sign in sign up
<<
Home , Jhansi, Ken River, Rampur district, Uttar Pradesh

6360 Amit Pal et al./ Elixir Pollution 42 (2012) 6360-6364

Available online at www.elixirpublishers.com (Elixir International Journal) Pollution

Elixir Pollution 42 (2012) 6360-6364 Water quality monitoring of of district, Uttar , Jitendra and Amit Pal* Institute of Environment & Development Studies, University, – 284128, India.

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article history: Banda is the easternmost district of Bundelkhand region. It lies between latitude 24º 53' and Received: 19 November 2011; 24º 55' North and longitude 80º 27' and 81º 34' East with an area of 7,624 sq.km. The Received in revised form: western boundary of Banda touches and Hamirpur districts separated by river 10 January 2012; Ken for certain distance. In present investigation the physicochemical characteristic of Ken Accepted: 23 January 2012; River were studied. Water samples were collected quarterly from ten different sites of Ken River during the year January 2009 to December 2010. Preservation and analysis of water Keywords samples were based on standard method proposed by American Public Health Association Bundelkhand region, (APHA, 2005). In cationic abundance sodium is followed by calcium, magnesium and Physicochemical, potassium (Na>Ca>Mg>K) in the river through out the year. The tolerance limit for TDS, Water quality. SAR and % Na of water use for irrigation has been found to be excellent for TDS and % Na, fair for SAR. Nitrate, Sulphate and Phosphate were found to below the permissible limit of WHO (1993). © 2012 Elixir All rights reserved.

Introduction human or animal hosts. These wastes also increase the The surface water quality is a matter of serious concern concentration of suspended solids (turbidity), bacteria and virus today. Rivers due to their role in carrying off the municipal and growth leading to potential health impacts. Increase in nutrient industrial wastewater and run off from agricultural land in their load may lead to eutophication; organic wastes increases the vast drainage basins are among the most vulnerable water bodies oxygen demand in water leading to oxygen reduction in water to pollution (Yerel, 2010).Water pollution has now reached a with potentially severe impacts on whole ecosystems ( crisis point specifically in developing world. Almost every water and Rajesh, 2011). Therefore now a days fresh water has body is polluted to an alarming level. Thus, estimation of quality become a scare commodity due to over exploitation and of water is extremely important for proper assessment of the pollution ( et al. , 2009).With this background present associated hazards (Warhate et al, 2006). Aquatic ecosystem are proposed study has been undertaken for examine the water not only source of water and resources, such as fish and crop for quality of river ken in Banda district. household and agro industrial uses, but are vital parts of natural Materials and Methods environment on which economic systems are parasites and This is the easternmost district of Bundelkhand. Banda lies depend for their survival (Rai and Pal, 2001). between latitude 24º 53' and 24º 55' North and longitude 80º 27' Aquatic ecosystems are getting polluted day by day due to and 81º 34' East with an area of 7,624 sq.km. The southern and growth of the industrial corridor, nutrient loading and rapid south eastern boundary of the district is made up of plateau and anthropogenic activities especially in developing countries. Due the mountain of Vindhyas bordering on the district , to addition of domestic waste (sewage), phosphate, nitrate etc. and Panna. The northern boundary is entirely made up by from wastes or their decomposition products in water bodies, River which flows for nearly 215 km, separating it they become rich in nutrients, especially phosphates and nitrate from Fatehpur and districts. The western boundary of ions. Thus with the passage of these nutrients through such Banda touches Chhatarpur and Hamirpur districts separated by organic wastes, the water bodies become highly productive or river Ken for certain distance. eutrophic and the phenomenon as eutrophication in lake which is Water samples were collected quarterly from ten different increasing day by day. The oxygen content of lake is also low sites from Ken River (Figure-1) during the year 2009 & 2010. due to oxygen depletion waste generated by anthropogenic Samples were collected in good quality screw-capped high activities (Kumar et al ., 2010). density pre-sterilized polypropylene bottles of one liter capacity, In natural aquatic ecosystems, metallic compounds use to labeled properly and analyzed in the laboratory. Preservation occur in low concentration, normally at nanogram to microgram and analysis of water samples were based on standard method per liter level. Heavy metals may come from natural sources, proposed by American Public Health Association (APHA, leached from rocks and soils according to their geochemical 2005). pH, EC, TDS, Temperature and DO were analyzed on the mobility or come from anthropogenic sources, as the result of spot by water quality analyzer kit (Elico, PE 138). NO 3, PO 4 and human land occupation and industrial pollution (Espinoza- SO 4 were analyzed by UV Visible Spectrophotometer (Elico, SL Quinones et al , 2005)] 159). Na and K were analyzed by Flame Photometer (Systronic Industries discharge variety of pollutants in the waste water 130). The water quality was tested for its use for irrigation and including heavy metals, organic toxins, oil nutrients and solids. interpreted in terms of Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR) and % Many of the substances are toxic or even carcinogenic. Na. Pathogens can obviously produce water born diseases in either

