Content uploaded by Şeref Turhan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Şeref Turhan on Apr 04, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=geac20
International Journal of Environmental Analytical
Chemistry
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/geac20
Impact of toxic metal pollution on surface water
pollution: a case study of Tohma stream in Sivas,
Turkey
Ş. Turhan, C. Duran, A. Kurnaz, A. Hançerlioğulları, O. Metin & A. Altıkulaç
To cite this article: Ş. Turhan, C. Duran, A. Kurnaz, A. Hançerlioğulları, O. Metin & A. Altıkulaç
(2021): Impact of toxic metal pollution on surface water pollution: a case study of Tohma
stream in Sivas, Turkey, International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, DOI:
10.1080/03067319.2021.1904916
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2021.1904916
Published online: 31 Mar 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
ARTICLE
Impact of toxic metal pollution on surface water pollution: a
case study of Tohma stream in Sivas, Turkey
Ş. Turhan
a
, C. Duran
b
, A. Kurnaz
a
, A. Hançerlioğulları
a
, O. Metin
c
and A. Altıkulaç
d
a
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science and Letters, Kastamonu University, Kastamonu, Turkey;
b
Department of Geography, Science and Letters Faculty, Kastamonu University, Kastamonu, Turkey;
c
Taşköprü Vocational School, Kastomunu University, Kastamonu, Turkey;
d
Ula Ali Koçman Vocational School,
Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla, Turkey
ABSTRACT
This study was executed to investigate the acidication and heavy
metal (Cr, Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, and Pb) pollution of Tohma stream
owing near Kangal lignite-red thermal power plant located in
Kangal district of Sivas province in the Central Anatolia region of
Turkey. All water samples were screened for pH to evaluate the
acidication of the Tohma stream. Water samples were found in
moderately alkaline according to pH values (8.1–8.7). The average
concentrations of Cr, Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn and Pb in water samples
from the Tohma stream were determined as 0.94, 2.27, 13.78, 1.24,
1.98, 0.32 and 0.54 mg L
−1
using energy dispersive X-ray uores-
cence spectroscopy, respectively. Metal pollution index (MPI) and
metal evaluation index (MEI) were estimated to evaluate the pollu-
tion of Tohma water samples with heavy metals. The values of MPI
and MEI varied from 312 (medium pollution) to 9715 (high pollu-
tion) with an average of 4713 (high pollution) and 181(medium
pollution) to 317 (high pollution) with an average of 226 (medium
pollution), respectively. The results of MPI and MEI revealed that
investigated water samples are seriously polluted with toxic heavy
metals and inadequate for drinking and irrigation water utilisation.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 8 January 2021
Accepted 4 March 2021
KEYWORDS
Acidification; lignite-burning
thermal power plant; metal
evaluation index; metal
pollution index; surface
water; Tohma stream
1. Introduction
The coal-red thermal power plant (CFTPP) has indispensable importance in Turkey’s
electricity production [1]. However, these power plants generate a large amount of y ash,
acid gases (SO
2
, SO
3
, NO, and NO
2
), and other pollutants from coal combustion, and
wastewaters [2]. Every day, CFTPPs discharge y ashes and wastewaters loaded with toxic
heavy metals such as chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu),
zinc (Zn), zirconium (Zr), cadmium (Cd), arsenic (As), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), etc. into the
environment (air, soil, and water). The pollution of air, soil, ground, and surface (rivers,
lakes, streams, and bays) waters with toxic heavy metals and other pollutants is a growing
threat to human and aquatic life even in small doses [3]. Also, the acid gases contribute to
the acidication of streams, lakes, oceans, and soil.
CONTACT A. Altıkulaç aaltinkulac14@gmail.com
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2021.1904916
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Some surface waters in Turkey are a very convenient water source for drinking water,
irrigation, and aquatic life like sh farming. Unfortunately, the unplanned urbanisation
and industrial activities (iron and steel factories, cement plants, thermal power plants,
chemical industry, fertiliser industry, etc.) in Turkey have caused pollution of such water
resources to be dicult to restore. Heavy metal pollution has detrimental eects on the
quality of water and sediment as well as other aquatic fauna [4]. Therefore, heavy metal
pollution is the main problem in Turkey as in many developing countries.
