Environ Monit Assess (2020) 192:742
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08701-8
Heavy metal pollution in surface water of the Upper Ganga
River, India: human health risk assessment
Satish Prasad & Ridhi Saluja & Varun Joshi
J. K. Garg
Received: 8 April 2020 / Accepted: 22 October 2020
# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
Abstract To assess the risk on human health, heavy
metal contamination was analysed from surface water in
the Upper Ganga river, India. Spatial and seasonal dis-
tribution of Fe, Mn, Zn, Cr and Pb was evaluated at
eight sites during pre-monsoon and post-monsoon sea-
son of 2017. Average concentration of heavy metals was
high, often exceeding the limits prescribed for surface
water by Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS) and the World
Health Organization (WHO). Based on heavy metal
pollution index (HPI), 87% of the river stretch was
Supplementary Information The online version contains
supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007
/s10661-020-08701-8.
S. Prasad : R. Saluja : V. Joshi : J. K. Garg
University School of Environment Management, Guru Gobind
Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi, India
S. Prasad
e-mail: satishve12@gmail.com
R. Saluja
e-mail: saljarids@gmail.com
V. Joshi
e-mail: varunj63@gmail.com
R. Saluja
Wetlands International South Asia, A-25, Defence Colony, New
Delhi, India
J. K. Garg (*)
TERI School of Advanced Studies, Vasant Kunj Institutional
Area, New Delhi, India
e-mail: gargjk113@gmail.com
&
classified as medium to highly polluted. Simultaneous
assessment of the health risk employing chronic daily
intake (CDI) and hazard quotient (HQ) indicates that
exposure through ingestion and dermal pathways cur-
rently poses no serious threat to human health (CDI < 1,
HQ < 1). For the two population groups analysed,
HQIngestion values for Cr (adults 0.51, child 0.55) and
Pb (adult 0.31, child 0.34) were significantly higher as
compared with other heavy metals. HIIngestion varied
from 0.85 to 1.64 for adult and 0.92 to 1.77 for child
group, indicating health risk to both groups with child
group being more risk prone from either of the exposure
pathways. In addition, HI values revealed an increased
risk to health for both groups during the post-monsoon
season. Higher hazard index (HI) values (> 1) in the
Upper Ganga river indicate an ever-increasing non-car-
cinogenic risk to the exposed population within the
riverine landscape. The study highlights the impact of
heavy metals in degrading the water quality of the Upper
Ganga river and also advocates immediate attention
towards reducing human health risk.
Keywords Heavy metals . Heavy metal pollution index .
Health risk assessment . Geographic Information
System . Upper Ganga River
Introduction
Rivers, being ecologically and economically significant,
are most vulnerable to both natural and anthropogenic
source of pollution. The water quality of the river is
 742 Page 2 of 15
naturally influenced by rainfall, weathering and sedi-
ment transport, but anthropogenic influence exacerbates
the impacts that cause an adverse change in the ecolog-
ical character of the river (Shrestha and Kazama 2007;
Zeinalzadeh and Rezaei 2017). Industrial effluents are
significant sources of toxic heavy metals (Vega et al.
1998) which accumulate in the river environs
jeopardising its ecological integrity (Jumbe and
Nandini 2009). These toxic metals are characterised as
priority pollutants and tend to bio-accumulate both
threatening human and environmental well-being
(Dwivedi et al. 2018; Saha et al. 2017).
The Ganga River has been a source of water for
drinking water, agriculture, navigation, aquaculture, rec-
reation and industry (Sanghi and Kaushal 2014). An
estimated 56.1% of rural households and 78.6% of
urban households have access to improved potable wa-
ter sources (bottled water, piped water, tube well, hand
pump and well protected, etc.) in India (Ministry of
Statistics and Programme Implementaion 2018; Narain
and Mahapatra 2020). Heavy metal pollution in the
surface water is a concern to the human health, as a
mere 3.8% of households having direct access to piped
water with the majority of rural households in the state
of Uttar Pradesh still dependent on other drinking water
sources. About 20.6% and 25.2% of households of the
state use protected and unprotected wells as a source of
drinking water, respectively, while 14.4% of rural
household still use surface water (river, ponds) as their
primary source of drinking water. In addition, 98.3% of
rural households and 79.8% of urban households in
Uttar Pradesh do not use any kind of drinking water
treatment (Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementaion 2018).
Enrichment of vital micronutrients like Mn, Zn
and Fe in surface water can have toxic effects on
human health (Low et al. 2015). At the same time,
Cr and Pb even in trace concentration are toxic;
therefore, continuous synoptic monitoring of metal
distribution is essential in determining the level of
contamination (Alves et al. 2014; Mitra et al.
2018). Risk assessment is an approach which iden-
tifies, characterises and analyses the toxic element
to qualitatively assess risk based on adverse effects
and quantitatively evaluates risk levels (USEPA
1989). Numerous researchers have evaluated the
health risks associated with exposure to heavy
metals either through water (Dwivedi et al. 2018;
Li and Zhang 2010; Şener et al. 2017) or other
Environ Monit Assess (2020) 192:742
sources such as soil and air (Devi and Yadav
2018; Izhar et al. 2016).
Several researchers have quantified the contamina-
tion load in the river Ganga (Bhutiani et al. 2016;
Dwivedi et al. 2018; Giri and Singh 2014; Khan et al.
2016; Mishra 2010; Pandey and Singh 2015; Trivedi
2010; Wasim Aktar et al. 2010). Only a few studies have
assessed the risk to human health from heavy metal
pollution in the Ganga river (Chaudhary et al. 2017;
Giri and Singh 2015; Mitra et al. 2018). Previous stud-
ies, however, have restricted their focus mainly on the
famous ghats (jetty) adjacent to big cities and are
inadequate in representing the impact of the catchment
area on the water quality of the river. In an attempt,
Misra (2010) brought out the importance of studying the
impact of land use patterns on the Yamuna river which
is a major tributary to the Ganga river. Moreover, the
limited application of the Geographic Information Sys-
tem (GIS) for the assessment and representation of
heavy metal pollution (Şener et al. 2017) also makes it
essential to incorporate it into such studies.
Taking into cognizance various land use land cover
(LULC) types occurring in the catchment of the Upper
Ganga River, this study aimed (i) to estimate the heavy
metal concentration in the surface water as a function of
LULC along the river stretch, (ii) to determine the
degree of contamination using heavy metal pollution
index (HPI) and (iii) to assess the health risk in two
population group within this region. This study provides
a more profound comparison of heavy metal pollution in
this river stretch for health risk assessment and prompt
policymakers to adopt riverine landscape approach for a
comprehensive assessment of heavy metal pollution,
monitoring and revival of the Ganga river.
Materials and methods
Study area
River Ganga, highly revered in India, providing life
sustenance succour for environment and ecology (Paul
2017). The Ganga river basin spans over 0.86 million
km2. It covers a distance of 2510 km across India,
ultimately descending into the Bay of Bengal (Sanghi
and Kaushal 2014). For the present study, river stretch
between Brijghat (28° 10′ 26″–28° 47′18″N) and Narora
(77° 07′ 04″–78° 25′ 57″ E; Fig. 1) was selected. It is a
shallow stretch of 82 km, with occasional deep-water
Environ Monit Assess (2020) 192:742 Page 3 of 15 742

