Assessment of Heavy Metals Toxicity

and Ecological Impact on Surface Water

Quality Using HPI in Ganga River

Gagan Matta, Amit Kumar, Amit

Kumar, Pradeep K. Naik, Avinash
Kumar & Nalin Srivastava

INAE Letters
An Official Journal of the Indian
National Academy of Engineering

ISSN 2366-326X

INAE Lett
DOI 10.1007/s41403-018-0041-4

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Indian National
Academy of Engineering. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
INAE Letters
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41403-018-0041-4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Assessment of Heavy Metals Toxicity and Ecological Impact on Surface

Water Quality Using HPI in Ganga River
Gagan Matta1   · Amit Kumar2 · Amit Kumar3 · Pradeep K. Naik4 · Avinash Kumar1 · Nalin Srivastava5

Received: 1 October 2017 / Accepted: 12 June 2018

© Indian National Academy of Engineering 2018

Abstract
Present study is to reveal the seasonal variations in the river water quality by heavy metals contamination. To get the extent
of heavy metals contamination, water samples was collected from 12 different locations along the course of the River Ganga
and its tributaries in winter, summer, monsoon and post-monsoon seasons. The concentrations of trace metals such as Zn,
Pb, Mn, Fe, Cu, Si, Al, Ni, Cd, Mg, and Co were determined using atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AAS). Most of
the samples were found within the limit of standards i.e. Indian drinking water standard (IS: 10500). The data collected
by on-site and lab analysis was used to calculate the heavy metal pollution index (HPI) of river water. During the study Ni
showed the highest positive correlation value with Al and the highly negative was recorded with Mg. The values of HPI
were 33.34, 26.12, 27.88 and 26.86 in respective seasons. These values are below the critical index limit (100) in all the
seasons because of the sufficient flow in River System. So, the present study shows that the water quality of River Ganga is
unpolluted with respect to heavy metals.

Keywords  Heavy metals · Toxicity · Ecological impact · Ganga river · HPI · Water quality

Introduction Water is important for life; it is undeniably the most valu-

Freshwater systems like lakes, wetlands, rivers and streams
have been vital to the concern of civilizations throughout
the human society. Since old times remember civilizations
have been built based on their closeness to water: Egypt
grew up along the Nile; Romans expanded enormous net-
works of aqueducts to supply water to their cities, etc. In all
water, bodies are necessary to humans not only for drink-
ing but also for agriculture, industry, energy production and
transportation (Pathak et al. 2014; Ahluwalia et al. 2015).
* Gagan Matta
drgaganmatta@gkv.ac.in
1
Department of Zoology and Environmental Science,
Gurukula Kangri University, Haridwar, India
2
Department of Botany, Dayalbagh Educational Institute
(Deemed University), Agra, India
3
Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehradun, India
4
Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga
Rejuvenation, Govt. of India-Central Ground Water Board,
Chandigarh, India
5
Ministry of Electronics and IT, Govt. of India, New Delhi,
India
able natural resource that exists on our earth (Matta 2010;
Matta et al. 2015c; Abowei and George 2009). Water quality
available and reachable to a community has a great impact
on their survival; thus worldwide and local hard work are
extensive at ensuring the condition of clean and safe water
to rising inhabitants (Yadav et al. 2018). Though water plays
a vital role in sustaining human life and biodiversity, it also
has an immense potential for transmitting virus and diseases
when impure or polluted. Rapid increase in urbanization
and industrial development during last decades forced seri-
ous concerns for the environment with point and non-point
source contamination. With such infectivity heavy metals
are one of the most dangerous contaminants destroying the
freshwater resources viz. surface as well as groundwater
(Matta 2014a, b; Matta and Kumar 2015; Kumar et al. 2017).
The reason behind is the lack of increase in sanitation infra-
structure with population growth along with urbanization
and industrialization particularly for the developing coun-
tries (Sundaray et al. 2006). Physicochemical characteristics
like pH, temperature, salinity, nutrients and DO have been
observed to affect biochemical reactions within aquatic sys-
tems. Toxic Metals enter in water bodies from different kind
of sources either through anthropogenic or natural activities

