Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079

[Link]
(0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Spatial changes in water and heavy metal contamination

in water and sediment of river Ganga in the river belt
Haridwar to Kanpur
Dinesh Kumar . D. S. Malik . Narendra Kumar . Neelima Gupta .
Varsha Gupta

Received: 27 May 2019 / Accepted: 8 November 2019 / Published online: 30 November 2019
 Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract Despite heavy investments and a number summer (March–June) and monsoon (July–Septem-
of government schemes, deterioration in water quality ber) season from November 2016 to September 2017
of river Ganga and its tributaries is an issue of serious along with heavy metal analysis of water and sediment
concern. Among all the cities, thriving on Ganga, samples of the winter season. The levels of Cr, Cu, Cd
Kanpur is considered to add maximum pollution in the and Pb were analyzed by atomic absorption spec-
river. In the present study, water samples were trophotometer. Water quality was evaluated by water
collected seasonally from nine selected sites within quality index (WQI) using BIS and WHO standards.
the middle stretch of river Ganga from Haridwar to The WQI values showed good water quality at
Kanpur. The velocity, temperature, pH, alkalinity, Haridwar site (\ 100) while it was very poor at other
hardness, dissolved oxygen (DO), biological oxygen sites and Kanpur ([ 100) which renders it highly unfit
demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) for human consumption and survival of some fish
were analyzed during winter (November–January), species because of low DO value
-1
(4.65 ± 1.08 mg L ) and high values of pH
(8.82 ± 0.10), alkalinity (187.88 ± 8.88 mg L-1),
D. Kumar  N. Gupta  V. Gupta (&) BOD (66.64 ± 2.19 mg L-1) and COD
Department of Biotechnology, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji (240.00 ± 17.33 mg L-1). WQI showed highly
Maharaj University, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India
e-mail: [Link]@[Link]
unsuitable water quality at all sites except control
site, of which S9 (Siddhanath Ghat) was highly
N. Gupta
e-mail: guptagrawal@[Link]
polluted. Lead concentration was higher at Kannauj
sites while high Cr was observed at Siddhanath Ghat
V. Gupta
e-mail: guptavarsha0210@[Link]
(S9), Kanpur. The examined metals, such as Cr, Cu,
and Pb, were far above the prescribed limits of various
D. Kumar  D. S. Malik standards.
Department of Zoology and Environmental Science,
Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar,
Uttarakhand, India
Keywords River health  Water quality index
e-mail: malikdsgkv@[Link] (WQI)  Heavy metals  Fish tolerance  Oxygen
demand
N. Kumar
Department of Environmental Science, Babasaheb
Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh,
India
e-mail: narendrakumar_lko@[Link]

123
2060 Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079

Introduction activities (mass bathing, idol immersion, disposal of

flowers and garlands from temples) further degrade the
River Ganga covers different climatic zones and water quality (Sarkar 2013; Rani et al. 2014; Dwivedi
geographical regions from Haridwar to Kanpur with et al. 2018).
a wide range of aquatic biodiversity. However, 75% of All these exacerbate pollution load in Ganga river.
Ganga pollution is attributed to untreated municipal Major contaminants are chromium and mercury which
discharges and industrial waste (Das 2011) resulting in result in dermatitis, kidney damage and liver cancers.
extreme pollution load (Dwivedi et al. 2018). Over Previous studies have reported concentrations of
exploitation and construction of various dams and chromium, zinc and mercury in sediments far above
barrages disturb the ecological integrity of Ganga the guidelines of Canadian Council of Ministries of
resulting in depletion of certain fish populations in this Environment (CCME 2018). Another important con-
stretch. Anthropogenic factors are the principal source cern is the effluent discharge from nonpoint sources
of pollution which affect whole stretch of river Ganga which are difficult to control as compared to known
(Gupta 2015; Siddiqui and Pandey 2019). point sources where treatment or other action plans
Despite spending several million rupees by the can be reinforced, but here discharge is without any
government in launching different Ganga cleaning monitoring. There are many drains at Kanpur City and
plans, its water condition failed to improve. Launching near Jajmau area which directly open into Ganga.
of several programs like Ganga action plan (GAP) in A survey of CPCB (2016a, c) shows that major
1985, later establishing IIT Consortium (2011) for common effluent treatment plants (CETPS) located at
water diversion and effective treatment, establishment Kanpur Jajmau area were inefficient in industrial
of National Ganga River Basin Authority in 2009 with effluent treatment from tanneries and there is a lack of
multisectorial plan, ambitious National Mission for data from Kanpur City which affect actual monitoring
clean Ganga in 2011 [implementation arm of National of this area (Chaudhary and Walker 2019). This
Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA)] with necessitates a detailed study on the water quality
Namami Ganga Mission in 2014 were only partially around industrial urban areas for sustainable develop-
effective in controlling the plight of the river. Several ment. There are several dispersed studies on water
international agencies such as World Bank (2011), quality of river Ganga around Kanpur City, but
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) (Min- authenticated seasonal water quality data of the middle
istry of water resources 2016), German International stretch from Haridwar to Kanpur are not available.
Cooperation (GIC) (The Hindu 2016) came with India This prompted the workers to evaluate the water
for financial and technical support, but all efforts quality of river Ganga in the middle stretch which
resulted in little success (CPCB 2016a). supports huge population of plants and aquatic biota
CPCB survey in 2016 reported that at Kanpur major including fish and fisheries.
sewage treatment plants (STPs) are ineffective and fail
to comply with environmental regulations (CPCB
2016a). These result in heavy municipal discharge Materials and methods
(approximately 8250MLD) in Ganga. A large number
of tanneries, synthetic rubber factories, distilleries, Study area
sugar mills, electro-processing industries, pesticides
factories, textile industries release industrial effluents The study was carried out in the middle stretch of river
in the river. Despite strict government regulations, Ganga from Haridwar to Kanpur. Eight sampling sites
industries are not interested in setting up treatment were selected in between Farrukhabad and Kanpur and
plants. Though mandatory now, they fail to comply one at foot hill of Haridwar region as the control site.
with norms. Big cities are under some official The location of all sampling sites in the middle stretch
monitoring, but tributaries of Ganga from small areas of river Ganga is shown in Fig. 1, and their description
add to its woes. Thus, Kanpur City in Uttar Pradesh with coordinates is shown in Table 1.
and its major tributaries are responsible for adding
industrial waste which results in high BOD load
(CPCB 2016b). Being holy river, various religious

123
Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079 2061

N
W E
Ganga River
Haridwar S1 S
INDIA
Ramganga River

Farrukhabad
Kali River S2
S3 Kannauj
S1- Misarpur S4
S2-Ghatiya Ghat
S5
S3-Singimampur Ghat S6 S7
S4-Kusumkhor S9
S5-Menhadi Ghat S8
S6-Nanamau Ghat Kanpur
S7- Brahmavart Ghat
S8- Sarsaiya ghat
S9- Siddha Nath Ghat

Bay
Legends
Sampling sites
of
River Bengal
Direction

Fig. 1 River Ganga from Haridwar to Kanpur indicating sampling sites

Table 1 Location of Sampling sites Latitude Longitude Districts States

sampling sites in the river
Ganga from Haridwar to S1 Misarpur 29 530 12.000 N 78 080 22.200 E Haridwar Uttarakhand
Kanpur 0 00
S2 Ghatiya Ghat 27 23 31 N 79 350 5600 E Farrukhabad Uttar Pradesh
S3 Singirampur Ghat 27 140 29.000 N 79 410 18.300 E Farrukhabad Uttar Pradesh
S4 Kusumkhor Ghat 27 100 17.900 N 79 510 10.300 E Kannauj Uttar Pradesh
S5 Mehandi Ghat 27 00 4700 N 79 590 2900 E Kannauj Uttar Pradesh
0 00
S6 Nanamau Ghat 26 28 43 N 80 60 300 E Kanpur (Bilhaur) Uttar Pradesh
S7 Brahmavart Ghat 26 360 8300 N 80 16.4900 E Kanpur (Bithoor) Uttar Pradesh
S8 Sarsaiya Ghat 26 280 4300 N 80 210 3200 E Kanpur (city) Uttar Pradesh
S9 Siddhanath Ghat 26 260 0900 N 80 240 5300 E Kanpur (Jajmau) Uttar Pradesh

Water and sediment sample collection September) before 8:00 A.M. during summer and
monsoon season and in between 8:00 A.M. and 10:00
Water samples were collected in triplicates from each A.M. during winter season for the period of 1 year
sampling site of river Ganga in the last week of every from November 2016 to September 2017. The analysis
month of each season, i.e., winter (November–Jan- was carried out in triplicates, and samples were bulked
uary), summer (March–June) and monsoon (July– pooled for heavy metal analysis for each sampling site.

