狠狠撸

狠狠撸Share a Scribd company logo

Assessment of Faecal Pollution at Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach Mombasa

?Download as PPTX, PDF?
?
Maxwell Azali
Maxwell Azali

This document summarizes a study assessing levels of faecal pollution at Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach in Mombasa, Kenya. Samples were collected from three stations along the beach and analyzed for indicators of faecal contamination. The results showed higher levels of contamination at shore areas compared to reef areas, with over 40 faecal coliforms and 0.88 E. coli per 100ml detected. The high contamination is likely due to untreated sewage discharges and waste from tourists, animals and local residents. As a result, the water quality fails to meet national standards and the beach water is deemed unfit for recreational use. Recommendations include public education, enforcing effluent standards, improved waste management, and regular water

1 of 23
Dr. Bernerd Fulanda Dr. Joseph Kamau Ms. Chepkemboi Labatt Assessment of Faecal Pollution at Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach, Mombasa By: Kodia Maxwell Azali I114/0614/2010 Supervisors:
Introduction ? Sewage pollution is a major problem in many urban settlements all over the world ? 65% of coast province has no access to a sewerage system ? Less than 30% of Mombasa county residents have access to sewerage services ? The county is serviced with two sewage treatment plants, ? The Kipevu plant has been recently rehabilitated while the Kizingo plant collapsed 20 years ago.
Introduction cont… ? Faecal Enterococci and Escherichia coli (E. coli) have been used as an index of faecal pollution in recreational waters. ? Most Enterococci and E. coli species are not pathogenic but are important indicators of faecal pollution and possible presence of enteric pathogens. ? Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach located at Bamburi is one of the biggest open access recreational areas along the coastal stretches of Mombasa county
Introduction cont… ? The beach hosts many tourists both local and international.The coastline is dotted with over 70 tourist hotels ? Raw sewage is discharged into the ocean by some of the establishments. ? Sewage pollution poses a major health risk to tourists and resource users frequenting the beach and contaminates marine life.
Objective ? To investigate the extent of faecal pollution at Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach in Mombasa county.
Specific Objectives 1. To investigate the degree of faecal pollution at Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach 2. To investigate the variation in faecal pollution levels at high tide and at low tide. 3. To explore the status of water quality at Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach in reference to its potential for recreational use.
Description of Study Site ? Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach is located in Bamburi area, Mombasa county. ? Attracts resident resource users, local tourists and international tourist and is an important source of livelihood to the residents. ? Development and unregulated beach activities have increased pollution on the beach and the ocean
Description of Study Site cont… Figure 1: Map of JKPB, Bamburi, Kenya. (Source:World Atlas (1996) and Google Satellite (2014))
Survey Design ? Samples were collected during the month of March ? Three sampling stations along the beach namely; Pirates Beach Hotel, Hotel Sai Rock and White Sands Hotel ? At each station, samples were collected from the shore areas and reef areas at both high and low tide ? Duplicate samples were collected per station per tidal regime at a depth of 15-30 centimeters.
Materials and Methods ? Total coliforms, faecal coliforms and E. coli were enumerated using the Multiple tube fermentation technique. ? Sampling bottles sterilized by autoclaving at 1210C for 15 minutes ? Placed in a cooler box filled with ice ? Cap removed without touching inner side ? Samples collected with sweeping motion against current from the bow of a boat ? Areas in front of the sampler seaward on an incoming wave
Materials and Methods ? Samples were labelled according to the station and tide ? Placed in the cooler box and transported to the laboratory for analysis within 4 hours. ? MacConkey media and peptone water were prepared according to set guidelines: ? 15g/1000ml for Peptone water ? 40g/1000ml for single strength MacConkey ? 80g/1000ml for double strength MacConkey ? A dilution series of three rows of five culture bottles per sample was used. (inverted Durham tubes)
