APPENDIX of
“Sea water quality assessment of Prince Islands’ Beaches in Istanbul”,
F.Ilter Turkdogan Aydinol, Gurdal Kanat, Hurrem Bayhan. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, (2012) 184:149–160
DOI 10.1007/s10661-011-1954-5
Adalar islands are near to Istanbul city. As explained below in detail, Istanbul city has a large
population and intensive industrial activity and as a result, leads to pollution effect to the Marmara
Sea. For that reason, evaluation of the pollution of the city is also important to assess water quality
around the Adalar beaches. Pollution sources in the Marmara Sea are explained in detail in the
following sections.
A-1. Population Increase in Istanbul in the Last Decades
Population increase of Istanbul City for the last fifty years can be seen in Figure A-2. Population
increase of the city is still greater than Turkey's overall rate of 25 per thousand and leads to water
and wastewater management problems. The water demand of Istanbul is approximately 1.1 billion
m3/year and is estimated to double within the next 20 years. Explosive urbanization in the 1970s
and a migration rate of 14% in the early 1980s forced Istanbul to expand and renovate its water and
wastewater system. During the last decade, US$ 3.6 billion were invested to improve and expand
the infrastructure system (Yuksel et al., 2004; ISKI, 2006).
Population (x thousand)
14000
12573
11178
12000
10018
10000
7195
8000
5475
6000
2772
4000
1466
2000
1742 2132
2547
1268
0
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2005 2007
Years
Figure A-2. Population increase of Istanbul City for the last fifty years
A-2. Description of the Marmara Sea Area
The Marmara Sea is a semi-enclosed deep basin between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea in
Turkey. The surface layer consists of low salinity (18–29‰) water of the Black Sea origin while
lower layer (below 20–25 m) contains high salinity (38.5‰) Mediterranean Sea water (Okus et al,
2008). The Marmara Sea has been subject to very high levels of pollution due to several industrial
complexes, municipal wastewater, agricultural chemicals and oil pollution (Sarikaya et al., 1997;
Eroglu et al., 2001; Yuksel et al., 2004). The main important pollutants are :
(a) From Istanbul city, which is the largest city in Turkey, currently housing around 15% of
the population and 30% of industrial activities in Turkey within the boundary of its
metropolitan area
(b) From Izmit Bay, which receives waste from Turkey’s most important industrial area as
well as the domestic waste of the city of Izmit (Okay et al., 1996; Tolun et al., 2001;
Pekey et al., 2004; Morkoc et al., 2008). This large city is only 40 km away from
Istanbul.
(c) From Gulf of Gemlik, which receives pollution from Lake Iznik as well as industrial and
household waste from adjacent cities (concentrated industry and population in Bursa and
Balikesir cities). The Gulf of Gemlik, a 31-km-long semi-enclosed trough located in the
southeastern part of the Marmara Sea is considered to be one of Turkey’s most
industrialized regions and is contaminated by persistent organic and heavy metal
pollutants. The main anthropogenic sources of pollutants are industrial activities, sewage
discharges, urban runoff and shipping. Heavy metal pollution in surface sediment and
mussel samples in the Gulf of Gemlik (Unlu et al, 2006; Unlu et al, 2008).
(d) and from the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea by surface and deep sea currents (Yuksel
et al., 2004; ISKI, 2006; Okus et al, 2008).
A-3. Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Strategies in Istanbul
Historical Development of Sewerage Systems
Istanbul is currently undergoing rapid industrialization and chaotic urbanization. In the 1950s, the
beginning of the migration from Anatolia led to a rapid increase in the population of Istanbul. The
insufficiency of the infrastructure and the lack of environmental protection have brought the
problems to a chronic state. The inadequacy of sewage disposal seems to be the most important
infrastructural problem in settlement areas.
