International Journal of Civil Engineering OF and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL CIVIL ENGINEERING AND

D (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), IAEME TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)
ISSN 0976 6308 (Print) ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), pp. 185-196 IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp Journal Impact Factor (2013): 5.3277 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

IJCIET
IAEME

EVAPORATION SUPPRESSION FROM WATER SURFACES USING CHEMICAL FILMS

Dr. Umesh J. Kahalekar1, Hastimal S. Kumawat2 (Professor and Head- Dept. of Civil Engineering, Government College of Engineering Aurangabad-431005 (M.S.), India) 2 (Post Graduate Student- Government College of Engineering Aurangabad-431005 (M.S.), India)
1

ABSTRACT The extremely high rate of Evaporation from water surfaces day by day is reducing the optimal utilization of water reservoirs. The work presented in this study aims to investing the use of Chemical films as Evapo Suppretants for reduction of evaporation from the open water surface so as to increase the storage efficiency. Particular emphasis will be on practical procedures and techniques that professionals can use to estimate and/or to suppress evaporation from shallow water bodies. The natural evaporation loss taking place from pan evaporimeters of two alcohols were observed and compared. The important meteorological factors affecting the natural evaporation such as Temperature, Relative Humidity, Wind Velocity, Sunshine Hours, etc. were also observed. Cetyl and Stearyl Alcohols were selected to reduce the evaporation during the study period in Aurangabad region with two US Class-A evaporation pans. Different concentrations of Cetyl and Stearyl alcohols were used in different pans. First pan EP1 was filled with water without adding chemical while in pan EP2 alcohols was added. The preliminary results of the study indicated that evaporation rate from surface water was reduced overall upto 28% in pan EP2 as compared to pan EP1 while the Cetyl alcohol individually gives the average reduction is 27% and the Stearyl alcohol gives 27% and Both Cetyl and Stearyl Alcohol combine gives the average reduction is 30%. The Penmans Equation is used to compare the evaporation values in evaporation pan 1. Keywords: Cetyl & Stearyl Alcohols, Class-A Pan, Evaporation Reduction, Evaporation Suppression, Penmans equation

185

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), IAEME 1. INTRODUCTION

Water is one of the natures precious gifts, which sustains life on earth. Civilizations over the world have prospered or perished depending upon the availability of this vital resource. Water has been worshiped for life nourishing properties in all the scriptures. Vedas have unequivocally eulogized water in all its virtuous properties. The total water resources on earth are estimated to be around 1360 Million cubic km. Out of which only about (33.5 Million cubic km) is fresh water. India possesses only 4% of total average runoff of the rivers of the world although it sustains 16% of the worlds population. The per capita availability of water in the country is only 1820 m3/year, compared to 40855 m3/year in Brazil, 8902 m3/year in USA, 2215 m3/year in China, 2808 m3/year in Spain, 18162 m3/year in Australia, 3351 m3/year in France, 3614 m3/year in Mexico and 3393 m3/year in Japan. The total water resources of India are estimated to be around 1,869 Billion cubic meters. Due to topographic, hydrological and other constraints, only about 690 BCM of total surface water is considered as utilizable [1]. Due to high temperatures and arid conditions in about one third of the country, the evaporation losses have been found to be substantial. Therefore, it is imperative to minimise evaporation losses in the storages/water bodies. Evaporation losses from on-farm storage can potentially be large, particularly in irrigation areas in where up to 40% of storage volume can be lost each year to evaporation. Reducing evaporation from water storage would allow additional crop production, water trading or water for the environment. The need for prevention of enormous evaporation losses assumes greater significance, in view of the predictable scarcity of water; the country will be facing in future. It has been assessed that against the utilizable water resources of the order of 1123 BCM, the requirement by 2025 AD to be met from surface water resources will be around 1093 BCM, thereby surplus by just 30 BCM[1, 2]. Due to intense agricultural practices, rapid increase in population, industrialization and urbanization etc., scarcity of water is being increasingly felt. In the present scenario of utmost strain on the water resources, of the country, it becomes necessary to conserve water by reducing evaporation losses. National Water Policy-2002 under Para 19.1 emphasises that evaporation losses should be minimised in drought-prone areas [1]. The internet was also browsed to search the information on any new researches or identification of any new technology / chemicals to retard the evaporation rate. The search on internet, resulted in finding some case studies done in this field in other countries, however, the chemicals / technology used is the same. Some websites are from the manufacturers of WER chemicals such as Hexadecanol or Octadecanol or Acilol claiming to have conducted experiments in other countries towards evaporation control [3, 4, 5]. Chemical substances such as Cetyl and Stearyl alcohols can be sprayed periodically on water surface to reduce evaporation. After a detailed review of the available evaporation reduction methods, surface water cover technique was selected using Cetyl and Stearyl alcohol emulsion substances to form a thin monomolecular film over water surface to reduce evaporation [6]. This method has several advantages over other methods. It is economically feasible due to low cost of substances and easily available. It mixes with water easily and when added to large water surface; it forms a thin invisible film that reduces evaporation considerably. It decomposes easily and doesn't dissolve in water. There are several methods to measure evaporation from free water surfaces through (US weather class-A pan), or more accurately by using energy balance equations. Due to
186

