NAAS Score 2020

                   5.36

UserOnline

Free counters!

Previous Next

Comparison of the Quality of Various Sources of Drinking Water Available in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh

Barkha Sharma Singh Parul Sanjay Bharti Udit Jain Ravneet Singh Janardan K. Yadav
Vol 7(9), 92-106
DOI- http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20170624053553

The study evaluates and compares the quality of drinking water from different sources, available for consumption in holy city of Mathura. Total 180 water samples from household sources, public places and packaged water were subjected to physico-chemical and microbiological analysis. The odor and color of all the samples were within the acceptable limits. The pH, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and Standard Plate Count (SPC) range was 6.5-8.9, 20-2000 ppm, 0-105 cfu/ml, respectively. Total coliform count ranged from 0 to >1800 Most Probable Number (MPN) per 100 ml of water at 37oC. High counts upto 130 coliforms/100 ml were observed in locally packaged water whereas no coliforms were found in reputed brands. Overall prevalence of E. coli in samples was 10.56% (19/180), with highest prevalence in drinking water available at public places (21.67 %). No E. coli O157:H7 could be isolated. The difference in various parameters was statistically significant (p<0.05) when compared with BIS and WHO. Drinking water available at homes and at public places did not meet the WHO standards for drinking. RO and packaged water were found safe and within the standards.


Keywords : Physico-Chemical Analysis Coliform E. coli Packaged Water

Introduction

Water is essential for sustenance of all living organisms, ecological systems, human health, food production and economic development (Postel et al., 1996). The declining availability of fresh, pure drinking water is one of the most important environmental issues faced by various countries at the present time. Potential of drinking water to transmit microbial pathogens to populations, causing diseases is well known in countries at all levels of economic development (Payment et al., 1991). About 800 million people in Asia and Africa are living without access to safe drinking water, exposing them to various diseases (Tanwir et al., 2003). Disease burden from unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene (WSH) accounts for 5.3% of all deaths and 6.8% of all DALYS all over the world (Pruss-Ustam et al., 2002). Despite wealthy economies and access to proven drinking water-treatment technologies, significant outbreaks of waterborne intestinal diseases have also occurred in developed countries of North America and Western Europe over the last 10–15 years (Pons et al., 2015). In 2011, around 768 million people relied on unsatisfactory water supply having high levels of pathogen contamination (WHO and UNICEF, 2013). The pollution in available water is continuously increasing due to changes in the modes of industrial activities, agricultural production, and increasing urbanization (Aremu et al., 2011).

Ideally, drinking water should be free of any seen or unseen impurity, pathogenic microorganisms and other contaminants which could harm the health of people. The safety of drinking water can be monitored in a number of ways because the constituents in drinking water (chemicals and microbes) which can compromise human health can be measured directly but in reality, such water monitoring technologies are not yet at the stage of development that would enable their widespread use for routine drinking water testing. The essential parameters of drinking water quality are fecal E. coli and total coliforms, residual chlorine, turbidity, pH, dissolved oxygen content, temperature, total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS) and heavy metals (WHO, 2011; WHO, 2003; Dissmeyer, 2000). Traditionally, microbial safety of drinking water has been confirmed by monitoring for absence of microorganisms of faecal origin called the indicator organisms (Le- Chavalier and Au, 2004). E. coli is considered a suitable indicator as being almost exclusively fecal in origin, indicates recent faecal contamination (Leclerc et al., 2001; Parul et al., 2014). There should not be any E. coli or coliform detectable in treated water sample (WHO, 2011a). Various waterborne outbreaks have been reported all around the world implicating E. coli but still there is lack of credible information regarding the prevalence of these bacteria in drinking water especially in developing country like India. Several studies have been conducted to assess the quality of drinking water in India and abroad as it is very essential to monitor the water quality (Mishra et al., 2012; Patil et al., 2012; Sulehria et al., 2012; Karketta et al., 2013; Tsega et al., 2013; Deshmukh and Urkudu, 2014).

Mathura in Uttar Pradesh is a major tourist destination in India with lakhs of both foreign and domestic tourists visiting this place. At any given time, the floating population is much more than the actual people residing in this area. This creates added burden on the available water resources in the region which already faces considerable water problems. Thus a study to assess the faecal as well as physico-chemical contamination level in groundwater of the region is the need of the hour.

Materials and Methods

Study Area and Sampling

The present investigation was conducted in the holy city of Mathura (latitudes 27.41o North and longitudes 77.41o East) with a population of 2541894 and an area of approximately 3329.4 kms. A total of 180 drinking water samples (60 household water samples including 30 tap or supply water and 30 Reverse Osmosis (RO) water samples, 60 samples of water available for drinking at public places including 30 samples each of water from restaurants and schools and 60 packaged water samples (30 samples each of bottled water and sachet water) were collected aseptically from December 2013 to December 2015, brought to laboratory on ice in 500 ml sterile glass bottles (Axiva), and processed within 4-6 hours (Park, 2011).

