Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Heavy metals contamination in sediments of Bharalu river, Guwahati, Assam, India: A tributary of river Brahmaputra

Abstract

This study aimed to assess heavy metals in the surface sediments of the Bharalu river, India. Metal concentrations ranged from 6.65−54.6 mg/kg for Ni, 25.2−250.0 mg/kg for Zn, 83.3−139.1 mg/kg for Pb, and 11940.0−31250.0 mg/kg for Fe. The level of metal contamination was assessed using sediment quality guidelines, geo-accumulation index (Igeo), enrichment factor (EF), pollution Load Index (PLI),Nemerow’s pollution index (PIN), and potential ecological risk index. Pb exceeded the sediment quality guidelines at all sites indicating a potential threat to the river ecosystem. (Igeo) and EF also showed moderate to severe enrichment for Pb. Potential ecological risk (RI) showed low risk in the sediments, and Pb is the major contributor to ecological risk. Overall, pollution indices revealed comparably higher contamination of the sediments in the downstream sites than in the upstream site. PCA and correlation matrix analysis indicated both anthropogenic and natural origins for metals. Among anthropogenic sources, urban discharges and waste dumping could be mainly attributed to metal contamination in the river sediments. These findings may aid in developing future river management methods explicitly aimed at tackling heavy metal pollution to prevent further damage to the river ecosystem.

Citation: Bhuyan R, Brahma P, Chabukdhara M, Tyagi N, Gupta SK, Malik T (2023) Heavy metals contamination in sediments of Bharalu river, Guwahati, Assam, India: A tributary of river Brahmaputra. PLoS ONE 18(4): e0283665. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283665

Editor: Venkatramanan Senapathi, Alagappa University, VIET NAM

Received: June 8, 2022; Accepted: March 2, 2023; Published: April 5, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Bhuyan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose which is directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication.

1. Introduction

More than half of the world’s population lives in cities, and understanding the processes that affect urban systems is of global concern [1,2]. Urban rivers are vulnerable to exogenous pollution due to the relatively restricted surroundings of narrow watersheds, complex flow zones, and delayed water rejuvenation [3]. Sediments have long been perceived as a critical indicator of water contamination [4,5] as sediment has a high contaminant retention capacity and also releases accumulated contaminants back into the river (water) system [6].

Among several contaminants, heavy metal pollution of the surface water bodies has drawn special consideration due to their non-biodegradable nature, bioaccumulation capacity, and food chain contamination [7]. As disposal sites for various industrial and urban treated and untreated effluents, river sediments are most sensitive to metal contamination [8]. Metals contamination in surface sediments along urban rivers has recently been a major concern. Urban and industrial activities have been linked to heavy metals in urban river sediments and associated ecological risks [9–11]. The migration of metals from sediments to overlying water and other environments leads to severe environmental and human health risks [12].

Surface soil’s metals can come from natural and multiple anthropogenic sources [13]. Point sources of pollutants in urban river sediments must be evaluated and identified regularly to reveal the impact of city expansion on the river ecosystem [13]. Heavy metal contamination in aquatic sediments has a longer residence time, which may aid in more effective monitoring of pollution [14].

The Bharalu river is one of the tributaries of the Brahmaputra river that passes through densely populated areas of Guwahati city, Assam, India, until its confluence with the Brahmaputra at Bharalumukh. Very few studies have been reported earlier on Bharalu river water quality [15,16] and sediments [17] in Guwahati city. Guwahati is a city in northeast India that is rapidly expanding. Guwahati and its environs have seen tremendous development and urbanization in the past few decades, severely affecting the Bharalu ecosystem. Therefore, the current research was conducted with the following objectives: (1) to investigate the level of heavy metal contamination in the sediments of Bharalu river (2) to assess the extent of contamination in terms of enrichment factor and geo-accumulation index, pollution load index, and Nemerow’s Pollution Index (3) to assess the possible sources of metals in river sediments.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area

The Bharalu iver emerges in Meghalaya, India, amid the foothills of the Khasi Hills. It flows through Guwahati’s industrial and commercial center before its confluence with the river Brahmaputra at Bharalumukh. The river Brahmaputra in the city is utilized as a water resource for several purposes, including serving as a principal source of consumptive water. Guwahati city is located at 24.1445°N, 91.7362°E. Bharalu has a drainage area of roughly 120 km2, draining approximately 10.94 km2 of Guwahati city [18]. The city rests upon Precambrian rock covered by young alluvium [19].