The knowledge of heavy metal concentrations in environmental samples is very
important to evaluate the potential impacts of anthropogenic and industrial activities
on the environment and human health, and surface water quality. Recent studies have
focused on the investigation of heavy metal pollution of drinking water, groundwater,
surface water, and sediment [5–13]. Demirak et al. [14] determined the concentrations of
heavy metal (Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, and Zn) in water, bottom sediment, and tissues (muscle and
gills) of Leuciscus cephalus from the Dipsiz stream in the Yatağan basin (southwestern
Turkey), the site of a thermal power plant. They showed that the pollutants from the
thermal power plant might be a source of toxic heavy metals. Türkmen and Çalışkan [15]
determined seasonal and spatial variations of heavy metals (Cd, Fe, Pb, Zn, Cu, Mn, Ni, Cr,
and Co) in water from River Asi in the northeast Mediterranean area of Turkey. Varol and
Şen [16] investigated the nutrient and heavy metal contamination in surface water and
sediments collected from the upper Tigris River, which is one of the most important rivers
in Turkey, by estimating the geo-accumulation index and enrichment factor. They sug-
gested that As, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, and Zn are derived from anthropogenic sources,
particularly metallic discharges of the Ergani Copper Mine Plant. Kalender and Uçar [17]
investigated the metal pollution of sediment samples from tributaries of the Euphrates
River (between 428120 N latitude and 510760 E longitude) using contamination factor
(CF), pollution load index, enrichment factor, and geo-accumulation index. Sari et al. [18]
investigated the pollution level of selected heavy metals in surface sediment samples
collected from the Ergene River, which passes through the most heavily industrialised
area in Turkey, by estimating enrichment factor and geo-accumulation index. They
indicated that the investigated samples were moderately contaminated with Ag, Cr,
and As, moderately to severely contaminated with Zn and Ni, and severely contaminated
with Cu. Dede [19] evaluated the water quality of surface waters feeding Çamlıdere Dam,
one of the biggest drinking water sources of Ankara (Turkey), concerning metal contam-
ination using the metal pollution index. Cengiz et al. [20] determined the concentrations
of Cd, As, Co, Ba, Cu, Cr, Mn, Hg, Pb, Ni, Sr, Se, and V in water samples from the Bogacayi
River (Antalya, Turkey) to assess the potential risk of pollution by heavy metals. Omwene
et al. [21] evaluated the contamination levels of heavy metals in surface sediments from
the Mustafakemalpaşa stream located in the world’s largest borate basin (Turkey) by using
contamination factor, enrichment factor, geo-accumulation index, sediment quality
guidelines, and multivariate statistical technics. They found that the sources of heavy
metals (Pb, Zn, and Cu) in the sediments were attributed to y ashes of coal-powered
plants, urban waste leachate, and weathering of sulphide ore minerals. Koç and Yılmaz
[22] investigated the heavy metal pollution (Cu, Zn, Mn, Pb, Cd, and Fe) of water samples
from the Büyük Menderes River in Aydın (Turkey). They observed that the Büyük
Menderes River is not under the threat of pollution. Leventeli et al. [23] assessed metal
pollution of water samples from Duden Stream and Goksu Stream by using HPI.
2Ş. TURHAN ET AL.
However, there is no detailed study on the investigation of heavy metal pollution of
Tohma stream owing very close to the Kangal lignite-red thermal power plant (LFTPP)
in the literature according to our seeking. The purpose of this study is (1) to investigate
the acidication of the Tohma stream due to the Kangal LFTPP, (2) to determine the
concentrations of selected heavy metals (Cr, Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, and Pb) in water samples
collected from Tohma stream using an energy dispersive X-ray uorescence (EDXRF)
spectrometer and (3) to evaluate the heavy metal (Cr, Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, and Pb) pollution
of Tohma Stream, which can be used for drinking water and agricultural irrigation, by
estimating metal pollution index and metal evaluation index.
