© All Rights Reserved

0 views

© All Rights Reserved

- The Expression of Uncertainty and Confidence in Measurement (Edition 3, November 2012)
- BETTER BUSINESS DECISION USING COST MODELLING 2nd ED Sower, Sower.pdf
- 1. WHOC12_3632[1]
- 4-8
- 1.an Empirical TecAn empirical technique for predicting noise exposure level in the typicalhnique for Predicting Noise Exposure Level in the Typical
- Red
- Costs and Benefits of the Price Adjustment Clause in FIDIC MDB.pdf
- Lecture 1 Ekotek 2006
- Enrico Ronchi 1
- 4. Sensitivity Analysis
- Working Platforms to BRE or Not to BRE is the question Mar 16 AG.pdf
- FINAL.pdf
- Metron Solution
- DSS Modeling
- 684786.pdf
- 03-03 Research Directions in Computational Mechanics_0
- resource.pdf
- Peck2004-Trends in Ecology & Evolution
- IJCTCM
- Agriculture 03 00516

You are on page 1of 77

River

Razel V. Alumit Jr.1, Van Vesper J. Dulliyao2, Denver V. Guillermo3, Rhea D. Mamba4,

Laica C. Manaligod5, Elha E. Maruquin6

College of Engineering

Cagayan State University - Carig Campus

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 3500

1

razeljr.alumit@gmail.com, 2bhuvan_dulliyao@rocketmail.com,

3

guillermo.denver@yahoo.com, 4rheamamba@gmail.com, 5laicamanaligo@yahoo.com,

6

maruquinelha@gmail.com

Major Adviser: Prof./Engr. Leonard D. Agana

ABSTRACT

Pinacanauan de Tuguegarao River, located at Barangay Caggay, Tuguegarao City was

studied. The main objective was to develop a two-dimensional water quality model for each

parameter. A 200 meter length and 121 meter width was selected as the boundary. Water

samples were collected from designated points in the boundary for every 14 days and analyzed

for different parameters. Simulated values from the developed models were compared to the

measured values using statistical paired t-test and found no significant difference.

Furthermore, the developed models were used to determine the effect of different discharge

conditions to the quality of the river.

Keywords: model, water quality, simulated, Pinacanauan River

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

Water is one of the most essential natural resources for the existence and survival of

the entire life on this planet. All living organisms need large quantity and good quality of water

to continue their life (Kang, Gao, & Xie, 2017). Preserving this natural resource and ensuring

its availability therefore is very essential to have quality life not just for the present but also for

the next generations.

As populations and economics grow, water quality is degrading at an alarming rate due

to the increase of pollutant loadings in this natural resource. High organic loadings can reduced

dissolved oxygen to levels that are fatal to parts of the aquatic ecosystem and can cause

intolerable odors. Toxic heavy metals and other micro-pollutants can accumulate in the bodies

of aquatic organisms, including fish, making them unfit for human consumption even if they

themselves survive (Loucks & Beek, 2005). In addition, toxic heavy metals and other micro-

pollutants can cause water borne diseases and can end up in surface and ground water bodies.

Addressing this concern, models, water quality analysis, and evaluation techniques were

developed in order to attain water quality.

Water quality models are very useful in describing the ecological state of the water

system and to predict the change in this state when certain boundary or initial conditions are

altered (Lindenschmidt, 2005). Model will also help to explore various water pollution

scenarios and solve water quality planning and forecasting tasks (Ruzgas, Inga Ruzgiene, &

Tomas, 2014). Also, model can become a helpful tool in the management process, enabling the

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 1 of 77

user to explore new horizons of the imaginations, to compare choices, and to identify pathways

toward superior solutions to practical problems (Orlob, Mathematical modelling of water

quality: Streams, Lakes, and Reservoirs, 1983).

River water quality is of great environmental concern since it is one of the major

available fresh water resources for human consumption (Jarvie, Whitton, & Neal, 1998). One

of the most popular river water in the Province of Cagayan is the Pinacanauan de Tuguegarao

River. This river supplies water to more than 500 hectares of farms in 8 Barangays of

Peñablanca and 4 Barangays of Tuguegarao City (Espejo, Tungpalan, Negi, & Alex, 2015).

Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to develop a comprehensive process

engineering approach on water quality modelling in Pinacanauan de Tuguegarao River by

means of a mathematical model in order to determine the condition of the river water and

formulate solutions.

1.2. Objectives of the Study

Generally, the study aimed to develop a water quality model of the Pinacanauan de

Tuguegarao River.

Specifically, it aimed to:

1. Compare the difference of the simulated value and the actual values of water quality

parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH) using a statistical tool paired T-

test.

2. Compare the accuracy of model with published model.

3. Determine the change in the amount of the different water quality parameters (dissolved

oxygen, temperature, and pH) of Pinacanauan de Tuguegarao River when:

Case 1: An additional pollutant source is present in the river;

Case 2: The classification effluent discharge of Source 1 is at Class B;

Case 3: The classification of effluent discharge of Source 1 is at Class D.

1.3. Conceptual/Theoretical Framework

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 2 of 77

According to (Orlob, et al., 1983), the first step of the modeling procedure is

conceptualization. One of its importance is to know the locations of control structures and

tributaries along a river, or to know whether various portions of a lake can be considered

essentially deep or shallow. Conceptualization will involve a choice regarding the possible

(spatial) segregation of the water body into a number of discrete segments and layers. Besides

a spatial separation of the water body it may be necessary to include a grouping and

differentiation of biotic species according to how one visualizes their roles in the ecology of

the water body.

With the conceptualization of the modelling problem comes also model formulation. It

is useful to distinguish between various types of model and to discuss briefly their

characteristics. Formulation of the model according to (UNESCO.org, n.d.) involves a decision

about the type of model, elimination of the relationships that do not affect the output results,

examination of alternative types of models and careful relationships of base data collection.

This information is integrated into a conceptual model, in general through the introduction of

simplifying assumptions and qualitative interpretations regarding the flow and the transport

process.

Computational representation includes formulation of equations, formulation of

methods of solution, and selection of a computer code. In formulation of equations, it is

possible to state the relationships involved in some formal mathematical or statistical way.

Adoption of a hierarchical approach to this process often results in a clearer set of equations in

which the influence of primary and secondary relations can be more easily appreciated. Some

preliminary data may be needed to guide the choice. For the formulation of methods of solution,

only in a few special cases it may be possible to solve the equations analytically, but most

models involve the use of numerical methods for solving partial differential equations,

interpolation, etc. The choice of the appropriate numerical technique is crucial for numerical

stability and accuracy and also for minimizing computational effort. For selection of a

computer code, the decision depends on the project goals. If a modelling is intended only to

provide a first approximation, a simple code may be appropriate. The form of input and output

results, and the choice of the language, are in dependence of the available facilities.

The calibration of the model is one of the most critical, difficult, and valuable steps in

the model application process. After a pollutant transport model is calibrated to a satisfactory

degree, it is often applied to predict and simulate the future contaminant migration.

(UNESCO.org, n.d.) Calibration includes experimental design, model structure identification,

parameter estimation, and verification.. Verification is the determination of whether the correct

model has been obtained from a given single set of experimental data. Calibration and

verification represent the bulk of the procedure for model development and testing, once an

experimental data set has been obtained (Orlob, et al., 1983).

Validation of the model refers to the testing of the adequacy of the model against a

second, independent set of field data. Because validation thus entails the design and

implementation of new experiments, it is unfortunately a step in the analysis that is all too

rarely attempted (Orlob, et al., 1983).

According to (UNESCO.org, n.d.), it is impossible to apply the model as representative

without suitable proof. The validation of the model depends on the local possibilities. Model

validation, evaluation, confirmation, or testing is the process of assessing the degree of

reliability of the calibrated model using one or more independent data sets. Ideally it is possible

to compare the output results from the model with the observed data.

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 3 of 77

Sensitivity analysis establishes the relative magnitudes of changes in the simulated

model output responses to changes in the model parameter values. It examines the distribution

of model responses that are possible, given the distributions of estimated parameter values

(Orlob, et al., 1983).

Sensitivity analysis is used before and after calibration mainly to test the responsiveness

and sensitivity of the numerical model to every input parameter. It is useful for: examining the

likely uncertainty in simulation results due to uncertainty in model input parameters, and

examining how well parameters are likely to be estimated from the available data for model

calibration. Sensitivity analysis provides important information on how uncertainties in the

model parameters affect the model results. If the model results are highly sensitive to a

particular parameter, the uncertainty associated with that parameter will significantly affect the

ability of the model to make meaningful interpretations and predictions. It is the mean of

determining the model parameters (UNESCO.org, n.d.).

Figure 2, shows the conceptual framework of the study. The framework is divided into

three major parts- segmentation of Pinacanauan de Tuguegarao River, data collection, and

water quality model. The segmentation of Pinacanauan de Tuguegarao River is based on the

location of the source and setting boundaries within the river reaches. Different parameters

such as dissolved oxygen, temperature and pH were collected. A water quality model is then

developed.

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 4 of 77

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Study Area

The study area is located in Brgy. Caggay, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan at the latitude

and longitude of 17° 37’ 37.41” N and 121° 44’ 25.44” E, respectively (Figure 4). It has a total

population of about 7,577 and approximately 25% of its total population resides along the river.

The river has an average depth of 1.56461 m. and an average velocity of 0.30618 m/s. The river

is surrounded by agricultural lands, however there were two pollutant sources were located in

the selected sampling site that impact the water quality of river water (domestic and household

effluents). Also, the nearest distance of the sampling site from the road is 31.8 m while the

furthest is 64.9 m.

The selected length and width of the rivers’ boundary are 200 m. and 121m.,

respectively. The data were gathered at the outer and inner nodes of the study area. From the

outer nodes, seven points were selected as initial conditions which are denoted as B1 to B7 and

for the inner nodes, three points were selected (I1 to I3). Each point, three parameters were

tested (DO, temperature, and pH). In addition, the location of the upper and lower streams were

identified.

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 5 of 77

Figure 4: Selection of Boundary

2.3. Data Collection

Water parameters were measured using two methods: chemical testing method and the

used of measuring devices. The chemical method was used to validate the result of the

measuring devices. The dissolved oxygen, temperature and pH of each point in the boundary

were measured with two replicates. The water sampling was every after 14 days and were

gathered between 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 am.

The sampling bottles were rinsed with sample water from the river. A bottle was

submerged in the river and the cap was removed. After the bottle was filled with water, the cap

was replaced and the bottle was retrieved from the river. When air bubbles appeared, the

sampling method was repeated until such time that no air bubbles were seen from the sample.

A DO bottle was filled with sample water and added with 8 drops of Manganous Sulfate

Solution (4167). Additional 8 drops of Alkaline Potassium Iodide Azide Solution (7166) was

added to the sample before it was capped, mixed by inverting several times and allowed the

precipitate to settle. Another 8 drops of Sulfuric Acid was added to the sample, capped and

mixed properly until the formed precipitate dissolved. The sample was now “fixed”

A test tube was filled to 20 mL line with “fixed” sample and then capped. The sample

was titrated using Direct Reading Titrator (0377) with Sodium Thiosulfate, 0.025N (4169) until

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 6 of 77

the color turned to very faint yellow. The titrator was removed and the “fixed” sample was

added with 8 drops of Starch Indicator Solution (4170 WT) where the sample turned blue. The

sample was titrated until the blue color disappeared. Dissolved oxygen was recorded in ppm.

2.3.5. pH Measurement

A test tube (0106) was filled with 10 mL sample water, added with 8 drops of Wide

Range pH Indicator (2218), capped and properly mixed. The test tube was inserted into a wide

range Octa-Slide 2 Bar (3483-01) and Octa-Slide 2 Viewer and the pH was determined by

comparing the color of the sample with the corresponding color in the Octa-Slide 2 Viewer.

Immerse the DO probe into the solution under test to a depth of at least 10cm. Allow

the test to stabilize for several minutes to achieve thermal equilibrium between the probe and

measurement sample. Read the result given by the DO meter.

