and
v. Floral preservative used to enhance the flower’s vase life while in storage.
The guideline also stated that carbohydrates in the form of sucrose that are used for flower
preservative contain bactericides, fungicides and wetting agents. The bactericides, fungicides and

Page |9
wetting agents prevent the development of organisms in the vase water and improve water uptake
(Department of Water, 2006). According to the guideline, unless the pollutants from the
aforementioned sources are recycled and managed well, it is inevitable to pollute and distract the
ecosystem.

2.3. Sources of pollution for Lake Ziway

The primary sources of pollution for Lake Ziway are Flower industries. Most of the recent
established huge flower production industries are located around Addis Ababa, mainly Lake Ziway
and upper awash valley (Gudeta, 2012). Flower production process around Lake Ziway is known
to have greatest impact for water quality of the Lake. On top of those industries, Ziway, Meki and
other small nearby towns and villages are found around Lake Ziway.

The agricultural activities by small holder horticulture farmers are also other sources pollution
besides to the large-scale flower growing companies located around the Lake. Jansen and Harmsen
(2011) has reported that small scale farmers and large scale agricultural companies in the area use
pesticides, chemical fertilizers, plant growth hormones and flower preservatives, which may affect
the water quality of the lake and the surrounding surface waters through the release of some trace
elements and residues from the agricultural fields into the surface waters (Jansen & Harmsen,
2010).

Local and Commercial agricultural practices around Lake Ziway use fertilizers for increasing
production. Floriculture industries near to the Lake have an increased demand of fertilizers due to
the year-round production of flowers (Jansen & Harmsen, 2010). But the crops do not absorb all
the applied fertilizers, and much of the excess fertilizer runs off into the Rift Valley Lake water
systems where Lake Ziway is located (FDRE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AUTHORITY, 2004). The residue of these fertilizers can cause water pollution, eutrophication of
fresh waters, and increased nitrate concentrations in ground and surface waters (FDRE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY, 2004).

Besides to using of fertilizers, floriculture industries around the Lake also extensively use
pesticides against weed attacks, fungal diseases or pests to boost productivity and quality.
However, much of the pesticides applied leach into the nearby water bodies (Getu, 2009). A
research done by Wagenigen University near to lake Ziway has found 30 pesticides with
concentrations of 0.1 µg/l or higher out of which five pesticides are categorized as having high

P a g e | 10
risk (Jansen & Harmsen, 2010). Most of these pesticides require prior consent to enter the Country
(Ethiopia) and many of which including DDT, atrazine, Aldrin, 2,4,5-T, etc. are black-listed in the
European community (Keith, 1991).

Other pollution sources for Lake Ziway apart from agricultural activities might include natural
phenomena like water runoff, climate change, land scape, etc.

2.4. Benefits of Lake Ziway

One of the advantages of Lake Ziway is for fishing purpose. The community members in and
around lake Ziway utilizes fishes from the Lake. The fishermen got a daily house hold income by
catching fishes from the lake and selling to retailers and local merchants. Small scale irrigation
users also catch fish in their part-time for additional income.

Table 1. Fish production from Lake Ziway

Minimum Maximum
Amount of Fish produced per year per Kg 504 16,800
(By fishermen)
Amount of Fish produced per year per Kg NA 2,520
(By Small scale Irrigation users as part time )
Total 504 19,320
Source: (Gezahegne Seyoum G., 2016)

The maximum and minimum productions might be due to factors that affect fish production such
as the number of gill nets, water quality, Lake water level, length of hours spent for fishing and
the condition fluctuations.

From the overall fish produced in Ethiopia, around 40 % is produced in the rift valley lakes in
which Lake Ziway produces the highest portion (Abera L1*, 2018; Tesfaye, 1998).

P a g e | 11
Source: (Hirpo, 2017)

Figure 1. Total fish production from 1990 to 2010

The other application of Lake Ziway is for irrigation. The floriculture industries including the
biggest floriculture industry like Sher Ethiopia and other small scale farms in the area utilizes
water from the Lake for irrigation.

So far, Ziway town was getting its drinking water supply from the lake. However, recently the
town has brought water for drinking from a far area called tuffa because the water from Lake
Ziway was deteriorated.

As the central rift valley lies between the two tourism zones i.e. Addis Ababa and the far south
pastoralist communities, it is the route of the south far tourist destinations from Addis Ababa. A
lot of national and international tourists uses Lake Ziway as recreation and knowledge center a
long their way to the south. As a result, community members in the ice lands of the lake and the
town drives their daily income from such activity. There are standard hotels and resorts around
the lake.

Lake Ziway also serves as the habitat or hub of biodiversity. It is hub of various aquatic lives
among which are the different species of bird, hippopotamus, wetland microorganisms, fish and
many more. Bird species of 233 with 52 families were recorded along the shores, riverine
woodland and wet grassland habitats of the Lake (Bekelle et al, 2014). Among these 54 were
migrants, 8 were threatened and 3 were endemic bird species. The highest bird species diversity
were recorded along transect number 4 (western habitat) side and 17 of eastern habitat

P a g e | 12
 2.5. Impacts of surface water pollution
The impacts of pollutants on surface waters comprises of deterioration of water quality,
endangering of aquatic life, contamination of soil and air, and affecting public health and social
environments.

The effects of pollutants on water quality is dependent on both the characteristics of the pollutants
and the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the water body itself (Vandas &
Winter, 2002). The leakage of chemicals used in small and large scale agriculture in to water bodies
aggravates physical and chemical changes. These changes may impair water quality and affect
water use by the aquatic life and humans. For example, pesticide runoff has ecological impacts by
contaminating water bodies due to bio concentration and bio magnification mechanisms.

The concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in excess may lead to occurrence and increment of
algal blooms, oxygen depletion, odor and taste problems, fish death and loss of biodiversity in the
water bodies

Fertilizers washed from fields into surface waters and stimulates algae growth (eutrophication),
which blocks sunlight needed by aquatic vegetation putting their survival at stake that eventually
disrupts the food chain and leads to the loss of economically important aquatic life.

Pesticides also have diverse effects since greater than 99.9% of the applied pesticides misses the
target pests (Pimentel, 1985). Non-target organisms in the water and other compartments of the
environment are therefore affected. There are about ten million non-target organisms including
thousands of domestic animals that can be poisoned each year throughout the world (Hansen et al,
2003).

Trace metals can be transformed in to more toxic organometallic complexes in the aquatic
environment due to physical and chemical processes in different pathways. The pathways of metals
in aquatic ecosystems include sedimentation process; transport; metal adsorption by suspended
matter and precipitation; surface water –deposited mud reactions; uptake of metals by organisms;
and accumulation in the food chain (Eysink, 1981). The aquatic life are then in danger of the
organometallic complexes that are formed as the result of these pathways.

P a g e | 13
Impacts on soil arises from the continued use of chemical fertilizers and affects nitrogen fixing
bacteria and other microorganisms in the healthy soil. Moreover, chemical fertilizers affects the
alkalinity of the soil.

Many pesticides can evaporate from the soil and foliage, move away from the area of application,
and contaminate the environment. A conservative estimate of the total damage to the environment
and public health caused by pesticides is about $9 billion each year (Hansen et al, 2003). It is
imaginable to show how much of this impact is contributed by the floriculture sector, the sector
that uses more fertilizer and pesticides than conventional farming.

Polluted surface water is one of the main causes of water borne diseases, non-communicable
diseases like those of associated to long term exposure to toxic chemicals (Sasikala &
Muthuraman, 2015). Cancer and physical defects among new births are the other results of polluted
surface water.

Some pesticides, depending on their characteristics and concentrations may cause health effects
like cancer, reproductive or nervous-system disorders, and acute toxicity. These effects are
particularly prevalent in developing countries where 25% of the world pesticide production is
under use and 99% of death due to pesticide occurs (WHO, 2008).

The use of chemical fertilizers also has health problems. It causes many diseases like
Methemoglobinemia and cancer. Methemoglobinemia is a disease that occurs due to the taking up
of nitrate-rich water that once was induces in to the ground water. Excess nitrates interfere with
the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, and have also been suspected to cause birth defects
(Winchester & Huskins, 2009).

Nitrates are also suspected to cause cancer. Cattle are also exposed to many diseases when they
graze on fields with high content of chemical fertilizers.

2.6. Impacts of Surface Water Pollution on Lake Ziway

Surface water pollution impacts on Lake Ziway can be shown by the reduction of water level,
water quality and quantity, the species composition and richness and etc.

According to Hengidisijk et al., the average level of Lake Ziway has decreased by approximately
0.5 meters since 2002. At the same time the discharge by the Bulbula River has decreased from
more than 200 million m3 per year in average years to less than 50 million m3 in 2003 and 2004

P a g e | 14
(Jansen et al, 2007.). The decrease of water in Bulbula River where the lake discharges water might
imply that the water levels in Lake Ziway are decreasing and hence less water is being discharged
in to Bulbula River. The same reason works for the decrement of water in Lake Abayata. A
significant decline of water level and shrinkage of Lake Ziway’s water surface area was also shown
by a study done by Lijalem e‘tal (2007). They predicted that the lake level might decrease by 62
centi meters and water surface area might decrease by 25 square kilometers in 2051-2075
(Abraham Lijalem & Dilnesaw, 2007).

A serious threat is that further decrease of water level may turn Lake Ziway into terminal lake.
This will cause that Lake Ziway eventually becomes saline. Given the relatively shallow depth
critical salinity levels could already be reached within 5-10 years (Jansen et al, 2007).

Teklu et al. (2016) reported an average pH of 8.5, 0.64 mg/L of ammonium ion, 26 mg/L of
nitrates, less than 0.01 mg/L of phosphorus and 257 mg/L of bicarbonates (Berhan M. Teklu et al,
2016). The total dissolved solids range between 200 and 400mg/l (Jansen et al, 1999; Kebede,
Mariam, & Ahlgren, 1994). The different water composition can be explained by the geology of
the area. The main source for sodium is the dissolution of sodium containing rock minerals. As
there is relatively much interaction between water in the (shallow) lake and the rocks, the sodium
concentration rises in the lake (Gashaw, 1999). These all changes are the reasons to impair the
living components and brings other results associated consequences in and around the lake. So,
it disturbs the food chain and the ecosystem as a whole.

2.7. Ethiopian Environmental policy, Regulation and Standards

Although individual and communal efforts are very important to prevent pollution of lakes, rivers
and ponds, a common policy, regulation in the form of legislation is more effective for
implementing the activities. Because there will be a legal power for controlling the
implementations and regulating the failure for protecting the water resources. The Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, ministry of water resources and the former Environmental
Protection Agency detail on how to utilize and protect water resources. The ministry in its water
policy document entails the responsibility of industrial, water supply, livestock, agriculture sectors
and individual users (FDRE Minstry of Water Resources, 2011).

P a g e | 15
The FDRE Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to live in a clean and healthy
environment, the right to livelihood, and the right to sustainable development. For example, article
44 (1) declares that ‘all persons have the right to a clean and healthy environment’. The right to
livelihood is also guaranteed to every person with article 44 (2). Ethiopia, by virtue of article 43
(3) and/or concluded, established or conducted international agreements relations, should protect
or ensure the right to sustainable development.

Article 92 states government shall endeavor to ensure that all Ethiopians live in a clean and healthy
environment. It also imposes a corresponding constitutional ‘duty’ on the Federal and the Regional
Governments, along with citizens, ‘to protect the environment’.

The Constitutional framework for the protection of the environment is put in various legal
institutes like the Environmental Protection Organs Establishment Proclamation No. 295/2002, the
Public Health Proclamation No. 200/2000, the Environmental Pollution Control Proclamation No.
300/2002, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Proclamation No. 299/2002, the
Development Conservation and Utilization of Wildlife Proclamation No. 541/2007, and the Forest
Development, Conservation and Utilization Proclamation No. 542/2007.

According to the EIA Proclamation definition environmental impact’ as any change to the
environment or its components that may affect human health or safety, flora, fauna, soil, air, water
or climate. So, such impact shall be assessed on the basis of the size, location, nature or cumulative
effect in comparison with other concurrent impacts. EIA is a legal requirement devised to
implement the rights granted by the Constitution and protects against the violation of these by any
person or development project. EIA puts a provision that it is not possible to render any
development activity without getting an authorization to do so from Environmental protection
Agency or other authorized bodies like the regional environmental authority. It also defines a sets
of environmental crimes. Therefore, the Ethiopian floriculture industries as one of the devilment
activities are in charge of implementing the Ethiopian EIA ahead, during and after implementation
of their projects.

The Ethiopian Environmental Protection Authority Establishment Proclamation No. 9/1995

established the Environmental Protection Authority to prepare environmental protection policies
and laws. Its objectives were enhancing good environmental governance through removing the
constraints faced by public agents, individuals, civil society and the private sector to know, explore

P a g e | 16
and utilize fully their own potentials to enlarge their choices for understanding their respective
functions in an environmentally sound manner. It does this by mandating power to federal regional
levels. The Environmental Organs Establishment Proclamation No. 295/2002 was later re-
established as a federal EPA as an autonomous organization vested with expanded mandates. The
295/2002 environmental proclamation allows to establish regional environmental agencies or
designate an existing agency instead for the same environmental management and protection
function. The decentralization also goes to every sector or ministerial office by letting them to
establish their own environmental units for the function of environmental management. The
Authority has specified preconditions for importation, formulations, usage and management of
fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals. Issues related to registrations and post registrations are
also of essential issues. The FDRE constitution proclaims the registration and control of pesticides
in accordance with Article 55 sub article (1) under proclamation number 674.2010.

