Current World Environment

Introduction

The river system is complex in nature as it receives freshwater discharges through land drainage and effluents from industries, thus the limnology of river body is unique and dynamic in lentic and lotic regions. Industrial wastewater may contain specific toxicants which are non-biodegradable substances that act as irreversible metabolic inhibitors of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. They also changes the status of river water body from oligotrophic to eutrophic as these effluents are rich in nutrients. The potent accumulation of these toxic elements in various organs of freshwater creatures ultimately endanger the aquatic biota in the long run. These organisms also act as bio-indicators of pollution, depending upon the limit of their tolerance to metals and thus, the ecological regime of the aquatic ecosystem determines its overall health. The present study aims to reflect the toxicity load on river Sirsa flowing in the vicinity of Asia's biggest pharmaceutical hub near Sirsa tributary.

Study Area

The present study is on Sirsa river which is adjacent to Baddi town and lies between 30º 57'N; 76º22'E at 426 m above sea level. It acts as an ultimate recipient of various pollutants directly or indirectly. These wastewaters were being generated from various industries such as pulp and paper mill, textile dyeing, chemical, beverages, distillery, battery, electronics, medicine, metal components, cement, etc. The study area includes three observation sites (S₁, S₂, and S₃) on river Sirsa and drainage system of industrial units; the effluent Nallah as demarcated in figure1 and 2. 

Brief description of the collection sites are given below:

S₁:       River Sirsa upstream of Baddi area but 4 km downstream of Barotiwala.

S₂:       It is on Effluent Nallah of Baddi industrial hub after CETP but before confluence with river Sirsa.

S₃:       Situated downstream on Sirsa river near Jagatkhana Bridge, where it receives wastewaters from Baddi Industrial hub.   

Figure 1: Borderline Map Showing Collection sites   Click here to view Figure

Figure 2: Location of collection sites depicted as S1, S2 and S3   Click here to View Figure

Material and Methods

The water samples were collected in 0.5 L high-grade polyethylene bottles previously rinsed with 10% nitric acid and acidified by adding 1 ml of Conc. nitric acid to avoid precipitation of heavy metals and stored at 4^oC to prevent evaporation¹. Each water sample (20 ml) was filtered with Whatman filter paper number 1. The site specific filtrate was collected in borosil vials and 3% nitric acid (1ml) was added to it. Further, final detection of heavy metals concentrations in water samples were performed by central research facility laboratory at Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi using inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy as it is one of the revolutionary and effective technique for determination of a range of metals and several non-metals at concentrations below one part per trillion. Statistical analysis of data was done by using one-way Analysis of Variance followed by post hoc Duncan’s test (P< 0.05 was considered significant). Results were expressed as Mean ± S.E. at three independent sites and shown in Table 1. The collected data were analyzed using the statistical software package, SPSS 16.0 (SPSS, USA). 

Results and Discussion

The mean comparison of concentrations of toxic elements at selected sites; S₁, S₂ and S₃ of study area are depicted in Table 1. The degree of variation in the values of heavy metals concentration at three selected sites was observed in the Sirsa river water body through the entire year of study period. It was similar with the work on river Yamuna¹. Further, it was reported that concentrations of Cr, Ni, Pb, As, Cd were found to be statistically significant (p? 0.05) and were above the permissible limits of WHO at S₂ only, but the values of Hg, Li, Ti, V, Co, Cs, Pt were not statistically significant as shown in the Table 1 and Fig.3 below. 

Table 1. The Concentrations of Heavy Metals reported at S₁, S₂ & S₃ and their Permissible Limits in ppb as specified by WHO (2004), US EPA (2002) and BIS (1993). 

Statistical comparisons: The data was analyzed by ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) followed by post Hoc Duncan’s test. Values are expressed as SEM (Mean ± Standard Error Mean) at significant level (p<0.05) and represented by symbol*)

The leakage of Titanium dioxide in the water body as a food grade nanoparticles was reported to disturb the ecosystem health.² The mean concentration of Ti at S₃ was 0.95 ppb, at S₁ was 0.12 ppb and at S₂ was 1.38 ppb. S₃ and S₁ have lower mean value than S₂. It may be due to the disposal of more food colouring agents near effluents nallah. Vanadium is an emerging contaminant to be reported in wastewater and act as a potential toxicant to animals and human beings.³The mean concentration of V at S₃ was 0.16 ppb, at S₁ was 0.3 ppb and at S₂ was 1.37 ppb, the source of which may be the discharge of waste water from ore smelting industrial units. 