2. Experimental
2.1. Study area
Kangal Basin on the Taurus orogenic line is surrounded by the Tecer-Gürlevik, Felhan,
Yaycı, Çatal and Yılanlı mountains in the north, the Gürün and Delidağ mountains in the
south, and the Bozbel mountains in the east and the Uzunyayla Basin, with the threshold
eld corresponding to the basin base in the west. The Kangal Basin with these boundaries
morphologically corresponds to a complete basin. The Kangal Basin is inter-mountainous
because it is surrounded by high mountainous areas from the north and south. The
Kangal Basin, formed between the north and south thrusts, is a geologically Piggy-back
basin. Kangal basin corresponds to an Upper Miocene-Pliocene age since it is
a continuous sedimentation area during the Upper Miocene-Pliocene. The Kangal Basin
also includes the Tohma stream Upper Basin, which is one of the important tributaries of
the Euphrates River [24]. Tohma stream is formed by the combination of the Kazıklı and
Mancınık streams. However, new water sources join in dierent directions along the route
of the Tohma stream. Thus, the valley of the Tohma stream expands, and the ow
increases. It has the same direction of ow along the southern slope plateau. It also
played a role in the fragmentation of the plateau surface. The Tohma stream passes close
to the Kangal LTPP. It is poured into the Karakaya Dam Lake on the Euphrates River after
passing through several provinces and counties. Terrestrial climate conditions prevail in
the region. The snowmelt that starts in early spring causes the current to rise. The summer
drought also markedly declines. The Kangal LFTPP is located 25 km southwest of Kangal
town at a latitude of 39°04′40″ N and longitude of 37°17′45″ E and has a total installed
capacity of 457 MW [1]. The annual consumption of lignite coal of the Kangal LFTPP is
approximately 6,832,889 tons. It produced 1,423,843 tons of y ash in 2015 [1].
2.2. Sampling and analysis
Nineteen (19) water samples were collected from upstream to downstream of the Tohma
stream owing near the Kangal LFTPP using polyethylene sample containers. The sample
points are shown on the map given in Figure 1. The sample containers were properly
coded for identication of places and transported to the measurement laboratory. pH is
one of the most important indicators of water quality and level of pollution in the aquatic
ecosystem because it can aect some of the water quality parameters such as ionic
solubility [5]. The pH of water samples was then measured using a pH metre (LaMotte 5
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 3
series). Before each pH measurement, the pH electrode (or probe) was rinsed with clean
water to remove any impurities (or contaminations). Then, an electrode was placed in the
water sample, and the pH was read directly from the metre and recorded.
For EDXRF analysis, an aliquot of 500 mL of each water sample was ltered by
membrane lter (0.45 μm). Each water sample was evaporated in the water bath and
then dried under an infrared (IR) lamp at 70°C until a constant weight was reached. For
EDXRF powder geometry the residue obtained was then ground and pulverised. The X-ray
Figure 1. Location map of the investigated area showing the sampling site on Tohma stream.
4Ş. TURHAN ET AL.
spectrum of each water sample placed in the autosampler was acquired by counting the
samples for 30 minutes. The heavy metal concentrations related to the spectrum were
found by using the software (SPECTRO XRF Analyser Pro) as spectrum analysis installed in
the system. The system uses a ‘standardless’ calibration technique based on the
Fundamental Parameters (FP) method [25]. For the quality control of the system, the soil-
certied reference material (NIST SRM 2709) given in detail by Turhan et al. [25] was used.
Analysis of the seven primarily toxic heavy metals (Cr, Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, and Pb) in the
water samples were performed using an EDXRF spectrometer (Spectro Xepos, Ametek,
Germany) equipped with a thick binary Pd/Co alloy anode X-ray tube (50 W, 60 kV). It has
an autosampler for up to 12 items and software modules. The target changer with up to
eight polarisation and secondary targets oers many dierent excitation conditions,
ensuring the optimal determination of all elements from K to U [26].