2.3.8. pH Measurement

Calibrate the pH meter by rinsing its electrode with distilled water. After calibration,

rinsed the electrode and submerged it in the water sample. Allow the readings to stabilize.

Read the result given by the pH meter.

At the sampling site, submerged the thermometer in the water for one minute. Removed

the thermometer from the water then read the temperature and record the temperature as

degrees Celsius.

2.3.10. River Geometry

The number of boundaries, rate of flow, velocity, and the cross-section area were

determined. The input data for model validation were topographical and hydraulic data and

water quality in the sampling site. Topographical data were river cross-section that was

measured at all sampling boundaries. Required hydraulic data are flow rates, water depth and

velocity.

The data required for this model are as follows:

Length , width and height of the river

Number and location of boundaries

Length between each boundaries

Location of the intersection point of the sewage and the main river

The model formulation for a particular pollutant was based in mass balance principle

and is given as:

Accumulation inflow - outflow sources or sinks

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 7 of 77

The mathematical model, corresponding with initial and boundary conditions, consists

of two - dimensional advection-dispersion mass balance equation of the given pollution

parameter.

The assumptions in such models were (Mirbaghery, Abaspour, & Zamani, 2009):

1. The density of clean water is equal to the density of polluted water.

2. Longitudinal and vertical hydrodynamic dispersion occurs.

3. The depth of the river and the hydraulic radius is similar.

The two-dimensional advection-dispersion model for the conservation of mass of water

quality parameters can be written for a river flow system is as follows:

C C C 2C 2C

u v Dx 2 D y 2 S

t x y x y

x, y = distance u, v = water velocity

Dx, Dy = Dispersion Coefficients S = Sources or sinks

C C C 2C 2C

u v D x 2 D y 2 k a (C s C ) k d L

t x y x y

Where:

C = actual concentration of dissolved oxygen

ka = reaeration rate constant

k d = decay rate constant

L = BOD concentration

The formulated model was discretized (See solution in Appendix D.1.1), and the

equation becomes:

D x D y i , j 1,t v

x 2 y 2 x

C i , j ,t 1 t C i , j ,t

C C i , j 1,t

u i , j ,t k a C s C i , j ,t k d L

y

processes:

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 8 of 77

T T T T T T T H

u v D xx D xy D yx D yy 0

t x y x x y y t y Pc p

C p = heat capacity of water

P = depth of the river

H = net heat exchanges

Discretizing the model (See solution Appendix D.1.2), it becomes

Dx D y i , j 1,t v

x 2

y 2 x

Ti , j ,t 1 t Ti , j ,t

T Ti , j 1,t H

u i , j ,t

y PCp

represented as:

C C C 2C 2C

u v Dx 2 D y 2 k p

t x y x y

Where:

k p is the rate constant due to chemical reaction (See appendix D.1.3)

C i 1, j ,t 2C i , j ,t C i 1, j ,t C 2C i , j C i , j 1 C i , j ,t C i 1, j

D x D y i , j 1,t v

x 2 y 2 x

C i , j ,t 1 t C i , j ,t

u C i , j ,t C i , j 1,t k

y p

2.5. Estimation and Calibration of Reaeration and Decay Rate Coefficient

Reaeration and decay rates are very important parameters in order to predict the

dissolved oxygen concentration in the river (Gonçalves, Silveira, Lopes Júnior, da Luz , &

Simões, 2017). Estimating reaeration and decay rate coefficient requires considerable efforts

since measuring these coefficients is laborious and expensive task. Hence, the coefficients used

in this study were estimated using developed equation. For the estimation of reaerations rates,

M. A. Churchill, H. L. Elmore and R. A. Buckingham's equation (1962) was used.

5V

k a (20C )

h5 / 3

where:

ka = reaeration rate at 20°C (/day)

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 9 of 77

V = mean velocity (m/s)

h = mean depth (m)

The calculated ka (20C ) were calibrated according to stream temperature using the

formula:

k a k a (20C ) x (T 20)

The temperature correction coefficient, θ, depends on the mixing condition of the river

water body. Values generally range from 1.005 to 1.030. In practice, a value of 1.024 is often

used (Thomann and Mueller, 1987).

Decay rate coefficients is also dependent on temperature. The formula for estimating

decay rate coefficient is

k d k d (20C ) x (T 20)

where θ is 1.047. The typical value at the reference temperature 20 °C is commonly estimated

using the table below

Table 1: Typical values of the decay coefficient for various types of wastes. From [Davis and

Cornwell, 1991]

Waste Type Kd at 20 (day-1)

Raw domestic sewage 0.35-0.70

Treated domestic sewage 0.12-0.23

Polluted river water 0.12-0.23

finite difference scheme. The finite difference approximation expressed the values and the

partial derivative of each function within a four-point grid formed by the intersections of the

space line i-1, I and i+1 with the time lines tn and tn+1. A control volume was defined and

situated around the grid point i. The river bed, the water surface and the two cross-sections

situated at i-1 and i+1, respectively, are the boundaries of this control volume as shown in the

figure below.

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 10 of 77

For a discrete time interval change in Δt, beginning at tn and collecting term in

concentration (C), the resulting finite difference form is:

M Dp M Dp M

2 2

p

t x 2 y 2

M (N wi , N Li , t + 1) M (N wi , N Li , t ) M (N wi+1 , N Li , t + 1) 2M (N wi , N Li , t + 1) + M (N wi 1 , N Li , t + 1)

ρp = +

Δt Δx 2

(

M (N w , N Li+1 , t + 1) 2M (N wi , N Li , t + 1) + M N wi , N Li +1 , t + 1 )

Δy 2

ρp = Dρ p

Δt Δx 2

+

Δy 2

M(i, j, t + 1) M(i, j, t ) Dρ p

= [M(i + 1, j, t + 1) 4M(i, j, t + 1) + M(i 1, j, t + 1)]

Δt ρ p Δx 2

+ M(i, j + 1, t + 1) + M(i, j 1, t + 1)

M (i, j, t + 1) Dρ p Dρ p

+ 4 M (i , j, t + 1) = [M(i + 1, j, t + 1) + M(i 1, j, t + 1)]

Δt ρ p Δx 2 ρ p Δx 2

M (i, j, t )

+ M (i, j + 1, t + 1) + M (i, j 1, t + 1) +

Δt

1 4Dρ p Dρ p

+ M (i , j, t + 1) = [M (i + 1, j, t + 1) + M (i 1, j, t + 1) + M (i, j + 1, t + 1)

Δt ρ p Δx 2 ρ p Δx 2

M (i, j, t )

+ M (i, j 1, t + 1)] +

Δt

Discretized equations shown for temperature, pH and DO were coded in MATLAB

2013a. The simulation starts by loading the initial conditions such as pH, DO and temperature

of the water (Figure 6). Parameter values (e.g. dimensions of river, re-aeration rate, decay rate,

etc.) were initialized. Matrixes for the pH, DO and temperature were initially allocated in order

to increase simulation speed.

The loop is initialized by comparing the simulation time (tinst) with the target end time

(tend). The loop will terminate if the value of tinst is equal to that of tend. While tinst is not equal

to tend, another conditional statement is set to update the boundary conditions.

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 11 of 77

The simulation time is then increased by time increment, dt (1 second). The new Temp

(temperature at tinst + dt) is calculated followed by, pH (pH at tinst + dt), and DO (DO at tinst +

dt). Initial temp, pH, and DO are then updated by the calculated values.

Another conditional statement is set in order to record the simulated data. If the

remainder is equal to the zero, then, the computed temp, pH and DO will be stored in an MS

Excel file. These data (denoted as simulation data) will be compared with the actual data.

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 12 of 77

2.8. Model Validation

Once the model was simulated, model testing was performed. The model was then used

to simulate an independent period for which field data under different environmental conditions

were available for comparison and validation. Results of the validation run were then compared

with field data for the same period, and a decision was made as to whether predictions and

observations were close enough to consider the model valid for predictive purposes and this

was done using the paired t-Test in Microsoft Excel 2016. If validation results were not

adequately close, the model process controlling parameters were adjusted accordingly, and the

calibration and validation process was repeated. This was done iteratively until the results were

adequate to consider the model valid for predictive purposes.

2.9. Statistical Tool

The results of the simulated data of Temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen were

validated using paired t-Test at 5% level of significance.

2.10. Calculation of the Coefficient of Determination (R2)

Coefficient of Determination (R2) was used to measure if the simulated data was a good

for the actual data. The R2 was calculated using MATLAB™ 2013a (See codes at Appendix

E.2).

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 13 of 77

3. RESULTS/FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1. Temperature

Using the developed model for the temperature, the gathered data at the boundaries

were set as initial conditions and were simulated using MATLAB™. The simulated results for

temperature is shown in Table 2 and were compared with the actual values as plotted in Figure

7.

Table 2: Current vs. Simulated for Temperature

TEMPERATURE (°C)

I1 I2 I3

Day

Actual Simulated Actual Simulated Actual Simulated

0 23.64 23.58306 23.642857 23.64 23.64 23.65483

1 23.5 23.60445 23.5 23.49234 23.5 23.44924

2 23.5 23.97994 22.5 22.87967 23 22.1495

3 24.5 23.65148 24.5 24.13597 25 23.54031

4 22.5 24.25581 22.75 22.99172 23 23.2918

5 26.25 26.20346 25.95 26.20466 26.05 26.09612

6 26 26.31361 27 26.99176 27 26.81986

7 27.5 27.48192 26.75 26.99172 27 27.25281

8 29 29.23192 29 29.08876 29.5 29.36588

9 30.5 30.22895 30.5 30.64344 30.5 30.7923

10 30.25 30.19987 30.6 30.55036 31.3 30.85068

It can be observed from the plotted values of temperature that the actual and simulated

values were relatively close to each other. The coefficient of determination was for I1, I2 and I3

were determined to be 0.94974, 0.99514 and 0.97082 respectively. This indicates that the

theoretical values were in good fit with the actual values.

(a) I1 (b) I2

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 14 of 77

R2= 0.97082

(c) I3

Figure 7: Theoretical Vs. Actual Temperature for (a) I1 (b) I2 (c) I3

The simulated initial and final values during the water quality sampling for temperature

was mapped as shown in Figure 8. It can be seen in the maps that both initial and final

temperature conditions displays lower temperature on the left side of the map and higher

temperature on the other side. The change in temperature is also affected by the weather

conditions during the sampling period.

Figure 8: (a) Initial and (b) Final Temperature

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 15 of 77

3.2. Dissolved Oxygen

The actual river water quality parameter dissolved oxygen was taken every after 14

days. Water quality model for this parameter was developed using the gathered data at the

boundaries as the initial condition and was simulated using MATLAB™ 2013a software. The

simulated data of dissolved oxygen were compared with current data values, as presented in

Table 3

Table 3: Current vs. Simulated for Dissolved Oxygen.

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

I1 I2 I3

Day

Current Simulated Current Simulated Current Simulated

0 7.66 7.628197 7.66 7.662857 7.66 7.684965

1 7.665 6.603236 7.685 7.489097 7.685 7.35746

2 6.41 6.58578 5.955 3.501366 6.1 5.26473

3 9.03 8.343301 8.27 8.343418 8.16 8.053624

4 8.24 8.197079 8.19 8.240218 7.56 7.845481

5 8.23 7.656159 7.525 7.535051 7.335 7.113582

6 6.95 6.462873 6.5 6.534535 6.3 6.359633

7 5.36 4.562447 5.22 5.693666 6.625 4.625674

8 2.485 4.716579 5.63 3.987134 4.75 5.09569

9 7.39 6.925908 7.345 7.535377 7.555 7.292036

10 6.34 6.225017 6.29 6.251743 7.003 6.210554

The simulated vs. current DO for inner nodes 1, 2, and 3 were plotted and the results

were shown in Figure 9. The coefficient of determination (R2) of the current and theoretical

dissolved oxygen values were also determined using MATLAB™ 2013a software. The

simulated results were in good arguments with the measured values as seen in the graphs

R

2

= 0.89811

R

2

= 0.98112

(a) I1 (b) I2

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 16 of 77

R

2

= 0.98112

(c) I3

Water quality contour maps were generated using the simulated initial and final values

of the dissolved oxygen model, as shown in Figure 10. The map shows the changes in the

concentration of the dissolved oxygen at a given distance in the boundary. Dissolved oxygen

is highest at the source, since colder water holds more dissolved oxygen than warm water.

