JCBPS; Section D; August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963. E- ISSN: 2249 –1929 [DOI: 10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.]
Journal of Chemical, Biological and Physical Sciences An International Peer Review E-3 Journal of Sciences Available online atwww.jcbsc.org
Section D: Environmental Sciences CODEN (USA): JCBPAT Research Article
Demonstration of the effective filtration and grazing of tilapias Sarotherodon galilaeus used for the biological control of microalgae and helminth eggs polluting the drinking water of the Ziga dam, Burkina Faso.
NEYA Bapiyan Augustin 1,2 KABRE Tinkoudgou Jean André and SAWADOGO Moumouni
1 Burkina Faso National Water and Sanitation Monitoring Laboratory (ONEA), 2 Fish and Wildlife Training and Research Laboratory of the Polytechnic University of Bobo Dioulasso (Burkina Faso)
Received: 26 June 2017; Revised: 13 September 2017; Accepted: 30 September 2017
Abstract :This planktivorous mode, it arises that the near total of the preferential, secondary preys and some additional preys of the species consist of harmful kinds of alga to the quality of water (odors, taste, filling of the filters) and to human health (production of toxins).Indeed the examination of the mode of S. galilaeus made it possible to gather the preys according to the affected targets.The producing preys of tastes and odor in water consist of:Peridinium (preferential prey), Cosmarium (secondary prey) Synedra (secondary prey), Melosira (secondary prey), Anabeana (prey accessories), Microcystis (prey secondary), Scenedesmus (prey accessories) and Volvox (prey accessories).The preys colmatrices of filters are made up of:Peridinium (preferential prey), Cymbella (secondary prey) Synedra (secondary prey), Navicula (secondary prey), Melosira (secondary prey), Diatoma (additional prey), Tracholomonas (additional prey), Microcystis (secondary prey) and Anabeana (additional prey).The producing toxin preys include/understand kinds Ci afterwards: Nostoc (additional prey), Microcystis (secondary prey), Anabeana (additional prey) and Chroococcus sp (additional prey).Very harmful preys with human health as eggs of ascaris were also identified like prey preferential at the species.
944 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963 DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.]
Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al.
The analysis of the planktivorous mode of S. galilaeus from the MFI% cumulated, coupled with the multivariate regressions between the preys taken in dry season and rainy season and those introduced between the classes of size (88 INTRODUCTION The algae are organizations contain chlorophyll which develop in the water or in the wetlands1. In addition to these conditions, they need, to better thrive in their environment, elements such as the carbon dioxide gas, the mineral salts and of the light 2.The algae are the point of departure of the aquatic food chain that leads to the fish population operated by the man Iltis1. In this regard, we can say that they constitute an important resource vital for the man and aquatic ecosystems. However, some algal branch lines are recognized to be a danger to the man when their concentration in the waters of drink or leisure or in the flesh of animals edible, becomes important. Indeed, some algal branch lines such as the Cyanophyta, occur in the water of toxins such as neurotoxins, the hepatotoxines and dermatotoxines incompatible to human and animal health 3-11.According to several authors, the Cyanophyta are not the only branch lines to produce toxins incompatible to animal health, human health and avian. Among the algae, it was able to isolate in some strains of Dinophyta and Bacyllariophyta, toxins having effects: diarrheal, paralysing, neurological, amnésiants and azaspiracids in humans through the consumption of certain products freshwater and some seafood 7. The work of other authors have shown that some odour and taste in drinking water are caused by types of algae 12.Other types of algae are recognized for their ability to clog filters 13 plants for the treatment of water requiring frequent stops for cleaning14. According to some authors, the chlorine used for the disinfection of drinking water in contact with an important algal biomass, can produce Trihalomethanes (thms) and acetic acids15, incompatible to human health 16-18. in Burkina Faso, the quasi-totality of tanks of water catchment exploited for the purposes of domestic use are deductions of water to multiple use. It is to say that these same tanks of water are used for the market gardening, watering of animals and the treatment of drinking water. This multi-use quickly leads the deductions of water to the eutrophication, monitoring of important cellular concentrations during warm periods of the year14, 19. 945 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. To cope with this problem, the S. galilaeus, a local species to economic interest in Burkina Faso and which people the lake of Ziga dam, is used as filter feeders and grazers of harmful algae to the quality of the water in the lake. This experience of the regime planctonophage of S. galilaeus, is conducted for the first time in Burkina Faso. It is a preventive action for the improvement of the quality of the waters of the deductions of water to multi use. It also proposes to be a contribution to the biological control; an alternative to the abusive use of chemicals, recognized effects on aquatic ecosystems and human health 20. METHOD AND EQUIPMENT Description of the middle of Study: The Burkina Faso is a Sahelian country who knows a deficit of mobilization of groundwater. The deductions of water being used for the purposes of drinking water are to 84% from the lakes from dam to open sky. All these sources of water are to multiple use and are experiencing an accelerated eutrophication which deteriorates the quality of the water. The Ziga dam created in 1998 did not escape this phenomenon anthropogenic. In effect, the lake of Ziga dam is the largest dam in Burkina Faso to the vocation of drinking water. It refuels in drinking water the city of Ouagadougou to more than 70% and all the villages crossed by the conduct of supply of water. It is located 50 km from the capital, Ouagadougou and mobilizes 208 million m3 of water in a period of flood. The current station of treatment of water to a capacity of 12000 m3 /h. OCCUPATION DES TERRES AUTOUR DU LAC