123
2062 Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079

Water samples were collected in sterile plastic bottles spectroscopy (AAS) (PerkinElmer-800, USA) at par-
previously treated with 0.01 N nitric acid followed by ticular wave length of heavy metals such as 357.9,
washing with DW. The water sample was taken from 1 228.8, 324.7 and 217.0 nm, respectively.
to 2 feet below the water surface and fixed with 1 mL
of concentrate nitric acid. Sediment samples were Water quality index (WQI) calculations
collected in sterile poly bag from 10 to 15 cm depth of
soil surface close to the river bank water channel. The The water quality index of the selected sites during
samples were transported to the laboratory in ice each season was calculated by weighted arithmetic
boxes. index method (Brown et al. 1970) using drinking water
quality standards recommended by WHO (2012) and
Sample preparation and analysis BIS (2012). The site-wise and seasonal WQI of river
water was calculated by six parameters such as pH,
The physicochemical parameters of the Ganga water alkalinity, hardness, DO, BOD and COD. The calcu-
such as water velocity, temperature, pH, total hard- lation of WQI was carried out by using the following
ness, total alkalinity, DO, BOD and COD were equation.
determined according to standard methods (Trivedy RQn Wn
and Goel 1984; APHA 2012). Water velocity and pH Water Quality Index ðWQIÞ ¼
RWn
were determined on site, and for DO, samples were
fixed in 300-mL capacity BOD bottle with potassium where Qn = Water quality rating for nth parameter and
iodide and manganese sulfate. The water velocity was Wn = Unit weight for nth parameter.
determined by disk drift floating method, temperature
by thermometer, pH by pH meter, total alkalinity by Water Quality Rating (Qn)
titrimetric method (phenolphthalein and methyl
orange two step), total hardness by EDTA titrimetric The water quality rating for each parameter was
method; DO and BOD were carried out (10% dilution calculated by the following formula:
of water sample of all sites was carried out, except S1 ð Va  Vi Þ
with aerated water and incubated at - 20 C for Qn ¼  100
ð Vs  V i Þ
5 days) by Winkler’s method and COD by reflux
method (AWWA 1998; Sawyer et al. 2000). where Va = actual value of observed parameter during
The water and sediment samples were digested and analysis and Vi = ideal value of observed parameter.
analyzed for heavy metals according to APHA (2012). The ideal value for pH = 7.0, DO = 14.6 mg L-1 and
For water samples, 100 mL water was taken in a zero for other parameters (BIS 2012). Vs = standard
conical flask and 10 mL concentrate nitric acid was value recommended by WHO/BIS.
added. Samples were kept overnight and digested on If Qn = 0, there is the absence of complete pollu-
hot plate at low temperature for 1 h and then at high tants, Qn \ 100 the pollutants are within the pre-
temperature (120 C) until heavy smoke appeared and scribed limit and Qn [ 100 pollutants are above the
the solution became transparent. For sediment sample, prescribed limit.
sediment was dried at 100 C in an oven and ground to
make powder of approximate 2-mm sieve size by Unit weight (Wn)
mortar and pestle. 1 g of sample was digested with
10 mL mixture of nitric acid and perchloric acid (2:1) Unit weight of a particular parameter is inversely
on a hot plate at low temperature for 1 h and then at proportional to the recommended standard (Sn) of
high temperature (120 C) until fume arose and WHO/BIS, and it was calculated by using the follow-
solution became transparent. The digested samples ing equation
of water and sediment were filtered by Whatman No. K
42 filter paper. Filtered samples were diluted with Wn ¼
Sn
0.1 N nitric acid, and the final volume was kept
50 mL. Digested samples were analyzed for heavy and,
metals such as Cr, Cd, Cu and Pb by atomic absorption

123
Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079 2063

Table 2 Categorization WQI Pollution status Class

and pollution status of river
water by WQI 0–25 Unpolluted and excellent water quality A
26–50 Slightly polluted but good water quality B
51–80 Moderately polluted with poor water quality C
80–100 Excessively polluted with poor water quality D
[ 100 Severely polluted and having unsuitable water quality E

1 effluents, discharge from distilleries, textile industries,

K¼ 1 1
þ Vs2 1
þ Vs3 1
þ Vs4 1
. . . Vsn etc., into Ganga. The Government of India is taking
Vs1
serious note of increasing Ganga pollution. From
where K = proportionality constant and Sn = ‘n’ 2011, several government plans were launched; pre-
number of standard values. vious plans were modified with new missions to clean
The obtained results of water quality index (WQI) Ganga. However, there is scarcity of data for middle
were compared with the range of water quality index stretch of Ganga in different seasons. Thus, the present
(Brown et al. 1970; Sinha et al. 2004). River water has study analyzes different physicochemical parameters
been categorized according to WQI into five classes, of river Ganga at selected sites.
i.e., classes A, B, C, D and E. The range of WQI Several sites were evaluated in the present study:
determines whether the river water quality is good or Site S1 (Misarpur) was the control site, located close
unsuitable (Table 2). to origin of Ganga. Sites S2 (Ghatiya Ghat) and site S3
(Singirampur) are the sites of Farrukhabad before
Statistical analysis Kannauj City. Kannauj is famous for perfumeries.
Sites S4 (Kusumkhor) and S5 (Mehandi Ghat) are
Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Kannauj sites; site S6 (Nanamau Ghat) is Bilhaur, just
excel to calculate average mean, standard deviation, before Kanpur City. Sites S7 (Brahmavart Ghat), S8
Pearson’s correlation (r) value to show the degree of (Sarsaiya Ghat) and S9 (Siddhanath Ghat) are main
association between studied parameters and WQI sites of Kanpur City. Of these, site S9 was Jajmau area
values. One-way analysis between groups ANOVA with many tanneries.
was performed to compare the effect of different Temperature is the first important parameter of the
seasons as winter, summer and monsoon on various aquatic environment because most of the chemical
physicochemical properties of water samples from parameters are dependent on temperature. Fishes are
different sites. cold-blooded animals, and their body temperature
changes according to environment which influences
fish metabolism and growth. Temperature was mea-
Results and discussion sured at different sites in the three seasons, namely
winter, summer and monsoon. The temperature was
The present study reveals the seasonal water quality lowest in all the three seasons at control site S1 (Fig. 2,
status of river Ganga at various selected sites (S1–S9), Table 3). The rest of the sites also experience extreme
in the middle stretch of the river Ganga from Haridwar winters; thus, winter temperature was low at all the
to Kanpur during the years 2016–2017. Kanpur is sites (Fig. 2, Table 3). Summer and monsoon temper-
regarded as the industrial capital of Uttar Pradesh, and atures were high at all the sites analyzed when
the city is famous for its leather industries. The city has compared to control site S1. The water temperature
several distilleries also apart from textile industries. was slightly increased at the sites S5, S7, S8 and S9
The population of the city is several lakhs. Thus, apart during winter and summer seasons as compared to
from generating huge quantity of domestic discharge, other sites; it may be due to either geographical
the city also produces and discharges tannery

123
 Table 3 Seasonal water quality data of river Ganga at selected sites in the middle stretch from Haridwar to Kanpur
2064

Parameters Velocity Temperature pH Alkalinity Hardness DO BOD COD Water quality index
(ms-1) (C) (mg L-1) (mg L-1) (mg L-1) (mg L-1) (mg L-1) calculation

123
WHO and BIS standards … … 6.5–8.5 200 200 5.0 6 10.0
P P
Unit weight (Wn) … … 0.06992 0.00297 0.00297 0.11886 0.09905 0.05943 Wn ¼ 0:3532 Qn Wn
WQI ¼ P W
P n
Sites Seasons Qn Wn

S1 Winter 1.00 ± 0.17 10.00 ± 2.00 7.42 ± 0.09 75.33 ± 7.13 65.78 ± 5.27 9.60 ± 0.31 1.76 ± 0.58 5.95 ± 0.91 14.7987 41.89
Summer 0.87 ± 0.06 16.00 ± 2.00 7.58 ± 0.08 78.33 ± 3.33 69.1 ± 4.88 8.53 ± 0.25 2.55 ± 0.34 6.32 ± 0.36 17.6836 50.06
Monsoon 1.90 ± 0.30 15.33 ± 2.52 7.33 ± 0.05 67.78 ± 6.31 60.65 ± 3.91 8.89 ± 0.31 1.83 ± 0.20 3.78 ± 0.20 14.6975 41.61
S2 Winter 0.19 ± 0.07 16.67 ± 3.06 8.44 ± 0.11 168.33 ± 1.67 157.44 ± 5.10 6.20 ± 0.12 30.44 ± 3.20 131.99 ± 8.33 146.2872 414.17
Summer 0.18 ± 0.03 29.33 ± 3.06 8.30 ± 0.09 151.2 ± 3.36 141.2 ± 4.44 4.73 ± 0.99 37.78 ± 5.64 124.44 ± 11.34 155.0355 438.94
Monsoon 0.79 ± 0.35 27.33 ± 2.52 8.10 ± 0.26 144.33 ± 10.07 137.22 ± 5.36 5.85 ± 0.18 32.44 ± 3.95 95.55 ± 28.51 126.7209 358.77
S3 Winter 0.29 ± 0.03 16.67 ± 3.06 7.88 ± 0.29 149.44 ± 8.84 133.00 ± 15.83 7.14 ± 0.15 22.11 ± 1.17 64.78 ± 13.83 88.7551 251.28
Summer 0.24 ± 0.03 29.33 ± 3.06 7.59 ± 0.05 139.00 ± 7.31 134.40 ± 14.10 6.63 ± 0.77 27.89 ± 1.93 61.66 ± 9.70 95.7093 270.97
Monsoon 0.82 ± 0.33 27.33 ± 2.52 7.52 ± 0.03 129.33 ± 5.03 126.7 ± 7.88 6.77 ± 0.45 23.33 ± 3.39 54.89 ± 7.73 83.6329 236.78
S4 Winter 0.40 ± 0.03 16.67 ± 3.06 8.44 ± 0.09 159.22 ± 16.17 156.44 ± 8.07 6.80 ± 0.16 31.44 ± 1.02 133.33 ± 18.04 147.9710 418.94
Summer 0.35 ± 0.05 29.33 ± 3.06 8.32 ± 0.13 147.22 ± 11.36 142.00 ± 4.98 6.17 ± 76 42.00 ± 7.62 124.89 ± 6.30 160.5750 454.63
Monsoon 0.95 ± 0.35 27.33 ± 2.52 7.77 ± 0.25 140.78 ± 5.18 139.33 ± 7.55 6.68 ± 0.55 34.22 ± 6.87 100.88 ± 33.77 130.2543 368.78
S5 Winter 0.39 ± 0.05 17.00 ± 3.00 8.70 ± 0.13 174.00 ± 4.70 156.33 ± 6.89 5.47 ± 0.50 43.22 ± 3.20 178.22 ± 11.49 196.9760 557.68
Summer 0.35 ± 0.02 29.67 ± 3.21 8.63 ± 0.10 157.44 ± 7.31 142.7 ± 6.18 4.48 ± 1.02 60.83 ± 5.94 167.10 ± 4.69 220.2990 623.72
Monsoon 0.97 ± 0.39 27.33 ± 2.52 8.31 ± 0.27 152.66 ± 7.53 139.66 ± 4.25 5.28 ± 0.64 46.55 ± 2.87 130.66 ± 15.03 172.5753 488.60
S6 Winter 0.32 ± 0.05 17.00 ± 3.00 7.97 ± 0.25 154.89 ± 2.99 144.66 ± 2.52 7.28 ± 0.07 20.55 ± 3.17 61.33 ± 11.85 86.6612 245.36
Summer 0.28 ± 0.02 29.33 ± 3.06 7.67 ± 0.06 139.77 ± 2.50 131.6 ± 4.22 6.42 ± 0.67 27.78 ± 4.67 56.89 ± 6.58 93.3243 264.22
Monsoon 0.70 ± 0.25 27.33 ± 2.52 7.55 ± 0.09 136.44 ± 4.17 131.78 ± 1.35 6.44 ± 0.27 22.91 ± 2.70 49.55 ± 11.28 80.3320 227.44
S7 Winter 0.19 ± 0.05 17.33 ± 2.52 8.39 ± 0.10 162.78 ± 2.04 150.55 ± 6.27 7.13 ± 0.25 28.66 ± 4.37 139.99 ± 10.07 146.9923 416.17
Summer 0.17 ± 0.01 29.67 ± 3.21 8.33 ± 0.06 150.89 ± 5.09 145.2 ± 1.61 6.03 ± 0.36 39.11 ± 1.35 138.66 ± 4.81 164.2132 464.93
Monsoon 0.54 ± 0.23 27.33 ± 2.52 7.72 ± 0.07 140.89 ± 6.00 135.55 ± 9.37 6.42 ± 0.48 30.99 ± 6.81 96.89 ± 20.41 122.6341 347.20
S8 Winter 0.29 ± 0.03 17.33 ± 2.52 8.70 ± 0.09 180.33 ± 5.21 162.22 ± 4.52 5.54 ± 0.60 46.71 ± 4.77 190.66 ± 39.08 205.5516 580.55
Summer 0.21 ± 0.04 29.67 ± 3.21 8.59 ± 0.13 162.89 ± 6.68 152.6 ± 6.54 4.54 ± 1.38 66.27 ± 0.46 182.22 ± 13.15 238.0299 673.93
Monsoon 0.58 ± 0.22 27.33 ± 2.52 8.27 ± 0.25 159.99 ± 8.08 149.22 ± 6.19 5.19 ± 0.34 49.22 ± 2.27 132.00 ± 2.31 179.2208 507.42
S9 Winter 0.25 ± 0.03 17.33 ± 2.52 8.82 ± 0.10 187.88 ± 8.88 164.22 ± 2.99 5.26 ± 0.14 51.66 ± 2.00 240.00 ± 17.33 248.4822 703.52
Summer 0.17 ± 0.05 29.67 ± 3.21 8.73 ± 0.24 166.00 ± 14.24 155.8 ± 5.12 4.65 ± 1.08 66.64 ± 2.19 207.55 ± 34.29 258.8115 732.76
Monsoon 0.51 ± 0.21 27.33 ± 2.52 8.40 ± 0.19 155.88 ± 5.05 148.03 ± 5.60 4.97 ± 0.30 55.89 ± 5.30 157.77 ± 8.04 204.9261 580.19
Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079
Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079 2065