Tele: E-mail addresses: [email protected] © 2011 Elixir All rights reserved 6361 Amit Pal et al./ Elixir Pollution 42 (2012) 6360-6364

Biochemical oxygen demand is usually defined as the amount of oxygen required by bacteria in stabilizing the decomposable organic matter. BOD gives an idea about the extent of pollution (Yadav and Rajesh, 2011; Jain et al., 1996). The BOD value was maximum (14.2 mg/l) in January to March and minimum (8.6 mg/l) in the month of April to June. The average value of BOD was found to be 10 mg/l. The chemical oxygen demand (COD) is a measure of oxygen equivalent to the requirement of oxidizing organic matter

Figure -1: Map showing sampling site at Ken River contents by a strong chemical agent. The COD is helpful in The tolerance limits for some parameters recommended by indicating toxic conditions and the presence of biologically Wilcox (1965) are given below: - resistant organic substances. The maximum value (78mg/l) of The Na % describing the Sodium hazard giving by (Warhate et COD was found in July to September and minimum value al , 2006)- (43mg/l) in the month of January to March. The average value % Na = 100 X Na + / (Na + + Ca + + Mg ++K +) of COD was found to be 62 mg/l. The main sources of nitrate in The Sodium or Alkali hazard in the use of water for water are human and animal waste, industrial effluent, use of irrigation is determined by absolute and relative concentration of fertilizers and chemicals, silage through drainage system (Jain cation and is expressed in terms of Sodium Absorption Ratio et al .1991). The nitrate (Maximum- 44mg/l; Minimum- 29 (SAR) and it can be estimated by formula (Singh, 2002): mg/l), phosphate (Maximum- 4.8mg/l; Minimum- 1.7mg/l) and SAR= Na +/ [(Ca + + Mg +)/2] ½ Sulphate (Maximum- 98mg/l; Minimum- 82mg/l) were found Where, concentrations are expressed in milli equivalent per litre under the permissible limit of WHO (1993) and BIS (1991). (meq/l). The major cations include Ca, Mg, Na and K. The cationic Results and Discussion chemistry is dominated by sodium and calcium. In cationic The physico-chemical analysis carried out in quarterly from abundance sodium is followed by calcium, magnesium and ten different sites of Ken River water during the year 2009 and potassium (Na> Ca > Mg > K) in the Ken River water through 2010 are given in Tables - 2 and 3. The temperature plays a out the year (Tables - 2 and 3). The tolerance limit for TDS, crucial role in physical-chemical and biological behavior of SAR and % Na of water use for irrigation recommended by aquatic system (Dwivedi and Pathak, 2007).A study revealed Wilcox (1965) the data has been found to be excellent for TDS that temperature varied from 19ºC (in winter season) and 30ºC and % Na and fair for SAR (Tables - 1, 2 and 3). (in summer seasons). Average temperature in both the year Conclusion found to be 24ºC. Higher values of pH fasten the scale formation The natural water bodies are continuously getting in water heating apparatus and reduce germicidal potential of contaminated by the discharge of sewage, industrial and other chlorine (Vijaya et al ., 2002).It was observed that water is wastes originated from anthropogenic activities in and around slightly alkaline in nature. The average pH value was found to the both of the lakes. The water quality and pollution of surface be 7.5. The total hardness is mainly due to Ca; Mg and water disrupts algal communities which can affect the entire eutrophication. The water containing excess hardness is not aquatic food web that will result is a serious threat to life (Rai desirable for potable water. It consumes more soap during and Pal, 2001). washing of clothes. In the present study average value of It is concluded that water quality of Ken River such as pH, hardness was found to be 230 mg/l. Electrical conductivity is alkalinity, hardness, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Nitrate, phosphate and considered to be a rapid and good measure of dissolved solids. sulphate were found to be within WHO and BIS permissible Conductivity is an important criterion in determining the limits. Therefore water of these dams can be used for irrigation suitability of water for irrigation (Gupta et al ., 2009). The purpose. The Cationic chemistry is dominated by Sodium (Na) conductivity mainly depends on ionic concentration or dissolved and Calcium (Ca). According to Wilcox (1965) TDS & % Na is inorganic substances (Zaidi et al., 2011).The average value of Excellent and fair for SAR that means it is suitable for electrical conductivity in both the year was found to be agricultural purposes. 730µS/cm. Alkalinity is due to the presence of bicarbonates, References APHA (2005). Standard methods for examination of water and carbonates or hydroxides ( and Goel, 1992). The st weathering of rocks is the potential source of alkalinity. The wastewater 21 ed. American Public Health Association, average value of alkalinity was found to be 190 mg/l in both the Washington. year. TDS indicates the general nature of salinity of water. B.I.S. Bureau of Indian Standards Drinking water specification Water with high TDS produces scales on cooking vessels and (1991), Ist revision, ISS 10500. boilers. Water containing more than 500mg/l of TDS is not Espinoza-Quinones, F.R., Zacarkim, C.E., Palacio, S.M., considered suitable for drinking water supplies (Gupta et al ., Obregon, C.L., Zenatti, D.C., Galante, R.M., Rossi, N., Rossi, 2009). According to Wilcox (1965) classification (Table -1) the F.L.,Pereira, A., Welter, R.A. and Rizzutto M.A. (2005). TDS value of Ken River was found to be excellent for irrigation Removal of Heavy Metal from Polluted River Water using use i.e, less than 200 ppm. The main sources of dissolved Aquatic Macrophytes Salvinia sp ., Brazillian Journal of Physics , oxygen in water are diffusion of oxygen from air and 35 (3B), 744. photosynthetic activity taking place in water. The diffusion of Dwivedi, S.L. and Pathak, V. (2007). Studies of water quality of oxygen from air mainly dependent on temperature, salinity, total Mandakini River in chitrakoot for irrigation purposes, IJEP , dissolved salt and water movements etc. (Zaidi et al., 2011).The 27(8): 751-754. maximum value of DO in the month of January to March (14.5 Gupta Preeti, Choudhary Ranjeeta and Vishwakarma Monika mg/l) and minimum 10.2mg/l in the month of April to June. (2009). Assessment of water quality of Kerwa and Kaliasote 6362 Amit Pal et al./ Elixir Pollution 42 (2012) 6360-6364