DE BARRAGE DE ZIGA 1 0 700 000 710 000 720 000 4 0 Sabouri-Nakoara 1 0 # 0 0 Tampanga 0 1 0 N BURKINA FASO T4 amasgo 0 1 # # Sabouri-Natenga # Nioniopalogo # Bagabin# Noung#ou # # Ouitenga-Poecin # # Tiendpalogo Bissiga-Mossi # # Taonsgo Bis#siga-Peulh # Dayagretenga # TengsobaKiéma Silmiougou # Lemnogo Gondogo Tandaaga # Tansablogo # P8 # # Tambizinsé # Barkoudouba # # # Gandogo # 1 Ko0 mnogo Batenga 4 0 0 0 # 0 0 # 0 0 # Tampaongo 0 4 Sonpélcé 0 1 # # Ba# rkoundouba Mossi # # Danaogo P10 Betta # Absouya #P7 # Nabdoghin # # P9 # Siny Na#bitenga # Boulba # Basbedo # # Gounghin Tabin # Moanéga # # # Boalin # Nakamtenga 1 Nakamtenga 2 #P6 # Ipala # Sawana Ziniaré-Secteur 1 # Koulgandogo-Peulh # Bendogo # Moyargo 1 0 3 0Soulogo # 9 0 P5 # 0 0 # Ouagatenga # Nioniogo 0 9 Ziga 0 3 0 1 Tamissi # Moutti # # P4 LEGENDE # Tamanéga # Matté # # Youtenga Mockin # # Village riverain Yarghin # P3 # Laongo-Taoré Point d'echantillonnage Laongo-Yanga # Nahoutinga # # # Satté # Gondogo P2 # P1 # Nahartenga # # # P0 Koratinga Nagréongo 1 0 Boudtenga-Peulh 3 0 # 8 Boudte0 nga Kolokom 0 0 0 8 0 3 0 1 700 000 710 000 720 000 7000 0 7000 Meters Figure 1: Map of track points of the homogeneity and capture of fish to the vocation of a biological control agent as Sarotherodon galilaeus in Lake Ziga dam, Burkina Faso It is located in an area of tropical climate, North-soudanien with two seasons. A rainy season from June to September and a dry season from October to May. The temperature and rainfall averages are successively for the last ten years of 29, 1 °C and 713 millimeters14 .As Figure 1 indicates, the lake is surrounded by more than 26 villages of farmers and ranchers. Cattle-rearing is extensive and negatively impact the quality of the water 946 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. in any season. More than two thousand hectares of the Easement Area are emblavés of speculation market gardening. In addition to these activities, the sustainability of the water of the dam attracts the transhumance during the 8 months of the dry season. All these activities around the dam have for consequences, the enrichment of the Plan of water in nutrient causing in any season an important development of algae 14 deterioration of the quality of the water of the lake. METHOD AND DATA PROCESSING For the follow-up of the homogeneity of the lake, eleven points have been installed along the dam. This is the fixed points (Figure 1) used to carry out periodic levies of samples to analyze in the laboratory the evolution of algae in different areas of the dam as well as the process of sedimentation over the years. These marks of observation have served in this document as the basis for the installation of gillnets of 10 to 30 mm empty of mesh for the capture of fish to study. These nets are posed by professional fishermen in the evening between 18 hours and 18 hours 30 minutes and records the next morning at 7 hours and 12 hours. The nets are posed on each point of the homogeneity of the lake as indicated in the figure 1. The poses are performed two times per month; at the beginning of the month and at the end of the month. The sessions of capture of the fish began in February 2014 and were completed in January 2015. In total 411 specimens of S. galilaeus were captured. The standard length of each specimen was measured with a balance ''RAWAG'' with a precision of 0.1 mg. These fish have then been gutted and the intestines and stomachs are kept in vials to 5% of formaldehyde. The stomach contents and intestinal disorders were analyzed in the laboratory using an optical microscope right ''Primo Star'' fitted with high-resolution camera to determine, according to Zinder 1982, the preferential prey, secondary and accessories of of S. galilaleus. Indeed, according to several authors, the study of the diet of the animals can be done in a natural way through the examination of the content of their intestines and digestive tube integer 21-26. A sub-sample of 40 specimens of varied size, has been established to measure the standard size of each fish as well as the length of the intestine. These specific measures have been designed to assess the relationship between the size of the intestine and the standard length with a view to determine the trophic level of S. galilaeus in function of its coefficient tract 27. The main food item of Zinder25 and the index values of Rosecchi and Nouaze26 as a function of the seasons (dry season and rainy season) and the class of sizes (juveniles or adults) were also calculated to assess the variation of phyplanctonage regime of S. galilaleus in function of these two parameters because some species of fish can change their regime in function of the abundance of prey 28-30.For the analysis of the concentration of algal cells contained in the stomachs and intestines of S. galilaeus, the hématimètre of Malassez has been used. It contains 100 rectangular units with a total capacity of 1µl. The expression of results by sample unit was made on all of the 100 rectangles. With respect to the calculation of biomass (gram) from the biovolume of each specimen algal, it was done with the help of existing data in the literature. The estimate of the biovolume of algae not identified in the literature has been calculated using the micrometer of the microscope used and of the Excel spreadsheet by simulating the specimens to the figures to geometrical dimensions known (ellipsoid, ovoid, cylinder, sphere, etc.). At the same time water samples in 1 liter, have been collected in the areas sampled. These levies were designed to assess qualitatively the types of algae by sampling point and compare to those found in the intestines and stomachs of S. galilaeus. Statistical treatment of data collected: The study by the coefficients of correlations was conducted from the software Statistica. It has especially helped to highlight the correlation coefficients between the regimes of the 947 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. dry seasons and wet as well as between those of species juvenile and adult. With regard to the characterization of the diet, we used indices proposed by the work of authors who bring together the prey in function of their numeric value. These values are then rows to determine the prey that contribute the most to the power supply of the species studied. The final outcome of the method is to separate the main prey of other prey ingested by the species 21, 23, 25, 26. To achieve the final results, the index values below are calculated. (1).Index of frequency or relative frequencies (F): it is to count the number of stomachs nor, containing a category of prey and express this as a percentage of the total number nt of stomachs containing at least a prey 24. 