Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of the Gulf of Aqaba Coastal Water, Jordan
Previous Article in Journal
Vadose Zone Lag Time Effect on Groundwater Drought in a Temperate Climate
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Water Pollution in a Densely Populated Megapolis, Dhaka

1
Institute for Social Policy, Housing & Equalities Research, Heriot Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK
2
Department of Architecture & Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Hong Kong, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2020, 12(8), 2124; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12082124
Submission received: 16 June 2020 / Revised: 14 July 2020 / Accepted: 21 July 2020 / Published: 26 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Urban Water Management)

Abstract

:
Rapid urbanization has been a boon for industrial growth in Bangladesh, leading the Dhaka megapolis to become one of the least livable places in the world. These circumstances, however, have received little attention by policy makers and in academic research. Using mainly secondary data, this article explores the water quality of the river Buriganga that flows across Dhaka and identifies major sources of pollutants. While much of the article analyzes the sources and extent of pollution, it also points toward a great threat to public health from the presence of high levels of heavy metals, such as chromium, lead, and iron, as well as chemicals, including ammonia and phosphate. Moreover, the article recommends some policy changes that could potentially reduce pollution levels and boost water sustainability not only in Dhaka but also in other fast-growing cities in the least developed countries (LDCs).

1. Introduction

Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, is predicted to be the sixth-largest megapolis by 2030 [1]. Coupled with this rapid growth, it is the most densely populated and least habitable city in the world, which poses safe water challenges. Dhaka is not a planned city and much of its urbanization is linked to its industrial development, which over time has resulted in decreased water quality [1,2]. Inadequate sewage and inefficient waste management contribute to the water pollution, resulting in water quality in the river to parameters far below the critical limit [3]. Moreover, untreated industrial waste and household sewage are discharged into the river system, leading to the extinction of aquatic life and the failure of ecosystems. Furthermore, industrial effluents have damaged land fertility around Buriganga and affected the agriculture. The accumulation of waste has also reduced the navigability of the river, adversely affecting the water transportation system [4].
Both industrial and human waste have increased the level of biochemical substances and heavy metals in water, posing a great threat to the aquatic system and public health [5]. Chemical substances, such as biodegradable oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD), have increased the acidity levels in water and destroyed the underwater microorganisms while heavy metals caused a threat to human organs. The use of fertilizers and pesticides in agriculture likewise contributes to the deterioration of surface water quality and contaminates groundwater aquifers [6].
The Buriganga is a major source of water for domestic and industrial use, as well as a means of transportation; it also helps dilute the non-degradable pollutants. However, a high concentration of pollutants degrades its purification capacity. The dilution and reoxygenation capacity is particularly reduced significantly during the dry season, resulting in a high presence of BOD and COD, and a low presence of dissolved oxygen (DO). Untreated municipal sewer and industrial effluents result in water being highly contaminated by eutrophication. During flooding, such polluted water comes in human contact and adversely affects the public health of the megapolis [7].
A few studies have explored the presence of heavy metals in the aquatic system in the Buriganga, but the effects of acute toxicity and genotoxicity on the fish and human population have hardly been addressed [8,9]. Some have studied water pollution in relation to climate change and negative consequences on urban poverty, mortality, and morbidity [10,11,12]. However, the study of water pollution management at different urban levels is scant, especially in the context of LDCs [13]. This article explores the sources of pollution and analyzes the nature and extent of pollution that negatively impacts public health, while offering some management strategies of reducing the pollution. Such strategies address both wastewater management (% of compliant discharges) and waste management (waste and waste production), which have implications for water sustainability in cities [14].
The succeeding section is set to present a discussion on the methodology. Section 3 discusses sources of pollution, leading into Section 4, which analyzes the categories of pollution. Section 5 focuses on the extent of pollution, followed by the discussion section highlighting the potential consequences. Section 7 offers some policy strategies to control pollution at sources. The final section draws conclusions, while making recommendations for future research and pointing to limitations.

