Total Environment Research Themes 6 (2023) 100039

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Total Environment Research Themes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/totert

Perspectives of heavy metal pollution indices for soil, sediment, and water
pollution evaluation: An insight
Bhairo Prasad Ahirvar a, Pallavi Das a,⇑, Vaibhav Srivastava b,c, Manish Kumar b
a
Department of Environmental Science, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak, Madhya Pradesh 484887, India
b
Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382 355, India
c
Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, University of Allahabad (A Central University), Prayagraj-211002, Uttar Pradesh, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The paper reviews the widely used heavy metal pollution indices (HPIs) in water, soil, and sediments and pre-
Heavy metal sents their numerical equation and application in various fields. HPIs are an essential and efficient tool to mea-
Pollution indices sure metal contamination in the environmental system. The present study includes twenty pollution indices
Water from water, soil, and sediments for their comparative study with their ranges. In addition, the regional distri-
Soil
bution of publications has been reviewed, and it observed that 68% were published from Asia, followed by
Sediment
Ecological risk
other continents. The merits and demerits of each index have been presented, and a comprehensive method
for selecting the appropriate pollution index is evaluated in order to better interpret the pollution level in soils
and water systems. Among water quality indices HPI, HEI and HI have been used widely due to precise scale,
easy to use, less limitations and provide efficient results. Among single indices, EF, Igeo, and CF are widely used
and can be used in a simple manner for soil quality assessment, whereas in combined indices PLI and INemerow
are found to be useful as it is easy to apply and have precise scale. In integrated indices, Cd and IAvg are found to
be useful as it is easy to apply, and there is no limitation for heavy metals. Selection of appropriate geochemical
background (GB) must be established, and the nature of fluctuation in GB may give a false result. The ecolog-
ical risk index (ERI) is a unique index used to represent the ecological risk of metal pollution in water, soil, and
sediment systems. A comprehensive approach and guidelines for using metal pollution indices in soil and sed-
iment considering different sectors may be developed for each nation. The widespread application of HPI
makes the study more accessible, and a well‐defined result can be presented.

Introduction
Metal pollution poses a deleterious effect on the ecosystem due to
its toxicity, non‐biodegradable and persistent nature, accumulating
quickly in the soil, water, and sediment (Heidari et al., 2019; Kumar
et al., 2019). Heavy metals get accumulate in the surface and ground-
water resources due to various natural processes (rock weathering and
bedrock erosion) and anthropogenic activities (mining, industrializa-
tion, and manufacturing pesticides) (Chorol and Gupta, 2023; Kumar
et al., 2018a; Keshavarzi et al., 2021; Abolude et al., 2009). Estimating
total heavy metals is inadequate to determine their contamination and
toxicity levels in the ambient environment (Kumar et al., 2020; Wei
et al., 2019). Therefore, different pollution indices are applied to
determine the chemical speciation of metals in the environmental sys-
tem. Bioavailability and eco‐toxicity are the critical characteristics of
heavy metals in the environment (Kumar et al., 2018b; Kumar et al.,
2013; Jacob et al., 2018). Some HM such as Fe, Cu, Co, and Mn is nec-
essary for humans' metabolic system and required in small quantities
but may cause health issues in high concentrations (Setia et al.,
2020; Huang et al., 2019). Other metals such as Cr, Cd, Pb, and As
cause severe health implications even at lower concentrations
(Sahoo and Sahu, 2022; Pandit et al., 2020; Setia et al., 2020). In

Abbreviations: BCF, Bioaccumulation Index; CI, Contamination index; Cd, Degree of contamination; EF, Enrichment factor; Er, Ecological risk factor; ERI, Ecological risk Index;
EWQI, Entropy weightage water quality index; HEI, Heavy metal evaluation index; HI, Hazardous index; HM, Heavy metals; HMI, Heavy metal index; HPI, Heavy metals pollution
index; Igeo, Geo‐accumulation index; IPI, Integrated pollution index; MI, Metal index; MRI, Modified ecological risk index; OIP, Overall index of pollution; PERI, Potential ecological
risk index; PIG, Pollution index of groundwater; PINemerow, Nemerow pollution index; PLI, Pollution load index; PRI, Pollution ecological risk index; RAC, Risk assessment code; RI, Risk
index; SPI, Synthetic pollution index.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pallavi.das@igntu.ac.in (P. Das).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.totert.2023.100039
Received 11 December 2022; Revised 17 March 2023; Accepted 4 April 2023

2772-8099/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
B. Prasad Ahirvar et al.
the last few years, the evaluation of HM contamination in the water,
soil, and sediment systems using HPIs got much attention worldwide
(Adebiyi and Ayeni, 2022, Dash et al., 2021; Moghtaderi et al.,
2020; Aksari et al., 2020; Shirani et al., 2020). HPIs are a method by
which water quality can be determined using a rating scale technique
concerning metal concentration (Zakhem and Hafez, 2014). HPI is a
valuable tool for investigating heavy metal contamination and its
harmful impacts (Dash et al., 2019; Giri and Singh, 2014). The HPI
in the water system relies upon two components; metal concentration
and permissible limits as per drinking water quality standards
(Chaturvedi et al., 2018). The HPI is developed and calculated on
the basis of the selection of parameters and the background of the
study (Mahato et al., 2017; Giri and Singh, 2014).
The HPI uses a weighted arithmetic mean method and is calculated
in two steps, i.e., setting a rating scale by assigning weightage to each
selected parameter based on the index of pollution parameter (Mahato
et al., 2017). Surface and groundwater contain many ions in dissolved
form in different concentrations and get contaminated regularly by
various pollution sources (Manikandan et al., 2019). Many researchers
used HPI, HEI, and Cd to assess drinking water quality (Raja et al.,
2021; Zakir et al., 2020; Sahoo and Khaoash, 2020; Singh et al.,
2017). Different pollution indices such as EF, Igeo, contamination fac-
tor (CF), PLI, and ERI are widely used to evaluate the contamination
level of heavy metals in the sediment (Huang et al., 2020;
Harikrishnan et al., 2017; Rao, 2012). The Igeo is a helpful index to
estimate the contamination level in freshwater sediment (Omwene
et al., 2018; Duodu et al., 2016; Sarkar et al., 2010). Similarly, PLI pro-
vides data on the general toxicity of heavy metals in a given location
and a comparison of pollution levels between different sites (Andera
et al., 2019; Kanda et al., 2018).
Likewise, metal pollution indices such as ERI and PERI are helpful
indices for assessing heavy metals regarding bioaccumulation, biomag-
nifications, and bioavailability in the food chain of an ecological sys-
tem (Xie and Ren, 2022; Hakanson, 1980; Blank et al., 1978). The
PERI is effective for investigating the water bodies' pollution levels
with their toxicological effect (Sun et al., 2018). This model has been
developed for the ecological risk assessment of the aquatic environ-
ment and its pollution control. The ERI offers a fast and easy quantita-
tive value of the possible ecological risk of a given freshwater system
(Hakanson, 1980). HPI is an effective method for processing, evaluat-
ing, and presenting sensitive environmental information to executives,
technicians, decision‐makers, and the common people (Caeiro et al.,
2005). One of the key benefits of using heavy metal pollution indices
is that it is used for the determination of source of heavy metal con-
tamination accumulation, whether it is from natural as well as anthro-
pogenic sources. Therefore, the present study has focused on the
application of some important pollution indices in terms of water, soil,
and sediment quality assessment in a comprehensive manner. The
study also includes publications on heavy metal pollution indices from
the year 2010 to 2022.
The objectives of this study are
(1) To summarize regional distribution and application of different
types of HPIs in water, soil, and sediment in order to have glo-
bal perspectives.
(2) To discuss criteria and ranges for the selection of different HPIs
used in water and soil quality assessment.
(3) To find out the advantage and disadvantages of heavy metal
pollution indices and their significant relationships with each
other.
Materials and methods
The current review paper lists 106 studies worldwide about assess-
ing heavy metal contamination in water, soil, and sediments using dif-
ferent types of HPIs. Fifty‐four studies of HPIs used in water quality
2
Total Environment Research Themes 6 (2023) 100039
assessment and fifty‐twostudies applied in soil and sediments are
listed. All documented studies show the application of various HPIs
for evaluating heavy metal contamination. The range of HPIs is
another aspect considered in this review, which is very important for
pollution assessment.
Overview of some heavy metal pollution indices
Heavy metal pollution index (HPI)
The HPI generally acknowledged all around, and the weights are
assigned on the basis of inversely proportional to the standard value
recommended to every element adjacent (Mohan et al., 1996):
n
∑i¼1 WiQi
HPI ¼ n ð1Þ
∑i¼1 Wi
Where Qi and Wi signify the sub‐index and unit weight allocated to
ith parameter and n denotes the number of considered parameters.
The sub‐index for the ith parameter is anticipated by:
n fMi  lig
Qi ¼ ∑  100 ð2Þ
i¼1 Si  li
Where, Mi, Ii, and Si denote measured value, tolerable and allow-
able value respectively. According to Indian norms (BIS, 2012), the
prescribed range of water quality standard is alongside WHO rules
(WHO, 2011). 100 is the proposed value, which is critical for drinking
water.
Contamination index (CI)
The pollution index is also known as the degree of contamination
(Cd). It provides a collective impact of qualitative parameters which
is considered to be harmful for drinking and household purpose
(Backman et al., 1998) and is measured as follows:
CAi
Cd ¼ ∑Cfi; Cfi ¼ 1 ð3Þ
CNi
Where Cfi, CAi, and CNidenote the factor of pollution, diagnostic
value, and allowable concentration of the ithfactor, respectively. ‘N’
represents the ‘normative value’ and CNi is taken as maximum allow-
able concentration.
Heavy metal evaluation index (HEI)
This technique is dependable on HPI, provides overall water quality
concerning the heavy metal concentration (Edet and Offiong, 2002;
Prasanna et al., 2012). The index is broadly applied for the assessment
of quality of groundwater. The following equation is used for HEI
calculation:
n Mi
HEI ¼ ∑ ð4Þ
i¼1 Si
Where Mi denotes the monitored value of ith parameter of the water
sample,and Si denotes the maximum admissible concentration (MAC)
of the ithparameter. The heavy metal concentration should not exceed
the Si value, and if exceeds,then the water quality is unfit for use.
Modified HPI (m-HPI)
It is a modified form of HPI by Mohan et al. (1996)
n
m ¼ HPI ¼ ∑ ωiQi ð5Þ
i¼1
Where, m‐HPIs represents modified heavy metal pollution index
related to the ith heavy metal ion and calculated as
B. Prasad Ahirvar et al. Total Environment Research Themes 6 (2023) 100039

m  HPI ¼ ωi Qi ð6Þ PIG ¼ ∑Ow ð14Þ

Where,
Wi Ecological risk index (ERI)
ωi ¼ n ð7Þ
∑i¼1 Wi
ERI is a useful index to evaluate the toxicity and biomagnifications
Where, Wi is the unit weight factor, inversely proportional to the potential of heavy metal in an ecological system. Following equations
maximum allowable concentration Ii and defined as, are used for the ERI calculation (Taiwo et al., 2019)‐
Mi  Ii ERI ¼ ∑RI ¼ ∑Ti  PI ð15Þ
Qi ¼ ð8Þ
Ii
PI ¼ Cs =Cb ð16Þ
Mi represents the measured value of theith parameter and Iirepresents
the maximum desirable concentration in terms of BIS standard, it is Where, RI stands for each metal's potential ecological risk factor, Ti for
the maximum permissible concentration in terms of WHO standard. the metal's toxic‐response factor, PI for the pollution index, Cs for the
Calculation steps measured metal concentration in sample, Cb for the comparable back-
m‐HPI can be calculated in two phases. Two pairs of indices ground values.
assigned to the water sample, one is a positive index (PI), and another
is a negative index (NI). The influence of heavy metals in water qual- Geo-accumulation index (Igeo)
ity, which may be above the greatest desired limit, is represented by a
positive index (PI), whereas the input of heavy metals is represented The geo‐accumulation index can be used to assess heavy metal pol-
by a negative index (NI). When the PI and NI of two samples are very lution in soil and water sediments (Muller, 1969). The equation can be
near, the samples can be used for further grading. applied to compute Igeoby multiplying the base 2 logarithm of the total
When there are ‘n' numbers of parameters in a water sample, and metal concentration and the background concentration of metal as
n1 has Mi ≤ Ii and n2 has Mi ≥ Ii then pair of indices PI and NI, will shown below.
be used to indicate HPI for that water sample, as shown below. Igeo = log2 (Cn/1.5Bn), Where, Cn denotes the observed heavy met-
ni als concentration, Bn denotes concentration of geo‐chemical environ-
NI ¼ ∑ m  HPI ð9Þ ment of the metals. Factor 1.5 was taken as the background value of
i¼1
lithological variability.
and
n2
Synthetic pollution index (SPI)
PI ¼ ∑ m  HPI ð10Þ
i¼1
The pollution level of water resources can also be evaluated
+n1 and n2 must be viewed as separate and essentially indepen- through usingSPI. Many researchers have successfully used SPI for
dent subsets in order for n1 + n2 to equal n. the assessment of water pollution (Egbueri and Unigwe, 2019;
Each water test's water character can be indicated by a couple of PI Solangi et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2014). Following equation are used
and NI. When all of the Mi (s) are not exactly or equivalent to Ii, the for SPI calculation‐
sample's PI will be zero, and the NI will be negative. Similarly, when n Vo
all Mi(s) are more prominent than Ii, NI will be zero and PI will have ∑  Wi ð17Þ
i¼1 Vs
a positive value.
K
Pollution index of groundwater (PIG) Wi ¼ ð18Þ
Vs

