ISSN 0097-8078, Water Resources, 2018, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 280–288. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2018.

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT: ECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS

Evaporation Reduction from Water Reservoirs in Arid Lands

Using Monolayers: Algerian Experience1
S. Saggaïa, b, * and O. E. K. Bachic
a
Laboratory of Exploitation and Valorization of Natural Resources in Arid Zones, University of Kasdi Merbah Ouargla,
Ouargla, 30000 Algeria
b
Laboratory of Water and Environment Engineering in Saharan Milieu, University of Kasdi Merbah Ouargla,
Ouargla, 30000 Algeria
c
Scientific and Technical Research Center in Arid Regions−Touggourt Biophysics station, Algeria
*e-mail: sofianeaero@yahoo.fr, saggai.so@univ-ouargla.dz
Received August 24, 2015

Abstract⎯The extremely high rate of evaporation from water surfaces in arid and semi-arid areas greatly
reduces optimal utilization of water reservoirs. In Algeria, which is at 80% an arid country, water resources
are scarce and renewable due to low annual precipitation. Considering the importance of optimal utilization
of renewable water resources, about 70 dams with capacity of 7.4 billion m3 were constructed. One of the big-
gest problems of water in dams in Algeria is the huge amount of water loss through evaporation due to high
evaporation rate. Therefore, applying techniques to reduce evaporation are greatly needed. One of the most
recommended techniques for reducing evaporation is the application of a thin chemical film on the surface
of the water. The present study aims to investigate the effect of this technique under arid conditions. Experi-
ment was conducted for 20 weeks in Touggourt with three Colorado-type evaporation pans. Fatty alcohol
with various doses were used in different pans. First pan was filled with water without adding fatty alcohol
while in second pan, fatty alcohols was added with recommended concentration (0.3 kg/104 m2/day) and
similarly in third pan fatty alcohol was added with concentration (0.5 kg/10 4 m2/day). The preliminary results
of the study indicated that evaporation rate from surface water was reduced overall up to 16 and 22% in the
second pan and the third one, respectively as compared to the non covered pan.

Keywords: water plans, evaporation reduction, Hexadecanol, arid area, Touggourt

DOI: 10.1134/S009780781802015X

INTRODUCTION A number of Algerian authors have stated that, in

Fresh water resources have strategic importance
and high economic value for a country. They become
even vital when they are scarce and non-renewable
particularly in arid regions.
Algeria, due to its geographical location and cli-
matic conditions, is characterized by limited renew-
able water resources. In fact, renewable water
resources of Algeria are significantly less as compared
to non-renewable water resources due to low annual
precipitation and therefore, require greater attention
for development and management for long-term utili-
zation.
Considering the importance of optimal utilization
of renewable water resources, Ministry of Water
Resources (MWR) has constructed 70 dams with total
storage capacities of about 7.4 billion m3 until the year
2014 and several new large dams are under construc-
tion [47].
1 The article is published in the original.
addition to water losses by leakages and silting of
reserves [5], water in dams is also lost with big quanti-
ties by evaporation [5, 50, 64]. Water conservation is a
necessity, especially in the Algerian arid regions that
have scant rainfall (less than 200 mm/year [25, 34])
and high evaporation (more than 2500 mm/year [57]).
Researchers have considered many physical and
chemical techniques in order to reduce water evapora-
tion losses from open water storages, and major avail-
able methods are: reduction water surface area, cover
water surface and use of chemical substances to make
a thin film [20]. After a detailed review of the available
evaporation reduction methods, surface water cover by
monolayers technique was selected. This method has
several advantages over other methods. It is economi-
cally feasible due to low cost of substance and easily
available. An array of evaporation reduction chemicals
has been tested under both laboratory and field condi-
tions in Australia [11, 45], Brazil [31], Canada [51],
India [21], South Africa [56] and United States [42,