Fig. 1 Map showing the distribution of pollution sources and sampling locations in the Upper Ganga river stretch
 742 Page 4 of 15
pools. River depth varies from 3 to 3.62 m during the
monsoon and approximately 0.5–1.5 m in the pre-
monsoon (Garg and Joshi 2015).
The Upper Ganga river, with an aerial expanse of
26,590 ha (Ramsar 2005) over the Gangetic plain, pro-
vides an adobe for a wide variety of endemic and
threatened species including the Ganga river dolphin
(Platanista gangetica) (WII and GACMC 2017), otter,
crocodiles and softshell turtles (Ramsar 2005; WII and
GACMC 2017; Wildlife Institute of India 2018). Due to
its unique ecological character, the presence of a wide
variety of habitats and the biodiversity it supports, this
site was designated by the Ramsar Convention in 2005
as a wetland of international importance.
Natural processes and anthropocentric activities
within the catchment area of the Upper Ganga River
present a high risk to its ecological character. Altered
river flow and unregulated discharges from industries
(sugar, chemicals, fertilisers, engineering, cotton and
tanneries) set up along the riverscape, followed by in-
tensive agricultural activities, are the primary sources of
pollution (Fig. 1). Moreover, mass bathing, cremation
and post-cremation activities are always threatening this
sensitive ecosystem because of its high reverence. The
most polluted section of the river is in the state of Uttar
Pradesh, where 687 grossly polluting industries contam-
inate 1000 km of the river. Of these grossly polluting
industries, 70% are sugar, pulp, paper and distillery
plants (Central Pollution Control Board 2013). The
Upper Ganga river landscape is densely populated, and
the land-use type is primarily agricultural. However,
there are many sugar mills, brick kilns, chemical, textile
and fertiliser factories in this region. There are majorly
four densely populated riverside towns and numerous
peri-urban/rural settlements (Fig. 1). Chief non-point
sources of heavy metal in the upper Ganga river land-
scape are (a) excessive use of fertiliser and pesticides,
which are the major source of arsenic, lead and cadmi-
um (Atafar et al. 2010) (b) sediment load due to erosion,
which acts primarily as sink of heavy metals but can also
act as source (Algül and Beyhan 2020), and (c) sewage
disposal which can be source of Cr, Ni, Cd, Pb, Cu and
Zn (Shamuyarira and Gumbo 2014) when untreated.
While industrial waste drainage, sewage treatment plant,
urban waste drainage and stormwater are sources of
point source pollution (Dwivedi et al. 2018).
For this study, site selection focused on representing
various types of LULC existing within the wetland
catchment to provide a synoptic view of the condition
Environ Monit Assess (2020) 192:742
in and around the stretch of the Upper Ganga river.
Following these criteria, eight representative locations
namely Brijghat (S1), Pooth (S2), Bhagwanpur (S3),
Mubarkpur (S4), Anoopshahar (S5), Karanwas (S6),
Rajghat (S7) and Narora (S8) were selected (Fig. 1).
Sites 1, 5, 7 and 8 denote busy river banks that are
affected by mass bathing, boating, sewage drainage,
industries and small towns, while sites 2, 3, 4 and 6
depict areas primarily affected by agricultural activities.
Sampling and analytical method
Water sampling was carried out in 2017 during the pre-
monsoon (May) and post-monsoon (October) seasons.
Water samples from left bank, centre and right bank of
the river were obtained at each sampling location. A
total of 48 samples were collected, and a handheld GPS
was used to record GPS coordinates. The pH of water
was measured using the Hach (HQ11D portable) pH
meter. Surface water samples were collected at a depth
of 5–10 cm in 0.5 L low-density polyethylene (PE)
sampling bottles, pre-cleaned with 10% HNO3, soaked
overnight and finally rinsed thoroughly with Milli-Q
water. Added 2 mL of HNO3 to each water sample
and stored bottles at 4 °C, awaiting analysis (Bhardwaj
et al. 2017; Sehgal et al. 2012).
Heavy metal determination and validation
To estimate the concentration of heavy metal, 50 mL of
acid preserved water samples mixed with 10 mL of
concentrated HNO3 and digested at 90 °C on a hot plate,
reducing the sample to 10–20 mL of initial volume
(Bhardwaj et al. 2017). Using Milli-Q water the final
volume of digested samples was made to 50 mL and
filtered using ashless Whatman filter paper no. 42
(APHA et al. 2005). Heavy metals were analysed using
Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry (Agilent 280
Fast Sequential AA with D2 background correction)
with a minimum detection limit of 0.001 mg L−1. A
known concentration of the desired heavy metal, made
from standard solutions (1000 mg L−1; Merck, India)
was used for the calibration of the instrument, and a
multipoint calibration graph was produced. For quality
control, a blank and known standard was analysed after
every 10 water samples (Bhardwaj et al. 2017). The
accuracy of the AAS method was validated using the
NIST 1640 (a) standard reference material. The recov-
ery varied from 91.66 to 98.18% (Supplementary
Environ Monit Assess (2020) 192:742
Table 1). The relative standard deviation (RSD) was <
1% for each of the metal analysed. Iron (Fe), manganese
(Mn), zinc (Zn), chromium (Cr) and lead (Pb) were
analysed at 248.3, 279.5, 213.9, 357.9 and 220.3 nm,
respectively.
Statistical analysis
To determine the significant effects of spatiotemporal
variables, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
used. Principal component analysis (PCA) was carried
out to analyze the relationship between different heavy
metals and their sources. Statistical analysis was con-
ducted using SPSS version 16 and XLSTAT.
Heavy metal pollution index (HPI)
In this study, we used HPI as an indicator of heavy metal
pollution in the Upper Ganga river. Calculated HPI
using Eq. 1 (Mohan et al. 1996) for selected heavy
metals based on the weighted arithmetic mean approach
to estimate the critical level (< 100) for surface water
quality (Prasad and Bose 2001).
n n
HPI ¼ ∑ W i Qi = ∑ W i ð1Þ
i¼1 i¼1
where Wi is unit weightage of ith parameter and Qi is
sub-index of the ith parameter. Derived the sub-index
(Qi) using Eq. 2;
n fM i ð−ÞI i g
Qi ¼ ∑  100 ð2Þ
i¼1 ðS i −I i Þ
where Mi is an observed concentration (ith parameter), Ii
is the desirable value for metals by BIS (2012) and Si is
permitted limit of the ith parameter.
The river was classified as low (< 15 HPI), medium
(15–30 HPI) and high (> 30 HPI) pollution class using
the Edet and Offiong (2002) classification system.
Assessing health risk
Chronic daily intake (CDI)
