A Unique Resource 1.2. World Water Distribution

Home , Amaravati River, Kallanai Dam, Kooduthurai, Kuthalam taluk, Mayiladuthurai taluk, Sirkazhi taluk

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Water – A Unique Resource We live on the water planet with precious film of water. Of all the planet‟s renewable resources, water has a unique place. Water also plays a key role in (i) sculpting the earth‟s surface (ii) moderating climate and (iii) diluting pollution. All organisms (50-97% of the weight of all plants & animals and about 70% of human body) are made up mostly of water and it is the lifeblood of the biosphere (Buchholz, 1998). It connects us to one another, to other forms of life and to the entire planet. Each of us needs only about a dozen cupfuls of water per day to survive, but huge amounts of water are needed to supply us with food, shelter and our other needs and wants. Despite its importance, water is one of our most poorly managed resources. We waste it and pollute it (Fakayode, 2005). We also charge too little for making it available. This encourages still greater waste and pollution of this resource, for which there is no substitute. (Miller, 2004)

1.2. World Water Distribution Out of the world water resources 97.3% are in the oceans as salt water; 0.001% in the atmosphere as water vapor and 2.8% on the land area in various forms. Out of this 2.8%, water in the ice caps and glaciers contribute to 2.14% and the share of rivers is only 0.0001% (Peavy et al., 1985). Two continents share almost 150 of the world‟s 214 major river systems (57 of them in Africa), and another 50 are shared by 3 to 10 countries. Some 40% of the world‟s population already clashed over water, especially in the Middle East. Some areas have lots of water, but the largest Rivers (which carry most of the runoff) are far from agricultural and population centers where the water is needed. For example, South America has the largest annual water runoff of any continent, but 60% of the runoff flows through the Amazon River in remote areas where few people live. In some areas, overall precipitation may be plentiful, but most arrives during short periods, or it cannot be collected and stored because of a lack of water storage capacity. For example, only few hours of rain provide more than half of India‟s rainfall during a four-month monsoon season.

1.3. Surface Water Water collecting on the ground or in a stream, river, lake, wetland, or ocean is called surface water, as opposed to groundwater or atmospheric water. Land surface water is the largest source of fresh water, supplied by rain. The quantity of this utilizable water is very much limited on earth (Mathur and Maheswari, 2005). Only about 0.014% of the earth‟s total volume of water is easily available to us as soil moisture, usable ground water, water vapor, lakes and streams. If the world‟s water supply were only 100 liters, our usable supply of fresh water would be only about 0.014 litres. This amounts to a generous supply as long as we do not (i) overload it with slowly degradable and non-degradable wastes or (ii) withdraw it from underground supplies faster than it is replenished. Unfortunately in some parts of the world we are doing both (Gray, 2005).

1.4. Causes of Freshwater Scarcity Water shortage may be due to the scarcity of quantity, loss of quality or economic inability. 1.4.1. Scarcity of quantity According to water expert Falkenmark (1990), there are four causes of water scarcity: (i) global warming (ii) drought (a period of 21 days or longer in which precipitation is at least 70% lower and evaporation is higher than normal), (iii) desiccation (drying of the soil because of such activities as deforestation and overgrazing by livestock), and (iv) water stress (low per capita availability of water caused by increasing numbers of people relying on limited runoff levels). Global warming can (i) increase global rates of evaporation (ii) shift precipitation patterns and (iii) disrupt water supplies and thus food supplies. Some areas will get more precipitation and some less. River flows will change. Monsoons and hurricanes are likely to intensify. The average sea level will rise from thermal expansion of oceans and partial melting of ice caps and mountain glaciers (Miller, 2004). Since the 1970s, intensified by prolonged drought water scarcity, has killed more than 24,000 people per year and created millions of environmental refugees. In water-short rural areas in developing countries, many women and children must walk long distances each day, carrying heavy jars or cans, to get a meager and sometimes contaminated supply of water.

A country is said to be water stressed when the volume of reliable runoff per person drops below about 1,700 cubic meters (60,000 cubic feet) per year. According to a 2,000 study by the World Resources Institute (WRI), 2.3 billion people live in river basins under moderate to high water stress. Of this group, 1.7 million live in areas of water scarcity, where annual per capita water availability falls below 1,000 cubic meters (35,000 cubic feet). If current water consumption patterns continue, the WRI projects that by 2025 at least 3.4 billion people will live in water stressed river basins in 50 countries, with more than 2.4 billion of these people suffering from more dire water scarcity.

1.4.2. Loss of Quality (River water pollution) The quality of water has generally been signified by its origin, terrain through which it flows and most importantly the extent to which it is contaminated on its way by anthropogenic means (Bordoloi et al., 2002). Many human activities can pollute rivers. Industry, housing, agriculture, horticulture, transport and discharges from the many disused mines can all affect water quality. The other anthropogenic activities are disposal of dead bodies, cattle wading, bathing, open defecation, cloth washing, disposal of waste, etc. (Saksena et al., 2008 and Verma and Saksena, 2010). Pollution may arise as point sources, such as discharges through pipes which may be easily identifiable, or may be more dispersed over a wider area, known as diffuse pollution. Available data indicate that river pollution from discharges of sewage and industrial waste is a serious and growing problem. In most developing countries, where waste treatment is practically nonexistent. Numerous rivers in Russia and eastern European countries are severely polluted. Of the 78 streams monitored in China 54 are seriously polluted with sewage and industrial waste. Same is the story in Latin America and Africa. India has about 3200 major industries and a large number of small scale industries discharging their effluents into the rivers (Murugesan, 1988). Despite progress in improving stream quality in most developed countries, large fish kills and drinking water contamination still occur. Most of these disasters are caused by (i) accidental or deliberate release of toxic chemicals by industries or mines (ii) mall functioning sewage treatment plants and (iii) nonpoint runoff of

3 pesticides and nutrients (eroded soil, fertilizer and animal waste) from crop land or animal feedlots (Miller, 2004). The natural hydrological processes are overtaken by man‟s influence of water courses lead to changes in canal morphologies, increased catchment, imperviousness and contamination of water quality (Kinyari, 2012). Contaminants such as bacteria, viruses, heavy metals, nitrates and salts have various ill effects on human health (Akoto and Adiyiah, 2007). Minamata disease incidents of 1908 and “itai-itai” disease (1912-25) in Japan are the most famous examples of damage to public health (Fuji and Hu, 2002). Typhoid and cholera have the epidemics during the dry seasons (Edwards, 1993). Even in developed nations like the USA cases of outbreaks of diseases associated with contaminated potable water was reported (Moore et al., 1993).

1.4.3. Economic Inability Even when there is a plentiful supply of water, most of the 1.2 billion poor people living on less than $1 a day cannot afford a safe supply of drinking water. Most are cut off from municipal water supplies and must (i) collect water from unsafe sources or (ii) buy water (often coming from polluted Rivers) from private vendors at high prices. In developing countries, people not connected to municipal water supplies on an average pay 12 times more per liter of water than people connected to such systems and in some areas pay up to 100 times as much. A number of environmental, political, and economic analysts believe that access to water resources, already a key foreign policy and environmental security issue for water short countries, will become even more important over the next 10- 20 years. As population, irrigation and industrialization increase, water shortages in already water short regions will intensity and heighten tension between and within countries.

1.5. Achieving more sustainable use of the earth’s river water resources are as follows:-  Not depleting the aquifers  Conserving the ecological health of the aquatic systems  Preserving the water quality  Integrating watershed management

 Sharing surface water resources through agreements among regions and countries  Settling disputes of water between nations through outside party mediation  Marketing of water rights  Wasting less water  Decreasing government subsides for supplying water  Increasing government subsides for reducing water waste  Slowing population growth

1.6. Need for Monitoring of River Water Quality We depend on surface and groundwater sources for drinking water, to generate energy, to grow our crops, to harvest fish, to run machinery, to carry wastes and to enhance the Isle of Man‟s scenic landscape. We use water for washing and cleaning, industrial abstraction, recreation, cooking, gardening and angling. Freshwater is also vital as a habitat for fish, invertebrates such as mayflies, shrimps and snails and also many water plants. Water quality is the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of water in relationship to a set of standards. In the United States, Water Quality Standards are created by state agencies for different types of water bodies and water body locations per desired uses. The primary uses considered for such characterization are parameters which relate to drinking water, safety of human contact, and for the health of the ecosystems. The methods of hydrometry are used to quantify water characteristics. Thus, water quality monitoring is an essential tool used by environmental agencies to gauge the quality of surface water and to make management decision for improving the intended uses. In the setting of standards, agencies make political and technical/scientific decisions about how the water will be used. In the case of natural water bodies, they also make some reasonable estimate of pristine conditions. Different uses raise different concerns and therefore different standards are considered. Natural water bodies will vary in response to environmental conditions. Environmental scientists are working to understand the functioning of these systems, which determines sources and fates of contaminants. Environmental lawyers and policy makers are working to define water laws that designate the fore mentioned uses and natural conditions.

The Department of Local Government and the Environment has a regulatory function to control discharges into rivers, including licensing by the Department‟s Environmental Protection Unit. The effectiveness of the regulatory work can only be determined by monitoring. In addition, the monitoring process can identify developing problems to enable them to be addressed as swiftly and effectively as possible. According to Bhardwaj (2005), the water quality monitoring is performed with following objectives:  For rational planning of pollution control strategies and their prioritization;  To assess nature and extent of pollution control needed in different water bodies or their part;  To evaluate effectiveness of pollution control measures already in existence;  To evaluate water quality trend over a period of time;  To assess assimilative capacity of a water body thereby reducing cost on pollution control;  To assess the fitness of water for different uses.

1.7. Indian Water Resources In India, out of total rainfall in an area of 3290 lakh hectares, a rainfall of 4000 billion cubic meters annually occurs. Out of the total, 41% is lost through evaporation, 40% is lost as run off, 10% is retained as soil moisture, 9% seeps in for recharging ground water. Of the 40% stream flow water, 8% is used for irrigation, 2% for domestic use, 4% for industry, and 12% for electricity generation. Out of total available water resource 1869 bcm, the usable, water resources are only 1122 bcm, which consists surface water 690 bcm, ground water 432 bcm which the present per capita available water resources is 1122 cm and by 2050 it is likely to reduce to 748 cm. When the countries per capita water availability is less than 1700 cm it is considered as water stress country.

1.8. Main Rivers in India The Rivers in India can be classified as (a) Himalayan water system (Indus, Ganga, Brahmaputra, Chinab, Jhelum, Ravi and Beas) (b) Deccan Plateau water system (Narmada, Tapti, Mahanadi, Godavari, Krishna, Cauvery and Periyar) (c) Coastal water systems and (d) others including inland water systems. (Anjaneyulu, 2005) In our country, Rivers are not only considered as geomorphological and hydrological objects but also intermingled with our culture and heritage as sacred and purifiers of all sins.

1.9 River Cauvery River Cauvery one of the perennial rivers of Tamil Nadu flows west to east with a number of distributaries and tributaries before confluence into Bay of Bengal. It is known to devout Hindus as Daksina Ganga (Ganges of the South) and its entire course is considered holy ground. It is celebrated for its scenery and sanctity in Tamil literature. The primary uses of Cauveri are providing water for irrigation, household consumption and the generation of electricity. An estimate at the time of the first Five Year Plan, put the total flow of the Cauveri at 12 million acre-feet (15 km³), of which 60% was used for irrigation. The Cauvery is the very life-guard of central Tamil Nadu‟s agriculture. Here Cauvery supports healthier vegetation with either dense forest or two seasons densely cropped irrigated agriculture. The Cauvery extends like a green artery out onto the fertile delta in Thanajvur and Nagapattinam districts. Coastal areas both north and south of the delta support sparse or single season agriculture or marginal agriculture or wastelands. The five districts (Karur, Namakkal, Tiruchirappalli, Thanjavur and Nagapattinam) which depend on the Cauvery for irrigation produce over 40% of the food crops of Tamil Nadu. This is particularly significant since  It is done on less than one third of the arable land,  It is accomplished with lower fertilizer, electricity, and groundwater than the rest of Tamil Nadu,  It directly employs over 4.4 million people,  It also has the most productive sugar cane farms in Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu, furthermore, has the most productive sugar cane farmers in India.

During the month of Tula (Tamil month Ippasi), devotees take holy dip (Tula snanam) in the Cauvery across Tamilnadu, most prominent of them being Mayavaram. The temple town of Kumbakonam is in the Kaveri banks. The bathing ghats include: - Amma Mandapam in Srirangam, Bhagavath Padithurai and Chakkarai Padithurai in Kumbakonam, Pushya Mandapa Padithurai in Thiruvaiyaru and Thula Kattam in Mayavaram.

1.9.1. Need for water quality monitoring in River Cauvery Currently, more than two-thirds of India‟s water resources are polluted with industrial waste and sewage waste (Miller, 2004). The rapid industrialization, urbanization along the banks of River Cauvery is the supporting pillar of the economic development of this part of the nation. On the other hand environmental degradation is felt in this area (Jayaram, 2000) which might be a threat to the well- being of the population here. This makes it mandatory to assess the quality of the River water which is essential for a sustainable management of precious Cauvery water.

1.10 Aim and Objectives The present study aims at “the determination of the water quality of River Cauvery between Karur and Mayiladuthurai and evaluate the anthropogenic impacts on the water quality”, with the following objectives:-  Analysis of physico-chemical characteristics of the River water  Determination of the significance components influencing the water quality through principal component analysis(PCA)  Estimation of biological parameters in the same waters  Riverine ecosystem approach  Anthropogenic impacts 1 – industrial, commercial and occupational exploitations  Anthropogenic impacts 2 – social and public abuses  Anthropogenic impacts 3 – individual misuses

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1. River Cauvery Kaveri River or Cauvery River is one of the major Rivers of southern India, which is considered sacrosanct by the Hindus and though to be the Dakshina Ganga or Ganga of the South. Being the eighth largest River in the Indian subcontinent, it ranks as the medium River on the global scale in terms of discharge. The River has mainly a dendritic pattern.

2.1.1. Etymology According to the legend, a girl called Vishnumaya or Lopaamudra, the daughter of Brahma was born on earth, but her divine father allowed her to be considered the daughter of sage Kavera-muni . In order to obtain the beatitude for her adoptive father, it solved to become River whose waters would have to purify all the sins. (kavErasya apatyam stree = kAvEri); Asides from the myth, in Tamil, kaa means forest/gardens; viri means to expand; since the River expands along sides the course of forests and gardens, it takes the sweet name „Kaviri‟/ „Cauvery‟.

2.1.2. Origin of the River The River raises at Talakaveri in the Brahmagiri hills of the Western Ghats in Karnataka. It flows in the south and east through Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and then across the southeastern lowlands and finally surrenders in the Bay of Bengal through two principal mouths. The River has an approximate length of 760 km. Of the total stretch about 310km in Karnataka and the remaining in Tamilnadu. The River basin is estimated to be 27,700 square miles.

2.1.3. River course After the River leaves the Kodagu hills and flows onto the Deccan plateau, it forms two islands, Srirangapatna and Shivanasamudra. First comes the Srirangapatna which forms the sangam followed by Shivanasamudra. At Sivanasamudra the River drops 320 ft (98 m), forming the famous Shivanasamudra Falls known separately as Gagana Chukki and Bhara Chukki. Asia's first hydroelectric plant (built in 1902) was on the left falls and supplied power to the city of Bangalore.

In its course through Karnataka, the channel is interrupted by twelve "anicuts" (dams) for the purpose of irrigation. From the anicut at Madadkatte, an artificial channel is diverted at a distance of 72 miles (116 km), irrigating an area of 10,000 acres (4,000 ha), and ultimately bringing its water supply to the town of Mandya. Three kilometers away from Srirangapatna, the Kaveri is the basis for the Ranganthittu Bird Sanctuary. Near Srirangapatna is also an aqueduct, the Bangara Doddi Nala, which was constructed in the 17th century by the Wodeyar maharaja of Mysore, Ranadhira Kantirava, in memory of his favorite consort. It is said to be the only aqueduct where the water from a River, dammed upstream, is carried by the aqueduct over the very same River few miles downstream. This aqueduct also served as a motorable bridge until 1964. In addition to providing many ancient and modern canals with water from the River for irrigation purposes, the Kaveri also serves as the main drinking water source for many towns and villages. The cities of Bangalore, Mandya and Mysore depend almost entirely on the Kaveri for their drinking water supply. In fact, the River is called Jeevanadhi which, in Kannada, means a River supporting life. The River enters Tamil Nadu through Dharmapuri district leading to the flat plains where it meanders. It drops into the Hogenakkal Falls just before it arrives in the town of Hogenakkal in Tamil Nadu. The three minor tributaries, Palar, Chennar and Thoppar enter into the Kaveri on her course, above Stanley Reservoir in Mettur, where the dam has been constructed. The Mettur Dam joins the Sita and Pala mountains beyond that valley through which the Kaveri flows, up to the Grand Anicut. The dam in Mettur impounds water not only for the improvement of irrigation but also to ensure the regular and sufficient supply of water to the important Hydro-Electric generating station at Mettur. The River further runs through the length of Erode district where River Bhavani, which running through the breadth of the district, merges with it. The confluence of the Rivers Kaveri, Bhavani and Akash Ganga (imaginary) is at the exact place of Bhavani, Tamil Nadu Kooduthurai or Tiriveni Sangamam, Northern part of Erode City. While passing through Erode, two more tributaries merge. Thirumani Mutharu joins it in a village called Kududurai in Namakkal District. Noyyal and Amaravathi join it in Karur district before it reaches Tiruchirapalli district. Here 10 the River becomes wide, with a sandy bed, and flows in an easterly direction until it splits into two at upper Anicut about 14 kilometres west of Tiruchirappalli. The northern branch of the River is called the Kollidam while the southern branch retains the name Kaveri and then goes directly eastwards into Thanjavur District. These two Rivers join again and form the Srirangam Island which is a part of city of Tiruchirapalli.

2.1.4. Geomorphology The Cauvery basin lies in the tropical latitudes 10o7‟N to 13o28‟N and 75o28‟E to 79o52‟E. The basin runs roughly in a NW-SE direction and has a width ranging from 60 to 250kms. There are 10 important urban centers in this basin, 4 in Karnataka (Bangalore, Mantiya, Mysore and Tumkur), and 6 in Tamil Nadu (Dharmapuri, Erode, Karur, Tiruchirappalli, Thanjavur and Kumbakonam). More than 55% of the districts in the basin have their headquarters located in basin itself. The basin occupies the largest area in Tamil nadu (55.3%) followed by Karnataka (41.2%), Kerala (3.3%) and Pondicherry (0.2%). Though Cauvery appears smaller in terms of area and discharge compared to some of the major River basins, from the view point of economic development and ecosystem in the southern states of India, it is very important (Sukhwal, 1977). This is mainly because Cauvery basin has a complex physical environment. It is also rightly indicated that the River is perhaps the most remarkable one of the peninsula, physically. Being part of peninsular India the basin is formed especially by a complex of very ancient rocks of Achaean age.

2.1.5. Climate The climate of Cauvery basin has a mega thermal regime (temperature > 25oC) for most parts except for small areas in Western Ghats, which has mesothermal regime (< 22.5oC) due to its elevation. The ghat section is exposed to the full blast of the southwest monsoon. The plateau region is a rain shadow area. The interior parts are affected by the monsoon wind blowing through the Palghat Gap. The influence of the sea and extensive irrigation in the delta has a resulted in lowering of temperature. Twice in a year the wind direction reverses with the alternation of seasons which is a major feature. From June to September the wind blows from the south

11 west over most of the season in the basin while during the months October to December the direction is Rivers towards northeast and east. The temperature rises continuously from January to April over most of the places and even up to June in some locations. With the rise in temperature the southeast trade winds are developed and these on crossing the equator become monsoon winds which dominates the Cauvery basin. The flow from southwest and west hitting against the Western Ghats shed copious rains of 200 to 400cms and in some places more than 400cms. Out of the 14 heavy rainfall stations of India with more than 500cms of rainfall 3 are located on the upper reaches of the Cauvery. By the end of September the western parts of the basin receives nearly 40% of rainfall during October and November. This is also the period of cyclonic storms forming in the Bay of Bengal resulting in heavy rainfall. The average rainfall in the Cauvery delta is 127cms. The delta region receives 100cms of rainfall at its head and 140cms along the coast. 40% of this occurs in the northeast monsoon period and is highly variable.

2.1.6. Dams on Cauvery River The major dams constructed across the Kaveri River are the Krishna Raja Sagara Dam, the Mettur Dam and the Banasura Sagar Dam on the Kabini River, which is the tributary of the Cauvery. The Krishna Raja Sagara Dam has a capacity of 49 tmc ft. and the Mettur Dam which creates Stanley Reservoir has a capacity of 93.4 tmc ft. (thousand million cubic ft) The hydroelectric plant built on the left Sivanasamudra Falls on the Kaveri in 1902 was the first hydroelectric plant in Karnataka. There are number of smaller dams, weirs, barrages and barriers along the River facilitating water supply for cultivation.

2.1.7. Water dispute The sharing of waters of the River Kaveri has been the source of a serious conflict between the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The River originates in Karnataka and flows into Tamil Nadu. Karnataka, through a system of dams, is in a position to control how much water will continue into Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu believes that even though it is downstream it has as much right to the River as Karnataka. The 802 km Kaveri River has 32,000 sq km basin area in Karnataka

12 and 44,000 sq km basin area in Tamil Nadu. The state of Karnataka contends that it does not receive its due share of water from the River as does Tamil Nadu. The Government of India constituted a tribunal in 1990 to look into the matter. After hearing arguments of all the parties involved for the next 16 years, the tribunal delivered its final verdict on 5 February 2007. In its verdict, the tribunal allocated 419 billion ft³ (12 km³) of water annually to Tamil Nadu and 270 billion ft³ (7.6 km³) to Karnataka; 30 billion ft³ (0.8 km³) of Kaveri River water to Kerala and 7 billion ft³ (0.2 km³) to Pondicherry. The dispute however, appears not to have concluded, as all four states deciding to file review petitions seeking clarifications and possible renegotiation of the order. The Indian government has tried to solve the dispute, but has largely failed. On 20 February 2013, based on the directions of the Supreme Court, the Indian Government has notified the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) on sharing the waters of the Cauvery system among the basin States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala and Union territory of Puducherry. The “extraordinary” notification in the gazette dated 19 February 2013 says the order takes effect on the date of publication. The Tribunal, in a unanimous decision in 2007, determined the total availability of water in the Cauvery basin at 740 thousand million cubic (tmc) feet at the Lower Coleroon Anicut site, including 14 tmcft for environmental protection and seepage into the sea. The final award makes an annual allocation of 419 tmcft to Tamil Nadu in the entire Cauvery basin, 270 tmcft to Karnataka, 30 tmcft to Kerala and 7 tmcft to Puducherry (GoI, 2013).

2.1.8. History According to Hindu Mythology a king Kavera lived in the Brahmagiri hills and prayed to Lord Brahma for a child. He was blessed with a daughter whom he named Kaveri. She was the water manifestation of the human form. The great sage Agastya married her and kept her in his kamandalu or the spouted jug. When a terrible drought trounced the land, Ganesha in the guise of a crow, tipped the kamandalu and out flowed Kaveri. The Chola king Karikalan has been immortalised as he constructed the bank for the Kaveri all the way from Puhar (Kaveripoompattinam) to Srirangam. It was built as far back as 1,600 years ago or even more. On both sides of the River are found walls spreading to a distance of 1,080 feet (330 m). The Kallanai dam

13 constructed by him on the border between Tiruchirappalli and Thanjavur is a superb work of engineering, which was made with earth and stone and has stood the vagaries of nature for hundreds of years. In 19th century, it was renovated on a bigger scale. The name of the historical dam has since been changed to “Grand Anicut” and stands as the head of a great irrigation system in the Thanjavur district. From this point, the Kollidam River runs north-east and discharges into the sea at Devakottai, a little south of Parangipettai. From River Kollidam, Manniar and Uppanai branch off at lower Anicut and irrigate a portion of Mayiladuthurai taluk and Sirkazhi taluk in Nagapatnam District. After Grand Anicut, the Kaveri divides into numerous branches and covers the whole of the delta with a vast network of irrigation channels in Nagapatnam and Tiruvarur districts and gets lost in the wide expanse of paddy fields. The Kaveri here is reduced to an insignificant channel and enters the Bay of Bengal at the historical place of Poompuhar about 13 km (8.1 mi) north of Tharangampadi.

2.1.9. Economy The Kaveri River provides water for irrigation, household consumption and the generation of electricity in the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. An estimate at the time of the first Five Year Plan puts the total flow of the Kaveri at 12,000,000 acre feet (15 km3), of which 60% was used for irrigation. The Torekadanahalli pumpstation sends 540 Mld (million liters per day) of water from Kaveri 100 km to Bangalore. The River has supported irrigated agriculture for centuries and served as the lifeblood of the cities of South India.

2.1.10 Tributaries The Kaveri basin is estimated to be 81,155 km2 with many tributaries including the Shimsha, the Hemavati, the Arkavati, Honnuhole, Lakshmana Tirtha, Kabini , Bhavani River, the Lokapavani, the Noyyal and the Amaravati River.

2.2 Water Quality of Cauvery and Its Tributaries & Distributaries The elaborate study conducted on the Cauvery Riverine system and its environment by the Madras Science foundation supported by MoEF and pollution control boards of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and the Central government in 2000 is a multidimensional benchmark study. Any one working on Cauvery cannot and will not overlook the report of the study edited by Jayaram (2000). 14

Under the national River water conservation scheme the Central Pollution Control Board wanted the State Pollution Control Board assess the quality of various Rivers. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board organizes this assignment through various nodal agencies during 2008-09. Kathikeyani, et al., (2002) studied the water quality of the River Shanmuganadhi, one of the tributaries of Cauvery. The main source of pollution in the River water is the dispersal of sewage water from the surrounding area. The hydrological parameters were analyzed and all the parameters studied were above the standards. The biological pollution indicators are also dominant. This shows that the water is unsuitable for drinking and irrigation purposes. The physico-chemical characteristics of Uyyakondan Channel in Trichy city from five different sampling locations was studied by Priyadharshini (2004). The results of the study conducted from December – 2003 to February – 2004, indicated that the water is qualified only for agricultural purposes. The same area was subsequently studied by Jameel and Hussain (2005) who assess the water to be severely polluted. The regular addition of sewage and urban waste are considered as the cause for severe pollution to the River. Many tanneries along the banks of River Palar are major source of environmental pollution. Ramamurthy et al., (2003 & 2005) studied the physico- chemical properties of this River. They state that the River is not as seriously polluted as thought of. The black frothy sewage flowing, like a turbulent canal carrying with it a lot of pathogens though not visible was observed by Vimala et al., (2006) in the River Kudamurutti at Woraiyur, Tiruchirappalli. Hence it was felt that monitoring the water quality is very essential not only to prevent diseases and hazards but also to protect the water resources from being polluted further. The people of Kallahally and nearby villages are drinking Kabini River water because of ground water pollution caused by the release of industrial effluent from a Pharmaceutical Industry. To analyze for parameters such as pH, Dissolved Oxygen, free carbon dioxide, total hardness, total alkalinity, calcium, magnesium, chloride, COD, BOD, TDS and total acidity were determined. Except dissolved oxygen (DO), other parameters were found within the permissible limits. It was also found that the pollution load increases as the River flows further down (Padmanabha and Belagali, 2006). 15

Begum and Harikrishna (2008) studied the quality of water in four streams of River Cauvery in Mandya District, where many small scale sugar and distilleries are located. All the streams were found to be heavily polluted. Water samples Cauvery River have high carbonate hardness. Concentrations of all elements and ions increase in the downstream. Main ions are 3 in the following order: Na > HCO >Mg > K > Ca> Cl > SO4 (Begum et al., 2009). Based on the salt and sodium contains, although the quality of Cauvery River may be classified as very good, Zn, Pb and Cr concentration exceeded the upper limit of the standards. Metal concentrations in the downstream indicate an increase in the pollution load due to movement of fertilizers, agricultural ashes, industrial effluents and anthropogenic wastes.

2.3. Tamil Nadu Rivers According to Ramamurthy et al., (2002) the Paravanaru River in Neyveli is not polluted despite of the lignite mines and the fertilizer plant. Vaniyambadi in Tamil Nadu is known for the tanning industries. The effluents are conveniently discharged into the River Palar. Ramamurthy et al., (2003) investigated various trace metals in this water and found that only the chromium content is alarming. All the other physico-chemical parameters were also not as serious as thought of Ramamurthy et al., (2005). Martin and Haniffa (2003) determined the elevated temperature and high total solids due to the impact of textile mill effluent in the south Indian River Tamiraparani. High alkalinity, low DO and high free carbon dioxide level were observed by the people. They also observed the BOD, COD and conductivity values to be high in the textile mill effluent entry site during the year 1992. Adhilakshmi et al., (2004) assessed the water quality of Godilam and Pennar Rivers at Cuddalore. Sewage discharge and Dhobi-gana pollute the River. Sub surface formation in the bed accounts for iron and a simple iron removal plants may help to make the water fit for drinking. Courtallam Falls of the River Chittar in Tamil Nadu (India) is a place of tourist attraction during the southwest monsoon season. Particularly, in this season high input of detergents and other anthropogenic activities tend to bring in undesirable materials into the water body, whereby the pristine quality is altered. Murugesan et al., (2007) studied the physico-chemical and biological quality of the

River Chittar in the peak southwest tourist season. It was found that although the River was not found highly polluted, biological quality was found significantly poor. Excluding sulphate, all the other physico-chemical parameters analyzed were found within the permissible limits. However, the total and faecal coliforms exceeded the permissible limits, indicating a poor status of the River. Prasanna and Ramesh (2013) have evaluated the status of Pazhayar River at Kanyakumari district to be of very poor quality and pose serious health hazards.

2.4. Indian Rivers India is rich in water resources being endowed with a network of Rivers. However, rapid industrialization increasing demands of irrigation and anthropogenic interventions have resulted in the pollution of many of the Indian Rivers. The Central pollution Control Board has established 870 monitoring stations in 26 states and 5 Union Territories for the periodical assessment of the Indian Rivers. Many other individuals were also responsible enough to assess the River water quality. Kazmi (2000) reported the River Yamuna to be moderately polluted in the stretch upstream of Delhi and heavily polluted in the Delhi Stretch. The pollution impact is the highest in low flow months. A surface water quality model – Mike 11, developed by Danish Hydraulic Institute – has been calibrated for the River for low flow months in the specific stretch with regard to BOD, DO and fecal coliforms based. The model has been verified to forecast the effect of pollution control schemes that have been proposed for the River. Bordoloi et al., (2002) monitored the Toklai River water with the physico- chemical parameters for in and around Jorhat city, Assam. The study indicates a fluctuating behavior of the parameters throughout the course. However, the study attributed an anthropogenic intervention from the urbanized part of the city and warrants continuous geochemical monitoring of the soil/water systems. River Sai at Rae Bareli (Sinha, 2002), stream-Hathli at Himalayan region (Sharma et al., 2003), Umkhrah River (Rajurkar et al., 2003), River Gaur (Srivastava and Srivatava, 2003), Ram Ganga River (Sinha et al., 2004), Bhadra River (Krishna et al., 2004), Savitri River water in Konkan region (Lokhande et al., 2005), Chambal River (Mathur and Maheshwari, 2005), River Ganga at Kanpur (Mishra and Sultana 2005), Yamuna River (Verghese et al., 2005), Ganga

River in Bihar region (Tiwary et al., 2005) and Pamba – Thriveni (Harikumar and Madhavan, 2006) were the rivers studied for the levels of pollution and the causes for the same. Many other rivers were also brought under investigation in order to conserve the basic life sustaining resource for a disease free life examples River Bhadra (Kiran et al., 2006), Malaprabha River (Manjappa and Naik, 2006), River Baitarani (Mudali and Dhal, 2006), Brahmani River (Muduli et al., 2006), Kundalika River (Patil et al., 2006), Godawari River (Sanap et al., 2006), Ram Ganga River (Sinha et al., 2006), Ganga River at Patna (Ram and Singh, 2007), River Mandakini (Dwivedi and Pathak, 2007), Kosi River (Bhandari and Nayal, 2007), River Kosi (Kumar and Bahadur, 2009) and Narmada River (Jha and Tignath, 2009). In general, in all the above studies done in various parts of the country, the water samples were examined for their variations in the physic-chemical nature and individually compared with the proposed standard values. Calculation of water quality index using some important parameters had been done by some workers. All have concluded with the possible suggestions for controlling water pollution.

2.5. International Rivers Water quality sustenance of the Rivers is the worldwide challenge today. Since Rivers are easily approached by all sectors of consumers of water viz. domestic, municipal, agriculture and industry, the pressure on River water is very huge. A study by Fakayode (2005) on the impact of industrial effluent on the water quality of Alaro River carried out in Nigeria showed that the chemical parameters studied were above the allowable limits and also tended to accumulate downstream. In the same year 2005, Fafioye et al., have studied the water quality of Omi River in Nigeria and recommend that the water is safe for drinking only when purified. The water quality examined in the Osun state Nigeria by Oluyemi et al., (2010) revealed that many of the parameters were well within the limits. But some metals like Pb, Cd, and Fe were in the state of pollutants.

In the Brong Ahafo region of Ghana, Akoto and Adiyiah (2007) estimated the trace metals and found that all of them were within the permissible limits of WHO. The Oti River in Ghana was mainly affected by domestic and agriculture activities. Pollution is generally slight and localized along the banks owing to indiscriminate disposal of untreated fecal matter and garbage, because of lack of adequate sanitary and disposal facilities (Razak et al., 2009). The quality of Malawi River water was experiencing rapid deterioration because of the fast industrialization challenging the environmental conservation like most of the African rivers. Not only industrialization but other activities such as farming, bathing, washing of cloths by villages contribute to the deterioration of water quality (Phiri et al., 2005). Inadequacy of safe drinking water resulted in a number of socioeconomic and health implications. Water borne diseases such as Cholera and typhoid often have the epidemic during the dry season. Typhoid is commonly seen in areas where over whelming septicemia and peritoneal sepsis. Perforation of intestine is associated with high mortality due to wound infection (Adekunle et al., 2004). The other developing countries of Southeast Asia also face problems of similar nature. The mangrove forest in Miri Sarawak was found to be of good quality as per Interim National Water Quality Standards for Malaysia excepting DO and BOD (Gandaseca et al., 2011). The Bebar River of Malaysia is a vulnerable and sensitive ecosystem especially to metal pollution. Adequate riparian buffers are recommended to reduce excessive run-off into the River (Othman et al., 2009). Not only in the developing countries but in the developed countries also the river pollution scenario is the same. As per National Water Quality Inventory (2000) of United States, agricultural non-point source pollution is the leading factor of water quality impacts surveyed on Rivers and lakes. Other wetlands estuaries and ground water come next only to the Rivers and lakes. Agricultural activities that cause non-point source pollution include poorly located or managed animal feeding operations; overgrazing; plowing too often or at the wrong time; and improper, excessive or poorly timed application of pesticides, irrigation water and fertilizer (EPA, 2005).

The European countries are no exception to the scenario of water pollution. Sava River is a largest tributary of River Danupe and is the longest River in Croratia. Dragun et al., (2008) and Dragun et al., (2009) arrange the increasing order of labile metals species as Cd, Co, Pb < Cr, Ni, Cu < Zn, Mn, Fe. The sewage outlets have been identified as the chief source of Co, Mn, Pb and Fe into the Rivers. Continuous River water quality monitoring is recommended by them.