FDRE government, under the ministry of water resources has established policies including
aquatic resources policies as part of water resources management policy. Added to that, the former
Ethiopian EPA (now Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Climate change) has set limit values
for discharges of pesticides to water are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Ethiopian Standard for discharges of pesticides to water

S.N Parameter Ethiopian EPA standard

1 pH 6–9
2 temperature (oC) 40
3 Total phosphorus as P (mg/l) 5
4 Total nitrogen as N (mg/l) 30
5 Suspended solids (mg/l) 30
6 Oils (mg/l) 15
7 Fats (mg/l) 15
8 Greases (mg/l) 15
9 AOX (mg/l) 2
10 Organochlorines (mg/l) 0.1
12 Pyrethroids (mg/l) 0.1

P a g e | 17
Table 2. Continued
13 Phenoxy compounds (mg/l) 0.1
14 Active ingredients (mg/l) 0.05
15 Arsenic (mg/l) 0.2
16 Chromium as total Chromium (mg/l) 0.1
17 Chromium as Chromium four (mg/l) 0.1
18 Phenols (mg/l) 1
19 Copper (mg/l) 2
20 Mercury (mg/l) 0.01
21 COD (mg/l O2) 250
Source: Ethiopian E.P. A, 2012

2.8. International Environmental Policies, Regulations and Standards

According to world health organization (WHO), water whether used for the purposes of drinking,
food production, irrigation, domestic utility has an important impact on health. Therefore,
standards to maintain the quality of surface water is very important. For this, world health
organization and other national and international organizations have put standards of water quality
to be used as reference.

Table 3. International standards of drinking water quality

S/N Parameter WHO Standards US EPA Standards

1 PH 6-8.5 6-8.5
2 Electrical 1000 µs/cm 2500 µs/cm
Conductivity
3 Colour 15 TCU --
4 Turbidity 5 NTU 0.5 – 1 NTU
5 TDS 500 mg/l 500 mg/l
6 Nitrate 10 mg/l 50 mg/l
7 Nitrite 1 mg/l 3 mg/l
8 Ammonia 1.5, 35 mg/l --
9 Phosphate 0.3 mg/l 1.5 mg/l
10 Calcium 75 mg/l --

P a g e | 18
Table 3. Continued
11 Fluoride 1.5 mg/l 2 – 4 mg/l
12 Chloride 250 mg/l 250 mg/l
13 Arsenic 0.7 mg/l 10microg/l
14 Sulphate 400 mg/l 250mg/l
15 Iron 1 mg/l 300 micro g/l
16 Total hardness 300 mg/l CaCO3 300 mg/l CaCO3
17 Sodium 200 mg/l --
18 Potassium -- --
19 Manganese 0.1 mg/l 50 micro g/l
20 Magnesium 150 mg/l --
21 Alkalinity 200 mg/l CaCO3 --
22 Bicarbonate 150 -350 mg/l --
23 BOD 2 mg/l --
24 DO 4- 6 mg/l --
25 COD 10 mg/l --
Sources: WHO (2009); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994a)

In addition to the above standards of water quality, there are also other physicochemical standards
like physicochemical standards for supporting fresh water ecosystems. See Table 4.

Table 4. Physicochemical standards for supporting fresh water ecosystems

S/N Parameter High Integrity (Category 1) Extreme Impairment (Category

4)
1 Dissolved Oxygen 80 – 120 < 30 or > 150
Saturation (%)
2 BOD5 (mg/l) - >10
3 Total Phosphorus (μg/l)
- lakes and reservoirs < 10 >125
- rivers and streams < 20 >190
6 Total Nitrogen (μg/l)
- lakes and reservoirs < 500 >2500
- rivers and streams < 700 > 2500

P a g e | 19
Table 4. Continued
9 Chlorophyll a (μg/l)
- lakes and reservoirs < 3.0 > 165
- rivers and streams < 5.0 > 125
12 pH 6.5 – 9.0 <5
14 Temperature No deviation from Large deviations from background
background value or value or the thermal tolerance range
reference systems or optimum for characteristic species
temperature ranges of
relevant species
16 Un-ionized Ammonia (μg 15 100
NH3/l)
17 Aluminium (μg/l)
- pH <6.5 5 ---
- pH >6.5 10 100
18 Arsenic (μg/l) 10 150
19 Cadmium (μg/l) 0.08 1
20 Chromium (μg/l)
- III 10 75
- VI 1 40
21 Copper (μg/l) 1 2.5
22 Lead (μg/l) 2 5
23 Mercury (μg/l) 0.05 1
24 Nickel (μg/l) 20 50
25 Zink (μg/l) 8 50
Source: International Water Quality Guidelines for Ecosystems (IWQGES); Draft for regional
consultations 15 march 2016.

2.9. Practices to prevent and restore surface water pollution

Pollution prevention of surface waters is any practice that reduces, eliminates or prevents
pollutions at the sources that otherwise could affect the quality of surface waters.
Prevention of Eutrophication
Phosphorus and nitrogen are the main factors for the formation of eutrophication in waters.
Phosphorus is taken as the limiting nutrient for the primary production but nitrogen also plays a
pivotal role for the net production, especially in lakes having low Nitrogen: Phosphorus loading

P a g e | 20
ratios (Camargo & Alonso, 2006). There are also other nutrients that have an aggravating impact
for the growth of algae and diatoms in surface waters but with a lesser extent than nitrogen and
phosphorus nutrients.

Prevention of Eutrophication or Algal/bacterial Blooms

All responsible stake holders and community members need to have a motivation to reduce the
development of algal, microbial or bacterial blooms in lakes. Reducing or eliminating the use of
fertilizers and If using fertilizers is inevitable, guiding the community for using very low or even
no-phosphorous fertilizer products is very important (Habs, 2009.).

After usage of fertilizers or nutrients, formation of algal blooms and/or bacterial blooms in lakes
can be prevented to the best level by controlling the amount of nutrients that feeds into the water
body from the sources. Most preventive measures focus on an input of external nutrient from point
sources like discharges from sewage treatment plants and non-point sources like diffuse runoff
from agricultural fields, roads and storm water. On the other way. the sediment layer of water
bodies can also be an internal sources of nutrients and this contributes to algal bloom formation as
a result of internal loading (US EPA, 2017).

Restoration of Algal or bacterial Blooms

Once the proliferation of algae or bacteria reaches higher stage, it turns in to bloom which needs
an immediate restoration activities. Restoration activities may include biological control methods,
physical control methods and chemical control methods. Biological control methods are control
methods including Floating Treatment Wetlands (FTW) and Riparian Vegetation. Physical control
methods also includes Aeration, Mechanical Circulation, and Hypolimnetic oxygenation.
Chemical control methods comprises using of alum, ferric salts, clay (coagulation and
flocculation) and barely straw.

Pollution interception and remediation

Protecting, restoring and constructing wetlands for intercepting water pollutants before entering in
to lakes are becoming good ways of water quality safeguarding methods (Yang & Liu, 2010).
Constructed wetlands are engineered systems used for the utilization of natural wetland vegetation,
soil and their microbial vegetation for treating contaminants in surface water, ground water and
waste streams (Helmer, Hespanhol, 1997.). Plants used for wetland construction have to have high

P a g e | 21
capacity of nutrient removal by assimilating them in to their body functions. Besides the wetlands
are very important for ecology protection while using them as a buffer zone for water quality
improvement.

Dredging
Many pollutants originate from point and nonpoint sources from urban and rural areas collect in
rivers and then sediment in to lakes. Boats and winds can disturb and distribute the sediments
and/or particulates that accumulates in lakes. Altogether the sediments will be collected underneath
of the lake. So, such collections should be dredged out from lakes for keeping water quality
standards in the range. The dredged out material can be used as fertilizers for farmlands (Helmer
et al., 1997.). Using the dredged wastes as fertilizers may seem hazardous but when there is no
hazard in the agricultural utilization as the concentration pollutants gets low. Because the dredging
process is done at a given intervals of time, the concentration of pollutants decreases. In contrary,
the hazardous pollutants increases if the sediments or silts accumulates in the lake for a long period
of time without dredging.

Buffers to protect lakes from pollution

If there are sources of pollution around water resources, buffer zones as protectors should be used.
These serves as a buffer between the water resource and the sources of pollution. In other words
they are a transition point between the pollutant source and the marine ecosystems. Riparian forest
and vegetation buffers are one of the effective buffers for conserving water quality goals (Kate
MacFarland, 2017). The best effective location, size, and composition of the buffer zone depends
on the site conditions and water resource objectives (Correll, 2005).

Plant buffer zones around rivers, lakes or ponds apart from their water quality conservation goals,
can be designed for various single or multiple goals. However, the multi-purpose buffers are a
little bit complicated for designing and management though they have many advantages.

Large trees and small vegetation can be used but choice of plant type depends on the intended time
to see the results. For example, riparian forest buffers particularly using large trees takes time to
function their very purpose. But for those expecting immediate results, vegetation and grasses are
recommended. So, a good planning, designing, and managing steps are crucial for providing
buffers with long time services in to the future.

P a g e | 22
Plant or vegetation buffers are not the only buffers used. We can also have buffers by excavating
long striped holes between the water resources and the pollution sources. The holes will serve to
contain the polluted water some distance ahead of the water resources. Because the more distance
the stripped holes are the less leaks will reach the water body.

Over all water quality improvement by Constructing By-Pass Canal (BPC)

This method can improve water quality of lakes by allowing only clean water to enter the lake.
Pollution sources in the upstream of lakes specially that involves rivers should be controlled to
clarify the entering water and sediment in to the lake (Zhang, Zhang, & Gao, 2011). This is dictated
by the characteristic of the water content entering in to the lake.

P a g e | 23
3. Methodology
3.1 Study Area

The study area, Lake Ziway is found 160 kms south of Addis Ababa in the Ethiopian Central Rift
Valley. Its Watershed falls in between 7°15’N to 8°30’N latitude and 38°E to 39°30’E longitude.
The altitude is 1636 meters above sea level. The lake covers a catchment area of about 6834 km2.
The surface area of the lake fluctuates between 435 to 485 km2 with a mean depth of 2.5 meters.

The climatic conditions are not uniform throughout the watershed. The minimum and maximum
annual precipitation in the watershed is 729.8 mm and 1227.7 mm respectively with the mean
annual temperature of 18.5 °C. The wet season – June to September – accounts for about 55% of
the annual precipitation, while the dry season contributes 15% (Paolo Billi & Franceska Caparrani,
2006).

The temperature in Ziway is relatively constant throughout the year. The daily maximum
temperature is 24.2 to 30.5 oC and the daily minimum temperature varies between 10.4 and 16.8.
Ziway is relatively sunny with an average sunshine hours of 8.6 per day. But there is a distinct
decrease in sunshine hours during wet periods.

Data collection
The data (including baseline data) in and around the lake were collected by field visits and official
reports, convenience interviews, laboratory experiments, and literature reviews.

Sampling Sites
Convenient interview was used to get general overview of the lake status and pollution sources
before directly executing the sampling procedures. A questionnaire with eleven questions
(attached at the back) was prepared for the interviewees to answer. The interviewees consisted of
Ziway town residents, boat sailors, health workers and particular persons from monasteries.

In addition to the general information found from the convenient interview, the choice of sampling
location was made based on specific pollution driver’s intensity, the imposed pressures and
impacts in the environment and community, state of the environment and societal responses. So,
the samples were determined based on specific potential risk areas, topology of the lake and
intensity of human activities. The tributary rivers, which are expected to carry the pollutants in to

P a g e | 24
the lake were also taken as a factor for the choice of sampling location. The sites for sampling
were generally located at the upstream, middle and downstream of the lake.

Accordingly, 7 sites were selected to collect 7 water samples every month from February to April
2018. Additionally, four sludge samples were taken from sites 2, 3, 5, and 6. These sites were
selected to take additional sludge/sediment samples because there is a suspicion of soil
contamination in the sites. The sampling sites are defined as follows.

Figure 2. Sampling sites in and around Lake Ziway

Sample 1 was taken from Lake Center (Site 1) at 4 – 5 meters. Activities being undertaken near to
this site are boat washing, water mixing by boats and hippopotamus and cloth washing by the
dwellers of the island community.

Sample 2 was taken from southern shoreline site (Site 2). This site is characterized by high public
activities including agricultural and washing activities. The depth is 1 – 1.5 meters.

Sample 3 was taken from north-west of the lake (Site 3). Its depth is 2.5 – 3 meters. This site has
small scale irrigation practices where the water used is abstracted from the lake.

Sample 4 was taken from floriculture outlet, Sher Ethiopia outlet (Site 4). This site is characterized
by its shallowness and deteriorated water. The deterioration is suspected that Sher Ethiopia flower
farm is discharging effluents to the lake.

P a g e | 25
Sample 5 was taken from Sher Ethiopia buffer zone (Site 5). This site is very shallow and
characterized by the concentrated effluents from Sher Ethiopia. It is 50 – 100 meters far from the
lake.

