Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Environ Monit AssessDOI 10.1007/s10661-009-1265-2
Seasonal and spatial variation of Yamuna Riverwater quality in Delhi, India
Papiya Mandal · Rahul Upadhyay · Aziz Hasan
Received: 4 August 2009 / Accepted: 3 December 2009© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract Yamuna river pollution has been exten-sively studied with regard to some selected pa-rameters in five locations at Palla, NizamuddinMidstream, Nizamuddin Quarter Stream, AgraCanal Midstream, and Agra Canal Quarter Streamin Delhi, India. Seasonal and location-wise varia-tion of pollutants namely dissolve oxygen (DO),biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemicaloxygen demand (COD), total Kjeldahl nitrogen(TKN), ammonia (AMM), total coliform and fe-cal coliform were studied for 6 years during theperiod of 2000–2005. The study results revealedthe lowest level of pollution during monsoon. The
P. Mandal (B)Delhi Zonal Laboratory,Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR),National Environmental Engineering ResearchInstitute, CSIR Building, A-93/94, Phase I,Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi 110 028, Indiae-mail: papiya.mandal [email protected],[email protected], [email protected]
R. UpadhyayS S L Jain PG Collage,Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh, Indiae-mail: [email protected]
A. HasanAnalytical Instruments Division, NEERI, CSIR,Nehru Marg, Nagpur 440 020, Indiae-mail: [email protected]
statistical analysis revealed a positive correlationbetween DO, BOD, COD, TKN, and AMM.
Keywords Spatial variation · Water quality ·Yamuna River · Pollution · Correlations ·Regression
Introduction
It is well known that clean water is absolutelyessential for several purposes for healthy living.The river Yamuna is subjected to multiple usesfor community water supply, irrigation, industrialwater supply, bathing, and disposal of sewageand industrial effluents. It is an only natural re-source for sustaining all forms of life in Delhi, butperennial increase of population and urban activ-ities in Delhi are placing tremendous pressuresand demands on this natural resource. There isa heavy pressure of water supply and sanitationon river Yamuna in Delhi. The chemistry of riverwaters is dictated by supply of various elementsfrom both natural and anthropogenic sources(Krishnaswami and Singh 2005). Rainfall plays anactive role for changing the water quality of theriver Yamuna. The climate of the Delhi regionis semiarid type with three defined seasons, e.g.,winter, summer, and monsoon. The annual av-erage temperature recorded in Delhi is usuallybetween 31.5◦C based on records over the period
Environ Monit Assess
of 70 years maintained by the MeteorologicalDepartment. Delhi receives a total rainfall around611.8 mm/year of which 87% of annual rainfallis received during monsoon month June to Sep-tember (CSE 2008). Monthly rainfall intensity ofDelhi city is shown in Fig. 1. River water qualityis the composite of several interrelated parame-ters which are subjected to local and temporalvariations and also affected by volume of wa-ter flow and discharge rates. River water qual-ity study is usually required for stabilizing baseline conditions, setting quality criteria, and stan-dards (Ahmed 2004). Yamuna river pollution inDelhi stretch is gaining interest to Delhi habitantsbecause of their public health impact and otherissues. In order to study the effect of wastewa-ter disposal on river Yamuna, continuous moni-toring and assessment are required. The CentralPollution Control Board (CPCB) has carriedout routine monitoring of Yamuna water qualitystudy on monthly basis during the period from2000 to 2005. The paper will meet the followingobjectives.
• To assess the monthly/seasonal variation of se-lected parameters like dissolve oxygen (DO),chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemicaloxygen demand (BOD), total Kjeldahl nitro-gen (TKN), ammonia (AMM), total coliform
(TC), and fecal coliform (FC) at five selectedlocations namely Palla, Nizamuddin MidStream (NMS), Nizamuddin Quarter Stream(NQS), Agra Canal Midstream (ACMS), AgraCanal Quarter Stream (ACQS)
• To prepare the comparative statements of in-terrelationship of the selected parameters
• To compare the results with standards
In this paper, an attempt has been taken to studythe monthly/seasonal and spatial variation of wa-ter quality of river Yamuna. The sampling loca-tion has been identified in Fig. 2.