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), IAEME several factors including air movement and fluctuations of water surface, which affect the accuracy of measurement of evaporation depth therefore, standard and well recognized method of (US weather class-A pan) was selected for the present study [7]. The present study was conducted to measure the reduction of evaporation on relatively small and controlled water surface of two pans (US weather class-A pan) with continuous measurement of air temperature, relative humidity, wind velocity and evaporation rates and evaluated the results in terms of efficiency in reducing evaporation. The evaporation pan 2 was added with Cetyl and Stearyl alcohols as thin film on water surface to reduce evaporation. Based on material safety data sheet, the substance does not have any harmful effects on human beings, animals or plants however; further study is required to determine the potential environmental, health and ecological impacts of the substance on aquatic animals and plants [8,9,10]. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

The study was conducted at Aurangabad (Marathwada region of M.S.) with the help of a fully operated meteorological station with sensors to measure sunshine hours, air temperature, wind velocity and relative humidity. Two US weather class-A pans were used with an accurate measuring tool to measure daily water depth in the pans. A protection cover was constructed to protect the pans from birds and other animals. The amount of chemical films (Cetyl and Stearyl alcohols) added to the two evaporation pans was calculated and applied to one of the pan for fifteen days duration. No chemical was added to pan (EP1) to measure natural evaporation rate due to ambient conditions and for comparison. In pan (EP2), 50 mg per m2 of water surface per day, to make the effective substance in pan (EP2) is 58.35mg/day and as that of 100mg and 150 mg is calculated. A monolayer is formed on a water surface when long-chained alcohols such as Cetyl alcohol (Hexadecanol) are spread across the water. The chemical spreads spontaneously across the surface resulting in a layer only one molecule thick (about two millionths of a millimetre). The molecules of the monolayer stand on the surface because they are amphiphilic i.e. they have a soluble end and an opposing insoluble end (Fig.1).

Figure 1 Monolayer molecules standing on the water surface (courtesy Geoff Barnes, University of Queensland) Duration the entire study period (Jan-Sept 2012), Cetyl and Stearyl Alcohols was sprayed daily in evaporation pan EP2 and meteorological parameters including air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and sunshine hours as well as water levels in two
187

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), IAEME pans were measured. The standard procedure was strictly followed and maintained during measurements of the readings for accuracy and consistency of the results throughout the duration of the study. All the pans were cleaned regularly to remove sediments from pans, if any. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the study indicated that air temperature ranges from 15.0-41.0C with average of 34.5C, while wind velocity ranges from 0.4-12 km/hr with average of 3.9 km/hr. The relative humidity ranges from 25-95% with average of 66.8%. Similarly, the daily pan evaporation rates ranges from 1-9.7 mm/day with average of 6.4 mm/day. The pan evaporation rate reached its peak in June and it reached 9.7 mm/day. Table1. Summary of the experiment results of the daily reduction of pan evaporation rates for different months Duration 16 Jan -31 Jan 01 Feb - 29 Feb 01 Mar -31 Mar 01 Apr - 30 Apr 01 May - 31 May 01 June - 21 June 22 Aug - 31 Aug 01 Sept -12 Sept Average Evaporation Evaporation mm/day (EP1) mm/day (EP2) 5.41 5.72 6.15 7.55 8.15 7.11 3.68 3.89 5.96 4.16 4.36 4.40 5.26 5.14 5.40 2.68 2.76 4.27 % Reduction 23.13 23.97 28.37 30.29 36.93 23.76 25.69 28.01 27.52