Sample 6 was taken from the site between Lake Ziway and Meki (Site 6). This area is shallow and
full of silts that come from the Meki River and the slight sloppy landscapes around the lake.

Sample 7 was taken from Battu raw water inlet (Site 7). This water inlet, especially during rain
has a prominent impact by bringing silts, wastes, and other effluents from upstream of the lake.
But this sample was lost in the laboratory and hence not analyzed.

Sample 8 was taken from Meki River (Site 8). This site is characterized by its extensive human
intervention. All human activities upstream of the Meki river bridge (on the road from Meki to
Mojo) affect the water composition. Rain is also another factor for the water entering into the
lake.

The samples taken from the above specified sites were analyzed from February to April 2018.

Study Period and Sampling frequency

The study period for sample collection and laboratory analysis was carried out from February 2018
to April 2018. The frequency of sampling was done every month.

Sample size Determination

Sample size should be designed considering the representativeness of population, desired level of
confidence to achieve, reliability, parameters interest in the study and cost constraints.

The number of samples for this study were determined based on the sample size requirements for
95% confidence level using Pearson Correlation. The total number of samples taken were 21 for
water and 12 for sediment. The number of representative water and sediment/sludge samples taken
at one time were seven water samples and four sludge samples from seven locations that were
understood to receive pollutant loads as a result of extensive human activities and natural
phenomena. The amount of sample for water and sludge samples were taken to be 1000 ml and
250 – 500 grams respectively as recommended by the American Scientific Testing of Materials
(ASTM) standards for testing of water and waste water (American Public Health Association,
American Water Works Association, 1999).

P a g e | 26
Sampling Procedures

Samples for experimentation based on standard procedures were taken using grab sampling
technique from the Lake every month for three months. The sampling sites were determined using
Global Positioning System (GPS). The sites were at the inlet, middle and outlet of the lake.
Composite or integrated sampling techniques were not used to prevent loss of analytes during
compositing or mixing.

One liter polyethylene bottles were used for sample collection. Each bottle was cleaned with
detergents and rinsed with deionized water before sampling time. During sampling, right at each
sampling site, the bottles were rinsed with the lake water three times before taking the samples.
Water samples 1000 ml each were collected after noticing the stratification of the lake was the
same. The degree of stratification was determined by measuring DO, conductivity, turbidity, pH
and temperature in an incremental depth of the lake. Then the samples were preserved under 4oC
before taking them to the laboratory.

The sediment samples were collected from the specified sites of the lake using sediment sampler.
Samples of wet mass of 250 – 500 grams each were prepared. The sediment samples were then
sealed in clean polyethylene bags and preserved before taking them to the laboratory.

The physical, chemical and biological characterization were done in laboratory for the samples
taken. Parameters such as total phosphorus, total nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, COD, BOD, total
dissolved solid and metals etc. were determined in the laboratory.

Statistical Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics, explore tool, ANOVA, correlation, multivariate analytical technique
(Cluster analysis) and other statistical tools were used for data analysis. The standards for
comparison used were those of WHOs’, US EPA, and Ethiopian ministry of health standards.

Correlation analysis was used to correlate the water quality variables and reduce them in to smaller
set of important composite independent variables.

Cluster analysis was used to check whether the grouping of the sampling sites based on the
parameters to be studied was right. This enables to point out the alignment of the similar sampling
sites. Discriminate analysis technique was used for verification of the cluster analysis results.

P a g e | 27
Descriptive statistics in excel was used for each site to compare the quality of water at the sites
within the lake.

Materials
The materials used for executing the experiment for this thesis work were polyethylene
vessels/samplers and sampling bottles to take samples from the lake; pH meter, thermometer,
conductivity meter, digital turbidity meter and photometer to measure turbidity; Glasses, flasks,
hot plate, autoclave, glass scoop; HACH spectrophotometer to analyze nutrients (orthophosphate
and Nitrate-N), K, Mg, Ca, and Na; HACH photometer to measure COD; DO meter; BOD
instruments; atomic absorption spectrometer for cat ion/metal determination and 500 micro meter
sifter. Palintest automatic wavelength photometer was also used for multi-parameter
determination.

Chemicals and reagents that were used are blank water, phenolphthalein indicator, methyl orange,
Sodium hydro oxide, mercuric chloride, sodium thiosulfate, and 2, 6-Dimethyl phenol, sulfuric
acid, potassium persulfate crystals, ascorbic acid, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, Dicholoro-
methane, petroleum ether and others unlisted. Unique palintest tablet reagents were utilized for
analyzing each parameter during multi-parameter investigation by palintest photometer.

Laboratory Analytical Procedures

All collected samples were transported to laboratory for analysis. The laboratory activities were
performed at Addis Environmental Services PLC., Addis Ababa Institute of Technology: Chemical
and Bio Engineering Laboratory and Ethiopian Water development construction enterprise.

Surface Water samples: A 250 ml aliquot of each water sample were filtered through filter paper
(whit Mann N0. 42) for metal/heavy metal analysis and the remained unfiltered samples were
analyzed for total nitrogen and total phosphorus. Total nitrogen was measured by converting all
the nitrogen into nitrate by alkaline persulfate oxidation (ASTM., 1999). Subsequent analysis of
nitrates was done by 2, 6 dimethyl phenol method using spectrophotometer (8500II, Bio-Crom).
Nitrogen ammonia was measured using automated phenate method 4500 NH3 - G. Total
phosphorus was measured using ascorbic acid method spectrophotometrically after persulfate
digestion.

P a g e | 28
For metals, there was two analysis; one for dissolved metals and the other for suspended metals.
The dissolved metals were first filtered and then acidified to pH less than 2 before analysis. The
suspended metals was determined also by filtering sample but with subsequent digestion of the
filter sample and the material on it. Atomic absorption spectrometer was used to analyze metals
and heavy metals. Other parameters like pH, COD, BOD, turbidity, conductivity, and dissolved
solid were determined.

Sediment samples: The collected sediment samples were first air dried and stones, leaves, rags,
twigs, plants and other fragments were removed. The next procedure was powdering sample using
mortar and pestle. Then sieving was continued and then stored in glass bottles. Finally, analysis
was done for total nitrogen using nitrogen analyzer, total phosphorus and metals were analyzed by
digesting sub-samples in Teflon vessels with an acid or couple of acids in a microwave oven based
on ASTM standards (ASTM, 1999). Total phosphorus was measured using ascorbic acid method
spectrophotometrically after persulfate digestion. Atomic absorption spectrometer was used to
analyze metals. The pH, EC and CEC were also determined as per the US EPA standards.

After finding the result for the samples, data were manipulated using statistical analytical tools for
understanding the individual and interaction effects of water quality variables on the
environmental matrices and human beings.

Finally, the severity of the pollutants to the lake as well as to the wellbeing of the ecology and
humans at large were evaluated. For the solutions, different water pollution prevention methods
and treatment options were studied so as to choose and recommend appropriate prevention
strategies and treatment technologies.

Alternatively, photometric plainest procedures were used in Addis Environmental Services private
limited company for comparison purpose. Unique tablet reagents were used for the determination
of individual concentrations of the each physicochemical tests. Color intensity produced was used
to know the concentration of nutrients and metals.

The physicochemical tests including TDS, alkalinity, ammonia, bicarbonate, calcium, carbonate,
chloride, fluoride, magnesium, manganese, nitrate, nitrite, phosphate, potassium, Sodium,
Sulphate, total hardness and total iron were analyzed using palintest photometer.

P a g e | 29
For all physicochemical tests, each test tube was filled with the water sample up to 10 ml mark.
After that the respective palintest tablets were added, crushed and mixed for dissolution and then
waited for full color development was allowed after waiting for their respective full color forming
times, as indicated in the table below. The intensity of the color produced is proportional to the
concentration of the corresponding physicochemical parameter and was measured using a Palintest
Photometer (Palintest Test Procedures Book). The detail procedures are given in appendix E.

The following figures illustrate collected samples, used reagents and palintest automated
photometer in Addis environmental services PLC. Figure a displays the collected samples, figure
b shows reagents being mixed with the samples and figure c shows the automated palintest
photometer that was used to determine concentration of parameters based on wavelength and
reagent.

a b

Figure 3. a) Samples in laboratory b) mixing of palintest tablet reagents with water sample c) palintest
photometer

P a g e | 30
4. Result and Discussion
4.1 Results
4.1.1 Results from Interviews
Before directly executing the sampling procedures around Lake Ziway convenient interview
method was used for further detail information. This was very helpful to gather background
information, opinions, perceptions and attitudes of the communities towards the state of the lake
and their linkage with it. The interview result was helpful for selecting appropriate sample
collection sites.

The interviewees who gave a convenient interview comprised of boat sailors, health professionals,
dwellers and particular persons from the monasteries in the lake.

According the interview result from the prepared questionnaire, there are above 30,000 workers
only in Sher Ethiopia Floriculture Farm. The interviewee are aware that there are individual and
national economic advantages of the flower farms. However, they did not say anything about
awareness of the community around Lake Ziway regarding pollutions devastative effects on the
lake, the lives in it and the ecology of the environment.

The interviewees implied that there was a direct discharge of effluents from the biggest floriculture
farm called Sher Ethiopia and it was one of the worst causes of Lake Ziway’s pollution among
other causes. The other polluting sources were the agricultural practices and human activities in
Ziway town.

One of the interviewee said that the flower farm workers are the primary victims of health risks.
There are a lot of cancer, birth defects among new born children and other associated diseases.

The drinking water source for Ziway town was from around the St. Gabriel monastery which is
found near the Sher Ethiopia’s floriculture outlet. However, it is currently out of service. Because
it was known to have detections of undesired chemicals for health and as a result it is changed to
Tuffa which is 62.4 Kilo meters distance from the town.

Generally, the interview gave me an overall image of the lake and its threatening causes. So, it
helped me for further analytical study by taking samples from chosen locations.

P a g e | 31
 4.1.2 Laboratory Results
The laboratory results for both the water and sludge samples are summarized in the tables below.
The samples are indicated in the row by site1, site2, site3, site4, site5, site6 and site8. Site7 was
not analyzed in the laboratory because it was missed and hence not included in the results section.
The distance interval between measurements in the different sampling sites was not uniform. The
water and sediment/sludge quality parameters are put in the column.

Table 5. Spatial and temporal results of water quality parameters

S/ Parameters February WHO Standard
N Site1 Site2 Site3 Site4 Site5 Site6 Site8

1 Color - - - - - - - Colorless
2 Odor - - - - - - - Unobjectionable
3 pH 8.50 7.81 7.45 7.65 9 8.20 8.23 6.5-8.5
4 EC 520 470 415 440 1009 120 121 1000 µs/cm
5 TDS 260 210 154 183 970 200 177 1000 mg/l
6 Turbidity 73.4 30.23 8 10.1 66 70.31 80 5 NTU
7 Ammonia 1.68 0.98 0.23 2.30 3 0.78 1.09 1.5 mg/l
8 T.Hardness 89 96 61 70 211 127 100 300 mg/l CaCO3
9 Sodium 110 50.1 12.52 79.65 195.7 73 65.9 200 mg/l
10 Potassium 44 21 5.22 30.47 41.14 31 29.97 1.5 mg/l
11 Total iron 0.82 0.29 0.11 0.81 1.01 0.92 1.19 0.3 mg/l
12 Manganese 1.62 0.13 0.09 1.96 0.7 2 1.91 0.1 mg/l
13 Calcium 84 74.5 58.19 76 80.4 101 98 75 mg/l
14 Magnesium 90 64.3 9.58 12.13 146.8 40 37 150 mg/l
15 Alkalinity 330 201 189 214.5 323.17 224 219 200 mg/l CaCO3
16 Carbonate Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
17 Bicarbonate 400.7 244.7 200.5 251 265.3 260 253.6 150 -350 “”
18 Chloride 10.2 7.1 11.8 6 57.9 28.82 25.3 250mg/l
19 Sulfate 0.52 2 1.05 10.31 21 0.71 0.55 400 mg/l
20 Nitrate 1.3 0.77 0.1 2.1 13.22 0.26 0.15 10 mg/l
21 Nitrite 0.20 0.35 0.02 0.89 0.98 0.62 0.49 1 mg/l
22 Fluoride 1.03 1.41 1 1.54 0.43 1.32 1.66 1.5 mg/l
23 Phosphate 0.07 0.09 0 0.28 0.36 0.45 0.45 0.3 mg/l
24 DO 1.3 1.49 1.01 2.42 4.2 2.52 2.3 4 – 6 mg/l
25 BOD 15 19.11 21.32 26.7 31 20.1 25.2 2 mg/l O2
26 COD 80.38 98.2 100 112 153.2 122.93 131.54 10 mg/l O2
March
1 Color -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Colorless
2 Odor -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Unobjectionable

