Heavy metal pollution in water and sediments in the Kabini River, Karnataka, India

Environ Monit Assess (2011) 182:1–13DOI 10.1007/s10661-010-1854-0

Heavy metal pollution in water and sedimentsin the Kabini River, Karnataka, India

Azadeh Taghinia Hejabi · H. T. Basavarajappa ·A. R. Karbassi · S. M. Monavari

Received: 24 June 2010 / Accepted: 19 December 2010 / Published online: 8 January 2011© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract The River Kabini in Karnataka, Indiacarries natural and anthropogenic pollutants,mainly heavy metal concentrations of Cr, Cu,Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb and Zn which are released fromindustrial effluents, agricultural return flows anddomestic sewage. Kabini, which is a tributary ofthe Cauvery, drains through the industrial areaat Nanjangud, Karnataka, India. Heavy metalswere determined in waters and sediment (2 μm)of Kabini River. In the present investigation,chemical partitioning studies was carried out toknow the association of base metals with varioussedimentary phases. The concentrations of heavymetals are higher in loosely bonded fraction than

A. Taghinia Hejabi (B) · H. T. BasavarajappaDepartment of Earth Science,University of Mysore, Manasagangothri-06,Karnataka, Indiae-mail: [email protected]

A. R. KarbassiGraduate Faculty of Environment,University of Tehran,P.O. Box 14155–6135, Tehran, Iran

S. M. MonavariDepartment of Environmental Science,Graduate School of the Environment and Energy,Science and Research Campus,IA University, Tehran, Iran

the other studied fractions. Furthermore, the de-gree of sediment contamination was assessed bygeochemical index. It should be pointed out thatCu and Cr show the highest pollution intensity.Cluster analysis was used to know about the intercorrelation amongst the studied metals. It is ev-ident that higher concentrations of metals arefound in the vicinity of industrial effluents. Theconcentrations of Cr followed by Zn and Ni arerather higher than the maximum background val-ues in the Kabini River sediment. This is espe-cially true at the influx of paper mill effluents intothe River.

Keywords Heavy metals · Geoaccumulationindex · Water · Sediment · Background values

Introduction

Increased industrial activity, environmental pollu-tion with domestic and municipal waste water andagricultural runoff inputs into the Kabini Riverhas disturbed the equilibrium of its ecosystem.Usually, concentrations of heavy metals in aquaticecosystem are determined by measuring its con-centration in water and sediments (Camusso et al.1995) that generally exist at low levels in waterand attain considerable concentration in sedi-ments (Namminga and Wilhm 1976). Heavy met-als including both essential and non-essential

2 Environ Monit Assess (2011) 182:1–13

elements have a particular significance in ecotox-icology, since they are highly persistent and allhave the potential to be toxic to living organisms(Storelli et al. 2005)

Heavy metal inputs may be in particulate or dis-solved form, and most of the heavy metals tend toaccumulate in sediments. Their presence in wateris usually the result of recent inputs. Both sorptionand desorption are controlled by the nature of thetotal heavy metal load in sediment and the surfacewater characteristics (Todorovic et al. 2001).

Sediments conserve important environmentalinformation (Gutierrez et al. 2004) and increas-ingly are recognized as both carriers and possi-ble sources of contaminants in aquatic systems(Tessier et al. 1979). Evaluated heavy metals con-centration in river systems are often consideredindicators of anthropogenic influence and they arepotential risk to the natural environment. There-fore, it is important to assess and track the abun-dance of these heavy metals. It is well known thatthe metals toxicity and bioavailability depends onother speciation, either in water or sediment.

Chemical speciation can be defined as the iden-tification and quantification of the different chem-ical species, forms or phases present in sediment.However, the determination of specific chemi-cal species is difficult and often hardly possible(Loska and Wiechula 2002). Heavy metals areassociated with sediments in different ways, andtheir association determines the mobility andavailability (Ahumuda et al. 1999). This type ofassociation between metals and the sediments canbe understood in detail by sequential extractiontechniques.

