2. Changes in water quality index of Ganges river at different
locations in Allahabad
Prerna Sharma a
, Prabodha Kumar Meher a
, Ajay Kumar b
, Yogendra Prakash Gautam c
,
Kaushala Prasad Mishra a,⇑
a
Division of Life Sciences, Research Centre, Nehru Gram Bharati University, Uttar Pradesh 211002, India
b
Health Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Center, Mumbai, India
c
Environmental Survey Laboratory, Narora Atomic Power Station, Narora, Uttar Pradesh, India
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 4 September 2013
Received in revised form 14 June 2014
Accepted 30 October 2014
Available online 20 November 2014
Keywords:
Major ions
Post-monsoon
Physicochemical parameters
Water quality index
Pearson’s correlation matrix
Ganges
a b s t r a c t
We have determined the water quality index (WQI) of post-monsoon water samples with
an aim to assess changes in Ganges river at various locations in Allahabad stretch including
that from the confluence with river Yamuna. Physicochemical parameters such as temper-
ature, pH, electrical conductivity (EC), dissolved oxygen (DO), total dissolved solids (TDS),
major cations e.g. Na+
, K+
, Mg2+
, Ca2+
, major anions e.g. FÀ
, ClÀ
, BrÀ
, SO4
2À
, NO3
À
, PO4
2À
and
alkalinity were analyzed by standard procedures. The values obtained were compared with
the guideline values for drinking water by Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS) and World
Health Organization (WHO). From the measured quantities, certain parameters were
selected to derive WQI for the variations in water quality of each designated sampling site.
Results showed considerable deterioration in quality of water at some of the sites. WQI of
Ganges river water at Allahabad ranged from 86.20 to 157.69 which falls in the range of
poor quality of water. Pearson’s correlation matrix was drawn to find possible interrela-
tions among measured water quality parameters. It is shown that WQI may be a useful tool
for assessing water quality and predicting trend of variation in water quality at different
locations in the Ganges river.
Ó 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Ganges river, the largest river of India, is the major source of drinking water for dwellers in cities, towns and villages in its
basin area. The Ganges basin is one of the most heavily populated areas in the world with an average density of 520 persons/
Km2
. Present study was aimed to evaluate water quality of the river in Allahabad region including at the confluence of Gan-
ges and Yamuna rivers. People living on the bank of the river, apart from drinking, use its water for industrial, agricultural
and other purposes, such as, cattle bathing and cloth washing etc. After the usage, water is generally discharged into the river
from industrial, agricultural and sewage systems. According to the report of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), the
capacity of sewage treatment plants is only 42.8% of the total sewage generation (208.00 MLD) in Allahabad (CPCB, 2009.
Besides, run off from the rural settlements, open defecations, dumping of carcasses and disposal of dead bodies also contrib-
ute to increasing degree of pollution (Status paper on river on river Ganga, 2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.swaqe.2014.10.002
2212-6139/Ó 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 532 6453999; fax: +91 532 2468700.
E-mail addresses: prerna.knp@gmail.com (P. Sharma), pkm046@gmail.com (P.K. Meher), ajaykls@barc.gov.in (A. Kumar), ypgautam@npcil.co.in (Y.P.
Gautam), mishra_kaushala@rediffmail.com (K.P. Mishra).
Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology 3–4 (2014) 67–76
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/swaqe
3. River Yamuna, the largest tributary that meets Ganges at Sangam, is found contaminated with the discharged waste
water from drains of national capital, Delhi, Mathura-Vrindavan, Agra and Etawa cities down the flow stream. It was also
found that $70% of the cattle population in the basin area of Yamuna river directly uses flowing water for bathing and wash-
ing purposes (World Health Organization, 1996). Frequent use of river water by the civilians increases the possibility of
human health hazards. According to WHO, about 80% of all diseases in human populations are caused by drinking water
(CPCB, 2006). The water quality determines the suitability of water usage for various purposes (Ahipathy and Puttaiah,
2006). Both natural as well as effluent discharges with the toxic compounds due to anthropogenic activities cause problems
to communities in the receiving aquatic system and a potential effect on the human health (Duruibe et al., 2007). In view of
this, evaluations of quality of river water with respect to location along the stretch and in different weather conditions seem
vital to prevent the population sufferings from diseases and ill health.
It is known from reported studies that Water Quality Indices serves a useful indicator of water quality as proposed by
Horton (1965). Subsequently, WQI of many rivers of world have been reported including that of many rivers from India
e.g. Cauvery river, Tamilnadu (Kalavathy et al., 2011); Mahanadi and Atharabanki river, Paradip area (Samantray et al.,
2009); Ramganga river, U.P. (Alam and Pathak, 2010); Ganges river, Haridwar (Joshi et al., 2009) and Rishikesh (Chauhan
and Singh, 2010); Subarnarekha at Singhbhum (Parmar and Parmar, 2010). These studies were based on a general hypothesis
that the water quality might change because of different intervening human activities, large demographic and urbanization
demands at different locations. Because of central importance of Allahabad for public health along the flow of Ganges and its
confluence with Yamuna, it was considered relevant and necessary to obtain data on water quality parameters at various
sub-regional sites along Ganges in Allahabad including Sangam place and at pre-confluence Yamuna river.
