1. Department of Civil Engineering, International University of Business Agriculture and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh; haxsib@gmail.com
2. Department of Civil Engineering, International University of Business Agriculture and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh; engrhridayahmed@gmail.com
3. Department of Civil Engineering, International University of Business Agriculture and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh; roshni23355@gmail.com
4. Department of Geography & Environment, Dhaka College, Dhaka, Bangladesh; abdullah110600@gmail.com

*             Correspondence: shaaxxx.haxsib@gmail.com

Keywords: Turag River, industrial wastewater and waste soil, contamination point

1. INTRODUCTION

Bangladesh is considered as a land of rivers. Rivers are said to be the lifeline of this country. The daily livelihoods of millions of people in Bangladesh in terms of transportation, agricultural and fishing practices are directly dependent on the healthy existence of rivers [1]. Moreover, rivers are treated as major sources of drinking water and an inseparable part of the ecosystem. Dhaka city, the capital of Bangladesh, is surrounded by the rivers – Turag, Buriganga, Dhaleshwari, Balu and Shitalakhya [2]. Several canals are connected to these rivers, which form a river canal network system. The Turag River is one of the major rivers in Bangladesh. It is the upper tributary of the Buriganga River it originates from the Banghshi River and later on a tributary of the Dhaleshwari River [3]. The Turag River flows through Gazipur and connects with Buriganga at Mirpur, Dhaka.  Bangladesh’s capital and largest city, Dhaka [4]. The major rivers that surround this city are the Turag, Buriganga, Dhaleshwari, Balu, and Shitalakhya. Tongi is one of Dhaka’s largest industrial zones. According to the 1959 Master Plan, Tongi is particularly known and developed as an industrial zone. Metal industries, garments, jute, textile; spinning, pharmaceutical, food manufacturing industry, and so on are all present in the Tongi area [5]. These industries dump wastewater (i.e., effluent) without treating it. The most saturated zone is the Turag River. Turag river water is mostly polluted, it used for a variety of purposes including drinking, bathing, washing, navigation, agriculture, and irrigation [6]. Now Turag River faces many problems due to industrial effluent. At the same time people who live in the surrounding environment also face many problems or health problem such as skin disease, diarrhea, cough and cold, fever, gastric ulcer, and life-long disease etc [7].

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Industrial wastewater is a major environmental pollutant, it threatens our nation and the world. Every day, massive amounts of wastewater entered waterways. These produce major water contamination and harm humans and ecosystems. Many studies have examined Bangladeshi rivers affected by industrial pollution, untreated urban sewerage, uncontrolled industry, and urbanization [8]. It examined river water quality. Many studies have examined Turag river contamination. Standard CO2 and Alkalinity in Turag river are high, harming humans and aquatic life [9]. They recommend treating factory and industrial trash before discharging it into the river. It examined heavy metal contamination in Turag River water and sediments in Tongi. Untreated urban and industrial effluent from Tongi impact water chemistry [10]. The water has heavy metal concentrations much above surface water quality standards. Sediment sample Mn, Zn, Cr, Cu, and Pb contents above the standard [11]. Direct industrial and municipal garbage flow into the river increases metal concentrations. ETPs are under construction in 10% of industries and unestablished in 50% [12]. Thus, about 50% of industrial waste enters waterways untreated. The same study examined how solid waste and industrial effluents affected Turag River water quality [13]. The study found that industrial effluents made water light to dark black and smell bad.  The upstream water was somewhat alkaline with high DO and low other values. Continuous waste dumping increased river water metal concentrations in the order of Fe > Zn >Pb > Cu > Cd [14]. They determined that downstream river water was almost contaminated and unfit for human consumption and aquaculture [15]. The Tongi Bridge to Ejtema Field riverbed was extremely polluted, their analysis of river water heavy metal concentrations (Pb, Cd, Cu, Cr, and Zn) showed strong connections. The investigation demonstrates that the river is polluted and the water, sediment, and fish are unsafe [16]. Turag River water’s physical and chemical qualities, three investigation sites collected water for those purposes. The physicochemical properties of water exceed the standard. The river water was black and smelled awful, indicating pollution and risk to aquatic ecosystems and humans [17]. The same study examined Turag River pollution and local health issues, they determined that Turag River water may not support aquatic life or be acceptable for home use. Very low dissolved oxygen (DO) and other river metrics suggest this. The Turag River has substantially higher turbidity, EC, hardness, TDS, and COD than allowed [18]. Turag River’s physiochemical characteristics and heavy metal are substantially greater than the standard value, causing skin, diarrhea, dysentery, respiratory ailments, anemia, and birthing issues in local communities. Odor pollution and respiratory issues also plague people [19]. Research suggests treating industries and industrial trash before discharging it into the river. Untreated urban sewerage and industrial wastewater from Tongi impact Turag River water chemistry [20]. The same study examined solid waste and industrial effluences, varying this value. Fe > Zn > Pb > Cu >Cd, it examined (Do), hardness, TDS, COD, and turbidity [21]. Layers of mineral elements of varying thicknesses make up soil, which differs from parent materials in morphology, physicality, chemistry, and mineralogy. Rock fragments affected by chemical and environmental processes like weathering and erosion make up its composition. Soil is vital to life, especially humans [22]. Minerals, organic materials, water, air, and fauna like bacteria and earthworms make up soil. It is always changing due to physical elements including parent material, time, climate, and creatures [23]. Waste pollutants include excess nutrients like phosphates, sulfates, and nitrates. Super phosphate fertilizer rinsed from soil and detergent performance chemicals release large amounts of phosphate into rivers and lakes [24]. Soil type affects nutrient losses and transit to aquatic bodies via affecting nutrient availability. Particle size, mineral makeup, and organic matter affect nutrient transport through soil and into surface runoff and groundwater [25]. Smaller particle size increases water and nutrient binding, making sandy soils more susceptible to nutrient loss than silty or clay soils [26]. If minerals readily form compounds with phosphorus, nitrogen, or carbon or are prone to oxidation and chemical breakdown, they affect soil nutrient binding. Soil elements (silicates, metals, salts) [27]. Discarded solid trash comes from everyday life, it comprises kitchen and food waste, paper, rag, glass bottles, metal cans, plastics, fibers, home fuel leftovers, street sweeping, building debris, rubbles, and abandoned automobiles. Municipal waste, trash, or garbage is urban solid waste [28].

