National Water Quality Monitoring Programme

National Water Quality Monitoring Programme Fifth Monitoring Report (2005 06) June 2007 Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) Khayaban e Johar Service Road South, H 8/1, Islamabad Pakistan. Tele: 9258958, Fax: 9258963 E mail: pcrwr@isb.comsats.net.pk

Website: www.pcrwr.govt.pk Copyright 2007 by PCRWR ISBN 978-969-8469-18-4 All rights reserved. Published in Pakistan by Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR), Khyaban-e-Johar, H-8/1, Islamabad Pakistan Email: pcrwr@isb.comsats.net.pk Cataloging in Publication Data: Kahlown, Muhammad Akram; Tahir, Muhammad Aslam and Hifza Rasheed. Water Quality Status of Pakistan (5 th Technical Report 2005-2006). Includes Annexures References: I. Water Quality 2. Drinking Water 3. Water Resources Pakistan I. Title II. Publication No.133-2007 628.16 095491 ISBN 978-969-8469-18-4

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION Water is essential for the survival of all living things. Water makes up more than two thirds of the weight of the human body, and without it, humans would die in a few days. The human brain is made up of 95% water, whereas blood and lungs contain 82% and 90% water respectively (Fine waters, 2006) In addition to the daily maintenance of the body, water also plays a key role in the prevention of disease(s). Drinking eight glasses of water daily can decrease the risk of colon cancer by 45%, bladder cancer by 50% and it can reduce the risk of breast cancer (APEC, 2006). About 70% of the earth is covered with water and 97.5% of that constitutes salty oceans. The remaining 2.5% is fresh water, out of which less than 1% of freshwater is useable (Figure-1.1).

Figure 1.1: Availability of Fresh Water Source: WWAP 2006, based on data from Shiklomanov and Rodda 2003 Freshwater would be enough to support the world s population if used with care. Freshwater however, is not distributed evenly with respect to population. Although 60% of the world s populations live in Asia, the continent has only 36% of the world s water resources (Plan, 2005). Water and population distribution in different regions is shown in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2: Water Availability versus Population Source: Global Water Future, Center for Strategic and International Studies and Sandia National. www.unfpa.org Without a minimum amount of water to consume, the human body rapidly deteriorates and ultimately death can occur due to dehydration. However, most people have access to some form of water supply that is sufficient to meet the very basic human needs, although these supplies may cause risks to their health because of their quality, with regards to basic hygiene. 1.1 Water Borne Diseases: Most of the impacts are related to either water quality or water quantity. The consumption of water which is contaminated by disease-causing agents (or pathogens) or toxic chemicals can lead to health problems. These may be mild for instance (diarrhoea for one to two days), or very severe (including fatal effects). They may also be short-term (called acute), or long-term (called chronic). Poor hygiene may be caused by the use of inadequate volumes of water and may lead to skin and eye diseases. In addition, poor hygiene resulting from lack of adequate water is also a key factor in the transmission of many infectious diarrhoeal diseases. Water quality is deteriorating in most regions and evidence indicates that the diversity of freshwater species and ecosystems is also getting adversely affected, rapidly; often faster than terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Poor water quality is the most important cause of poor livelihood and health. Globally, diarrhoeral diseases and malaria killed about 3.1 million people in 2002. Ninety percent of these deaths were of children under the age of five. In this context the following facts are documented in different reports like Global Water Supply & Sanitation Assessment Report (2000), World Water Vision, World Water Council (2000) and Environment Canada (2000):. About 20% of the world s population remains without access to safe drinking water.. About 40% of the world s population has no access to sanitation facilities.. Annually, more than 2.2 million people (mostly children under the age of five) die from problems associated with the lack of drinking water and sanitation.. More than 6,000 children die each day from diseases associated with the lack of access to safe drinking water, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene.. In developing countries, about 80% of the illnesses are linked to poor water quality and sanitation conditions.. Half of the world s hospital beds are occupied by patients suffering from some form of a water-borne disease.. In developing countries, it is common for water collectors, usually women and girls, to

walk several kilometers daily to fetch water. Filled pots and jerry cans can weigh as much as 20 kilograms.. By 2015, the international community hopes to reduce, by half, the proportion of people who are unable to reach, or afford, safe drinking water. 1.2 Population and Water Supply: According to an estimate given in a report of the Leadership for Environment and Development, by the year 2025 about 52 nations comprising half the world's population, will have a severe shortage of potable water. In the next 25 years, some 3 billion people will be facing water shortages. Similarly, the major issues of South Asia in this context are freshwater pollution and scarcity -limited access to potable water, water-borne diseases, arsenic contamination of drinking water, seasonal limitations of availability of natural freshwater resources, depletion of freshwater aquifers and organic pollution. The population of Pakistan is now estimated to be more than 160 million. With the present growth rate of 1.8%, the population of the country is expected to have doubled by the year 2025. Per capita decline of water availability from 5600 m 3 to 1,000 m 3 has seriously raised the water quality and quantity concerns. It is estimated that around 40% of all reported diseases and deaths in Pakistan are attributed to poor water quality in the country. Moreover, the leading cause of deaths in infants and children up to 10 years of age, is that of contaminated water. The mortality rate of 136 per 1,000 live births due to diarrhoea is reported, while every fifth citizen suffers from illness caused by unsafe water. In Karachi, more than 10,000 people die annually of renal infection due to polluted drinking water. The budget of the majority of the poor people was often consumed on the treatment of waterborne diseases owing to which they had little money left for improving their living standards. (Dawn April 5, 2004). 1.3 National Water Quality Monitoring Program: Considering the gravity of the water quality problems at such a national level, the Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) launched the National Water Quality Monitoring Program on March 17, 2001 for a period of five years. All five phases of the program have been completed. In this report, water quality data has been presented covering 23 major cities of Pakistan. These cities include Islamabad, Bahawalpur, Faisalabad, Gujranwala, Gujrat, Kasur, Lahore, Multan, Rawalpindi, Sargodha, Sheikhupura, Sialkot, Mangora, Abbottabad, Mardan, Peshawar, Khuzdar, Loralai, Quetta, Ziarat, Hyderabad, Karachi, Sukkur. The findings of this water quality monitoring program have in fact played a key role to sensitize the planning and implementing agencies responsible for the provision of safe drinking water to the public. As a result, the Government of Pakistan has seriously considered the matter and approved a number of safe water initiatives for the well being of the citizens. Detailed water quality profiles of 23 major cities of Pakistan are also available on the official website of PCRWR (www.pcrwr.gov.pk ). In this report, findings of the fifth and final phase of water quality monitoring are presented and discussed in detail. In addition, province wise and on country basis water quality status from 2002 to 2006 is also provided in order to further motivate the responsible authorities to solve the water quality problems on a priority basis to safe guard the public health. This noble cause was initiated by PCRWR whose capacity is being reflected from this report. 1.4 Scope of Fifth Monitoring Report: The idea behind preparing this report was to document the water quality situation in target areas and to identify key issues for implementation of mitigation measures. The report consists of six chapters. Chapters 1 to 4 cover introduction, water quality standards, methodology and the water quality situation in 23 major cities in the year 2006. Chapter 5 presents the situation analysis from 2002 to 2006, whereas Chapter 6 presents a brief summary of findings and recommendations to rectify the unwanted situation. Based on the

reports findings, decisions need to be taken accompanied by immediate steps in order to improve the existing supply and distribution system. Consequently, this report is also helpful to design, plan and implement future water supply projects. For the general public, this report is an effective source to update their knowledge about the city s water sources, water quality, and possible treatments.

CHAPTER-2 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS The basic purpose of establishing standards is to facilitate the provision of safe drinking water to the citizens. The World Health Organization (WHO) has provided guidelines for drinking water, which are advisory in nature, and are based on scientific research and epidemiological findings. The values of various water quality parameters recommended by the WHO are the general guidelines. That is why different countries have established their own water quality standards in order to meet their national priorities, taking into account their economic, technical, social, cultural, and political requirements. The Pakistan Standard Quality Control Authority (PSQCA) has come forth with the national drinking water quality standards which are in implementation for water quality monitoring. This matter needs to be addressed as a top priority. The WHO guidelines and standards proposed by national agencies like PCRWR, PSQCA, International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other countries are documented in this chapter. 2.1 WHO Guidelines A. Bacteriological Qualities Source/Organisms All water intended for drinking (E. Coli or thermo tolerant Coliform bacteria). Treated water entering the distribution system (E. Coli or thermo tolerant coliform and total coliform bacteria). Treated water in the distribution system (E. Coli or thermo tolerant coliform and total coliform bacteria). Guideline Value Must not be detectable in any 100 ml sample. Must not be detectable in any 100 ml sample. Must not be detectable in any 100 ml sample. In the case of large supplies, where sufficient samples are examined, it must not be present in 95% of samples taken throughout any 12-month period. B. Chemicals of Health Significance Inorganic mg/l Inorganic mg/l Inorganic mg/l

Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Chromium 0.050 0.010 0.700 0.500 0.003 0.050 Copper Cyanide Fluoride Lead Manganese Mercury 2.000 0.070 1.500 0.010 0.500 0.001 Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate(NO3) Nitrite(NO2) Selenium Uranium 0.070 0.020 50.00 03.00 0.010 0.002 C. Other Parameters D. Pesticides Parameter mg/l Parameter mg/l Parameter mg/l Color Taste, Odor. Turbidity Toluene Xylenes Ethyl-benzene Styrene Monochlorobenzene 15 TCU -5 NTU 0.70 0.50 0.30 0.02 0.30 1,2 dichlorobenzene 1,4-dichlorobenzene Tetracholorethene Ethylbenzene Aluminum Ammonia Chloride Copper 1.00 0.30 0.04 0.30 0.20 1.50 250 1.00 Hardness, ph, DO Hydrogen sulfide Iron Sodium Sulfate TDS Zinc Pyradite 0.10 Chlorotoluron 0.03 1,2-dicholoropropane 0.04 Bentazon 0.30 2.2 US-EPA Guidelines A. Inorganic Chemicals -0.05 0.30 200 250 1000 3 Inorganic mg/l Inorganic mg/l Inorganic mg/l Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium 0.006 0.010 2.000 0.004 0.005 0.100 Copper Cyanide Fluoride Lead Manganese Mercury 1.00 0.20 2.00 0.015 0.050 0.002 Molybdenum Znic Nitrate(N) Nitrite(N) Selenium Aluminum 0.070 5.000 10.000 01.000 0.050 0.05-0.2 B.Other Parameters Parameter mg/l Parameter mg/l Parameter mg/l Color Atrazine Toluene Xylenes (total) Ethyl-benzene Styrene Chlorobenzene Benzene Oxamyl 15 TCU 0.003 1000 10.000 0.700 0.100 0.1 Zero 0.200 1,2 dichloropropane o-dichlorobenzene p-dichlorobenzene Endrin Ethylbenzene Methoxychlor Vinyl choloride Chloride Glyphosate Zero 0.600 0.075 0.002 0.700 0.040 0.002 250 0.700 ph Sulfate Iron Sodium Sulfate TDS Corrosivity 6.5-8.5 250 0.30 200 250 1000 Non-corrosive C. Disinfectants

Chloramines 4 Chlorine dioxide 0.8 Chlorine 4 Chlorite 1.0 2.3 PSQCA Water Quality Standards A. Physical Requirements Characteristics Unit MAC* MAC** ph - 7.0-8.5 6.5-9.2 Turbidity NTU 5 25 Colour TCU 5 50 Taste & Odor - Unobjectionable B. Chemical Requirements C. Limits of Toxic Substances Alkyl Benzyl Sulfates mg/l 0.5 1.0 Calcium (Ca) mg/l 75 200 Total Hardness (CaCO3) mg/l 20 500 Chloride (Cl) mg/l 200 600 Sulfate (SO4) mg/l 200 400 Nitrate (NO3) mg/l - 10 Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 1000 1500 Iron (Fe) mg/l 0.3 1.0 Fluoride (F) mg/l - 1.5 Hydrogen Sulfide mg/l Undetectable odor Zinc (Zn) mg/l 5.0 15.0 Manganese (Mn) mg/l - 0.5 Copper (Cu) mg/l - 1.0 Magnesium (Mg) mg/l 50 150 Arsenic (As) mg/l 0.01 Cadmium (Cd) mg/l 0.003 Chromium (Cr) mg/l 0.05 Cyanide (Cn) mg/l 0.07 Lead (Pb) mg/l 0.01 Selenium (Se) mg/l 0.01 Escherichia coli Total Coliform Enterococci Pseudomonas aeruginosa D. Limits for Bacteriological Contaminants Acceptable bacterial standards for potable water supplies are as follows: 0/250 ml 0/250 ml 0/250 ml 0/250 ml * Maximum Acceptable Concentration. ** Maximum Allowable Concentration.

2.4 International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) Standards A. Chemical Quality Characteristics Unit Standard Characteristics Unit Standard Arsenic (As) mg/l 0.01 Mercury (Hg) mg/l 0.001 Barium (Ba) mg/l 1.00 Nitrate (NO3) mg/l 10.00 Cadmium (Cd) mg/l 0.005 Nitrite (NO2) mg/l 1.00 Chromium (Cr) mg/l 0.05 Selenium (Se) mg/l 0.01 Chloride (Cl) mg/l 250 Silver (Ag) mg/l 0.025 Copper (Cu) mg/l 1.00 Sulfate (SO4) mg/l 250.0 Cyanide (CN) mg/l 0.10 Phenolic mg/l 0.001 Fluoride (F) mg/l 4.00 PCB mg/l 0.0005 Iron (Fe) mg/l 0.30 TDS mg/l 500.0 Lead (Pb) mg/l 0.005 Zinc (Zn) mg/l 5.00 Manganese (Mn) mg/l 0.05 Turbidity NTU 0.50 B. Microbiological Quality 2.5 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Standards Characteristics Unit Standard Characteristics Unit Standard Arsenic (As) mg/l 0.05 Nitrate (NO3) mg/l 10.0 Barium (Ba) mg/l 1.00 Selenium (Se) mg/l 0.01 Cadmium (Cd) mg/l 0.01 Silver (Ag) mg/l 0.05 Chromium (Cr) mg/l 0.05 Sulfate (SO4) mg/l 250 Chloride (Cl) mg/l 250 Phenolic mg/l 0.001 Copper (Cu) mg/l 1.00 Ra 226 activity (pci/l) - 5.00 Iron (Fe) mg/l 0.30 Total Beta activity (pci/l) - 8.00 Lead (Pb) mg/l 0.05 TDS mg/l 500.0 Manganese (Mn) mg/l 0.050 Zinc (Zn) mg/l 5.0 Mercury (Hg) mg/l 0.002 Coliform (MPN/100 ml) <2,20 2.6 Indian Water Quality Standards A. Physical and Chemical Standards Characteristics Acceptable Marginal Sr. Characteristics Acceptable Marginal (mg/l) #. (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) 2.5 10 15 Copper 0.05 1.5 Colour (TCU) 5 25 16 Zinc 5.0 15.0 Taste & Odor Unobjectionable 17 Phenolic Compounds 0.001 0.002 PH 7-8.5 6.5-9.2 18 Anionic Detergents 0.2 1.00 TDS 500 1500 19 Arsenic 0.05 0.05 Hardness 200 600 20 Cadmium 0.01 0.01

Chloride 200 1000 21 Chromium 0.05 0.05 Sulfate 200 400 22 Cyanide 0.05 0.05 Fluoride 1.0 1.5 23 Lead 0.1 0.1 Nitrate (N) 45 45 24 Selenium 0.01 0.001 Calcium 75 200 25 Mercury 0.001 0.20 Magnesium 30 150 26 Polynuclear aromatic 0.2 3.00 hydrocarbons (g/l) Iron 0.10 1.00 27 Gross Alpha Activity 3 (pci/l) 30.0 Manganese 0.05 0.50 28 Gross Beta Activity 30 pico (pci/l) curie/l Note: The values indicated under the column Acceptable are the limits up to which the water is generally acceptable to the consumers. Values in excess of those mentioned under Acceptable render water not acceptable, but still may be tolerated in absence of an alternative and a better source, but up to the limits indicated under the column Marginal, above which the supply will have to be rejected. B. Bacteriological Standards i) Water entering the distribution system coliform count in any sample of 100 ml should be zero. ii) Water in the distribution system shall satisfy all the three criteria indicated below: E.Coli count in 100 ml of any sample should be zero; Coliform organisms no more than 10 per 100 ml shall be present in any sample; Coliform organisms should not be detectable in 100 ml of any two consecutive samples or more than 50% of the samples collected for the year. iii) Individual or small community supplies. E.Coli count should be zero in any sample of 100 ml and coliform organisms should not be more than 3 per 100 ml. C. Virological Aspects A level of 0.5 mg/l of free chlorine residual for one hour is sufficient to inactivate virus, even in water that was originally polluted. This free chlorine residual is to be insisted in all disinfected supplies in areas suspected of endemicity of infectious hepatitis to take care of the safety of the supply from the viral point of view, which incidentally takes care of the safety from the bacteriological point of view as well. For other areas 0.2 mg/l of free chlorine residual for half an hour should be insisted. 2.7 Water Quality Standards of Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines and Brunei. A. Chemical Quality Substances Unit Indonesia Singapore Malaysia Thailand Philippines Brunei Arsenic (As) mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 <0.003 Barium (Ba) mg/l - 1-1 - <0.02 Borate (BO3) mg/l - 0.03 30 - - 0.20 Cadmium (Cd) mg/l 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.01 <0.002 Chromium (Cr) mg/l - 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 <0.01 Chloride (Cl) mg/l 250 0.05-250 - -

Chlorine (Cl2) mg/l - - 1 1 - - Copper (Cu) mg/l 0.5 - - 0.1 1 <0.01 COD mg/l - - - 1 - - Cyanide (CN) mg/l 0.05 0.01 0.01-0.01 - Fluoride (F) mg/l 1 2 2-2 0.09 Hardness (CaCO3) mg/l 170 - - 100 - - Iodine (I) mg/l - 1-0.3 - - Iron (Fe) mg/l 0.1 - - 0.05 1 - Lead (Pb) mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 <0.01 Manganese (Mn) mg/l 0.05 2 2 0.002 0.1 0.01 Mercury (Hg) mg/l 0.001 1 0.001-0.001 <0.001 Mineral Oil mg/l - ND ND - - - Nitrate (NO3) mg/l ND 45 45 4 (N) 45 <0.05 Nitrite (NO2) mg/l ND 0.005 0.005-0.01 <0.005 Organic Matter mg/l 1 0.003 3-5 - Selenium (Se) mg/l - 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 Silver (Ag) mg/l - - - 0.05 - - Surfactant mg/l - ND ND - 2 - Sulfide (S) mg/l ND 0.05 0.05 - - - Sulphate (SO4) mg/l 200 - - 250 - - Phenolic mg/l - ND ND 0.001 0.001 - Ra 226 activity pci/l - 30 - - - - Total Beta activity pci/l - 1 - - - - TDS mg/l 500 - - 500 - - Zinc (Zn) mg/l - - 5 5 5 - B. Microbiological Quality Total Plate Count/ml Max Max.1x105 1x104 - - - - Coliform (MPN/100 ml) <2.20 0/250 ml Max.10 <2.20 <2.20 Nil Escherichia coli 0 0 0 Negative - Nil Salmonella/100 ml - 0 - - - - Staphylococcus Aureus/250 ml - 0 - - - - Pseudomonas Aeruginosa/250 ml 0 0 - - - - Faecal Streptococci/20 ml - - - - 1/100 ml - 2.8 Water Quality Standards of Vietnam, Japan, China, Hong Kong, Korea and Taiwan A. Chemical Quality Substances Unit Vietnam Japan China H. Korea Taiwan Kong Arsenic (As) mg/l 0.05 <0.2 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.05 Ammonium (NH4) mg/l - <0.5-1.5 0.5 -

