evaporation suppression from water surfaces using chemical films

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308

(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME

185

EVAPORATION SUPPRESSION FROM WATER SURFACES USING

CHEMICAL FILMS

Dr. Umesh J. Kahalekar1, Hastimal S. Kumawat

2

1(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)

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 Penman’s Equation is used to compare the evaporation

values in evaporation pan 1.

Keywords: Cetyl & Stearyl Alcohols, Class-A Pan, Evaporation Reduction, Evaporation

Suppression, Penman’s equation

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND

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



186

1. INTRODUCTION

Water is one of the nature’s 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 world’s

population. The per capita availability of water in the country is only 1820 m3/year, compared

to 40855 m3/year in Brazil, 8902 m

3/year in USA, 2215 m

3/year in China, 2808 m

3/year in

Spain, 18162 m3/year in Australia, 3351 m

3/year in France, 3614 m

3/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



187

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



188

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 15.0-41.0°C with

average of 34.5°C, 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

Table 2. Summary of the experiment results - chemical wise reduction in percentage

Reduction using only

cetyl alcohol

Reduction using only

stearyl alcohol

Reduction using cetyl +

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

Reduction 26.26%

Average

Reduction 26.77%

Average

Reduction 29.55%

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%.

Duration Evaporation

mm/day (EP1)

Evaporation

mm/day (EP2)

%

Reduction

16 Jan -31 Jan 5.41 4.16 23.13

01 Feb - 29 Feb 5.72 4.36 23.97

01 Mar -31 Mar 6.15 4.40 28.37

01 Apr - 30 Apr 7.55 5.26 30.29

01 May - 31 May 8.15 5.14 36.93

01 June - 21 June 7.11 5.40 23.76

22 Aug - 31 Aug 3.68 2.68 25.69

01 Sept -12 Sept 3.89 2.76 28.01

Average 5.96 4.27 27.52



189

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 for

50mg/m2/day

27.07 for

100mg/m2/day

-- for

150mg/m2/day 21.06 26.17 33.85

22.09 Average 26.62 Average 33.85 Average

Reduction using only stearyl alcohol

22.66 for

50mg/m2/day

26.73 for

100mg/m2/day

-- for

150mg/m2/day 24.48 28.01 31.98


Reduction using cetyl + stearyl alcohol

25.28 for

50mg/m2/day

29.67 for

100mg/m2/day

-- for

150mg/m2/day 25.73 25.21 41.88


Table 4. Summary of the experiment results - concentration wise reduction in percentage

for 50mg/m2/day for 100mg/m

2/day for 150mg/m

2/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/m

2/day: 3.42

Difference Between 100mg/m2/day and 150mg/m

2/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 Penman’s equation for evaporation [11], the

following equation were used.

( )

0.00061 .

0.00061

n

a

e

QP E

LE

P

∆+

=∆ +

(1)

where,

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



190

Qn= Qi (1– r) – Qb (2)

Qi is the incoming solar radiation

00.55

i

nQ Q a

N= +

(3)

Q0 is the radiation in cal/cm2/dayreceived at the top of the atmosphere

a = 0.29 cosθ (4)

θ 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

( )40.56 0.09 0.1 0.9

b a

nQ T e

Nσ= − +

(5)

σ is the Stefan-Boltzman constant

σ = 118.944 x 10-9

cal/cm2/day/°K (6)

T is the mean daily temperature in °K

eais the actual vapour pressure of air in mm of mercury

100

. .

s

a

ee

R H=

(7)

R. H. is the Relative Humidity in %

∆ is the slope of saturation vapour pressure curve at air temperature t in mb/°C

( )2

4098

237.3

se

t∆ =

+

(8)

esis the saturated vapour pressure corresponding to the mean daily air temperature

17.276.11exp

237.3s

Te

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 (10)

P is the atmospheric pressure in kPa



191

5.26293 0.0065

101.3293

zP

−=

(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 Penman’s 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 Penman’s 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.

Figure 2. Linear regression model showing EP1, EP2 and evaporation using Penman's eqn

(depth in mm) {16 Jan -21 June}

y = 0.019x - 780.3

R² = 0.459

y = 0.01x - 406.1

R² = 0.325

y = 0.026x - 1078.

R² = 0.461

2.8

3.6

4.4

5.2

6.0

6.8

7.6

8.4

9.2

10.0

10.8

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

Ev

ap

orati

on

mm

/day

Days

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



192

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.

y = -0.003x + 137.4

R² = 0.017

y = -0.003x + 151.1

R² = 0.050

y = 0.004x - 175.9

R² = 0.026

1.4

2.2

3.0

3.8

4.6

5.4

6.2

7.0

7.8

8.6

9.4

10.2

11.016

/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

Ev

ap

orati

on

mm

/da

y

Days

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

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



193

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.