2.3. Evaluation of pollution water with heavy metals
In recent years, metal pollution index (MPI) and metal evaluation index (MEI) have been
used preferentially to evaluate the degree of toxic metal pollution of underground and
surface waters [4,9,27,28]. MPI is a powerful index for the evaluation of water quality
based on metal concentration and it has been developed and formulated as follows
[9,27,29]:
MPI ¼P
n
i¼1
WiQi
Wi
P
n
i¼1
Wi
(1)
Qi¼X
n
i¼1
MiIi
j j
SiIi
(2)
where n is the number of metals considered; W
i
is the unit weightage of the ith parameter;
Q
i
is the sub-index of the ith parameter; M
i
is the analysed value of the metal of the ith
parameter; I
i
is the ideal value of the metal of the ith parameter and S
i
is the standard
value of the metal of the ith parameter. MEI is the general index that considers the
possible additive eect of toxic metals on human health and it can be estimated by the
following equation [9,30]:
MEI ¼X
n
i¼1
C
MACð Þi
(3)
where C
i
is the concentration of the ith metal in a water sample and (MAC)
i
is the
maximum allowed concentration for the ith metal. The degree of pollution or water
quality according to the MPI and MEI values are given in Table 1 [31,32].
3. Results and discussion
The pH values measured for the water samples are given in the second column of Table 2.
The pH values varied from 8.08 to 8.70 with an average value of 8.36. The pH values
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 5
indicate that the soil samples are alkaline and within the permissible limit range of 6.5–9.5
specied by Turkish standard [33].
Some heavy metals such as titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), gallium (Ga), germanium (Ge),
arsenic (As), zirconium (Zr), silver (Ag), tin (Sn), and mercury (Hg) in water samples were
analysed below the detection limit. The detection limit of Ti, V, Ga, Ge, As, Zr, Ag, Sn and
Hg is 2.0, 0.6, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.6, 2.0, 0.6 and 0.6 mg L
−1
, respectively. The heavy metal
concentrations analysed in the water samples are given in Table 2. Cr enters the air, water,
and soil in the Cr (III) and Cr (VI) form through natural processes and human activities [34].
People can be exposed to chromium through breathing, eating, or drinking and skin
contact with Cr or its compounds [34]. The concentration of Cr in drinking water is usually
low as well but contaminated well or surface water may contain the dangerous Cr (IV) [34].
Table 1. The degree of pollution or water quality classification [31,32].
Index Water type Value Degree of pollution
Metal pollution index (MPI) Drinking water MPI <15 Low
15 ≤ MPI <30 Medium
MPI ≥ 30 High
Surface water MPI < 300 Low
300 ≤ MPI < 600 Medium
MPI ≥ 600 High
Metal Evaluation Index (MEI) Drinking water MEI < 1.24 Low
1.24 ≤ MEI < 2.48 Medium
MEI ≥ 2.48 High
Surface water MEI < 150 Low
150 ≤ MEI < 300 Medium
MEI ≥ 300 High
Table 2. pH values and heavy metal concentrations of the Tohma water samples.
