Environment International 117 (2018) 327–338

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environment International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envint

Review article

Ganga water pollution: A potential health threat to inhabitants of Ganga T

basin
⁎
Sanjay Dwivedi, Seema Mishra , Rudra Deo Tripathi
Plant Ecology and Environmental Science Division, CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow 226001, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Robert Letcher
Background: The water quality of Ganga, the largest river in Indian sub-continent and life line to hundreds of
million people, has severely deteriorated. Studies have indicated the presence of high level of carcinogenic
elements in Ganga water.
Objectives: We performed extensive review of sources and level of organic, inorganic pollution and microbial
contamination in Ganga water to evaluate changes in the level of various pollutants in the recent decade in
comparison to the past and potential health risk for the population through consumption of toxicant tainted
fishes in Ganga basin.
Methods: A systematic search through databases, specific websites and reports of pollution regulatory agencies
was conducted. The state wise level of contamination was tabulated along the Ganga river. We have discussed
the major sources of various pollutants with particular focus on metal/metalloid and pesticide residues.
Bioaccumulation of toxicants in fishes of Ganga water and potential health hazards to humans through con-
sumption of tainted fishes was evaluated.
Results: The level of pesticides in Ganga water registered a drastic reduction in the last decade (i.e. after the
establishment of National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) in 2009), still the levels of some organo-
chlorines are beyond the permissible limits for drinking water. Conversely the inorganic pollutants, particularly
carcinogenic elements have increased several folds. Microbial contamination has also significantly increased.
Hazard quotient and hazard index indicated significant health risk due to metal/metalloid exposure through
consumption of tainted fishes from Ganga. Target cancer risk assessment showed high carcinogenic risk from As,
Cr, Ni and Pb as well as residues of DDT and HCHs.
Conclusion: Current data analysis showed that Ganga water quality is deteriorating day by day and at several
places even in upper stretch of Ganga the water is not suitable for domestic uses. Although there is positive
impact of ban on persistent pesticides with decreasing trend of pesticide residues in Ganga water, the increasing
trend of trace and toxic elements is alarming and the prolong exposure to polluted Ganga water and/or con-
sumption of Ganga water fishes may cause serious illness including cancer.

1. Background However, due to pollution, today the regular consumption of Ganga

Ganga, the largest river of the Indian sub-continent, originates from
the Gaumukh ice cave of the Gangotri Glacier system at an altitude of
4100 m and discharges into the Bay of Bengal after traversing for over
2525 km through the plains of Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar,
Jharkhand, and West Bengal (Basu, 1992; Singh and Singh, 2007). It is
lifeline to more than 400 million people who lives along its course and
depend on it for their daily needs. Ganga is the most sacred river of
India, personified as goddess and given the reverence of mother. It is
believed to be soul purifier and has been reported to have antimicrobial
and medicinal properties (Nautiyal, 2009a, 2009b; Rai, 2013).
water or taking dip in it may cause serious health effects including
cancer.
Ganga covers as much as 8,61,404 km2 of drainage basin within the
country which is 15th in Asia and 29th in the world (Joshi et al., 2009).
Covering more than a quarter (26.2%) of geographical area of the
country with the major ancient cities situated on the bank of Ganga,
such as Haridwar, Kanpur, Allahabad, Varanasi, Patna and Kolkata.
From Gaumukh to Rishikesh it flows on hills of Himalayas, thereafter it
enters the Gangetic plain. Gangetic plain has been divided into three
major parts; upper, middle and lower plains (Payne et al., 2004). In the
middle plains, Ganga receives major tributaries viz. Yamuna, Ghaghara,