Human exposure to heavy metals can be through two
main pathways (i) through the consumption of water
(ingestion) and (ii) through the skin (dermal). To quan-
tify the risk associated with heavy metal exposure
chronic daily intake (CDI) (mg/kg day) was calculated
Page 5 of 15 742
for adult and child group, as stated by the Integrated
Risk Information System (USEPA 2010). Giri and
Singh (2015), Singh and Kumar (2017), Mitra et al.
(2018) and Wu et al. (2009) used a similar method to
determine CDI(Dermal and Ingestion) for both groups.
Ingestion rate and dermal absorption were calculated
based on the standards of the US Environment Protec-
tion Agency (USEPA). CDIIngestion and CDIDermal were
calculated using Eq. 3 and Eq. 4 for both groups (Giri
and Singh 2015; Mitra et al. 2018; Saha et al. 2017;
Singh and Kumar 2017; USEPA 1996).
EC  IngR  EF  ED
CDIIngestion ¼ ð3Þ
BW  AT
EC  SA  AF  ABSd  ET  EF  ED  CF
CDIDermal ¼
BW  AT
ð4Þ
where EC iselement concentration (mg L−1), IngR is
ingestion rate (adult 2.5 L day−1, child: 0.78 L day−1;
Adimalla 2020), EF is exposure frequency (350 days
year−1; USEPA 2004), ED is exposure duration (adult
30 years, child 6 years; USEPA 2004), BW = body
weight (adult 52 kg, child 15 kg; Giri and Singh
2015), AT is average time (adult 10,950 day, child
2190 day; Saha et al. 2017), SA is exposed skin area
(adult 1.8 m2, child 0.66 m2; USEPA 2011), AF is
adherence factor (0.07; USEPA 2011), ABSd is dermal
absorption fraction (0.03; USEPA 2011), ET is expo-
sure time (0.58 h day−1; Wu et al. 2009), and CF is
conversion factor (10−2 kg mg−1; USEPA 2002).
Hazard quotient
Calculated hazard quotient (HQ) as the ratio of CDI and
oral reference dose (RfD);
CDIIngestion
HQIngestion ¼ ð5Þ
RfDIngestion
CDIDermal
HQDermal ¼ ð6Þ
RfDDermal
Calculated the RfD(Ingestion and Dermal) values for both
groups using the Integrated Risk Information System
model (USEPA 2010). RfDIngestion values of 0.7, 0.024,
0.3, 0.003, 0.0035 and RfDDermal values of 0.14, 96 ×
10−5, 0.06, 7.5e−5 and 0.00042 for Fe, Mn, Zn, Cr and
 742 Page 6 of 15
Pb were used to estimate HQ for both groups. Values
were taken in mg L−1 day−1.
Hazard index
Hazard index (HI) was used to quantify the risk to
human health posed by heavy metals. The HI of each
location was determined as the HQ values of each metal
present at that location. HI was obtained using Eq. 7;
HI ¼ ∑HQi ð7Þ
where i is the HQ value of each element. In the context
of human health, the HQ and HI values (< 1) are low
risk, while the values (> 1) are high risk (Singh and
Kumar 2017).
Data visualisation
The Geographic Information System (GIS) is the most
efficient tool for determining underlying pollutant dis-
tribution patterns, so a spatial distribution map of heavy
metal pollution indices was prepared on the ArcGIS
(10.4) platform using the Inverse Distance Weighing
(IDW) interpolation method for the Upper Ganga River.
Results and discussion
Table 1 summarises the concentration of heavy metals
observed during pre-monsoon and post-monsoon sea-
son at eight sampling sites, while comparing them with
the WHO and BIS standards. pH is an essential factor
that impacts the solubility of metal ions in water (Mitra
et al. 2018; Singh and Kumar 2017), where lower pH
indicates higher solubility and vice versa. The pH values
ranged from 7.74 to 7.84 spatially, with mean and
standard deviation (SD) of 7.76 ± 0.13 in the pre-
monsoon period and 7.75 ± 0.08 in the post-monsoon
season and were well within the prescribed acceptable
limits of BIS (2012). A comparison of surface water
contamination by heavy metals in different rivers
around the world (Table 2) shows that the level of
pollution in the Upper Ganga River is higher than most
of the rivers studied, except for the Ajay River in India.
The quality of surface water in the river varies from
neutral to slightly alkaline, where the reactivity of
metals was low and their concentration loadings ranged
between low and high concentration.
Environ Monit Assess (2020) 192:742
Figure 2 shows the variation in the mean concentra-
tion and standard error (SE) of metal for both seasons.
Metal concentrations showed a declining trend from
pre-monsoon to post-monsoon for all metals except for
Mn and Zn. However, there was a significant difference
between two seasons in the concentrations of Fe, Mn
and Zn (t test; p < 0.05). The mean concentration of Fe
was 2.25 ± 1 mg L−1 for pre-monsoon and 0.7 ± 0.87 mg
L−1 during post-monsoon. Pooth (site 2) observed the
maximum value of Fe (4.11 mg L−1) during pre-
monsoon (Table 1), which was above the permitted
limits by BIS (2012) and WHO (2017). ANOVA at
0.05 significance level indicates that mean values of
both seasons are significantly different with higher Fe
concentration during the pre-monsoon season. Seasonal
patterns highlight the intensity of anthropogenic influ-
ence on the river flows from different industrial wastes
and mineral processing activities (Mitra et al. 2018).
Mn concentration varied between 0.028 ± 0.04 mg
L in pre-monsoon to 0.11 ± 0.03 mg L−1 during the
−1
post-monsoon period (Fig. 2). Mn concentration
showed an increasing trend. However, the observed
values were below the permissible limits of BIS
(2012). Statistical analysis of heavy metal concentra-
tions (ANOVA) at the 0.05 significance level suggested
Mn concentration of both the seasons are significantly
different (p < 0.05). Mn shows higher concentrations
during the pre-monsoon period. Though Mn occurs
naturally in both surface and groundwater, human ac-
tivities are responsible for its increasing concentration in
the river ecosystem. Spatially, Bhagwanpur and Narora
consistently showed higher values compared with other
sites attributable to the agricultural runoff and domestic
waste from the riverine landscape (Pandey and Singh
2015).
Zinc concentration exceeding the permissible limits
of portable drinking water could potentially lead to
toxicity because of its complex mobilization and decom-
position (Singh and Kumar 2017). The concentration of
Zn ranged from 0.14 ± 0.05 mg L−1 in pre-monsoon to
0.43 ± 0.08 mg L−1 in post-monsoon (Fig. 2). Similar to
Mn, seasonal variation was also observed in the concen-
tration of Zn with values within permissible limits of
BIS (2012), though the values were above the pre-
scribed limit as per WHO (2017). Increase in agricul-
tural runoff could be one of the factors influencing
season variations observed in Zn concentration (Singh
and Kumar 2017). Significant variation has been ob-
served in the mean values of both the seasons with
Environ Monit Assess (2020) 192:742 Page 7 of 15 742