Minute difference of the initial and final values of the concentration of dissolved oxygen were

observed. The contoured map of dissolved oxygen and temperature are directly proportional to

each other (Addy & Green, 1997).

Figure 10: (a) Initial and (b) Final DO

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 17 of 77

3.3. pH

The actual data gathered within the span of study and the simulated data for pH

parameter of the inner nodes, I1, I2 and I3 of the river were shown in Table 4. It was observed

that the values in each node between the current and the simulated have a small differences.

Table 4: Actual vs. Theoretical for pH Model.

pH

I1 I2 I3

Day

Actual Simulated Actual Simulated Actual Simulated

0 6.74 6.758943 6.74 6.729063 6.74 6.74268

1 6.8 6.843442 6.85 6.872851 6.8 6.926767

2 6.9 6.901611 7.2 7.263789 7.2 7.065241

3 6.9 6.190473 5.8 5.739827 6.05 5.858941

4 5.3 5.891832 5.5 6.655944 5.7 5.416848

5 6.9 5.556923 6.85 7.07706 6.9 6.926402

6 4.365 5.09313 6.715 5.159399 7.04 4.886551

7 7.15 6.930695 6.95 7.127184 6.95 6.90239

8 6.9 6.943442 6.25 6.757937 6.4 6.390641

9 7.05 6.980695 7 7.089762 7.05 7.13565

10 6.9 6.951611 7.65 7.610443 7.933 7.946445

The comparison between the two data are further explained through the graphs at Figure

11 where the pH for each is plotted against the time. The simulated data were fitted to the actual

data thus, giving a value of R2 greater than 0.9 at each node. This convinces that the simulated

data for pH with the use of the developed model is acceptable.

2

=

(a) I1 (b) I2

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 18 of 77

2

=

(c) I3

The figures below are the contoured maps for the river’s initial and final pH. They are

regular topographic maps but instead of showing the flatness or steepness of a coordinate’s

elevation, it indicates a coordinate’s pH level.

The two figures show very little difference of pH level trend. They both displayed the

darkest color at areas around the source and the lightest color at the middle of the sinks. These

indicates that the sources, especially at the first one (B4), greatly affects the water’s pH. This

could be due to the content of the sources’ discharge that falls under domestic water waste.

Domestic water wastes usually contains acidic chemical compositions, dissolved components

and complex of detergents that contribute to the decrease of pH (Easa & Abou-Rayan, 2010).

Figure 12: (a) Initial and (b) Final pH

The statistical tool paired t-test in Microsoft Excel® 2016 was used to determine the

level of marginal significance between the actual and theoretical values. Table 5 shows that

there is no significant difference between the actual and theoretical values since all the

calculated P values were greater than 0.05 for each water quality parameters (see Appendix

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 19 of 77

F.3) .Therefore, the application of these models is for calculating water quality parameters such

as dissolved oxygen, temperature and pH.

Table 5: P-Value of Actual Vs. Theoretical.

P- VALUE

Day DO Temperature pH

1 0.094416 0.385828 0.090023

2 0.154069 0.49749 0.365715

3 0.202691 0.053374 0.436546

4 0.211568 0.132078 0.315326

5 0.131526 0.220891 0.491016

6 0.269425 0.400069 0.081096

7 0.195773 0.120917 0.409407

8 0.403408 0.120917 0.177925

9 0.226458 0.387781 0.284465

10 0.159461 0.151495 0.389146

The values of the actual and theoretical water quality parameters were plotted and their

coefficient of determination was determined. The R2 of the developed model were compared

to the published model. For the water quality parameters, temperature, pH and dissolved

oxygen, the highest R-squared value was 0.99514, 0.98654 and 0.98112, respectively. The

simulated results were in good arguments with measured values. The R2 of the simulated data

were compared to the published models as shown in Table 6. Temperature model was

developed for Wear, Nene, and Tamar River of Northampton and it is found out that the model

has a coefficient of determination of 0.962, 0.976, and 0.98, respectively (Smith, 2009). Also,

dissolved oxygen model was also applied to Surma River of Banladesh and Tigris River of

Syria with the model having a coefficient of determination of 0.963 and 0.921, respectively

(Ahmed, 2014) . The coefficient of determination for pH model that is applied to Ahoada River

of Nigeria is 0.839 (Ukpaka & Douglas, 2016). Results show that model developed model is

in good fit to the actual data compared to the published models.

Table 6: Comparison of the R2 of the Simulated and Published Models.

Wear River Nene River Tamar

Temperature Model I1 0.94974

I2 0.99514 0.962 0.976 0.98

I3 0.97082

Surma River Tigris River

Dissolved Oxygen I1 0.89811

Model I2 0.98112 0.963 0.921

I3 0.89112

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 20 of 77

Formulated Model (R2) Published Model (R2)

Ahoada River

I1 0.91673

pH Model

I2 0.92082 0.839

I3 0.98654

For this case, an additional discharge was placed between the points B6 and B7. The

discharge assumed has the same characteristic as the discharge from B4. The effect on the

temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen of this discharge on the river was evaluated with the use

of the model developed; hence, the following graph shows the comparison between the

predicted and the actual result. The predicted temperature for the two inner nodes (I2 and I3)

follow the same trend as the actual temperature measured. These two graph fluctuates at first

having a decrease, increase, decrease trend then followed by continuous increase until the end

time of simulation. However, the I1 predicted temperature contradicted the trend at first with

the minimum value reaching 23.60445˚C at the time 1.2096 × 105 comparing with the actual

with a temperature lowest at time 4.8384 × 10 5 with a temperature of 22.5˚C (see Appendix

D.2). Not until the latter time, the two plot (predicted and actual of I1) follows the same

temperature trend line.

(a) I1 (b)I2

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 21 of 77

(c) I3

Figure 13: Prediction of Temperature for Case 1.

The three graphs shown below (Figure 14) are the predicted and the actual plots of DO

at the inner nodes. All of the three graph of predicted DO fit the actual graph of DO. The

predicted at I1 started with an almost constant value from 6.603236 to 6.58578 mg/mL while

I2 started with a decreasing trend, from an initial DO of 7.489097 to 3.501366. The same with

I2, I3 decreases with an initial value of 7.35746 to 5.26473 mg/mL.

(a) I1 (b) I2

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 22 of 77

(c) I3

Figure 14: Prediction of DO for Case 1.

The predicted pH graph (Figure 15) for the three inner nodes as shown alters differently

at each time with the actual temperature. For the predicted pH parameter at I1, the trend

decreases continuously from 6.901611 to 5.09313 at time 2.4192 × 10 5 to 7.2576 ×105 seconds.

Compared with the actual, between these times is an increase value of 6.9 before decreasing.

Following the decrease trend is a sudden increase with values 6.943442 and 7.15 for the

predicted and actual pH respectively. The predicted line then flattens.

The predicted pH at I2 follows the actual pH trend having an alternating increase and

decrease pattern. Originally, both lines fitted with each other. The pH attained the lowest value

of 5.159399 and 5.5 at time 7.2576 × 105 and 4.8384 × 10 5 seconds for predicted and actual

respectively.

Additionally, for I3 graph, the predicted fits the actual graph except at a certain point

of time in which the predicted drops to 4.886551 while the actual increases

(a) I1 (b) I2

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 23 of 77

(c) I3

Figure 15: Prediction of pH for Case 1.

For this case, additional source at the boundary was considered. The condition of the

additional source added is the same as the source at B4. Based from the simulated data (see

Appendix F.2), there is a minute change in temperature for the current and predicted

temperature condition. This is evidently shown in contoured maps below where the color of

the maps are relatively close with each other.

Current Predicted

Figure 16: Actual Vs. Predicted Temperature Contour Map.

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 24 of 77

The contoured map shows that there is an infinitesimal change in Dissolved oxygen of

the current and predicted condition of the river as shown in Figure 17. The simulated data for

this case is shown in Appendix F.2 wherein it was observed that the predicted dissolved oxygen

is close with the simulated data for the current status of the river.

Current Predicted

Figure 17: Actual Vs. Predicted Dissolved Oxygen Contour Map.

For the water quality parameter pH, it can also be observed that the current and

predicted pH of the river is relatively close to each other. The same results were observed in

the temperature and dissolved oxygen of the river.

Current Predicted

Figure 18: Actual Vs. Predicted pH Contour Map.

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 25 of 77

3.6.2. Case 2: The classification effluent discharge of Source 1 is at Class B

The effect of Class B effluent discharge into the river was evaluated using the

developed model. Point B4 was changed from its current status which is Class C into Class B.

The selected temperature of the Class B effluent was based on DENR-Administrative Order

No. 2016-08(See Appendix G). Figures 19 shows the changes in temperature of the river when

a Class B effluent was discharged. It is observed that the changed in temperature of the river is

small for I1 and I3 while the predicted I2 temperature ranges from 25.31416 - 27.2513 °C

compared to the actual temperature change range of 23.5 – 30.6 °C (See Appendix F.2).

(a) I1 (b) I2

(c)I3

Figure 19: Temperature Prediction for Case 2.

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 26 of 77

The predicted and actual DO values of I1, I2 and I3 were shown in Figures 20. As can

be seen, I1 and I3 have the smallest change between its predicted and actual values unlike I2

with predicted values that ranges to 6.73-7.61and actual values of 5.8-7.65. Based from the

results, even if Class B effluent was discharged to the river, the condition of the river will

remain at Class C.

(a) I1 (b) I2

(c) I3

Figure 20: Prediction of DO for Case 2.

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 27 of 77

The selected value of pH for Class B effluent was also based from DENR-

Administrative Order No. 2016-08(See Appendix G). As compared to the change of pH from

actual to predicted values of each internal nodes (I1, I2 and I3), I2 have the biggest change of

pH with predicted values that ranges from 6.297044 – 6.609495 and actual values that ranges

from 6.8 – 7.65 (See Appendix F.2).

(a) I1 (b) I2

(c) I3

Figure 21: Prediction of pH for Case 2.

The figure below shows the comparison between the contoured map of the current

temperature condition of the river from the gathered data and the predicted temperature where

in one of the discharge is changed to Class B. The standard temperature of Class B is 26 °C as

set by the DENR Administrative Order 2016-08-WQG (Water Quality Guidelines) and General

Effluent Standards (GES) (see Appendix G) instead of the current discharge coming from one

of the sources. The colorbar in the figures denotes the temperature condition of the water, from

darkest color (coldest) to lightest color (hottest). The contour map of the predicted temperature

condition of the river displays multiple color gradient as compared to the contour map of the

current temperature condition. The multiple gradient denotes multiple temperature in the

boundary because of the Class B discharge. Based from the colorbars, the current temperature

condition of the river is hotter compared to the predicted temperature condition. Therefore,

changing the one class of the sources to B could contribute to colder temperature in the river.

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 28 of 77

Current Predicted

Figure 22: Actual Vs. Predicted Temperature Contour Map

The dissolved oxygen for Class B is 5 mg/L as set by the DENR Administrative Order

2016-08-WQG (Water Quality Guidelines) and General Effluent Standards (GES) (see

Appendix G). Applying the same case for dissolved oxygen, it can be observed from the figures

below that the level of dissolved oxygen decreases as the current discharge was changed to

Class B. The prediction shows that due to the continuous Class B discharge in the river the

dissolved oxygen also decreases continuously.

Current Predicted

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 29 of 77

The same case was used for pH wherein one of the discharge was changed to Class B and

the standard pH was set to 6. The predicted pH shows multiple colour gradient which implies

multiple pH level in the boundary as compared to the current pH condition of the river. Based

from the colorbars, the pH from the current condition is more neutral as compared to the

predicted pH of the river. Therefore, the Class B discharge makes some part of the river acidic.

Current Predicted

Figure 24: Actual vs. Predicted pH Contour Map.