Present study has determined the WQI values from measured parameters of the river water sampled from various des-
ignated locations in Allahabad region. WQI values provide a remarkable indicator of quality of water for human and cattle
usage and consumption. The rationale of present study is based on the fact that measurement and analysis of some of the
selected parameters may collectively yield a fairly good indication for the overall quality of water (Cade, 2001) and also
allows us to infer the quality of bulk water (Zhenghui et al., 2012). Computation of Pearson correlation in present study
was to find the possible relations between water quality parameters. We were driven by public health concerns to develop
WQI of water along Ganges river which presumably would help in planning and implementation of pollution prevention pol-
icies in most inhabited and polluted locations (Singhal, 2012).
2. Material and methods
2.1. Sample collection locations
Samples were collected during post monsoon period in December 2011. The post-monsoon months are from October to
January of each year. It was decided to select eight designated sampling locations which include 6 sites on Ganges before
confluence, namely, Ramchaura Ghat, Neeva, Rasoolabad (Rasulabad), Daraganj, prior to Sangam, confluence named Sangam,
pre confluence river Yamuna at Boat Club and beyond Sangam (Table 1, Fig. 1). Water samples were collected from the mid-
dle stream of the rivers and approx. 0.5 meter below the water surface in triplicate.
2.2. Sample collection and analysis
A total of 15 water quality parameters were analyzed. Temperature, pH, DO, TDS, and EC were analyzed in situ with the
help of portable water analysis kit (GPS Aqua Meter-AP-1000, Aqua Read Ltd, U.K.) and calibration was done at each site
before measurement with the help of Rapid Calibration Solution. For the measurement of other parameters, water samples
were collected in polyethylene bottles rinsed with 15% HNO3 (v/v). Collected samples were stored in refrigerator at 4 °C for
subsequent analysis. Measurement of major cations and anions were carried out by Ion Exchange Chromatography (Dionex
Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Alkalinity of water was measured by auto-titrator (Micro-ohm).
Table 1
GPS locations of each sampling site.
Locations Latitude Longitude Altitude Description of site
Ram chaura ghat N25°4.86470
E081°38.78210
102 A Ghat before entrance of river Ganges in city Allahabad
Neeva N25°28.13090
E081°47.02340
77 River Ganges just entered in the Allahabad city and divides in 2 streams
Rasoolabad N25°30.14820
E081°51.31750
71 A famous place for funeral activities at river bank
Daraganj N25°26.72820
E081°53.38400
62 Another funeral place at river bank before Sangam
Prior to sangam N25°25.55640
E081°52.97380
58 Ganges prior to confluence, Sangam
Sangam N250
25.58360
E0810
52.93470
70 Confluence point of river Ganges and Yamuna
Boat Club N250
25.69670
E0810
51.34820
63 Yamuna about 1 Km upstream from Sangam
Beyond sangam N250
25.47310
E0810
52.93550
53 River Ganges after confluence
68 P. Sharma et al. / Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology 3–4 (2014) 67–76
4. 2.3. WQI determination
Collected data were analyzed in two steps; first step was to determine the WQI of each sample and the second was to
compute the Pearson’s correlation between WQI and different water quality parameters using SPSS statistics 17.0.
The method adopted for the calculation of WQI was as described by Hameed et al. (2010). To calculate WQI, a total of 12
parameters were considered and each parameter was assigned with a definite weightage (Wa) according to its relative
importance on the overall quality of water which ranges from 1 to 5 (Table 2). Parameters which influence more significantly
the water quality were assigned weight 5 and 1 to that of the least influencing. Relative weights (Wr) were calculated by
using the following formula
Wr ¼ Wai Ä
Xn
i¼1
Wai ð1Þ
where Wr = Relative weight, Wa = assigned weight of each parameter, n = Number of parameters considered for the WQI. The
calculated value of Wr for the each parameter is given in the Table 2.
Following the next step, quality rating scale (Q) has been measured for the each parameter by dividing its respective stan-
dard values as suggested in the BIS and WHO guidelines.
Qi ¼ ½Ci Ä SiŠ Â 100 ð2Þ
To calculate the Q for the DO and pH, the different methods were employed. The ideal values (Vi) of pH (7.0) and DO (14.6)
were deducted from the measured values in the samples (Hameed et al., 2010).
QipH;DO ¼ ½ðCi À ViÞ Ä ðSi À ViÞŠ  100 ð3Þ
Fig. 1. Sketch of river Ganges and river Yamuna showing sampling locations.
Table 2
Relative weight of chemical parameters.
Parameters Weight (Wa) Relative weight (Wr)
pH 4 0.105263
Dissolved oxygen 5 0.131579
Total dissolved solids 4 0.105263
Alkalinity 2 0.052632
Electrical conductivity 5 0.131579
Na+
1 0.026316
Ca2+
2 0.052632
Mg2+
2 0.052632
FÀ
2 0.052632
ClÀ
3 0.078947
NO3
À
4 0.105263
SO4
2À
4 0.105263
P. Sharma et al. / Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology 3–4 (2014) 67–76 69
5. where Qi = quality rating scale, Ci = measured concentration of each parameter, Si = drinking water standard values for the
each parameter according to BIS and WHO.
Next sub indices (SI) have been calculated to compute the WQI.