푁푖 퐹% 푖푡푒푚푖 = × 100 푁푇 Ni = is the number of stomachs containing the item and NT is the number of stomachs containing at least a prey. (2).Index of abundance digital (Ni):The total number of individuals of the category of food i (prey) in all stomachs (Ni) is counted and expressed in percentage of the total number of individuals (NT) of all categories of prey24 . 푛푖 푁푖 = × 100. 푁푇 (3).Index of abundance weight (PI): This index expresses the percentage of the weight of the diet. According Hyslop24 and Paugy and Lévêque, 31; Pi is determined under the formula: 푝푖 푃푖 = × 100 푃푡 Pi is the mass of a prey i and Pt The total mass of prey. (4)Main food or hand food item (MFI): Zander25, calculates the diet by combining three indices to know the abundance index weight (PI), the numerical index (Ni) and the relative frequency (FI). This assemblage prey on the basis of their index value allows you to rank them by order of importance of taking of prey. That is to say the preferential prey, secondary and accessories. This consolidation has allowed to justify the formula below: (퐹푖+푁푖) MFIi= √푃푖 2 (5) Rosecchi and Nouaze 1987: express the formula MFI in percentage (MFI %). According to the authors, this grading scale allows a good distribution of prey in the different categories, when these are numerous and of neighboring abundances. To better separate the preferential prey of other such as the secondary prey and accessories, the values of MFI% for a given species, are rows in descending order. Starting of the prey to rank 1, we add the indices of each of the Prey so to obtain 50% or more of the total index. These prey items are called preferential prey (prey whose absence in the mid night to the development of the Predator Berg. 32 We continue to add the percentage of prey in the order up to the obtaining of an index at least equal to 75% of the total index. These prey items are called secondary prey. The latest prey of the list are considered to be accessories. The formula proposed by the authors is expressed below: 948 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. 푀퐹퐼푖 MFIi% = 푛 × 100. ∑푖=1 푀퐹퐼푖 To complete the appraisal of the scheme planctonophage of S. galilaeus, the index values of the trophic level of the species and those expressing the variation of the catch in the diet during periods of abundance or the insufficiency of prey in function of the seasons are below indicated. (6).Coefficient of Emptiness (CV): It represents the percentage of empty stomachs in relation with the total number of stomachs examined. 푁푣 퐶푣 = × 100 푁푡 With NV the number of empty stomachs and Nt The total number of stomachs examined. It would express the variation in catch of the diet during the periods of abundance or the insufficiency of prey in function of the seasons. (7).Intestinal Coefficient (Ci): Paugy 27 and this on the basis of the coefficient tract, has carried out a classification of trophic levels of fish from their intestinal coefficient by the following expression: 퐿푖 Ci= 퐿푠 With Li Length of the intestine and Ls the standard length of the FISH RESULTS The analysis of samples of water has helped to identify 41 genera of algae. The stomachs and intestines of S.galilaeus identified 37 types of algae (prey) comprising four branch lines (Figure 2). The Chromophyta (51,932%), the Chlorophyta (26,327%), the Pyrrophyta (10,304%), the Cyanophyta (6,131%) and Euglenophyta (0.103%). It has also identified the eggs of Helminths representing 5,204% of the Whole identified. The intestinal coefficient (formula 7) is between 4.39 and 11.65. The coefficient of Emptiness (formula 6) is: 2, 817 for the rainy season; 1,471 for the dry season; 2.165 for the size class of 126 to 242; 1,111 for the size between 88 and 125 mm. But it is noted that the overall coefficient obtained for the 411 fish caught is 1, 728 (Table 1). The method of classification based on the MFI% Rocecchi and Nouaze 26, has allowed to identify the classes of prey: for the rainy season ( table 2), 24 prey were identified among which the preferential prey are formed of the Genera: Mougeotia (Chlorophyta), Peridinium (Pyrrophyta) and the secondary prey to this period is the Cosmarium (Chlorophyta); for the dry season ( table 3), 35 prey were identified among which the preferential prey are Peridinium, Mougeotia and eggs of helminths; the secondary prey are essentially Cymbella (Chromophyta) and Cosmarium. 949 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. 60.000 51.932 50.000 40.000 30.000 26.327 20.000 10.304 10.000 6.131 5.204 0.103 0.000 Chlorophyta Chromophyta Cyanophyta Pyrrophyta Euglenophyta Œuf d'ascaris Figure 2: representation of different algal branch lines identified in the stomachs and intestines of Sarotherodon galilaeus of Lake Ziga dam, Burkina Faso Table 1: Characterization of the coefficient of emptiness of the stomachs and intestines of S.galilaeus of lake Ziga dam Total S. S. galilaeus S. galilaeus capturé Taille Taille galilaeus capturé en saison en saison pluvieuse S.galilaeus S.galilaeus capturé sèche 88 950 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. Table 2: Index and classification of the prey of planctonophage regime of Sarotherodon galilaeus in function of the rainy season Proies Fi Ni Pi MFI% MFI% Plan Cumulé Mougeotia 17,3913 5,0633 77,1096 35,1141 35,1141 Prime peridinium 49,2754 14,3460 9,6583 20,9183 56,0324 Prime Cosmarium 40,5797 11,8143 3,0050 10,5886 66,6210 Secondary Nostoc sp 14,4928 4,2194 5,6464 8,6741 75,2951 Accessory Cymbella 57,9710 16,8776 0,7221 6,2039 81,4990 Accessory Microcystis 17,3913 5,0633 0,6573 3,2419 84,7408 Accessory Œufs d'helminthes 8,6957 2,5316 1,2564 3,1694 87,9102 Accessory Volvox 15,9420 4,6414 0,4223 2,4880 90,3982 Accessory Tribonema 15,9420 4,6414 0,3047 2,1134 92,5116 Accessory Navicula 27,5362 8,0169 0,0811 1,4327 93,9444 Accessory Synedra 28,9855 8,4388 0,0405 1,0391 94,9834 Accessory Eudorina 8,6957 2,5316 0,0931 0,8627 95,8461 Accessory Pinnularia 4,3478 1,2658 0,1841 0,8580 96,7041 Accessory Xanthidium 1,4493 0,4219 0,4400 0,7657 97,4698 Accessory Closterium 2,8986 0,8439 0,1039 0,5261 97,9958 Accessory Melosira 13,0435 3,7975 0,0180 0,4640 98,4598 Accessory