Chromium in hexavalent form is considered as a potent poison in the wastes of batteries, tannery, electroplating, pharmaceutical hub and adversely effects aquatic environment.⁴ The mean concentration of Cr at S₃ was 15.45 ppb, at S₁ was 1.42 ppb, at S₂ was 63.18 ppb and the difference reported was statistically significant (p<0.05) for river water at S₂ as compared with S₁ and S₃ because there is no proper waste landing site near CETP area. In the process of bioremediation micro-organisms act as potential bio-indicators to combat chromium toxicity, but it was challenging part to use proper selection techniques for it.⁵ in the area of contamination. The present mean concentration of Co at S₃ was 0.67 ppb, at S₁ was 0.11 ppb and the value of Co at S₂ (0.30 ppb) was less as compared to S₃, this could be attributed to lower disposal of Co at the site of effluent Nallah. 

The presence of Nickel was reported in industrial wastewater discharge and it also changes biochemical properties of food crops; can be used for recycling of nutrients.⁶ to maintain the ecological balance in the long run. The mean concentration of Ni at S₃ was 7.54 ppb, at S₁ was 1.22 ppb and at S₂ was 23.72 ppb. The values reported at site S₂ were significantly higher (p<0.05) than S₁ and S_3. The impact of Ni on micro-crustaceans present in river Saigon was reported to show chronic toxicity.⁷; in the present study also Ni level was higher than normal range at S₂ site, which may be due to washing of pharma chemical carrier trucks and dismantling of battery parts in open landfills area. The drinking water is the largest source of arsenic poisoning worldwide and it also affects directly and indirectly human health.⁸The mean concentration of As at S₃ is 4.2 ppb, at S₁ was 0.40 ppb and at S₂ was 11.69 ppb. The difference was statistically significant (p<0.05) for Sirsa river and higher at S₂ which may be explained as the dissolution of minerals as well as ores in industrial effluents and was found in concurrence with variations reported to induce arsenic related disorders.⁹

Lithium was reported in some rivers of United States in low concentration; also related with present study on Li; the concentration of Li at S₃ was 0.64 ppb, at S₁was 0.28 ppb and at S₂ was 1.42 ppb; well within permissible limits of US EPA.¹⁰, as well as co-related with global results on Li survey to optimise its impact on ecosystem and city dweller.¹¹ The disposal of Ni-Cd based batteries, dis-coloured and discarded electronic raw materials guttered into landfills ultimately leached down into water body was reported to cause serious health problems. The mean concentration of Cd at S₃ was 1.14 ppb, at S₁ was 0.08 ppb and at S₂ was 4.23 ppb; it was (p<0.05) found to be significant statistically as highlighted in Table 1 because Effluent Nallah receives more e-waste water indirectly and can be related with the similar reason for high concentration of Cd in underground water of western Uttar Pradesh area.¹²

The waste water of pharmaceutical industry reported to show deleterious effect on living organisms due to the use of platinum in manufacture of cytostatic drugs.¹³ The mean concentration of Pt at S₃ was 11.52 ppb, at S₁ was 1.12 ppb and at S₂ was higher (32.3 ppb) which may be due to agricultural surface run-off or pharmaceutical residues. The similar results were reported in Fukushima city water of Japan contaminated with Cesium as pollutant.¹⁴ and it was also reported to show some effects of low dose of radioactive Cs on animals.¹⁵ The impact of platinum on reproduction inhibition also reported to be high in South Africa near Hex River's vicinity.¹⁶

The most hazardous heavy metal toxicant is Lead which affects oxidative reactions of body to induce haemolytic anemia, affects neurotransmitter level and may also resulted in organ damage.¹⁷ The mean concentration of Pb at S₃ was 6.23 ppb, at S₁ was 0.14 ppb and at S₂ was 13.40 ppb. The reported variation was statistically significant (p<0.05) for Sirsa river water at S₂ which may be due to discharge of waste water from industrial units near CETP and plumbing fittings (soldering and due to use of PVC pipes); also found to in concurrence with variation of Lead in ground water system of India.¹⁸ The wastewaters are being generated from various industries such as pulp and paper mill, textile dyeing, chemical, beverages, distillery, battery, electronics, medicine, metal components, and cement etc. in Baddi region; the mean concentration of Hg at S₃ was 1.21 ppb, at S₁ was 0.001 ppb, at S₂ was 1.64 ppb. It may be noted that the open discharge of pharma based effluents in the vicinity of river Sirsa has resulted in mercury pollution related with findings of overdose effects of it on riverine system.¹⁹ 

