| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Contact Us |  
Environ Eng Res > Volume 28(5); 2023 > Article
Subuddhi, Kansal, Pandey, Ghoshal, and Singhal: Impact Examination of the Lockdown on the Status of the Heavy Metal Pollution Index and Health Risk of Ganga River Water Quality

Abstract

Ganga River is the lifeline for socio-economic development of India. The unlimited desire of human and anthropogenic activities degraded the water quality of Ganga River, especially in Haridwar. The present study investigated the significant impact of lockdown on physio-chemical status of the Ganga River in Haridwar. Study also revels the significant augmentation of heavy metals as lockdown released, however, average daily dose and hazard index has advocacy in suitability of Ganga River water in Haridwar for their utility. Moreover, this is the first study that highlights Cancer Risk value of Arsenic (As) and Chromium (Cr) in Ganga River water in Haridwar exceeded over the target risk of 1 × 10−4. The values for As was calculated as 0.000172 - adult and 0.00074 - children, whereas, for Cr was estimated as 0.000067 - adult and 0.00029 - children. This indicates the ingestion of Ganga River water (except for Cr values for adult which is less than targeted value) in Haridwar for long time may increase the probability of cancer to the population. Therefore, it is imperative to formulate such policies and strategies that keep ritual values and maintain water quality.

1. Introduction

Ganga River is the country’s first line of defense against water security. The river flowing through 5 states with high volume of water, provides a perennial source of irrigation, strengthen the agricultural sector as a result becomes a center for economic source of the nation [12]. In 1896, Ernst Hankin, a British bacteriologist explained the antibacterial property of Ganges water against Vibrio cholera [3]. Further, in 1916, Felix d’Herelle, French microbiologist introduced the world with “bacteriophage or phages” virus which is associated with the special property of river Ganges [4]. Bacteriophages are the prokaryotic viruses that solely infect and/or destroy the bacteria and can retain high amounts of dissolved oxygen, even in extremely polluted conditions [56]. Nonetheless, river appreciably contributes to the livelihood, food and nutritional security to one-third of population in country supporting animal husbandry and fisheries, tourism, river-based trade and transport [79].
Rapid industrialization, urbanization, steep demand of water and lack of exposure to people result in industrial effluents, sewage waste, and loss in forest cover, sprawling towards Ganga flood plains and unmanaged disposal of waste. These factors directly and indirectly ground environmental toxicity and have severe impact on Ganga River, which deteriorates river water quality and further imperil aquatic biota [1011]. Major pollutants found in industrial waste and sewage are heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, fertilizers, plastics related waste, microbial pathogens and parasites [1214]. Among them heavy metals, are considered one of the most serious pollutants because this decade many studies reported the presence of heavy metals in upper stretch of Ganga like Hardwar and Rishikesh [1516].
The density of metalloids over 5 in earth crust is defined as heavy metals. Their presence in river water system is now become of the major source for bioaccumulation and results in many serious health issues [17].
However, lockdown imposed in all over country has been like medicine to the environmental wounds caused by anthropogenic activities [1819]. But as lockdown was lifted the water quality status of Ganga River is deteriorated [20].
Many studies are documented shows the presence of heavy metals in Ganga River water, especially at lower stretch [2124]. Moreover, many studies are also documented the impact of lockdown in enhancing water quality status of Ganga River [20, 2526]. However, many less studies are reported assessing the variation in physio-chemical parameters and detection of heavy metals in Ganga River water long with lifting of lockdown. With the focus of their role as a carcinogen in Haridwar city. Therefore, it is imperative to have regular monitoring on water quality of Ganga River at Haridwar and Rishikesh and assess the impact of heavy metals on human health.
Hence, the main thrust of the present study is to (a) examine the variation in physio-chemical properties of Ganga River water in Haridwar, (b) detection of eleven heavy metals at five sites covering total stretch of River in Haridwar, and (c) to evaluate the Average Daily Dose, and Health Risk Assessment to assess the suitability of Ganga River Water for drinking purpose in Haridwar city along with carcinogenic impact which has been rarely investigated.

2. Materials and Methodology

2.1. Study Area

The present study was carried out in Haridwar city of Uttarakhand state to evaluate the Ganga River water quality in the city. To achieve this, study area was divided into two parts part 1 and part 2. Part 1 designated for physio-chemical analysis that covers the entire stretch of the Ganga River flowing in Hardiwar district and the sites are marked by Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board (UKPCB), Govt. of Uttarakhand for the assessment of river water quality of the city. Whereas part 2 includes detection of heavy metals for which five sites were marked that covers the stretch of Ganga River flowing in the Haridwar city and are intervene by the anthropogenic activities like bathing, and other activities.