Euastrum 2,8986 0,8439 0,0786 0,4576 98,9174 Accessory Sphaerocystis 1,4493 0,4219 0,1266 0,4107 99,3281 Accessory Gyrosigma 2,8986 0,8439 0,0264 0,2651 99,5933 Accessory Tracholomonas 2,8986 0,8439 0,0124 0,1816 99,7749 Accessory Oedogonium 1,4493 0,4219 0,0118 0,1256 99,9004 Accessory Chroococcus 2,8986 0,8439 0,0007 0,0429 99,9433 Accessory Spirulina 2,8986 0,8439 0,0006 0,0383 99,9816 Accessory Nitzschia 1,4493 0,4219 0,0003 0,0184 100,0000 Accessory Table 3: Index and classification of the prey of planctonophage regime of Sarotherodon galilaeus in function of the dry season Proies Fi Ni Pi MFi % MFi% Régime Cumulé Peridinium 47,9042 9,3294 34,1449 27,1329 27,1329 Prime Mougeotia 17,9641 3,4985 36,4858 17,1755 44,3084 Prime Œufs d'helminthes 28,4431 5,5394 16,7242 14,6321 58,9405 Prime Cymbella 76,6467 14,9271 3,1258 10,3842 69,3247 Secondary Cosmrium 53,8922 10,4956 3,0841 8,6492 77,9739 Secondary Melosira 53,5928 10,4373 0,3617 2,9537 80,9275 Accessory Navicula 55,9880 10,9038 0,3347 2,9044 83,8319 Accessory 951 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. Synedra 52,9940 10,3207 0,2011 2,1900 86,0219 Accessory Tribonema 20,6587 4,0233 0,4053 1,9412 87,9632 Accessory Sphaerocystis 8,6826 1,6910 0,8864 1,8612 89,8243 Accessory Microcystis 23,3533 4,5481 0,2977 1,7691 91,5934 Accessory Euastrum 10,4790 2,0408 0,3361 1,2591 92,8525 Accessory Xanthidium 3,5928 0,6997 0,5856 0,9732 93,8256 Accessory Pinnularia 5,3892 1,0496 0,3502 0,9216 94,7472 Accessory Eudorina 11,6766 2,2741 0,1565 0,9070 95,6542 Accessory Ulothrix 2,3952 0,4665 0,6967 0,8666 96,5209 Accessory Gyrosygma 7,7844 1,5160 0,2073 0,8523 97,3731 Accessory Closterium 1,4970 0,2915 0,6517 0,6626 98,0358 Accessory Epithenia 0,8982 0,1749 0,5982 0,4918 98,5275 Accessory Gymnodinium 2,0958 0,4082 0,2178 0,4532 98,9808 Accessory Tracholomonas 2,9940 0,5831 0,0682 0,3032 99,2840 Accessory Staurastrum 1,7964 0,3499 0,0202 0,1277 99,4117 Accessory Nitzschia 5,6886 1,1079 0,0064 0,1276 99,5393 Accessory Volvox 4,4910 0,8746 0,0050 0,1007 99,6400 Accessory Coelastrum 1,1976 0,2332 0,0102 0,0742 99,7142 Accessory Sphaeroplea 0,2994 0,0583 0,0257 0,0588 99,7730 Accessory anabeana 1,7964 0,3499 0,0027 0,0466 99,8196 Accessory Diatoma 3,2934 0,6414 0,0013 0,0432 99,8628 Accessory Chroococcus 2,3952 0,4665 0,0014 0,0386 99,9014 Accessory Surirella 0,8982 0,1749 0,0027 0,0329 99,9342 Accessory Scenedesmus 0,8982 0,1749 0,0008 0,0181 99,9523 Accessory Phacus 0,2994 0,0583 0,0016 0,0146 99,9669 Accessory Eunotia 0,8982 0,1749 0,0004 0,0119 99,9788 Accessory Tetracyclus 0,2994 0,0583 0,0009 0,0111 99,9899 Accessory Oedogonium 0,2994 0,0583 0,0008 0,0101 100,0000 Accessory As to the classification of prey in function of size classes, the preferential prey of the beach 88 952 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. Table 4: Index and classification of the prey of planctonophage regime of Sarotherodon galilaeus depending on the size of 88 to 125 mm Proies Fi Ni Pi MFi% MFi% Régime cumulé Mougeotia 21,0526 4,0268 42,5330 20,3820 20,3820 Préférentiel peridinium 37,4269 7,1588 22,6730 19,8416 40,2236 Préférentiel Œufs d'helminthes 23,9766 4,5861 20,3941 15,0618 55,2854 Préférentiel Cymbella 75,4386 14,4295 3,1062 10,4266 65,7120 Secondaire Cosmarium 60,8187 11,6331 3,4352 9,8452 75,5571 Secondaire Navicula 59,6491 11,4094 0,3552 3,1352 78,6923 Secondaire Melosira 49,1228 9,3960 0,3217 2,7076 81,4000 Secondaire Synedra 59,0643 11,2975 0,2216 2,4640 83,8639 Secondaire Tribonema 24,5614 4,6980 0,5264 2,4492 86,3131 Secondaire Microcystis sp 20,4678 3,9150 0,3564 1,8397 88,1528 Secondaire Sphaerocystisb 9,9415 1,9016 0,5482 1,5901 89,7428 Accessoire Xanthidium 5,8480 1,1186 0,9056 1,5675 91,3103 Accessoire Euastrum 12,2807 2,3490 0,3567 1,4256 92,7359 Accessoire Ulothrix 2,3392 0,4474 0,9947 1,0390 93,7749 Accessoire Eudorina 13,4503 2,5727 0,1543 0,9813 94,7562 Accessoire Gyrosigma 10,5263 2,0134 0,1916 0,9673 95,7235 Accessoire Pinnularia 5,2632 1,0067 0,3746 0,9563 96,6799 Accessoire Nostoc 2,3392 0,4474 0,8347 0,9517 97,6316 Accessoire Epithenia 1,1696 0,2237 1,0690 0,7616 98,3932 Accessoire Closterium 1,7544 0,3356 0,4904 0,6318 99,0250 Accessoire Staurastrum 2,9240 0,5593 0,0337 0,2138 99,2388 Accessoire Gymnodinium 1,1696 0,2237 0,0612 0,1822 99,4210 Accessoire Nitzschia 6,4327 1,2304 0,0040 0,1099 99,5309 Accessoire Tracholomonas 0,5848 0,1119 0,0289 0,0885 99,6195 Accessoire Coelastrum 1,1696 0,2237 0,0139 0,0867 99,7062 Accessoire Volvox 2,3392 0,4474 0,0020 0,0470 99,7533 Accessoire Surirella 1,1696 0,2237 0,0040 0,0464 99,7997 Accessoire Chroococcus 2,3392 0,4474 0,0019 0,0452 99,8449 Accessoire Scenedesmus 1,7544 0,3356 0,0015 0,0354 99,8803 Accessoire Diatoma 2,3392 0,4474 0,0009 0,0314 99,9117 Accessoire Phacus 0,5848 0,1119 0,0030 0,0286 99,9403 Accessoire anabeana 1,7544 0,3356 0,0008 0,0250 99,9653 Accessoire Oedogonium 0,5848 0,1119 0,0014 0,0197 99,9850 Accessoire Eunotia 0,5848 0,1119 0,0003 0,0095 99,9946 Accessoire Spirulina 0,5848 0,1119 0,0001 0,0054 100,0000 Accessoire 953 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. Table 5: Index and classification of the prey of planctonophage regime of Sarotherodon galilaeus depending on the size of 126 to 242 mm. Proies Fi Ni Pi MFI% Mfi% cumulé Régime Peridinium 57,5221 12,2642 30,2867 30,5724 30,5724 Préférentiel Mougeotia 15,9292 3,3962 50,8260 20,8414 51,4137 Préférentiel Œufs d’helminthes 26,5487 5,6604 7,6164 10,4155 61,8293 Secondaire Cymbella 73,8938 15,7547 2,0709 9,0609 70,8901 Secondaire Cosmrium 46,0177 9,8113 2,8347 8,3656 79,2558 Secondaire Melosira 46,0177 9,8113 0,2335 2,4012 81,6570 Secondaire Microcystis 24,3363 5,1887 0,4215 2,3459 84,0030 Secondaire Navicula 46,0177 9,8113 0,2097 2,2751 86,2781 Accessoire Nostoc 2,6549 0,5660 1,9965 1,6863 87,9644 Accessoire Tribonema 16,8142 3,5849 0,2867 1,6081 89,5725 Accessoire Synedra 42,4779 9,0566 0,1118 1,5960 91,1685 Accessoire Sphaerocystis 5,7522 1,2264 0,7558 1,5273 92,6958 Accessoire Volvox 9,7345 2,0755 0,1921 1,0016 93,6974 Accessoire Euastrum 7,0796 1,5094 0,2092 0,8915 94,5889 Accessoire Pinnularia 5,3097 1,1321 0,2616 0,8632 95,4521 Accessoire Eudorina 9,7345 2,0755 0,1297 0,8231 96,2752 Accessoire Closterium 1,7699 0,3774 0,5071 0,6939 96,9691 Accessoire Gyrosygma 5,3097 1,1321 0,1366 0,6238 97,5929 Accessoire Gymnodinium 2,2124 0,4717 0,2168 0,5073 98,1002 Accessoire Xanthidium 1,3274 0,2830 0,3255 0,4815 98,5816 Accessoire Ulothrix 1,7699 0,3774 0,2054 0,4416 99,0232 