river water. Studies have reported blockage of water

by dams/barrages resulting in changes in water
temperature (Qiu 2012). The dams and indiscriminate
discharge of domestic and industrial effluent affect
fish migration and their survival in these riverines.
Studies have predicted 1–2 C hike in Ganga water
temperature by 2050 (Das 2014). Climate change may
also adversely affect biomass along the river Ganga.
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 pH is the second most important parameter for
analyzing river water quality because the survival and
growth of aquatic organisms occur in a narrow range
of water pH. The tolerance limit of pH for fish survival
is 6.7–9.5 while the ideal pH for fish growth exists in
between 7.5 and 8.5. The pH of fresh water is highly
Fig. 2 Seasonal variations in water temperature susceptible to changes in CO2 concentration and
nature of sediments. pH was in the range of 7.33–7.58
(monsoon to summer) at control site (S1). High pH
was recorded during winter and summer season as
compared to monsoon season. The high pH recorded
during winter and summer season may be due to high
buffering capacity in slow flow of river water (Fig. 3,
Table 3). River water has low buffering capacity when
the flow is high while capacity reduces when flow of
the river water is low. High buffering capacity is due to
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 the fact that ions derived from weathered bedrock and
erosion are high in the surface water; therefore, pH and
alkalinity become high (Howland et al. 2000). How-
ever, as we move downstream toward the middle
stretch, the increase in pH is observed at all the sites
except sites S3 and S6 (Fig. 3, Table 3). The site S3 is
Fig. 3 Seasonal variations in water pH
far from villages and town and thus has less discharge
of domestic and industrial effluents. However, it has
location or merging of industrial effluents having high cremation site. Site S6 is also away from the industrial
temperature (Fig. 2). area; here agricultural activities dominate. At site S5,
The higher temperature of water body increases the polluted Kali river joins Ganga, leading to high pH
rate of biochemical activity of microbiota and values. Previous studies (Khan et al. 2016) have
decreases oxygen solubility, resulting in the increase reported 7.3–7.9 pH range of Ramganga water.
in the oxygen demand in the water body. The However, Kali river water reports show different pH
temperature between 30 and 35 C is tolerable for values (Sirohi et al. 2014). In all the three seasons, the
fishes (Delince 1992), and 24–30 C is suitable for highest pH values were observed at S5, S7, S8 and S9.
survival of most of the fishes and 28–32 C suitable for The recorded pH above 8.5 at sites S5, S8 and S9
Indian carps (Bhatnagar et al. 2004; Santhosh and during winter and summer seasons crosses the pre-
Singh 2007). The temperature below 12 C is lethal scribed limit of WHO, BIS and WQI for drinking
for most of the fishes but good for survival of water.
coldwater fishes. Temperature alterations or increase Water velocity is an important parameter. 60% of
affect aquatic ecosystem (Caissie 2006; Hester and Ganga river flow is contributed by Himalayan glaciers
Doyle 2011; Ellis and Jones 2013). Due to global and 40% due to plateau rivers (Ray 1998). Though in
warming and uncontrolled exploitation of natural the plains, river becomes narrow and dry, monsoon
resources, the increase in temperature is observed in rains favorably impact flow of the river. The velocity

123
2066 Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9

Fig. 4 Seasonal variations in water velocity

Fig. 5 Seasonal variations in water alkalinity

during winter, minimum during monsoon and inter-

of Ganga is reduced after site S1 (Fig. 4, Table 3) as mediate during summer season. However, ANOVA
slope is reduced, and here river deposits sediment and could not yield significant differences in alkalinity in
thus moves slowly. Dams/barrages also affect its different seasons (Table 4). Alkalinity is the sum of
velocity. Nearly 8.5 MLD discharge affects its color, negative ions reacting to neutralize hydrogen ions
turbidity, viscosity and thus velocity. The river when acid is added to water. The ideal value of
velocity was affected at site S2 due to the increase in alkalinity for drinking water is 200 mg L-1, and for
surface area; depth and river turn S7 (Brahmavart fish adaptation it is 50–300 mg L-1. Water alkalinity
Ghat) due to construction of barrage, S8 (Sarsaiya is affected during winter and summer seasons because
Ghat) due to local barrier of Bhairon Ghat pumping of greater biological activity and weathered bedrock
station and at the S9 (Siddhanath Ghat) due to local derived ions on the surface in slow flow rate (Howland
barrier made by fisherman. It was slightly improved at et al. 2000). The total alkalinity also fluctuates due to
sites S4 and S5 due to convergence of Ramganga and the fluctuation in the level of pollutants. Highest
Kali river, respectively. Water velocity is an important values were recorded at sites S8 and S9 of Kanpur.
parameter which improves the river water quality and High alkalinity is influenced by different salts, waste
health of aquatic organisms. Fast flow of river water water, etc. It also indicates hard water as compared to
has low buffering capacity and high dissolved oxygen
(DO) due to better aeration in comparison with slow Table 4 One-way analysis of variance, between groups
water current. High buffering capacity in slow streams ANOVA to compare the effect of different seasons as winter,
may increase the pH, alkalinity and hardness of water. summer and monsoon on various physicochemical properties of
water samples from different sites
Garbage, sediment and silt quickly settle down to the
river bottom in slow flowing streams. In fast flowing Seasonal parameters F ratio p value
streams, sediment is suspended in the water column. Temperature 25.91** 0.00001
ANOVA revealed significant differences in velocity of
pH 2.216 0.13
water in the three seasons. The river velocity is
Velocity 8.5* 0.0061
affected during different seasons of the year. During
Alkalinity 1.149 0.33
the summer months, it decreases when evaporation
Hardness 0.547 0.586
rates are high and increases during rainy seasons.
DO 1.127 0.34
Total alkalinity was \ 80 mg L-1 at control site,
BOD 0.8675 0.433
but the remaining sites showed high alkalinity
COD 0.7984 0.46
([ 100 mg L-1) (Fig. 5, Table 3). It was observed
WQI 0.482 0.62
that the total alkalinity (TA) of Ganga water at the sites
from Farrukhabad to Kanpur (sites S2-S9) was highest *Significant at p \ 0.05; **Significant at p \ 0.00001

