African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 6(7), pp.

1807-1812, 4 April, 2011

Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR
DOI: 10.5897/AJAR10.924
ISSN 1991-637X 2011 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Wastewater use in irrigation - Ankara case study

Zeki Gkalp1*, smail Ta2, Fatma zkay3 and Suat Akgl3
1

Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey.

Department of Agricultural Structures and Irrigation, Faculty of Agriculture, Harran University, anlurfa, Turkey.
3
Soil Fertilizer and Water Resources Central Research Institute, Ankara, Turkey.

Accepted 20 December, 2010

Demand for water is increasing in the world parallel to increase in population and industrialization.
Thus, efforts are geared toward finding ways of utilizing the previously unused sources of water and/or
recycling wastewater. Sustainability and effective use are the vital issues for these new sources of
water as well as the existing ones. This study examined the possible use of treated wastewater of
Ankara Wastewater Treatment Plant over agricultural areas for irrigation purposes. It focused on
effective ways in which cleaned water can be used for agricultural purposes and on the economic
advantages of such use. Implications for sustainable water management were also discussed.
Key words: Environment, sustainability, wastewater management, irrigation.
INTRODUCTION
Competition for water can be resolved by construction of
more facilities for storing water in wet years for use in dry
years, by weather modification, watershed management,
urban and agricultural water conservation, reuse of
sewage effluent and other wastewater, desalination of
saline water, water banking and transfer of water rights or
other changes in water use (Bouwer, 1993). The use of
urban wastewater in agriculture is a centuries-old practice
that is receiving renewed attention with the increasing
scarcity of fresh water resources in many arid and semiarid regions of the world. Driven by rapid urbanization
and growing wastewater volumes, wastewater is widely
used as a low-cost alternative to conventional irrigation
water. It supports livelihoods and generates considerable
value in urban and peri-urban agriculture despite the
associated health and environmental risks. Though
pervasive, this practice is largely unregulated in lowincome countries, and the costs and benefits are poorly
understood (Scott et al., 2004). There are several other
studies on treated wastewater use in irrigation
(Blumenthal et al., 2000; Carr et al., 2004; Qadir et al.,
2010).
According to municipality sewage statistics of Turkey
for the year 2008, 2421 of 3225 municipalities serve with

*Corresponding author. E-mail: zgokalp@erciyes.edu.tr,

zekigokalp@yahoo.com. Tel: +90 (352) 437 69 01 / 38903 Ext.
Fax: +90 (352) 621 79 90.

sewage system. In 2008, 44.7% of 3.26 billion m3

wastewater was discharged into sea, 43.1% into streams
and rivers, 3.5% into dams and reservoirs, 2.1% into
lakes and ponds, 1.5% into land surfaces and 5.1% into
other receiving bodies. About 2.25 billion m3 of 3.26
billion m3 (69%) discharged water was treated at
treatment facilities. Biological treatment was applied at
38.3% of treated water, physical treatment at 32.2%,
advanced treatments systems at 28.8% and natural
treatment at 0.3%. By the year 2008, there were 236
wastewater treatment facilities serving for 442
municipalities in Turkey. 29 of these facilities were
physical, 158 were biological, 32 were advanced and 17
were natural treatment facilities (Anonymous, 2008).
The major challenge is to optimize the benefits of
wastewater as a resource of both the water and the
nutrients it contains, and to minimize the negative
impacts of its use on human health. From the
environmental aspect, there are potentially positive and
negative impacts that should be considered. There are
international guidelines for reuse and quality standards of
wastewater in agriculture and these standards can only
be achieved through proper wastewater treatment
practices. Because of high treatment costs, most cities in
low-income developing countries will not have
wastewater treatment facilities in the foreseeable future.
However, while the use of untreated wastewater has
become a routine practice in most developing countries,
policies on its usage have not taken this reality into

1808

Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Figure 1. General view of the treatment facility.