The following figures shows the different water quality parameters temperature, pH,

and DO for the Pinacanauan Rivers at its interior nodes I1, I2, and I3. The effect of Class D

effluent discharge into the river was evaluated using the developed model. Point B4 was

changed from its current status which is Class C into Class D. The selected temperature of the

Class D effluent was based on DENR-Administrative Order No. 2016-08(See Appendix G).

The continuous lines in the figures represent the graph of the river’s current condition with two

discharges at B2 and B4 of class C. The broken lines on the other hand are the projected water

qualities of the river at its interior nodes if there will be only one sink (B4) and a discharge of

class D.

The set of figures below (Figure 25) show the current and projected water temperature

for the interior nodes. The projected graphs have the same trend as the current graph. This is

especially true to I1 and I3 beginning with a slight increase, followed by a decrease, to another

increase then to a sudden increase before flattening out towards the end. Both graphs have a

lesser maximum and minimum temperature than the current graph. Their temperature ranges

also lessened; I1 originally has a temperature range of 23.5-30.5⁰C while the projected values

ranges 23.74987-30.228954⁰C; and I3 has a current data temperature range of 23-31.3⁰C while

the projected data has 28.82607-30.91033⁰C. At I2 on the other hand, although it has a similar

trend, the projected graph has a wide gap in values with the actual graph. It has a much greater

minimum temperature than the current graph and a slightly greater maximum temperature,

lessening the temperature range from 22.5-30.6⁰C to 23.34844-30.88578⁰C. The overall effect

of having one discharge with a class D to the water instead of two of class C is having a lesser

temperature range.

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 30 of 77

(a)I1 (b)I2

(c)I3

Figure 25: Prediction of Temperature for Case 3.

The water parameter DO for case 3 at the interior nodes are shown below. This water

parameter has a good fit for I1 and I3. The DO for the actual river condition has a range of

2.485-9.03mg/L for I1 while the projected values has a range 4.562447-6.980695mg/L. For I3,

the actual river’s DO ranges from 4.75-7.685mg/L while the projected value has 4.851-

7.648077mg/L range. Unlike the two nodes, I2 has a bad fit. It showed a significant drop in its

DO failing to achieve even a third of the current river’s DO. Although the broken line has the

same trend as the continuous line, its peaks and sinks are not as dramatic as the continuous line.

No point had the two lines managed to intersect. The range for I3’s actual DO is from 5.22-

8.27 mg/L while the projected DO for the river ranged 3.421788-4.374152mg/L. Nonetheless,

having one discharge with a class D to the water instead of two of class C is having a smaller

range of DO values.

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 31 of 77

(a)I1 (b)I2

(c)I3

Figure 26: Prediction of DO for Case 3.

For the projected pH of the river for Case 3 is shown in Figure 27. The same as with

temperature, the trend of the pH graphs of the projected water qualities is follows the trends of

the current water qualities. The best fit among the three is in I1 followed by I3 and the least is

I2. Because the graphs of the current river pH have very high and low peaks, the one with the

least pH range is I2, followed by I3, then I1. In I1, the current river pH range was 4.365-7.15

while the projected pH range was only 5.09313-6.980695. In R2, the current data has 5.5-7.65

pH range while the predicted pH range was from 5.638497-6.242771. Lastly, the current pH

range in I3 was 5.7-7.933 while the projected pH values has a range of 6.041629-7.842703. All

three graphs showed that having one discharge with a class D to the water instead of two of

class C causes a closer pH range.

(a)I1 (b)I2

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 32 of 77

(c)I3

Figure 27: Prediction of DO for Case 3.

The contoured maps for the predicted and the current temperature of the river is shown

in Figure 28. In this case, the discharge coming from one of the sources was changed to Class

D where the temperature was set to 31˚C. The figure shows that both current and predicted

values displays higher temperature at the left side of the boundary as indicated by the color in

the colorbar. It can also be observed from the maps that there was a little change between the

current and predicted temperature.

Current Predicted

Figure 28: Actual Vs. Predicted Temperature Contour Map.

Applying the same case for dissolved oxygen, the maps show the change in the level of

dissolved oxygen when current discharge was changed to Class D. The dissolved oxygen for

Class D effluent is 3 mg/L as set by the DENR Administrative Order 2016-08-WQG (Water

Quality Guidelines) and General Effluent Standards (GES). The map shows that discharge of

Class D effluent decreases the amount of dissolved oxygen in the river.

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 33 of 77

Current Predicted

Figure 29: Actual vs. Prediction DO Contour Map.

The comparison between the current and predicted pH of the river is shown in the

Figure 30. The same case was used wherein one of the discharge was changed to Class D and

the pH was set to 5.5 instead of the original effluent coming from one of the sources. Based

from the colorbar, the figure shows higher pH on the current values as compared to the

predicted values. It can also be observed from the figure that blue color appeared on the

predicted pH which indicates that the river becomes more acidic as Class D effluent of 5.5 pH

is discharge in the river.

`

Current Predicted

Figure 30: Actual vs. Predicted pH Contour Map.

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 34 of 77

4. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1. Summary and Conclusion

Water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH of

Pinacanauan de Tuguegarao River were measured. For each parameter, a 2-D mathematical

model was formulated and then discretized using the method finite implicit difference. The

discretized model was then simulated using MATLAB™.

Results show that there is no significant difference between the actual and theoretical

values since all the calculated P values were greater than 0.05 for each water quality

parameters. The acceptable R-squared value for temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH, were

the following: 0.94974, 0.89811, and 0.91673 (I1); 0.99514, 0.98112, and 0.92082 (I2) and

0.97082, 0.89112, 0.98654 (I3), respectively.

Simulated temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH values were statistically compared

with the measured values. The formulated model proved to be a good tool to predict the water

quality of Pinacanauan de Tuguegarao River.

Also, the model was used to predict the condition of the river considering the three

cases. In Case 1, an additional pollutant source was considered, the result shows a minute

change between the current and predicted condition of every parameter. For Case 2 in which

the classification of discharge was changed to Class B, the results show that even if Class B

was discharged to the river, the condition of the river will still remain at Class C. And for Case

3, where Class D was considered as a discharge at source 1, a closer range of temperature, DO,

and pH values was found out.

4.2. Recommendations

For the development of a better river quality model, the following are recommended:

1. The testing of water parameters should be extended from 4 months to one year to

account for the wet and dry seasons of the country as well as the yearly calamities

(typhoons, drought, etc.) that hit the country;

2. The time interval between sampling should be lessened from every fourteen days to

every ten days or less to have a better and more accurate results;

3. The area of the system understudy should be increased to have a better sample system.

4. Instead of a 2D model, a 3D model should be developed in order to account for the

river’s depth.;

5. The water parameters accounted for developing a water quality model must be

increased and not only consider its temperature, DO and pH but on other parameters as

well (fecal coliform, turbidity, color, odor, etc); and

6. For a faster simulation and projection of water quality parameter data, computers with

greater specifications, larger storage disks and faster running speed should be

employed.

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 35 of 77

REFERENCES

Abdullah, N. (2007). A Study of Several Implicit Finite Difference Schemes for the Linear

Convection Equation.

Addy, K., & Green, L. (1997). Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature. Natural Resources Facts.

Aina, & Asedipe. (1996).

Ali, W., & Husnain , H. (2010). Development of Dissolved Oxygen Model for a Highly

Variable Flow River: A Case Study of Ravi River in Pakistan. Research Gate.

Ani, E. C. (2010). Modelling of Pollutant Transport in Rivers: Process Engineering

Approach. PhD Thesis, University of Cluj-Napoca, Faculty of Chemistry and

Chemical Engineering.

Ani, E.-C. (2010). Modelling Of Pollutant Transport in Rivers: Process Engineering

Approach.

Baca, R., & Arnett, R. C. (1976). A limnological model for eutrophic lakes and

impoundments. Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, forU. SEPA, Office of

Research and Development.

Benedini, M. (2011). Water Quality Models for Rivers and Streams. State of the Art and

Future Perspectives . European Water .

Benedini, M., & Tsakiris, G. (2013). Water Quality Modelling for Rivers and Streams. New

York: Springer.

Bowen, I. (1926). The ratio of heat losses by conduction and by evaporation from any water

surface. Physics Review 27, 779.

Bowen, J. D., Perry, D. N., & Bell, C. D. (2014, November). Hydrologic and Water Quality

Model Development Using Simulink. Journal of Maine Science and Engineering,

616-629. doi:10.3390

Bowie, G. L., Mills, W. B., Porcella, D. B., Campbell, C. L., Pagenkopf, J. R., Rupp, G. L., . .

. Gherini, S. A. (1985). Rates, Constant, and kinetics Formulations in Surface Water

Quality Modeling.

Churuksaeva, V., & Starchenko, A. (2015). Mathematical Modeling of a River Stream Based

on a Shallow Water Approach. Procedia Computer Science.

D.M.Causon, & Mingham, C. G. (2010). Introductory Finite Difference Methods for PDES.

Mingham & Ventus Publishing ApS.

Dawood, A. S., Hussain, H. K., & Hassan, M. (2016, October). Modeling of River Water

Quality Parameters Using Artficial Neural Network - A Case Study. International

Journal of Advances in Mechanical and Civil Engineering, III(5), 51-54.

Dayag, C. R., Gazmen, M. N., & Quizon, R. A. (2016). Water Quality Monitoring

Assessment of Pinacanauan de Tuguegarao Rive Using WQI and GIS. Undergraduate

Thesis, CAgayan State University, Chemical Engineering, Tuguegarao.

DENR-EMB. (2014). Natural Water Quality Status Report.

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 36 of 77

Easa, A., & Abou-Rayan, A. (2010). Domestic Wastewater Effect on the Pollution of the

Groundwater in Rural Areas in Egypt. Fourteenth International Water Technology

Conference, IWTC, pp. 909-923. Retrieved from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4b27/3b40fb9e49934bc0f67073adeff954752c1d.pdf

Edinger, J. (1979). A hydrodynamic two-dimensional reservoir model: development and test

application to Sutton Reservoir Elk River, West Virginia.

Eldho, T. (n.d.). Watershed Management. Retrieved from NPTEL:

https://nptel.ac.in/courses/105101010/downloads/Lecture29.pdf

(2006). EMB National Water Quality Status Report.

Espejo, J., Tungpalan, J., Negi, V., & Alex, S. (2015). Physicochemical and Bacteriological

Analysis of Water in Pinacanauan River Along Barangay Callao, Pataguele, and

Cabbo Penablanca Cagayan.

Flow-3D. (2019). flow3d. Retrieved from https://www.flow3d.com/resources/cfd-

101/numerical-issues/implicit-versus-explicit-numerical-methods/

Fonseca, A. R. (2014). River Water Quality Modelling for River Basin and Water Resources

Management.

Gonçalves, J. C., Silveira, A., Lopes Júnior, G. B., da Luz , M. S., & Simões, A. A. (2017).

Reaeration Coefficient Estimate: New Parameter for Predictive Equations. Springer

International Publishing AG 2017.

Haider, H., & Ali, W. (2010). Development of Dissolved Oxygen Model for a Highly

Variable Flow River: A Case Study of Ravi River in Pakistan. Research Gate.

Herb, W., & Heinz , S. (2008). A flow and temperature model for the Vermillion River, Part

I: Model development and baseflow conditions.

Houcque, D. (2005). Introduction to MATLAB for Engineering Students. Illinois.

Hussain, S. A., Atshan, W. G., & Najam, Z. M. (2012, October). Mathematical Model for the

Concentration of Pollutants Dissolved Oxygen in Diwaniya River (Iraq). American

Journal of Scientific Reasearch(78), 33-37.

Introduction to Finite Difference Method and Fundamentals of CFD. (n.d.). Retrieved from

NPTEL: https://nptel.ac.in/courses/112104030/pdf/lecture1.pdf

Jarvie, H. P., Whitton, B., & Neal, C. (1998). Nitrogen and phosphorus s in east coast British

rivers: speciation, sources and biological significance. Science of the Total

Environment, 79–109.

Jolánkai, D. G. (2000). Description of the CAL programme on Water Quality Modelling

Version 2 Baic River and Lake Water Model Quality.

