https://doi.org/10.33451/florafauna.v26i2pp309-319 FLORA AND FAUNA ISSN 2456 - 9364 (Online) 2020 Vol. 26 No. 2 PP 309-319 ISSN 0971 - 6920 (Print) Comparative Assessment of Physico-Chemical Parameters of Lotic and Lentic Zone of River Betwa in (U.P.), *Umesh Kumar Mishra and Vijay Kumar Yadav Department of Zoology Bipin Bihari (P.G.) College, JHANSI (U.P.) INDIA *Corresponding Author E-mail : [email protected] Received : 28.09.2020; Revised : 15.10.2020; Accepted : 29.10.2020 ABSTRACT Water is the most precious natural gift given by God to human race. Its purity is also important for everyone. For the present study two sampling stations, Baratha village and dam head were selected for comparative assessment of physico-chemical parameters of lotic and lentic zones on . Both these sampling stations are located at Jhansi (UP) India. Samples were collected regularly for one complete year from July 2018 to June 2019. Eighteen water parameters and four hundred thirty two samples were analysed. The overall mean ranges of these parameters at Baratha village and Parichha dam head were notified as electric conductivity (518.66±43.47) and (528.75±59.65), pH (8.09±0.36) and (8.14±0.26), water temperature (24.37±4.14) and (23.78±4.12), transparency (54.91±4.97) and (41.61±3.83), turbidity (30±12.38) and (35.25±16.38), TDS (265.33±16.74) and (267.66±25.42), TSS (66.5±12.52) and (69.83±14.45), TS (331.83±28.76) and (337.5±39.04), DO (6.76±0.68) and (6.72±0.86), total alkalinity (141.58±22.74) and (142.25±29.37), total hardness (150.08±22.70) and (153.66±20.55), Ca (29.04±2.32) and (29.84±5.38), Mg (13.51±2.01) and (14.32±2.20), chloride (24.77±3.29) and (26.85±3.99),

BOD (4.08±0.71) and (4.15±1.16), COD (11.64±1.02) and (12.82±1.20), NO3 (1.64±0.37) and (1.93±0.59), PO4 (0.46±0.21) and (1.33±0.29). All these findings concluded that the lentic zone (Parichha) is more polluted than the lotic zone (Baratha). However all the observed values are in the range of permissible limits, so both zones can be used for irrigation and fisheries sector.

Figures : 18 References : 17 Tables : 04 KEY WORDS : Jhansi, Lentic, Lotic, Water parameters.

Introduction Systematic Profile of Sampling Stations. Rivers are the largest source of inland water. Inland water resources have always been known as an essential Name of Stream Status City/ catalyst that plays a dominant role in irrigation, industrial Sampling District needs and drinking purpose. Station Working area. The Baratha village is situated in along the bank of Betwa river. It is about 15 (A)- Upstream Lotic Jhansi kilometer away from Jhansi city and GPS coordinates Baratha are 25° 28' 59.7396'’ N, 78° 43' 49.2096'’ E. It is a gram Village panchayat village with total population of approximately 3,835 people. The other selected sampling station, (B)- Downstream Lentic Jhansi Parichha dam head is very well famous landing spot Parichha situated about 25 kilometer away from Jhansi city on dam Head Jhansi- National highway number 25. It is located along the bank of Betwa river with total population of suitable or not for different purposes. Hence testing of approximately 7,840 people. There is a very popular active water is very important to check the purity and quality of thermal power plant which is used for electricity any aquatic zone, whether it is lotic or lentic. In generation. The GPS coordinates of this location are 25° region, many workers have done their work 28' 45.48'’ N, 78° 42' 39.24'’ E. on the water of Betwa River5,6,8,10,12,17. Both the above reported sampling stations are Material and Methods actively used for irrigation, fisheries, drinking, industrial and other domestic purposes. Physico-chemical ranges Sample collection and analytical technique of any water plays a deciding factor whether water is The water samples were collected during morning 310 Umesh Kumar Mishra and Vijay Kumar Yadav 54 02 81 52 02 03 30±12.38 35 66.5±12.52 30 24 85 78 20 70 22 62 15 56 17 52 28 48 26 55 40 62 48 69 55 79 82 ...... 8.09±0.36 8.4 8.6 8.3 8.1 7.7 7.5 6.76±0.68 7.6 5.8 7.8 5.4 8.2 6.3 6.8 8.1 8.3 7.4 4.08±0.71 7.7 8.5 5.0 7.5 5.2 7.2 4.8 6.9 4.1 7.0 3.4 6.7 3.0 3.2 6.5 3.6 4.0 3.8 4.3 4.6 6 5 2 1 8 4 5 9 1 3 5 8 518.66±43.47 580 557 538 510 493 265.33±16.74 459 285 442 280 331.83±28.76 275 480 370 270 518 358 141.58±22.74 345 258 529 150.08±22.70 159 332 244 181 550 170 150 230 314 184 568 132 162 250 296 142 278 127 264 155 305 109 272 115 138 326 276 103 121 341 280 127 140 355 133 134 362 150 160 172 171 165 752. 462. 241. 662. 482. 922. 24.37±4.14 29.7 54.91±4.97 29.2 52.1 27.6 52.8 24.8 58.3 59.8 21.3 16.6 58.5 18.3 61.3 22.4 60.2 23.7 54.6 24.6 55.6 50.9 26.8 50.2 27.5 44.7 11.64±1.02 13.2 1.64±0.37 13.4 2.21 0.46±0.21 12.5 2.38 0.74 11.6 1.89 0.80 1.60 10.8 0.68 0.49 10.2 1.35 10.4 1.16 0.26 11.0 1.22 0.18 11.4 1.40 0.20 11.2 1.55 0.30 11.8 1.49 0.41 0.34 1.69 12.2 0.55 1.75 0.60 04 16 83 68 65 62 74 88 76 98 35 14 29.04±2.32 31.40 13.51±2.01 33.54 29.80 15.55 24.77±3.29 27.60 16.20 14.61 28.80 28.80 12.80 25.72 26.31 27.44 13.74 23.52 26.20 12.31 26.53 21.40 10.44 19.34 26.81 10.81 20.61 28.33 11.25 24.64 31.65 13.52 22.70 30.42 15.80 28.14 15.20 26.80 29.30 .1 81 81 81 91 91 9±S.D. 19 19 19 19 19 Mean 19 Jun. May 18 Apr. Mar. 18 Feb. 18 Jan. 18 Dec. Nov. 18 Oct. Sept. 18 Aug. Jul. TABLE-1 : Physico-chemical water parameters of sampling station (A)- Baratha from July-2018 Parameters –June-2019 S. N. E.C. (µm/cm) 1 pH 2 Temperature (°C) 3 Transparency (cm) 4 Turbidity (NTU) 5 TDS (mg/l) 6 (mg/l) TSS 7 (mg/l) TS 8 DO (mg/l) 9 TA(mg/l) 10 TH (mg/l) 11 (mg/l) Ca 12 Mg (mg/l) 13 (mg/l) Chloride 14 BOD (mg/l) 15 COD (mg/l) 16 (mg/l) Nitrate 17 Phosphate (mg/l) 18 Comparative Assessment of Physico-Chemical Parameters of Lotic and Lentic Zone of River Betwa in Jhansi (U.P.), India 311 1 .4 1 1 0.941 0.957 1 0.952 1 -0.971 1 0.626 0.654 0.663 -0.657 1 0.929 0.735 0.937 0.783 0.976 0.912 -0.789 0.987 1 0.974 0.920 0.722 1 0.917 -0.726 -0.898 1 0.979 0.899 0.946 0.841 0.918 1 0.930 -0.770 0.939 0.857 1 0.993 0.885 0.891 0.684 0.856 0.960 1 -0.725 -0.834 0.969 0.674 0.880 1 0.825 0.908 0.846 0.759 0.563 0.854 0.617 0.955 1 -0.559 -0.757 0.651 0.779 0.778 0.990 0.912 0.874 0.798 0.991 0.752 0.728 0.544 0.878 1 0.816 0.769 -0.556 -0.688 0.786 0.784 0.969 0.844 0.968 0.861 0.870 0.987 0.786 0.925 0.671 0.601 0.886 0.836 0.773 -0.572 -0.976 0.994 0.794 0.776 0.831 0.812 0.897 0.720 0.785 0.905 0.841 0.884 0.852 0.754 0.801 -0.851 -0.991 0.791 0.880 0.849 0.878 0.863 0.889 0.497 0.838 0.869 0.815 0.803 -0.548 -0.997 0.859 0.876 0.842 0.916 0.965 0.444 0.837 0.952 -0.973 -0.513 0.821 0.882 0.906 0.947 0.877 0.388 0.918 -0.469 0.869 0.887 0.461 0.913 0.887 -0501 0.849 0.947 0.932 0.889 072-.0 0661 -0.656 -0.704 -0.752 1 -0.843 -0.837 -0.822 -0.405 0.489 -0.920 -0.907 -0.850 eesrd ate ride Phos Nitr- COD BOD Chlo- Mg Ca TH TA DO TS TSS TDS Turb. Transp. Temp. pH E.C. TABLE-2 : Correlation Matrix for Physico-chemical water parameters of sampling station Baratha 2018-2019. Para- meters E.C. pH Temp. Transp. Turbidity TDS TSS TS DO TA TH Ca Mg Chloride BOD COD Nitrate Phos- phate 312 Umesh Kumar Mishra and Vijay Kumar Yadav 06 03 52 72 83 03 35.25±16.38 35 69.83±14.45 30 32 95 88 28 80 24 75 17 61 20 56 25 47 38 52 40 65 64 69 70 72 78 ...... 8.14±0.26 8.5 8.4 8.2 8.3 8.0 7.9 6.72±0.86 7.5 5.0 8.1 5.1 8.3 6.4 7.1 8.0 8.2 7.3 4.15±1.16 7.7 8.3 6.5 7.4 6.3 7.3 4.6 7.1 3.6 7.0 3.3 6.8 2.9 3.1 6.5 3.4 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.4 9 7 5 1 6 3 5 8 3 5 7 1 528.75±59.65 615 570 554 538 488 267.66±25.42 451 304 432 283 337.5±39.04 278 460 399 270 142.25±29.37 510 370 358 250 196 558 153.66±20.55 345 180 246 579 187 135 225 311 176 590 157 148 235 302 155 121 272 255 107 167 287 275 98 135 320 293 119 130 344 298 125 151 365 143 125 376 158 138 170 169 161 872. 542. 031. 722. 382. 762. 23.78±4.12 29.5 41.61±3.83 27.6 40.7 25.8 42.1 23.8 41.6 42.8 20.6 17.2 45.2 17.8 47.3 20.3 45.9 22.5 44.6 25.4 39.2 38.1 26.2 37.4 28.7 34.5 12.82±1.20 14.8 1.93±0.59 14.6 2.92 1.33±0.29 13.8 2.78 1.80 12.4 1.77 1.48 1.60 11.6 1.39 1.24 11.2 1.57 11.5 1.20 1.13 11.8 1.48 0.68 12.6 1.50 1.10 12.8 1.54 1.26 2.65 13.2 1.30 1.41 1.70 13.6 1.57 2.50 1.68 58 85 24 41 34 16 45 93 17 46 68 52 29.84±5.38 35.24 14.32±2.20 36.83 34.60 16.74 26.85±3.99 31.72 16.23 15.82 30.24 29.31 13.18 32.62 27.66 24.52 14.10 29.80 21.60 13.84 23.44 25.34 10.36 20.44 24.13 11.43 21.83 32.44 12.22 24.25 28.51 14.54 22.77 35.83 16.82 26.32 16.60 29.45 31.56 .1 81 81 81 91 91 9±S.D. 19 19 19 19 19 Mean 19 Jun. May 18 Apr. Mar. 18 Feb. 18 Jan. 18 Dec. Nov. 18 Oct. Sept. 18 Aug. Jul. TABLE-3 : Physico-chemical water parameters of sampling station (B)- Parichha dam head from July-2018 –June-2019 Parameters S. N. E.C. (µm/cm) 1 pH 2 Temperature (°C) 3 Transparency (cm) 4 Turbidity (NTU) 5 TDS (mg/l) 6 (mg/l) TSS 7 (mg/l) TS 8 DO (mg/l) 9 TA(mg/l) 10 TH (mg/l) 11 (mg/l) Ca 12 Mg (mg/l) 13 (mg/l) Chloride 14 BOD (mg/l) 15 COD (mg/l) 16 (mg/l) Nitrate 17 Phosphate (mg/l) 18 Comparative Assessment of Physico-Chemical Parameters of Lotic and Lentic Zone of River Betwa in Jhansi (U.P.), India 313 1 .9 1 1 0.793 0.795 1 0.981 1 -0.930 1 0.671 0.703 0.422 -0.753 1 0.910 0.682 0.948 0.399 0.963 0.769 -0.529 0.988 1 0.983 0.918 0.605 1 0.842 -0.686 -0.851 1 0.924 0.833 0.957 0.739 0.883 1 0.813 -0.743 0.795 0.777 1 0.982 0.868 0.724 0.403 0.850 0.829 1 -0.524 -0.765 0.844 0.761 0.849 1 0.888 0.845 0.611 0.749 0.435 0.903 0.878 0.914 1 -0.485 -0.678 0.783 0.687 0.851 0.951 0.810 0.907 0.802 0.825 0.804 0.825 0.405 0.827 0.760 1 0.717 -0.521 -0.762 0.748 0.774 0.923 0.835 0.774 0.852 0.868 0.873 0.852 0.857 0.725 0.606 0.852 0.829 0.682 -0.584 -0.997 0.745 0.643 0.849 0.752 0.862 0.817 0.822 0.853 0.800 0.565 0.898 0.798 0.650 -0.598 -0.943 0.716 0.637 0.744 0.868 0.910 0.900 0.727 0.247 0.939 0.671 0.734 -0.377 -0.813 0.675 0.863 0.871 0.768 0.825 0.774 0.466 0.775 0.724 -0.597 -0.748 0.739 0.780 0.807 0.936 0.393 0.753 0.769 -0.563 0.811 0.898 0.834 0.698 0.544 -0.784 0.788 0.993 0.672 0.873 070-.3 0721 -0.782 -0.534 -0.780 1 -0.805 -0.890 -0.731 -0.234 0.353 -0.816 -0.700 -0.765 eesrd ate ride Phos Nitr- COD BOD Chlo- Mg Ca TH TA DO TS TSS TDS Turb. Transp. Temp. pH E.C. TABLE-4 : Correlation Matrix for Physico-chemical parameters water of sampling station Parichha 2018-2019. Para- meters E.C. pH Temp. Transp. Turbidity TDS TSS TS DO TA TH Ca Mg Chloride BOD COD Nitrate Phos- phate 314 Umesh Kumar Mishra and Vijay Kumar Yadav hours in each month throught the year. Airtight plastic range (54.51 ±4.97), while transparency range of lentic containers were used to collect samples from both lentic zone was recorded maximum in January (47.3 c.m) and as well as lotic sampling sites. Some sensitive and minimum in July (34.5 c.m) with their mean and standard unstable parameters were tested at the sampling sites, deviation range (41.61±3.83). The turbidity range of lotic while other parameters examined at the departmental zone was recorded maximum in July (55 NTU) and laboratory of Bipin Bihari College, Jhansi with the help of minimum in January (15 NTU) with their mean and standard authentic volumetric methods1,3,13. standard deviation range (30±12.38), while turbidity range of lotic zone was recorded maximum in July (70 NTU) Observation and minimum in January (17 NTU) with mean and standard During the working, many ups and downs were deviation range (35.25±16.38). In our findings both these observed in the water quality parameters of Betwa River. parameters are inversely correlated2,7. Due to environmental fluctuating conditions, during TDS, TSS and TS summer period most of the water parameters increased while other parameters decreased in winter because The TDS range (Fig.6) of lotic zone was recorded environmental condition acts as a driving catalyst for maximum in June (285 mg/l) and minimum in December natural inland water (Tables 1-3). (230 mg/l) with their mean and standard deviation range (265.33±16.74), while TDS range of lotic zone was Result and Discussion recorded maximum in June (304 mg/l) and minimum in Electrical conductivity, Temperature and pH December (225 mg/) with their mean and standard Electric conductivity is representative parameter deviation range (267.66±25.42). The TSS range (Fig.7) of of overall ionic potential present in aquatic body. The lotic zone was recorded maximum in June (85mg/l) and conductivity range (Fig.1) of lotic zone was recorded minimum in December (48 mg/l) with their mean and maximum in June (580 µm/cm) and minimum in standard deviation range (66.5±12.52), while TSS range December (442 µm/cm) with their mean and standard of lentic zone was recorded maximum in June (95 mg/l) deviation range (518.66±43.47), while conductivity range and minimum in December (47 mg/l) with their mean and of lotic zone was recorded maximum also in June (615 standard deviation range (69.83±14.45).The TS range µm/cm) and minimum in December (432 µm/cm) with (Fig.8) of lotic zone was recorded maximum in June (370 their mean and standard deviation range mg/l) and minimum in December (278 mg/l) with their (528.75±59.65).The rapid increase in electric conductivity mean and standard deviation range (331.83±28.76), while indicates greater amount of ionic concentration present TS range of lentic zone was recorded maximum in June in aquatic body13. (399 mg/l) and minimum in December (272 mg/l) with Temperature is the prime regulator parameter for mean and standard deviation range (337.5±39.04). every aquatic life. Water temperature range (Fig.3) of lotic Dissolved Oxygen zone was recorded maximum in June (29.7°C) and Dissolved oxygen is most fundamental driver minimum in January (16.6°C) with their mean and parameter for regulating the all activities of aquatic standard deviation range (24.37 ±4.14), while water biodiversity. The dissolved oxygen range (Fig.9) of lotic temperature range of lentic zone was recorded maximum zone was recorded maximum in January (7.7 mg/l) and also in June (29.5°C) and minimum in January (17.2°C) minimum in May (5.4 mg/l) with their mean and standard with their mean and standard deviation range (23.78±4.12). deviation range (6.76±0.68), while dissolved oxygen range It shows negative correlation with dissolved oxygen16. of lentic zone was recorded maximum also in January The pH range (Fig.2) of lotic zone was recorded (7.7 mg/l) and minimum in June (5.0 mg/l) with their mean maximum in May (8.6) and minimum in January (7.5) and standard deviation range (6.72±0.86). In our findings with their mean and standard deviation range (8.09±0.36), dissolved oxygen is inversely correlated with temperature while pH range of lentic zone was recorded maximum in because solubility of gases decreases as temperature June (8.5) and minimum in December (7.5) with their mean rises11. and standard deviation range (8.14±0.26). The pH shows TA and TH positive correlation with electrical conductivity, alkalinity The total alkalinity range (Fig.10) of lotic zone was 14 and chloride . recorded maximum in May (181 mg/l) and minimum in Transparency and Turbidity January (109 mg/l) with their mean and standard deviation The transparency range (Fig.4) of lotic zone was range (141.58±22.74), while total alkalinity range of lentic recorded maximum in January (61.3 cm) and minimum zone was recorded maximum in June (196 mg/l) and in July (44.7c.m) with their mean and standard deviation minimum in December (98 mg/l) with their mean and Comparative Assessment of Physico-Chemical Parameters of Lotic and Lentic Zone of River Betwa in Jhansi (U.P.), India 315

Figs : 1,2,3,4,5 and 6, comparative presentation of physico-chemical parameters of Lotic and Lentic Zones 316 Umesh Kumar Mishra and Vijay Kumar Yadav

Figs : 7,8,9,10,11 and 12, comparative presentation of physico-chemical parameters of Lotic and Lentic Zones Comparative Assessment of Physico-Chemical Parameters of Lotic and Lentic Zone of River Betwa in Jhansi (U.P.), India 317

Figs : 13,14,15,16,17 and 18, comparative presentation of physico-chemical parameters of Lotic and Lentic Zones 318 Umesh Kumar Mishra and Vijay Kumar Yadav standard deviation range (142.25±29.37). The total their mean and standard deviation range (11.64±1.02),while hardness range (Fig.11) of lotic zone was recorded COD range of lentic zone was recorded maximum in June maximum in May (184mg/l) and minimum in December (14.8 mg/l) and minimum in January (11.2 mg/l) with their (103mg/l) with their mean and standard deviation range mean and standard deviation range (12.82±1.20). Our (150.08±22.70), while total hardness range of lentic zone findings are also accordance with several workers9,15. was recorded maximum in June (187 mg/l) and minimum Nitrate and Phosphate in December (119 mg/l) with their mean and standard The nitrate range (Fig.17) of lotic zone was recorded deviation range (153.66±20.55). maximum in May (2.38 mg/l) and minimum in December Ca, Mg and Chloride (1.22 mg/l) with their mean and standard deviation range The calcium range (Fig.12) of lotic zone was (1.64±0.37), while nitrate range of lentic zone was recorded maximum in May (33.54 mg/l) and minimum in recorded maximum in June (2.92 mg/l) and minimum in December (26.20 mg/l) with their mean and standard January (1.20 mg/l) with their mean and standard deviation deviation range (29.04±2.32), while calcium range of lentic range (1.93±0.59). The phosphate range (Fig.18) of lotic zone was recorded maximum in May (36.83 mg/l) and zone was recorded maximum in May (0.80 mg/l) and minimum in December (21.60 mg/l) with their mean and minimum in January (0.18 mg/l) with their mean and standard deviation range (29.84±5.38). The magnesium standard deviation range (0.46±0.21),while phosphate range of lotic zone was recorded maximum in May (16.20 range of lentic zone was recorded maximum in June (1.80 mg/l) and minimum in December (10.44 mg/l) with their mg/l) and minimum in January (0.68 mg/l) with their mean mean and standard deviation range (13.51±2.01), while and standard deviation range (1.33±0.29). magnesium range (Fig.13) of lentic zone was recorded Conclusion maximum in June (16.74 mg/l) and minimum in December (10.36 mg/l) with their mean and standard deviation range Water of both zones i.e. lotic and lentic were found (14.32±2.20).The chloride range (Fig.14) of lotic zone was completely alkaline. Most of the water parameters like recorded maximum in June (28.80 mg/l) and minimum in electrolytes, alkalinity, hardness, calcium, magnesium, January (19.34 mg/l) with their mean and standard chloride, BOD, COD and TDS were found higher in lentic deviation range (24.77±3.29), while chloride range of lentic zone than lotic zone due to stagnancy of natural flow of zone was recorded maximum in May (32.62 mg/l) and river water.The main cause of slightly polluted lentic zone minimum in January (20.44 mg/l) with their mean and (Parichha) is due to onthropogonic activities such as standard deviation range (26.85±3.99). Calcium, bathing in the river, washing clothes, household and magnesium and chloride express their positively agricultural waste runoff that were vigorously operated in correlation with EC, pH and temperature4. the lotic zone (Baratha). Apart from this, the discharge effluent of the power plant situated at Parichha dam is BOD and COD also a valuable listed reason for the partial increased water BOD and COD parameters are considered as pollution in the lentic zone. Hence in our research finding, water pollution touchstone of any aquatic belt. The BOD lentic zone found to be slightly polluted compared to lotic range (Fig.15) of lotic zone was recorded maximum in zones of selected sampling station. However most of the May (5.2 mg/l) and minimum in January (3.0 mg/l) with ranges of water parameters found to be under the their mean and standard deviation range (4.08±0.71), while permissible limit hence both zones can be directly used BOD range of lotic zone was recorded maximum in June for irrigation and fisheries sector but not for drinking (6.5mg/l) and minimum in January (2.9 mg/l) with their purpose. To use it as drinking purpose, it must first be mean and standard deviation range (4.15±1.16). The COD completely treated with standardized treatment, and only range (Fig.16) of lotic zone was recorded maximum in then can be used as drinkable water. May (13.4mg/l) and minimum in January (10.2 mg/l) with

References 1. Adoni AD. Workbook on Limnology, Published by Pratibha Publication, Sagar, . 1985; pp. 1-216. 2. Alam SK. Hydrobiological and physico-chemical analysis of the river at Kalpi, district Jalaun, U.P. India. Ph.D. Thesis (Zoology), Bundelkhand University, Jhansi. 2013. 3. APHA. American Public Health Association, standards methods for the examination of water and waste water, Washington, D.C. 1998; 20 ed. Comparative Assessment of Physico-Chemical Parameters of Lotic and Lentic Zone of River Betwa in Jhansi (U.P.), India 319

4. Arya S, Devi A and Kumar VA. Comparative Study of Water quality Assessment of Parichha and Sukma Dukma Dams, Jhansi, India, International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology. 2013; 4(4): 45-50. 5. Hussain G, Tharani M, Hussain A and Ahmad Y. Studies of Physico-chemical characteristics of river Betwa (M.P.), Indo American Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2017; 2(5):881-885. 6. Kulshrestha M, Singh B and Pani S. Impact of Industrial Effluents on water quality of Betwa river near , , International Journal of Advanced Research in Biological Sciences. 2017; 4(4):169-181. 7. Kumar M, Singh R, Chaurasia S and Khare PK. Physico-chemical examination of Lotic water of River Yamuna at Kalpi, district Jalaun, , India, Journal of Environmental Research and Development. 2016; 10(3):529- 536. 8. Mishra A, Tripathi S, Kumar V, Pandey HC and Sharma KK. Analysis of Physico-chemical properties of river water at Bundelkhand region of India, Agricultural Science Research Journal. 2016; 6(1):6-11. 9. Murhekar GH. Determination of Physico-chemical parameters of Surface water samples in and around Akot city, International research Journal in Chemistry and Environment. 2011; 1(2):183-187. 10. Patel A and Datar M. Seasonal variation of Physico-chemical characterstics of River Betwa in District, International Journal of Science, Environment. 2014; 3(6):2205-2214. 11. Perlman,H. Water Density, In the USGS Water Science School, Retrieved from http://water.usgs.gov/edu/ density.html. 2013. 12. Tripathi DM and Tripathi S. Ecological assessment of water quality of Betwa River in Jhansi District, Environmental Pollution and Protection. 2017; 2(1):1-5. 13. Trivedi RK and Goel PK. Chemistry and Biological methods for water pollution studies, Published by Environmental Publication, Kerad.1986;pp.1-246. 14. Verma S. Seasonal Variation of Water quality in Betwa River at Bundelkhand Region, India, Global Journal of Environmental Research. 2009; 3(3):164-168. 15. Vishwakarma S, Verma A and Saxena G. Assessment of water quality of Betwa river, Madhya Pradesh, India, International Journal of Water resources and Environmental Engineering. 2013; 5(4):217-222. 16. Zaidi J and Pal A. Influence of temperature on Physico-chemical properties of fresh water ecosystem of Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh, India, International Journal of Current Research in Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2015; 2(3):1-8. 17. Zaidi J, Ganesh S and Pal A. (2011) Assessment of water quality in river Betwa and Pahuj around Jhansi city, Uttar Pradesh, India, International Journal of Current Research. 2011; 3(5):027-031.