corrected Proof

© 2024 The Authors Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 1 doi: 10.2166/wst.2024.342

Real-time water quality monitoring along the lower stretch of River Ganges and its
connected drains using sensors and Water Quality Index

Bishnu Prasad Sahoo a,b, *, Gour Kanti Chandrab and Mrinal Kanti Biswasb
a
Forest Ecology and Climate Change Division, Forest Research Institute and Green Credit Cell, ICFRE, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 246008, India
b
Central Pollution Control Board, Regional Directorate, Kolkata, India
*Corresponding author. E-mail: bpsahoo@icfre.org

BPS, 0000-0001-5568-1876

ABSTRACT

In this study, water quality is measured using a Real-Time Water Quality Monitoring System for a total of 84 times at 14 locations, in which
four drains discharged sewage directly to river Ganges at Bihar, five locations on river Ganges at West Bengal, two tributaries of river Ganges
at West Bengal and three drains discharged wastewater directly to river Ganges at West Bengal. In Bihar, four major drains discharged 377.98
MLD wastewater into the river Ganges which in turn released 8985.17 kg of BOD per day. In West Bengal, three major drains had a total flow
of 1630.88 MLD that discharged 11563.77 kg of BOD per day to the River Ganges. The average Water Quality Index of the river Ganges was
observed as 64.55 and that of drains of West Bengal and Bihar were recorded as 309.78 and 775.56, respectively. The average BOD to COD
ratio of less than 0.6 indicated wastewater from drains of Bihar and West Bengal was nonbiodegradable. DO and pH values were recorded
compliant with the bathing water quality standard at all river locations, however, the average BOD value at five monitoring points of the river
Ganges and its tributaries was slightly above the bathing water quality standard.

Key words: BOD-to-COD ratio, real-time water quality monitoring system, River Ganges, water quality index, water quality standards

HIGHLIGHTS

• The role of five types of sensors in real-time water quality monitoring is assessed.
• How drains pollute River Ganges is studied.
• Water quality of the River Ganges is checked at various points.
• The water quality index of the River Ganges is measured at various points.
• Flow and BOD load of drains discharging into the River Ganges are studied.

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and
redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 2

INTRODUCTION
The River Ganges is treated as India’s holiest river having remarkable sociocultural and spiritual significance. It is one of the
longest rivers in the world with a length of 2,525 km from the Gangotri to the Bay of Bengal. The River Ganges stretches out
into parts of Nepal, China, and Bangladesh and covers 26% of India’s land area with a basin area of 861,404 km2 (Dubey
2020). It supports around 448.3 million people as per the 2001 census and 37% of the urban population (Ali et al. 2021).
It carries 33% of the water flowing in the Indian river system and greater than 2% of the global riverine system’s total
water availability. On average, the Ganges discharges 459,040 million cubic meters of water annually. Taking annual dis-
charge and basin area as a measure, the Ganges is ranked at 15th and 21st, respectively, among the rivers of the world.
The river passes through many cities (36 Class I cities with a population .0.1 million and 14 Class II cities with a population
of 0.05–0.1 million), towns (48), villages (thousands), and agricultural fields (Samanta 2013). Various large-scale anthropo-
genic influences, including river habitat fragmentation, dams and barrages, discharge of industrial and domestic effluent,
and intensive agriculture reliant on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and insecticides, have profoundly altered the Ganges
(Dutta et al. 2020). Domestic sewage and industrial effluent discharge into the Ganges accounts for 75% of its pollution. Con-
sumption of contaminated water poses a number of health risks to humans (Pinto et al. 2020). In India, almost 80% of the
population is affected by water-borne diseases, resulting in the deaths of approximately 600,000 people per year due to diar-
rhea (Conaway 2015). The Ganges is ranked as the world’s sixth most polluted river (Panigrahi & Pattnaik 2019). In the
eastern basin from Buxar to Fraserganj, emergent pollutants such as mesoplastics of size .5 mm and microplastics of size
,5 mm were found in the silt of the River Ganges (Sarkar et al. 2019). With an abundance of main ions such as Kþ,
Ca2þ, Cl, HCO þ 2þ 2
3 , Na , Mg , and CO3 in the water, the water quality in upstream of the River Ganges at Rishikesh was
unfit for direct drinking but acceptable for agriculture (Matta et al. 2018). Heavy metals such as Cu, Zn, Pb, and Ni were
observed in the sediment of the River Ganges and its tributaries (Khan et al. 2019; Panwar et al. 2020). Heavy metals
such as Fe and Cr are reported in the water of the Ganges at Kanpur (Singh et al. 2020). The Bhagirathi–Hooghly River,
the lower stretch of the Ganges, was observed to have above standard levels of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and
chemical oxygen demand (COD) (Sarkar et al. 2019) with the COD-to-BOD ratio being greater than 4.5 during monsoon
(Kanuri et al. 2020). The lower portion of the River Ganges has a Water Quality Index (WQI) ranging from 55 to 416,
and a Synthetic Pollution Index (SPI) ranging from 0.59 to 3.68 with high concentrations of turbidity and boron (Ali et al.
2021), total dissolved solids, and a fecal coliform (Mitra et al. 2018). The presence of bacterial species, namely Escherichia,
Pseudomonas, and Enterobacter, and bacteriophages in the river water are responsible for the self-cleaning property of the
River Ganges (Kumar et al. 2020).
Almost all the studies that reported previously on the lower stretch of the River Ganges were based on manual water quality
monitoring. This study is the first of its kind for the lower stretch of the River Ganges, which assesses water quality using
sensors on real-time basis. These sensors measure the water quality continuously and remotely on a real-time basis, which
is significantly different from manual monitoring, which is conducted at predetermined intervals following the standard
methods of sampling, storage, preservation, analysis, and result documentation. The disadvantages of the existing manual
water quality monitoring include no continuous and remote monitoring, less frequent measurement due to limited human
resources, less reliability due to human error, quality of chemicals used, the efficiency of instruments used, improper main-
tenance of the laboratory, irregular auditing, and difficulties in on-site monitoring due to lack of infrastructure near the source
of water. Although manual monitoring is widespread and quite acceptable, real-time water quality monitoring (RTWQM) is
significant enough to build a huge set of databases over a short period, which enables the policymakers to formulate reliable
policies for sustainable water resource management quickly.

