| Literature DB >> 32623668 |
Shah Jehan1, Ihsan Ullah2, Sardar Khan2, Said Muhammad3, Seema Anjum Khattak3, Tariq Khan4.
Abstract
This study evaluates the characteristics of water along the Swat River, Northern Pakistan. For this purpose, water samples (n = 30) were collected and analyzed for physicochemical parameters including heavy metals (HM). The mean concentrations of physicochemical parameters and HM were within the drinking water guideline values set by the World Health Organization (WHO 2011) except 34%, 60%, and 56% of copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), and lead (Pb), respectively. Pollution sources were identified by various multivariate statistical techniques including correlation analysis (CA) and principal component analysis (PCA) indicating different origins both naturally and anthropogenically. Results of the water quality index (WQI) ranged from 13.58 to 209 with an average value of 77 suggesting poor water quality for drinking and domestic purposes. The poor water quality was mainly related to high sodium (alkalinity) and salinity hazards showing > 27% and 20% water samples have poor alkalinity and salinity hazards, respectively. Hazard quotient (HQ) and hazard index (HI) were used to determine the health risk of HM in the study area. For water-related health risk, HQingestion, HQdermal, and HI values were > 1, indicating noncarcinogenic health risk (NCR) posed by these HM to the exposed population.Entities:
Keywords: Geostatistical techniques; Human health risk assessment; Principal component analysis; Sodium adsorption ratio; Swat River; Water quality index (WQI) model
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32623668 PMCID: PMC7525278 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-09688-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
Fig. 1Sampling location map of the study area
Fig. 2Geological map showing the local setting and different formations of the study area (after Searle and Khan 1996)
Statistics of physicochemical parameters and the parameters for Water Quality Index calculation
| Parameter | Unit | WHO | Descriptive statistics | Parameters for WQI calculation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min | Max | Ave | SD | SE | Weight (wi) | Relative weight (Wi) | |||
| pH | 6.5–8.5 | 7.00 | 8.21 | 7.23 | 0.38 | 0.06 | 4.00 | 0.05 | |
| EC | μS/cm | 1500 | 103 | 1260 | 426 | 289.25 | 52.8 | 4.00 | 0.05 |
| TDS | mg/L | 1000 | 65.9 | 806.0 | 228 | 189.03 | 34.5 | 4.00 | 0.05 |
| Cl | mg/L | 200 | 35 | 115 | 93.01 | 14.11 | 1.25 | 4.00 | 0.10 |
| SO4 | mg/L | 500 | 76.0 | 168 | 113 | 19.0 | 7.83 | 3.00 | 0.07 |
| HCO3 | mg/L | 500 | 116 | 430 | 101 | 23.0 | 3.91 | 1.00 | 0.02 |
| Na | mg/L | 200 | 17.2 | 39.63 | 24.3 | 6.30 | 1.15 | 3.00 | 0.04 |
| K | mg/L | 12 | 2.10 | 16.31 | 7.03 | 3.87 | 0.70 | 2.00 | 0.02 |
| Ca | mg/L | 75 | 27.2 | 125.2 | 101 | 19.44 | 3.54 | 2.00 | 0.02 |
| Mg | mg/L | 50 | 21.2 | 41.10 | 26.7 | 4.77 | 0.87 | 2.00 | 0.02 |
| Zn | μg/L | 3000 | 9.00 | 74.00 | 26.3 | 14.45 | 2.63 | 3.00 | 0.04 |
| Co | μg/L | 50 | 8.00 | 48.00 | 22.6 | 10.48 | 1.21 | 1.00 | 0.01 |
| Cu | μg/L | 50 | 12.0 | 57.00 | 32.6 | 12.72 | 2.23 | 2.00 | 0.03 |
| Ni | μg/L | 20 | 1.00 | 71.00 | 27.8 | 21.01 | 3.83 | 4.00 | 0.05 |
| Pb | μg/L | 10 | 2.00 | 18.00 | 9.3 | 3.43 | 0.62 | 5 | 0.06 |
Reference dose (RfD), hazard quotient (HQ), and hazard index (HI) for each heavy metal
| HM | RfDingestion | RfDdermal | HQingestion | HQdermal | HI = ƩHQs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adult | Child | Adult | child | Adult | Child | |||
| Zn | 300 | 60 | 0.00259 | 0.00269 | 0.00405 | 0.0168 | 0.00664 | 0.0168 |
| Co | 5 | 0.06 | 0.10995 | 0.11435 | 0.26655 | 4.75992 | 0.3765 | 1.75992 |
| Cu | 40 | 12 | 0.02406 | 0.02503 | 0.04187 | 0.26043 | 0.06593 | 0.26043 |
| Ni | 20 | 5.4 | 0.04106 | 0.0427 | 0.31754 | 1.77752 | 0.3586 | 1.77752 |
| Pb | 1.4 | 0.42 | 0.196 | 0.20384 | 0.0341 | 0.70705 | 0.2301 | 0.70705 |