P a g e | 32
 Table 5. Continued
3 pH 8.32 7.5 7.2 7.45 8.6 8 7.97 6.5-8.5
4 EC 477 461 401 340 850 90 33 1000 µs/cm
5 TDS 239 159.23 133.4 168 770 183 166 1000 mg/l
6 Turbidity 78 54.46 6.7 11.36 43.71 53 97 5 NTU
7 Ammonia 0.34 0.18 0.1 0.68 1.78 0.5 0.04 1.5 mg/l
8 T. Hardness 80 76 54.4 60 180.3 110.6 90 300 mg/l CaCO3
9 Sodium 84 38.45 9.9 48.81 152 59.4 37 200 mg/l
10 Potassium 11 8.12 3.58 7.75 29.26 23 7.7 1.5 mg/l
11 Total iron 0.93 0.41 0.08 0.38 0.67 0.48 0.92 0.3 mg/l
12 Manganese 0.34 0.17 0.01 0.45 0.51 0.44 0.45 0.1 mg/l
13 Calcium 69 55.31 40.9 61 60.7 84.37 79 75 mg/l
14 Magnesium 43 23.4 7.88 5 108.9 37.06 17 150 mg/l
15 Alkalinity 215 170.3 147.13 140.2 302.43 206 140 200 mg/l CaCO3
16 Carbonate Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
17 Bicarbonate 262.3 200 185.2 170.8 218.2 217.39 170.8 150 -350 “”
18 Chloride 48 4.4 5.33 5 41.53 22.57 130 250mg/l
19 Sulfate 0 0.39 0.37 6 9.8 0.61 0 400 mg/l
20 Nitrate 0.46 0.35 0.07 0.66 5.14 0.19 0.04 10 mg/l
21 Nitrite 0.01 0.16 0 0.19 0.41 0.24 0.09 1 mg/l
22 Fluoride 0.93 0.87 0.98 1.24 0.22 0.6 1.3 1.5 mg/l
23 Phosphate 0 0.04 0 0.25 0.3 0.28 0.25 0.3 mg/l
24 DO .89 1.2 0.4 1.93 3.17 2.1 2 4 – 6 mg/l
25 BOD 6.55 9.26 12.32 19.53 21.3 14 19.74 2 mg/l O2
26 COD 69.63 81.6 86 90.21 121.3 94. 110 10 mg/l O2
April
1 Color -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Colorless
2 Odor -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Unobjectionable
3 pH 8.31 7.85 7.51 7.9 8.38 7.9 8.14 6.5-8.5
4 EC 490 442 297 380 699 99.2 70 1000 µs/cm
5 TDS 310 181 110 198 900 171 187 1000 mg/l
6 Turbidity 55 24.53 10.22 10.36 58.95 76 111 5 NTU
7 Ammonia 0.88 0.7 0.11 1.7 2.21 0.48 0.13 1.5 mg/l
8 T. Hardness 118 77 67 100 177.69 102.7 132 300 mg/l CaCO3
9 Sodium 140 41.3 11.31 81.62 150 48.34 71.51 200 mg/l
10 Potassium 21.1 16.43 4.33 15.33 33.92 20 14.8 1.5 mg/l
11 Total iron 1.1 0.12 0.08 0.7 0.91 0.52 1.3 0.3 mg/l
12 Manganese 1.04 0.1 0 1.41 0.62 1.5 1.36 0.1 mg/l
13 Calcium 90.46 63.3 34.58 81.9 54.5 72.52 98.76 75 mg/l
14 Magnesium 97 59.6 10 12.3 113.7 33.04 40 150 mg/l
15 Alkalinity 300 160 157 220 256 200 230 200 mg/l CaCO3
16 Carbonate Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
17 Bicarbonate 400 222.8 188.46 270.9 210 261 279 150 -350 “”
18 Chloride 100 4.78 7.83 9 37.46 32 250 250mg/l

P a g e | 33
Table 5. Continued
19 Sulfate 0.13 0.99 0.29 8.4 16 0.55 0 400 mg/l
20 Nitrate 1.37 0.34 0.04 1.56 11.44 0.19 0.24 10 mg/l
21 Nitrite 0.09 0.15 0 1.07 0.64 0.2 0.19 1 mg/l
22 Fluoride 1.7 1.03 0.07 2.42 0.7 1.02 2.03 1.5 mg/l
23 Phosphate 0 0 0 0.35 0.14 0.08 0.37 0.3 mg/l
24 DO 1.98 2.4 1.7 4.11 6.24 3.32 3.04 4 – 6 mg/l
25 BOD 21.7 24.87 27.91 27.92 37.18 26 25.4 2 mg/l O2
26 COD 110.2 109.3 141.32 169.3 203.76 157.36 162.44 10 mg/l O2

Table 6. Spatial and temporal results of sludge/sediment quality parameters

S/ Parameters February Standards
N Site2 Site3 Site5 Site6

1 pH 6.44 6.21 7.16 6.63 6–8

2 EC 380 198 672 92 2000 – 4000 µs/cm
3 CEC 78.47 60 113.6 107.5 5 – 24 cmol/kg
4 Total iron 0.29 0.11 1.01 0.92 2.1 – 4.5 mg/l
6 Manganese 0.13 0.09 0.7 2
6 Total nitrogen 0.09 0.02 0.16 0.05
7 Total Phosphorus 27 19 33 36 26 – 70 mg/l
March
1 pH 6.72 6.51 7.72 6.9 6–8
2 EC 321 154 540 76 2000 – 4000 µs/cm
3 CEC 65 46.7 101.2 79.6 5 – 24 cmol/kg
4 Total iron 0.22 0.1 0.9 0.74 2.1 – 4.5 mg/l
5 Manganese 0.08 0.08 0.05 1.2
6 Total nitrogen 0.07 0.01 0.12 0.03
7 Total Phosphorus 16 13 18 21 26 – 70 mg/l
February
1 pH 6.65 6.43 7.04 6.54 6–8
2 Electrical 430 234 721 153 2000 – 4000 µs/cm
Conductivity
3 CEC 101.71 93.2 141.2 115.2 5 – 24 cmol/kg
4 Total iron 0.41 0.19 1.63 1.42 2.1 – 4.5 mg/l
5 Manganese 0.17 0.1 0.95 2
6 Total nitrogen 0.87 0.04 0.91 1
7 Total Phosphorus 32 25 37 44 26 – 70 mg/l

P a g e | 34
 4.2 Discussion
Table 7. Descriptive statistics (Range, mean, maximum, minimum, standard deviation and
variance) for water quality parameters. (Note: The units for all parameters are consistent with the
units given in the WHO standards column.)

Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Error Std. Deviation Variance WHO Standards
pH 1.80 7.20 9.00 7.9938 .09761 .44731 .200 6-8.5

EC 976.00 33.00 1009.00 391.6286 55.69838 255.24204 65148.497 1000 µs/cm

TDS 860.00 110.00 970.00 287.1252 55.34932 253.64245 64334.490 500 mg/l

Turbidity 104.30 6.70 111.00 48.9681 6.99907 32.07379 1028.728 5 NTU

Ammoinia 2.96 .04 3.00 .9471 .18530 .84917 .721 1.5, 35 mg/l

T.Hardness 156.60 54.40 211.00 103.7948 9.21056 42.20807 1781.522 300 mg/l CaCO3

Sodium 185.80 9.90 195.70 74.3081 10.93086 50.09149 2509.158 200 mg/l

Potassium 40.42 3.58 44.00 19.9581 2.65577 12.17026 148.115 --

T.Iron 1.22 .08 1.30 .6548 .08343 .38230 .146 1 mg/l

Manganese 2.00 .00 2.00 .7705 .15618 .71571 .512 0.1 mg/l

Calcium 66.42 34.58 101.00 72.2805 3.95915 18.14310 329.172 75 mg/l

Magnesium 141.80 5.00 146.80 48.0376 8.94302 40.98205 1679.529 150 mg/l

Alkalinity 190.00 140.00 330.00 216.4157 12.64651 57.95359 3358.619 300 mg/l CaCO3

Bicarbonate 229.90 170.80 400.70 244.4119 13.48519 61.79693 3818.860 150 – 350 mg/l

Chloride 245.60 4.40 250.00 40.2390 12.70108 58.20365 3387.665 250 mg/l

P a g e | 35
 Table 7. Continued
Sulphate 21.00 .00 21.00 3.7938 1.30189 5.96602 35.593 400 mg/l

Nitrate 13.18 .04 13.22 1.9043 .79886 3.66085 13.402 10 mg/l

Nitrite 1.07 .00 1.07 .3343 .07220 .33086 .109 1 mg/l
Floride 2.35 .07 2.42 1.1190 .12428 .56954 .324 1.5 mg/l

phosphate .45 .00 .45 .1790 .03563 .16328 .027 0.3 mg/l

DO 5.84 .40 6.24 2.3676 .29109 1.33396 1.779 4 – 6 mg/l

BOD 30.63 6.55 37.18 21.5290 1.60119 7.33758 53.840 2 mg/l

COD 134.13 69.63 203.76 119.3400 7.53265 34.51895 1191.558 10 mg/l

Comparing the mean of each water quality parameters and the WHO guideline values as a
reference shows that parameters such as turbidity, manganese, BOD and COD levels exceed the
standards of WHO guidelines for drinking water quality. The Ethiopian standards are not as strong
as that of WHO standards and hence not used in this section’s comparison. Total hardness,
magnesium and Sulphate have maximum limit values at some sites that exceed the WHO limit
values.

Table 8. Range, mean, maximum, minimum, standard deviation and variance of sediment/sludge
quality parameters
Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Standard

pH 1.51 6.21 7.72 6.7458 .11782 .40815 .167 6–8

EC 645.00 76.00 721.00 339.0833 66.77625 231.31972 53508.81 2000-4000 µs/cm

T.Iron 1.53 .10 1.63 .6617 .15082 .52246 .273 2.1 – 4.5

Manganese 1.95 .05 2.00 .6292 .21605 .74842 .560

T.Nitrogen .99 .01 1.00 .2817 .11324 .39226 .154

T.Phosphorus 31.00 13.00 44.00 26.7500 2.79644 9.68715 93.841 26 – 70 mg/l

CEC 94.50 46.70 141.20 91.9483 7.77912 26.94765 726.176 5 – 24 c mol/Kg

Though there are different data interpretation methods of soil quality data, here it is simply
compared with provisional guidelines values of soil quality for agriculture. With this regard, the

P a g e | 36
pH seems that it lies in the limit range but the values are almost in upper and lower extreme values.
Some values of the total phosphorus and CEC are below the provisional limit values. The EC and
total iron are within the standard.

The above descriptive statistics could be detailed more using further statistical evaluations and
normality test was applied before analyzing further statistical studies on the water and soil quality
data. Checking the normality of the data was important whether to use parametric or nonparametric
tests. Basically, normally distributed data have to be tested using parametric tests unless the tests
are nonparametric or the data need to be transformed to use parametric tests.

The normality of the data was tested using the explore tool. The water and soil quality parameters
were taken as dependent variables and the time and station were taken as independent variables or
factors. The normality of each variable was tested in the seven stations and three months’ time
separately. Though the explore command gives bulky results of data description, the normality test
was checked using numerical and graphical representations via Tests of Normality table (Shapiro
– Wilk test) and Normal Q-Q plots respectively. Kurtosis, Skewness and standard error were used
in addition to the two for normality test but almost half of the parameters did not show zero quotient
of kurtosis to standard error and skewness to standard error and hence kurtosis and skewness were
not enough methods for normal distribution testing.

For the water quality, the significance values of the Shapiro – Wilk test except for TDS, Nitrate
and Sulphate are above 0.05 and hence this shows the data distribution is normal. The soil quality
data is normally distributed for all parameters. This is clearly indicated in Appendix A.

Q-Q plots (quantile – quantile plots) are very important probability plots for comparing variables
distribution against that of test distribution because the sample size for this thesis work is small.
Normal distribution from Q-Q plots is determined by simply observing the clustering pattern of
the data points around the straight line for both the variables and test distribution.

The detrended normal Q-Q plots show the deviations of data points from the normal distribution.
The deviation value of each parameters at its corresponding time and space can be shown in
appendix B. The perfect normal distribution is shown by the diagonal line.

P a g e | 37
Accordingly, the normal Q-Q plot distribution for most water quality parameters except TDS,
Chloride, Sulphate and Nitrate are concentrated to the diagonal line and hence the data generally
have normal distribution. See the figure below.

Figure 4. The normally unfitted Q – Q plots of water quality parameters

On the other hand, the Q-Q plot distribution for soil quality parameters except manganese and total
nitrogen (as shown in in the fig below) are also clustered at the diagonal line and hence we have
almost normally distributed data.

P a g e | 38
Figure 6. The normally unfitted Q – Q plots of sludge/sediment quality parameters

The figures above shows parameters that do not fit the normal distribution data. The Normal Q-Q
plots that satisfy normal distribution of data are excluded because they need huge space. The
Detrended Normal Q-Q plot of each parameters that shows the deviations in each time and space
of study are also omitted in this section for the same reasons as the normal Q-Q plots though deeply
studied. But they are in included in the appendix.

Therefore, the normal distribution tests all show that using parametric test in the study is relevant.

One Way ANOVA

Station and time were explained in an independent Factor box for dealing at how a single
categorical variable explains the variance in a continuous variable. So, the water and soil quality
parameters are explained with regard to the spatial and temporal variables using one way ANOVA.

The significance value which is read from the last column of the ANOVA table tells us whether
the hypothesis (no difference between means) is to be accepted or not. If the P-value is above 0.05,
we say there is no significance difference between means. However, if it is below 0.05, then we
say we have rejected the null hypothesis of no difference between the group means, and that there
is a significant difference.