Materials and Methods ? 10ml double strength- first row; 20ml single strength MacConkey 2&3rd row; 9ml peptone water ? Sterilized (1210C, 15lbs pressure) for 15 minutes ? The media was left to cool to room temperature before inoculation. ? 10ml- first row; 1ml-second row; 0.1ml-third row ? 1ml of sample to 9ml peptone then inoculate 1ml of mixture ? Culture bottles gently tilted to remove air space in Durham tubes ? Incubated at 350C for 24 hours.
Materials and Methods ? Checked for growth and gas formation ? Number of positive tubes recorded and MPN values calculated (presumptive test- total coliforms) ? Positive tubes sub-cultured in MacConkey andTryptone water ? 1ml of positive sample inoculated to 20ml single strength MacConkey; 1ml inoculated to 10ml TryptoneWater ? Incubated at 44.50C ? Positive MacConkey- faecal coliforms;Tryptone cultures- 1ml Kovacs reagent, distinct red ring (E. coli)- MPN values
Source:Azali M
Results Between StationVariation Box plot showing Total coliforms, Faecal coliforms & E. coli in different stations Total Coliforms: KW-H(2,60) = 1.3500, p = 0.5092 Faecal Coliforms: KW-H(2,60) = 0.4403, p = 0.8024 E. Coli: KW-H(2,60) = 0.4469, p = 0.7997 Total Coliforms Outliers Extremes Faecal Coliforms Outliers Extremes E. Coli Outliers Extremes Pirates Sai Rock White Sands Station -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Log10(Totalcoliforms,Faecalcoliforms,E.coli /100ml)
Results Shore and Reef AreasVariation Box plot showing Total coliforms, Faecal coliforms & E. coli at shore and reef areas Total Coliforms: KW-H(1,60) = 39.1209, p = 0.0000 Faecal Coliforms: KW-H(1,60) = 38.3702, p = 0.0000 E. Coli: KW-H(1,60) = 19.2085, p = 0.00001 Log10(Totalcoliforms,Faecalcoliforms,E.coli/100ml) Total Coliforms Outliers Extremes Faecal Coliforms Outliers Extremes E. Coli Outliers Extremes Shore Reef Location -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Results HighTide and LowTideVariation Box plot showing Total coliforms, Faecal coliforms & E. coli at high and low tide Total Coliforms: KW-H(1,60) = 0.6265, p = 0.4286 Faecal Coliforms: KW-H(1,60) = 0.2597, p = 0.6103 E. Coli: KW-H(1,60) = 0.0903, p = 0.7638 Total Coliforms Outliers Extremes Faecal Coliforms Outliers Extremes E. Coli Outliers Extremes High Tide Low Tide Tide -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Log10(Totalcoliforms,Faecalcoliforms,E.coli /100ml)
Results Sampling DaysVariation Box plot showing Total coliforms, Faecal coliforms & E. coli at different dates Total Coliforms: KW-H(2,60) = 2.0855, p = 0.3525 Faecal Coliforms: KW-H(2,60) = 3.5875, p = 0.1663 E. Coli: KW-H(2,60) = 0.1851, p = 0.9116 Total Coliforms Outliers Extremes Faecal Coliforms Outliers Extremes E. Coli Outliers Extremes 7/03/2014 21/03/2014 27/03/2014 Date -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Log10(Totalcoliforms,Faecalcoliforms,E.coli /100ml)
DISCUSSION ? Contaminated by faeces (40.88 faecal coliforms/100ml, 0.88 E. coli/100ml) ? Untreated effluents discharged from facilities (Pa Pweza 900 total coliforms, 500 faecal coliforms and 3 E. coli) ? Defaecation by swimmers and boat operators ? Presence of animals- camels and horses ? (Kleinheinz et al., 2006) found no significant variation in indicator density between horizontal (along-shore) samples- circulation dynamics ? (Clarke et al., 2007) conveyance of substances in the ocean occurred via along-shore advection accompanied by dispersion and mixing processes related to rip currents
DISCUSSION ? Tidal influence on microbial indicator densities is most pronounced during spring tides (Cheung et al., 1991). ? Water samples from the beach were collected during neap tides -tides and sampling days. ? ShoreVs Reef areas- the ocean has the capacity to dilute pollutants; shore areas are easily accessible
Conclusion ? . Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach water quality has deteriorated due to ongoing beach activities ? The waters surpass national water quality standards hence the beach is unfit for recreational use.
RECOMMENDATIONS ? Public awareness campaigns ? Premises to comply with the effluent discharge standards spelt out in the third schedule – Water Quality 2006 ? Adherence to the monitoring guide of effluents discharge into the environment spelt out in the fourth schedule ? Develop proper animal and human waste disposal mechanisms ? Regularly monitor water quality parameters
Assessment of Faecal Pollution at Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach Mombasa