consideration. Such policies range from active enforcement of legislation that totally prohibits the use of
untreated wastewater to turning a blind eye. Clearly,
there is a need for better-informed decision-making
(Hoek, 2004).
The Millennium Development Goals aim to halve, by
2015, the number of people without access to water
supplies or safe and affordable sanitation (Anonymous,
2000). Sustainable and safe wastewater use can support
the achievement of these goals by preserving valuable
fresh water for drinking. Furthermore, sanitation goals
have always been difficult to achieve, as other priorities
always seem to attract scarce resources. To ensure the
efficient use of funds, the goal of improved sanitation
should be pursued with the objective of wastewater use
in mind, as the type of technology selected can either
help or hinder the goal of reuse. Using wastewater for
agriculture changes the thinking from having to deal with
a costly nuisance to try to harvest a potentially valuable
resource (Rijsberman and Lebel, 2004).
Bilgin et al. (1995) observed the water quality of Ankara
stream from 1989 to 1993 and determined the quality of
stream water as very saline. Researchers also concluded
that, use of stream water for irrigation without drainage
especially in heavy soils might have negative effects on
soil structure and crop growth. According to a study
finished in 2005, Ankara stream was rich in algal species
due to high organic material and phosphate content of
stream water (Atici and Ahiska, 2005). Farmers preferring
wastewater instead of freshwater for irrigation may
observe the benefits of wastewater utilization but few
take precautions to protect themselves, and consequently
60% of them are plagued with intestinal parasites.
Additionally, the practice poses a significant public
health risk because main crops are most often eaten raw.
Thus, safer and more convenient irrigation methods
should be selected to prevent the possible health
diseases (Faruqui, et al., 2004). In the foreseeable future,
many towns in developing countries will continue or
expand the direct or indirect irrigation of crops with untreated wastewater. Current government policies focus
on regulation of wastewater use and wastewater

treatment and are unable to offer practical solutions to

the users. An important input into more realistic policies
on wastewater use is information on the area irrigated
with urban wastewater at national and global levels. Such
macro-level estimates can only be obtained when there is
a common understanding of the different types of
wastewater use (Hoek, 2004).
In this study, possible use of treated wastewater of
Ankara Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant for
irrigational purposes was evaluated with regard to
effluent water quality parameters of the facility.
Economical advantages of using treated wastewater in
irrigation and sustainable water resources development
issues were also discussed in this context.
Construction and development of Ankara wastewater
treatment plant
In late 1988, Ankara Metropolitan Municipality determined
a necessity to improve the environmental conservation
measures against wastewater pollution which directly
affects the health of residents of Ankara and environment
and causes diseases. Thus, at the end of 1988 Ankara
Water and Sewage Administration (AWSA) carried out a
feasibility study for wastewater pollution of Ankara due to
municipal and industrial wastewaters. Construction of
Ankara Wastewater Treatment Plant started on the 1st of
August, 1997. The facility started operation on the 12th of
3
May, 2000. The facility has a capacity of 765.000 m flow
rate per day and it has active sludge process. The
capacity of the plant can be enlarged to serve for a
population of approximately 6 million and it is available to
add the units of nitrogen and phosphorus removal in the
year 2025 (Anonymous, 2007b).
The facility is located along the flow direction of Ankara
Stream in Tatlar village of Sincan, Ankara and located 45
km west of the city. The topography of the city and
system do not require a pump station to convey the
wastewater into the facility. Whole wastewater collected
in the sewage system arrives to plant with gravity
(Anonymous, 2007b). A general view of the facility was
given in Figure 1. Consortium carried out the construction
of all functional and nonfunctional structures, site
pipingworks, site access roads, site and landscaping
works of plant. The facility covers an area of 182 ha. It
was designed for the target years of 2002, 2010 and
2025 and constructed for the target year of 2025 with
regard to inlet, preliminary treatment, over-flow and bypass systems. Biological treatment with conventional
activated sludge method is used for wastewater
treatment. Raw sludge and activated sludge treatments,
anaerobic sludge digestion methods are used in the
facility. Eight cylindrical post-stressed reinforced concrete
anaerobic reactors with a total volume of 90,000 m were
constructed for sludge treatment. The approximate total
water containment capacity of process structures
constructed within the scope of plant was 500,000 m.

Gkalp et al.

1809

Figure 2. Map of Ankara Stream.

Table 1. Effluent water physical and physico-chemical quality parameters of wastewater treatment system (Anonymous, 2007b).