rivers at district for irrigation purpose. International Yadav S.S. and Kumar Rajesh (2011). Monitoring Water quality Journal of Theoretical & Applied Sciences , 1(2): 27-30. of Kosi River in , , India. Jain, S.M., M. Sharma and R. (1996). Seasonal Advances in Applied Science Research , 2 (2): 197-201. variations in physicochemical parameters of Halali reservoir of Yerel Suheyla (2010). Water Quality Assessment of Porsuk , India. J. Ecobiol ., (8); 181-188. River, Turkey, E-Journal of Chemistry , 7(2), 593-599. Kumar Jitendra, Gond Dadhibal Prasad and Pal Amit (2010). Warhate S.R., Yenkie M.K.N., Chaudhari M.D. and Pokale Contamination of Water in Century old Freshwater Lakes of W.K. (2006), Impacts of Mining Activities on Water and Soil, Historical City-Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, India. International Journal of Environ. Science & Engg . 48 (2), 81& 88. Journal of Recent Scientific Research. (2), 044-052. WHO (World Health Organization) (1993), Guidelines for Rai, U.N. and Pal Amit (2001). as indicator and mitigator drinking-water quality, vol. 1, Recommendations, Geneva, of toxic metals in aquatic environment, Applied Botany WHO, 130. Abstracts, 21 (1); 60-71. Wilcox, L.V. (1965). Effects of Industrial Wastes on Water for Singh, A. K. (2002) Quality Assessment of Surface and Irrigation Use, ASTM Tech Pub. No.273, 58. Subsurface Water of Damodar River Basin, Indian J. Environ Zaidi, Jamshed, Shree Ganesh and Pal, Amit (2011). Assessment Hlth , 44, 42-46. of water quality in river Betwa and Pahuj around Jhansi city, Trivedi, R.K. and P.K. Goel (1992). Chemical and Biological Uttar Pradesh, India, International Journal of Current Research, Methods for Water Pollution Studies. Environ. Publ ., Karad. 5(3),027-031. Vijaya Kumara, Narayana, J., Puttaiah, E.T. and Harish Babu (2005), K., Assessment of surface and subsurface water of Bhadra river basin near Bhadravati town , J. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Monit.,15 (3): 253-261.

