Assessment of the Quality of Jehlum River Water for Irrigation and Drinking at District Muzaffarabad Azad Kashmir

Sarhad J. Agric. Vol. 23, No. 4, 2007

ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF JEHLUM RIVER WATER FOR IRRIGATION AND DRINKING AT DISTRICT MUZAFFARABAD AZAD KASHMIR

Sair Sarwar *, Fayaz Ahmad * and Jamal Khan **

ABSTRACT Research study was conducted to evaluate the Physico-chemical quality of Jehlum river water at District Muzaffarabad during 2001-02. Thirty water samples were collected at high and low flow conditions and were analyzed for pH, Electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS) and suspended solids (SS). The high flow refers to the month of July and August while low flow refers to the month of December and January. The mean values of pH at high flow were 7.18 slightly lower than low flow that was 7.79. The mean value of EC at low flow 0.24 dSm -1 was comparatively higher than the EC at high flow 0.19 dSm -1. TDS at high flow ranged from 90-800 mg/L with overall mean of 273.6 mg/L while in case of low flow the concentration of TDS ranged from 30 - 430 mg/L with a mean value of 145.67 mg/L. Hardness at high flow ranged from 40-160 mg/L with a mean value of 95.13 mg/L while the mean value was 114.4 mg/L. The value of SS range from 200-1200 mg at high flow while 30-600 mg at low flow. The Jehlum river water is acceptable for drinking as well as irrigation at both flows according to the analyzed physico- chemical properties, these results were close to the World Health Organization (WHO) and United State Environment Protection Agency (USEPA) standards.

Keywords: Drinking, Irrigation, Jehlum River, River Water

INTRODUCTION Water is most essential for life. People can survive MATERIALS AND METHODS without food for long time but not without water. But Thirty water samples were collected at high and low due to industrial development these sources become flow from selected locations in the study area of polluted. This contamination become harmful to the Jehlum and Neelum rivers on the basis of catchment living things when these supplies pass on through areas while keeping in view the population density cities or populated area. Plants and animals require life and human activities in consideration. The all water that is moderately pure, and they cannot water samples were collected during high flow and survive if their water is loaded with toxic chemicals. low flow through 2d method (the sampling was Sever load of chemicals kill this life. The Jehlum carried out at sites where water depth was 1 meter River is the great source of water supply in Azad and the samples were collected from 0.2 meter Kashmir and Pakistan. The source of this river is depth).The sampling bottles were filled once during spring Veri-Nag situated at the altitude of 20000 m high flow (in the month of July and August) and once and flows towards Pakistan. Due to this long distance at the same selected points during low flow (in the many contaminants are added in this river and then month of December and January). The selected water this water is polluted. For assessing the quality of this samples were collected labeled and were brought in water detail study was conducted. Shainberg and to laboratory of Soil and Environmental Sciences, Oster (1985) showed that the pH of irrigation water is NWFP Agriculture University, Peshawar during not an accepted criteria of water quality because it 2002. tends to be buffered by the soil and most crops can tolerate a wide range of pH. Zakirullah et al. (1994) Following parameters were analyzed: reported that Kabul River is dirty in several location pH, EC (Electrical Conductivity), Hardness, TDS and is unfit for human consumption. This is due to (Total Dissolved Solids), SS (Suspended Solids). heavy loading of human savage and effluents from pH and EC of water samples were determined using industrial hotpots. They also reported concentration pH and EC meter (Richard, 1954). Hardness was of metals in high as well as in low flow conditions measured by use of titration method (Hamer 1986) and these metals affected aquatic life. Dunderdale while dissolved solids and suspended solids also were and Morris (1997) studied the impact of river measured by use of Hamer’s method (1986). Results maintains on drainage and agriculture performance, were statically analyzed and T-value of the table was they reported that river maintains can deliver recorded. standard of drainage and provides service to agriculture land use. The main objective of present RESULTS AND DISCUSSION study was to assess the extent of pollution of Jehlum pH refers to the negative log base of hydrogen ion River in Azad Kashmir. concentration. The pH values of different samples

* National Tea Research Institute, Shinkiari, Mansehra – Pakistan ** Department of Soil & Environmental Sciences, NWFP Agricultural University Peshawar - Pakistan Sair Sarwar et al. Assessment of the quality of Jehlum river water for drinking… 1042 collected from different locations of the Jehlum and household wastes of human and livestock. The results Neelum River during high and low flows are given in of TDS are given in Table I Fig.4. This shows that at Table. I and Fig.1. The result shows that during high high flow TDS ranged from 90—800 mg/L at flow the pH of water varies from 6.5 to 7.69 with an Mainibandi, Majohi, in case of low flow the average value of 7.18. As for as low flow is concentration of TDS ranged from 30—430 mg/L at concerned the pH ranges from 6.62 to 8.33 with an Shoukatline and Chatarkalas respectively. The total average of 7.79. Highest pH value was found at upper solids have an important effect on taste of drinking plate that is 7.67 while the lowest value of 6.5 was water. The WHO level of TDS for drinking water is noted at lower plate. Similarly at low flow the water 1200 mg/L According to this standard the water of sample from Rashidabad had the maximum value of Jehlum River is suitable for drinking. According to 8.33 and lowest of CMH 6.62 at Muzaffarabad. USEPA (1999) irrigation level is 500 mg/L. The river However, mean values show that pH at low flow was water is also suitable for irrigation according to slightly higher than at high flow. According to WHO criteria set by USEPA (1999). (1993) standards for pH of drinking and irrigation water are 6.5—8.0 and 4.5—9.0, respectively. This Suspended solids consist of silt, clay, and fine means that the river water posses no threat of particles of organic and inorganic nature, which are drinking and irrigation. While Shainberg and Oster regarded as pollutant. The results of SS are given in (1985) reported the pH of irrigation is not accepted Table I Fig.5. During high flow the maximum criteria of water quality. concentration of SS noted at Chaterkalas, which was 1200 mg/L where as the minimum concentration at EC measure the concentration of salt in the solution. Kamsar was 190 mg/L. Similarly, at low flow it The results given in Table I and Fig.2 showed the ranged from 30—600 mg/L at Bandemirsamdani and high flow range b/w 0.1—0.59 dSm -1 while at low Kulian, respectively. According to USEPA (1999) SS flow varies from 0.1—0.3 dSm -1. Moreover the mean standards for drinking water is 5 mg/L. It means that value of EC at low flow 0.24 was comparatively the samples analyzed for SS were not suitable for higher than the EC at high flow that is 0.19 dSm -1. drinking. Excess SS may also have adverse effect on According to FAO (1982) water having EC less than agriculture through soil crust formation thereby 0.7 dSm -1 are safe to be used for irrigation and impeding seedling emergence and soil aeration, and drinking purpose. From these results it can be through film formation on foliage reducing concluded that salinity will not build up if the Jehlum photosynthetic rates as well as marketability of leafy river water is used for irrigation, similarly for human vegetables (Nyle and Raymond 1996). and livestock consumption such water will not pose any problem. Hardness in water is caused by CONCLUSION dissolved calcium and magnesium. It causes the soap i. The water of the Jehlum river during high scum, forms scale on boilers. Results shows that and low flow was slightly alkaline hardness at high flow (Table I) was ranged between ii. With an average pH of 7.8 and 7.9 at high 40—160 mg/L. with mean value and standard flow and low flow respectively. deviation of 95.13 mg/L and ±36.45 mg/L, iii. The water is free from salinity having respectively. At low flow the hardness ranged average EC value of 0.19 at high flow while between 60—180 mg/L with mean of 114.4 mg/L 0.24 dSm -1 at low flow, which is permissible and standard deviation of ±36.64 mg/L. According to for drinking and irrigation according to the Sawyer (1960) water having value less than 7.5 mg/L standards. hardness are considered soft water while value higher iv. The mean value of the hardness at both than 150 mg/L are hard water. These results show conditions is acceptable for irrigation but that at high flow Rashidabad, Pattika and Kullian during low flow few samples show hard water is hard having 150, 160 and 160 mg/L, water characteristics. respectively. During low flow the results of six v. The mean values of TDS at high flow and samples show hard water characteristics (Fig.3). This low flow indicate that the water is suitable fluctuation of hardness may be due to the addition of both for drinking and irrigation purposes. near by population effluents, which cause sudden vi. The results of suspended solids showed that changes in the value of hardness. Total dissolved during high flow the water can’t be used for solids comprise inorganic salts and small amount of irrigation and drinking, while at low flow organic matter dissolved in water. The main source of the values remained in the permissible TDS in water is rock, soils, precipitation, wind and limits.

