Su Kalite İndeksi Kullanılarak Yüksek Derecede Etkilenen Kentsel Bir Akarsuda Su Kalitesinin Değerlendirilmesi (Ankara Çayı, Türkiye)

Abstract

Nüfus artışı ile sanayi, tarım ve kentsel bölgelerdeki gelişim gibi çeşitli nedenler, kentsel tatlı su kaynaklarını tehdit etmektedir. Ekolojik denge, su güvenliği ve enerji üretimi için kentsel su kalitesinin korunması yüksek öneme sahiptir. Su kalitesi indeksi (WQI), su kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi ve yönetimi için etkili bir yöntemdir ve Kanada Çevre Bakanlığı Konseyi Su Kalite İndeksi (CCME-WQI), bu yöntemlerin en yaygın kullanılanlarından birisidir. Bu çalışmada, yoğun nüfuslu Ankara şehrinin içinden akan Ankara Çayı'nın kirlilik durumu, beş istasyondan (S1-S5) elde edilen fiziko-kimyasal parametreler kullanılarak incelenmiş ve su kalitesi CCME-WQI ile tahmin edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, çayın farklı noktalarında değişen su kalitesini ortaya koymuştur. Korunan alanda bulunan S2, en iyi kalite değerine sahipken, atık su arıtma tesisinin mansabında bulunan S4 ve S5, en kötü kaliteyi sergilemiştir. Bu bulgular, Ankara Çayı’na ait geçmiş veriler ve literatür ile tutarlılık göstererek, CCME-WQI'in yüksek kirliliğe sahip su kaynaklarının yönetimi için kullanılabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışma, sürdürülebilir su yönetimi uygulamalarına katkıda bulunmakta ve kentsel tatlı su kaynaklarındaki kirliliği kontrol etmek için ileri arıtma tekniklerine duyulan ihtiyacı vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

• CCME-WQI
• Ankara Çayı
• Kentsel su kalitesi
• Kirlilik değerlendirmesi

Evaluation of Water Quality in a Highly Impacted Urban Stream Using Water Quality Index (Ankara Stream, Türkiye)

Abstract

Population growth along with other factors such as industrial, agricultural, and urban development, threaten freshwater resources in urban areas. Protecting urban water quality for ecological balance, water security, and energy production is crucial. The water quality index (WQI) provides an effective tool for assessing and managing water quality, and the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCME-WQI) is one of the extensively used method. In this study, the pollution status of the Ankara Stream which flows through the densely populated Ankara was examined using physico-chemical parameters collected from five stations (S1-S5), and the water quality status was estimated via CCME-WQI. The results revealed varying water quality across different points on the stream. S2, located in a protected area, exhibited the best quality; in contrast, S4 and S5, located downstream of a wastewater treatment plant, exhibited the poorest quality. The consistency of these findings with the literature and the historical records of Ankara Stream emphasize that the CCME-WQI can be used for the management of water resources with high levels of pollution. This study contributes to sustainable water management practices and highlights the need for advanced treatment techniques to control pollution in urban freshwater resources.