Table 2. Summary of the experiment results - chemical wise reduction in percentage Reduction using only Reduction using only Reduction using cetyl + cetyl alcohol stearyl alcohol stearyl alcohol 23.13 22.66 25.28 27.07 26.73 29.67 33.85 31.98 41.88 21.06 24.48 25.73 26.17 28.01 25.21 Average Average Average 26.26% 26.77% 29.55% Reduction Reduction Reduction Table 1 shows the daily average evaporation rate for 8 months from January to September. In table 2 the chemical wise reduction is shown. The average reduction recorded using only Cetyl alcohol is about 26.26%. The average reduction recorded using only Stearyl alcohol is about 26.77%. The average reduction recorded using Cetyl and Stearyl alcohol is about 29.55%.
188

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), IAEME Chemical and concentration wise reduction in percentage is shown in table 3.It is cleared from this table as the concentration is increased the reduction is also increased while the cetyl and stearyl alcohols combine perform better than other two concentrations and chemicals. In table 4 the reduction in percent concentration wise is shown. Table 3. Summary of the experiment results - chemical and concentration wise reduction in percentage Reduction using only cetyl alcohol 23.13 27.07 -for for for 21.06 50mg/m2/day 26.17 100mg/m2/day 33.85 150mg/m2/day 22.09 Average 26.62 Average 33.85 Average Reduction using only stearyl alcohol 22.66 26.73 -for for for 24.48 50mg/m2/day 28.01 100mg/m2/day 31.98 150mg/m2/day 23.57 Average 27.37 Average 31.98 Average Reduction using cetyl + stearyl alcohol 25.28 29.67 -for for for 25.73 50mg/m2/day 25.21 100mg/m2/day 41.88 150mg/m2/day 25.51 Average 27.44 Average 41.88 Average Table 4. Summary of the experiment results - concentration wise reduction in percentage for 50mg/m2/day for 100mg/m2/day for 150mg/m2/day 23.13 27.07 33.85 25.28 29.67 41.88 22.66 26.73 31.98 21.06 26.17 -24.48 25.21 -25.73 28.01 -Avg. 23.72 Avg. 27.14 Avg. 35.90 Difference Between 50mg/m2/day and 100mg/m2/day: 3.42 Difference Between 100mg/m2/day and 150mg/m2/day: 8.76 The daily average pan evaporation rate for 4 summer months (March, April, May and June) was measured as 6.15, 7.55, 8.15 and 7.11 mm/day, respectively. Thus, middle four months (March to June) witnessed the highest evaporation rates due to high temperature and low humidity. The readings are validated with help of Penmans equation for evaporation [11], the following equation were used.

Qn L + 0.00061P.Ea E= e

( + 0.00061P )

(1)

where, Qnis the net solar radiation used in evaporation in cal/sq.cm

189

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), IAEME Qn= Qi (1 r) Qb Qi is the incoming solar radiation
Qi = Q0 a + 0.55

(2)

n N

(3)

Q0 is the radiation in cal/cm2/dayreceived at the top of the atmosphere a = 0.29 cos (4)

is the latitude of the place nis the actual number of sunshine hours in the day, N is the maximum possible hours of bright sunshine ris called the reflection coefficient or the albedo whose value may be taken as 0.05 for water surface Qbis the net outgoing longwave radiation
Qb = T 4 0.56 0.09 ea 0.1 + 0.9

n N

(5)

is the Stefan-Boltzman constant = 118.944 x 10-9 cal/cm2/day/K T is the mean daily temperature in K eais the actual vapour pressure of air in mm of mercury
ea = 100es R.H .