More Related Content

Assessment of Faecal Pollution at Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach Mombasa

  • 1. Dr. Bernerd Fulanda Dr. Joseph Kamau Ms. Chepkemboi Labatt Assessment of Faecal Pollution at Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach, Mombasa By: Kodia Maxwell Azali I114/0614/2010 Supervisors:
  • 2. Introduction ? Sewage pollution is a major problem in many urban settlements all over the world ? 65% of coast province has no access to a sewerage system ? Less than 30% of Mombasa county residents have access to sewerage services ? The county is serviced with two sewage treatment plants, ? The Kipevu plant has been recently rehabilitated while the Kizingo plant collapsed 20 years ago.
  • 3. Introduction cont… ? Faecal Enterococci and Escherichia coli (E. coli) have been used as an index of faecal pollution in recreational waters. ? Most Enterococci and E. coli species are not pathogenic but are important indicators of faecal pollution and possible presence of enteric pathogens. ? Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach located at Bamburi is one of the biggest open access recreational areas along the coastal stretches of Mombasa county
  • 4. Introduction cont… ? The beach hosts many tourists both local and international.The coastline is dotted with over 70 tourist hotels ? Raw sewage is discharged into the ocean by some of the establishments. ? Sewage pollution poses a major health risk to tourists and resource users frequenting the beach and contaminates marine life.
  • 5. Objective ? To investigate the extent of faecal pollution at Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach in Mombasa county.
  • 6. Specific Objectives 1. To investigate the degree of faecal pollution at Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach 2. To investigate the variation in faecal pollution levels at high tide and at low tide. 3. To explore the status of water quality at Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach in reference to its potential for recreational use.
  • 7. Description of Study Site ? Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach is located in Bamburi area, Mombasa county. ? Attracts resident resource users, local tourists and international tourist and is an important source of livelihood to the residents. ? Development and unregulated beach activities have increased pollution on the beach and the ocean
  • 8. Description of Study Site cont… Figure 1: Map of JKPB, Bamburi, Kenya. (Source:World Atlas (1996) and Google Satellite (2014))
  • 9. Survey Design ? Samples were collected during the month of March ? Three sampling stations along the beach namely; Pirates Beach Hotel, Hotel Sai Rock and White Sands Hotel ? At each station, samples were collected from the shore areas and reef areas at both high and low tide ? Duplicate samples were collected per station per tidal regime at a depth of 15-30 centimeters.
  • 10. Materials and Methods ? Total coliforms, faecal coliforms and E. coli were enumerated using the Multiple tube fermentation technique. ? Sampling bottles sterilized by autoclaving at 1210C for 15 minutes ? Placed in a cooler box filled with ice ? Cap removed without touching inner side ? Samples collected with sweeping motion against current from the bow of a boat ? Areas in front of the sampler seaward on an incoming wave
  • 11. Materials and Methods ? Samples were labelled according to the station and tide ? Placed in the cooler box and transported to the laboratory for analysis within 4 hours. ? MacConkey media and peptone water were prepared according to set guidelines: ? 15g/1000ml for Peptone water ? 40g/1000ml for single strength MacConkey ? 80g/1000ml for double strength MacConkey ? A dilution series of three rows of five culture bottles per sample was used. (inverted Durham tubes)
  • 12. Materials and Methods ? 10ml double strength- first row; 20ml single strength MacConkey 2&3rd row; 9ml peptone water ? Sterilized (1210C, 15lbs pressure) for 15 minutes ? The media was left to cool to room temperature before inoculation. ? 10ml- first row; 1ml-second row; 0.1ml-third row ? 1ml of sample to 9ml peptone then inoculate 1ml of mixture ? Culture bottles gently tilted to remove air space in Durham tubes ? Incubated at 350C for 24 hours.
