“Water Quality Index of Tungabhadra River Water Ecosystem Near Harihar, Karanataka”

“WATER QUALITY INDEX OF TUNGABHADRA RIVER WATER ECOSYSTEM NEAR HARIHAR, KARANATAKA”

Suresh. B EiEnvironmen tlSital Science &ThStdCt& Tech. Study Centre

Manjappa S. Professor & Head Dept of Chemistry and Environmental Science & Tech. Study Centre Bapuji Institute of Engineering & Technology, Davangere – 577 004

Puttaiah. E. T Professor & Chairman Dept of P.G Studies & Research in Water Management & Water Harvesting Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta – 577 451 Shimoga “WATER QUALITY INDEX OF TUNGABHADRA RIVER WATER ECOSYSTEM NEAR HARIHAR, KARANATAKA”

PibPresentation by

ShBSuresh. B INTRODUCTION

Aquatic (habitat and organisms) ecosystem is the most diverse ecosystem in the world. It ildincludes rivers and streams, pondsand lklakes, oceans and bays and swamps and marshes and their associated animals. These biotic species have evolved and adapted to watery habitats over millions of years. Aqquatic habitats provide the food, water, shelter and space essential for the survival of aquatic animals and plants. Aquatic ecosystem consists of mainly two types of ecosystems like lentic (standing) and lotic water (flowing) water ecosystem. Tungabhadra River in Karnataka is an important tributary of Krishna River. It has a drainage area of 71,417 sq.km out of which 57,671 sq.km lies in the state. It covers a distance of 293 km in the state and is getting polluted due to rapid industrial growth, domestic and agricultural activities of the region. The River Tungabhadra is formed due to the confluence of two rivers Tunga and Bhadra. The suitability of water for a particular use depends on thetypeand amount of iiiimpurities present, which will in some way or the other affect the desired use. Thheriversarealways thevictimsof thenegative impacts of urbanization. Impacts of sand mining, dumping of waste and sewagearethe issues associated with the river Tungabhadra.

The water quality index is one of the method to analyze the pollution load in the river water ecosystem. Water Quality Index: WtWater quality idindex isaniditindicator and a single numerical expression, which reflects the composite influence of a number of water quality parameters, which are significant for a specific beneficial use. This management tool helpsto asses for the overall water quality of the river. In the present study the water quality parameters are studied from the point of view of suitability of river water for human consumption. The permissible values of various pollutants for the drinking water recommended by World Health OitiOrganization (WHO). MATERALS AND METHODS

Composite sampling was done at regular monthly intervals for a period of Five years (December 2000 to November 2005..)) for all four stations. Field observations were made and recorded. Temperature, pH, DO and Conductivity was measured in the field for other parameters water samples are transported to Laboratory. IS3025 (1989) is used for sampling. Analysis is carried out as per APHA (1995). MATERALS AND METHODS Sampling Stations

S1–Upstream where bfbefore the Tungabhadra river enters into Harihar city.

S2–Main stream of river Tungabhadra in a place just near the confluence point of Sulekere stream.

S3–Downstream of Harihar Polyfibers idindus try effluen t disc harge (near Harlapura). Map Showing Sampling Stations at Tungabhadra River (Near Harihar)

Tungabhadra River S3 S4 S2 a. Quality rating, Qn = 100 [Vn-Vi)/(VS-V1)] Where, Vn = actual amount of nth parameter Vi = th e id eal val ue of thi s paramet er Vi = 0, except for pH and D.O Vi = 7.0 for pH; 14.6 mg/L for D.O Vs = recommended WHO standard of corresponding parameter b. Unit weight (Wn) for various parameters is inversely proportional to the recommended standard (Sn) for the corresponding parameter W = K/Sn Where, Sn : world wide accepted drinking water quality standard prescribed by WHO

n = 9 K = Constant SWn = 1, n = 1 c. Sub indices, (SI)n = (Qn) Wn d. The over all WQI was calculated by taking geometric mean of these sub indices.

n = 9 WQI = antilog10 [SWn log10 Qn] n = 1 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The data of this investigation reveal that the water quality parameters are well with in the limits prescribed by WHO which indicate the suitability of water for domestic purposes.

Water quality Parameters WHO Assigned Unit Wt. (Wn) pH 7.0 – 8.5 0.2144 TDS mg/l 500 0.1472 Total Alkalinity mg/l 100 0.1124 Total Hardness mg/l 100 0.2130 Calcium mg/l 75 0.0944 Magnesium mg/l 50 0.1411 Chloride mg/l 200 0.0926 DO mg/l 505.0 0. 0069 BOD mg/l 6.0 0.0096 Parameter wise station wise estimated mean values (Vn) of the Tungabhadra River at Harihar showing seasonal variations (()December 2000 to November 2005)

Sampling pH Total Dissolved Solids mg/l Dissolved Oxygen mg/l Stations Summer Winter Rainy Summer Winter Rainy Summer Winter Rainy

Station S1 8.15 7.93 7.51 81.05 143.80 140.05 8.20 7.83 5.32

Station S2 7.94 7.76 7.71 129.60 160.20 164.30 7.40 7.31 7.20

Station S3 7.21 7.60 7.10 499.12 485.63 404.96 6.68 6.15 6.13

Biological Oxygen Total Hardness mg/l Calcium mg/l Sampling Demand mg/l Stations Summer Winter Rainy Summer Winter Rainy Summer Winter Rainy

Station S1 4.70 4.30 4.57 97.25 95.25 64.75 58.53 52.00 39.50

Station S2 4.90 4.76 4.67 100.20 99.10 99.90 60.50 54.39 54.40

Station S3 4.80 4.65 4.95 269.20 198.50 100.25 173.35 223.00 62.50

Sampling Magnesium mg/l Total Alkalinity mg/l Chloride mg/l Stations Summer Winter Rainy Summer Winter Rainy Summer Winter Rainy

Station S1 38. 73 43. 25 26. 25 89. 25 102. 50 63. 75 30. 93 33. 88 26. 75

Station S2 40.00 44.67 45.48 84.58 97.15 95.91 38.73 34.50 35.39

Station S3 95.90 66.50 37.75 196.50 128.50 80.00 107.25 101.00 48.88 Parameter wise station wise calculated quality rating (Qn) of the Tungabhadra River at Harihar showing seasonal variations (December 2000 to November 2005)

Sampling pH Total Dissolved Solids mg/l Dissolved Oxygen mg/l Stations Summer Winter Rainy Summer Winter Rainy Summer Winter Rainy

Station S1 115.00 93.00 51.00 16.21 28.76 28.01 7.49 7.93 10.87

Station S2 94.00 76.00 71.00 25.92 32.04 32.86 8.43 8.54 8.67

Station S3 71.00 60.00 60.00 99.82 97.13 80.99 9.27 9.89 9.92

Biological Oxygen Total Hardness mg/l Calcium mg/l Sampling Demand mg/l Stations Summer Winter Rainy Summer Winter Rainy Summer Winter Rainy

Station S1 4.70 4.30 4.57 97.25 95.25 64.75 195.10 173.33 131.67

Station S2 4.90 4.76 4.67 100.20 99.10 99.90 201.67 181.30 181.33

Station S3 4.80 4.65 4.95 269.20 198.50 100.25 577.83 743.33 208.33

Sampling Magnesium mg/l Total Alkalinity mg/l Chloride mg/l Stations Summer Winter Rainy Summer Winter Rainy Summer Winter Rainy

Station S1 19. 37 21. 63 13. 13 892. 50 683. 33 637. 50 515. 50 554. 67 445. 83

Station S2 20.00 22.34 22.74 845.80 971.50 959.10 645.50 575.00 589.83

Station S3 47.95 33.25 18.88 981.50 642.50 400.00 893.45 841.67 814.67 Water Quality Index

Water Quality Index Station Summer Winter Rainy

Station S1 65.50 69.33 54.88

Station S2 70.75 70.74 70.68

Station S3 110.43 112.32 64.96 Water Quality Index

Water Quality Quality Index Index

25.00

20.00 Summer 15.00 ex

dd Winter

In 10.00 Rainy 5.00

0.00 S1 S2 S3

Stations CONCLUSIONS

From the seasonal investigation it is revealed that at station S1 the water quality index ranged from 54.88 to

69.33.In station S2 it varied between 70.68 and 70.75 and station S3 it varied between 64.96 and 112.32 in different seasons of the year. During the study, it is observed that the water quality at station S3 is comparatively more disturbed than at station S1. This may be due to the release of domestic sewage, waste from bank side factories and surface run-off in to the river system. Further, the seasonal values of WQI indicate that during rainy season river water is more affected than winter and summer. This may be due to more run-off into the river which brings more pollutants. The results reveal that the river water is to be periodically evaluated, there byadtidapting the proper management practices with a view to protect the riverine ecosystem. However, thewater quality IdIndex only provides information about the pollution load. It does not deal with water qqyuality management. Recommendations People dependent on this water are often prone to health hazards. The monitoring the river water quality is of at most importance in order to check the extent of pollution and adopt timely measures to prevent deterioration. The water quality Index provides information about the pollution load. However, it does not deal with water quality management REFERENCES

1. APHA (American Public Health Association): Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater 19th Ed. Washington D.C (1995). 2. Bindu, N. L. 1984. Environmental Quality Management South Asian Publication, New Delhi 3. Bhanja K, Mohanta, and Ajoyku. Patra., 2000. Studies on the water quality index of river sanamachhakandana at Keonjhar garh, orissa, India. Poll. Res. 19(3) : 377 – 385. 4. Harton. R. K.1965. An index Number System for rating water quality Water Quality indexes. J. of water pollution Control Federation, 37(3): 300-306. 5. Trivedy, R. K. and Goal. P. K. 1986. Chemical and Biological Methods of water Pollution Studies, Environmental Publications, Karad. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Authors are grateful to MtManagement of BjiBapuji Educa tional AitiAssociation (R) Principal, Bapuji Institute of Engineering and Technology, Davangere, for having given magnanimous support, encouragement and facilities. Staff of Chemistry and ESTSC, BIET, Davangere for kind support through out the work. Dr. T. V. Ramachandra, Convener, Lake - 2008, Energy & Wetlands Research group Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Bangalore for giving an opportunity to attend this symposium.