123
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Author's personal copy
(Wong et al. 2003; Jain et al. 2015). Naturally, the concentra-
tion of most of the toxic elements is very low in the envi-
ronment and mostly resulting from natural processes like
weathering and the mineralogy (Karbassi et al. 2008). Heavy
metals enter into water ecosystems from various activities
like construction activities, mining, chemical rock weather-
ing, dry and wet fallout of atmospheric particulate matter,
agricultural runoff or natural disasters (Singh et al. 2008;
Bhatia et al., 2015). In last three decades increase in indus-
trialization has also become one of the leading reason of
heavy metal toxicity through direct industrial discharges into
the freshwater bodies with increasing total dissolved solids
(TDS) and lowering the pH concentration (Shahtaheri et al.
2008; Singh et al. 2013; Sharma et al. 2012). Today, all the
water bodies from river systems to canal systems, are under
threat with quality problems due to discharge of untreated
small scale industries and domestic waste into the aquatic
bodies with toxic metals like nickel (Ni) and lead (Pb) in the
environment which leads to raise in the level of toxic metals
concentration in water bodies. This has directed the atten-
tion of researchers, environmentalist, government agencies
and health practitioners. The presence of these toxic metals
in the water ecosystem has extensive consequences on the
living organism and man; their harmful property on man are
linked to lung, nasal sinus and dermal cancers. Waters in
river and canals are mainly exposable to heavy metal toxic-
ity due to their ease of access for disposal of wastewaters
from various sources. Natural influences and anthropogenic
activities viz. urban development, agricultural and industrial
activities rising consumption of water resources, weather-
ing of crustal materials, erosion, and precipitation inputs,
degrade surface waters quality and spoil their use for drink-
ing, industrial, agricultural or other purposes (Matta et al.
2017).
While traveling the 2525 km long stretch River Ganga
hold the life to millions of peoples in 29 cities, 7 towns, and
thousands of villages which are polluting the river by over
1.3 billion liters wastewater/day (Matta et al. 2015a, 2018).
In spite of recognizing the life-sustaining significance of
River Ganga, man’s approaches to its usage has always been
unsustainable (Matta 2015; Matta et al. 2015b). Many of the
research shown that river is flowing by way of heavily indus-
trialized and urbanized areas polluted with a concentration
of variable and unsuitable physic-chemical characteristics
and heavy metals (Matta and Gjyli 2016; Matta and Uniyal
2017). Flow discharge of river is completely fluctuating due
to power generation at Tehri and Koteshwar power plants
and increased due to confluence of Alaknanda and Bhagi-
rathi. Hydroelectric projects under construction/proposed on
Alaknanda and its tributaries may further influence hourly
variation in flow. The river bed consisting of large and small
pebble with some boulders and sand (Thare et al. 2010). As
composition of trace metals controlled by many variables,
123
INAE Letters
Panwar et al. (2017) reported the seasonal and spatial vari-
ation in suspended sediment concentration (SSC) for river
Ganga at rishikesh from < 1 to > 3 g/L during post-monsoon,
monsoon and pre-monsoon season for the year 2014. Many
researcher (Ramesh et al. 2000; Singh 2010; Garzanti et al.
2011) found that Ganga river sediments are enriched in
feldspar, quartz, kaolinite and illite, out of them kaolinite
were dominant clay minerals. River Ganga system is used
for industrial, domestic and agricultural purposes. On the
other hand, the river also has aesthetic value to cover million
of people across the globe. Of such importance, it is vital to
study the certain heavy/toxic metal contamination as well as
physicochemical characters in River Ganga system while it
reaches to plains in Garhwal Himalayas. This work also aims
to classify the water quality into different quality categories
by using pollution index.
Materials and Methods
Samples Collection and Analysis
Total 48 samples of water were collected from 12 different
locations from Rishikesh and Haridwar viz. Rishikesh-Byasi,
Lakshman Zhoola, Triveni Ghat, Pashulok Barrage, Chilla
Power House; Haridwar-Bhimgoda Barrage, Har-Ki-Pauri,
Mayapur, Jatwara Bridge, Missarpur Village, Bahadrabad,
Roorkee (Table 1), seasonally, viz. winter (November–Feb-
ruary), summer (March–June), monsoon (July–August) and
post-monsoon (September–October) from 2011 to 2012.
Sampling location was selected at midstream of the river
system. The sample was collected from the depth of 1 ft
from the stagnant water. About 10 L of water samples was
collected each time, from every location (Fig. 1).
Samples were collected in triplicate from each site, and
the mean value for each parameter was reported. Samples
were preserved in freeze on − 15 ± 5 °C for further analysis.
Before heavy metal analysis, water sample (500 mL) vol-
ume, was digested after adding 5 mL of the concentrated
­HNO3 (67–70%) on a hot plate and filtered through filter
paper of Whatman No. 42 and made up the volume to 50 mL
by adding double distilled water. Individual heavy metal
was observed with the help of a flame atomic absorption
spectrophotometer (FAAS), using model: ECIL AAS4129
(PC-based). The detection limit for Zn, Pb, Mn, Fe, Cu, Si,
Al, Ni, Cd, Mg, and Co was 0.005, 0.05, 0.01, 0.02, 0.01, x,
0.1, 0.02, 0.002, 0.0005 and 0.03 respectively. UV Spectro-
photometer Cary 60 was used for colorimetric analyses (US
EPA 1999; APHA 2012).
 Author's personal copy
INAE Letters

