You are on page 1of 9

Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech.

, 4 (1): 159-167, 2007 ISSN: 1735-1472 © Winter 2007, IRSEN, CEERS, IAU

Md. J. B. Alam, et al.

Water quality parameters along rivers
1

Md. J. B. Alam, 3M. R. Islam,1Z. Muyen , 1M. Mamun, 2S. Islam

1

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet, Bangladesh
2

Chemistry Department, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet, Bangladesh
3

North South University, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Received 31 August 2006; revised 28 November 2006; accepted 5 December 2006; available online 1 January 2007

ABSTRACT: Water samples have been collected from a part of Surma River along different points and analyzed for various water quality parameters during dry and monsoon periods. Effects of industrial wastes, municipal sewage, and agricultural runoff on river water quality have been investigated. The study was conducted within the Chattak to Sunamganj portion of Surma River, which is significant due to the presence of two major industries-a paper mill and a cement factory. The other significant feature is the conveyors that travel from India to Chattak. This study involves determination of physical, biological and chemical parameters of surface water at different points. The river was found to be highly turbid in the monsoon season. But BOD and fecal coliform concentration was found higher in the dry season. The water was found slightly acidic. The mean values of parameters were Conductivity 84-805µs; DO: dry5.52 mg/L, monsoon-5.72 mg/L; BOD: dry-1 mg/L, monsoon-0.878 mg/L; Total Solid: dry-149.4 mg/L, monsoon145.7 mg/L. A model study was also conducted and values of different model parameters were estimated. Key words: Conductivity, BOD, total solids, Surma River, DO, dry season, monsoon season

INTRODUCTION The Surma Basin, covering the eastern parts of the Bangladesh, contains at least 8 million people making it a populous river basin in Bangladesh. All these peoples depend on Surma Basin for their household, industrial and other purposes. However, the water quality of the Surma River is deteriorating day by day due to human activities and industrial effluents, which are built up on its bank. So it is of vital importance to monitor and simulate the water quality parameters of the Surma River to ascertain whether the water is still suitable for various uses. In a study, it was found that Texas has approximately 191,228 miles of streams and rivers. Overall rivers and stream water quality improved slightly between 1996 and 2002, as the number of miles not meeting their designated water quality uses fell from 4,290 to 3,568 miles. Of the 3,568 miles of rivers and streams that did not fully meet their designated use in the 2002 report, about 2,215 miles did not meet safe swimming (contact recreation) conditions, 455 miles did not meet standards for aquatic life, some 285 miles had fish consumption bans or advisories, and
*Corresponding author, Email: jahiralam@yahoo.com Tel.: +8802 9114 285; Fax: +8802 1715 257

some 825 miles did not meet general uses due to high amounts of total dissolved solids and/or choride. It is important to note, however, that many miles of streams and rivers did not have sufficient data to determine if they met state water quality standards, and in fact, Texas Water Quality Authority identified hundreds of miles of streams and rivers with water quality concerns but with insufficient data to meet their methodology for calling a stream or river “impaired.” Between 1994 and 2002, overall use support in reservoirs declined from 98 to 70 percent, indicating a substantial decline in reservoir water quality. The decline in overall use support was caused by mercury deposition in reservoirs from atmospheric deposition, higher levels of dissolved oxygen, higher levels of metals and organic substances, and either high or low levels of pH, elevated levels of chloride and high levels of total dissolved solids (Texas Environmental Profiles, 2006). In another study, the Songhua river was found polluted. The river is considered as mother river of China as it provides water for industries, agriculture and human consumption. The river is polluted by both conventional pollutants (heavy metals, nitrate,