Table 1 Comparison of heavy metal concentration (Mean and SD; mg L−1) during pre-monsoon and post-monsoon season at different
sampling locations with standards

Site Season pH Fe Mn Zn Cr Pb

S1 Pre 7.83 ± 0.02 1.76 ± 0.36 0.001 ± 0.0006 0.1 ± 0.07 0.008 ± 0.001 0.01 ± 0.005
Post 7.61 ± 0.04 0.02 ± 0.02 0.10 ± 0.008 0.56 ± 0.04 0.02 ± 0.001 0.04 ± 0.03
S2 Pre 7.52 ± 0.11 4.11 ± 0.04 0.002 ± 0.002 0.1 ± 0.08 0.01 ± 0.003 0.01
Post 7.63 ± 0.09 0.4 ± 0.25 0.19 ± 0.01 0.34 ± 0.11 0.03 ± 0.003 0.01
S3 Pre 7.95 ± 0.05 2.6 ± 0.02 0.06 ± 0.1 0.14 ± 0.15 0.02 ± 0.004 0.02 ± 0.01
Post 7.74 ± 0.12 2.49 ± 3.75 0.14 ± 0.003 0.38 ± 0.19 0.03 ± 0.001 0.01
S4 Pre 7.89 ± 0.03 2.49 ± 0.52 0.01 ± 0.01 0.18 ± 0.13 0.04 ± 0.02 0.02 ± 0.005
Post 7.79 ± 0.06 0.67 ± 0.51 0.11 ± 0.002 0.54 ± 0.21 0.03 ± 0.001 0.01
S5 Pre 7.74 ± 0.07 2.38 ± 1.008 0.01 ± 0.01 0.15 ± 0.08 0.03 ± 0.008 0.02 ± 0.01
Post 7.75 ± 0.06 0.22 ± 0.03 0.09 ± 0.01 0.49 ± 0.1 0.04 ± 0.0006 0.01
S6 Pre 7.81 ± 0.04 2.17 ± 0.94 0.004 ± 0.001 0.11 ± 0.08 0.03 ± 0.001 0.04 ± 0.01
Post 7.84 ± 0.02 0.1 ± 0.12 0.09 ± 0.005 0.4 ± 0.19 0.04 ± 0.001 0.01
S7 Pre 7.69 ± 0.01 1.97 ± 0.99 0.008 ± 0.002 0.11 ± 0.08 0.03 ± 0.0006 0.04 ± 0.005
Post 7.79 ± 0.04 0.12 ± 0.14 0.08 ± 0.006 0.37 ± 0.11 0.04 ± 0.002 0.01
S8 Pre 7.70 ± 0.07 0.51 ± 0.11 0.12 ± 0.11 0.26 ± 0.07 0.04 ± 0.005 0.06
Post 7.82 ± 0.02 1.55 ± 2.18 0.08 ± 0.02 0.34 ± 0.11 0.04 ± 0.002 0.04 ± 0.02
WHO (2017) - - - 0.1 0.05 -
BIS (2012) 6.5-8.5 3 2 15 2 0.1

higher values during the pre-monsoon season. For any
aquatic ecosystem including rivers, agricultural runoffs
with high loading of fertilizers and pesticides is one
major source of Zinc pollution (Wuana and Okieimen
2011).
Cr concentration varied significantly (p < 0.05,
ANOVA) from 0.029 ± 0.012 mg L−1 during pre-
monsoon to 0.036 ± 0.005 mg L−1 for post-monsoon
(Fig. 2). The average concentration of Cr was higher
during post-monsoon; however, recorded values were
under the standard admissible limit of surface water
(BIS 2012; WHO 2017). Chromium being strongly
associated with soil surface has less potential of disso-
lution in river water (Patel et al. 2018). Thereby, the
primary sources of Cr in this landscape are waste from
industries such as tannery, textile and chemical dyeing.
The stretch under study receives inflow from two textile
units and one fertiliser factory (Fig. 1). Pandey and
Singh (2015) at Varanasi and Leena et al. (2012) at
Nathnagar-Bhagalpur Stretch (Bihar) of river Ganga

Table 2 Variation in heavy metal concentration (mg L–1) of different rivers across the world

River Fe Mn Zn Cr Pb Reference

Ajay river, India 1.951 0.16 0.242 – 0.053 Singh and Kumar (2017)
Bogacayi, Turkey – – – 0.003 0.0004 Cengiz et al. (2017)
Coruh river basin, Turkey 1.017 0.091 0.092 0.0007 0.014 Bilgin and Konanç (2016)
Buriganga, Bangladesh 0.612 0.157 0.33 0.114 0.119 Bhuiyan et al. (2015)
Gomti river, India – 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.02 Gupta et al. (2015)
Major river, Misiones province of Argentina 0.172 0.022 0.022 – 0.001 Avigliano and Schenone (2015)
Xiangjiang river, China – – 0.084 0.006 0.002 Zeng et al. (2015)
Pardo river, Brazil – 0.035 0.012 0.0008 0.003 Alves et al. (2014)
Upper Ganga river, India 1.476 0.072 0.289 0.033 0.005 Present study
 742 Page 8 of 15
Fig. 2 Box plot showing
seasonal variation in heavy metal
concentration (Mean and SE)
also reported high levels of Cr. Although some of the
pollutants observed showed concentration within the
permissible limits, Dwivedi et al. (2018) opined that
the concentration of inorganic pollutants, especially car-
cinogens, has increased several folds indicating an in-
creased risk to human health through direct or indirect
use of surface water and its bi-products.
Due to limited natural sources of Pb as compared
with anthropogenic sources, the presence of lead in the
environment is considered as an indicator of pollution
(Buragohain et al. 2010). Pb concentrations varied sig-
nificantly between 0.029 ± 0.01 and 0.017 ± 0.01 mg
L−1 during pre-and post-monsoon periods, respectively.
Site 8 (Narora) recorded the highest mean value of 0.052
± 0.02 mg L−1 followed by 0.028 ± 0.03 mg L−1 at
Brijghat (site 1), attributable to motorised vessels oper-
ating in the tourism and transport industries. The overall
concentration of Pb for the sampling sites was under the
acceptable limits of surface water (BIS 2012); however,
the concentration exceeded the permitted limits for
drinking (BIS 2012).
Spatial variations in the concentration of heavy
metals along the river stretch were analysed using
ANOVA at the 0.05 significant level. Results suggest
significant variance exists in the spatial distribution of
Cr and Pb. Cr concentration at site 1 varied significantly
from site 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 (p < 0,05, Tukey HSD). Cr
concentrations at Site 2 varied significantly from sites 4,
5 and 8. Concentration of Pb at Site 8 varied significant-
ly from Sites 2, 3, 4 and 5 at p < 0.05 (Tukey’s HSD).
Distinct sources of environmental pollutants can be
identified and studied using principal component anal-
ysis (PCA) (Devi and Yadav 2018). In this study, heavy
Environ Monit Assess (2020) 192:742
metal data were subjected to PCA analysis. Components
with loading values greater than 1.0 were taken into
account for source apportionment of metals. Two prin-
cipal components (PCs) containing 74.05 % of total
variance with eigenvalue greater than one were extract-
ed. PC1 was highly loaded with Mn (0.91), Fe (0.866)
and Zn (0.804) accounting for 49.76% of total variance
(Table 3). Relationship between Mn, Fe and Zn indi-
cates geogenic sources such as weathering of ferromag-
nesian silicates, Fe-trioxide, pyrolusite and rhodochro-
site along the river (Singh and Kumar 2017). PC 2
represented 24.29% of total variance and was highly
loaded with Pb (0.844) and Cr (0.637). Environmental
pollution by various forms of Cr is attributable to its
numerous uses in chemical industry, dye production,
leather tanning, electroplating, and alloy manufacturing
(Giri and Singh 2014).
Evaluation of the Upper Ganga river using pollution
index
Seasonal variation of HPI values can be observed where
pre-monsoon values were 17.68 and 26 for post-
monsoon (Table 4). Similar seasonal variations in HPI
values have also been observed by Tiwari et al. (2015)
and Chaudhary et al. (2017). The HPI values ranged
from 11.30 to 46.74 spatially, which are below the
critical limit (<100; Prasad and Bose 2001). Based on
the classification given by Edet and Offiong (2002),
sites 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were classified as medium
pollution class (15–30 HPI); site 8 was classified as high
pollution class (> 30 HPI; Table 5) and only site 2 was
classified as low pollution class (< 15 HPI). Narora
Environ Monit Assess (2020) 192:742 Page 9 of 15 742