⁎
Corresponding author at: Plant Ecology and Environmental Science Division, CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow 226001, Uttar Pradesh, India.
E-mail address: seema_mishra2003@yahoo.co.in (S. Mishra).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.05.015
Received 3 May 2018; Accepted 6 May 2018
Available online 18 May 2018
0160-4120/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Dwivedi et al.
Gandak and Kosi originating from Himalayas; Burhi Gandak and Go-
mati, from foothill or terai region of the Himalaya, and Tons, Sone,
Punpun from Central India plateau. These tributaries increase the vo-
lume of water in the river Ganga, however, they also bring different
pollutants adding up to the deterioration of its water quality. Within
middle plain, the stretch of the river from Kannauj to Varanasi is par-
ticularly vulnerable to human induced pollution such as industrial and
sewage discharge and agricultural runoff. In this regard, several studies
have documented physico-chemical, biological, and toxicological as-
pects of the water and sediments of Ganga river (Mukherjee et al., 1993;
Kumari et al., 2001a; Singh et al., 2002; Singh and Singh, 2007). High
variability in water has been observed with respect to spatial dis-
tribution as well as temporal variations in precipitation, surface runoff
and groundwater flow. Industrial effluents coming from different in-
dustries contains high amount of inorganic and organic pollutants. In-
organic pollutants such as cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, mercury,
nickel, titanium and zinc are released from metal working and elec-
troplating industries, and thermal power plants (Dwivedi et al., 2006;
Sinha et al., 2007; Deepali and Gangwar, 2010; Rai et al., 2010; Katiyar,
2011; Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2016). The pulp and
paper mill effluents contribute chlorinated organics and dioxins, as well
as suspended solids and organic wastes. The petrochemical industry
discharges a lot of phenols and mineral oils. Further, Gangetic plane is
the most fertile land of the country and thus huge application of pes-
ticides occur in this region which finally ends up in Ganga through
direct runoff and tributaries (Mutiyar and Mittal, 2013; CPCB, 2016).
Most of the organic and inorganic pollutants are human carcinogens
and mutagens, and cause several physiological and neurological dis-
orders (Ejaz et al., 2004; Pal et al., 2012). Several species of fresh water
fishes accumulate metals and pesticides from contaminated water be-
yond the permissible limit (Kumari et al., 2001b; Sinha et al., 2007;
Bhattacharya et al., 2008; Aktar et al., 2009; Mitra et al., 2012; Pal
et al., 2012). The biomagnification of pesticides and methylated mer-
cury has been reported in various popular fishes from river Ganga
(Sinha et al., 2007; Pal et al., 2012). Several toxic elements also
bioaccumulate and biomagnify in the fishes of Ganga (Sinha et al.,
2007; Bhattacharya et al., 2008; Mitra et al., 2012;Sudhakar and Singh,
2014). Therefore, excess accumulation of toxicants in fish could become
a significant exposure pathway and a consequent health risk to the fish
consuming human population in Ganga basin. According to the recent
study by National Cancer Registry programme the number of cancer
patients has increased around Ganga basin with largest number of gall
bladder cancer cases worldwide (Jain et al., 2013; Saini et al., 2015).
Researchers have been mostly focused on monitoring Ganga water
quality based on physico-chemical characteristics and fecal coli form
counts (Bilgrami and Kumar, 1998; Baghel et al., 2005; Hamner et al.,
2007; Ahammad et al., 2014). Government has also addressed mostly
the sewage problem as the main cause of pollution in river Ganga. A
few studies have indicated severe organic and inorganic pollution
through agricultural and industrial effluent. For reducing the level of
pollution in Ganga, Govt. of India has taken several steps and has spent
millions of rupees. For instance, the Ganga Action Plan (GAP) was
launched in 1986 targeting to reduce sewage discharge. From 1993
onward GAP phase II was launched aiming to reduce pollution load
through its tributaries. On 20 February 2009, the National Ganga River
Basin Authority (NGRBA) was established for cleaning and conservation
of Ganga under the Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act,
1986 and Ganga was declared National River. Nevertheless, after nine
years of establishment of NGRBA, the quality of river water does not
seem to improve and a comprehensive data on the status of different
pollutants in river Ganga is still lacking.
Here we have reviewed the state-wise level of contaminants in
Ganga water, including the past and present scenario, their sources and
assessment of potential human health risk through consumption of
metal and pesticide tented fishes. The changes in physicochemical
parameters and the level of microbial contamination in river water in
328
Environment International 117 (2018) 327–338
different states are also discussed. The reports after 2009, i.e. after
NGRBA, were used to evaluate present status of contamination while
the earlier studies represent past level of pollution. This is pertinent in
the view of various measures taken to clean the river as well as in-
creasing pollution sources due to population growth in Ganga basin and
increasing number of cancer patient in this area.
2. Sources of pollution
The Ganga river pollution constitutes various organic and inorganic
substances originating primarily from agriculture, industry and muni-
cipal sectors. Among them municipal sewage is a major culprit followed
by industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. The river is also a site
for religious activities, washing and watering of animals, disposal of
corpses and cremation etc. Thus, sources of pollution in Ganga can
broadly be divided into four categories; sewage pollution, industrial
effluent, agricultural runoff and religious activities.
2.1. Sewage pollution
Discharge of untreated sewage from urban centers is the major
cause for deterioration of Ganga water quality. The main constituent of
sewage water is organic matter, nutrients (viz., N, P, K), inorganic
matter (dissolved minerals), toxic chemicals (heavy metal and pesti-
cides) and pathogens (Vega et al., 1998). Several studies have shown
that the water at upper stretch of Ganga, such as at Rishikesh, also does
not fulfill the guidelines for potable water (Chauhan and Singh, 2011)
while at several places in middle and lower stretch of Ganga water is
not even useful for bathing and other livelihood activities (Bilgrami and
Kumar, 1998; Mishra and Mohapatra, 2009; Hamner et al., 2006,
2007). Discharge of sewage into the Ganga is responsible for 75% of its
pollution with millions of liters sewage generated per day in the towns
along the Ganga (Das, 2011). According to the report of Central Pol-
lution Control Board (CPCB), in 1985 the total municipal sewage gen-
erated in the identified 25 Class-1 towns, located in the States of U.P.,
Bihar and West Bengal, was around 1340 million liters per day (MLD).
To tackle the increasing problem of pollution in Ganga water, the am-
bitious Ganga Action Plan (GAP) was launched in 1986. Ganga Action
Plan Phase-1 planned 35 sewage treatment plants (3 STPs in Uttar-
anchal, 10 STPs in Uttar Pradesh, 7 STPs in Bihar, and 15 STPs in West
Bengal) for the abatement of sewage pollution in Ganga (Rai, 2013). In
1993 GAP phase II was launched and several STPs were established in
Ganga basin targeting the tributaries of Ganga. However, the GAP was
unsuccessful to achieve its goals because of several reasons. Thereafter,
in 2009 NGRBA was established for cleaning and conservation of
Ganga. However, recent reports of CPCB showed that the gap between
sewage generation and treatment capacities is drastically increasing
and more than 50% of sewage is still discharged untreated into the river
Ganga directly or through tributaries (Table 1). According to CPCB
(2014) the total wastewater generation from 222 towns in Ganga basin
is 8250 MLD, while the treatment facilities are available only for
3500 MLD. Out of total waste water generated, 2538 MLD is directly
discharged into the Ganga, 4491 MLD disposed into tributaries of river
Ganga and rest is disposed on land or low lying areas. The maximum
generation of sewage from class-I cities is in West Bengal (50%, approx.
1311 MLD) most of which is from Kolkata (618 MLD), followed by Utter
Pradesh (34%, approx. 874 MLD) mostly from Kanpur and Allahabad
(339 and 208, respectively). While sewage generation form class-II ci-
ties is maximum in Uttar Pradesh (52%, 63.5 MLD) followed by Bihar
and Uttarakhand. Maximum discharge of untreated sewage is also from
West Bengal (548 MLD; 42%) followed by Uttar Pradesh (461 MLD;
52%) (CPCB, 2013). According to Environmental Information System
(ENVIS), New Delhi, the total sewage generation from urban population
in 5 states of Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP) is 15,435 MLD while the in-
stalled treatment capacity is only 3458 MLD (ENVIS, 2016). Thus, de-
spite spending several million rupees the untreated sewage discharge to
S. Dwivedi et al.
Table 1
Increasing gap between sewage/waste water generation and treatment capa-
cities in Ganga basin (values are in MLD).
1985a 2009b 2012c 2013d 2015e
Sewage generation 1340 2638 2723 (6070)f 8250 15,435
Treatment capacity – 1174 1208 3500 3458.43
Gap – 1464 1515 4750 11,976.57
a
CSE, 2013, Status Paper for River Ganga, Past failures and current chal-
lenges, Centre for Science and Environment.
b
CPCB, 2009, Monitoring of Indian Aquatic Resources, Ganga water quality
trend, Central Pollution Control Board, MoEF.
c
CPCB, 2013, Pollution Assessment: River Ganga, Central Pollution Control
Board, MoEF.
d
CPCB, 2014, Status of Sewage Treatment Plants in Ganga Basin, Central
Pollution Control Board, MoEF.
e
ENVIS Centre on Hygiene, Sanitation, Sewage Treatment Systems and
Technology.
f
Value reported by CSE (2014), Ganga, The River, its Pollution and what we
can do to clean it, Centre for Science and Environment.
Ganga has increased by over 9 folds in the recent years than in 1985
(Table 1).
2.1.1. Changes in physicochemical properties and microbial contamination
of Ganga
The continuous increase in untreated sewage discharge into Ganga
has severely affected the physicochemical properties and microbial
counts of river water in all the stretches. The state wise level of water
quality parameters (pH, EC, BOD, COD, DO), major ions and bacterial
counts at different time periods are summarized in Supplementary
Table 1. Sewage and household wastewater is the major source of these
contaminants in rivers. Increasing urbanization along the river Ganga
has caused severe deterioration of river water. Though the availability
of data for different parameters is not uniform, still there is a clear state
wise trend in different time periods. The pH data showed that in
comparison to Uttarakhand the Ganga water is slightly more alkaline in
other states. Also in Uttarakhand the pH has increased slightly in recent
decades. Though the mean pH level was within the bathing limit
(6.5–8.5) set by WHO, however, the range of pH varied beyond the
permissible limits (i.e. 5.9–9) (Supplementary Table 1). The level of DO
was highest in Uttarakhand followed by Bihar and Uttar Pradesh and
minimum in West Bengal. In Uttarakhand, the level of DO increased in
last decades (before NGRBA), however in recent years i.e. after NGRBA
its level has further decreased. In contrast, the level of BOD decreased
before NGRBA while it has increased after NGRBA. In other states, the
level of DO and BOD both showed increasing trend in recent years i.e.
after NGRBA. The level of various ions viz., nitrate, nitrite, sulfate,
phosphate, and the alkalinity and hardness was highest in Uttar Pradesh
followed by Bihar and Uttarakhand, except for nitrate which was higher
in West Bengal after Uttar Pradesh. The microbial count (fecal and total
coliform), measured in maximum permissible number/100 ml, was
maximum in West Bengal followed by Uttar Pradesh at both time per-
iods i.e. before and after NGRBA. In Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur and
Varanasi are the most contaminated sites having up to 93,000 and
50,000 MPN/100 ml fecal coliform, respectively and in West Bengal
Dakshineswar and Howrah are most contaminated with up to 425,313
and 237,059 MPN/100 ml fecal coliform, respectively (CPCB ENVIS,
2007–2014; Pandey and Prasad, 2014). Interestingly, in Uttar Pradesh,
Bihar and West Bengal the microbial contamination has slightly de-
creased before NGRBA, while there is a continuous increase in Uttar-
akhand. The data showed that the microbial counts are several fold
higher than the maximum permissible limits for drinking (50 MPN/
100 ml) and bathing water (500 MPN/100 ml, CPCB, 2009). The CPCB
(2009) report showed that Ganga water, even at its source, at Gangotri,
is not suitable for drinking.
329
Environment International 117 (2018) 327–338
The time wise analysis of physicochemical data and microbial
contamination show that Ganga water in West Bengal (lower stretch)
and Uttar Pradesh (middle stretch) has always been most contaminated
which is directly correlated with the amount of waste water discharged
in these stretches of Ganga. However, there is a lack of data for many
physicochemical parameters in West Bengal. The slight decrease ob-
served in different parameters before NGRBA may be related to the
STPs constructed during the GAP period. Nevertheless, the increasing
gap between sewage generation and capacities of STPs in recent years
has resulted in further increase in the level of various contaminants
including microbial population in different states. The current analysis
of data showed that the range (i.e. the minimum and maximum re-
ported values) for most of the contaminants has extended in the recent
years. This also indicates that there are still some heavily contaminated
areas which are lacking sufficient treatment capacities.
2.2. Industrial effluent
Several hundred industrial units, 956 only in Uttar Pradesh, com-
prising thermal power plants, electro-processing industries, textiles,
wood and jute mills, sugar mills, distilleries, pulp and paper factories,
synthetic rubber industry, dairies, coal washeries (generating fly-ash),
pesticide factories, dying units and tanneries discharge different types
of waste in the river Ganga (Down To Earth, 2014). According to an
estimate about 2500 MLD of industrial waste water is generated in the
entire Ganga basin (Trivedi, 2010). As per CPCB (2016), 764 grossly
polluting industries, mostly situated in Uttar Pradesh, are directly dis-
charging their effluent in river Ganga. The area from Kannauj to Var-
anasi is particularly responsible for the most of the industrial waste into
the Ganga. Kanpur (tanneries), Allahabad (engineering) and Varanasi
(carpets and locomotive) are the major industrial cities in Uttar Pra-
desh. Tannery sector constitute highest proportion (58%) of grossly
polluting industries. Two out of three major tanneries in India are si-
tuated at the bank of river Ganga (Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh and Kolkata,
West Bengal) and many more small scale tanneries in the Ganga basin
are directly or indirectly contaminating the water of Ganga. High level
of chromium has been reported in the Ganga water at Kanpur and
Kolkata because of the use of chrome tanning process in most of the
tanneries (Table 2). Kanpur has 151 tanneries located in a cluster at
Jajmau along the southern bank of the Ganga with an estimated waste
water discharge of 5.8 to 8.8 MLD. Out of these, 62 tanneries ex-
clusively use the chrome tanning process (Agrawal et al., 2010). In a
study the Ganga water quality was analyzed before entering in Kanpur
(upstream Bithoor) till heavily contaminated Jajmau area (down-
stream, Siddhnath Ghat). The study showed a continuous increase in
the level of Cr from upstream (0.039 ± 0.02 mg l−1) to downstream
(4.47 ± 1.85 mg l−1) as well as high seasonal variation at all the sites
with maximum being in summer and minimum in monsoon (Khatoon
et al., 2013). In Jajmau area as high as 52.12 ± 15.52 mg l−1 Cr has
been reported in Ganga water (Katiyar, 2011). Tannery effluent not
only contains Cr but a significant amount of other heavy metals, such as
Zn, Mn, Cu and Pb are also present (Deepali and Gangwar, 2010;
Bhuiyan et al., 2011; Katiyar, 2011; Dixit et al., 2015). High levels of As
and Pb along with Cr has been reported in Ganga water contaminated
by tannery effluent near Jajmau area in Kanpur (Katiyar, 2011).
Besides the tanneries, the untreated or partial treated effluents from
other industries also significantly enhances the concentration of toxic
elements in the Ganga water (Gupta and Raghubansi, 2002; Dwivedi
et al., 2006; Bhattacharya et al., 2008; Aktar et al., 2010; Rai et al.,
2010). In recent past Ganga water quality evaluated by National Cancer
Registry Programme (NCRP) and Indian Council of Medical Research
(ICMR) revealed that the traces of heavy metals specially mercury (Hg)
in the Ganga water were more in comparison to maximum permissible
limit provided by World Health Organization (WHO, 1990). Sinha et al.
(2007) investigated the Hg pollution at Varanasi (both up and down
stream) and concluded that annual mean concentration of Hg in the
S. Dwivedi et al. Environment International 117 (2018) 327–338

Table 2
Changes in the level of inorganic pollution (trace and toxic elements) in Ganga water in different states.
Sl no. Name of trace and toxic elements Level (mg l−1) in Ganga water in different states

Uttarakhand Uttar Pradesh Bihar West Bengal

A Trace elements
1. Fe After 2009 0.03–2.61 0.0–7.0 – 0.0–5.5
Before 2009 0.3–5.99 0.02–3 0.08–0.36 0.35–2.35
2. Zn After 2009 ND-13 ND-106 – ND-64
Before 2009 0.015–0.16 0.01–0.60 0.04–0.4 0.04–0.69
3. Cu After 2009 ND-0.18 ND-36 – ND-38
Before 2009 0.01–0.02 0.01–2.0 0.02–0.15 0.003–0.322
4. Mn After 2009 0.002–0.16 0.04–2.8 – ND-2.7
Before 2009 0.03–0.08 0.03–0.12 0.10–0.25 0.085–0.712
5. Co After 2009 0.002–0.02 ND-0.02 – –
Before 2009 – 0.01–0.05 – –

B. Toxic elements
1. Cr After 2009 0.003–0.2 0.0–52 – 0.0–9.5
Before 2009 – ND-1.09 ND-0.13 0.01–0.39
2. Cd After 2009 0.0–0.7 0.00–13 – ND-1.4
Before 2009 ND-0.011 0.003–0.033 ND-0.10 ND-0.003
3. Pb After 2009 0.00–5.0 0.0–27 – ND-7.9
Before 2009 – 0.03–0.19 ND-0.37 0.00004–0.076
4. As After 2009 0.003–0.01 ND-0.01 – 0.0–4.7
Before 2009 – 0.007–0.03 ND-0.01 –
5. Hg After 2009 ND-0.0004 ND-0.0008 – 0.0–0.69
Before 2009 0.0–0.000081 ND-0.002 ND 0.00001–0.95
6. Ni After 2009 0.0–0.004 0.0–1.12 – 0.0–9.7
Before 2009 0.01–0.05 0.03–0.9 ND-0.01 0.03–0.05

The estimated range of trace and toxic elements is based on the Supplementary Table 2.
The National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) established in 2009 has been used as timeline to evaluate past and present level of contamination.

