Monitoring and assessment of pollution load in surface water of River Ganga around Kanpur, India: A study for suitability of this water for different uses

Journal Pre-proof Monitoring and assessment of pollution load in surface water of River Ganga around Kanpur, India: A study for suitability of this water for different uses Vandana Singh, Nem Kumar Ngpoore, Jai Chand, Alok Lehri

PII: DOI: Reference:

S2352-1864(19)30622-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2020.100676 ETI 100676

To appear in:

Environmental Technology & Innovation

Received date : 26 September 2019 Revised date : 3 February 2020 Accepted date : 9 February 2020 Please cite this article as: V. Singh, N.K. Ngpoore, J. Chand et al., Monitoring and assessment of pollution load in surface water of River Ganga around Kanpur, India: A study for suitability of this water for different uses. Environmental Technology & Innovation (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2020.100676. This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V.

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

Monitoring and assessment of pollution load in surface water of River Ganga around Kanpur, India: a study for suitability of this water for different uses Vandana Singha,* Nem Kumar Ngpooreb, Jai Chanda, Alok Lehria a

Central Instrumentation Facility, CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, 226001, India Pharmacology, CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, 226001, India

rna lP

b

Jou

*Dr. Vandana Singh, Ph.D National Botanical Research Institute, (Council of Scientific & Industrial Research) Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow-226001 (U.P.), India E-mail: [email protected]

1

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

ABSTRACT

A study was conducted during April 2016–March 2017 to evaluate the surface water quality of River Ganga at selected Ghats (stairway in India leading down to a landing on the water) of Kanpur by analyzing the water samples for physico-chemical Cr, Cd, Pb, As, Se, Mn, Fe, Co,

rna lP

properties with emphasis on heavy metals. The metals detected were:

Ni, Cu, Zn, and Mo whose concentrations ranged between 27.85-37, ND-2.92, 21.85-166.62, 39.49-129.49, 3.02-23.96, 18.20335.69±9, 836-8074, 0.53-3.40, 12.41-238.70, 23.62-256.36, 54.18-213, 19.2-454.54 µgl−1, respectively. Of all the metals found at the study site, the concentration of Cr, Fe Cu, As and Pb in all the samples were higher than the limit prescribed by Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS) and World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) for drinking water, water for aquatic life and that for irrigation. The results of pollution indices, show that the river water is not suitable for drinking, aquatic life even not for irrigation uses except at Bithoor and Sarsaiyaghat where it was slightly to moderately affected and can be use for irrigation purpose only after proper treatment.

Jou

Keywords: metals. seasonal variation. River Ganga. pollution indices

2

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

rna lP

Introduction

Ganga is the longest river of India and due to the ease of accessibility of water throughout the year, it is the lifeline of millions of people living along its bank and depends on it for their livelihood. It provides water for drinking and irrigation to around 40% of the Indian population but presently it is considered as the fifth most polluted river in the world. Surface waters are most vulnerable to contamination due to their easy accessibility for the disposal of waste/ wastewater (Bhattacharya et al., 2008; Hejabi et al., 2011). Both human activity (industrial, and agricultural release and urbanization), as well as natural processes (weathering,

and

precipitation) degrade the quality of surface waters used for various purposes (Pandey et al., 2009; Aktar et al., 2010; Lokhande et al., 2011). Water is a good solvent for numerous chemicals and hence gets easily polluted with these chemicals (Tiwari and Ali 1988; Aktar et al., 2010).

Kanpur is the most populous city and is the largest industrial hub of Uttar Pradesh, India. It is well-known for its leather manufacturing but innumerable tanneries, textile mills, distilleries, chemical plants, slaughterhouses contribute to the pollution of

Jou

Ganga by releasing untreated waste into it (Bhatnagar et al., 2013; Madhulekha 2016). The industry is the worst polluter of Ganga as 3

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

it contaminates it with a heavy load of toxic chemicals and heavy metals (Katiyar 2011; Madhulekha 2016; Hussain & Rao., 2018). In the water bodies, heavy metals are the reason of grave concern due to their biomagnifications up to higher trophic levels (Jain, 1978; Paul, 2017). These heavy metals cause formation of tumours, gastrointestinal, muscular, reproductive, neurological, and hereditary disorders (Johnson 1998; Matos et al., 2017; Genthe et al., 2018; Dwivedi et al., 2018).

Consequently, assessing the concentration of these metals is of prime importance in evaluating human health and also that of the surrounding environment. Though a number of reports on the assessment of water quality have been published by numerous researchers (Miller et al. 1986; Tiwari and Ali 1988; Sharma et al. 1996; Bordalo et al. 2001), but information is scanty about availability of non biodegradable pollutants at different locations of river Ganga passing through Kanpur.

The Indo-Gangetic plain is a heavily populated expanse and one of the largest groundwater repositories (Srivastava et al.,

rna lP

2015) on the earth but growing population, extensive urbanization, and industrialization in the region are causing serious concern for the growing levels of heavy metals in Ganga River (Singh et al. 2005; Singh and Pandey 2014; Jaiswal and Pandey, 2019). The aim of this study is to assess the status of metals in surface waters of different Ghats of Ganga River around Kanpur and evaluate the suitability of this water for different uses. 1. Materials and Methods

1.1. Study site description and sampling

The study area is the Gangetic stretch of Kanpur which is located between 26°28′ N latitude and 80°21′ E longitude. In Kanpur, River Ganga enters at Bithoor and passes all the way through several Ghats, takes the exit at Jajmau, covering a distance of 24 km. Therefore, in this study we selected the stretch between Bithoor (upper stream) and Jajmau (down stream). A survey of the study site was performed to identify sampling points from different Ghats of the river at Kanpur Uttar

Jou

Pradesh, India. Five sites were selected including: Jajmau (26.46° N & 80.35° E), Sarsaiyaghat (oN 26.28o N &80.21o E), 4

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

Bhairoghat ( 26.29oN & 80.20o E), Ganga barrage (not taken due to prohibition) and Bithoor (26.61°N & 80.27°E) for the study. The climate of Kanpur is marked characteristically by three different seasons namely summer (March-June) rainy (July-October) and winter seasons (November-February). Summer sampling was carried out during May 2016, rainy sampling during September

Fig 1: Study sites

rna lP

2016 and winter sampling during January 2017.

