Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evaporacion
Evaporacion
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.
280
EVAPORATION REDUCTION FROM WATER RESERVOIRS 281
16
14
Evaporation rate, mm
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
W7
W8
W9
W10
W11
W12
W13
W14
W15
W16
W17
W18
W19
W20
Time, weeks
Control HEXA 009 HEXA 015
45
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, %
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.
the total cost of about 62% was the cost of material, They found that in the absence of wind the monolayer,
and 16% labour. The cost of saving water is governed both on stirred and unstirred surface caused little or no
largely by the cost of materials. This is bound to go reduction in the oxygen transfer coefficient in the
down with increasing use. range of values of importance in water reservoirs. If a
It is not easy to reconcile the American and the jet of air was blown on the center of the water, the
Australian figures. Obviously, they are based on monolayer was found to reduce the oxygen transfer
entirely different dosages deemed necessary for main- coefficient by some 40%. They concluded that it
taining the monolayer on the water surface. These appeared safe to spread Hexadecanol on any water
dosages depend largely on wind conditions; but wind surface which was initially 90% saturated with oxygen,
conditions alone, as they are known, cannot explain as a 50% reduction in oxygen transfer coefficient
the difference in dosage ratio of 10 to 1, or more. Other would only lower the oxygen content to the satisfac-
factors such as bacterial content may contribute, but tory limit of 80% saturation.
the full explanation is still lacking. These conclusions are in agreement with the result
It should be stressed that the figures quoted above of Kids Lake studies [13] and those of Wixson [69] and
relate to large reservoirs only. For small reservoirs such Wells [67] who found that Hexadecanol caused a small
as stock tanks of 1 acre or less in surface area, the diminution in the rate of diffusion of oxygen across the
amount of retardant material needed per unit area to air-water interface in both field and laboratory exper-
obtain a reduction in evaporation is much greater than iments. They are also in agreement with results of Sag-
that needed for a larger reservoir because of the shorter gai et al. [59] who found that the concentration of dis-
travel distance of the film over the small area. Conse- solved oxygen in water environment depends on the
quently, the cost of water saved might well be higher by quantity of alcohol used to form monolayer. However,
one or even two orders of magnitude [28]. it should be noted that at higher gas transfer rates,
monolayers considerably reduced the passage of oxy-
In our experiment, water saved during these 20 gen and other gases [7, 23, 66].
weeks was 212 mm in the second evaporation pan
Contrary to primary aliphatic alcohols with chain
(0.09 g/m2/3 days) and 303 mm in the third evapora- lengths from C9 to C12 which kill micro-organisms
tion pans (0.15 g/m2/3 days) which mean respectively and aquatic insect larvae by disrupting membranes
0.212 and 0.303 m3. The real cost of water in Algeria is and membrane biochemical processes [33, 35, 48],
between 0.8 and 1 euro/m3 according to Benachenhou formulations of Hexadecanol (C16) and Octadecanol
[4] and can reach 2.5 euro at rural regions [8] which (C18) are non-toxic and do not present a health haz-
means gains of 0.1696 euro in the second pan and ard in potable water [22] and they are not directly toxic
0.2424 euro in the third pan (for a cost of 0.8 euro/m3). to aquatic animals [68].
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 CONCLUSIONS
0.03384 euro (2nd pan) and 0.0564 euro (3rd pan). As the population is growing in Algeria, the
The difference between the value of saved water demand for water also increases. The Algerian author-
and the cost of used Hexadecanol gives the economic ity is highly committed and has strategic plans for stor-
efficiency of this method. In the case of second pan age and maximum utilisation of rainwater by the con-
the difference is 0.136 euro/m2 over 20 weeks, for the struction of dams. The protection of the stored water
second one the difference is 0.186 euro/m2 for the in dams from evaporation is important and an integral
same period. The calculated costs show a small differ- part of sustainable planning, especially during summer
ence (0.03204 euro) this indicates that the applied when air temperature is high and humidity is low,
quantity in the 3rd pan is preferable because it gives which leads to extremely high rate evaporation from
higher water saving for every euro spent on Hexadeca- water plans. The use of chemical substance to make a
nol. thin film over the water surface is one of the most fea-
sible and cost effective method which reduces evapo-
ration significantly.