In fact, the earliest sewerage projects in Istanbul were initiated in 1920 by a French company and a
Berlin Company continued the project in the 1930s (Samsunlu, 1988). However, both of these
projects were achieved to a very limited extent. Between 1959 and 1966 the first master plan
relating to the removal of Istanbul city waste waters was prepared by a German Professor, Dr.
Dietrich Kehr. In this plan, interceptors were proposed to be installed along the Golden Horn
estuary to discharge the wastewaters into the Bosphorus but these planned interceptors could not be
completed until 1990s, probably due to financial and administrative problems. Moreover, the
population growth was considerably faster than anticipated and land utilization more intensive.
Because of this, earlier construction plans had to be changed, and project studies enlarged.
Again, a new Master Plan and Feasibility Studies were carried out by DAMOC, which is a
consortium of consultant companies, on behalf of the UNDP-United Nations Development Program
and WHO, between 1966 and 1970. The Metropolitan Istanbul Sewerage Project was a very big
project and international technical and financial support was necessary. The Metropolitan
Municipality allotted a major part of its investment expenditures for the infrastructure.
In 1999, Istanbul Water and Sewerage Administration (ISKI) has let Istanbul Master Plan
Consortium (IMC) to prepare a Master Plan for solving the water supply, wastewater and storm
water problems in the Istanbul Metropolitan Area (Yuksel et al., 2004; Okus et al, 2008). The
Master Plan, a result of intensive engineering studies for 6 years, proposes that secondary stage
biological treatment should be applied at the first phase and tertiary biological treatment at the
second phase for wastewater discharges to the Marmara Sea (Figure A-1). For wastewaters
discharged into the Bosphorus, preliminary treatment is required for the first stage and chemically
enhanced primary treatment for the second stage. More details can be found in the literature (Okus
et al., 2008; Yuksel et al., 2004; Eroglu et al., 2001).
Short-term strategies (2000–2010)
The Master Plan suggestions developed through a modeling study conducted by Danish
Hydraulic Institute (DHI) for the Marmara Sea–Bosphorus System water quality. Some existing
data and DHI Model reveals that it is possible to develop short-term wastewater disposal
alternatives for Istanbul. Modeling study shows that it is adequate to apply preliminary treatment
(screening and aerated grid removal unit) for large-scale facilities (Yenikapi, Baltalimani, Kadikoy)
and physical treatment (screening) for small-scale facilities (Uskudar, Kucuksu, Pasabahce) before
discharging into the lower layers of the Strait. For the discharges into lower layers of Marmara Sea,
it is much better to treat wastewater biologically (conventional activated sludge system as an initial
stage) but for especially eutrophication control. Microbiological pollution is not one of the first
priorities in the plans.
Medium and long-term strategies (after 2010)
Tertiary biological treatment before discharging into Marmara will be necessary to control
eutrophication in Marmara Sea, which is accepted as sensitive water body, and to decrease oxygen
consumption of pretreated wastewater discharging to the Marmara Sea and Strait. The IMC Master
Plan proposes upgrading of pre-treatment levels to chemically enhanced primary treatment for
WWTP's using the lower flows of the Bosphorus as the final discharge environment for the
medium-term.
Figure A-1. Sea discharge facilities of Istanbul according to Master Plan (Ref.: IMC, 1999; Okus et al., 2008).
In 1996, according to the Master Plan, ISKI initiated a water quality monitoring program of the
receiving water bodies (Okus et al., 2008). The monitoring program has been carried out for 10
years in 28 stations in the marine environment. The results of experimental investigations conducted
for parameters including dissolved oxygen, total organic carbon (TOC), particulate organic carbon
(POC), Total-N, Total-P, chlorophyll a, structure of benthic community, turbidity and coliforms