Accessoire Tracholomonas 4,8673 1,0377 0,0675 0,4198 99,4430 Accessoire Nitzschia 3,9823 0,8491 0,0051 0,1040 99,5470 Accessoire Epithenia 0,4425 0,0943 0,0450 0,1034 99,6504 Accessoire Sphaeroplea 0,4425 0,0943 0,0300 0,0844 99,7348 Accessoire anabeana 1,3274 0,2830 0,0027 0,0436 99,7783 Accessoire Coelastrum 0,8850 0,1887 0,0035 0,0405 99,8188 Accessoire Diatoma 3,0973 0,6604 0,0009 0,0390 99,8578 Accessoire Oedogonium 0,4425 0,0943 0,0053 0,0353 99,8931 Accessoire Chroococcus 2,6549 0,5660 0,0008 0,0330 99,9261 Accessoire Staurastrum 0,4425 0,0943 0,0029 0,0264 99,9525 Accessoire Tetracyclus 0,4425 0,0943 0,0011 0,0160 99,9685 Accessoire Surirella 0,4425 0,0943 0,0007 0,0128 99,9814 Accessoire Eunotia 0,8850 0,1887 0,0002 0,0099 99,9912 Accessoire Spirulina 0,4425 0,0943 0,0003 0,0088 100,0000 Accessoire 954 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. The overall analysis of the intestines and stomachs of 411 S. galilaeus caught has shown that on the 37 identified prey (Table 6), the genera Peridinium, Mougeotia and eggs of helminths are ranked as preferential prey, the genera Cymbella, Cosmarium, Navicula and Melosira are identified as secondary prey. The other prey are classified as prey accessories. To compare the planctonophage regime between the size classes as well as that between the seasons, their coefficient of correlation was searched from the multivariate applications of the software Statistica. The regression of the planctonophage regime between the dry season and the rainy season has registered a correlation coefficient r = 0.889 (Figure 3). The simple regression, used to compare the regime planctonophage between the size classes (Figure 4) gave a correlation coefficient of r=0.973 between the two classes. Table 6: planctonophage regime of Sarotherodon galilaeus of the Ziga dam, indices and classification of prey. Proies Fi Ni Pi Mfi% MFi% Régime Cumulé Peridinium 48,7437 9,9385 27,4050 25,8453 25,8453 Préférentiel Mougeotia 18,0905 3,6885 47,6912 20,7707 46,6161 Préférentiel Œufs d’helminthes 25,3769 5,1742 12,4655 12,5771 59,1932 Préférentiel Cymbella 74,3719 15,1639 2,4420 9,5298 68,7230 Secondaire Cosmrium 52,2613 10,6557 3,0631 8,9470 77,6700 Secondaire Navicula 51,7588 10,5533 0,2649 2,6185 80,2885 Secondaire Melosira 47,2362 9,6311 0,2670 2,5115 82,8000 Secondaire Microcystis 22,6131 4,6107 0,3969 2,1185 84,9185 Secondaire Synedra 49,4975 10,0922 0,1534 1,9488 86,8674 Accessoire Tribonema 20,1005 4,0984 0,3777 1,9484 88,8157 Accessoire Sphaerocystis 7,5377 1,5369 0,6772 1,5977 90,4134 Accessoire Nostoc 2,5126 0,5123 1,5562 1,3983 91,8117 Accessoire Euastrum 9,2965 1,8955 0,2652 1,1104 92,9221 Accessoire Xanthidium 3,2663 0,6660 0,5456 0,9440 93,8662 Accessoire Pinnularia 5,2764 1,0758 0,3045 0,8963 94,7625 Accessoire Eudorina 11,3065 2,3053 0,1391 0,8868 95,6492 Accessoire Gyrosygma 7,0352 1,4344 0,1575 0,7444 96,3936 Accessoire Ulothrix 2,0101 0,4098 0,5049 0,7124 97,1060 Accessoire Closterium 1,7588 0,3586 0,5009 0,6637 97,7697 Accessoire Volvox 6,5327 1,3320 0,1200 0,6262 98,3958 Accessoire Epithenia 0,7538 0,1537 0,4335 0,4042 98,8001 Accessoire Gymnodinium 1,7588 0,3586 0,1578 0,3726 99,1726 Accessoire Tracholomonas 3,0151 0,6148 0,0529 0,2823 99,4549 Accessoire Nitzschia 5,0251 1,0246 0,0047 0,1084 99,5633 Accessoire Staurastrum 1,5075 0,3074 0,0146 0,1050 99,6683 Accessoire Coelastrum 1,0050 0,2049 0,0074 0,0610 99,7293 Accessoire 955 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. Sphaeroplea 0,2513 0,0512 0,0186 0,0484 99,7776 Accessoire Chroococcus 2,5126 0,5123 0,0012 0,0387 99,8163 Accessoire anabeana 1,5075 0,3074 0,0019 0,0383 99,8546 Accessoire Diatoma 2,7638 0,5635 0,0009 0,0355 99,8901 Accessoire Oedogonium 0,5025 0,1025 0,0038 0,0309 99,9210 Accessoire Surirella 0,7538 0,1537 0,0019 0,0270 99,9480 Accessoire Scenedesmus 0,7538 0,1537 0,0006 0,0149 99,9629 Accessoire Phacus 0,2513 0,0512 0,0011 0,0120 99,9749 Accessoire Eunotia 0,7538 0,1537 0,0003 0,0098 99,9847 Accessoire Tetracyclus 0,2513 0,0512 0,0007 0,0092 99,9938 Accessoire Spirulina 0,502513 0,102459 0,00015163 0,00617264 100 Accessoire Figure 3: The coefficients of correlations of prey ingested by Sarotherodon galilaeus in dry season and the rainy season, based on the relative abundance 956 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. Figure 4: correlation coefficients of the prey ingested by Sarotherodon galilaeus depending on the size (88 3. DISCUSSION The intestinal coefficient (4, 39-11, 65) of fish caught indicates that S. galilaeus belongs to the class of fish of trophic levels microphytophages/macrophages/limivores. In effect, this coefficient tract corroborates the work of Paugy27 and Lagler et al.33, which identify the trophic level of the animals according to the size of the coefficient intestinal tract. According Lagler et al.33,, the intestine is short for carnivores and long in herbivores because the digestion is longer for prey of plant origin and shorter in that of animal origin. As to Paugy27, these works have helped to identify in the aquatic ecosystems, in function of the Intestinal coefficients, the macrophages/ macrophages (1,83-7,00), the limivores (10,00-17,00), the (piscivorous 0.78-1,10), the invertivores (0,73-0,93), the omnivores (0,80-1,32) and zooplanctonophages (0,70-0,8). On the basis of these coefficients intestinal, the author brings together the species into three major trophic levels: herbivores have an intestinal length at least two to eight times higher than the standard size of the species; the limivores or strict périphytophages have an intestinal length at least ten times greater than the standard length and all other species have an intestinal length less than three times the length of the bowel. In the light of these beaches of class, it appears that S. galilaeus is microphage but would also at the edge of the limivores. In effect, Johnson 34 has shown in its work that S. galilaeus is a microphage including algae form the preponderant part of its diet but also feed, very little of higher plants. 957 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. The work of Lausanne and Iltis35 have shown that S.galilaeus is a filter feeders that selects the algae within his regime. The microscope analysis of 411 Intestines and stomachs of S. galilaeus, corroborates closely the work of these authors.In effect, we have identified in the plan planctonophage of S. galilaeus, 37 types of algae.