Study of the dyeing industry pollution after mandatory installation of ETP in Madhabdi municipality, Bangladesh

Figures & data

Figure 1. Location of the study area (Banglapedia, 2021).

Table 1. Location and description of collected samples from the Madhabdi municipality, Narsingdi, Bangladesh.

Station	Place	Latitude	Longitude	Samples
Station_1	Khabur Char	23°52’16.56732“N	90°40’13.31688” E	Soil and Water
Station_2	Shekher Char	23°52’16.56732“N	90°40’24.402” E	Soil, Water and Vegetable
Station_3	Baburhat	23°52’36.54264“N	90°40’27.6078“E	Soil and Water
Station_4	Baburhat	23°52’29.7066“N	90°40’25.8373“E	Soil, Water and Vegetable
Station_5	Baburhat	23°52’19.36668“N	90°40’6.87072“E	Soil, Water and Vegetable
Station_6	Shilmandi	23°52’19.36664“N	90°39’58.00572“E	Soil and Water
Station_7	Algi	23°50’49.11648“N	90°40’19.36308“E	Soil and Water
Station_8	Kalibari	23°50’47.14224“N	90°40’18.53436“E	Soil and Water

Table 2. Test results for water samples.

Station_ID	pH	EC (µScm^−1)	TDS (mgL^−1)	DO (mgL^−1)	Cr (mgL^−1)	Pb (mgL^−1)	Mn (mgL^−1)
Station_1	11.43	3320	1990	0.8	0.75	0.04	0.18
Station _2	7.49	1232	719	0.8	0.56	0.12	1.79
Station _3	9.56	1173	660	1.3	BDL	0.08	0.23
Station _4	7.39	1520	881	0.6	0.97	0.17	1.18
Station _5	11.18	2750	1590	0.7	1.45	0.19	0.17
Station _6	11.03	4280	2420	0.5	0.73	0.13	0.94
Station _7	7.72	1464	881	0.6	2.04	0.15	2.17
Station _8	7.73	2120	1218	1	1.80	0.13	0.43
Range	7.72–11.43	1173–4280	660–2420	0.5–1.3	BDL-2.04	0.04–0.19	0.18–2.17
Mean	9.19	2232.38	1294.88	0.79	1.03	0.13	0.89
Maximum Permissible Limit	6.0–9.0^a	1200^a	2100^a	4.5–8^a	0.50^a	0.10^a	5.00^a

BDL – Below Detectable Limit of the Flame AAS; ^a National Standards – Waste Discharge Quality Standards for Industrial Units and Projects for inland surface water proposed through (DoE, 1997).

Table 3. Indices for water samples.

Station_ID	Water Quality Index (WQI)			Contamination Index (Cd)			Heavy Metal Evaluation Index (HEI)
	Value	Threshold^a	Interpretation	Value	Threshold^b	Interpretation	Value	Threshold^c	Interpretation
Station_1	52.38	Excellent (0–25) Good (26–50) Poor (51–75) Very poor (76–100) Unsuitable for drinking (>100)	Poor	−0.99	Low (Cd <1) Medium (Cd = 1–3) High (Cd >3)	Low	2.01	Low (HEI <4) Medium (HEI = 4–7) High (HEI >7)	Low
Station _2	110.54		Unsuitable	1.08		Medium	4.08		Medium
Station _3	64.21		Poor	−2.10		Low	0.90		Low
Station _4	161.10		Unsuitable	1.61		Medium	4.61		Medium
Station _5	191.01		Unsuitable	1.61		Medium	4.61		Medium
Station _6	123.94		Unsuitable	0.55		Low	6.40		Medium
Station _7	173.78		Unsuitable	4.70		High	7.70		High
Station _8	151.02		Unsuitable	2.10		Medium	5.10		Medium

^aWQI source(Srivastava, Mishra, Tripathi, & Singh, 2007);: ^bC_d source(Nasrabadi, 2015);: ^cHEI source (Edet & Offiong, 2002).:

Table 4. Test results for soil samples.

Station_ID	pH	EC (µScm^−1)	Cr (µgg-1)	Pb(µgg-1)	Mn(µgg-1)
Station_1	9.03	1444	44.00	31.06	711.20
Station _2	8.84	1067	50.80	46.46	983.52
Station _3	8.6	379	39.70	32.35	590.20
Station _4	9	299	66.33	57.29	543.41
Station _5	8.65	1041	83.20	76.45	1071.45
Station _6	8.82	497	36.40	53.25	395.43
Station _7	7.77	1358	67.58	46.07	402.34
Station _8	7.92	813	157.70	78.94	1743.76
Mean	8.58	862.25	68.21	52.73	805.16
Maximum Permissible Limit			100^a	100^a	2000^a

^aSource (Chiroma, Ebewele, & Hymore, 2014).:

Table 5. Contamination factor of soil samples.

Station_ID	Cr	Pb	Mn	Threshold^a
Station_1	0.44	0.31	0.36	CF < 1: Low Contamination 1 ≤ CF ≤ 3: Moderate Contamination 3 ≤ CF ≤ 6: Considerable Contamination CF > 6: Very High Contamination
Station _2	0.51	0.46	0.49
Station _3	0.40	0.32	0.30
Station _4	0.66	0.57	0.27
Station _5	0.83	0.76	0.54
Station _6	0.36	0.53	0.20
Station _7	0.68	0.46	0.20
Station _8	1.58	0.79	0.87

^aSource (Tusher, Piash, Latif, Kabir, & Rana, 2017).:

Table 6. Pollution load index (PLI) of soil samples.

Station_ID	PLI	Threshold^a	Interpretation
Station_1	0.36	PLI 0 ≤ 1: Unpolluted to Moderate Pollution 1<PLI ≤2: Moderate Pollution	Unpolluted to Moderate Pollution
Station _2	0.49		Unpolluted to Moderate Pollution
Station _3	0.34		Unpolluted to Moderate Pollution
Station _4	0.47		Unpolluted to Moderate Pollution
Station _5	0.70		Unpolluted to Moderate Pollution
Station _6	0.34		Unpolluted to Moderate Pollution
Station _7	0.40		Unpolluted to Moderate Pollution
Station _8	1.16		Moderate Pollution

aSource: (Ho & Aj, 2018).

Table 7. Heavy metal concentration in vegetable samples.

Station_ID	Vegetable	Cr (µgg^−1)	Pb (µgg^−1)	Mn (µgg^−1)
Station_2	Pumpkin Leaves (Cucurbita pepo)	1.95	0.29	209
Station _4	Bottle Gourd Leaves (Lagenaria siceraria)	2.32	0.24	171
Station _5	Bathua Leaves (Chenopodium album)	3.56	0.36	486
Mean		2.61	0.30	288.67
Maximum Limit		1.3^a	0.3^b	500^b

^aSource (Popovici et al., 2021); ^b Source (Chiroma, Ebewele, & Hymore, 2014).:

Table 8. Metal pollution index of vegetables.

Station_ID	Vegetable	Metal Pollution Index (MPI)
Station_2	Pumpkin Leaves (Cucurbita pepo)	12.10
Station _4	Bottle Gourd Leaves (Lagenaria siceraria)	19.09
Station _5	Bathua Leaves (Chenopodium album)	33.09

Banglapedia. (2021). Narsingdi sadar upazila. In S. Islam and S. MiahEds., Banglapedia - the national encyclopedia of Bangladesh Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. https://en.banglapedia.org/index.php/Narsingdi_Sadar_Upazila#:~:text=Narsingdi%20Sadar%20Upazila%20(narsingdi%20district,92%C2%B050’%20east%20longitudes

 Google Scholar

DoE (Department of Environment). (1997). The environment conservation rules, 1997. Dhaka: Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

 Google Scholar

Srivastava, A. K., Mishra, D. K., Tripathi, S., & Singh, P. (2007). Determination of water quality index and suitability of ground water in a college in Balrampur, U.P. Nature Environment & Pollution Technology, 6(2), 315–319.

 Google Scholar

Nasrabadi, T. (2015). An index approach to metallic pollution in river waters. Journal of Engineering Geology, 9(2), 2841–2868. https://doi.org/10.18869/acadpub.jeg.9.2.2841

 Google Scholar

Edet, A. E., & Offiong, O. E. (2002). Evaluation of water quality pollution indices for heavy metal contamination monitoring. A study case from akpabuyo-odukpani area, lower Cross River Basin (southeastern Nigeria). GeoJournal, 57(4), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GEJO.0000007250.92458.de

 Google Scholar

Chiroma, T. M., Ebewele, R. O., & Hymore, F. K. (2014). Comparative assessment of heavy metal levels in soil, vegetables and urban grey water used for irrigation in Yola and Kano. International Reference Journal of Engineering Science, 3(2), 1–9.

 Google Scholar

Tusher, T. R., Piash, A. S., Latif, M. A., Kabir, M. H., & Rana, M. M. (2017). Soil quality and heavy metal concentrations in agricultural lands around dyeing, glass and textile industries in Tangail district of Bangladesh. Journal of Environmental Science & Natural Resources, 10(2), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.3329/jesnr.v10i2.39020

 Google Scholar

Ho, N., & Aj, E. (2018). Contamination indices and heavy metal concentrations in soils in Okpoko and environs, Southeastern Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Science and Public Health, 2(2), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.26502/jesph.96120031

 Google Scholar

Popovici, V., Bucur, L., Calcan, S. I., Cucolea, E. I., Costache, T. … Badea, V. (2021). Elemental analysis and in vitro evaluation of antibacterial and antifungal activities of Usnea barbata (L.) Weber ex F.H. Wigg from Călimani mountains, Romania. Plants, 11(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11010032

 Google Scholar