This study aims to evaluate the current water quality status of the Dhaleshwari River, considering seasonal variations, and identify potential pollution sources using physicochemical parameters, multivariate statistical analysis, and the water quality index (WQI) method. Sampling was conducted at six locations along the Dhaleshwari River from January 2021 to April 2022, encompassing both dry and wet seasons. Eleven physicochemical parameters were tested following standard procedures. The calculated WQI values demonstrated that the overall water quality of the Dhaleshwari River is very poor (264.7 ± 64.5). Seasonal variation in water quality was significant, with the worst quality (305.7 ± 54.3) observed during the dry season; however, water quality during the wet season was also unsatisfactory (223.6 ± 46.3). Geospatial analysis shows the distribution of water quality in the study locations. Principal components analysis was performed for source appointment, which indicated that direct wastewater discharge from surrounding industries, particularly tanneries, as well as municipal wastewater, were the major pollution sources. In conclusion, this study sheds light on the deteriorating water quality of the Dhaleshwari River due to industrialization and human activities. The findings underscore the urgent need for interventions to mitigate pollution sources and improve the overall health of the river ecosystem.

  • Assessed Dhaleshwari River water quality seasonally.

  • Water quality is consistently poor, worst during the dry season.

  • Most physicochemical parameters exceeded standards.

  • Multivariate analysis indicates tanneries and surface runoff as key pollution sources.

Water stands as a fundamental necessity supporting all life forms, encompassing humans, animals, and plants. Beyond sustenance, it serves as an indispensable resource, driving industrial and economic advancement. Its pivotal roles span ecological significance, industrial utility, and urban development, making it an essential consideration in sustainable global progress (Razo et al. 2004; Uddin et al. 2015).

Rivers function as the central water supply for domestic, industrial, and agricultural needs. However, they face pollution challenges, carrying significant municipal, industrial, and agricultural contaminants due to direct sewage discharge and surface runoff from rainfall (Hu et al. 2012; Mustapha et al. 2013; Wu et al. 2018). Geological and hydrological features, coupled with seasonal fluctuations, play a vital role in shaping pollutant concentrations in rivers. These factors control precipitation patterns, river flow rates, surface runoff, and groundwater movement, often facilitating the dispersal of pollutants (Vega et al. 1998; Shrestha & Kazama 2007). Due to the complex interplay among primary and secondary pollution sources and climatic components, it becomes challenging to assess the water quality of a river and identify possible pollution sources. Consequently, this poses a threat to meeting the water demand of an ever-growing population, particularly for drinking purposes, as freshwater resources become increasingly scarce (Cheng et al. 2009; Vörösmarty et al. 2010; Wu et al. 2018) in developing countries like Bangladesh.

Bangladesh is a riverine country. It has a rich historical past where waterways played an integral role in fostering human settlements and augmenting regional development. In recent years, the country has witnessed unprecedented industrialization, thereby achieving one of the highest economic growth rates in South Asia. With a predominant number of industries established along the river banks, primarily due to the convenience of water transportation and usage, it is imperative to note that the accelerating industrialization, unregulated urbanization, and poorly executed development plans have resulted in severe environmental degradation of the rivers. Consequently, the once revered and cherished lifeline of the nation has now transformed into a grave national concern, primarily due to the detrimental impact of water pollution (Akter 2014; Şener et al. 2017; Aminul Ahsan 2018).

In Bangladesh, industries are obligated to establish an effluent treatment plant (ETP) to treat wastewater before discharge into surface waters, and adherence to the regulations governing effluent discharge is essential (Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh Ministry of Environment & Forest 1997). However, only a few have implemented such facilities. Furthermore, it is important to note that the intermittent operation of certain ETPs primarily serves the purpose of placating foreign buyers or expediting the acquisition of an environmental clearance certificate from the Department of Environment (Mortula & Rahaman 2002; Akter 2014). Considering the fact that the majority of the country's economic and industrial sectors are situated in the central region, the adverse effects on the rivers in that vicinity are formidable.

The Dhaleshwari River, traversing the central region of Bangladesh, holds paramount economic significance and plays a pivotal role in the country's socio-economic aspects (Hasan et al. 2020). Nearly one-third of the nation's manufacturing facilities are located in Dhaka and its surrounding regions, including Keraniganj, Savar, and Narayanganj, which are situated near the Dhaleshwari River (Hassan et al. 2020). Owing to its geographical location, the river endures a substantial influx of pollutants originating from domestic sewage, municipal discharge, agricultural runoff, and the region's robust urban and industrial activities (Ahmed et al. 2009; Wahiduzzaman et al. 2022a, b). Moreover, the river's contamination is augmented by the discharge of effluent from the Hemayetpur tannery industries and Keraniganj BSCIC (Bangladesh Small and Cottage Industries Corporation) industrial zone, both of which are situated proximate to the river (Mohanta et al. 2019). In previous years, untreated effluents originating from the Hazaribagh tannery industrial area were directly discharged into the Buriganga River. This resulted in severe pollution, leading to the river being recognized as the most polluted in the country (Alam 2003; Mohanta et al. 2019). However, upon realizing the detrimental impact of tannery waste on both human health and the environment, the Bangladesh Government acted to relocate the Hazaribagh Tannery Complex to Horindhora, Savar, adjacent to the Dhaleshwari River in 2017. This decision aimed to safeguard the Buriganga River (Akter et al. 2019; Wahiduzzaman et al. 2022a, b). From that point onward, the tanneries, in addition to numerous other anthropogenic activities, have been causing a significant decline in the water quality of the Dhaleshwari River.

Various studies were published concerning the water quality of the Dhaleshwari River. However, a significant portion of the literature dates back considerably, rendering it inadequate in capturing the current state of the river. This deficiency is particularly pronounced due to the alarming and rapid degradation of the river's water quality after the establishment of tanneries in the vicinity. Islam et al. (2012) studied the water quality in the Dhaleshwari River during the period from June 2011 to May 2012 in the monsoon, post-monsoon, and pre-monsoon seasons. Real et al. (2017) conducted a study on the Dhaleshwari River from April to June 2015 with physiochemical parameters and biological indicators. The study did not investigate the seasonal variation of water quality. Aminul Ahsan (2018) conducted at the three selected locations of the Dhaleshwari River from March to May 2016 for physicochemical parameters and heavy metals. Hasan et al. (2020) determined the water quality of the Dhaleshwari River at the effluent discharge point from the central ETP of the tannery industrial area. Islam et al. (2021) investigated the water quality of the Dhaleshwari River within the close distance point of the Saver tannery industry area and made a comparison with the other similar regional rivers, but the study did not show any seasonal variation. Given the limited existing data and potential for seasonal fluctuations, a comprehensive investigation is warranted to assess the water quality status of the Dhaleshwari River. This assessment should encompass seasonal variations and employ robust methods to identify potential sources of contamination.

Considering this, the primary objectives of this study encompass an evaluation of the contemporary water quality status of the Dhaleshwari River across a vast catchment area and an identification of prospective sources of pollution. The study was predicated on 11 physicochemical parameters procured from 6 sampling locations, which included both dry and wet seasons, thereby enabling an investigation of seasonal variations. The water quality status was simplified and categorized using the water quality index (WQI) model. Additionally, the present study endeavors to determine potential sources of pollution through the implementation of multivariate statistical analyses, such as correlation matrix, principal component analysis (PCA), and cluster analysis (CA) along with geospatial analysis. The ramifications of this study are far-reaching, as they stand to be instrumental in informing policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders about the development of effective strategies aimed at enhancing the water quality of the Dhaleshwari River, thereby safeguarding the health and well-being of the surrounding communities.

Study area

The Dhaleshwari River is a tributary of the Jamuna River, which spans 160 km (99 miles) and traverses the central region of Bangladesh (23°59′42.0″ N, 90°13′19.2″ E). It originates at the Jamuna, adjacent to the northwest corner of the Tangail district. The river was then subsequently divided into two branches: the north branch retains the name Dhaleshwari, while the other is named Kaliganga. These two branches reunite again in the southern part of the Manikganj district (Figure 1). Near Fatulla, Narayanganj District, the Buriganga River merges with the Dhaleshwari River, and then the united flow meets the Shitalakshya River. Traveling further south, this combined river system meets the Meghna River. Like most rivers in the country, the Dhaleshwari River appears to have a high-water flow during the rainy season (July–October) due to the heavy rainfall during that time, whereas it experiences very low water levels and a stagnant condition during the dry season (December–April).
Figure 1

Study area map with sampling stations in Dhaleshwari River, Bangladesh.

Figure 1

Study area map with sampling stations in Dhaleshwari River, Bangladesh.

Close modal

Water samples were collected from six sampling sites within the range of about 50 km of the river consisting of the main industrial settlement, including BSCIC Tannery industrial state, BSCIC Industrial State, Keraniganj, as well as the converging point of the Buriganga River.

Sampling methods

Water sampling has been carried out both during the wet and dry seasons from January 2021 to April 2022 at the six sampling stations (Table 1). In each station, samples were collected six times in each season. Water samples were collected from midstream by dipping sample bottles at 15–30 cm below the water surface in acid-pre-washed plastic 500 mL sample bottles which were then rinsed with distilled water and dried in the oven. During sample collection, bottles were washed several times with the sample. Samples were preserved at 4 °C until analysis. All the parameters were tested in the laboratory within 48 h, except biological oxygen demand (BOD5) which was analyzed with a period of 5 days. Water sample collection, preservation, and analysis were conducted following standard procedures (APHA 2005).

Table 1

Location of sampling stations

Sampling stationSampling area nameLatitudeLongitude
BSCIC Tannery Industrial State, Dhaleshwari River, Hemayetpur, Savar 23°47′16.7″ N 90°14′30.3″ E 
Near Hazratpur Bridge, Dhaleshwari River 23°45′17.0″ N 90°15′19.0″ E 
Alinagar, Hazratpur, Dhaleshwari River 23°43′47.5″ N 90°15′24.0″ E 
Rohitpur, Dhaleshwari River (near BSCIC Industrial State, Keraniganj) 23°39′47.4″ N 90°18′22.0″ E 
Pathorghata, Dhaleshwari River 23°38′07.1″ N 90°22′02.3″ E 
Mukterpur, Munshigonj 23°34′20.0″ N 90°30′45.3″ E 
Sampling stationSampling area nameLatitudeLongitude
BSCIC Tannery Industrial State, Dhaleshwari River, Hemayetpur, Savar 23°47′16.7″ N 90°14′30.3″ E 
Near Hazratpur Bridge, Dhaleshwari River 23°45′17.0″ N 90°15′19.0″ E 
Alinagar, Hazratpur, Dhaleshwari River 23°43′47.5″ N 90°15′24.0″ E 
Rohitpur, Dhaleshwari River (near BSCIC Industrial State, Keraniganj) 23°39′47.4″ N 90°18′22.0″ E 
Pathorghata, Dhaleshwari River 23°38′07.1″ N 90°22′02.3″ E 
Mukterpur, Munshigonj 23°34′20.0″ N 90°30′45.3″ E 

Sample analysis

Dissolved oxygen (DO), conductivity, total dissolved solids (TDS), and pH were measured instantly on the spot with a HACH 40d multi-parameter. Analysis of chemical oxygen demand (COD), total alkalinity, total suspended solids (TSS), and chloride was carried out using a Shimadzu 1900 UV–visible spectrophotometer according to the standard procedure (APHA 2005). Measurement of BOD5 was carried out with HACH BOD TRAK II placed within an incubator operated at 20 °C. Turbidity was measured by a HACH 2100Q turbidity meter.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis and data visualization were conducted using R programming, Graph Pad Prism-8, and Microsoft Excel-16. Analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) was used to determine the statistically significant differences among sampling stations. t-test was conducted to evaluate the significant seasonal variation. Pearson product-moment correlation was performed to evaluate the interaction between the tested parameters with statistical significance. A map of the study area and sampling locations was generated in ESRI ArcMap 10.5 software.

Multivariate statistical analysis

In this study, various multivariate statistical techniques, including correlation coefficient analysis (CCA), CA, and PCA, are used to facilitate the interpretation of complex data matrices to identify the possible sources of pollutants and their influence on water quality (Lee et al. 2001; Wunderlin et al. 2001; Reghunath et al. 2002; Simeonova et al. 2006; Nagaraju et al. 2014; Dossou et al. 2021). All the multivariate analyses were carried out using R Studio desktop (V-2022.12.0-353). PCA is a multivariate statistical tool that is used to combine complex input variables with large amounts of information into new, uncorrelated variables that are called principal components. CA, represented by a dendrogram, was conducted to differentiate the sampling locations into groups depending on the similarities of parameters in samples and the similar sources of origin.

Water quality index

The WQI is a method that combines multiple physical, chemical, and biological water quality parameters into a single dimensionless number by normalizing values (Miller et al. 1986), which was developed by Fed (1965). It helps the general public and policymakers easily understand the water's quality. The WQI calculation has been carried out by the ‘weighted arithmetic index’ method, which is similar to Horton's index and developed by Brown et al. (1970). The WQI model and Equations (1)–(5) are based on the relative weight of each water quality parameter and have been widely applied in European, African, and Asian countries for the assessment of water quality of the ground and surface water (Yisa & Jimoh 2010; Tyagi et al. 2020; Ram et al. 2021; Rahman & Habiba 2023).

The weighted arithmetic index for WQI is expressed by the following equation:
(1)
where n is the number of variables or parameters, Qi is the quality rating scale of the ith water quality parameter, and Wi is the relative weight of the ith water quality parameter.
The relative weight (Wi) for each parameter is calculated using the formula:
(2)
where Si is the recommended standard value for the ith parameters, K is a proportional constant and calculated by using the following equation:
(3)
The quality rating scale for each parameter Qi is calculated by using the equation as given below:
(4)
where V0 is the observed value of the ith parameter, Vi is the ideal value of the ith parameter in pure water, and Si is the recommended standard permissible value for the ith parameter. All the ideal values (Vi) are considered zero, except for pH (Vi = 7) and DO (Vi = 14.6 mg/L). The quality rating for pH and DO is calculated using the following formula:
(5)

Table 2 shows the classification of water quality based on the WQI value.

Table 2

Classification of water quality according to WQI (Jerome & Pius 2010; Yisa & Jimoh 2010; Howladar et al. 2021)

WQI valueWater quality
<50 Excellent 
50–100 Good 
100–200 Poor 
200–300 Very poor 
>300 Unsuitable for use without proper treatment 
WQI valueWater quality
<50 Excellent 
50–100 Good 
100–200 Poor 
200–300 Very poor 
>300 Unsuitable for use without proper treatment 

Distribution of the physical parameters and seasonal fluctuations

pH values of water collected at various sampling stations and during different seasons of the year were found to range from 6.12 to 8.8 and 6.5 to 8 in the dry and wet seasons, respectively (Table 3). The maximum and minimum values were recorded at stations S3 and S6 consecutively in the dry season. A statistically significant variation was observed among sampling stations (ANOVA, p < 0.01), while no significant seasonal variation was found (t-test, p > 0.05). The pH of most samples found within the DoE (Department of Environment, Bangladesh) standard (6.5–8.5) for drinking purposes and healthy aquatic life, except for samples from S3, S4, and S6 in the dry season. High fluctuations in pH values are shown in almost all locations in the dry season except S5 in contrast to the wet months (Figure 2(a)). In a separate study (Hasan et al. 2020), the pH range was reported as 7.0–8.0 in the river.
Table 3

The physiochemical parameters of river water samples, comprising dry and wet seasons, are summarized as the mean, standard deviation, maximum value, and minimum value for the six sampling stations in the Dhaleshwari River

ParametersSampling pointsDry season
Wet season
DoE standard for drinkingDoE standard for agricultureDoE standard for recreational activities
MeanMaximumMinimumMeanMaximumMinimum
pH S1 7.80.5 8.15 6.97 7.50.6 7.9 6.55 6.5–8.5 6.5–8.5 6.5–8.5 
S2 7.50.4 8.2 7.30.3 7.5 6.8 
S3 7.90.5 8.8 7.2 7.60.3 7.26 
S4 7.90.5 8.7 7.5 7.60.3 7.2 
S5 7.40.2 7.8 7.3 7.20.5 7.7 6.5 
S6 7.10.4 7.5 6.12 7.20.4 7.72 6.55 
EC S1 1,199.4 1,550 945.5 198.535.1 241 158 1,200 – – 
S2 494.677.3 550 326 156.553.2 236 126 
S3 555.779.6 648 439 286.9181.3 520 124.1 
S4 528.799.39 698 440 246.4150 482 130 
S5 591.5167.9 808 398 143.513.3 152 124 
S6 467.8111.9 644 312 196.595.5 401 103 
DO S1 2.4 4.3 1.3 5.40.9 6.61 4.54 – 
S2 6.71.8 10 4.8 6.41.1 5.5 
S3 4.82.4 7.2 1.2 5.81.7 7.8 2.8 
S4 42.66 1.61 6.21.8 7.9 2.4 
S5 5.11.8 2.5 4.80.5 5.2 
S6 2.42.0 5.3 0.4 3.81.5 5.3 2.1 
TDS S1 588150.2 845 459.33 88.711.8 102 79.5 1,000 1,000 1,000 
S2 281.317.9 299 253 113.356.2 191 70 
S3 291.637.5 332 219 156.6103.6 295 65.1 
S4 292.550.5 356 220 130.186.4 284 68.2 
S5 292.587.7 411 199 69.93.4 72.3 65 
S6 246.665.4 350 165 137.686.1 308 78 
TSS S1 28.814.6 47 16 57.519.9 78 39 10 – – 
S2 13.628 178.6 25 4.8 
S3 21.115 47 10 34.726.6 77 
S4 22.715.7 45 63.255.9 151 
S5 246.5 32 16 27.317.7 48 
S6 34.920.9 80 10 56.939.3 121 20 
TS S1 607.2153 870 469 139.527.8 178 114 – – – 
S2 280.443.6 316 192 96.634.1 143.1 61 
S3 325.659 440 257 197.5101.9 309 69.1 
S4 309.760.30 401 253 216.8128.6 470 80.2 
S5 316.581.3 427 231 91.912.6 100 77.3 
S6 279.373.6 392 195 163.756 241 106 
Turbidity S1 8.42.8 11 4.6 52.823.7 78 31.9 – – 
S2 10.85.9 23 4.2 30.631 72 11.2 
S3 34.427.3 77.5 8.2 27.527.7 76 9.81 
S4 41.239.11 117 11.4 131.2224.5 530 11.4 
S5 16.72.9 19.2 13.9 35.217.3 47.4 23 
S6 69.456.5 170 13.8 76.058.8 144 18 
BOD5 S1 15 23.3 10.73 3.30.8 4.2 2.2 ≤ 2 ≤ 12 ≤ 3 
S2 9.15.2 16 8.318.5 46 
S3 124.9 22 9.73.1 14 
S4 10.51.76 13 8.914 
S5 10.51.9 12 73.5 12 
S6 124.3 18 10.46.3 22 
COD S1 40.919.4 65 21 10.81.8 12.5 10 100 10 
S2 23.913.6 39 22.55.3 30 18 
S3 3914.7 70 22 3215.2 56 15 
S4 33.58.62 46 24 27.615.8 58 6.3 
S5 29.57.5 36 22 19.813.3 39 10 
S6 4222.8 90 20 40.426.9 21.5 10 
Chloride S1 82.218 110 68 5.41.8 250 – – 
S2 24.511 45 14 7.92.3 11 
S3 43.428.1 98 18 23.621.9 70 
S4 46.528.4 101 21 14.410.8 32 
S5 37.59.1 50 28 15.411.2 32 7.5 
S6 39.713.4 54 12 11.88.1 30 
Total alkalinity S1 280.455.8 340.66 230 142.751.8 220 112 150 – – 
S2 19690.5 324 66 7241.1 129 31 
S3 204.971.1 281 101 13094.8 281 21 
S4 218.761.5 280 102 121.7103 281 24 
S5 13550 210 110 101.5104.6 256 24 
S6 138.853.1 254 88 77.723.3 106 29 
ParametersSampling pointsDry season
Wet season
DoE standard for drinkingDoE standard for agricultureDoE standard for recreational activities
MeanMaximumMinimumMeanMaximumMinimum
pH S1 7.80.5 8.15 6.97 7.50.6 7.9 6.55 6.5–8.5 6.5–8.5 6.5–8.5 
S2 7.50.4 8.2 7.30.3 7.5 6.8 
S3 7.90.5 8.8 7.2 7.60.3 7.26 
S4 7.90.5 8.7 7.5 7.60.3 7.2 
S5 7.40.2 7.8 7.3 7.20.5 7.7 6.5 
S6 7.10.4 7.5 6.12 7.20.4 7.72 6.55 
EC S1 1,199.4 1,550 945.5 198.535.1 241 158 1,200 – – 
S2 494.677.3 550 326 156.553.2 236 126 
S3 555.779.6 648 439 286.9181.3 520 124.1 
S4 528.799.39 698 440 246.4150 482 130 
S5 591.5167.9 808 398 143.513.3 152 124 
S6 467.8111.9 644 312 196.595.5 401 103 
DO S1 2.4 4.3 1.3 5.40.9 6.61 4.54 – 
S2 6.71.8 10 4.8 6.41.1 5.5 
S3 4.82.4 7.2 1.2 5.81.7 7.8 2.8 
S4 42.66 1.61 6.21.8 7.9 2.4 
S5 5.11.8 2.5 4.80.5 5.2 
S6 2.42.0 5.3 0.4 3.81.5 5.3 2.1 
TDS S1 588150.2 845 459.33 88.711.8 102 79.5 1,000 1,000 1,000 
S2 281.317.9 299 253 113.356.2 191 70 
S3 291.637.5 332 219 156.6103.6 295 65.1 
S4 292.550.5 356 220 130.186.4 284 68.2 
S5 292.587.7 411 199 69.93.4 72.3 65 
S6 246.665.4 350 165 137.686.1 308 78 
TSS S1 28.814.6 47 16 57.519.9 78 39 10 – – 
S2 13.628 178.6 25 4.8 
S3 21.115 47 10 34.726.6 77 
S4 22.715.7 45 63.255.9 151 
S5 246.5 32 16 27.317.7 48 
S6 34.920.9 80 10 56.939.3 121 20 
TS S1 607.2153 870 469 139.527.8 178 114 – – – 
S2 280.443.6 316 192 96.634.1 143.1 61 
S3 325.659 440 257 197.5101.9 309 69.1 
S4 309.760.30 401 253 216.8128.6 470 80.2 
S5 316.581.3 427 231 91.912.6 100 77.3 
S6 279.373.6 392 195 163.756 241 106 
Turbidity S1 8.42.8 11 4.6 52.823.7 78 31.9 – – 
S2 10.85.9 23 4.2 30.631 72 11.2 
S3 34.427.3 77.5 8.2 27.527.7 76 9.81 
S4 41.239.11 117 11.4 131.2224.5 530 11.4 
S5 16.72.9 19.2 13.9 35.217.3 47.4 23 
S6 69.456.5 170 13.8 76.058.8 144 18 
BOD5 S1 15 23.3 10.73 3.30.8 4.2 2.2 ≤ 2 ≤ 12 ≤ 3 
S2 9.15.2 16 8.318.5 46 
S3 124.9 22 9.73.1 14 
S4 10.51.76 13 8.914 
S5 10.51.9 12 73.5 12 
S6 124.3 18 10.46.3 22 
COD S1 40.919.4 65 21 10.81.8 12.5 10 100 10 
S2 23.913.6 39 22.55.3 30 18 
S3 3914.7 70 22 3215.2 56 15 
S4 33.58.62 46 24 27.615.8 58 6.3 
S5 29.57.5 36 22 19.813.3 39 10 
S6 4222.8 90 20 40.426.9 21.5 10 
Chloride S1 82.218 110 68 5.41.8 250 – – 
S2 24.511 45 14 7.92.3 11 
S3 43.428.1 98 18 23.621.9 70 
S4 46.528.4 101 21 14.410.8 32 
S5 37.59.1 50 28 15.411.2 32 7.5 
S6 39.713.4 54 12 11.88.1 30 
Total alkalinity S1 280.455.8 340.66 230 142.751.8 220 112 150 – – 
S2 19690.5 324 66 7241.1 129 31 
S3 204.971.1 281 101 13094.8 281 21 
S4 218.761.5 280 102 121.7103 281 24 
S5 13550 210 110 101.5104.6 256 24 
S6 138.853.1 254 88 77.723.3 106 29 

Note: DoE standard – 1997 for drinking, agriculture, and recreational activities (ECR 1997).

Figure 2

Seasonal and spatial variations among physical parameters: (a) pH, (b) EC, (c) DO, and (d) TDS in the Dhaleshwari River.

Figure 2

Seasonal and spatial variations among physical parameters: (a) pH, (b) EC, (c) DO, and (d) TDS in the Dhaleshwari River.

Close modal

Electrical conductivity (EC) measurements obtained from various sampling stations exhibited diverse ranges, varying from 312 to 1,550 μs/cm in the dry season to103–520 μs/cm in the wet season. In the dry season, the highest EC value was found at S1, whereas the lowest EC value was observed at S6 in the rainy season (Table 3). In all the sampling stations, high seasonal fluctuations were observed (Figure 2(b)). Notably, a statistically significant difference in EC values was observed among the sampling stations (ANOVA, p ≤ 0.01) and seasons (t-test, p ≤ 0.01). Therefore, the dilution that occurs during the rainy season might reduce the EC magnitude in the water (Rahman et al. 2021). Overall, all the observed EC values except for S1 were found within the limit of 1,200 μs/cm set in the Environment Conservation Rules (ECR), 1997 (schedule 10), DoE, Bangladesh (ECR 1997).

DO values obtained from all the sampling stations showed high fluctuations throughout the year (0.4–10 mg/L) (Figure 2(c)). Variation between the sampling stations was also high with the lowest average value (2.4 ± 1.3) observed at S1 and the highest average value (6.7 ± 1.8) found at S2, both in the dry season. Relatively less fluctuation was observed between the sampling stations in the wet season. Statistically significant differences in DO value were found among sampling stations (ANOVA, p < 0.01). But no statistically significant seasonal variation was found (t-test, p > 0.05). Average DO values at different stations showed that all the stations in the dry season except for S2 had lower DO than the set value (≥6 mg/L) in ECR (1997) (schedule 3), while a DO value of 4–6 mg/L is recommended for aquatic animals. Comparatively better DO (4.11–7.31 mg/L) was reported in the same river in a study (Aminul Ahsan 2018) and suggested that DO is suitable for supporting the biological habitat.

TDS values derived from all the sampling stations exhibit significant seasonal fluctuations (t-test, p < 0.01). Notably, the highest maximum value (845 mg/L) and the peak average value (588150.2 mg/L) were recorded at S1 during the dry season, while the lowest average value (69.93.4 mg/L) was observed at S5 during the wet season (Figure 2(d)). ANOVA analysis revealed significant variation in TDS values among the sampling stations (p < 0.05). However, the TDS of all samples was found to be within the acceptable limit (1,000 mg/L) set in ECR (1997) (schedule 3B). Ghosh & Hossain (2019) reported similar phenomena in a study that illustrated the different values in the dry and wet seasons, 400 and 270 mg/L, respectively.

Similar to TDS, TSS values were observed to be comparatively higher in the wet season than in the dry season, and they ranged from 5 to 151 mg/L throughout the year. The highest average value of TSS (63.2 ± 55.9 mg/L) was found at S4 during the wet season, while the lowest average value (21.1 ± 15 mg/L) was recorded at S2 during the dry season (Table 3). In contrast to other parameters observed, TSS values were higher during the wet season than the dry season in all sampling stations (Figure 3(a)). The high TSS values recorded during the wet season could be attributed to the high flow of river water during monsoon precipitations, which carries a substantial number of suspended materials such as clay, silt, and suspended organic and inorganic matter. These suspended particles are >2 μm in diameter and have the possibility of being combined with algae and bacteria (Matta et al. 2020). The ANOVA results indicated statistically significant differences in TSS values among the sampling stations (p ≤ 0.05). However, no significant seasonal variation was observed (t-test, p > 0.05).
Figure 3

Seasonal and spatial variations among physical parameters: (a) TSS, (b) TS, and (c) turbidity in the Dhaleshwari River.

Figure 3

Seasonal and spatial variations among physical parameters: (a) TSS, (b) TS, and (c) turbidity in the Dhaleshwari River.

Close modal

The total solids (TS) is the component that has an enormous capacity to impact the water quality and consists of organic matter, anion–cation, silts, and other foreign chemicals (Matta et al. 2020). This parameter exhibits considerable seasonal variability, with the maximum mean value of 607.2 ± 153 mg/L recorded during the dry season at S1 and the minimum average value of 91.9 ± 12.6 mg/L observed during the wet season at S5 (Figure 3(b)). Notably, ANOVA analysis revealed statistically significant differences in TS values among the various sampling stations (p ≤ 0.05), while t-test results indicated significant variations across seasons (p < 0.01).

Water turbidity is an important physical indicator that defines the purity of water. If the turbidity is higher and the water seems to be comparatively dark that potentially indicates the magnitude of organic contaminants, silts, and other suspended particles in the waterbody. Turbidity measurements obtained from all sampling stations exhibited considerable fluctuations throughout the year (11–530 mg/L) (Figure 3(c)). During the wet season, turbidity was slightly higher in most stations than in the dry season, which may be attributed to water turbulence and heavy precipitation during the monsoon season that results in soil and clay being washed up and carried along with the river flow. However, there was no statistical significance in the turbidity variations observed among the sampling stations (ANOVA, p > 0.05) and seasons (t-test, p > 0.05). None of the turbidity values obtained met the recommended value (5 mg/L) by the ECR (1997).

Comparison among chemical and biochemical contaminants and seasonality

The results of the study reveal a high degree of fluctuation in the BOD5 values within each of the stations, ranging from 2 to 46 mg/L. However, it has been observed that there are only marginal differences among the sampling stations, except for S1, as depicted in Figure 4(a). The highest (155.3 mg/L) and lowest (3.30.8 mg/L) average values were found at S1 during the dry and wet seasons, respectively (Table 3). It was observed that there were no statistically significant differences in the BOD5 values among the sampling stations, as determined by ANOVA (p > 0.05). However, significant seasonal variations were discovered, as indicated by the t-test (p < 0.05). The majority of the values obtained in both seasons were found to be above the recommended value (≤2 mg/L) for drinking purposes and also unsuitable for recreational activities (≤3 mg/L). This finding exceeds the reported value (0.52–1.74 mg/L) in a separate study in the river between April and June 2015 (Real et al. 2017). It is also more than the reported value of another study (Ghosh & Hossain 2019) that found 4.8 mg/L in the dry season and 2.8 mg/L in the wet season. Additionally, the study by Ghosh & Hossain (2019) also identified the tannery effluent-modulated sample BOD, which was reported as 20.8–40 mg/L for 5–100% samples. Mallick et al. (2021) denoted the value >3 mg/L; therefore, our findings could potentially indicate the deteriorating condition of water quality in the river. The organic deposition is enhanced by the direct and indirect effluents; perhaps the domestic effluent sources could have an impact on increasing the BOD level in the river more than ever before. However, it is possible to use such water for agricultural (≤12 mg/L) and fisheries (≤6 mg/L) purposes only during the wet months (ECR 1997).
Figure 4

Seasonal and spatial variations among chemical parameters: (a) BOD5, (b) COD, (c) chloride, and (d) total alkalinity.

Figure 4

Seasonal and spatial variations among chemical parameters: (a) BOD5, (b) COD, (c) chloride, and (d) total alkalinity.

Close modal

COD is an important measurement in water quality assessment; it indicates the quantity of soluble organic matter in the water. That enables us to determine the required oxygen for the oxidation of different organic particulate matters in water (Napacho & Manyele 2010; Matta et al. 2020). The obtained COD values from various sampling stations and seasons exhibit substantial fluctuations, with values ranging from 6 to 90 mg/L throughout the year (Table 3). The seasonal variation found among the stations was insignificant, except S1 (Figure 4(b)). The ANOVA results revealed no statistically significant variation in COD value among the sampling stations (p > 0.05) and seasons (t-test, p > 0.05). In every sampling point, the COD was detected at >23 mg/L, which was reported as the maximum average value (23 mg/L) in a study (Hasan et al. 2020) in the river. All the COD values were higher than the recommended limit of 10 mg/L set by the ECR (1997) for drinking and recreational purposes. Likewise, the BOD5 and COD also exceeded all the reference values in the sampling areas, which could symbolize the ongoing impairment of the water quality in the river.

The chloride values obtained from various sampling stations depict a significant seasonal variance (t-test, p < 0.01). During the dry season, the maximum chloride value (110 mg/L) and the highest mean value (82.218 mg/L) were observed at S1. The elevated chloride concentration at S1 is likely attributed to the release of wastewater from the tannery industry, which is located adjacent to S1. Conversely, the low chloride concentration (5.4 ± 1.8 mg/L) recorded at the same station during the wet season may be a result of the high river water flow during the monsoon, leading to the transportation of discharged pollutants downstream. It is noteworthy that all the values obtained were within the limit (250 mg/L) set for drinking purposes (Figure 4(c)). However, our detected values are considerably higher than the other studies (Aminul Ahsan 2018; Hasan et al. 2020).

A marked variation in the total alkalinity value was observed between the dry and wet seasons at all of the sampling stations. The highest mean alkalinity value (280.455.8 mg/L) was found at S1 during the dry season, while the lowest value (7241.1 mg/L) was found at S2 during the wet season. There were no statistically significant differences in the total alkalinity values among the sampling stations (as determined by ANOVA, p > 0.05). However, there was a strong seasonal variation in the values (as determined by the t-test, p < 0.01). During the dry season, the total alkalinity value was found to be greater than the set value (150 mg/L) in the ECR (1997). On the other hand, most of the values were found to be within the set value during the wet months (Figure 4(d)). This scenario is probably due to the dilution effect. During the wet season, rainfall could dilute the organic contaminants and reduce the ions, which could increase the pH level. As a result, total alkalinity also decreases in the wet season with the fall in pH. Moreover, rainwater is a little bit acidic, which could also be a reason for decreasing the pH and alkalinity (Aher 2018). However, in the dry season, since no rainfall occurred, the river water pH and alkalinity were comparatively higher than in the wet season (Islam et al. 2015). Essien-Ibok et al. (2010) reported a significant negative correlation (r = −0.88, p < 0.001) between rainfall and total alkalinity in a separate study of a river.

Interaction between and among the physical and chemical components

The correlation among the different physiochemical parameters analyzed at dry and wet seasons is presented in Figure 5. The finding shows that a strong positive correlation has been shown among EC, TDS, TS, BOD5, COD, and chloride (p < 0.01) and a significant negative correlation among DO, COD, and SS (p < 0.01) in the dry season (Figure 5(a)). Whereas, in the wet season, the correlation among pH, EC, BOD5, COD, and TS is strongly positive and no significant negative correlation is found among the parameters (Figure 5(b)). In the dry season, very strong correlations have been found among EC–TDS (r = 1), EC–TS (r = 1), TDS–TS (r = 0.99), EC–chloride (r = 0.93), BOD5–chloride (r = 0.92), TDS–chloride (r = 0.92), and TS–chloride (r = 0.95) at p < 0.001 and EC–BOD5 (r = 0.83), BOD5–COD (r = 0.86), and BOD5–TS (r = 0.86 at p < 0.01. Moreover, a significant p < 0.05 correlation was found between pHtotal alkalinity, ECtotal alkalinity, BOD5TDS, CODSS, TDStotal alkalinity, TStotal alkalinity, and chloridetotal alkalinity. EC is the measurement of dissolved minerals, salts, and ionic compounds; therefore, it is frequently measured as a water quality parameter that presents a very strong positive correlation with the TS, TDS, and minerals (Cl) (Bin et al. 2011; Matli & Nivedita 2021; Rahman & Habiba 2023). On the other hand, a strong negative correlation has been found between DOTSS (r = −0.93), DOCOD (r = −0.83) at p < 0.01 and DOBOD5 (r = −79) at p < 0.05. Since the degradation of organic contaminants demand oxygen from the water body, there is an inverse relationship between BOD5, COD, and DO (Chen et al. 2015; Aminul Ahsan 2018). Similarly, suspended particles could have similar kinds of contaminants that could potentially reduce the DO during aerobic decomposition.
Figure 5

Correlation between the parameters of the river water sample, p-values (0.001, 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, and 1) represented by (‘***’, ‘**’, ‘*’, ‘.’, ‘’): (a) dry season and (b) wet season.

Figure 5

Correlation between the parameters of the river water sample, p-values (0.001, 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, and 1) represented by (‘***’, ‘**’, ‘*’, ‘.’, ‘’): (a) dry season and (b) wet season.

Close modal

In the wet season, significant positive correlations have been found between BOD5–COD (r = 0.94, p < 0.01), pHEC (r = 0.84), and EC–TS (r = 0.92), p < 0.05. Moreover, a positive correlation was detected between pHTS, pHtotal alkalinity, ECTDS, TDSCOD, TDSTS, and SSturbidity at a statistical significance level of p < 0.1. Comparatively less correlation among the parameters has been found in the wet season than in the dry season. In a compelling research article by Kibena et al. (2014), a striking pattern emerges as they delve into the dynamics of organic contaminants and suspended solid particles within a water body. Their findings reveal a robust and significant correlation during the dry season, underscoring the pronounced influence of environmental factors during this period. However, as the rains descend and the wet season unfolds, this correlation exhibits a notable decline, shedding light on the intricate interplay between these contaminants and the shifting hydrological conditions.

This phenomenon might be attributed to the heightened river water flow during the wet season, which results in a dilution effect and subsequently lowers the concentration of these contaminants. Additionally, the increased flow rate fosters greater water mixing, reducing stagnation and, in turn, diminishing the likelihood of chemical reactions among various pollutants. These dynamic environmental factors underscore the complexity of contaminant behavior within aquatic systems, revealing a complex relationship worthy of further exploration. An equally noteworthy understanding from this study is the absence of a surge in contaminants during the wet season. This valuable observation suggests that runoff during this period did not introduce substantial organic waste into the river water, challenging conventional assumptions about seasonal fluctuations in water quality. Furthermore, the CCA (Figure 5(b)) failed to find a significant, strong positive correlation with the organic suspended parameters in the wet season. Specify that potential pollution sources may be attributed to discrete point discharges rather than broad-scale environmental influences. The study also demonstrates that industrial effluents, domestic sewage discharges, and tannery wastes may need closer scrutiny and targeted remediation efforts to safeguard the ecological integrity of the water body. These findings will help us to reevaluate our understanding of pollutant dynamics within aquatic ecosystems, challenging us to think beyond seasonal trends and consider the localized impacts of point-source pollution.

In PCA, the eigenvalue is used to understand the variance and significance of the principal components, where a value of 1 or greater indicates the variance (Shrestha & Kazama 2007; Howladar 2017). In our study, PCA uncovered two significant factors during the dry season, explaining a substantial 89.23% of the dataset's variability. In the dry season, PCA found two factors with eigenvalues > 1, which together describe 89.23% variability (Supplementary Table S1). The primary factor (PC1) was particularly informative, accounting for 59.23% of the variance. PC1 exhibited a strong negative relationship with parameters like EC, TDS, TSS, and chloride, indicating that higher PC1 values correspond to lower concentrations of these variables. Conversely, PC1 showed a positive correlation with DO, suggesting that elevated PC1 values were associated with higher DO levels (Figure 6(a)). Interestingly, our findings corroborated a previous study by Matli & Nivedita (2021), which also observed an inverse relationship between DO and suspended particles. This alignment suggests that during the dry season, PC1 may serve as a composite indicator of water quality. Higher PC1 values may signify improved water quality characterized by increased DO levels and reduced concentrations of EC, TDS, TS, and chloride. This inverse relationship between DO and suspended particles aligns with established principles of water quality dynamics, where elevated suspended solids can hinder gas exchange at the water's surface, resulting in lower DO concentrations. These PCA results provide valuable insights into dry season water quality dynamics, offering a quantitative basis for managing and conserving water quality in our studied ecosystem.
Figure 6

PCA plot along with the scree plot for determining the proportion of variance and the loading of each specific parameter: (a) dry season and (b) wet season.

Figure 6

PCA plot along with the scree plot for determining the proportion of variance and the loading of each specific parameter: (a) dry season and (b) wet season.

Close modal

In PC2, which consists of 29.9% variance (Figure 6(a)), moderate positive loading with COD (0.36), TSS (0.47), and turbidity (0.493) and negative loading with pH (−0.32) and DO (−0.38) can be associated with inorganic components discharged from domestic and industrial activities as well as several point and nonpoint sources (Al-badaii et al. 2013).

During the wet season, our analysis using PC1 uncovered a significant source of variability, accounting for 44.8% of the observed changes in water quality (Figure 6(b)). Notably, key parameters such as EC, TS, and turbidity displayed moderate positive loadings of 0.42, 0.44, and 0.42, respectively. This observation suggests that surface water runoff during this period may not have introduced significant organic contaminants into the water. Instead, our findings disclose the possibility of point sources contributing to the presence of suspended particles in the water. Our results align with the work of Das et al. (2011), who reported elevated levels of TDS, EC, salinity, alkalinity, and hardness in tannery effluents. In contrast, DO levels were found to be lower. These findings underscore the potential influence of point sources, such as tannery effluents, on the water quality parameters we observed. PC2 explaining 27.05% of the variance. In this case, we observed positive loadings for pH (0.35) and alkalinity (0.48), indicating a correlation between these parameters. Conversely, parameters such as BOD5 and COD displayed negative loadings of −0.47 and −0.46, respectively. These findings imply that water samples with higher pH and alkalinity levels tend to exhibit lower BOD5 and COD values. These results provide valuable insights into the dynamics of water quality during the wet season, find out the potential contributors to observed variations, and highlight the interconnection between various water quality parameters.

Spatiotemporal groupings and WQI

The dendrogram depicted in Figure 7 illustrates the interrelationships among the sampling stations in the study area, thereby facilitating the identification of pollution sources. Utilizing the similarities in pollution concentration as a basis, the dendrogram classified six sampling stations into four clusters, also signifying potential similarities in pollution sources. During the dry season, stations 2, 3, and 4 were amalgamated into one cluster, while stations 1, 5, and 6 remained as individual clusters. Conversely, during the wet season, stations 1 and 6 and stations 2 and 5 formed two distinct clusters, while stations 3 and 4 remained as separate clusters. Station 1 is situated near the BSCIC tannery industrial area, where water stagnation occurs due to reduced river flow, causing a significant increase in pollution levels due to the discharge of a large amount of wastewater from the tannery. Furthermore, station 6, located downstream near the discharge point of the Buriganga River (ecologically critical area – ECA), may be the reason for the high pollution levels observed in both dry and wet seasons.
Figure 7

Dendrogram showing clustering of sampling sites based on similarities: (a) dry season and (b) wet season.

Figure 7

Dendrogram showing clustering of sampling sites based on similarities: (a) dry season and (b) wet season.

Close modal
The tannery industry (S1) (Figure 8) emerges as a significant contributor to environmental challenges, yielding both tanned and untanned solid waste alongside liquid effluents bearing substantial organic loads, chloride, and chromium (Amanial 2016; Ram Bharose & Singh 2017). These effluents notably elevate BOD levels, devouring oxygen resources in water bodies. Conversely, the BSCIC host industries (S1 and S4), encompassing textile, dye, paint, plastics, rubber, agro-processing, pharmaceuticals, and chemical manufacturing, collectively discharge substantial volumes of wastewater into the Buriganga and Dhaleshwari Rivers (Hassan et al. 2020). These discharges carry high concentrations of dyes, fibers, organic matter, oil, grease, and toxic compounds, manifesting as elevated BOD, COD, alkalinity, TDS, and a subsequent decline in DO levels within river waters (DoE 2016; Bashar & Fung 2020).
Figure 8

Spatial distribution of water quality according to the WQI: (a) dry season and (b) wet season.

Figure 8

Spatial distribution of water quality according to the WQI: (a) dry season and (b) wet season.

Close modal

In addition to industrial impacts, agricultural activities along the Dhaleshwari riverbanks, spanning from S2 to S5, bring their own set of ecological challenges (Figure 8). Runoff from these farmlands carries an excess of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and organic matter, exerting further stress on water quality (DoE 2016). Furthermore, soil erosion and rainwater runoff from these fields contribute to heightened turbidity levels and increased concentrations of TSS and SS in surface waters. The sediment disturbance resulting from riverbank cutting for brick fields in the Rajnagar, Baluchar, Ruhitpur, S4, and S5 regions further exacerbates TSS, SS, and turbidity levels in river waters (DoE 2016). Moreover, tidal dynamics trigger a merging of Buriganga and Dhaleshwari waters, amplifying pollution at the S6 juncture (DoE 2016). The Buriganga (declared ECA in 2009) is one of Bangladesh's most polluted rivers and serves as a secondary pollution source for the Dhaleshwari River at this juncture. The situation is compounded by the daily discharge of approximately 6,000 tons of untreated liquid waste, encompassing tannery, residential, and municipal wastewater, into the Buriganga, where it subsequently commingles with the Dhaleshwari River (Kibria et al. 2016; Uddin & Jeong 2021). Further intensifying the environmental challenge in this region are the numerous shipbuilding yards, both small and large, which discharge substantial quantities of oil, grease, and heavy metals into the river. This complex interplay of various industrial, agricultural, and natural factors underscores the multifaceted environmental challenges faced by the Buriganga and Dhaleshwari river ecosystems. Most sample locations exhibited poor water quality during the dry and wet seasons (Supplementary Table S2 and Figure S1). However, a stark contrast is evident between Figure 8(a) and 8(b) during the wet season. This suggests that the dilution effect may play a significant role in improving water quality during rainfall.

The calculated WQI for all sampling stations in both the dry and wet seasons indicates that a majority of the stations exhibit poor water quality on average (as shown in Figure 9). Specifically, during the dry season, stations S1 and S6 exhibit water quality that is unsuitable for use without proper treatment, while the remaining stations exhibit very poor water quality. Similarly, except S2 and S5, all sampling stations exhibit very poor water quality during the wet season. The highest average WQI was recorded at S6 during the dry season, while the lowest value was found at S2 during the wet season (as shown in Table 3). Station 6 is located downstream close to the mouth of the Buriganga River. In contrast, Station 1 is located upstream and exhibits the worst water quality after S6, indicating effluent discharge from nearby tannery industries. These results are similar to those reported by Hasan et al. (2020), who observed an elevated pollution level at the tannery location. The seasonal variation of WQI was found to be statistically significant (t-test, p < 0.05), although water quality during the wet season was also unsatisfactory. Among all samples tested during the dry season, 26.19, 66.67, and 7.14% represent unsuitable, very poor, and poor status, respectively. During the wet seasons, 16.67, 38.10, and 45.24% of total samples represented these statuses (as shown in Figure 9). No single sample tested during both seasons exhibited good or excellent quality, indicating the continuous release of pollutants from sources.
Figure 9

WQI for different sampling stations of the Dhaleshwari River during dry and wet seasons.

Figure 9

WQI for different sampling stations of the Dhaleshwari River during dry and wet seasons.

Close modal

This study presents a comprehensive assessment of the present water quality and pollution levels in the Dhaleshwari River, encompassing both dry and wet seasons. The findings demonstrate that most of the analyzed parameters exceed the standard limits set in the rules. The calculated WQI further underscores the severity of the situation, categorizing the water quality of the Dhaleshwari River as ‘very poor’. Substantial variability in water quality was observed among the six sampling stations, with the dry season registering the most unfavorable conditions. However, it is noteworthy that the WQI indicates poor water quality, across all sampling stations in both seasons. This investigation identifies industrial waste discharge from tannery industries, alongside other multifunctional industries within the BSCIC industrial estate, shipyards, as well as municipal discharge, as the primary sources of pollution affecting the Dhaleshwari River. The results of this study highlight the necessity for urgent and concerted efforts aimed at water quality improvement and pollution control in the Dhaleshwari River basin. Strategies must prioritize the mitigation of industrial waste and the management of surface runoff and municipal discharge to safeguard the ecological integrity of this vital water resource. The findings presented herein also underscore the need for continued monitoring and environmental stewardship to preserve and restore the health of the Dhaleshwari River, recognizing its critical role in sustaining both human communities and the broader ecosystem.

The authors would also like to thank Dr Abdul Hamid, Director General, Department of Environment, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, for his kind support and approval for data support. The authors also appreciated Dhaka Laboratory, the Department of Environment, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh for their data collection and analysis support.

This study was supported by the Department of Environment (DoE), Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh.

M.S.A. and S.B.: conceptualization, investigation, resources, and review and editing; F.M.R.: writing – original draft, data curation, formal analysis, and visualization; M.S.: investigation, formal analysis, and data curation; M.K.H.: formal analysis and data curation; M.A.R.: validation, visualization, and review and editing; M.M.R.: validation and review and editing; M.H.R.: supervision, methodology, and review and editing.

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

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Aher
S. B.
(
2018
)
Spatial and seasonal variation in physico-chemical properties of Godavari River water at Ambad region, Maharashtra
. Journal of Environment and Biosciences, 32, 15–23.
Ahmed
M. K.
,
Ahamed
S.
,
Rahman
S.
,
Haque
M. R.
&
Islam
M. M.
(
2009
)
Heavy metals concentration in water, sediments and their bioaccumulations in some freshwater fishes and mussel in Dhaleshwari River, Bangladesh
,
Terrestrial and Aquatic Environmental Toxicology
,
3
(
1
),
33
41
.
Akter
M.
(
2014
)
Water quality assessment of an industrial zone polluted aquatic body in Dhaka, Bangladesh
,
American Journal of Environmental Protection
,
3
(
5
),
232
.
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajep.20140305.14
.
Akter
S.
,
Kamrujjaman
K.
&
Rashed-Ul-Islam
R.-U.-I.
(
2019
)
An investigation into chemical parameters of water of Dhaleswari – A river alongside tannery village of Bangladesh
,
International Journal of Sciences
,
8
(
05
),
159
164
.
https://doi.org/10.18483/ijsci.2073
.
Alam
M. K.
(
2003
)
Cleanup of the Buriganga River: Integrating the Environment into Decision Making
.
PhD thesis
.
Murdoch University
,
Australia
.
Al-badaii
F.
,
Shuhaimi-othman
M.
&
Gasim
M. B.
(
2013
)
Water quality assessment of the Semenyih River
,
Journal of Chemistry
,
3216
,
112
122
.
Amanial
H. R.
(
2016
)
Physicochemical characterization of tannery effluent and its impact on the nearby river
,
OALib
,
03
(
03
),
1
8
.
https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1102427
.
Aminul Ahsan
M.
(
2018
)
Analysis of physicochemical parameters, anions and major heavy metals of the Dhaleshwari River Water, Tangail, Bangladesh
,
American Journal of Environmental Protection
,
7
(
2
),
29
.
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajep.20180702.12
.
APHA
(
2005
)
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
, 21st edn.
Washington, DC
:
American Public Health Association
.
Bashar
T.
&
Fung
I. W. H.
(
2020
)
Water pollution in a densely populated megapolis, Dhaka
,
Water (Switzerland)
,
12
(
8
),
1
13
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/W12082124
.
Bin
M. F.
,
Nasir
M.
,
Samsudin
M. S.
,
Juahir
H.
&
Ramli
N.
(
2011
)
River water quality modeling using combined principle component analysis (PCA) and multiple linear regressions (MLR): A case study at Klang River, Malaysia
,
World Applied Sciences Journal
, 14 (1), 73–82.
Brown
R. M.
,
McClelland
N. I.
,
Deininger
R. A.
&
Tozer
R. G.
(
1970
)
A water quality index – Do we dare?
Water and Sewage Works
,
117
(
10
),
339
343
.
Chen
P.
,
Li
L.
&
Zhang
H.
(
2015
)
Spatio-temporal variations and source apportionment of water pollution in Danjiangkou Reservoir Basin, Central China
,
Water (Switzerland)
,
7
(
6
),
2591
2611
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w7062591
.
Cheng
H.
,
Hu
Y.
&
Zhao
J.
(
2009
)
Meeting China's water shortage crisis: Current practices and challenges
,
Environmental Science and Technology
,
43
(
2
),
240
244
.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es801934a
.
Das
M.
,
Ahmed
M. K.
,
Islam
M. S.
,
Islam
M. M.
&
Akter
M. S.
(
2011
)
Heavy metals in industrial effluents (tannery and textile) and adjacent rivers of Dhaka city, Bangladesh
,
Terrestrial and Aquatic Environmental Toxicology
,
5
(
1
),
8
13
.
DoE
(
2016
)
Final Report Geospatial Technology Based Water Quality Monitoring System for Bangladesh
, pp.
305
329
.
Dossou
P. M.
,
Zevounou
C.
,
Alassane
A.
,
Kaki
C.
,
Boukari
M.
&
Mama
D.
(
2021
)
Physico-chemical characteristics of gushing water aquifers in the coastal sedimentary basin of Benin (West Africa)
,
Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection
,
09
(
07
),
149
163
.
https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2021.97010
.
ECR
(
1997
)
The Environment Conservation Rules
.
Department of Environment, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh
, pp.
179
227
.
Essien-Ibok
M. A.
,
Akpan
A. W.
,
Udo
M. T.
,
Chude
L. A.
,
Umoh
I. A.
&
Asuquo
I. E.
(
2010
)
Seasonality in the physical and chemical characteristics of Mbo River, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria
,
Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, Food and Environment
,
6
(
1&2
),
60
72
.
Fed
R. H.
(
1965
)
An index number system for rating water quality
,
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation
,
37
(
3
),
300
306
.
Ghosh
P. K.
&
Hossain
M. D.
(
2019
). ‘
Assessment of tannery effluent: A case study on Dhaleshwari River in Bangladesh
’,
Proceedings of International Conference on Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering
.
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh Ministry of Environment and Forest
(
1997
)
The Environment Conservation Rules, 1997 (Schedule 9: Standards for Sewage Discharge, pp. 179–227)
.
Hasan
M. M.
,
Ahmed
M. S.
,
Adnan
R.
&
Shafiquzzaman
M.
(
2020
)
Water quality indices to assess the spatiotemporal variations of Dhaleshwari river in central Bangladesh
,
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators
,
8
, 100068.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2020.100068
.
Hassan
M. M.
,
Alenezi
M. S.
&
Good
R. Z.
(
2020
)
Spatial pattern analysis of manufacturing industries in Keraniganj, Dhaka, Bangladesh
,
GeoJournal
,
85
(
1
),
269
283
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-018-9961-5
.
Howladar
M. F.
,
Chakma
E.
,
Jahan Koley
N.
,
Islam
S.
,
Numanbakth
M. A. A.
,
Ahmed
Z.
,
Chowdhury
T. R.
&
Akter
S.
(
2021
)
The water quality and pollution sources assessment of Surma river, Bangladesh using, hydrochemical, multivariate statistical and water quality index methods
,
Groundwater for Sustainable Development
,
12
, 100523.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100523
.
Hu
J.
,
Qiao
Y.
,
Zhou
L.
&
Li
S.
(
2012
)
Spatiotemporal distributions of nutrients in the downstream from Gezhouba Dam in Yangtze River, China
,
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
,
19
(
7
),
2849
2859
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-012-0791-6
.
Islam
M. S.
,
Meghla
N. T.
,
Suravi
M. S.
&
Sultana
N.
(
2012
)
Status of water quality in the Dhaleshwari River and its effect on aquatic organism
,
Journal of Environmental Science and Water Resources
,
1
(
8
),
192
201
.
Islam
M. S.
,
Uddin
M. K.
,
Tareq
S. M.
,
Shammi
M.
,
Kamal
A. K. I.
,
Sugano
T.
,
Kurasaki
M.
,
Saito
T.
,
Tanaka
S.
&
Kuramitz
H.
(
2015
)
Alteration of water pollution level with the seasonal changes in mean daily discharge in three main rivers around Dhaka City, Bangladesh
,
Environments
,
2
(
3
),
280
294
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/environments2030280
.
Islam
M. A. S.
,
Hossain
M. E.
&
Majed
N.
(
2021
)
Assessment of physicochemical properties and comparative pollution status of the Dhaleshwari River in Bangladesh
,
Earth (Switzerland)
,
2
(
4
),
696
714
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/earth2040041
.
Jerome
C.
&
Pius
A.
(
2010
)
Evaluation of water quality index and its impact on the quality of life in an industrial area in Bangalore, South India
,
American Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research
,
1
(
3
),
595
603
.
https://doi.org/10.5251/ajsir.2010.1.3.595.603
.
Kibena
J.
,
Nhapi
I.
&
Gumindoga
W.
(
2014
)
Assessing the relationship between water quality parameters and changes in landuse patterns in the Upper Manyame River, Zimbabwe
,
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth
,
67–69
,
153
163
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2013.09.017
.
Kibria
G.
,
Hossain
M. M.
,
Mallick
D.
,
Lau
T. C.
&
Wu
R.
(
2016
)
Monitoring of metal pollution in waterways across Bangladesh and ecological and public health implications of pollution
,
Chemosphere
,
165
,
1
9
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.08.121
.
Lee
J.-Y.
,
Cheon
J.-Y.
,
Lee
K.-K.
,
Lee
S.-Y.
&
Lee
M.-H.
(
2001
)
Statistical evaluation of geochemical parameter distribution in a ground water system contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons
,
Journal of Environmental Quality
,
30
(
5
),
1548
1563
.
https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2001.3051548x
.
Mallick
Z.
,
Hossain
R. B.
,
Ayshi
F. T.
,
Tahsin
A.
&
Mallick
S. P.
(
2021
)
Water quality index (WQI) for evaluation of the surface water quality of Bangladesh and prediction of WQI from limited parameters
,
Journal of Environment Protection and Sustainable Development
,
7
(
2
),
56
64
.
Matli
C. S.
&
Nivedita
, (
2021
)
Water quality modelling of river Mahanadi using principal component analysis (PCA) and multiple linear regression (MLR)
,
International Journal of Environment
,
10
(
1
),
83
98
.
https://doi.org/10.3126/ije.v10i1.38417
.
Matta
G.
,
Kumar
A.
,
Nayak
A.
,
Kumar
P.
,
Kumar
A.
&
Tiwari
A. K.
(
2020
)
Determination of water quality of Ganga River System in Himalayan region, referencing indexing techniques
,
Arabian Journal of Geosciences
,
13
(
19
), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05999-z
.
Miller
W. W.
,
Joung
H. M.
,
Mahannah
C. N.
&
Garrett
J. R.
(
1986
)
Identification of water quality differences in Nevada through index application
,
Journal of Environmental Quality
,
15
(
3
),
265
272
.
https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1986.00472425001500030012x
.
Mohanta
L. C.
,
Niloy
M. N. H.
,
Chowdhury
G. W.
,
Islam
D.
&
Lipy
E. P.
(
2019
)
Heavy metals in water, sediment and three fish species of Dhaleshwari river, Savar
,
Bangladesh Journal of Zoology
,
47
(
2
),
263
272
.
https://doi.org/10.3329/bjz.v47i2.44337
.
Mortula
M.
&
Rahaman
M. S.
(
2002
)
Study on waste disposal at DEPZ
,
Bangladesh Environment (BAPA)
,
2
,
807
817
.
Mustapha
A.
,
Aris
A. Z.
,
Juahir
H.
,
Ramli
M. F.
&
Kura
N. U.
(
2013
)
River water quality assessment using environmentric techniques: Case study of Jakara River Basin
,
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
,
20
(
8
),
5630
5644
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1542-z
.
Nagaraju
A.
,
Sunil Kumar
K.
,
Thejaswi
A.
&
Sharifi
Z.
(
2014
)
Statistical analysis of the hydrogeochemical evolution of groundwater in the Rangampeta area, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, South India
,
American Journal of Water Resources
,
2
(
3
),
63
70
.
https://doi.org/10.12691/ajwr-2-3-2
.
Napacho
Z. A.
&
Manyele
S. V.
(
2010
)
Quality assessment of drinking water in Temeke District (part II): Characterization of chemical parameters
,
African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
,
4
(
11
), 775–789.
Rahman
M. A.
&
Habiba
U.
(
2023
)
Groundwater quality evaluation and pollution source apportionment using multivariate statistical analyses in Chuadanga municipality, Bangladesh
,
HydroResearch
,
6
, 166–176.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydres.2023.05.001
.
Rahman
A.
,
Jahanara
I.
&
Jolly
Y. N.
(
2021
)
Assessment of physicochemical properties of water and their seasonal variation in an urban river in Bangladesh
,
Water Science and Engineering
,
14
(
2
),
139
148
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wse.2021.06.006
.
Ram
A.
,
Tiwari
S. K.
,
Pandey
H. K.
,
Chaurasia
A. K.
,
Singh
S.
&
Singh
Y. V.
(
2021
)
Groundwater quality assessment using water quality index (WQI) under GIS framework
,
Applied Water Science
,
11
(
2
),
1
20
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-021-01376-7
.
Ram Bharose
S. P.
&
Singh
D.
(
2017
)
Assessment of physico-chemical properties of tannery waste water and its impact on fresh water quality
,
International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences
,
6
(
4
),
1879
1887
.
https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.604.224
.
Razo
I.
,
Carrizales
L.
,
Castro
J.
,
Díaz-Barriga
F.
&
Monroy
M.
(
2004
)
Arsenic and heavy metal pollution of soil, water and sediments in a semi-arid climate mining area in Mexico
,
Water, Air, and Soil Pollution
,
152
(
1–4
),
129
152
.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:WATE.0000015350.14520.c1
.
Real
M. K. H.
,
Khanam
N.
,
Mia
M. Y.
&
Nasreen
M.
(
2017
)
Assessment of water quality and microbial load of Dhaleshwari River Tangail, Bangladesh
,
Advances in Microbiology
,
07
(
06
),
523
533
.
https://doi.org/10.4236/aim.2017.76041
.
Reghunath
R.
,
Murthy
T. R. S.
&
Raghavan
B. R.
(
2002
)
The utility of multivariate statistical techniques in hydrogeochemical studies: An example from Karnataka, India
,
Water Research
,
36
(
10
),
2437
2442
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00490-0
.
Şener
Ş.
,
Şener
E.
&
Davraz
A.
(
2017
)
Evaluation of water quality using water quality index (WQI) method and GIS in Aksu River (SW-Turkey)
,
Science of the Total Environment
,
584–585
,
131
144
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.102
.
Shrestha
S.
&
Kazama
F.
(
2007
)
Assessment of surface water quality using multivariate statistical techniques: A case study of the Fuji river basin, Japan
,
Environmental Modelling and Software
,
22
(
4
),
464
475
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.02.001
.
Simeonova
P.
,
Simeonov
V.
&
Andreev
G.
(
2006
)
Water quality study of the Struma river basin, Bulgaria (1989–1998)
,
Open Chemistry
,
1
(
2
),
121
136
.
https://doi.org/10.2478/bf02479264
.
Tyagi
S.
,
Sharma
B.
,
Singh
P.
&
Dobhal
R.
(
2020
)
Water quality assessment in terms of water quality index
,
American Journal of Water Resources
,
1
(
3
),
34
38
.
https://doi.org/10.12691/ajwr-1-3-3
.
Uddin
M.
,
Alam
M.
,
Mobin
M.
&
Miah
M.
(
2015
)
An assessment of the river water quality parameters: A case of Jamuna River
,
Journal of Environmental Science and Natural Resources
,
7
(
1
),
249
256
.
https://doi.org/10.3329/jesnr.v7i1.22179
.
Vega
M.
,
Pardo
R.
,
Barrado
E.
&
Debán
L.
(
1998
)
Assessment of seasonal and polluting effects on the quality of river water by exploratory data analysis
,
Water Research
,
32
(
12
),
3581
3592
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00138-9
.
Vörösmarty
C. J.
,
McIntyre
P. B.
,
Gessner
M. O.
,
Dudgeon
D.
,
Prusevich
A.
,
Green
P.
,
Glidden
S.
,
Bunn
S. E.
,
Sullivan
C. A.
,
Liermann
C. R.
&
Davies
P. M.
(
2010
)
Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity
,
Nature
,
467
(
7315
),
555
561
.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09440
.
Wahiduzzaman
M.
,
Hossain
M. F.
&
Parveen
Z.
(
2022a
)
Assessment of environmental quality of an area adjacent to the relocated tannery industries at Hemayetpur, Bangladesh
,
Dhaka University Journal of Biological Sciences
,
31
(
1
),
29
43
.
https://doi.org/10.3329/dujbs.v31i1.57914
.
Wahiduzzaman
M.
,
Islam
M. M.
,
Sikder
A. H. F.
&
Parveen
Z.
(
2022b
)
Bioaccumulation and heavy metal contamination in fish species of the Dhaleswari River of Bangladesh and related human health implications
,
Biological Trace Element Research
,
200
(
8
),
3854
3866
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-021-02963-0
.
Wu
Z.
,
Wang
X.
,
Chen
Y.
,
Cai
Y.
&
Deng
J.
(
2018
)
Assessing river water quality using water quality index in Lake Taihu Basin, China
,
Science of the Total Environment
,
612
,
914
922
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.293
.
Wunderlin
D. A.
,
María Del Pilar
D.
,
María Valeria
A.
,
Fabiana
P. S.
,
Cecilia
H. A.
&
María De Los Ángeles
B.
(
2001
)
Pattern recognition techniques for the evaluation of spatial and temporal variations in water quality. A case study: Suquía River basin (Córdoba-Argentina)
,
Water Research
,
35
(
12
),
2881
2894
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00592-3
.
Yisa
J.
&
Jimoh
T.
(
2010
)
Analytical studies on water quality index of river Landzu
,
American Journal of Applied Sciences
,
7
(
4
),
453
458
.
https://doi.org/10.3844/ajassp.2010.453.458
.
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/).

Supplementary data