Table- 1: Classification of water for irrigation use based on TDS, SAR and % Na Classification TDS (ppm) SAR Na % Excellent < 200 < 10 <20 Good 200-500 10-18 20-40 Fair 500-1500 18-26 40-60 Unsuitable >1500 >26 >60

6363 Amit Pal et al./ Elixir Pollution 42 (2012) 6360-6364

Table- 2: Physico chemical properties of Ken River during the Year 2009 Sample Total pH EC Temp. Alkalinity TDS DO BOD COD NO PO SO Na K Ca Mg % Na SAR No. Hardness 3 4 4 7.71 734 24.75 230 191 187 12.5 9.6 60.0 39.0 4.12 87 157 4.05 63.5 23 6.57 23.9 1. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 4.53 1.14 3.57 2.23 2.66 0.44 0.72 3.90 1.45 0.33 1.73 2.24 0.15 1.79 1.10 0.10 0.26 7.71 730 24.13 231 190 189 12.8 10.4 64.7 36.7 3.67 85 160 3.85 63.0 25 6.61 24.1 2. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 5.01 1.13 3.44 2.17 2.60 0.43 0.71 3.78 1.39 0.34 1.74 2.08 0.15 1.77 1.05 0.10 0.26 7.78 734 24.25 236 189 189 13.5 10.5 59.2 37.2 3.37 90 158 3.85 62. 7 23 6.56 24.0 3. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 5.17 1.11 3.43 2.20 2.63 0.43 0.67 3.70 1.40 0.33 1.68 2.12 0.15 1.67 1.05 0.09 0.25 7.65 718 25.00 237 191 185 12.7 10.0 61.7 42.7 3.65 93 158 3.75 62.5 24 6.54 24.1 4. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 6.11 1.09 3.34 2.12 2.81 0.41 0.62 3.51 1.23 0.31 1.68 2.04 0.14 1.63 1.03 0.09 0.26 7.71 733 25.00 234 190 191 12.6 10.0 63.5 41.2 3.32 92 158 3.80 62.7 25 6.62 23.8 5. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 6.46 1.06 3.37 2.11 2.67 0.40 0.59 3.36 1.21 0.28 1.64 1.93 0.14 1.50 0.97 0.08 0.25 7.76 728 25.13 233 188 189 12.7 10.3 62.5 40.7 3.6 7 87 159 3.70 63.5 24 6.62 23.9 6. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 6.62 1.03 3.34 2.03 2.69 0.39 0.55 3.22 1.21 0.26 1.68 1.87 0.14 1.40 0.93 0.08 0.25 7.61 713 25.00 243 187 200 12.2 9.6 62.5 39.0 3.97 93 159 3.95 62.0 25 6.57 24.2 7. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 7.41 1.00 3.22 2.00 2.71 0.36 0.47 2.96 1.20 0.24 1.69 1.75 0.14 1.37 0.86 0.07 0.26 7.68 730 24.38 239 183 189 12.2 9.9 60.5 42.7 3.82 90 161 4.17 60.5 23 6.45 24.9 8. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 7.68 0.98 3.02 2.01 2.75 0.36 0.44 2.71 1.24 0.22 1.59 1.60 0.14 1.19 0.79 0.06 0.26 7.68 734 25.00 238 189 191 12.5 10.0 63.7 41.5 3.92 86 160 3.90 60.7 25 6.52 24.6 9. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.04 8.14 0.95 2.57 1.76 2.70 0.33 0.41 2.32 1.23 0.21 1.57 1.64 0.13 1.08 0.78 0.06 0.27 7.66 726 25.00 231 182 195 12.9 10.4 64.2 41.0 3.75 85 163 3.95 63.0 22 6.52 25.0 10. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.04 8.32 0.91 2.82 1.77 2.65 0.32 0.34 1.85 1.23 0.20 1.52 1.44 0.12 1.00 0.79 0.05 0.27 Values are mean ± SE (n=6); Units: - Concentration in mg/l, except pH; Temperature (ºC); EC (µS/cm); SAR (meq/l)