280
 EVAPORATION REDUCTION FROM WATER RESERVOIRS
63]; and Hexadecanol has been found to be one of the
most efficient chemicals for reducing water evapora-
tion [38, 39, 60].
According to [1, 28], solvent application and pow-
der application were both found to be well suited for
getting high rates of evaporation reduction. However,
because of cost and environmental concerns, solvent
application has been left. Concentration of applied
substances to form monolayers on water surface is
another factor that has an effect on the rate of evapo-
ration reduction. The results of Umberumberka Res-
ervoir experiment in 1959 showed that daily applica-
tion of 10 pounds of powder over an area of about 250
acres (equivalent to about 2 monolayers), the evapora-
tion savings exceeded 50%. Under the prevailing con-
ditions of light wind (up to 5 m.p.h.), over a period of
28 days. In the under similar conditions, small quanti-
ties of the material were occasionally applied averaging
1.7857−2.1428 pounds per day (equivalent to 0.4
monolayer). Evaporation savings of 40% were
observed. The quantities of alcohol applied were fur-
ther reduced to 0.3571 pounds per day (equivalent to
<0.1 monolayer) and the evaporation savings com-
puted were 35% [65].
In Algeria, the first trials for reducing evaporation
of open water storages by monolayers were conducted
in 2007 in the region of Ouargla (southern east of
Algeria). The results showed that the presence of
monomolecular films might contribute in saving water
[58]. However, the impact of variation of Hexadecanol
concentration on water evaporation reduction rates
and its economic efficiency in the Algerian arid condi-
tions is not yet known.
The main purpose of the present paper was to
investigate the efficiency of the variation of Hexadeca-
nol concentration on water evaporation reduction
rates in the region of Touggourt (southeast of Algeria).
As a second purpose, the study has evaluated the eco-
nomic efficiency of Hexadecanol concentration by
calculating the cost of saved water.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Presentation in the Region
The pilot study was undertaken during spring sea-
son when the average air temperature was more than
30°C with a maximum temperature of 40°C, the aver-
age rate of humidity was more than 40% and duration
of sunshine is more than 1487 h (44% of the totality of
the period of study), the wind was of 3.4 m/s (National
Office of Meteorology Algeria (NOMA) [49]). For the
site, the experiment was performed in Touggourt
(33°06′ N, 6°04′ E), approximately 160 km in the
northeast of Ouargla which is situated in southeast of
Algeria.
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 45 No. 2 2018
281
Materials
Evaporation Pans
Evaporation from open water storage can be deter-
minate by two ways: energy balance and water balance
[16]. In our analyses, we used water balance equation:
Qin + P + ΔH = Qout + S + E. [16, 15] (1)
Where Qin is the inflow, P is precipitation, ΔH is the
change in the level, Qout is the outflow, S is seepage
and E is the evaporation rate, all in mm/day. By using
pans, inflow, outflow and seepage (which are very dif-
ficult to estimate) are eliminated, and the water bal-
ance becomes:
E = P ± ΔH. [9] (2)
According to [12], there are major differences
between water body and pan conditions that can affect
pan data. Since pan evaporation (Epan) normally
exceeds evaporative losses from larger water bodies
(Ew), researchers commonly adjust the pan data as fol-
lows:
Ew = EpanKpan. (3)
Where Kpan is a pan coefficient, which generally
depends on the pan and the surrounding environment.
In Algerian Sahara in 1949 a pan coefficient of 0.78
was adopted for the Colorado-type pan [24]. Pans
used in our study were of Colorado-type (one meter
square and half meter deep).
Monolayers
Monolayers are films that are one molecule thick
formed at a phase boundary such as the air/water
interface [2, 29]. The molecules are amphiphilic as
each has both a hydrophilic part and a hydrophobic
part. Several chemical substances can form on the sur-
face of water a film of single row of molecules oriented
with regard to this surface in the same way: the hydro-
philic end of the molecule oriented downward and the
hydrophobic upward. The film formed on the water
surface is not disrupted by winds <7 m/s if the supply
of monolayer chemical onto the water surface is made
regularly and continuously [10]. For our study, Hexa-
decanol was chosen as the particular monolayer for
this experimentation because of its suitability for
actual use in the field. Its structure, a straight-chain
alcohol without branching, has been demonstrated to
be the most effective to form condensed monolayers
that retard evaporation [37]. Hexadecanol and Octa-
decanol are the most fit for use in actual field condi-
tions because their spreading rates are actually high
enough for practical spreading. Barnes and LaMer [3]
found that a mixture of Hexadecanol and Octadecanol
yielded better retardation of evaporation than Hexade-
canol alone, but the spreading rate and rate of self-
repair after rupture is again much better in Hexadeca-
nol [3].
282 SAGGAÏ, BACHI
16
14
Evaporation rate, mm
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
W7
W8
W9
Time, weeks
Control
Fig. 1. Variation of evaporation rate in three pans.
Applied Method
The present pilot study was conducted to measure
the reduction of evaporation on relatively small and
controlled water surface of three Colorado-type pans
which were 80% filled with water and were partially
buried, keeping 50 cm space between pans and 10 cm
height above the natural level of the ground. Hence,
the water levels were effectively at ground level.
The amount of fatty alcohol added to the evapora-
tion pans was calculated and applied to each pan. No
substance was added to the first pan (control pan) to
measure natural evaporation rate due to ambient con-
ditions and for comparison. 3 g of fatty alcohol was
added to 100 m2 of water surface in the second pan per
day and 5 g was added to 100 m2 of water surface in the
third pan per day. The fatty alcohol was applied every
three days on the water surfaces of the evaporation
pans. Therefore, the effective quantity applied in the
second pan was 0.09 g and the effective quantity
applied in the third pan was 0.15 g. Meteorological
parameters including air temperature, relative humid-
ity and wind speed as well as water levels in three pans
were measured.
It is necessary to note here that the condition of
ensuring the efficiency of the monolayer was the
absence of the wind which created waves on the water
surface. Thus, it is necessary to make sure that the
wind was quiet during the spreading of the powder on
the water surface [15, 28].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results
Figure 1 shows the variation of evaporation and
evaporation reduction rates in evaporation pans.
By analyzing graphs it is clear that rates of evapora-
tion (E) in pans vary in the same way. The differ-
W10
W11
W12
W13
W14
W15
W16
W17
W18
W19
W20
HEXA 009 HEXA 015
ence in rates of evaporation was so important in the
first nine weeks and became few in the last weeks.
For rates of evaporation reduction (ER) (Fig. 2),
the variation of ER is similar in two pans; the differ-
ence in ER for the same week became more and
more important in the last weeks.
The relationship of air temperature, mean wind
speed and relative humidity with the ER was deter-
mined with the help of simple regression analysis of
weekly average observed data.
A simple regression model for the best fit of
observed data of air temperature and ER was devel-
oped as in Fig. 3. The model indicated that there is
an inverse correlation between the air temperature
and ER.
Similarly, a simple regression model for the best
fit of observed data of mean wind speed and ER was
developed as in Fig. 4. The model indicated that
there is a direct correlation between mean wind
speed and ER.
In addition, a simple regression model for the
best fit of observed data of relative humidity and ER
was developed as in Fig. 5. The model indicated that
ER decreases as relative humidity increases and that
there is a direct correlation between relative humid-
ity and ER.
Discussion
The rate of evaporative loss is the highest when the
transportation of water molecules from the bulk phase
into the liquid thermal boundary layer, from liquid
thermal boundary layer into the gaseous boundary
layer, and from the gaseous boundary layer into the
airflow is rapid [53]. Transport from the gaseous
boundary layer into the airflow is determined by the
wind shear [70].
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 45 No. 2 2018
 EVAPORATION REDUCTION FROM WATER RESERVOIRS 283