2.2. Part-1, Physio-Chemical Analysis

With the aim to cover the maximum region of the river in the city which have human intervention, a total of nine sampling stations were identified for the sample collection. The details of sampling stations are presented in Table 1. Various water quality parameters like Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Alkalinity, Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Most Probable Number (MPN), and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) were analyzed.

2.2.1. Sample collection

Samples were acquired using grab sampling method in which collection of single samples were done at a specific spot at a site over a short span of time. General precaution was at priority for grab sampling method that includes: i. All sampling equipment was cleaned and quality-assured prior use. ii. Sample containers was devoid of contaminants. iii. Container was labelled to prevent sample misidentification. iv. Keeping record of all information pertinent to sampling in a Performa. v. Grabbing the sample from the mid of the river using bucket or using motorboat to reach the mid of the river. The collected samples were then taken to laboratory for analysis.

2.3. Detection of Heavy Metals

In this section, it was aimed to focus the upper and lower stretch of Ganga River in city for the detection of heavy metals. Therefore, total of five sampling sites were identified in the city and water samples were collected in triplicates from all sites. All the samples were collected in the first week of months in pre-monsoon (April, May, June) and post monsoon (October, November, December) for the year 2020 and 2021. In pre-monsoon period sampling were done before 07:00 A.M. whereas, in post-monsoon between 09:00 to 09:30 A.M. Here Table 2 includes all the information of sites.

2.3.1. Sample collection

The water sample was collected after five feet inside from bank of the river through grab sampling method, illustrated in Fig. 1. Transparent sterile plastic containers were used for water collection which was previously rinsed with 0.01 N nitric acid (HNO3, Sigma-Aldrich- 70% purity) followed by double distilled water. To avoid precipitation of heavy metals in the container, all the collected water sample was treated with 1 ml HNO3. Further, containers were safely stored in an ice box and transported to the laboratory for analysis. The reported values for the heavy metals are mean value of the triplets after analysis. Double distilled water was used wherever is required.

2.3.2. Sample digestion and analysis for heavy metal

The water samples were pre-treated before the analysis of heavy metals which was adopted from previous optimized study [27]. In brief, 100 ml water sample was taken from the container and mixed with 10 ml concentrated HNO3. The mixed solution was placed on a hot plate for 1 h at 30°C which was then increased to 120°C for the complete digestion till the solution become transparent and release fume. The transparent solution was filtered with Whatman filter paper (No. 42) using vacuum suction pump and then the extract was diluted with 0.1 N HNO3, and makeup to the volume 50 ml. The final solution was used for heavy metals analysis with the help of Atomic Adsorption spectrophotometer (AAS, Make- Thermo Scientific, Model No: - ICE-3000). For the quantitative analysis, a calibration curve of known concentration (standard solution prepared from stock solution) versus absorption was plotted for the evaluation of absorbance of unknown samples. Further, it is used to obtain the concentration of the targeted heavy metal. All the targeted heavy metals were analysed at their respective wavelength, nm (Al-309.3, As-193.7, Cd-228.8, Cr-357.9, Cu-324.7, Fe-248.3, Mn-279.5, Ni-232.0, Pb-247.6, Zn-213.9)

2.4. Heavy Metal Pollution Index (HPI), Average Daily Dose (ADD) and Health Risk Assessment

In the present study, after the evaluation of heavy metals concentration in Ganga River in Haridwar, HPI was calculated, which are used to assess the status of water quality after the influence of individual heavy metal. Further, it was also highlighted the average daily dose and their impact on human health in terms of Hazard Quotient (HQ) and Carcinogenic Risk (CR). The expressions used for evaluation of HPI and risk assessment are: The HPI depends on three critical factors [28] the weightage (Wi) calculation of ith parameter, calculated by Eq. (1).
(1)
Wi=1/(Si)
where Si is sub-index of individual heavy metal;
  • a) sub-index/individual quality rating (Qi), which is determined by using formula given in Eq. (2).

(2)
Qi=n=1n|Mi-Ii||Si-Ii|
Whereas Mi is monitored value of heavy metals, Ii is ideal value of ith parameter;
  • b) HPI value is calculated by the Eq. (3)

(3)
HPI=n=1n(Wi*Qi)/(Wi)
Therefore, average dose received through this pathway was calculated with the help of the Eq. (4) [2930]:
(4)
ADD=(Cw*IR*EF*ED)/(Bw*AT)
where
  • ADD: average daily dose, μg/kg-day

  • Cw: average concentration of heavy metal in water, μg/L

  • IR: ingestion rate, l/day (1l/day)

  • EF: exposure frequency, days/year (350 days)

  • ED: exposure duration, years (6 years for child & 30 years for adult)

  • BW: bodyweight, kg (average ideal weight of Indian man is considered 65 kg and for child is 12 kg whereas, average water consumption is 1.48 m3/year)

  • AT: averaging time, days (for non-carcinogenic effects, AT = ED*365 days/year = 10950 & for carcinogenic effects, AT = 70 year*365 days/year = 25550).

