34_13v3i2_2

8/11/2019 34_13v3i2_2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3413v3i22 1/3

58 International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(2): 58-60

ISSN 2249 –9695

Original Article

Physico-Chemical Analysis of Yamuna River Water

Yogendra Singh1*

, P.W. Ramteke2*

, Shashwat Mishra

2*, Pradeep K. Shukla

2*

1*Department of Microbiology and Fermentation Technology, SHIATS, Allahabad, India

2*Department of Biological Sciences, SHIATS, Allahabad, India

*Corresponding author: [email protected], [email protected]

Ph. 08858068173.Received 19 April 2013; accepted 09 May 2013

Abstract Present study deals with an assessment of some physico chemical parameters of the Yamuna River at Mathura. The study

area experiences a seasonal climate and broadly divided into three seasons as winter (November to February), Summer

(March to June) and rainy (July to October). The samples were collected and analysed for two consecutive years 2011 and

2012. Analysis of some physico-chemical characteristics like, water temperature, pH, D.O. (mg/L), BOD (mg/L), C.O.D.

(mg/L), and T.D.S. (mg/L) has been done during the investigation period. The water pH of river ranged from a minimum

7.2 and 8.3 in summer D.O 3.0 to10.4 in winters B.O.D. 14.0 to 52.7 in summers and C.O.D. 11.4 to 35.2 in winters

whileas T.D.S. 460 to 553in rains.

© 2013 Universal Research Publications. All rights reserved

Key Words: Physico-chemical characteristics; River Yamuna; Seasonal variations.

1. INTRODUCTION

Water quality, which is influenced by various natural

processes and anthropogenic activities, is worldwide

current environmental issue in research (Ouyang, 2005;Mukherjee et al., 2007 and Shrestha and Kazama, 2007).

The suspended and precipitated (non-floating) substances

and organic substances in waters are capable of adhering

pollutant particles (adsorption). The sediments, both

suspended and precipitated substances stored on the water

bottom, form a reservoir for many pollutants and trace

substances of low solubility and low degree of

degradability (Biney et al., 1994). The River Yamuna, the

largest tributary of River Ganga has been one of the most prominent & important rivers of India. The river Yamuna,

draining the southern slopes of the Himalaya in its upper

reaches, is the largest tributary of the Ganga (Negi, 1991).

At the confluence, water discharge of the Yamuna is one

and half times that of the Ganga (Rao, 1975). The Yamuna

and its major tributariesin the Himalaya constitute the

Yamuna River System(Negi, 1991). River Yamuna water is

most polluted in the world. 85% of this pollutioncontributes by industrial and domestic sewage. This water

is unfit for drinking, swimming and fisheries (Shrivastava

et al., 2001). During last decade, this is observed that the

ground water get polluted drastically because of the

increased human activities (Abdul, 1998 and Sirkar, 1996).The river water is becoming polluted due to discharge ofindustrial effluents, domestic, and other various sources

which need special attention (Jonnalagadda et al. 1991;Mathuthu et al. 1993; Jonnalagadda and Mhere 2001).

Industrial effluents of different origins containing toxic

metals, pesticides, etc. (Ammann et al. 2002) and

anthropogenic sources (Hatje et al. 1998) create water pollution problems through discharges into river water. The

utility of river water for various purposes is governed by

physico-chemical and biological quality of the water. The

assessment of the changes in river communities as a result

of the impact of pollution is particularly interesting issue

within the frame work of aquatic ecology, since running

waters are becoming increasingly affected by

anthropogenic discharge (Whitton et al., 1991). Many

workers have studied the impact of anthropogenic activitieson the environmental conditions (Kang et al., 2004;

Shirodkar et al., 2010; Bhardwaj et al., 2010).

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Collection of Sample Three sampling locations were selected along the Yamuna

river at Mathura. The water samples are collected from

different sites of Yamuna river, in three seasons, viz. winter

(November, 2011 – February, 2012), summer (March – June,2012), and monsoon (July – October, 2012).

2.1.2. Physico-chemical analyses.

Temperature, pH , biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),

Chemical Oxygen Demand (C.O.D.), Dissolved Oxygen

(D.O) and Total Dissolved solid (TDS; mg/L) of waterwere made according to standard procedure (EPA 1979;APHA1999).

