Water Science

ScienceDirect
Water Science 31 (2017) 11–23

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

Research Article

Effect of physicochemical and biological parameters on the quality

of river water of Narmada, Madhya Pradesh, India
Nidhi Gupta a , Pankaj Pandey a,∗ , Jakir Hussain b
a Amity University Rajasthan, Jaipur P.O. Box 303002, India
b National River Water Quality Laboratory, Central Water Commission, New Delhi 110016, India
Received 28 March 2016; received in revised form 25 March 2017; accepted 28 March 2017
Available online 14 April 2017

Abstract
Narmada River is considered to be the holy river of the state Madhya Pradesh. A study was considered for the development of
water quality index using eight parameters pH, Temperature, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Turbidity, Nitrate-Nitrogen (NO3 -N),
Phosphate (PO4 3− ), Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Dissolved Oxygen (DO) measured at six different sites (S1–S6) along the
river Narmada. Three methods (Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index, National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index
and Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index) were used for calculation of water quality index. This
was observed that the water quality was found to be excellent to good in the season summer and winter and poor to unsuitable for
human consumption in the season monsoon along the river Narmada. The fall in the quality of water in monsoon season was due
to poor sanitation, turbulent flow, soil erosion and high anthropogenic activities.
© 2017 National Water Research Center. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Narmada River; Physicochemical and biological parameters; Water quality indices; Water quality standard

1. Introduction

For the human and industrial growth, water is considered to be the main requirement. Increase in population and
industrialization, the demand of the freshwater increases in the last decades. This demand fulfilled by the rivers which
provide the water for human life and agriculture purposes. Due to the waste discharged from the human and industrial
activities, the quality of river water has deteriorated which affects human as well as aquatic life. According to WHO,
CPCB, BIS, ICMR, the water quality of about 70% river water was contaminated due to pollutants in India and some
of the river water was too poor for human consumption (Ramakrishnaiah et al., 2009; Jindal and Sharma, 2010).
Assessment of quality of river water using various parameters (physico-chemical and biological) and the different

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pkpandey@jpr.amity.edu (P. Pandey).
Peer review under responsibility of National Water Research Center.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wsj.2017.03.002
1110-4929/© 2017 National Water Research Center. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
12 N. Gupta et al. / Water Science 31 (2017) 11–23

ways and techniques to protect the river water have been reported in the literature (Santosh et al., 2008; Yisa and
Jimoh, 2010; Shah et al., 2015). One approach for determination of quality of river water is water quality index, found
to be an efficient and useful method for assessing the water quality. This method gives an idea about the overall quality
of water to the concern policy makers (Asadi et al., 2007). Water quality index incorporate the different physical,
chemical and biological parameters for the determination of water quality indices using the various mathematical
equations (Yogendra and Puttaiah, 2008). The use of a WQI was initially proposed by Horton (1965) and Brown et al.
(1970). Since then, many different methods for the calculation of WQI’s have been developed. The procedure for the
calculation of WQI was differ proposed by the scientist (Zagatto et al., 1998; Stambuk Giljanovic, 1999). The different
water quality index used worldwide are US National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index (NSFWQI), Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCMEWQI), British Columbia Water Quality Index
(BCWQI), Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI), Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index (WAWQI) (Abbasi, 2002;
Kannel et al., 2007; Lumb et al., 2006; Sharifi, 1990). Generally two steps are needed for the calculation of water
quality indices. First one is the transformation of the selected water quality characteristics into sub index values. Second
is the aggregation of these values for the water quality index value. Various studies on the water quality indices were
reported in the literature by many researchers (Stambuk Giljanovic, 1999; Miller et al., 1986; Ott, 1978; Hallock, 2002;
Pesce and Wunderlin, 2000; Brown et al., 1970; Bordalo et al., 2001; Cude, 2001a,b; Liou et al., 2004; El-Gafy et al.,
2005; Sinha and Saxena, 2006; Boyacioglu, 2006; Gomez et al., 2007; Fulazzaky, 2009; Tyagi et al., 2013). Many
countries across the world utilizes these water quality index criteria to assess the quality of the water bodies, such
as United States (Canter, 1996), United Kingdom (House, 1989), Canada (CCME, 2001), India (Tiwari and Mishra,
1985), Egypt (Amman, 1995), Argentina (Almeida et al., 2012), Brazil (Coletti et al., 2010), Spain (Sanchez et al.,
2007), Iran (Nikoo et al., 2011) and Malawi (Wanda et al., 2012). Bhargava (1983a,b,c) introduced the water quality
index concept in India and gave an index scale ranging from 0 to 100 for highly polluted to unpolluted water. Studies
on the water quality of different rivers of India have been performed and the results have analyzed for the use of the
water for human beings (Bhargava et al., 1998; CPCB, 2000; Upadhyay et al., 2010). Little work has been reported on
the quality of Narmada River (largest west flowing river of the peninsular India). Studies on the effect of the various
physico-chemical and biological parameters on the quality of water of the Narmada River has been performed and
discuss the suitability of the water for human consumption based on values of water quality index. The methods used
for calculation of WQI are Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index (WAWQI), National Sanitation Foundation Water
Quality Index (NSFWQI) and Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCMEWQI)
in this study.

2. Study methodology

2.1. Study area

Narmada is the largest west flowing river (total length 1312 km) covering Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra
and Chhattisgarh states of India having an area of 98,796 km2 which is nearly 3% of the total geographical area of
the country with maximum length and width of 923 and 161 km respectively. It lies between 72◦ 38 to 81◦ 43 east
longitudes and 21◦ 27 to 23◦ 37 north latitudes. It rises from Maikala range near Amarkantak in Anuppur district of
Madhya Pradesh, at an elevation of about 1057 m and bounded by the Vindhyas on the north, the Maikala range on the
east, the Satpuras on the south and the Arabian Sea on the west. Narmada drains into the Arabian Sea through the Gulf
of Khambhat. There are eight (08) water quality stations at Barmanghat, Dindori, Handia, Hoshangabad, Madleshwar,
Manot, Garudeshwar and Sandia on the main stream of river Narmada while ten (10) water quality stations are located
at its tributaries viz., Orsang, Banjar, Sakkar, Burhner, Sher, Ganjal, Uri, Kundi, Hiran and Goi. Narmada River has 41
tributaries (22 and 19 are on the left and right bank). Out of 41 important tributaries, the Burhner, Banjar, HiranTawa,
ChotaTawa, Orsang and the Kundi River are the major tributaries. (Source: Central Water Commission, Ministry
of water Resources, Narmada Basin, Version 2.0, March, 2014.) Four distinct seasons such as cold, hot, south-west
monsoon, post-monsoon occur in the Narmada basin in a year. The normal annual rainfall for the Narmada basin is about
1100 mm of which south-west monsoon (June to October) contribute about 94% of the annual rainfall. Temperature
is maximum and minimum in the month of May and January, respectively. (Source: Central Water Commission, India
Meteorology Department, Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Atlas for Narmada, Tapi, Sabarmati, and Luni
 N. Gupta et al. / Water Science 31 (2017) 11–23 13

Fig. 1. Map showing the water quality monitoring sampling points for the Narmada Basin used in the study.
Source: Central Water Commission, Ministry of Water Resources, Narmada Basin, Version 2.0, 2014.

River Systems and Rivers of Saurashtra and Kutch Regions including Mahi, Final Report, Volume I: Main Report,
January 2015.)
Manot (Site Station-1): The sampling station location is located on the right bank of the Narmada River (22◦ 44 09
latitude 80◦ 30 47 longitude). There is no major anthropogenic input. The first major tributary meets the Narmada
River is Burhner.
Barmanghat (Site Station-2): (23◦ 01 51 latitude 79◦ 00 56 longitudes) This station (largest habitat in the basin)
is situated 100 km downstream of Jabalpur City. Hiren and Sher River tributary meet the Narmada River upstream of
the station.
Sandia (Site Station-3): (22◦ 54 57 latitude 78◦ 20 51 longitude) This station is located downstream of confluence
of tributary the Shakkar river.
Hoshangabad (Site Station-4): (22◦ 45 22 latitude 77◦ 43 58 longitude) This sampling station is located on
downstream of confluence of dammed tributary Tawa.
Handia (Site Station-5): (22◦ 29 30 latitude 76◦ 59 37 longitude) The station is located downstream to the
confluence of tributary Ganjal. Water supply to Harda city is drawn from the Narmada River.
Mandleshwar (Site Station-6): (22◦ 10 06 latitude 75◦ 39 39 longitude) The sampling station is located down-
stream of confluence of tributary Kundi (Fig. 1).

3. Materials and methods of analysis

The river water samples were collected from the selected six locations (S1–S6) as per standard sampling methods
(IS: 2498, 1966 – Part-I). Observations were regularly recorded for the analysis of parameters like temperature, pH,
dissolved oxygen, turbidity to assess the nature of degree of pollution. Other parameters such as Total Dissolved Solid
(TDS), Phosphate (PO4 3− ), nitrate (NO3 − ) and Bio-chemical Oxygen Demand were analyzed as per the standard
guidelines and procedures (APHA, 2012). Each analysis was done in triplicate and the mean value was taken.

3.1. Water quality parameters

A water quality management policy of surface waters, in general, should maintain the existing pollution parameters
below certain threshold levels and ensure minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations for survival of aquatic life. The
main pollution parameters that have to be considered for surface water quality management, in general, include water
14 N. Gupta et al. / Water Science 31 (2017) 11–23

Table 1
Standards for drinking water.
Characteristics ICMR WHO CPCB BIS – IS: 10500 – 2012 CCME

pH (pH units) 7.0–8.5 7.0–8.5 Class A – 6.5–8.5 Class A – 6.5–8.5 6.5–8.5

Class B – 6.5–8.5 Class B – 6.5–8.5
Class C – 6.5–9.0 Class C – 6.5–8.5 and
Permissible – no relaxation
TDS (mg L−1 ) 500 500 – Class A – 500 mg L−1 500
Class B – 500 mg L−1
Class C – 1500 mg L−1 and
Permissible – 2000 mg L−1
Temperature (◦ C) – – – – 15
Turbidity (NTU) 5 2.5 – Desirable – 05 NTU 5
Permissible – 10 NTU
NO3 -N (mg N L−1 ) 20 45 – Class A – 20 mg L−1 10
Class B – 20 mg L−1
Class C – 50 mg L−1 and
45 mg L−1 (permissible)
o-PO4 -P (mg P L−1 ) – – – – 0.3
BOD (mg L−1 ) – – Class A – 2 mg L−1 Class A – 2 mg L−1 3
Class B – 3 mg L−1 Class B – 3 mg L−1
Class C – 3 mg L−1 Class C – 3 mg L−1 and
No relaxation (permissible)
DO (mg L−1 ) – – Class A – 6 mg L−1 Class A – 6 mg L−1 5
Class B – 5 mg L−1 Class B – 5 mg L−1
Class C – 4 mg L−1 Class C – 4 mg L−1 and
No relaxation (permissible)

temperature, pH, dissolved and suspended solids, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, compounds of phosphorus and nitrogen,
biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand.

3.1.1. pH
According to the different standards proposed by WHO, ICMR, CPCB, BIS (listed in Table 1), the range of pH
lies between 6.5 to 8.5. If the pH is less than 6.5, it discontinues the making of vitamins and minerals in the human
body. More than 8.5 pH values cause the taste of water more salty and causes eye irritation and skin disorder for pH of
more than 11. The rainwater which has no minerals useful for human body has a pH of 5.5–6 and not harmful on used
as drinking purpose. pH in the range 3.5–4.5 affects the aquatic life (Adarsh and Mahantesh, 2006; Leo and Dekkar,
2000).

3.1.2. Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

The dissolved oxygen reveals the changes occur in the biological parameters due to aerobic or anaerobic phenomenon
and signifies the condition of the river/streams water for the purpose of the aquatic as well as human life (Chang, 2005).
The aquatic life disturbed due to low values of DO (Cox, 2003). The range of 5–14.5 mg O2 L−1 was found to be suitable
for the natural waters depending on turbulence, temperature, salinity, and altitude. As per the standards proposed by
US EPA (1986) and CPCB and BIS (Table 1), the range of DO lies between 4 to 6 mg L−1 ensures better aquatic life
in the water body (Leo and Dekkar, 2000; Burden et al., 2002; De, 2003).

3.1.3. Bio-chemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

The standard given by CPCB and BIS (Table 1) for BOD is 2–3 mg L−1 for class A, B, C respectively. BOD is used
for determination of requirement of oxygen for stabilizing household and industrial wastes (De, 2003). The effluents
disposed by domestic and industries into the surface and ground water contaminate the quality of the water which can
be assessed by BOD determination (Sawyer et al., 1994). According to WHO drinking water standard, BOD should
not exceed 6 mg L−1 (De, 2003). 3 mg L−1 is the maximum BOD for fisheries (Salmonid type) (EEC, 1978).
 N. Gupta et al. / Water Science 31 (2017) 11–23 15

3.1.4. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

TDS is determined for measuring the amount of solid materials dissolved in the water (surface, ground). High TDS
values causes harmful effect to the public health such as the central nervous system, provoking paralysis of the tongue,
lips, and, face, irritability, dizziness. The presence of synthetic organic chemicals even in small concentrations imparts
objectionable and offensive tastes, odors and colors to fish and aquatic plants (Chang, 2005). The range of TDS falls
between 500–1500 mg L−1 are prescribed by the US EPA (1997), and ICMR, WHO and BIS (Table 1) (Sawyer et al.,
1994; Leo and Dekkar, 2000).

3.1.5. Nitrate-Nitrogen (NO3 -N)

Different agricultural activities yield in the increase of nitrate concentration in ground and surface water (Nas and
Berktay, 2006). Increase in the amounts of Nitrate-Nitrogen in surface water causes different problems such as level of
oxygen in the water decreased results in effects on the aquatic life, plants and algae (Davie, 2003). Blue baby syndrome
disease in human body occurred due to reaction of nitrite and iron in with red blood cell create methemoglobin which
stops oxygen level. The children under age of 1 year suffered most due to consumption water contaminated with nitrate.
The range of Nitrate-Nitrogen prescribed by ICMR, WHO, BIS are 20, 45, 45 mg L−1 respectively (Nyamangara et al.,
2013).

3.1.6. Turbidity
The increase of turbidity of water results in interference of the penetration of light. This will damage the aquatic
life and also deteriorate the quality of surface water. In the season of monsoon heavy soil erosion and suspended solids
from sewage increased the turbidity which has an effect on the river and aquatic life (Verma et al., 1984). High values
of turbidity minimize the filter runs which cause pathogenic organisms to be more hazardous to the human life. Due to
this reason the WHO, ICMR and BIS (Table 1) proposed a maximum range of 2.5, 5 and 5 NTU respectively depending
upon the processes used for treatment of waste water (Sawyer et al., 1994; Burden et al., 2002; De, 2003).

3.1.7. Phosphate (PO4 3− )

Industrial and sewage waste create the pollution due to the presence of phosphates which caused growth of nuisance
for micro-organisms. The maximum use of fertilizer is the main source of phosphate which comes from agricultural
or residential cultivated land into surface waters with storm runoff. High phosphate level causes muscle damage,
problem with breathing and kidney failure (Nyamangara et al., 2013). The increase in phosphorus concentrations in the
rivers leads to eutrophication and depletion of dissolved oxygen concentrations (Davie, 2003). The limit for phosphate
phosphorus is 0.1 mg L−1 (US EPA, 1986).

4. Water Quality Index

The different methods used for calculation of WQI for the comparison of physico-chemical and biological parameters
were reported in the literature (Horton, 1965; Landwehr and Deininger, 1976; Brown et al., 1972; Steinhart et al.,
1982; Zandbergen and Hall, 1988; Cude, 2001a,b; Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 2005;
Bhargava, 1983a,b,c). Among the methods Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index (WAWQI), National Sanitation
Foundation Water Quality Index (NSFWQI) and Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality
Index (CCMEWQI) were adopted for calculation of WQI.

4.1. Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality index (WAWQI)

Weighted Arithmetic WQI proposed by Horton (1965) and used eight parameters Nitrate-Nitrogen (mg L−1 ), pH
(units), Dissolved Oxygen (mg L−1 ), Phosphate (mg L−1 ), Biological Oxygen Demand (mg L−1 ), Turbidity (NTU),
Total Dissolved Solid (mg L−1 ) and Temperature (◦ C) for the calculation of WQI given by the following equations:
16 N. Gupta et al. / Water Science 31 (2017) 11–23

Step 1: In the first step, unit weight (Wi ) for various parameters is inversely proportional to the recommended standard
(Sstandard ) for the corresponding parameter. Wi values were calculated by using the following formula proposed by
Tiwari and Mishra (1985),
 1
Wi = K (1)
Sstandard
The constant of proportionality K in the above equation can be determined from the following equation,
1
K=  (2)
1
S1 + 1
S2 + ··· + 1
Sn

Step 2: Calculate quality rating scale (Qi ) of ith parameter for a total of n water quality parameters is calculated by
using this equation,
 
Qactual − Qideal
Qi = × 100 (3)
sstandard − Qideal
Step 3: Finally, the overall WQI was calculated by aggregating the quality rating with the unit weight linearly using
the following equation:
i=n
Q i Wi
WAWQI = i=1  (4)
Wi
In this study, the WQI was considered for human consumption or uses, and the maximum permissible WQI for the
drinking water was taken as 100 score. Rating scale proposed was in the range of 0–100 and grading were proposed as
A for 0–25 (Excellent), B for 26–50 (Good), C for 51–75 (Poor), D for 76–100 (Very Poor) and above 100 (Unsuitable
for drinking purpose) stands for E.
where

Wi = unit weight for each water quality parameter;

K = proportionality constant;
Qi = the quality rating scale for each parameter;
Qactual = estimated concentration of ith parameter in the analyzed water;
Qideal = the ideal value of this parameter in pure water, Qideal = 0 (except pH = 7.0 and DO = 14.6 mg L−1 );
Sstandard = recommended standard value of ith parameter;
n = number of water quality parameters.

4.2. National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index (NSFWQI)

The National Sanitation Foundation WQI used nine different parameters namely, Nitrate-Nitrogen (mg L−1 ), pH
(units), Dissolved Oxygen (% saturation), Fecal Coliform (colonies/100 mL), Phosphate (mg L−1 ), Biological Oxygen
Demand (mg L−1 ), Turbidity (NTU), Total Dissolved Solid (mg L−1 ) and Temperature (◦ C) for the calculation of WQI
as given below:
Step 1: Calculate (Q-value) from the water quality data are recorded and transferred to a weighting curve chart.
Step 2: Multiply the Q-value by weight factor (Dissolved Oxygen by 0.17, Fecal Coliform by 0.16, pH and Biological
Oxygen Demand by 0.11, Temperature, Nitrate, Phosphate by 0.10, Turbidity by 0.08 and Total Dissolved Solid by
0.07) to get the parameter sub-index (Qi ).
Step 3: Compute the NSFWQI from the sub index for ith water quality parameters (Qi ) and the weight associated
with ith water quality parameter (Wi ).

n
NSFWQI = Wi Qi (5)
i=1

Rating scale proposed was in the range of 0–100 and grading were proposed as Excellent for 90–100, Good for
70–90, Medium for 50–70, Bad for 25–50, and very bad for 0–25.
 N. Gupta et al. / Water Science 31 (2017) 11–23 17

where

n = number of water quality parameters;

Qi = sub-index for ith water quality parameter;
Wi = weight (in terms of importance) associated with ith water quality parameter.

4.3. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCMEWQI)

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (2005) has proposed a method for the calculation of
WQI using three factors (Scope, Frequency and Amplitude). This formula is the modification of the mathematical
expression given by British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Alberta Environment. Four
variables sampled four times must require for the calculation of WQI using CCMEWQI. Canadian Council of Ministers
of the Environment WQI used eight parameters Nitrate-Nitrogen (mg L−1 ), pH (units), Dissolved Oxygen (mg L−1 ),
Phosphate (mg L−1 ), Biological Oxygen Demand (mg L−1 ), Turbidity (NTU), Total Dissolved Solid (mg L−1 ) and
Temperature (◦ C) for the calculation of WQI. The various mathematical equations used for the three factors are as
follows:

1. Scope: F1 (scope) defined as the ratio of number of failed variables to the total number of variables.
 
Number of failed variables
F1 = × 100 (6)
Total number of variables
2. Frequency: F2 (frequency) represents the percentage of individual tests that do not meet the objectives (failed tests):
 
Number of failed tests
F2 = × 100 (7)
Total number of tests
3. Amplitude: F3 (amplitude) represents the amount by which failed test values do not meet their objectives. F3 is
calculated in three steps as follows:
(i) The expression for the cases when the test value must not exceed the objective and must not fall below the
objective is given by
 
Failed Test Valuei
excursioni = −1 (8)
Objectivej
 
Objectivej
excursioni = −1 (9)
Failed Test Valuei
(ii) This step is comprises of summation of excursions calculated in step (i) divided by the total number of tests
and is given by the following expression:
n
excursioni
nse = i=1 (10)
Number of tests
(iii) F3 is then calculated by an asymptotic function that scales the normalized sum of the excursions from objectives
(nse) to yield a range between 0 and 100.
 
nse
F3 = (11)
0.01nse + 0.01
The F1 , F2 and F3 from the step (i), (ii) and (iii) are being used to calculate the CCME water quality index
and is given by the following form:
⎛ ⎞
F12 + F22 + F32
CCMEWQI = 100 − ⎝ ⎠ (12)
1.732
18 N. Gupta et al. / Water Science 31 (2017) 11–23

Table 2
Water quality data (Year 2009–2012) of the river Narmada at different sites.
Parameters Unit Manot Barmanghat Sandia Hoshangabad Handia Mandleshwar
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

Year 2009
pH 8.18–8.33 8.13–8.23 8.15–8.40 8.30–8.33 8.15–8.48 8.05–8.28
Temperature ◦C 19.00–26.75 21.75–28.50 22.13–29.00 19.75–27.00 21.00–27.88 20.38–28.50
Turbidity NTU 0.10–66.28 0.10–51.28 0.10–103.78 0.10–39.53 0.10–95.78 0.10–73.78
DO mg L−1 5.18–7.23 2.40–7.80 2.40–5.90 3.37–5.80 5.40–7.05 5.15–6.78
TDS mg L−1 155–219 163–181 164–198 186–224 147–202 147–191
Nitrate-Nitrogen mg N L−1 0.25–0.53 0.33–0.90 0.17–0.95 0.17–0.63 0.14–0.65 0.21–1.35
Phosphate mg P L−1 0.02–0.70 0.11–0.16 0.07–0.09 0.07–0.08 0.06–0.08 0.10–0.12
BOD mg L−1 1.38–2.18 1.3–1.93 0.35–1.08 1.55–1.60 1.60–1.70 1.50–1.75
Year 2010
pH 7.70–8.30 7.88–8.13 7.98–8.33 8.13–8.28 8.15–8.53 8.15–8.30
Temperature ◦C 19.45–26.63 23.38–27.88 20.13–26.63 22.00–27.50 20.50–27.00 24.00–27.75
Turbidity NTU 0.10–113.78 0.10–73.28 0.10–112.53 0.10–98.05 0.10–79.03 0.10–16.80
DO mg L−1 4.75–6.08 2.40–5.90 5.60–6.30 3.38–5.68 5.30–6.20 4.88–6.35
TDS mg L−1 108–185 163–234 127–169 125–201 134–199 141–190
Nitrate-Nitrogen mg N L−1 0.39–1.26 0.35–1.43 0.38–1.16 0.39–1.17 0.41–1.22 0.36–1.76
Phosphate mg P L−1 0.03–0.29 0.05–0.44 0.03–0.51 0.05–0.48 0.04–0.50 0.03–0.52
BOD mg L−1 0.95–1.43 0.73–1.60 1.13–1.75 1.13–1.35 1.20–1.50 0.35–1.23
Year 2011
pH 7.80–8.30 8.13–8.18 8.13–8.25 8.15–8.43 8.03–8.30 8.13–8.23
Temperature ◦C 17.33–27.45 22.75–27.50 19.88–27.38 19.00–26.25 22.25–28.75 23.75–27.00
Turbidity NTU 0.10–152.53 0.10–162.53 0.10–176.50 0.10–178.25 0.10–163.25 0.10–29.53
DO mg L−1 5.28–6.30 5.10–6.55 5.40–5.90 5.60–7.00 5.7–6.1 5.18–6.75
TDS mg L−1 108–212 130–153 127–151 140–182 137–198 150–173
Nitrate-Nitrogen mg N L−1 0.03–1.90 0.41–1.98 0.09–2.24 0.12–1.79 0.14–1.85 0.15–1.77
Phosphate mg P L−1 0.10–0.15 0.10–0.15 0.07–0.17 0.06–0.20 0.07–0.17 0.07–0.12
BOD mg L−1 0.65–1.28 0.88–1.03 0.75–1.15 0.90–1.15 0.63–1.25 0.88–1.40
Year 2012
pH 8.13–8.28 7.95–8.23 8.00–8.23 8.10–8.27 8.15–8.48 8.08–8.23
Temperature ◦C 19.75–27 21.67–26.50 19.33–28.00 18.60–26.00 19.50–27.88 22.50–28.00
Turbidity NTU 0.01–30.00 0.07–32.50 0.01–55.00 0.01–76.67 0.01–61.67 0.01–30.00
DO mg L−1 5.95–6.75 5.55–6.97 6.08–6.63 6.15–7.57 5.93–7.03 5.68–6.40
TDS mg L−1 136–200 152–158 159–196 173–194 152–195 154–178
Nitrate-Nitrogen mg N L−1 0.04–0.77 0.23–1.05 0.29–1.24 0.27–0.98 0.59–3.14 0.42–1.36
Phosphate mg P L−1 0.01–0.04 0.01–0.09 0.02–0.08 0.03–0.10 0.03–0.08 0.03–0.05
BOD mg L−1 0.98–1.20 0.85–1.48 0.97–1.08 0.70–1.23 0.68–1.43 0.83–1.43

Note: BOD = Bio-chemical Oxygen Demand; DO = Dissolved Oxygen; TDS = Total Dissolved Solids.

Rating scale proposed was in the range of 0–100 and grading were proposed as Excellent for 95–100, Good
for 80–94, Fair for 65–79, Poor for 45–64, and very poor for 0–44.

5. Result and discussion

This study shows seasonal variations for the different physico-chemical and biological parameters at various stations
(S1–S6) with their ranges have been tabulated and shown in Table 2.
From Table 2, it was clear that the range of the pH lies between 7.7 to 8.48 which follow the standards given by WHO,
ICMR, BIS and CPCB shown in Table 1. In the present study a narrow variation of pH is observed for all sampling
stations (S1–S6) is due to low annual variation in free CO2 . Kumari et al. (2013) and Sharma et al. (2008) reported
comparative studies of physicochemical parameters of Narmada river and found the minimum range of pH is 7.4–7.7
and maximum range of pH is 8.8–9.7 at different sites which is very much close to the present study. Similar results
were reported by Santosh et al. (2008) and Shah et al. (2015), in the pH range 5.9–8.00 and 6.5–8.9 for Netravathi
 N. Gupta et al. / Water Science 31 (2017) 11–23 19

Table 3
Water quality at studied sites of the river Narmada using Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index (WAWQI) method.
Year Manot (S1) Barmanghat (S2) Sandia (S3) Hoshangabad (S4) Handia (S5) Mandleshwar (S6)

W S M W S M W S M W S M W S M W S M

2009 11.04 11.42 80.10 11.99 14.38 68.94 14.16 13.12 121.33 17.25 15.62 73.32 11.51 12.11 113.92 12.61 12.65 89.17
2010 15.49 11.22 134.31 24.27 12.94 96.24 25.61 10.96 139.10 22.73 14.84 160.93 15.81 11.33 104.44 16.63 10.80 40.00
2011 10.87 13.05 170.34 19.44 13.59 180.72 15.72 13.51 197.10 23.05 15.73 260.20 13.32 12.27 183.26 10.69 12.75 43.08
2012 9.90 10.27 40.05 11.09 10.55 42.41 10.83 9.98 66.30 14.31 13.77 115.67 11.33 11.36 73.46 10.63 10.08 40.86

and Sabarmati river respectively. The character of the water was acidic in the season monsoon due to increase in the
concentration of free CO2 and alkaline or neutral pH in the other different seasons. Water quality deterioration can be
explained by the pH of the water (Santosh et al., 2008).
TDS found to be in the range of 108–234 mg L−1 which was found to be within the prescribed limit of 500 mg L−1 .
Sites S1, S4, S5 and sites S2, S4 and site S1 have high TDS value in the year 2009, 2010 and 2011 respectively
as compared to other sites TDS values (S3 and S6). Kumari et al. (2013) found TDS value of 136–360 mg L−1 for
Narmada river. Similarly results were reported by Jindal and Sharma (2010), in the TDS range 156–582 mg L−1 for
Potrero de los Funes River. This may be due to sewage discharges and anthropogenic activities along the river banks
at these sites (Jindal and Sharma, 2010).
Turbidity was found to be in the range of 0.01–178.25 NTU. The highest value was at S4 during the monsoon season
of 2011. The high value of turbidity was because of the sediments from the nearby areas and due to turbulent flow
which stirred up the non living matter like silt and sand at the bottom of the river. The high values of turbidity have
been reported in the others river in monsoon season (Narayan and Chauhan, 2000; Almeida et al., 2012).
Nitrate-Nitrogen levels for all the stations was found to be low (0.03–3.14 mg L−1 ) for all the years. It was observed
that Nitrate-Nitrogen level remains same in the monsoon period also. This was due to natural occurring sources of
nitrate – nitrogen level in these stations (Nyamangara et al., 2013). Sharma et al. (2008) reported the minimum value
of Nitrate was 12.6 mg L−1 and maximum value was 21.2 mg L−1 at two sites of Narmada River.
The Phosphate value of the different sites was observed to be 0.01–0.52 mg L−1 which was within the prescribed
limit. The highest value of 0.52 mg L−1 was found to be in the monsoon season for site S6 in the year 2010. This was
due to the soil erosion from nearby area that also includes phosphates (Shashi Kumar et al., 2002; Gurumayum et al.,
2002). High phosphate was observed (21 mg L−1 at station 2) and a low (6.2 mg L−1 at station 1) of Narmada River as
reported by Sharma et al. (2008).
BOD values falls between 0.35 to 2.18 mg L−1 for the selected sites. It was observed that maximum value of BOD
was found at site S1 during summer of 2009. This may be due to higher rate of decomposition of organic matter at
higher temperature and less water current (Sanap et al., 2006). On comparison with other data by researchers, it was
found that the minimum and maximum value of BOD was 0.4–2.14 mg L−1 (Kumari et al., 2013), which is very close
to the present study.
DO values range from 2.4 to 7.8 mg L−1 for the sites (S1–S6). Sites S1, S2, S3 and S4 have values less than the
prescribed limit of 5 mg L−1 shows these areas are highly deoxygenated. The low DO concentration was due to waste
discharges high in organic matter and nutrient near by the river site and due to increase microbial activity occurring
during the degradation of the organic matter (Yisa and Jimoh, 2010). Sharma et al. (2008) reported a DO value of
6.5–15 mg L−1 which is under prescribed limit as per WHO. Similarly results were reported by Yisa and Jimoh (2010),
in the DO values ranged from 3.10–520 mg L−1 for River Landzu.