2.6. Anthropogenic Impacts Natural aquatic systems have a capacity to detoxify a certain quantity of pollutants discharged into them. This phenomenon is called self-purification. Processes of natural purification, resulting from sedimentation, desiltition, dilution, destruction of organic substances, contribute to improving water quality. In turn, water quality worsens when influenced by deceleration of water exchange, development of organic life and processes of oxygen and thermal stratification (Govorushko, 2007. A water body will be polluted when the pollutants discharged into it exceed their capacity self-purification; the source of pollutants in a natural water body is of two types: 1. Natural sources (soils, forests, etc.), 2. Artificial sources (human activity). By looking back on the history of water pollution, it is easy to understand that the expansion of human activity is the main reason for water pollution (Fujie and Hu, 2002). Irrevocable water consumption presently totals approx. 150 km3 per year, or 1% of sustainable River flow (Stadnitskiy and Rodionov, 1996). Most water is taken for needs of agriculture (70.1%), industries (20%) and residential areas (9.9%) (Comprehensive Assessment …, 1997). It takes 1500 m3 of water to produce a ton of wheat; 7000 m3 and 10000 m3 to produce a ton of rice and cotton respectively (Rudskiy, Sturman, 2005). Production of a ton of meat requires averagely 20000 m3 of water (Stadnitskiy, Rodionov, 1996). Water contamination is tremendous and ever increasing challenge. By its origin, three chief water pollutant groups may be distinguished: 1) municipal waste, 2) industrial waste, 3) agricultural waste (Govorushko, 2007). As per Barbaros et al., (2007) modern European society is contributing, through its industrial, agricultural activities, not only to present global climate trends, but also, more directly, to local environmental degradation. Water resource management is a universal problem that particularly affects populations living in

20 areas where intense industrial and agricultural activities take place, as this can affect the characteristics of surface/ subsurface waters in terms of quality and quantity. Human impact on Rivers is large-scale process that leads to diverse negative consequences. There are following ways of such impact: 1) River flow redistribution in time; 2) River flow redistribution in space; 3) River flow withdrawal; 4) physical disturbance of River-beds; 5) pollution; 6) water clogging; 7) thermal pollution. First way mainly occurs in case of reservoir creation, it is characteristic for the USA, Russia, Canada, Brazil, and China. Run-off redistribution in space used for water supply, navigation, hydropower generation, irrigation, etc. The most large-scale water transfers are typical for Canada, USA, Turkmenistan, and India. Irretrievable water consumption currently constitutes approx. 150 km3/year, which equals 1% of normal run-off of fresh water. Agriculture uses 70.1% of fresh water, industries take 20%, and municipal sector – 9.9%. Under physical disturbance of River-beds we mean any man-made changes of water level (cut-offs, changes in depth of the River by excavation or covering of ground, etc.). Open pits in River-beds for extraction of building materials and excavation works for navigation purposes are the most frequent examples of such impact (Govorushko, 2007). In industry, intensive water consumption is typical for heat-and-power engineering, petrochemistry, pulp and paper industry. Altogether they account for 80-90% of total industrial water usage (Merkulov et al., 1994). Production of synthetic caoutchouc (2000-3000 m3 per ton) and capacitor paper (1300-6000 m3 per ton) are the most water-consumptive manufactures (Stadnitskiy and Rodionov, 1996). Production of chemical fiber (2000-3000 m3 per ton) and cellulose (400-500 m3 per ton) also require much water (Milanova and Ryabchikov, 1986). Considerable water consumption also distinguishes a number of light industries, namely spinning, weaving and trimming manufactures which averagely require 300-330 m3 per ton of output (Marinich et al, 2000). Industrial wastes are subdivided into: 1) waters of reaction, polluted both by parent substances and reaction products; 2) waters coming from raw materials and raw products; 3) scourage which appears after ablutions of raw materials, packages, equipment, etc.; 4) water extractants and absorbents; 5) sewage waters;

6) atmospheric precipitation, flowing down on industrial enterprises‟ territories (Stadnitsky and Rodionov, 1996). Natural hydrological processes are overtaken by man‟s influence of water courses that lead to change in channel morphologies, increased catchment imperviousness and contamination of River water quality says Kinyari (2012). In housing and communal services water is mainly used for hygiene and sanitary purposes (baths, laundries, etc.), food cooking, sewerage system, etc. Municipal wastes mainly consist of human faeces and contain relatively few chemical pollutants; yet, they are notable for high concentration of pathogenic organisms. Communal wastes, or sewage, make approx. 20% of all effluents‟ volume, and their share constantly increases as the amount of industrial effluents decreases. They have more or less permanent structure (Govorushko, 2007). The impact of communal wastes upon Rivers varies from country to country. Out of 3119 cities and towns of India only 209 possess structures for partial purification of sewage, and only 8 of them have total cycle purification systems at their disposal. Commonly, sewage comes directly to Rivers. For instance, the Gang River is being daily polluted by unpurified sewage waters and cremation remains from 114 cities and towns (Pimentel et al., 1999). Naturally, this situation is not so grave in developed countries, though River pollution is a sensitive issue there as well. For instance, the New York Metropolitan area alone produces 6.8 billion littres of sewage per day of which about 16% is raw. Much of this enters the Hudson and East Rivers around New York (Goudie, 1997). In Arges River, Romania in the Bucharest metropolitan area untreated wastewater is directly discharged into the River due to lack of wastewater treatment plant. This had a significant impact on the water quality of the River. Moreover the hourly variation in the water quality was also determined. The organic pollution load (humic like compound) was higher during 7a.m. and 6p.m. when the human activity in the River front was higher. At 11a.m. when the activity was low, the organic load in the River also decreased down (Carstea et al., 2009). The accident in Romania occurred on the 30th of January, 2000. The dam breach led to penetration of 100 thousand m3 of liquid and suspended wastes, containing from 50 to 100 tons of cyanides, as well as copper and other heavy metals, into nearby River. In this event, seriously suffered fish resources, mostly not Romanian but Hungarian (the Tisza River and its inflows). In addition to it, 22 water supply was interrupted in 24 municipalities (Water, 2006). Similar accidents happened also at Californian goldmines, USA, in 1991, copper and zinc mines in Philippines in 1996, zinc mines in Spain in 1998 (Accidental, 2001). Agricultural wastes are characterized by excessive amount of phosphorus and nitrogen, being part of fertilizers and cattle breeding wastes, as well as by high concentration of pesticides and herbicides. Agricultural wastes also pose a serious threat for River habitats. For example, a 378,000 liters spill of wet manure in Minnesota killed almost 700,000 fish along 30Kms of a major stream. American agriculture now discharges 1.16 million tons of phosphorous and 4.65 million tons of nitrogen into waterways annually. Agriculture also exerts indirect influence on Rivers. Ploughing intensifies soil erosion that increases amount of different substances entering Rivers. Early soil discharge from agricultural land to waterways in the United States is estimated at over 1 billion tons of sediments and 447 million tons of total dissolved solids. The Mississippi River alone carries 331 million tons of topsoil to the Gulf of Mexico annually (Ruhl, 2000).

2.7. Solid Wastes In cities across the developing world unsegregated garbage end ups polluting the surface water bodies and the ground water. It also ruins the lives of those who work and live in the vicinity of the dump yard. Chennai, the capital city of Tamil Nadu dumps one-third of its municipal solid wastes- nearly 2600 tons a day near the rich marshy land, Pallikaranai. It was 6000 ha 3 decades ago, and reduce to just 600 ha today. As one of the most important rain water harvesting and ground water recharging system this marshy land continuous to play an important role in maintaining the ecological balance of the region. It also serves as a reservoir of monsoon rains and a habitat to a rich biodiversity of 126 birds species, 141 plants, 46 fishes, 20 butterflies and 8 mammals (John, 2013). In tropical countries like Thailand, solid waste disposal sites become major concerns during the rainy season each year. This is because of the enormous volumes of leachates generated. The leachate treatment system are good enough only to manage the organic compounds and the inorganic nutrient like nitrogen can still be found causing problems. Chiemchaisri et al., (2007) after observing this in

Thailand are experimenting with the development of multilayered rock-soil system (MRS), for the treatment of the leachates. IIT, New Delhi has identified that the unregulated waste dump and landfills cause numerous environmental and human health hazards, the most significant of them being the contamination of the nearby surface water bodies and the ground water through the leachates (Singh et al., 2007). The leachate is the longest lasting emission of landfills (Kylefors et al., 2003). The rain water leaches the chemicals produce during the degradation into soluble fraction and the pathogenic microbes (Sahu, 2007). The impacts of the infiltration leachates from the open dumps was constantly monitored by many scientist (Walker, 1969, Chain and DeWalle, 1976, Kelly, 1976, Masters, 1998 and Kumar et al., 2002). The quality of leachates also vary from time to time and site to site due to the variables such as waste composition, temperature, moisture, climate change, etc. (Alkalay et al., 1998). Leachate Pollution Index (LPI) has been deduced as the reliable evaluation method (Esakku et al., 2007). Wide variety of toxicants and organic compounds were detected in the landfill leachate, in Malaysia. The Shredded landfill had significantly higher concentration of organic pollutants than the leachates from the un-shredded once (Eusuf at al., 2007). Climatic conditions also influenced the leachate quality, according to them. The natures of hazardous organics have been identified by many. Oman and Hynning (1993), Schwarzbaure et al., (2002), Bann et al., (2004), Kjeldsen et al., (2002) identified that even without landfill co-disposal leachates from municipal solid waste of any dump area were similar in composition to those from mixed are hazardous landfills. Phenols and Phthalates are two common hazardous organic compounds reported to occur in highly organized heterogeneous MSW typical of an urban scenario in tropical developing countries (Swata et al., 2007). Many hazardous organic compounds remain and un-degraded in a conventional landfill due to lack of enough moisture and biomass.

2.8 Riverine Ecosystem Ecosystem has been defined as the complex of living organisms, the physical environment and their interrelationship in a particular unit of space (Odum, 1971). But the concept of ecosystem was first put forth by Tansley (1935). According to him ecosystem is the major ecological unit. It has both structure and function. The structure is related to the species diversity. The more complex is the structure, the greater is the diversity of the species in the ecosystem. The functions of the ecosystem are related to the low of energy and cycling of minerals through the structural components. The underlying principles of ecosystem study are based on the perception that all life supporting elements, whether, natural or anthropogenic, or integral parts of a network where the elements, interact among themselves (Bhatia, 1999). All ecosystems therefore are contained within the largest of all ecosystems called the ecosphere, which engulf the whole physical earth called the geosphere and all the living components called the biosphere (Sharma, 1995). The natural and the artificial ecosystems are the two major types of ecosystems existing. Natural ecosystems are self-regulatory in nature and are solar driven example forests, grasslands, deserts, lakes, ponds, Rivers, swamps, estuaries and so on. Artificial ecosystems also referred to as human engineered ecosystems are not self-regulated and depend on human interventions to meet their energy requirement example paddy fields, cash crop plantations, fish tanks, aircrafts in flight and so forth. Ecosystems can range in size from a small puddle of water to the ocean, from a patch of wood to a forest (Shukla and Chandal, 2006). The components of ecosystems are abiotic (non-living components-air, water, nutrients in the soil/water, solar energy, etc.) and biotic (biological components-plant, animals and microbes). The ecosystems are classified as terrestrial (land) and aquatic (water) ecosystems. Among the aquatic ecosystems the Riverine ecosystems is classified under the fresh water lotic type (Vasishta, 1989). The Rivers are fairly open ecosystems that receive many of their nutrients from bordering land ecosystems such nutrient input come from natural processes such as falling leaves, animal species, etc. Manmade activities also discharge nutritive and toxic elements into this ecosystem (Kumar, 1996). Rivers not only

25 provide the basic elixir of life but as an ecosystem ecologist have identified several services provided by the Rivers: 1. Deliver nutrients to the sea, which helps to sustain coastal fisheries, 2. Deposit silt that maintains deltas, 3. Purify water, 4. Renew and nourish wetlands and 5. Provide habitat for aquatic life and conserve species diversity. In short a Riverine ecosystem is the connection of land, water, people and wildlife (Miller, 2004). Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB), UNESCO (1972) was based on an ecosystem analysis approach. It includes the analysis of the ecological systems and the reciprocal studies of man-environment impacts. Some of the important objectives of this programme are to examine the structure, function and the dynamics of the ecosystem; to study the interrelations between ecosystem and socioeconomic processes and develop means for measuring environmental changes. Lieth (1972) made an intensive and extensive use and apllications of ecosystem ecology and mathematical modeling in estimating the primary productivity of different kinds of biome throughout the world. According to him the area occupied by lakes and streams in the world is 108 ha. Net primary productivity ranges between 1-15 metric tons ha-1, the average productivity being 4 metric tons ha-1. The total net productivity is 109 tons per year. Mean plant biomass is 0.2 tons ha-1 and chlorophyll 2 Kgs ha-1. According to Whittaker (1975) the annual average rate of net plant production of the fresh water ecosystem is 2250 Kcal/m2/yr. with an area of 2x106 Km2. The most productive ecosystem is the tropical forest- 9000 Kcal/m2/yr.; the least production system is the extreme desert- 14 Kcal/m2/yr. Rivers play a significant role in the global carbon cycle. A considerable fraction of the terrestrial net ecosystem production is transported to the world‟s Rivers (Schlesinger, 1997). The quantity delivered into the ocean is greater than the total amount of organic carbon buried in the world‟s oceans. Variability in the sources of carbon in the Rivers impacts the carbon budget at both regional and global level (Eckhart and Moore, 1990).

2.9 Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

PCA is mathematically define as an orthogonal linear transformation that transforms the set of observations of possibly correlated variables into a set of variables of linearly uncorrelated variable called Principal Components (PC) (Jolliffe, 2000). The greatest variance by any projection of the data comes to lie on the first coordinate (called the first PC), the second greatest variance on the second coordinate and so on (Al-Rawi & Shihab, 2005 and Thareja et al., 2011).

PCA reduces a large number of variables into an identified set of dimensions which cannot be easily observed in larger set of variables (Legndre and Legndre, 1979). Cao et al., (1999) and Mazlum, et al., (1999) also stated that PCA is performed for a variety of reasons such as ensuring the data normality, changing the weights of different variables and removing the effect of measurement units.

PCA has been used world over in water quality management, Lohani and Todino (1984) in Thailand, Neilson and Stevens (1985), Simoneau (1986) and Esterby et al., (1989) in Canada, Mohammed (1988), Dawood (1989) and Shihab (1983), Borovec (1996) in USA, Wu et al., (2000) in Taiwan, Martos et al., (2001) in Spain and Reinikainen et al., (2001) in Finland.

Iyer (2003) developed a PCA based statistical model for coastal water quality data from the Cochin coast in southwest India, which explained the relationships between the various physico-chemical variables that have been monitored and environmental conditions effect on coastal water quality.

Bhardwaj et al., (2010) working on the water quality of Chhoti Gandak River in India concluded that PCA determines the assemblage of water quality which are an indication of genetic processes and origin of pollutants with respect to domestic and agriculture sectors.

Therefore, PCA often present information on the most meaningful reliable parameters, which define the whole data set affording data reduction with minimum loss of original information (Nasir, 2011).

Surfing of literature on the water quality of Rivers bring to light that the River water is being easily and immediately polluted especially through anthropogenic activities. In-spite of any number of studies in this issue the recommendation of almost all them is the frequent monitoring of the water quality of River since the sources and the modes of pollution keep changing in par with the changes of civilization. This is mandatory for a healthy and sustainable economic development of mankind.

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1 Study Area Cauvery is a sacred River of southern India, rising on Brahmagiri Hill in the Western Ghats in Coorg district of Karnataka state, flowing in a south-easterly direction for 475 mi (765 km) through Karnataka and Tamil Nadu states, and descending the Eastern Ghats in a series of great falls. Before emptying into the Bay of Bengal south of Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, it breaks into a large number of distributaries describing a wide delta called the "garden of southern India”.

Fig-3.1: River Cauvery The River Cauveri enters Tamil Nadu through Krishnagiri district and along its course of flow forms many gorges and waterfalls, famous being the Hogenakkal falls in Dharmapuri District. The three minor tributaries, Palar, Chennar and Thoppar enter into the Kaveri on her course, above Stanley Reservoir in Mettur, where the famous dam has been constructed. The Mettur dam joins the Sita and Pala mountains beyond that valley through which the Kaveri flow, up to the Grand Anicut. The dam in Mettur, impounds water not only for the improvement of irrigation but also to ensure the regular and sufficient water to the important Hydro-Electric generating station at Mettur. The River further runs through Erode district where River

Bhavani merges with it. While passing through Erode, two more tributatries, Noyyal and Amaravathi join it before it reaches Thiruchirappalli district. Here the River becomes wide, with a sandy bed and flows in an easterly direction till splits into two at upper anicut about 14 kilometres west of Thiruchirappalli. The northern branch of River is called the Coleroon or Kollidam while the southern branch retains the same name Kaveri and then goes directly eastwards into Thanjavur District. These two Rivers join again and form the Srirangam Island near Thiruchirappalli. „Grand Anicut‟ stands as the head of great irrigation system in the Thanjavur district. From this point, the Coloroon or Kollidam runs north-east and discharges herself into the sea at Devakottai, a little south of Parangipettai. From River Coleroon, Manniar and Uppanai branch off at lower Anicut and irrigate a portion of Mayiladuthurai taluk and Sirkazhi taluk in Tanjavur District. After Grand Anicut, the Kaveri divides into numerous branches and cover the whole of the delta with a vast network of irrigation channels and gets lost in the wide expanse of paddy fields. The mighty Kaveri River here is reduced to an insignificant channel and falls into the Bay of Bengal at the historical place of Poompuhar (Kaveripoompatinam) about 13 km north of Tharangampadi. The River Kaveri flow the entire districts of Tanjavur, Thiruvarur and Nagapatinam in different names through its tributaries and branches.

3.2. Study Period The twelve months periods from March, 2009 to February, 2010 was the actual duration of the study. However, trial runs and fixing up of sampling stations were commenced from January, 2009. Periodicity Parameters Monthly - Physico-chemical and microbial Seasonal - Diversity index and saprobic index Annual Ecosystem, Heavy metals, Pesticides, Solid wastes and other anthropogenic activities 3.3 Sampling stations For the present study roughly about 250km from Karur to Mayiladuthurai has been assigned. Twelve sampling stations were selected for specific reasons within the assigned distance.

Fig-3.2: Sampling sites in the River Cauvery (Distance between the sampling stations in km: 1-2 = 17; 2-3 = 12; 3-4 = 40; 4-5= 20; 5-6 = 6; 6-7 = 4; 7-8 = 13; 8- 9 = 25; 9-10 = 60; 10-11= 13; 11-12= 20) Table-3.1: Geographical features of the sampling stations S. Latitude Longitude Altitude River Station Name District Substrate code (n) (e) (m) width (m) S1 Karur Karur 100 50' 780 42' 107 750 Rocky

S2 Mohanur Namakkal 110 03' 780 08' 148 1270 Rocky

S3 Thirumukkudal Namakkal 100 58' 780 12' 95 780 Rocky

S4 Pettavaithalai Trichy 100 54' 780 29' 78 1500 Sandy

S5 Upper anicut Trichy 100 52' 780 35' 72 700 Sandy Kambarasam- S6 Trichy 100 50' 780 40' 69 700 Sandy pettai S7 Trichy by-pass Trichy 100 50' 780 42' 75 640 Sandy

S8 Grand anicut Thanjore 100 49' 780 49' 52 160 Sandy

S9 Thiruvaiyar Thanjore 10052' 760 06' 73 125 Sandy

S10 Kumbakonam Thanjore 100 58' 790 24' 27 60 Clayee

S11 Aduthurai Thanjore 110 01' 790 28' 19 36 Clayee Nakapatti- S12 Mayladuthurai 110 06' 790 38' 48 42 Clayee nam

3.3 Water sampling Every month towards the second week sampling was done on two consecutive days (station 1- 6 on day one and station 7- 12 on day two). But every third month when biological parameters were included a third day visit was also made. Time of sample was maintained by starting the 1 sampling at about 9a.m. & closing the last sampling at about 6p.m. The farthermost station was sampled first and the closest station was sampled at lost. At every station average with, depth & velocity of the River, atmospheric & water temperatures, pH and DO were determined. Water samples were collected by grab sampling method at almost 0.5m depth from the water surface in cleaned 2litres plastic cans after rinsing sufficiently in the water. Samples for coli form test were taken in separate 100ml pre-sterilized plastic bottles and preserved in ice packs until it was taken to the lab for immediate analysis. Other details almost the water quality, supply, usage, etc. were noted down through conversation with the natives/village officials. All the 12 samples were analyzed for the following parameters as quickly and accurately as possible with all the precautionary measures specified for the parameters.

3.4 Water Quality Parameters (physico-chemical and biological) 3.4.1 Monthly variations Various parameters determined every month in the water samples of twelve stations are listed in Table – 3.2.

3.4.2 Seasonal variations The prevalent seasons of the study area are 1) Summer – March, April & May 2) Southwest Monsoon – June, July & August 3) Northeast Monsoon – September, October & November 4) Pre-summer – December, January & February The seasonal data was derived from the monthly data as the average of the 3 respective months. All the results were compared with the CPCB (2008) and WHO‟s drinking water standards, 1993 (Annexture-I).

Table-3.2: Physico-Chemical and Biological Parameters

Sl.No. Analyses 1. Temperature 2. pH 3. Electrical Conductivity (EC) 4. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 5. Turbidity (TDY) 6. Total Hardness (TH) 7. Total Alkalinity (TA) 8. Phenolphthalein Alkalinity (PA) 9. Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

10. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

11. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

12. Chloride (Cl-) - 13. Sulphate (SO4 ) - 14. Phosphate (PO4 )

15. Total Nitrogen (TN) - 16. Nitrate (NO3 ) - 17. Nitrite (NO2 ) 18. Fluoride (Fl-) - 19. Bicarbonate (HCO3 ) - 20. Carbonate (CO3 ) 21. Calcium (Ca++) ++ 22. Magnesium (Mg ) + 23. Sodium (Na ) + 24. Potassium (K ) 25. Total Coliform 26. Fecal Coliform

27. Saprobic Score

28. Diversity Score

3.4.3. Diversity index The diversity score of benthic organisms in the substratum of the River is performed according to the method described by CPCB (1999). For diversity score the animals are segregated from the sediments and immobilised by adding few drops of 90% of alcohol. The method of diversity score involves a pairwise comparison of sequentially encountered individuals and the difference of two elements is observed. When the next observed animal is different from the last one, a new runs starts. The number of runs for the first 15 specimen of animals is determined. Diversity is calculated as number runs by number of specimen. The procedure is repeated and till insignificant change in the diversity score occurred. This is considered as the point where enough specimen has been examine. The diversity is the ratio of total number of runs and total number of organisms encountered. The diversity value generally ranges between 0 and 1. High diversity of benthic animals always supports a good quality of water.

3.4.4. Saprobic index The benthic saprobic score is accomplished by sampling of all micro habitats in a sizeable search of the River. Each animal sited is taxonomically identified to its respective family. Depending upon the nature of the family members saprobic score value are assigned to each taxonomic group. The score for each group is determined multiplying the number of organism of the group into BMWP score. Summing up all this value gives the grand total score. The average BMWP sites score = grand total multiply score/ total number of families encountered. The taxonomic group and families and their corresponding saprobic score are available in annexure-II. Abundance scale for water quality class: - Single = A; Scarce = B; Common = C; Abundant = D and Excessive = E With the help of the diversity and saprobic score the water quality is determined from the table of criteria of biological water quality evaluation.

Table-3.3: Criteria for biological water quality evaluation Range of Water Range of Indicator saprobic score Water quality quality diversity colour (BMWP) class 7 and more 0.2 – 1 Clean A Blue 6 – 7 0.5 – 1 Slight pollution B Light blue 3 – 6 0.3 – 0.9 Moderate pollution C Green 2 – 5 0.4 & less Heavy pollution D Orange 0 – 2 0 – 0.2 Severe pollution E Red

3.5. Principal Component Analysis PCA is the multivariate statistical approach that brings out the hidden information from the data set about the possible influences of environment on water quality. PCA technique aims to transform the observed variable to a new set of variables. The principal components (PCs) which are uncorrelated are arranged in the decreasing order of importance to simplify the probe. It also identifies the most important gradients. In PCA the data cluster is rotated by subtracting the mean of the data and diving by the standard deviation. A new set of factors involving primarily a subset of original variables are divided into groups. From the standardised covariance or correlation matrix of the data the Eigen values and corresponding Eigen vectors of covariance matrix are calculated. An Eigen value illustrates the most significant factors. The highest Eigen values are the most significant. Eigen values of 1 or greats are considered significant. PCA was calculated using SPSS package 17.0. The rotation mode used is varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

3.6 Riverine Ecosystem The biotic components of the ecosystem, the producers and consumers were recorded at site. Not only appearance of animals but any evidence for the existence of animals namely body parts, trail marks, nest, pug marks or fecal matter were considered for the presence of the animals. The biotic interaction among the plants and animals were also noted down.

3.7 Interventions on the water quality parameters Various intervening factors upon the water quality within and around the river where noticed during the monthly sampling. The details on these intervening factors were determined through personal observation and discussions with the officials and the riverine consumers. Media and newspapers were also considered as sources of information.

3.7.1 Heavy metals For the analysis of various heavy metals, water samples (200ml) were collected in cleaned plastic bottles. The pH of samples were maintained around 2.0 using 10% HNO3. Each samples was digested with 5ml of di-acid mixture in the

9:4 ratio (HNO3:HClO4) on a hot plate and filtered through Whatman No.42 filter paper and made up to 50ml by double distilled water for the analysis of eight heavy metals viz. Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb, Zn and Hg using atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AAS-300, Perkin Elmer) (APHA, 1998).

3.7.2 Pesticides For the analysis of pesticides, water samples (2.5ltrs) were collected in cleaned brown bottles. 500ml of water samples were dipped into a pool of chloroform (700ml) with the help of drip set. The chloroform flask was placed on a magnetic stirrer for uniform extraction. The organic phase was separated and passed through activated Na2SO4 and evaporated to dryness. This extract was analysed by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrophotometry (Perkin-Elmer Auto system XL coupled with Turbo Mass Gold MS system).

3.7.3 Solid waste The solid waste from the dumping yard on the river bank of every sampling station was collected in a gunny bag. The total weight of the contents and the individual weight of the components (food & vegetable, paper & cardboard, plastics, textile, rubber, leather, wood, glass & pot, dust, ash & brick, metals, farmyard and others) were determined using NOVA (BGS-1230) electronic balance. The percentage of each component was calculated over the total weight.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The physico-chemical water quality parameters during the study period in all the sampling stations are presented independently and discussed.

4.1. Water Quality Parameters 4.1.1. Temperature

Measuring temperature is inevitable, since it affects the chemistry of water and biochemical reaction of the aquatic organism. It is also important in the determination of pH, conductivity and saturation levels of gases in water (Trivedy et al., 1998).

Apart from affecting the physical properties of water, temperature is also important because of its influence on water chemistry. Temperature changes, affect the reaction rates and solubility levels of chemicals. Most chemical reactions involving dissolution of solids are accelerated by increased temperature. The solubility of gases on the other hand, decreases at elevated temperature (Peavy et al., 1985).

An important example of the effects of temperature on water chemistry is its impact on oxygen. Warm water holds less oxygen that cool water, so it may be saturated with oxygen but still not contain enough for survival of aquatic life. The rate of chemical reactions generally increases at higher temperature, which in turn affects biological activity. Because biological oxidation of organism in the steams is dependent on an adequate supply of DO, decrease in O2 solubility is undesirable (Masters, 2004).

If the temperature is increased biological activity increases. An increase of 10oC is usually sufficient to double the biological activity if essential nutrients are present. At elevated temperature and increased metabolic rates, organisms that are more efficient at food utilization and reproduction flourish, while other species

decline and are perhaps eliminated altogether (Peavy et al., 1985). Some compounds are also more toxic to aquatic life at higher temperatures.

In the present study, the monthly variation in the water temperature ranges between 24oC to 40oC (Table-4.1). The maximum average temperature of 33oC occurs in S4 & S9 and the minimum temperature of 29oC occurs in S3. Local weather, River substratum, depth of water, intensity of sunlight and the Riverine vegetation contribute considerably to the temperature of River water.

March is the hottest and December is the coolest month of the study period (Fig-4.1). In all sampling stations highest temperature occurs in summer and lowest in pre-summer (Fig-4.2) (winter). This is the reflection of the seasonal variation. The range of average seasonal water temperature varied from 17oC to 23.5oC in Godawari River. Fluctuated values of water temperature may be due to time of collection of water samples and seasonal variations (Sanap et al., 2006).

Table-4.1: Water Temperature (o C) in all the twelve sampling stations S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 34 33 31 38 37 37 37 38 39 37 37 34 Apr 34 32 30 36 35 32 36 38 40 40 35 30 May 31 31 30 32 34 36 35 35 35 33 33 31 June 31 29 27 35 31 30 27 29 31 30 29 29 July 30 30 28 33 32 31 32 31 32 31 30 24 Aug 29 29 29 30 30 30 31 32 32 30 30 30 Sep 30 30 30 32 32 32 33 32 33 33 33 33 Oct 31 29 29 30 30 30 31 30 32 31 31 30 Nov 30 29 29 31 31 32 31 30 31 31 30 30 Dec 28 27 26 29 28 27 27 27 27 28 28 29 Jan 30 29 28 33 33 32 34 31 32 30 30 30 Feb 33 30 26 36 34 32 32 32 34 33 32 32 Avg. 31 30 29 33 32 32 32 32 33 32 32 30

Fig-4.1: Stations average of water temperature

Fig-4.2: Seasonal variations in water temperature

4.1.2. pH Since pH is a measure of the acid balance of a solution, it is controlled by the dissolved chemical compounds and the biochemical processes in water. pH is primarily controlled by the balance between CO2, carbonate and bicarbonate ions 2- - as well as natural compounds such as humic and fulvic acids. CO3 , HCO3 &

H2CO3 are all organic forms of CO2 and their relative contribution to the total CO2 concentration controls the pH. Variations in the pH of the Cauvery water samples are between 7.4 and 9.1 (Table-4.2). The entire River water has always been alkaline (permissible limit 6.5- 8.5). There is no significant change in the average of the stations (8.0-8.4).

Similarly the average monthly pH also does not vary much- 8.0-8.5 (Fig-4.3). The summer seems to be making the water very alkaline while SWM season brings down the alkalinity of water considerably (Fig-4.4). The pH changes seasonally

due to the variations in photosynthetic activity. CO2 in the water is utilized during the process elevating the pH.

Vimala et al., (2006) recorded the pH of Kudamurutti River which confluences with Cauvery to be 6.9 to 7.9. Koraiyar, the main tributary of Cauvery flowing in Tiruchirappalli had a pH of 7.4 to 7.7 (Kathiravan et al., 2010). Uyyakondan channel has a pH range of 7.3 to 8.3 (Jeena et al., 2012). The impact of sewage which is of complex nature influences the pH. In all the sampling stations, point and non-point sources of sewage mix with the River making it rich in nutrients and algal blooms.

Table-4.2: pH in all sampling stations S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 Mar 7.9 8.0 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.0 8.7 8.4 8.5 8.7 7.4 Apr 8.0 8.0 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.0 8.6 8.4 8.7 8.2 7.4 May 8.5 8.2 8.6 8.3 9.0 8.9 8.1 9.1 7.9 8.0 8.6 8.7 June 8.0 7.8 7.9 8.2 8.2 8.2 7.9 8.2 8.0 8.0 8.3 8.4 July 7.8 7.9 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.4 8.4 8.0 8.0 Aug 7.6 7.7 8.2 7.8 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.4 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.0 Sep 7.9 8.3 8.4 8.3 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.3 Oct 7.8 8.2 8.3 7.9 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.6 8.5 8.6 8.3 Nov 8.1 7.9 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.4 8.5 8.3 8.2 Dec 8.4 8.2 8.7 8.3 8.5 8.4 7.9 8.2 8.4 8.1 8.0 8.2 Jan 8.0 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.3 8.6 8.5 8.7 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.5 Feb 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.3 8.1 8.3 8.2 8.6 8.4 8.2 8.3 7.9 Avg. 8.0 8.1 8.3 8.2 8.4 8.4 8.1 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.1

Fig-4.3: Stations average of pH

Fig-4.4: Seasonal Variations in pH

4.1.3. Electrical Conductivity Electrical conductivity or specific conductance is a measure of a material's ability to conduct an electric current. This is link to the concentration of mineral salts in solution (salinity). It depends on the degree to which the salts are dissociated into ions, the electrical charge on each ion, there mobility and temperature (Gray, 2005). EC is controlled by:  Geology (rock types) - The rock composition determines the chemistry of the watershed soil and ultimately the River. For example, limestone leads to higher EC because of the dissolution of carbonate minerals in the basin.

 The size of the watershed (River basin) relative to the area of the River - A bigger watershed to River surface area means relatively more water draining into the River because of a bigger catchments area, and more contact with soil before reaching the River.  Other sources of pollution - There are a number of sources of pollutants agriculture, drainage, urban run-off, waste disposal etc., which may signal the increase in EC.

Table-4.3 shows the variations in the EC of water samples, which ranges from 558 to 1118 µS/cm. This doubling in the EC is the reflection of the impacts of various factors such as industrial effluents, sewage discharge, agricultural run- off and other activities such as washing and bathing. The average of the monthly EC at S7 (By-pass bridge) is the highest among the stations-831µS/cm. Since the station is located downstream of Trichy city, it reflects the impact of an urban settlement. The impact continues even up to S8 (805µS/cm).

In the month of May, the average EC is at its peak and in November at its dip (Fig-4.5). Season wise variation in EC is clearly seen in the Fig-4.6. Summer has the maximum EC and minimum during the NEM season. Summer is the hottest and driest season, when the water flow in the River is minimum or even absent. NEM brings heavy rainfall to the catchment area and the delta region of River Cauvery diluting all the pollutants.

Compared to the main River course the tributaries of the Cauvery are more polluted. According to the present study, the EC ranges between 558 to 1118µS/cm (Table-4.3). Hema et al., (2010) recorded the EC value to be 310 to 1940µS/cm in the Cauvery River. The tributaries record the higher EC values: - Noyyal River – 5170 – 5830 & Amaravathy River – 710 – 1660 (Hema et al., 2010); Uyyakondan channel – 390 – 1398 (Jeena et al., 2010); Kudamurutti channel – 810 – 2280; Koraiyar channel – 1780 - 2880µS/cm (Kathiravan et al., 2010).

Table-4.3: Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 643 689 800 783 843 887 1025 1078 774 786 730 771 Apr 961 914 980 876 902 963 986 908 893 846 890 902 May 977 1012 978 970 982 910 1118 1081 966 980 997 1056 June 608 633 656 695 677 670 788 721 635 680 694 857 July 788 815 818 860 885 882 844 847 941 925 948 977 Aug 750 763 771 857 802 765 753 750 766 782 778 784 Sep 558 624 652 601 663 651 668 654 621 630 612 641 Oct 684 731 840 761 726 784 686 742 677 680 671 683 Nov 581 577 574 631 624 589 603 595 588 581 630 585 Dec 747 893 979 811 763 770 982 740 720 576 588 591 Jan 578 701 585 625 635 618 591 598 637 620 634 601 Feb 730 787 781 760 782 783 926 941 814 788 832 679 Avg. 717 762 785 769 774 773 831 805 753 740 750 761

Fig-4.5: Stations average of Electrical Conductivity

Fig-4.6: Seasonal Variations in EC

4.1.4. Total Dissolved Solids Total Dissolved Solids (often abbreviated TDS) is an expression for the combined content of all inorganic and organic substances contained in a liquid which are present in a molecular, ionized or micro-granular (colloidal sol) suspended form. Total dissolved solids are normally only discussed for freshwater systems, since salinity comprises some of the ions constituting the definition of TDS. The principal application of TDS is in the study of water quality for streams, Rivers and lakes, although TDS is generally considered not as a primary pollutant (e.g. it is not deemed to be associated with health effects), but it is rather used as an indication of aesthetic characteristics of drinking water and as an aggregate indicator of the presence of a broad array of chemical contaminants (Sharma, 2007). Primary sources for TDS in receiving waters are agricultural runoff, leaching of soil contamination and point source water pollution discharge from industrial or sewage treatment plants. The most common chemical constituents are calcium, phosphates, nitrates, sodium, potassium and chloride, which are found in nutrient runoff, and general storm water runoff. More exotic and harmful elements of TDS are pesticides arising from surface runoff. Certain naturally occurring total dissolved solids arise from the weathering and dissolution of rocks and soils (Trivedy et al., 1998). Many dissolved substances are undesirable in water. Dissolved minerals, gases, and organic constituents may produce aesthetically displeasing color, tastes, and odors. Some chemicals may be toxic, and some of the dissolved organic constituents have been shown to be carcinogenic. Quite often, two or more dissolved substances-especially organic substances and members of the halogen group-will combine to form a compound whose characteristics are more objectionable than those of either of the original materials (Peavy et al., 1985). The pattern of variations in TDS is identical to that of EC values. Table- 4.4, Fig-4.7 & 4.8 shows the variations among the stations, months and seasons, respectively. The CPCB standard for TDS in drinking water is 500mg/L and the maximum allowable concentration is 1000mg/L (WHO, 1996). Martin and Haniffa (2003) considered anthropogenic activities as the root cause for high TDS in water. Kulesekaran (2002) specified sewage discharge as the prime factor for the increasing TDS. 44

Table-4.4: Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 412 441 512 501 540 568 656 690 495 503 467 493 Apr 615 585 627 561 577 616 631 581 572 541 570 577 May 625 648 626 621 628 582 716 692 618 627 638 676 June 389 405 420 445 433 429 504 461 406 435 444 548 Jul 504 522 524 550 566 564 540 542 602 592 607 625 Aug 480 488 493 548 513 490 482 480 490 500 498 502 Sep 357 399 417 385 424 417 428 419 397 403 392 410 Oct 438 468 538 487 465 502 439 475 433 435 429 437 Nov 372 369 367 404 399 377 386 381 376 372 403 374 Dec 478 572 627 519 488 493 628 474 461 369 376 378 Jan 370 449 374 400 406 396 378 383 408 397 406 385 Feb 467 504 500 486 500 501 593 602 521 504 532 435 Avg. 459 487 502 492 495 495 532 515 482 473 480 487

Fig-4.7: Stations average of TDS

Fig-4.8: Seasonal variations in TDS

4.1.5 Turbidity Turbidity refers to how clear the water is. The greater the amount of total suspended solids (TSS) in the water, the murkier it appears and the higher the measured turbidity. The major source of turbidity in the open water zone of most Rivers is typically clay, silt, rock fragments, and metallic oxides from the soils, micro-organisms, saw dust, wood ashes, chemicals, coal dust, suspended bottom sediments, and organic detritus from wastewater discharges. Dredging operations, channelization, mining, soil erosion from logging, increased flow rates, floods, or even too many bottom-feeding fish (such as carp) may stir up bottom sediments and increase the cloudiness of the water. Soaps, detergents, and emulsifying agents produce stable colloids that result in turbidity (Gray, 2005). Although turbidity measurements are not commonly run on wastewater, discharges of wastewaters may increase the turbidity of natural water bodies of water. In natural water bodies, turbidity may impart a brown or other color to water, depending on the light-absorbing properties of the solids, and may interfere with light penetration and photosynthetic reactions in streams and lakes. Accumulation of turbidity-causing particles in porous streambeds results in sediment deposits that can adversely affect the flora and fauna of the stream (Peavy et al., 1985). The tremendous variation in turbidity proves the presence of very high amounts of suspended solids in water. Table-4.5 and Fig-4.9 represents the average turbidity values among the stations and among the months. The muddy substratum of stations S10 & S11 and the urban discharges of S7 may be implicated for the very high turbidity values. As expected summer season records the maximum turbidity, especially in stations 7, 10 & 11. The monsoon rains seems to have diluted the suspended matter resulting in lesser turbidity. The turbidity values of S1, S2 and S3 are only within the permissible limits (5 NTU). In all other stations the limit has been exceeded. High values (23.4 NTU) of turbidity during rainy season in Bhadra River were attributed to the inflow of rainwater carrying suspended solids and the discharge of industrial effluents (Kiran et al., 2006). The Kosi River water at Rampur is most turbid throughout the study period due to low discharge of water from Lalpur dam. The probability of presence of pathogenic organisms leading to increased turbid water has also been proposed. (Kumar and Bahadur, 2009) 46

Table-4.5: Turbidity (NTU) in all sampling stations S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 6.9 7.1 6.2 4.8 5.3 7.4 13.2 14.4 7.1 15.0 21.1 7.0 Apr 6.1 2.8 2.0 8.1 8.3 10.3 29.6 11.7 11.2 21.8 17.7 12.4 May 6.4 10.4 3.3 5.6 9.2 12.4 16.0 17.5 22.5 16.0 23.4 10.3 June 4.3 4.8 7.5 9.1 12.3 13.4 15.3 11.2 12.7 18.3 21.9 8.6 July 1.5 3.0 1.8 1.8 2.9 3.1 2.7 3.1 2.8 4.4 2.6 2.5 Aug 2.1 1.9 2.1 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.5 3.0 4.3 6.3 8.0 11.6 Sep 2.1 1.9 2.0 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.5 3.0 4.3 12.7 13.0 19.0 Oct 3.0 8.0 5.5 12.3 23.0 14.0 4.7 9.2 3.4 9.0 3.1 6.0 Nov 3.6 2.3 2.6 4.2 4.5 4.1 4.0 2.7 3.2 4.4 4.2 4.1 Dec 7.8 8.3 6.5 8.0 9.2 9.5 17.0 8.2 4.4 4.0 10.7 9.1 Jan 3.6 4.8 4.1 5.4 5.0 4.4 4.7 5.5 6.3 6.5 6.9 7.4 Feb 1.4 2.0 1.2 2.4 7.1 5.3 23.0 11.2 5.6 8.6 7.8 6.9 Avg. 4.1 4.8 3.7 5.9 8.0 7.8 11.6 8.4 7.3 10.6 11.7 8.7

Fig-4.9: Stations average of Turbidity

Fig-4.10: Seasonal variation in Turbidity

4.1.6. Dissolved Oxygen

The solubility of oxygen in water depends on three factors, temperature, pressure and dissolved minerals in water. Another physical process that affects DO concentrations is the relationship between water temperature and gas saturation. Cold water can hold more of any gas, in this case oxygen, than warmer water. Warmer water becomes "saturated" more easily with oxygen. As water becomes warmer it can hold less and less DO. So, during the summer months in the warmer top portion of a water body, the total amount of oxygen present may be limited by temperature. If the water becomes too warm, even if 100% saturated, O2 levels may be suboptimal for many species of trout (Peavy et al., 1985).