The total population in 2011 was 957,352 and had the highest population density in northeast India, with 4400 persons per square km [20]. Therefore, as one of the Brahmaputra’s tributaries, preserving the water quality of the Bharalu river is crucial.

2.2. Sampling, monitored parameters, and analytical methods

In the present study, four sites, namely Basistha (S-1), Bhangagarh(S-2), Sharabhatti (S-3), and Bharalumukh (S-4), were selected (Fig 1) for sampling of river sediments. Sampling was done in April 2019. At each site, three surface sediment samples (0–20 cm) were collected with a stainless steel auger, immediately placed in polypropylene zipped pouches, and brought to the laboratory. A GPS recorded the location (longitudes and latitudes) of each site. No specific permission was required for sampling from the river Bharalu. The study area is not privately-owned or protected in any way, and the field studies did not involve endangered or protected species.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Map showing sampling locations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283665.g001

Air-dried sediment samples were sieved through a mesh (< 2 mm). The pH of the collected soil samples (1:5 w/v) was measured with a pH meter, and the electrical conductivity was determined using a conductivity meter. Soil organic carbon was estimated following Walkley and Black method [21]. The US E.P.A technique 3050B was used for digesting sediments with HNO3∕H2O2∕HCl combination for metal analysis [22]. The levels of toxic metals in sediment samples were determined with atomic absorption spectrometry (model 4129, E.C.I).

2.3. Quality assurance and quality control

Chemicals of analytic grade (A.R.) were utilized during the study without any additional purification. All reagents and calibration standards were made with ultra-pure water. All of the tests were performed three times. Procedure blank samples and reagent blanks were applied across the entire process. A standard reference material (SRM 2711) was used to ensure the accuracy of the determinations, and the recoveries were 90%-108%.

2.4. Data analysis

A statistical tool, SPSS® (Windows Version 17.0), was used to examine the data. Descriptive statistics include mean, range and standard deviation. Depending on the data type, various datasets have been subjected to correlation analysis. Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied for source analysis of heavy metals in sediments. The details of PCA used for data analysis are mentioned elsewhere [8]. Before multivariate analysis, Shapiro-Wilk’s normality test (p> 0.01) was used to determine the normality of the data. Logarithmic transformation was used to normalize the original data.

2.5 Geo-accumulation Index (Igeo) and Enrichment factor (E.F.)

The Geo-accumulation index (Igeo) facilitates comprehensive contamination assessment by comparing contemporary and pre-industrial values. In this study, the Igeo for sediment samples was determined using the following equation [23]: (1) where Cn = measured concentration, mg/kg and Bn = geochemical background value, mg/kg. In Eq 1, average values were used, and 1.5 is the factor used for lithologic variations of trace metals. The values of the geo-accumulation index categorization described by Forstner et al. [24] are compared to the geo-accumulation index results obtained for the sediment (S1 Table).

The Enrichment Factor (E.F) is a geochemical index method used to evaluate the influence of anthropogenic practices on heavy metal levels in sediments. Generally, an anthropogenic origin of the component of concern is indicated by an enrichment factor larger than one [25]. The E.F is described as follows [26], (2) where (Me/Fe)Sample is the metal to Fe ratio in the samples of interest; (Me/Fe)Background is the geochemical background value of the metal to Fe ratio. In this study, we used geochemical average shale values [27] as background values, which are 68.0 for Ni, 95.0 for Zn, 20.0 for Pb, and 46700.0 for Fe. As Birth [28] recommended, the E.F values were discussed in the context of heavy metal contamination (S1 Table).

2.6 Pollution level assessment using pollution indices

The Pollution Load Index (PLI) and Nemerow’s pollution index (PIN) are two extensively used methods for assessing metal pollution load in sediments. The PLI scale is used to evaluate the extent of metal pollution. The following equation was used to determine PLI [29]: (3)

Where PLI is the Pollution Load Index; C.F is the contamination factor and is calculated by following the Håkanson method [30]: (4)

Where Cs represents the observed level of heavy metal in sediment and Cb represents the metal’s baseline level in sediment.

A number of 0 on the PLI, implies that no contaminants are present; a value of 1 shows that baseline contamination levels are present, and values above 1 indicate that the sampling locations are deteriorating [29]. For the integrative assessment of sediment metals, Nemerow’s pollution index was derived as per the following equation [31]: (5)

Where PIN is Nemerow’s pollution index, CFiave is the average CF value of each heavy metal, and CFimax is the maximum CF. value of each heavy metal. The PIN was classified as [32]: clean (PIN ≤ 0.7); warning limit of pollution (0.7 ≤ PIN ≤ 1); slight pollution (1 ≤ PIN ≤ 2); moderate pollution (2≤ PIN ≤ 3) and heavy pollution (3≤ PIN).