Table 1  Location of sampling Sampling Sampling site Type of system Latitude Longitude

site in GPS site no.

1. Byasi, Rishikesh River system 30°3′53.50″N 78°28′21.44″E

2. Lakshman Zhoola, Rishikesh River system 30°7′34.79″N 78°19′46.85″E
3. Triveni Ghat, Rishikesh River system 30°6′10.90″N 78°17′55.00″E
4. Pashulok Barrage, Rishikesh River system 30°4′29.84″N 78°17′14.65″E
5. Chilla Power House, Rishikesh River system 29°58′36.35″N 78°12′8.04″E
6. Bhimgoda Barrage, Haridwar River/canal system 29°57′23.30″N 78°10′58.27″E
7. Har-Ki-Pauri, Haridwar Canal system 29°57′18.83″N 78°10′14.46″E
8. Mayapur, Haridwar Canal system 29°56′31.55″N 78°9′20.65″E
9. Jatwara Bridge, Haridwar Canal system 29°55′9.74″N 78°6′12.83″E
10. Missarpur Village, Haridwar River system 29°53′42.60″N 78°8′46.92″E
11. Bahadrabad, Haridwar Canal system 29°55′11.72″N 78°2′26.47″E
12. Roorkee Canal system 29°51′23.89″N 77°53′0.43″E

Fig. 1  Location of the sampling

sites

Table 2  Statistical variation Heavy met- Mean and standard deviation

(mean and standard deviation) als (µg/l)
among various heavy metals Winter Summer Monsoon Post-monsoon

Zn 39.433 ± 11.262 33.092 ± 3.954 26.233 ± 7.418 31.5 ± 12.137

Pb 6.917 ± 1.799 2.9 ± 2.233 3.267 ± 2.264 3.942 ± 2.644
Mn 6.225 ± 7.422 3.317 ± 0.662 2.808 ± 0.525 3.867 ± 1.341
Fe 5496.525 ± 334.315 5289.467 ± 502.394 5369.458 ± 395.140 5385.717 ± 256.906
Cu 4.358 ± 0.971 3.567 ± 2.162 3.183 ± 0.559 3.467 ± 1.341
Si 43.917 ± 12.616 49.417 ± 0.654 2.742 ± 0.671 2.733 ± 0.783
Al 1.525 ± 0.544 1.217 ± 0.408 2.842 ± 0.688 2.683 ± 0.839
Ni 2.492 ± 0.468 2.233 ± 26.739 38.833 ± 27.729 48.583 ± 17.720
Cd 3.367 ± 0.990 2.642 ± 0.447 1.642 ± 0.620 1.692 ± 0.675
Mg 3495.575 ± 757.125 3609.392 ± 904.860 3165.258 ± 1070.825 3000.275 ± 859.200
Co 4.192 ± 1.569 2.983 ± 0.977 2.575 ± 0.768 4.258 ± 2.014