Study area
The Bhagirathi–Hooghly River is around 260 km long (160 mi) and is a distributary of the Ganges in the state of West
Bengal located at 21°380 24″N to 22.99°N latitude and 88°040 46″E to 88.40°E longitude. The Ganges parts into the
Padma and the Hooghly near Giria, Murshidabad. Once more, the Ganges River splits near Farakka. While the Hooghly
flows south through West Bengal, the Padma flows eastward into Bangladesh. The river finally flows into the Bay of
Bengal after passing through West Bengal’s lowest deltaic region, the Rarh area. Bhagirathi is the name of the upper riparian
zone of the river waterway, whereas the lower riparian zone is named as Hooghly. The Hooghly is a tidal waterway. The

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 3

tidal impact stretches to more than 175 miles in length up to Nabadwip where River Jalangi meets Hooghly. The Central
Pollution Control Board, Regional Directorate Kolkata, is involved in the National Ganga River Basin Authority-Water
Quality Monitoring of the River Ganges program for acquiring long-term water quality data of the river. As a part of this
program, 14 RTWQM stations have been deployed on the River Ganges and connected drains flowing through Bihar
and West Bengal. Out of the 14 RTWQM stations, seven RTWQM stations have been installed on major drains, of
which four are in Bihar (BH 07, BH 09, BH 10, and BH 11) and three are in West Bengal (WB 22, WB 24, and WB
26), to estimate the pollution load received by the River Ganges from these drains. Five RTWQM stations (WB 10, WB
11, WB 21, WB 23, and WB 27) have been installed in the Hooghly riverine system to understand the hydrochemical
characteristics of the River Ganges. Two RTWQM stations are installed on two tributaries of the River Ganges, namely,
the Bansloi River (WB 05) and the Pagla River (WB 06) at Murshidabad. The location map of the RTWQM stations in
Bihar and West Bengal, India, is presented in Figure 1.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

There are five types of sensors installed in the RTWQM stations, namely, spectrolyzers, ammolyzers, condulyzers, oxily-
zers, and water level sensors (Brand name – s::can). The spectrolyzer is based on the measuring principle of UV–
visible spectrometry over the total range of l90–750 or 190–390 nm (UV spectrometry). The spectrolyzer measures turbid-
ity, nitrate, COD, BOD, total suspended solids (TSS), and color. The ammolyzer is based on the measuring principle of ion
selective electrode (ISE) with potassium compensation. It is a multiparameter probe and has an automatic cleaning system
with compressed air. This sensor is used to measure NH3-N, pH, chloride, potassium, and fluoride. The measuring prin-
ciple of the condulyzer is a direct contact measurement. It measures conductivity and temperature. The oxilyser is an
optical probe that measures the concentration of dissolved oxygen (DO) directly in water. The sensing element uses the
principle of fluorescence to measure DO. The water level sensor measures the water level. Each station was monitored
six times in the entire study period (January to March 2021) making a total of 84 times that water quality was monitored
across all locations during the calibration of the RTWQM sensors. Each station was calibrated once in every 15 days for
data accuracy. During calibration, turbidity was measured by a HACH 2100Q turbidity meter. DO was measured by a
HACH LDO10l DO meter. The pH was determined by a HACH pH C101 meter. Conductivity was estimated by a
HACH CDC401 conductivity meter. NO3-N, Color, TSS, F, C, NH3-N, and Kþ were measured by a HACH spectropho-
tometer. All the parameters were cross-checked with their known standards. The precision was expressed as percent
relative standard deviation (RSD), which was obtained below 5%. The laboratory data were fed into the system and
used for calibration using various types of calibration such as offset, linear, multi, span, and global calibration. All the
data obtained right after the sensor calibration were considered in this study. The flow of drains was measured using
the ball float method (area velocity method) and expressed in million liters per day (MLD) (Singh et al. 2018).

Statistical analysis
To examine the spatial variation between the locations of the RTWQM stations, a post hoc Bonferroni’s multiple comparison
test was used to perform an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the water quality parameters with a 95% level of confidence
(α:0.05). Furthermore, using IBM SPSS statistic 2019-v26 package, Pearson correlation coefficients were evaluated to
measure the interrelationship between various water quality parameters. Box and Whisker Plots were prepared to have a
visual representation of data distribution through minimum, first quartile, mean, median, third quartile, and maximum
(Figures 2–7).
Principal component analysis (PCA) is a technique for dimensionality reduction employed in data analysis. It reduces a
substantial set of variables into a smaller set while keeping maximal information (variance). Principal components (PCs)
are the new axes generated following the PCA transformation. The PCs are referred to as ‘factors’ in PCA while keeping maxi-
mal information (variance). More specifically, Factors/PCs are linear combinations of the original variables that capture the
maximum variance in the data. The original variables’ covariance matrix is used to extract the eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
Each principal component’s eigenvalue indicates how much variance it has contained. A higher eigenvalue indicates a
greater data variability. For every principal component, an Eigenvector shows direction of the axes. It specifies how each prin-
cipal component is formed by combining the original variables. The weights of the original variables on the principal
components are known as loadings. They indicate the relative contributions of each original variable to each main com-
ponent. By concentrating on the components that account for the majority of variation, PCA lowers the dimensionality of

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 4

Figure 1 | Location map of RTWQM stations in Bihar and West Bengal, India.

the data. The PCs can be ranked according to the amount of variance they explain; components with very little explained
variance are frequently dropped. Using PCA with varimax rotation of the standardized component loadings, the variance
among the variables under each factor was maximized, and PCs with eigenvalues greater than one were retained (Wunderlin
et al. 2001; Sahoo & Sahu 2022).

The WQI
The WQI is the most widely used indexing method for water quality analysis, integrating all indicators and comparing them to
government-recommended standards to protect human health (Nong et al. 2020). Horton (1965) developed it, using arith-
metic weighting with multiplicative variables (Horton 1965; Lkr et al. 2020). The calculation of WQI was performed
using the following equation:

P
n
Q i Wi
WQI ¼ i¼1n
P
Wi
i¼1

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 5

Figure 2 | Box–Whisker diagram of the water quality parameters of drains of Bihar.

The quality rating scale Qi is estimated by the following expression:

 
(Vi  V0 )
Qi ¼ 100
(Si  V0 )

where Vi is the calculated concentration of the ith parameter in the sample water, V0 is the ideal value of this parameter in
pure water, V0 ¼ 0 (except pH ¼ 7.0 and DO ¼ 14.6 mg/L), Si is the recommended standard value (Bureau of Indian Stan-
dards 2012) of the ith parameter, and is the unit weight.

