Eco. Env. & Cons. 27 (1) : 2021; pp.

(401-407)
Copyright@ EM International
ISSN 0971–765X

Seasonal variation assessment in physicochemical

parameters of Nakatia River, Uttar Pradesh (India)
*Deepti1, Archana Bachheti1, R. K. Bachheti2 and V.K. Mishra3*

1
Department of Environment Science, Graphic Era University, Dehradun, India
2
Department of Industrial Chemistry, Addis Ababa Science and Technology University, Addis
Ababa, P.O. Box #16417, Ethiopia
3Department of Agriculture Sciences, Quantum University, Roorkie Uttarakhand 247 667 (India)

(Received 5 June, 2020; accepted 14 August, 2020)

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to estimate the physical-chemical parameters and their variation across the
stretch of the Nakatia river that flows through Bareilly comprising six sampling sites namely Mudiya
Ahmadnagar, Harunagla, Mohanpur Nakatia, Thiriya Nijawat khan, Manpur Chikatiya and Ruriya. Data
were analyzed on pH, TDS, alkalinity, chloride, total hardness, BOD, COD, nitrates, dissolved phosphates
and heavy metals. The study found that pH, TDS, alkalinity, chloride, total hardness, COD, iron and nickel
of the Nakatia River were found within the limits prescribed by BIS. However, at some sites, BOD, nitrate,
dissolved phosphate and arsenic exceeded the permissible limit. Industrialization, urbanization, untreated
waste and sewage disposal are some of the key indicators of pollution of the Nakatia river in Bareilly,Uttar
Pradesh.

Key words: Physico-chemical parameters, Water pollution, Anthropogenic, River Nakatia.

Introduction ronmental legislation and emerging technology are

Rivers are also a vital resource for agriculture,
manufacturing, transportation and many other hu-
man activities (Dutta et al., 2018). However, deterio-
rating quality of river water due to rapid population
growths, urbanization and industrialization is a
mattern of great concern (Chabukdhara et al., 2012,
Suthar et al., 2009). Most of the rivers in the urban
areas of the developing world are the end points of
effluents discharged from the industries. Water
quality of about 70% of the river water was contami-
nated by pollutants in India and some of the river
water was too poor for human consumption (Gupta
et al., 2017). In India, the major problem of preserv-
ing the quality of river water is urban runoff and
waste management in river catchment areas. Envi-
in place to combat environmental pollution, but in-
dustrial practices and rising demand continue to
bring environmental and natural resources under
pressure. In order to manage river water, temporal
and spatial knowledge about the condition of the
river and its continuous improvement is necessary
(Barakat et al., 2016). The organic pollution and
heavy metals pollution of rivers have been attract-
ing considerable public attention over the past few
decades. River restoration is practiced as an alterna-
tive flood control mechanism effectively in many
countries as well as to improve / restore quality and
diversity of the environment (Chittoor et al., 2015).
Various studies on water quality parameters of
Indian rivers including Ramganga were reported in
literature by many researchers (Chabukdhara et al.,

*Corresponding author’s email: mishravkbhu@gmail.com

402 Eco. Env. & Cons. 27 (1) : 2021

2012; Khan et al., 2019; Dwivedi et al., 2018). Small
tributaries of Ramganga, nameley Siddha, Dojora,
Bahgul (west), Sankha, Deoraniya and Nakatia have
been facing water quality problems as it flows
through the Bareilly district in southern and south
east direction before joining Ramganga, which in
turns affects the water quality of the Ganges. How-
ever, little work has been reported on the quality of
Nakatia river, a tributary of river Ramganga. There-
fore, the present study was conducted to assess sea-
sonal variation Assessment in physicochemical pa-
rameters of Nakatia river, Uttar Pradesh (India).
Materials and Methods
Study Area
The study was executed within Bareilly city (280 10’
North and 780 23’ East), Uttar Pradesh, India of
Nakatia which runs through the Bareilly district in
southern and south east direction to join Ramganga.
For the study, six sampling sites, namely Mudiya
Ahmad nagar, Harunagla, Mohanpur Nakatia,
Thiriya Nijawat khan, Manpur chikatiya and Ruriya
were selected (Table 1).
Water sampling and analytical procedure
The water samples were collected from each site
during rainy and winter seasons in the month of
August and November of 2016 in the early hours of
day. The samples were collected manually from a
depth of 20 cm from the water surface in pre-
washed polypropylene bottles. After sampling, the
bottles were airtightened and the samples were
transported to the laboratory at in ice-chest at <4 °C
following the procedures described in APHA (2012)
and used for analysis of physic-chemical parameter,
i.e. pH, Alkalinity, TDS, BOD, COD, anions & heavy
metals (Rice et al., 2012). The pH of the water
samples was measured by using a pH meter (model
name). The pH meter was calibrated with three
standard solutions (pH 4.0, 7.0 and 10.0) prior to the
measurements.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Biochemical demand for oxygen is determined
based on the difference in dissolved oxygen (DO)
concentrations in the water samples before incuba-
tion and after 5 days of incubation following the
procedure described in Rice et al., (2012). Firstly,
water samples obtained were diluted with 1 mL of
phosphate buffer, magnesium sulphate, calcium
chloride, ferric chloride, sodium sulphite and am-
monium chloride). and 10 mL of diluted sample is
placed in two 300 mL amber BOD bottles, one of
which was incubated at 20 oC for 5 days and another
used for the determination of initial dissolved oxy-
gen (DO) against blank. DO in the wastewater
sample was determined through iodometric titra-
tion. For determination of initial, 50 mL aliquot of
the solution was titrated against sodium
thiosulphate solution using starch solution as indi-
cator, until a colourless end-point was attained.
Similarly, DO of the sample after incubation was
determined by following the same procedure.
D1–D2
BOD, mg/L = × 100
P

Table 1. Details of sampling stations in Nakatia River

Sampling Sampling Altitude Geographical Main Sources of Pollution
Station No. Station Position
Location
SS1 Vill. Mudiya 268 meters. 28.4274°N Domestic wastes and agricultural runoff
Ahmad nagar 79.4731°E
SS2 Vill. Harunagla 268 meters 28.3568°N Dumping yard runoff, domestic wastes
79.4669°E and agricultural runoff
SS3 Vill. Mohanpur 268 meters 28.3381°N Laundry bay waste, domestic wastes and
Nakatia 79.4630°E agricultural runoff
SS4 Vill. Thiriya 268 meters 28.3150°N Slaughter house waste, domestic wastes
Nijawat khan 79.4577° E and agricultural runoff
SS5 Vill. Manpur 268 meters 28.2513°N
chikatiya 79.4426°E Domestic wastes and agricultural runoff
SS6 Vill. Ruriya 268 meters 28.1921°N Domestic wastes and agricultural runoff
79.4518°E
DEEPTI ET AL
Where D1 = initial DO of sample in mg/L, D2 =
DO of sample after incubation in mg/L and P = per-
centage dilution of sample (sample volume in ml/
10).
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
The determination of COD in water is based on re-
action of the water sample with a strong oxidizing
agent that oxidizes the organic matter therein. COD
of the wastewater samples was determined using
the open reflux method (Rice et al., 2012). For this,
0.4 g mercuric sulphate and 5 mL of sulphuric acid
was added to an aliquot of wastewater sample in a
reflux flask. On cooling, 10 mL of 0.0417 M potas-
sium dichromate and 30 mL of sulphuric acid. The
solution was refluxed for 2 h and cooled. The ob-
tained solution was diluted to twice its volume,
cooled to room temperature. The excess K2Cr2O7
present in the solution was determined by titrating
with 0.1 M ferrous ammonium sulphate (FAS) using
ferroin indicator until colour changes from bluish
geen to reddish brown. Also, a blank with all re-
agents added to 25 mL of distilled water was ti-
trated.
(V1 – V2) N × 8000
COD, mg/L =
V0
Where, V1 = volume of ferrous ammonium sul-
phate required for titration against the blank, in ml;
V2 = volume of ferrous ammonium sulphate re-
quired for titration against the sample, in ml; N =
normality of ferrous ammonium sulphate ; and V0 =
volume of sample taken for testing, in ml.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of Nakatia River
403
Determination of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
The TDS of the water samples were determined us-
ing gravimetric method (Sawyer et al., 1994). The
water sample was filtered through a glass fiber fil-
ter and the filtrate was heated up to 100° C in the
oven until all the water was completely evaporated.
The remaining residue mass is the amount of TDS in
the sample.
Alkalinity by Titrimetric Method
Alkalinity of the sample was determined by titrat-
ing the water sample with standard HCl solution
(Rice et al., 2012). 20 mL water sample was taken in
a clean conical flask and two drops of phenolphtha-
lein indicator was added and titrated against stan-
dard 0.02 N HCl until pink colour disappeared. The
titre value was taken as phenolphthalein P end
point (P end point). Then, 2 to 3 drops of methyl
orange indicator was added and titrated until red
colour was obtained. The titre value was taken as
methyl orange
Chloride Determination
The Argentometric method was applied for the es-
timation of chloride content in water. The chloride
ion estimation involves the use of silver nitrate in
the presence of potassium chromate as a indicator.
Water sample containing chloride ion when titrated
against silver nitrate forms white silver chloride.
After all the chloride has been precipitated as white
silver chloride a drop of silver nitrate in excess gives
a red precipitate of silver chromate: 2Ag+ + CrO4 2-
= Ag2CrO4. The concentration of chloride in the
wastewater was determined from the above stoichi-
ometry and moles consumed at the end point.
Nitrate Determination
Nitrates was determined using chromotropic
method, the nitrate ions and chromotropic acid react
in strong acid media (95 – 97% H 2SO 4 solution)
forming a complex( maximum of absorbance at 412
nm). The dissolved Phosphate ions in water sample
was determined by stannous chloride method (Rice
et al., 2012).
Total Hardness
Total hardness and calcium hardness were being
determined by EDTA titrimetric method (Rice et al.,
2012).
404 Eco. Env. & Cons. 27 (1) : 2021