Statistical Analysis was developed between parameters for data assessment of

Ganga river water to measure the variations in parameters
All the obtained data subjected to statistical analysis. In at different parameters. Minitab 16 was used to measure
statistical analysis, a Karl Pearson’s correlation matrix the mean and standard deviation (SD) of the data. The

123
 Author's personal copy
INAE Letters

Table 3  HPI calculation for the Ganga river water based on Indian drinking water standard (IS: 10500, 2012)
Heavy metals Mean concentration Highest permissible Unit weight (Wi) in µg/l Sub index (Qi) Wi ×  Qi
(µg/l) (Vi) in µg/l value (Si) in µg/l

Zn 39.43333 15,000 0.0025 0.262888867 0.000657222

Pb 6.916667 50 0.7588 13.833334 10.49673384
Mn 6.225 300 0.1265 2.075 0.2624875
Fe 5496.525 1000 0.0381 549.6525 20.94176025
Cu 4.358 1500 0.0253 0.290533333 0.007350493
Ni 2.492 1000 0.0379 0.2492 0.00944468
Cd 3.367 10 3.7939 33.67 127.740613
∑ ∑
Wi = 4.783 Wi × Qi = 159.4591

Table 4  Heavy metal pollution Seasons Heavy metal pollution index Mean HPI value throughout study period
index for various season (HPI)

Winter 33.3387 28.5508

Summer 26.1198
Monsoon 27.8820
Post-monsoon 26.8627

Table 5  Calculation of heavy metal pollution index for sampling station-1

Heavy metals Mean concentration Highest permissible Unit weight (Wi) in µg/l Sub index (Qi) Wi × Qi
(µg/l) (Vi) in µg/l value (Si) in µg/l

Zn 32.425 15,000 0.0025 0.216166667 0.000540417

Pb 7.55 50 0.7588 15.1 11.45788
Mn 3.3 300 0.1265 1.1 0.13915
Fe 5736.725 1000 0.0381 573.6725 21.85692225
Cu 3.55 1500 0.0253 0.236666667 0.005987667
Ni 2.25 1000 0.0379 0.225 0.0085275
Cd 2.5 10 3.7939 25 94.8475
∑ ∑
Wi = 4.783 Wi × Qi = 128.3165

obtained data were subjected to analysis of variance by
using SPSS 16.0 software to understand the effect of the
factors like location, season or point of sampling.
Heavy metal pollution index Heavy metal pollution
index (HPI) is a tool of rating water quality that shows the
influence of individual heavy metal on the overall water
quality. The rating is a value between 0 and 1, reflecting
the relative individual quality conditions and defined as
the inverse scheme to the recommended standard (Si) for
each parameter. The overall water quality and its appro-
priateness for drinking purpose can be examined by cal-
culating its quality index (Mohan et al. 1996; Prasad and
Kumari 2008; Prasad and Mondal 2008). The steps for
calculation are:
First—the weightage (Wi) calculation of ith parameter;
Second—the individual quality rating or sub-index (Qi)
calculation for each of the heavy metal;
Third—summing up of these sub-indices (Qi) in the over-
all index.
The weight of ith parameter is:
Wi = k∕Si (1)
where, Wi is the unit weight and Si the recommended
standard for an ith parameter (i = 1–7), k is the constant of
proportionality.
Individual quality rating is given by the expression
Qi = 1000Vi ∕Si (2)
where, Qi is the sub-index of an ith parameter, Vi is the mon-
itored value of the ith parameter in μg/L and Si the standard
or permissible limit for the ith parameter.