The sample bottles were labeled with date and sampling source. through analysis of some selected water quality parameters like pH. To predict the BOD. 1: Study area in Surma basin 160 . COD. MATERIALS AND METHODS Standard methods were adapted for the analysis of various water quality parameters APHA-AWWAWPCF (1989). the bottles were rinsed three times with the water to be collected. phosphate. 1. Several studies (DOE 1993. Phosphorus and Heavy Metal as these move through a river system. In this paper an attempt has been taken to study and simulate the environmental condition along the river and predict the pollution status. At present. Hossain. water samples were collected in two polypropylene and one-glass bottles. BOD. Phenol and Atrazine. At each sampling location. DO and nitrogen from the simulation model. The sub-models have been validated with the data readily available during the field experiment. 2001) showed that surface water quality of the rivers of the country especially Surma River is moderately polluted in different locations. Hossain (2001) discussed a study to determine the organic and inorganic pollutant loads of the selected industrial effluent of Chattak Pulp and Paper Mill on the water quality of Surma River. pesticides) and micro pollutants (ADB. The objectives of the study are : To assess the present water quality. Information was also gathered about the types of pesticides and fertilizers being used near sampling points. The study area is shown in Fig. Prior to sample collection. Before taking final water samples. Sulfide. DO. TS. it helps a user to predict the variation of BOD. Alam. for water quality parameter analysis and 1 L glass bottles were used for pesticide analysis. The study was conducted by a group of students. Fecal coliform. et al. An interactive river water quality model has been developed to simulate the fate and transport of pollutants through a river system using ‘C’ language. DO. Nitrogen. B. 2006). To compare the results with the international and Bangladeshi standards. Samples were collected from September 2001 to July 2003. 1 liter polypropylene bottles were used 75 Fig. J. DS.Md. all bottles were washed with dilute acid followed by distilled water and were dried in an oven.

Tech.52 5.50 14. Conductance depends on the number of ions present in water. standard for drinking purpose is 0. DO value for Surma river.23 161 .2 mg/L. In the dry season.98 2. 6 graphically shows the TS data of ten sampling points.11 5. the mean value (dry-6. DO.52 1483. The mean value of conductance of river Surma is 84-805µs (Shiddiky. But for other purposes where the value is quite higher than 0..52 mg/L (dry) to 5.31 1.00 205. The important water quality parameters.20 ppm as CaCO3. 9 graphically shows the Ammonia data of ten sampling points (Muyeen and Mamun. A standard for drinking purposes is 4 mg/L.00 0.5. J.126. 7 graphically shows the DS data of ten sampling points.5 mg/L the maximum value yielded from test result shows a much lower value of 0. 2 graphically shows the DO data of ten sampling points.62 1491.005 0. calcium. while in the case of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). magnesium.60 .90 TS Dry 149. 5 graphically shows the pH data of ten sampling points.Int. 2002).86 5.093) in Table 1 indicates slightly acidic water. Following Fig. Fig. 2007 Md. Total solids concentrations in dry season are 149.2mg/L. monsoon-0.60 7. Hardness.9 85. 4 graphically shows the COD data of ten sampling points. concentration of iron.86 6. chemical contents.00 46. Bangladesh standard for ammonia in surface water for drinking purposes is 0.09 0. which are acceptable in-terms of our analyzed value as stated in Table 1. pH.70 38.20 7. 