Sample code pH
Heavy metal concentration (mg L
−1
)
Cr Mn Fe Ni Cu Zn Pb
W1 8.45 0.90 2.30 13.30 1.10 2.10 0.30 0.40
W2 8.38 0.80 2.50 18.20 1.20 1.30 0.50 0.30
W3 8.36 1.10 2.30 12.30 1.50 2.90 0.20 0.40
W4 8.42 0.90 2.10 10.60 0.80 2.00 0.30 0.50
W5 8.45 0.80 2.10 12.20 0.90 2.10 0.20 0.40
W6 8.36 1.00 2.20 11.20 1.10 1.40 0.40 0.50
W7 8.08 1.00 2.20 12.80 1.30 1.30 0.30 0.60
W8 8.34 0.93 2.24 12.94 1.13 1.87 0.31 0.44
W9 8.70 0.90 1.80 11.70 1.00 1.80 0.10 0.70
W10 8.60 0.70 2.60 19.50 1.90 2.50 0.50 0.90
W11 8.18 0.90 2.23 13.47 1.19 1.93 0.31 0.51
W12 8.32 1.00 2.00 14.00 1.40 1.50 0.40 0.60
W13 8.11 0.91 2.21 13.52 1.21 1.89 0.32 0.52
W14 8.24 1.20 2.80 18.50 1.80 2.30 0.40 0.70
W15 8.38 1.10 2.30 12.20 1.00 2.60 0.20 0.30
W16 8.10 1.10 2.20 12.20 0.70 1.20 0.20 1.00
W17 8.20 0.90 2.90 19.70 1.80 2.60 0.80 0.70
W18 8.60 0.90 1.80 10.70 1.10 2.00 0.20 0.50
W19 8.70 0.80 2.40 12.30 1.30 2.40 0.20 0.10
Average 8.36 0.94 2.27 13.78 1.24 1.98 0.32 0.54
Median 8.36 0.90 2.23 12.80 1.19 2.00 0.30 0.50
Standard deviation 0.19 0.13 0.28 2.93 0.33 0.49 0.16 0.21
Standard error 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.67 0.08 0.11 0.04 0.05
Min 8.08 0.70 1.80 10.60 0.70 1.20 0.10 0.10
Max 8.70 1.20 2.90 19.70 1.90 2.90 0.80 1.00
6Ş. TURHAN ET AL.
The guideline value or permissible limit for Cr in drinking water is 0.05 mg L
−1
[33,35]. The
concentrations of Cr in the water samples varied from 0.70 (W10) to 1.20 (W14) mg L
−1
with an average value of 0.94 mg L
−1
. All Cr concentrations analysed in the Tohma stream
water samples are signicantly higher than the guideline value. This polluted water may
contain chromium (IV) which is dangerous for human health. At the same time, this high
chromium level can harm aquatic organisms [34].
Mn can be found everywhere on earth. Mn is not only necessary for humans to survive,
but it is also toxic when too high concentrations are present in a human body [34]. The
permissible limit for Mn in drinking water is 0.02 mg L
−1
[33]. The concentrations of Mn in
the water samples varied from 1.80 (W18) to 2.90 (W17) mg L
−1
with an average value of
2.27 mg L
−1
. All Mn concentrations analysed in the Tohma stream water samples are
signicantly higher than the limit value.
Fe is also the most abundant (by mass, 34.6%) element making up the Earth [34]. The
permissible limit for Fe in drinking water is 0.05 mg L
−1
[33]. The concentrations of Fe in
the water samples varied from 13.78 (W4) to 19.70 (W17) mg L
−1
with an average value of
13.78 mg L
−1
. All Fe concentrations analysed in the Tohma stream water samples are
above the limit value.
Ni occurs in the environment only at very low levels. People can be exposed to Ni
through breathing, eating, or drinking and skin contact with Ni-contaminated soil or
water [35]. The permissible limit for Ni in drinking water is 0.02 mg L
−1
[33]. The
concentrations of Ni in the water samples varied from 0.70 (W16) to 1.90 (W10) mg L
−1
with an average value of 1.24 mg L
−1
. All Ni concentrations analysed in the Tohma stream
water samples are signicantly higher than the limit value.
Cu occurs naturally in the environment and spreads through the environment through
natural phenomena. Cu can be released into the environment by both natural sources and
human activities [34]. The permissible limit for Cu in drinking water is 2 mg L
−1
[35]. The
concentrations of Cu in the water samples varied from 1.20 (W16) to 2.90 (W3) mg L
−1
with
an average value of 1.98 mg L
−1
. The average concentration of Cu analysed in the Tohma
stream water samples is lower than the limit value.