123
 Author's personal copy
INAE Letters

The heavy metal index is then calculated as follows:

27.46
12
n
/ n
∑ ∑
HPI = (Qi Wi ) Wi (3)

28.532
i=0 i=0

11
where Qi is the sub-index of ith parameter. Wi is the unit
weight for an ith parameter; n is the number of parameters

29.222
considered. The critical pollution index value is 100 (Prasad
10
and Bose 2001).
31.179

Result and Discussion
9

The season wise monitored average heavy metal concentra-

35.014

tions are represented in Table 2. The maximum Zn con-

8

centration was found 59.3 in winter, 40.2 in summer, 36.2

in monsoon and 48.9 µg/L in post-monsoon respectively.
32.859

Goswami and Sanjay (2014) suggested the reason of con-

tamination is the point source discharge of tannery indus-
7

tries during the study of Ganga river water from Rishikesh

to Allahabad. The maximum Pb concentration was found
28.55014
28.548

10.1 in winter and around 8.0 µg/L in summer, monsoon and

post-monsoon respectively. The maximum concentration of
6

Mn was found 29.3 in winter, 4.6 in summer, 3.8 in monsoon

and 6.1 µg/L in post-monsoon respectively. The maximum
25.787

Fe concentration was found 5981.0 in winter, 5820.2 in sum-

5

mer, 5866.2 in monsoon and 5867.9 µg/L in post- monsoon

respectively. It may be attributed to the soil–water inter-
25.531

face especially within the upper and lower part of the river
stretch in the winter season (Reza and Singh 2010). The
4

low concentration of Cu shows there is no significant source

of pollution. The maximum Cu value was found 6.7 μg/L
24.002

in winter and post-monsoon, 9.7 and 4.3 μg/L in respec-

3

tive seasons. It may be assigned to run-off from extensively

farmed areas and domestic sewage (Ansari et al. 1999). The
27.64
Table 6  Heavy metal pollution index of various sampling station

maximum Si concentration was found 60.0 in winter, 84.0

2

in summer, 84.0 in monsoon and 86.0 µg/L in post-monsoon

respectively. The maximum Al concentration was found 2.5
26.828

in winter, 2.0 in summer, 2.7 in monsoon and 2.7 Â µg/L in

post-monsoon respectively. The highest concentration of Ni
1

was near about constant (~ 3.5 µm/L) throughout the study

period. Rai et al. (2010) reported the frequent discharge of
Mean HPI value throughout study period

sewage water into Ganga river at Varanasi and found it as

Heavy metal pollution index (HPI)

a cause of high concentration of heavy metals (like Zn, Cu,

Cd, Pb and Cr). The maximum concentration of Cd was
found 4.8 in winter, 3.4 in summer, 4.2 in monsoon and
4.0 µg/L in post- monsoon respectively. The maximum Mg
concentration was found 59.3 in winter, 40.2 in summer,
Sampling site no.

36.2 in monsoon and 48.9 µg/L in post-monsoon respec-

tively. The maximum Co concentration was found 7.9 in
winter, 4.8 in summer, 4.3 in monsoon and 8.9 µg/L in post-
monsoon respectively. Sharma et al. (1992) also reported

123
 Author's personal copy
INAE Letters

Table 7  Karl Pearson’s correlation matrix between the average values of variables

Zn Pb Mn Fe Cu Si Al Ni Cd Mg Co

Zn 1
Pb 0.811478 1
Mn 0.917791 0.975409 1
Fe 0.584883 0.945508 0.858862 1
Cu 0.971045 0.913257 0.97124 0.730898 1
Si 0.378446 − 0.145877 0.063409 − 0.356277 0.147983 1
Al − 0.310244 0.214437 0.052596 0.509366 − 0.184766 − 0.474188 1
Ni − 0.50307 0.02043 − 0.152344 0.339258 − 0.37944 − 0.52775 0.977544 1
Cd 0.67447 0.940491 0.871343 0.908395 0.831224 − 0.42007 0.170285 0.015272 1
Mg 0.57976 0.211663 0.327575 − 0.08125 0.540144 0.216662 − 0.886788 − 0.929077 0.3010033 1
Co 0.685886 0.689932 0.749606 0.649189 0.642091 0.432295 0.326529 0.138127 0.406056 − 0.1766 1

Italic values represent the positive corretion between different parameters

Bold values highlight the negative correlation

the similar findings (Co 10.5 µg/L) in River Ganga at Mir- Conclusion

zapur, India and conclude that river was polluted in respect
of heavy metals. Studies have been ensuring that the rainfall
is very much responsible for metal pollution in surface water
(Karbassi et al. 2008; Pandey et al. 2009).
To calculate the HPI of the water, the average value of
the seven selected metals (Zn, Pb, Mn, Fe, Cu, Ni, and Cd)
have been in use (Prasad and Mondal 2008). In the present
study, Tables 3 and 4 shows the seasonal and site wise HPI
calculation with unit weight (Wi) and standard permissible
value (Si) respectively. The HPI values are 33.34, 26.12,
27.88 and 26.86 in a respective season (Table 5), while the
highest value of HPI was (35.01) found at sampling site 8
(Table 6). It may be assigned to domestic sewage. The value,
above which the overall pollution level should be considered
unacceptable, is 100 and known as critical pollution index
value (Prasad and Mondal 2008; Prasad and Kumari 2008).
This study depicts that water quality of Ganga river is not
critically polluted in terms of heavy metals for the consid-
ered year (2011–2012).
The Karl Pearson’s correlation matrix between the differ-
ent trace metals was presented in Table 7. Generally, there
are no significant correlation between heavy metals, which
represents no association among them. There is positive cor-
relation between Zn, Pb, Mn, Fe, Cu and Ni with each other.
The highly positive correlation was observed between Al and
Ni (0.9775). Rafiei et al. (2010) suggests that high correla-
tion between metals could be the reason of same origin and
controlling factors. The highly negative value was observed
between Ni and Mg (− 0.9291). Only the Mg metal showed
the negative correlation with Al (− 0.8868) and Ni (− 0.9291).
The study shows that most of the water samples of River
Ganga system at Uttarakhand were less polluted in account
of heavy metal pollution and showed a trend in seasonal
variation. Very few samples revealed the slightly significant
concentration of metals in water samples at random river
catchment sites during the winter season. It is assigned that
concentration of various mining activity and linked indus-
tries along with the river course. The HPI is very useful
tool in assessing over all pollution of water system on heavy
metals. The HPI values for present study indicate that the
water quality of River Ganga is not critically contaminated
in terms of metals toxicity. It attributes the presence of
enough flow rate of river water, the metal concentration from
industrial effluents and mine water have been diluted rapidly
on a very small distance. More over heavy metal contamina-
tion by mining and associated industrial activities is fairly
mitigated because of strict operation of clean technology and
by industrial environmental measures.
Acknowledgements  The author gratefully acknowledge Department
of Zoology and Environment Science, Gurukula Kangri University,
Haridwar (India) for providing laboratory facilities to conduct the pre-
sent research work.
References
Abowei JFN, George ADI (2009) Some physicochemical characteris-
tics of Okpoka Creek, Niger Delta, Niger, Nigeria. Res J Environ
Earth Sci 1(2):45–53
Ahluwalia RS, Rai SP, Jain SK, Dobhal DP, Kumar A (2015) Esti-
mation of snow/glacier melt contribution in the upper part of
the Beas river basin, Himachal Pradesh using conventional and
SNOWMOD modeling approach. J Water Clim Change. https​://
doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2015.107

