Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

HYPOTHESIS:

The continuous dumping of effluent wastes of diverse kinds into the Mahi and Mini river
made their waters inhospitable for aquatic life and unsuitable for human consumption. Nearby
villages increasingly suffered from groundwater contamination problems. As a consequence of
these reports on the increased pollution loads of the rivers, the Government of Gujarat appointed a
technical committee to review the matter. The committee recommended the construction of a 56
kilometer–long effluent channel, the effluent channel project (ECP), to divert the industrial
wastewaters from Nandesari to Jambusar, for discharge into the estuary at the Gulf of Cambay.
The industries were required to treat the effluents in their own treatment plant before disposing
them into the collection wells at Dhanora, from which they were conveyed into the channel. Over
the years, this channel has been used by the farmers in surrounding areas as a free source of
irrigation water.

The soil and water of the river is therefore receiving continuous load of various kinds of
pollutants from nearby industries. These effluents are expected to contain heavy metals like Hg,
Cu, Zn, Ni, Cr and Pb in considerable high proportion. It is expected that the heavy metals present
in the soil slowly and gradually leached from the soil and affect ground water table also. It also
expected that the plants growing in the vicinity of the study river accumulate these toxic metals in
their body which may likely to get biomagnified at successive tropic levels, thus causing
abnormalities in the normal ecosystem structure.

From the pharmacognostic study of selected medicinal plants it is hypothesized that the
pollutants may cause changes in the medicinal properties of these plants which may not be of use
for herbal medicinal preparations.

1 of 28
METHODOLOGY:

(1) Soil quality parameters of the study area would be estimated by the method as described by
Trivedi and Goel, 1984 and Maiti, 2003.

Table 1. List of physicochemical parameters of soil and their test methods:

S. No. Parameters Unit Method used


1. Organic carbon(N index) (Oc) % Kjeldahl digestion method
2. Available Phosphorous (Kg/Ac) Olsen method
3. Available Potassium (Kg/Ac) Flame photometer
4. Ph (1:2) pH unit Potentiometric method
5. Conductivity µ S Cm-1 Conductivity meter
6. Sulphur Ppm CaCl2 method (Spectrophotometric)
7. Iron Ppm DTPA method
8. Zinc Ppm DTPA method
9. Manganese Ppm DTPA method
10. Copper Ppm DTPA method
11. Lead Ppm Atomic Absorption Spectrometer
12. Cadmium ppm Atomic Absorption Spectrometer

(2) The sampling, collection and analysis of Physico-chemical parameters of river water will be
done seasonally following the methods of Trivedi and Goel, 1984 and APHA-AWWA-WPCF
1992.

Table 2. List of physicochemical parameters of water and their test methods

S. No. Parameters Unit Method used


1. pH pH unit Potentiometric method
2. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) mg/L Winkler method
3. Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 5 days incubation at 20° C and
4. (BOD)
Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L titration of initial
Open Reflux Methodand final DO.
5. Alkalinity mg/L Titration
6. Total dissolved Solids mg/L Digital conductivity meter
7. Chloride mg/L Argentometric titration
8. Sulphate mg/L Gravimetric method
9. Turbidity NTU Nephelometric method
10. Oil & Grease mg/L Extraction method
11. Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH3 -N) mg/L Spectrophotometric (Phenate
12. Total Hardness as CaCO3 mg/L method)
EDTA titration
13. Conductivity µ S Cm-1 Conductivity meter

2 of 28
14. Phenol mg/L Extraction method

(3) Biodiversity study would include the survey, collection and authentic identification of each
species. This would be done by the methods of Cooke 1901 and Cooke 1967.
(4) Studies pertaining to Pharmacognosy of selected medicinal plants would follow the methods
described by Wallis, 1985; Pratt and Youngken 1956 and Trease and Evans, 1972.
(5) Abnormal features reflected by the medicinal plants under study and their comparison with
plants of control area will be done by Johansen, 1940; Esau, 1958 and Metcalfe and Chalk,
1957.
(6) Heavy metal analysis of medicinal plant and compared it control plants.

Selection - 2-3 medicinal plants were selected from the study area, grown in abundance near
the polluted stream. Control plants were selected from the area where soil pollution level was
found negligible.

Collection – Collection of the plants were done when it was in full bloom, in the month of
May. When the fruits of the plants being matured. Whole plant was uprooted, washed with
distilled water. The parts of the plants i.e. roots, stem, leaves and flowering tops were cut into
small pieces and then dried separately under the shade.

Heavy metal analysis - weighed quantities of crushed and powdered portion 1g from whole
part of each plant including root, stem and leaf were digested and estimation of heavy metals
(lead and cadmium) was carried out on Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer according to
recognized method given in AOAC 1990.

3 of 28