Physical/physico-chemical parameter
pH
Turbidity (NTU Unit)
Conductivity (20C, S/cm)

7.83
4.5
1185

Color (Pt-Co unit)

Suspended solids -SS (105C.mg/L)
Total Dissolved Solids- TDS (180C, mg/L)

Around 70% of energy requirement of the plant was

recovered from biogas facility constructed within the
plant. Digested sludge is turned into cake form and used
for soil amendment over agricultural lands (Anonymous,
2007a).
Treated wastewater is discharged into Ankara Stream.
Ankara Stream is one of the most important branches of
Sakarya River (Figure 2). The stream is named as
Ankara Stream after the intersection point of ubuk and
Hatip Streams within the city borders of Ankara. There
are a few other streams out of those in the border of
Ankara. These other ones are ncesu, Dikmen and Balgat
Streams. The biggest branch of Ankara stream is Ova
Stream. The total length of Ankara Stream is about 140
km from Ankara to Sakarya River. Before the wastewater
treatment plant was put in the operation in 1997, whole
municipal and industrial wastewaters were being
discharged into Ankara Stream and Sakarya River
without any treatment. Thus, while BOD5 values in
Ankara Stream was 145 mg/L during the regular periods,
it reached up to 350 mg/L during peak periods. The main
purpose of wastewater treatments is to increase the
water quality from class IV to II in receiving river basins

15
<10
853

and to decrease the BOD5 parameters below 8 mg/L in

rivers (Anonymous, 2007b).
Effluent water quality parameters of wastewater
treatment system
Water quality of Ankara Wastewater Treatment Plant
(AWTP) exhibits slight changes with seasons. This
change is usually slightly increased concentrations during
the dry seasons. The average effluent water physical and
physico-chemical, chemical, pollution, metallic and other
quality parameters of the facility were given in Tables 1,
2, 3 and 4, respectively.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
As mentioned before, the effluent water of AWTP
coalescence with Ankara stream and then flow about 100
km until Sakarya River. Considering this distance,
according to a plan made in 1989, it was indicated that
13.000 ha area can be irrigated by taking plant water

1810

Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 2. Effluent water chemical quality parameters of wastewater treatment system (Anonymous, 2007b)

Parameter
Sodium
Potassium
Calcium
Magnesium
Total hardness (FS)
Total alkalinity (CaCO3)

mg/L
92.50
17.50
54.00
22.80
22.90
340

Chemical parameter
meq/L
Parameter
24.02
Carbonate (CO3 )
0.45
Bicarbonate (HCO3-)
2.70
Chloride (Cl-)
1.90
Sulphate (SO42-)
Nitrate (NO3 )
6.80
Fluoride (F )

mg/L
<10
414.8
91.55
81.45
10.25
0.55

meq/L
6.80
2.58
1.70

Table 3. Effluent water pollution quality parameters of wastewater treatment system (Anonymous, 2007b).

Parameter
Ammonia -nitrogen
Nitrite -nitrogen
Organic nitrogen
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total nitrogen
Total phosphate phosphorus
Oil and grease

Pollution parameter
mg/L
Parameter
34.6
Oxidation rate (mg/L O2)
0.08
COD
3.15
BOD
37.75
Detergents (MBAS)
40.16
Sulfide
5.4
Boron
<10
Total cyanide

mg/L
10
29
14
0.124
<0.5
0.80
<0.02

Table 4. Effluent water metallic and other quality parameters of wastewater treatment system (Anonymous, 2007b).

Parameter
Iron ( Fe)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Mercury (Hg)
Antimony
Selenium
Chromium (Cr *6)
Total chromium

Metallic and other parameter

mg/L
Parameter
0.74
Manganese
0.13
Copper
<0.05
Lead
<0.05
Cadmium
<0.05
Nickel
<0.05
Cobalt
<0.002
Zinc
0.17
Tin

demand and loss of water into consideration. Cropping

pattern over these lands were 18 wheat, 7 barley, 15
orchard, 17 sugar beet, 10 rice, 7 sunflower, 10
vegetable, 2 potato, 6 alfalfa and 8% fruit. Depending on
this cropping pattern, it was calculated that income of
farmers could be increased approximately two folds.
Now, when we consider new data on wastewater use in
irrigation, we can assume that farmers income could be
increased more.
It can be affirmed that the main risks are soil salinity
and heavy metal pollution. When sustainable agriculture
and environment is considered, the importance of
problem can be observed better. If a long-term project
and especially human health are aimed, factors and plant
variety that may cause a problem should be avoided. For

mg/L
0.027
0.015
0.02
<0.005
0.03
<0.005
0.64
<0.05

example, the species should be selected carefully and

the plants with edible leaves that have a direct contact
with the irrigation water should be avoided. Beside all
these, proper irrigation methods must be selected.
Untreated wastewater irrigation poses serious health
risks that cannot be ignored. While the risks to
consumers may not be excessive, as most vegetables
grown in land irrigated with wastewater are eaten cooked,
the risks to farmers practicing flood irrigation cannot be
ignored.
Cities in developing countries are experiencing
unparallel growth and rapidly increasing water supply and
sanitation coverage that will continue to release growing
volumes of wastewater. In many developing countries,
untreated or partially treated wastewater is used to

Gkalp et al.