For the station based comparisons of means, all continuous water quality parameters have a
significance values of ≤ 0.05 except BOD and COD. The P- values for BOD and COD are 0.196

P a g e | 39
and 0.143 respectively. This implies that the means of BOD and BOD have no variation whereas
the other variables have difference of means between groups.

For the time based comparisons of means, only potassium (0.03), BOD (0.001) and COD (0.002)
have significance difference of means between groups. The remaining variables have no difference
of means.

Table 9 Oneway ANOVA of water quality variables by Station at constant time

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 3.471 6 .578 15.247 .000

pH Within Groups .531 14 .038

Total 4.002 20

Between Groups 1235772.183 6 205962.030 42.910 .000

EC Within Groups 67197.760 14 4799.840

Total 1302969.943 20

Between Groups 1260066.988 6 210011.165 110.437 .000

TDS Within Groups 26622.815 14 1901.630

Total 1286689.804 20

Between Groups 18737.358 6 3122.893 23.797 .000

Turbidity Within Groups 1837.196 14 131.228

Total 20574.554 20

Between Groups 10.332 6 1.722 5.894 .003

Ammoinia Within Groups 4.090 14 .292

Total 14.422 20

Between Groups 31685.419 6 5280.903 18.741 .000

T.Hardness Within Groups 3945.013 14 281.787

Total 35630.432 20

Between Groups 45532.574 6 7588.762 22.845 .000

Sodium
Within Groups 4650.578 14 332.184

P a g e | 40
 Table 9. Continued
Total 50183.153 20

Between Groups 1641.088 6 273.515 2.898 .047

Potassium Within Groups 1321.215 14 94.372

Total 2962.303 20

Between Groups 2.485 6 .414 13.218 .000

T.Iron Within Groups .439 14 .031

Total 2.923 20

Between Groups 5.722 6 .954 2.952 .045

Manganese Within Groups 4.523 14 .323

Total 10.245 20

Between Groups 4608.339 6 768.056 5.444 .004

Calcium
Within Groups 1975.104 14 141.079

Total 6583.443 20

Between Groups 29658.972 6 4943.162 17.602 .000

Magnesium Within Groups 3931.601 14 280.829

Total 33590.573 20

Between Groups 46716.190 6 7786.032 5.329 .005

Alkalinity Within Groups 20456.192 14 1461.157

Total 67172.382 20

Between Groups 47503.186 6 7917.198 3.839 .018

Bicarbonate Within Groups 28874.014 14 2062.430

Total 76377.201 20

Between Groups 38089.245 6 6348.207 2.996 .043

Chloride Within Groups 29664.061 14 2118.862

Total 67753.306 20

Between Groups 637.545 6 106.258 20.016 .000

Sulphate Within Groups 74.322 14 5.309

Total 711.867 20

P a g e | 41
Table 9. Continued
Between Groups 230.271 6 38.378 14.227 .000

Nitrate Within Groups 37.765 14 2.698

Total 268.036 20

Between Groups 1.356 6 .226 3.798 .019

Nitrite Within Groups .833 14 .060

Total 2.189 20

Between Groups 4.023 6 .670 3.808 .018

Fluoride Within Groups 2.465 14 .176

Total 6.488 20
Between Groups .406 6 .068 7.437 .001

Phosphate Within Groups .127 14 .009

Total .533 20

Between Groups 24.513 6 4.085 5.164 .005

DO Within Groups 11.076 14 .791

Total 35.589 20

Between Groups 452.529 6 75.422 1.691 .196

BOD Within Groups 624.272 14 44.591

Total 1076.802 20

Between Groups 10773.846 6 1795.641 1.925 .147

COD Within Groups 13057.318 14 932.666

Total 23831.164 20

Table 10 Oneway ANOVA of water quality parameters by Time ignoring spatial variation
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .232 2 .116 .553 .585

pH Within Groups 3.770 18 .209

Total 4.002 20

P a g e | 42
Table 10. Continued
Between Groups 28975.280 2 14487.640 .205 .817

EC Within Groups 1273994.663 18 70777.481

Total 1302969.943 20

Between Groups 8509.633 2 4254.817 .060 .942

TDS Within Groups 1278180.170 18 71010.009

Total 1286689.804 20

Between Groups 5.047 2 2.523 .002 .998

Turbidity Within Groups 20569.507 18 1142.750

Total 20574.554 20

Between Groups 3.000 2 1.500 2.364 .123

Ammoinia Within Groups 11.422 18 .635

Total 14.422 20

Between Groups 1243.533 2 621.766 .325 .726

T.Hardness Within Groups 34386.899 18 1910.383

Total 35630.432 20

Between Groups 1889.834 2 944.917 .352 .708

Sodium Within Groups 48293.318 18 2682.962

Total 50183.153 20

Between Groups 943.040 2 471.520 4.203 .032

Potassium Within Groups 2019.263 18 112.181

Total 2962.303 20

Between Groups .122 2 .061 .391 .682

T.Iron Within Groups 2.801 18 .156

Total 2.923 20

Between Groups 2.177 2 1.089 2.429 .116

Manganese Within Groups 8.067 18 .448

Total 10.245 20

Between Groups 1072.338 2 536.169 1.751 .202

Calcium
Within Groups 5511.106 18 306.173

P a g e | 43
Table 10 Continued
Total 6583.443 20

Between Groups 1940.702 2 970.351 .552 .585

Magnesium
Within Groups 31649.871 18 1758.326

Total 33590.573 20

Alkalinity Between Groups 10307.150 2 5153.575 1.631 .223

Within Groups 56865.232 18 3159.180

Total 67172.382 20

Between Groups 17687.452 2 8843.726 2.712 .093

Bicarbonate Within Groups 58689.749 18 3260.542

Total 76377.201 20

Chloride Between Groups 6304.155 2 3152.078 .923 .415

Within Groups 61449.151 18 3413.842

Total 67753.306 20

Between Groups 25.713 2 12.856 .337 .718

Sulphate Within Groups 686.155 18 38.120

Total 711.867 20

Nitrate Between Groups 9.361 2 4.680 .326 .726

Within Groups 258.675 18 14.371

Total 268.036 20

Between Groups .429 2 .214 2.193 .140

Nitrite Within Groups 1.760 18 .098

Total 2.189 20

Between Groups .638 2 .319 .982 .394

Fluoride Within Groups 5.849 18 .325

Total 6.488 20

Between Groups .045 2 .023 .831 .452

Phosphate Within Groups .488 18 .027

Total .533 20

DO Between Groups 9.182 2 4.591 3.129 .068

P a g e | 44
Table 10. Continued
Within Groups 26.407 18 1.467

Total 35.589 20

Between Groups 569.462 2 284.731 10.102 .001

BOD Within Groups 507.340 18 28.186

Total 1076.802 20

COD Between Groups 11718.523 2 5859.262 8.707 .002

Within Groups 12112.641 18 672.925

Total 23831.164 20

The significance difference of means for the sediment quality parameters seems that there is more
significance difference in the station based comparison than the time based comparison. The pH
(0.006), EC (0.000), Total Iron (0.003) and Manganese (0.001) have P-value of less than 0.05
which implies that their variation with stations or sites is apparent. On the contrary, the time based
variation of means is visible for total nitrogen (0.011) and total phosphorus (0.013).

Therefore, the mean differences between groups shows that the variation of values for the water
quality parameters is more visible with time than station based variation whereas the station based
variation is visible than the time based variation for the soil parameters. But this is only for the
period and space that is taken into account in the study. If more stations and more time period are
considered for study, we might find different conclusion. So, taking additional samples is
necessary for validating our conclusion.

Table 11 Oneway ANOVA of sediment quality parameters by time ignoring spatial variation

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 1.408 3 .469

8.848 .006
pH Within Groups .424 8 .053

Total 1.832 11

Between Groups 572738.917 3 190912.972 96.311 .000

EC Within Groups 15858.000 8 1982.250

Total 588596.917 11

P a g e | 45
Table 11. Continued
Between Groups 4610.892 3 1536.964 3.641 .064

CEC Within Groups 3377.041 8 422.130

Total 7987.933 11

Between Groups 2.421 3 .807 11.105 .003

T.Iron Within Groups .581 8 .073

Total 3.003 11

Between Groups 5.299 3 1.766 16.381 .001

Manganese Within Groups .863 8 .108

Total 6.161 11

Between Groups .271 3 .090 .509 .687

T.Nitrogen Within Groups 1.421 8 .178

Total 1.693 11

Between Groups 352.917 3 117.639 1.385 .316

T.Phosphorus Within Groups 679.333 8 84.917

Total 1032.250 11

Table 12 Oneway ANOVA of sediment quality variables by station at constant time

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .288 2 .144 .838 .464

pH Within Groups 1.545 9 .172

Total 1.832 11

Between Groups 15151.167 2 7575.583 .119 .889

EC Within Groups 573445.750 9 63716.194

Total 588596.917 11

Between Groups 3177.936 2 1588.968 2.973 .102

CEC
Within Groups 4809.997 9 534.444

P a g e | 46
Table 12. Continued
Total 7987.933 11

Between Groups .395 2 .197 .681 .530

T.Iron Within Groups 2.608 9 .290

Total 3.003 11

Between Groups .471 2 .235 .372 .699

Manganese Within Groups 5.691 9 .632

Total 6.161 11

Between Groups 1.077 2 .538 7.864 .011

T.Nitrogen Within Groups .616 9 .068

Total 1.693 11

Between Groups 636.500 2 318.250 7.238 .013

T.Phosphorus Within Groups 395.750 9 43.972

Total 1032.250 11

Correlations

Correlation analysis describes the closeness of relationship of two or more parameters to ±1. The
closeness to ±1 shows the probability of linear relationship between the variables, the water quality
parameters. So, it describes both the strength and the direction of linear association between the
variables. Positive correlations indicate direct linear association whereas negative correlation tells
inverse linear relationship.

As the value of the correlation coefficient, r goes to zero, the association becomes weak while
degree of association increases as r goes to ±1. The perfect correlation between variables is
indicated by ±1.

Table 13. Correlation values and their strength

Correlation coefficient, r Correlation strength

±0.75 - ±1 Strong

P a g e | 47
Table 13. Continued
±0.5 - ±0.75 Moderate
±0.25 - ±0.5 Weak
≤0.25 No Correlation

Pearson correlation coefficient can be computed using the following formulas:

(x−𝑥̅ )(y−𝑦̅)
𝑟= ----------------- (1)
√(x−𝑥̅ )2 (y−𝑦̅)2

Or

Sxy
𝑟= ---------------- (2)
𝑆𝑥𝑆𝑦

𝑆𝑥𝑦 = 𝑟. 𝑆𝑥𝑆𝑦 ---------------- (3)

The relations between the tested water quality and sediment/sludge quality parameters of Lake
Ziway were determined for the seven sites for three months as shown in tables 14 and 15
respectively. The strength and direction of correlation can be observed from these tables based on
the values given in Table 13. Significance correlations among the water and soil/sludge quality
parameters are shown at P<0.05 and P< 0.01 significance levels. More correlated parameters are
important for studying parameters at times laboratory studies become a problem. So, we can study,
determine and interpret some variables in terms of the other variables. For example, the correlation
between pH and Sodium is with Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.880 at 0.05 significance level
(see Table 14). This means that their correlation is strong and the variables can be interchangeably
determined. The same is true for other variables. Furthermore, it is important to classify similar
sites according to their correlation score.