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for the observations

Parameters N Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error
pH Sampling Site 1 9 7.96 0.0585947 0.0338296
Sampling Site 2 9 8.03 0.08544 0.0493288
Sampling Site 3 9 8.12 0.026458 0.015275
Sampling Site 4 9 7.82 0.036056 0.020817
Sampling Site 5 9 8.24 0.060828 0.035119
Sampling Site 6 9 7.64 0.02 0.011547
Total 54 7.97 0.287375 0.165916
TDS Sampling Site 1 9 1064 5.659125 3.267298
Sampling Site 2 9 1184.40 1.518914 0.876945
Sampling Site 3 9 896.68 0.970618 0.560387
Sampling Site 4 9 1109.00 1.502431 0.867429
Sampling Site 5 9 969.86 0.842556 0.48645
Sampling Site 6 9 1009.50 0.560119 0.323385
Total 54 1038.91 11.05376 6.381894
Alkalinity Sampling Site 1 9 98.42 0.425793 0.245832
Sampling Site 2 9 102.46 0.066583 0.038442
Sampling Site 3 9 116.32 0.295127 0.170392
Sampling Site 4 9 91.68 0.04 0.023094
Sampling Site 5 9 132.76 0.723395 0.417652
Sampling Site 6 9 86.48 0.645058 0.372424
Total 54 104.69 2.195957 1.267836 0.03
Chloride Sampling Site 1 9 182.00 0.03 0.017321
Sampling Site 2 9 161.48 0.045826 0.026458
Sampling Site 3 9 122.86 1.532938 0.885042
Sampling Site 4 9 192.60 0.407799 0.235443
Sampling Site 5 9 146.60 1.442925 0.833073
Sampling Site 6 9 116.80 0.153948 0.088882
Total 54 153.72 3.613436 2.086218
Total Hardness Sampling Site 1 9 358.42 0.516946 0.298459
Sampling Site 2 9 312.82 0.855395 0.493862
Sampling Site 3 9 286.72 0.18735 0.108167
Sampling Site 4 9 329.72 1.438101 0.830288
Sampling Site 5 9 294.72 0.527162 0.304357
Sampling Site 6 9 298.92 1.636796 0.945004
Total 54 313.55 5.161749 2.980137
BOD Sampling Site 1 9 67.2 1.005104 0.580297
Sampling Site 2 9 51.8 0.427356 0.246734
Sampling Site 3 9 36.2 0.110151 0.063596
Sampling Site 4 9 58.4 0.041633 0.024037
Sampling Site 5 9 42.4 0.91183 0.526445
Sampling Site 6 9 44.8 0.228692 0.132035
Total 54 50.13 2.724766 1.573144
COD Sampling Site 1 9 192 0.040415 0.023333
Sampling Site 2 9 148 0.06245 0.036056
Sampling Site 3 9 104 1 0.57735
Sampling Site 4 9 146 0.208167 0.120185
Sampling Site 5 9 106 1.370304 0.791145
Sampling Site 6 9 112 1.020147 0.588982
Total 54 134.67 3.701482 2.137052
Nitrate Sampling Site 1 9 14.48 0.170098 0.098206
Sampling Site 2 9 12.42 1.49703 0.864311
Sampling Site 3 9 11.38 0.03 0.017321
Sampling Site 4 9 13.48 0.445084 0.25697
DEEPTI ET AL 405

Table 4. Continued ...