3. Result and Discussion

3.1. Physio-Chemical Variation

The physio-chemical properties of Ganga River water 2020 shows the enhanced quality status as compared with previous years. This is attributed to the lockdown imposed after 25 March 2020, whereas, with the time as lockdown was lifted slowly deterioration in Ganga River water can be observed. The physio-chemical parameters and variation in their values are presented and illustrated in Fig. 2. The pH of Ganga River water in Haridwar defines the water quality which is slightly varies between acidic to moderate alkaline. The pH values in lockdown and post lockdown period are within the permissible limit i.e., 6.5 to 8.5, indicates that the water can be exploited for multiple purposes. The amount of electrical conductivity, TDS, total hardness is declining with the period as lockdown was extended after April 2020. During the period no public gathering at outside and rituals were allowed related to Ganga River. Many industries were also shut down or allowed to operate with limited number of workers that reduced the production as a result waste generation. The conductivity was found in range of 161.2 - 148.5 μS/cm in 2020 whereas the range in 2021 was detected 210 – 165.5 μS/cm. The same value was also reported in the earlier study by [31]. However, for very short of week turbidity values were decreased as reported by [20], but with passing period their values increased drastically in June 2020 (130 NTU). This might be due to monsoon season which results in huge amount of erosion and in winter their values again reduced (24.5 NTU) in late month of 2020.
DO and BOD is again important parameter that imitates the status of water quality. The Fig. 2 reflects the better concentration of DO in 2020 which was constantly increasing with the lockdown and reached up to 9.96 mg/L. Water velocity is attributed one of the major factors that affects DO, but the concentration of BOD was also reduced to its minimum point i.e., 1.04 mg/L, which reduced the demand of oxygen in river [32].
Alkalinity of the water defines the ions needed to counter the hydrogen ions to neutralize when acid is added. It is reported that 50–300 mg/L of alkalinity is best fitted for fish and 200 mg/L is good for drinking purpose. The present study supports that the alkalinity was reduced to 79.46 mg/L and in whole lockdown period was nearby this value that indicates the better water quality for aquatic species. However, fluctuation in concentration can be observed in summer and winter due to various biological activities, pollutants, and ions produced due to weathering in rocks. The total alkalinity also fluctuates due to the fluctuation in the level of pollutants. Further these factors are also responsible for the fluctuation in total hardness. The presence of cations like Ca, Mg and some other ions displays the values for total hardness and if values under 300 mg/L is recommended for drinking purpose while between 30–180 mg/L good for fish culture. Their concentration in period of study was ranged between 119.6 to 133.56 mg/L indicating the enhanced water quality in lockdown period. Whereas slight variation in their values is due to presence of dissolved solids and pH variation [3233].

3.2. Analysis of Heavy Metals

The samples were collected from 5 different sites in Haridwar representing as model of 2 sites at upstream of the city and 2 in downstream and 1 at middle of the city, i.e., Har K Pauri. The detected concentration of heavy metals is also graphically illustrated in Fig. 3 for both the years, 2020 and 2021. While comparing the average concentration of individual heavy metals between 2020 and 2021, increased amount was observed for each except Pb. It was expected and obvious because year 2020 was under strict lockdown in the country and all the inter-state and intra-state transport was stopped that restricts the tourism. As lockdown was lifted, increased in concentration of heavy metals can be observed. In year 2020 average concentration variation follows the trends: Fe > Zn> Cu> Cr> Mn> Pb> Co> Ni> Cd> Al> As. Whereas, the trend for average concentration in year 2021 follows: Fe> Pb> Zn> Cr> Cu> Mn> Co> Ni> Al> Cd> As. It is important to highlight that, the sites at downstream of the river has higher concentration of heavy metals comparatively sites at upstream. This might be due to various point sources and agricultural runoff.
Further, Fig. 3 and table 3, represents the average concentration of heavy metals (mg/L) in pre and post monsoon for year 2020 and 2021. The concentration of Al (range 0.0010 to 0.0045 mg/L) and As (0.001 to 0.0036 mg/L) in Ganga water was found under the permissible limit at each identified sites in both the year. The concentration of Cd can be observed higher than the permissible limit (0.003 mg/L) at site 2, site 3, and site-5 in year 2020 whereas, in 2021 their values crossed permissible limit at each site (except site-1). In case of Cr their values ranged in between 0.063 to 0.195 mg/L, shows their exceeded values than the permissible limit at each site. The permissible limit of Cu, Mn and Zn was marked 1.5, 0.3, and 15 mg/L, respectively and at each sites their concentration was observed under the permissible limit. However, there are slight increment can be observed in 2021 which might be due to effluents, municipal source, laundry, paint, dye tannery, and textile sources. It could be also seen the higher amount of Fe at each identified sites ranged from 0.266 to 1.05 mg/L along with the Ni ranged from 0.01 to 0.04 mg/L and Pb in between 0.005 to 0.56 mg/L. This might be attributed to municipal waste water, agricultural runoff, coins thrown in river, and industrial discharges [34].