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data has been collected from three points in each station for water, Three points are discharge point, contamination point and Mid-point. There have total 7 stations and 21 sub-stations for water and, 7 stations for soil.  For determination of water quality of Turag River used 8 parameters and for soil there used 11 parameters. Water samples were collected from Discharge point, Contamination point and Midpoint of the station. Soil samples were collected from near the station and from agricultural field which are beside the Turag River.  A survey was conducted near the selected points and those who live near the river, to get some hand-to-hand data on the land uses. A survey was conducted near the selected points to get some data on the land uses around the river. Different test has been perform i.e. pH, Temperature, DO, TDS, EC and then we did lab test of some parameters which are Hardness, COD & Turbidity. The pH is a measure of the acidic or alkaline condition of water. It may be expressed as the hydrogen ion concentration, or more precisely the hydrogen ion activity. Collected one mug of station water then Check the pH by using pH meter and wrote the DP, CP & MP value for water. After pH then it has been checked temperature machine to collect DP, CP & MP value. Environmental Protection Agency, you’ll receive a recommended water temperature of 120 degrees Fahrenheit (48.89 °C). Environmental engineering is concerned with the solid material in a wide range of natural waters and wastewaters. After checked the TDS meter DP, CP&MP. The usual definition of solids is the matter that remains as residue upon evaporation at 103~105°C. An electrical conductivity meter (EC meter) measures the electrical conductivity in a solution. It has multiple applications in research and engineering, with common usage in hydroponics, aquaculture, aquaponics, and freshwater systems to monitor the amount of nutrients, salts, or impurities in the water. One mug of station water then Check the EC meter Scale and Wrote the DP, CP & MP value. EC meter measures the potential for an electrical current to be transported through water. Dissolved oxygen (DO) meters are used to measure the amount of dissolved oxygen in a liquid. Oxygen makes its way into water through a variety of processes, including aeration, as a byproduct of photosynthesis, and from surrounding air. DO are also use by meter and checked DP, CP&MP Value. Water should generally have dissolved oxygen concentrations above 6.5-8 mg/L and between about 80-120 %.

4. RESULT & DISCUSSION

4.1 pH of Water

In this study, water standard pH for fisheries is 6.5 to 8.5 according to Environmental Quality Standard (EQS 1997). Here we have shown the variation of graph 4.1 DP (Discharge Point), CP (Contamination Point) and MP (Mid-Point) with the standard value. Among these graphs highest value is 9.8 in station 2 and lowest value is 4.7 in station 5.

4.2 Total Dissolved Solid

Total dissolved solid is a measure of the dissolved combined content of all inorganic and organic substances present in a liquid in molecular, ionized, or micro-granular suspended. It shows the maximum TDS value in August at station 2 and the minimum TDS value also found in July and May months at station point 2 and 3. According to Environmental Quality Standard (EQS 1997) the accepted value of TDS is 1.00. All the values are below the range.

4.3 Dissolved Oxygen 

In our study, Average highest value is 6.6 mg/L and lowest average value is 0.5 mg/L. For each station we can see that DO value is decrease with the month, In May month value is close to standard after that it gradually decrease and in November the value is lower. According to Environmental Quality Standard (EQS 1997) the DO of potable water should be in between 6mg/l.

4.4 Temperature

Temperature varies naturally with the seasons, also varies for release water from industry and the temperature of the river can be affected by the amount of sunlight, the depth of the water, and the speed of the water flow. Here we have shown the variation of DP, CP and MP with the standard value. It shows the value of temperature of seven months start from May and ends in November. The figure shows highest temperature value in August at station 7 and lowest temperature in November at station 3. According to Standard value the temperature of fisheries water should be in between 20 ℃ to 30 ℃.

4.5 Turbidity

Turbidity is a measure of the clarity of water caused by suspended particles, such as silt, clay, algae, and other organic and inorganic materials. In river water, turbidity can be caused by natural processes, such as erosion of riverbanks and sedimentation, as well as human activities. It shows the value of turbidity of seven months May to November for 7 station. Here we have shown the graph 4.5 variation of DP, CP and MP with the standard value. According to Environmental Quality Standard (EQS 1997) turbidity value is 10 NTU. For every station turbidity is higher than the standard value and gradually it decrease. Turbidity can have both beneficial and harmful effects on aquatic ecosystems.

4.6 Chemical Oxygen Demand

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) is a measure of the amount of oxygen required to oxidize the organic matter present in a water sample. It shows the value of COD of seven months, May to November, highest COD value in July at station 2 and lowest COD value in July at station 1, 3 and 7. According to Environmental Quality Standard (EQS 1997) COD standard is 100 mg/l. In the study, the maximum COD was found 168.7 mg/l in July at station.

 4.7 Hardness

The hardness of river water refers to the concentration of dissolved minerals, primarily calcium and magnesium that are present in the water. It shows the comparison of hardness for four months, August to November along with 7 stations. According to Environmental Quality Standard the Hardness of potable water should be in between 80 mg/l to 100 mg/l.