2. Methodology

The study follows a mixed method strategy to analyze the data, collected from both secondary and primary sources. Primary data were collected from both point and non-point sources that contribute to water pollution of the river, while visiting physically alongside the river. The study identifies both point and non-point sources of pollution, as well as the source at the Sewerage Treatment Plant at Pagla (PSTP). The point sources are grouped into three: Sluice gates alongside the Dhaka Integrated Flood Protection (DIFP); city drains along the Buriganga; and outfall from the PSTP. The non-point sources include domestic and industrial waste. We clustered the industries on the basis of type, and measured the pollution discharge in (m3/day) at 6 points. Domestic wastewater was observed from Lalbagh throughout the Babubazar area, and industrial wastewater was observed from Zinzira to Keraniganj. We looked into industrial pollutants, domestic sewers, clinical waste, and physical encroachment, which contribute to major pollution of the Buriganga.
Secondary data were collected from institutions, such as Institute of Water Modelling (IWM), Water & Sanitation Program (WSP), and Dhaka Water Supply & Sanitation Authority (DWASA). We explored a range of pollutants and their extent, including BOD5, COD, ammonia (NH3-N), ammonium (NH4-N), nitrate ion (NO3-N), phosphate ion (PO4), chromium (Cr), and lead (Pb) between 2005 and 2018 (measured in kg/day) as well as the “coliform” measure (per 100 mL). We also looked into the BOD5 presence in wastewater (ml/L), flowrate (m3/day), and BOD5 level at PSTP. Pollution was measured using the ‘wet method’ at four seasons. The waste-water flow was counted for 12 h in a day, taking into account the tidal influence and water consumption practices [15]. Pollution load = Concentration (mg/L) × Flow (m3/s) × Flow time [= Conc. (mg/L) × Q (m3/s) × 12.0 h = Conc. (gm/m3)/(1000 gm/kg) × Q (m3/s) × (3600 s/h) ×12.0 (h/day) = Load (kg/day)].
We analyzed both primary and secondary data and explored the nature and extent of pollutants in water.

3. Point and Non-Point Sources

Due to poor revenue sources of the city governments, the sewerage network is absent in some locations, so sewage is connected with the storm water lines there. The disposal of untreated industrial and chemical waste into storm sewer lines ultimately contaminates the river water. Other causes of pollution include the solid waste dumping points besides the river, lack of sanitary latrine facilities for the poor living nearby, obstruction of the natural flow of water due to engrossments, pollutants at the PSTP, and absence of a sanitary sewage system alongside the Buriganga river.
Industrial and household waste cause damage to the physical, chemical, and biological properties of water. High temperature and turbidity, and unbalanced hydrogen (pH) and DO damage algae and the water ecosystem. There are mainly two categories of pollution sources—point sources and non-point source—that contribute to water pollution of the Buriganga and the connecting Turag River. Pollution loads from various point and non-point sources are tabulated in the tables in Appendix A. Figure 1 below presents the Buriganga in the southwest of Dhaka, which is connected with the Turag in the northwest, and Balu and Shitalakhya in the east.

3.1. Point Sources

In reference to map 1, the point sources of pollution of the Buriganga are identified as: Group 1: Sluice gates alongside the Dhaka Integrated Flood Protection (DIFP); Group 2: City drains along the Buriganga, including the Dholai Khal; and Group 3: Outfall from the PSTP. These sources largely make the river water contaminated and the worst quality for human usage and underwater microorganisms.

3.1.1. Group 1

The sluice gate along the DIFP Embankment: Eleven sluice gates are found alongside the DIFP embankment. Sluice gate S-6 mainly drains out storm water and sewage from Mohammadpur, Kallyanpur, and adjoining areas through Kallyanpur Khal and part of Ramchandrapur Khal. During high-flow seasons, it washes all small-industrial waste and household waste into the Buriganga, while S-7 drains out the toxic ternary waste from Hazaribagh, which largely contributes to the pollution of the Buriganga. Along with the tannery waste, it discharges household waste from the neighboring areas through Kantasur Khal.
A part of Ramchandrapur Khal drains out dark and toxic wastewater through S-7. Household waste from Rayerbazar, Nimtala, Sultanganj, Zigatala, Nawabgonj, Gajmahal, Kantasur, and West Dhanmondi is discharged to Buriganga through S-7, which also carries the tannery waste from Nimtala Beel to Buriganga. S-8 also carries tannery waste from Borhanpur, Kanipara, and Battola areas, which is later discharged into the Buriganga river. Both sources pollute the water of the Buriganga, while S-9 drains out wastewater from Pilkhana, Enayetgonj, Ganaktuly, Azimpur, Bhagalpur, and Nawabgonj, and S-10 drains out wastewater from Shahidnagar, Balughat, and Amligola into the Buriganga.

3.1.2. Group 2

Municipal drains: 41 drains in Dholai Khal area carry municipal wastewater into Buriganga. Mostly earthen canals pass over Postagola-Shashan Ghat to Balubazar. In the Dholai Khal area, one of the major channels of water pollution of the river Buriganga, 40% of the total pollutants is discharged at these points (Bhuiyan, Rakib, Dampare, Ganyaglo, & Suzuki, 2011). Gerani Khal, connected with Dholai Khal, discharges wastewater from part of Narinda, Saidabad, Farashganj, and the adjoining area of Hrishikesh-Dash Road. Untreated wastewater through these channels directly flows into the Buriganga river and deteriorates its water quality.

3.1.3. Group 3

The Pagla Sewerage Treatment Plant (PSTP): The PSTP is the only point where municipal wastewater is treated before falling into the Buriganga. This plant is located at S-7 and Dholai Khal, which controls the pollution level of wastewater at that point. As such, the level of pollution is less at S-7 and Dholai Khal, compared to that of other sluice gates alongside the Buriganga river. However, the PSTP treats a lower volume of wastewater than its capacity due to the low flow of wastewater during dry seasons (approximately 48,000 m3/day), and such plants are absent at points of other sluice gates alongside the Buriganga river. The following Figure 2 demonstrates the dark wastewater, which directly falls into the Buriganga in the absence of the Sewerage Treatment Plant at the points of all sluice gates except S-7 and pollutes the river water.