The sources of oxygen include the air and inflowing streams. Oxygen concentrations are much higher in air, which is about 21% oxygen, than in water, which is a tiny fraction of 1 percent oxygen. Where the air and water meet, this tremendous difference in concentration causes oxygen molecules in the air to dissolve into the water. More oxygen dissolves into water when wind stirs the water; as the waves create more surface area, more diffusion can occur. Turbulence causes quicker mixing within the water breaking down the oxygen gradient and increasing in the transfer rate. Turbulence is directly related to River gradient and bed roughness. Overall amount of oxygen transfer depend on the surface area to volume ratio of water body so that the ratio is larger in a shallow wide River than a narrow deep one. Thus the shallow wide River will be re-oxygenated faster (Masters, 2004).

Decrease in atmospheric pressure causes a decrease in oxygen saturation. Therefore, a stream at higher altitude has less oxygen at a particular temperature than low land streams. An increase in the concentration of dissolved salts lessens saturated concentration of oxygen, which is why sea water has lower saturation concentration than fresh water at the same temperature and pressure. Some inorganic substances such as sulphite, sulphide and iron take part in chemical reactions which also consume oxygen there by decreasing the DO (Sharma, 2007).

Oxygen is produced during photosynthesis and consumed during respiration and decomposition. Because it requires light, photosynthesis occurs only during daylight hours. Respiration and decomposition, on the other hand,

occur 24 hours a day. This difference alone can account for large daily variations in DO concentrations. During the night, when photosynthesis cannot counterbalance the loss of oxygen through respiration and decomposition, DO concentrations may steadily decline. It is lowest just before dawn, when photosynthesis resumes (Gray, 2005).

On an overall basis the DO of all sampling stations (Table-4.6) during all months (Fig-4.11) and seasons (Fig-4.12) are almost above the prescribed limit by CPCB (6mg/L). The rich diversity of fish species (Jayaram et al., 1982 and Balasundaram et al., 1999), zooplankton (Jeyaram, 2000) and smaller animals (Kalavathy, 2009) in Cauvery are the evidences for the high DO in the River system. This may be attributed to photosynthetic function of the algae and aquatic macrophytes. The phytonutrients viz. nitrogenous compounds, phosphates, potassium, etc. discharge into the River, as run-off from the agricultural fields as sewage discharge, detergents, etc. support the enormous growth of the producers within the Riverine ecosystem. The abundant release of oxygen bubbles by the algae into the River water has been observed (Plate-19).

Table-4.6: Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 5.2 5.4 6.3 7.8 7.7 7.6 5.6 7.9 7.9 7.6 8.0 5.1 Apr 7.8 7.6 7.0 6.6 7.6 7.6 5.8 7.4 7.4 6.6 4.7 4.7 May 6.8 6.8 6.0 6.0 6.8 7.6 7.2 6.8 7.2 5.2 5.6 5.6 June 7.3 6.1 5.3 7.3 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.3 7.3 6.8 6.5 6.5 July 7.0 6.2 6.5 6.9 6.5 6.9 7.7 7.7 7.3 6.9 6.5 6.0 Aug 7.2 7.2 6.9 6.9 7.2 7.7 7.2 6.1 6.5 7.2 7.2 6.1 Sep 7.2 7.2 6.9 6.9 7.2 7.7 7.2 6.1 6.5 7.8 7.7 7.7 Oct 6.3 5.6 5.6 6.2 6.6 6.5 7.1 7.1 8.1 6.7 8.1 6.1 Nov 7.4 5.8 6.0 6.9 7.4 6.9 6.8 7.5 7.6 8.6 7.5 7.5 Dec 6.4 6.2 6.6 7.5 7.3 7.1 5.0 6.9 7.1 5.2 6.7 5.0 Jan 7.6 7.4 7.0 7.7 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.5 7.8 6.8 Feb 8.4 8.2 6.8 8.0 7.8 7.9 6.3 7.1 7.6 8.1 6.2 7.3 Avg. 7.1 6.6 6.4 7.1 7.3 7.4 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.0 6.9 6.2

Fig-4.11: Stations average in DO

Fig-4.12: Seasonal variations in DO

4.1.7. Chemical Oxygen Demand Chemical oxygen demand (COD) is used as a measure of oxygen requirement of a sample that is susceptible to oxidation by strong chemical oxidants. The basis for the COD test is that nearly all organic compounds can be fully oxidized to carbon dioxide with a strong oxidizing agent under acidic conditions. It is otherwise the amount of oxygen required to oxidize an organic compound to carbon dioxide, ammonia, and water. Some samples of water contain high levels of oxidizable inorganic materials which may interfere with the determination of COD. Because of its high concentration in most wastewater, chloride is often the most serious source of interference. Some organic matter, such as cellulose, phenols, benzene, and tannic acid, resists biodegradation. Other types of organic matter, such as pesticides, various

industrial chemicals, and hydrocarbons are non-biodegradable because they are toxic to microorganisms. Molecules with exceptionally strong bonds (polysaccharides) and ringed structures (benzene) are essentially non-biodegradable. COD is useful to measure these non-biodegradable organics (Peavy et al, 1985). The COD value of the River water varies between 8 and 52mg/L (Table- 4.7). The oxygen demanding chemicals seems to be relatively more in the sampling stations beyond Trichy city than the ones before the city. The average COD was minimum in the month of January and maximum in April (Fig-4.13). Seasonal variation pattern for all the sampling stations is highest in summer and lowest in either NEM or pre-summer. The COD values are varied from 6.0 to 18.4 mg/l in Chambal River. The River receives effluent from chemicals industries and domestic sewage from city that have high values of COD in particular. (Mathur and Maheshwari, 2005) Organic matter, Thermal power effluents and anthropogenic activities were main factors responsible for high COD in Godawari River (Sanap et al, 2006). Similar observation was recorded by Gupta and Sigh (2003) in Varuna River.

Table-4.7: Chemical Oxygen Demand (mg/l) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 28 36 32 28 16 16 20 32 20 20 24 28 Apr 20 20 24 36 40 40 44 52 48 52 28 36 May 20 24 36 32 28 28 48 32 32 36 36 40 June 24 20 28 36 28 20 20 28 32 28 20 28 July 16 16 32 28 20 20 36 40 36 40 36 24 Aug 20 32 28 24 32 28 36 32 28 24 28 32 Sep 24 28 32 28 28 36 32 40 40 12 16 12 Oct 16 24 20 16 24 20 16 20 24 16 20 20 Nov 20 28 12 24 28 16 16 20 28 24 20 20 Dec 24 40 32 28 20 28 36 24 24 28 24 28 Jan 16 20 8 16 8 12 16 20 20 16 8 12 Feb 8 8 32 8 8 16 16 20 8 32 36 16 Avg. 20 25 26 25 23 23 28 30 28 27 25 25

Fig-4.13: Stations average in COD

Fig-4.14: Seasonal variations in COD

4.1.8. Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Biochemical Oxygen Demand or Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) is a chemical procedure for determining how fast biological organisms use up oxygen in a body of water. It is used in water quality management and assessment, ecology and environmental science. BOD is not an accurate quantitative test, although it could be considered as an indication of the quality of a water source. BOD indicates the amount of putrescible organic matter present in water. Therefore, a low BOD is an indicator of good quality water, while a high BOD indicates polluted water. Dissolved oxygen (DO) is consumed by bacteria when large amounts of organic matter from sewage or other discharges are present in the water (Sharma, 2007).

The prescribed limit of CPCB (2008) for BOD is 2mg/L. The BOD values of most of the sampling stations and months have almost overshot this limit (Table-4.8 and Fig-4.15). From March to August the BOD is relatively high due to the less flow of water in the River and September to February the values is low. The high BOD may be due to sewage discharge, stagnation water, open defecation, urban run-off, etc.

The NEM brings rain to this part of the country only during September to November. The flow of water in River is sufficient enough to wash out the microbes responsible for BOD. The pattern of seasonal variations in BOD is as follows: -

Summer > SWM > NEM = Pre-summer (Fig-4.16).

High values of BOD were observed in the downstream stations of River Ganga. The increase was attributed to 8.2 million gallons of sewage and sullage at Mahendru Ghat in the river (Tiwary et al., 2005).

Table-4.8: Biological Oxygen Demand (mg/l) BOD S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 Mar 4.1 3.3 4.0 3.7 3.5 4.0 6.0 7.6 5.1 4.9 7.8 7.2 Apr 6.4 4.2 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.7 5.8 6.4 6.4 6.1 4.7 4.7 May 3.5 4.4 4.1 4.7 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.1 4.8 5.2 5.6 5.6 June 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 5.6 5.4 5.7 6.2 July 3.1 3.3 3.8 3.9 3.5 3.2 5.3 5.1 5.0 5.2 5.0 4.0 Aug 2.7 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.4 4.5 5.0 5.3 4.5 4.1 4.6 5.5 Sep 2.3 2.2 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 Oct 3.0 4.0 1.7 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Nov 1.6 1.6 2.6 2.8 1.2 1.3 1.2 2.2 2.2 3.1 1.9 2.6 Dec 1.2 3.7 2.6 2.3 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.8 2.7 3.1 2.4 1.1 Jan 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.9 0.7 0.6 1.3 1.4 3.2 2.8 2.9 4.2 Feb 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.6 2.3 2.9 4.2 3.0 1.4 2.9 3.1 2.3 Avg. 2.9 3.1 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.2 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.1

Fig-4.15: Stations average of BOD

Fig-4.16: Seasonal variations in BOD 4.1.9. Total hardness Hardness in water is defined as the presence of multivalent cations. Hardness in water can cause water to form scales and a resistance to soap. It can also be defined as water that doesn‟t produce lather with soap solutions, but produces white precipitate (scum). Magnesium hardness, particularly associated with the sulfate ion, has a laxative effect on persons unaccustomed to it. Calcium hardness presents no public health problem. In fact, hard water is apparently beneficial to the human cardiovascular system (Peavy et al., 1985). Table-4.9 shows the variations in the total hardness among the sampling stations and months. The hardness value ranges between 67 and 320mg/L. Except S4 & S5 in the month of May all other values are within the permissible limit (300mg/L-CPCB, 2008). Almost in all sampling stations summer has maximum hardness and NEM has the minimum. This again can be attributed to the flow of water. In an earlier study by Lalitha et al., (2003) the hardness of Cauvery water varied between 200 to 750mg/L, which is attributed to the quantity of waste disposed into the River.

Table-4.9: Total Hardness (mg/l) TH S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 Mar 150 160 164 160 180 184 214 232 186 180 158 174 Apr 215 290 265 290 270 245 325 285 265 245 295 305 May 270 245 240 320 320 265 300 300 275 275 250 270 June 170 175 185 185 200 205 260 240 200 195 200 215 July 165 160 175 150 150 145 150 165 165 150 165 170 Aug 175 185 185 215 180 160 140 170 175 140 160 160 Sep 67 86 104 107 104 101 100 81 114 104 102 100 Oct 149 198 164 137 135 169 160 178 140 174 146 135 Nov 126 128 125 147 131 146 131 128 132 130 131 129 Dec 198 253 228 199 187 196 239 188 190 150 139 145 Jan 162 174 162 169 173 168 154 166 172 164 168 158 Feb 160 171 166 162 171 169 194 202 185 185 194 166 Avg. 167 185 180 187 183 179 197 195 183 174 176 177

Fig-4.17: Stations average of Total Hardness

Fig-4.18: Seasonal variations in Total Hardness

4.1.10. Total Alkalinity Alkalinity is a measure of the ability of a solution to neutralize acids to the equivalence point of carbonate or bicarbonate. Alkalinity is closely related to the acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) of a solution and ANC is often incorrectly used to refer to alkalinity. The alkalinity is equal to the sum of the bases in solution. In the natural environment carbonate alkalinity tends to make up most of the total alkalinity due to the common occurrence and dissolution of carbonate rocks and presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Other common natural components that can contribute to alkalinity include borate, hydroxide, phosphate, silicate, nitrate, dissolved ammonia, the conjugate bases of some organic acids and sulfide. As per Table-4.10, the maximum total alkalinity is 425mg/L (April-S7 & S12) and the minimum alkalinity is 98mg/L (September-S1). The permissible limit of alkalinity value is 200mg/L. Though the monthly average of all stations is above this limit, it does not exceed 260mg/L. The stations average is maximum in the month of April and the minimum in September (Fig-4.19), as probably influenced by the water flow in the River. The seasonal influence in alkalinity (Fig-4.20) is as follows: - Summer > SWM > pre-summer > NEM Similar observations are reported by Rajurkar et al., (2003) in the water quality status of River Umkhrah at Shilong. Total alkalinity is the total concentration of bases in water. These bases are - - usually bicarbonates (HCO3 ) and carbonates (CO3 ), and they act as a buffer system that prevents drastic changes in pH. Since the pH value of the Cauvery water is alkaline ranging between 7.4 and 9.1. In the present study, the variations - - in alkalinity value are due to HCO3 and not hydroxide. The HCO3 acts as a buffer system regulating the changes in the pH probably caused by lime stone, sedimentary rocks, carbonate rich soils, cleaning agents, food residues, city sewage and other domestic wastes (Masters, 2005). Raja et al., (2008) reports the alkalinity of River Cauvery around Trichy city to be 192 to 255mg/L. Sharma et al., (2003) reported marked variations in total alkalinity from season to season with a tendency to have maximum values during the winter and the lowest value in conformity with low pH.

Table-4.10: Total Alkalinity (mg/l) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 240 250 270 260 250 270 260 290 240 250 270 280 Apr 325 350 250 325 370 380 425 365 340 375 340 425 May 350 300 250 350 275 325 325 275 325 275 325 400 June 240 220 260 260 300 260 280 300 300 320 340 340 July 280 260 220 240 240 280 240 240 280 220 240 220 Aug 220 200 260 240 240 240 240 260 240 240 240 240 Sep 98 138 160 170 138 148 148 118 142 148 128 138 Oct 230 340 262 212 198 250 229 220 230 220 195 220 Nov 193 175 175 194 191 184 181 178 193 185 188 183 Dec 237 269 272 222 220 218 258 199 216 174 163 167 Jan 200 200 200 200 210 210 200 200 220 210 220 200 Feb 220 220 220 210 220 220 250 250 240 230 250 200 Avg. 236 243 233 240 238 249 253 241 247 237 242 251

Fig-4.19: Stations average of total Alkalinity

Fig-4.20: Seasonal variations in total alkalinity

4.1.11 Phenolphthalein Alkalinity

Phenolphthalein alkalinity is present only when free carbon dioxide (CO2) is absent and therefore exists only when the pH exceeds 8.3. Phenolphthalein alkalinity should never be over half the total alkalinity; otherwise, a caustic alkalinity is produced.

Table-4.11: Phenolphthalein Alkalinity (mg/l) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 0 0 10 20 20 30 0 30 10 20 40 0 Apr 0 0 10 0 10 20 0 20 20 30 10 0 May 30 10 30 20 30 40 10 40 0 10 20 40 June 0 0 0 10 10 10 0 10 0 0 10 20 July 0 0 10 10 20 0 10 10 20 20 0 0 Aug 0 0 10 0 20 20 20 30 20 20 10 0 Sep 0 10 20 30 30 20 20 20 40 20 20 20 Oct 0 10 10 0 10 20 10 10 40 30 30 10 Nov 10 0 10 20 10 10 10 10 20 20 10 10 Dec 20 10 20 10 20 20 0 10 10 0 0 0 Jan 0 0 20 10 10 20 30 40 40 30 10 20 Feb 20 10 10 10 10 20 10 20 10 10 10 0 Avg. 7 4 13 12 17 19 10 21 19 18 14 10

Fig-4.21: Stations average of Phenolphthalein alkalinity

Fig-4.22: Seasonal variations in P.alkalinity

4.1.12. Total Nitrogen Total nitrogen is the combination of organically bound nitrogen and ammonia in wastewater. This form of nitrogen is usually much higher on influent (untreated waste) samples then effluent samples. In most domestic wastewater facilities the biological activity breaks down the organic matter releasing and or consuming the nitrogen as energy source in the process. Total nitrogen is the combination of organic nitrogen and inorganic nitrogen (NH4, NO3, and NO2). Decomposition of aquatic life adds both dissolved organic and particulate organic nitrogen to water; while sewage runoff, erosion, and watershed increases particulate inorganic nitrogen levels in water. Most total nitrogen is transported by fluvial processes such as runoff and stream flow, although Aeolian processes

(wind) may at times also transport components of total nitrogen around the landscape (Rajurkar et al, 2003). Natural sources such as the organic-nitrogen components of total nitrogen are typically derived from soil, plant and animal material. Emissions to surface water or groundwater from food processing industries, sewage treatment plants, leachate from garbage tips, intensive livestock industries for example: feedlots, large poultry operations, etc. enrich nitrogen. In-spite of all these processes existing around the River Cauvery, the nitrogen content in the River seems to be very low (Table-4.12), compare to the permissible limit (WHO-50mg/L). The probable reasons for the low content may

be 1. Bacterial de-nitrification, which converts nitrate to N2 gas and 2. Macronutrient uptake by the algae, the aquatic plant and the River bank vegetation. The probability for both this process to occur simultaneously in Cauvery water is very high. In this study, the average nitrogen values for all stations (Fig-4.23) and months are extremely low. Seasonal variation occurs even among the very low values, the least nitrogen content is observed in NEM and the utmost content is in summer. Table-4.12: Total Nitrogen (mg/l) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 2.8 1.4 2.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 Apr 1.6 2.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.0 4.0 3.6 3.2 3.2 2.8 2.8 May 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.2 3.2 3.6 4.4 4.0 3.2 3.2 2.8 3.2 June 1.2 1.6 2.0 1.6 1.6 2.4 3.2 2.8 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 July 0.0 1.2 2.4 2.0 1.6 0.0 2.4 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.6 2.0 Aug 1.6 2.0 2.0 2.4 0.0 2.0 2.8 1.6 1.2 0.0 1.6 2.0 Sep 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 Oct 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.8 Nov 1.4 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.4 0.0 1.4 2.8 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 Dec 0.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.8 1.4 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.4 Jan 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.8 1.2 1.2 2.4 1.2 0.8 2.4 Feb 1.4 2.8 1.4 2.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 Avg. 1.2 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.4 1.3 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.3 1.5 1.8

Fig-4.23: Stations average of Total Nitrogen

Fig-4.24: Seasonal variations in TN

4.1.13. Nitrite As aquatic plants and animals die, bacteria break down large protein molecules containing nitrogen into ammonia. Ammonia is then oxidized by specialized bacteria to form nitrites and nitrates. Nitrites are relatively short-lived because they‟re quickly converted to nitrates by bacteria and hence significant quantity or nitrites are not found in natural waters. Sewage is the main source of nitrates added by humans to Rivers and also due to various human activities such as bathing, washing of clothes. Wading cattle also contribute to the nitrate content of the River water. Another important source is fertilizers, which can be carried into creeks by storm water runoff from the agricultural fields where intense agriculture is in practice (Srivastava and Srivastava, 2003).

Excessive nitrates stimulate growth of algae and other plants, which later decay and increase biochemical oxygen demand as they decompose. Nitrites produce a serious illness (brown blood disease) in fish, even though they do not exist for very long in the environment. However, excessive concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen or nitrite-nitrogen in drinking water can be hazardous to health, especially for infants and pregnant women. Nitrites also react directly with hemoglobin in human blood to produce methemoglobin, which destroys the ability of blood cells to transport oxygen. This condition is especially serious in babies under three months of age, where it causes a condition known as methemoglobinemia or “blue baby” disease Water with nitrite levels exceeding 1.0mg/l should not be given to babies. Nitrite concentrations in drinking water seldom exceeded 0.1 mg/l (Peavy et al., 1985). The nitrite content is relatively very meager when compare to the nitrate content. The variations in the nitrite content of all the sampling stations during all the months and all seasons are given in Table-4.13, Fig4.25- and Fig-4.26.

Table-4.13: Nitrite (mg/l) - NO2 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 Mar 0.28 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.25 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.09 Apr 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.48 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.43 0.40 May 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.35 0.88 0.23 0.18 0.60 0.60 0.68 June 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.43 0.23 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 July 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 Aug 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.05 Sep 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Oct 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Nov 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Dec 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.32 0.20 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.11 Jan 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.15 Feb 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.05 Avg. 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.17 0.12 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.13

Fig-4.25: Stations average of nitrite

Fig-4.26: Seasonal variations in nitrite

4.1.14. Nitrate The variations in the nitrate content of River Cauvery is very low (Table- 4.14), when compare to the prescribed limit (20mg/l) and summer has the highest values than other seasons in the stations S7 to S12 (Fig-4.27). Intense rice cultivation is observed around these stations, Rice requires relatively more nitrate when compare to the crops like sugarcane and banana. Hence run-off from the rice fields would have resulted in more nitrates. Open defecation and more sewage discharge probably occurs in these stations, which are comparatively populated more.

Table-4.14: Nitrate (mg/l) - NO3 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 Mar 0.30 0.50 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.45 0.11 0.21 Apr 0.20 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.10 May 0.40 0.30 0.40 0.30 0.25 0.35 0.60 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.40 June 0.20 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.25 0.55 0.50 0.35 0.15 0.15 0.25 July 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.35 0.50 0.40 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.40 Aug 0.45 0.30 0.35 0.10 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.22 0.45 0.30 0.16 0.55 Sep 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.15 0.36 0.51 Oct 0.30 0.42 0.38 0.23 0.18 0.48 0.51 0.57 0.14 0.64 0.12 0.40 Nov 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.60 0.49 0.40 0.27 0.20 0.14 Dec 0.36 0.41 0.46 0.35 0.42 0.40 0.54 0.60 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.42 Jan 0.20 0.40 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.30 0.15 0.05 0.15 0.20 Feb 0.35 0.40 0.25 0.15 0.10 0.09 0.41 0.40 0.25 0.27 0.09 0.18 Avg. 0.31 0.39 0.31 0.25 0.26 0.30 0.41 0.39 0.32 0.32 0.23 0.33

Fig-4.27: Stations average of nitrate

Fig-4.28: Seasonal variations in nitrate

4.1.15 Chloride

Chlorides are salts resulting from the combination of the gas chlorine with a metal. Some common chlorides include sodium chloride (NaCl) and magnesium chloride (MgCl2). Chlorine alone as Cl2 is highly toxic and it is often used as a disinfectant. In combination with a metal such as sodium it becomes essential for life. Small amounts of chlorides are required for normal cell functions in plant and animal life. In very high concentration it gives a salty taste to the water.

Chloride increases the electrical conductivity of water and thus increases its corrosivity. In metal pipes, chloride reacts with metal ions to form soluble salts, thus increasing the levels of metals in drinking-water and affect the taste of food products (Trivedy et al., 1998).

The permissible level of chloride is 250mg/L (WHO). The chloride level of Cauvery water has never exceeded this limit (Table-4.15, Fig-4.29 and Fig-4.30). The relatively low values in rainy season can be attributed to the increased dilution by rain water. This point is noticed by Kumar and Bahadur (2009) in the study of River Kosi at Rampur.

Chloride in surface and groundwater are discharged from natural and anthropogenic sources, such as agricultural run-off (the use of inorganic fertilizers), landfill leachates, septic tank effluents, sewage discharges, animal feeds, industrial effluents, irrigation drainage, effluent from wastewater treatment plants, etc. (Trivedy et al., 1998 and Srivastava and Srivastava, 2003).

Table-4.15: Chloride (mg/l) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 91.3 94.3 121.1 105.2 121.1 124.0 148.0 148.0 145.0 134.0 138.0 141.1 Apr 121.0 134.0 134.0 127.0 134.0 131.1 168.0 156.0 138.0 124.0 131.0 121.0 May 148.0 148.0 116.0 155.0 141.0 127.0 131.0 145.0 145.0 134.0 102.0 95.0 June 75.0 95.0 70.0 105.0 95.0 85.0 75.0 60.0 80.0 85.0 85.0 135.0 July 61.0 63.0 61.0 78.0 76.0 74.0 62.0 62.0 66.0 64.0 72.0 70.0 Aug 68.0 62.0 60.0 80.0 80.0 82.0 70.0 68.0 74.0 66.0 70.0 74.0 Sep 34.0 31.0 33.0 35.0 38.0 40.0 39.0 31.0 30.0 32.0 44.0 38.0 Oct 70.0 88.0 87.0 84.0 87.0 83.0 54.0 69.0 54.0 64.0 56.0 66.0 Nov 48.8 55.0 54.0 59.3 57.6 53.4 50.0 59.0 49.0 48.0 51.4 49.5 Dec 67.0 122.3 113.0 98.0 85.2 83.8 121.0 85.7 69.3 50.8 48.0 49.4 Jan 40.2 68.4 44.2 50.5 52.2 48.2 46.8 48.2 47.9 48.4 46.6 48.4 Feb 69.1 85.7 76.5 85.7 83.0 84.8 107.8 109.7 79.3 77.4 78.3 62.7 Avg. 74.5 87.2 80.8 88.6 87.5 84.7 89.4 86.8 81.5 77.3 76.9 79.2

Fig-4.29: Stations average of Chloride

Fig-4.30: Seasonal variations in Chloride

4.1.16. Fluoride Fluoride exists naturally in water sources and is derived from fluorine, the thirteenth most common element in the Earth's crust (sedimentary or igneous rocks). It is well known that fluoride helps prevent and even reverse the early stages of tooth decay. During formation of permanent teeth fluoride combines chemically with tooth enamel resulting in stronger teeth, which are more resistant to decay. The following processes are responsible for the discharge of fluoride into the environment – Aluminium smelting, steel production, phosphate fertilizers, enamel and pottery manufacture, brick making, missile propulsion, cleaning of casting, welding, sandstone and marble cleaning, cryolite, fluorspar and apatite mining (Anjaneyulu, 2005). Fluoride is toxic to human and other animals in large quantities. Hormonal imbalance and impaired carbohydrate, lipid and mineral metabolism occur in animals due to fluoride accumulation in the body. Excessive intakes of fluoride can result in discoloration of teeth. Noticeable discoloration, called mottling, is relatively common when fluoride concentrations in drinking water exceed 2.0 mg/L. Excessive dosages of fluoride can also result in bone fluorosis and other skeletal abnormalities. Weak bones attain a boat shaped posture and knock knees (Peavy et al., 1985). There are many reports of changes in photosynthesis, respiration or metabolism of amino acids, proteins, fatty acids, lipids and carbohydrates in plants due to fluoride. Certain enzymes are modulated by the presence or absence of fluoride, thus reducing crop productivity (Anjaneyulu, 2005). The variations in fluoride content are presented in Table-4.16. Station S7 exhibit more quantity of fluoride during April and May. Yet the fluoride content is only within the permissible limit (1.5mg/L). The higher fluoride content in summer months and relatively lesser content during NEM can be attributed to the rains and intern the quantity of water flow in the River (Fig-4.31). The fluoride content during summer and SWM does not vary considerably while the other two seasons vary much (Fig-4.32). The concentration of fluoride has been reported to be within the permissible limits in River Cauvery (Sharma, 2009) and its tributaries (Hema et al., 2010).

Table-4.16: Fluoride (mg/l) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 0.91 0.93 1.05 0.95 1.00 1.08 1.16 1.20 1.15 1.04 1.08 1.22 Apr 1.24 1.41 1.30 1.34 1.18 1.19 1.40 1.12 1.10 1.12 1.10 1.14 May 1.28 1.30 1.30 1.26 1.12 1.10 1.46 1.30 1.20 1.18 1.30 1.32 June 1.50 1.50 1.20 1.20 1.00 1.20 1.10 1.16 1.08 1.02 1.02 1.04 July 0.92 1.06 1.02 1.10 1.12 0.96 1.20 1.26 1.14 1.12 1.18 1.20 Aug 0.80 0.96 0.98 1.12 1.08 0.96 1.16 1.08 1.12 1.10 1.12 1.16 Sep 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.50 0.70 0.40 Oct 0.40 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.40 0.60 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.30 0.40 0.40 Nov 0.71 0.70 0.65 0.72 0.65 0.64 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.68 0.71 Dec 0.73 0.82 0.79 0.67 0.64 0.74 0.68 0.65 0.55 0.47 0.43 0.45 Jan 0.95 0.81 0.82 0.72 0.72 0.76 0.80 0.81 0.80 0.71 0.76 0.77 Feb 0.96 0.97 1.02 0.93 0.92 0.93 1.01 1.05 0.83 0.81 0.97 0.92 Avg. 0.91 0.96 0.93 0.90 0.87 0.89 0.95 0.92 0.89 0.84 0.90 0.89

Fig-4.31: Stations average of fluoride

Fig-4.32: Seasonal variations in fluoride

4.1.17. Sulphate

Sulfate (SO4) can be found in almost all natural waters. The origin of most sulfate compounds is the oxidation of sulfite ores, the presence of shale, or the industrial wastes. Sulfate is one of the major dissolved components of rain. High concentrations of sulfate in the water we drink can have a laxative effect when combined with calcium and magnesium, the two most common constituents of hardness. Bacteria, which attack and reduce sulfates, form hydrogen sulfide gas

(H2S). Some soils and rocks contain sulfate minerals. As River water moves through these, some of the sulfate is dissolved into the water (Kataria et al., 1995 and Doctor et al., 1998). Water containing calcium sulfate ions is likely to have a characteristic taste somewhat bitter and astringent. In addition to their laxative properties and possible medicinal taste, sulfate water can mean extreme hardness, large amounts of sodium salts or acidity. Alone or together, these can pose special problems in the conditioning of water. Animals are also sensitive to high levels of sulfate. It may cause serious problems related to eye and gastric problems like indigestion. In young animals, high levels may cause severe, chronic diarrhea, and in some cases, death. As with humans, animals tend to become used to sulfate over time. Diluting water high in sulfate with water low in sulfate can help avoid problems of diarrhea and dehydration in young animals and animals not used to drinking high sulfate water. High sulfate levels may also be corrosive for plumbing, copper piping (Verhese et al., 2005, Mishra and Sultana, 2005). All water samples in all stations (Table-4.17), months and seasons (Fig- 4.33) have sulphate concentrations within permissible limit (200mg/L) only. Begum and Harikrishna (2008) have reported a similar observation in Cauvery River at Karnataka and Jeena et al., (2012) at Tamilnadu. The domestic waste, untreated sewage are responsible for the higher level of sulphate in the Umkhrah River water (Rajurkar et al., 2003). Sulphate produces an objectionable taste at 300 – 400 mg/l concentration. Above 500 mg/l a bitter taste is produced in the water. At concentrations around 1000 mg/l. it has a laxative effect and causes gastro intestinal irritation. (Vimala et al., 2006)

Table-4.17: Sulphate (mg/l) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 25.1 25.3 25.3 28.6 28.6 29.5 31.1 31.3 29.0 26.7 23.0 20.3 Apr 13.5 14.1 14.5 16.0 16.0 16.5 17.5 18.5 16.0 14.1 14.5 14.1 May 21.2 20.5 20.0 18.0 21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0 21.0 22.5 19.0 22.0 June 11.0 12.0 12.8 13.8 14.5 14.0 15.8 12.8 15.3 18.8 24.5 27.8 July 12.0 12.0 11.0 13.0 14.0 14.0 13.0 13.0 15.0 13.0 14.0 14.0 Aug 10.0 8.5 9.0 12.5 11.0 9.0 9.5 12.0 11.0 11.0 11.5 15.5 Sep 8.8 10.0 11.0 14.0 19.0 8.0 8.6 7.8 5.0 5.0 10.0 12.0 Oct 7.5 24.8 16.7 17.0 16.2 12.1 16.0 21.0 9.4 14.0 13.4 8.2 Nov 12.0 11.5 13.1 12.0 12.4 12.6 12.0 13.1 13.5 14.0 12.8 14.1 Dec 23.0 31.1 27.3 22.9 17.0 16.3 25.2 18.4 20.4 15.9 13.5 14.1 Jan 12.8 18.5 11.5 13.2 13.4 12.0 10.8 12.0 11.3 11.5 11.0 12.0 Feb 23.1 26.8 24.0 24.6 26.8 26.0 30.1 29.8 28.6 28.4 26.2 21.0 Avg. 15.0 17.9 16.3 17.1 17.5 16.0 17.7 17.7 16.3 16.2 16.1 16.3

Fig-4.33: Stations average of sulphate

Fig-4.34: Seasonal variations in sulphate

4.1.18. Phosphate

Phosphorus is usually present in natural water as phosphates (orthophosphates, polyphosphates, and organically bound phosphates). Phosphorus is a plant nutrient needed for growth and a fundamental element in the metabolic reactions of plants and animals (hence its use in fertilizers).

Phosphate is a constituent of soils and is used extensively in fertilizer to replace and/or supplement natural quantities on agricultural lands. Phosphate is also a constituent of animal waste and may become incorporated into the soil in grazing and feeding areas. Runoff from agricultural areas is major contributor to phosphate in surface water. The tendency for phosphate to adsorb to soil particles limits its movement in soil moisture and ground water, but results in its transport into surface waters by erosion.

Municipal wastewater is another major source of phosphate in surface water. In sewage, part of the phosphorous is from human feces and part from detergents. Condensed phosphates are used extensively as builders in detergents. The phosphorous in detergents is usually in the form of sodium tripolyphosphate

(STP), Na5P3O10. When wastewater containing this ingredient is discarded, the 3- following reaction occurs and slowly releases the orthophosphate ion, PO4 :

5- 3- + P3O10 + 2 H2O 3 PO4 + 4H

Orthophosphate is the form of phosphorous that is directly usable by plants, so it immediately begins to act as a fertilizer once it is released. Concern for the environmental effects of phosphorous has led to reductions in its use in detergents (Masters, 2004).

Organic phosphates are constituents of body waste and food residue. Other sources include industrial waste in which phosphate compounds are used for such purposes as boiler-water conditioning (Sharma, 2007).

While phosphates are not toxic and do not represent a direct health threat to human or other organisms, they do represent a serious indirect threat to water quality. Phosphate is often the limiting nutrient in surface waters. When the available supply is increased, rapid growth of aquatic plants usually results, with severe consequences (Peavy et al., 1985).

Excess phosphorus causes extensive algal growth called "blooms," which are a classic symptom of cultural eutrophication and lead to decreased oxygen levels in creek water (Raja et al., 2008).

Phosphate content has been estimated to be extremely low in the Cauvery water (Table-4.18 and Fig-4.35). The present observation is in accordance with that of the earlier observation of Raja et al., (2008) in the Cauvery water near Tiruchirappalli. The distribution of phosphate is unseasonal (Fig-4.36).

Heavy uses of detergents have been observed throughout the River front as laundering agents. The other sources for Cauvery River are sewage and agriculture run-off. In-spite of these sources during the present study phosphate content has been found to be very low. The Riverine fauna should have observed this phytonutrients considerably from the water.