Barium (Ba) mg/l - - - 0.7 - - Borate (BO3) mg/l 10 - - 0.3 - - Cadmium (Cd) mg/l 0.01 <0.05 0.01 0.003 0.01 0.01 Chromium (Cr) mg/l - <0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Chloride (Cl) mg/l - <350 250 250 150 250 Chlorine (Cl2) mg/l - - - - - 1 Copper (Cu) mg/l 1 <0.05 1 2 1 0.01 COD mg/l - - - - - 0.8 Cyanide (CN) mg/l 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.07 ND - Fluoride (F) mg/l 2 <1.5 0.8 1.5 1 - Hardness (CaCO3) mg/l - 100-500 250-300 250 Iodine (I) mg/l - - - - - 0.3 Iron (Fe) mg/l - <0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.05 Lead (Pb) mg/l 0.05 <0.1 0.05 0.01 0.1 0.05 Manganese (Mn) mg/l 2 <0.1 0.05 0.5 0.3 0.001 Mercury (Hg) mg/l - - 0.001 0.001 ND - Nitrate (NO3) mg/l 45 <5.0 10 50 10 10 Nitrite (NO2) mg/l - - ND 3 - ND Organic Matter mg/l 3-0.1 - - 0.1 Selenium (Se) mg/l - <0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Silver (Ag) mg/l 0.01-0.05-0.05 Sulphate (SO4) mg/l - <250 250 250 200 250 Phenolic mg/l - <0.001 - - 0.005 - Total Beta activity pci/l - - - 1.0 Bq/I - - TDS mg/l - <1000 500 1000-500 Zinc (Zn) mg/l 5 <5 5 3 1 5 B. Microbiological Quality 1 Total Plate Count/ml <10-100 - <100-2 Coliform (MPN/100 ml) - <15.100 3 <2.2 0-0/100 3 Escherichia coli 2.2 - - - - ml 2.9 Water Quality Standards of Saudi Arabia, Guam, Australia, Argentina, Mexico and Canada A. Chemical Quality Substances Unit S. Arabia Guam Australia Argentina Mexico Canada Arsenic (As) mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.025 Ammonium (NH4) mg/l - - - 0.2 0.5 - Barium (Ba) mg/l 1 1 1-0.7 1 Borate (BO3) mg/l - - 30 - - 5

Cadmium (Cd) mg/l 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.01 0.005 0.005 Chromium (Cr) mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05-0.05 Chloride (Cl) mg/l 250 250-350 250 - Chlorine (Cl2) mg/l - - 0.01 0.5 0.1 - Copper (Cu) mg/l 1 1 1 2 1 - COD mg/l - 3 - - - Cyanide (CN) mg/l 0.05-0.1 0.10-0.2 Fluoride (F) mg/l - - 1.5 2 2 - Iron (Fe) mg/l 0.3 0.3-2 0.3 - Lead (Pb) mg/l 0.05 0.05-0.05 0.02 0.01 Manganese (Mn) mg/l 0.05 0.05 2 0.1 0.05 - Mercury (Hg) mg/l - 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Nitrate (NO3) mg/l - 10 45 45 10 45 Nitrite (NO2) mg/l - - 0.01 0.1-3.2 Selenium (Se) mg/l - 0.01 0.01-0.05 0.01 Silver (Ag) mg/l 0.05 0.05-0.05 - - Surfactant mg/l - - - - 0.5 - Sulfide (S) mg/l - - 0.05 - - - Sulphate (SO4) mg/l 250 250-500 250 - Phenolic mg/l 0.001 0.001 - - 0.001 - Ra 226 activity pci/l 3 5 1 - - - Total Beta activity pci/l - 8 - - - - TDS mg/l - 500-1500 500 - Zinc (Zn) mg/l 5 5 5 5 3 - B. Microbiological Quality Total Plate Count/ml - - <1 500 100 100 Coliform (MPN/100 ml) - <2.20 Max.10 3 <2 - Escherichia coli - - - Negative - 0 Pseudomonas Aeruginosa/250 ml - - - Negative - 0

CHAPTER-3 METHODOLOGY The general methodology adopted for the National Water Quality Monitoring Program consisted of establishing a network for the collection of water samples, monitoring stations, grid and sample size, frequency, sample collection and preservations, preparation of a check list, analytical methods, recording of groundwater level etc. The details of these components are given below: 3.1 Scope of Monitoring Program The National Water Quality Monitoring Program covers twenty-three main cities with the following distribution, Islamabad, 11 in Punjab, 3 in Sindh, 4 in Balochistan, and 4 in NWFP. The monitoring program also cover 9 rivers, 6 reservoirs, 4 lakes, 1 drain and 2 canals. For water quality data collection purposes, the country was divided into five zones, namely Capital Territory Area, Punjab (two zones), Sindh, Balochistan, and NWFP. The field teams of the sub offices were assigned the tasks of sample collection and analysis in the respective zones. The details of the Monitoring Stations (MS) and their areas of responsibility in terms of the collection of water samples for water quality monitoring were as under: Monitoring Station-I (WRRC, Islamabad), collected water samples from; Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Gujrat and Sargodha cities, Simly, Rawal and Khanpur dams, Tarbella, Mangla and Chashma reservoirs and Jhelum and Chenab Rivers. Monitoring Station-II (Regional WRRC, Lahore), collected water samples from; Lahore, Sialkot, Sheikhupura, Gujranwala, Faisalabad and Kasur cities, and Ravi River Monitoring Station-III (Regional WRRC, Bahawalpur), collected water samples from; Bahawalpur and Multan cities, and Sutlaj River Monitoring Station-IV (Drainage Research Center, Tandojam), collected water samples from; Hyderabad, Karachi and Sukkur cities, Manchar and Hamal lakes, LBOD, RBOD and Hub dam and Indus River Monitoring Station-V (Regional WRRC, Quetta), collected water samples from; Quetta, Khuzdar, Loralai and Ziarat cities, and Hanna Lake Monitoring Station-VI (Regional WRRC, Peshawar), collected water samples from; Abbottabad, Peshawar, Mardan and Mangora cities, and Indus and Kabul Rivers 3.2 Grid Size and Number of A uniform criterion for site selection was adopted and a grid size of 1 km 2 (for small cities), 4 and 9 km 2 (for medium cities) and 16 and 25 km 2 (for large cities) was established. Preference was given to permanent public points for their selection as permanent monitoring points, considering the long term monitoring requirement of the project. Geology and the depth of aquifers was also considered. A minimum distance of 1 km was maintained between the two monitoring points. A site identification code was marked on each city map according to the grid. A sample ID, for a monitoring purpose, was marked on the basis of an actual sampling visit sequence of various sites. The following identifications were also marked on every sample of each site: Type-A for Bacterial analysis Type-B for Trace element analysis

Sr. # Type-C for Nitrate (N) analysis Type-D for Other water quality parameters The details regarding grid size and the number of sampling points are given in Table-3.1. City Name Table-3.1 Details of Water Quality Monitoring Network City Code Grid Size (km2) Total Sample Points Sr. # City Name City Code Grid Size (km2) Total Sample Points 1 Islamabad ISL 4 26 13 Abbottabad ABT 1 11 2 Bahawalpur BAH 16 25 14 Mangora MAN 1 12 3 Faisalabad FAI 4 13 15 Mardan MAR 4 10 4 Gujranwala GUJ 4 14 16 Peshawar PES 16 13 5 Gujrat GUT 1 9 17 Khuzdar KHU 1 11 6 Kasur KAS 1 10 18 Loralai LOR 1 13 7 Lahore LAH 16 18 19 Quetta QUE 4 25 8 Multan MUL 16 16 20 Ziarat ZIA 1 11 9 Rawalpindi RAW 9 15 21 Hyderabad HYD 4 15 10 Sargodha SAR 4 24 22 Karachi KAR 25 28 11 Sheikhupura SHE 4 11 23 Sukkur SUK 1 12 12 Sialkot SIA 4 10 3.3 Water Sample Collection and their Preservation Water samples for physico-chemical analysis were collected in polystyrene bottles of 0.5 and 1.5 liter capacity. Before collecting the samples, the bottles were washed properly and rinsed thoroughly several times, with the water that had to be sampled. For bacterial analysis, samples were collected in sterilized containers. Hydrochloric acid and boric acid were used as preservatives in 200 ml sampling bottles, for trace elements and nitrate as nitrogen respectively. The sampling team comprised of an Assistant Director as Incharge of the team assisted by a Laboratory Assistant and a driver. The following procedure and precautionary measures were followed while collecting samples from the field. 3.3.1 Water Sample Collection from Tap Water Un-rusted taps were selected for the collection of water samples. These taps were thoroughly cleaned and allowed to flow for a few minutes before collecting the sample. 3.3.2 Water Sample Collection from Tube well Water The groundwater representative samples from tubewells were collected after allowing them to flow continuously for at least 10 minutes. The depth of the groundwater level was than recorded. The location of the tubewell was properly marked on the topographic survey sheet. 3.3.3 Water Sample Collection from Distribution Network Water The water samples from the distribution network were collected from a point near the source of supply (as close as possible) and from the consumers end, in order to evaluate the

actual quality of water being used. All water sample containers were filled slowly, so as to avoid turbulence and one formation of air bubbles, after flushing the system for sufficient time. 3.3.4 Water Sample Collection from Hand Pump/Dug Well Water Water samples were collected from hand pumps and dug wells, after the sufficient purging of the hand pump or well. The purging was carried out by making one stroke for every foot of depth (a hand pump or dug well having 30 feet of depth, needs 30 strokes for its purging). 3.3.5 Water Sample Collection from Stream Water Water samples were collected from the middle of the stream. Care was taken to keep the bottle well above the bed of the stream in order to avoid unwanted bed material from entering the sample. 3.3.6 Water Sample Collection from Spring Water Water samples were collected directly from the spring in sterilized sampling bottles for microbiology and bottles used with or without preservatives depended upon the water quality analysis requirement. 3.3.7 Water Sample Collection from Dam, River and Lake Water Generally, it is difficult to obtain truly representative surface water samples. A sampling point was selected carefully (near to the bank in case of a river) in order to avoid any kind of debris in the water. Considerable variations like seasonal stratification, runoff, rainfall and wind, were also documented while collecting water samples, especially from lakes. 3.3.8 Microbiological The water samples for microbiological contamination were collected in clean, sterile 200 ml plastic bottles. Care was taken to ensure that no accidental contamination occurred during sampling. were not taken from those taps, which were leaking between the spindle and gland so as to avoid outside contamination. The samples were kept cool and in the dark while being transported to the laboratory. 3.4 Types of Water and Preservatives were collected for microbiological analysis, trace elements, Nitrate (N) and other general water quality parameters. The details of these samples and preservative used for each sample are given below: Type A All sites Sterilized sampling bottles for microbiological analysis; Type B All sites 2 ml/liter HNO3 as preservative for trace elements; Type C All sites 1 ml/100 ml, 1 ml boric acid as preservative for Nitrate (N); and Type D All sites No preservative for other water quality parameters.

3.5 Check List 3.5.1 Check List of Items/Activities Needed Before Going to Field Number of bottles required for sampling. Filling of appropriate preservatives in the sampling bottles. Calibration of field equipment. General items required for sampling e.g., sampling forms, equipment, markers, ballpoints, distilled water and paint etc. 3.5.2 Check List of Items/Activities Needed During Collection of City map with grids and identified ID site. During the site finalization, ensure that the site selection meets the criteria of the representative sample. Filling site and sample ID in the form. Sample bottle with the date and sample ID with indelible ink. Sample bottles preserved with the appropriate preservative. Finalization of the method to be used for sample collection. Ensuring the collection of four water quality samples. Confirm cross, field blanks and also replicate samples from suitable sites. Marking of P on site after collecting sample for future reference and the use of red paint. 3.5.3 Check List Items/Activities after Collection of Transportation of samples to the laboratory within the recommended time period. Water samples are not to be filtered. Purpose of sample collection is properly explained to the communities. 3.6 Quality Control Measures Quality control measures were started from the field. Standard sampling methods were adopted to collect the samples. Four types of samples were collected for monitoring purposes whereas three kinds of samples were collected for quality control. The details of these samples are as under: i) for Monitoring Purposes a) for microbiological examinations in sterile bottles. b) for the analysis of trace elements by the addition of HNO3 as a preservative. c) for the analysis of Nitrate (N) by the addition of boric acid as a preservative. d) without preservatives for the analysis of EC, ph, Hardness, Ca, Mg, Na, K and HCO3 etc. ii) for Quality Control Purposes Field blank and replicate samples for quality control purposes were also collected. Sites for field blank and replicates were selected on the basis of total site number divisible by 20. a) to check reproducibility (10%). b) for field blank (10%). Replicate samples and field blanks were analyzed to see the reproducibility of analytical results and to check the quality of distilled water respectively. The results of replicate samples and field blank are given in Annexure-27. NWQL participates regularly in PT Programme for the cross analysis and inter-laboratory

comparison. 3.7 Methods for Analysis The water samples were analyzed for physical, chemical and bacteriological parameters by using standard methods. The details of the parameters and methods used for their analysis are given in table 3.2. Table 3.2 Water Quality Parameters and Methods used for Analysis Sr. No Parameters Analysis Method 1. Alkalinity (m.mol/l 2320, Standard method (1992) as CaCO3) 2. Arsenic (ppb) AAS Vario 6, Analytik Jena AG 3. Bicarbonate 2320, Standard method (1992) 4. Calcium (mg/l) 3500-Ca-D, Standard Method (1992) 5. Carbonate (mg/l) 2320, Standard method (1992) 6. Chloride (mg/l) Titration (Silver Nitrate), Standard Method (1992) 7. Color (TCU) Sensory Test 8. Conductivity (μs/cm) E.C meter, Hach-44600-00, USA 9. Lead (ppb) AAS Vario 6, Analytik Jena AG 10. Hardness (mg/l) EDTA Titration, Standard Method (1992) 11. Magnesium (mg/l) 2340-C, Standard Method (1992) 12. Nitrate (mg/l) Cd. Reduction (Hach-8171) by Spectrophotometer 13. Odor Sensory Test 14. ph ph Meter, Hanna Instrument, Model 8519, Italy 15. Potassium (mg/l) Flame photometer PFP7, UK 16. Sodium (mg/l) Flame photometer PFP7, UK 17. Sulfate (mg/l) SulfaVer4 (Hach-8051) by Spectrophotometer 18. Phosphate (mg/l) 8190 and 8048 (Hach) 19. Taste Sensory Test 20. TDS (mg/l) 2540C, Standard method (1992) 21. Turbidity (NTU) Turbidity Meter, Lamotte, Model 2008, USA 22. Fluoride (mg/l) 4500-F C. ion-selective Electrode Method Standard method (1992) 23. Iron (mg/l) TPTZ method (HACH Cat. 26087-99) 24. Total Coliform (MPN/100ml) 9221-B, Multiple tube Fermentation Technique, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water 25. E. Coli (MPN/100ml) 9221-E, Multiple tube Fermentation Technique, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water 26. Trace and Ultra Trace Elements (Ag, Al,B, Be, Bi, Cd, Ce, Co, Cr, Cu, Dy, Er, Eu,F,Fe, Ga, Gd,Ge,Hf, Hg, Ho, In, Ir, La, Li, Lu, Mn, Mo, Nb, Nd, Ni, Pb, Pd, Pr,Pt, Rb, Re, Rh, Ru, Sc, Se, Sm, Sn,Sr, Ta, Tb, Te, Th, Ti, TI, Tm, V, W, Y, Yb, Zn, Zr) Inductive Coupled Plasma Spectrophotometer