Kang, G. K., Gao, J., & Xie, G. (2017). Data-driven Water Quality Analysis and Prediction:

A Survey. Science Direct.

Kashefipour, S. M., & Roshanfekr, A. (2012). Numerical Modelling of Heavy Metals

Transport Processes in Riverine Basins . In Numerical Modelling . In Tech.

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 37 of 77

Kaw, A., Nguyen, C., & Snyder, L. (2012, July 17). mathforcollege. Retrieved from

http://nm.mathforcollege.com/:

http://mathforcollege.com/nm/mws/gen/08ode/mws_gen_ode_spe_finitedif.pdf

Knight, A. (2000). Beyond, Basics of MATLAB® and. Washington DC: CRC press LLC.

Ledder, G. (2015). Mathematics for the Life Sciences: Calculus, Modeling, Probability, and

Dynamical Systems. Springer Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics and Technology.

Lindenschmidt, D.-I. K.-E. (2005). River water quality modelling for river basin and water

resources management with a focus on the Saale River, Germany.

Livshits, D. I., & Coleman, N. (2008). Mathematical Modeling.

Loucks, D. P., & Beek, E. (2005). Water Resources Systems Planning and Management, An

Introduction to Methods,Models and Applications. UNESCO PUBLISHING.

Loucks, D. P., & Beek, E. (2005). Water Resources Systems Planning and Management, An

Introduction to Methods,Models and Applications. UNESCO PUBLISHING.

Loucks, D. P., & Beek, E. V. (2005). Water Resources Systems Planning and Management.

Makita, S., & Saeki, H. (2006). Method of Water Quality Improvement by Use of Ice Floe

Control Structure. IAHR .

Marion, G. (2008). An Introduction to Mathematical Modelling.

Mirbaghery, S. A., Abaspour, M., & Zamani, K. (2009). Mathematical Modelling of Water

Quality in River Systems. 31-41.

Mulla, R. K., & Bhosale, S. M. (2016, August). Water Quality Analysis and Simulation of

Panchaganga River Using Matlab. International Journal of Engineering Sciences &

Research Technology, 613-620. doi:10.5281/zenodo.60106

multiphysics CYCLOPEDIA. (2015, January 14). Retrieved from COMSOL:

https://www.comsol.com/multiphysics/what-is-mass-transfer

Multiphysics CYCLOPEDIA. (2015, January 15). Retrieved from COMSOL:

https://www.comsol.com/multiphysics/navier-stokes-equations

Nave, R. (n.d.). Heat Transfer. Retrieved from Hyperphysics: http://hyperphysics.phy-

astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatra.html

Nave, R. (n.d.). Hyperphysics. Retrieved from Conservation Laws: http://hyperphysics.phy-

astr.gsu.edu/hbase/index.html

Nikishkov, G. P. (2004). INTRODUCTION TO THE FINITE.

Orlob, G. T. (1983). Mathematical modelling of water quality: Streams, Lakes, and

Reservoirs. A Wiley-Interscience Publication.

Orlob, G. T., , Bruce Beck, M., Harleman, D. F., Jacquet, J., Jorgesnen, S. E., . . . Watanabe,

M. (1983). Mathematical Modeling of Water Quality: Streams, Lakes, and Reservoirs.

(G. T. ORLOB, Ed.) Benicia, California: A Wiley-Interscience Publication.

Quarteroni, A. (2009). Mathematical Models in Science and Engineering. 56, 1.

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 38 of 77

Raterman, B., Schaars, F. W., & Griffioen, M. (2000). GIS and MATLAB Integrated

Groundwater Modelling.

Ruzgas, Inga Ruzgiene, & Tomas. (2014). MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF WATER

QUALITY CHANGE IN EASTERN EUROPEAN RIVER. International Journal of

Science, Environment and Technology.

Ruzgiene, I., & Ruzgas, T. (2014). MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF WATER

QUALITY CHANGE IN EASTERN EUROPEAN RIVER. International Journal of

Science, Environment and Technology.

Ryan, P., & Harleman, D. R. (1973). An analytical and experimental study of transient

cooling pond behavior.

S. A. Mirbagheri, M. A. (2009). Mathematical modeling of water quality in river systems.

EWRA, 31-41.

Samalerk, P., & Pochai, N. (2018). Numerical Simulation of a One-Dimensional Water-

Quality Model in a Stream Using a Saulyev Technique with Quadratic Interpolated

Initial-Boundary Conditions. Hindawi.

Serway, R. A., Faughn, J. S., Vuille, C., & Bennett, C. A. (2006). College Physics (7th ed.).

U.S.A.: Thomson Books/Cole.

Sileika, A. S. (1996). Agriculture Nitrogens Impact on Water Quality in Lithuanian Rivers.

Environmental Research, Engineering and Management.

Skorzinski, E., Shacham, M., & Brauner, N. (2009). A Simulation Program for Modelling

Pollutant Dispersion for Educaional Applications. Elsevier, 1233-1238.

Subklay, K., & Pochai, N. (2017). Numerical Simulations of a Water Quality Model in a

Flooding Stream Due to Dam-break Problem Using Implicit and Explicit Methods.

Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics.

Swinbank, W. (1963). Long wave radiation from clear skies. Quarterly Journal of the Royal

Meteorological Society 89, 339-348.

Tetra Tech, I. (1983). The Integrated Lake-Watershed Acidification Study, Volume 1: Model

Principles and Application Procedures. . Electric Power Research Institute.

The University of Iowa. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www2.physics.uiowa.edu/~rmerlino/1701_F_16/1701_conservation_laws.pdf

Thomann, R. (1975). Mathematical modeling of phytoplankton in Lake Ontario.

Ukpaka, C., & Douglas, I. E. (2016). Model Development for pH, Salinity and Conductivity

Monitoring and Predicting the Diffusion Concentration in Stagnant Water. Chemical

Sciences Journal.

Verwer, J. (1998, July). Numerical Algorithms for Air and Surface Water Quality Modelling.

ERCM.

Wageningen-Kessels van, F., Lint, H. v., Hoogendoorn, S. P., & Vuik, K. (2008). Implicit

and Explicit Numerical Methods for Macroscopic Traffic Flow Models.

Weisstein, E. W. (2018). MathWorld: Finite Volume Method.

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 39 of 77

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Approval Sheet, Request Letters, etc.

APPROVAL SHEET

prepared and submitted by Razel V. Alumit, Van Vesper J. Dulliyao, Denver V. Guillermo, Rhea

D. Mamba, Laica C. Manaligod, Elha E. Maruquin, in partial fulfilment for the degree of

Adviser

Chairman Member Member

Member Member

Accepted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree Bachelor of Science in

Chemical Engineering.

Dean, College of Engineering

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 40 of 77

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 41 of 77

Appendix B – Documentations, Design, Flow Charts, Certificates, etc.

Figure 31: First discharge for the chosen boundary. A continuous flowing water coming from the residential

houses.

Figure 32: Second discharge located upstream. A pipe projected directly to the river coming from residential

houses which produces a dark fluid with an awlful smell.

Figure 33: A photo of the group measuring the width of the river (left side) and the its length on the land area

(right side).

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 42 of 77

Figure 34: Labelled plastic bottles for the sample collection. From boundary 1 to boundary 7

and inner boundary 1 to inner boundary 3 with two replicates.

Figure 35: Sample collection from the chosen sampling points. The sampling bottles was

cupped under water to prevent air bubbles.

Figure 36: Analysing the samples using chemical test for the parameters pH and DO. Photo

taken at Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) laboratory.

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 43 of 77

Figure 37: On-site water analysis using the equipment devices (Thermometer, pH meter, and

DO meter).

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 44 of 77

Figure 40: Setting up for the Measuring of velocity using a table tennis ball and timer.

Figure 42: Photo taken during the last data collection with the boat owner Lyafayeth Tasi.

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 45 of 77

Appendix C – Water Quality Parameters, River Geometry, and Meteorological Data

First Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature(˚C)

(mg/L)

B1 6.85 23.75 7.86

B2 6.75 23.5 7.645

B3 6.8 23.5 7.505

B4 6.7 23.5 7.58

B5 6.8 23.5 7.62

B6 6.55 23.75 7.675

B7 6.75 24.0 7.755

I1 6.8 23.5 7.665

12 6.85 23.5 7.685

13 6.8 23.5 7.685

Second Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature

(mg/L)

B1 7.0 22.75 5.54

B2 6.8 22.75 4.785

B3 7.25 23.0 5.365

B4 6.75 23.25 0.83

B5 6.9 23.75 5.245

B6 7.1 22.75 5.8

B7 7.2 22.75 6.24

I1 6.9 23.5 6.41

12 7.2 22.5 3.95

13 7.2 23.0 6.1

Third Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature

(mg/L)

B1 6.9 24 8.4

B2 5.6 23.5 7.87

B3 5.65 24.0 8.22

B4 5.6 24.0 8.25

B5 6.9 24.3 8.45

B6 6.85 24.5 8.72

B7 6.9 24.75 8.48

I1 6.0 24.5 9.03

12 5.8 24.5 8.27

13 6.05 25.0 8.16

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 46 of 77

Fourth Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature(˚C)

(mg/L)

B1 5.4 22.75 7.61

B2 5.25 23.0 8.0

B3 6.7 23.0 8.045

B4 5.55 23.0 8.465

B5 5.2 22.75 8.195

B6 5.0 23.0 7.955

B7 5.4 23.75 7.995

I1 5.7 22.5 8.24

12 6.2 22.75 8.19

13 5.7 23.0 7.56

Fifth Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature(˚C)

(mg/L)

B1 6.95 26.0 7.445

B2 6.85 25.95 7.05

B3 6.85 26.1 7.365

B4 7.15 26.25 7.525

B5 6.85 26.35 8.2

B6 6.9 26.0 7.765

B7 6.8 26.8 7.64

I1 5.8 26.25 8.23

12 6.85 25.95 7.525

13 6.9 26.05 7.335

Sixth Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature(˚C)

(mg/L)

B1 6.86 27.0 6.35

B2 3.315 27.0 6.6

B3 5.64 26.75 6.25

B4 2.79 27.5 7.15

B5 3.755 26.0 6.9

B6 6.245 27.0 6.4

B7 7.07 27.75 6.3

I1 5.1 26.0 6.95

12 5.25 26.5 7.05

13 5.0 26.5 6.3

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 47 of 77

Seventh Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature(˚C)

(mg/L)

B1 7.0 26.5 6.49

B2 6.9 27.0 4.165

B3 6.9 27.0 5.73

B4 7.2 27.0 4.68

B5 6.95 26.75 5.855

B6 7.0 26.5 6.52

B7 7.05 26.0 6.59

I1 7.15 27.5 5.36

12 6.95 26.75 5.22

13 6.95 27.0 5.05

Eight Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature(˚C)

(mg/L)

B1 6.25 30.0 4.735

B2 6.15 29.0 3.74

B3 6.3 29.25 4.545

B4 7.0 28.75 2.585

B5 6.9 28.5 2.765

B6 6.9 29.25 2.745

B7 6.85 30.0 3.24

I1 6.9 29.0 4.25

12 6.5 29.0 4.1

13 6.4 29.5 4.75

Ninth Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature(˚C)

(mg/L)

B1 7.0 30.75 7.685

B2 6.95 30.75 7.175

B3 6.95 30.5 7.525

B4 7.05 31.0 7.315

B5 7.0 30.25 7.43

B6 7.0 31.0 7.56

B7 7.0 31.75 7.635

I1 7.05 30.5 7.39

12 7.0 30.5 7.345

13 7.05 30.5 7.555

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 48 of 77

Tenth Sampling

Dissolve Oxygen

pH Temperature(˚C)

(mg/L)

B1 7.9 31.35 6.77

B2 7.9 30.65 6.02

B3 7.9 30.7 6.21

B4 7.05 30.35 6.19

B5 6.95 30.2 6.225

B6 7.9 30.55 6.685

B7 7.6 31 6.565

I1 6.9 30.25 30.25

12 7.75 30.6 30.6

13 7.633 31.3 7.003

C.2 Average Height of the River

Day 1 1.173333

Day 2 6.039467

Day 3 1.076667

Day 4 1.2

Day 5 0.683333

Day 6 1.393333

Day 7 0.923333

Day 8 0.38

Day 9 0.826667

Day 10 1.95

Average: 1.56461

C.3 Average Velocity

Velocity (m/s)

v_1 0.205432

v_2 0.533079

v_3 0.569175

v_4 0.15232

v_5 0.070872

Average 0.306176

C.4 Slope of the River

Elevation Difference

Slope river

Length of River

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 49 of 77

Length of river 200 m.

