The document contains 6 tables that provide water quality and cost data for 8 dischargers located along the Zarjub River. Table 1 lists flow rates, temperature, dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand levels for upstream locations and each discharger. Tables 2-4 analyze optimal waste treatment levels and costs for different partnership scenarios between the dischargers. The lowest total treatment cost is achieved when all dischargers are partnered together.

2. Table1: The main characteristics of zarjub river and dischargers in study area (IDOE,2005
flow ( m3/s) Temperature DO (mg/L) BOD (mg/L)
Sources mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
upstream 0.178 0.0177 24 2.4 6 0.6 5 0.5
Discharger1 0.07 0.007 24 2.4 8 0.8 5 0.5
Discharger2 0.08 0.008 24 2.4 8.2 0.82 40 4
Discharger3 0.02 0.002 24 2.4 8 0.8 7.32 0.732
Discharger4 0.01 0.001 25 2.5 0.1 0.01 120 12
Discharger5 0.01 0.001 24 2.4 0.1 0.01 180 18
Discharger6 0.01 0.001 23 2.3 0.1 0.01 110 11
Discharger7 0.1 0.01 23 2.3 0.1 0.01 90 9
Discharger8 0.02 0.002 23 2.3 0.1 0.01 180 18

3. Table2: Coefficient of treatment cost function for single dischargers and the distance of location
from the starting point of the study area
Discharger 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Coefficient of treatment cost function(dimensionless) 1.011 1.157 0.29 0.145 0.144 0.144 1.41 0.283
Length of each stream (m) 6934 9915 10816 12958 17877 18718 28396 28396
Total distance from start point of study area 6934 9915 10816 12958 17877 18718 28396 28396
Table3: The initial fraction waste removal levels for each of the discharger in the status of single
waste treatment and its related costs
Discharger 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Initial fractional waste removal level (%) 9.37 56.25 4.69 100 100 100 79.69 93.75
Initial waste treatment cost ($) (IWTC) 937 22,500 4,221 160,000 250,000 360,000 390,481 600,000
Total treatment cost of the system ($) Σ(IWTC) = 1,788,139

4. Table5: The optimum initial treatment level (fractional removal %) for each of the discharger in
the second corporation class and its related costs
Corporation
states
Corporated
dischargers
Coefficient of treatment
cost function
fractional
removal (%)
Initial waste treatment cost of
each function
Distance
(m)
Total cost
state 1 2&5&7 0.859 74.22 473,189 20815 1598347
4&6 0.144 82.44 99,091 19858 1367230
state 2 2&5 0.1505 34.53 17944 10315 1533583
4&6 0.1445 98.43 139998 13358 1408137
State 3 5&7 0.7805 100 780500 17786-
23396*
1928158
4&6 0.1445 100 144500 12958-
18718*
1412639
state 4 2&5 0.1505 89.44 121472 13515 1637111
8&7 0.85 82 582877 27996 1380545
state 5 5&7&8 0.922 100 922000 17786-
23396*
1469658
4&6 0.144 100 144.5 12958-18718* 1412639 0
state 6 7&8 0.85 100 850000 27996 1669658
4&6 0.1445 100 144500 12958- 1412639

5. Table4: The optimum initial treatment level (fractional removal %) for each of the discharger in the corporation class and its related costs
Corporation states Corporate
dischargers
Coefficient of
treatment cost
function
Fractional
removal (%)
Initial waste treatment
cost of each function
Distance (m) Total cost
state 1 2&5 0.1505 67.19 67,943 15815 1,583,582
state 2 5&7 0.7805 82 524,808 23477 1,672,466
state 3 7&8 0.85 77.34 508,425 27896 1,306,083
state 4 2&5&7 0.859 71.88 443,699 21245 1,568,857
state 5 5&7&8 0.922 100 922,00 17877-
28396*
1,469,658
state 6 4&6 0.144 100 144,500 12958-
18718*
1,412,639

6. Table6: The optimum initial treatment level (fractional removal %) for each of the discharger
in the third corporation class and its related costs
Corporation
states
Corporated
dischargers
Coefficient of
treatment cost
function
fractional
removal %)
Initial waste treatment
cost of each function
Distance
(m)
Total cost
state 1 2&5 0.1505 89.84 121472 13815 1637111
state 2 4&6 0.1445 100 144500 13058 1412639
state 3 7&8 0.85 82.18 582887 27996 1380545