Table 3 Heavy metal loading values on significant principal Table 5 HPI of the Upper Ganga river at different sampling
components locations

Heavy metals Water Location HPI Mean deviation

PC 1 PC 2 Brijghat 25.99 16.34

Pooth 11.30 2.06
Fe 0.866 0.263
Bhagwanpur 16.00 6.42
Mn 0.91 – 0.063
Mubarkpur 16.50 4.80
Zn 0.804 0.162
Anoopshahar 16.20 7.01
Cr 0.475 0.673
Karanwas 23.30 12.01
Pb − 0.189 0.844
Rajghat 24.68 13.59
% Total variance 49.761 24.293
Narora 46.74 13.11
Cumulative % variance 49.761 74.054

Italics values represent strong loadings > 0.65

Assessing health risk

observed highest HPI value 46.74 (mean deviation =
13.11), primarily attributable to the cumulative effect of
pollution resulting from low flow and presence of
barrage. However, the overall quality rating of the
river for heavy metal pollution falls under the medium
class for both sampling seasons. Chaudhary et al. (2017)
found severe pollution levels in the river Ganga between
the Haridwar-Garhmukteshwar stretch, suggestive of
high risk to the human population based on risk assess-
ment index > 1.
Figure 3 represents the deteriorating state of the
Upper Ganga River with ArcGIS, illustrating that ap-
proximately 87% of the river is at a medium to high risk
of heavy metal pollution. High values of HPI at
Karanwas, Rajghat and Narora are due to agricultural
runoff and industries wastewater discharge located in
the study area and upstream (STP, sugar mills,
industries and town sewage discharge; Fig. 1). Similar
findings have been reported by Pandey and Singh
(2015) in the river Ganga at Varanasi.
The health risk for both adults and children as two
interest groups was assessed using chronic daily intake
(CDI), hazard quotient (HQ) and hazard index (HI). CDI
elucidated the daily exposure of humans to metal con-
taminants (expressed in mg L−1 day−1). On the other
hand, HQ value recognizes the potential risk to human
health due to heavy metal exposure with values greater
than one (> 1) being deleterious for human health.
Similarly, HI assessed the risk posed by various heavy
metals.
Table 6 summarises the CDI and HQ observed for
groups of interest. CDIIngestion values for both groups
were under limit (< 1) and currently poses no serious
threat to human health. However, CDIIngestion values for
Fe were higher as compared with other metals analyzed
for both the adults (0.068 mg L−1 day−1) and child
(0.073 mg L−1 day−1). CDIDermal values though < 1 were
higher for children as opposed to adults. HQIngestion and
HQDermal followed a trend similar to CDI, with ingestion
values higher than dermal. Mean HQIngestion of all

Table 4 Seasonal variation in HPI and heavy metal concentrations (mg L−1)

Metal Pre-monsoon Post-monsoon BIS (2012) Unit weightage (Wi)

Min Max Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Permissible limit (Si) Desirable value (Ii)

Fe 0.44 4.16 2.25 1.07 0.01 6.83 0.70 1.51 3.00 0.30 0.33
Mn 0.07 0.21 0.11 0.04 0.001 0.24 0.03 0.06 2.00 0.10 0.50
Zn 0.19 0.79 0.43 0.15 0.04 0.35 0.15 0.10 15.00 5.00 0.07
Cr 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.01 2.00 0.00 0.50
Pb 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.00 10.00

∑Wi = 11.40, ∑WiQi = 201.53 (pre-monsoon) and 296.40 (post-monsoon), HPI = 17.68 (pre-monsoon) and 26 (post-monsoon)
 742 Page 10 of 15
Fig. 3 Classification of Upper
Ganga river based on HPI
metals was < 1 for both groups; however, Cr observed
the highest mean HQIngestion values for both groups
(0.51 and 0.55 for adult and child, respectively). Max-
imum HQIngestion values for Pb have been observed
(1.05 and 1.14 for adult and child, respectively).
HQDermal showed similar trends for children with higher
values as compared with adults (Table 6).
For adults, the HIIngestion ranged from 0.85 to 1.64
with a mean value of 1.1, and for children, it was higher
with values ranging from 0.92 to 1.77 (Fig. 4). HIIngestion
Environ Monit Assess (2020) 192:742
values for both groups were > 1, highlighting the human
health risk associated with the consumption of river
water contaminated by heavy metals. Further, HI
showed an increasing trend moving further downstream
along the river stretch as a result of enhanced bioaccu-
mulation. Devi and Yadav (2018) reported highest HI
values for Pb in the Patna region of the Ganga river,
suggesting both adult and child population were signif-
icantly affected, while child population was more sus-
ceptible to Pb pollution.
Environ Monit Assess (2020) 192:742 Page 11 of 15 742

Table 6 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) and Hazard Quotient (HQ) for adult and child group

