الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 288 |  |  |
| | | from | 288 | | |
Abstract
1) Chapter (І)
Introduction about water as importance, uses, common pollutants
and a back ground about ammonia, iron, and manages in drinking water
and its impact and their ways of removal and ferrate as an emerging
technology for water treatment.
2) Chapter (II)
Literature survey has been presented on the surface and ground
water statues in Egypt and the used treatment in Egypt. Challenges within
the conventional treatment of water have been declared in this part.
Ferrate uses, efficiency, and benefits in water treatment has been
discussed in a brief way.
3) Chapter (III)
Includes the experimental part, materials, solutions, their
preparation techniques, instruments, analysis used in this work, and the
practical procedures that have been carried out in this study.
4) Chapter (IV)
This chapter contains the results and discussion from the
experimental work done through this study. This chapter consist of 5
parts.
The first part: Includes the monitoring of Surface water quality on
Rosetta branch with a highlight on organic, inorganic and microbiological
pollution within the branch.
Summary
Summary Using of Alternative Green Coagulant in Treatment of Micro-Pollutants in Different Water Resources
The second part: Includes the monitoring of Ground water quality on
Delta Region with a highlight on Fe, Mn and turbidity.
The third part: Includes the preparation and characterization of ferrate
to be used in treatment.
The fourth part: Includes treatment of ammonia from water resources.
The optimum conditions were sets by application of ferrate on synthetic
samples. The condition were: 30 mg/l for ferrate dose, 30 minutes for the
treatment time, and pH 6-8. These optimum conditions have been tested
on treatment of Fisha WTPs raw water and have achieved removal of
ammonia, turbidity, and total coliform by 92.2%, 82.1%, and 99.99%,
respectively, which is higher if compared by using both alum and
chlorine with doses 40 and 80 mg/l. The produced slurry from ferrate was
found to be 10 ml which is less than the volume of slurry produced when
(chlorine/alum) = 16 ml was used. Up to 46% reduction of carcinogenic
Disinfection By-Products (DBPs) was achieved by using ferrate instead
of conventional chemicals. The raw water quality from Fisha WTP was
enhanced from 23% “poor water quality” up to 94.5 % “excellent water
quality” by using ferrate with dose of 30 mg/l and treatment time of 30
minutes at natural pH.
The fifth part: Includes treatment of Iron and manganese from ground
water using a filtration bed, the optimum conditions were sets by
application of ferrate in iron and manganese synthetic sample. The
optimum conditions were: 0.08% ferrate concentration ratio, filtration
time = 0.4 l/hr, and with no pH buffering. This optimum conditions have
been tested on treatment of Ashmoun GWPs. Ashmoun water quality was
enhanced in terms of concentration of iron and manganese together with
turbidity removal. The WQI was enhanced from 35.65 % with poor
Summary
Summary Using of Alternative Green Coagulant in Treatment of Micro-Pollutants in Different Water Resources
quality to 85.21% with good quality by using of ferrate concentration
ratio (0.08%), filtration time = 0.4 l/hr, and with no pH buffering.
5) Chapter (V)
Includes the conclusion that has been extracted from this work:
Ferrate has proven itself as a green coagulant alternative for the
conventional treatment. Ferrate has accomplished the required treatment
of surface water of Fisha WTP without producing carcinogenic DBPs
above the Guideline values. Using of ferrate in surface water treatment
enhanced the WQI of Fisha WTP raw water from 23% “poor water
quality” up to 94.5 % “excellent water quality”. Ferrate successes in
enhancing the Ground water quality of Ashmoun GWPs from 35.65 %
with “poor water quality” to 85.21% with “good water quality