*3.2.3. Commercial waste flow estimation*

Commercial waste flow estimation was dependent upon type of commercial activity. For example, from hospitals, the waste flow was estimated using following formula after [33]:

Total waste generated from hospitals = Waste generated by patients + Waste generated by practitioners + Waste generated from total area

Waste generate per patient = 3 GD-1

The number of patients was known by visiting hospitals.

Waste generated by practitioners = Waste generated per practitioner x Number of practitioners

Waste generated per practitioner = 275 GD-1 [33]

The number of practitioners is known by visiting hospitals.

Waste generated from total area = Waste generated per square foot x Area of commercial activity

Waste generated per square foot = 1.1 GD-1 [33]

Area of commercial activity is known through visiting the commercial activity. Similarly, wastes are generated from all commercial activities. The waste is often extensive in few drains depending upon the urban development in the area (Figure 3). The number of patients was known by visiting hospitals. Waste generated by practitioners = Waste generated per practitioner x Number of practitioners Waste generated per practitioner = 275 GD‐<sup>1</sup> [33] The number of practitioners is known by visiting hospitals. Waste generated from total area = Waste generated per square foot x Area of commercial activity

Commercial waste flow estimation was dependent upon type of commercial activity. For example, from

Average daily waste loading (organic and inorganic) was estimated to quantify the amount of waste being generated from the study area, so that proper wastewater treatment technology can be recommended for the area. Wastewater treatment options were analyzed and a criterion was developed that included costs (capital, operating, and maintenance), technology, man‐ power, climatic conditions, and community interactions. Waste generated per square foot = 1.1 GD‐<sup>1</sup> [33] Area of commercial activity is known through visiting the commercial activity. Similarly, wastes are generated from all commercial activities. The waste is often extensive in few drains depending upon the urban development in the area (Figure 3). Average daily waste loading (organic and inorganic) was estimated to quantify the amount of waste being generated from the study area, so that proper wastewater treatment technology can be recommended for the area. Wastewater treatment options were analyzed and a criterion was developed that included costs (capital, operating, and maintenance), technology, manpower, climatic conditions, and community interactions.

Figure 3. Urbanization in Bharakahu (left) and wastewater from Hathala drain entering Korang River (right). **Figure 3.** Urbanization in Bharakahu (left) and wastewater from Hathala drain entering Korang River (right).

supply, drainage mode, water consumption patterns, and existing wastewater systems were gathered. In

#### **4.1 Water and wastewater discharge pattern**  Through questionnaire‐based surveys conducted in the pilot area of Bharakaho, information related to water **4. Results and discussion**

**4. Results and discussion**

Where

Minnesota [33].

Where

activity

Pt

QDW = Domestic Sewage Flow (lit/day)

Q = Average daily per capita water use (lit/day)

employees + Waste generated from total area:

WE = Waste generated by employees (unit)

*3.2.3. Commercial waste flow estimation*

Waste generate per patient = 3 GD-1

WTA = Waste generated from total area (unit)

practitioners + Waste generated from total area

Waste generated per practitioner = 275 GD-1 [33]

Waste generated per square foot = 1.1 GD-1 [33]

The number of patients was known by visiting hospitals.

The number of practitioners is known by visiting hospitals.

75% of water supply was assumed to be returning as sewage as suggested by Vesilind [32].

Industrial waste estimation was inclusive of i) waste generated per employee (17.5 GD-1) and ii) waste generated per square foot (0.18 GD-1) as recommended by the University of

Total industrial waste generation per day from industrial campus = Waste generated by

Commercial waste flow estimation was dependent upon type of commercial activity. For example, from hospitals, the waste flow was estimated using following formula after [33]:

Total waste generated from hospitals = Waste generated by patients + Waste generated by

Waste generated by practitioners = Waste generated per practitioner x Number of practitioners

Waste generated from total area = Waste generated per square foot x Area of commercial

WTI = Total industrial waste generation per day from industrial campus (unit)

W = W + W TI E TA (2)

=Total Population of the Area

186 Wastewater Treatment Engineering

*3.2.2. Industrial waste flow estimations*

#### majority of the area (about 60%), groundwater was the major source of water supply followed by surface‐tapped water from Simly dam (26.3%) for domestic needs (Figure 4). While a few were using both surface and sub‐ **4.1. Water and wastewater discharge pattern**

**3.2.3 Commercial waste flow estimation**

Waste generate per patient = 3 GD‐<sup>1</sup>

**6** surface water supplies for domestic purpose (6.3%). When inquired about average water consumption, majority was using 100–200 liters of water per person per day (56.60%), while significant proportion of inhabitants (21.7%) also reported less than 100 liter/day/person water consumption. Some also were lucky enough to have excess of more than 300 liters. This trend overall suggested that water scarcity was not an issue and people were getting quite handsome amount of water supply. When inquired about waste domestic drainage mode, more than half of the population was using buried pipe lines (62.3%), while 32.6% people were using open drains to discharge wastewaters out of homes. Further, it was revealed that almost entire population was using septic tanks as a means of preliminary treatment. Further analysis indicated that combined sewer system was prevailing in the area (95%) and awareness regarding untreated wastewater discharges into freshwater streams was very high (77%). While interesting to note was the fact that majority (about 71%) were willing to pay for wastewater treatment facilities if provided. Through questionnaire-based surveys conducted in the pilot area of Bharakaho, information related to water supply, drainage mode, water consumption patterns, and existing wastewater systems were gathered. In majority of the area (about 60%), groundwater was the major source of water supply followed by surface-tapped water from Simly dam (26.3%) for domestic needs (Figure 4). While a few were using both surface and sub-surface water supplies for domestic purpose (6.3%). When inquired about average water consumption, majority was using 100– 200 liters of water per person per day (56.6%), while significant proportion of inhabitants (21.7%) also reported less than 100 liter/day/person water consumption. Some also were lucky enough to have excess of more than 300 liters. This trend overall suggested that water scarcity was not an issue and people were getting quite handsome amount of water supply. When inquired about waste domestic drainage mode, more than half of the population was using buried pipe lines (62.3%), while 32.6% people were using open drains to discharge wastewaters out of homes. Further, it was revealed that almost entire population was using septic tanks as a means of preliminary treatment. Further analysis indicated that combined sewer system was prevailing in the area (95%) and awareness regarding untreated wastewater discharges into freshwater streams was very high (77%). While interesting to note was the fact that majority (about 71%) were willing to pay for wastewater treatment facilities if provided.

**Figure 4.** Water consumption and discharge patterns in the studied catchments of Bharakaho.