K
Wi ¼
Si

where K refers to the proportionality constant and is calculated as:

1
K¼P
(1=Si )

At each location except WB 11, the WQI was measured six times taking into account BOD, DO, electrical conductivity
(EC), pH, ammonia, chloride, COD, and nitrate. So, a total of 78 WQI were calculated. The WQI at WB 11 was not measured
as the above-mentioned water quality sensors were not available for analysis of the mentioned parameters. The summary stat-
istics of the WQI are given in Tables 1–3. The water quality rating as per the Weight Arithmetic WQI Method (Samantara
et al. 2017; Mitra et al. 2018) is presented in Table 4.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 6

Figure 3 | Box–Whisker diagram of the water quality parameters of drains of Bihar.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this study, RTWQM stations installed at 14 locations in Bihar and West Bengal were used for measuring the water quality
of the River Ganges. Five types of sensors were installed in RTWQM stations, namely, spectrolyzers, ammolyzers, conduly-
zers, oxilyzers, and water level sensors. While the spectrolyzer measures turbidity, nitrate, COD, BOD, TSS, and color, the
ammolyzer measures NH3-N, pH, chloride, potassium, and fluoride, the condulyzer measures conductivity and temperature,
the oxilyzer measures the concentration of DO, and the water level sensor measures the water level.
The summary statistics of the water quality parameters of the RTWQM stations are given in Tables 1–3.
The correlation matrix of the water quality parameters of drains in Bihar, River Ganges in the West Bengal, and the drains
in West Bengal are provided in the Supplementary material, Tables S1–S3.
The rotated varimax PCA of the water quality parameters of the drains in Bihar is presented in Table 5. The rotated varimax
PCA of the water quality parameters of River Ganges across West Bengal is provided in Table 6. The rotated varimax PCA of
the water quality parameter of the drains in West Bengal is given in Table 7.

Drains in Bihar
The water quality of four major drains in Bihar was measured using the spectrolyzer, ammolyzer, condulyzer, oxilyzer, and
the water level sensor of RTWQM stations installed on the four drains. The flow of Kurzi nallah (BH 07) was observed as
173.11 MLD with a total discharge of 1,170.21 kg BOD per day into the River Ganges. Rajapur nallah (BH 09) discharged
3,974.61 kg of BOD per day into the River Ganges . The flow of Mandir nallah (BH 10) was 103.79 MLD, which discharged
3,043.12 kg of BOD per day into the River Ganges. The flow of Anta ghat nallah (BH 11) was 22.7 MLD with a total discharge
of 797.22 kg of BOD per day into the River Ganges. In Bihar, these four major drains discharged a total of 377.98 MLD waste-
water into the River Ganges, which in turn released 8,985.17 kg of BOD per day. The WQI of the drains in Bihar was found to

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 7

Figure 4 | Box–Whisker diagram of the water quality parameters of the lower stretch of River Ganges.

range from 350.20 to 1,761.32 with an average of 775.56 + 230.00. This showed the drain water quality is extremely hazar-
dous, hence required to be intercepted and diverted to the nearby sewage treatment plants before meeting the River Ganges.
Interim measures such as in situ bioremediation, phytoremediation, dosing of biowizard, screening arrangements to stop the
flow of floating materials and solid waste, and chemical dosing may be adopted. ANOVA test for water quality parameters of
RTWQM stations on the drains in Bihar showed a significant difference in BOD, EC, temperature, COD, TSS, color, nitrate,
K, and water levels between the stations, whereas no significant difference was observed in the other parameters. At the Bihar
drain stations, a positive and significant correlation of BOD with COD, TSS, and nitrate, EC with temperature and color,
COD with nitrate, TSS with color, and K with water level was observed. On the contrary, a negative and significant corre-
lation of water level with BOD, EC, TSS, and color was observed. For drains in Bihar, PCA showed four factors with
eigenvalues .1.0 and cumulative variability of 73.34%. Factor 1 with eigenvalue 3.056 described 27.78% of the total variance.
Factor 1 showed strong positive loadings for EC and TSS. Factor 1 could be attributed to siltation and the geogenic factor.
Factor 2 with an eigenvalue of 1.91 explained a total variance of 17.37%, revealing positive loadings for nitrate. Factor 2
could be attributed to agricultural runoff and untreated domestic sewage. Factor 3 with an eigenvalue of 1.687 accounted
for a total variance of 15.34% revealing positive loadings for BOD. This may be due to untreated domestic sewage and indus-
trial effluents. Factor 4 with an eigenvalue of 1.413 accounted for a total variance of 12.85%, revealing positive loadings for
COD (Table 5). Factor 4 could be attributed to untreated industrial effluent and other anthropogenic factors. The average
BOD-to-COD ratios for BH 07, BH 09, BH10, and BH 11 were recorded to be 0.21, 0.35, 0.26, and 0.35, respectively. If
the BOD/COD is less than 0.6, the wastewater is non-biodegradable and cannot be effectively treated biologically (Abdalla
& Hammam 2014; Sahoo et al. 2021).

Lower stretch of the River Ganges at West Bengal

The water quality in different locations along the River Ganges was measured using spectrolyzers, ammolyzers, condulyzers,
oxilyzers, and water level sensors at the RTWQM stations. The drinking water quality of the River Ganges is found compliant

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 8

Figure 5 | Box–Whisker diagram of the water quality parameters of the lower stretch of River Ganges.

Figure 6 | Box–Whisker diagram of the water quality parameters of drains of West Bengal.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 9

Figure 7 | Box–Whisker diagram of the water quality parameters of drains of West Bengal.

with pH, chloride, and nitrate except for turbidity. The turbidity in the water might be due to the weathering of alluvial soils of
the Gangetic Plain and the presence of clay and silt, fine organic and inorganic compounds, soluble pigmented organic
materials, algae, and other microscopic particles (Sahoo et al. 2021). The WQI of the River Ganges was found to range
from 37.03 to 102.80 with an average of 64.55 + 4.11. This showed that mostly the water belongs to Grade C category of
the water quality rating and could be safe for drinking after primary treatment followed by disinfection. The average WQI
is 14.55 rating points higher than the good category as only 8.33% samples were good and the rest of the samples belonged
to the poor (72.22%) and very poor (16.67%) categories. Similar types of WQI values in the lower stretch of the River Ganges
were in the following range: 107–416 in 2011, 117–289 in 2012, 85–346 in 2013, 115–259 in 2015, 55–378 in 2016, 67–182 in
2017, 57–427 in 2018, and 104–272 in 2019, as reported by Ali et al. 2021. The average DO and pH values were compliant
with the bathing water quality standard at all locations; however, the average BOD values at five monitoring points were
slightly above the bathing water quality standard. Such organic waste in the river water might have arisen due to the discharge
of partial or untreated domestic/municipal sewage, industrial effluents, agricultural runoff, dumping of solid waste, unburned
or partially burned bodies, carcasses, cremation activities, religious activities and idol immersion activities near the banks of
the River Ganges, bathing and washing with soap and detergents, and so on. To bring down the BOD values within the stan-
dard, the drains, which are directly discharging untreated and partially treated wastewater into the River Ganges, are required
to be intercepted and diverted to nearby sewage treatment plants before meeting the River Ganges. If these drains cannot be
connected to the sewage treatment plants immediately, then interim measures such as screening arrangements to stop the
flow of floating materials and solid waste, chemical dosing, in situ bioremediation, phytoremediation, dosing of biowizard,
and constructed wetlands should be adopted. The ANOVA test for water quality parameters of RTWQM stations on the
river in West Bengal showed a significant difference in BOD, COD, TSS, turbidity, K, and water levels between the stations,
whereas no significant difference was observed in the other parameters. At the river stations, BOD showed a positive and
significant correlation with COD and K, DO with pH and chloride, temperature with TSS and turbidity, COD with TSS,
turbidity with TSS, and water level with turbidity. On the contrary, a negative and significant correlation of DO with

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 10

Table 1 | Descriptive statistics of RTWQM stations in Bihar on drains

Parameter BH 07 BH 09 BH 10 BH 11 Total

BOD (mg/L) 14.59–15.2 (14.93 + 19.11–26.81 (22.96 + 25.46–31.09 33.09–37.03 14.59–37.03 (25.58 +
0.24) 2.69) (29.32 + 2.49) (35.12 + 1.7) 7.9)
DO (mg/L) 0.32–1.6 (1.05 + 0.1–1.46 (0.83 + 0.54) 0.58–1.96 (0.96 + 0.57–1.53 (1.25 + 0.1–1.96 (1.02 + 0.48)
0.45) 0.57) 0.35)
EC (μs/cm) 719–1,116 875–1,003 (952.34 + 924–992 (968.84 + 1,053–1,187 719–1,187
(991.84 + 152.14) 47.02) 25.3) (1,114 + 55.78) (1,006.75 + 102.64)
pH 6.88–7.43 (7.06 + 6.85–7.46 (7.04 + 0.22) 6.86–7.4 (7.04 + 7–7 (7 + 0) 6.85–7.46 (7.04 +
0.2) 0.23) 0.18)
Temperature (°C) 19.4–29 (23.3 + 21.6–27.5 (23.89 + 22.2–28.8 (25.29 + 16.5–20 (18.15 + 16.5–29 (22.66 + 3.71)
3.85) 2.41) 2.41) 1.41)
Ammonia (mg/L) 4.98–17.71 (13.73 + 9.99–46.94 (19.91 + 7.26–13.93 8.91–16.65 4.98–46.94 (14.14 +
4.62) 13.76) (10.18 + 2.29) (12.74 + 3.21) 7.91)
Chloride (mg/L) 8.1–102.46 (32.16 + 10.7–19.2 (14.59 + 10–19.3 (13.87 + 5.1–33.8 (22.44 + 5.1–102.46 (20.76 +
35.18) 3.53) 3.78) 10.27) 18.84)
COD (mg/L) 63.3–80.98 (71.51 + 59.99–78.89 (65.55 + 106.96–119.22 94.51–107.8 59.99–119.22
5.88) 6.87) (111.31 + 5.63) (99.72 + 4.67) (87.02 + 20.21)
TSS (mg/L) 76.85–147.66 79.36–106.2 (93.44 + 89.88–128.69 166.09–231.05 76.85–231.05
(115.38 + 29.34) 9.19) (110.51 + 14.05) (186.58 + 22.59) (126.48 + 41.05)
Color (Hazen) 342.23–430.18 245.75–335.48 233.8–359.24 382–482 (424.98 + 233.8–482 (345.67 +
(379.44 + 31.92) (283.24 + 35.32) (295 + 58.59) 40.61) 72.27)
Nitrate (mg/L) 2–2.82 (2.26 + 0.34) 1.69–2.62 (2.15 + 0.37) 2.21–2.8 (2.56 + 2.23–3.51 (2.73 + 1.69–3.51 (2.43 +
0.28) 0.47) 0.42)
Potassium (mg/L) 8.2–11.2 (9.57 + 5.8–12.2 (9.4 + 2.45) 5.3–21.3 (11.24 + 5–5 (5 + 0) 5–21.3 (8.8 + 3.87)
1.16) 5.98)
Water level (cm) 108.4–143.69 113.36–124.04 106.09–122.49 25.01–25.01 25.01–143.69
(118.43 + 14.52) (117.71 + 4.59) (113.86 + 6.93) (25.01 + 0) (93.76 + 41.48)
WQI 350.20‒743.63 583.97‒1,761.32 567.55‒699.35 692.29‒889.77 350.20‒1,761.32
(599.55 + 134.13) (1,074.50 + 541.48) (623.86 + 43.22) (804.30 + 85.23) (775.56 + 230.00)
BOD/COD Ratio 0.18‒0.23 (0.21 + 0.32‒0.39 (0.35 + 0.03) 0.21‒0.29 (0.27 + 0.34‒0.36 (0.35 + 0.18‒0.39 (0.29 +
0.01) 0.03) 0.009) 0.066)

temperature, TSS and turbidity was observed. For the River Ganges across West Bengal, PCA showed three factors with
eigenvalues .1.0 and cumulative variability of 68.97%. Factor 1 with an eigenvalue of 3.01 explained 25.85% of the total
variance. Factor 1 showed strong positive loadings for temperature and TSS. This might be due to weathering of alluvial
soil and anthropogenic factors. Factor 2 with an eigenvalue of 2.640 explained a total variance of 23.76%, revealing positive
loadings for BOD, COD, and potassium. The pollution sources for Factor 2 could be untreated domestic sewage and indus-
trial effluent, agricultural runoff, and other anthropogenic sources. Factor 3 with an eigenvalue of 1.937 accounted for a total
variance of 19.36%, revealing positive loadings for EC, pH, and chloride (Table 6). This could be due to sea water intrusion
during high tide in the River Ganges. The average BOD-to-COD ratio for WB 05, WB 06, WB 10, WB 11, WB 21, WB 23,
and WB 27 was recorded to be 0.20, 0.31, 0.31, 0.29, 0.17, 0.23, and 0.24, respectively. Low BOD-to-COD ratio (,0.6) in the
lower stretch of the River Ganges was reported by Sarkar et al. (2007). High COD-to-BOD ratio (.4.5) was also reported by
Kanuri et al. (2020). This indicated the non-biodegradable nature of the lower stretch of the River Ganges. Although the
BOD-to-COD ratio is low, the ranges of BOD 1.86–5.68 (4.01 + 1.16) mg/L and COD 10.97–28.52 (15.95 + 3.33) mg/L
of the present study and somewhat similar ranges of BOD of 1.5–7 (2.79 + 1.18) mg/L and COD of 7–26 (12.7 +
4.12) mg/L reported by Kanuri et al. (2020), imply that the lower Ganges stretch is self-sustaining with regard to BOD
and COD. Despite receiving a lot of material fluxes including refractory organic waste from the drains, the findings of
the current study showed that the lower stretch of the River Ganges has marginal BOD and COD. This might be due to
the dilution and assimilation ability of the River Ganges, recurring upstream runoff, and tidal seawater intrusion.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 Table 2 | Descriptive statistics of RTWQM stations in West Bengal along the River Ganges

MoEF &CC
(2000) for
BIS WHO bathing
Parameter WB 05 WB 06 WB 10 WB 11 WB 21 WB 23 WB 27 Total (2012)) (2011) water
BOD (mg/L) 2.87–3.03 4.07–4.15 5.15–5.38 5.09–5.29 1.86–2.24 4.21–5.68 3.15–5.48 1.86–5.68 – – 3 mg/L or
(2.97 + 0.07) (4.11 + (5.26 + (5.14 + (2.1 + 0.13) (4.69 + 0.59) (3.78 + 0.93) (4.01 + 1.16) less
0.03) 0.09) 0.08)
DO (mg/L) 5.17–9.76 4.28–12.58 6.33–10.04 7.16–9.92 6.15–9.8 4.82–9.6 3.89–9.68 3.89–12.58 – – 5 mg/L or
(7.79 + 1.92) (8.4 + 2.65) (8.6 + 1.38) (8.79 + (7.46 + 1.31) (7.23 + 2.26) (7.05 + 2.37) (7.9 + 1.92) more
1.25)
EC (μs/cm) 365–402 310–417 304–387 0–0 (0 + 0) 372–412 373–386 374–404 304–417 – – –
(383.17 + (359.5 + (355.67 + (389.17 + (379.34 + (383.84 + (375.12 +
14.08) 40.4) 30.63) 14.12) 6.06) 10.78) 24.77)
pH 7.67–8.05 7.17–8.21 7.78–8.31 0–0 (0 + 0) 7.44–8.23 7.15–7.94 7.42–8 (7.81 + 7.15–8.31 6.5 to – 6.5 to 8.5
(7.87 + 0.16) (7.7 + 0.41) (7.99 + (7.85 + 0.27) (7.59 + 0.32) 0.22) (7.8 + 0.29) 8.5
0.19)
Temperature 18–27.3 18.1–27.4 17.7–27.8 18–27.6 18.9–28.9 18.7–29 18.7–29.5 (25 + 17.7–29.5 – – –

corrected Proof
(°C) (21.92 + 4.03) (21.94 + (22.15 + (22.29 + (23.59 + (23.62 + 4.28) (22.93 +
3.51) 4.05) 3.91) 4.06) 4.22) 3.87)
Ammonia 0.09–0.49 0.09–0.27 0.11–0.3 0–0 (0 + 0) 0.22–0.79 0.28–1.5 0.2–0.36 (0.28 + 0.09–1.5 – – –
(mg/L) (0.29 + 0.14) (0.19 + (0.21 + (0.45 + 0.25) (0.52 + 0.49) 0.07) (0.32 + 0.25)
0.07) 0.08)
Chloride 3.8–12.6 6–19.8 6–18.6 6.4–22.5 0–0 (0 + 0) 0–0 (0 + 0) 8–17.3 (11.19 + 3.8–22.5 250 200–300 –
(mg/L) (7.97 + 2.82) (11.02 + (10.99 + (12.22 + 3.35) (10.68 +
5.27) 4.73) 6.72) 4.67)
COD (mg/L) 13.56–16.82 12.85–13.7 16.26–17.8 17.56–18.41 10.97–14.88 16.84–28.52 13.91–21.14 10.97–28.52 – – –
(14.77 + 1.27) (13.13 + (16.94 + (17.79 + (12.54 + (20.6 + 4.67) (15.87 + 2.92) (15.95 +
0.31) 0.65) 0.32) 1.41) 3.33)
TSS (mg/L) 9.19–69.62 13.13–50.98 16.73–22.89 0–0 (0 + 0) 38.86–72.33 51.28–106.9 29.81–197.16 9.19–197.16 – – –
(33.9 + 24.31) (31.4 + (19.36 + (58.82 + (80.37 + (107.9 + (55.29 +
15.11) 2.52) 13.07) 22.59) 71.48) 43.9)
Turbidity 0–0 (0 + 0) 0–0 (0 + 0) 15.26–20.11 14.22–17.89 0–0 (0 + 0) 0–0 (0 + 0) 24.76–213.54 14.22–213.54 1 – –

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 11

(NTU) (17.07 + (16.03 + (89.18 + (40.76 +
1.69) 1.35) 72.37) 52.76)
Nitrate (mg/ 0.36–1.89 0.66–2.49 1.1–2.69 1.07–2.2 0.82–1.61 0.69–1.66 0.92–1.8 (1.28 + 0.36–2.69 45 50 –
L) (1.31 + 0.55) (1.59 + (1.83 + 0.6) (1.53 + (1.26 + 0.32) (1.17 + 0.37) 0.35) (1.43 + 0.51)
0.72) 0.42)
Potassium 1.6–3.3 (2.54 + 2.3–3.7 3.3–3.8 0–0 (0 + 0) 0–0 (0 + 0) 0–0 (0 + 0) 2.5–4.6 (3.89 + 1.6–4.6 (3.28 + – – –
(mg/L) 0.57) (3.07 + (3.62 + 0.2) 0.77) 0.74)
0.47)
Water level 205.08–283.29 500.86–627.2 31.8–106.2 0–0 (0 + 0) 0–0 (0 + 0) 0–0 (0 + 0) 154.51–427.92 31.8–627.2 – – –
(cm) (252.14 + (549.6 + (79.27 + (331.17 + (303.04 +
33.53) 54.41) 30.24) 114.02) 183.62)
WQI 50.44‒65.78 54.38‒64.84 69.51‒78.32 – 37.03‒61.93 67.12‒102.80 56.72‒84.49 37.03‒102.80 – – –
(57.46 + 5.88) (60.15 + (73.82 + (49.67 + (81.44 + (64.77 + (64.55 +
4.09) 3.22) 9.17) 13.84) 10.61) 4.11)
BOD/COD 0.17‒0.22 0.29‒0.32 0.29‒0.32 0.28‒0.29 0.13‒0.19 0.19‒0.25 0.23‒0.26 0.13‒0.32 – – –
Ratio (0.20 + 0.02) (0.31 + (0.31 + (0.28 + (0.17 + 0.02) (0.23 + 0.02) (0.24 + 0.01) (0.25 +
0.009) 0.01) 0.001) 0.054)
Range of 0-0 with an average 0 and standard deviation 0 represents respective sensors are not present in those locations.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 12

Table 3 | Descriptive statistics of RTWQM stations in West Bengal located on drains

Parameter WB 22 WB 24 WB 26 Total

BOD (mg/L) 16.71–18.4 (17.67 + 0.61) 3.27–19.71 (6.55 + 6.48) 2.84–4.74 (3.57 + 0.69) 2.84–19.71 (9.27 + 7.19)
DO (mg/L) 0.26–0.75 (0.46 + 0.17) 0.99–5.15 (3.57 + 1.62) 1.22–8.55 (3.05 + 2.82) 0.26–8.55 (2.36 + 2.26)
EC (μs/cm) 871–947 (898.34 + 26.88) 384–532 (490.84 + 53.98) 378–599 (503.34 + 71.38) 378–947 (630.84 + 201.2)
pH 6.77–7.61 (7.26 + 0.28) 3.4–7.91 (6.75 + 1.68) 6.92–7.56 (7.25 + 0.26) 3.4–7.91 (7.09 + 0.97)
Temperature (°C) 20–29.5 (24.67 + 3.63) 19.1–28.9 (23.6 + 3.98) 20.2–29 (24.45 + 3.55) 19.1–29.5 (24.24 + 3.53)
Ammonia (mg/L) 5.74–15.66 (10.38 + 3.56) 0.15–16.56 (4.13 + 6.22) 0.2–7.9 (4.48 + 2.5) 0.15–16.56 (6.33 + 5.06)
Chloride (mg/L) 11.8–80.4 (34.15 + 26.82) 6.7–19.7 (10.8 + 5.24) 1.1–19.7 (11.35 + 6.16) 1.1–80.4 (18.77 + 18.87)
COD (mg/L) 50.63–52.51 (51.72 + 0.75) 19.21–21.82 (20.36 + 0.93) 13.74–14.66 (14.11 + 0.32) 13.74–52.51 (28.73 +
16.95)
TSS (mg/L) 104.23–179.91 (138.35 + 23–60.76 (36.94 + 14.59) 38.39–144.75 (74.52 + 23–179.91 (83.27 + 50.92)
28.97) 38.13)
Color (Hazen) 263.48–477.56 (364.83 + 14.01–192.78 (88.48 + 70.57–162.38 (126.71 + 14.01–477.56 (193.34 +
88.84) 65.98) 41.44) 141.19)
Nitrate (mg/L) 1.14–2.34 (1.85 + 0.43) 0.66–1.89 (1.35 + 0.52) 0.44–2.08 (1.55 + 0.63) 0.44–2.34 (1.58 + 0.55)
Potassium (mg/L) 10.6–44.8 (17.99 + 13.24) 3.4–48.7 (11.47 + 18.26) 4.9–7.1 (5.84 + 0.84) 3.4–48.7 (11.77 + 13.26)
Water level (cm) 22.44–284.66 (133.16 + 247.6–449.9 (296.82 + 137.32–392.03 (226.64 + 22.44–449.9 (223.92 +
111.2) 76.48) 121.05) 118.61)
WQI 384.76‒686.05 (523.15 + 65.26‒590.42 (209.85 + 53.47‒298.68 (196.36 + 53.47‒686.06 (309.78 +
107.28) 195.63) 79.96) 60.46)
BOD/COD Ratio 0.33‒0.35 (0.34 + 0.008) 0.17‒0.23 (0.19 + 0.33) 0.21‒0.33 (0.25 + 0.04) 0.17‒0.35 (0.27 + 0.07)

Table 4 | Water quality rating as per Weight Arithmetic WQI method (Samantara et al. 2017: Mitra et al. 2018)

Water No. of samples of the No. of samples of No. of samples

WQI quality river across West the drains in West of drains in Bihar
value rating Grade Bengal (Total-36) Bengal (Total-18) (Total-24) Description

0–25 Excellent A Nil Nil Nil The water is fit for drinking without any
treatment
26–50 Good B 3 (8.33%) Nil Nil Only after disinfection may the water be
consumed.
51–75 Poor C 26 (72.22%) 3 (16.67%) Nil The water can be safe for drinking after
primary treatment followed by
disinfection
76–100 Very Poor D 6 (16.67%) Nil Nil Following primary and secondary
treatment, the water is safe to drink
.100 Unfit for E 1 (2.7%) 15 (83.33%) 24 (100%) Water can be utilized for drinking in the
drinking absence of other sources with
appropriate primary, secondary, as well
as tertiary and advanced water
treatments

Drains at West Bengal

The water quality of three major drains in West Bengal was measured using spectrolyser, ammolyser, condulyser, oxilyser and
water level sensor of RTWQM stations. The flow of Khardha nallah (WB 22) was 178.1 MLD with a toal discharge of
3,147.03 kg BOD per day into the River Ganges. Bally nallah (WB 24) discharged 7,100.20 kg of BOD per day into the

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 13

Table 5 | Rotated varimax PCA of the water quality parameter of drains in Bihar

Rotated component matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4

BOD 0.469 0.408 0.679 0.109

DO 0.494 0.228 0.230 0.377
EC 0.712 0.019 0.013 0.175
pH 0.169 0.790 0.070 0.083
Temperature 0.828 0.190 0.057 0.208
Ammonia 0.047 0.086 0.064 0.920
Chloride 0.215 0.201 0.863 0.149
COD 0.248 0.303 0.619 0.513
TSS 0.725 0.396 0.153 0.199
Nitrate 0.180 0.818 0.107 0.017
Potassium 0.839 0.258 0.009 0.082
Extraction method: PCA.
Rotation method: varimax with kaiser normalization.
a
Rotation converged in seven iterations.

Table 6 | Rotated varimax PCA of the water quality parameter of the River Ganges across West Bengal

Rotated component matrixa

Component
1 2 3

BOD 0.040 0.872 0.144

DO 0.826 0.005 0.449
EC 0.046 0.344 0.697
pH 0.262 0.274 0.731
Temperature 0.872 0.071 0.225
Ammonia 0.462 0.630 0.056
Chloride 0.100 0.403 0.643
COD 0.365 0.675 0.093
TSS 0.813 0.247 0.190
Nitrate 0.459 0.240 0.573
Potassium 0.314 0.723 0.216
Extraction method: PCA.
Rotation method: varimax with kaiser normalization.
a
Rotation converged in twelve iterations.

River Ganges. The flow of Chitpur nallah (WB 26) was 368.78 MLD, which discharged 1,316.54 kg of BOD per day into the
River Ganges. In West Bengal, these three major drains with a collective flow of 1,630.88 MLD discharged 11,563.77 kg of
BOD per day into the River Ganges.
The WQI of the drains located in West Bengal was found to vary from 53.47 to 686.06 with an average of 309.78 + 60.46.
Thus, it can be concluded that the drain water quality is severely hazardous, requiring to be treated properly by means of
interception and diversion to nearby sewage treatment plants before being discharged into the River Ganges. Interim

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 14

Table 7 | Rotated varimax PCA of the water quality parameter of drains in West Bengal

Rotated component matrixa

Component

1 2 3

BOD 0.861 0.177 0.185

DO 0.769 0.200 0.166
EC 0.961 0.103 0.142
pH 0.027 0.765  0.073
Temperature 0.085 0.835 0.058
Ammonia 0.626 0.088 0.119
Chloride 0.719 0.240  0.071
COD 0.930 0.152 0.145
TSS 0.667 0.450 0.459
Nitrate 0.271 0.040 0.854
Potassium 0.415 0.479  0.570
Extraction method: PCA.
Rotation method: varimax with kaiser normalization.
a
Rotation converged in six iterations.

measures such as in situ bioremediation, phytoremediation, dosing of biowizard, screening arrangement to stop the flow of
floating materials and solid waste, and chemical dosing may be carried out for these drains. The ANOVA test for water quality
parameters of the RTWQM stations on the drains in West Bengal showed a significant difference in BOD, DO, EC, NH3,
chloride, COD, TSS, and color between the stations, whereas no significant difference was observed in the other parameters.
In the West Bengal drain stations, BOD showed a positive and significant correlation with EC, COD, TSS, and color. On the
contrary, a negative and significant correlation of DO with BOD, EC, NH3-N, chloride, TSS, color, and water level was
observed. For drains across West Bengal, PCA showed three factors with eigenvalues .1.0 and cumulative variability of
72.83%. Factor 1 with an eigenvalue of 4.90 explained 44.54% of the total variance. Factor 1 showed strong positive loadings
for BOD and COD. This could be attributed to untreated domestic sewage and industrial effluent. Factor 2 with an eigenvalue
of 1.86 explained a total variance of 16.93%, revealing positive loadings for pH. Factor 3 with an eigenvalue of 1.250
accounted for a total variance of 11.36%, revealing positive loadings for nitrate and TSS (Table 7). Factors 2 and 3 could
be attributed to siltation, agricultural runoff, and other anthropogenic factors. The average BOD-to-COD ratio for WB 22,
WB 24, and WB 26 was observed to be 0.34, 0.19, and 0.25, respectively.
Spatial distribution mapping visualizes spatial water quality differences at various RTWQM locations. Arc GIS 10.5
software was used for preparation of such maps using the kriging interpolation technique. Kriging uses autocorrelation to explain
surface variation, incorporating statistical analysis, variogram model, and variance surface exploration (Sahoo et al. 2021).
Spatial distribution plots for BOD, DO, COD, EC, pH, WQI, and BOD/COD ratio are presented in Figures 8–14. Spatial distri-
bution plots for ammonia, chloride, nitrate, potassium, temperature, and TSS are given in Supplementary material, Figures S1–
S6.

Advantage of RTWQMS measurements

Based on our project experience, it is noted that RTWQMS measurements may be more useful because of the following
facts:

• Instantaneous data access: real-time systems deliver immediate data, facilitating prompt identification of concerns such
as contamination or alterations in water quality. This immediacy is essential for prompt interventions and decision
making.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 15

• Continuous monitoring: automated systems can continuously assess water quality, whereas manual monitoring is
generally conducted at predetermined intervals. Continuous data collection ensures the timely detection and resolution
of fluctuations and transitory events. Manual tests are prone to human error and variability in sample handling and
preservation.
• Data trends and analysis: real-time systems facilitate the storage and analysis of data across time, allowing for trend analysis
and prediction insights. This aids in comprehending trends, predicting prospective problems, and facilitating data-driven
decisions.

Figure 8 | Spatial distribution of BOD along the lower stretch of the River Ganges and its connected drains.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 16

Figure 9 | Spatial distribution of DO along the lower stretch of the River Ganges and its connected drains.

• Alerts and notifications: numerous real-time systems incorporate alert mechanisms that promptly inform operators of
abnormalities or threshold violations, facilitating a swifter response to possible issues.
• Remote monitoring: real-time systems provide remote oversight and administration, enabling the assessment and manage-
ment of water quality from different locations, hence enhancing accessibility and flexibility.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 17

Figure 10 | Spatial distribution of COD along the lower stretch of the River Ganges and its connected drains.

CONCLUSION
In this study, RTWQM systems are used for measuring the water quality. There are five types of sensors installed in RTWQM
stations, namely, spectrolyzers, ammolyzers, condulyzers, oxilyzers, and water level sensors. The spectrolyzer measures tur-
bidity, nitrate, COD, BOD, TSS, and color. The ammolyzer measures NH3-N, pH, chloride, potassium, and fluoride. The

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 18

Figure 11 | Spatial distribution of EC along the lower stretch of the River Ganges and its connected drains.

condulyzer measures conductivity and temperature. The oxilyzer measures the concentration of DO. Also, the water level
sensor measures the water level. These sensors measure the water quality continuously and remotely on a real-time basis,
which is significantly different from manual monitoring, which is conducted at predetermined intervals following the stan-
dard methods of sampling, storage, preservation, analysis, and result documentation. The current investigation shows that
Kurzi nallah (BH 07), Rajapur nallah (BH 09), Mandir nallah (BH 10), and Anta ghat nallah (BH 11) were discharging a

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 19

Figure 12 | Spatial distribution of pH along the lower stretch of the River Ganges and its connected drains.

total of 377.98 MLD wastewater carrying 8,985.17 kg of BOD per day into the River Ganges. Khardha nallah (WB 22), Bally
nallah (WB 24), and Chitpur nallah (WB 26) with a cumulative flow of 1,630.88 MLD discharge 11,563.77 kg of BOD per day
into the River Ganges. The water quality of these drains was extremely hazardous. The average BOD-to-COD ratio for WB 05,
WB 06, WB 10, WB 11, WB 21, WB 23, and WB 27 was recorded to be 0.20, 0.31, 0.31, 0.29, 0.17, 0.23, and 0.24, respectively.
The low BOD-to-COD ratio (,0.6) in the lower stretch of the River Ganges indicated the water is non-biodegradable and

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 20

Figure 13 | Spatial distribution of the WQI along the lower stretch of the River Ganges and its connected drains.

cannot be effectively treated biologically. A DO of .6 mg/L recorded across all seven locations along the River Ganga and its
two tributaries implies the river is healthy with respect to DO. The drinking water quality of the River Ganges is found com-
pliant with pH, chloride, and nitrate except for turbidity; however, the average WQI of the River Ganges was observed to be
64.55, which is 14.55 rating points higher than the good category as only 8.33% samples were good and the rest of the samples
belonged to the poor (72.22%) and the very poor (16.67%) categories. The average DO and pH values were compliant with

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 21

Figure 14 | Spatial distribution of the BOD-to-COD ratio along the lower stretch of the River Ganges and its connected drains.

the bathing water quality standards at all locations tested along the River Ganga and its two tributaries; however, the average
BOD values at five monitoring points were slightly above the bathing water quality standard. Therefore, the water quality of
the lower stretch of the River Ganges could be suitable for bathing if the drains discharging sewage can be tapped. The out-
come of the study can help the regulators and policymakers to develop pollution mitigation strategies and action plans for
better water resource management of the River Ganges.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 22

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for the support in carrying out this project. The offi-
cials of the CPCB Regional Directorate, Kolkata, are truly acknowledged. The authors are also thankful to the National
Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG) for the support in undertaking the study.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION
B.P.S. and G.K.C. performed the field visits, sampling, calibration, and monitoring of the RTWQM stations. B.P.S. wrote the
article. All authors reviewed, edited, and approved the final article.

DECLARATION OF COMPETING INTEREST

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare there is no conflict.

REFERENCES

Abdalla, K. Z. & Hammam, G. (2014) Correlation between biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand for various
wastewater treatment plants in Egypt to obtain the biodegradability indices, International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied
Research, 13 (1), 42–48.
Ali, S. Y., Sunar, S., Saha, P., Mukherjee, P., Saha, S. & Dutta, S. (2021) Drinking water quality assessment of river Ganga in West Bengal,
India through integrated statistical and GIS techniques, Water Science and Technology, 84 (10–11), 2997–3017.
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). (2012) Indian Standard IS: 10500. Drinking Water Specification, Second Revision. New Delhi: Bureau of
Indian Standards.
Conaway, C. (2015). The Ganga River is dying under the weight of modern India. Newsweek. Available at: https://www.newsweek.com/
2015/10/02/ganges-riverdying-under-weight-modern-india-375347.
Dubey, I. (2020) Heavy metal pollution of river Ganga: A review. , International Journal of Geography, Geology and Environment, 2 (2),
136–147.
Dutta, V., Dubey, D. & Kumar, S. (2020) Cleaning the River Ganga: Impact of lockdown on water quality and future implications on river
rejuvenation strategies, Science of the Total Environment, 15 (743), 140756.
Horton, R. K. (1965). An index number system for rating water quality. Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation), 37 (3), 300–306.
Kanuri, V. V., Saha, R., Raghuvanshi, S. P., Singh, A. K., Chakraborty, B. D., Kumar, V. K., Mohapatra, S. C., Vidyarthi, A. K., Sudhakar, A. &
Saxena, R. C. (2020) Sewage fluxes and seasonal dynamics of physicochemical characteristics of the Bhagirathi-Hooghly River from the
lower stretch of River Ganges, India, Chemistry and Ecology, 36 (1), 30–47.
Khan, M. Y. A., Tian, F., Hasan, F. & Chakrapani, G. J. (2019) Artificial neural network simulation for prediction of suspended sediment
concentration in the River Ramganga, Ganges Basin, India, International Journal of Sediment Research, 34 (2), 95–107.
Kumar, A., Mishra, S., Taxak, A. K., Pandey, R. & Yu, Z. G. (2020) Nature rejuvenation: Long-term (1989–2016) vs short-term memory
approach based appraisal of water quality of the upper part of Ganga River, India, Environmental Technology & Innovation, 1 (20),
101164.
Lkr, A., Singh, M. R. & Puro, N. (2020) Assessment of water quality status of Doyang river, Nagaland, India, using water quality index,
Applied Water Science, 10 (1), 1–3.
Matta, G., Naik, P. K., Machell, J., Kumar, A., Gjyli, L., Tiwari, A. K. & Kumar, A. (2018) Comparative study on seasonal variation in hydro-
chemical parameters of Ganga River water using comprehensive pollution index (CPI) at Rishikesh (Uttarakhand) India. Desalination
and Water Treatment, 118, 87–95.
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). (2000) Primary Water Quality Criteria for Bathing Purposes. New Delhi:
Government of India.
Mitra, S., Ghosh, S., Satpathy, K. K., Bhattacharya, B. D., Sarkar, S. K., Mishra, P. & Raja, P. (2018) Water quality assessment of the
ecologically stressed Hooghly River Estuary, India: A multivariate approach, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 1 (126), 592–599.
Nong, X., Shao, D., Zhong, H. & Liang, J. (2020) Evaluation of water quality in the south-to-North water diversion project of China using the
water quality index (WQI) method, Water Research, 1 (178), 115781.
Panigrahi, A. K. & Pattnaik, S. (2019) A review on pollution status of river Bhagirathi-Hooghly in the stretch of West Bengal, India,
IndianJournal of Applied Research, 9 (8), 53–57.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest
 corrected Proof

Water Science & Technology Vol 00 No 0, 23

Panwar, S., Yang, S., Srivastava, P., Khan, M. Y. A., Sangode, S. J. & Chakrapani, G. J. (2020) Environmental magnetic characterization of the
Alaknanda and Ramganga river sediments, Ganga basin, India, Clean-Soil, Air, Water, 190, 104529.
Pinto, M. M., Ordens, C. M., de Melo, M. T., Inácio, M., Almeida, A., Pinto, E. & da Silva, E. A. (2020) An inter-disciplinary approach to
evaluate human health risks due to long-term exposure to contaminated groundwater near a chemical complex, Exposure and Health,
12 (2), 199–214.
Sahoo, B. P. & Sahu, H. B. (2022) Assessment of metal pollution in surface water using pollution indices and multivariate statistics: A case
study of Talcher coalfield area, India, Applied Water Science, 12 (9), 1–9.
Sahoo, B. P., Sahu, H. B. & Pradhan, D. S. (2021) Hydrogeochemistry and surface water quality assessment of IB valley coalfield area, India,
Applied Water Science, 11 (9), 1–27.
Samanta, S. (2013) Metal and pesticide pollution scenario in Ganga River system, Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 16 (4),
454–464.
Samantara, M. K., Padhi, R. K., Sowmya, M., Kumaran, P. & Satpathy, K. K. (2017) Heavy metal contamination, major ion chemistry and
appraisal of the groundwater status in coastal aquifer, Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, India, Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 1 (5),
49–58.
Sarkar, S. K., Saha, M., Takada, H., Bhattacharya, A., Mishra, P. & Bhattacharya, B. (2007) Water quality management in the lower stretch of
the river Ganges, east coast of India: An approach through environmental education, Journal of Cleaner Production, 15 (16), 1559–1567.
Sarkar, D. J., Sarkar, S. D., Das, B. K., Manna, R. K., Behera, B. K. & Samanta, S. (2019) Spatial distribution of meso and microplastics in the
sediments of river Ganga at eastern India, Science of the Total Environment, 694, 133712.
Singh, M. J., Biswas, M. K. & Vidyarthi, A. K. (2018) Drains contaminate Ganges, International Journal of Research in Environmental
Science, 4 (3), 30–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.20431/2454-9444.0403004.
Singh, V., Nagpoore, N. K., Jaichand & Lehri, A. (2020) Monitoring and assessment of pollution load in surface water of River Ganga around
Kanpur, India: A study for suitability of this water for different uses, Environmental Technology & Innovation, 18, 100676. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.eti.2020.100676.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2011) Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 4th edn. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Wunderlin, D. A., Dias, M. P., Amemaria, V., Pesce, S. F., Hued, A. C. & Bistoni, M. A. (2001) Pattern recognition techniques for the
evaluation of spatial and temporal variations in water quality. A case study: Suquia river basin cordoba-Argentina, Water Research,
35 (12), 2881–2289.

First received 19 August 2024; accepted in revised form 25 September 2024. Available online 14 October 2024

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wst.2024.342/1493544/wst2024342.pdf

by guest