Research Article (Open access) |
---|
Int.
J. Life. Sci. Scienti. Res., 3(3): 1106-1109, May 2017
Effect of Increasing Sewage Waste on the Population of
Some Microbes of River Yamuna
P. K. Agrawal*
Department of
Zoology, B.S.A. College, Mathura, U.P. (India)
*Address for Correspondence: Dr. P. K. Agrawal, Associate Professor, Department of Zoology, B. S.
A. College, Mathura, U.P., India
ABSTRACT- A study was carried out to assess the
pollution load in river Yamuna at Mathura (U.P.) and its impact on population
size of some aquatic microbes. The key indicators of sewage waste load were
Coliform count (MPN), BOD, sulphates, chloride and ammonia. The susceptible
microbes that were analysed included Ulothrix, Paramecium spp. Difflugia spp.
and species of Cyclops. The study revealed that the river is very badly
polluted especially with sewage, garbage and effluents from city and local
industries. The population of Coliform bacteria and Ulothrix (algal organisms)
was found very high in those areas, where organic pollutants were very high in
amount. But other organisms like, Paramecium spp. Difflugia spp. and Cyclops
exhibited a severe decline in population count, indicating heavy pollution
load, especially during summer months.
Keywords: Pollutants BOD Coliform bacteria Sewage waste
INTRODUCTION- River
Yamuna is one of the ancient holy rivers of India. It has got a great religious
and aesthetic value. It originates from Yamunotri in the Himalayan region
(Uttaranchal), flows through western and southern Uttar Pradesh and finally
drains into the holy Ganga River at Allahabad. During its great course, it also
flows through District Mathura (in western U.P.)
Mathura
was selected as study area as it is considered to be a historical and sacred
place, being the birth- place of Lord Krishna. Millions of pilgrims from every
corner, visit Mathura every year and take bath in the holy river Yamuna. The
sewage along with the garbage is disposed off either directly or indirectly
into the Yamuna, through a number of wide drains and results in heavy water
pollution [1].
The
sewage waste is especially rich in Coliform bacteria (Gram negative lactose
fermenting rods). Besides these, microbes like enterobacter,
micrococci, lactobacilli, facultative clostridia and
streptococci also predominate during early stages of sewage decomposition
[2]. Excessive entry of sewage in the river, interferes with the
natural decomposition process, leading to accumulation of organic matter, which
is detrimental for aquatic biota [3].
Further,
Mathura is a growing industrial hub. A large number of cotton printing
industries and silver vibrators are working here. Their effluents are being
mixed directly in the river, creating a huge ecological stress. Though, the
Government has made it compulsory to treat the wastewater before its disposal,
many small-scale industries are still not having such water treatment plants.
Due to severe river pollution, the life of bath takers, live stock and aquatic
organisms is being sacrificed [3].
In
the present study, an assessment of pollution load in river Yamuna and
simultaneous recording of fluctuations in the population count of some aquatic
microbes was carried out. The study clearly revealed that increasing pollution
load greatly affects the population of these microbes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS- The one year study (January 2016 to
December 2016) was carried out in the Department of Zoology, B.S.A. College,
Mathura. For the collection of sample of river water following three sites was
selected. a. Site A (Upstream), b. Site B (Middle), and c. Site C (Downstream).
Site A is located near All India Radio (AIR) station. Site B passes
through the middle of the city, while site C is located near Gokul barrage. The
sites were selected to compare the entry and exit loads so that the pollutant
addition from the city could be assessed.
Some
common microbes, present in river water were also considered as test organisms [5].
These included Coliform bacteria, species of Ulothrix, Paramecium,
Difflugia and Cyclops.
The water sample for determining the population of these organisms were
taken separately in 1 litre glass bottles. Samples were preserved at 4ēC in 4-5
% buffered formalin solution.
The entire procedure was repeated thrice for each sample and then
averages were noted for more reliable results.
RESULTS- The pH was found to be in normal permissible range. It
was higher (slightly more alkaline) in summers than in winters. But other physico chemical parameters such as ammonia, chlorides and
sulphates were found to be very high, indicating high degree of organic load,
especially in summers. BOD reached up to 126 mg/L in June at site B, which
indicates the accumulation of large amount of organic matter in the river.
The Coliform count was again very high summers (36.8 x 1000
units in June at site B). It was comparatively lower in winters. Ulothrix
exhibited a better growth in water with high organic matter, where as other
test organisms showed a decline in their population.
The monthly observations for physico-chemical parameters and for
population count have been shown below (Table 1).
Table 1: Physico chemical
parameters and population count of test organisms
Parameters/ Microbes |
Site |
Jan |
Feb |
Mar |
Apr |
May |
Jun |
Jul |
Aug |
Sep |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
pH |
A |
7.8 |
7.9 |
7.5 |
8.2 |
8.5 |
8.5 |
8.6 |
8.2 |
8.3 |
7.9 |
8.0 |
7.6 |
B |
7.6 |
7.8 |
7.2 |
8.1 |
8.6 |
8.2 |
8.4 |
8.1 |
8.1 |
8.0 |
8.1 |
7.8 |
|
C |
8.0 |
8.1 |
7.9 |
8.3 |
8.5 |
8.8 |
8.8 |
8.4 |
8.0 |
8.1 |
7.8 |
8.2 |
|
BOD (mg/L) |
A |
41 |
58 |
63 |
81 |
101 |
115 |
105 |
95 |
78 |
69 |
54 |
44 |
B |
58 |
64 |
69 |
91 |
118 |
126 |
119 |
108 |
89 |
74 |
67 |
57 |
|
C |
46 |
59 |
67 |
89 |
98 |
110 |
108 |
98 |
83 |
62 |
58 |
51 |
|
Ammonia contents (mg/L) |
A |
0.29 |
0.38 |
0.31 |
0.45 |
0.69 |
0.85 |
0.81 |
0.83 |
0.69 |
0.52 |
0.49 |
0.33 |
B |
0.38 |
0.51 |
0.65 |
0.68 |
0.79 |
0.96 |
0.87 |
0.78 |
0.79 |
0.65 |
0.47 |
0.42 |
|
C |
0.34 |
0.41 |
0.58 |
0.69 |
0.72 |
0.95 |
0.92 |
0.89 |
0.75 |
0.66 |
0.41 |
0.39 |
|
Chloride contents (mg/L) |
A |
35 |
38 |
42 |
56 |
69 |
72 |
75 |
51 |
60 |
48 |
52 |
41 |
B |
51 |
67 |
70 |
79 |
89 |
85 |
82 |
59 |
68 |
52 |
50 |
46 |
|
C |
44 |
54 |
62 |
69 |
87 |
89 |
85 |
70 |
61 |
55 |
48 |
36 |
|
Sulphates (mg/L) |
A |
562 |
630 |
498 |
580 |
770 |
861 |
814 |
778 |
714 |
681 |
701 |
645 |
B |
603 |
595 |
641 |
650 |
715 |
987 |
924 |
828 |
721 |
737 |
740 |
680 |
|
C |
587 |
605 |
584 |
619 |
709 |
847 |
907 |
837 |
747 |
709 |
685 |
621 |
|
Total Coliform (MPN) x1000 |
A |
19.5 |
18.6 |
22.4 |
24.5 |
28.4 |
31.5 |
35.2 |
29.5 |
25.4 |
22.6 |
24.9 |
19.1 |
B |
24.1 |
22.8 |
25.6 |
27.4 |
32.5 |
36.8 |
30.5 |
30.8 |
27.4 |
26.5 |
27.6 |
25.8 |
|
C |
22.5 |
23.5 |
25.8 |
29.4 |
31.4 |
34.1 |
29.5 |
31.5 |
28.1 |
25.4 |
22.4 |
20.8 |
|
Ulothrix spp. |
A |
22 |
28 |
45 |
67 |
84 |
68 |
75 |
69 |
62 |
56 |
70 |
37 |
B |
38 |
45 |
77 |
68 |
94 |
108 |
95 |
81 |
60 |
76 |
67 |
42 |
|
C |
35 |
42 |
65 |
72 |
82 |
79 |
80 |
69 |
65 |
81 |
52 |
41 |
|
Paramecium spp. |
A |
45 |
32 |
38 |
40 |
31 |
28 |
25 |
34 |
29 |
28 |
42 |
39 |
B |
38 |
27 |
31 |
22 |
19 |
12 |
18 |
17 |
21 |
19 |
28 |
32 |
|
C |
40 |
29 |
35 |
25 |
22 |
19 |
18 |
25 |
37 |
27 |
33 |
42 |
|
Difflugia spp. |
A |
18 |
20 |
15 |
10 |
08 |
11 |
15 |
14 |
19 |
17 |
20 |
22 |
B |
15 |
16 |
18 |
11 |
06 |
04 |
08 |
10 |
09 |
13 |
18 |
16 |
|
C |
17 |
20 |
22 |
17 |
09 |
08 |
11 |
12 |
15 |
21 |
20 |
15 |
|
Cyclops |
A |
15 |
14 |
11 |
08 |
11 |
08 |
07 |
11 |
13 |
17 |
11 |
14 |
B |
12 |
14 |
09 |
07 |
02 |
03 |
06 |
11 |
08 |
07 |
12 |
10 |
|
C |
18 |
16 |
12 |
08 |
07 |
10 |
08 |
10 |
09 |
12 |
16 |
12 |
DISCUSSION- The degree of pollution was found to be very high at
the middle site B. This is mainly because the site is located near the centre
of city and it receives three wide drains that bring excreta and garbage of
entire city into the river water. Pollution load was also higher at site C as
compared to site A. This site is located near the industrial area and it
receives two wide drains that pour the effluents of many saree
printing industries and silver polishing plants.
Seasonally, the pollution load was
higher during summer (i.e., May, June and July) at all sites. This is because
of presence of low amount of diluting water in the river [6]. So,
the remaining water becomes highly concentrated with pollutants.Parameters
like BOD and ammonia were found to be directly related with pollution load.
When pollution load was high, the values of BOD were found to be very high.
This is mainly because dissolved oxygen gets utilised in the oxidation of
biological waste and also in the respiration of algae [7].
Ammonia is rapidly oxidised by
certain microorganisms in natural water bodies from nitrite to nitrate, a
process that requires the presence of dissolved oxygen. So, a high level of
ammonia (sewage waste) can severely contribute to high BOD levels. High BOD
levels and increased level of ammonia are indicators of heavy sewage (organic)
pollution [2].
The values of chlorides and sulphates were also found
very high at site B compared to other two sites. Seasonally, the values were
remarkably high during summers. These high values indicated a heavy organic
load in the river during summers.
The Coliform
population exhibited a positive trends with BOD, ammonia, chlorides and
sulphates i.e., population was found very high, where pollution load was high.
Therefore, highest population of these bacteria was recorded at Site B
especially during summers. High level of Coliform
again indicated the presence of heavy organic pollutants in the river [1]. Coliform produce a bad and offensive smell in
the water body. Coliform represented a negative trend with oxygen, probably
because absence of oxygen leaves the waste untreated, which is favourable to
the bacterial growth [5].
Ulothrix being an alga, showed a luxuriant growth near the
banks of the river, mainly due to the accumulation of organic wastes
(eutrophication). It exhibited a positive correlation with ammonia, chlorides
and sulphates. High population of algae is the indicator of heavy pollution
load in the water body [8].
The population of Difflugia, Paramecia and Cyclops showed a negative trend with
BOD, ammonia, chlorides and sulphates. In summers, when the pollution load was
high, a minimum population was recorded [9]. This clearly indicated
that such organisms cannot survive in high BOD environment [2].
Ammonia is the excretory waste of Difflugia,
Paramecia and Cyclops. So these organisms cannot survive in a medium, which
has high ammonical contents [10].
Furthermore, low values of dissolved oxygen also cause problems in their
respiration [11].
CONCLUSIONS- This study revealed that those sites selected for study are
badly polluted by sewage and effluents of many small scale industries. Site B
is the worst affected as it receives the maximum sewage load. Upstream and
downstream sites were showed comparatively lesser pollution load. The
population of test organisms like Difflugia, Paramecium
and Cyclops has shown severe
fluctuation, which does not indicate a healthy ecological balance in the river.
Besides these statistical figures, some other factors were also observed, which
are contributory to the problem. One important factor was the absence of
bathrooms and toilets at the banks of the river, where a large number of
pilgrims take bath. In the absence of toilets, the pilgrims are forced for open
defecation which further deteriorates the problem. Further, a large number of
washer-men are using river water for the purpose of washing their clothes. Most
small scale industries, especially those which are engaged in silver polishing
work, are passing out their effluents into drains, which open directly into the
river. It is compulsory for these industries to have water treatment plants,
despite most of them do not have such plants. Local administration, pollution
control board and municipality are working very poorly without any effective
control.
REFERENCES
1.
Agrawal
P. K., Prabha S. Water quality of sewage drains
entering river Yamuna at Mathura. J. Env. Biol. 2000;
21(4):375-378.
2. Sharma, K.D., N. Lal
and P. D. Pathak. Water quality of sewage drains
entering Yamuna at Agra. Ind. J. Env. Health. 1981;
23(2):118-122.
3.
Kalpan S., Eraso J. and Roh
H. Interacting regulatory networks in the facultative photosynthetic bacterium,
Rhodobacter sphaeroides 2.4.1. Biochemical Society
Transaction. 2005; 33(1):51-55.
4. APHA. Standard methods for the
examination of water and waste water. 17th Ed. Washington D.C.,
U.S.A, 1989.
5. Verma S. R., A. K. Tyagi
and R.C. Dalela. Physico-chemical and biological
characteristics of Khadarabad drain in U.P. Ind. J. Env. Hlth. 1978; 20(1):1-13.
6. Hynes, H.B.N. The Biology of polluted
waters, Liverpool University Press.; Liverpool, 1978; pp:200-204,
7.
Lieven Bervoets, Guy Knaepkens, Marcel Eens and Ronny Blust. Fish
community responses to metal pollution. Environmental Pollution, 2005;
138(2):191-376
8.
Klein,
L. River pollution, II-Causes and effect (5th Ed.). Butterworth and Co. Ltd,
1973.
9.
Kliushnikova TM, Chernyshenko DV and Kasatkina TP. The sulphate
reducing capacity of bacteria in the genus Pseudomonas. Microbiol. Zh. 1992; 54(2):49-54.
10.
Bo
Shi, Pete Lortscher, Doris Palfery.
Algal biomass anaerobic biodegradability. Journal of Applied phycology. 2012; 25(3):757-761.
11.
Desouky Abdel-El-Haleem. Acinetobacter, Environmental and biotechnological
applications. African journal of Biotechnology. 2003; 2(4):71-74.