105 µs.00 219. Following Fig.40 0. In the case of dissolve oxygen.72 1.8 95.60 2. which means it is quite safe in terms of ammonia pollution. the Surma river water is quite satisfactory.40 38. monsoon-6.00 51. COD.33 0. Environ.50 10. Following Fig.82 100.10 3.01 0.18 0. The electrical conductances of five points were found during dry season 800 µs.40 1. DS. Following Fig.5-8.00 DS Monsoon Dry Monsoon Dry FC 129.08 0.09 0.90 2.30 38.42 0. BOD. Alam. monsoon-22. Max.6 71.44 1401.72 mg/L (monsoon) as shown in Table 1. standard for sustaining aquatic life is 4 mg/L.5 MPN/100 mL) as shown in Table 1 are clearly unacceptable as far as drinking purposes are concerned.35 0. The mean values (dry-24. The electrical conductances of five points were found during monsoon 100 µs. DO BOD Dry Monsoon Dry Monsoon 5. The standard for any purpose in-terms of pH is 6. 4 (1): 159-167.5 11.6 MPN/100 mL.13 6. 1993).35 mg/L (dry) and 0.00 24. each 250 m apart were selected. along our particular reach lies in between 5.53 1. which is exceeded to a great extent as shown by the mean values (dry-1 mg/L.7 mg/L.60 1. such as Conductance.52 0. B. which is fit for drinking use.44 208.27 0.20 to 70. whereas for drinking purposes it is 6 mg/L. Conductance increases along the downstream of the river. 830 µs. 759 µs.08 0. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) is other important parameter of water quality assessment. 3 graphically shows the BOD data of ten sampling points. copper and zinc were also analyzed at five points. Following Fig. Fecal Coliform and NH 3 were analyzed. lead. TS.D Variance Min. et al. For other activities relating to surface water quality the values are quite acceptable.00 224. and microbiological counts.00 pH Dry Monsoon 6.70 6. 810 µs and 850 µs respectively towards downstream.00 22. Fig. chromium. as mentioned earlier.12 0.34 0. RESULTS Physical environmental parameters Water samples were collected from the Surma River during two seasons-dry and monsoon and tested for physical qualities. Total hardness of the Surma River increases along the downstream. Conductance values for the dry season are higher than that for the monsoon.51 182.00 0. Standard for DS in terms of drinking water is 1000 mg/L the maximum we get in the dry season is 219 mg/L and in the monsoon season it is 205 mg/L as stated in Table 1. Ten sampling points.50 3. So in this respect we can conclude that the Surma river water is acceptable from the drinking water perspective.60 13. Following Fig. Hardness values of water samples varied from 30.00 230. J.878 mg/L) in Table 1.50 37. 110 µs and 120 µs respectively towards downstream.00 139.88 1.16 1. Table 1: Statistical analysis of environmental parameters of water quality analysis of Surma River Parameters Season Mean S. This variation is due to the fact that waste assimilation capacity increases in the monsoon season.00 0.60 0. Hardness values for the dry season are higher than that for the monsoon (DOE.14 0. 8 graphically shows the fecal coliform data of ten sampling points.04 0. as shown in Table 5. the total volume of water decreases.46 1478.23 mg/L (Monsoon) as shown in Table 1.80 1. The source of organic and microbial pollutants present in the water can be accounted for the presence of trollers used for conveying stones.29 0. Higher values of total solids are mainly due to the presence of silt and clay particles in the river water. 108 µs. as a result the conductivity increases. pH is the indicator of acidic or alkaline condition of water status. 2003).38 0.Sci.60 COD Dry Monsoon 1. in that respect.00 NH3 Monsoon Dry Monsoon 145.01 0.07 .4 mg/L whereas in monsoon season it is 145. sodium.