(6)

(7)

R. H. is the Relative Humidity in % is the slope of saturation vapour pressure curve at air temperature t in mb/C
= 4098es

( 237.3 + t )

(8)

esis the saturated vapour pressure corresponding to the mean daily air temperature 17.27T es = 6.11exp 237.3 + T

(9)

t is the air temperature in C Le is the latent heat of vaporization of water in cal/g which varies with the temperature and can be obtained from Le = 597.3 0.564 t P is the atmospheric pressure in kPa
190

(10)

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), IAEME

293 0.0065 z P = 101.3 293

5.26

(11)

z is the elevation above sea level in m Eais the evaporation from the water surface when water and air temperatures are equal Ea= 0.35(0.5 + 0.54 V) (es - ea) (12)

V is in m/s measured at a height of 2 m above the free surface The regression model is shown in Fig. 2 is drawn for the study period 16 January to 21 June. The data is best fitting by the regression analysis. The best fit for EP1got from model is 45.94%. The best fit for using Penmans equation got from model is about 46.1% and that of EP2the best fit get from model is about 32.52%. These regression models are showing the linearity of recorded data and Penmans equation data. The regression model shown in Fig. 3 indicates the study period between 16 Jan to 12 Sept. firstly it decided to check the efficiency of cetyl and Stearyl alcohols in summer therefore the reading were taken for the period 16 Jan to 21 June. Whatever readings were not available in the graph that is due to evaporation reading and other data are not recorded for period 22 June to 21 Aug. the reading and other data were continues after this gap and respective regression model is drawn for remaining period upto 12 Sept.
10.8

10.0

y = 0.026x - 1078. R = 0.461

9.2

8.4

Evaporation mm/day

7.6

6.8

y = 0.019x - 780.3 R = 0.459

6.0

5.2

4.4

y = 0.01x - 406.1 R = 0.325

3.6

2.8 16/01/12 23/01/12 30/01/12 06/02/12 13/02/12 20/02/12 27/02/12 05/03/12 12/03/12 19/03/12 26/03/12 02/04/12 09/04/12 16/04/12 23/04/12 30/04/12 07/05/12 14/05/12 21/05/12 28/05/12 04/06/12 11/06/12 18/06/12 25/06/12 02/07/12

Days Evaporation mm/day (EP1) Evaporation Using Penman's Eqn Linear (Evaporation mm/day (EP2)) Evaporation mm/day (EP2) Linear (Evaporation mm/day (EP1)) Linear (Evaporation Using Penman's Eqn)

Figure 2. Linear regression model showing EP1, EP2 and evaporation using Penman's eqn (depth in mm) {16 Jan -21 June}
191

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), IAEME

11.0

10.2

9.4

8.6

y = 0.004x - 175.9 R = 0.026

7.8

Evaporation mm/day

7.0

6.2

y = -0.003x + 137.4 R = 0.017

5.4

4.6

3.8

3.0

y = -0.003x + 151.1 R = 0.050

2.2

1.4 16/01/12 23/01/12 30/01/12 06/02/12 13/02/12 20/02/12 27/02/12 05/03/12 12/03/12 19/03/12 26/03/12 02/04/12 09/04/12 16/04/12 23/04/12 30/04/12 07/05/12 14/05/12 21/05/12 28/05/12 04/06/12 11/06/12 18/06/12 25/06/12 02/07/12 09/07/12 16/07/12 23/07/12 30/07/12 06/08/12 13/08/12 20/08/12 27/08/12 03/09/12 10/09/12

Days Evaporation mm/day (EP1) Linear (Evaporation mm/day (EP1)) Evaporation mm/day (EP2) Linear (Evaporation mm/day (EP2)) Evaporation Using Penman's Eqn Linear (Evaporation Using Penman's Eqn)

Figure 3. Linear regression model showing EP1, EP2 and evaporation using Penman's eqn (depth in mm) {16 Jan -12 Sept}

After these observed data the respective regression models is plotted. From this model it is observed that the model is not fitting to that extent. So, from all these studies it is concluded that the films are not that much efficient in rainy season as that of in summer season. It is observed that splashing or overflowing of the pan may cause the flowing of chemical film with it. The high wind velocity breaks or may breaks therefore no layer is form and therefore water gets evaporated. Again the rain droplets may reduce the efficiency of the chemical films. The relationship of air temperature, wind velocities and relative humidity with the evaporation was determined with the help of linear regression analysis of daily observed data. A linear regression model for best fit of observed data for daily air temperature and daily evaporation depth in mm for both pans (EP1and EP2) was developed as in Fig. 4.