Heavy metals are distributed in sedimentsin four fractions, as exchangeable bound, iron–manganese oxide, organic matter and residualspecies (Dean 2002). They generally exhibit dif-ferent physical and chemical behavior in terms ofchemical interactions, mobility, biological avail-ability and potential toxicity (Xiangdong et al.2000). Sediments are important sinks for variouspollutants like heavy metals and also play a sig-nificant role in the remobilization of contaminantsin aquatic systems under favourable conditionsand in interactions between water and sediment.The release of heavy metals from sediments intothe water body will depend on the speciation

(i.e. metals may be precipitated, complexed, ad-sorbed, or solubilized) of metals and other factorssuch as sediment pH and the physical and chem-ical characteristics of the aquatic system (Morganand Stumm 1991). In this study, sequential ex-traction analysis was used to determine the dis-tribution and concentration of Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn,Ni, Pb and Zn in sediment besides analysis anddistribution of Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Pb and Zn in water.

Study area

The Kabini River, a confluence of the tributariesfrom Panamaram and Mananthavady area orig-inates from the Western Ghats, in the Wynaddistrict of Kerala, passes through the Nanjangudindustrial area, flows into the main river Cauverywith its confluence at T.Narasipura, down stream.The area lies between 11◦45′–12◦30′ N and eastlongitude 75◦45′–77◦00′ E.

Materials and methods

River water and bed sediments were collectedalong the main stream from April 2009 to January2010, seasonally at 17 predetermined locationsbased on GPS (Fig. 1). Sampling stations werechosen to provide a good area coverage of thebackground and anthropogenic input values.After sampling, water samples were collected intoacid-washed 250-ml plastic bottles from approxi-mately 30 cm below the surface river water. Sed-iments were stored in plastic vials and frozenat −20◦C pending analytical procedures. In thelaboratory, sediment samples were defrosted atroom temperature, dried at 40◦C up to a constantweight, ground and homogenized in a mortar to afine powder.

Water and sediment analysis

Total metals (Cr+3, Cu++, Mn++, Ni++, Pb++,Fe+3 and Zn++) were determined by AtomicAbsorption Spectrophotometer technique afteracid digestion. For digestion, 2 g of dried sam-ple was put into a polytetrafluoroethylene Teflonwith 4 ml of nitric acid, 2 ml of hydrochloricacid and 2 ml of hydrofluoric acid. For each

Environ Monit Assess (2011) 182:1–13 3

5´ 5´

12º

15´

10´

50´

45´

40´

12º

15´

50´

45´

40´

10´

76º

76º

55´

55´

7 2

3

4

5 6 7

8

9 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Nanjangud

4.21mi

N

Study area

Fig. 1 Sample location map of the study area (google image. 2009)

digestion programme, a blank was preparedwith the same amount of acids. After digestionand cooling below extractor hood, samples werefiltered and diluted to 100 ml with distilled waterand analyzed (Minoia et al. 1993; Daskalova andBoevski 1999; Mermet 2001; Bettinelli et al. 2000;Taghinia et al. 2010). Physicochemical character-istics including pH, electrical conductivity, Ca++,Mg++, Na+, K+ were analyzed by standard meth-

ods given by Trivedy and Goel (1986), AmericanPublic Health Association (1992).

Chemical partition studies were conducted infour sequential steps: (1) acetic acid 25% v/v,(2) acetic acid 25% v/v–0.1 M hydroxylamine hy-drochloride, (3) 30% H202 extraction with 1 Mammonium acetate and (4) hot 50% HCl (Chesterand Hughes 1967; Gibbs 1973).The water sampleswere thereafter treated in the field according to


Tab

le1

Mea

nco

ncen

trat

ion

ofm

etal

sin

the

Kab

iniR

iver

wat

er

Stat

ion

nam

eof

the

Kab

iniR

iver

Cr

Cu

Fe

Zn

Mn

Ca

Mg

Na

K(m

g/lit

)(m

g/lit

)(m

g/lit

)(m

g/lit

)(m

g/lit

)(m

g/lit

)(m

g/lit

)(m

g/lit

)(m

g/lit

)

Bya

laru

26.4

327

.93

38.9

57.6

635

.765

.33

45.3

311

.36

2.9

Deb

uru

17.3

45.9

369

.734

.46

16.1

490

.66

4410

.46

2.3

Kat

taha

lli16

27.9

7262

6.76

6778

.667

58.6

615

.83

2.86

Chi

kkay

yana

Cha

ttra

32.4

729

.547

.66

626.

4689

.33

49.3

314

.66

1.6

Pap

erm

illin

dust

ry39

.96

19.6

697

.83

108.

931.

6615

0.66

88.3

319

.73

3.23

Kat

tava

dipu

ra8.

924

.33

72.8

54.2

4.73

7246

.66

15.0

31.

43K

empa

sidd

anah

undi

26.5

34.3

336

.33

26.8

35.3

972

46.6

615

.56

2.23

Bri

dge

1030

.86

57.3

320

.33

28.8

6782

.66

49.3

314

.83

1.83

Nan

jang

udT

empl

e30

.06

20.0

651

.43

65.2

625

.77

7250

.66

18.6

2.23

Hej

jige

23.0

640

.745

.76

33.6

615

.66

7644

25.5

63.

3M

ullu

ru17

.66

35.6

272

.826

.33

33.7

160

46.6

620

.36

3.46

Sutt

ur26

24.4

74.3

3323

.910

1.33

4022

.83

2.16

Tha

yur

25.0

322

.965

.66

62.2

625

.77

8061

.33

29.9

62.

26B

iloge

rehu

ndi

12.1

20.3

63.7

623

.23

35.3

910

5.33

8028

.73

2.3

Gar

gesw

ari

17.3

316

.760

.33

132.

529

86.6

662

.66

34.8

32.

43H

osa

Tir

umak

udal

u10

.06

15.3

375

.36

62.2

612

.86

126

75.3

332

.86

2.3

Con

flue

nce

Cav

ery

&K

abin

i31

.730

.178

.47

52.3

31.2

686

.66

6029

.86

2.16

Min

8.9

16.7

36.3

320

.33

1.66

6040

10.4

61.

43M

ax39

.96

45.9

397

.83

132.

535

.715

0.66

88.3

334

.83

3.46

Mea

n21

.797

627

.444

163

.554

153

.951

821

.707

987

.958

155

.82

21.2

382

2.41

059


two separate methods: the sample is first filteredthrough a 0.45-m filter and thereafter acidifiedand recoverable analysis, where the sample isacidified without prior filtration, following theUS-EPA recommendations methods. To identifythe association between metals, basic statisticaltools such as cluster analysis (CA) was applied onraw data through using MVSP software.

Heavy metal concentration in water

Concentration of copper, chromium, manganese,iron and zinc in water from each station are shownin Table 1 and Fig. 2. The highest mean con-centration of Cu in water was shown at site 2at 45.93 mg/l with values ranging from 43.2 to50.5 mg/l while the lowest mean concentration ofit in water was shown at site 16 at 15.33 mg/l, with

values ranging from 13.9 to 17.4 mg/l. The high-est concentration of Cr in water was measuredat site 5 at 39.96 mg/l, with values ranging from37.1 to 43.1 mg/l while the lowest mean concen-tration of Cr was measured at site 6 at 8.9 mg/l,with values ranging from 6.9–8.1 mg/l. The high-est mean concentration of Zn in water was de-termined at site 5 at 108.93 mg/l, with its rangevalue from 101–115 mg/l while the lowest meanconcentration of zinc in water was measured atsite 8 at 20.53 mg/l, with value ranging from 17.4 to23 mg/l.

pH and EC in sediments

The values of pH and EC in sediments are pre-sented in Table 2. The pH of sediments in all siteswas alkaline. The highest mean pH value was at

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1705

101520253035404550

020406080

100120140160

05

1015202530354045

Cu Cr

Zn

Mn

Fe

mg

/lit

mg

/lit

mg

/lit

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

mg

/lit

mg

/lit

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Station

summermoonsonwinter

Fig. 2 Heavy metal concentration of Kabini River water in various seasons 2009


Tab

le2

pH,E

Can

dm

ean

conc

entr

atio

nof

met

als

inth

eK

abin

iRiv

erbe

dse

dim

ent

Stat

ion

nam

eof

the

Kab

iniR

iver

pHE

cC

uC

rF

eM

nN

iP

bZ

n(μ

moh

)(m

g/g)

(mg/

g)(m

g/g)

(mg/

g)(m

g/g)

(mg/

g)(m

g/g)

Bya

laru

8.32

369

106.

523

816

71.0

438

.87

675.

4681

.7D

ebur

u8.

1731

9.66

100.

924

0.16

1695

.36

51.8

165

7.46

141.

1K

atta

halli

8.32

461

86.1

200.

8714

78.8

341

.69

48.2

5.46

45.9

Chi

kkay

yana

Cha

ttra

7.88

380.

6663

.26

275

1327

.59

191.

2935

.611

.83

64.8

6P

aper

mill

indu

stry

7.43

583

156.

4344

1.14

1838

246.

4828

0.32

26.8

819

1K

atta

vadi

pura

8.33

373

6940

6.96

1385

.39

177.

2310

8.73

9.36

70.3

3K

empa

sidd

anah

undi

8.90

368.

3314

8.1

269.

4613

83.5

421

765

.130

.03

87.1

Bri

dge

8.54

353.

3316

1.03

240

1771

.94

40.9

743

.96

29.5

055

.7N

anja

ngud

Tem

ple

8.64

357.

6613

1.5

281.

116

00.6

992

.53

102.

165.

181

.5H

ejjig

e8.

452

4.5

116.

0426

9.03

1638

.84

87.2

045

.03

13.4

946

.66

Mul

luru

7.86

358

128.

5613

5.4

1306

.82

54.1

226

1.73

5.76

156.

5Su

ttur

7.59

348.

399

.086

135.

1318

55.7

061

.73

44.3

35.

749

.3T

hayu

r8.

1936

810

7.33

144.

7618

40.1

985

.81

76.4

64.

6615

3.93

Bilo

gere

hund

i8

465

97.1

621

0.8

1373

.37

105

58.9

65.

6341

.53

Gar

gesw

ari

8.21

476.

3794

.618

8.16

1478

.72

83.5

914

.63

5.50

30.3

6H

osa

Tir

umak

udal

u8.

8644

9.3

58.6

523

2.06

1464

.54

123.

9511

.83

5.50

47.2

6C

onfl

uenc

eC

aver

y&

Kab

ini

7.68

445.

5110

9.2

232.

1618

11.1

113

6.11

30.7

35.

8347

.13

Min

7.43

319.

6658

.65

135.

1313

06.8

238

.87

11.8

34.

6630

.36

Max

8.9

583

161.

0344

1.14

1855

.724

6.48

280.

3230

.03

191

Mea

n8.

1542

1.31

110.

5525

4.52

1597

.76

115.

6691

.12

11.6

787

.94


site 7 with mean value of 8.9 from range of 8.82 to8.95. The lowest mean pH was at site 5 at pH 7.4with values ranging from 7.2 to 7.7.

Heavy metal concentration in sediment

Concentration of copper, chromium, iron, man-ganese, lead and zinc in bed sediment from eachstation seasonally are shown in Fig. 3. The con-centration of Cu at site 8 was the highest amongthe sites with a mean value of 161.033 mg/g val-ues ranging from 141.6 to 176.7 mg/g, while thelowest concentration of Cu was at site 16 witha mean value of 58.65 mg/g (value ranging from56–62 mg/g).

Concentration of Pb at site 7 was the highestamong all the sites with a mean value of 30.03 mg/gand the lowest lead concentration was at site 13

with a mean value of 4.66 mg/g base on it rangefrom 4.3–5.5 mg/g.

The concentration of Cr at site 5 was the highestwith a mean value of 441.14 mg/g, the value rang-ing from 408–492 mg/g. The lowest Cr concentra-tion was at site 11 with a mean value of 135.4 mg/g.Value ranging from 122–152.4 mg/g.

The highest mean concentration of zinc wasmeasured at site 5 at 191 mg/g, where value rangefrom 186.4–192 mg/g. The lowest mean concen-tration of zinc was noted at site 15 with a meanvalue at 30.36 mg/g, (its value ranging from 27.1–36.7 mg/g).

The concentration of nickel at site 5 was thegreatest among the sites with a mean value of280.32 mg/g from270.8–294, while the concentra-tion of Ni at site 16 was the lowest among the siteswith a mean value of 11.83 mg/g, ranging from9.5–14.5 mg/g.

020406080

100120140160180200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 170

100

200

300

400

500

600

05

10152025303540

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0

50

100

150

200

250

050

100150200250300350400

Cu Cr Pb

Zn FeNi

Mn

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Station1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Station

mg/

gm

g/g

mg/

g

summermoonsonwinter

Fig. 3 Heavy metal concentration of Kabini River bed sediment in various seasons 2009


The sequential chemical partitioning technique(Chester and Hughes 1967) provides informationon possible chemical form of heavy metal insediments (Xiangdong et al. 2000) for five heavymetals in this study (Table 3).

The effects of heavy metals in the environmentdepend, to a large extent, on whether they occurin forms that can be taken up by plant or animals.Lead maybe strongly adsorbed on to sedimentparticles and therefore largely unavailable (Elithand Garwood 2001), while cadmium ions can bedirectly absorbed by water and it is known tobe most mobile among the other metals (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 2001). A wide range of valuefor heavy metal concentration was observed forthe sediment. On an average, the percentage ofmetal related with different fractions in the sedi-ment from all sites was in the order of:

Exchangeable:

Cu (17.39%) > Cr(15.96%) > Fe(14.01%)

> Pb(12.04%) > Zn(11.55%)

> Mn(8.29%) > Ni(6.26%)

Sulfide ions:

Cu(16.88%) > Cr(13.01%) > Fe(9.71%)

> Mn(9.01%) > Zn(5.91%)

> Ni(4.51%)

Organic ions:

Cr(16.42%) > Cu(11.24%) > Mn(11.15%)

> Zn(7.67%) > Ni(6.37%)

> Fe(6.3%)

Resistant ion:

Mn(33.06%) > Cr(25.98%) > Cu(23.41%)

> Fe(22.79%) > Zn(21.40%)

> Ni(19.52%)

Bound within lattice:

Ni(62.79%) > Zn(53.28%) > Pb(52.65%)

> Fe(46.35%) > Mn(37.99%)

> Cu(30.86%) > Cr(28.39%)

Assuming that bioavailability is related to solubil-ity, metal bio-availability decrease in order of:

Exchangeable > sulfide ions > organic > resid-ual (Ma and Rao 1997; Xiangdong et al. 2000).

The residual forms are not expected to be re-leased under normal conditions in nature (Dean2002) and could be considered as an inert phase(Xiangdong et al. 2000).

Forstner (1985) reported that cadmium frac-tion was more mobile than most of other heavymetals (Kong and Liu 1995). The present studyindicates that Cr and Cu have greater potentialfor mobilization from the sediments because oftheir higher concentration at the sulfide boundedfraction.

Further, the anthropogenic portion of metalsis shown at Fig. 4. In general, the mean anthro-pogenic portion of the metals is examined in thisstudy. A percentage of their mean concentrationis as follows:

Cu(35.52%) > Cr(35.39%) > Zn(32.87%)

> Fe(20.04%) > Mn(18.46%)

> Pb(9.8%) > Ni(7.15%)

The geoaccumulation index (Igeo) introduced byMueller (1979) was used to assess metal pollutionin sediments.

Igeo is expressed as follows:

Igeo = log2

[Cn/1.5 × Bn

]

Where Cn = measured concentration of heavymetal in the Kabini River sediments, Bn =geochemical background value in average shale(Turekian and Wedepohl 1961) of element, n =1.5 is the back ground matrix correction in fac-tor due to lithogenic effect. Table 4 shows thecalculated values for the Kabini River sediments(Mueller 1979). that Ni, Zn are in class 1 and Cu,Cr in class 2 which indicate the investigated Kabinisediments are moderately polluted.

Comparison between sampling sitesin water and sediments

Cluster analysis showed that Cu, Pb, Cr, Mnformed cluster “A” (Fig. 5). Lead and copper


Tab

le3

Che

mic

alpa

rtit

ioni

ngof

trac

em

etal

sin

the

Kab

ini

Stat

ion

nam

eof

ab

cd

ea

bc

de

ab

cd

eth

eK

abin

iRiv

er

Cu

(mg/

g)Z

n(m

g/g)

Pb(

mg/

g)K

atta

halli

13.5

16.1

511

.15.

025

40.3

23.

83.

075

4.2

9.7

24.4

250.

64N

dN

dN

d4.

36K

atta

vadi

pura

13.0

318

.57.

5514

.25

15.6

628

.95

3.72

53.

3512

.425

22.4

52.

41

Nd

1.37

54.

525

Kem

pasi

ddan

ahun

di26

.632

.37

22.3

243

.025

23.7

76.

25.

875

3.12

514

.55

58.0

52.

11.

40.

74.

225

21.0

75N

anja

ngud

Tem

ple

27.6

524

.25

15.1

531

.08

33.3

711

.26.

075

1.85

15.9

2546

.45

0.65

Nd

0.4

3.7

0.35

Mul

luru

2014

.07

5.82

14.2

674

.45.

279.

795

12.6

226

.57

102.

250.

7N

dN

dN

d4.

1T

hayu

r16

.911

.57

8.95

34.9

234

.05

6.5

10.0

7511

.65

26.4

2598

.35

0.6

0.4

Nd

0.85

2.45

Bili

gere

hund

i19

.415

.52

14.2

233

.42

14.2

23.

11.

575

6.75

14.7

7515

0.37

0.63

Nd

1.8

2.8

Con

flue

nce

of15

.62

12.6

13.1

532

.85

34.6

753.

352.

125

4.57

512

.475

24.6

0.45

0.3

0.7

1.75

2.5

Cau

very

&K

abin

iC

r(m

g/g)

Ni(

mg/

g)M

n(m

g/g)

Kat

taha

lli85

9.5

12.0

2569

.224

.775

2.7

1.85

2.6

7.5

33.5

53.

57.

029.

67.

4514

.02

Kat

tava

dipu

ra65

.89

74.1

294

.49

113.

0559

.05

5.26

4.81

3.76

28.7

366

.035

12.1

511

.56.

225

70.2

76.4

7K

empa

sidd

anah

undi

28.9

639

.144

.44

82.2

274

.28

2.21

22.

3922

.76

35.6

318

.37

16.1

19.8

583

.17

79.4

Nan

jang

udT

empl

e39

.77

49.1

760

.22

63.2

568

.59

6.92

5.85

6.2

13.3

269

.76.

158.

026.

425

31.6

39.4

Mul

luru

19.5

119

.06

20.6

119

.01

56.8

118

.59

17.9

917

.79

19.5

918

76.

558.

256.

6717

.62

14.3

Tha

yur

13.6

513

.213

.77

42.3

861

6.57

50

6.35

9.22

53.8

56.

576.

359

24.2

739

.6B

ilige

rehu

ndi

27.1

238

.945

.92

31.3

366

.73

4.82

3.35

3.22

7.3

4010

.75

6.02

14.9

2537

.735

.4C

onfl

uenc

eof

17.6

17.4

41.3

79.9

575

.75

1.73

23.

6310

.53

12.0

98.

195.

8612

.99

51.4

456

.81

Cau

very

&K

abin

iF

e(m

g/g)

Kat

taha

lli25

0.5

159.

2719

4.12

328.

8554

5.25

Kat

tava

dipu

ra18

4.97

264.

4729

.45

346.

5555

9.55

Kem

pasi

ddan

ahun

di93

.72

83.9

94.4

360.

275

0.77

Nan

jang

udT

empl

e25

216

0.67

118.

128

3.75

785.

47M

ullu

ru18

8.52

129.

8563

.55

347.

257

6.87

Tha

yur

212.

4760

.224

.47

358.

9711

83.8

7B

iliog

ereh

undi

293.

9218

8.95

186.

134

5.87

358.

15C

onfl

uenc

eof

216.

686

.47

24.4

536

3.25

1008

.22

Cau

very

&K

abin

i


%

Pb

NiZn

Cu Cr

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

%0

20

40

60

80

100

120

%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Kal

laha

lli

Chi

kkay

yana

Cha

ttra

Kem

pasi

ddan

ahun

di

Nan

jang

ud T

empl

e

Mul

luru

Tha

yur

Bili

oger

ohun

di

Con

flue

nce

Cav

ery

& K

abin

i

Kal

laha

lli

Chi

kkay

yana

Cha

ttra

Kem

pasi

ddan

ahun

di

Nan

jang

ud T

empl

e

Mul

luru

Tha

yur

Bili

oger

ohun

di

Con

flue

nce

Cav

ery

& K

abin

i

Anthropogenic

Background value

Fig. 4 Comparison of anthropogenic and background portion of elements in the Kabini River bed sediment

demonstrated similar behavior, as did Cr andMn, Na, Zn and Ni formed cluster “B” with asignificant similarity coefficient, finally Fe forms

Table 4 Geoaccumulation index of heavy metals concen-tration in sediments of the Kabini River bed sediments

Heavy metals Mean Geoaccumulationin Kabini River concentration indexbed sediment

Cr 243.5439 1.16Cu 107.8522 1.25Ni 79.98994 0.42Zn 81.87647 0.43

cluster “C” and joins cluster A and B. that meansthe sources of Fe is different.

Cluster analysis showed that there was no sig-nificant relationship for Zn, Cr and Cu, Mn in theKabini River water Fig. 6. Therefore, differencein the metal content of parent rock material isperhaps the main reason for the lack of correla-tion among Water-Column metals (Karbassi et al.2008).

Finally, comparison between sampling site,water sediment showed that there was no sig-nificant difference between water and sediment(Fig. 7).