have been critically analyzed taking into consideration the marine outfall and surface water
discharges from Istanbul’s major wastewater treatment plants together with the transboundary
pollution sourced by the Black Sea. The studies reveal that the water quality in the Marmara Sea is
deteriorated more than anticipated before, and it is a necessity to develop international cooperation
aimed for taking more effective measures in the area. Some concluding remarks of the results and
suggestions from the water quality monitoring study since 1996 in order to monitor environmental
impacts of the pre-treatment and marine outfall facilities proposed in the Master Plan of ISKI on the
Marmara Sea and the Bosphorus, together with current surface discharges and transboundary
pollutants generated in the Black Sea, are summarized below.
• Significant upgrading for bacteriological and physical/aesthetics quality of coastal water
were provided with preliminary treatment and marine outfall facilities in Istanbul, although
population and wastewater flow rate have been increased in this period.
• Around 2–4 times deterioration occurred in trophic conditions in the upper layer of the
Marmara Sea compared to 1990, due to preliminary treatment and marine outfall facilities
proposed as short-term implementations, surface discharges on coastal waters (more than
25% of Istanbul’s population) and transboundary pollution load coming from Black Sea.
• Tuzla and Kucukcekmece marine outfall facilities where deep current velocities are low,
have negative impact on the water quality and ecological life at the initial mixing zone.
• Transboundary pollution from the Black Sea down to the Marmara Sea has not increased in
the past 10 years, however it still has significance. Transboundary pollution from the Black
Sea source (via the upper layer flows of the Bosphorus) has great impact on the trophic state
of the Marmara Sea.
• The pre-treatment facilities must be increased to tertiary biological treatment (BNR process)
until 2012 in Tuzla, and in other planned Ambarli, South Kucukcekmece and Atakoy
wastewater treatment plants. In addition, preliminary treatment levels must be upgraded to
chemically enhanced primary treatment 2020.
A-4. Problems and Constraints for Wastewater Treatment
Until 1990s, there was no biological wastewater treatment plant in Istanbul and all of wastewater
was discharged into the sea surface without any treatment (no pre-, preliminary or biological
treatment). Despite wastewater management was improved in Istanbul in the last decade, there are
still some problems. The well-funded municipalities and ISKI effectively organized planning and
implementation of the steps of Master Plan. The Metropolitan Municipality of Istanbul has currently
intensified its efforts to complete sewer collectors in sub-urban areas and the number of biological
wastewater treatment plants. However, biological wastewater treatment capacity is still low in the
city, mainly due to financial and administrative problems. In the last decades, budgets of the
municipalities have not been sufficient to complete sewer collectors. For that reason, Biological
treatment rate in Istanbul is still low and around 30%.
It is obvious that biological treatment of all wastewater is not affordable in near future, because
according to the World Bank, up to 3% of a country’s gross national product (GNP) can be
realistically spent on environmental protection (Grau, 1994). Moreover, it is clear that developing
countries are able to spend as little as 1–10% of the sum that affluent economies spend more for
waste management programs (Brunner and Fellner, 2007).
As having a developing economy and deficiency of engineering capacity for new technologies in
environmental protection, Turkey and also Istanbul have still some problems in protection of the
environment. Those problems are similar to other developing countries’ issues and should be
evaluated during new policy initiatives to have a sustainable wastewater management. Some of
them are listed and discussed below:

Biological (activated sludge) wastewater treatment is not a cheap method for the developing
countries (due to investment and energy cost). For that reason, the numbers of biological
wastewater treatment plants in those countries are still only a few and wastewater is
discharged after pretreatment (or in many cases without any treatment). Another important
problem is illegal discharge of industries, which is resulting some problems for efficient
treatment.

In Istanbul, advanced treatment of wastewater has not been one of the first priorities,
probably due to high cost, although some research studies show that reuse can be done in the
city (Tanik et al., 1996). However, there is no feasibility study.

Scientific literature shows that untreated wastewater is a risk for public health but it does not
mean a rapid epidemic at any time. Probably for that reason, policy makers and directors do
not give priority to finish all wastewater treatment plants in a short time in the developing
countries.

It is known that there are some (or many) regulations in the developing countries. They are
generally copied (translated or adopted) from developed countries or from guidelines of
international organizations. It means that they contain almost all of the details. However,
enforcement of existing legislation is much more important than existence of the detailed
and strict rules of the regulations (Sperling and Chernicharo, 2002; Godfrey and Nahman,
2007; OECD, 1999; Sezer, et al., 2003; Kocasoy, 2003; Alpaslan et al.,2002; Kennish, 2002;
Islam and Tanaka, 2004).

Furthermore, sustainability of efficient operation (24 hrs-365 days) of the existing plants are
suspicious due to maintenance and operation cost (energy cost and high cost of imported
equipments (such as pumps, etc) in those plants).

In the last decades, entire budget was spent for completion of sewage system and collectors
before construction of the treatment plants. All of wastewater was discharged into nearest
creeks until 1980s. After this time, collectors were built to transfer sewage to deep sea
discharges, and firstly to prevent foul odor of anoxic sediment of Golden Horn estuary,
which is historic and touristic area in the city center (Coleman et al., 2009).

It is obvious that biological wastewater treatment capacity cannot be improved very much in
near future in developing countries due to financial and administrative problems (Sperling
and Chernicharo, 2002; Godfrey and Nahman, 2007; Sezer, et al., 2003).

To the best knowledge of authors, there is no report in Istanbul, which is explaining any
health problem (epidemic) related to swimming activities on the beaches in the last decades.
Probably, health problems such as diarrhea are evaluated with other factors (food, drinking
water, etc.). Risk level is not clear but health problems related to bathing were reported
(Cartwright, 2003).