Samples were collected from surface water at around 2 cm depth from different regions of the river. Two locations were selected at each Ghat for the study—one at the midstream of the river and the other at a discharge point near the river bank.The sampling was carried out by collecting about six lites of water from each location in glass bottles.prior to sampling, sampling bottles were washed with 10%v/v HNO3 and then rinsed three times with deionized water. Surface water samples from river bank, collected directly into

Jou

sample container by facing upstream without disturbing bottom sediments. Mid stream water sampling was also done by same method 5

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

with the help of boat. Samples were randomly collected from five places of each sampling point and were preserved with the addition of concentrated HNO3 at 2 ml l-1. 1.2. Physico-chemical analyses

Electrical conductivity (EC), pH, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), dissolved oxygen(DO), total dissolved solids (TDS), and total suspended solids (TSS) were done according to standard procedure (APHA, 2012; Kataria et al., 2006).

1.3. Heavy metal analysis

For heavy metal analysis 250 ml of water sample was poured into a beaker to which 5 ml nitric acid (HNO3) was added. The beaker was placed on a hot plate at 95oC and the sample was digested till its volume was around 7 ml. To the digested sample 1% HNO3

rna lP

was added and the contents were filtered in to a volumetric flask through a Whatman 42 filter paper. The volume of filtrate was made up to 25 ml with 1% HNO3. Individual metal were determined using an Inductively Coupled Mass Spectrometer (ICPMS), 7500, Agilent, Japan. Desired concentration of standard metal solution were prepared by diluting 1000 mg l-1 stock (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) in 2% HNO3. Too avoid contamination of samples, all PTFE ,materials (Teflon vessels, pipetts,micropipette tips and auto sampler cups) were immersed in freshly prepared 15% v/v pro analysis HNO3 for 24 h, then rinsed thoroughly with doubly deionized water, and dried in a dust free area before use. Prior to analysis, the instruments were calibrated to ensure that it was operating within the acceptable ranges where the quality control (QC) standards and standard reference material (SRM) were analyzed. Then the instrument was allowed time to rinse between 1 to 2 minutes between each sample. The data obtained were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) one way followed by Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT) at p<0.05 levels using SPSS 16.0 software to assess the effect of the factors like season, location, or point of sampling. In this study, a

Jou

comparison was made between the concentration of heavy metals present in surface water of River Ganga at Kanpur, with the

6

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

highest permissible limit fixed by Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (Table 4) for drinking water, water for aquatic life and those for irrigation water (BIS, 2012; WHO, 2011; FAO, 2013). Maximum acceptable limit of Co for drinking water and Cr, As, Se, Mo, and Co for water for aquatic life are not available. 1.4. Risk assessment by pollution indices approach Heavy metal pollution Index (HPI)

HPI is a tool to categories the aquatic system showing the combined effect of heavy metals on water quality (Tiwari et al. 2015). HPI can be demarcated into four classes (Edet and Offiong, 2002; Prasad and Bose, 2001; Mohan et al., 1996)namely excellent (<15),

rna lP

good (<15–30) poor (> 30), not suitable (>100). HPI was calculated by using the following equation:

HPI=

where

Qn refers to the quality rating of nth water quality parameter, Wn refers to the unit weight of nth water quality parameter.

Jou

Qn is calculated using the mathematical equation

7

Qn =

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

Where Vn is the monitored value of nth parameter, Vi the ideal value for the nth parameter [Vi = 0, except for pH (Vi = 7) and DO (Vi = 14.6 mg/l)], Vs is the standard permissible value for the same. Unit weight (Wn) is calculated using the formula

rna lP

Wn = k/Vs

Here k is calculated by using the following equation

k=1/

The critical pollution index value is 100 (Parsad and Bose 2001; Parsad and Kumari 2008).

Jou

Pollution index (PI)

8

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

The pollution index defined as the ratio of the concentration of each studied element and water quality standard for individual metals (Goher et al., 2014). It is categorized into 5 classes (Table 3) according to the following equation (Caerio et al., 2005): √([(Ci/Si)max+(Ci/Si)min]) ----------------------------------2

rna lP

PI=

Ci refers to the concentration of each studied element whereas Si denotes metal concentration level according to Water Quality standards.

Maximum and minimum values of each metal in this index used by selecting maximum and minimum concentration of individual metal during entire monitoring period.

Jou

Metal index (MI)

9

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

In this index, the concentration of a metal present in surface water of a water body is compared to its respective Maximum Permissible Limit (Goher et al., 2014). The threshold warning of MI value is >1 (Bakan et al., 2010) and it is calculated by using the following equation (Tamasi and Cini, 2004):

MI=

rna lP

Ci= Concentration of each element

MPL= Maximum Permissible Limit2. Results and Discussion 2.1. Seasonal variation in the physicochemical properties

One hundred and fifty water samples were collected during April 2016 to March 2017. These samples were analyzed for various water quality parameters along with heavy metals. Statistical analysis shows significant difference (p<0.05) in concentration of various water quality parameters due to seasonal variation. In this study: pH, EC, TSS, TDS, BOD and DO of the water samples ranged between 7.74-9.01, 307-546 µS cm-1, 130-2980 mg l-1, 140-692 mg l-1 , 0.2-3.83 mg l-1 and 0.3-5.53 mg l-1 respectively (Table 1).

The pH of water was higher during summer at Jajmau, Ganga barrage and Bhairoghat, where as statistically similar pH was found during each season at Sarsaiyaghat and Bithoor. Higher pH during summer at some sites may be because of enhanced

Jou

photosynthesis of the algal bloom due to the precipitation of carbonates of magnesium and calcium from bicarbonates (Wani and

10

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

Subla., 1990; Kataria et al., 2006).Statistically similar EC was found at all the study sites, which show that seasonal variation did not affecyed the EC of water. Both pH and EC were within the limit as set by BIS except for pH at Jajmau, where it was high. Statistical analysis shows that seasonal variation did not affected the TSS content at Bithoor, Ganga barrage, and Bhairoghat midstream water. A very high TSS was found at Jajmau during the summer but it was not affected during winter and rainy seasons. Statistical analysis shows that seasonal variation did not affected the TDS content at Sarsaiyaghat and Bhairoghat during winter and rainy season. Higher concentration of TDS was found during the rainy season except at Ganga barrage where TDS was the highest during the summer and was lowest in the winter season. This trend is similar to the trend observed in the study done by Katiyar, S, 2011; Thareja et al., 2011; Tiwari et al., 2016. The elevated concentrations of dissolved solids affects the density of water and also its potability.

rna lP

The DO content ranged between 0.30±0 to 5.33±1.8 mg l-1. Statistical analysis shows that seasonal variation affected the DO content at all the studied Ghats. The DO in the surface water of the river was minimum during summer and maximum during rainy season. High DO during the rainy season may be due to increased solubility of oxygen at lower temperatures (Prasannakumari et al., 2003). The discharge of wastes into water bodies may lead to lowering of DO (Woodward, 1984; Mathuthu et al., 1993). The BOD value of the river ranged between 0.2±0.04 to 3.83±0.29 mg l-1. Statistical analysis shows that seasonal variation affected the BOD content at all the studied Ghats. In this study, the lowest demand for oxygen in water was recorded during summer, while it was highest during the rainy season. The higher value of BOD during the rainy season may be due to presence of organic wastes and enhanced bacterial activity (Kaushik and Saksena., 1999). 2.2. Seasonal variations in metal content

In present study, the distribution of heavy metals at all the study sites showed a wide variation, as depicted in Figures 1-3 and Figure S1& S2. In this study, a total 12 metals namely Cr, Cd, As, Pb, Fe, Mo, Se, Zn, Co, Mn, Ni, Cu were found, out of which some are

Jou

essential nutrients and some are hazardous to the environment and humans.

11

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

Statistical analysis (p<0.05) shows significant difference in concentration of various metals between different seasons. The concentration of metals, namely Cr, Cd, As, Pb, Fe, Mo, Se, Zn, Co, Mn, Ni, Cu in the surface water ranged between 27.85-372, ND-2.92, 39.49-129.49, 21.85-166.62, 836-8074, 19.2-454.54, 3.02-23.96, 54.18-213, 0.53-3.4, 18.2-335.69, 12.41-238.7 and 23.62-256.36 µg l-1respectively.

Data reveal that Cr concentration varied from 27.85-372 µg l-1. The maximum Cr concentrations were 297±4, 372±10, and 178±4 µg l-1 during summer, rainy and winter seasons respectively at Jajmau. There is clear statistical difference in concentration of Cr during each season at Bithoor and Sarsaiyaghat bank water and Jajmau and Bhairoghat mid stream water. Statistical analysis shows that seasonal variation did not affected the concentration of metals at Ganga barrage. At each study site, higher concentration of Cr was found during summer except at Jajmau where higher concentration was found during rainy season. This may be due to runoff from tannery waste near sampling point, during rainy season. In this study, Cr concentration was beyond the acceptable limit

rna lP

of 50 µg l-1 for drinking water as set by BIS, at all the Ghats during summer and winter seasons but was within the acceptable limit during the rainy season at Bithoor, Sarsaiyaghat and Ganga barrage except at Jajmau and Bhairoghat bank. Higher concentration of Cr during all the seasons at Jajmau may be due to discharge of effluents from tanneries. In this study, the Cd concentration ranged between ND-2.92 µg l-1. The maximum Cd concentrations were 2.92±0.17 at Sarsaiyaghat, 1.32±0.1 at Bhairoghat and 1.32±0.1 µg l-1 at Jajmau during summer, rainy and winter seasons respectively. Cadmium was not found at Ganga barrage and Bhairoghat bank during rainy and winter season. Statistical analysis shows that seasonal variation did not affected the concentration of cadmium during winter and rainy season at Bithoor, Sarsaiyaghat and Bhairoghat mid stream water. In this study, Cd concentration at all the study sites was within the acceptable limit of 3 µg l-1 for drinking water 10 µg l-1 for water for irrigation (10 µg l-1) but was beyond the acceptable limit for water for aquatic life (1 µg l-1). The present study showed, that As concentration varied from 39.49-129.49 µg l-1in surface water during the entire study period. The concentrations of As were maximum 129.493±5 at Bhairoghat, 57.65±4.3 at Sarsaiyaghat and 99.82±7 µgl-1 at Ganga

Jou

barrage in summer, rainy and winter seasons respectively and were beyond the acceptable limit (10 µg l-1) as set by BIS for drinking

12

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

water. The As concentration was also beyond the limit (100 µg l-1) as set by FAO for water for irrigation at Bithoor, Sarsaiyaghat , Bhairoghat andganga barrage bank water during summer season and is within the safe limit during winter and rainy season Statistical analysis shows that there was significant (p<0.05) reduction in concentration of As from summer to rainy season. This may be due to dilution of surface water during this season.

In this study, we found that Pb concentration in surface water of the river varied from 21.85-166.62 µg l-1. The maximum Pb concentrations were 166.62±6.6 at Sarsaiyaghat, 65.6±5.5 at Jajmau and 103±4.5 µg l-1 at Sarsaiyaghat in summer, rainy and winter seasons respectively. Statistical analysis shows that highest concentration of Pb was found during summer season followed by winter and rainy season except at Jajmau where highest concentration of Pb was found during rany season followed by summer and winter season. In the study area, all the river water samples had Pb concentration beyond the acceptable limit for drinking water (10

the seasons at all the study sites.

rna lP

µg l-1), for water for aquatic life (7 µg l-1) while it was safe for irrigation as per maximum acceptable limit (5000 µg l-1 ) during all The occurrence of Fe in surface water samples ranged between 836-8074 µg l−1. The maximum Fe concentrations were 8074±287 at Bhairoghat, 4957±157 at Sarsaiyaghat and 6341±182 µg l-1 at Bhairoghat in summer, rainy and winter seasons, respectively. Iron found higher at every site during summer season except at Bhairoghat mid stream water where it was found higher during rainy season. Statistical analysis shows that seasonal variation affected the occurrence of Fe at Bathoor and Bhairoghat bank water only while occurrence Fe did not affected at Sarsaiyaghat bank and mid stream water, Jajmau and Ganga barrage bank water during summer and rainy season. At Bithoor and Jajmau midstream water, seasonal variation did not affected presence of Fe during winter and rainy season where as it was not affected by seasonal variation at Bhairoghat midstream water during summer and winter season. At all the study locations, Fe concentration was beyond the acceptable limit of 300 µg l−1 for drinking water and water for aquatic life (300 µg l−1). However, the iron concentration was within the acceptable limits in irrigation water (5000 µg l−1) and is

Jou

similar as seen in similarly as in the case of lead.

13

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

In the present study, Mo concentration in the surface water of the river ranged between 19.2-454.54 µg l−1. The maximum Mo concentrations were 454.54±16, 28.9±0.7 and 263.56±13 µg l-1in summer, rainy and winter seasons respectively at Bithoor. Statistical analysis shows that seasonal variation affected the occurance of Mo all the study sites. During summer and winter seasons, Mo concentration was beyond the acceptable limit (70 µg l−1) but during the rainy season it was within the limit at all the study locations. In this study, we observed that Se concentration ranged between 3.02-23.96 µg l−1. The maximum Se concentrations were 23.96±1.0 at Bhairoghat, 6.3±0.18 at Jajmau and 9.7±0.38 µg l-1 at Ganga barrage in summer, rainy and winter seasons respectively. Statistical analysis shows that occurance of Se affected by seasonal variation at Bithoor, Sarsaiyaghat, Ganga barrage bank water and Bithoor, Bhairoghat , Jajmau midstream water during entire seasons. Although, at Sarsaiyaghat midstream water, It did not affected by seasonal variation between summer and rainy season where as occurance of Se did not affected by seasonal variation at Bithhor bank in winter and rainy season. During the rainy season, Se concentrations at all the study locations were within the acceptable limit of 10

rna lP

µg l−1 but during winter season it exceeded the acceptable limit at Bhairoghat midstream water whereas during the summer season it was beyond the acceptable limit at Ganga barrage and Bhairoghat midstream water. In this study, Zn concentration ranged between 54.18-213 µg l−1. The maximum Zn concentrations were 213±11 at Bhairoghat, 190±5.9 at Ganga barrage and 185.5±10 µg l-1 at Ganga barrage in summer, rainy and winter seasons respectively. Presence of Zn in river water may be due to the presence of unused zinc sulfate present in fertilizers (Wu et al., 2008). Statistical analysis shows that occurance of Zn in surface water of river did not affected by seasonal variation at Bithoor and Sarsaiyaghat mid stream water and Jajmau and Gangabarrage bank water among all three season but it was affected by seasonal variation at Bithoor, Sarsaiyaghat, Bhairoghat bank during summer season. BIS has recommended 5000 µg l−1 as the acceptable concentration of Zn in drinking water, which can be extended to 15,000 µg l−1 in the absence of an alternate source (BIS, 2012), while WHO has recommended 2000 µg l−1 Zn as the acceptable concentration for water for irrigation and 50 µg l−1 for water for aquatic life. During entire seasons, Zn concentration was within the acceptable limit for drinking water, and that for irrigation but not safe for water for aquatic life at all

Jou

the study locations.

14

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

In our study, Co concentration ranged between 0.53-3.4 µg l−1. The maximum Co concentrations were 3.1±0.4 at Bithoor, 3.4±0.17 at Sarsaiyaghat and 2.32±0.21 µg l-1 at Bithoor in summer, rainy and winter seasons respectively. BIS and WHO and FAO have not prescribed the acceptable concentration for Co for drinking water, water for aquatic life but FAO has prescribed the acceptable concentration for water for irrigation. In this study highest concentration of Co was found in rainy season followed by summer and winter season at Ganga barrage, Jajmau, Sarsaiyaghat. Statistical analysis shows that seasonal variation affected the occurance of Co in these study area. Presence of Co did not affected by seasonal variation at Bithoor and Bhairoghat mid stream water during summer and winter seasons where as it was not affected by seasonal variation at Bithoor mid stream water during entire seasons. Result of the monitoring study shows that Co concentration for irrigation water was within limit (50 µg l−1) as set by FAO. In the present study, Mn concentration in the surface water of the rver ranged between 18.2-335.69 µg l−1. The maximum Mn

rna lP

concentrations were 304±4.8, 335.69±9 and 223.8±5.6 µg l-1in summer, rainy and winter seasons respectively at Bithoor. Statistical analysis shows that Mn concentration in surface water of the river was affected by seasonal variation at Gangabarrage, Bhairoghat, Sarsaiyaght, and Bithoor bank water where as seasonal variation did not affected the occurance of Mn at Bithoor midstream water and Jajmau bank water. During the summer season, Mn concentration was beyond the acceptable limit of 100 µg l−1 for drinking water, water for aquatic life (50 µg l−1) and that for water for irrigation (200 µg l−1) at all the study locations except for Bithoor mid stream water and Jajmau bank water. The Mn concentration was high in the rainy season, except at Bhairoghat where it was also within the acceptable limit.

During the winter season, Mn concentration was within the acceptable limit only at Jajmau,

Sarsaiyaghat midstream and Bithoor mid stream water.

The occurrence of Ni in surface water samples ranged between 12.41-238.7 µg l−1. The maximum Ni concentrations were 238.7±6.8, 18.18±1.5 and 165.37±19 µg l-1in summer, rainy and winter seasons respectively at Sarsaiyaghat. Statistical analysis shows that occurrence of Niin river water, affected by seasonal variation at Bithoor and Bhairoghat bank water, Gangabarrage, Sarsaiyaghat

Jou

and Jajmau midstream water and did not affected by the same at Bithoor and Bhairoghat midstream water and jajmau and

15

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

Sarsaiyaghat midstream water no seasonal variation occurs. During the rainy season, it was within the acceptable limit of 20 µg l−1 for drinking water, water for aquatic life (25 µg l−1) and for irrigation water (200 µg l−1) at all the study sites. During summer and winter seasons it was within the acceptable limit for drinking water and water for aquatic life only at Bithoor and Bhairoghat midstream water, Jajmau and Bithoor bank and it was beyond the acceptable limit for irrigation water (200 µg l−1) at Ganga barrage, Bithoor and Bhairoghat bank, Sarsaiyaghat and Jajmau mid stream river water.

In the present study, Cu concentrations in the surface water of the river ranged between 23.62-256.36 µg l−1. The maximum Cu concentrations were 256.36±26 at Ganga barrage, 79.28±3.1 at Bhairoghat and 212.6±14 µg l-1 at Ganga barrage in summer, rainy and winter seasons respectively. The high level of Cu may be attributed to contamination by domestic sewage and run-off from farms (Wu et al., 2008). Statistical analysis showed that seasonal variation affected the concentration of copper at Bithoor, Bhairoghat, Sarsaiyaghat and Ganga barrage bank water where as at it did not affected by seasonal variation at Sarsaiyaghat, Bhairogjhat mid

rna lP

stream water and Jajmau bank water during summer and winter seasons. Data of the present study showed that throughout the rainy season, Cu content at the studied sites was within the acceptable limit of 50 µgl−1 set by BIS for drinking water except at Sarsaiyaghat, Bairoghat mid-stream water and Ganga barrage. During the summer season, it was beyond the acceptable limit at Bithoor, Bhairoghat and Ganga barrage bank waters, and Jajmau midstream water while during the winter season, a similar trend as that observed in summer season was found except at Jajmau. Copper concentration was beyond acceptable limit of 4 µgl−1 for aquatic life during all the seasons. Cu concentration was safe for irrigation water during the rainy season at all the study sites but it was not safe during summer at Bithoor and Ganga barrage and during winter at Ganga barrage. Out of the 12 metals found in the study, Fe was found in highest concentration in the surface water of the river at all the studied Ghats except at Sarsaiyaghat where Pb level was highest,while the concentration of Zn was lowest at all the Ghats. The heavy metal concentration at Jajmau was in the order: Fe>As>Pb>Cr>Mo>Ni>Cu>Mn>Se>Cd>Zn whereas at Sarsaiyaghat, these were in the order: Pb>Fe>As>Ni>Mn>Mo>Cr> Cu>Cd>Se>Zn. At Bhairoghat, concentration of these metals were found in the order:

Jou

Fe>As>Pb>Mo>Cr>Ni>Mn>Cu>Se>Cd>Zn while at Ganga barrage, these metals were

found in the order: Fe>As> Ni>Pb>

16

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

Cu>Mo> Mn> Cr> Se>Cd>Zn. At Bithoor, heavy metals were found in the order: Fe>As>Pb> Mo>Ni>Cu> Cr>Mn>Se>Cd>Zn (Fig 3).

The concentrations of majority of the heavy metals in this study were high in the summer seasons followed by winter and rainy season. This demonstrates the aggregation of the metals during low stream state of river and may be credited to increased dissipation rate of surface water followed by raised temperature due to prolong exposure to sunlight during summer season (Abdel-Satar, 2001; Wong et al., 2003). Several researchers have shown that the rainfall is the main cause of metal pollution in rivers (Abdel-Satar, 2001; Wu et al., 2008; Pandey et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2018).

2.3. Effect of heavy metals on river water quality in terms of pollution indices Pollution Index (PI)

Twelve metals were found in this study, and these were used to evaluate the level of metal pollution in the river, according to the

rna lP

pollution index (Table 5 and Table S1). The concentration of metals at different points in the Ghats varied because of the diverse sources of contaminants. Water used for irrigation was affected by presence of Cd and Ni, while other metals did not affect the water quality at all the Ghats.The results of the study show that the concentration of Pb, As, Cd and Ni strongly affected the river water quality at all the studied Ghats of the river, whereas Cr and Mo have also strongly affected the river water quality except at Bithoor (where it was moderately affected). Selenium and Fe show moderate to strong pollution effects at all study sites for drinking water, Cu and Mn caused slight to moderate pollution at most of the studied sites. Out of 12 metals found in the surface water of the river Ganga, only Zn did not show any adverse effect on the river water quality for all three uses (drinking, irrigation and aquatic life). From the pollution index, we found that the river water is not suitable for drinking and for water for aquatic life but surface water of Sarsaiyaghat and Bithoor can be use for irrigation after proper treatment as here water is slightly to moderately affected by metal pollution.

Jou

Metal Index (MI)

17

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

The MI is used to evaluate the trend of metal contamination status of water bodies. The MIevaluated at different points of the Ghats of the river showedthat surface water of these Ghats meant for drinking,for water for aquatic life and that for irrigation is badly polluted with metals (Table 5). MI was 23.62 and 39.64 at Sarsaiyaghat for drinking and for water for aquatic life respectively and 7.17 for water for irrigation at Ganga barrage. The concentrations of Pb and Cu were high and seriously affected the aquatic life at all the Ghats whereas the concentration of Cd and Ni were also high and also seriously affected aquatic life at all the Ghats except at Ganga barrage and Bithoor where it was slightly to moderately affected. The water for aquatic life was seriously affected with the level of Fe at Bithoor while it was slightly affected at Ganga barrage and moderately affected at the rest of the Ghats. The concentration of Mn slightly affected the water for aquatic life at Sarsaiyaghat and Ganga barrage, where as it was moderately affected the same at Jajmau.

Heavy metal pollution index (HPI)

rna lP

To evaluate the HPI for Ganga River water, the mean concentration value of twelve heavy metals (Cr, Cd, As, Pb, Fe, Mo, Se, Zn, Co, Mn, Ni, Cu) was used. The highest permissible limits for all the metals studied are available for drinking water except for Co whereas, for water for aquatic life, permissible limits for Cr, As, Mo, Co and Se have not been prescribed by BIS or WHO or FAO. The highest permissible limits for all the metals studied are also available for irrigation. Therefore, these five metals may not be accounted during examination of suitability of Ganga River water for aquatic life. The critical contamination level in terms of HPI is 100 (Prasad and Bose, 2001) and HPI above this critical level shows that water is not suitable. In this study, the HPI was found to be above the critical contamination level for drinking water and for water for aquatic life and that for irrigation at all the studied Ghats. (Table 3 and Table S2). 3. Conclusions

Ganga River is the main source of freshwater for Kanpur but its water quality is a cause of serious concern due to the discharge of wastes into it. The outcome of this study shows that River Ganga at Kanpur is suffering from a heavy load of metal pollution. The

Jou

majority of surface water samples of River Ganga at different Ghats were found to be highly contaminated. Among the heavy metals

18

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

investigated in this study, Fe, As and Pb were the top three most abundant metals, whereas Zn was reported to be the least among all five sampling sites. The concentration of most of the metals found in this study were beyond their acceptable limit for drinking water and that for aquatic life which is a cause of serious concern. The pollution indices are a very valuable technique to evaluate the pollution load on water bodies in terms of heavy metals. The HPI, and MI results of the present study, also confirm the heavy load of metal pollution of River Ganga at different Ghats of Kanpur. Although as per PI results surface water of the river for the use of irrigation, slightly and moderately affected at Sarsaiyaghat and Bithoor respectively. The results of these indices illustrates that the river water is not appropriate for drinking, aquatic life and water for irrigation but as per results obtained from PI, surface water at Bithoor and Sarsaiyaghat can be used for irrigation purpose after proper treatment. The, knowledge of anthropogenic pollution sources of water resources is very important, in order to identify the quality of water bodies and ultimately for adopting appropriate measures to protect and conserve the water in water bodies. Hence, this study suggests, discharge of wastes into water bodies should be

treatment plants. Acknowledgment

rna lP

minimize and implement an adequate wastewater management system through the construction of modern and efficient waste water

This work was supported by National Academy of Sciences, India (NASI) for financial support (Grant no.: NAS/2009/2/2015-16). The authors wish to thank Mr. Dileep Singh for his assistance during sampling of Ganga River water from different Ghats at Kanpur and would also like to thank Director CSIR-NBRI for providing necessary facilities for the work. Appendix A. Supplementary data References

Jou

Abdel Satar, A.M., 2001. Environmental studies on the impact of the drains effluent upon the southern sector of Lake Manzalah. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Biology of Fish, 5, 17-30. Aktar, M.W., Paramasivam, M., Ganguly, M., Purkait, S., Sengupta, D., 2010. Assessment and occurrence of various heavy metals in surface water of Ganga River around Kolkata: a study for toxicity and ecological impact. Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 160, 207-213.

19

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

Jou

rna lP

APHA (American Public Health Association)., 2012. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. In: Eaton AD, Clesceri LS, Greenberg AE, editors. 22nd ed. Washington: APHA, 1360 pp. ISBN 978-087553-013-0 Bakan, G., Boke Ozkoc, H., Tulek, S., Cuce, H., 2010. Integrated environmental quality assessment of Kızılırmak River and its coastal environment. Turkish Journal Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, 10, 453–462. Banerjee, S., Kumar, A., Maiti, S.K., Chowdhury, A. 2016. Seasonal variation in heavy metal contaminations in water and sediments of Jamshedpur stretch of Subarnarekha river, India. Environtal and Earth Science, 75, 1-12. Bhattacharya, A,K., Mandal, S.N., Das, S.K., 2008. Heavy metals accumulation in water, sediment and tissues of different edible fishes in upper stretch of Gangetic West Bengal. Trends Appl. Sci. Res, 3, 61-68. Bhatnagar, M.K., Raviraj,S., Sanjay, G., Prachi, B., 2013. Study of tannery effluents and its effects on sediments of river Ganga in special reference to heavy metals at Jajmau, Kanpur, India. Journal of Environmental Resistence Development, 8, 56-59. BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) (2012). Specification for drinking water IS 10500: 2012, New Delhi, India. Bordalo, A.A., Nilsumranchist, W., Chalermwat, K., 2001. Water quality and uses of the Bangpakong river (Eastern Thailand). Water Research, 35, 3635–3642. Caerio, S., Costa, M.H., Ramos, T.B., Fernandes, F., Silveira, N., Coimbra, A., Mederios, G., Painho, M., 2005. Assessing heavy metal contamination in Sado Estuary sediment: an index analysis approach. Ecologial Indicators, 5, 151–169. Dwivedi, S., Mishra, S., Tripathi, R.D., 2018. Ganga water pollution: A potential health threat to inhabitants of Ganga basin. Environment International,117, 327-338. Edet, A. E.,& ffiong, O.E., 2002. Evaluation of water quality pollution indices for heavy metal contamination monitoring. A study case from Akpabuyo-Odukpani area, Lower Cross River Basin (southeastern Nigeria). Geology Journal, 57, 295–304. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) ,2013. Water quality for agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization, Irrigation and Drainage Papers. http://www.fao.org/docrep/ 003/t0234e/t0234e00.htm (accessed on March 11, 2017) Genthe, B., Kapwata, T., Roux, W.L., Chamier, J., Wright, C.Y., 2018. The reach of human health risks associated with metals/metalloids in water and vegetables along a contaminated river catchment: South Africa and Mozambique. Chemosphere, 199,1-9. Goher, M.E.,Hasan, A.M., Abdel-Moniem, I.A., Fahmy, A.H El-sayed, S.M., 2014. Evaluation of surface water quality and heavy metal indices of Ismailia canal, Nile River, Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research, 40, 225-233. Hejabi, A.T., Basavarajappa,H.T., Karbassi,A.R., & Monavari, S.M., 2011. Heavy metal pollution in water and sediments in the Kabini river, Karnataka, India Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 182,1-3. Hussain, J., Hussain, I., Arif, M., Gupta, N., 2017. Studies on heavy metal contaminationin Godavari River basin .Applied Water Science, 7, 4539-4548.

20

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

rna lP

Hussain, J., Rao, N.P., 2018. Status of trace and toxic metals in Indian Rivers. Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, River Data Compilation -2 Directorate Planning and Development Organization New Delhi 110066. Jaiswal, D., Pandey, J., 2019. Carbon dioxide emission coupled extracellular enzyme activity at land-water interface predicts Ceutrophication and heavy metal contamination in Ganga River, India. Ecological Indicators, 99, 349-364. Johnson, F.M., 1998. The genetic effects of environmental lead. Mutation Research, 410,123–140. Jonnalagadda, S.B., Mhere, G., 2001. Water quality of the Odzi river in the Eastern highlands of Zimbabwe. Water Research, 35, 2371–2376. Kataria, H.C., Singh, A., Pandey, S.C., 2006. Studies on water quality of Dahod Dam, India. Poll. Res. 25(3):553–556. Katiyar, S., 2011. Impact of tannery effluent with special reference to seasonal variation on phsysico-chemical characteristics of river water at Kanpur (U.P). Indian Journal of Environmental Analysis Toxicology, 1, 4. Kaushik, S., Saksena, D.N., 1999. Physico chemical limnology of certain water bodies of central India. in. Kvismayan (Ed.), Freshwater ecosystem in India. (Delhi: Daya Publishing House, 336). Lokhande, R.S., Singare,P.U., Pimple, D.S., 2011. Pollution in water of Kasardi river flowing along Taloja industrial area of Mumbai, India. World Environment, 1, 6-13. Madhulekha, S., 2016. Arya, Evaluation of water quality in river Ganga due to contaminant of heavy metals, Kanpur, India. International Journal of Innovations Trends Engineering, 20, 97-100. Mathuthu, A.S., ZaranYika, F.M., Jannalagadde, S.B., 1993. Monitoring of water quality in upper Mukavisi river in Harare, Zimbabwe. Environmental international, 19(1),51-56. Matos, L.A., Cunha, A.C.S., Sousa, A.A., Maranhão, J.P.R., Junior, F.J., 2017.The influence of heavy metals on toxicogenetic damage in a Brazilian tropical river. Chemosphere, 185, 852-859. Miller, W.W., Joung, H.H., Mahannah, C.N., Garrett, J.R., 1986. Identification of water quality differences in Nevada through index application. Journal of Environmental Quality, 15, 265–272. Mohan, S.V., Nithila, P., Reddy, S.J., 1996. Estimation of heavy metalin drinking water and development of heavy metal pollution index.J. Environ. Sci. Health 31, 283–289.

Jou

Pandey, J., Shubhashish, K., Pandey, R., 2009. Metal contamination of Ganga River (India) as influenced by atmospheric deposition. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 83 (2), 204-209. Paul, D., 2017. Research on heavy metal pollution of river Ganga: A review. Annals of Agrarian Science, 15(2), 278-286. Prasad, B., Kumari, S., 2008. Heavy metal pollution index of ground water of an abandoned open cast mine filled with fly ash: A case study. Mine Water Environment, 27 (4), 265-267. Prasad, B., Bose, J., 2001. Evaluation of the Heavy Metal Pollution Index for Surface and Spring Water near a Limestone Mining Area of the Lower Himalayas. Environmental Geology Journal, 41, 183-188.

21

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

Jou

rna lP

Prasannakumari, A.A., Ganagadevi, T., Sukeshkumar, C.P., 2003. Surface water quality of river Neyyar- Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India. Pollution Research, 22(4), 515 – 525. Sharma, R.K., Gupta, S.S., Jain, O.P., 1996. Water quality index and aspects of pollution in Haldi river of Bhopal region. Journal of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Monitoring, 6, 181–187. Singh, V.K., Singh, K.P., Mohan, D., 2005. Status of heavy metals in water and bed sediments of river Gomti—a tributary of the Ganga River, India. Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 105, 43–67. Singh, A.V., Pandey, J., 2014. Heavy metals in the midstream of the Ganges River: spatio-temporal trends in a seasonally dry tropical region (India). Water International, 39(4), 504–516. Singh,H., Raghuvanshi, D., Pandey, R., Yadav, A., Tripathi, B., Kumar, P., Shukla, D.N., 2016. Assessment of seven heavy metals in water of the river Ghaghara, a major tributary of the Ganga in northern India. Advances in Applied Science Research, 7, 3445. Srivastava, P.K., Singh, M, Gupta, M., Singh, N., Kharwar, R.N., Tripathi, R.D., Nautiyal, C.S., 2015. Mapping of arsenic pollution with reference to paddy cultivation in the middle Indo-Gangetic Plains. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 187, 198. Tamasi, G., Cini, R., 2004. Heavy metals in drinking waters from Mount Amiata. Possible risks from arsenic for public health in the province of Siena. Science of Total Environment, 327, 41–51. Thareja, S., Choudhury, S., Trivedi, P., 2011. Assessment of water quality of Ganga River in Kanpur by using principal components analysis. Advances Applied Science Research, 2, 84-91. Tiwari, A.K, De Maio, M., Singh, P.K., Mahato, M.K., 2015. Evaluation of surface water quality by using GIS and a Heavy Metal Pollution Index (HPI) model in a coal mining area, India. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 95: 304– 310. Tiwari, T.N., & Ali, M. (1988). Water quality index for Indian rivers. In R. K. Trivedy (Ed.), Ecology and pollution of Indian rivers (1st ed., pp. 271–286). New Delhi: Ashish Wani, I.A., Subla, B.A., 1990. Physicochemical features of two shallow Himalayan lakes. Bulletin of Evironmental Sciences, 8, 3349. Wong, C.S.C., Li, X.D., Zhang, G., Qi, S.H., Peng, X.Z., 2003. Atmospheric deposition of heavy metals in the Pearl River Delta, China. Atmospheric Environment, 37 (6), 767-776. Woodward, G.M., 1984. Pollution control in Hamber estuary. Water pollution control, 83 (1), 82-90. Wu, Y.F., Liu, C.Q., Tu, C.L., 2008. Atmospheric deposition of metals in TSP of guiyang, PR China. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 80 (5), 465-468. WHO (World Health Organization)., 2011. Guidelines for drinking water quality, Fourth edition, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland. http://www.who.int. Zhang, L., Zhao, B., Xu, G., Guan, Y., 2018. Characterizing fluvial heavy metal pollution under different rainfall conditions: Implication for aquatic environment protection. Science of the total environment, 635, 1495-1506. 22

Journal Pre-proof

Table 1: Seasonal variation in water quality parameters  Seasons Winter Bank water Mid stream water

BIS IS: 10500 (2012) Limit

pH EC (µS cm-1) DO (mg l-1) BOD(mg l-1) TSS(mg l-1) TDS(mg l-1)

9.01±0.0a 499.6±6.6 a 0.43±0.02 c 0.7±0.01e 2980±104 a 437.33±32b

8.94±0.1a 346.6±6.5 0.93±0.01 c 0.63±0.02d 1291±13.2 a 368.6±10b

8.34±0.03b 546.3±38 a 0.73±0.01c 0.79±0.07e 773±32 326±26c

8.27±0.06b 346.6±6.5 a 1.47±0.01 a 0.87±0.04d 480±65b 288±49c

Sarsaiyaghat

pH EC (µS cm-1) DO (mg l-1) BOD(mg l-1) TSS(mg l-1) TDS(mg l-1)

8.32±0.08 a 311.0±3.6 a 0.30±0.01f 0.2±0.04g 165.6±5.1b 256.67±7b

8.34±0.03 a 402±4.36 a 1.07±0.04e 0.23±0.01f 155±25b 280±33.6b

8.17±0.05 a 325.36±14 a 1.27±0.02d 0.85±0.03e 523.3±25 a 143±16.2c

8.14±0.02 a 405.6±2.3 a 1.63±0.03d 0.89±0.02d 533.3±57 a 190±16.3c

8.23±0.01 a 370.3±25a 2.2±0.02d 1.14±0.05e 583.3±76 a 458.6±6.1a

8.11±0.03 a 433±20.6 a 2.27±0.03c 1.32±0.06d 473.3±87 a 637±37a

6.5-8.5 1000 4 4-6 500 500

Bhairoghat

pH EC (µS cm-1) DO (mg l-1) BOD(mg l-1) TSS(mg l-1) TDS(mg l-1)

8.45±0.09a 307.0±1.7a 1.23±0.03d 1±0.02c 130.0±38b 197.3±8 b

8.24±0.03a 311.3±2.5a 1.63±0.05c 1.21±0.13b 363.3±43 a 218±6.9 b

8.13±0.02b 323.6±5.1 a 1.23±0.03d 0.98±0.02d 540±60 a 162.6±41b

8.12±0.01a 318±6.5 a 1.63±0.02b 1.12±0.13d 533±30.5 a 198.6±13b

7.78±0.02c 349±34.7 a 2.87±0.01c 1.59±0.03d 836.6±135 a 480±18 a

7.74±0.0b 331.6±17 a 3.67±0.02b 2.82±0.12b 580±20 a 629±44 a

6.5-8.5 1000 4 4-6 500 500

Ganga barrage

pH

8.38±0.02a

-

8.12±0.02b

-

8.19±0.01b

-

6.5-8.5

EC (µS cm-1) DO (mg l-1) BOD(mg l-1) TSS(mg l-1) TDS(mg l-1)

316.0±5.2 a 1.97±0.02b 1.2±0.08a 217±24.2 a 185.33±22 a

-

322.33±38 a 2.73±0.03a 1.51±0.11b 276.6±55 a 140±54 a

-

348.0±2.08 a 4.26±0.02a 2.85±0.05a 313±25 a 149.3±13.6 a

-

1000 4 4-6 500 500

pH EC (µS cm-1) DO (mg l-1) BOD(mg l-1) TSS(mg l-1) TDS(mg l-1)

8.28±0a 346.3±2.5a 1.93±0.06b 1.2±0.06b 502.33±21 a 256.67±7c

8.27±0.01 a 333±3.6 a 2.50±0.04a 1.94±0.12a 440±28.9 a 280±33.6c

8.23±0.13 a 366.3±11.6 a 3.7±0.03a 2.61 ±0.06a 356.6±57 a 193±13.6b

8.16±0.06 a 346±8.7 a 3.07±0.02b 2.21 ±0.14a 490±59 a 224.6±51b

8.35±0.06 a 378.0±21.6 a 5.27±0.03a 3.39±0.09a 543.3±20.8 a 443±28a

8.3±0.02 a 321.6±14 a 5.53±0.04a 3.83±0.06a 570±60.8 a 463±±13a

6.5-8.5 1000 4 4-6 500 500

 

rna lP

 

Jou

Bithoor

Parameters

repro of

Jajmau

Rainy Bank water Mid stream water 8.42±0b 8.3±0.1b 471.6±26a 379.6±19a 1.3±0.02b 1.93±0.01 a 0.92±0.03e 1.04±0.07d 746±72 b 453±66 b 486±15a 692.8±90a

Sites

Summer Bank Mid water stream water

6.5-8.5 1000 4 3 500 500

18 

Journal Pre-proof

Table 2: Classification of water pollution index PI value

Effect on water quality

1.

<1

No effect

2.

1-2

Slightly affected

3.

2-3

Moderately affected

4.

3-5

Strongly affected

5.

>5

Seriously affected

Table 3: Classification of water quality rating

repro of

S.No.

HPI values

Water quality rating

1.

<15

Excellent

2.

15-30

Good

3.

>30 &<100

Poor

4.

>100

Not suitable

 

Jou

rna lP

S.No.

19 

Jou Not suitable

Not suitable 

15. 57

Drinking

>100

Bithoor

Study sites

Jajmau

Sarsaiyaghat >100

 

Ganga barrage Bithoor

Bhairoghat

 

>100

 

>100

 

>100

 

Not suitable 

Not suitable 

21.8

19.9

23.85

39.64

23.03

Threshold warning

Threshold warning

Threshold warning

Threshold warning

Threshold warning

12.17

15.02

13.85

29.71

12.56

Not affected

Not affected

Not affected

Slightly affected

Seriously affected

Aquatic life

0.58

0.95

0.93

1.53

7.37

>30 and <100 

>30 and <100 

>100 

>100 

>100 

Poor 

Poor 

Not suitable 

Not suitable 

Not suitable 

>100 

>100 

>100 

>100 

>100 

Not suitable 

Not suitable 

Not suitable 

Not suitable 

20 

Seriously affected 

Seriously affected 

Seriously affected 

Seriously affected 

Seriously affected 

Not suitable 

36.86

6.01

19.34

38.95

19.94

Pollution Index (PI) Irrigation Aquatic life

repro of

Seriously affected 

Seriously affected 

Seriously affected 

Seriously affected 

Seriously affected

Drinking

Heavy metal Pollution Index (HPI) Irrigation

Threshold warning

Threshold warning

Not suitable 

3.66

7.17

rna lP

18.92

Threshold warning

Ganga barrage

3.46

Threshold warning

16.81

4.45

Bhairoghat

Sarsaiyaghat 23.62

Threshold warning

2.54

16.16

Jajmau

Threshol d warning Threshol d warning Threshol d warning Threshol d warning Threshol d warning

Metal Index (MI) Irrigation Aquatic life

Drinking

Study sites

Table 4: Metal Index and Pollution index and Heavy metal pollution index of the measured metals in Ganga River water according to guideline levels of drinking, irrigation and aquatic life water.

Journal Pre-proof

Journal Pre-proof

rna lP

repro of

List of figures

 

Jou

Fig 1: Heavy metal concentration in surface water of River Ganga around Kanpur

21 

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

 

rna lP

 

 

Jou

Fig 2: Heavy metal concentration in surface water of River Ganga around Kanpur 22 

rna lP

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

 

Jou

Fig 3: Average metal concentration at different Ghats of River Ganga at Kanpur 23 

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

Monitoring and assessment of pollution load in surface water of River Ganga around Kanpur, India: a study for suitability of this water for different utility Vandana Singha,* Nem Kumar Ngpooreb, Jai Chanda, Alok Lehria a

Central Instrumentation Facility, National Botanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, 226001, India

b

Pharmacology, National Botanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, 226001, India

rna lP

CRediT author statement

Vandana Singh: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-Original Draft preparation, Project administration. Nem Kumar Nagpoore: Formal analysis,

Jaichand: Investigation, data curation, Formal analysis.  

 

Jou

Alok Lehri: Supervision, Reviewing and editing.

26 

Conflict of Interest

 

Jou

rna lP

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

repro of

Journal Pre-proof

27