3.3. Heavy Metal Pollution Index, HPI

HPI is used to show the status of water quality after the influence of individual heavy metal in terms of magnitude of toxicity of an individual metal contributed to an area.
The mean concentration of each heavy metals at identified sites were used to evaluate the HPI values for year 2020 and 2021. In this, requirement limit and permissible limit for 10 heavy metals were used for HPI evaluation, except Co. This is because BIS, WHO and USEPA did not recommended limits for Co and hence, this was not included in checking suitability of ganga River water for drinking.
The HPI for year 2020 was 23.19, whereas, 27.99 was evaluated for 2021, presented in table 4. The present study shows that the HPI values are below the critical contamination level i.e., 100, and above this value reflects unsuitability of river water. Alongside, in context to HPI classification, HPI values under 25 is considered excellent water quality and between 26–50 is recommended good [35]. Though, it could conclude that the values in 2020 recommend better water quality status comparatively pre-lockdown period. Whereas HPI values in 2021 fall under good category and also could be recommended for its use. But this value could also be due to impact of lockdown and values are increasing as lockdown was lifted [25, 35].

3.4. Risk Characterization

Basically, among three ways (direct ingestion, inhalation & dermal absorption) through which humans are exposed to metals, ingestion could be considered the most significant for drinking water [36].
The health risk for child and adult were calculated for each heavy metals which are presented in Table 6. The ADD vales for adult and child is calculated under 1 (ADD < 1) indicates no potential health risk to human. However, ADD value for Fe can be observed highest i.e., 0.03 and 0.171 μg/kg-day amongst all for both adult and child, respectively.

3.4.1. Non-carcinogenic risk assessment

3.4.1.1. Hazard quotient

Non-carcinogenic risks and threats are characterized by hazard quotient (HQ) which are used to assess the non-carcinogenic health risks after the exposure to pollutants (heavy metals) present in Ganga River water in Haridwar. HQ is estimated by average ingestion of contaminants from exposure route of ingestion with the corresponding reference dose (RfD). The following Eq. (5) are used to evaluate the HQ value [29]:
(5)
HQ=ADDRfD
Where RfD is defined as reference dose or amount that cause the hazardous health effect by pollutants. The value was adopted from USEPA 1993. The Table 5 shows the HQ value for each heavy metals, whereas, Hazard Index (HI) represents the risk of multiple heavy metals in the drinking water which was calculated by summating all the HQ values of the heavy metals.
From the Table 5, all the values for HQ are less than 1 that indicates less possible threat to human of non-carcinogenic effects. Where, if HQ > 1, there might be concern for non-carcinogenic effects and need to get alert. Moreover, HI values is calculated 0.00375, whereas, if its value exceeds unity, there may be concern for potential health effects. While any single chemical with an exposure level greater than the toxicity value will cause the hazard index to exceed unity, for multiple chemical exposures, the hazard index can also exceed unity even if no single chemical exposure exceeds its RfD.

3.4.2. Carcinogenic risk assessment

In this case, the risks are assessed as the incremental probability of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the potential carcinogen. The Eq. (6) was used to determine and calculating the excess lifetime cancer risk, which is [37]:
(6)
Cancer risk=ADD*SF
where ADD is daily intake averaged over 70 years in (mg/kg/day) and SF is the slope factor, expressed in (mg/kg/day) −1.
In the present study, carcinogenic risk of As and Cr is presented through oral intake which was calculated 0.000172 and 0.00074 for the adult and child, respectively, whereas for Cr it was calculated 0.000067 and 0.00029, respectively. In As conditions, the cancer risk value is exceeded over the target risk of 1 × 10−4 which is the indication of ingestion of Ganga River water in Haridwar for long time may increase the probability of cancer to the population. Many studies support the contamination of due to arsenic in states Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh that makes their victims mostly to the people lives in minimal sanitary conditions. However, no such evidence is reported for the as case for the Haridwar city. Further, in Cr condition, the values for adult are under the targeted value whereas, for children, value exceed, and this reflects the alarming situation. Various known and unknown point sources in city, agricultural runoff and build dams leads As sources for PB, Cr, Cd. Moreover, in Ganga River, especially Haridwar is most visited place for prayers and many people toppling and throwing coins into the river. In now days’ coins are made up Fe and Cr (83% & 17% respectively) which are immersed in water becomes poisonous and add metals concentration [3738].

4. Conclusion

The present study confirms that the lockdown period helped Ganga River water quality to bounce back. The concentration of physio-chemical properties such as DO, BOD, TDS, Alkalinity was far better in 2020 whereas as deterioration was observed as lockdown was lifted in 2021. The study highlights the concentration of metals Cd, Cr, Fe, Ni and Pb exceeded their permissible limit, whereas rest of them were under the limit. The calculated HPI indicates that the Ganga River water at Haridwar can be used for drinking, however, their values in 2021 was increased to 27.99 from 23.19. Moreover, average daily dose and hazard index (HI is 0.0037) was calculated under 1 (HI < 1) owning no potential health risk to human, furthermore, the exceeded value of As and Cr can be seen than the target risk i.e., 1.0*10−4. The carcinogenic risk of As through oral intake which was calculated 0.000172 and 0.00074 for the adult and child, respectively, and for Cr was calculated 0.000067 and 0.00029, respectively. This indicates the ingestion of Ganga River water in Haridwar for long time may increase the probability of cancer to the population, and hence many useful approaches and strategies is needed to overcome such issues for sustainable future.

Acknowledgment

Authors would like to acknowledge all the members in Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India for their support at any part of the study. We also extend our thanks to DIT University, Dehradun for providing the additional workplace infrastructure. Sincerely, one of author extend thanks to Dr. Ram Vilas Pandey (late), Ex-Additional Director Extension, NDUAT, Kumarganj, Uttar Pradesh for providing unending inspiration.

Notes

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest regarding the publication of this work. In addition, the ethical issues including plagiarism, informed consent, misconduct, data fabrication and, or falsification, double publication and, or submission, and redundancy have been completely witnessed by the authors.

Authors Contribution

S.P.S. (Ph.D scholar) conducted all the experimental work in the study, complied the data and wrote the manuscript. A.K. (Environmental Engineer) and T.G. (Associate Professor) had conceptualized, supervised and ensured the methodology of the work. P.P. (Technical Consultant) analysis and interpretation of the data and wrote the manuscript. N.S. (Professor) provided the research facility and infrastructure for the research.

Funding source

No financial support was availed for this study work.

References

1. Trivedi RC. Water quality of the Ganga River–an overview. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manag. 2010;13:347–351. https://doi:10.1080/14634988.2010.528740
crossref pdf

2. Singh IB. The Ganga River. 2nd edLarge Rivers: Geomorphology and Management. Wiley Online Library; 2022. 521–550. https://doi:10.1002/9781119412632


3. Kochhar R. The virus in the rivers: histories and antibiotic afterlives of the bacteriophage at the sangam in Allahabad. Notes. Rec. R. Soc. Lond. 2020;74:625–51. https://doi:10.1098/rsnr.2020.0019
crossref pmid pmc pdf

4. Saxena R, Hardainiyan S, Singh N, Rai PK. Prospects of microbes in mitigations of environmental degradation in the river ecosystem. Ecological Significance of River Ecosystems. Elsevier; 2022. p. 429–454. https://doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-85045-2.00003-0
crossref

5. Vandamme EJ, Mortelmans K. A century of bacteriophage research and applications: impacts on biotechnology, health, ecology and the economy. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2019;94:323–42. https://doi:10.1002/jctb.5810
crossref pdf

6. Los M, Czyz A, Sell E, Wêgrzyn A, Neubauer P, Wêgrzyn G. Bacteriophage contamination: is there a simple method to reduce its deleterious effects in laboratory cultures and biotechnological factories. J. Appl. Genet. 2004;45:111–20.
pmid

7. Alley KD. The Goddess Ganga: her power, mythos, and worldly challenges. Goddesses in world culture. Praeger Santa Barbara; California, USA: 2010. p. 3–48.


8. Tripathi S, Gopesh A, Dwivedi AC. Fish and fisheries in the Ganga river: current assessment of the fish community, threats and restoration. J. Exp. Zool. India. 2017;2:907–12.


9. Ramakrishnan PS. The sacred Ganga river-based cultural landscape. Mus. Int. 2003;55:7–17. https://doi:10.1046/j.1350-0775.2003.00420.x
crossref

10. Pandey P, Shankar A, Biney M, Saini VK. Enhancement in amoxicillin adsorption and regeneration properties of SBA-15 after surface modification with polyaniline. Colloids Interface Sci. Commun. 2021;43:100432. https://doi:10.1016/j.colcom.2021.100432
crossref

11. Shukla AK, Ojha CSP, Garg RD, Shukla S, Pal L. Influence of spatial urbanization on hydrological components of the Upper Ganga River Basin, India. J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste. 2020;24:04020028. https://doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000508
crossref

12. Matta G, Kumar A, Nayak A, et al. Assessing heavy metal index referencing health risk in Ganga River System. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 2022;1:1–11. https://doi:10.1080/15715124.2022.2098756
crossref

13. Pandey P, Saini VK. Pillared interlayered clays: sustainable materials for pollution abatement. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2019;17:721–727. https://doi:10.1007/s10311-018-00826-0
crossref pdf

14. Roy M, Shamim FJ. Research on the impact of industrial pollution on River Ganga: a review. Int. J. Prev. Cont. Ind. Pollut. 2020;6:43–51.


15. Kumar A, Garg V. Heavy metal and physico-chemical characteristics of river Ganga from Rishikesh to Brijghat, India. J. Env. Bio-Sci. 2019;33:243–250.


16. Kumar P, Kothari A, Kumar A, et al. Evaluation of physicochemical, heavy metal pollution and microbiological indicators in water samples of Ganges at Uttarakhand India: an impact on public health. Int. J. Env. Rehab. Conserv. 2020;XI(SP2)445–466.


17. Saini VK, Pandey P. Natural husks as potential adsorbents for uptake of heavy metals. Materials Research Forum. 2017;187–209.


18. Arora S, Deoli K, Kumar P. Coronavirus lockdown helped the environment to bounce back. Sci. Total Environ. 2020;742:140573. https://doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140573
crossref pmid pmc

19. Chakraborty B, Bera B, Adhikary PP, et al. Positive effects of COVID-19 lockdown on river water quality: evidence from river Damodar, India. Sci. Rep. 2021;11:1–16. https://doi:10.1038/s41598-021-99689-9
crossref pmid pmc pdf

20. Muduli PR, Kumar A, Kanuri VV, Mishra DR, et al. Water quality assessment of the Ganges River during COVID-19 lockdown. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021;18:1645–1652. https://doi:10.1007/s13762-021-03245-x
crossref pmid pmc pdf

21. Gupta A, Rai DK, Pandey RS, Sharma B. Analysis of some heavy metals in the riverine water, sediments and fish from river Ganges at Allahabad. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2009;157:449–58. https://doi:10.1007/s10661-008-0547-4
crossref pmid pdf

22. Paul D, Sinha SN. Assessment of various heavy metals in surface water of polluted sites in the lower stretch of river Ganga, West Bengal: a study for ecological impact. Dis. Nat. 2013;6:8–13.


23. Sarkar SK, Saha M, Takada H, Bhattacharya A, Mishra P, Bhattacharya B. Water quality management in the lower stretch of the river Ganges, east coast of India: an approach through environmental education. J. Clean. Prod. 2007;15:1559–67. https://doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.07.030
crossref

24. Satyapal GK, Mishra SK, Srivastava A, et al. Possible bioremediation of arsenic toxicity by isolating indigenous bacteria from the middle Gangetic plain of Bihar, India. Biotech. Rep. 2018;17:117–125. https://doi:10.1016/j.btre.2018.02.002
crossref pmid pmc

25. Dutta V, Dubey D, Kumar S. Cleaning the River Ganga: Impact of lockdown on water quality and future implications on river rejuvenation strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 2020;743:140756. https://doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140756
crossref pmid pmc

26. Singh M, Pandey U, Pandey J. Effects of COVID-19 lockdown on water quality, microbial extracellular enzyme activity, and Sediment-P release in the Ganga River, India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022;29:1–19. https://doi:10.1007/s11356-022-20243-9
crossref pmid pmc pdf

27. Matta G, Kumar A, Tiwari A, Naik PK, Berndtsson R. HPI appraisal of concentrations of heavy metals in dynamic and static flow of Ganga River System. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020;22:33–46. https://doi:10.1007/s10668-018-0182-3
crossref pdf

28. Mohan SV, Nithila P, Reddy SJ. Estimation of heavy metals in drinking water and development of heavy metal pollution index. J. Environ. Sci. Health A. 1996;31:283–289. https://doi:10.1080/10934529609376357
crossref

29. Prasad S, Saluja R, Joshi V, Garg J. Heavy metal pollution in surface water of the Upper Ganga River, India: human health risk assessment. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2020;192:1–15. https://doi:10.1007/s10661-020-08701-8
crossref pmid pdf

30. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water 2004 ed. of the drinking water standards and health advisories. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water; 2004. p. 1–12.


31. Kamboj N, Kamboj V. Water quality assessment using overall index of pollution in riverbed-mining area of Ganga-River Haridwar, India. Water. Sci. 2019;33:65–74. https://doi:10.1080/11104929.2019.1626631
crossref

32. Aktar W, Paramasivam M, Ganguly M, Purkait S, Sengupta DJ. Assessment and occurrence of various heavy metals in surface water of Ganga River around Kolkata: a study for toxicity and ecological impact. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010;160:207–213. https://doi:10.1007/s10661-008-0688-5
crossref pmid pdf

33. Gupta V, Kumar D, Dwivedi A, Vishwakarma U, Malik DS, Paroha S, Mohan N, Gupta N. Heavy metal contamination in river water, sediment, groundwater and human blood, from Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India. Environ. Geochem. Health. 2022;1–12. https://doi:10.1007/s10653-022-01290-0
crossref pmid pdf

34. Khan R, Saxena A, Shukla S. Assessment of the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on the heavy metal pollution in the River Gomti, Lucknow city, Uttar Pradesh, India. Environ. Qual. Manag. 2022;31:41–49. https://doi:10.1002/tqem.21746
crossref pmc pdf

35. Matta G, Kumar A, Naik PK, Kumar A, Srivastava N. Assessment of heavy metals toxicity and ecological impact on surface water quality using HPI in Ganga River. IN. Lett. 2018;3:123–129. https://doi:10.1007/s41403-018-0041-4
crossref pdf

36. Reis MF, Sampaio C, Brantes A, et al. Human exposure to heavy metals in the vicinity of Portuguese solid waste incinerators–Part 1: Biomonitoring of Pb, Cd and Hg in blood of the general population. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health. 2007;210:439–446. https://doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2007.01.023
crossref pmid

37. Chaudhary M, Mishra S, Kumar A. Estimation of water pollution and probability of health risk due to imbalanced nutrients in River Ganga, India. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 2017;15:53–60. https://doi:10.1080/15715124.2016.1205078
crossref

38. Singh JM, Biswas MK, Dave S, Akolkar AB. River Ganga routinely receiving sewage from ashrams and hotels in rishikesh and haridwar cities-a case study. Int. J. Appl. Nat. Sci. 2016;2:09–17. https://doi:10.53555/ans.v2i2.97


Fig. 1
Illustration of various identified sampling sites for heavy metals detection at Ganga River stretch in Haridwar city
/upload/thumbnails/eer-2022-507f1.gif
Fig. 2
Physio-chemical parameter of Ganga River water in different season Haridwar city.
/upload/thumbnails/eer-2022-507f2.gif
Fig. 3
Graphical representation of yearly average concentration of various heavy metals detected at various sites in Haridwar
/upload/thumbnails/eer-2022-507f3.gif
Table 1
Identified sampling stations for physio-chemical analysis and its details
Stations Station Location Station details
Station 1 29° 57’ 15.77” N
78° 10’ 16.18” E
River Ganga Canal at Harki Pouri Haridwar (Upper Ganga Canal)
Station 2 29° 55’ 49.04” N
78° 08’ 13.94” E
Upper Ganga Canal D/s Harki Pauri, (Harki Pauri Haridwar at Rishikul Bridge), Haridwar
Station 3 29° 50’ 6.75” N
77° 52’ 35.72” E
Upper Ganga Canal D/S Roorkee, Haridwar, Uttarakhand
Station 4 29° 45’ 16” N
78° 16’ 33.8” E
Ganga Canal at Dam Kothi, Haridwar (Upper River Ganga Canal at Harki Pauri)
Station 5 29° 52’ 46.61” N
78° 08’ 34.65” E
Ganga at Haridwar D/S Balkumari Mandir, Ajitpur, Haridwar
Station 6 29° 56’ 51.6” N
78° 09’ 42.6” E
Ganga Canal at Lalita Rao Bridge, Haridwar (Upper Ganga Canal), Haridwar
Station 7 29° 59’ 03” N
78° 12’ 14’’ E
River Ganga after confluence of River Song near Satyanarayan Temple D/S Raiwala, Dehradun
Station 8 30° 07’ 27” N
78° 19’ 44’’ E
River Ganga at Rishikesh U/S Lakshmanjhula, Swargashram U/S of Rishikesh
Station 9 30° 02’ 51” N
78° 14’ 55’’ E
Ganga at D/S of Rishikesh, Near Pashulok, Uttarakhand
Table 2
Identified sampling sites for detection of heavy metals in Ganga River water, Haridwar
Sites Name of Sites Latitude Longitude
Site-1 Ganga ghat thokar no 1 29.9723° N 78.1852° E
Site-2 Bhimgoda barrage 29.9563° N 78.1804° E
Site-3 Har Ki Paudi 29.9574° N 78.1750° E
Site-4 Chandi Ghat 29.9430° N 78.1714° E
Site-5 Devpur Mustakam 29.9141° N 78.1536° E
Table 3
The average concentration of heavy metals detected for the year 2020 and 2021. Red colored values are higher than permissible limit and green are under the prescribed permissible limits as Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), India. Whereas black color denoted to concentration of Co because no permissible limit and prescribed limited is mention by BIS, India.
Heavy Metal sample collected from water for six months for both the years 2020 & 2021: Site-1 and Site-2: Upstream of Ganga River in Haridwar
Site-3: Midstream of ganga River in Haridwar
Site-4 and Site-5: Downstream of ganga River in Haridwar