Subba Rao (2012) has proposed PIG and successfully evaluated n 1

K¼∑ ð19Þ
drinking water quality in different fields (Rao et al., 2018; Rao and i¼1 Vs
Chuadhary, 2019).
Where k represents proportionality constant, Vs denotes each parame-
Calculation of PIG follows five steps
ter’sdrinking water standard prescribed by W.H.O or any nation, ‘n’
Step‐1: In the first step, relative weight (Rw) is calculated in scale
denotes the number of measured parameters, Vo represents the concen-
of 1 to 5, based on their individual significance and impact on water
tration of parameter, and Wi provides weight coefficient for the individ-
quality and human health.
ual parameters.
Step‐2: This step is utilized for the weight parameter (Wp), which
assigns a weight to each water quality characteristic in order to assess
Discussion
their input relationships to the overall quality of water samples.
Rw Many studies have been done using HPI as water, soil, and sedi-
Wp ¼ ð11Þ
∑Rw ment quality assessment tool worldwide. The regional distribution of
Step‐3: The third step involved concentration (Sc),which is esti- publications on heavy metal pollution indices is shown in (Fig. 1).
mated by dividing individual observed concentration(c) in each water The number of publications of HPI in Water, Soil, and Sediment from
sample by their individual water quality standard (Ds). 2010 to 2019 is shown in (Fig. 2a and b). Fig. 3, Show the number of
different HPIs studies during the year 2010 to 2022. It was found that
C 46% of studies have been done using Igeo for the soil and sediment
Sc ¼ ð12Þ
Ds quality assessment, followed by 27% studies using EF and 27% studies
Step‐4: The overall quality (Ow) of water is calculated in this stage using CF (Fig. 3a). 56% of studies have done using PLI, followed by
by multiplying the Wp by the Sc. 32% of the studies using the INemerow and 12% of studies using SPI
(Fig. 3b). 83% of studies have been conducted using the Cd, followed
Ow ¼ Wp  Sc ð13Þ
by 17% of studies using the average pollution index (Fig. 3c). 85% of
Step‐5: The final step involves the summing up of all Ow values of studies have been done using RI, and the remaining 15% using Er
every sample. (Fig. 3d).

3
B. Prasad Ahirvar et al. Total Environment Research Themes 6 (2023) 100039

on calculation method: (1) EF, Igeo, PI, PIsum, PINemerow, PIavg, PIVector,
PIvectorM, PIN, PLI indices are calculated using Geochemical Back-
ground (GB) value of each metal (2) Except for the GB value, the CF,
MEC, Cd, RI, MERMQ, PIrProd,;PIN and CSI indices are derived based
on heavy metal content in each sample. (3) BGI, mCd and ExF indices
are calculated based on the amount of heavy metal content in differ-
entsoil profile. Tables 1(a) and 1(c) show ranges of various indices.
Different studies show a diverse range of HPI, such as Giri and Singh
(2019) reported that the HPI value less than 25 indicates a low pollu-
tion level, and greater than 50 demonstrates the high level of pollu-
tion. The HPI value less than 40 indicates a low degree of
contamination and greater than 80 points a high degree of pollution
(Rezaei et al., 2019). In a study by Singaraja et al., (2015), the HPI
value less than 90 indicates low pollution and greater than 180 shows
a high pollution level. CI, which is also called a Cd,is a measurement of
heavy metal contamination in water, soil, and sediments.Table 1b.
Rezaei et al. (2019) applied CI for the assessment of groundwater
Fig. 1. Regional distribution of publications included in the study (continent quality and reported that a CI value of less than 8 suggests a low level
wise). of pollution, while a value of greater than 15 indicates a high level of
pollution. In a study by Dash et al. (2019), a CI value less than 1
demonstrates low pollution, and greater than 3 shows high pollution.
Another study conducted by Singaraja et al.(2015) indicates that a CI
(a) HPI Studies in Water
value of less than 85 indicates low pollution, and greater than 170
250
indicates high pollution level. Moreover, the HEI proposed by Edet
No of p u b lication s

200
and Offiong (2002) is a valuable index for heavy metal assessment
150 and widely used for evaluation of groundwater quality. This index
100 shows little similarity to HPI by Mohan et al. (1996). A study con-
50 ducted by Rezaei et al. (2019) found that the value of HEI less than
0 1 indicates low pollution, and greater than 2 indicates high pollution
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 level. In another studyby Singaraja et al., (2015) found, the HEI value
Year of less than 100 indicates a low pollution level, and greater than 200
indicate high water pollution. The ERI is the first kind of valuable
index for assessing the toxicity and biomagnifications impact of heavy
(b) HPI studies in soil and sediment metal in water and ecological system. The ERI value of less than 150
indicates low ecological risk, and a value greater than 600 indicate
60 very high ecological risk. Likewise, an RI value of less than 40 indi-
No. of Pu b lication s

50
40
30
20
10
0 to highly contaminated. The ratio of heavy metal content in soil/sed-
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Year
Fig. 2. (a) No. of publications on Heavy Metal Pollution Indices (HPI) in
Water, (b) Soil and Sedimentfrom 2010 to 2019 (). Source: scoupus.com
There are different types of pollution indices for soil and sediments.
According to several studies, the selection of pollution indices is asso-
ciated to various goals, such as level of contamination, origin of met-
als, and potential ecological risk(Kowalska etal., 2018; Al‐Anbari
et al., 2015; Baran et al., 2017; Dung et al., 2013; Guan et al.,
2014).Pollutionindices have been classified into four major types
(Table 1a), 1. Single index: which includes EF, Igeo, PI, SEF, threshold
pollution index (PIT). 2. Combine index: which include PLI and SPI. 3.
The integrative index includes MSPI, Nereomo index, Isum,IAvg, Weigh-
tage average pollution index (IwAvg), New pollution index (PIN), Inte-
grated threshold pollution index (IPIT), PRI and DC. 4. Speciation:
which have included RAC, available fraction. The ecological and toxi-
city potential of heavy metals can be assessed by ecological risk index
which has many types, pollution coefficient of single heavy metal, sin-
gle index ERI, RI, ERM quotient (MERMQ), contamination severity
index (CSI). Pollution indices can be divided into three groups based
cates low ecological risk, and an RI value greater than 320 shows high
ecological risk (Ukah et al., 2019; Shirani et al., 2020; Maanan et al.,
2015;Pejman et al., 2015; Gao and Chen, 2012). The Igeo index is pri-
marily used to measure soil pollution caused by heavy metals and clas-
sify the status of the pollution into seven levels from low contaminated
iment to background metal concentration is used to generate this index
(Mirzaei et al., 2019). Constant 1.5 is used to determinechanges in
metal concentration from natural source well as anthropogenic source
(Dung et al., 2013;Muller, 1969; Loska et al., 2003; Ji et al., 2008; Lu
and Bai, 2009).A study was done by Shirani et al., (2020) and Wang
et al., (2015) mentioned that an Igeo value less than 5 shows low pol-
lution, and a value greater than 5 indicates a high pollution level. The
SPI is an essential index for the groundwater quality assessment and is
used as a sub‐index for the final index calculation. The SPI value of less
than 0.2 indicates low pollution and suitability for drinking, and the
SPI value greater than 3 indicates a high pollution level and unfit for
drinking purposes (Egbueri, 2020). EF is a significant index that pro-
vides source identification of metals in soil and sediment. The EF value
of less than 1 indicates low contamination, and a value more excellent
than 6 means high metal pollution. PLI provides a load of heavy metals
in soil and sediment. A PLI value less than 0.7 shows a low burden of
metals; a value between 0.7 and 2.0 indicates moderate load, while a
PLI value greater than 3.0 shows a high load of metals. The average
pollution index (IAvg) is also used for soil and sediment analysis. The
IAvg value of less than 1 indicates low pollution, and a value more
excellent than 1 shows high metal pollution (Cai et al., 2015; Loska
et al., 2003; Weissmannová et al. 2017). The reference metals mostly
used in pollution indices are Mn, Al, and Fe. Various studies
usedPINemerow which give pollution status of soil and sediment

4
B. Prasad Ahirvar et al. Total Environment Research Themes 6 (2023) 100039

Fig. 3. Studies of different heavy metal pollution indices (a) single, (b) combined (c) integrated and (d) risk indices from 2010 to 2022) in soil and sediment.

Table 1a
Classification of HPI of soil and sediment.

Single index Combine index Integrative index Speciation

EF, Igeo, CF, %EF, PLI, SPI, Nemerow index MSPI, NEREOMO INDEX, Sum of pollution index (Isum), Average pollution index (IAvg), Risk assessment code
Threshold pollution Weightage average pollution index (IwAvg), New pollution index (PIN), Integrated threshold (RAC), available
index (PIT), pollution index (IPIT), Potential ecological risk index (PERI), Cd fraction
Indices of ecological risk Pollution coefficient of single heavy metal, Single index of ecological risk factor, Risk index, Mean, ERM quotient (MERMQ), Contamination severity
index (CSI)

environment due to presence of heavy metals. The total contaminated
elements can also be assessed usingPINemerow(Kowalska et al., 2018;
Quan et al., 2014). Furthermore, the contamination factor CF, devel-
oped by Hakanson (1980), is a handy index for soil, sediment, and
water quality assessment. The CF value less than 1 indicates shallow
metal contamination, CF value 1 to 3 means moderate pollution, and
CF value greater than 6 indicates high metal contamination. Heavy
metal pollution indices are a very effective tool to investigate the
heavy metals influence and their respective harmful impact on water,
soil, and sediments.
In (Table 2a), represents 17 different studies concerning the appli-
cation of heavy metal pollution indices in surface water. The studies
show that HPI, HEI and CI are used frequentlyfor surface water quality
assessment. Among the combined or integrated indices approach com-
bination of (HPI, HEI, and CI), (HPI, HEI, HI, and CI), and (HPI, HEI, CI
and EWQI) have been applied. In the groundwater assessment, ran-
domly 31 studies were included for the review around the world
and listed in Table 2b. The studies show that HPI, HEI and CI were also
dominant indices for groundwater assessment. The common combina-
tion of indices was (HPI, HEI, SPI and CI), (HPI, HEI, ERI, HI, and
GWQI), (HEI, ERI, EWQI, m‐HPI and NeI) and (HPI, HEI and m‐HPI).
Many indices were used commonly for surface and groundwater
evaluation.
The mathematical and statistical method of indices makes a practi-
cal and very efficient tool for environmental studies. Every index has
its specialty to investigate contamination. Most of the studies have
been done using a combination of more than one index because one
index is not sufficient to tell the overall status of pollution. In (Table 3),
52 studies of soil and sediments concerning heavy metal indices have
been listed. The studies show that the water quality assessment indices
have similarities with indices used for soil and sediment regarding
mathematical formulas, calculation steps, and selection of parameters.
In addition,all indices are distinguishingby their simplicity of appli-
cation, superficial understanding, and interpretation and suggest a per-
missible contamination level (Kowalska et al., 2018; Caeiro et al.,
2005). Table 4 show the merits and demerits of some selected pollu-
tion indices. The Cd is advantageous for metals assessment in soil
and water. Many metals can be assessed by using ERI, which is a
unique index for the evaluation of ecological risk. The only demerit
of ERI is its complexity in the calculation. HPI by Mohan et al.
(1996) is an elementary and highly used index for the metal pollution
assessment in surface and groundwater.

5
B. Prasad Ahirvar et al. Total Environment Research Themes 6 (2023) 100039

Table 1b
Ranges of HPI (soil and sediment).

Name of the HPI Equations Low Moderate High References

Potential ERI ERI=∑RI = Ti × PI <150 300≤ ERI <600 ≥600 Hakanson, 1980
Geo-accumulation index Igeo = log2(Ci/1.5Si) 0–1 1–3 3 – >5 Muller, 1969
Enrichment Factor ðM Þsedimentsample 1–3 5–10 ≥50 Zoller et al., 1974
EF= MAlbackgroundsample
ðAlÞ
Average pollution index X=1n ∑n1 Pi <1 1 ≤ API < 3 API ≥6 Hakanson, 1980
Q 
Pollution load index X= n1 Pi 1/n 0 1 >1 Tomlinson et al., 1980
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

Nemerow pollution index <0.7 2.0–3.0 ≥3.0 Nemerow, 1985
1
n∑n Pi
2þP2 max
X= 1
2
Contamination ecological risk index (Ei) Ei= ∑ni¼1 Ti×Ci/Bi <150 150–300 300 – >1200 Hakanson, 1980

Synthesized potential ecological risk index (Er) Er=∑ni¼1 Ei <8 8–15 >15 Hakanson, 1980
Contamination Factor Cd = ∑Cfi; Cfi=CNi
CAi
1 <1 1≤ CI <3 ≥6 Hakanson, 1980
Ecological risk factor Eri = Tri. Cif <40 40–160 160 – ≥320 Hakanson, 1980

Table 1c
HPI used for water with their range.

Name of the index Equations Low Moderate High References

HPI ∑ni¼1 WiQi 25–50 51–100 >100 Mohan et al., 1996

HPI= ∑ni¼1 Wi

Qi ¼ ∑ni¼1 fMiðÞli
 100
Sili
g

PIG PIG=∑Ow; Ow = Wp × Sc 1–1.5 1.5–2.5 >2.5 Rao, 2012

n Hc
HEI HEI=∑i¼1 Hmac <400 400< HEI <800 >800 Edet and Offiong, 2002
PCA metal index (PMI) ∑ni¼0 VT
Vt
× FSi <13.5 13.5 to 34.7 >34.7 Giri and Singh, 2019
MI ∑ni¼1 ðMACÞi
Ci
 100 <0.3 0.3–4.0 4.0->6 Tamasi and Cini, 2004
Contamination index (CI) Cd ¼ ∑Cfi; Cfi ¼ CNi
CAi
1 ≤1 1–3 ≥3 Bokar et al., 2004
SPI ∑ni¼1 Vo
Vs  Wi; Wi ¼ Vs
K <150 150–300 >600 Solangi et al., 2019; Egbueri and Unigwe, 2019

Table 2a
Worldwide studies of heavy metal pollution indices in surface water.

Water body Indices used for surface water References

HPI PMI PIG HEI ERI MI SPI HI CI EWQI GWQI m-HPI NeI OIP

Surface √ Bhardwaj et al., 2017

Surface √ √ √ √ Xie and Ren, 2022; Caeiro et al., 2005
Surface √ Kumar et al., 2018c
Surface √ Tong et al., n.d
Surface √ √ √ √ Wagh et al., 2018
Surface √ √ √ √ Singh et al., 2019
Surface √ Milivojevic et al., 2016
Surface √ √ √ Prasanna et al., 2012
Surface √ √ √ Edet and Offiong, 2002
Surface √ Sahoo & Swain, 2020
Surface √ √ √ Hosseini et al., 2019
Surface √ Giri and Singh, 2014
Surface √ Mishra et al., 2017
Surface √ Madilonga et al., 2021
Surface √ √ √ Ali et al., 2017

Relationship among different HPIs
In the ground and surface water quality studies, HPI by Mohan
et al. (1996) has been used frequently by researchers as it is a simple
and easy to apply which is based on the sub‐index and weightage
method. The major drawback of the index is the use of ideal value
(Ii) and standard value (Si) for the index calculation. The standard
value represents the guidelines and values of water quality standards
given by the WHO or any Nation. However, the Si is not defined for
whether it should be the permissible or desirable value of the param-
eter. The second demerit of the index is that the Ii value can be manip-
ulated as per the requirement, and the value is not fixed for the
calculation (Singh et al., 2019). The HEI is another fruitful index
which has been frequently used by researchers to evaluate the metal
contamination in water (Ahamad et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2022).
It is easy to calculate and maximum admissible concentration of metals
has been defined clearly with no limitations in selection of number of
metals. The HEI range have large variation which is a key limitation of
the index (Edet and Offiong, 2002; Singh et al., 2017; Sahoo and
Khaosh, 2020; Ghaderpoori et al., 2018). Carcinogenic and non‐
carcinogenic health risk assessments due to heavy metals contamina-
tion were evaluated using hazard index (HI). Many researchers have
done studies on oral ingestion and dermal exposure of heavy metals
present in the surface and groundwater (Zakir et al., 2020; Mthembu
et al., 2020, Raja et al., 2021; Khan et al., 2021; Amin et al., 2021;
Egbueri, 2020; Ukah et al., 2019). The HI is used to calculation of

6
B. Prasad Ahirvar et al. Total Environment Research Themes 6 (2023) 100039

Table 2b
Worldwide studies of heavy metal pollution indices in groundwater.

water body Indices used for groundwater References

HPI PMI PIG HEI ERI MI SPI HI CI EWQI GWQI m-HPI NeI OIP

Groundwater √ Gad & El-Hattab, 2019

Groundwater √ √ √ √ Ahamad et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2022
Groundwater √ √ √ √ Egbueri, 2020
Groundwater √ √ √ √ √ √ Ukah et al., 2019
Groundwater √ √ √ √ √ Maskooni et al., 2020
Groundwater √ √ √ Selvam et al., 2015
Groundwater √ √ √ √ Rezaei et al., 2019
Groundwater √ √ Shankar, 2019
Groundwater √ Singh and Kamal, 2016
Groundwater √ Tiwari et al. 2016
Groundwater √ √ √ Vikrma and Sandhu. n.d
Groundwater √ √ √ Chaturvedi et al., 2018
Groundwater √ √ √ Kana, 2022
Groundwater √ √ √ Prasad et al., 2022
Groundwater √ √ √ Singaraja et al., 2015
Groundwater √ √ √ Venkatramanan et al., 2014
Groundwater √ √ Egbueri, 2019
Groundwater √ Solangi et al., 2019
Groundwater √ √ √ Egbueri & Unigwe, 2019
Groundwater √ Zakhem and Hafez, 2014
Groundwater √ Arslan et al., 2017
Groundwater √ √ Ghaderpoori et al., 2018
Groundwater √ √ √ Mazhar and Ahmad (2020)
Groundwater √ Mahato et al., 2017
Groundwater √ √ √ El-Hamid and Hegazy, 2017
Groundwater √ √ √ Chaturvedi et al., 2019
Groundwater √ Ukah et al., 2020
Groundwater √ √ √ √ Boateng et al., 2015
Groundwater √ √ Rezaei et al., 2017
Groundwater √ Matta et al., 2018

Common HPIs used for surface and groundwater

Groundwater and surface √ √ √ Bhuiyan et al., 2010
Supply √ √ Mukanyandwi et al., 2019
Surface and groundwater √ Arslan et al., 2017
Well water √ Mohan et al., 1996
Hand dug wells √ √ √ Egbueri et al., 2020a
Surface and groundwater √ Mgbenu and Egbueri (2019)
Groundwater √ Loen-Gomez et al. (2020)

chronic dose intake (CDI) which is based on metals concentration,
daily average intake of water, skin surface area, conversion factor,
absorption factor, permeability coefficient (in case of dermal), expo-
sure time, exposure frequency, exposure duration, body weight and
average time. All these factors value should be critically selected.
Many studies show a variation in the selection of CDI factor values
(Khan et al., 2021; Raja et al., 2021). This variation in the index will
impact the results of the carcinogenic and non‐carcinogenic health risk
assessment. However, PIG is an important index for the drinking
groundwater quality assessment with well‐defined range of index
(Egbueri, 2019; Rao, 2012; Egbueri et al., 2020b). This index is limited
to groundwater quality assessment which makes low preferred index
for the researchers.The contamination index (CI), MI and PMI are use-
ful index for the drinking water quality assessment. Large data sets can
be calculated in a quick manner by using these indices which is helpful
for the assessment of health implications due to metal contamination
(Mukanyandwi et al., 2019; Shankar, 2019; Vaiphei and Kurakalva,
2021). Due to deviation in selection of metals concentration in weigh-
tage method, complicated steps in calculation makes these indices less
useful. Among various indices used in water quality assessment indices
HPI, HEI and HI have been used widely due to precise scale, easy to
use, less limitations and provide efficient results.
Degree of contamination (Cd) is a common index for soil and sedi-
ment quality assessment originally developed by Backman et al
(1998). The index is based on calculation of contamination factor
(CF) using background value, use of normative value for metals pre-
sents in water and minus one (−1) in the final formula for the index
calculation which is complicated step (Hossain et al., 2020;
Moldovan et al., 2022; Edet and Offiong, 2002). However, there is
no limitation in selection of metals for the study which give complete
assessment of contamination. Assessment of the heavy metals content
of soil and sediments and their impact on the environment was also
done by various researchers using Igeo, EF, PLI, and RI (Calmuc
et al., 2021; Perumal et al., 2021; Astatkie et al.; 2021). Igeo is devel-
oped by Muller (1969) to evaluate the heavy metals contamination
in the sediments by using the present and pre‐industrial concentrations
of metals with their comparison (Qingjieet al., 2008). The index is cal-
culated using geochemical background or reference value, but it is not
uniform with the reference values of pre‐industrial, present value,
baseline value, and national criteria of metal concentration. The selec-
tion of the reference value of metals for the index calculation is a com-
plicated step and clearly not defined. However, EF was developed
initially for source identification of metals in the environment
(Zoller et al., 1974) and later extensively used for the study of lake

7
B. Prasad Ahirvar et al. Total Environment Research Themes 6 (2023) 100039

Table 3
HPI studies in soil and sediments.

Name of HPI Parameters selected Type of work References

ERI, Soil pollution indices Cd, Pb, Zn, Cu
PERI, Igeo Zn, Cr, Pb, Cu, Ni, Cd
CF, Igeo, EF, mCd, PLI, RI, HI Cd, Co, Cr, Fe,Mn, Ni, Pb, Zn
Igeo, ERI, CF, Cd, PLI, Fe, As, Pb, Cr, Cd, Co, Zn, Cu, Ni, Mn
Cd, Igeo, EF, PLI, PERI Dy, Pb, Sm, U, Ni, Cd, Cr, Se, Ba, Ti,
Mn, V, Sc, Zn, As, Rb, Te, Y, Yb, Fe,
Co, Cu, Al,
EF, CF, Igeo, PERI, modified pollution Cr, Ni, Fe, Co
index (MPI)
ERI, CF Cd, Pb, Zn, Co, Cr, Ni, Mn, Fe
IgeoINemerow, PI, ERI As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn
INemerow, IAverage, ERI, Igeo, Vector Ni, Pb, Zn, Cd, Co, Cu, Mn,
modulus, PLI
INemerow, IAverage, ERI, Igeo, Vector Hg, Pb, Mo, Ni, Zn, V, Mn, As, Cd, Cr,
modulus, PLI, IPI, CF, EF Cu
Igeo, CF, RI Cu, Cr. Pb, Co
Biogeochemical index, INemerow, NA
IAverage, ERI, Vector modulus, PLI,
CI, EF, CF etc.
CF, EF, ERI Fe, Cu, Cr, Co, Pb, Cd, As, Ni, Mn, Zn
Igeo, Nemerrow integrated pollution As, Pb, Cd, Zn, Cr, Ni, Cu, Hg
index (NIPI)
EF Cu, Cr, Cd, Pb, Ni, Co
EF, CF, RI Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn
Igeo CF, EF Al, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Sb, Co, Ba,
Zn, Rb, Cs, La, Ce, Sm, Eu, Yb, Ta, Hf,
Th and U
Igeo, CF, EF, modified pollution index Al, Fe, Mn, Sr, Ag, As, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu,
(MPI), PERI, Modified ecological Hg, Li, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Tl, U, V, Zn
risk (MRI)
RI, Igeo, PLI, EF Cd, Hg, Sb, As, Cu, Pb, Ni, Cr, Zn, Mn,
Tl
Igeo, EF, RI, MRI, CF Fe, Cu, Mn, Cd, Zn, Ni, Pb, Cr
NIPI, RI Cd, Pb,Cu, Cr, Zn
CF, Cd, PLI Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, Mn
CF, PLI As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb, Zn
Igeo, EF, CF Cu, Ni, Pb, Cd, Hg, Zn
CF, Igeo, Ipoll, RI, HI As, Cd, Cr, Ni, Pb
Igeo, Ipoll, RI, HI, PER Cd, Cr, Pb, Zn, Cu, Ni
EF V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Mo,
Ba, Hg, Pb
CF, EF, Igeo, PLI Co, Cu, Zn, Cr, Ni, As, Mn
CF, EF, Igeo, PLI Ti, Zr, Mn, Zn, Ba, Sr, Hf, Rb, V, Cr,
Pb, Ga, Ni, Cu, Th, Nb, Cd, U, Co, Sn,
Cs, Mo, Ta, Bi, Tl
Igeo, modified risk assessment code Cu, Pb, Cd, Zn, Cr
(mRAC)
Igeo, RI As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, Hg
INemerow, Igeo, RI, single factor index Cr, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, Pb, As, Hg
CF, EF, Igeo, PLI Cr, Ni, Cu, As, Cd, Pb
CF, EF, Igeo, PLI, Er Fe, Pb, Zn, Ni, Cr, Cd, Mn
Soil quality assessment in agricultural and urban land in terms Aksari et al., 2020
of heavy metal pollution
Assessment of soil quality of municipal dumping site with Ogundele et al., 2020
respect to ecological risk of heavy metals
Assessment of soil quality with respect speciation, Adebiyi and Ayeni, 2022
bioavailability and health risk of metals contamination around
petroleum product marketing
Assessment of heavy metals in soil and sediment using Abou El-Anwar, 2019
pollution indices
Pollution assessment in the sediment of the lake concerning to Shirani et al., 2020
metal contamination
Heavy metals contamination in urban soil: assessment of Moghtaderi et al., 2020
ecological risk and source attribution
Sediment quality assessment with respect to risk assessment, Amin et al., 2021
toxicity due to presence of heavy metals
Ecological risk assessment in soil and sediment of wetland Huang et al., 2020
Comparative study of some pollution indices used for soil Cai et al., 2015
quality assessment
Mini review on heavy metal pollution indices used for soil Weissmannova et al., 2017
quality assessment
Pollution assessment of roadside agricultural soil: A case study Dogra et al., 2019
Review on pollution indices used for metal contamination Kowalska et al., 2018
study on soil
A review on the metalloids pollution in worldwide Kumar et al., 2019a
agricultural soil concerning human health risk and ecological
risk assessment
Application of pollution indices in agricultural and urban in Shifaw, 2018
China
The risk of trace metal pollution in soil to human health has Jiang et al., 2016
been assessed
Evaluation of agricultural soil quality, metal contamination Heidari et al., 2019
and ecological risk
Study of heavy metal contamination in the sediment of Khan et al., 2020
polluted river with reference to metal source and ecological
risk
Comparative study of HPIs for the assessment of river Duodu et al., 2016
sediment quality
Evaluation of heavy metal contamination in paddy field soil Adlane et al., 2019
around the mercury mining area, southwest China
Review paper on metal contamination and environmental risk Kumar et al., 2020
assessment in Indian sediment
Assessment of soil pollution by using pollution indices with Jiang et al., 2014
respect to the potential of ecological risk
Assessment of heavy metals contamination of soil sediment of Moldovan et al., 2022
Aries River, Romania using pollution indices
Assessment of Ecological risk assessment due to heavy metals Liu et al., 2014
in agricultural soil: A review.
Evaluation of soil pollution along with SinuRiver basin, Marrugo-Negrete et al., 2017
Colombia
Soil pollution assessment around the industrial area of Mohammadi et al., 2019
Neyshabur, Iran
Heavy metals contamination assessment around the steel Qing et al., 2015
industry northeast, China
Risk of heavy metal contamination in soil of Yerevan, Armenia Tepanosyan et al., 2017
Heavy metal contamination assessment using multi-indices Varol, 2011
approach in river sediment of Turkey
Evaluation of heavy metal contamination in surface sediments Wang et al., 2016a
of Chaohu lake, China
Evaluation of heavy metal contamination using pollution Wang et al., 2016b
indices of Gorges reservoir, China
Review on heavy metals contamination in lakes sediment on Xu et al., 2017
the basis of previous literature
Soil quality assessment of lower section of Yellow River, China Zhang et al., 2018
using HPIs
Evaluation of water and sediment quality assessment Islam et al., 2014
concerning to metal contamination using pollution indices
Metal contamination in waste dumping site soil and ecological Ihedioha et al., 2016
and human health risk assessment

