Evaluating Monsoon Effects on Fecal Contamination and Water Quality at Primary River Sites of the Hooghly River, West Bengal, India

IJEP 46(3): 234-244 : Vol. 46 Issue. 3 (March 2026)

Full Text

Farzana Shamim1 and Barna Chakraborty2*

1. Vidyasagar University, Centre for Environmental Studies, Midnapore – 721 102, West Bengal, India
2. Vidyasagar University, Centre for Distance and Online Education, Department of Zoology, Midnapore – 721 102, West Bengal, India

Abstract

This study evaluates microbial contamination and water quality at eight culturally significant sites along the Hooghly river during the monsoon of 2022. To assess pollution levels, parameters, such as physico-chemical and biological factors were analyzed. Fecal coliform concentrations ranged from 18,000-65,000 MPN/100 mL, far exceeding WHO (1,000 MPN/100 mL) and BIS (2,500 MPN/100 mL) standards, with health risk index values between 18-65, indicating severe health hazards. Pearson and Spearman correlations showed a strong positive link between FC and BOD (r=0.84), moderate correlations with dissolved oxygen and turbidity and a negative correlation between FC and TC, reflecting complex contamination sources. The total coliform/fecal coliform (TC/FC) ratios distinguished recent fecal pollution from older contamination. The water quality index ranged from 391-3246, classifying all sites as highly polluted, with Dakshineshwar temple ghat being the most contaminated. These findings highlight the urgent need for improved sewage treatment, pollution control and public education to protect health at these frequently used bathing sites. Regular monitoring is essential to safeguard both public health and the ecological stability of the river.

Keywords

Hooghly river, Water quality index, Microbial activity, Monsoon influence, Anthropogenic influence

References

  1. Roy, M., Bhattacharya, D. and Ghosh, P. 2021. Impact of religious activities on the water quality of the Hooghly river: A case study from Dakshineswar to Babu ghat. Indian J. Env. Prot., 41(9): 828-836.
  2. Adhikari, B., Bag, M.K., Bhowmick, M.K. and Kundu, C. 2011. Status paper on rice in West Bengal. In Rice in West Bengal.
  3. Roy, M., Shamim, F. and Chatterjee, S. 2021. Evaluation of physico-chemical and biological parameters on the water quality of Shilabati river, West Bengal, India. Water Sci., 35(1): 71-81. DOI: 10.1080/23570008. 2021.1928902.
  4. APHA. 1998. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
  5. Mishra, S. and Patel, R. 2020. Evaluation of water quality index for the assessment of river pollution. Indian J. Env. Prot., 40(3): 215-220.
  6. Das, S. 2018. West Bengal rivers are not suitable even for bathing, says report. The Hindu.
  7. Mahata, S. 2023. Pollution eminence of river Hooghly between Trabeni to Diamond harbour. In Multidisciplinary approach in arts, science and commerce (vol 3). The Hill Publication.
  8. Sharma, R., Singh, P. and Gupta, N. 2019. Assessment of microbial contamination in the Ganga river. Indian J. Env. Prot., 39(5): 401-407.
  9. Burkhardt, W., Calci, K.R., Watkins, D.W., Rippey, S.R. and Chirtel, S.J. 2000. Inactivation of indicator micro-organisms in estuarine waters. Water Res., 34(8): 2207-2214. DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(99)00399-1.
  10. Dionísio, L.P.C., Rheinhemer, G. and Borrego, J.J. 2000. Microbiological pollution of Ria Formosa (South of Portugal). Mar. Poll. Bull., 40(2): 186-193. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.11.025.
  11. Mill, A., Schlacher, T. and Katouli, M. 2006. Tidal and longitudinal variation of fecal indicator bacteria in an estuarine creek in south-east Queensland, Australia. Mar. Poll. Bull., 52(8): 881-981. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.11.018.
  12. Portnoy, J.W. and Allen, J.R. 2006. Effects of tidal restrictions and potential benefits of tidal restoration on fecal coliform and shellfish-water quality. J. Shellfish Res., 25(2): 609-617.
  13. Curtis, T.P., Duncan, M.D. and Silva, S.A. 1992. Influence of pH, oxygen and humic substances on ability of sunlight to damage fecal coliforms in waste stabilization pond water. Appl. Env. Microbiol., 58(4): 1335-1343. DOI: 10.1128/aem.58.4.1335-1343. 1992.
  14. Rodrigues, M.R., Oliveira, A., Guerreiro, M., Fortunato, A.B., Menaia, J., David, L.M. and Cravo, A. 2011. Modelingfecal contamination in the Aljezur coastal stream (Portugal). Ocean Dynamics. 61(6): 841-856. DOI: 10.1007/s10236-011-0392-9.
  15. Roy, M. and Shamim, F. 2020b. Research on the impact of industrial pollution on river Ganga: A review. Int. J. Prev. Control Ind. Poll., 6(1): 43-51.
  16. Shamim, F. and Chakraborty, B. 2024. Assessing hydrological dynamics during the monsoon season in the Hooghly river, West Bengal, India: An evaluation of comprehensive pollution index and water quality index. Ecol. Env. Conserv., 7: S115-S120. DOI: 10.53550/EEC.2024.v30i04s.020.
  17. IS 2296. 1982. Tolerance limits for inland surface waters. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
  18. WHO. 2003. Guidelines for safe recreational water environments: Coastal and fresh waters. World Health Organization, Geneva.
  19. Roy, M. and Shamim, F. 2020a. Assessment of anthropogenically induced pollution in the surface water of river Ganga: A study in the Dakshineswar ghat, West Bengal, India. J. Water Poll. Purif. Res., 7(1): 15-19.
  20. Roy, M., Shamim, F., Mazumder, R. and Ghosh, C. 2022. Evaluation of the anthropogenic enrichment of pollutant loads amidst the Covid restrictions: A case study in Babu ghat, West Bengal, India. Bull. Env. Pharmacol. Life Sci., 3: 253-261.
  21. Shamim, F. and Chakraborty, B. 2025. Temporal analysis of the Hooghly river’s water quality: Investigating pre- and post-monsoon scenarios in West Bengal, India. Water Sci. Tech., 91(3): 266-279. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2024.373.
  22. Agarwal, A. and Saxena, M. 2011. Assessment of pollution by physico-chemical water parameters using regression analysis: A case study of Gagan river at Moradabad-India. Adv. Appl. Sci. Res., 2(2): 185-189.
  23. APHA. 2017. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (23rd edn). American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
  24. Brown, R.M., McClelland, N.I., Deininger, R.A. and Tozer, R.G. 1972. A water quality index—Do we dare? Water Sewage Works. 119(10): 339-343.
  25. WHO. 2017. Guidelines for safe recreational water environments: Volume 1. Coastal and fresh waters. World Health Organization, Geneva.
  26. CPCB. 2021. River Yamuna pollution report. Central Pollution Control Board, Government of India.
  27. Matta, G., Pandey, R.R. and Saini, K.K. 2015. Assessment of pollution on water quality and phytoplankton diversity in canal system of river ganga. World J. Pharm. Res., 4(11): 889-908.
  28. Rai, B. 2013. Pollution and conservation of Ganga river in modern India. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ., 3(4): 1-4.