International Journal of Pharmacology & Toxicology / 6(1), 2016, 38-43.

e - ISSN - 2249-7668 Print ISSN - 2249-7676 International Journal of Pharmacology & Toxicology

www.ijpt.org

ANALYSIS OF PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PARAMETERS IN COLEROON RIVER WATER, DISTRICT, ,

Thenral M1* and Anbu Srinivasan P2

1Department of Chemistry, Annai College of Polytechnic, Kovilachery, , Tamilnadu, India. 2Department of Chemistry, AVC College, Mannampandal, , Tamilnadu, India.

ABSTRACT The River Coleroon is the drainage carrier of Cauvery, branching out near Upper Anaicut. Normally, the entire flood waters of Cauvery, surplus from dam are being diverted to Upper Anaicut and Coleroon directly and also through Grand Anaicut, Tamil Nadu, India. For the present research work, four sampling sites were identified and river water quality was analysed on a monthly basis over a period of 13 months. The present study deals with the changes in physico- chemical parameters, such as air, water, temperature, pH, Dissolved solids, Electrical Conductivity, Hardness, Calcium, Magnesium, Sulphate and Phosphate. These parameters were observed from June 2014 to June 2015. The results suggested that water quality of the Coleroon River is in desirable limits of WHO.

Keywords: River Coleroon, Physico - Chemical parameters, Hardness, Desirable limits.

INTRODUCTION Rivers are the most important water resources. process and regularly undertaken for a variety of purpose Unfortunately, the rivers are polluted by indiscriminate like testing suitability of water for agricultural, industrial, disposal of sewage, industrial wastes and human activities. aquaculture, recreational and domestic purposes. Several Fresh water resources need special care and attention to studies have been conducted so far to understand the make its available sustainably for the present and future physico-chemical properties of rivers in India [2-12]. So generations. Water is a vital role in agriculture, far, there is no study on this Coleroon River which is a aquaculture, industries and almost all other human main source of agricultural irrigation and fishing purpose. activities. Ensuring uninterrupted fresh water supply is a The present study was undertaken to analyze the quality of greater challenge and the world should manage to face water. during upcoming decades [1]. In the recent years environmental monitoring through regular assessment of MATERIALS AND METHODS water quality has become a crucial factor in the The water samples were collected from Coleroon exploitation or conservation of aquatic resources. Water River at four different sites (S1, S2, S3 and S4). The quality regulates biotic diversity and biomass, energy and water samples were collected from surface zone from the material cycles, tropical levels and rate of succession. In depth of 0.3m on the second week of each month from turns, it helps in planning exploitation, antipollution or June 2014 to June 2015. The collection of water samples conservation strategies. The environmental monitoring was done during morning hours (6 am to 10 am) on a fixed through water quality assessment should be a continuous date in an acid washed 1.5 litre capacity plastic bottles

Corresponding Author:- Thenral M Email:- [email protected]

38 | P a g e

International Journal of Pharmacology & Toxicology / 6(1), 2016, 38-43. with necessary precautions. The collected water samples monsoon months pH level was decreased due to rain. were immediately bought to the laboratory and analysed. Similar trend was also reported by [14, 15]. All the physico-chemical parameters like air temperature, water temperature, transparency, dissolved solids, Transparency: Transparency is a penetration of light into electrical conductivity, pH, hardness, calcium, water which is used for photosynthesis. Transparency of magnesium, sulphate and phosphate were carried out as the four sampling stations ranged from 28cm to 132cm per the standard methods (APHA 1995). (Table-1and Figure-5). The maximum transparency 132cm All the analysis was repeated five times. The was recorded during April 2015 in station III and range of water quality is presented. Analysis of variance minimum transparency 28cm was recorded during August was conducted using MINITAB software to determine the 2014 in station I. Transparency was high in raining season significance in the difference in distribution of factors and it was decreased towards winter to summer season. among the different stations selected. The mathematical Similar results have been reported by [11, 12]. relationship of transparency of water with other physical characteristics were assessed in linear and non linear TDS: Level of TDS ranges between 550 mg/l to 1500 models using the CURVEXPERT software and the mg/l (Table-1and Figure-6). The maximum amount of significantly correlated best suitable models were TDS was recorded in station I during November 2014 and determined based on coefficient of determination (R2) and minimum value in station IV during May 2015. The standard error values (SE) and the equations are presented. variability of TDS value may be due to dissolved soil minerals, surface run off etc. It is supported by [12, 16]. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of physicochemical parameters of four Total Hardness: Total hardness varies between 72 mg/l to stations at Coleroon River in different seasons are 258 mg/l (Table-1and Figure-7). The least value 72 mg/l presented in Table 1 and Figure 1-10. was recorded in station I during May 2014. The maximum values more 258 mg/l recorded in station I during October Air Temperature: Air temperature of the four sampling 2014. This may be due to dissolved minerals from stations ranged from 30OC to 38OC (Table-1and Figure-1). sedimentary rocks, run-off, detergents and soaps which The maximum temperature 38OC was recorded during aggravate the situation reported by [15, 17]. June 2015 in station IV and minimum temperature 30oC was recorded during November 2014 in station III. Calcium: Calcium levels vary between 32.06 mg/l to 98.77 mg/l (Table-1and Figure-8). The least value 32.06 Water temperature: Water temperature of the four mg/l was recorded in station I during May 2014. The sampling stations ranged from 25OC to 34OC (Table-1and maximum values 99.1 mg/l recorded in station I during Figure-2). The maximum temperature 34OC was recorded October 2014. This may be due to dissolved minerals from during April 2015 in station III and minimum temperature sedimentary rocks, run-off, detergents and soaps which 25oC was recorded during November 2014 in station III. aggravate the situation reported by [15, 17, 18]. Water temperature was high in summer months due to clear atmosphere without cloud [9, 12] and the oxygen Magnesium: Magnesium levels vary between 9.74 mg/l to amount is low. Aquatic organisms need 200C to 250C 38.85 mg/l (Table-1and Figure-9). The least value 9.74 which is the optimum temperature. mg/l was recorded in station I during May 2014. The maximum values 38.85 mg/l recorded in station I during Electrical Conductivity: Conductivity of the four October 2014 which may be due to addition of animal sampling stations ranged from 830 mic.mho/cm to 1470 organic and other wastes which aggravate the situation mic.mho/cm (Table-1 and Figure-3). The maximum reported by [12, 15, 17, 18]. Conductivity 1420 mic.mho/cm was recorded during July 2014 in station II and minimum Conductivity 830 Sulphate: The Sulphate content varies from 4.76 mg/l to mic.mho/cm was recorded during January 2015 in station 29.52 mg/l (Table-1and Figure-10). Higher values was I. Conductivity was high in raining season and it decreased observed in station IV during February 2015 and towards winter to summer season. A high level of minimum value was observed in station III during May conductivity reflects the pollution status as well as trophic 2015. Sulphate is an important constituent of water level of the aquatic body. Similar results have been hardness. Similar results have been reported by [1, 19]. reported by [11, 13]. Phosphate: Phosphate is used for increasing fertility of pH: The pH value recorded ranges between 7.2 to 8.3 water. In the present study, amount of phosphate ranges (Table-1and Figure-4). The maximum pH was recorded between 0.13 mg/l to 2.14 mg/l (Table-1and Figure-11). during June 2014 in station IV. The minimum pH was Lower values were recorded during March 2015 in station recorded during March 2014 in station IV. During II winter. The high phosphate concentration was recorded

39 | P a g e

International Journal of Pharmacology & Toxicology / 6(1), 2016, 38-43. during December 2014 in station III which may be due to 0.6093), conductivity (r= 0.5035), pH (r= 0.9012), high rate of water evaporation and washing activities. hardness(r= 0.8032), calcium(r= 0.7215), magnesium(r= Similar results have been reported by [1, 12, 20]. 0.5247), sulphate (r= 0.5831) and phosphate(r= 0.5987) According to the study, we can summarize that among the different parameter recorded. Among these the waters of Coleroon River is in agreeable limits. The parameter showed polynomial fit and the relationship can transparency was found to have significant correlation be expressed. with air temperature (r= 0.7062), water temperature (r=

Table 1. The detailed observations for the fluctuation in all the physico-chemical parameters S.No Parameter Station-I Station-II Station-III Station-IV 1. Air temperature(oC) 30 – 38 31-38 30 - 38 31 - 38 2. Water temperature(oC) 25 – 33 26 - 33 25 - 34 25 - 31 3. Conductivity 830 – 1300 840 - 1420 800- 1200 910 - 1090 4. pH 7.3 – 8.2 7.3 – 8.2 7.2 – 8.3 7.2 – 8.3 5. Transparency(cm) 28 – 112 40 - 120 42 - 132 40 - 88 6. TDS(mg/l) 620 – 1500 550 - 950 610 - 950 550 - 800 7. Total Hardness(mg/l) 72 – 258 112 - 240 130 - 216 89 - 192 8. Calcium(mg/l) 32.06- 99.1 82.06– 94.12 30.08 – 72.14 35.54– 67.54 9. Magnesium(mg/l) 9.74- 38.85 19.5- 38.52 18.7 – 35.1 11.28- 30.81 10. Sulphate(mg/l) 5.35- 12.46 5.84- 18.52 4.76-16.06 6.61-26.91 11. Phosphate(mg/l) 0.15- 1.5 0.13-1.25 0.27-2.14 0.12-1.24

Figures: The monthly variations in various physico-chemical parameters of the Coleroon River at the selected sites Figure 1. Seasonal variation of Air temperature (oC) in Figure 2. Seasonal variation of Water temperature (oC) four stations during June 2014 to June 2015 in four stations during June 2014 to June 2015

Figure 3. Seasonal variation of Conductivity in four Figure 4. Seasonal variation of pH in four stations stations during June 2014 to June 2015 during June 2014 to June 2015

40 | P a g e

International Journal of Pharmacology & Toxicology / 6(1), 2016, 38-43.

Figure 5. Seasonal variation of Transparency (cm) in Figure 6. Seasonal variations of TDS (mg/L) in four four stations during June 2014 to June 2015 stations during June 2014 to June 2015

Figure 7. Seasonal variation of Total Hardness (mg/L) in Figure 8. Seasonal variation of Calcium (mg/L) in four four stations during June 2014 to June 2015 stations during June 2014 to June 2015

Figure 9. Seasonal variation of Magnesium (mg/L) in Figure 10. Seasonal variation of Sulphate (mg/L) in four four stations during June 2014 to June 2015 stations during June 2014 to June 2015

41 | P a g e

International Journal of Pharmacology & Toxicology / 6(1), 2016, 38-43.

Figure 11. Seasonal variation of Phosphate (mg/L) in four stations during June 2014 to June 2015

CONCLUSION The results clearly suggest that the transparency characteristics for deriving a universal nonlinear equation can be a suitable and easy index to predict air temperature, for predicting such parameters. The present study water temperature, conductivity, pH, hardness, calcium, suggested that most of the physical and chemical magnesium, sulphate as well as phosphate of water. properties of Coleroon river water were within desirable Investigations of these nonlinear derivations should be limits. The quality of water is not stable and it may be made in different types of ecosystem with different changed due to seasonal variations.

REFERENCES 1. Pankaj Malviya, Anjani Kumar Dwivedi. (2015). Physico- chemical parameters of Narmada River Water: A review. International Journal of Chemical Studies, 3(2), 01-04. 2. Sreenivasan A, Pillai V.K, Franklin T. (1997). Limnological study of a shallow water body (Kolovoi Lake) in Tamil Nadu, India. Hydrobiology, 2 (2), 61-69. 3. Mohanraj R, Kumar S, Azee P.A, Kumar S.R. (2000). Pollution status of wetland in urban Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 64, 638-643. 4. Srinivasa G.S, Kotaiah B. (2000). Seasonal Variation of water quality in a tropical Kalyani reservoir, near Tirupati, India, J. Environmental Protection, 20 (6), 452 – 455. 5. Shastri Y, Pendse D.C. (2001). Hyrobiological study of Dahikhura Reservoir. J. Environ.Bio., 22 (1), 67-70. 6. Rajasekar AV, Lingaiah A, Rao S, Piska R.S. (2007). The studies on water quality parameters of a minor reservoir, Nadergal, Rangareddy District, Andra Pradesh, J.Aqua.Biol, 22(1), 118-122. 7. Bhalerao S.N. (2012). Study of Fish Diversity and Water Quality at Kasar Sai Dam, Hinjewadi, Pune, Madhya Pradesh, India, International Research Journal of Biological Sciences, 1(4),51-55. 8. Pradeep V, Deepika C, Urvi G, Itesh S. (2012). Water Quality Analysis of an organically polluted Lake by investigating different physical and chemical parameters in Chandola Lake, Gujarath, International Journal of Research in Chemistry and Environment, 2(1), 105-111. 9. Abhas Jain, Singh SK. (2013). Limnological Studies Related to Physico-Chemical Characteristics of Water in Anasagar Lake, Ajmer, Rajasthan. International Journal of Advance Research and Innovation, 1, 65-72. 10. Ravichandran C, Rakesh Sharma T. (2014). Physico-chemical Characteristics of Sediments in Distributaries of River Cauvery, , Tamilnadu Sch. Acad. J. Biosci, 2(7), 398-403. 11. Wan Mohd Khalik1, Abdullah M.P, Al-Qaim F.F. (2015). Chemometric Application on Surface River Water Quality: A Case Study of Linggi River, Malaysia. Iranica Journal of Energy and Environment, 6(1), 26-33. 12. Jasmin lena P, Maneemegalai S. (2015). Water pollution Status of Varahanadhi River by Physico-chemical Analysis. International Journal of ChemTech Research, 7(7), 2911-2916. 13. Maya K, Remya S.I, Baburaj B, Lekshmi I, Nisha U.R, Sangeetha J, Padmalal D. (2013). International Journal of Agricultural Science, 3(1), 363-372. 14. Mathavan N, Nambirajan P. (2012). Studies on the physicochemical parameters of Grant Anjunt (Kallanai), Thanjavur District, Tamil Nadu, India, IJBPS, 2(4), 32-40. 15. Shekhar, Shekhar H. (2015). Study of Water Quality Index of Hindon River of Western Up, India: A Comparative Investigation. International Journal of Basic and Applied Chemical Sciences, 5 (2), 40-49.

42 | P a g e

International Journal of Pharmacology & Toxicology / 6(1), 2016, 38-43.

16. Garg R.K, Rao R.J, Uchchariya D, Shukla G, Saksena D.N. (2010). Seasonal variations in water quality parameters and major threats it Ramsagar reservoir, Afr.J.Environ.Sci., 4(2), 61-76. 17. Kalavathy S, Sharma T, Krimav P.S. (2011). Water Quality Index of River Cauvery in Tiruchi District, Tamilnadu, Arch. Environ.Sci, 5, 55-61. 18. Kiran B.R. (2010). Physico-chemical characteristics of Fish ponds of Bhadra Project at , Rasayan J.Chem, 3(4), 671-676. 19. Verma A.K, Saksena D.N. (2010). Assessment of water quality and Pollution status of Kalpi (Morar) 3(1) River, Gwalior Madhya Pradesh, with special reference to conservation and management plan., Asian J.Exp. Biol.Sci, 2, 419-429. 20. Simpi B, Hiremath S.M, Murthy K.N, ChandrasheKurappa K.N, Patel A.N, Puttiah E.T. (2011). Analysis of water quality using Physico-Chemical parameters in Hosahalli tank Shimoga District, Karnataka, India., Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, 3(11), 95 -105. 21. APHA. (1995). Standard Methods for the estimation of water and waste water, American public health association, American waste water Association and water pollution control federation, Washington.

43 | P a g e