Table 5. Water quality of AWTP for irrigation.

Potential irrigation problems

ECe
TDS
Permeability
Specific ion toxicity
Sodium for sprinkler Irrigation
Chloride for both surface and sprinkler
Irrigation)
Nitrogen (total N)
Bicarbonate
pH

Class
Slight to moderate
Slight to moderate
Slight to moderate

Suitable
Suitable
Severe
Slight to moderate
Suitable

irrigate the cities' own food, fodder, and green spaces.

Farmers have been using untreated wastewater for
centuries, but greater numbers now depend on it for their
livelihoods. The diversity of conditions is perhaps
matched only by the complexity of managing the risks to
human health and the environment that are posed by this
practice. An integrated stepwise management approach
is called for; the one that is pragmatic in the short- and
medium terms, and that recognizes the fundamental
economic niche and users' perceptions of the
comparative advantages of wastewater irrigation, that
drive its expansion in urban and peri-urban areas.
Comprehensive management approaches in longer term
will need to encompass treatment, regulation, farmer user
groups, forward market linkages that ensure food and
consumer safety, and effective public awareness
campaigns (Scott et al., 2004).
The range of factors that determine the quality of
wastewater used by different irrigators was described in
case studies from Nairobi, Kenya and Kumasi, Ghana.
Not all urban irrigation relies on raw wastewater and it is
misleading to consider wastewater as a uniform
commodity. Dilution and natural remediation mean that,
irrigators use a range of water qualities and the authors
raise the question of when a dilute wastewater stream is
no longer classed as wastewater (Cornish and Kielen,
2004). Faruquie et al. (2004) stated that, wastewater
management require complex pragmatic, proactive and
forward-looking challenges. The lessons learned from
past experience with wastewater use and management
suggests that:
1. Comprehensive realization of the importance of
wastewater use in agriculture is still on the peripheral
edges of public awareness and is not always clear to
many policy-makers and donors;
2. There is insufficient understanding of the social and
economic factors that drive farmers to use wastewater,
and thus inadequate consideration of these in policy
formulation;
3. The protection of public health and the alleviation of

1811

poverty are not mutually exclusive outcomes, when it

comes to wastewater use, however, one may have to be
given greater emphasis than the other in different
contexts;
4. Effective measures do exist to protect health and
environmental quality, particularly when these are
included in integrated, multi-barrier approaches to
wastewater management;
5. Rigid wastewater use guidelines tend to become
targets rather than norms;
6. Effective, lower-cost, decentralized treatment systems
exist; conventional, northern treatment technologies tend
to be unsustainable, in part because of high capital and
recurring costs;
7. Many forms of wastewater use are practiced in various
contexts for different reasons, and individual
socioeconomic contexts contribute to varying levels of
acceptability of wastewater use;
8. Increasing year-round demand for fresh fruits and
vegetables in developed countries, and increasing
tourism in a globalised world, make wastewater use an
issue for more than just developing countries;
9. Sound legal and regulatory frameworks require
sustained application and enforcement;
10. Insecure land tenure mitigates against farmer
investment in safer and more efficient wastewater
irrigation technologies;
11. The informal nature of wastewater irrigation tends to
leave it in institutional no-man's land; and
12. A lack of coordination among institutions within and
outside of government, and the tendency towards
isolated, uni-disciplinary research on wastewater, has
inhibited the testing and design of integrated, workable
solutions.
A successful approach to wastewater management that
incorporates these lessons may be incremental if
necessary, that is building and sustaining individual
components, but above all, it must be sustained
institutionally over the long term.
Conclusions
Numerous irrigation water quality guidelines have been
proposed. The guidelines presented were developed by
university of California Committee of Consultants and
were expanded subsequently by Ayers and Westcot
(1985). The long term influence of water quality on crop
production, soil conditions, and farm management is
emphasized, and the guidelines are applicable for both
freshwater and reclaimed water. Four categories of
potential management problems associated with water
quality in irrigation are (1) salinity, (2) specific ion toxicity,
(3) water infiltration rate and (4) other problems (Metcalf
and Eddy, 2003). According to this classification, water of
Ankara Stream can be used for irrigation as expressed in
Table 5.