(Table 6). Among these prey items identified: two types of algae are only preferential (Peridinium and Mougeotia), five are secondary (Cymbella, Cosmrium, Navicula, Melosira, and Microcystis) and the other constitute the prey accessories. These results show that S. galilaeus is very selective even among the algae consumed 35.The genus Peridinium of the phylum Pyrrophyta is one of the preferential prey despite the low representation of the branch line (10, 304%). The eggs of helminths also represent 5,204% but constitute preferential prey of the species; that is to say of prey whose absence in the middle of the species would disrupt its functions of growth, reproduction, etc. Berg32. The coefficients of Emptiness (Table 6) very bottom of S. galilaeus indicate its ability to search for same, during the periods of famine (winter period), its preferential prey to ensure its physiological functions and growth. According to the El Bakali et al.36, the low index values of the coefficient of emptiness are an indicator of the availability of prey, or the frequency of activities trophic the species. In the present case, the low emptiness indicates the frequency of the activities trophic S. galilaeus. It is thus to be found in the intestines and stomachs of the latter, the eggs of helminths, classified among the preferential prey. While these eggs represent only 5,204% of the constituent groups of prey (Figure 2).These prey of shoreline often dandruff ingredients, encountered in its diet, corroborate the work of Johnson34. In effect, this author indicates that this fish although excellent filter feeders can also feed in the depends on the detrital film of the substance or graze the biological coverage of hard substrate. In order to determine the stability of the regime planctonophage of S. galilaeus, the grading scale (MFI% cumulative) of Rosecchi and Nouaze26 has been applied to his regime in function of the seasons (dry seasons and wet) and the size (juvenile and adult) of fish caught (Tables 2,3,4and 5).A regression of the regime of the dry season and the rainy season and another applied on the variation of assorted sizes of coefficients of correlation, have helped to support the hypothesis for which S. galilaeus did not vary its regime in function of the time and the size (Figure 3 and 4). In effect, Table 3 highlights 35 prey consumed by S. galilaeus during the dry season. Among these prey, there are three types of preferential alga (Peridinium and Mougeotia) and eggs of helminths. The Genera Cymbella and Cosmarium are secondary and the 30 other prey are accessories.Table 6 of the rainy season indicates 24 genera of algae consumed by S. galilaeus in the rainy season. There are two distinct preferential prey (Mougeotia and Peridinium) and a secondary prey (Cosmarium). The other 21 prey are accessories. The regression of the dry season and the rainy season performed from the index of relative abundance shows no grouping of prey per season. A strong correlation coefficient r= 0.889 (Figure 3), shows that there is a perfect relationship between the prey consumed in the dry season and those of the rainy season by S. galilaeus. The expression of Table 5 is the highlight of 35 genera of algae identified in the analysis of the intestines and stomachs of S. galilaeus of size in the range 88 958 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. regime as a function of the size, Table 6 indicates no discrimination between the prey consumed in relation to the variation in the size. Figure 4 shows a strong correlation coefficient r= 0,957 between the size classes considered, showing that there is a close relationship between prey consumed regardless of the size of S. galilaeus. The analysis of the diet below made shows that the preferential algae, secondary and accessories of the fish are in majority, those harmful to the quality of the water (odour, taste, clogging of filters) and human health (production of toxins).The types of algae in the diet of S. galilalaeus as: Peridinium (preferential prey), Cosmarium (secondary prey) Synedra (secondary prey), Melosira, (secondary prey), Anabeana (prey accessories), Microcystis (prey accessories), Scenedesmus (prey accessories) and Volvox (prey accessories), are also described by the authors: Proulx et al.37 and S. D. Lin38 as prey producing the tastes and odours in drinking water. These organoleptic flavors lead the more part of consumers to reject the tap water Proulx et al., (2010).In the regime of S. galilaeus, several types of algae have been found and according to the work of certain authors, these kinds of prey produce toxins 39, 40, 41 which are incompatible with the Human and Animal Health 3,6,39,42- 45. These types of algae belong to the phylum Cyanophyta and are composed essentially of: Nostoc (prey accessory), Microcystis (secondary prey), Anabeana (prey accessory) and Chroococcus (prey accessory). Some colmatrices prey of the sand filters of the stations for the treatment of drinking water13 have also been found in the stomachs and intestines of S. galilaeus. This clogging leads to frequent stops of the stations to be cleaned. This cleaning incurs additional costs to the company and of the Sludge of draining whose management imposes strict rules to be observed to prevent pollution of ecosystems 14, 19. It also creates enormous losses in drinking water. These prey observed in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are consisting essentially of the Genera: Peridinium (prey preferential), Cymbella (secondary prey) Synedra (secondary prey), Navicula (secondary prey), Melosira, (secondary prey), Diatoma (prey accessory), Tracholomonas (prey accessory), Microcystis (prey secodaire) and Anabeana (prey accessory).it is also wise to note the importance of eggs of helminths that are prey of preferential S. galilaeus. These eggs of helminths (egg of Ascaris) constitute up to now in the developing countries a public health problem. In view of the nature of the prey (production of toxins, taste, smell and colmatrices of filters) ingested by S. galilaeus and the category of prey identified (preferential and secondary) of fish: (Peridinium, Cymbella, Cosmarium, Navicula, Melosira, Synedra Tribonema, Diatoma, Mougeotia, Microcystis, Anabeana, Tracholomonas, eggs of helminths), we can without doubt say that this fish has a broad spectrum of action on the predation of algae and the eggs of helminths, harmful to the quality of the water.The predation of Mougeotia as prey