Table-4.18: Phosphate (mg/l) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.11 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 Apr 0.06 0.08 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.09 May 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.06 June 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.03 July 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.09 Aug 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.14 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 Sep 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.14 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.06 Oct 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.13 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.06 Nov 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Dec 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 Jan 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.07 Feb 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 Avg. 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.06

Fig-4.35: Stations average of phosphate

Fig-4.36: Seasonal variations in phosphate 4.1.19. Carbonate Carbonate is a salt or ester of carbonic acid. Carbonate-containing salts are industrially and mineralogically ubiquitous. The term "carbonate" is also commonly used to refer to one of these salts or carbonate minerals. The carbonate system is the most important acid-base system in natural waters because it controls pH. It is comprised of the following chemical species: aqueous carbon dioxide, - - - carbonic acid (H2CO3 ), bicarbonate ion (HCO3 ), carbonate ion (CO3 ).

Aqueous CO2 is formed when atmospheric CO2 dissolves in water.

Aqueous CO2 then forms carbonic acid, which, in turn, ionizes to form hydrogen - ions and bicarbonate. The HCO3 ionizes to form more hydrogen ion and carbonate (Peavy et al., 1985). Carbonates impart hardness to water. Carbonate hardness is sometimes referred to as “temporary hardness” because it can be removed by simple heating the water (Masters, 2004). Since carbonate is very unsteady and influenced by several factors, there is no consistency or specific pattern in the carbonate content of Cauvery water.

Table-4.19: Carbonate (mg/l) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 0 0 12 24 24 36 0 36 12 24 48 0 Apr 0 0 12 0 12 24 0 24 24 36 12 0 May 36 12 36 24 36 48 12 48 0 12 24 48 June 0 0 0 12 12 12 0 12 0 0 12 24 July 0 0 12 12 24 0 12 12 24 24 0 0 Aug 0 0 12 0 24 48 24 36 24 24 12 0 Sep 0 12 24 36 36 24 24 24 48 24 24 24 Oct 0 12 12 0 12 24 12 12 48 36 36 12 Nov 12 0 12 24 12 12 12 12 24 24 12 12 Dec 24 12 24 12 24 24 0 12 12 0 0 0 Jan 0 0 24 12 12 24 36 48 48 36 12 24 Feb 24 12 12 12 12 24 12 24 12 12 12 0 Avg. 8 5 16 14 20 25 12 25 23 21 17 12

Fig-4.37: Stations average of carbonate

Fig-4.38: Seasonal variations in carbonate

4.1.20. Bicarbonate

Bicarbonate is an intermediate form in the deprotonation of carbonic acid.

The Bicarbonate (HCO3) ion is the principal alkaline constituent in almost all water supplies. Bicarbonate alkalinity is introduced into the water by CO2, dissolving carbonate-containing minerals. Bicarbonate serves a crucial biochemical role in the physiological pH buffering system. Many bicarbonates are soluble in water at standard temperature and pressure, particularly sodium bicarbonate and magnesium bicarbonate; both of these substances contribute to total dissolved solids (Gray, 2005).

Bicarbonate is an alkaline, and a vital component of the pH buffering system of the body (maintaining acid-base homeostasis). With carbonic acid as the central intermediate species, bicarbonate, in conjunction with water, hydrogen ions, and carbon dioxide forms this buffering system which is maintained at the volatile equilibrium required to provide prompt resistance to drastic pH changes in both the acidic and basic directions. This is especially important for protecting tissues of the central nervous system, where pH changes too far outside of the normal range in either direction could prove disastrous (Sharma, 2007).

In freshwater ecosystem strong photosynthetic activity by freshwater plants in daylight releases gaseous oxygen into the water and at the same time produces bicarbonate ions. These shift the pH upwards until in certain circumstances the degree of alkalinity can become toxic to some organisms or can make other chemical constituents such as ammonia toxic. In darkness when no photosynthesis occur respiration process release carbon dioxide and no new bicarbonate ions are produced resulting in a rapid fall in pH (Trivedy et al., 1998).

Table-4.20 shows the bicarbonate concentration in Cauvery water. It ranges between 120 and 350mg/l. The monthly average is almost constant (211 to 244mg/L) among the sampling stations. Maximum bicarbonate content is evaluated in the month of April and minimum in September (Fig-4.39). Specific seasonal variation cannot be observed in the results (Fig-4.40).

Table-4.20: Bicarbonate (mg/l) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 232 232 232 207 207 220 317 281 232 232 220 244 Apr 250 300 200 250 330 325 330 315 300 280 350 325 May 200 250 200 300 225 125 175 125 225 250 275 200 June 160 140 140 180 220 180 200 220 220 240 260 260 July 293 268 218 195 195 293 195 195 244 171 195 220 Aug 268 244 220 293 146 195 195 171 195 198 195 195 Sep 120 120 122 159 120 132 156 119 147 154 130 144 Oct 228 384 290 254 238 276 251 240 252 240 210 240 Nov 185 208 186 209 206 198 195 190 185 176 202 196 Dec 238 300 280 243 218 215 310 216 236 209 196 200 Jan 220 244 195 220 232 207 195 195 220 207 244 220 Feb 220 244 244 232 220 220 281 256 268 256 281 244 Avg. 218 244 211 229 213 216 233 210 227 218 230 224

Fig-4.39: Stations average of bicarbonate

Fig-4.40: Seasonal variations in bicarbonate

4.1.21. Calcium

Elementary calcium reacts with water. Calcium compounds are more or less water soluble. Calcium solubility depends upon the anionic species with which it forms the salts. Calcium is naturally present in water. It may dissolve from rocks such as limestone, marble, calcite, dolomite, gypsum, fluorite and apatite. Calcium is a determinant of water hardness, because it can be found in water as Ca2+ ions. Calcium is largely responsible for water hardness, and may negatively influence toxicity of other compounds. In limed soils calcium may immobilize iron. The presence of CO2 in water promotes solubility of carbonates of lime ensuring the quick calcium absorption.

Water hardness influences aquatic organisms concerning metal toxicity. In softer water membrane permeability in the gills is increased. Calcium also competes with other ions for binding spots in the gills. Consequently, hard water better protects fishes from direct metal uptake (Sharma, 2007).

Some environmental effects of water hardness include hardening of domestic equipment, because high temperatures cause carbonate hardness. This may dramatically decrease the lifespan of equipment, and cause an increase of domestic waste. Calcium carbonate interacts with detergents and cleansing agents.

Hard water is water that has high mineral content (mainly calcium and magnesium ions) (in contrast with soft water). Hard water minerals primarily consist of calcium (Ca2+) and magnesium (Mg2+) metal cations. Calcium usually enters the water as either calcium carbonate (CaCO3), in the form of limestone and chalk, or calcium sulfate (CaSO4), in the form of other mineral deposits.

The level of calcium in the Cauvery water samples are given in Table-4.21. In all sampling stations, the month of May exhibits the maximum concentration. The permissible level of calcium is 75mg/L. Among the average values of stations, only the month of May exceeds this limit (Fig-4.41). The seasonal variation is very drastic the maximum being in summer (Fig-4.42) and minimum in NEM. This can be attributed the quantum of water that flows in the River (Rajurkar et al., 2003).

Table-4.21: Calcium (mg/l) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 32.9 36.1 34.5 38.5 43.3 44.1 54.5 56.1 46.5 52.9 36.9 41.7 Apr 48.1 52.1 60.1 56.1 60.1 70.1 92.0 80.0 74.2 80.0 74.2 79.0 May 74.2 74.2 70.0 122.0 116.0 112.0 100.0 88.0 80.0 100.0 58.0 92.0 June 40.1 52.1 48.1 60.1 60.1 74.2 60.1 56.1 56.1 60.1 38.1 70.1 July 42.1 30.1 40.1 36.1 32.1 44.1 38.1 48.1 52.1 58.1 34.1 44.1 Aug 36.0 34.0 44.0 40.0 40.0 30.0 30.0 34.0 40.0 34.0 38.0 44.0 Sep 20.0 29.0 27.0 28.0 27.0 24.0 21.0 16.0 28.0 27.0 28.0 28.0 Oct 43.0 60.0 43.0 34.0 36.0 50.0 44.0 51.0 33.0 44.0 34.0 36.0 Nov 34.2 34.0 34.5 39.0 38.0 36.1 36.0 32.9 35.3 32.1 35.6 32.1 Dec 56.1 72.9 67.3 55.3 53.7 54.5 68.1 52.9 53.7 44.5 40.9 42.5 Jan 36.1 38.5 37.6 40.1 41.7 39.3 39.3 40.1 39.3 40.1 42.5 39.3 Feb 34.6 32.5 34.6 32.5 33.2 33.9 46.2 39.7 40.4 37.5 46.2 39.7 Avg. 41.5 45.5 45.1 48.5 48.4 51.0 52.4 49.6 48.2 50.9 42.2 49.0

Fig-4.41: Stations average of calcium

Fig-4.42: Seasonal variations in calcium

4.1.22. Magnesium

Magnesium is mainly present as Mg2+ (aq) in watery solutions, but also as + MgOH (aq) and Mg (OH)2 (aq). Water solubility of magnesium depends upon the anionic species with which it forms the salts.

Magnesium is washed from rocks and subsequently ends up in water. It is easily leached from the soil than calcium and reaches the water bodies. Magnesium has many different purposes and consequently may end up in water in many different ways. Chemical industries add magnesium to plastics and other materials as a fire protection measure or as filler. It also ends up in the environment from fertilizer application and from cattle feed. Magnesium sulphate is applied in beer breweries, and magnesium hydroxide is applied as a flocculant in wastewater treatment plants.

Magnesium is also a mild laxative. It is required for the synthesis of teeth and bones in animals (Taylor et al., 2005). Since it is a component of chlorophyll in plants, it is released during the degradation of leaves. It has a regulatory function in the metabolism of fats, carbohydrates and phosphates (Voet and Voet, 1990).

Environmental problems indirectly caused by magnesium in water are because of applying softeners. As was described earlier, hardness is partially caused by magnesium. Calcium and magnesium ions (particularly calcium) negatively influence cleansing power of detergents, because these form nearly insoluble salts with soap. Consequently, about 40% softener is added to soap. This used to be phosphates, but it was discovered that these were hardly biodegradable, and caused eutrophication.

The permissible limit of magnesium is 30mg/L (CPCB). Excepting S2 in April this limit has not been superseded by the water samples (Table-4.22). Unseasonal changes have also been observed (Fig-4.43). According to Begum and Harikrishna (2008) the magnesium content in the Karnataka district (4 stations) are also in accordance with the present observation. The same is true of Tamil Nadu also according to Sharma (2009).

Table-4.22: Magnesium (mg/l) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 16.5 17.0 19.0 15.6 17.5 18.0 19.0 22.4 17.0 11.7 16.0 17.0 Apr 8.0 35.5 16.8 31.1 5.4 15.6 28.0 7.3 20.7 6.1 28.0 29.2 May 20.7 14.6 15.8 13.1 7.3 4.9 12.2 19.4 18.3 6.1 25.5 9.7 June 24.3 19.4 23.1 12.2 12.2 9.7 12.2 14.6 14.6 26.7 29.2 15.8 July 14.6 20.7 18.2 14.6 17.0 8.5 13.4 10.9 8.5 7.5 12.2 15.0 Aug 20.7 24.3 18.2 28.0 19.4 20.7 15.8 20.7 18.2 13.4 15.8 12.2 Sep 4.2 3.4 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.0 12.0 10.0 11.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 Oct 10.0 12.0 14.0 13.0 11.0 11.0 12.0 12.0 14.0 15.0 15.0 11.0 Nov 10.0 10.5 9.5 12.0 8.8 10.0 9.2 11.0 10.5 12.0 10.3 11.9 Dec 14.1 17.2 14.6 14.8 12.9 14.6 16.8 13.6 13.6 10.7 9.0 9.5 Jan 17.5 19.0 16.5 16.7 16.8 17.0 13.6 16.0 18.0 15.6 15.1 14.6 Feb 17.9 21.9 19.3 19.7 21.4 20.5 19.1 25.0 20.5 22.2 19.1 16.3 Avg. 14.9 18.0 16.2 16.6 13.2 13.4 15.3 15.2 15.4 13.0 16.9 14.1

Fig-4.43: Stations average of magnesium

Fig-4.44: Seasonal variations in magnesium

4.1.23. Sodium Seawater contains approximately 11,000 ppm sodium. Rivers contain only about 9 ppm. Drinking water usually contains about 50 mg/L sodium. This value is clearly higher for mineral water. In soluble form sodium always occurs as Na+ ions. Elementary sodium reacts strongly with water, according to the following reaction mechanism:

2Na(s) + 2H2O → 2 NaOH (aq) + H2(g) A number of sodium compounds do not react as strongly with water, but are strongly water soluble. Sodium compounds naturally end up in water. Sodium stems from rocks and soils. Not only seas, but also Rivers and lakes contain significant amounts of sodium. Concentrations however are much lower, depending on geological conditions and wastewater contamination. The pollution by Na is not very serious issue, since it increases only the hardness of water and alkalinity of the soil. These 2 effects may be physically controlled by man and is not considered so serious (Ramamurthy et al., 2002). Urine contains 1% NaCl and this builds up in surface water when it is recycled as drinking water (Gray, 2005). It is an important constituent of tissue fluid of animals maintaining the osmotic balance. It is also needed for the conduction of nerve impulses and to maintain electrical potential across cell membrane (Taylor et al., 2005). The concentration of sodium is very high during the month of May in all sampling stations (Table-4.23). Even the highest value is below the prescribed limit of WHO (200mg/L). Among the stations S7 & S8 are rich in sodium content may be due to urban discharges. Except S12 the summer records maximum content of sodium and minimum by NEM closely followed by pre-summer (Fig-4.46). According to Hema et al., (2010) sodium concentration is found exceeding the permissible limit at two locations in Cauvery. River Amaravathy and Noyyal the chief tributaries of Cauvery also exceed the limit in the sodium content. The industrial effluent discharged from Thiruppur has been attributed to the high sodium content in the Noyyal River.

Table-4.23: Sodium (mg/l) Na+ S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 Mar 61.0 71.6 87.1 90.8 88.5 96.2 110.1 116.9 76.2 76.4 79.1 57.8 Apr 86.0 95.3 90.2 85.7 87.9 86.1 116.5 103.2 95.1 83.5 81.2 88.6 May 192.6 159.5 153.3 172.1 161.0 159.2 175.0 181.0 186.8 184.5 145.9 167.3 June 71.3 78.4 79.7 105.2 102.6 100.0 85.4 89.0 92.9 94.4 96.4 192.2 July 76.5 84.2 83.0 96.6 96.6 94.9 87.4 91.4 98.8 98.6 97.7 98.9 Aug 82.0 85.0 85.0 102.0 100.0 96.0 85.0 84.0 92.0 91.0 92.0 97.0 Sep 38.0 45.0 46.0 50.0 45.0 44.0 45.0 33.0 37.0 40.0 40.0 43.0 Oct 72.3 126.0 95.1 95.0 87.0 83.3 68.0 69.1 73.0 63.4 61.2 74.0 Nov 62.0 15.5 58.0 63.0 65.4 58.0 65.1 64.0 63.3 62.0 70.3 62.5 Dec 68.0 99.6 92.0 72.1 68.6 70.0 96.3 68.3 66.1 51.8 47.4 48.9 Jan 43.1 64.0 44.6 49.2 49.2 48.5 48.8 45.4 50.4 50.2 51.1 49.4 Feb 74.6 81.1 82.4 80.0 80.1 81.2 98.2 97.6 80.2 74.8 79.9 66.2 Avg. 77.3 83.8 83.0 88.5 86.0 84.8 90.1 86.9 84.3 80.9 78.5 87.2

Fig-4.45: Stations average of sodium

Fig-4.46: Seasonal variations in sodium

4.1.24. Potassium Potassium is widely distributed in soil minerals. Forms such as potash feldspar, mica and glauconite are slowly converted into soluble forms by wealthering processes. It is strongly fixed in soils, largely as an exchangeable base. It is also found in less available forms. It is leached into the water bodies (Pandey and Sinha, 2011). Rivers generally contains about 2-3 ppm potassium. Potassium reacts rapidly and intensely with water, forming a colourless basic potassium hydroxide solution and hydrogen gas, according to the following reaction mechanism:

2K (s) + 2H2O (l) → 2KOH (aq) + H2 (g) Potassium reacts with water faster than sodium. Potassium is weakly hazardous in water, but it does spread pretty rapidly, because of its relatively high mobility and low transformation potential. Some clay minerals contain potassium. A number of potassium compounds, mainly potassium nitrate, are popular synthetic fertilizers. Potassium compounds may end up in wastewater through urine. As potassium release from landfills of domestic waste is usually exceptionally high, this compound may be applied as an indicator for other toxic compounds. Potassium is common in the cell sap of plant vacuoles. Potassium from dead plant and animal material is often bound to clay minerals in soils, before it dissolves in water. Consequently, it is readily taken up by plants again. Ploughing may disturb this natural process. Consequently, potassium fertilizers are often added to agricultural soils. Plants contain about 2% potassium (dry mass) on an average, but values may vary from 0.1-6.8%. Mosquito larvae contain between 0.5 and 0.6% potassium, and beetles contain between 0.6 and 0.9% potassium (dry mass). It is mainly associated with membrane function such as maintaining the electrical potential and conduction of nervous impulses (Taylor et al., 2005). The variations in the levels of potassium in the water fluctuate from 1.3 to 23.5mg/L (Table-4.24). The urban impact is felt upon the potassium levels also since the average is 9.4 and 8.8mg/L in S7 & S8 respectively. The maximum potassium is observed in the month of May, while the minimum is in January (Fig- 4.47). The summer potassium level is considerably high in all stations while pre- summer records very low level (Fig-4.48).

Table-4.24: Potassium (mg/l) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 5.8 5.0 4.9 5.4 5.5 6.1 9.0 9.6 4.5 6.2 5.7 4.6 Apr 12.0 13.3 13.3 13.4 15.5 12.3 23.5 19.5 9.6 12.1 9.6 8.6 May 14.9 10.6 9.9 14.5 12.3 11.2 15.8 16.5 19.2 20.2 16.4 18.2 June 5.4 6.9 6.1 6.9 6.9 6.7 6.0 6.4 6.9 7.5 7.6 1.3 July 5.5 5.9 5.8 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.0 6.3 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.8 Aug 5.8 5.9 5.8 6.5 6.5 6.2 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.5 6.3 6.6 Sep 4.2 6.0 7.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 9.0 9.0 6.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 Oct 11.0 15.0 10.2 9.0 9.5 11.0 11.3 7.6 9.0 6.4 7.0 9.1 Nov 5.5 5.0 6.6 7.2 6.7 6.7 5.9 5.6 6.0 6.2 5.6 6.1 Dec 7.0 10.2 10.1 7.7 7.7 8.2 8.9 8.2 6.4 5.2 4.6 4.8 Jan 3.5 6.1 3.7 4.4 4.7 4.3 4.8 3.7 5.0 4.6 4.9 4.2 Feb 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.1 5.3 5.5 7.2 7.2 5.1 5.4 5.5 4.4 Avg. 7.1 7.9 7.4 8.0 7.9 7.6 9.4 8.8 7.5 7.9 7.2 6.8

Fig-4.47: Stations average of potassium

Fig-4.48: Seasonal variations in potassium

Table-4.25: Monthly variations in the water quality parameters (average of all stations) Red = above standard value S.No. Parameters Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Avg. 1 Temperature 36 35 33 30 30 30 32 30 30 28 31 32 31 2 pH 8.3 8.2 8.5 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.3 8.3 3 EC 817 918 1002 693 878 777 631 722 597 763 619 800 768 4 TDS 523 588 641 443 562 497 404 462 382 489 396 512 492 5 Turbidity 9.6 11.8 12.8 11.6 2.7 4.8 6.3 8.4 3.7 8.6 5.4 6.9 7.7 6 DO 6.8 6.7 6.5 7.0 6.8 7.0 7.2 6.7 7.2 6.4 7.6 7.5 6.9 7 COD 25 37 33 26 29 29 27 20 21 28 14 17 25 8 BOD 5.1 5.3 4.9 4.8 4.2 4.4 1.8 3.1 2.0 2.5 1.9 2.3 3.5 9 P.Alkalinity 15.0 10.0 23.3 5.8 8.3 12.5 20.8 15.0 11.7 10.0 19.2 11.7 13.6 10 T.Alkalinity 261 356 315 285 247 238 140 234 185 218 206 228 243 11 T.Hardness 179 275 278 203 159 170 98 157 132 193 166 177 182 12 T.Nitrogen 1.8 2.9 3.3 2.2 1.6 1.6 0.2 0.5 1.6 1.2 1.3 1.8 1.7

13 NO2- 0.07 0.21 0.30 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.04 0.02 0.08

14 NO3- 0.32 0.24 0.34 0.32 0.38 0.29 0.28 0.36 0.39 0.41 0.21 0.25 0.32 15 Cl- 125.9 134.9 132.3 87.1 67.4 71.2 35.4 71.8 52.9 82.8 49.2 83.3 82.9 16 F- 1.06 1.22 1.26 1.17 1.11 1.05 0.53 0.41 0.67 0.64 0.79 0.94 0.90

17 SO4- 27.0 15.4 21.1 16.1 13.2 10.9 9.9 14.7 12.8 20.4 12.5 26.3 16.7

18 PO4- 0.04 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.05

19 CO3- 18 12 28 7 10 17 25 18 14 12 23 14 16.5

20 HCO3- 238 296 213 202 223 210 135 259 195 238 217 247 223 21 Ca2+ 43.2 68.8 90.5 56.3 41.6 37.0 25.3 42.3 35.0 55.2 39.5 37.6 47.7 22 Mg2+ 17.2 19.3 14.0 17.8 13.4 19.0 8.5 12.5 10.5 13.5 16.4 20.2 15.2 23 Na+ 84.3 91.6 169.9 99.0 92.1 90.9 42.2 80.6 59.1 70.8 49.5 81.4 84.3 24 K+ 6.0 13.6 15.0 6.2 6.3 6.2 7.3 9.7 6.1 7.4 4.5 5.5 7.8

Table-4.26: Stations’ variations in the water quality parameters (average of all months) Red = above standard value S.No. Parameters S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 Avg. 1 Temperature 31 30 29 33 32 32 32 32 33 32 32 30 31.5 2 pH 8 8.1 8.3 8.2 8.4 8.4 8.1 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.1 8.2 3 EC 717 762 785 769 774 773 831 805 753 740 750 761 768 4 TDS 459 487 502 492 495 495 532 515 482 473 480 487 492 5 Turbidity 4.1 4.8 3.7 5.9 8 7.8 11.6 8.4 7.3 10.6 11.7 8.7 7.7 6 DO 7.1 6.6 6.4 7.1 7.3 7.4 6.8 7.1 7.4 7 6.9 6.2 6.9 7 COD 20 25 26 25 23 23 28 30 28 27 25 25 25.4 8 BOD 2.9 3.1 3 3.3 3 3 4 4.2 3.8 4 4.1 4.1 3.5 9 P.Alkalinity 7 4 13 12 17 19 10 21 19 18 14 10 13.7 10 T.Alkalinity 236 243 233 240 238 249 253 241 247 237 242 251 242.5 11 T.Hardness 167 185 180 187 183 179 197 195 183 174 176 177 181.9 12 T.Nitrogen 1.2 1.7 1.8 2 1.4 1.3 2.1 2 1.8 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.7

13 NO2- 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.17 0.12 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.08

14 NO3- 0.31 0.39 0.31 0.25 0.26 0.3 0.41 0.39 0.32 0.32 0.23 0.33 0.32 15 Cl- 74.5 87.2 80.8 88.6 87.5 84.7 89.4 86.8 81.5 77.3 76.9 79.2 82.9 16 F- 0.91 0.96 0.93 0.9 0.87 0.89 0.95 0.92 0.89 0.84 0.9 0.89 0.90

17 SO4- 15 17.9 16.3 17.1 17.5 16 17.7 17.7 16.3 16.2 16.1 16.3 16.7

18 PO4- 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06

19 CO3- 8 5 16 14 20 25 12 25 23 21 17 12 17

20 HCO3- 218 244 211 229 213 216 233 210 227 218 230 224 223 21 Ca2+ 41.5 45.5 45.1 48.5 48.4 51 52.4 49.6 48.2 50.9 42.2 49 47.7 22 Mg2+ 14.9 18 16.2 16.6 13.2 13.4 15.3 15.2 15.4 13 16.9 14.1 15.2 23 Na+ 77.3 83.8 83 88.5 86 84.8 90.1 86.9 84.3 80.9 78.5 87.2 84.3 24 K+ 7.1 7.9 7.4 8 7.9 7.6 9.4 8.8 7.5 7.9 7.2 6.8 7.8

The water quality of River Cauvery has been assessed through 24 physico- chemical parameters. Table-4.25 reveals the monthly variations (average of all stations). TDS (5 months), turbidity (9 months), BOD (9 months), total alkalinity (10 months) and calcium (1 month) are the parameters exceeding the standard values. Calcium can be overlooked since it exceeds only in the month of May, 2009. pH, DO, total hardness, total nitrogen, nitrate, chloride, fluoride, sulphate and magnesium are all the parameters below the respective standard values. During summer the numbers of parameters exceeding the standards are 4 in March and April and 5 in May. During the SWM season the number of parameters exceeding the limit are decreases when compare to summer – June (3), July (3) and August (2). The NEM season further improves the water quality; only one parameter exceeds the limit in September and none in November. Again during pre-summer the number of parameters ascends up to 4 (February). Thus, the seasonal variation determines the water quality. When there is rain, more water dilutes the pollutants improving the quality. When there is no rain and water evaporates due to heat the quality of water deteriorates. Table-4.26 shows the Stations‟ variations (average of all months) of water quality parameters. Here again TDS (3 stations), turbidity (9 stations), BOD and total alkalinity (12 stations) are the parameters above the standard values. Including calcium the other parameters below the standard are identical to that of monthly variations. Among the stations, S1 and S2 have two parameters above the standard while S7 and S8 have parameters each in this status. All other stations exhibit 3 parameters above the standard values. The average of 144 (12x12) water samples also confirms total alkalinity, BOD and turbidity to be the parameters exceeding the standards. Turbidity indicates the suspended solids in water. Since the turbidity mostly exceeds the limit, Cauvery water contains high suspended solids. Along with turbidity BOD is also high; this means the turbidity is due to the oxygen demanding biological wastes. Moreover the water is highly alkaline too confirming the presence of biological matter. Thus, BOD, turbidity and total alkalinity are recognized as the chief factors influencing the quality of the Cauvery water in the study area. Fig- 4.49 illustrates the contributing anthropogenic factors for these three water quality parameters.

Fig-4.49: Impact of anthropogenic activities on the significant water quality parameters

4.2. Principal component Analysis

PCA is currently being used world over for water quality management, since it reduces the large number of variables into an identified set of dimensions which can be easily observed in a large set of variables (page 27).

The present study 12 sampling stations have been chosen for various specific reasons and each location has a group of anthropogenic activities that is reflected in the river water. Hence each stations has been described individually for the reasons of selecting it, the anthropogenic activities in that location and their impacts, the descriptive statistics of the data on physic-chemical parameters, the rotated factor loadings, the Eigen value, percentage of variance, cumulative percent, scree plot, component plot in rotated space and radar diagram showing the grouping of the principal component, in order to understand the cause-effect relationship in the water quality.

4.2.1 Sampling station -1: Karur I) Reasons for Selecting  Impact of paper(Pugalur) and Textile dyeing industries(Karur) II) Sampling Location

Fig-4.50: Activities around the sampling spot-S1

Sampling spot; Temple; Crematorium; Vegetation

Solid waste dump Cattle wading Fishing III) Influencing factors a) Occupation: Industry (Paper and Textile), Agriculture and Fishing (using Explosives) b) Social: Temple and Crematorium c) Public: Bridge construction and Sewage confluences d) Personal: Bathing, Washing. Cleaning, Cattle wading, Open Defecation IV) Descriptive Statistical Analysis The descriptive statistics of the data on physic-chemical parameters are given in Table-4.29

Table-4.29: Descriptive statistics of water quality parameters of S1 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Temperature 12 28 34 30.92 1.881 3.538 pH 12 7.6 8.5 8.017 .2552 .065 EC 12 558 977 717.08 140.091 19625.356 TDS 12 357.12 625.28 458.9333 89.65794 8038.546 Turbidity 12 1.4 7.8 4.067 2.2281 4.964 DO 12 5.2 8.4 7.050 .8196 .672 COD 12 8 28 19.67 5.245 27.515 BOD 12 1.0 6.4 2.858 1.5412 2.375 P.Alkalinity 12 0 30 6.67 10.731 115.152 T.Alkalinity 12 98 350 236.08 64.401 4147.538 T.Hardness 12 67 270 167.25 48.914 2392.568 T.Nitrogen 12 .0 2.8 1.233 .9528 .908 Chloride 12 34.0 148.0 74.450 32.5498 1059.486 Fluoride 12 .40 1.50 .9083 .31777 .101 Nitrite 12 .009 .275 .05200 .072339 .005 Nitrate 12 .2 .5 .309 .0798 .006 Sulphate 12 7.5 25.1 15.000 6.2584 39.167 Phosphate 12 .02 .07 .0451 .01810 .000 Carbonate 12 0 36 8.00 12.877 165.818 Bicarbonate 12 120 293 217.82 46.908 2200.331 Calcium 12 20.0 74.2 41.450 13.5749 184.279 Magnesium 12 4.2 24.3 14.875 5.9146 34.982 Sodium 12 38.0 192.6 77.283 39.0352 1523.745 Potassium 12 3.5 14.9 7.117 3.5435 12.556

V) Principal Component Analysis (PCA) Rotated factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and cumulative percentage for station1 are presented in Table-4.30. As per this table and Scree plot (Fig-4.51), seven PCs have been identified for this station. PC1 accounts for 39.92% (Table-4.30) of the variance in the water quality of River Cauvery. According to the radar diagram (Fig4.53), TDS, EC, potassium, calcium, chloride, 90 total alkalinity, sodium, total hardness and BOD are the parameters aligned in PC1, which are highly correlated. PC2 accounts for 15.36% of the variance with pH, carbonate, P.alkalinity and sulphate as its components. Natural weathering and accelerated dissolution of rocks due to industrial effluents (paper and textile dyeing) along with the public and personal uses of water front may be the contributing factors for the quality of water. This is supported by Shihab (1993) and Al-Rawi and Shihab (2005).

Table-4.30: Rotated factor loadings for Cauvery at Karur (significant bolded) Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TDS .919 .170 -.097 .088 -.031 .021 .307 EC .919 .170 -.097 .088 -.031 .021 .307 Potassium .918 .123 .069 .106 -.137 .082 -.155 Chloride .878 .198 .180 .354 .170 -.014 -.014 T.Alkalinity .845 .147 .030 .159 .293 -.148 .289 Sodium .832 .307 -.010 .053 .264 .303 -.111 T.Hardness .805 .337 .026 -.018 .402 -.068 .212 Calcium .802 .456 .102 -.201 .217 .011 .064 BOD .650 -.444 .232 .398 -.043 -.347 -.028 pH .282 .921 .023 -.056 .042 -.140 -.204 Carbonate .327 .880 -.115 -.040 .089 .285 -.083 P.Alkalinity .327 .880 -.115 -.040 .089 .285 -.083 Sulphate .056 .770 .313 .399 .161 .025 .317 COD .018 -.135 .903 -.115 -.014 -.129 -.258 DO -.009 .050 -.884 -.055 .041 -.225 -.099 Nitrite -.152 .071 .787 .488 .099 .033 .293 Turbidity .383 .436 .696 .053 .044 -.306 -.030 Temperature .198 -.057 -.014 .930 -.054 -.287 .012 T.Nitrogen .355 .098 .228 .675 .439 .203 -.156 Magnesium .088 .123 .007 .008 .964 .092 .097 Fluoride .446 .098 -.045 .191 .643 -.485 -.063 Nitrate .120 .257 .035 -.135 .019 .901 .127 Bicarbonate .284 -.139 -.051 .005 .120 .097 .890 Phosphate .443 -.140 .318 -.193 -.301 .145 .468 Eigen value 9.58 3.69 2.99 2.29 1.68 1.32 1.08 % of variance 39.92 15.36 12.46 9.54 6.99 5.50 4.50 Cumulative % 39.93 55.29 67.75 77.29 84.28 89.78 94.28

The contribution of PC3 is 12.46% of variance (COD, nitrite, turbidity and DO). It is followed by PC4 (temperature and total nitrogen), PC5 (magnesium and fluoride), PC6 (nitrate) and PC7 (bicarbonate and phophate), which contribute 9.54%, 6.99%, 5.5% and 4.5% of variance respectively.

Fig-4.51: Scree plot for station1: Karur

Fig4.52: Component plot in rotated space

Fig4.53: Radar diagram for the PCs

The oxygen related parameter (DO, BOD and COD) and nutrient chemical elements (nitrate, phosphate, bicarbonate, sulphate, etc.) would be influencing the quality of water since intense agriculture and fishing are the occupation of the local people. Various agrochemicals (fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulators, etc.) reach the River system as run-off from the agricultural fields. Blast fishing through chemical usage (dynamite or homemade bomb) was observed in this station.

There is a temple and crematorium at this sampling station. Socio-religious activities result in the discharge of considerable amount of organic matter into the River. Personal activities such as washing, cleaning, defecation, confluence of sewage and wading of cattle add up to the organic load of the River water.

Construction of new bridge across the River changed the course of the running water as also its flow rate.

4.2.2. Sampling station-2: Mohanur I) Reasons for Selecting  Industry (sugar) upstream to the confluence of River Amaravathy with River Cauvery II) Sampling location

Fig-4.54: Activities around the sampling spot-S2

Sampling spot; Temple; Vegetation; Sand dredging; solid waste dump; Infiltration point fishing; Cattle wading

III) Influencing factors a) Occupations: Industry (sugar), agriculture, coconut thatching, coir making (cottage industry) and fishing. b) Social: Temple and Tourist home c) Public: Bridge construction and Sewage & Canal confluences, Sand dredging, Water pumping (Infiltrations) Stations and Solid waste dumping d) Personal: Washing. Cleaning, Cattle wading and Defecation IV) Descriptive Statistical Analysis The descriptive statistics of the data on physic-chemical parameters are given in Table-4.31.

Table-4.31: Descriptive statistics of water quality parameters of S2 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Temperature 12 27 33 29.83 1.586 2.515 pH 12 7.7 8.3 8.058 .2021 .041 EC 12 577 1012 761.58 130.077 16919.902 TDS 12 369.28 647.68 487.4133 83.24897 6930.392 Turbidity 12 1.9 10.4 4.775 2.9739 8.844 DO 12 5.4 8.2 6.642 .8836 .781 COD 12 8 40 24.67 8.835 78.061 BOD 12 1.0 4.4 3.083 1.1862 1.407 P.Alkalinity 12 0 10 4.17 5.149 26.515 T.Alkalinity 12 138 350 243.47 64.370 4143.450 T.Hardness 12 86 290 185.43 55.686 3100.908 T.Nitrogen 12 .1 2.8 1.708 .8670 .752 Chloride 12 31.0 148.0 87.225 34.3808 1182.038 Fluoride 12 .50 1.50 .9633 .31210 .097 Nitrite 12 .009 .076 .03892 .021919 .000 Nitrate 12 .3 .5 .386 .0695 .005 Sulphate 12 8.5 31.1 17.925 7.6201 58.066 Phosphate 12 .02 .08 .0567 .02145 .000 Carbonate 12 0 12 5.00 6.179 38.182 Bicarbonate 12 120 384 244.47 70.157 4922.032 Calcium 12 29.0 74.2 45.458 16.3820 268.370 Magnesium 12 3.4 35.5 17.960 7.9214 62.749 Sodium 12 15.5 159.5 83.767 36.4847 1331.133 Potassium 12 5.0 15.0 7.908 3.4802 12.112

V) Principal Component Analysis (PCA) Table-4.32 displaces the Rotated factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and Cumulative percentage for station2. As per this table and Scree plot (Fig-4.55), seven PCs are found for this station. PC1 accounts for 36.54% (Table4.32) of the variance in the water quality of River Cauvery. According to the

95 radar diagram (Fig-4.57), TDS, EC, potassium, calcium, chloride, total alkalinity, sodium, total hardness, bicarbonate, turbidity, fluoride and BOD are the parameters aligned in PC1, which are highly correlated. PC2 accounts for 17.78% of the variance with pH, carbonate, P.alkalinity, magnesium and sulphate as its components. Salequzzaman et.al., (2008) states that the sugar industry effluents influences the water quality through a number of parameters (EC, TDS, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, chloride, sulphate, bicarbonate, etc.). A sugar factory is located very close to River Cauvery. The effluent discharge from this industry has been noticed by the people of this area, who also stated that the contaminated water caused dermal problem and loss of productivity in agriculture. Moreover the parameters which are considerably influenced by the sugar factory fall under PC1 of rotated factor loadings (Table-). The rocky substratum existing in the sampling station is another significant factor towards water quality (Shihab, 1993 and Al-Rawi and Shihab, 2005). The contribution of PC3 is 12.21% of variance (DO). It is followed by PC4 (nitrite, COD and phosphate), PC5 (nitrate), PC6 (T.Nitrogen) and PC7 (temperature), which contribute 8.61%, 8.03%, 5.04% and 4.04% of variance respectively. DO and nutrient chemical elements (nitrate, phosphate, bicarbonate, sulphate, etc.) would be influencing the quality of water since intense agriculture and fishing are the occupation of the local people. Coconut leaf thatching and coir making are the cottage industries that pollute the River water in a smaller scale. Various agrochemicals (fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulators, etc.) reach the River system as run-off from the agricultural fields. Blast fishing through chemical usage (dynamite or homemade bomb) was observed in this station. There is a tourist home and temple at this sampling station. Socio-religious activities result in the discharge of considerable amount of organic matter into the River. There is a water pumping station supplying water to Mohanur and nearby villages. Personal activities such as washing, cleaning, defecation, confluence of sewage and wading of cattle add up to the organic load of the River water. Construction of new bridge across the River changed the course of the running water as also its flow rate.