2.7 Ecological risk assessment

The following formulae were used to determine RI [30,33]: (6) (7) (8) where is the contamination coefficient, is the determined concentration of heavy metal i, and is the background value of heavy metal ‘i’ in sediments. is the toxicity coefficient; its values for Pb, Zn and Ni are 5, 1 and 5, respectively [34]. The RI signifies the potential ecological risk induced by cumulative contamination, which is the computation of all risk coefficients for toxic metals, and reflects the individual ecological risk of metal i. The values of values can be categorized into five different types (S2 Table), whereas the RI values can be separated into four classes [30].

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Physiochemical characteristics and heavy metals in river sediment

The pH of all sediments samples ranged from 5.9 to 8.05, indicating that they were slightly acidic to alkaline (Fig 2A). The organic matter content in sediment ranged from 0.2% to 1.96%, and the electrical conductivity ranged from 0.06 to 0.8 mS/cm (Fig 2B and 2C). Table 1 shows a statistical overview of toxic metals in sediment at various sites along the Bharalu river. Considering all sites, metal concentration in river sediments in Bharalu ranged (mg/kg): Ni (6.65−54.6), Zn (25.2−250.0), Pb (83.3−139.1), and Fe (11940.0−31250.0).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2.

pH (a), EC (b) and OC (c) level in sediments from different sites.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283665.g002

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Statistical summary of heavy metals (mg/kg) in river Bharalu sediments.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283665.t001

Overall mean concentrations of metals were (mg/kg): 29.36 for Ni, 108.9 for Zn, 106.43 for Pb, and 19548.2 for Fe. The mean concentrations of HMs in river sediment were ranked as Fe > Zn > Pb> Ni. Heavy metals levels in the river Bharalu are compared to those in other Indian rivers (S3 Table).

As can be seen, the mean Pb level (106.43 mg/kg) was higher than in many other rivers in India. A higher mean Pb level (169.8 mg/kg) was reported in Deepor Beel, a Ramsar site and of the largest freshwater lakes of the Brahmaputra Valley, located in Guwahati city, Assam, India [36]. The maximum Pb content in the current study is lower than that reported in Kinshasa City, Congo urban rivers and other urban rivers across the world [7], Langat River, Malaysia [5], river Hindon, India [8], and urban river sediments in China [10,13,37] but was higher than those reported in river Couvary, India [38], river Ganga, India [39], urban river sediments in China [1,33,40].

Similarly, the maximum concentration of Zn reported in the river Bharalu was lower than those reported in urban rivers of Kinshasa City, Congo [7], river Couvary, India [38], Turag River, Bangladesh [41], urban river sediments, China [1,10,33,40,42] but was higher than those reported in Langat River, Malaysia [5] and river Ganga, India [39]. The maximum Ni level was lower than those reported in river Hindon, India [8], and urban river sediments in China [7,37,42]. But the maximum Ni level in the present study was higher than those reported in Couvary, India [38], river Ganga, India [39], and urban river sediments in China [40]. The highest Fe level in the river Bharalu was lower than those reported in the Turag River, Bangladesh [41] and river Ganga, India [39] but was higher than those reported in the river Hindon [8].

When compared to eco-toxic threshold values for metals in the sediment [35] in terms of Threshold Effect Level (TEL) and Probable Effect Level (PEL), the mean level of Ni and Zn was found to be within the limit (Table 1). However, the Pb value was far higher than the threshold effect level (TEL) of 18 mg/kg and the probable effect level (PEL) of 36 mg/kg. Further, the mean value of Pb exceeded the TEL and PEL at all sites. An average level of Ni outstripped the TEL of 35 mg/kg at S-3 and S-4, while the mean Zn exceeded the TEL of 123 mg/kg at S-2. The results indicate that Pb and Ni level in the sediment is a major concern for the Bharalu river as a freshwater ecosystem. S-2 and S-3 pass through the city’s dense part that receives urban wastes and discharges. S-4 is the site that opens at the river Brahmaputra.