preferential, allows the balance of this kind of algae and avoids the algal blooms which in contact with the chlorine used for the disinfection of the water, often produces Trihalomethanes (thms) and halogenated acids ( Haas) in drinking water15 which are incompatible in human health 16-18. The eggs of helminths were identified as preferential prey of S.galilaeus and not a contamination of the species because they are totally absent in the 7 stomachs and intestines empty 411 fish caught. These eggs of helminths in the case those of Ascaris found in the stomachs and intestines of S. galilaeus evolve in larvae, then in adults in the host that the ingest through drinking water. They are in the country to moderate hygiene a public health problem46. They can move easily in drinking water when turbidity do not comply with the required standards that is to say less than 1 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU).The predation of these eggs by S. galilaeus constitutes a biological barrier important in the management of the eggs of helminths in the tanks of water catchment and lines of supply of raw water. 959 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. CONCLUSION The work done on the regime planctonophage of S. galilaeus has allowed to study its coefficient intestinal tract. The relative length of the latter is 11, 6 times greater than the length standard to classify according to the work of some authors in the trophic Gilde of fish macrophages, macrophages and at the edge of the limivores.The analysis of stomach contents and intestinal disorders has allowed to highlight for the first time the regime planctonophage of S. galilaeus of lake Ziga dam. Indeed, on 41 genera of algae identified in the lake of Ziga dam, 37 are found in the stomach contents intestinal and analyzed. It has also been demonstrated that most of the preferential prey (Peridinium, Mougeotia, eggs of helminths) and secondary (Microcystis, Cymbella, Cosmrium, Navicula, Melosira, Microcystis, Synedra and tribonema) of S. galilaeus are algae colmatrices of filters, producing toxins, tastes, odours in drinking water, or algal blooms with repetition and/ or harmful to human health. Anything that militates to the use of this species for the improvement of the quality of the catchment tanks, surface water, operated for the purpose of drinking water.According to the work of some authors, the fish can vary their diet according to the size or periods of abundance of prey. This variation in diet, is a limiting factor to their use as a biological control agent. The comparison of the regime planctonophage of S. galilaeus by the correlation coefficients and of MFI% cumulative, between the seasons (dry season and rainy season) and between the size classes (88 1. A. Itlis, Les algues. In: Durand J.-R. & Lévêque C. (Eds.) : Flore et faune aquatiques de l’Afrique Sahélo-Soudanienne. Tom. I, édit. ORSTOM – Collection Initiation Document techniques, 1980, 44, 9-61. 2. P. Bourrelly, Les algues d’eau douce. Initiation à la systématique. Tome I : Les algues vertes. Edition N. BOUBEE & Cie, 1996, 3, Paris VIe 511 P. 3. K. Sivonen, and G. Jones, Cyanobacterial Toxins. In Chorus, I. and Bartram, J., Toxic Cyanobacteria in Water: A Guide to their Public Health Consequences, Monitoring and Management 1999, 41-111. London, E & FN Spon. 4. Chlorus et J. Bartran, Toxic Cyanobacteria in water. A guide to the public health consequences, monitoring and management” Publié au nom de l’OMS en 1999 par J. Chlorus et J. Bartran , (E et FN Spon). 5. J.F. Briand, S. Jacquet, C. Bernard and J.F. Humbert, Health hazards for terrestrial vertebrates from toxic cyanobacteria in surface water ecosystems. Veterinary 960 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. Research 2003, 34: 361-377 6. T. W. Lambert, C.F.B Holmes et S. E. Hrudey, Microcystin class toxins: health effects and safety of drinking water supplies. Environmental Revew. 1994, 2: 167-186. 7. P. Charbonier, Évaluation et gestion du risque lié à la consommation de coquillages contaminés par les phycotoxines. ecole nationale veterinaire d’alfort. 2006, 122. 8. Brient L., Raoult C., Le Rouzic B., Vézie C. & Bertru C., 2001. Conditions d’utilisation du CuSO4 pour limiter les proliférations de cyanobactéries et réduire ses effets sur l’environnement. TSM (9), 66-74. 9. H. Fujuki, M. Suganuma, H. Suguri, S. Yoshizawa, K. Takagi, M. Nakayasu, M. Ojika, K. Yamada, T. Yasumoto, R.E. Moore, and T. Sugimura, New tumor promoters from marine natural products. In Hall, S. and Strichartz, G, Marine toxins: origin, structure and molecular pharmacology1990, 232-240. Washington, American Chemical Society. 10. E. Ito, M. Satake and T. Yasumoto, Pathological effects of lyngbyatoxin A upon mice. Toxicon, 2002, 40, n° 5, 551-556. 11. J.P. Devlin, O.E. Edwards, P.R. Gorham, N.R. Hunter, R.K. Pike and B. Starvic,. Anatoxin-a, a toxic alkaloid from Anabaena flos-aquae NRC-44h. Canadian Journal of Chemistry, vol. 1977, 55, n° 8, p. 1367-1371. 12. F. Proulx, M.J. Rodriguez, J.B. Sérodes Et L.F. Miranda, Factors influencing public perception and water use of municipal drinking water. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supp., 2010, 10, 472-485. 13. APHA, Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 16th edition. American Public Health Association, Washington DC, 1985. 14. NEYA Bapiyan Augustin, KABRE Tinkoudou André Jean, SAWADOGO Moumouni, 2017a. Première mise en évidence de l’émergence des algues dans le continuum d’adduction d’eau brute des stations de traitement pour la surveillance de la qualité de l’eau potable: cas du lac de barrage de ziga. Journal of chemical, biological and physical science; section D: environnement et science; DOI: https://doi.org/10.24214/jcbps.D.7.3.53958. 15. J. Milot, M. J. Rodriguez, et J. B. Sérodes,. Modeling the susceptibility of drinking water utilities to form high concentrations of trihalomethanes, Journal of Environmental Management, 2000, 60, 155-171. 16. Mills, J. Christina, J. Richard Bull, P. Kenneth Cantor, John Reif, Steve E. Hrudey, et Patricia Huston., “ Risques pour la santé liés à la consommation de sous-produits de la chloration de l’eau potable: rapport d’un groupe d’experts ”. Maladies chroniques au Canada, 1998, 10,0.3, 103-115 17. Morris, Robert D., Anne-Marie Audet, Italo F. Angelillo, Thomas C. Chalmers et Frederick Mosteller., 1992. “Chlorination, chlorination by-product and cancer:a meta-analysis ”. American Journal Public Health, vol. 82, no. 7, p. 955-963. 18. Bisson, Sylvie, et Danielle Gaudreau. 1992. La consommation de l’eau potable et la santé: évaluation critique de l’état de la question selon la littérature épidémiologique. Centre hospitalier Valleyfield, Département de santé communautaire, 131 p. 19. NEYA Bapiyan Augustin, KABRE Tinkoudou André Jean, SAWADOGO Moumouni, Nouvelle methode d’analyse et de suivi de l’émergence des algues dans le continuum d’adduction d’eau potable de la station de traitement d’eau brute du lac de barrage de ziga au burkina faso. Journal 961 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. of chemical, biological and physical science2017b; section D: environnement et science; DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.3.65988. 20. Mathias de Kouassi, « La lutte biologique une alternative viable à l’utilisation des pesticides? », VertigO - la revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement [En ligne], Volume 2 Numéro 2 | octobre 2001, mis en ligne le 01 octobre 2001, consulté le 01 mai 2015. URL : http://vertigo.revues.org/4101 ; DOI : 10.4000/vertigo.4101 21. J.C. HUREAU, 1970. — Biologie comparée de quelques poissons antarctiques (Nototheniidae). — Bull. Inst. océanogr. Monaco 68 (1391): 1-250. 22. V. Holisova,. The foods eaten by a rodents in red swamps of Nesyt fishpond. Zool. Listy, 1975, 24: 223-237. 23. L. Lauzanne, — Régimes alimentaires d'Hydrocyon forskalii (pisces.Characidae) dans le lac Tchadet ses tributaires Cah. O.R.S.T.O.M., Sér.Hydrobiol. 1975, 9: 105-121. 24. E.J. Hyslop, — Stomach contents analysis. A review of methods and their application. — J. Fish. Biol. 1980, 17 : 411-429 25. CD. Zander, Feeding ecology of littoral gobiid and blennioid fish of the Banyuls area (Mediterranean Sea) I main food and trophic dimension of niche and ecotope. Vie et Milieu. 1982, 32:1-10 26. E. Rosecchi Et Y. Nouaze, Comparaison de cinq indices alimentaires utilizes dans l’analyse des contenus stomacaux. Rev. Trav. Inst. Pêche marit. 1987, 49 (3-4) : 111-123 27. D. Paugy, 1994. Écologie des poissons tropicaux d’un cours d’eau temporaire (Baoulé, haut bassin du Sénégal au Mali) : adaptation au milieu et plasticité du régime alimentaire. Rev. Hydrobiol. trop. 27 (2): 157-172. 28. A.A.A. Ugwamba & A. Adebis, The food and feeding ecology of Sarotherodon melanotheron (Ruppell) in a small freshwater reservoir in Ibadan, Nigeria. Arch. Hydrobioi., 1992, 124 (3) : 367-382. 29. E.P. Kouamélan, L’effet du lac de barrage Ayamé (Côte d’Ivoire) sur la distribution et l’écologie alimentaire des poissons Mormyridae (Teleostei, Osteoglossiformes). PhD. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgique. 1999, 221. 30. A. OUEDA. Zooplancton et écologie alimentaire des poissons de lacs artificiels de Bagré et de Loumbila (Burkina Faso). Thèse unique. Université d’Ouagadougou. 2009, 157p. 31. D. Paugy, C. Et Leveque, Régimes alimentaires et réseaux trophiques. In : Les poissons des eaux continentales africaines : Diversité, écologie, utilisation par l’homme. C. Lévêque et D. Paugy (Eds), Editions IRD, ISBN/2-7099-1432-8, pp. 167-190. Persson, P. E. (1983). Off-flavours in aquatic ecosystem-an introduction. Water Science & Technology, 1999, 15(6/7), 1-11. 32. J. BERG, Discussion of methods of investigating the food of fishes, with reference to a preliminary study of the food of Gobiusculus flauescens (Gobiidae). Mar. Biol., 1979, 50: 263- 273. 33. K.F. Lagler, J.E. Bardach, & R.R. Miller, Ichthyology. New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 1962, 230. 34. Johnson (R.P.), Synopsis of biological data on Sarotherodon galilaeus F.A.O. Fisherie synopsis, Rome, 1974. 90, 51. 35. L. Lausanne, A. Iltis, La sélection de la nourriture chez Tilapia galilea du lac de Tchad. Cah. O.R.S.T.O.M., sér.Hydrobiologie., 1975, IX, n°3 : 193-199 962 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.] Demonstration … NEYA Bapiyan Augustin et al. 36. El M. Bakali, M. Talbaoui., A. et BBendrissa,. Régima alimentaire du Rouget de roche (Mullus surmuletus L.) (Téléostéen, M ullidae) de la cote nor-ouest méditerranéenne du Maroc. Bull. Inst. Sci., Rabat, 2010, 32: 87-93 37. F. Proulx, M.J. Rodriguez, J.B. Sérodes Et L.F. Miranda, 2010. Factors influencing public perception and water use of municipal drinking water. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supp., 10, 472- 485. 38. S. D. Lin,. Tastes and Odors in Water Supplies; a review by S. D. Lin. Illinois State water survey Urbana, ISWS/CIR-127/77, Circular 127 State of Illinois Department of Registration and Education: Printed by authority of the State of Illinois-Cb. 127, IRS, Par. 1977, 58.29 (6-77-2000) 50P. 39. TN Duy, PKS Lam, , GR Shaw, DW Connell. Toxicologie and risk assessment of freshwater Cyanobacterial (blue-green algal) toxins in water. Rev. Contam Toxicology. 2000, 163:113-186. 40. Carmichael, W.W., 2001. Health effects of toxin-producing cyanobacteria: "The CyanoHABs". Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 7, 5, 1393-1407. 41. M. Leitão & A. Couté (eds),. Guide pratique des cyanobactéries du Grand Ouest de la France. Nanterre,Agence de l’Eau Seine Normandie. 2005, 63 p. 42. WW. Carmichael,. The toxins of cyanobacteria. Scientific American, 1994, 270(1): 78-86. 43. GA Codd, JS Metcalf, et KA Beattie, 1999. Retention of microcystis aeruginosa and microcystin by salad lettuce (lactuca sativa) after spray irrigation with water containing cyanobacteria Toxicon. 37: 1181-1185 44. I. Chorus, I.R. Falconer, H.J. Salas, and J. Bartram, 2000. Health risks caused by freshwater cyanobacteria in recreational waters. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health - Part B: Critical Reviews, vol. 3, n° 4, p. 323-347. 45. Z. Su, M. Sheets, H. Ishida, , F. Li, and W.H. Barry, 2004. Saxitoxin Blocks L-Type ICa. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, vol. 308, n° 1, p. 324-329 46. ANOFEL, 2014. Association Française des Enseignants de Parasitologie et Mycologie. Ascaridiose. Université Médicale Virtuelle Francophone. 6 p * Corresponding author: Neya Bapiyan Augustin Laboratoire de surveillance environnementale de l'Office National de l’Eau et de Assainissement au Burkina Faso (ONEA) On line publication Date: 30.09.2017 963 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, August 2017 – October, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 4; 944-963, DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.7.4.94463.]