Parameters N Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error
Sampling Site 5 9 13.78 0.293655 0.169542
Sampling Site 6 9 6.17 0.07 0.040415
Total 54 11.95 2.505868 1.446763
Phosphate Sampling Site 1 9 11.24 0.842556 0.48645
Sampling Site 2 9 9.74 0.065064 0.037565
Sampling Site 3 9 7.68 0.401123 0.231589
Sampling Site 4 9 6.64 0.036056 0.020817
Sampling Site 5 9 7.24 0.097125 0.056075
Sampling Site 6 9 3.75 0.025166 0.01453
Total 54 7.71 1.46709 0.847025
Iron Sampling Site 1 9 4.24 0.052915 0.030551
Sampling Site 2 9 3.54 0.430852 0.248752
Sampling Site 3 9 1.74 0.193132 0.111505
Sampling Site 4 9 2.27 0.265769 0.153442
Sampling Site 5 9 1.77 0.052915 0.030551
Sampling Site 6 9 1.43 0.079373 0.045826
Total 54 2.50 1.074956 0.620626
Arsenic Sampling Site 1 9 - 0 0
Sampling Site 2 9 0.36 0.043589 0.025166
Sampling Site 3 9 - 0 0
Sampling Site 4 9 - 0 0
Sampling Site 5 9 0.68 0.075498 0.043589
Sampling Site 6 9 - 0 0
Total 54 0.52 0.119087 0.068755
Nickel Sampling Site 1 9 1.18 0.047258 0.027285
Sampling Site 2 9 0.84 0.045826 0.026458
Sampling Site 3 9 0.19 0.01 0.005774
Sampling Site 4 9 0.44 0.03 0.017321
Sampling Site 5 9 - 0 0
Sampling Site 6 9 0.68 0.045826 0.026458
Total 54 0.67 0.17891 0.103294

Total Metal Analysis parameters is shown in the Table 3. ANOVA for

variatiance between among sites is shown in the
Wastewater samples were digested by nitric acid.
Table 4. The pH of Nakatia River water was found
The digested samples were analyzed using Atomic
in the range of 7.64-8.24 which represents that the
Absorption Spectrophotometry (AAS, Perkin—
water is slightly basic. As per BIS standards water
Elmer, Melville, NY, USA). The estimation of Fe, Ni,
with pH range 6.5-8.5 is drinkable. The mean of al-
As was carried out using atomic absorption spectro-
photometry as prescribed “IS: 3025, 1988 – Part 37, kalinity of Nakatia River was found 104.68 mg/L,
ranging from 86.48-132.76 which is less than 200
54-atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS).
mg/L as stated by standard of BIS. The chloride
load of Nakatia river water was ranging between
Results and Discussion
116.80-192.60 with the mean 153.72 mg/L and was
within acceptable limits of as prescribed by BIS
In the study, the results of parameters tested, i.e.
(standard chloride level, 250 mg/L). The TDS of
pH, Alkalinity, Chloride, Total hardness, TDS, BOD,
Nakatia River was found between 896.68-1184.40
COD, Nitrate, Dissolved Phosphate and heavy met-
mg/L with mean of 1038.90 mg/L, much higher
als like Iron, Arsenic and Nickel are shown in the
than BIS standard of 500-200 mg/L (BIS). The water
Table 2. of all the physical and chemical parameters
of Nakatia river is hard in nature and exceeds the
were compared by standard recommended by BIS
recommended BIS acceptable range (200 mg/L).
for drinking water. The variation in water qualities
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemi-
406 Eco. Env. & Cons. 27 (1) : 2021

cal Oxygen Demand (COD) ranged from 36.2 to 67.2
mg/L, and from 104 to 192 mg/L respectively
which exceeds BIS standards limit ( BIS limit for
BOD is 30 mg/L and for COD is 250 mg/L). The
concentration of nitrate ranged between 6.17 to
14.48 mg/L and mean concentration of nitrate was
11.95 mg/L which is within the limit. The dissolved
phosphate concentration ranged 3.75 to 11.24 mg/L,
the mean value of 7.71 mg/L, which is above the
acceptable limit (5mg/L) except for sampling site 6.
The heavy metals concentration Iron, Arsenic and
Nickel are 0.3, 0.01 and 0.02 mg/L respectively and
was at higher level found over at all sampling sta-
tions. However, arsenic was not detected at sam-
pling site 1, 3, 4 and 6 and ther nickel was not de-
tected at sampling site 5. Data analysis of river wa-
ter show that the water is inapt for domestic usage
and human consumption at many sites under the
study. Therefore, there is urgent need of water treat-
ments plants to improve the quality of river water.
Conclusion
Water quality assessment revealed that Nakatia
River the river water is no more fit for human con-
sumption and there is urgent need to initiate ad-