Heavy metals CDIIngestion CDIDermal HQIngestion HQDermal

Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child

Fe Mean 0.0681 0.0736 6.0E−07 7.6E−07 0.10 0.11 4.3E−06 5.4E−06

Min 0.0004 0.0004 3.2E−09 4.1E−09 0.0005 0.0006 2.3E−08 2.9E−08
Max 0.3146 0.3403 2.8E−06 3.5E−06 0.45 0.49 2.0E−05 2.5E−05
Mn Mean 0.0033 0.0036 2.9E−08 3.7E−08 0.14 0.15 3.0E−05 3.8E−05
Min 4.6E−05 5.0E−05 4.0E−10 5.1E−10 0.0019 0.0021 4.2E−07 5.4E−07
Max 0.0108 0.0117 9.5E−08 1.2E−07 0.45 0.49 9.9E−05 0.0001
Zn Mean 0.0134 0.0145 1.2E−07 1.5E−07 0.04 0.05 2.0E−06 2.5E−06
Min 0.0021 0.0022 1.8E−08 2.3E−08 0.0068 0.0074 3.0E−07 3.8E−07
Max 0.0363 0.0392 3.2E−07 4.0E−07 0.12 0.13 5.3E−06 6.7E−06
Cr Mean 0.0015 0.0016 1.3E−08 1.7E−08 0.51 0.55 0.0002 2.3E−04
Min 0.0003 0.0003 1.1E−09 3.6E−09 0.11 0.12 3.8E−05 4.8E−05
Max 0.0031 0.0034 2.7E−08 3.5E−08 1.04 1.13 0.0004 0.0005
Pb Mean 0.0011 0.0012 9.6E−09 1.2E−08 0.31 0.34 2.3E−05 2.9E−05
Min 0.0005 0.0005 4.0E−09 5.1E−09 0.13 0.14 9.6E−06 1.2E−05
Max 0.0037 0.0040 3.2E−08 4.1E−08 1.05 1.14 7.7E−05 9.8E−05

The increased risk on child health from the ingestion
pathway is due to the consumption of more water per
unit of body weight as compared with adults (Adimalla
2020; Chen et al. 2016). Variations were observed in
HIDermal with higher mean values for child group (23 ×
10−5 for adults, 3 × 10−4 for the child). Though HIDermal
for the river stretch was within the permissible limits it
followed an increasing trend from upstream to down-
stream. A slow and gradual increase in the heavy metal
concentration of surface water, sediments and through
bioaccumulation will pose a severe threat to the human
population in the near future due to erratic and rapid
discharge of heavy metals in the river environ by
numerous industries, mills and a large number of
human settlements in this riverine landscape. Similar
results have been observed by Singh and Kumar
(2017) in the Ajay river, Mitra et al. (2018) in the
Hooghly river estuary, Patel et al. (2018) in the
Swarnamukhi River Basin and Siddiqui et al. (2019)
for seven tributaries of river Ganga.
For pre-monsoon season, the HIIngestion for adult
ranged from 1.11 to 1.45 with a mean value of 1.22