Materials and methods
The various water quality analyses were carriedout following the 20th edition of the StandardMethods for Examination of Water and Wastewa-ter, published by APHA, AWWA, WEF (1998).Parameter-wise measurement methods are de-scribes in Table 1. The site descriptions are asgiven below.
Pearson’s correlation and regression were usedto detect linear correlations and regressions be-tween selected parameters. Table 2 shows summa-rized location-wise correlation and regression ofselected parameters.
Fig. 1 Monthly rainfallintensity of Delhi City
4.314.5 13.2 9.9 5.5 9.2
38.8
191.6197.4
105.3
19.3
2.80
50
100
150
200
250
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
Rai
nfa
ll (m
m)
Month
Rainfall in Delhi
Av.Annual rainfall
Environ Monit Assess
Fig. 2 Sampling locationof River Yamuna at Delhistretch
Site descriptions
The monitoring sites were selected by CPCB onthe basis of need and potential of water qualityimport or pollution load transported, respectively.
• Palla: About 15 km upstream from Wazirabadbarrage near cremation ground. Sampling atthis location reflects the water quality beforereceiving the wastewater discharges fromDelhi and raw water quality for Delhi’s wa-ter supply. Water quality at this location alsoreflects the impact of domestic and industrialdischarges from Sonepat District of Haryana.
• Nizamuddin Bridge Midstream and Nizamud-din Bridge Quarter Stream: 13 km down-stream from Wazirabad barrage (near SaraiKale Khan bus stand) at Delhi—Ghaziabad
(Noida) Road Bridge on Yamuna River. Thewater quality at this location reflects the im-pact of wastewater discharge. NizamuddinBridge Midstream and Nizamuddin BridgeQuarter Stream were within few meters.These two sampling locations have been cho-sen for accuracy of pollution load at selectedstretch.
• Agra Canal Midstream and Agra CanalQuarter Stream: 24 km downstream fromWazirabad barrage and East of Delhi–Agranational highway near Madanpur Khaddar vil-lage. The water quality at this location re-flects the impact of discharge of treated andpartially treated effluents from Okhla Sewagetreatment Plant. Agra Canal Midstream andAgra Canal Quarter Stream were within fewmeters. These two sampling locations have
Table 1 Parameter-wisemeasurement methods
Parameters Unit Measurement methods
Dissolved oxygen (DO) mg/L Winkler modified methodBiochemical oxygen demand (BOD) mg/L DO consumption in 3 days at 27◦CChemical oxygen demand (COD) mg/L Potassium dichromate methodAmmonia mg/L Nesslerization methodKjeldahl nitrogen mg/L Kjeldahl methodTotal coliform (TC) No./100 mL MF techniqueFecal coliform (FC) No/100 mL MF technique
Environ Monit Assess
Tab
le2
Cor
rela
tion
coef
fici
enta
ndre
gres
sion
ofse
lect
edpa
ram
eter
sat
vari
ous
poin
tsof
Yam
una
Riv
erin
Del
hi
Cor
rela
tion
coef
fici
ent
Pal
laN
MS
NQ
SA
CM
SA
CQ
San
dre
gres
sion
r(B
OD
,CO
D)
0.06
0.93
0.98
0.96
0.95
Reg
ress
ion
CO
D=
0.22
71B
OD
CO
D=
2.32
55B
OD
CO
D=
2.50
74B
OD
CO
D=
3.27
4B
OD
CO
D=
3.16
39B
OD
+10
.413
+13
.32
+9.
816
+5.
044
+6.
79R
2=
0.00
4R
2=
0.87
3R
2=
0.96
0R
2=
0.92
0R
2=
0.90
9r(
BO
D,D
O)
0.00
(−)0
.90
(−)0
.90
(−)0
.80
(−)0
.80
Reg
ress
ion
DO
=0.
0504
BO
DD
O=
−0.1
11B
OD
DO
=−0
.121
9B
OD
DO
=−0
.158
2B
OD
DO
=−0
.205
7B
OD
+7.
945
+3.
152
+3.
537
+3.
028
+3.
74R
2=
0.00
3R
2=
0.84
9R
2=
0.79
5R
2=
0.58
8R
2=
0.72
0r(
BO
D,T
KN
)(−
)0.4
70.
830.
890.
810.