A parameter wise detail of the analytical methods and procedures adopted for water quality analysis is as follows; ph For most practical purposes the ph of an aqueous solution can be taken as the negative logarithm of the solutions hydrogen ion concentration. The practical ph scale extends from 0 to 14 with the middle value of 7 corresponding to exact neutrality at 25 o C. The ph of natural water is usually governed by the carbon dioxide/bicarbonate/ carbonate equilibrium and lies in the range between 4.5 and 8.5. Humic substances may affect it by changes in the carbonate equilibrium due to bioactivity of plants and in some cases by hydrolysable salts etc. Waste waters and polluted waters may have ph values much lower or higher. On site determination of the ph of the samples was done in most of the cases. In other cases where the ph meter was not available samples were collected and transferred in completely filled, well stoppered bottles in order to prevent changes in their composition, especially in carbon dioxide. The method used for this analysis was Electrometric Method (Reference method). The ph meter was standardized according to the manufacturer s instructions. Before measuring the ph of the test samples, the electrode was washed thoroughly first with distilled water and then with the sample water. The electrode was then dipped into the sample and the system was allowed to stabilize before making the final reading. Determination was made in unstirred solutions in order to avoid the loss of carbon dioxide or other volatile components. Conductivity Conductivity is a measure of the ability of an aqueous solution to carry an electric current. This ability depends on the presence of ions, their total concentration, mobility, valence and on the temperature of measurement. Solutions of most inorganic compounds are relatively good conductors. Conversely molecules of organic compounds do not dissociate in aqueous solutions. The determination of electrical conductivity provides a rapid and convenient means of estimating the concentration of electrolytes in water containing mostly mineral salts. The apparatus used for this analysis was the EC meter, HACH-44600, USA, Jenway, 4320. The samples were shaken thoroughly before taking any measurements and then allowed to stabilize until the removal of any attained air bubble(s). EC meter was standardized with the help of a standard solution of potassium chloride, 0.01 M at a constant temperature of 25 o C. The conductivity cell was then thoroughly rinsed with distilled water as well as a small amount of the sample. The beaker was filled with some of the sample. The EC of the samples was noted from the screen of EC meter. Temperature affects conductivity in such that it varies by about 2% per 1 o C. The temperature of 25 o C is taken as standard. Dissolved carbon dioxide increases conductivity without increasing the mineral salt content. The same is true for a sample with a low ph value, owing to the high equivalent conductivity of the hydrogen ion. However, the effect is not large and the removal of carbon dioxide from hard water cannot be achieved without a risk of precipitating calcium carbonate. Turbidity Turbidity is an expression of the optical property that causes light to be scattered and absorbed rather than to be transmitted in a straight line through the sample. Suspended matter such as clay, silt, fine organic, inorganic substances, soluble colored organic compounds, plankton and other microscopic organisms cause

turbidity in water. The correlation between turbidity and weight concentration of suspended matter is difficult to derive due to the size, shape and refractive index of the particulates that affect the scattering properties of the light in the suspension. Optically black particles (activated carbon) may absorb light and effectively increase the turbidity measurements. The turbidity is of interest for two main reasons. First, turbidity is an important parameter for characterizing the water quality. Water treatment plants need its values for the treatment of surface water. Secondly, knowledge of the turbidity allows an estimate to be made of the concentration of un-dissolved substances. The samples were collected in plastic bottles. The turbidity of the samples was measured just after their collection, as irreversible changes may occur in turbidity as a result of long period of storage. The method used for this analysis was the Nephelometric method. The apparatus consisted of a Turbidity meter, Hanna HI 93703. The turbidity method was based on a comparison of the intensity of light scattered by the sample under defined conditions, with the intensity of light scattered by a standard reference suspension under the same conditions. The higher the intensity of scattered light, the higher the turbidity. Formazin polymer was used as the referential turbidity standard suspension. Turbidity determination is applicable to water samples that are free from debris and other rapidly settling coarse sediments. Dirty glassware, the presence of air bubbles, and the effects of vibrations that disturb the surface visibility of the sample will give rise to false results. True color (water color) due to dissolved substances may absorb light and cause low turbidity values. This effect usually is, however not significant in the case of treated water. a) Measurement of turbidity less than 40 NTU. The samples were vigorously shaken till the disappearance of all air bubbles. The sample was then poured into the turbidity meter curette. The turbidity was read directly from the instrument scale. b) Turbidity exceeding 40 NTU The samples were diluted with one or more volumes of turbidity free water enabling it to fall below 40 NTU. The turbidity values were then calculated using the following equation. Nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) = Ax (BxC) C Where; Taste A= NTU found in diluted samples B= Volume of dilution water, ml and C= Sample volume taken for dilution, ml Taste refers to those gustatory sensations known as bitter, salty, sour and sweet, that result from the chemical stimulation of sensory nerve endings located in the papillae of the tongue and soft palate. Flavor refers to a complex of gustatory, olfactory and trigeminal sensations resulting from the chemical stimulation of sensory nerve endings located in the tongue, nasal cavity and oral cavity. Water samples taken into the mouth for sensory analysis always produce a flavor, although taste, odor or mouth-feel may predominate, depending on the chemical substances present. Taste tests were performed only on samples that were known to be sanitarily acceptable for ingestion. The method used for this analysis was that the sample taste was carried out at the original temperature of the sample, after rinsing the mouth out with a portion of the sample for some seconds on the tongue. The result of a sample test was described only qualitatively. The person tasting the water must avoid eating, drinking or smoking before taking the test. Only 4 true taste sensations; salty, sweet, bitter and sour were used for reporting taste results.

Alkalinity Alkalinity of water is its acid-neutralizing capacity. The measured value may vary significantly with the end point ph used. The alkalinity is primarily a function of carbonate, bicarbonate and hydroxide contents. The measured values may also include contributions from borates, phosphate, silicates or other bases if present. Alkalinity measurements are used in the interpretation and control of water and waste water treatment processes. Raw domestic waste water has an alkalinity less than or slightly greater than that of the water supply. The method used for this analysis was the 2320 Standard Method (1992). The chemicals used for this analysis included: i) Sodium carbonate solution, 0.05 mol/l; ii) HCl 0.02 M; iii) Phenolphthalein indicator; and iv) Mixed indicator (bromocresol green + methylred). A 10 ml sample was mixed with 2 or 3 drops of phenolphthalein indicator in a conical flask. The phenolphthalein alkalinity of the sample was determined by titrating with a standard acid (HCl 0.02 M) until the disappearance of the pink colour. The alkalinity due to the phenolphthalein was considered to be zero in case no colour was produced after the addition of a few drops of phenolphthalein. The methyl orange alkalinity of the sample was determined by titrating with a standard acid (HCl 0.02 M) until the colour changed from blue to pink. Total alkalinity as CaCO3 (mg/lit)= 1000xBx1000xAxN V where: A= ml of standard acid solution to reach the end point; N= normality of acid used and V= ml of sample. Using 100 ml of the sample and 0.1 mol/l standard acid solution, the numerical value of alkalinity is directly expressed in m.mol/l by the number of ml of titrant consumed. Bicarbonate (HCO3) Bicarbonates are the dominant anions in most surface and ground waters. The weathering of rocks contributes to the bicarbonate content in water. Mostly, bicarbonates are soluble in water and its concentrations in water are related to the ph. Bicarbonates are usually less than 500 mg/l in groundwater. They also influence the hardness and alkalinity of the water. No guideline values are recommended by the WHO. The method used for this analysis was the 2320 Standard Method (1992). The reagents used for this analysis include: i) Mixed indicator (bromocresol green + methyl red) and ii) Standard acid (HCl) 0.02 N. 10 ml of the sample was taken in a flask and to it was added one drop of a mixed indicator. It was then titrated against the standard acid until the colour changed from bluish green to pink, and the volume of acid used was recorded as R2. Bicarbonate mg/l= R2 x20-r1x20x2 where:

R1= Volume of acid used for phenolphthalein alkalinity. Carbonate (CO3) The method used for this analysis again was the 2320 Standard Method (1992). The reagents used for this analysis included: i) Standard solution 0.02 N HCl; and ii) Phenolphthalein indicator. 10 ml of the sample was taken in a flask, and to it was added one drop of a phenolphthalein indicator. The carbonate was considered to be zero, in the case of no pink colour. If the sample turned to a pink colour, the sample was titrated against the standard acid until it became colourless. Calcium (Ca) The presence of calcium in water supplies results from its passage through or over deposits of limestone, dolomite, gypsum and gypsiferous shale. The calcium content may range from zero to several hundred milligrams per litre, depending on the source and treatment of the water. Small concentrations of calcium carbonate combat the corrosion of metal pipes by laying down a protective coating. Appreciable calcium salts, on the other hand, precipitate on heating to form a harmful scale in boilers, pipes and cooking utensils. Chemical softening, reverse osmosis, electro dialysis and ion exchange is used to reduce calcium and the associated hardness. were collected in plastic bottles without the addition of a preservative. The samples were re-dissolved by the addition of nitric acid in case of precipitation of calcium carbonate produced during sample storage before analysis. The method used for this analysis was the Disodium Ethyleediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) titration method (reference method). When EDTA is added to water containing calcium and magnesium ions, soluble EDTA chelates are formed. The stability constant for the calcium chelates is larger than that for the magnesium chelate consequently, in a titration, calcium reacts before the magnesium. Calcium can be determined in the presence of magnesium by EDTA titration when an indicator is used that reacts with calcium only e.g. Murexide gives a colour change when all of the calcium has been complex by EDTA at a ph of 12 to 13. Orthophosphate precipitates calcium at the ph of the test and, therefore, produces low results. Strontium and barium interfere with the calcium determination by virtue of the fact that they also form EDTA chelates and alkalinity in excess of 30 mg/l may cause an indistinct endpoint with hard water. The concentration levels of ions which cause interference with the calcium hardness are given in Table 4.3. Table 4.3: Recommended Level of Concentrations of Ions for Non-Interference of Calcium Copper 2 mg/l Ferrous iron 20 mg/l Zinc 5 mg/l Tin 5 mg/l Manganese 10 mg/l Ferric iron 20 mg/l Lead 5 mg/l Aluminum 5 mg/l i) Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), 1M; ii) Murexide indicator; and iii) Standard EDTA titrant, 0.01 M. The reagents used for this analysis included: Take 10 ml of the sample and add 10 ml deionized water to it. Then add half ml of NaOH solution or a volume sufficient to obtain a ph of 12-13. After stirring well, 0.1-0.2 gm of the Murexide indicator is added. Then the EDTA titrant is added slowly, where continuously stirring, until the

proper end point is reached. Concentration of Ca (mg/l) = AxBx400.8 V where: A= ml of EDTA titrant used for titration of sample: B= ml of standard calcium solution; and ml of EDTA titrant V= ml of sample. Magnesium (Mg) Magnesium ranks eighth among the elements in order of abundance and is a common constituent of natural water. Water associated with granite or siliceous sand may contain less than 5 mg of magnesium per litre. Water containing dolomite or magnesium-rich limestone may contain 10-50 mg/l, and several hundred mg/l of magnesium may be present in water that has been in contact with deposits containing sulfates and chlorides of magnesium. Magnesium by a similar action to calcium, imparts the property of hardness to water. This may be reduced either by chemical softening or ion exchange methods. The method used for analyzing magnesium concentration was the 2340-C, Standard Method (1992). Magnesium was estimated as the difference between hardness and calcium as CaCO3. Concentration of Mg (mg/l) = [total hardness (as CaCO3 mg/l) Calcium hardness (as mg CaCO3/l) x 0.243]. Hardness Originally, water hardness was understood as a measure of the capacity of water to precipitate soap. In conformity with current practice, total hardness is defined as the sum of the calcium and magnesium concentrations, both expressed as calcium carbonate, in milligram per litre. The hardness may range from zero to hundreds of milligrams per litre, in terms of calcium carbonate, depending on the source and treatment to which the water has been subjected. were collected in plastic bottles without the addition of a preservative. The method used for this analysis was the EDTA Titration Standard Method (1992). EDTA forms soluble chelates of calcium and magnesium ions. When a small amount of Eriochrome Black T indicator was added to a solution containing calcium and magnesium ions at ph 10.0+ 0.1, the solution became wine-red in colour. If the solution is titrated with EDTA the calcium and magnesium ions are complexed and at the end point the colour of the solution changes from wine-red to blue. Several metal ions can interfere with the titration by producing fading or indistinct endpoints. To minimize these interferences, a sodium sulfide solution is added. The approximate concentration of various ions can be tolerated if sodium sulfide is added. Interfering substances are aluminum 20 mg/l, cadmium 10 mg/l, cobalt 0.3 mg/l, copper 20 mg/l, ferrous ions 5 mg/l, lead 20 mg/l, manganese ion 1 mg/l, nickel 0.3 mg/l, polyphosphate 10 mg/l and zinc 200 mg/l. Take 10 ml of the sample and to that add 20 ml of deionized water. One ml of buffer solution and 1-2 drop of Eriochrome Black T indicator was also added. Then, the standard EDTA titrant was added slowly with continuous stirring, until the last red tinge of colour disappeared from the solution. The end point of the solution was, normally, blue. The duration of the titration was not extended beyond 5 minutes measured from the time of the addition of the buffer. Hardness as CaCO3 (mg/l)= where: (A) xcx1000 V

A= ml of EDTA for titration of sample; C can be calculated from the standardization of the EDTA titrant and equivalent to ml of standard calcium solution; and ml of EDTA titrant V= ml of sample. Chloride (Cl) The chloride (Cl -1 ) ion is one of the major inorganic anions present in water and waste water. In potable water, the salty taste produced by chloride concentrations is variable and dependent on the chemical composition of water. Some waters containing 250 mg Cl/ l may have a detectable salty taste if the cation is sodium. On the other hand, the typical salty taste may be absent in water containing as much as 1000 mg/l when the predominant cations are calcium and magnesium. The chloride concentration is higher in waste water than in raw water. Along the seacoast, chloride may be present in high concentration because of a leakage of saline water into water bodies directly or indirectly. Industrial processes may also increase chloride levels. High chloride content can harm metallic pipes and structures, as well as growing plants. The method used for this analysis was the Titration (silver nitrate) standards method. Representative samples were collected in clean and chemically resistant plastic bottles. The maximum sample portion required was 100 ml. No special preservative was necessary for the storage of the samples. Chloride is determined in a natural or slightly alkaline solution by titration with standard silver nitrate using potassium chromate as an indicator. Silver chloride quantitatively precipitates before red silver chromate is formed. Bromide, iodide and cyanide are measured as equivalents of the chloride ion. Main interferences are the contents of thiosulfate, thiocyanate, cyanide, sulfite, sulfide, Iron (if present >10 mg/l) and orthophosphate (if present >25 mg/l.) The pretreatment of highly colored or turbid samples is required. The reagents used for this analysis include: Standard silver nitrate solution (0.0141 N); and Potassium chromate indicator A 20 ml sample was taken in a conical flask. A few drops of K2CrO4 indicator solution was added and titrated against a standard solution of AgNO3 (titrant), up to a pinkish yellow end point. 100 ppm NaCl standard was used to confirm the accuracy. Concentration of Cl (mg/l) = (A-B) xnx35.45x1000 V where: A and B are the volumes of silver nitrate solution required by the sample and blank respectively; N = Normality of AgNO3 used and V = Volume of sample (ml).

Sodium (Na) & Potassium (K) Sodium ranks sixth among the elements in order of abundance and is present in most natural waters. The level of Na may vary from less than 1 mg/l to more than 500 mg /l, Potassium ranks seventh among the elements in order of abundance, and yet it s concentration in most drinking waters seldom reaches 20 mg/l. for the analysis of sodium and potassium were collected in polyethylene bottles in order to eliminate the possibility of sample contamination, due to the leaching of the glass container. The method used for the analysis of sodium and potassium was the same emission photometric method (Model: PFP-7, JENWAY, UK). The principle of the Flame photometer operation is that compounds are thermally dissociated and are further excited to high energy levels and when these atoms return to their ground state they emit radiation which lies mainly in the specific visible region of the spectrum. Light emitted is proportional to the sample concentration. Detection limits of the instrument for sodium and potassium is <0.2 mg/l. After ignition, the filters select control is set at a proper position. The suction rate of the distilled water should be 2-6ml/minute. Blank and standard solutions of various concentrations were aspirated and fine control was adjusted to have stable positive readings. After blank and standards, samples were aspirated and the results were noted. Sulfate (SO4) Sulfate is an abundant ion in the earth s crust and light concentrations may be present in water due to the leaching of gypsum, sodium-sulfate and shale. High concentrations of sulfate may be present due to the oxidation of pyrite and mine drainage. Sulfates also come from sulfur containing organic compounds and industrial waste discharge. Sulfate concentrations in natural water range from a few mg to several hundred mg per litre. The WHO has established 250 mg/l as the highest desirable level of sulfate. were collected in clean plastic bottles and were stored at 4 o C in order to reduce the possibility of the bacterial reduction of sulfate to sulfide in polluted or contaminated samples. The following elements interfere at levels above those concentrations listed below: Calcium 20,000 mg/l as CaCO3 Chloride 40,000 mg/l as Cl. Magnesium 10,000 mg/l as CaCO3 Silica 500 mg/l as CaCO3 The method used for analysis of sulfate was the Turbiditimetric Method. The sulfate ion in the sample reacts with barium chloride crystals and forms insoluble barium sulfate turbidity. The amount of turbidity formed is proportional to the Sulfate concentration. UV-VIS Spectrophotometer (Analytik Jena) was used for the analysis. 10 ml of deionized water was taken in a properly washed beaker and 2 ml of Sulphate Buffer solution was added to it followed by an addition of one pinch of Barium chloride crystals. The stirred solution was vigorously for about 1 minute and the absorbance reading was then taken after 5 minutes of reaction time at a wavelength of 420 nm, performed with actual water samples. The concentration was determined from the following equation: Conc. of sample= Abs. of sample x Conc. of standard/abs. of standard To directly measure the concentration of Sulfate in the sample in mg/l, standard solutions of 5,10,15,20,25,30,35 and 40 mg/l were prepared and a Calibration Curve was constructed by using the Software named Aspect Plus. Nitrate (NO3) Nitrate, a highly oxidized form of nitrogen is commonly present in natural water due to the end product of the aerobic decomposition of organic nitrogenous matter. Significant sources of nitrate are fertilizers from cultivated land, drainage from livestock feed lots and domestic and some industrial waste water. Unpolluted natural water usually contains only minute amounts of nitrate. Excessive concentrations in drinking water are considered hazardous for infants. In their intestinal tract, nitrates are reduced to nitrites, which may cause methaemoglobinaemia.

were collected in plastic bottles with the addition of boric acid (2 ml/l sample) and then stored at 4 o C. Before analysis, the samples were warmed to room temperature and neutralized with a 5.0N sodium hydroxide standard solution. The method used for the analysis of Nitrate was the UV Spectrophotometeric Method. UV-VIS Spectrophotometer (Analytik Jena) was used for the analysis. 10ml of deionized water was taken in a 25 ml cuvet and to it was added 0.2 ml of 1N HCL. It was applied special correction or blank correction, followed by 10ml standard or sample in cuvet, and HCl was then added to it. The absorbance reading was taken at 220nm to measure the nitrate concentration in the sample and at 275nm to determine the organic interference.subtracted two times the absorbance reading at 275nm from the reading at 220 nm in order to obtain the corrected reading. To determine the concentration, the following equation is used; Conc. of sample= Abs. of sample x Conc. of standard/ Abs. of standard If the Spectrophotometer is set for the concentration determination, it is possible to directly measure the concentration of Nitrate in mg/l from the calibration curve. Phosphate Phosphate occurs in natural waters and waste waters as Phosphates, classified as the following; o Orthophosphates o Condensed phosphates (pyro, meta & other polyphosphates) o Organically bound phosphates Phosphate occurs in the bottom sediments and in biological sludges, both as precipitated, inorganic forms and also incorporated into organic compounds. Phosphorus in total, can be divided analytically into three chemical types such as; i) Reactive ii) Acid Hydrolyzable iii) Organic phosphorus Methods to Determine Phosphate are briefed as following; Which phosphorus test does the application require Acid hydrolysable Phosphorus Reactive Phosphorus Total Phosphorus 0.0 to 3.50 mg/l

Phos ver 3 with Acid Hydrolysis 0.00 5.00 mg/l 0 to 30.00 mg/l 0 to 45 mg/l 0-2.50 mg/l phos Ver 3 Amino Acid method Molybolovanadate Method (Ascorbic Acid) method The method used for the analysis of Phosphate was the Phos Ver 3 Ascorbic Acid Method. The Colorimeter (HACH-DR/890) was used for this analysis. The Colorimeter was turned ON and the program No. 79 PO4-P was selected. Two cells were filled with 10ml of the sample, one cell is the sample (for preparation) and other one blank. Blank cell was placed in the colorimeter and zero was pressed. We then added the phosphate powder pillow (PhosVer 3, Cat. 21060-69) in the cell for the preparation sample. Shaking was done for 15 seconds and sample was let to stand for 2 minutes (reaction time), followed by the phosphate concentration value in mg/l by pressing the READ button. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Measurement for total dissolved solids is a procedure to check the correctness of the analyses and is applicable specifically to water samples for which relatively complete analyses are made. This check does not require additional laboratory analyses. TDS of the water samples was measured in the following way: Total dissolve solids (TDS) = 0.6 (alkalinity) + Na + K + Ca + Mg + Cl +SO4 + NO3 + F If the ratio of the calculated TDS to conductivity falls below 0.55, the lower ion sum is suspect and needs to be reanalyzed. If the ratio is above 0.7, the higher ion sum is also suspect and needs to be reassessed. The acceptable criterion is as follows. Calculated TDS/Conductivity = 0.55 0.70 It the ratio of TDS to EC is outside these limits the measured TDS or measured conductivity is suspect and needs to be reassessed. Trace and Ultra Trace Elements Fifty eight different trace and ultra trace elements such as Lead, Arsenic, Iron, Fluoride Beryllium, Cadmium, Cerium, Cesium, Cobalt, Chromium, Copper, Niobium, Neodymium, Nickel, Palladium, Praseodymium, Rhodium, Ruthenium, Scandium, Selenium, Samarium, Tin, Strontium, Tantalum, Thallium, Vanadium, Tungsten, Yttrium, Ytterbium, Zinc, Zirconium, Silver, Aluminum, Bismuth, Dysprosium, Erbium, Europium, Gallium, Germanium, Gadolinium, Hafnium, Mercury, Holmium, Indium, Iridium, Lanthanum, Lithium, Lutetium, Manganese and Molybdenum were analyzed. Fifty four of the trace and ultra-trace elements were analyzed with state of the art equipment i.e. with the Inductive Coupled Plasma Spectrometer (ICP Vista Pro). The analytical procedure includes the following steps; 1 Torch alignment using a standard solution of manganese with a concentration of 5 ppm. 2 Wavelength calibration using a multielement standard having 50 ppm potassium and 5 ppm of other elements i.e. Al, As, Ba, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Se, Sr, Zn. 3 Creation of a new worksheet with the selection of the required elements. 4 Calibration with the various multielement standard solutions having desirable concentrations. 5 Analysis of actual water samples. Distill-dionized water of a high quality (EC<0.3 µs/cm) is used to prepare a blank solution. The volume of concentrated Nitric Acid (65%) is added to distilled water in a ratio to have a blank solution with 2% concentrated HNO3. This blank solution is used for washing as well as for calibration. to be analyzed are prepared using some concentrated nitric acid to have 2% adjusted ratio of acid in the sample.