Fig. 3Comparison of a physicochemical parameters and b heavy metals in water samples of the study area with international standards
Fig. 4a, b Schematic diagram to understand the major ion chemistry and mechanism controlling water chemistry along the Swat River, Pakistan. Data were plotted as Na/Na + Ca mg/L versus Log TDS and Cl/Cl + HCO3 mg/L versus Log TDS
Fig. 5The Chadha diagram identifies different water type formations along the Swat River, northern Pakistan. After Chadha (1999). Field 1: Ca–HCO3 type water indices, representing both recharge and weathering processes. Field 2: Ca–Mg–Cl type waters, reflecting reverse ion-exchange processes. Field 3: Na–Cl type waters, indicating evaporation is the principal mechanism. Field 4: Na–HCO3 type waters, reflecting cationic and ionic exchange processes
Classification of water quality for irrigation purposes in the study area
| Water class | Salinity hazards | Alkali hazards | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EC (μS/cm) | Number of samples (%) | SAR (epm) | Number of samples (%) | |
| Excellent | Up to 250 | 24 | Up to 10 | – |
| Good | 250–750 | 56 | 10 to 18 | 73 |
| Fair/medium | 750–2250 | 20 | 18 to 26 | 27 |
| Poor/bad | 2250–5000 | > 26 | – | |
Pearson correlation matrix of heavy metals in the study area
| HM | pH | EC | TDS | Na | K | Ca | Mg | Zn | Co | Cu | Ni | Pb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | − 0.24 | − 0.06 | − 0.13 | − 0.34 | 0.12 | − 0.41* | − 0.29 | − 0.16 | 0.105 | 0.10 | − 0.13 | |
| EC | − 0.24 | 0.50** | 0.31 | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.031 | 0.10 | − 0.06 | − 0.18 | − 0.02 | − 0.16 | |
| TDS | − 0.06 | − 0.03 | 0.11 | − 0.20 | − 0.05 | − 0.16 | − 0.20 | − 0.25 | − 0.02 | − 0.08 | ||
| Na | − 0.13 | 0.31 | − 0.03 | 0.24 | 0.21 | 0.49** | 0.27 | − 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.31 | − 0.4** | |
| K | − 0.34 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.24 | 0.06 | 0.45* | − 0.03 | 0.29 | 0.04 | − 0.12 | − 0.32 | |
| Ca | 0.12 | 0.10 | − 0.20 | 0.21 | 0.06 | 0.22 | 0.25 | 0.06 | − 0.10 | − 0.01 | − 0.41* | |
| Mg | 0.41* | 0.03 | − 0.05 | 0.22 | 0.23 | 0.21 | − 0.04 | − 0.03 | − 0.29 | |||
| Zn | − 0.29 | 0.10 | − 0.16 | 0.27 | − 0.03 | 0.250 | 0.23 | 0.11 | 0.16 | 0.40* | − 0.05 | |
| Co | − 0.16 | − 0.06 | − 0.20 | − 0.03 | 0.29 | 0.06 | 0.22 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.21 | − 0.11 | |
| Cu | 0.10 | − 0.18 | − 0.25 | 0.09 | 0.04 | − 0.10 | − 0.04 | 0.16 | 0.09 | 0.25 | 0.03 | |
| Ni | 0.10 | − 0.02 | − 0.02 | 0.31 | − 0.12 | − 0.01 | − 0.03 | 0.21 | 0.25 | 0.15 | ||
| Pb | − 0.13 | − 0.16 | − 0.08 | − 0.32 | 0.41* | − 0.29 | − 0.05 | − 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.15 |
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Values of dominant parameter in each factor are dominated in bold. Italic data are given for the same parameter correlation with each othe
Principal component analysis via dimension reduction method after varimax rotation
| HM | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | − 0.45 | 0.18 | − 0.67 | − 0.02 | 0.39 |
| EC | 0.37 | − 0.54 | − 0.02 | 0.02 | |
| TDS | 0.02 | − 0.70 | 0.07 | 0.43 | 0.28 |
| Na | 0.10 | − 0.23 | 0.26 | 0.18 | |
| K | − 0.22 | 0.30 | − 0.37 | 0.33 | |
| Ca | 0.39 | 0.12 | − 0.64 | − 0.10 | − 0.38 |
| Mg | 0.04 | 0.14 | − 0.26 | − 0.14 | |
| Zn | 0.45 | 0.46 | 0.08 | 0.42 | − 0.40 |
| Co | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.36 | − 0.29 | 0.21 |
| Cu | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.05 | ||
| Ni | 0.13 | 0.08 | 0.23 | ||
| Pb | − 0.58 | 0.15 | 0.22 | − 0.26 | |
| Eigenvalue | 2.09 | 1.93 | 1.77 | 1.77 | 1.09 |
| Variability % | 17.4 | 16.0 | 14.7 | 14.7 | 9.15 |
| Cumulative % | 17.4 | 33.4 | 48.2 | 63.0 | 72.2 |
Values of dominant parameters in each factor are represented in italic
Fig. 6Spatial distribution maps of physicochemical parameters and heavy metals in water samples