Physico-chemical Analysis

The pH of the water samples was determined by the Hi Media pH indicator paper strip (HiMedia, Mumbai) at the site of sample collection. The taste was analyzed by a panel of people at the Department of Veterinary Public Health, COVASc , DUVASU, Mathura. Total Dissolved solids (TDS) of the water samples was determined by water and soil analysis kit (Model No –LT-61-Scientech Lab Pvt Ltd Delhi) and results expressed in mg/l (APHA, 2005) .

Microbiological Analysis

Standard Plate Count (SPC) and Coliform Count

The SPC and Coliform Count using multiple dilution technique of all water samples were performed as per the standard methods (Edward and Ewing, 1972; Cruickshank et al., 1975; APHA, 2005). The readings of the samples were compared with the standard readings recommended by WHO (1984) and BIS (2003).

Statistical Analysis

The data were subjected to statistical analysis using Statistical Package Social Science (SPSS) version 16 software, packaged and developed as per the procedure of Snedechor and Cochran, (1989). Duncan’s multiple range test (Duncan, 1955) were determined at 5% and 1% level of significance.

Isolation of E. coli

All the 180 drinking water samples were processed for isolation of E. coli within 4-6 hrs of sampling according to Sojka (1965) and Edwards and Ewing (1972). After Enrichment in modified Trypticase Soya Broth (mTSB), it was streaked onto MacConkey Lactose Agar (MLA) plates. Lactose fermenting pink, smooth round colonies were further streaked onto Eosin Methylene Blue (EMB) agar plates (selective plating) and clear blackish colonies with unmistakable greenish metallic sheen tentatively considered to be E. coli, further confirmed by morphological (Gram’s staining technique) and biochemical characteristics (Ewing, 1986; Ahmad et al., 2009) (HiMedia Rapid Biochemical Identification Kit). All the biochemically confirmed E. coli isolates were streaked onto MUG-Sorbitol agar (HiMedia) and incubated at 37oC for 24 hours. Colonies showing non fluorescence under ultraviolet rays were tentatively considered to be E. coli O157:H7.

Results and Discussion

Water is necessary for all ecological systems, human health, food production and economic development (Shafiq et al., 2013). The available water is increasingly becoming polluted due to increasing human population, industrialization, agricultural practices etc (Patil et al., 2012) and can cause various ailments and other health related problems in animals and humans. E. coli are highly specific indicator for fecal pollution caused by feces of man and all warm blooded animals as they cannot multiply in natural water environment. This is a preliminary study to assess the quality of drinking water available in Mathura by subjecting the water samples to various physico-chemical (pH, taste, color, odor and TDS) and microbiological parameters (SPC and coliform count) as well as isolation of E. coli. Taste of all samples of RO and packaged water was sweet and agreeable whereas 93.3% (28/30) of tap water samples, 63.3% (19/30) of restaurant samples and 73.33% (22/30) of school water samples were salty. Taste of water is influenced by presence of minerals, metals and salts from soil and products from biological reactions. Water tastes bitter when contaminated with alkaline impurities and salty when metallic salts are present. Pure water is colorless but natural water is often colored by foreign substances like tannic, humic acid etc, present in the organic debris (leaves, woods etc) (Dodoo et al., 2006) whereas odor might be due to biological degradation. None of the water samples had any sort of disagreeable odor and color anytime during the investigation period. A detailed analysis of physical attributes of drinking water has been done by Mohsin et al. (2013) with respect to odor, color and taste of drinking water in Bahawalpur City, Pakistan.

pH is the scale of alkalinity of water and measures concentration of hydrogen ions (Gupta et al., 2013).Water with lower pH is corrosive in nature. Higher pH values suggest that CO2, carbonate-bicarbonate equilibrium is affected more due to change in physicochemical condition (Kamath and Godbole, 1987). According to WHO (1984), desirable pH of drinking water should be between 7 to 8.5. The analysis of variance indicated that pH of RO water samples differed significantly (p<0.05) from that of tap water, bottled water, sachet water (Table 1b) whereas that of national and local brands of packaged water samples did not differ significantly (p> 0.05) (Table 1c).

Table 1b: Comparison of different sources of drinking water with respect to physico-chemical and microbiological parameters

Parameter Source Minimum Maximum Samples out of range (%) Observed mean SE± P value Significance
pH Tap 6.5 8.5 none 7.77 0.9 0 P<0.05
RO 6.8 8.1 none 7.37 0.06
Bottled water 6.9 8.5 none 7.55 0.07
Sachet 6.2 8.5 none 7.6 0.09
Restaurants 6.2 8.1 3.33 7.56 0.07
Schools 6.9 8.9 10 7.75 0.09
TDS (ppm) Tap 243 2000 83.3 885 73.81 0
RO 40 165 none 93.86 7.24
Bottled water 20 350 none 92.43 14.91
Sachet 54 228 none 94.5 7.65
Restaurants 125 1200 60 603 63.83
Schools 40 2000 73.33 779 69.17
SPCcfu/ml Tap 5 3×104 83.33 (SPClog10) 3.01 0.17 0
RO 0 1000 30 (SPClog10) 1.54 0.16 P<0.05
Bottled water 0 600 46.67 (SPClog10) 1.17 0.15
Sachet 0 8×103 6.67 (SPClog10) 2.38 0.14
Restaurants 12 105 90 (SPClog10) 3.20 0.16
Schools 0 3×103 63.33 (SPClog10) 2.36 0.11
Coliforms

MPN/100 ml

Tap 0 1800 80 411 116.1 0 P<0.05
RO 0 130 26.67 6.23 4.32
Bottled water 0 130 16.67 4.86 4.32
Sachet 0 130 33.33 6.16 3.88
Restaurants 0 1800 86.67 630 135.9
Schools 0 1800 73.33 139.1 78.21

Table 1c: Physico-Chemical and Microbiological Values of Packaged Water (Local and National Brands) (Mean± SE)

Parameters Source Minimum Maximum Samples out of range (%) Observed mean SE± P value significance
pH National Brand 7.1 8 none 7.46 0.1 0.206 Non significant
Local brand 6.9 8.5 none 7.64 0.08
TDS ppm National Brand 20 91 None 58 6.07 0.018 Significant P<0.05
Local brand 54 350 none 126.8 26.75
SPC cfu/ml National Brand 0 160 none (SPClog10)0.91 0.19 0.057 Non significant
Local brands 0 600 (SPClog10)1.48 0.21
Coliforms

MPN/100 ml

National Brand 0 0 none 0 0 Non significant
Local brands 0 130 none 9.733 8.616 0.268

Also no significant variation was observed between the pH of household drinking water samples, public water samples and packaged water ((p> 0.05) (Table 1a).

Table1a: Observed mean, P value and significance of physico-chemical and microbiological parameters of drinking water (Household Water (HHW), Public Place Water (PPW) and Packaged Water (PW), n=60 each)

Parameter Minimum Maximum Samples out of range (%) Observed mean SE± P value Significance
pH HHW 6.5 8.5 none 7.57 0.061 0.515 Non-significant
PPW 6.2 8.9 6.67 7.66 62
PW 6.9 8.5 none 7.57 0.6
TDS ppm HHW 40 2000 41.67 489 63.28 0 P<0.05
PPW 40 2000 66.67 691 48.06
PW 20 350 none 93.46 8.31
SPC Cfu/ml HHW 0 3×104 56.67 (SPClog10)2.28 0.15 0 P<0.05
PPW 0 8x 103 76.67 (SPClog10)2.74 0.12
PW 0 105 26.67 (SPClog10)1.80 0.13
Coliforms MPN/100ml HHW 0 1800 53.33 208 63.35 0 P<0.05
PPW 0 1800 80 384 84.09
PW 0 130 25 5.51 2.88

The findings of this study agree with those of Narsimha et al. (2011) and Vyas et al. (2015), who reported the pH range in drinking water to be 6.4-8.4 and 7.5-8.7, respectively. Several other workers have observed normal pH values in drinking water all over the world (Ezeribe et al., 2012; Rehmanian et al., 2015; Tsega et al., 2013; Dorairaju et al., 2012; Sarwar et al., 2004). A pH of more than 8.5 in 6 of 100 water samples was reported by Kerketta et al. (2013). The results for pH values of packaged water in this study were almost similar to those of Singla et al. (2014), who reported pH of bottled water to be within 6.45-7.24.

Water being a universal solvent, can dissolve a wide range of inorganic and some organic minerals or salts such as potassium, calcium, sodium, bicarbonates, chlorides, magnesium, sulfates which constitute TDS (Trivedy and Goel, 1986). WHO desirable value of TDS in drinking water must not exceed 500 ppm (WHO, 1984) but is allowed upto 1500 ppm in unavoidable circumstances (Aulicino and Pastoni, 2004). We recorded high TDS values upto 2000 ppm with 65 (36.11%) samples exceeding the limit. School water samples had maximum TDS as children have to rely on handpump water to quench their thirst. Highly significant difference (p<0.01) was observed between the TDS values of water from household sources, public places and packaged water (Table 1a), (tap and school water samples), (RO, bottled and sachet water samples) and water from restaurants (p>0.01) (Table 1b) whereas difference was significant between the TDS values of national and local brands of packaged water (p<0.05) (Table 1c). In a study in Pakistan, TDS values of 780 water samples from 490 educational institutes in Karachi were found to be within 79-1066 ppm (Asadullah and Khan, 2013). Bhalla et al. (2014) found the TDS of packaged drinking water in Mathura to be within range. We found TDS range of national well known brands to be lesser than that of locally packaged water (Dodoo et al., 2006). TDS of natural water sources has been found to vary from 30-6000 ppm. It is considered a secondary drinking water standard as no direct effect is known to occur from drinking water with high TDS (Sailaja et al., 2015). Overall range of SPC in all the drinking water samples was within 0-105 cfu/ml with 53.33% (96/180) samples exceeding the WHO limit of < 100 cfu/ml. The analysis of variance indicated that SPClog10 values of water from household sources, public places and packaged water differed highly significantly (p<0.01). Also, variation was highly significant between (tapwater, RO, bottled, sachet and school water samples), and restaurant water (p<0.01) but non-significant between national and local brands of packaged water (p>0.05). Various studies confirm the presence of bacteria of public health importance in the drinking water (Sailaja et al., 2015; Baumgartner et al., 2006; Ezekiel et al., 2009). Our study clearly indicates that bottled water of national brands was much more hygienic than locally packaged or sachet water sold in streets, findings supported by various other studies (Gangil et al., 2013; Tahir, 2011; Osei et al., 2013; Adegoke et al., 2012; Kalpana et al., 2012; Edema et al., 2011). However no bacteria were found in bottled water in Turkey (Damirel et al., 2011).