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.

y = 0.258x - 2.491

R² = 0.556

y = 0.144x - 0.420

R² = 0.412

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Evap

ora

tion

mm

/day

Temperature °CEvaporation mm/day (EP1) Evaporation mm/day (EP2)

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

y = -0.296x + 7.565

R² = 0.179

y = -0.207x + 5.356

R² = 0.2070.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Ev

ap

orati

on

mm

/da

y

Wind Velocity km/hr

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


International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976

(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May

Figure 6.Linear regression model for daily relative humid

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

chemical film solution with different concentrations and without application in two different

evaporation pans from January to September is presented in

Figure 7.Cumulative daily evaporation

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 average gross evaporation rates and percentage of reduction of evaporation

rate for different months for two pans.

y =

y = -0.024x + 6.197

R² = 0.144

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0

Evap

ora

tion

mm

/day

Evaporation mm/day (EP1)

Linear (Evaporation mm/day (EP1))

4.0

12.0

20.0

28.0

36.0

44.0

52.0

60.0

68.0

76.0

84.0

92.0

16-31

Jan

01-15

Feb

16-29

Feb

01-16

Mar

17

Eva

pora

tion

mm



6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME

194

Linear regression model for daily relative humidity and daily evaporation

{16 Jan- 12 Sept}



evaporation rates. The results of the pan evaporation control experiment after adding


evaporation pans from January to September is presented in Fig. 7.

Cumulative daily evaporation depth (mm) measured for two pans (EP

{16 Jan - 12 Sept}



ily average gross evaporation rates and percentage of reduction of evaporation

rate for different months for two pans.

y = -0.036x + 8.836

R² = 0.131

30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

Relative Humidity %



17-31

Mar

01-15

Apr

16-30

Apr

01-16

May

17-31

May

01-07

June

08-14

June

15-21

June

22-28

Aug

Months



June (2013), © IAEME

ity and daily evaporation



the pan evaporation control experiment after adding


depth (mm) measured for two pans (EP1 and EP2)



ily average gross evaporation rates and percentage of reduction of evaporation

90.0 100.0

Linear (Evaporation mm/day (EP2))

28 29 Aug-

4 Sept

05-12

Sept


(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May

The pan evaporation rates are smaller in winter as compared to the summer months.

In general, evaporation rate from pan EP

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

% 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

water surfaces when we applied the chemical films

highly feasible and cost effective to use the substance to reduce evaporation.

Figure 5.Monthly evaporation depth in mm {16 Jan

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 st

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 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 reduces evaporation. The experimental study was conducted to demonstrate the

effectiveness of evaporation reduction on US weather class

different concentrations of 50, 100 and 150 mg/m

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 water loss through evaporation from water surfaces.

2.4

3.0

3.6

4.2

4.8

5.4

6.0

6.6

7.2

7.8

8.4

16-31

Jan

01-15

Feb

16-29

Feb

01-16

Mar

17

Mar

Evap

ora

tion

mm



6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME

195


In general, evaporation rate from pan EP1 is reduced by 27.52% as compared to pan EP



observed that 23.72 % reduction is achieved. If this quantity is doubled i.e. 100mg then 27.14


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.

Monthly evaporation depth in mm {16 Jan - 12 Sept}



the economic value also increases. Therefore the government should adopt the st


.) from evaporation remains an integral part of sustainable



d Stearyl alcohols are one of most feasible and cost effective evaporation



icantly reduces evaporation. The experimental study was conducted to demonstrate the

n reduction on US weather class-A pans adding chemical films of

different concentrations of 50, 100 and 150 mg/m2/day. The study concluded that



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.

17-31

Mar

01-15

Apr

16-30

Apr

01-16

May

17-31

May

01-07

June

08-14

June

15-21

June

22-28

Aug

Months



June (2013), © IAEME


27.52% as compared to pan EP2



100mg then 27.14


evaporation from free

Cetyl and Stearyl alcohols and it is



the economic value also increases. Therefore the government should adopt the strategic plans


.) from evaporation remains an integral part of sustainable



d Stearyl alcohols are one of most feasible and cost effective evaporation



icantly reduces evaporation. The experimental study was conducted to demonstrate the

A pans adding chemical films of

/day. The study concluded that evaporation



the Marathwada region to reduce

28

Aug

29 Aug-

4 Sept

05-12

Sept



196

REFERENCES

[1] R. Kumar, R. D. Singh and K. D. Sharma, Water resources of India, Current

Science89(5), 2005, 794-811.

[2] M. E. Jensen, Estimating Evaporation from Water Surfaces, CSU/ARS

Evapotranspiration Workshop, Fort Collins, CO, 2010, 1-27.

[3] W. J. Roberts, Evaporation Suppression from Water Surfaces, American Geophysical

Union, 38(5), 1957, 740-744.

[4] J. Walter, The use of Monomolecular Films to Reduce Evaporation, International Union

of Geodesy and Geophysics Assembly, Berkely, California, 1963, 39-48.

[5] E. H. Hobbs, Evaporation Reduction by Monomolecular Films the Influence of Water

Temperature and Application Rate on the Effectiveness of Cetyl Alcohol, 17-19.

[6] 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.

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

[9] G.T. Barnes, The potential for monolayers to reduce the evaporation of water from

large water storages, 95, 2008, 339-353.

[10] 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.

[11] P. J. Rami Reddy, A text book of Hydrology (University Science Press, 2008) 207-233.

[12] 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.

[13] 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.

[14] 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.