8 0.8 1.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sampling station BOD Dry (mg/L) BOD Wet (mg/L) Fig. 3: Biochemical oxygen demand at different sampling station 8 3 2. 2: Dissolved oxygen at different sampling station BOD in mg/L DO in mg/L Fig.2 1 0.6 1.parameters B. Alam.Water quality rivers Md. 4: Chemical Oxygen Demand at different sampling 250 200 Total solid mg/L DS mg/L Fig.5 1 0. 6: Concentration of total solids at different sampling station 162 Fig.6 0. 5: pH value at different sampling station 250 200 150 100 50 0 150 100 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sampling station TS Dry (mg/L) TS Wet (mg/L) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sampling station DS Dry (mg/L) DS Wet (mg/L) Fig.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sampling station 8 9 10 7 6 pH Value 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sampleing station pH Dry pH Wet 8 9 10 COD Dry (mg/L) COD Wet (mg/L) Fig. 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sampling station DO DRY(mg/L) DO WET(mg/L) 2 1.4 1. et along al.5 COD in mg/L 2 1. J. 7: Concentration of dissolved solids at different sampling station .4 0.

J. In the respect.2 961 1310 1443.26ppm at Chattak Cement Factory effluent (Sunamaganj)-discharge point. Zinc concentration was found maximum at downstream during dry season (1.15 0.2 4.2 4. The level of chromium is much below the permissible limit for irrigation and livestock drinking recommended by EU (Claes. 1997).64 2.1 Cu Monsoon 4.45 0. al.6 ppb. Environ. 1997) and BD (Bangladesh Gazzet. The level of lead is much below the permissible limit for irrigation and livestock drinking recommended by EU (Claes. The standard limit of copper for domestic and irrigation water is 1ppm.05 0 0 2 4 6 8 Sampling point 10 12 50 40 MPN 30 20 10 0 0 5 Sampling point MPN Dry (MPN/100 mL) MPN Wet (MPN/100 mL) 10 15 Ammonia Dry Ammonia Wet Fig. the level of lead causes no matter of concern. 1997). The concentration of chromium was found within the 38.90 1.28 0.2 Dry 4. et.43 3. In the respect.35 0.0022 ppm). Shiddiky (2002) reported that concentration of chromium of Buriganga and Shitallahkha River was 20. 9: Concentration of ammonia at different sampling station The maximum concentration of iron for the present st udy was foun d t o be 3.. 1997) and BD (Bangladesh Gazzet. Shiddiky (2002) reported that concentration of copper of Indus river of Pakistan was within 91ppb. The concentration of zinc is higher in the dry season than the value of monsoon. various domestic and household sources enhance the concentration of zinc during dry season.33 0. The standard limit of lead for domestic and irrigation water is 50 ppb. the river of Surma is not polluted in terms of copper Table 2 shows the concentration of trace elements in water of Surma River.8 1212. 1997) and BD (Bangladesh Gazzet. Table 2: Trace element of water sample in Surma River during dry and monsoon periods Sample No.25 0.2 0..2 4. 8: Fecal coliform at different sampling station Fig.16 ppm .37 3.37 4.3 0.1 0. The level of copper is much below the permissible limit for irrigation and livestock drinking recommended by EU (Claes. The standard limit of lead for domestic and irrigation water is 50 ppb.2 4. 2007 Md. During monsoon. B. 1997). 4 (1): 159-167. Tech.Sci. whereas in the dry season. 60 Ammonia concentration mg/L 0. 1997).. al. The lead concentration was found within the 13 ppb in our present study. In the respect.30 Pb (ppb) Monsoon 13 13 13 13 13 Dry 13 13 13 13 13 Cr Monsoon 38 38 36 38 38 Dry 38 39 40 38 39 Zn Monsoon 2.59 3. These values were less than the values of iron in the Meuse and the Rhine River water. min im um concentration found to be 0. The effluent discharge from industries.48 ppm) and zinc concentration was minimum at upstream during monsoon (0.58 6.. 1997) and BD (Bangladesh Gazzet.2 ppb in our present study. The concentration of Surma River exceeds the permissible limit of iron recommended by EU (Claes. the river of Surma is not polluted in terms of Cr.2 4.04 ppb. The concentration of copper was found within the 4.2 163 .16 Dry 0. et al.77 Dry 843. Majid and Sharma (1999) found lead concentration of Kernofully River was 0. it was found to be higher than the permissible level of iron. it was within the permissible limit..Int.4 0. J.31 0.10 1. al. et. et.2 4.2 4. al. et.2 4. 1 2 3 4 5 Fe (ppm) Monsoon 0. Alam.2 ppb in our present study.

K23 is rate of oxidation of NH3 to NO2-. The conditions of nitrification include the presence of nitrifying bacteria.14. 1987. K12. et al. K12. 0. K2 is the rate of re-aeration. it consists of four sub-models. K33 is rate at which NO2-. NO3N concentration 0. DO concentration is more than 1 mg/L. N03 are initial concentration of organic N. K22. then nitrification kinetics can be described by following equations: dN1/dt = -K11N1 dN2/dt = K12N1.03 mg/L.D0 exp(-K1t)) +4. K11 is rate of decomposition of organic N to NH3 and its settling. 2000). N2 is concentration of NH3N. fish mortality. NH3-N concentration 0. odors and other aesthetic nuisances. 10 for a distance of 100 km. K1 is rate of BOD exertion. K12 is rate of decomposition of organic N to NH3. NO3-. At present. NO3-. Case study-1 Stream Discharge 0. Organic N concentration 5 mg/l.ultimate BOD at the end of anaerobic reach (Lf) and initial deficit. K11 is overall loss co-efficient of organic N due to settling of particulate forms and hydrolysis and bacterial decomposition of NH3. The impact of low DO concentration or of anaerobic conditions is reflected in an unbalanced ecosystem. 0. and K33 are respectively 0. N2 is concentration of NH3N.15 mg/L and NO2.57 K23 N2 (1) The solution for the differential equation is D = [ K1L0(exp(-K1t)-exp(-K2t)/(K2-K1). . The river profile industrial wastewater is being discharged having the following characteristics shown in Table 3. Constant K11. D0 = Ds (Muyan. When CBOD of the waste is very high. The net equation for DO deficit is dD/dt = K1 Lt – K2 D + 4.11. N3 is concentration of NO2-. Constant K11. 2001).3 m3 /s.is lost due to uptake by aquatic plants or through denitrification. et al.Md.e-k33t)/ (K33. Case study-2 Stream discharge 0. K23.and NO3.K22N2 dN3/dt = K23N2. B. BOD 0. N02ek22t (8) -k t -k t -k t N3=K12K23 N01{(e 11 –e 33 )/(K33. Re-aeration from the atmosphere and DO in the incoming tributaries or effluents have been included as sources of DO and the oxidation of carbonaceous waste material and oxidation of nitrogenous waste material have been considered as sinks. 0. NO3. Himesh. Stream reparation and deaeration rate respectively 0.4/day and 0. N02.. N3 is concentration of NO2. K22 is rate of oxidation of NH3 and the rate of uptake of NH3 by aquatic plants. NO3--N. K23. 0.16 (Hossain. DO concentration 5.95 mg/L. 2001) and the model output is shown in the following Fig.14.. 0. The DO problem has its origin with the input of waste into a river body. optimum PH in the alkaline range (pH=8).13 and 0. River modeling The proposed model is capable of simulating one dimensional steady state behavior of pollutant transport in the river system. Formulation BOD-DO sub model The need for the BOD-DO model of any river is predicting the pollution status at different locations. If N1 is concentration of organic N.15/day. 164 xf = xi + U(K1Li-K2Cs)/K1K2Cs (3) From the end of the anaerobic reach. NO3--N respectively (Thomann and Mueller. NH3-N and NO2-.09. BOD-DO sub model and nitrification sub model. and Mamun.57 {K12K23(((1-e-k 11t)/K11)-((1-e-k (K22-K11)N01) +K23/K22(1-e-k 22t)N02}] t 22 Nitrification sub model The nitrogen concentration in the river at various points along the flow direction is to be monitored. The end of anaerobic reach is given by N2={K12N01(e-k11t–e-k22t)/(K22-K11)}.13 and 0.16 (Hossain. Alam.3 m3/s.K11)+ K23N02(e-k22t – e-k33t)/(K33.11. L is amount of carbonaceous at any time t. J. 0.K22) + N03 e-k33t (9) Where N01. then DO would approach complete depletion and anaerobic conditions would result.K11) – (e 22 .K33N3 (4) (5) (6) Solution for the above differential equations is N1=N01ek11t (7) )/K22)/ (2) Where D is oxygen deficit.09. Cs is oxygen concentration at saturation level. K23 is rate of oxidation of NH3 to NO2-. the original equation of oxygen deficit can be used with L0. K12 is rate of decomposition of organic N to NH3. 2003). C is oxygen concentration at any time t. K22 is tare of oxidation of NH3 and rate of uptake of NH3 by aquatic plants.N. and K33 are respectively 0.62 mg/L. K22. N1 is concentration of organic N.K22)}/(K22.