123
 Author's personal copy
INAE Letters
Ansari AA, Singh IB, Tobschall HJ (1999) Status of anthropogenically
induced metal pollution in the Kanpur-Unnao industrial region of
the Ganga plain, India. Environ Geol 38:25–33
APHA (2012) Standard methods for the examination of water and waste-
water, 21st edn. American Public Health Association, Washington
Bhatia A, Singh SD, Kumar A (2015) Heavy metal contamination of
soil, irrigation water and vegetables in peri urban agricultural
areas and markets of Delhi. Water Environ Res 87(11):2027–2034
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) (2012) Specification for drinking
water IS: 10500. New Delhi, India
Garzanti E, Ando S, France-lanord C, Censi P, Vignola P, Galy V,
Lupker M (2011) Mineralogical and chemical variability of fluvial
sediments 2. Suspended-load silt (Ganga–Brahmaputra, Bangla-
desh). Earth Planet Sci Lett 302:107–120
Goswami DN, Sanjay SS (2014) Determination of heavy metals, viz.
cadmium, copper, lead and zinc in the different matrices of the
Ganges river from Rishikesh to Allahabad through differential
pulse anodic striping voltammetry. Int J Adv Res Chem Sci 1:7–11
Jain N, Johnson TA, Kumar A, Mishra S, Gupta N (2015) Biosorp-
tion of Cd(II) on jatropha fruit coat and seed coat. Environ Monit
Assess 187:411
Karbassi AR, Monavari SM, Nabi Bidhendi GR, Nouri J, Nematpour
K (2008) Metal pollution assessment of sediment and water in the
Shur river. Environ Monit Assess 147(1–3):107
Kumar A, Mishra S, Kumar A, Singhal S (2017) Environmen-
tal quantification of soil elements in the catchment of hydro-
electric reservoirs in India. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/10807​039.2017.13092​66
Matta G (2010) Freshwater: resources and Pollution. Environ Conserv
J 11(3):161–169
Matta G (2014a) A study on physico-chemical Characteristics to assess
the pollution status of River Ganga in Uttarakhand. J Chem Pharm
Sci 7(3):210–217
Matta G (2014b) Water quality assessment of Ganga Canal system. J
Adv Sci Res 5:4
Matta G (2015) Evaluation and prediction of deviation in physic-chemical
characteristics of River Ganga. Int J Adv Res Technol 4(6):14–30
Matta G, Gjyli L (2016) Mercury, lead and arsenic: impact on environ-
ment and human health India. J Chem Pharm Sci 9(2):718–725
Matta G, Kumar A (2015) Monitoring and evaluation of River Ganga
system in Himalayan region with reference to limnological
aspects. World Appl Sci J 33(2):203–212
Matta G, Uniyal DP (2017) Assessment of species diversity and impact
of pollution on limnological conditions of River Ganga. Int J
Water 11(2):87–102
Matta G, Kumar A, Srivastava S, Singh V, Dhingra GK (2015a) Impact
assessment on water quality of Ganga Canal system in Himalayan
region. Int J Sci Eng Res 6(5):1524–1531
Matta G, Pandey RR, Saini KK (2015b) Assessment of pollution on
water quality and phytoplankton diversity in canal system of River
Ganga. World J Pharm Res 4(11):889–908
Matta G, Srivastava S, Pandey RR, Saini KK (2015c) Assessment of
physicochemical characteristics of Ganga Canal water quality in
Uttarakhand. Environ Dev Sustain. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1066​
8-015-9735-x
Matta G, Kumar A, Uniyal DP, Singh P, Kumar A, Dhingra GK, Kumar
A, Naik PK, Shrivastva NG (2017) Temporal assessment using
WQI of River Henwal, a tributary of River Ganga in Himalayan
region. ESSENCE Int J Env Rehab Conser VIII(1):187–204
Matta G, Kumar A, Naik PK, Tiwari AK, Berndtsson R (2018) Eco-
logical analysis of nutrient dynamics and phytoplankton assem-
blage in the Ganga River System, Uttarakhand. Taiwan Water
Conserv 66(1):762–768
Mohan SV, Nithila P, Reddy SJ (1996) Estimation of heavy metal in
drinking water and development of heavy metal pollution index.
J Environ Sci Health A 31(2):283–289
Pandey J, Shubhashish K, Pandey R (2009) Metal contamination of
