Table 5.
Comparative analysis of water quality in river Ganga all along the stretch.
| Location (District) | Parameters | Methodology | Observed water quality status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uttarkashi and Tehri Zero point | Physiochemical | Comparison with SAL value and statistical analysis | Good water quality, safe for human use | Kumar et al., 2017a, Kumar et al., 2017b |
| Devprayag and Rudraprayag | Physiochemical and bacteriological | Comparison with SAL value | Good water quality, safe for human use | Kumar et al. (2010) |
| Rishikesh | Physiochemical and heavy metals (Pb, Cu, Zn, Ni) | Comparison with SAL value Langelier saturation index, Ryznar stability index | Good water quality | Haritash et al. (2016) |
| Haridwar | Physiochemical | Weighted arithmetic water quality index method | Poor water quality | Bhutiani et al. (2016) |
| Haridwar to Garhmukteshwar | Physiochemical and heavy metals (Fe, Cu, Cr, and Zn) | Water quality index evaluation method | Severely contaminated due to heavy metals, indicate human health risk | Chaudhary et al. (2017) |
| Fatehgarh and Kannauj | Physiochemical and bacteriological |
Comparison with SAL value |
Poor water quality High level of coliforms |
Malik et al. (1995) |
| Kanpur | ||||
| Varanasi | Physiochemical and bacteriological |
Comparison with SAL value |
High level of faecal contamination. Polluted and not safe for human use |
Mishra et al. (2009) |
| Varanasi | Heavy metals (Zn, Cu, Cd, Pb, Cr) and bacteriological | Comparison with SAL value |
Heavy metals concentration above permissible limit, microbial and faecal pollution, Polluted, health hazard risk |
Rai et al. (2010) |
| Mirzapur | Heavy metals (Cd, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb and Zn) | Comparison with SAL value | Heavy metals concentration above permissible limit, polluted water. | Sharma et al. (1992) |
| Allahabad (Prayagraj) | Physicochemical | Water quality index evaluation method | Poor quality of water | Sharma et al. (2014) |
| Patna | Physiochemical | Comparison with SAL value | Moderately polluted, not suitable for human use | Rai et al. (2011) |
| Kolkata | Physiochemical and heavy metals (Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, Pb, Cd, Cr, and Ni) | Comparison with SAL value |
Rich in Mn, Zn, and Cu Not suitable for human use |
Aktar et al. (2010) |
| Uttarkashi to Rishikesh | Physiochemical |
Comparison with SAL value Water quality index evaluation method Statistical analysis |
Good water quality, suitable for human use after conventional treatment | In this study |