Table V. Analysis of variance (ANOVA )

Parameters Sum of square DF Mean square F value
pH Between Groups 0.577178 5 0.115436 41.14535*
Within Groups 0.033667 12 0.002806 -
Total 0.610844 17 - -
TDS Between Groups 157714.5 5 31542.89 4908.656*
Within Groups 77.11167 12 6.425972 -
Total 157791.6 17 - -
Alkalinity Between Groups 4403.451 5 880.6901 4353.267*
Within Groups 2.427667 12 0.202306 -
Total 4405.878 17 - -
Chloride Between Groups 14213.11 5 2842.622 3687.779*
Within Groups 9.249867 12 0.770822 -
Total 14222.36 17 - -
Total Hardness Between Groups 10691.89 5 2138.379 2117.498*
Within Groups 12.11833 12 1.009861 -
Total 10704.01 17 - -
BOD Between Groups 1915.96 5 383.1919 1099.827*
Within Groups 4.180933 12 0.348411 -
Total 1920.141 17 - -
COD Between Groups 17608.23 5 3521.645 5326.008*
Within Groups 7.9346 12 0.661217 -
Total 17616.16 17 - -
Nitrates Between Groups 138.399 5 27.67981 64.87032*
Within Groups 5.120333 12 0.426694 -
Total 143.5194 17 - -
Phosphate Between Groups 101.0002 5 20.20005 136.7332*
Within Groups 1.7728 12 0.147733 -
Total 102.773 17 - -
Iron Between Groups 19.26876 5 3.853752 75.6957*
Within Groups 0.610933 12 0.050911 -
Total 19.87969 17 - -
Arsenic Between Groups 1.2352 5 0.24704 195.0316*
Within Groups 0.0152 12 0.001267 -
Total 1.2504 17 - -
Nickel Between Groups 2.860561 5 0.572112 461.7946*
Within Groups 0.014867 12 0.001239 -
Total 2.875428 17 - -
*significant (Pd”0.05)
DEEPTI ET AL
equate measures to restore Nakatia river water
quality.
References
Barakat, A., El Baghdadi, M., Rais, J., Aghezzaf, B. and
Slassi, M. 2016. Assessment of spatial and seasonal
water quality variation of Oum Er Rbia River (Mo-
rocco) using multivariate statistical techniques. Int.
Soil Water Conserv. Res. 4(4) : 284-292.
Chabukdhara, M. and Nema, A. K. 2012. Heavy metals in
water, sediments, and aquatic macrophytes: River
Hindon, India. J. Hazardous, Toxic, Radioact. Waste
16(3) : 273-281.
Chittoor Viswanathan, V. and Schirmer, M. Viswanathan,
V. C. and Schirmer, M. 2015. Water quality deterio-
ration as a driver for river restoration: a review of
case studies from Asia, Europe and North America.
Environmental Earth Sciences. 74(4) : 3145-3158.
Dutta, V., Sharma, U., Iqbal, K., Kumar, R. and Pathak, A.
K. 2018. Impact of river channelization and
riverfront development on fluvial habitat: evidence
from Gomti River, a tributary of Ganges, India.
Environ. Sustain. 1 : 167-184.
407
Dwivedi, S., Mishra, S. and Tripathi, R. D. 2018. Ganga
water pollution: a potential health threat to inhabit-
ants of Ganga basin. Environment International. 117:
327-338.
Gupta, N., Pandey, P. and Hussain, J. 2017. Effect of physi-
cochemical and biological parameters on the qual-
ity of river water of Narmada, Madhya Pradesh,
India. Water Sci. 31(1) : 11-23.
Khan, M. Y. A., Hu, H., Tian, F. and Wen, J. 2019. Moni-
toring the spatio-temporal impact of small tributar-
ies on the hydrochemical characteristics of
Ramganga River, Ganges Basin, India. International
Journal of River Basin Management. 1-11.
Rice, E.W., Baird, R.B., Eaton, A.D. and Clesceri, L.S. (Eds.)
2012. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater. 22 nd Edition, American Public
Health Association, American Water Works, Water
Environment Federation, Washington DC.
Suthar, S., Nema, A. K., Chabukdhara, M. and Gupta, S.
K. 2009. Assessment of metals in water and sedi-
ments of Hindon River, India: Impact of industrial
and urban discharges. J. Hazard. Mater. 171 (1-3):
1088-1095.