Graph 1a: Physico-chemical and bacteriological parameters of household water (HHW), public place water (PPW) and packaged water (PW) (pH and SPC)

Graph 1b: Physico-chemical and bacteriological parameters of household water (HHW), public place water (PPW) and packaged water (PW) (TDS and coliforms)

Graph 2a: Physico-chemical and microbiological parameters of different sources of drinking water (TDS, MPN)

Graph 2b: Physico-chemical and microbiological parameters of different sources of drinking water (pH, SPC)

Graph 3: Comparison of physico-chemical and microbiological parameters of local and national brands of packaged water

A wide range of coliform count was observed (0->1800 coliforms/100ml) with 53.89% (97/180) samples exceeding the WHO range of 0 coliforms/100ml for treated water. MPN values of water from household sources, public places and packaged water differed highly significantly (p<0.01) (Table 1a). The values also differed highly significantly between (RO, bottled and sachet and school water samples) and (tap water and restaurant water samples) (p<0.01) (Table 1b) whereas no significant difference was evident in the MPN values of national and local brands of packaged water (p>0.05) (Table 1c). We found 33.33% and 16.7% of sachet and bottled water samples having coliforms in Jaipur, whereas overall, 25% of all packaged waters had coliforms. Gangil et al. (2013) found 40% packaged water samples having high coliform counts with 100% local sachet water samples harbouring coliforms. Several similar studies from Nigeria have shown poor bacteriological quality of drinking water in the region (Ibeine et al., 2012; Anyim et al., 2013; Godwill et al., 2015). All the Norwegian bottled water brands and imported brands of bottled water in Fiji were free from enteric indicator organisms (Zeenat et al., 2009; Otterholt and Charnock, 2011) whereas 5.3% and 10.2% of carbonated and noncarbonated mineral water samples in Hungary were positive for atleast one of the indicators of pathogenic bacteria (Verga, 2011). We recorded 80% of tap water samples to be out of range for coliforms. In Dhaka, Bangladesh, all the household water was heavily contaminated with coliforms, faecal coliforms and E. coli (Parween et al., 2008). In Pakistan also, 80% of drinking water samples from Khyber Agency had fecal coliforms (Ali et al., 2011).Studies in Andhra and Nepal have shown the exceedingly poor quality of municipal drinking water samples with respect to presence of coliforms (Sailaja et al., 2015; Prasai et al., 2007; Diwakar et al., 2008). Another study in Mathura reported 70% tap water, 95% of stored water and 40% of packaged water to be positive for coliforms (Jain et al., 2012). In a study by Sharma et al. (2017), out of 60 ground water samples, 16 E. coli were isolated. In same study, high values of TDS (upto 9000ppm), SPC (upto 3500 cfu/ml) and coliforms were found in 40% samples. Most of the school water samples had coliforms in Faislabad, Pakistan (Ilyas et al., 2008). In accordance, we found 73.3% (22/30) samples of school water exceeding the coliform limits thus exposing school children to various diseases. Suthar et al. (2009) reported coliform contamination in some rural habitations of northern Rajasthan. A linear correlation between TVC and coliforms has been shown by Jeena et al. (2006) thus higher SPC value might indicate presence of coliforms. Thus widespread fecal contamination of drinking water as well as of packaged water is evident from so many reports from all over the world emphasizing the need of awareness and strict monitoring of water quality standards at all levels.

The greatest risk to public health from microbes in water is associated with it being contaminated with human and animal excreta (WHO, 2011). A total of 19 E. coli were found in 180 (10.56%) drinking water samples with highest prevalence in water from public places (21.67 %) followed by household drinking water (10%). Among public sources, restaurants water samples had 30% E. coli followed by recovery of 13.33% E. coli from drinking water available to children in schools. Ramteke and Tiwari (2007) recorded a prevalence of 30.3% thermo tolerant E. coli in drinking water sources, much higher than that recorded in the current study. Prevalence of E. coliin Yamuna water was found to be 37.33% in a study by Singh et al. (2017). Many workers from all over India have reported E. coli in drinking water samples (Antony and Renuga, 2012; Suthar et al., 2009) suggesting gross faecal contamination of drinking water which has grave health implications as there are several highly adapted E. coli clones that have acquired specific virulence factors, which increase their adaptability to new niches, enabling them to cause diseases in healthy humans and animals (Kaper et al., 2004). Severe water borne outbreaks implicating Verotoxic E. coli (VTEC) have been reported even from developed countries like Canada (Hrudey et al., 2003) and NewYork (Bopp et al., 2003). In 1982, a rare serotype E. coli 0157:H7 was isolated from patients with bloody diarrhea in USA (Karmali et al., 1983).

None of the packaged water samples had E. coli (Table 2), similar to the findings in Chennai (Venkatesan et al., 2014) and Nigeria (Sunday et al., 2011; Umaru et al., 2015) However, Singh, (2011) isolated 1 E. coli from 20 packaged water samples from Mathura and in Jaipur city, 40% of sachet water had E. coli, indicating the faecal contamination of packaged water (Gangil et al., 2013). The findings of this study clearly indicate the sorry state of available drinking water quality. Except RO and packaged water, none of the water samples were suitable for consumption. The situation is worse in case of water available for drinking at public places like restaurants and schools. Children are made to consume unsafe water, risking their health and life.

Table 2: Isolation of E. coli

S. No. Source No. of Samples Percent Positivity of E. coli (%)
Drinking Water 180 19 (10.56)
i Household Water (HHW) 60 6 (10)
a. Tapwater 30 6 (2)
b. RO water 30 0
ii Public Place Water (PPW) 60 13 (21.67)
a. Restaurants 30 9 (30)
b. Schools 30 4 (13.33)
iii. Public Packaged Water (PPW) 60 0
a. Bottled water 30 0
b. Sachet water 30 0

Mathura being a major pilgrim center, attracting lakhs of tourists every year, creates stress on already shrinking water resources. Packaged water of poor quality freely available on the streets of Mathura, without any proper monitoring of quality standards, poses tremendous health risk to the consumers. This study is a step forward in highlighting the fact that present status of drinking water quality is far from satisfactory. Timely intervention might lead to remedial measures for improving the existing drinking water quality situation and more stringent steps to be taken to monitor the quality of packaged water, especially the local brands.

Acknowledgements

This work was a part of Ph.D thesis in the Department of Veterinary Public Health, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, U.P. Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Veterinary University, DUVASU, Mathura. The authors would like to thank Vice-Chancellor and Dean, Dean PG, DUVASU, Mathura for providing all the facilities necessary for the work.

References

  1. Ahmad MD, Hashmi R.A, Anjum AA, Hanif A and Ratyal RH (2009). Drinking water quality by the use of congo red medium to differentiate between pathogenic and non-pathogenic E. coli at poultry farms. J. Animal and Plant Sci. 19(2): 108-110
  2. Ali J, Hussain A, Abid H and Rahman Z ( 2011) Bacteriological quality assessment of drinking water from Khyber agency and its impacts on public health. Pak J Biochem and Mol Bio. 44(2): 73-76
  3. Antony RM and Renuga FB (2012). Microbiological analysis of drinking water quality of Ananthanar channel of Kanyakumari district, Tamil Nadu, India. Revista Ambiente & Água – An Interdisciplinary J Appl. Sci.7(2): 42-48
  4. Anyim C, Nwuzo AC, Nworie O, Oko MO and Agah MV (2013). Evaluation of Water Quality Used For Drinking and Swimming Purposes in Ishiagu Community, Ebonyi State. J Chem Biol. and Phy Sci. 3(1): 581-587
  5. APHA (2005). Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water (21st ed.). Washington, DC.
  6. Aremu MO, Olaofe O, Ikokoh PP & Yakubu MM (2011). Physico chemical characteristics of stream, well and borehole water sources in Eggon, Nasarawa State, Nigeria. J. Chem Society Nigeria, 36 (1):131.
  7. Asadullah Nisa K. and Khan SI (2013). Physico-Chemical properties of drinking water available in Educational Institutes of Karachi City. J. Sci. Tech. and Dev. 32 (1):28-33.
  8. Aulicino FA and Pastoni F (2004). Microorganisms surviving in drinking water systems and related problems. Annalid’igiene 16:265.
  9. Baumgartner A and Grand M (2006). Bacteriological quality of drinking water from dispensers (coolers) and possible control measures. J Food Prot. 69:3043–3046.
  10. Bhalla M, Ingle NA, Kaur N, Gupta R and Ingle E (2014). Estimation of Fluoride Concentration in Municipal Water Supply and Commercially Available Packaged Drinking Water in Mathura City. A-Comparative Study. J Oral Health Commun Dentistry. 8(3):131-134.
  11. BIS (2003) Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. IS 10500: 1991 Ed. 2.2.
  12. Bopp DJ, Saunders BD, Waring AL, Ackelsberg J, Dumas N, Braun-Howland E , Dziewulski D, Wallace BJ, Kelly M, Halse T, Musser KA, Perry F, Smith PF, Morse DL, Ronald J and Limberger RJ (2003). Detection, Isolation and Molecular Subtyping of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Campylobacter jejuni Associated with a Large Waterborne Outbreak. J.Clin Microbiol. 41(1):174-180.
  13. Cruickshank R, Duguid JP, Marrmion BP and Swain RHA (1975). Medical Microbiology 12th Ed. Vol II Churchill Livingstone. Edinburg, London and New York.
  14. Demirel R, YimazSariozlu N and Kivanc M (2011). Microbiological investigation of bottled mineral and drinking water sold in Eskisehir (Turkey) markets. Anadolu University J. Sc. and Tech. – C 1 (2) Life Sci and Biotech 1(2):153-160.
  15. Deshmukh CK and Urkude RN (2014). Physico-chemical and microbial status of Malkhed Lake at Chandur Railway District: Amravati. The Bioscan 9(2):677-682.
  16. Dissmeyer G E (2000). Drinking water from Forests and Grasslands, South Research Station. USDA Forest Service, Ashville, NC,USA.
  17. Dodoo DK, Quagraine EK, Okai-Sam F, Dorsa, JK and Headly JV (2006).Quality of “Sachet” Waters in the Cape Coast Municipality of Ghana, J Env Sci Health Part A Toxic/ Hazardous Substances and Env Eng.41(3):329-342.
  18. Dorairaju SV, Rao CN, Raju MB and Chalapathi PV (2012). Chemical Properties of Drinking Water of Renigunta near Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India and its Impact on Human Health. Current World Environment 7(1):37-39.
  19. Duncan DB. (1955). “Multiple Range and Multiple F -Tests,” Biometrics, 11:1-42.
  20. Edema MO, Atayese AO and Bankole MO (2011). Pure water Syndrome: Bacteriological Quality of Sachet –Packed Drinking water sold in Nigeria. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 11(1):4595.
  21. Edward PR and Ewing WH (1972). Identification of enterobacteriaceae. Burgess Publishing Company, Minnesota. USA.
  22. Ewing WH (1986). Identification of Enterobacteriaceae (4th Edn) Elsevier, Netherlands.
  23. Ezekiel FO, Abolade OA, Adeniyi OA and Motunrayo O (2009). Incidence of Bacteria of Public Health Importance in Drinking Water from Water Dispenser Systems in Homes And Offices In Lagos And Ibadan, Nigeria. The Internet Journal of Microbiology 7(1).
  24. Ezeribe AI, Oshieke KC and Jauro A (2012). Physicochemical properties of well water samples of some villages in Nigeria with cases of stained and mottled teeth. Scientific World Journal 7(1):1.
  25. Gangil R, Tripathi R, Patyal A, Dutta P and Mathur KN (2013). Bacteriological evaluation of packaged bottled water sold at Jaipur city and its public health significance. Veterinary World 6(1):27-30.
  26. Godwill EA, Richard TA and Junior LCP (2015). Marcellus: Physicochemical and microbial analysis of portable water sources in Enugu metropolis. Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology. 7(3):65.
  27. Gupta N, Yadav K K, Kumar V and Singh D (2013). Assessment of Physicochemical Properties of Yamuna River in Agra City. Int. J. Chem Tech Res. 5(1): 528-531.
  28. Hrudey SE, Payment P, Huck PM, Gillham RW and Hrudey EJ (2003). A fatal waterborne disease epidemic in Walkerton, Ontario: comparison with other waterborne outbreaks in the developed world. Water Science and Technology. 47(3):7.
  29. Ibiene AA, Agbeyi EV and Okonko IO (2012). Bacteriological Assessment of Drinking Water Sources in Opuraja Community of Delta State, Nigeria. Nature and Science.10(1):36-41.
  30. Ilyas M, Gilani H and Bhatty N (2008). Physical and microbiological analysis of drinking water for school children. Pakistan Journal of Science. 60:(1-2).
  31. Jain U, Bist B and Lalwani DD (2012). Assessment of microbiological quality by coliform estimation in drinking water sources of Mathura region. IOSR Journal of Pharmacy. 2(3):500.
  32. Jeena MI, Deepa P, Rahiman KM, Shanthi RT and Hatha AA (2006). Risk assessment of heterotrophic bacteria from bottled drinking water sold in Indian markets. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. 209(2):191-196.
  33. Kalpana S, Bagudo AI and Aliero AA (2011). Microbiological analysis of sachet drinking water marketed at two sites in aliero, kebbi state, Nigeria. Continental Journal of Microbiology. 5(1): 29.
  34. Kamath VA and Godbole SP (1987). J Petrol. Tech. 39:1379.
  35. Kaper JB, Nataro JP, and Mobley HL (2004). Pathogenic Escherichia coliNat Rev Microbiol. 2(2):123.
  36. Karmali MA, Steele BT, Petric M and Lim C (1983). Sporadic cases of hemolytic uremic syndrome associated with fecal cytotoxin and cytotoxin-producing Escherichia coliLancet. 1:619.
  37. Kerketta P, Baxla SL, Gora RH, Kumari S and Roushan RK (2013). Analysis of physicochemical properties and heavy metals in drinking water from different sources in and around Ranchi, Jharkhand, India Vet. World 6(7):370-375.
  38. Khatoon A and Pirzada AZ (2010). Bacteriological quality of bottled water brands in Karachi, Pakistan. Biologia. 56(1, 2):137-143.
  39. LeChevallier MW and Kwok-Keung Au KK (2004). Water Treatment and Pathogen Control Process Efficiency in Achieving Safe Drinking Water, World Health Organization (WHO) Printed by TJ International (Ltd), Padstow, Cornwall, UK retrieved from http://www.who.int/ water_sanitation_health/dwq/en/watreatpath.pd.
  40. Lechevallier MW, Seidler RJ and Evans TM (1980). Enumeration and Characterization of Standard Plate Count Bacteria in Chlorinated and Raw Water Supplies. Applied Environmental Microbiology. 40(5): 922.
  41. Leclerc H, Mossel DAA, Edberg SS and Struijk CB (2001). Advances in the Bacteriology of the Coliform Group: Their Suitability as Markers of Microbial Water Safety. Annala of Review in Microbiology 55:201.
  42. Mishra M, Patel AK and Behera N (2012). An assessment of coliform Bacteria in the river Mahanadi system of Sambalpur. The Bioscan. 7(3): 463.
  43. Moazeni M, Atefi M, Ebrahimi A, Razmjoo P and Dastjerdi MV (2013). Evaluation of Chemical and Microbiological Quality in 21 Brands of Iranian Bottled Drinking Waters in 2012: A Comparison Study on Label and Real Contents. J Environ Public Health Article ID 469590, 4 pages http://dx.doi.org./10.1155/2013/469590.
  44. Mohsin M , Safdar S, Asghar F and Jamal F (2013). Assessment of Drinking Water Quality and its Impact on Residents Health in Bahawalpur City. Int. J. Humanities and Social Sci. 3(15):114.
  45. Narasimha RC, Dorairaju SV, Bujagendra RM and Chalapathi PV (2011). Statistical analysis of drinking water quality and its impact on human health in Chandragiri, near Tirupati, India. Green Pages retrieved from http://www.eco-web.com/edi/111219.html on 12th June,2016.
  46. Osei AS, Newman MJ, Mingle JAA, Patrick F, Ayeh-Kumi A and Kwasi, MO (2013). Microbiological quality of packaged water sold in Accra, Ghana. Food Control 31: 172.
  47. Otterholt E and Charnock C (2011). Microbial quality and nutritional aspects of Norwegian bottled waters. Int. J. Food Microbiol.144:455.
  48. Park K (2011). Park Textbook of Preventive and Social Medicine. 21st Edn M/S Banarsidas Bhanot, Jabalpur. Pp32.
  49. Parul, Bist B, Sharma B and Jain U (2014). Virulence associated factors and antibiotic sensitivity pattern of Escherichia coli isolated from cattle and soil. Vet World 7(5). 369-372.
  50. Parveen S, M Ahmed MSA and Nasreen T (2008). Microbial Contamination of Water in Around Dhaka City. Bangladesh J. Sci and Industrial res. 43(2):273.
  51. Patil PN, Sawant DV and Deshmukh RN (2012). Physico-chemical parameters of testing of water- A review. Int. J. Env. Science. 3(3).
  52. Payment P, Richardson L, Siemiatycki J, Dewar R, Edwards M and Franco E (1991). A randomized trial to evaluate the risk of gastrointestinal disease due to consumption of drinking water meeting currently accepted microbiological standards. American J. Public Health 81:703-708.
  53. Pons W, Young I, Truong J, Jones-Bitton A , McEwen S, Pintar K (2015). A Systematic Review of Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Associated with Small Non-Community Drinking Water Systems in Canada and the United States. PLoS ONE 10(10).
  54. Postel SL, Daily GC and Ehrlich PR (1996). Human appropriation of renewable fresh water. Science. 271:785-788.
  55. Prasai T, Lekhak B, Joshi DR and Baral MP (2007). Microbiological Analysis of Drinking water of Kathmandu Valley. Scientific World, (5): 112-114.
  56. Pruss-Ustam A, Kay D, Fewtrell L and Bertram J (2002). Estimating the Burden of Disease from Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene at a Global Level. Env. Health perspectives. 110(5):537-542.
  57. Rahmanian N, Bt Ali SH, Homayoonfard M Ali, N J Rehan, Sadef Y and Nizami AS (2015). Analysis of Physiochemical Parameters to Evaluate the Drinking Water Quality in the State of Perak, Malaysia, Journal of Chemistry. Vol 2015 (2015), Article ID 716125 10 pages, http://dx.doi.org./10.1155/2015/716125.
  58. Ramteke PW and Tewari S (2007). Serogroups of Escherichia coli from Drinking Water. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.130 (1-3):215.
  59. Sailaja V, Umamaheshwari P, Kanderi DK, Reddy PK and Rajoji G (2015). Physico-chemical and microbiological analysis of municipality drinking water. Int. J. Current Res.7(8): 19368-19372.
  60. Sarwar G, Khan J, Iqbal R, Afridi AK, Khan A and Sarawar R (2004). Bacteriological of analysis of drinking water from urban and peri-urban areas of Peshawar. JPMI. 18(1):64.
  61. Shafiq A, Ayaz A, Ihteram U, Nadia N, Ammar A and Nawab A (2013). Bacteriological and biochemical evaluation of the spring’s water of district Buner, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Int. J. on Advancements in Research and Technology. 2(7):452-460.
  62. Sharma B, Parul, Verma AK, Jain U, Yadav JK Singh R, Mishra R (2017). Occurrence of multidrug resistant Escherichia coli in groundwater of brij region (UP) and its public health implications. Vet World 10(3):293-301.
  63. Singh S (2011). Prevalence of verotoxic E. coli in meat, meat products and water from different sources in certain areas of Uttar Pradesh. M.V.Sc Thesis submitted to UP Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Pashuchikitsa Vigyan Vishwavidyalaya Evam Gau Anusandhan Sansthan (DUVASU), Mathura (UP) India.
  64. Singh P, Bist B, Sharma B and Yadav AK (2017). A study on Prevalence and Virulence Determinants of Verotoxic E. coli (VTEC) isolated from Yamuna River around the Mathura Region of India. Env. and Ecology 35 (3B): 2021-2025.
  65. Singla A, Kundu H, Basavaraj P, Singh S, Singh, K. and Jain, S. 2014. Physico-chemical and bacterial evaluation of packaged drinking water marketed in Delhi – potential public health implications. JClinical and Diagnostic Res. 8(3): 246-250.
  66. Snedecor GW and Cochran WG (1989). Statistical Methods. 8th Ed. Ames: Iowa State Press; 1989.
  67. Sojka WJ (1965). Escherichia coli in domestic animals and poultry. Review Series No.7 of the Commonwealth Bureau of Animal Health. Common wealth Agriculture Bureau, Farnham Royal, U.K.
  68. Sulehria A.Q.K, Mustafa Y.S, Siddique N and Afzal S (2012). Determination of drinking water quality from source to consumer in Sabzazar, Lahore. Sci. Int. (Lahore), 24:101-104.
  69. Sunday PU, Nyaudoh UN and Udoh EJ (2011). Microbiological Quality and Safety Evaluation of Fresh Juices and Edible Ice Sold in Uyo Metropolis, South-South. Internet J. Food Safety 13:374-378.
  70. Suthar S, Chhimpa V and Singh S (2009). Bacterial contamination in drinking water: a case study in rural areas of northern Rajasthan, India. Env. Monitoring and Assessment 159:43-50.
  71. Tahir A (2011). Microbial Examination of bottles water available in Local market of Lahore. .J. Applied Pharmacology. 4(03):431-437.
  72. Tanwir FA, Saboor A and Shan MH (2003). Water Contamination, health hazards and public awareness: a case of the urban Punjab, Pakistan. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology.5: 460-462.
  73. Trivedy RK, and Goel PK (1986). Chemical and biological methods for water pollution studies, Environmental Publication, Karad, Maharashtra.
  74. Tsega N, Sahile S, Kibret M and Abera B (2013). Bacteriological and physico-chemical quality of drinking water sources in a rural community of Ethiopia. African Health Science13(4):1156-1161.
  75. Umaru GA, Adamu Z, Ishaya D, Abubakar YU, Hussaini A, Umar M, Adamu SG and Adamu NB (2015). Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance pattern of Escherichia coli in drinking waters in Jalingo Metropolis, Taraba State, North-Eastern Nigeria. Microbiological Research International 3(1):8-13.
  76. Venkatesan KD, Balaji M and Victor K (2014). Microbiological analysis of packaged drinking water sold in Chennai. International Journal of Medical Science and Public Health 3(4):472–476.
  77. Verga L (2011). Bacteriological quality of bottled natural mineral waters commercialized in Hungary. Food control. 22(3-4):591-595.
  78. Vyas VG, Md. Hassan M, Vindhani SI, Parmar HJ and Bhalani VM (2015). Physico-chemical and Microbiological Assessment of drinking water from different sources in Junagadh City, India. American Journal of Microbiological Research 3(4): 148-154.
  79. WHO (2011). WHO guidelines for drinking water quality IV Edn. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.
  80. WHO (1984). Environmental Health Criteria, 36. Fluoride and fluorosis. World Health Organization, Geneva.
  81. WHO and UNICEF (2013). Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water. 2013 Update. World Health Organization, Geneva.
  82. WHO (2003). Background document for preparation of WHO Guidelines for drinking-water quality Geneva, World Health Organization. WHO / SDE /WSH/ 03.0
  83. WHO (2006). Guidelines for Drinking water quality. 1: 3rd (Eds):1-144.
  84. World Health Organization (2011). A. Water, Sanitation and Health. Water Drinking Guidelines.7:117-153.
  85. World Health Organization (2011). b. Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. 11:4th (Eds).pp.294-298.
  86. www.yourarticlelibrary.com/water/5-physicalcharacetristics of water-water management/28342
  87. Zeenat A, Hatha AA M, Viola L and Vipra K (2009). Bacteriological quality and risk assessment of the imported and domestic bottled water sold in Fiji. Journal of Water Health. 7:642-649
Full Text Read : 1977 Downloads : 366
Previous Next

Open Access Policy

Close