89R
egre
ssio
nT
KN
=0.
2437
BO
DT
KN
=0.
7247
BO
DT
KN
=0.
8236
BO
DT
KN
=0.
8749
BO
DT
KN
=0.
9763
BO
D+
2.38
8+
3.97
0+
2.22
0+
2.61
8+
1.79
R2
=0.
221
R2
=0.
684
R2
=0.
786
R2
=0.
654
R2
=0.
788
r(B
OD
,AM
M)
0.09
0.86
0.88
0.83
0.94
Reg
ress
ion
AM
M=
0.01
26B
OD
AM
M=
0.70
06B
OD
AM
M=
0.75
49B
OD
AM
M=
0.76
12B
OD
AM
M=
0.78
68B
OD
+0.
414
−0.
625
−1.
473
−0.
429
−0.
84R
2=
0.00
8R
2=
0.74
5R
2=
0.76
9R
2=
0.68
7R
2=
0.87
7r(
CO
D,D
O)
(−)0
.70
(−)0
.90
(−)0
.92
(−)0
.79
(−)0
.82
Reg
ress
ion
DO
=−0
.192
3C
OD
DO
=−0
.043
5C
OD
DO
=−0
.048
9C
OD
DO
=−0
.047
6C
OD
DO
=−0
.060
1C
OD
+10
.22
+3.
518
+4.
034
+3.
238
+3.
94R
2=
0.48
4R
2=
0.80
1R
2=
0.83
8R
2=
0.62
0R
2=
0.67
8r(
CO
D,T
KN
)0.
100.
850.
930.
880.
86R
egre
ssio
nT
KN
=0.
0149
CO
DT
KN
=0.
3007
CO
DT
KN
=0.
3371
CO
DT
KN
=0.
2778
CO
DT
KN
=0.
2856
CO
D+
1.76
4+
0.51
2−
1.57
2+
0.75
7+
0.84
3R
2=
0.01
1R
2=
0.73
0R
2=
0.86
3R
2=
0.76
8R
2=
0.74
3r(
CO
D,A
MM
)0.
010.
860.
930.
880.
92R
egre
ssio
nC
OD
=0.
3692
AM
MA
MM
=0.
2819
CO
DA
MM
=0.
3142
CO
DA
MM
=0.
2364
CO
DA
MM
=0.
233
CO
D+8
.444
+3.4
11−5
.294
−1.7
94−1
.75
R2
=0.
188
R2
=0.
748
R2
=0.
873
R2
=0.
772
R2
=0.
846
r(D
O,T
KN
)(−
)0.2
7(−
)0.7
4(−
)0.8
4(−
)0.6
7(−
)0.6
7R
egre
ssio
nT
KN
=−0
.140
2D
OT
KN
=−5
.396
DO
TK
N=
−5.6
739
DO
TK
N=
−3.5
146
DO
TK
N=
−3.0
419
DO
+3.
0524
+23
.686
+25
.23
+17
.526
+17
.92
R2
=0.
075
R2
=0.
550
R2
=0.
698
R2
=0.
40R
2=
0.45
0r(
DO
,AM
M)
(−)0
.29
(−)0
.81
(−)0
.88
(−)0
.69
(−)0
.77
Reg
ress
ion
AM
M=
−0.0
412
DO
AM
M=
−5.4
832
DO
AM
M=
−5.5
151
DO
AM
M=
−3.0
873
DO
AM
M=
−2.6
678
DO
+0.
769
+18
.64
+19
.875
+12
.57
+12
.36
R2
=0.
086
R2
=0.
663
R2
=0.
768
R2
=0.
481
R2
=0.
592
r(T
KN
,AM
M)
0.02
0.96
0.96
0.95
0.90
Reg
ress
ion
AM
M=
0.00
42T
KN
AM
M=
0.88
69T
KN
AM
M=
0.88
77T
KN
AM
M=
−0.8
025
TK
NA
MM
=−0
.686
2T
KN
+0.
421
−2.
899
−2.
913
−1.
74−
0.48
4R
2=
0.00
02R
2=
0.91
7R
2=
0.91
7R
2=
0.89
4R
2=
0.80
6
Environ Monit Assess
been chosen for accuracy of pollution load atselected stretch.
Results and discussion
Monthly/seasonal variations of selected parame-ters during the period of 2000 to 2005 are shown inFigs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Standard deviation (SD)of the 6-year data reflects that the SD was less forDO, BOD, COD, TKN, and AMM and was highfor TC and FC. SD of selected parameters was notincorporated in the paper.
DO drops to alarming levels at middle anddownstream of river Yamuna shown in Fig. 3,the attainment of maximum level of DO duringmonsoon (June to August). The maximum andminimum concentrations of DO at Palla were 9.1and 6.6 mg/L. DO content, which plays a vital rolein supporting aquatic life in running water, is sus-ceptible to slight environmental changes (Ahmed2004). Very low DO may result in anaerobic con-ditions that cause bad odors.
BOD is an indicator of organic pollution. Un-polluted natural waters have a BOD of 5 mg/Lor less (Schulze et al. 2001). The highest average
BOD level measured at Nizamuddin stretch isshown in Fig. 4. The maximum permissible levelof BOD for bathing is 3 mg/L. BOD was inverselyrelated to DO.
Spatial variation of COD is shown in Fig. 5.COD is positively correlated with BOD, TKN,and AMM and inversely related to DO. HighCOD interferes with oxygen transfer to the soil,thus affecting plant growth (Adekunle et al. 2007).Drinking water supply should not exceed CODof 2.5 mg/L, and potable water of COD contentgreater than 7.5 mg/L is regarded as poor (Esa1983).
Spatial variations of TKN and AMM are shownin Figs. 6 and 7. Ammonia in the form of nitrogenis readily available to marine life and microorgan-isms. The presence of ammonia and nitrogenoussources in large amounts may result in eutrophica-tion, leading to algal blooms and anoxic conditions(Elmanama et al. 2006). TKN and AMM werehighly correlated. Correlation at NizamuddinStream and Agra Canal Stream of river Ya-muna was more than 0.8. Presence of nutrientsunder normal conditions supports the growthof bacteria and other microorganisms, leadingto higher BOD levels as well as a correspond-
Fig. 3 Spatial variationof DO of Yamuna Riverat different location ofDelhi Stretch during thesampling period
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
DO
Month
DO
palla NMS NQS
ACMS ACQS STD (Min)
Environ Monit Assess
Fig. 4 Spatial variationof BOD of Yamuna Riverat different location ofDelhi Stretch during thesampling period
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
BO
D
Month
BOD
palla NMS NQS
ACMS ACQS STD (Max)
ing increase in the fecal coliform count. Thisfinding was supported by a different researcher(Jannasch 1968).
TC and FC are indicators for pathogenic organ-isms. They are usually present in surface water,soil, and feces of humans and animals. Monthly/
seasonal and spatial variations of TC and FC areshown in Figs. 8 and 9. It has been noticed that,even at Palla, upstream of river Yamuna, desiredcriteria of water quality regarding TC were abovethe permissible limit of CPCB Standard (WaterQuality Criteria, CPCB 2009).
Fig. 5 Spatial variationof COD of Yamuna Riverat different location ofDelhi Stretch during thesampling period
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
CO
D
Month
COD
palla NMS NQS
ACMS ACQS
Environ Monit Assess
Fig. 6 Spatial variationof TKN of Yamuna Riverat different location ofDelhi Stretch during thesampling period
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
TK
N
Month
TKN
palla NMS NQS
ACMS ACQS
Spatial variation
The results indicated no significant difference inthe measured concentration of pollutants at alllocations during winter and summer months, Oc-tober to May. Significant differences were notedduring monsoon months, June to September. The
flow of the Yamuna River varies significantlyduring monsoon and nonmonsoon seasons. DO,BOD, COD, TKN, and AMM were varied signifi-cantly with locations and seasons. TC and FC con-centrations were significantly high at Nizamuddinand Agra Canal Stretch during the summer sea-son in the month of May. The total and fecal
Fig. 7 Spatial variationof AMM of YamunaRiver at different locationof Delhi Stretch duringthe sampling period
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
AM
M
Month
AMM
palla NMS NQS
ACMS ACQS
Environ Monit Assess
Fig. 8 Spatial variationof TC of Yamuna Riverat different location ofDelhi Stretch during thesampling period
0
50000000
100000000
150000000
200000000
250000000
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV
TC
Month
TC
Palla NMS NQS
ACMS ACQS STD (5000/100 ml)
coliform reduced significantly during monsoonbut was much higher than water quality standard(Water Quality Status of Yamuna River, CPCB2006).