45

Evaporation reduction rate, %

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
W7
W8
W9
W10
W11
W12
W13
W14
W15
W16
W17
W18
W19
W20
Time, weeks
HEXA 009 HEXA 015

Fig. 2. Variation of evaporation reduction rate for the covered pans.

In the presence of capillary waves, the surface molecules are amphiphiles, the hydrophilic head of
roughness of the water increases, increasing the wind molecule will adsorb at the air-water interface, with
shear. If the formation of capillary waves is sup- the hydrophobic tails escaping into the gaseous
pressed, the wind shear will decrease, allowing the boundary layer.
vapour pressure at the water surface to increase. As the This oriented, uni-molecular thick layer is referred
vapour pressure increases, the rate of condensation to as a monolayer. The tendency for molecules to
will also increase, reducing the evaporative loss. The adsorb at the interface may reduce surface tension.
above explanation of evaporation process shows that
This process explains the observed values of evapo-
the air temperature, the wind and the relative humidity
ration rate (E) registered in different pans during
are the most important meteorological parameters 20 weeks. In combination with the damping of capil-
that affect evaporation rate and it is the same conclu- lary waves, the presence of monolayer of Hexadecanol
sion reported by other authors [26, 30, 41, 55]. may increase the thickness of both the liquid thermal
Capillary waves can be suppressed by reducing the and the gaseous boundary layers, reducing evaporative
surface tension of water and by convective circulation loss.
[53]. Surface tension can be reduced if an immiscible This efficiency varied according to the quantity of
liquid is added to water [17, 18, 52]. If the immiscible Hexadecanol used to form the monolayer and the
Evaporation reduction rates, %

Evaporation reduction rates, %

45
45 y = –0.0131x + 0.6215
40 R2 = 0.6501
40
35 35
y = –0.0126x + 0.5411
30 R2 = 0.6672 30
25 25
20 20
y = 0.0399x + 0.0926
15 15 R2 = 0.206
10 10
y = 0.0428x + 0.0156
5 5 R2 = 0.2608

0 0
20 25 30 35 40 2 3 4 5 6 7
Air temperature, °C Windspeed, m/s
HEXA 009 HEXA 015 HEXA 009 HEXA 015

Fig. 3. Variation of evaporation reduction rate in relation Fig. 4. Variation of evaporation reduction rate in relation
to air temperature. to wind speed.

