Viva presentation

An Assessment of Environmental Impact of Sugar Mills in District Rahim Yar Khan, Punjab, Pakistan.

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of M. Phil in Zoology.

BySaghir Ahmad

Roll No. 1Session 2005-2007

INSTITUTE OF PURE AND APPLIED BIOLOGYBAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN

In Pakistan, 77 Sugar mills constitute the second most important industry sharing 16% in agricultural economy.

Of these 38 are in punjab,32 in Sindh,6 in NWFP 1 in AK.

Sugar mills use various chemicals during processing which include Calcium Hydroxide, polyelectrolyte, limestone, phosphoric acid, sulphur dioxide, caustic soda, HCl and Lead sub acetate etc.

It is high time to keep an eye on our habitat and assess whether some sort of pollution is being caused by sugar industry or not.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The study was structured to ascertain the impact of growing Sugar Industry on natural resources including soil and water.

Materials and Methods Area of Study :

JDW Sugar Mills, N 28.41.40.4″ E 70.44.41.9″ Humza Sugar Mills, N 28.41.40.5″ E 70.44.42.1″ United Sugar Mills, N 28.34.39.9″ E 7019.18.7″ Ettehad Sugar Mills, N 28.15.01.1″ E 70.02.25.5″

KEY:JDW Sugar Mills

Hamza Sugar Mills

United Sugar Mills

Ettehad Sugar Mills

JDW Sugar Mills

Sampling Sites Water Sampling

(site I, II, III, IV, V) Soil Sampling

(site I, II, III, IV, V)

Fig. Saghir at site III of Humza Sugar Mills

Saim- Nullah near Humza Sugar Mills

Sampling Duration and Analysis

May 2007 to April 2008

S & W Testing Lab. Multan

S & W Testing Lab. R Y KHAN

Figure 1: Showing average monthly variation of EC in water at JDW Sugar Mills.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

month

EC

I

II

III

IV

V

Figure 2: Showing monthly variation of Ca++, Mg++ in water at JDW Sugar Mills.

.

0

12

3

45

6

78

9

May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April

Months

Ca+

+,M

g+

+

I

II

III

IV

V

Figure 3: Showing monthly variation of sodium in water at JDW Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Limited

.

0

12

3

45

6

78

9


Months

Ca+

+,M

g+

+ I

II

III

IV

V

Figure 4: Showing Monthly variation of Bi-carbonate in water at JDW Sugar Mills.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

May

June Ju

lyAug Sep Oct Nov

DecJa

nFeb

Mar

chApr

il

months

Bi-

carb

on

ate

I

II

III

IV

V

Figure 5: Showing monthly variation of sodium absorption ratio (SAR) in water at JDW Sugar Mills.

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

May

June Ju

lyAug Sep Oct Nov

DecJa

nFeb

Mar

chApr

il

months

SA

R

I

II

III

IV

V

Figure 6: Showing monthly variation of Chloride in water at JDW Sugar Mills.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


month

ch

lori

des

I

II

III

IV

V

Figure 7: Showing monthly variation of EC in water at Humza Sugar Mills

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

months

EC

I

II

III

IV

V

Figure 8: Showing monthly variation of Ca++, Mg++ in water at Humza Sugar Mills

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

months

Ca+

+,M

g+

+

I

II

III

IV

V

Figure 9: Showing monthly variation of Chlorides in water at Humza Sugar Mills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

month

ch

lori

des

I

II

III

IV

V

Figure 10: Showing Monthly variation of sodium in water at Humza Sugar Mills.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

May

June Ju

lyAug Sep Oct Nov

DecJa

nFeb

Mar

chApr

il

month

sod

ium

I

II

III

IV

V

Figure 11: Showing monthly variation of SAR in water at Humza Sugar Mills.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

months

SA

R

I

II

III

IV

V

Figure 12: Showing monthly variation of Bi-carbonates in water at Humza Sugar Mills.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

months

SA

R

I

II

III

IV

V

Figure 13: Showing monthly variation of overall Parameters in water at United Sugar Mills.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April

Ca++Mg++

Sodium

HCO3-

Chlorides

SAR

EC

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000


EC

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Para

mete

rsCa++Mg++

Sodium

HCO3-

Chlorides

SAR

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000


EC

Figure 15: Graph showing monthly depth wise (6” – 48”) EC comparison in soil samples taken from JDW Sugar Mills effluent sites.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


monthsE

C

I

II

III

IV

V

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


months

EC

I

II

II

IV

V

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


months

EC

I

II

III

IV

V

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


months

EC

I

II

III

IV

V

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18


months

EC

I

II

III

IV

V

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


months

EC

I

II

III

IV

V

EC

at

12

”

EC

at

18

”

EC

at

24

”

EC

at

30

”

EC

at

36

”

EC

at

48

”

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8


months

pH

I

II

III

IV

V

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

9


Month

pH

I

II

III

IV

V

7

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

9


month

pH

I

II

III

IV

V

7

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

9


month

pH

I

II

III

IV

V

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5


months

pH

I

II

III

IV

V

7

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8


month

pH

I

II

III

IV

V

pH

at

12”

pH

at

18”

pH

at

24”

pH

at

30”

pH

at

36”

7

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8


months

pH

I

II

III

IV

V

Figure 16: Graph showing monthly depth wise (6” – 48”) pH

comparison in soil samples taken from JDW

Sugar Mills effluent sites.

DISCUSSION Water EC =Salinity

Water Salinity @ Calcium, Magnesium, Bi-carbonates, Chlorides, Sodium &SAR

pH @ CO2 ,Bicarbonates, carbonates, hydroxyl ions,

Calcium & Magnesium etc

Sugar Mills produce effluents CO2 Bicarbonates, carbonates, hydroxyl ions, Calcium & Magnesium etc.

Water pollution>>>>seepage + irrigation>>>Soil Pollution.

CONCLUSION

Habitat degradation, Ecological Imbalance, Desertification.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is evident from the results that effluents these sugar mills are polluting the nearby natural resources.

NEQS must be enforced on the basis of “Acta non Verba”

QUESTIONS ?

Education

Viva presentation