Minimum Elevation 18 m.

Maximum Elevation 27 m.

Elevation Difference 9 m.

Slope of river 0.045

C. 5 Meteorological Data

2018 2019 2019 2019

Dry Bulb Temp. (°C) 24.9 23.6 24.9 33.5

Wet Bulb Temp(°C) 22.5 21.6 21.1 22.5

Station Press. (hPa) 1008 1010.2 1009.7 1006.9

Mean Dew Point (°C) 22.2 20.6 19.5 20.8

Mean Relative Humidity 84% 83% 71% 70%

Wind Ave. Speed (m/s) 2 2 1 1

Mean Cloudiness (Oktas) 6 0 4 4

Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 26.42 24.86 23.37 24.86

Source: Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration

(PAGASA)-Tuguegarao City

(kW-hr/m^2/day)

December, 2018 2.9225

January, 2019 3.974839

February, 2019 5.573

March, 2019 5.702903

April, 2019 -130.954

Source: https://power.larc.nasa.gov/data-access-viewer/

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 50 of 77

Appendix D - Model Discretization and Calculation of Sources/Sinks

C C C 2C 2C

u v Dx 2 D y 2 k a (C s C ) k d L

t x y x y

and it was discretized, the equation becomes

Ci , j ,t 1 Ci , j ,t u Ci , j ,t Ci j , j ,t u Ci , j ,t Ci , j 1,t Dx Ci 1, j ,t 2Ci , j ,t Ci 1, j ,t D y Ci , j 1,t 2Ci , j ,t Ci , j 1,t

t x y x 2 y 2

k a C sat Ci , j ,t k d L

Ci , j ,t 1 Ci , j ,t Dx Ci 1, j ,t 2Ci , j ,t Ci 1, j ,t D y Ci , j 1,t 2Ci , j ,t Ci , j 1,t

t x 2

y 2

u Ci , j ,t Ci j , j ,t u Ci , j ,t Ci , j 1,t

k a C sat Ci , j ,t k d L

x y

Dx Ci 1, j ,t 2Ci , j ,t Ci 1, j ,t D y Ci , j 1,t 2Ci , j ,t Ci , j 1,t

x 2

y 2

t C

u Ci , j ,t Ci j , j ,t u Ci , j ,t Ci , j 1,t

Ci , j ,t 1

i , j ,t

k C C k L

x y

a sat i , j ,t d

The advection-dispersion model with sink or source terms to prevent physical processes:

T T T T T H

u v D x D y 0

t x y x x y y Pc p

The solution for the discretization of the model is

T T T T T H

Dx D y u v 0

t x x y y x y Pc p

Assume u = v

T 2T 2T T T H

Dx 2 D y 2 u u 0

t x y x y Pc p

D x D y i , j 1,t

t x 2

y 2

Ti , j ,t Ti 1, j ,t Ti , j ,t Ti , j 1,t H

- u u

x y Pc p

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 51 of 77

Ti 1, j ,t 2Ti , j ,t Ti 1, j ,t T 2Ti , j ,t Ti , j 1,t

Dx D y i , j 1,t

x 2

y 2

Ti , j ,t 1 t Ti , j ,t

T Ti 1, j ,t Ti , j ,t Ti , j 1,t H

u i , j ,t u

x y Pc p

D.1.3 pH Model

The pH model was based on the two-dimensional advection-dispersion model and represented

as:

C C C 2C 2C

u v Dx 2 D y 2 k p

t x y x y

and it was discretized, the equation becomes

C i , j ,t 1 C i , j ,t u C i , j ,t C i j , j ,t u C i , j ,t C i , j 1,t D x C i 1, j ,t 2C i , j ,t C i 1, j ,t

t x y x 2

D y C i , j 1,t 2C i , j ,t C i , j 1,t

kp

y 2

t x 2

y 2

u Ci , j ,t Ci j , j ,t u Ci , j ,t Ci , j 1,t

kp

x y

x 2

y 2

t C

u Ci , j ,t Ci j , j ,t u Ci , j ,t Ci , j 1,t

Ci , j ,t 1

i , j ,t

kp

x y

S k a (C s C ) k d L

5V 50.30618

k a (20C ) 0.72599

h 5/3

1.564615 / 3

For the calibration of reaeration rate ka:

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 52 of 77

k a 0.72599 x1.02426.434520

1

k a 0.84568

day

D.2.2 Temperature model

H

S

Pc p

H H S H SR H A H AR H BR H E H C

H SN H S H SR 0.94 H SC 1 0.65SK 2

0.94 779.091 1 0.650.414

2

650.7868275 W/m 2

Net atmospheric radiation H AN

H AN H A - H AR 5.16432 10 1 0.17 SK TA 273.166

13

6

H AN

5.16432 10 -13 1 0.17 0.414 27.26 273.16

6

392.1994804 W / m 2

Long Wave Back radiation H BR

H BR TS

4

H BR 0.97 5.670 10 -8 26.4507 273.15

4

H BR 0.4431248322 W / m 2

Evaporative Heat Flux H E

H E W L a bW es - ea

H E W L a bW es - ea

L = (597 - 0.57 × TS )

= 2343.766255 W / m 2

eS = a j + b jTs

= 34.6054557

4157

e a = 2.171 × 108 e

Td + 239.09

= 24.51048738

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 53 of 77

H E 997.05 2343.766255 0 1 10 -9 2 34.6054558 - 24.51048738

0.04901276095 W / m 2

Convective heat flux H C

T -T

H C H E 6.19 10 8 p S A

e S - ea

HC H E

T -T

6.19 10 -4 p S A

e S - ea

0.04901276095 6.19 10 -4 1008.7 26.4507 - 20.775

34.6054558 - 24.51048738

1.47205857 10 -5 W / m 2

Calculation for

H QS QSR Q A Q AR QBR QE QC

-650.7868275 392.1994804 - 0.4431248322 - 0.04901276095 1.47205857 10 -5

-259.049483 W/m 2

H - 259.049483 W/m 2

hcp

1.56461 m 997.05 kg3 4182 J

m kg

0.00005575964433

D.2.3 pH Model

CO2 ,sat k H PCO2

At Tave = 26.4507 + 273.15 = 299.6007 K

k H M CO2 10 ( 2385.73 / TK )14.01840.0152642TK

2385.73

299.600714.0184 0.0152642 299.6007

k H 44,000mg / mol 10

mg

k H 1449.605441

L.atm

mg

CO2,sat 1449.605441 0.00033atm

L.atm

From the reactions, the equilibrium constants are:

3404.71

14.84350.032786 299.6007 299.6007

k1 10

mg

k1 4.53557571x10 7

L

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 54 of 77

2902.39

6.4980.02379299.6007 299.6007

k2 10

mg

k 2 4.819166316 x10 11

L

Dx cL4 / 3

Dx 0.01200

4/3

2

cm 2 1m

Dx 11.69607095

sec 100cm

m2

Dx 1.169607095 x10 3

sec

D.3.2 Coefficient of vertical diffusion

D y 0.067 u* H

D y 0.067 H gRh S

m

Dy (0.067)(1.56461m) (9.81 )(1.56461m)(0.045m)

s2

m2

Dy 0.08712

sec

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 55 of 77

Appendix E - Matlab™ Codes

clear all

close all

clc

%Initialized matrix

Temp(1:121,1:200,1:2) = 23.642857;

pH(1:121,1:200,1:2) = 6.72857;

DO(1:121,1:200,1:2) = 7.662857;

dx = 1;

dy = 1;

dt = 1;

t_end = 10*14*3600*24;

t_inst =0;

u = 1:200;

v = 1:121;

x = 1:200;

y = 1:121;

i = 2;

t = 1;

m = (2:199);

n = (2:120);

p = (120:199);

a = 0.306176; %velocitY

ka = 0.84568./(24*3600);

kd = 0.671940043./(24*3600);

kp = 0.00000045355757; %rate constant due to reaction

L = 1; %BOD

d = 0.000000146219647;

Dx = 0.001169607095; %longitudinal diffusion constant

Dy = 0.08712; %vertical diffusion constant

A = -0.01289651149;

Ey = 1.171645495;

ky = 4169663.1;

Cp = 4182;

r = 997.05; %density

K = 0.6096866667; %thermal conductivity

if t_inst == 0*3600*24

Temp(1,u,t) = 23.5;

Temp(1,v,t) = 23.5;

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 56 of 77

Temp(121,x,t) = 0.0025.*x + 23.625;

Temp(200,y,t) = 23.75;

pH(1,v,t) = 6.8;

pH(121,x,t) = 0.002.*x + 6.45;

pH(200,y,t) = 6.85;

DO(1,v,t) = 7.58;

DO(121,x,t) = 0.0008.*x + 7.635;

DO(200,y,t) = 7.86;

Temp(1,v,t) = 23.75;

Temp(121,x,t) = 22.75;

Temp(200,y,t) = 22.75;

pH(1,v,t) = 6.9;

pH(121,x,t) = 0.001.*x + 7.05;

pH(200,y,t) = 7;

DO(1,v,t) = 5.245;

DO(121,x,t) = 0.0044.*x + 5.58;

DO(200,y,t) = 5.54;

Temp(1,v,t) = 24.3;

Temp(121,x,t) = 0.0025.*x + 24.375;

Temp(200,y,t) = 24;

pH(1,v,t) = 6.9;

pH(121,x,t) = 0.0005.*x + 6.825;

pH(200,y,t) = 6.9;

DO(1,v,t) = 8.45;

DO(121,x,t) = -0.0024.*x + 8.84;

DO(200,y,t) = 8.4;

Temp(1,u,t) = 23;

Temp(1,v,t) = 22.75;

Temp(121,x,t) = 0.0075.*x + 22.625;

Temp(200,y,t) = 22.75;

pH(1,v,t) = 5.2;

pH(121,x,t) = 0.019.*x + 4.05;

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 57 of 77

pH(200,y,t) = 5.4;

DO(1,v,t) = 8.195;

DO(121,x,t) = 0.0004.*x + 7.935;

DO(200,y,t) = 7.61;

Temp(1,v,t) = 26.35;

Temp(121,x,t) = 0.008.*x + 25.6;

Temp(200,y,t) = 26;

pH(1,v,t) = 6.85;

pH(121,x,t) = -0.001.*x + 6.95;

pH(200,y,t) = 6.95;

DO(1,v,t) = 8.2;

DO(121,x,t) = -0.0013.*x + 7.8275;

DO(200,y,t) = 7.445;

Temp(1,v,t) = 26;

Temp(121,x,t) = 0.0075.*x + 26.625;

Temp(200,y,t) = 27;

pH(1,v,t) = 3.755;

pH(121,x,t) = 0.0082.*x + 5.8325;

pH(200,y,t) = 6.86;

DO(1,v,t) = 6.9;

DO(121,x,t) = -0.001.*x + 6.45;

DO(200,y,t) = 6.35;

Temp(1,u,t) = 27;

Temp(1,v,t) = 26.75;

Temp(121,x,t) = -0.005.*x + 26.75;

Temp(200,y,t) = 26.5;

pH(1,v,t) = 6.95;

pH(121,x,t) = 0.0005.*x + 6.975;

pH(200,y,t) = 7;

DO(1,v,t) = 5.855;

DO(121,x,t) = 0.0007.*x + 6.485;

DO(200,y,t) = 6.49;

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 58 of 77

elseif t_inst == 98*3600*24

Temp(1,v,t) = 28.5;

Temp(121,x,t) = 0.0075.*x + 28.875;

Temp(200,y,t) = 30;

pH(1,v,t) = 6.9;

pH(121,x,t) = -0.0005.*x + 6.925;

pH(200,y,t) = 6.25;

DO(1,v,t) = 2.765;

DO(121,x,t) = 0.005.*x + 2.4975;

DO(200,y,t) = 4.735;

Temp(1,v,t) = 30.25;

Temp(121,x,t) = 0.0075.*x + 30.625;

Temp(200,y,t) = 30.75;

pH(1,v,t) = 7;

pH(121,x,t) = 7;

pH(200,y,t) = 7;

DO(1,v,t) = 7.43;

DO(121,x,t) = 0.0008.*x + 7.5225;

DO(200,y,t) = 7.685;

Temp(1,v,t) = 30.2;

Temp(121,x,t) = 0.0045.*x + 30.325;

Temp(200,y,t) = 31.35;

pH(1,v,t) = 6.95;

pH(121,x,t) = -0.003.*x + 8.05;

pH(200,y,t) = 7.9;

DO(1,v,t) = 6.225;

DO(121,x,t) = -0.0012.*x + 6.505;

DO(200,y,t) = 6.77;

end

%discretized codes

%Temperature Model

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 59 of 77

%Interior Nodes

Temp(n,m,t+1) = ( dt.*((Dx.*(Temp(n-1,m,t)-

(2.*Temp(n,m,t))+Temp(n+1,m,t))./(dx.^2))+ (Dy.*(Temp(n,m-1,t)-

(2.*Temp(n,m,t))+ Temp(n,m+1,t))./(dy.^2))-((a.*(Temp(n,m,t)-Temp(n-

1,m,t)))./(dx))-((a.*(Temp(n,m,t)-Temp(n,m-1,t)))./(dy)))-

0.00003974749081)+ (Temp(n,m,t));

%pH Model

%Interior Nodes

pH(n,m,t+1) = ( dt.*((Dx.*(pH(n-1,m,t)-

(2.*pH(n,m,t))+pH(n+1,m,t))./(dx.^2))+ (Dy.*(pH(n,m-1,t)-(2.*pH(n,m,t))+

pH(n,m+1,t))./(dy.^2))-((a.*(pH(n,m,t)-pH(n-1,m,t)))./(dx))-

((a.*(pH(n,m,t)-pH(n,m-1,t)))./(dy)))+kp)+ (pH(n,m,t));

%DO Model

%Interior Nodes

DO(n,m,t+1)=( dt.*((Dx.*(DO(n-1,m,t)-

(2.*DO(n,m,t))+DO(n+1,m,t))./(dx.^2))+ (Dy.*(DO(n,m-1,t)-(2.*DO(n,m,t))+

DO(n,m+1,t))./(dy.^2))-((a.*(DO(n,m,t)-DO(n-1,m,t)))./(dx))-

((a.*(DO(n,m,t)-DO(n,m-1,t)))./(dy))+(ka.*(Csat(Temp(n,m,t))-DO(n,m,t)))-

(kd.*L)))+ (DO(n,m,t));

if rem(t_inst,1209600) == 0

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',t_inst,'Simulation Result',strcat('A',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',Temp(60,2,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('B',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',Temp(60,100,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('C',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',Temp(60,199,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('D',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',pH(60,2,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('F',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',pH(60,100,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('G',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',pH(60,199,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('H',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',DO(60,2,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('J',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',DO(60,100,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('K',int2str(i)))

xlswrite_1('C:\Users\maricel\Documents\Thesis\Simulation Result

2019.xlsx',DO(60,199,t+1),'Simulation Result',strcat('L',int2str(i)))

i = i+1;

end

Temp(n,m,1) = Temp(n,m,2);

pH(n,m,1) = pH(n,m,2);

DO(n,m,1) = DO(n,m,2);

Boundary = DO(60,200,1);

Inside = DO(60,60,1);

t_inst = t_inst + dt

end

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 60 of 77

E.2 Matlab™ 2013a Codes for Calculation of R2

% Compute coefficient of determination of data fit model and RMSE

%

% [r2 rmse] = rsquare(y,f)

% [r2 rmse] = rsquare(y,f,c)

%

% RSQUARE computes the coefficient of determination (R-square) value from

% actual data Y and model data F. The code uses a general version of

% R-square, based on comparing the variability of the estimation errors

% with the variability of the original values. RSQUARE also outputs the

% root mean squared error (RMSE) for the user's convenience.

%

% Note: RSQUARE ignores comparisons involving NaN values.

%

% INPUTS

% Y : Actual data

% F : Model fit

%

% OPTION

% C : Constant term in model

% R-square may be a questionable measure of fit when no

% constant term is included in the model.

% [DEFAULT] TRUE : Use traditional R-square computation

% FALSE : Uses alternate R-square computation for model

% without constant term [R2 = 1 - NORM(Y-F)/NORM(Y)]

%

% OUTPUT

% R2 : Coefficient of determination

% RMSE : Root mean squared error

%

% EXAMPLE

% x = 0:0.1:10;

% y = 2.*x + 1 + randn(size(x));

% p = polyfit(x,y,1);

% f = polyval(p,x);

% [r2 rmse] = rsquare(y,f);

% figure; plot(x,y,'b-');

% hold on; plot(x,f,'r-');

% title(strcat(['R2 = ' num2str(r2) '; RMSE = ' num2str(rmse)]))

%

% Jered R Wells

% 11/17/11

% jered [dot] wells [at] duke [dot] edu

%

% v1.2 (02/14/2012)

%

% Thanks to John D'Errico for useful comments and insight which has helped

% to improve this code. His code POLYFITN was consulted in the inclusion of

% the C-option (REF. File ID: #34765).

if isempty(varargin); c = true;

elseif length(varargin)>1; error 'Too many input arguments';

elseif ~islogical(varargin{1}); error 'C must be logical (TRUE||FALSE)'

else c = varargin{1};

end

% Compare inputs

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 61 of 77

if ~all(size(y)==size(f)); error 'Y and F must be the same size'; end

tmp = ~or(isnan(y),isnan(f));

y = y(tmp);

f = f(tmp);

if c; r2 = max(0,1 - sum((y(:)-f(:)).^2)/sum((y(:)-mean(y(:))).^2));

else r2 = 1 - sum((y(:)-f(:)).^2)/sum((y(:)).^2);

if r2<0

% http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~adelle/Garvan/Assays/GoodnessOfFit.html

warning('Consider adding a constant term to your model')

%#ok<WNTAG>

r2 = 0;

end

end

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 62 of 77

Appendix F - Simulation Results and Statistical Analysis

0 23.58306 23.64282 23.65483

1209600 23.60445 23.49234 23.44924

2419200 23.97994 22.87967 22.1495

3628800 23.65148 24.13597 23.54031

4838400 24.25581 22.99172 23.2918

6048000 26.20346 26.20466 26.09612

7257600 26.31361 26.99176 26.81986

8467200 27.48192 26.99172 27.25281

9676800 29.23192 29.08876 29.36588

10886400 30.22895 30.64344 30.7923

12096000 30.19987 30.55036 30.85068

Time pH 1 pH 2 pH 3

0 6.758943 6.729063 6.74268

1209600 6.843442 6.872851 6.926767

2419200 6.901611 7.263789 7.065241

3628800 6.190473 5.739827 5.858941

4838400 5.891832 6.655944 5.416848

6048000 5.556923 7.07706 6.926402

7257600 5.09313 5.159399 4.886551

8467200 6.930695 7.127184 6.90239

9676800 6.943442 6.757937 6.390641

10886400 6.980695 7.089762 7.13565

12096000 6.951611 7.610443 7.946445

Time DO 1 DO 2 DO 3

0 7.628197 7.662857 7.684965

1209600 6.603236 7.489097 7.35746

2419200 6.58578 3.501366 5.26473

3628800 8.343301 8.343418 8.053624

4838400 8.197079 8.240218 7.845481

6048000 7.656159 7.535051 7.113582

7257600 6.462873 6.534535 6.359633

8467200 4.562447 5.693666 4.625674

9676800 4.716579 3.987134 5.09569

10886400 6.925908 7.535377 7.292036

12096000 6.225017 6.251743 6.210554

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 63 of 77

Temperature

pH

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 64 of 77

F.2 Prediction Simulation Results

Case 1:

ADDITION OF SOURCE

Temperature pH DO

Time

I1 I2 I3 I1 I2 I3 I1 I2 I3

1209600 23.60445 23.49234 23.44924 6.843442 6.872851 6.926767 6.603236 7.489097 7.35746

2419200 23.97994 22.87967 22.1495 6.901611 7.263789 7.065241 6.58578 3.501366 5.26473

3628800 23.65148 24.13597 23.54031 6.190473 5.739827 5.858941 8.343301 8.343418 8.053624

4838400 24.25581 22.99172 23.2918 5.891832 6.655944 5.416848 8.197079 8.240218 7.845481

6048000 26.20346 26.20466 26.09612 5.556923 7.07706 6.926402 7.656159 7.535051 7.113582

7257600 26.31361 26.99176 26.81986 5.09313 5.159399 4.886551 6.462873 6.534535 6.359633

8467200 27.48192 26.99172 27.25281 6.930695 7.127184 6.90239 4.562447 5.693666 4.625674

9676800 29.23192 29.08876 29.36588 6.943442 6.757937 6.390641 4.716579 3.987134 5.09569

10886400 30.22895 30.64344 30.7923 6.980695 7.089762 7.13565 6.925908 7.535377 7.292036

12096000 30.19987 30.55036 30.85068 6.951611 7.610443 7.946445 6.225017 6.251743 6.210554

Case 2:

CLASS B DISCHARGE

Temperature pH DO

Time

I1 I2 I3 I1 I2 I3 I1 I2 I3

1209600 23.60445 25.31416 23.57901 6.843442 6.297044 6.820672 6.603236 5.721819 7.308212

2419200 23.97994 25.11473 23.05725 6.901611 6.313297 6.873329 6.58578 4.949299 5.327901

3628800 23.65148 25.31615 23.618 6.190473 5.989217 5.869793 8.343301 5.783882 7.77606

4838400 24.25581 25.17996 23.45335 5.891832 5.892965 5.576945 8.197079 5.815235 7.715284

6048000 26.20346 25.98091 26.07592 5.556923 6.325176 6.891407 7.656159 5.563437 6.929823

7257600 26.31361 26.26011 26.88419 5.09313 5.369242 4.494598 6.462873 5.436336 6.461461

8467200 27.48192 26.26197 27.19872 6.930695 6.337427 6.861158 4.562447 4.666962 4.347052

9676800 29.23192 26.80286 29.18499 6.943442 6.137253 6.322305 4.716579 4.659157 4.403878

10886400 30.22895 27.27913 30.56325 6.980695 6.353556 7.08667 6.925908 5.593146 7.094357

12096000 30.19987 27.2513 30.58619 6.951611 6.609495 7.874701 6.225017 5.278659 6.163805

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 65 of 77

Case 3:

CLASS D DISCHARGE

Temperature pH DO

Time

I1 I2 I3 I1 I2 I3 I1 I2 I3

1209600 23.74987 28.82607 23.34844 6.901611 6.066603 7.156149 6.603236 4.224829 7.099587

2419200 23.979944 28.82607 23.48862 6.901611 6.066603 7.144935 6.58578 3.647975 5.614185

3628800 23.65148 29.09521 24.22119 6.190473 5.638497 5.878276 8.343301 3.75307 7.41231

4838400 24.255808 28.82359 23.7129 5.891832 5.918339 6.536721 8.197079 4.374152 7.648077

6048000 26.20346 29.66455 26.43667 5.556923 5.962453 6.869529 7.656159 4.190264 7.034318

7257600 26.313607 29.84012 26.98211 5.09313 5.626673 6.041343 6.462873 3.887475 6.121572

8467200 27.481923 29.9097 27.46846 6.930695 5.974705 6.839281 4.562447 3.745089 5.593011

9676800 29.231923 30.51831 29.62655 6.943442 5.814541 6.401629 4.716579 3.421788 4.851806

10886400 30.228954 30.85404 30.65025 6.980695 5.986832 7.054672 6.925908 4.23222 7.229378

12096000 30.19987 30.91033 30.88578 6.951611 6.242771 7.842703 6.225017 3.873584 6.187519

F.3.1. Temperature

Actual Theoretical

Mean 23.5 23.515343

Variance 0 0.0064194

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation #DIV/0!

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 2

t Stat -0.33169

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.385828

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.771656

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 66 of 77

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means (Day 2)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 23 23.00304

Variance 0.25 0.849042

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.597042

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 2

t Stat -0.0071

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.49749

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.99498

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 24.66667 23.77592

Variance 0.083333 0.1003167

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.64423

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 2

t Stat 2.809982

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.053374

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.106749

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 22.75 23.51311

Variance 0.0625 0.436214

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.7298

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -1.53679

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.132078

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.264156

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 67 of 77

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means ( Day 5)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 26.08333 26.16808

Variance 0.023333 0.003884

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.17952

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 2

t Stat -0.95148

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.220891

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.441782

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 26.66667 26.70841

Variance 0.333333 0.124288

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.969826

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -0.28847

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.400069

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.800139

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 27 27.24215

Variance 0.25 0.060159

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.999291

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -1.64434

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.120917

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.241834

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 68 of 77

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means (Day 8)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 29.16667 969644.9

Variance 0.083333 2.82E+12

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.5

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -1

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.211325

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.42265

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 30.5 30.5549

Variance 0 0.085221

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation #DIV/0!

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 2

t Stat -0.32571

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.387781

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.775562

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 30.71667 30.53364

Variance 0.285833 0.106098

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.972607

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 1.374666

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.151495

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.30299

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 69 of 77

F.3.2 Dissolved Oxygen

Actual Theoretical

Mean 7.678333 7.149931

Variance 0.000133 0.228489

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.990475

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 1.961589

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.094416

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.188832

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 6.155 5.117292

Variance 0.054025 2.394706

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.958531

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 1.355125

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.154069

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.308138

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 8.486667 8.246781

Variance 0.224433 0.027982

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.596881

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 1.045908

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.202691

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.405381

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 70 of 77

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means (Day 4)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 7.996667 8.094259

Variance 0.143633 0.046883

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.986288

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -0.99874

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.211568

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.423136

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 7.696667 7.434931

Variance 0.222358 0.081116

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.807971

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 1.541834

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.131526

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.263052

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 6.583333 6.452347

Variance 0.110833 0.007731

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.397646

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 0.73498

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.269425

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.538851

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 71 of 77

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means (Day 7)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 5.731667 4.960596

Variance 0.590108 0.404043

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.5355

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 1.084293

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.195773

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.391546

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 4.288333 4.599801

Variance 2.632608 0.317452

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.43955

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -0.27845

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.403408

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.806817

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 7.43 7.251107

Variance 0.012225 0.09412

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.08901

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 0.924279

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.226458

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.452916

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 72 of 77

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means (Day 10)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 6.544333 6.229105

Variance 0.158406 0.000437

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.80745

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 1.315456

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.159461

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.318921

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

F.3.3 pH

Actual Theoretical

Mean 6.816667 6.88102

Variance 0.000833 0.001786

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.16741

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -2.02574

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.090023

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.180046

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 73 of 77

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means (Day 2)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 7.1 7.07688

Variance 0.03 0.032895

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.836898

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 0.394301

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.365715

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.731431

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 5.95 5.929747

Variance 0.0175 0.054531

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.557495

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 0.180939

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.436546

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.873091

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 5.866667 5.988208

Variance 0.083333 0.390806

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.925028

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -0.56208

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.315326

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.630651

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 74 of 77

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means (Day 5)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 6.516667 6.520128

Variance 0.385833 0.701498

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.99152

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -0.02542

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.491016

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.982031

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 5.116667 5.04636

Variance 0.015833 0.020252

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.919665

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 2.17017

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.081096

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.162192

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 7.016667 6.986756

Variance 0.013333 0.01499

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.39654

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat 0.260547

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.409407

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.818815

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 75 of 77

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means (Day 8)

Actual Theoretical

Mean 6.6 6.69734

Variance 0.07 0.079151

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.86727

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -1.19096

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.177925

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.35585

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 7.033333 7.068702

Variance 0.000833 0.006335

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation -0.22914

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -0.67562

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.284465

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.568931

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Actual Theoretical

Mean 7.494333 7.502833

Variance 0.284946 0.256109

Observations 3 3

Pearson Correlation 0.997544

Hypothesized Mean 0

Difference

df 2

t Stat -0.32154

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.389146

t Critical one-tail 2.919986

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.778292

t Critical two-tail 4.302653

Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 76 of 77

Appendix G - DENR- Administrative Order No. 2016-08

Effluent Standards

AA A B C D SA SB SC SD

Ammonia as NH3-N mg/L NDA 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75 NDA 0.5 0.5 7.5

BOD mg/L NDA 20 30 50 120 NDA 30 100 150

Boron mg/L NDA 2 2 3 12 NDA 2 20 80

Chloride mg/L NDA 350 350 450 500 NDA n/a n/a n/a

COD mg/L NDA 60 60 100 200 NDA 60 200 300

Color TCU NDA 100 100 150 300 NDA 100 150 300

Cyanide as Free Cyanide mg/L NDA 0.14 0.14 0.2 0.4 NDA 0.04 0.2 0.4

Fluoride mg/L NDA 2 2 2 4 NDA 3 3 6

Nitrate as NO3-N mg/L NDA 14 14 14 30 NDA 20 20 30

pH(Range) mg/L NDA 6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0 6.0-9.5 5.5-9.5 NDA 6.5-9.0 6.0-9.0 5.5-9.5

Phosphate mg/L NDA 1 1 1 10 NDA 1 1 10

Selenium mg/L NDA 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.08 NDA 0.02 0.2 0.4

Sulfate mg/L NDA 500 500 550 1000 NDA 500 550 1000

Surfactants (MBAS) mg/L NDA 2 3 15 30 NDA 3 15 30

Temperature °C Change NDA 3 3 3 3 NDA 3 3 3

Total Suspended Solids mg/L NDA 70 85 100 150 NDA 70 100 150

RVAlumit, VVJDulliyao, DVGuillermo, RDMamba, LCManaligod, EEMaruquin. Mathematical Modelling of Water Quality in Pinacanauan River. Page 77 of 77

- The Expression of Uncertainty and Confidence in Measurement (Edition 3, November 2012)Uploaded byJerans
- BETTER BUSINESS DECISION USING COST MODELLING 2nd ED Sower, Sower.pdfUploaded byHana Fathia
- 1. WHOC12_3632[1]Uploaded byRodrigo Mendonca
- 4-8Uploaded byRamkrishna Talwadker
- 1.an Empirical TecAn empirical technique for predicting noise exposure level in the typicalhnique for Predicting Noise Exposure Level in the TypicalUploaded bySaurav Nandi
- RedUploaded byjgiraolewis
- Costs and Benefits of the Price Adjustment Clause in FIDIC MDB.pdfUploaded byHamdy Mohamed
- Lecture 1 Ekotek 2006Uploaded byPuput Yusda
- Enrico Ronchi 1Uploaded bykad-7
- 4. Sensitivity AnalysisUploaded byankit.priyadarshi
- Working Platforms to BRE or Not to BRE is the question Mar 16 AG.pdfUploaded bynearmonkey
- FINAL.pdfUploaded bybarua.bharadwaj
- Metron SolutionUploaded byamitesh7224
- DSS ModelingUploaded byS.m. Shadab
- 684786.pdfUploaded byAnonymous OFwyjaMy
- 03-03 Research Directions in Computational Mechanics_0Uploaded bydeeptish
- resource.pdfUploaded bychete013
- Peck2004-Trends in Ecology & EvolutionUploaded bymicrocox
- IJCTCMUploaded byijctcmjournal
- Agriculture 03 00516Uploaded byarchsark
- 6IJMCARJUN20196Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- PED_Greenwich2003_SSRC.pdfUploaded byAndika Saputra
- Sample Instructions #4Uploaded byAlex
- . Critical Incident Techniques in Evaluating Training ProgramsUploaded bywillie2210
- Omega Airline Crew PairingUploaded byrbrzakovic
- XX4234Uploaded bydarksideministry
- Part 2, PPP, 2019Uploaded byAyoe Amaliah
- Event Tracking for Real-Time Unaware Sensitivity AnalysisUploaded byecway_erode
- Micro Strip AntennaUploaded byŞerife Ak
- 1-3eUploaded bythienmakb

- Chain Pull CalculationsUploaded bymech_abhi
- FffUploaded byRhea Mamba
- ANSWER FOR TUTORIAL 5.docUploaded byPedro Degrandi
- Summative-Exams-for-General-and-Analytical-ChemistryFOR-STUDENT.docxUploaded bysantos earl
- Day-3-200-itemsUploaded byRichard Retuya
- Accomplishment Final.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Biochemical Engineering Questions and Answers - Enzymes ApplicationsUploaded byRhea Mamba
- 2019 CandidatesUploaded byRhea Mamba
- #1Energy Balance Whole in CementUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Ch04 SolutionsUploaded byChong Sing
- Preface SolutionsUploaded byIsabel Gumaru
- GAS-ABSORPTION.pdfUploaded byKim GojoCruz
- Day 2 200 Items Answer KeyUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Summary (Done)Uploaded byRhea Mamba
- ConveyorUploaded byRhea Mamba
- FinalPD.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Research Assignment 1(Final).docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Application of Fourier Series in Chemical Engineer.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Ethanol Production.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Application of Simple Fixed Point.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Air Pollution Control.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- lec1Uploaded byVan Lim
- lec3.pdfUploaded byVivek Kumar M L
- lec4.pdfUploaded byRhea Mamba
- MATHEMATICAL-MODELLING-OF-WATER-QUALITY-IN-PINACANAUAN-de-TUGUEGARAO-RIVER.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- 32.TsakirisandAlexakis2012Uploaded byRhea Mamba
- 23_Arad1.pdfUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Gas Absorption.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Evaporator.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba
- Trays and Packings Used in Distillation and Gas Absorption.docxUploaded byRhea Mamba

- Real Time Identification of the Hunt-Crossley Environment Dynamics ModelsUploaded bySujoe King-Nan
- 1Uploaded byLee Wee Siong
- Operation Research - Compiled NotesUploaded byAdyamNeged
- DAYANANND ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES.docxUploaded byRidhima Katiyar
- Cyclic Loading Using Intelligent Finite Element MethodUploaded byGreii Gc
- Modellus 2.5 LeafletUploaded byComcyt Oaxaca
- Mathematical Modeling and Computer Simulation of Transient Flow in Centrifuge Cascade Pipe Network With Optimizing TechniquesUploaded byPeter Angelo
- IPEUploaded byshajib_sust
- Rsh Qam11 Ism Ch01Uploaded byJames Morgan
- QMT425.429-T7 Simulation 7Uploaded bynamalinazim
- VKAUploaded bypragatiagrawal96
- PPT04.pptUploaded byMona Mardhatillah
- teaching_mathematical_modeling.pdfUploaded byUda Ijal
- Bootstrap Universe From Self-Referential NoiseUploaded byJaime A. Dalton
- NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DESIGN ANALYSISUploaded byBharath Ram
- SimulationUploaded byneilmijares
- IFEM.Ch06Uploaded byEng Alwardi
- tesis apiUploaded byjonattan calderon
- 2Uploaded bySiju Alex Cherian
- WECC Approved Dynamic Model Implementation Schedule July 2014 v0Uploaded bypuja_shinde9
- Aimms ModelingUploaded byzane
- IJERTV2IS120256Uploaded byAbdulwahab GIWA
- Vol.2 issue 6Uploaded byPragyan Bhattarai
- BookUploaded byJade Do
- Probability chapter 1Uploaded byAdeel Afridi
- THE MODELING OF THE HARDENING VELOCITYUploaded byIgor Bobin
- Spss Data Mining TipsUploaded by3pax
- Production Systems and Operations ManagementUploaded bynidhidarklord
- Ccp Qb 2017-18(Xerox Final)Uploaded byKotteeswaran Rangasamy R
- Biomechanics of Skull FractureUploaded byRocío Ramírez