6364 Amit Pal et al./ Elixir Pollution 42 (2012) 6360-6364

Table- 3: Physico chemical properties of Ken River during the Year 2010 Sample Total pH EC Temp. Alkalinity TDS DO BOD COD NO PO SO Na K Ca Mg % Na SAR No. Hardness 3 4 4 7.71 729 24.25 231 192 190 12.5 10.2 63.7 40.2 4.1 87 158 3.9 66.0 24 6.68 23.6 1. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 8.14 1.92 3.48 1.78 2.58 0.36 0.69 4.22 1.31 0.30 1.48 2.38 0.12 1.92 1.15 0.10 0.28 7.68 731 24.12 230 190 191 12.6 10.3 67.2 39.7 3.7 87 163 4.1 64.2 26 6.71 24.2 2. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 9.05 1.91 3.26 1.78 2.36 0.36 0.67 4.09 1.26 0.31 1.44 2.23 0.11 1.88 1.01 0.10 0.29 7.73 728 24.00 238 188 194 12.9 10.3 63.2 39.0 3.9 90 163 4.2 64.0 26 6.71 24.2 3. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 10.0 1.89 3.20 1.92 2.30 0.36 0.64 3.96 1.29 0.30 1.34 2.06 0.11 1.81 1.02 0.09 0.29 7.67 725 24.50 240 190 192 12.7 10.1 64.0 43.5 3.9 94 163 4.0 64.5 23 6.59 24.7 4. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 10.7 1.86 3.12 1.96 2.25 0.35 0.61 3.71 1.09 0.29 1.31 1.98 0.11 1.77 1.03 0.09 0.29 7.67 726 24.87 240 190 192 12.6 10.5 64.7 43.2 3.8 92 162 4.2 66.7 24 6.72 24.1 5. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 11.4 1.81 3.12 1.92 2.09 0.35 0.59 3.55 1.05 0.27 1.32 1.94 0.10 1.70 1.03 0.09 0.27 7.73 733 24.87 237 187 192 12.6 10.2 65.0 42.7 3. 9 90 164 4.2 64.5 24 6.64 24.7 6. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 11.8 1.78 3.10 1.82 1.93 0.33 0.52 3.38 1.03 0.26 1.31 1.87 0.09 1.61 1.05 0.08 0.28 7.69 722 24.87 242 189 195 12.5 9.9 64 .5 42.7 4.0 95 164 4.2 65.2 24 6.67 24.5 7. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 12.6 1.73 3.03 1.85 1.88 0.32 0.47 3.16 0.90 0.24 1.29 1.81 0.09 1.37 1.00 0.07 0.27 7.69 727 24.00 244 186 193 12.1 10.2 63.5 42.2 4.1 90 168 4.3 65.2 24 6.67 25.1 8. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 13.0 1.71 2.80 1.92 1.85 0.31 0.43 2.82 1.01 0.21 1.33 1.60 0.09 1.24 0.97 0.06 0.28 7.70 739 24.75 239 189 192 12.6 10.0 65.0 43.0 4.1 91 163 4.0 62.2 23 6.52 24.9 9. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 13.1 1.65 2.30 1.88 1.73 0.29 0.38 2.44 1.02 0.18 1.33 1.58 0.09 1.13 0.98 0.06 0.28 7.66 726 24.75 233 188 193 12.6 10.5 66.0 41.2 4.0 91 166 4.0 64.7 22 6.59 25.1 10. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05 13.7 1.59 2.45 1.96 1.53 0.28 0.30 1.96 1.01 0.15 1.31 1.38 0.09 1.03 1.00 0.05 0.29 Values are mean ± SE (n=6); Units: - Concentration in mg/l, except pH; Temperature (ºC); EC (µS/cm); SAR (meq/l)