Table-4.32: Rotated factor loadings for Cauvery at Mohanur (significant bolded) Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sodium .901 .280 -.036 -.055 -.122 -.041 .078 T.Hardness .901 -.098 .193 .113 .229 .211 -.072 T.Alkalinity .889 -.034 -.092 -.098 .386 -.121 .143 Chloride .867 .079 -.037 .058 .111 .413 .167 EC .841 .183 .369 .156 -.007 .166 .075 TDS .841 .183 .369 .156 -.007 .166 .075 Calcium .822 .286 -.280 .114 -.055 .179 -.211 BOD .808 -.214 -.250 .238 -.242 -.189 .137 Potassium .806 .159 -.100 -.073 .247 -.368 -.110 Bicarbonate .630 .060 -.016 -.063 .628 -.200 -.271 Turbidity .616 .397 -.562 .172 .034 .182 .021 Fluoride .485 -.452 .186 -.125 -.356 .399 .389 P.Alkalinity .229 .924 .029 -.017 -.092 -.091 -.134 Carbonate .229 .924 .029 -.017 -.092 -.091 -.134 pH .015 .923 .153 -.067 .244 -.032 .085 Sulphate .314 .594 -.197 .116 .520 .358 -.045 Magnesium .464 -.577 .513 -.036 .270 .198 .121 DO -.026 .165 .926 -.177 -.098 .095 .047 Nitrite .157 -.079 -.006 .912 .118 -.175 .174 COD .001 -.002 -.418 .835 .027 .009 -.204 Phosphate .293 .090 .380 .594 .061 -.573 -.185 Nitrate .007 -.020 -.020 .162 .912 .022 .304 T.Nitrogen .271 -.215 .242 -.335 .025 .700 -.036 Temperature .083 -.137 .050 -.017 .172 .022 .926 Eigen value 8.769 4.268 2.931 2.066 1.927 1.297 1.057 % of 36.539 17.781 12.212 8.608 8.03 5.404 4.404 Variance Cumulative 36.539 54.32 66.532 75.14 83.17 88.575 92.979 %

Fig-4.55: Scree plot for station2: Mohanur

Fig-4.56: Component plot in rotated space

Fig-4.57: Radar diagram for PCs

4.2.3. Sampling station-3: Thirumukkudal I) Reasons for selecting  Confluence of River Amaravathy and Industrial effluents through Amaravathy II) Sampling location

Fig-4.58: Activities around the sampling spot-S3

Sampling spot; Temple; Crematorium; Vegetation;

Sand dredging; Fishing; Cattle wading

III) Influencing factors a) Occupation: Agriculture, Fishing b) Social: Temple c) Public: Minor dam construction approved at mayanur, Sand dredging (heavy), Water pumping station d) Personal: Washing. Cleaning, Cattle wading and Defecation IV) Descriptive Statistical Analysis The descriptive statistics of the data on physic-chemical parameters are given in Table-4.33

Table-4.33: Descriptive statistics of water quality parameters of S3 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Temperature 12 26 31 28.58 1.621 2.629 pH 12 7.9 8.7 8.308 .2151 .046 EC 12 574 980 784.50 146.570 21482.636 TDS 12 367.36 627.20 502.0800 93.80452 8799.288 Turbidity 12 1.2 7.5 3.733 2.1635 4.681 DO 12 5.3 7.0 6.408 .5728 .328 COD 12 8 36 26.33 8.773 76.970 BOD 12 1.1 4.5 2.958 1.2817 1.643 P.Alkalinity 12 0 30 13.33 7.785 60.606 T.Alkalinity 12 160 272 233.22 38.059 1448.454 T.Hardness 12 104 265 180.27 45.730 2091.198 T.Nitrogen 12 .0 3.2 1.833 1.0680 1.141 Chloride 12 33.0 134.0 80.817 33.1266 1097.372 Fluoride 12 .40 1.30 .9275 .28278 .080 Nitrite 12 .005 .052 .02842 .018083 .000 Nitrate 12 .1 .5 .312 .0955 .009 Sulphate 12 9.0 27.3 16.346 6.2792 39.428 Phosphate 12 .01 .15 .0597 .03832 .001 Carbonate 12 0 36 16.00 9.342 87.273 Bicarbonate 12 122 290 210.60 49.300 2430.465 Calcium 12 27.0 70.0 45.067 13.8048 190.572 Magnesium 12 9.0 23.1 16.162 4.0174 16.139 Sodium 12 44.6 153.3 83.033 28.1586 792.904 Potassium 12 3.7 13.3 7.383 2.8377 8.052

100

V) Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

Table-4.34 elucidates the Rotated factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and Cumulative percentage for station3. As per this table and Scree plot (Fig-4.59), seven PCs are found for this station. PC1 accounts for 34.57% (Table-4.34) of the variance in the water quality of River Cauvery. According to the radar diagram (Fig-4.61), TDS, EC, potassium, calcium, chloride, total alkalinity, sodium and total hardness are the parameters aligned in PC1, which are highly correlated. PC2 accounts for 17.48% of the variance with pH, carbonate and P.alkalinity as its components.

The textile dyeing industry effluents influences the water quality through a number of parameters - EC, TDS, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, chloride, sulphate, bicarbonate, etc. (Shyamala et al., 2008). Karur district is a hub of dyeing. River Amaravathy runs across Karur, collecting the dyeing effluents through a number of point and non-point sources. The Amaravathy River with all its pollution loads confluences with River Cauvery at this sampling station.

The contribution of PC3 is 16.38% of variance (fluoride, T.nitrogen, BOD and magnesium). It is followed by PC4 (nitrite, sulphate, bicarbonate and phosphate), PC5 (DO, nitrate and Turbidity), PC6 (COD) and PC7 (temperature), which contribute 7.19%, 6.38%, 5.48% and 4.33% of variance respectively.

In this station also agriculture and fishing are the occupation of the local people. There is a temple at this sampling station. Socio-religious activities result in the discharge of considerable amount of organic matter into the river. Another important human activity within the river is sand dredging. Heavy dredging is done during the dry periods both legally and illegally, influencing the river in many ways. Personal activities such as washing, cleaning, defecation, confluence of sewage and wading of cattle add up to the organic load of the river water. A new check dam has been sanctioned recently.

101

Table-4.34: Rotated factor loadings for Cauvery at Thirumukkudal (significant bolded) Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TDS .894 .175 .133 .151 -.066 .333 .011 EC .894 .175 .133 .151 -.066 .333 .011 Potassium .885 .111 -.125 -.143 .037 -.126 .244 T.Hardness .848 .094 .474 -.055 -.033 -.017 -.205 Calcium .810 .335 .319 -.113 .257 -.020 -.203 Chloride .794 .016 .383 .381 .053 .088 .172 T.Alkalinity .676 -.280 .263 .241 .331 .258 -.194 Sodium .611 .266 .388 .155 .325 .342 .094 Carbonate .134 .968 -.051 -.017 -.086 .041 .057 P.Alkalinity .134 .968 -.051 -.017 -.086 .041 .057 pH .299 .770 -.195 .439 -.072 .208 .001 Fluoride .254 -.040 .903 -.144 -.137 .210 -.115 T.Nitrogen .189 -.086 .855 .029 -.060 -.086 .250 BOD .396 -.251 .654 -.341 .187 .247 .284 Magnesium .098 -.484 .598 .091 .074 .254 -.487 Sulphate .335 .232 .085 .792 .114 .250 -.117 Nitrite .171 -.008 .075 -.775 -.485 .270 -.010 Bicarbonate .514 -.057 -.266 .669 .013 .049 -.191 Phosphate .575 .086 .110 -.646 -.403 .049 .173 DO .005 .246 -.067 -.084 -.909 .044 -.129 Nitrate .033 .275 -.266 .101 .763 .353 -.091 Turbidity .163 -.157 .018 .192 .735 -.068 -.195 COD .251 .111 .169 -1.691E-5 .029 .918 -.006 Temperature .043 .079 .138 -.146 -.083 .018 .899 Eigen value 8.297 4.196 3.931 1.726 1.53 1.315 1.038 % of Variance 34.571 17.484 16.379 7.193 6.377 5.479 4.325 Cumulative % 34.571 52.055 68.434 75.627 82.003 87.483 91.808

102

Fig-4.59: Sree plot for Station3: Thirumukkudal

Fig-4.60: Component plot in rotated space

Fig-4.61: Radar diagram for PCs

103

4.2.4. Sampling station-4: Pettavaithalai I) Reasons for selecting  Confluence of Uyyakondan Canal, Social forestry (monoculture of Eucalyptus) II) Sampling location

Fig-4.62: Activities around the sampling spot-S4

Sampling spot; Temple; Crematorium; Vegetation

Solid waste dumps; Infiltration point; Fishing; Cattle wading III) Influencing factors a) Occupation: Sugar industry (EID Parry),Agriculture, Fishing and mat weaving b) Social: Temple c) Public: Water pumping station d) Personal: Washing. Cleaning, Cattle wading and Defecation IV) Descriptive Statistical Analysis The descriptive statistics of the data on physic-chemical parameters are given in Table-4.35

104

Table-4.35: Descriptive statistics of water quality parameters of S4 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Temperature 12 29 38 32.92 2.811 7.902 pH 12 7.8 8.6 8.225 .2137 .046 EC 12 601 970 769.17 114.201 13041.788 TDS 12 384.64 620.80 492.2667 73.08841 5341.916 Turbidity 12 1.8 12.3 5.892 2.9828 8.897 DO 12 6.0 8.0 7.058 .6230 .388 COD 12 8 36 25.33 8.414 70.788 BOD 12 1.6 4.7 3.250 1.1229 1.261 P.Alkalinity 12 0 30 11.67 9.374 87.879 T.Alkalinity 12 170 350 240.23 52.886 2796.981 T.Hardness 12 107 320 186.74 62.366 3889.474 T.Nitrogen 12 .8 3.2 1.967 .8897 .792 Chloride 12 35.0 155.0 88.558 32.9122 1083.212 Fluoride 12 .30 1.34 .9008 .32231 .104 Nitrite 12 .005 .425 .06242 .115646 .013 Nitrate 12 .1 .5 .248 .1415 .020 Sulphate 12 12.0 28.6 17.129 5.4287 29.471 Phosphate 12 .00 .14 .0688 .04914 .002 Carbonate 12 0 36 14.00 11.249 126.545 Bicarbonate 12 159 300 228.52 42.447 1801.749 Calcium 12 28.0 122.0 48.475 25.2517 637.647 Magnesium 12 9.0 31.1 16.648 6.6191 43.812 Sodium 12 49.2 172.1 88.475 32.4588 1053.571 Potassium 12 4.4 14.5 7.975 3.1288 9.789

105

V) Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

The Rotated factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and Cumulative percentage for station4 are presented in Table-4.36. As per this table and Scree plot (Fig-4.63), six PCs are found for this station. PC1 accounts for 39.15% (Table-4.36) of the variance in the water quality of River Cauvery. According to the radar diagram (Fig-4.65), TDS, EC, potassium, calcium, chloride, total alkalinity, sodium, BOD, Bicarbonate, fluoride and total hardness are the parameters aligned in PC1, which are highly correlated. PC2 accounts for 16.77% of the variance with pH, carbonate, magnesium and P.alkalinity as its components.

A sugar factory is located very close to River Cauvery. The effluent discharge from this industry has been noticed by the people of this area, to cause dermal problems and productivity loss in agriculture. Salequzzaman et al., (2008) state that the sugar industry effluent influences the water quality through a number of parameters (EC, TDS, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, chloride, sulphate, bicarbonate, etc.). Moreover the parameters which are considerably influenced by the sugar factory fall under PC1 of rotated factor loadings (Table- 4.36).

Mat grass cultivation and weaving is the livelihood for many of the residents in and around this station. For the processing of mat grass and coloring of mats the river front is considerably used.

The contribution of PC3 is 13.87% of variance (phosphate, DO and sulphate). It is followed by PC4 (nitrite and COD), PC5 (nitrate and temperature) and PC6 (turbidity and T.nitrogen), which contribute 8.99%, 6.74% and 5.3% of variance respectively.

In this station also agriculture and fishing are the occupations of the local people. There is a temple at this sampling station. Socio-religious activities result in the discharge of considerable amount of organic matter into the river. There is a water pumping station supplying water to Pettavaithalai and nearby villages.

106

Table-4.36: Rotated factor loadings for Cauvery at Pettavaithalai (significant bolded) Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 Chloride .945 -.102 .200 .157 .099 -.114 T.Alkalinity .933 -.055 -.016 .245 .225 .059 T.Hardness .890 -.152 -.099 .066 .158 .140 Sodium .890 -.040 -.015 .069 -.182 -.019 Calcium .885 .202 -.025 .086 -.203 -.039 TDS .873 -.284 .007 -.139 .074 .119 EC .873 -.284 .007 -.139 .074 .119 Potassium .744 .186 -.517 .001 .067 -.143 BOD .718 -.153 -.255 .503 .074 .081 Bicarbonate .674 -.469 -.115 -.474 -.003 .019 Fluoride .629 -.147 .102 .475 .219 .536 Carbonate -.125 .966 .061 -.023 -.108 .092 P.Alkalinity -.125 .966 .061 -.023 -.108 .092 Ph -.069 .723 .610 .036 .146 .056 Magnesium .242 -.643 -.118 -.037 .574 .359 Phosphate -.069 -.206 -.914 -.008 .183 -.187 DO -.516 -.015 .760 .068 .232 .168 Sulphate .220 .145 .739 -.298 .342 -.278 Nitrite -.020 -.108 .067 .899 -.211 -.163 COD .475 .265 -.290 .666 .052 -.030 Nitrate .000 .273 -.038 .294 -.856 .055 Temperature .070 .177 .476 .389 .644 .180 Turbidity .152 -.312 -.199 .198 -.037 -.849 T.Nitrogen .604 -.127 .006 -.026 .010 .666 Eigen value 9.396 4.026 3.329 2.157 1.617 1.272 % of 39.151 16.774 13.871 8.986 6.736 5.301 Variance Cumulative 39.151 55.925 69.796 78.781 85.517 90.819 %

107

Fig-4.63: Scree plot for S4: Pettavaithalai

Fig-4.64: Component plot in rotated space

Fig-4.65: Radar diagram for PCs

108

4.2.5. Sampling station – 5: Upper anicut I) Reasons for selecting  Water reservoir, Recreational Activities, Tourist spot and Social forestry II) Sampling location

Fig-4.66: Activities around the sampling spot-S5

Sampling spot; Crematorium; Vegetation; Sand dredging;

Solid waste dumps; Infiltration point; Fishing; Cattle wading III) Influencing factors a) Occupation: Agriculture, Boating, Fishing and PWD rest house b) Social: Recreational and tourist spot c) Public: Water reservoir branching into Cauvery, Kollidam & Irrigation canal and water pumping d) Personal: Washing. Cleaning, Cattle wading and Defecation IV) Descriptive Statistical Analysis The descriptive statistics of the data on physic-chemical parameters are given in Table-4.37.

109

Table-4.37: Descriptive statistics of water quality parameters of S5 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Temperature 12 28 37 32.25 2.491 6.205 pH 12 8.1 9.0 8.350 .2505 .063 EC 12 624 982 773.67 114.238 13050.242 TDS 12 399.36 628.48 495.1467 73.11210 5345.379 Turbidity 12 2.9 23.0 7.967 5.4583 29.793 DO 12 6.5 7.9 7.308 .4699 .221 COD 12 8 40 23.33 9.471 89.697 BOD 12 .7 5.0 2.950 1.4190 2.014 P.Alkalinity 12 10 30 16.67 7.785 60.606 T.Alkalinity 12 138 370 237.67 58.798 3457.152 T.Hardness 12 104 320 183.42 59.727 3567.356 T.Nitrogen 12 .0 3.2 1.400 1.0234 1.047 Chloride 12 38.0 141.0 87.508 31.6434 1001.304 Fluoride 12 .40 1.18 .8692 .25568 .065 Nitrite 12 .007 .225 .04258 .060016 .004 Nitrate 12 .1 .5 .257 .1408 .020 Sulphate 12 11.0 28.6 17.533 5.5469 30.768 Phosphate 12 .01 .10 .0517 .03047 .001 Carbonate 12 12 36 20.00 9.342 87.273 Bicarbonate 12 120 330 213.08 50.891 2589.902 Calcium 12 27.0 116.0 48.433 23.7978 566.335 Magnesium 12 5.4 21.4 13.217 5.1437 26.457 Sodium 12 45.0 161.0 85.992 30.1767 910.632 Potassium 12 4.7 15.5 7.908 3.1544 9.950

110

V) Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

Table-4.38 illustrates the Rotated factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and Cumulative percentage for station5. As per this table and Scree plot (Fig-4.67), seven PCs are found for this station. PC1 accounts for 38.15% (Table- 4.38) of the variance in the water quality of River Cauvery. According to the radar diagram (Fig-4.69), TDS, EC, calcium, chloride, total alkalinity, sodium, BOD, fluoride, T.nitrogen and total hardness are the parameters aligned in PC1, which are highly correlated. PC2 accounts for 16.2% of the variance with pH, carbonate, bicarbonate and P.alkalinity as its components.

The contribution of PC3 is 14.73% of variance (magnesium and potassium). It is followed by PC4 (nitrate, temperature, sulphate and DO), PC5 (phosphate and COD), PC6 (turbidity) and PC7 (nitrite) which contribute 9.38%, 6.4%, 5.58% and 4.22% of variance respectively.

In this station also agriculture and fishing are the occupations of the local people. There is a water pumping station supplying water to the nearby villages. The „aganda‟ Cauvery (about 2km wide) branches into Cauvery main, Kollidam and the three irrigation channels viz. Ayyan, Peruvalai and Pullambadi.

This station is a well-known picnic and recreational centre with a number of amusement features such as boating, toy train, swing, slides, etc. solid waste and noise pollution result out of the human recreation, apart from the disturbance to the river water.

111

Table-4.38: Rotated factor loadings for River Cauvery at Upper Anicut (significant bolded) Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EC .889 .221 .038 .172 .122 -7.122E-5 -.321 TDS .889 .221 .038 .172 .122 -7.122E-5 -.321 Sodium .887 .240 .090 -.102 -.061 -.228 .108 Chloride .852 -.029 .308 .305 -.023 -.187 .034 BOD .848 .191 .001 .087 .415 -.040 .227 Fluoride .819 -.016 -.130 .139 .247 .449 .161 T.Hardness .807 .027 .491 .145 -.028 .065 .115 T.Alkalinity .766 -.410 .267 .154 .248 .087 .236 Calcium .673 .278 .589 -.043 -.177 -.061 .187 T.Nitrogen .639 -.101 .616 .141 -.056 .338 -.012 P.Alkalinity .149 .962 .029 -.025 .131 .088 -.104 Carbonate .149 .962 .029 -.025 .131 .088 -.104 pH .383 .744 .384 .103 -.275 -.003 -.019 Bicarbonate .401 -.683 .518 .230 -.040 -.096 -.134 Magnesium .007 -.100 -.875 .127 -.358 .193 -.007 Potassium .425 -.023 .680 .091 .483 -.257 -.165 Nitrate -.132 .223 .035 -.885 .020 .124 .106 Temperature .322 .011 .083 .808 -.009 .311 -.078 Sulphate .184 .291 -.063 .743 -.415 -.066 -.066 DO -.231 -.375 .088 .494 -.218 .460 .465 Phosphate .101 .109 .062 -.104 .920 .201 .117 COD .235 .067 .402 -.251 .753 -.144 .144 Turbidity .030 -.239 .188 -.010 -.090 -.941 .081 Nitrite .143 -.120 -.023 -.207 .262 -.077 .878 Eigen value 9.155 3.888 3.535 2.252 1.539 1.339 1.012 % of 38.145 16.2 14.729 9.384 6.411 5.579 4.216 Variance Cumulative 38.145 54.345 69.074 78.458 84.87 90.449 94.665 %

112

Fig-4.67: Scree plot for S5: Upper Anicut

Fig-4.68: Component plot in rotated space

Fig-4.69: Radar diagram for PCs

113

4.2.6. Sampling station - 6: Kambarasampattai I) Reasons for selecting  Upstream of Trichy city & Kudamurutti Channel confluence and water works station II) Sampling location

Fig-4.70: Activities around the sampling spot-S6

Sampling spot; Temple; Crematorium; Vegetation; Solid waste;

Infiltration point; Fishing; Cattle wading; Residential III) Influencing factors a) Occupation: Agriculture, semi urban b) Social: Amma mandapam bathing ghat in the opposite bank and various religious activities c) Public: Water works stations, Trichy-Rmanathapuram water supply project under process and confluence of number of sewages through Kudamurutti channel d) Personal: Washing. Cleaning, Cattle wading and Defecation IV) Descriptive Statistical Analysis The descriptive statistics of the data on physic-chemical parameters are given in Table-4.39.

114

Table-4.39: Descriptive statistics of water quality parameters of S6 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Temperature 12 27 37 31.75 2.667 7.114 pH 12 8.0 8.9 8.367 .2348 .055 EC 12 589 963 772.67 121.884 14855.697 TDS 12 376.96 616.32 494.5067 78.00573 6084.893 Turbidity 12 3.1 14.0 7.758 3.9807 15.846 DO 12 6.5 7.9 7.417 .4469 .200 COD 12 12 40 23.33 8.669 75.152 BOD 12 .6 5.2 2.950 1.4350 2.059 P.Alkalinity 12 0 40 19.17 9.962 99.242 T.Alkalinity 12 148 380 248.77 61.986 3842.217 T.Hardness 12 101 265 179.42 44.467 1977.356 T.Nitrogen 12 .0 3.6 1.317 1.0903 1.189 Chloride 12 40.0 131.1 84.692 30.0338 902.032 Fluoride 12 .50 1.20 .8883 .23660 .056 Nitrite 12 .004 .350 .05742 .094816 .009 Nitrate 12 .1 .5 .298 .1585 .025 Sulphate 12 8.0 29.5 16.000 6.6220 43.851 Phosphate 12 .02 .10 .0526 .02820 .001 Carbonate 12 0 48 25.00 13.974 195.273 Bicarbonate 12 125 325 215.50 59.482 3538.091 Calcium 12 24.0 112.0 51.025 24.4091 595.802 Magnesium 12 4.9 20.7 13.377 5.0702 25.707 Sodium 12 44.0 159.2 84.783 30.2419 914.574 Potassium 12 4.3 12.3 7.625 2.5252 6.377

115

V) Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

The Rotated factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and Cumulative percentage for station6 are presented in Table-4.40. As per this table and Scree plot (Fig-4.71), six PCs are found for this station. PC1 accounts for 42.36% (Table-4.40) of the variance in the water quality of River Cauvery. According to the radar diagram (Fig-4.73), TDS, EC, chloride, total alkalinity, sodium, BOD, fluoride and sulphate are the parameters aligned in PC1, which are highly correlated. PC2 accounts for 15.25% of the variance with temperature, pH, carbonate, bicarbonate and P.alkalinity as its components.

The contribution of PC3 is 11.86% of variance (turbidity, T.Hardness, calcium and T.Nitrogen). It is followed by PC4 (phosphate, COD and potassium), PC5 (DO and nitrate) and PC6 (magnesium and nitrite), which contribute 11.13%, 6.14% and 5.19% of variance respectively.

Since it is very close to Trichy city, a semi urban atmosphere exists here with minimum agriculture. There are number of water pumping stations for the local area and for the Ramanathapuram district. Hence the possibility of over pumping of water and dropping of ground water level is high during summer.

The famous religious shrine, Srirangam has its river front facilities at Amma mandapam. Various types of religious activities occur here throughout the year. It is frequented by tourists, who make use of the river for the personal activities (washing, bathing, defecation, cleaning, etc.).

116

Table-4.40: Rotated factor loadings for Cauvery at Kambarasampettai (significant bolded) Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 TDS .942 .124 .096 .176 -.091 -.023 EC .942 .124 .096 .176 -.091 -.023 T.Alkalinity .862 -.036 .391 .171 .016 .107 Chloride .858 .289 .398 -.015 .016 -.014 BOD .800 .227 .139 .250 .310 .188 Fluoride .741 -.092 .342 -.179 .481 .147 Sodium .637 .245 .379 -.051 .095 .498 Sulphate .610 .371 .042 -.602 .041 -.082 P.Alkalinity .207 .945 .229 .032 .047 .026 pH .074 .854 .235 -.227 -.048 .231 Carbonate .166 .852 .143 .179 .242 -.088 Temperature .453 .574 -.328 -.254 .040 .361 Bicarbonate .517 -.544 -.002 .099 -.343 -.488 Turbidity .190 .132 .854 .108 -.224 .111 T.Hardness .565 .246 .721 -.027 .088 .153 Calcium .420 .199 .686 .029 -.018 .536 T.Nitrogen .408 .396 .670 .013 .406 .200 Phosphate .130 -.103 -.025 .895 .025 .133 COD .196 .109 .127 .862 .138 .009 Potassium .413 .167 .506 .568 -.396 .116 DO .048 .339 -.053 -.062 .896 -.044 Nitrate -.022 .086 .090 -.495 -.771 .162 Magnesium .078 .127 -.164 -.173 .397 -.854 Nitrite .241 .445 .315 .161 .145 .743 Eigen value 10.166 3.659 2.847 2.672 1.474 1.246 % of 42.358 15.247 11.863 11.133 6.142 5.192 Variance Cumulative 42.358 57.605 69.467 80.601 86.743 91.934 %

117

Fig-4.71: Scree plot for S6: Kambarasampettai

Fig-4.72: Component plot in rotated space

Fig-4.73: Radar diagram for PCs

118

4.2.7. Sampling station – 7: By-pass Bridge I) Reasons for selecting  Downstream of Trichy city, confluence of municipal sewages and solid waste dumping II) Sampling location

Fig-4.74: Activities around the sampling spot-S7

Sampling spot; Crematorium; Vegetation; solid waste dumps;

Fishing; Cattle wading III) Influencing factors a) Occupation: Urban environment b) Social: Crematorium and temple c) Public: New bridge construction, Municipal sewage canals confluence and solid waste seepages. d) Personal: Washing. Cleaning, Cattle wading and Defecation IV) Descriptive Statistical Analysis The descriptive statistics of the data on physic-chemical parameters are given in Table-4.41.

119

Table-4.41: Descriptive statistics of water quality parameters of S7 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Temperature 12 27 37 32.17 3.129 9.788 pH 12 7.9 8.5 8.142 .1782 .032 EC 12 591 1118 830.83 176.103 31012.333 TDS 12 378.24 715.52 531.7333 112.70604 12702.652 Turbidity 12 2.7 29.6 11.600 8.7995 77.431 DO 12 5.0 7.8 6.783 .9104 .829 COD 12 16 48 28.00 11.939 142.545 BOD 12 1.2 6.0 4.000 1.7746 3.149 P.Alkalinity 12 0 30 10.00 9.535 90.909 T.Alkalinity 12 148 425 253.03 71.002 5041.322 T.Hardness 12 100 325 197.28 70.983 5038.598 T.Nitrogen 12 .0 4.4 2.117 1.3737 1.887 Chloride 12 39.0 168.0 89.383 43.8743 1924.956 Fluoride 12 .40 1.46 .9525 .35978 .129 Nitrite 12 .002 .875 .17042 .264441 .070 Nitrate 12 .1 .6 .405 .1762 .031 Sulphate 12 8.6 31.1 17.671 7.8136 61.052 Phosphate 12 .02 .11 .0656 .02611 .001 Carbonate 12 0 36 12.00 11.442 130.909 Bicarbonate 12 156 330 233.30 61.207 3746.316 Calcium 12 21.0 100.0 52.442 24.0943 580.534 Magnesium 12 9.2 28.0 15.267 5.0060 25.060 Sodium 12 45.0 175.0 90.067 34.7949 1210.682 Potassium 12 4.8 23.5 9.425 5.3852 29.000

120

V) Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

The water quality of station 7 totally reflects an urban environment. This station is the maximum polluted one because of the sewage confluence, solid waste dumping and excessive utilization by individual for washing, cleaning, bathing, etc. This results in heavy organic pollution leading to blooming of algae and oxygen depletion due to high biological demand. Significant impact of sewage discharges on the river water quality has been warned by many scientists (Carstea et al., 2009).

Table-4.42 shows the Rotated factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and Cumulative percentage for station7. As per his table and Scree plot (Fig-4.75), five PCs are found for this station. PC1 accounts for 55.78% (Table- 4.42) of the variance in the water quality of River Cauvery. This is the maximum recorded % of variance for PC1 when compare to the other sampling stations (table). According to the radar diagram (Fig-4.77), potassium, calcium, total alkalinity, sodium, BOD, fluoride, total hardness, total nitrogen, nitrite and COD are the parameters aligned in PC1, which are highly correlated. Out of these parameters, nitrite and total nitrogen are the maximum contributing once, which is an exclusive observation found only in this station. The probable reason is the urban environment especially the discharge of municipal sewage into the river. The complementary factors are the presence of number of small level temples and more number of regular and electrical crematoria. The PC2 accounts for 12.52% of the variance with DO, turbidity, chloride, bicarbonate and magnesium as its components. Out of the PC2 values of the 12 sampling stations, this is the minimum value.

The contribution of PC3 is 10.5% of variance (EC, TDS and sulphate). It is followed by PC4 (pH, temperature, carbonate and p.alkalinity) and PC5 (phosphate and nitrate), which contribute 6.81%, and 5.02% of variance respectively.

121

Table-4.42: Rotated factor loadings for Cauvery at By-pass bridge (significant bolded) Component 1 2 3 4 5 Nitrite .891 .110 .279 .107 -.082 T.Nitrogen .880 -.005 .086 -.343 .142 Calcium .862 .359 .233 -.141 -.147 T.Alkalinity .812 .473 .034 -.158 .155 T.Hardness .794 .434 .189 -.266 -.023 Sodium .790 .122 .572 -.079 .037 COD .772 -.070 -.035 -.009 .374 Potassium .732 .544 -.136 .173 .044 Fluoride .717 -.011 .337 -.074 .406 BOD .533 .199 .430 -.338 .505 Bicarbonate .029 .925 .211 -.156 .075 DO -.011 -.826 -.287 .163 -.076 Magnesium .327 .784 -.024 .096 .431 Turbidity .527 .712 .152 -.144 .044 Chloride .567 .656 .420 -.081 .228 Sulphate .079 .570 .789 -.129 -.078 TDS .601 .369 .631 -.161 .213 EC .601 .369 .631 -.161 .213 pH -.355 -.314 -.268 .787 -.247 Temperature .258 .213 .245 .741 .302 Carbonate -.256 -.542 -.280 .693 -.030 P.Alkalinity -.256 -.542 -.280 .693 -.030 Phosphate .269 .141 .217 -.161 .852 Nitrate .212 -.193 .229 -.426 -.787 Eigen value 13.386 3.005 2.519 1.635 1.205 % of Variance 55.777 12.52 10.498 6.814 5.019 Cumulative % 55.777 68.297 78.795 85.609 90.628

122

Fig-4.75: Scree plot for S7: By-pass bridge

Fig-4.76: Componenet plot in rotated space

Fig-4.77: Radar diagram for PCs

123

4.2.8. Sampling station – 8: Grand anicut I) Reasons for selecting  Water reservoir, Recreational Activities, Tourist spot, Divergence into five rivers (Kollidam, Cauvery Vennar, Kallanai canal and ) II) Sampling location

Fig-4.78: Activities around the sampling spot-S8

Sampling spot; Crematorium; Vegetation; Solid waste dumps;

Fishing; Cattle wading Residential III) Influencing factors a) Occupation: Irrigation purposes and fishing b) Social: Tourism and Recreational spot c) Public: Water Reservoir, branching into five rivers mainly for agricultural activities d) Personal: Washing. Cleaning, bathing and Defecation IV) Descriptive Statistical Analysis The descriptive statistics of the data on physic-chemical parameters are given in Table-4.43.

124

Table-4.43: Descriptive statistics of water quality parameters of S8 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Temperature 12 27 38 32.08 3.370 11.356 pH 12 8.1 9.1 8.433 .3085 .095 EC 12 595 1081 804.58 167.765 28145.174 TDS 12 380.80 691.84 514.9333 107.36975 11528.263 Turbidity 12 2.7 17.5 8.392 4.9852 24.852 DO 12 6.1 7.9 7.142 .5946 .354 COD 12 20 52 30.00 10.162 103.273 BOD 12 1.4 7.6 4.233 1.9778 3.912 P.Alkalinity 12 10 40 20.83 11.645 135.606 T.Alkalinity 12 118 365 241.22 64.590 4171.909 T.Hardness 12 81 300 194.58 62.344 3886.811 T.Nitrogen 12 .0 4.0 2.033 1.2324 1.519 Chloride 12 31.0 156.0 86.800 42.4553 1802.449 Fluoride 12 .40 1.30 .9233 .32712 .107 Nitrite 12 .005 .500 .12300 .146388 .021 Nitrate 12 .2 .6 .390 .1440 .021 Sulphate 12 7.8 31.3 17.721 7.3991 54.747 Phosphate 12 .02 .10 .0502 .02608 .001 Carbonate 12 12 48 25.00 13.974 195.273 Bicarbonate 12 119 315 210.25 58.071 3372.205 Calcium 12 16.0 88.0 49.575 19.8581 394.344 Magnesium 12 7.3 25.0 15.243 5.5226 30.499 Sodium 12 33.0 181.0 86.908 38.1179 1452.975 Potassium 12 3.7 19.5 8.792 4.6269 21.408

125

V) Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

The Rotated factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and Cumulative percentage for station8 are presented in Table-4.44. As per this table and Scree plot (Fig-4.79), six PCs are found for this station. PC1 accounts for 48.12% (Table-4.44) of the variance in the water quality of River Cauvery. According to the radar diagram (Fig-4.81), turbidity, potassium, calcium, chloride, sodium, total hardness and nitrite are the parameters aligned in PC1, which are highly correlated. PC2 accounts for 14.73% of the variance with EC, TDS, magnesium and sulphate as its components.

The contribution of PC3 is 13.41% of variance (phosphate, temperature and COD). It is followed by PC4 (pH, carbonate, p.alkalinity and nitrate), PC5 (BOD, fluoride, total nitrogen and total alkalinity) and PC6 (DO and bicarbonate), which contribute 6.92%, 5.27%, and 4.85% of variance respectively.

The Kallanai dam was constructed by Karikalacholan during 2nd century of A.D and is considered as one of the oldest water diversions or water regulator structures in the world, still in use. For the benefit of the agriculturalists the river diverges into 5 branches viz. Kollidam, new Cauvery, Vennar, Puthu Aaru and Kallanai Canal. Since the reservoir is very old heavy sedimentation occurs in the upstream and supports high fish diversity. Balasundaram et al., 1999 have recorded 24 species belonging to 18 genera and 13 families. Fishing is the very important occupation of the residence of this area. It is renowned picnic spot in south-India. It is frequented by tourists, who make use of the river for the personal activities (washing, bathing, defecation, cleaning, etc.). Accumulation of solid wastes is another threat to the water. The leachates from the solid waste dumps bring in a variety of chemicals into the river (Page 23).

126

Table-4.44: Rotated factor loadings for Cauvery at Grand Anicut (significant bolded) Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 Calcium .881 .122 .058 .077 .328 .185 Potassium .826 .065 .532 .094 .064 -.081 T.Hardness .762 .272 .068 .162 .435 .226 Turbidity .733 .538 -.042 .188 .134 .149 Chloride .685 .508 .302 .191 .218 .250 Nitrite .681 .126 .638 .054 .034 .251 Sodium .670 .424 -.051 .224 .529 -.123 Sulphate .366 .847 -.078 .089 .002 .312 Magnesium -.167 .744 -.294 .468 .226 -.053 TDS .510 .684 .202 .179 .378 .011 EC .510 .684 .202 .179 .378 .011 Phosphate -.056 .044 .944 .141 -.112 -.005 COD .238 -.193 .844 -.049 .332 -.127 Temperature .330 .304 .625 .437 .225 .208 Carbonate .093 .133 .087 .968 .063 -.061 P.Alkalinity .093 .133 .087 .968 .063 -.061 pH .475 .308 .078 .812 .083 -.002 Nitrate .037 .332 -.576 -.579 -.169 .324 Fluoride .247 .221 .069 .252 .882 .122 BOD .271 .410 .407 -.129 .637 .189 T.Nitrogen .627 -.093 -.117 .077 .630 .071 T.Alkalinity .472 .221 .300 .023 .620 .384 DO .117 -.034 -.240 .001 .201 .867 Bicarbonate .164 .307 .280 -.266 .057 .807 Eigen value 11.549 3.535 3.219 1.66 1.265 1.164 % of 48.122 14.729 13.411 6.915 5.269 4.851 Variance Cumulative 48.122 62.852 76.263 83.177 88.446 93.297 %

127

Fig-4.79: Scree plot for S8: Grand Anicut

Fig-4.80: Component plot in rotated space

Fig-4.81: Radar diagram for PCs

128

4.2.9. Sampling station – 9: Thiruvaiyar I) Reasons for selecting  Pilgrim centre and Agricultural effects II) Sampling location

Fig-4.82: Activities around the sampling spot-S9

Sampling spot; Temple; Vegetation; solid waste dumps;

Fishing; Cattle wading Residential III) Influencing factors a) Occupation: Agriculture b) Social: Tourism and temple c) Public: Solid waste dumping and sewage discharges d) Personal: Washing. Cleaning, bathing and Defecation (Heavy) IV) Descriptive Statistical Analysis The descriptive statistics of the data on physic-chemical parameters are given in Table-4.45.

