Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Data in Brief logoLink to Data in Brief
. 2017 Dec 8;16:685–692. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2017.11.078

Heavy metals analysis and quality assessment in drinking water – Khorramabad city, Iran

Mansour Ghaderpoori a,b, Bahram kamarehie a, Ali Jafari a,b,⁎, Afshin Ghaderpoury c, Mohammadamin Karami a
PMCID: PMC5847489  PMID: 29541665

Abstract

Continuous monitoring of drinking water quality is essential in terms of heavy metals and toxic substances. The general objective of this study were to determine the concentration of heavy metals in drinking water of Khorramabad city and to determine the water quality indices (The heavy metal pollution index and heavy metal evaluation index). According to the city map, 45 points were selected for drinking water sampling through the city distribution system. The results of this study showed that the average concentration of heavy metals such as Zn, Pb, Cd, Cr, and Cu were 47.01 μg/l, 3.2 μg/l, 0.42 μg/l, 5.08 μg/l, and 6.79 μg/l, respectively. The HPI and HEI (water quality indices) for Zn, Pb, Cd, Cr, and Cu were 46.58, 46.58, respectively. According to the indices, the city drinking water quality is good in terms of heavy metals.

Keywords: Drinking water quality, Heavy metals, Monitoring, Khorramabad city

Specifications Table

Subject area Chemistry, biology
More specific subject area Water monitoring and quality
Type of data Table, figure
How data was acquired ICP-OES (Instrument Model: Varian VISTA-MPX)
Data format Raw, analyzed,
Experimental factors Measuring the concentration of heavy metals (Zn, Pb, Cd, Cr, and Cu) in the samples of drinking water distribution system. After determining the concentration, water quality pollution indices were calculated.
Experimental features According to the city map, 45 points of drinking water in distribution system were selected as sampling point. Until concentration measurement, all samples were stored in standard conditions and were analyzed for heavy metals
Data source location Khorramabad city Iran (33° 48′ N, 48° 35′ E)., Lorestan province, west of Iran
Data accessibility Data are included in this article and supplemented excel file
Open in a new tab

Value of the Data

  • •

    There is always the possibility of contamination of water resources with heavy metals and toxic substances, therefore, continuous monitoring is essential.

  • •

    Heavy metals can accumulate in human body and other living organisms over a long period and may cause adverse effects on human health.

  • •

    The main sources of heavy metals contamination in drinking water including heavy metals leakage through iron pipes in distribution systems and due to geological contamination of the region that water originates from.

  • •

    One of the most important methods for drinking water quality determination is the measurement of heavy metal pollution by indices, so, heavy metals data can be used for determination of the water quality indices determination.

1. Location data

Khorramabad, one of the cities of Lorestan province, located at west of Iran (33° 48′ N, 48° 35′ E). Fig. 1 shows the location of the city and the sampling points the study area. The city area is about 6233 km2. Based on the latest population census in Iran (2016), its population was 506,471 persons.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Location and sampling points in Khorramabad city, Iran.

2. Experimental design, materials, and methods

In this study, 45 stations were selected as sampling points in a way that covers the whole city distribution system. Sampling was performed according to a standards procedure. The collected samples were also kept in accordance with standard methods for water and wastewater. Further, ICP-OES (Instrument Model: Varian VISTA-MPX) was used to measure the concentrations of heavy metals. Table 1 shows the concentration of measured heavy metals.

Table 1.

The concentrations of heavy metals in the study area.

Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Zn 33.40 43.30 56.21 44.50 78.90 43.46 103.61 59.29 56.94 93.11 64.58 79.27 45.57 54.48 54.48 98.27 61.54 30.01 8.32 7.41 8.72 28.25 13.35
Pb 0.67 1.02 0.58 0.59 1.32 3.06 4.74 3.64 1.35 4.54 5.95 2.83 6.57 0.35 0.35 2.29 2.59 3.43 6.38 6.00 4.49 8.27 3.50
Cd 0.05 0.05 0.02 – – 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.11 0.13 0.08 0.42 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.62 0.94 1.49 1.44 0.85 0.52 0.73
Cr 3.04 8.14 10.39 7.13 7.62 3.39 4.75 4.87 4.79 6.95 7.87 6.39 4.31 7.57 7.57 7.80 6.39 0.39 3.42 2.86 5.32 2.03 0.60
Cu 0.17 0.10 3.15 0.36 0.44 10.87 11.48 5.61 6.01 39.31 3.59 6.01 9.44 5.39 5.39 9.35 2.59 3.36 4.06 5.26 3.45 3.30 3.26
Station 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Zn 70.88 87.11 94.23 104.77 69.04 69.04 81.40 11.58 9.88 9.81 12.80 12.88 21.80 18.85 19.31 17.50 20.28 46.417 54.712 51.103 37.65 27.221
Pb 1.00 4.87 4.33 5.01 4.41 4.41 0.73 4.39 3.50 6.39 2.94 2.83 3.09 3.08 1.65 1.19 3.11 2.11 2.05 1.93 3.53 2.73
Cd 0.15 0.10 0.22 0.14 0.56 0.56 0.44 1.00 0.92 0.64 0.66 0.75 0.80 0.35 0.36 0.69 0.328 0.608 0.154 0.56 0.122
Cr 5.01 8.19 6.17 6.69 5.82 5.82 1.86 4.42 0.64 3.23 5.54 3.55 10.76 5.62 3.71 3.50 5.68 3.35 1.24 1.16 7.63 5.32
Cu 16.32 17.62 21.36 21.37 9.15 9.15 15.04 3.88 4.04 3.43 4.21 3.22 3.70 4.22 3.22 3.23 3.21 3.18 3.44 3.35 3.26 3.84
Open in a new tab

After determining the concentration, water quality pollution indices were calculated. The heavy metal pollution index (HPI) indicates the overall quality of the drinking water in terms of heavy metals [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. This index is calculated according to Eqs. (1), (2) as follows:

HPI=∑i=1nWi.Qi∑i=1nWi (1)
Qi=∑i=1nMi(−)IiSi−Ii×100 (2)

where, Qi and Wi are the sub-index of the ith parameter and the unit weightage of the ith parameter, respectively. n is the number of parameters considered. Mi, Ii, and Si are the monitored values of heavy metal, ideal and standard values of the ith parameter, respectively. The sign (−) indicates the numerical differences of the two values, ignoring the algebraic sign. Water quality based on HPI can be classified into three categories including: low (less than 100), the threshold risk (equal to 100), and high (more than 100). If HPI is more than 100, water cannot be used for drinking. Measured values of HPI index for the drinking water samples are presented in Table 2. Heavy metal evaluation index (HEI) is a method of estimating the water quality with focus on heavy metals in drinking water [4], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. This index is calculated according to Eq. (3), as follows:

HEI=∑i=1nHcHmac (3)

where, Hc and Hmac are the monitored values and maximum admissible concentration of the ith parameter, respectively. The classifications of the HEI index is as follows: low (less than 10), medium (between 10 and 20), and high (more than 20). Table 2, Table 3 show the used constants and the values of the calculated HPI and HEI, respectively [11], [12], [13], [14].

Table 2.

Applied parameters and constants for calculation of HPI and HPI (according to WHO guidelines).

Metal MCL* (µg/l) Wi Ii Si Hmax
As 50 0.02 10 50 50
Zn 5000 0.0002 3000 5000 5000
Pb 1.5 0.7 10 100 1.5
Cd 3 0.3 3 5 3
Cr 50 0.02 50 1 50
Cu 1000 0.001 2000 1000 1000
Mn 50 0.02 500 100 50
Open in a new tab

Table 3.

The calculated indices, HPI and HEI, at the sampling points for heavy metals.