192

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), IAEME
12.0

10.0

8.0

Evaporation mm/day

y = 0.258x - 2.491 R = 0.556

6.0

4.0

y = 0.144x - 0.420 R = 0.412

2.0

0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Evaporation mm/day (EP1) Linear (Evaporation mm/day (EP1))

Temperature C

Evaporation mm/day (EP2) Linear (Evaporation mm/day (EP2))

Figure 4.Linear regression model for daily air temperature and daily evaporation {16 Jan- 12 Sept} The model indicated that there is a direct correlation between air temperatures with the daily pan evaporation rates. Similarly, a linear regression model for best fit of observed data for wind velocity and daily evaporation depth (mm) was developed as in Fig. 5.
12.0

10.0

Evaporation mm/day

8.0

6.0

y = -0.296x + 7.565 R = 0.179

4.0

2.0

y = -0.207x + 5.356 R = 0.207

0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Wind Velocity km/hr Evaporation mm/day (EP1) Linear (Evaporation mm/day (EP1)) Evaporation mm/day (EP2) Linear (Evaporation mm/day (EP2))

Figure 5.Linear regression model for daily wind velocity and daily evaporation {16 Jan- 12 Sept} The model indicated that there is a direct correlation between wind velocities with the daily pan evaporation rates. In addition, a simple regression model for best fit of observed data for daily relative humidity and daily evaporation depth (mm) was developed as in Fig. 6.
193

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), IAEME
12.0

10.0

y = -0.036x + 8.836 R = 0.131

Evaporation mm/day

8.0

6.0

y = -0.024x + 6.197 R = 0.144

4.0

2.0

0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

Relative Humidity % Evaporation mm/day (EP1) Linear (Evaporation mm/day (EP1)) Evaporation mm/day (EP2) Linear (Evaporation mm/day (EP2))

humidity ity and daily evaporation Figure 6.Linear regression model for daily relative humid {16 Jan- 12 Sept} The model indicated that pan evaporation rates decreases as humidity increases and that there is an inverse correlation between average daily relative humidity with the daily pan evaporation rates. The results of the pan evaporation control experiment after adding chemical film solution with different concentrations and without application in two different evaporation pans from January to September is presented in Fig. 7.
92.0 84.0 76.0 68.0 60.0

Evaporation mm

52.0 44.0 36.0 28.0 20.0 12.0 4.0

16-31 Jan

01-15 Feb

16-29 Feb

01-16 Mar

17-31 17 Mar

01-15 Apr

16-30 Apr

01-16 May

17-31 May

01-07 June

08-14 June

15-21 June

22-28 28 Aug

29 Aug4 Sept

05-12 Sept

Months Evaporation mm/day (EP1) Evaporation mm/day (EP2)

Figure 7.Cumulative daily evaporation depth (mm) measured for two pans (EP1 and EP2) {16 Jan - 12 Sept} Similarly daily average gross evaporation rates for different months for two pans were compared and the evaporation reductions in percentage were calculated. Table 1 show that the average daily ily average gross evaporation rates and percentage of reduction of evaporation rate for different months for two pans.
194

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), IAEME The pan evaporation rates are smaller in winter as compared to the summer months. In general, evaporation rate from pan EP1 is reduced by 27.52% as compared to pan EP2 when the recommended concentration was applied. Similarly, in table 4 the reduction in percent concentration wise. The concentration where used as per recommendations it is observed that 23.72 % reduction is achieved. If this quantity is doubled i.e. 100mg then 27.14 % average reduction is possible. If this quantity is tripled then the results are tremendously increased i.e. about 35.90 % reduction is possible. These findings confirmed that there is a significant reduction in evaporation from free water surfaces when we applied the chemical films i.e. Cetyl and Stearyl alcohols and it is highly feasible and cost effective to use the substance to reduce evaporation.
8.4 7.8 7.2 6.6 6.0

Evaporation mm

5.4 4.8 4.2 3.6 3.0 2.4

16-31 Jan

01-15 Feb

16-29 Feb

01-16 Mar

17-31 17 Mar

01-15 Apr

16-30 Apr

01-16 May Months

17-31 May

01-07 June

08-14 June

15-21 June

22-28 28 Aug

29 Aug4 Sept

05-12 Sept

Evaporation mm/day (EP1)

Evaporation mm/day (EP2)

Figure 5.Monthly evaporation depth in mm {16 Jan - 12 Sept} 4. CONCLUSION

As the duration of rainy season and quantity of rainfall is reduced, the demand of water is day by day increasing due to increase in population and Industrialization therefore, the economic value also increases. Therefore the government should adopt the strategic st plans for storage and maximum utilization of rainwater. Protecting the stored water in water bodies (Dams, Reservoirs, Lakes, etc.) from evaporation remains an integral part of sustainable planning, especially during the summer hot months, when temperature is high and humidity is low, which leads to extremely high rate evaporation from water surfaces. Chemical films such as Cetyl and d Stearyl alcohols are one of most feasible and cost effective evaporation retardants which reduces evaporation significantly. The present study has confirmed that a chemical film produces an invisible thin monomolecular film over water surface that significantly icantly reduces evaporation. The experimental study was conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of evaporation n reduction on US weather class-A class A pans adding chemical films of 2 different concentrations of 50, 100 and 150 mg/m /day. The study concluded that evaporation was reduced up to 28% as compared to without addition of chemical films. Therefore, these chemicals are highly feasible and cost effective to apply the present evaporation reduction technique on a large scale to a large number of reservoirs of the Marathwada region to reduce the water loss through evaporation from water surfaces.
195

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), IAEME REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] R. Kumar, R. D. Singh and K. D. Sharma, Water resources of India, Current Science89(5), 2005, 794-811. M. E. Jensen, Estimating Evaporation from Water Surfaces, CSU/ARS Evapotranspiration Workshop, Fort Collins, CO, 2010, 1-27. W. J. Roberts, Evaporation Suppression from Water Surfaces, American Geophysical Union, 38(5), 1957, 740-744. J. Walter, The use of Monomolecular Films to Reduce Evaporation, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics Assembly, Berkely, California, 1963, 39-48. E. H. Hobbs, Evaporation Reduction by Monomolecular Films the Influence of Water Temperature and Application Rate on the Effectiveness of Cetyl Alcohol, 17-19. I. Craig, E. Schmidt and M. Scobie, Evaporation Control using Covers some realistic solutions for the irrigation industry National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture (NCEA), University of Southern Queensland. Mohammed I. Al-Saud, Reduction of Evaporation from Water Surfaces-Preliminary Assessment for Riyadh Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Research Journal of Soil and Water Management, 1(1), 2010, 5-9. F. S. Ikweiri , H. Gabril , M. Jahawi and Y. Almatrdi, Evaluating the Evaporation Water Loss from the Omar Muktar Open Water Reservoir, 12th International Water Technology Conference, IWTC12, Alexandria, Egypt, 2008, 893-899. G.T. Barnes, The potential for monolayers to reduce the evaporation of water from large water storages, 95, 2008, 339-353. D.McJannet, F. Cook, J. Knight and S. Burn, Evaporation Reduction by Monolayers: Overview, Modelling and Effectiveness, Urban Water Security Research Alliance Technical Report, 6, 2008, 1-32. P. J. Rami Reddy, A text book of Hydrology (University Science Press, 2008) 207-233. U. J. Kahalekar, H. S. Kumawat, Evaporation suppression from water surfaces using chemical films,International Conference on Sustainable Innovative Techniques in Civil and Environmental Engineering, SITCEE 2013, New Delhi, India, 2013, 38-43. Abdur Rahman, M. A. Zafor and Shantanu Kar, Analysis and Comparision of Surface Water Quality Parameters in and Around Dhaka City, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 7 - 15, ISSN Print: 0976 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 6316. C. P. Pise and Dr. S. A. Halkude, Blend of Natural and Chemical Coagulant for Removal of Turbidity in Water, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 188 - 197, ISSN Print: 0976 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 6316.

[7]

[8]

[9] [10]

[11] [12]

[13]

[14]

196