Table 14. Correlation matrix between water quality variables

Parameters pH EC TDS Turbidi Ammoi T.Hardn Sodium Potassi T.Iron Mangane Calcium Magnes
ty nia ess um se ium

pH 1 .434* .719** .610** .610** .836 .880* .775** .716** .244 .522 .850*

EC .434* 1 .784** -.260 .692** .506* .681 .398** -.025 -.367** -.324* .713

TDS .719** .784** 1 .163 .742** .887** .859** .595 .333 -.164** -.047** .855**

P a g e | 48
 Table 14. Continued
Turbidity .610** -.260 .163 1 -.069 .431** .317 .329 .750 .338 .612** .329

Ammoinia .610** .692** .742** -.069 1 .637** .806** .807** .366 .259 .189** .661**

T.Hardness .836** .506* .887** .431 .637** 1** .856* .660** .547 .072** .307** .834*

Sodium .880** .681** .859** .317 .806** .856** 1** .765** .630 .182** .334** .886**

Potassium .775** .398 .595** .329 .807** .660** .765 1** .538 .499** .502** .730

T.Iron .716** -.025 .333 .750** .366 .547** .630 .538 1** .609 .759** .405

Manganese .244 -.367 -.164 .338 .259 .072 .182 .499 .609 1 .702 -.065

Calcium .522* -.324 -.047 .612** .189 .307* .334 .502 .759** .702 1* .190

Parameters Alkalinity Bicarbonate Chloride Sulphate Nitrate Nitrite Fluoride phosphate DO BOD COD

pH .848** .533** .324** .459 .625* .403** -.115** .393** .513 .260* .321**

EC .572** .135 -.255** .725* .760 .341** -.418 -.171** .287* .185 .068**

TDS .661 .069 .077** .843** .957** .483 -.413 .215** .694** .470** .476

Turbidity .336 .334 .683 -.144** .086 -.072 .114 .327 .193** -.058 .171

Ammoinia .697** .313 -.189 .870** .794** .829** -.046 .383 .637** .540** .406**

T.Hardness .718** .208 .334** .680** .815* .528** -.216 .470** .749** .489* .593**

Sodium .883** .498 .196** .716** .804** .556** -.105 .325** .621** .366** .373**

Potassium .814** .554 -.047** .517** .582 .607** -.062 .435** .499** .352 .285**

T.Iron .581 .524** .626 .223** .302 .388 .402** .587 .412** .214 .341

Manganese .325 .527 .152 -.061 -.156 .425 .576 .545 .233 .217 .262

Calcium .427 .585** .458 -.081* -.071 .349 .605** .645 .171* .060 .117

Parameters pH EC TDS Turbidi Amm T.Har Sodiu Potassi T.Iron Manga Calcium Magnes Alkalini
ty oinia dness m um nese ium ty

Magnesium .850 .713* .855** .329** .661** .834 .886* .730** .405** -.065** .190 1* .829**

Alkalinity .848* .572 .661** .336 .697** .718* .883 .814** .581 .325** .427* .829 1**

Bicarbonate .533** .135** .069 .334 .313** .208** .498** .554 .524 .527** .585** .457** .742

Chloride .324** -.255 .077 .683 -.189 .334** .196 -.047 .626 .152 .458** .144 .172

Sulphate .459** .725** .843** -.144 .870 .680** .716** .517** .223 -.061 -.081** .567** .456**

Nitrate .625** .760* .957** .086 .794** .815** .804* .582** .302 -.156** -.071** .774* .580**

Nitrite .403** .341** .483** -.072 .829** .528** .556** .607** .388 .425** .349** .306** .413**

Floride -.115** -.418 -.413** .114 -.046** -.216** -.105 -.062** .402 .576** .605** -.312 -.058**

Phosphate .393** -.171 .215 .327** .383 .470** .325 .435 .587** .545 .645** .073 .224

DO .513 .287 .694 .193 .637 .749 .621 .499 .412 .233 .171 .502 .395

P a g e | 49
Table 14. Continued
BOD .260* .185 .470 -.058** .540 .489* .366 .352 .214** .217 .060* .312 .228

COD .321 .068* .476** .171** .406** .593 .373* .285** .341** .262** .117 .286* .239**

Parameters Bicarboate Chloride Sulphate Nitrate Nitrite Floride phosphate DO BOD COD

Magnesium .457** .144** .567 .774* .306** -.312** .073** .502 .312* .286**

Alkalinity .742 .172** .456* .580 .413** -.058 .224** .395* .228 .239**

Bicarbonae 1 .207** -.072** .034** .128 .354 -.020** .029** -.002** -.003

Chloride .207 1 -.100** .023 -.132 .326 .279 .182** .133 .294

Sulphate -.072 -.100 1** .919** .760** -.206 .350 .730** .605** .524**

Nitrate .034 .023** .919** 1* .584** -.351 .215** .732** .563* .539**

Nitrite .128 -.132** .760** .584** 1** .260 .658** .685** .568** .549**

Floride .354 .326** -.206** -.351 .260** 1 .323** .035** .071 .121**

Phosphate -.020** .279 .350** .215 .658 .323** 1 .448** .325 .388

DO .029 .182 .730 .732 .685 .035 .448 1 .812 .894

BOD -.002** .133 .605* .563 .568 .071** .325 .812* 1 .887

COD -.003** .294** -.003** .524 .539* .549** .121** .388** .894 1

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 15. Correlation matrix between sediment/sludge quality parameters

Parameters pH EC CEC T.Iron Manganese T.Nitrogen T.Phosphorus

pH 1 .676* .457 .517 .001 .059 -.018

EC .676* 1 .546 .401 -.312 .301 .157

CEC .457 .546 1 .872** .525 .667* .829**

T.Iron .517 .401 .872** 1 .706* .631* .740**

Manganese .001 -.312 .525 .706* 1 .367 .726**

T.Nitrogen .059 .301 .667* .631* .367 1 .727

T.Phosphorus -.018 .157 .829** .740** .726** .727 1

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

P a g e | 50
Cluster Analysis (CA)

Cluster Analysis (CA) was applied to 29 parameters for 7 water samples and 7 sediment/soil
quality parameters for 4 samples. The data were generated from February to April 2018.
Correlations were found based on Pearson correlation and then Cluster analysis (CA) was used for
classifying the data.

From the hierarchical cluster analysis, the horizontal lines represent the sites where individual
samples were taken. A cluster forms when samples/sites become connected or merged. This
implies that bigger cluster is formed by the merging up of similar sub clusters which are shown by
vertical lines. The distance between the two clusters being merged is represented by the X-axis.
Clusters that do not merge until the right end of the x-axis represent water-quality samples that are
distant from each other in squared Euclidean distance. This is interpreted as the samples have much
differing constituent concentrations.

Two significant sampling locations or clusters were found for the water samples. Cluster 1 includes
sites one, two, three, four and five and Cluster 2 includes sites six and eight based on the similarity
of water quality parameters.

Figure 7. Dendrogram showing clusters of the surface-water samples

P a g e | 51
N.B: The total sampling sites (N) are 21 for water and 12 for sludge. Because the sampling
frequency (f) is three. For the water samples 𝑁 = 𝑓𝑛 = 3 ∗ 7 = 21 and for the sludge/soil
samples𝑁 = 𝑓𝑛 = 3 ∗ 4 = 12. So, clusters and sub clusters may encounter sampling site
repetitions.

Figure 8. Dendrogram showing clusters of the sediment/sludge samples

The dendrogram diagram for the soil quality parameters studies also shows that the sites are
classified into two clusters. Cluster one is formed by the emergence of sites two, three and five
while cluster two is formed by the emergence of sites five and six.

As shown in the dendrogram sub clusters forming cluster one and two for the water quality i.e.
sites one to five and sites six and eight are distant and hence is to mean the values of water quality
parameters variable between cluster one and cluster two.

In general, the results revealed that the major causes of water quality deterioration are interventions
such as inflow of effluents from the floriculture industries, domestics, agricultural practices, saline
seeps and concentrated effluent inflow from Sher Ethiopia in to the lake at sites one, two, three,
four and five. Because the samples taken from sites with these interventions show that there is at
least above detection limit measurements for all parameters. The other cause results from people’s
activities in boats and islands. The sampling sites used, mainly sites six and eight involve run off,

P a g e | 52
silt, waste effluents and etc. and hence these can also be taken as the causes of the lake’s pollution.
The details of the water and sludge sampling sites and their clusters are given in Figures 7 and 8
respectively.

There is no need to apply cluster analysis to the temporal data because it is simple to have temporal
clusters by simply observing the raw data. There are two clusters, one is the result found from
samples taken in both February and April 2018 and the second is the result found from samples
taken in March 2018. There is considerable difference of concentrations between cluster one and
cluster two. This might have been emanated because of rain around Ziway in the month of March
and was probably a reason to find low concentration values as a result of dilution compared to the
months of February and April that made cluster one.

P a g e | 53
 5. Preventive and treatment Options
Previous researches around Lake Ziway have shown that Ziway Lake with its aquatic life and
human consumers could be in dangerous conditions unless the pollution sources are controlled.
For example a research by Berhane et al. has clearly indicated that most parameters in most of the
sampling sites were found to be generally above the maximum permissible limits of WHO
standards (Teklu, Hailu, Wiegant, Scholten, & van Den Brink, 2016). However, after two years
period it was found that the parameters’ values did not exceed the WHO standards by far. Though
not enough to generalize, this research’s result shows that the trend is decreasing from previous
years. This might be the result of the regional government’s action. From the informal interviews
the local dwellers gave, the regional government has imposed responsibilities on the floriculture
companies either to leave the leased land or to refrain from any form of environmental crimes.

As a result, the companies in cooperation with the regional government are in search of another
less sensitive site of flower investment as an option. The companies are also firmly responsible to
construct buffer zones far from the lake and to have a constructed dumping sites in their own
flower development fields. Actually, there is a vegetated buffer zone constructed by Floriculture
Company called Sher Ethiopia in 25- 100 meters away from the lake. But this distance of buffer
zone in between the lake and the company is too short to prevent the direct and after effects of
pollutants’ discharge into the lake. The minimum standard for the construction of buffer zones is
explained in section 5.1 of this chapter.

In addition to the above options, there are other several options of prevention for safeguarding
surface water pollutions. Buffer Zones, dumping sites and other options are discussed below.

5.1 Constructed Buffer Zones

Buffer zones benefits are immense including runoff filtering, shoreline stabilization, preservation
of fish and shoreline habitat, screening noise and preservation of aesthetic values. It filters runoff
generated by surrounding land uses, removing harmful chemicals and nutrients. It also serves as
a habitat for critical aquatic insects, microorganisms, fish and other animals by maintaining a
balance in sensitive aquatic ecosystems. But due to different reasons, natural shoreline vegetation
get damaged or destroyed. So, buffers become important, i.e. a naturally vegetated buffer strip
along the periphery of lakes or streams or wetlands is essential to the health and quality of the

P a g e | 54
water body. The buffer is advised to comprise of the type of vegetation that naturally exists in the
shoreline, setting. It is not advised to use fertilizers or pesticides for buffers. And about the size,
it may be 25 feet wide around a small urban pond or hundreds of feet wide along a pristine rural
lake (Illinois Environmental Agency and the Northeastern Planning Commission, Lake Notes,
1996).

Noting the characteristic of the water body with its local conditions is critical before building any
buffer zone so as to understand what types of buffer zones to construct. Therefore, the
characteristics of the common types of buffer zones like prairie, forest or vegetative wetland
depends on the local conditions. However, there are basic minimum criteria to depend on.

The minimum width requirement is 25 feet though wider buffers with the width of 50 – 100 feet
are established for wider and sensitive lakes. The U.S department of agriculture recommends filter
strips of 66 – 100 feet for water quality protection. If any sort of access to lakes is needed, it is
recommended to be done with very least interruptions. Any movement via the buffer zone must
be restricted. The buffer vegetation should be native species of plants because they can easily get
acclimated to the soils, hydrology and climate of the area. Buffer vegetation should also reflect its
purpose. For example, a forested buffer is preferred if the purpose is to screen noise. In contrary,
it may not be appropriate if local residents need an obstructed lake view. An installation of a buffer
begins by removing the original undesirable vegetation, which otherwise are considered to be
weeds against the indigenous plants. Because only the indigenous plants can easily accustom to
the local conditions and function best. Buffer maintenance is an important issue to control weeds
and maintain native plant diversity. Typically, 1 – 3 years are common for maintenance after
buffers are established (Illinois Environmental Agency and the Northeastern Planning
Commission, Lake Notes, 1996).

The buffer zone in Lake Ziway is that of prairie and vegetative wetland with 25 – 100 feet distance
away from the lake. The size of polluted water collection pool is about 6.56 feet width. The main
problem with this constructed buffer zone is that it is below standard. For example, the distance
between the lake and the buffer zone should be at least 100 feets and above (Ministry of Urban
Development and Housing Infrastructure, 2016). The shortest distance makes the water induction
to the water body very fast and along that soluble and very small size pollutants may reach the
water body.

P a g e | 55
Figure 8. The location of constructed buffer by Sher Ethiopia Floriculture Farm
The other observed problem in Lake Ziway’s constructed buffer zone is that intrusions should have
been strictly forbidden but this is not true in Lake Ziway’s Buffer zone as there are a lot of human
and animal activities intervening in and around the buffer zones. Of course some parts of the buffer
zones are fenced.

Advantages of Constructed Buffer Zones for Water Quality Improvement

Buffer zones give multiple advantages of surface water quality monitoring and additional
environmental services. The best advantage to mention is filtering runoff ahead of entering to
surface water bodies. As run off comes from nearby areas to the lake, different components in the
runoff like pollutants and sediment will get filtered during the course via the buffer. Therefore,
sediment and related pollutants will be removed by filtration and settling process by the plants and
plant residues. Soluble pollutants, including plant nutrients, are taken up by plant roots and utilized
by microorganisms in the soil. Native plants, particularly prairie vegetation have much denser,
deeper root structures than conventional turf grasses which efficiently improves the infiltration of

P a g e | 56
surface runoff into the ground. Based on the width and characteristics of the buffer, it can remove
70 – 95% of incoming sediment, 25 – 60% of incoming nutrients and other pollutants from the run
off (Schultz, 2015; Young et al., 1993).

Along with runoff filtering, buffers specially natural buffers that extend down the water body’s
edge effectively prevents shoreline erosion better than conventional turf grass which is shallow
rooted and intolerant of flooding. Natural riparian vegetation has dense, deep rooted systems that
firmly anchor shoreline soils.

Many aquatic organisms, particularly insects, spend most portions of their life in upland
environments. Buffers provide a critical transition zone between upland and aquatic/wetland
habitats. Depending on their widths, buffers also can shield sensitive species, particularly birds,
from potentially disruptive activities occurring in adjacent land uses.

Beyond protecting wild life uses, buffers like forested buffers can protect quality of lake
recreational uses by intercepting noises from high ways and industrial operations. In the case of
Lake Ziway, this helps to protect the recreational and religious uses of the monastery areas of St.
Gebriel and Kidane mihret monasteries. Because these are surrounded by noisy areas in which a
lot of human activities takes place.