Fig. 5 Dendrogramof cluster analysisamongst metals in theKabini River bedsediment

Pearson coefficient

Fig. 6 Dendrogramof cluster analysisamongst metals in theKabini River water

Pearson coefficient

Fig. 7 Dendrogramof cluster analysisamongst metals in theKabini River water andbed sediment

Pearson coefficient


Conclusion

The present study indicates that the concentrationof heavy metal in the Kabini River sediments washigher than background sediment samples (Fig. 4)which indicates clearly inputs from anthropogenicsources such as industrial effluents, agriculturalrunoff, (return flows), domestic and municipalsewage. The heavy metal averages of river bedsediments are above and more concentrated thanthe combined averages contributed by lithogenicsources. In this study, hierarchical cluster analy-sis helped to show that groups of elements weresignificantly interrelated. Also, partitioning studyindicates the metals under study were presentmostly in the least mobilisable fraction in the over-lying water and it is concluded that heavy metalsin these sediments are to a great extent derivedfrom multisource anthropogenic inputs besidesgeochemical background contributions. Assessingsediment pollution by using the total heavy metalconcentrations values might not firmly guaranteethe occurrence of deleterious ecological effects.Therefore, geoaccumulation index based on totalconcentration gave sufficient information aboutintensity of pollution.

The results of the present study show thatcopper and chromium have higher potential formobilization from the sediment than Pb becauseof their higher concentration at the exchangeableion and sulfide ion bounded. A higher geoaccumu-lation index was related to Cu and Cr in the studyarea.

In addition, analysis indicates that Cu was notonly due to weathering of parent rocks but alsodue to anthropogenic effluent of industrial areaand other pollutants contributed to the river.Whereas Zn originated from the discharge atpoint sources pollutants, along the river, particu-larly in the industrial area, Pb showed the anthro-pogenic sources of heavy metal in the sediments.It could have come from non-point sources suchas atmospheric deposition (aerosols carrying in-secticides, pesticides and weedicides) and surfacedraining toxic chemicals within industrial areas.

It may, however, be added that higher metalvalues might also be contributions from the al-ready adsorbed metals in the deposited sediments

released due to turbulence generated by scaveng-ing organisms at the sediment water interface.

Igeo value indicated that the sediment at KabiniRiver was moderately polluted by Cu and Cr.

This contamination of trace metals pose po-tential danger and contamination and possibilityentering into aquatic and solid food chain. It may,however be added that higher metal values mightalso be contributions from the already adsorbedmetals in the deposited sediments due to turbu-lence generated by scavenging organisms at thesediment water interface.

From the results of the study, in order to protectthe river from further contamination periodicallyand monitor the level of pollution, rapid action ishighly warranted to control the mixing of effluentsof the concentration of heavy metals in this re-gion; environmental remediation and treatment ofindustrial effluent and municipal wastewaters isessential. Preventing direct input of agriculturalrunoff and minimizing metal remobilization im-pacts by improving the quality of water throughsediment dredging. Finally, stricter environmen-tal regulation for water and sediment quality isrequired to support protection and managementstrategies for Kabini River.

Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to theMr. Poolad Daneshvar for help in statistical data analysis.The authors also thank to Prof. S. Sathyanarayan for hisguidance and useful discussion during the course of prepa-ration of this paper.

References

Ahumuda, I., Mendoza, J., & Ascar, L. (1999). Sequen-tial extraction of heavy metals in soils irrigated withwastewater. Communications in Soil Science and PlantAnalysis, 30, 1507–1519.

American Public Health Association (1992). Standardmethods for the examination of water and wastewater.Washington, DC: APHA.

Bettinelli, M., Beone, G. M., Spezia, S., & Baffi, C. (2000).Determination of heavy metals in soils and sedimentsby microwave-assisted digestion and inductively cou-pled plasma optical emission spectrometry analysis.Analytica Chimica Acta, 424, 289–296.

Camusso, M., Vigano, L., & Baitstrini, R. (1995). Bioaccu-mulation of heavy metals in rainbow trout. Ecotoxicol-ogy and Environmental Safety, 31, 133–141.


Chester, R., & Hughes, R. M. (1967). A chemical techniquefor the separation of ferro-manganese minerals, car-bonate minerals and adsorbed heavy elements frompelagic Sediment. Chemical Geology, 2, 249–262.

Daskalova, N., & Boevski, I. (1999). Spectral interferencesin the determination of trace elements in environmen-tal materials by inductively coupled plasma atomicemission spectrometry. Spectrochimica Acta Part B,54, 1099–1122.