Alam. And the model output is shown in the following Fig.01 mg/L Waste water characteristics are as follows Organic N concentration 4 mg/l.95 mg/L 4. NO3-N concentration 0. et al.. (Km) 80 90 10 0 11 0 12 0 Fig.2 mg/L and NO2.20 mg/L 0.Nitrite Nitrate N Fig. 4 (1): 159-167.01 mg/L. Tech. Table 3: The characteristics of wastewater Discharge DO BOD Organic N NH3 NO310 9 8 Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 0. 2007 Md.Organic .Ammonia . 10: DO along the river reach from simulation model curve .Int.00 mg/L 0. Environ. 11: Nitrogen along the river reach from simulation model 165 . 60 70 Dist. B. J.Sci.00 mg/L 0. J. 11 for a distance of 300 km.05 m3/s 2. NH3-N concentration 0.

5 10 5. Asian Development Bank. Moreover it was found that total hardness of the Surma River increases along the downstream.000 0. Ban. Hardness values of water samples varied from 30. Engineering Thesis.1 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The results from data analysis show that.05 0.20 175 250 25 1.72 mg/L. once a trend in pollution sets in. et al. which could limit the use of these data for sensitive policy issues. serious water quality deterioration could take place.0 0. which is fit for drinking use (Table 4).2 0. J. the water is certainly unfit for drinking purposes without any form of treatment. Hossain.0 EC standard 6. A. The mean values of parameters were Conductivity 84805 µs. So few years from now.. IAEM. However. quality of chemicals used.0 0 0 0 WHO standard 6. Moreover.. 1989.5 10 6. (1999). biological and chemical parameters of surface water at different points. REFERENCES American Public Health Association (APHA-AWWA-WPCF).5-8. 3 3 -3 7 . it still could be considered quite acceptable.16 ppm. Civil and Environmental Engineering Depa rtment. S. Mahajan. 17-24. J. (2001). (1986). B.5 10 --0. Evaluation of Surface water Quality: A case study on Surma River.. It is 166 clear from the analysis compared with Table 4 that the maximum concentration of iron for the present study was found to be 3.5 0.26 ppm at Chattak Cement Factory effluent (Sunamaganj) discharge point.20 ppm as CaCO3. A study of the water quality parameterof the Karnaphuly River. but for various other surface water usage purposes. there could be gross differences in the test results of some samples at different laboratories in the country. Chem.7 mg/L. Ministry of Environment and Forestry.1 0.05 1. DO: dry-5. M. Alam. monsoon-5. C. (2006) Report ADTA 4061-PRC: Songhua river basin water quality and pollution control Ma nagement.2 0.V. 27 . monsoon-0..1 1. (2000) Application of Steady State Stream Water Quality Model. (1989).5 0. minimum concentration found to be 0. Table 4: Various drinking water quality standards Parameter pH TDS (mg/L) Iron (mg/L) Sodium (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Sulphate (mg/L) Fluoride (mg/L) Arsenic (mg/L) Ammonium (mg/L) Nitrate (mg/L) Phosphate(mg/L) Potassium (mg/L) Endrin (µg/L) Heptachlor (µg/L DDT (µg/L) Drinking water quality as per EQS standard 6.. The model also predicts the parameter very well. B. Soc. The water was found slightly acidic. testing method applied or qualification or expertise of the technicians or test performers. A. Majid. The differences might be attributed to the approach adopted by laboratories in sample preservation.5 1. Bangladesh.5-8. But BOD and fecal coliform concentration was found higher in the dry season. 12 (1).A. BOD: dry-1mg/L.4 mg/L. Guidelines for drinking water quality. Total solid: dry-149.52 mg/L. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater.0 12. Rao.20 to 70. Department of Environment (DOE)..3-1. The river was found to be highly turbid in the monsoon season. . Sharma.3 200 250 400 1.5 1. (1993) Environmental Quality Standard for Bangladesh. S.0-8. Shahjalal University.. monsoon-145. This study involves determination of physical.0 200 150-600 400 1. But as we know.000 0.5 1. .878 mg/L. European Community (EC).C.K.U.. it generally accelerates to cause greater deterioration. it is clear from the analysis that industries have negative impact on ground water resources near the industrial area.Water quality parameters along rivers Md. Government of Bangladesh.000 0. Himesh.Sc.0 10 0. J.05 0.

V. et al. North South University. Email: rifathsharmin@yahoo. Tech. Texas Environmental Profiles. Bangla desh University of Engineering a nd Technology. Available on: http:// www. Principles of water quality modeling and control. Shahjalal University of Science and Technology. (1997) . A study on the wa ter qu ality parameters of the Surma River. Email: sirajul@northsouth.. Thoma nn.. J. Muyan. Engineering Thesis. Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. Z. (1987). Email: msrahman_sust@yahoo. Md. He is as Graduate student in Carleton University. R. D from Japan... She is working as assistant of Farm Structure. Shiddiky.com Islam. M. Shahjalal University.A.Int.B. Dhaka. He is assistant professor of environmental studies. 1987.. 4 (1): 159-167. She is working in Environmental Engineering field.Sc. S.. Water quality parameters along rivers. M. India. Thesis. Sci.. M. 167 . Email: jahiralam@yahoo. 159-167. Tech.. Bangladesh.com Muyen. Z. Sci. AUTHOR (S) BIOSKETCHES Alam.. He finished his M. Claes.R. (2006).A. B. Muyen. M. Mamun. Islam. Mamun. Harper and Row.hml.Sc from National University of Singapure.edu Islam. M.Sc. Engineering Thesis. He finished his Doctorate from Indian Institute of Technology. J. Environ. He is assistant professor of Chemistry Department. R. Tot. Alam. (1996). He is ex-student of Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. M. Alam. B.. Comparison Study on river quality. M.com This article should be referenced as follows: Alam.Sc from SUST.. Z. Shahjalal University. Email: mrafiq-che@sust. S.J... Sc. Islam.texasep. . 207 .B. 4 (1). 141-148. J. M. M. Civil Engineering Thesis. Environ.. Predication of pollution status of the Surma River by Simulation’. Chemistry Department..edu Mamun. He finished his M. Sci. 2007 Md. Canada. He has finished his Ph.org/html/wql/wql_1sfq. J. Agriculture University. (2003). Risk assessment due to pesticide use in Bangladesh. (2007). J. J.. J. Int. He is associate professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. Md. Mueller. (20 02)... Shahjalal University of Science and Technology.B. Shahjalal University of Science and Technology.. Env.