Despite increase of the basic research studies in Turkey, applied research studies are very
rare. For example, studies such as relation between open sewers and public health,
decreasing maintenance and operation costs, solutions for financial and administrative
problems in the municipalities, and similar problems should be researched and evaluated.
Universities and other research institutes are generally studying basic research subjects (in
the laboratories) but collaborative studies by municipalities are very rare. Pilot studies
should be done and local cost should be evaluated carefully. Pilot studies are a crucial
element for full-scale studies or implementation, and also to find local cost. Conducting a
pilot study does not guarantee success in the main study, but it does increase the likelihood.
(Pictures of the beaches can be seen in Appendix-2)
Added References for the Appendix :
Alpaslan MN, Dolgen D, Akyarli A 2002. Liquid waste management strategies for coastal areas,
Water Science & Technology 46:8 169-175
Brunner, P.H., Fellner, J., 2007. Setting priorities for waste management strategies in developing
countries. Waste Management and Research 25, 234–240.
Cartwright RY. 2003. Food and waterborne infections associated with package holidays. J Appl.
Microbial., 94:12S–24S.
Coleman, H.M., G. Kanat and F. I. Aydinol Turkdogan, 2009. Restoration of the Golden Horn
Estuary (Halic), Water Research, Volume 43, Issue 20, Pages 4989-5003.
Eroglu, V., Sarikaya, H.Z., Aydin, A.F., 2001. Planning of wastewater treatment and disposal
systems of Istanbul Metropolitan area. Water Science and Technology 44 (2), 31–38.
Godfrey L, Nahman A, 2007. Are developing countries ready for first world waste policy
instruments. In: Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium. Italy:
CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre.
Grau, P., 1994. What’s next? Water Quality International 4, 29–32.
IMC (1999) Istanbul Master Plan Consortium, Master Plan and Feasibility Study on Water Supply,
Sanitary and Storm Water Collection, Wastewater Treatment and Disposal for Istanbul, Final
Report.
ISKI (2006). Annual report, Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Istanbul Water and Sewerage
Administration, Lale Publishing Corp., Istanbul (in Turkish).
Islam, M.S., Tanaka, M., 2004. Impacts of pollution on coastal and marine ecosystems including
coastal and marine fisheries and approach for management: a review and synthesis. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 48, 624–649.
Kennish, M.J., 2002. Environmental threats and environmental future of estuaries. Environmental
Conservation 29 (1), 78–107.
Kocasoy G, 2003. Institutional Structure Of The Solid Waste And Landfill Management In
Developing Countries, Proceedings Sardinia 2003, Ninth International Waste Management
and Landfill Symposium, 6 - 10 October. Cagliari, Italy.
Morkoc, E., OS Okay, A Edinçliler, 2008. Land-based sources of pollution along the Izmit Bay and
their effect on the coastal waters, Environmental Geology, 56, Number 1, 131-138.
OECD 1999. Environmental Performance Review: Turkey, OECD.
Okay, O.S., Legoviç, T., Tüfekçi, V., Egesel, L. and Morkoç, E., 1996. Environmental impact of
land-based pollutants on Image zmit Bay (Turkey): short-term algal bioassays and simulation
of toxicity distribution in the marine environment. Archives of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology 31, pp. 459–465.
Okus, E. Ozturk, I. Sur, H. I. Yuksek. A., Tas, S. Aslan-Yilmaz, A. Altiok, H. Balkis, N. Dogan, E.
Ovez, S. Aydin, A.F. (2008) Critical evaluation of wastewater treatment and disposal
strategies for Istanbul with regards to water quality monitoring study results, Desalination
226, 231–248
Pekey H., Karakas D., Ayberk S., Tolun L., Bakoglu M. (2004) Ecological risk assessment using
trace elements from surface sediments of İzmit Bay (Northeastern Marmara Sea) Turkey,
Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48 (9-10), pp. 946-953.
Samsunlu, A., 1988. International co-operation on bios – the golden horn project.
http://www.biopolitics.gr/html/pubs/ turkish/gg-samsu.htm.
Sarikaya H.Z., V. Eroglu, M. F. Sevimli and I. Öztürk (1997) Pretreatment requirements and status
of industrial effluents in the greater Istanbul area, Water Science and Technology Vol 36, No
2–3 pp 101-107.
Sezer S, Kocasoy G and Aruoba C, 2003. How vital is the "lack of funding" in effective
environmental management in Turkey?, Waste Management, 23, 5, pp.455-461
Sperling, Marcos and Carlos Augusto de Lemos Chernicharo, 2002, Urban wastewater treatment
technologies and the implementation of discharge standards in developing countries, Urban
Water, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 105-114
Tanik, A., HZ Sarikaya, V Eroglu, D Orhon, I 1996. Potential for reuse of treated effluent in
Istanbul, WATER SCI TECHNOL, 33 (10-11): 107-113.
Tolun, L.G., Okay, O.S., Gaines, A.F., Tolay, M., Tüfekçi, H. and Kıratlı, N., 2001. The pollution
status and the toxicity of surface sediments in Image zmit Bay (Marmara Sea), Turkey.
Environment International 26, pp. 163–168.
Unlu S, Alpar B, Aydin S, Akbulak C, Balkis N, Barut I, Meric E, Aksu A, Kirbasoglu C¸ (2006)
Anthropogenic pollution in sediments from the Gulf of Gemlik (Marmara Sea, Turkey);
cause-result relationship. Fresenius Environ Bull 15(12a):1521–1560
Unlu S, Topcuoglu S, Alpar B, Kirbasog˘lu C, Yilmaz YZ (2008) Heavy metal pollution in surface
sediment and mussel samples in the Gulf of Gemlik. Environ Monit Assess 144(1–3):169–
178.
Wagener, A.L.R., 2005. Constraints to the Implementation of effective environmental management
in coastal areas of developing countries. Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences 77 (4),
613–623.
Yuksel, E., V Eroglu, HZ Sarikaya, I Koyuncu, 2004. Current and Future Strategies for Water and
Wastewater Management of Istanbul City, Environmental Management, 33, 2, 186-195.