Zn is a very common metal that occurs naturally. Drinking water also contains certain
amounts of Zn. Industrial sources of toxic waste sites may cause the concentration of Zn in
drinking water to reach levels that can cause health problems [34]. The permissible limit
for Zn in drinking water is 5 mg L
−1
[36]. The concentrations of Zn in the water samples
varied from 0.10 (W9) to 0.80 (W17) mg L
−1
with an average value of 0.32 mg L
−1
. All Zn
concentrations analysed in the Tohma stream water samples are signicantly lower than
the limit value.
Pb accumulates in the bodies of water and soil organisms. These will experience health
eects from Pb poisoning [34]. Pb is a particularly dangerous chemical, as it can accumu-
late in individual organisms, but also entire food chains [34]. The permissible limit for Pb in
drinking water is 0.01 mg L
−1
[35]. The concentrations of Pb in the water samples varied
from 0.10 (W19) to 1.00 (W16) mg L
−1
with an average value of 0.54 mg L
−1
. All Pb
concentrations analysed in the Tohma stream water samples are signicantly higher than
the limit value.
Clustering analysis is a data mining technique that allows similar features to come
together by collecting data in databases. Ward’s method of hierarchical clustering (den-
drogram), one of the multivariate analysis techniques, was conducted to analyse and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 7
establish the relationships between the concentrations in the sample points. The den-
drogram is given in Figure 2. As can be seen from Figure 2, three clusters can be
mentioned. In the rst stage, the closest sample points were formed in six clusters. In
the next stages, the sample points were collected in three dierent close clusters. The
correlations among metals indicate some facts regarding the origin and migration of
these metals [31]. Pearson’s correlation coecient is regarded as the most common
correlation coecient. The Pearson correlation coecient matrix of the metals in the
water samples is given in Table 3. According to the values of Pearson correlation
coecients, a signicant positive correlation existed among the heavy metals studied.
In this study, Cr and Pb did not show a signicant correlation with the metals. Fe did not
show a signicant correlation with Cu and Pb. Fe was signicantly correlated with Ni (0.8)
Figure 2. Clusters formed according to the proximity of the parameters at the sample points.
Table 3. Pearson correlation matrix between the analysed heavy metals.
Cr Mn Fe Ni Cu Zn Pb
Cr 1
Mn 0.04236 1
Fe −0.1721 0.83054* 1
Ni −0.0359 0.70102 0.78937 1
Cu −0.0207 0.40328 0.21672 0.47644 1
Zn −0.1873 0.72826 0.80534 0.64421 0.07328 1
Pb 0.18045 0.09796 0.31977 0.20311 −0.2225 0.24266 1
*Bold value indicates significant correlation at p ≤ 0.01.
8Ş. TURHAN ET AL.
and Zn (0.8). Ni was signicantly correlated with Cu (0.5) and Zn (0.6). Mn was signicantly
correlated with Fe (0.8), Ni (0.7), Cu (0.4), and Zn (0.7). The high correlation of Mn with Fe,
Ni, Cu, and Zn indicates these metals were derived from similar sources and moving
together.
The data related to the estimation of MPI and MEI is given in Table 4 [33,35,36]. The
values of MPI and MEI estimated for the Tohma water samples are given in Table 5. From
Table 5, the MPI values vary from 312 (W19) to 9715 (W16) with an average of 4713. All of
the MPI values are greater than the critical value for drinking water (30) and the critical
value for surface water (600), except for the W19 sample (Table 1). The MPI results showed
that the investigated water samples were seriously polluted concerning Cr, Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu,
Zn, and Pb. From Table 5, the MEI values vary from 181 (W19) to 317 (W10) with an
average of 226. All of the MEI values are greater than the critical value of 2.48 for drinking
water (Table 1). The value of MEI estimated for the W10, W14 and W17 samples are above
the critical limit of 300 for surface water thus these water samples were seriously polluted
Table 4. Data for the estimation of MPI and MEI.
