Water Quality Status of Rushikulya River Basin, Odisha, India

 

Ramesh Chandra Pati*, Swoyam P. Rout

Environmental Chemistry Laboratory, Department of Chemistry, Utkal University,Bhubaneswar 751 004, Odisha, India

*Corresponding Author E-mail: patiramesh@gmail.com

The Canadian Water Quality Indices (CWQI) of the two monitoring stations on Rushikulya river system are calculated. For the CWQI evaluation, four critical variables such as pH, DO, BOD and TC are taken into considerations. Based on the CWQI values, the water quality of the monitoring stations are ranked into different categories. The CWQI score at Madhopur calculated using pH, DO, BOD and TC parameters as the variables revealed that water quality remained within Marginal - Good category. Whereas, CWQI score at Potagada calculated using EC, SAR (calculated from calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium), chloride, sulfate, TDS and boron as the variables and comparing them with the respective tolerance limits for irrigation water quality, revealed that water quality remained at Poor category (CWQI Score : 14.94-27.24). The water quality deterioration at Potagada is mainly due to tidal effect.

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION:

Water occupies about 71% of the earth’s surface and yet it is one of the scarcest commodities especially in the developing countries of the world (Karikari and Ansa, 2006). They also stated that water is one of the most demanded of all urban and rural amenities and it is indispensable for man’s activities. Oketola, Adekolurejo and Osibanjo (2010) noted that water is abundant on the planet Earth as a whole, but fresh potable water is not always available at the right time or the right place for human or ecosystem use and water is undoubtedly the most precious natural resource vital to life. Furthermore, they opined that water is distributed in nature as surface and ground water in different forms and sources which are oceans, seas, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, wells, boreholes and springs.

 

Rivers are among the oldest water bodies in the world (Higler, 2012). He also noted that in most urban-rural communities in the developing countries especially the Sub-Saharan Africa, surface waters (rivers, streams, and lakes) have been the most available sources of water used for domestic purposes. The water from these sources is contaminated with domestic, agricultural, and industrial wastes and is likely to cause water related diseases (Ojekunle, 2012; Ayeni, 2014).

 

Water is a resource that has many uses, including recreation, transportation, hydroelectric power and domestic, industrial and commercial uses (Kumar, 2007). He also asserted that water also supports all forms of life and affects our health, lifestyle, and economic well- being. Although more than three quarters of the Earth's surface is made up of water, only 2.8 percent of the Earth's water is available for human consumption (Iskandar, 2010). At present, approximately one-third of the world's people live in countries with moderate to high water stress and the worldwide freshwater consumption increases six fold between the years 1900 and 1995 more than twice the rateof population growth, thus, many parts of the world are facing water scarcity problem due to limitation of waterresources coinciding with growing population (United Nations Environmental Programme, UNEP, 2002).Filkersilasie (2011) opined that the role of the river is not primarily to carry industrial wastes but their ability to do so is hugely exploited. He also reported that there has been significant impairment of rivers with pollutants, rendering the water unsuitable for beneficial purposes.

 

Rivers provide a variety of services for human populations, including water for drinking and irrigation, recreational opportunities, and habitat for economically important fisheries (Leroy, 2002). The growing problem of pollution of river ecosystem has necessitated the monitoring of water quality (Ravindra, 2003). Fresh water is a finite resource, essential for agriculture, industry and even human existence, without fresh water of adequate quantity and quality, sustainable development will not be possible (Kumar, 2007). Rivers play a major role in assimilation or carrying off of municipal and industrial wastewater and runoff from agricultural land, the former constitutes of constant polluting non- point sources whereas the later is a seasonal phenomenon (Muduli and Panda, 2010). With the rapid development in agriculture, mining, urbanization, and industrialization activities, the river water contamination with hazardous wastes and wastewater is becoming a common phenomenon (Ali, 2012). Rapu (2003) reported that in South Africa, over 15% of rural dwellers depend on polluted river waters for their domestic needs. Khalil (2005) claimed that over 70% of people in Sudan get their water supply from surface waters, which in most cases are polluted by agricultural chemicals and industrial effluents. Shuaib (2007) was of the opinion that over 40% of Nigerians depend on either polluted surface waters or wells for their domestic activities. He also argued that the constant use of heavily polluted water for a long time usually results in health problems. Researchers in different parts of the world have reported health problems associated with prolong time use of polluted river water, which range from dysentery, diarrhea, abortion, premature birth, viral hepatitis and gastric and duodenal ulcers amongst others (Oguzie and Okhagbuzo, 2010; Purnamitta, 2011).This study is therefore focused on a review of environmental effects of surface water pollution.