These are related to appropriate shoreline landscaping to enhance the view of Lakes. It is important
to know that buffered water body (lake) has better view than unshielded water body.

5.2 Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Best management practices are effective, practical, structural or nonstructural methods which
prevent or at least minimize the movement of sediments, nutrients, pesticides and other pollutants
from the land in to surface waters (State of Hawaii, department of Land and Natural resources,
1996). BMPs comprise of soil and water conservation techniques, social responsibilities for
environmental protection and other management techniques (A.N. Sharpley et al, 2006).

The probability of solving pollution concerns in water and soil by only applying single BMP is
low and hence combined applications of practices is very important to improve water and soil
qualities. BMPs range from measures that involve a change in farming operations, like

P a g e | 57
conservation tillage and crop rotation, to simple actions such as not applying manure before
forecasted rainfall.

One of the best management practices known is conservation tillage. Conservation tillage is a
practice of soil management with a primary goal of increasing agricultural production. But it also
helps to improve water quality besides to soil management. A study on Lake Water quality
improvement in USA that was carried out from 1997 to 2010 has shown the reduction of the mean
concentration of total suspended solids and total phosphorus decreased by 72 and 45-56 percent
respectively (Katherine Pekarek-Scott & Voit, 2011).

Conservation tillage systems range from no - till to mulch - till. No – till conservation tillage system
is used by covering a crop residue on the soil surface from harvesting time to seeding time. This
system is very important in sloppy areas with high degree of soil erosion. The Mulch – till on the
other case comprises all types of techniques except no tillage and ridge tillage systems. Ridge till
is a kind of till performed by specialized cultivars and planters by removing previous tillage
residues. Strip – till is one of the mulch – till systems. It is used in less sloppy fields or places with
less drainage capacity. Some parts of the field i.e narrow strips are tilled and most of the field is
left untilled. Another type of mulch - till is deep-tillage in which soil is mixed with crop residues.

Social actions like afforestation and reforestation play a pivotal role for both water and soil quality
management. Soil conservation or management can be the other way of water quality management.
So, actions such as forest management are key to improve water quality. Forests particularly
forests that are located in the upstream of water bodies are crucial to minimize soil erosion and
surface runoff there by decrease sediment, pesticide and nutrient pollutants that would have been
entered surface water bodies.

Other BMPs include using engineering techniques, prevention and treatment of wastes at their
source, public awareness on factors that aggravate water quality deterioration and prevention
strategies and others unmentioned.

One of the engineering techniques that might be of helpful to prevent pollution inlet in to Lake
Ziway is construction of bypass canal in the upstream of the lake, on the way Meki and Ketari
Rivers enter. This can also be constructed in any other small ways of emergency runoff that can
happen during raining. This method might help a lot as one of the factors for the water quality

P a g e | 58
problem of the lake is the incoming pollutants and sediments via rivers. So, bypass canals can
prevent or reduce water quality problem by taking the pollutants and sediments somewhere away
from the lake the lake. The effectiveness of bypass canal construction as pollution prevention
strategy is already studied (Yang & Liu, 2010).

The small holder agriculturalists and companies that contribute pollution impacts to the lake have
to use all methods of prevention, pollution reduction and treatment at their source. They should
take the responsibilities to do so.

Public awareness regarding water quality, pollution sources of water bodies and their associate
impacts in the socio - economic lives of communities is also a crucial issue. Because the biggest
commitment to safeguard the natural environment should come from the public at large more than
any other stake holders including the government and other nongovernmental organizations.

5.3 Strict Policies and Regulations

Having strict policies and regulations to maintain excellent water qualities solely can’t solve water
quality problems and their associated impacts. However, there should be strict implementation of
rules and regulations. Some of the national and international binding rules that are important for
protecting surface water pollution so as to have clean and healthy environment are covered in the
literature review section. Abiding by these rules, regulations and standards and their
implementation are ways forward for prevention and treatment options. But additional rules and
regulations might come to be important and hence developing timely policies, rules and regulations
is invaluable.

P a g e | 59
6. Conclusion and Recommendation
6.1 Conclusion
This study shows that the water quality parameters’ vary both with time and space. But the
variation of the parameters at each site with respect to time may not be enough for conclusion as
the study has been conducted with only three months period. The spatial variations of the water
and sediment parameters has provided clues about the pollution sources of the lake. Unlike to the
pollution source identification, there was no full information from the study to know the exact
pollution pathways. But the laboratory data revealed that the edges of Lake Ziway near to the
floriculture farms seem to receive the pesticide and fertilizer wastes from the farms. Moreover, it
can be concluded that sites that has human interventions have direct or indirect impacts on water
quality deterioration of Lake Ziway.

The results were compared with international water quality guidelines to check if the water the
water quality of Lake Ziway complies with the standard ranges. In this study the water quality
parameters for some parameters at southern shoreline, floriculture outlet, Sher Ethiopia buffer
zone, Meki River and specific sampling sites were found to be above the ranges of the WHO
guideline values. But, with this study, the water quality of Lake Ziway can be generally acceptable
for irrigation with the current condition. However, this doesn’t mean it is possible for drinking and
hence if pollution prevention methods are not taken on the Lake, the water quality of the Lake may
seriously deteriorate and aquatic life of the lake and human life would be endangered.

The descriptive analysis shows that there is no extremely large variations between the means and
the WHO water quality guidelines. The interpretation from the ANOVA table also shows there are
significant variations of water quality parameters’ values between sampling sites except the BOD
and COD. The correlations also indicates that there are significant correlated variables and hence
determination of the one variable can be used to interpret the other correlated variable.

Based on the similarity of water quality parameters, two significant clusters were found for the
water samples; cluster one includes sites one, two, three, four and five whereas cluster two includes
sites six and eight. The sediment quality parameters has similarly two clusters; cluster one consists
of sites two, three and five and cluster two consists of sites five and six.

P a g e | 60
Generally, the results show that the major sources of water quality deterioration emanate from the
activities in the upstream of the lake. These include inflow of effluents from the floriculture
industries, domestics, small and large scale agricultural practices and saline seeps in to the lake at
sites one, two, three, four and five. The other causes of pollution are from people’s activities in
boats and islands, run off, silt, waste effluents and etc. as shown in cluster one, formed by sites six
and eight.

Therefore, waste water control and treatment of the point sources are important. Commercial
floriculture farms, small and large scale agricultural practices need to develop the use of pest
management systems. The concerned authorities should also regularly assess the waste
management of the farms and other industries around the lake.

6.2 Recommendation
The recommendations from this study focuses on two dimensions. One is on the further researches
and the other is in prevention and treatment options.

Further comprehensive researches on Lake Ziway are recommended for having sufficient data
about the lake. This helps to have appropriate pollution prevention and restoration techniques. The
association of high quality habitat to deeper lake areas as well as wetland areas should be studied
by taking more samples from respective areas. Furthermore, the indigenous vegetation types for
the areas of Lake Ziway should be identified for selecting best species of vegetation or plants for
buffer construction and other BMPs. Identification of organic pollutants in the lake is also
recommended so as to assess the introduction of banned chemical products that threatens human,
animal and aquatic lives. In addition, an environmental impact assessment of the floriculture
development and other interventions should be carried out ahead of their execution.

As a prevention options, increasing vegetation cover, promoting afforestation and reforestation,

decreasing overgrazing, implementing rules and regulations like water resource use and
management law (No. 197/2000), pollution prevention law (No. 300/2005) and land use law
(No.456/2005) are recommended. Besides, Limiting arable agriculture near vulnerable areas like
Lake Ziway is a recommended option.

Promoting public awareness regarding the health and safety of agrochemicals to humans, animals
and ecology should be given prior concern. The farm owners are also responsible for establishing

P a g e | 61
toilets, clean drinking water and health care facilities inside their farms. Providing workers’
protective wears is another responsibility vested on the farm owners.

Lake Ziway water quality could be improved using waste water treatment methods or Best
Management Practices. Wastewater treatment and Recycling are important point source pollution
reduction methods. Floriculture industries particularly have to recycle waste water before
treatment. Constructing buffer zones are also useful at a safe distance away from the pollution
sources. Vegetation buffer is specially recommended to be used in the upstream of the lake where
pollutions are taught to emanate. This is one possible way to reduce the pollution impacts because
there will not be discharged waste that reaches the lake. Advising ordinary farmers to plant trees
and vegetation in their farm yard as a buffer zone to minimize any environmental risks from their
fertilizer and pesticide usage is also crucial. Alongside, integrated pest management practices are
invaluable to decrease the social and environmental impacts of chemicals. Additionally, the
government is recommended to incentivize floriculture and horticulture farm owners for the use
of environmental friendly agro-chemicals.

Finally, no wastewater or solid waste of floriculture industries or else should be allowed for
disposal before treatment or pollution reduction at proper disposal sites. Solid wastes like chemical
containers and cartoons are recommended to get into proper land fill or incinerator inside the
floriculture compound.

P a g e | 62
7. References
A.N. Sharpley et al. (2006). Best Management Practices To Minimize Agricultural Phosphorus
Impacts on Water Quality, ARS-163(July), 3–4.
Abera L1*, G. A. and L. B. (2018). Journal of Fisheries & Changes in Fish Diversity and
Fisheries in Ziway-Shala Basin : The Case of, 6(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4172/2332-
2608.1000263
Abraham Lijalem, R. J., & Dilnesaw, and C. (2007). Climate Change Impact on Lake Ziway
Watershed Water Availability , 3.
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, W. E. F. (1999).
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, Twentieth.
Anderson et al. (2012). Monitoring Strategies for Chemicals of Emerging Concern ( CECs ) in
California â€TM s Aquatic Ecosystems: Recommendations of a Science Advisory Panel.
Ayenew, T. (2004). Environmental implications of changes in the levels of lakes in the Ethiopian
Rift since 1970, 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-004-0083-x
Bekelle et al. (2014). Effects of Land-use on Birds Diversity in and around Lake Zeway , 2(2),
5–22.
Berhan M. Teklu et al. (2016). Impacts of nutrients and pesticides from small- and large-scale
agriculture on the water quality of Lake Ziway, Ethiopia. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6714-1
Camargo, J. A., & Alonso, Á. (2006). Ecological and toxicological effects of inorganic nitrogen
pollution in aquatic ecosystems : A global assessment, 32, 831–849.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2006.05.002
Correll, D. L. (2005). Principles of planning and establishment of buffer zones, 24(January),
433–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.01.007
D. Pérez-Bendito and S. Rubio. (1999). Determination of organic pollutants in waters. Elsevier
B.V., Volume 32, 535–603.
David Pimentel and Lois Levitan. (1985). crop spray effectivness. Bioscience, Volume 36(No. 2),
86–90.
Department of Water, G. of W. A. (2006). Floriculture activities near sensitive water resources,
1–12. Retrieved from www.water.wa.gov.au
E.P.A. (2012). The Federal Environmental Protection Authority Standards for Specified
Industrial Sectors Protection Authority.
Elizabeth, K., Gebremariam, Z., & Ingemar, A. (1994). The Ethiopian Rift Valley lakes :
chemical characteristics of a salinity-alkalinity series, (1988), 1–12.
Ellis et al. (1989). Surface Water Pollution and its Control.
Eysink, W. S. and W. . (1981). TRACE METAL ANALYSIS ON POLLUTED Part I :
Assessment of Sources and Intensities, (248).