5.1. Water Quality Index (WQI)

WQI for eight analyzed physico-chemical parameters of river Narmada at sites S1–S6 was tabulated and shown in
Tables 3–5.
The values for water quality index falls in the range of excellent in the season winter and summer and falls in poor to
unsuitable for drinking purpose in monsoon season using Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index (WAWQI) method
at all the sites studied. Using National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index (NSFWQI) method water quality
index shows the quality of water falls in the range of good at the site S1, S2, S4, S5 and S6 while it is medium for S3
20 N. Gupta et al. / Water Science 31 (2017) 11–23

Table 4
Water quality at studied sites of the river Narmada using National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index (NSFWQI) method.
Year Manot (S1) Barmanghat (S2) Sandia (S3) Hoshangabad (S4) Handia (S5) Mandleshwar (S6)

W S M W S M W S M W S M W S M W S M

2009 76.90 73.00 68.01 76.86 73.88 63.35 69.01 70.18 61.23 69.09 74.04 63.17 75.50 74.52 61.56 75.48 74.24 67.98
2010 74.40 72.60 65.37 73.56 66.62 65.36 64.23 69.04 57.85 76.72 74.82 66.00 75.05 75.65 64.85 75.21 74.93 66.45
2011 75.20 73.60 67.72 75.67 73.62 66.51 68.20 67.85 59.53 76.11 75.85 67.03 74.97 76.49 67.59 77.88 73.77 71.84
2012 77.20 75.60 73.98 77.29 74.30 74.10 68.91 68.15 63.55 77.38 75.93 71.51 75.45 74.63 71.11 76.22 76.18 72.88

Table 5
Water quality at studied sites of the river Narmada using Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCMEWQI)
method.
Year Manot (S1) Barmanghat (S2) Sandia (S3) Hoshangabad (S4) Handia (S5) Mandleshwar (S6)

2009 62.43 68.54 65.04 76.78 67.35 61.57

2010 56.47 52.93 54.26 62.08 64.21 65.97
2011 59.37 64.40 52.79 57.33 58.37 72.29
2012 77.84 71.73 64.47 68.07 69.26 79.25

Fig. 2. Water quality index of studied sites of the river Narmada using Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index (WAWQI) method.

Fig. 3. Water quality index of studied sites of the river Narmada using National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index (NSFWQI) method.

site and for the monsoon season water quality was medium for all the sites (S1–S6). The method Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCMEWQI) shows that the quality of the water falls in the range
of poor to fair from the year 2009–2012 for all the sites i.e. S1–S6. The different range of the WQI given by the three
methods was due to the consideration of the range proposed by different methods as given in Tables 3–5.
The mean values of WQI of three methods have been plotted in Figs. 2–4.
From Fig. 2 it can be concluded that the quality of water at the site S6 found to be good and bad at S4 using
WAWQI method. From Fig. 3, S1 and S6 sites water quality found to be in good condition while it was bad for S3
using NSFWQI. Fig. 4 reveals that the quality of water was good at site S6 using CCMEWQI method.
 N. Gupta et al. / Water Science 31 (2017) 11–23 21

Fig. 4. Water quality index of studied sites of the river Narmada using Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index
(CCMEWQI) method.

Based on the WQI and on comparison the WQ parameters with national and international standards (Table 1), it can
be concluded that WQ of Narmada river found to be the suitable for all the sites studied except in monsoon season.

6. Conclusion

Different parameters such as physical, chemical and biological parameters are considered for the water quality
determination of Narmada River at six stations (S1–S6). Eight water quality parameters as Nitrate-Nitrogen, pH,
Dissolved Oxygen, Phosphate, Biological Oxygen Demand, Turbidity, Total Dissolved Solid and Temperature con-
sidered to assess the quality of river water. The study reveals that the water quality of river Narmada was found
to be suitable for human consumption in the season summer and winter as the values of parameters found to be
(pH 7.7–8.48, TDS 108–234 mg L−1 , Turbidity 0.01–178.25 NTU, Nitrate-Nitrogen 0.03–3.14 mg L−1 , Phosphate
0.01–0.52 mg L−1 , BOD 0.35–2.18 mg L−1 and DO 2.4–7.8 mg L−1 ) as per the standard values prescribed by different
regulatory bodies. For assessment of water quality of River Narmada, various Water Quality Index (WQI) such as
Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index (WAWQI), National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index (NSFWQI)
and Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCMEWQI) has been used in this study.
On comparison of these methods for evaluation of water quality of Narmada River at different sites, WAWQI method
provides better idea about the water quality.

Acknowledgement

The authors are thankful to Amity University Rajasthan, Jaipur for providing all the assistance to carry out this
work.

References

Asadi, S.S., Vuppala, P., Anji, R.M., 2007. Remote sensing and GIS techniques for evaluation of groundwater quality in municipal corporation of
Hyderabad (Zone-V), India. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 4 (1), 45–52.
Abbasi, S.A., 2002. Water Quality Indices, State of the Art Report. Scientific Contribution No. INCOH/SAR-25/2002. INCOH, National Institute
of Hydrology, Roorkee.
Adarsh, S., Mahantesh, B., 2006. Personal Communication. Resident Doctors of Medicine. Hanagal Shree Kumareshwara Hospital, Bagalkot,
Karnataka, India.
Amman, 1995. UNEP development of water quality indices for sustainable development: a case study. In: Proceeding of the Expert Group Meeting
on the Implication of Agenda Region, 2–5 October 1995.
Almeida, C., Gonzalez, S.O., Mallea, M., Gonzalez, P., 2012. A recreational water quality index using chemical, physical and microbiological
parameters. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 19 (8), 3400–3411.
APHA (American Public Health Association), 2012. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 22nd ed. American Public
Health Association, Washington, DC.
Brown, R.M., Mcclelland, N.I., Deininder, R.A., Tozer, R.G., 1970. A water quality index: do we dare? Water Sewage Works 117 (10), 339–343.
22 N. Gupta et al. / Water Science 31 (2017) 11–23