3.2. Non-Point Sources

Numerous non-point sources of domestic and industrial waste also contribute to water pollution of the Buriganga. Significant domestic wastewater is discharged into the Buriganga water from the Lalbagh area throughout the Babubazar area. The indiscriminate release of wastewater deteriorates the quality of water, particularly in the dry season when the volume of water is lower, resulting in the river water becoming more dark with a pungent smell. Moreover, industrial wastewater from the densely populated Zinzira to Keraniganj significantly contaminates the Buriganga water.
Both point and non-point sources of pollution ultimately transform the water into the condition that is visible in Figure 2.

4. Categories of Pollution

Industrial pollutants, domestic sewage, and clinical waste largely contribute to the water pollution of the Buriganga river. The untreated sewage and industrial waste pollute the water. As a result, the water looks dark at some points, and a greasy film on the surface is visible in a vast area of the river. The concentration of pollutants at different points of the river is, however, due to the adjacent source and type of pollutants being discharged into the river.

4.1. Industrial Pollutants

Both light and heavy industries that contribute to pollution of the river water include textiles, polythene, rubber, dry cell, cosmetics, paint, soap, plastics, and chemicals. Leather and textile industries channel toxic wastewater into the Buriganga (and Turag) and contribute much to river pollution. Approximately 15,800 m3 of wastewater are discharged per day from the sole leather industries in Hazaribagh area, and 3400 m3 of wastewater from the textile industries in Fatullah, which contributes to 17,600 and 3850 kg/day, respectively, of BOD. The pollution contributors to Dhaka’s rivers and its location are presented in Table 1. The total BOD load at several points of the Buriganga near these industries is much higher than tolerable levels, making river water highly contaminated and toxic for human use and the water ecosystem.
Some pollutants are biodegradable and transformed through a particular biochemical process. Other non-biodegradable pollutants, such as heavy metals, including lead and chromium, and chemical substances deteriorate the water quality of the river, and reduce the anchorage capacity of the Buriganga. Heavy metals are harmful for the functioning of the human brain, kidney, lungs, liver, and blood circulation, and long-term exposure to heavy metals may cause cancer [17,18].

4.2. Domestic Pollutants

Domestic sewage also contributes to water pollution of the Buriganga river. Household waste and sewers that run through either drainage or earthen channels ultimately fall into the river and contaminate water. Such contamination contains dissolved and suspended pollutant particles, which are sources of disease-causing bacteria. Various chemical substances that are used for keeping households clean contribute to river water pollution. Non-sanitary toilets, particularly in the low-income areas and slum neighborhoods, contribute much to water pollution as they contain both viral and bacterial diseases. These pathogens can be a serious threat to public health if they are transmitted into drinking water [19].

4.3. Clinical Waste

Except the International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research, Bangladesh (ICDDRB), more than 500 hospitals/clinics across Dhaka generate 20 t of hazardous and toxic medical waste per day; a quarter of such waste constitutes infectious substances that can potentially cause diseases. This huge amount of untreated medical substances is mostly dumped into the Buriganga rivers, which causes serious public health concern. Moreover, improper disposal and management of medical waste causes adverse effects as the infectious pollutants leach into the ground water and heavy metals in the leachate contaminate the underground water [20].

4.4. Encroachment

The river flowing by the western flank of Dhaka encounters 244 establishments, including makeshift homes, small factories, dockyards, and boat-making workshops [21]. Approximately 50 acres of land around the Buriganga is seen to be encroached, of which 38.7 acres are in Kotwali and 4.3 acres are in the Keraniganj area. The encroachment usually takes place during the dry season by influential quarters, all the way down the flood protection embankment, making the Buriganga a narrow channel in some parts. Structures are built on the encroached land along the Buriganga, and garbage is indiscriminately dumped for landfill, particularly in Kamrangir Char, Kamalbagh, and Islampur. Despite the government’s interventions to protect the river channel, the encroachment continues, damaging the river’s capacity to be navigable as well as bearing the brunt of a huge volume of pollutants.

5. Pollution Parameters and Loads

A high level of biochemical and chemical organic substances is observed in the Buriganga river water. According to Table 2, all parameters exceed the standard critical levels for both drinking and fishing, particular in the upper Buriganga water. For example, the DO level in water is less than 1 mg/L, whereas the standard minimum requirement is 4 for drinking and 5 for fishing. Similarly, the BOD presence is as high as 12–55 mg/L against the standard maximum level of 3–6 mg/L. Other parameters in water are far above the corresponding standard levels for human use and underwater organisms.
According to Table 3 and Table 4, the BOD levels at points S-7, S-9, and S-10 are high enough to suggest that both domestic and industrial pollutants are major contributors of pollution of the Buriganga river. A high concentration of COD, NH3-N, NH4-N, NO3-N, and PO4 in water at all points, which is remarkably high at point S-7, indicates the presence of eutrophication. High levels of COD and chemicals, such as nitrogen, ammonia and ammonium, nitrate, and phosphate, demonstrate the worst quality river water. Such a high concentration of chemicals and heavy metals adversely affects both the human and fish population who rely heavily on the Buriganga water.
Furthermore, the level of pollution deteriorates or remains almost unchanged. For instance, the BOD5 parameter increased two-fold between 2005 and 2014, while other parameters still remain above the critical levels, which illustrates the low-quality water of Buriganga. Over the period, the BOD5 level increased two-fold, from 45,388 to 90,176 kg/day, demonstrating the continuous deterioration (Table 5). Though the NO3N level decreased from 5762 kg/day in 2008 to 1038 kg/day in 2013, it increased at slower rates. Presumably, this happened due to relocation of the leather processing industries from Dhaka to Savar. This particular industry contributed to a high level of Cr and Pb in the Buriganga water, which is evident at points S-7 through S-10, all of which exceed the toxic levels.

6. Discussion

The “Coliform” in the Buriganga water gradually increased, though it increased in the connected Turag, Balu, and Lakhya rivers during the period between 1990 and 2018 [23]. Additionally, the DO levels varied between 0 and 2.0 mg/L at several points (between Mirpur Bridge and Pagla), which is far below the standard level for human use and to support the aquatic life in the Buriganga. The maximum BOD5 level (240 mg/L) was observed in the dry seasons (e.g., December, which is far above the critical levels for drinking and fishing at Hazaribagh through Keranigang (IWM 2018). COD was also as high as 60–90 mg/L in the dry season. The underwater aquifer is polluted by the seepage of heavy metals, such as chromium, which reached a level that has long-term effects on human health [24].
The Buriganga water contains a huge amount of toxic substances, such as pathogenic organisms, oxygen-demanding waste, plant nutrients, synthetic organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals, radioactive substances, oil, and heat, all of which have negative consequences on water sustainability and public health. In particular, untreated waste from tanneries—approximately 95,000 L per day—continues to contribute to water pollution of the Buriganga, which is harmful [25]. Though some of the tannery industries have moved to Savar, the relocation of tanneries from Dhaka to Savar has largely been unsuccessful, resulting in sustained contamination of the Buriganga water [26,27]. A high level of organic and bacterial pollutants is still evident, concerning biological pollution of the Buriganga [28].
Oxygen-demanding substances, in addition to decomposing material, which makes use of oxygen during the process of decay, reduce the amount of oxygen in the environment. Sediments and suspended solids consist of mostly inorganic material washed into rivers. Nutrients, mainly nitrogen and phosphorus, can accelerate eutrophication, or the rapid biological “aging”. Industrial and municipal wastewater contains high concentrations of organic carbon, phosphorus, and nitrogen, while also possibly containing pesticides, toxic chemicals, salts, inorganic solids (e.g., silt), as well as pathogenic bacteria and viruses that pose a great threat to cities’ populations [29,30].
Water contamination incurs costs to public health through the transmission of bacterial and viral waterborne diseases. A high level of pollution causes diarrhea, typhoid, and malaria/dengue, which is common in cities, which may turn into an epidemic as cities are densely populated. Moreover, the presence of excessive heavy metals in water, such as Cr, Pb, and iron (Fe), as well as chemicals, such as ammonia and phosphate, can pose serious threats to public health. Copper (Cu), Pb, and cadmium (Cd) can cause dysfunctions of human organs, and harm the human brain, kidney, lungs, liver, and blood circulation; a longer exposure may even cause cancer.
Furthermore, chemical substances can affect aquatic life and destroy the habitat of flora and fauna as high acid levels kill the microorganisms in water and prevent them from reproducing. Moreover, using polluted water for irrigation can contaminate underground aquifers and the human food chain, while also posing risks of bioaccumulation for future generations [31]. Agricultural wastes contain high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen, organic carbon, pesticide, and fecal coliform bacteria. Moreover, mercury is methylated by aquatic organisms, before being transmitted into food.
The biodegradation process breaks down the pollutants as microorganisms use organic substances as a source of carbon and energy. Many organic materials, however, enter into the watercourses at a high enough level so that they are also responsible for water pollution. Again, anaerobic decomposition is usually performed by a completely different set of microorganisms, to which oxygen may even be toxic.

7. Policy Responses

The pollution of the Buriganga exceeds the tolerable levels of human consumption and the aquatic ecosystem, posing a great threat to the urban livelihood and underwater organisms. Sustainable water policy will need to address the issue urgently to avoid a potential epidemic. Such policy will include both short-term and long-term management strategies that have potential implications for reducing the water pollution levels.

7.1. Sewage and Effluents Control

Firstly, compulsory waste treatment can be enforced in industrial policy. Such enforcement will reduce the volume of industrial effluents, as well as sewage and wastes. The industry can install separate treatment plants for sewage and effluents so that the harmful substances are properly treated. Moreover, the policy must speed up the relocation of tannery industries from Dhaka, which will substantially reduce the toxic substances in water of the Buriganga and connecting rivers.
Effective policy must also include strategies for controlling the indiscriminate disposal of sewage into water that contains organic pollutants. Such policy must enforce strategies for the treatment of medical waste, and might involve introducing the Plasma Arc System, which is common in many countries in the world [32]. The policy must also take necessary steps to stop connections between sanitary sewage and storm sewer, as well as the dumping of garbage in nearby rivers. Public awareness can also reduce the amount of garbage into sewage lines. An introduction of pricing on effluent volume could significantly reduce the water pollution.

7.2. Regulatory Measures

Secondly, planning and land-zoning policy can control the water pollution of the Buriganga. Such policies include building an embankment on the south, and demarcating the river bank and wetland from other areas. Installation of treatment plants at Keraniganj and Kamrangir Char and setting up public toilets in the adjacent slum areas will reduce the water pollution of the rivers. Relocating the industrial zone to outside could significantly reduce the pollution levels. Policies must introduce regulations for preserving depression areas to reduce surface run-off into the river, and for setting up community-based plants for composting the domestic waste. Moreover, a public campaign to save Buriganga would have potential implications, yet it should be participatory and involve elected representatives. Moreover, public sector involvement and regulatory instruments could tackle illegal encroachment. Such a policy would incorporate strategies to dredge the riverbed and enhance navigability, and adequate plants and maintenance of the riverbank will improve the surrounding environment and appearance of the river.

7.3. Institutional Enforcement

Finally, policy must enforce the legal measures to control pollution of the Buriganga and other connected rivers. To this end, it must include periodical Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). The Department of Environment must actively monitor the pollution levels and take necessary measures to maintain the water quality for human consumption and aquatic ecosystems, until a separate authority to save the Buriganga and other rivers is formed. Toxic chemicals and organic substances must be controlled through regulatory measures under the Environmental Protection Act 1995, with updated regulations and guidelines to keep the surface and underground water safe. Appropriate laws of penalties must also be enforced to control pollution and improve the water quality.
An autonomous authority could carry out the strategies for controlling pollution at sources. Such an authority might monitor the presence and level of various polluting substances in water and carry out investigations into the biodiversity and water ecosystems. The authority may also encourage the involvement of other relevant government agencies, including Department of Environment, Industry, Environment and Forest, Water Resources and Land, as well as non-governmental organizations in such efforts.

8. Conclusions

The study carried out an investigation into the water pollution in the Buriganga by exploring the sources and pollution that pose a great threat to public health and the water sustainability of the megapolis. Such a threat is inflicted from waterborne diseases that can spread rapidly, and their high potential for contagion into epidemic levels, particularly in the densely populated city. Such a threat is amplified as pollution levels far exceed the tolerable limits of human use and underwater microorganisms. Moreover, the contaminated groundwater and the presence of toxic substances in water have adverse effects on the human food chain, causing generational health impacts, specifically for the poorest segments of society [33]. Such concerns demonstrate that a policy response is urgent, in order to contain water pollution at a level to avoid the looming catastrophe in fast-growing cities in LDCs [34]. This study presented some policy measures that have been deemed effective for controlling the river water pollution in fast growing cities in LDCs. The magnitude of the threat from each of the polluting substances, however, demands further investigation under a highly technical team. This is so that appropriate pollution-controlling measures specific to each of these pollutants are in place to inform the policy. Nevertheless, the study has been able to clarify issues of the water pollution of the river that contribute to the literature of water sustainability of cities in LDCs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.B. and I.W.H.F.; methodology, T.B.; formal analysis, T.B.; investigation, T.B.; resources, T.B.; data curation, T.B.; writing—original draft preparation, T.B.; writing—review and editing, T.B and I.W.H.F.; funding acquisition, I.W.H.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is funded by the Institute of Safety and Health Practitioners, Hong Kong, grant number HK/ISHP/02. www.ishp.org.hk/en/.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection and interpretation of data; in writing or decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Table A1. BOD load discharged into the Buriganga from PSTP treatment plant.
Table A1. BOD load discharged into the Buriganga from PSTP treatment plant.
DateBOD5 (mg/L)Flow Rate (m3/Day)Average Flow (m3/Day)BOD5 Load (kg/Day)
Max.Min.
8 March24046,44038,70042,57010,216.80
8 April24052,20039,96046,08011,059.20
8 May6056,52041,32848,9242935.44
8 June2049,68040,86045,270905.40
13 April15031,00015,00026,0003450.00
13 December17029,95215,00022,4763820.92
14 February24027,36016,33821,8495243.76
14 March20029,01614,02821,5224304.40
14 April20039,78019,27829,5295905.80
15 March19042,98021,25027,870-
17 March17540,60020,50022,5005500.20
Source: [22].
  • Observations at S4, S5, and S6 points were not available during April 2013 and December 2013. Therefore, values from measurements taken in March 2014 were used to calculate pollution loads of the Turag River.
  • Observations of S11 were not available during April 2013 and April 2014.
  • Values from measurements taken in March 2014 were taken to compute loads for the Buriganga River. The load contributed by the PSTP into the Buriganga is not included in the table.
  • The load contributed by non-point sources is not included in the table.
  • Values in shaded areas are provisional and the authority of the data is therefore limited.
  • Measurements of NH3, PO4, Cr, and Pb were not available at the PSTP outfall so these were calculated using the level of BOD observed during 2008.
Table A2. Pollution load into the peripheral Buriganga through different point sources, e.g., wastewater drains.
Table A2. Pollution load into the peripheral Buriganga through different point sources, e.g., wastewater drains.
Point SourcesTimeLoad (kg/Day)
BOD5CODNH3-NNH4-NNO3-NPO4CrPb
S8, S9, S10, S11, Dholai Khal8 February41,100-4500--14308.312.8
13 April26,097136,819359285--8.745.9
13 December94,404167,6315712,002351-77.7-
14 March65,729155,03067.57689213.2-483.23.4
14 April76,270153,5111840601317.69054.19-
15 April76,650160,500194560142212308.96.3
16 April55,730155,000215560116292012.09.2
Source: [22] (Estimation is based on a single measurement in a day).
Table A3. Pollution loads contributed by non-point sources estimated using the dry method.
Table A3. Pollution loads contributed by non-point sources estimated using the dry method.
Discharge intoNon-Point SourcesLoad (kg/Day)
BOD5CODNH3-NNH4-NNO3-NPO4CrPb
BurigangaCity drains8000NA840NANA2505.03.5
LakhyaLakhya4150NA430NANA1401.01.5
Tongi KhalTongi5160NA540NANA1701.52.0
DhaleswariDhaleswari2800NA290NANA1000.50.90
Source: [15].
Table A4. Pollution loads of other wastewater outlets.
Table A4. Pollution loads of other wastewater outlets.
StationDate of CollectionPollution Load (kg/Day)
BOD5CODNH3-NNH4-NNO3-NPO4CrPb
S-414 March 2018671811,07375.33284211.5NA27.122.74
S-514 March 20182253721.41773.5NA0.800.46
S-527 April 20181302981.1667.322.250.00-
S-615 March 201810,58417,6007.3159596.8NA0.270.29
S-627 April 20182722834617.31344127.0568.510.03-
S-727 April 201725,83449,75866.83359N.A.NA83.688.03
S-731 December 201724,11639,950425.8186141.6NA372.8980.33
S-715 March 201890,685150,906132.84012410.9NA515.770.40
S-727 April 201815,05575,59549.52979315.3221.4061.85-
S-827 April 20175442,9948.9725N.A.NA0.822.55
S-831 December 2017191337325.881515.6NA2.64-
S-815 March 201825,85543,07445.0129850.8NA479.910.18
S-827 April 201877826573.727215.620.090.62-
S-927 April 2017561618,1011.7646N.A.NA1.646.31
S-931 December 2017367282086.092436.7NA1.62-
S-914 March 201816,20027,0091.44137.8NA2.202.90
S-927 March 2018207480872.237869.1130.640.19-
S-1027 April 2017540023,1122.2829N.A.NA1.476.31
S-1031 December 201713,89323,8796.9157763.7NA2.37-
S-1014 March 2018427770230.517114.3N.A.0.310.26
S-1027 April 2018725829,2904.41330295.5396.580.58-
S-1131 December 2017235048045.9132427.6NA1.97-
S-1116 March 20184978121.01944.3NA0.020.05
Dholai Khal27 April 201714,04091,80021.66890N.A.NA4.7530.67
Dholai Khal31 December 201772,57612,700832.87361207.4NA69.12-
Dholai Khal27 March 201818,90077,11219.75613136.1NA0.73
Dholai Khal23 April 201865,664112,6666.91885933.1357.702.76-
Norai Khal29 April 2018866139,68144.14129N.A.NA0.4735.90
Norai Khal25 February 201717,96334,728128.711867449.1NA5.99-
Source: [22] (Adjusted).

References

  1. UN. The World’s Cities in 2016—Data Booklet. In Statistical Papers-United Nations (Ser. A), Population and Vital Statistics Report; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  2. Desa, U. World Urbanization Prospects (the 2011 Revision); Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bashar, T. Structural and Other Attributes of House Price: The Case of Bangladesh. J. Bangladesh Inst. Plan. 2012, 5, 13–24. [Google Scholar]
  4. Kamal, M. Assessment of Impact of Pollutants in the River Buriganga usiNG A WATER Quality Model. Master’s Thesis, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh, January 1996. [Google Scholar]
  5. Zhou, C.; Li, S.; Wang, S. Examining the Impacts of Urban Form on Air Pollution in Developing Countries: A Case Study of China’s Megacities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Rahman, S.; Hossain, F. Spatial assessment of water quality in peripheral rivers of Dhaka City for optimal relocation of water intake point. Water Resour. Manag. 2008, 22, 377–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nguyen, H.Q.; Radhakrishnan, M.; Huynh, T.T.H.; Baino-Salingay, M.L.; Ho, L.P.; Van der Steen, P.; Pathirana, A. Water Quality Dynamics of Urban Water Bodies during Flooding in Can Tho City, Vietnam. Water 2017, 9, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ahmed, M.; Kundu, G.; Al-Mamun, M.; Sarkar, S.; Akter, M.; Khan, M. Chromium (VI) induced acute toxicity and genotoxicity in freshwater stinging catfish, Heteropneustes fossilis. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2013, 92, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Ahmed, M.K.; Baki, M.A.; Islam, M.S.; Kundu, G.K.; Habibullah-Al-Mamun, M.; Sarkar, S.K.; Hossain, M.M. Human health risk assessment of heavy metals in tropical fish and shellfish collected from the river Buriganga, Bangladesh. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 15880–15890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Banks, N.; Roy, M.; Hulme, D. Neglecting the urban poor in Bangladesh: Research, policy and action in the context of climate change. Environ. Urban. 2011, 23, 487–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Revi, A. Climate change risk: An adaptation and mitigation agenda for Indian cities. Environ. Urban. 2008, 20, 207–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Satterthwaite, D. Missing the Millennium Development Goal targets for water and sanitation in urban areas. Environ. Urban. 2016, 28, 99–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. He, B.; Zhao, D.; Zhu, J.; Darko, A.; Gou, Z. Promoting and implementing urban sustainability in China: An integration of sustainable initiatives at different urban scales. Habitat Int. 2018, 82, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cruz, N.; Marques, R. Scorecards for sustainable local governments. Cities 2014, 39, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Bashar, T.; Hossen, Z.; Sultana, S. A Study on Pollution of the River Buriganga. BURP Thesis, Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh, February 2003. [Google Scholar]
  16. WSP. Water Quality Report on Buriganga. Available online: https://www.wsp.org/index.php/sites/wsp/files/publications/WSP%2520SPI%2520Country%2520Report%2520-%2520Bangladesh%2520final.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2018).
  17. Engwa, G.A.; Ferdinand, P.U.; Nwalo, F.N.; Unachukwu, M.N. Mechanism and health effects of heavy metal toxicity in humans. In Poisoning in the Modern World-New Tricks for an Old Dog? Intech Open: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  18. Islam, M.S.; Hossain, M.B.; Matin, A.; Sarker, M.S.I. Assessment of heavy metal pollution, distribution and source apportionment in the sediment from Feni River estuary, Bangladesh. Chemosphere 2018, 202, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hasan, M.K.; Shahriar, A.; Jim, K.U. Water pollution in Bangladesh and its impact on public health. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Manzoor, J.; Sharma, M. Impact of Biomedical Waste on Environment and Human Health. Environ. Claims J. 2019, 31, 311–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. DoE. Waste Disposal Regulations; Department of Environment, Government of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2011.
  22. IWM. Water Pollution Report in and around Dhaka City; Institute of Water Modelling: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  23. WB. Rapid Assessment of Greater Dhaka Groundwater Sustainability; The World Bank: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  24. Chaudhary, H.; Shahid, W.; Bano, A.; Ullah, F.; Munis, F.; Fahad, S.; Ahmad, I. In vitro analysis of cupressus sempervirens L. plant extracts antibacterial activity. J. Med. Plants Res. 2012, 6, 273–276. [Google Scholar]
  25. Azom, M.; Mahmud, K.; Yahya, S.M.; Sontu, A.; Himon, S. Environmental impact assessment of tanneries: A case study of Hazaribag in Bangladesh. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 2012, 3, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bhuiyan, M.A.; Rakib, M.; Dampare, S.; Ganyaglo, S.; Suzuki, S. Surface water quality assessment in the central part of Bangladesh using multivariate analysis. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2011, 15, 995–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Shen, T.T. Industrial Pollution Prevention; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  28. Saha, M.L.; Khan, M.R.; Ali, M.; Hoque, S. Bacterial load and chemical pollution level of the River Buriganga, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Bot. 2009, 38, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Das, P.; Samantaray, S.; Rout, G. Studies on cadmium toxicity in plants: A review. Environ. Pollut. 1997, 98, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. BWP. Rapid Assessment of Groundwater Sustainability in Dhaka; Bangladesh Water Partnership: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  31. ADB. Dhaka Environmentally Sustainable Water Supply Project; Asian Development Bank: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  32. Liu, Z.M.; Cui, S.; Luo, Z.; Zhang, C.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, Y. Plasma arc welding: Process variants and its recent developments of sensing, controlling and modeling. J. Manuf. Process. 2016, 23, 315–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Arias-Barreiro, C.; Nishizaki, H.; Okubo, K.; Aoyama, I.; Mori, I. Ecotoxicological characterization of tannery wastewater in Dhaka, Bangladesh. J. Environ. Biol. 2010, 31, 471–475. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Mahmud-ul-Islam, S. Land Use Change Detection of the Buriganga River Using GIS Tools and its Water Management for Promoting a Sustainable Environment. Master’s Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, May 2011. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The Buriganga crossing Dhaka and its connection with other rivers.
Figure 1. The Buriganga crossing Dhaka and its connection with other rivers.
Water 12 02124 g001
Figure 2. The usual quality of wastewater falling through the sluice gates.
Figure 2. The usual quality of wastewater falling through the sluice gates.
Water 12 02124 g002
Table 1. Industries in and around Dhaka.
Table 1. Industries in and around Dhaka.
Cluster NameType of IndustryNumber of IndustriesTotal Waste Water Discharged (m3/Day)Total BOD Load (kg/Day)Discharged into River
HazaribagLeather13615,80017,600Turag
Tongi BSCICTextile1343004400Tongi Khal
FatullaTextile634003850Buriganga
KanchpurTextile943003480Lakhaya
TejgaonTextile, Chemical4338852435Begunbari Kkal
Source: [16].
Table 2. Water quality standard of the Buriganga river.
Table 2. Water quality standard of the Buriganga river.
ParameterStandard ValueObserved Value
DrinkingFishingUpper BurigangaLower Buriganga
DO mg/L450<1.0
BOD mg/L36 35–5512
COD mg/L--60–9020
NH3 mg/L20.028–100.4–0.5
NH4+ mg/L21.216–177–10
NO3 mg/L1040 1.5–1.82–3
PO4 mg/L6-0.40.4
Cr mg/L0.050.020.006–0.270.002–0.004
Pb mg/L0.100.100.0010.001
Zn mg/L50.101–41–4
Hg mg/L0.0010.0001<0.001<0.001
Cl mg/L60060040–8040–80
SS mg/L-2560–10060–100
Alkalinity mg/L-70–100150–175150–175
Coliform 1000/100 mL0-8–1608–160
Source: [22]. Notes: The standard DO represents the minimum required value, while others represent the maximum levels of concentration. The upper Buriganga water flows between Hazaribagh and Kamrangir Char and the lower Buriganga between Chadnighat and Nabinagar.
Table 3. Sampling sites of Institute of Water Modelling for the Buriganga River.
Table 3. Sampling sites of Institute of Water Modelling for the Buriganga River.
Waste Water Outlet Drain for MonitoringWater Quality Monitoring Station
Sluice No. 7 (Katasur)Buri—1 (Mirpur Bridge)
Sluice No. 8 (Hazaribagh)Buri—2 (Basila)
Sluice No. 9 (Islampur)Buri—3 (Islampur)
Sluice No. 10 (lalbagh)Buri—4 (Islampur)
Dholai KhalBuri—5 (Chadnighat)
PSTP (Pagla)Buri—6 (Pagla)
-Buri—7 (Fatulla)
-Buri—8(Hariharpara)
-Buri—9 (Nabinagar)
Source: [22].
Table 4. Wastewater pollutant in four outlets.
Table 4. Wastewater pollutant in four outlets.
Sample LocationFlow Rate (m3/s)Parameter Tested (mg/L)
BODCODNH3-NNH4-NNO3-NPO4CrPb
S-70.8242521341.4084.108.96.251.75<0.001
S-80.3602050.3020.961.21.550.05<0.001
S-90.321505850.1627.345.09.450.01<0.001
S-101.21405650.0925.665.77.650.01<0.001
Source: [22].
Table 5. Pollution loads in water.
Table 5. Pollution loads in water.
RiverObservation PeriodPollution Load (kg/Day)
BOD5NH3-NPO4CrPb
Buriganga5 April45,388----
8 February58,000576223331718
13 April37,5471038-1550
13 December106,2251078-84-
14 March78,0331111-4908
14 April90,1761137158212-
Source: [22].

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bashar, T.; Fung, I.W.H. Water Pollution in a Densely Populated Megapolis, Dhaka. Water 2020, 12, 2124. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12082124

AMA Style

Bashar T, Fung IWH. Water Pollution in a Densely Populated Megapolis, Dhaka. Water. 2020; 12(8):2124. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12082124

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bashar, Toriqul, and Ivan W.H. Fung. 2020. "Water Pollution in a Densely Populated Megapolis, Dhaka" Water 12, no. 8: 2124. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12082124

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop