Status of Heavy metal pollution in Mithi river: Then and Now

International Journal of Research in Engineering and Science (IJRES)
ISSN (Online): 2320-9364, ISSN (Print): 2320-9356
www.ijres.org Volume 4 Issue 1 ǁ January. 2016 ǁ PP.62-68
www.ijres.org 62 | Page
Status of Heavy metal pollution in Mithi river: Then and Now
Shruti Handa and Rahul Jadhav
Vidyavardhini’s
A.V College of Arts, K.M College of Commerce and E.S.A College of Science, Vasai Road.401 202.
(Maharashtra), INDIA.
Abstract: The Mithi River runs through the heart of suburban Mumbai. Its path of flow has been severely
damaged due to industrialization and urbanization. The quality of water has been deteriorating ever since. The
Municipal and industrial effluents are discharged in unchecked amounts. The municipal discharge comprises
untreated domestic and sewage wastes whereas the industries are majorly discharge chemicals and other toxic
effluents which are responsible in increasing the metal load of the river. In the current study, the water is
analysed for heavy metals- Copper, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead and Nickel. It also includes a brief
understanding on the fluctuations that have occurred in the heavy metal pollution, through the compilation of
studies carried out in the area previously.
Key words: Heavy metals, Mithi River, Pollution, Industrialization
I. Introduction
Rivers all over the world play a very significant role. They have been an important source of fresh water
since ages, for irrigation, agriculture, drinking etc. As we progressed water has also accommodated our needs of
electricity generation through hydropower, which has made further developments possible. As our needs kept
growing, we have forgotten to acknowledge the worth of the water bodies. The rapid growth in population and
subsequent industrialisation has led to discharge of unimaginable amount of pollutants discharged into water
bodies. The contribution to pollutants from illegal small scale industries on the banks of most rivers is also
dangerous. Industries involved in dyeing, tanning, printing etc. add to the amount of existing pollutants in the
water body. Fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides also add to the water pollution by leaching. Thus as the river
meanders through its course, it receives a heavy load of effluents from industries as well as pollutants from
anthropogenic activities. Some of the major causes of heavy metal in the rivers are flawed industrial processes,
discharge of industrial effluents containing untreated metallic solutions, dumping of solid wastes containing
metal salts and some agricultural practices using metal based biocides (Anand and Pandey, 2014).
Heavy metals are present on the earth’s crust and our naturally present in the water bodies. In normal
concentrations they are useful to the biota. They are of high density and can be toxic when the concentrations
rise above the normal level. The presence of heavy metals in industrial effluents is known to have major hazard
to natural water, animal and human health. High concentrations all of heavy metals have deleterious effect on
the environment (Cheng, 2003). Random developments in industrialization have a heavy impact on the
environment; the untreated industrial waste water discharged to the nearby water bodies may cause severe
ground water pollution (Gleick, 2014). Additionally, it increases the heavy metal concentrations in water
manifold causing severe consequences to life. Due to rapid industrialization over the past century, heavy metals
have been discharged into the major rivers and estuaries of the world (Tam and Wong, 2000;Cobelo-Garcia and
Prego, 2003; Chen et. al., 2004; Pekey, 2006) Rivers make a major contribution of metals in the marine
environment and are considered as a dominant pathway for metals transport (Harikumar et.al., 2009). During
their transport, the heavy metals undergo numerous changes in their speciation due to dissolution, precipitation,
sorption and complexation phenomena (Akcay et. al., 2003, Abdel-Ghani and Elchaghaby, 2007). Metals are
non-degradable and causing damage to nervous system and internal organs (Kar et. al., 2008; Lee. et. al., 2007).
Rivers in Mumbai are in a highly deteriorated state. A number of regulations and efforts have been implemented
and scraped. Mithi River has been a huge example to the rampant development in the city. Developments in the
form of new small scale industries, slums etc. pile up over its banks. The objective of the current investigation
is to understand the changes that have occurred in the heavy metal concentrations present in the downstream
areas of Mithi River measuring a span of 05-10 years.
The parameters for the metals Copper, Cadmium, Chromium, Nickel and Lead for the year 2013 and 2015
have been evaluated by the authors of this paper. To evaluate the status of the river from the past, parameters
have been compiled from 2004(MPCB) and 2010- 2011(Singare et. al., 2012).

II. Materials and Methods
Study area
The Mithi River begins from the overflow of Vihar and Powai lakes which lie in the pristine and protected
areas of the city. It meanders its way through down through the slowly growing shanties upstream to the thickly
populated banks on the downstream. The water is visually clear and odourless at its mouth but slowly turns into
a black, smelly stream struggling to make its way through the slums and industries to meet the bay. The area is
located along western Arabian cost of India from 180.
53’ N to 190
16’ N latitude and from 720
E to 720
59’
longitude (Singare et. al., 2012). Three locations downstream were narrowed down. These locations were kept
as close as possible to the studies carried out previously by MPCB Report on Mithi River (2004) Water
Pollution and Recommendations for its Control and (Singare et. al., 2012).
Sampling and Laboratory methods
The sampling was carried out during summers to maintain uniformity with the data that was available. The
study was conducted in 2013 and 2015. Water was collected in clean, autoclaved one litre plastic containers.
The samples were brought to the laboratory immediately and kept at 40
C to maintain its condition very close to
the time it was sampled. The analysis was carried out within 4 hours of water collection. The digestion was
carried out by standard methods (APHA, 2005; Trivedi R.K 1988). 5ml aqua regia was added to appropriate
amount of sample and was allowed to digest at around 750
C. The volume was reduced to near dryness. Further,
nitric acid was added until white residue was formed. This residue was dissolved with nitric acid. Once
dissolved, it is filtered through Whatmann filter paper and the final volume is made to 100ml using distilled
water.
Heavy metal analysis
The heavy metals were analysed by atomic absorption spectroscopy (Thermo Elemental, AAS Solar Series)
and Inductive coupled plasma –optical emission spectroscopy, model. ARCOS, (SPECTRO). The samples were
prepared in triplicates to obtain a constant result.
Heavy Metal evaluation methods
Contamination Index shows the combined effects of overall water quality parameters of an area. Different
contamination index methods has been developed all over the world for groundwater quality assessment such as
heavy metal indexing approach (HMI), degree of contamination (Cd), contamination factor (Cf), Metal pollution
index(MPI), Pollution index (PI) etc. By using these methods, we can easily calculate the overall water quality
of a particular area rapidly and efficiently because these methods present the single value by comparing
different parameters (Singh et. al., 2015).
In order to understand the magnitude of contamination different heavy metal indices were used. The background
values were supported from the data given by Central pollution control board.
The following heavy metal evaluation methods for the year 2004, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015, for the metals
Copper, Cadmium, Chromium, Nickel and Lead have been calculated and interpreted by the authors of this
paper.
Contamination Factor (Cf)
The aim of calculating contamination factor is to provide a measure of the degree of overall contamination in a
sampled site. It was developed by (Hakanson, 1980). The formula is as follows:
Cf =C/C0
Where, Cf is the ratio obtained by dividing the mean concentration of each metal in the sample (C) value by the
baseline or background (C0
)
Degree of Contamination (Cd)
It summarises the combined effects of several parameters considered harmful to water (Backman et. al., 1998).
In the current study several heavy metals that were studied were analysed and the contamination index is calculated
as follows:
N
∑ Cfi
Cd = i=1
Cfi = CAi/ CNi -1

Where,
Cfi -the contamination factor for the ith
component
CAi - analytical value for the ith
component CNi - upper permissible concentration of the ith
component (N
denotes the “normative value”) (Bansal, 2014).
Cd is calculated for every sample independently, values are grouped into three categories regarding
contamination level as follows: low contaminations if Cd values are lower than 1. Medium contamination when
Cd is between 1 and 3. Cd is high when contamination is more than 3 (Aktar et. al., 2010). The degree of
contamination (Cd) was used as reference to estimate the extent of metal pollution (Al-Ami et. al., 1987).
Metal Pollution Index (MPI)
The MPI has been used for the evaluation which shows the composite influence of individual parameters on
the overall quality of water (Tamasi and Cini , 2004). Higher be the concentration of a metal as has been
compared to its maximum tolerable concentration, the poorer quality of the water (Amadi, 2011).The MPI
represents the sum of the ratio between the analyzed parameters and their equivalent National standard values
(Chon et. al.,1997) as given below:
n
∑ [Ci/ (MAC) i]
i=1
Where,
Ci: mean concentration
MAC: maximum allowable concentration
The readings from the past reports were converted into appropriate values and the calculations were done
accordingly for mean and standard deviation.
Statistical Analysis
Pearson correlation (r) will be used to interpret the data since it measures the degree of linear relationship
between two variables.
The statistical analysis for the year 2004, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015, for the metals Copper, Cadmium,
Chromium, Nickel and Lead have been calculated and interpreted by the authors of this paper.
III. Result and Discussion
Table .1 Mean ± S.D. concentrations of heavy metals (mg/L) from the year 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2015
Figure.1 Comparative graph of mean values of heavy metals (Cadmium, Chromium and Nickel) of 2010,
2011, 2012 and 2015
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
2010 2011 2013 2015
Cadmium
Chromium
Nickel
Parameters Unit 2004 2010 2011 2013 2015 Permissible
Limits
(CPCB)
Cadmium mg/L - 0.02±0.01 0.13±0.07 0.04 ±0.02 0.01±0.003 2.0
Chromium mg/L NIL 0.1±0.08 0.3±0.17 0.08±0.10 1.04±0.22 2.0
Nickel mg/L - 0.21±0.16 0.34±0.25 0.1±0.03 0.91 ±0.21 3.0
Lead mg/L 0.09 ±0.10 0.16±0.08 0.31±0.23 0.23±0.11 0.3 ±0.26 0.1
Copper mg/L 0.64±0.83 - - 0.11±0.07 0.21 ±0.03 3.0

Cadmium has its most significant use in cadmium or nickel batteries. The cadmium coating provides good
corrosion resistance especially in environment high stress. Cadmium is also used in pigments, stabilizers for
PVC, in alloys and electronic compounds. It is also present as an impurity in several products, including
phosphate fertilizers, detergents and refined petroleum products. The toxicity of cadmium originates from its
chemical similarity to Zinc. It is biopersistent and once absorbed in the human body, it can get accumulated for
long causing renal damage. It interferes with metabolic processes in plants and can bioaccumulate in aquatic
organisms and enters in food chain (Adriano, 2001). It is also capable of causing bone defects in animals and
humans. Once absorbed, cadmium irreversibly accumulates in the human body, in particularly in kidneys (Johri
et. al., 2010), the bone and the respiratory tract (Bernard, 1986). The permissible limit of Cadmium in inland
surface waters given by the CPCB (Central Pollution Control board) is 2.0 mg/L. The values of cadmium have
not crossed the permissible limits in our study area. There is an increase of cadmium values in 2011 as seen in
the (figure-1), but its level seems to be controlled in 2015.
Chromium is used in pigments for paints, cement, paper, rubber etc. They are also used in metal alloys. A
long term exposure to chromium can cause damage to lungs and intestinal tract. Besides the lungs and intestinal
tract, the liver and kidney are often target organs for chromate toxicity (Rom, 2007). It also has the potential to
have negative effects on the circulatory and nerves tissues. It is known to have visible effects through
bioaccumulation thus causing the danger of eating fish which must have been exposed to high levels of
chromium. It shows a high increasing trend from the year 2010 to 2015(figure -1). Although a fall in its level is
visible in 2013. The permissible limit given by CPCB is 2.0 mg/L for total Chromium. The values are within the
limits but a high increase is visible through the years.
Nickel is used in electroplating, steel industries, ceramics, storage batteries, dyeing etc. It can be toxic to
aquatic organisms such as reduction in skeletal calcification and diffusion capacity of gills (Moore, 1991). Its
long-term exposure can cause decreased body weight, heart and liver damage, and skin irritation. Its
bioaccumulation capacity is not very clear. Nickel compounds have been well established as carcinogenic in
many animal species and by many modes of human exposure but their underlying mechanisms are still not fully
understood (Clayton and Clayton, 1994, Chang, 1996). The permissible limit given by CPCB is 3.0 mg/L. As
observed in (figure-1), there is an increase in concentration from 2010 to 2015 with a fall seen during the year
2013. The concentration does not exceed the standard permissible limits, but an increase is evident with each
passing year.
Figure.2 A comparative graph of mean values of heavy metals (Copper and Lead) of 2004, 2013 and 2015
Copper is used in mining, metal production, storage batteries and fertilizer production industries. A long
time exposure to copper can cause anemia, liver and kidney damage. It can also lead to stomach and intestinal
irritation. The permissible limit suggested by CPCB for copper is 3.0 mg/L. The concentrations of copper in our
study area does not show exceeding amount of the element. A decade before in 2004 before the Mithi river
deluge, it was seen in an exceedingly risen amount by 2013 it has reduced. In 2015 an increase in concentrations
as compared to 2013 is seen (Figure 2).
Lead due to its physical and chemical properties is used in the manufacturing, construction and chemical
industries. It is also used in batteries, petrol additives, alloys, pigments and compounds. The above are few
listed uses of lead. Its exposure has negative effects on neuropsychological developments in children. The
permissible limit for lead suggested by CPCB is 0.1. The concentration of lead in our study area shows an
increase in 2013 and in 2015 there is further rise in the levels of lead rise as compared to the MPCB
report(2004)(Figure. 2)
Table. 2 Metal pollution Index (MPI) and Degree of Contamination (Cd) (Copper and Lead only) 2004,
2013 and 2015
Year MPI Cd
2013 1.18 1.64
2015 1.57 3.07
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
2004 2013 2015
Cu
Pb

Table.3 Metal pollution Index (MPI) and Degree of Contamination (Cd) (Cadmium, Chromium, Nickel
and Lead) 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2015
Year MPI Cd
2010 0.45 -2.84
2011 0.94 3.13
2013 0.62 -0.58
2015 1.11 3.98
The Metal Contamination Index (MPI) values of samples calculated for the year 2004 was 0.66. The
calculated values for 2013 and 2015 are represented (Table.2) for the heavy metals Lead and Copper. A clear
increase in the mentioned heavy metals can be observed, suggesting a decrease in the quality of water.
The MPI, values for the heavy metals Cd, Cr, Ni and Pb in the year 2010 and 2011 was 0.45 and 0.94
respectively. The increase in the value suggests degradation of the quality of water from 2010 to 2011. In the
year 2013 and 2015 the MPI values have increased implying further deterioration in the water quality (Table.3)
The Degree of Contamination (Cd) of the sample taken in the year 2010 and 2011 is -2.84 and 3.13 respectively.
The values for the samples taken in 2013 and 2015 are shown in Table 3.The degree of contamination is less
than 1 in 2010 and more than 3 in 2011 suggesting that the degree of contamination is less in 2010 while it is
high in 2011.The above values summarise the contamination for Cadmium, Nickel, Chromium and Lead only.
Cd of the water samples calculated for 2004 is -0.98. The Cd for 2013 and 2015 is represented in the (Table .2).
The above values summarise the contamination for Copper and Lead only. The Cd of water samples
contaminated with Copper and Lead is less than 1 in 2004 implying less contamination. It is between 1-3 in
2013 showing medium contamination, while it is more than 3 in 2015 which shows high contamination.
Table. 4 Contamination Factor (Cf)
Year/Heavy Metals Cu Cd Cr Ni Pb
2013 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.03 2.3
2015 0.07 0.005 0.52 0.30 3
The contamination factor of Lead calculated for the year 2004, 2010 and 2011 is 0.9, 1.6 and 3.1
respectively. The values calculated for Copper for the above mentioned years is 0.21, 0.03 and 0.07. There is an
increase in the individual factors for lead but a decline is observed in the values calculated for copper from 2004
to 2010. The values of copper show an increase from 2010 to 2011. The values for 2013 and 2015 have been
shown in the (Table.4). Thus values of copper have been less than 1 all throughout, with an increase within the
range. Lead has shown a constant increase as a contamination factor.
The contamination factor for Cadmium, Chromium, Nickel and Lead calculated for the year 2010 is 0.01,
0.05, 0.07 and 1.6 respectively. The factor for the above mentioned heavy metals in the year 2011 is 0.06, 0.15,
0.11 and 3.1.The values for the contamination factor in 2013 and 2015 is shown (Table.4). The values of
Cadmium, Copper and Nickel show an increase in all the years except 2013. Lead values have risen
consistently. It is higher than the Copper, Cadmium, Chromium and Nickel. It is higher than 1 in all the years
i.e. from 2010 to 2015. In the year 2004, it was close to 1. In 2010, (Pb > Ni > Cr > Cd), 2011(Pb > Cr > Ni >
Cd), 2013(Pb > Cr > Ni > Cu > Cd), 2015(Pb > Cr > Ni > Cu > Cd). Thus, an increase is observed in the
contamination factor from the past decade till today. Similar observation with regard to Lead was made by
(Akhand et.al., 2012) in their area of study.
Statistical Analysis
Table. 5 Pearson’s correlation (r ) values for the heavy metals Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Nickel
(Ni) and Lead (Pb)
Heavy metals
Pearsons Correlation (r)
for Year
2013 2015
Cd and Cr -0.999 0.680
Cd and Ni -0.874 0.715
Cd and Pb -0.562 0.406
Cr and Ni 0.891 0.998
Cr and Pb 0.532 -0.392
Ni and Pb 0.090 -0.347
Cu and Pb 0.767 -0.66

In the year 2010, the Pearson correlation calculated shows a very strong correlation between Cd and Pb
(r = 0.991) > Ni and Pb (r = 0.979) > Cd and Ni (r = 0.979). In the year 2011 a strong correlation is seen
between Cd and Pb (r = 0.998) > Ni and Pb (r = 0.916) > Cd and Ni (r = 0.890). The correlations between the
heavy metals have been similar in 2010 and 2011 with slight differences in values. The correlation of Cd and Pb
is higher in 2011 the correlation between Ni and Pb is higher in 2010 than 2011. The correlation in Cd and Ni is
stronger in 2010 than 2011. In the year 2013 a positive correlation is observed between Cr and Ni only. In the
year 2015, values of correlation are high for Cr and Ni similar to the year 2015 followed by Cd and Ni > Cd and
Cr. There is an increase in the strength of correlation of Cr and Ni from 2013 to 2015.
The association between Cu and Pb in 2013 is considerably higher than the years 2004 (r = -0.304) and
2015. The year 2013 shows fewer positive correlations as observed in (Table 5). Positive correlation can also be
attributed to same origin while the metals with negative correlation are an indication of distinctive sources for
the metals in the river (Ahmad et. al., 2010).
IV. Conclusion
The present study is an attempt at assessing the heavy metals present in the downstream areas of Mithi
River which probably has a visible amount of industrial activities and habitation. The values taken from sources
mentioned for the year 2004, 2010 and 2011 have been compiled with the current studies which include the
values from 2013 and 2015. An observation at the data, interprets the presence of heavy metals in the river. The
concentrations of metals except for Lead are within the permissible limits suggested by the CPCB but none fit
into the WHO limits for drinking water.
An overall view shows that the values for most of the indexes at 2013 was the lowest as compared to the
other period mentioned. This could be owed to the action taken by the state government which shut a huge
number of polluting industries on its banks. Additionally NEERI reported an improvement in the river water in
the following year. The samples taken in 2015 again show deterioration in the quality of water. Thus,
continuation of stringent laws and a combined effort by the Government and the people can help the river inch
back to its original form.
V. Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to the staff of WRIC and IIT for their assistance in analysis and technical support.
We are also thankful to Mr. Sudhir Nimbalkar (BMC) for guiding us in the field work.
References
[1.] Abdel-Ghani, N. T., and Elchaghaby, G. A., (2007). Influence of operating conditions on the removal
of Cu, Zn, Cd and Pb ions from waste water by adsorption. Int. J. Environ. Sci.Tech., 4(4): 451 -456
[2.] Adriano, D.C. (2001). Trace elements in terrestrial environments:Biochemistry, bioavailability and
risks of metals. - Springer Verlag.
[3.] Ahmad MK, Islam S, Rahman S, Haque MR, Islam MM (2010). Heavy metals in water, sediment and
some fishes of Buriganga River, Bangladesh. Int. J. Environ. Res 4(2):321-332
[4.] Akcay, H., Oguz, A., and Karapire, C., (2003). Study of heavy metal pollution and speciation in Buyak
Menderes and Gediz river sediments. Water Res., 37(4): 813-822.
[5.] Akhand Anirban, Chanda Abhra, Sanyal Pranabes and Hazra Sugata, (2012). Pollution Load of Four
Heavy Metals in Water, Sediment and Benthic Organisms in the Kulti River of Sundarban Fed by
Metropolitan Sewage, Nat. Env. & Poll. Tech. ISSN: 0972-6268, Vol. 11(1) pp. 153-156
[6.] Aktar MW, Paramasiva MM, 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. Monitor. Assess 160: 207 -2 13
[7.] Al-Ami, M.Y., Al-Nakib, S.M., Ritha, N.M., Nouri, A.M., Al-Assina, A. (1987). Water quality index
applied to the classification and zoning of Al-Jaysh canal, Bagdad, Iraq. - Journal Environmental
Science and Health 22: 305-319.
[8.] Amadi A. N. (2011). Assessing the Effects of Aladimma dumpsite on soil and groundwater using water
quality index and factor analysis. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5 (11): 763-770.
[9.] Anand V. S. and Pandey J. (2014). Heavy metals in the midstream of the Ganges River: spatio-
temporal trends in a seasonally dry tropical region (India), Water International, 1-13.
[10.] APHA, (2005). Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21st Edition, American
Public Health Association, Washington D. C
[11.] BackmanBodis D, Lahermo P, Rapant S,Tarvained T (1998). Application of a groundwater
contamination index in Finland and Slovakia. Environ. Geo 36:1-2

[12.] Bansal O.P. (2014). Heavy metals in sewage effluent water irrigated vegetables and their potential
health hazard risks to consumers of Aligarh. J. Chem. Sci. Rev. Lett. 3(11):589–596.
[13.] Bernard, A. and Lauwerys, R. (1986). Effects of cadmium exposure in humans. In: Handbook of
experimental pharmacology, Foulkes, E.C., editors Berlin: Springer-Verlag, p. 135-177
[14.] Chang, L.W. (1996). Toxicology of Metals; Lewis publishers: New York, pp. 245-246.
[15.] Chen, Z., Saito, Y., Kanai, Y., Wei, T., Li, L. and Yao, H. (2004). Low concentration of heavy metals
in the Yangtze estuarine sediments, China:A diluting setting. Estuar. Coast. Shelf. Sci., 60: 91-100
[16.] Cheng, S. (2003). Heavy metal pollution in China: origin, pattern and control. Environmental Science
and Pollution Research; 10(3), 192-198
[17.] Chon H. T., Ahn J. S., Jung M. C. (1997). Environmental contamination of toxic heavy metals in the
vicinity of some Au–Ag mines in Korea, Proc. of the 4th. Biennial SGA Meeting, Truku: Finland. pp.
891–894.
[18.] Clayton, G.D., and Clayton, F.E. (1994). Patty’s Industrial Hygiene Toxicology, 4th ed.; A Wiley-Inter
science publication: New York, pp. 2157-2173.
[19.] Cobelo-García, A. and Prego, R. (2003). Heavy metal sedimentary record in a Galician Ria (NW
Spain): Background values and recent contamination. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 46: 1253-1262
[20.] Gleick, P. H. (2014). The World's Water: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources (Vol. 8): Island
Press.
[21.] Hakanson L. (1980). Ecological Risk Index for Aquatic Pollution Control. A Sedimentological
Approach, Water Research. 14, 975-1001
[22.] Harikumar, P. S., Nasir, U. P., and Mujeebu Rahman, M. P. (2009). Distribution of heavy metals in the
core sediments of a tropical wetland system. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech. 6 (2): 225 -232.
[23.] Johri, N., Jacquillet, G., and Unwin, R. (2010). Heavy metal poisoning: the effects of cadmium on the
kidney, Bio Metals, 23(5), pp. 783-79
[24.] Kar D, Sur P, Mandal SK., Saha T, Kole RK. (2008). Assessment of heavy metal pollution in surface
water. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech 5(1):119-124.
[25.] Lee CL, Li XD, Zhang G, Li J, Ding AJ, Wang T (2007). Heavy metals and Pb isotopic composition of
aerosols in urban and suburban areas of Hong Kong and Guangzhou, South China. Evidence of the
long-range transport of air contaminants. Environ. Pollut. 41 (2): 432-447.
[26.] Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (2004). Report on Mithi River Pollution and Recommendations
for its control as submitted
[27.] Moore, J.W. (1991): Inorganic contaminations in surface water. - Sprenger Verlag, New York
[28.] Pekey, H. (2006). The distribution and sources of heavy metals in Izmir Bay surface sediments affected
by a polluted stream. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 52:1197-1208.
[29.] Rom, W. N., (2007). Environmental and Occupational Medicine. 4th Ed. 2007 by Lippincott Williams
& Wilkins.
[30.] Singare P. U, Mishra R.M , Trivedi M.P (2012). Heavy Metal Pollution in Mithi River of Mumbai.
Frontiers in Science 2(3): 28-36
[31.] Singh P.K, Verma. P, Tiwari A.K, Sharma .S, Purty. P. (2014-2015). Review of Various
Contamination Index Approaches to Evaluate Groundwater Quality with Geographic Information
System (GIS) CODEN (USA): IJCRGG ISSN: 0974-4290 7(4): 1920-1929.
[32.] Tam, N.F.Y. and Wong, Y.S. (2000). Spatial variation of heavy metals in surface sediments of Hong
Kong mangrove swamps. Environ. Pollut. 110: 195-205.
[33.] Tamasi G., Cini R. (2004). Heavy metals in drinking waters from Mount Amiata. Possible risks from
arsenic for public health in the province of Siena, Science of the Total Environment, 327: 41-51.
[34.] Trivedi, R.K. (1988): Ecology & Pollution of Indian Rivers. Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi.

Status of Heavy metal pollution in Mithi river: Then and Now

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Status of Heavy metal pollution in Mithi river: Then and Now (20)

More from IJRES Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Status of Heavy metal pollution in Mithi river: Then and Now