Overall, Palla was meeting all desired crite-ria for selected water quality parameters. Pallahad appreciable DO and low BOD, COD, TKN,AMM, TC, and FC as compared to other selectedsites. Water at Palla could be classified as “C”category according to CPCB standard shown in
Table 3. Water at Nizamuddin and Agra CanalStretch cannot be use even for bathing purposesalso. A 22-km stretch of Yamuna River in Delhiis not only dead but an overload of coliformcontamination (CSE 2009). Under the YamunaAction plan, Phase I, 1993, a total of 16 upflowAnaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactors (UASBR)were constructed along river Yamuna. The costof construction, operation and maintenance cost,and low energy consumptions were the addi-
Fig. 9 Spatial variationof FC of Yamuna River atdifferent location of DelhiStretch during thesampling period
0
10000000
20000000
30000000
40000000
50000000
60000000
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV
FC
Month
FC
Palla NMS NQS
ACMS ACQS
Environ Monit Assess
Table 3 Designated bestuse classification ofsurface water
Source: Guidelines forwater quality monitoring,MINARS/2007-08 (CPCB2007)MPN most probablenumber
Designated best use Quality Primary water quality criteriaclass
Drinking water source without A Total coliform organismsconventional treatment (MPNa/100 ml) shall be 50 or lessbut with chlorination pH between 6.5 and 8.5
Dissolved oxygen 6 mg/L or moreBiochemical oxygen demand
2 mg/L or lessOutdoor bathing (organized) B Total coliform organisms
(MPN/100 ml) shall be 500 or lesspH between 6.5 and 8.5Dissolved oxygen 5 mg/L or moreBiochemical oxygen demand
3 mg/L or lessDrinking water source with C Total coliform organisms
conventional treatment (MPN/100 ml) shall be 5,000 or lesspH between 6 and 9Dissolved oxygen 4 mg/L or moreBiochemical oxygen demand
3 mg/L or lessPropagation of wildlife D pH between 6.5 and 8.5
and fisheriesDissolved oxygen 4 mg/L or moreFree ammonia (as N) 1.2 mg/L or less
Irrigation, industrial cooling, E pH between 6.0 and 8.5and controlled disposal Electrical conductivity less than
2,250 μmho/cmSodium absorption ratio less than 26
tional main advantage, but the major problemwith UASBR is that these plants produced verypoor quality of effluent having high level of BOD,COD, and FC (Mittal 2008). Poor condition oftrunk sewers, shortage of sewage treatment capac-ity, and lack of sanitation facilities in unseweredarea of Delhi which account for nearly 50% ofpopulation are responsible for continued pollu-tion of Yamuna in Delhi. Delhi alone contributesaround 3,296 MLD/day of sewage by virtue ofdrains out falling in Yamuna Delhi segment flow(22-km length). This is more than that of all theclass 2 cities of India put together (Jain et al.2007). The river Yamuna receives discharge from22 drains at downstream of Wazirabad. The waterquality monitoring of 22 drains in Delhi indicatesthat except Khyber Pass drain 21 drains were notmeeting the criteria for one of the other indica-tor parameters, i.e., COD, BOD, and suspendedsolids (Bhardwaj et al. 2003). Blockage of drainsby solid waste reduces the carrying capacity ofdrains and natural canals and also a source of
pollution (Alam et al. 2007). The Najafgarh drainfalls at Yamuna before Nizamuddin stretch whichis a major contributor to the pollution of river(Bhardwaj et al. 2003). So Nizamuddin stretchmight be the most polluted among all three se-lected sites in Delhi.
Conclusions
The results of this study demonstrated that the un-treated and partially treated wastewater disposedto river Yamuna is highly polluted. Various en-vironmental parameters are varied with locationand season. Recycle and reuse of wastewater aswater after providing minimum treatment can re-duce the wastewater discharge into river Yamuna.Providing artificial DO to the polluting drains willreduce significantly BOD and other associatedpollution load to the river. Identification of un-sewered areas and provide an effective seweragesystem may result in treated sewage, out falling
Environ Monit Assess
in the river through open drains/nallahs. Efficientand sophisticated treatment plant for domesticand industrial sewage to ensure their conformitywith the standards prescribed by Delhi PollutionControl Committee under the provisions of theWater (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1974 will significantly reduce the pollution loadof Yamuna. Avoiding mixing of treated and un-treated domestic as well as industrial sewage intosurface drainage may reduce the pollution loadto river. Understanding the seasonal variationand interrelationship of the selected parametersmay be helpful in routine analysis of river waterquality.
Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the Cen-tral Pollution Control Board (CPCB), New Delhi, Indiafor providing the relevant data of Yamuna River waterquality. Authors are also grateful to the Acting DirectorDr. T. Chakrabarti, National Environmental EngineeringResearch Institute (NEERI), for granting permission topublish this work.
References
Adekunle, I. M., Adetunji, M. T., Gbadebo, A. M., &Banjoko, B. O. (2007). Assessment of groundwaterquality in a typical rural settlement in SouthwestNigeria. International Journal of Environmental Re-search and Public Health, 4(4), 307–318.
Ahmed, A. (2004). Ecological studies of the River Padmaat Mawa Ghat, Munshiganj I. Physicochemical prop-erties. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 7(11),1865–1869.
Alam, J. B., Hossain, A., Khan, S. K., Banik, B. K., Islam,M. R., Muyen, Z., et al. (2007). Deterioration of waterquality of Surma river. Environmental Monitoring andAssessment, 134, 233–242.
APHA (1998). American public health association. Stan-dard methods for examination of waters and wastewa-ters (20th ed.). Washington, DC: APHA.
Bhardwaj, R. M., Mehrotra, K., Trivedi. R. C., Makhijani,S. D. (2003). Status of water quality in Yamuna River.In Paper presented at the seminar on water for nationalcapital territory, Delhi.
CPCB (2006). Water quality status of Yamuna River.Assessment and development study of River Basinseries: ADSORBS/41/2006-07. http://www.cpcb.nic.in/newitems/11.pdf. Accessed 11 January 2009.
CPCB (2007). Guidelines for water quality monitoring,MINARS/27/2007-08. http://www.cpcb.nic.in/upload/NewItems/NewItem_116_Guidelinesof%20waterqualitymonitoring_31.07.08.pdf. Accessed on 4 November2009
CPCB (2009). Water quality criteria. http://cpcbenvis.nic.in/waterpollution/criteria.htm. Accessed on 4November
CSE (2008). Climate & rainfall. http://www.rainwaterharvesting.org/index_files/climate_rainfall.htm. Accessed 10 January 2009.
CSE (2009). State of pollution in the Yamuna. http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/State%20of%20the%20Yamuna_0.pdf. Accessed on 16 July 2008.
Elmanama, A. A., Afifi, S., & Bahr, S. (2006). Sea-sonal and spatial variation in the monitoring parame-ters of Gaza Beach during 2002–2003. EnvironmentalResearch, 101(1), 25–33.
Esa, R. (1983). Drilled wells and groundwater in thePrecambrian crystalline bedrock of Finland (No. 52, p.57). Helsinki: Water Research Institute.
Jain, S. K., Agarwal, P. K., & Singh V. P. (2007). Hydrologyand water resources of India. Water science and tech-nology library (Vol. 57). Dordrecht: Springer.
Jannasch, H. (1968). Competitive elimination of Enter-obacteriaceae from sea water. Applied Microbiology,16, 1616–1618.
Krishnaswami, S., & Singh, S. K. (2005). Chemical weather-ing in the river basins of the Himalaya, India. CurrentScience (Special Section: Water), 89(5), 841–849.
Mittal, A. K. (2008). Urban run-off: Source of majormicrobial load on Indian Rivers. (December 15–16)paper presented at the national Conference on Hy-draulics, Water Resources and Environment, HYDRO-2008. Jaipur City
Schulze, D. L., Eggers, J. S., Esser, L. R. (2001). Waterquality studies red rock and Saylorville Reservoirs DesMoines River, Lowa. Annual Report. Department ofthe Army, Rock Island District, Corps of Engineers,Rock Island, IL.