Heavy metal MAC S I
Cr 0.050 0.050 0.100
Mn 0.050 0.400 0.050
Fe 0.300 0.200 0.300
Ni 0.020 0.020 0.100
Cu 2.000 1.500 1.000
Zn 5.000 - 5.000
Pb 0.010 0.010 0.005
Table 5. The estimated values of MPI and MEI.
Sample code Metal pollution index (MPI) Metal evaluation index (MEI)
W1 3428 204
W2 2307 217
W3 3275 225
W4 4596 186
W5 3526 185
W6 4471 207
W7 5410 232
W8 3859 208
W9 6565 214
W10 8268 317
W11 4570 220
W12 5351 237
W13 4635 221
W14 6158 303
W15 2407 190
W16 9715 242
W17 6203 303
W18 4488 196
W19 312 181
Average 4713 226
Median 4570 217
Standard deviation 2144 41
Standard error 492 9
Min 312 181
Max 9715 317
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 9
concerning Cr, Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, and Pb. The other water samples (84% of the total water
samples) are moderately polluted with toxic metals.
4. Conclusions
The alkalinity of the water samples showed that the Tohma stream in the investigated area
is not aected by the acid rain generated by the ue (or acid) gases released from the
Kangal LFTPP. Toxic metal concentrations were the highest for Fe followed by Mn > Cu > Ni
> Cr > Pb in the surface water samples. Cr, Mn, Fe, Ni, and Pb concentrations are higher
than their respective permissible limits set by the WHO and Turkish standards. The average
Cu concentration is within its limit while the Zn concentration is signicantly lower than the
permissible limit of Zn. Inter-relationship between some metals analysed in the water
samples revealed that geologic and anthropogenic sources were responsible for the metals
pollution of the Tohma stream water. The metal pollution index and metal evaluation index
estimated for Tohma stream water samples were found above the critical index values.
Consequently, the results indicate that the Tohma stream in the investigated area was
signicantly polluted with toxic metals. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that water
from contaminated locations should not be used for drinking, irrigation, and aquatic life
water purposes without proper treatment.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to the Central Laboratory of Research and Application of Kastamonu
University.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
[1] E. Gören, Ş. Turhan, A. Kurnaz, A.M.K. Garad, C. Duran, F.A. Uğur and Z. Yeğingil, Appl. Radiat.
Isot. 129, 13 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2017.07.059.
[2] R.K. Singh, N.C. Gupta and B.K. Guha, Elixir. Pollut. 75, 28016 (2014).
[3] C. Verma, S. Madan and A. Hussain, Cogent. Eng. 3, 1 (2016). doi:10.1080/23311916.2016.1179243.
[4] M.M. Ali, M.L. Ali, M.S. Islam and M.Z. Rahman, Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 5, 27
(2016).
[5] K. Khan, Y. Lu, H. Khan, S. Zakir, Ihsanullah, S. Khan, A.A. Khan, L. Wei and T. Wang, J. Environ.
Sci. 25, 2003 (2013). doi:10.1016/S1001-0742(12)60275-7.
[6] S. Nazeer, M.Z. Hashmi and R.M. Malik, Pakistan. Ecol. Indic. 43, 262 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.
ecolind.2014.03.010.
[7] S.M. Sonawane, IOSR J. Environ. Sci. Toxicol. Food Technol. 9, 19 (2015).
[8] F. Noli and P. Tsamos, Sci. Total Environ. 563, 377 (2016). doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.098.
[9] A. Balakrishnan and A. Ramu, J. Adv. Chem. Sci. 2, 331 (2016).
[10] Y. Liu, H. Yu and Y. Sun, J. Chen. Environ. Engin. Res. 22, 31 (2017). doi:10.4491/eer.2016.015.
[11] M. Saha, M.S. Rahman, M.B. Ahmed, J.L. Zhou, H.H. Ngo and W. Guo, J. Environ. Manag. 185, 70
(2017). doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.023.
10 Ş. TURHAN ET AL.
[12] K.R. Ahamed, S. Manikandan and V.C. Ananthi Malini, Int. J. Sci. Engin. Technol. Res. 6, 1210
(2017).
[13] A. Chaturvedi, S. Bhattacharjee, A.K. Singh and V. Kumar, Ecol. Indic. 87, 323 (2018).
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.12.052.
[14] A. Demirak, F. Yilmaz, A.L. Tuna and N. Ozdemir, Chemosphere 63, 1451 (2006). doi:10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2005.09.033.
[15] M. Türkmen and E. Çalışkan, The Black Sea J. Sci. 1, 35 (2011).
[16] M. Varol and B. Şen, Catena 92, 1 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.catena.2011.11.011.
[17] L. Kalender and S. Uçar, J. Geochem. Expl. 134, 73 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.gexplo.2013.08.005.
[18] E.S. Sari, N.C. Cukrov, S. Franciskovic-Bilinski, M.A. Kurt and M. Halli, Environ. Earth Sci. 75, 1
(2016). doi:10.1007/s12665-015-4873-x.
[19] Ö.T. Dede, Hacettepe. J. Biol. Chem. 44, 499 (2016).
[20] M.F. Cengiz, S. Kilic, F. Yalcin, M. Kilic and M.G. Yalcin, Environ. Monit. Assess. 189, 1 (2017).
doi:10.1007/s10661-017-5925-3.
[21] P.I. Omwene, M.S. Öncel, M. Çelen and M. Kobya, Chemosphere 208, 782 (2018). doi:10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2018.06.031.
[22] Ç. Koç and E. Yılmaz, Eur. J. Sci. Technol. 15, 571 (2019). doi:10.31590/ejosat.533632.
[23] Y. Leventeli, F. Yalcin and M. Kilic, Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 17, 2423 (2019). doi:10.15666/aeer/
1702_24232436.
[24] M. Sunkar, Doctoral Thesis, Institute of Social Science, Fırat University, Elazığ, 2006. (in
Turkish).
[25] Ş. Turhan, A.M.K. Garad, A. Hançerlioğulları, A. Kurnaz, E. Gören, C. Duran, M. Karataşlı,
A. Altıkulaç, G. Savacı and A. Aydın, Environ. Earth Sci. 79, 134 (2020). doi:10.1007/s12665-
020-8864-1.
[26] Ş. Turhan, E. Gören, A.M.K. Garad, A. Altıkulaç, A. Kurnaz, C. Duran, A. Hançerlioğulları,
V. Altunal, V. Güçkan and A. Özdemir, Radiochim Acta 106, 611 (2018). doi:10.1515/ract-
2017-2863.
[27] P.M. Nalawade, A.D. Bholay and M.B. Mule, Univers. J. Environ. Res. Technol. 2, 47 (2012).
[28] J. Sirajudeen, S. Arulmanikandan and V. Manivel, World J. Pharma. Pharma. Sci., 4, 967.
(2017).2014.
[29] S.V. Mohan, P. Nithila and P.S.J. Reddy, J. Environ. Sci. Health A. 31, 283 (1996). doi:10.1080/
03601239609372990.
[30] G. Tamasi and R. Cini, Sci. Total Environ. 327, 41 (2004). doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2003.10.011.
[31] Z. Khoshnam, R. Sarikhani, A.G. Dehnavi and Z. Ahmadnejad, J. Adv. Environ. Health Res. 5, 29
(2017).
[32] P.K. Biswas, N. Uddin, S. Alam, T. Sakib, S. Sultana and T. Ahmed, Am. J. Water Resour. 5, 146
(2017).
[33] Turkish Standard (TS 266), Water Intended for Human Consumption, (Turkish Standard
Institution (TSE), Ankara, 2005), (in Turkish).
[34] Lenntech, 2018. https://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/cr.htm#ixzz5QOPz41ym.
[35] WHO, Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, 4th ed. (WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication
Data NLM classication: WA 675, Geneva, 2011).
[36] C. Güler, J. Food Compost. Anal. 20, 262 (2007). doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2006.10.005.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 11
