Cited by 13Water Quality and Pollution AssessmentWater Quality and Resources StudiesResearch studies in Vietnam

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 8 of the 29 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Multivariate analysis of water quality in the Dhaleshwari River, Bangladesh: identifying pollution sources and environmental implications

Open access

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the current water quality status of the Dhaleshwari River, considering seasonal variations, and identify potential pollution sources using physicochemical parameters, multivariate statistical analysis, and the water quality index (WQI) method. Sampling was conducted at six locations along the Dhaleshwari River from January 2021 to April 2022, encompassing both dry and wet seasons. Eleven physicochemical parameters were tested following standard procedures. The calculated WQI values demonstrated that the overall water quality of the Dhaleshwari River is very poor (264.7 ± 64.5). Seasonal variation in water quality was significant, with the worst quality (305.7 ± 54.3) observed during the dry season; however, water quality during the wet season was also unsatisfactory (223.6 ± 46.3). Geospatial analysis shows the distribution of water quality in the study locations. Principal components analysis was performed for source appointment, which indicated that direct wastewater discharge from surrounding industries, particularly tanneries, as well as municipal wastewater, were the major pollution sources. In conclusion, this study sheds light on the deteriorating water quality of the Dhaleshwari River due to industrialization and human activities. The findings underscore the urgent need for interventions to mitigate pollution sources and improve the overall health of the river ecosystem.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The study assessed Dhaleshwari River water quality at six stations over dry and wet seasons (January 2021–April 2022) using 11 physicochemical parameters, WQI, and multivariate statistics. It found generally very poor water quality, worst in the dry season, with industrial/tannery and municipal wastewater as major pollution sources.

Key findings

  • WQI indicated very poor overall water quality. In Table S2, S6 dry season had WQI 386 and S1 dry season 361.6, both “unsuitable for use without proper treatment”; S2 wet season had 161.3 and S5 wet season 189.6, both “poor”; other station-season values were “very poor.” Dry-season samples were 26.19% unsuitable, 66.67% very poor, and 7.14% poor; wet-season samples were 16.67% unsuitable, 38.10% very poor, and 45.24% poor, with no good or excellent samples.
  • Several parameters exceeded standards: BOD5 ranged 2–46 mg/L, COD 6–90 mg/L, and turbidity 11–530 mg/L; no turbidity value met the ECR recommended 5 mg/L, and all COD values exceeded the 10 mg/L ECR limit. DO ranged 0.4–10 mg/L, and in the dry season all stations except S2 had average DO below the ECR value of ≥6 mg/L.
  • Dry-season correlations were strong and positive among EC, TDS, TS, BOD5, COD, and chloride (e.g., EC–TDS r = 1, EC–TS r = 1, TDS–TS r = 0.99, EC–chloride r = 0.93, TS–chloride r = 0.95) and strongly negative between DO and TSS (r = −0.93) and DO and COD (r = −0.83). PCA explained 89.23% of dry-season variability with two factors (PC1 59.23%, PC2 29.9%) and 44.8% with PC1 in the wet season; cluster analysis grouped the six sampling stations into four clusters.
  • PCA and spatial analysis identified direct wastewater discharge from surrounding industries, particularly tanneries, plus municipal wastewater as major pollution sources; S1 is near the BSCIC tannery industrial area and S6 is downstream near the Buriganga River confluence.

Methods

  • Water samples were collected from six stations within about 50 km of the Dhaleshwari River from January 2021 to April 2022, covering dry and wet seasons, with six samples per station per season. Eleven physicochemical parameters were tested following standard procedures using HACH meters, a Shimadzu UV Visible Spectrophotometer, HACH BOD TRAK II, and a HACH turbidity meter.
  • Statistical analysis used one-way ANOVA among sampling stations, t-tests for seasonal variation, Pearson correlation, PCA, cluster analysis, and the weighted arithmetic Water Quality Index method. Analyses were conducted in R, GraphPad Prism 8, and Microsoft Excel; maps were generated in ESRI ArcMap 10.5.

Limitations

  • The paper does not state a limitations section.
  • Evident from the text: the study covers only 11 physicochemical parameters and does not include heavy metals or microbial indicators, despite focusing on tannery and industrial pollution. Sampling is limited to six stations and two seasons, so source identification is correlational rather than directly traced.
  • The text and tables contain some inconsistencies or apparent typographical issues, such as PCA cumulative variability reported as 89.23% in the text versus 89.13% in Table S1, DO–BOD5 correlation reported as “r = -79,” and a truncated Table 3.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2166/wpt.2024.251

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

8 of 29 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 64 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 51
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 7
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
56 of 56
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The six sampling stations are representative of the Dhaleshwari River's overall water quality.

    “Water samples were collected from six sampling sites within the range of about 50 km of the river consisting of the main industrial settlement, including BSCIC Tannery industrial state, BSCIC Industrial State, Keraniganj as well as the converging point of Buriganga river.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The sampling period from January 2021 to April 2022 and the sampled dry and wet seasons are representative of typical seasonal conditions of the river.

    “Water sampling has been carried out both during the wet and dry seasons from January, 2021 to April, 2022 at the six sampling stations (Table 1).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    PCA loadings can be interpreted as indicating pollution sources.

    “In PC2, which consists of 29.9% variance (Fig. 6a), moderate positive loading with COD (0.36), TSS (0.47), and turbidity (0.493) and negative loading with pH (-0.32) and DO (-0.38) can be associated with inorganic components discharged from domestic and industrial activities as well as several point and nonpoint sources [61].”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Soil erosion and rainwater runoff from farmlands increase turbidity and TSS/SS concentrations in surface waters.

    “Furthermore, soil erosion and rainwater runoff from these fields contribute to heightened turbidity levels and increased concentrations of TSS and SS in surface waters.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Buriganga River is a secondary pollution source for the Dhaleshwari River at the S6 juncture.

    “The Buriganga, (declared ECA in 2009) is one of Bangladesh's most polluted rivers, serves as a secondary pollution source for the Dhaleshwari river at this juncture.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Shipbuilding yards discharge substantial quantities of oil, grease, and heavy metals into the river.

    “Further intensifying the environmental challenge in this region are the numerous shipbuilding yards, both small and large, which discharge substantial quantities of oil, grease, and heavy metals into the river.”
6 of 6

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • WQI percentages imply more samples than the stated sampling schedule

    Major

    Six stations sampled six times per season yield 36 samples per season. The reported category percentages instead correspond to counts out of 42-for example, 26.19% is 11/42-and cannot represent whole-sample counts out of 36.

  • COD minimum contradicts the claim that every value exceeds the limit

    Major

    The reported COD range includes 6 mg/L, which is below the 10 mg/L limit. Therefore, not all COD values were above that limit.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 56 references

1 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Ahmed, 2009, Heavy metals concentration in water, sediments and their bioaccumulations in some freshwater fishes and mussel in Dhaleshwari River, Bangladesh, Terrestrial and Aquatic Environmental Toxicology, 3, 33
  2. Alam M. K. (2003) Cleanup of the Buriganga River: Integrating the Environment into Decision Making. PhD thesis. Murdoch University, Australia.
  3. Al-badaii, 2013, Water quality assessment of the Semenyih River, Journal of Chemistry, 3216, 112
  4. Das, 2011, Heavy metals in industrial effluents (tannery and textile) and adjacent rivers of Dhaka city, Bangladesh, Terrestrial and Aquatic Environmental Toxicology, 5, 8
  5. DoE (2016) Final Report Geospatial Technology Based Water Quality Monitoring System for Bangladesh, pp. 305–329.
  6. Essien-Ibok, 2010, Seasonality in the physical and chemical characteristics of Mbo River, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria, Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, Food and Environment, 6, 60
  7. Fed, 1965, An index number system for rating water quality, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 37, 300
  8. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh Ministry of Environment and Forest (1997) The Environment Conservation Rules, 1997 (Schedule 9: Standards for Sewage Discharge, pp. 179–227).
  9. Islam, 2012, Status of water quality in the Dhaleshwari River and its effect on aquatic organism, Journal of Environmental Science and Water Resources, 1, 192
  10. Mortula, 2002, Study on waste disposal at DEPZ, Bangladesh Environment (BAPA), 2, 807

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 13

Metadata

Authors
Ali, M. S., Begum, S., Rabbi, F. M., Sumaia, Hasan, M. K., Rahman, M. A., Rahman, M. M., & Rahaman, M. H.
Affiliations
  • a Department of Environment, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, Agargaon, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka 1207, Bangladesh
  • Jashore University of Science and Technology (BD)
  • Chongqing University (CN)
Corresponding author
Rahaman, Md. Hasibur
Venue
Water Practice & Technology
Published
2024-10-01
Volume
19
Issue
10
Pages
4128-4147
ISSN
1751-231X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4403213447
Cited by
13
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7
FWCI
1.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Water Practice & Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Ministry of Environment
  • Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water Quality and Pollution Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water Quality and Resources Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Research studies in Vietnam
Keywords
river water quality, pollution source identification, seasonal variation, water quality index, tannery wastewater, industrial wastewater discharge, municipal wastewater, physicochemical parameters, principal component analysis, river health

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review