123
Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079 2067

source water. Increased alkalinity suggests high dete-

rioration of water quality at this stretch.
Similar trend was observed in hardness of water
(Fig. 6, Table 3). The highest value of total hardness
was recorded during winter season followed by
summer and monsoon season at the selected sites
(S2 to S9) from Farrukhabad to Kanpur while at site
S1, the highest values were recorded during summer
followed by monsoon and winter seasons. Similar
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
trends of alkalinity and hardness in river Ganga were
also observed by Tiwari et al. (2016). The water
hardness depends on the dissolved solids and pH. It
shows the total concentration of bivalent cations such
as Ca, Mg and Sr. The recommended value of hardness
for drinking water is 300 mg L-1 while for fish culture
it is 30–180 mg L-1. Fig. 7 Seasonal variations in water DO
DO also showed significant reduction from control
site to sites S8 and S9 (Fig. 7, Table 3). Similarly,
BOD (Fig. 8, Table 3) and COD (Fig. 9, Table 3)
were found to be higher as we move from control site
to S9. The amount of DO in river water depends on
temperature fluctuation that influences the oxygen
solubility in water. The highest value of DO was
recorded during winter season followed by monsoon
and summer season. Greatly reduced DO level during
the summer season may be due to the high temperature
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
and greater rate of microbial decomposition of organic
matter. The decrease in DO levels during monsoon
season may be due to turbidity effect and inflow of
industrial runoff with high temperature and less
oxygen content (Yisa and Jimoh 2010).
The highest BOD value was observed during Fig. 8 Seasonal variations in water BOD
summer season followed by monsoon and winter

season. The recorded range of BOD at site S1

(1.76 ± 0.58–2.55 ± 0.34 mg L-1) was within the
prescribed limit (6.0 mg L-1) of WHO and BIS.
Higher values of BOD were obtained at all selected
sites (S2 to S9) during all the seasons of the study
periods. The maximum level of BOD during summer
season may be due to high temperature and low water
currents that increase microbial population and
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 decomposition rate of organic matter (Sanap et al.
2006). The minimum BOD level during winter season
may be due to poor microbial growth and slow rate of
decomposition of organic matter at low temperature.
The observed BOD value higher than 28 mg L-1
suggests that water body is eutrophic in nature
Fig. 6 Seasonal variations in water hardness

123
2068 Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079

(Chatterjee 1992). Except sites S1, S3 and S6, all other mostly the effluent overflows into the drain. Pumping
sites showed augmentation of BOD and COD sug- stations are not working leading to direct discharge in
gesting severe deterioration. BOD is the indicator of Ganga river. In the passage of main drain, sev-
water pollution by both sewage and industrial wastes. eral nonpoint drains, many other small houses or
It is the amount of oxygen consumed by microorgan- small industries directly discharge their drain. Thus,
isms which decompose organic matter in the water. the Ganga river ultimately becomes a sink for the
The recommended BOD value for drinking is less than whole untreated, unattended effluent. Unfortunately,
3 mg L-1, but in surface water the prescribed limit is the canals for agricultural purposes are also supplied
6 mg L-1 for drinking, whereas the optimum BOD with untreated waste water. Crematory is closed to
level for fishes is less than 10 mg L-1 (Fig. 8). many of these sites, where partially burnt bodies or
The COD is important parameters for evaluation of ashes are directly discharged into Ganga. Tannery area
sewage an industrial contamination in river system. It has animal hide all around the place; all these may be
is defined as the amount of oxygen required to oxidize responsible for high COD.
organic matters by a strong chemical oxidant. The Several reports over last 4–5 decades are available
recommended COD value for drinking is less than for Ganga. Bhargava (1977) reported that river Ganga
10 mg L-1, whereas the ideal value for fish culture is from Rishikesh to Varanasi is most polluted at
suitably less than 50 mg L-1. Kannauj to Kanpur and then at Varanasi, making it
It was observed that the COD value was highest extremely polluted. At Kanpur, Saxena et al. (1966)
during winter season followed by summer and mon- carried out a systematic survey of the physical,
soon season. Considering WHO and BIS standards, chemical and bacteriological quality of Ganga water.
except site S1, all other sites showed high COD values. Their study revealed reasonably satisfactory quality of
The recorded COD values indicate that the river water water at city’s water intake at Bhairon Ghat pumping
is basically contaminated through industrial effluent station, but poor quality after receiving pollutant load
containing organic matter. Close to sites S3 (Singi- from city and condition was worse at Jajmau (Sid-
rampur), S6 (Nanamau) and S9 (Siddhanath Ghat), dhanath Ghat) where untreated tannery effluent is
agricultural activities are major contributor (Fig. 9, discharged in the river. They recommended setting up
Table 3). Some of the localities close to the river do not of treatment plants by various pollution-generating
have sewer system, so they defecate on the banks of industries.
the river. Tannery waste is also discharged directly or Kashiprasad (1977) reported some improvement in
through ETPs. ETPs are functional for some time, but water quality parameters such as BOD, DO, total
phosphate and nitrate as compared to the previous
study by Saxena et al. (1966). Bhargava (1977) made
the observation that despite high organic pollution
load in river Ganga, the dissolved oxygen levels in the
river are high and background BOD levels in the river
are low. To partially explain this curious phenomenon,
he proposed the bio-flocculation mechanism given by
Pavoni et al. (1972), which may result in flocculation
and settlement of particulate BOD to the river bottom.
In order to improve the quality of Ganga water, Ganga
action plan (GAP) was initiated in 1985 and National
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 River Conservation Directorate (NRCD) was set up. It
started the program of monitoring the river by various
agencies, and significant improvement in Ganga river
water quality in terms of DO and BOD was reported
(NRCD 1999a, b) after completion of phase I of GAP.
However, the effectiveness of GAP schemes in
Fig. 9 Seasonal variations in water COD improving the quality of river water in terms of DO
and BOD was later questioned (Gupta 2000; Tare et al.

123
Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079 2069

p \ 0.001). We were expecting changes in WQI,

BOD, etc., in monsoon season, but probably the water
brings more pollutants from soil erosion rather than
diluting the existing concentrations. This seems to be
valid as sediment analysis shows very high concen-
tration of heavy metals which may be responsible for
contamination of water bodies in monsoon season.
Apart from heavy metals, all other undesirable mate-
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
rial and domestic sewage discharge also has its impact
as due to water logging in the cities, the drains closed
previously are opened during rainy season.
In addition to these point sources, polluted tribu-
taries of the Ganga (i.e., Yamuna, Kali, Ramganga,
Fig. 10 Seasonal variations in WQI Damodar, Gomti, Ghaghara and Son) also augment
existing pollution load in the river (Mishra 2010;
2003). Their study showed that the maintenance of Mishra et al. 2015). These tributaries transport con-
high DO levels in the river is due to significant taminants such as metals from different point and
photosynthetic activity and not due to the reduction in nonpoint sources (Paul 2017). There are nearly 359
organic load. Thus, the studies show high organic load industries, which directly or indirectly discharge their
in Ganga water. effluent in Yamuna which further exacerbates pollu-
The study by Mukherjee et al. (1993) carried out on tion loads in the Ganga (Singh 2001a; Mishra 2010).
stretch of Ganga at West Bengal revealed high DO of Yamuna is the most contaminated tributary of Ganga.
water during 1972–1974 and 1979–1980. However, This stretch of river Ganga receives over 3811.2
CPCB report (2019) reveals that the Ganga water from MLD (million liters per day) industrial and municipal
Uttar Pradesh to West Bengal is totally unfit for wastes from several cities such as Haridwar, Bijnor,
drinking and bathing, with high levels of coliform Anupshahr, Farrukhabad, Kannauj and Kanpur (CPCB
bacteria. 2016a). Apart from these cities, about 853.3 MLD
WQI index shows values more than 100 at all the toxic wastes are received from its major tributaries,
locations except control site (Fig. 10, Table 3) in all Ramganga and Kali river (CPCB 2016a; Gupta et al.
the three seasons. The value [ 100 suggests poor 2017a, b). There are three minor tributaries such as
water quality from S2 till S9 which is severely polluted Ishan, Noon and Pandu river which are further
having unsuitable water quality and is categorized responsible for adding pollution into the river Ganga.
under Class E (WQI index for water quality, Table 2). About 500 industries including pulp and paper, sugar,
The results show that serious and concerted efforts are textile, paint and leather, etc., are located along the
required for Ganga cleaning. river basin, among which about 400 leather and
Study by Sarkar et al. (2019) has reported meso- tannery industries are located in Kanpur City alone
and microplastics at lower stretch of Ganga. They which discharge over 1000 MLD waste water to the
found strong correlation between microplastic abun- main stem of the river Ganga either directly or through
dance and BOD, again emphasizing the urgent atten- various drains.
tion required for holy river. Our results were compared to that of the data
To study the effects of seasons on different quality obtained from other national as well as international
parameters, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) rivers (Table 5). The data for temperature were
was performed ([Link]). Surprisingly, comparable with Ganga (Singh 2010), Ramganga
we could not find variations in pH, alkalinity, hard- (20.4–35.9), Gomti, Vaigai, Chambal and foreign
ness, DO, BOD, COD and WQI between winter, rivers as Awash and Songkhram. Data for pH,
summer and monsoon seasons (Table 4). There was alkalinity and hardness showed decreased pH range
significant effect of seasons on water velocity (F ratio of Ganga in our study as compared to Singh 2010.
8.5, p \ 0.001) and temperature (F ratio 25.91, However, Ramganga, Kali, Gomti, Vaigai, Cauvery,
Chambal also have high alkalinity and hardness.

123
 Table 5 Comparison of Ganga river water quality data with its tributaries, other Indian and foreign rivers
2070

Rivers Physicochemical parameters References

-1 -1 -1

123
Temperature pH …… Alkalinity (mg L ) Hardness DO (mg L ) BOD COD (mg L )
(C) (mg L-1) (mg L-1)

Ganga 10.00 ± 2.00– 7.33 ± 0.05– 67.78 ± 6.31– 60.65 ± 3.91– 4.65 ± 1.08– 1.76 ± 0.58– 3.78 ± 0.20– Present study
29.67 ± 3.21 8.82 ± 0.10 187.88 ± 8.88 164.22 ± 2.99 9.60 ± 0.31 66.64 ± 2.19 240.00 ± 17.33
Ganga NA 6.7–7.3 NA NA NA 68.37–83.42 194.45–225.68 Aktar et al. (2010)
Ganga 20.1 ± 1.4– 7.2 ± 0.6– 268 ± 3.4–310 ± 3.7 NA 2.5 ± 0.1– 1.9 ± 3.2– 5.9 ± 4.2– Singh (2010)
33.7 ± 1.9 8.8 ± 0.6 9.7 ± 1.6 87.5 ± 3.1 170.5 ± 4.4
Ganga tributaries
Gomati 26.0–29.0 7.60–8.11 142–218 124–176 5.4–6.6 17.0–36.0 28.0–56.0 Tiwari and Kishu
(2016)
Kali NA 7.0–7.5 NA 212–418 NA 20–90 196–420 Sirohi et al. (2014)
Kali 8.46–9.50 585–1730 3.3–5.0 37–165 64–260 Sinha et al. (2012)
Ramganga NA 7.3–7.9 NA NA NA 9.6 ± 3.1– 19.4 ± 4.2– Khan et al. (2016)
23.5 ± 4.8 45.7 ± 9.6
Ramganga 20.4–35.9 8.3–8.8 96–202 192–219 5.7–6.3 5.0–5.8 33.5–41.0 Gangwar et al. (2012)
Yamuna NA 6.80–8.82 NA NA 0.01–5.80 6.0–58.0 NA Sharma and Kansal
(2011)
Yamuna NA 7.3–7.7 175–310 252–304 NA NA NA Gupta et al. (2013)
Other Indian Rivers
Cauvery NA 7.58 ± 0.20– 182.33 ± 10.96 167.67 ± 8.81– 5.32 ± 0.93– 2.43 ± 0.48– 10.67 ± 0.94– Senthilmanickam et al.
7.78 ± 0.08 237.33 ± 29.45 292.00 ± 68.37 9.19 ± 0.81 3.87 ± 0.68 17.67 ± 3.86 (2016)
Chambal 17.60–33.0 7.6–9.33 70.00–290.00 42.00–140.00 4.86–14.59 0.60–5.67 4.00–26.00 Saksena et al. (2008)
Vaigai 24.0–27.0 6.8–8.6 290–870 242–1750 4.32–9.57 4.5–22.6 7.2–240.0 Mallika et al. (2017)
Foreign Rivers
Awash 20.40–23.60 6.08–8.45 NA NA 3.02–8.71 13.69–83.37 22.85–150.38 Eliku and Leta (2018)
(Ethiopia)
Songkhram 25–35 5.3–7.4 NA NA 2.0–8.0 NA NA Satrawaha et al. (2009)
(Thailand)
NA not applicable
Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079
Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079 2071

Similar trend is observed for DO which keeps on pollution levels of Ganga river, which is considered as
decreasing in Ramganga, Kali, Yamuna, Gomti, mother in Hindu traditions.
Vaigai, Cauvery, Chambal, Awash (Ethiopia) and Figure 11 shows contribution of many nonpoint
Songkhram (Thailand). Almost similar trend was sources. There are many drains which directly empty
observed when our data were compared with afore- into Ganga without any treatment. Kanpur City has
mentioned rivers data for BOD and COD. All these more than 20 nonpoint sources or open drains. Many
rivers have high biological and chemical oxygen of these contain domestic sewage from residential
demand (Table 5). areas with almost all possible contaminants as clothes,
Our findings suggest that strict regulations have to furniture, polythenes, plastic bags, animal discharges
be exercised by the government of India on river and carcasses. The untreated domestic sewage is
exploitation by sewage and industrial waste not only directly discharged in Ganga. Presently, some initia-
for Ganga but all other adjoining rivers as well because tives have been taken to prevent these discharges, but
tributaries of Ganga (Kali & Ramganga) ultimately monsoon rains resulted in severe water logging in the
merge with Ganga. Other rivers (Vaigai, Cauvery, city, leading to opening of previously closed channels.
Chambal) are also struggling hard to cope with Among other pollutants, heavy metals are known to
increased undesirable anthropogenic activities, along be potential contaminants and carcinogens. Ganga
with rivers as Vaigai, Cauvery, Chambal. This is true water is loaded with heavy metals such as Ni, Cu, Pb,
even for international rivers like Awash (Eliku and Cr, Fe, Zn, Cd and Co which accumulate in fish tissues
Leta 2018) and Songkhram which need care and and are potential risk to the health of consumers like
attention for our future generations. humans (Kumar et al. 2019). The physical appearance
In our study also, there was a significant positive of river Ganga from Farrukhabad to Kanpur has
correlation between pH, alkalinity, hardness, DO, changed from blue to blackish color. Because of heavy
BOD and COD (Table 6) suggesting deterioration of pollution load, the river ecosystem is getting deteri-
one parameter positively affects the other parameters orated both physically and biologically (Khatoon et al.
leading to loss of water quality. The possible reasons 2013, Kumar et al. 2018). From Haridwar to Kanpur,
for these results may be in the city large-scale CETPs the flow of river water is affected by four barrages
were installed to handle industrial waste from tanner- which are located at Haridwar, Bijnor, Narora and
ies and distilleries clustered near Siddhanath Ghat. But Kanpur. Barrages are responsible for various detri-
incapability of units to handle large amount of mental effects on physical characteristics and destruc-
discharge, nonpoint entries, illegal inhabitation, treat- tion of feeding, spawning and migration routes of
ment failure of domestic sewage has led to chronic various migratory fishes such as Tor putitora, T. tor,
Bagarius bagarius, Pangasius pangasius, Silonia

Table 6 Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) for studied physicochemical parameters with obtained WQI value of the Ganga river
water
Velocity Temperature pH Alkalinity Hardness DO BOD COD WQI

Velocity 1
Temperature - 0.24 1
Ph - 0.62** 0.098 1
Alkalinity - 0.77** 0.26 0.82** 1
Hardness - 0.76** 0.36 0.77** 0.98** 1
DO 0.57** - 0.64** - 0.76** - 0.80** - 0.80** 1
BOD - 0.54** 0.55** 0.83** 0.78** 0.77** - 0.94** 1
COD - 0.59** 0.23 0.95** 0.86** 0.82** - 0.82** 0.89** 1
WQI - 0.59** 0.38* 0.92** 0.85** 0.82** - 0.89** 0.97** 0.98** 1
**Significant at p \ 0.01

123
2072 Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079

and S6. Sites S2, S4, S5, S7, S8 and S9 showed high Cr
concentration with very high levels at sites S8 and S9
of Kanpur. In the sediment, Cr concentration was high
at S2, S4, S5, S7 with very high levels at S8 and S9
(Table 7).
Cr is the 17th abundant metal largely utilized in
plating, animal hides tanning, as inhibitor of corrosion
of water, mordant, textile dyes, pigments, ceramic
glazes, alloying refractory bricks, and pressure-treated
lumber (Avudainayagam et al. 2003). It is also present
naturally in earth in several forms. The high level of
chromium at S8 and S9 may be due to tannery effluents
and at other sites, from municipal waste, laundry,
paint, dye and textile industries. The high concentra-
tion of Cr causes hematological, pathological and
morphological changes, ROS (reactive oxygen spe-
cies) production and affects immune function (Vera-
Candioti et al. 2011). The exposure to high concen-
tration of Cr compounds in humans may cause lung
cancer, allergic reactions like skin rash, nose irrita-
tions and nosebleeds (Jordao et al. 2002; Karadede
et al. 2004). [Link] (5th March 2019) reported
high incidences of gall bladder (85% patients with gall
bladder stones) and liver cancer. The last decade has
seen 5% higher incidences. The problem is believed to
be due to high heavy metal discharge from tanneries.
Everyday, OPD has 4–5 patients of cancer. Another
report from India Today (12th Jan, 2018) says Kanpur
is becoming ‘Cancer Capital’ of Uttar Pradesh.
Reports of October 22, 2019, indicate the highest
cancer patients at Cancer Institute, Kanpur, in the
present year as compared to previous years. After oral
cancer, the maximum cases have been registered for
gall bladder and liver cancer in Kanpur City.
Fig. 11 A Discharge of Jajmau drain directly entering Ganga As per prescribed limits of BIS, Cu concentrations
river without any treatment. B Tannery industry discharge were high at all the sites except control site. Sites S3,
which enters Ganga. C Ganga river at site (S9) Siddhanath Ghat S5 and S6 had lower concentration as compared to
with lot of metal deposition
other sites. S2 had the highest copper levels in water.
Sediment evaluation showed low Cu levels at S1 and
further lower at S3, S5 and S7 while it was lowest at S6
silondia, Tenualosa ilisha and Sperata aor (Sarkar
(Table 7). In sediment, the highest concentration
et al. 2012).
(35,600 lg kg-1) was detected at S9 (Table 7). The
The concentrations of heavy metals were analyzed
high concentration of Cu is more toxic for aquatic
in our study in water and sediment samples of each
organisms including fishes and also affects the growth
studied site which are shown in Table 7. Prescribed
and reproduction rate in animals and plants (Singh
limit of heavy metal concentration by several National
et al. 2016). The longtime exposure of Cu may cause
and International standards is shown in Table 7.
irritation in eyes, mouth, nose, and its high dose may
Our study revealed that Cr concentration in water
cause diarrhea, vomiting and headaches.
samples was under prescribed BIS limits at sites S1, S3

123
Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079 2073

Table 7 Heavy metal accumulation (S1–S9) has been presented as various cities to which these sites are belong
Cities Sites Samples Heavy metal concentrations (water: lgL-1, Sediment: lgkg-1)
Cr Cu Cd Pb

Haridwar S1 Misarpur Water 16 BDL BDL 50

Farrukhabad Sediment 3750 17000 250 1500
S2 Ghatiya Ghat Water 116 158 5 400
Sediment 24,500 21,200 1350 55,500
S3 Singirampur Ghat Water 20 75 BDL 75
Sediment 4250 11,000 350 12,500
Kannauj S4 Kusumkhor Ghat Water 165 20.5 2 450
Sediment 21,050 26,000 1000 50,000
S5 Mehandi Ghat Water 70.5 105 2.5 555
Sediment 20,300 12,400 4150 58,000
S6 Nanamau Ghat Water 20.5 26 BDL 55
Sediment 3600 3300 BDL 7500
Kanpur S7 Brahmavart Ghat Water 30.5 55 0.5 60
Sediment 11,250 11,550 100 6500
S8 Sarsaiya Ghat Water 135 27.5 2.5 75
Sediment 41,100 31,050 6750 12,500
S9 Siddhanath Ghat Water 261 62 2 65
Sediment 83,000 35,600 9700 12,500
Tributaries of river Ganga References

Ghaghara Water 00–10 10–47 1–57 1–29 Singh et al. (2016)