Ganga River (India) as influenced by atmospheric deposition. Bull
Environ Contam Toxicol 83(2):204–220
Panwar S, Agarwal V, Chakrapani GJ (2017) Morphometric and sedi-
ment source characterization of the Alaknanda river basin, head-
waters of river Ganga. Nat Hazards, India. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/
s1106​9-017-2838-y
Pathak H, Pramanik P, Khanna M, Kumar A (2014) Climate change
and water availability in Indian agriculture: impacts and adapta-
tion. Ind J Agri Sci 84(6):671–679
Prasad B, Bose JM (2001) Evaluation of heavy metal pollution index
for surface and spring water near a limestone mining area of the
lower Himalayas. Environ Geol 41:183–188
Prasad B, Kumari S (2008) Heavy metal pollution index of ground
water of an abandoned open cast mine filled with fly ash: a case
study. Mine Water Environ 27(4):265–267
Prasad B, Mondal KK (2008) The impact of filling an abandoned open-
cast mine with fly ash on ground water quality: a case study. Mine
Water Environ 27(1):40–45
Rafiei B, Bakhtiari Nejad M, Hashemi M, Khodaei AS (2010) Distribu-
tion of heavy metals around the Dashkasan Au mine. Int J Environ
Res 4:647–654
Rai PK, Mishra A, Tripathi BD (2010) Heavy metal and microbial pol-
lution of the river Ganga: a case study of water quality at Varanasi.
Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag 13:352–361
Ramesh R, Ramanathan AL, Ramesh S, Purvaja R, Subramanian V (2000)
Distribution of rare earth elements and heavy metals in the surficial
sediments of the Himalayan river system. Geochem J 34:295–319
Reza R, Singh G (2010) Heavy metal contamination and its indexing
approach for river water. Int. J Environ Sci Tech 7(4):785–792
Shahtaheri SJ, Abdollahi M, Golbabaei F, Rahimi-Froushani A,
Ghamari F (2008) Monitoring of mandelic acid as a biomarker of
environmental and occupational exposures to styrene. Int J Envi-
ron Res 2(2):169–176
Sharma YC, Prasad G, Rupainwar DC (1992) Heavy metal pollution
of river Ganga in Mirzapur, India. Int J Environ Stud 40:41–53
Sharma A, Kumar A, Dhaka TS (2012) Impact on sugar factory effluent
on chlorophyll and protein contents of Cicer arietinum and Tigo-
nella foenum-gracecum. Curr Adv Agric Sci 4(1):62–63
Singh P (2010) Geochemistry and provenance of stream sediments of
the Ganga river and its major tributaries in the Himalayan region,
India. Chem Geol 269:220–236
Singh AK, Mondal GC, Kumar S, Singh TB, Tewary BK, Sinha A
(2008) Major ion chemistry, weathering processes and water qual-
ity assessment in upper catchment of Damodar river basin, India.
Environ Geol 54(4):745–758
Singh J, Rawat KS, Kumar A (2013) Mobility of cadmium in sewage
sludge applied soil and its uptake by radish (Raphanus sativus L.)
and spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.). Int J Agric Food Sci Technol
4(4):291–296
Sundaray SK, Panda UC, Nayak BB, Bhatta D (2006) Multivariate
statistical techniques for the evaluation of spatial and temporal
variation in water quality of Mahanadi river–estuarine system
(India)—a case study. Environ Geochem Health 28(4):317–330
Thare V, Sinha R, Mathur RP, Behera S et al (2010) River Ganga at a
glance: identification of issues and priority actions for restoration.
Report code: 001_GBP_IIT_GEN_DAT_01_Ver 1
US EPA Method 200.2 (1999) Sample preparation procedure for spec-
trochemical determination of total recoverable elements. National
Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Water, US EPA, Cincinnati
Wong CSC, Li XD, Zhang G, Qi SH, Peng XZ (2003) Atmospheric
deposition of heavy metals in the Pearl River Delta. China Atmos
Environ 37(6):767–776
Yadav K, Gupta N, Kumar V, Khan SA, Kumar A (2018) A review of
emerging adsorbents and current demand for defluoridation of water:
bright future in water sustainability. Environ Inter 111:80–108
123