4.8 Electric Conductivity

Electric conductivity (EC) is a measure of the ability of a solution, such as river water, to conduct an electric current. It is a measure of the concentration of dissolved ions in the water, which can include minerals, salts, and other substances. It shows the comparison of electric conductivity for three months (September to November) along with the station. Here we have shown the variation of DP (Discharge Point), CP (Contamination Point) and MP (Mid-Point) with the standard value. According to Environmental Quality Standard (EQS 1997) the EC value should be in between 600-800 µs/cm.

4.9 pH of Soil

In this study, seven station points was taken in the river. It shows the seven months pH value comparison of seven stations. The result shows lowest pH in November at station 4 and highest pH value in also November at station 6. According to the Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) the pH of potable water should be in between 0  to 14. For soil pH standard range is 5.5-7.5.

4.10 Moisture Content

It shows the seven months Moisture Content value comparison of seven stations. Moisture Content value in November at station 6 and highest Moisture Content value in also November at station 7. Because of climate changing Moisture Content will change. In dry season moisture content will less. And in wet season moisture content will high.

4.11 Water Holding Capacity

Water holding capacity is the ability of food to hold its own or added water during the application of force, pressure, centrifugation, or heating. The water holding capacity is the highest in clayey soil. Sandy soils contain less amount of silt so they hold less amount of water when compared to other types of soils. Water Holding Capacity are assuming 0 to 150. Station- 1 average value is 80. Station- 2 assuming the value for graph 0 to 100 and the value start from 70 and fall into 60, Station 3 assumption 0 to 80 and value start 40 and value increase to 70. Station- 4 value is 50 and it is up to 90. Station- 5 and 6 average value is 70. Station- 7 value is 80 and it is up to 120, only station- 7 value cross the 100 lines of graph. Station- 7 value is higher than other station.

4.12 Texture of Soil

For organic matter standard range is 3-6%. Most soil organic matter originate from plant tissue and also present of Magnesium, Calcium, Nitrogen organic matter will increase.  High organic matter harm plants and pollute rivers and ground water if organic matter is high than standard range this may lead to lower yields and effect food security.

4.13 Organic Matter

Soil texture refers to the proportion of sand, silt and clay sized particles. 20%clay, 40% sand and 40% silt are considers best soil type. Result described three type of soil, and allocated the difference type of soil marked different color and symbol. There are three types of soil, and the name of those, %of silt, % sand, and % clay.  Station-1 assume the graph value is 0 to 100, in this station % of silt value is 10, silt sand  value is 40, % sand value is 20, sand stand value is 40, %clay value is 30, clay stand value  is 20. Station-2 assume the graph value is 0 to 80, in this station % of silt value is 30, %  sand value is 50,, %clay value is 70.Station-3 assume the graph value is 0 to 100, in this  station % of silt value is 10, % sand value is 70, %clay value is 30.Station-4assume the  graph value is 0 to 100, in this station % of silt value is 10, % sand value is 15, %clay value  is 60.Station5assume the graph value is 0 to 80, in this station % of silt value is 30, % sand  value is 40, %clay value is 30.Station-6 assume the graph value is 0 to 100, in this station  % of silt value is 20, % sand value is 60, %clay value is 50.Station-7assume the graph  value is 0 to 80, in this station % of silt value is 5, % sand value is 50, %clay value is 50 .

4.14 Nitrogen

It shows the seven months values, in contrast, in loam and clay soils  “High” soil nitrogen supply is most suitable (50 –75 and 75 –125 mg-N/kg soil  respectively). It can see that in station 1 nitrogen is higher than the standard value and all others stations value are lower than the standard value. Nitrogen is essential for thee, primarily nitrogen absorbed through fine root. This can be affected by pH, temperature, soil moisture. From result we see that nitrogen value is below the standard which means soil quality is not good for plants.

4.15 Phosphorus

It shows the value of four months start from August and ends in November. Basically, soils with higher clay have high phosphorus retention then phosphorus range become high. And when pH range low Then Phosphorus range become low below the standard range. Maximum Station phosphorus  range low because pH range low and few some station range high because clay content  have high that’s why phosphorus range increase.

 4.16 Cadmium

Results represent August to November month’s values of Cadmium point. So, we can show the 4 months values, it shows the value of temperature of four months start from August and ends in November. Station 1 and 2 in September month two station cadmium range low. And all station range are increasing the standard range.

4.17 Chromium

It represents August to November month’s values of Chromium (Cr) point. So, it can show the 4 months values in graph. It shows the value of four months start from August and ends in November. Maximum station Chromium range below the standard value accept station 1 November month.

4.18 Lead

It shows the value of four months start from August and ends in November. Station 1 accept November month are Standard Value and All station month below the standard value. Because Farms and Agriculture land use high lead than waste of lead mixed in soil that’s how station 1 November month are standard value. And Organic materials are increased then Lead range are decrease. That’s why maximum station Lead range decrease below the Standard value.

4.19 Nickel

It shows the value of four months start from August and ends in November. Here maximum station range below the standard value only few stations month Increase the standard value. When anthropogenic activities higher in soil than nickel range decrease the standard value. Few stations Nickle range are 20 to 30 ppm because of potentially toxic metal are present in soil. When potentially toxic metal decrees and anthropogenic activities too much high than nickel range too much low.

Table 01: Water Sample Data Sheet (Station 1)

Station	Point	Parameters	May, 22	Jun, 22	Jul, 22	Aug, 22	Sep, 22	Oct, 22	Nov, 22
1	Discharge Point	Temperature  (°C)	30.1		35.6	35.3	33.4	333.9	33.1
		pH	7.8	7.1	7.9	8.5	8.3	8.2	7.7
		DO (mg/l)	4.9	4.2	1.8	0.9	1.4	2	1.7
		COD (mg/l)	69	73	41	0	886	28	31
		TDS (PPT)	0.369	0.29	0.608	0.64	0.68	0.59	0.57
		Turbidity	0	41.50	25.17	2.67	2.03	6.21	1.37
		T.hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	768	300	230	563
		EC (mg/l)					1293	1095	1076
	Contamination  Point	Temperature  (°C)	32.7	28.50	32.6	36.1	33.5	34.2	28
		pH	7.7	8	8.2	8.3	8.3	8.1	7.7
		DO (mg/l)	6.1	6.5	2	0.6	1.5	2	1.1
		COD (mg/l)	39	0	0	0	1166	7	9
		TDS (PPT)	0.32	0.09	0.188	0.53	0.66	0.57	0.26
		Turbidity	41.59	52	12.48	8.57	0.68	2.78	12.1
		Total hardness (mg/l)	0	0	0	204	272	112	264
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	1254	1089	455
	Mid-Point	Temperature  (°C)	30.7	0	33	37.5	34.2	34.2	28
		pH	7.9	0	8.4	8.2	8.3	8.2	7.6
		DO (mg/l)	5.7	0	1.7	0.8	1.1	2.6	0.8
		COD (mg/l)	4	0	0	0	946	9	5
		TDS (PPT)	0.10	0	0.28	0.12	0.53	0.57	0.24
		Turbidity	44.31	0	30.69	18.51	1	1.69	17.41
		T. hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	248	78	129

Table 02: Water Sample Data Sheet (Station 2)

Station	Point	Parameters	May, 22	Jun, 22	Jul, 22	Aug, 22	Sep, 22	Oct, 22	Nov, 22
2	Discharge Point	Temperature  (°C)	30.1	0	40.7	28	28.8	34.8	37.3
		pH	7.8	7.8	9.6	10	9	8.1	7.4
		DO (mg/l)	4.1	4.5	0.8	0.6	1.5	1.4	1.3
		COD (mg/l)	145	0	258	544	751	76	86
		TDS (PPT)	0	0.34	1.25	2.24	0.51	0.67	0.65
		Turbidity	0	49.6	57	51	33.67	29.19	32.17
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	140	120	248
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	1000	1236	1250
	Contamination  Point	Temperature  (°C)	30.1	28.4	33.5	31.5	30.4	36.1	32.5
		pH	8	7.8	9.3	10.1	8.9	8	7.5
		DO (mg/l)	5.2	4.7	2.3	0.6	1	1.4	1.1
		COD (mg/l)	19	0	22	262	843	58	64
		TDS (PPT)	0.10	0.12	0.28	1.42	0.43	0.53	0.44
		Turbidity	52	53	34.2	56	36.25	29.26	21.95
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	120	120	149
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	816	989	850
	Mid-Point	Temperature  (°C)	0	28.3	32	36.5	32.9	38	28.2
		pH	0	8	8.3	8.9	8.6	8	7.7
		DO (mg/l)	0	5.7	2.3	0.9	0.5	1.3	1.5
		COD (mg/l)	0	0	9	0	667	12	26
		TDS (PPT)	0	0.08	0.11	0.18	0.25	0.39	0.2
		Turbidity	0	59	46.81	25.23	25.80	21.22	12.49
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	100	80	140
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	470	713	637

Table 03: Water Sample Data Sheet (Station 3)

Station	Point	Parameters	May, 22	Jun, 22	Jul, 22	Aug, 22	Sep, 22	Oct, 22	Nov, 22
3	Discharge Point	Temperature  (°C)	34.7	28.2	32.8	34.5	26.8	36.8	28
		pH	8.5	7.7	7.5	8.9	8.8	8.1	7.8
		DO (mg/l)	7.1	5.7	1.8	0.6	1.3	0.4	1.5
		COD (mg/l)	17.4	0	10	11.7	12.72	23	56
		TDS (PPT)	0.358	0.10	0.1	0.35	1.69	0.61	0.26
		Turbidity	49.72	95	17.58	17.65	18.84	11.9	14.4
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	68	80	0
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	200	1135	477
	Contaminati on Point	Temperature  (°C)	30.5	28.5	32.4	35.2	32.3	37.6	27.3
		pH	8.2	7.8	7.8	8.2	8.5	8.2	7.7
		DO (mg/l)	6.1	5.1	3.8	0.5	1.2	0.9	1.3
		COD (mg/l)	148	0	0	0	645	26	64
		TDS (PPT)	0.25	0.17	0.09	0.19	0.14	0.45	0.26
		Turbidity	82	134	17.82	23.9	25.84	12.22	17.41
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	64	80	56
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	241	842	435
	Mid-Point	Temperature  (°C)	29.7	28.4	31.8	35.5	32.2	38	27
		pH	8.1	7.8	7.6	8	8.2	8.1	7.7
		DO (mg/l)	6.5	5.1	4.7	0.6	1.4	2	1
		COD (mg/l)	16	0	423	0	933	22	22
		TDS (PPT)	0.11	0.17	0.1	0.16	0.29	0.34	0.22
		Turbidity	35.42	114	21.69	13.72	21.65	9.13	7.03
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	64	80	76
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	538	625	420

 

Table 04: Water Sample Data Sheet (Station 4)

Station	Point	Parameters	May, 22	Jun, 22	Jul, 22	Aug, 22	Sep, 22	Oct, 22	Nov, 22
4	Discharge Point	Temperature  (°C)	36.5	28.2	32.8	34.5	26.8	36.8	30.5
		pH	8.3	7.7	7.5	8.9	8.8	8.1	7.6
		DO (mg/l)	7.5	5.7	1.8	0.6	1.3	0.4	1.8
		COD (mg/l)	67	0	10	11.7	12.72	23	176
		TDS (PPT)	1.55	0.10	0.1	0.35	1.69	0.61	0.98
		Turbidity	23.41	95	17.58	17.65	18.84	11.9	17.25
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	68	80	87
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	200	1135	1880
	Contamination  Point	Temperature  (°C)	30.5	28.5	32.4	35.2	32.3	37.6	27.3
		pH	8.5	7.8	7.8	8.2	8.5	8.2	7.6
		DO (mg/l)	6.7	5.1	3.8	0.5	1.2	0.9	1.3
		COD (mg/l)	46	0	0	0	645	26	146
		TDS (PPT)	0.25	0.17	0.09	0.19	0.14	0.45	0.41
		Turbidity	49.55	134	17.82	23.9	25.84	12.22	16.1
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	64	80	144
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	241	842	770
	Mid-Point	Temperature  (°C)	29.6	28.4	31.8	35.5	32.2	38	26
		pH	8.21	7.8	7.6	8	8.2	8.1	7.4
		DO (mg/l)	5.6	5.1	4.7	0.6	1.4	2	1.1
		COD (mg/l)	13	0	423	0	933	22	59
		TDS (PPT)	0.11	0.17	0.1	0.16	0.29	0.34	0.26
		Turbidity	80	114	21.69	13.72	21.65	9.13	19.47
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	64	80	178
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	538	625	496

Table 05: Water Sample Data Sheet (Station 5)

Station	Point	Parameters	May, 22	Jun, 22	Jul, 22	Aug, 22	Sep, 22	Oct, 22	Nov, 22
5	Discharge Point	Temperature (°C)	31.1	28.2	32.8	34.5	26.8	36.8	30
		pH	7.8	7.7	7.5	8.9	8.8	8.1	9
		DO (mg/l)	6.1	5.7	1.8	0.6	1.3	0.4	1.6
		COD (mg/l)	178	0	10	11.7	12.72	23	86
		TDS (PPT)	0.42	0.10	0.1	0.35	1.69	0.61	1.02
		Turbidity	141	95	17.58	17.65	18.84	11.9	37.09
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	68	80	40
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	200	1135	1920
	Contamination  Point	Temperature (°C)	29.7	28.5	32.4	35.2	32.3	37.6	27.6
		pH	7.7	7.8	7.8	8.2	8.5	8.2	8.7
		DO (mg/l)	5.8	5.1	3.8	0.5	1.2	0.9	1.1
		COD (mg/l)	151	0	0	0	645	26	74
		TDS (PPT)	0.375	0.17	0.09	0.19	0.14	0.45	0.58
		Turbidity	121	134	17.82	23.9	25.84	12.22	27.23
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	64	80	104
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	241	842	986
	Mid-Point	Temperature (°C)	28.0	28.4	31.8	35.5	32.2	38	28
		pH	8.0	7.8	7.6	8	8.2	8.1	8.5
		DO (mg/l)	5.9	5.1	4.7	0.6	1.4	2	1
		COD (mg/l)	72	0	423	0	933	22	46
		TDS (PPT)	0.19	0.17	0.1	0.16	0.29	0.34	0.5
		Turbidity	251	114	21.69	13.72	21.65	9.13	28.87
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	64	80	56
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	538	625	1137

Table 06: Water Sample Data Sheet (Station 6)

Station	Point	Parameters	May, 2022	Jun, 2022	Jul, 2022	Aug, 2022	Sep, 2022	Oct, 2022	Nov, 2022
6	Discharge Point	Temperature  (°C)	29.8	28.2	32.8	34.5	26.8	36.8	39
		pH	8.2	7.7	7.5	8.9	8.8	8.1	9.6
		DO (mg/l)	6.8	5.7	1.8	0.6	1.3	0.4	1.5
		COD (mg/l)	67	0	10	11.7	12.72	23	286
		TDS (PPT)	0.75	0.10	0.1	0.35	1.69	0.61	1.15
		Turbidity	88	95	17.58	17.65	18.84	11.9	115
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	68	80	164
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	200	1135	2000
	Contamination  Point	Temperature  (°C)	29.8	28.5	32.4	35.2	32.3	37.6	33.5
		pH	8.2	7.8	7.8	8.2	8.5	8.2	8.7
		DO (mg/l)	6.8	5.1	3.8	0.5	1.2	0.9	0.8
		COD (mg/l)	65	0	0	0	645	26	147
		TDS (PPT)	0.75	0.17	0.09	0.19	0.14	0.45	1.16
		Turbidity	88	134	17.82	23.9	25.84	12.22	56
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	64	80	276
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	241	842	2000
	Mid-Point	Temperature  (°C)	28.1	28.4	31.8	35.5	32.2	38	33.2
		pH	7.6	7.8	7.6	8	8.2	8.1	8
		DO (mg/l)	6.2	5.1	4.7	0.6	1.4	2	1.3
		COD (mg/l)	58	0	423	0	933	22	79
		TDS (PPT)	0.42	0.17	0.1	0.16	0.29	0.34	1.17
		Turbidity	214	114	21.69	13.72	21.65	9.13	42.36
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	64	80	287
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	538	625	2000

Table 07: Water Sample Data Sheet (Station 7)

Station	Point	Parameters	May, 22	Jun, 22	Jul, 22	Aug, 22	Sep, 22	Oct, 22	Nov, 22
7	Discharge Point	Temperature  (°C)	0	28.2	32.8	34.5	26.8	36.8	29.5
		pH	0	7.7	7.5	8.9	8.8	8.1	7.4
		DO (mg/l)	0	5.7	1.8	0.6	1.3	0.4	1.6
		COD (mg/l)	0	0	10	11.7	12.72	23	76
		TDS (PPT)	0	0.10	0.1	0.35	1.69	0.61	0.68
		Turbidity	0	95	17.58	17.65	18.84	11.9	32.72
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	68	80	76
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	200	1135	1286
	Contamination  Point	Temperature  (°C)	34.5	28.5	32.4	35.2	32.3	37.6	28
		pH	8.0	7.8	7.8	8.2	8.5	8.2	7.2
		DO (mg/l)	5.3	5.1	3.8	0.5	1.2	0.9	1.5
		COD (mg/l)	209	0	0	0	645	26	54
		TDS (PPT)	1.06	0.17	0.09	0.19	0.14	0.45	0.63
		Turbidity	43.41	134	17.82	23.9	25.84	12.22	24.1
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	64	80	68
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	241	842	1089
	Mid-Point	Temperature  (°C)	0	28.4	31.8	35.5	32.2	38	28
		pH	0	7.8	7.6	8	8.2	8.1	7.1
		DO (mg/l)	0	5.1	4.7	0.6	1.4	2	1.1
		COD (mg/l)	0	0	423	0	933	22	16
		TDS (PPT)	0	0.17	0.1	0.16	0.29	0.34	0.56
		Turbidity	0	114	21.69	13.72	21.65	9.13	47.35
		Total hardness  (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	64	80	46
		EC (mg/l)	0	0	0	0	538	625	1202

 Table 08 Soil Sample Data Sheet (Station 1)

Station	Parameters	May,22	Jun,22	Jul,22	Aug,22	Sep,22	Oct,22	Nov,22
1	pH	8.0	7.5	8.1	8.1	7.73	7.87	5.8
	Moisture Content (%)	54.60	15.05	10.86	10.86	62.34	67.79	76
	W. Holding Capacity (%)	84	56	92	80	80	72	86.57
	% of silt	12.5	8.57	16.67	12.67	17	0.10	11.3
	% of sand	37.5	62.0	0	33.8	23	0.30	35.5
	% of clay	50	29.43	83.33	53.53	60	60	53.2
	OM%	0	0	0	0.81	2.58	1.40	1.06
	N%	0	0	0	0.04	0.14	0.08	0.06
	p	0	0	0	67	32	29	14.8
	Pb	0	0	0	0.2	0.5	6.3	13.3
	Cd	0	0	0	0.1	0	0.1	0.1
	Cr	0	0	0	58.3	40.2	34.8	118
	Ni	0	0	0	32.3	22.9	20.1	43.9

Table 09 Soil Sample Data Sheet (Station 2)

Station	Parameters	May,22	Jun,22	Jul,22	Aug,22	Sep,22	Oct,22	Nov,22
2	pH	8.1	7.3	7.8	7.8	7.57	7.04	5.7
	Moisture Content (%)	80.5	13.65	23.76	23.76	23.76	25	42.87
	W. Holding Capacity (%)	15	120	72	76	32	48	60
	% of silt	33.33	40	20	18.9	32.60	0.30	34
	% of sand	44.44	40	4	9	40.6	51	41.4
	% of clay	22.23	20	76	72.1	26.9	19	23.9
	OM%	0	0	0	0.19	0.70	0.62	0.48
	N%	0	0	0	0.01	0.04	0.03	0.02
	p	0	0	0	14	19	9	7.1
	Pb	0	0	0	0.2	0.3	6	8
	Cd	0	0	0	0.1	0	0.2	0.2
	Cr	0	0	0	11.6	38.5	36.1	43.4
	Ni	0	0	0	12.4	34.2	39.7	43.5

Table 10: Soil Sample Data Sheet (Station 3)

Station	Parameters	May,22	Jun,22	Jul,22	Aug,22	Sep,22	Oct,22	Nov,22
3	pH	8.5	7.2	7.6	6.2	7.17	7.18	6.9
	Moisture Content (%)	37.06	11.21	20.19	20.19	10.13	11.11	14.16
	W. Holding Capacity (%)	20	44	72	74	44	44	68
	% of silt	0	4.0	5.0	7.3	30.6	8.5	3.7
	% of sand	83.33	56	70	60	60.7	30	70.7
	% of clay	16.67	40	25	32.7	9	61.5	22
	OM%	0	0	0	0.77	0.53	1.20	0.65
	N%	0	0	0	0.04	0.03	0.06	0.03
	p	0	0	0	28	9	18	35.2
	Pb	0	0	0	6.6	0.7	10.9	4.7
	Cd	0	0	0	0.3	0.1	0.1	0.1
	Cr	0	0	0	35.4	52.6	20.2	22.5
	Ni	0	0	0	31.1	44.6	21.1	15.8

Table 11: Soil Sample Data Sheet (Station 4)

Station	Parameters	May,22	Jun,22	Jul,22	Aug,22	Sep,22	Oct,22	Nov,22
4	pH	8.0	7.2	7.2	5.7	5.38	7.09	5.2
	Moisture Content (%)	57.83	17.92	28.40	28.40	20.19	18.48	5.93
	W. Holding Capacity (%)	44	44	124	54	48	60	112
	% of silt	16.67	40	13.04	15.56	21.4	23.5	17.2
	% of sand	33.33	8.0	0	23.5	28	26	29.5
	% of clay	50	52.0	86.96	60.94	16	50.5	53.8
	OM%	0	0	0	1.20	0.84	0.81	1.13
	N%	0	0	0	0.06	0.03	0.04	0.06
	p	0	0	0	62	58	13	15.2
	Pb	0	0	0	0.3	0.6	6	10.1
	Cd	0	0	0	0.2	0.3	0.1	0.1
	Cr	0	0	0	44.4	45.3	28.3	55.5
	Ni	0	0	0	37.2	28.2	32.4	40.8

Table 12: Soil Sample Data Sheet (Station 5)

Station	Parameters	May,22	Jun,22	Jul,22	Aug,22	Sep,22	Oct,22	Nov,22
5	pH	7.3	6.7	7.3	7.2	7.25	5.12	7.1
	Moisture Content (%)	39.66	13.07	15.15	15.15	18.48	17.9	25.63
	W. Holding Capacity (%)	68	80	84	76	44	48	104
	% of silt	50	4.0	16	17.9	50.6	205	50
	% of sand	25	76	44	45	27.4	29.5	17.3
	% of clay	25	20	40	37.1	22	50	32.7
	OM%	0	0	0	0.80	0.84	0.72	0.53
	N%	0	0	0	0.03	0.04	0.04	0.03
	p	0	0	0	17	15	56	42
	Pb	0	0	0	9.9	0.1	5.8	4.4
	Cd	0	0	0	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.3
	Cr	0	0	0	48.6	49.2	25	35.8
	Ni	0	0	0	37.1	41.7	27.4	35

Table 13: Soil Sample Data Sheet (Station 6)

Station	Parameters	May,22	Jun,22	Jul,22	Aug,22	Sep,22	Oct,22	Nov,22
6	pH	8.0	7.5	7.4	7.1	6.44	7.52	8.6
	Moisture Content (%)	69.03	11.61	34.62	34.62	9.69	7.3	2.04
	W. Holding Capacity (%)	88	48	64	53	36	116	56
	% of silt	13.5	0	22.81	23.18	15.5	22.5	6.4
	% of sand	40.5	9.0	76.1	75.1	40.5	46.7	43.5
	% of clay	45.9	10	1.09	1.82	44	30.8	50
	OM%	0	0	0	1.10	0.17	0.74	1.34
	N%	0	0	0	0.06	0.01	0.04	0.07
	p	0	0	0	10	17	22	35
	Pb	0	0	0	1.0	0.3	5	7.8
	Cd	0	0	0	0.3	0.3	0.1	0.1
	Cr	0	0	0	48.9	12.2	7.8	23.4
	Ni	0	0	0	46.6	10.8	11.4	17.2

Table 14: Soil Sample Data Sheet (Station 7)

Station	Parameters	May,22	Jun,22	Jul,22	Aug,22	Sep,22	Oct,22	Nov,22
7	pH	7.8	7.7	7.7	7.7	8.16	8.6	8.5
	Moisture Content (%)	52.63	20.83	58.62	58.62	71.23	64.5	90.84
	W. Holding Capacity (%)	59	80	124	84	120	116	120
	% of silt	6.3	5.4	0	6.23	7.7	6.5	40
	% of sand	43.5	54	42.86	37.6	44.3	39.5	40
	% of clay	58.2	40.6	57.14	56.17	48	54	20
	OM%	0	0	0	1.70	0.41	0.28	0.31
	N%	0	0	0	0.09	0.02	0.02	0.02
	p	0	0	0	36	13	12	17
	Pb	0	0	0	2.3	0.2	5.5	0.1
	Cd	0	0	0	0.5	0.4	0.1	0.2
	Cr	0	0	0	61.4	32.7	26.6	6.5
	Ni	0	0	0	30.6	16.4	17.9	2.7

5. CONCLUSION

In this research it was tried to find out the relation of soil beside the Turag river with river water weather polluted water contaminate soil or not and how it influence inhabitants. Various Water and soil parameters such as pH, Temperature, TDS, DO, Hardness, Organic matter,  N, P, Pb, Cr, Cd, Ni were analyzed to assess the water and soil quality of Turag river. Some test results conform to existing standards and others are outside the standard. By assessing all the value of 7 months test results and observations suggest that water quality deteriorates with the growth and concentration of factories. By assessing with the value of pH was not found in between standard range (6.5 to 8.5) which are accepted by the Environmental Quality Standards 1997. The values of dissolved oxygen (DO) were found less than the limit which is harmful for the aquatic plants and animals. In consideration of chemical oxygen demand (COD) which is very high in the river. The accepted range of the chemical oxygen demand is 4 mg/l. in the study it was found much higher than the standard value. For soil parameter % of organic matter is very less than the standard which is not good. Some heavy metal concentrations are existing with standard like lead, chromium, cadmium, nickel. Nitrogen % are very less than the standard. By analyzing texture of soil we found than soil texture is not standard. By survey it has found that fertility of arable land, abundance of species and fish are decreasing. These are just some of the problems faced by people in the study area.  Therefore, it has suggested that any future land use should be planned and monitored by the appropriate authorities. The Turag River is a vital resource to many people. The health of this ecosystem is essential to the wellbeing of the communities in the adjacent area. The time has come to take a more intensive look into the water quality of the river, to safeguard people’s health, and to protect these important ecosystems.

REFERENCES

1. Afrad, M. S. I., Monir, M. B., Haque, M. E., Barau, A. A., & Haque, M. M. (2020). Impact of industrial effluent on water, soil and Rice production in Bangladesh: a case of Turag River Bank. Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering, 18, 825-834.
2. Kabir, A., Sraboni, H. J., Hasan, M. M., & Sorker, R. (2022). Eco-environmental assessment of the Turag River in the megacity of Bangladesh. Environmental Challenges, 6, 100423.
3. Tania, A. H., Gazi, M. Y., & Mia, M. B. (2021). Evaluation of water quantity–quality, floodplain landuse, and land surface temperature (LST) of Turag River in Bangladesh: an integrated approach of geospatial, field, and laboratory analyses. SN Applied Sciences, 3, 1-18.
4. Hossain, M. N., Rahaman, A., Hasan, M. J., Uddin, M. M., Khatun, N., & Shamsuddin, S. M. (2021). Comparative seasonal assessment of pollution and health risks associated with heavy metals in water, sediment and Fish of Buriganga and Turag River in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. SN Applied Sciences, 3, 1-16.
5. Sadiqa, H., Al-Amin, M., & Sarker, M. M. H. (2021). Impact of Urban Wastes on Water Quality of Turag River. Post Graduate Dissertation, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
6. Hossain, N. B., & Rahman, M. (2022). An overview on the impacts of textile effluents on the aquatic ecosystem in Turag River at Bangladesh. Journal of Textile Science and Fashion Technology, 9(4).
7. KHAN, S. A., KAROBI, S. N., AHAMMED, S. S., RABBANI, K. A., & ISLAM, M. E. (2020). Assessment of selected water quality parameters of Turag River in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Pollution Research, 39, 39-42.
8. Rabbani, M. L., & Sarker, S. Evaluation of Pollution Status of Turag River, Bangladesh. Journal of Water Resources and Pollution Studies, 3(1).
9. Shultana, S., Maraz, K. M., Islam, F., Haque, K. M., Hossain, M. M., Haque, M. M., … & Khan, R. A. (2022). Investigation of the water samples of six central rivers of Banglades. GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 10(3), 062-070.
10. Hasan, G. A., Das, A. K., Satter, M. A., & Asif, M. (2023). Distribution of Cr, Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn in organs of three selected local fish species of Turag river, Bangladesh and impact assessment on human health. Emerging Contaminants, 9(1), 100197.
11. Al-Razee, A. N. M., Harun, H. B., Jhumur, A. K., Ferdousi, F. K., Zulfajri, M., & Habib, A. (2022). Assessment of Physicochemical Parameters of Surface Water of Karnaphuli River in Bangladesh Towards Identification of Potential Sources. Pakistan Journal of Analytical & Environmental Chemistry, 23(1), 79-92.
12. Rahman, A., Jahanara, I., & Jolly, Y. N. (2021). Assessment of physicochemical properties of water and their seasonal variation in an urban river in Bangladesh. Water Science and Engineering, 14(2), 139-148.
13. Rahman, M. O., & Alam, M. Z. (2021). Seasonal Variation of Water Quality Constituents in the Turag River. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Applied Science, 6(9), 118-125.
14. Rizwana Mehmood, Rabia Mustafa & Tania Ijaz (2023). Optimizing Water Utilization Effectiveness in Rice Agriculture: An All-Inclusive Examination of Cutting-Edge Irrigation Technology. Dinkum Journal of Natural & Scientific Innovations, 2(11):719-730.
15. Islam, M. J. (2024). A Study on Seasonal Variations in Water Quality Parameters of Dhaka Rivers. Iranica Journal of Energy & Environment, 15(1), 91-99.
16. Chowdhury, N. J., Shammi, M., Rahman, M. M., Akbor, M. A., & Uddin, M. K. (2022). Seasonal distributions and risk assessment of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the surficial sediments from the Turag River, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(30), 45848-45859.
17. Farukh, M. A., Islam, M. R., Akter, L., & Uddin, M. N. (2022). Impact of trans-boundary coal mines on water quality of receiving streams in north-eastern Bangladesh.
18. NOMAN, A. A. (2021). ASSESSMENT OF HEAVY METALS IN SEDIMENT, WATER, AND FISH OF THE TURAG RIVER, DHAKA CITY, BANGLADESH.
19. Chowdhury, M. A. H., Rahman, M. A., Chowdhury, T., Saha, B. K., & Sultana, T. (2020). Pollution of four river-water surrounding Dhaka city and the effects of heavy metals on the yield and their concentrations in rice and cabbage.
20. Latif, M. B., Khalifa, M. A. K., Hoque, M. M. M., Ahammed, M. S., Islam, A., Kabir, M. H., & Tusher, T. R. (2022). Appraisal of surface water quality in vicinity of industrial areas and associated ecological and human health risks: A study on the Bangshi river in Bangladesh. Toxin Reviews, 41(4), 1148-1162.
21. Jesson Tejano Rivera (2024). Assessment of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) in Quezon City towards a Better Management System. Dinkum Journal of Natural & Scientific Innovations, 3(01):38-57.
22. Riaduzzaman, M., Akter, T., & Akther, S. (2023). Negative Effects of the Urban River Pollution on the Environment and Human Health in Bangladesh. Nature Environment & Pollution Technology, 22(3).
23. Juliana, F. M., Sumsuzzaman, M., Nayem, A., Dwip, D. R., Islam, M. J., Sarkar, A., & Asaduzzaman, M. (2021). APPRAISAL OF TDS AND pH OF THE TURAG RIVER WATER OF BANGLADESH FOR EVERY MONTH OF THE YEAR OF 2019. European Journal of Biomedical, 8(4), 46-54.
24. Ferdousi, A., Rahman, M. M., & Bari, S. (2020). Comparative analysis of heavy metals and water attribute constraints of Buriganga and Turag river of Dhaka, Bangladesh-reassess. Research and Reviews: Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2(1, 2, 3), 1-14.
25. Jesmin Akther & Md. Jahangir Sarker (2023). The Status & Assessment of Natural Food Abundance For Hilsha Shad (Tenualosa Ilisha) During Breeding Season In The Meghna River Estuary, Bangladesh. Dinkum Journal of Natural & Scientific Innovations, 2(12):882-903.
26. Hasan, M. M., Ahmed, M. S., Adnan, R., & Shafiquzzaman, M. (2020). Water quality indices to assess the spatiotemporal variations of Dhaleshwari river in central Bangladesh. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 8, 100068.
27. Islam, M. A. S., Hossain, M. E., & Majed, N. (2021). Assessment of physicochemical properties and comparative pollution status of the Dhaleshwari River in Bangladesh. Earth, 2(4), 696-714.
28. Miah, M. H., Chand, D. S., & Malhi, G. S. (2023). Selected river pollution in Bangladesh based on industrial growth and economic perspective: a review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195(1), 98.