Page 82 - {PDF Title}
P. 82

Hossain, et al.

                is  frequently  used  as  a  proxy  for  measuring  TDS   parameters are recorded for alkalinity (5.91), hardness
                concentrations.  A  significant  positive  connection   (6.81), BOD  (26.99), COD (1.52), iron (2.98), EC (1.32),
                                                                               5
                (0.87)  between  EC  and  temperature  indicates  that   pH (1.4), and temperature (1.73). According to the overall
                higher  temperatures  are  linked  to  greater  EC  values.   NPI  rankings,  six  parameters  emerge  as  the  primary
                Furthermore, robust positive associations exist between   contributors  to  drinking  water  pollution  in  the  study
                WQI and key indices such as BOD , COD, chloride, and   area. The dominant pollutants, listed in order of impact,
                                              5
                hardness,  emphasizing  their  substantial  influence  on   are: BOD >hardness>alkalinity>iron>temperature>EC.
                                                                             5
                overall water quality. A moderate positive correlation   This  comprehensive  assessment  identifies  the  key
                (0.73) between chloride and hardness further supports   pollutants  influencing  water  quality  and  underscores
                the interdependence of these parameters. Moreover, a   the need for targeted water treatment and management
                correlation coefficient of 0.58 between iron and arsenic   measures.
                implies that regions with elevated iron levels are also
                likely  to  exhibit  elevated  arsenic  levels,  indicating  a   3.6. Health risk analysis
                shared geochemical origin for both pollutants.      Table  3 presents the CDI values for iron and arsenic
                  Conversely, several notable negative associations   across the four samples in PWPs.  The CDI  for iron
                are identified. ORP negatively correlates with alkalinity,   is consistently  higher than that for arsenic. For
                hardness, chloride, BOD , and COD. In addition, a negative   ingestion,  the  CDI of iron and  arsenic  ranges  from
                                    5
                correlation between pH and chloride was observed.   27.39 – 140 µg/kg/day to 0 – 0.6086 µg/kg/day for adults
                                                                    and from 39.6 – 202.4 µg/kg/day to 0 – 0.88 µg/kg/day for
                3.5. Identification of the key polluting factors    children, respectively. For dermal exposure, the CDI of
                Figure  6  illustrates  significant  variations  in  the  NPI   iron and arsenic ranges from 0.0817 – 0.418 µg/kg/day to
                across  the  sampled  stations,  emphasizing  eight  key   0 – 0.00073 µg/kg/day for adults and 0.198 – 1.012 µg/kg/day
                factors  contributing  to  drinking  water  pollution:   and 0 – 0.00618 µg/kg/day for children, respectively.
                alkalinity, hardness, chloride, BOD , COD, iron, EC, pH,   Comparatively,  Sample  4  exhibits  the  lowest  CDI
                                              5
                and temperature. The highest NPI values among these   values, whereas Sample 1 records the highest.

































                        Figure 6. Heatmap representing NPI scores for all samples, with scores above 1 indicating
                                                        water-polluting factors
                Abbreviations: As: Arsenic; BOD : Biochemical oxygen demand; COD: Chemical oxygen demand; DO: Dissolved
                                             5
                oxygen; EC: Electrical conductivity; Fe: Iron; NPI: Nemerow pollution index; ORP: Oxidation-reduction potential;
                TDS: Total dissolved solids.




                Volume 22 Issue 1 (2025)                        76                                 doi: 10.36922/ajwep.8163
   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87