129

Table-4.45: Descriptive statistics of water quality parameters of S9 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Temperature 12 27 40 33.17 3.538 12.515 pH 12 7.9 8.6 8.342 .2109 .044 EC 12 588 966 752.67 129.171 16685.152 TDS 12 376.32 618.24 481.7067 82.66945 6834.238 Turbidity 12 2.8 22.5 7.317 5.7050 32.547 DO 12 6.5 8.1 7.367 .5069 .257 COD 12 8 48 28.33 10.439 108.970 BOD 12 1.4 6.4 3.800 1.6393 2.687 P.Alkalinity 12 0 40 19.17 14.434 208.333 T.Alkalinity 12 142 340 247.17 56.163 3154.333 T.Hardness 12 114 275 183.21 47.968 2300.884 T.Nitrogen 12 .0 3.2 1.817 .9741 .949 Chloride 12 30.0 145.0 81.458 39.6609 1572.988 Fluoride 12 .40 1.20 .8850 .28092 .079 Nitrite 12 .009 .250 .06958 .077019 .006 Nitrate 12 .1 .5 .324 .1318 .017 Sulphate 12 5.0 29.0 16.288 7.3273 53.690 Phosphate 12 .01 .09 .0483 .02838 .001 Carbonate 12 0 48 23.00 17.321 300.000 Bicarbonate 12 147 300 227.00 39.681 1574.545 Calcium 12 28.0 80.0 48.217 15.9852 255.525 Magnesium 12 8.5 20.7 15.409 4.0079 16.063 Sodium 12 37.0 186.8 84.317 37.3378 1394.112 Potassium 12 4.5 19.2 7.533 3.9702 15.762

130

V) Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

The Rotated factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and Cumulative percentage for station9 are presented in Table-4.46. As per this table and Scree plot (Fig-4.83), six PCs are found for this station. PC1 accounts for 48.24% (Table-4.46) of the variance in the water quality of River Cauvery. According to the radar diagram (Fig-4.85), pH, potassium, calcium, chloride, total alkalinity, p.alkalinity, sodium, turbidity, carbonate and total hardness are the parameters aligned in PC1, which are highly correlated. PC2 accounts for 14.75% of the variance with EC and TDS as its components.

The contribution of PC3 is 10.97% of variance (phosphate, COD, Nitrite and sulphate). It is followed by PC4 (DO, bicarbonate and total nitrogen), PC5 (magnesium and temperature) and PC6 (nitrate, fluoride and BOD), which contribute 8.87%, 4.93% and 4.18% of variance respectively.

Temple and tourisms is the centre of attraction of this station. The famous „Thiyagaraja utsavam‟ generally celebrated in the month of January attracts participants from the all over the world. During this festival, river bank facilities are more frequently used by the public for their common needs. Heavy open defecation and solid waste dumping pollutes the river, which runs in the heart of the town. In the peripheral regions intense wet land agriculture is noticed.

131

Table-4.46: Rotated factor loadings for Cauvery at Thiruvaiyar (significant bolded) Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 pH -.926 -.053 -.156 .292 -.020 -.081 P.Alkalinity -.879 -.178 .348 -.047 -.003 -.188 Carbonate -.879 -.178 .348 -.047 -.003 -.188 Turbidity .796 .139 .304 .116 .404 -.134 Sodium .756 .526 .157 .049 .140 -.134 Calcium .695 .464 .309 .339 .201 .051 T.Hardness .646 .423 .213 .321 .466 .034 T.Alkalinity .593 .466 .241 .488 .175 .149 Potassium .582 .390 .425 .023 .191 -.396 Chloride .551 .400 -.023 .320 .483 .338 EC .314 .920 .057 .096 .152 .116 TDS .314 .920 .057 .096 .152 .116 Phosphate .072 .069 .909 -.223 .245 .115 COD .089 .149 .858 -.013 -.200 .341 Sulphate .393 .314 -.729 .234 .306 .148 Nitrite .198 .368 .595 .342 .426 -.104 DO -.179 -.093 -.363 .819 .118 -.196 Bicarbonate .025 .531 -.140 .688 .256 -.004 T.Nitrogen .502 .298 .099 .603 .362 .219 Magnesium .182 .129 -.079 .141 .908 .008 Temperature -.003 .299 .117 .250 .618 .533 Nitrate .017 -.012 .109 -.158 .036 .951 Fluoride .562 .373 .096 .067 .195 .571 BOD .459 .244 .404 .440 .046 .523 Eigen value 11.578 3.539 2.632 2.129 1.184 1.003 % of Variance 48.241 14.746 10.965 8.871 4.934 4.179 Cumulative % 48.241 62.987 73.951 82.822 87.756 91.935

132

Fig-4.83: Scree plot for S9: Thiruvaiyar

Fig-4.84: Component plot in rotated space

Fig-4.85: Radar diagram for PCs

133

4.1.10. Sampling station – 10: Kumbakonam I) Reasons for selecting  Pilgrim centre and Agriculture II) Sampling location

Fig-4.86: Activities around the sampling spot-S10

Sampling spot; Temple; Vegetation; Solid waste dumps;

Fishing; Cattle wading III) Influencing factors a) Occupation: Agriculture and Urbanization b) Social: Temple city c) Public: Various Non-point sources of sewage discharges d) Personal: Washing. Cleaning, bathing and Defecation IV) Descriptive Statistical Analysis The descriptive statistics of the data on physic-chemical parameters are given in Table-4.47.

134

Table-4.47: Descriptive statistics of water quality parameters of S10 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Temperature 12 28 40 32.25 3.334 11.114 pH 12 8.0 8.7 8.333 .2348 .055 EC 12 576 980 739.50 133.184 17738.091 TDS 12 368.64 627.20 473.2800 85.23803 7265.522 Turbidity 12 4.0 21.8 10.583 6.0299 36.360 DO 12 5.2 8.6 7.017 1.0373 1.076 COD 12 12 52 27.33 11.420 130.424 BOD 12 1.6 6.1 4.033 1.3513 1.826 P.Alkalinity 12 0 30 17.50 10.553 111.364 T.Alkalinity 12 148 375 237.28 62.858 3951.145 T.Hardness 12 104 275 174.33 47.752 2280.242 T.Nitrogen 12 .0 3.2 1.333 1.1195 1.253 Chloride 12 32.0 134.0 77.300 35.1613 1236.316 Fluoride 12 .30 1.18 .8358 .30249 .091 Nitrite 12 .000 .600 .10533 .170331 .029 Nitrate 12 .0 .6 .315 .1691 .029 Sulphate 12 5.0 28.4 16.237 6.7706 45.841 Phosphate 12 .01 .09 .0417 .02356 .001 Carbonate 12 0 36 21.00 12.663 160.364 Bicarbonate 12 154 280 217.73 38.332 1469.362 Calcium 12 27.0 100.0 50.858 21.3054 453.919 Magnesium 12 6.1 26.7 13.003 6.2778 39.411 Sodium 12 40.0 184.5 80.883 37.5624 1410.936 Potassium 12 4.6 20.2 7.900 4.3220 18.680

135

V) Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

The Rotated factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and Cumulative percentage for station10 are presented in Table-4.48. As per this table and Scree plot (Fig-4.87), six PCs are found for this station. PC1 accounts for 46.8% (Table- 4.48) of the variance in the water quality of River Cauvery. According to the radar diagram (Fig-4.89), calcium, chloride, total alkalinity, bicarbonate, total hardness, total nitrogen, turbidity and temperature are the parameters aligned in PC1, which are highly correlated. PC2 accounts for 16.21% of the variance with TDS, EC, fluoride, sodium, BOD and COD as its components.

The contribution of PC3 is 10.31% of variance (carbonate, p.alkalinity, pH). It is followed by PC4 (nitrate, potassium, magnesium and DO), PC5 (phosphate and sulphate) and PC6 (nitrate), which contribute 6.95%, 5.78% and 4.82% of variance respectively.

This station is otherwise known as the temple city of Tamilnadu. The atmosphere of religious festivity is found all through the year in the city. The urban environments with its characteristic discharges completely change, when the city limits are crossed. Green fertile agricultural lands are seen in all directions with the intense rice cultivation.

136

Table-4.48: Rotated factor loadings for Cauvery at Kumbakonam (significant bolded) Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 Bicarbonate .878 .123 -.083 .045 -.139 .238 Turbidity .869 .116 .105 .166 .072 -.172 T.Alkalinity .847 .421 .050 -.040 .256 .146 T.Hardness .780 .359 -.102 .427 -.039 .086 T.Nitrogen .747 .412 -.120 .346 .046 -.008 Chloride .713 .520 .031 .260 -.248 .076 Calcium .601 .466 -.110 .583 .065 .143 Temperature .595 .277 .582 .116 -.300 -.030 Fluoride .325 .878 -.044 .030 .165 -.153 EC .229 .871 .057 .343 -.037 .065 TDS .229 .871 .057 .343 -.037 .065 Sodium .285 .671 -.305 .528 .062 -.082 BOD .572 .622 1.742E-5 .074 .191 .392 COD .397 .592 -.028 .200 .065 .358 Carbonate -.036 -.015 .954 -.011 .127 .036 P.Alkalinity -.036 -.015 .954 -.011 .127 .036 pH .057 -.110 .917 -.177 -.078 .175 Nitrite .342 .357 -.159 .814 .083 -.068 Potassium .414 .340 -.061 .792 .075 -.167 Magnesium .243 -.195 -.475 -.730 .028 -.198 DO -.221 -.034 .440 -.651 -.245 -.457 Phosphate .163 .316 .007 .120 .860 -.183 Sulphate .450 .344 -.376 -.113 -.675 .024 Nitrate .101 .052 .302 .003 -.238 .858 Eigen value 11.232 3.89 2.473 1.669 1.386 1.157 % of 46.8 16.21 10.305 6.952 5.775 4.819 Variance Cumulative 46.8 63.009 73.315 80.267 86.042 90.861 %

137

Fig-4.87: Scree plot for S10: Kumbakonam

Fig-4.88: Component plot in rotated space

Fig-4.89: Radar diagram for PCs

138

4.1.11. Sampling station – 11: Aduthurai I) Reasons for selecting  Semi urban and pilgrim spot II) Sampling location

Fig-4.90: Activities around the sampling spot-S11

Sampling spot; Temple; Crematorium; Vegetation

Solid waste dumps; Fishing; Cattle wading III) Influencing factors a) Occupation: Agriculture b) Social: Temple, cremation ground c) Public: Sand dredging through carts d) Personal: Washing. Cleaning, bathing, cattle wading and Defecation IV) Descriptive Statistical Analysis The descriptive statistics of the data on physic-chemical parameters are given in Table-4.49.

139

Table-4.49: Descriptive statistics of water quality parameters of S11 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Temperature 12 28 37 31.50 2.611 6.818 pH 12 8.0 8.7 8.325 .2221 .049 EC 12 588 997 750.33 138.249 19112.788 TDS 12 376.32 638.08 480.2133 88.47936 7828.598 Turbidity 12 2.6 23.4 11.700 7.5855 57.540 DO 12 4.7 8.1 6.875 1.0411 1.084 COD 12 8 36 24.67 8.669 75.152 BOD 12 1.5 7.8 4.100 1.8305 3.351 P.Alkalinity 12 0 40 14.17 11.645 135.606 T.Alkalinity 12 128 340 241.57 68.635 4710.762 T.Hardness 12 102 295 175.70 53.117 2821.371 T.Nitrogen 12 .0 2.8 1.450 .9653 .932 Chloride 12 44.0 138.0 76.858 32.1247 1031.997 Fluoride 12 .40 1.30 .8950 .29497 .087 Nitrite 12 .000 .600 .11142 .193028 .037 Nitrate 12 .1 .5 .232 .1256 .016 Sulphate 12 10.0 26.2 16.117 5.5993 31.352 Phosphate 12 .01 .09 .0467 .02926 .001 Carbonate 12 0 48 17.00 13.974 195.273 Bicarbonate 12 130 350 229.83 56.417 3182.879 Calcium 12 28.0 74.2 42.208 12.5481 157.455 Magnesium 12 8.0 29.2 16.926 7.1817 51.577 Sodium 12 40.0 145.9 78.517 28.5886 817.311 Potassium 12 4.6 16.4 7.220 3.1890 10.170

140

V) Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

The Rotated factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and Cumulative percentage for station11 are presented in Table-4.50. As per this table and Scree plot (Fig-4.91), six PCs are found for this station. PC1 accounts for 48.7% (Table-4.50) of the variance in the water quality of River Cauvery. According to the radar diagram (Fig-4.93), calcium, chloride, total alkalinity, bicarbonate, total hardness, turbidity, total nitrogen, nitrite, DO and magnesium are the parameters aligned in PC1, which are highly correlated. PC2 accounts for 19.08% of the variance with EC, TDS, fluoride, sodium and COD as its components.

The contribution of PC3 is 9.05% of variance (pH, p.alkalinity, carbonate and temperature). It is followed by PC4 (phosphate and potassium) and PC5 (sulphate, nitrate and BOD), which contribute 7.06%, and 5.74% of variance respectively.

Tamilnadu Rice Research station is located here. Agriculture is the chief occuapation of the people. Other popular social and personal human activities are noticed in the station. Number of pilgrim centres is located around the station.

141

Table-4.50: Rotated factor loadings for Cauvery at Aduthurai (significant bolded) Component 1 2 3 4 5 Calcium .965 .204 .018 -.003 -.050 T.Hardness .895 .336 .013 .190 .175 Bicarbonate .894 .166 .006 -.048 .366 DO -.798 -.460 .319 -.082 .032 Nitrite .744 .380 .165 .360 -.314 Magnesium .726 .172 .083 .403 .488 T.Alkalinity .645 .377 .089 .384 .520 Nitrogen .589 .421 -.003 .503 .373 Chloride .521 .467 .495 .061 .348 Turbidity .481 .093 .426 .425 .217 COD .191 .929 -.107 -.095 .022 EC .399 .858 .013 .222 -.007 TDS .399 .858 .013 .222 -.007 Fluoride .277 .708 .063 .454 .259 Sodium .299 .702 .067 .506 .198 P.Alkalinity -.131 -.069 .975 .031 .117 Carbonate -.131 -.069 .975 .031 .117 pH .028 -.102 .889 .138 .199 Temperature .303 .273 .805 -.107 -.012 Phosphate .065 .157 -.016 .905 -.152 Potassium .526 .384 .281 .544 -.254 Sulphate .194 .359 .207 -.116 .756 Nitrate -.029 .336 -.346 .149 -.714 BOD .128 .484 .452 .322 .499 Eigen value 11.687 4.58 2.172 1.694 1.377 % of 48.697 19.083 9.049 7.059 5.738 Variance Cumulative 48.697 67.78 76.829 83.888 89.626 %

142

Fig-4.91: Scree plot for S11: Aduthurai

Fig-4.92: Component plot in rotated space

Fig-4.93: radar diagram for PCs

143

4.1.12. Sampling station – 12: Mayiladuthurai I) Reasons for selecting  Urbanization II) Sampling location

Fig-4.94: Activities around the sampling spot-S12

Sampling spot; Temple; Vegetation; Solid waste dumps;

Fishing; Cattle wading Residential III) Influencing factors a) Occupation: Agriculture and urban activities b) Social: Temple, c) Public: Confluence of non-point sources of sewages d) Personal: Washing. bathing, cattle wading and Defecation IV) Descriptive Statistical Analysis The descriptive statistics of the data on physic-chemical parameters are given in Table-4.51.

144

Table-4.51: Descriptive statistics of water quality parameters of S12 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Temperature 12 24 34 30.17 2.480 6.152 pH 12 7.4 8.7 8.108 .3988 .159 EC 12 585 1056 760.58 158.427 25098.992 TDS 12 374.40 675.84 486.7733 101.39303 10280.547 Turbidity 12 2.5 19.0 8.742 4.3234 18.692 DO 12 4.7 7.7 6.200 .9964 .993 COD 12 12 40 24.67 8.998 80.970 BOD 12 1.1 7.2 4.067 1.9161 3.672 P.Alkalinity 12 0 40 10.00 12.792 163.636 T.Alkalinity 12 138 425 251.08 91.915 8448.447 T.Hardness 12 100 305 177.25 59.027 3484.205 T.Nitrogen 12 .4 3.2 1.783 .9889 .978 Chloride 12 38.0 141.1 79.175 35.5688 1265.137 Fluoride 12 .40 1.32 .8942 .33966 .115 Nitrite 12 .000 .675 .13383 .202405 .041 Nitrate 12 .1 .6 .313 .1506 .023 Sulphate 12 8.2 27.8 16.254 5.4330 29.518 Phosphate 12 .01 .10 .0568 .02729 .001 Carbonate 12 0 48 12.00 15.350 235.636 Bicarbonate 12 144 325 224.03 44.462 1976.844 Calcium 12 28.0 92.0 49.042 20.0339 401.357 Magnesium 12 7.0 29.2 14.096 5.6646 32.087 Sodium 12 43.0 192.2 87.150 47.3046 2237.721

145

V) Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

The Rotated factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and Cumulative percentage for station12 are presented in Table-4.52. As per this table and Scree plot (Fig-4.95), six PCs are found for this station. PC1 accounts for 43.63% (Table-4.52) of the variance in the water quality of River Cauvery. According to the radar diagram (Fig-4.97), TDS, EC, chloride, total alkalinity, sodium, BOD, fluoride, sulphate and total nitrogen are the parameters aligned in PC1, which are highly correlated. PC2 accounts for 19.38% of the variance with COD, nitrite, potassium, calcium, total hardness and temperature as its components.

The contribution of PC3 is 10.24% of variance (carbonate, pH and p.alkalinity). It is followed by PC4 (nitrate, magnesium and bicarbonate), PC5 (phosphate) and PC6 (turbidity and temperature), which contribute 7.95%, 6.0% and 4.33% of variance respectively.

It is the eastern most sampling station with an urban environment. Since the width of the river is very narrow, it is locally known as „Aadu thandum Cauvery‟ meaning that a lamb can leap across the river from one bank to then next one. Because of very narrow width of this station and the dense colonization on the river bank, this station is considered as one of the most polluted station of this study. In every other aspect the area is identical to S10 & S11.

The Govt. oil refinery is located close to the sampling station at Kuthalam upstream of S12. It does not create any influence in the river water.

146

Table-4.52: Rotated factor loadings for Cauvery at Mayiladuthurai (significant bolded) Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sulphate .828 -.031 .144 .079 -.389 .086 BOD .825 .128 -.084 .144 .095 .059 Chloride .816 .240 -.262 .318 -.122 .159 Sodium .799 .227 .410 -.011 -.017 -.217 Fluoride .798 .249 -.095 .191 .242 -.110 T.Nitrogen .706 .206 .368 .437 .224 -.170 EC .698 .498 .117 .016 .374 -.199 TDS .698 .498 .117 .016 .374 -.199 T.Alkalinity .647 .585 .100 .433 .118 .082 Nitrite .217 .817 .379 .227 .123 .136 COD .558 .772 -.140 -.024 .012 -.033 Potassium -.010 .757 .427 -.163 .237 .066 DO -.245 -.753 .481 -.086 -.013 .062 Calcium .585 .657 .301 .296 .073 .002 T.Hardness .525 .629 .088 .521 .165 .011 Carbonate .167 .167 .931 -.098 -.055 .174 P.Alkalinity .167 .167 .931 -.098 -.055 .174 pH -.115 -.048 .860 -.357 -.114 -.201 Nitrate -.058 .090 .069 -.910 .332 .041 Magnesium .271 .150 -.407 .821 .232 -.005 Bicarbonate .320 .224 -.349 .780 .024 -.119 Phosphate .128 .208 -.188 -.051 .933 -.008 Temperature -.036 -.045 .015 .052 -.297 .905 Turbidity -.069 .108 .165 -.179 .314 .797 Eigen value 10.472 4.65 2.457 1.908 1.44 1.039 % of 43.633 19.375 10.239 7.952 5.998 4.328 Variance Cumulative 43.633 63.008 73.248 81.2 87.198 91.526 %

147

Fig-4.95: Scree plot for S12: Mayiladuthurai

Fig-4.96: Component plot in rotatedd space

Fig-4.97: Radar diagram for PCs

148

4.1.13. All stations-all months-Principal components The descriptive statistics for all the sampling stations during the twelve months are illustrated in table-4.53.

Table-4.53: Descriptive statistics of water quality parameters for all stations Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean SD Variance

Temperature 144 24 40 31.47 2.904 8.432 pH 144 7.4 9.1 8.25 .274 .075 EC 144 558 1118 768.10 137.93 19023.7 TDS 144 357.12 715.5 491.58 88.273 7792.12 Turbidity 144 1.2 29.6 7.710 5.62 31.54 DO 144 4.7 8.6 6.939 .827 .684 COD 144 8 52 25.47 9.411 88.56 BOD 144 .6 7.8 3.524 1.594 2.542 P.Alkalinity 144 0 40 13.61 11.195 125.33 T.Alkalinity 144 98 425 242.57 61.88 3829.63 T.Hardness 144 67 325 182.07 53.84 2898.40 T.Nitrogen 144 .0 4.4 1.666 1.055 1.113 Chloride 144 30.0 168.0 82.85 34.505 1190.6 Fluoride 144 .30 1.50 .9036 .2945 .087 Nitrite 144 .000 .875 .0829 .14154 .020 Nitrate 144 .0 .6 .316 .1410 .020 Sulphate 144 5.0 31.3 16.69 6.364 40.503 Phosphate 144 .00 .15 .0536 .03 .001 Carbonate 144 0 48 16.50 13.68 187.049 Bicarbonate 144 119 384 222.68 51.21 2622.91 Calcium 144 16.0 122.0 47.69 19.274 371.50 Magnesium 144 3.4 35.5 15.18 5.779 33.39 Sodium 144 15.5 192.6 84.27 34.228 1171.56 Potassium 144 1.3 23.5 7.80 3.695 13.65

149

Table-4.54 exposes the Rotated factor loading, Eigen value, Percentage of variance and Cumulative percentage for all stations-all months. As per this table and Scree plot (Fig-4.98), six PCs are found for all stations. PC1 accounts for 38.88% (Table-4.54) of the variance in the water quality of River Cauvery. According to the radar diagram (Fig-4.100), TDS, EC, chloride, total alkalinity, total hardness, calcium, sodium, BOD, fluoride, potassium and total nitrogen are the parameters aligned in PC1, which are highly correlated. Only these physic- chemical parameters occur in PC1 of more than 50% of the sampling stations (table). Hence these parameters are considered as the most significance once determining the quality of the river water in the present study area (Karur to Mayiladurai).

Phosphate and nitrate are totally eliminated in the individual sampling station under PC1. But phosphate as PC4 and nitrate as PC5 occur in the rotated component matrix of all stations-all months. Temperature, pH, p.alkalinity, COD, carbonate, DO and magnesium are included as PC1 in any one of the sampling stations only. Hence their significance is relatively less.

PC2 accounts for 13.67% of the variance with pH, p.alkalinity and carbonate its components. The contribution of PC3 is 8.03% of variance (Temperature, turbidity and nitrite). It is followed by PC4 (phosphate, sulphate and COD), PC5 (nitrate and magnesium) and PC6 (DO and bicarbonate), which contribute 6.08%, 4.83% and 4.41% of variance respectively.

150

Table-4.54: Rotated factor loadings for Cauvery for all stations-all months (significant bolded) Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 TDS .891 .089 .042 .080 .009 .217 EC .891 .089 .042 .080 .009 .217 Sodium .851 .114 .087 .031 -.134 .123 T.Hardness .847 -.011 .269 .030 .094 .218 Chloride .831 -.003 .348 -.147 .125 .118 Fluoride .826 -.150 -.001 .083 .166 -.384 T.Alkalinity .802 -.072 .314 .060 .189 .158 T.Nitrogen .753 -.078 .198 .025 .004 -.197 Calcium .745 .107 .348 .062 -.222 .204 BOD .698 -.065 .305 .199 .068 -.211 Potassium .521 .128 .460 .346 -.079 .336 P.Alkalinity .018 .961 .037 .058 -.016 -.064 Carbonate .020 .956 .024 .073 .001 -.072 pH .076 .906 .076 -.187 -.063 .001 Turbidity .276 .000 .757 -.055 .011 .201 Temperature .231 .285 .602 -.138 .257 -.370 Nitrite .435 -.012 .577 .300 -.212 .044 Phosphate .217 -.047 -.003 .785 .228 .154 Sulphate .491 .071 .167 -.634 .046 .217 COD .425 .017 .287 .541 -.236 -.077 Nitrate .113 -.095 -.069 -.163 -.760 .054 Magnesium .371 -.253 -.115 -.150 .623 .080 Bicarbonate .396 -.255 .204 -.191 .325 .579 DO -.180 .402 -.125 -.277 .256 -.473 Eigen value 9.33 3.28 1.93 1.46 1.16 1.06 % of 38.88 13.67 8.03 6.08 4.83 4.41 Variance Cumulative 38.88 52.55 60.58 66.67 71.5 75.91 %

151

Fig-4.98: Scree plot for all stations-all months

Fig-4.99: Component plot in rotated space

Fig-4.100: Radar diagram for PCs of all stations

152

Table-4.55: PC1 of all sampling stations No. of S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 occurrence T.Alkalinity + + + + + + + - + + + + 11 Chloride + + + + + + - + + + + + 11 T.Hardness + + + + + - + + + + + - 10 Calcium + + + + + - + + + + + - 10 Sodium + + + + + + + + + - - + 10 TDS + + + + + + - - - - - + 7 EC + + + + + + - - - - - + 7 BOD + + - + + + + - - - - + 7 Potassium + + + + - - + + + - - - 7 Fluoride - + - + + + + - - - - + 6 Turbidity - + - - - - - + + + + - 5 T.Nitrogen - - - - + - + - - + + + 5 Bicarbonate - + - + - - - - - + + - 4 Nitrite ------+ + - - + - 3 Sulphate - - - - - + - - - - - + 2 COD ------+ - - - - - 1 pH ------+ - - - 1 P.Alkalinity ------+ - - - 1 Carbonate ------+ - - - 1 Temperature ------+ - - 1 DO ------+ - 1 Magnesium ------+ - 1 Phosphate ------0 Nitrate ------0 Total 9 12 8 11 10 8 10 7 10 8 10 9

Total alkalinity and chloride are the most predominant chemical parameters influencing the water quality as per the present study (Table PC1). Total hardness, calcium and sodium rank next followed by EC, TDS, potassium and BOD in the third level. Nitrate and phosphate are totally eliminated from the status of PC1 of all stations.

153

Table-4.56: PC2 of all sampling stations No. of S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 occurrence pH + + + + + + ------6 P.Alkalinity + + + + + + ------6 Carbonate + + + + + + ------6 EC ------+ + + + - 4 TDS ------+ + + + - 4 Magnesium - + - + - - + + - - - - 4 Sulphate + + - - - - - + - - - - 3 Bicarbonate - - - - + + + - - - - - 3 DO ------+ - - - - + 2 COD ------+ + - 2 BOD ------+ - + 2 Fluoride ------+ + - 2 Sodium ------+ + - 2 Temperature - - - - - + ------1 Turbidity ------+ - - - - - 1 T.Hardness ------+ 1 Chloride ------+ - - - - - 1 Nitrite ------+ 1 Calcium ------+ 1 Potassium ------+ 1 T.Alkalinity ------0 T.Nitrogen ------0 Nitrate ------0 Phosphate ------0 Total 4 5 3 4 4 5 5 4 2 6 5 6

pH, P.alkalinity and carbonate are the primary parameters for PC2 of all sampling stations. EC, TDS and magnesium are the secondary ones. Total alkalinity, total nitrogen, nitrate and phosphate are totally excluded from PC2. Nitrate and phosphate are not only rejected from PC2 but also from PC1. Hence

154 these two are not the regulator of water quality in this study. The sources of phosphates and nitrates to any water body are 1. Fertilizers, 2. Municipal sewage, 3. Biodegradable plant and animal matter and some industries. Phosphate also increases in water where detergents are profusely used. All the above activities occur in almost all the sampling stations. This would have resulted in the excessive amounts of these two nutrients elements in the water samples. But as per tables

4.55 & 4.56, PO4 and NO3 their content is too low to be considered as pollutant. These two elements being macro-nutrients for plant and microbial growth (Salisbury and Ross, 1974), phytoremediation through rooted higher plants and bioremediation by algae and bacteria would have considerably removed these nutrient elements from the river water, which is their habitat. Excessive algal blooms, benthic algae, herbs, shrubs and trees are found all along the river serving as primary producers in this study. Microbial population of Cauvery water has been listed out by Jeyaram (2000). Table-4.57: % of variance of principal components of the sampling stations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S1 39.92 15.36 12.46 9.54 6.99 5.50 4.50 S2 36.539 17.781 12.212 8.608 8.03 5.404 4.404 S3 34.571 17.484 16.379 7.193 6.377 5.479 4.325 S4 39.151 16.774 13.871 8.986 6.736 5.301 - S5 38.145 16.2 14.729 9.384 6.411 5.579 4.216 S6 42.358 15.247 11.863 11.133 6.142 5.192 - S7 55.777 12.52 10.498 6.814 5.019 - - S8 48.122 14.729 13.411 6.915 5.269 4.851 - S9 48.241 14.746 10.965 8.871 4.934 4.179 - S10 46.8 16.21 10.305 6.952 5.775 4.819 - S11 48.697 19.083 9.049 7.059 5.738 - - S12 43.633 19.375 10.239 7.952 5.998 4.328 -

The number of principal components for the sampling stations varies between 5 (S7 & S11), 6 (S4, S6, S8, S9, S10 & S12) and 7 (S1, S2, S3 & S5). Percentage of variance of PC1 ranges between 34.57 (S3) to 55.78 (S7). Percentage of variance of PC2 is between 12.52 (S7) to 19.38 (S12). PC7 does not vary much.

155

4.3. Biological Parameters

4.3.1. Total Coliform

The total coliform bacteria test is a primary indicator of "potability”, suitability for consumption, of drinking water. It measures the concentration of total coliform bacteria associated with the possible presence of disease causing organisms. Coliform bacteria are the commonly-used bacterial indicator of sanitary quality of foods and water. They are defined as rod-shaped Gram-negative non- spore forming organisms. Coliforms are abundant in the feces of warm-blooded animals, but can also be found in the aquatic environment, in soil and on vegetation. In most instances, coliforms themselves are not the cause of sickness, but they are easy to culture and their presence is used to indicate that other pathogenic organisms of fecal origin may be present.

Typical genera include: Citrobacter, Enterobacter, Escherichia, Hafnia, Klebsiella and Serratia

Escherichia coli (E. coli), is a rod-shaped member of the coliform group. Unlike the general coliform group, E. coli are almost exclusively of fecal origin and their presence is thus an effective confirmation of fecal contamination. Typically, E. coli are about 11% of the coliforms in human feces.

The higher coliform density indicates that there is a continuous flow of domestic sewage, municipal sewage and other effluents and also due to the solid waste dumping and human excreta (Rajurkar et al., 2003).

Disease-causing microorganisms including bacteria that cause cholera and typhoid-fever, protozoa that cause dysentery, viruses that cause polio and hepatitis, helminthes such as roundworm and tapeworm causes Ascariasis - digestive disorders (EPA, 2003) are all found in association with Coliforms in water.

The total coliform content in all samples is very alarmingly high due to various anthropogenic activities. Kathiravan et al., (2010) also supports our observation in Koraiyar River at Tiruchirappalli. According to Raja et al., (2010) the total heterotrophic bacterial population is high in Cauvery water.

156

4.3.2. Fecal Coliform

Fecal coliforms (sometimes faecal coliforms) are facultatively-anaerobic, rod-shaped, gram-negative, non-sporulating bacteria. They are capable of growth in the presence of bile salts or similar surface agents, oxidase negative, and produce acid and gas from lactose within 48 hours at 44 ± 0.5ºC (WHO, 1987).

Fecal coliforms include the genera that originate in feces; Escherichia as well as genera that are not of fecal origin; Enterobacter, Klebsiella, and Citrobacter. The assay is intended to be an indicator of fecal contamination, or more specifically E. coli which is an indicator microorganism for other pathogens that may be present in feces (WHO, 1993).

In general, increased levels of fecal coliforms (fecal bacteria) provide a warning of failure in water treatment, a break in the integrity of the distribution system, or possible contamination with pathogens. When levels are high there may be an elevated risk of waterborne gastroenteritis. Tests for the bacteria are cheap, reliable and rapid (2-day incubation).

The presence of fecal coliform (fecal bacteria) in aquatic environments may indicate that the water has been contaminated with the fecal material of man or other animals. Fecal coliform bacteria can enter rivers through direct discharge of waste from mammals and birds, from agricultural and storm runoff, and from the main human sewage. However their presence may also be the result of plant material, and pulp or paper mill effluent (Chapman, 1996).

The fecal coliform content in all the sampling stations is also considerably high throughout (Table-4.59). The summer months (April & May) is very congenial for the rapid development of coliform bacteria, since the available water is very meager and there is no chance for dilution.

157

Table-4.58: Total Coliform (MPN/100ml) in all the sampling stations S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 17x102 34x102 33x102 34x102 27x102 34x102 33x102 33x102 34x102 33x102 34x102 33x102

Apr 26 x1010 22x1010 29x1010 29x1010 33x1010 31x1010 31x1010 36x1010 37x1010 40x1010 44x1010 48x1010

May 20x1012 15x1012 17x1012 20x1012 21x1012 23x1012 21x1012 25x1012 25x1012 28x1012 30x1012 33x1012

June 170x104 33x104 49 x104 170 x103 240x103 79 x104 220x104 170 x104 240x103 220x104 350x104 540x104

July 33x104 22x104 14x104 22x103 70x103 14x104 4x104 110x104 26x103 17x104 220x104 170x104

Aug 110x104 220x103 220x103 220x103 350x103 220x103 180x103 110x103 140x103 350x103 540x103 220x103

Sep 26x102 17x103 17x103 9x103 26x102 17x103 17x103 35x102 33x102 17x102 17x103 22x102

Oct 35x103 170x103 140x103 154x103 17x103 127x103 149x103 70x103 34x103 33x103 89x103 24x103

Nov 170x103 340x103 370x103 350x103 194x103 280x103 240x103 130x103 240x103 170x103 240x103 120x103

Dec 130x102 190x102 260x102 350x102 280x102 350x102 320x102 220x102 280x102 240x102 350x102 220x102

Jan 34x102 33x102 34x102 34x102 17x102 34x102 34x102 17x102 34x102 34x102 34x102 34x102

Feb 34x102 17x102 34x103 1600x102 17x103 2400x102 33x102 34x103 280x102 1600x102 220x102 34x103

158

Table-4.59: Fecal Coliform (MPN/100ml) in all the sampling stations S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Mar 9x102 11x102 22x102 26x102 5x102 9x102 17x102 17x102 17x102 14x102 27x102 17x102

Apr 48 x106 49x106 48X106 52x106 54x106 49x106 55x106 73x106 71x106 78x106 82x106 90x106

May 25x109 18x109 33x109 34x109 37x109 39x109 40x109 40x109 42x109 45x109 41x109 48x109

June 17x104 9x104 14 x104 34 x103 27 x103 17 x104 11 x104 7x104 9 x103 33x104 280x104 280 x104

July 5x103 4x103 2x103 7x103 7x104 4x103 7x103 14x103 11x103 5x104 9x104 7x104

Aug 17x103 17x103 11x103 14x103 17x104 33x103 17x103 9x103 17x103 9x104 17x104 26x104

Sep 17x102 7x102 5x102 4x102 5x102 17x102 7x102 5x102 17x102 14x102 9x103 14x102

Oct 23x102 11x103 70x102 76x102 12x102 67x102 74x102 63x102 20x102 19x102 94x102 20x102

Nov 14x103 23x103 22x103 33x103 16x103 17x103 16x103 12x103 14x103 17x103 22x103 12x103

Dec 11x102 14x102 22x102 27x102 22x102 29x102 19x102 17x102 22x102 14x102 21x102 17x102

Jan 5x102 6x102 17x102 17x102 12x102 17x102 17x102 9x102 17x102 17x102 17x102 17x102

Feb 14x102 12x102 17x102 34x102 33x102 34x102 17x102 17x102 17x102 34x102 21x102 17x102

159

4.3.3. Biological water quality evaluation Artificial (and in some cases natural) changes in the physical and chemical nature of freshwaters can produce diverse biological effects ranging from the severe (a total fish kill) to the subtle (for example changes in enzyme levels or sub- cellular components of organisms). Changes like these indicate that the ecosystem and its associated organisms are under stress or that the ecosystem has become unbalanced. As a result there could be possible implications for the intended uses of the water and even possible risks to human health. (Gray, 2006) Benthic macro-invertebrates are the best suitable biological parameter, among the biotic communities in aquatic ecosystem, as these organisms are stationary and they integrate the effect of pollution unlike other organisms which move from the site of pollution. They also show considerable sensitivity to pollution. They can be relatively easily collected, handled and identified.

4.3.3.1. Diversity Index The diversity is the ratio of the total number of different animals (runs) and the total number of organisms encountered. The ratio of diversity has a value between 0 and 1. Normally, high diversity of benthic animals always supports a good quality of water. Diversity indices are best applied to situations of toxic or physical pollution which impose general stress on the organisms. Stable ecosystems are generally characterized by high species diversity, with each species represented by relatively few individuals. Although diversity can be reduced by anthropogenic disturbance or stress, some natural conditions can also lead to reduced diversity and it is very important that diversity indices are only used to compare sites of similar physical and chemical characteristics. However, diversity alone cannot indicate the overall health of water body. High and low diversity could be due to the tolerant or sensitive animals to pollution. For biological water quality evaluation the diversity of benthic animals is compared with the saprobic score with the help of Biological Water Quality Criteria (BWQC).

4.3.3.2. Saprobic Index Saprobity is used to summarize the degree of pollution or level of organic matter discharged to a lotic system. The associations of particular organisms from all trophic levels with defined physical and chemical characteristics of the water have been combined with the abundance of the organisms to calculate their

160 saprobic value. The saprobic value is then combined with index values related to the abundance and sensitivity of the organisms to calculate the Saprobic Index.

Table-4.60: Biological Water Quality Evaluation-May, 2009 Range of Range of Water Station Indicator saprobic diversity Water quality quality code colour score score class S1 6.5 0.40 Slight pollution C Green S2 5.8 0.33 Moderate pollution C Green S3 5.8 0.31 Moderate pollution C Green S4 5.3 0.30 Moderate pollution C Green S5 4.0 0.30 Moderate pollution C Green S6 5.2 0.26 Moderate pollution C Green S7 5.2 0.30 Moderate pollution C Green S8 5.6 0.27 Moderate pollution C Green S9 2.6 0.40 Heavy pollution D Orange S10 4.8 0.30 Heavy pollution D Orange S11 5.2 0.36 Moderate pollution C Green S12 4.8 0.30 Heavy Pollution D Orange

Table-4.61: - Biological Water Quality Evaluation-Aug, 2009 Range of Range of Water Station Indicator saprobic diversity Water quality quality code colour score score class S1 4.2 0.32 Moderate pollution C Green S2 4.1 0.34 Moderate pollution C Green Slight Light S3 6.0 0.33 B Pollution blue S4 5.5 0.33 Moderate pollution C Green S5 4.4 0.50 Moderate pollution C Green S6 4.0 0.30 Moderate pollution C Green Heavy S7 4.8 0.30 D Orange Pollution S8 5.3 0.80 Moderate pollution C Green S9 4.3 0.30 Moderate pollution C Green S10 4.3 0.30 Moderate pollution C Green Heavy S11 2.5 0.25 D Orange Pollution S12 3.5 0.40 Moderate pollution C Green

161

Table-4.62: - Biological Water Quality Evaluation-Nov, 2009 Range of Range of Water Station Indicator Saprobic diversity Water quality quality code colour score score class S1 6.3 0.30 Slight pollution B Light blue S2 6.8 0.29 Slight pollution B Light blue S3 6.3 0.38 Slight pollution B Light blue S4 6.3 0.38 Slight pollution B Light blue S5 6.8 0.29 Slight pollution B Light blue S6 6.0 0.33 Slight pollution B Light blue S7 6.2 0.33 Slight pollution B Light blue S8 6.3 0.27 Slight pollution B Light blue S9 6.3 0.27 Slight pollution B Light blue S10 6.8 0.266 Slight pollution B Light blue S11 6.3 0.25 Moderate pollution C Green S12 4.8 0.2 Heavy Pollution D Orange

Table-4.63: - Biological Water Quality Evaluation-Feb, 2010 Range of Range of Water Station Indicator saprobic diversity Water quality quality code colour score score class S1 5.0 0.3 Clean A Blue S2 5.3 0.3 Clean A Blue S3 7.0 0.5 Slight pollution B Light blue S4 6.2 0.4 Moderate pollution C Green S5 6.0 0.4 Moderate pollution C Green S6 6.0 0.4 Moderate pollution C Green S7 4.8 0.3 Moderate pollution C Green S8 5.8 0.4 Slight pollution B Light blue S9 5.8 0.4 Moderate pollution C Green S10 4.5 0.3 Heavy pollution D Orange S11 4.8 0.3 Heavy pollution D Orange S12 4.0 0.3 Heavy pollution D Orange

162

Table-4.64: Biological Water Quality Evaluation (Category for Pollution of water) May August November February % (summer) (SWM) (NEM) (presummer) 50 S1 Moderate Moderate Slight Clean (Mode.) 50 S2 Moderate Moderate Slight Clean (Mode.) 75 S3 Moderate Slight Slight Slight (Slight) 75 S4 Moderate Moderate Slight Moderate (Mode.) 75 S5 Moderate Moderate Slight Moderate (Mode.) 75 S6 Moderate Moderate Slight Moderate (Mode.) 50 S7 Moderate Heavy Slight Moderate (Mode.) 50 S8 Moderate Moderate Slight Slight (Mode.) 50 S9 Heavy Moderate Slight Moderate (Mode.) 50 S10 Heavy Moderate Slight Heavy (Heavy) 50 S11 Moderate Heavy Moderate Heavy (Heavy) 75 S12 Heavy Moderate Heavy Heavy (Heavy)

Table-4.65: Percentage of category for water pollution Month/season Clean Slight Moderate Heavy May (summer) - - 75.0 25.0 August (SWM) - 8.3 75.0 16.6 November (NEM) - 83.0 8.3 8.3 February (pre-summer) 16.6 16.6 41.6 25.0

163

From Table- 4.64, it is clear that in the S1 & S2 sampling stations, 50% of the samples are moderate, in S4, S5 & S6, 75% of the samples are moderate, again in S8 & S9, 50% of the samples are moderate, but in S10 & S11, 50% of the samples are heavily polluted and S12 is 75% is heavily polluted. Out of the 4 seasons, in summer 75% of the stations fall under moderate category and 25% under heavy pollution. SWM is slightly different by having 8.3% of stations under slightly category. NEM season has 83% under slightly pollution category. Hence summer can be considered as the heavily pollution season and NEM as the least polluted season.

4.4. Riverine Biota and ecosystems Rivers are not mere „passive conduits‟ for the export of the elements to the oceans (Richey, 1983). They are elixir of life, habitats of biodiversity, cradles of civilization, pillars of economy and what not. Considering river as a system rather than a single factor supporting the system is the best approach. Hence river Cauvery is considered as the riverine ecosystem to the rich flora and fauna.

4.4.1 Riverine vegetation Three types of vegetation are observed in study area a) Aquatic weeds closer to banks (Algae, Hydrilla, Eichhornia, Pistia, Salvenia, Ipomoea, etc.) b) Sand dunes within the river (Cyperus, Ipomea, Saccharum, etc) c) River bank vegetation (tall trees – Teak, Mango, Ficus, Eucalyptus, Casuarina, etc.) Macrophytes are distinctive component of this ecosystem. Many of these aquatic plants have the characteristic structural tissues needed for the support in air, along with conducting tissue for movement of the transpiration stream. These tissues contain considerable amount of indigestible matter as cellulose, lignin, etc.

164

A. Distribution Aquatic weeds and river bank vegetation are found throughout the study area with some qualitative and quantitative variations. Sand dunes of various sizes and species diversity are found up to S9 (Thiruvaiyar). Sometimes the dunes develop into small islands with shrubs and trees. Ten large islands have been observed on the Cauvery River bed out of these three islands are located near Musiri (adjacent to northern bank) and three others at Mukkombu adjacent to northern bank. Four more islands are located near Vengur & Thoppur (Kallanai) (Jeyaram, 2000). Britto (2001) has extensively studied the floral distribution of the islands and as reported 536 species spread over 96 families.

B. Impacts  The velocity of the river water is considerably reduced by the vegetation and the depth and course of water is altered.  The water weeds and roots of the bank vegetation absorb nutrients and scavenge pollutants from the water and substratum.  Senesced and dead plant parts add up organic matter to the water. Some of them release toxic substances namely tannins into the water, changing its quality.  Being produces they support the food chain and food web in the riverine ecosystems.  Different plants also serve as shelters for different animals  The root systems control soil/sand erosion and flooding of the banks.  When dry, the vegetation is set to fire for eradication. This adds inorganic elements to water.  The algae are found to grow upon sand, stones, rocks, shells and other solid wastes making them slippery (plate-18).  The algae develop into blooms importing bad odor and color to water.

 The rate of algal photosynthesis and hence O2 liberation is high during the day. This contributes to the DO of the water (Plate-19).  Oil and toxic substances are release into the water by some algae (Plate- 19). The dead algal shells discharge nutrients in to the surrounding water.

165

4.4.2. Aquatic animals Animals are observed in study area can be group into two, aquatic and river bank animals: - a) Aquatic animals: - arthropods, mollusks, fishes, amphibians & reptiles b) River bank animals: - arthropods, amphibians, reptiles, aves & mammals c) Slender Loris, one of the highly endangered animals was sited at Thirumukkudal (S3). It was identified while being chased by a snake on the tree top. The other important invertebrate and vertebrate animals sited in the study area are depicted in plates-20 & 21. A) Distribution Found in all sampling stations (density and diversity depends on the seasons) B) Impacts  The wading cattle disturb the aquatic plants, river substratum and water  Dung/ defecation, excretive materials add nitrogenous and carbonaceous matter to water  Dead animals putrefy and eutrophicate the water  Pathogenic water borne diseases are spread  Bones and shells of animals discharge calcium & phosphorous into water  Some animals secrete toxins for protection. These toxins find their way into water.

4.4.3. Biotic Interactions The biotic interactions are diverse and frequent in the riverine ecosystem of Cauvery (Plate-24). 1. Competition – various levels of organisms in the river water compete for space, food, breeding, etc. 2. Mutualism – producer plants supply food and oxygen to the consumers and decomposers. Intern the consumers and decomposers supply nutrient and carbon dioxide to plants. 3. Epiphytic association – number of algae grow on aquatic macrophytes. 4. Allelopathy – water blooms and Eichornea dominate plant communities through their chemical secretion.

166

5. Saprophytic association – the dead organic matter is the source of energy for some fungi and bacteria. 6. Grazing – the cattle graze on riverine vegetation, fish and insects on aquatic plants. 7. Zoophilly – butterflies, bugs, bats and squirrels are pollinators. 8. Zoochory – birds and animals disperse seeds. 9. Epizoans – filamentous algae grown on the shells of mollusks. 10. Habitat – aquatic birds nest on riverine tree tops. Roots of plants support mollusks and other animals. 11. Photosynthesis – oxygen supply – all aquatic animals depend on algae and aquatic plants for their respiratory oxygen. 12. Feeding – predator prey relation among various groups of animals- Planktons and benthons → fish → aquatic birds → terrestrial mammals.

4.4.4. Riverine Ecosystem The river and its surrounding function as a typical ecosystem with the characteristics abiotic and biotic components. Water is a main factor which regulates the structure and functioning of this ecosystem. Since the quality and quantity of water changes frequently this ecosystem is highly dynamic exhibiting rapid and diversified seasonal (Plate- 23) and spatial variations e.g. within a short distance complete aquatic, semi aquatic and non-aquatic situations can be observed in a river when the flow is very little. Earlier Jayaram (2000) has also made such dynamism in the Cauvery Riverine ecosystem.

Different food chains, food webs and biotic interactions occur within the riverine ecosystems. Producers (algae, hydrophytes and mesophytes) support the various levels of consumers (zooplanktons, invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, and aves & mammals). Decomposers (bacteria & fungi) help to sustain the biogeochemical cycles operating in the ecosystems (Fig-4.102).

Rivers degrade a large fraction of organic carbon from both autochthonous and allochthonous much of the decomposition is due to the activity of

167 heterotrophic bacteria and the turnover rate is quite high in rivers (White et al., 1991; Jahnke and Craven, 1995 and Cotner & Biddanda, 2002).

Solar energy is the ultimate source of energy for this ecosystem. Algae and aquatic macrophytes harvest this energy during photosynthesis and transform it into biomass. Oxygen is released as a by-product. The biomass and the oxygen support the various consumers in their secondary production. The excretory and the dead organic matter of the consumers are the source of energy for the decomposers. The solar energy entering into the ecosystems through the producers via the consumers and decomposers get dispersed within the ecosystem at various levels. Thus, the flow of energy is unidirectional as in every other ecosystem.

The inorganic nutrients observed by the aquatic plants moves onto the animals in the organic form and later the decomposers convert this back into the inorganic nutrients. Various biogeochemical viz. nitrogen, phosphorous, sulphur, carbon, oxygen, etc. are constantly cycled back.

The grazing food chain in the riverine ecosystem is represented in Fig- 4.102. Various forms of algae and aquatic macrophytes are the chief producers in the first trophic level. The herbivorous, omnivorous and carnivorous animals take up the secondary, tertiary and quaternary trophic levels which constitute the consumers. The highest trophic level may vary from station to station depending upon the adjacent terrestrial ecosystem example birds, mammals. Since the producers are always highest in number and the other trophic levels are lesser generally, the pyramid of number is erect (Fig-4.103). But the pyramid of biomass in the aquatic ecosystem is inverted since the biomass of the producers (algae) are the minimum (Bhatia, 1999).

Jeyaram (2000) has described existence of intricate food web in the Cauvery ecosystem. The riverine ecosystem of Cauvery at Thirumukkudal has been intensely studied by Selvakumar (2008). He has reported that the biodiversity rich ecosystem is dominated by herbaceous vegetation. He has also mentioned the presence of Slender Loris. Sited birds and animals have also been listed out.

168

Fig-4.101: The river water quality determinants and consequences Fig-4.102: The grazing food chain in the Riverine ecosystem (Miller, 2004)

169

Fig-4.103: Food chain and ecological pyramid functioning in Cauvery

[Primary producers - Phytoplanktons, filamentous algae and aquatic macrophytes (Algae, Hydrilla, Eichhornia, Pistia, Salvenia, Ipomoea, etc.) Primary consumers – Zooplanktons, Herbivorous fish (Catla, Labeo, Cirrhinus), mollusks and insect‟s larvae. Secondary consumers – Frag, Omnivorous fish (Oreochromis, Puntius). Tertiary consumers – Water snakes, aquatic birds (Cormorant, Little Egret, Heron, King Fisher, etc.), carnivorous fish (Mystus, Clarius, Glossogobius, Channa, Heteropneustes)]

Any disruption or pressure on the quality of the basic abiotic element, the water, normal functioning of the entire ecosystem will be disturbed (Fig-4.101 water quality). Also the riverine ecosystem is always in continuation with other ecosystems such as the forest, grassland or cultivable lands in the terrestrial region or the coastal and deep sea zones in aquatic systems (Fig-4.104 inter). Any damage to the riverine ecosystem may possibly impair the entire biome. Thus, the need for water quality sustenance is evident.

170

Vannote (1980) has proposed the river continuum concept, in an attempt to integrate predictable and absorbable biological features of biotic water system with the physical environment. He postulated that biotic communities of natural systems adopt processing strategies that seek to minimize energy loss with downstream communities capitalizing or thriving on upstream processing in efficiencies.

Rivers play a key role in the global carbon cycle, rivers and estuaries transport organic carbon from the terrestrial and fresh water ecosystem to the marine environment. Bacteria in the rivers degrade the organic matter originating from both aquatic and terrestrial sources. A large amount of allochthonous carbon enters from catchments providing supplemental organic carbon to „within-system production‟ and large rivers systems tend to be net heterotrophic where in more carbon is respired (CO2 reduce to the atmosphere) than is locally produced (dissolved inorganic carbon). Net heterotrophic may also enhance in turbid river systems where plankton and macrophytes growth is limited by light penetration (Cole and Caraco, 2001).

Human activities strongly influence the riverine sediment supplied to the estuary in many rivers. Continuous increase in population enhanced land use change and intensified surface erosion through activities such as deforestation, dam construction, etc. (Yang et al., 2004).

171

Fig-4.104: Interlinking of Riverine ecosystem with other ecosystems

172

4.5 Identified Anthropogenic Activities 4.5.1. Industrial, commercial and occupational exploitations 4.5.1.1 Manufacturing Industries A. Distribution Various types of industries are distributed around the first four sampling stations. 1) Paper – S1: Pugalur 2) Dyeing – non-point sources between S1 & S3 (Pugalur – Thirumukkudal) 3) Sugar – S1: Pugalur, S2: Mohanur & S4: Pettavaithalai. 4) Cement – Puliyur (between S2 & S3) 5) Oil refinery – Kuthalam (between S11 & S12) Many other industries viz. distilleries, tanneries, diary, metal industries, food processing industries, etc. are situated in various locations, which directly discharge the effluents in various tributaries of river or indirectly discharge through sewage into the River Cauvery. All the above mentioned industries have been grouped under red category by MoEF (1999).

Table-4.66: Heavy metals (µg/L) Station Cd Cr Cu Fe Ni Pb Zn Hg S1 0.34 0.28 2.9 250.2 1.54 2.94 1.14 0.006 S2 0.14 0.14 1.64 172.5 1.06 1.08 1.08 0.0 S3 0.22 0.18 2.1 120.5 0.94 1.58 0.7 0.006 S4 0.1 0.1 2.2 207.4 3.0 4.4 0.4 0.0 S5 4.1 0.1 2.22 159.1 1.34 1.8 0.68 0.0 S6 0.06 0.12 2.38 176.4 0.82 0.98 1.12 0.0 S7 0.44 0.14 5.04 176 1.36 7.5 4.24 0.006 S8 0.14 0.12 3.42 250.8 2.34 2.98 0.94 0.0 S9 0.36 0.12 2.98 175.7 3.82 2.34 1.56 0.0 S10 0.16 0.1 2.36 120.5 1.24 1.68 1.16 0.006 S11 0.28 0.18 4.36 283.2 1.44 2.74 1.86 0.006 S12 0.08 0.08 1.46 72.1 0.64 0.52 0.4 0.006

One of the important aspects of industries is heavy metals pollution table- 4.66 represents the quantity of 8 metals estimated as one time approach in this

173

study area. Among these metals the quantity of Fe is relatively very high in river water. But for Hg the other metals are detected in all the sampling stations. All these metals are well below the permissible limits, except the Cd of S5 (WHO, 1993). The maximum quantities of Cu, Pb, Zn and Hg are found in S7, where the Tiruchirappalli city sewage confluences into the river. Relatively most of the estimated metals are in higher quantities in this stretch of the river when compare to the tributaries such as Amaravathy, Noyyal, Bhavani, etc. and the other courses of the river upstream and downstream of our study area (Marimuthu, 2010). B. Impacts  Considerable changes occur in the color, odor, pH, etc, turbidity, solids, dissolved oxygen, COD, BOD, etc.  The public report that at times the river water appeared colors and at these times number of dermal and digestive disorders occurred. When this water is irrigated the agriculture productivity is affected. C. Suggested solution 1. Implementation of advanced processing technologies in the industries for zero pollution 2. Stringent laws for ETP commissioning and efficient functioning 3. TNPCB is highly appreciated towards ordering all the Tamilnadu industries for mechanical removal of solid wastes and sludge. It will be more appreciated if periodic and surprise checking is done in the industries. 4. New permits must be avoided for industries on the river banks.

4.5.1.2 Cottage industries 4.5.1.2.1. Brick making A. Distribution:- S7 & S8 B. Processing: - the raw material for brick making is the silted clay in the river beds. It is rich in humus which is responsible for the soil fertility of the delta region. Removal of the raw material results in the loss of fertility of the cultivable delta lands.

174

Various types & numbers of bricks are made depending upon the customers‟ orders. 1. Solid brick: - Wt.2.5kg, Vol. 1397.5 cm2, 2. Hollow brick: - Wt. 3.25kg, Vol. 1725cm2. The brick is molded out of the wet clay and is processed in the river banks and initially evaporated. The bricks are then are arranged in the form of kilns and baked using fire woods. The process waste and the kiln ash are disposed off also in the river banks. C. Impacts: - 1. Settled impurities get mixed up while collecting the clay, 2. The ash from the kiln changes the water quality. D. Suggested solutions: - Alternatives for clay must be used including the kiln ash.

4.5.1.2.2. Pot making A. Distribution: - S3 & S4 B. Processing: - for pottery also silted clay is the raw material. The clay is collected from the river beds and processed on the river banks. Pots are made over wheel and dried on the banks. They are also baked like the bricks. Mostly paddy straw is used as the fuel. The process waste is again discharged into the river beds. The miserable fact is that the art of pottery is rapidly dwindling down. Only a very few potters are found here and there. C. Impacts: - Settled impurities get mixed up while collecting the clay

4.5.1.2.3. Mat making A. Distribution: - S2, S3 & S4 B. Processing: - the raw material for mat making is the mat grass (Cyperus corymbosus). It is cultivated in and around Mohanur, Thirumukkudal and Pettavaithalai in large scale. The harvested grass is processed by soaking it in water as bundles and drying away. According to the required size the grasses cut and weaved either manually or mechanically. Various attractive colours are dyed over grass to make specific designs over the mats. C. Impacts: - Mat grass waste and mat dyes pollute the water. Since mat making is done in smaller pockets. Their impact is not felt very much through the process is unseasonal. D. Suggestions: - Waste should not be disposed in the river and it should be composed.

175

4.5.1.2.4. Thatching and coir making A. Distribution: - randomly all stations of river banks especially between Mukkombu and Kambarasampettai. B. Processing: - the coconut leaves and husks are immersed in water during the initial processing. The leaves are sized according to requirements and weaved while under wet condition. Later they are dried to remove the excess of moisture. The husk is beaten to remove the fibres and is dried. With the help of small rotating wheel the individual fibres are twisted into ropes of required thickness. C. Impacts: - When the raw materials such as coconut leaves and fibres are soaked within or on the banks, the water soluble compounds viz. flavonoids, lignin, cellulose, phenols, sugar, tannins, amino acids, etc., (James et al., 2009 and Isreal et al., 2011) diffuse in to the river. All these compounds are purely biodegradable. D. Suggestions: - 1. Processing of thatch leaves and husk fibres must not be done in the river. 2. Waste disposal in to the river should be avoided. 3. Special facility for proper disposal should be arranged.

4.5.1.2.5. Basket making A. Distribution: - S6 & S7 B. Processing: - bamboo (Bambusa sp.) and cane (Dendrocalamus sp.) are cultivated on the river banks, which are the chief sources of basket and other lighter furniture. The poles of these plants are soaked in water for easier cutting and shaping. The poles are then cut into strips of required dimensions to be woven into various articles such as baskets, plates, pans, etc. various colour dyes are used if required. C. Impacts: - 1. Organic waste from bamboo culms discharge in to water, 2. Water flow is disturbed, 3. Paints pollute the water. D. Suggestions: - Processing and waste disposal in to the river must be avoided.

176

4.5.1.3 Agriculture A. Distribution Intense wetland crops (paddy, banana, betel leaves, sugarcane, etc.) are cultivated throughout the delta regions (S1 - S12). Sorghum, cotton, ground nut, maize, etc. are cultivated in the drier belts. At some areas (between S1 & S3) mat grass (cyperus) is extensively cultivated. Agricultural sector provides the major source of income to the people of this part of the state. The department of agriculture is currently implementing various programmes to increase the productivity of crops. Various fertilizers, crop protection chemicals, growth regulators, etc. are used according to the nature of crop and type of management required. All these chemicals find their way into the rivers as run-off especially during the rainy season. Table-4.67: Pesticide compounds Station S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 α-BHC BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL β-BHC BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BHC BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL op-DDT BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1.3 pp-DDT 0.21 34.27 1.03 1.67 BDL 2.16 0.21 BDL BDL 0.52 BDL 0.57 α-Endo BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 52.18 BDL BDL sulfan β-Endo BDL BDL BDL 0.41 BDL 1.75 BDL BDL BDL 4.34 BDL BDL sulfan Aldrin BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 2.46 Dieldrin BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Chlordane 0.24 15.19 0.13 BDL BDL 4.11 BDL 33.95 BDL BDL BDL 0.35 2.4, D BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Carboryl BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Malathion BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Methyl BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Parathion Dursban BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL

Table-4.67 brings to light the various pesticide compounds which are identified in the River Cauvery. Benzene hexachloride (α- & β-BHC), dieldrin, 2.4,D, carboryl, malathion, methyl parathion and dursban are not found in this study area. DDT (pp-) endosufan and chlordane have been detected. Out of

177 these DDT and chlordane are found in many sampling stations. S5, S9 & S11 are free of pesticides in this one time study. Very high quantity of DDT & chlordane in S2, endosulfan in S10 and chlordane in S8 are alarming and needs further investigation. B. Impacts  The run-off of natural manure and synthetic fertilizers represents one of the most important causes of non-point pollution. They lead to harmful levels of phosphorus and nitrogen.  The nutrients fertilize the rivers to cause major algae blooms, especially during the warmest summer months. If algae levels are high enough, the oxygen can drop to unhealthy low levels during the night, suffocating fish and causing fish kills.  Algae discharges oxygen in waters through photosynthesis during the day

using CO2 & HCO3- from water affecting the pH and dissolved oxygen levels in the water directly.  Though algae are produces supporting various primary consumers, they may also discharge various toxins in to the water.  Insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, disease pathogens (such as E.coli and Salmonella), drugs used for livestock, and organic matter used during various agricultural operations also find their way into the rivers through run-offs. These cause various diseases to man and animals. C. Suggested solution 1. Promoting intense organic forming, eco-crops and integrated pest management, through special awareness camps to avoid crop management chemicals. 2. Efficient irrigation systems to minimize wastage of water as run-off (sprinklers, gravity irrigation systems, drip irrigation and using soil moisture detectors). 3. Crop rotation and mixed cropping to be promoted effective water and crop management. 4. Proper management of crop land bunds to avoid run-offs.

178

4.5.1.4 Fishing A. Distribution

Inland fishing is one of the chief occupations of the river bank dwellers. S5: upper anicut (mukkombu) and S8: grand anicut (kallanai) are commercial fishing stations and in other stations also fishing is common. At all sampling stations fish diversity has been observed to be very high (herbivorous: - catla, labeo, cirrhinus; omnivorous: - oreochromis, puntius; carnivorous: - mystus, clarius, glossogobius, channa, heteropneustes). If this is properly managed, problems of occupation and malnutrition can be solved simultaneously. Using explosives for fishing has been observed in the first station.

B. Impacts

 Fishing may disrupt food webs and intern the ecosystems itself by targeting specific, in-demand species.  Destructive fishing practices such as blast fishing with the use of dynamite and homemade bombs has been observed at times. Blast fishing releases concentrated toxins which kill both target and non-target organisms, including non-target fish, invertebrates, as well as eggs, larvae, and microorganism (McClellan, 2008).

D. Suggested solution

1. Time and quantity of fishing should be appropriately managed in order to allow the regeneration of fishes.

2. Using chemical explosives should be strictly prohibited.

179

4.5.1.5 Sand dredging A. Distribution

Heavy mechanical sand dredging using earth movers and manual dredging through cart loads have been observed on either sides of the river legally and illegally. The government authority permits dredging only from 7a.m. to 5p.m., sundays being holiday. Each day only 200 tipper loads, each carrying 8-10 tones (plate-28) are permitted for each quarry. But the political intervention exceeds the permitted limits.

B. Impacts

 Increase of turbidity and suspended solids of water  Release of toxins and heavy metals from the benthic region  Lowering of water table and changing the water course  Reduction of self-purification capacity  Distribution and metabolism of aquatic organisms disturbed  Food chain of the riverine ecosystems impaired  Because of the frequency and heavy weight of the trucks, roads are damaged; fatal accidents are caused along with public nuisance.  In spite of all the above negative impacts sand dredging is considered to be a means of removal of sediments from the river. This results in an increase in the river capacity.

C. Suggested solution 1. Strict laws must be enforced 2. Guards can be appointed for regulating the activity

180

4.5.2 Social and Public Abuses 4.5.2.1 Bridge constructions and dams A) Distribution 1. Bridge: - Existing - S9, S10, S11 & S12 New construction - S2 Expansion - S1 & S7 2. Dam: - Existing – S5 & S8 New construction – S3 B) Impacts 1. Existing  Bridge: - pillars reduce the water velocity, solid wastes and weeds collect around the pillars  Dam: - due to water logging salinity and siltation problems, also reservoir induced seismicity leading to earth quake. Variation occurs in the water availability at upstream & downstream.  Disturbance to biodiversity 2. New constructions  Excavation & construction activities, transportation, dumping of unnecessary & unused materials change the course of water  The velocity of water is also considerably altered  Underground minerals are brought to the surface  Biodiversity is disturbed  Activities of construction workers (cooking, washing, cleaning, etc. Influence the water quality C) Suggested solutions Since bridges and dams are inevitable for the economic development and the construction activities are only temporary these disturbances can‟t be avoided. Unnecessary delay must be evaded.

181

4.5.2.2. Water pumping stations A) Distribution Throughout the sampling area wells are located either in the northern and/or the southern banks. Depending upon the population the number of wells is also increases. Hence the urban areas have relatively more wells. The „Ramanathapuram Combined Drinking water Scheme‟ supplies water to the Ramanathapuram district. Other beneficiaries are Trichy, Srirangam, Thiruverumbur, Pudukottai, Karaikudi, etc., Around Tiruchirappally city the number of wells are greatest since population is heavy on both sides of the river eg. Srirangam on the northern bank and Tiruchirappalli on the southern bank. The whole Trichy city corporation water supply is regulated and managed by Head Water Works Station (HWWs), Kambarasampettai. B) Impacts  Constant pumping out of water in various points at the same time lower down the water table.  The surface running water will be infiltrating very rapidly to fill up the gap.  When there is no surface running water in the river and still pumping goes on without replacement, a gap would be found between the water table and upper land surface. This may bring about number of secondary problems such as drifting soils, cracking and collapse of buildings, etc.  The lowering of water table may affect the agriculture on the delta area which directly depends on the river water or indirectly on the ground water.  Due to lateral movement of water drifting of various dissolved minerals is possible.  The pillars and construction wells across the river will affect the water velocity and collect solid wastes and weeds around. C) Suggested solutions 1. The quantity of water pumped should be well within the maximum permissible limits. 2. Regular monitoring and cleanup of the constructions across the river must be practiced.

182

4.5.2.3. Sewage discharges A. Distribution Point and non-point sources of sewage discharges are found throughout the study area. Private septic tank cleaners discharge the collected sewage in the nearby water bodies illegally. The New York metropolitan area alone produces 6.8 billion litres of sewage per day of which about 16% are untreated. Much of this enters the Hudson and east rivers around New York (Goudie, 1997). Out of 3119 cities and towns of India only 209 possess structures for purification of sewage and only eight of them have total cycle purification system. Commonly sewage comes directly into the rivers instance the Ganga River is being daily polluted by untreated sewage water and cremation remains from 114 cities and towns (Pimentel et al., 1999). B. Impacts  Sewage pollution carries nutrients that can cause algal blooms and encourage weeds to grow and can kill native vegetation.  Chemicals such as detergents and heavy metals increasing the dissolved & suspended solids and organic matters.  The bacterial, viral, or protozoal pathogenic organisms causing water-borne diseases including cholera, typhoid, shigella, polio, meningitis, and hepatitis A and E. C. Suggested solution 1. The quantum of sewage water should be minimized by recycling reuse and avoiding unnecessary activities. 2. Waste water gardens (artificial wetland systems) must be develop to treat the sewage and reduce the bacterial load especially coliforms. 3. All non-point sources through river bank residence must be avoided, linking them to sewage treatment systems or septic tank systems. 4. Treated sewage water depending upon its quality can be use for aquaculture/ fodder and fuel crop forming/ vehicular cleaning/ building constructions and cleaning.

183

4.5.2.4 Solid waste dumping A. Distribution From time immemorial rivers are dumping yards of all domestic and public unwanted materials (rags, canes, pottery, plastic bags, sachets, garbage etc. Dumping yards for want of space are increasing in the river banks. Frequent disturbance by rag pickers, animals, birds etc. and burning of the wastes spoil the quality of river water especially during rains. Unfortunately, over the years the city‟s municipal authorities and the village panchayath officials have seen the water body as a place of choice for receiving the garbage, construction debris and sewage. Without any exception all the sampling stations had a garbage dump yard near them. But the percentage of various components of the solid wastes differed considerably (Table-4.68). Food and vegetables shares the maximum mass among the solid waste types (26.4% in S5-39.1% in S3) paper & cardboard and plastics rank next in position (appx.15%). The rest of junk is constituted by textile, rubber, leather, wood, glass & pot, dust, ash & brick, metals, farm yard wastes and other.

Table-4.68: Solid waste composition (% by mass) of the sampling station No Component S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 Food & 1 36.2 33.5 39.1 35.4 26.4 30.2 25.7 27.2 33.8 35.0 31.2 33.7 vegetable Paper & 2 17.5 15.3 9.5 10.1 19.3 13.5 21.1 17.6 16.3 14.8 12.5 15.5 cardboard 3 Plastics 11.3 9.7 8.4 10.5 22.1 13.8 23.6 20.4 11.2 15.6 11.7 14.8 4 Textile 3.5 2.8 3.0 4.8 3.4 5.0 3.4 3.8 3.0 2.1 2.5 3.8 5 Rubber 2.2 1.6 1.5 3.6 3.9 4.3 3.5 2.6 1.7 2.3 2.1 3.5 6 Leather 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.4 1.8 7 Wood 3.1 1.8 2.6 2.4 1.2 2.5 1.9 1.8 2.6 2.2 2.6 2.1 8 Glass & pot 1.9 1.5 2.4 1.8 2.0 3.4 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 2.5 Dust, ash & 9 10.3 13.6 12.5 11.6 8.5 10.2 6.2 8.0 10.3 8.6 11.5 8.1 brick 10 Metals 2.5 2.2 1.2 2.1 5.3 1.7 4.4 5.8 1.5 4.8 1.7 4.6 11 Farmyard 5.7 8.6 14.4 10.2 1.0 7.3 1.6 1.4 8.5 6.6 12.4 3.0 12 Others 4.6 8.4 4.2 5.8 5.4 6.3 5.0 7.9 7.8 4.3 8.6 6.6

184

The increase solid waste quantity is directly proportional to the waste generation and the increase of population. The nature of waste varies in different types of dwelling, as well as in different socio-economic groups. The type produced depends upon various factors such as the standard of living, occupation and habits of the contributing population which in turn are affected by climate and dietary habits (Joseph & Nagendran, 2004 and Eusuf et al., 2007).

B. Impacts  Spoils aesthetic of water  Discharges solids and chemicals (organic and inorganic)  Supports microbial growth and leads to water borne diseases  The burnt waste material reaches the water polluting it  The fecal matters of animal that wade on the dump yards pollute the water.

C. Suggested solution 1. Reducing solid waste by proper awareness 2. Segregation of waste at source for reusing and recycling 3. Providing proper dump yards away from river banks

4.5.2.5 Religious activities A) Temples and river oriented festivals: - „Aadi Pathinettu‟, „Vinayagar Sathurthi‟, „Thula Snanam‟, „Vikuntha Aegadesi‟, Masi Magma, Thai Pusam, Margazhi Neerattu etc.

 Mass bathing during these festivals  Discharges – idols, burning lamps, cloths & rags, flowers, leaves, vegetables & fruits, sprouted grains, hair shavings, polythene bags& containers, etc.

185

B) Death related activities – burial grounds, burning sheds, electric crematorium, performance of last rights, annual thidi (death day), etc.  Mass bathing during & after the rituals  Discharges – bones, ashes, pottery, along with flowers, fruits & leaves and cooked foods, etc.

C) Impacts  Mass bathing disturb the water flow creating the mixing effect. The settled impurities are brought to the other levels.  Discharged organic matter supports the growth of various microbes including pathogens.  Degrading organic matter (flowers, fruits, etc) leads to eutrophication

and O2 depletion.  Painted images add suspended synthetic chemicals to water.  Ideals & images, pottery and bones, when settled at the bottom disturb the water flow. They also support algal growth as substrata.  Ashes & bones add to the calcium & phosphate content of water.

D) Suggested solutions a) It is sensitive issue, hence effective public awareness on the pollution aspects of the present day. b) Idols of god‟s can be left on the river banks and broad trees c) Idols if need to be put into water must not be painted with synthetic organic chemicals d) After the religious functions all the decomposable items must be collected in composed bits for composting e) The non-biodegradable waste must be collected in appropriate bins for recycling and reuse or other SWM.

186

4.5.3. Individual Misuses 4.5.3.1 Open defecation and Cattle wading A. Distribution The unpleasant and unhygienic action of open defecation of human being and cattle has been observed in all the sampling stations. The interesting feature is that the area of defecation in inversely professional to the width of water flow. When there is heavy water flow only the river banks are misused. But when the flow diminishes even the dry river substratum comes under this practice, because of closeness to water availability. During the rainy seasons the defecated dry material for away from the river bank also finds its ways into the river. Very high TC and FC has been observed in our study and is also supported by Bhardwag (2005). A person daily produces 65g of suspended matter, 8g of ammonia nitrogen, 3.3g of phosphates, 9g of chlorides, 60-75g of organic matter (Rudskiy and Sturman, 2005).

B. Impacts  Bad odor and unpleasant feelings  Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous that can cause algal blooms and encourage weeds to grow and can kill native vegetation.  The bacterial, viral, or protozoal pathogenic organisms causing water-borne diseases including cholera, typhoid, shigella, polio, meningitis, and hepatitis A and E.  Biological pollutants - coliforms

C. Suggested solution 1. Creating sufficient new river front facilities 2. Renovating and maintaining the existing facilities is most essential 3. Local residents must be educate upon water-borne diseases 4. River banks must be properly constructed and protected from the entry of people and cattle. At least in certain area, guards can be appointed until people learn the significance of maintaining the water quality.