Reliability and reproducibility of the analysis were checked by analyzing, blank, standard and pre-analyzed samples after every ten samples. The detection limits of ICP for trace and ultra elements are as following; Table 3.3 Detection Limits Capability of ICP (Inductive Coupled Plasma Spectrometry) against different elements Lead (Pb) Natural water contains more than 5 μg/l of lead. Lead in a water supply may come from an industrial, mine and smelter discharges or from the dissolution of old lead piping. A sample was acidified by the addition of

2 ml of concentrated HNO3 per liter of the sample prior to storage in a plastic container. The Lead was analyzed by an Atomic Absorption Spectrometric method using Graphite mode (AAS Vario 6 Analytik Tena AG) using argon gas at a pressure of 3-5 Bars. The graphite tube technique included certain steps such as the installation of a graphite tube furnace unit in the sample chamber; the installation of an autosampler (MPE 50); and the formation of the graphite tube. Optical parameters included the wavelength adjustment at 217 nm. After ensuring the conditions for the lead analysis, the method was loaded. Conditions were given to the autosampler having Diluents (0.5% HNO3) at position 41 and stock (lead standard of 100 ppb at position 42) solutions of Pb (NO3)2 with 8 ppb concentration, and Mg (NO3)2 with 5 ppb concentration were used as Analyt modifier. The temperature of the instrument was 900 C o o whereas atomization takes place at 1800 C. Calibration was performed with number of standards of known concentration using the stock solution of 100 ppb or as required which will be provided. Working area for the samples was at positions 1-40 on the autosampler. The sample name and sample positions were fed into the software and the analysis was then performed. Arsenic (As) Arsenic is a non-metallic element, present naturally in surface and ground water due to the erosion of rocks. It is concentrated in shale, clays, phosphorites, coals, sedimentary iron ore and manganese ores. Aqueous arsenic in the form of arsenite, arsenate and organic arsenicals may result from mineral dissolution, industrial discharges or the application of herbicides. The chemical form of arsenic depends on its source. Inorganic arsenic may originate from minerals, industrial discharges and insecticides, whereas organic arsenic may come from industrial discharges, insecticides and biological action on inorganic arsenic. The toxicity of arsenic depends on its chemical form. The Atomic Absorption Spectrometer (Hydride Generation mode) was used for the analysis of arsenic in water samples. All samples were analyzed on the HS 55 Mercury/Hydride system, an accessory (AAS, Vario 6 Analytik Jena AG) for the matrix free determination of the hydride forming elements such as As, Bi, Sb, Se, Sn and Te. The Hydride technique makes use of fact that hydrogen is liberated in the reaction of the weakly acidic sample solutions with sodium boro-hydride, which combines with metal ions to form gaseous hydrides. These are carried to the hot quartz cell by the carrier gas and decomposed by collision processes in a series of steps, until free As atoms are obtained. For the analysis of arsenic the Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS Vario 6 Analytik Jena AG), Mercury/Hydride System HS55 (Analytik Jena AG), and Argon Gas with 99.99% purity were used. The following common reagents were used for the analysis; i. Sodium borohydride (NaBH4, 98% purity) ii. Sodium hydroxide, NaOH iii. Hydrochloric Acid (Concentrated 37% HCl) iv. Arsenic Standard (1007 μg/ml, As in 2% HNO3, BDH) In order to make a reducing solution (Reductant), 15 g sodium borohydride (NaBH4) and 5 g of sodium hydroxide were dissolved in 500 ml of distilled water. This reagent was then used as a reducing agent for Arsenic analysis. The HS 55 Mercury/Hydride system, which consisted of a basic unit and the cell unit, was operated and controlled from a PC. The basic unit consists of three accessories. These include the batch module, a single channel-peristaltic pump and gas the valve box. The gas valve box supplied argon gas for scavenging and for transporting the metal hydrides to the system. The pressure of the argon gas cylinder was adjusted at 3-5 bars. After attaining the necessary temperature (950 o C) a reducing agent was fed by the peristaltic pump. A 10 ml sample was taken into the reaction cell

and 0.8 ml of concentrated HCl was dispensed into the sample and the reaction cell was adjusted properly at its place. Calibration standards of arsenic with the concentrations (0,10,20,30,40,50 ppb) and (50,60,70,80,90,100 ppb) were prepared. A new method of calibration was developed using these standards under the operation of software, and then the method developed was loaded for the analysis of the actual samples. HS 55 hydride system analyzes the water samples in the following sequences: Pre-wash time Reaction time Rewash time The detection limit of this method is 0.1 ppb. Iron (Fe) Iron is an abundant element in the earth s crust, but exists generally in minor concentrations in the natural water system. Surface water in a normal ph range of 6 to 9 rarely carries more than 1 mg of dissolved iron per liter. The formation of hydrated ferric oxide makes iron-laden waters objectionable. This ferric precipitate imparts an orange stain to any setting surface including, laundry articles, cooking and eating utensils and plumbing fixtures. Additionally, iron imparts a yellowish colour and a bitter taste to water. This coloration, along with the associated taste and odors can make the water undesirable for domestic use. The WHO has established 0.3 mg/l as the highest desirable level for iron in water and 1.0 mg/l as the maximum permissible level in water that is intended for domestic use. In the sampling and storage process, iron present in a solution form may undergo changes due to oxidation and it can readily precipitate either on the sample container walls or as a partially settleable solid suspension. For total iron measurement, precipitation can be controlled in the sample containers by the addition of 1.5 ml of concentrated nitric acid per liter of sample immediately after collection. The method used for this analysis was Photometric Phenanthroline Method. Ferrous (iron) chelates with 1, 10-phenanthroline to form an orange-red complex. The color intensity is proportional to the iron concentration. A ph between 2.9 and 3.5 ensures a rapid color development in the presence of an excess of phenanthroline. The interfering substances are cyanide, nitrate, phosphate, chromium, zinc, iron, cobalt and copper (in excess of 5 mg/l), nickel (in excess of 2 mg/l), Bismuth, cadmium, mercury, molybedate and silver. The concentration of iron was measured at 510 nanometer on the Spectrophotometer, Model U-1100, HITACHI. The reagents used for this analysis included: i) Iron standard solutions; ii) Phenanthroline solution; and iii) Ammonium acetate buffer solution. A 5 ml of deionized water was taken in a beaker. Its ph was adjusted between 3 and 4, and 1 ml of buffer solution with 0.2 ml of phenanthroline solution was also added. After 10-15 minutes, the contents of the beaker were poured in a culet, and it was then placed in the cell holder of the spectrophotometer, at a wavelength of 510 nm, and the zero button was pressed. The standard solutions from 0.1 to 1.0 mg/l were prepared and their absorbances were taken. Similarly the absorbances of the samples were taken and their concentrations were determined with the help of a calibrated graph. Fluoride (F) A fluoride concentration of approximately 1.0 mg/l in drinking water effectively reduces dental caries without any harmful effects on an individual health. Fluoride may occur naturally in water or it may be added in controlled amounts. Some fluorosis may occur when the fluoride level exceeds the recommended limit. The method used for analyzing was 8029, SPADNS (Hach) by the Spectrophotometer. The range of analysis is about 0.0 to 2.00 mg/l. were collected without preservatives in polythene bottles and

analyzed within 28 days. The SPADNS colorimetric method is based on the reaction between fluoride and a zirconium-dye lake. Fluoride reacts with the dye lake, dissociating a portion of it into a colorless complex anion (ZnF 6-2 ) and the dye. As the amount of fluoride increases, the color produced becomes progressively lighter. Thus bleaching the red color is an amount proportional to the fluoride concentration. A 10 ml sample and deionized water was measured into two dry sample cells. Then two ml of SPADNS reagent was added into each cell and swirled in order to mix. After a one-minute reaction period, the blank was placed into the cell holder of the colorimeter adjusted at 580 nm and pressed the zero button. Then the prepared sample was placed into the cell holder and its concentration was noted. Similarly, all samples were treated and their concentrations were noted. Chromium (Cr) Chromium exists in a trivalent state, which is a stable form, and another form i.e. the other one being the hexavalent chromium, which is readily reduced by a variety of organic species. Trivalent form rarely occurs in potable water. According to APHA, et al., (1992), the hexavalent chromium concentration of U.S drinking waters has been reported to vary between 3 and 40 µg/l with a mean of 3.2 µg/l. According to Michael (1981), samples should be collected in polyethylene bottles and acidified (1.5 ml of concentrated HNO3 per liter of sample) immediately after collection in order to prevent chromium loss on the walls of the sample container. Analytical methods given in Standard Methods (APHA, et al., 1992) are colorimetric method for determination of hexavalent chromium and the atomic absorption spectrometric method for low levels of total chromium and the inductive coupled plasma spectrometric method. Guideline values recommended by the WHO (1984), PSQCA (2002) and Canadian Bottled Water Federation (1989) for chromium is 0.05 mg/l, whereas MCL and MCLG set by EPA (1986) is 0.1 mg/l. Manganese (Mn) Joxel (2001) reported that manganese is a mineral that naturally occurs in rocks and soil and is a normal constituent of the human diet. Manganese may become noticeable in water at concentrations greater than 0.05 mg/l of water by imparting a color, odor or taste to the water. APHA, et al., (1992) found that there is evidence that manganese occurs in surface waters both in a suspension in the quadrivalent state, and in the trivalent state in a relatively stable, soluble complex. Manganese intake through drinking water can vary considerably, normally being substantially lower than its intake through food. Michael (1981) has recommended the acidification of water samples by the addition of 1.5 ml of concentrated HNO3 per liter of sample prior to storage in a plastic container whereas the Standard Methods (APHA, et al., 1992) has recommended the atomic absorption spectrometric and Inductive Coupled Plasma Spectrometric methods. For the direct determination of manganese, of the various colorimetric methods, the persulphate method is preferred because the use of the mercuric ion can control interferences from a limited chloride ion concentration. The WHO (1996) has recommended 0.1 mg/l as the guideline value for drinking water. Molybdenum (Mo) Molybdenum is generally present at very low concentrations in water. It s concentration in surface water is normally less than 7 µg/l as reported by Michael (1981). APHA et al., (1992) in standard method has referred to flame atomic absorption spectrometric and inductive coupled plasma methods for the analysis of molybdenum in drinking water. The WHO (1996) has recommended 0.07 mg/l as the guideline value of molybdenum in drinking water. Nickel (Ni) Michael (1981) found that nickel compounds are found in many ores and minerals and as most nickel salts are quite soluble, they may contribute to water pollution through municipal or industrial waste discharges. Michael (1981) has recommended the acidification of water samples by the addition of 1.5 ml of concentrated HNO3 per liter of sample prior to storage in a plastic container. The Atomic Absorption

Spectrometric and Inductive Coupled Plasma Spectrometric methods are the methods of choice for all samples as recommended by the standard methods (APHA, et al., 1992). The WHO (1996) has recommended a guideline value for nickel as 0.02 mg/l whereas the USEPA (1986) has recommended MCL and MCLG as 0.1 mg/l. Aluminium (Al) Aluminium is distributed widely in nature and is a constituent of all soils, plants and animal tissues. As a consequence of this wide natural distribution and the activities of man, aluminium is present in air, food and water, both natural and polluted (Sorensor et al., 1974 and Monier Williams, 1935). The salts of aluminum are used extensively in water treatment for the removal of color and turbidity. The level of aluminium in water varies considerably and may exceed 10 mg/l in the vicinity of aluminum processing plants (Sylvester, et al., 1967). APHA, et al., (1992) in the Standard Methods for the examination of water and wastewater have recommended the use of separate clean bottles for water sampling which are acidified with nitric acid to a ph below 2.0 to minimize precipitation and adsorption along the container walls. The Atomic Absorption Spectrometric and Inductive Coupled Plasma methods are free from such interferences such as fluoride and phosphate, and are preferred. The Eriochrome cyanine R colorimetric method provides a means for estimating aluminium with simpler instrumentation. The automated pyro-catechol violet method is a highly sensitive flow injection or continuous flow analysis technique (APHA, et al., 1992). Bacteriological Parameters Microbiological Analysis for Total Coliform, Fecal Coliforms and E. Coli are performed by the Multiple Tube Fermentation Technique (MPN). The procedure using this method is as follows; i) Examination for Presumptive Coliforms: The sample bottle is inverted rapidly at least 25 times. The stopper is removed and the mouth of the bottle is flammed. Fermentation tubes are arranged in rows of five tubes in the test tube rack. Five tubes with 10 ml of the double strength of Lauryl tryptose broth and ten tubes with 5 ml of single strength Lauryl tryptose broth are prepared. In the five tubes of double strength of Lauryl tryptose broth 10 ml of the sample is added. Similarly, 1 ml of sample is added in five test tubes of single strength of LT broth and 0.1 ml of sample is added in single strength of Lauryl tryptose broth. Inoculated tubes are incubated at 35 ± 0.5 o C and each tube is examined for the production of gas and acid after 24 to 48±2 hours of incubation. All tubes are recorded showing the acid and the sufficient gas to fill the concavity at the top of the Durham tube, as presumptive positive. The absence of the formation of a gas and acid at the end of 48 hours of incubation constitutes a negative test. ii) Confirmation of Coliform and Fecal Coliforms: A loopful is sub-cultured from each of the presumptive positive tubes into one set of brilliant green bile lactose broth and another set of EC broth. One set of the inoculated brilliant green bile lactose broth is incubated at 35 ± 0.5 o C for 24-48 hours for the confirmation of the total coliforms whereas the EC broth test tubes are incubated for 6 to 24 hours at 44.5 ±0.2 o C for the confirmation of the fecal coliforms. The broth tubes are examined after the incubation period for the production of a gas. Completed test of Total Coliforms: 10 % of the positive test tubes of the BGLB are further shifted with a metallic loop into the EC

broth and incubated at 44.5 ±0.2 o C for the completed test for 24 hours. Positive test tubes with acid and gas production are noted. Confirmation of E.coli By taking a loop ful from the contaminated test tube of the EC broth test tube striking on a plate of LEMB Agar is done and incubated at 35 ± 0.5 o C for 24 hours. The appearance of purple colonies with a green metallic sheen confirms the presence of E.coli, whereas the absence of colonies shows the absence of E.coli. iii) Estimation and Interpretation of the Most Probable Number of Coliforms: The number of positive tubes is recorded for each set of the appropriate quantities of inoculums. MPN of total Coliforms and fecal Coliforms per 100 ml of sample submitted for test is calculated from the MPN table of standard method. Quality control: The following positive and negative control organisms are tested each time the test is performed. Positive: Escherichia coli Negative: Staphylococcus aureus.