Figure 3: Graph showing concentration of Heavy metals at S1, S2 and S3   Click here to view Figure

The concentrations of toxic elements at S₂ were in the order: Cr >Ni > Pb> As >Cd >Hg >Li >Ti >V >Co > Cs > Pt respectively, while at S₃, in the order: Cr > Ni > Pb > As >Hg >Cd >Co >Li > Pt >Ti >V > Cs.  According to the WHO standard for drinking water the mean values obtained at upstream effluent nallah were found to be in the order: Cr > Ni > As > Ti > V > Li > Pb > Cs > Pt > Co > Cd > Hg in this study. The concentrations of elements found to be within permissible limits of WHO at sites under study for seven metals (Hg, Li, Ti, V, Co, Cs, Pt) but it was higher for five toxic heavy metals (Cr, Ni, Pb, As, Cd) at S₂  only (Fig.3), which may be due to improper installation of common effluent treatment plant on the bank of river Sirsa or due to leakage by tanker carrying waste water from various industrial set ups as these units were not directly linked to CETP. It was also observed that washing of trucks in its vicinity directly pour residual chemical substances into river water and soil in the shoreline area.  The present study on heavy metal pollution is strongly in correlation with earlier work as the concentration of Ni and Pb was found to be higher in this industrial belt.²² and also due to sodicity hazard with high KR value, the water of Sirsa river was reported to be unfit for irrigation.²³ so these sites were committed to act as ultimate gutter to receive all types of industrial pollutants.

In addition, the issue of remedial action against failure of authorities in Himachal Pradesh, in preventing pollution of rivers Balad, Sirsa and Sutlej in Baddi industrial area of Solan was underlined recently. It was found that discharge of toxic industrial pollutants due to leakage from Common Effluent Treatment Plant and discharge of toxic waste as activated pharmaceutical ingredient residues from pharma industries which cannot be treated by CETP and even by ETPs were causing water pollution.  This situation is due to lack of finalised draft of standards to be implemented as per state local authority, but regulatory mechanism is such an important issue cannot remain in abeyance for indefinite period. So, it is necessary to address the grievances related to the discharge of untreated or partially treated toxic waste by pharmaceutical industries into water body, which may pose serious damage to environment and public health.

Conclusion

In view of sustainability of aquatic ecosystem, the present area under study lies in foot hills between lentic and lotic habitat needs to be restored as per ecological parameters. The ruthless discharges in to river Sirsa be monitored on scientific lines regularly so that the flow of toxic pollutants at trophic level can be assessed in near future. The elemental analysis in this direction is of prime importance to calculate concentration load of each heavy metal present in the waste water and Sirsa river water to draw a clear line of demarcation for further research and policy implementations. The concrete outcome of the work undertaken is that the high levels of carcinogenic lead and arsenic in Sutlej river’s tributary water, flowing down stream towards Ropar district of Punjab, is decreasing the potability of water for various purposes. Hence, the wide array of river restoration programmes are still in dark and doom for sustainability of aquatic ecosystem.

Acknowledgement

We are thankful to Principal, Swami Shraddhanand College for his support and encouragement. The authors would like to acknowledge Central Research Facility Laboratory at Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi for conducting inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy of elements.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest for this manuscript.

Funding Sources

There is no funding or financial support for this research work.

References

1. Sehgal M, Garg A, Suresh R, Dagar P. Heavy metal contamination in the Delhi segment of Yamuna basin. Environmental monitoring and assessment 2012; 184(2):1181-1196.
   CrossRef
2. Fiordaliso F, Bigini P, Salmona M, Diomede L. Toxicological impact of titanium dioxide nanoparticles and food-grade titanium dioxide (E171) on human and environmental health. Environmental Science: Nano 2022.
   CrossRef
3. Liu J, Huang Y, Li H, Duan H. Recent advances in removal techniques of vanadium from water: a comprehensive review. Chemosphere 2022; 287:132021.
   CrossRef
4. GracePavithra K, Jaikumar V, Kumar PS, SundarRajan P. A review on cleaner strategies for chromium industrial wastewater: present research and future perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 2019; 228:580-93.
   CrossRef
5. Sharma P, Singh SP, Parakh SK, Tong YW. Health hazards of hexavalent chromium (Cr (VI)) and its microbial reduction. Bioengineered 2022; 13(3):4923-38.
   CrossRef
6. Chow YN, Lee LK, Zakaria NA, Foo KY. Integrated assessment of nickel electroplating industrial wastewater effluent as a renewable resource of irrigation water using a hydroponic cultivation system. Frontiers in plant science 2021; 12:609396.
   CrossRef
7. Le VN, Dao TS. Highly potent toxicity of nickel in river water to Daphnia lumholtzi. International Journal of Development Research 2016; 6(9):9526-31.
8. Sankhla MS, Kumar R, Agrawal P. Arsenic in water contamination & toxic effect on human health: Current scenario of India. J Forensic Sci & Criminal Inves. 2018; 10(2):001-5.
9. Sanyal T, Bhattacharjee P, Paul S, Bhattacharjee P. Recent advances in arsenic research: significance of differential susceptibility and sustainable strategies for mitigation. Frontiers in public health 2020; 8:464.
   CrossRef
10. Kszos LA, Stewart AJ. Review of lithium in the aquatic environment: distribution in the United States, toxicity and case example of groundwater contamination. Ecotoxicology 2003; 12(5):439-47.
    CrossRef
11. Choi HB, Ryu JS, Shin WJ, Vigier N. The impact of anthropogenic inputs on lithium content in river and tap water. Nature communications 2019; 10(1):1-7.
    CrossRef
12. Idrees N, Tabassum B, Abd_Allah EF, Hashem A, Sarah R, Hashim M. Groundwater contamination with cadmium concentrations in some West UP Regions, India. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 2018; 25(7):1365-8.
    CrossRef
13. Roque-Diaz Y, Sanadar M, Han D, López-Mesas M, Valiente M, Tolazzi M, Melchior A, Veclani D. The Dark Side of Platinum Based Cytostatic Drugs: From Detection to Removal. Processes. 2021; 9(11):1873.
    CrossRef
14. Awual MR, Yaita T, Kobayashi T, Shiwaku H, Suzuki S. Improving cesium removal to clean-up the contaminated water using modified conjugate material. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 2020;8(2):103684.
    CrossRef
15. Nakajima H. Effects of Radioactive Cesium-Containing Water on Mice. In Low-Dose Radiation Effects on Animals and Ecosystems 2020 (221-235). Springer, Singapore.
    CrossRef
16. Díaz-Morales DM, Erasmus JH, Bosch S, Nachev M, Smit NJ, Zimmermann S, Wepener V, Sures B. Metal contamination and toxicity of soils and river sediments from the world's largest platinum mining area. Environmental Pollution 2021; 286:117284.
    CrossRef
17. Ren YS, Ilyas M, Xu RZ, Ahmad W, Wang R. Concentrations of Lead in Groundwater and Human Blood in the Population of Palosai, a Rural Area in Pakistan: Human Exposure and Risk Assessment. Adsorption Science & Technology 2022; 2022.
    CrossRef
18. Debnath B, Singh WS, Manna K. Sources and toxicological effects of lead on human health. Indian J Med Spec 2019;10:66-71
    CrossRef
19. Verma RK, Sankhla MS, Kumar R. Mercury contamination in water & its impact on public health. International Journal of Forensic Science 2018; 1(2).
20. Bhardwaj S. K, Sharma R, Aggarwal R. K. Impact Appraisal of Industrialization on Heavy Metal Contamination of Sirsa River Located in the Shivalik Foothills of North Western Himalayas. Curr World Environ 2018; 14(2).
    CrossRef
21. Bhardwaj SK, Sharma R, Aggarwal RK. Suitability Assessment of Sirsa River Water for Irrigation in Shiwalik Foothills of North Western Himalaya. Current World Environment 2017; 14 (1):159.
    CrossRef