187

4.5.3.2 Washing and cleaning A. Distribution Bathing, vessels cleaning, washing cloths by individuals and professionals (launderer), vehicular cleanings at all levels (trucks to bicycles); cattle wading all these activities are seen either singly or together at various intensities in all the sampling stations. B. Impacts Detergents increase phosphate in water

Phosphates → algal bloom (blue-green algae) → O2 imbalance in water → toxic to man and animals  Detergents can have poisonous effects in all types of aquatic life. Automobile cleaning releases oil & grease upon the water surface which abstracts the surface activities on the aquatic animals (Verma and Saksena, 2010).  All detergents destroy the external mucus layers that protect the fish from bacteria and parasites; plus they can cause severe damage to the gills. Most fish will die when detergent concentrations approach 15 parts per million.  Detergent concentrations as low as 5 ppm will kill fish eggs. Surfactant detergents are implicated in decreasing the breeding ability of aquatic organisms.  Detergents also add another problem for aquatic life by lowering the surface tension of the water. Organic chemicals such as pesticides and phenols are then much more easily absorbed by the fish.  A detergent concentration of only 2 ppm can cause fish to absorb double the amount of chemicals they would normally absorb, although that concentration itself is not high enough to affect fish directly. C. Suggested solution 1. Regulating the usages of the river by embankments 2. Creating awareness to the public to use the river front facilities and not the running water 3. Cleaning of automobiles should be totally prohibited 4. Promoting the eco-friendly cleaning materials.

188

5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1. Conclusions The following are the conclusive remarks, on the water quality of River Cauvery (Karur – Mayiladuthurai), during March, 2009 – February, 2010, based on the comparison of physico-chemical and biological parameters with the prescribed drinking water standards, the principal component analysis and observations on the riverine ecosystem and anthropogenic activities: -

5.1.1 Physico-chemical characters 1) Maximum polluted months: - April and May – 2009 are the months recording more pollution due to drying out of the river. 2) Maximum polluted season: Summer – reason as above. 3) Maximum polluted stations: - S7 (Trichy by-pass bridge) & S8 (Grand Anicut) due to heavy discharge of municipal sewage at various points from the Tiruchirappalli city, solid waste dumps and human defecations. 4) Total alkalinity, turbidity and BOD are recognized as the chief factors influencing the quality of the Cauvery water in the study area.

5.1.2 Principal component analysis 5) Both TDS and EC top the PC1 category in the principal component analysis followed by sodium, total hardness, chloride, fluoride, total alkalinity, total nitrogen, calcium, BOD and potassium, when all the samples of all the months are considered. 6) Total alkalinity and chloride are the most predominant chemical parameters influencing the water quality from among the PC1 parameters. Total hardness, calcium and sodium rank next followed by EC, TDS, potassium and BOD in the third level. Nitrate and phosphate are totally eliminated from the status of PC1 of all stations. 7) pH, P.alkalinity and carbonate are the primary parameters for PC2 of all sampling stations. EC, TDS and magnesium are the secondary once. Total alkalinity, total nitrogen, nitrate and phosphate are totally excluded from PC2.

189

8) Nitrate and phosphate are not only rejected from PC2 but also from PC1. Hence these two are not the regulator of water quality in this study.

5.1.3 Biological evaluation 9) Coliforms are alarmingly high due to sewage discharge, human defecation and cattle wading on the river front. 10) Based on biological water quality evaluation (saprobic & diversity scores)  50% of stations - moderately polluted  27% of stations - slightly polluted  19% of stations - heavily polluted  4% of stations - unpolluted

5.1.4 Ecosystem approach 11)  Since the quality and quantity of water changes frequently this ecosystem is highly dynamic exhibiting rapid and diversified seasonal and spatial variations e.g. within a short distance complete aquatic, semi aquatic and non-aquatic situations can be observed in a river when the flow is very little.  Organisms of various tropic levels form an erect pyramid of number in this ecosystem.  Grazing and detritus food chains operate in this ecosystem.  The Cauvery riverine ecosystem continuous with many of the terrestrial and marine ecosystems.

5.1.5 Anthropogenic impacts-I (Industrial, commercial and occupational exploitations) 12)  Among the industrial, commercial and occupational activities, agriculture seems to be heavily influencing the water quality through the pesticides and fertilizer run-off.  Though the industries around the sampling stations belong to the red category in the water quality including heavy metals is so far only within the permissible limits. However, strict

190

vigilance should be enforced to see that the industries do not harm the river water.  Even though sand dredging does not make any chemical change, the physical change in the river course and damage to the riverine ecosystem is considerable. These need utmost concern.  Cottage industries are least productive few in number and gradually deteriorating.  Fishing it is only a booster to the economy and health except blast fishing.

5.1.6 Anthropogenic impacts-II (Social and Public Abuses) 13)  While considering the social and public activities sewage discharge and solid waste dumping warrant immediate and stringent action.  Bridge and dam constructions results in physical changes in the river course and ecosystem damage. Considerable water quality changes are not seen.  Similarly water pumping also brings about a quantitative and not a qualitative change.  Religious activities do affect the water quality but it is a sensitive issue to handle.

5.1.7Anthropogenic impacts-III (Individual Misuses) 14)  All the individual activities in the river front challenge the water quality.  Defecation by humans and cattle is highly dangerous because of the health impacts.  Usage of detergent and other cleanses are the daily threats along with defecation.

191

Based on the observations of the present study and comparison with CPCB and WHO drinking water standards, the River Cauvery is moderately polluted due to three categories of anthropogenic activities. The regulation of agricultural run-off from category A, sewage and solid wastes dumping from category B and defecation and detergent use from category C needs intense, stringent and immediate action by government authorities and full support from the stakeholders of the riverine systems, failing which various forms of health issues and economic loss have to be faced.

5.2. Suggestions Sustainable water use is based on the commonsense principle stated in an old inca proverb: “the frog does not drink up the pond in which it lives”. The challenge in developing a „blue revolution‟ is to implement a mix of strategies built around (i) irrigating crops more efficiently, (ii) using water saving technologies in industries and homes, (iii) improving water quality, and (iv) integrating management of water basins and ground water supplies. With proper care and attention, the quality of water that has been identified to be degraded through this study can be restored and maintained. Suggestions for regulating the various factors that influence the water quality are presented then and there.

5.2.1. Reduce water pollution: an integrated approach According to environmentalists, a more sustainable approach to dealing with water pollution requires that we shift our emphasis from pollution cleanup to pollution prevention by (i) reducing the toxicity or volume of pollutants (for example, replacing organic solvent-based inks and paints with water-based materials), (ii) reusing wastewater instead of discharging it (for example, reusing treated wastewater for irrigation), and (iii) recycling pollutants (for example, cleaning up and recycling contaminated solvents for reuse) instead of discharging them. To make such a shift, we need to accept the fact that the environment-air, water, soil, and life- is an interconnected whole.

192

Our Indian tradition and culture is to worship all the five elements of nature (earth, water, fire, air and space) as the supreme power of God. All the rivers are considered as Goddesses. There are various traditional ways of conserving these elements. To protect and conserve River Cauvery this holy feeling can be reinforced into the minds of people. We generally offer the best to our Gods for worshiping and the bad is avoided. The Goddess, Cauvery must be offered with the best water quality and worshiped with the feeling of its sustainability. The bad and unwanted (pollution, solid waste, sewage, etc.) must be excluded. The sentimental approach will certainly work out for the mass and the regular river uses.

Fig-5.1: Kaveri Thai „If we protect “Cauvery Thai” she will bless us with good water, balanced environment, agricultural products, etc. for our prosperity. If not diseases and flooding will destroy mankind‟.

Fig-5.2: ‘Conserve River Cauvery: Sustain our smiles !!’

A river seems a magic thing. A magic, moving, living part of the very earth itself. Laura gilpin - from the rio grande, 1949

193

REFERENCES

“Accidental contaminant spills from gold mines in large rivers – a global nuisance with special emphasis on the Danube and IAD” Silnews. 2001. 33.9p.

Adekunle, L.V., Sridhar, M.K.C., Ajayi, A.A., Oluwade, P.A. and Olawuyi, J.F. 2004. An assessment of the health and social economic implications of Satchet water in Ibadan, Nigeria: a public health challenge, Afri. J. Biomedi. Res. 7: 5-8.

Adhilakshmi, A., Mariappan, P. and Sashirega, J. 2004. Assessment of Water Quality of Gedilam and Pennar. IJEP. 24 (12): 888 – 893.

Aklalay, G., Guerrero, L., Lema, J.M., Mendez, R. and chamy, R. 1998. Review: Anaerobic treatment of municipal sanitary landfill leachates: the problem of refractory and toxic components, World J. Micro. Biotech., 14: 309-320.

Akoto, O. and Adiyiah, J. 2007. Chemical analysis of drinking water from some communities in the Brong Ahafo region, In. J. Envi. Sci. Tech., 4(2): 211- 214.

Al-Ravi, S.M. and Shihab, A.S. 2005. Application of factor analysis as a tool for water quality management of Tigris River within Mosul city, Raf.J.Sci., 16(1): 56-64.

Anjaneyulu, Y. 2005. Introduction to environmental science. B.S. Publications. Hyderabad.

APHA. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association/American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation, 20th edn, Washington DC, USA.

Asante, K.A., Quarcoopome, T. and Amevenku, F.Y.K. 2007. Water Quality of the Weija Reservoir after 28 Years of Impoundment. West African J. of Applied Ecology, 13.

Balasunderam, C., Dheepa, A. and Mariappan, P. 1999. Fish diversity in Grand anicut, River Cauvery, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, Zoos’ print J., 14(8): 87-88.

194

Barbaros, F., Cetinkaya, C.P. and Harmancioglu, N. 2007. Effects of human activities on water quality: a case study – Mogan & Eymir basin, international congress on river basin management, Antalya, Turky.

Begum, A. and Harikrishna. 2008. Study on the Quality of Water in Some Stream of Cauvery River. E – J. Chemistry. 5(2): 377 – 384.

Begum, A., Ramaiah, M., Harikrishna, Khan, I. and Veena, K. 2009. Heavy Metal Pollution and Chemical Profile of Cauvery River Water. E – J. Chemistry. 6(1): 47 – 52.

Bhandari, N.S. and Nayal, K. 2008. Correlation Study on Physico – chemical Parameters and Quality Assessment of Kosi River Water, Uttarakhand. E – J. Chemistry. 5(2): 342 – 346.

Bhardwaj, R.M. 2005. Water Quality Monitoring in India-Achievements and Contraints, IWG-Env, International work Session on Water Statistics, Vienna, June, 20-22.

Bhardwaj, V., Singh, D.S. and A.K. Singh. 2010. Water quality of the Chhoti Gandak River using principal component analysis, Ganga plain, India, J.Earth Syst.Sci.119(1): 117-127.

Bhatia, K.N. 1999. A treatise on plant ecology, Pradeep Publications, Jalandhar, India.

Bordoloi, R.K., Kotoky, P., Baruah, J., Haque, I. and Borah, G.C. 2002. Physico – chemical Parameters of Toklai River, Assam. IJEP. 22(2): 151 – 153.

Borovec, Z., 1996. Evaluation of the concentrations of trace elements in streams sediments by factor and cluster analysis and the sequential extraction procedure. Sci. Total Environ. 177: 237-250.

Britto, S.J. 2001. Vegetation along River Cauvery with special reference to Srirangam Island, The Cauvery – A living Museum, Seminar proceedings, St. Joseph College, Tiruchirappalli, Tamilnadu.

Buchholz, R. A. 1998. Principles of environmental management. The greening of business, 2nd Prentice-Hall, London, UK.

195

Cao, Y., Williams, D.D. and Williams, N.E. 1999. Data transformation and standardization in the multivariate analysis of river water quality, Ecological Applications, 9(2): 669-677.

Carstea, E.M., Pavelescu, G., Ioja, C. and Cristescu, L. 2009. Evaluation of the anthropogenic impact on surface water systems: case of lower Arges basin, Romania, 8th worldwide workshop for young environmental scientist: urban waters: resource or risks?, Arcueil, France.

Chapman, D. 1996. Water quality assessment, 2nd Edn., EPFN Spon, London.

Chian, E.S.K. and DeWalle, F.B. 1976. Sanitary landfill leachates and their treatment, J. Environ. Engg. Div. ASCE, 102: 411-431.

Chiemchaisri, W., Chiemchaisri, C., Srinoy, N. and Kaewmanee, A. 2007. Treatment and reclamation of solid waste landfill leachate by rock-soil layering system, Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management, Chennai. 218-225p.

Cole, J.J. and Caraco, N.F. 2001. Carbon in catchments: connection terrestrial carbon losses with aquatic metabolism, Mar. Freswater Res., 52:101-110.

Comprehensive Assessment of the Freshwater Resources of the World. 1997. New York, World Meteorological Organization, USA. 33pp.

Cotner, J.B. and Biddanda, B.A. 2002. Small players, large role: microbial influence on biogeochemical processes in pelagic ecosystems, Ecosystems, 5: 105-121.

CPCB. 1999. Application of artificial substratum for Bio-assessment of water- bodies, Practical manual, Laboratory analytical technique series, Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi, India.

CPCB. 2008. Environmental Standards – Water Quality Criteria. Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi, India.

Dawood, D.M. 1989. Trace elements in Tigris River and their impact on drinking water. M.Sc. thesis, College of Engineering, Mosul University.

Doctor, P.B., Raiyani, C.V., Verma, Yogendra, Desai, N.M., Kulkarni, P.K., Ruparelia, S.G. and Ghosh, S.K. 1998. Physico-chemical and microbial

196

analysis of dye contaminated River water. Indian J. Env. Health. 40(1): 7 – 14.

Dragun, Z., Raspor, B. and Roje, V. 2009. The labile metal concentrations in Sava River water assessed by diffuse gradient in thin films, Chemical speciation and bioavailability, 20: 33-46.

Dragun, Z., Roje, V., Mikac, N. and Raspor, B. 2009. Preliminary assessment of total dissolved trace metal concentrations in Sava River water, Envi. Monit. Assess, 159: 99-110.

Dwivedi, S.L. and Pathak, V. 2007. Hydro-chemical Characteristics of Mandakini River at Chitrakoot. IJEP. 27(11): 1006 – 1010.

Eckhart, B. and Moore, T.R. 1990. Controls on dissolved organic concentration in streams, South Quebec, Can.J. Fish Aquat. Sci., 47:1527-44.

Edwards, D.D. 1993. Trouble waters in Milwaukee, Am. Soc. Microbial News, 59, 342pp.

EPA. 2005. Agriculture, Water: Polluted run-off, Unite States Environmental protection Agency, USA.

Esakku, S., Karthikeyan, O.P., Joseph, K., Nagendran, R., Palanivelu, K., Pathirana, K.P.M.N., Karunarathna, A.K. and Basnayake, B.F.A. 2007. Seasonal variations in leachate characteristics from municipal solid waste dumpsites in India and Srilanka, Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management, Chennai. 341-347p.

Esterby, S.R., El-Shaarawi, A.H., Howell, G.D. and Clair, T.A. 1989. Spatial characterization of acidification related parameters in sensitive regions of Atlantic, Canada. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 46: 289-303.

Eusuf, M.A., Omar, C.M.C., Din, S.A.M. and Ibrahim, M. 2007. An overview on waste generation characteristics in some selected local authorities in Malaysia, Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management, Chennai. 118-125p.

Fafioye, O.O., Olurin, K.B. and Sowunmi, A.A. 2005. Studies on the physic- chemical parameters of Omi water body of Ago-lwoye, Nigeria, African J. Biotech. 4(9): 1022-1024.

197

Fakayode, S.O. 2005. Impact of industrial effluents on water quality of the receiving Alaro River in Ibadan, Nigeria, Ajeam-Ragee, 10: 1-13.

Falkenmark, M. 1990. Global water issues confronting humanity, J. Peace Research., 27(2): 177-190.

Fuji, K. and Hu, H.Y. 2002. Effects of human activities on water quality, Water quality and standards, Vol.-II., sample chapters, Encyclopedia of life support systems (EOLSS), UNESCO.

Gandaseca, S., Rosli, N., Ngayop, J. and Arianto, C.I. 2011. Status of water quality based on the physic-chemical assessment on River water at wildlife sanctuary Sibuti mangrove forest, Miri Sarawak, Ameri. J. Envi. Sci., 7(3): 269-275.

GoI. 2013. Cauvery water disputes tribunal report, The Gazette of India, 19th February, 2013.

Goudie A. 1997. The Human Impact on the Natural Environment. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, UK. 454pp.

Govorushko, S.M. 2007. Effect of human activity on Rivers, international congress on River basin management, Antalya, Turky.

Gray, N.F. 2005. Water Technology. An Introduction for Environmental Scientists and Engineers. 2nd edn. Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.

Gupta, A.K. and Singh, S.K. 2003. Changing wetlands due to discharge of effluents from small scale industries around Varuna River corridor, Ecology, Environment, Conservation, 9(2): 209-212.

Harikumar, P.S. and Madhavan, K. 2006. Estimation of water pollution and Assimilative Capacity of River Pamba, Kerala, Poll. Res. 25(4): 707 – 710.

Hema, S., Subramani, T. and Elango, L. 2010. Gis study on vulnerability assessment of water quality in a part of Cauvery, Int. J. Envi. Sci., 1:1.

http://cpcb.nic.in/Water_Quality_Criteria.php.

Israel, A.U. Ogali, R.E., Akaranta, O. and Obot, I.B. 2011. Extraction and characterization of coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) coir dust. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 33(6): 717-724.

198

Iyer, C.S., Sindhu, M., Kulkarni, S.G., Tambe, S.S. and Kulkarni, B.D. 2003. Statistical analysis of the physico-chemical data on the coastal water of Cochin, J.Environ.Monit, 5: 324-327.

Jahnke, R.A. and Craven, D.B. 1995. Quantifying the role of heterotrophic bacteria in the carbon cycle: a need for respiration rate measurements, Limnol. Oceanogr., 40: 436-441.

Jameel, A.A. and Hussain, A.Z. 2005. Water Quality Index of Uyyakondan Channel of River Cauvery at Tiruchirappalli. IJEP. 25 (10): 941 – 942.

James, A.I., Gabrial, O. and Olubunmi, A. 2009. Propylethanoate Derivative from Coconut coir, Res. J. Appl. Sci. 4(6): 217-220.

Jayaram, K.C. 2000. Kaveri Riverine system: an environmental study, The madras science foundation, Chennai.

Jayaram, K.C., Venkateswaralu, T. and ragunathan, M.B. 1982. A survey of the Cauvery river system with a major account of its fish fauna, Rec. Zool. Surv., India, Occ. 36:115p.

Jeena, V., Rakesh Sharma, T. and Kalavathy, S. 2012. Impacts of Municipal Sewage on the River Cauvery in Tiruchirappalli city, Tamilnadu. Life Sciences Leaflets. 10: 10-18.

Jha, M. and Tignath, S. 2009. Assessment and Impacts of Surface Water Environment in and around Jabalpur City, Madhya Pradesh, India. e – J. Earth Science India. 2(II): 111 – 116.

John, S. 2013. Magazine: The mired marsh, The Hindu News Paper, 9th June, 5p.

Jolliffe, I.T. 2002. Principal Component Analysis, Series: Springer Series in Statistics, 2nd Ed., Springer, NY, XXIX, 487 p. 28 illus. ISBN 978-0-387- 95442-4.

Joseph, K. and Nagendran, R. 2004. Essentials of environmental studies, Pearson Education (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

Kalavathy, S. 2009. Water Quality Monitoring of River Cauvery: A Project Report submitted to Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai.

199

Kataria, H.C., Gupta and O.P. Jain. 1995. Water quality of bore wells in BHEL area of Bhopal, M.P. Poll. Res., 14(4): 455 – 462.

Kathikeyani, T.P. Velavan, T.P. and Ramesh, M. 2002. Physico-chemical and biological characterization of the River Shanmuganadhi, Tamil Nadu. Env. Eco. 20(2): 482 – 486.

Kathiravan, K., Brindha, K. and Natesan, U. 2010. Water quality assessment and the impact of mixing of treated sewage on River Koraiyar, Tiruchirappalli, India, J. IAEM., 37(2&3): 163-167.

Kazmi, A.A. 2000. Water quality modelling of River Yamuna. J. Inst. Engg. 81: 17 – 22.

Kelly, W.E. 1976. Groundwater pollution near a landfill, J. Environ. Engg. Div. ASCE, 102: 1189-1199.

Kinyari, P.K. 2012. Anthropogenic impacts on flow regime and water quality of Ngong River in Nairobi, M.Sc.,Thesis, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Juja, Kenya.

Kiran, B.R. Babu, K.H., Ravikumar, M. puttaiah, E.T. and Kamath, C.D. 2006. Water Quality Assessment of Bhadra River with Special Reference to Industrial Pollution. IJEP. 26(2): 148 – 152.

Krishna, V., Sabapathy, A. and Chakravarty, P. 2004. “Impact study on Bhadra River water quality by pulp and paper mill effluents”, IJEP. 24(1): 14-17.

Kulasekaran, A. 2002. Water Quality Survey. TWAD Board, Chennai.

Kumar, A. and Bahadur, Y. 2009. Physico – chemical Studies on the Pollution Potential of River Kosi at Rampur (India). World J. Agri. Sciences. 5(1): 01 – 04.

Kumar, D., Khare, M. and Alappat, B.J. 2002. Threat to groundwater form the municipal landfills in Delhi, India. Proceedings 28th WEDC conference on sustainable environmental sanitation and water services, Kolkata, India. 377-380pp.

Kumar, H.D. 1996. Modern concepts of ecology, Vihas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., Noida, New Delhi.

200

Kylefors, K., Andreas, L. and Lagerkvist, A. 2003. A comparison of small-scale, pilot-scale and large-scale tests for predicting leaching behavior of landfill wastes. Waste management, 23: 45-59.

Lalitha, S; Kasthuri, R; Kalaivani, D; Banumathi, K; and Akilandeshwari, L. 2003. Impact of Sewage Disposal on Quality of Water near Chinthamani, Tiruchirappalli. IJEP. 23: 1268-1271.

Legendre, L. and Legendre, P. 1979. Ecologie numerique Tome2: la structure des donnees ecologiques. Press de 1 Universite du Quebec, Masson, Paris, (in French), (cited by Simoneau).

Lieth, H. 1972. Primary production of the major vegetation units of the world, Primary productivity of the Biosphere, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 210-215pp.

Lohani, B. and Todino, G., 1984. Water quality index for Chao Pharya River. J.Environ. Engg. Div. ASCE, 110(6): 1163-1176.

Lokhande, P.B., Gawas, A.D. and Mujawar, H.A. 2005. Study of Water Quality Parameters of River Water in Konkan Region. IJEP. 25(3): 212 – 217.

Manjappa, S. and Naik, V.K. 2007. Physico-chemical Properties of Malaprabha River. J. Env. Sci. Engg. 49(1): 1 – 6.

Marinich V.Ia., Bashkov A.P. and Ianitskaia V.I. 2000. “Environmental assessment of finishing processes in wool industry”, Modern science intensive technologies and perspective materials of textile and light industry. Ivanovo, Textile Institute, Russia. 183-185p.

Martin, P. and Haniffa, M.A. 2003. Water Quality Profile in the South Indian River Tamiraparani. IJEP. 23(3): 286 – 292.

Martos, F.S., Espinosa, R.J. and Bosch, A.P., 2001. Mapping groundwater quality variables using PCA and geostatistics: a case study of Bajo Andarax, southeastern Spain. Hydro. Sci. J. des Sci. Hydrologiques., 46(2): 227-242.

Masters, G.M. 1998. Introduction to environmental and engineering ans science, Prentice-Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India.

Masters, M.G. 2004. Introduction to Environmental Engineering and Science. 2nd Edn. Pearson Education, Pte. Ltd. Delhi.

201

Mathur, S.P. and Maheshwari, N. 2005. Physico – chemical Aspect of Pollution in Chambal River. IJEP, 25(10): 933 – 937.

Mazlum, N., Ozer, A. and Mazlum, S. 1999. Interpretation of water quality data by principal components analysis, Tr.J.Eng. & Env.Sci., 23: 19-26.

McClellan, K. 2008. Conservation Biology: Coral Degradation through Destructive fishing practices, the encyclopedia of Earth.

Merkulov P.I., Yamashkin A.A., Maslyaev V.N. The human impact on the Earth. 1994. Saransk, State university, Russia. pp116.

Milanova E.V., Ryabchikov A.M. 1986. Using of natural resources and nature protection, Moscow, Moscow state university, Russia. 279pp.

Miller, G.T. 2004. Environmental Science. 9th Edn. Thomson Learning Academic Resource Center, USA.

Mishra, P. and Sultana, N. 2005. Water Quality of River Ganga at Kanpur, IJEP, 25(10): 938 – 940.

MoEF. 1999. Uniform consent procedure rules, Prevention and Control of Pollution. Schedule VIII, Rule3(2) and 12, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi.

Mohammed, A.B., 1988. Effect of Tigris River water quality on the performance of water treatment plants. M.Sc. thesis, College of Engineering, Mosul University.

Moore, A.C., Herwaldt, B.L., Craun, G.F., Calderon, R.L., Highsmith, A.K. and Juranek, D.D. 1993. Surveillance for waterborne disease outbreaks-United States, 1991-1992. In: CDC surveillance summaries, MMWR, 42(5): 1-22.

Muduli, S.D Swain, G. D., Bhuyan, N.K. and Dhal, N.K. 2006. Physico-chemical Characteristic Assessment of Brahmani River Orissa, India. Poll. Res. 25(4): 763 – 766.

Muduli, S.D. and Dhal, N.K. 2006. Classification of Water Quality of Baitarani at Anandpur. IJEP, 26(2): 175 – 177.

Murugesan, A.G. 1988. Toxicity of textile mill effluent to an air-breathing fish, Ph.D. Thesis, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai.

202

Murugesan, A.G., Perumal, C.M. and Ruby, J. 2007. Physico-chemical and Biological Study of the River Chittar at Courtallam, Tamilnadu (India), J. Env. Sci. & Engg., 49(2): 121 – 126.

Nasir, M.F.M., Samsudin, M.S., Mohamad, I., Awaluddin, M.R.A., Mansor, M.A., Juahir, H. and Ramli, N. 2011. River water quality modeling using combined principle component analysis (PCA) and multiple linear regressions (MLR): a case study at Klang River, Malaysia, J.World App.Sci., 14: 73-82.

Neilson, M.A. and Stevens, R.J.J. 1985. Determination of water quality zonation in lake Ontario using multivariate techniques. Proceedings of the Workshop held at Canada Centre of Inland Waters. Oct 7-10, Elsevier Science Publishers, 27: 99-116.

Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamental of ecology, 3rd ed., saunders, Philadelphia.

Oluyemi, E.A., Adekunle, A.S., Adenuga, A.A. and Makinde, W.O. 2010. Physico-chemical properties and heavy metal content of water sources in Ife north local Government area of Osun state, Nigeria, African J. Envi.Sci.Tech. 4(10): 691-697.

Othman, M.S., Ahmad, A.K. and Lim, E.C. 2009. Metals Concentration in Water and Sediment of Bebar Peat Swampy Forest River, Malaysia. Journal of Biological Sciences, 9: 730-737.

Padmanabha, B. and Belagali, S.L. 2007. Water Quality Index of Kabini River in the Kallahally Village of Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District, Karnataka (India). J. Env. Sci. & Engg. 49(1): 48 – 50.

Pandey, M. and Sundaram, S.M. 2002. Trend of Water Quality of River Ganga at Varanasi Using WQI Approach. International J. Ecology and Env. Sciences, International Scientific Publications, New Delhi. 28: 139 – 142.

Pandey, N. and Sinha, B.K. 2011. Plant Physiology. Vikas Publishing House pvt Ltd., Sahibabad.

Patil, N.J., Patil, D.B., Lokhande, p.B. and Mujawar, H.A. 2006. Study of Physico – chemical Parameters of Surface Water from Kundalika River near Roha MIDC, Raigad. IJEP, 26(2): 169 – 174.

203

Peavy, H.S., Rowe, D.R., and Tchobanoglous, G. 1985. Environmental Engineering. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Singapore.

Phiri, O., Mumba, P., Moyo, B.H.Z. and Kadewa, W. 2005. Assessment of the impact of industrial effluents on water quality of receiving Rivers in urban areas of Malawi, In. J. Envi. Tech., 2(3): 237-244.

Pimentel D., Bailey O. and Kim, P. 1999. “Will limits of the Earth‟s resources control human numbers?” Environment. Development and Sustainability. 1: 19-39.

Priyadharshini, M. 2004. Physico-chemical analysis of Uyyakondan Channel water in Tiruchirappalli city. M.Sc. thesis, Bishop Heber College, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu.

Raja, P., Amarnath, A.M., Elangovan, R. and Palanivel, M. 2008. Evaluation of physical and chemical parameters of River Kaveri, Tiruchirappalli , Tamil Nadu, India, J. Envi. Biol., 29(5): 765-768.

Rajurkar, N.S., Nongbri, B. and Patwardhan, A.M. 2003. Water Quality Status of River Umkhrah at Shillong. IJEP. 23(9): 990 – 998.

Ram, P. and Singh, A.K. 2007. Ganga Water Quality at Patna with Reference to Physico-chemical and Biological Parameters. J. Env. Sci. & Engg. 49(1): 28 – 32.

Ramamurthy, N., Raju, S., Subashini, J. and Thillaivelavan, K. 2003. AAS- analysis of pollutants of Palar River in Tamilnadu, IJEP, 23(9): 999 – 1002.

Ramamurthy, N., Subashini, J. and Raju, S. 2005. Physico – chemical Properties of Palar River in Tamilnadu. IJEP. 25(10): 925 – 928.

Ramamurthy, N., Thillaivelavan, K and Karthikeyan, S. 2002. Spectro – Chemical Analysis of Pollutants of Paravanaru River, Neyveli, IJEP, 22(2): 165 – 169.

Razak, A.A., Asiedu, A.B., Entsua-Mensah, R.E.M. and deGraft-Johnson, K.A.A. 2009. Assessment of the water quality of the Oti River in Ghana, West Afri. Jr. Appl. Eco. 15.

204

Reinikainen, S.P., Laine, P., Minkkinen, P. and Paatero, P., 2001. Factor analytical study on water quality in lake Saimaa, Finland, Fresenius J. Analy. Chem., 369: 727-732.

Richey, J.E. 1983. Interaction of C, N, P and S in River systems: A biogeochemical model in the major biogeochemical cycles and their interactions, In B. Bolin & R.B. Cook (ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. 365-383pp.

Rudsky, V.V. and Sturman, V.I. 2005. Fundamentals of nature use, Smilensk, Magenta, Russia, 320p.

Rudsky, V.V. and Sturman, V.I. 2005. Fundamentals of nature use. Smolensk, Magentah., Russia, 320pp.

Ruhl J.B. “Farms, Their Environmental Harms, and Environmental Law”. 2000. Ecology Law Quarterly, 27(2): 263-349.

Sahu, A.K. 2007. Present scenario of municipal solid waste (MSW) dumping grounds in India, Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management, Chennai. 327-333p.

Saksena, D.N., Garg, R.K. and Rao, R.J. 2008. Water quality and pollution status of Chambal River in National Chambal Sactuary, Madhya Pradesh, J. Envi. Bio. 29(5): 701-710.

Salequzzaman M., Tariqul Islam S. M., Tasnuva A., Kashem M. A. and Al Masud, M.M. 2008. Environmental Impact of Sugar Industry - A Case Study on Kushtia Sugar Mills in Bangladesh. J. Innov.Dev.Strategy 2(3): 31-35.

Salisbury, F.B. and Ross, C. 1974. Plant physiology, 1st Edn., Prentice-hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

Sanap, R.R. Mohite, A.K. Pingle, S.D. and Gunale, V.R. 2006. Evaluation of Water Qualities of Godawari River with Reference to Physico – chemical Parameters. Dist. Nasik (M.S.), India. Poll. Res. 25(4): 775 – 778.

Schlesinger, W.H. 1997. Biogeochemistry: an analysis of global change, 2nd ed., Academic press, San Diego.

205

Selvakumar, R. 2008. Riverine ecosystem upon River Cauvery at Thirumukkudal, M.Phil. thesis, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli.

Sharma, B.K. 2007. Environmental chemistry, Goel publishing house, Meerut, New Delhi.

Sharma, M.R., Gupta, A.B. and Bassin, J.K. 2003. Water Quality Assessment of Hathli Stream in Lower Himalayan Region. J. IAEM. 30: 64 – 67.

Sharma, P.D. 1995. Environmental biology and toxicology, Rastogi and Company, Meerut-250002, India.

Sharma, T.R. 2009. Water quality assessment of River Cauvery in Tiruchirappalli region, M.Phil. thesis, Tamil university, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu.

Shihab, A.S. 1993. Application of multivariate methods in the interpretation of water quality monitoring data of Saddam Dam Reservior. Confidential, SRCD, Mosul University.

Shukla, R.S. and chandel, P.S. 2006. A textbook of plant ecology, S.Chand & Company ltd., New Delhi.

Shyamala, G., Shivananad, K.P. and Babu, S.S. 2008. A preliminary report on the physic-chemical nature of water pollution in and around Erode town, Tamil Nadu, Natl. Environ. Poll. Tech., 7(3): 555-559.

Simoneau, M. 1986. Spatial variability in the water quality of Quebic Rivers. Proceedings of the Workshop held at Canada Centre of Inland Waters, Oct 7-10, Elsevier Science Publishers, 27: 117-135.

Singh, R.K., Datta, M. and Nema, A.K. 2007. Groundwater contamination hazard potential rating of municipal solid waste dumps and landfills, Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management, Chennai. 296-303p.

Sinha, D.K. 2002. Statistical Analysis of Physico – chemical Parameters of the water of River Sai at Rae Bareli. IJEP. 22(2): 184 – 187.

Sinha, D.K. and Saxena, R. 2006. Assessment of Drinking Water Quality at Hasanpur, J.P.Nager: A Mathematical Approach. IJEP, 26(2): 163 – 168.

206

Sinha, D.K., Saxena, S. and Saxena, R. 2004. Ram Ganga River Water Pollution at Moradabad – A Phisico – chemical Study. IJEP, 24(1): 49 – 52.

Sinha, D.K., Saxena, S. and Saxena, R. 2006. Seasonal Variation in the Aquatic Environment of Ram Ganga River at Moradabad: A Quantitative Study. JJEP, 26(6): 488 – 496.

Srivastava, R.K. and Srivastava, S. 2003. Assessment of Water Quality of River Gaur at Jabalpur, IJEP, 23(3): 282 – 285.

Stadnitsky G.V., Rodionov V.I. Ecology. 1996. Saint-Petersburg, Khimia, Russia, 240pp.

Sukhwal, B.L. 1977. River water management and exploitation in India, National Geographer, 14(2): 107p.

Swati, M., Rema, T. and Kurian, J. 2007. Hazardous organic pollutants in municipal solid waste: Qualitative screening and batch studies on co- disposal, Proceedings of International Conference on Cleaner Technologies and Environmental Management, Pondicherry, India, 4-6, January.

Tansley, A.G. 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms, Ecology, 16: 284-307.

Taylor, D.J., Green, N.P.O. and Stout, G.W. 2005. Biological science. 3rd Edn., The press syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

Thareja, S., Choudhury, S. and Trivedi, P. 2011. Assessment of water quality Ganga River in Kanpur by using principal component analysis, Adv.App.Sci.Res., 2(5): 84-91.

Tiwary, R.K., Rajak, G.P. and Mondal, M.R. 2005. Water Quality Assessment of Ganga River in Bihar Region, India. J. Env. Sci. & Engg., 47(4): 326 – 335.

Trivedy, R.K., Goel, P.K. and Trisal, C.L.1998. Practical Methods in Ecology and Environmental Science. Enviro Media Publications, Karad.

UNEP - WHO. 1996. A Practical Guide to the Design and Implementation of Fresh water Quality Studies and Monitoring Programme, WHO, Geneva.

207

UNESCO. 1972. Ecological sciences: Man and Biosphere programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France.

Vasishta, P.C. 1989. Plant ecology, Vishal Publications, Jalandhar, India.

Verghese, P.S., Singh, M. and Mishra, A. 2005. An Assessment of Water Quality of River Yamuna During Monsoon at Agra City, IJEP, 25(10): 893 – 898.

Verma, A.K. and Saksena, D.N. 2010. Assessment of Water Quality and Pollution status of Kalpi (Morar) River, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh: with special reference to Conservation and Management plan, Asian J. Exp. Biol. Sci., 1(2):419-429.

Vimala, G.R., Lalitha, S., Kasthuri, R., Kalaivani, D., Mathivathana, C. and Geethalakshmi, P. 2006. Study on the Water Quality of Kudamurutti River and Nearby Area in Woraiyur of Tiruchirappalli District. IJEP, 26(2): 159 – 162.

Voet, D. and Voet, J.G. 1990. Biochemistry, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.

Walker, W.H. 1969. Illinois groundwater pollution, J. American water works Association, 61: 31-40.

Water a shared responsibility. 2006. The United Nations World Water Development. Report 2. Paris, UNESCO, France. 584pp.

White, P.A., Kalff, J., Rasmussen, J.B. and Gasol, J.M. 1991. The effect of temperature and algal biomass on bacterial production and specific growth rate in freshwater and marine habitats, Microb. Ecol., 21: 158-187.

Whittaker, R.H. 1975. Communities and ecosystems, 2nd Edn., Macmillan, New York.

WHO. 1987. Guidelines for Drinking Water, Vol. 1. Reommendations. WHO, Geneva

WHO. 1993. Drinking water standards, Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, International reference point for standard setting and drinking-water, World Health Organization, Geneva.

208

Wu, J.T., Chang, S.C., Wang, Y.S., Wang, Y.F. and Hsu, M.K., 2000. Characteristics of the acidic environment of the Yuanyang lake (Taiwan). Bot. Bull. Acad. Sin., 42: 17-22.

Yang, S.L., Shi, Z., Zhao, H.Y., Li, P., Dai, S.B. and Gao, A. 2004. Effects of human activities on the Yangtze River suspended sediment flux into the estuary in the last century, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 8(6): 1210-1216.

209