 

Fresh water, a scarce natural resource, is subjected to diverse uses for sustenance of human civilization. Conscious use of water in a sustainable manner can overcome the concerns of water availability and quality to maximum extents. The present study aims at the assessment of the water quality index in of the two monitoring stations on Rushikulya River in Odisha. For the CWQI evaluation, four critical variables such as pH, DO, BOD and TC are taken into consideration.

 

2. STUDY AREA:

Water quality of Rushikulya river is monitored at two locations–Madhopur and Potagada, inthe last 7.0 km stretch of the river, before it falls into Bay of Bengal, primarily to assess the impact of a chloroalkali industry. Madhopur is at the upstream, while Potagarh is about 1.0 km downstream to the industry at a distance of 2.0 km from the mouth. The water intake points of two towns, Chhatrapur (district headquarter) and Ganjam is located at Madhopur. The distance between the two sampling stations is about 5.0 km.

 

Area coverage of districts (in percentage) in Rushikulya River:

Rusikulya River originates at an elevation of 1000 m above mean sea level, from the Rushyamala hills of the Eastern ghats near Madhabari village of Phulbani district of Odisha. The river traverses a total distance of 175 km. in south direction before out falling into Bay of Bengal at Puruna Bandha in Chhatrapur of Ganjam district. It has no delta at its mouth. Major tributaries of the river Rushikulya are Padma, Boringanalla, Joro, Badanadi, Baghua, Dhanei and Ghodahada.

 

Rushikulya Basin covers 5 revenue districts of the State. Area coverage of districts (in percentage) in Rushikulya basin is presented in Fig. 1.0. The main urban centres in Rushikulya basin are Berhampur, Aska, Bhanjanagar and Chhatrapur.

 

 

Figure: 1.0

 

3. SAMPLING PROCEDURE AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS:

Surface waters were collected from all the rivers and streams on a monthly basis and segmented as per three seasons’ postmoonson, winter and summer for the year 2006. The samples were analysed using standard procedure (APHA 1989). The pH of water samples was measured in the field. Samples were subjected to filtration prior to chemical analysis. The determination of TDS was done by a gravimetric process, while the total hardness was carried out by EDTA complexometric titration method, (APHA 1989). The Winkler’s method was followed for the analysis of DO and BOD. Nitrate was determined by colorimetric procedure (APHA 1989). Fecal coliform population was analyzed by MPN/100ml method, by growing on M-FC medium at temperature 44.5° ± 1°C and counted after 48 hrs.

 

4.1 USE BASED WATER QUALITY STATUS:

4.1.1 Water quality in respect of primary criteria:

The seasonal average values of pH, DO, BOD and TC at Madhopur and Potagada pertaining to the period 2013-2017 are described in Tables 4.1.

 

pH and DO :

pH and DO values at both the stations conform to the water quality criteria for thehighest class, i.e., Class-A. Seasonal average values of pH at Madhopur remained in the range 7.6- 8.4 and at Potagarh remained in the range 7.8 – 8.3. Most of the time water at both the stations is observed to be oxygen rich.

 

BOD:.

The seasonal average values of BOD at both the stations during the period 2013-2017remained within 3.0 mg/l and thus meet Class-B water quality.

 

TC:

Water quality with respect to TC at Madhopur and Potagarh do not conform to Class -A orClass- B. Seasonal average of TC values at Madhopur conform to Class-C only 55 % of time of observation. Whereas, at Potagarh, only 10 % of observation of seasonal average values do not conform to Class-C. TC counts at Potagada is significantly less in comparison to that in Madhopur.

 

The annual average and the range of BOD and TC values at the two monitoring stations are given in Table 4.2. Frequency of deviation of BOD and TC values from the stipulated values (3.0 mg/l and 5000 MPN/100 ml respectively) are also given in Table 4.2. Percent violations of BOD during the study period at the two stations are presented in Fig. 4.1. From the data and figures, it is evident that monthly BOD value is violated only 2 % of time (May, 2015) at Madhopur and 4% of time (January and September, 2013) at Potagarh under the period of study.

 

Free Ammonia:

The annual average and range values of ammonical nitrogen and free ammoniaare given in Table 4.3. Free ammonia values at the two stations conform to the stipulated value (1.2 mg/l, max) for Class-D inland surface water (Fish culture and wildlife propagation). Ammonical nitrogen values at both monitoring stations exhibit a decreasing pattern over the years.

 

EC, SAR and B: Seasonal average values of EC at the two monitoring stations are given inTable 4.4. From the data it is observed that the seasonal average values of EC at Madhopur varied within 212 - 407 microSiemnes/cm during the study period excepting in one case when average value of 9538 microSiemens/cm was observed. At Potagarh, the seasonal average values vary widely from 241 microSiemens/cm to 48760 microSiemens/cm during the study period. Such wide range of fluctuation in EC values at Potagarh may be attributed to the tidal impact as Potagarh is very close to the river mouth. The same cause is also responsible for wide fluctuation in EC values at Madhopur during few occasions.

 

Annual average and range values of SAR and B at these monitoring stations are given in Table 6.5. From the data, it can be seen that the values of SAR and boron at Madhopur always remained within the tolerance limit (except on two occasions for SAR during 2013), whereas at Potagarh, frequent deviations from the tolerance limit are observed. SAR and B values at Madhopur are generally far too low compared to the stipulated values to cause any concern for its suitability for irrigation purposes. High and fluctuating values of EC and SAR at Potagada may be ascribed to tidal effect.

 

4.1.2 Water quality in respect of other parameters:

TDS and Total Hardness:

Annual average and range values of TDS and total hardness aregiven in Table 4.6. The river water quality at Madhopur conforms to the Class-A quality criteria with respect to TDS (except on two occasions i.e. May and June, 2015) and total hardness (except one occasion (June, 2015). Based on hardness values, the water quality at Madhopur can be categorized as soft to hard category. High values at Potagada are evidently due to tidal impact and makes it unfit to be classified as Class-E.

 

Nitrates:

Annual average and range values of Nitrate are presented in Table 4.7. Nitrate concentrations at both the sampling stations conform to Class-A criteria of 20 mg/l except on one occasion at Potagarh during June, 2017, during which the nitrate value conformed to Class C

 

Chloride, Sulphates and Fluorides:

The annual average and range values of chloride,sulphate and fluoride at Madhopur and Potagarh ae given in Table 4.8. Comparison with the prescribed statndards reveal that while the chloride, sulphate and fluoride values at Madhopur conform to the highest class (Class-A) (except for one occasion at Madhopur), the values for chloride and sulfate are often too high at Potagarh to be even fit for Class-E water quality for irrigation. A comparatively higher fluoride value at Potagada than at Madhopur also reflects the impact of tidal water.

 

Heavy Metals:

Data given in Table 4.9 represent the anuual average and range of concentration of chromium (VI) and mercury during the period 2016 and 2017 and annual average and range of concentrations of total chromium, iron, nickel, copper, zinc, cadmium and lead during the period 2013-2017. From the table it is observed that the values of these metals are well within the respective tolerance limit.

 

4.1.3 Use based classification:

From the foregoing section, it may be concluded that the water quality at Madhopur do not conform to Class-C with respect to TC. Water quality at Potagarh is not qualifying the tolerance limits for Class- E because of tidal effect.