CHAPTER-4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This chapter presents the results of the fifth and final phase of the National Water Quality Monitoring Programme which was completed in 2005-2006. This report covers the water quality analysis of 23 major cities, 8 rivers, 6 dams, 4 lakes, 2 canals, 2 drains and 1 reservoir. The 11 cities of the Punjab province covered this year were Bahawalpur, Faisalabad, Gujranwala, Gujrat, Kasur, Lahore, Multan, Rawalpindi, Sargodha, Sheikhupura and Sialkot. From NWFP, Abbottabad, Mangora, Mardan and Peshawar were monitored. While Khuzdar, Loralai, Quetta and Ziarat were monitored from the Balochistan. From the Sindh province Hyderabad, Karachi and Sukkur were included in the monitoring program. The locations for the sample collection in all cities were selected, keeping in view the source from where most of the population consumed water for drinking purpose. In total 364 permanent locations from 23 cities were selected for the collection of the water samples. However, 7 water sources in the Balochistan province (2 in Loralai, 4 in Quetta and 1 in Ziarat) were not functioning and therefore, water samples could not be taken from these sites. Consequently, 357 water samples were taken for laboratory analysis with the following distribution: Islamabad 27 Punjab 163 NWFP 46 Balochistan 66 Sindh 55 Total 357 The area wise distribution of water sources is as under: i. Islamabad: Tubewell (19), W.Supply Schemes (2), Cistern (1), Reservoir (1), Bore (1), Tap (3) (Total, 27) ii. Punjab: Tubewell (90), W.Supply Schemes (8), Bore (9), Tap (4), Hand Pump (37), Injection Pump (13), Donkey Pump (1), Well (1) (Total, 163) iii. NWFP: Tubewell (41), W.Supply Schemes (2), Hand Pump (1) and Bore (2) (Total:46) iv. Balochistan: Tubewell (31), W.Supply Schemes (13), Cistern (1), Tap (4), Well (5), Karez (3), Spring (5), Windmill (1), Dam (1), Hand Pump (2) (Total: 66) v. Sindh: W.Supply Schemes (7), Tap (41), Hand Pump (7) (Total:55) The water quality parameters for which the samples were analyzed are mainly divided into the following four categories: i. Physical and Aesthetic: ph, Electrical Conductivity (EC), Turbidity, Colour, Taste, Odour. ii. Major Inorganic Constituents: Alkalinity (Alk), Bicarbonate (HCO3), Carbonate (CO3), Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), Hardness, Sodium (Na), Potassium (K), Chloride (Cl), Sulphate (SO4), Nitrate (NO3), Phosphate (PO4), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).

iii. Trace and Ultra Trace Elements: Silver (Ag), Aluminium (Al), Arsenic (As), Beryllium (Be), Bismuth (Bi), Cadmium (Cd), Cerium (Ce), Cobalt (Co), Chromium (Cr), Cesium (Cs), Copper (Cu), Dysprosium (Dy), Erbium (Er), Europium (Eu), Fluoride (F), Iron (Fe), Gallium (Ga), Gadolinium (Gd), Germanium (Ge), Hafnium (Hf), Mercury (Hg), Holmium (Ho), Indium (In), Iridium (Ir), Lanthanum (La), Lithium (Li), Lutetium (Lu), Manganese (Mn), Molybdenum (Mo), Niobium (Nb), Neodymium (Nd), Nickel (Ni), Lead (Pb), Palladium (Pd), Praseodymium (Pr), Platinum (Pt), Rubidium (Rb), Rhenium (Re), Rhodium (Rh), Ruthenium (Ru), Scandium (Sc), Selenium (Se), Samarium (Sm), Tin (Sn), Strontium (Sr), Tantalum (Ta), Terbium (Tb), Tellurium (Te), Thorium (Th), Titanium (Ti), Thallium (TI), Thullium (Tm), Vanadium (V), Tungsten (W), Yttrium (Y), Ytterbium (Yb), Zinc (Zn), Zirconium (Zr). iv. Bacteriological Parameters: Coliform and Escherichia Coli (E.Coli). All the analyzed parameters were compared with the WHO guidelines and the PSQCA Standards in order to evaluate whether the samples were Safe or Unsafe for drinking purposes. 4.1 FEDERAL AREA-Islamabad From the city of Islamabad, 27 locations were selected for the sample collection. Out of these 27 locations, 07 water sources were found safe for drinking while the rest of the water sources were found unfit for human consumption, either due to chemical or microbiological contamination. The analysis revealed that 74% of the samples were found to be contaminated with Coliforms and 41% were polluted with E. Coli. Furthermore, 59% of the samples were identified as having an excessive presence of Ca than the permissible limits allowed but were considered safe, as a slightly excessive amount of calcium is not hazardous to health. One sample had a slightly excessive Fe concentration than the WHO guidelines (Annexure-01). The results of the monitoring carried out in Islamabad in 2005-06 are given in Table-4.1. Sr. No. Water Quality Parameter Table 4.1 Summary of Water Quality Analysis of Islamabad (2005-06) Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Ca (mg/l) 27 16 59 2 Coliform (MPN/100 ml) 27 20 74 3 E.Coli (MPN/100 ml) 27 11 41 The microbiological contamination in Islamabad could be due to an inadequate water decontamination and disinfection practice, being followed by leakages within the distribution network due to an intermittent water supply etc. The CDA responsible authorities should improve the chlorination practices along with the water distribution infrastructure (especially to control leakage) on a priority basis in an effort to supply safe drinking water to the residents of the city. 4.2 PUNJAB PROVINCE 4.2.1 Bahawalpur From Bahawalpur City, 25 water sources (12 Tube Wells and 13 Hand Pumps) were monitored, keeping in view the source from where most of the population consumed water for their drinking purpose. According to the water quality data, it was revealed that all the water samples were unfit for human consumption either chemically or microbiologically. Out of the 25 samples, 60% of the

samples were found to be contaminated with coliforms; 88% possessing excess Arsenic (As) than permissible limits. Most of the samples had more than 50 ppb which is 5 times more than the WHO set guideline for arsenic in drinking water. with a high Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) were 16%, where as 32% of the samples possessed excessive levels of turbidity, and 60% of the samples had a higher concentration of calcium (Ca). The tubewell of Commercial Area, Satellite Town was pumping water containing more soluble ions of Ca (200 mg/l), which may be due to the presence of underground calcareous mineral rocks. Chloride, Fluoride, Potassium and Hardness were observed beyond the permissible limits in 4% of the water samples. 12% and 20% water samples had excessive sodium and sulphate respectively. The results of the samples are presented at Annexure-2. Information regarding the %age of contaminated samples beyond the permissible limits of different water quality parameters are presented in Table-4.2. Sr. No. Table 4.2 Results of Water Quality Analysis of Bahawalpur (2005-06) Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Turbidity (NTU) 25 8 32 2 Ca (mg/l) 25 15 60 3 Hardness (mg/l) 25 1 4 4 Na (mg/l) 25 3 12 5 K (mg/l) 25 1 4 6 Lead (Pb) (mg/l) 25 2 8 7 Cl (mg/l) 25 1 4 8 SO4 (mg/l) 25 5 20 9 TDS (mg/l) 25 4 16 10 As (ppb) 25 22 88 11 Fe (mg/l) 25 17 68 12 F (mg/l)) 25 1 4 13 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 25 15 60 14 E.Coli (MPN/100 ml) 25 2 8 4.2.2 Faisalabad Faisalabad is a main big industrial city of Pakistan, where the quality of water is deteriorating with the passage of time. Hepatitis-A and gastroenteritis are common diseases in the city, as a result of the unavailability of safe drinking water. The TDS is increasing in most of the sources due to the dumping of industrial waste in water sources without treatment. A water quality crisis occurred in Faisalabad in which more than 20 persons died as a result of drinking contaminated water in the year 2006. An emergency was imposed in the city hospitals, as more than 20 thousand patients of gastroenteritis were hospitalized. The major cause of the drinking water contamination were old and leaky, rusted water pipes. For water quality monitoring in Faisalabad, 13 locations were selected covering the major water sources of the city. The overall supply of drinking water was found unsatisfactory as out of the 13 sources, only three sources were supplying safe drinking water. The water quality analysis revealed that 46% of the water samples were found polluted with Coliforms & E.Coli, the same %age of sources were identified having excessive concentrations of SO4 & TDS. About 54% and 23% of the samples were found with excessive sodium and hardness

respectively. Whereas 38% samples were identified with a higher level of K and Cl than permissible limits allowed, another 15% sources had more F and Cd than the WHO guideline values permitted for drinking water. Thirty one % of the samples were identified as having higher Ca and Fe values. The details of the analysis are given at Annexure-3. All the information regarding %age samples beyond the permissible limits of different water quality parameters is given in Table 4.3. Sr. No. Water Quality Parameter Table 4.3 Results of Water Quality Analysis of Faisalabad (2005-06) Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Ca (mg/l) 13 4 31 2 Hardness (mg/l) 13 3 23 3 Na (mg/l) 13 7 54 4 K (mg/l) 13 5 38 5 Cl (mg/l) 13 5 38 6 SO4 (mg/l) 13 6 46 7 TDS (mg/l) 13 6 46 8 F (mg/l) 13 2 15 9 Fe (mg/l) 13 4 31 10 Cd (ppb) 13 2 15 11 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 13 6 46 12 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 13 6 46 4.2.3. Gujranwala In total, 14 samples were collected from the Gujranwala city covering all the possible drinking water sources. Out of the 14 sources no one was supplying safe drinking water, except one which had a slightly higher level of Ca. The results of the analysis identified that 64% of the water samples were found to be contaminated due to the presence of coliforms and E.Coli. Whereas 64% of the water samples were found to be contaminated with Arsenic (As) and 7% of the samples had excessive TDS and NO3. Details of the analysis are given in Annexure-4. All the information regarding the %age of the contaminated samples beyond the permissible limits of different water quality parameters are given in Table-4.4. Sr. No. Water Quality Parameter Table 4.4 Results of Water Quality Analysis of Gujranwala (2005-06) Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Ca (mg/l) 14 5 36 2 TDS (mg/l) 14 1 7 3 NO3 (mg/l) 14 1 7 4 As (ppb) 14 9 64 5 TI (ppb) 14 4 29 6 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 14 9 64 7 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 14 5 36

4.2.4 Gujrat From the Gujrat city area, 9 water samples were collected from water sources according to the sampling design. The water sources included; Tubewells (7), a Hand Pump (1) and a Donkey Pump (1). Out of the 9 water sources, four were supplying safe drinking water to the community while the rest were providing the citizens contaminated water. The water quality analysis results revealed that 56% of the water samples were polluted with Coliforms and E. coli., 22% of the samples were found turbid and 01 sample (11%) had a higher concentration of Fe and Manganese (Mn) (Annexure-05). All the details regarding the %age of the contaminated samples are given in Table 4.5. Table 4.5 Results of Water Quality Analysis of Gujrat (2005-06) Sr. No. Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Turbidity (NTU) 9 2 22 2 Fe (mg/l) 9 1 11 3 Mn (ppb) 9 1 11 4 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 9 5 56 5 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 9 5 56 4.2.5 Kasur Kasur is an industrial city and is known for its tanneries in Pakistan. From this city, a total of 10 sources from predetermined locations were selected to monitor the water quality. The sources were selected from areas where most of the population obtains their drinking water. It was found that all the 10 sources were supplying contaminated drinking water. In each case, one or more contaminants were present in the drinking water. The analysis of water quality data showed that 40% of the samples were polluted due to the presence of Coliforms and E.Coli. All water samples were identified as having an excessive As concentration when compared with the WHO guidelines. Similarly 20 % of the samples had unacceptable levels of SO4 and F, whereas 30% and 10% of the samples had exceeded the WHO Guidelines for Fe & NO3. Excessive potassium was found in 10% and sodium in 50% of the samples collected from Kasur. Results regarding the %age of the contaminated samples because of different water quality parameters are given in Table 4.6. Table 4.6 Results of Water Quality Analysis of Kasur (2005-06) Sr. No. Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 K (mg/l) 10 1 10 2 Na (mg/l) 10 5 50 3 SO4 (mg/l) 10 2 20 4 NO3 (mg/l) 10 1 10 5 TDS (mg/l) 10 4 40 6 As (ppb) 10 10 100

7 Fe (mg/l) 10 3 30 8 F (mg/l) 10 2 20 9 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 10 4 40 10 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 10 4 40 4.2.6 Lahore Lahore is the 2 nd largest city of Pakistan based on population and accounts amongst the leading industrial cities. A total of 16 sources were selected according to the sampling design for the monitoring purpose. Out of the 16 locations, none of the sources were supplying safe drinking water to the community. In each case, one or more water quality parameter was found to be present in the samples. The analysis showed that 50% of the sources were unsafe due to bacterial contamination. In the case of chemical parameters, a 100% of the water samples had higher concentrations of Arsenic (As) when compared with the WHO guideline values for drinking water. The higher concentration of Fe was also found present in 56% of the water samples (Annexure-7). The results of the water quality analysis carried out in Lahore during 2005-06 are given in Table 4.7. Table 4.7 Results of Water Quality Analysis of Lahore (2005-06) Sr. No. Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 As (ppb) 16 16 100 2 Fe (mg/l) 16 9 56 3 TI (ppb) 16 2 13 4 Coli forms (MPN/100 ml) 16 8 50 5 E. Coli. (MPN/100 ml) 16 7 44 4.2.7. Multan From Multan city, 16 sources from various locations as per study design, were collected. These water sources included Tube wells (8), Water Supplies (1), Hand Pumps (6) and a Well (1). Out of these 16 sources, none of them was supplying safe drinking water. In each case one or more parameter(s) were found beyond the drinking water guidelines or the PSQCA standards. Fifty six percent of the samples were found to be contaminated with Coliforms and 25% of the samples were polluted with E.Coli. Furthermore, 94% of the water samples were found with an excessive Arsenic (As) concentration. Similarly, in 19% of the samples, manganese (Mn) was reported to be present beyond the permissible limits and 44% of the water samples possessed a higher concentration of Iron (Fe). Calcium and turbidity were also found in high concentrations in 6% and 19% of the water samples, respectively. Details of this analysis are given in Annexure-8. Results of the water quality analysis are summarized in Table-4.8. Sr. No. Water Quality Parameter Table 4.8 Results of Water Quality Analysis of Multan (2005-06) Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Turbidity (NTU) 16 3 19

2 Ca (mg/l) 16 1 6 3 As (ppb) 16 15 94 4 Fe (mg/l) 16 7 44 5 Mn (ppb) 16 3 19 6 TI (ppb) 16 5 31 7 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 16 9 56 8 E. Coli. (MPN/100 ml) 16 4 25 4.2.8 Rawalpindi The water samples from Rawalpindi city were collected from 15 sources at predetermined locations covering the major water supply sources. These included Tubewells (13), Water Supply Schemes (1), and Bore (1). Only four sources were supplying safe drinking water including 3 sources having a slight problem of calcium. The results of the analysis showed that 53% of the water samples were contaminated with Coliforms and 33% of the samples were found to be polluted with E.Coli. Also 7% of the samples were found to be unfit because of excessive hardness and TDS. Forty seven percent of the samples were found contaminated with excessive NO3. Nitrate contamination is one of the emerging issues in Rawalpindi city (Annexure-9). The epidemic of hepatitis-a which appeared in Rawalpindi in 1993 and resulted in 4,000 cases, was mainly due to water pollution by faeces and on inadequate water treatment. Details of water quality analysis can be seen at Annexure-24. Data regarding the %age of contaminated samples beyond the permissible limits of different water quality parameters are summarized in Table 4.9. Table 4.9 Results of Water Quality Analysis of Rawalpindi City (2005-06) Sr. No. Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Ca (mg/l) 15 11 73 2 Hardness (mg/l) 15 1 7 3 NO3 (mg/l) 15 7 47 4 TDS (mg/l) 15 1 7 5 Coliform (MPN/100ml) 15 8 53 6 E.Coli (MPN/100ml) 15 5 33 4.2.9. Sargodha Water samples were collected from 24 sources from various locations covering the major part of the city. Out of 24 sources only one source was providing safe drinking water to the inhabitants of Sargodha City. About 83% of the water samples were found to be contaminated due to the presence of Coliforms and E.Coli. Higher concentrations of As, Na, K, Cl, SO4, Ca, Mg and Hardness were found to be present beyond the permissible limits in 13%, 54%, 29%, 46%, 38%, 67%, 17% and 38% of the water samples, respectively. Higher levels of TDS and Turbidity were observed in 67% and 4% samples, respectively. Fifty four percent of the water samples had higher level of NO3 and 4% had a fluoride contamination. Details of the analysis of the 24 water samples are given in Annexure-10. Sargodha is the second city of Punjab where the nitrate contamination is an emerging issue. Frequent use of fertilizers may be one of the main causes of increasing nitrate. Results of the water quality analysis are summarized in Table 4.10.

Sr. No. Table 4.10 Results of Water Quality Analysis Conducted at Sargodha (2005-06) Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Turbidity (NTU) 24 1 4 2 Ca (mg/l) 24 16 67 3 Mg (mg/l) 24 4 17 4 Hardness (mg/l) 24 9 38 5 Na (mg/l) 24 13 54 6 K (mg/l) 24 7 29 7 Cl (mg/l) 24 11 46 8 SO4 (mg/l) 24 9 38 9 NO3 (mg/l) 24 13 54 10 TDS (mg/l) 24 16 67 11 As (ppb) 24 3 13 12 F (mg/l) 24 1 4 13 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 24 20 83 14 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 24 15 63 4.2.10. Sheikhupura In total, 11 water samples were collected covering the major localities of the city as per the sampling design. The water quality data revealed that none of the water sources was supplying safe drinking water to the community. Nine percent of the water samples were found to be beyond the permissible limits of the water quality parameters i.e. K, NO3 and SO4, while 45% of the samples were found to be contaminated with Coliforms. Seventy three percent of the water samples were found possessing higher level of Arsenic (As). A higher level of Manganese (Mn) was observed in 18% of the samples while 27% of the samples were found with high levels of Ca, Na & TDS. Details of the water quality analysis are given in Annexure-11. The summary of the water quality analysis is given in Table 4.11. Table 4.11 Results of Water Quality Analysis of Sheikhupura (2005-06) Sr. No. Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Ca (mg/l) 11 3 27 2 Na (mg/l) 11 3 27 3 K (mg/l) 11 1 9 4 SO4 (mg/l) 11 1 9 5 NO3 (mg/l) 11 1 9 6 TDS (mg/l) 11 3 27 7 As (ppb) 11 8 73 8 Mn (ppb) 11 2 18 9 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 11 5 45

10 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 11 3 27 4.2.11. Sialkot From the city of Sialkot, 10 sources of water were selected covering the major areas of the city and the water supply sources. These include; Tubewells (9) and Tap (1). Out of the 10 sources, 30% of the sources were supplying safe drinking water to the locality free from any kind of pathogenic contamination. The results of the water quality monitoring found that 70% of the water samples were bacteriologically contaminated. Only 2 locations possessed a slightly higher concentration of Arsenic (As) and 20% of the samples were observed beyond permissible limits of manganese (Mn). The details of this analysis are given in Annexure-12. The information regarding the %ages of the contaminated samples are summarized in Table 4.12. Table 4.12 Results of Water Quality Monitoring of Sialkot (2005-06) Sr. No. Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Ca (mg/l) 10 1 10 2 As (ppb) 10 2 20 3 Mn (ppb) 10 2 20 4 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 10 7 70 5 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 10 5 50 4.3. NWFP PROVINCE 4.3.1 Abbottabad Water samples were collected from 11 sources, at different locations, covering the major part of the city. Out of these, only 03 locations were supplying safe drinking water to the citizens. The analysis of the data found that 55% of the water samples were unsafe due to bacterial contamination. Nine percent of the samples had high levels of NO3 and Turbidity. Details of the analysis of the 10 samples are given in Annexure-13. The results of the analysis are given in Table 4.13. Table 4.13 Results of Water Quality Analysis of Abbottabad (2005-06) Sr. No. Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Turbidity (NTU) 11 1 9 2 Ca (mg/l) 11 4 36 3 NO3 (mg/l) 11 1 9 4 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 11 6 55 5 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 11 4 36