Sarhad J. Agric. Vol. 23, No. 4, 2007 1043

pH at high flow 9 pH atlow flow

8.5

7.5 pH Range pH

6.5

6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 Analyzed W ater Sample

Fig.1 pH at high flow and low flow of Jehlum River

EC at high flow 0.7 EC at low flow

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3 EC RangeEC dsm-1 0.2

0.1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Analyzed Water samples

Fig.2 EC at high flow and low flow of Jehlum River

Hardness at high flow

190 Hardness at low flow

170

150

130

110

90 Hardness Range (mg/L) Range Hardness 70

30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Analyzed Water Smaples

Fig.3 Hardness at high flow and low flow of Jehlum River

Sair Sarwar et al. Assessment of the quality of Jehlum river water for drinking… 1044

900 Dissolved Solids at High Flow 800 Dissolved Solids at Low Flow 700

600

500

400

300 DissolvedSolids(mg/L) 200

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 121314 1516 171819 2021 222324 2526 272829 30 Analyzed W ater Samples

Fig. 4 Dissolved solids at high flow and low flow of Jehlum River

1350 Suspended Solids at High Flow 1250 Suspended Solids at Low Flow 1150 1050 950 850 750 650 550 450

Suspended (mg/L) Solids 350 250 150 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 Analyzed W ater Samples

Fig. 5. Suspended solids at high flow and low flow of Jehlum River

Sarhad J. Agric. Vol. 23, No. 4, 2007 1045

Table-I: Physico-Chemical properties of Jehlum River water at high and low flow conditions Sample Collection pH at pH at low EC at EC at low Hardness Hardness Dissolved Dissolved Suspende Suspende No. Points high flow flow high flow flow at high at low Solids at Solids at d Solids at d Solids at (dSm -1) (dSm -1) flow flow high flow low flow high flow low flow (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 1 Chinari 7.21 8.18 0.24 0.29 90 110 170 100 400 130 2 Naili 7.3 7.39 0.25 0.3 72 80 210 90 300 110 3 Hattian Balla 7.15 7.3 0.26 0.32 108 120 230 130 390 190 4 Saran 7.25 7.68 0.24 0.29 64 70 560 90 1170 130 5 Gghari 7.16 8.06 0.23 0.3 120 130 690 190 1090 440 Dopatta 6 Majhoi 7.6 8.2 0.21 0.31 80 100 800 210 1120 400 7 Langar Pura 7.22 6.78 0.23 0.29 140 160 110 100 200 160 8 Miani Bandi 7.18 7.43 0.22 0.28 80 90 90 180 210 230 9 Rasheed Abad 6.94 8.33 0.25 0.29 150 170 190 90 420 260 10 Domal 7.48 7.96 0.16 0.23 80 80 200 160 400 430 11 Panjgran 7.14 8.03 0.1 0.17 120 120 330 100 200 130 12 Arlian 7.01 7.99 0.11 0.17 60 70 100 120 300 200 13 Pattika 7.04 7.73 0.12 0.18 160 180 160 110 350 190 14 Nourassari 7.23 7.98 0.11 0.19 140 170 200 140 390 250 15 Ghori 7.04 8.08 0.09 0.17 80 90 220 90 460 210 16 Kamsar 7.24 7.89 0.11 0.19 60 80 320 120 190 260 17 B. Mir 7.29 7.94 0.1 0.2 40 70 180 80 310 30 Samdani 18 Challa 6.98 7.95 0.12 0.19 80 100 110 130 290 130 19 Uper plate 7.67 7.89 0.1 0.2 120 140 190 90 310 110 20 Lower plate 6.5 7.5 0.45 0.19 60 90 220 100 400 390 21 C.M.H Mzd. 6.65 6.62 0.59 0.24 50 110 380 120 530 170 22 Shoukat line 6.9 7.47 0.15 0.19 140 150 300 30 410 90 23 Gojra 7.65 7.91 0.11 0.2 120 156 350 150 640 360 24 Ambore 7.59 7.85 0.15 0.23 40 80 210 120 480 280 25 Rara 7.48 7.98 0.15 0.25 60 110 350 110 350 280 26 Dulai 7.23 8.02 0.19 0.24 120 150 110 100 310 290 27 Kulian 6.98 7.96 0.22 0.27 160 170 390 410 1130 600 28 Chatar kalas 7.39 7.78 0.15 0.26 60 60 300 430 1200 310 29 Barsala 7.25 7.96 0.2 0.25 80 80 220 210 640 500 30 Kohala 6.6 7.79 0.17 0.24 120 146 320 270 970 460 Means 7.18 7.79 0.19 0.24 95.13 114.4 273.67 145.67 518.67 257.33 t-Value 5.15* 4.80* 9.52* 9.25* -11.63* -14.90* -8.51* -8.01* -8.52* -9.56* Coefficient of variation 4.55% 38.36% 38.88% 63.41% 64.05%

Sair Sarwar et al. Assessment of the quality of Jehlum river water for drinking… 1046

REFERENCES Ayers, R.S. and D.W. Westcott. 1985. Water quality for Sawyer, C.N. 1960: Chemistry of sanitary engineering. MC agriculture and drainage division. Paper 29- Graw Hill Book Co. Inc. New York. Rome. Schalscha, B.E., T.I. Ahumada, M.M. Ghosh and M. Ros. Dunderdale, J.A.L. and J. Morris. 1997. Agricultural 1998. Heavy metals in Rivers and soils of central impacts of river maintenance activities: a method Chile. Water Sci. and Tech. 37: 251-255. of assessment. J. Agric. Engg. Res. 68 (4): 317- 332 Shainberg, I. and J.D. Oster. 1985. Quality of irrigation water. Int. Irrig. Inf. Center. pp. 8. FAO/WHO. 1982. Evaluation of certain additives. Expert Committee on food Additives. Cambridge, USEPA. 1999. Secondary contaminants level: Canada. Recommended maximum concentration of heavy metals and inorganic constituent in water; Final Hamer, M.J. 1986. Laboratory and chemical analysis In: rule. Federal Register. 56 (110) 2641 –2564. US Water and Waste Water Technology, 2 nd Ed. Envir. Protection Agency. John Wiley and Sons, New York. pp. 30-46. WHO. 1993. Guidelines for drinking water quality,2 nd Ed., Nyle, B.C. and R.W. Raymond. 1996. The nature and Vol. 1. World Health Org. Geneva. properties of soils. Printice Hall, Public. New Jersey. pp. 740. Zakirullah, N.U. Islam and S. Zakirullsh. 1994. Pollution and Kabul River. IUCN- The World Richard, L.A. 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline Conservation Union, Pakistan. Plan. Environ. and alkali soil USDA Agric. Handbook. 60: 75- Dev. Deptt. Civil Sectt. Peshawar. 81.