Keywords

• CCME-WQI
• Ankara Stream
• Urban Water Quality
• Pollution Assessment

References

1. Akbulut, N. E., Bayarı, S., Akbulut, A., Özyurt, N. N., & Sahin, Y. (2022). Rivers of Turkey. In: Tockner, K., Robinson, C. T., Uehlinger, U. (Eds.), Rivers of Europe 853–882. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-102612-0.00021-3
2. Alver, A., & Baştürk, E. (2019). Karasu Nehri su kalitesinin farklı su kalitesi indeksleri açısından değerlendirilmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(2), 488-497. https://doi.org/10.19113/sdufenbed.528611
3. ASKİ, (2020). Ankara Water and Sewerage Administration General Directorate 2020 Performans Programı. Retrieved 01.10.2023 from https://www.aski.gov.tr/TR/ICERIK/Performans-Programlari/23.
4. Atıcı, T., & Ahıska, S. (2005). Pollution and algae of Ankara Stream. Gazi University Journal of Science, 18(1), 51-59.
5. Balls, P. W., Brockie, N., Dobson, J., & Johnston, W. (1996). Dissolved oxygen and nitrification in the upper Forth Estuary during summer (1982–92): patterns and trends. Estuarine, coastal and shelf science, 42(1), 117-134. https://doi.org/10.1006/ecss.1996.0009
6. Baştürk, E., & Alver, A. (2019). Melendiz Nehri su kalitesinin farklı kullanım amaçlarına göre değerlendirilmesi. Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(2), 731-740. https://doi.org/10.28948/ngumuh.531129
7. Boyacıoğlu, H. (2007). Development of a water quality index based on a European classification scheme. Water Sa, 33(1), 101-106. https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v33i1.47882
8. Bütünoğlu, A. (2018). Su Kaynaklarında Yüzer Sulak Alan ve Sucul Bitkiler ile Nütrient Gideriminin Değerlendirilmesi. Dissertation. T.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry General Directorate of Water Management, Ankara.

9. CCME, (2001). Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: CCME Water Quality Index 1.0, Technical Report. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.
10. CCME, (2017). Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: CCME Water Quality Index, User’s Manual – 2017 Update. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.
11. Chidiac, S., El Najjar, P., Ouaini, N., El Rayess, Y., & El Azzi, D. (2023). A comprehensive review of water quality indices (WQIs): history, models, attempts and perspectives. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 22(2), 349-395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-023-09650-7
12. Durmuş, M. T. (2021). Ankara Çayı su kalitesinin NSF-WQI indeksi kullanılarak belirlenmesi ve çözüm önerilerinin değerlendirilmesi. Doctorate Thesis. Eskişehir Technical University, Graduate School of Sciences. Friberg, N. (2014). Impacts and indicators of change in lotic ecosystems. WIREsWater, 1(6), 513-531. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1040
13. GDWM, (2021). Water Quality Statistics, Distribution of Sensitive Areas at Basin Level. General Directorate of Water Management. Retrieved 01.10.2023, from https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/SYGM/Sayfalar/Detay.aspx?SayfaId=56
14. Ghadiri, A., Hashemi, S. H., & Nasrabadi, T. (2023). Robust time-invariant relationships between metals concentration and total suspended solids at stormwater in a highly urbanized catchment. Environmental Earth Sciences, 82(236), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-023-10922-2
15. Hoekstra, A. Y., Buurman, J., & Van Ginkel, K. C. (2018). Urban water security: A review. Environmental research letters, 13(5), 053002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaba52
16. ISO, (2014). TS-ISO 5667-6:2014. Water Quality-Sampling-Part 6: Guidance on sampling of rivers and streams. Retrieved 01.10.2023 from https://www.iso.org/ standard/55451.html
17. Kazancı, N., & Girgin, S. (1998). Distribution of Oligochaeta species as bioindicators of organic pollution in Ankara Stream and their use in biomonitoring. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 22(1), 83-88.
18. Khan, A. A., Paterson, R., & Khan, H. (2004). Modification and application of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCME WQI) for the communication of drinking water quality data in Newfoundland and Labrador. Water Quality Research Journal, 39(3), 285-293. https://doi.org/10.2166/wqrj.2004.039
19. Kutlu, T. (2022). Ankara'nın kentsel atık sularının gri su ayak izi. Master's thesis, Ankara University, Graduate School of Social Sciences.
20. Liou, S. M., Lo, S. L., & Wang, S. H. (2004). A generalized water quality index for Taiwan. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 96(1), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:emas.0000031715.83752.a1
21. Ministry of Environment and Urbanization Report, (2020). Turkey's environmental problems and priorities evaluation report. Retrieved 01.10.2023 from https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/ced/icerikler/tu-rk-yecevresorunlariveoncel-kler-_2020-20210401124420.pdf
22. Qu, L., Huang, H., Xia, F., Liu, Y., Dahlgren, R. A., Zhang, M., & Mei, K. (2018). Risk analysis of heavy metal concentration in surface waters across the rural-urban interface of the Wen-Rui Tang River, China. Environmental pollution, 237, 639-649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.020
23. RSWQM (2012). Yerüstü Su Kalitesi Yönetmeliği (2014, 11 Şubat) T.C. Official Gazette, 28483. Retrieved 01.10.2023 from https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2012/11/20121130-5.htm
24. Pulatsü, S., & Latifi, D. (2023a). Assessment of Potentially Toxic Element Pollution in Tributaries of Mogan Lake, Türkiye. COMU J Mar Sci Fish, 6(2), 102-115. https://doi.org/10.46384/jmsf.1328808
25. Pulatsü, S., & Latifi, D. (2023b). Evaluation of health risks from heavy metals in the creeks feeding Mogan Lake, Türkiye. Ege Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 40(3), 219-227. https://doi.org/10.12714/egejfas.40.3.09
26. Saravanan, A., Kumar, P. S., Jeevanantham, S., Karishma, S., Tajsabreen, B., Yaashikaa, P. R., & Reshma, B. (2021). Effective water/wastewater treatment methodologies for toxic pollutants removal: Processes and applications towards sustainable development. Chemosphere, 280,130595.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130595
27. Satterthwaite, D. (2011). How urban societies can adapt to resource shortage and climate change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 369(1942), 1762-1783. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0350
28. Taner, M. Ü., Üstün, B., & Erdinçler, A. (2011). A simple tool for the assessment of water quality in polluted lagoon systems: A case study for Küçükçekmece Lagoon, Turkey. Ecological Indicators, 11(2), 749-756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.08.003
29. Teodorof, L., Ene, A., Burada, A., Despina, C., Seceleanu-Odor, D., Trifanov, C., Ibram, O., Bratfanof, E., Tudor, M.I., Tudor, M., et al. (2021). Integrated assessment of surface water quality in Danube River Chilia Branch. Applied Sciences, 11(19), 9172. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11199172
30. Terrado, M., Barceló, D., Tauler, R., Borrell, E., & de Campos, S. (2010). Surface-water-quality indices for the analysis of data generated by automated sampling networks. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 29(1), 40-52. https://doi.org/10.1An016/j.trac.2009.10.001
31. TS 266 (2005). Water intended for human consumption. Turkish Standards Institute, Ankara. TUBITAK MAM, (2013). Sakarya River Basin Protection Action Plan. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey-Marmara Research Center, Kocaeli.
32. Tunc Dede, Ö., Telci, I. T., & Aral, M. M. (2013). The use of water quality index models for the evaluation of surface water quality: a case study for Kirmir Basin, Ankara, Turkey. Water Quality, Exposure and Health, 5(1), 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12403-013-0085-3
33. Tunc Dede, Ö., & Sezer, M. (2017). Aksu Çayı su kalitesinin belirlenmesinde Kanada su kalitesi indeks (CWQI) modelinin uygulanması. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering & Architecture of Gazi University, 32(3), 909-917. https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.337643
34. Tyagi, S., Sharma, B., Singh, P., & Dobhal, R. (2013). Water quality assessment in terms of water quality index. American Journal of Water Resources, 1(3), 34-38. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajwr-1-3-3
35. Uslu, A., Dugan, S.T., El Hmaidi, A., Muhammetoglu, A. (2024). Comparative evaluation of spatiotemporal variations of surface water quality using water quality indices and GIS. Earth Sci Inform, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-024-01389-1
36. WHO (2011). Guidelines for drinking-water quality. 4th edition. World Health Organization, Geneva.
37. Yan, F., Qiao, D., Qian, B., Ma, L., Xing, X., Zhang, Y., & Wang, X. (2016). Improvement of CCME WQI using grey relational method. Journal of Hydrology, 543, 316-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.10.007
38. Yotova, G., Varbanov, M., Tcherkezova, E., & Tsakovski, S. (2021). Water quality assessment of a river catchment by the composite water quality index and self-organising maps. Ecological Indicators, 120, 106872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106872
39. Zotou, I., Tsihrintzis, V. A., & Gikas, G. D. (2020). Water quality evaluation of a lacustrine water body in the Mediterranean based on different water quality index (WQI) methodologies. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, 55(5), 537-548. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2019.1710956