Ganga water was 0.23 μg l−1. Considerable seasonal and site specific
variations in heavy metal contamination of Ganga water was observed
in different states (Dwivedi et al., 2006; Gupta et al., 2009; Aktar et al.,
2010; Pal et al., 2012; Rai et al., 2012). High level of different metals
like Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb and Zn has also been reported at different
bathing sites on the bank of river Ganga (Gupta et al., 2009; Pandey
et al., 2010; Rai et al., 2012) which might be related to various religious
activities.
From the above it is clear that the levels of carcinogenic elements
like As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni and Pb, were exceeding the WHO permissible
limit for potable water at many sites of Ganga river in different seasons
(Sinha et al., 2007; Gupta et al., 2009; Aktar et al., 2010; Pandey et al.,
2010; Katiyar, 2011). The state wise level of metal contamination has
been given in Supplementary Table 2. The concentration of Cd, Cr and
Pb was maximum in Uttar Pradesh followed by West Bengal then Ut-
tarakhand and minimum in Bihar while As and Hg was maximum in
West Bengal followed by Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Bihar. High
level of As observed in Ganga water of West Bengal probably comes
through agricultural runoff originating from contaminated ground
water used for irrigation (Mishra et al., 2016). The source of Hg could
be idol immersion, taking place at high rate in West Bengal throughout
the year. There is a huge study gap in the lower middle stretch of Ganga
i.e., Bihar and Jharkhand. The level of metal contamination in Ganga
water before the establishment of NGRBA in 2009 and the status
afterwards is summarized in Table 2.
2.3. Agricultural runoff
The Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP) ranks as one of the most extensive
fluvial plain of the world. The area of IGP in India is nearly 13% of the
total geographical area of the country including the states Uttarakhand,
Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal. About 50% of the
total food grains are produced in these regions to feed 40% of the po-
pulation of the country (Pal et al., 2009). India produces approximately
85,000 MT of pesticide annually and rank fourth in the world after the
US, Japan and China in pesticide production (Sampathkumar, 2014;
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI),
2016). The annual use of pesticide is about 60,000 MT in India, of
which the maximum consumption is in Ganga basin only (Mohapatra
et al., 1995; Kumar et al., 2013). Pesticides used in agriculture could
easily find their way into the river via runoff streams and tributaries.
Besides the regular agricultural practices in Ganga basin, the dry bed of
the river, used for growing several vegetables and fruits e.g. water-
melon, muskmelon and cucumber during summer, also add pesticides
to the river during monsoon. Organochlorine (OCPs) and organopho-
sphorus pesticides (OPPs) are the most used pesticides in India in which
OCPs fall in Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Though Government
of India has withdrawn the use of some pesticides such as DDT, aldrin
and HCH in agriculture in the year 1989, 1996 and 1997 respectively,
but unfortunately they are still being used due to easy availability and
low cost (Abhilash and Singh, 2009; Vijgen et al., 2011). DDT is still in
use for public health and sanitation purpose as per WHO guidelines and
HCH was in use until 2013 for termite control in buildings, wood and
agriculture (Berg, 2009; Central Insecticide Board and Registration
Committee, 2012). POPs are potential carcinogens and mutagens and of
considerable concern to human and environmental health (Ejaz et al.,
2004; Kumar et al., 2013). Several workers have monitored the level of
different type of pesticides in Ganga water and found most of them
beyond WHO permissible limit (WHO, 1984; Rehana et al., 1995, 1996;
Guzzella et al., 2005; Mutiyar and Mittal, 2013). The level of pesticides
varied considerably in upper, middle and lower stretches of Ganga. The
data from the various studies covering different stretches of river Ganga
show that the river water in Uttar Pradesh has more pesticide pollution
than in other states (Supplementary Table 3). Further the contamina-
tion was considerably localized with a few sites having more pesticide
concentration than the other within a state, such as Kanpur and Var-
anasi in Uttar Pradesh (ITRC Annual Report, 1992; Semwal and
Akolkar, 2006; Mutiyar and Mittal, 2013). The level of contamination
before the NGRBA (in 2009) and the status afterwards is categorized in
Table 3.
Analysis of Ganga water at the upper stream of Uttar Pradesh i.e. in
Narora, Kachla, Fatehgarh and Kannauj showed significant

330
S. Dwivedi et al. Environment International 117 (2018) 327–338

Table 3
Changes in the level of organic pollution (pesticides) in Ganga water in different states.
Sl no. Name of pesticides Level (ng l−1) in Ganga water in different States

Uttarakhand Uttar Pradesh Bihar West Bengal

A Organochlorines
1 Σ-HCH After 2009 5.2–7.24 0.1–3.5 ND-74.04 0.0–0.039
Before 2009 ND-153 1–99,517 11–2597 0–18,650
2 Σ-DDT After 2009 ND-1.01 0.05–2.21 ND-489
Before 2009 2.0–365 ND-143226 19–1663 0–6000
3 Σ-Endosulfan After 2009 ND-0.92 ND-85.4 ND-739 –
Before 2009 ND-66 ND-66516 – 0–3620
4 Σ-Aldrin After 2009 0.12–2.3 ND-2.2 ND-489 0.0–0.009
Before 2009 ND-46 ND-3340 ND-800 10–900
5 Σ-Hepta After 2009 0.06–0.32 ND-0.2 ND-11.8 0.0–0.026
Before 2009 – – – –
6 2-4D After 2009 – – – –
Before 2009 – ND-39 – –

B. Organophosphorus
1 Dimethoate
2 Malathion
3 Methyl parathion
4 Ethion
After 2009 – – – –
Before 2009 – 0–2694 – 0–1940
After 2009 – – – –
Before 2009 – ND-6982 – 0–4830
After 2009 – – ND –
Before 2009 – ND-500 – 0–3050
After 2009 – – – –
Before 2009 – 0–1995 – –

The estimated range of pesticides is based on the Supplementary Table 3.

The National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) established in 2009 has been used as timeline to evaluate past and present level of contamination.

concentrations of OCPs such as DDT (1360–5330 ng l−1), α-BHC
(1380–3010 ng l−1), DDD (880–2410 ng l−1), aldrin (950–2810 ng l−1)
and dieldrin (410–4110 ng l−1) and OPPs like dimethoate
(200–560 ng l−1) and methyl parathion (160–500 ng l−1). The levels of
pesticides were lower at Narora (Rehana et al., 1995, 1996). Agnihotri
et al. (1994) found residue of several OCPs such as HCH, DDT, aldrin,
endosulfan and heptachlor in Ganga river water from Farrukhabad
district, upstream to Kannauj. HCH and DDT were most prevalent while
concentration of aldrin was also exceeding WHO limits for drinking
water in most of the samples. The study conducted in Varanasi, the
lower stream of Ganga in U.P., showed a high increase in levels of HCH
(105–99,517 ng l−1), DDT (69–14,320 ng l−1) and endosulfan
(83–66,520 ng l−1) (Nayak et al., 1995). In a relatively recent study,
high concentration of HCHs (109 ng l−1 α-HCH and 260 ng l−1 γ-HCH),
dieldrin (1671 ng l−1) and malathion (2610 ng l−1) was reported in
Ganga water at Kanpur (Sankararamakrishnan et al., 2005). The surface
water bodies in Unnao, the adjoining district of Kanpur, were also re-
ported to have considerable pesticide contamination through past use
in agriculture (Singh et al., 2007).
Mutiyar and Mittal (2013) studied the occurrence of 16 major OCPs
in three states covering 72% of the Ganga river stretch. The level of
total pesticide residue was below the safe limit (1 μg l−1 BIS, and 0.5 EU
standard). In Uttarakhand stretch, 14 out of 16 OCPs were detected and
heptachlore and DDT were not detected in any samples but HCHs were
present in all samples. In Uttar Pradesh stretch endosulfans were found
in maximum number of samples (75%), followed by aldrin (11%), DDT
(9%) and HCH (5%) group. The β-endosulfan was frequently present in
many of the samples in Uttar Pradesh stretch in relatively higher con-
centrations (up to 133.11 ng l−1). In Bihar maximum detection fre-
quency was for the aldrin group (34%) followed by HCHs (21%), en-
dosulfans (20%), heptachlore group (13%) and DDT group (12%).
Thus, in general HCHs in Uttarakhand, endosulfans in Uttar Pradesh
and aldrins (aldrin and dieldrin) were dominant in Bihar. While the
study by Singh et al. (2012) showed that endosulfans were dominant in
Bihar (Bhagalpur) followed by DDT group and HCH among the tested
pesticides. The maximum level of pesticides also followed the same
order (upto 783, 489, 74.04 ng l−1 respectively for endosulfans, DDT
and HCH group). They also analyzed methyl parathion but it was not
detected in any sample. Another study in Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh)
showed dominance of DDT group and lindane (γ-HCH), which were
present at all the selected sites while endosulfans were absent in all the
samples (Raghuvanshi et al., 2014). High levels of aldrins (up to
900 ng l−1) and DDT (up to 650 ng l−1) were found in the lower stretch
of Ganga (named Hooghly in WB) from the industrial area of Kolkata
(Ghose et al., 2009). Lindane was also detected in all the samples (up to
100 ng l−1) while heptachlor and dicofel were absent. Chakraborty
et al. (2014) also reported up to 114 ng l−1 OCPs in Ganga at the tip of
Bay of Bengal in the order; heptachlor > HCH > DDT >
dieldrin > aldrin > endosulfan.
Apart from OCPs and OPPs, organotin compounds (OTCs) have also
been detected in Ganga water collected from Kanpur-Unnao region. The
concentration of butyltin compounds viz. monobutyltin, dibutyltin,
tributyltin were significantly higher while methyltin compounds viz.
monomethyltin and dimethyltin, were below the detection limits
(Ansari et al., 1998) (Supplementary Table 3). The level of OTCs was
higher in pre-monsoon than post-monsoon season. Organotin com-
pounds have been extensively used in industrial and agricultural sector.
Butyltin compounds have been used as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) sta-
bilizers, industrial catalysts, industrial and agricultural biocides and as
wood preserving and antifouling agents. Triphenyltin compounds exert
deleterious effects on aquatic organisms at very low concentrations.
Several studies have been done on the level and toxicity of tin com-
pounds in marine environments due to use of OCTs as biocide in marine
antifouling paints. However, there is dearth of data on level of OCTs in
different stretches of Ganga water. Thus, it seems that different types of
pesticides predominate in different regions depending upon the land
use pattern and differential past uses for agricultural and public health
programme. Nevertheless, the level of pesticides, particularly OCPs,
registered a drastic decline in the recent years in comparison to the
studies before NGRBA (Table 3, Supplementary Table 3). Further it is
also interesting to note that before NGRBA the level of most of pesti-
cides were higher in Uttar Pradesh followed by West Bengal, Bihar and
Uttarakhand, whereas, after NGRBA the trend has changed with max-
imum levels in Bihar followed by Uttarakhand (Σ-HCH, Σ-Aldrin and Σ-
Hepta) or Uttar Pradesh (Σ-DDT, Σ-Endosulfan). No recent data from
West Bengal was found. The decrease in the level of pesticides probably