8
B. Prasad Ahirvar et al. Total Environment Research Themes 6 (2023) 100039

Table 3 (continued)
Name of HPI Parameters selected Type of work References

Nemerow composite pollution index
(NCPI), Crop pollution index (CPI)
Nemerow synthetical pollution index
(Pn), RI
Pollution index (PI), Integrated
pollution index (IPI)
Igeo, PLI, EF, CF, Er
Igeo
Igeo
Igeoand PERI
Physical index, biological index,
Chemical index, Comprehensive
ecological risk index (CERI),
CF, PLI, Igeo, EF
CF, PLI, Igeo, EF
INemerow
Igeo, EF, CF, ERI
CF, EF, PLI, Igeo
Igeo, CF, PLI, RI
CF, EF, Igeo, MPI, RI
CF, PLI, Igeo, Cd, Er, RI
Igeo, EF, bioaccumulation index (BCF)
CF, PLI, Igeo, Cd
Cr, Cd, Pb, Hg, As, Cu, Zn, Ni
Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn, As, Pb, Cd, Hg
Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb, Zn
Fe, Ni, Cr, Pb, Zn, As, Co, Al
Cu, Cr, Zn, Mn, As, Hg, Pb, Cd
Cu, Zn, Pb, Cd, Cr, As, Ni
Cu, Zn, Pb, Ni, Cr
As, Hg, Cd, Cr, Cu, Zn, Pb
Al, Fe, Tl, Mn, Ba, V, Cr, Zn, La, Ni, Pb,
Cd, Co, Cu
Ag, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Mo, Ni, Pb, Zn, B,
As
Be, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, Sn,
Sb, Pb
Cu, Cd, Cr, Ni, Zn, Pb, Co, Fe
Pb, Cd, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ni
Cd, Cu, Zn, Ni, Pb
Cd, Cr, Zn, Cu, Ni, Mn, Co
Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb
Fe, Cu, Zn, Cd, Pb, Hg
Zn, Cr, Ni, Pb, Hg, Cd
An integrated study on the impact of heavy metal on soil and Hu et al., 2017
plant with respect to human health risk
Assessment of soil pollution and metal contamination Huang et al., 2017
agricultural area of southeast China
Soil pollution assessment using stochastic site indicator He et al., 2018
Evaluation of surface soil quality with respect to metal Jain et al., 2019
contamination of Kulasi River.
Soil and sediment ecological geochemistry using different Qingjie et al., 2008
pollution indices
Assessment of surface sediment quality of Raohe basin, China Wei et al., 2019
using pollution indices.
Assessment of heavy metals concentration, speciation and Sun et al., 2018
ecological risk of sediment of Songhua River, China associated
with Petro-chemical industry
Heavy metal pollution and ecological risk evaluation of Bao et al., 2017
sediment from the Luanhe River in China.
Evaluation of heavy metal pollution in marine sediment Harikrishnan et al., 2017
Heavy metal pollution assessment of surface sediment Omwene et al., 2018
Mustafakemalpasa stream Turkey
Heavy metal pollution assessment of acid leaching site Quan et al., 2014
sediment
Pollution assessment of coastal sediment using multiple Saher and Siddiqui, 2016
indexing approach
Assessment of metal contamination in pond sediment by using Sarkar et al., 2010
multiple pollution indices
Heavy metal pollution assessment in sediment of DanubeRiver Calmuc et al., 2021
Romania by using quality pollution indices
Heavy metal pollution assessment of sediment of Beas River Kumar et al., 2018b
Trace element assessment in surface soil of industrial area Kanda et al., 2018
using different indices
Study of heavy metal pollution in the vicinity of a gold mine's Amoakwah et al., 2020
soil, water, and vegetation system
Heavy metals pollution evaluation around irrigated soil Andera et al., 2019
around Colombia

sediments, soil, and environmental materials (Reimann and de Caritat,
2005). The index is calculated using reference values which include
immobile element ratio and are limited to Al, Fe, Mn, Li, Ti, Sc, and
Na elements. The use of EF is advantageous as compared to Igeo with
respect to the identification of contamination sources of metals. As
per the index range, EF value ranges from 0.5 to 1.5 represents a nat-
ural cause of pollution, and with EF value >1.5, anthropogenic activ-
ity is responsible for metal contamination (Kowalska et al., 2018; Elias
and Gbadegesin, 2011; Zhang and Liu, 2002). The PLI is another index
that is widely used for sediment based on a single pollution index (PI).
The PI is calculated using analyzed metal concentration and geochem-
ical background (GB), and the final PLI is calculated using the geomet-
ric mean of PI (Kowalska et al., 2018; Tomlison et al., 1980). PLI
provides a simple, comparative means for evaluating the quality of soil
or sediment (Pobi et al., 2019). There are a few limitations of PLI, such
as does not require the variation of natural processes and not including
available heavy metals in the final calculation of the index (Kowalska
et al., 2018). The ecological risk index (RI) is widely used for the
assessment of heavy metal contamination in sediment with respect
to ecological risk, bioavailability, and metal toxicity (Hakanson
et al., 1980; Amin et al., 2021). The RI is calculated on the basis of
CF, ecological risk factor (Er), and toxicological response factor (Tr).
To calculate RI, the values of CF, Er, and Tr need to define for each
metal which is a complicated process. To rectify the issue, Kumar
et al. (2018b) modified the index and named the modified ecological
risk index (MRI), and used EF value instead of CF. Other indices,
PINemerow, SPI, PIsum, PIAvg, MSPI, and PIN have advantages such as,
easy to apply, use of metals species background, data dimension reduc-
tion. However, among these indices most of have not preferred due to
lack of precise scale (Shin and Lam, 2001; Qingjie et al., 2008;
Weissmannova and Pavlovsky, 2017; Kowalska et al., 2018).
There are similarities among indices and their calculation methods,
common characteristics, and different pollution statuses in soil and
sediments. Most of the index are based on reference or background
value, which distinguishes the natural and anthropogenic pollution
sources. Thus, the index calculation is mainly based GB (Kowalska
et al., 2016; Matschullat et al., 2000). Most of the studies used more
than one index for the pollution assessment. Every single index has a
significant relation with other indices in the same study. A study
was done by Abou El‐Anwar (2019) by using the CF, Igeo, EF, Er, Cd,
PLI, and PRI. The results show that Igeo, CF, Er, and Cd value gives
information about pollution status like low to moderate pollution
whereas PLI and PRI gives information about overall pollution(high
metal load and high ecological risk). Similarly, a study was carried
out by (Ahamad et al., 2020) in groundwater where, Igeo, CF, EF, Er,
and RI wereapplied for pollution assessment. The results show that
Igeo, CF, and EF have a similar trend (uncontaminated to low pollu-
tion). Hosseini et al., (2019) performed a pollution assessment in a
water reservoir and demonstrated that HPI, CI, and HEI had the same
result of low pollution. Dhari et al., (2018) studied Gabe’s catchment
sediment and used EF, PLI, Igeo, and sediment pollution index for
heavy metal assessment. The result revealed that the sediment pollu-
tion index and PLI have the same outcome (low to moderate pollu-
tion), the Igeo value shows low pollution, and EF gives intermediate

9
B. Prasad Ahirvar et al. Total Environment Research Themes 6 (2023) 100039

Table 4
Merits and demerits of different HPIs used in water, soil and sediment quality.

Index Merits Demerits References

WATER INDICES
HPI 1. Useful for surface as well for groundwater assessment 1. There are limitations in range of HPI 4, 5, 6
2. Widely used 2. Parameters can be manipulated
3. Simple and easy to calculate 3. Critical value set for drinking water is 100 but not defined
HEI 1. Easy to calculate 1. Variation in index range 16, 17
2. Maximum admissible concentration is defined clearly 2. Does not include weightage factor
3. No limitation in number of metals selection
HI 1. Useful index for health risk assessment 1. Complicated steps for final calculation 18, 19, 20,
2. Health implication of metals ingestion through oral and dermal can be 2. Variation in selection of CDI factors value 21
differentiated
3. Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk assessment can be differentiated
PIG 1. Simple to calculate 1. Limited to groundwater quality assessment 22, 23, 2
2. Specific index for drinking groundwater 2. Relative weight not defined
3. Index range is specified Widely not preferred
MI 1. Give quick results 1. Deviation in metal concentration 25, 26, 27
2. Easy to calculate 2. Low preference for the study
3. Useful for drinking water quality assessment
PMI 1. Large data sets can be calculated 1. Complicated to calculate 28
2. Statistical approach is key for calculation 2. Necessity of statistical software
3. Without Data standardization calculation is not possible
CI 1. Important index for water quality assessment 1. Complicated steps for index calculation 31, 32, 33
2. Frequently used 2. Metal concentration below the maximum admissible value not
3. Health implications due to metal contamination can be assessed considered
SINGLE INDICES
CF 1. Can be obtained by dividing the concentration of each metal 1. GB is not taken into consideration 1, 2
2. Representing the variations between sample and reference values 2. Necessity of pre-industrial reference values
3. Helpful to describe toxic metals 3. Does not mention the potential of heavy metals
EF 1. Widely used for the metal comparison 1. Pollution is measured by using reference value
2. Origin of metal can be assessed 2. The above un-contamination concentration is key for the
3. Anthropogenic impact can be evaluated assessment 15, 12, 10
4. Scale is very effective 3. Appropriate GB is key to metal pollution evaluation
PIT 1. Easy use to calculate 1. Does not include total metal availability and its mobility 34, 35
2. Every single metal considered for the calculation 2. Does not include reference metal ratio
3. Multielement approach is key characteristic 3. Not used widely
COMBINE INDEX

PINemerow 1. Widely used 1. Does not include weightage factor 1, 14, 15

2. Incorporates all individual elements 2. the metals must be ranked
3. brings out the elements that are the most contaminated 3. Complex index
PLI 1. Typically used to analyze metal contamination in top-soil 1. Variation of natural process is not necessary 12, 13, 10
2. Calculated in simple manner 2. Mostly used for sediment analysis
3. Applied world wide Scale is very usable 3. Appropriate GB is key to metal pollution evaluation
SPI 1. Useful for drinking water quality assessment 1. Widely not preferred 29,30
2. Physico-chemical parameters considered along with metal 2. Similarity with WQI calculation method

INTEGRATED INDICES
Cd 3. There are no limitations in number of heavy metals analysis 1. It’s not considered natural geochemical process 1
4. It assesses complete contamination factors 2. GB is not used
5. accurate index 3. Calculated on the basis of CF value
PERI 1. Useful index for assess the impact of metal contamination in ecological 1. Similar to Er 34, 35, 1
perspective 2. Does not consider metal availability and mobility in the
2. Calculated on the basis of ecological risk factor, pollution coefficient of single environment
elements, and toxic response factor of metals 3. Does not include reference metal ratio
3. Widely used
PIsum 1. Widely used 1. Lack of precise scale 10
Calculated by combining all metals 2. Inappropriate selection of background metal species may give
2. Selecting background of metal species is key for the calculation false result
PIAvg 1. The index is calculated on the basis of single pollution index (PI) and back- 1. It does not allow for different natural processes 1, 10, 34
ground of metal species 2. It does not allow metals concentration and availability
2. It allows for the identification of the contamination in respect to various 3. Lack precise scale
trace elements
3. Easy to calculate
PIWAvg 1. Based on PI value 1. Lack of precise scale 10, 34
2. Combines all metal for calculation 2. Widely not preferred
MSPI 1. Specific index for marine sediment quality assessment 1. Complex steps for calculation 36
2. Based on multivariate statistical analysis 2. Low preference in study
3. Data dimension can be reduced