 

4.2 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY:

The annual average and range of biomonitoring results expressed in terms of Saprobic index (SI) and Diversity index (DI) and biological class of Rushikulya river at Potagarh during the period 2013-2017 are given in Table 4.10. Taking into consideration the observed biological indices and the BOD values, the river stretch at is observed to be in a state of slight to moderate pollution (that is, B-C) during 2013, 2014 and in a state of slight pollution (B) during 2014, 2015 and 2017.

 

4.3        WATER QUALITY IN TERMS OF WHOLESOMENESS:

4.3.1       Wholesomeness in terms of regular parameters:

The wholesomeness of water quality at these two monitoring stations have been assessed with respect to general parameters of the eight parameters results for bioassay are not available and therefore, the water quality are assessed with regard to the remaining seven parameters. Annual average and range values of (Nitrite + Nitrate)- N at the monitoring stations are given in Table 4.11. Annual average and range values of total suspended solids (TSS) including monsoon period and during non-monsoon period are given in Table 4.12. Considering pH, DO, BOD, EC, (Nitrite + Nitrate)-N values, the level of wholesomeness of the river water may be considered as “desirable” at Madhopur. However, TSS values (during non- monsoon period) most of the time exceeded the stipulated limit even for “acceptable” level. Similarly, data given in Table 4.13 (% violation of FC values from 2000 MPN/100 ml) show that the water quality generally deteriorates from “desirable” category to below “acceptable” category during most part of the period under study.

 

At Potagada, water quality is below “acceptable” with respect to the parameters like EC, TSS and FC during most part of the study.

 

4.3.2 Wholesomeness in terms of special parameters:

Annual average and range values of total ammonical nitrogen ((ammonium+ammonia)-N) at the monitoring stations are given in Table 4.3.

 

Water quality with respect to total ammonical nitrogen at Madhopur was observed to be in “excellent” level during the study period except on three occasions during 2013 (January, March and September) and on one occasion during 2014 (April).

 

Water quality with respect to total ammonical nitrogen at Potagarh mostly remained in “desirable” level during 2013, in “excellent” level during 2014 -2017 except on one occasion (May, 2014).Annual average and range values of total phosphate-P at the monitoring stations are given in Table 4.14 which reveals that water quality at both the stations mostly remained in “desirable level under the period of study.

 

Annual average and range values of TKN values are given in Table 4.15. Annual average values of TKN and frequency of deviation of monthly TKN values from the stipulated values for acceptable limit during the period 2013-2017 indicate that water quality with respect to TKN was below “acceptable” lelvel at both stations. However, during 2016 and 2017, water quality with respect to TKN has been upgraded to “desirable” level.It is seen from Table 4.9 that the annual average as well as monthly data on concentrations of metals like total chromium, zinc, copper, nickel, lead, cadmium and mercury in the river water at all station are within the “acceptable” limits.

 

4.4      WATER QUALITY IN TERMS OF COD AND ALKALINITY:

Annual average and range values of COD and alkalinity are given in Table 4.16. COD and alkalinity values (excepting few occasions for COD) at Madhopur are within acceptable limits for most of the beneficial uses of water. However at Potagada, most of the time higher COD values are observed which may be ascribed to the tidal effect on the river.

 

4.5. WATER QUALITY TREND:

Water quality of the river at Madhopur do not conform to Class-C which may be due to instream activities on the river. As the river enters its tidal zone at Potagada, there is significant deterioration in the water quality due to sea-river interaction which is clearly evident from higher EC, SAR, Chloride and Sulphate values. At Potagada, the water becomes unsuitable for most of the designated uses of inland surface water.

 

4.6. POLLUTED RIVER MONITORING STATIONS IN RUSHIKULYA RIVER:

Comparison of BOD data obtained during the period 2013-2017 (Table 4.2) with the tolerance limits for Class-C revealed that both the stations can be identified as the polluted river monitoring stations under Priority-V category. As the polluted monitoring locations in a continuous sequence are identified as the polluted river stretches, the stretch from Madhopur-Potagada (5 Km) may be identified as the polluted river monitoring stretch. The list of polluted river monitoring stations with annual BOD range and priority class is given in Table 4.17.

 

4.7. WATER QUALITY INDEX OF MONITORING STATIONS IN RUSHIKULYA RIVER

The Canadian Water Quality Indices (CWQI) of the two monitoring stations on Rushikulya river system are calculated for the period 2011-2015 (Table 4.18). For the CWQI evaluation, four critical variables such as pH, DO, BOD and TC are taken into conseideration. Based on the CWQI values, the water quality of the monitoring stations are ranked into different categories. As evident from the Table 4.18 for the CWQI ranks, water quality of Rushikulya river at Madhopur remained within Marginal - Good category during the study period. The instream activities are responsible for the occasional deviation of TC values beyond the tolerance limit which lowers the water quality at the monitoring station.The CWQI score at Potagada calculated using pH, DO, BOD and TC as variables, varied from Fair to Excellent. However, as this station is very close to the mouth of the river, the major water quality determining parameters in such cases are EC, chloride, sulfate, calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium.

 

Therefore, recalculation of CWQI score considering EC, SAR (calculated from calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium), chloride, sulfate, TDS and boron as the variables and comparing them with the respective tolerance limits for irrigation wate quality, it has been observed that water quality at Potagada remained at Poor category (CWQI Score : 14.94-27.24). The water quality downgrading parameters are EC, SAR, chloride, sulfate, TDS and Boron which owes its origin from the tidal effect.

 

Table 1. Seasonal average values of pH, DO, BOD and TC in Rushikulya river at Madhopur and Potagada

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Annual average and range values of BOD (mg/l) and Total Coliform (MPN/100 ml) and frequency of deviation from criteria limit

Monitoring Stations	Parameter	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
Madhopur	BOD	2.3(1.0-3.0)	1.4 (0.8-2.2)	2.0 (1.0 – 3.6)	1.5(0.6 – 2.1)	1.5 (0.7-2.4)
	F*	0/12	0/12	1/10	0/11	0/12
	TC	4569 (130-24000)	4319(330-9200)	22523(790 –160000)	4314(170 – 9400)	7308 (490- 17000)
	F*	1/12	6/12	5/10	5/11	6/12
Potagada	BOD	2.1(1.0-3.3)	2.0 (1.0-2.8)	1.8(0.9 -2.7)	1.5(0.8 -2.2)	1.8 (0.8-2.8)
	F*	2/12	0/12	0/10	0/11	0/12
	TC	739 (120-2200)	1116(68-3500)	17269(130 – 160000)	4224(68 – 16000)	1112(2-5400)
	F*	0/12	0/12	2/10	5/11	1/12

*F: Frequency of deviation (No of deviation/no. of observation)

 

Table 3. Annual average and Range values of Ammonical Nitrogen

Table, 4. Seasonal average values of Electrical Conductivity (microSiemens/cm)

 

 

 

Table, 5. Annual average and Range values of SAR and Boron

 

Table, 6. Annual average and Range values of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)and Total Hardness (TH)

 

Table 7   Annual average and Range values of Nitrate (as NO₃) (mg/l)

 

Table 8. Annual average and Range values Chloride, Sulphate and Fluoride

 

Table 9, Annual average and Range values of Metals

Parameter			Madhopur
	2013	2014	2015*	2016#	2017##
			(mg/l)
Chromium (VI)	-	-	-	0.016	0.013
				(<0.002-0.045)	(<0.002-0.033)
Chromium	0.040	0.031	0.025	0.048	0.042
(Total)	(0.007-0.084)	(0.012-0.053)	(0.005-0.048)	(0.018-0.082)	(0.015-0.087)
Iron	3.117	3.01	3.394	2.310	2.292
	(0.182-14.266)	(0.51-12.37)	(0.387-12.625)	(0.127-7.956)	(0.070-6.810)
Nickel	0.003	0.006	0.002	0.007	0.011
	(0.001-0.008)	(0.004-0.012)		(0.007-0.007)	(0.004-0.017)
Copper	0.004	0.002	0.004	0.019	0.005
	(0.001-0.009)	(0.001-0.004)		(0.016-0.021)	(0.001-0.013)
Zinc	0.007	0.012	0.006	0.013	0.009
	(<0.001-0.018)	(0.002-0.032)		(0.012-0.014)	(0.001-0.025)
Cadmium	0.002	0.002	0.001	0.0030	0.0034
	(<0.001-0.004)	(0.001-0.003)		(0.0020-0.0039)	(0.0004-0.0080)
Mercury	-	-	-	0.00020	0.00032
				(<0.00006-	(0.00006-
				0.00076)	0.00089)
Lead	0.005	0.006	0.007	0.008	0.011
	(0.001-0.009)	(0.004-0.008)		(0.007-0.008)	(0.005-0.017)
			Potagada
Parameter	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
			(mg/l)
Chromium (VI)	-	-	-	0.012 (<0.002-	0.009
				0.030)	(<0.002-0.023)
Chromium	0.058	0.038	0.028	0.057	0.042
(Total)	(0.005-0.187)	(0.017-0.089)	(0.005-0.070)	(0.008-0.145)	(0.011-0.094)
Iron	3.777	2.85	2.337	1.569	2.654
	(0.480-16.608)	(0.44-10.84)	(0.216-6.339)	(0.117-6.400)	(0.110-7.140)
Nickel	0.005	0.007	0.004	0.015	0.027
	(0.001-0.010)	(0.002-0.010)		(0.011-0.018)	(0.007-0.070)
Copper	0.006	0.005	0.004	0.005	0.014
	(0.001-0.013)	(0.003-0.006)		(0.003-0.008)	(0.002-0.046)
Zinc	0.008	0.008	0.007	0.026	0.021
	(0.001-0.017)	(0.006-0.010)		(0.024-0.028)	(0.006-0.085)
Cadmium	0.003	0.001	0.001	0.001	0.0089
	(0.001-0.007)	(0.001-0.002)		(0.0008-0.0012)	(0.0004-0.0436)
Mercury	-	-	-	0.00020	0.00028
				(<0.00006-	(<0.00006-
				0.00051)	0.00070)
Lead	0.007	0.006	0.009	0.004	0.018
	(0.003-0.010)	(0.005-0.009)		(0.001-0.006)	(0.006-0.052)

 

Table 10, Annual average and Range of Saprobic Index (SI), Diversity Index (DI) values (DI) and Biological Class

 

Table 11, Annual average and Range values of (Nitrite+Nitrate)-Nitrogen

 

Table 12, Annual average and Range values of Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

 

Table 13, Percentage violation and Range of Fecal coliform values

 

Table 14, Annual average and Range values of Total Phosphate-P

 

Table 15, Annual average and Range values of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen(TKN)

 

Table 16, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and Total Alkalinity

 

Table 17 Polluted river monitring stations in Rushikulya river

Sl. No.	River	Monitoring station	Annual BOD Data range (mg/l)					Range value of BOD above 3.0 mg/l in the stretch	Priority as per CPCB Criteria
			2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
1		Madhopur	(1.0-3.0)	(0.8-2.2)	(1.0-3.6)	(0.6-2.1)	(0.7-2.4)
	Rushikulya							3.3-3.6	V
2		Potagarh	(1.0-3.3)	(1.0-2.8)	(0.9-2.7)	(0.8-2.2)	(0.8-2.8)

 

Table 18 CWQI of Rushikulya river and category of water quality based on CWQI values

 

CONCLUSION:

The CWQI values of Brahmani river system calculated basing on four critical variables such as pH, DO, BOD and TC revealed that , water quality of Sankh river at Sankh U/s remained in Good category, water quality of Koel river at Koel U/s varied within Fair-Good category, water quality of Brahmani river except at Rourkela stretch and Dhenkanal stretch varied within Fair- Good category. In the Rourkela stretch, water quality is within Fair-Good category at the Upstream of Rourkela city which is lowered to Poor-Marginal category at the downstream of the Rourkela town. Similarly water quality of Brahmani river at the downstream of Dhenkanal town has also been lowered to Marginal-Fair category . In Rourkela stretch both BOD and TC are water quality deteriorating parameters, whereas in Dhenkanal, TC is the major water quality deteriorating parameter.