331
S. Dwivedi et al.
reflects the effect of their ban/restricted use. The changing pattern,
however, indicates their long distance mobility and persistence, such as
their occurrence in glaciers leading to their increased concentration in
Ganga water of Uttarakhand.
Apart from above mentioned, many other chemicals are widely used
in agriculture, industry and private sectors as pesticide and preservative
which exert highly toxic effect on human such as, pentachlorophenol
(PCP) and there metabolites. However, there level in water and bio-
magnifications in fishes have not been studied.
2.4. Pollution due to religious activities
River Ganga is considered as the soul purifier and Mokshdayini,
means a dip in the Ganga liberates from the cycle of death and rebirth.
The Ganga basin houses many historical towns like Rishikesh,
Haridwar, Garhmukteshwar, Kannauj, Allahabad, Mirzapur, Varanasi
and Gangasagar which are important pilgrim centers where several
religious activities takes place throughout the year on the bank of
Ganga. During different festivals millions of people come to these places
for holy dips called “Ganga snans” (Rai, 2013). Devotees offer different
kinds of materials like sweets, milk, flowers, leaves, lighted earthen
lamps to Ganga, and discard remains of old holy books and idols
thereby contaminating the river water. Several communities in India
throw dead bodies and the remains of bones, after crimination, in
Ganga as a part of last ritual. The impact of different religious activities
on Ganga water has been studied extensively and is summarized below.
2.4.1. Religious bathing
Every day millions of peoples take bath throughout the course of
Ganga, however, some of the auspicious days are particularly important
when large number of people take a dip in the river. Kumbh is the main
event for mass ritualistic bathing which takes place at four places;
Haridwar (Har Ki Pauri), Allahabad (Prayag), Nashik (Godavari Ghat)
and Ujjain (Shipra Ghat). According to Hindu mythology, during the
battle of devtas and demons for Amrit (elixir of immortality which was
recovered during the churning of the ocean, the Samudra Manthan),
was spilled over at these four places. The Kumbh is celebrated once
every 12 years in each of the four places for one and half months.
During Kumbh billions of people take bath at a specific stretch of
river. Several devotees and ascetics reside on the bank of river Ganga
during the whole Kumbh period. Some of the auspicious days during
Kumbh are particularly heavily crowded which are Makar Sankranti,
Paush Purnima, Mauni Amavasya, Vasant Panchami, Magh Purnima
and MahaShivratri. During the Kumbh at Haridwar in 2010 the esti-
mated number of bathing population was 41.6 million (Tyagi et al.,
2013). While in the Kumbh at Prayag in 2013 a total no. of 88.7 million
people took bath within 45 days (official data from Govt. of Uttar
Pradesh 2013). The biggest gathering was on 10 February 2013 when
over 30 million devotees and ascetics took holy dip in the river Ganga
in one day on the auspicious event of Mauni Amavasya (Rani et al.,
2014). The mass gathering severely deteriorates the water quality be-
cause people carelessly use soaps, shampoos, detergents, throw gar-
bage, polythene, discarded clothes as well as throw food, flower, leaves,
milk, curd, ghee, coins etc. as offering to river Ganga. Thus, these kind
of ritualistic practices have their own good share in contaminating the
sacred Ganga water.
The effect of mass ritualistic bathing on the Ganga water quality
during Ardh Kumbh, Khumbh and Maha Khumbh, at different places,
has been evaluated by various workers (Sinha et al., 1991; Kulshrestha
and Sharma, 2006; Joshi and Sati, 2011; Srivastava et al., 2013; Tyagi
et al., 2013). During Ardh Kumbh at Haridwar in 2004 the water
quality of river Ganga was significantly changed showing high increase
in BOD, COD and total and fecal coli form counts (Kulshrestha and
Sharma, 2006). Arora et al. (2013) also reported altered physico-che-
mical and microbial nature of Ganga water by decreased pH and in-
creased chlorine, TDS, TSS, SPC and bacterial counts (total and fecal
332
Environment International 117 (2018) 327–338
coli form) due to mass bathing during Maha Kumbh in 2010 at Har-
idwar. Tyagi et al. (2013) analyzed the Ganga water quality and con-
sequent health risks in the same event. They found BOD values were
surpassed the standard criteria (3 mg l−1) of outdoor bathing and the
level of total coliforms (792 MPN/100 ml) and fecal coliforms
(482 MPN/100 ml) were also many folds higher during the mass
bathing and were far beyond the Indian and European standard of
outdoor bathing (TC 500 MPN/100 ml; FC 100 MPN/100 ml). Authors
reported significant increase in ammoniacal nitrogen (NH4-N) and
phosphate (PO4) which were positively correlated to the number of
bathing population. During Maha Kumbh 2013, the level of BOD at
Sangam, Allahabad was 7.4 mg l−1, after the first day of the bathing
event (Makar Sankranti). Though, the level of BOD (5 mg l−1) at
Sangam was already much above the permissible limit for outdoor
bathing before Kumbh (unpublished data). This is probably because
pilgrims from all over India come to take a dip in Sangam throughout
the year. Srivastava et al. (2013) evaluated the water quality during
Maha Kumbh 2013, Allahabad by fuzzy environmental model using
physic-chemical and bacteriological parameters of water. They found
that the water quality of river was deteriorated during mass bathing
and it was very poor at most of the sites. Other studies indicated that
water quality of the river at Allahabad was worse during Maha Kumbh
2013 than that during Ardha Kumbh 2007 and was not good for bathing
or swimming (Yadav, 2007; Srivastava et al., 2013). The presence of
fecal coliforms in Ganga water hints to the presence of pathogenic
microorganisms, which might cause water borne diseases. A significant
enhancement of Salmonella typhi in the water and sediment of river
Ganga was reported during Maha Kumbh 2013 at Allahabad (Rani
et al., 2014). The epidemiological study by Tyagi et al. (2013), during
Ardh Kumbh at Haridwar in 2010, also showed significant increase in
the incidence of water borne infections (gastroenteritis, fever and skin
disease) during bathing events. Further, high level of Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe,
Mn, Ni, Pb and Zn has also been reported at different bathing sites on
the bank of river Ganga, such as in Haridwar (Rai et al., 2012), Alla-
habad (Gupta et al., 2009) and Varanasi (Pandey et al., 2010). The
concentration of many toxic metals was exceeding the permissible
limits (WHO, 2008). This might be due to throwing of different mate-
rials in water during worship of Ganga, such as vermillion, coins etc.
containing Pb, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ni, Zn. The increased concentration of toxic
metals may pose potential risk to the devotees through direct con-
sumption of Ganga water as religious rites or by use of water for
drinking and cooking during the stay of pilgrims at the bank of Ganga
on the occasions of ritualistic mass bathing. Besides Kumbh, several
other bathing fairs are held on the bank of Ganga throughout the year,
such as Somwati Amavasya, Kartik Purnima, Shravan Amavasya, Ganga
Dussehra etc. which deteriorates the water quality (Sinha et al., 1991;
Sharma and Joshi, 2014). The mass bathing also decreases the trans-
mittance of water (Kulshrestha and Sharma, 2006).
2.4.2. Pollution due to idol immersion
The idol immersion is a religious activity which is also responsible
for adding several pollutants in the rivers including Ganga. In India, a
lot of religious activities take place round the year. Durga Puja is one of
the most important festival celebrated in West Bengal, Bihar and Uttar
Pradesh. In last 15 years Lakshmi Puja and Ganesh Chaturthi are also
celebrated at an equal pace in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar which were
originally belonging to other parts of India. In these festivals a huge
numbers of Durga, Lakshmi and Ganesha's idols of different sizes (up to
40 ft) are formed every year and immersed in Ganga at the end of the
event. The idols are constructed by plaster of paris, clay, cloths, small
iron rods, bamboo and decorated with different paints such as varnish,
water colors etc., plastic and polystyrene which can lead to significant
alteration in the water quality after immersion. Paints which are used to
colour these idols contains various heavy metals/metalloids, such as As,
Cd, Cr, Hg and Pb which are known carcinogens (WHO, 2008). Plaster
of paris, used in making of idols, contains gypsum, sulphur, phosphorus
S. Dwivedi et al.
and magnesium. Therefore, immersion of these idols poisons the water
by increasing acidity and the content of heavy metals (Das et al., 2012;
Kaur et al., 2013; Bhattacharya et al., 2014; Mohini et al., 2014). An
estimated 5000 litres of paint and hundreds of kilograms of plaster of
paris and toxic synthetic materials were immersed in the river with the
idols. The plastic and polystyrene is non-biodegradable thus toxic and
may lead to eutrophication at the river banks because of hampered flow
(personal observation). Though, several studies, as mentioned above,
show that idol immersion practices severely degrade the water quality
of rivers, there is a dearth of data regarding this aspect in Ganga water.
Sarkar (2013) reported significant increase in temperature, pH, con-
ductivity, BOD, COD, total alkalinity, chloride, total hardness and
phosphate of river Ganga in West Bengal due to idol immersion during
Durga Pooja. Chaturvedi and Pandey (2006) assessed the concentration
of some trace metals, like Zn, Fe, Ni, Cu, Cr and Cd in Ganga water at
Vindhyachal Ghat during Navratri Pooja and they found increase in
their levels. During the idol immersion a lot of vermilion (Sindur) is
thrown in the river which increases the level of Pb and Cr (Das et al.,
2012). The various materials used in decoration of idols not only de-
teriorates the water quality upon its immersion but it also kills fishes,
damages plants and blocks the natural flow of the water, causing
stagnation.
2.4.3. Disposal of temple waste and religious materials
More than 1000 tons of flower and garlands are thrown in the river
as offering during worship of Ganga as well as those used in the temples
nearby. At various places such as Haridwar, Varanasi etc. splendid
evening prayer of Ganga is being held during that the devotees offers
flowers and hundreds of floating lighted earthen lamps. These practices
are more common during mass rituals. According to an estimate of
Kashi Vishwanath temple administration of Vanarasi, in normal days,
over 20 quintal of floral waste was being disposed into the Ganga daily,
while during special occasions like Mondays of the month of Shrawan
(July–August), the quantity increased by four to five times. Further
each household dispose of their religious material, including those used
in daily prayer, into the Ganga. Thus, floral and other religious temple
wastes continue polluting Ganga water.
2.4.4. Dead body cremation
In the India it is believed that dying and cremated along the banks
of the Ganga, particularly in Varanasi, releases soul from cycle of re-
birth and the soul shall directly go to the heaven. Due to this religious
belief, thousands of dead bodies are being cremated every day on the
bank of Ganga. In a study conducted between the year 2009–2011, an
average 32,000 dead bodies are cremated every year at only two cre-
mation grounds, Harishchandra and Manikarnika Ghat, in Varanasi
(Tripathi and Tripathi, 2014). After cremation the ashes as well as tons
of half burnt flesh are thrown into the Ganga. Even the ashes of many of
those who were cremated elsewhere are thrown in Ganga by the re-
latives due to religious belief. Further, thousands of un-cremated
bodies, such as that of women, children, holy men, snake poisoned and
some skin diseased, as well as thousands of animal carcasses, mainly
cattle are directly thrown into the river. Such practices not only degrade
the water quality but also destroy the picturesque view of the river.
3. Effect of pollutants on self-purifying potential of Ganga
Ganga water has been used from time immemorial for remedial
purpose against various diseases. Since ancient time people believed
that bathing in Ganga cures from illness and infections. The anti-
bacterial property of Ganga water has been recognized as long as in
1896 by the British bacteriologist Ernest Hankin against Vibrio cholera.
Studies indicated that pathogenic bacteria do not thrive well in Ganga
water (Nautiyal, 2009a; Singh et al., 2011). The extraordinary high rate
of oxygen retention, allow it to remain fresh during long storage period
(Mukherjee et al., 1993). Bhargava (1981) reported that Ganga water
333
Environment International 117 (2018) 327–338
has an order of magnitude higher BOD rate constant and the reaction
rate constant value in comparison to other rivers. The coliforms were
also found to be reduced significantly in very short time. Bhargava
(1981) found that the rate of exocellular polymers excreted during
endogenous growth phase of various species of bacteria is considerably
reducing BOD and turbidity. The interaction of exocellular polymers
present in the river with colloidal matters present in seepage results in a
very rapid and significant reduction of the BOD in the Ganga water.
Various studies validated self purificatory characteristic of Ganga
water, even after being kept for several years (Nautiyal, 2009a, 2009b;
Singh et al., 2011). Nautiyal (2009a) evaluated the incorruptible ability
of Ganga water using fresh, eight year old and sixteen year old water,
collected from upper stretch of Ganga, spiked with pathogenic Escher-
ichia coli (0157; H7). He found that the survival of the bacteria was least
in the fresh followed by 8 and 16 years old stored Ganga water re-
spectively as compared to filtered (0.2 μ), boiled Ganga water or Milli Q
water. Similarly, Singh et al. (2011) showed inhibitory effect of Ganga
water against Streptococcus sp. These studies confirmed that Ganga
water has certain novel antimicrobial attributes validating the river's
remarkable self-purifying capabilities. Despite the remarkable self-
cleansing properties of Ganga, the extent of various kind of pollution, as
discussed in preceding sections, has caused gross changes in water
quality. For instance, reduction in dissolved oxygen and light penetra-
tion has resulted in loss of self-purification capability of Ganga water
especially in the middle and lower stretch of Ganga (Tare et al., 2003;
CPCB, 2009).
4. Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of toxic substances in
fishes of Ganga
Ganga is home for more than 140 fish species, including many
exotic species (Sarkar et al., 2012). The river contributes significant
economic benefits to the riparian communities and to the national
economy by supporting fisheries resources. The various endemic and
commercially important fishes of river Ganga have been tabulated by
Vass et al. (2008, 2010).
Increase in organic and inorganic pollution and decrease in water
volume of river Ganga has severely affected fish diversity and health.
Several fish species, including the Dolphins of river Ganga, are under the
threat. A significant decline in various commercially valuable fish
species has been observed, while forage fishes have been increased in
Ganga since 1959 to 2004 (Sarkar et al., 2012). The pesticides and
herbicides introduced into Ganga water through agricultural runoff,
gets accumulate in the fish, causes reproductive and metabolic dys-
function in the fish and subsequently transferred to higher trophic level
(Kumari et al., 2001b; Singh and Singh, 2008; Aktar et al., 2009).
Several toxic metals also accumulate in different organs of fish such as
liver, kidney, gills, muscles, skin and brain and alter various metabolic
parameters (Vaseem and Banerjee, 2013a). Khanna et al. (2007) re-
ported damaged lepidonts and loosening of scales of fishes inhibiting in
polluted stretches of river Ganga. There are two ways by which the
toxicants may accumulate and magnify in the fishes; first, through gills
which is the main site of toxicant uptake which readily gets absorbed in
the blood in the secondary lamellae. Second; through contaminated
food, such as phytoplanktons which accumulate high amount of heavy
metals (Dwivedi et al., 2006, 2010) and forage fishes.
4.1. Bioaccumulation of inorganic pollutants
As discussed above, industrial effluent and religious activities (Idol
immersion etc.) adds high amount of heavy metals and metalloid in
Ganga water which gets bio-accumulated in different organs of fishes
(Supplementary Tables 4–6). Though, species and organ specific dif-
ferences in metal accumulation have been observed, but the accumu-
lation pattern has been found to be directly correlated with degree of
contamination in Ganga water (Mitra et al., 2012; Vaseem and
S. Dwivedi et al.
Banerjee, 2013b). Vaseem and Banerjee (2013b) determined the accu-
mulation of various metals in different tissue of Rohu (Labeo rohita) and
found higher bioaccumulation of all metals in various organs of fish
from Ganga water in comparison to control site. Mitra et al. (2012)
reported species specific variation in metal accumulation (Zn, Cu, Pb
and Cd) in muscles of some commercially important fishes of river
Ganga. They showed that all the metals were accumulated to maximum
levels in Liza parsia and minimum in Stolephorus commersonii at all study
sites. The level of toxic metals particularly Pb and Cd were higher then
WHO permissible limits in most of the fishes studied. Bhattacharya
et al. (2008) also reported bioaccumulation of Zn, Cr, Cu, Cd and Pb in
different fishes of Ganga in West Bengal. Significant amount of Hg, Tin
(Sn) and their compounds has also been reported in Ganga water fishes.
The organic form of Hg and Sn are more readily absorbed, therefore,
relatively more toxic than inorganic forms. Pal et al. (2012) quantified
the presence of Hg in 19 common fishes from Ganga near Kolkata, West
Bengal. The result showed that some fishes tended to accumulate high
levels of Hg (0–1.48 mg kg−1), in which 50–84% of Hg was methyl
mercury. The level of methyl Hg ranged from 0 to 0.93 mg kg−1 with
many of the fishes contained beyond the recommended limit for methyl
Hg (0.25 mg kg−1) in fish set by PFA for human consumption (PFA,
2002). Although the level of total Hg was below the PFA limit
(0.5 mg kg−1) in all the fishes except one (Wallago attu). However, the
fishes collected from Varanasi contained high amount of total Hg (up to
91.679 mg kg−1) (Sinha et al., 2007). Kumar et al. (2012) also reported
accumulation of various heavy metals and metalloid in the commer-
cially valuable fishes from lower stretch of Ganga (Midnapore, West
Bengal) including Hg and As. Kannan et al. (1997) found high bio-
magnification of butyltin compounds (mono-, di-, and tri-butyltin) in
Dolphins of Ganga in Bihar. The fishes and benthic invertebrates accu-
mulated 3–10 times higher organotin compound than in sediment,
while Dolphin accumulated about 5–10 times higher than in their diet.
The level of total butyl tin in Dolphin tissues was up to 2 mg kg−1 wet
weight.
4.2. Bioaccumulation of organic pollutants
A significant variation in bioaccumulation of organic pollutants has
been observed in different fish species and in various fish tissues as well
(Supplementary Tables 7–8). In a study, carried out among 4 common
fishes captured from Ganga, Gomti and Gujartal lake (control site),
catfish has been shown to accumulate more pesticide than carps from
Ganga river (Singh and Singh, 2008). The catfish accumulated higher
level of various metabolites of DDT than HCHs in contrast carps accu-
mulated more HCHs than DDT in their study, further, the accumulation
of DDT was more in ovary of both carps and catfish while HCHs were
accumulated more in brain of carp and in ovary of catfish. Aktar et al.
(2009) determined five pesticide residues, viz., total-HCH, total-DDT,
total-endosulfan, dimethoate and malathion in fish samples collected
from various points of the river Ganga. The level of total-HCH was
above the maximum residue levels (MRL) in most of the samples while
the level of other pesticides including DDT was also higher than MRL in
many samples.
Other studies also show significant accumulation of HCH and DDT
in fishes of river Ganga while aldrin and endosulfan were relatively low
(Senthilkumar et al., 1999; Kumari et al., 2001b; Samanta, 2013).
Kumari et al. (2001b) reported several folds higher HCH (up to 7 fold)
and endosulfan (up to 2 folds) in fishes of river Ganga than FAO (Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) permissible levels.
5. Disease due to polluted Ganga water exposure
The physicochemical and microbiological studies have shown that
at various stretches, particularly in middle plain of Ganga the water is
not even suitable for bathing of humans and cattle and for other do-
mestic uses because of high load of pathogenic bacteria (Bilgrami and
334
Environment International 117 (2018) 327–338
Kumar, 1998; Mishra and Mohapatra, 2009; CPCB-ENVIS, 2007–2014).
A survey study in residents of river Ganga in Varanasi showed high
incidents of water borne/enteric diseases including acute gastro-
intestinal disease, cholera, dysentery, hepatitis-A, and typhoid (Hamner
et al., 2006). A significant association between water-borne/enteric
disease occurrence and the use of the river for bathing, laundry,
washing eating utensils, and brushing teeth were found. Thirty-three
cases of cholera were identified among families exposed to washing
clothing or bathing in the Ganga while no cholera cases occurred in
unexposed families in Varanasi.
6. Estimated human health risk through consumption of fishes
from Ganga water
Apart from pathogenic contamination, degradation of Ganga water
quality by pesticides and toxic elements highly impact human health by
direct ingestion of water or through food chain. Consumption of con-
taminated fish and shellfish may pose significant health hazards parti-
cularly in downstream of Ganga where fish is subsistence economy.
WHO (1993) has established drinking water guidelines for pesticides
and heavy metal/metalloids. Other health and environmental protec-
tion agencies have also established “acceptable daily intake” (ADI)
values that indicate the maximum allowable daily ingestion of a tox-
icant over a person's lifetime without appreciable risk to the individual.
The ADI of commonly used pesticides and metals/metalloid according
to WHO, USEPA and Bureau of Indian standard is included in Supple-
mentary Tables 2–3, respectively. The level of most of the elements and
pesticides in Ganga water is higher than the ADI values, particularly in
middle and lower stretches of the river (Tables 2–3). It is assumed that
the water is not used directly for drinking purposes, except during re-
ligious rites. Ganga water is used for domestic water supply after dis-
infection and conventional treatment, however, the effectiveness of
conventional treatment for reducing toxic metals and pesticides was not
determined in present study, therefore, the health risk through drinking
of Ganga water has not been estimated.
The non-carcinogenic health risk for the metals/metalloid and
pesticides, through consumption of tainted fishes from Ganga water,
was estimated according to USEPA (1992) for which reference doses
have been established (USEPA, 2017). The reference dose of a chemical
is estimated as the single daily intake rate that appears to be without
toxic effects if ingested over a life time (USEPA, 1991). For calculation
of Hazard Quotient (HQ) the mean concentration of each toxicant in
fish obtained from different reports as well as the maximum reported
values were used. The HQ for individual metal or metalloid, calculated
from the mean concentrations, ranged from 0.045 (for Mn) to 4.3 (for
As) (Table 4). The HQ of As, Cd, Cr and Hg were higher than 1 sug-
gesting potential health risk from ingestion of a single contaminant
through fish consumption. While the hazard index (HI) i.e., combined
health risk from total metals/metalloid through fish consumption is
over 10 times higher than the acceptable value (USEPA, 1991). The HQ
calculated from mean concentration of individual group of pesticides in
fish showed maximum health risk from HCHs followed by DDT group
while the HQ for endosulfans, dimethoate and malathion were below 1
(Table 5). The HI was significantly higher for pesticides as well. HQ
from maximum reported concentration of metals ranged from 0.186
(for Mn) to 42 (for Hg). The HQ calculated from maximum con-
centration showed that a single toxicant can pose significant health
hazards through consumption of a particular fish species and/or fish
from a highly contaminated region, such as Kanpur, Varanasi and
Kolkata having high level of Cr, Hg and Cd, respectively. The overall HI
(18.798) from the mean concentration of metal and pesticides accu-
mulated in fish shows high health risk to the inhabitants of Ganga
basin. Although different chemicals may interfere with the absorption
of each other thus the overall health effect may not be additive and HI
may be an over estimate for potential non-carcinogenic health risk.
However, the possibility of interactive effect of different toxicant may
S. Dwivedi et al. Environment International 117 (2018) 327–338

Table 4
Estimated non-carcinogenic health risk through consumption of heavy metal/metalloid tainted fishes of Ganga water.
Name of the metal/ Max./average Metal concentration in fish muscle (Cf; Life time average daily dose (mg/ RfD Hazard quotient Hazard index (HI)
metalloid mg/kg ww)a kg/d) (LADD) (HQ)

Arsenic Maximum 4.5 6.00 × 10−3 3 × 10−4 20.00 95.81 (maximum)

Mean 0.97 1.29 × 10−3 4.30
Cadmium Max. 11.9 1.59 × 10−2 1 × 10−3 15.87 11.4 (mean)
Average 0.997 1.33 × 10−3 1.33
Chromium Maximum 16.84 2.25 × 10−2 3 × 10−3 7.48
Mean 4.27 5.70 × 10−3 1.90
Lead Maximum 15.90 2.12 × 10−2 2 × 10−2 1.06
Mean 3.75 5.00 × 10−3 2.40 × 10−1
Mercury Maximum 9.50 1.27 × 10−2 3 × 10−4 42.22
Mean 0.38 5.1 × 10−4 1.69
Copper Maximum 178.00 2.37 × 10−1 4 × 10−2 5.93
Mean 21.25 2.83 × 10−2 7.33 × 10−1
Iron Max. 249.70 3.33 × 10−1 7 × 10−1 4.76 × 10−1
Average 251.79 3.36 × 10−1 4.80 × 10−1
Manganese Maximum 19.58 2.61 × 10−2 1.4 × 10−1 1.86 × 10−1
Mean 4.71 6.29 × 10−3 4.50 × 10−2
Nickel Maximum 12.44 1.66 × 10−2 2 × 10−2 8.29 × 10−1
Mean 7.77 1.04 × 10−2 5.18 × 10−1
Zinc Maximum 395.00 5.27 × 10−1 3 × 10−1 1.76
Mean 41.98 5.60 × 10−2 1.87 × 10−1

a
Values are taken from: Bhattacharya et al., 2008; Bhattacharya and Sarkar, 1996; Mitra et al., 2012; Pal et al., 2012; Singh et al., 1993, Sinha et al., 2007;
Sudhakar and Singh, 2014. (Hazard quotient = LADD/RfD, LADD = (Cf × IR)/BW; LADD, Life time average daily dose; RfD, reference dose in mg/kg/d (USEPA,
2017); Cf, concentration of contaminant in fish; IR, ingestion rate of 80 g/d; BW, average body weight taken as 60 kg).

also not be excluded when there is combined exposure to several tox- Table 6
icants (Nordberg, 2010). Probable incremental life time cancer risk to humans from different pesticides
The probable incremental life time cancer risk has been calculated and metals/metalloid through consumption of tainted fishes from Ganga water.
for pesticides and toxic elements for which the cancer potency factor Name of Cancer potency Target risk levels Target risk levels
was known (USEPA, 2017). Arsenic, Cd, Cr (VI) and Ni are group 1 contaminant factor (CPF) (maximum)a (mean)b
carcinogens according to International Agency for Research on Cancer
Arsenic 1.50 × 100 9.00 × 10−3 1.90 × 10−3
(IARC, 2017) with sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans
Lead 5.00 × 10−1 1.06 × 10−2 2.38 × 10−3
while DDT, HCH and inorganic Pb are classified in Group 2A. The Chromium 5.00 × 10−1 1.12 × 10−2 2.85 × 10−3
highest estimated life time human cancer risk levels shows that con- Nickel 1.70 × 100 2.80 × 10−2 1.70 × 10−3
sumption of contaminated fish from Ganga water may pose high risk of Σ-HCH 1.80 × 100 1.99 × 10−2 1.59 × 10−3
Σ-DDT 3.40 × 10−1 6.00 × 10−3 3.65 × 10−4
cancer (Table 6). The risk estimate value 10−6 means risk of one ad-
Σ-Aldrin 1.7 × 101 5.1 × 10−3 1.97 × 10−3
ditional occurrence of cancer, in one million people. The risk levels
lower than 10−6 are considered negligible or de minimus risk while the (Target cancer risk levels = LADD × CPF; LADD = (Cf × IR)/BW; LADD, Life
acceptable risk level of USEPA range between 10−6 to 10−4. Table 6 time average daily dose; CPF, Cancer potency factor for chemical (USEPA,
shows risk level higher than 10−4 for all the elements and pesticides 2017); Cf, concentration of contaminant in fish; IR, ingestion rate of 80 g/d;
indicating high carcinogenic risk from consumption of individual tox- BW, average body weight taken as 60 kg).
a
icant through Ganga water fish. The risk from multiple chemicals may Maximum level of individual toxicant.
be synergistic and may pose greater risk of cancer in Ganga basin
b
Mean level of individual toxicant reported in fish (given in Tables 4 and 5
through consumption of contaminated fishes. The probable cancer risk for metals/metalloid and pesticides respectively).
may be even higher through consumption of fish from highly polluted

Table 5
Estimated non-carcinogenic health risk through consumption of pesticide tainted fishes of Ganga water.
Name of the pesticide Max./average Pesticide concentration in fish muscle Life time average daily dose (mg/ RfD Hazard quotient Hazard index (HI)
(Cf; mg/kg ww)a kg/d) (LADD) (HQ)

ΣHCH Maximum 8.31 1.11 × 10−2 3 × 10−4 36.93 116.7 (maximum)

Mean 1.25 8.8 × 10−4 2.94 12.6 (mean)
ΣDDT Max. 13.23 1.76 × 10−2 5 × 10 −4
35.28
Average 0.51 1.07 × 10−3 2.15
Σ-Aldrin Maximum 0.2251 3.0 × 10−4 3 × 10−5 10.0
Mean 0.087 1.16 × 10−4 3.86
Σ–Endosulfan Maximum 2.95 3.93 × 10−3 6 × 10−3 6.56 × 10−1
Mean 0.46 6.18 × 10−4 1.03 × 10−1
Dimethoate Maximum 5.02 6.69 × 10−3 2.2 × 10−3 3.047
Mean 0.52 6.95 × 10−4 0.316
Malathion Maximum 5.4 7.20 × 10−3 2 × 10−2 3.60 × 10−1
Mean 0.95 1.27 × 10−3 6.34 × 10−2

a
Values are taken from Aktar et al., 2009; Kumari et al., 2001b; Kannan et al., 1997 (Hazard quotient = LADD/RfD, LADD = (Cf × IR)/BW; LADD, Life time
average daily dose; RfD, reference dose mg/kg/d (USEPA, 2017); Cf, concentration of contaminant in fish; IR, ingestion rate of 80 g/d; BW, average body weight
taken as 60 kg).