P a g e | 63
FDRE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY. (2004). THE 3 rd NATIONAL
REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNCCD / NAP IN ETHIOPIA.
FDRE MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES. (2011). Ethiopian Water Resources
Management Policy.
Gashaw, H. (1999). Hydrogeochemistry of waters in Lake Ziway area Geochemical
characteristics. 25th WEDC Conference on INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT FOR WATER
SUPPLY AND SANITATION, 286–289.
Getu, M. (2009). E THIOPIAN F LORICULTURE AND I TS I MPACT ON THE E
NVIRONMENT : Regulation , Supervision and Compliance.
Gudeta, D. T. (2012). Socio-economic and Environmental Impact of Floriculture Industry in
Ethiopia, 1–55. Retrieved from http://lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/001/894/550/RUG01-
001894550_2012_0001_AC.pdf
Hansen et al. (2003). Food Security and Environmental Quality in the Rattan Lal.
Health, C. (2008). Children â€TM s Health and the Environment.
Helfrich, & Helfrich, L. A. (2009). Pesticides and Aquatic animals: A Guide to reducing impacts
on Aquatic systems. Virginia State University, 1–24.
Helmer, R., Hespanhol, I., Nations, U., Programme, E., & Council, S. C. (n.d.). Water Pollution
Control - A Guide to the Use of Water Quality Management Principles.
Herco Jansen et al. (2007). Land and water resources assessment in the Ethiopian Central Rift
Valley. Alterra - Rapport 1587, ISSN 1566 - 7197. Retrieved from www.alterra.wur.nl.
Hirpo, L. A. (2017). Fisheries production system scenario in Ethiopia, 5(1), 79–84.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. (1996). shoreline-buffer strips. Lake Notes.
Jansen, H. C., & Harmsen, J. (2010). Pesticide Monitoring in the Central Rift Valley 2009 -
2010.
Joshi, L. E. D. and S. J. (2010). The Beach Manager’s Manual: HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS.
Kate MacFarland, R. S. and M. D. (2017). Riparian Forest Buffers :, 1–8.
Katherine Pekarek-Scott, & Voit, J. (2011). Implementing Best Management Practices Improves
Water Quality in, 319–320.
Manahan, S. E. (2001). Fundamentals of Environmental Chemistry. CRC Press LLC, 356–361.
Ministry of Urban Development and Housing. (2016). Lakes and lake buffer green infrastructure
development Urban Planning , Sanitation and Beautification Bureau Ministry of Urban
Development and Housing Manual No . 18 / 2016.
Panagopoulos, Y., Makropoulos, C., & Mimikou, M. (2011). Diffuse Surface Water Pollution :
Driving Factors for Different Geoclimatic Regions, 3635–3660.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9874-2

P a g e | 64
Paolo Billi & Franceska Caparrani. (2006). Estimating land cover effects on evapotranspiration
with remote sensing : a case study in Ethiopian Rift Valley. Hydrological Sciences Journal,
4(October 2014), 655–670. https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.51.4.655
S. Gebremedhin. (2016). SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF WETLAND ECOSYSTEM ( IN
CASE OF LAKE ZIWAY ), (July), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201607.0068.v1
Sasikala, S., & Muthuraman, G. (2015). Water Quality Analysis of Surface Water Sources near
Tindivanam Taluk. Industrial Chemistry, 1(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.4172/2469-
9764.1000106
Schultz, R. C. (2015). Sediment and Nutrient Removal in an Established Multi-Species Riparian
Buffer Sediment and nutrient removal in an established multi-species riparian buffer .,
(February).
State of Hawaii, department of Land and Natural resources, D. of F. and W. (1996). Best
management Practices for Maintaining water quality in Hawaii.
Tamiru, S. M. (2007). Addis Ababa University School of Graduate Studies Environmental
Science Programme, (July).
Teklu, B. M., Hailu, A., Wiegant, D. A., Scholten, B. S., & van Den Brink, P. J. (2016). Impacts
of nutrients and pesticides from small- and large-scale agriculture on the water quality of
Lake Ziway, Ethiopia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6714-1
Tesfaye, W. (1998). Biology and management of fish stocks in Bahir Dar Gulf , Lake Tana ,
Ethiopia Tesfaye Wudneh.
US EPA. (1983). EPA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes.
US EPA. (2017). What are some measures to prevent cyanobacterial blooms in surface waters? :
Control and Treatment. EPA Web Archive.
Vandas, S. J., & Winter, T. C. (2002). Water and the environment. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.gh/books?id=sWXxAAAAMAAJ
Weiner, R. F., & Matthews, R. (2003). Environmental Engineering (fourth edi).
Welcomme, L. (1972). An evaluation of the acadja method of fishing as practised in the coastal
lagoons of Dahomey ( West Africa ), 39–55.
Winchester, P., & Huskins, J. (2009). Agrichemicals in surface water and birth defects in the
United States Baseline characteristics, 664–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-
2227.2008.01207.x
Yang, S., & Liu, P. (2010). Strategy of water pollution prevention in Taihu Lake and its effects
analysis. JGLR, 36(1), 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2009.12.010
Young, C. B., Ph, D., Agee, L. M., Management, S., Series, L. C., Rao, R., … Davies, D. B.
(1993). Treatment of contaminated roadway runoff using vegetated filter strips A
Cooperative TRANSPORTATION Research program Kansas Department of
Transportation, 45(January), 59–77.

P a g e | 65
Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., & Gao, Y. (2011). Water pollution control technology and strategy for
river – lake systems : a case study in Gehu Lake and Taige Canal, 1154–1159.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-011-0676-3
Zhou, Q., Zhang, J., Fu, J., Shi, J., Jiang, G., Zhao, H., … Ababa, A. (2017). No Title. Scientific
Reports, 7(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6714-1

P a g e | 66
 8. Appendices
Appendix A: tests of Normality Table

Time Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic Df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

February .148 7 .200* .966 7 .868

pH March .193 7 .200* .955 7 .776

April .200 7 .200* .943 7 .666

February .254 7 .190 .870 7 .184

EC March .216 7 .200* .934 7 .582

April .160 7 .200* .956 7 .783

February .422 7 .000 .557 7 .000

TDS March .394 7 .002 .578 7 .000

April .351 7 .009 .640 7 .001

February .286 7 .086 .832 7 .083

Turbidity March .162 7 .200* .946 7 .697

April .177 7 .200* .923 7 .494

February .213 7 .200* .956 7 .782

Ammoinia March .250 7 .200* .786 7 .029

April .218 7 .200* .894 7 .298

February .275 7 .117 .830 7 .080

T.Hardness March .243 7 .200* .835 7 .090

April .156 7 .200* .946 7 .694

February .243 7 .200* .906 7 .372

Sodium March .231 7 .200* .883 7 .242

April .184 7 .200* .929 7 .547

P a g e | 67
 February .245 7 .200* .917 7 .444

Potassium March .295 7 .067 .829 7 .079

April .220 7 .200* .931 7 .563

February .290 7 .078 .895 7 .302

T.Iron March .169 7 .200* .935 7 .593

April .168 7 .200* .942 7 .657

Manganese February .276 7 .115 .743 7 .011

March .282 7 .098 .845 7 .110

April .215 7 .200* .870 7 .187

February .158 7 .200* .954 7 .766

Calcium
March .161 7 .200* .971 7 .906

April .120 7 .200* .978 7 .949

February .209 7 .200* .901 7 .338

Magnesium
March .266 7 .144* .800 7 .041

April .191 7 .200 .909 7 .387

February .342 7 .013* .780 7 .026

Alkalinity March .203 7 .200* .843 7 .107

April .155 7 .200 .953 7 .759

February .374 7 .004 .752 7 .013

Bicarbonate March .183 7 .200 .907 7 .378

April .259 7 .170 .875 7 .207

February .262 7 .159* .818 7 .061

Chloride March .258 7 .176* .769 7 .020

April .328 7 .022* .722 7 .006

February .371 7 .004* .689 7 .003

Sulphate
March .397 7 .001* .699 7 .004

P a g e | 68
 April .388 7 .002 .691 7 .003

February .395 7 .001* .585 7 .000

Nitrate March .428 7 .000* .565 7 .000

April .416 7 .001* .575 7 .000

February .148 7 .200* .966 7 .871

Nitrite March .138 7 .200* .938 7 .619

April .354 7 .008* .804 7 .044

February .186 7 .200 .924 7 .499

Floride March .207 7 .200* .935 7 .597

April .193 7 .200 .971 7 .906

February .220 7 .200* .882 7 .237

phosphate March .313 7 .037* .785 7 .029

April .224 7 .200 .798 7 .039

February .232 7 .200 .899 7 .326

DO March .183 7 .200* .963 7 .841

April .198 7 .200* .898 7 .319

February .168 7 .200* .981 7 .965

March .232 7 .200* .921 7 .479

BOD April .305 7 .048* .847 7 .115

COD February .149 7 .200* .984 7 .978

March .180 7 .200 .969 7 .890

April .170 7 .200* .937 7 .614

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

P a g e | 69
Appendix B: The Normal and Detrended Normal Q-Q Plots
Water quality normal and detrended normal q-q plots

P a g e | 70
P a g e | 71
P a g e | 72
P a g e | 73
P a g e | 74
P a g e | 75
Sediment normal and detrended normal q-q plots

P a g e | 76
P a g e | 77
Appendix C: Questionnaire for Convenient Interviews
1. Do you know what Water pollution is?
[] Yes [] No
2. Do you know the impacts of Water pollution in the environment, aquatic lives, and
human life?
[] Yes [] No
If yes, explain

3. Are you aware of water pollution in Ziway area?

[] Yes [] No

4. Where is the drinking water source of Ziway Town?

5. Are you aware that water resources in the world are finite and diminishing with the
passage of time?
[] Yes [] No
6. Are you aware of that living in a clean and healthy environment is the ‘Right to Life’?
[] Yes [] No

7. What are the reasons for water pollution in Lake Ziway rea?
[] Agriculture [] Urbanization [] Industrial effluents [] Floriculture Farms [] others
8. Are you aware of if there are any regional or federal government awareness for the
prevention and control of pollution in Lake Ziway?
[] Yes [] No
If yes, what measures did they take? If yes, explain
9. Have you ever made or seen any complaint to any authority against any individual/group
for polluting the Lake Ziway water?
[] Yes [] No
10. Has any individual/government officer/ NGO made any effort to prevent and control Lake
Ziway’s water pollution?
[] Yes [] No
If yes, what measures have been taken?

11. Has any individual/government officer/ NGO made any effort to make you aware about
water pollution and how you could contribute to minimize the incidences?
[] Yes [] No
If yes, explain

P a g e | 78
Appendix D: Palintest photometer procedures
S/N Parameter Reagents and Equipment used Sample amount Response time
(in ml) (in minutes)
1 Alkalinity (mg/l - 1 Palintest Alkaphot 10 1
CaCO3) Tablet
- Palintest Photometer
(7100)
- Round Test Tubes
- 10 ml glass
2 Ammonia - Palintest Ammonia No 10 10
1
- Tablets Palintest
- Ammonia No 2
Tablets
- Palintest Photometer
(7100)
- Round Test Tubes
- 10 ml glass
3 Bicarbonate Alkalinity*1.22 - -
4 Calcium - Palintest Calcicol No 1 10 2
Tablets
- Palintest Calcicol No 2
Tablets
- Palintest Photometer
- Round Test Tubes
- 10 ml glass
5 Carbonate
6 Chloride - Palintest Acidifying 10 (9 ml 2
CD Tablets deionized water
and 1ml)

P a g e | 79
 - Palintest Chloridol
Tablets
- Palintest Photometer
- Round Test Tubes
- 10 ml glass
- Measuring Syringe, 1
ml
- Sample Container,
100/50/10 ml plastic
7 Floride - Palintest Fluoride No 1 10 5
Tablets
- Palintest Fluoride No 2
Tablets
- Palintest Photometer
(7100)
- Round Test Tubes
- 10 ml glass
8 Magnesium - Palintest Magnecol 10 (9 ml 5
Tablets deionized water
- Palintest Photometer and 1ml sample
(7100) water under test)
- Round Test Tubes
- 10 ml glass
- Measuring Syringe, 1
ml
9 Manganese - Palintest Manganese 10 20
No 1 Tablets
- Palintest Manganese
No 2 Tablets
- Palintest Photometer
(7100)

P a g e | 80
 - Round Test Tubes
- 10 ml glass
10 Nitrate - Palintest Nitratest 10 10
Powder (Spoon Pack)
- Palintest Nitratest
Tablets
- Palintest Nitricol
Tablets
- Palintest Nitratest
Tube, 20 ml
- Palintest Photometer
- Round Test Tubes
- 10 ml glass
11 Nitrite - Palintest Nitricol 10 10
Tablets
- Palintest Photometer
- Round Test Tubes
- 10 ml glass
12 Phosphate - Palintest Phosphate 10 10
HR Tablets
- Palintest Phosphate SR
Tablets
- Palintest Photometer
- Round Test Tubes
- 10 ml glass
13 potassium - Palintest Potassium K 10 5
Tablets
- Palintest Photometer
- Round Test Tubes
- 10 ml glass

P a g e | 81
 14 Sodium - Palintest Potassium Na 10 10
Tablets
- Palintest Photometer
- Round Test Tubes
- 10 ml glass
15 Sulphate - Palintest Sulphate 10 5
Turb Tablets
- Palintest Photometer
- Round Test Tubes
- 10 ml glass
16 Total hardness - Palintest Hardicol No 10 2
1 Tablets
- Palintest Hardicol No
2 Tablets
- Palintest Photometer
(7100)
- Round Test Tubes
- 10 ml glass
17 Total iron - Palintest Iron HR 10 10
Tablets
- Palintest Photometer
- Round Test Tubes
- 10 ml glass

Appendix E: Chain of Custody (Form) and measurement units

Water Quality testing Parameters

S/N Water Quality testing Parameters Units of Measurement

1. pH pH
2. EC
3. Total dissolved solids mg/l
4. Turbidity NTU
5. Ammonia mg/l

P a g e | 82
 6. Total hardness mg/l CaCO3
7. Sodium mg/l
8. Potassium mg/l
9. Total Iron mg/l
10. Manganese mg/l
11. Calcium mg/l
12. Magnesium mg/l
13. Alkalinity mg/l
14. Carbonate mmol/L
15. Bicarbonate mmol/L
16. Chloride mg/l
17. Sulphate mg/l
18. Nitrate mg/l
19. Nitrite mg/l
20. Fluoride mg/l
21. Phosphate mg/l
22. Dissolved oxygen mg/l O2
23. Biochemical oxygen demand mg/l O2
24. Chemical oxygen demand mg/l O2
Sediment/sludge quality testing parameters Units of Measurement
25. pH pH
26. Electrical Conductivity µs/cm
27. Cationic exchange capacity cmol/kg
28. Total Nitrogen mg/l
29. Total Phophorus mg/l
30. Total Iron mg/l
31. Manganese mg/l

P a g e | 83