  • 13. Materials and Methods ? Checked for growth and gas formation ? Number of positive tubes recorded and MPN values calculated (presumptive test- total coliforms) ? Positive tubes sub-cultured in MacConkey andTryptone water ? 1ml of positive sample inoculated to 20ml single strength MacConkey; 1ml inoculated to 10ml TryptoneWater ? Incubated at 44.50C ? Positive MacConkey- faecal coliforms;Tryptone cultures- 1ml Kovacs reagent, distinct red ring (E. coli)- MPN values
  • 15. Results Between StationVariation Box plot showing Total coliforms, Faecal coliforms & E. coli in different stations Total Coliforms: KW-H(2,60) = 1.3500, p = 0.5092 Faecal Coliforms: KW-H(2,60) = 0.4403, p = 0.8024 E. Coli: KW-H(2,60) = 0.4469, p = 0.7997 Total Coliforms Outliers Extremes Faecal Coliforms Outliers Extremes E. Coli Outliers Extremes Pirates Sai Rock White Sands Station -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Log10(Totalcoliforms,Faecalcoliforms,E.coli /100ml)
  • 16. Results Shore and Reef AreasVariation Box plot showing Total coliforms, Faecal coliforms & E. coli at shore and reef areas Total Coliforms: KW-H(1,60) = 39.1209, p = 0.0000 Faecal Coliforms: KW-H(1,60) = 38.3702, p = 0.0000 E. Coli: KW-H(1,60) = 19.2085, p = 0.00001 Log10(Totalcoliforms,Faecalcoliforms,E.coli/100ml) Total Coliforms Outliers Extremes Faecal Coliforms Outliers Extremes E. Coli Outliers Extremes Shore Reef Location -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
  • 17. Results HighTide and LowTideVariation Box plot showing Total coliforms, Faecal coliforms & E. coli at high and low tide Total Coliforms: KW-H(1,60) = 0.6265, p = 0.4286 Faecal Coliforms: KW-H(1,60) = 0.2597, p = 0.6103 E. Coli: KW-H(1,60) = 0.0903, p = 0.7638 Total Coliforms Outliers Extremes Faecal Coliforms Outliers Extremes E. Coli Outliers Extremes High Tide Low Tide Tide -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Log10(Totalcoliforms,Faecalcoliforms,E.coli /100ml)
  • 18. Results Sampling DaysVariation Box plot showing Total coliforms, Faecal coliforms & E. coli at different dates Total Coliforms: KW-H(2,60) = 2.0855, p = 0.3525 Faecal Coliforms: KW-H(2,60) = 3.5875, p = 0.1663 E. Coli: KW-H(2,60) = 0.1851, p = 0.9116 Total Coliforms Outliers Extremes Faecal Coliforms Outliers Extremes E. Coli Outliers Extremes 7/03/2014 21/03/2014 27/03/2014 Date -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Log10(Totalcoliforms,Faecalcoliforms,E.coli /100ml)
  • 19. DISCUSSION ? Contaminated by faeces (40.88 faecal coliforms/100ml, 0.88 E. coli/100ml) ? Untreated effluents discharged from facilities (Pa Pweza 900 total coliforms, 500 faecal coliforms and 3 E. coli) ? Defaecation by swimmers and boat operators ? Presence of animals- camels and horses ? (Kleinheinz et al., 2006) found no significant variation in indicator density between horizontal (along-shore) samples- circulation dynamics ? (Clarke et al., 2007) conveyance of substances in the ocean occurred via along-shore advection accompanied by dispersion and mixing processes related to rip currents
  • 20. DISCUSSION ? Tidal influence on microbial indicator densities is most pronounced during spring tides (Cheung et al., 1991). ? Water samples from the beach were collected during neap tides -tides and sampling days. ? ShoreVs Reef areas- the ocean has the capacity to dilute pollutants; shore areas are easily accessible
  • 21. Conclusion ? . Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach water quality has deteriorated due to ongoing beach activities ? The waters surpass national water quality standards hence the beach is unfit for recreational use.
  • 22. RECOMMENDATIONS ? Public awareness campaigns ? Premises to comply with the effluent discharge standards spelt out in the third schedule – Water Quality 2006 ? Adherence to the monitoring guide of effluents discharge into the environment spelt out in the fourth schedule ? Develop proper animal and human waste disposal mechanisms ? Regularly monitor water quality parameters