Station Zn Pb Cd Cr Cu Cd Qi-Zn Qi-Pb Qi-Cd Qi-Cr Qi-Cu Qi-Mn ΣWi*Qi HPI HPI classification HEI HEI classification
1 33.4 0.67 0.046 3.04 0.17 −5.52 148.33 10.37 147.70 95.84 199.98 125.00 56.71 53.44238 Low heavy metals 0.52965 Low heavy metals
2 43.3 1.02 0.046 8.14 0.1 −3.58 147.84 9.98 147.70 85.43 199.99 125.00 56.23 52.98961 Low heavy metals 0.866893 Low heavy metals
3 56.21 0.58 0.023 10.39 3.15 −3.13 147.19 10.47 148.85 80.84 199.69 125.00 56.83 53.55025 Low heavy metals 0.616525 Low heavy metals
4 44.5 0.59 0 7.13 0.36 −4.22 147.78 10.46 150.00 87.49 199.96 125.00 57.30 53.99378 Low heavy metals 0.545193 Low heavy metals
5 78.9 1.32 0.001 7.62 0.44 −3.56 146.06 9.64 149.95 86.49 199.96 125.00 56.70 53.42544 Low heavy metals 1.048953 Low heavy metals
6 43.46 3.06 0.127 3.39 10.87 −3.77 147.83 7.71 143.65 95.12 198.91 125.00 53.62 50.5312 Low heavy metals 2.169695 Low heavy metals
7 103.61 4.74 0.124 4.75 11.48 −2.18 144.82 5.84 143.80 92.35 198.85 125.00 52.31 49.28936 Low heavy metals 3.328535 Low heavy metals
8 59.29 3.64 0.137 4.87 5.61 −2.89 147.04 7.07 143.15 92.10 199.44 125.00 52.96 49.90817 Low heavy metals 2.587201 Low heavy metals
9 56.94 1.35 0.109 4.79 6.01 −4.45 147.15 9.61 144.55 92.27 199.40 125.00 55.17 51.98541 Low heavy metals 1.049531 Low heavy metals
10 93.11 4.54 0.127 6.95 39.31 −1.56 145.34 6.07 143.65 87.86 196.07 125.00 52.32 49.3064 Low heavy metals 3.265932 Low heavy metals
11 64.58 5.95 0.084 7.87 3.59 −0.37 146.77 4.50 145.80 85.98 199.64 125.00 51.84 48.84903 Low heavy metals 4.168573 Low heavy metals
12 79.27 2.83 0.423 6.39 6.01 −2.82 146.04 7.97 128.85 89.00 199.40 125.00 49.24 46.40056 Low heavy metals 2.177331 Low heavy metals
13 45.57 6.57 0.042 4.31 9.44 −1.15 147.72 3.81 147.90 93.24 199.06 125.00 52.13 49.12484 Low heavy metals 4.498754 Low heavy metals
14 54.48 0.35 0.133 7.57 5.39 −4.18 147.28 10.72 143.35 86.59 199.46 125.00 55.47 52.27225 Low heavy metals 0.445353 Low heavy metals
15 54.48 0.35 0.133 7.57 5.39 −4.18 147.28 10.72 143.35 86.59 199.46 125.00 55.47 52.27225 Low heavy metals 0.445353 Low heavy metals
16 98.27 2.29 0.101 7.8 9.35 −2.81 145.09 8.57 144.95 86.12 199.07 125.00 54.43 51.29306 Low heavy metals 1.745337 Low heavy metals
17 61.54 2.59 0.616 6.39 2.59 −2.92 146.92 8.23 119.20 89.00 199.74 125.00 46.53 43.84891 Low heavy metals 2.074698 Low heavy metals
18 30.014 3.43 0.942 0.39 3.36 −4.26 148.50 7.30 102.90 101.24 199.66 125.00 41.23 38.85626 Low heavy metals 2.617829 Low heavy metals
19 8.315 6.38 1.486 3.42 4.06 −1.11 149.58 4.02 75.70 95.06 199.59 125.00 30.66 28.88833 Low heavy metals 4.82279 Low heavy metals
20 7.408 6 1.443 2.86 5.26 −1.56 149.63 4.44 77.85 96.20 199.47 125.00 31.62 29.79607 Low heavy metals 4.544942 Low heavy metals
21 8.717 4.49 0.847 5.32 3.45 −1.95 149.56 6.12 107.65 91.18 199.66 125.00 41.63 39.23275 Low heavy metals 3.38726 Low heavy metals
22 28.253 8.27 0.521 2.03 3.3 −0.63 148.59 1.92 123.95 97.90 199.67 125.00 43.72 41.19667 Low heavy metals 5.736551 Low heavy metals
23 13.354 3.5 0.726 0.6 3.26 −4.22 149.33 7.22 113.70 100.82 199.67 125.00 44.41 41.85019 Low heavy metals 2.593264 Low heavy metals
24 70.88 1 0.147 5.01 16.32 −4.58 146.46 10.00 142.65 91.82 198.37 125.00 54.86 51.69524 Low heavy metals 0.846363 Low heavy metals
25 87.11 4.87 0.104 8.19 17.62 −0.95 145.64 5.70 144.80 85.33 198.24 125.00 52.36 49.34404 Low heavy metals 3.480175 Low heavy metals
26 94.23 4.33 0.219 6.17 21.36 −1.94 145.29 6.30 139.05 89.45 197.86 125.00 51.14 48.19158 Low heavy metals 3.123273 Low heavy metals
27 104.77 5.01 0.142 6.69 21.37 −1.34 144.76 5.54 142.90 88.39 197.86 125.00 51.75 48.76148 Low heavy metals 3.563457 Low heavy metals
28 69.043 4.41 0.563 5.82 9.15 −1.91 146.55 6.21 121.85 90.16 199.09 125.00 45.93 43.28537 Low heavy metals 3.267025 Low heavy metals
29 69.043 4.41 0.563 5.82 9.15 −1.91 146.55 6.21 121.85 90.16 199.09 125.00 45.93 43.28537 Low heavy metals 3.267025 Low heavy metals
30 81.398 0.73 0.435 1.86 15.04 −5.72 145.93 10.30 128.25 98.24 198.50 125.00 50.88 47.94344 Low heavy metals 0.700186 Low heavy metals
31 11.579 4.39 1 4.42 3.88 −2.26 149.42 6.23 100.00 93.02 199.61 125.00 39.45 37.17795 Low heavy metals 3.354596 Low heavy metals
32 9.882 3.5 0.92 0.64 4.04 −4.14 149.51 7.22 104.00 100.73 199.60 125.00 41.50 39.10643 Low heavy metals 2.658816 Low heavy metals
33 9.814 6.39 3.23 3.43 −1.66 149.51 4.01 150.00 95.45 199.66 125.00 52.95 49.89287 Low heavy metals 4.329993 Low heavy metals
34 12.804 2.94 0.642 5.54 4.21 −2.97 149.36 7.84 117.90 90.73 199.58 125.00 45.91 43.25787 Low heavy metals 2.291571 Low heavy metals
35 12.884 2.83 0.655 3.55 3.22 −3.71 149.36 7.97 117.25 94.80 199.68 125.00 45.88 43.23137 Low heavy metals 2.181797 Low heavy metals
36 21.799 3.09 0.748 10.76 3.7 −1.10 148.91 7.68 112.60 80.08 199.63 125.00 43.99 41.44882 Low heavy metals 2.532593 Low heavy metals
37 18.846 3.08 0.803 5.62 4.22 −2.80 149.06 7.69 109.85 90.57 199.58 125.00 43.38 40.8764 Low heavy metals 2.441389 Low heavy metals
38 19.308 1.65 0.346 3.71 3.22 −4.54 149.03 9.28 132.70 94.47 199.68 125.00 51.42 48.45771 Low heavy metals 1.296615 Low heavy metals
39 17.503 1.19 0.361 3.5 3.23 −4.91 149.12 9.79 131.95 94.90 199.68 125.00 51.56 48.59092 Low heavy metals 0.990397 Low heavy metals
40 20.275 3.11 0.686 5.68 3.21 −2.80 148.99 7.66 115.70 90.45 199.68 125.00 45.11 42.50598 Low heavy metals 2.422865 Low heavy metals
41 46.417 2.11 0.328 3.35 3.18 −4.35 147.68 8.77 133.60 95.20 199.68 125.00 51.35 48.38858 Low heavy metals 1.595463 Low heavy metals
42 54.712 2.05 0.608 1.24 3.44 −5.00 147.26 8.83 119.60 99.51 199.66 125.00 47.28 44.55583 Low heavy metals 1.608516 Low heavy metals
43 51.103 1.93 0.154 1.16 3.35 −5.26 147.44 8.97 142.30 99.67 199.67 125.00 54.19 51.06416 Low heavy metals 1.374771 Low heavy metals
44 37.65 3.53 0.56 7.63 3.26 −1.91 148.12 7.19 122.00 86.47 199.67 125.00 46.59 43.90398 Low heavy metals 2.70339 Low heavy metals
45 27.221 2.73 0.122 5.32 3.84 −3.36 148.64 8.08 143.90 91.18 199.62 125.00 53.88 50.77032 Low heavy metals 1.976351 Low heavy metals
Mean 47.01 3.20 0.42 5.08 6.79 −3.11 147.70 7.64 130.06 91.90 199.34 125.00 49.43 46.58 – 2.33 –
Open in a new tab

Acknowledgments

This project was conducted in department of environmental health engineering as a student project. The work and the data were evaluated and confirmed by faculty of health and nutrition research committed as an original research study (meeting date: 9/10/2017). Thanks for the students involved in samples collection.

Footnotes

Transparency document

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.dib.2017.11.078.

Contributor Information

Mansour Ghaderpoori, Email: mghaderpoori@gmail.com.

Bahram kamarehie, Email: B.kamarehie@gmail.com.

Ali Jafari, Email: jafari_a99@yahoo.com.

Afshin Ghaderpoury, Email: ghaderpoury_a@yahoo.com.

Transparency document. Supporting information

Supplementary material

mmc1.docx (16KB, docx)

.

References

  • 1.Prasanna M.V., Praveena S.M., Chidambaram S., Nagarajan R., Elayaraja A. Evaluation of water quality pollution indices for heavy metal contamination monitoring: a case study from Curtin Lake, Miri City, East Malaysia. Environ. Earth Sci. 2012;67:1987–2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Yankey R.K., Fianko J.R., Osae S., Ahialey E.K., Duncan A.E., Essuman D.K., Bentum J.K. Evaluation of heavy metal pollution index of groundwater in the Tarkwa mining area, Ghana. Elixir Pollut. 2013;54:12663–12667. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Balakrishnan A., Ramu A. Evaluation of heavy metal pollution index (HPI) of ground water in and around the coastal area of Gulf of Mannar Biosphere and Palk Strait. J. Adv. Chem. Sci. 2016;2:331–333. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Brraich O.S., Jangu S. Evaluation of water quality pollution indices for heavy metal contamination monitoring in the water of Harike wetland (Ramsar site, Iran) Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 2015;5:1–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tiwari A.K., Maio M.D., Singh P.K., Mahato M.K. Evaluation of surface water quality by using GIS and a heavy metal pollution index (HPI) model in a coal mining area, India. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2015;95:304–310. doi: 10.1007/s00128-015-1558-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sobhanardakani S. Evaluation of the water quality pollution indices for groundwater resources of Ghahavand Plain, Hamadan Province, Western Iran. Iran. J. Toxicol. 2016;10:35–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ameh E.G., Akpah F.A. Heavy metal pollution indexing and multivariate statistical evaluation of hydrogeochemistry of River PovPov in Itakpe iron-ore mining area, Kogi State, Nigeria. Adv. Appl. Sci. Res. 2011;2:33–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rizwan R., Gurdeep S., Manish Kumar J. Application of heavy metal pollution index for ground water quality assessment in Angul District of Orissa, India. Int. J Res Chem. Environ. 2011;1:118–122. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Manoj K., PPadhy P.K., Chaudhury S. Study of heavy metal contamination of the river water through index analysis approach and environmetrics. Bull. Environ. Pharmacol. Life Sci. 2012;1:7–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ameh E.G. Geo-statistics and heavy metal indexing of surface water around Okaba coal mines, Kogi State, Nigeria, Asian. J. Environ. Sci. 2013;8:1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Al-Ami M.Y., Al-Nakib S.M., Ritha N.M., Nouri A.M., Al-Assina A. Water quality index applied to the classification and zoning of Al-Jaysh canal, Bagdad, Iraq. J Environ. Sci. Health A. 1987;22:305–319. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Aqeel Ashraf M., Jamil Maah M., Yuoff I. Water quality characterization of Varsity Lake, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Eur. J Chem. 2010;7:S245–S254. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jahed Khaniki G., Mansoor M. Ghaderpoori, Dehghani M.H., Nazmara S. Analysis of toxic and trace metal contaminants in bottled water by using atomic absorption spectrometry. Food Environ. Saf. J. 2017;10:78–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Eaton A.D., Clesceri L.S., Rice E.W. 22nd. American Water Works Association (AWWA); Washington DC: 2012. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. (Part 5000) [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary material

mmc1.docx (16KB, docx)

Articles from Data in Brief are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES