<strong>Physicochemical</strong>...Andzi et al.Figure-4: Yield on elimination of the Turbidity (%) according to the Dose of Coagulant (mg/L)Table-8: Jar Test ResultsParametersWaters of River Djoué (Sample)RawWaterWater treated by sulfate of Aluminum <strong>and</strong> LimeNumber of Becher 0 1 2 3 4 5 6Dose of Sulfate of aluminum 0 5 10 15 20 25 25(mg/L)Dose of lime (mg/L) 0 5 5 10 10 10 10pH 7,5 6,87 6,76 7,04 6,62 6,57 6,57T°C 20 20 20 20 20 20 20Turbidity 15 10 6,28 5,01 1,12 2,07 2,07Color 7,5 8 2,5 1,25 0 0 0Time of appearance of plop (mn,3’ 2’17’ 2’ 1’20’’ 2’25’' 2’25’s)’Yield of eliminat° of Turbidity(%)33,33 58,13 15 92,53 86,20 86,20We notice that the effect of the sulfate of aluminum on Djoué water’s increase with the concentration<strong>and</strong> becomes effective in the optimal dose (20 mg/L). We obtain a yield on more than 92.53 %.Besides, the yields obtained after the optimal Coagulant dose correspond to the trouble created by theexcess of coagulant in tested waters. The results corresponding to the optimal dose of sulfate ofaluminum <strong>and</strong> Lime are recorded in table 9.Tableau-9: Optimal Conditions of FlocculationParametersDjoue Water’sOptimal dose of sulfate of aluminum (mg/L) 20Optimal dose of lime (mg/L) 10Yield of elimination of turbidity (%) 92,53pH 6,62627 <strong>IJGHC</strong>; June – August 2013, Vol.2, No.3, 618-630.
<strong>Physicochemical</strong>...Andzi et al.It thus appears that the optimal doses of sulfate of aluminum <strong>and</strong> lime vary according to the quality ofraw water, what would require in wastewater treatment plants, a continuous assessment of this quality,particularly, the turbidity <strong>and</strong> the organic matter.CONCLUSIONThe results of the physicochemical analyses of the Djoue water’s showed that these waters are turbid<strong>and</strong> weakly mineralized. This turbidity would be due to the presence of organic matters. We notebesides that Djoue water’s have pH values corresponding to the WHO st<strong>and</strong>ards on the drinkablequality of waters.The disinfection in the hypochlorite of calcium showed that the dem<strong>and</strong> in chlorine of Djoue water’sare 6 mg/L <strong>and</strong> the breakpoint is obtained in 8.32 pH value. This high dem<strong>and</strong> in chlorine is justifiedby the presence of organic matters. However, if the disinfection was made after treatment, we canhave the best yields that with some raw water. So, the hypochlorite of calcium can reveal to be a gooddisinfectant for Djoue water’s.The jar-test made with the sulfate of calcium, <strong>and</strong> the lime as additive, allowed to improve the stagesof clarification for the turbidity, because we have obtained 92.53 % of yields. The optimal doses insulfate of aluminum <strong>and</strong> in lime are respectively 20 mg/L <strong>and</strong> 10 mg/L. The determination of the doseof sulfate of aluminum can play a major role for the valorization of these waters. Through this study,we showed that the combination of sulfate of calcium <strong>and</strong> lime would be a good flocculants for testedwaters. What opens a perspective for their valorization, but especially shows the stake in theconservation of reserves in waters of Congo-Brazzaville, at the hour where, humanity wonders aboutthe quality of his environment <strong>and</strong> thus his water.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors thank the National Company of Water distribution (SNDE) of Congo-Brazzaville, to haveallowed us to realize this study in their laboratory. We would like to thank Dr. Anthony Pearson forfruitful discussions, insightful comments <strong>and</strong> correcting the English.REFERENCES1. E.H. Thurman, R. L. Malcom, Ann Arbor Science Publishers; 1983, 1, 1.2. S. Achour, K. Moussaoui, Environmental Technology; 1993, 14, 885.3. M. Dore, Informations Eaux; 1987, 36, 66.4. K. V. Ellis, Environ. Control; 1991, 20, 341.5. T. A. Barhé, F. Bouaka, J. Mater. Environ. Sci., 2013, 4 (5), 605.6. R. A. Gibbs, J. E. Scutt, B. T. Croll, J. Inst. Water Environ. Manage; 1990, 4, 131.7. A. Abarnou, L. Miossec, Sci. Tot. Environ., 1992, 126, 173.8. C. N. Brenton, J. Rositano, M. D. Bruch, Water Res., 1994, 28, 1297.9. A. Montiel, Actual. Chim., 1994, 6, 52-56.10. A. I. Russell, Water Environ. Technol. 1996, May, 67.11. G. Ryvarden, Informations Eaux. 1987, 36, 65.12. M. Scott, D. Clarke, I. Campbell, D. Auzou, A. Rosas, J. Shields, E. Hultquist, N. Stelter, D.Schowanek, FIFE-AIS; 1993.13. A. D. Uhler, J. C. Means, American Chemical Society, Division of Environmental Chemistry, 1985, 74.14. N. Merlet, H. Thibaud, M. Doré, Sci. Tot. Environ., 1985, 47, 223.15. Z. Alouini, R. Seux, Water Res., 1987, 21, 335.16. L. Hureiki, J. P. Croue, B. Legube, Water Res., 1994, 28, 2521.628 <strong>IJGHC</strong>; June – August 2013, Vol.2, No.3, 618-630.