SIi ¼ Wr  Qi ð4Þ
WQI ¼
X
SIi ð5Þ
The computed WQI values were classified according to proposed categorization of water quality (Ramakrishnaiah et al.,
2009; Yadav et al., 2010).
2.4. Determination of correlation coefficient
In order to find out the possible cause of the pollution in water of river at different locations, Pearson’s correlation coef-
ficient was computed between WQI and measured water quality parameters (Hameed et al., 2010).
3. Results and discussion
We have measured several water quality parameters, namely, temperature, pH, electrical conductivity (EC), dissolved
oxygen (DO), total dissolved solids (TDS), major cations e.g. Na+
, K+
, Mg2+
, Ca2+
, major anions e.g. FÀ
, ClÀ
, BrÀ
, SO4
2À
, NO3
À
,
PO4
2À
and alkalinity at a total of eight sites of Ganges and Yamuna rivers within a stretch of about 45 km. The values obtained
in our studies were compared with the guideline values suggested by BIS (Indian Standard Specification for Drinking Water,
1991) and WHO (World Health Organization, 2011). We have calculated WQI from the measured parameters and then Pear-
son correlation matrix was determined.
3.1. Physicochemical parameters
We have measured the values of pH, DO, TDS, EC in water directly and alkalinity was measured in samples collected from
different sites.
3.1.1. Measurement of pH
Table 3 and Fig. 2 describe pH values at 7 different sites of Ganges river and single site of boat club from Yamuna at
Allahabad. It can be seen that pH values of water of Ganges ranged from 8.04 to 8.77 depending on the location. The pH
of water of Yamuna at boat club was found 8.69.
It is noticed that pH of water of both Ganges and Yamuna showed tendency to exceed the values provided in the guide-
lines of WHO (7.0–8.5) and BIS (6.5–8.5) except at Neeva (pH = 8.04). The pH values between 6.5 and 8.5 were reported
acceptable for outdoor bathing which is considered safe for the skin and delicate organs like eyes, nose, ears (CPCB,
2009). However, it is to be noted that, as per the WHO guideline, variations in pH of water within certain limits have insig-
nificant or no direct impact on human consumption (World Health Organization, 2011). But, pH is known to influence other
physicochemical properties of the water, which influence the biotic composition of the systems (Dwivedi and Tripathi, 2007;
Saygideger and Dogan, 2005). The observed values of alkaline pH values in Ganges and Yamuna rivers may be partly attrib-
uted to the disposal of industrial wastes (Mona and Shuchi, 2012), domestic waste water contamination, presence of chem-
ical detergent, release of bicarbonate and carbonate ions and may also be due to lime stone bed rocks. Previous studies have
shown comparatively less alkaline water of Ganges at upstream Haridwar i.e. 7.74 ± 0.32 (Joshi et al., 2009) which indicate
Table 3
Measured average values of physicochemical Parameters.
Locations Temp ± SD
(°C)
pH ± SD DO ± SD
(mg/L)
TDS ± SD
(mg/L)
EC ± SD
(lS/cm@25C)
Alkalinity ± SD
(mg/L)
Ram chaura ghat 18.8 ± 0.07 8.58 ± 0.17 13.74 ± 0.46 334.75 ± 1.39 515.63 ± 1.72 178.28 ± 10.68
Neeva 19.4 ± 0.07 8.04 ± 0.13 5.25 ± 2.74 632 ± 6.44 973.2 ± 10.13 279.56 ± 22.32
Rasoolabad 18.8 ± 0.08 8.72 ± 0.17 13.43 ± 0.37 335.17 ± 11.41 516.33 ± 17.32 182.4 ± 12.74
Daraganj 18.6 ± 0.13 8.65 ± 0.10 12.53 ± 0.18 328.54 ± 5.91 494.93 ± 42.3 183.52 ± 9.15
Prior to sangam 18.7 ± 0.14 8.67 ± 0.05 12.81 ± 0.21 334 ± 20.47 344.57 ± 222.84 179.4 ± 12.55
Sangam 18.6 ± 0.08 8.75 ± 0.03 13.51 ± 1.18 340.43 ± 43.68 521.93 ± 65.65 176.92 ± 8.88
Beyond sangam 18.5 ± 0.00 8.77 ± 0.02 12.9 ± 0.06 326.4 ± 5.1 503 ± 9.08 178.88 ± 12.46
Yamuna 18.7 ± 0.00 8.69 ± 0.03 16.2 ± 0.21 466.75 ± 1.31 718.88 ± 2.23 178.68 ± 7.14
Desirable limit (BIS) ns 6.5–8.5 5 500 250–750 Good quality 200
Guideline value (WHO) ns 7.0–8.5 ns 600 750 ns
Note: ns, no health based guideline values recommended.
70 P. Sharma et al. / Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology 3–4 (2014) 67–76
6. increasing trend of pollution downstream the river. Similar values of pH were reported in the Ganges water of Allahabad
(7.0- 8.4) in another report (Sinha et al., 1998).
3.1.2. Measurement of DO
We have measured DO in water of Ganges river at 7 points including the confluence point, Sangam. The measured values
of dissolved oxygen in Ganges river were found in the range of 12.53 to 13.74 mg/L except at the Neeva site which showed
markedly low DO value (5.25 mg/L) compared to other sites under study (Table 3, Fig. 2). Dissolved oxygen at Sangam was
found 13.51 mg/L and in water of Yamuna at Boat club, pre confluence site, it was 16.2 mg/L. At each site of study, DO values
were not only higher than the minimum desired as suggested by BIS (5 mg/L) but also very close to the saturation level. In
another study, authors have reported average DO values from 1999 to 2008 to be in range of 7.7 and 8.5 mg/L at Rasoolabad
and 7.2 to 8.2 mg/L at Sangam (CPCB, 2009). Our results have shown significantly higher DO values in December which may
be ascribed to factors like temperature, phytoplankton and others. The observed lower DO values in river water at Neeva may
be partly attributed to organic substances and bacterial load. A notable point of our study is relatively higher oxygen level in
water of Yamuna river. This observation requires deeper studies to relate to contributory factors but role of phytoplanktons
appears relevant (Fouzia and Amir, 2013). The observed low DO values at Neeva suggest poor quality of the water and
unsuitable for drinking. Our conclusions for quality of water at Allahabad are similar to that reported by National River Con-
servation Directorate (Status paper on river on river Ganga, 2009).
3.1.3. Measurement of TDS
Table 3 and Fig. 3 show the concentration of dissolved solids at eight different locations of Ganges and measured values
ranged from 326 ± 5.1 mg/L to 340 ± 43.68 mg/L with abnormal value at Neeva (TDS was found 632 ± 6.44 mg/L). We found
dissolved solids concentration at higher end of the range at Sangam point (340.43 ± 43.68 mg/L). It is to be noted that water
of Yamuna showed higher TDS value (466.75 ± 1.31) than that in Ganges water.
Fig. 2. Trend of temperature (°C), pH, DO (ppm) at different sampling locations.
Fig. 3. Trend of TDS (ppm), EC (lS/cm), Alkalinity (ppm) at designated sampling locations.
P. Sharma et al. / Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology 3–4 (2014) 67–76 71
7. However, it is seen that TDS values at each of the location, except Neeva, were within permissible limits (BIS, 500 mg/L
and WHO, 600 mg/L). High values of TDS at Neeva suggest contamination of river water possibly due to domestic sewage,
agricultural run-off, and industrial wastewater (World Health Organization, 1996). Comparatively higher TDS values at San-
gam, an active pilgrim place, may arise due to frequent ritual activities including throwing of a variety of materials regarded
sacred. The observed TDS values of river Yamuna at Allahabad were similar to that reported average value of 525 mg/L by
other study (CPCB, 2006).
3.1.4. Measurement of EC
Table 3 and Fig. 3 give the EC values measured at designated sites. It can be seen that the values ranged from
344 ± 22.84 lS/cm to 521.93 ± 65.65 lS/cm with abnormal value at Neeva (973.2 ± 10.13 lS/cm). The conductivity of Yam-
una water was found to be 718.88 ± 2.23. The values of EC reflected good quality of water at these locations except Neeva
(973.2 ± 10.13 lS/cm), as per the standards by BIS (250–750 lS/cm = Good quality water) and WHO. It is speculated that
observed higher EC at Neeva might be ascribable to higher concentration of prevalence of ions. CPCB reported average value
of 469 lS/cm for conductivity of Ganges water at Sangam (CPCB, 2009) which was found close to the average value of pres-
ent study (512 lS/cm) at Sangam confirming unchanged EC in water of Sangam since 2009. The EC of water of Yamuna
(718.88 ± 2.23) which is similar to the value reported by CPCB 775 lS/cm (CPCB, 2006). EC values reflect the quality of water
and high conductivity implies high level of pollution (World Health Organization, 2011; Mona and Shuchi, 2012; Pradeep,
1998). Our data suggest that water of Yamuna falls under the category of good water.
3.1.5. Measurement of alkalinity
Distribution of alkalinity has been shown in Table 3 and Fig. 3. Alkalinity of Ganges at designated sites of Allahabad was
found in the range of 176.92–183.52 mg/L. Water of river at the location Neeva was more alkaline (279.56 mg/L) than other
locations. The water of river Yamuna (178.68 mg/L) was found as alkaline as that of the water of Ganges and these values
were within the desirable limits suggested by WHO and BIS (200 mg/L) except at Neeva which is perhaps may arise due
to additional presence of hydroxide, carbonates, bicarbonates and the organic acids like humic acids. It is to be noted that
alkalinity of water usually determines river’s ability to neutralize acidic pollution from rainfall or wastewater. The unusual
value of alkalinity at Neeva suggests water to be unsafe for drinking may cause gastrointestinal problems.
3.2. Measurement of major ions
Table 4 and Fig. 4 describe concentration of each measured ions at seven sites of Ganges river including the confluence
Sangam, beyond Sangam and pre confluence water of river Yamuna.
3.2.1. Measurement of cations
Concentration of Na+
in water of Ganges ranged from 48.52 ppm to 80.53 ppm and water of Yamuna before confluence
was 42.24 ppm of Na+
. The range of Ca2+
concentration in water of Ganges was found 18.4 ppm–39.2 ppm while Yamuna
water yielded 19.17 ppm. Concentration of Mg2+
in water of Ganges ranged from 11.39 ppm to 18.15 ppm. In Yamuna
Mg2+
concentration was found 7.12 ppm which was significantly lower than found in water of Ganges.
Concentration of measured cations was found within the permissible limits including water of Ganges at site Neeva and
water of Yamuna before confluence. Water of Ganges showed the decreased trend of major cations which followed the order
as Na+
>Ca2+
>Mg2+
>K+
whereas the headwater of Ganges as Ca2+
>Mg2+
>Na+
>K+
(Dalai et al., 2002). From reported higher con-
centration of Na+
in whole stretch of Ganges in Allahabad including Yamuna, it may be speculated to arise from discharged
Table 4
Measured average concentrations of major cations and anions.
Locations Na+
(ppm)
K+
(ppm)
Ca2+
(ppm)
Mg2+
(ppm)
F
(ppm)
ClÀ
(ppm)
NO3
À
(ppm)
SO4
2À
(ppm)
PO4
2À
(ppm)
Ram chaura ghat 48.52 ± 5.76 4.98 ± 0.14 21.3 ± 2.6 13.02 ± 0.32 0.13 ± 0.005 23.01 ± 1.88 3.25 ± 0.16 7.66 ± 0.68 nd
Neeva nd 18.88 ± 2.12 22.7 ± 1.75 nd 0.28 ± 0.02 17.75 ± 1.59 3.4 ± 0.20 14.27 ± 1.71 1.87 ± 0.14
Rasoolabad 74.77 ± 6.73 6.7 ± 0.39 30.2 ± 2.69 18.15 ± 1.97 0.4 ± 0.01 22.3 ± 2.67 3.29 ± 0.13 7.79 ± 0.38 nd
Shivkuti 80.53 ± 7.94 6.92 ± 0.50 18.4 ± 1.03 17.64 ± 3.01 0.307 ± 0.01 15.88 ± 1.11 3.21 ± 0.25 5.802 ± 0.40 nd
Daraganj 74.77 ± 8.22 6.93 ± 0.62 29.6 ± 1.86 17.64 ± 2.3 0.359 ± 0.03 19.38 ± 1.16 3.25 ± 0.19 7.167 ± 0.57 nd
Prior to sangam 64.73 ± 3.88 5.97 ± 0.39 27.3 ± 3.06 15.74 ± 0.91 0.365 ± 0.01 22.92 ± 2.52 3.25 ± 0.26 8.18 ± 0.73 nd
Sangam 74.76 ± 8.22 5.54 ± 0.39 39.2 ± 4.0 16 ± 2.35 0.127 ± 0.01 61.44 ± 5.52 3.41 ± 0.37 6.7 ± 0.40 nd
Beyond sangam 66.38 ± 3.32 3.6 ± 0.32 28.3 ± 2.49 11.39 ± 0.88 0.299 ± 0.01 22.97 ± 1.83 3.36 ± 0.23 8.07 ± 0.72 0.09
Yamuna 42.24 ± 2.22 3.17 ± 0.18 19.17 ± 1.51 7.12 ± 0.91 0.543 ± 0.05 67.95 ± 4.75 3.06 ± 0.24 6.09 ± 0.24 nd
BIS guide line
value
200 ns 75 30 1 250 45 200 0.1
WHO guide line
value
200 ns 75 30 1.5 250 50 250 ns
Note: nd, not detected.
72 P. Sharma et al. / Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology 3–4 (2014) 67–76
8. sewage which mainly add Na+
and ClÀ
ions in water of rivers (Sewal and Jangwan, 2009). Mixing of Yamuna water also is
known to increase its level in Ganges after confluence (Santosh et al., 2010).
3.2.2. Measurement of anions
In the water of Ganges, ClÀ
ions were found in range of 15.88 ppm and 61.44 ppm, FÀ
ions in the range of 0.127 ppm–
0.4 ppm, divalent ions SO4
2À
and NO3
À
were found in range of 5.80 ppm–14.27 ppm, and 3.06 ppm–3.41 ppm respectively.
PO4
2À
ions were not detected in samples except in water of Ganges beyond sangam (0.09 ppm) and at Neeva (1.87 ppm).
Water of river Yamuna showed 0.543 ppm concentration of FÀ
, 67.95 ppm of ClÀ
ion, 3.06 ppm of NO3
À
and 6.09 ppm of
SO4
2À
ions.
Among anions, the concentration trend was found as ClÀ
>SO4
2À
>NO3
À
>FÀ
>PO4
2À
in water of Ganges in Allahabad. Major
concentration of ClÀ
provides further support to our speculation for NaCl discharge from domestic sewage. FÀ
ions were
found higher at location of Daraganj and prior to Sangam where cremation activities and disposal of burnt dead body ashes
were often observed. Water of Yamuna was found with more FÀ
ions (0.543 ppm) and ClÀ
ions (67.95 ppm) in comparison to
Ganges which confirmed results of previous studies (Sarin et al., 1989; Holland, 1978). Major ions were mainly derived from
atmospheric deposition, chemical weathering at the basin and anthropogenic input in rivers (Stallard and Edmond, 1983;
Stallard, 1995; Meybeck, 2005; Kulkarni et al., 2011). We speculate that runoff from the agricultural field having fertilizers
at river bank, domestic sewage and waste outlets may have contributed to the observed increased content of these ions.
3.3. WQI of water from Ganges and Yamuna rivers
From Table 5 it can be seen that calculated water quality indices were in the range of 86.20–157.69 for Ganges river in
Allahabad. Water of river Yamuna before confluence showed WQI value to be 115.16.
Results have shown fairly different water quality of Ganges and Yamuna river at different locations of Allahabad. Accord-
ing to WQI categorization suggested by Ramakrishnaiah et al. (2009) (Table 6), these values indicate a good quality of water
in whole stretch of Ganges except Neeva (WQI = 157.69) which was found to be of poor quality. Water of Yamuna also fell
under the category of poor water. Furthermore, it was a significant observation that despite water of Ganges at most of the
locations was of good quality, WQI values were found very close to poor water quality. Considering this observation, we
reclassified our WQI values on a scale suggested by Yadav et al. (2010) (Table 6) and by adopting this classification a more
Fig. 4. Concentration of major cations and anions (ppm ± SD) at designated locations of Allahabad.
P. Sharma et al. / Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology 3–4 (2014) 67–76 73
9. precise knowledge about the water quality of rivers at Allahabad has been derived. Form this classification, we estimated
that Ganges have progressively degrading quality of water in whole stretch of river at Allahabad during post monsoon period
(Table 5, Fig. 5). Water of Ramchaura Ghat, Rasoolabad, Daraganj, prior to Sangam, Sangam, beyond Sangam was rated under
the classification of very poor quality (WQI ranges 76–100) whereas water at Neeva and of river Yamuna were rated unfit for
human drinking (WQI above 100).
At Neeva, the river divides into two streams and flows relatively low. The possible reasons for unacceptable quality of
water appear to be almost stagnant water, agricultural runoff, cattle bathing, open defecation and also the disposal of dead
bodies. Water of Rasoolabad and Daraganj was found of very poor quality because burning and throwing of dead body ashes
in the river following traditions and beliefs.
Our study suggests that water quality at Sangam was inferior and close to unacceptable level. Sangam is the most impor-
tant place for the religious and cultural angles where large number of people gather for bathing throughout the year and on
special occasions. Therefore, monitoring of water quality was considered essential at Sangam for likely consequences to pub-
lic health.
Water of river Yamuna at Allahabad was found unsuitable for drinking probably because of discharge of waste water from
industries and domestic discharges from homes in major cities. After the confluence of river Yamuna, water quality of Gan-
ges river was found poorer.
3.4. Correlation of water parameters
Pearson correlation matrix of different parameters and WQI are presented in the Table 7. Our study has shown a signif-
icant positive correlation between alkalinity and SO4
2À
(r = 0.962, p < 0.01), one of the plausible explanations may be that sul-
phate reducing bacteria converted sulphate ions to bicarbonate ions resulting in alkalinity (Abd-el-Malek and Rizk, 2008).
Sulphate reducing bacteria are found in many natural as well as artificial environment that are rich in sulphate. In addition,
Table 5
Water Quality Indices and Water Quality at different location.
Locations WQI Water quality
Based on scale suggested by Yadav et al. (2010) Based on scale suggested by Ramakrishnaiah et al. (2009)
Ram chaura ghat 90.98 Very poor Good
Neeva 157.69 Unsuitable for drinking Poor
Rasoolabad 95.43 Very poor Good
Daraganj 94.43 Very poor Good
Prior to Sangam 86.20 Very poor Good
Sangam 96.61 Very poor Good
Beyond sangam 93.29 Very poor Good
Yamuna 115.16 Unsuitable for drinking Poor
Table 6
Water Quality Scale.
Water quality WQI Yadav et al. (2010) WQI Ramakrishnaiah et al. (2009)
Excellent 0–25 <50
Good 26–50 50–100
Poor 51–75 100–200
Very poor 76–100 200–300
Unsuitable Above 100 >300
0.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
100.00
125.00
150.00
WQIvalues
Sampling LocaƟons
WQI WQI
Fig. 5. Changes in the computed water quality index of each location at Allahabad.
74 P. Sharma et al. / Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology 3–4 (2014) 67–76
10. it was also reported that there are sulphate reducing chemical reactions which produce alkalinity (Muyzer and Stams, 2008).
Our study also showed that Dissolved oxygen and pH were significantly positively correlated (r = 0.898, p < 0.01) from which
pH may also consider as a deciding factor for the dissolution of oxygen in water. Increased value of pH within certain limits
may be unfavorable for the bacterial growth which maintains high level of DO. Slightly low pH of water of Neeva seems
favorable for the bacterial growth, therefore level of DO was found very low at Neeva.
From our study, it was also found that Na+
and Mg2+
were positively correlated with pH (r = 0.948, p < 0.01) which may
suggested presence of salts of Na+
and Mg2+
ions in water due to common sources of natural weathering and anthropogenic
activity which contributes to the alkaline pH of water.
Our study has shown significant negative correlations of pH with TDS (r = À0.875, p < 0.01) suggested more contribution
of organic salts, chloride, sulfate, and nitrate anions in increased TDS of water. Further more significant negative correlation
of DO with SO4
2À
(r = À0.971, p < 0.01) and alkalinity (r = À0.939, p < 0.01) was found which may signify that increased con-
centration of SO4
2À
ions and carbonate salts interfere with the solubility of oxygen. TDS values have shown significant posi-
tive correlations with the alkalinity (r = 0.895, p < 0.01), EC (r = 0.952, p < 0.01) and were negatively correlated with Na+
(r = À0.938, p < 0.01) and Mg2+
(r = À0.924, p < 0.01) indicating hydroxide, carbonate and bicarbonate ions along with the
chloride, sulfate, and nitrate anions as major part of TDS of all locations (World Health Organization, 1996). From the cor-
relation matrix Na+
ions and pH was found as governing factors for all other water quality parameters in water of rivers.
4. Conclusion
From the results of our study we infer that increased concentration of Na+
and ClÀ
ions may be attributed to domestic
waste water and sewage discharge as the main cause of increased pollution in Ganges river at Allahabad. Ganges river
was found with almost saturated level of oxygen and increased alkalinity in the post monsoon period which represents
the river system as good habitat for the aquatic organisms.
By analyzing the quality of water using WQI, we have found a significant decline in water quality of Ganges river includ-
ing Sangam and Yamuna at each location in Allahabad. Results suggest that purification of water may be necessary for con-
sumption of the post monsoon water for drinking and irrigation purposes. This study recommends the pressing need for
continuous monitoring of river water for determining the factors affecting pollution and its impact on water quality are
instructive.
Acknowledgement
We thank Department of Atomic Energy, Board of Research in Nuclear Science (BRNS) for funding the research project
vide the Sanction No. 2010/36/70-BRNS. Authors also thank Mr. Sabayasachi Rout, Health Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic
Research Centre, Mumbai for his valuable suggestions and experimental supervision.
References
C.P.C.B., Central Pollution Control Board, 2009. Ministry of Environment and forest Ganga Water Quality Trend, Monitoring of Indian Aquatic Resources.
Series: MINARS/31/2009-2010.
Status paper on river Ganga, 2009. State of Environment and Water Quality. National River Conservation Directorate Ministry of Environment and forests.
World Health Organization, 1996. Health Criteria and Other Supporting Information. Total Dissolved Solids in Drinking-Water, Guidelines for Drinking-
Water Quality, second ed. World Health Organization, Geneva (vol. 2).
CPCB, 2006. Water Quality Status of Yamuna River (1999-2005), Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment & Forest, Assessment &
Development of River Basin Series: ADSORBS/41/2006-07. (<http://www.cpcb.in> retrieved on 02/12/2012).
Table 7
Pearson’s correlation matrix between WQI and measured water quality parameters.
WQI pH DO TDS Alkalinity EC Na+
Ca2+
Mg2+
FÀ
ClÀ
NO3
À
SO4
2À
WQI 1
pH À.746a
1
DO À.478 .898b
1
TDS .630 À.875b
À.695 1
Alkalinity .612 À.968b
À.939b
.895b
1
EC .676 À.809a
À.626 .952b
.841b
1
Na+
À.813a
.905b
.686 À.938b
À.862b
À.882b
1
Ca2+
À.610 .420 .082 À.494 À.293 À.445 .658 1
Mg2+
À.680 .779a
.591 À.924b
À.788a
À.895b
.948b
.614 1
FÀ
À.324 .113 .242 .193 À.057 .124 À.038 À.428 À.120 1
ClÀ
À.150 .352 .534 .048 À.323 .104 .091 .122 À.064 .155 1
NO3
À
.046 À.299 À.626 .062 .408 .093 À.041 .605 À.032 À.700 À.358 1
SO4
2À
.570 À.932b
À.971b
.775a
.962b
.694 À.796a
À.262 À.706 À.148 À.511 .515 1
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
b
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
P. Sharma et al. / Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology 3–4 (2014) 67–76 75
11. World Health Organization, 2011. Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, fourth ed.
Ahipathy, M.V., Puttaiah, E.T., 2006. Écological characteristics of vrishabhavathy river in Bangalore (India). Environ. Geol. 49, 1217–1222.
Duruibe, J.O., Ogwuegbu, M.O.C., Egwurugwu, J.N., 2007. Heavy metal pollution and human biotoxic effects. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 2, 112–118.
Horton, R.K., 1965. An index-number system for rating water quality. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 37, 300–306.
Kalavathy, S., Sharma, T.R., Sureshkumar, P., 2011. Water quality index of river Cauvery in Tiruchirappalli district, Tamilnadu. Arch. Environ. Sci. 5, 55–61.
Samantray, P., Mishra, B.K., Panda, C.R., Rout, S.P., 2009. Assessment of water quality index in Mahanadi and Atharabanki River and Taldanda Canal in
Paradip Area, India. J. Hum. Ecol. 26, 153–161.
Alam, M., Pathak, J.K., 2010. Rapid assessment of water quality index of Ramganga river, western Uttar Pradesh (India) using a computer programme. Nat.
Sci. 8 (11), 1–8.
Joshi, D.M., Kumar, A., Agrawal, N., 2009. Studies on physicochemical parameters to assess the water quality of river Ganga for drinking purpose in Haridwar
district. Ras. J. Chem. 2, 195–203.
Chauhan, A., Singh, S., 2010 Evaluation of Ganga water for drinking purpose by water quality index at Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India. <http://
www.cleangangaportal.org/sites/default/files/user_attachements/Ganges%20water%20quality.pdf>. Retrieved on 10/12/2012.
Parmar, K., Parmar, V., 2010. Evaluation of water quality index for drinking purposes of river Subarnarekha in Singhbhum District. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 1 (1),
77.
Cade, G.C., 2001. Oregon water quality index: a tool for evaluating water quality management effectiveness. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 37, 125–137.
Zhenghui, L., Guoping, S., Shaobin, H., Wei, S., Jun, G., Meiying, X., 2012. Water quality index as a simple indicator of drinking water source in the Dongjiang
river, China. Int. J. Environ. Prot. 2, 16–21.
Singhal, A.K., 2012. Legal cases on Ganga pollution and judicial activism. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Sanitation 7, 61–64.
Hameed, A., Alobaidy, M.J., Abid, H.S., Mauloom, B.K., 2010. Application of water quality index for assessment of dokan lake ecosystem, Kurdistan region,
Iraq. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2, 792–798.
Ramakrishnaiah, C.R., Sadashivaiah, C., Ranganna, G., 2009. Assessment of water quality index for the groundwater in Tumkur Taluk, Karnataka state, India.
J. Chem. 6, 523–530.
Yadav, A.K., Khan, P., Sharma, S.K., 2010. Water quality index assessment of groundwater in Todaraisingh Tehsil of Rajasthan State, India – A greener
approach. J. Chem. 7, S428–S432.
Indian Standard Specification for Drinking Water, Bureau of Indian Standards. BIS: 10500, (1991)
Dwivedi, A.K., Tripathi, B.D., 2007. Pollution tolerance and distribution pattern of plants in surrounding area of coal-fired industries. J. Environ. Biol. 28, 257–
263.
Saygideger, S., Dogan, M., 2005. Influence of pH on lead uptake, chlorophyll and nitrogen content of Nasturtium officinale R. Br. And Mentha aquatic. J.
Environ. Biol. 26, 753–759.
Mona, R., Shuchi, M., 2012. Analysis of various physicochemical parameters for the water quality assessment of central region. Asian J. Eng. Manage. 1 (1), 4–
8.
Sinha, M., De, D.K., Jha, B.C., 1998. The Ganga – Environment & fishery. CIFRI, Barrackpore, pp. 142.
Fouzia, I., Amir, K., 2013. Aquatic biodiversity as an ecological indicators for water quality criteria of river Yamuna in Doon valley, Uttarakhand, India. World
J. Fish Mar. Sci. 5, 322–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wjfms.2013.05.03.72126.
Pradeep, J.K., 1998. Hydrogeology and quality of ground water around Hirapur, district Sagar (M.P.). Pollut. Res. 17, 91–94.
Dalai, T.K., Krishnaswami, S., Sarin, M.M., 2002. Major ion chemistry in the headwaters of the Yamuna river system: Chemical weathering, its temperature
dependence and CO2 consumption in the Himalaya. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 66, 3397–3416.
Sewal, N., Jangwan, J.S., 2009. Major ion Chemistry of river Bhagirathi and River Kosi in the Uttarakhand Himalaya. Int. J. Chem. Sci. 7, 607–616.
Santosh, K.R., Sunil, K.S., Krishnaswami, S., 2010. Chemical weathering in the plain and peninsular sub-basins of the Ganga: impact on major ion chemistry
and elemental fluxes. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 74, 2340–2355.
Sarin, M.M., Krishnaswami, S., Dilli, K., Somayajulu, B.L.K., Moorc, W.S., 1989. Major ion chemistry of the Ganga-Brahmaputra river system: weathering
processes and fluxes to the Bay of Bengal. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 53, 997–1009.
Holland, H.D., 1978. The Chemistry of the Atmosphere and Oceans. Wiley-InterScience, New York.
Stallard, R.F., Edmond, J.M., 1983. Geochemistry of the Amazon 2. The influence of geology and weathering environment on the dissolved load. J. Geophys.
Res. 88, 9671–9688.
Stallard, R.F., 1995. Tectonic, environmental and human aspects of weathering and erosion: a global review using a steady-state perspective. Annu. Rev.
Earth Planet. Sci. 23, 11–39.
Meybeck, M., 2005. Global occurrence of major elements in rivers. In: Drever, J.I. (Ed.), Surface and Groundwater, Weathering, and Soils, 5. Treatise on
Geochemistry Elsevier, pp. 207–223.
Kulkarni, S.J., Patil, S.V., Bhalerow, Y.P., 2011. Flyash Adsorption Studies for organic matter removal accompanying increase in dissolved oxygen. Int. J. Chem.
Eng. Appl. 2 (6), 434–438.
Abd-el-Malek, Y., Rizk, S.G., 2008. Bacterial sulphate reduction and the development of alkalinity. II. Laboratory experiments with soils. J. Appl. Microbiol. 26
(1), 14–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1963.tb01149.x.
Muyzer, G., Stams, A.J.M., 2008. The ecology and biotechnology of sulphate-reducing bacteria. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 6, 441–454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nrmicro1892.
76 P. Sharma et al. / Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology 3–4 (2014) 67–76
View publication statsView publication stats