3.2 Pollution levels of metals in sediment

Table 2 shows the Igeo and EF of metals in the sediment of the Bharalu river. The mean Igeo values of toxic metals in the sediment samples were ranked as: Pb (1.81) > Zn (-0.77)> Fe (-1.92)> Ni (-2.09). Table 2 shows Ni, Zn and Fe remained in class 0 (practically uncontaminated). Pb showed moderate contamination at S-1, S-3, and S-4 (class 2) and moderately strong contamination at S-2 (class 3).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Geo-accumulation index (Igeo) and Enrichment factor (EF) of different metals in river sediments.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283665.t002

A similar result was reported in urban rivers such as the Langat River in Malaysia [5] and the river Hindon, India [8]. Enrichment factors revealed severe enrichment of Cd and Pb at downstream sites in river Ganga [39].

Moderately severe enrichment of Pb at S-4 and severe enrichment at all other sites were observed in terms of EF. Similarly, moderately severe enrichment of Zn was observed at S-2 and minor enrichment at other sites (Table 2). In the case of Ni, relatively low enrichment was noticed at S-3 site but no enrichment at other sites. These metals mean EF values were in the order of Pb > Zn > Ni. Overall, none of the riverbank sites were entirely free of anthropogenic enrichment, mainly Pb. Based on the values obtained for the geo-accumulation index and enrichment factor, two sites, i.e., S-2 and S-3, were found to be substantially contaminated. Both local point sources and non-point origins could be to blame for the contamination. In particular, S-2 and S-3 sites are located in highly urbanized areas and receive wastewater and urban wastes from mixed sources. In an earlier study in the Bharalu river sediments, the enrichment factor showed substantial loading of trace metals, and Igeo level indicated moderate to strong pollution [17]. Igeo of Zn showed strong to extreme contamination, and EF showed no enrichment to very severe enrichment in a polluted urban river in Bangladesh [41].

In our previous studies for the river Hindon, Ghaziabad, India, sources, such as urban and industrial discharges, were attributed to metal contamination in sediments [8,9,43]. Similarly, metal contamination in the river Gomti was also attributed to increased rapid urbanization and industrialization [44,45]. The values of PLI observed in the sediment of the Bharalu river are presented in Fig 3A. A PLI value of 1 means that the sediment is uncontaminated, while a value larger than 1 shows that the sediment is contaminated [29]. As shown in Fig 3A, PLI exceeded 1 at S-2 and S-4, indicating sediment contamination due to heavy metals. At S-2, the PLI value is close to 1 (0.98), whereas S-1 is relatively free from contamination. The overall order of sites based on PLI is S-2 > S-4 > S-3 > S-1. Site S-2 and S-3 mainly pass through densely populated residential and commercial areas, and S-4 is the downstream site. Urban discharges containing mixed liquid and solid waste from residential and commercial areas could be attributed to higher pollution at those sites. Site S-1 represents the river’s upper reach and is relatively away from the highly urbanized sites. Pb showed very high contamination at S-2 and considerable contamination at all other sites in terms of contamination factors. Zn showed moderate contamination at S-2 and minimal pollution at other sites. Ni and Fe showed low pollution in all sites. The EF, Igeo, and PLI values in the Tapti and Narmada rivers showed moderate pollution due to heavy metals [46]. Further, the study showed that enhanced metal concentrations in these river sediments were attributable to the urban and industrial direct discharge into the river [46]. In terms of Igeo and EF, the pollution level in the sediments of the Weihe River, China, showed non-pollution or slight pollution levels, while PLI showed moderate pollution levels at several sites [3].

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3.

Box plot showing (a) Pollution Load Index (P.L.I) and (b) Nemerow’s Pollution index (P.I.N).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283665.g003

The Nemerow’s Pollution Index (PIN) for river sediments is presented in Fig 3(B). PIN varied from 3.15 to 5.21, indicating ‘heavy’ pollution at all sites. Overall, the mean PIN (3.98) showed moderate contamination at the sampling locations. PIN values at different sites were in the order of S-2 >S-3 > S-4 >S-1. Metals were ranked according to their pollution indices as Pb > Zn > Ni > Fe. According to PIN values across all sites in the Shatt al-Arab River basin, the sediments are severely contaminated [47]. The sediments of the river Bharalu are contaminated with heavy metals, in particular with Pb is a matter of concern. Nevertheless, the Bharalu river’s stagnating level of water in recent decades is a severe problem. Stormwater and wastewater runoff from the public sector major refinery drains, and domestic wastewater from the entire basin contribute to pollution [48]. Previous studies reported severe contamination at Bharalumukh due to the dumping of city waste, where Bharalu joins the Brahmaputra river [18].

