Assessment of Water Quality of River Salandi by using Modified Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environmental Water Quality Index Method in Bhadrak, Odisha, India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present Study highlights Water Quality of the River Salandi by using Modified Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index Method, Bhadrak, Odisha, India. The selection of nine sampling stations along the bank of the river has been done on the basis of availability of more expected pollutants to satisfy the aim and objective of this work. Water samples collected from nine different places during summer, rainy, post-rainy and winter seasons in the year 2015 and 2016 have been analysed to study the sixteen physico-chemical parameters by using standard procedures, prescribed by APHA-2012 and out of which mean and standard deviations (SD) of twelve parameters have been calculated and computed to study Water Quality Index (WQI) through Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME) method in a modified manner for the year 2015 and 2016. The study reveals that water quality of both the years is marginal and belongs to class-D. Further, it is concluded that comparatively poorer water quality of the year 2016 than the year 2015 is due the higher amplitude (F3). Besides, analysis of physico-chemical parameters confirms that the river Salandi is polluted with respect to Cr(VI), iron, chloride, fluoride and pathogenic bacteria and gravity of pollution is more during rainy, post-rainy than the summer and winter seasons and pollution follows a decreasing trend from upstream to downstream. In addition to using contemporary techniques like electrodialysis, disinfection, and reduction of Cr (VI) with SO2 in acidic medium followed by lime treatment to turn Cr (VI) into Cr(III) as chromium hydroxide, along with phytoremediation and bioremediation for the treatment of toxic substances and pathogenic bacteria, and concurrently increasing DO value through photosynthesis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".