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 45 No. 2 2018

284 SAGGAÏ, BACHI
local climate conditions to the monolayer perfor-
mance [46].
The observed rates of evaporation reduction
allowed saying that when the concentration of Hexa-
decanol increases the reduction rate increases. This is
explained by the density of monolayers on the water
surface: 0.09 g/m2/3 days (equivalent to 15 molecular
layers under perfect conditions) and 0.15 g/m2/3 days
(equivalent to 25 molecular layers, similarly). How-
ever, in both cases the movement of the surface with
wind and the degradation of the Hexadecanol with
time and solar radiation will cause the actual thickness
to be much less than the theoretical figure.
Wind speed is the biggest factor controlling the per-
formance of monolayer. Fitzgerald and Vines [27]
gave the reductions in evaporation due to Hexadeca-
nol based monolayer application at different wind
speeds and they reported that there is no evaporation
savings when wind speed exceed 6.71 m/s and the best
ER is for wind speed <4.47 m/s. Research done by
Barnes and Gentle [2] suggested that in higher winds
the monolayer tends to compress and occupy a smaller
surface area.
In field trials however, the effects of winds need to
be accounted for, as they reduce the thickness of the
diffusion layer, increase the surface area with the pro-
duction of waves and cause losses by retraction of cov-
erage [14].
In our experiment, wind speeds weekly averages
did not exceed, in majority, 4.3 m/s (the own max
weekly average of wind speed was registered in the sec-
ond week by 6.3 m/s) and in the last weeks the regis-
tered weekly averages of wind speed did not exceed
3.3 m/s which means that wind was not the own factor
which affected monolayers performance and by con-
sequence reducing ER rates in last 10 weeks. Statisti-
cally and referring to Critical Values of the
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient at
df = n − 2 the correlation between ER rates and wind
speeds was highly significant.
Mansfield [43, 44] has found that the evaporation
resistance of a monolayer, generated directly from a
fragment of solid highly purified Hexadecanol placed
upon a water surface, was approximately constant in
the temperature range from 20 to 30°C, but that the
resistance fell rapidly at higher temperatures such that
at 50°C it was about one quarter of its value at 20°C.
Thus, more the temperature increases more the resis-
tance to the evaporation is lowered. It is clear that the
variation in water temperature is influenced by varia-
tion in the air temperature, the water temperature rises
when the air temperature rises and inversely. Ramdas
and Narasimhane [54], Deo et al. [19], and Shukla
et al. [61] reported that there is a steady fall in ER with
the rise of water temperature.
In experiment, air temperature weekly averages
were less than 25°C in the first 6 weeks, from the 9th
week to the last one, the air temperature weekly aver-
Evaporation reduction rates, %
45 y = 0.0054x + 0.0123
40 R2 = 0.6585
y = –0.0055x + 0.0571
35 R2 = 0.6379
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Relative humidity, %
HEXA 009 HEXA 015
Fig. 5. Variation of evaporation reduction rate in relation
to relative humidity.
ages were more than 30°C. Statistically and referring
to Critical Values of the Pearson Product-Moment
Correlation Coefficient at df = n − 2 the correlation
between ER rates and air temperature was very highly
significant.
It is known that the humidity is the concentration
of water vapour in air and it is a function of air tem-
perature [36].
The effect of humidity on the physicochemical
properties monomolecular films at the air–water
interface has been thought to be of secondary impor-
tance, and has never been studied experimentally [6].
In trial, humidity weekly averages were between 25
and 64%, in the majority of weeks (the last 11 weeks)
the humidity were not more than 38%. Statistically
and referring to Critical Values of the Pearson Prod-
uct-Moment Correlation Coefficient at df = n − 2 the
correlation between ER rates and humidity was very
highly significant.
Economic Analysis
The difference between the cost of saved water and
the cost of used Hexadecanol gives the economic effi-
ciency of the method of evaporation reduction.
At Lake Hefner records were maintained on costs
of: (a) Hexadecanol applied; (b) petrol, oil and repairs
for operation of boats; (c) salaries and wages of opera-
tors and labourers; (d) motor vehicle operation;
(e) rental of barge; (f) equipment depreciation;
(g) miscellaneous expenses. Of the total cost, the cost
of Hexadecanol amounted to 73.5%, while the cost of
labour was 15%. At Sahuaro Lake, where new tech-
niques were tried, similar cost accounting was kept
[62]. Of the total cost of the treatments, about 52%
was cost of materials and 32% labour. At Lake
Cachuma the same procedure was employed [32]. Of
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 45 No. 2 2018
 EVAPORATION REDUCTION FROM WATER RESERVOIRS
the total cost of about 62% was the cost of material,
and 16% labour. The cost of saving water is governed
largely by the cost of materials. This is bound to go
down with increasing use.
It is not easy to reconcile the American and the
Australian figures. Obviously, they are based on
entirely different dosages deemed necessary for main-
taining the monolayer on the water surface. These
dosages depend largely on wind conditions; but wind
conditions alone, as they are known, cannot explain
the difference in dosage ratio of 10 to 1, or more. Other
factors such as bacterial content may contribute, but
the full explanation is still lacking.
It should be stressed that the figures quoted above
relate to large reservoirs only. For small reservoirs such
as stock tanks of 1 acre or less in surface area, the
amount of retardant material needed per unit area to
obtain a reduction in evaporation is much greater than
that needed for a larger reservoir because of the shorter
travel distance of the film over the small area. Conse-
quently, the cost of water saved might well be higher by
one or even two orders of magnitude [28].
In our experiment, water saved during these 20
weeks was 212 mm in the second evaporation pan
(0.09 g/m2/3 days) and 303 mm in the third evapora-
tion pans (0.15 g/m2/3 days) which mean respectively
0.212 and 0.303 m3. The real cost of water in Algeria is
between 0.8 and 1 euro/m3 according to Benachenhou
[4] and can reach 2.5 euro at rural regions [8] which
means gains of 0.1696 euro in the second pan and
0.2424 euro in the third pan (for a cost of 0.8 euro/m3).
Hexadecanol used during 20 weeks 4.23 g was applied
in the second pan and 7.05 g in the third one. The cost
of 1 kg of Hexadecanol is 8 euro [46], which means
0.03384 euro (2nd pan) and 0.0564 euro (3rd pan).
The difference between the value of saved water
and the cost of used Hexadecanol gives the economic
efficiency of this method. In the case of second pan
the difference is 0.136 euro/m2 over 20 weeks, for the
second one the difference is 0.186 euro/m2 for the
same period. The calculated costs show a small differ-
ence (0.03204 euro) this indicates that the applied
quantity in the 3rd pan is preferable because it gives
higher water saving for every euro spent on Hexadeca-
nol.
Impact of Monolayer on Water Environment
Physical factors influencing plant and animal life
in water include temperature, natural surface tensions
and water transparency. Chemical factors include dis-
solved mineral constituents and dissolved gases. Of
these, the last factor is perhaps the most important.
Linton and Sutherland [40] examined the influ-
ence of a Hexadecanol monolayer on the rate of trans-
fer of oxygen from the air into the water, under condi-
tions simulating those obtaining in water reservoirs.
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 45 No. 2 2018
285
They found that in the absence of wind the monolayer,
both on stirred and unstirred surface caused little or no
reduction in the oxygen transfer coefficient in the
range of values of importance in water reservoirs. If a
jet of air was blown on the center of the water, the
monolayer was found to reduce the oxygen transfer
coefficient by some 40%. They concluded that it
appeared safe to spread Hexadecanol on any water
surface which was initially 90% saturated with oxygen,
as a 50% reduction in oxygen transfer coefficient
would only lower the oxygen content to the satisfac-
tory limit of 80% saturation.
These conclusions are in agreement with the result
of Kids Lake studies [13] and those of Wixson [69] and
Wells [67] who found that Hexadecanol caused a small
diminution in the rate of diffusion of oxygen across the
air-water interface in both field and laboratory exper-
iments. They are also in agreement with results of Sag-
gai et al. [59] who found that the concentration of dis-
solved oxygen in water environment depends on the
quantity of alcohol used to form monolayer. However,
it should be noted that at higher gas transfer rates,
monolayers considerably reduced the passage of oxy-
gen and other gases [7, 23, 66].
Contrary to primary aliphatic alcohols with chain
lengths from C9 to C12 which kill micro-organisms
and aquatic insect larvae by disrupting membranes
and membrane biochemical processes [33, 35, 48],
formulations of Hexadecanol (C16) and Octadecanol
(C18) are non-toxic and do not present a health haz-
ard in potable water [22] and they are not directly toxic
to aquatic animals [68].
CONCLUSIONS
As the population is growing in Algeria, the
demand for water also increases. The Algerian author-
ity is highly committed and has strategic plans for stor-
age and maximum utilisation of rainwater by the con-
struction of dams. The protection of the stored water
in dams from evaporation is important and an integral
part of sustainable planning, especially during summer
when air temperature is high and humidity is low,
which leads to extremely high rate evaporation from
water plans. The use of chemical substance to make a
thin film over the water surface is one of the most fea-
sible and cost effective method which reduces evapo-
ration significantly.
The present study of covering water surface regu-
larly every three days with Hexadecanol monolayer
confirmed the usefulness of this substance in the
reduction of open water evaporation.
The rates of the evaporation reduction depend on
quantity of Hexadecanol (concentration) used and on
meteorological factors of the region.
Application of Hexadecanol at the rate of 0.15 g/m2
every 3 days gave the best rate of evaporation reduction
(22%). Wind speed recorded during experience period
286 SAGGAÏ, BACHI
did not affect strongly the performance of monolayer
in comparison with air temperature and relative
humidity that had big effect on ER.
Economically, the efficiency was in the case of the
3rd pan where the concentration was 0.15 g/m2 every
3 days with 0.186 euro/m2.
Finally, we recognise that the obtained results in
this small experiment are preliminary, and require fur-
ther verification in the field, in larger experiments,
and over larger open water surfaces.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was funded by the laboratory of
Exploitation and Valorisation of natural resources in
arid zones. The authors would like to thank Mr. Nigel
Hancock Associate Professor at the National Centre
for Engineering of Agriculture “University of South-
ern Queensland,” and the staff from the Scientific and
Technical Research Center in Arid Regions (Toug-
gourt Biophysical Station) for their assistance and
support.
REFERENCES
1. Barnes, G.T., The potential for monolayers to reduce
the evaporation from large water storages, Agric. Water
Manag., 2008, vol. 95, pp. 339–353.
2. Barnes, G.T. and Gentle, I., Interfacial Science: an
Introduction, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2005.
3. Barnes, G.T. and La Mer, V.K., The evaporation resis-
tances of monolayers of long-chain acids and alcohols
and their mixtures, in Retardation of Evaporation by
Monolayers: Transport Processes, La Mer, V.K., Ed.,
NY: Acad. Press, 1962, pp. 9–33.
4. Benachenhou, A., Le prix de l’avenir: Le développement
durable en Algérie, Paris: Ed. Thotm, 2005.
5. Benfetta, H. and Remini, B., La problématique du
stockage des eaux de surface dans les régions arides: Cas
du barrage de Ouizert (Algérie), European J. Sci. Res.,
2008, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 380–391.
6. Bilkadi, Z. and Neuman, R.D., Effect of humidity on
monolayer desorption at the air–water interface,
Nature, 1979, vol. 278, no. 5707, pp. 842–842.
7. Blank, M., The permeability of monolayers to several
gases, in Retardation of Evaporation by Monolayers:
Transport Processes, La Mer, V.K., Ed., NY: Acad.
Press, 1962, pp. 75–95.
8. Boukhari, S., Djebbar, Y., and Abida, H., Prix des ser-
vices de l’eau en Algérie, un outil de gestion durable,
4ème Conf. Int. sur les Ressources en eau dans le bassin
Méditerranéen, Alger, 2008.
9. Boutoutaou, D., Saker, M.L., Daddi-Bouhoun, M.,
Saggai, S., Ould El Hadj, M.D., Détermination de
l’évaporation des surfaces des plans d’eau pour les con-
ditions climatiques de l’Algérie, Algerian J. Arid Envi-
ron., 2012, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 94–101.
10. Braslavski, A.P. and Cherguin, K.B., Evaporation des
plans d’eau et des barrages de la zone aride du Kazaki-
stan, Naouka Kazakistan, 1965.
11. Brown, J.A.H., The potential for reducing open water
evaporation losses: a review, Rep. Snowy Mountains
Engineering Corporation, 1984.
12. Burman, R. and Pochop, L.O., Evaporation, evapo-
transpiration and climatic data, in Developments in
Atmospheric Science 22, NY: Elsevier Sci. B.V., 1994.
13. Committee of collaborators. Water quality study with
Hexadecanol, Kids Lake, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
Denver, Col., U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1957.
14. Coop, P.A., Detection of Evaporation Reducing Mono-
layers on Open Water Surfaces, Univ. New England,
2011.
15. Craig, I., Green, A., Scobie, M., and Schmidt, E., Con-
trolling Evaporation Loss from Water Storages, National
Centre for Engineering in Agriculture Publication
1000580/1, USQ, Toowoomba, 2005.
16. Craig, I., Loss of storage water through evaporation with
particular reference to arid and semi-arid zone pastoral-
ism in Australia, DKCRC Working Paper 19, The
WaterSmart™ Literature Reviews, Desert Knowledge
CRC, Alice Springs, 2008.
17. Datta, A., Kundu, S., Sanyal, M.K., Daillant, J.,
Luzet, D., Blot, C., and Struth, B., Dramatic enhance-
ment of capillary wave fluctuations of a decorated water
surface, Physical Rev. E, 2005, vol. 71, pp. 1–7.
18. Davies, J. and Rideal, E., Interfacial phenomena, Lon-
don: Acad. press, 1963, 2nd Ed.
19. Deo, A.V., Sanjana, N.R., Kulkarni, S.B.,
Gharpurey, M.K., and Biswas, A.B., New compounds
for the control of water evaporation, Nature, 1960,
vol. 187, no. 4740, pp. 870–871.
20. Department of Water (DW), Reducing farm dam evapo-
ration, Rural Water Note 04, Government of Western
Australia, 2007.
21. Desai, A.C., Iyer, T.K., and Tople, V.M., Use of water
evaporation retardants for water conservation, J. Indian
Water Works Assoc., 1990, pp. 193–194.
22. Dorn, P., Salanitro, J., Evans, S., and Kravetz, L.,
Assessing the aquatic hazard of some branched and lin-
ear non-ionic surfactants by biodegradation and toxic-
ity, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 1993, vol. 17, pp. 1751–
1762.
23. Downing, A.L. and Melbourne, K.V., Chemical con-
servation of water, J. Inst. Water Eng., 1957, vol. 11,
no. 5, pp. 438–442.
24. Dubief, J., Evaporation et coefficients climatiques au
Sahara, Travaux de l’Institut de recherches sahari-
ennes, Tome 6, Université d’Alger, 1950.
25. Dubost, D., Ecologie, aménagement et développement
agricole des Oasis Algériennes, Ed. Centre de Recherche
Scientifique et Technique sur les Régions Arides,
Biskra, Algeria, 2002.
26. Emsalem, R., Climatologie générale, tome I, Fondements
des équilibres atmosphériques, SNED Alger, 1970.
27. Fitzgerald, L.M. and Vines, R.G., Retardation of evap-
oration by monolayers: practical aspects of the treat-
ment of large water storages, Australian J. Applied Sci.,
1963, vol. 14, pp. 340–346.
28. Frenkiel, J., Evaporation reduction: physical and chemi-
cal principles and review of experiments, Arid Zone Res.,
Paris: UNESCO, 1965.
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 45 No. 2 2018
 EVAPORATION REDUCTION FROM WATER RESERVOIRS
29. Gaines, G.L., Insoluble Monolayers at Liquid–Gas
Interfaces, NY: Intersci. Publishers, 1966.
30. Godard, A. and Tabeaud, M., Les climats- mécanismes
et répartition, Armond Colin-Paris, 1993.
31. Gugliotti, M., Baptista, M.S., and Politi, M.J., Reduc-
tion of evaporation of natural water samples by mono-
molecular films, J. Braz. Chem. Soc., 2005, vol. 16,
no. 6A, pp. 1186–1190.
32. Hamburg, G.R., Economic evaluation, in Water loss
investigations. Lake Cachurna—1961 evaporation reduc-
tion investigations, Denver, Col., U.S. Bureau of Recla-
mation, (Chem. Eng. Lab. rept. no. SI-33.), 1962,
pp. 51–55.
33. Hammond, D. and Kubo, I., Structure-activity rela-
tionship of aliphatic alcohols as mosquito larvicides
with novel findings regarding their mode of action, Bio-
org. Med. Chem., 1999, vol. 7, pp. 271–278.
34. Kadi, A., La gestion de l’eau en Algérie, Hydro. Sci. J.,
1997, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 191–197.
35. Kubo, L., Fujita, T., Kubo, A., and Fujita, K., Modes
of antifungal action of aliphatic alcohols against sac-
charomyces cerevisiae, Bioorg. Med. Chem., 2003,
vol. 11, pp. 1117–1122.
36. Laborde, J.P., Eléments d’hydrologie de surface, Ecole
polytechnique de l’université de Nice-Sophia Antipo-
lis, 2009.
37. La Mer, V.K. and Healy, T.W., Evaporation of water.
Its retardation by monolayers, Sci., 1965, vol. 148,
pp. 36–42.
38. Langmuir, I. and Schaefer, V.J., Rates of evaporation of
water through compressed monolayers on water, J.
Franklin Inst., 1943, vol. 235, pp. 119–162.
39. Langmuir, I. and Langmuir, D.B., The effect of mono-
molecular films on the evaporation of ether solutions, J.
Phys. Chem., 1927, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1719–1731.
40. Linton, M. and Sutherland, K.L., The solution of oxy-
gen through a monolayer, Austral. J. Appl. Sci., 1958,
vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 18–23.
41. Mamou, A., Caractéristiques et évaluation des ressources
en eau du sud Tunisien, Thèse de doctorat d’état es sci-
ences, centre d’Orsay, université de Paris–sud, 1990.
42. Manges, H. and Crow, F.R., Evaporation suppression
by chemical and mechanical treatments, Proc. Okla-
homa Acad. Sci., 1966, vol. 46, pp. 251–254.
43. Mansfield, W.W., The influence of monolayers on
evaporation from water storages. I. The potential per-
formance of monolayers of Cetyl alcohol, Australian J.
Applied Sci., 1958, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 245–254.
44. Mansfield, W.W., The use of Hexadecanol for reservoir
evaporation control, in Proc. 1st In. Conf. Reservoir
Evaporation Control, Southwest Research Institute, San
Antonio, Texas, 1956.
45. Mansfield, W.W., Influence of monolayers on the nat-