3.3. Potential sources of heavy metals

Correlation analysis and PCA are applied to determine the likely sources and relationships of heavy metals in sediments [8]. The results of the correlation analysis are depicted in Table 3.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Metal-to-metal correlation coefficient matrix for metals in sediment samples of river Bharalu.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283665.t003

Except for Pb and Zn (r = 0.585), other metals found in the sediment matrix, such as Fe and Ni, showed no significant association with each other, implying different origins or sedimentological features. Based on their relationship, it is likely that Pb and Zn are from the same source and follow a similar pattern.

PCA with Varimax normalized rotation was done on the whole dataset to gain more trustworthy evidence regarding the correlations between the metals. Two major components (eigenvalues > 1) were recovered, representing 80.83 percent of the total variance (Table 4).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 4. Rotated component matrix of heavy metals.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283665.t004

Heavy metal PCA loadings and score graphs are provided in S1 Fig. Ni and Fe dominate the first component (PC1), which accounts for 48.52 percent of the overall variation (Table 4). Fe is naturally present in abundance. In the continental crust, Fe is the fourth most abundant element and the most abundant transition metal [49]. So, metals in PC1 may have dominant geogenic sources. PC2 is loaded particularly by Zn, and Pb explaining 32.31% of the total variance. The findings of this study revealed that, based on the correlation analysis, PC2 was consistent. Pb, Cu, and Zn deposition in sediments may be attributed to lead acid batteries, including other sources [50,51]. Heavy metals, including Zn and Pb enrichment in the Lijiang River, China, are linked to industrial emissions, metropolitan pollution, and natural sources [52]. The localities near river Bharalu are known for dumping residential waste and garbage into the river. It transports a significant amount of the city’s municipal and other garbage, as well as serves as an environmental drainage system for stormwater runoff [15]. The absence of an integrated system for sewage treatment and disposal in the city further threatens the river ecosystem [15,19]. It is a matter of concern that the contamination of the river Bharalu may also endanger the quality of the river Brahmaputra, often the principal source of consumptive water in the city.

3.4 Assessment of potential ecological risk

The average Eir values (Table 5A) of the individual heavy metal in the Bharalu river subsided in the subsequent order: Pb> Ni> Zn. The maximum highest value of Er (Pb) for S-4 was 100.4, indicating considerable risk, whereas sites-2 and 3 depicted low risk. The Eir values of Ni and Zn showed very low risk at all the sites (Table 5A and 5B). Pb concentrations in Bharalu river sediments were generally higher than those reported in other rivers in India (S3 Table). However, the values of other metals (Ni, Zn, and Fe) are also high but manageable compared to Pb (S3 Table). It’s also worth noting that Pb is hazardous and non-biodegradable even at low doses [53]. Therefore, Pb2+, like other key divalent metals (Mn2+ and Zn2+), altered the conformance of nucleic acids, proteins, bacterial chemical movement restraints, and bacterial osmotic balance, all of which might negatively affect the ecosystem [53]. RI values indicate a low risk for all the studied sites (Tables 5B and S2). However, metals’ interactions with biological macromolecules, mainly Pb, can disrupt their normal metabolic and physiological processes, resulting in the poisoning and death of species [37].

thumbnail
Download:
Table 5. (a): Values of individual ecological risk (Eir) for heavy metal in Bharalu river.

(b): Values of ecological risk index (RI) for heavy metal in Bharalu river.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283665.t005

Cu showed the most serious potential ecological risk, while Cr and Pb showed low potential ecological risk in the sediment of the urban river [37]. Aproximately 70% of Cd samples lay above moderate risk, indicating that Cd is the primary factor causing an ecological hazard in the urban river-lake sediments [54]. Zn’s highest potential ecological risks occurred in sediments from a polluted urban river in central Bangladesh [41]. The high ecological risk was also observed in Shenyang City, China, in urban river sediments, indicating the importance of effective sewage management to protect the urban rivers’ environmental quality [33]. Due to the unavailability of toxicity coefficient values, we cannot calculate the ecological risk index (Er and RI) for Fe.

4. Conclusion

This study investigated heavy metal contamination in the surface sediments of the human-impacted urban rivers using different approaches. Pollution indices in terms of PLI and PIN, showed moderate to heavy pollution, and Pb is of serious concern amongst all studied metals. Higher heavy metal pollution in the downstream sites could be attributed to urban discharges from residential and commercial areas. The correlation analysis and PCA suggested that Pb and Zn originated from anthropogenic sources, while Fe and Ni may have dominant geogenic sources. The ecosystem’s potential ecological risk ranged below low-risk values (RI<150), and Pb was found to be the major contributor to ecological risk. This is a preliminary investigation considering four metals. A more detailed and systematic study is needed along the entire stretch of this urban river. Detailed and regular monitoring of heavy metals and other pollutants in the urban river sediments is essential to take suitable measures for the protection of such river ecosystems as well as to protect the major rivers with which they confluence.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. PCA loadings and score plots of heavy metals in sediments.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283665.s001

(TIF)

S1 Table. Grade standards for Igeo and EF.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283665.s002

(DOC)

S2 Table. Various categories of potential ecological risk.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283665.s003

(DOC)

S3 Table. Heavy metals concentrations (mg/kg) in sediment of this study area and that reported in other rivers in India.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283665.s004

(DOC)

References

  1. 1. Xu F, Liu Z, Cao Y, Qiu L, Feng J, Xua F, et al. Assessment of heavy metal contamination in urban river sediments in the Jiaozhou Bay catchment, Qingdao, China. Catena. 2017; 150: 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.11.004.
  2. 2. Taylor K, Owens P. Sediments in urban river basins: a review of sediment–contaminant dynamics in an environmental system conditioned by human activities. J of Soils and Sediments. 2009; 9: 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-009-0103-z.
  3. 3. Li X, Wu P, Delang CO, He Q, Zhang F. Spatial-temporal variation, ecological risk, and source identification of nutrients and heavy metals in sediments in the peri-urban riverine system. Environ Sci Poll Res. 2021. pmid:34318410
  4. 4. Casas JM, Rosas H, Sole M, Lao C. Heavy metals and metalloids in sediments from the Llobregat basin, Spain. Environ Geol. 2003; 44: 325–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-003-0765-6.
  5. 5. Haris H, Looi LJ, Aris AZ, Mokhtar NF, Ayob NAA, Yusoff FM, et al. Geo-accumulation index and contamination factors of heavy metals (Zn and Pb) in urban river sediment. Environ Geochemistry and Health. 2017; 39: 1259–1271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-017-9971-0.
  6. 6. Shafie NA, Aris AZ, Haris H. Geo-accumulation and distribution of heavy metals in the urban river sediment. Int J of Sediment Res. 2014; 29(3): 368–377. https://doi:10.1016/S1001-6279(14)60051-2.
  7. 7. Kayembe JM, Sivalingam P, Salgado CD, Maliani J, Ngelinkoto P, Otamonga1 JP, et al. Assessment of water quality and time accumulation of heavy metals in the sediments of tropical urban rivers: Case of Bumbu River and Kokolo Canal, Kinshasa City, Democratic Republic of the Congo. J of African Earth Sciences. 2018. https://10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2018.07.016.
  8. 8. Chabukdhara M, Nema AK. Assessment of heavy metal contamination in Hindon River sediments: A chemometric and geochemical approach. Chemosphere. 2012a; 87: 945–953. pmid:22406241
  9. 9. Suthar S, Nema AK, Chabukdhara M, Gupta SK. Assessment of metals in water and sediments of Hindon River, India: Impact of industrial and urban discharges. J Hazard Mat. 2009; 171(1–3): 1088–1095. pmid:19616893
  10. 10. Xia F, Qu L, Wang T, Luo L, Chen H, Dahlgren RA, et al. Distribution and source analysis of heavy metal pollutants in sediments of a rapid developing urban river system. Chemosphere. 2018; 207: 218–228. pmid:29800822
  11. 11. Li Y, Chen H, Songa L, Wu J, Sun W, Teng Y. Effects on microbiomes and resistomes and the source-specific ecological risks of heavy metals in the sediments of an urban river. J Hazardous Mat. 2021; 409: 124472. pmid:33199139
  12. 12. Shao S, Liu H, Tai X, Zheng F, Li JY. Speciation and migration of heavy metals in sediment cores of urban wetland: bioavailability and risks. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2020; 27: 23914–23925. pmid:32297118
  13. 13. Zhang Y, Liu S, Cheng F, Coxixo A, Hou X, Shen Z, et al. Spatial distribution of metals and associated risks in surface sediments along a typical urban river gradient in the Beijing Region. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2018; 74: 80–91. pmid:29052739