Sampling months: April, May June, October, November, December)- 2020 & 2021
Sampling sites Al As Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn
Average concentration in 2020 Site-1 0.00365 0.00235 0.0027 0.036 0.063 0.141 0.315 0.0532 0.0105 0.144 0.148
Site-2 0.0024 0.001 0.00306 0.0324 0.126 0.139 0.342 0.0614 0.0226 0.105 0.21
Site-3 0.0015 0.00105 0.00286 0.0491 0.164 0.149 0.266 0.044 0.0169 0.007 0.196
Site-4 0.0016 0.00169 0.00315 0.0354 0.166 0.153 0.347 0.071 0.0215 0.005 0.166
Site-5 0.00103 0.0021 0.00307 0.0214 0.146 0.159 0.31 0.0754 0.0318 0.018 0.198
Average concentration in 2021 Site-1 0.00239 0.002 0.0021 0.0412 0.186 0.165 0.945 0.0771 0.0359 0.544 0.201
Site-2 0.00456 0.0036 0.00314 0.0432 0.179 0.178 0.862 0.0521 0.0336 0.269 0.186
Site-3 0.00318 0.00289 0.00364 0.049 0.186 0.168 0.88 0.0856 0.0257 0.296 0.199
Site-4 0.00428 0.00314 0.0031 0.0395 0.195 0.1887 0.964 0.084 0.0384 0.469 0.216
Site-5 0.004021 0.00205 0.00267 0.0311 0.193 0.185 1.05 0.0763 0.0401 0.567 0.255
Table 4
Evaluation of HPI
S.No. Heavy Metals Monitored Value-2020 (Mi) Monitored Value-2021 (Mi) Acceptance limit (Ii) Permissible limit (Si) Unit weight (Wi)= K/Si, K=1
1 Al 2.03 3.6 30 200 0.005
2 As 1.63 2.73 10 50 0.02
3 Cd 2.96 2.93 3 3 0.333333333
4 Cr 133 187.8 50 50 0.02
5 Cu 148 176.9 50 1500 0.000666667
6 Fe 316 940.2 300 300 0.003333333
7 Mn 61 75.02 100 300 0.003333333
8 Ni 20.6 34.74 20 20 0.05
9 Pb 55.8 429 10 10 0.1
10 Zn 183.6 211.4 5000 15000 6.66667E-05
HPI2020 = ∑ (Wi*Qi)/∑ (Wi) = 23.19
HPI2021 = ∑ (Wi*Qi)/∑ (Wi) = 27.99
Table 5
Represents the average daily dose (ADD), non-carcinogenic risk (ADD-NCE), carcinogenic risk (ADD-CE) for adult & child, hazard quotient (HQ) and hazard index (HI) for the detected heavy metals in Ganga River at various sites of Haridwar
Adult Child

HM Concentration mg/L ADD-NCE ADD-CE ADD-NCE ADD-CE RfD Hazard Quotient (HQ)-NCE Carcinogenic RA
Al 3.6 0.000151739 0.022760801 0.000657534 0.098630137 7000 2.1677E-08
As 2.73 0.000115068 0.017260274 0.00049863 0.074794521 0.3 0.000383562 Adult-0.000172
Child-00.00074
Cd 2.93 0.000123498 0.018524763 0.00053516 0.080273973 0.5 0.000246997
Cr 187.8 0.007915701 1.187355111 0.03430137 5.145205479 3 0.002638567 Adult-0.00067
Child-0.00029
Cu 176.9 0.00745627 1.118440464 0.032310502 4.846575342 40 0.000186407
Fe 940.2 0.039629083 5.944362487 0.171726027 25.75890411 700 5.6613E-05
Mn 75.02 0.003162065 0.4743098 0.013702283 2.055342466 24 0.000131753
Ni 34.74 0.001464278 0.219641728 0.006345205 0.951780822 20 7.32139E-05
Pb 429 0.018082192 2.712328767 0.078356164 11.75342466 3500 5.16634E-06
Zn 211.4 0.008910432 1.336564805 0.038611872 5.791780822 300 2.97014E-05
HI=0.003752001
TOOLS
PDF Links  PDF Links
PubReader  PubReader
Full text via DOI  Full text via DOI
Download Citation  Download Citation
  Print
Share:      
METRICS
1
Web of Science
0
Crossref
0
Scopus
2,158
View
131
Download
Editorial Office
464 Cheongpa-ro, #726, Jung-gu, Seoul 04510, Republic of Korea
FAX : +82-2-383-9654   E-mail : eer@kosenv.or.kr

Copyright© Korean Society of Environmental Engineers.        Developed in M2PI
About |  Browse Articles |  Current Issue |  For Authors and Reviewers