ural rate of evaporation of water, Nature, 1955, vol. 175,
pp. 247–249.
46. McJannet, D., Cook, F., Knight, J., and Burn, S.,
Evaporation Reduction by Monolayers: Overview, Model-
ling and Effectiveness, Urban Water Security Res. Alli-
ance Tech. Rep. No. 6, Australia, 2008.
47. Ministry of Water Resources (MWR). Les ressources
superficielles. Ministry of Water Resources, 2014.
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 45 No. 2 2018
287
http://www.mre.dz/baoff/fichiers/Superficielles.pdf.
Cited in 2014
48. Mohr, J., Gribble, G., Lin, S., Eckenhoff, R., and
Cantor, R., Anaesthetic potency of two novel synthetic
polyhydric alkanols longer than the n-alkanol cut-off:
evidence for a bi-layer mediated mechanism of anaes-
thesia, J. Medicinal Chem., 2005, vol. 48, pp. 4172–
4176.
49. National Office of Meteorology Algeria (NOMA),
Meteorological data, Regional department of Ouargla,
2012.
50. Nezli, I.E., Achour, S., and Djabri, L., Approche géo-
chimique des processus d’acquisition de la salinité des
eaux de la nappe phréatique de la basse vallée de l’oued
M’ya (Ouargla), Larhyss J., 2007, vol. 6, pp. 121–134.
51. O’Brien, R.N., Method for making a coated powder for
reducing evaporative water loss, Int. Patent Appl. WO
2006/012740 A1, 2006.
52. Perlin, M. and Schultz, W.W., Capillary effects on sur-
face waves, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 2000, vol. 32,
pp. 241–274.
53. Pittaway, P., Impact of artificial monolayers on water
quality, potable water treatment, human health and lake
ecology, Urban Water Security Res. Alliance Tech. Rep.
№ 57, Australia, 2011.
54. Ramdas, L.A. and Narasimhane, S., Effect of tempera-
ture on the efficiency of monomolecular films in sup-
pressing evaporation, J. Sci. Indus. Resear., 1957,
vol. 48, pp. 331–337.
55. Remenieras, G., L’hydrologie de l’ingénieur, Paris:
Eyrolles, 1986.
56. Roberts, W.J., Reducing water vapor transport with
monolayers, in Retardation of Evaporation by Monolay-
ers: Transport Processes, La Mer, V.K., Ed., NY: Acad.
Press, 1962, pp. 193–201.
57. Rognon, P., Comment développer la recharge artifi-
cielle des nappes en régions sèches. Sciences et change-
ments planétaires, Sécheresse, 2000, vol. 11, no. 4,
pp. 1–10.
58. Saggai, S., Boutoutaou, D., and Saker, M.L., Réduc-
tion de l’évaporation des eaux dans les barrages: une
stratégie pour augmenter le stockage de l’eau dans les
régions arides algériennes, Hydrol. Sci. J. doi
10.1080/02626667.2014.988156
59. Saggai, S., Saggai, M.M., and Hancock, N., Labora-
tory study of the effect of Hexadecanol monolayer on
the aquatic fauna (case of Tilapia nilotica), Revue des
BioRessour., 2013, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1–7.
60. Sebba, F. and Briscoe, H.V.A., The evaporation of
water through unimolecular films, J. Chem. Soc., 1940,
pp. 106–114.
61. Shukla, R.N., Deo, A.V., Katti, S.S., Kulkarni, S.B.,
and Gharpurey, M.K., Water evaporation retardation
by surface films, Ann. Arid Zone, 1963, vol. 1, no. 2,
pp. 127–131.
62. Teter, G.A. and Florey, Q.L., Economic evaluation of
the dusting technique, in 1960 evaporation reduction
studies at Sahuaro Lake, Arizona and 1959 monolayer
behavior studies at Lake Mead, Arizona-Nevada and
Sahuaro Lake, Arizona, Denver, Col., U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, (Chem. Eng. Lab. rept. no, SI-32.), 1961,
pp. 15–17.
288 SAGGAÏ, BACHI
63. Timblin, L.O., Florey, Q.L., and Garstka, W.U., Lab-
oratory and field reservoir evaporation reduction inves-
tigations being performed by the Bureau of Reclama-
tion, in Retardation of Evaporation by Monolayers:
Transport Processes, La Mer, V.K., Ed., NY: Acad.
Press, 1962, pp. 177–192.
64. Toumi, A. and Remini, B., Barrage de Foum El Gherza
face au problème de fuites d’eau, Larhyss J., 2004,
vol. 3, pp. 25–38.
65. Vines, R.G., Evaporation control: a method of treating
large surfaces, in Retardation of Evaporation by Mono-
layers: Transport Processes, La Mer, V.K., Ed., NY:
Acad. Press, 1962, pp. 137–160.
66. Water pollution research board, in Water pollution
research 1956, London: HMSO, 1957, pp. 24–26.
67. Wells, A., Cenedese, C., Farrar, T., and Zappa, C.,
Variation in ocean surface temperature due to near-sur-
face flow: straining the cool skin layer, J. Physical
Oceanogr., 2009, vol. 39, pp. 2685–2710.
68. Wiltzius, W., Effects of monolayers on insects, fish and
wildlife: a reservoir evaporation reduction study, Research
report 7, Water resources technical publication US
department of the interior, Bureau of reclamation
Washington DC, 1967.
69. Wixson, B.G., Studies on the ecological impacts of evap-
oration retardation monolayers, TR-6, Texas Water
Resources Institute, Texas A & M Univ., Texas, 1966.
70. Wu, J., Evaporation retardation monolayers: Another
mechanism, Sci., 1971, vol. 174, pp. 283–385.
WATER RESOURCES Vol. 45 No. 2 2018