10
B. Prasad Ahirvar et al.
Table 4 (continued)
COMBINE INDEX
PIN 1. Based on PI
2. Integration of all metals
3. Use of metals species background is key for the calculation
INDICES OF ECOLOGICAL RISK
ERI 1. Unique index in the perspective of the ecological impact of heavy metals
2. Toxicological effect can be measured using ERI
3. Widely used for natural water resources and aquatic pollution control
CSI 1. Calculated using multivariate statistical analysis
2. Source of contamination can be assessed
3. Metal toxicity and its adverse biological impact considered
MERMQ 1. Useful index for soil and sediment quality assessment
2. Large data set can be summarized into one index
3. Biological effect can be assessed
4. Potential hazards of soil quality can be assessed
RAC 1. Ecological risk due to weakly bound metals fraction with sediment can
determine
2. Provides real risk information
1.Kowalska et al., 2018; 2.Hakanson, 1980; 3. Egbueri, 2019; 4. Dash et al., 2019; 5. Mohan et al., 1996; 6. Sahoo and Swain, 2020; 10. Qingjie et al., 2008; 11.
Ololade, 2014; 12. Adlane et al., 2019; 13. Chen et al., 2015; 14. Inengite et al., 2015; 15. Hu et al., 2013; 16. Backman et al., 1998; 17. Edet and Offiong, 2002; 18.
Zakir et al., 2020; 19. Raja et al., 2021; 20. Khan et al., 2021; 21. Amin et al., 2021. 22. Egbueri, 2019; 23. Rao, 2012, 24. Kamaraj et al., 2021. 25. Mukanyandwi
et al., 2019. 26. Shankar, 2019. 27. Vaiphei and Kurakalva, 2021. 28. Giri and Singh, 2019. 29. Solangi et al., 2019. 30. Egbueri and Unigwe, 2019. 31. Egbueri,
2020. 32. Ukah et al., 2019. 33. Rezaei et al., 2019. 34. Weissmannova and Pavlovsky, 2017. 35. Nawrot et al. 2021. 36. Shin and Lam, 2001. 37. Gao and Chen,
2012. 38. Islam et al., 2016.
pollution status. In another study in the soil system, Igeo, CF, CI, RI, Er,
and INemerow index were used. The outcome revealed that CF and CI
show the same result (low contamination). RI and Igeo show a high
accumulation of metal and risk, While Er value show low to moderate
ecological risk (Ogundele et al., 2020). Kumar et al., (2019) have used
CF, EF, Er, and modified Er (mEr) to assess heavy metals in soil. The
result revealed that EF, Er, and mEr values show high metal pollution
and ecological risk, and CFshowed moderate metal contamination.
Huang et al., (2020) used Igeo, RI, and Nemerows synthetical contam-
ination index (PN) in the wetland system. They observed that the Igeo-
value showed low metal contamination, while RI and PN showed a
similar trend (moderate pollution). Salah et al., (2015) used HPI and
MI for groundwater pollution assessment, and both indices showed
identical results (severe contamination of heavy metals).
Rezaei et al., (2019) used HPI, HEI, Cd, m‐HPI for groundwater
quality assessment. The study results show Cd and HEI exhibited a sim-
ilar trend of low pollution and contamination for different sampling
sites. The value of HPI and m‐HPI also suggested the low pollution sta-
tus of groundwater. Another study in groundwater by Chaturvedi et al.
(2018) used HEI, HPI, and m‐HPI. The results show that HPI and HEI
values indicate low pollution status, and m‐HPI values show deficient
pollution status, suitable for drinking purposes. Dash et al., (2019)
used HMI, CI, HEI, and HPI for water quality assessment. HPI and
HEI show low pollution and contamination. At the same time, HMI
and CI show moderate pollution. Ukah et al., (2020) assessed ground-
water and used Igeo, EF, PIvector, and EWQI. The final value of indices
revealed that Igeo, PIvector show low contamination of metals Whereas,
EWQI and EF values indicatemoderate pollution. Rezaei et al., (2017)
used HPI and MI for groundwater quality assessment and observed
that both HPI values suggested moderate water pollution due to met-
als.Amoakwah et al., (2020) have applied Igeo, EF, and BCF for the
assessment of HMs pollution status in the soil, plant and well‐stream
water around the Artisanal gold mine of southern Ghana. The results
reveled that soil and sediment of the area is highly enriched of Cd
and mercury and Igeoand EF suggest anthropogenic input of HMs.
Pobi et al., (2019) used CF, Cd, Igeo, EF, PLI, and RI. The index value
of CF, Cd, and PLI showed high metal contamination in stream water.
11
Total Environment Research Themes 6 (2023) 100039
1. Less used for study 34, 35
2. Lack of precise scale
1. Limited for freshwater and sediment 2, 3
2. Some parameters like volume of algae water bodies, impact of
pH, alkalinity in toxicity has ignored
3. Complicated index
1. Widely not used 1, 34, 35
2. Weightage need to define for every individual element
3. Complicated to use
1. Effect range low (ERL) and effect range medium (ERM) value 37, 34,
needs for final calculation
2. Complicated to calculate
3. Not widely used
1. Time taking processes 38, 35
2. Less used in study
RI value showed high ecological risk, and Igeo, EF value showed the
moderate anthropogenic metal source. The Igeo and EF both indices
signify the degree of contamination concerning heavy metals. They
are also known as baseline indices because the amount of metal
released in the weathering process can be estimated concerning heavy
metals concentration.
Highlights of key characteristics of HPIs
• EF is mainly used for the source identification of metals, i.e., natu-
ral or anthropogenic (Zoller et al., 1974; Kowalska et al., 2018).
• EF value ranges from 0.5 and 1.5 indicate contribution of metal
from natural source, while EF values greater than 1.5 indicate-
sources of metal is anthropogenic origin (Nawrot et al., 2020;
Chen et al., 2015). The contributions of anthropogenic source rise
as the EF values increase.
• Igeovalue gives information about contamination levels in a particu-
lar system (water, soil, or sediments). From the Igeovalue research-
ers can compare the present and past status of metal contamination
level in the environmental system (Kowalska et al., 2018; Liu et al.,
2016).
• CF is as an effective technique to identify pollution in sediments
over time. It is calculated as the ratio of each metal in the particular
sample to the same metal's background values (Wang et al., 2016b).
• PLI is used to evaluate the heavy metal pollution status in sediment
and soil of a selected location (Jain et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2018;
Varol, 2011). It is an integrated index and gives overall contamina-
tion of heavy metal in studied area.
• HI is used to assess the carcinogenic and non‐carcinogenic effect of
all studied metals (Sharma et al., 2022; Khan et al., 2021; Laniyan
and Adewumi, 2021).
• MSPI is particular index for marine sediment quality assessment
and their ecological importance (Shin and Lam, 2001).
• ERI, Er are indices applied for ecological impact of quantified heavy
metals from soil and sediments (Kanda et al., 2018; Ihedioha et al.,
2016; Hu et al., 2013).
B. Prasad Ahirvar et al.
• Single pollution indices andintegrated indices are helpful to under-
stand the metal enrichment in soil. The integrated indices are cal-
culated as multi‐element approach based on single pollution
indices (Qingjieet al., 2008).
• For the quantitative assessment of metal pollution in sediments, EF,
PLI, and Igeo are applied. Geochemical background (GB) of metal is
important for Igeo, EF, PLI, and Isum. Selection of appropriate GB
provides metals quantification and characterization with good effi-
ciency. The only issue of GB is to which horizon or layer should be
used for the application of GB (Dung et al., 2013).
• The entropy water quality index (EWQI) and synthetic pollution
index are mainly used for drinking water quality assessment
(Egbueri and Unigwe, 2020).
• Environmental sensitive elements can be assessed by using pollu-
tion index (PI) and PIvector (Qingjie et al., 2008).
• The probability of toxicity (MERMQ) has been used to evaluate the
adverse effects of heavy metals in soil (Wu et al., 2017).
• Some indices use background scale values like EF, Igeo, SPI, and CF,
which differ from other indexes and values for pollution levels
(. Hence taking into consideration pollution Indices can be classi-
fied into 1) Single Index 2) Combine Index 3) Integrative Index
4) Available fraction.
Conclusion
The present study depicts various heavy metal pollution indices
developed by scientific and researcher communities for a better under-
standing of water and soil pollution due to natural or anthropogenic
activities. Separate indices have been developed for soil, water, and
sediments; however, using a multi‐indices approach to estimate heavy
metal concentrations in the ambient environment is more efficient.
During the last decade (2010–2020), some specific indices such as
EF, Igeo, CF, ERI, and PLI are mostly used for study of heavy metal con-
tamination in soil and sediment. Likewise, HPI, HEI, HI, andCd are
popularly used to estimate heavy metals contamination in fresh water
system. Total seventeen pollution indices and their ranges of contam-
ination level, applied in water,soil and sediments are discussed and
compared. The range of HPI provides the contamination status of
water and soil, whether it is low contaminated, moderately contami-
nated, or highly contaminated. However, there is uncertainty in the
range; different studies showed a diverse range for the same HPI.
i) The overall review reveals that plenty of metals can be esti-
mated through the HPI using a multi‐indices approach. It can
give individual metal impact or the sum of all metal's impact
on soil, water, and sediments.
ii) All aspects of metal contamination like speciation, toxicity, eco-
logical risk, and health issue due to metals can be investigated
by using HPI.
iii) While using more than one HPI in any study, all indices do not
give a similar result to the analysis.
iv) Among water quality indices HPI, HEI and HI have been used
widely due to precise scale, easy to use, less limitations and pro-
vide efficient results.
v) Among single indices, EF, Igeo, and CF are widely used and can
be used in a simple manner for soil quality assessment, whereas,
in composite indices, PLI and INemerow are found to be useful as
it is easy to apply and have precise scale. Among integrated
indices, Cd and IAvgare helpful as they are easy to apply, and
heavy metals have no limitations.
vi) Selection of appropriate geochemical background (GB) must be
established, and the nature of fluctuation in GB may give a false
result.
vii) Some indices do not include GB and cannot be applied to distin-
guish between the natural and anthropogenic sources of
contamination.
12
Total Environment Research Themes 6 (2023) 100039
viii) The widespread application of HPI makes the study more acces-
sible, and a well‐defined result can be presented.
ix) A comprehensive approach and guidelines for using metal pol-
lution indices in soil and sediment considering different sectors
may be developed for each nation.
Funding
This study was supported by DST‐SERB (Grant no: SERB/
F/343/2019‐2022).
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
Abolude, D.S., Davies, O.A., Chia, A.M., 2009. Distribution and concentration of trace
elements in Kubanni reservoir in Northern Nigeria. Res. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 1,
39–44.
Abou El-Anwar, E.A., 2019. Assessment of heavy metal pollution in soil and bottom
sediment of Upper Egypt: comparison study. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 43, 180. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s42269-019-0233-4.
Adebiyi, F.M., Ayeni, D.A., 2022. Chemical speciation, bioavailability and risk
assessment of potentially toxic metals in soils around petroleum product
marketing company as environmental degradation indicators. Petroleum Research
7, 286–296.
Adlane, B., Xu, Z., Xu, X., Liang, L., Han, J., Qiu, G., 2019. Evaluation of potential risks of
heavy metals in rice paddy soils around an abandoned Hg mine area in Southwest
China. Acta Geochim.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11631-019-00364-8..
Ahamad, A., Raju, N.J., Madhav, S., and Khan, A.H., 2020. Trace elements
contamination in groundwater and associated human health risk in the industrial
region of southern Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh, India. Environ. Geochem. Health.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-020-00582-7.
Aksari, M.S., Alamdari, P., Chahardoli, S., Afshari, A., 2020. Quantification of heavy
metal pollution for environmental assessment of soil condition. Environ. Monitoring
Assess. 192, 162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-8116-6.
Al-Anbar, R., Al Obaidy, A.H.M., Abd Ali, F.H., 2015. Assessment of heavy metals
pollution in soil affected by industrial activities. Eng. & Tech. Journal Part A. 33 (3).
Ali, A., Strezov, V., Wright, I., 2017. Environmental impact of coal mining and coal seam
gas production on surface water quality in Sydney basin. Australia. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 189, 408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6110-4.
Amin, S., Muhammad, S., Fatima, H., 2021. Evaluation and risk assessment of
potentially toxic elements in water and sediment of the Dor River and its
tributaries. North Pakistan. Environ Technol. Innov. 21, 101333.
Amoakwah, E., Ahsan, S., Rahman, M.A., Asamoah, E., Asamoah, D.K., Ali, M., Islam, K.
R., 2020. Assessment of heavy metal pollution of soil-water-vegetative ecosystems
associated with Artisanal Gold mining. Soil and Sediment Contamination: An.
International Journal.. https://doi.org/10.1080/15320383.2020.1777936.
Andera, M.E., Carolina, T.A., Jose, C.T., Luis, M.J., Carlos, G.L., 2019. Evaluation of
contaminants in agricultural soils in and irrigation district in Colombia. Heliyon. 5,
e02217.
Arslan, S., Yucel, C., Calli, S.S., and Celik, M., 2017. Assessment of heavy metal pollution
in the groundwater of Northern Develi Closed Basin, Kayseri, Turkey. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. DOI 10.1007/s00128-017-2119-1.
Astatkie, H., Ambelu, A., Mengistie, E., 2021. Contamination of stream sediment with
heavy metals in the Awetu watershed of southwestern Ethiopia. Frontiers in Earth
Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.658737.
Backman, B., Bodis, D., Lahermo., P., Rapant, S., and Tarvainen, T., 1998. Application of
a groundwater contamination index in Finland and Slovakia. Environ. Geol. 36, 1-2.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s002540050320.
Bao, K., Liu, J., You, X., Shi, X., and Meng, B.,2017. A new comprehensive ecological risk
index for risk assessment on Luanhe River, China. Environ. Geochem. Health. DOI
10.1007/s10653-017-9978-6.
Baran, A., Wieczorek, J., Mazurek, R., Urbanski, K., Klimkowicz-Pawlas, A., 2017.
Potential ecological risk assessment and predicting Zinc accumulation soil.
Environmental Geochemistry and Health 40, 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10653-017-9924-7.
Bhardwaj, R., Gupta, A., Garg, J.K., 2017. Evaluation of heavy metal contamination
using environmetrics and indexing approach for River Yamuna, Delhi stretches.
India. Water Sci. 31, 52–66.
B. Prasad Ahirvar et al.
Bhuiyan, M.A.H., Islam, M.A., Dampare, S.B., Parvez, L., Suzuki, S., 2010. Evaluation of
hazardous metal pollution in irrigation and drinking water system in the vicinity of
a coal mine area of northwestern Bangladesh. Journal of Hazardous Materials 179,
1065–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.03.114.
B.I.S., 2012. Indian Standard Specification for Drinking Water, IS:10500. New Delhi,
Bureau of Indian Standards.
Boateng, T.K., Opoku, F., Acquaah, S.O., Akoto, O., 2015. Pollution evaluation, source
and risk assessment of heavy metals in hand-dug wells from Ejisu-Juaben
Municipality. Ghana. Environ. Sys. Res. 4, 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-
015-0045-y.
Bokar, H., Jie, T., Nian-feng, L., 2004. Groundwater quality and contamination
index mapping in Changchun city. China. Chinese Geographical Science 14 (1),
63–70.
Caeiro, S., Costa, M.H., Ramos, T.B., Fernandes, F., Silveira, N., Coimbra, A., Medeiros,
G., Painho, M., 2005. Assessing heavy metal contamination in Sado Estuary
sediment: An index analysis approach. Ecological Indicators. 5, 151–169.
Cai, C., Xiong, B., Zhang, Y., Li, X., Nunes, L.M., 2015. Critical comparison of soil
pollution indices for assessing contamination with toxic metals. Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution 226, 352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-015-2620-2.
Calmuc, V.A., Calmuc, M., Arseni, M., Topa, C.M., Timofti, M., Burada, A., Iticescu, C.,
Georgescu, L.P., 2021. Assessment of Heavy Metal Pollution Levels in Sediments and
Ecological Risk by Quality Indices, Applying a Case Study: The Lower Danube River.
Romania. Water 13, 1801. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13131801.
Chaturvedi, A., Bhattacharjee, S., Singh, A.K., Kumar, V., 2018. A new approach for
indexing groundwater heavy metal pollution. Ecol. Ind, 323–331.
Chaturvedi, A., Bhattacharjee, S., Mondal, G.C., Kumar, V., Singh, P.K., Singh, A.K.,
2019. Exploring new correlation between hazard index and heavy metal pollution
index in groundwater. Ecological Indicators 97, 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolind.2018.10.023.
Chen, H., Teng, Y., Lu, S., Wang, Y., Wang, J., 2015. Contamination features and health
risk of soil heavy metals in China. The Science of the Total Environment 512–513,
143–153.
Chorol, L., Gupta, S.K., 2023. Evaluation of groundwater heavy metal pollution index
through analytical hierarchy process and its health risk assessment via Monte Carlo
simulation. Process. Saf. Environ. Protec. 170, 855–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psep.2022.12.063.
Dash, S., Borah, S.S., Kalamdhad, A., 2019. A modified indexing approach for
assessment of heavy metal contamination in DeeporBeel. India. Ecol. Ind. 106,.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105444 105444.
Dash, S., Borah, S.S., Kalamdhad, A.S., 2021. Heavy metal pollution and potential
ecological risk assessment for surficial sediments of DeeporBeel. India. Ecol. Indic.
122, 107265.
Dhari, N., Atoui, A., Ellouze, M., Abida, H., 2018. Assessment of streambed sediment
contamination by heavy metals: The case of the Gabes Catchment, southeastern
Tunisia. Afr. Earth Sci. 140, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jafrearsci.2017.12.033.
Dogra, N., Sharma, M., Sharma, A., Keshavarzi, A., Minakshi., Bhardwaj, R., Thukral, A.
K., andKumar, V., 2019. Pollution assessment and spatial distribution of roadside
agricultural soil: a case study from India. Int. J. Environ Health Res.https://doi.org/
10.1080/09603123.2019.1578865.
Dung, T.T.T., Cappuyns, V., Swennen, R., Phung, N.K., 2013. From geochemical
background determination to pollution assessment of heavy metals in sediments and
soils. Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology 12, 335–353. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11157-013-9315-1.
Duodu, G.O., Goonetilleke, A., Ayoko, G.A., 2016. Comparison of pollution indices for
the assessment of heavy metal in Brisbane River sediment. Environmental Pollution
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.09.008.
Edet, A.E., and Offiong, O.E., 2002. Evaluation of water quality pollution: A study case
from Akpabuyo-Basin (southwestern Nigeria). GeoJ.57, 295-304.
Egbueri, J.C., Unigwe, C.O., 2019. An integrated indexical investigation of selected
heavy metals in drinking water resources from a coastal plain aquifer in Nigeria. SN
Applied Sciences 1, 1422.
Egbueri, J.C., andUnigwe, C.O., 2020. Understanding the extent of heavy metal
pollution in drinking water supplies from Umunya, Nigeria: An indexical and
statistical assessment. Anal. Lett. DOI: 10.1080/00032719.2020.1731521.
Egbueri, J.C., Ezugwu, K.C., Ameh, P.D., Unigwe, C.O., Ayejoto, D.A., 2020a. Appraising
drinking water quality in Ikem rural area (Nigeria) based on chemometrics and
multiple indexical methods. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 192, 308.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08277-3.
Egbueri, J.C., Ukah, B.U., Obido, O.E., and Unigwe, C.O., 2020b. A chemometric
approach to source apportionment, ecological and health risk assessment of heavy
metals in industrial soils from southwestern Nigeria. Int. J. Environ. An. Ch.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2020.1769615.
Egbueri, J.C., 2019. Groundwater quality assessment using pollution index of
groundwater (PIG), ecological risk index (ERI) and Hierarchical cluster analysis
(HCA): A case study. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 10, 100292.
Egbueri,J. C., 2020. Heavy metals pollution source identification and probabilistic
health risk assessment of shallow groundwater in Onitsha, Nigeria. Analytical
Letters. https://doi.org/10.1080/00032719.2020.1712606.
El-Hamid, H.T.A., Hegazy, T.A., 2017. Evaluation of water quality indices for
groundwater resources of New Damietta. Egypt. MOJ Eco. Environ. Sci. 2 (6),
00045.
Elias, P., Gbadegesin, A., 2011. Spatial Relationships of urban land use, soils and heavy
metal concentrations in Lagos Mainland Area. Journal of Applied Science and
Environmental Management 15, 391–399.
13
Total Environment Research Themes 6 (2023) 100039
Gad, M., El-Hattab, M., 2019. Integration of water pollution indices and DRASTIC model
for assessment of groundwater quality in El Fayoum depression, western desert.
Egypt. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 158,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2019.103554
103554.
Gao, X., Chen, C.T., 2012. Heavy metal pollution status in surface sediments of the
coastal Bohai Bay. Water Research 46, 1901–1911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2012.01.007.
Ghaderpoori, M., Kamarehie, B., Jafari, A., Gadherpoury, A., Karami, M., 2018. Heavy
metals analysis and quality assessment in drinking water- Khorramabad city. Iran.
Data in Brief 16, 685–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.11.078.
Giri, S., Singh, A.K., 2014. Assessment of surface water quality using heavy metal
pollution index in Subarnarekha River. India. Water Qual. Expo. Health. 5,
173–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12403-013-0106-2.
Giri, S., Singh, A.K., 2019. Assessment of metal pollution in groundwater using a novel
multivariate metal pollution index in the mining areas of the Singhbhum copper
belt. Environment and Earth Science 78, 192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-
019-8200-9.
Guan, Y., Shao, C., Ju, M., 2014. Heavy metal contamination assessment and partition
for industrial and mining gathering areas. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 11, 7286–7303. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph110707286.
Hakanson, L., 1980. An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control: A
sedimentological approach. Water Research 14, 975–1001.
Harikrishnan, N., Ravishankar, R., Chandrasekaran A., Gandhi, M.S., Kanagasabapathy
K.V., Prasad M.V.R., and Satapathy K.K.,2017. Assessment of heavy metal
contamination in marine sediments of east coast of Tamil Nadu affected by
different pollution sources. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1-2(121):418-424.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.05.047.
He, J., Yang, Y., Christakos, G., Liu, Y., Yang, X., 2018. Assessment of soil heavy metal
pollution using stochastic site indicators. Geoderma 337, 359–367. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.09.038.
Heidari, A., Kumar, V., Keshavarzi, A., 2019. Appraisal of metallic pollution and
ecological risks in agricultural soils of Alborz province, employing contamination
indices and multivariate statistical analysis. International Journal of Environmental
Health Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2019.1677864.
Hossain, S.M.S., Haque, M.E., Pramanik, M.A.H., Uddin, M.J., Al Harun, M.A.Y., 2020.
Assessing the groundwater quality and health risk: A case study on Setabgunj sugar
mills limited, Dinajpur. Bangladesh. Water Sci. 34 (1), 110–123. https://doi.org/
10.1080/11104929.2020.1790184.
Hosseini, H., Shakeri, A., Rezaei, M., Barmaki, M.D., Mehr, M.R., 2019. Water chemistry
and water quality pollution indices of heavy metals: a case study of Chahnimeh
water reservoir. Southeast Iran. International Journal of Energy and Water
Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42108-019-00051-7.
Hu, Y., Liu, X., Bai, J., Shih, K., Zeng, E.Y., Cheng, H., 2013. Assessing heavy metal
pollution in the surface soils of a region that had undergone three decades of intense
industrialization and urbanization. Environmental Science and Pollution Research
20, 6150–6159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1668-z.
Hu, B., Jia, X., Hu, J., Xu, D., Xia, F., Li, Y., 2017. Assessment of heavy metal pollution
and health risk in the soil-plant-human system in the Yangtze River Delta, China.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 14, 1042. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph14091042.
Huang, Y., Chen, Q., Deng, M., Japenga, J., Li, T., Yang, X., He, Z., 2017. Heavy metal
pollution and health risk assessment of agricultural soils in a typical peri-urban area
in southeast China. J. Environ. Manag. 207, 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2017.10.072.
Huang, S., Shao, G., Wang, L., Wang, L., Tang, I., 2019. Distribution and health risk
assessment of trace metals in soils in the golden triangle of Southern Fujian province
China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health. 16, 97.
Huang, L., Rad, S., Xu, L., Gui, L., Song, X., Li, Y., Wu, Z., Chen, Z., 2020. Heavy metal
distribution, sourcesand ecological risk assessment in Huixian wetland. South
China. Water 12, 431. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020431.
Ihedioha, J.N., Ukoha, P.O., and Ekere, N.R., 2016. Ecological and human health risk
assessment of heavy metal contamination in a soil of municipal solid waste dump in
Uyo, Nigeria. Environ. Geochem. Health. DOI 10.1007/s10653-016-9830-4.
Inengite, A.K., Abasi, C.Y., Walter, C., 2015. Application of pollution indices for the
assessment of heavy metal pollution in flood impacted soil. Int. Res. J. Pure Appl.
Chem. 8, 175–189.
Islam, M.S., Ahmed, M.K., Raknuzzaman, M., Habibullah-Al-Mamun, M., Islam, M.K.,
2014. Heavy metal pollution in surface water and sediment: A preliminary
assessment of the urban river in a developing country. Ecological Indicators 48,
282–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.08.016.
Islam, M.N., Nguyen, X.P., Jung, H.Y., Park, J.H., 2016. Chemical speciation and
quantitative evaluation of heavy metal pollution hazard in two army shooting range
backstop soil. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 96,
179–185.
Jacob, J.M., Karthik, C., Saratale, R.G., Kumar, S.S., Prabakar, D., Kadirvelu, K.,
Pugazhendhi, A., 2018. Biological approaches to tackle heavy metal pollution: a
survey of literature. J. Environ. Manag. 217, 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2018.03.077.
Jain, C.K., Vaid, U., Sharma, S.K., Singh, S., 2019. Assessment of potentially toxic
elements contamination in surface soils of Kulsi River Basin in North East India. SN
Applied Sciences 1, 673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-0689-8.
Ji, Y., Yinchang, F., Jianhui, W., Tan, Z., Zhipeng, B., Chiquing, D., 2008. Using geo-
accumulation index to study source profiles of soil dust in China. Journal of
Environmental Sciences 20, 571–578.
B. Prasad Ahirvar et al.
Jiang, X., Lu, W.X., Zhao, H.Q., Yang, Q.C., Yang, Z.P., 2014. Potential ecological risk
assessment and prediction of soil heavy-metal pollution around coal gangue dump.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 14, 1599–1610. https://doi.org/
10.5194/nhess-14-1599-2014.
Jiang, Y., Chao, S., Liu, J., Yang, Y., Chen, Y., Zhang, A., Cao, H., 2016. Source
apportionment and health risk assessment of heavy metals in soil for a township in
province, China. Chemosphere 168, 1658–1668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2016.11.088.
Kamaraj, J., Sekar, S., Roy, P.D., Senapathi, V., Chung, S.Y., Perumal, M., Nath, A.V.,
2021. Groundwater pollution index (GPI) and GIS-based appraisal of groundwater
quality for drinking and irrigation in coastal aquifers of Tiruchendur, South India.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28, 29056–29074. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11356-021-12702-6.
Kana, A.A., 2022. Heavy metal assessment of groundwater quality in part of Karu.
Central Nigeria. Water Prac. Technol. 17 (9), 1802. https://doi.org/10.2166/
wpt.2022.102.
Kanda, A., Ncube, F., Hwende, T., and Makumbe, P., 2018. Assessment trace element
contamination of urban surface soil at informal industrial sites in a low-income
country. Environ. Geochem. Health.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-018-0127-7.
Keshavarzi, A., Kumar, V., Ertunc, G., Brevik, E.C., 2021. Ecological Risk assessment and
source apportionment of heavy metal contamination: An appraisal based on the
Tellus soil survey. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10653-020-00787-w.
Khan, R., Islam, M.S., Tareq, A.R.M., Naher, K., Towfiqul Islam, A.R.M., Habib, M.A.,
et al, 2020. Distribution, source and ecological risk of trace elements and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments from polluted urban river in central
Bangladesh. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 14,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enmm.2020.100318 100318.
Khan, R., Saxena, A., Shukla, S., Sekar, S., Senapathi, V., and Wu, J., 2021.
Environmental contamination by heavy metals and associated human health risk
assessment: a case study of surface water in Gomti River Basin, India. Environ. Sci.
Poll. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14592-0.
Kowalska, J., Mazurek, R., Gąsiorek, M., Setlak, M., Zaleski, T., Waroszewski, J., 2016.
Soil pollution indices conditioned by medieval metallurgical activity: A case study
from Krakow (Poland). Environmental Pollution 1–4 (218), 1023–1036.
Kowalska, J.B., Mazurek, R., Gasiorek, M., Zaleski, T., 2018. Pollution indices as useful
tools for the comprehensive evaluation of the degree of soil contamination- A
review. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-
018-0106-z.
Kumar, M., Furumai, H., Kurisu, F., Kasuga, L., 2013. Tracing source and distribution of
heavy metals in road dust, soil and soakaway sediment through speciation and
isotopic fingerprinting. Geoderma 211–212, 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.geoderma.2013.07.004.
Kumar, V., Sharma, A., Kumar, R., Bhardwaj, R., Thukral, A.K., and Rodrigo-Comino, J.,
2018. Assessment of heavy metal pollution in three different Indian water bodies by
combination of multivariate analysis and water pollution indices. Hum. Ecol. Risk
assess. .
Kumar, V., Sharma, A., Kaur, P., Sidhu, G.P.S., Bali, A.S., Bhardwaj, R., Thukral, A.K.,
Cerda, A., 2018b. Pollution assessment of heavy metals in soils of India and
ecological risk assessment: A state of the art. Chemosphere. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.10.066.
Kumar, V., Sharma, A., Minakshi, Bhardwaj, R., and Thukral, A.K., 2018b. Temporal
distribution, source apportionment, and pollution assessment of metals in the
sediments of Beas River, India. Hum. Ecol. Risk assess. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10807039.2018.1440529.
Kumar, V., Pandita, S., Sharma, A., Bakshi, P., Sharma, P., Karaouzas, I., Bhardwaj, R.,
Thukral, A.K., Cerda, A., 2019a. Ecological and human health appraisal of metal
(iods) in agricultural soils: a review. Geology, Ecology and Landscapes.. https://doi.
org/10.1080/24749508.2019.1701310.
Kumar, V., Parihar, R.D., Sharma, A., Bakshi, P., Sidhu, G.P.S., Bali, A.S., et al, 2019b.
Global evaluation of heavy metal content in surface water bodies: A meta-analysis
using heavy metal pollution indices and multivariate statistical analyses.
Chemosphere 236,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124364 124364.
Kumar, V., Sharma, A., Pandita, S., Bhardwaj, R., Thukral, A.K., Cerda, A., 2020. A
review of ecological risk assessment and associated health risks with heavy metals
in sediment from India. International Journal of Sediment Research. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijsrc.2020.03.012.
Laniyan, T.A., and Adewumi, A.J., 2021. Ecological and human health risk associated
with potentially toxic metals in water from Ijero mining area, Southwest Nigeria.
Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. .
Liu, G., Yu, Y., Hou, J., Xue, W., Liu, X., Liu, Y., Wang, W., Alsaedi, A., Hayat, T., and Liu,
Z., 2014. An ecological risk assessment of heavy metal pollution of the agricultural
ecosystem near a lead acid battery factory. Ecol. Ind. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2014.04.040.
Loen-Gomez, H.D., Campo-Delgado, M.A.M.D., Esteller-Alberich, M.V., 2020.
Assessment of nitrate and heavy metal contamination of groundwater using the
heavy metal pollution index: case study of Linares. Mexico. Environ. Earth Sci. 79,
433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-020-09164-3.
Loska, K., Wiechula, D., 2003. Application of principal component analysis for the
estimation of source of heavy metal contamination in surface sediment from the
Rybnik Reservoir. Chemosphere 51, 723–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-
6535(03)00187-5.
Lu, S.G., Bai, S.Q., 2009. Contamination and potential mobility assessment of heavy
metals in urban soils of Hangzhou, China: relationship with different land uses.
Environment and Earth Science 60, 1481–1490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-
009-0283-2.
14
Total Environment Research Themes 6 (2023) 100039
Maanan, M., Saddik, M., Maanan, M., Chaibi, M., Assobhei, O., Zourarah, B., 2015.
Environmental and ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in sediments of
Nador lagoon. Morocco. Ecol. Ind. 48, 616–626.
Madilonga, R.T., Edokpayi, J.N., Volenzo, E.T., Durowoju, O.S., Odiyo, J.O., 2021.
Water quality assessment and evaluation of human health risk in Mutangwi River,
Limpopo Province, South Africa. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health 18, 6765.
Mahato, M.K., Singh, G., Singh, P.K., Singh, A.K., and Tiwari, A.K., 2017. Assessment of
mine water quality using heavy metal pollution index in a coal mining area of
Damodar River basin, India. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. DOI 10.1007/s00128-
017-2097-3.
Manikandan, S., Chidambaram, S., Prasanna, M.V., Gayant, R.R., 2019. Assessment of
heavy metals pollution and stable isotopic signature in hard rock aquifers of
Krishnagiri district. South India. Geosciences. 9, 200. https://doi.org/
10.3390/geosciences9050200.
Marrugo-Negrete, J., Pinedo-Hernandez, J., Diez, S., 2017. Assessment heavy metal
pollution, spatial distribution and origin in agricultural soils along the Sinu River
Basin. Colombia. Environ. Res. 154, 380–388.
Maskooni, E.K., Naseri-Rad, M., Berndtsson, R., Nakagawa, K., 2020. Use of heavy metal
content and modified water quality index to assess groundwater quality in a
semiarid area. Water 12, 115. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12041115.
Matta, G., Kumar, A., Kumar, A., Naik, P.K., Kumar, A., Srivastava, N., 2018.
Assessment of heavy metals toxicity and ecological impact on surface water
quality using HPI in Ganga River. INAE Letters. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41403-
018-0041-4.
Mazhar, S.N., Ahmad, S., 2020. Assessment of water quality pollution indices and
distribution of heavy metals in drinking water in Ramganga aquifer, Bareilly district
Uttar Pradesh. India. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 10,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gsd.2019.100304 100304.
Mgbenu, C.N., Egbueri, J.C., 2019. The hydrogeochemical signatures, quality indices
and health risk assessment of water resources in Umunya district. Southeast Nigeria.
Appl. Water Sci. 9, 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-0900-5.
Milivojevic, J., Krstic, D., Smit, B., 2016. Assessment of heavy metal contamination and
calculation of its pollution index for Ugljesnica River. Serbia. Bull. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 97, 737–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-016-1918-0.
Mirzaei, M., Marofi, S., Solgi, E., Abbasi, M., Karimi, R., and Bakhtyari, H.R.R., 2019.
Ecological and health risks of soil and grape heavy metals in long term fertilized
vineyards (Chaharmahal and Bakhtiyari province of Iran). Environ.Geoch. Health.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-019-00242-5,-volV 0123458697.
Mishra, S., Kumar, A., Yadav, S.,and Singhal, M.K., 2017. Assessment of heavy
metal contamination in water of Kali River using principal component and
cluster analysis, India. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. DOI 10.1007/s40899-017-
0141-4.
Moghtaderi, T., Alamdar, R., Rodriguez-Seijo, A., Naghibi, S.J., Kumar, V., 2020.
Ecological risk assessment and source apportionment of heavy metal contamination
in urban soils in Shiraz. Southwest Iran. Arab. J. Geosci. 13, 797. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12517-020-05787-9.
Mohammadi, A.A., Zarei, A., Esmaeilzadeh, M., Taghavi, M., Yousefi, M., Yousefi, Z.,
Sedighi, F., Javan, S., 2019. Assessment of Heavy Metal Pollution and Human
Health Risk Assessment in Soils Around and Industrial Zone in Neyshabur. Iran.
Biol. Trace Elem. Res.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-019-01816-1.
Mohan, S.V., Nithila, P., Reddy, S.J., 1996. Estimation of heavy metals in drinking water
and development of heavy metal pollution index. Journal of Environmental Science
and Health, Part A 31 (2), 283–289.
Moldovan, A., Torok, A.I., Kovacs, E., Cadar, O., Mirea, C.I., Micle, V., 2022. Metal
Contents and Pollution Indices Assessment of Surface Water, Soil and Sediment from
the Aries River Basin Mining Area. Romania. Sustainability 14, 824. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su14138024.
Mthembu, P.P., Elumalai, V., Brindha, K., Li, P., 2020. Hydrogeochemical process and
trace metal contamination in groundwater: Impact on human health in the
Maputaland coastal Aquifer, South Africa. Expo Health 12, 403–426. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12403-020-00369-2.
Mukanyandwi, V., Kurban, A., Hakorimana, E., Nahayo, L., Habiyaremye, G., Gasirabo,
A., Sindikubwabo, T., 2019. Seasonal assessment of drinking water sources in
Rwanda using GIS, contamination degree (Cd), and metal index (MI).
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 191, 734. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10661-019-7757-9.
Muller, G., 1969. Index of geo-accumulation in sediments of the Rhine River. GeoJ. 2,
108–118.
Nawrot, N., Wojciechowska, E., Matej-Łukowicz, K., Walkusz-Miotk, K., 2020. Spatial
and Vertical distribution analysis of heavy metals in urban retention tank sediments:
a case study of Strzyza Stream. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 42,
1469–1485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-019-00439-8.
Nawrot, N., Wojciechowska, E., Mohsin, M., Kuittinen, S., Pappinen, A., and Rezania, S.,
2021. Trace metal contamination of bottom sediments: A review of assessment
measure and geochemical background determination method. Minerals. 11, 872.
https://doi.org/10.3390/min11080872.
Nemerow, N.L., 1985. Stream, Lake, Estuary and Ocean pollution. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Publishing Company, New York.
Ogundele, L.T., Ayeku, P.O., Adebayo, A.S., Olufemi A.P.,and Adejoro I.A., 2020.
Pollution indices and potential ecological risk of heavy metals in soil: A case study
of municipal wastes site in Ondo State, Nigeria. Polytechnica. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s41050-020-00022-6.
Ololade, I.A., 2014. An assessment of heavy-metal contamination in soils within auto-
mechanic workshops using enrichment and contamination factors with geo-
accumulation indexes. Journal of Environmental Protection 5, 970–982.
B. Prasad Ahirvar et al.
Omwene, P.I., Oncel, M.S., Celen, M.,and Kobya, M., 2018. Heavy metal pollution and
spatial distribution in surface sediments of Mustafakemalpasa stream located in the
world’s largest borate basin (Turkey). Chemosphere, 208,782-792.https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.06.031.
Pandit, P., Mangala, P., Saini, A., Bangotra, P., Kumar, V., Mehra, R., Ghosh, D., 2020.
Radiological and pollution risk assessments of terrestrial radionuclides and heavy
metals in a mineralized zone of the siwalik region (India). Chemosphere 254,.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126857 126857.
Pejman, A., Bidhendi, G.N., Ardestani, M., Saeedi, M., Baghvand, A., 2015. A new index
for assessing heavy metals contamination in sediments: a case study. Ecological
Indicators 58, 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.012.
Perumal, K., Antony, J., Muthuramalingam, S., 2021. Heavy metal pollutants and their
spatial distribution in surface sediments from Thondi coast, Palk Bay. South India.
Environmental Sciences Europe 33 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-021-
00501-2.
Pobi, K.K., Satpati, S., Dutta, S., Nayek, S., Saha, R.N., Gupta, S., 2019. Sources
evaluation and ecological risk assessment of heavy metals accumulated with in a
natural stream of a Durgapur industrial zone, India by using multivariate analysis
and pollution indices. Applied Water Science 9, 58. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13201-019-0946-4.
Prasad, M., Aswal, R.S., Joshi, A., Kumar, A., Rambola, R.C., 2022. A systematic study on
occurrence, risk estimation and health implications of heavy metals in potable water
from different sources of Garhwal Himalaya. India. Sci. Repo. 12, 20419. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-24925-9.
Prasanna, M.V., Praveena, S.M., Chidambaram, S., Nagarajan, R., Elayaraja, A., 2012.
Evaluation of water quality pollution indices for heavy metal contamination
monitoring: A case study from Curtin Lake, Miri city. East Malaysia. Environ. Earth
Sci. 67, 1987–2001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-1639-6.
Qing, X., Yutong, Z., Shenggao, L., 2015. Assessment of heavy metal pollution and
human health risk in urban soils of steel industrial city (Anshan), Liaoning,
Northeast China. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 120, 377–385. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.06.019.
Qingjie, G., Jun, D., Yunchuan, X., Qingfei, W., Liqiang, Y., 2008. Calculation pollution
indices by heavy metals in ecological geochemistry assessment and a case study in
parks of Beijing. Journal of China University of Geosciences 3 (19), 230–241.
Quan, S.X., Yan, B., Lei, C., Yang, F., Li, N., Xiao, X.M., Fu, J.M., 2014. Distribution of
heavy metal pollution in sediments from an acid leaching site of e-waste. The
Science of the Total Environment. 499, 349–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2014.08.084.
Raja, V., Lakshmi, R.V., Sekar, C.P., Chitambaram, S., Neelakantan, M.A., 2021. Health
risk assessment of heavy metals in groundwater of Industrial Township
Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu. India. Arch. Environ. Contam. Technol. 80, 144–163.
Rao, S.N., Chuadhary, M., 2019. Hydro-geochemical process regulating the spatial
distribution of groundwater contamination, using pollution index of groundwater
(PIG) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA): a case study. Groundw. Sustain. 9,.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2019.100238 100238.
Rao, S.N., Sunitha, B., Rambabu, R., Rao, P.V.N., Rao, P.S., Spandana, B.D., Sravanthi,
M., Marghade, D., 2018. Quality and degree of pollution of groundwater, PIG from a
rural part of Telangana. State of India. Appl. Water Sci. 8, 227. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13201-018-0864-x.
Rao, S.N., 2012. PIG: a numerical index for dissemination of groundwater
contamination zones. Hydrol. Process. 26, 3344–3350. https://doi.org/10.1002/
hyp.8456.
Reimann, C., de Caritat, P., 2005. Distinguishing between Natural and Anthropogenic
sources for elements in the Environment: Regional Geochemical Surveys versus
Enrichment Factor. The Science of the Total Environment 337, 91–107.
Rezaei, A., Hassani, H., and Jabbari, N., 2017. Evaluation of groundwater quality and
assessment of pollution indices for heavy metals in North of Isfahan Province, Iran.
Water Resour. Manag. DOI 10.1007/s40899-017-0209-1.
Rezaei, A., Hassani, H., Hassani, S., Jabbari, N., Fard, M., Seyedeh, B., Rezaei, S., 2019.
Evaluation of groundwater quality and heavy metal pollution indices in Bazman
basin, southeastern Iran. Groundw. Sustain. 9,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gsd.2019.100245 100245.
Saher, N.U., Siddiqui, A.S., 2016. Comparison of heavy metal contamination during the
last decade along the coastal sediment of Pakistan: Multiple pollution indices
approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2016.02.012.
Sahoo, S., Khaoash, S., 2020. Impact assessment of coal mining on groundwater
chemistry and its quality from Brajrajnagar coal mining area using indexing models.
Journal of Geochemical Exploration 215,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gexplo.2020.106559 106559.
Sahoo, B.P., Sahu, H.B., 2022. Assessment of metal pollution on surface water using
pollution indices and multivariate statistics: a case study of Talcher coalfield area.
India. Appl Water Sci 12, 223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-022-01743-y.
Sahoo, M.M., Swain, J.B., 2020. Modified heavy metal pollution index (m-HPI) for
surface water quality in river basins, India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11356-020-08071-1.
Salah, E. A. M., Al-Hitti, I. K., Alessawi, K.A., 2015. Assessment of heavy metals
pollution in Euphrates River water, Amiriyah Fallujah, Iraq. Environ. Earth Sci. 5
(15), 2225-0948.
Sarkar, S., Ghosh, P.B., Sil, A.K., Saha, T., 2010. Heavy metal pollution assessment
through comparison of different indices in sewage fed fishery pond sediments at
East Kolkata Wetland. India. Environ. Earth Sci. 63, 915–924. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12665-010-0760-7.
15
Total Environment Research Themes 6 (2023) 100039
Selvam, S., Venkatramanan, S., and Singaraja, C., 2015. A GIS-based assessment of water
quality pollution indices for heavy metal contamination in Tuticorin Corporation,
Tamilnadu, India. Arab J. Geosci. DOI 10.1007/s12517-015-1968-3.
Setia, R., Dhaliwal, S.S., Singh, R., Kumar, V., Taneja, S., Kukal, S.S., Pateriya, B., 2020.
Impact assessment of metal contamination in surface water of Sutlej River (India) on
human health risks. Environ. Pollut. 265,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2020.114907 114907.
Shankar, B.S., 2019. A critical assay of heavy metal pollution index for the groundwater
of Peenya industrial area, Bangalore. India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 191, 289.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7453-9.
Sharma, K., Raju, N.J., Singh, N., Sreekesh, S., 2022. Heavy metal pollution in
groundwater of Urban Delhi environs: Pollution Indices and health risk assessment.
Urban Climate 45, 101233.
Shifaw, E., 2018. Review of heavy metals pollution in China in agricultural and urban
soils. J. Health and Pollution 18, 180607.
Shin, P.K.S., Lam, W.K.C., 2001. Development a Marine Sediment Pollution Index.
Environ. Poll. 113, 281–291.
Shirani, M., Afzali, K.N., Jahan, S., Strezov, V., Soleimani-Sardo, M., 2020. Pollution and
contamination assessment of heavy metals in the sediments of Jazmurian playa in
southeast Iran. Scientific Reports 10, 4775. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-
61838-x.
Singaraja, C., Chidambaram, S., Srinivasamoorthy, K., Anandhan, P., and Selvam, S.
2015. A study on assessment of credible source of heavy metal pollution
vulnerability in groundwater of Thoonthkundi district, Tamil Nādu, India. Water
Qual. Expo. Health. DOI 10.1007/s12403-015-0162-x.
Singh, G., and Kamal, R. K., 2016. Heavy metal contamination and its indexing approach
for groundwater of Goa mining region, India. Appl. Water Sci. DOI 10.1007/
s13201-016-0430-3.
Singh, S.K., Srivastava, P.K., Singh, D., Han, D., Gautam, S.K.,and Pandey, A.C., 2014.
Modeling groundwater quality over a humid subtropical region using numerical
indices, earth observation data sets, and X-ray diffraction technique: a case study of
Allahabad district, India. Environ. Geochem. Health. DOI 10.1007/s10653-014-
9638-z.
Singh, K.R., Dutta, S., Kalamdhad, A.S., Kumar, B., 2019. Review of existing heavy metal
contamination indices and development of an entropy based improved indexing
approach. Environ. Dev. Sustain.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00549-4.
Solangi, G.S., Siyal, A.A., Babar, M.M., Siyal, P., 2019. Application of water quality
index, Synthetic pollution index, and geospatial tools for the assessment of drinking
water quality in the Indus Delta. Pakistan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 191, 431. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7861-x.
Sun, C., Zhang, Z., Cao, H., Xu, M., Xu, L., 2018. Concentration, speciation and
ecological risk of heavy metal in the sediment of the Songhua River in an urban area
with petrochemical industries. Chemosphere. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2018.12.040.
Taiwo, A.M., Michael, J.O., Gbadebo, A.M., 2019. Pollution and health risk assessment
of road dust from Osogbo metropolis, Osun state, southwestern Nigeria. Hum. Ecol.
Risk Assess.. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807 039.2018.15634 78.
Tamasi, G., Cini, R., 2004. Heavy metals in drinking waters from Mount Amiata
(Tuscany, Italy). Possible risks from arsenic for public health in the province of
Siena. The Science of the Total Environment 327, 41–51.
Tepanosyan, G., Sahakyan, L., Belyaeva, O., Maghakyan, N., Saghatelyan, A., 2017.
Human health risk assessment and riskiest heavy metal origin identification in
urban soils of Yerevan. Armenia. Chemosphere. 184, 1230–1240. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.06.108.
Tiwari, A.K., Singh, P.K., Singh, A.K., Maio, M.D., 2016. Estimation of heavy metal
contamination in groundwater and development of a heavy metal pollution index by
using GIS technique. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-016-1750-6.
Tomlinson, D.L., Wilson, J.G., Harris, C.R., and Jeffey, D.W., 1980. Problems in the
assessment of heavy metal levels in estuaries and the formation of a pollution index.
HelgolanderMeeresuntersuchungen, 33, 566-575. https ://doi.org/10.1007/BF024
14780.
Tong, S., Li, H., Tudi, M., Yuan, X., and Yang, L., Comparison of characteristics, water
quality and health risk assessment of trace elements in surface water and
groundwater in China. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 219:112283.
Ukah, B.U., Egbueri, J.C., Unigwe, C.O., and Obido, O.E., 2019. Extent of heavy metals
pollution and health risk assessment of groundwater in a densely populated
industrial area, Lagos, Nigeria. Int. J. Water Res.https://doi.org/10.1007/s42108-
019-00039-3.
Ukah, B.U., Ameh, P.D., Egbueri, J.C., Unigwe, C.O., and Ubido, O.E., 2020. Impact of
effluent derived heavy metals on the groundwater quality in Ajao industrial area,
Nigeria: an assessment using entropy water quality index (EWQI). Int. J. Water Res.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42108-020-00058-5.
Vaiphei, S.P., Kurakalva, R.M., 2021. Comprehensive assessment of groundwater quality
using heavy metal pollution indices and geospatial technique: a case study from
Wanaparthy watershed of upper Krishna River basin, Telangana. India. Environ.
Earth Sci. 80, 594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-021-09794-1.
Varol, M., 2011. Assessment of heavy metal contamination in sediments of the Tigris
River (Turkey) using pollution indices and multivariate statistical techniques.
Journal of Hazardous Materials 195, 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2011.08.051.
Venkatramanan, S., Chung, S.Y., Kim, T.H., Prasanna, M.V., and Hamm, S.Y., 2014.
Assessment and distribution of metal contamination in groundwater: A case study of
Basun city, Korea. Water Qual. Expo. Health. DOI 10.1007/s12403-014-0142-6.
B. Prasad Ahirvar et al.
Vikrma, A., Sandhu, H.A.S. Health Risk Assessment of Gurdaspur, Punjab, India Using
Field Experiments and GIS: A Groundwater Perspective. J Geol Soc India 98,
933–936 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-022-2097-8.
Wagh, V.M., Panaskar, D.B., Mukate, S.V., Gaikwad, S.K., Muley, A.A., and Varade A.M.
(2018). Health risk assessment of heavy metal contamination in groundwater of
Kadava River basin, Nashik, India. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40808-018-0496-z.
Wang, H., Wang, J., Liu, R., Yu, W., Shen, Z., 2015. Spatial variation, environmental risk
and biological hazard assessment of heavy metals in surface sediments of the
Yangtze River estuary. Mar. Pollut. Bull.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2015.01.026.
Wang, J.-Z., Peng, S.-C., Chen, T.-H., Zhang, L., 2016a. Occurrence, source identification
and ecological risk evaluation of metal elements in surface sediment: toward a
comprehensive understanding of heavy metal pollution in Chaohu Lake, Eastern
China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23, 307–314. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11356-015-5246-4.
Wang, T., Pan, J., Liu, X., 2016b. Characterization of heavy metal contamination in the
soil and sediment of the Three Gorges Reservoir, China. J. Environ. Sci. Health A.1-
9.. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2016.1246931.
Wei, J., Duan, M., Li, Y., Nwankwegu, A.S., Ji, Y., Zhang, J., 2019. Concentration and
pollution assessment of heavy metals within surface sediments of the Raohe Basin.
China. Sci. Rep. 9, 13100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49724-7.
Weissmannova, H.D., Pavlovsky, J., 2017. Indices of soil contamination by heavy
metals- methodology of calculation for pollution assessment (minireview).
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 189, 616. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10661-017-6340-5.
WHO, 2011. Guidelines for drinking water quality, 4thedn. World Health Organization,
Geneva.
16
Total Environment Research Themes 6 (2023) 100039
Wu, P., Yin, A., Yang, X., Zhang, H., Fan, M., Gao, C., 2017. Toxic elements in the stream
sediments of an urbanized basin, Eastern China: urbanization greatly elevates their
adverse biological effects. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 189, 167.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-5887-5.
Xie, Q., Ren, B., 2022. Pollution and risk assessment of heavy metals in Rivers in the
antimony capital of Xikuangshan. Sci. Repo. 12, 14393.
Xu, Y., Wu, Y., Han, J., andLi, P.,, 2017. The current status of heavy metal in lake
sediments from China: Pollution and ecological risk assessment. Ecology and
Evolution 7, 5454–5466. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3124.
Zakhem, B.A., Hafez, R., 2014. Heavy metal pollution index for groundwater quality in
Damascus Oasis, Syria. Environment and Earth Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12665-014-3882-5.
Zakir, H.M., Sharmin, S., Akter, A., Rahman, M.S., 2020. Assessment of health risk of
heavy metals and water quality indices for irrigation and drinking suitability of
waters: a case study of Jamalpur Sadar area. Bangladesh. Environmental Advances
2, 100005.
Zhang, J., Liu, C.L., 2002. Riverine composition and estuarine geochemistry of
particulate metals in China: Weathering features, anthropogenic impact and
chemical fluxes. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science 54, 1051–1070.
Zhang, P., Qin, C., Hong, X., Kang, G., Qin, M., Yang, D., Pang, B., Li, Y., He, J., andDick,
R.P.,, 2018. Risk assessment and source analysis of soil heavy metal pollution from
lower reaches of Yellow River irrigation in China. The Science of the Total
Environment 633, 1136–1147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.228.
Zoller, W.H., Galdney, E.S., and Duce, R.A., 1974. Atmospheric concentrations and
sources of trace metals in the South Pole. Science. 183. 198-200. https ://doi.org/
10.1126/scien ce.183.4121.198.