Fig. 4 Spatial variation in HI for population group (adult and child) through ingestion and dermal pathway
 742 Page 12 of 15
and for the child group HIIngestion ranged from 1.19 to
1.56 with a mean value of 1.33. During the post-
monsoon season, the HIIngestion for adult ranged from
0.36 to 1.83 with a mean value of 0.97 and for child
group HIIngestion ranged from 0.39 to 1.98 with a mean
value of 1.04 (Fig. 5). Interestingly, the values for
HIIngestion for both adult and child group were > 1,
indicating that the risk to human health increased during
the post monsoon season and, similar to spatial varia-
tions, the child group was more risk-prone. Mean
HIDermal values for both adult and child followed a
similar trend as HIIngestion (0.00027 and 0.00034, respec-
tively). The values were higher at upstream sites (site 1
and 2) during the pre-monsoon season; however, the HI
values increased downstream for post-monsoon season
(Fig. 5).
Conclusions
Heavy metal pollution in rivers is a serious threat due to
its toxic nature, propensity to bio-accumulate and am-
plification in higher trophic levels. Heavy metal pollu-
tion can alter the river system's ecological character
posing a serious health risk to the populations dependent
on the river system. Combination of conventional in-situ
and GIS techniques can aid identification and
Fig. 5 Seasonal variation in HI for population group (adult and child) through ingestion pathway a adult (pre-monsoon), b adult (post-
monsoon), c child (pre-monsoon) and d child (post-monsoon)
Environ Monit Assess (2020) 192:742
management of heavy metal contamination and risk
form heavy metals. The surface water of Upper Ganga
river is enriched with heavy metals as the average
concentrations of heavy metals were high, mostly
exceeding the limits prescribed for surface water by
BIS (2012) and WHO (2017). It was also observed that
approximately 87% of the river stretch is at a medium to
high risk of heavy metal pollution which was evident
from the HPI values. The results of HI confirmed that
the risk due to ingestion of surface water of Upper
Ganga river has potential health risk (HIIngestion > 1),
and child group was more risk prone as compared with
adult group from either of the pathways. In addition, the
risk to human health due to the ingestion pathway
increases during the post-monsoon season and down-
stream of the river, which can be attributed to the disso-
lution of more minerals and trace metals from direct
sewage discharge, agricultural runoff and industrial ef-
fluent disposal and increasing concentration due to bio-
accumulation downstream. However, it can be
ascertained that the population living in the riverine
landscape and using untreated surface water for drinking
are vulnerable to the health risk from heavy metals
contamination. This study aimed to highlight the poten-
tial risk due to heavy metal pollution in the Upper Ganga
river for both humans and other dependent species uti-
lizing a landscape approach. The study also advocates
Environ Monit Assess (2020) 192:742
(i) constant monitoring at more sites apart from the
existing sites with sophisticated sensors based instru-
ments, (ii) monitoring of point sources for apportion-
ment of pollution sources and (iii) use GIS techniques
for regular monitoring of surface water.
Acknowledgements The first author thankfully acknowledges
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi, India for
IP research fellowship.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no con-
flict of interest.
References
Adimalla, N. (2020). Spatial distribution, exposure, and potential
health risk assessment from nitrate in drinking water from
semi-arid region of South India. Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment, 26(2), 310–334. https://doi.org/10.1080
/10807039.2018.1508329.
Algül, F., & Beyhan, M. (2020). Concentrations and sources of
heavy metals in shallow sediments in Lake Bafa, Turkey.
Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038
/s41598-020-68833-2.
Alves, R. I. S., Sampaio, C. F., Nadal, M., Schuhmacher, M.,
Domingo, J. L., & Segura-muñoz, S. I. (2014). Metal con-
centrations in surface water and sediments from Pardo River ,
Brazil : Human health risks. Environmental Research, 133,
149–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2014.05.012.
APHA, AWWA, & WEF. (2005). In L. S. Clesceri, A. E.
Greenberg, & A. D. Eaton (Eds.), Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater (20th ed.).
Washington, DC: American Public Health Association
(APHA).
Atafar, Z., Mesdaghinia, A., Nouri, J., Homaee, M., Yunesian, M.,
Ahmadimoghaddam, M., & Mahvi, A. H. (2010). Effect of
fertilizer application on soil heavy metal concentration.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 160(1–4), 83–
89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0659-x.
Avigliano, E., & Schenone, N. F. (2015). Human health risk
assessment and environmental distribution of trace elements,
glyphosate, fecal coliform and total coliform in Atlantic
Rainforest mountain rivers (South America).
Microchemical Journal, 122, 149–158. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.microc.2015.05.004.
Bhardwaj, R., Gupta, A., & Garg, J. K. (2017). Evaluation of
heavy metal contamination using environmetrics and
indexing approach for River Yamuna, Delhi stretch, India.
Water Science, 31(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wsj.2017.02.002.
Page 13 of 15 742
Bhuiyan, M. A. H., Dampare, S. B., Islam, M. A., & Suzuki, S.
(2015). Source apportionment and pollution evaluation of
heavy metals in water and sediments of Buriganga River,
Bangladesh, using multivariate analysis and pollution evalu-
ation indices. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
187(1), 4075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-4075-0.
Bhutiani, R., Khanna, D. R., Kulkarni, D. B., & Ruhela, M.
(2016). Assessment of Ganga river ecosystem at Haridwar,
Uttarakhand, India with reference to water quality indices.
Applied Water Science, 6(2), 107–113. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13201-014-0206-6.
Bilgin, A., & Konanç, M. U. (2016). Evaluation of surface water
quality and heavy metal pollution of Coruh River Basin
(Turkey) by multivariate statistical methods. Environmental
Earth Sciences, 75(12). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-
5821-0.
BIS. (2012). Indian Standards Drinking Water- Specification (sec-
ond revision) IS-10500:2012, (May).
Buragohain, M., Bhuyan, B., & Sarma, H. P. (2010). Seasonal
variations of lead, arsenic, cadmium and aluminium contam-
ination of groundwater in Dhemaji district, Assam, India.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 170(1–4), 345–
351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-009-1237-6.
Cengiz, M. F., Kilic, S., Yalcin, F., Kilic, M., & Gurhan Yalcin,
M. (2017). Evaluation of heavy metal risk potential in
Bogacayi River water (Antalya, Turkey). Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, 189(6), 248. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10661-017-5925-3.
Central Pollution Control Board. (2013). Pollution Assessment :
River Ganga, 206. http://cpcb.nic.
in/upload/NewItems/NewItem_203_Ganga_report.pdf.
Accessed 1 Apr 2019.
Chaudhary, M., Mishra, S., & Kumar, A. (2017). Estimation of
water pollution and probability of health risk due to imbal-
anced nutrients in River Ganga, India. International Journal
of River Basin Management, 15(1), 53–60. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15715124.2016.1205078.
Chen, J., Wu, H., & Qian, H. (2016). Groundwater nitrate con-
tamination and associated health risk for the rural communi-
ties in an agricultural area of Ningxia, Northwest China.
Exposure and Health, 8(3), 349–359. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12403-016-0208-8.
Devi, N. L., & Yadav, I. C. (2018). Chemometric evaluation of
heavy metal pollutions in Patna region of the Ganges alluvial
plain, India: implication for source apportionment and health
risk assessment. Environmental Geochemistry and Health,
40(6), 2343–2358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-018-
0101-4.
Dwivedi, S., Mishra, S., & Tripathi, R. D. (2018). Ganga water
pollution: A potential health threat to inhabitants of Ganga
basin. Environment International, 117(May), 327–338.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.05.015.
Edet, A. A. E., & Offiong, O. E. (2002). Evaluation of water
quality pollution indices for heavy metal contamination mon-
itoring. A study case from Akpabuyo-Odukpani area , Lower
Cross River Basin ( southeastern Nigeria). GeoJournal, 57,
295–304.
Garg, A., & Joshi, B. (2015). Ecosystem sustenance of Upper
Ganga Ramsar site through phytoremediation.
Geophytology, 45(2), 175–180.
 742 Page 14 of 15
Giri, S., & Singh, A. K. (2014). Assessment of surface water
quality using heavy metal pollution index in Subarnarekha
River, India. Water Quality, Exposure and Health, 5(4), 173–
182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12403-013-0106-2.
Giri, S., & Singh, A. K. (2015). Human health risk assessment via
drinking water pathway due to metal contamination in the
groundwater of Subarnarekha River Basin, India.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 187(3), 63.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4265-4.
Gupta, S. K., Chabukdhara, M., Singh, J., & Bux, F. (2015).
Evaluation and potential health hazard of selected metals in
water, sediments, and fish from the Gomti River. 7039.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2014.902694
Izhar, S., Goel, A., Chakraborty, A., & Gupta, T. (2016). Annual
trends in occurrence of submicron particles in ambient air and
health risk posed by particle bound metals. Chemosphere,
146, 582–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2015.12.039.
Jumbe, A. S., & Nandini, N. (2009). Heavy metals analysis and
sediment quality values in urban lakes heavy metals analysis