  14. 14. Nguyen BT, Do DD, Nguyen TX, Nguyen VN, Nguyen DTP, Nguyen MH, et al. Seasonal, spatial variation, and pollution sources of heavy metals in the sediment of the Saigon River, Vietnam. Environ Poll. 2019; 113412. pmid:31662256
  15. 15. Girija TR, Mahant C, Chandramouli V. Water Quality Assessment of an Untreated Effluent Impacted Urban Stream: The Bharalu Tributary of the Brahmaputra River, India. Environ Monit and Assess. 2007; 130: 221–236. pmid:17106781
  16. 16. Hazarika AK, Kalita U. Incidence of heavy metals and river restoration assessment of a major South Asian transboundary river. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2020; 27: 31595–31614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09328-5.
  17. 17. Hoque RR, Gohain M, Das AK, Devi U, Kusre BC. Levels and Source Apportionment of Trace Metals in Bed Sediment of the Bharalu Tributary of Brahmaputra River. Asian Journal of Water Environ Pollut. 2013; 10: 71–79.
  18. 18. Singh KR, Goswami AP, Kalamdhad AS, Kumar B. Development of irrigation water quality index incorporating information entropy. Environ Develop Sustain. 2020; 22: 3119–3132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00338-z.
  19. 19. Das M, Bhattacharjya RK. A Regression-Based Analysis to Assess the Impact of Fluoride Reach River Water on the Groundwater Aquifer Adjacent to the River: A Case Study in Bharalu River Basin of Guwahati, India. Pollution. 2020; 6(3): 637–650.
  20. 20. Census of India. 2011. Available from: /http://www.censusindia.gov.in/ 2011-prov results/data_files/up/Census2011UttarPradeshPaper1.pdfS.
  21. 21. Walkley A, Black IA. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and prepared modification of the chronic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934; 34: 29–38.
  22. 22. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Method 3050B: Acid Digestion of Sediments, Sludges and Soils (Revision 2). 1996.
  23. 23. Muller G. Index of geo-accumulation in sediments of the Rhine River. Geo Journal. 1969; 2: 108–118.
  24. 24. Forstner U, Ahlf W, Calmano W. Sediment quality objectives and criteria development in Germany. Water Sci Technol. 1993. 28: 307–316. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1993.0629.
  25. 25. Çevik F, Göksu M, Derici O, Fındık Ö. An assessment of metal pollution in surface sediments of Seyhan dam by using enrichment factor, geoaccumulation index and statistical analyses. Environ Monit Assess. 2009; 152(1–4): 309–317. pmid:18478346
  26. 26. Ergin M, Saydam C, Basturk O, Erdem E, Yoruk R. Heavy metal concentrations in surface sediments from the two coastal inlets (Golden Horn Estuary and İzmit Bay) of the northeastern Sea of Marmara. Chemical Geology. 1991; 91(3): 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2541(91)90004-B.
  27. 27. Turekian KK, Wedepohl KH. Distribution of the elements in some major units of the earth’s crust. GSA Bulletin. 1961; 72: 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1961)72[175:DOTEIS]2.0.CO;2.
  28. 28. Birth G. A scheme for assessing human impacts on coastal aquatic environments using sediments. In: Woodroffe C.D., Furness R.A., (Eds.), Coastal GIS. 2003.
  29. 29. Tomlinson DL, Wilson JG, Harris CR, Jeffrey DW. Problems in the assessment of heavy-metal levels in estuaries and the formation of a pollution index. Helgoländer Meeresun. 1980; 33: 566–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02414780.
  30. 30. Håkanson L. An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control. A sedimentological approach. Water Research. 1980; 14; 975–1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(80)90143-8.
  31. 31. Brady J P, Ayoko G A, Martens W N, Goonetilleke A. Development of a hybrid pollution index for heavy metals in marine and estuarine sediments. Environ Monit Assess. 2015; 187(5): 1–14. pmid:25925159
  32. 32. Weissmannová H D, Pavlovský J. Indices of soil contamination by heavy metals–methodology of calculation for pollution assessment (mini review). Environ Monit Assess. 2017; 189(12): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6340-5.
  33. 33. Liu D, Wang J, Yu H, Gao H, Xu W. Evaluating ecological risks and tracking potential factors influencing heavy metals in sediments in an urban river. Environ Sci Eur. 2021; 33(1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-021-00487-x.
  34. 34. Hilton J, Davison W, Ochsenbein U. A mathematical model for analysis of sediment coke data. Chem Geol. 1985; 48: 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2541(85)90053-1.
  35. 35. MacDonald DD, Ingersoll CG, Berger TA, Berge TA. Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2000; 39(1): 20–31. pmid:10790498
  36. 36. Dash S, Borah SS, Kalamdhad AS. Application of positive matrix factorization receptor model and elemental analysis for the assessment of sediment contamination and their source apportionment of Deepor Beel, Assam, India. Ecol Indic. 2020; 114: 106291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106291.
  37. 37. Liu C, Yin J, Hu L, Zhang B. Spatial Distribution of Heavy Metals and Associated Risks in Sediment of the Urban River Flowing into the Pearl River Estuary, China. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2020; 78: 622–630. pmid:32060565
  38. 38. Devarajan N, Laffite A, Ngelikoto P, Elongo V, Prabakar K, Mubedi JI, et al. Hospital and urban effluent waters as a source of accumulation of toxic metals in the sediment receiving system of the Cauvery River, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2015; 22: 12941–12950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4457-z.
  39. 39. Pandey J, Singh R. Heavy metals in sediments of Ganga River: up- and downstream urban influences. Appl Water Sci. 2017; 7: 1669–1678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-015-0334-7.
  40. 40. Wu P, Yin A, Yang X, Zhang H, Fan M, Gao C. Distribution and source identification of heavy metals in the sediments of a river flowing an urbanization gradient, Eastern China. Environ Earth Sci. 2017; 76: 745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-7068-9.
  41. 41. Khan R, Islam MS, Tareq ARM, Naher K, Islam ARMT, Habib MA et al., Distribution, sources and ecological risk of trace elements and polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons in sediments from a polluted urban river in central Bangladesh. Environ Nanotechnol Monit Manag. 2020; 14: 100318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enmm.2020.100318.
  42. 42. Zhang G, Bai J, Xiao R, Zhao Q, Jia J, Cui B, et al. Heavy metal fractions and ecological risk assessment in sediments from urban, rural and reclamation-affected rivers of the Pearl River Estuary, China. Chemosphere. 2017; 184: 278–288. pmid:28601010
  43. 43. Chabukdhara M, Nema AK. Heavy Metals in Water, Sediments, and Aquatic Macrophytes: River Hindon, India. J Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste. 2012b; 16: 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000127.
  44. 44. Gupta SK, Chabukdhara M, Kumar P, Singh J, Bux F. Evaluation of ecological risk of metal contamination in river Gomti, India: A biomonitoring approach. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2014; 110: 49–55. pmid:25194696
  45. 45. Gupta SK, Chabukdhara M, Singh J, Bux F. Evaluation and Potential Health Hazard of Selected Metals in Water, Sediments, and Fish from the Gomti River. Human Ecol Risk Assess. 2015; 21: 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.08.008.
  46. 46. Sharma SK, Subramanian V. Source and distribution of trace metals and nutrients in Narmada and Tapti River basins, India. Environ Earth Sci. 2010; 61: 1337–1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0452-3.
  47. 47. Allafta H, Opp C. Spatio-temporal variability and pollution sources identification of the surface sediments of Shatt Al-Arab River, Southern Iraq. Sci Rep. 2020; 10:6979 pmid:32332795
  48. 48. Saharia AM, Sarma AK. Future climate change impact evaluation on hydrologic processes in the Bharalu and Basistha basins using SWAT model. Natural Hazards. 2018; 92: 1463–1488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3259-2.
  49. 49. Von der Heyden B P, Roychoudhury AN. Application, chemical interaction and fate of iron minerals in polluted sediment and soils. Curr Pollut Rep. 2015; 1: 265–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40726-015-0020-2.
  50. 50. Shahab A, Zhang H, Ullah H, Rashid A, Rad S, Li J, et al. Pollution characteristics and toxicity of potentially toxic elements in road dust of a tourist city, Guilin, China: ecological and health risk assessment. Environ Pollut. 2020; 266: 115419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115419.
  51. 51. Tang W, Shan B, Zhang H, Mao Z. Heavy metal sources and associated risk in response to agricultural intensification in the estuarine sediments of Chaohu Lake Valley East China. J Hazard Mater. 2010; 176: 945–951. pmid:20022173
  52. 52. Xiao H, Shahab A, Xi B, Chang Q, You S, Li J, et al. Heavy metal pollution, ecological risk, spatial distribution, and source identification in sediments of the Lijiang River, China. Environ Pollut. 2021; 269: 116189. pmid:33288295
  53. 53. Rahman MS, Ahmed Z, Seefat SM, Alam R, Islam ARMT, Choudhury TR, et al. Assessment of heavy metal contamination in sediment at the newly established tannery industrial estate in Bangladesh: A case study. Environ Chem Ecotox. 2022; 4: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enceco.2021.10.001.
  54. 54. Li Y, Chen H, Teng Y. Source apportionment and source-oriented risk assessment of heavy metals in the sediments of an urban river-lake system. Sci Total Environ. 2020; 737: 140310. pmid:32783871