Sediment 61,250–87,680 2760–11,740 210–280 10,710–14,260 Singh et al. (2017)
Gomati Water NA 16–68 29–62 31–65 Neha et al. (2017)
Sediment NA 1907–8390 8967–95,350 35,823–90,920 Neha et al. (2017)
Kali Water 60–90 NA 60–80 130–190 Mishra et al. (2015)
Sediment 350–20,110 110–3380 NA 14,220–81,530 Malik and Maurya
(2014)
Yamuna Water 3.245–13.580 0.018–0.044 0.871–3.087 0.067–0.326 Kaur and Mehra (2012)
Sediment 163–817 4–82.9 0.5–11.8 220–253 Singh (2001)
Standards
BIS Water 50 50 10 10 BIS (2012)
CPCB Water No relaxation 1500 No relaxation No relaxation CPCB (2016a)
ICMR Water 50 1500 10 50
RSMENR Sediment 500 2000 20,000 RSMENR (2002)
WHO Water 50 2000 3 10 WHO (2014)
USEPA Water 10 1300 5 15 USEPA (2018)
Sediment 5000 NA 1000 5000 USEPA (2018)
Heavy metal analysis at sites S1 (Haridwar), S2 and S3 (Farrukhabad), S4 and S5 (Kannauj) and (S6, S7, S8 and S9 (Kanpur).
Comparison of heavy metal content in water and sediment at different sites with the previous data. The maximum permissible limits
of these metals according to different international as well as Indian standards (BIS, CPCB, ICMR, RSMENR, WHO, USEPA) are
also presented
BIS Bureau of Indian Standard, CPCB Central Pollution Control Board, ICMR Indian Council of Medical Research, RSMENR Rivers
State Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, WHO World Health Organizer, USEPA United States Environmental
Protection Agency

123
2074 Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079

Cadmium was below detection limits at control site sediment analysis in the present sites showed higher
S1, S3 and S6. Other water samples also showed Cd Cd concentrations at S2, S3, S4, S5, S8 and S9 as per
concentration under or equal to prescribed limits of limits of RSMENR standard.
BIS. However, sediment analysis revealed high Cd Siddhanath Ghat S9 shows the highest heavy metal
levels at sites S8 and S9, while S5 had higher contamination. That may be due to tanneries and other
concentration. Other sites show low levels or no Cd industries which discharge their waste in Ganga river.
in the samples tested (Table 7). A comparison of our data with other reports on heavy
The recorded Cd concentration is under prescribed metal concentration in water and sediment levels
limit of WHO, BIS, ICMR and USEPA for drinking revealed that Cr levels in water at sites analyzed were
water. The highest concentration of Cd in sediment high at S2, S4, S8 and S9 (Table 7) as compared to
sample was detected at the site S9 (Siddhanath Ghat). reports of other rivers like Kali (Mishra et al. 2015),
Its major sources in the riverine systems are soil, rocks Ghaghara (Singh et al. 2016) and Gomati (Neha et al.
and municipal wastes (Nriagu and Pacyna 1988). It is 2017). The comparison of sediment accumulation
equally toxic to both forms of aquatic life, fishes and showed levels of Cr at Ghaghara river (Singh et al.
invertebrates (Jain 2002). It is carcinogenic and 2017) higher than highly polluted S9 site of Sid-
mutagenic and may cause hyperglycemia and anemia, dhanath Ghat at Jajmau, Kanpur. All our sites showed
in humans (Rehman and Sohail 2010). higher Cr levels as per WHO, RSMENR standards.
Pb concentration was high and above the prescribed Pb concentration in water and sediment was higher
limits of BIS at all the sites including control site S1. in water and sediment as per the prescribed limits.
The highest concentration was at S5 while S2 and S4 Sediment at Kali (Malik and Maurya 2014) and
also had higher Pb levels in water samples. Sediment Gomati (Neha et al. 2017) showed higher concentra-
analysis showed highest at S5, S2 and S4. For Pb, all tion than Ganga sites evaluated.
the water and sediment samples showed higher levels There was a positive correlation of BOD and COD
than the prescribed limits of BIS (Table 7). The with Cr concentration, suggesting that high Cr leads to
highest concentration at S5 site located at Kannauj increased biological as well as chemical oxygen
City may be due to perfumery business. The city is demand and is toxic for living organisms (Table 8).
famous for its perfumes and ‘itra’ throughout the Cu showed positive correlation with Cd, suggesting
world. The detected Pb concentrations at all sites are that probably copper levels favor the impact of Cd
far above the prescribed limit of WHO, BIS, ICMR, levels in water.
CPCB (no relaxation) and USEPA for drinking water. Our study shows that most polluted site was S9,
The sources of Pb in aquatic systems are industrial Siddhanath Ghat at Jajmau, Kanpur (Fig. 12). It had
discharge, pesticides and municipal waste water. Its
higher levels pose a major threat to aquaculture
including fisheries resources. The excess lead levels Table 8 Correlation of heavy metals with BOD and COD in
water samples
in the aquatic system may cause generative damage
and alteration in blood and nerve cells of fishes and Water correlations
other aquatic organisms (Mc Coy et al. 1995; Kalay BOD COD Cr Cu Cd Pd
et al. 1999).
Copper levels in sediment were higher in our BOD 1
findings as compared to other reports used for COD 0.976** 1
comparison in this study such as in Kali (Mishra Cr 0.746* 0.793* 1
et al. 2015), Ghaghara (Singh et al. 2016, 2017) and Cu 0.332 0.322 0.111 1
Gomati (Neha et al. 2017). Even control site S1 had Cd 0.547 0.566 0.548 0.703* 1
higher Cu levels in sediment while water showed level Pd 0.274 0.259 0.192 0.521 0.637 1
below detection limit. The values with ** show significance at 95% confidence level
Cd in water from sites analyzed in the present study with p \ 0.01, while the values with * show significance at
was low when compared to Ramganga (Khan et al. 95% confidence level with p \ 0.05
2017), Kali (Mishra et al. 2015), Gomati (Neha et al. **Correlation is significant at p \ 0.01 level (two-tailed)
2017) and Ghaghara (Singh et al. 2016). However, *Correlation is significant at p \ 0.05 level (two-tailed)

123
Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079 2075

oxygen and increases biological oxygen demand

(BOD), which shows highly reduced oxygen levels
in the riverine system (Afraz and Gane 1995; Malzad
and Fraz 1995; Emtiyazi 2000; Sengupta et al. 2014,
Bhateria and Jain 2016).
The discharge of untreated wastes of industrial,
hospitals and agriculture into the water body not only
poses a serious threat to water resources but also leads
to serious problems in nature (Sengupta et al. 2014).
Fig. 12 Different parameters measured at all the nine selected Industrial and municipal wastes containing hazardous
sites (sites S1 S9). The values are means of the seasonal
evaluations for all the sites chemicals such as heavy metals and pesticides greatly
affect the aquatic ecosystem and gradually change the
physicochemical properties of river water (Gupta et al.
the highest BOD, COD, chromium concentration and 2017a, b; Kumar et al. 2017; Iwasaki et al. 2018;
WQI. At Kanpur, Sisamau drain’s sewage (listed as Maurya and Malik 2018). As the heavy metals enter
Asia’s biggest) was diverted via pipelines to two into the river basin, they accumulate into the water
separate STPs at the city outskirts by government’s column, sediment and aquatic biota (Pandey and Singh
initiative. On an average, it drains approximately 80 2017). Heavy metals are highly toxic, non- biodegrad-
MLD to STP at Bhingawan and 60 MLD to STP at able and persistent in nature; therefore, they remain in
Jajmau. The effluents after Bhingawan STP are the environment for a long duration (Vodyanitskii
discharged into the Pandu river (tributary of the 2013). These accumulated heavy metals are gradually
Ganga), while from Jajmau STP, the effluents are transferred into the ecosystem through food chain and
dumped into the fields in adjacent villages. The cause metal toxicity in the organisms (Kumar et al.
analysis by IIT, Kanpur, carried out only from the 2017; Maurya and Malik 2018). These pollutants are
discharge of Bhingawan STP revealed very poor persistent and have mutagenic or clastogenic proper-
standards. The BOD of the treated effluent was ties affecting the fish (Kushwaha et al. 2012) and
67 mg L-1 (standard of 10 mg L-1), the COD was human population.
198 mg L-1 (standard 50 mg L-1), and the total Several literature reports and the present study
suspended solid (TSS) was 54 mg L-1 (standard suggest that the condition of Ganga river is highly
20 mg L-1) ([Link]). At Jajmau, the stressful. We could not find seasonal differences on
effluents also have industrial (tanneries, distilleries, major parameters except temperature and velocity,
etc.) effluents while STP is not able to handle suggesting that throughout the year the river is under
industrial discharges. A report by the state govern- extreme pollution stress. The conditions are deterio-
ment’s Ganga Pollution Control Unit (GPCU) at rating with time due to indiscriminate pollution
Kanpur says that the BOD and TSS in the Jajmau loading, nonliability of citizens and failure to tackle
discharge do not meet the norms (February 2019) due the pollution. Not only Ganga several Indian but also
to industrial effluents. International rivers are heavily polluted. The concen-
Analysis of the results showed alarming condition tration level of observed physicochemical parameters
of the river water. Several research organizations such at polluted sites is far above the prescribed limit of
as World Health Organization (WHO), Indian Council WHO and BIS for drinking water and fish culture. The
of Medical Research (ICMR), Bureau of Indian situation of river is very stressful for survival of some
Standard (BIS) and Central Pollution Control Board fish species. In our preliminary study (data not shown),
(CPCB) have reported that in India about 70% of the heavy metal concentration was found to be high in
river water is contaminated with industrial and human samples; this is alarming as the possible
municipal waste (Jindal and Sharma 2010; Gupta transfer from water and food chain is resulting in
et al. 2017a, b). The entry of such untreated industrial, accumulation of heavy metals in all the organisms
municipal and agricultural wastes into the aquatic involved in food chain. The river water quality is
body increases the microbial growth which consumes extremely poor to be used for human consumption,
agriculture, outdoor bathing and fish culture.

123
2076 Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079

Acknowledgements Dinesh Kumar is highly grateful to Chatterjee, A. A. (1992). Water quality of Nandankanan lake,
University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi, for India. Journal of Environmental Health, 34, 329–333.
providing financial assistance as Senior Research Fellow. Chaudhary, M., & Walker, T. (2019). River Ganga pollution:
Authors also thank the Department of Biotechnology, Causes and failed management plans (correspondence on
C.S.J.M. University, Kanpur, and Department of Zoology and Dwivedi et al. 2018. Ganga water pollution: A potential
Environmental Science, Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, health threat to inhabitants of Ganga basin. Environment
Haridwar, for providing laboratory facilities to complete this International 117, 327–338). Environment International,
research work. 126, 202–206.
CPCB. (2016a). ENVIS Ganga Bulletin. Ministry of Environ-
Compliance with ethical standards ment and Forests, Govt. of India ‘Parivesh Bhawan. East
Arjun Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi 110032.
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no CPCB. (2016b). Bulletin Vol-I. Retrieved from [Link]
conflict of interest. in/openpdffile.
CPCB. (2016c). A report on Ganga matters. Retrieved from
[Link] on Ganga Matter of
Uttarakhand and Uttar [Link].
References Dainik Jagran 22nd Oct, 2019 (Cancer cases Kanpur).
Das, S. (2011). Cleaning of the Ganga. Journal Geological
Afraz, A., & Gane, A. (1995). Biological and non-biological Society of India, 78(2), 124.
evaluation of the Hevigh river. Fisheries Research Centre Das, S. (2014). Ganga-Our Endangered Heritage. In R. Sanghi
of Gilan province, pp. 1–64. (Ed.), Our National River Ganga (pp. 45–71).
Aktar, M. W., Paramasivam, M., Ganguly, M., Purkait, S., & Delincé, G. (1992). The Ecology of the Fish Pond Ecosystem
Sengupta, D. (2010). Assessment and occurrence of vari- with special references to Africa. In Developments in
ous heavy metals in surface water of Ganga river around hydrobiology (pp. 1–230). London: Kluwer Acadmic
Kolkata: A study for toxicity and ecological impact. En- Publisers.
vironmental Monitoring and Assessment, 160, 207–213. Dwivedi, S., Mishra, S., & Tripathi, R. D. (2018). Ganga water
APHA., AWWA., WPCF. (2012). Standard methods for pollution: A potential health threat to inhabitants of Ganga
examination of water and wastewater (22nd ed.). Wash- basin. Environment International, 117, 327–338.
ington, DC: American Public Health Association. Eliku, T., & Leta, S. (2018). Spatial and seasonal variation in
Avudainayagam, S., Megharaj, M., Owens, G., Kookana, R. S., physicochemical parameters and heavy metals in Awash
Chittleborough, D., & Naidu, R. (2003). Chemistry of River, Ethiopia. Applied Water Science, 8, 177.
chromium in soils with emphasis on tannery waste sites. Ellis, L. E., & Jones, N. E. (2013). Longitudinal trends in reg-
Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, ulated rivers: A review and synthesis within the context of
178, 53–91. the serial discontinuity concept. Environmental Reviews,
AWWA, WEF, APHA. (1998). Standard methods for the 21, 136–148.
examination of water and wastewater (Methods: 5220 C. Emtiyazi, G. (2000). Microbiology and control of climate, water
Closed Reflux Titrimetric Method). and wastewater (pp. 1–200). Mony Publications.
Bhargava, D. S. (1977). Water quality in three typical rivers in Gangwar, R. K., Khare, P., Singh, J., & Singh, A. P. (2012).
UP–Ganga, Yamuna and Kali. Thesis presented to the Assessment of physico-chemical properties of water River
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India. Ramganga at Bareilly, UP. Journal of Chemical and
Bhateria, R., & Jain, D. (2016). Water quality assessment of lake Pharmaceutical Research, 4, 4231–4234.
water: A review. Sustainable Water Resources Manage- Gupta, N. (2015). Water pollution, an environmental issue of
ment, 2, 161–173. global concern: A focus on river Ramganga. In S. Yadav &
Bhatnagar, A., Jana, S. N., Garg, S. K., Patra, B. C., Singh, G., & R. Singh (Eds.), Environmental issue for socio ecological
Barman, U. K. (2004). Water quality management in development (pp. 14–24). New Delhi: Excel India Pub-
aquaculture. Course Manual of summerschool on devel- lishers. ISBN:978-93-84869-35-9.
opment of sustainable aquaculture technology in fresh and Gupta, N., Pandey, P., & Hussain, J. (2017b). Effect of physico-
saline waters, CCS Haryana Agricultural, Hisar (India), chemical and biological parameters on the quality of river
203, 210. water of Narmada, Madhya Pradesh, India. Water Science,
BIS. (2012). Specification for drinking water (pp. 1–5). New 31, 11–23.
Delhi: Indian Standards Institution. Gupta, N., Yadav, K. K., Kumar, V., & Singh, D. (2013).
Brown, R. M., Mc Clelland, N. I., Deininger, R. A., & Tozer, R. Assessment of physicochemical properties of Yamuna
G. (1970). A water quality index: Do we dare? Water & River in Agra City. nternational Journal of ChemTech
Sewage Works, 117, 339–343. Research, 5, 528–531.
Caissie, D. (2006). The thermal regime of rivers: A review. Gupta, S. (2000). A novel approach for assessment of action
Freshwater Biology, 51, 1389–1406. plan schemes on water quality of river Ganga. M. Tech.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment). Thesis.
(2018). Canadian sediment quality guidelines for the pro- Gupta, V., Malik, D. S., & Kumar, D. (2017a). Risk assessment
tection of aquatic life. Retrieved from. [Link] of heavy metal pollution in middle stretch of river Ganga:
org/system/files/[Link]. An introspection. International Journal of Environmental
Science, 6, 62–71.

123
Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079 2077

Hester, E. T., & Doyle, M. W. (2011). Human impacts to river Kumar, D., Malik, D. S., & Gupta, V. (2018). Seasonal assess-
temperature and their effects on biological processes: A ment of surface water quality in the middle stretch of river
quantitative synthesis. Journal American Water Works Ganga for suitability of fish and human health. Journal of
Association, 47, 571–587. Experimental Zoology, 21, 667–677.
Howland, R. J. M., Tappin, A. D., Uncles, R. J., Plummer, D. H., Kumar, M., Gupta, N., Ratn, A., Awasthi, Y., Prasad, R., Tri-
& Bloomer, N. J. (2000). Distributions and seasonal vari- vedi, A., et al. (2019). Biomonitoring of heavy metals in
ability of pH and alkalinity in the Tweed Estuary, UK. river Ganga water, sediments, plants and fishes of different
Science of the Total Environment, 251–252, 125–138. trophic levels. Biological Trace Element Research. https://
India today Ganga river water unfit for direct drinking, bathing: [Link]/10.1007/s12011-019-01736.
CPCB report New Delhi May 30, 2019 (PTI report). Kushwaha, B., Pandey, S., Sharma, S., Srivastava, R., Kumar,
Interim report on deposition of river bed material for Ganga R., Nagpure, N. S., et al. (2012). In situ assessment of
river and its tributaries submitted before NGT, 19/11/2018. genotoxic and mutagenic potential of polluted river water
Iwasaki, Y., Soya, M., Takasu, M., Zushi, Y., Hayashi, T. I., & in Channa punctatus and Mystus vittatus. International
Kashiwada, S. (2018). Spatiotemporal changes in water Aquatic Research, 4, 16.
quality along a historically metal-contaminated river: A Malik, D. S., & Maurya, P. K. (2014). Heavy metal concentra-
retrospective analysis of 50 years of monthly monitoring tion in water, sediment, and tissues of fish species
data. Limnology, 19, 157–163. (Heteropneustis fossilis and Puntius ticto) from Kali River,
Jain, C. K. (2002). A hydro-chemical study of mountainous India. Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry, 96,
watershed: The Ganga India. Water Research, 36, 1195–1206.
1262–1272. Mallika, S., Umamaheswari, R., & Krishnamoorthy, S. (2017).
Jindal, R., & Sharma, C. (2010). Studies on water quality of Physico-chemical parameters and bacteriological study of
Sutlej River around Ludhiana with reference to physico- Vaigai river water Madurai district, Tamilnadu, India. In-
chemical parameters. Environmental Monitoring and ternational Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies, 5,
Assessment, 174, 417–425. 42–45.
Jordao, C., Pereira, M., & Pereira, J. (2002). Metal contamina- Malzad, F., & Fraz, A. (1995). Biological and non-biological
tion of river waters and sediments from effluents of kaolin evaluation of the Shafaroud River. Fisheries Research
processing in Brazil. Water, Air, and Soil pollution, 140, Centre of Gilan province, pp. 1–65.
119–138. Maurya, P. K., & Malik, D. S. (2018). Bioaccumulation of heavy
Kalay, M., Ay, O., & Canli, M. (1999). Heavy metal concen- metals in tissues of selected fish species from Ganga river,
trations in fish tissues from the Northeast Mediterranean India, and risk assessment for human health. Human and
Sea. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxi- Ecological Risk Assessment. [Link]
cology, 63, 673–681. 10807039.2018.1456897.
Karadede, H. L., Oymak, S. A., & Aoenl, A. E. (2004). Heavy Mc Coy, C. P., Hara, T. M., Bennett, L. W., Boyle, C. R., &
metals in mullet, Liza abu and catfish, Silurus triostegus, Lynn, B. C. (1995). Liver and kidney concentrations of
from the Atat Ark Dam Lake (Euphrates), Turkey. Envi- zinc, copper and cadmium in channel catfish: Variation due
ronment International Journal, 30, 183–188. to size, season and health status. Veterinary and Human
Kashiprasad. (1977). Survival of Coliform organism in river Toxicology, 37(1), 11–15.
Ganga water near Kanpur and applicability of water Ministry of Water Resources. (2016). River development and
quality indices. M. Tech. Thesis, Department of Civil Ganga rejuvenation. Retrieved from. [Link]
Engineering, IIT, Kanpur, India. [Link].
Kaur, S., & Mehra, P. (2012). Assessment of heavy metals in Mishra, A. K. (2010). A river about to die-Yamuna. Journal of
summer and winter season in river Yamuna segment Water Resource and Protection, 2, 489–500.
flowing through Delhi, India. Journal of Environment and Mishra, S., Kumar, A., Yadav, S., & Singhal, M. K. (2015).
Ecology, 3, 149–165. Assessment of heavy metal contamination in Kali river,
Khan, M. Y. A., Gani, K. M., & Chakrapani, G. J. (2016). Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal of Applied and Natural Sci-
Assessment of surface water quality and its spatial varia- ence, 7, 1016–1102.
tion. A case study of Ramganga River, Ganga Basin, India. Mukherjee, D., Chattopadhyay, M., & Lahiri, S. C. (1993).
Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 9, 28. Water quality of the River Ganga (The Ganges) and some
Khan, M. Y. A., Gani, K. M., & Chakrapani, G. J. (2017). Spatial of its physico-chemical properties. The Environmentalist,
and temporal variations of physicochemical and heavy 13(3), 199–210.
metal pollution in Ramganga river tributary of river Neha, Kumar, D., Shukla, P., Kumar, S., Bauddh, K., Tiwari, J.,
Ganges, India. Environmental Earth Sciences, 76, 231. et al. (2017). Metal distribution in the sediments, water and
Khatoon, N., Rehman, M., & Khan, A. H. (2013). Study of naturally occurring macrophytes in the river Gomti, Luc-
seasonal variation in the water quality among different know, Uttar Pradesh, India. Current Science, 113(8), 1578.
ghats of river Ganga, Kanpur, India. Journal of Environ- NRCD (1999a). Status Paper on River Action Plan, Ministry of
mental Research and Development, 8, 196–205. Environment and Forests, Government of India, New
Kumar, D., Malik, D. S., & Gupta, V. (2017). Fish metalloth- Delhi.
ionein gene expression: A good bio-indicator for assess- NRCD (1999b). Bulletin for Water Quality Monitoring and
ment of heavy metal pollution in aquatic ecosystem. Performance of Sewage Treatment Plants,Ministry of
International Research Journal of Environmental Sci- Environment and Forests, Government of India, New
ences, 6, 14–18. Delhi.

123
2078 Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079

Nriagu, J. O., & Pacyna, J. M. (1988). Quantitative assessment Sawyer, C. N., McCarty, P. L., & Parkin, G. F. (2000). Chem-
of worldwide contamination of air, water and soils by trace istry for environmental engineering (4th ed.). New York:
metals. Nature, 333, 134–139. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited.
Pandey, J., & Singh, R. (2017). Heavy metals in sediments of Saxena, K. L., Chakraborty, R. N., Khan, A. Q., & Chattopad-
Ganga River: Up- and downstream urban influences. Ap- hya, S. N. (1966). Pollution studies of the river Ganga near
plied Water Science, 7, 1669–1678. Kanpur. Environmental Health, 8(4), 270–285.
Paul, D. (2017). Research on heavy metal pollution of river Sengupta, C., Sukumaran, D., Barui, D., Saha, R., Chattopad-
Ganga: A review. Annals of Agrarian Science, 15, hyay, A., Naskar, A., et al. (2014). Water health status in
278–286. lower reaches of river Ganga, India. Applied Ecology and
Pavoni, J. L., Tenney, M. W., & Echelberger, W. F., Jr. (1972). Environmental Research, 2, 20–24.
Bacterial exocellular polymers and biological flocculation. Senthilmanickam, J., Sabaridasan, A., & Soranam, R. (2016).
Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation), 44, A Study on physico-chemical properties of water samples
414–431. from Cauvery River of Pallipalayam Town, Namakkal
Qiu, J. (2012). Trouble on the Yangtze. Science, 336, 288–291. District of Tamil Nadu, India. Magnesium, 20, 22–67.
Rani, N., Vajpayee, P., Bhatti, S., Singh, S., Shanker, R., & Sharma, D., & Kansal, A. (2011). Water quality analysis of
Gupta, K. C. (2014). Quantification of Salmonella Typhi in River Yamuna using water quality index in the national
water and sediments by molecular-beacon based qPCR. capital territory, India (2000–2009). Applied Water Sci-
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 108, 58–64. ence, 1, 147–157.
Ray, P. (1998). Ecological imbalance of the Ganga River Sys- Siddiqui, E., & Pandey, J. (2019). Temporal and spatial varia-
tem: Its impact on aquaculture. Daya Publishing House, tions in carbon and nutrient loads, ion chemistry and
Delhi Book : Ganga Sacred River of India. trophic status of the Gnga River: A watershed-scale study.
Rehman, A., & Sohail, A. M. (2010). Cadmium uptake by yeast, Limnology. [Link]
Candida tropicalis, isolated from industrial effluents and Singh, H., Pandey, R., Singh, S. K., & Shukla, D. N. (2017).
its potential use in wastewater clean-up operations. Water, Assessment of heavy metal contamination in the sediment
Air & Soil Pollution, 205, 149–159. of the River Ghaghara, a major tributary of the River Ganga
RSMENR. (2002). Rivers State Ministry of Environment and in Northern India. Applied Water Science, 7, 4133–4149.
Natural Resources. Interim guidelines and Standards on Singh, H., Raghuvanshi, D., Pandey, R., Yadav, A., Tripathi, B.,
environmental pollution control and management, Kumar, P., et al. (2016). Assessment of seven heavy metals
pp. 39–45. in water of the river Ghaghara, a major tributary of the
Saksena, D. N., Garg, R. K., & Rao, R. J. (2008). Water quality Ganga in Northern India. Advances in Applied Science
and pollution status of Chambal river in National Chambal Research, 7, 34–45.
sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh. Journal of Environmental Singh, M. (2001). Heavy metal pollution in freshly deposited
Biology, 29, 701–710. sediments of the Yamuna river (the Ganges river tributary):
Sanap, R. R., Mohite, A. K., Pingle, S. D., & Gunale, V. R. A case study from Delhi and Agra urban centres India.
(2006). Evaluation of water qualities of Godawari River Environmental Geology, 40, 664–671
with reference to physicochemical parameters, district Singh, N. (2010). Physico-chemical properties of polluted water
Nasik (M.S.), India. Pollution Research, 25, 775–778. of river Ganga at Varanasi. International Journal of Energy
Santhosh, B., & Singh, N. P. (2007). Guidelines for water and Environment, 1, 823–832.
quality management for fish culture in Tripura. ICAR Sinha, A. K., Saxena, S., & Saxena, R. (2004). Water quality
Research Complex for NEH Region, Tripura Center, index for Ram Ganga river water at Moradabad. Pollution
Publication, 29. Research, 23, 527–531.
Sarkar, D. J., Sarkar, S. D., Das, B. K., Manna, R. K., Behera, B. Sinha, D. K., Ram, R., & Kumar, N. (2012). Quantitative
K., & Samanta, S. (2019). Spatial distribution of meso and assessment of Kali river water pollution. International
microplastics in the sediments of river Ganga at eastern Journal of Chemical Sciences, 10, 2261–2266.
India. Science of the Total Environment, 694, 133712. Sirohi, S., Sirohi, S. P. S., & Tyagi, P. K. (2014). Impact of
Sarkar, R. (2013). Study on the impact of idol immersion on industrial effluents on water quality of Kali river in dif-
water quality of river ganga at Ranighat, Chandernagore ferent locations of Meerut, India. Journal of Engineering
(WB). International Journal ofGeology, Earth & Envi- and Technology Research, 6, 43–47. [Link]
ronmental Sciences, 3, 24–29. 5897/JETR2014.0349.
Sarkar, U. K., Pathak, A. K., Sinha, R. K., Sivakumar, K., Tare, V., Yadav, A. V. S., & Bose, P. (2003). Analysis of
Pandian, A. K., Pandey, A., et al. (2012). Freshwater fish photosynthetic activity in the most polluted stretch of river
biodiversity in the River Ganga (India): Changing pattern., Ganga. Water Research, 37(1), 67–77.
threats and conservation perspectives. Reviews in Fish The Hindu (2016). India, Germany join hands to clean the
Biology and Fisheries, 22, 251–272. Ganga. Retrieved from. [Link]
Satrawaha, R., Prathepha, P., Andrews, R., & Petney, T. (2009). national/other-states/India-Germany-join-hands-to-
Fundamental hydrochemical parameters of the Songkhram cleantheGanga/article14236279.
River in Northeast Thailand: Foundation data for the study Tiwari, A., Dwivedi, A. C., & Mayank, P. (2016). Time scale
of an endangered tropical wetland ecosystem. Limnology, changes in the water quality of the Ganga river, India and
10, 7–15. estimation of suitability for exotic and hardy fishes. Hy-
drology Current Research, 7, 254–261.

123
Environ Geochem Health (2020) 42:2059–2079 2079

Tiwari, M., & Kishu, G. C. (2016). Impact assessment of Gomti WHO (2012) Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality-1., Rec-
River water quality after immersion of idols during Durga ommendation. 4th Edition., World Health Organization,
utsav. Biochemistry and Analytical Biochemistry, 5, 3. Geneva.
Trivedy, R. K., & Goel, P. K. (1984). Chemical and biological WHO (World Health Organization). (2014). Guidelines for
methods for water pollution studies. Karad: Environmental drinking water quality (4 ed.). Retrieved from. [Link]/
Publication. iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44584/9789241548151.
USEPA (United Nation Environmental Protection Agency). Yisa, J., & Jimoh, T. (2010). Analytical studies on water quality
(2018). National primary drinking water regulations. index of river Landzu. American Journal of Applied Sci-
Retrieved from [Link] ences, 7, 453–458.
drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-
regulations.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
Vera-Candioti, J., Soloneski, S., & Larramendy, M. L. (2011).
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
Acute toxicity of chromium on Cnesterodon decemmacu-
institutional affiliations.
latus (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Theoria, 20, 81–88.
Vodyanitskii, Y. N. (2013). Contamination of soils with heavy
metals and metalloids and its ecological hazard (analytic
review). Eurasian Soil Science, 46, 793–801.

123