Available online at http://www.urpjournals.com

International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology

Universal Research Publications. All rights reserved

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.urpjournals.com/

http://www.urpjournals.com/



8/11/2019 34_13v3i2_2



3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Dissolved O2 ranged between 2.5 to 8.6 mg/l. during

summer, 3.0 to 5.0 during rainy and 3.0 to 10.4 mg/ml.

during winter. Low level of DO is again indicative of

polluted nature of water body. Such low level of oxygen

was also noted by Iqbal et al. (2006) on addition of sewage

waste from human settlements to Dal Lake. Dissolvedoxygen shows an inverse relationship with water

temperature. Higher values of DO observed during winter,when temperature was lowest, might be due to the fact that

the solubility of oxygen in water increases with decrease in

temperature (Singh et al., 1980; Ali, 1999). Chemical

Oxygen Demand is a measure of the oxidation of reduced

chemicals in water. It is commonly used to indirectly

measure the amount of organic compounds in water(Kumar et al. 2011). The measure of COD determines the

quantity of organic matter found in water. This makes COD

useful as an indicator of organic pollution in surface water

(Faith, 2006). COD pointing to a deterioration of the water

quality caused by the discharge of industrial effluent(Mamais et al., 1993). It is a measure of the total quantity

of oxygen required to oxidize all organic material into

carbon dioxide and water. COD values are always greater

than BOD values. Seasonal averages of COD values

disclose variations in all the three seasons (Table 1). It was

found higher during summer (54.8 mg/l) and lower duringwinter (11.4 mg/l). Which was in accordance with the

observations made by Shankar et. al (1986). Biochemical

Oxygen Demand is a measure of the oxygen in the water

that is required by the aerobic organisms. The

biodegradation of organic materials exerts oxygen tension

in the water and increases the biochemical oxygen demand

(Abida, 2008).BOD has been a fair measure of cleanliness

of any water on the basis that values less than 1-2 mg/l are

considered clean, 3 mg/l fairly clean, 5 mg/l doubtful and10 mg/l definitely. During the study period BOD varied

from 3.2 mg/l (minimum) in winter to 16.4 mg/l(maximum), in summer BOD varied from 14.0 mg/l

(minimum) to 52.7 mg/l (maximum). The water

temperature was recorded between 25.6°C to 34.5°C in the

summer, 23.5 ºC to 29.0 ºC in the rains and 14.4 ºC to 21.8

ºC in winter during the study period. The variation is

mainly related with the temperature of atmosphere andweather conditions. Higher temperature during summer

was due to greater heating (Adebowale and Sawyer 2008).

pH of the aquatic system is an important indicator of the

water quality and the extent pollution in the watershed

areas. pH was recorded to be varying from 7.2 to 8.43insummer, whileas 7.0 to 8.2 in rains and 7.3 to 8.5 in winter

during the study period. It has been mentioned that the

increasing pH appear to be associated with increasing use

of alkaline detergents in residential areas and alkaline

material from wastewater in industrial areas (Chang, H.,

2008). The TDS values tend to be diluted by surface runoffand for most rivers there are an inverse correlation between

discharge rate and TDS (Charkhabi and Sakizadeh, 2006).

TABLE -1 PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PARAMETERS OF RIVER YAMUNA FROM (NOVEMBER, 2011- OCTOBER,

2012)

Parameters Units Summers Rains Winters

Temperature

oC

25.6-34.5 23.5-29.0 14.4-21.8 pH - 7.2-8.3 7.0-8.2 7.3-8.5

D.O. mg/l 2.5-8.6 3.0-5.8 3.0-10.4

B.O.D. mg/l 14.0-52.7 9.6-32.5 3.2-16.4

C.O.D. mg/l 19.0-54.8 13.8-49.9 11.4-35.2

T.D.S. mg/l 612-708 460-553 478-607

4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to Rev. Prof. (Dr). R. B. Lal Vice – Chancellor SHIATS Allahabad, India for encouragement.

We also thank Department of Biological Sciences for

providing facilities and taking keen interest for completing

the work.

6. REFERENCES

1. American Public Health Association (APHA) (1999).Standard methods for the examination of water and

wastewater (20th ed.). Washington D.C.: APHA,

AWWA, Washington D.C1999.

2. EPA, Methods for chemical analysis of waters, method

353.3. EPA. Washington D.C. US, 1979.

3. K.O. Adebowale, F.O. Agunbiade, B.I. Olu-Owolabi,

Impacts of natural and anthropogenic multiple sources

of pollution on the environmental conditions of Onto

State Costal Water Nigeria. EJEAFChe, 7 (2008)

2797-2811.

4. H.Chang, Spatial analysis of water quality trends in theHan River Basin, South Korea. Water Research, 42

(2008) 3285-3304.

5. B. Abida, Harikrishna, (2008). Study on the Quality

of Water in Some Streams of Cauvery River, E-Journal of Chemistry, 5(2008) 377-384.

6. V. Shankar, R.P.S. Sangu, G.C. Joshi, ‘Impact of

distillery effluents on the water quality an eco-system

of river Reh in DoonValley’.Poll. Res,5(1986)137-142.

7.

Faith Ngwenya, Water Quality Trends in the Eerste

River, Western Cape, 1990- 2005. A mini thesissubmitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Magister Scientiae, Integrated Water

Resources Management in the Faculty of Natural

Science, University of the Western Cape, pp 41 2006.

8. V. Kumar, S. Arya, A. Dhaka, Minakshi & Chanchal,

A study on physico-chemical characteristics of

Yamuna River around Hamirpur (UP), Bundelkhand

region central India, International Multidisciplinary

Research Journal, 1 pp 14-16, Hamirpur, 2011.