 

REFERENCES:

1.     Karikari, A. Y., and Ansa – Asare, O. D. (2006). Physicochemical and Microbial Water Quality Assessment of the Densu River of Ghana.West Africa Journal of Applied Ecology, 10: 87 – 100.

2.     Oketola, A., Adekolurejo, S., and Osibanjo, O. (2010).Water Quality Assessment of River Ogun UsingMultivariate Statistical Techniques. Journal ofEnvironmental Protection, 4 (5): 466-479.

3.     Higler, L. W. G. (2012). Fresh Surface Water Biology and Biodiversity of River Systems, ALTERRA,Wageningen, the Netherlands. Encyclopedia of LifeSupport Systems (EOLSS), pp. 233 – 242.

4.     Ojekule, P.A. (2012). The Impact of UrbanEnvironment and Seasonality on the Quality of IkpobaRiver in Benin City. Nigeria Journal of Food,Agriculture and Environment, 6(2):362-369.

5.     Kumar, N.A. (2007). View on FreshwaterEnvironment. Journal of Ecology, Environment andConservation,3(3):386-393.

6.     Iskandar, A.P. (2010). The Effect of Urban Runoff Water and Human Activities on SomePhysicochemical Parameters of the Epie Creek in theNiger Delta. Journal of Applied Sciences andEnvironmental Management, 5(1):47-55.

7.     Filkersilasie, J.F.N. (2011). The Physical andChemical Condition of Sombreiro River, Niger Delta,Nigeria. Research Journal of Environmental andEarth Sciences, 3(4): 327-340.

8.     Leroy, P.N. (2002). Aquatic Ecosystems and GlobalClimate Change, Potential Impacts on Inland Freshwater and Coastal Wetland Ecosystems in theUnited States. USEPA, Washington DC, pp.76 -84.

9.     Ravindra,D.B. (2003). Surface Water (Lakes) QualityAssessment in Nagpur City (India) based on WaterQuality index (WQI). Journal of Chemical Society,4(1):43-48.

10.  Muduli, B.P. and Panda, C. R. (2010).Physicochemical Properties of Water Collected fromDhamra Estuary. International Journal ofEnvironmental Sciences, 1:103 – 117.

11.  Ali, J. (2012). An Assessment of the Water Quality ofOgunpa River Ibadan, Nigeria. M.Sc. Dissertation.University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria, Pp. 32 – 41.

12.  Rapu, R. A. (2003). Study of Water Quality of theRivers of Ranchi District. Industrial Journal ofEnvironmental Protection, 21(5):398 – 402.

13.  Khalil, A.A. (2005). Water Sanitation and HumanHealth in Southern Sudan. Journal of Environmentand Climate Change, 8(1):64–82.

14.  Shuaib, A.H. (2007). Environmental Impact of Tomb abridge Construction across Nun River in CentralNiger Delta, Nigeria. The International Journal ofEngineering and Science, 2(11): 32 – 41.

15.  Oguzie, F.A., and Okhagbuzo, G.A. (2010).Concentrations of Heavy Metals in EffluentDischarges Downstream of Ikpoba River in BeninCity. Nigeria. Afr. J. Biotechnology. 9(3):319-325.

16.  Purnamitta, G. (2012). Microbiological Aspects ofWater: Key Criteria of Quality. Current Research inBiological and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 11(1):157-166.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Received on 08.01.2018         Modified on 28.02.2018

Accepted on 09.04.2018         © AJRC All right reserved