and sediment quality values in urban lakes. American
Journal of Environmental Sciences, 6(5), 678–687.
Khan, M. Y. A., Gani, K. M., & Chakrapani, G. J. (2016).
Assessment of surface water quality and its spatial variation.
A case study of Ramganga River, Ganga Basin, India.
Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 9(1), 1–9. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12517-015-2134-7.
Leena, S., Choudhary, S. K., & Singh, P. K. (2012). Status of
heavy metal concentration in water and sediment of River
Ganga at selected sites in middle Ganga plain. International
Journal of Research in Chemistry and Environment, 2(4),
236–243. https://doi.org/10.6088/ijes.2012030131026.
Li, S., & Zhang, Q. (2010). Risk assessment and seasonal varia-
tions of dissolved trace elements and heavy metals in the
Upper Han River, China. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
181(1–3), 1051–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2010.05.120.
Low, K. H., Zain, S. M., Abas, M. R., Md Salleh, K., & Teo, Y. Y.
(2015). Distribution and health risk assessment of trace
metals in freshwater tilapia from three different aquaculture
sites in Jelebu Region (Malaysia). Food Chemistry, 177,
390–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.01.059.
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementaion. (2018).
Drinking water, sanitation, hygiene and housing condition
in India, NSS 76th Round (July 2018-December 2018),
National Sample Survey Office, Government of India.
Mishra, A. (2010). Assessment of water quality using principal
component analysis: a case study of the river Ganges.
Journal of Water Chemistry and Technology, 32(4), 227–
234. https://doi.org/10.3103/S1063455X10040077.
Misra, A. K. (2010). A River about to Die: Yamuna. Journal of
Water Resource and Protection, 02(05), 489–500.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2010.25056.
Mitra, S., Sarkar, S. K., Raja, P., Biswas, J. K., & Murugan, K.
(2018). Dissolved trace elements in Hooghly (Ganges) River
Estuary, India: risk assessment and implications for manage-
ment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 133(March), 402–414.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.057.
Mohan, S. V., Nithila, P., & Reddy, J. (1996). Estimation of heavy
metals in drinking water and development of heavy metal
pollution index. Journal of Environmental Science and
Environ Monit Assess (2020) 192:742
Health, 31(2), 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1080
/10934529609376357.
Narain, S., & Mahapatra, R. (2020). State of India’s Environment
2020 in Figures.
Pandey, J., & Singh, R. (2015). Heavy metals in sediments of
Ganga River: up- and downstream urban influences. Applied
Water Science, 7(4), 1669–1678. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s13201-015-0334-7.
Patel, P., Raju, N. J., Reddy, B. C. S. R., Suresh, U., Sankar, D. B.,
& Reddy, T. V. K. (2018). Heavy metal contamination in
river water and sediments of the Swarnamukhi River Basin,
India: risk assessment and environmental implications.
Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 40(2), 609–623.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-017-0006-7.
Paul, D. (2017). Research on heavy metal pollution of river
Ganga: a review. Annals of Agrarian Science, 15(2), 278–
286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aasci.2017.04.001.
Prasad, B., & Bose, J. M. (2001). Evaluation of the heavy metal
pollution index for surface and spring water near a limestone
mining area of the lower himalayas. Environmental Geology,
41(1–2), 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002540100380.
Ramsar. (2005). Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands - Upper
Ganga River. Ramsar. https://rsis.ramsar.
org/RISapp/files/RISrep/IN1574RIS.pdf. Accessed 19
January 2019.
Saha, N., Rahman, M. S., Ahmed, M. B., Zhou, J. L., Ngo, H. H.,
& Guo, W. (2017). Industrial metal pollution in water and
probabilistic assessment of human health risk. Journal of
Environmental Management, 185, 70–78. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.023.
Sanghi, R., & Kaushal, N. (2014). Our National River Ganga. Our
National River Ganga: Lifeline of Millions. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-00530-0
Sehgal, M., Garg, A., Suresh, R., & Dagar, P. (2012). Heavy metal
contamination in the Delhi segment of Yamuna basin.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184(2), 1181–
1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-011-2031-9.
Şener, Ş., Şener, E., & Davraz, A. (2017). Assessment of ground-
water quality and health risk in drinking water basin using
GIS. Journal of Water and Health, 15(1), 112–132.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2016.148.
Shamuyarira, K. K., & Gumbo, J. R. (2014). Assessment of heavy
metals in municipal sewage sludge: A case study of Limpopo
Province, South Africa. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(3), 2569–
2579. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110302569.
Shrestha, S., & Kazama, F. (2007). Assessment of surface water
quality using multivariate statistical techniques: A case study
of the Fuji river basin, Japan. Environmental Modelling and
Software, 22, 464–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsoft.2006.02.001.
Siddiqui, E., Verma, K., Pandey, U., & Pandey, J. (2019). Metal
contamination in seven tributaries of the ganga river and
assessment of human health risk from fish consumption.
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology,
77(2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-019-00638-5.
Singh, U. K., & Kumar, B. (2017). Pathways of heavy metals
contamination and associated human health risk in Ajay
River basin, India. Chemosphere, 174, 183–199. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.01.103.
Environ Monit Assess (2020) 192:742
Tiwari, A. K., De Maio, M., Kumar, P. (2015). Evaluation of
surface water quality by using GIS and a heavy metal pollu-
tion index (HPI ) model in a coal mining area, India. Bulletin
of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 0–6.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-015-1558-9
Trivedi, R. C. (2010). Water quality of the Ganga River—an
overview. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management,
13(August 2013), 347–351. https://doi.org/10.1080
/14634988.2010.528740.
USEPA. (1989). Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I
human health evaluation manual (Part A). Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, USEPA, 1(540/R/1–
89/002), 1–291.
USEPA. (1996). United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Quantitative uncertainty analysis of super fund residential
risk path way models for soil and ground water: white paper.
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Oak Ridge,
TN, USA.
USEPA. (2002). Supplemental guidance for developing soil
screening levels for superfund sites, Appendix D-dispersion
dactors calculations. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 4-24.
OSWER93552002.
USEPA. (2004). Risk assessment guidance for superfund
(RAGS). Volume I. Human health evaluation manual
(HHEM). Part E. Supplemental guidance for dermal risk
assessment. US EPA, 1(540/R/99/005). https://doi.
org/EPA/540/1-89/002
USEPA. (2010). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. (2011). Exposure factors handbook: 2011 Edition.
National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-09/052F. Available from the
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA,
and online at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/efh. http://www.epa.
gov/ncea/efh. Accessed 2 February 2019
Vega, M., Pardo, R., Enrique, B., & Luis, D. (1998). Assessment
of seasonal and polluting effects on the quality of river water
by exploratory. Water Research, 32(12), 3581–3592.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00138-9.
Page 15 of 15 742
Wasim Aktar, M., Paramasivam, M., Ganguly, M., Purkait, S., &
Sengupta, D. (2010). Assessment and occurrence of various
heavy metals in surface water of Ganga river around Kolkata:
a study for toxicity and ecological impact. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, 160(1–4), 207–213. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10661-008-0688-5.
WHO. (2017). Guidelines for drinking-water quality: fourth edi-
tion incorporating the first addendum.
WII, GACMC. (2017). Aquatic Fauna of Ganga River: Status and
Conservation.
Wildlife Institute of India. (2018). Assessment of the wildlife
values of the Ganga River from Bijnor to Ballia including
turtle wildlife sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh.
Wu, B., Zhao, D. Y., Jia, H. Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, X. X., &
Cheng, S. P. (2009). Preliminary risk assessment of trace
metal pollution in surface water from Yangtze River in
Nanjing Section, China. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol, 84,
405–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-008-9497-3.
Wuana, R. A., & Okieimen, F. E. (2011). Heavy metals in con-
taminated soils: a review of sources, chemistry, risks and best
available strategies for remediation. ISRN Ecology, 2011, 1–
20. https://doi.org/10.5402/2011/402647.
Zeinalzadeh, K., & Rezaei, E. (2017). Determining spatial and
temporal changes of surface water quality using principal
component analysis. Journal of Hydrology: Regional
Studies, 13(August 2016), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejrh.2017.07.002.
Zeng, X., Liu, Y., You, S., Zeng, G., Tan, X., Hu, X., Hu, X.,
Huang, L., & Li, F. (2015). Spatial distribution, health risk
assessment and statistical source identification of the trace
elements in surface water from the Xiangjiang River, China.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(12),
9400–9412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-4064-4.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.