Brown, R.M., McLellend, N.I., Deininger, R.A., O’Connor, M.F., 1972. A water quality index crashing the psychological barrier. Indic. Environ.
Qual. 1, 173–182.
Bhargava, D.S., 1983a. A light penetration model for the Rivers Ganga and Yamuna. Int. J. Dev. Technol. (England) 1 (3), 199–205.
Bhargava, D.S., 1983b. Most rapid BOD assimilation in Ganga and Yamuna Rivers. J. Environ. Eng. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 109 (1), 174–188.
Bhargava, D.S., 1983c. Use of water quality index for river classification and zoning of Ganga River. Environ. Pollut. Ser. B (England) 6 (1), 51–67.
Bhargava, D.S., Saxena, B.S., Dewakar, 1998. A study of geo-pollutants in the Godavari River basin in India. In: Asian Environment. IOS Press,
pp. 36–59.
Burden, F.R., Kelvie, M.C.I., Forstner, U., Guenther, A., 2002. Environmental Monitoring Handbook. McGraw-Hill Handbooks, New York, pp.
3.1–3.21.
Bordalo, Nilsumranchit, W., Chalermwat, K., 2001. Water quality and uses of the Bangpakonk River (Eastern Thailand). Water Res. 35 (15),
3635–3642.
Boyacioglu, H., 2006. Development of a water quality index based on a European classification scheme. Water SA 33 (1), 101–106.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) 10500, 2012. Specification for Drinking Water. Indian Standards Institution, New Delhi, pp. 1–5.
Cude, C., 2001a. Oregon water quality index: a tool for evaluating water quality management effectiveness. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 37,
125–137.
Cude, 2001b. Oregon Water Quality Index: a tool for evaluating water quality management effectiveness. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 37 (1),
125–137.
CCMC (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment), 2005. Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators. Freshwater Quality Indicator:
Data Sources and Methods. Catalogue No. 16-256-XIE.
CWC (Central Water Commission), 2015. Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Atlas for Narmada, Tapi, Sabarmati, and Luni River Systems
and Rivers of Saurashtra and Kutch Regions Including Mahi. Final Report. CWC, pp. 1–344.
CWC (Central Water Commission), 2014. Narmada Basin. Report. CWC, pp. 1–142.
Canter, L.W., 1996. Environmental Impact Assessment, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill International Edition, New York, USA.
CCMC (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment), 2001. CCME Water Quality Index 1.0 Technical Report and User’s Manual. Canadian
Environmental Quality Guidelines. Technical Subcommittee, Gatineau.
CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board), 2000. Water Quality Status of Yamuna River. Assessment and Development of River Basin. CPCB Report.
Chang, H., 2005. Spatial and temporal variations of water quality in the Han River and its tributaries, Seoul, Korea, 1993–2002. Water Air Soil
Pollut. 161, 267–284.
Cox, B.A., 2003. A review of currently available in-stream water quality models and their applicability for simulating dissolved oxygen in lowland
rivers. Sci. Total Environ. 314–316, 335–377.
Coletti, C., Testezlaf, R., Ribeiro, T.A.P., De Souza, R.T.G., Peraira, D.A., 2010. Water quality index using multivariate factorial analysis. Rev. Bras.
Eng. Agric. Ambient. 14 (5), 517–522.
De, A.K., 2003. Environmental Chemistry, 5th ed. New Age International Publisher, New Delhi, pp. 190, 215, 242–244.
Davie, T., 2003. Fundamental of Hydrology. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London, New York.
EEC, 1978. Council Directive (78/659/EEC) on the Quality of Fresh Waters Needing Protection or Improvement in Order to Support Fish Life,
Retrieved 20 April 2005.
El-Gafy, M.N., Faria, A., El-Bahrawy, A., Khalifa, A., El-Basiony, E., Abdelmotaleb, M., 2005. Decision support system for evaluation the
groundwater quality. Emir. J. Eng. Res. 10 (1), 69–78.
Fulazzaky, M.A., 2009. Water quality evaluation system to assess the Brantas River Water. Water Resour. Manag. 23 (4), 3019–3033.
Gomez, S.E., Menni, R.C., Naya, J.G., Ramirez, L., 2007. The physical-chemical habitat of the Buenos Aires Pejerrey, Odontesthes bonariensis
(Teleostei, Atherinopsidae) with a proposal of a water quality index. Environ. Biol. Fishes 78 (2), 161–171.
Gurumayum, S.D., Daimari, P., Goswami, B.S.J., Sarkar, A., Chaudhury, M., 2002. Physico chemical qualities of water and plankton of selected
rivers in Meghalaya J. Inland. Fish. Soc. India 34 (2), 36–42.
Horton, R.K., 1965. An index number system for rating water quality. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 37 (3), 300–306.
Hallock, D., 2002. A Water Quality Index for Ecology’s Stream Monitoring Program. Technical Report. Washington State Department of Ecology,
Environmental Assessment Program, Olympia, 23 pp.
House, M.A., 1989. A water quality index for river management. Water Environ. J. 3 (4), 336–344.
ICMR (Council of Medical Research), 1975. Manual of Standards of Quality for Drinking Water Supplies, Indian. Special Report No. 44., pp. 27.
Jindal, R., Sharma, C., 2010. Studies on water quality of Sutlej River around Ludhiana with reference to physicochemical parameters. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 174, 417–425.
Kannel, P.R., Lee, S., Lee, Y.S., Kanel, S.R., Khan, S.P., 2007. Application of water quality indices and dissolved oxygen as indicators for river
water classification and urban impact assessment. Environ. Monit. Assess. 132, 93–110.
Kumari, M., Mudgal, L.K., Singh, A.K., 2013. Comparative studies of physico-chemical parameters of two reservoirs of Narmada River, MP, India.
Curr. World Environ. 8 (3), 473–478.
Lumb, A., Halliwell, D., Sharma, T., 2006. Application of CCME Water quality Index to monitor water quality: a case of the Mackenzie River
Basin, Canada. Environ. Monit. Assess. 113, 411–429.
Landwehr, J.M., Deininger, R.A., 1976. A comparison of several water quality indexes. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 48 (5), 954.
Liou, S.M., Lo, S.L., Wang, S.H., 2004. A generalized water quality index for Taiwan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 96 (1–3), 35–52.
Leo, M.L., Dekkar, M., 2000. Hand Book of Water Analysis. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 1–25, 115–117, 143, 175, 223–226, 261, 273, 767.
Miller, W.W., Joung, H.M., Mahannah, C.N., Garrett, J.R., 1986. Identification of water quality differences in Nevada through index application. J.
Environ. Qual. 15, 265–272.
 N. Gupta et al. / Water Science 31 (2017) 11–23 23

Nikoo, R., Kerachian, R., Malakpour Estalaki, S., Bashi-Azghadi, S.N., Azimi Ghadikolaee, M.M., 2011. A probabilistic water quality index for
River water quality assessment: a case study. Environ. Monit. Assess. 181 (1–4), 465–478.
Nas, B., Berktay, A., 2006. Groundwater contamination by nitrates in the city of Konya (Turkey): a GIS perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 79, 30–37.
Narayan, S., Chauhan, R., 2000. Water quality status of river complex Yamuna at Panchnada (Distt. Etawah, U.P., India). I: An integrated management
approach. Pollut. Res. 19 (3), 357–364.
Nyamangara, J., Jeke, N., Rurinda, J., 2013. Long term nitrate and phosphate loading river water in the Upper Manyame catchment, Zimbabwe.
Water SA 39 (5), 637–642.
Ott, W.R., 1978. Environmental Indices: Theory and Practice. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Pesce, S.F., Wunderlin, D.A., 2000. Use of water quality indices to verify the impact of Córdoba City (Argentina) on Suquìa River. Water Res. 34
(11), 2915–2926.
Ramakrishnaiah, C.R., Sadashivaiah, C., Ranganna, G., 2009. Assessment of water quality Index for the groundwater in Tumkur Taluk, Karnataka
State, India. Electron. J. Chem. 6 (2), 523–530.
Santosh, M., Avvannavar, Shrihari, S., 2008. Evaluation of water quality index for drinking purposes for river Netravathi, Mangalore, South India.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 143, 279–290.
Shah, A., Kosha, Geeta, J.S., 2015. Evaluation of water quality index for River Sabarmati, Gujarat, India. Appl. Water Sci., 1–10.
Sharifi, M., 1990. Assessment of surface water quality by an index system in Anzali Basin. IAHS-AISH P. 197, 163–171.
Stambuk Giljanovic, N., 1999. Water quality evaluation by index in Dalmatia. Water Res. 33 (16), 3423–3440.
Sinha, D.K., Saxena, A., 2006. Statistical assessment of underground drinking water contamination and effect of monsoon at Hasanpur, J.P. Nagar
(Uttar Pradesh, India). J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 48 (3), 157–164.
Sanchez, E., Colmenero, M.F., Vicente, J., Rubio, A., Garcia, M.G., Travieso, L., Borja, R., 2007. Use of the water quality index and dissolved
oxygen deficit as simple indicators of watersheds pollution. Ecol. Indic. 7 (2), 315–328.
Shashi Kumar, K.C., Madhyastha, M.V., Rekha, P.D., 2002. Distribution and occurrence of diatom community along three estuaries of Dakshina
Kannada, West Coast of India. Indian J. Environ. Health 44 (4), 258–265.
Sawyer, C.N., McCarthy, P.L., Parkin, G.F., 1994. Chemistry for Environmental Engineering and Science, 4th ed. McGraw-Hill International Edition,
New York, pp. 365–577.
Steinhart, C.E., Schierow, L.J., Sonzogni, W.C., 1982. Environmental quality index for the great lakes. Water Resour. Bull. 18 (6), 1025–1031.
Sanap, R.R., Mohite, A.K., Pingle, S.D., Gunale, V.R., 2006. Evaluation of water qualities of Godawari River with reference to physicochemical
parameters, district Nasik (M.S.), India. Pollut. Res. 25 (4), 775–778.
Sharma, S., Dixit, S., Jain, P., 2008. Statistical evaluation of hydrobiological parameters of Narmada River water at Hoshangabad City, India.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 143, 195–202.
Tyagi, S., Sharma, B., Singh, P., Dobhal, R., 2013. Water quality assessment in terms of water quality index. Am. J. Water Resour. 1 (3), 34–38.
Tiwari, T.N., Mishra, M.A., 1985. Preliminary assignment of water quality index of major Indian Rivers. Indian J. Environ. Prot. 5 (4), 276–279.
Upadhyay, R., Dasgupta, N., Hasan, A., Upadhyay, S.K., 2010. Managing water quality of River Yamuna in NCR Delhi. Phys. Chem. Earth Pt.
A/B/C 36 (9–11), 372–378.
US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. Gold Book Quality Criteria, EPA 440/5-86-001. Office of Water,
Washington.
US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook (Final Report), EPA/600/P-95/002F a-c, Washington, DC.
Verma, S.R., Sharma, P., Tyagi, A., Rani, S., Gupta, A.K., Dalela, R.C., 1984. Pollution and saprobic status of eastern Kalinadi. Limnologia 15,
69–133.
Wanda, E.M.M., Gulula, L.C., Phiri, G., 2012. Determination of characteristics and drinking water quality index in Mzuzu City, Northern Malawi.
Phys. Chem. Earth Pt. A/B/C 50–52, 92–97.
WHO (World Health Organization), 2006. Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. (1). Recommendations, vol. 1., 3rd ed., pp. 491–493.
Yisa, J., Jimoh, T., 2010. Analytical Studies on water quality Index of River Landzu. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 7 (4), 453–458.
Yogendra, K., Puttaiah, E.T., 2008. Determination of water quality index and suitability of an urban water body in Shimoga Town, Karnataka. In:
Proceedings of Taal2007: The 12th World Lake Conference, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India, 29 October–2 November 2007.
Zagatto, P.A., Lorenzetti, M.L., Perez, L.S.N., Menegon, J.R.N., Buratini, S.V., 1998. Proposal for a new water quality index. Verh. Int. Ver. Theor.
Angew. Limnol. 26, 2449–2451.
Zandbergen, P.A., Hall, K.I., 1988. Analysis of the British Colombia water quality Index for watershed managers: a case study of two small
watersheds. Water Qual. Res. Canada 33 (a), 510–525.