4.3.2 Mangora In total, 10 sources were selected from Mangora covering the major localities of the city. Only two tube well located in Sector-C, Kanju Township area and Sharifabad Bridge were supplying safe drinking water. Seventy percent of the water samples were found contaminated due to the presence of Coliforms and E. Coli and 20% of the samples had high levels of NO3. Detailed data is given in Annexure-14. The information regarding the %age of the contaminated samples beyond the permissible limits for different water quality parameters is given in Table 4.14. Table 4.14 Results of Water Quality Analysis of Mangora (2005-06) Sr. No. Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Ca (mg/l) 10 7 70 2 NO3 (mg/l) 10 2 20 3 Lead (ppb) 10 1 10 4 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 10 7 70 4.3.3. Mardan From Mardan city, 12 sources were selected covering most of the water supply sources. These included Tubewells (10) and Bores (2). Only one source was found supplying safe drinking water to the community, while the rest of the sources were unsafe for human consumption. The analysis of the water samples showed that 83% of the water samples were polluted with Coliforms and one sample was found contaminated with E. Coli. Whereas 67% of the water sample had a higher concentration of Fe, one sample (8%) had the slightly more concentration of NO3 anions (16.80 mg/l) as 10 mg/l is the acceptable level of WHO. Details of the analysis can be seen at Annexure 15. Sr. No. Water Quality Parameter Table 4.15 Results of Water Quality Analysis of Mardan (2005-06) Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 NO3 (mg/l) 12 1 8 2 Fe (mg/l) 12 8 67 3 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 12 10 83 4 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 12 1 8 4.3.4. Peshawar Water samples were collected from 13 sources covering the main water supply locations of Peshawar city. Only three sources were found to be supplying safe drinking water. The analysis of data showed that 62% of the samples were microbiologically contaminated and 38% of the samples were found contaminated with E. Coli and Fe. Twenty three percent of the samples were

found to be unsafe because of high levels of Ca, while 8% of the samples were found unfit due to high TDS. The details of the analysis of 13 samples are given in Annexure-16. The percentage of the samples found contaminated is given in Table 4.16. Sr. No. Table 4.16 Water beyond Permissible Limits of Different WQP in Peshawar Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Ca (mg/l) 13 3 23 2 TDS (mg/l) 13 1 8 3 Fe (mg/l) 13 5 38 4 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 13 8 62 5 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 13 5 38 4.4. BALOCHISTAN PROVINCE 4.4.1 Khuzdar From Khuzdar city of Balochistan, 11 water samples were collected from various water sources in order to give coverage to all possible water sources of the city. The selected sources included Tubewells (4), Water Supplies (2), a Cistern (1), a Tap (1), Wells (2) and a Spring (1), whereas the water sources at two locations were permanently dried. In the last phase of the National Water Quality Monitoring Programme, two new sources were selected in the replacement of the two former dried sources. It was found that only one source was supplying safe drinking water to the community. The analysis of the water samples showed that 91% of the sources of water were found to be contaminated with Coliforms. Also, 18% of the samples had high Aluminium (Al) concentrations. The higher levels of Ca and Nitrate were found in 18% of the water samples when compared with the WHO guideline values (Annexure-17). The results of the analysis showing the percentage of the samples contaminated with various contaminants is given in Table 4.17. Sr. No. Table 4.17 Results of Water Quality Analysis of Khuzdar (2005-06) Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Ca (mg/l) 11 2 18 2 NO3 (mg/l) 11 2 18 3 Al (ppb) 11 2 18 3 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 11 10 91 4 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 11 9 82 4.4.2. Loralai Water samples from 11 sources were collected from Loralai city, covering the possible surface and groundwater sources. These 11 water sources included Tube wells (4), a Hand Pump (1), Water Supplies (3), a Tap (1), a Dam (1) and a Spring (1). Only a single source was supplying safe

drinking water to the community of Loralai city. About 91% of the water samples were found unsafe due to bacterial contamination, whereas 9% of the samples were unfit for drinking purpose due to the presence of higher Turbidity, NO3, TDS, hardness and fluoride. About 27% of the samples were found to be contaminated with higher contents of Aluminium(Al) as given at Annexure-18. The percentage of samples found contaminated due to various contaminants is given in Table 4.18. Table 4.18 Results of Water found in Loralai Sr. No. Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Turbidity (NTU) 11 1 9 2 Ca (mg/l) 11 2 18 3 Hardness (mg/l) 11 1 9 4 NO3 (mg/l) 11 1 9 5 TDS (mg/l) 11 1 9 6 F (mg/l) 11 1 9 7 Al (ppb) 11 3 27 8 TI (ppb) 11 4 36 9 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 11 10 91 10 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 11 8 73 4.4.3. Quetta Out of the total 38 selected sources, water samples were collected from 34 sources as four sources were found un-operational. The water sources covering the major civil residential and cantonment areas of the city included Tube wells (21), Water Supply Schemes (6), a Tap (1), Wells (2), a Karez (1), Springs (2) and a Hand Pump (1). Only 8 sources were supplying safe drinking water while the rest of the sources were found unfit either chemically or microbiologically. The analysis of water quality data revealed that 68% of the samples were bacteriologically contaminated, whereas 26% of the samples were unfit due to a high concentration of Fe and Ca. Twenty four percent of the samples were found unfit due to high levels of Fluoride & NO3 when compared with the WHO guideline values. Similarly, 3% of the samples were contaminated with a high concentration of Nickel (Ni) and Chromium (Cr) and 21% of the samples were unfit due to a high concentration of Aluminium. There was a high concentration of Na in 6% of the samples. Three percent of the samples were found unsafe due to high levels of Cl, SO4 and Mg whereas 9% of the samples were declared unfit for human consumption due to high levels of hardness, TDS and Turbidity (Annexure-19). The results of the water quality analysis are given in Table 4.19. Table 4.19 Summary of Results of Water Quality Analysis of from Quetta (2005-06) Sr. No. Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Turbidity (NTU) 34 3 9 2 Ca (mg/l) 34 9 26

3 Mg (mg/l) 34 1 3 4 Hardness (mg/l) 34 2 6 5 Cl (mg/l) 34 1 3 6 Na (mg/l) 34 2 6 7 SO4 (mg/l) 34 1 3 8 NO3 (mg/l) 34 8 24 9 TDS (mg/l) 34 3 9 10 Fe (mg/l) 34 9 26 11 F (mg/l) 34 8 24 12 Ni (ppb) 34 1 3 13 Cr (ppb) 34 1 3 14 Al (ppb) 34 7 21 15 TI (ppb) 34 9 26 16 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 34 23 68 17 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 34 16 47 4.4.4. Ziarat Water samples were collected from 10 sources out of 11 sources, because one source had gone dry. None of the sources was supplying safe drinking water. All water samples were found contaminated with Coliforms and E. Coli organisms. Physical and chemical analysis of water showed that 20% of the samples possessed higher levels of Fe and aluminium (Al) beyond the permissible limits, and 10% of the samples were with higher levels of Turbidity and hardness. Also, 50% of the samples were found unsafe due to higher levels of NO3. Calcium (Ca) ions were found in higher concentrations in 4 water samples which might be due to the presence of Chiltan and Ziarat limestone rocks in the area (Annexure-20). All the information regarding the type of source and the %age of the contaminated samples beyond the permissible limits for different water quality parameters are given in Tables 4.20. Table 4.20 Summary of Results of Water Quality Analysis in Ziarat (2005-06) Sr. No. Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Turbidity (NTU) 10 1 10 2 Ca (mg/l) 10 4 40 3 Hardness (mg/l) 10 1 10 4 NO3 (mg/l) 10 5 50 5 Fe (mg/l) 10 2 20 6 Al (ppb) 10 2 20 7 TI (ppb) 10 3 30 8 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 10 10 100 9 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 10 10 100

4.5. SINDH PROVINCE 4.5.1. Hyderabad According to the study design, water samples were collected from 15 sources covering the main localities of the city. No source was found to be supplying safe drinking water to the citizens. The analysis of the water quality data showed that 93% of the water samples were contaminated due to Coliforms and E.coli bacterium and a high level of Turbidity. One sample (7%) was found with a high level of Ca, 7 samples (47%) contained excess Fe contents and 13 samples (87%) contained excess Aluminium (Al). The detail of the analysis of the 15 sources is given in Annexure-21. The information on the %age of the contaminated samples beyond the permissible limits of different water quality parameters are given in Tables 4.21. Sr. No. Table 4.21 Results of Water Quality Analysis of from Hyderabad (2005-06) Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Turbidity (NTU) 15 14 93 2 Ca (mg/l) 15 1 7 3 Fe (mg/l) 15 7 47 4 Al (ppb) 15 13 87 5 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 15 14 93 5 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 15 14 93 4.5.2. Karachi Water samples were collected from 28 sources that covered the major part of the metropolis. Only two sources were found to be safe. It was noticed that 86% of the water samples were contaminated with Coliforms and E.coli and 7% of the samples had high Na, Cl and SO4 ions more than allowed under permissible limits. Similarly 4% of the samples were found with an excessive ionic concentration of Ca, Mg, hardness, K, F & TDS and 18% were identified having high levels of Fe. About 64% of the samples had excessive aluminium while 4% of the samples had high Ni contents. 11% of the samples were found with high levels of NO3 and one sample (4%) was found with an excessive level of Fluoride. Details of the water quality analysis of the 28 samples are given in Annwexure-22. The summary of the water quality results is given in Table 4.22. Sr. No. Table 4.22 Summary of Results of Water Quality Analysis of Karachi (2005-06) Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Ca (mg/l) 28 1 4 2 Mg (mg/l) 28 1 4 3 Hard (mg/l) 28 1 4 4 Na (mg/l) 28 2 7 5 K (mg/l) 28 1 4 6 Cl (mg/l) 28 2 7

7 SO4 (mg/l) 28 2 7 8 NO3 (mg/l) 28 3 11 9 TDS (mg/l) 28 1 4 10 Fe (mg/l) 28 5 18 11 F (mg/l) 28 1 4 12 TI (ppb) 28 16 57 13 Al (ppb) 28 18 64 14 Ni (ppb) 28 1 4 15 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 28 24 86 16 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 28 24 86 4.5.3. Sukkur From Sukkur, 12 sources covering the entire city were selected for water sampling. The analysis of the water samples showed that only one source was supplying safe drinking water. It was found that 67% of the water samples were microbiologically contaminated and 50% of them were containing a high level of turbidity. High levels of turbidity were observed in tap and water supply distribution systems because the major source of water supplied to the city was drawn from the Indus River containing suspended colloidal material. Twenty five percent of the samples possessed a higher concentration of Calcium (Ca), and Nitrate (NO3), while 17% of the samples showed excessive contents of Sulphate (SO4). The analysis also showed that 80% of the samples possessed high values of hardness, Cl, Na, K, F and As. Seventeen Percent of the samples had high TDS and 8.3% of the samples were found with high contents of Aluminium (Al). Details of the analysis of the 12 samples are given in Annexure-23. The summary of the results of the analysis of the 12 samples is given in Table 4.23. Table 4.23 Results of Water Quality Analysis of Sukkur (2005-06) Sr. No. Water Quality Parameter Unit Total No. of Analyzed Number of %age of 1 Turbidity (NTU) 12 6 50 2 Ca (mg/l) 12 3 25 3 Hardness (mg/l) 12 1 8 4 Cl (mg/l) 12 1 8 5 Na (mg/l) 12 1 8 6 K (mg/l) 12 1 8 7 SO4 (mg/l) 12 2 17 8 NO3 (mg/l) 12 3 25 9 TDS (mg/l) 12 2 17 10 As (ppb) 12 1 8 11 F (mg/l) 12 1 8 12 Al (ppb) 12 10 83 13 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 12 8 67 14 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 12 8 67 4.6. OVERALL WATER QUALITY SITUATION IN PAKISTAN In total, 357 water samples were collected from sixteen types of water supply sources from 23

major cities of Pakistan. The details regarding the types and number of water sources are given in Table-4.24. Table 4.24 Type of Source and Number of Collected for Water Quality Analysis Source Number Source Number Tubewell 181 Karez 3 W.Supply 34 Spring 5 Cistern 2 Windmill 1 Bore 12 Hand Pump 47 Tap 52 Injection Pump 13 River 0 Donkey Pump 1 Well 6 Total 357 Bacteriological contamination is the major cause of unsafe drinking water supply to the 23 cities. Number and percentage of safe and unsafe water sources (microbiologically or chemically) are given in Table-4.25. Table 4.25 Overall Water Quality Situation of 23 Cities and Causes of Contamination Sr. No. City Total No. of Safe No. %age Unsafe Type of Contamination 1. Islamabad 27 7 26 20 74 Bacteriological 2. Bahawalpur 25 0 0 25 100 Bacteriological, turbidity, As, Fe, SO4, Na, K, Pb, TDS, F, Cl 3. Faisalabad 13 3 23 10 77 Bacteriological, Na, SO4, TDS, K, Cl, hardness, F, Fe, Cd 4. Gujranwala 14 1 7 13 93 Bacteriological, As, 5. Gujarat 9 4 44 5 56 NO3, TDS, TI Bacteriological, Turbidity, Fe, Mn 6. Kasur 10 0 0 10 100 Bacteriological, As, Na, TDS, Fe, F, NO3, SO4, K 7. Lahore 16 0 0 16 100 Bacteriological, As, Fe, TI 8. Multan 16 0 0 16 100 Bacteriological, As, Fe, 9. Rawalpindi 15 4 27 11 73 turbidity, TI, Mn Bacteriological, NO3, TDS, hardness, 10. Sargodha 24 1 4 23 96 Bacteriological, TDS, Na, NO3, SO4, K, Cl, hardness, As, F, turbidity No. %age

11. Sheikhupura 11 0 0 11 100 Bacteriological, As, TDS, Na, K, SO4, NO3 12. Sialkot 10 3 30 7 70 Bacteriological, As, TI, Mn Sub-Total 163 16 10 147 90 Sub-total excluding Islamabad 13. Bacteriological, NO3, 11 3 27 8 73 Abbottabad turbidity 14. Mangora 10 2 20 8 80 Bacteriological, K, NO3 15. Mardan 12 1 8 11 92 Bacteriological, Fe, NO3 16. Peshawar 13 3 23 10 77 Bacteriological, Fe, TDS Sub-Total 46 9 20 37 80-17. Khuzdar 11 1 9 10 91 Bacteriological, NO3, Al 18. Loralai 11 1 9 10 91 Bacteriological, turbidity, hardness, TDS, F, Al, TI, NO3, 19. Quetta 34 8 24 26 76 Bacteriological, Ca, turbidity, Mg, hardness, Cl, Na, SO4, F, Cr, Ni, Al, TI NO3, TDS, Fe 20. Ziarat 10 0 0 10 100 Bacteriological, hardness, Fe, Al, TI, NO3, turbidity Sub-Total 66 10 15 56 85-21. Hyderabad 15 0 0 15 100 Bacteriological, turbidity, Fe, Al 22. Karachi 28 2 7 26 93 Bacteriological, Mg, K, Cl, hardness, Na, F, Al, TI, Ni, SO4, NO3, TDS, Fe 23. Sukkur 12 1 8 11 92 Bacteriological, NO3, Cl, Na, As, K, F, Al, TI, hardness, SO4, TDS, turbidity Sub-Total 55 3 5 52 95 - GRAND TOTAL 357 45 13 312 87 - The review of the data revealed that Bacterial; Arsenic, Nitrate and Fluoride contamination are common in the water supply of all major cities of Pakistan. An overall picture of the water samples beyond the permissible limits of water quality parameters is given in Table-4.26.

Table 4.26 Overall Water Quality Parameters Found Beyond Permissible Limits S.No Parameters Total Number of Beyond Permissible Limit %age 1 Turbidity 357 40 11 2 Ca 357 108 30 3 Mg 357 6 2 4 Hard 357 20 6 5 Na 357 36 10 6 K 357 16 4 7 Cl 357 21 6 8 SO4 357 29 8 9 NO3 357 49 14 10 TDS 357 43 12 11 As 357 86 24 12 Pb 357 3 1 13 Fe 357 78 22 14 F 357 17 5 15 Coliforms 357 246 69 16 E.coli 357 178 50 The highest percentage of unsafe water sources was found in Bahawalpur, Kasur, Lahore, Multan, Sheikhupura and Ziarat, where none was safe for drinking purpose. Based on the complete information, generated through this Water Quality Monitoring Programme, it can be concluded that 13% out of a total of 357 water sources, are Safe and the rest of the 87% are Unsafe for drinking purposes. 4.7. SURFACE WATER Out of 23 surface water bodies, 22 were evaluated, as the Right Bank Outfall Drain (RBOD) was dried out (Table 4.27). The samples collected from these surface water bodies were analyzed for detailed water quality parameters including Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Dissolved Oxygen (DO). It was found that all samples were contaminated with Coliforms and E.Coli (Table 4.28). Seventy three percent of the samples had a high level of turbidity.only three samples were found with a high concentration of ions i.e. Ca, Mg, Hardness, Na, K, Cl, TDS, SO4 and NO3, Similarly, 27% of the samples showed an excessive concentration of Fe and F. Two lakes i.e; Hamal & Manchar were found with higher levels of Ca, Mg, Hardness, Cl. Na, K, SO4, and TDS. The LBOD drain was found with higher levels of Ca, Mg, Hardness, Cl, Na, K, SO4, and TDS (Annexure-26a).

Table 4.27 Types of Surface Water Sources and Number of Table 4.28 Summary of Water Quality Analysis of Surface Water Source Drain River Canal Dam Lake Head works Total Number 1 8 2 6 4 1 22 S.No Parameters Total No. Number of Beyond of Permissible Limit %age 1 Turbidity (NTU) 22 16 73 2 Ca (mg/l) 22 3 14 3 Mg (mg/l) 22 3 14 4 Hardness (mg/l) 22 3 14 5 Na (mg/l) 22 3 14 6 K (mg/l) 22 3 14 7 Cl (mg/l) 22 3 14 8 NO3 (mg/l) 22 3 14 9 SO4 (mg/l) 22 3 14 10 TDS (mg/l) 22 3 14 11 Fe (mg/l) 22 6 27 12 F (mg/l) 22 6 27 13 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 22 22 100 14 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 22 22 100 When the data was compared with the WHO permissible limits for irrigation water, it was found that the sample from Hamal lake had high values for TDS,HCO3, Mg, Hardness, Chloride, Sodium, Potassium and Sulphate. (Table 4.29). All samples were highly polluted with Coliforms and E Coli, as given at Annexure-26b. Table 4.29 Surface Water beyond Permissible Limits of Different Water Quality Parameters (for Irrigation Water) S.No Parameters Total No. Number of Beyond of Permissible Limit %age 1 HCO3 (mg/l) 22 1 5 2 Mg (mg/l) 22 3 14 3 Hardness (mg/l) 22 3 14 4 Na (mg/l) 22 3 14 5 K (mg/l) 22 2 9 6 Cl (mg/l) 22 3 14 7 SO4 (mg/l) 22 3 14 8 TDS (mg/l) 22 3 14 9 F (mg/l) 22 9 40 10 Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) 22 22 100 11 E.coli (MPN/100 ml) 22 22 100 Water quality analysis data of BOD and COD was compared with the Revised National

Environment Quality Standards (NEQS) for Municipal and Liquid Industrial Effluents. Details can be seen at Annexure-26a. Hammal Lake, Manchar Lake and Left Bank Out Fall Drain (LBOD) have shown excessive levels of COD and BOD as given at Annexure 26b.

CHAPTER-5 WATER QUALITY TREND (2005-06) The overall water quality trend of the past five years (2002-2006) of the National Water Quality Monitoring Programme (NWQMP), covering 23 major cities, is described in this chapter. The methodology adopted for site selection, sampling, preservation, transportation, field and laboratory analysis was kept the same during the five year monitoring program. In this chapter, water quality trends are drawn and discussed based on data of the five phases of the NWQMP which will be useful for future planning and improvement of water quality, by implementing remedial measures. The city wise comparison from the years 2002 to 2006 is given below. 5.1 Capital City of Islamabad The year wise comparison of water quality data of Islamabad (2002-2006) showed that there was some improvement in the drinking water quality with respect to bacteriological contamination during the year 2003 (60% safe) as compared to 2002, 2004 and 2005. However, the situation during 2006 again deteriorated, as shown in Table 5.1. Table 5.1: Year wise Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Islamabad City (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 7 20 26 74 2003 15 10 60 40 2004 9 17 35 65 2005 14 13 52 48 2006 7 20 26 74 The drinking water quality with respect to chemical parameters did not show any significant change, although only Turbidity and Iron exceeded the limits, as given in Table-5.2. Table 5.2: Comparison of Water Quality Status of Islamabad (2002-06) Sr. No. Parameter(s) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 No. of Sample Collected 27 25 26 27 27 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1 Turbidity 4 0 8 4 0 2 Iron 4 11 12 4 4

5.2 Punjab Province 5.2.1 Bahawalpur The water quality data of Bahawalpur from 2002 to 2006 has shown the availability of poor quality water in Bahawalpur. The findings reflect that all the sources were found to be contaminated throughout the 5 year period, as presented in Table-5.3. Table-5.3: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality Status of Bahawalpur (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 1 24 4 96 2003 0 25 0 100 2004 0 25 0 100 2005 0 25 0 100 2006 0 25 0 100 The most considerable water quality parameters beyond the permissible limits in the period of five years (2002-06) were Turbidity (16-32%), Iron (56-68%), Arsenic (68-88%) and Bacteriological contaminant (52-76%) as given in Table-5.4. Table-5.4: Comparison of Water Quality Status of Bahawalpur (2002-06) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Sample Collected 25 25 25 25 25 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Turbidity 16 32 32 28 32 2. Sodium 8 8 8 8 12 3. Fluoride 4 4 4 4 4 4. Sulfate 12 12 20 20 20 5. Nitrate (N) 0 0 4 0 0 6. Iron 60 64 64 56 68 7. Arsenic 72 68 76 80 88 8. Bacteriological Contamination 76 68 52 72 60 5.2.2 Faisalabad The drinking water quality situation of Faisalabad was also found to be un-satisfactory based on the five years water quality monitoring program. The percentage contamination due to unsafe water sources remained almost consistent (62-79%) from the year 2002 to 2006 (Table 5.5). Reported waterborne outbreaks and mortality rates in Faisalabad have verified the prevailing situation of unsafe drinking water.

Table-5.5: Year wise Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Faisalabad (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 3 11 21 79 2003 5 8 38 62 2004 3 10 23 77 2005 5 8 38 62 2006 3 10 23 77 Water quality parameters found beyond the permissible limits of WHO, PSQCA or other international standards are given in Table-5.6. Data revealed that sulphate (23-46%), sodium (23-54%), TDS (31-54%), nitrate (N) (0-31%), fluoride (7-15%) and bacteriological contaminants (38-79%) were the most common water quality problems. Table 5.6: Comparison of Water Quality Status of Faisalabad (2002-06) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Sample Collected 14 13 13 13 13 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Sulphate 36 46 38 23 46 2. Sodium 43 46 38 23 54 3. Potassium 36 46 46 31 38 4. Chloride 36 38 31 23 38 5. Total Dissolved Solids 43 54 46 31 46 6. Nitrate (N) 0 0 31 8 0 7. Fluoride 7 8 8 15 15 8. Bacteriological Contamination 79 38 38 46 46 5.2.3 Gujranwala The drinking water situation of Gujranwala city remained unsatisfactory. The percentage of safe water sources remained in the range of 14% to 36%. However, it declined to 7% in the last year (2006), which resulted in an increase of unsafe water sources (93%) as given in Table-5.7. Table-5.7: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality Status of Gujranwala (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 5 9 36 64 2003 4 10 29 71 2004 4 10 29 71 2005 2 12 14 88 2006 1 13 7 93

A comparison of chemical & bacteriological parameters from 2002 to 2006 showed that the presence of excess nitrate (0-29%), higher level of arsenic (7-64%) and bacteriological contaminants (29-71%) were the common problems associated with drinking water sources (Table 5.8). Table-5.8: Comparison of Water Quality Status of Gujranwala (2002-2006) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Sample Collected 14 14 14 14 14 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Nitrate (N) 0 0 7 29 7 2. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 7 7 7 14 7 3. Arsenic 7 43 43 43 64 4. Bacteriological Contamination 29 71 64 64 64 5.2.4 Gujrat A gradual improvement in water quality was observed. The contamination was 100% in 2002 and has declined to 56% in 2006 (Table 5.9). Table-5.9: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality Status of Gujrat (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 0 9 0 100 2003 1 8 11 89 2004 2 7 22 78 2005 3 6 33 67 2006 4 5 44 56 The major problem parameters of water quality discovered during the five year monitoring program were Total Coliforms/ Faecal Coliforms, iron and turbidity (Table-5.10). Table-5.10: Comparison of Water Quality Status of Gujrat (2002-06) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Collected 9 9 9 9 9 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Turbidity 33 33 22 22 22 2. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 11 11 11 11 0 3. Iron 33 11 11 11 11 4. Bacteriological Contamination 100 78 78 67 56 The TDS level was decreased at one site in the year 2006 (at the location of Village Haria situated

near an Elementary School), due to the change of the water source. 5.2.5 Kasur The drinking water sources of Kasur have shown an increase in the deterioration of water quality from 60% in 2002 to 100% in 2006 (Table-5.11). There was not even a single water source supplying safe drinking water from 2004 to 2006. Table-5.11: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality Status of Kasur (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 4 6 40 60 2003 3 7 30 70 2004 0 10 0 100 2005 0 10 0 100 2006 0 10 0 100 The devastating situation of water quality present in Kasur is mainly due to arsenic, sodium and bacteriological contaminations (Table-5.12). Table-5.12: Comparison of Water Quality Status of Kasur (2002-2006) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Sample Collected 10 10 10 10 10 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Sodium 30 30 40 30 50 2. Sulfate 20 20 30 20 20 3. Nitrate (N) 0 0 20 20 10 4. Fluoride 30 20 20 20 20 5. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 30 30 40 30 40 6. Iron 0 10 40 40 30 7. Arsenic 30 40 80 90 100 8. Bacteriological Contamination 40 40 50 40 40 5.2.6 Lahore Sixteen different locations of Lahore were selected for the water quality-monitoring programme (2002 to 2006). In the first phase, 44% of the water sources were found to be safe, whereas in the remaining four phases, all sources were found contaminated due to Coliform/Faecal Coliform and arsenic. In 2002, arsenic was analyzed using Merck testing kits having lower sensitivity level. However, in the later years, arsenic was analyzed on an Atomic Absorption Spectrometer which has a very low detection limit i.e. 0.08 ppb. Therefore, from 2003-06, all samples were found to have exceeded the permissible limits of arsenic i.e. 10 ppb. Details are given in Table-5.13.

Table-5.13: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Lahore (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 7 9 44 56 2003 0 16 0 100 2004 0 16 0 100 2005 0 16 0 100 2006 0 16 0 100 Detail regarding the percentage of samples found beyond the permissible limits is given in Table 5.14. Bacteriological contamination for the five years was found to be in the range of 37 to 63%. In the case of chemical parameters, arsenic was found to be present in all of the monitored sources. On the other hand higher levels of iron (0-56%) gave an indication of the rusting of the water supply pipelines. Table-5.14: Comparison of Water Quality Status of Lahore (2002-06) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Sample Collected 16 16 16 16 16 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Iron 6 0 50 56 56 2. Arsenic 31 100 100 100 100 3. Bacteriological Contamination 43 37 43 63 50 5.2.7 Multan Multan is one of those cities, in which none of the sources was found to be safe during 2002-06, due to excessive arsenic in the groundwater (>10 ppb), as given in Table-5.15. Table-5.15: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Multan (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 0 16 0 100 2003 0 16 0 100 2004 0 16 0 100 2005 0 16 0 100 2006 0 16 0 100 The major contaminants prevailing in the drinking water sources of Multan city are bacteriological, iron and arsenic, which need the special attention of the local authorities in order to assure the supply of safe drinking water to the citizens. The percentage contaminations of the various chemical and bacterial contaminants that were identified during 2002 to 2006 are given in Table

5.16. Table-5.16: Comparison of Water Quality Status of Multan (2002-06) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Sample Collected 16 16 16 16 16 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Turbidity 6 19 19 13 19 2. Iron 37 19 50 44 44 3. Arsenic 75 94 88 94 94 4. Bacteriological Contamination 87 69 31 56 56 5.2.8 Rawalpindi The drinking water quality of Rawalpindi had showed some minor improvement during the five years, as given in Table-5.17. The percentages of safe water sources were found to be in the range of 13 to 29%. Table-5.17: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Rawalpindi (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 2 13 13 87 2003 4 10 29 71 2004 3 12 20 80 2005 4 11 27 73 2006 4 11 27 73 The major causes of an unsafe drinking water supply were found to be bacteriological contamination and an excessive level of nitrate. The details of these contaminants in water supplies during 2002 to 2006 are summarized in Table-5.18. Table-5.18: Comparison of Water Quality Status of Rawalpindi (2002-06) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Sample Collected 15 14 15 15 15 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Nitrate (N) 0 7 0 7 7 2. Bacteriological Contamination 87 64 73 67 53 5.2.9 Sargodha Twenty four water sources of Sargodha were included in the NWQMP in 2004. The level of Bacteriological and chemical contaminants was found to be quite high. A more devastating

situation was found a year later in 2005 (Table-5.19). Table-5.19: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Sargodha (2004-06) No. of Sources %age Year Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 - - - - 2003 - - - - 2004 2 22 8 92 2005 0 24 0 100 2006 1 23 4 96 Percentage samples with higher levels of contamination are given in Table-5.20. In this regard, sodium (54%), potassium (29-33%), sulphate (38-46%), nitrate (33-54%), TDS (63-67%), fluoride (4-8%) and bacteriological contaminants (75-92%) were found in the drinking water sources during those three years (2004-06). Table-5.20: Comparison of Water Quality Parameters of Sargodha (2004-06) Sr. No. Parameter(s) Year of Monitoring 2004 2005 2006 No. of Collected 24 24 24 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Magnesium 17 17 17 2. Hardness 33 42 38 3. Sodium 54 54 54 4. Potassium 33 29 29 5. Sulfate 46 46 38 6. Chloride 42 42 46 7. Nitrate (N) 33 50 54 8. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 63 63 67 9. Fluoride 8 4 4 10. Arsenic 13 13 13 11. Bacteriological Contamination 75 92 83 5.2.10 Sheikhupura An analysis of the data of eleven sources of Sheikhupura during the five phases of the NWQMP showed a poor water quality situation. This situation of water quality, in 2005-2006, calls for immediate action (Table-5.21).

Table-5.21: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Sheikhupura (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 2 9 18 82 2003 2 9 18 82 2004 1 10 9 91 2005 0 11 0 100 2006 0 11 0 100 Nitrate (0-27%), arsenic (45-73%) and bacteriological contaminants (27-55%) were found to be in excess than that of permissible limits. Details are given in Table-5.22. Table-5.22: Comparison of Water Quality Parameters of Sheikhupura (2002-06) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Sample Collected 11 11 11 11 11 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Sodium 27 27 18 36 27 2. Potassium 0 0 18 18 9 3. Sulfate 9 9 9 18 9 4. Nitrate (N) 0 0 27 27 9 5. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 18 18 27 27 27 6. Arsenic 45 64 45 64 73 7. Bacteriological Contamination 55 27 36 45 45 It was observed that the TDS value of the location Live Stock situated near the Training Services Centre increased in the year 2006 (531 to 951 ppm), and the reason was that of the change of the water source. 5.2.11 Sialkot In Sialkot, the percentage of safe sources was in the range of 10-30% during 2002 to 2006 (Table5.23). It demands the immediate action of the responsible authorities to rectify the prevailing situation. Table-5.23: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Sialkot (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 3 7 30 70 2003 3 7 30 70 2004 1 9 10 90 2005 3 7 20 80 2006 3 7 30 70

The bacteriological contamination was found to be in the range of 40-70%. The contamination of arsenic was 0-20%, which may be due to the underground weathering of rocks. Details regarding the exceeded water quality parameter are given in Table-5.24. Table-5.24: Comparison of Water Quality Parameters of Sialkot (2002-06) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Sample Collected 10 10 10 10 10 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Iron 0 30 10 0 0 2. Arsenic 0 10 20 20 20 3. Bacteriological Contamination 40 40 70 60 70 5.3 N.W.F.P 5.3.1 Abbottabad Abbottabad was included in the NWQMP in the year 2005. The water quality status of representative water sources (2005 and 2006) is given in Table-5.25. Table-5.25: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Abbottabad (2005-06) Year(s) No. of Sources/ %age Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 - - - - 2003 - - - - 2004 - - - - 2005 2 9 18 82 2006 3 8 27 73 The major water quality problems identified during the survey period were bacteriological (55-73%) and nitrate (9%) contaminations (Table-5.26). The comparison of the water quality data for 2005 and 2006 is given in Table 5.26. Table-5.26: Comparison of Water Quality Parameters of Abbottabad (2002-06) Sr. No. Parameter(s) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 No. of Sample Collected 11 11 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Turbidity - - - 9 9 2. Nitrate (N) - - - 9 9

3. Bacteriological Contamination - - - 73 55 5.3.2. Mangora The results of the water quality analysis of ten locations well explained the drinking water situation in Mangora. The percentage of unsafe water samples ranged from 55 to 80 percent during the five year monitoring period (Table-5.27). Table-5.27: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Mangora (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 4 6 40 60 2003 4 5 45 55 2004 4 6 40 60 2005 4 6 40 60 2006 2 8 20 80 Details regarding the percentage samples that were beyond the permissible limits of water quality parameters during 2002-06 are given in Table-5.28. The two identified major water quality problems were bacteriological (40-70%) and nitrate (0-20%) contamination. Table-5.28: Comparison of Water Quality Contamination of Mangora (2002-06) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Sample Collected 10 9 10 10 10 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Nitrate (N) 0 11 20 20 20 2. Bacteriological Contamination 60 55 40 60 70 5.3.3 Mardan The annual monitoring of Mardan was also based on the field and laboratory analysis. The five years data showed that the percentage of unsafe water sources ranged from 75 to 100% (Table- 5.29). Table-5.29: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Mardan (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 2 10 17 83 2003 3 9 25 75 2004 0 12 0 100 2005 2 10 17 83 2006 1 11 8 92

The last monitoring phase indicated a critical condition due to bacterial contamination and required the implementation of remedial measures for the provision of safe drinking water. The major causes of unsafe drinking water were bacteriological contaminants, nitrate (N) and iron. Details are given in Table-5.30. Table-5.30: Comparison of Water Quality Parameters of Mardan (2002-06) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Sample Collected 12 12 12 12 12 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Nitrate (N) 0 0 8 8 8 2. Iron 0 8 67 67 67 3. Bacteriological Contamination 83 75 75 83 83 5.3.4. Peshawar Peshawar was divided into a grid size of 4x4 km and 13 locations were selected to monitor the water quality on an annual basis from 2002 to 2006. The two major causes of unsafe drinking water were bacteriological contaminants and Iron (Table-5.31). Table-5.31: Year wise Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Peshawar (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 3 10 23 77 2003 7 6 54 46 2004 3 10 23 77 2005 1 12 8 92 2006 3 10 23 77 Detail of the water quality parameters beyond the WHO guideline values are given in (Table-5.32). Table-5.32: Comparison of Water Quality Parameters of Peshawar (2002-06) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Sample Collected 13 13 13 13 13 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 8 8 8 8 8 2. Iron 0 0 62 54 38 3. Bacteriological Contamination 69 46 31 77 62 5.4 Balochistan Province:

5.4.1 Khuzdar The year-wise comparison of the Khuzdar water quality analysis showed a range of 0-37% safe and 63-100% unsafe water sources during 2002-2006 (Table-5.33). Table 5.33: Year wise Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Khuzdar (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 0 8 0 100 2003 3 5 37 63 2004 0 11 0 100 2005 3 6 33 67 2006 1 10 9 91 The water quality parameters beyond the permissible limits are given in Table-5.34. The analysis revealed that during (2004-206), nitrate and bacteriological contaminations were the major causes of unsafe water. Table-5.34: Comparison of Water Quality Parameters of Khuzdar (2002-06) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Sample Collected 8 8 11 9 11 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Nitrate (N) 0 0 18 11 18 2. Bacteriological Contamination 100 62 91 67 91 5.4.2. Loralai The water quality situation of Loralai is also very similar to Khuzdar, particularly in regards to the percentage of unsafe water sources in 2006. The data represented in Table-5.35 showed the year-wise comparisons. A small degree of improvement was observed after 2003. However, the situation in 2006 was reverted to the former pattern and showed that ninety one percent of the sources were unsafe.

Table-5.35: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Loralai (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 0 11 0 100 2003 1 9 10 90 2004 3 8 27 73 2005 2 9 18 82 2006 1 10 9 91 The major water quality problems in this area were nitrate, fluoride and bacteriological contamination as given in Table-5.36. Table-5.36: Comparison of Water Quality Parameters of Loralai (2002-06) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Sample Collected 11 10 11 11 11 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Turbidity 18 30 18 18 9 2. Hardness 9 10 9 9 9 3. Nitrate (N) 0 0 9 9 9 4. Fluoride 55 10 9 9 9 5. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 10 10 9 9 9 6. Bacteriological Contamination 100 80 73 82 91 5.4.3. Quetta Quetta is the capital of the Balochistan province and 38 locations were selected for the annual water quality monitoring. Year wise comparisons are given in Table-5.37, which shows almost similar situations in 2002 and 2006 for safe water sources. Table 5.37: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Quetta (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 11 27 29 71 2003 11 24 31 69 2004 14 20 41 59 2005 9 23 28 72 2006 8 26 24 76 Percentage samples that were beyond the permissible limits for various water quality parameters indicated a higher %age of fluoride (22-42%), nitrate (0-25%), iron (0-34%) and bacteriological contaminants (48-68%) as given in Table-5.38. Table-5.38: Comparison of Water Quality Parameters of Quetta (2002-06)

Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Collected 38 35 34 32 34 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Turbidity 16 9 15 19 9 2. Magnesium 3 3 3 3 3 3. Hardness 13 9 9 6 6 4. Sodium 5 3 3 3 6 5. Sulfate 8 6 6 6 3 6. Nitrate (N) 0 0 24 25 24 7. Chloride 3 3 0 0 3 8. Fluoride 42 31 24 22 24 9. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 13 8 9 6 9 10. Iron 8 0 24 34 26 11. Bacteriological Contamination 50 48 50 56 68 5.4.4 Ziarat None of the sources were found safe in Ziarat during the five year monitoring project (2002-06). Details are given in Table-5.39. Table 5.39: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Ziarat (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 0 8 0 100 2003 0 7 0 100 2004 0 10 0 100 2005 0 10 0 100 2006 0 10 0 100 Year-wise detail of analyzed water quality parameters found beyond the permissible limits is given in Table-5.40. The major causes of contamination identified in Ziarat are bacteriological and nitrate. Table-5.40: Comparison of Water Quality Parameters of Ziarat (2002-06) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Collected 8 7 10 10 10 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Turbidity 25 43 20 20 10 2. Nitrate (N) 0 0 20 50 50 3. Bacteriological Contamination 100 100 100 100 100

5.5 Sindh Province 5.5.1 Hyderabad Fifteen sites were selected from Hyderabad for the water quality analysis. A year wise water quality status is given in Table-5.41. In 2003 and 2004, the worst drinking water quality was found in all of the water sources. The overall status of safe water sources was found to be in the range of 0-13%. Table 5.41: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Hyderabad (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 0 15 0 100 2003 0 15 0 100 2004 0 15 0 100 2005 1 14 7 93 2006 0 15 0 100 The data presented in Table-5.42 revealed that the major causes of unsafe water in Hyderabad were bacteriological contamination (73-100%), turbidity (67-93%) and iron (0-7%). Table-5.42: Comparison of Water Quality Parameters of Hyderabad (2002-06) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Collected 15 15 15 15 15 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Turbidity 67 93 80 93 93 2. Iron 60 7 47 47 47 3. Bacteriological Contamination 73 100 100 87 93 5.5.2. Karachi Twenty eight locations of Karachi were selected in order to monitor the drinking water quality each year. Details regarding the percentage of safe and unsafe water sources are given in Table-5.43. Table-5.43: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Karachi (2002-06) No. of Sources/ %age Year(s) Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 7 21 25 75 2003 2 26 7 93 2004 0 28 0 100 2005 4 24 14 86 2006 2 26 7 93

The major causes of unsafe water quality in Karachi were bacteriological contamination (61-100%), fluoride (4-14%) and nitrate (4-11%) as shown in Table-5.44. Table-5.44: Comparison of Water Quality Parameters of Karachi (2002-06) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Sample Collected 28 28 28 28 28 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Turbidity 11 64 18 21 0 2. Hardness 4 0 7 7 4 3. Chloride 4 0 11 11 7 4. Fluoride 7 14 4 4 4 5. Iron 18 0 43 21 18 6. Magnesium 4 0 4 7 4 7. Nitrate (N) 4 0 4 7 11 8. Sodium 7 0 7 11 7 9. Potassium 0 0 7 11 4 10. Sulfate 0 0 4 7 7 11. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 4 0 11 11 4 12. Nickel 0 0 7 0 4 13. Bacteriological Contamination 61 82 100 75 86 5.5.3. Sukkur Twelve sites were selected from Sukkur city for the water quality monitoring on an annual basis. A year wise comparison from 2002 to 2006 is given in Table 5.46. In 2002-2003, none of the sources was found to be safe. However, in the later years the situation slightly improved from 100 to 75% and remained more or less the same throughout the coming three years (2003-06). Table-5.46: Comparison of Drinking Water Quality of Sukkur (2002-06) Year(s) No. of Sources/ %age Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 2002 0 12 0 100 2003 0 12 0 100 2004 2 10 17 83 2005 3 9 25 75 2006 1 11 17 83 The most prominent contaminants which contributed in the deterioration of the water quality were turbidity (50-58%), nitrate (0-25%), fluoride (0-8%) and bacteriological contaminants (67-83%) during the years 2002-2006 as given in Table-5.47.

Table-5.47: Comparison of Water Quality parameters of Sukkur (2002-06) Year of Monitoring 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sr. No. Parameter(s) No. of Sample Collected 12 12 12 12 12 % Beyond Permissible Limits 1. Turbidity 58 58 58 58 50 2. Hardness 0 8 8 8 8 3. Potassium 0 8 17 8 8 4. Chloride 0 0 8 0 8 5. Sodium 25 17 0 0 8 6. Sulfate 0 8 8 8 17 7. Nitrate (N) 0 0 0 17 25 8. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 25 33 8 8 17 9. Iron 75 17 0 0 0 10. Fluoride 0 8 0 8 8 11. Lead 0 0 0 0 0 12. Arsenic 0 0 8 0 8 13. Bacteriological Contamination 83 83 75 75 67 5.6 Province-Wise Comparison (2002-06) As per the sampling plan, the sample collection and subsequent field and laboratory analysis was carried out for all four provinces, as well as for the capital city of Islamabad. Details regarding the number of samples taken from the four provinces on a yearly basis are given in Table-5.48. Table-5.48 Province Wise Detail of Water (2002-06) Sr. No. Year(s) No. of Collected Balochistan Punjab NWFP Sindh Total 1 2002 65 140 35 55 295 2 2003 60 138 34 55 287 3 2004 66 163 35 55 319 4 2005 62 163 46 55 326 5 2006 66 163 46 55 330 Total 319 767 196 275 1557 Note: No. of samples collected from Islamabad are excluded. The province wise water quality status of the five years (2002-06) is discussed as under. 5.6.1 Balochistan Province In Balochistan, safe drinking water sources were in the range of 15-26% during the five year period as shown in Figure-5.1. It was found that most of the water sources were unsafe for drinking purposes and needed the immediate attention of the concerned authorities.

Figure 5.1: Water Quality Situation in Balochistan Province (2002-2006) 5.6.2 Punjab Province The water quality situation of the Punjab province is not much different to that of Balochistan, as the percentage of unsafe water sources were in the range of 81-90%. A comparison of safe and unsafe water samples on a yearly basis is given in Figure 5.2. Figure 5.2: Water Quality Situation in Punjab Province (2002-2006) 5.6.3 NWFP In the case of NWFP, 52% samples were unsafe in 2005 and 80% in 2004, as is shown in Figure 5.3. Therefore, the overall water quality situation was found to be unsatisfactory during the five year monitoring period.

Figure-5.3: Water Quality Situation in NWFP (2002-2006) 5.6.4 Sindh Province The water quality in Sindh from 2002 to 2006 remained unsatisfactory as more than eighty percent of the water samples analyzed were found to be unsafe for drinking. A year wise comparison of safe and unsafe water samples is shown in Figure 5.4. The over all drinking water quality information is summarized in Table-5.49a & 5.49b, which shows the number and %age of safe and unsafe water sources.

Table-5.49 (a): Overall Water Quality Status of Balochistan and Punjab Year Balochistan Punjab Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe No. %age No. %age No. %age No. %age 2002 11 17 54 83 27 19 113 81 2003 15 25 45 75 22 16 116 84 2004 17 26 49 74 16 10 147 90 2005 14 23 48 77 17 10 146 90 2006 10 15 56 85 16 10 147 90 Table-5.49 (b): Overall Water Quality Status of NWFP and Sindh Figure-5.5: Water Quality Status in Four Provinces (2002-06)

The data analysis helps to conclude that 85% of the water samples were found to be contaminated. A year-wise comparison is given in Table-5.50. Table-5.50: Overall Water Quality Status of Pakistan Sr. No. Year No. of %age of Total Safe Unsafe Safe Unsafe 1 2002 295 54 241 18 82 2 2003 287 53 234 18 82 3 2004 319 42 277 13 87 4 2005 326 48 278 15 85 5 2006 330 38 292 13 87 Total 1557 235 1322 15 85 An average range of unsafe water sources was 82 to 87 % during the five years of the NWQMP, where as safe water sources range was 13-18% as shown in Figure-5.6. % age 100 80

60 40 20 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year of Monitoring Safe Unsafe Figure-5.6: Water Quality Status of Pakistan (2002-06) The major problems, identified through the National Water Quality Program, were Bacterial contaminants, Arsenic, Fluorides and Nitrates present in the drinking water. These problems need to be addressed immediately; otherwise waterborne diseases will increase and kill many people. Public awareness should also be made through printed material such as Leaflets, brochures, newspapers etc., and the electronic media.

CHAPTER-6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Three hundred and sixty four water sources were selected from 23 major cities of Pakistan for drinking water quality monitoring. From these 364 water sources, 357 water samples were collected as 07 sources in the Balochistan province were found to be non-functional. The analysis of 357 water sources revealed the presence of four main water quality problems i.e. Bacteriological (69%), Arsenic (24%), Nitrate (14%) and Fluoride (5%). Water sources of all the 23 cities had a considerable %age of bacteriological contamination (40-100%). A higher percentage of arsenic contamination was found in nine cities, nitrate in fourteen cities and fluoride in four cities was found. Based on the water quality data generated through five years from the National Water Quality Monitoring Program (NWQMP), the following recommendations are drawn: Recommendations 1 The water supply agencies should take responsibility in providing safe drinking water to all the consumers. Also, drinking water quality standards set by Pakistan Standards Quality Control Authority (PSQCA) should be fully enforced in the country. 2 Regular monitoring of all water sources and critical points should be ensured in order to identify problem areas and the causes of contamination with corrective plans. No new water supply scheme should be approved unless detailed investigations of the water quality, quantity and its sustainability has been carried out. It should be mandatory for the agencies responsible to regularly monitor the quality of the water being supplied to the consumers through analysis done at their own laboratories or other accredited laboratories of repute. 3 Prevention of cross-contaminations should be controlled by properly designing the pipelines. Proper distance should be maintained and pipelines should not allow passing across the sewerage lines. Low cost solid waste and sanitation management systems must be evolved so as to reduce the flow of pollutants into the fresh surface and groundwater sources. 4 The departments responsible for water supply in urban areas, in particular should replace age-old leaking pipes in their water supply systems. These pipes are not only a source of wastage of scarce water but are also a major cause of bacterial contamination in the distribution system. 5 Water supply agencies not only in the surveyed cities, but elsewhere in the country, must ensure that the supply of water to the consumers is of safe quality particularly with respect to bacterial contamination. It is their civic duty to ensure that the water is given an appropriate dose of chlorine and provided an adequate contact time with the maintenance of a proper ph and the reduction of the turbidity of water to permissible limits by providing adequate filtration facilities. 6 Alternate sources of water should be identified in areas where the quality of existing source of water supply is contaminated. Examples for such cases are wells/tubewells from where water with high concentrations of Arsenic is pumped out for drinking purposes. 7. Simple technologies and low cost water and waste treatment plants should be developed indigenously, and efforts be made for the recycling of waste water to make it reusable for agricultural, domestic and industrial purposes. Low-cost water testing kits and treatment technologies developed by the PCRWR should be used in the country. 7 No new water supply scheme should be approved of unless detailed investigations of water quality, quantity, possible sources of local contamination, and its sustainability have been carried out. 8 It has been observed that sub-standard chemicals containing impurities are used in water treatment

plants. Such chemicals can produce different kinds of contaminants, causing health hazards. It is strongly recommended that strict quality control must be ensured in these treatment plants. 9 Most of the industries in the country are indiscriminately discharging harmful toxic elements into water bodies. The Environmental Protection Agency should become more active and strictly enforce laws and regulations preventing industrial entrepreneurs from discharging their effluents directly into open water bodies and groundwater. 10 The public should be encouraged to periodically clean all domestic undergrounds and overhead tanks (cistern system) in their hand(s). For this well-planned awareness campaigns should be initiated. 11 Household water reservoirs are not sanitized periodically; these should be cleaned and disinfected regularly. Water theft and wastage through leakages should be properly monitored by concerned authorities and it is mandatory that remedial action be taken in a timely manner. 12 Lead absorbed by water bodies from the atmosphere can be quite injurious to health. Use of lead free gasoline for vehicles should be encouraged in the country, particularly in those areas where the surface water is the main source of drinking water like Karachi, Islamabad, and Rawalpindi in order to avoid contamination. 13 Health education should include the subject of water quality, safety and associated hazards. For effective awareness, educational institutions and mosques, including the mass media, should be used for creating awareness among the users about the importance of water quality. Seminars and workshops can also play a significant role in this regard and 14 Seminars and workshops should be frequently arranged so as to disseminate the findings of the water quality monitoring results.

REFERENCES 1 Acu-Cell 2003 Bismuth and Lithium http://www.acu-cell.com/bili.html. 2 Anderson, J and Young, L 2002 Potassium and Health. Colorado State University, Cooperative Extension http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09355.html. 3 Aparna, O. 2001. Iron in Diet Information. Department of community medicine, University of Connecticut School of Medicine FARMINGTON, ct. http://www.1uphealth.com/health/iron_in_diet_side effects.html. 4 APHA, AWWA and WEF, D.E 1992 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation, 18 th Edition, Washington, DC. 5 APEC, 2006. http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water-education/water-health.htm 6 Bokina A.I 1965 Hygienic Assessment of Drinking Water Hardness as a Factor Favouring the Development of Urolithiasis, Gigiena-I-Sanifarija 30(6): 3. 7 British Geological Survey, 2003 Water Aid. Special Report. London, UK. 8 Bruvold, W.H, et al., 1967 Consumer attitudes towards mineral taste in domestic water. Journal of the Amer. Water Works Ass, Vol. 59. 9 Bulusu, K.R et al., 1979 Fluorides in Water, Deflouridation Methods and their Limitations. Journal of the Institution of Engineers, India. 10 Canadian drinking water quality guidelines, 1979 Quebec, Ministry of Supply and Service (Supporting Documentation), Ottawa, Canada. 11 Chiang, S.L 2003 Appropriate Microbial Indicator Tests for Drinking Water in Developing Countries and Assessment of Ceramic Water Filters, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Masachusells Institute of Technology. 12 Danamark. 2003 Taste, Odor and Color in Drinking Water. Danamark Water Treatment Products. http://www.danamark.com/taste_odorand_color.htm. 13 Dawn 2004 Islamabad water safe: NIH (Sci-Tech World). Dawn Karachi, March 27, 2004. p.13. 1 Dawn 2004 soon, not a drop to drink. (The review) Dawn Karachi, March 18-24, 2004. p.18. 2 Dawn 2004 Tap water contaminated: seminar. Dawn Karachi, March 16, 2004. p.11. 3 Dawn 2004 Unhygienic water cause of 30 pc deaths in Pindi. Dawn Karachi, April 5, 2004. p.2. 1 Fingl, E 1980 Laxatives and Cathartics. In: Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. A.G Gilman, L.S Goodman and L. Gilman (eds). McMillan Publishing Co., New York. 2 Fine waters, 2006. http://www.finewaterimports.com/water.imports/read/235 3 Healthnet 2003 Sodium and Potassium, Stress and Your Heart-Fact Sheet 6 [Healthnet Quick Facts]. http://www.healthnet.org.uk/facts/level3/f003.htm. 4 Jaffer, M et al., 1985 Physical Chemistry, Vol. 4, No. 1: 10. 5 Kahlown, M. A., Tahir, M. A. and Ashraf, M. (2002). Water Quality Issues and Status in Pakistan. Proc: Seminar on Strategies to Address the Present and Future Water Quality Issues. March 6-7, 2002. Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources. Islamabad, pp. 6 Kahlown, M.A. and Tahir. M.A. (2001). Quality Analysis of Bottled Mineral Water. PCRWR

Report. Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources, Islamabad, Pakistan. 7 Katz, M 1977 The Canadian Sulphur Problem. In: Sulphur and it s Inorganic Derivatives in the Canadian Environment. Association Committee on Scientific Criteria for Environment Quality, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa. NRCC No. 15015. p. 21. 8 Marier, J.R., et al. 1979 Water Hardness, Human Health, and the Importance of Magnesium. Ottawa, Canada, Research Council. 9 Michael, J Suess 1982 Physical, Chemical & Radiological Examination, Vol. 2, 170, 202-210. 10 National Academy of Sciences 1973 Water Quality Criteria, 1972 (EPA-R-73-033) US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 11 PSI. 1987. Pakistan Standards 1932-1987 Specification for Drinking Water. Pakistan Standard Institution, Karachi, Pakistan. 12 Plan, 2005. Growing Up in Asia. Plan s strategic framework for fighting child poverty in Asia 2005 2015. www.plan-international.org 13 Rafiq, M 1980 Classification of Salt-affected Soils of the Indus Plain with Respect to Reclaimability. In: Proc. International Symposium on Salt-Affected Soils, 18-21 February 1980, at CSSRI. Karnal, India. pp. 77-82. 14 Ronald, E.H 2003 Clean Water for Washington Cooperative Extension EPO994. http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/cepublications/eb0994/eb0994.html. 15 Ronald, E.H 2003 Clean Water for Washington Cooperative Extension EPO994. http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/cepublications/eb0994/eb0994.html. 16 Sawyer and McCarty 1967 McGraw Hil series in Sani. Sci. and Water Resources Engineers. Toronto, p341. 17 SDWF 2003 Drinking Water Quality and Health. Safe Drinking Water Foundation. http://www.safewater.org/members/teachers/water%20 and %20health.com. 18 Smith, A.S 1973 Analyst 98: 65. 19 Tahir, M.A et al. (1994) Survey of Drinking Water Quality in the Rural Areas of Rawalpindi District. Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources, Islamabad, Pakistan. 20 Tuinzaad, H 1954 Influence of the Atmospheric Pressure on the Head of Artesian Water and Phreatic Water, Assemble General de Rome. Assoc. Intl. A Hydrology Scientific, Vol. 2: 32 21 1 World Bank UNDP, UNEP and WRI, (2000) and United Nations Population Division (2001). http://www.unep.org/geo/geo3/english/268.htm. 2 USDI 2001 Water Treatment Primer for Communities in need Advanced Water Treatment Research Programme. United States Department of the Interior. Report No.68. National Tech. Inf. Centre, Springfield, Virginia 2216. USA. pp160. 3 USEPA 1977 Toxicology of Metals, Vol. II (Environmental Health Effects Research Series), US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC; USA. 4 USEPA1986 Revised Primary Drinking Water Regulations and Fact Sheets. Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. United States Environment Protection Agency, Washington DC; USA. 5 Waite, W.M 1985 A Critical Appraisal of the Coliform Test. Institute of Water Engineers and Scientists, 38:341-357. 6 Water Clinic 003 Turbidity, Color, Odor and Taste. http://www.thewaterclinic. com/turbidity_color_odor_taste.html. 7 Water Shedss 2003 Phosphorus. http://h2osparc.wq.ncsu.edu/info/phos.html. 8 WHO 1972-73 Technical Reports Series No. 505, 532. World Health Organization, Geneva. 9 WHO 1970 Fluorides & Human Health. World Health Organization, Monograph Series No. 59, Geneva. 10 WHO 1973 The Hazards to Health and Ecological Effects of Persistent Substances in the Environment. Report of a Working Group. World Health Organization Copenhagen. 11 WHO 1984 Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Health Criteria and Other Supporting

Information, Vol. 2: 206-253. 12 WHO 1986 Appropriate Use of Fluorides for Human Health. Murray J.J. (Edit.) WHO, Geneva. 13 WHO 1996 Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Recommendation, Vol. 1: 16-17. 14 WHO 1979 Sodium, Chlorides and Conductivity in Drinking Water. EURO Reports and Studies, No.2. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhen.

ANNEXURES (Physical, Aesthetic, Chemical and Inorganic Constituents)