9. d. Mamais, D. Jenkins, P. Prrr, A rapid

physicalchemical method for the determination ofreadily biodegradable soluble COD in municipal

wastewater. Water Research, 27 (1993) 195-197.

8/11/2019 34_13v3i2_2



10. R. K. Singh, N. P. Srivastava, V.R. Desai, Seasonal

and diurnal variations in physico-chemical conditions

of water and plankton in lotic sector of Rihand

reservoir (U.P.). J. Inland Fish Soc. India. 12 (1980)

100-111.

11. S.S. Ali, Freshwater Fishery Biology 1st Ed. Naseem

Book Depot, Hyderabad. pp. 108-114, Hyderabad,1999.

12. P. J. Iqbal, A.K. Pandit, J.A. Javeed, Impact of sewagewaste from settlements on physico-chemical

characteristics of Dal Lake, Kashmir. J. Res. Dev. 6

(2006) 81-85.

13. S.S. Negi, Himalayan Rivers, Lakes and Glaciers.

Indus Publishing Co., 182 pp. New Delhi, 1991.

14. K.L Rao, India’s Water Wealth. Orient Longman Ltd.,255 pp. New Delhi, 1975.

15. B.A. Whitton, E. Rott, E. Friedrich, Methodological

aspects and perspectives in the use of periphyton for

monitoring and protecting rivers, Use of algae for

monitoring rivers. Institute fur Botanik, p. 9-16.University of Innsbruck, 1991

16. S. Su. X., Kang, L. Tong, P. Shi, X. Yang, Y. ABE. T.

Du. Q. Shen, J. Zhang, The impact of water related

human activities on the water land environment of

Shiyang River Basin, an arid region in Northwest

China. Hydro. Sci. des Sci. Hydro.J.49 (2004) 413-427.

17. P.V. Shirodkar, U.K. Pradhan, D. Fernandes, S.R.

Haldankar, G.S. Rao, Influence of anthropogenic

activities on the existing environmental conditions of

Kandla Creek (Gulf of Kutch).Curr.Sci. 98 (2010) 815.

18. V. Bhardwaj, D.S. Singh, A.K. Singh, Water quality

of the Chhoti Gandak River using principle componentanalysis, Ganga Plan, India. Ind. J. Earth. Syst. Sci.

119 (2010) 117-127.

19. V. Hatje, E.D. Bidone, J.L. Maddock, Estimation of

the natural and anthropogenic components of heavy

metal fluxes in fresh water Sinos river, Rio Grande doSul state, South Brazil. Environmental Technology, 19

(1998) 483 – 487.

20. A.A Ammann, B. Michalke, P. Schramel, Speciation

of heavy metals in environmental water by ion

chromatography coupled to ICP – MS. Analytical and

Bioanalytical Chemistry, 372 (2002) 448 – 452.

21. S.B. Jonnalagadda, G. Mhere, Water quality of the

Odzi river in the Eastern highlands of Zimbabwe.

Water Research, 35, (2001) 2371 – 2376.22. A.S. Mathuthu, F.M. Zaranyika, S.B. Jonnalagadda,

Monitoring of water quality in upper Mukuvisi river inHarare, Zimbabwe. Environment International,

19(1993) 51 – 61.

23. S.B. Jonnalagadda, A.S. Mathuthu, R.W. Odipo, S.D.

Wandiga, River pollution in developing countries: A

case study III: Effect of industrial discharges on

quality of Ngong river waters in Kenya. Bulletin ofChemical Society in Ethiopia, 5(1991) 49 – 64.

24. Y. Ouyang, Evaluation of River water quality

monitoring stations by principal component analysis,

Water Research, 39 (2005) pp 2621 – 2635.

A.

Abdul jameel, Poll. Res, 17 (1998) 111-114.25. A.G Sirkar, et al., J IWWA, Oct – Dec. (1996) 215-

220.

26. R.K. Shrivastava, S. Shrivastava A.K. Shukla, River

pollution in India – A brief review. J. Environ. Res. 11

(2001) 111-115.

27. S. Shrestha, F. Kazama, Assessment of surface waterquality using multivariate statistical techniques: A case

study of the Fuji River Basin, Japan, Environmental

Modeling and Software, 22, pp 464 – 475. Japan, 2007.

28. C. Biney, A.T. Amazu, D. Calamari, N. Kaba, I.L.

Mbome, H. Naeve, P.B.O. Ochumba, O. Osibanjo, V.

Radegonde, M.A.H. Saad, Review of heavy metals in

the African aquatic environment, Ecotoxicology andEnvironmental Safety. 31 (1994) pp 134-159.

29. A.H. Charkhabi, M. Sakizadeh, Assessment of spatial

variation of water quality parameters in the most

polluted branch of the Anzali Wetland, Northern Iran,

Polish Journal of Environmental Studies. 15 (2006) pp395-403.

Source of support: Nil; Conflict of interest: None declared

34_13v3i2_2

Documents