Impact of Monolayer on Water Environment The present study of covering water surface regu-
Physical factors influencing plant and animal life larly every three days with Hexadecanol monolayer
in water include temperature, natural surface tensions confirmed the usefulness of this substance in the
and water transparency. Chemical factors include dis- reduction of open water evaporation.
solved mineral constituents and dissolved gases. Of The rates of the evaporation reduction depend on
these, the last factor is perhaps the most important. quantity of Hexadecanol (concentration) used and on
Linton and Sutherland [40] examined the influ- meteorological factors of the region.
ence of a Hexadecanol monolayer on the rate of trans- Application of Hexadecanol at the rate of 0.15 g/m2
fer of oxygen from the air into the water, under condi- every 3 days gave the best rate of evaporation reduction
tions simulating those obtaining in water reservoirs. (22%). Wind speed recorded during experience period
did not affect strongly the performance of monolayer 11. Brown, J.A.H., The potential for reducing open water
in comparison with air temperature and relative evaporation losses: a review, Rep. Snowy Mountains
humidity that had big effect on ER. Engineering Corporation, 1984.
Economically, the efficiency was in the case of the 12. Burman, R. and Pochop, L.O., Evaporation, evapo-
transpiration and climatic data, in Developments in
3rd pan where the concentration was 0.15 g/m2 every Atmospheric Science 22, NY: Elsevier Sci. B.V., 1994.
3 days with 0.186 euro/m2. 13. Committee of collaborators. Water quality study with
Finally, we recognise that the obtained results in Hexadecanol, Kids Lake, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
this small experiment are preliminary, and require fur- Denver, Col., U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1957.
ther verification in the field, in larger experiments, 14. Coop, P.A., Detection of Evaporation Reducing Mono-
and over larger open water surfaces. layers on Open Water Surfaces, Univ. New England,
2011.
15. Craig, I., Green, A., Scobie, M., and Schmidt, E., Con-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS trolling Evaporation Loss from Water Storages, National
This research was funded by the laboratory of Centre for Engineering in Agriculture Publication
Exploitation and Valorisation of natural resources in 1000580/1, USQ, Toowoomba, 2005.
arid zones. The authors would like to thank Mr. Nigel 16. Craig, I., Loss of storage water through evaporation with
Hancock Associate Professor at the National Centre particular reference to arid and semi-arid zone pastoral-
for Engineering of Agriculture “University of South- ism in Australia, DKCRC Working Paper 19, The
ern Queensland,” and the staff from the Scientific and WaterSmart™ Literature Reviews, Desert Knowledge
Technical Research Center in Arid Regions (Toug- CRC, Alice Springs, 2008.
gourt Biophysical Station) for their assistance and 17. Datta, A., Kundu, S., Sanyal, M.K., Daillant, J.,
support. 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.
REFERENCES 18. Davies, J. and Rideal, E., Interfacial phenomena, Lon-
1. Barnes, G.T., The potential for monolayers to reduce don: Acad. press, 1963, 2nd Ed.
the evaporation from large water storages, Agric. Water 19. Deo, A.V., Sanjana, N.R., Kulkarni, S.B.,
Manag., 2008, vol. 95, pp. 339–353. Gharpurey, M.K., and Biswas, A.B., New compounds
2. Barnes, G.T. and Gentle, I., Interfacial Science: an for the control of water evaporation, Nature, 1960,
Introduction, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2005. vol. 187, no. 4740, pp. 870–871.
3. Barnes, G.T. and La Mer, V.K., The evaporation resis- 20. Department of Water (DW), Reducing farm dam evapo-
tances of monolayers of long-chain acids and alcohols ration, Rural Water Note 04, Government of Western
and their mixtures, in Retardation of Evaporation by Australia, 2007.
Monolayers: Transport Processes, La Mer, V.K., Ed., 21. Desai, A.C., Iyer, T.K., and Tople, V.M., Use of water
NY: Acad. Press, 1962, pp. 9–33. evaporation retardants for water conservation, J. Indian
4. Benachenhou, A., Le prix de l’avenir: Le développement Water Works Assoc., 1990, pp. 193–194.
durable en Algérie, Paris: Ed. Thotm, 2005. 22. Dorn, P., Salanitro, J., Evans, S., and Kravetz, L.,
5. Benfetta, H. and Remini, B., La problématique du Assessing the aquatic hazard of some branched and lin-
stockage des eaux de surface dans les régions arides: Cas ear non-ionic surfactants by biodegradation and toxic-
du barrage de Ouizert (Algérie), European J. Sci. Res., ity, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 1993, vol. 17, pp. 1751–
2008, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 380–391. 1762.
6. Bilkadi, Z. and Neuman, R.D., Effect of humidity on 23. Downing, A.L. and Melbourne, K.V., Chemical con-
monolayer desorption at the air–water interface, servation of water, J. Inst. Water Eng., 1957, vol. 11,
Nature, 1979, vol. 278, no. 5707, pp. 842–842. no. 5, pp. 438–442.
7. Blank, M., The permeability of monolayers to several 24. Dubief, J., Evaporation et coefficients climatiques au
gases, in Retardation of Evaporation by Monolayers: Sahara, Travaux de l’Institut de recherches sahari-
Transport Processes, La Mer, V.K., Ed., NY: Acad. ennes, Tome 6, Université d’Alger, 1950.
Press, 1962, pp. 75–95. 25. Dubost, D., Ecologie, aménagement et développement
8. Boukhari, S., Djebbar, Y., and Abida, H., Prix des ser- agricole des Oasis Algériennes, Ed. Centre de Recherche
vices de l’eau en Algérie, un outil de gestion durable, Scientifique et Technique sur les Régions Arides,
4ème Conf. Int. sur les Ressources en eau dans le bassin Biskra, Algeria, 2002.
Méditerranéen, Alger, 2008. 26. Emsalem, R., Climatologie générale, tome I, Fondements
9. Boutoutaou, D., Saker, M.L., Daddi-Bouhoun, M., des équilibres atmosphériques, SNED Alger, 1970.
Saggai, S., Ould El Hadj, M.D., Détermination de 27. Fitzgerald, L.M. and Vines, R.G., Retardation of evap-
l’évaporation des surfaces des plans d’eau pour les con- oration by monolayers: practical aspects of the treat-
ditions climatiques de l’Algérie, Algerian J. Arid Envi- ment of large water storages, Australian J. Applied Sci.,
ron., 2012, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 94–101. 1963, vol. 14, pp. 340–346.
10. Braslavski, A.P. and Cherguin, K.B., Evaporation des 28. Frenkiel, J., Evaporation reduction: physical and chemi-
plans d’eau et des barrages de la zone aride du Kazaki- cal principles and review of experiments, Arid Zone Res.,
stan, Naouka Kazakistan, 1965. Paris: UNESCO, 1965.
63. Timblin, L.O., Florey, Q.L., and Garstka, W.U., Lab- 67. Wells, A., Cenedese, C., Farrar, T., and Zappa, C.,
oratory and field reservoir evaporation reduction inves- Variation in ocean surface temperature due to near-sur-
tigations being performed by the Bureau of Reclama- face flow: straining the cool skin layer, J. Physical
tion, in Retardation of Evaporation by Monolayers: Oceanogr., 2009, vol. 39, pp. 2685–2710.
Transport Processes, La Mer, V.K., Ed., NY: Acad.
Press, 1962, pp. 177–192. 68. Wiltzius, W., Effects of monolayers on insects, fish and
wildlife: a reservoir evaporation reduction study, Research
64. Toumi, A. and Remini, B., Barrage de Foum El Gherza report 7, Water resources technical publication US
face au problème de fuites d’eau, Larhyss J., 2004, department of the interior, Bureau of reclamation
vol. 3, pp. 25–38. Washington DC, 1967.
65. Vines, R.G., Evaporation control: a method of treating
large surfaces, in Retardation of Evaporation by Mono- 69. Wixson, B.G., Studies on the ecological impacts of evap-
layers: Transport Processes, La Mer, V.K., Ed., NY: oration retardation monolayers, TR-6, Texas Water
Acad. Press, 1962, pp. 137–160. Resources Institute, Texas A & M Univ., Texas, 1966.
66. Water pollution research board, in Water pollution 70. Wu, J., Evaporation retardation monolayers: Another
research 1956, London: HMSO, 1957, pp. 24–26. mechanism, Sci., 1971, vol. 174, pp. 283–385.