Dean, J. R. (2002). Methods for environmental heavy analy-sis. New York: Wiley.

Elith, M., & Garwood, S. (2001). Investigation into thelevels of heavy metals within Manly Dam Catchment.In Freshwater ecology report Sydney. Department ofEnvironmental Sciences, University of Technology.

Forstner, U. (1985). Chemical forms and reactivities ofmetals in sediment. In R. Leschber, R. D. Davids,& L. Hermite (Eds.), Chemical methods for assessingbio-available metals in sludges and soils (pp. 1–30).London: Elsevier.

Gibbs, R. J. (1973). Mechanisms of trace metal transport inrivers. Science, 180, 71–72.

Gutierrez, M., Neill, H., & Grand, R. V. (2004). Metals insediments of springs and cave streams as environmen-tal indicators in karst areas. Environmental Geology,46, 1079–1085.

Kabata-Pendias, A., & Pendias, H. (2001). Heavy elementsin soils and plants (3rd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC.

Karbassi, A. R., Monavari, S. M., Nabi Bidhendi, Gh. R.,Nouri, J., & Nematpour, K. (2008). Metal pollutionassessment of sediment and water in the Shur River.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 147, 107–116.

Kong, I. H., & Liu, S. H. (1995). Determination of heavymetals distribution in the anoxic sediment slurries bychemical sequential fraction. Ecotoxicology and Envi-ronmental Safety, 32, 34–38.

Loska, K., & Wiechula, D. (2002). Speciation of Cd in thebottom sediments of Rubnik reservoir. Water, Air andsoil Pollution, 141, 73–89.

Ma, L. Q., & Rao, G. N. (1997). Chemical fractionationof cadmium, copper, nickel, and zinc in contaminatedsoils. Journal of Environmental Quality, 26, 259–264.

Mermet, J. M. (2001). Qualities related to spectra acqui-sition in inductively coupled plasma–atomic emission

spectrometry. Spectrochimica Acta Part B, 56, 1657–1672.

Minoia, C., Bettinelli, M., & Sabbioni, E. (1993). Appli-cazioni dell’ICP– AES nel laboratorio chimico e tossi-cologico (p. 860). Milan: Morgan Edizioni Tecniche.

Morgan, J. J., & Stumm, W. (1991). Chemical processesin the environment, relevance of chemical speciation.In E. Merien (Ed.), Metals and their compounds in theenvironment (pp 67–103). Germany: VCH.

Mueller, G. (1979). Schwermetalle in den sediments desRheins-Veranderungen Seitt. Umschan 79, 778–783.

Namminga, H. N., & Wilhm, J. (1976). Effects of highdischarge and an oil refinery cleanup operation bonheavy metals in water and sediments in SkeletonCreek. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy ofScience, 56, 133–138.

Storelli, M. M., Storelli, A., D’ddabbo, R., Marano, C.,Bruno, R., & Marcotrigiano, G. O. (2005). Heavy ele-ments in loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) from theeastern Mediterranean Sea, overview and evaluation.Environmental Pollution, 135, 163–170.

Taghinia, A., Basavarajappa, H. T., & Qaid Saeed, A. M.(2010). Heavy metal pollution of Kabini river sedi-ments; Contamination through aquatic and solid foodchain, Nanjangud,Mysore, Karnataka. InternationalJournal of Environmental Research, 4(4), 629–636.

Tessier, A., Campbell, P. G. C., & Bisson, M. (1979).Sequential extraction procedure for the speciation ofheavy metals. Analytical Chemistry, 51(7), 844–861.

Todorovic, Z., Polic, P., Djordjevic, D., & Antonijevic, S.(2001). Lead distribution in water and its associa-tion with sediment constituents of the Barje lake(Leskovac, Yugoslavia). Journal of the Serbian Chem-ical Society, 66(10), 697–708.

Trivedy, R. K., & Goel, P. K. (1986). Chemical and bi-ological methods for water pollution studies. Karad:Environmental.

Turekian, K. K., & Wedepohl, K. H. (1961). Distribution ofthe elements in some major units of the earth’s crust.Geological Society of America Bulletin, 72, 175–192.

Xiangdong, L., Zhenguo, S., Onyx, W. H. W., &Yok-sheung, L. (2000). Chemical partitioning of heavymetal contaminants in sediments of the Pearl RiverEstuary. Chemical Speciation and Bioavailability, 12,17–25.

Documents

Heavy metal pollution in water and sediments in the Kabini River, Karnataka, India