1812 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

For sustainability, entire plant, soil and water factors

should be taken into consideration. Discharge water of
AWTP can readily be used for irrigation by selecting
proper cropping pattern, proper irrigation methods and
monitoring tools. In this way, significant water saving can
be achieved and farmer incomes can be raised.
REFERENCES
Anonymous (2000). Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment
2000 Report, Who/Unicef Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply
and Sanitation (ISBN 92 4 156202 1) (NLM Classification: WA 675).
Anonymous (2008). Press Release, Municipal Wastewater Statistic
2008, No: 74, Turkish Statistical Institute, Available at
www.turkstat.gov.tr (accessed 10 May 2010).
Anonymous (2007a) Web Page. Available at www.yuksel.net
(accessed 01 April 2007).
Anonymous (2007b). Web Page. Available at www.aski.gov.tr
(accessed 01 April 2007).
Atc T, Ahska S (2005) Pollution and Algae of Ankara Stream, G.U. J.
Sci., 18(1): 51-59.
Ayers RS, Westcot DW (1985). Water quality for agriculture. Fao
Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29 (Rev. 1), Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.
Bouwer H (1993). Urban and agricultural competition for water, and
water reuse. Int. J. Water Res. Dev., 9(1): 13-25.
Bilgin N, stn H, Gedikolu I, Dizdar G, nal S, nder M (1997).
Impacts of Irrigation Water from Ankara Creek Polluted by Domestic
and Industrial Wastes on Soil and Plants and Evaluation of
Microbiological Pollution, Ankara Experiment Station of Rural Affairs,
General Publication No: 102, Ankara, Turkey.
Blumenthal UJ, Mara DD, Peasey A, Palacios GR, Stott R (2000).
Guidelines for the Microbiological Quality of Treated Wastewater in
Agriculture: Recommendations for Revising WHO Guidelines; Bulletin
of the World Health Organization, pp. 78-9.
Carr RM, Blumenthal UJ, Mara DD (2004). Health Guidelines for the
Use of Wastewater in Agriculture: Developing Realistic Guidelines.
Waste Water Use in Irrigated Agriculture: Confronting The Livelihood
and Environmental Realities. Edited by C.A. Scott, N.I. Faruquie and
L. Reschid-Sally.

Cornish GA, Kielen NC (2004). Wastewater Irrigation Hazard or

Lifeline? Empirical Results From Nairobi, Kenya And Kumasi Ghana.
Waste Water Use in Irrigated Agriculture: Confronting The Livelihood
and Environmental Realities. Edited by C.A. Scott, N.I. Faruquie And
L. Reschid-Sally.
Faruqui NI, Naing S, Redwood M (2004). Untreated wastewater use in
market gardens: a case study of Dakar, Senegal. Waste Water Use
in irrigated Agriculture: Confronting The Livelihood and
Environmental Realities. Edited by C.A. Scott, N.I. Faruquie And L.
Reschid-Sally.
Faruquie NI, Scott CA, Reschid-Sally L (2004) Confronting The
Realities of Wastewater Use in Agriculture: Lesson Learned and
Recommendations. Waste Water Use in Irrigated Agriculture:
Confronting The Livelihood and Environmental Realities. Edited by
C.A. Scott, N.I. Faruquie And L. Reschid-Sally.
Hoek WVD (2004). A Framework for a Global Assessment of the Extent
of Wastewater Irrigation: The Need for a Common Wastewater
Typology. Waste Water Use in Irrigated Agriculture: Confronting The
Livelihood and Environmental Realities. Edited by C.A. Scott, N.I.
Faruquie And L. Reschid-Sally,
Metcalf and Eddy Inc. (2003) Wastewater Engineer: Treatment and
Reuse. 4th Ed. / revised by Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F., L. and
Stensel, H. D., ISBN: 0-07-041878-0.
Qadir M, Wichelns D, Sally LR, McCornick PG, Drechsel P, Bahri A,
Minhas PS (2010). The Challenges of Wastewater Irrigation in
Developing Countries. Agric. Water Manage., 97(4): 561-568.
Rijsberman FR, Lebel J (2004). Foreword. Waste Water Use In Irrigated
Agriculture: Confronting The Livelihood And Environmental Realities.
Edit By C.A. Scott, N.I. Faruquie And L. Reschid-Sally.
Scott CA, Faruquie NI, Reschid-Sally L (2004). Wastewater Use in
Irrigated Agriculture: Management Challenges in Developing
Countries. Waste Water Use in Irrigated Agriculture: Confronting The
Livelihood and Environmental Realities. Edited by C.A. Scott, N.I.
Faruquie And L. Reschid-Sally.