335
S. Dwivedi et al.
stretches of Ganga as the risk levels calculated from maximum reported
values of individual toxicant ranged from 10−3 to 10−2. In recent years
a high increase in cancer incidents in Ganga basin has been reported
(Jain et al., 2013; Saini et al., 2015). The recent studies show an in-
crease in the level of toxic element in last decade while the level of
pesticide residues are expected to decline in Ganga water due to ban on
application of several persistent organic pesticides. However, there is
drastic lack of information about the current level of pesticide residues
in Ganga water.
7. Conclusion
The current review concluded that inorganic pollution in river
Ganga water has increased several folds in last decade and conditions
are even worst due to presence of carcinogenic elements (Cr, Cd, Pb,
As). Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal are the most contaminated states.
The level of Cd, Cr and Pb was maximum in Uttar Pradesh while As and
Hg were higher in West Bengal. In contrast to inorganic pollutants the
level of pesticide residues showed declining trend, and changed dis-
tribution pattern. Before NGRBA the highest concentration of pesticide
was in Ganga water of Uttar Pradesh followed by West Bengal, Bihar
and Uttarakhand while after NGRBA Bihar was the most contaminated
state with respect to pesticide residue in Ganga water. However there is
dearth of data on level of pesticides in Ganga water in recent years
particularly in Bihar and West Bengal. There is no study on level of
pollution in Ganga water in Jharkhand. Despite several Govt. plans to
clean Ganga, the amount of untreated waste water discharge into Ganga
has increased by many folds in past four decades resulting in high in-
crease in microbial load and disturbed physicochemical parameters.
These pollutants have adversely affected the unique properties, such as
self-purification, antibacterial and incorruptibility of Ganga water as
well as its fish fauna and fish health. The high load of pathogens and
chemical toxicants in middle and lower stretch of Ganga make the
water unsuitable for consumption or other domestic uses. Regular di-
rect or indirect utilization of contaminated Ganga water and/or con-
sumption of contaminated fish form Ganga may cause various health
hazards, such as gastrointestinal diseases, skin lesions, respiratory
problem and even cancer. Govt. projects to clean Ganga need to take
into account not only the current load and sources of pollution but also
the estimated increase in waste water generation in Ganga basin in
coming decades. The changing trend of contaminants warrants regular
monitoring of various toxicants in different stretches of Ganga water to
take proper water treatment measures before supplying water for do-
mestic uses as well as to eradicate the source of specific toxicant.
Declarations of interest
None.
Acknowledgements
Authors are thankful to Director, CSIR-National Botanical Research
Institute, Lucknow for the facilities provided. Monitoring and compi-
lation of this work is supported by Namami Gange (NMCG) Project of
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Government of
India (T-17/2013-14/544/NMCG-Water Quality). SM is grateful to
SERB-Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi for the Startup
grant (SB/YS/LS-381/2013) and to CSIR for the award of Scientist Pool
(No.8950-A). We are also thankful to Dilip Chakraborty for technical
support and data feeding for this MS.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.05.015.
336
Environment International 117 (2018) 327–338
References
Abhilash, P.C., Singh, N., 2009. Pesticide use and application: an Indian scenario. J.
Hazard. Mater. 165, 1–12.
Agnihotri, N.P., Gajabhiye, V.T., Kumar, M., Mohapatra, S.P., 1994. Organochlorine in-
secticide residues in Ganga river water near Farrukhabad, India. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 30, 105–112.
Agrawal, A., Pandey, R.S., Sharma, B., 2010. Water pollution with special reference to
pesticide contamination in India. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2, 432–448.
Ahammad, Z.S., Sreekrishnan, T.R., Hands, C.L., Knapp, C.W., Graham, D.W., 2014.
Increased Waterborne blaNDM-1 resistance gene abundances associated with sea-
sonal human pilgrimages to the upper Ganges river. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48,
3014–3020.
Aktar, M.W., Paramasivam, M., Sengupta, D., Purkait, S., Ganguly, M., Banerjee, S., 2009.
Impact assessment of pesticide residue in fish of Ganga river around Kolkata in West
Bengal. Environ. Monit. Assess. 157, 97–104.
Aktar, M.W., Paramasivam, M., Ganguly, M., Purkait, S., Sengupta, D., 2010. Assessment
and occurrence of various heavy metals in surface water of Ganga river around
Kolkata: a study for toxicity and ecological impact. Environ. Monit. Assess. 160,
207–213.
Ansari, A.A., Singh, I.B., Tobschall, H.J., 1998. Organotin compounds in surface and pore
waters of Ganga Plain in the Kanpur-Unnao industrial region, India. Sci. Total
Environ. 223, 157–166.
Arora, N.K., Tewari, S., Singh, S., 2013. Analysis of water quality parameters of river
Ganga during Maha Kumbha, Hardwar, India. J. Environ. Biol. 34, 799–803.
Baghel, V.S., Gopal, K., Dwivedi, S., Tripathi, R.D., 2005. Bacterial indicators of faecal
contamination of the Gangetic river system right at its source. Ecol. Indic. 5, 49–56.
Basu, A.K., 1992. Ecological and Resource Study of the Ganga Delta. Bagchi, Calcutta.
Berg, H.V.D., 2009. Global status of DDT and its alternatives for use in vector control to
prevent disease. Environ. Health Perspect. 117, 1656–1663.
Bhargava, D.S., 1981. Ganga the most self purifying river. In: Chitaranshi, Uday (Ed.),
Proc Intl Symp Water Resources, Conservation, Pollution and Abatement, pp. 11–13
Rurkee.
Bhattacharya, B., Sarkar, S., 1996. Total mercury content in marine organisms of the
Hooghly estuary, West Bengal, India. Chemosphere 33, 147–158.
Bhattacharya, A.K., Mandal, S.N., Das, S.K., 2008. Heavy metals accumulation in water,
sediment and tissues of different edible fishes in upper stretch of Gangetic West
Bengal. Trends Appl. Sci. Res. 3, 61–68.
Bhattacharya, S., Bera, A., Dutta, A., Ghosh, U.C., 2014. Effects of idol immersion on the
water quality parameters of Indian water bodies: environmental health perspectives.
Intl. Lett. Chem. Physic. Astronom. 20, 234–263.
Bhuiyan, M.A.H., Suruvi, N.I., Dampare, S.B., Islam, M.A., Quraishi, S.B., Ganyaglo, S.,
et al., 2011. Investigation of the possible sources of heavy metal contamination in
lagoon and canal water in the tannery industrial area in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 175, 633–649.
Bilgrami, K.S., Kumar, S., 1998. Bacterial contamination in water of the river Ganga and
its risk to human health. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 8, 5–13.
Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee, India, 2012. http://cibrc.nic.in/
list_pest_bann.htm.
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2009. Ganga water quality trends. In: Monitoring
of Indian Aquatic Resources, MINARS/31/2009–2010, . http://cpcb.nic.in/upload/
NewItems/NewItem_168.
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2013. Pollution Assessment: River Ganga July,
2013. In: MoEF.
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2014. Status of Sewage Treatment Plants in
Ganga Basin. MoEF. http://www.cpcb.nic.in/newitems/8.pdf.
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2016. Bulletin Vol-I. July 2016. http://www.
cpcb.nic.in/upload/Latest/Latest_123_SUMMARY_BOOK_FS.pdf (CPCB-Ganga_Trend
%20Report-Final.pdf, 2009).
Central Pollution Control Board- Environmental Information System (CPCB ENVIS),
2007–2014. Water quality Database, Water Quality Data (Yearly) for River Ganga
from 2007 to 2014. http://cpcbenvis.nic.in.
Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), 2013. Status Paper for River Ganga, Past
Failures and Current Challenges. CSE, New Delhi, pp. 32.
Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), 2014. Ganga: the river, its pollution and what
we can do to clean it. CSE, New Delhi, pp. 32.
Chakraborty, P., Sakthivel, S., Kumar, B., Kumar, S., Mishra, M., Verma, V.K., Gaur, R.,
2014. Spatial distribution of persistent organic pollutants in the surface water of
River Brahmaputra and River Ganga in India. Rev. Environ. Health 29, 45–48.
Chaturvedi, J., Pandey, N.K., 2006. Physico–chemical analysis of river Ganga at
Vindhyachal Ghat. Curr. World Environ. 1, 177–179.
Chauhan, A., Singh, S., 2011. Evaluation of Ganga water for drinking purpose by water
quality index at Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India. Rep. Opin. 2, 53–61.
Das, S., 2011. Cleaning of the Ganga. J. Geol. Soc. India 78, 124–130.
Das, K.K., Panigrahi, T., Panda, R.B., 2012. Idol immersion activities cause heavy metal
contamination in river Budhabalanga, Balasore, Odisha, India. Intl. J. Mod. Eng. Res.
2, 4540–4542.
Deepali, Gangwar, K.K., 2010. Metals concentration in textile and tannery effluents, as-
sociated soils and ground water. N. Y. Sci. J. 3, 82–89.
Dixit, S., Yadav, A., Dwivedi, P.D., Das, M., 2015. Toxic hazards of leather industry and
technologies to combat threat: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 39–49.
Down To Earth, 2014. Ganga Pollution: Uttar Pradesh Issues Notices to 956 Industries.
http://www.downtoearth.org.in.
Dwivedi, S., Tripathi, R.D., Rai, U.N., Srivastava, S., Mishra, S., Shukla, M.K., et al., 2006.
Dominance of algae in Ganga water polluted through fly–ash leaching: metal
S. Dwivedi et al.
bioaccumulation potential of selected algal species. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
77, 427–436.
Dwivedi, S., Srivastava, S., Mishra, S., Kumar, A., Tripathi, R.D., Rai, U.N., et al., 2010.
Characterization of native microalgal strains for their chromium bioaccumulation
potential: phytoplankton response in polluted habitats. J. Hazard. Mater. 173,
95–101.
Ejaz, S., Akram, W., Lim, C.W., Lee, J.J., Hussain, I., 2004. Endocrine disrupting pesti-
cides: a leading cause of cancer among rural people in Pakistan. Exp. Oncol. 26,
98–105.
Environmental Information System (ENVIS), 2016. Centre on Hygiene, Sanitation,
Sewage Treatment Systems and Technology Report. Ministry of Environment, Forests
& Climate Change, Govt of India. http://www.sulabhenvis.nic.in/Database/STST_
wastewater_2090.aspx.
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, 2016. Next Generation Indian
Agriculture - Role of Crop Protection Solutions. A Report on Indian Agrochemical
Industry.
Ghose, N.C., Saha, D., Gupta, A., 2009. Synthetic detergents (surfactants) and organo-
chlorine pesticide signatures in surface water and groundwater of greater Kolkata,
India. J. Water Resour. Protec. 4, 290–298.
Gupta, A.K., Raghubansi, A.K., 2002. Comparative study of enrichment of nutrients and
heavy metals in river waters of Ghaghara and Ganga due to anthropogenic pressures.
Pollut. Res. 21, 261–263.
Gupta, A., Rai, D.K., Pandey, R.S., Sharma, B., 2009. Analysis of some heavy metals in the
riverine water, sediments and fish from river Ganges at Allahabad. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 157, 449–458.
Guzzella, L., Roscioli, C., Viganò, L., Saha, M., Sarkar, S.K., Bhattacharya, A., 2005.
Evaluation of the concentration of HCH, DDT, HCB, PCB and PAH in the sediments
along the lower stretch of Hugli estuary, West Bengal, northeast India. Environ. Int.
31, 523–534.
Hamner, S., Tripathi, A., Mishra, R.K., Bouskill, N., Broadaway, S.C., Pyle, B.H., et al.,
2006. The role of water use patterns and sewage pollution in incidence of water-
borne/enteric diseases along the Ganges River in Varanasi, India. Int. J. Environ.
Health Res. 16 (2), 113–132.
Hamner, S., Broadaway, S.C., Mishra, V.B., Tripathi, A., Mishra, R.K., Pulcini, E., et al.,
2007. Isolation of potentially pathogenic Escherichia coli O157:H7 from the Ganges
river. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 2369–2372.
IARC, 2017. Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs. vol. 1–120.
ITRC Annual Report, 1992. Industrial Toxicological Research Centre, Lucknow, 6th
Annual Progress Report (July 1991–June 1992), Measurements on Ganga Water
Quality – Heavy Metal and Pesticides. http://www.itrc.org.
Jain, K., Sreenivas, V., Velpandian, T., Kapil, U., Garg, P.K., 2013. Risk factors for gall-
bladder cancer: a case–control study. Int. J. Cancer 132, 1660–1666.
Joshi, N., Sati, V., 2011. Assessment of water quality of river Ganges at Haridwar during
Kumbh Mela–2010. Rep. Opin. 3, 30–36.
Joshi, D.M., Kumar, A., Agrawal, N., 2009. Assessment of the irrigation water quality of
river Ganga in Haridwar district. Rasayan J. Chem. 2, 285–292.
Kannan, K., Senthilkumar, K., Sinha, R.K., 1997. Sources and accumulation of butyltin
compounds in Ganges river dolphin, Platanista gangetica. Appl. Organomet. Chem. 11,
223–230.
Katiyar, S., 2011. Impact of tannery effluent with special reference to seasonal variation
on physico–chemical characteristics of river water at Kanpur (U.P), India. J. Environ.
Anal. Toxicol. 1, 1–7.
Kaur, B.J., George, M.P., Mishra, S., 2013. Water quality assessment of river Yamuna in
Delhi stretch during Idol immersion. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 3, 2122–2130.
Khanna, D.R., Sarkar, P., Gautam, A., Bhutiani, R., 2007. Fish scales as bio–indicator of
water quality of River Ganga. Environ. Monit. Assess. 134, 153–160.
Khatoon, N., Khan, A.H., Rehman, M., Pathak, V., 2013. Correlation study for the as-
sessment of water quality and its parameters of Ganga River, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh,
India. J. Appl. Chem. 5, 80–90.
Kulshrestha, H., Sharma, S., 2006. Impact of mass bathing during Ardhkumbh on water
quality status of river Ganga. J. Environ. Biol. 27 (2 Suppl), 437–440.
Kumar, B., Sajwan, K.S., Mukherjee, D.P., 2012. Distribution of heavy metals in valuable
coastal fishes from north east coast of India. Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 12, 81–88.
Kumar, B., Verma, V.K., Naskar, A.K., Chakraborty, P., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., 2013.
Human health risk from hexachlorocyclohexane and dichlorodiphenyltri-
chloroethane pesticides, through consumption of vegetables: estimation of daily in-
take and hazard quotients. J. Xenobio. 3, 29–35.
Kumari, A., Sinha, R.K., Gopal, K., 2001a. Concentration of organochlorine pesticide
residues in Ganga water in Bihar, India. Environ. Ecol. 19 (2), 351–356.
Kumari, A., Sinha, R.K., Gopal, K., 2001b. Organochlorine contamination in the fish of the
river Ganges, India. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manag. 4 (4), 505–510.
Mishra, N.K., Mohapatra, S.C., 2009. Effect of Gangetic pollution on water borne diseases
in Varanasi: a case study. Indian J. Prev. Soc. Med. 40, 39–42.
Mishra, S., Dwivedi, S., Kumar, A., Chauhan, R., Awasthi, S., Mattusch, J., et al., 2016.
Current status of ground water arsenic contamination in India and recent advance-
ments in removal techniques from drinking water. Int. J. Plant Environ. 2, 1–15.
Mitra, A., Chowdhury, R., Banerjee, K., 2012. Concentrations of some heavy metals in
commercially important finfish and shellfish of the river Ganga. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 184, 2219–2230.
Mohapatra, S.P., Gajbhiye, V.T., Agnihotri, N.P., Raina, M., 1995. Insecticide pollution of
India rivers. Environmentalist 15, 41–44.
Mohini, G., Ekhalak, A., Ranjana, S., 2014. Pollution load assessment of Tapi river during
Ganesh festival, India. Octa. J. Environ. Res. 2, 310–313.
Mukherjee, D., Chattopadhaya, M., Lahiri, S.C., 1993. Water quality of the River Ganga
(the Ganges) and some of its physicochemical properties. Environmentalist 13,
199–210.
337
Environment International 117 (2018) 327–338
Mutiyar, P.K., Mittal, A.K., 2013. Status of organochlorine pesticides in Ganga river basin:
anthropogenic or glacial? Drink Water Eng. Sci. 6, 69–80.
Nautiyal, C.S., 2009a. Scientific validation of incorruptible self-purificatory characteristic
of Ganga water. Asian Agri-History 13, 53–56.
Nautiyal, C.S., 2009b. Self-purification Ganga water facilitates death of pathogenic
Escherichia coli O157:H7. Curr. Microbiol. 58, 25–29.
Nayak, A.K., Raha, R., Das, A.K., 1995. Organochlorine pesticide residues in middle
stream of the Ganga river, India. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 54, 68–75.
Nordberg, G.F., 2010. Biomarkers of exposure, effects and susceptibility in humans and
their application in studies of interactions among metals in China. Toxicol. Lett. 192
(1), 45–49.
Pal, D.K., Bhattacharyya, T., Srivastava, P., Chandran, P., Ray, S.K., 2009. Soils of the
Indo-Gangetic Plains: their historical perspective and management. Curr. Sci. 96,
1193–1202.
Pal, M., Ghosh, S., Mukhopadhyay, M., Ghosh, M., 2012. Methyl mercury in fish – a case
study on various samples collected from Ganges river at West Bengal. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 184, 3407–3414.
Pandey, S., Prasad, L., 2014. Pollution impact on Ganga river and fisheries. J. Vet. Sci.
Technol. 5, 160.
Pandey, J., Shubhashish, K., Pandey, R., 2010. Heavy metal contamination of Ganga river
at Varanasi in relation to atmospheric deposition. Trop. Ecol. 51 (2S), 365–373.
Payne, A.I., Sinha, R., Singh, H.R., Haq, S., 2004. A review of the Ganges basin: its fish
and fisheries. In: Welcomme, R., Petr, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second
International Symposium on the Management of Large Rivers for Fisheries. FAO
Regional Office for Asia and Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publication 2004/16.
vol. 1. pp. 229–251.
Raghuvanshi, D., Pandey, R., Pandey, V., Sharma, P.K., Shukla, D.N., 2014.
Physico–chemical and pesticide analysis of river Ganga in Allahabad city, Uttar
Pradesh, India. Asian J, Biochem. Pharma. Res. 3, 239–244.
Rai, B., 2013. Pollution and conservation of Ganga river in modern India. Intl. J. Sci. Res.
Pub. 3-4, 1–4.
Rai, P.K., Mishra, A., Tripathi, B.D., 2010. Heavy metal and microbial pollution of the
River Ganga: a case study of water quality at Varanasi. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manag.
13, 352–361.
Rai, U.N., Prasad, D., Verma, S., Upadhyay, A.K., Singh, N.K., 2012. Biomonitoring of
metals in Ganga water at different ghats of Haridwar: implications of constructed
wetland for sewage detoxification. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 89, 805–810.
Rani, N., Vajpayee, P., Bhatti, S., Singh, S., Shanker, R., Gupta, K.C., 2014. Quantification
of Salmonella typhi in water and sediments by molecular–beacon based qPCR.
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 108, 58–64.
Rehana, Z., Malik, A., Ahmad, M., 1995. Mutagenic activity of the Ganges water with
special reference to the pesticide pollution in the river between Kachla to Kannauj
(U.P.), India. Mutat. Res. 343, 137–144.
Rehana, Z., Malik, A., Ahmad, M., 1996. Genotoxicity of the Ganges water at Narora
(U.P.), India. Mutat. Res. 367, 187–193.
Saini, A., Jainth, S., Saini, R., Gupta, A., Grover, R., Gupta, M., 2015. Ganga deterioration
and conservation of its sanctity. Intl. J. Recent Sci. Res. 6, 3786–3787.
Samanta, S., 2013. Metal and pesticide pollution scenario in Ganga river system. Aquat.
Ecosyst. Health Manag. 16, 454–464.
Sampathkumar, B.N., 2014. A Study on Brand Preference of Pesticides Used in Tomato
Production in Kolar Taluk. Master thesis submitted to University of Agricultural
Sciences, Bengaluru. pp. 45.
Sankararamakrishnan, N., Sharma, A.K., Sanghi, R., 2005. Organochlorine and organo-
phosphorous pesticide residues in groundwater and surface waters of Kanpur, Uttar
Pradesh, India. Environ. Int. 31, 113–120.
Sarkar, R., 2013. Study on the impact of idol immersion on water quality of river Ganga at
Ranighat, Chander Nagore (W.B.). Intl. J. Geol. Earth Environ. Sci. 3, 24–29.
Sarkar, U.K., Pathak, A.K., Sinha, R.K., Sivakumar, K., Pandian, A.K., Pandey, A., et al.,
2012. Freshwater fish biodiversity in the River Ganga (India): changing pattern,
threats and conservation perspectives. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 22, 251–272.
Semwal, N., Akolkar, P., 2006. Water quality assessment of sacred Himalayan rivers of
Uttaranchal. Curr. Sci. 91, 486–496.
Senthilkumar, K., Kannan, K., Sinha, R.K., Tanabe, S., Giesy, J.P., 1999. Bioaccumulation
profiles of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners and organochlorine pesticides in
Ganges river dolphins. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18, 1511–1520.
Sharma, V., Joshi, B.D., 2014. A swot analysis of pilgrimage tourism in Haridwar city with
special reference to Kanwar Mela. N. Y. Sci. J. 7, 1–3.
Singh, M., Singh, A.K., 2007. Bibliography of environmental studies in natural char-
acteristics and anthropogenic influences on the Ganga river. Environ. Monit. Assess.
129, 421–432.
Singh, P.B., Singh, V., 2008. Bioaccumulation of hexachlorocyclohexane, di-
chlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, and estradiol–17b in catfish and carp during the
pre–monsoon season in India. Fish Physiol. Biochem. 34, 25–36.
Singh, H.P., Chandra, R., Singh, B., 1993. Status of heavy metals in water, sediments and
fish flesh in the middle stretch of river Ganga. J. Inland Fish. Soc. India 25, 62–65.
Singh, M., Muller, G., Singh, I.B., 2002. Heavy metals in freshly deposited stream sedi-
ments of rivers associated with urbanization of the Ganga plain, India. Water Air Soil
Pollut. 141, 35–54.
Singh, K.P., Malik, A., Sinha, S., 2007. Persistent organochlorine pesticide residues in soil
and surface water of northern Indo-Gangetic alluvial plains. Environ. Monit. Assess.
125, 147–155.
Singh, P.K., Parripati, A.P., Bareth, S., Raja, R.B., 2011. Indian river water action on
Streptococcus; a microbiological prospective. Ann. Biol. Res. 2, 314–318.
Singh, L., Choudhary, S.K., Singh, P.K., 2012. Pesticide concentration in water and se-
diment of River Ganga at selected sites in middle Ganga plain. Intl. J. Environ. Sci. 3,
260–274.
S. Dwivedi et al.
Sinha, A.K., Pande, D.P., Srivastava, R.K., Srivastava, P., Srivastava, K.N., Kumar, A.,
et al., 1991. Impact of mass bathing on the water quality of the Ganga river at
Haudeshwarnath (Pratapgarh), India: a case study. Sci. Total Environ. 101, 275–280.
Sinha, R.K., Sinha, S.K., Kedia, D.K., Kumari, A., Rani, N., Sharma, G., et al., 2007. A
holistic study on mercury pollution in the Ganga river system at Varanasi, India. Curr.
Sci. 92, 1223–1228.
Srivastava, P., Burande, A., Sharma, N., 2013. Fuzzy environmental model for evaluating
water quality of Sangam zone during Maha Kumbh 2013. Appl. Comput. Intel. Soft
Comput. 2013, 1–7.
Sudhakar, Singh, U.B., 2014. Effect of pollutants on the fishes of Ganga and Sai river of
Raebareli district in Uttar Pradesh in India. Res. J. Anim. Vet. Fish. Sci. 2, 1–6.
Tare, V., Yadav, A.V.S., Bose, P., 2003. Analysis of photosynthetic activity in the most
polluted stretch of river Ganga. Water Res. 37, 67–77.
The National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA), 2009. Under the Section 3(3) of the
Environment Protection Act, 1986, under the Ministry of Water Resources, River
Development & Ganga Rejuvenation. http://mowr.gov.in/.
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 2002. 1954. Together With Prevention of
Adulteration Rules, (1955) and Notification and Commodity Index, India (Amended,
2002). Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, pp. 106–110 Table No. R-57.
Tripathi, B.D., Tripathi, S., 2014. Issues and challenges of river Ganga. In: Sanghi, R.
(Ed.), Our National River Ganga: Life of Millions. Springer International Publishing,
Switzerland, pp. 211–221.
Trivedi, R.C., 2010. Water quality of the Ganga River – an overview. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Health Manag. 13 (4), 347–351.
Tyagi, V.K., Bhatia, A., Gaur, R.Z., Khan, A.A., Ali, M., Khursheed, A., et al., 2013.
Impairment in water quality of Ganges river and consequential health risks on ac-
count of mass ritualistic bathing. Desalin. Water Treat. 51, 2121–2129.
USEPA, 1991. Risk assessment guidance for superfund. In: Vol. I. Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation
Goals) EP A/5401R-92/003.
USEPA, 1992. National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. vol. I United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-R-92-008a).
338
Environment International 117 (2018) 327–338
USEPA, 2017. USEPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table. June 2017.
https://semspub.epa.gov/work/03/2245073.pdf.
Vaseem, H., Banerjee, T.K., 2013a. Contamination of the river Ganga and its toxic im-
plication in the blood parameters of the major carp Labeo rohita (Ham). Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 20, 5673–5681.
Vaseem, H., Banerjee, T.K., 2013b. Contamination of metals in different tissues of rohu
(Labeo rohita, Cyprinidae) collected from the Indian river Ganga. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 91, 36–41.
Vass, K.K., Samanta, S., Suresh, V.R., Katiha, P.K., Mondal, S.K., 2008. Current Status of
River Ganges. Bull No. 152. Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute, Barrackpore,
India.
Vass, K.K., Mondal, S.K., Samanta, S., Suresh, V.R., Katiha, P.K., 2010. The environment
and fishery status of the river Ganges. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manag. 13, 385–394.
Vega, M., Pardo, R., Barrado, E., Deban, L., 1998. Assessment of seasonal and polluting
effects on the quality of river water by exploratory data analysis. Water Res. 32,
3581–3592.
Vijgen, J., Abhilash, P.C., Li, Y., Lal, R., Forter, M., Torres, J., et al., 2011.
Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) as new Stockholm Convention POPs-a global per-
spective on the management of lindane and its waste isomers. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 18, 152–162.
WHO, 1984. Guidelines for drinking-water quality. In: Vol. 1: Recommendations, 1st
edition. pp. 1–130 Geneva.
WHO, 1990. Environmental Health Criteria 101: Methylmercury. World Health
Organization, Geneva. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/109078.
WHO, 1993. Guidelines for drinking-water quality. In: Vol. 1: Recommendations, 2nd
edition. (Geneva).
WHO, 2008. Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 3rd edition incorporating 1st and 2nd
addenda. In: Vol. 1. Recommendations. World Health Organization, Geneva, pp.
306–308b. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/GDW12rev1and2.pdf.
Yadav, S., 2007. Water quality assessment of water Ganga and Yamuna during Ardh
Kumbh - by Fuzzy Analysis. [M.S. thesis] In: Environment Science. Allahabad
University, Allahabad, India.