| Literature DB >> 34981401 |
Hamed Haghnazar1, Jeffrey A Cunningham2, Vinod Kumar3, Ehsan Aghayani4, Mojtaba Mehraein5.
Abstract
Due to the spreading of the coronavirus (COVID-19) in Iran, restrictions and lockdown were announced to control the infection. In order to determine the effects of the lockdown period on the status of the water quality and pollution, the concentrations of Al, As, Ba, Cr, Cu, Mo, Ni, Pb, Se, and Zn, together with Na+, Mg2+, Ca2+ and electrical conductivity (EC), were measured in the Zarjoub River, north of Iran, in both pre-lockdown and post-lockdown periods. The results indicated that water pollution and associated human health risk reduced by an average of 30% and 39%, respectively, during the lockdown period. In addition, the multi-purpose water quality index also improved by an average of 34%. However, the water salinity and alkalinity increased during the lockdown period due to the increase of municipal wastewater and the use of disinfectants. The major sources of pollution were identified as weathering, municipal wastewater, industrial and agricultural effluents, solid waste, and vehicular pollution. PCA-MLR receptor model showed that the contribution of mixed sources of weathering and municipal wastewater in water pollution increased from 23 to 50% during the lockdown period. However, the contribution of mixed sources of industrial effluents and solid wastes reduced from 64 to 45%. Likewise, the contribution of traffic-related sources exhibited a reduction from 13% in the pre-lockdown period to 5% together with agricultural effluent in the post-lockdown period. Overall, although the lockdown period resulted in positive impacts on diminishing the level of water pollution caused by industrial and vehicular contaminants, the increase of municipal waste and wastewater is a negative consequence of the lockdown period.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Hazardous elements; Lockdown; PCA-MLR; Water pollution
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 34981401 PMCID: PMC8723709 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-18286-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
Fig. 1The study area and the location of sampling sites
Mathematical expressions and classification of indices for water pollution by hazardous elements
| Indices | Mathematical expressions | Classification | Contamination/quality | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heavy metal pollution index (HPI) | Where Mi is the measured concentration of the ith element. | HPI < 15 | Low | Edet and Offiong, ( Qu et al. ( |
| 15 < HPI < 30 | Medium | |||
| HPI > 30 | High | |||
| Heavy metal evaluation index (HEI) | Where | HEI < 10 | Low | Bodrud-Doza et al. |
| 10 < HEI < 20 | Medium | |||
| HEI > 20 | High | |||
| Degree of contamination index ( | Where | Low | Abdel-Satar et al. | |
| 1 < | Medium | |||
| High | ||||
| Water quality index (WQI) | where | Excellent | Yadav et al. Custodio et al. | |
| 26 < | Good | |||
| 51 < | Poor | |||
| 76 < | Very poor | |||
| Unsuitable |
Statistical summary of hazardous elements in the Zarjoub River (unit, μg/L)
| Al | As | Ba | Cr | Cu | Mo | Ni | Pb | Se | Zn | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-lockdown | Mean | 197 | 3.2 | 110 | 56 | 5.2 | 5.7 | 21 | 15 | 4.9 | 29 |
| SD | 14.4 | 0.16 | 5.33 | 9.03 | 0.50 | 1.22 | 2.86 | 0.85 | 0.55 | 3.06 | |
| Minimum | 170 | 3.0 | 100 | 44 | 4.4 | 4.1 | 18 | 14 | 3.9 | 24 | |
| Maximum | 220 | 3.6 | 122 | 72 | 6.3 | 8.9 | 26 | 16 | 5.9 | 36 | |
| Post-lockdown | Mean | 93 | 3.6 | 108 | 24 | 1.1 | 3.9 | 31 | 14 | 2.7 | 39 |
| SD | 21.7 | 0.56 | 5.96 | 3.86 | 0.16 | 0.26 | 0.94 | 0.07 | 1.38 | 1.48 | |
| Minimum | 70 | 2.6 | 92 | 15 | 0.7 | 3.6 | 29 | 14 | 1.1 | 38 | |
| Maximum | 130 | 4.6 | 117 | 32 | 1.3 | 4.3 | 32 | 15 | 6.4 | 43 | |
| WHO, (2011) | 200 | 10 | 700 | 50 | 2000 | 70 | 70 | 10 | 10 | 3000 | |
| FAO, ( | 5000 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 200 | 10 | 200 | 5000 | 20 | 2000 | |
| USEPA, ( | 750 | 340 | — | 16 | 13 | — | 470 | 65 | — | 120 | |
Fig. 2Water pollution and quality indices values plotted by site from upstream (1) to downstream (13)
Fig. 3Comparison of the Safe-Hearts based on the mean values of indices and major sampling sites
Fig. 5(a) PCA for pre-lockdown, (b) PCA for post-lockdown, (c) PCA-MLR receptor model for pre-lockdown, and (d) PCA-MLR receptor model for post-lockdown
Fig. 4Pearson’s correlation analyses. (a) Pre-lockdown period, and (b) post-lockdown period (bold values refer to coefficients greater than 0.5)
Statistical summary of the agricultural parameters of water in the Zarjoub River
| Na+ (meq/L) | Mg2+ (meq/L) | Ca2+ (meq/L) | SAR | EC (μS/cm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-lockdown | Mean | 0.89 | 0.69 | 1.48 | 0.84 | 952.4 |
| SD | 0.25 | 0.11 | 0.29 | 0.2 | 226.7 | |
| Minimum | 0.32 | 0.42 | 0.87 | 0.39 | 476.4 | |
| Maximum | 1.05 | 0.77 | 1.73 | 0.96 | 1166.2 | |
| Post-lockdown | Mean | 5.08 | 1.13 | 3.17 | 3.41 | 1113.8 |
| SD | 1.75 | 0.19 | 0.27 | 1.12 | 220.0 | |
| Minimum | 0.46 | 0.74 | 2.48 | 0.36 | 619.4 |
Fig. 6(a) The classification of irrigation water based on USSL diagram. (b) The relationship between SAR and EC